Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 30, 2016, 05:45:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94248 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 483 484 [485] 486 487 ... 731
24201  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Who is that knocking at my door?" on: February 03, 2010, 08:39:33 AM
When I was about 10 years old at summer camp in Maine, we were entranced by a very long and by the standards of the time very vulgar song about "Barnacle Bill the Sailor".

It began something like this:

""Who is that knocking at my door? (sung 3x)" cried the young fair maiden.
"Open the door and lay on the floor!" said Barnacle Bill the Sailor."

The following article reminded me of that song's opening line.
=============================================

Ex-convicts in District flock to apply for census jobs

By Carol Morello
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 29, 2010; B01

The word had spread, in churches and parole offices and halfway houses. The federal government is hiring for the 2010 Census, and tests for applicants were being given in a District neighborhood where unemployment is rampant.

Hundreds of men and women began lining up on the sidewalks outside Allen Chapel AME Church in Southeast Washington two hours before the doors opened one day last week. Most have criminal records involving drugs, stolen cars, burglary and the like. But they'd been told that the census would consider hiring them anyway, if not as census takers then as clerks.

Most of those bundled against the chill of a January morning were in their 40s and 50s. They said they just want to find work and get on with their lives. Some have been out of prison and job-hunting for years, some for months. All are familiar with the change in an interviewer's eyes when they acknowledge that they have a record, and they leave knowing a follow-up call will never come.

"Imagine being 51 years old, with no marketable skills, an ex-felon and you're black, and trying to get a job," John Murphy said as he waited to take a census test. A barber before his 1999 burglary conviction, Murphy has secured only menial jobs since getting out of prison in 2006.

"I want to work," he said. "I don't want to commit any more crimes."

Job fairs to find census workers have attracted hundreds of ex-convicts in recent weeks, so many that the organizer wants to find a bigger site, such as the D.C. Armory.

Few with felony convictions are likely to get hired for the temporary jobs, which pay $20 an hour in the District. The Census Bureau has a list of crimes that would automatically disqualify a candidate. Job candidates convicted of less-severe transgressions, mostly misdemeanors, might get a second look from the bureau. Fernando Armstrong, director of the regional census office that includes the District and Maryland, said the agency might not be hiring by the time background checks on applicants with criminal histories are completed.

'I go in with hope'

Despite daunting odds, the applicants grasp at any straw of hope. The jobless rate in the District is at a high of 12 percent, according to numbers released last week by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Among the city's 16,000 ex-offenders being supervised by the courts, 50 percent cannot find work.

"I fill out a lot of applications," said Herbert Wood, 41, who spent eight years behind bars for running a chop shop. "I go to all the job sites. When I tell them I've got a record, I can see the change in their facial expressions. I go in with hope, and I lose it."

The job fairs are being organized by two people with records. Roach Brown, a laid-off film producer, was sentenced to life for murder, but his sentence was commuted by President Gerald R. Ford. The Rev. Yvonne Cooper is a former administrative law judge who was convicted of seven counts of taking bribes in 1995. Both have been active in helping former offenders reintegrate into society.

Brown said the 730 people who have taken the census test could be particularly effective working in hard-to-count neighborhoods where residents tend to be poor, minorities or immigrants. The Census Bureau tries to hire census takers in neighborhoods where they live, thinking people will be more likely to talk to someone they know.

"We have the opportunity to count thousands of people who have never been counted before," he said. Pointing to the milling applicants with a sweep of his hand, Brown added: "These people don't want to go back to jail. They don't want to hurt nobody. They want to take care of their families."

Although the Census Bureau has in the past hired people with criminal histories, critics say that could jeopardize the accuracy of the census. People who didn't mail in their forms might refuse to invite census takers into their homes and answer their questions. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has introduced a bill that would ban felons from being census takers.
"I don't want a convicted felon going to knock on Grandma's door," Chaffetz said. "With unemployment as high as it is, there are plenty of people who don't have criminal backgrounds who we can better trust to gather this personal, sensitive information."

This year, for the first time, the census will run FBI fingerprint checks on all temporary hires. In October, the Government Accountability Office reported that as many as 200 convicted criminals might have inadvertently been hired because their fingerprints could not be read. The Census Bureau has stepped up its training of employees who gather fingerprints and said it does not expect another lapse.

Robert M. Groves, director of the Census Bureau, said people with felony convictions for serious crimes -- murder, sex offenses, grand theft and child molestation -- are automatically ineligible to work for the census.
People convicted of less-heinous crimes, mostly misdemeanors, could be hired if they can demonstrate that they don't pose a risk to the public, he said. Any conviction within the past 10 or 15 years would necessitate a special review.

"There is a large set of minor crimes that, if they occurred earlier in your life, would keep you still in contention," Groves said.

'A fresh start'

Those who work with paroled criminals say that fingerprinting and background checks are sufficient to screen out dangerous criminals and that such jobs as the census ones are crucial in helping ex-offenders lead productive lives.

"All the research shows jobs equals a lack of recidivism," said Leonard Sipes, a spokesman for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, whose parole officers have been told to suggest census jobs to parolees who might be eligible.

"Encountering them as census takers is part of day-to-day living," he said. "We interact with former offenders every day of our lives. We simply don't know it. If you go to the ballpark and talk to ticket takers, get your clothes dry-cleaned or eat a meal out, you're encountering them. I know former offenders who are now accountants and insurance salesmen."
Several of the census applicants spoke of how hard it is to get a new start, of being determined to stay away from criminal activity, the frustration created after dozens of unsuccessful job interviews and the humiliation of accepting help from relatives and girlfriends. And how a census job could be a steppingstone back into the mainstream.

"I need to find a job anyway I can," said Marlon Bassil, 33, who was released in November after serving four years for cocaine possession and lives in a halfway house. "I want this job so I can get a fresh start and start building references. I don't have any because I just got out."
__________________


It could be worse-- they could be from ACORN.
24202  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: February 03, 2010, 07:56:11 AM
Ah, now I get it, fragging.

So if I understand correctly (and given our conversation on this point that may well be a first  cheesy ) you argument is that not to worry about the issue because those endangered by rejected advances can always frag?!?
24203  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DBMA Kali Tudo (tm) Training Camp Feb 6-7 on: February 03, 2010, 07:49:25 AM
Fencing mask and rattan sticks not necessary; padded sticks optional.  Mouth piece, not absolutely necessary but probably a good idea.  Shin guards not necessary, but if you have them you may as well bring them.
24204  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / AoC part 2 on: February 03, 2010, 07:43:56 AM
The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States — fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States — regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated — establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office — appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers — appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States — making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction — to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses — to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted — to build and equip a navy — to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid- like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.

The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.

The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.

Article X. The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Article XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

On the part and behalf of the State of New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
John Wentworth Junr. August 8th 1778

On the part and behalf of The State of Massachusetts Bay:
John Hancock
Samuel Adams
Elbridge Gerry
Francis Dana
James Lovell
Samuel Holten

On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations:
William Ellery
Henry Marchant
John Collins

On the part and behalf of the State of Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Oliver Wolcott
Titus Hosmer
Andrew Adams

On the Part and Behalf of the State of New York:
James Duane
Francis Lewis
Wm Duer
Gouv Morris

On the Part and in Behalf of the State of New Jersey, November 26, 1778.
Jno Witherspoon
Nath. Scudder

On the part and behalf of the State of Pennsylvania:
Robt Morris
Daniel Roberdeau
John Bayard Smith
William Clingan
Joseph Reed 22nd July 1778

On the part and behalf of the State of Delaware:
Tho Mckean February 12, 1779
John Dickinson May 5th 1779
Nicholas Van Dyke

On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland:
John Hanson March 1 1781
Daniel Carroll

On the Part and Behalf of the State of Virginia:
Richard Henry Lee
John Banister
Thomas Adams
Jno Harvie
Francis Lightfoot Lee

On the part and Behalf of the State of No Carolina:
John Penn July 21st 1778
Corns Harnett
Jno Williams

On the part and behalf of the State of South Carolina:
Henry Laurens
William Henry Drayton
Jno Mathews
Richd Hutson
Thos Heyward Junr

On the part and behalf of the State of Georgia:
Jno Walton 24th July 1778
Edwd Telfair
Edwd Langworthy
24205  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Articles of Confederation on: February 03, 2010, 07:43:12 AM
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html



The Articles of Confederation

Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.
Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.

Article V. For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.

In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

Article VI. No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

Article VII. When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

Article IX. The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.
24206  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: February 03, 2010, 05:26:34 AM
I'm not sure yet if we are understanding each other.

The question I seek to raise is of a gay NCO or officer exerting sexual pressure (subtle or not) in an environment where he/she is in a position to put those who resist that pressure more in harm's way.
24207  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: February 03, 2010, 05:19:55 AM
This bears watching!!!  CCP, will you be the one to keep an eye on this for us?
24208  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Glen Beck on: February 03, 2010, 05:18:32 AM
Glenn reports that the Obama Administration has ordered the CIA to REDUCE shocked shocked shocked intel observation of Red China!?!  angry angry angry

In conjunction with the acceleration of our unsustainable debt, do we see the beginning of the endgame of this unsustainable dynamics in which we have placed ourselves???
24209  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: February 02, 2010, 11:38:38 PM
Woof Jkrenz:

Welcome home!

24210  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Russia tried fomenting Fannie-Freddie crisis on: February 02, 2010, 01:44:17 PM


Paulson claims Russia tried to foment Fannie-Freddie crisis
By Krishna Guha in Washington

Published: January 29 2010 21:06 | Last updated: January 29 2010 21:06

Russia proposed to China that the two nations should sell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008 to force the US government to bail out the giant mortgage-finance companies, former US Treasury secretary Hank Paulson has claimed.

The allegation is in his memoir On the Brink in which he also suggests that Alistair Darling, the UK chancellor, blocked a rescue takeover of Lehman Brothers by Barclays Bank when he refused to support special treatment by UK regulators.

Mr Paulson said that he was told about the Russian plan when he was in Beijing for the Olympics in August 2008. Russia had gone to war with Georgia, a US ally, on August 8.

“Russian officials had made a top-level approach to the Chinese, suggesting that together they might sell big chunks of their GSE holdings to force the US to use its emergency authorities to prop up these companies,” he said.

Fannie and Freddie are known as GSEs or government sponsored enterprises.

“The Chinese had declined to go along with the disruptive scheme, but the report was deeply troubling,” he said. A senior Russian official told the Financial Times that he could not comment on the allegation.

Separately, Mr Paulson makes it clear that he believes that Mr Darling prevented a takeover of Lehman by Barclays out of fear that it would endanger the UK bank.

Mr Paulson said that Mr Darling telephoned him on Friday September 12 – as the US authorities were scrambling to find a buyer for Lehman – to express concern about a possible Barclays deal. Mr Paulson said that he did not realise at the time that this was a “clear warning”.

He was stunned to discover on Sunday September 14 that the UK Financial Services Authority would not approve the merger on an accelerated timetable or waive the requirement for a shareholder vote.

Tim Geithner, then president of the New York Fed, called Callum McCarthy, the head of the UK’s Financial Services Authority, to ask him to waive the vote requirement.

“But the FSA chief put the onus on Darling, saying that only the chancellor of the exchequer had the authority to do that,” Mr Paulson said.

He said that Mr Darling “made it clear, without a hint of apology in his voice, that there was no way Barclays would buy Lehman”. Lehman filed for bankruptcy the next day.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others.

24211  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Dog Brothers Team Kali Tudo on: February 02, 2010, 12:23:21 PM
Good work yesterday.  The guys are coming along nicely.
24212  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / First Amendment 451 on: February 02, 2010, 11:41:00 AM
ROBERT COSTA

JANUARY 29, 2010 4:00 A.M.
First Amendment 451
How one man irked Obama and won a historic victory for free speech.
 
David Bossie irritates President Obama. Bossie did not get the usual upturned chin or expletive-riddled call from Rahm Emanuel this week after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, his non-profit corporation, in a landmark free-speech decision. Rather, Obama decided to take a potshot through a sharp-edged rant tucked into the State of the Union.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

Bossie’s take on Obama’s finger-wagging was similar to what Justice Samuel Alito mouthed, and similar to the analysis Bradley A. Smith and Shannen Coffin have presented on the Corner: “Not true.” Foreign corporations, Bossie says, are prohibited from making contributions in connection with American elections, and that wasn’t even at issue in the case. The president’s anger over the Court’s 5–4 decision, he adds, actually reveals something more troubling: Obama doesn’t like it when someone tries to snatch power from the federal government and put it back in the hands of the American people.

