Thursday, June 19, 2008

Recession much?

If you aren't paying attention, now would be a good time to start.
clipped from news.bbc.co.uk


Global credit crunch, facts and figures

The panic in world financial markets has led to sharp falls in share prices and led to the contraction of credit markets. BBC News looks at how key indicators around the world have moved as recession fears grow.

MARKET DATA - 18:30 UK


FTSE 100
5708.4down
-48.50
Dax
6721.2down
-7.74
Cac 40
4591.4down
-27.36
Dow Jones
12038.2up
9.11
Nasdaq
2448.9up
19.22
S&P 500
1338.6up
0.77
BBC Global 30
5486.0down
-72.61
open Marketwatch ticker

Graph
Graph
Graphic




Twelve months ago interest rates were 5.25%. By 30 January they had dropped to 3%. They are now 2.25%, as of 18 March.

Graphic




Wall Street bank Bear Stearns collapsed
when other banks lost confidence in the value of its investments in sub-prime mortgages. It was bought by JPMorgan Chase in March.


Underlying the financial market wobblies is a real decline in US house prices nationwide for the first time since the 1930s.

Graph

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

From masbury, Clipmarks.com

My remarks: Looks now like it's the Republican party that needs to re-think what it is they stand for. And it looks like McCain has an uphill battle ahead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92% of max Bush contributors not giving now; Iraq concern

"I always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government. And if you want a smaller government, you don’t want wars — especially wars that can be avoided."
clipped from thinkprogress.org

Citing Iraq opposition, former Bush donors are reluctant to donate to McCain.»

A CQ analysis shows that only about 8 percent of the 62,800 donors who gave the maximum contribution of $2,000 to Bush in 2004 had given to McCain as of April 30. Moreover, at least 46 of Bush’s 2004 donors have contributed significantly to both Obama and Clinton but are not listed as McCain donors. One, a lifelong Republican who donated $2,000 to Bush in 2004, said that he will not donate to McCain because of the senator’s fervent support of the Iraq war:

I always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government. And if you want a smaller government, you don’t want wars — especially wars that can be avoided.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Obama Vs McCain: Pundits Weigh In

Click the links for full text. I agree with much of what they have to say. What do you think?
clipped from news.bbc.co.uk


Viewpoints: Obama versus McCain

The big battle for the White House is about start. Who has the wind behind him, Barack Obama or John McCain? What hurdles do they face and what strategies can they employ to overcome them? Five leading US pundits give their views.


Click on the links below to read what they have to say.


Larry J Sabato, University of Virginia



Tom Mann, Brookings Institution.


Karlyn Bowman, American Enterprise Institute




Tony Fabrizio, Republican pollster



Walter Shapiro, Salon.com


Friday, June 6, 2008

From DanaGarett on Clipmarks.com

My remarks: Justice would be served by taking GW out of office in handcuffs, landing him at Guantanamo or some other such place (he wouldn't know where it was because he would be taken there blindfolded) and using **US APPROVED** torture tactics on him until he confesses the entire plot that he & his administration used to destroy America for their personal betterment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Then, Let's All Say It Together: IMPEACH!
If they lied to Congress and the American people, then impeach them. If lying about a BJ is impeachable, then lying about the reasons for going to a ruinous war ought to be impeachable. This is not complicated.
Claims by U.S. President George W. Bush and other top administration officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq regarding Baghdad’s ties to al Qaeda and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes were generally not supported by the evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had at the time, according to a major new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Thursday.
The long-awaited report,
found that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, frequently made assertions in the run-up to the war that key intelligence agencies could not substantiate or about which there was substantial disagreement within the intelligence community
“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent,” the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

YES WE CAN!

The day so many of us have been waiting for. !Viva la revolution!

Apparently the US has learned nothing from its history

Let's call a spade a spade here: the Terror Watch List is racial profiling at is worst. But it isn't even just Arabs and those from the Middle East that are getting the brunt of it. According to Government testimony, the list has swelled in the past ~7 years to contain more than 880,000 names, and is growing by 20,000 names per month. Certainly every name is not unique to a specific individual, as evidenced by the fact that the Redress system created by the government in February has nearly 72,000 names on it, all of innocent travelers who are commonly mis-flagged at the airports.
In addition to the uncontrolled growth of the list, the Americans for Terror Watch List Reform cite this as part of their cause:
Civil Liberties. Uncertainty surrounding the list infringes on individual civil liberties. Procedures to get off the list are classified for national security reasons. Access to the list has grown, raising concerns beyond minor hassles at the airport. Americans on the list can be denied mortgages and student loans, lose their jobs, be labeled as terror suspects on routine traffic stops, or be detained traveling abroad.

Wired.com reports that despite the high number of mis-flags, as well as other inconveniences of being on the list such as electronic money transfers, the government still has not set up any sort of system to clear innocent names. The same individuals and families therefore receive repeated harassment from agents of the US Government, and no one is any safer.

What we have here folks is the modern-day internment camp. Individuals are singled out based on race or religion, harassed, and made to suffer needlessly in the name of "national security".
Says Ahmad Al-Akhras, Ph.D in an article on freepress.org:
Like racial profiling, the so-called Watch List hinges on a false premise that people commit crimes because of their racial, ethnic or religious background. This false premise caused huge suffering to African America, Japanese Americans and now Arab and American Muslims. The worst part of this is the assumption that practicing Islam, never mind being an activist at that, gives one an appetite for terrorism. In the process, people who are in good standing who did not commit nor had a criminal record are treated as "posing a threat to civil aviation or national security" or as "potential enemies of the state".

He adds:
Watch lists only provide false sense of security by pacifying the public with the perception of added security.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant ppl in this country who are in fact placated by the Watch List. Just like with the internment camps, the government is keeping the public in fear in order to do what they want. In WWII it was drop atomic bombs on the Japanese. Now the stakes are even higher: Civil liberties are lost, the War in Iraq ("conflict" my foot) continues, and social services for poor and struggling middle-class families are being cut, all so that we can fund a nebulous and poorly-defined "War on Terror".

Don't let your rights be eroded away. Refuse to be terrorized yourself by standing up to the War on Terror.

The Internet is at Stake

The mainstream media outlets don't want you to know, but an internal fight over censorship of the web is going down right under our noses. This doesn't just mean that your favorite porno could be cut off (goodness knows what kind of riots that would start), but it could prevent you from reading certain news outlets, seeing certain videos, or researching certain topics.
If you click the link to the story and tool around the site a little more, one of the things you will find is that there is a fight from Native American groups to stop discrimination on television. Ironically, this discrimination would be OK but reading nebulous wording of White House bills- potential laws for the country!- would not be.
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet


On April 17th, more than 600 people gathered in Dinkelspiel Auditorium at Stanford University to discuss the future of the Internet. All five FCC commissioners were on hand to listen to expert witnesses and members of the public.


Not one person on the expert panels, made up of scholars, network engineers, lawyers, and consumer advocates, defended Comcast's practices of blocking and discriminating online. While some speakers believed that Internet providers should be allowed to manage Web traffic, the majority felt as though any blocking of consumer choice or legal content was a slippery slope that would crush innovation and competition as well as free speech.


Video of the public testimony, and the rest of the hearing, is available here: http://www.vontv.net/events/080417. You can also listen to the audio archive at the FCC Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio.