Yesterday, the FT published a rather lengthy interview/analysis piece focused on the new President-Elect of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev. The man whom nobody (you know, other than Vlad the Impaler) knows had some rather choice things to say. It's a long piece, but it's good.

A few highlights of the article:

{...}Mr Medvedev’s inauguration on May 7 will mark a unique moment in Russian history. For the first time a Russian leader – whether tsar, Communist general secretary or post-communist president – will voluntarily leave office on time and at the height of his popularity. Yet it also heralds the start of a risky experiment. Mr Putin will leave the presidency but stay on as prime minister, in what some see as merely a ruse to remain in power. Others warn it could create a dual-headed power structure, which has spelt instability in Russia’s troubled past.

The president-elect insists the arrangement can work. He describes it as a “tandem”, in which both men understand the division of labour spelt out in the constitution. Mr Medvedev, as president, will set the priorities in domestic and foreign policy. He is commander-in-chief, makes the key decisions on forming the executive, and is guarantor of Russians’ rights and freedoms. The government, headed by Mr Putin, implements policy, especially in the economic arena.

He has much to prove, therefore, not just to the former military and security men nicknamed the siloviki or “men of power”, but to the outside world, where he remains an unknown quantity. Until two years ago, Mr Medvedev was largely a backroom operator, as Kremlin chief of staff. Two stints as chairman of Gazprom, the state-owned energy giant – a position he still holds – will have provided only a hint of the pressures he faces running a country where the political environment is as unforgiving as a Siberian winter.

So how does Mr Medvedev intend to assert his authority? In his first interview since the March 2 election, RussiaÂ’s next president outlined his priorities and offered an insight into his political philosophy. Speaking through an interpreter whose English he frequently corrected, he spelt out how he planned to continue Mr PutinÂ’s course while putting his own stamp on how the country is governed. He was clinical and dispassionate in his answers, without the folksy wit or earthy language of his mentor, scribbling occasional words and doodles on a Kremlin notepad.

His starting point is his legal background – he is, he says, “perhaps too much of a lawyer”. Meticulous and precise, he sees almost every issue through the prism of legal thinking. But behind the occasionally laboured language lies a deeper goal. Mr Medvedev says he wants to do what no Russian leader has done before: embed the rule of law in Russian society. “It is a monumental task,” he agrees, switching momentarily to English. “Russia is a country where people don’t like to observe the law. It is, as they say, a country of legal nihilism.”

{...}Mr Medvedev insists Russia can build the rule of law, outlining a three-point plan. The first step is to assert the law’s supremacy over executive power and individual actions. The second is to “create a new attitude to the law”.

“We need to make sure that every citizen understands not only the necessity and desirability of observing the law, but also understands that without [this] there cannot be normal development of our state or society,” he says.

Third is to create an effective courts system, above all by assuring independence of the judiciary. Judges must be paid more and their prestige enhanced so Russian law graduates, as elsewhere, see becoming a judge as the “summit of a legal career”.

Proper law enforcement is also fundamental to tackling another age-old problem that Mr Medvedev has made a priority – bribery. The president-elect is equally severe on the motorist paying off a policeman to avoid speeding fines as on the bureaucrat taking a cut on a business deal.

“When a citizen gives a bribe to the traffic police, it probably does not enter his head that he is committing a crime ... People should think about this,” he says. He also pays lip-service at least to the idea that those at the top of the “vertical of power” Mr Putin has created must set an example themselves. “The only way that Russia can count on having the supremacy of the law is in a situation where the powers-that-be respect the independence of courts and judges,” says Mr Medvedev.

When pressed, moreover, the president-elect signals a break with recent years by saying he will rein in any security and law enforcement services found to be engaged in illegal business. It seems a hint that he may be prepared to confront the siloviki clan – those most unhappy with his elevation to president. Viktor Cherkesov, head of Russia’s anti-narcotics service and a former KGB general, complained late last year that rival security services were fighting between themselves for wealth and influence.

{...}“I am a supporter of the values of democracy in the form that humanity has developed them over the last few centuries,” he says instead. “My definition of democracy as the power of the people is in no way different from classical definitions that exist in all countries.”

In what appears a veiled sideswipe at the US “freedom agenda”, he calls it a “dangerous extreme” to attempt to develop democracy in a country “outside its historic or territorial context”.

“Our democracy is very young,” he says. “It’s less than two decades old. Before this, there was no democracy, not in Tsarist times and not in Soviet times.”

But in words that may be welcomed in western capitals, Mr Medvedev makes clear he gives short shrift to those who say Russia is barren ground for democracy. “Russia is a European country and Russia is absolutely capable of developing together with other states that have chosen this democratic path of development," he says.{...}

Ok, enough with the theory, let's get down to business. Russian business, that is.

Mr MedvedevÂ’s overall thrust is that if RussiaÂ’s economy continues to expand, and it can build the rule of law so corruption can be overcome, its democracy will mature into something more closely resembling international models. His biggest priority, he says, is to translate RussiaÂ’s oil-fuelled economic recovery into social programmes that transform the lives of citizens.

{...}Mr Medvedev concedes the need for careful marshalling of the economy, but trumpets its strength. Russia’s financial and stock markets, he contends, are “islands of stability in the ocean of financial turmoil”.

“What makes us confident is that over the last eight years we have managed to create a stable macroeconomic system,” he says. “Our financial reserves ... are higher than ever before, reflecting the overall state [of] the Russian economy.”

The president-elect does not say specifically he will reduce the state companies that have proliferated under Mr Putin, which rivals and many economists charge with inefficiency and stifling competition. But he does say they should operate only in certain, limited sectors, for example where essential to the stateÂ’s economic security.

“The number of state companies ... should be exactly the number required to ensure the interests of all the country, but no more,” he says. Mr Medvedev also repeats campaign pledges to reduce the number of state representatives – often ministers or senior Kremlin officials – on state company boards and bring in more independent directors.{...}

So, basically, Gazprom and Rosneft will continue to operate as arms of Russian foreign policy, but they're not going to go into trade as haberdashers any time in the near future. Status quo, in other words.

As far as that foreign policy is concerned, well, let the man speak for himself:

“Any effective leader ... has to take care of defending the interests of his country. In foreign relations, you can’t be a liberal, a conservative or a democrat.”

On Russia’s most strained foreign relationship – with the UK – he says it is in Russia’s interests to see an improvement. Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, was one of the first foreign leaders to congratulate him on his election victory, he adds. Economic relations remain “magnificent”, with British investment in Russia totalling $26bn. Bilateral relations, such as co-operation between intelligence services, have been largely “rolled up”, though this is “not a tragedy”. But Mr Medvedev does not shrink from repeating recent accusations that the British Council, the UK cultural body whose offices outside Moscow were forced to close, has been involved in spying.

“The reports I get as one of the leaders of the country show that there is a problem with this,” he says. He deflects suggestions that last week’s detention of an employee of TNK-BP, the Anglo-Russian oil joint venture, might be a bid by security services to sabotage any improvement in UK-Russian relations. In this case, too, he says, his information suggests there is a case of industrial espionage to investigate.

Russia’s next president gives little sign he will adopt a more conciliatory approach to the US, with whom relations have deteriorated sharply. But he says he told George W. Bush, during a call to congratulate Mr Medvedev on his election, that relations might have been even worse were it not for the personal chemistry between the US president and Mr Putin. He holds out some hope of a “legacy” deal with the US before Mr Putin steps down to resolve disputes over US plans to site elements of a missile defence shield in eastern Europe, and over how to replace the Start treaty limiting strategic nuclear missiles, which expires next year. But Mr Medvedev warns that offering Ukraine and Georgia the prospect of Nato membership at a summit next week could undermine attempts to mend transatlantic ties.

“We are not happy about the situation around Georgia and Ukraine,” he says. “We consider it extremely troublesome for the existing structure of European security. No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its ­borders.”{...}

In other words, don't even think about offering Georgia and Ukraine Nato membership, otherwise we'll feel threatened, and you wouldn't like it when we feel threatened. BIG OIL AND GAS RICH HULK SCARED! HULK TURN OFF HEAT IN MIDDLE OF WINTER TO TEACH YOU A LESSON!

