Kiran didn’t seem like the type of kid parents should worry about. “He was the easy one,” his father, Raghu, a physician, says. “He always wanted to please.” Unlike other children in his suburban St. Louis preschool, Kiran (a nickname his parents asked me to use to protect his identity) rarely disobeyed or acted out. If he dawdled or didn’t listen, Raghu (also a nickname) had only to count to five before Kiran hastened to tie his shoes or put the toys away. He was kind to other children; if a classmate cried, Kiran immediately approached. “Our little empath!” his parents proudly called him.
But there were worrisome signs. For one thing, unlike your typical joyful and carefree 4-year-old, Kiran didn’t have a lot of fun. “He wasn’t running around, bouncing about, battling to get to the top of the slide like other kids,” Raghu notes. Kiran’s mother, Elizabeth (her middle name), an engineer, recalls constant refrains of “Nothing is fun; I’m bored.” When Raghu and Elizabeth reminded a downbeat Kiran of their coming trip to Disney World, Kiran responded: “Mickey lies. Dreams don’t come true.”
Over time, especially in comparison with Kiran’s even-keeled younger sister, it became apparent that guilt and worry infused Kiran’s thoughts. “We had to be really careful when we told him he did something wrong, because he internalized it quickly,” Raghu says. He was also easily frustrated. He wouldn’t dare count aloud until he had perfected getting to 10. Puzzles drove him nuts. After toying with a new set of Legos, he told his father, “I can’t do Legos.” He then roundly declared: “I will never do them. I am not a Legos person. You should take them away.”
One weekend when he was 4, Kiran carried his blanket around as his mother ferried him from one child-friendly place to the next, trying to divert him. But even at St. Louis’s children’s museum, he was listless and leaned against the wall. When they got home, he lay down and said he couldn’t remember anything fun about the whole day. He was “draggy and superwhiny and seeming like he was in pain.” Elizabeth remembers thinking, Something is wrong with this kid.
After talks with the director of Kiran’s preschool, who was similarly troubled by his behavior, and a round of medical Googling, Kiran’s parents took him to see a child psychiatrist. In the winter of 2009, when Kiran was 5, his parents were told that he had preschool depression, sometimes referred to as “early-onset depression.” He was entered into a research study at the Early Emotional Development Program at Washington University Medical School in St. Louis, which tracks the diagnosis of preschool depression and the treatment of children like Kiran. “It was painful,” Elizabeth says, “but also a relief to have professionals confirm that, yes, he has had a depressive episode. It’s real.”
Is it really possible to diagnose such a grown-up affliction in such a young child? And is diagnosing clinical depression in a preschooler a good idea, or are children that young too immature, too changeable, too temperamental to be laden with such a momentous label? Preschool depression may be a legitimate ailment, one that could gain traction with parents in the way that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (A.D.H.D.) and oppositional defiant disorder (O.D.D.) — afflictions few people heard of 30 years ago — have entered the what-to-worry-about lexicon. But when the rate of development among children varies so widely and burgeoning personalities are still in flux, how can we know at what point a child crosses the line from altogether unremarkable to somewhat different to clinically disordered? Just how early can depression begin?
The answer, according to recent research, seems to be earlier than expected. Today a number of child psychiatrists and developmental psychologists say depression can surface in children as young as 2 or 3. “The idea is very threatening,” says Joan Luby, a professor of child psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, who gave Kiran his diagnosis and whose research on preschool depression has often met with resistance. “In my 20 years of research, it’s been slowly eroding,” Luby says of that resistance. “But some hard-core scientists still brush the idea off as mushy or psychobabble, and laypeople think the idea is ridiculous.”
For adults who have known depression, however, the prospect of early diagnosis makes sense. Kiran’s mother had what she now recognizes was childhood depression. “There were definite signs throughout my grade-school years,” she says. Had therapy been available to her then, she imagines that she would have leapt at the chance. “My parents knew my behavior wasn’t right, but they really didn’t know what to do.”
Saturday, August 28, 2010
One third of parents think playing with their children is BORING
As any parent will know, keeping your little ones entertained isn't exactly child’s play.
But in a surprising trend computers seem to have become the new electronic babysitter.
One in three parents play computer games with their children instead of the more traditional ball games in the garden or visit to a playground.
Yet nine out of ten children said electronic games were something they would rather play on their own.
And three quarters of the children surveyed said they would prefer to spend time with their parents actually interacting with them in some way challenging each other, for example, at board games.
The report also reveals that in today’s time-starved society one in five parents forget to play with their children as they are too busy or can’t think of anything to do.
It seems play is in danger of becoming a lost art for families as almost a third of parents even think that spending time with their children is boring.
Professor Tanya Byron, a child psychologist, interviewed 2,000 parents and 2,000 children aged five to 15 to examine the play habits of the nation for her ‘State of Play, Back to Basics’ report.
She found that although children still enjoy the same pursuits as their parents did when they were growing up, there was a widening gulf between what children wanted to do and what their parents thought they wanted to do.
Lack of communication between the generations was a key problem, and that meant that both adults and children were left dispirited and less likely to talk to each other.
30 per cent of parents admitted that they think playing with their children is boring, and over one in ten children (16 per cent) picked up that they feel this way.
Professor Tanya Byron said of the findings: ‘There are four key ingredients to a successful playtime between parents and children namely: education, inspiration, integration and communication.
‘Parents need to take a step back and think back to how their own childhood games used these four pillars and how they can implement them now. The key thing is to have an open and honest dialogue between parents and children and to embrace play environments which provide a great training ground for parents to practice the art of imaginative play by using objects and experiences that are recognisable whatever your age.
‘Cross generational enjoyment, where no family member feels inhibited, under pressure, bored or stressed are key to making these four pillars become part of everyday play.’
She recommended that parents go ‘back to basics’ by remembering what they liked doing when they were young, such as dressing up or playing games, to inspire their playtime with their young.
The report was commissioned by Disneyland Paris which has just opened a new Toy Story themed ‘Playland’.
But in a surprising trend computers seem to have become the new electronic babysitter.
One in three parents play computer games with their children instead of the more traditional ball games in the garden or visit to a playground.
Yet nine out of ten children said electronic games were something they would rather play on their own.
And three quarters of the children surveyed said they would prefer to spend time with their parents actually interacting with them in some way challenging each other, for example, at board games.
The report also reveals that in today’s time-starved society one in five parents forget to play with their children as they are too busy or can’t think of anything to do.
It seems play is in danger of becoming a lost art for families as almost a third of parents even think that spending time with their children is boring.
Professor Tanya Byron, a child psychologist, interviewed 2,000 parents and 2,000 children aged five to 15 to examine the play habits of the nation for her ‘State of Play, Back to Basics’ report.
She found that although children still enjoy the same pursuits as their parents did when they were growing up, there was a widening gulf between what children wanted to do and what their parents thought they wanted to do.
Lack of communication between the generations was a key problem, and that meant that both adults and children were left dispirited and less likely to talk to each other.
30 per cent of parents admitted that they think playing with their children is boring, and over one in ten children (16 per cent) picked up that they feel this way.
Professor Tanya Byron said of the findings: ‘There are four key ingredients to a successful playtime between parents and children namely: education, inspiration, integration and communication.
‘Parents need to take a step back and think back to how their own childhood games used these four pillars and how they can implement them now. The key thing is to have an open and honest dialogue between parents and children and to embrace play environments which provide a great training ground for parents to practice the art of imaginative play by using objects and experiences that are recognisable whatever your age.
‘Cross generational enjoyment, where no family member feels inhibited, under pressure, bored or stressed are key to making these four pillars become part of everyday play.’
She recommended that parents go ‘back to basics’ by remembering what they liked doing when they were young, such as dressing up or playing games, to inspire their playtime with their young.
The report was commissioned by Disneyland Paris which has just opened a new Toy Story themed ‘Playland’.
Un-bull-ievable! Calf saved from the farmer's shotgun grows into towering 6ft 5in, one-tonne beast
Amazingly, the seven-year-old bullock is still growing meaning he could smash through the current British record in a matter of months.
When Shaun, a carpet fitter, saved Trigger he had no idea his new black and white friend would grow up to his magnificent size.
Trigger's enormous weight means he could potentially make 7,665 Big Macs or even 6,137 Burger King Whoppers.
But family pet Trigger lives a life far removed from that of your average livestock.
Instead he enjoys a relaxed lifestyle in a field at Kingswood, Herefordshire, where he eats a daily diet of grass, cattle cake, mineral lick and a packet of apples every week.
Shaun said: 'When you get up close to him, he really is quite imposing.
'He's growing steadily and he's gained an inch in the last 12 months, so he's coming towards the British record, which is about 6ft 7in.
'A friend who owns a couple of fields said I could borrow them for as long as I wanted, so I grasped the opportunity and got a little calf, and fed him up.
When Shaun, a carpet fitter, saved Trigger he had no idea his new black and white friend would grow up to his magnificent size.
Trigger's enormous weight means he could potentially make 7,665 Big Macs or even 6,137 Burger King Whoppers.
But family pet Trigger lives a life far removed from that of your average livestock.
Instead he enjoys a relaxed lifestyle in a field at Kingswood, Herefordshire, where he eats a daily diet of grass, cattle cake, mineral lick and a packet of apples every week.
Shaun said: 'When you get up close to him, he really is quite imposing.
'He's growing steadily and he's gained an inch in the last 12 months, so he's coming towards the British record, which is about 6ft 7in.
'A friend who owns a couple of fields said I could borrow them for as long as I wanted, so I grasped the opportunity and got a little calf, and fed him up.
Cheating hubby exposed thanks to saman ekor
KUALA LUMPUR: A man who was caught on camera for speeding turned out to be having a joyride with his lover.
His wife found out about the affair by accident after she and her husband went to MCA public services and complaints department head Datuk Michael Chong to complain about a saman ekor they had received.
The retired couple, in their 60s from Petaling Jaya, vehemently maintained that the police had mistakenly issued a summons to them, Chong said.
“They claimed they were never on the Karak Highway, so it was impossible for them to have been caught speeding there.
“The wife said they only drove the car to nearby places. Besides that, she was with her husband most of the time,” said Chong yesterday.
Upon hearing their dilemma, Chong advised them to get from the police a photo of the alleged offence although the husband was reluctant to do so.
“However, the wife decided to pay the RM10 that was required to check out the photo,” he said.
Chong said the couple came back to check the photo two weeks later, but the husband quickly grabbed the envelope with the photo.
“The husband refused to open the envelope and said they would open it at home as they did not want to waste my time,” he said.
However, Chong said the wife insisted on opening it in front of him because the wife was confident that there was a mistake in the summons and wanted him to settle the matter for them.
“To the wife’s shock, the photo clearly showed the husband driving the car with another woman sitting beside him,” said Chong.
Chong said the wife was furious and grabbed her umbrella to hit the husband.
“I quickly stood between them and asked the husband to leave. I do not know what happened to them after the incident,” he said.
His wife found out about the affair by accident after she and her husband went to MCA public services and complaints department head Datuk Michael Chong to complain about a saman ekor they had received.
The retired couple, in their 60s from Petaling Jaya, vehemently maintained that the police had mistakenly issued a summons to them, Chong said.
“They claimed they were never on the Karak Highway, so it was impossible for them to have been caught speeding there.
“The wife said they only drove the car to nearby places. Besides that, she was with her husband most of the time,” said Chong yesterday.
Upon hearing their dilemma, Chong advised them to get from the police a photo of the alleged offence although the husband was reluctant to do so.
“However, the wife decided to pay the RM10 that was required to check out the photo,” he said.
Chong said the couple came back to check the photo two weeks later, but the husband quickly grabbed the envelope with the photo.
“The husband refused to open the envelope and said they would open it at home as they did not want to waste my time,” he said.
However, Chong said the wife insisted on opening it in front of him because the wife was confident that there was a mistake in the summons and wanted him to settle the matter for them.
“To the wife’s shock, the photo clearly showed the husband driving the car with another woman sitting beside him,” said Chong.
Chong said the wife was furious and grabbed her umbrella to hit the husband.
“I quickly stood between them and asked the husband to leave. I do not know what happened to them after the incident,” he said.
Miracle mum brings premature baby son back to life with two hours of loving cuddles after doctors pronounce him dead
It was a final chance to say goodbye for grieving mother Kate Ogg after doctors gave up hope of saving her premature baby.
She tearfully told her lifeless son - born at 27 weeks weighing 2lb - how much she loved him and cuddled him tightly, not wanting to let him go.
Although little Jamie's twin sister Emily had been delivered successfully, doctors had given Mrs Ogg the news all mothers dread - that after 20 minutes of battling to get her son to breathe, they had declared him dead.
Having given up on a miracle, Mrs Ogg unwrapped the baby from his blanket and held him against her skin. And then an extraordinary thing happened.
After two hours of being hugged, touched and spoken to by his mother, the little boy began showing signs of life.
At first, it was just a gasp for air that was dismissed by doctors as a reflex action.
But then the startled mother fed him a little breast milk on her finger and he started breathing normally.
'I thought, "Oh my God, what's going on",' said Mrs Ogg.
'A short time later he opened his eyes. It was a miracle. Then he held out his hand and grabbed my finger.
'He opened his eyes and moved his head from side to side. The doctor kept shaking his head saying, "I don't believe it, I don't believe it".'
The Australian mother spoke publicly for the first time yesterday to highlight the importance of skin-on-skin care for sick babies, which is being used at an increasing number of British hospitals.
But the 'kangaroo care' technique, named after the way kangaroos hold their young in a pouch next to their bodies, allows the mother to act as a human incubator to keep babies warm, stimulated and fed.
Pre-term and low birth-weight babies treated with the skin-to-skin method have also been shown to have lower infection rates, less severe illness, improved sleep patterns and are at reduced risk of hypothermia.
Mrs Ogg and her husband David told how doctors gave up on saving their son after a three-hour labour in a Sydney hospital in March.
'The doctor asked me had we chosen a name for our son,' said Mrs Ogg. 'I said, "Jamie", and he turned around with my son already wrapped up and said, "We've lost Jamie, he didn't make it, sorry".
'It was the worse feeling I've ever felt. I unwrapped Jamie from his blanket. He was very limp.
'I took my gown off and arranged him on my chest with his head over my arm and just held him. He wasn't moving at all and we just started talking to him.
'We told him what his name was and that he had a sister. We told him the things we wanted to do with him throughout his life.
'Jamie occasionally gasped for air, which doctors said was a reflex action. But then I felt him move as if he were startled, then he started gasping more and more regularly.
'I gave Jamie some breast milk on my finger, he took it and started regular breathing.'
Mrs Ogg held her son, now five months old and fully recovered, as she spoke on the Australian TV show Today Tonight.
Her husband added: 'Luckily I've got a very strong, very smart wife.
'She instinctively did what she did. If she hadn't done that, Jamie probably wouldn't be here.'
She tearfully told her lifeless son - born at 27 weeks weighing 2lb - how much she loved him and cuddled him tightly, not wanting to let him go.
Although little Jamie's twin sister Emily had been delivered successfully, doctors had given Mrs Ogg the news all mothers dread - that after 20 minutes of battling to get her son to breathe, they had declared him dead.
Having given up on a miracle, Mrs Ogg unwrapped the baby from his blanket and held him against her skin. And then an extraordinary thing happened.
After two hours of being hugged, touched and spoken to by his mother, the little boy began showing signs of life.
At first, it was just a gasp for air that was dismissed by doctors as a reflex action.
But then the startled mother fed him a little breast milk on her finger and he started breathing normally.
'I thought, "Oh my God, what's going on",' said Mrs Ogg.
'A short time later he opened his eyes. It was a miracle. Then he held out his hand and grabbed my finger.
'He opened his eyes and moved his head from side to side. The doctor kept shaking his head saying, "I don't believe it, I don't believe it".'
The Australian mother spoke publicly for the first time yesterday to highlight the importance of skin-on-skin care for sick babies, which is being used at an increasing number of British hospitals.
But the 'kangaroo care' technique, named after the way kangaroos hold their young in a pouch next to their bodies, allows the mother to act as a human incubator to keep babies warm, stimulated and fed.
Pre-term and low birth-weight babies treated with the skin-to-skin method have also been shown to have lower infection rates, less severe illness, improved sleep patterns and are at reduced risk of hypothermia.
Mrs Ogg and her husband David told how doctors gave up on saving their son after a three-hour labour in a Sydney hospital in March.
'The doctor asked me had we chosen a name for our son,' said Mrs Ogg. 'I said, "Jamie", and he turned around with my son already wrapped up and said, "We've lost Jamie, he didn't make it, sorry".
'It was the worse feeling I've ever felt. I unwrapped Jamie from his blanket. He was very limp.
'I took my gown off and arranged him on my chest with his head over my arm and just held him. He wasn't moving at all and we just started talking to him.
'We told him what his name was and that he had a sister. We told him the things we wanted to do with him throughout his life.
'Jamie occasionally gasped for air, which doctors said was a reflex action. But then I felt him move as if he were startled, then he started gasping more and more regularly.
'I gave Jamie some breast milk on my finger, he took it and started regular breathing.'
Mrs Ogg held her son, now five months old and fully recovered, as she spoke on the Australian TV show Today Tonight.
Her husband added: 'Luckily I've got a very strong, very smart wife.
'She instinctively did what she did. If she hadn't done that, Jamie probably wouldn't be here.'
Super-Glue: Best practice for countering key stroke loggers
This wonderful little gadget is for sale over at Thinkgeek. It is colored an innocuous IBM grey so no one will notice when you attach it to their keyboard. It fits between the back of the PC and the keyboard cable. It needs no power and it can record 130,000 keystrokes. It works like a software keystroke logger. Once it is installed it just captures anything that is typed: usernames, passwords, URLs, email, banking info, everything. To access the data the owner of the device just types the password into any word processor and then you start to communicate with the device. It is very slick. Of course the primary difference between this and a software keystroke logger is that there is NO WAY to detect it and remove it.
Of course this is exactly how the greatest attempted bank heist in history was pulled off. The bank robbers installed these devices on machines inside the bank and eventually got access to Sumitomo Bank’s wire transfer capability. They then proceeded to transfer more that $440 million to various accounts in other countries. Read all the gory details in this article I just published.
The one thing I do not mention in the article is that it is reported that Sumitomo Bank’s best practice for avoiding a repeat attack is that they now super-glue the keyboard connections into the backs of their PCs.
Of course this is exactly how the greatest attempted bank heist in history was pulled off. The bank robbers installed these devices on machines inside the bank and eventually got access to Sumitomo Bank’s wire transfer capability. They then proceeded to transfer more that $440 million to various accounts in other countries. Read all the gory details in this article I just published.
The one thing I do not mention in the article is that it is reported that Sumitomo Bank’s best practice for avoiding a repeat attack is that they now super-glue the keyboard connections into the backs of their PCs.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Anger as ex-finance minister warns Muslims 'making Germany stupid'
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the infence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.
It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the infence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.
It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
For Obamacare supporters, judgment days approaches
Washington Examiner (newspaper) ^ | 8/23/2010 | Byron York
Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:27:07 AM by markomalley
Say you're a Democratic member of Congress. You proudly cast your vote for Obamacare, you cheered when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed it as the achievement of a generation and you scoffed at Republicans who vowed to repeal it. Now you're running for re-election, and a voter asks: What is the most important thing you've done in the last two years?
The answer should be easy. In passing the national health care bill, you accomplished something your party dreamed of for decades. It was your most important vote, and now is the time to take credit for it.
Except it's not.
Recently a number of top Democratic strategists conducted focus groups in Las Vegas, Charlotte, Philadelphia and St. Louis. They also conducted a national poll of 1,000 likely voters and an online poll of 2,000 more likely voters. They wanted to measure the public's feelings about Obamacare and help Democrats make an effective case for the bill they passed in March.
The researchers found what they call a "challenging environment," which is a nicer way of saying "disaster in the making." Voters simply aren't buying the Democratic case that health care reform will insure more than 30 million currently uninsured people and save money at the same time. And when they think about their own health care, people worry that reform will mean less, not more, availability of care, and at a higher cost.
Faced with that bad news, the pollsters came up with several recommendations for Democratic candidates. When talking about Obamacare, Democrats should "keep claims small and credible." They should promise to "improve" the law. They should avoid talking about policy and stick to "personal stories" of people who will benefit from Obamacare. And above all, the pollsters advise, "don't say the law will reduce costs and deficit."
It's a stunning about-face for a party that saw national health care as its signature accomplishment. "This is the first time we've seen from Democrats that they clearly understand they have a serious problem in terms of selling this legislation," says Republican pollster David Winston.
The reluctance to defend Obamacare as a cost-cutter and deficit-reducer is particularly telling. Wasn't that the No. 1 reason for passing the bill in the first place? "This legislation will ... lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades," President Obama said when he signed the bill into law on March 23. Now, Democrats are throwing that argument out the window.
It's no mystery why the party is in retreat. The public's disapproval of Obamacare hasn't changed in the last five months. The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows 52 percent of Americans oppose the new law, while 39 percent support it. A variety of pollsters -- Rasmussen, CNN, Pew, and CBS News -- all find significantly more opposition than support. And there's not just opposition but enthusiasm for outright repeal. "Overall support for repeal has ranged from 52 percent to 63 percent since the law was passed by Congress in March," writes Rasmussen.
The story might be even worse than that for Democrats. Everyone knows the public's top issue is the economy. It has been since before Obama took office. So when the president and Democratic congressional leadership devoted a year to passing national health care, Republicans charged they were ignoring the public's wishes. Now, when Democrats admit that Obamacare won't cut costs or reduce deficits, they open themselves up to a more serious charge: they spent a year working on something that will actually cost jobs and make things worse.
"Before it looked like they were just on the wrong topic," says David Winston. "Now, it makes it look like they're actually going to hurt the economy."
No wonder Obama and Democratic leaders are constantly saying they want to look forward, not back. They don't want to dwell on ancient history, like the events of 2009 and early 2010. But there is no chance in the world Republicans will let them forget it.
Just a few months ago, Obama issued a very public challenge to opponents who seek to dump Obamacare. "For those Republicans and folks who are on the 'repeal' platform, my attitude is, go for it," the president told a cheering crowd at a Democratic fundraiser in Florida April 15. "I'll have that fight. We'll have that argument."
Well, the time to fight, the time to argue, has arrived. But with everything on the line, the president's party is trying to run away.
Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:27:07 AM by markomalley
Say you're a Democratic member of Congress. You proudly cast your vote for Obamacare, you cheered when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed it as the achievement of a generation and you scoffed at Republicans who vowed to repeal it. Now you're running for re-election, and a voter asks: What is the most important thing you've done in the last two years?
The answer should be easy. In passing the national health care bill, you accomplished something your party dreamed of for decades. It was your most important vote, and now is the time to take credit for it.
Except it's not.
Recently a number of top Democratic strategists conducted focus groups in Las Vegas, Charlotte, Philadelphia and St. Louis. They also conducted a national poll of 1,000 likely voters and an online poll of 2,000 more likely voters. They wanted to measure the public's feelings about Obamacare and help Democrats make an effective case for the bill they passed in March.
The researchers found what they call a "challenging environment," which is a nicer way of saying "disaster in the making." Voters simply aren't buying the Democratic case that health care reform will insure more than 30 million currently uninsured people and save money at the same time. And when they think about their own health care, people worry that reform will mean less, not more, availability of care, and at a higher cost.
Faced with that bad news, the pollsters came up with several recommendations for Democratic candidates. When talking about Obamacare, Democrats should "keep claims small and credible." They should promise to "improve" the law. They should avoid talking about policy and stick to "personal stories" of people who will benefit from Obamacare. And above all, the pollsters advise, "don't say the law will reduce costs and deficit."
It's a stunning about-face for a party that saw national health care as its signature accomplishment. "This is the first time we've seen from Democrats that they clearly understand they have a serious problem in terms of selling this legislation," says Republican pollster David Winston.
The reluctance to defend Obamacare as a cost-cutter and deficit-reducer is particularly telling. Wasn't that the No. 1 reason for passing the bill in the first place? "This legislation will ... lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades," President Obama said when he signed the bill into law on March 23. Now, Democrats are throwing that argument out the window.
It's no mystery why the party is in retreat. The public's disapproval of Obamacare hasn't changed in the last five months. The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows 52 percent of Americans oppose the new law, while 39 percent support it. A variety of pollsters -- Rasmussen, CNN, Pew, and CBS News -- all find significantly more opposition than support. And there's not just opposition but enthusiasm for outright repeal. "Overall support for repeal has ranged from 52 percent to 63 percent since the law was passed by Congress in March," writes Rasmussen.
The story might be even worse than that for Democrats. Everyone knows the public's top issue is the economy. It has been since before Obama took office. So when the president and Democratic congressional leadership devoted a year to passing national health care, Republicans charged they were ignoring the public's wishes. Now, when Democrats admit that Obamacare won't cut costs or reduce deficits, they open themselves up to a more serious charge: they spent a year working on something that will actually cost jobs and make things worse.
"Before it looked like they were just on the wrong topic," says David Winston. "Now, it makes it look like they're actually going to hurt the economy."
No wonder Obama and Democratic leaders are constantly saying they want to look forward, not back. They don't want to dwell on ancient history, like the events of 2009 and early 2010. But there is no chance in the world Republicans will let them forget it.
Just a few months ago, Obama issued a very public challenge to opponents who seek to dump Obamacare. "For those Republicans and folks who are on the 'repeal' platform, my attitude is, go for it," the president told a cheering crowd at a Democratic fundraiser in Florida April 15. "I'll have that fight. We'll have that argument."
Well, the time to fight, the time to argue, has arrived. But with everything on the line, the president's party is trying to run away.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Controversy in Saudi Arabia over Fatwa Permitting Breastfeeding of Adults
Introduction
Sheikh 'Abd Al-Muhsin Al-'Obikan, an advisor at the Saudi Justice Ministry, recently issued a fatwa allowing the breastfeeding of adults. The fatwa is aimed at enabling an unrelated man and woman to be secluded in the same room, a situation which Islam considers forbidden gender mixing. The rationale behind the fatwa is that breastfeeding creates a bond of kinship between the man and woman, rendering the man her mahram,[1] thus making it acceptable for them to be together in seclusion.
The fatwa created a stir in Saudi Arabia and in the Arab media at large, arousing a wave of criticism from clerics and columnists alike. Clerics claimed that breastfeeding could not create a bond of kinship between a female and an unrelated male over two years of age, and some claimed that the fatwa contradicted the shari'a. Columnists argued that such grotesque fatwas are insulting to women, and also tarnish the Muslims' image. One columnist pointed to a paradox, namely that the fear of gender-mixing is prompting clerics to encourage lewd behaviors like women breastfeeding grown men.
Despite this criticism, Al-'Obikan has stood his ground, and even reiterated his position in greater detail.
It should be noted that this issue first arose in Egypt in May 2007, following a similar fatwa issued by Dr. 'Izzat 'Atiyya, formerly head of the Hadith Department at Al-Azhar University, which permitted a woman to breastfeed a man with whom she must work in private. This fatwa led to 'Atiyya's dismissal from his post at Al-Azhar.[2]
The following document presents the fatwa issued by Al-'Obikan and several reactions to it.
Al-'Obikan: Adult Breastfeeding Permissible in Two Specific Cases
In a May 21, 2010 interview for the Al-Arabiya website, Al-'Obikan said it is permissible for a woman to breastfeed a man who is not a family member: "If a family [employs] an outsider who visits the home frequently, and [this man] has no relatives besides this family – and his presence burdens the members of the household, especially when women are present – it is permissible for a woman to breastfeed him." Al-'Obikan based his argument on a hadith attributed to Muhammad's wife, 'Aisha, which relates that Salem, the adopted son of Abu Hudheifa, was breastfed by Abu-Hudheifa's wife when he was already a grown man with a beard, by the Prophet's decree. Al-'Obikan stressed that the principle represented by this hadith is not limited to a specific time or place, but is universally applicable. He added, however, that a man should not be breastfed directly from a woman's breast, but should be given milk which has been breast pumped.[3]
In a communiqué he posted to his website, Al-'Obikan claimed that the breastfeeding of an unrelated male is also permissible in cases where a family decides to adopt an orphan child, who is likely to find himself in seclusion with the women of the household. According to the communiqué, one of the women in the family must pump milk for the orphan – enough for five mouthfuls – and this renders him the woman's son, thereby solving the problem of seclusion.[4]
Al-'Obikan's statements met with severe censure in the Saudi press. A number of articles in the daily Al-Riyadh presented readers' comments on the issue. Some of the readers argued that only moral education could address the issue of male and female seclusion. Others called for the establishment of a body that would prevent the issuing of strange fatwas such as these, or publish a clear response to any such fatwa issued.[5] Al-'Obikan's statements were also disapproved of by Saudi clerics and columnists.
In response to this criticism, Al-'Obikan clarified that his fatwa is not meant to permit women to breastfeed men in their workplace – hinting at the Egyptian fatwa, which did permit this – because such a permission was improper and extreme.[6] He added: "It is regrettable that there are those who are hasty to react to religious rulings, and misinterpret [them] without verifying them... Some understood my fatwa to apply to drivers, servants, and other 'outsiders,' but this is only permissible in rare cases."[7] In an interview with the Saudi government daily 'Okaz, Al-'Obikan reiterated his previous statements in greater detail, explaining that by "outsider" he did not mean a non-Saudi, but a Saudi who was not considered the woman's mahram. In another interview, Al-'Obikan said that his ruling is based on shari'a proofs, and that he does not therefore intend to reconsider it.[8]
Sheikh 'Abd Al-Muhsin Al-'Obikan, an advisor at the Saudi Justice Ministry, recently issued a fatwa allowing the breastfeeding of adults. The fatwa is aimed at enabling an unrelated man and woman to be secluded in the same room, a situation which Islam considers forbidden gender mixing. The rationale behind the fatwa is that breastfeeding creates a bond of kinship between the man and woman, rendering the man her mahram,[1] thus making it acceptable for them to be together in seclusion.
The fatwa created a stir in Saudi Arabia and in the Arab media at large, arousing a wave of criticism from clerics and columnists alike. Clerics claimed that breastfeeding could not create a bond of kinship between a female and an unrelated male over two years of age, and some claimed that the fatwa contradicted the shari'a. Columnists argued that such grotesque fatwas are insulting to women, and also tarnish the Muslims' image. One columnist pointed to a paradox, namely that the fear of gender-mixing is prompting clerics to encourage lewd behaviors like women breastfeeding grown men.
Despite this criticism, Al-'Obikan has stood his ground, and even reiterated his position in greater detail.
It should be noted that this issue first arose in Egypt in May 2007, following a similar fatwa issued by Dr. 'Izzat 'Atiyya, formerly head of the Hadith Department at Al-Azhar University, which permitted a woman to breastfeed a man with whom she must work in private. This fatwa led to 'Atiyya's dismissal from his post at Al-Azhar.[2]
The following document presents the fatwa issued by Al-'Obikan and several reactions to it.
Al-'Obikan: Adult Breastfeeding Permissible in Two Specific Cases
In a May 21, 2010 interview for the Al-Arabiya website, Al-'Obikan said it is permissible for a woman to breastfeed a man who is not a family member: "If a family [employs] an outsider who visits the home frequently, and [this man] has no relatives besides this family – and his presence burdens the members of the household, especially when women are present – it is permissible for a woman to breastfeed him." Al-'Obikan based his argument on a hadith attributed to Muhammad's wife, 'Aisha, which relates that Salem, the adopted son of Abu Hudheifa, was breastfed by Abu-Hudheifa's wife when he was already a grown man with a beard, by the Prophet's decree. Al-'Obikan stressed that the principle represented by this hadith is not limited to a specific time or place, but is universally applicable. He added, however, that a man should not be breastfed directly from a woman's breast, but should be given milk which has been breast pumped.[3]
In a communiqué he posted to his website, Al-'Obikan claimed that the breastfeeding of an unrelated male is also permissible in cases where a family decides to adopt an orphan child, who is likely to find himself in seclusion with the women of the household. According to the communiqué, one of the women in the family must pump milk for the orphan – enough for five mouthfuls – and this renders him the woman's son, thereby solving the problem of seclusion.[4]
Al-'Obikan's statements met with severe censure in the Saudi press. A number of articles in the daily Al-Riyadh presented readers' comments on the issue. Some of the readers argued that only moral education could address the issue of male and female seclusion. Others called for the establishment of a body that would prevent the issuing of strange fatwas such as these, or publish a clear response to any such fatwa issued.[5] Al-'Obikan's statements were also disapproved of by Saudi clerics and columnists.
In response to this criticism, Al-'Obikan clarified that his fatwa is not meant to permit women to breastfeed men in their workplace – hinting at the Egyptian fatwa, which did permit this – because such a permission was improper and extreme.[6] He added: "It is regrettable that there are those who are hasty to react to religious rulings, and misinterpret [them] without verifying them... Some understood my fatwa to apply to drivers, servants, and other 'outsiders,' but this is only permissible in rare cases."[7] In an interview with the Saudi government daily 'Okaz, Al-'Obikan reiterated his previous statements in greater detail, explaining that by "outsider" he did not mean a non-Saudi, but a Saudi who was not considered the woman's mahram. In another interview, Al-'Obikan said that his ruling is based on shari'a proofs, and that he does not therefore intend to reconsider it.[8]
15 Weeks On, Flash Crash Still Baffles, Ominously
It sounds like “Wall Street” meets “The X-Files.”
The stock market mysteriously plunges 600 points — and then, more mysteriously, recovers within minutes. Over the next few weeks, analysts at Nanex, an obscure data company in the suburbs of Chicago, examine trading charts from the day and are stunned to find some oddly compelling shapes and patterns in the data.
To the Nanex analysts, these are crop circles of the financial kind, containing clues to the mystery of what happened in the markets on May 6 and what might have caused the still-unexplained flash crash.
The charts — which are visual representations of bid prices, ask prices, order sizes and other trading activity — are inspiring many theories on Wall Street, some of them based on hard-nosed financial analysis and others of the black-helicopter variety.
To some people, like Eric Scott Hunsader, the founder of Nanex, they suggest that the specialized computers responsible for so much of today’s stock trading simply overloaded the exchanges.
He and others are tempted to go further, hypothesizing that the bizarre patterns might have been the result of a Wall Street version of cyberwarfare. They say high-speed traders could have been trying to outwit one another’s computers with blizzards of buy and sell orders that were never meant to be filled. These superfast traders might even have been trying to clog exchanges to outflank other investors.
Jeffrey Donovan, a Nanex developer, first noticed the apparent anomalies. “Something is not right,” he said as he reviewed the charts.
Mr. Donovan, a man with a runaway chuckle who works alone out of the company’s office in Santa Barbara, Calif., poses a theory that a small group of high-frequency traders was trying to introduce delays into the nation’s fractured stock-market trading system to profit at the expense of others. Clogging exchanges or otherwise disrupting markets to gain an advantage may be illegal.
Mr. Donovan indulges Wall Street’s increasing fascination with the charts by christening more of them each day, with names like Continental Crust, Broken Highway and Twilight.
There is also the Bandsaw, a zigzag pattern of prices that appear and then abruptly vanish. There is the Knife, a sharp, narrowing price sequence. There is the Crystal Triangle, the Bar Code, the Mountain Range, each one stranger than the last.
The truth of what happened on May 6 could be hiding somewhere in those mysterious configurations. Or it may lie somewhere else entirely. But 15 weeks later, the authorities are still looking for it. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission plan to issue a final report on their findings in September.
A preliminary report in May blamed a confluence of factors, including worries over rising sovereign debt and a lack of marketwide circuit breakers, but the new report is expected to go further.
For now, this much is known: The markets were already down and on edge that morning as Europe’s debt crisis seemed to be spiraling out of control.
As markets fell, a mutual fund manager in Kansas made a big sale of stock futures. The rout, some say, was worsened by a lack of coordination among the dozens of exchanges that make up the modern-day stock market. As the New York Stock Exchange slowed trading, rival exchanges that were more automated allowed the selling to continue.
