JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT: ‘True Finn leader’s anti euro commentary in The Wall Street Journal gets record views’
True Finn leader’s anti euro commentary in The Wall Street Journal gets record viewsJane Burgermeister | May 12, 2011 at 6:26 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/puNtl-1dU
|
Timo Soini’s commentary in The Wall Street Journal is the most widely read online article this week
The opinion piece written by MP Timo Soini, leader of the True Finns party, which appeared in the business newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Monday, has been the paper’s most widely-read article on the Web during the current week and month.
According to the statistics of the US newspaper, Soini’s op-ed outdoes all news, including the news on Microsoft’s Skype acquisiton, in terms of weekly and monthly statistics.
However, in the series of the most widely read daily news, the Microsoft acquisition surpasses Soini’s commentary. Read more of this post
In his op-ed, entitled “Why I Don’t Support Europe’s Bailouts” , Timo Soini rails against the practice of shovelling money at countries that have got themselves into trouble and writes: “In a true market economy, bad choices get penalized. Instead of accepting losses on unsound investments — which would have led to the probable collapse of some banks —it was decided to transfer the losses to taxpayers via loans, guarantees, and opaque constructs such as the European Financial Stability Fund. The money did not go to help indebted economies. It flowed through the European Central Bank and recipient states to the coffers of big banks and investment funds”.
Given the recent developments to the effect that Soini’s party have decided to remain in opposition (see other stories) in spite of their thumping election victory in April, it is unlikely that the story will go away or that the number of comments being added below it will peter out.
Previously in HS International Edition:
Timo Soini recipe for euro crisis: let insolvent banks fail (10.5.2011)
Links:
The Wall Street Journal: Why I Don´t Support Europe´s Bailouts (By Timo Soini)
Health Freedom NZ Newsletter Action Alert! Health Select Committee Report recommending effectively forced vaccinations for children in NZ?
Health Freedom NZ Newsletter Action Alert
On March 24th 2011 the Report of the Health Select Committee’s Inquiry into “How to Improve Immunisation Completion Rates” in New Zealand was presented to Government. The Government had six weeks to respond to the report.
The report represents a significant attack on parents’ rights to make health care decisions for their children. You can find the full report at this link:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/BADCF722-D377-4451-8602-1E00938BFC74/188894/DBSCH_SCR_5060_Inquiryintohowtoimprovecompletionra.pdf
The Health Select Committee, under the leadership of Dr Paul Hutchison, has produced a report that not only recommends raising the targeted vaccination completion rate to 95% for NZ children aged 0-4, it also proposes a target be set for 11 year olds.
Most alarmingly this report also recommends that the government make children’s enrollment at early childhood centres and schools dependent on parents producing proof of their children’s vaccination status and further suggests that government consider linking “existing parental benefits” to vaccination.
If the Government accepts the recommendations in the report, it appears that parents will be forced to choose whether their child has no vaccinations – or all vaccinations on the schedule – in order to be able to supply the documentation necessary to enroll their child in a school or early childhood education centre.
Eligibility for the 20 Hours Free Early Childhood Education may also be restricted to children who have had all recommended vaccinations according to Page 33 of the Report. Moreover, it is also possible that parents who do not comply with this “all or nothing” approach to vaccination (for example those who want their children to have some vaccines, but not others) may face financial penalties such as loss of Government child benefits (See Page 34 of the report).
Christians (and others) who decide against MMR vaccination because of the use of “human diploid cells” derived from aborted foetal tissue in its production, or for any other reason, could be particularly badly affected if the government adopts these sort of discriminatory policies.
We are in an election year; if you disagree with the recommendations in the report, please act now and contact your local MP and opposition parties candidates. Here is the list of current MP’s.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/
Please forward this message widely and visit the website www.noforcedvaccines.org as soon as you can for more information and for ideas on how you can help with the campaign to resist the erosion of human rights threatened by this Report.
The Tai Tokerau by-election will be held on Saturday June 25, Prime Minister John Key announced this afternoon.
Tai Tokerau by-election date Saturday June 25
The Tai Tokerau by-election will be held on Saturday June 25, Prime Minister John Key announced this afternoon.
The by-election follows the impending resignation of Independent MP Hone Harawira.
“I have been advised that, since Mr Harawira’s resignation takes effect from the close of 20 May, it is appropriate to now set a date for the by-election,” Mr Key said.
“The by-election Writ day will be Wednesday 25 May. The last day for candidate nominations to be received will be Tuesday 31 May and the last day for the return of the Writ will be Thursday 14 July.”
Celebrating ‘Osama bin Laden’s death is anti-American … and not very biblical’ – Jonathan Zimmerman
Celebrating Osama bin Laden’s death is anti-American … and not very biblical
As crowds cheering bin Laden’s demise last night illustrated, revenge is a natural reaction. But a natural impulse isn’t necessarily a good one. Our key religious scriptures and greatest political leaders warn us against this dark desire. Indeed, we are at our most human when resisting it.
By Jonathan Zimmerman / May 2, 2011
New York
“Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble.”
Related Stories
So says Proverbs 24:17, in a book that millions of Americans hold sacred. The Bible also says that you should love your enemy as yourself, and that vengeance is the Lord’s alone.
But all of that went out the window Sunday night and Monday, as news spread that American forces had killed Osama bin Laden. At Ground Zero in New York, site of the World Trade Center attacks that bin Laden masterminded, crowds sang the “hey, hey, good-bye” song that sports fans use to taunt their defeated foes. Borrowing another sports metaphor, one reveler held up a sign that said, “Obama 1, Osama 0.”
President Obama himself struck a solemn note as he announced bin Laden’s death, in a televised address from the White House. But outside, on Pennsylvania Avenue, the mood was merry. An estimated thousand people danced, waved flags, and chanted “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” They carried signs, too, including one which read, “Ding, Dong, Bin Laden is Dead.”
There is something deeply wrong with this picture. By celebrating death, even of someone as evil as bin Laden, we let our worst impulses trump what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” We look petty, juvenile, and small. And we should all be worried about that.
Let me be clear: I am relieved that Osama bin Laden is dead. He caused a lot of death himself, of course, and his own demise means that he won’t be able to wreak more havoc on the world.
Second, I recognize that revenge is a natural reaction to tragedy, violence, and injustice. Ever since Homer’s Illiad, where Achilles goes on a rampage to avenge the death of his beloved friend Patroclus, poets and playwrights have reminded us about the powerful role of vengeance in human affairs.
Time for sober reflection, not silly celebration
But a natural impulse isn’t necessarily a good one. Yes, we feel the need to exact revenge from our enemies. But our key religious scriptures as well as our greatest political leaders warn us against this dark human desire, which transmits our feuds and vendettas to future generations. Indeed, we are at our most human when we are resisting it.
That’s why Lincoln concluded his second inaugural address, in March 1865, by promising “malice toward none” and “charity for all.” Lincoln and his generation bore witness to the greatest bloodletting in American history; whereas fewer than 3,000 died in the World Trade Center attacks, over 600,000 would perish in the Civil War. But Lincoln rejected calls for revenge against the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy. Instead, he called upon all Americans to recognize the essential humanity of us all.
And part of being human, Lincoln insisted, was recognizing our own intellectual and moral limitations. Even as he directed the most devastating war Americans had seen, Lincoln did not assume that his side had a monopoly on virtue. “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God,” Lincoln said, referring to the North and South, “and each invokes His aid against the other…. [L]et us judge not, that we be not judged.”
It would not be easy. But Lincoln understood that, too. That’s why he invoked our shared national destiny, insisting that America had something hugely important to teach the world. To Lincoln, and to millions of Americans since, the United States represented “the last best hope of earth.” In striving to meet his charge, we would establish a model and an example for people everywhere.
And last night, in celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, we lost sight of that responsibility. And don’t think the rest of the world didn’t notice, either. Remember when Palestinians danced on the streets of the West Bank, to rejoice over the World Trade Center attacks? That’s what we looked like last night to many of the very people whose hearts and minds we’ve spent billions to win.
But there’s still time to make it right. The death of Osama bin Laden should be an occasion for sober reflection, not for silly celebration. We should use it to ask what we have won, what we have lost, and what remains to be done. Anything less will do violence to our own better angels, and to our best national aspirations.
Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author, most recently, of “Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory.”
NZ ACT Party ’20 Point Plan’ – since 2008 – how much has the ACT Party tail wagged the National Party ‘dog’?
Of particular interest to National Party supporters from Epsom – who voted for Rodney Hide (ACT) in 2008:
NZ ACT Party ’20 Point Plan’ – since the 2008 election – how much has the ACT Party coalition ‘tail’ wagged the National Party coalition ‘dog’?
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
This is ACT ‘s 20 Point Plan from the 2008 election.
If we implement all of these policies then over time you would be $500 per week better off.
This is your chance to play Finance Minister. In the right hand column you can make the kind of choices this country needs. Vote yes or no to each policy. You may not like them all but every time you vote no, make sure to check how much growth and and weekly pay that decision costs. Growth is what allows us to pay for better medicines, great teachers and more roads and is essential if we want to catch up to Australia.
Click here for more information on each of these policies.
Click here to view this page in Chinese.
Click here for more information on each of these policies.
Click here to view this page in Chinese.
These are ACT’s policies from the 2008 election.
Click here to view ACT’s 20 Point Plan.
- Accident Compensation
Action: Create competitive market – as used to work well here.
Benefit: Accident victims back sooner.
- Agriculture
- Climate Change
Action: Adopt saner policies. Low carbon tax better than carbon trading.
Benefit: Don’t hurt Kiwi families needlessly. (nations that cause 75% of emissions must lead.
- Constitutional Framework
Action: Strengthen. Adopt Tax Payers Bill of Rights. Pass Regulatory Responsibilty Act. Return to privy council. Hold referendum of MMP voting system.