So, I suppose the question would be, do we know anything new about Mr. Medvedev? Perhaps. Although, I don't think so. My impression is that he simply told everyone what they wanted to hear. What do western leaders want to hear? That he's all about the rule of law and democracy. Did they get what they wanted? Yes. What does foreign business want to hear? That he'll put and end to corruption, and that the nationalization of industry would, in essence, be stopped in its tracks. (I'm sure Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi feel comforted.) Did they get what they wanted? Yes. What does the nationalist base who elected him want to hear? That he'll stick up for Russia against "western aggression." Did they get what they wanted? Yes.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I suspect we'll see what Mr. Medvedev is made of when the cost of a barrel of oil plunges. It will only be then, when he'll be able to cut the puppetmaster's strings, that he'll dare to dance to his own tune. Until that point in time, watch what dear old Vlad is up to, and not Mr Medvedev: it will be a waste of your time to do otherwise.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1953 words, total size 12 kb.

Google has bent itself over a barrel to do business in China. They're a bunch of 'yes' people when the PRC demands they do certain things to gain access to the massive Chinese market. They've felt secure in their relationship with the powers that be and have, indeed, gained access to that market not only through Google, but through investment in Baidu, the PRC approved search engine. They probably felt that they'd worked hard enough to please the people in charge that they wouldn't face the strict penalties levied on other Internet companies who haven't followed the party line.

Well, they were wrong.

Amid the recent protests and violent crackdown in Tibet, the Chinese government is closing off all media access to the region and censoring reports about Tibet inside China. That includes not just CNN, but YouTube and Google News. Both Google sites have been blocked from the Internet in China. News reports about the protests and images that appear to come from inside Tibet are available on YouTube (see the slide show embedded below—warning it shows graphic images of bodies in the streets—and a CNN report). To prevent its citizens from seeing these videos or reading about them, the Chinese government has taken down all of YouTube and Google News inside China.

{...}The question is: What will Google do to restore access to YouTube and Google News inside China? China is a big market that Google needs to be a player in. Will it voluntarily strip out all videos or news items about Tibet? Or will the Chinese government just figure out how to strip them out itself? There is a precedent here: in China you cannot find a lot of information about the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising on the Web, including the famous image of the lone man standing in front of the line of tanks. Most young Chinese have never seen that image.{...}

Yes, what will Google do? Their stock price is, in my humble opinion, overinflated and they need access to the Chinese market to keep the shareholders happy. They need China more than China needs them. So, will they kowtow to the PRC hacks, and allow the blocking to continue? Or will they start stripping out content related to the Tibetan uprising? It's not unlikely, at all, that they would do this. Hell, if Anonymous posts a video, a bajillion Scientologists scream in protest and the video is pulled. One can only imagine what Google would do if a big source of their lifeblood is taken away from them because someone posted a video of a newscast about what's happening in Tibet.

Google has a chance here to step up and do the right thing---and to gain hand with the Chinese government. If they're tempted to pull the videos, to get the feed, as it were, turned back on, they should think twice. What kind of a precedent would this set? Their negotiating power with the Chinese, master negotiators that they are, would be at ground zero. If, however, they refuse to do what their PRC masters have probably already asked them to do, well, they'll have the upper hand, and will have finally lived up to their "Don't Be Evil" motto. Of course, I'm simplifying the situation, because there are undoubtedly many other factors in play, the upcoming Summer Olympics being one of them, that would prevent them from such a move, but how long is Google going to stand being the PRC's bitch?

One would think that Sergey Brin, one of Google's founders, a Russian Jew who emigrated from the USSR, would have a little sympathy for the protestors in Tibet. Alas, however, I suppose with his billions at stake...

Posted by: Kathy at 10:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.

Typical for the PRC.

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese officials have declared a "people's war" of security and propaganda against support for the Dalai Lama in Tibet after riots racked the regional capital Lhasa, and some sources claimed the turmoil killed dozens.

Residents of the remote city high in the Himalayas said on Sunday that anti-riot troops controlled the streets and were closely checking Tibetan homes after protests and looting shook the heavily Buddhist region.

Two days ago Tibetan protesters, some in Buddhist monks' robes and some yelling pro-independence slogans, trashed shops, attacked banks and government offices and wielded stones and knives against police.

China has said at least 10 "innocent civilians" died, mostly in fires lit by rioters.

But an outside Tibetan source with close ties in Lhasa said that number was far too low. He cited a contact who claimed to have counted many more corpses of people killed in the riots or subsequent crackdown.

"He said there were 67 bodies in one morgue alone," the source told Reuters. "He saw it with his own eyes."

The self-proclaimed Tibetan government-in-exile in northern India has said some 30 people were killed in clashes with Chinese authorities. Beijing bans foreign reporters from freely reporting in Tibet, so the conflicting claims cannot be easily checked.