“Our argument in the case wasn’t complicated,” says Bossie. “It was about freedom, and it ended up hinging on a very simple question: If the FEC is comfortable banning political films, like Citizens United’s Hillary: The Movie, around election time, would it also be fine with banning political books financed by corporations? The Justice Department’s attorney answered yes, the government did have the power to prohibit the publication of a book. When they admitted that, everything changed.”

“I think that answer sent a chill through the Court,” says Bossie. “It was that moment that was a catalyst for us, and gave us the opportunity to win on much bigger constitutional grounds than we anticipated. It became apparent that the government believed that they could ban anything: movies, books, pamphlets, the Kindle, you name it. It was a shocking revelation.”

Ted Olson, the former solicitor general who represented Citizens United before the Court, says that he’s not surprised at what Bossie has been able to accomplish. “I’ve known Dave for a decade,” he says. “I’ve always admired what he does. When we got together to discuss this case, I knew we could win. He had other attorneys before me, but for this last step, he brought me on. We spent a lot of time looking at the arguments from the court below, and realized after our oral argument in March 2009 that we could argue that precedents could be overturned. That’s when we knew we had traction.”

“President Obama and his party are worried that this decision means that big corporations will dominate politics. They’re wrong,” says Olson. “The Court’s decision was about opening up the political process to individual corporations and small corporations, to create a more favorable balance and open up free speech to everyone.”

So how did Bossie, an unknown outside the Beltway, become the new hero for political speech? It all starts with Bill and Hillary. Before becoming a producer of political films at Citizens United, Bossie was what the Clintons would call a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. He was the chief Whitewater investigator for the House GOP in the 1990s. He also investigated the foreign-fundraising problems in Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.

Those experiences, says Ed Gillespie, Bossie’s old friend and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, helped to prepare him for a historic Supreme Court battle.. “Dave pushed this free-speech issue and saw opportunity when very few others did,” says Gillespie. “He understood its significance from the outset, and now he’s changed the political environment.”

Since the big win, Bossie has been assailed by the Left. Not that he cares. He doesn’t apologize for his past investigations into the Clintons, and shrugs off criticism that his motives for suing the FEC were purely political. “This case wasn’t just about me or Citizens United,” he says. “It was about standing up for the principles of our Founding Fathers.” He points to the support he garnered from the American Civil Liberties Union as an example of how this wasn’t about “conservative demagoguery.”

“When I heard the ACLU was supporting us, I had to question myself for a moment,” Bossie laughs. “I mean, wow, I’ve never had their support, ever. Think about this: One of our films was called ACLU: At War With America. To have them agreeing with us, plus the AFL-CIO and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press — both not exactly bastions of conservatism — was a sign of how powerful our position was. I’m eternally grateful to all them for bringing forward a view of how important this was to groups across the political spectrum.”

“The FEC believed that they have a mandate to tell the American people what they can and cannot do when it comes to an election,” says Bossie. “We’ve always been under the impression that the FEC believes that it’s not necessarily an inherent right for the American people to speak during an election; it’s only by the grace of the FEC. The oral arguments in this case proved that all to be true. As they’ve taken more and more power, which Congress, via John McCain and Russ Feingold, has happily given them, they’ve encroached on the First Amendment..” Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed, quoting a previous case that called political speech “indispensible to decision-making in a democracy and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.”

“It’s a huge, huge symbolic win,” says Andrew Breitbart, the founder of BigGovernment.com. “The Left wants to scare people into thinking that more free speech will be harmful for democracy, but just watch, in five years we’ll laugh with contempt at such arguments. Thanks, in part, to Dave’s great work, Americans are becoming hip to how they’ve been muzzled by our politically correct Sharia system. Conservative opinions may be deemed toxic by the mainstream media, but this new ruling stops their ability to curb speech in this country.”

“Dave’s legal work,” adds Breitbart, “is like what I do with my websites: We’re trying to wrest control of media back from the Left, who have brilliantly taken control over the years and dominated our political and cultural narrative.”

With all due deference to President Obama, the floodgates are now open, not for special interests, but for free speech.

— Robert Costa is the William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow at the National Review Institute.
24213  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Request for help on: February 02, 2010, 11:37:26 AM
second post of AM:

Woof All:

When I was a boy, we had Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday as school holidays.  Depending on how the dates worked out, this sometimes resulted in a 3 or 4 day weekend.  Every year as these dates rolled around we were taught about these two men and what they had done.

Then these holidays somehow became known as "President's Weekend".   My sense of things is that a lot less teaching of these two President's lives and deeds was done.

Now in California, in part due to we the idiots who elected the idiots in Sacramento who have bankrupted our state, my childen have the week off shocked and it is called "Ski Week" or some such thing.

So for my children, I have decided to post about these two men on the front page of our site on the days around their birthdays.  For Lincoln, the Gettysburg  Address is an easy call.  For Washington I would like to ask for suggestions.  First inaugural (sp?) address?  Final inaugural address?  Letter from Valley Forge (I may not have the name of this right)?  Or? 
In all cases, URLs will be appreciated.

Thank you,
Marc
24214  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Early draft of C. found on: February 02, 2010, 11:28:39 AM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20100202_Early_draft_of_the_Constitution_found_in_Phila_.html
Early draft of the Constitution found in Phila.
By Edward Colimore

Inquirer Staff Writer

Researcher Lorianne Updike Toler was intrigued by the centuries-old document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

On the back of a treasured draft of the U.S. Constitution was a truncated version of the same document, starting with the familiar words: "We The People. . . ."

They had been scribbled upside down by one of the Constitution's framers, James Wilson, in the summer of 1787. The cursive continued, then abruptly stopped, as if pages were missing.

A mystery, Toler thought, until she examined other Wilson papers from the Historical Society's vault in Philadelphia and found what appeared to be the rest of the draft, titled "The Continuation of the Scheme."

The document - one of 21 million in the Historical Society's collection - was known to scholars, but probably should have been placed with the other drafts, said constitutional scholar John P. Kaminski, director of the Center for the Study of the American Constitution in the history department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

"This was the kind of moment historians dream about," said Toler, 30, a lawyer and founding president of the Constitutional Sources Project (www.ConSource.org), a nonprofit organization, based in Washington, that promotes an understanding of and access to U.S. Constitution documents.

"This was national scripture, a piece of our Constitution's history," she said of her find in November. "It was difficult to keep my hands from trembling."

As other researchers "realized what was happening, there was a sort of hushed awe that settled over the reading room," Toler said. "One of them said the hair on her arms stood on end."

Two drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand had been separated from his papers long ago. One of them included the beginning of still another draft and was apparently seen as part of a single working version, instead of a separate draft.

Toler said "The Continuation of the Scheme," including its provisions about the executive and judiciary branches, completes that draft, making it a third.

She "found a document that was sort of buried in its right place, but not taken out by an archivist for special treatment," said Kaminski, the constitutional scholar. "This is a valuable document. It is in Wilson's hand, and it was in Wilson's papers, where it should have been."

With so many historical documents "going online, you don't have that kind of discovery in an archives," he added. "I can understand why [Toler] would be excited."

For Nathan Raab, a member of the Board of Councilors of the Historical Society, the documents are reminders "of the great depth of the archives there and the emotional power of holding a piece of history in your hand."

"The Continuation of the Scheme" and countless other documents had been evaluated by scholars decades ago before being carefully filed away at the Historical Society at 13th and Locust Streets.

"Perhaps this one should have been placed with the other drafts," said Lee Arnold, senior director of the library and collections at the Historical Society. "We may do that, but no decision has been made.

"We want to look at it more thoroughly," he said. "In the end, though, [the document] is perfectly fine."

The drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand were removed from his other papers and placed in Mylar and acid-free folios and have been occasionally displayed.

"The Continuation of the Scheme" document "was safe and preserved, but not given the prominence," said Kaminski, chief editor of the book The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution.

"Wilson was a great man and one of the great founders and should be respected for that," he said. "We owe him our gratitude for the role he played."

Wilson, who lived in Philadelphia, was selected July 24, 1787, with four other members of the Constitutional Convention to serve on the Committee of Detail.

The committee - which also had John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, and Oliver Ellsworth - used 28 resolutions passed by members of the convention to flesh out the Constitution.

They finished their work and presented it Aug. 6, 1787, to the Constitutional Convention. It included Wilson's famous "We the People" beginning.

Seeing the framers' drafts and thought processes leading up to that point was especially thrilling to Toler, who is studying at Oxford University, where she is seeking a doctorate in U.S. history and specializing in constitutional legal history.

"The Constitution may be the most important document written in modern history," said Toler. "It is the longest-standing written constitution and the basis for most of the constitutions in the world."

After finding the draft, "I felt like an actor in the movie National Treasure, but [actor] Nicolas Cage was nowhere to be found," Toler added.

"However, what I found was a national treasure - the real national treasure."
24215  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Read his leaps: Lots of new taxes on: February 02, 2010, 11:26:04 AM

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class
By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen
Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET
 
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more
than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on
so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill
for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White
House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end
of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax
breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class
families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other
things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital
gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in
2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier
personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But
lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket
will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to
31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The
special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the
tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the
capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate
tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there
has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes
in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on
January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the
alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very
rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now
the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers
have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of
revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could
affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750
(or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last
year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be
considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles
and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them
in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among
them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax
payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their
standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that
amount was tax-free.
24216  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: February 02, 2010, 09:57:14 AM
BBG:

I hope you will be able to stay on top of this story for us as it develops.

Thank you.
24217  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: February 02, 2010, 09:54:03 AM
Ummm , , , "polishing the rifle" was intended as a euphemism for fellatio.
24218  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Paulson on bail-out on: February 02, 2010, 09:52:42 AM


I'm not really sure of which is the right thread for this amazing little report, but put it here as an example of the human reality of the Mussolini-like economic path which we have undertaken.

Some random questions noted by one blogger: 

"This is the same Hank Paulson that, as head of Goldman Sachs, lobbied the SEC in 2004 for relaxed capital standards and self-monitoring of risk for investment banks. Goldman was one of the major players in securitizing private mortgage loans before the bubble burst. How could he not know how these debt instruments were structured by his own firm that he headed? This statement now does not seem very credible to me."

The Adventure continues  , , , tongue
================

Paulson says he was scared and clueless during Lehman collapse

Henry Paulson, the former U.S. Treasury Department secretary, just said in a CNBC interview that in the midst of the Lehman Brothers collapse he had no idea what to do and was so afraid he excused himself from an emergency meeting on the matter and called his wife.

"I'm scared," he said he told his wife on a cell phone, while appearing to the others in the meeting that he was making a business telephone call.  "I didn't know what to do."

He asked his wife to pray for him. "Then, I put on my armor and went back into the room and acted like I knew what to do."

Paulson's just written a new book, "On the Brink," in which he recalls the details of the weekend when he dealt with the Lehman collapse.

More shocking, is Paulson's contention that prior to the collapse, neither he nor other administration officials had any idea how housing debt was structured in various Wall Street creations. Paulson has said that he discovered all of this in the midst of the crisis.  Prior to the collapse, his department had done a study of housing and concluded there was no problem.  The study left out the esoteric financial structures that turned out to be a disaster.

Now, there are two things that must be done, said Paulson.  "We need one systemic regulator" and "we need resolution authority so no institution is too big to fail."

He thinks the public should channel its anger into demanding financial reforms.  But he also agrees with the public's anger over tremendous Wall Street bonuses.

"When I ran Goldman, even during benign times, I thought compensation was out of whack," he said.  He claims he told his staff during meetings "people don't like you" because of compensation levels.

Still, although he headed the company before taking over as U.S. Treasury secretary, he was not able to curtail the bonuses that have so angered the public after bailouts with public money.

And he claims Goldman would have been in danger of collapsing if the government had not stepped into the financial crisis with emergency measures.

"It seemed like there was a good chance Morgan Stanley could go down, and if it did that could take Goldman down," said Paulson. 