Benefit: Makes democracy more democratic. States spending capped, taxes kept low. Hard to make bad laws like the EFA. Free access to best judicial minds from a population of 58 million. People get long-overdue say on how they like MMP.
- Education
Action: Create a competitive market.
Benefit: Kids learn faster. State funds parents, parents choose schools. Schools reward good teachers. Good teachers drive education – to please parents not bureaucrats.
- Employment
Action: Allow freedom of contract to make it easier to trial new workers and replace poor performers.
Benefit: Businesses run better with the right staff. Workers and company earn more. Contract protects both parties.
- Families at Risk
Action: Appoint mentors to teach parenting and life skills.
Benefit: Less family violence. Fewer damaged children. Thriving families less drain on the taxpayers.
- Government Asset Ownership
Action: Sell state businesses where private firms can serve customers better.
Benefit: Happier customers. Lower prices. More product variety and choice.
- Government Expenditure
Action: Cut state spending to Australian levels.
Benefit: Lower inflation. Lower interest rates. More money left for people who earn it.
- Health
Action: Create competitive market.
Benefit: Hospitals cure more patients, sooner. (State gives health policies to all. Paitents choose hospitals. Doctors, not bureaucrats drive healthcare.
- Housing
Action: Free up more land for homes.
Benefit: Cheaper sections. More people achieve Kiwi dream of owning home.
- Immigration
Action: Welcome more good quality immigrants.
Benefit: Industries get the skilled workers they need.
- Infrastructure
Action: Build better networks (eg. roads, water, electricity). Replace users charges with tolls which reward off-peak use.
Benefit: Smoothing demand reduces bottleneck. No need to pay for more capacity. Better service for less money.
- Law and Order
Action: Bring back private prisons – now best practice overseas. Let private firms free up cops for ‘Zero Tolerance’ policing. Speed up courts (eg. night courts) to reduce unfair delays.
Benefit: More secure, more humane, cheaper prisons. Young taggers don’t progress to worse crimes. People feel safer. More decisions sooner.
- Local Government
- National Security
- Public Service
Action: Close departments we don’t need. Reduce bureaucracy. Return bureaucracy to non-political role. Limit cabinet to 12. Limit parliament to 100 MPs.
Benefit: Millions saved for things we do need, good states servants freed up for more productive jobs, unbiased advice, better decisions sooner and fewer baubles of office.
- Red Tape and Regulation
Action: Get rid of nutty regulations. Appoint Minister of Regulatory Reform. Pass Regulatory Responsibility Act – to set checklist for good lawmaking.
Benefit: The state no longer wastes productive people’s time on pointless form filling. Firms cut free of red tape can focus on creating more wealth and more jobs. Politicians must consider national interest, so can’t easily pass laws for cynical political reasons.
- Resource Management
Action: Reform the Resource Management Act.
Benefit: Good projects start and finish sooner.
- Risk Insurance
- Superannuation
- Tariffs
Action: Cut remaining tariffs on imports. Strengthen bonds with the US.
Benefit: Cheaper imports, exporters who can’t compete switch to fields where they can. US free trade deal would earn NZ $1b+ a year. More Kiwis exposed to US entrepreneurial skills.
- Taxation
Action: Cut and flatten rates.
Benefit: More incentive for people with initiative to create wealth and jobs.
- Welfare
Action: Create competitive market for sickness, invalid, and unemployment insurance.
Benefit: Welfare recipients are back at work sooner. More generous support for those who can’t work.
Click here to view ACT’s 20 Point Plan.
Centre for Public Integrity: ‘BP’s Iris Cross starred in two disaster PR campaigns’
BP’s Iris Cross starred in two disaster PR campaigns
The Deepwater Horizon well lists into the Gulf of Mexico in April. Photo courtesy of ABC26.
By Aaron Mehta 10:00 am, April 20, 2011
BP manager Iris Cross became the face of the oil giant’s public relations blitz after the oil spill a year ago. BP
Last fall, Iris Cross beamed into millions of homes, the friendly BP worker hailing from New Orleans who assured TV viewers that the oil giant won’t stop cleaning up the worst oil spill in U.S. history “until we make this right.”
She became the very public face of BP, a soothing contrast to former CEO Tony Heyward, whose PR gaffes cemented public opinion against the oil company.
This is not the first time Cross sought to soothe public anger from a BP disaster. One of her efforts in 2006 so angered a judge that BP was accused of jury tampering and threatened with fines and contempt charges.
Court records reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity show that Cross and her boss admitted in testimony five years ago that they signed thousands of lettersto Texans aimed at polishing BP’s image — just days before jury selection was to begin in a civil trial over a 2005 BP refinery explosion that killed 15 workers and injured scores more.
The presiding judge, court transcripts show, derided the letter-writing campaign as a “stunt” clearly designed to influence jurors.
