John's Shadow

Why Today's "Recession" Tops The Great Depression

2011-09-28T17:44:00.001-06:00

Michael Sanibel, On Tuesday September 27, 2011, 4:15 pm EDT

When the stock market crashed in October 1929, it was only the beginning of a long period of economic decline and uncertainty that would last more than a decade. The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit bottom in July 1932 and would take another 25 years to regain what it lost in just 34 months.

The last three years have often been described as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. While the technical definition of a recession is two successive quarters of GDP decline, it would be hard to convince anyone that recent GDP growth indicates the recession is over. There's lots of debate over whether or not the economy is slipping back into a double-dip recession. There's also considerable evidence that what we're experiencing is actually worse than the 1930s and should be labeled a depression.

Here's a comparison between then and now.

National Debt
In June 1929, the cumulative national debt was $17 billion. Up until that point in time, the U.S. only went into debt during wartime. Moreover, once those wars ended, the government's first priority was to pay off the debt. When the depression started several months later, the government was not saddled with servicing a huge debt burden, as the debt was only about 16% of the Gross National Product.

Contrast that with the current debt approaching $15,000 billion, with an estimated annual interest cost of over $434 billion for 2011, even with the benefit of extremely low interest rates. That interest burden is a huge drag on the economy that didn't exist during the depression. As of 2010, the U.S. GNP was around $15,000 billion as well, leaving the country with a 100% debt to GNP ratio.

$4,500 billion of the current debt is owned by foreign governments, with almost one-half held by China and Japan. This gives these countries influence over U.S. foreign policy that may not be overt, but is there nonetheless. They could also cause financial chaos if they simultaneously sold their treasury holdings. This was not an issue in 1929.

Entitlement Programs
Beyond the current debt are the unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs that come due in the future. These are promises already made without funding to back them up, and are not included in the $15,000 billion debt. A USA Today analysis published in June 2011 estimated that these liabilities amount to about $62,000 billion, or $528,000 per household. This includes an additional $5,300 billion in liabilities added in 2010 alone, primarily for Social Security and Medicare. The difference in total revenues and spending obligations for the year amounted to more than one-third of GDP.

The current unfunded liabilities are more than five times the personal debt of the average household, including mortgages, loans and credit cards. That debt will experience exponential growth as the baby boomer generation adds 10,000 retirees per day to the entitlement program roles. Skyrocketing health care costs only add to the problem.

These programs resemble a Ponzi scheme in that today's working generation is paying the taxes to fund the payments to those currently collecting benefits. These programs didn't exist in 1929, so there was no burden on the taxpayers to come up with the money to pay for them.

Unemployment
It's difficult to compare unemployment statistics because the methodology used to estimate the data has changed over time. At the peak of the depression in 1933, it's estimated that unemployment reached 25% nationwide. That compares to the 9.1% rate for August 2011 published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics which identifies the labor pool as follows:

Employed - People with jobs
Unemployed - People who are jobless, looking for jobs and available for work
Not in the labor force - People who are neither employed nor unemployed
It's important to note that people in the last category are not counted in the unemployment rate calculation. If they were, the rate would be 7 to 10% higher. In addition, the federal deficit of $1,600 billion is paying for about 9 million jobs that wouldn't exist if the budget were balanced. Eliminate those jobs and the unemployment rate jumps again. Adding in these missing elements brings today's adjusted rate to at least 22 to 25%, higher than the average 18% rate from 1930 to 1940.

On top of that, the savings rate for those with jobs plummeted from about 10% in the 70s and 80s to -1% in 2007. That portends a bleak future for consumer spending.

Home Prices
By the first quarter of 2011, home prices had dropped 33% below the 2006 peak reached in most areas of the U.S. This compares to the 31% drop experienced during the depression. It took nearly two decades to recover the lost equity. Whether or not housing has reached bottom yet is an open question, despite historically-low interest rates and generous government incentives.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Government spending is included in GDP, which totaled $14,700 billion for fiscal year 2010. Part of that amount was $1,600 billion of deficit spending, which artificially inflated GDP by 12%. If the deficit is deducted from the total GDP, there has been no GDP growth in the U.S. in the past four years. This means that the government can create the illusion of recovery and prosperity by simply going into more debt.

The debt/GDP ratio hasn't been above 100% since World War II, and we are on a path to exceed that very soon if we don't significantly reduce spending. If the unfunded liabilities are added in, the ratio is already an astonishing 500%.

The Bottom Line
In 1929, the U.S. dollar was backed by gold. Now it's backed by nothing more than your faith. In 1929, credit cards and home equity loans didn't exist, and people of that era avoided debt like the plague. Today personal debt levels are near all-time highs. Iconic companies like General Motors and Lehman Brothers survived the depression without government help or bankruptcy relief, but that didn't happen this time around.

In 1929 we didn't face terrorist threats and weren't worried about a porous border allowing an influx of millions of illegal aliens. The high price of oil, oppressive regulatory environment, $40 billion monthly trade imbalance, bloated federal bureaucracy, ballooning state deficits, severely underfunded pensions, crippling tax burden and crumbling infrastructure weren't issues then either. They are now.

It's clear that the trillions of dollars borrowed and printed by the government are masking an extremely weak financial condition that has been in a downward spiral for many years. Calling it a recession instead of a depression doesn't change the stark reality.

USA becomes Food Stamp Nation but is it sustainable? - Yahoo! News

2011-08-22T19:10:00.000-06:00

By Kristina Cooke | Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Genna Saucedo supervises cashiers at a Wal-Mart in Pico Rivera, California, but her wages aren't enough to feed herself and her 12-year-old son.
Saucedo, who earns $9.70 an hour for about 26 hours a week and lives with her mother, is one of the many Americans who survive because of government handouts in what has rapidly become a food stamp nation.
Altogether, there are now almost 46 million people in the United States on food stamps, roughly 15 percent of the population. That's an increase of 74 percent since 2007, just before the financial crisis and a deep recession led to mass job losses.
At the same time, the cost doubled to reach $68 billion in 2010 -- more than a third of the amount the U.S. government received in corporate income tax last year -- which means the program has started to attract the attention of some Republican lawmakers looking for ways to cut the nation's budget deficit.
While there are clearly some cases of abuse by people who claim food stamps but don't really need them, for many Americans like Saucedo there is little current alternative if they are to put food on the table while paying rent and utility bills.
"It's kind of sad that even though I'm working that I need to have government assistance. I have asked them to please put me on full-time so I can have benefits," said the 32-year-old.
She's worked at Wal-Mart for nine months, and applied for food stamps as soon as her probation ended. She said plenty of her colleagues are in the same situation.
So are her customers. Bill Simon, head of Wal-Mart's U.S. operations, told a conference call last Tuesday that the company had seen an increase in the number of shoppers relying on government assistance for food.
About forty percent of food stamp recipients are, like Saucedo, in households in which at least one member of the family earns wages. Many more could be eligible: the government estimates one in three who could be on the program are not.
"If they're working, they often think they can't get help. But people can't support their families on $10, $11, $12 an hour jobs, especially when you add transport, clothes, rent." said Carolyn McLaughlin, executive director of BronxWorks, a social services organization in New York.
The maximum amount a family of four can receive in food stamps is $668 a month. They can only be used to buy food -- though not hot food -- and for plants and seeds to grow food.
Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all made efforts to raise awareness about the program and remove the stigma associated with it.
In 2004, paper coupons were replaced with cards similar to debit cards onto which benefits can be loaded. In 2008 they were renamed Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits though most people still call them food stamps.
Despite the bipartisan support for the program in the past, some of the recent political rhetoric has food stamp advocates worried.
Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich last year derided Democrats as "the party of food stamps". And Republican leaders in the House of Representatives propose changing the program so that the funding is through a "block grant" to the states, rather than allowing it to grow automatically when needed due to an emergency, such as a natural disaster or economic crisis.
In some parts of the country, shoppers using food stamps have almost become the norm. In May 2011, a third of all people in Alabama were on food stamps -- though part of that was because of emergency assistance after communities were destroyed by a series of destructive tornadoes. Washington D.C., Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon and Tennessee all had about a fifth of their population on food stamps that month.
"Food stamps have traditionally been insulated from politics," said Parke Wilde, professor of U.S. food policy at Tufts University. "But as you look over the current fiscally conservative proposals, the question is, has something fundamentally changed?"
A LOW WAGE SUPPORT PROGRAM
Over the past 20 years, the characteristics of the program's recipients have changed. In 1989, a higher percentage were on benefits than working, but as of 2009 a higher percentage had earned income.
"SNAP is increasingly work support," said Ed Bolen, an analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
And that's only likely to get worse: So far in the recovery, jobs growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, with minimal growth in middle-income wages as many higher-paid blue collar jobs have disappeared.
And 6 percent of the 72.9 million Americans paid by the hour received wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2010. That's up from 4.9 percent in 2009, and 3 percent in 2002, according to government data.
Bolen said just based on income, minimum wage single parents are almost always eligible for food stamps.
"This becomes an implicit subsidy for low-wage jobs and in terms of incentives for higher wage job creation that really is not a good thing," said Arindrajit Dube, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, whose research shows raising the minimum wage would spur economic activity.
Until a couple of weeks ago Tashawna Green, 21, from Queens Village, New York, worked 25 hours a week at an $8.08 hourly rate at retailer Target. She is on food stamps, and says a good number of her former colleagues are too.
"It's a good thing that the government helps, but if employers paid enough and gave enough hours, then we wouldn't need to be on food stamps," said Green, who has a six-year-old daughter.
Of course, with an unemployment rate over 9 percent, some argue that those with any job at all are lucky.
Millions of Americans whose unemployment benefits have expired have to exist only on food stamps and other government aid, such as Medicaid healthcare support. [nN1E7660K4]
And even with unemployment benefits, said Jessica King, 25, from Portland, Oregon, her family juggles bills to ensure the electricity stays on. They are also selling some belongings on Craigslist to raise funds.
King's husband Stephen, 30, an electronics assembly worker, lost his job two months ago when she was seven months pregnant with their second child. It was the third time he has been laid off since 2008.
She said she was reluctant, initially, to go on food stamps.
"I felt the way our national debt was going I didn't want to be part of the problem," said King, who used to work as a cook at a faith-based non-profit organization.
"But I didn't know what else to do and I got to a point where I swallowed my pride and decided to do what was best for my daughter."

Is this where USA is headed?

2011-07-29T17:51:00.000-06:00

Special report: Is Israel Inc. too powerful?
By Tova Cohen and Ari Rabinovitch | Reuters

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - It took a two week-long cottage cheese rebellion to get Israelis to question the power of the country's tycoons.
Angry about high prices, consumers boycotted the beloved dairy product last month. As containers of cheese piled up on supermarket shelves, the country's richest people became the focus of the sort of media attention normally given to politics and homeland security.
Newspapers and television stations, which civic groups have long criticized for ignoring the massive concentration of corporate power in a small group of Israeli business groups and families, made the boycott a top story for days.
"I woke up this morning smeared in cottage cheese," Muzi Wertheim, a business magnate who controls one of the country's largest dairy producers, said during a speech at a Tel Aviv university at the peak of the protest.
Cottage cheese might be just the beginning. Last October the Israeli government set up a committee to explore the level of competition in the economy. The committee is expected to present its findings in several weeks.
The Bank of Israel already says the country has one of the highest concentrations of corporate power in the developed world. A scathing parliamentary report from June last year found that 10 large business groups control 30 percent of the market value of public companies, while 16 control half the money in the entire country.
That's far more than in western economies such as the UK, Spain or Germany. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which last year admitted Israel as a member, said Israel's level of corporate concentration is problematic.
If the government committee agrees with those assessments it could recommend breaking up the biggest oligopolies and opening Israel's market to new competition and investment, both foreign and local. Though nothing has been decided, change looks increasingly likely.
"These large business groups may have helped Israel's economy when it was younger, but it's now a developed market, and it will be hard to keep up the current rate of growth in this situation," said one official familiar with the deliberations. "The committee members are aware of this. Breaking them up will help competition and growth."
Such a move would have huge implications for tycoons such as Wertheim, whose dairy business is just one part of an empire that includes the country's fourth-largest bank, Coca Cola bottling company and a primary share in one of its largest real estate firms. Like many of Israel's other magnates Wertheim also owns a large stake in a popular media organization.
A number of the larger holding companies have fought back, arguing to the commission, Reuters has learned, that regulations are already so strict that they have forced Israel Inc. to invest abroad rather than locally.
In a rare public comment Nochi Dankner, chairman and controlling shareholder of IDB Holding which owns everything from a mobile phone operator to an insurance firm, told Reuters that Israel's "robust financial system" was a result of "clever and strict" regulation.
"I cannot find any rationale to shake it," Dankner said in his emailed comments. "The most important mission of the regulation is to keep and augment the stability, beyond any other consideration. Separation of financial holdings and real holdings definitely rocks the financial system, not stabilizes it."
ISRAEL'S PYRAMIDS
Concentration in Hebrew is often called "hon v'shilton", which means "fortune and governance", but refers more to the close relationship between the two.
"We see the 'fortune' walking through the halls of parliament," parliamentary speaker Reuben Rivlin said in a radio interview last month. "'Fortune' is more and more taking control of the judgment of the people sent by the public to safeguard the state of Israel and its interests."
One of the problems, according to the OECD, is that Israel's big business houses exert control through "cascading ownerships, pyramidal structures and cross-holdings".
In a pyramid structure, a holding company controls a subsidiary, which then controls its own subsidiaries, and so on until the top of the pyramid can technically control a company at the bottom with less than 10 percent of the capital.
Dankner's IDB is a classic pyramid, though he and his partners have stakes of at least 30 percent in all of the company's major holdings. At the top sits IDB Holding which controls IDB Development which in turn controls several other holding companies. Consumers may not know it but they come into contact with the bottom of the pyramid when they do something as simple as walking into a shopping mall. They might visit Super-Sol, Israel's largest supermarket chain, shop at Golf and Co., one of the biggest fashion and homeware chains, or buy a mobile phone from Cellcom, Israel's largest mobile operator.
After that, they might visit an Internet cafe and go online using one of Israel's top Internet providers Netvision, or stop by a branch of travel agency Diesenhaus to book a flight on Israir. The floor they walk on is likely to be built with cement from Nesher, Israel's only cement producer.
Every one of those companies and products are ultimately controlled by IDB.
And IDB is not the only such company. The Delek Group, controlled by billionaire Yitzhak Tshuva, boasts an impressive array of assets from several giant natural gas fields to automotive, cable TV, biochemical and insurance companies.
Israel's richest family, the Ofers, control through their holding firm Israel Corp the world's sixth-largest potash firm, Israel's largest shipping company and oil refinery. They are also the biggest investor in the Better Place electric car venture.
Israel's richest woman, Shari Arison, through the Arison group controls the country's second largest bank and largest construction company, which is in talks to buy geothermal energy producer Ormat Industries.
Besides IDB's Dankner, none of these groups agreed to talk to Reuters.
"PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES"
Last year's parliamentary report pointed out that most of Israel's banks are also controlled by such groups, offering the conglomerates access to easy credit, often at the expense of smaller businesses. This is a recipe for risky decision-making, the Bank of Israel said in its 2009 annual report, and because it is difficult to regulate these powerful groups with their complex structures, they pose a systemic risk.
A survey by the Calcalist financial news website showed that 10 of the biggest tycoons will have to pay back bondholders 24 billion shekels ($6.9 billion) in the next two years, raising concern that they may not be able to meet all of their obligations.
"People make mistakes, and if you don't create a distribution of power and you allow one person to make mistakes for all of us, the likelihood is that when a mistake occurs it will be huge and very costly," said Daniel Doron, founder of the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress (ICSEP).
That could now change. According to one source with knowledge of the competition committee's deliberations, the committee is likely to take aim at both the pyramid structures as well as the close links between financial institutions -- banks and insurance companies -- and "real" businesses such as supermarkets or refineries.
INDEPENDENT MEDIA?
Israel is well known for its raucous free press. Its newspapers and news broadcasts swing freely and mercilessly at politicians, and no one, not even the prime minister, is spared. But in the past decade newspapers and television news channels have become a popular investment for the country's business elite, despite, or perhaps because of, the media industry's financial woes.
Most Israeli media companies are now controlled on some level by one of the large business houses. Has that stifled debate about the concentration of power in the Israeli economy?
In a rare interview last September, Dankner dismissed the issue as part of the "populist agenda". Asked by newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth whether he, as head of one of Israel's largest holding companies, had too much power, Dankner replied: "Unequivocally no. There are dozens of other people in Israel with more power."
Nine months later, Dankner bought one of Israel's largest-circulating newspapers, Maariv. To assuage concerns about potential conflicts of interest in coverage, he wrote a letter to the paper's staff urging them to, "please maintain your integrity, professionalism, independence and freedom of expression -- including critical coverage of the IDB group, its subsidiaries and its managers, including myself."
Just a few weeks after that, Russian oil tycoon Leonid Nevzlin bought a 20 percent stake in Haaretz, another leading newspaper. The two new media magnates joined Eliezer Fishman, who made his fortune in real estate and runs the financial newspaper Globes, and American casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who founded the popular, free daily Yisrael Hayom.
Some of Israel's main television stations are also controlled in one form or other by the business elite. Yossi Maimon, primary shareholder of energy companies Ampal and Merhav, is chairman of Channel 10 television. Its main competitor Channel 2 is partly owned by dairy king Wertheim, the Tshuva family, and the Ofers. Israel's Russian-language TV station is run by billionaire Lev Leviev, owner of holding company Africa Israel Investments.
While it is not unusual in other parts of the world for media companies to be part of much bigger conglomerates, critics in Israel say the tremendous influence wielded by a handful of business groups has weakened the country's media in recent years.
"Israel needs today, more than ever, an independent, professional press that will protect the free market and meritocracy, and will not bow to the interests of a handful of groups," said Guy Rolnik, founder and editor in chief of TheMarker, one of Israel's most influential financial newspapers, and a leading critic of the concentration of economic power. "Without an independent press, Israel will become a sad version of the crony-capitalism that we see in many lagging countries in the world."
Well-known Israeli reporter Micky Rosenthal said he faced intimidation and harassment while working on a 2008 documentary "The Shakshuka System" that investigated the connection between money, governance and media in Israel.
"The commercial television stations, which are controlled by the business magnates, refused to broadcast the movie," the filmmakers wrote on their website. The documentary was eventually aired on a less popular state-run channel.
The major newspapers and television stations all argue that their news operations are unaffected by corporate stakeholders, old or new. Maariv said its editorial staff is "independent and enjoys total journalistic freedom". Haaretz, Channel 2 and Channel 10 offered similar comments.
PUSH BACK
Not every Israeli company is part of a pyramid or conglomerate, of course. Pharmaceutical giant Teva, Israel's most actively traded company, has no controlling shareholder and is not connected to any holding company. Much of Israel's fast-growing high-tech and biotech sectors are backed by foreign and Israeli venture capital rather than local tycoons.
And some see benefits in Israel's top-heavy economy. Colin Mayer, a professor at Said Business School at the University of Oxford, says that a concentration of power in a few holding companies can lead to poor corporate governance. But he also believes that such groups emphasize long-term goals and encourage economic stability, in contrast to the focus on short-term gains in places such as the United States and Britain.
For their part, Israel's big holding companies argue that regulations already discourage investment in the country and hope any reform is minimal.
Dankner told Reuters that the government should "look abroad" before it breaks up Israel's holding companies. "There is no such separation in Europe, and also the U.S. leading business groups -- such as Berkshire Hathaway and GE -- hold financial and real holdings side by side," he said.
The government has hinted that it will take such facts into account. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz told Reuters earlier this month that while the government wants to increase competition, "we have to be very careful, very calculated, in order not to cause any damage in this process. Not every proposal that seems rational at the outset is really positive."
If there is a move to break up some companies, there could be opportunities for foreign investors wary of the complex structure of holding companies, according to Deutsche Bank analyst Richard Gussow.
And if not, expect more consumer boycotts. In late June, aware that public opinion was moving against them, Israel's three big dairy companies simultaneously dropped the price of cottage cheese. But rather than appease consumers, the move fueled public distrust that the prices had been bloated.
A popular public advocacy group called the Civic Action Forum is now running a campaign against concentration in the economy. It's slogan: "It's not the cheese, it's the system!"
($1=3.47 shekels)

Help differentiating interest rates from APY

2011-07-07T11:48:00.002-06:00

Understanding Interest Rate and APY
by Debbie Dragon

Understanding the different terms used to describe interest rates can be confusing at first. Generally you will see the term interest rate mentioned, along with APR or APY, so what’s the difference? Using APR and APY calculations to compare various investments and the real cost of a purchase requires that you understand what each of these terms mean, and how interest is calculated and compounded.

Interest rate
The “interest rate” is the simplest term to understand. It simply means the amount of interest that will be paid on an investment you make; or the amount charged on a loan per year. It may seem that this is all you need to know and when looking at deposit products that pay simple interest, it pretty much is. Interest rates get slightly more confusing to calculate and make sense of when there is compounding involved.

Simple Interest
Simple interest is just that and is typically used with savings bonds. It means if you invest $1,000 at 5% interest, at the end of the year you will receive a $50 check. At the end of next year you will receive another $50 check. This will happen every year for the length savings bond term. Simple.

Compounding Interest
The problem is most of us don’t want to receive a small check in the mail each year for the interest we earn. Instead, we want to leave the interest earned in the account and let it grow over time. When the interest earnings are left in the account, the balance of your money grows and the interest is calculated on that total balance.

In this scenario, during the second year you really should earn more than $50 in interest since the bank has $1,050 of your money, instead of just the original $1,000. This act of receiving a larger amount each year due to being paid interest on the prior year’s interest is known as compounding. Here’s a table that shows how your original $1,000 investment would grow over 10 years.

Year Starting Balance Interest Ending Balance
1 $1,000 $50.00 $1,050.00
2 $1,050.00 $52.50 $1,102.50
3 $1,102.50 $55.13 $1,157.63
4 $1,157.63 $57.88 $1,215.51
5 $1,215.51 $60.78 $1,276.29
6 $1,276.29 $63.81 $1,340.10
7 $1,340.10 $67.01 $1,407.11
8 $1,407.11 $70.36 $1,477.47
9 $1,477.47 $73.87 $1,551.34
10 $1,551.34 $77.57 $1,628.91
By year 10 in this example, you are earning $77.57 in interest compared to $50 in the first year. The growth is very gradual at 5%, but with higher returns and longer investment periods the compounding effect is much more dramatic. A retirement account funded with a single $1,000 initial investment, that averages 12% return for 40 years, will earn $9,969.75 in the 40th year alone thanks to compounding interest.

Compounding Period
In the previous example, interest was paid on the investment once per year, which means it has an annual compounding period. In this case the APY and interest rate paid on the investment are identical. However, most banks offer more frequent compounding periods. Common values are quarterly, monthly, weekly or even daily. In these situations, you will be paid 1/4th of the 5% each quarter, 1/12th of it each month or 1/365th of it each day. So what’s the difference? Isn’t it still 5% a year no matter how you slice it?

No, it’s not. The reason is the same compounding effect that happened each year in the previous example, also starts to happen on a much smaller scale with more frequent compounding periods, which results in better returns. Where earning 5% once per year earned $50 in the previous example, earning 1/12th of 5%, or 0.417% each month will yield you $51.20 thanks to the compounding interest effect taking place on a monthly basis. It may seem like a small difference but this adds up over time.

APY
What if one bank is offering 5.1% interest compounded annually and another is paying 5.0% interest compounded daily. How do you know which one is better? Without doing a bunch of math every time you want to compare another offer, you really can’t tell. This is where the APY comes in handy.

APY stands for annual percentage yield. It takes into account the interest rate and compounding period to give you a single number that represents how much you will earn from that investment in one year. In the example in the previous section where you earned $51.20 thanks to your account compounding monthly, that account would have an APY of 5.12%, even though the interest rate on it was 5.00%. This gives you a single number that allows you to easily compare one bank’s offerings to another.

APY is similar to APR or Annual Percentage Rate. The difference is APY is used with deposit accounts where you are earning the interest and APR is used to describe the rate you pay on loans. APR also factors in loan fees that must be paid, which is not applicable in APY calculations for deposit accounts.

Calculating APY
Most banks publish the APY for their accounts just as prominently as the interest rate so it’s rare that you would ever need to calculate it, but I know there are some math junkies out there who want a simpler way than putting together an Excel spreadsheet with a repeating formula. Here’s how you do it.

APY = (1 + InterestRate / CompoundingCycles)CompoundingCycles - 1

To give you an example, with the 5% interest rate, compounding 12 times per year the formula would be:

APY = (1 + 0.05 / 12)^12 - 1
APY = 0.05116
APY = 5.12%

Blended APY
Some accounts pay different rates based on how much you have invested, known as tiered rates. For example, you may earn 3% on balances under $10,000 and 4% on balances over $10,000. In most cases if you deposit more than $10,000 you will receive the 4% on the entire balance, but in some cases you will only receive the 4% on the portion of the balanced. This is known as a blended APY.

Banks that offer blended APYs are required to list the rate for the higher tier as a range. Instead of just showing 4% in this example, the APY will show 3%-4% because the APY you receive on the entire balance will vary based on how much you deposit. This can make it difficult to compare rates between banks. Is this account better or worse than one that pays 3.5% on your entire balance?

It depends on how much you have invested. If you have $15,000 invested, the first $10,000 will earn 3% and the remaining $5,000 will earn 4% for a average return, or blended APY of 3.33% making the 3.55 flat rate a better deal, but if you plan to invest $50,000, the blended APY jumps to 3.80%. To calculate the blended APY you use the formula.

Blended Apy = (Amount1 * Rate1 + Amount2 * Rate2) / Total Amount

For the $15,000 example it would be:

Blended Apy = ($10,000 * 0.03 + $5,000 * 0.04) / $15,000
Blended Apy = ($300 + $200) / $15,000
Blended Apy = 3.33%

Evil Incarnate

2011-05-19T21:34:00.001-06:00

513 Migrants in Two Trucks: X-Ray View of Human Smuggling

By IOAN GRILLO / MEXICO CITY

From the road, the two tractor-trailers looked like thousands of others that drive daily through southern Mexico lugging cement, bananas and other Central American goods. But when Mexican police officers shined an X-ray on the trucks, they saw an alarming cargo. Hundreds of men and women were crammed like sardines in a tin, squatting on the floor or grasping ropes to avoid getting crushed. There were seven people for every square yard (0.83 sq m), a stunning 513 migrants in total in the two trucks, traveling in near suffocating temperatures of over 105°F (40°C). It was the biggest human-smuggling bust in Mexico's recent history. The passengers had each paid $7,000 to try and sneak through Mexico into the U.S. The people in the trailers will now be sent, penniless, back to their homelands, mostly Guatemala or El Salvador but some as far afield as India and Nepal.
The megabust once again focuses attention on the perilous conditions of migrants in Mexico and the government's efforts to police them. Every year an estimated 300,000 undocumented travelers pour through Mexico and over the Rio Grande in search of the American Dream. Under pressure from Washington, Mexican security forces have been rounding them up in ever greater numbers. But amid the drug war, Mexico's southern border has become increasingly lawless, with cartel paramilitaries carrying out brutal massacres to control smuggling routes. The same cartels also prey on the migrants, carrying out mass kidnappings in exchange for ransom. In the face of such terror, migrants have resorted to more desperate ways to go north, as shown by the tractor-trailers.
The issue has divided Mexico and its traditional Central American friends. The governments of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have all condemned criminal violence against their citizens in Mexico, especially the massacre of 72 migrants by cartel gunmen in August. Meanwhile, some activists in Mexico ask why their government should play the migrant cop of the U.S. when hundreds of thousands of its own citizens also sneak over the Rio Grande looking for jobs. One of the most vocal activists, Catholic priest Alejandro Solalinde, has proposed that Mexico give the migrants passes to travel legally, free of the harassment of police officers or gangsters. "If they don't change this law soon, then more people are going to suffer and more are going to die," Solalinde said as he joined a protest against drug violence in Mexico City earlier this month.
In a recent visit by TIME to a shelter run by Solalinde in the southern Mexican town of Ixtepec, migrants told of a terrifying journey north. A Honduran named Edwin described running into 15 gunmen from the dreaded Zetas criminal army when he was jumping freight trains. The gangsters held Edwin half starved for four months until his family wired a ransom of $1,400 for his release. "The only thing that goes through your head is that you are going to die. You think they are going take to you someplace and it is all going to end," said Edwin, who asked that his full name not be used, for fear of repercussion. The abductions have helped gangsters earn tens of millions of dollars. Mexico's National Human Rights Commissions documented 20,000 such migrant kidnappings in 2010.
The cartels have a more direct way of making money off migrants: by taxing the human smugglers. The gang that operated the two busted tractor-trailers would have made some $3.5 million in total from the trip - and would have typically paid 20% of that to a cartel for protection. A Salvadoran migrant in the shelter said that some smugglers boast that they are working with the Zetas - because paying the gangsters ahead of time is the only way to avoid getting their passengers kidnapped by the fearsome thugs. Migrants said the gangsters now tax anyone making the final crossing over the Rio Grande into the U.S. - with the travelers either paying as individuals or through migrant smugglers. Human smuggling has thus become entwined with the drug cartels in a number of ways.
Even as Mexican security tackles the issue by sending back migrants and going after gangsters, there are charges that government officials are in cahoots with human-smuggling rackets. Mexico's National Immigration Institute announced this week that it plans to clean house and fire some 350 officials following accusations of corruption, including moonlighting with drug gangs. On May 17, police arrested two immigration officials in the southern state of Chiapas for pimping out Central American women as prostitutes. Solalinde says these charges are only the tip of the iceberg and Mexican police and officials have been profiting from the abuse of migrants on an enormous scale.
However, President Felipe CalderÓn's government argues that busts similar to the Chiapas one show how it clearly is dealing with the abuse of migrants. In recent weeks, soldiers have also rescued hundreds of migrants who were kidnapped and held in various Zeta safe houses. Interior Secretary Francisco Blake Mora flew over the southern Mexican border in a helicopter on May 18 and promised that the government will fortify the area against organized crime. "CalderÓn has instructed us to give priority attention to this region," Mora said. He also offered solidarity with the Guatemalan government over a massacre of 29 people there by alleged Zetas on May 15. "This shameful action shows the savageness and the barbarism of these criminals," he said.
Despite the double risk of police and gangsters, there is no sign of the migrant tide through Mexico abating. Most Central American nations suffer poor economic growth, high unemployment and rock-bottom wages - and the U.S. is still an attractive destination, with Mexico as the transit zone. The Honduran migrant Edwin says he would love to stay in his homeland but sees no future there. "In my country, things are very difficult, and I have no option but to risk a journey through here," he said in Mexico before boarding a freight train that was headed north. "I hope to God it will be all right."

Incredible! What a feat!

2010-12-15T09:01:00.001-07:00

Diver plunges 100 meters, unassisted on one breath, to set world record
By: Pete Thomas, GrindTV.com

William Trubridge on Monday accomplished what had long been regarded as an impossible feat: swimming to a depth of 100 meters, or 328 feet, on a single breath and with only hands and feet for propulsion.

The New Zealander did not use swim fins; he wore no weights and required no heavy sled during the descent. Nor did he use an inflatable airbag to swiftly reach the surface after his dive.

