Skewz.com RSS

The blog for the political website Skewz.com where you can reveal media bias and get ALL sides of the story. Check out the site at Skewz.com. You can get liberal and conservative view points on almost any news event.

Archive

Apr
10th
Fri
permalink
Bill Hemmer isn’t aging backwards. Apparently, he’s just aging and suffering from a common ailment of getting long in the tooth - memory loss. This morning Hemmer was “discussing” the issue of Vice President Joe Biden slamming the Bush administration in recent days. To create “heat” about the issue in the normal cable news right versus left format he had Juan Williams and Tucker Carlson on. Juan Williams remarked that looking back to past administration to explain current woes was nothing new. Williams went on to specifically cite the Bush administration’s focus on the Clinton administration’s approach to terrorism as a partial explanation for the 9/11 attacks. At that point the degree of complete shock that flashed over Hemmer’s face was itself incredulous. Hemmer went on to say, “I don’t ever remember anything like that.” Hemmer was at CNN from 2000 to just recently when he joined Fox News. Unless he was just a news model and didn’t ever digest or consume anything he was peddling, we’re wondering how he missed… 1. GOP congressional leaders blaming 9/11 on Clinton policies in the run up to the 2004 elections 2. The issue still being hotly debated as to who was more to blame for 9/11 5 years later But even in the earliest days of the Bush administration, the White House was blaming the preceding Clinton administration for the country’s economic woes as the dot-com bust was blossoming. Blaming the preceding administration for current woes is nothing new. Why the media doesn’t just say that is what is striking. Hemmer’s display of complete shock should only hurt his credibility. Either he has a serious case of amnesia and is not qualified by virtue of a medial condition to play the role of news anchor that he does OR he’s completely biased and throwing the game as a less than impartial ref and should also not be playing the role of news anchor. Either way, just as Hemmer’s jaw seemed to drop at the notion that one administration could blame another; our jaws dropped at either his naivete or his poor acting…we’re still trying to sort out which it was.

Bill Hemmer isn’t aging backwards. Apparently, he’s just aging and suffering from a common ailment of getting long in the tooth - memory loss.

This morning Hemmer was “discussing” the issue of Vice President Joe Biden slamming the Bush administration in recent days. To create “heat” about the issue in the normal cable news right versus left format he had Juan Williams and Tucker Carlson on. Juan Williams remarked that looking back to past administration to explain current woes was nothing new. Williams went on to specifically cite the Bush administration’s focus on the Clinton administration’s approach to terrorism as a partial explanation for the 9/11 attacks.

At that point the degree of complete shock that flashed over Hemmer’s face was itself incredulous. Hemmer went on to say, “I don’t ever remember anything like that.” Hemmer was at CNN from 2000 to just recently when he joined Fox News. Unless he was just a news model and didn’t ever digest or consume anything he was peddling, we’re wondering how he missed…

1. GOP congressional leaders blaming 9/11 on Clinton policies in the run up to the 2004 elections
2. The issue still being hotly debated as to who was more to blame for 9/11 5 years later

But even in the earliest days of the Bush administration, the White House was blaming the preceding Clinton administration for the country’s economic woes as the dot-com bust was blossoming.

Blaming the preceding administration for current woes is nothing new. Why the media doesn’t just say that is what is striking. Hemmer’s display of complete shock should only hurt his credibility. Either he has a serious case of amnesia and is not qualified by virtue of a medial condition to play the role of news anchor that he does OR he’s completely biased and throwing the game as a less than impartial ref and should also not be playing the role of news anchor. Either way, just as Hemmer’s jaw seemed to drop at the notion that one administration could blame another; our jaws dropped at either his naivete or his poor acting…we’re still trying to sort out which it was.

Apr
9th
Thu
permalink
[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

A couple of months back, I spoke at length with David Axe who is a freelance reporter who has a blog at both WIRED and his own at warisboring.com. David has huge balls and seeks out the world’s most dangerous locations and reports back from there. I believe he might be travelling through Afghanistan right now.

During the latter half of last year he decided to join a Kenyan ship and explore the world of Somali pirates. I had a lengthy conversation with him which you can check out here.

David described how the Somali pirates have evolved to become a cedible threat to high seas commercse off the Horn of Africa. The economy collapsed in Somalia along with social order. Agricultural and subsistence economies also collapsed as social order disappeared in many parts of the country. Young men went from agrarian and fishing pursuits to piracy. Many pirates early on were fighting for territorial fishing rights with each other as compeitition increased and reliance on the sea for food grew. These skills evolved slowly over the past decade to include complex operational capabilities involving mother ships and skiffs.

These pirates have become particularly harmful to the emerging economies of the East African coast such as Kenya which has now been hurt by both the pirates and the overal global financial collapse. Trade with Kenya has been significantly impacted as has trade with many other countries in the region at precisely the wrong time. The Kenyans don’t have a blue water Navy and don’t have the reach to keep the sea lanes open and operating safely. East Africa relies on a variety of navies that have a vested interest in the region which include the Indian, Chinese, European, and US navies.

In contrast to their more ruthless Indonesian straits pirate cousins, the Somali pirates do not typically kill the crews of the ships they hijack. Instead, they find that it’s more profitable to ransom these folks off, and many countries in the Gulf are willing to pay to avoid trouble. In addition, there aren’t many strong governments that prosecute the pirates which is in stark contrast to Chinese enforcement and dispensation of death penalties for pirates who are caught. For that reason, the Asian pirates take the operating philosophy of “dead men don’t talk.” As enforcement off the Horn of Africa increases, the hostage taking practice may morph into something more violent.

In striking similarity to the Taliban in Afghanistan; most of the pirates involved are young men who get a sort of rock star reputation by being involed in the pirate trade. They also get access to all the fun things in life such as women and booze which in turn attracts even more underemployed Somali youth to piracy. An amusing anecdote involves Somali pirates who had just received a multi-million dollar cash rasom returning to shore. In their rush to celebrate, they began drinking and cruising too fast and capasized…lossing most all of the money and some their lives. Ah, the folly of youth.

Ironically, the further rise of piracy off the Horn of Africa could have been avoided. In the cauldron of Somali instability, an Islamic Judicial Council was emerging that was particularly hard on pirates during the early to mid part of this decade. This early stage government was rising amid the chaos in a very similar fashion to the way the Taliban did in the chaotic context of post-Soviet Afghanistan. The Bush administration did not want to see this happen. Looking through fairly myopic lenses, they assumed this group would take the same path as the Taliban though there were many notable differences. The Islanic Judicial Council was clamping down on pirates effectively as it had declared piracy un-Islamic. But because they looked too similar to the Taliban, the Bush administration encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia and take out the Council. Ethiopia had a misadventure in Somalia similar to the US experience in Iraq. Ethiopia was seeking a warm water port after Djibouti had broken away from the country taking away access to the sea. As Ethiopia started to lose control, lawlessness returned and so did piracy…and it began to rapidly evolved to take the form we see today.

We get a lot of sporadic stories of high seas chases and scense of high seas naval face offs from the traditional press, but we don’t get a lot of context. That’s why I’m glad that folks like David are around.

Apr
6th
Mon
permalink
Say there was a plan where you could put down as little as 5% toward purchasing an asset and someone else would kick in another 5% to match. That match would get you up to 10% down. Then you could borrow up to 90% and buy the asset. You make a bet with regard to how much value that asset will bring you and what you think you might be able to sell if for if you had to. That pretty much sounds like the Geithner plan for getting toxic assets off the books of the large money-center banks in the US. In the Geithner plan, private investors such as hedge funds invest along side the government to try to create “price discovery” of what these toxis assets are worth. Beyond all the complexity, the plan essentially tries to get a market mechanism to figure out how crappy all the loans these banks have made are. There are legitimate concerns about banks gaming this system, but we’ll leave those along for now. But if you change some of the percentages a bit and a few of the names of the players, you get something that sounds a lot more familiar. The Geithner plan is illustrative of our own mini-Geithner plans which we’ve engaged in over the past decade or more. Yes, we were all able to participate in our own little versions of the Geithner plan. We put down up to 20% on a house (many people put down much less), then the government invests along side us in the form of an interest expense deduction which is essentially a subsidy. Then the bank comes in and provides the leverage to buy the house with shockingly low interest rates courtesy of the FED. If things go south we can walk away having lost some portion of our money. We’re still not interested in walking away and losing money, but at some point we’ll do it. At some level there are a lot of little Geithner plans going bad right now. In this case, the banks and individuals are taking it in the shorts. In a market where there is no gaming of the system and where people feel there is downward price pressure, the hedge funds investing as part of the Geithner plan would be at least somewhat motivated to price these assets conservatively. Just as we didn’t want to lose our 20%, the hedge fund players don’t want to lose their upfront inevestment either. And, just as home owners are now more apt to under bid versus over bid, this psychological motivation should still exist and apply to the hedge fund managers. These factors still may give the Geithner plan a chance of working in a way that is favorable to tax payers. And we should want any such plan to work. The banks aren’t as remote a set of despicable entities as we may want them to be or as they may seem. As individuals fail to pay their loan obligations for a variety of contemptable and understandable reasons, we all end up on the hook. For example, you put $5,000 in your checking account at Bank of America (or other similar bank). Bank of America kept about $500 on hand and loaned out the remaining $4,500 to some guy who can’t pay his mortgage on some McMansion in Plano, Texas. Yes, we’re all FDIC insured, but we all really want that guy to keep paying his mortgage. The Geithner bet is that just as in the good times assets become over priced, in bad times; their prices are artificially low. That’s essentially the bet. Ideally, the stress tests and Geithner’s Public-Private Investment Partnership determines which banks are solvent and which ones are not. Solvency depends on whether they have a performing loan portfolio (along with other held assets) that outweigh liabilities including those obligations to depositors and creditors. If the banks were to be nationalized and the loan portfolios (including home, car, auto, commercial, et al) did not perform, the hole would have to be filled by the government anyway. Even if you wiped out the equity of the shareholders and the liabilities to bond holders, you would only fill in a portion of the hole and undermine some confidence in the banking system. The Geithner plan cleans up relatively healthy banks and reveals truly unhealthy ones. Upcoming legislation regarding bank holding company nationalization will pave the way for greater intervention in these insolvent institutions. As a side note, Bill Moyer and William Black are just plain wrong when they claim nationalization is easy and possible for large banks right now. Bank holding companies are like investment banks and do not go into FDIC receivership…and at this point there are not many mergers left to be done to protect depositors in the event of bank failures of massive institutions. In addition, one of the biggest fools in this parade is AIG which is not even a bank so such notions of nationalization still do not apply. If the major banks are as insolvent as many suggest, then we’re likely in big trouble. Some are too deep into mortgages, others credit card lines, some autos, still others commerical real estate (or combinations of these). Either way, non-performance of these loans (to us, by the way) means that the depositors money never makes its way back to the bank. If all these banks are in extraoardinarily bad shape, then the obligations are massive. The chart above is a bit dated, but it suggests that the obligation to depositors (assuming everyone conforms to FDIC limits…and depositors means us poor f**kers) is several trillion dollars. Clearly, the banks’ assets are not worth zero. But when one looks at the problem, at least a little pity has to be extended to those trying to fix this mess. But more importantly, we and the banks are ultimately a lot less about us and them. We all participated. It’s too convenient and intellectually dishonest to simply cast the banks out as the pariahs or villians in this story. Main Street and Wall Street are inextricably linked and mutually culpable. A lot of us had our own personal Geithner’s plans which we screwed up horribly. We should hope the hedge fund investors do a better job.