If that had happened, added Paulson: "It would have been all she wrote for the American economy."
24219  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / China's new tone on: January 31, 2010, 07:30:36 PM
The meaning of the last sentence is not clear to me, but an interesting read nonetheless.
=================

China's strident tone raises concerns among Western governments, analysts
By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010;

China's indignant reaction to the announcement of U.S. plans to sell weapons to Taiwan appears to be in keeping with a new triumphalist attitude from Beijing that is worrying governments and analysts across the globe.

From the Copenhagen climate change conference to Internet freedom to China's border with India, China observers have noticed a tough tone emanating from its government, its representatives and influential analysts from its state-funded think tanks.

Calling in U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman on Saturday, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said the United States would be responsible for "serious repercussions" if it did not reverse the decision to sell Taiwan $6.4 billion worth of helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles, minesweepers and communications gear. The reaction came even though China has known for months about the planned deal, U.S. officials said.

"There has been a change in China's attitude," said Kenneth G. Lieberthal, a former senior National Security Council official who is currently at the Brookings Institution. "The Chinese find with startling speed that people have come to view them as a major global player. And that has fed a sense of confidence."

Lieberthal said another factor in China's new tone is a sense that after two centuries of exploitation by the West, China is resuming its role as one of the great nations of the world.

This new posture has befuddled Western officials and analysts: Is it just China's tone that is changing or are its policies changing as well?

In a case in point, one senior U.S. official termed as unusual China's behavior at the December climate conference, during which China publicly reprimanded White House envoy Todd Stern, dispatched a Foreign Ministry functionary to an event for state leaders and fought strenuously against fixed targets for emission cuts in the developed world.

Another issue is Internet freedom and cybersecurity, highlighted by Google's recent threat to leave China unless the country stops its Web censorship. At China's request, that topic was left off the table at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank and co-chairman of the event, told Bloomberg News. The forum ends Sunday.

China dismisses concerns

Analysts say a combination of hubris and insecurity appears to be driving China's mood. On one hand, Beijing thinks that the relative ease with which it skated over the global financial crisis underscores the superiority of its system and that China is not only rising but has arrived on the global stage -- much faster than anyone could have predicted. On the other, recent uprisings in the western regions of Tibet and Xinjiang have fed Chinese leaders' insecurity about their one-party state. As such, any perceived threat to their power is met with a backlash.

A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington said China's tone had not changed.

"China's positions on issues like arms sales to Taiwan and Tibet have been consistent and clear," Wang Baodong said, "as these issues bear on sovereignty and territorial integrity, which are closely related to Chinese core national interests."

The unease over China's new tone is shared by Europeans as well. "How Should Europe Respond to China's Strident Rise?" is the title of a new paper from the Center for European Reform. Just two years earlier, its author, institute director Charles Grant, had predicted that China and the European Union would shape the new world order.

"There is a real rethink going on about China in Europe," Grant said in an interview from Davos. "I don't think governments know what to do, but they know that their policies aren't working."

U.S. officials first began noticing the new Chinese attitude last year. Anecdotes range from the political to the personal.
At the World Economic Forum last year, Premier Wen Jiabao lambasted the United States for its economic mismanagement. A few weeks later, China's central bank questioned whether the dollar could continue to play its role as the international reserve currency.
And in another vignette, confirmed by several sources, a senior U.S. official involved in the economy hosted his Chinese counterpart, who then made a series of disparaging remarks about the bureau that the American ran. Later that night, the two were to dine at the American's house. The Chinese representatives called ahead, asking what was for dinner. They were informed that it was fish. "The director doesn't eat fish," one of them told his American interlocutor. "He wants steak. He says fish makes you weak." The menu was changed.

Tone with Europe, India

With Europe and India, China's strident tone has been even more apparent. In autumn 2008, China canceled a summit with the European Union after French President Nicolas Sarkozy met with the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama. Before that, it had denounced German Chancellor Angela Merkel over her contacts with the Tibetan spiritual leader. And in recent weeks, it has engaged in a heated exchange with British officials over its moves to block a broader agreement at the climate conference.
At the Chinese Embassy, Wang differed on the climate issue. "China is strongly behind the idea of meeting the issue of climate change," he said, "but at the same time we think that there are some people who want to confuse the situation, and we feel the need to try to let the rest of the world know our position clearly."

China also suspended ties with Denmark after its prime minister met the Dalai Lama and resumed them only after the Danish government issued a statement in December saying it would oppose Tibetan independence and consider Beijing's reaction before inviting him again.

"The Europeans have competed to be China's favored friend," Grant said, "but then they get put in the doghouse one by one."
China's newfound toughness also played out in a renewed dispute with India over Beijing's claims to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders Tibet. Last summer, China blocked the Asian Development Bank from making a $60 million loan for infrastructure improvements in the state. India then moved to fund the projects itself, prompting China to send more troops to the border.

David Finkelstein, a former U.S. Army officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency who now runs the China program at the Center for Naval Analyses, said the new tone underscores a shift in China. "On the external front," he said, "we will likely see a China that is more willing than in the past to proactively shape the external environment and international order rather than passively react to it."
An example would be events that unfolded in December when 22 Chinese Muslims showed up in Cambodia and requested political asylum. China wanted to hold seven of them on suspicion of participating in anti-Chinese riots in the Xinjiang region in July.

Under intense pressure from Beijing, Cambodia sent the group home, despite protests from the United States. Two days after the group was repatriated, China signed 14 deals with Cambodia worth about $1 billion.

What the future holds

Whether this new bluster from Beijing presages tougher policies and actions in areas of direct concern to the United States is a key question, Lieberthal said. What China does after the United States sells Taiwan the weapons may provide some clues.
Even before the United States announced its plans Friday, at least six senior Chinese officials, including officers from the People's Liberation Army, had warned Washington against the sale.
 
Once the deal was announced, China's Defense Ministry said it was suspending a portion of the recently resumed military relations with the United States. China also announced that it would sanction the U.S. companies involved in the sale.
 
What happens next will be crucial. China quietly sanctioned several U.S. companies for participating in such weapons sales in the past. However, it would mark a major change if China makes the list public and includes, for example, Boeing, which sells billions of dollars worth of airplanes to China each year.

He, the vice foreign minister, warned that the sales would also affect China's cooperation with the United States on regional issues. Does that mean China will continue to block Western efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran? Bonnie S. Glaser, a China security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the answer will probably come soon.

France takes over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council on Monday and is expected to push for a rapid move in that direction.
24220  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: KALI TUDO (tm) Article on: January 31, 2010, 03:56:54 PM
Good times with Boo Dog this morning. Boo has some really nice things with regard to our Kali Tudo anti-guard that will be appearing in DBMA curriculum. We have The Running Dog Game, and Boo is bringing what we will probably be calling The Dog Leg Game.
24221  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DBMA Kali Tudo (tm) Training Camp Feb 6-7 on: January 31, 2010, 03:23:40 PM
Absolutely!  Please remind me after this Camp is over to start a thread about the next one.

@All:

24222  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Maudlin part two on: January 31, 2010, 10:20:10 AM
As Reinhart and Rogoff wrote: "Highly indebted governments, banks, or corporations can seem to be merrily rolling along for an extended period, when bang! - confidence collapses, lenders disappear, and a crisis hits."

Bang is the right word. It is the nature of human beings to assume that the current trend will work out, that things can't really be that bad. Look at the bond markets only a year and then just a few months before World War I. There was no sign of an impending war. Everyone "knew" that cooler heads would prevail.

We can look back now and see where we made mistakes in the current crisis. We actually believed that this time was different, that we had better financial instruments, smarter regulators, and were so, well, modern. Times were different. We knew how to deal with leverage. Borrowing against your home was a good thing. Housing values would always go up. Etc.

Now, there are bullish voices telling us that things are headed back to normal. Mainstream forecasts for GDP growth this year are quite robust, north of 4% for the year, based on evidence from past recoveries. However, the underlying fundamentals of a banking crisis are far different from those of a typical business-cycle recession, as Reinhart and Rogoff's work so clearly reveals. It typically takes years to work off excess leverage in a banking crisis, with unemployment often rising for 4 years running. We will look at the evidence in coming weeks.

The point is that complacency almost always ends suddenly. You just don't slide gradually into a crisis, over years. It happens! All of a sudden there is a trigger event, and it is August of 2008. And the evidence in the book is that things go along fine until there is that crisis of confidence. There is no way to know when it will happen. There is no magic debt level, no magic drop in currencies, no percentage level of fiscal deficits, no single point where we can say "This is it." It is different in different crises.

One point I found fascinating, and we'll explore it in later weeks. First, when it comes to the various types of crises with the authors identify, there is very little difference between developed and emerging-market countries, especially as to the fallout. It seems that the developed world has no corner on special wisdom that would allow crises to be avoided, or allow them to be recovered from more quickly. In fact, because of their overconfidence - because they actually feel they have superior systems - developed countries can dig deeper holes for themselves than emerging markets.

Oh, and the Fed should have seen this crisis coming. The authors point to some very clear precursors to debt crises. This bears further review, and we will do so in coming weeks.

Greeks Bearing Gifts
On Monday, the government of Greece offered a "gift" to the markets of 8 billion euros worth of bonds at a rather high 6.25%. The demand was for 25 billion euros, so this offering was rather robust. Today, those same Greek bonds closed on 6.5%, more than offsetting the first year's coupon. Greek bond yields are up more than 150 basis points in the last month!

Why such a one-week turnaround? Ambrose Evans Pritchard offers up this thought: "Marc Ostwald, from Monument Securities, said the botched bond issue of €8bn (£6.9bn) of Greek debt earlier this week has made matters worse. Many of the investors were 'hot money' funds that bought on rumors that China was emerging as a buyer, offering them a chance for quick profit. When the China story was denied by Beijing and Athens, these funds rushed for the exit."

Greece is running a budget deficit of 12.5%. Under the Maastricht Treaty, they are supposed to keep it at 3%. Their GDP was $374 billion in 2008 (about €240 billion). If they can cut their budget deficit to 10% this year, that means they will need to go into the bond market for another €25 billion or so. But they already have a problem with rising debt. Look at the following graph on the debt of various countries.

 

When Russia defaulted on its debt and sent the world into crisis in 1998, they had total debt of only €51 billion. Greece now has €254 billion and added another €8 billion this week, and needs to add another €24 billion (or so) later this year. That's a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 100%, well above the limit of the treaty, which is 60%.

Greece benefitted from being in the Eurozone by getting very low interest rates, up until recently. Being in the Eurozone made investors confident. Now that confidence is eroding daily. And this week's market action says rates will go higher, without some fiscal discipline. To help my US readers put this in perspective, let's assume that Greece was the size of the US. To get back to Maastricht Treaty levels, they would need to cut the deficit by 4% of GDP for the next few years. If the US did that, it would mean an equivalent budget cut of $500 billion dollars. Per year. For three years running.

That would guarantee a very deep recession. Just a 10% suggested pay cut has Greek government unions already planning strikes. Nevertheless, the government of Greece recognizes that it simply cannot continue to run such huge deficits. They have developed a plan that aims to narrow the shortfall from 12.7% of output, more than four times the EU limit, to 8.7% this year. That reduction will be achieved even though the economy will contract 0.3%, the plan says. The deficit will shrink to 5.6% next year and 2.8% in 2012.

The market is saying they don't believe that will happen. For one thing, if the Greek economy goes into recession, the amount collected in taxes will fall, meaning the shortfall will increase. Second, it is not clear that Greek voters will approve such a plan at their next elections. Riots and demonstrations are a popular pastime.

Both French and German ministers made it clear that there would be no bailout of Greece. But here's the problem. If they ignore the noncompliance, there is no meaning to the treaty. The euro will be called into question. And the other countries with serious fiscal problems will ask why they should cut back if Greece does not. If Greece does not choose deep cutbacks and recession, the markets will keep demanding hikes in interest rates, and eventually Greece will have problems meeting just its interest payments.

Can this go on for some time? The analysis of debt crises in history says yes, but there comes a time when confidence breaks. My friends from GaveKal had this thought:

"What is the next step? Having lived through the Mexican, Thai, Korean and Argentine crises, it is hard not to distinguish a common pattern. In our view, this means that investors need to confront the fact that we are at an important crossroads for Greece, best symbolized by a simple question: 'If you were a Greek saver with all of your income in a Greek bank, given what is happening to the debt of your sovereign, would you feel comfortable keeping all of your life savings in your savings institution? Or would you start thinking about opening an account in a foreign bank and/or redeeming your currency in cash?' The answer to this question will likely direct the next phase of the crisis. If we start to see bank runs in Greece, then investors will have to accept that the crisis has run out of control and that we are facing a far more bearish investment environment. However, if the Greek population does not panic and does not liquefy/transfer its savings, then European policy-makers may still have a chance to find a political solution to this growing problem.

"What could a political solution be? The answer here is simple: there is none. So if Europe wants to save Greece from hitting the wall towards which it is now heading, the European commission, the ECB and/or other institutions (IMF?) will have to bend the rules massively. In turn, this will likely lead to a further collapse in the euro. But for us, an important question is whether it could also lead to a serious political backlash. Indeed, at this stage, elected politicians are likely pondering how much appetite there is amongst their electorate for yet another bailout, and for further expansions in government debt levels. The fact that the intervention would occur on behalf of a foreign country probably makes it all the more unpalatable (it's one thing to save your domestic banking system ... but why save Greece?)."

If Greece is bailed out, Portugal and Ireland will ask "Why not us?" And Spain? Italy? If Greece is allowed to flaunt the rules, what does that say about the future of the euro? Will Germany and France insist on compliance or be willing to kick Greece out?

A few months ago, the markets assumed that not only Greece but Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Ireland would have a few years to get their houses in order. This week, the markets shortened their time horizon for Greece.

Even so, we get this quote, which may end up ranking alongside Fisher's quote in 1929, that the stock market was at a permanently high plateau, or Bernanke's quote that "The subprime debt problem will be contained."

"There is no bailout problem," Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said today at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. "Greece will not default. In the euro area, default does not exist."

The evidence in This Time is Different is that default risk does in fact exist. You cannot keep borrowing past your income, whether as a family or a government, and not eventually go bankrupt.

Are we at an inflection point? Too early to say. It all depends on the willingness of the Greek people to endure what will not be a fun next few years, for the privilege of staying in the Eurozone. And on whether the bond market believes that this time is different and the Greeks will actually get their fiscal house in order.

Oh by the way, did I mention that the history of Greece is not exactly pristine in terms of default? In fact, they have been in default in one way or another for 105 out of the past 200 years. Aristotle, can you spare a dime?

And one last thought. The US is running massive deficits. If we do not get them under control, we will one day, and perhaps quite soon, face our own "Greek moment." Look at the graph below, and weep.

 

Obama offering to freeze spending by 17% in US discretionary-spending programs, after he ran them up over 20% in just one year, is laughable. Greece is an object lesson for the world, as Japan soon will be. You cannot cure too much debt with more debt.
24223  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Maudlin: Different this time? part 1 on: January 31, 2010, 10:18:52 AM
In this issue:
The Statistical Recovery has Arrived
This Time Is Different
A Crisis of Confidence
Greeks Bearing Gifts
Biotech, Conversations and Babies

 
 
"Our immersion in the details of crises that have arisen over the past eight centuries and in data on them has led us to conclude that the most commonly repeated and most expensive investment advice ever given in the boom just before a financial crisis stems from the perception that 'this time is different.' That advice, that the old rules of valuation no longer apply, is usually followed up with vigor. Financial professionals and, all too often, government leaders explain that we are doing things better than before, we are smarter, and we have learned from past mistakes. Each time, society convinces itself that the current boom, unlike the many booms that preceded catastrophic collapses in the past, is built on sound fundamentals, structural reforms, technological innovation, and good policy."

- This Time is Different (Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff)

When does a potential crisis become an actual crisis, and how and why does it happen? Why did most everyone believe there were no problems in the US (or Japanese or European or British) economies in 2006? Yet now we are mired in a very difficult situation. "The subprime problem will be contained," said now controversially confirmed Fed Chairman Bernanke, just months before the implosion and significant Fed intervention. I have just returned from Europe, and the discussion often turned to the potential of a crisis in the Eurozone if Greece defaults. Plus, we take a look at the very positive US GDP numbers released this morning. Are we finally back to the Old Normal? There's just so much to talk about.

, , ,



The Statistical Recovery Has Arrived
Before we get into the main discussion point, let me briefly comment on today's GDP numbers, which came in at an amazingly strong 5.7% growth rate. While that is stronger than I thought it would be (I said 4-5%), there are reasons to be cautious before we sound the "all clear" bell.

First, over 60% (3.7%) of the growth came from inventory rebuilding, as opposed to just 0.7% in the third quarter. If you examine the numbers, you find that inventories had dropped below sales, so a buildup was needed. Increasing inventories add to GDP, while, counterintuitively, sales from inventory decrease GDP. Businesses are just adjusting to the New Normal level of sales. I expect further inventory build-up in the next two quarters, although not at this level, and then we level off the latter half of the year.

While rebuilding inventories is a very good thing, that growth will only continue if sales grow. Otherwise inventories will find the level of the New Normal and stop growing. And if you look at consumer spending in the data, you find that it actually declined in the 4th quarter, both annually and from the previous quarter. "Domestic demand" declined from 2.3% in the third quarter to only 1.7% in the fourth quarter. Part of that is clearly the absence of "Cash for Clunkers," but even so that is not a sign of economic strength.

Second, as my friend David Rosenberg pointed out, imports fell over the 4th quarter. Usually in a heavy inventory-rebuilding cycle, imports rise because a portion of the materials businesses need to build their own products comes from foreign sources. Thus the drop in imports is most unusual. Falling imports, which is a sign of economic retrenching, also increases the statistical GDP number.

Third, I have seen no analysis (yet) on the impact of the stimulus spending, but it was 90% of the growth in the third quarter, or a little less than 2%.

Fourth (and quoting David): "... if you believe the GDP data - remember, there are more revisions to come - then you de facto must be of the view that productivity growth is soaring at over a 6% annual rate. No doubt productivity is rising - just look at the never-ending slate of layoff announcements. But we came off a cycle with no technological advance and no capital deepening, so it is hard to believe that productivity at this time is growing at a pace that is four times the historical norm. Sorry, but we're not buyers of that view. In the fourth quarter, aggregate private hours worked contracted at a 0.5% annual rate and what we can tell you is that such a decline in labor input has never before, scanning over 50 years of data, coincided with a GDP headline this good.

"Normally, GDP growth is 1.7% when hours worked is this weak, and that is exactly the trend that was depicted this week in the release of the Chicago Fed's National Activity Index, which was widely ignored. On the flip side, when we have in the past seen GDP growth come in at or near a 5.7% annual rate, what is typical is that hours worked grows at a 3.7% rate. No matter how you slice it, the GDP number today represented not just a rare but an unprecedented event, and as such, we are willing to treat the report with an entire saltshaker - a few grains won't do."

Finally, remember that third-quarter GDP was revised downward by over 30%, from 3.5% to just 2.2% only 60 days later. (There is the first release, to be followed by revisions over the next two months.) The first release is based on a lot of estimates, otherwise known as guesswork. The fourth-quarter number is likely to be revised down as well.

Unemployment rose by several hundred thousand jobs in the fourth quarter, and if you look at some surveys, it approached 500,000. That is hardly consistent with a 5.7% growth rate. Further, sales taxes and income-tax receipts are still falling. As I said last year that it would be, this is a Statistical Recovery. When unemployment is rising, it is hard to talk of real recovery. Without the stimulus in the latter half of the year, growth would be much slower.

So should we, as Paul Krugman suggests, spend another trillion in stimulus if it helps growth? No, because, as I have written for a very long time, and will focus on in future weeks, increased deficits and rising debt-to-GDP is a long-term losing proposition. It simply puts off what will be a reckoning that will be even worse, with yet higher debt levels. You cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis.

This Time Is Different
While I was in Europe, and flying back, I had the great pleasure of reading This Time is Different, by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, on my new Kindle, courtesy of Fred Fern.

I am going to be writing about and quoting from this book for several weeks. It is a very important work, as it gives us the first really comprehensive analysis of financial crises. I highlighted more pages than in any book in recent memory (easy to do on the Kindle, and even easier to find the highlights). Rather than offering up theories on how to deal with the current financial crisis, the authors show us what happened in over 250 historical crises in 66 countries. And they offer some very clear ideas on how this current crisis might play out. Sadly, the lesson is not a happy one. There are no good endings once you start down a deleveraging path. As I have been writing for several years, we now are faced with choosing from among several bad choices, some being worse than others. This Time is Different offers up some ideas as to which are the worst choices.

If you are a serious student of economics, you should read this book. If you want to get a sense of the problems we face, the authors conveniently summarize the situation in chapters 13-16, purposefully allowing people to get the main points without drilling into the mountain of details they provide. Get the book at a 45% discount at Amazon.com.

Buy it with the excellent book I am now reading, Wall Street Revalued, and get free shipping.

A Crisis of Confidence
Let's lead off with a few quotes from This Time is Different, and then I'll add some comments. Today I'll focus on the theme of confidence, which runs throughout the entire book.

"But highly leveraged economies, particularly those in which continual rollover of short-term debt is sustained only by confidence in relatively illiquid underlying assets, seldom survive forever, particularly if leverage continues to grow unchecked."

"If there is one common theme to the vast range of crises we consider in this book, it is that excessive debt accumulation, whether it be by the government, banks, corporations, or consumers, often poses greater systemic risks than it seems during a boom. Infusions of cash can make a government look like it is providing greater growth to its economy than it really is. Private sector borrowing binges can inflate housing and stock prices far beyond their long-run sustainable levels, and make banks seem more stable and profitable than they really are. Such large-scale debt buildups pose risks because they make an economy vulnerable to crises of confidence, particularly when debt is short term and needs to be constantly refinanced. Debt-fueled booms all too often provide false affirmation of a government's policies, a financial institution's ability to make outsized profits, or a country's standard of living. Most of these booms end badly. Of course, debt instruments are crucial to all economies, ancient and modern, but balancing the risk and opportunities of debt is always a challenge, a challenge policy makers, investors, and ordinary citizens must never forget."

And this is key. Read it twice (at least!):

"Perhaps more than anything else, failure to recognize the precariousness and fickleness of confidence-especially in cases in which large short-term debts need to be rolled over continuously-is the key factor that gives rise to the this-time-is-different syndrome. Highly indebted governments, banks, or corporations can seem to be merrily rolling along for an extended period, when bang!-confidence collapses, lenders disappear, and a crisis hits.

"Economic theory tells us that it is precisely the fickle nature of confidence, including its dependence on the public's expectation of future events, that makes it so difficult to predict the timing of debt crises. High debt levels lead, in many mathematical economics models, to "multiple equilibria" in which the debt level might be sustained - or might not be. Economists do not have a terribly good idea of what kinds of events shift confidence and of how to concretely assess confidence vulnerability. What one does see, again and again, in the history of financial crises is that when an accident is waiting to happen, it eventually does. When countries become too deeply indebted, they are headed for trouble. When debt-fueled asset price explosions seem too good to be true, they probably are. But the exact timing can be very difficult to guess, and a crisis that seems imminent can sometimes take years to ignite."

How confident was the world in October of 2006? I was writing that there would be a recession, a subprime crisis, and a credit crisis in our future. I was on Larry Kudlow's show with Nouriel Roubini, and Larry and John Rutledge were giving us a hard time about our so-called "doom and gloom." If there is going to be a recession you should get out of the stock market, was my call. I was a tad early, as the market proceeded to go up another 20% over the next 8 months.
 
24224  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Latin America on: January 31, 2010, 09:53:16 AM
Very interesting Capt.  In your opinion, what comes next?
24225  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: January 31, 2010, 09:46:25 AM
So, therefore , , , you disagree with BO's new policy?
24226  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / A post from another forum on: January 31, 2010, 09:45:13 AM
An interesting analysis of the current state of affairs.  Of course there is also the question of where things are headed , , ,
=============

What I believe that ___ is talking about here is NOT that someone can do a "Criminal Minds" style trace you across three continents using video footage hacked from random sources after identifying you by comparing a single grainy image against every drivers license database. That can't be done *yet*, and we're quite a ways from it.

What *can* happen is that some incident comes to the police's attention in front of the Licquor Store on State St. and Broadway. They know that the parking garage across the street has video cameras for liability. It shows the event and some amorphous blob about 5'6-6 foot walking away (and yes, knowing the height and angle of the camera, the distance to the event, and the height of one or more objects in the for and background they can, depending on image clarity get a LOT closer than that). This doesn't help them much, but they know there is another parking garage 1/2 block west, and licquor store with a couple of cameras in the parking lot 1/2 block east.

They also know the time, and approximately how long it takes to walk that far. So they don't have to scan a lot of video, maybe 10 minutes (more if the clocks are significantly off). If they see Mr. Blob on one video they move to the next camera that direction, establishing a route and asking questions along the way.

Given the proliferation (due to Moore's Law if nothing else) of video cameras all they have to do is stroll possible routes with an eye for video cameras. I'm betting you'll find them over watching alleys (to watch for employee pilferage and for employee security), loading docks etc. as well as front doors.

And on NONE of these are they really all that concerned with getting a good picture of your face. If they do, bonus. As long as they can track you, that's good enough. Eventually they'll find something, a store you ducked in to to buy a soda, or a car with a license plate or *something*.

Even in residential neighborhoods people are starting to monitor their houses and the streets ( http://www.safemart.com/category-Sec...meras-6835.htm ) and sometimes the cops know about it. Since these folks are buying consumer grade stuff it's *better* video than what the stores are putting in, but has a shorter lifespan, so it gets replaced every 3-4 year with BETTER stuff. And when they hear that the police are looking for any information on who killed Officer Joe Hero with three kids and who fled down Broadway in a blue car, they pull up their video and there you are. And their neighbor, who also has a system has a different angle and knows a guy on the next block...

You're also going to have about 1/2 the people filming/taking your picture on their cellphone.

And then they show these to a sketch artist.

And when they *catch* you, unless you're either well practiced, or a sociopath, if they have enough evidence to question you, they will find *some* handle to question you further.

Note that none of this has anything to do with actually seeing your picture on video.

Some of the tricks mentioned might work, but if they catch you slipping off that nasty overcoat and slipping on a tie, then they'd just change the blob they're looking for. And if they DO find some way to prove that blob was you, they just proved intent--otherwise you'd not have prepared a disguise ahead of time.

If something happens that you didn't expect and you need to flee the law you'd best just keep running until you're in a jurisdiction that doesn't have and extradition treaty, hope that the event is below the police's radar, or is sufficiently political that you can flee somewhere and ask for political asylum.

Seriously, if you act in accordance with the law, and act, to the extent the law allows, in a moral manner then either your best bet is to stay on scene and act like you did the right thing, or if the local gendarmes are corrupt to the point where that's not possible, then you're back to fleeing the jurisdiction. The only possible alternative is to get to your lawyers and arrange to turn yourself in to a different LEA, as an example if you had to shoot a dirty cop, you turn yourself in to the FBI, or if you had to shoot a sheriff who was doing Bad Things then go to the city police.
24227  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Chistes, Bromas on: January 30, 2010, 10:20:17 PM
Un dia un gerente de banco se cansa de que un empleado le pida tiempo libre todas las tardes, por diferentes razones como el tener cita con el medico, llevar el carro al mecanico, ir al funeral de la bisabuela del primo del novio de la hija de su hermana, etc, etc...

El gerente cansado llama a uno de sus empleados y le dice:

"Lopez, apenitas se vaya hoy Gonzalez usted lo sigue y manana a primera hora me hace saber que hizo el desde em momento que salio de aqui".

Cuando Gonzalez se va, Lopez lo sigue y presta mucha atencion a todo lo que el hace. A la manana siguiente Lopez entra a dar el reporte a la oficina del gerente.

"Sr gerente, le comunico que cuando Gonzalez salio de aqui ayer en la tarde el se fue directamente a su casa, donde su esposa lo esperaba vestida con ropa interior muy sexy de Victoria's Secret.
Despues de haberse dado un beso muy apasionado en la puerta de su casa entraron y por su ventana observe que procedieron a hacer al amor salvajemente en el sofa de su living room, sobre la mesa de su comedor, en el piso de su cocina y ultimamente en su cama matrimonial."

El gerente se sonrie y dice: " Que cosa, debe ser recien casado y con razon quiere todo este tiempo libre para estar con su mujer".

A lo cual Lopez le dice:

"Con mucho respecto Sr gerente, y para que me entienda mejor, me permite usted hablarle con un poco de informalidad?".

El gerente confundido accede y Lopez le dice:

"Cuando Gonzalez salio de aqui ayer en la tarde el se fue directamente a tu casa, donde tu esposa lo esperaba vestida con ropa interior muy sexy de Victoria's Secret.
Despues de haberse dado un beso muy apasionado en la puerta de tu casa entraron y por tu ventana observe que procedieron a hacer al amor salvajemente en el sofa de tu living room, sobre la mesa de tu comedor, en el piso de tu cocina y ultimamente en tu cama matrimonial."
24228  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Chistes, Bromas on: January 30, 2010, 08:31:28 PM
Las Dos Monjas Mexicanas:

Se van al Italia a ver al Papa.  No hablan italiano, pero los dos idiomas se parecen tanto que mas o menos pueden entender lo que se les diga los italianos.

Un dia una de las monjas pregunta por la hora a la otra.

"No se, mi reloj esta' descompuesto"
"Pues preguntale a esa italiana alli'"

Ella va a la italiana y con gestos de mano, pregunta por la hora.

La Italiana dice "Nove cinque" (9:05)

Regresa la monja a su hermana.

"Que te dijo la italiana?"

"Que no la moleste."

24229  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Video-Clips de DBMA en espanol on: January 30, 2010, 08:06:16 PM
Hola Gwen:

Primero, antes que nada, bienvenidos a nuestro foro  smiley

Segundo, disculpame el egoismo, pero lo que se ve en los clips es Dog Brother Martial Arts Kali.  cheesy

Tercero, cabe mencionar que los clips son gratis y que tambien vendemos cosas que , , , no son gratis smiley  Alli' vas a encontrar muchas respuestas a tus preguntas.

@Todos:

Va a tardar un rato la segunda edicion de DBMA clips en Espanol.  Nuestro editor esta' metido profundamente en nuestro proyecto de una pelicula.

Mientras tanto invito la participacion de todos en este foro.  Lo mas que se participen Uds, de mas utilidad sera' este foro para todos.

24230  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: January 30, 2010, 07:42:07 PM
So, the answer to my question is "Yes" or "No"? smiley
24231  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / POTH: Deflation in Japan on: January 30, 2010, 04:08:28 PM
I am sympathetic to the notion that BO and his running dog progressives are following the Japanese strategy-- so lets take a look at Japan. 

The following article from Pravda on the Hudson, has much that is hideous economics, so caveat lector.

==================
TOKYO — The broiled meat is tender and the rice is silky-smooth. But as Japan’s economic recovery falters, beef bowls have come to symbolize one of its most pressing woes: deflation.


Shokuan, which has vending machines but no table service, is an inexpensive place to eat.

Japan’s big three beef bowl restaurant chains, the country’s answer to hamburger giants like McDonald’s, are in a price war. It is a sign, many people say, of the dire state of Japan’s economy that even dirt-cheap beef bowl restaurants must slash their already low prices to keep customers.

The battle has also come to epitomize a destructive pattern repeated across Japan’s economy. By cutting prices hastily and aggressively to attract consumers, critics say, restaurants decimate profits, squeeze workers’ pay and drive the weak out of business — a deflationary cycle that threatens the nation’s economy.

“These cutthroat price wars could usher in another recessionary hell,” the influential economist Noriko Hama wrote in a magazine article that has won much attention. “If we all got used to spending just 250 yen for every meal, then meals priced respectably will soon become too expensive,” she said. “When you buy something cheap, you lower the value of your own life.”

Deflation — defined as a decline in the prices of goods and services — is back in Japan as it struggles to shake off the effects of its worst recession since World War II.

While prices have fallen elsewhere during the global economic crisis, deflation has been the most persistent here: consumer prices among industrialized economies rose by a robust 1.3 percent in the year to November, but fell 1.9 percent in Japan.

In the decline, companies that undercut rivals too aggressively are being chastised as reckless at best, or as traitors undermining the country’s recovery at worst. Every markdown of beef bowl prices by the big three restaurants — Sukiya, Yoshinoya and Matsuya — has been promptly broadcast by the national news media here.

Japan has reason to be worried. Deflation hampered Japan from the mid-1990s, after the collapse of its bubble economy, to at least 2005. Households held back spending on big-ticket goods, knowing they would only get cheaper. Companies were unsure of how much to invest. At the time, the three beef bowl chains were in a similar price war.

Still, government officials back then emphasized the supposed benefits of deflation; falling prices were good for households, they said. Others said deflation would help restructure the economy by weeding out weak companies.

But the drawn-out deflationary cycle weighed heavily on Japan’s recovery. Apart from putting a damper on consumption and investment, asset deflation ravaged the country’s banks and shut out new businesses from credit.

Now that deflation is back, Japan is wary. Unemployment remains near record highs, and wages are falling. Mounting public debt is also a problem, causing Standard & Poor’s on Tuesday to cut its outlook for Japan’s sovereign rating for the first time since 2002. Japan must do more to lift its economy out of deflation and bolster long-term growth, S.& P. said.

Moreover, the population is shrinking, making demand inherently weak. Economists say Japan’s economy is saddled with a 35 trillion yen, or $388 billion, “demand gap,” or almost 7 percent of the country’s economic output.

“With supply continuing to exceed demand by a massive margin, deflationary expectations are proving very difficult to shake,” said Ryutaro Kono, an economist at BNP Paribas in Tokyo. “Households have been tightening their purse strings as the income outlook looks increasingly bleak, and we believe firms will continue to respond by lowering prices.”

Matsuya, the smallest of the three chains, set off the price war by cutting the price of its standard beef bowl to 320 yen, or $3.55, from 380 yen in early December. The market leader, Sukiya, followed suit that month, lowering its price to 280 yen, from 330 yen.

This month, the No. 2 beef bowl chain, Yoshinoya, lowered the price of its beef bowl to 300 yen, from 380 yen, though it says the cut is temporary. A smaller chain, Nakau, has also lowered prices.

The restaurant chains insist they have not downsized their portions, and will make up for cheaper prices by raising efficiency.

“We don’t consider this a price cut. We’ve simply set a new price,” said Naoki Fujita at Zensho, which runs the Sukiya chain. “With incomes falling, we needed to figure out what would be a reasonable price,” he said. “We hope customers who came every week will now come twice a week.”

===================

Page 2 of 2)



In a sense, the beef bowl has always been about low prices. Yoshinoya, the beef bowl pioneer with about 1,560 stores in Japan and overseas, helped bring beef to the Japanese working class with its first restaurant in the Nihonbashi district of Tokyo in 1899.

Though beef was a delicacy at the time, Eikichi Matsuda, the Yoshinoya founder, kept prices cheap by buying in bulk, and serving as many customers as possible from his tiny stall. Speed and efficiency reigned, with workers trained to start preparing a bowl even before a customer sat down.
The same principles still apply at Yoshinoya. At a branch in central Tokyo, servers rarely take more than a minute to fill an order. The average customer spends just 7.5 minutes on a meal, and a small restaurant can serve more than 3,000 customers a day.

But forced to sell at ever-lower prices — and hurt by lower-priced competitors — making a profit has been increasingly difficult. The company suffered a 2.3 billion yen net loss in the nine months to November, and the next month, before Yoshinoya slashed prices, its sales slumped 22.2 percent. In contrast, sales at Sukiya, which serves up the cheapest beef bowl, surged 15.9 percent that month from the previous year.

Yoshinoya is not considering further price cuts. Squeezing out more savings is “like wringing a dry towel,” said a spokesman, Haruhiko Kizu.

Meanwhile, labor disputes at Sukiya show how falling prices and revenue can quickly hurt workers. A string of former workers have sued the chain over withholding overtime pay. Sukiya denies the accusations.

Other companies have been harshly criticized for slashing prices. Fast Retailing, the company behind the fast-growing Uniqlo brand, has garnered as much disapproval as awe for selling jeans as low as 990 yen. McDonald’s, on the other hand, has won kudos for resisting bargain basement prices by introducing a series of big “American-style” burgers for more than 400 yen, considered expensive in today’s Japan.

“Some Japanese companies are waging such reckless price wars, they’re wringing their own necks,” said Masamitsu Sakurai, who heads the influential business lobby Keizai Doyukai. “Companies need to be more creative. They should come up with products that add value.”

Economists say it is absurd to blame individual companies for Japan’s deflation. “For prices to fall during an economic downturn is natural. That stimulates demand and facilitates an eventual recovery,” said Takuji Aida, chief economist for UBS in Tokyo. “But this mechanism doesn’t work when there is such a big demand shortfall.”

“When prices fall because of an increase in productivity at a company, it’s good for the economy,” said Sean Yokota, an economist for UBS based in Tokyo. “It’s the demand gap that’s damaging.”

The government has vowed to lift household incomes through a series of subsidies, including new cash payments to families with small children. But the scale of government payments — 2.3 trillion yen in the case of the child subsidies — is hardly enough to fill the nation’s huge demand shortfall. With interest rates close to zero, Japan also has few options left in monetary policy.

In the meantime, cutthroat price battles are already driving laggards out of business. Wendy’s, the American burger chain, left Japan on Dec. 31.

It is not surprising, considering the competition. A mere stone’s throw from Tokyo’s celebrated Ginza district is Shokuan, the kind of restaurant that is undercutting everyone.

Shokuan, which has no chairs nor table service, is a cluster of beer vending machines huddled under the train tracks. A man behind a tiny counter sells dirt-cheap morsels: fish sausages for 50 yen, prawn crackers for 60 yen, canned yakitori for 160 yen. Many days of the week, Shokuan is spilling over with customers.

“I don’t think there’s anything around here cheaper than this. That’s why I started to come,” said Yasunori Miura, a manufacturing company employee and a recent regular. “This here,” he said, pointing to his fish sausage, “is deflation.”
24232  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: January 30, 2010, 09:22:40 AM
Question:  Contrasting a base at home or a safe base abroad; does the balance change the closer one gets to combat zones/the front lines?  Would you want to have a NCO who thought you had a cute butt and wanted you to polish his rifle deciding whether you had to take extra risky missions?
24233  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: January 30, 2010, 09:19:10 AM
With our accumulating and seemingly accelerating economic, political, and military weakness there is going to be more and more of this.

My guess is that BO looks for an exit from Afpakia, he has already committed to an exit from Iraq, Iran will get the bomb, and Russia already retakes the Ukraine (and prepares Georgia) and the confidence of the Poles and the Czechs in our work is minimal.  Seeing this Turkey will not place much value on our friendship.

But I digress-- this thread is about China.  On our current path, China is preparing to retake Taiwan.
24234  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Strat's take on the same piece on: January 29, 2010, 11:44:42 PM
China's Planned Evolution of Naval Capabilities
THE CHINA INTERNET INFORMATION CENTER, an online outlet for news and information run by the Chinese central government, published a commentary on Thursday discussing China’s right to build overseas bases to support naval operations and protect Chinese interests abroad. The article, written by Fudan University’s Institute of International Studies executive dean Shen Dingli, is a response to debates inside China and abroad over whether Beijing should establish naval bases, supply depots and related facilities overseas to support China’s naval participation in anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia, and ultimately defend China’s broader maritime interests.

The article comes a day after Captain Chris Chambers, director of operations for the U.S.-led Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), which jointly heads the Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) working group that helps coordinate multinational anti-piracy operations off of the Somali coast, told a conference in Singapore that China would soon be enhancing its participation in SHADE, and would take on the rotating leadership role in the working group in a few months. Currently SHADE leadership rotates between the CMF and European Union maritime forces and coordinates operations among these and other independent anti-piracy forces in the area.

China will be the first nation participating in the anti-piracy operations to take a leadership role in SHADE, and will expand its naval contribution above its current three-ship task force and take responsibility for patrolling an area with more active piracy. The expansion of China’s contributions and coordinating role are currently awaiting final approval in Beijing, and the extended mission is raising the discussion of a resupply base in the Indian Ocean basin to ease logistics for maintaining China’s fleet. China has kept an anti-piracy task force in the area since December 2008 and has not indicated it is leaving anytime soon. This makes a more local supply depot something that would ease the logistical burden of maintaining the small fleet so far from mainland China.

“The idea of Chinese bases abroad, particularly in the Indian Ocean, immediately raises concerns that China is growing more active and aggressive in its naval activities.”

Beijing has used the anti-piracy operations to demonstrate its growing participation in international operations and develop capabilities to deploy Chinese naval forces far from home for an extended period of time. A natural outgrowth of this is the discussion of establishing overseas naval bases, or at least arranging docking and resupply agreements at other countries’ ports to sustain Chinese maritime operations. But the idea of Chinese bases abroad, particularly in the Indian Ocean, immediately raises concerns in India and elsewhere that China is growing more active and aggressive in its naval activities.

In some sense, these perceptions are accurate, at least so far as China’s planned evolution of capabilities are concerned. China’s economic growth has led to a major shift in the country’s resource needs. China now imports large amounts of raw materials, including oil and minerals, from the Middle East and Africa. As China grows more dependent upon the steady flow of these supplies, it has also grown concerned about the security of its supply lines.

China has long been a land power and its forays into international waters have been few and far between, despite a series of explorations along the Indian and African coasts in the 15th century. Redesigning and training its navy to take a more active role in maritime security is now a major focus of its recent military reforms and a key area is the ability to protect one of its main supply arteries through the Indian Ocean. Beijing has been cautious in this task as it faces opposition from India and the United States, both of which have a much stronger and more secure presence in the region, and both of which have little interest in seeing China significantly expand its naval capabilities.

The anti-piracy operations have given Beijing the perfect opportunity to test and refine its capabilities in a non-threatening manner, and talk of resupply bases — and thus a more permanent Chinese naval presence — is something Beijing is considering carefully but seriously. China is years, if not decades, away from having the ability to sustain a true blue water naval capability and even further from being able to truly challenge U.S. maritime dominance, but each step Beijing takes gives it the skills and experience necessary to make the next move forward. Taking a leadership role in SHADE also gives China a valuable opportunity to observe and learn the protocols and operations of other nations’ fleets — lessons it can apply to its own operations.

Beijing may be far from floating a blue water navy in any sustainable way, but China has recognized the vulnerability of its dependence on overseas resources and is actively working to improve its ability to protect its own supply lines. But when these lines match those of others with equal or even more severe dependencies, like Japan, or pass through competitor’s areas of strategic interest, like India or the United States, even a defensive intent can be perceived as potentially aggressive preparation or action. It is this sort of perception of capabilities that can quickly escalate into competition or an arms race and keep tensions high. It also creates room for misunderstandings and accidents — as we have already seen in China’s more active operations in the South China Sea, and in the U.S. moves to temper Beijing’s advances.
24235  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gays in the military on: January 29, 2010, 12:57:34 PM
Woof All:

I see that our CinC has proposed ending "Don't ask, don't tell" and allowing open gays in the military.

Although I am opinionated, as a lifelong civilian I must be humble here.  Thoughts from our military friends especially appreciated.

Lets kick things off with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM
24236  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Surveillance cameras on: January 29, 2010, 12:19:33 PM
From a thread started by our friend Cold War Scout on another forum:

Surveillance Cameras: How Does the Operator Contend With Them?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am posting this article because it is an example of the informal network of video cameras that exists out there in urban areas. It does not matter whether you like surveillance cameras or not, they are out there. Any police department worth its salt has figured out what level of connectivity exists out there which they can use as the basis for trying to determine a suspect's movements to/from a crime scene. Sometimes this allows for determining which vehicle a suspect ultimately got into (e.g. a parking lot) because the "network" only needs to track you to a point where an indentification can be established.

Ergo, when you talk about throw downs and throw aways, or smoking a dirtbag and simply fleeing, keep in mind that you could have the effectiveness of this informal network hanging over your head.


Police capture student's accused rapist
Scott McCabe
Examiner Staff Writer
January 28, 2010
Montgomery County police arrested a man accused of the sexual assault of a 19-year-old student, capping off a five-hour manhunt and the temporary lockdown of Montgomery College's Takoma Park campus. Nathaniel L. Hart, 34, was charged with two counts of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual offense and attempting to escape after arrest. Authorities shut down the campus around 3:30 p.m. Tuesday after a student reported that she had been raped in the bathroom of the performing arts center.Video footage led police to the Days Inn in Silver Spring, where they arrested Hart after officers noticed an open door of a room that hotel management said had been vacant.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Police-capture-student_s-accused-rapist-82808167.html#ixzz0e0wRBqqb
============

You might be well served right now to try and figure out where cameras are located in the areas you frequent and whether/how it is possible to avoid them (e.g. shopping centers, malls, traffic cameras on the main road outside your house).

There is a reason why talented bandits where layers of clothing. Police are looking for a man with a long sleeve blue flannel shirt, but bandit has pulled that off, thrown it away, and is now down to maybe long sleeve (or short sleeve) gray t-shirt. Same with pants. What started out as gray fleece sweat pants may wind up as blue jeans.

Hoodies and watch caps can be worth their weight in gold. Especially if you have flaming red hair or a Mohawk. Hoodies also seriously cut down the available angles and lighting in photo enhancements.

Is the logo on your jacket or shirt very distinctive or memorable? It might be to witnesses or a camera enhancement as well.

Are you driving a flaming red Hummer (or one of those yellow ones I see so many of)?

Wearing distinctive boots with a distinctive print? Running across a muddy field to your car?

So what thoughts come to YOUR mind as/if you need to successfully urban E and E?
===========

We put in a lot of these systems.

The factors that affect their usefulness for both actionable and forensic intel are:

1. Are the systems properly monitored?
2. Are they maintained?
3. Are they cohesive systems - ie all on one media server?
4. Do they store the video? Many places just store one day or not at all.
5. Do they have active detection software running? ( ie looks for a stopped car?)

Most university campuses have one system and its easy to put all cameras of interest on one pane of glass and then roll forward from a point in time. Universities are pretty good at 1-4. If they have a Dispatch/Security team looking at the systems actively, then they can respond pretty quick.

Many government agencies from airports to towns are not very good at 1-4. If they do 1-4 internally, then the chance is greater that the system is subpar - if they contract out the work of 1-4 then there is a greater chance its pretty good.

You could always slop some material on a camera and then come back a week later to see if they have cleaned it. If not, then the system is probably not a good one.

Public transit is the worst environment for tracking people. Most systems are not integrated because they are so big and there are too many people and they then dissappear into the urban environment.

Many urban roads have an ITS ( Intelligent Transportation System) running which has #5 - that detects stalled vehicles and some types of debris. Some will detect people on the road, too. Some campuses and other installations will detect movement as well.

If you had to do something specific, then you can create blind spots a few days before by disabling the systems in a random matter to reduce focus on your area of interest. You can use lasers or high power LED lights to disable the cameras in real time but would need to test this before hand on models under your control. Some cameras are wireless and you can jam their signals. Others will PTZ ( Pan-Tilt-Zoom) on movement.

These systems are not the all-seeing eyes.
=================

24237  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Master done on: January 29, 2010, 11:27:37 AM
After much misadventure (wife sick over the holidays, editor sick for a goodly part of January, etc.) the master disc for DLO 3 is now at long last finally DONE.  Today we choose a picture for the cover and I write the copy for the back.  We are getting very close , , ,
24238  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Stock Market on: January 29, 2010, 11:11:12 AM
See my post today on the "Fascism, Liberal Fascism" thread.
24239  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Little Rock AK attack by AQAP? on: January 29, 2010, 11:09:40 AM
On Jan. 12, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe), the man who allegedly shot and killed a U.S. soldier and wounded another outside a Little Rock, Ark., recruiting center in June 2009, wrote a letter to the judge in his case admitting his guilt and requesting to change his plea from innocent to guilty. In the letter, Muhammad also said he has ties to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and that he is part of “Abu Basir’s Army.” (Abu Basir is the honorific name, or kunya, for Nasir al-Wahayshi, the current leader of AQAP.)