The convulsion of Tibetan anger at the Chinese presence in the region came after days of peaceful protests by monks and was a sharp blow to Beijing's preparations for the Olympic Games in August, when China wants to showcase prosperity and unity.{...}

Chinese authorities have now signaled a sweeping campaign to redouble security in the region and attack public support for the Dalai Lama, who fled into exile in 1959 after that year's failed uprising.

"This grave incident of fighting, wrecking, looting and burning was meticulously planned by reactionary separatist forces here and abroad, and its goal was Tibetan independence," a Saturday meeting of senior regional and security officials announced, according to the official Tibet Daily on Sunday.

"Fight a people's war to oppose separatism and protect stability ... expose and condemn the malicious actions of these forces and expose the hideous face of the Dalai clique to broad daylight."

The meeting was attended by Tibet's hardline Communist Party boss, Zhang Qingli, and senior central government security officials, and it strengthens signs that China has no patience with international calls for a lenient response to the riots.

Authorities have already set an ultimatum to rioters, urging them to hand themselves in to police by Monday midnight and gain possible clemency, or face harsh punishment.

The government has mobilized officially favored Buddhist monks to denounce the protests and the Dalai Lama, the Tibet Daily reported.

"The Party's policies on religious freedom have been very well observed," one said, according to the paper.

"But monks in a few monasteries don't study the scriptures well ... and coordinate from afar with the Dalai clique." {...}

The PRC invaded Tibet in 1950. They have taken over the practice of Bhuddism there, even going so far as to put a fake Panchen Lama on the throne, much like they put "state approved" Catholic Bishops in place in Beijing. There is no freedom of the press ANYWHERE in China, let alone in Tibet, where, currently, the death count is unknowable because they won't let the information out, or the reporters in.

When is the West going to stop pretending that these are people we want to do business with? They invaded Tibet, and if the US Navy wasn't currently patrolling the Taiwanese Strait, they'd invade Taiwan, too. Make no doubts about it, ideology rules in the People's Republic, and no matter how many skyscrapers they build in Shanghai or Beijing, or how many deals they cut with companies desperate to reduce their manufacturing costs, they are still the party of Mao. They are still the party of Li Peng, who murdered God only knows how many in Tianemen Square. their ideology demands repression of anyone who rejects it.

Et tu, Google? Et tu, Yahoo? Et tu, IBM? Et tu, Mattel?

I could go on, but I think you get the gist. They are murdering people right now in Tibet. The sad thing is that this situation is hardly unique in the PRC's history: they apparently enjoy murdering people. The PRC's higher ups think no one's going to mind a little enforced repression dressed up as a "People's War." They want to portray this as an "internal matter" so the west won't get their panties in a bunch over it, and the summer olympics will go off without a hitch. They're counting on our western greed, because they believe we're more interested in money than a few dead Bhuddist monks. Just how many of them have to die before we'll realize that we don't want access to the Chinese market so badly that they think they have carte blanche to commit murder?

The only decent thing Jimmy Carter did during his administration was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics to protest the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. It was wholesale slaughter in Kabul and elsewhere in that country that got him to act. And despite the fact that many hopes and dreams were slashed by bringing foreign policy into the Olympics, it was, morally speaking, the right call. The Moscow Olympics were a failure without western money to prop it up, and the USSR suffered as a result. I'm sick of rewarding the PRC with business when they repress a billion people on a daily basis. I'm sick of Google's investment and development in Baidu despite its "Don't be Evil" campaign. I hate that the CEO of Mattel had to go and publicly grovel in front of a PRC flack after criticizing Chinese production standards last summer. He had to do it, otherwise Barbies would cost considerably more than they already do. I hate that western companies that wouldn't exist without the free market in western society nonetheless, have to appease the stockholders and expand into the Chinese market, with nary a thought about how they're propping up a repressive dictatorship in their rush to make a buck. They think they can get away with this and it drives me nuts that we let them, time and again. It's time for this shit to stop.

And the only way is to teach them a lesson only the deprivation of western money and attention can provide. Boycott the Beijing Olympics. Screw 'em. They want us to think they've created a new modern, progressive, prosperous China? Well, they wouldn't be so damn prosperous if it wasn't for western money. Deny them that and they might straighten up and fly right. I don't think communism is going anywhere in China, but it's time for them to stop thinking they consistently have us bent over a barrel. They've got to learn that we can push back.