Rather, he set a new unassisted freediving record and achieved the historic 100-meter mark -- previously attained only in an assisted manner, with weighted sleds and airbags -- while wearing only a thin wetsuit and displaying remarkable power of mind over body.

"It's different than when you use sleds and airbags," Trubridge said of a his dive, made at Dean's Blue Hole in the Bahamas. "Because when you turn around at 100 meters and start swimming back to the surface with just your hands and feet, it can be a little bit daunting because of how much water you have over your head."

A diver cannot always see the surface at 328 feet. It's more than three times deeper than what's considered safe for recreational scuba divers, who must ascend from any significant depth at a painstakingly slow pace to avoid developing embolisms in the bloodstream, associated with breathing compressed air.

Trubridge held his breath for 4 minutes, 10 seconds, from start to finish. In reaching 100 meters he matched a depth first attained by a freediver in 1976, when Jacques Mayol completed his dive using a weighted sled and inflatable airbag. Mayol's exploits were legendary. The Frenchman was portrayed in the 1988 adventure movie "The Big Blue," which delved into the obscure sport of freediving.

Trubidge's accomplishment, however, reveals how far breath-hold diving has evolved, and to what extreme the human body and mind are capable of coping. At 100 meters, lungs fill with blood as a natural means of preventing their collapse. The heart rate slows to the point where a diver can become disoriented, feeling either sleepy or euphoric.

"So you need to stay focused with all of those things going on," said Trubridge, who has dominated the unassisted category of breath-hold diving since achieving 80 meters for a then-record in 2007.

Trubridge, an instructor at the Vertical Blue Apnea Academy in the Bahamas, named his long-planned endeavor Project Hector and was trying to raise awareness for Hector's Dolphins, diminutive mammals that are endemic to New Zealand and face the threat of extinction, largely because of indiscriminate fishing methods and pollution.

The freediver requests that anyone interested in learning more about the dolphins visit the New Zealand Whale and Dolphin Trust website.

Good story about building a franchise

2010-11-25T12:17:00.001-07:00

Kraft parlays parking lots into thriving franchise

By Les Carpenter, Yahoo! Sports
Nov 24, 2:38 pm EST

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. – On a set of muddy, undulating parking lots along the road to Providence, R.I., Robert Kraft saw an empire. Where an old stadium and a dilapidated race track and a mobile home park met the woods, a Boston businessman could imagine a gleaming new sports palace and a shopping center and people flocking day after day after day.

This was 25 years ago and Kraft was about to make the first of three strategic moves that eventually landed him the New England Patriots. The purchase has propelled him to being perhaps the most influential owner in the NFL with a franchise that Forbes values as third best in the league, at $1.37 billion, while possessing three Super Bowl titles and a coach and quarterback widely considered to be the best in the sport.

“I see the young players today coming from the parking lots to the practice field, they have no idea of this,” the 69-year-old Kraft said one day just before the start of this season as he gazed out the window of his Gillette Stadium office toward the shopping plaza he ultimately built. “When I bought the team our players had to get into their unis and drive five miles, like Pop Warner, to a practice field that was part of a mental health grounds that the City of Foxborough leased to the Patriots.”

In 1985, the Patriots and their stadium were owned by a businessman and promoter named Billy Sullivan who was beginning to struggle financially. At that time, an option to buy the 300 acres of parking lots outside the stadium was offered by the group of businessmen who owned them. Kraft, who operated a packing-supply business and long harbored a desire to own the Patriots, saw his chance. If he could get control of the parking lots, then maybe he could find a way to control the stadium. And if he could be in charge of both the lots and the stadium, then maybe he could get the team, too.

Kraft and a partner won the bid for the lots, paying $1 million a year rent for 10 years before buying them for $18 million. Today he figures the same land would cost about $40 million or $50 million.

“In any business I’m in I’m trying to think ahead of where I was going,” Kraft says. “I know some financial advisor thought I was nuts because we paid an option for the land that exceeded the revenue from football parking.

“The cost of the right to maintain the option was a million a year,” Kraft continues. “The costs of parking for football would never cover that. But that was the first step in a three-legged stool to try and own the team one day. So I know whoever would wind up owning the team would have to come to me at some point because they couldn’t play games in the stadium because they didn’t have the rights to the parking or if they wanted to put on concerts.”

Kraft didn’t attempt to buy the team when it was sold in 1988 to Victor Kiam, the owner of Remington Products, in part because the stadium wasn’t included in the deal. He could see the debt the Sullivan family was building up after Billy’s son, Chuck, lost millions as a promoter on The Jacksons Victory Tour. The stadium fell into bankruptcy. When a bankruptcy court convened to sort out the sale, Kiam bid low, just below $20 million. Kraft bid $25 million. The difference was large enough for the judge to give the stadium to Kraft.

“If [the bids] had been close the bankruptcy judge would have given the stadium to Kiam, but we got awarded the stadium,” Kraft said. “So what did that mean? By then an unknown financial advisor told me ‘You’re crazy, that stadium is a white elephant.’ If that team moves you’re going to be stuck with a single-purpose stadium. But for me it meant I now controlled all the revenues of the team except for tickets. So all the signage, all the concessions, all the parking – whenever there was an event at the stadium I had all the revenue streams.”

More importantly, he had the stadium’s operating covenant which was essentially a lease that said the Patriots had to stay in the stadium until 2001. This meant that Kiam, who had talked about moving the team elsewhere, or any other potential buyer had to come to Kraft. And soon enough, that’s exactly what happened.

As Kiam struggled financially, control of the team fell to one of his creditors, James Orthwein, in 1993. A St. Louis businessman, Orthwein was determined to move the team to Missouri. He put the team up for sale hoping Fran Murray – a man he partnered with to bring the team to St. Louis – would buy it.

The sale was handled by Goldman Sachs and from the beginning, it seemed everyone had conspired to keep the Krafts from buying the team. Namely the Krafts weren’t allowed to see any of the club’s financial information unless they agreed to put a value on operating covenant. But pricing the covenant would make the team easier to sell, so Kraft simply said the covenant had no value. This infuriated the people who ran the sale and as a result Kraft was the one prospective buyer out of 15 who wasn’t allowed into Goldman Sachs data room to study the Patriots’ books.

One morning Kraft met some Goldman Sachs executives for breakfast at the Pierre Hotel in New York. Jonathan Kraft, Robert’s son and now the team’s president, remembers the Goldman Sachs people demanding a value on the covenant. Eventually Robert Kraft threw down his napkin and said “I’m not putting a value on the lease, either you let me in the data room or not.” Then he stormed out of the room, followed by Jonathan.

The ploy worked; the Krafts got four hours in a data room. But unlike the spacious, comfortable suites with conference tables and a sprawling view of the Statue of Liberty like most Wall Street data rooms, the Krafts were set up in a small, windowless room that appeared to Jonathan Kraft to be a storage closet. They could only read the documents; no photocopies, no notes. And so Jonathan Kraft, two attorneys and a tax advisor sat on metal credenzas dictating key points over telephones to their office voice mails.

“The right number to buy the team was 116 [million dollars] and I was willing to go to 125 million because it was clear they were going to move the team to St. Louis and we had injunctions ready to go. It would have been a mess. Anyway, we went to St. Louis [in January 1994] and I met with that Orthwein and we agreed to pay 172. It shows you the craziest thing I ever did. That price in 1994 was the highest price paid for any sports franchise in the world in any sport.”

Yet even after the deal was agreed upon and Kraft said he would pay far more than he thought the Patriots were worth, there came on the eve of the announcement one last attempt to get the Patriots and move them to St. Louis. Kraft remembers getting a call and being offered $75 million to get out of the stadium lease.

Kraft put down the phone.

“I can’t believe they are trying to bribe us,” he says he told Jonathan.

Only his wife Myra thought it was a good idea.

“You paid $25 million for an old stadium and you’re going to get $75 million,” he recalls her saying. “We can give more money to charity and you will get a new team, another team.”

She was right. It was a great offer. Still Kraft couldn’t bring himself to do it.

“I went back to the early ’50s,” he says. “My team was the Boston Braves. When I was a kid we never got to see Hank Aaron. This wasn’t about money. Certain things in life are what you are passionate about. This was my chance to step up. I went way beyond what was appropriate but I knew I would never have another chance. And I had the confidence of sitting in those stands that there was tremendous brand equity in that region that could be tapped if we ran a respectable operation.”

In the end, that is what it became. He leveraged the threat of the team moving to another part of New England to get $70 million in infrastructure loans from the Massachusetts legislature and a low-interest loan from the NFL to build Gillette Stadium, which opened in 2002. The shopping center came five years later. Now it is a sprawling megaplex on the side of Route 1.

“It struck us then [Robert and Jonathan] were the smartest people in the room,” says Marc Ganis, a sports business consultant who was working with a rival bidding group that included Tom Clancy, Paul Newman, Tom Selleck and Walter Payton. “I was blown away and we had lost. I knew then from seeing how it worked, that we were seeing someone who would be a great owner in the NFL.”

Of course it has not come without dispute. Kraft infuriated Connecticut leaders in the late 1990s when he agreed to move the team to Hartford in exchange for a publicly-built stadium, then pulled out of the deal to stay in Foxborough. Many in the league also question the Patriots success after they were caught taping other team’s signals in 2007 in a celebrated case that later came to be known as Spygate. Suspicions were further raised when the league office destroyed the tapes it confiscated from the Patriots, in a sense destroying the evidence – some allege to protect a powerful owner.

But to imagine what Foxborough was and what it has become is remarkable. Especially in just 25 years.

“I was always trying to figure out how I could buy the team,” Kraft says. “For me life is about execution. If you want to make something happen you have to find a way to execute your wishes.”

This is an eyeful, but WHAT A READ!

2010-09-08T23:02:00.002-06:00

No football next fall doesn't sound so good, but at least I'll get more time outdoors I suppose. Maybe take up guitar like I've always wanted.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fans’ guide to NFL labor battle

By Michael Silver, Yahoo! Sports

Roger Goodell was in the midst of a leisurely training camp tour last month when the NFL commissioner began experiencing severe labor pains.

Goodell, as part of his weeklong bus trip to seven NFL camps with Hall of Fame coach and broadcasting icon John Madden, initiated locker-room meetings with players at each stop, and the level of interrogation he faced became increasingly charged as players expressed anxiety and anger over a potential lockout next spring.

At one point in the commissioner’s visit with the Cleveland Browns, linebacker Scott Fujita, a member of the NFL Players Association’s executive committee, asked: “What do the owners want? What’s it going to take to get a deal done?”

“I can’t answer that,” Goodell replied.

“You’re the NFL commissioner,” Fujita shot back. “You’re here as the mouthpiece for the owners, and you can’t even tell us what they want? The CBA [collective bargaining agreement] is up in March. Don’t you think you need to start giving us some answers?”

By the end of his visit with the Browns, players were referring to the league’s chief executive as “Roger the Dodger.” It got worse for Goodell during the final visit of his tour, this stop coming at the Indianapolis Colts’ training camp. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, some Colts players admonished Goodell with swear words, to the point where star quarterback Peyton Manning was embarrassed by their behavior. Veteran center Jeff Saturday, another executive committee member, cut the meeting short to keep the situation from escalating further.

Welcome to the strange world of the 21st-century NFL, a wildly profitable business in uncertain economic times whose proprietors and employees can’t just get along. With the two sides seemingly headed for a rancorous and incongruous labor showdown next spring, America’s most prosperous and popular sporting enterprise could be walking a fine line between hard-fought progress and shameful self-immolation.

Two years ago, when the owners voted unanimously to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement following the 2010 season, it set the stage for a confrontation that could well result in the league’s first work stoppage since 1987. As the deadline for striking a new deal nears – things will likely come to a head on or around March 1 of next year – each camp is preparing for battle on numerous fronts. There has been legal wrangling, political maneuvering, spin-doctoring and economic leveraging by both sides … and much of it has been lost on a blissfully oblivious fan base.

Internal NFLPA studies have shown that only 33 to 40 percent of hardcore NFL fans have the impending labor drama on their radar screens. For everyone else, the prospect of football interrupted – and the potential havoc it could wreak upon everything from video games to fantasy drafts – may come as an unwelcome shock.

As we head into a season that could end with an abrupt dose of harsh reality, here’s a fan’s guide to the labor landscape based on exhaustive research and conversations with owners, NFLPA officials, players, agents and other league insiders.

Which side is forcing the issue?

The owners, particularly a faction of aggressive, entrepreneurial Goodell confidants (Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Pat Bowlen, Jerry Richardson) who want a CBA that accounts for the high-risk investments they’ve made on new stadiums and other capital expenditures. For the most part, the owners are unified in their belief that they agreed to a lousy deal when the current CBA was extended in 2006, and that the players currently receive too great a share of their adjusted gross revenues. At last March’s NFL owners meeting in Orlando, Fla., the Carolina Panthers’ Richardson gave a fiery speech in which he exhorted his peers to “take back our league” by forcing a more favorable deal down the throats of the players. This is likely to be accomplished in the form of a lockout, though it’s possible that the owners could opt for a milder approach: negotiating to impasse and imposing terms of their choosing, which might compel the players to strike. DeMaurice Smith, the NFLPA’s executive director, is convinced that a lockout is coming, and a majority of his constituents – many of whom are more engaged and informed than is commonly perceived – share this belief.

Are the two sides making any progress toward a new deal?

Not really. Though there have been recent reports of an improved atmosphere between the NFL’s management council and the players’ union, there has been no substantial movement toward a new CBA. This may be partly due to the desire of some owners to play hardball and lock out the players until they capitulate; it also may simply be a function of timing. Think of it as akin to negotiations between a team and its first-round draft pick. Though the NFL draft is in late April, talks usually don’t begin to heat up until the approach of training camp, and often the contract isn’t signed until deeper into the offseason. In this case, though the CBA expires after the 2010 season, the real deadline isn’t until a year from now, when there’s a risk that games will be lost.

Why are the owners so upset about the deal they cut in 2006?

Many owners believe that the late Gene Upshaw, who served as the NFLPA’s executive director for a quarter-century, caught then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue in a weak moment and muscled through an extension to the CBA that was, in essence, a resounding victory for the players. Upshaw, they believe, knew that Tagliabue – who was preparing to step away after a 17-year stint as commissioner which included unprecedented labor peace – was loathe to tarnish his legacy by ending his tenure with a messy fight between the players and owners. He also understood that several of the league’s most powerful owners, such as the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, were unwilling to entertain thoughts of a work stoppage because of expensive stadium plans. So Upshaw successfully got Tagliabue to sell a deal that gave the players 59.6 percent of total revenue and implemented a revenue-sharing plan in which the league’s 15 highest-earning franchises subsidized the 17 teams that earned the least. A little more than two years after agreeing to the extension by a 30-2 vote, the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the deal two years early. Upshaw’s sudden death from pancreatic cancer three months later may have given some owners an increased sense that the union is in a vulnerable position this time around.

Why do some owners think the system is broken?

Revenue sharing fails to address the reality that some teams (such as the Cincinnati Bengals and Arizona Cardinals) have favorable stadium deals that call for little or no expenditures from the organization while other owners, such as Jones, Denver’s Pat Bowlen or the Green Bay Packers, took out massive loans for new or renovated stadiums. Thus, someone such as the Panthers’ Richardson might be forced to write an eight-figure check that subsidizes a peer such as the Bengals’ Mike Brown, who is actually making a far greater profit because of his relatively low overhead. Further, there are owners who intentionally keep revenues low to maintain their spot in the NFL’s lower 17 and ensure that they’ll receive money under the current system. All of this is mystifying to the players, who believe the owners who are most averse to revenue sharing greet a potential work stoppage as an opportunity for prevailing in an internal struggle.

Do the owners really want the players to take an 18 percent pay cut?

Yes and no. What the owners have actually proposed is that the players take the same cut (roughly 60 percent) of a smaller pie. Under the current deal, owners receive a credit of slightly more than $1 billion for operating and investment expenses off the top of an annual revenue pool that’s approximately $9 billion before the remainder of the money is divided. The owners are seeking an increase to about $2.4 billion in credits, a number they say reflects the changing economic realities of the era. Whereas stadiums which were partly or wholly subsidized by taxpayers were once the norm, owners are now pouring much more capital into state-of-the-art facilities – essentially saddling them with enormous mortgage payments. The owners believe that the players should account for their risk and the bounty (in the form of increased future revenues) it provides. Players, conversely, argue that they are not in a true partnership absent an ownership stake in franchises whose values have increased exponentially over the past decade and a half.

Are the players sympathetic to the owners’ concerns?

Yes, but they’re also skeptical. For one thing, when the players hear the owners talk about “risk,” some of them cringe. As one put it recently: “They’re taking risks? We’re the ones risking our health on a regular basis – we all know there’s a 100 percent injury rate in the NFL. Give me a break.” Players also are dubious of the insinuation by some owners that their profit margins have been vastly reduced under the current deal. Smith, who became the NFLPA’s executive director in March 2009, has repeatedly called for owners to open their books as a means of substantiating their claims of financial distress … and the owners have steadfastly refused. There is also rampant distrust of the league’s proposal calling for the dramatic increase in credits off the top. According to one NFLPA source, among the categories included by owners in their proposal were “professional fees,” practice-facility costs and travel. Says the source: “What company asks its own employees to pay for their overhead?”

Which side is better positioned to withstand a work stoppage?

The owners, based on simple economics. In theory, they could reduce their operating expenses by 50 percent (an estimated $4.4 billion) via the elimination of player salaries and benefits and the temporary layoffs or salary reductions of various other employees. Meanwhile, thanks to the terms of the extensions to the lucrative TV deals the league has with DirecTV and several broadcast networks, the owners would continue to receive payments during a lockout – though the money would eventually have to be repaid via credits for future games. Still, that’s a serious cash-flow advantage that would, again in theory, allow the owners to realize more than 50 percent of their revenues (nearly $4 billion) and, therefore, to cover their operating expenses for an entire season if necessary. Players, meanwhile, would theoretically be much more financially stressed in the short term, and the relatively short career span of NFL players would make the prospect of missing games even more unpalatable.

What legal proceeding could give the players the upper hand?

In June, the NFLPA surprised owners by filing a legal complaint with the Special Master appointed to resolve CBA disputes, challenging the structuring of the television deals. The NFLPA charged that, in negotiating extensions with DirecTV and at least three networks (Fox, CBS and NBC), the league extended valuable benefits in 2009 and 2010 in exchange for the provisions which would allow the cash flow to continue in the event of a lockout – effectively depriving the players of potential revenues in the short term while setting the stage for a work stoppage. Owners, citing the fact that similar provisions have been included in past TV deals, seem to think the players have little chance of prevailing. However, NFLPA executives have been encouraged by early findings during the discovery process that may have documented the league’s intentions, and appear to think that there’s a chance the union’s request to have the TV money placed in an escrow account during a work stoppage may be granted. Also encouraging to the NFLPA: Any appeal would likely be heard by federal judge David Doty of Minneapolis – the architect of the historic 1993 settlement, which brought unrestricted free agency and a salary cap to the NFL. In 2008, the league accused Doty of being biased in favor of the union and asked him to remove himself from further handling of CBA-related disputes. When Doty refused to step aside, the league took its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which rejected the request last November. Thus, Doty’s involvement, at least on paper, could not be construed as anything but a positive development for the NFLPA. And remember that, before being voted Upshaw’s successor, Smith was a trial lawyer and litigation partner in an influential Washington firm. Legal disputes are clearly in his comfort zone.

What was the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in the “American Needle” case?

It was a big victory for the players – or, more accurately, it spared the players from the prospect of what would have been a brutal defeat. The background: In 2000 the NFL signed an exclusive apparel-licensing deal with Reebok, prompting American Needle, an apparel manufacturer which had individual deals with NFL teams, to file an antitrust lawsuit. The NFL argued that it is a single entity in which the 32 franchises compete on the football field but not in business, and the league won favorable rulings from a federal district court in Chicago and, in 2008, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. American Needle appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in a surprising move the NFL filed a petition urging the high court to take the case, hoping that a favorable ruling would essentially exempt it from antitrust litigation. A victory in American Needle, in theory, would have allowed the NFL to insulate itself from the NFLPA’s equivalent of the nuclear bomb – decertifying as a union and suing the league for antirust violations. This was the strategy the NFLPA applied after the ’87 players’ strike, ultimately winning the suit that gave the players unprecedented leverage and set the stage for the historic 1993 agreement which brought the salary cap and unrestricted free agency to pro football. Though some viewed the decision to take American Needle to the Supreme Court as the NFL’s version of a “Hail Mary,” Smith was deeply worried about an unfavorable outcome. In May, however, the NFL suffered a resounding, 9-0 defeat, which allows the NFLPA to at least use the threat of decertification as a negotiating tool.

Is decertification an option for the NFLPA?

In theory, but it’s probably a long shot. Some owners believe Smith, who has a flair for public speaking and seems to enjoy the limelight, would never subject himself to the risk of a reformed union that might choose a different leader in its new incarnation. “Would they De-certify?” one owner mused. “He might not want to take that gamble.”

What is the relationship between Goodell and Smith – and could this be an obstacle toward an amicable resolution?

On a personal level, Goodell and Smith haven’t gotten off to the best of starts, with each man at times having felt slighted by the other, based on comments by sources and my own observations. Whereas Tagliabue and Upshaw had a mutually appreciative relationship and were sometimes accused of being too chummy – remember Bryant Gumbel’s famous “personal pet” comments on HBO’s “Real Sports”? – Goodell and Smith may lack the chemistry conducive toward a peaceful resolution of a complex situation. As Goodell’s training camp tour illustrated, players increasingly view the commissioner, at least when it comes to labor, as a somewhat disingenuous adversary. Meanwhile, some owners view Smith as a shameless grandstander who loves the spotlight but lacks the depth necessary to make a savvy business deal. Both depictions are exaggerated, but it’s certainly likely that as leaders dealing for the first time with a labor showdown, each man feels compelled to prove to his constituents – and to one another – that he is no pushover. In the end, egos could be an issue. As one league source says, “It’s not about how much those two hate each other; it’s how much each guy loves himself.”

Who would be the first casualties of a lockout?

A lot of people who aren’t on your fantasy team – and that you might not have heard of – might find themselves in a tough spot come March. Low-to-mid-level employees ranging from ticket sellers to personnel assistants to community-relations officials to quality-control coaches could be facing temporary layoffs, and there is talk of reducing coaches’ pay by 50 percent until the labor dispute is settled.

Besides the TV lawsuit, what other cards does the NFLPA have to play?

The union has broached the possibility of retaliating against the networks who broadcast the league for what it views as a funding of the lockout by advising players to skip out on production meetings and other interview requests. That may not actually happen, but George Atallah, the NFLPA’s executive director of external affairs, warns, “If there are networks that are not portraying this situation fairly, the players are prepared to act.” The union also sent letters to some of the NFL’s major sponsors reminding them that all marketing deals will cease in the absence of a CBA, impairing companies’ ability to use players or their likenesses in advertising campaigns. Finally, Smith, who has connections on Capitol Hill, has done some behind-the-scenes lobbying with legislators who might be persuaded to introduce antirust legislation – though such measures would likely come into play only if the situation worsens to the point of triggering a pronounced public outcry.

Could there be replacement games?

During the ’87 strike the league staged three weekends’ worth of games with replacement players, which helped to weaken the union’s resolve as numerous veterans began crossing picket lines. In theory, this could happen again. However, it would be a much tougher sales pitch to the public this time around – thanks to the immense popularity in fantasy football. Somehow, a draft in which Maurice Clarett and JaMarcus Russell go first and second overall doesn’t sound so alluring.

Could the players stage their own games?

Possibly. Fantasy freaks would likely warm to exhibitions featuring the Tom Bradys and Chris Johnsons of the world, even if the uniforms and team names were kind of funky. There are also more available venues than there were during the last work stoppage in ’87 – for example, the soccer-specific stadiums in cities like Carson, Calif. and Columbus, Ohio would be sufficient for staging such spectacles, assuming the players could get a TV network not currently in business with the NFL, such as TBS, to pay for broadcasting rights.

Could the UFL provide players with a safe haven?

Absolutely. Some believe the United Football League, which debuted in ’09 and is about to begin its second season, was launched with a potential lockout in mind. As one NFL source speculates, “It was the equivalent of betting the Don’t Pass Line in craps – it was banking on a lockout, so it could be there to fill the void.” In theory, the upstart league could rapidly expand beyond its current vision of six teams for the 2011 season and provide jobs for many of the NFL’s high-profile players during a work stoppage.

If there’s a lockout, will there still be a draft next spring?

Yes, but it won’t be business as usual for the teams or for the players they select. With no CBA in place, teams won’t be able to sign players, and those post-draft minicamps will be non-existent. Also, in the absence of a CBA, the league’s ability to generate revenues from the new crop of big-name draftees will be limited. In other words, if you want to purchase one of those sweet new Jake Locker jerseys in the aftermath of his being drafted, you’ll have to buy one without his name on the back of it or wait until a new CBA is signed.

Who will be on the cover of Madden ’12?

Maybe no one, depending upon how aggressively the union protects its marketing interests in the absence of a CBA. Or, given the supposed Madden Curse, perhaps the NFLPA will persuade EA Sports to put an owner on the cover. (Yes, that was a joke.)

What marketing deals might we see in the absence of a CBA?

“Let’s put it this way,” one player says. “We’ll have no restrictions. So imagine a player doing commercials for a casino, or a liquor company. Or picture a guy skydiving with body paint and landing on top of a strip club. Anything goes, and the league might not like that at all.”

In the absence of a new CBA, will some NFL players get in touch with their inner Cheech and Chong?

Damn straight. If there’s no CBA, the NFL won’t be able to test or monitor players, even prior offenders who’ve run afoul of the league’s policies against substance abuse and/or performance-enhancing drugs. “It’s gonna be an old-fashioned Smoke In for some guys,” predicts a league source. “They’ll be in pot heaven.”

Will the needs of retired players be addressed in negotiations?

Presumably, and that’s a very good thing given the way they’ve been slighted in the past. In theory the new CBA will ensure that both sides will contribute to a fund that benefits debilitated and destitute ex-players, and others who played in the era before the current system was established in 1993. In terms of public relations, being perceived as aiding the cause of retired players is crucial for both the owners and the union; more important, it’s the right thing to do.

Will a new CBA result in an 18-game regular season?

Probably, assuming the two sides can work through the potential complications such a change might present. As I wrote two weeks ago, an Enhanced Season has been criticized by star players like Brady and Ray Lewis because of its implications relating to injury, career longevity and post-football disability. A switch to 18 games would also affect the union’s push for standardized rules regulating offseason workouts, impact the current training camp format and force players to play additional games before qualifying for post-career benefits. Right now players are understandably resistant to the change because, as one put it, “they’re asking us to take less money and do more work.” In the end, however, the union will likely try to use players’ supposed opposition to the Enhanced Season as a bargaining chip designed to extract other concessions.

Will a new CBA result in an NBA-style rookie wage scale?

You betcha. Again, the union won’t automatically yield on this issue, instead using it as a means of placating owners in exchange for a better overall deal. But in reality, the majority of players believe that the current system – in which the players picked at the very top of the draft receive more guaranteed money than established veteran stars – is a travesty. (For example, this year’s top overall pick, Sam Bradford, got a deal that will guarantee him at least $50 million, more than Brady, a three-time Super Bowl champion, is likely to receive if he and the Patriots reach a deal on a contract extension this week.) Most current players quarrel with the logic behind such a slotting system and aren’t sympathetic to the plight of the future draftees who’ll stand to make less. The players, in fact, have already put forth a proposal that would implement a rookie wage scale, sending a letter to the league last February detailing a “Proven Performance Plan.” The plan called for rookie deals to be reduced in length to three years – the union later said it would agree to a four-year threshold – and created a revenue pool that would fund incentives for players who outperform their contracts (such as the Titans’ Chris Johnson rushing for more than 2,000 yards in his second season) and benefit retired players. Some owners believe that the savings should be spread out to include veterans with low-to-mid-level salaries, providing them with a means of realizing performance bonuses. However the two sides decide to redistribute the money saved, look for the mind-boggling rookie contracts like Bradford’s to disappear under the new CBA.

How do we solve this mess?

We’re glad you asked (and glad you’re still with us after all these questions). As with most labor disputes, this is a gap that can be bridged through creativity and compromise – and, ultimately, it will come down to money and perception. The first thing that has to happen for a deal to be forged is that each side has to move past the rancorous rhetoric and intense emotion that is likely to worsen over the coming months. Certainly, this is a volatile issue that involves principle and impacts the careers and lives of numerous individuals and their families – but in the end it’s a business dispute between two entities that have it pretty good in a strained economy. If the owners and players test fan loyalties by robbing them of an entire season – or, in a worst-case scenario, dragging the dispute past the fall of 2012 – both could end up as losers. Conversely, there is a way to resolve their differences in a win-win scenario that involves growing the pie, rewarding the owners for their investment risks and keeping total player revenues relatively stable. By adding two regular season games and establishing a rookie pool, a new CBA can theoretically create enough additional revenues that owners can get some of what they want (more money credited off the top) and veterans won’t have to take less. For this to happen, the NFLPA needs to abandon its focus on its percentage of revenues – a holdover from the Upshaw regime – and focus on total dollars. Owners, meanwhile, have to get past the perception that they were duped into taking a poor deal in 2006 and try to leverage a deal with the union that seems more like a partnership than a vengeful comeuppance. All of this can be accomplished by rational, well-meaning negotiators who have pro football’s – and its adoring public’s – best interests at heart. “People on both sides have to study the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis,” says one league source. “Ultimately, in order to settle this standoff, everybody has to feel that they’ve won, or at least saved face, and that they were part of the process.” Until then, players, owners and those of us who love football will be experiencing labor pains on an uncomfortably frequent basis.

The Paradox of Capitalism

2010-09-06T22:31:00.002-06:00

Whether you know it or not, a debate has been waged in the more "technical" corner of Congress for the last 5 years or so about enabling the FCC to have powers to ensure the "neutrality" of internet delivered services. In essence, this ensures that however you use the internet, none of your content providers are compromised due to the hierarchy assigned to data by the pipeline owners, most commonly major telecommunication companies like ATT, Comcast, Cox, Qwest or Verizon. Some executives want to throttle or demote data packets from companies that don't sign lucrative profit sharing contracts with the broadband providers. The best analogy is turning the internet into a massive network of toll roads instead of an "open" free entity. Google has made waves in the last month for announcing an agreement with Verizon in which it made several concessions in its previously stout pro-neutrality position. Like it or not, these kinds of concessions are going to need to happen in order to provide the FCC with any power at all to uphold the internet in the current form its in.

Educate yourself and contact your representatives in Congress on your position. Just like any other consumer protection imposed by the federal government, its easier to uphold our current system than fight for rights later on. I hope our congress members get this issue resolved and do it right! The following two postings from Google's public policy blog are copied to share their recent statements on this important issue.

---------------------------------------------------
Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal
Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM ET
Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet.

But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic.

With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.

MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.

Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal:
Newly enforceable FCC standards
Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors
Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward – another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.

In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.

MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself.

We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet:
First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service before it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities.
Second, these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet.
Third, the FCC retains its full capacity to monitor these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access.
So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet.

MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.

FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.

MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.

It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington.

We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop.

A joint policy proposal for an open Internet
Monday, August 9, 2010 at 1:38 PM ET
Posted by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications

The original architects of the Internet got the big things right. By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure.

It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband. Verizon and Google are pleased to discuss the principled compromise our companies have developed over the last year concerning the thorny issue of “network neutrality.”

In October, our two companies issued a shared statement of principles on network neutrality. A few months later we submitted a joint filing to the FCC, and in an April joint op-ed our CEOs discussed their common interest in an open Internet. Since that time, we have listened to all sides of the debate, engaged in good faith with policy makers in multiple venues, and challenged each other to craft a balanced policy framework. We have been guided by the two main goals:

1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.

2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

Today our CEOs will announce a proposal that we hope will make a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Our joint proposal takes the form of a suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers, and is laid out here. Below we discuss the seven key elements:

First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.

Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.

Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.

Third, it’s important that the consumer be fully informed about their Internet experiences. Our proposal would create enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities. Broadband providers would also provide to application and content providers information about network management practices and any other information they need to ensure that they can reach consumers.

Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.

Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.

We believe this policy framework properly empowers consumers and gives the FCC a role carefully tailored for the new world of broadband, while also allowing broadband providers the flexibility to manage their networks and provide new types of online services.

Ultimately, we think this proposal provides the certainty that allows both web startups to bring their novel ideas to users, and broadband providers to invest in their networks.

Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way. But what has kept us moving forward is our mutual interest in a healthy and growing Internet that can continue to be a laboratory for innovation. As policy makers continue to formulate the rules of the road, we hope that other stakeholders will join with us in providing constructive ideas for an open Internet policy that puts consumers in charge and enhances America’s leadership in the broadband world. We stand ready to work with the Congress, the FCC and all interested parties to do just that.

Ranked: Best and Worst Computer Strategy Games

2010-07-27T23:14:00.001-06:00

Could it be that computer video gaming (at least strategy gaming) has peaked? I can't believe how many of the games on this list are pre-2002. If not for Civilization 4, this list would be almost entirely from my high school and early college years! Xbox effect?
Ranked: Best and Worst Computer Strategy Games

Sad, sad day, indeed

2010-06-04T20:41:00.001-06:00

Former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden dies

By BETH HARRIS, AP Sports Writer

LOS ANGELES – John Wooden, college basketball's gentlemanly Wizard of Westwood who built one of the greatest dynasties in all of sports at UCLA and became one of the most revered coaches ever, has died. He was 99.
The university said Wooden died Friday night of natural causes at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where he had been hospitalized since May 26.
With his signature rolled-up game program in hand, Wooden led the Bruins to 10 NCAA championships, including an unmatched streak of seven in a row from 1967 to 1973.
Over 27 years, he won 620 games, including 88 straight during one historic stretch, and coached many of the game's greatest players such as Bill Walton and Lew Alcindor — later known as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
As a coach, he was groundbreaking trendsetter who demanded his players be in great condition so they could play an up-tempo style not well-known on the West Coast at the time.
But the Wizard's legacy extended well beyond that.
He was the master of the simple one- or two-sentence homily, instructive little messages best presented in his famous "Pyramid of Success," which remains must-read material, not only for fellow coaches but for anyone in a leadership position in American business.
He taught the team game and had only three hard-and-fast rules — no profanity, tardiness or criticizing fellow teammates. Layered beneath that seeming simplicity, though, were a slew of life lessons — primers on everything from how to put on your socks correctly to how to maintain poise: "Not being thrown off stride in how you behave or what you believe because of outside events."
"What you are as a person is far more important that what you are as a basketball player," was one of Wooden's key messages.
Wooden began his career as a teacher during the Great Depression and was still teaching others long past retirement. He remained a fixture at UCLA games played on a court named after him and his late wife, Nell, and celebrated his 99th birthday with a book he co-authored on how to live life and raise children.
Asked in a 2008 interview the secret to his long life, Wooden replied: "Not being afraid of death and having peace within yourself. All of life is peaks and valleys. Don't let the peaks get too high and the valleys too low."
Asked what he would like God to say when he arrived at the pearly gates, Wooden replied, "Well done."
Even with his staggering accomplishments, he remained humble and gracious. He said he tried to live by advice from his father: "Be true to yourself, help others, make each day your masterpiece, make friendship a fine art, drink deeply from good books — especially the Bible, build a shelter against a rainy day, give thanks for your blessings and pray for guidance every day."
While he lived his father's words, many more lived his. Those lucky enough to play for him got it first hand, but there was no shortage of Wooden sayings making the rounds far away from the basketball court.
"Learn as if you were to live forever; live as if you were to die tomorrow," was one.
"Don't give up on your dreams, or your dreams will give up on you," was another.
Born Oct. 14, 1910, near Martinsville, Ind., on a farm that didn't have electricity or indoor plumbing, Wooden's life revolved around sports from the time his father built a baseball diamond among his wheat, corn and alfalfa. Baseball was his favorite sport, but there was also a basketball hoop nailed in a hayloft. Wooden played there countless hours with his brother, Maurice, using any kind of ball they could find.
He led Martinsville High School to the Indiana state basketball championship in 1927 before heading to Purdue, where he was All-America from 1930-32. The Boilermakers were national champions his senior season, and Wooden, nicknamed "the Indiana Rubber Man" for his dives on the hardcourt, was college basketball's player of the year.
But it wasn't until he headed west to Southern California that Wooden really made his mark on the game.
Wooden guided the Bruins to seven consecutive titles from 1967 through 1973 and a record 88-game winning streak in the early 1970s. From the time of his first title following the 1963-64 season through the 10th in 1974-75, Wooden's Bruins were 330-19, including four 30-0 seasons.
The bespectacled former high school teacher ended up at UCLA almost by accident. Wooden was awaiting a call from the University of Minnesota for its head coaching job and thought he had been passed over when it didn't come. In the meantime, UCLA called, and he accepted the job in Los Angeles.
Minnesota officials called later that night, saying they couldn't get through earlier because of a snowstorm, and offered him the job. Though Wooden wanted it more than the UCLA job, he told them he already had given UCLA his word and could not break it.
The Bruins were winners right away after Wooden took over as coach at UCLA's campus in Westwood in 1949, although they were overshadowed by Bill Russell and the University of San Francisco, and later Pete Newell's teams at California.
At the time, West Coast teams tended to play a slow, plodding style. Wooden quickly exploited that with his fast-breaking, well-conditioned teams, who wore down opponents with a full-court zone press and forever changed the style of college basketball.
Still, it would be 16 seasons before Wooden won his first NCAA championship with a team featuring Walt Hazzard that went 30-0 in 1964. After that, they began arriving in bunches, and top players such as Alcindor, Walton, Sidney Wicks and Lucius Allen began arriving every year in Westwood.
Each would learn at the first practice how to properly put on socks and sneakers. Each would learn to keep his hair short and face clean-shaven, even though the fashions of the 1960s and '70s dictated otherwise.
And each would learn Wooden's "pyramid of success," a chart he used to both inspire players and sum up his personal code for life. Industriousness and enthusiasm were its cornerstones; faith, patience, loyalty and self-control were some of the building blocks. At the top of the pyramid was competitive greatness.
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are," Wooden would tell them.
Wooden never had to worry about his reputation. He didn't drink or swear or carouse with other coaches on the road, though he did have a penchant for berating referees.
"Dadburn it, you saw him double-dribble down there!" went a typical Wooden complaint to an official. "Goodness gracious sakes alive!"
Wooden would coach 27 years at UCLA, finishing with a record of 620-147. He won 47 NCAA tournament games. His overall mark as a college coach was 885-203, an .813 winning percentage that remains unequaled.
But his legacy as a coach will always be framed by two streaks — the seven straight national titles UCLA won beginning in 1967 and the 88-game winning streak that came to an end Jan. 19, 1974, when Notre Dame beat the Bruins 71-70.
After the loss, Wooden refused to allow his players to talk to reporters.
"Only winners talk," he said. A week later, UCLA beat the Irish at home by 19 points.
A little more than a year later, Wooden surprisingly announced his retirement after a 75-74 NCAA semifinal victory over Louisville. He then went out and coached the Bruins for the last time, winning his 10th national title with a 92-85 win over Kentucky.
After that victory, Wooden walked into the interview room at the San Diego Sports Arena to face about 200 reporters, who let their objectivity slip and applauded.
Long before that, though, the road to coaching greatness began after Wooden graduated with honors from Purdue and married Nell Riley, his high school sweetheart.
In a 2008 public appearance with Los Angeles Dodgers announcer Vin Scully, in which the men were interviewed in front of an audience, Wooden said he still wrote his late wife — the only girl he ever dated — a letter on the 21st of each month. "She's still there to me," he said. "I talk to her every day."
He coached two years at Dayton (Ky.) High School, and his 6-11 losing record the first season was the only one in his 40-year coaching career.
He spent the next nine years coaching basketball, baseball and tennis at South Bend (Ind.) Central High School, where he also taught English.
"I think the teaching profession contributes more to the future of our society than any other single profession," he once said. "I'm glad I was a teacher."
Wooden served in the Navy as a physical education instructor during World War II, and continued teaching when he became the basketball coach at Indiana State Teachers College, where he went 47-17 in two seasons.
In his first year at Indiana State, Wooden's team won the Indiana Collegiate Conference title and received an invitation to the NAIB tournament in Kansas City. Wooden, who had a black player on his team, refused the invitation because the NAIB had a policy banning African Americans. The rule was changed the next year, and Wooden led Indiana State to another conference title.
It was then that UCLA called, though Wooden didn't take the job to get rich. He never made more than $35,000 in a season, and early in his career he worked two jobs to make ends meet.
"My first four years at UCLA, I worked in the mornings at a dairy from six to noon then I'd come into UCLA," he told The Associated Press in 1995. "Why did I do it? Because I needed the money. I was a dispatcher of trucks in the San Fernando Valley and was a troubleshooter. After all the trucks made their deliveries and came back, I would call in the next day's orders, sweep out the place and head over the hill to UCLA."
After he enjoyed great success at UCLA, the Los Angeles Lakers reportedly offered Wooden their head coaching job at a salary 10 times what he was making, but he refused.
Nell, Wooden's wife of 53 years, died in 1985. He is survived by son, James, and daughter, Nancy Muehlhausen; several grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Just Outrageous

2010-04-22T23:59:00.003-06:00

I think they should pay government employees minimum wage with full benefits. They already get pension plans and other perks that would only infuriate me further. Somethings got to change, and I feel its only going to be through institution of morality and the threat of significant consequence.
----------------------------------------------------
SEC staffers watched porn as economy crashed
By DANIEL WAGNER, AP Business Writer

WASHINGTON – Senior staffers at the Securities and Exchange Commission spent hours surfing pornographic websites on government-issued computers while they were being paid to police the financial system, an agency watchdog says.
The SEC's inspector general conducted 33 probes of employees looking at explicit images in the past five years, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
The memo says 31 of those probes occurred in the 2 1/2 years since the financial system teetered and nearly crashed.
The staffers' behavior violated government-wide ethics rules, it says.
It was written by SEC Inspector General David Kotz in response to a request from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
The memo was first reported Thursday evening by ABC News. It summarizes past inspector general probes and reports some shocking findings:
• A senior attorney at the SEC's Washington headquarters spent up to eight hours a day looking at and downloading pornography. When he ran out of hard drive space, he burned the files to CDs or DVDs, which he kept in boxes around his office. He agreed to resign, an earlier watchdog report said.
• An accountant was blocked more than 16,000 times in a month from visiting websites classified as "Sex" or "Pornography." Yet he still managed to amass a collection of "very graphic" material on his hard drive by using Google images to bypass the SEC's internal filter, according to an earlier report from the inspector general. The accountant refused to testify in his defense, and received a 14-day suspension.
• Seventeen of the employees were "at a senior level," earning salaries of up to $222,418.
• The number of cases jumped from two in 2007 to 16 in 2008. The cracks in the financial system emerged in mid-2007 and spread into full-blown panic by the fall of 2008.
California Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said it was "disturbing that high-ranking officials within the SEC were spending more time looking at porn than taking action to help stave off the events that put our nation's economy on the brink of collapse."
He said in a statement that SEC officials "were preoccupied with other distractions" when they should have been overseeing the growing problems in the financial system.
An SEC spokesman declined to comment Thursday night.
About 16 percent of men with Internet access at work admit to looking at online porn while at the office, according to a 2006 survey by Websense Inc.
Former SEC spokesman Michael Robinson said he shares the public's outrage about SEC staffers who enjoyed porn on the taxpayer dime when they were supposed to be keeping the markets safe.
"That kind of behavior is just intolerable and atrocious," said Robinson, now with Levick Strategic Communications. He said he expects SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro and her team are "very focused on" the issue.
Schapiro has had other worries in recent days. She has been parrying Republican attacks after announcing civil fraud charges Friday against Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
Agency officials had hoped the charges would mark a new era of tougher oversight of Wall Street. They followed high-profile embarrassments including the failure to catch Ponzi kings Bernard Madoff and R. Allen Stanford.
But soon after Goldman charges were filed, Republicans began questioning the timing of the announcement. The news came as the Senate prepared to take up a sweeping overhaul of the rules governing banks and other financial companies.
Republican lawmakers also accused the SEC of being influenced by politics. The SEC's commissioners approved the Goldman charges on a rare 3-2 vote. The two who objected were Republicans.
Schapiro is a registered independent who has been appointed by presidents of both parties.

Maybe this is why our nation is perpetually in debt

2010-04-07T18:24:00.002-06:00

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.
That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.
"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.
The federal income tax is the government's largest source of revenue, raising more than $900 billion — or a little less than half of all government receipts — in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. But with deductions and credits, especially for families with children, there have long been people who don't pay it, mainly lower-income families.
The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.
In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.
In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.
Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.
There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.
"All these things are ways the government says, if you do this, we'll reduce your tax bill by some amount," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.
Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.
But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

Good times (can you guess who plays Ronald Reagan?)

2010-03-04T10:51:00.002-07:00

Funny or Die's Presidential Reunion from Will Ferrell

Reflections of an Imperfect Reality

2009-12-14T04:47:00.002-07:00

What do you feel when something that you've held in esteem is shrouded in hypocrisy? How do you recover when you are let down? What does it mean when something so honorable and inspirational is unmasked as disgusting and deceiving? Where do the fallen heroes leave their followers? Although I have no reason to feel sorry for Tiger Woods, a piece of my childhood has died. Evil is all around, lurking and striking at its earliest convenience. Of course, we are all under its spell. Is there no virtue, no purity in this world? It makes me sad. People need to be better people, and the good thing is that opportunity is in everyone, not just celebrities and star athletes. Perhaps I will find new heroes, and show peace to fallen ones as well.
---------------------------------------------------
Two weeks that shattered the legend of Tiger Woods

By TIM DAHLBERG, AP Sports Columnist
Sat Dec 12, 3:01 pm ET

Tiger Woods had to be a happy man as he settled into a seat on his private jet for the long flight home from Australia. His successful comeback year was all but complete, and the rapturous reception he received Down Under was a pleasant reminder of his status as the most sought-after athlete in the world.
Not since the Beatles toured more than 40 years ago had the Aussies laid out such a welcome. Woods got a $3 million check just for showing up, the arrival of his jet was televised nationally, and fans jammed every fairway and green just to be able to say they saw him.
As he headed out, someone mentioned he had never seen such a frenzy at a tournament.
"I never have, either," Woods said.
Always in control, he teased them with a vague promise he would return. If he did, they could be sure it would be on his own terms, and they could be sure the price would go up.
The flight finally over, there was some time to recharge before capping the season with his own elite tournament in the hills north of Los Angeles. In between, Woods would fuel the jet for a quick trip to Stanford and induction in the school's athletic Hall of Fame.
He appeared on the sideline that night as honorary captain of the Big Game against California. For those lucky enough to be holding cameras, it was the perfect photo op of what seemed to be the perfect, blended All-American family.
The son of an African-American military man and Thai woman stood in his red Stanford sweat shirt, holding a red Cardinal hat in one arm and his 2-year-old daughter in another. His equally photogenic Swedish wife, Elin, stood next to him, wearing dark glasses with a scarf wrapped fashionably around her neck.
The day before, Woods had answered some questions for the 1.3 million followers of his Facebook page. The last one came from a fan named Rupert in Houston, who wondered how hard it was to leave his family and travel to tournaments.
"It's very difficult to leave Elin and the children, and I'm sure it's only going to get tougher," Woods replied.
Woods couldn't have known how tough things were going to get.
___
The first indication outside the Woods household that things might not be what they seemed came from the National Enquirer, which ran a story in its Thanksgiving week edition alleging that Woods was having an affair with a New York woman named Rachel Uchitel, who has denied it.
Inside the house, though, it might have been different. Another alleged mistress, Jaimee Grubbs, would later provide Us Weekly magazine a voice mail she said came from Woods two days before Thanksgiving, asking her do him a favor.
"Um, can you please, uh, take your name off your phone," said a man who identified himself as Tiger. "My wife went through my phone and, uh, may be calling you."
A few days later, people across the nation standing in lines to buy things on Black Friday heard some startling news: Woods had been seriously injured in a car accident outside his Florida home and was taken to a local hospital.
For many, shock turned to relief when word came later in the day that the accident and the injuries were minor and Woods was back home recuperating. But the questions were already starting to come.
Where was Woods going at 2:25 in the morning? How could he wreck his Cadillac Escalade so badly coming out of the driveway? Was it possible he could have been drunk or on drugs?
Then came the first bizarre revelation. The local police chief told The Associated Press that Elin had smashed in the back passenger windows of the Escalade with a golf club, ostensibly to help get her husband out.
The Florida Highway Patrol was curious to hear more. Inside the Woods mansion, though, they were already hunkering down.
Troopers went to the home the day of the accident, only to be told Woods was asleep. They arranged to come back the next day, only to be told he was too sore to talk. When they came back a third time, it was clear that no one would be saying anything. Not to authorities, certainly not to the media.
The silent strategy had always worked well for Woods whenever he didn't want to discuss other issues, whether it was women at Augusta National or his responsibilities to be a role model for young African-Americans. He had always controlled the message and, if he really wanted to make a point, it would be done in a clever Nike ad or from the safe confines of his Web site.
But this was different. This didn't just appeal to golf writers or the mainstream media.
The other tabloids geared up to find whatever dirt the National Enquirer didn't. Celebrity Web sites were suddenly filled with pictures of other women and tales which had never been told.
Helicopters hovered over his house in the gated community of Isleworth, looking for video of something that would sell. His mother was followed by paparazzi through an airport, and a small army of media fanned out looking for anything Tiger-related.
Woods wasn't giving them anything. He stayed out of public view, saying nothing even as rumors flew and speculation intensified about what he was doing when he drove wildly over a fire hydrant and into a tree. There were even more questions about what his wife was doing with the golf clubs.
His first public comments came the Sunday after the accident, and they weren't much, just a statement on his Web site saying the accident was his fault and asking that it remain "a private matter." The next day he issued another short statement saying he was withdrawing from his own tournament, sparing himself the spectacle of facing media in Los Angeles who would be ready with questions about everything except golf.
Woods almost certainly hoped that would be the end of it. The events of Thanksgiving weekend may have been embarrassing — even a bit humiliating — but Uchitel was denying she had an affair with him, and authorities didn't seem all that interested in pursuing the backstory to the crash.
The next day, Florida state troopers dropped their probe, citing Woods for careless driving and fining him $164. That bit of good news was short-lived, however, as Grubbs, a Los Angeles cocktail waitress, told Us Weekly she had engaged in a 31-month affair with Woods and had the text messages and a voice mail to prove it.
Three hours after the voice mail appeared on the magazine's Web site, another statement was issued on Woods' Web site, under the almost comical headline "Tiger comments on current events."
This was a more contrite Woods, apologizing for the first time for unspecified "transgressions" and saying he had let his family down. But he still stubbornly sparred from a distance with the media encircling him, saying he had a right to privacy no matter how high profile of a life he led.
"The virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family," Woods' statement read. "Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions."
By now, events were clearly spiraling far beyond anything Woods could have ever imagined. In less than a week he had gone from being one of the most admired people in the world to a punch line to jokes flowing freely in offices everywhere and on late-night television.
His popularity ratings were plunging. Crisis management experts around the country crowded in front of news cameras urging him to stop hiding behind Web site statements and come clean to the public — and quick.
Still, there was no sight of Woods. The statements stopped, and he remained in seclusion.
His alleged lovers weren't so shy. Suddenly women began appearing seemingly everywhere on Web sites and magazines to claim they had affairs with Woods. Two became four, four began eight, and by some counts 10 or 12 or more.
Worse yet, they didn't mind sharing intimate details about the alleged encounters. Soon, anyone with a computer or iPhone was privy to what they claimed to know about Woods and what he liked to do behind closed doors.
Woods spent almost all his life keeping score on the golf course. Now people were keeping score on him.
Nothing, it seemed, could satisfy the insatiable appetite of the celebrity media to find out more about Woods, and their reports had no trouble finding an audience. Traffic to the biggest sites jumped 50 percent or more, and major portals weren't shy about further blurring the line between gossip and real news by blogging along details without necessarily checking out the source.
With good reason. Yahoo Inc. CEO Carol Bartz told an investor conference that the Woods story was "better than Michael Jackson dying" for bringing people to her site and helping the company sell enough extra advertising to boost profits.
The mayor of Las Vegas thought the same thing. With many of Woods' alleged lovers having links to the city and with Woods well known in Vegas casinos and nightclubs, Oscar Goodman said it would provide a boost to the local economy even if people no longer believed that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
Still, Woods remained in seclusion.
A police report released Monday in support of a Florida trooper who suspected Woods was driving under the influence merely upped the ante. The trooper had wanted Woods' blood test results, after a witness who wasn't identified in the report said Woods had been drinking alcohol earlier and had been prescribed two drugs, the sleep aid Ambien and the painkiller Vicodin.
The next day his mother-in-law was rushed to the hospital after collapsing in the bathroom. A frantic call from a woman who was either Elin or her twin sister was quickly released, complete with the sound of a child crying in the background.
None of it was funny, but that didn't stop the jokes. Every nighttime television host had his own, and what the professionals missed was filled in by amateur comedians.
An animation from Taiwan showing a very Asian-looking Woods crashing his car was an Internet hit, and a country-western song about him was released. Someone posted another Barry White-like song on YouTube, using the voice mail Woods allegedly left Grubbs with a backing chorus, and at Hollywood Park a horse named driveliketiger finished third in a race.
Though most of his fellow players expressed support for Woods and were careful about what they said, the player who introduced Woods to his wife wasn't as forgiving. Elin Nordegren worked as a nanny for Swedish golfer Jesper Parnevik when she and Woods first met, and Parnevik thought they would be a good match.
"I told her this is the guy that I think is everything you want. He's true. He's honest. He has great values. He has everything you would want in a guy," Parnevik said in an ESPN interview. "And, uhh, I was wrong."
Even his own management company piled on.
Barry Frank, IMG's executive vice president for media sports programming, was on a panel about college sports media, where all the panelists were asked what sports business story they would be following closely in the next year.
"How many girls Tiger was with," Frank said.
____
Exactly two weeks after the accident, another statement was posted on Woods' Web site.
For the first time Woods admitted he had been unfaithful. "I am deeply aware of the disappointment and hurt that my infidelity has caused to so many people, most of all my wife and children," he said.
He asked for forgiveness, and said he didn't know if it would ever be possible to repair the damage he caused.
Then he announced what would have been unthinkable only days earlier: He was taking an indefinite break from golf to try to mend his fractured family life.
Before the crash and before the women started coming forward, Woods was staring at 2010 with great anticipation. He was playing perhaps better than ever, and three of the four major golf championships were at courses where he had won majors by runaway margins in previous years.
Now there's a possibility he could miss the Masters for the first time in 14 years. He might not play in the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, where he won by a record 15 strokes in 2000.
No one knows when he will return, and whether he can retain the famous focus that had made him arguably the greatest golfer ever. The state of his marriage is also anyone's guess, and there has been no shortage of speculation about the future of the Woods household.
In just a matter of days an empire and a legend came crashing down in ways no one would have imagined. The perfect firestorm enveloped Woods and, for once in his life, he had no way of controlling what was happening around him.
The fall from grace has been both sudden and spectacular. At the peak of power just last month, he now faces an uncertain future that can't be changed with some clever marketing campaign.
This wasn't just another case of an athlete gone bad. Woods was the 2-year-old hitting golf balls on the Mike Douglas show, the teenager who won three straight U.S. Amateurs, and the first African-American to win the Masters.
He was the talent so great that Nike introduced him as a professional with an advertising blitz behind the tagline "Hello World," and the figure so imposing that his late father, Earl, predicted he would not only become greater than athletes such as Muhammad Ali and Jackie Robinson, but one of the greatest figures in world history.
"He's qualified through his ethnicity to accomplish miracles. He's the bridge between the East and the West," Earl Woods said in 1996. There is no limit because he has the guidance. I don't know yet exactly what form this will take. But he is the Chosen One."
Woods may not have accomplished miracles, but he did some miraculous things on the golf course. His legend grew with every win as he closed in on the records of Jack Nicklaus, and even a knee injury that cost him the last half of 2008 couldn't stop his march to greatness.
His family life seemed as perfect as his golf. He married the beautiful Elin five years ago, they honeymooned on his yacht "Privacy" and soon started a family that includes two young children.
Even those who didn't appreciate his play on the course admired him as a man, above the scandalous behavior of so many sports superstars these days.
Now, no one will ever look at him the same way again.

TV ads are bad

2009-11-19T15:28:00.002-07:00

I wonder how much it would cost to just have ad-free TV. Really, $100/month? Open offer to the world: I will pay $100/month for no advertising distribution of the 4 major networks and PBS. And I don't want broadcast TV, I want TV On Demand. Who has the time to watch TV that's currently on, I want to watch what I WANT. So there...
------------------------------------------------------------
A growing TV cover-up: Obnoxious pop-up promos
By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer
Tue Nov 17, 11:52 am ET

NEW YORK – Somewhere in the universe of TV viewers, there's got to be a person who actually likes those pop-up, on-screen promotions.

Someone who thinks, "Thank you, network people, for those useful, informative announcements that block what I'm watching to tell me what I'm watching, or tell me what I could be watching next, which will then be blocked by reminders of what I could be watching after that."

This is a happy viewer all right, and maybe he or she exists in some den or family room absorbing those intrusive promos that, for everybody else, undermine what TV networks are ideally in business to do: entertain, not tick off.

TV exists above all as a medium of escape. But how do you escape into a TV show when it's plastered with scene-stealing hype?

At least one Web site, stoptvpopups.com, serves as a sounding board and support group for an outspoken few.

But almost any viewer can cite annoying instances where a pop-up ad has upstaged a show's dramatic climax or obscured vital on-screen information.

Viewers hate the detective hero of "Monk" rising from the bottom left screen for eight or nine seconds of vamping, followed by a ghostly but distracting text line that looms for several long minutes to accommodate even the slowest readers: "Monk All New Tonight 9/8c."

The USA network's motto is "Characters Welcome." Well, that "Monk" message adds up to 21 characters, none of them welcome.

And what about TBS, where "Freakin' Sweet!" is an on-screen message plugging "Family Guy" episodes available on that network's Web site: "Very Funny" is TBS' motto. Nothing funny about those cover-ups for its comedies.

Viewers don't forget. Viewers still cite the giant fireball, complete with a whooshing inferno sound, erupting on the screen to promote FX's firefighter drama "Rescue Me." It makes them mad to even think about it.

That promo hasn't aired in two years, says FX spokesman John Solberg. Since then, the network has moved toward making "our air look cleaner, more theatrical," generally opting for a single line of promotional text that appears on-screen for about 10 seconds.

So maybe all is not lost to the pop-up-razzi.

But across the networks, the pop-up ad is alive and well and inescapable, undermining THIS show to shill for some OTHER show, which, when that show airs, will likely be defaced with promos for yet ANOTHER. And on it goes.

Even cartoon viewers like Marge Simpson get riled.

In a classic scene from "The Simpsons," Marge realizes the TV screen that frames her is cluttered with visual promos. She takes a hand vacuum and sucks up the "American Idol" logo. When a squad of football players plugging "Football on Fox" swarms across the bottom of the screen, she sprays them with insecticide.

"Can't anyone just watch the show they're watching?" Marge sighs.

The short answer to her question, of course, is no. You shelled out hard-earned money for a big, magnificent flat-screen — and the networks seem to be poaching more and more of it!

An industry term for these ads is "one-thirds." More telling terms include "snipes" and "violators." But they began innocently more than two decades ago, when CNN applied a small identifying logo (or "bug") to the bottom right corner of the screen.

Other networks fell in line by similarly branding their news telecasts.

Then Fox began accenting its prime-time entertainment with a logo flashed before and after each commercial break. Other networks followed suit.

Then, on Sept. 11, 2001, the day's torrent of news spilled onto a supplementary text crawl on the screens of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel. It remains, a permanent fixture at all three networks.

After that, with viewers increasingly conditioned to absorb extra data on the screen, many networks asked themselves: Why not take the next step and blast the audience with promos — TiVo-proof and unavoidable — embellishing entertainment shows?

They did. And how!

The only question for the networks after that has been: Just how big, protracted, animated and noisy can we make those promos before viewers flee to places like Netflix and Hulu, and take that one-third back?

Why non-major conferences should form their own "BCS"

2009-11-07T11:33:00.002-07:00

So this is getting ridiculous...I'll be the first to admit that BSU has no business being in the BCS championship game. Heck, I'd probably generalize that for most "non-BCS" conferences, just for the fact that their schedule tends to be "easier" compared to one-loss major programs. But still, how easy can "running" the table be for a football program year-in and year-out? Its going to get to the point where schools like BSU and Utah have more wins than Michigan, and they're still being left out of the party.
To beat a dead horse, NCAA football needs a playoff system of some kind. Drawing straws out of a hat would be more fair than the current system. Its rigged, and foolhardy. BSU, Utah, BYU, TCU, and any other school that's had enough of the BCS should just form their own bowl system. And if this crock of a system is NCAA instituted, well then the government NEEDS to step in and level the playing field once and for all. What's a recruiter to say when every football player in the nation sees non-major conference teams being screwed over every time they have an undefeated season? What a way to celebrate a rare accomplishment by making it look mediocre; BCS my ass!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boise BCS blocked

By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
RUSTON, La. – Is it cowardice or collusion?

Boise State athletic director Gene Bleymaier is all but begging for a major opponent – any major opponent – to play his Broncos, particularly in 2011. He can hardly get his calls returned. Not by the SEC. Not by the Big Ten. Not by anyone.

Bleymaier is making a nearly unheard of offer in college football scheduling – Boise will bring its popular, high-profile, top-10 team to any stadium in any town to play any big name team in America in 2011. And they don’t have to return the date in Idaho.

So far, no one has bit.

ESPN has even become involved trying to broker a deal that will almost assuredly be nationally televised. Still no luck.

It’s the kind of non-conference game that should have schools salivating. Boise delivers an opponent that will challenge your players, exposure that will extend your brand and a home game that will excite your fans.

“It’s been surprising how many big schools have not been receptive of us coming to their place,” Bleymaier said.

This is the conundrum for the upstart program and every non-major conference school trying to battle for national respect.