“It’s just madness to say we don’t know what caused it. We do,” said Steve Wunsch, a market structure consultant. “The crash was an inevitable consequence of creating multiple market centers.”
That is one explanation. Others have pointed to the high-frequency traders, who use powerful computers to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed. Some of these traders, who now dominate the stock market, appear to have fled the market as prices went haywire.
Then their computer programs might have dragged down exchange-traded funds, popular investment vehicles that fell sharply during the crash, said Thomas Peterffy, chief executive of Interactive Brokers.
“Computerized arbitrage kicked in,” he said.
But if Nanex’s theory is to be believed, computer algorithms might have been at work as well, knowingly or unknowingly wreaking havoc and creating data crop circles.
“There is a credible allegation that there is seriously abusive practices going on,” said James J. Angel, a financial market analyst specialist at Georgetown University, “to the extent that somebody is firing in a very high frequency of orders for no good economic reason, basically because they are trying to slow everybody else down.”
At a Washington hearing on the flash crash last week, Kevin Cronin, director of global equity trading at Invesco, a big fund manager, warned about “improper or manipulative activity” in the stock market.
Traders at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto said they had also identified a “data deluge” a few minutes before the crash. They said people in the markets were poring over Nanex’s colorful charts.
“Whether they are intentional or not, the regulators should be looking into it closely,” said Doug Clark, managing director of BMO Capital Markets.
In an Aug. 5 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Senator Edward E. Kaufman, Democrat of Delaware, warned about a “micro-arms race that is being waged in our public marketplace by high-frequency traders and others.” He said that the traders were moving so fast that regulators could not keep up.
The idea that shadowy computer masterminds were trying to disrupt the nation’s stock trading struck many people as ridiculous. Wall Street experts generally characterize it as a conspiracy theory with little basis in fact.
But some of the patterns suggested that traders might have been testing their high-speed computers, perhaps to see how rivals would react.
Or it may just be that the computers produced so much data so quickly that exchanges simply could not cope with the onslaught.
“We live in a day when things are measured in milliseconds,” said Sang Lee of the Aite Group, a financial services consulting company. “It is meant to be a level playing field, but if you have better technology you will have the edge.”
Back in Chicago, Mr. Hunsader of Nanex is still not sure what his crop circles mean. But that does not stop him from admiring them.
“The patterns are quite beautiful,” he said. “We can’t see any economic reasons for what they are doing.”
The stock market mysteriously plunges 600 points — and then, more mysteriously, recovers within minutes. Over the next few weeks, analysts at Nanex, an obscure data company in the suburbs of Chicago, examine trading charts from the day and are stunned to find some oddly compelling shapes and patterns in the data.
To the Nanex analysts, these are crop circles of the financial kind, containing clues to the mystery of what happened in the markets on May 6 and what might have caused the still-unexplained flash crash.
The charts — which are visual representations of bid prices, ask prices, order sizes and other trading activity — are inspiring many theories on Wall Street, some of them based on hard-nosed financial analysis and others of the black-helicopter variety.
To some people, like Eric Scott Hunsader, the founder of Nanex, they suggest that the specialized computers responsible for so much of today’s stock trading simply overloaded the exchanges.
He and others are tempted to go further, hypothesizing that the bizarre patterns might have been the result of a Wall Street version of cyberwarfare. They say high-speed traders could have been trying to outwit one another’s computers with blizzards of buy and sell orders that were never meant to be filled. These superfast traders might even have been trying to clog exchanges to outflank other investors.
Jeffrey Donovan, a Nanex developer, first noticed the apparent anomalies. “Something is not right,” he said as he reviewed the charts.
Mr. Donovan, a man with a runaway chuckle who works alone out of the company’s office in Santa Barbara, Calif., poses a theory that a small group of high-frequency traders was trying to introduce delays into the nation’s fractured stock-market trading system to profit at the expense of others. Clogging exchanges or otherwise disrupting markets to gain an advantage may be illegal.
Mr. Donovan indulges Wall Street’s increasing fascination with the charts by christening more of them each day, with names like Continental Crust, Broken Highway and Twilight.
There is also the Bandsaw, a zigzag pattern of prices that appear and then abruptly vanish. There is the Knife, a sharp, narrowing price sequence. There is the Crystal Triangle, the Bar Code, the Mountain Range, each one stranger than the last.
The truth of what happened on May 6 could be hiding somewhere in those mysterious configurations. Or it may lie somewhere else entirely. But 15 weeks later, the authorities are still looking for it. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission plan to issue a final report on their findings in September.
A preliminary report in May blamed a confluence of factors, including worries over rising sovereign debt and a lack of marketwide circuit breakers, but the new report is expected to go further.
For now, this much is known: The markets were already down and on edge that morning as Europe’s debt crisis seemed to be spiraling out of control.
As markets fell, a mutual fund manager in Kansas made a big sale of stock futures. The rout, some say, was worsened by a lack of coordination among the dozens of exchanges that make up the modern-day stock market. As the New York Stock Exchange slowed trading, rival exchanges that were more automated allowed the selling to continue.
“It’s just madness to say we don’t know what caused it. We do,” said Steve Wunsch, a market structure consultant. “The crash was an inevitable consequence of creating multiple market centers.”
That is one explanation. Others have pointed to the high-frequency traders, who use powerful computers to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed. Some of these traders, who now dominate the stock market, appear to have fled the market as prices went haywire.
Then their computer programs might have dragged down exchange-traded funds, popular investment vehicles that fell sharply during the crash, said Thomas Peterffy, chief executive of Interactive Brokers.
“Computerized arbitrage kicked in,” he said.
But if Nanex’s theory is to be believed, computer algorithms might have been at work as well, knowingly or unknowingly wreaking havoc and creating data crop circles.
“There is a credible allegation that there is seriously abusive practices going on,” said James J. Angel, a financial market analyst specialist at Georgetown University, “to the extent that somebody is firing in a very high frequency of orders for no good economic reason, basically because they are trying to slow everybody else down.”
At a Washington hearing on the flash crash last week, Kevin Cronin, director of global equity trading at Invesco, a big fund manager, warned about “improper or manipulative activity” in the stock market.
Traders at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto said they had also identified a “data deluge” a few minutes before the crash. They said people in the markets were poring over Nanex’s colorful charts.
“Whether they are intentional or not, the regulators should be looking into it closely,” said Doug Clark, managing director of BMO Capital Markets.
In an Aug. 5 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Senator Edward E. Kaufman, Democrat of Delaware, warned about a “micro-arms race that is being waged in our public marketplace by high-frequency traders and others.” He said that the traders were moving so fast that regulators could not keep up.
The idea that shadowy computer masterminds were trying to disrupt the nation’s stock trading struck many people as ridiculous. Wall Street experts generally characterize it as a conspiracy theory with little basis in fact.
But some of the patterns suggested that traders might have been testing their high-speed computers, perhaps to see how rivals would react.
Or it may just be that the computers produced so much data so quickly that exchanges simply could not cope with the onslaught.
“We live in a day when things are measured in milliseconds,” said Sang Lee of the Aite Group, a financial services consulting company. “It is meant to be a level playing field, but if you have better technology you will have the edge.”
Back in Chicago, Mr. Hunsader of Nanex is still not sure what his crop circles mean. But that does not stop him from admiring them.
“The patterns are quite beautiful,” he said. “We can’t see any economic reasons for what they are doing.”
Bond bubble fear returns as investors flee stocks
NEW YORK – Maybe bonds aren't so dull after all.
Bad economic news sent investors out of stocks and into U.S. Treasurys this past week, extending a rally that has defied some of Wall Street's best minds, and, some say, logic. Treasury bonds maturing in 20 years or more have returned 2.1 percent so far this year. By contrast, stocks in the Dow Jones industrial average have lost 2 percent.
The question now: Is it too late to jump into the great government bond bonanza?
To bulls, the rally is still in its early stages. They say the weak economy will cause stocks to keep falling and people to seek the safety of U.S. government debt. Reports this past week of unexpectedly high unemployment claims and a manufacturing slowdown in the mid-Atlantic region helped bolster their case.
But others say Treasury prices have risen too high, perhaps even to bubble proportions. The thinking goes that investors could dump Treasurys as quickly as they bought them on even a whiff of inflation. Inflation is bad for bonds because it eats into principal.
Bonds are generally regarded as safer than stocks because you get your money back when they mature. But that's only true if you pay face value. If you buy when prices are higher, say $101 for a $100 bond, you'll get $1 less than you put in. In purchasing power, you get back even less thanks to inflation. But bonds, of course, also pay interest, and this can more than make up the difference.
The problem is, bond bears argue, the interest isn't compensating you much now. The yield on 10-year Treasurys, which moves opposite its price, stands at 2.61 percent, a low not seen since early 2009 during the depths of the credit crisis. At that rate, it would take you 27 years to double your money.
"In the long run we don't think you'll make a good return" in government bonds, says Mark Phelps, CEO of money manager W.P. Stewart & Co., citing the low yields.
Phelps suggests that investors worried about a stalled recovery should stick to stocks of big, conservative companies with little debt and fat dividends. Though you can still get hurt if their stocks fall, at least the dividends will help compensate.
An added appeal: The dividends offered by such blue chips are higher than current 10-year Treasury yields.
PepsiCo Inc., for instance, will pay you $3 annually now for every $100 you invest — nearly 50 cents more than Washington pays for holding your money for 10 years. What's more, the stock is trading at 14.5 times estimated annual earnings. The median, or midpoint, over the past 20 years is 23 times estimated earnings, meaning the stock is cheap, at least by this one measure.
Phelps also likes Procter & Gamble Co. stock. It pays you even more than Pepsi — $3.20 a year for every $100 invested. The maker of Pampers diapers and Pringles chips trades at 14.8 times estimated earnings, a discount to its 19 median.
"To put all in Treasurys, looks like a mistake to us," says Phelps, whose firm manages $1.5 billion. But he adds, "I would have said that at the beginning of the year, and I would have been wrong."
He's got good company.
For years, famed investors and economists have been warning that the price of Treasurys had risen too high. Bill Gross of giant bond firm Pimco said that Treasurys had some "bubble characteristics" in December 2008 when 10-year yields neared 2 percent. Nouriel Roubini, who gained near celebrity status after calling the crash, warned of a bubble about the same time. In a letter to his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders last year, Warren Buffett compared the "U.S. Treasury bond bubble of late 2008" to the Internet and housing bubbles.
However, as fears of an economic collapse receded last year, investors rushed into stocks and out of Treasurys, sending prices down and yields up. Now, as yields slip closer to their late 2008 lows, bubble talk has returned.
On Wednesday The Wall Street Journal published a letter from Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel and Jeremy Schwartz, director of research at Wisdom Tree Investments Inc., that likened Treasurys to dot-com stocks of the late '90s before they crashed. The headline: "The Great American Bond Bubble." They noted that yields on some bonds are the lowest in 55 years.
Their advice to investors will sound familiar: Buy blue chips with fat dividends.
Avi Tiomkin, chief investment officer of Tigris Financial Group and a Treasury bull for years, disagrees.
"Dividends are great as long as a company can make money," he says. "But if the economy sinks, they'll stop paying."
Tiomkin says he's sticking with Washington IOUs. A year ago he correctly predicted the 10-year yield would fall from 3.75 percent to around 2.50 percent by mid-2010. Now he foresees deflation, or a consistent and widespread fall in prices for goods and services similar to what afflicted Japan during the '90s. And that will drive more people into Treasurys, lifting prices and pushing 10-year yields to below 2 percent, possibly all the way to 1 percent, within a year.
Van Hoisington, president of an eponymous investment firm in Austin, Texas, who also foresaw the Treasury rally, is not buying all the bubble talk either. In his latest newsletter, he writes that "The risk, if not the probability, is that deflation lies ahead."
He recommends buying Treasury bonds, as he has done for years now. He has returned 11 percent over three years.
Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, prefers stocks. But even he's worried.
Ablin notes that Federal Reserve interest rate cuts intended to spur borrowing and spending don't have much of an impact if people are swimming in debt and can't or won't borrow. If prices of consumer goods fall, he says, that will make matters worse as people defer purchases in hopes they can buy cheaper later.
"There is little (the Fed) can do but stand on sidelines with pom poms and cheer people on," he says.
Bad economic news sent investors out of stocks and into U.S. Treasurys this past week, extending a rally that has defied some of Wall Street's best minds, and, some say, logic. Treasury bonds maturing in 20 years or more have returned 2.1 percent so far this year. By contrast, stocks in the Dow Jones industrial average have lost 2 percent.
The question now: Is it too late to jump into the great government bond bonanza?
To bulls, the rally is still in its early stages. They say the weak economy will cause stocks to keep falling and people to seek the safety of U.S. government debt. Reports this past week of unexpectedly high unemployment claims and a manufacturing slowdown in the mid-Atlantic region helped bolster their case.
But others say Treasury prices have risen too high, perhaps even to bubble proportions. The thinking goes that investors could dump Treasurys as quickly as they bought them on even a whiff of inflation. Inflation is bad for bonds because it eats into principal.
Bonds are generally regarded as safer than stocks because you get your money back when they mature. But that's only true if you pay face value. If you buy when prices are higher, say $101 for a $100 bond, you'll get $1 less than you put in. In purchasing power, you get back even less thanks to inflation. But bonds, of course, also pay interest, and this can more than make up the difference.
The problem is, bond bears argue, the interest isn't compensating you much now. The yield on 10-year Treasurys, which moves opposite its price, stands at 2.61 percent, a low not seen since early 2009 during the depths of the credit crisis. At that rate, it would take you 27 years to double your money.
"In the long run we don't think you'll make a good return" in government bonds, says Mark Phelps, CEO of money manager W.P. Stewart & Co., citing the low yields.
Phelps suggests that investors worried about a stalled recovery should stick to stocks of big, conservative companies with little debt and fat dividends. Though you can still get hurt if their stocks fall, at least the dividends will help compensate.
An added appeal: The dividends offered by such blue chips are higher than current 10-year Treasury yields.
PepsiCo Inc., for instance, will pay you $3 annually now for every $100 you invest — nearly 50 cents more than Washington pays for holding your money for 10 years. What's more, the stock is trading at 14.5 times estimated annual earnings. The median, or midpoint, over the past 20 years is 23 times estimated earnings, meaning the stock is cheap, at least by this one measure.
Phelps also likes Procter & Gamble Co. stock. It pays you even more than Pepsi — $3.20 a year for every $100 invested. The maker of Pampers diapers and Pringles chips trades at 14.8 times estimated earnings, a discount to its 19 median.
"To put all in Treasurys, looks like a mistake to us," says Phelps, whose firm manages $1.5 billion. But he adds, "I would have said that at the beginning of the year, and I would have been wrong."
He's got good company.
For years, famed investors and economists have been warning that the price of Treasurys had risen too high. Bill Gross of giant bond firm Pimco said that Treasurys had some "bubble characteristics" in December 2008 when 10-year yields neared 2 percent. Nouriel Roubini, who gained near celebrity status after calling the crash, warned of a bubble about the same time. In a letter to his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders last year, Warren Buffett compared the "U.S. Treasury bond bubble of late 2008" to the Internet and housing bubbles.
However, as fears of an economic collapse receded last year, investors rushed into stocks and out of Treasurys, sending prices down and yields up. Now, as yields slip closer to their late 2008 lows, bubble talk has returned.
On Wednesday The Wall Street Journal published a letter from Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel and Jeremy Schwartz, director of research at Wisdom Tree Investments Inc., that likened Treasurys to dot-com stocks of the late '90s before they crashed. The headline: "The Great American Bond Bubble." They noted that yields on some bonds are the lowest in 55 years.
Their advice to investors will sound familiar: Buy blue chips with fat dividends.
Avi Tiomkin, chief investment officer of Tigris Financial Group and a Treasury bull for years, disagrees.
"Dividends are great as long as a company can make money," he says. "But if the economy sinks, they'll stop paying."
Tiomkin says he's sticking with Washington IOUs. A year ago he correctly predicted the 10-year yield would fall from 3.75 percent to around 2.50 percent by mid-2010. Now he foresees deflation, or a consistent and widespread fall in prices for goods and services similar to what afflicted Japan during the '90s. And that will drive more people into Treasurys, lifting prices and pushing 10-year yields to below 2 percent, possibly all the way to 1 percent, within a year.
Van Hoisington, president of an eponymous investment firm in Austin, Texas, who also foresaw the Treasury rally, is not buying all the bubble talk either. In his latest newsletter, he writes that "The risk, if not the probability, is that deflation lies ahead."
He recommends buying Treasury bonds, as he has done for years now. He has returned 11 percent over three years.
Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, prefers stocks. But even he's worried.
Ablin notes that Federal Reserve interest rate cuts intended to spur borrowing and spending don't have much of an impact if people are swimming in debt and can't or won't borrow. If prices of consumer goods fall, he says, that will make matters worse as people defer purchases in hopes they can buy cheaper later.
"There is little (the Fed) can do but stand on sidelines with pom poms and cheer people on," he says.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wife loses Malaysian mountaineer Muslim conversion case
A Malaysian Hindu woman on Friday lost the latest round of a battle to prove that her husband, a noted mountaineer, was a Hindu and not a Muslim convert as authorities claim.
M. Moorthy, who was a member of a 1997 Malaysian Mount Everest expedition, died in 2005 and was buried as a Muslim on the insistence of religious authorities and against the wishes of his wife S. Kaliammal, 35.
Lawyer M. Manoharan said the Court of Appeal maintained that the Islamic Sharia court had jurisdiction to determine Moorthy's religious status and that the civil court could not interfere.
The decision was designed to "shut us up", he said. "It is not fair. The wife is very upset. We will take it to the highest court in the land -- the Federal Court," he told AFP. "The battle is not over yet."
"The Sharia court should not stray into areas outside their religion when there is a question of competing religion," he said.
Moorthy's wife said she had no idea of any conversation and cast doubt on his ability to make such a decision given that he had been ill for many years before his death.