“We have a jury panel coming in today. And it would take an absolute idiot not to figure that out,” Galveston County, Texas Judge Susan E. Criss chided BP during a hearing Nov. 6, 2006 called to address the impact of the letters on jury selection.
“This is so far out of line,” Criss scolded.
BP declined to allow the Center to interview Iris Cross.
The tale of the 2006 BP public relations campaign was overshadowed by the devastation of the Texas City refinery and the subsequent litigation that forced BP to pay at least $2 billion to compensate victims and $137 million in federal fines.
But one of the lawyers in the case says the 2006 and 2010 PR efforts provide an unprecedented window into the multimillion dollar efforts BP uses to gloss over the human, environmental and economic damages caused by the two massive disasters.
“I wouldn’t let Charles Manson date my daughter because I don’t presume he’s rehabilitated and I’m not sure BP’s been rehabilitated either,” said Brent Coon, the lawyer who headed the civil suit against BP in the refinery case. “They had a corporate-wide culture that is deficient with respect to following the law and deficient with respect to safety.”
The TV ads describe Cross as working for “BP Community Outreach.” Her current resume lists her as “General Manager, External Relations” with BP’s Gulf Coast Restoration Organization, but she has a long history as a public relations professional.
Cross’s career began with oil company Amoco, where she had worked primarily in the public relations department from 1981 until the 1999 merger with BP. After the merger, she spent four years in BP’s Houston Westlake office as “director of community relations.” After taking two years off following a marriage, she returned to BP full time in June of 2005 as director of community relations for BP Texas City.
Her appearance in at least two commercials was part of a PR campaign designed to repair BP’s public image in the wake of the worst oil spill in American history. Between the start of the spill and the end of August, BP spent over $93 million on advertisements, three times what the oil giant spent in April through July 2009. It’s a number that outraged lawmakers.
“BP’s extensive advertising campaign that is solely focused on polishing its corporate image in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon blowout disaster is making people angry. As small businesses, fishermen, and mom and pop motels, hotels and restaurants struggle to make ends meet, they are bombarded by BP’s corporate marketing largess day after day,” Rep. Cathy Castor, D-Fla., said in September. “While BP certainly has the right to advertise, its approach has been insensitive to the taxpayers and business owners harmed by the Deepwater Horizon blowout.”
It’s unclear exactly how much of that money was dedicated to ads featuring Cross, but they were regular features on TV throughout the late summer and early fall. “I was born in New Orleans. My family still lives here,” she says in one ad .
“BP is going to be here until the oil is gone, and the people and businesses are back to normal — until we make this right.”
Contentious hearing
At the center of the 2006 controversy was a set of letters sent out by BP days ahead of jury selection in the refinery trial. The letters were addressed to either “BP Retiree” or “BP Texas City Neighbor,” including local businesses and community leaders. Although the letters shared identical language, some batches of letters were signed by Iris Cross while others were signed by Neil Geary, her supervisor.
The one page letter sought to address “reports in the media about what happened at BP Texas City” and claimed that the company has “made substantial changes and improvements” at Texas City.
“We have made substantial changes and improvements at BP Texas City and are in action on a program of multiple recommendations contained in BP’s final accident investigation report and other sources” the letter said. “BP has acknowledged that it was aware of infrastructure and safety culture problems at the refinery prior to March 23, 2005 and we have been in action in response. BP is working to improve plant integrity, safety culture and process safety management at all BP-operated facilities in order to prevent such accidents in the future.”
Included with the letter was a “fact sheet” that addressed “key issues raised in media reports” and a copy of a company newsletter that Cross urged readers to share with their family.
The fact sheet claimed that “Maintenance spending [at Texas City] also was higher than the industry average per barrel of throughput,” while also noting BP acknowledges that while there were safety risks at Texas City, “it is not accurate to say that BP was not addressing these issues.” The fact sheet concluded that “BP will spendmore than $1 billion at Texas City over the next five years” on recommended changes with an eye towards increasing safety in the future.
The letters came to light when Judge Criss received a copy in the mail and quickly convened a hearing on Nov. 6, 2006. A combative Criss called BP to the courtroom for sending these letters out just ahead of the trial.
Representatives for BP acknowledged at the hearing that they were aware of the upcoming trial when they sent the letters out, but denied that they were attempting to influence the jury pool in any way.
At the November hearing, lawyers for BP argued that the letter was a “fact sheet,” not a mailing. The difference between a “fact sheet” and a “mailing” was important, because Criss had put a previous ban on advertising that “would be used to taint the jury pool.”
Criss defined such advertising as private communications to potential jurors where Coon and his lawyers would not be able to respond.
During the course of the hearing, Geary, the manager for public affairs at BP Texas City and Cross’ boss, told the judge that he organized the original letters. However, Geary denied that the letters were targeted, noting that while a lawyer fact-checked the letters before they were sent out, the recipients of the list were not reviewed by anyone at BP. Criss found that explanation dubious, noting that the letters were sent to the home addresses of two local judges.