Boise is 44-4 over the past four seasons, including 4-1 against major conference opponents. Yet that doesn’t guarantee the Broncos a slot in a big money BCS bowl due to the level of competition they play in the Western Athletic Conference.

The school acknowledges it needs to play tougher teams. Yet how can they beat quality opponents if quality opponents won’t play them?

What Boise is left with is games like Friday’s here. They traveled 2,000 miles to beat Louisiana Tech 45-35, a conference game, and improve to 9-0 on the season. For that they practically had to apologize because it wasn’t a blowout.

“That’s how it always is when we play,” coach Chris Petersen said. “It’s never good enough. It’s good enough for us, we won. If you’re looking to win by so much, if you’re looking for style points, if you’re looking to play for the polls, which we’re not, it’s not going to be good enough.”

Petersen has had it with arguing about whether the Broncos deserve a BCS bid. All he can do is win games. His team beat the one major opponent that would play them this year – a 19-8 victory over Oregon in the season opener. That same Oregon team is now 8-1.

Yet he deals with questions about who his team plays in the WAC. Boise won consecutive games this year by a combined score of 99-16 and dropped from No. 4 to No. 7 in the BCS standings. Petersen said he wouldn’t be surprised if they dropped again this week. They may again put together a perfect season only to be left out.

The only answer is to play better non-conference opponents. Next season they have games against Oregon State and Virginia Tech. After that though, things may be drying up. In 2011, they can’t get one game, let alone two.

So are the big schools scared of playing Boise? Avoiding tough non-conference opponents is the new trend in college football thanks to the BCS. The championship system discourages dangerous, if exciting, out-of-league scheduling as it continues to sap the life out of the regular season.

Or, perhaps, this is how the major conferences are going to deal with the Broncos.

Put it this way, if no one good agrees to play Boise then Boise can’t beat anyone any good. And if Boise can’t beat anyone any good, then how can they ever argue they’re deserving of a spot in a $17.5 million BCS bowl?

“I don’t think it’s collusion,” Bleymaier said. “I think it’s athletic directors going to their football coaches and saying, ‘hey, what about playing this school?’ If coaches had their druthers they’d play sisters of the poor 11 times.”

Still, the frustration is obvious.

“Some of those schools that are saying ‘let them play our schedule’ won’t play us,” Bleymaier said.

That no one will accept Boise State’s offer is absurd. This isn’t a decade ago, when playing the program was no-win situation. If you won, you were supposed to win because no one had heard of them. If you lost (which was likely) it was a disaster.

There can’t be any college fans left who don’t know how good Petersen’s team is. A game against Boise would bolster anyone’s home schedule. It would be a huge game. The television exposure would be invaluable.

Maybe Florida and Texas don’t need a game with Boise (they can ride non-conference cupcakes to the title game). A middle of the pack Big Ten or Big 12 team certainly does though. Boise’s program is more famous than all of them – the Broncos are on true national television seven times this season alone.

Yet no one wants the game. They’ll schedule mismatches from the old Division I-AA instead (and charge full ticket price). Bleymaier has to keep his composure as he listens to the critics.

Last year Utah went 13-0 yet didn’t have a chance to play for the BCS title. At a Congressional subcommittee hearing University of Nebraska chancellor and BCS figurehead Harvey Perlman was asked what the Utes could’ve done differently.

“They could have played the schedule Nebraska did,” Perlman said.

While it’s par for the course for the BCS to have a leader who has no idea how college football works, what can a Boise State do in the face of that kind of ignorance?

Would Boise accept an invitation to join the Big 12?

“Yeah, of course,” Bleymaier said. “If we were in their conference we’d play that schedule.”

Not only is that not happening they can’t get one game against the league. While Bleymaier won’t say specifically which schools have turned him down, he will say that the open date remains – Sept. 3, 2011. The offer stands, the Broncos will go anywhere.

And, lo and behold, guess which major conference school happens to have an open date? How about Harvey Perlman’s Nebraska, the one-time powerhouse which could use all the big attention grabbing games it can get these days?

Don’t hold your breath on that one – chicken or collusion, the result is the same.

Cool new memory technology right up my alley

2009-10-31T15:33:00.001-06:00

Intel's next-gen memory closer to reality
by Stephen Shankland

Researchers are two steps closer to creating a mass-market version of technology called phase-change memory that could change how computers of the future are put together.
Intel and Numonyx, the chipmaker's joint venture with STMicroelectonics that's focused on flash memory, announced Wednesday they've built a new type of phase-change memory chip they hope will help fulfill the technology's promise for small size and large capacity.
Its 64-megabit capacity isn't momentous on its own--Numonyx announced a 128Mb device in 2006 and Samsung said in September it's producing a 512Mb chip. But what is significant are two major advances in making the decades-old idea practical.
First, the researchers built a grid of wires into the chip so a computer can easily control the writing of a 1 or 0 in each of the 64 million memory cells. Second, they announced their manufacturing process lets them stack several layers atop each other so memory can be packed more densely in a given volume.

This image shows phase-change memory built atop a conventional CMOS microchip. Memory cells can be controlled using rows and columns of wires that lead through the chip.

Storing numbers in a computer hardly is new, so why could phase-change memory, which records ones and zeros by changing the molecular state of a particular type of glass, be a big deal?
In short, it could combine conventional computer memory's high speed with flash memory's low cost, low power demands, and high capacity. Having lots of fast memory on hand could simplify computer hardware and software that today must reckon with a hierarchy of storage technologies that trade off performance for capacity.
Operating systems today must constantly work to keep important information in memory while relegating the rest to "virtual memory" stored on hard drives--or, these days, an intermediate layer in the hierarchy, solid state disks made of flash memory. Deciding what goes where is complicated, and priorities change from one moment to the next.
"At Intel, we see this as an important milestone in enabling a future class of memory where you can combine attributes of memory semantics and storage semantics, potentially collapsing the technologies into one memory type," said Al Fazio, Intel's director of memory technology development, discussing the technology Wednesday. "The research is very promising in delivering that."
For another thing, phase-change memory could get around difficulties of shrinking current memory technologies to ever-smaller sizes. And for another, it could lower the power consumption, reducing waste heat and extending battery life.
A long history
But be sure to temper that promise with a long history.
Phase-change memory is a decades-old idea. Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, of Moore's Law fame, wrote a paper on the idea in 1970. It's made some headway since then: phase-change technology is used to store data on rewritable DVDs and CDs.
Intel and Numonyx aren't alone in trying to commercialize the technology. Start-up Ovonyx also is working on it, as are IBM, Samsung, and Philips Electronics. But as the years of labor show, it's been difficult bringing phase-change memory to market.
Fazio and Greg Atwood, senior technology fellow at Numonyx, took pains to say their companies' work on the technology began in earnest at the beginning of the decade.
"Significant new memory technologies are really quite rare," Atwood said. "There are many hurdles in introduction of new memory. Ten years is not an unreasonable time frame."
Arguably, Atwood said, there only are three forms of memory developed since the 1960s, he said: dynamic random access memory (DRAM) that's the mainstay of computer memory, the more expensive static dynamic random access memory (SRAM) that's often integrated on processors, and electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), of which flash is one variety.
Adding phase-change memory, sometimes called PCM, PRAM, or ovonics, therefore would be quite a departure in the history of computing.
How's it work?
Phase change memory stores 1s and 0s in a tiny patch of glass material that can be changed from one state to another--specifically, so its molecules are arranged either in a crystalline pattern or an amorphous jumble. It's conceptually similar to water being either a liquid or an ice.
In addition, Intel announced "multi-level" phase change memory in 2008 that adds two intermediate states, a move that means a single cell could hold two bits of data instead of one--the binary numbers of 00, 01, 10, or 11. That effectively doubled the 128Mbit capacity of the prototype chip to a 256Mbit chip, Intel said.
The stacking technique could increase memory density further, though there are limits, Atwood said.
"In principle, we can stack as high as we choose. In practice, every layer of memory has an additional cost," he said, requiring more processing and increasing the risks that defects will lower the yield of useful chips produced from a production batch. "There's no reason why we couldn't stack four layers for example, or potentially more."
Though the researchers are excited about stacking, the 64Mbit prototypes uses only a single layer of memory cells. "The first layer is the hardest layer," Fazio said. And today's flash memory is only one layer thick.
Like flash but unlike conventional computer memory, phase-change memory is nonvolatile, which means that once data is written, it stays put even if the power is switched off. That doesn't just preserve data when a device is off; it also means that unlike DRAM, power isn't required to keep the data in memory.
Ever smaller
Intel was cagey about just how closely packed its latest memory cells are. But the company expects to achieve the same density of memory cells as flash memory--then go beyond it eventually.
Flash memory today requires relatively high voltages--about 20 volts--to store its data, Fazio said. But high voltage and small distances are hard to put together, a fact that imposes limits on flash memory.
Today's flash memory features measure about 30 nanometers, or billionths of a meter. Because of the voltage issue and the fact that the difference between a 1 and a 0 is just "a handful of electrons," it's getting harder to shrink flash memory technology.
Phase-change memory, though, can get much smaller. "Research in the industry has shown that to be stable down to 5 nanometers and lower," Fazio said.
The new wiring grid helps keep up with the shrinking trend by providing a way to get at the data even as cells get smaller.
All this is important for the computer industry, which has struggled with the challenges of data storage.
Once upon a time, memory and processors worked at closer speeds, but they've diverged over the years, which means processors often must idle while the memory system fetches data the CPU has requested. System architects have responded by building a hierarchy of storage systems--different levels of SRAM cache memory on the chip or right next to it, DRAM that's one level removed, and hard drives a step beyond that.
Today's flash memory, which is faster than a hard drive and cheaper than conventional memory, is changing that arrangement. It's already revolutionized the portable device market with enough capacity for lots of songs, videos, and photos. Now it's begun arriving in high-end laptops with solid-state drives that offer longer battery life, higher performance, and greater ruggedness. And servers are on the cusp of major changes with the incorporation of flash memory.
But flash memory is sluggish compared to conventional memory. If phase-change memory meets its high-performance promise in coming years, expect more profound changes for computing systems.

Intriguing article on sports betting

2009-10-29T13:33:00.001-06:00

Bad NFL teams turn sports books into losers
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports Oct 27, 2:36 pm EDT

With head shakes and hushed tones, they’re calling Sunday the worst day in memory at Las Vegas sports books.

NFL blowout after blowout caused the house to take a bath up and down the famed strip. Estimates have NFL gamblers across the city walking away with millions in cumulative winnings on Sunday alone.

“It was the worst weekend I’ve ever seen,” said Jay Kornegay, executive director of the sports book at the Las Vegas Hilton and a 22-year veteran of the business. “I’ve heard from across the world and everybody got really beaten up by the NFL.”

This is NFL season where parity has gone to die. The adage “On Any Given Sunday” has become a punch line with each successive 30-point blow out.

The league is full of terrible teams – St. Louis Rams (0-7), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (0-7), Tennessee Titans (0-6), Kansas City Chiefs (1-6), Cleveland Browns (1-6) and Detroit Lions (1-5) with the two-win Washington Redskins, Seattle Seahawks, Oakland Raiders and Carolina Panthers not too far behind.

The result has been a remarkable string of lopsided games in a sport where close contests have driven interest – and betting action – for decades.

“The NFL is a concern for us because there are so many non-competitive teams,” Kornegay said. “We can’t get the line high enough. History says, don’t make the line too high and overreact. Then all these poor teams don’t cover this weekend.”

No one is going to shed any tears for Vegas. This is one of the great gambling trends of all time, karma for all those bad beats through the years.
More From Dan Wetzel

* Pats' record-setting rout likely no coincidence Oct 19, 2009

For the house, it has been a terrible season punctuated by a calamitous Sunday. The issue isn’t just that some bad teams are getting blown out. It’s that none is stepping up and making a game of it, limiting the casino’s losses.

The individual gamblers are having a field day.

“We’ve had bad teams in the NFL before, but usually one or two step up and cover,” Kornegay said.

He paused and issued a gallows humor laugh.

“I feel like we’re in a knife fight and we’re losing.”

A brief explanation for non-gamblers: In an effort to attract action on an otherwise lopsided game (say, Indianapolis Colts at St. Louis on Sunday), a sports book will offer extra points to the underdog, in this case the winless Rams. Without a spread, everyone would bet the Colts and the house would get massacred.

The Golden Nugget sports book, for instance, opened with St. Louis getting 12.5 points (the half to help with ties). That way, if you bet the Rams and the actual game ended 21-10 Indy, you’d win the bet with a score of 22.5-21 St. Louis.

A betting line is fluid though and will correct itself as money pours in for the favorite or underdog. Despite the Rams getting all those points, at home no less, the money kept going to Indy. The line reacted by moving all the way to 14 points at kickoff.

The goal of a sports book is two fold. One is to have enough big spreads that when a few of the underdogs inevitably cover, the house offsets the losses. The second is to have an equal amount of money on each side of the game to limit exposure.

In this case, the money didn’t even out though. The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that in some sports books, 90 percent of the action was on the Colts. The bettors had good reason: Undefeated Indy won 42-6, covering with ease.

The question for the sports books is how big of a spread can you dare to throw out to the bettors. Traditionally double-digit underdogs are relatively rare. Most NFL games are decided by a touchdown or less and often a field goal or less.

Right now gamblers see as many of 10 clubs that are capable of getting drilled each week. The sports books are having an impossible time finding anyone to bet on a St. Louis or Oakland.

The Rams can be competitive against other lousy clubs. However, in three games against winning teams (Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings and Indy) they’ve lost by an average of 27.7 points. When the Rams host Super Bowl contender New Orleans in a few weeks, who would dare bet on them?

What spread number could possibly make it interesting?

The books have thrown up some massive numbers in college football, where especially in non-conference play the talent differential creates huge blowouts. Currently, national championship contender LSU is a 36-point favorite going into Saturday’s game against lowly Tulane.

You’ll never see that in pro football though. Kornegay said the highest spread he’s ever seen came in 1976, when the defending Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers were 24-point favorites against a Tampa Bay team that would go winless (Pittsburgh covered, winning 42-0).

In 2007, the powerhouse New England Patriots were often 20-plus favorites. That was just one team though. This is a league-wide epidemic not of great teams, but terrible ones.

Especially beneficial to gamblers are parlay bets where they can string together antes on three, four, five or more games to improve their odds. The chances they all come through is small, which is why they’re offered. A five-team parlay will generally net you at least a 20-1 payout.

Last weekend you could’ve teased favorites New England, Indy, Green Bay, the San Diego Chargers and New York Jets and not even worried. The closest game against the spread was the Patriots (minus-15.5 against Tampa Bay) cruising to a 35-7 victory.

As bad as it is for the casinos, it has to be worse with your friendly, neighborhood, illegal bookie. A Las Vegas casinos gambling operation can take sustained hits and survive. A local bookie, even one tied to organized crime, doesn’t have backing of that magnitude.

Geography also can play a huge roll in gambling trends – how many people in Indiana actually bet against the Colts? The limited number of gamblers can make for crushing defeats (or victories).

“I think there are a lot of new post office boxes out there this week,” Kornegay said. “Bookies may have just up and gone. Call them and get, ‘This number is no longer active.’ ”

The sports book executives are getting smacked right now, but even with this unusual season of horrible football teams, confidence remains high. There’s a reason they keep building bigger and bigger hotels in Nevada.

While a lot of people are flush with winnings right now, they rarely walk. In addition, a fresh group of weekend gamblers keep arriving at McCarron International Airport. Nothing stays the same.

“The beauty of sports betting is that people have some kind of insight into the game,” Kornegay said. “Now that everyone is predicting it correctly, we’re going to have a lot of experts out there.

“They’re going to reload.”

The casinos won’t even consider taking a NFL game off the board – as they sometimes do with college mismatches. The spreads will get more and more tantalizing. The house will use its trained professionals to attempt to figure out how to even the money out. And the bad teams can’t keep getting crushed, can they?

“We’ll continue to adjust the lines; we just have to hope some of the poor teams step up and stay within a couple of touchdowns,” Kornegay said.

This sounds like a calm, calculated and historically solid plan. Except, have you watched the Rams and Bucs and Lions and … ?

This doesn't sound good...and I believe its true!

2009-10-08T13:24:00.000-06:00

Whodunit? Sneak attack on U.S. dollar
Eamon Javers Eamon Javers

It’s the biggest mystery in global finance right now: Who conducted a sneak attack on the U.S. dollar this week?

It began with a thinly sourced but highly explosive report Monday in a British newspaper: Arab oil sheiks are conspiring with the Russians and Chinese to quit using the dollar to set the value of oil trades — a direct threat to the global supremacy of the greenback.

Is it true? Everyone from the head of the Saudi central bank to U.S. officials scrambled to undercut the story, but no matter.

With the U.S. economy on the ropes and America by far the world’s biggest debtor, investors aren’t feeling as secure about the dollar as they used to. And the notion of second-tier economies ganging up on Uncle Sam didn’t sound so far-fetched.

For American officials, the possibility of the dollar losing its long-term dominance in global commerce is a nightmare scenario because it would likely mean sharply higher interest rates at home and a declining ability to finance the U.S. debt. No one believes it could really happen right now, but stories like the British report this week make it seem incrementally more likely.

So the piece by Robert Fisk of the Independent shocked currency traders around the world and almost instantly sent the value of the U.S. dollar spiraling downward and the price of gold skyrocketing to an all-time high, as a hedge against a weakened dollar.

The website drudgereport.com quickly amplified the impact of the story with a headline atop the site: ARAB STATES LAUNCH SECRET MOVES WITH CHINA, RUSSIA, FRANCE TO STOP USING DOLLAR FOR OIL TRADING ...

“You read that story, and you do two things: You sell the hell out of dollars and you buy gold,” said Les Alperstein, president of the financial research firm Washington Analysis. “The story has a lot of credibility, with some caveats.”

So who wanted dollars diving and gold rising? In other words, who is Fisk’s source, and why did he or she want to tank the dollar? It’s the global currency version of the old Washington parlor game of speculating on the real identity of Deep Throat.

No one knows.

But one thing is for certain: With the price of gold jumping to $1,048.20 per ounce, traders who moved early enough stood to make millions.

So in government circles in Washington, speculation immediately centered on gold traders: With the skyrocketing price of gold, they’d be the biggest beneficiaries of the article.

Fisk’s story itself isn’t much help in solving the mystery — it is sourced vaguely to “Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong,” and it included one blind quote, attributed to “a prominent Hong Kong broker.” That doesn’t narrow down the pool very much.

The story doesn’t name any officials who had allegedly participated in the secret meetings involving the Arab states. It didn’t say where the meetings occurred or when. Other than saying the plan is to stop using the dollar by 2018, there was precious little detail to the account.

Around the world, traders turned to Wikipedia to find out more about Fisk himself. There, they learned that Fisk is a legendary British foreign correspondent who has been based in Beirut for more than 30 years and has won a slew of journalism awards. They also learned that he is one of only a few journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden (three times) and that he has expressed doubts that the United States has told the full story about the Sept. 11 attacks.

An analyst’s report from the Royal Bank of Scotland concluded, “Fisk is a veteran of the Middle East. ... he is also increasingly associated with more radical theories thus weakening the credibility of the story.”

Beyond the specifics of the story, the geopolitical implications of the report sent shudders from Riyadh to London to Washington: Has the long-dominant American economy been so humbled by the economic crisis that these nations would mount a frontal attack on the dollar, the underpinning of the world’s biggest economy?

That question is on the minds of global investors, who are keeping a skittish eye on the weakening dollar. And over the past several months there has been a steady drumbeat of Chinese, Russian and other officials who have talked openly about finding a replacement for the dollar as the global economy’s default currency. Any effort to do that would be fraught with difficulty. But however unlikely, the possibility represents a threat to the American economy, which has come to depend on the significant advantages it reaps from minting the currency most used around the world.

In another era, the dollar could shrug off such a vaguely sourced, thinly detailed story.

But not anymore.

The dollar is weak and vulnerable to rumor-mongering because many traders believe it will only get weaker. “The fundamental reason why this occurred is that after 9.8 percent unemployment on Friday, nobody can say with certainty that the recovery is sustainable,” said one analyst familiar with the situation.

“In years past, when the U.S. economic dominance was more pronounced and emerging markets were marginal players in the global economy,” noted an analyst’s report from HSBC, “the debate on pricing commodities in currencies other than the [U.S. dollar] typically came down to the lack of practicality. ... Today, emerging markets are clearly wielding much more influence in the global economy, and they want more, as will be borne out in this week’s IMF meetings.”

And that means U.S. officials whose job it is to defend the dollar may have their work cut out for them in the months to come.

I wonder how much money Edison made from the light bulb?

2009-09-26T16:49:00.002-06:00

The only ridiculous thing is the last line. I can't say I see myself paying upwards of $20 for a light bulb, no matter how long it claims it will last. The fail rate of CFLs has taught people this just isn't a gamble worth taking. I think the only way to encourage a mass influx of these into peoples' homes is if the government in tandem with the electric companies sells a dozen of these for $50. There's your quantity producers are looking for, and the price consumers would appreciate. How about an extra bill credit after a year of purchasing them just so everyone is motivated to participate?
----------------------------------------------------
Build a Better Bulb for a $10 Million Prize
by Eric A. Taub and Leora Broydo Vestel
Friday, September 25, 2009

Philips has developed an LED light bulb that uses one-sixth the energy of a standard 60-watt incandescent bulb.

The ubiquitous but highly inefficient 60-watt light bulb badly needs a makeover. And it could be worth millions in government prize money -- and more in government contracts -- to the first company that figures out how to do it.

Right now, that company could be Philips, the Dutch electronics giant. The company announced on Thursday that it had submitted the first entry for the L Prize, an Energy Department contest that will award up to $10 million to the first person or group to create a new energy-sipping version of the most popular type of light bulb used in America.

As the first entrant, Philips will win the prize if its claims hold up. Testing of the Philips lamp will take close to a year to complete as the department independently evaluates the company's claims.

"Philips is confident that the product submitted meets or exceeds all of the criteria for the L Prize," Rudy Provoost, chief of Philips Lighting, said in a statement.

The $10 million is almost beside the point. More important, the contest winner will receive consideration for potentially lucrative federal purchasing agreements, not to mention a head start at cracking a vast consumer marketplace.

The L Prize has garnered significant attention in the lighting industry because 60-watt incandescent lamps represent 50 percent of all the lighting in the United States, with 425 million sold each year. The Energy Department says that if all those lamps were LED equivalents, enough power would be saved to light 17.4 million American households and cut carbon emissions by 5.6 million metric tons annually.

For decades, incandescent light bulbs continued to bear a strong resemblance to Thomas Edison's creations, but new energy standards that go into effect in 2012 -- and would effectively outlaw today's incandescent bulb -- have brought about a period of fertile innovation in the lighting industry.

One of the first attempts at greater efficiency was the now-maligned compact fluorescent bulb, but there have also been efforts to modify incandescent technology to conform to the new standard. LED bulbs are now available in stores, but those models have limited output and high prices. A faithful reproduction of an incandescent bulb's light from an inexpensive and efficient source has been the industry's ultimate goal.

Philips has delivered 2,000 prototypes of its bulb to the Energy Department for testing. The company says the bulbs meet all the criteria of the contest, which specifies a bulb that reproduces the same amount and color of light made by a 60-watt incandescent bulb, but uses only 10 watts of power. The bulb must also last for more than 25,000 hours -- about 25 times longer than a standard light bulb. In a nod to economic concerns, at least 75 percent of the bulb must be made or assembled in the United States.

If the new bulb passes the department's testing regimen, it will be an even more efficient, longer-lasting lighting device than today's compact fluorescent bulbs. The department considers the introduction of compact fluorescents, today's alternative to standard bulbs, to have been a debacle.

At first, the department set no standards for compact fluorescent bulbs and inferior products flooded the market. Consumers rebelled against the bulbs' shortcomings: the light output from compact fluorescent bulbs was cold and unpleasant, their life was much shorter than claimed, many were large and undimmable, they would not work in cold environments and they contained polluting mercury.

By setting rigorous criteria for the L Prize, the department hopes LED bulbs can avoid a similar fate. That also means rejecting current LED bulbs that can claim some technical similarities, but fall far short of the L Prize's goals.

"We've probably eliminated almost 25 products that were horrible," said James R. Brodrick, manager of the Solid State Lighting Program of the Energy Department. "We test LED bulbs today that claim on the package that they're equivalent to 40 watts, but are really like 20-watt bulbs."

"This will be the most publicly tested bulb ever," Mr. Brodrick said.

The Philips LED lamp represents "a significant energy savings," said Nadarajah Narendran, the director of research at the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "This has now leapfrogged what C.F.L.'s can do."

The Energy Department will also award $5 million to the creator of an LED reflector lamp (no entries have yet been made) and a new, "21st-century lamp," the specifications of which are yet to be defined.

General Electric -- along with Philips and Osram Sylvania, one of the world's biggest lighting suppliers -- said that it would introduce a new LED module next month that would make it easier to replace traditional light sources with LEDs. Osram had no comment about its plans.

The first certified products, due in about a year, will not be cheap. Today's LED-based bulbs cost up to $100 each, and while there is plenty of optimistic talk about reducing that price, a clear path to affordability remains elusive.

To lower the cost, Mr. Brodrick has enlisted 27 utility companies around the country as L Prize partners, with the hope that utility subsidies, along with mass production, will help cut the cost. One such utility, Southern California Edison, will both test the bulbs and offer rebates to consumers, according to Gregg Ander, the company's chief architect.

"There's a potential for LED lamps to be much more acceptable to the consumer than compact fluorescents," Mr. Ander said. He said he expected that eventually, an LED substitute for a 60-watt bulb would cost the same as its compact fluorescent equivalent, factoring in its longer life.

Kevin Dowling, vice president for innovation at Philips Solid State Lighting Solutions, is confident that the LED light bulb can become an affordable option. "Over the long term, we can absolutely get the cost down to the $20 to $25 range," he said.

Why Iraq will inevitably end in civil war, thus our efforts have been futile

2009-07-22T21:47:00.002-06:00

Why Kurds vs. Arabs Could Be Iraq's Next Civil War
By Andrew Lee Butters
Wed Jul 22, 2:15 pm ET

With a projected capacity of about 40,000 bbl. a day, the new oil refinery inaugurated on July 18 by the Kurdish regional government of northern Iraq is modest even by the standards of Iraq's dilapidated oil industry. But its significance shouldn't be underestimated: in Kurdish minds, the region's ability to refine the oil it pumps is a vital step toward deepening its autonomy from the Arab-majority remainder of Iraq. (Read "The Reasons Behind Big Oil Declining Iraq's Riches.")

Until recently, Iraqi Kurdistan had no refineries of its own, and though the area is sitting on a huge pool of oil, it had to rely on gasoline supplies from elsewhere in Iraq, Turkey or Iran. Fearful of giving Iraq's ethnic Kurdish minority any control over the country's most precious resource, Saddam Hussein had not only declined to build refineries in the region; he made sure Iraq's oil pipelines bypassed Kurdish areas, and his army forcibly removed much of the Kurdish population from Kirkuk - the most important oil-producing area in the north - and repopulated the city with Arabs from the south.

Since Saddam's demise, however, the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is steadily developing an independent oil industry in northern Iraq. It has discovered and begun to develop new oil fields inside its boundaries, and has entered production-sharing deals with foreign oil companies that were made without the consent of the federal government in Baghdad. Those deals have raised suspicions among Iraq's Arab-dominated government that KRG is not simply taking on more of the prerogatives of sovereign statehood but is actually laying the economic infrastructure for independence.

For their part, Kurdish officials suspect that Baghdad's failure to pass a national oil law (which would give Iraq's provincial governments greater control over the industry in their territory) and its failure to press ahead with a referendum to settle Kurdish claims to Kirkuk and other disputed areas are signs that the Arab majority plans to settle matters in its favor. (Read "The U.S. Military: Mediating Between Kurds and Arabs.")

Such is the enmity, in fact, that KRG's president, Massoud Barzani, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki haven't spoken in over a year. Recently, KRG Prime Minister Nechirwan Barzani said that Arab-Kurdish relations in Iraq are at their lowest point since Saddam was in power. With Iraq's Sunni-Shi'ite sectarian violence largely in check, the Kurdish-Arab dispute has become the most worrisome fault line in Iraq.

Ever since the U.S. invasion, the Kurds of northern Iraq have enjoyed many of the trappings of sovereignty. Kurds have their own parliament and executive government, plus an 80,000-strong army (the Pesh Merga militia) and control over their borders, which Baghdad-controlled security forces are not allowed to enter. Despite the fact that the vast majority of Kurds want independence from Iraq, their leaders have proceeded with caution, mindful of the risks. Their small, landlocked region is surrounded by neighbors - Turkey, Syria, Iran - whose own restive Kurdish minorities make them hostile to the prospect of an independent Kurdish state emerging in Iraq.

While the rest of Iraq was in the grip of insurgency and sectarian civil war, the Kurds quietly advanced their economic-development policies, building an international airport, business hotels and hydro-electric dams and - most important - doing oil deals. They explained this autonomous engagement with international oil markets on the grounds that they couldn't wait for the barely functional Iraqi state to get its house in order. Indeed, such is the dismal state of Iraq's oil production (not yet back at pre-invasion levels, which were a fraction of its full potential) that in June, the Iraqi government allowed the Kurds to begin pumping oil extracted from newly developed Kurdish oil fields through federal pipelines for export sale to Turkey. (Currently, only Iraqi government companies can sell oil, the revenue from which is shared among the regions.)

Kurds have also grown impatient with Baghdad's stance on disputed territories. According to the Iraqi constitution, the central government should hold a referendum in the Kurdish-populated areas of four Iraqi governorates in northern Iraq (including Kirkuk) to determine whether they should remain under Baghdad's control or become part of the KRG. But even before that takes place, the constitution commits the Iraqi government to a potentially explosive reversing of Saddam's "Arabization" policies in these areas, moving Arabs out and Kurds in.

The Iraqi government has postponed the referendum several times from its original date in 2007, citing the understandable excuse that it could spark a new civil war between Kurds and Arabs.

But now that Iraq's government is increasingly stable, Kurdish leaders fear that Baghdad is merely playing for time, allowing the Iraqi military to grow in strength and capability as the U.S. moves to draw down, allowing the Iraqi government eventually to settle the issue the old-fashioned way: with tanks. Already, Kurdish and Iraqi forces have nearly clashed on several occasions in the disputed territories.

Last month, Kurdish lawmakers passed a regional constitution that unilaterally laid claim to the disputed territories and the oil resources in them. Though some Iraqi officials have said that the constitution amounts to a Kurdish declaration of independence, Kurdish leaders are pushing for a referendum to be held on the constitution as early as August.

Meanwhile, the domestic politics of both the Kurdish region and the wider Arab Iraq are pushing the two sides toward confrontation. In Kurdistan, where parliamentary elections will be held on June 25, a new party called Change is mounting the first significant challenge to the duopoly of Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. The new party is gaining ground by tapping into growing dissatisfaction with government corruption and nepotism. Although the parties credited with delivering today's de facto independence are likely to win, they have moved to strengthen their position by sharpening their tone toward Baghdad as the election approaches.

Baghdad has troubles of its own, which creates an incentive for Kurd-bashing. Most Iraqi Arabs have even less faith in their corrupt leadership class than Kurds have in theirs. And as al-Maliki consolidates his grip on power and styles himself as Iraq's new strongman, he may find that promising to push back against Kurdish efforts to dismember Iraq could help rally Arab Iraqis, both Sunni and Shi'ite, behind him. Hey, it worked for Saddam.