Days after Moorthy's demise at the age of 36, the High Court ruled it would not disturb the declaration that he was a Muslim as it was a matter for the religious courts.
Malaysia has a dual-track legal system, with the civil courts and the Sharia courts operating side by side. Non-Muslims say they do not get a fair hearing when cases involving them end up in religious courts.
Conversion rows, including "body-snatching" cases when Islamic authorities have battled with relatives over the remains of people whose religion is disputed, are common in Muslim-majority Malaysia.
The tussles have raised allegations that the country is being "Islamised" and that the rights of the ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities are being eroded.
M. Moorthy, who was a member of a 1997 Malaysian Mount Everest expedition, died in 2005 and was buried as a Muslim on the insistence of religious authorities and against the wishes of his wife S. Kaliammal, 35.
Lawyer M. Manoharan said the Court of Appeal maintained that the Islamic Sharia court had jurisdiction to determine Moorthy's religious status and that the civil court could not interfere.
The decision was designed to "shut us up", he said. "It is not fair. The wife is very upset. We will take it to the highest court in the land -- the Federal Court," he told AFP. "The battle is not over yet."
"The Sharia court should not stray into areas outside their religion when there is a question of competing religion," he said.
Moorthy's wife said she had no idea of any conversation and cast doubt on his ability to make such a decision given that he had been ill for many years before his death.
Days after Moorthy's demise at the age of 36, the High Court ruled it would not disturb the declaration that he was a Muslim as it was a matter for the religious courts.
Malaysia has a dual-track legal system, with the civil courts and the Sharia courts operating side by side. Non-Muslims say they do not get a fair hearing when cases involving them end up in religious courts.
Conversion rows, including "body-snatching" cases when Islamic authorities have battled with relatives over the remains of people whose religion is disputed, are common in Muslim-majority Malaysia.
The tussles have raised allegations that the country is being "Islamised" and that the rights of the ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities are being eroded.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Property investment in the new decade
The times have been good for property investors in the past couple of years. Prices in certain areas, particularly in selected areas of Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya have risen significantly, some as high as 50 percent. And as a result of this rise, practically all property investors had made money. In fact, some people have seen their net worth jump up by 30 or 40 percent because of the price rise. For example, a young colleague who purchased their house two years ago saw the value of their house increase from RM950,000 to RM1.3 million today. Of course, the owner was all smiles when they told me the story.
I am happy for them. As an avid property investor, I have benefitted from the rise myself, so I am certainly not complaining. At the same time, I must admit that I have some reservation about the whole scenario. The price rise has distorted reality to many investors, including my colleague. Because the price climbed up as soon as he bought the property, and remained at a high level even today, his view on property investment is seriously distorted. He thinks that:
1. Prices will go up as soon you buy a property.
2. The gains will be in double digits per annum.
3. This is normal.
4. Prices always go up.
5. It is easy to make money in properties.
6. He is a super genius when it comes to property investment!
Long-term property investors will quickly point out that none of the above are true. That’s right – none! For starters, I can tell you the current situation is exceptional. It wasn’t like this five years ago, and certainly not ten years ago. I can also tell you that times are not going to remain this good forever. Prices do not rise to the sky, and interest rates do not stay low forever. In fact, interest rates has already climbed (or to use the toned down term of ‘normalised’) by 75 basis points already this year.
Why am I so sure of this? Simple; I have seen similar euphoria before (the first in the mid-1980s and then in year 1997 during the Asian Currency Crisis), and the story did not end well on both occasions. Like most bubbles, prices edged up slowly initially. The initial buyers made money and this attracted others to invest into properties as well. And as prices climbed higher and higher, the euphoria got to the levels that some people were rushing to buy because they were scared that the prices will spiral out of their reach if they do not act then. But when the market crashed, as all bubbles eventually do, a lot of people were seriously hit, a lot of money was lost, and that included seeing their properties being auctioned off by the banks.
I see the same story being repeated today. On top of the ever present dangers, there will be massive challenges in this new decade. There will be much turbulence in the coming days, and some of them will be unlike what you and I have seen or experienced before. This may include double-digit interest rates, multiple bank failures, currency crashes and explosion of the derivatives market.
As a result of the new challenges, the investors using the current success formula of buying five properties at one go (by paying the minimum down payment and borrowing to the hilt) will be seriously hammered. They will experience much pain, to put it mildly. Some people will lose their properties, some will lose more than money and yes, some will become ex-millionaires.
But of course, where there is danger, there are also opportunities. This will include a huge number of properties being auctioned and also getting huge discounts from distressed sellers.
For more information about Azizi Ali, visit www.millionairesplanet.com
I am happy for them. As an avid property investor, I have benefitted from the rise myself, so I am certainly not complaining. At the same time, I must admit that I have some reservation about the whole scenario. The price rise has distorted reality to many investors, including my colleague. Because the price climbed up as soon as he bought the property, and remained at a high level even today, his view on property investment is seriously distorted. He thinks that:
1. Prices will go up as soon you buy a property.
2. The gains will be in double digits per annum.
3. This is normal.
4. Prices always go up.
5. It is easy to make money in properties.
6. He is a super genius when it comes to property investment!
Long-term property investors will quickly point out that none of the above are true. That’s right – none! For starters, I can tell you the current situation is exceptional. It wasn’t like this five years ago, and certainly not ten years ago. I can also tell you that times are not going to remain this good forever. Prices do not rise to the sky, and interest rates do not stay low forever. In fact, interest rates has already climbed (or to use the toned down term of ‘normalised’) by 75 basis points already this year.
Why am I so sure of this? Simple; I have seen similar euphoria before (the first in the mid-1980s and then in year 1997 during the Asian Currency Crisis), and the story did not end well on both occasions. Like most bubbles, prices edged up slowly initially. The initial buyers made money and this attracted others to invest into properties as well. And as prices climbed higher and higher, the euphoria got to the levels that some people were rushing to buy because they were scared that the prices will spiral out of their reach if they do not act then. But when the market crashed, as all bubbles eventually do, a lot of people were seriously hit, a lot of money was lost, and that included seeing their properties being auctioned off by the banks.
I see the same story being repeated today. On top of the ever present dangers, there will be massive challenges in this new decade. There will be much turbulence in the coming days, and some of them will be unlike what you and I have seen or experienced before. This may include double-digit interest rates, multiple bank failures, currency crashes and explosion of the derivatives market.
As a result of the new challenges, the investors using the current success formula of buying five properties at one go (by paying the minimum down payment and borrowing to the hilt) will be seriously hammered. They will experience much pain, to put it mildly. Some people will lose their properties, some will lose more than money and yes, some will become ex-millionaires.
But of course, where there is danger, there are also opportunities. This will include a huge number of properties being auctioned and also getting huge discounts from distressed sellers.
For more information about Azizi Ali, visit www.millionairesplanet.com
Giuliani Says Mosque 'Divisive'
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 08-20-10 | MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL
Posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:09:39 AM by GOP_Lady
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is characterizing the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero as "divisive," saying Thursday that the organizers' plans are breeding hate rather than healing wounds.
"All this is doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred," Mr. Giuliani said during an interview on NBC's "Today" show.
"The reality is that right now, if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project. If you're a warrior you do," declared Mr. Giuliani, the New York official most closely associated with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
The remarks put him squarely at odds with his successor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the proposed mosque's most outspoken advocate.
Mr. Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney and a Republican candidate for president in 2008, said the organizers have "every right" to build the center two blocks from the site of the fallen Twin Towers.
"The question is, should they build it?" he said. "Are they displaying the sensitivity they claim by building it?"
To: GOP_Lady
He also took direct aim at the imam behind the center, Feisal Abdul Rauf, accusing him of "selling sensitivity" and questioning whether his motives are genuine.
Giuliani continues in the tradition of Republican New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (1933-45). One play from LaGuardia's playbook was to find the enemy's weak spot and drive a sledgehammer into it. Giuliani does it with the faint sound of regret. It's like watching a master assassin at work with the stiletto.
The former mayor praised Democratic Gov. David Paterson for proposing to meet with the project's organizers in hopes of finding an alternative location in Lower Manhattan that would be less controversial.
Another patented LaGuardia play. Pick an enemy, praise him, put him on the spot, and separate him from the rest of his herd. Paterson now has to tap-dance his way out of Giuliani's embrace. This is a death sentence in New York City's liberal Democratic organization, where Giuliani is considered the spawn of Satan -- almost as much as the arch-devil Reagan.
It's fun watching the pros at work.
14 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:29:57 AM by Publius (Unless the Constitution is followed, it is simply a piece of paper.)
Posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:09:39 AM by GOP_Lady
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is characterizing the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero as "divisive," saying Thursday that the organizers' plans are breeding hate rather than healing wounds.
"All this is doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred," Mr. Giuliani said during an interview on NBC's "Today" show.
"The reality is that right now, if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project. If you're a warrior you do," declared Mr. Giuliani, the New York official most closely associated with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
The remarks put him squarely at odds with his successor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the proposed mosque's most outspoken advocate.
Mr. Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney and a Republican candidate for president in 2008, said the organizers have "every right" to build the center two blocks from the site of the fallen Twin Towers.
"The question is, should they build it?" he said. "Are they displaying the sensitivity they claim by building it?"
To: GOP_Lady
He also took direct aim at the imam behind the center, Feisal Abdul Rauf, accusing him of "selling sensitivity" and questioning whether his motives are genuine.
Giuliani continues in the tradition of Republican New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (1933-45). One play from LaGuardia's playbook was to find the enemy's weak spot and drive a sledgehammer into it. Giuliani does it with the faint sound of regret. It's like watching a master assassin at work with the stiletto.
The former mayor praised Democratic Gov. David Paterson for proposing to meet with the project's organizers in hopes of finding an alternative location in Lower Manhattan that would be less controversial.
Another patented LaGuardia play. Pick an enemy, praise him, put him on the spot, and separate him from the rest of his herd. Paterson now has to tap-dance his way out of Giuliani's embrace. This is a death sentence in New York City's liberal Democratic organization, where Giuliani is considered the spawn of Satan -- almost as much as the arch-devil Reagan.
It's fun watching the pros at work.
14 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:29:57 AM by Publius (Unless the Constitution is followed, it is simply a piece of paper.)
Daisy Khan: "When will Muslims be accepted?"
Daisy Khan, along with her husband Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is one of the co-founders of Cordoba House, which has proposed to build a mosque more than two blocks from Ground Zero, causing a political and religious furor.
She says she and her husband will not back down. "There is too much at stake," she says. "Constitutional rights, the development of the Muslims here, how the world is watching the United States. We tell people America upholds religious freedom. We should not compromise those values."
Khan says that it is "evident that there is still healing that needs to happen. There are bigger issues here and it's also about how Muslims are perceived. When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?"
Khan says that there are huge ramifications to closing down or being forced to relocate. "We are debating about having a healing dialogue, building bridges and this whole thing has turned into the opposite of what we have envisioned. " She says that they are now having discussions with 9/11 families. "We will have a dialogue with them. " But she says, "It is private property. To walk away without taking everything into consideration would be irresponsible.
To: Free ThinkerNY
Identify the enemy.
Engage the enemy.
Neutralize the enemy.
Maybe then, we can “dialogue”. Until then, Daisy, STFU.
6 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:15:05 AM by Frank_2001
To: Free ThinkerNY
“When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?”
1) When they stop flying planes into buildings full of innocent people.
2) When they allow churches to be built in muslim countries without having to worry about christians being attacked by the police, of all people.
3) When they stop stoning women and beating them raw for horrid crimes like going to school.
4) When they stop trying to make us accept women in our countries covered in black bags.
I got more, Daisy. In the meantime, get back to me when you make real progress on the first four.
8 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:15:34 AM by I still care (I believe in the universality of freedom -George Bush, asked if he regrets going to war.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Daisy Khan: "When will Muslims be accepted?"
When they stop trying killing everyone else....
14 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:17:53 AM by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
To: Free ThinkerNY
I thought Muslims believed it was wrong to mingle with non-Muslims? How are they going to welcome all kinds of people to their community center, and square it with their religion?
15 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:17:57 AM by SuziQ
To: I still care
5.) When they stop demanding special privileges whereever they live or travel.
17 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:19:09 AM by oyez (The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
When you abandon sharia law and submit to Constitutional rule of law, my dear.
Islam is not the supreme law in the United States. The Constitution is.
That’s what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” means.
The exercise of your religion is not supreme in this land. The Constitution is.
If there is no room in your religion for this concept, then there is no room in the United States of America for your religion. Sorry if that sounds a bit intolerant, but the fact is that the First Amendment expresses the exact OPPOSITE of intolerance. Our forefathers had ample experience with religious intolerance themselves before the founding of this country. That’s why the First Amendment begins the way it does.
Religion is between you and God (or Allah, or whatever.) The government may not in any way enforce religious law in this country. Sharia law is utterly incompatible with the Constitution.
And if you want to argue that point . . . that’s what the Second Amendment is for.
19 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:20:41 AM by filbert (More filbert at http://www.medary.com--The Revolution Will Be Exit-Polled.)
To: jimbo123
Islam will be “accepted” when Saudi Arabia (and other “Islamic” nations) allow Christians to safely proselytize, worship, and build Christian Churches in their countries and Muslims to safely convert to other religions.
Until then, consider the “UnWelcome” mat to be out.
23 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:22:03 AM by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
To: Free ThinkerNY
"There is too much at stake," she says. "Constitutional rights, the development of the Muslims here, how the world is watching the United States. We tell people America upholds religious freedom. We should not compromise those values."
Can anyone spell S-H-A-R-I-A?
25 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:22:49 AM by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Islam is completely incompatible with 2500 years of Western Civilization from Athens to Jerusalem, from Rome to Aachen, from New York to St. Petersburg.
Keep to your sandbox and you won't have any problems. Pull this s____ outside the sandbox expect to by smacked around some.
33 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:27:01 AM by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Free ThinkerNY
Muslims will be accepted when a) they fully and unconditionally renounce the goal of imposing Sharia on anyone who does voluntarily accept it, and b) they fully and unconditionally accept that all persons have the right liberty—the right to do whatever does not violate the reciprocally-respected rights of others.
Unfortunately, satisfying either one of those conditions requires that they abrogate certain fundamental commands of the Quran.
34 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:27:08 AM by sourcery (Obama is so conceited, he probably thinks that the 'Zero' in 'Ground Zero' refers to him!)
To: Free ThinkerNY
They are accepted today. In predominantly Muslim nations, they are well respected.
Christians should have a right to a nation where they are well respected too.
Muslim people who wish to be devout, should stay where the Muslim customs are revered.
They should not be able to come to predominant Christian nations and demand Christianity make concessions concerning faith.
If they could, then there won’t be one Christian nation by 2050. Muslim nations not giving an inch, we’re not about to make them tolerant to Christianity.
We must remain separate if we are to survive this. Sorry it has to be that way, but then it’s not my choice to destroy Islam world-wide. It is Islam’s choice to destroy Christianity world-wide.
35 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:27:18 AM by DoughtyOne (UniTea! It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success.)
To: Grizzled Bear; All
Religion, my aging are.
Islam is a cult that demands total state control of everyone’s life and choices.
Why do they get away with telling us it is a “religion”. Please write, call, and visit your congress critters, and demand to know why they are accepting this political system as a “peaceful religion”.
It isn’t peaceful, and it certainly isn’t a religion.
40 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:29:50 AM by jacquej
When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?
I'm sorry Daisy - it isn't you - its your book which you are claiming as the fount of your faith. This book (the koran and the hadith) says that the islamic method of evangelism is by the sword. The non-islamic world has 3 choices: convert to islam; or be enslaved; or die. This book preaches the doctrine of satan - not the Word of a Holy God...
So none of us have a problem with the typical non-believing Muslim who just clings to the few 'good verses' (the ones the koran ripped out of the Bible), and who is just trying to get along. But there is a fundamental problem with a 'movement' based on a book that exhorts the parasite to kill its host - and provides an outline on how to do it (including all the variations of 'taqiya'). As a consequence, you never know if the 'good' Muslim is really OK - or in 'hibernation' waiting for his inner jihadist to be released as he becomes 'religious'...
And you can never know.
41 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:30:18 AM by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
To: y'all
When you have a thirteen story Catholic Credential in mecca and medina...
When you have a thirteen story Methodist Church in mecca and medina...
When you have a thirteen story Buddhist Temple in mecca and medina...
When you have a thirteen story Presbyterian Churches in mecca and medina...
When you have a thirteen story Jewish Temple in mecca and medina.
Need I go on? 8!tc]-[...
???????????????????????????????????
43 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:30:44 AM by OnTheDress (Live and let live; is not working...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Free ThinkerNY
When the Saudis allow churches and synagogues in Mecca, then we’ll talk.
44 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:31:28 AM by dfwgator
To: Free ThinkerNY
Muslims like to talk about how non-Muslims took “Muslim lands.” So, I’d say they can be accepted when they return Egypt, Syria, and Constantinople to the Christians.
46 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:32:07 AM by paudio (She wanted to be known as another Jackie O. Instead, people see her another Marie Antoinette)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Free ThinkerNY
Boy, Daisy is REALLY good with the talking points!
And I love the little thing about there not being all that much interest in the Muslim countries her husband is visiting......I guess that’s supposed to jumpstart the idea that the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for Cordoba House. Just because we like to do ‘the right thing’, of course. How stupid do these people think we are, to even take this crap they spew seriously?
47 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:33:25 AM by supremedoctrine ("Every election is like an advance auction sale of stolen goods"--H.L.Mencken)
To: Frank_2001
Most people do not recognize that what happens in a mosque is sedition. Pure and simple. Islam is not just a “religion”, it is a cult. Larger than that though, it is a political system, it is it’s own government, its judicial...is in its sharia, and its military (jihadis) all rolled into one with one intent ...and that is to rule wherever they take root. It is a invasive, systemic infection looking to take over the host once it has quantum.
This is not just a “religion”, but something that cloaks itself in those terms so it should not be given the same treatment contemplated under the first amendment. The Korans Sharia rules are to consume whatever government there is wherever it goes.
It is political, and it’s goal is to supplant and replace.
The sooner America learns this , the better.
Obama? Obama and Company? Should be tried for treason in this issue for promoting the establishment of a foreign government on our soils. He is doing nothing to protect America as per his oath. Also, as a Muslim, he knows this, he know far better, he knows sharia, but is looking to deceive America.
For all interested...Wanna learn more?
http://thehayride.com/2010/08/louisiana-at-leading-edge-in-fight-against-shariah/#more-5392
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded
Lets keep America, America!
Obama? Obama and Company? Should be tried for treason in this issue for promoting the establishment of a foreign government on our soils. As a Muslim, he knows this, he knows sharia, but is looking to deceive America.
50 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:35:13 AM by himno hero
She says she and her husband will not back down. "There is too much at stake," she says. "Constitutional rights, the development of the Muslims here, how the world is watching the United States. We tell people America upholds religious freedom. We should not compromise those values."
Khan says that it is "evident that there is still healing that needs to happen. There are bigger issues here and it's also about how Muslims are perceived. When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?"
Khan says that there are huge ramifications to closing down or being forced to relocate. "We are debating about having a healing dialogue, building bridges and this whole thing has turned into the opposite of what we have envisioned. " She says that they are now having discussions with 9/11 families. "We will have a dialogue with them. " But she says, "It is private property. To walk away without taking everything into consideration would be irresponsible.
To: Free ThinkerNY
Identify the enemy.
Engage the enemy.
Neutralize the enemy.
Maybe then, we can “dialogue”. Until then, Daisy, STFU.
6 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:15:05 AM by Frank_2001
To: Free ThinkerNY
“When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?”
1) When they stop flying planes into buildings full of innocent people.
2) When they allow churches to be built in muslim countries without having to worry about christians being attacked by the police, of all people.
3) When they stop stoning women and beating them raw for horrid crimes like going to school.
4) When they stop trying to make us accept women in our countries covered in black bags.
I got more, Daisy. In the meantime, get back to me when you make real progress on the first four.
8 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:15:34 AM by I still care (I believe in the universality of freedom -George Bush, asked if he regrets going to war.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Daisy Khan: "When will Muslims be accepted?"
When they stop trying killing everyone else....
14 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:17:53 AM by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
To: Free ThinkerNY
I thought Muslims believed it was wrong to mingle with non-Muslims? How are they going to welcome all kinds of people to their community center, and square it with their religion?
15 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:17:57 AM by SuziQ
To: I still care
5.) When they stop demanding special privileges whereever they live or travel.
17 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:19:09 AM by oyez (The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
When you abandon sharia law and submit to Constitutional rule of law, my dear.
Islam is not the supreme law in the United States. The Constitution is.
That’s what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” means.
The exercise of your religion is not supreme in this land. The Constitution is.
If there is no room in your religion for this concept, then there is no room in the United States of America for your religion. Sorry if that sounds a bit intolerant, but the fact is that the First Amendment expresses the exact OPPOSITE of intolerance. Our forefathers had ample experience with religious intolerance themselves before the founding of this country. That’s why the First Amendment begins the way it does.
Religion is between you and God (or Allah, or whatever.) The government may not in any way enforce religious law in this country. Sharia law is utterly incompatible with the Constitution.
And if you want to argue that point . . . that’s what the Second Amendment is for.
19 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:20:41 AM by filbert (More filbert at http://www.medary.com--The Revolution Will Be Exit-Polled.)
To: jimbo123
Islam will be “accepted” when Saudi Arabia (and other “Islamic” nations) allow Christians to safely proselytize, worship, and build Christian Churches in their countries and Muslims to safely convert to other religions.
Until then, consider the “UnWelcome” mat to be out.
23 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:22:03 AM by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
To: Free ThinkerNY
"There is too much at stake," she says. "Constitutional rights, the development of the Muslims here, how the world is watching the United States. We tell people America upholds religious freedom. We should not compromise those values."
Can anyone spell S-H-A-R-I-A?
25 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:22:49 AM by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Islam is completely incompatible with 2500 years of Western Civilization from Athens to Jerusalem, from Rome to Aachen, from New York to St. Petersburg.
Keep to your sandbox and you won't have any problems. Pull this s____ outside the sandbox expect to by smacked around some.
33 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:27:01 AM by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Free ThinkerNY
Muslims will be accepted when a) they fully and unconditionally renounce the goal of imposing Sharia on anyone who does voluntarily accept it, and b) they fully and unconditionally accept that all persons have the right liberty—the right to do whatever does not violate the reciprocally-respected rights of others.
Unfortunately, satisfying either one of those conditions requires that they abrogate certain fundamental commands of the Quran.
34 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:27:08 AM by sourcery (Obama is so conceited, he probably thinks that the 'Zero' in 'Ground Zero' refers to him!)
To: Free ThinkerNY
They are accepted today. In predominantly Muslim nations, they are well respected.
Christians should have a right to a nation where they are well respected too.
Muslim people who wish to be devout, should stay where the Muslim customs are revered.
They should not be able to come to predominant Christian nations and demand Christianity make concessions concerning faith.
If they could, then there won’t be one Christian nation by 2050. Muslim nations not giving an inch, we’re not about to make them tolerant to Christianity.
We must remain separate if we are to survive this. Sorry it has to be that way, but then it’s not my choice to destroy Islam world-wide. It is Islam’s choice to destroy Christianity world-wide.
35 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:27:18 AM by DoughtyOne (UniTea! It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success.)
To: Grizzled Bear; All
Religion, my aging are.
Islam is a cult that demands total state control of everyone’s life and choices.
Why do they get away with telling us it is a “religion”. Please write, call, and visit your congress critters, and demand to know why they are accepting this political system as a “peaceful religion”.
It isn’t peaceful, and it certainly isn’t a religion.
40 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:29:50 AM by jacquej
When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?
I'm sorry Daisy - it isn't you - its your book which you are claiming as the fount of your faith. This book (the koran and the hadith) says that the islamic method of evangelism is by the sword. The non-islamic world has 3 choices: convert to islam; or be enslaved; or die. This book preaches the doctrine of satan - not the Word of a Holy God...
So none of us have a problem with the typical non-believing Muslim who just clings to the few 'good verses' (the ones the koran ripped out of the Bible), and who is just trying to get along. But there is a fundamental problem with a 'movement' based on a book that exhorts the parasite to kill its host - and provides an outline on how to do it (including all the variations of 'taqiya'). As a consequence, you never know if the 'good' Muslim is really OK - or in 'hibernation' waiting for his inner jihadist to be released as he becomes 'religious'...
And you can never know.
41 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:30:18 AM by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
To: y'all
When you have a thirteen story Catholic Credential in mecca and medina...
When you have a thirteen story Methodist Church in mecca and medina...
When you have a thirteen story Buddhist Temple in mecca and medina...
When you have a thirteen story Presbyterian Churches in mecca and medina...
When you have a thirteen story Jewish Temple in mecca and medina.
Need I go on? 8!tc]-[...
???????????????????????????????????
43 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:30:44 AM by OnTheDress (Live and let live; is not working...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Free ThinkerNY
When the Saudis allow churches and synagogues in Mecca, then we’ll talk.
44 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:31:28 AM by dfwgator
To: Free ThinkerNY
Muslims like to talk about how non-Muslims took “Muslim lands.” So, I’d say they can be accepted when they return Egypt, Syria, and Constantinople to the Christians.
46 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:32:07 AM by paudio (She wanted to be known as another Jackie O. Instead, people see her another Marie Antoinette)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Free ThinkerNY
Boy, Daisy is REALLY good with the talking points!
And I love the little thing about there not being all that much interest in the Muslim countries her husband is visiting......I guess that’s supposed to jumpstart the idea that the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for Cordoba House. Just because we like to do ‘the right thing’, of course. How stupid do these people think we are, to even take this crap they spew seriously?
47 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:33:25 AM by supremedoctrine ("Every election is like an advance auction sale of stolen goods"--H.L.Mencken)
To: Frank_2001
Most people do not recognize that what happens in a mosque is sedition. Pure and simple. Islam is not just a “religion”, it is a cult. Larger than that though, it is a political system, it is it’s own government, its judicial...is in its sharia, and its military (jihadis) all rolled into one with one intent ...and that is to rule wherever they take root. It is a invasive, systemic infection looking to take over the host once it has quantum.
This is not just a “religion”, but something that cloaks itself in those terms so it should not be given the same treatment contemplated under the first amendment. The Korans Sharia rules are to consume whatever government there is wherever it goes.
It is political, and it’s goal is to supplant and replace.
The sooner America learns this , the better.
Obama? Obama and Company? Should be tried for treason in this issue for promoting the establishment of a foreign government on our soils. He is doing nothing to protect America as per his oath. Also, as a Muslim, he knows this, he know far better, he knows sharia, but is looking to deceive America.
For all interested...Wanna learn more?
http://thehayride.com/2010/08/louisiana-at-leading-edge-in-fight-against-shariah/#more-5392
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded
Lets keep America, America!
Obama? Obama and Company? Should be tried for treason in this issue for promoting the establishment of a foreign government on our soils. As a Muslim, he knows this, he knows sharia, but is looking to deceive America.
50 posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:35:13 AM by himno hero
Norwegian traders charged with manipulation
The Financial Times ^ | 8/19/2010 | Andrew Ward in Stockholm
Posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:33:51 AM by bruinbirdman
Two Norwegian day traders who apparently outwitted the electronic trading systems of a US broker have sparked a debate in the country over the growing influence of machines in financial markets.
The two men have been indicted in Norway on charges of market manipulation after allegedly tricking the electronic trading system of a big US broker into raising the price of shares on the Oslo Stock Exchange.
Many people in Norway have voiced admiration for the defendants and their apparent victory for man over machine.
Svend Egil Larsen and Peder Veiby could face up to six years in jail if found guilty of manipulating the trading system of Timber Hill, a unit of US-based Interactive Brokers, to artificially inflate share prices.
Norwegian police said the men had worked out a pattern of trading that caused the system to jack up prices, allowing them to sell at a profit.
Mr Larsen and Mr Veiby could not be reached by the Financial Times for comment but Mr Larsen told Norway’s Dagens Naeringsliv newspaper that he had not intentionally “tried to trick the robot”.
But he said that, in the course of his regular day trading, it became “fairly obvious” how the system behaved.
Many small investors have leapt to the defence of the accused men, lauding them for striking a blow against the automatic trading software that increasingly dominates global financial markets.
“Robots are designed to push the market, but when someone pushes the robots, it is suddenly a criminal offence,” wrote one commentator on the Dagens Naeringsliv internet forum.
The case comes amid increasing global scrutiny of automated trading systems after the so-called “flash crash” in May when a barrage of algorithmic sell orders caused US stocks to plunge.
Christian Stenberg, the Norwegian police attorney responsible for the case, said any admiration for the accused men was misplaced.
“This is a new kind of manipulation but it is still at the expense of other investors in the market,” he said.
The case involves 2,200 trades in three Norwegian industrial stocks on the relatively sleepy Oslo bourse between 2007 and 2008.
Irregular trading patterns were spotted by the stock exchange and referred to Norway’s financial regulator, which brought in the police.
Mr Veiby is alleged to have made about NKr250,000 ($46,000) from the alleged scam and Mr Larson NKr160,000.
Interactive Brokers did not respond to calls for comment.
Posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 11:33:51 AM by bruinbirdman
Two Norwegian day traders who apparently outwitted the electronic trading systems of a US broker have sparked a debate in the country over the growing influence of machines in financial markets.
The two men have been indicted in Norway on charges of market manipulation after allegedly tricking the electronic trading system of a big US broker into raising the price of shares on the Oslo Stock Exchange.
Many people in Norway have voiced admiration for the defendants and their apparent victory for man over machine.
Svend Egil Larsen and Peder Veiby could face up to six years in jail if found guilty of manipulating the trading system of Timber Hill, a unit of US-based Interactive Brokers, to artificially inflate share prices.
Norwegian police said the men had worked out a pattern of trading that caused the system to jack up prices, allowing them to sell at a profit.
Mr Larsen and Mr Veiby could not be reached by the Financial Times for comment but Mr Larsen told Norway’s Dagens Naeringsliv newspaper that he had not intentionally “tried to trick the robot”.
But he said that, in the course of his regular day trading, it became “fairly obvious” how the system behaved.
Many small investors have leapt to the defence of the accused men, lauding them for striking a blow against the automatic trading software that increasingly dominates global financial markets.
“Robots are designed to push the market, but when someone pushes the robots, it is suddenly a criminal offence,” wrote one commentator on the Dagens Naeringsliv internet forum.
The case comes amid increasing global scrutiny of automated trading systems after the so-called “flash crash” in May when a barrage of algorithmic sell orders caused US stocks to plunge.
Christian Stenberg, the Norwegian police attorney responsible for the case, said any admiration for the accused men was misplaced.
“This is a new kind of manipulation but it is still at the expense of other investors in the market,” he said.
The case involves 2,200 trades in three Norwegian industrial stocks on the relatively sleepy Oslo bourse between 2007 and 2008.
Irregular trading patterns were spotted by the stock exchange and referred to Norway’s financial regulator, which brought in the police.
Mr Veiby is alleged to have made about NKr250,000 ($46,000) from the alleged scam and Mr Larson NKr160,000.
Interactive Brokers did not respond to calls for comment.
Total ban fails to stop Chinese gun trade
* August 18th, 2010 8:39 am
"A clandestine market for unregistered weapons still exists despite crackdown," reporter Hu Yinan of China Daily informs us.
Illegal traders advertise with graffiti on walls, despite China's near total ban on private gun ownership. To what effect has the black market succeeded?
"In 2007, a study by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies estimated the total number of guns held by civilians in China at 40 million, third only to the United States and India."
The government, of course, disputes this. In truth, they don't know. No one does.
But despite seizures and destruction of confiscated firearms, the trade continues. It's too profitable not to, despite severe penalties for those caught in violation of Chinese citizen disarmament laws.
From a 2007 China Daily report by Zhu Zhe:
"High profits are deemed the biggest attraction for people who trade illegal guns, although those found guilty of selling guns or explosives face punishment ranging from three years in jail to the death penalty."
Welcome to Sarah Brady Paradise. China has every law--and then some--advocated by our domestic gun grabbers, and I'm talking pre-Heller/McDonald, when they were still going for total bans, as opposed to the so-called "reasonable common sense restrictions" they say they'll settle for, at least until a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ratio for an individual right shifts in their direction.
The photo of the task force officer examining a handmade pistol in "Writing on the Wall for Guns" says it all. As does this admission:
"'In two to three days, these gun traders make more money than we do in a month,' joked a gun taskforce member who did not want to be identified."
The paradox and unintended consequence for the gun banners is, the more they make owning a gun difficult, the more innovative and unregulated the market becomes. They create conditions where the real world outcome is exactly the opposite of what they say they want.
There's a lesson in there somewhere for all of us, and it's about a lot more than just guns.
------------
Speaking of McDonald...
The same day that decision took place, my editor at GUNS Magazine told me he could replace my scheduled "Rights Watch" column with a summary of the case if I could turn something out quickly. While magazines are generally poor places to report news due to the layout/publishing/distribution lag between article submission and the time they hit the stands, the story was too important not to cover.
The October 2010 issue is now out, and my column "Second Amendment Ruled Applicable To States" is in it.
Click here to read it. And click here to read other features, including a complete digital edition of this issue.
"A clandestine market for unregistered weapons still exists despite crackdown," reporter Hu Yinan of China Daily informs us.
Illegal traders advertise with graffiti on walls, despite China's near total ban on private gun ownership. To what effect has the black market succeeded?
"In 2007, a study by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies estimated the total number of guns held by civilians in China at 40 million, third only to the United States and India."
The government, of course, disputes this. In truth, they don't know. No one does.
But despite seizures and destruction of confiscated firearms, the trade continues. It's too profitable not to, despite severe penalties for those caught in violation of Chinese citizen disarmament laws.
From a 2007 China Daily report by Zhu Zhe:
"High profits are deemed the biggest attraction for people who trade illegal guns, although those found guilty of selling guns or explosives face punishment ranging from three years in jail to the death penalty."
Welcome to Sarah Brady Paradise. China has every law--and then some--advocated by our domestic gun grabbers, and I'm talking pre-Heller/McDonald, when they were still going for total bans, as opposed to the so-called "reasonable common sense restrictions" they say they'll settle for, at least until a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ratio for an individual right shifts in their direction.
The photo of the task force officer examining a handmade pistol in "Writing on the Wall for Guns" says it all. As does this admission:
"'In two to three days, these gun traders make more money than we do in a month,' joked a gun taskforce member who did not want to be identified."
The paradox and unintended consequence for the gun banners is, the more they make owning a gun difficult, the more innovative and unregulated the market becomes. They create conditions where the real world outcome is exactly the opposite of what they say they want.
There's a lesson in there somewhere for all of us, and it's about a lot more than just guns.
------------
Speaking of McDonald...
The same day that decision took place, my editor at GUNS Magazine told me he could replace my scheduled "Rights Watch" column with a summary of the case if I could turn something out quickly. While magazines are generally poor places to report news due to the layout/publishing/distribution lag between article submission and the time they hit the stands, the story was too important not to cover.
The October 2010 issue is now out, and my column "Second Amendment Ruled Applicable To States" is in it.
Click here to read it. And click here to read other features, including a complete digital edition of this issue.
Man who lost RM62mil gambling to sue casino
A RICH Singaporean man, who lost S$26mil (RM62mil) in a three-day gambling spree, plans to sue a world-renowned casino there for loaning him a huge sum of money to gamble without first checking his financial position, reported China Press.
According to a legal document, the 50-year-old businessman, was loaned S$500,000 (RM1.2mil) for gambling by the casino in March and the loan was later increased to S$2mil (RM4.8mil) the following month.
He also claimed that he had experienced losing and winning money amounting to a few hundred thousand dollars in each gambling session and once it reached as high as S$6mil (RM15mil) and yet he could still get a loan by just filling up an application form.
When his losses exceeded S$4mil (RM9.6mil), the businessman said his girlfriend cried and begged the casino not to loan him any more money.
In spite of that, the casino staff told him that he could continue getting loans although he had exceeded the credit limit.
A spokesman of the casino said the company could not comment on their customers.
> Sin Chew Daily reported that Institut Perguruan Tengku Ampuan Afzan in Kuala Lipis, Pahang, had barred male and female students from using the same vehicle to travel since Oct 10 last year to prevent immoral activities.
Its director Mazlan Mohamad told the daily that the ban was to remind students to be in their best behaviour to protect the school’s image, adding that no students have been punished since the ban was imposed.
“It is all right if they go out for lunch, but they should not spend time in the car alone.
“The Education Department wanted us to explain the ban and I have submitted a report,” he said.
According to a legal document, the 50-year-old businessman, was loaned S$500,000 (RM1.2mil) for gambling by the casino in March and the loan was later increased to S$2mil (RM4.8mil) the following month.
He also claimed that he had experienced losing and winning money amounting to a few hundred thousand dollars in each gambling session and once it reached as high as S$6mil (RM15mil) and yet he could still get a loan by just filling up an application form.
When his losses exceeded S$4mil (RM9.6mil), the businessman said his girlfriend cried and begged the casino not to loan him any more money.
In spite of that, the casino staff told him that he could continue getting loans although he had exceeded the credit limit.
A spokesman of the casino said the company could not comment on their customers.
> Sin Chew Daily reported that Institut Perguruan Tengku Ampuan Afzan in Kuala Lipis, Pahang, had barred male and female students from using the same vehicle to travel since Oct 10 last year to prevent immoral activities.
Its director Mazlan Mohamad told the daily that the ban was to remind students to be in their best behaviour to protect the school’s image, adding that no students have been punished since the ban was imposed.
“It is all right if they go out for lunch, but they should not spend time in the car alone.
“The Education Department wanted us to explain the ban and I have submitted a report,” he said.
Home Ministry seizes copies of 'queer' book
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1531070/+140
By Patrick Lee
PETALING JAYA: Three copies of local writer Amir Muhammad's book, “Body 2 Body: A Malaysian Queer Anthology”, were seized by the Home Ministry from the Kinokuniya outlet in KLCC here today. “They came, and we cooperated with them,” said a Kinokuniya staff member, adding that it was just a “regular visit” and “nothing big”.
Released in 2009, the book is a compilation of stories surrounding the Malaysian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) scene.
Contacted later, Amir said the ministry was not obliged to inform him about the matter.
“They just walk into a shop and take the copies,” he told FMT. “They don't want to go through the whole legal process (of banning the book).”
“It's kind of ironic, (as) a month ago I decided not to reprint the book,” he said, adding that there were only 50 copies of the book left in the country.
The book has sold more than 2,900 copies to date.
When queried if he knew why the ministry took his books away, Amir said with a laugh, “They can't afford to buy the books, so (maybe) they took them for free.”
As a result, Amir said that the book's distributor would be hiding the books from their shelves.
However, he confirmed that one outlet, Silverfish Books, would continue to sell the title.
Amir is no stranger to the government's book-grabbing tendencies.
In February this year, nine copies of his political satire title, “Malaysian Politicians Say the Darndest Things (Vol 2)” were seized by police officers from MPH Mahkota Parade in Malacca.
By Patrick Lee
PETALING JAYA: Three copies of local writer Amir Muhammad's book, “Body 2 Body: A Malaysian Queer Anthology”, were seized by the Home Ministry from the Kinokuniya outlet in KLCC here today. “They came, and we cooperated with them,” said a Kinokuniya staff member, adding that it was just a “regular visit” and “nothing big”.
Released in 2009, the book is a compilation of stories surrounding the Malaysian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) scene.
Contacted later, Amir said the ministry was not obliged to inform him about the matter.
“They just walk into a shop and take the copies,” he told FMT. “They don't want to go through the whole legal process (of banning the book).”
“It's kind of ironic, (as) a month ago I decided not to reprint the book,” he said, adding that there were only 50 copies of the book left in the country.
The book has sold more than 2,900 copies to date.
When queried if he knew why the ministry took his books away, Amir said with a laugh, “They can't afford to buy the books, so (maybe) they took them for free.”
As a result, Amir said that the book's distributor would be hiding the books from their shelves.
However, he confirmed that one outlet, Silverfish Books, would continue to sell the title.
Amir is no stranger to the government's book-grabbing tendencies.
In February this year, nine copies of his political satire title, “Malaysian Politicians Say the Darndest Things (Vol 2)” were seized by police officers from MPH Mahkota Parade in Malacca.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The U.S. Anti-Business Epidemic
Don Watkins and Yaron Brook, 08.17.10, 04:49 PM EDT
Obama is no friend to industry--but who is today?
Ever since business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable started attacking the president's policies for throttling their ability to produce, political commentators have been asking: "Is Obama anti-business?"
That might seem about as debatable as heliocentrism. Why, then, have Obama's critics found it so hard to make their case?
They call Obama a socialist--his defenders say he resisted calls to nationalize the banks and socialize health care. They say Obama has grown government "too much"--his defenders say he's merely trying to cope with an economic emergency and provide markets with some "sound oversight." Sure, they concede, the president's rhetoric has sometimes crossed the line, but at the end of the day, he's a pro-business guy.
All of which raises the question: What does it mean to be pro-business anyway?
One place to look for an answer is Ayn Rand's 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, a perennial favorite among American entrepreneurs, and a pro-business work if there ever was one.
From an executive who runs a transcontinental railroad to an industrialist who creates a metal stronger and lighter than steel, the heroes of Atlas are producers--individuals who use their intelligence to create vast amounts of wealth. Whereas many people think of business as a humdrum affair of paper-shuffling and pencil-pushing, Rand's work dramatizes the incredible ingenuity, discipline and risk-taking that business requires.
Today "pro-business" often gets equated with assuaging the desires of the business lobby. But Atlas excoriates those "businessmen" who spend their time liquoring up politicians to coax favors or crush competitors. What it celebrates is the activity of business--the process of production and trade that has taken us from mud huts to Manhattan. The true producer Rand shows, makes just one demand of Washington: "Get the hell out of my way!"
Atlas shows that what business requires from politicians is not favors but freedom. To the extent producers are free to act on their judgment, they generate the kind of wealth that has lifted the West (and much of the East) out of poverty. To the extent they are forced to take orders from bureaucrats, the result is stagnation.
The economic system fully geared to the life of producers is complete, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism--a total separation of state and economics, where the government protects each individual's inalienable rights, including his rights to property and to freedom of contract and trade, and otherwise "gets the hell out of the way." That's what it means to be pro-business.
By this standard, Barack "At a Certain Point You've Made Enough Money" Obama is obviously anti-business. But many people are under the impression that Obama's critics are pro-business. Nothing could be further from the truth.
One of the myths that arose following the financial crisis was that America pre-Obama was something close to a free market. According to this narrative, anyone who supports the status quo circa 2007 is a champion of capitalism.
But by 2007 the number of federal agencies and commissions riding roughshod over a businessman's rights had already mushroomed to more than 100, including the IRS, SEC, EPA, FTC, FDA, FCC, USDA, FDIC, OHSA. These agencies were enforcing an unprecedented 73,000 pages of regulations, and their budgets had swelled to record levels. This included 2002's draconian Sarbanes-Oxley, passed by the Senate 99-0 and signed into law by the supposedly pro-capitalist President Bush.
This vast government control of production and trade is the opposite of capitalism. Yet how many of these anti-business laws and regulations have Obama's critics vowed to repeal? None of any consequence.
What's more, despite an avalanche of evidence that the prime culprits in the financial crisis were the Fed's low interest rates, government housing policy, and too-big-to-fail, Republicans have joined Democrats in blaming America's "free market," and vow, in Mitch McConnell's words, to "rein in Wall Street to prevent another crisis."
While Republicans often express admiration for Ayn Rand, the one thing they refuse to rein in is today's massive regulatory-welfare state. To the extent they oppose Obama, it's not on the grounds that businessmen have a right to function free from government coercion, but on the grounds that the amount of coercion Obama advocates goes a little too far.
None of this is to deny that in the short term, the threat Obama poses to business vastly outstrips the threat posed by most of his critics. But if Americans are looking for a pro-business alternative--one that defends America's original capitalist system--they won't find it in today's political establishment.
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Don Watkins is an analyst there.
Obama is no friend to industry--but who is today?
Ever since business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable started attacking the president's policies for throttling their ability to produce, political commentators have been asking: "Is Obama anti-business?"
That might seem about as debatable as heliocentrism. Why, then, have Obama's critics found it so hard to make their case?
They call Obama a socialist--his defenders say he resisted calls to nationalize the banks and socialize health care. They say Obama has grown government "too much"--his defenders say he's merely trying to cope with an economic emergency and provide markets with some "sound oversight." Sure, they concede, the president's rhetoric has sometimes crossed the line, but at the end of the day, he's a pro-business guy.
All of which raises the question: What does it mean to be pro-business anyway?
One place to look for an answer is Ayn Rand's 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, a perennial favorite among American entrepreneurs, and a pro-business work if there ever was one.
From an executive who runs a transcontinental railroad to an industrialist who creates a metal stronger and lighter than steel, the heroes of Atlas are producers--individuals who use their intelligence to create vast amounts of wealth. Whereas many people think of business as a humdrum affair of paper-shuffling and pencil-pushing, Rand's work dramatizes the incredible ingenuity, discipline and risk-taking that business requires.
Today "pro-business" often gets equated with assuaging the desires of the business lobby. But Atlas excoriates those "businessmen" who spend their time liquoring up politicians to coax favors or crush competitors. What it celebrates is the activity of business--the process of production and trade that has taken us from mud huts to Manhattan. The true producer Rand shows, makes just one demand of Washington: "Get the hell out of my way!"
Atlas shows that what business requires from politicians is not favors but freedom. To the extent producers are free to act on their judgment, they generate the kind of wealth that has lifted the West (and much of the East) out of poverty. To the extent they are forced to take orders from bureaucrats, the result is stagnation.
The economic system fully geared to the life of producers is complete, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism--a total separation of state and economics, where the government protects each individual's inalienable rights, including his rights to property and to freedom of contract and trade, and otherwise "gets the hell out of the way." That's what it means to be pro-business.
By this standard, Barack "At a Certain Point You've Made Enough Money" Obama is obviously anti-business. But many people are under the impression that Obama's critics are pro-business. Nothing could be further from the truth.
One of the myths that arose following the financial crisis was that America pre-Obama was something close to a free market. According to this narrative, anyone who supports the status quo circa 2007 is a champion of capitalism.
But by 2007 the number of federal agencies and commissions riding roughshod over a businessman's rights had already mushroomed to more than 100, including the IRS, SEC, EPA, FTC, FDA, FCC, USDA, FDIC, OHSA. These agencies were enforcing an unprecedented 73,000 pages of regulations, and their budgets had swelled to record levels. This included 2002's draconian Sarbanes-Oxley, passed by the Senate 99-0 and signed into law by the supposedly pro-capitalist President Bush.
This vast government control of production and trade is the opposite of capitalism. Yet how many of these anti-business laws and regulations have Obama's critics vowed to repeal? None of any consequence.
What's more, despite an avalanche of evidence that the prime culprits in the financial crisis were the Fed's low interest rates, government housing policy, and too-big-to-fail, Republicans have joined Democrats in blaming America's "free market," and vow, in Mitch McConnell's words, to "rein in Wall Street to prevent another crisis."
While Republicans often express admiration for Ayn Rand, the one thing they refuse to rein in is today's massive regulatory-welfare state. To the extent they oppose Obama, it's not on the grounds that businessmen have a right to function free from government coercion, but on the grounds that the amount of coercion Obama advocates goes a little too far.
None of this is to deny that in the short term, the threat Obama poses to business vastly outstrips the threat posed by most of his critics. But if Americans are looking for a pro-business alternative--one that defends America's original capitalist system--they won't find it in today's political establishment.
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Don Watkins is an analyst there.
Obama's Point of No Return
Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:27:32 PM by American Dream 246
There comes a moment in a failing presidency where the incumbent, through some single gesture, action, or statement, crosses a certain line from beyond which there is no return. Through his own will and behavior he so underlines his failings, so frames his negative image, that no further action can ever erase it. Fate, accident, and circumstance have nothing to do with it. It is the president himself who puts the period at the end of his own sentence.
Such moments are obvious in retrospect, though not always at the time. With Richard Nixon, it was the "eighteen-minute gap." An oval office tape recording turned over to Judge John Sirica, who was overseeing the investigation of the Watergate incident, turned out to have a lengthy period of silence smack dab in the middle of a conversation between Nixon and chief of staff H.R. Haldeman. The White House claimed that Rose Mary Woods, the president's secretary, had inadvertently hit the wrong button for those eighteen minutes. This might well have been true, but in light of Nixon's long reputation as Tricky Dick, it sounded like the cock-and-bull story to end them all. Nixon had been holding his own in the Watergate battle up to that point. The voting public viewed the uproar with bemusement rather than indignation. But the tape gap finished him. In less than a year, he was forced into resignation.
For Jimmy Carter, it was the "malaise speech" of July 15, 1979, in which he attempted to shuffle the blame for his tepid performance as president from his own administration onto the shoulders of the American people. Carter claimed that a national "crisis of confidence" (he never actually used the word "malaise") made it impossible for him to adequately grapple with the country's problems. It was America's fault, not Jimmy Carter's. The public reaction was open disgust and the abject collapse of any support for the Carter presidency.
With Obama, we have an abundance of riches: the multiple vacations, the legal harassment of the state of Arizona on behalf of illegals, the clownish response to the Gulf oil blowout. But when historians come to select the moment when Obama went over the edge of the world, I think they'll find the great Iftar mosque speech of August 13, 2010 hard to beat.
During a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan the president found it appropriate to come out in favor of religious freedom. Not in support of Christians being attacked by janjaweed gunmen, or Bahais tormented by Iranian mullahs, or Jews being stalked by assassins, or even American citizens being told that they cannot pray in public, but in favor of a shadowy foreign foundation with suspicious financing and disturbing Jihadi connections that wishes to build some kind of victory monument congruent to the site of the 9/11 massacre.
These doomsday statements work by putting previous suspicions and surmises about the president -- always negative -- into sharp relief, acting as verification and confirmation. Nixon had suffered a reputation as a conniver since his knock-down, drag-out 1950 battle against Helen Gahagan Douglas (it was Douglas who coined the "Tricky Dick" nickname). The tape gap fit so perfectly into that narrative as to crowd out everything else. Carter's inept performance as president was rendered even harder to bear by his continual sanctimony and moral preening. The malaise speech merely added the patina of a whiner.
With Obama, suspicions have involved his status as an American. The foreign parentage, the registration in an Indonesian school noting him as a Muslim, the uproar over the birth certificate, aroused misgivings that, despite media scorn heaped upon those noting them, he has never quite been able to put to rest. As of last weekend, his opportunities to do so are ended. Impressions trump arguments, and for most of the country, Obama will, from here on in, be a strange and untrustworthy figure -- a man who does not understand what Ground Zero means to America, who utilizes American law and custom to support foreign interests, who speaks to strangers more clearly than to his own.
Nothing either Nixon or Carter did enabled them to recover from their faux pas. Even as the tape gap story broke, Nixon was supervising a massive airlift of supplies and ammunition to Israel, which was involved in life-or-death struggle against massive Arab attack in the Yom Kippur War. It gained him nothing, scarcely earning a mention amid all the public speculation about Watergate. Less than three months after the Carter speech, Iranian "students" (actually professional revolutionaries under the control of the Ayatollah Khomeini) sacked the American embassy in Tehran, taking nearly a hundred American hostages. I can attest that I was not alone in thinking, "Great -- and we've got Mr. Malaise is charge." The year-and a-half-long hostage crisis, climaxed by the disastrous Eagle Claw rescue mission, hastened the collapse of the worst presidency of the later 20th century.
The past two years are the best Obama will ever see. The real crises of his presidency are still to come, and are easily visible as they move toward us -- Iran, terrorism, the economy, the collapse of the national health care system hastened by his own policies. He will meet them under a cloud of his own making, attempting to overcome them as a president who takes endless vacations, who will not defend his country's borders, who sat out the Gulf oil crisis, who overlooks the sacrifices of his own countrymen in favor of dubious foreign figures.
Some lines of Shakespeare occurred to me while Obama was dawdling over a response to the oil blowout. They can also serve to cover the entire morass:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads us to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
The tide has gone out for Barack Obama. It is all epilogue from here on in.
There comes a moment in a failing presidency where the incumbent, through some single gesture, action, or statement, crosses a certain line from beyond which there is no return. Through his own will and behavior he so underlines his failings, so frames his negative image, that no further action can ever erase it. Fate, accident, and circumstance have nothing to do with it. It is the president himself who puts the period at the end of his own sentence.
Such moments are obvious in retrospect, though not always at the time. With Richard Nixon, it was the "eighteen-minute gap." An oval office tape recording turned over to Judge John Sirica, who was overseeing the investigation of the Watergate incident, turned out to have a lengthy period of silence smack dab in the middle of a conversation between Nixon and chief of staff H.R. Haldeman. The White House claimed that Rose Mary Woods, the president's secretary, had inadvertently hit the wrong button for those eighteen minutes. This might well have been true, but in light of Nixon's long reputation as Tricky Dick, it sounded like the cock-and-bull story to end them all. Nixon had been holding his own in the Watergate battle up to that point. The voting public viewed the uproar with bemusement rather than indignation. But the tape gap finished him. In less than a year, he was forced into resignation.
For Jimmy Carter, it was the "malaise speech" of July 15, 1979, in which he attempted to shuffle the blame for his tepid performance as president from his own administration onto the shoulders of the American people. Carter claimed that a national "crisis of confidence" (he never actually used the word "malaise") made it impossible for him to adequately grapple with the country's problems. It was America's fault, not Jimmy Carter's. The public reaction was open disgust and the abject collapse of any support for the Carter presidency.
With Obama, we have an abundance of riches: the multiple vacations, the legal harassment of the state of Arizona on behalf of illegals, the clownish response to the Gulf oil blowout. But when historians come to select the moment when Obama went over the edge of the world, I think they'll find the great Iftar mosque speech of August 13, 2010 hard to beat.
During a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan the president found it appropriate to come out in favor of religious freedom. Not in support of Christians being attacked by janjaweed gunmen, or Bahais tormented by Iranian mullahs, or Jews being stalked by assassins, or even American citizens being told that they cannot pray in public, but in favor of a shadowy foreign foundation with suspicious financing and disturbing Jihadi connections that wishes to build some kind of victory monument congruent to the site of the 9/11 massacre.
These doomsday statements work by putting previous suspicions and surmises about the president -- always negative -- into sharp relief, acting as verification and confirmation. Nixon had suffered a reputation as a conniver since his knock-down, drag-out 1950 battle against Helen Gahagan Douglas (it was Douglas who coined the "Tricky Dick" nickname). The tape gap fit so perfectly into that narrative as to crowd out everything else. Carter's inept performance as president was rendered even harder to bear by his continual sanctimony and moral preening. The malaise speech merely added the patina of a whiner.
With Obama, suspicions have involved his status as an American. The foreign parentage, the registration in an Indonesian school noting him as a Muslim, the uproar over the birth certificate, aroused misgivings that, despite media scorn heaped upon those noting them, he has never quite been able to put to rest. As of last weekend, his opportunities to do so are ended. Impressions trump arguments, and for most of the country, Obama will, from here on in, be a strange and untrustworthy figure -- a man who does not understand what Ground Zero means to America, who utilizes American law and custom to support foreign interests, who speaks to strangers more clearly than to his own.
Nothing either Nixon or Carter did enabled them to recover from their faux pas. Even as the tape gap story broke, Nixon was supervising a massive airlift of supplies and ammunition to Israel, which was involved in life-or-death struggle against massive Arab attack in the Yom Kippur War. It gained him nothing, scarcely earning a mention amid all the public speculation about Watergate. Less than three months after the Carter speech, Iranian "students" (actually professional revolutionaries under the control of the Ayatollah Khomeini) sacked the American embassy in Tehran, taking nearly a hundred American hostages. I can attest that I was not alone in thinking, "Great -- and we've got Mr. Malaise is charge." The year-and a-half-long hostage crisis, climaxed by the disastrous Eagle Claw rescue mission, hastened the collapse of the worst presidency of the later 20th century.
The past two years are the best Obama will ever see. The real crises of his presidency are still to come, and are easily visible as they move toward us -- Iran, terrorism, the economy, the collapse of the national health care system hastened by his own policies. He will meet them under a cloud of his own making, attempting to overcome them as a president who takes endless vacations, who will not defend his country's borders, who sat out the Gulf oil crisis, who overlooks the sacrifices of his own countrymen in favor of dubious foreign figures.
Some lines of Shakespeare occurred to me while Obama was dawdling over a response to the oil blowout. They can also serve to cover the entire morass:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads us to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
The tide has gone out for Barack Obama. It is all epilogue from here on in.
Western profits wilt on China's surging wages
Rising wage and production costs in China are eating into the profits of Western companies and may soon set off an exodus of multinational companies to cheaper locations.
A report by Credit Suisse said the vast majority of US and European companies in China are expecting a "margin hit" over the next 12 months and fear they will not be able to pass on the costs to consumers, with the biggest worrries in electronics, clothing, and retail.
The bank said Footlocker, Liz Claiborne, and Office Depot would tip into outright loss in a worst-case scenario, defined as a 20pc rise in costs without any pass-through to customers.
Earnings per share would fall 72pc for Jones Apparel, 50pc for Maidenform Brands and Dollar Tree, 42pc for Macy's, 39pc for Target, and 20pc for Polo Ralph Lauren. Reliance on Chinese plants is suddenly proving double-edged. "We conclude that labour and transportation cost pressures are a major concern for executives that may be under-appreciated by investors," it said.
The US industrial giant General Electric raised eyebrows in May with plans to shift production of its hybrid water heater from China back to Kentucky next year after securing lower wages from US workers. The company cited the narrowing pay gap, lower transport costs, and shorter delivery times.
China's manufacturing wages have vaulted from around $1,000 annually 10 years ago, to $3,900 last year. Pay in the industrial hubs of the Pearl River and Yangtze River deltas are much higher and likely to rise further after a wave of industrial disputes at Foxconn, Honda, Toyota, and Omron.
Bruce Rockowitz, head of the pan-Asian logistics group Li & Fung, said cost pressures are rippling through the region. "It's not just China going up: its everywhere," he said.
It is unclear whether this will drive up inflation for imported goods in the West, reversing the benign phase of globalisation seen over the last fifteen years, or whether multinationals will adjust to constrained demand in the US, Europe, and Japan by slashing margins, or a mixture of the two.
Credit Suisse's survey of executives found that 55pc of foreign firms in China could relocate plant to Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia or other low-cost regions relatively easily, though it would be costly. There are winners too, such as Yum Brands poised to reap the harvest from rising Chinese consumption.
The changing landscape has major implications for Chinese exporters, with an average profit margin of just 3pc. High-tech companies in wind power, solar, and transmission equipment that have recently broken into world markets will face stiffer headwinds. The Shanghai Composite Index of Chinese equities has been lagging all year on fears of a profit squeeze. The bourse is down 20pc since last November.
The erosion of export margins may explain why Beijing is still dragging its feet on a revaluation of the yuan, despite ever louder calls for retaliatory sanctions in Washington. China's currency has fallen slightly on a trade weighted-basis since the dollar-peg was replaced in May by a crawling band, a clear sign that the authorities are worried that the economy is cooling too fast. Beijing has tried cool the property boom with credit curbs but it is hard to use such tools in a surgical fashion without collateral damage. The growth of factory output ground to a halt in July, on a month-on-month basis.
China's foreign investment body SAFE has bought record amounts of bonds from Japan, Korea and other Asian countries over the last three months. While this is part of a normal shift away from the US and Europe, it is also a way for Beijing to hold down its currency against these competitors. It is difficult to separate motives in such a policy.
Higher wages are bringing about the outcome that would have occurred by other means if the currency had been allowed to rise over the years, properly reflecting China's growing trade surplus.
Rising pay is both healthy and natural as China jumps up the global wealth ladder. It is a welcome sign of rebalancing in the world economy, provided that China does not try to resist it by driving the currency lower.
Diana Choyleva from Lombard Street Research said China has a delicate task ahead. Rampant overheating has given way to a "sharp cyclical downswing", yet China cannot easily unleash another stimulus blitz without risking inflation. They are in the "nasty quadrant " of the economic cycle where all choices are hard, though China is not as far gone as over-cooked India.
Beijing may have manoeuvred itself into a policy swamp by relying on tiger-style export growth for so long with a suppressed currency instead of boosting domestic demand. Consumption has fallen from 47pc of GDP in 1998 to 35pc, the flip-side of over-investment in excess capacity. It will be tricky for China to extricate itself smoothly from such extreme imbalances.
Meanwhile, China Daily reports that 70pc of all flats in Hainan, 66pc in Beijing, and 51pc in Shanghai are empty, based on a survey of electricity use. They are presumably owned by investors and speculators.
Given that the "cohort" of young people aged 20 to 30 currently joining the workforce is now contracting as China's demographic crunch starts to bite, this property glut looks all too like the bubble peaks in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore in the 1990s.
A report by Credit Suisse said the vast majority of US and European companies in China are expecting a "margin hit" over the next 12 months and fear they will not be able to pass on the costs to consumers, with the biggest worrries in electronics, clothing, and retail.
The bank said Footlocker, Liz Claiborne, and Office Depot would tip into outright loss in a worst-case scenario, defined as a 20pc rise in costs without any pass-through to customers.
Earnings per share would fall 72pc for Jones Apparel, 50pc for Maidenform Brands and Dollar Tree, 42pc for Macy's, 39pc for Target, and 20pc for Polo Ralph Lauren. Reliance on Chinese plants is suddenly proving double-edged. "We conclude that labour and transportation cost pressures are a major concern for executives that may be under-appreciated by investors," it said.
The US industrial giant General Electric raised eyebrows in May with plans to shift production of its hybrid water heater from China back to Kentucky next year after securing lower wages from US workers. The company cited the narrowing pay gap, lower transport costs, and shorter delivery times.
China's manufacturing wages have vaulted from around $1,000 annually 10 years ago, to $3,900 last year. Pay in the industrial hubs of the Pearl River and Yangtze River deltas are much higher and likely to rise further after a wave of industrial disputes at Foxconn, Honda, Toyota, and Omron.
Bruce Rockowitz, head of the pan-Asian logistics group Li & Fung, said cost pressures are rippling through the region. "It's not just China going up: its everywhere," he said.
It is unclear whether this will drive up inflation for imported goods in the West, reversing the benign phase of globalisation seen over the last fifteen years, or whether multinationals will adjust to constrained demand in the US, Europe, and Japan by slashing margins, or a mixture of the two.
Credit Suisse's survey of executives found that 55pc of foreign firms in China could relocate plant to Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia or other low-cost regions relatively easily, though it would be costly. There are winners too, such as Yum Brands poised to reap the harvest from rising Chinese consumption.
The changing landscape has major implications for Chinese exporters, with an average profit margin of just 3pc. High-tech companies in wind power, solar, and transmission equipment that have recently broken into world markets will face stiffer headwinds. The Shanghai Composite Index of Chinese equities has been lagging all year on fears of a profit squeeze. The bourse is down 20pc since last November.
The erosion of export margins may explain why Beijing is still dragging its feet on a revaluation of the yuan, despite ever louder calls for retaliatory sanctions in Washington. China's currency has fallen slightly on a trade weighted-basis since the dollar-peg was replaced in May by a crawling band, a clear sign that the authorities are worried that the economy is cooling too fast. Beijing has tried cool the property boom with credit curbs but it is hard to use such tools in a surgical fashion without collateral damage. The growth of factory output ground to a halt in July, on a month-on-month basis.
China's foreign investment body SAFE has bought record amounts of bonds from Japan, Korea and other Asian countries over the last three months. While this is part of a normal shift away from the US and Europe, it is also a way for Beijing to hold down its currency against these competitors. It is difficult to separate motives in such a policy.
Higher wages are bringing about the outcome that would have occurred by other means if the currency had been allowed to rise over the years, properly reflecting China's growing trade surplus.
Rising pay is both healthy and natural as China jumps up the global wealth ladder. It is a welcome sign of rebalancing in the world economy, provided that China does not try to resist it by driving the currency lower.
Diana Choyleva from Lombard Street Research said China has a delicate task ahead. Rampant overheating has given way to a "sharp cyclical downswing", yet China cannot easily unleash another stimulus blitz without risking inflation. They are in the "nasty quadrant " of the economic cycle where all choices are hard, though China is not as far gone as over-cooked India.
Beijing may have manoeuvred itself into a policy swamp by relying on tiger-style export growth for so long with a suppressed currency instead of boosting domestic demand. Consumption has fallen from 47pc of GDP in 1998 to 35pc, the flip-side of over-investment in excess capacity. It will be tricky for China to extricate itself smoothly from such extreme imbalances.
Meanwhile, China Daily reports that 70pc of all flats in Hainan, 66pc in Beijing, and 51pc in Shanghai are empty, based on a survey of electricity use. They are presumably owned by investors and speculators.
Given that the "cohort" of young people aged 20 to 30 currently joining the workforce is now contracting as China's demographic crunch starts to bite, this property glut looks all too like the bubble peaks in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore in the 1990s.
George Soros slashes exposure to US equities
The legendary investor's Soros Fund Management – which has approximately $25bn (£16bn) under management – reduced its equity investments by 42pc to $5.1bn by the end of June, down from $8.8bn at the end of March.
The asset allocation decisions were made during a period in which the Standard & Poor's 500 index – the broadest US equity index – fell 12pc
The fact that Mr Soros – best known as the man reputed to have made $1bn by "breaking the Bank of England" during the 1992 fiscal crisis – has decided to make such a concerted shift out of equities will send a clear message to other investors.
Gone are Soros's investments in Petrobras, Brazil's oil giant, with investments in bellwether stocks such as Wal-Mart, JP Morgan Chase and Pfizer drastically reduced, cut by 99pc, 97pc and 95pc respectively.
Of those equities that do remain, the fund's holding in a gold exchange traded fund constitutes his largest investment, some 13pc of the equity portfolio, worth $638m.
Although neither Mr Soros of his fund typically do not explain their quarterly investment decisions, it is likely some of the money has been shifted into government bonds, as well as investing in commodities and other safe havens.
The quarterly report – filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission – details investments only in US-traded shares and related derivatives, and the fund does not have to detail overseas shares or cash or commodities held.
A spokesman for Mr Soros did not comment.
The asset allocation decisions were made during a period in which the Standard & Poor's 500 index – the broadest US equity index – fell 12pc
The fact that Mr Soros – best known as the man reputed to have made $1bn by "breaking the Bank of England" during the 1992 fiscal crisis – has decided to make such a concerted shift out of equities will send a clear message to other investors.
Gone are Soros's investments in Petrobras, Brazil's oil giant, with investments in bellwether stocks such as Wal-Mart, JP Morgan Chase and Pfizer drastically reduced, cut by 99pc, 97pc and 95pc respectively.
Of those equities that do remain, the fund's holding in a gold exchange traded fund constitutes his largest investment, some 13pc of the equity portfolio, worth $638m.
Although neither Mr Soros of his fund typically do not explain their quarterly investment decisions, it is likely some of the money has been shifted into government bonds, as well as investing in commodities and other safe havens.
The quarterly report – filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission – details investments only in US-traded shares and related derivatives, and the fund does not have to detail overseas shares or cash or commodities held.
A spokesman for Mr Soros did not comment.
9/11 Families: Pelosi Has Lost Her Mind
NEW YORK (CBS 2) — President Barack Obama said Wednesday he has “no regrets” about speaking out about the so-called ground zero mosque, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have some.
CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reports she is being roundly attacked here for what some call “un-American” remarks about those opposing the mosque.
On Wednesday Pelosi became the latest politician embroiled in the ground zero mosque controversy with what can only be regarded as eye-popping remarks.
“There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some and I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” Pelosi said.
Families of the 9/11 tragedy immediately jumped all over the top House Democrat.
“I think it’s outrageous. She’s investigating 9/11 families whose sons were murdered on 9/11 rather than look at foreign entities that sponsor terrorism? I think she has her priorities mixed up and she’s lost her mind,” said Jim Riches, a former firefighter who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks.
“They can look into all our funding. We’re regular families, regular citizens, like people who protested in 1776. We’re ordinary citizens and she’s coming out against us because we disagree with her.”
Actually, a lot of people disagree with building a mosque at ground zero.
A new Siena poll found that 63 percent of New Yorkers don’t want the mosque built near ground zero. Only 27 percent support it.
However, 64 percent of voters support the right of the developer to build the mosque at ground zero compared to 28 percent who say they don’t.
Congressman Peter King, who wants to see the mosque built someplace else, was appalled by Speaker Pelosi’s remarks.
“This is absolutely disgraceful what Nancy Pelosi is doing. This is an attempt to stifle free speech,” Rep. King said.
King said Pelosi doesn’t understand that the people opposing the mosque are real people with real losses.
“This is an entirely spontaneous, grassroots level from people who suffered on Sept. 11 that are now suffering again as this mosque just tears their wounds open and pours salt into it. That’s what this movement is,” he said.
When it became clear that Pelosi’s remarks were attracting attention, her office issued a clarification, but it didn’t change much.
In the new statement, she said “We should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.”
Pelosi’s comments and the whole idea of the mosque are not sitting well with the leader of the New York Archdiocese. Archbishop Timothy Dolan called Wednesday for a “prudent compromise” to move the mosque to another location.
And Dolan is even offering to help broker the deal.
Dolan compared the so-called mosque controversy to the Carmelite nuns wanting to put a convent near the Auschwitz concentration camp. Pope John Paul II intervened and the convent found another home.
“John Paul II said why don’t we get together civilly, thoughtfully, and with dignity and maybe decide a good solution. And he’s the one who said let’s keep the idea and maybe move the address. It worked there, it might work here,” Dolan told Kramer.
Dolan, the leader of 2.5 million Catholics, said he wants to see a “prudent compromise” and he offered himself as a mediator to bring the developer Sharif el-Gamal, the 9/11 families and other interested parties to the table to work out a compromise.
“If I can be a part, say but the word. In a kind of backdoor way I think we already are,” Dolan said.
Some 9/11 families welcome the archbishop’s intervention.
“I think this is what they should have done long ago. I think it’s right. They should have all the parties come together, talk it over, come to some kind of compromise and I think the Muslim community will be shown an olive branch by trying to move the location and I think it will work out better for everyone,” Riches said.
“There is a clear relationship, a definite analogy between the Carmelite nuns at Auschwitz and the mosque at ground zero. Absolutely. Because there were Catholics killed in the Holocaust but it was primarily Jews. Yes, there were Muslims killed at ground zero but the fact is it was an attack carried out by radical Muslims and to have a mosque within 560 feet of ground zero of hallowed ground is the height of insensitivity,” Rep. King added.
King said he would like to see everyone at the table talking compromise.
“The Muslim leadership should realize that while having a mosque serves as a useful purpose, having it at ground zero is the worst location for it is causing insensitivity. It’s causing suffering and anguish. I think Archbishop Dolan is entirely right,” he said.
There was no response from the mosque developers to request for comment on Archbishop Dolan’s suggestions or his offer to mediate a compromise.
There was also no word on when the governor will meet with the developers.