“You are trying to convince me that you have not looked at this list of people you’re mailing to that you want to know your spin on your company and you did not review that list?”
“That’s absolutely correct,” replied Geary.
In both the November hearing and separate depositions, Geary and Cross cast the letters as having been born of confusion. “Do I know the author [of the letter]? No,” Cross said in her deposition, later confirming that she did not try to check the accuracy of the information she was sending out.
That argument held no water with Criss, who at the November hearing admonished them that “I told [BP], don’t come in here with this ‘one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing excuse.’”
It also didn’t hold up with Coon, the lawyer whose trial was set for jury selection. He contends that Geary and Cross were both trained PR professionals with knowledge of how to spin the situation. “They know what they’re doing, they know why they’re doing it, and it’s their job to do it,” says Coon.
Coon asserted that Geary may have perjured himself by downplaying the number of letters that were sent out. At the Nov. 6 hearing, Geary said the letters only went out to 900 people, just 775 of whom could be potential jurors. Then in early April, Cross came forward with knowledge of another 7,000 letters that had been sent out but not discussed in the Nov. 6 hearing. The judge said she was “concerned there is evidence of perjury” from Geary and allowed Coon to depose Geary once more.
A spokesman for BP declined to allow the Center to interview either Cross or Geary.
“The issue of the letters quickly expanded to include pretrial communications and publicity by both sides in that litigation,” said Scott Dean , BP’s general manager for press relations. “The court never ruled on the complaints by either side, and the matter was eventually dismissed by the agreement of both the plaintiffs and BP. In any event, pretrial communications and publicity by both parties did not interfere with the selection of any jury at any of the several trials in that litigation.”
At the end of the Nov. 6 hearing, Criss repeatedly told BP representatives “I don’t want your spin” and vowed to fine the company for every member of the jury pool who received one of these letters. She also left open the possibility of going “beyond fines” if BP attempted similar communications to potential jurors in the future.
Due to legal restrictions, Criss could not comment on many aspects of the case, but did tell the Center that “whatever I said was what I felt at the time. The transcripts can speak for themselves.”
Criss said she presided over 4,016 cases related to the explosion in a three and a half year period, and that after the November hearing, BP “didn’t repeat that stunt.” While she held the threat of more sanctions over BP’s head, in the end she decided not to impose fines for the letters, given how many cases BP had agreed to settle.
Paul Butler , a professor at the George Washington School of Law, told the Center that while he could not recall letters being sent out in a similar situation, he considered it common for companies to buy billboards or newspaper advertisements ahead of a trial. With large corporations, “especially those with PR issues, there’s almost an expectation that the corporation will try to get its point across.”
Proving jury tampering is extremely difficult, according to Butler, a former federal prosecutor specializing in public corruption. “Corporations have a First Amendment right to express themselves.…I would think what BP has done falls well within its First Amendment right of free expression, rather than the criminal laws’ rather strict construction of what it means to tamper with the jury.”
Gene Grabowski , senior vice president and chair of the crisis and litigation practice at Levick Strategic Communications, likened letter campaigns, newspaper ads and billboards to what groups like Planned Parenthood do when they are under attack — directly communicating their point of view to the public.
“As long as there’s not a gag on publicity, as long as there isn’t a court ordered gag, it’s perfectly legitimate to share information on the background of a case,” he said. “We’ve seen it done and we have worked with clients to do that.”
Still, Butler noted that corporations know what they’re doing by advertising ahead of trials. “Obviously all of those ads that we’ve all seen since the oil spill have been designed to influence public opinion about BP,” he said. “Certainly the people who created those ads knew litigation was a likely possibility and that some of those people who would see those ads are potential jurors.”
Hundreds of lawsuits related to the oil spill have been filed against BP, ranging from local businesses impacted by the spill to the families of the 11 men killed when the Deepwater Horizon rigexploded one year ago. The Justice Department has also filed a civil suit against BP and other companies involved in the spill. The Gulf Coast Claims Facility, set up by BP as required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, has received around 857,000 claims from more than 500,000 individuals. Of those, $3.8 billion has been paid to 300,000 claims.
Oil spill PR efforts echo Texas City
When he first saw Cross on the TV screen in the aftermath of the oil spill, Coon wasn’t surprised. “BP is not very creative. They don’t learn from past lessons. They just have a playbook and don’t deviate very much from it,” he said.
BP’s Texas City refinery, one of the largest in Texas, exploded on March 23, 2005, killing 15 workers and injuring scores more. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hit the company with the largest fine in agency history, and the explosion also resulted in a series of lawsuits from the victims of the blast.
Coon, who managed a significant number of the Texas City cases, called BP’s public relations team a well-trained organization befitting a multibillion-dollar company — one that is willing to go to great lengths to protect its profits, including hiring private detectives to dig up dirt on plaintiff lawyers and investigate victims of the Texas City explosion.
He pointed to an email sent from Patricia Wright, at the time the company’s vice president of communications for North America, mere hours after the explosion.