More career advice (for myself)

2009-07-06T01:57:00.001-06:00

How Not to Get Laid Off
by Ariane de Bonvoisin and John Kilcullen
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

What's triggering fears and sleepless nights for many of us about the unemployment abyss is not the job-loss stats themselves, but the depth of the cuts—and the qualifications of some of the people getting jettisoned. The questions we keep hearing are: Why do highly skilled, seemingly essential people get cut while others don't? Are there patterns? How can I make myself indispensable?

In talking with employers about what they most value in employees right now, it became clear that the key to surviving isn't so much about the skills you have, the awards you've won, or the tasks you perform day in and day out. It's as much about qualities, habits, and capacities.

This is no time to keep plugging along head down, half expecting every meeting invitation you open to be your exit interview. You must take action to embody the qualities of those employees who always get promoted and always avoid the next round of layoffs.

And don't think that just because your company isn't downsizing or has said it has no plans to that you're safe. Things can and do change fast in this environment, so take preventive measures. Plus, the kinds of qualities we're talking about will serve you well when things turn around.

1. Remember: It's Not About You Right Now

Force yourself to focus with laser accuracy on your company's success, not your own. In challenging times, the last thing your employer wants is to cater to you and your fears. They want you to be a selfless, highly collaborative team player who meets and exceeds your commitments. Your presence can't be an energy drain or create work.

2. Become a Black Belt at Change

The most important skill to develop right now is finesse at navigating change. That means flexibility and open-mindedness. Accept whatever management throws your way. If they change direction (again), shuffle the product mix, add new goals, or refine strategy on the fly, say yes to all of it. Resisting change only makes life more difficult for management and for everyone.

This also applies to those things you took for granted. Accept that your expense budget and staff have been cut. Accept that you now have more work on your plate with the same (or fewer) resources than you had a year ago.

3. Everything Is Your Job

Demonstrate your commitment to the overall success of your team and your company by taking on tasks that fall outside your job responsibilities. Pitch in on packing up the trade-show booth. Manage your own schedule/address book/travel plans. Offer to take notes and follow up after every meeting.

Nothing is beneath you. The little things you do above and beyond your job description will serve you well when it's performance appraisal and/or downsizing time. Forget your fancy title, your impressive résumé—and your ego.

4. Walk Away from the Water Cooler

When straits are dire and headlines scary, the last thing your company needs is negative, gossipy employees who polarize colleagues into an us-vs.-them dynamic. Employers value passionate overachievers whose uplifting attitude contributes to a more energizing team culture. Whatever it takes, keep the negative mindset out of the office. This is your mantra: No complaining, no blaming! Dwell on what can be rather than what can't.

5. "Unwritten Rules" Are Now Engraved in Stone

Show up early, stay late. Everyone notices people who leave on the dot of 5 (or before) or take very long lunches or excessive coffee/smoking breaks. Don't get a reputation for being one of those people who takes forever to respond to an e-mail, voicemail, or a simple question. Vigilantly follow up on all assigned action items. Management is increasingly scrutinizing your every move.

6. Step Up—and Wear Very Big Shoes

Don't wait for someone else to solve your problems. Your manager needs to hear how the organization can trim costs, manage the supply chain better, find a new client, improve processes, motivate the workforce, and deliver the next big thing.

Observe what your competitors are trying and testing, read everything relentlessly, and ask people how you can improve what you do.

Your goal here is to make sure there'd be a gaping hole if you were no longer around. Make the choice every day to do work that really matters to the success of the team and the company. Put yourself in a position that is crucial to the success of a new initiative, or dig in to solve a vexing, long-neglected problem. Maintain a bias for action in every meeting.

7. Transparency Is Your New Trump Card

You must be totally transparent as to what you're working on and how it fits with management objectives. There can be no hiding, and no withholding information. If you don't have enough on your plate, say it. Ask to take on more—or better yet, suggest projects you can spearhead that have killer ROI.

The more honest your superiors believe you are, the more likely they are to trust you and keep you close. Being authentic builds relationships, even more than just hard work. Stop hoping no one finds out who you are or what you really do all day. Let people in…or they'll be showing you the door. Employers are likely to keep you around if they see you as a vital associate.

8. Make Friends in New Places

Human resources and finance are two departments that can have a significant impact on your career whether you realize it or not. They know a lot about you that can influence how you're perceived. Respect those folks, socialize with them, ask for their advice, and make sure you carefully do a little self-promotion. When cuts need to be made, you won't be an unknown quantity to them.

9. Start Tweeting or Start Packing

Look at the Millennials and see how they work, how they make decisions, and what technology and tools they use. No time for "I don't do Twitter or Facebook." Acquaint yourself with social networks, mobile applications, and commerce platforms to remain relevant. Let them intimidate you and you give your boss reasons to replace you with someone younger and more in the game. Ask a family member to help, take a course, read a book…and dive in.

10. Fit Club

Healthy people tend to have better outlooks and are easier to be around. They take good care of themselves, which in turn earns them the respect of others. Fit people often set high standards for themselves both at work and at play. And they just have more stamina, so they tend not to get tired when on deadline, and they don't call in sick as much. They have incredible endurance when others are reaching for that 10th Coke or itching to make that next trip to Starbucks. They are also calmer and more productive. So get your sleep, eat well, exercise, stay hydrated, and avoid excessive caffeine and alcohol. This is an investment that will pay dividends for you and your employer. And yes, your employer does notice.

Rate yourself. Which of these 10 areas are you excelling in, which are you doing O.K. in, and where do you need to change your behavior? The truth hurts, doesn't it? But take the steps to make sure that it's your career that gets rolling, rather than your head.

How about "ALL POLITICIANS are just plain STUPID!"

2009-06-25T10:56:00.000-06:00

Analysis: Why do politicians cheat?
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – What is it with philandering politicians?

Why do men in power — the ones on pedestals — think they are above us and can get away with cheating on their spouses, particularly when media scrutiny is so intense and peccadilloes are arguably more politically damaging than in the past?

There's a long list of those who thought they could jet off to Argentina, or cruise on the Monkey Business, or check into a hotel under an assumed name or use an escort service and never get caught, never have to come clean.

The names quickly come to mind — South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., Sen. David Vitter, R-La., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., one-time Democratic presidential hopefuls John Edwards and Gary Hart, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, current New York Gov. David Paterson.

These days, the fallout can run the gamut. It can doom a career — former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey — or unleash the fury of a special prosecutor, leading to impeachment — then-President Bill Clinton.

This wasn't always the way it was. There are politicians, presidents even, who did the dalliance dance privately and didn't pay publicly, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt included.

No more.

It's a different world — a public that feeds on the exploits of Paris, Lindsay and Britney documented in the tabloids, glossy magazines and at-your-fingertips Internet has developed an insatiable appetite for scandal.

That makes it all the more inexplicable that these men — and they are almost universally men, as politics remains mostly a man's game — tempt fate. And, particularly, men with presidential aspirations.

One possible explanation, said Stanley Renshon, a political psychologist at City University of New York: "Narcissism is an occupational hazard for political leaders. You have to have an outsized ambition and an outsized ego to run for office."

Or, perhaps, think you can stray from your marriage without consequence.

"I think too often, and for me in the political process, you begin to think of yourself as master of your own universe and your own set of ethical structures, your own sense of decision-making," McGreevey, who resigned amid a scandal over his admission of a homosexual affair, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show.

To be sure, politicians don't necessarily have different reasons for cheating than non-politicians, and they don't necessarily cheat more often.

The difference: "They live their lives more in a fishbowl, and that has responsibilities and costs with it," Renshon said, adding that an adulterous politician doesn't just betray his family's trust, he also betrays the public's trust.

Indeed, when politicians get caught, they do so in extraordinary fashion and their actions raise questions about their judgment, character and integrity as a leader.

If they can lie to their loved ones, who is to say they won't lie to everyone else? If they can't stay faithful to their marriage vows, who is to say they'll stay faithful to their oaths of office? And if they have secrets in their private lives, who is to say they don't have secrets in their public lives?

"It does matter in public perceptions," said Stephen Wayne, a Georgetown University government professor who has studied political psychology. When it comes to the highest positions in politics, he said, "we want to figure out who acts as a model for others."

Presidents, senators, congressmen and governors who have extramarital affairs flunk that test.

On some level, it's easy to see why they cheat.

Fred Greenstein, a Princeton University professor emeritus of politics, suggested adrenaline as the common denominator, saying, "For some individuals, the excitement of illicit sexual activity might feed the same desire" as "the excitement of politics."

Political life — with its long hours, frequent travel and endless stream of new acquaintances — also can be a strain on even rock-solid marriages. At times, the lifestyle almost seems to invite unfaithfulness.

"There's lots of temptation," Greenstein added.

There's also a clue in the kind of people drawn to politics.

These are men who love themselves deeply, need to be recognized and relish approval. These are men who adore getting praise and who often are surrounded by swarms of sycophants. These are men who, in some cases, need to exercise power and sometimes can become drunk from it. These are men who think the rules don't apply to them and who think they're untouchable.

As leaders, these are also the type of men who are likely to break promises, manipulate and cut corners. They probably are big risk-takers. And they're prone to thinking of themselves first.

Just ask their wives, their mistresses — or the security details that often are privy to indiscretions.

Not a year seems to go by without a Washington sex scandal, and both Democrats and Republicans are guilty.

Last year, Edwards, Vitter and Spitzer came before the public to admit they erred.

This month alone, it has been Ensign and Sanford, two Republicans who have mentioned as possible 2012 presidential candidates as the out-of-power GOP seeks to rebound.

Those dreams are probably over, and the double disclosures of infidelity also may have brought short-term embarrassment to a party searching for a new leader.

Said Todd Harris, a Republican operative, "If this was supposed to be our farm team, we'd better start looking for a new farm."

Go US Soccer!

2009-06-24T23:29:00.000-06:00

US triumph over Spain helps image of soccer
By ROBERT MILLWARD, AP Soccer Writer

JOHANNESBURG (AP)—The United States’ amazing 2-0 victory over Spain at the Confederations Cup on Wednesday night sent out a loud and clear message that no one, not even the world’s top-ranked team, is guaranteed anything in this captivating sport and no team is ever out of contention.

Even a 15-game winning streak doesn’t put the ball in the net.

Look at this sequence of results.

The United States loses 3-1 to Italy. Italy loses 1-0 to Egypt. The Americans beat the Egyptians 3-0 and then end Spain’s 35-game unbeaten run and 15-match streak of victories to reach the Confederation Cup final.

Does this make any sense? Or is it simply more proof that soccer, the world’s most popular sport, is still capable of throwing up the biggest surprises?

Now the Americans, seemingly on their way home after losing by two goals to Italy and by three to Brazil in their first group games, will march proudly to Sunday’s final in Johannesburg against either host South Africa or five-time World Cup winner Brazil.

The Spaniards, who began with a 5-0 thumping of New Zealand before beating Iraq 1-0 and South Africa 2-0, are heading for the third-place playoff, the so-called loser’s final, their unbeaten and winning streaks now torn to shreds.

“I can’t explain it any more than you can,” American goalkeeper Tim Howard said. “Sports is funny sometimes, but when you put your mind to something, you can achieve it.” Howard defied the Spaniards with a series of saves in the second half.

“The only thing that was going to get us through this game was sticking together, working hard and we did that,” he said. “We rode our luck at times, they were a great team, they pushed us all the way to the limit but we took our chances well.”

U.S. coach Bob Bradley showed that, while his players respect their opponents, they don’t respect reputations.

He sent his team out to play the game at a fast pace and, by crowding out their opponents in defense and midfield, did not allow the talented Spaniards room to create their interpassing moves.

They made even Fernando Torres, Xavi Hernandez and Cesc Fabregas look ordinary simply by giving them no space or time to work their magic. Although the Americans left huge spaces down the wings, the stars of Barcelona, Real Madrid and Liverpool couldn’t find a way through the crowded center of the field.

Yet the men in all white created enough chances just in the first eight minutes in Bloemfontein to suggest they were the ones with the long unbeaten record. Charlie Davies went close twice, Clint Dempsey shaved Spain’s post and Spanish goalkeeper Iker Casillas gestured to his teammates to calm down.

Suddenly this didn’t look like the Spain that dominated and entertainingly won last year’s European Championship, then went on to stretch its unbeaten run into this tournament.

The strikes by Jozy Altidore and Dempsey were more than deserved because they reflected the commendable attitude of the underdog side not to cower beneath the superiority of a far more talented team.

This being a knockout game, the U.S. played this match on its own terms and the Spaniards took half the game to get into its stride.

After the break, Spain used the width of the field to create chances but were repeatedly thwarted by well-timed challenges by Jay DeMerit and Oguchi Onyewu. When they were beaten, goalkeeper Howard punched away long range shots or dived to palm them away.

DeMerit and Onyewu have been playing in Europe for a while, although not alongside the Spanish stars at Real Madrid or Barcelona.

This is their moment.

While Spain’s stars probably wish they could go home instead of hanging around for the “losers’ final” on Sunday against South Africa or Brazil, the Americans have a title to play for.

Those who suffer from these little bastards like me should read this post!

2009-06-14T23:16:00.002-06:00

Eye exercises to fight floaters
These simple exercises improve and maintain good vision and may also get rid of those pesky floaters in your eyes.

-Rub your palms together to create heat, and then place them against your eyes for five seconds. Repeat this three times.
-Roll your eyes in circles, starting at the top and slowly circling 10 times clockwise and 10 times counterclockwise.
-Hold a pen at arm's length, focus your eyes on it, and slowly bring the pen closer until it's about six inches away from your nose. Then slowly move it back, keeping your eyes focused on the pen, 10 times in all.
-Using your thumb knuckles, massage your temples in small circles, 20 times in one direction and 20 in the other. Repeat the same actions above the mid-point of the eyebrows at the forehead, then below the eyes on both sides of the bridge of the nose.
-Take a nap on the job! Put your head back, close your eyes, and relax for three minutes.

After a month you will notice an improvement in vision and a decrease in floaters. Try to do these exercises first thing in the morning, just before bed, or whenever your eyes feel tired, like after computer use. Make sure your hands are clean and that you are relaxed. The key to progress is daily practice, so make it a habit! Additionally, take care of your eyes by wearing UV-protective sunglasses.

Note to self

2009-05-09T17:26:00.001-06:00

Seven Career Killers
by Erin Burt
Friday, May 1, 2009

You worked hard to get the education, the skills and now the job. Don't let these mistakes sabotage your climb up the career ladder.

Lying on your résumé, stealing office supplies or failing to show up for work will surely dampen your career prospects. But young workers need to beware of less-obvious mistakes that can sabotage their careers. Your behavior, attitude and appearance will play important roles in finding success, not only in your first job, but also throughout your entire working life.

As someone just starting out in the work world, you probably don't have a reputation yet. Take advantage of this blank slate. "You want to be seen as an up-and-comer, not the stereotypical young slacker," says Marty Nemko, a job coach in Oakland, Cal., and columnist for Kiplinger.com. Avoiding these seven career killers will help you craft a stellar reputation and keep your career on track.

1. Procrastinating. Remember the first time you put off studying for a test then crammed at the last minute and still got a decent grade? Many of us have been procrastinating since grade school and have done just fine, but that's a habit you have to break. "There's no grade inflation in the workplace," says Nemko. If you pull together a report or presentation at the last minute, your shoddy preparation is going to show. And if something unexpected happens -- say your computer crashes or a key contact fails to return a call -- the old "dog-ate-my-homework" excuse isn't going to cut it. "Procrastination is an ingrained habit," Nemko says, "but if you don't kick it pretty quick, you're going to find yourself on the corporate slow track."

2. Having a sense of entitlement. Our generation was raised on instant gratification -- we're used to getting what we want, and getting it now. Yet when it comes to our careers, no matter how hard we work, we cannot get five years' worth of experience in one year. Younger employees tend to feel entitled to quick promotions, says Randall Hansen, founder of Quintessential Careers and associate professor of marketing at Stetson University in Deland, Fla. Falling into that trap can hinder a climb up the career ladder. If you carry the attitude that you deserve to be promoted or else, you may find that "or else" is your only option, says Hansen.

If you're lucky enough to even have a job in this economy, remember that fresh out of school, you're on the bottom rung of the career ladder. That means you're going to have to pay some dues, such as taking on jobs others don't want or working days others want off. But that doesn't mean you should accept your low status forever. Learn more about how to know when it's time to move up -- and how to pull it off.

3. Settling into your job description. You may have your set responsibilities, but you should always be on the lookout for opportunities to shine. Going above and beyond your mundane entry-level tasks can demonstrate your untapped talents and show your boss you're not afraid to take initiative. Settle into your job description for too long and your reputation may be cast as a low-level lackey.

You may have to do a little self-promotion, but try not to come off as a braggart. Nemko's daughter, for example, got her first job working for Hillary Clinton -- but her job description was to answer letters to Socks, the Clintons' pet cat. Soon after starting, she approached her boss and said she was willing to pay her dues, but that she had good research and writing skills. She pointed out that she might be useful on some other task. A few days went by and her boss asked her to research a topic and write a one-page brief for Clinton. She ended up spending a year as a researcher -- that certainly beats handling feline fan mail.

4. Avoiding office politics. When it comes to playing office politics, there is naughty and nice. Naturally, you shouldn't engage in backstabbing and gossiping. But avoiding politics altogether can be deadly for your career. Like it or not, every workplace has an intricate system of power, and you can -- and should -- work it ethically to your best advantage. To get a promotion, avoid downsizing or get a project approved, you need co-worker support. Get that backing by building relationships, asking others for advice, offering your help and showing sincere interest in others, advises Nemko. (Learn more about how to make yourself fire-resistant in the workplace.)

It's also crucial to identify your workplace's hidden pockets of power. On paper, a certain person may be in charge, but you need to know who else in the office has influence so you can be sure to impress the right people.

5. Not being a team player. Getting stuck with this label is one of the fastest career killers, says Hansen. But young workers face a delicate balance. "You can't be so much a member of the team that your individual efforts are not recognized and rewarded," Hansen says. You still need to demonstrate your skills and abilities to successfully build your career without giving the appearance that you're interested only in looking out for yourself.

6. Not dressing the part. In an ideal world, you would be judged by your merits alone. However, we live in a visual society. How you present yourself can play a crucial role in the progress of your career. You want to look professional and in control, not sloppy and indifferent. Keep your hair and nails trimmed, your clothes ironed and your breath smelling nice.

As for your apparel, take your cues from what others are wearing -- you don't want to show up in a suit and tie if jeans are the norm. But it doesn't hurt to dress for the job you want, advises Nemko. It can set you apart from the rest of the crowd and subtly help higher-ups visualize you in a position of more power and responsibility. If you want people to take you more seriously and build influence, you've got to dress the part. See Dress for Success for Less for tips on pulling this off on a budget.

7. Failing to network. You've heard that networking can be a good tool to help you find a job, but maintaining your contacts after you're hired is critical to the continuing success of your career. Keeping in touch helps you stay atop the latest issues in your field and gives you people to call on when you need advice. And a contact just may help you land your next job.

When you're starting out, you probably don't know many people in your field, but there are plenty of ways you can plug into the grapevine:
* Check out the resources offered by your college alumni association.
* Join a professional organization or club.
* Subscribe to a trade magazine.
* Find online discussion groups for your industry through groups.google.com.
* Keep in touch with college acquaintances in your major, especially those who may have graduated before you.
* Don't be a wallflower at conferences and other functions. And always keep a business card on hand when you're outside the office. You never know when you might run into a potential contact.

Don't forget to build rapport with higher-ups in your office. You can introduce yourself at informal company socials or even while riding in the elevator. Then send them an e-mail or stop by their office to ask an occasional question or to follow up on something you chatted about previously. You never know when that friendship could come in handy down the road.

Republicans need to quit defending the wealthy and live up to their small government roots

2009-02-27T00:13:00.003-07:00

Good analysis of Obama's tax policies, which clears most small businesses the "elephants" purportedly defend. I call rubbish, and I think its time the wealthy of this country start taking a more proportionate tax "burden". Not to squelch success, but even after 30% taxes, those individuals still end up taking home more than enough money. So its not like forgoing another vacation home is that much of a punishment. Really, they need to revise the tax brackets instead of playing these dumb tax games.

FACT CHECK: GOP adrift on small business claim
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 26, 6:14 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Claims that President Barack Obama's tax plans are an assault on small business skirt the likelihood that most job-producing small businesses wouldn't feel that pinch at all.

Obama is proposing to raise taxes on households earning over $250,000 by increasing the rate on the top two tax brackets and limiting deductions, starting in 2011.

Republicans and other critics, knowing they will get little mileage from defending the rich, instead are casting the plan as a tax hit on people who run industrious little companies driving job growth.

That's not likely, according to one in-depth analysis, which found that more than 95 percent of small business owners would be off the hook.

Obama does not propose higher business taxes.

But critics reason that owners of many small companies report business income on their personal tax returns instead of filing corporate taxes. That exposes their business's earnings to Obama's higher tax rates on the wealthy.

To be sure, some business owners would get caught in that net.

But for one thing, most small businesses don't create jobs. They tend to be lawyers, accountants and other professionals who earn some of their money from partnerships or otherwise organize themselves as a business entity.

As well, many small businesses with employees don't earn enough to put their owners over the threshold for the higher tax rates.

Indeed, most of them — like Joe the Plumber of presidential campaign fame — would probably get Obama's tax break for the middle class.

Obama also proposes to eliminate capital gains taxes on small businesses and make a research tax credit permanent. He would expand a provision that allows money-losing companies to get refunds from taxes paid in previous years, when the companies were profitable.

Still, Obama is not cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans, as his supporters often say. The president himself asserted Thursday that he's giving a "a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of hardworking families."

An independent analysis estimated that 75.5 percent of all U.S. households would get his tax credit for workers. A higher percentage of working families would get it.

THE CLAIMS:

_"In fact, a majority of those penalized by the proposed tax increase in this budget are small businesses." — Republican Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.

_"Small businesses and the entrepreneurs who lead them have been the primary drivers of job growth over the past decade. This plan would punish them with higher taxes, resulting in less government revenue, less economic growth, and fewer jobs — not more." — Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

THE FACTS:

The U.S. has roughly 6 million businesses that employ people, and 20 million businesses without employees.

The latter group includes solo operators, professionals in partnerships and those who organize themselves as a business for tax purposes but earn little if any income from the enterprise.

Small businesses are defined as having fewer than 500 workers each.

Sizable companies within that group wouldn't be snagged by Obama's personal tax rates simply because they are too large to report income on the individual return of the owner.

Many truly small operations simply don't make enough to qualify for the tax hit.

Last year the Tax Policy Center run jointly by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution examined the likely effects of Obama's plans to raise taxes on couples making over $250,000.

The analysis estimated that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income or losses fall in the two tax brackets whose rates would go up under Obama. Many are small businesses on paper, without workers.

Millions of other small-business owners would be clear.

PDP vs LCD

2009-02-17T23:29:00.003-07:00

The big news of the week in the techie HDTV world is Pioneer leaving television production. *Tear Well, its definitely not the end of the world, but like WB to HD DVD, this sets up a do-or-die scenario for plasma manufacturers already reeling from the runaway cancer that is LCD. So in case you can't tell, I'm bitter than another one of my chosen technologies is going to die due to ignorance on the part of consumers, or more like crafty, deceptive advertising by the dark lord Sony. To be frank, LED-backlit LCDs are the only LCDs worth looking at, but even then they only begin to compete with plasma. You still have to deal with the fact that you're basically dealing with a projection style picture where you better be front and center or the picture begins to fade. Well, enough introduction from me. I don't care what the result is, as long as OLED eventually makes its way to the party. Check out the linked article if you're interested in reading more...
Link

The Official Netflix Blog: Encoding for streaming

2009-01-21T04:08:00.000-07:00

For those interested in the technical aspects of Netflix streaming (bitrates and codecs), this is a helpful posting on their blog page. Sounds like they're still trying to figure out the kinks in multi-channel audio...

The Official Netflix Blog: Encoding for streaming

First Interview of President-Elect Obama

2008-11-17T02:14:00.000-07:00

Nice (if not safe) interview from 60 minutes. I don't know about you, but it makes me ponder what it would be like to be president, almost like a child might.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Interesting article on American attitudes toward wealth distribution

2008-10-26T12:19:00.001-06:00

Ordinary Joes have mixed feelings on wealth
By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer
Sat Oct 25, 12:22 pm ET

NEW YORK – The war of words waged by John McCain and Barack Obama for the votes of plumbers and other average Joes is a reminder of the nation's long-standing doubts about concentrated wealth — and its qualms about doing something about it.

Americans have voiced concerns about putting too much wealth in to too few hands since the country was founded, but the public's views also come with contradictions.

Now it's clearer than ever — thanks to Obama's much scrutinized talk about taxes with a certain Ohio voter and McCain's dogged criticism — that these mixed feelings about income inequality are a long way from being resolved.

"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told the man — maybe you've heard of him — Joe the Plumber.

The remark may have sounded pretty innocuous. But McCain has lambasted his rival's words as sounding "a lot like socialism," and turned the criticism into a central theme of his campaign's final round. Obama's remarks, McCain says, are emblematic of a tax plan to confiscate wealth and give it to the poor that would make the IRS "into a giant welfare agency."

The comments of both presidential candidates touch nerves in American politics — longtime concern about too much concentration of wealth, but also about the role of government and the individual. More than two centuries after Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and other early leaders warned about the hazards of too much in the hands of too few, Americans have developed complex views on the intertwining issues.

A substantial majority of Americans say the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, opinion polls show. A growing number say the U.S. is becoming a nation of haves and have-nots.

The public's concerns reflect a shifting dynamic in recent years, as an increasing share of the wealth has gone to people at the top of the income scale. The top tenth of U.S. households now earn an average of 11.2 times what those in the bottom tenth make, according to the Census Bureau. That's up from a ratio of 8.7 three decades ago. The wealthiest fifth of U.S. households now take in 50 percent of all income, up from 44 percent in 1977. The differences are even more pronounced in analyses of incomes for the top 1 percent of households.

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the U.S. population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself," then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in 2005.

But Americans are divided on whether government should be heavily taxing the rich in order to benefit those with less.

"It's a complicated area to try to understand American attitudes," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll. "It's kind of like, in some instances, conflicting medical research ... There's no one answer."

A majority of Americans — 51 percent in a poll by Gallup this past April — said they support "heavy taxes" on the rich to redistribute wealth. That is significantly higher than when the same question was asked in 1939, at the tail end of the Great Depression, when 35 percent agreed.

But people's support for higher taxes on the wealthy are tempered by their own aspirations.

"Most Americans hope to some day be wealthy and as a result, the idea of kind of redistributing income is not as popular as (government policies resulting in) making a bigger pie so everybody does better off," said Dennis Jacobe, chief economist for Gallup.

The tension between those ideas runs through American politics in ways that don't always seem logical. Even many wealthy people support higher taxes on the rich. In a country that believes in itself as a place where anybody who works hard enough can make it, though, there's a certain wariness of taxes that might discourage hard work.

McCain's criticism of Obama's tax plan is "trying to go for this idea that, in the U.S., is much more popular than in other countries ... that you get ahead through your own efforts," said Bryan Caplan, author of "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies," and an economics professor at George Mason University. "I think he's trying to tap into what is a distinctly American view."

That view is far from universal, but it does go way back. In fact, the debate over distribution of wealth has been going on since the U.S. was a brand new nation.

After years of being ruled by British royalty, the country's first political leaders argued that the U.S. must avoid creating its own aristocracy that would allow the wealthy to exert unfair power. But the party that touted itself as the true champions of economic equality was the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

"Of course, in actuality, many followers of Jefferson were also slaveholders and the greatest disparities in wealth concentration were right in front of their noses," said Robert E. Wright, who teaches economic and financial history at New York University's Stern School of Business.

Americans didn't face the first tax on personal income until 1861, when a Union government desperate for cash to fight the Civil War decided it had little choice. The tax was sold as a way of making sure the rich, most of whom who were not marching off to war, were bearing their fair share of responsibility, Wright said.

That tax — a flat assessment — survived until 1895, when it was declared unconstitutional.

The country's first experiments with income taxes were promoted as necessities, rather than as a way to shift wealth to where it was needed. Over time, economists came to embrace the concept of a progressive tax — one that levies higher rates in proportion to income — as a means of not just paying for government, but ensuring fairness.

And when the income tax was brought back with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the tax that was enacted was progressive. Rates began at 1 percent and rose to 7 percent for taxpayers with income above $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.

A 2003 survey of U.S. economists found most endorse policies resulting in redistribution of wealth. The strongest support came from economists who identified themselves as Democrats, said Daniel B. Klein, a co-author of the survey. But self-identified Republican economists were near neutral, offering only mild opposition to the concept.

Misgivings about wealth are pretty universal. For most of economic history, people viewed the total amount of wealth in society as finite and those with less viewed those with more as having gotten it by unfair means.

That view has shifted in modern economies, as people have embraced the idea that policies that lead to growth can improve all fortunes. Still, in much of the world, proposals to share wealth more fairly by means of higher taxes on the wealthy would win wide support.

But the U.S. is a young nation with a highly developed economy, giving rise to a uniquely American strain of thought. Those with less look at those with more and try to figure out how to catch up.

"Here we call it 'keeping up with the Joneses,'" Wright said.

Americans do strongly favor higher taxes on those with more, and back efforts to help those with less.

When Americans were polled by Gallup in April, 68 percent said they believe money and wealth should be distributed more fairly. In a survey in July, 49 percent said the U.S. has become a nation of haves and have-nots, up from 37 percent who felt the same way four years ago.

But a majority of Americans also say the government is doing too much and should instead be leaving more to individuals and businesses. And when asked how government should fix the economy, people overwhelmingly said they favor policy to improve overall economic conditions and the jobs situation, rather than steps to redistribute income.

In retrospect, though, the question forced people to make a choice that now seems obvious, Gallup's Newport said. Who wouldn't favor policies to improve the total economy?

To him, the poll showing more than half of people favor "heavy" taxes on the rich is more revealing, given the strong wording of the question.

But even with such support, politicians have learned to walk a careful line in explaining the need for higher taxes.

"It's not like, 'Look, we're raising your taxes to (more evenly) distribute," income, Caplan says. "We're doing it because we need to raise money."

60 Minutes Interview with CEO of BofA

2008-10-25T07:54:00.000-06:00

BofA biggest achievement of the past 10 years? Somehow they were one of a very slim minority to resist the subprime lending market. How an institution of this size was able to show that much restraint is a model for the industry.

One other interesting revelation: BofA financially touches 1 of every 2 American households. That's scary big.

Watch CBS Videos Online

SNL has more in the tank, poor Republicans

2008-10-25T05:17:00.000-06:00

Bush Endorsement

Palin Rap

Palin/Biden debate

Who do these assholes think they are?

2008-10-08T07:24:00.000-06:00

I agree wholeheartedly with what Obama proposed in the debate Tuesday. Read below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIG execs' retreat after bailout angers lawmakers

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Tue Oct 7, 11:15 PM ET

Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings, according to lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown.

AIG sent its executives to the coastal St. Regis resort south of Los Angeles even as the company tapped into an $85 billion loan from the government it needed to stave off bankruptcy. The resort tab included $23,380 worth of spa treatments for AIG employees, according to invoices the resort turned over to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The retreat didn't include anyone from the financial products division that nearly drove AIG under, but lawmakers still were enraged over thousands of dollars spent on outing for executives of AIG's main U.S. life insurance subsidiary.

"Average Americans are suffering economically. They're losing their jobs, their homes and their health insurance," the committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., scolded the company during a lengthy opening statement at a hearing Tuesday. "Yet less than one week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation."

Former AIG CEO Robert Willumstad, who lost his job a day after the Federal Reserve put up the $85 billion on Sept. 16, said he was not familiar with the conference and would not have gone along with it.

"It seems very inappropriate," Willumstad said in response to questioning from Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

"Those executives should be fired," Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said at a debate with Sen. John McCain on Tuesday, referring to the retreat participants. Obama also said AIG should give the Treasury $440,000 to cover the costs of the retreat.

But Eric Dinallo, superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, said he could see the value of such a retreat under the circumstances.

"Having been at large global companies and knowing what condition AIG was in ... the absolute worst thing that could have happened" would have been for employees and underwriters in its life insurance subsidiary to flee the company.

"I do agree there is some profligate spending there, but the concept of bringing all the major employees together ... to ensure that the $85 billion could be as greatly as possible paid back would have been not a crazy corporate decision," Dinallo told the House committee.

The hearing disclosed that AIG executives hid the full range of its risky financial products from auditors as losses mounted, according to documents released by the committee, which is examining the chain of events that forced the government to bail out the conglomerate.

The panel sharply criticized AIG's former top executives, who cast blame on each other for the company's financial woes.

"You have cost my constituents and the taxpayers of this country $85 billion and run into the ground one of the most respected insurance companies in the history of our country," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. "You were just gambling billions, possibly trillions of dollars."

AIG, crippled by huge losses linked to mortgage defaults, was forced last month to accept the $85 billion government loan that gives the U.S. the right to an 80 percent stake in the company.

Waxman unveiled documents showing AIG executives hid the full extent of the firm's risky financial products from auditors, both outside and inside the firm, as losses mounted.

For instance, federal regulators at the Office of Thrift Supervision warned in March that "corporate oversight of AIG Financial Products ... lack critical elements of independence." At the same time, PricewaterhouseCoopers confidentially warned the company that the "root cause" of its mounting problems was denying internal overseers in charge of limiting AIG's exposure access to what was going on in its highly leveraged financial products branch.

Waxman also released testimony from former AIG auditor Joseph St. Denis, who resigned after being blocked from giving his input on how the firm estimated its liabilities.

Three former AIG executives were summoned to appear before the hearing. One of them, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg — who ran AIG for 38 years until 2005 — canceled his appearance citing illness but submitted prepared testimony. In it, he blamed the company's financial woes on his successors, former CEOs Martin Sullivan and Willumstad.

"When I left AIG, the company operated in 130 countries and employed approximately 92,000 people," Greenberg said. "Today, the company we built up over almost four decades has been virtually destroyed."

Sullivan and Willumstad, in turn, cast much of the blame on accounting rules that forced AIG to take tens of billions of dollars in losses stemming from exposure to toxic mortgage-related securities.

Lawmakers also upbraided Sullivan, who ran the firm from 2005 until June of this year, for urging AIG's board of directors to waive pay guidelines to win a $5 million bonus for 2007 — even as the company lost $5 billion in the 4th quarter of that year. Sullivan countered that he was mainly concerned with helping other senior executives.

On a lighter note....SNL's lone shining star is their political parody

2008-09-28T07:03:00.001-06:00

Palin/Couric

First Debate

Palin/Hillary

All the gorry details from the last week of financial peril

2008-09-20T23:35:00.000-06:00

A shocking series of events that forever changed the financial markets

Sunday - Trouble Brews

News that Lehman Brothers was on the brink of collapse and scrambling for a buyer first surfaced on Friday. But by Sunday, there were still no suitors for the 158-year-old investment bank, and bankruptcy seemed inevitable. Indeed, just after midnight, in Monday's early hours, the firm officially announced its intention to file for Chapter 11.

Equally as staggering, just hours after reports surfaced that Bank of America broke off talks to buy Lehman, BofA unleashed the news that it would pay $50 billion to scoop up Merrill Lynch, another iconic Wall Street name.

As if that weren't enough, American International Group, the nation's largest insurer, said that it planned to sell some of its troubled assets in order to raise cash and boost investor confidence.

Concerns about the credit crisis grew increasingly dire, even though the government had already pledged to backstop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac up to $200 billion just one week ago, and months earlier engineered JP Morgan's purchase of Bear Stearns with a $29 billion guarantee.

But it looked like that wouldn't be enough, so Sunday afternoon the Federal Reserve, along with 10 banks, announced a $70 billion pool of funds to aid troubled financial firms. The U.S. central bank also loosened its lending restrictions.

Monday - The Collapse

As traders sold off stocks on the weekend's sour news, rumors began to circulate that AIG was struggling to raise enough capital to fend off a downgrade. As a result, New York Governor David Paterson bent intra-corporation lending rules, allowing the company to loan itself $20 billion from a subsidiary.

In the worst day on Wall Street in seven years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tanked more than 500 points after Lehman Brothers' epic collapse and the buyout of Merrill Lynch.

By Monday night, AIG was in fact hit with a downgrade, as Fitch bumped the insurance group down a notch. With $1.1 trillion in assets and 74 million clients in 130 countries, investors feared AIG's collapse would severely hurt consumers and further tighten already strangled credit.

Also Monday, news cropped up that the nation's largest savings bank, Washington Mutual, was in search of a white knight.

Tuesday - The Fed Steps In

Stocks saw another sharp drop on Tuesday morning as worries mounted that the financial system was broken beyond repair. Investors poured money into bonds, and the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell to a 5-year low.

Next, several rock-solid money market funds began to falter, dipping below the $1 per share benchmark.

Meanwhile the Fed was scheduled to meet on Tuesday afternoon. Wall Street analysts, who just a week ago expected the Fed to hold rates steady, began to anticipate a rate cut. But the central bank chose not to succumb to panic and unanimously decided to hold rates steady at 2%.

Markets cheered the decision, and the Dow jumped 140 points at the close.

After the bell, British bank Barclays agreed to buy up $2 billion worth of Lehman's brokerage assets and real estate holdings, and Morgan Stanley reported better-than-expected earnings.

But the big news came later that night when the government announced that it would stage a staggering $85 billion bailout of AIG, and take an 80% stake in the company.

Wednesday - Another Free Fall

Investors gave an enormous thumbs-down to the AIG news, sending stocks plummeting, while traders piled funds into safer havens. Gold rose $70, a new record. Oil rose $6, its second-largest jump ever. And the yield on the three-month Treasury sank to 0.02%, the lowest level since 1940.

The Dow dropped 450 points by the end of the day, dragged down by bank stocks in a tail-spin. Despite reporting better-than-expected results, Goldman Sachs shares dipped below $100 a share for the first time since 2005. Morgan Stanley took a tumble as well, as rumors circulated that it would merge with troubled bank Wachovia.

Many Wall Street analysts blamed the stock market's collapses on so-called "naked" short sellers, who short stocks without ever buying the security. Subsequently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stepped in and banned naked short selling.

Thursday - The Bailout

With a crisis on its hands, the Fed convinced five other central banks around the world to invest a total of $180 billion in global financial markets.

Meanwhile, AIG was tossed out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and replaced with food giant Kraft.

The stock market soared towards the close of the session, with financial stocks rebounding. The Dow added more than 400 points on rumors that an even more extensive federal bailout of the banking industry was in the making. Investors cheered these early reports that the Treasury would create an independent federal agency to take bad loans off of bank balance sheets.

Late Thursday night, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson met with Congressional leaders to hammer out the details of a large-scale bailout.

Friday - The Confidence Boost

As Wall Street eagerly awaited the details of Secretary Paulson's plan, the SEC took what it called "emergency action" Friday morning and temporarily banned investors from short-selling 799 financial companies.

The Treasury also said it would insure up to $50 billion in struggling money market fund investments at financial companies, guaranteeing that the funds' value will not fall below the standard $1 a share. The Fed also said it would make unlimited funds available to banks to finance purchases of asset-backed commercial paper from money market funds.

In a press conference, Treasury Secretary Paulson outlined the government's plan to put up hundreds of billions of dollars to help stem the crisis, saying "the financial security of all Americans ... depends on our ability to restore our financial institutions to a sound footing."

Later, President Bush held a separate press conference, flanked by Paulson, SEC Commissioner Christopher Cox and Fed chief Ben Bernanke, saying it was "essential" that the government step in to save the economy.

Investors cheered the moves, sending stocks soaring throughout the day.

Although the U.S. government had set various bailouts in motion to the tune of roughly $1 trillion, investors finished the week with renewed confidence that Wall Street may be broken - but not beyond repair.

Demand Clean Energy! Ride the bus, it won't kill you, I swear

2008-09-18T14:44:00.000-06:00

Light hearted perspective of Wall Street vs. Main Street

2008-09-17T16:33:00.001-06:00

Dear Main Street: A Letter of Explanation From Wall Street
by Deal Journal
Thursday, September 18, 2008
provided by WSJ

Dear Main Street,

Are you trying to make sense of what's happening here on Wall Street?

Don't worry -- you aren't alone. A lot of people even here are trying to figure that out. It isn't that complicated, but Wall Street is so full of mumbo jumbo that it's easy to get confused -- or bored.

Say "collateralized mortgage obligation" a dozen times and see if you can stay awake.

Stick with me, though, Main Street and I'll explain what's going on here in New York.

Believe it or not, you've seen this movie before. And I don't mean, "It's A Wonderful Life," though that movie isn't far from the mark.

What's going on is a classic industry shakeout -- not all that different from the shake-out of the American steel or auto industries over the past half century. Just in a much shorter time frame.

In just nine months, we have gone from five big, independent Wall Street brokers to only two -- Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

The government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the country's largest mortgage companies, a bit more than a week ago.

And just Tuesday, we nationalized AIG, the world's largest insurer.

Of course, consolidation inevitably produces winners and losers. Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest US broker, is a loser. It went bankrupt two days ago.

Bank of America is a winner. It bought brokerage Merrill Lynch three days ago and is now our nation's largest financial institution.

That's a lot of change in not a lot of time.

And when there's change, there's uncertainty. Today, for example, we still don't know whether Washington Mutual, the largest U.S. savings & loan, will stay independent.

Uncertainty isn't good for any business, as it destroys confidence. It is especially bad for our financial system, because the system runs entirely on confidence. I lend you money confident that you will pay me back. If I don't have confidence in you, I won't lend.

Which is just like Wall Street today. Our nation's financial institutions don't really trust each other. And for good reason.

In all, about $2 trillion dollars of lower quality mortgages are spread about our financial system. Many of these are now in default which threatens the banks that hold them.

And of course the lack of trust spirals. Less lending by banks to each other, less lending to Main Street's companies and less lending to you. In the end, the money's not there for you to get a mortgage or auto loan.

And you account for 70% of the economy. So when the money isn't there, that's bad for everybody. Without credit, you get a crisis -- a credit crisis.

Of course, we deserve heaps and heaps of blame. Wall Street took the mortgages, sliced and diced them a hundred ways, sold and traded them. We took a nice cut along the way, blissfully oblivious to the risks.

We do have a remarkable talent for cooking up crazy get-rich schemes. Remember the Internet bubble? That was less than a decade ago.

But Main Street, you're also to blame.

Recall the hundreds of billions in bad mortgages that are now killing Wall Street? That was money lent to you, Main Street, for homes and condos many of you could not afford.

And ironically, it is now your money that will be used to repay those dud mortgages because we on Wall Street are running out of money.

The government takeovers of AIG and Fannie and Freddie? That's your money. J.P. Morgan's buyout of broker Bear Stearns last March was also your money,

You might not like it. We on Wall Street may not like it. And even the politicians in Washington may not like it.

But nobody has a choice -- unless you happen to have an odd yearning to live in a barter economy.

So Main Street, our crisis is unfortunately your crisis. We made the mess together and now we pay for it together.

The mergers, government takeovers and bankruptcies that will continue to sweep our financial system are a good sign. It means that we are fixing ourselves. Albeit at gunpoint.

Isn't it strange the way our free market works? The government saves Wall Street -- and you Main Street foot the bill.

My advice? Save this letter and show it next time we all embark on another stupid misadventure.

Sincerely,

Wall Street

Give me a break!

2008-09-17T16:33:00.000-06:00

Free market economy? Bull-oney. This might be my last rant about this topic since I think I've made my point. I just can't believe this Republican administration. Supposed free market advocates, no regulation. Well I call foul! You don't rescue companies from their idiocy after years of non-regulation, corporate greed, and enough tax breaks that might have otherwise paid for the other bullshit war half a world away. I don't care if it sends us into the Great Depression Part 2, I think these asses ought to suffer some consequences for a change and learn a lesson or two about ethical business. How many people in America could use a hand just like our wonderful corporations get in tough times? The American taxpayer needs to draw a line in the sand with their vote. Let your representatives know how you feel about them putting YOU on the hook for all this mess. Even if it works, even it is marginally successful, the government might only be prolonging the inevitable, and we all will have to suffer in the end due to their inept leadership. Where is the integrity? When will our leaders scream enough? I don't think they ever will, because their own personal interests cloud their judgment, and the rest of us are on the crap end of the chute.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Will AIG plan cost taxpayers money, or just sleep?

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Business Writer

American taxpayers awoke Wednesday to learn they may end up owning one of the world's largest insurers. They might now lose some sleep wondering whether the government's $85 billion loan to American International Group was a wise investment.

If the gamble succeeds, the company nurses itself back to health, unhinged financial markets calm down and taxpayers turn a profit.

If it fails, the American public feels the hit — and possibly finds itself rescuing other major financial institutions, swelling the deficit and potentially driving up interest rates on mortgages, student loans and other debt.

Analysts said Wednesday the odds are pretty high that the rescue will be a good investment for taxpayers, with AIG paying off the loan at a relatively high interest rate and the government potentially making money off its nearly 80 percent equity stake in the company.

In 1979, the U.S. guaranteed $1.2 billion worth of loans to the struggling automaker Chrysler. When the company rebounded four years later, the government reaped more than $300 million in profits.

While relatively unknown on Main Street before Wednesday, AIG is a colossus on Wall Street and financial districts around the globe, with operations in more than 130 countries and $1 trillion in assets on its balance sheet.

Besides life, property and other insurance offerings, AIG provides asset-management services and airplane leases. Its myriad businesses are also linked to mutual funds, annuities and other retirement products held by millions of ordinary Americans.

But perhaps the biggest concern about AIG is the dizzying array of complex financial instruments it structured for commercial banks, investment banks and hedge funds around the globe — many of which were directly or indirectly linked to the value of U.S. mortgages.

"AIG is in this mess because they got leveraged up to their eye balls," said Professor John Coffee of Columbia University Law School.

AIG is required to post capital as collateral to back the securities and derivatives it issues, and those requirements increase if its credit rating is downgraded, as happened on Monday night.

AIG "essentially became the insurer of the financial industry," said Barry Ritholtz, chief executive of FusionIQ, a research firm. "As we've seen, that turned out to be not such a great trade."

The company's staggering reach, combined with the speed with which it faltered, is what forced the government to intervene after private rescue attempts fell apart and pushed the company to the edge of bankruptcy.

"A failure was seen as having catastrophic implications. It met the threshold of too big and too intertwined to fail," said former Federal Reserve economist Brian Sack now at Macroeconomic Advisers.

Over the weekend, the government refused to pony up taxpayer money to rescue troubled investment bank Lehman Brothers. That was seen as drawing a line in the sand after the Fed financially backed JPMorgan's takeover of Bear Stearns and then the Bush administration seized control of mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But that turned out to be wrong.

The government agreed to loan up to $85 billion to AIG over two years in exchange for the right to buy 79.9 percent of the company. The hope is that the money will give the company enough time to reorganize and sell assets to repay the loan.

The interest rate the government is charging AIG for the loan is high — 11.5 percent. Because the government can borrow money right now at around 3.4 percent, taxpayers stand to make a handsome profit if all goes well.

The government is first in line to be paid back on the loan, which is backed by the assets of the entire company.

Key to the U.S. being repaid for its loan is whether AIG can sell its assets, how quickly and for what price.

For the company, that might mean putting some of its profitable, noncore assets, such as its aircraft leasing business, on the block. AIG's breakup value could top $150 billion, according to a preliminary estimate from FBR Capital Markets.

"The odds are pretty high that it will end up being a good investment for taxpayers," said Mark Klock, finance professor at George Washington University. "I think that AIG will be able to dispose of assets in an orderly fashion in the next year or so and the government will actually get back the money lent out — and more — in interest," he said.

It will be up to AIG to decide which assets to sell and the timing, which some analysts said should be done quickly because the publicized difficulties at the company could begin to turn customers away. The government does, however, have veto power.

One unit that analysts said will likely be sold is the International Lease Finance Corp., which leases out more than 900 aircraft with asset values topping $44 billion at the end of the second quarter. This division has been a moneymaker for AIG, tallying $873 million in operating income in 2007 and $555 million in the first half of this year, according to securities filings.

Another possibility for sale is AIG's foreign life insurance business, with profits of $1.5 billion in the first half of this year on top of earnings of $6.19 billion in 2007. Gary Ransom, an analyst with Fox-Pitt Kelton, pegged the value of that business at as much as $50 billion.

But Ransom also noted the foreign life insurance business is also probably the hardest to sell because it includes many different divisions operating across many countries.

"I would say everything is on the table," Ransom said. "At this point, the goal isn't to keep AIG as the owner of businesses."

If AIG is keeping some operations, the commercial lines and property and casualty operations are possibilities because they are among the divisions that are most closely associated with the company.

"They would love to sell off the bad stuff, but the only option they have is to sell off the good stuff," said Kent Smetters, an associate professor insurance and risk management at the Wharton School of Business.

The government is betting that two years will give AIG enough time to find buyers for its assets at good prices, avoiding a fire sale if it were forced to unload them quickly. But it is far from a sure thing.

"Two years may seem like a long time, but it doesn't give AIG all that long to resolve its problems. Some issues can't be put back into Pandora's box," said Kathleen Shanley, an analyst at the corporate bond research firm Gimme Credit.

I don't elect lying politicians and neither should you

2008-09-12T22:14:00.001-06:00

And don't give me any of that "All politicians lie" bull crap. This is just despicable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis: McCain's claims skirt facts, test voters

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Fri Sep 12, 12:43 PM ET

The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He said Friday that Palin never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor, even though she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.

Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama's campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.

McCain's persistence in pushing dubious claims is all the more notable because many political insiders consider him one of the greatest living victims of underhanded campaigning. Locked in a tight race with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, McCain was rocked in South Carolina by a whisper campaign claiming he had fathered an illegitimate black child and was mentally unstable.

Shaken by the experience, McCain denounced less-than-truthful campaigning. Vowing to live up to his "straight talk" motto, he apologized for his reluctance to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag at South Carolina's state Capitol in a bid for votes. When the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked the military record of Democrat and fellow Navy officer John Kerry in 2004, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable."

Now, top aides to McCain include Steve Schmidt, who has close ties to Karl Rove, Bush's premier political adviser in 2000.

Politicians usually modify or drop claims when a string of newspaper and TV news accounts concludes they are untrue or greatly exaggerated. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, conceded she had not come under sniper fire in Bosnia after a batch of debunking articles subjected her to scorn during her primary contest against Obama.

But McCain and his running mate Palin, the Alaska governor, were defiant this week in the face of similar reports. Day after day she said she had told Congress "no thanks" to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, a rural Alaska project that was abandoned when critics challenged its costs and usefulness. For nearly a week, major news outlets had documented that Palin supported the bridge when running for governor in 2006, noting that she turned against it only after it became an object of ridicule in Alaska and a symbol of Congress's out-of-control earmarking.

The McCain-Palin campaign made at least three other aggressive claims this week that omitted key details or made dubious assumptions to criticize Obama. It equated lawmakers' requests for money for special projects with corruption, even though Palin has sought millions of dollars in such "earmarks" this year.

It produced an Internet ad implying that Obama had called Palin a pig when he used a familiar phrase, which McCain also has used, about putting "lipstick on a pig" to try to make a bad situation look better. McCain supporters said Obama was slyly alluding to Palin's description of herself as a pit bull in lipstick, but there was nothing in his remarks to support the claim. Obama accused the GOP campaign of "lies and phony outrage."

The lipstick wars were fully engaged when the McCain campaign produced another ad saying Obama favored "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners. The charge triggered the sort of headlines becoming increasingly common in major newspapers and wire services monitoring the factual content of political ads and speeches.

"Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy," was the headline on a New York Times article Thursday. "McCain's 'Education' Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive," The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" article said.

Major news outlets have written such fact-checking articles for years. "But in the last two election cycles, the very notion that the facts matter seems to be under assault," said Michael X. Delli Carpini, an authority on political ads at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication. "Candidates and their consultants seem to have learned that as long as you don't back down from your charges or claims, they will stick in the minds of voters regardless of their accuracy or at a minimum, what the truth is will remain murky, a matter of opinion rather than fact."

With Palin giving McCain's campaign a boost in the polls, Obama supporters are nervously watching to see what impact the latest claims will have. Surveys already show that most people believe Obama would raise their taxes — a regular McCain claim — even though independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under his proposals.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds defended the campaign's statements. "We include factual backup in every one of our TV spots," he said Thursday.

Obama, of course, has made exaggerated or questionable assertions as well. Earlier this year, for instance, he repeated a claim that more black men are in prison than in college, after news accounts refuted it. He also used a McCain remark about having troops in Iraq for "100 years" to exaggerate McCain's proposals for being fully engaged militarily in that country.

In general, however, Obama has been quicker to react to news accounts challenging his accuracy. Faced with skeptical reports this year, for instance, he stopped saying he "worked his way" through college, and instead credited hard work and scholarships.

Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now teaches politics at the University of Southern California, said McCain and Obama learned they must stretch the truth "when staying on the high road didn't work out to their benefit."

McCain, he said, "tried it his way. He had a poverty tour and nobody covered it. He had a national service tour, and everybody made fun of it. He proposed these joint town halls" with Obama, "and nothing come of it. Through the spring and early summer, that approach didn't work. You can't blame him for taking a step back and reassessing."

I guess free market economies don't work, unless you're a US taxpayer to shoulder the burden

2008-09-08T11:46:00.000-06:00

Fannie and Freddie: why the takeover

By Mark Trumbull
Mon Sep 8, 4:00 AM ET

By taking control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Bush administration has launched a high-stakes bid to bolster the housing market and the US economy – seeking to minimize costs to taxpayers even as it puts them on the hook.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Sunday announced a federal conservatorship for the two mortgage giants, which play a key role in the housing market, now rocked by falling home values and high rates of foreclosure.

The action begins a formal Treasury role that, just a few weeks ago, Secretary Paulson said he expected to avoid. Fannie and Freddie, as private companies created by government mandate, have long been seen as implicitly backed by the Treasury. Now that backstop is as explicit as it can be.

Why is it coming to this?

The short answer is that legislation Congress passed in July failed to reassure financial markets enough to position the two companies to raise needed capital on their own. That law gave the Treasury new authority to funnel credit or capital into Fannie and Freddie, if needed – at taxpayer expense.

Meanwhile, foreclosures continue to pummel the mortgage firms with big losses.

"It's going to get worse if they don't act," says Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland. "We want this dealt with now."

The two companies will now operate, as they open their doors Monday, under the authority of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), a new agency that Congress created this summer to regulate Fannie and Freddie.

Paulson announced the conservatorship along with James Lockhart, the FHFA's director. He outlined three key goals: ensuring market stability, continuing the availability of mortgages, and holding taxpayer costs to a minimum.

Those goals, he said, could not have been achieved by simply pumping federal money into the two companies in their present form.

An impetus for Sunday's move is what Paulson described as ambiguity in the identity of the two so-called government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). For years they have operated with both a public mission – to foster broad and stable mortgage markets – and a private one of providing profits for shareholders.

The goal of maximizing shareholders' returns, Paulson said, has "encouraged risk-taking."

Given the plunge in share value at the GSEs during the past year, the worry was that their managers might have been tempted to take on more risk in an effort to recover.

"The shareholders have nothing to lose and everything to gain" if Fannie and Freddie's CEOs were to take new risks now, because the current share price is so low, says Morris Davis, a University of Wisconsin economist who focuses on real estate issues.

In the 1980s, he says, the savings and loan industry got into trouble because regulators and Congress allowed such a pattern to play out.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a central role in the housing market, with their odd names representing shorthand for longer titles including the words "federal" and "mortgage." The duo fuels home lending by purchasing loans from other lenders, or by providing guarantees to back the share of mortgage loans that meet their standards. The guarantees give investors confidence to buy packages of mortgage debt, known as mortgage-backed securities.

Those actions can keep loans flowing even when, as now, many traditional banks are reluctant or unable to make home loans and hold them on their own books. Currently, most mortgages in the US flow through Fannie or Freddie, and nearly half of all outstanding mortgage debt is linked to them in some way.

Their role in the housing market has long been controversial, but in the current weak economy their outright failure is unthinkable for most policymakers.

The conservatorship represents a temporary step, akin to a bankruptcy from which the GSEs will ultimately emerge. Next year, Paulson said, the next US president and Congress will have to determine the firms' longer-term structure and size. Ultimately, Paulson said, "government support needs to be either explicit or nonexistent."

For now, however, the focus is on improving the economic and credit climate.

Mr. Lockhart and Paulson detailed a multipronged plan for Fannie and Freddie in the near term:

•The firms will continue to make loans "without limits," at a time when mainstream banks have tightened lending standards or raised interest rates.

•They will stop paying shareholder dividends, conserving $2 billion a year.

•They will have access to a line of credit from the Treasury, if needed.

•The Treasury will become an investor in preferred shares and warrants of the GSEs, with a position senior to current investors. The size and timing of investments will be as needed to maintain a positive net worth for the enterprises.

•The Treasury will be a buyer of new GSE-issued mortgage-backed securities, a move designed to help keep mortgage rates low.

•The firms' chief executives, Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron, will be replaced, but will stay for a transition period. Herb Allison, a former Merrill Lynch executive, will head Fannie Mae, and former banker David Moffett will head Freddie Mac. The incoming CEOs, as public employees, will have much lower salaries.

•Political lobbying efforts, long a source of GSE clout on Capitol Hill, will cease. Charitable giving will be reviewed.

Paulson said he expects the purchase of GSE debt would come at no cost, and possibly at a profit, to taxpayers. But the overall taxpayer cost of the intervention would depend on business conditions going forward, he said Sunday.

"I have long said the housing correction poses the biggest risk to our economy," Paulson said.

More bulljive about how crooked companies get bailed out while us peons pay for it

2008-09-07T13:50:00.000-06:00

Fannie, Freddie blind to the bubble
Saturday September 6, 8:06 pm ET
By Alan Zibel, AP Business Writer
Mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac failed to anticipate scale of housing bust

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- despite their robust cadre of economists and mortgage experts -- failed to heed warnings that the most dramatic housing bubble in U.S. history would burst.

The companies -- particularly Freddie Mac -- didn't raise enough cash to reassure Wall Street that they would be able to withstand a severe downturn in U.S. home prices.

Federal regulators after scouring the companies' books with aid from investment bank Morgan Stanley -- believe the companies pushed accounting conventions when calculating their financial cushion against losses, a person briefed on the matter said Saturday. The person declined to be named because details of the government's actions were not yet public.

As their losses started rising at alarming rates over the past year, investors gradually lost confidence, forcing the government's historic takeover of the two companies, which could be announced as soon as Sunday and was expected to include the ouster of top executives.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview Saturday that the companies' financial picture was better than investors assumed, but "it just plainly became clear that elements of the market wouldn't accept that."

Investors have had reasons to feel jittery.

On Friday, the Mortgage Bankers Association said that more than 4 million American homeowners with a mortgage, a record 9 percent, were either behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of June.

Also on Friday, Nevada regulators shut down Silver State Bank, the 11th failure this year of a federally insured bank. In July, regulators seized IndyMac, which had $19 billion in deposits. And earlier this year, the government orchestrated the takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. by JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has been in contact in recent weeks with foreign governments that hold billions of dollars of Fannie and Freddie debt to reassure them that the United States recognizes the importance of the two companies.

Nevertheless, the Bank of China said in late August that it cut back its portfolio of the Fannie and Freddie's debt by about one quarter since the end of June.

Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Va.-based Freddie are the engines behind a complex process of buying, bundling and selling mortgages that remains a mystery to millions of Americans whose home loans pass through this system. Together Fannie and Freddie hold or guarantee about $5 trillion in mortgage debt -- about half of the nation's total.

They traditionally backed the safest loans, 30-year fixed rate mortgages that required a down payment of at least 20 percent. But in recent years, they lowered their standards dramatically, matching a decline fueled by Wall Street banks that backed the now-defunct subprime lending industry.

Armando Falcon, who clashed frequently with the companies during his six years as Fannie and Freddie's chief government regulator, said in an interview last month that the companies' woes are similar to the downfall of other major corporate titans like Enron and WorldCom earlier this decade. "It boils down to a whole lot of greed and arrogance," he said.

The companies, he said, took advantage of the perception on Wall Street that the government would stand behind them in a time of crisis, as is now the case.

With that implied government backing, the companies generated large profits for years, but ultimately took on too much risk, causing investors to lose faith in their ability to navigate the historic housing bust.

Economists who long warned the housing boom could not last are baffled that the companies were not better prepared for what they saw as an inevitable downturn.

"How could you look at an enormous rise in prices and not think there was a potential for them to fall?" said Christopher Thornberg, a principal with Beacon Economics in Los Angeles.

Another longtime proponent of the housing bubble concept is Dean Baker, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. He recalls several occasions when he debated top Fannie and Freddie economists, who dismissed the idea that U.S. home prices could decline.

"Even if they didn't want to listen to me, they should have at least thought this could be a possibility," he said.

Plummeting home prices are the key to Fannie and Freddie's troubles. As prices fall -- as much as 25 percent over the past 12 months in Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix and Los Angeles -- the value of mortgages the companies hold on their books drops. That means Fannie and Freddie are recovering far less money through foreclosure sales.

While a government intervention had been expected for weeks, its timing came as a surprise.

The companies had been able to raise money through regular debt sales, but analysts say the Treasury Department likely grew concerned that foreign investors were pulling back.

"The main goal is to inject confidence into the foreign debt markets to ensure that the flow of capital to the mortgage market continues," said Howard Glaser, a Washington-based mortgage industry consultant who has worked for both Fannie and Freddie.

Freddie Mac in particular has had investors and analysts fearful for months. The company, led by CEO Richard Syron, promised to raise $5.5 billion earlier this year to shore up its finances, but failed to do so, and its sinking share price has since made it all but impossible for the company to raise that money from private investors.

Fannie Mae executives are likely to have resisted the proposed takeover because the company's financial condition isn't as dire as its sibling company, said Bert Ely, an Alexandria, Va.-based banking industry consultant.

But the government would still have to take over both companies, he said, to allow them to borrow money at the same rates.

"In order to level the playing field between the two companies, you've got to take over both of them," said Ely, a longtime critic of the two companies.

Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938, and was turned into a shareholder-owned company 30 years later. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 to provide competition for Fannie.

While Fannie and Freddie generally had higher standards for lenders than the subprime mortgage companies that started going belly-up at the end of 2006, the duo lowered their standards during the housing boom and bought securities linked to riskier loans.

Even as the subprime mortgage market collapsed, Fannie and Freddie kept backing risky so-called Alt-A loans, which were made to borrowers with solid credit but little proof of their incomes, or small or no down payments.

For Fannie and Freddie, these Alt-A loans made up roughly 10 percent of their portfolios but accounted for more than half of their credit losses in the second quarter. The souring loans were concentrated in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona, where speculation was rampant, prices soared and homeowners stretched to the financial limit to afford a home.

More of my Democrat-leaning political banter, probably why nobody reads the blog

2008-09-04T09:35:00.001-06:00

Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.

Interesting commentary on McCain post Palin-VP choice

2008-08-31T10:55:00.000-06:00

I just can't believe they potentially only spoke less than a couple times about her being his running mate. I wonder how the conversation went? Was McCain just looking for a lap dog that would snag him the votes he can't himself? Not to be controversial, but I believe this pick is more bold than Romney. Maybe the GOP is hemorrhaging.
---------------------------------------
6 things Palin pick says about McCain

Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris
Sat Aug 30, 9:57 AM ET

The selection of a running mate is among the most consequential and the most defining decisions a presidential nominee can make. John McCain’s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says a lot about his decision-making — and some of it is downright breathtaking.

We knew McCain is a politician who relishes improvisation and likes to go with his gut. But it is remarkable that someone who has repeatedly emphasized experience in this campaign named an inexperienced governor he barely knew to be his No. 2. Whatever you think of the pick, here are six things it tells us about McCain:

1. He’s desperate. Let’s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states, such as Indiana and Montana, that the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.

The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.

“She’s a fresh new face in a party that’s dying for one — the antidote to boring white men,” a campaign official said.

Palin, the logic goes, will prompt voters to give McCain a second look — especially women who have watched Democrats reject Hillary Rodham Clinton for Barack Obama.

The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama.

“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.

2. He’s willing to gamble — bigtime. Let’s face it: This is not the pick of a self-confident candidate. It is the political equivalent of a trick play or, as some Democrats called it, a Hail Mary pass in football. McCain talks incessantly about experience, and then goes and selects a woman he hardly knows, who hardly knows foreign policy and who can hardly be seen as instantly ready for the presidency.

He is smart enough to know it could work, at least politically. Many Republicans see this pick as a brilliant stroke, because it will be difficult for Democrats to run hard against a woman in the wake of the Hillary Clinton drama. Will this push those disgruntled Hillary voters McCain’s way? Perhaps. But this is hardly aimed at them: It is directed at the huge bloc of independent women who could decide this election — especially those who do not see abortion as a make-or-break issue.

McCain has a history of taking dares. Palin represents his biggest one yet.

3. He’s worried about the political implications of his age. Like a driver overcorrecting out of a swerve, he chooses someone who is two years younger than the youthful Obama and 28 years younger than he is. (He turned 72 on Friday.) The father-daughter comparison was inevitable when they appeared next to each other.

4. He’s not worried about the actuarial implications of his age. He thinks he’s in fine fettle and Palin wouldn’t be performing the main constitutional duty of a vice president, which is standing by in case a president dies or becomes incapacitated. If he were really concerned about an inexperienced person sitting in the Oval Office, we would be writing about vice presidential nominee Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge or Condoleezza Rice.

There is no plausible way McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on Day One.

Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin. They met for the first time last February at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Then, they spoke again — by phone — on Sunday while she was at the Alaska state fair and he was at home in Arizona.

McCain has made a mockery out of his campaign's longtime contention that Barack Obama is too dangerously inexperienced to be commander in chief. Now, the Democratic ticket boasts 40 years of national experience (four years for Obama and 36 years for Joe Biden of Delaware), while the Republican ticket has 26 (McCain’s four years in the House and 22 in the Senate).

The McCain campaign has made a calculation that most voters don’t really care about the national experience or credentials of a vice president, and that Palin’s ebullient personality and reputation as a reformer who took on cesspool politics in Alaska matters more.

5. He’s worried about his conservative base. If he had room to maneuver, there were lots of people McCain could have selected who would have represented a break from Washington politics as usual. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman comes to mind (and it certainly came to McCain’s throughout the process). He had no such room. GOP stalwarts were furious over trial balloons about the possibility of choosing a supporter of abortion rights, including the possibility that he would reach out to his friend.

Palin is an ardent opponent of abortion who was previously scheduled to keynote the Republican National Coalition for Life's "Life of the Party" event in the Twin Cities this week.

“She’s really a perfect selection,” said Darla St. Martin, the co-director of the National Right to Life Committee. It is no secret McCain wanted to shake things up in this race — and he realized he was limited to a shake-up conservatives could stomach.

6. At the end of the day, McCain is still McCain. People may find him a refreshing maverick or an erratic egotist. In either event, he marches to his own beat.

On the upside, his team did manage to play to the media’s love of drama, fanning speculation about his possible choices and maximizing coverage of the decision.

On the potential downside, the drama was evidently entirely genuine. The fact that McCain only spoke with Palin about the vice presidency for the first time on Sunday, and that he was seriously considering Lieberman until days ago, suggests just how hectic and improvisational his process was.

In the end, this selection gives him a chance to reclaim the mantle of a different kind of politician intent on changing Washington. He once had a legitimate claim to this: After all, he took on his own party over campaign finance reform and immigration. He jeopardized this claim in recent months by embracing ideas he once opposed (Bush tax cuts) and ideas that appeared politically motivated (gas tax holiday).

Spontaneity, with a touch of impulsiveness, is one of the traits that attract some of McCain’s admirers. Whether it’s a good calling card for a potential president will depend on the reaction in coming days to what, for the moment, looks like the most daring vice presidential selection in generations.

Couple of videos

2008-08-12T01:14:00.000-06:00

Watching the Olympics today, I'm still electric about the men's 4x100m freestyle relay from last night, which is the single most electric finish I have ever witnessed in sport. I cannot get enough of it! Truly amazing, remarkably inspiring. I want to hop in a pool and make a few laps just to experience what that must have felt like. I particularly enjoy watching Phelps achieve his dream, having overcome the highest hurdles that stand in his way. The Americans were not SUPPOSED to win this event. It may have been a miracle, but the effort was just as magical. Watch Phelps nearly jump out of his pants cheering his teammates on...
Link

I am also a professed, proud tree-hugger, ready to convert the world. One of the commercials I saw really captured my attention, as the topic hits close to home with the state of our country at the present.

As with most things environmental, Gore has some involvement. Here's a recent speech from him that introduces this new 10 year initiative.

Another Randy Pausch send-off

2008-07-25T12:12:00.001-06:00

Prof whose 'last lecture' became a sensation dies

By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI, Associated Press Writer

Randy Pausch, the Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist whose "last lecture" about facing terminal cancer became an Internet sensation and a best-selling book, died Friday. He was 47.

Pausch died at his home in Chesapeake, Va., said Jeffrey Zaslow, a Wall Street Journal writer who co-wrote Pausch's book. Pausch and his family had moved there last fall to be closer to his wife's relatives.

Pausch was diagnosed with incurable pancreatic cancer in September 2006. His popular last lecture at Carnegie Mellon in September 2007 garnered international attention and was viewed by millions on the Internet.

In it, Pausch celebrated living the life he had always dreamed of instead of concentrating on impending death.

"The lecture was for my kids, but if others are finding value in it, that is wonderful," Pausch wrote on his Web site. "But rest assured; I'm hardly unique."

The book "The Last Lecture" leaped to the top of the nonfiction best-seller lists after its publication in April and remains there this week. The book deal was reported to be worth more than $6 million.

Pausch said he dictated the book to Zaslow by cell phone, and Zaslow recalled Friday that he was "strong and funny" during their collaboration.

"It was the most fun 53 days of my life because it was like a performance," Zaslow told The Associated Press. "It was like getting 53 extra lectures." He recalled that Pausch became emotional when they worked on the last chapter, though, because that to him was the "end of the lecture, the book, his life."

At Carnegie Mellon, Pausch was a professor of computer science, human-computer interaction and design, and was recognized as a pioneer of virtual reality research. On campus, he became known for his flamboyance and showmanship as a teacher and mentor.

The speech last fall was part of a series Carnegie Mellon called "The Last Lecture," where professors were asked to think about what matters to them most and give a hypothetical final talk. The name of the lecture series was changed to "Journeys" before Pausch spoke, something he joked about in his lecture.

"I thought, damn, I finally nailed the venue and they renamed it," he said.

He told the packed auditorium he fulfilled almost all his childhood dreams — being in zero gravity, writing an article in the World Book Encyclopedia and working with the Walt Disney Co.

The one that eluded him? Playing in the National Football League.

"If I don't seem as depressed or morose as I should be, sorry to disappoint you," Pausch said.

He then joked about his quirky hobby of winning stuffed animals at amusement parks — another of his childhood dreams — and how his mother introduced him to people to keep him humble: "This is my son. He's a doctor, but not the kind that helps people."

Pausch said he was embarrassed and flattered by the popularity of his message. Millions viewed the complete or abridged version of the lecture, titled "Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams," online.

"I don't know how to not have fun," he said in the lecture. "I'm dying and I'm having fun. And I'm going to keep having fun every day I have left. Because there's no other way to play it."

Pausch lobbied Congress for more federal funding for pancreatic cancer research and appeared on "Oprah" and other TV shows. In what he called "a truly magical experience," he was even invited to appear as an extra in the upcoming "Star Trek" movie.

He had one line of dialogue, got to keep his costume and donated his $217.06 paycheck to charity.

Pausch blogged regularly about his medical treatment. On Feb. 15, exactly six months after he was told he had three to six months of healthy living left, Pausch posted a photo of himself to show he was "still alive & healthy."

In May, Pausch spoke at Carnegie Mellon's commencement ceremonies, telling graduates that what mattered was he could look back and say, "pretty much any time I got a chance to do something cool, I tried to grab for it, and that's where my solace comes from."

"We don't beat the reaper by living longer, we beat the reaper by living well and living fully," he said.

Born in 1960, Pausch received his bachelor's degree in computer science from Brown University and his Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon.

He co-founded Carnegie Mellon's Entertainment Technology Center, a master's program for bringing artists and engineers together. The university named a footbridge in his honor. He also created an animation-based teaching program for high school and college students to have fun while learning computer programming.

In February, the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences in California announced the creation of the Dr. Randy Pausch Scholarship Fund for university students who pursue careers in game design, development and production.

He is survived by his wife, Jai, and their three children, Dylan, Logan and Chloe; his mother, Virginia Pausch of Columbia, Md.; and a sister, Tamara Mason of Lynchburg, Va.

In a statement Friday, his wife thanked those who sent messages of support and said her husband was proud that his lecture and book "inspired parents to revisit their priorities, particularly their relationships with their children."

Randy Paush - The Last Lecture

2008-07-25T12:10:00.000-06:00

Randy Pausch Inspired Millions

Randy Pausch, the professor at Carnegie Mellon University who inspired countless students in the classroom and others worldwide through his highly acclaimed last lecture, has died of complications from pancreatic cancer. He was 47.

Also a Carnegie Mellon alumnus, Pausch co-founded the Entertainment Technology Center and led researchers who created Alice, a revolutionary way to teach computer programming. He was widely respected in academic circles for a unique interdisciplinary approach, bringing together artists, dramatists and designers to break new ground by working in collaboration with computer scientists.

Outside the classroom, he gained public fame for delivering what would come to be known as "The Last Lecture." On Sept. 18, 2007, only a month after doctors told him that he had three-to-six months to live following a recurrence of pancreatic cancer, he presented a lecture called "Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" to a packed auditorium at Carnegie Mellon.

The moving and often humorous talk recounted his efforts to achieve such childhood dreams as becoming a professional football player, experiencing zero gravity and developing Disney World attractions. In the process, he shared his insights on finding the good in other people, working hard to overcome obstacles and living generously.

"If you lead your life the right way, the karma will take care of itself," Pausch said. "The dreams will come to you."

The video appeared on countless websites and has been viewed by millions. Appearances on the Oprah Winfrey Show, ABC's Good Morning America and the CBS Evening News followed.

A book version, "The Last Lecture" co-written by Jeff Zaslow of the Wall Street Journal (and a fellow Carnegie Mellon alumnus), became a best-seller upon its release this spring.

"Randy had an enormous and lasting impact on Carnegie Mellon," said Carnegie Mellon President Jared L. Cohon. "A brilliant researcher and gifted teacher, he was a key member of our Human-Computer Interaction Institute and co-founder of the Entertainment Technology Center. His love of teaching, his sense of fun and his brilliance came together in the Alice project, which teaches students computer programming while enabling them to do something fun — making animated movies and games. Carnegie Mellon — and the world — are better places for having had Randy Pausch in them."

Pausch was also a pioneer in the development of virtual reality, including creating the popular Building Virtual Worlds class.

A memorial service at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh is being planned; details will be announced at a later date.

He is survived by his wife, Jai, and three children: Chloe, Dylan and Logan. The family requests that donations on his behalf be directed to the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, 2141 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 7000, El Segundo, CA 90245, or to Carnegie Mellon's Randy Pausch Memorial Fund, which the university will use primarily to support continued work on the Alice project.

For more information on Randy's life and legacy, read In Memoriam: Randy Pausch, Innovative Computer Scientist at Carnegie Mellon, Launched Education Initiatives, Gained Worldwide Acclaim for Last Lecture.

More on IndyMac

2008-07-14T15:14:00.000-06:00

IndyMac depositors line up for cash after seizure

By Gina Keating

Hundreds of worried IndyMac Bancorp Inc customers descended on the company's branches on Monday to withdraw their money, after regulators seized what was once one of the largest mortgage lenders in the United States.

Regulators took over the Pasadena-based lender on Friday after a bank run in which customers -- panicked over IndyMac's survival prospects -- withdrew $1.3 billion over 11 business days, regulators said.

At a branch at IndyMac's headquarters, customers began arriving at 4 a.m., five hours before the doors opened. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp now operates the thrift's 33 Southern California branches.

"I didn't think anything like this would happen," said retired teacher Charles Tengeri from Pasadena, who was first to emerge from the branch after withdrawing $171,000 -- about two-thirds of his life savings. "I withdrew as much as I could. I know it's going to take a little time."

The FDIC said the renamed IndyMac Federal Bank will cover insured deposits, mostly up to $100,000, and initially cover 50 percent of uninsured deposits.

"I have $360,000 in this bank, and I was misled by this bank," said Robert Clark, a Glendale resident. "I gave the names of my mother, my sister and my brother on the account so I thought I would be insured. I don't know what to do. I really don't know what to do."

John Bovenzi, an FDIC official working as IndyMac Federal's chief executive, talked with customers as they waited for the doors to open, assuring one that "this bank is as safe and as sound as any bank in the country right now."

The FDIC is hoping to sell IndyMac within 90 days. Among IndyMac's assets are a rapidly deteriorating mortgage loan book, the 33 branches, and the Financial Freedom unit that makes "reverse" mortgages for older Americans.

SALE PROSPECTS

"I'd like to see if we can sell the institution as a whole to one healthy bank," Bovenzi said in an interview. "Companies like Financial Freedom have a great deal of value, so there will be a market for those assets."

The FDIC did not ask Michael Perry, who had been IndyMac's chief executive, to have a role in operations following the takeover, Bovenzi added.

IndyMac is the fifth U.S. banking company to fail this year, and the largest since the 1980s savings-and-loan crisis.

It ended March with about $19 billion of deposits, of which roughly $18 billion were insured, and $32 billion of assets, regulators said.

Jitesh Patel, a doctor from Burbank, said he took a day off from work to withdraw his money from IndyMac.

"We have money we are afraid we are going to lose," he said. "I wish we were a little more savvy."

Bovenzi said he expects more banks to fail in the current credit downturn. "I don't expect there will be large bank failures," he said. "There will be small bank failures."

Gerard Cassidy, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, on Sunday said 300 U.S. banks might fail over the next three years because of credit losses and tight capital markets.

Regulators expect the IndyMac takeover to cost the FDIC $4 billion to $8 billion. The agency's insurance fund has about $52.8 billion.

Tengeri, the retired teacher, said he was originally attracted to IndyMac because of the high interest rates it offered on deposits.

Asked if the thrift's collapse would disturb his retirement, the 70-year-old said: "Very much."

EEK! What in tarnation is happening to our economy?!?

2008-07-12T00:16:00.000-06:00

IndyMac Bank seized by federal regulators

The Pasadena-based thrift's failure is the second-biggest by a U.S. bank. Doors will reopen Monday.
By Kathy M. Kristof and Andrea Chang
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

July 12, 2008

The federal government took control of Pasadena-based IndyMac Bank on Friday in what regulators called the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

Citing a massive run on deposits, regulators shut its main branch three hours early, leaving customers stunned and upset. One woman leaned on the locked doors, pleading with an employee inside: "Please, please, I want to take out a portion." All she could do was read a two-page notice taped to the door.

The bank's 33 branches will be closed over the weekend, but the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will reopen the bank on Monday as IndyMac Federal Bank, said the Office of Thrift Supervision in Washington. Customers will not be able to bank by phone or Internet over the weekend, regulators said, but can continue to use ATMs, debit cards and checks. Normal branch hours, online banking and phone banking services are to resume Monday.

Federal authorities estimated that the takeover of IndyMac, which had $32 billion in assets, would cost the FDIC $4 billion to $8 billion. Regulators said deposits of up to $100,000 were safe and insured by the FDIC. The agency's insurance fund has assets of about $52 billion.

IndyMac's failure had been widely expected in recent days. As the bank was shuttering offices and laying off employees to cope with huge losses from defaulted mortgages made at the height of the housing boom, nervous depositors were pulling out $100 million a day. The bank's stock price had plummeted to less than $1 as analysts predicted the company's imminent demise.

The takeover of IndyMac came amid rampant speculation that the federal government would also have to take over lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together stand behind almost half of the nation's mortgage debt.

Shares of the two mortgage giants have nose-dived this week and fell again Friday, helping to drag down the Dow Jones industrial average 128.48 points, or 1.1%, to close at 11,100.54. Investors and analysts are concerned that the two government-chartered companies need to raise billions of dollars to offset expected losses stemming from mortgage defaults, but will be unable to do so in the private market. Officials in Washington spent most of Friday trying to knock down rumors of a government bailout.

IndyMac, which once employed 10,000, fell prey to a classic run on the bank, and regulators singled out Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) as having helped to fuel massive withdrawals. On June 26, Schumer said in letters to the FDIC, the OTS and two other federal agencies that IndyMac might have "serious problems" with its loan holdings.

"I am concerned that IndyMac's financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers," he wrote. The bank "could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly."

That public warning prompted depositors to pull $1.3 billion out of accounts between June 27 and Thursday.

"This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis," John M. Reich, director of the OTS, said at a news conference Friday afternoon. "Although this institution was already in distress, the deposit run pushed IndyMac over the edge."

Schumer said in a statement that the cause of IndyMac's failure was "poor and loose lending practices" that should have been prevented by more active regulation. Later, a Schumer spokesman said: "Mr. Reich, a political appointee, should be spending less time playing politics and more time doing his job."

IndyMac is the second-largest financial institution failure in U.S. history, following only Continental Illinois Bank, which had assets of about $40 billion before it was shuttered in 1984. It is the fifth FDIC-insured failure of the year. Reich emphasized that though other financial institutions remained on the agency's danger list, he believed most of them would be able to work their way back to solvency.

"The IndyMac situation is unique. It does not signal a direction for the industry as a whole," he said.

IndyMac's board boasts a number of California luminaries. Among the directors, according to a proxy statement the company filed in March, is Pat Haden, 55, a former star quarterback for USC and the Los Angeles Rams, who has been a partner of Riordan, Lewis & Haden, the investment firm founded by former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, since 1987.

Other directors include Lyle E. Gramley, 81, a former governor of the Federal Reserve; Bruce G. Willison, 59, former dean of the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA; and Lydia H. Kennard, 53, former executive director of Los Angeles World Airports, which operates Los Angeles International.

IndyMac had been operating under close regulatory scrutiny since January, when the OTS determined that the company was in ill health. The bank lost $614.8 million in 2007 and $184.2 million during the first quarter of this year, largely as the result of souring home loans.

IndyMac, which posted $342.9 million in profit in 2006, had been a leader in so-called alt-A mortgages, which were made to borrowers with decent credit who often weren't required to verify their income to get the loan. That year, the company's stock price peaked at $50 a share, valuing IndyMac at a tidy $3.5 billion.

However, as the real estate market slowed, the company's loan losses ballooned. In its March report to regulators, the company said that 8.86% of its loans were delinquent, up from 1.51% the year before. By the end of 2007, the company's shares were selling for $6. They closed at 28 cents Friday.

IndyMac, which has been selling and closing offices, revamped its business to focus solely on so-called conforming loans, which are relatively small-balance mortgages made to people with good credit and that can be immediately resold on the secondary market. Reich said it was unclear whether the moves would have proved sufficient to save the troubled thrift.

"Would the institution have failed without the deposit run?" he said. "We will never know."

At 3 p.m. Friday, IndyMac shut the doors to its main branch in Pasadena, three hours early, leaving customers angry and surprised. Georgi Arnold of El Monte had come to deposit $230 into her checking account but wasn't allowed inside. "I am livid," said Arnold, 32. "I'm glad I closed my savings account already."

Arnold said she had "a few thousand dollars" in the bank, money she uses for her children, small bills and vacations. "Best believe first thing come Monday I'll be drawing out all my money and closing my account because this is ridiculous," she said.

Jagdish Belgaum rushed to the bank after hearing the news, only to be locked out. The 42-year-old South Pasadena resident said he had about five CD accounts totaling just under $100,000.

"Luckily I don't need the money right away," said Belgaum, a chief technology officer at a medical management company. "I'm more afraid of the long line on Monday. That's why I came running."

IndyMac announced Monday that it was laying off 3,800 employees. FDIC spokesman David Barr said Friday outside IndyMac headquarters that "the bulk of the employees will be needed to run this as a full-service bank."

But a handful of employees who were leaving the building appeared to be preparing for the worst, lugging boxes of belongings and saying goodbye to one another. One woman carried out a potted plant. Regulators said they hoped to sell the bank within 90 days.

The FDIC has set up a toll-free phone line -- (866) 806-5919 -- and a page on its website -- www.fdic.gov/bank/individual /failed/IndyMac.html -- for bank customers to obtain information.

IndyMac Bank is the main subsidiary of IndyMac Bancorp. It was unclear what would happen to the holding company in light of the seizure.

Lefties in baseball

2008-07-08T01:20:00.000-06:00

The usual commentary about southpaws and baseball, but wanted to share to see if anyone disagreed with these common-sense observations. I say southpaws get a break in baseball cuz its gotta suck living in a right-handed world as soon as they enter their car to leave the stadium.

--------------------------------------------------

In the general public, about 10 percent of people are left-handed. In Major League Baseball, about 25 percent of players are lefties. Any serious fan knows some of the reasons why certain positions favor lefties, but David Peters has come up with a laundry list of reasons to explain this anomaly.
ADVERTISEMENT

Peters is an aircraft engineer and professor at Washington University in St. Louis, and a devoted Cardinal's fan. This week, he shared his reasons why the game is rigged to favor southpaws.

The ballparks: Right field in most parks is shorter than left field because of the preponderance of right-handed hitters.

Seeing the ball: "A right-handed batter facing a right-handed pitcher actually has to pick up the ball visually as it comes from behind his (the batter's) left shoulder. The left-handed batter facing the right-handed pitcher has the ball coming to him, so he has a much clearer view of pitches."

Getting going: After a right-hander connects with a ball, his momentum spins him toward the third-base side. He must regroup to take even his first step toward first base. A left-hander's momentum carries him directly toward first. "The left-handed batter has a 5-foot advantage over the right-handed batter," Peters calculates. "And that means the lefty travels the 90 feet to first roughly one-sixth of a second faster than the righty. That translates to more base hits for the left-hander, whether singles or extra base hits because lefties are getting to the bases more quickly."

Pitching: The left-handed pitcher generally is much more difficult to steal off. From his stretch, he peers directly at the runner; the right-hander must look over his shoulder and wheel to first base, giving the runner more of a warning of the pitcher's intent.

Fielding: First base and right field favor lefies. The favorable angles lefties allow them to throw the ball more quickly across the diamond to second, third and home.

Just being different: "Because only 10 percent of the population is left-handed, kids grow up and mature in baseball seeing a left-hander just 10 percent of the time they bat," he points out. "So, it can be hard for both lefties and righties to face a southpaw. It's why some left-handed batters look dreadful matched against a lefty." Some batters don't like facing southpaws because their ball is purported to have a natural movement away from a right-hander and into a lefty. "There's no scientific evidence to support this, but I wonder if lefties get that movement from learning to write in a right-hander's world," Peters says.

Not catching on: One position a lefty rarely plays is catcher; it is difficult for a southpaw catcher to throw over so many right-hand batters.

You have to be scum of the earth to patronize this

2008-06-25T20:43:00.000-06:00

I'm sickened reading this...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
345 arrested, kids rescued in prostitution busts
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 25, 6:59 PM ET

Hundreds of people have been arrested and 21 children rescued in what the FBI is calling a five-day roundup of networks of pimps who force children into prostitution.

The Justice Department says it targeted 16 cities as part of its "Operation Cross Country" that caps off five years of similar stings nationwide.

Many of the children forced into prostitution are either runaways or what authorities call "thrown-aways" — kids whose families have shunned them. Officials say they are preyed upon by organized networks of pimps who lure them in with shelter or drugs, then often beat, starve or otherwise abuse them until the children agree to work the streets.

"We together have no higher calling than to protect our children and to safeguard their innocence," FBI Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday. "Yet the sex trafficking of children remains one of the most violent and unforgivable crimes in this country."

In all, authorities arrested 345 people — including 290 adult prostitutes — during the operation that ended this week. Since 2003, 308 pimps and hookers have been convicted in state and federal courts of forcing youngsters into prostitution, and 433 child victims have been rescued, Mueller said.

The cities targeted in this week's sting are: Atlanta; Boston; Dallas; Detroit; Houston; Las Vegas; Los Angeles; Miami; Montgomery County, Md.; Oakland, Calif.; Phoenix; Reno, Nev.; Sacramento, Calif.; Tampa; Toledo, Ohio and Washington.

The problem of child prostitution has taken on a new urgency in recent years with the growth of online networks where pimps advertise the youngsters to clients. The FBI generally investigates child prostitution cases that cross state lines.

The cases aren't easy to convict.

In April 2006, for example, charges against a Nevada man resulted in a hung jury after his 14-year-old victim refused to testify against him. Months later, however, a second jury found Juan Rico Doss of Reno, Nev., guilty of forcing two girls — ages 14 and 16 — to sell sex in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco and Oakland.

A University of Pennsylvania study estimates nearly 300,000 children in the United States are at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial uses — "most of them runaways or thrown-aways," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

"These kids are victims. This is 21st century slavery," Allen said. "They lack the ability to walk away."

Flea with Metallica

2008-06-18T08:55:00.001-06:00

Flea has a benefit concert every year to support a music school project he has funded for the better part of a decade. Not sure if Metallica was the last straw this year because they've never played it before, but Flea invited and the crazies accepted, so you just know they had to drag Flea up on stage with them. I would normally have given a large sum to see more of this collaboration cuz you might as well resurrect Cliff to top this. Luckily, I got to see the boys again 2 days prior in ol' Tucson, so I've got my fix for the year. Surprisingly unknown Tucson fact: Pima County Fairgrounds is out in the middle of nowhere; might be NM. Anyways, without further ado ...

This is pretty ill

2008-04-12T09:22:00.001-06:00

I'm not sure this is real, but so was said about Tiger Wood's commercial. I think there will always be speculation, especially since this commercial will never air on television due to the replica affect I'm sure Nike/Kobe would want to avoid. If it is real, the question this brings to mind is, what is more impressive? Dunking from the free throw line, or jumping over large moving objects coming straight at you?

Funny Email I want to share with the world

2008-02-18T00:54:00.000-07:00

Ten Things We Learned in 2007:

#10. Life is sexually transmitted.

#9. Good health is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.

#8. Men have two emotions: hungry and horny.
If you see him without an erection, make him a sandwich.

#7. Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day.
Teach a person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.

#6. Some people are like a slinky... Not really good for anything,
But you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.

#5. Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday,
Lying in the hospital dying of nothing.

#4. All of us could take a lesson from the weather.
It pays no attention to criticism.

#3. Why does a slight tax increase cost you two hundred dollars,
And a substantial tax cut saves you thirty cents?

#2. In the 60's, people took LSD to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.

AND THE #1 THOUGHT FOR 2007:
We know exactly where one cow with mad-cow disease is located among the millions and millions of cows in the UK , but we haven't a clue as to where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are located. Maybe we should put the Department of Agriculture in charge of immigration.

Do you like the "word" irregardless?

2007-10-13T09:35:00.000-06:00

Its been awhile, so here's another quirky post about a word I've used from time to time, but be warned, it looks awfully weird when read, and generally gives it up that the word in fact is poor English. But anywho, still neat to debate, particularly if you're a fan...
------------------

In a post I wrote a couple of weeks ago about overpriced Halo USB drives, I used the word "irregardless." And as these TalkBack posts show, it wasn't a very popular decision.
For example, one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.
In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.
But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.
1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.
2. Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.
3. Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.
4. It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.
5. It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris, roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.
6. If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.
So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

What's your talent?

2007-09-10T22:06:00.001-06:00

Ever so often, I marvel at what a person is capable of...and then I wonder why I don't have the ambition to attempt what might appear impossible. I need to get out of school, grab a hobby, and get on with living life! Well, in the spirit of the perpetual pursuit of freedom, here is the latest video I've found truly bad ass!

Despite this article being a shock to absolutely nobody, I want someone to argue with me how Fox's newscast is at all objectively informative

2007-06-12T05:19:00.000-06:00

War takes up less time on Fox News

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television WriterMon Jun 11, 9:52 AM ET

On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings.

Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.

That wasn't unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC's. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time.

The independent think tank's report freshens a debate over whether ideology drives news agendas, and it comes at a delicate time for Fox. Top Democratic presidential candidates have refused to appear at debates sponsored by Fox. Liberals find attacking Fox is a way to fire up their base.

"It illustrates the danger of cheerleading for one particular point or another because they were obviously cheerleaders for the war," said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president. "When the war went badly they had to dial back coverage because it didn't fit their preconceived story lines."

Fox wouldn't respond to repeated requests to make an executive available to talk about its war coverage.

So how to explain the divergent priorities? Different opinions on what is newsworthy? A business decision?

A mere coincidence?

Fox News Channel viewers argue that their favorite network is simply the most fair. Fox has long objected to suggestions that its newscasts go through a conservative filter. Surveys have shown its audience is dominated by Republicans.

There are no similar differences in priorities among the broadcast evening-news programs, where Iraq was the top story between January and the end of March. NBC's "Nightly News" spent 269 minutes on Iraq, ABC had 251 and CBS 238, according to news consultant Andrew Tyndall.