If his claims are true — which is entirely possible — this is yet another example of AQAP striking targets far from Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula.

A Tennessee native and recent convert to Islam, Muhammad left Tennessee State University in September 2007 to travel to Yemen to learn Arabic and teach English. He was arrested in the southern Yemen city of Aden in November 2008 for overstaying his visa and was subsequently deported back to the United States months prior to the Arkansas attack.

Judging from Muhammad’s statement — which also claims, “this was [a] jihadi[st] attack on infidel forces that didn’t go as plan[ned]” — he appears to be a militant who undertook the type of “simple attack” that al-Wahayshi called for in late October 2009 — shortly before the Fort Hood shooting. In the analysis STRATFOR wrote on al-Wahayshi’s call for simple attacks (which was published the day before the Fort Hood shooting) we discussed the Little Rock shooting as an example of how easy as it is to conduct simple attacks using firearms.

It is also important to remember that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the perpetrator of the failed Christmas Day 2009 airline bombing, also was linked to AQAP. That attack demonstrated AQAP’s interest in targeting the United States, further supporting the premise that Muhammad could be linked to the group.

Considering the timing of the attacks and documented links between Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, a cleric who has been linked to AQAP, it will be even more important for the government to attempt to determine if both Hasan and Abdulmutallab were also a part of “Abu Basir’s army.”
24240  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Burqa bans coming? on: January 29, 2010, 11:02:37 AM
Summary
French proposals for a burqa ban have been echoed in the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. The proposed bans, which come at a time of economic uncertainty, are popular across the European political spectrum. While such a ban would affect a very small minority of Muslims in continental Europe, it could spark Muslim ire in Europe and abroad.

Analysis
German politicians from across the political spectrum called Jan. 28 for a French-styled ban on the Muslim face veil known as the niqab. The calls come just days after a Jan. 26 French parliamentary commission ruling in favor of a ban on the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body; the French ban also forbids wearing the niqab in public institutions. Voices in the governments of Italy and Denmark are joining calls for a similar ban, with Italian Minister for Equal Opportunity Mara Carfagna saying Jan. 27 that she was in absolute agreement with the French initiative, which she said will encourage other European countries to legislate on the issue.

A small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the niqab, and even smaller minority wears the burqa. Even so, the ban is becoming a symbol of the opposition to what is seen as excessive Muslim immigration to Europe.

Calls for a “burqa ban” are not new in France. French President Nicolas Sarkozy asked parliament to form a commission to consider the issue in June 2009, and the topic has been debated for years. With the negative consequences of the economic crisis in full swing across Europe and with regional elections scheduled for March in France, the burqa ban has returned to the forefront.

Calls for such a ban represent an easy way to score political points during a time when Europeans are worried about job and economic security, which explains why the debate in France has so quickly traveled to other European states. They follow the recent ban in Switzerland on the building of minarets, which was also picked up across Europe by various right-wing politicians as a useful way to score political points.

Burqa bans also appeal to the left, however. The left often sees the burqa and the niqab as an affront to women’s rights and personal dignity. In Germany, for example, the liberal Free Democratic Party, part of the current ruling coalition, favors some sort of a ban.

More broadly, widespread calls for policies like the burqa ban underlie growing native European resentment against Muslim immigrants. These resentments historically have become more intense and more accepted during times of economic crises — like the one under way in Europe.

How Muslims inside and outside Europe react to the growing resentment of Muslims within Europe remains an open question. The 2005 Danish cartoon controversy taught that such sensitive matters can whip up antagonism throughout the Muslim world. So far, the burqa ban debate has not had such an effect on Europe’s Muslim population, but a widespread European campaign to ban the niqab — which is more common than the burqa — could be interpreted as widespread anti-Muslim discrimination and invite a violent reaction in Europe and abroad. A possible mitigating factor is that while there was little argument among Muslims regarding the offensiveness of the cartoons caricaturing the prophet, many in the Muslim community — especially the European Muslim community — do oppose the niqab and burqa.
24241  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Iran on: January 29, 2010, 10:58:52 AM
second post

Iran’s To-Do List
WITH JUST A LITTLE UNDER TWO MONTHS to go before post-Baathist Iraq holds its second round of elections, Iraq’s Sunnis are being pushed into an all-too-familiar corner by Iran’s political allies in Baghdad. A Shiite-led government commission in Iraq is currently examining a list of 511 Sunni politicians who, depending on the commission’s final decision, could be deemed too Baathist to be considered eligible to participate in the elections. Meanwhile, in the Iraqi Shiite holy city of Najaf, the provincial council has ordered the expulsion of Sunni Baathists from the city. Any remaining Baathists, according to the local council, would face “an iron hand.”

This is quite disconcerting for the United States. The last time Iraq’s Shiite faction attempted to cut Iraq’s Sunnis out of the political process was in 2003 under a highly controversial debaathification policy that essentially drove the Sunnis toward insurgency as a means of regaining political power. At that time, the Iranians had a golden opportunity at hand: the fall of Saddam Hussein meant the door was wide open for Iran to establish a Shiite foothold in the heart of the Arab world. After initially facilitating the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Tehran spent the next several years working on locking down Shiite influence in Baghdad. Iran did so with the help of its political, intelligence, economic and militant assets, but was also greatly aided by the nuclear bogeyman.

Throughout the Iraq war, STRATFOR watched as Iran used its nuclear program as a bargaining chip with the United States to consolidate influence over Iraq. This isn’t to say that the Iranians were never seriously interested in a nuclear weapons program. Indeed, such a program would be a welcome insurance policy and status symbol for the Iranian regime. But Iran’s nuclear ambitions ranked second on its priority list. Iran’s primary goal was always Iraq, Iran’s historic rival.

“By creating a nightmare scenario for the United States in Iraq, Iran effectively multiplies the value of its cooperation to Washington.”
Roughly seven years later, Iran is now ready to move down that list of priorities. In the weeks leading up to the Iraqi elections, STRATFOR has seen our forecast of Iran’s power consolidation in Iraq come to fruition. The Iranian incursion and seizure of the al Fakkah oil well in southern Iraq was the first warning shot to the United States, followed by some very obvious signs that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki — long known for keeping his distance from Tehran -– was beginning to align with Iran’s political allies in Baghdad. In a diplomatic slap to Washington’s face, al Maliki’s spokesman Ali al Dabbagh said Tuesday that U.S. attempts to intervene in the Iraqi political process to save a place for the Sunnis in the government would “not achieve anything.” The message Tehran is telegraphing to Washington is clear: Iran –- not the United States — holds the upper hand in Iraq.

With Iraq under its belt, Iran can now afford to focus on its next objective: nuclear weapons. But this particular agenda item carries a load of complications for Tehran, the most obvious of which is the threat of a pre-emptive U.S./Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.

In a shifting of priorities, Iran is now effectively using Iraq as a bargaining chip with the United States in its nuclear negotiations. Iran can see how desperately the United States needs to disengage from Iraq to tend to other issues. The threat of a major Sunni insurgency revival could run a good chance of throwing those withdrawal plans off course. Iran can also see how the United States, with its military focus now on Afghanistan, is no longer in a position to provide the same security guarantees to the Sunnis as it could at the height of the 2007 surge. Therefore, by creating a nightmare scenario for the United States in Iraq, Iran effectively multiplies the value of its cooperation to Washington.

As intended, this leverage will prove quite useful to Tehran in its current nuclear tango with the United States. If the United States wants to avoid a major conflagration in Iraq, then, according to Iran’s agenda, Washington is going to have to meet Tehran’s terms on the nuclear issue and give serious pause to any plans for military action. Iran has already made this clear by officially rejecting the West’s latest proposal to remove the bulk of its low-enriched uranium abroad. Some might call this defiance, others might call it overconfidence, but at its core, this is a negotiation and Iran still holds a lot of cards.
24242  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: January 29, 2010, 10:55:48 AM
Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton: Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs
                                    under Bush:  Henry Paulsen of Goldman Sachs
                                    under BO:  Timothy Geithner of Goldman Sachs

From a recent email conversation:

"The real reason that AIG was bailed out was very simple.  All Swap sellers had special terms in their contracts that could be adverse to the Wall Street buyers.  AIG did not have these terms in their agreements at the "request" of Goldman Sacs.  Goldman ran all their Swaps through AIG.  And that is.............the rest of the story."

"I am sorry-- this went over my head a bit.  May I ask you to flesh this out?"

"I have to find the original article again, but here is the essence of it:

"Goldman Sachs demanded that one condition be placed in their Swaps that other firms did not demand.  As a result, Goldman used AIG most of the time.  If AIG had failed, then Goldman could never collect on the Swaps.  As well, when GS securitized loans, there were hundreds of millions of dollars in each pool.  Some went over one billion. The loans were sold to the investors, mutual funds, hedge funds, etc. These loans were headed for failure from Day One.
GS, after selling the loans, immediately took out Swaps on these pools.  They did not have to own the pools or loans to take out a SWAP.  I could even do it.  GS knew the loans would fail, so they took out the Swaps, betting against the loans and knowing that they would make significant amounts of money when the loans failed. GS would buy a Swap, say $20m, and then they would at times sell the Swap to other buyers.......for $40m.  Other times, they kept it, based upon the Pool.  GS was the biggest crook in all of this.  It was criminal what they did.  Yet Timmie and Paulie are covering for them.

"This will eventually come out, in about a decade or so.  Someone will write the definitive book on this. I would, but I would need someone from the Securitization side who understands this part much better than I do.  Actually, I have guy in mind who could do that.  He was former FDIC in the S&L crisis, and led the response team to bailing out banks then.  I am working with him on another project and it might be something to team up with him on the book."               
24243  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / USMC Sgt Proietto on: January 29, 2010, 10:45:02 AM
Profiles of Valor: U.S. Marine Corps MGySgt Peter Proietto
United States Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant Peter Proietto was serving in Afghanistan when, on March 12, 2003, his patrol was ambushed by Taliban fighters. As the other Marines in the forward element of the patrol sought cover, Proietto stayed in position -- exposed to enemy fire though he was -- in order to provide suppressive fire for the protection of his comrades.


ProiettoAs the firefight continued, Proietto bravely stayed at the machine gun atop his unarmored vehicle on an open road. The Team Sergeant advised him to leave that position for cover, but he stayed and fired on the enemy for almost an hour until he ran out of ammunition. When the ammunition was gone, he grabbed his M4 carbine and continued to engage the enemy. Soon, the Taliban were pushed from their positions. For his actions, Proietto received the Bronze Star with combat "V" for valor. His citation says he "displayed himself in a courageous professional manner and his heroic and immediate response to enemy fire and willingness to jeopardize his own safety to provide supporting fire for the rest of the team demonstrated a level of dedication to the mission and his fellow soldiers, which is rarely surpassed."
24244  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stratfor: Russia-Georgia on: January 29, 2010, 08:55:35 AM
January 27, 2010 | 2219 GMT



JACQUESCOLLET/AFP/Getty Images
Zurab Nogaideli in July 2006The leader of Georgian opposition party the Movement for a Fair Georgia, former Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli, said Jan. 26 that his party would like to form a partnership with United Russia, the ruling party in Russia led by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Nogaideli stated that “previous experience has shown that this kind of cooperation works,” adding that his recent visits to Moscow resulted in the release of detained Georgian teenagers from the breakaway region of South Ossetia as well as a resumption of civilian flights between Georgia and Russia.

Nogaideli’s proposal is indicative of a growing movement within the Georgian opposition that favors a more pragmatic and workable relationship with Russia than the strongly pro-Western and anti-Russian stance of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. While Saakashvili has grown increasingly unpopular among the Georgian public ever since the August 2008 Russo-Georgian war, the country’s opposition has been largely fractured, split between 14 or more parties unable to pose a united front against Saakashvili. That may now be changing, as significant elements of the opposition have seen the writing on the wall in Ukraine and have begun to rally around Nogaideli and his proven record of being able to work with the Russians.