“Media coverage has been very heavy — looks like injuries and loss of life are heavy as well … Expect a lot of follow up coverage tomorrow. Then I believe it will essentially go away — due to the holiday weekend. Dc (sic) is taking care of the federal folks and Glenn is handling the state officials.”
The email concludes that “This is a very big story in the US right now — but the Terri Schiavo story is huge as well.” The “Schiavo” reference is to the case of Terri Schiavo , a brain-dead woman who drew major national attention when her husband attempted to take her off life support.
Although Texas City was the signature BP-related disaster until last year’s oil spill, the company has had a checkered past when it comes to safety. A 2010 Center report found that BP was responsible for 97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the refining industry by government safety inspectors over the past three years, and a government report on the Gulf spill declared that “BP’s safety lapses have been chronic.”
In February BP announced plans to sell the Texas City refinery.
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT:NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT PLANS BIG VACCINATION PUSH FOR KIDS
NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT PLANS BIG VACCINATION PUSH FOR KIDS
By Katherine Smith, New Zealand.
“On March 24, 2011, the Report of the Health Select Committee’s Inquiry into “How to improve [increase] immunisation [vaccination] completion rates” in New Zealand which was published on the parliamentary website. The government has six weeks to respond to the report.
The full report is posted at this link:
The Health Select Committee (under the leadership of Dr Paul Hutchison) has produced a report that not only recommends raising the targeted vaccination completion rate to 95% for NZ children aged 0-4. It also proposes a target be set for 11 year olds. Read more of this post
Fran O’Sullivan: ‘Protect our basic right to trial by jury’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10716484
1April 2011
TOTALLY agree with Fran O’Sullivan on this point!
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Fran O’Sullivan: Protect our basic right to trial by jury
Tuhoe activist Tame Iti. Photo / Alan Gibson
The Court of Appeal’s decision to deny the “Urewera 18” the right to have a jury trial is a major offence to New Zealand’s proud human rights record.
I hold no brief for Tuhoe political activist Tame Iti and the 17 others who were arrested in the wake of police raids on so-called paramilitary training camps in the Ureweras.
Widely leaked police affidavits painted a colourful story that no doubt alarmed senior political figures who were briefed by the security services ahead of the raid.
But the Urewera 18 have been waiting more than three years now to defend various firearms offences in what is a highly political and controversial case. Under these circumstances it is surely untenable for a senior court to rule in the prosecution’s favour and deny these people a right to have their case heard by a jury of their peers.
Nor is it tenable for the Court of Appeal to refuse to say publicly why it has ensured the upcoming trial will be one decided by legal insiders.
New Zealand politicians (I’m thinking of Phil Goff) bang on about how they challenge Chinese politicians to lift their country’s human rights game whenever they meet on formal bilateral business. Goff should look closer to home.
Judging by scarce news coverage, even Greens MP Keith Locke – who has been the subject of Security Service surveillance – has had little (if anything) to say on the court’s decision. But unless this carry-on is challenged this country runs the risk of being set on the path to Star Chamber hearings, where any activist facing serious charges will essentially be subject to a secret trial.
Particularly if the evidence is obtained under the Terrorism Suppression Act.
It has been a long time since former police commissioner Howard Broad called showtime and sent his officers into Tuhoe territory to hunt out those he believed were planning terrorist attacks. The fact that the Urewera 18 are not still behind bars suggests the authorities do not seriously believe any of them pose an immediate threat to public safety.
Otherwise surely the prosecution would been pressured to get this case to trial with considerable alacrity.
I don’t have an inside knowledge either of the exact grounds that High Court judge Helen Winkelmann applied when she initially denied the accused their request for a jury trial. Not only did Winkelmann suppress her reasoning for her December 9 decision last year but she also suppressed (for some weeks) the fact that she had made it.
But the fact that the trial will take more than 20 days is not a sufficiently credible reason for a judge to stop the accused from being tried in front of a jury. Nor would it be credible to claim that this case is imbued with such complexity that a layman jury could not reach a decision on the basis of the accused’s response to the Crown’s evidence.
At its heart, the Urewera 18 case is not complex. It is being made complex by the prosecution’s apparent drive to retrofit the case so that the police can use what was initially deemed illegally gained evidence to bolster their submissions.
A judge-alone trial might make sense where a layman jury would struggle if it had to pick its way through complex evidence in a criminal commercial trial (particularly where defendants have relied on butt-covering legal advice to justify dubious board decisions).
But even then it is possible a jury might well apply more commonsense than a judge whose training will have imbued him/her with the notion that senior commercial players have a “right” to rely on advice.
This leaves the question of the jury’s own safety. Are the judges concerned that laymen might be intimidated by Iti and his fellow accused? If that is the case, why not simply say so?
Trial by jury is a long-standing right which must continue to be valued. And in a high-profile trial like this one a jury is better placed to ensure public accountability.
The New Zealand judiciary’s own reputation took a pounding when a special deal was cut to allow former Court of Appeal judge Bill Wilson to resign gracefully from the bench after he faced a conflict of interest investigation.
Confidence needs to be built back into the system. The Court of Appeal’s ruling must be challenged in the Supreme Court in the wider public interest. If it delays the May 19 start to the upcoming trial (brought forward from the original August start date which would have conflicted with the Rugby World Cup) so be it.
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT:’Deutsche Bank knowingly deceived clients in subprime fraud, concludes Senate panel’
16 April 2011
Deutsche Bank knowingly deceived clients in subprime fraud, concludes Senate panelJane Burgermeister | April 15, 2011 at 5:33 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/puNtl-1bI
|
US Senate names culprits in financial crisis
Gretchen Morgenson & Louise Story, The New York Times, April 14, 2011
A voluminous report on the financial crisis by the United States Senate — citing internal documents and private communications of bank executives, regulators, credit ratings agencies and investors — describes business practices that were rife with conflicts during the mortgage mania and reckless activities that were ignored inside the banks and among their federal regulators.
“The report pulls back the curtain on shoddy, risky, deceptive practices on the part of a lot of major financial institutions,” Levin said in an interview. “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”
Read more at: http://profit.ndtv.com/news/show/us-senate-names-culprits-in-financial-crisis-149439?pfrom=home-Business&cp
US Senate names culprits in financial crisis
Gretchen Morgenson & Louise Story, The New York Times, April 14, 2011
A voluminous report on the financial crisis by the United States Senate — citing internal documents and private communications of bank executives, regulators, credit ratings agencies and investors — describes business practices that were rife with conflicts during the mortgage mania and reckless activities that were ignored inside the banks and among their federal regulators.
The 650-page report, “Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse,” was released on Wednesday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, whose co-chairmen are Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, and Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma. The result of two years’ work, the report focuses on an array of institutions with central roles in the mortgage crisis: Washington Mutual, an aggressive mortgage lender that collapsed in 2008; the Office of Thrift Supervision, a regulator; the credit ratings agencies Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service; and the investment banks Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank.
“The report pulls back the curtain on shoddy, risky, deceptive practices on the part of a lot of major financial institutions,” Levin said in an interview. “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”
The bipartisan report includes 19 recommendations for changes to regulatory and industry practices. These include creating strong conflict-of-interest policies at the nation’s banks and requiring that banks hold higher reserves against risky mortgages. The report also asks federal regulators to examine its findings for violations of laws.
The report adds significant new evidence to previously disclosed material showing that a wide swath of the financial industry chose profits over propriety during the mortgage lending spree. It also casts a harsh light on what the report calls regulatory failures, which helped deepen the crisis.
Singled out for criticism is the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversaw some of the nation’s most aggressive lenders, including Countrywide Financial, IndyMac and Washington Mutual, whose chief executive was Kerry Killinger. Noting that the agency’s officials viewed the institutions it regulated as “constituents,” the report said that the office relied on bank executives to correct identified problems and was reluctant to interfere with “even unsound lending and securitization practices” at Washington Mutual.
The report describes how two risk managers at the bank were marginalized by its executives. One of them told the committee that executives began providing the regulator with outdated loss estimates as the mortgage crisis widened. After the risk manager told regulators that the estimates it had received were dated, Mr. Killinger fired him.
From 2004 to 2008, for example, the regulatory office identified more than 500 serious deficiencies at Washington Mutual, yet did not force the bank to improve its lending operations, according to the report. And when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the bank’s backup regulator, moved to downgrade the bank’s safety and soundness rating in September 2008, John M. Reich, the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, wrote an angry e-mail to a colleague. Referring to Sheila Bair, the FDIC chairwoman, he wrote: “I cannot believe the continuing audacity of this woman.” Washington Mutual failed two weeks later.
The office was abolished last year, and its operations were folded into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Reich declined to comment. A lawyer for Killinger did not respond to a request for comment.
The report was produced by the same Senate committee that conducted an 11-hour hearing last April with Goldman executives and employees of its mortgage unit, who testified about their trading and securities underwriting practices.
At the hearing, some lawmakers questioned Goldman’s assertion that it had not bet against the mortgage market as real estate prices collapsed. And on Wednesday, Senator Levin pointed out that his committee had found 3,400 places in Goldman documents where its officials used the phrase “net short,” a reference to negative bets.
“Why would Goldman deny what was so obvious, that they were engaged in a huge short in the year 2007?” Senator Levin asked in a press briefing Wednesday morning. “Because they gained at the expense of their clients and they used abusive practices to do it.”
The report uncovered a new aspect of Goldman’s mortgage activity during 2007. That year, as Goldman tried to build its bet against housing, the report says, it drove down the cost of shorting the mortgage market by squeezing those who had made negative bets. Goldman tried to put on the squeeze, the report noted, so that it could add to its negative bets more cheaply and protect itself against the housing collapse.