The question is, however, does anyone want to teach them that lesson, or are cheap Barbies and DVD players really more important than someone's life? Sadly, I would suspect that the answer is 'yes.'

I really wish someone would prove me wrong, though.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1208 words, total size 8 kb.

So, the great hope of America, Barack Obama has a virulently racist pastor. And now that said pastor's DVD footage of his sermons has hit the mainstream press, all hell's breaking loose and Obama has been forced to condemn his pastor's statements.

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.{...}

Oh, really? Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus? Point out the section to me in either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John where Jesus goes on about hating America, Americans getting what was coming to them on 9/11, and how "Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people{...} Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger." Pushing aside the issue as to whether or not they teach proper grammar at seminary, where, precisely, are these located? I'm not a literalist, but I, sure as hell exists, spent a goodly portion of time during my Catholic education on the New Testament, and I can tell you that, ahem, Jesus didn't spend a lot of time (read never) preaching hate. He did, however, spend plenty of time on forgiveness and taking care of the poor and the sick.

What is this guy preaching? Christianity With a Vengeance?

I'm not buying this particular pre-owned Lexus. I'm just not. Obama himself admits he knew about these inflammatory sermons from the beginning of his campaign, and "made it clear" that he strongly condemned Wright's statements, but since Wright was in the process of retiring, and because his church played a strong part in his life, he wasn't going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Bullshit.

If I'm remembering correctly, Obama and his family live in a house on the north side of Chicago. Yet, apparently, they packed it up every Sunday morning and schlepped down to the south side to go to church. If you're at all familiar with the ways and means of transportation issues in Chicago, you know that's quite a ways to go for a church service. Even the most dedicated of parishioners, at some point, when they move away, eventually put the kaibosh on a lengthy church commute and find somewhere closer to home, if they're able, if for no other reason than that it's Sunday and they'd like some time to spend with their family outside of church. The Obamas' dedication to this particular church meant, if I'm doing the math correctly on the commute, that they were probably spending an hour to get there, however long the service took, and an hour getting home---a minimum of three hours, but probably more, what with all the gladhanding that undoubtedly needed to be done. That's a pretty sizable time commitment for someone as busy as Senator Obama is. There's simply got to be more to it than just a fondness for the church community and the pastor. Obama isn't the type to expend energy on anything he doesn't think he'll get something more out of in the long run. I fully understand that Obama isn't the only person to cherry pick his pastor or his church---plenty of people do that---but the difference here is that, I'll betcha five bucks, Obama undoubtedly chose this church and this pastor, and schlepped his family out there every Sunday, because it would be good for his political career. That this was the church to attend, because it would put him on the correct side of certain chunks of the voting populace. And now we're supposed to believe that he wasn't in the pews when the good Reverend preached his words of hate? That he was only made aware of them when he started running for president? I'm just not buying it.

Going to that church was a conscious decision on Obama's part, and I doubt it had anything to do with his faith. If he really had a problem with what the pastor said, well, wouldn't he have gone through a crisis of conscience, like many of us have, when our pastors preached something that went over the line? I had a pastor at my parish in college who was a flaming hippie BIG on the liberation theology and who decided, carte blanche, that we didn't need to kneel during mass any more as recognition of the fact "that we've all been saved by God." If you understand Catholic theology at all, you know that that is a big boo boo. This wasn't a small deal for me. I went through some serious soul searching about this, and, despite the fact that it's technically against the rules, I started going to mass at the other Catholic church in town. It took me years to start going to mass at that parish again. It was only after I met up with this priest's replacement at, of all places, the bar (What can I say? The guy knew his parishioners.) and quizzed him about if he was of the same stock as the previous priest, and found out that he wasn't, that I started attending mass there again. Obama knew what Reverend Wright was preaching. He undoubtedly knew that it could be a liability when he ran for higher office. But I'm sure the benefits of attending church there probably far outweighed the negatives of being associated with a man who preached hate on a regular basis, and were, most likely, something he could easily disassociate himself from.

It's like he's trying to tell me that he didn't know the pre-owned Lexus had a salvage title, when, in fact, he did know, and rather than admitting he fibbed (and in the process admitting he had a weakness), he's instead counting on my good grace to let him off the hook.

I don't think so.

Obama is trying to get away with something here. I don't really know that a person should be held accountable for what their pastor says, but it's his easy disavowal and instant condemnation of someone, who, by all accounts, was influential in their personal beliefs and played a large part of their life that bothers me. That this, apparently, was the plan in case anyone started sniffing around, bothers me even more. If x happens, we'll do this. If x never happens, then we won't bother. Obama is, undoubtedly, happy right now that this was raised in the primary process, rather than in the general election, when more people would be paying attention. I'm sure he hopes he's dodged this particular bullet. The negatives of attending a church helmed by Reverend Wright have become greater than the perceived advantages, hence Obama did what he thought was necessary and threw the Reverend under the bus. It's political survival at its finest. It was a deliberate calculation that a man who claims his faith is as important to him as Obama regularly does, wouldn't have completed, no matter what the consequences.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:41 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1526 words, total size 9 kb.

So, the government bailed out investment bank Bear Stearns today, with a healthy assist from JPMorgan.

NEW YORK - Bear Stearns Cos., one of the most venerable names on Wall Street, turned to a rival bank and the federal government for a last-minute bailout Friday to prevent it from collapsing.

The Federal Reserve responded swiftly to pleas from Bear Stearns that its coffers had "significantly deteriorated" within a 24-hour period as rumors about the bank's situation fueled the Wall Street version of a run on the bank. Central bankers tapped a rarely used Depression-era provision to provide loans, and said they were ready to provide extra resources to combat an erosion of confidence in America's biggest financial institutions.

Nearly half the value of Bear Stearns, or about $5.7 billion, was wiped out in a matter of minutes as investors felt the bailout signaled that the credit crisis has reached a more serious stage, and now threatens to undermine the broader financial system — and the U.S. economy.

"My guess is by next week, there will be rumors of other large, familiar institutions" that might be in financial trouble similar to Bear Stearns, said Anil Kashyap, a professor at the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago.

Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, made its fortune dealing in opaque mortgage-backed securities — a strategy that backfired amid the worst housing slump in a quarter century. The bank has racked up $2.75 billion in write-downs since last year, and releases first-quarter results on Monday that could show more losses.{...}

Ok, so riddle me this, joker: a business listed on the stock exchange, made some faulty gambles by buying up mortgage-backed securities and is now in trouble, so they go running to the government to bail them out. And guess what? The government helps them out by floating them some cash.

I have one question: how does this help anyone out in the long run?

I am not an economist. I don't claim to have a good grasp on the wheel-running hamster that is "the market," but I don't see how funding a business which made bad decisions should be bailed out by the taxpayers of this country. Particularly not when, undoubtedly, despite already having written off $2.8 BILLION in losses, the fat cats at the top were undoubtedly well-compensated with bonuses and dividends.

I understand about keeping our financial system working, but, and let's face it kids, it's time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps Bear Stearns needs to crash, so that the market can be come healthier? Perhaps this might, when the dust has settled, boost the dollar out of the basement and get speculators out of the oil market, so the cost of living can go down and I can stop paying through the nose for things like eggs and milk. I don't know. Again, I'm not an economist. But I do know this much: I'm getting tired, as a taxpayer, of funding businesses who bought securities that were faulty in the first place. Anyone with half a brain knows that ARM-interest only mortgages were a bad idea. Why, gee willikers, sir, you're trying to sell me a loan where I only pay the interest on said loan, and that rate is adjustable, meaning it's just as likely to go up as well as down, in an overinflated real estate market? Why, thank you, sir, but no. If people didn't figure it out, well, sorry, kids. That's just the way the ball bounces. {Insert Mr. Brady explaining the Latin phrase 'Caveat Emptor' here} Why didn't the MBA geniuses on Wall Street figure out that buying securities based, in part, on these mortgages was a bad idea?

I guess it comes down to this: I'm tired of bailing out stupid people. Whether they be your average subprime mortgage customer who got in over their head, or fat cat MBA's on Wall Street, who should have known better than to bet the farm on these securities. I've got the feeling that all this government intervention is just putting off the inevitable.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 4 kb.

I know seemingly everyone is posting this, but it's worth your while to hop on over and read about David Mamet's conversion on the Road to Damascus.

Apparently, the Village Voice's servers are run by aerosol huffing hamsters who are, indeed, out of cans of Ready Whip, but it's the Voice after all: if they manage to do nothing else, they'll keep their junkies afloat, so keep trying.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.