A partnership between the Georgian opposition and the Russian ruling party, by far the most dominant political force in Russia, would be an unprecedented move. While United Russia has yet to respond officially to Nogaideli’s request, the very fact that it was made undoubtedly is pleasing to Moscow (and unpleasant to Saaskashvili). There will be much to discuss on Nogaideli’s upcoming trip to Moscow to meet with Putin in February.
24245  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Pension funds leveraging bonds? on: January 29, 2010, 08:09:24 AM
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/state-of-wisconsin-goes-insane-with.html

This sounds really unpromising , , ,
24246  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Washington, 1790; Justice Joseph Story on: January 29, 2010, 07:57:45 AM
"[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous." --George Washington, letter to Steptoe Washington, 1790

"The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story
24247  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Germany and Iran on: January 28, 2010, 11:22:07 PM
Obama Silent on Iran, Merkel Picks up the Slack
U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA presented the nation with his first ever State of the Union address on Wednesday. The speech focused almost entirely on domestic affairs, revealing the world’s sole superpower to be wholly engrossed in domestic politics and economic concerns. Barely one out of the approximately 16 and a half pages of the address looked beyond U.S. shores. There were no profound challenges to U.S. rivals as we have seen in previous speeches.

Geopolitically speaking, a global hegemon preoccupied with domestic concerns is significant in and of itself. Simply put, it means that its challengers can take note of the acrimonious political debates on the home front and hope to catch America distracted on a number of global issues. One such front is Iran, where the United States is engaged with its Western allies in trying to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. There was barely a mention of Iran in Obama’s State of the Union, aside from a fleeting reference to “growing consequences.” But this does not mean that Wednesday carried no developments on the issue of Iranian nuclear ambition; it just means that they did not occur in Washington.

We therefore turn to Berlin where German Chancellor Angela Merkel made her most forceful statement to date on the question of sanctions against the Iranian regime. Standing next to Israeli President Shimon Peres on Tuesday, Merkel said, “Iran’s time is up. It is now time to discuss widespread international sanctions. We have shown much patience and that patience is up.”

Tehran responded to the change in tone almost immediately, issuing a statement through the Iranian Deputy Minister of Intelligence on Wednesday that claimed that two German diplomats were involved in the December Ashura anti-government protests in Iran and were promptly arrested. The statement further alluded that “Western intelligence networks” were responsible for the protests. This leads one to wonder if Tehran was publicly linking the protests and covert activity on the part of the German government.

The spat between Iran and Germany makes for some interesting geopolitical drama. First, Germany’s relationship with Iran is not a recent phenomenon. Historically, Germany has always felt more comfortable expanding via the continental route. For example, it attempted to use the Berlin-Istanbul-Baghdad-Tehran path to compensate for its inability to break through the Skagerrak Strait and into the Atlantic due to the presence of the British navy. Furthermore, arriving late to the colonial game, Germany looked to expand its influence in the Ottoman and Persian territories where local rulers saw Berlin as a benign European power due to its status as the challenger nation.

“The spat between Iran and Germany makes for some interesting geopolitical drama.”
Fast forward to today. Tehran has relied on Germany as one of its most consistent supporters in the West. German businesses, particularly in the heavy industrial sector, exported nearly $6 billion worth of goods in 2008, a marked increase from barely $1 billion in 2000, especially considering the worsening relations between Tehran and the rest of the West’s powers. While trade with Iran only makes up around 0.4 percent of total German exports — on par with Berlin’s exports to Slovenia — industrial giants such as ThyssenKrupp and Siemens do a lot of business with Tehran, particularly in the steel pipe sector. Exports of steel pipe to Iran make up a sizable 18 percent of total global German exports of that particular sector and are valued at around $400 million, a sum Germany cannot ignore amidst rising unemployment and uncertain economic times.

As such, Germany has repeatedly looked to avoid cracking down on Tehran, keeping sanctions language constrained to the United Nations arena where it is clear that no progress can be made without a change in Russian and Chinese positions. However, Merkel’s comments seem to suggest that change may actually be afoot. This is particularly true when one puts them in the context of the announcement from Siemens on Wednesday that it plans to cut future trade relations with Iran, and by Hamburg-based ports company HHLA that it will cancel its planned agreement to modernize Iran’s Bandar-Abbas port. It should be noted that both companies have close ties to the German state.

To explain Germany’s change in tone we can point to two factors. One is increased pressure from the United States. STRATFOR sources have reported that German banks were facing up to $1 billion in fines from the United States for doing business with Iran. German banks — which are already hurting from the economic crisis and are almost certain to experience more pain in 2010 — are key in financing German exporters. A crackdown on their operations would have effectively forced them to stop providing credit to any business intending to export to Tehran. The second pressure came from Israel, whose intelligence services have close ties to German intelligence services, and whose entire Cabinet held a joint session with German intelligence officials last week. President Peres also came to Berlin to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, not the time for Berlin to eschew cracking down on Tehran’s Holocaust-denying government. The image of modern Germany being a friend to the state of Israel is very important to Berlin.

Merkel may have ultimately decided that with the elections in Germany behind her, the time to protect businesses in the face of American and Israeli pressure was over. On the other hand, she may have calculated that changing her tone on Iran would save German businesses that export to Tehran because the United States would then not crack down on banks that deal with export financing.

Whatever Berlin’s reasoning may be, it is important for us to determine whether it is merely a change in tone or a concrete change of policy. It is therefore going to require a careful study of Berlin’s moves in the coming weeks as the approaching February deadline — set by the international community for Tehran to comply with demands on its nuclear program — reveals just how serious Merkel is and whether she is willing to impose sanctions against Iran without a U.N. agreement. If Germany is serious about enforcing sanctions against Iran, it will place concrete pressure on Tehran, the kind of pressure that an entire U.S. State of the Union address dedicated to the Iranian nuclear program would not have been able to bear.
24248  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A thought piece on: January 28, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
 
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/25/recession-economy-government-monetary-opinions-columnists-wesbury-stein.html
 
 
Broke? Blame The Government
 
Brian S. Wesbury and Robert Stein, 01.26.10, 12:01 AM EST
The private financial system didn't cause the recession.
  
Last week President Obama announced a new set of policies to deal with financial institutions that are "too big to fail." While a debate about too-big-to-fail institutions and policy is important, a more critical set of issues is being ignored.

First the Federal Reserve should have followed a rule for monetary policy, such as using the growth rate of nominal gross domestic product to guide short-term rates, or a gold standard, or the Taylor rule. If they had, the federal funds rate never would have been cut to 1% in 2003 and housing over-investment would have been either nonexistent or much less damaging.

Second, if mark-to-market accounting rules had not been re-instituted in late 2007, loan problems would have never spread as far or as fast as they eventually did in 2008. Mark-to-market accounting rules are pro-cyclical in the extreme--there is a reason FDR got rid of them in 1938. These accounting rules--which require banks to price assets to illiquid market bids, even when cash-flows are unimpeded--turn a problem in the financial system into a catastrophe.

The banking crisis of the early 1980s, also largely created by easy Fed policy, had more loan losses than the beginning of the 2007-08 crisis. Adding the early '80s bad debts in agriculture, oil and Latin America to those of the Savings & Loan Industry created bank losses of roughly 6% of GDP. Subprime and Alt-A loan losses in 2007 were roughly 4% of GDP. But once mark-to-market accounting started to accelerate, even those smaller losses undermined confidence and created a vicious feedback loop which put the system in jeopardy. While some argue that it is too-big-to-fail institutions that create systemic risk, it's really misapplied government action and policy that creates this risk.

Government action and reaction is why a large (but nonlethal) set of banking losses spread so rapidly and turned into the Panic of 2008.

Instead of suspending mark-to-market accounting rules in 2008 the Fed, Treasury, SEC and FDIC arbitrarily saved certain firms while allowing others to fail. The crisis accelerated after Lehman Brothers ( LEHMQ - news - people ) collapsed, which then led to more government bailouts. Instead of allowing banks to value loans using cash-flow, the government forced these loans to be priced to illiquid market prices. When this put institutions in technical violation of arbitrary capital requirements, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson forced these banks to swallow TARP money and accept government ownership.

 
Many conservatives, who profess to believe in free markets, supported these government actions. In a de facto sense this support for government bailouts created a vacuum in Washington. People say, "If conservative Republicans supported emergency bank bailouts, then John Maynard Keynes must have been right. The free market system is inherently unstable. We need the government to save us from the animal spirit of greed." There are few left to defend free markets.

But Keynes wasn't right. It was government that caused the Panic of 2008, not the private financial system. If government had run a stable monetary policy and hadn't artificially boosted housing or enforced a dumb accounting rule, the Panic of 2008 would not have happened. Unfortunately, many leading conservatives do not see the world this way. They panicked in 2008 and supported government bailouts. This leaves them with little firm ground to stand on when debating the merits of more government action against banks.

With any luck, creative politicians can figure out how to circumvent this political stumbling block and focus on fixing the real problems of the financial crisis. Following a price rule for monetary policy would minimize the potential for bubbles, while suspending mark-to-market accounting would end the potential of a crisis spinning completely out of control.

Brian S. Wesbury is chief economist and Robert Stein senior economist at First Trust Advisors in Wheaton, Ill. They write a weekly columnfor Forbes. Brian S. Wesbury is the author of It's Not As Bad As You Think: Why Capitalism Trumps Fear and the Economy Will Thrive.

 
 
24249  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Fannie and Freddie on: January 28, 2010, 01:25:11 PM
The Congressional Budget Office has lopped $20 billion off its estimate of the cost of keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac afloat for the next decade—to a mere $79 billion. That will have to pass for good news, even if the estimate comes loaded with caveats. The bigger story is why the White House continues to keep these wards of the state off-budget.

As the CBO notes in a recent background paper, the standards for when to include government-sponsored entities in the budget go back to the 1960s, when a Presidential commission laid out a set of questions.

To wit: "Who owns the agency?" (In the case of Fan and Fred, taxpayers.) "Who supplies its capital?" (Taxpayers.) "Who selects its managers?" (The federal government.) And finally, "Do the Congress and the President have control over the agency's program and budget, or are the agency's policies the responsibility of the Congress or the President only in some broad ultimate sense?" (The feds have control in every sense.)

Since Hank Paulson placed them in conservatorship in September 2008, Fan and Fred have stopped even pretending to be run for profit. Losses have mounted accordingly: Some $291 billion for taxpayers through 2009, $48 billion for the cost of new business in 2009 alone, and $21 billion more this year. Last August, CBO estimated the 10-year cost to taxpayers of keeping Fannie and Freddie afloat at $389 billion.

Yesterday's estimate reduces that by some 5%, but this assumes the companies will stabilize at a loss rate of nearly $8 billion a year on average over the next decade. CBO bases its projection on an expectation that the housing market will "normalize" as the recession ends. However, there is no more normal in a housing market that now depends almost entirely on government subsidies. The full cost of subsidizing mortgages via Fannie and Freddie, the FHA and Ginnie Mae remains hidden and off the official balance sheet, so there is little political pressure to stop the losses.

As the CBO notes, Fannie and Freddie "purchase mortgages at above-market prices," driving down interest rates and passing some of the savings to home buyers. That subsidy is felt right away, but the risks in providing it are stored up over time, and their real costs may not be felt for years or even decades—as was the case in the years leading up to their spectacular collapse in 2008.

Yet this is precisely the fiction that the Obama Administration seeks to preserve by keeping the cost of Fan and Fred off the government's books. The Administration's budget accounting assumes Fannie and Freddie are private companies. So under its preferred treatment, the only recognized cost to taxpayers is the money that is being pumped in to keep them afloat—$110 billion so far.

That's plenty as it is, but in the wake of their government takeover, there is no justification for pretending that their risks aren't taxpayer risks. This is all the more true with the likes of New York Senator Chuck Schumer giving the companies marching orders to rescue tenants in the Stuyvesant Town development in Manhattan.

We suspect the real reason the White House wants Fan and Fred off budget is to disguise their real costs to taxpayers. They have become off-the-books subsidy engines for the housing lobby, and it is easier to push off the recognition of their losses to some future Administration and Congress rather than pay for them today. The new age of transparency has once again died aborning.
24250  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / SoCal Kaiser votes out SEIU on: January 28, 2010, 01:09:56 PM
The LA Times reports today that Kaiser Permanente health care workers have voted themselves out of SEIU by a 6 to 1 margin.  They are aligning with a break-away faction National Union of Health Care Workers.
Pages: 1 ... 483 484 [485] 486 487 ... 731
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!