Because Goldman was a large dealer in the marketplace, it had the power to drive prices in a certain direction. The report quotes from the self-evaluation of Deeb Salem, a mortgage trader, who wrote: “We began to encourage this squeeze, with plans of getting very short again.” He added, “This strategy seemed do-able and brilliant.”
Michael Swenson, head of trading in the structured product group at Goldman and Salem’s superior, also referred to the short squeeze, according to Senate investigators. In an e-mail, Swenson said that Goldman should “start killing” investors who were betting against mortgages. In testimony before the committee, however, he said he was simply trying to add balance to the market.
Goldman abandoned its plan in June 2007 when two Bear Stearns hedge funds collapsed because of bad mortgage bets.
A Goldman spokesman said in a statement: “While we disagree with many of the conclusions of the report, we take seriously the issues explored by the subcommittee. We recently issued the results of a comprehensive examination of our business standards and practices and committed to making significant changes that will strengthen relationships with clients, improve transparency and disclosure and enhance standards for the review, approval and suitability of complex instruments.”
The report also sheds new light on the bundling and trading of mortgages at Deutsche Bank, which had also made negative bets in that market.
Unlike Goldman, Deutsche Bank has not been accused of wrongdoing by government investigators. But the Senate report focuses on a trader named Greg Lippmann, who has since left the bank to join a hedge fund.
Lippmann was vocally negative about housing as early as 2005 and brought his idea of shorting the market to professional investors on Wall Street. He described risky mortgage securities before the crisis as “pigs,” according to the report. When he was asked to buy one such mortgage security, he responded that he “would take it and try to dupe someone,” according to the report.
Lippmann persuaded Deutsche to let him build a large short position, reaching $5 billion by 2007, the report says. The bank still lost money on other positive mortgage bets, but Lippmann’s trade helped reduce the company’s overall loss.
The report focused on one Deutsche collateralized debt obligation from 2006, called Gemstone VII, and described how Deutsche and other banks made $5 million to $10 million for every deal like Gemstone they created. In 2006 and 2007, banks created about a trillion dollars of CDO deals — the most complex type of mortgage security and the instruments that sent the lending craze to dizzying heights.
In e-mails provided to the committee, Lippmann called the bank’s operation a “CDO machine” and characterized such securities as a “Ponzi scheme.” But when the committee interviewed Lippmann, he backtracked, saying that his colorful descriptions were used to defend his negative view of the market.
In the Senate interview, Mr. Lippmann also said that he thought he was the person who persuaded the American International Group to stop writing insurance on mortgage securities. He told the committee that the head of the Deutsche Bank group that put together CDO’s was upset when Lippmann persuaded AIG to exit the business in 2006. Without AIG there to insure the instruments, it would be harder to keep these lucrative factories humming.
Lippmann declined to comment on Wednesday.
Michele Allison, a spokeswoman for Deutsche Bank, said that the e-mails and other documents cited in the report indicated the divergent views within the bank about the housing market. “Despite the bearish views held by some, Deutsche Bank was long the housing market and endured significant losses,” she said in a statement.
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT:US DEBT ORGY: GOVERNMENT SPENT EIGHT TIMES MORE THAN ITS TAX REVENUE IN MARCH
16 April 2011
US DEBT ORGY: GOVERNMENT SPENT EIGHT TIMES MORE THAN ITS TAX REVENUE IN MARCHJane Burgermeister | April 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/puNtl-1bD
|
– US Government Spent More than Eight Times its Monthly Revenue
– US Govermnent paid $1.0528 trillion in monthly bills on only $128.179 in monthly tax revenue
Roni Deutsch blog
According to new data from the Treasury Department, the federal government grossed $194 billion in March, paid out nearly $66 billion in refunds, netting $128 billion in tax revenue. However, the Treasure paid out a total of $1.1187 trillion in federal expenses.
From CNS News.com:
That $1.0528 trillion in spending for March equaled 8.2 times the $128.179 in net federal tax revenue for the month.
The lion’s share of this federal spending went to redeem Treasury securities that had matured during the month—most of which were short-term Treasury bills that have terms of one-year or less. Read more of this post
-
Archives
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (108)
- May 2011 (107)
- April 2011 (110)
- March 2011 (53)
- February 2011 (25)
- January 2011 (7)
- December 2010 (4)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (13)
- September 2010 (12)
- August 2010 (24)
-
Categories
- 9/11 TRUTH
- Anti-GE
- Auckland Mayoral campaign
- Botany By-election 2011
- Centre for Public Integrity
- CLG REPORT:
- Fighting corruption in NZ
- Fighting corruption internationally
- Fighting water privatisation in NZ
- Howick by-election campaign
- Human rights
- i watch news (Centre for Public Integrity)
- Internationally significant information
- Jane Burgermeister Report
- Metrowater
- Stop the $uper City
- Transparency in Govt spending
- TRUTHOUT
- Uncategorized
- VINCE SIEMER REPORT
- WORLD WATER WARRIORS
- YOU TUBE: John Clarke and Bryan Dawe
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
The Watchdog 