Comments
stephanie
this represents this government placing this particular belief above all others destroying the hearts of those who lost loved ones and making out like we are at peace with this particular faith on this earth and we are not at peace with them for the wars are ongoing our military is still active ..it is deception and a lie…we have degraded the American public and make a mockery of the loss we felt during 9/11 and now a mockery of America and for the God we say in which we stand….to investigate families that have been so severely injured is trouble waitng and wanting to happen it is pure ignorance …
August 18, 2010 pm31 6:42 pm | Reply | Report comment
K
I must consent that the developer has the right to build in that location. Rights are what set our country apart in this world. I do think, however, that there are probably better locations in which to build, especially if the desire is to build good relations with those in NYC and this country. In this case, it seems to be more a matter of what is being built: a religious institution or better relations. Is it more important to be right about something, or even to insist upon one’s rights; or to be right with somebody?
August 18, 2010 pm31 6:43 pm | Reply | Report comment
PB
I think Jennifer Anniston said it best when she spoke of her ex-husband doing a magazine spread of a happy family with his new girlfriend after 10 years of marriage.“There’s a sensitivity chip that’s missing,” Aniston says of Pitt.
Ground Zero is a burial ground of loved one’s who were brutally murdered by radical Muslims. New York City is a big plus. C’mon build somewhere else.
This to me is a no brainer. I’m deeply saddened that this is not for others.
August 18, 2010 pm31 9:03 pm | Reply | Report comment
CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reports she is being roundly attacked here for what some call “un-American” remarks about those opposing the mosque.
On Wednesday Pelosi became the latest politician embroiled in the ground zero mosque controversy with what can only be regarded as eye-popping remarks.
“There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some and I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” Pelosi said.
Families of the 9/11 tragedy immediately jumped all over the top House Democrat.
“I think it’s outrageous. She’s investigating 9/11 families whose sons were murdered on 9/11 rather than look at foreign entities that sponsor terrorism? I think she has her priorities mixed up and she’s lost her mind,” said Jim Riches, a former firefighter who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks.
“They can look into all our funding. We’re regular families, regular citizens, like people who protested in 1776. We’re ordinary citizens and she’s coming out against us because we disagree with her.”
Actually, a lot of people disagree with building a mosque at ground zero.
A new Siena poll found that 63 percent of New Yorkers don’t want the mosque built near ground zero. Only 27 percent support it.
However, 64 percent of voters support the right of the developer to build the mosque at ground zero compared to 28 percent who say they don’t.
Congressman Peter King, who wants to see the mosque built someplace else, was appalled by Speaker Pelosi’s remarks.
“This is absolutely disgraceful what Nancy Pelosi is doing. This is an attempt to stifle free speech,” Rep. King said.
King said Pelosi doesn’t understand that the people opposing the mosque are real people with real losses.
“This is an entirely spontaneous, grassroots level from people who suffered on Sept. 11 that are now suffering again as this mosque just tears their wounds open and pours salt into it. That’s what this movement is,” he said.
When it became clear that Pelosi’s remarks were attracting attention, her office issued a clarification, but it didn’t change much.
In the new statement, she said “We should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.”
Pelosi’s comments and the whole idea of the mosque are not sitting well with the leader of the New York Archdiocese. Archbishop Timothy Dolan called Wednesday for a “prudent compromise” to move the mosque to another location.
And Dolan is even offering to help broker the deal.
Dolan compared the so-called mosque controversy to the Carmelite nuns wanting to put a convent near the Auschwitz concentration camp. Pope John Paul II intervened and the convent found another home.
“John Paul II said why don’t we get together civilly, thoughtfully, and with dignity and maybe decide a good solution. And he’s the one who said let’s keep the idea and maybe move the address. It worked there, it might work here,” Dolan told Kramer.
Dolan, the leader of 2.5 million Catholics, said he wants to see a “prudent compromise” and he offered himself as a mediator to bring the developer Sharif el-Gamal, the 9/11 families and other interested parties to the table to work out a compromise.
“If I can be a part, say but the word. In a kind of backdoor way I think we already are,” Dolan said.
Some 9/11 families welcome the archbishop’s intervention.
“I think this is what they should have done long ago. I think it’s right. They should have all the parties come together, talk it over, come to some kind of compromise and I think the Muslim community will be shown an olive branch by trying to move the location and I think it will work out better for everyone,” Riches said.
“There is a clear relationship, a definite analogy between the Carmelite nuns at Auschwitz and the mosque at ground zero. Absolutely. Because there were Catholics killed in the Holocaust but it was primarily Jews. Yes, there were Muslims killed at ground zero but the fact is it was an attack carried out by radical Muslims and to have a mosque within 560 feet of ground zero of hallowed ground is the height of insensitivity,” Rep. King added.
King said he would like to see everyone at the table talking compromise.
“The Muslim leadership should realize that while having a mosque serves as a useful purpose, having it at ground zero is the worst location for it is causing insensitivity. It’s causing suffering and anguish. I think Archbishop Dolan is entirely right,” he said.
There was no response from the mosque developers to request for comment on Archbishop Dolan’s suggestions or his offer to mediate a compromise.
There was also no word on when the governor will meet with the developers.
Comments
stephanie
this represents this government placing this particular belief above all others destroying the hearts of those who lost loved ones and making out like we are at peace with this particular faith on this earth and we are not at peace with them for the wars are ongoing our military is still active ..it is deception and a lie…we have degraded the American public and make a mockery of the loss we felt during 9/11 and now a mockery of America and for the God we say in which we stand….to investigate families that have been so severely injured is trouble waitng and wanting to happen it is pure ignorance …
August 18, 2010 pm31 6:42 pm | Reply | Report comment
K
I must consent that the developer has the right to build in that location. Rights are what set our country apart in this world. I do think, however, that there are probably better locations in which to build, especially if the desire is to build good relations with those in NYC and this country. In this case, it seems to be more a matter of what is being built: a religious institution or better relations. Is it more important to be right about something, or even to insist upon one’s rights; or to be right with somebody?
August 18, 2010 pm31 6:43 pm | Reply | Report comment
PB
I think Jennifer Anniston said it best when she spoke of her ex-husband doing a magazine spread of a happy family with his new girlfriend after 10 years of marriage.“There’s a sensitivity chip that’s missing,” Aniston says of Pitt.
Ground Zero is a burial ground of loved one’s who were brutally murdered by radical Muslims. New York City is a big plus. C’mon build somewhere else.
This to me is a no brainer. I’m deeply saddened that this is not for others.
August 18, 2010 pm31 9:03 pm | Reply | Report comment
Free Republic Rocks Nancy Pelosi's World With Scoop on Threat to 9/11 Mosque Opponents
Wednesday, August 18, 2010 | Kristinn
Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:44:12 AM by kristinn
Free Republic rocked Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) world by breaking the story about her menacing comments calling for the investigation of critics of the location of the Cordoba House mosque planned for the neighborhood of the World Trade Center site of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York City.
Two San Francisco media outlets reported on Pelosi's press conference where she made the remarks, but neither one saw fit to report them. Fortunately one of those outlets, KCBS, posted an audio recording. The other, the San Francisco Chronicle, posted a video that had bad audio rendering the menacing comments inaudible.
I had posted the Chronicle article which highlighted Pelosi appearing to dodge the issue by saying it was a local zoning issue for New Yorkers to decide. Afterward I found the audio file at KCBS and listened to it. When I heard Pelosi say the things that weren't being reported I knew this was something that was potentially explosive. So I transcribed the relevant parts, wrote up an article and posted it to Free Republic at 10:21 p.m. EDT.
Soon after the Washington Times picked up the story and from there it went to Twitter and then to other sites like Atlas Shrugged and Breitbart.
The story percolated over night in the blogosphere and on Twitter until the Washington Times report hit the Drudge Report--first as a headline and then as the lead story with a banner headline and a photo of Pelosi that stayed up most of the day.
Pelosi's threat was reported by the major political sites like The Hill, The Washington Examiner and Politico, as well as NRO, Hot Air and Powerline. The story also dominated talk radio shows including Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
By early afternoon when Pelosi issued a clarifying statement that reiterated her call to investigate the mosque critics, it was too late to soften the blowblack.
That didn't stop the mainstream media from trying. The AP, AFP, the Washington Post and other mainstream media wrote their first articles about Pelosi's comments after she released her clarification. What was missing from most of the articles though was reactions from 9/11 families and others to Pelosi's threats.
An exception was WCBS in New York which posted a story with the scathing headline: 9/11 Families: Pelosi Has Lost Her Mind.
The Hill was nearly alone in reporting on Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) response calling Pelosi's comments a threat to 9/11 families.
The Hill was also virtually alone in reporting Rep. Dan Lundgren's (R-CA) rebuke of Pelosi.
Thanks to Free Republic, millions of Americans became aware today of Pelosi's totalitarian threat to investigate them and put her on the defensive.
I've posted this not to pat myself on the back or to get attaboys, but to show how valuable is Free Republic. Without a Freeper taking the time to dig a little deeper in the story, Pelosi most likely would have gotten away with her threat.
Other Freepers, like Buckhead and icwhatudo to name two, have profoundly affected the national political landscape with their posts on Free Republic.
As we approach the critical November elections, vigilant resourceful Freepers will be needed now more than ever to root out what the politicians and the mainstream media don't want us to know.
Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:44:12 AM by kristinn
Free Republic rocked Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) world by breaking the story about her menacing comments calling for the investigation of critics of the location of the Cordoba House mosque planned for the neighborhood of the World Trade Center site of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York City.
Two San Francisco media outlets reported on Pelosi's press conference where she made the remarks, but neither one saw fit to report them. Fortunately one of those outlets, KCBS, posted an audio recording. The other, the San Francisco Chronicle, posted a video that had bad audio rendering the menacing comments inaudible.
I had posted the Chronicle article which highlighted Pelosi appearing to dodge the issue by saying it was a local zoning issue for New Yorkers to decide. Afterward I found the audio file at KCBS and listened to it. When I heard Pelosi say the things that weren't being reported I knew this was something that was potentially explosive. So I transcribed the relevant parts, wrote up an article and posted it to Free Republic at 10:21 p.m. EDT.
Soon after the Washington Times picked up the story and from there it went to Twitter and then to other sites like Atlas Shrugged and Breitbart.
The story percolated over night in the blogosphere and on Twitter until the Washington Times report hit the Drudge Report--first as a headline and then as the lead story with a banner headline and a photo of Pelosi that stayed up most of the day.
Pelosi's threat was reported by the major political sites like The Hill, The Washington Examiner and Politico, as well as NRO, Hot Air and Powerline. The story also dominated talk radio shows including Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
By early afternoon when Pelosi issued a clarifying statement that reiterated her call to investigate the mosque critics, it was too late to soften the blowblack.
That didn't stop the mainstream media from trying. The AP, AFP, the Washington Post and other mainstream media wrote their first articles about Pelosi's comments after she released her clarification. What was missing from most of the articles though was reactions from 9/11 families and others to Pelosi's threats.
An exception was WCBS in New York which posted a story with the scathing headline: 9/11 Families: Pelosi Has Lost Her Mind.
The Hill was nearly alone in reporting on Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) response calling Pelosi's comments a threat to 9/11 families.
The Hill was also virtually alone in reporting Rep. Dan Lundgren's (R-CA) rebuke of Pelosi.
Thanks to Free Republic, millions of Americans became aware today of Pelosi's totalitarian threat to investigate them and put her on the defensive.
I've posted this not to pat myself on the back or to get attaboys, but to show how valuable is Free Republic. Without a Freeper taking the time to dig a little deeper in the story, Pelosi most likely would have gotten away with her threat.
Other Freepers, like Buckhead and icwhatudo to name two, have profoundly affected the national political landscape with their posts on Free Republic.
As we approach the critical November elections, vigilant resourceful Freepers will be needed now more than ever to root out what the politicians and the mainstream media don't want us to know.
Obama Reaches New Low on Handling Economy
Poor Performance in Poll Could Mean Democratic Candidates Won't Want President Stumping for Them
(CBS) In a new poll released Wednesday, the same day General Motors announced its intention to shed government-controlled ownership to return as a public company, President Obama received his lowest marks yet for his handling of the economy.
In a sunny backyard in Columbus, Ohio, the president insisted the economy is improving and that his policies are helping propel the recovery, CBS News Correspondent Chip Reid reports.
"We are on the right track," Mr. Obama said. 'The economy is getting stronger."
There was no argument from the friendly group, but the American people overall are not buying it.
In a new poll by the Associated Press, just 41 percent of Americans approve of the president's performance on the economy, his lowest in that poll yet. Sixty-one percent say the economy has gotten worse or stayed the same during the president's term.
At an unemployment center outside of Cleveland, Rick Sippola said he had to close down his trucking supply business because he couldn't get a loan. He blames the president.
"I think he's been too hard on the regulations on the banks," Sippola said.
In all, 130,000 jobs have been lost in Ohio since the president was sworn in, and the unemployment rate here is 10.5 percent.
All that economic pain has angry voters in Ohio looking for someone to blame, and since Democrats are in charge Election Day for them could be a disaster.
The state's top two Democrats are both behind in the polls, Gov. Ted Strickland running for re-election and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher running for the Senate.
The seats of four Democratic House members from Ohio - John Boccieri, Steve Driehaus, Mary Jo Kilroy and Betty Sutton - are also threatened.
The president raised money for Ohio Democrats Wednesday, but with his popularity here plunging, being on stage with him could hurt more than it helps.
"It could have a negative impact because he energizes Republicans probably more than he does Democrats," Joe Hallett, senior editor of The Columbus Dispatch, said.
The president Wednesday again blamed the Bush administration for the recession, but that argument doesn't seem to be hurting Rob Portman, a top official in the Bush White House who's leading in his race against Fisher for Ohio's open Senate seat.
"Elections are about the future, about 'Who's got a better plan to help me and my family,'" Portman said.
The president said Wednesday it will take a few years to dig out of such a deep recession, but with Election Day only 11 weeks away many here in Ohio are running out of patience.
by sven655 August 18, 2010 8:54 PM EDT
These idiots in congress pis_ed away nearly a trillion bucks - money we don't have - in a 'stimulus bill' made up of union kickbacks and support of state jobs, and some of the most ridiculous 'green projects' I have ever seen - such as factories to build all-electric trucks and projects to restore dead-bug-collections at UCLA. Create jobs? Hardly. All they did was preserve union jobs at the expense of people that work for a living. And how about the $40 million geothermal energy plant for an empty mall in Oregon ? (it was empty before, and it still is).
The progressive thieves have no idea how a free economy functions. They want to nationalize all of our remaining industry and then give the citizens 'what they need' as a socialist nation. Freeloading fleabags!
Throw the scum-weavles out before they bring the entire place down around our ears.
by mrsb8 August 18, 2010 8:45 PM EDT
Interesting how they really don't mention the specific fundraising event that Obama headed to after his "backyard chat". He was downtown raising money for Strickland (horrible Governor).
I would find his little "backyard chat" more authentic if he hadn't brought the press along and had just talked to the family and neighbors without flashbulbs and cameras rolling.
by Quantrill13 August 18, 2010 8:05 PM EDT
How do you "hope and changers" like Barry Obama now? He has no clue how to govern a PTA meeting, much less America! What a joke!
(CBS) In a new poll released Wednesday, the same day General Motors announced its intention to shed government-controlled ownership to return as a public company, President Obama received his lowest marks yet for his handling of the economy.
In a sunny backyard in Columbus, Ohio, the president insisted the economy is improving and that his policies are helping propel the recovery, CBS News Correspondent Chip Reid reports.
"We are on the right track," Mr. Obama said. 'The economy is getting stronger."
There was no argument from the friendly group, but the American people overall are not buying it.
In a new poll by the Associated Press, just 41 percent of Americans approve of the president's performance on the economy, his lowest in that poll yet. Sixty-one percent say the economy has gotten worse or stayed the same during the president's term.
At an unemployment center outside of Cleveland, Rick Sippola said he had to close down his trucking supply business because he couldn't get a loan. He blames the president.
"I think he's been too hard on the regulations on the banks," Sippola said.
In all, 130,000 jobs have been lost in Ohio since the president was sworn in, and the unemployment rate here is 10.5 percent.
All that economic pain has angry voters in Ohio looking for someone to blame, and since Democrats are in charge Election Day for them could be a disaster.
The state's top two Democrats are both behind in the polls, Gov. Ted Strickland running for re-election and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher running for the Senate.
The seats of four Democratic House members from Ohio - John Boccieri, Steve Driehaus, Mary Jo Kilroy and Betty Sutton - are also threatened.
The president raised money for Ohio Democrats Wednesday, but with his popularity here plunging, being on stage with him could hurt more than it helps.
"It could have a negative impact because he energizes Republicans probably more than he does Democrats," Joe Hallett, senior editor of The Columbus Dispatch, said.
The president Wednesday again blamed the Bush administration for the recession, but that argument doesn't seem to be hurting Rob Portman, a top official in the Bush White House who's leading in his race against Fisher for Ohio's open Senate seat.
"Elections are about the future, about 'Who's got a better plan to help me and my family,'" Portman said.
The president said Wednesday it will take a few years to dig out of such a deep recession, but with Election Day only 11 weeks away many here in Ohio are running out of patience.
by sven655 August 18, 2010 8:54 PM EDT
These idiots in congress pis_ed away nearly a trillion bucks - money we don't have - in a 'stimulus bill' made up of union kickbacks and support of state jobs, and some of the most ridiculous 'green projects' I have ever seen - such as factories to build all-electric trucks and projects to restore dead-bug-collections at UCLA. Create jobs? Hardly. All they did was preserve union jobs at the expense of people that work for a living. And how about the $40 million geothermal energy plant for an empty mall in Oregon ? (it was empty before, and it still is).
The progressive thieves have no idea how a free economy functions. They want to nationalize all of our remaining industry and then give the citizens 'what they need' as a socialist nation. Freeloading fleabags!
Throw the scum-weavles out before they bring the entire place down around our ears.
by mrsb8 August 18, 2010 8:45 PM EDT
Interesting how they really don't mention the specific fundraising event that Obama headed to after his "backyard chat". He was downtown raising money for Strickland (horrible Governor).
I would find his little "backyard chat" more authentic if he hadn't brought the press along and had just talked to the family and neighbors without flashbulbs and cameras rolling.
by Quantrill13 August 18, 2010 8:05 PM EDT
How do you "hope and changers" like Barry Obama now? He has no clue how to govern a PTA meeting, much less America! What a joke!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