Another story that has reflected poorly on the Bush administration, the controversy over U.S. attorney firings, also received more attention on MSNBC (8 percent of the newshole) and CNN (4 percent) than on Fox (2 percent), the Project for Excellence in Journalism found.

Tim Graham of the conservative Media Research Center, said Fox has always claimed to report from an American perspective and to not follow the pack. While Graham said he may have questions about the PEJ's methodology, he doesn't dispute the results.

His group published its own study last year about the content of coverage. Fox didn't have its head in the sand; there were more negative stories about what was happening in Iraq than positive. But his group's view was that Fox was more balanced while CNN and MSNBC were relentlessly pessimistic. Between May 15 and July 21 of last year, Fox aired nearly twice as many stories about successes in Iraq as CNN and MSNBC combined, he said.

Most coverage of Iraq focuses on what gets blown up, he said.

"The problem we have with the media elite is that they clearly see Fox as pandering to an audience and they don't see CNN as pandering to an audience," Graham said. "That's where I think the double standard sets in."

While polls say its size is diminishing, there's clearly an audience that resists the general tenor of war coverage. GOP presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani was applauded during last week's debate when he wondered aloud what would happen if the American war effort succeeds over the next few months. "Are we going to report that with the same amount of attention that we would report the negative news?" he said.

Klein disputed the idea that CNN doesn't give a complete picture of what is happening in Iraq.

"Certain folks don't want to see any bad news," he said. "It's our job to report all of the news."

The project's findings surprised MSNBC chief executive Dan Abrams, who has been pushing his network to concentrate on politics and inside-the-Beltway issues lately.

"I'm not going to get on a high horse and judge our competition based on the numbers," he said. "We are looking for the right balance."

Fox's business interests may depend on less negative news about Iraq.

If Fox's audience is dominated by Republicans who are disgusted about hearing bad news on Iraq, it would stand to reason that you'd want to feed them less of it. Bill O'Reilly touched upon that idea on the air one night last December, telling viewers that the lowest-rated segment of his show the previous night was when Iraq was discussed. Ratings jumped at talk about Britney Spears, he said.

The danger is whether those concerns eat away at journalistic credibility.

They're a news network, said CNN's Klein, "so it is surprising that they're not covering the biggest story in the country and the world."

The Project for Excellence in Journalism steered clear of questions about what its findings proved. "We just wanted to tell people that it does make a difference where you go for the news," said the group's Mark Jurkowitz.

So with less on-air attention being paid to Iraq during the first few months of the year, what filled the void for Fox? PEJ's report said the network gave the death of Anna Nicole Smith significantly more air time than its rivals.

___

Fox News Channel is owned by News Corp.

___

On the Net:

http://foxnews.com

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — David Bauder can be reached at dbauder(at)ap.org

a little antagonisitic quote for your consideration

2007-05-17T20:42:00.000-06:00

A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students. -- John Ciardi

Marcos is back in P.O.D. - JA JA RIGHT ON!

2007-05-15T22:10:00.000-06:00

So in the "where the hell have you been" column, I just read in the Wikipedia (someone else's favorite site *wink) submission for P.O.D. that Marcos Curiel has indeed rejoined the band. This is ironic as I've been lately rediscovering my adolescent rap rock music collection, and picking up more albums to boot. I'm more of a "traditional" rock guy, but I've pretty much worn the classic rock knob off my radio, so its time to return to something more contemporary. I've picked up POD's Greatest Hits, which really covers what you'd expect, but brings me back to why Marcos left. So at the time, I was really buzzin on POD; I mean Satellite completely kicked ass cover to cover, and then the dude picks up and leaves. W-hierd. And then the Matrix Reloaded soundtrack comes out, on which POD submitted "Sleeping Awake". Really sub-par in my opinion, completely crap compared to "School of Hard Knocks" on the Little Nicky soundtrack, not coincidentally with Marcos. Anyways, he's back and I think it's exactly what the band needs. Band, genre, and modern rock in general. Have you listened to modern rock lately? Its crap, full of Nickelback and even crazier bands that have no bite whatsoever. In fact, most modern rock stations still play tunes from 5 years ago. Not a good sign for sure. We'll have to see what the future bears, but I won't hold my breath.

As for that Greatest Hits album, it pisses me off that SoHK was left off, really bugs me since they fill it with other new album submissions that really don't float my boat. Supposedly Testity had some good songs on it like "Goodbye for Now", but I'm not really sold. Just not the same w/o Marcos, so hopefully they return to that place.

Some other discs I've picked up recently are Live's Greatest Hits and Linkin Park Live in Texas. Good stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.O.D.

Wish I could do this

2007-05-14T19:22:00.001-06:00

Hilarious...and yet truly shameful

2007-05-04T07:49:00.000-06:00

"The field split on another issue, with Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raising their hands when moderator Chris Matthews asked who did not believe in evolution."

I just don't get it, I literally have to FIGHT to respect the Republican party...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_debate

Does any industry have worse PR than the music industry?

2007-03-19T07:57:00.000-06:00

I found this satirical note absolutely hilarious, ala Onion quality. Evidently the RIAA is still on the warpath, still trying to win over the 18-29 age bracket that I'm sure is their worst customer base as far as mucis is concerned. There's even an open letter from the RIAA president and CEO (2 people, they need that many ass holes running this thing) that is really a waste of time. I'm sure every college student has ripped it up sideways and back.
http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/03/15/sherman

Here's the opening satire on Gizmodo:
Alright, you college student pirate assholes, LISTEN UP. Cary Sherman and Mitch Bainwol, the president and CEO of the RIAA, respectively, have a message for you in an op/ed on Inside Higher Ed. Suing all of you is "necessary" because what you're doing is costing "billions of dollars in lost revenue, millions of dollars in lost taxes, thousands of lost jobs." That's right, people are losing their JOBS. Thousands of them. I'm not sure who or what they did, but this is probably because now they're unemployed, thanks to you.
You stole two thirds of your music. You told the NPD you did. So now, "finding a record store still in business anywhere near a campus is a difficult assignment at best." It's not because of Best Buy and Wal-Mart undercutting them with lower prices or anything, it's because those super low prices weren't low enough for your thieving asses.
And these damn universities are so uncooperative. The RIAA is being super helpful and showing them all kinds of ways block P2P entirely to stop you bastards in your tracks, since "the overwhelming, if not sole, use of these applications on campus is to illegally download and distribute copyrighted works." It's not like anyone actually uses that BitTorrent store, after all.
It's a damn shame schools aren't doing more, because they have a "moral responsibility, as educators, as organizations transmitting values" to teach you jackasses not to steal music. Which is why "when schools increasingly provide their students with amenities like cable TV, there is simply no reason not to offer them cheap or free legal access to the music they crave." Yeah, schools should pay for the licenses for those services. The RIAA deserves that money, so they get paid even if you resort to stealing music encoded at a higher bit rate with no DRM. Greedy assholes.
Artists' mansions are shrinking. Their children are only able to afford a Wii and a 360, but not a PS3. Think about that the next time you download Nelly's new album, or even some up-and-coming band's new record which you tell all your friends about so they go to their shows and stuff. You just stole a CD from them.
God, why do you keep complaining about the RIAA? They're just trying to "educate these particular students about the importance of music... and the importance of respecting and valuing music as intellectual property." You don't have to be a pirate for life. The RIAA can help. It just needs a small settlement to get you started. – Matt Buchanan

"Alaska can come too!"

2007-02-25T01:54:00.000-07:00

I think this flash joke is a little old, but it was new to me when my friend showed it to me last week. Wanted to share with the rest of you!

http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm

BTW, getting married in a month feels wierd, yet I seriously can't wait til its over! I'm tearing my hair out with these bills. Note to self, elope actually means "just get married and save yourself some coin dumbass!". I'll have to remember that next time.

James Kim: In Memory

2006-12-06T22:42:00.000-07:00

Alright, so I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who spends more time researching a product than actually buying and playing with it. With this in mind, I've been a devoted visitor to cnet.com for many years now, seen it go through several iterations, and grown familiar with the pleasant faces introducing me to the many toys in life I will never play with like they do. One of these familiar, happy faces was James Kim. He was in charge of reviewing mp3 players, and although I never met the man, I must say it surprised me how emotionally involved I became upon learning of his plight and that of his family. I was even more heartbroken today at work, keeping up with the updates, and learning that James had passed away while trying to find assistance for his stranded family. I care not as much as I normally would for the specifics of how they ended up lost on a road they probably shouldn't have been on. More importantly, they were a family in need, and I admire and relish the devotion I'm sure James gave to them in their hour of need. I am truly heart broken, knowing that he probably died a terrible death, certainly having kissed his wife goodbye for what he may have feared would be the last time. I'm sure that's why he did not leave until they had been out there for a week.

God rest and keep James' soul. Please watch over and care for his family in their time of need. I never knew the man, but I am certain he was one of the good people on this earth. This is just so sad, so very awfully sad. I also hope the CNET family can move on as well. Knowing that they were probably a very tight-nit group, I'm sure this is more than difficult for them to move on from. Best wishes to them as well.

RIP JAMES...peace
http://www.cnettv.com/9710-1_53-25119.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_re_us/missing_family
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/12/wilderness-survival-rule-of-threes_07.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/12/08/kim.survival/index.html
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_342151633.html
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=18949@kpix.dayport.com

Go see The Departed

2006-12-01T22:58:00.000-07:00

Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you're not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think, "At least somebody can stand the son of a bitch." Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
~The Departed

Wiser words have never been spoken.

PLEASE HELP FIND JAMES KIM

2006-11-30T22:19:00.000-07:00

You probably don't know who this is, nor will he be super significant to you, but he is one of the regulars over at CNET and I am profoundly distraught with this news as I've watched and read his reviews for years now. I must admit it is amazing how person a relationship you can develop with someone w/o having even met them. Hope this hits you all to the core as well; please keep James and the Kim family in your prayers.

Life is a blessing, and the good die young. Hoping for better news...

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9666094-1.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
http://www.sfgov.org/site/police_index.asp?id=37978
http://news.com.com/Road+search+under+way+for+missing+CNET+editor/2100-1028_3-6140118.html?tag=cnetfd.ld1

Still at it

2006-11-16T20:31:00.000-07:00

Dude, Josh's stupid PBJ banana is still at it. Found this on Yahoo...

I really enjoy these commercials, very witty

2006-11-05T01:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

With Apple moving to PC equivalent hardware and the release (and soon integration) of Boot Camp, I feel my next computer will be the time to take the plunge into the Apple universe. They used to be horribly overpriced, but more and more they seem in line w/ their PC equivalents (except home builds of course) which makes them all the more appealing.

This just in, Tony Snow is as dumbfounded as the entire White House

2006-11-04T20:40:00.000-07:00

White House press secretary Tony Snow questioned the accuracy of the quotes in a report in the upcoming January issue of Vanity Fair that featured three former proponents of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq who are now critics of the war. "If the quotes are accurate, it means that they're at war with the advice that they gave some time ago," Snow said.
Snow said the president just shrugged off an editorial by the Military Times Media Group calling for Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. In an unusually lengthy rebuke of an editorial, he argued that the editorial is a "shabby piece of work" that quotes military leaders out of context. He also noted that although the group publishes the Army Times and other military-oriented periodicals, it is a subsidiary of the Gannett Co. and not a military publication.
Bush "understands what editorial writers sometimes do, and in this case, they're grandstanding," Snow said. "The notion that somehow, as the editorial says, that this is not intended to influence the elections — you've got to be kidding me. I mean, if they didn't want it to influence the elections, they could have published it Wednesday."
Snow denied that Sunday's expected verdict against former Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Saddam Hussein was tied to the election. He said Iraq's judiciary is completely independent.
"Are you telling me that in Iraq, that they're sitting around — I'm sorry, that the Iraqi judicial system is coming up with an October surprise?" Snow said, then he corrected his calendar reading. "A November surprise? Man, that's — wow."

Summertime

2006-06-13T21:47:00.000-06:00

Work work work work work...if I ever get a chance to go back to college, I'm going to become a professional student. I kind of hate how you're tied to your employer when you get a real job. 2 weeks a year? Might sound sufficient at first, but nothing beats ditching class at will. Unfortunately, the "professional" world is a little less tolerant of such behavior. Kind of like being a tough guy's little bitch. I feel like a little bitch now...till I'm boss!

May was quick, just as quick as April, and I still remember days from March, although that was already a quarter year ago. 24.5 yrs old, and time races forth like poser, fat bitches at a wedding expo...you know the kind that rush to get the cheap gowns while they last? Something tells me they're all living in their own fantasies, but life is really too lonely to grow old alone, so I'm happy they've found someone to share that with. Someone worth stampeding for wedding gowns. Variant of the running of the bulls. Ole!

Back to May...watched Nic graduate! Very cool being on the other side this year. Last May I was down in that cavernous pit of a stadium, peering up at the spectator seats jammed pack full of out of towners and some cousins to young to even care. It was a good getaway, although brief. Nice to get down to AZ before it got too hot I guess.

From there, the fam communed in IL the next weekend for another graduation, this time my cousin's from high school. This little community in western Illinois gave me the impression of youth grown up in a fishbowl. Still not big enough to stretch their wings fully in modern society and still locked in the tight grip of conformist middle america. Kind of like something out of pleasantville. Another nice trip, but again too short.

At least Nic got to come back to Boise with me. She put up with me for two more weeks, we tore up the house trying to remodel and repaint some of the rooms. I'm going to need to become a handy man ASAP, lest I risk getting gang raped by the plumbers and electricians of the world. So far no major damage luckily, though I'm glad I'm learning how to do this stuff now as opposed to when life may be more busy. At least the house is empty so we can move things around freely without worrying where to put things.

Saw two movies while Nic was here: Thank You for Smoking and Over the Hedge. Smoking is a killer satire, worthy of every script writer's award at next year's award shows. Very funny and provacative about the real life of tobacco lobbyists. Go MOD squad!

Over the Hedge was really what the doctor ordered that night: a simple movie that you really didn't need to care about or think while watching, but still humourous and interesting to keep you conscious for the most part. Some very over the top humour in that script though! At one point, a squirrel in the movie exclaims, "Will you help me find my nuts?" I can just imagine being the teacher trying to squelch that line in first grade the following Monday.

Last bit of cool news is I'm going to play golf again in a scramble this Saturday, and I'm really looking forward to just meeting new people. It's lonely being young in an established company where most of your coworkers have been at it for 10 yrs, married (some divorced), kids, and more money than you so their vacations and getaways are a whole lot cooler. Otherwise, I have my wallpaper removal to keep me busy.

Random notes: I recently listened to Offspring "Greatest Hits" and Beck "Guero". The Offspring could have done better for their first hits disc, but their stuff is pretty upbeat and better than most. More so than anything, it brings me back to middle school when Smash was the best rock album since sliced bread. I still remember feeling ashamed at the cuss words. Sadly, they've gone a little commercial since then. Beck's new disc is a reversion to his old style, like Midnight Vultures mexican style. Has some good beats on their courtesy of the producers for the Beastie Boys (is it true they're really done for good?). Of more interest is the videos Beck made for these singles. Very artsy and mesmerizing. Check it out on music.yahoo.com

Enjoy your summer. Hope you aren't a slave to the "man" as much as I am. As they say in Smoking, "you do it for the mortgage."

Peace

A Good Way to Kill an Evening

2006-04-11T00:05:00.000-06:00

Turn up your little laptop tweeters for this one!
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FEFF824195555499

You cannot deny

I hate fuckin SUVs too!

2006-04-04T01:23:00.000-06:00

http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6056633.html?tag=txt

Things are looking up

2006-02-18T14:38:00.000-07:00

So I'll prefice this post by admitting that most of you will not care. I have a musical taste all my own and very nary of our esteemed bands these days seem to peak my interest. Good bands in my opinion are coming out fewer and far in-between. So hence my excitement at this glorious news!

As previously rumored for some time and now officially confirmed, Rick Rubin has been selected as the producer for the next Metallica album. The Official Metallica Site have posted a studio update as follows: We just wanted to let our friends know that we have been jamming, writing, just plain messing around and having fun in the studio for the last few weeks. Oh, and by the way, this up and coming producer guy named Rick something-or other, has been coming by the studio every now and again to listen to some of our new stuff and throw his two/three cents in. Since this Rick dude is new to all of this, we thought it would be a nice gesture to help break him into the music business by asking him to produce our next record. We're very happy he said yes! In other words, we are psyched to share with you that Rick Rubin is producing the next Metallica album! FUCK YEAH! Rick Rubin is best known for producing albums for Slayer, Slipknot and System Of A Down as well as working with a variety of artists from other genres of music. Metallica's previous producer Bob Rock worked with the band since 1990. Check out pictures of the band with Rick in the studio at Official Metallica Site

\m/ I LOVE 2006

METAL

2006-02-15T23:15:00.000-07:00

\m/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1581867722104021421

I feel like such a bum

What is going on!

2006-02-11T17:09:00.000-07:00

This is getting out of hand...what the hell are these crazies trying to prove. I admonish the drawings completely, but we've had insults against Christianity and God (mainly in our pledge and 10 Commandment objections) for a couple years now and people have kept from firebombing the hell out of each other. We're heading for a bloody crusade here!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings

Ground hog day for me

2006-02-02T23:52:00.000-07:00

Hi world,
It's been a screaming fast 5 or so months since I've even looked at this page. I've moved to Boise, Idaho, started a new job in August, bought a house in November, and now am waiting for my fiance to finish her last year of school at the UofA.

I'm currently reading The Da Vinci code, and am eagerly anticipating the movie in May. I've also seen many excellent movies over the last few months, including Batman Begins, Cinderella Man, Wallace and Gromit, King Kong, and most recently Crash. This Saturday I'm going to see Capote and I also hope to see Good Night and Good Luck sometime soon. Walk the Line is also on my list.

Don't get me started on politics, Iran, or global warming. I hate it how we as a society and people are so discombobulated. I think if someone could figure out a way to satisfy everyone in this world with organization or simply satisfying needs, they would be a god-sent to this world. The poor miners in West Virginia are on my mind as of late.

I'm just glad 2005 is over to be honest. My grandmother who I have pictured on this blog passed away in October, and that is the end of what was a very hard year for my family. Best wishes and blessings to all, I really hope and pray for a better world each day.

Back from the dead

2005-08-14T00:50:00.000-06:00

Well, I haven't touched this in awhile! Where to start...how bout recent stuff, and maybe I'll get back to July. Nic and I arrived back in the states July 21 and are happy to be home. We had a nice time traveling throughout Europe, seeing lots of fantastic things and visiting the most gorgeous places. Put Europe on your list...and the younger you are, the more time you can blow over there, so hit it up soon.

Mom had lots of surprises for me when I got home. She acquired herself a very beautiful Toyota Prius, which I still think she's on the moon about. Very sweet car, crazy as hell. Makes you wonder what took the automakers this long to save the consumer a little money in the tank?

We drove home in it from the airport and she surprised me with MY new(er) car, a Toyota Matrix. She and I had been kicking around some replacements for the Metro, or Go-Go for us jokesters. Cruise control is a beautiful thing, let me tell you. I was not looking forward to driving to Idaho without it. The Matrix is a fantastic car, very versatile, with lots of interior room and a surprisingly lean engine. I probably get equivalent or pretty darn close gas mileage as I did with the go cart. I'm very happy with it. It's bright yellow, so we call it the banana boat, or BB for short. :) It's fun buying new cars because then you get to name them!

Before Nic and I drove up to Idaho, I made a trip down to Yuma with Mom to see Grannie. She's hanging in there, but not knowing when I'd be back in AZ next, we thought we'd make a quick trip. Here are the pictures that we took while we were there.

Grannie liked it, she offered to trade it with her car ;) It was a very nice visit.

Nicole had almost a week at home, which she said was nice cuz we weren't traveling all over the place and it really gave a nice chance to catch her breath and enjoy some of her summer. Nic and her parents came up to celebrate with us, Mark and Jan, and the Finchers for an informal going away part for me. Nic's father, Jim, was able to hunt down some of the delicious Orvieto Classico that Nic and I drank like water this summer. The Italian red wines are great, but OC also comes in white, regular and dry. So look it up the next time you're overwhelmed by the bombardment of winery brands that there are these days. Should be reasonable too, bout $12 a bottle.

Nic and I had a good trip up to Boise, where I am now living and working. BB handled the highway like a charm, and the sun roof is a nice feature. Don't know if I'll be able to give it up when I get another vehicle! And of course the cruise control served its purpose. We stayed overnight in Salt Lake City and arrived in Boise in about 18 hours from PHX total. Could have done it in a day if we had left early enough, so that will be good to know in the future.

This must be another dry summer for the west. I thought the NW got more rain than was normal for the west, but I haven't had so much as a cloud burst in a week. Total, I think it drizzled one early morning, that's it. So the green and lush Boise that I remember from April is now a little more brown. Boise reminds me of Nevada actually; not quite desert, but it might be headed that way depending on what mother nature is doing, or what we're doing to her. Temperatures are much cooler though. Anything other than AZ is an improvement in that category! Days get up into the high 80s, occasionally spiking to 100 when the pressure is really high. Nights are in the upper 60s, so it is very easy to enjoy a night walk if you'd like.

My job is going very well. I work for Micron Technology as a Product Engineer. I'm learning a lot, and I am in a transitionary phase from school to work, so I need to specialize and get all the details down on the product that I'm working on, a 2Gb NAND Flash device, alike to what you use in your digital cameras, or flash mp3 players. Just call me the memory guy, even though I own memory may not be much comparison. Just ask Nic about my remembering things!

Nic is back in Tucson now, finishing up her last year of college, and graduating in May. It is terribly boring when someone who is such a major part of your life is away from you, and I hope she feels the same way. She is entering her 4th year as an RA, and it appears this will be another typical year, and hopefully a piece of cake as usual. She is student teaching in the spring for her art education degree, which she is looking forward to learnign the ins-and-outs about. She might also take the GRE this year too, but we'll see.

I hope to be more regular with this, I really do. Somebody call and chew me out if this thing isn't updated again by next weekend!

Ciao all,
John

More pictures

2005-06-29T17:18:00.000-06:00

Ponte Veccio in Florence
Us at the Villa d'Este in Tivoli
Hadrian's Villa
The menu touristico is named Raffaello, Michaelangelo, and Leonardo. Pretty funny!
Michealangelo's Pieta
Parthenon
The Colloseum, we evetually got inside on a later trip
Trevi Fountain, world's most beautiful fountain

Pompeii, Venice, and Tarquinia

2005-06-29T16:48:00.001-06:00

I'm really, really, really far behind in keeping up with this journal. Guess the virtual journaling option is no more productive than the pen and paper. But quickly, here is a rundown of the last 2-3 weeks.

2 weekends ago, the group went to Naples, stopped in the National Archaeological Museum, and then headed to Pompeii. The museum was interesting, with a great collection of fine mosaics discovered in Pompeii and elsewhere. Very intricate and large, often placed in the floor of aristocrats' homes.

Pompeii was incredible, very large, and very well maintained by the volcanic disaster there in 79AD if I remember correctly. The entire town was basically preserved, and it looks like it was abandoned in the state in which we walked through it. Streets are cobbled; very hard to walk in. We walked around as a group, stopping in particular homes of interest, as well as checking out the small arena and the gymnasium. The baths or spas were very interesting. They were used not only for hygenic purposes, but also as a social place of gathering. Routinely built right into your afternoon list of things to do. Go to the baths and hangout. The coolest thing about Pompeii was the molds of the humans and even dogs that were cast in the dirt after the volcano spewed its gasses everywhere. Although the organic matter disintegrated over time, the spaces were left to be filled in plaster, preserving the form of the dead as they had fallen. Very interesting to see, quite a thought provoking experience. Nevertheless, Pompeii rejuvenated itself and there are still people living within close proximity to this active beast. Guess we'll never learn.

Last weekend, Nicole and I headed to Venice after stopping in Ravenna with the group. Venice was very nice to see again. Really, just imagine getting around New Orleans when the flooding is really bad, and you've got Venice. I really don't think it is that romantic of a place, but who am I to say not being a romantic kind of guy. Venice of course prides itself terribly on its tourist appeal, and Nicole and I made a great trip of it, getting to see the Basillica of San Marco, Doge's palace (home of the world's largest oil painting), the Galleria dell'Academia, and the Guggenheim museum. Doge's palace was quite impressive. Home to the major of Venice basically, Doge's palace gave a thorough historical lesson into the government breakdown of Middle Age's Venice, complete with the Doge, Council members, and general councils where basically any male took part in the political process of electing a new Doge. Supposedly the election process for the Doge was very thorough and complicated, to discourage cheating and voter mischief, which I thought was intuitive. We ended up in the royal prisons where we belong by the end of the tour. Very depressing conditions prisoners had to live in back in the day. Certainly makes our "club houses" for prisons back home look more humanitarian.

Nothing noteable at the Academia, but the Guggenheim was the best part of the day. I have a new favorite artist: Rene Magritte! This guy blows my mind. The few Guggenheim museums (New York, Vegas, and Spain) are all devoted to modern or contemporary art, or basically since the expressionist and surrealist movements of the early 20th century. Picasso, Miro, Caulder, you name it. Every other piece you've seen somewhere in your life. They especially had a very nice exhibit of Jackson Pollick which was incredible. Nicole told me some of his pieces are priceless, but they're all just a bunch of dripped paint to me! :) Still very enjoyeable. Paid our respects to Peggy G and her Shitzus and we left with half the gift shop.

my favorite magritte painting

Today, the group headed to Tarquinia to visit the best collection of Etruscan graves from the VI c BC. Fun part was we hit the beach in the afternoon and we dipped our feet in the Mediterraneon Sea. Beach was all dark sand! Very neat.

Tomorrow we finish our classes with finals and then we head out Saturday to Milan and the rest of Europe. Should be a very full last 3 weeks, but it has been a great time in Italy. More adventures lie ahead, including visiting Marissa hopefully.

~Giovanni

Picture time!

2005-06-23T17:32:00.000-06:00

Thanks Steve!

Really quick about last weekend. Naples, Pompeii, and Paestrum were all great. I will write about them later, but here are some pictures for you all to view! Hopefully they won't limit me to 2 or something lame. I thought I might have to download Picassa (long story, nevermind). Enjoy!

This is the great view from Castel Sant'Angelo. Great views of the entire city.

Spanish steps...damn Lancome.

This is what John Paul's tomb looks like in the catacombs of St. Peter's. Have great video also.

I will expound later, sorry for the short post. Mom, the visit with Fr. George in Rome last Monday was great. Awesome to have dinner and chat with him and Sister. They send their love and regrets about Grandma.

This weekend is Ravenna and Venice for me. I will be more thorough in the next post, including recaps of Assisi and Pompeii!

Love yall,

John

Today is Naples...

2005-06-17T20:43:00.000-06:00

And its 4:30AM, guess who's a happy camper. We are being trucked the 4-5 hrs it takes to get from Orvieto to Naples and Pompeii today. I'm really excited to see Pompeii; we had a mini-lecture about it yesterday with the whole volcano explanation. Sounds like that would be on the bottom of my list of ways to go. I'm sure there is a movie about it, I'd like to see how they protray it happening. Anyways, from a historical perspective, it will be interesting to see the perfect preservation of historical sights.

Yesterday was very neat here in Orvieto. The very very good news is Nicole is happy because we had Cordon Bleu for dinner. With french fries to boot! Taking a break from all the Italian food never felt so invigorating. The other very good news is there was a free "concert" last night that I attended. They showed a silent movie that looked like it had been made in 1919. No biggy right? Well throw in a full symphony orchestra in front of it and things become a whole lot more interesting. How do you top it all off? Charge absolutely nothing. Mamma mia! What a country... I can't tell you what the movie was about, somekind of backstabbing drama for the thrown of the Roman kingdom. They symphony was great, and the setting in the duomo (the large basilica here) was very nice to see at night. Great times.

In other news, (MOM) I'm meeting Fr. George on Monday in Rome. The nun he is traveling with (or was meeting there?) had a spill in Assisi and is pretty nicely bruised, so he is caring for her in Rome. Nicole and I will take our Etruscan art test on Monday, then split early to go see the Colloseum on the inside, plus Michaelangelo's Moses in one of the nearby churches. Will let you know how that goes.

Next weekend is Venice, looking forward to that. Will write more later about our early days in Rome on this trip.

Ciao.

Assisi and Perugia (Middle Italy)

2005-06-15T15:38:00.000-06:00

Today was wet, lots of rain throughout the morning which really put a drag on our touring of Assisi. Julie, the summer here this year is very mild. Highs only in the low 80s, with rain about once a week. No pushing 100 this year I'm afraid, and I really do because my wardrobe planned on it. Nicole already purchased another pair of jeans, but she's always on the chillier side. But back to Assisi.

Got to visit the famed Basilica of Francis in the heart of Assisi. The building itself is 3 layers really, with the very bottom boasting a very modest (no surprise knowing Francis) tomb of St. Francis surrounding by his 4 Friar buddies. The tomb was magnificent...of course no photos (or TALKING for that matter), but it was very beautiful. Wish I could have spent more time down there, but I was with our school group on this tour leg. The middle section houses a smaller chapel where I would presume the Fanciscans participated in most of their private prayer services. The walls are plastered with wonderful frescoes of Francis throughout his life, particularly by Giotto FYI. Some frescoes focused on Francis receiving the stigmata, others the visions of the pope seeing Francis refocus in essense the entire Catholic church back to a more humble frame of mind. The top layer (basically ground level) was a more grandeur community church with more frescoes, but these have badly deteriorated, to the point where they look like photo negatives. Still lovely...quick trip however, we were out of there within an hour and a half.

Next stop was Perugia, where we saw the Meseum dell'Academia, which basically is the primary art museum in the city. No particular artist stands out in this collection, but it certainly must have been hard to stand out back in the day because every topic is either Madonna with Child or the Annunciation, or the Crucifix. Nice to see artistic differences, but I've seen 50 billion of these by now and I'm getting a little "full". Perhaps I'm still spoiled from the Uffizi. Was a nice tour really, especially since everytime the school takes us on these trips, they pay for everything. This weekend for example, they're busing us all the way down to Naples and Pompeii. Only sacrifice I guess is that you don't get to spend as much time in each destination, but that's not too much of a problem.

Perugia is also known as the best chocolate makers in Italy, much to Nicole's delight. So of course we purchased probably a pound of it before we left. I'm a fan of the late night snack after dinner kind of chocolate eater, while Nicole could probably eat this stuff like its trail mix. :) She likes it, don't mean to poke fun. Steve, Nicole really enjoyed the shops very much on the Ponte Veccio, cuz we thought it would be fun to see if by chance we'd find wedding bands, but to no avail. We actually watched the sun set in Florence the last night we were there, and the Ponte Veccio was the backdrop. It was really pretty. Pictures of course to come.

I don't know how I'm going to show you guys pictures, but I'm trying to figure out if this blog space will actually host some space that I can swap out a picture or two ever so often. Worse case, I'll just zip some up and send them out, although that requires more work on your part. I'll find a way though.

Tomorrow we have our first exam in Classical Art and the Ideal. We are learning about the Orientalizing influence in ancient Greek art around the 6th-7th century BC. Not very thorough class, kind of superficial, but we'll see how the test goes.

Hope you all enjoy seeing each other in Chicago for the weekend. Wish I could be there, really I do. Safe trip for all of you.