Say there was a plan where you could put down as little as 5% toward purchasing an asset and someone else would kick in another 5% to match. That match would get you up to 10% down. Then you could borrow up to 90% and buy the asset. You make a bet with regard to how much value that asset will bring you and what you think you might be able to sell if for if you had to.

That pretty much sounds like the Geithner plan for getting toxic assets off the books of the large money-center banks in the US. In the Geithner plan, private investors such as hedge funds invest along side the government to try to create “price discovery” of what these toxis assets are worth. Beyond all the complexity, the plan essentially tries to get a market mechanism to figure out how crappy all the loans these banks have made are. There are legitimate concerns about banks gaming this system, but we’ll leave those along for now.

But if you change some of the percentages a bit and a few of the names of the players, you get something that sounds a lot more familiar. The Geithner plan is illustrative of our own mini-Geithner plans which we’ve engaged in over the past decade or more. Yes, we were all able to participate in our own little versions of the Geithner plan. We put down up to 20% on a house (many people put down much less), then the government invests along side us in the form of an interest expense deduction which is essentially a subsidy. Then the bank comes in and provides the leverage to buy the house with shockingly low interest rates courtesy of the FED. If things go south we can walk away having lost some portion of our money. We’re still not interested in walking away and losing money, but at some point we’ll do it. At some level there are a lot of little Geithner plans going bad right now. In this case, the banks and individuals are taking it in the shorts. In a market where there is no gaming of the system and where people feel there is downward price pressure, the hedge funds investing as part of the Geithner plan would be at least somewhat motivated to price these assets conservatively. Just as we didn’t want to lose our 20%, the hedge fund players don’t want to lose their upfront inevestment either. And, just as home owners are now more apt to under bid versus over bid, this psychological motivation should still exist and apply to the hedge fund managers. These factors still may give the Geithner plan a chance of working in a way that is favorable to tax payers.

And we should want any such plan to work. The banks aren’t as remote a set of despicable entities as we may want them to be or as they may seem. As individuals fail to pay their loan obligations for a variety of contemptable and understandable reasons, we all end up on the hook.

For example, you put $5,000 in your checking account at Bank of America (or other similar bank). Bank of America kept about $500 on hand and loaned out the remaining $4,500 to some guy who can’t pay his mortgage on some McMansion in Plano, Texas. Yes, we’re all FDIC insured, but we all really want that guy to keep paying his mortgage. The Geithner bet is that just as in the good times assets become over priced, in bad times; their prices are artificially low. That’s essentially the bet. Ideally, the stress tests and Geithner’s Public-Private Investment Partnership determines which banks are solvent and which ones are not. Solvency depends on whether they have a performing loan portfolio (along with other held assets) that outweigh liabilities including those obligations to depositors and creditors. If the banks were to be nationalized and the loan portfolios (including home, car, auto, commercial, et al) did not perform, the hole would have to be filled by the government anyway. Even if you wiped out the equity of the shareholders and the liabilities to bond holders, you would only fill in a portion of the hole and undermine some confidence in the banking system. The Geithner plan cleans up relatively healthy banks and reveals truly unhealthy ones. Upcoming legislation regarding bank holding company nationalization will pave the way for greater intervention in these insolvent institutions. As a side note, Bill Moyer and William Black are just plain wrong when they claim nationalization is easy and possible for large banks right now. Bank holding companies are like investment banks and do not go into FDIC receivership…and at this point there are not many mergers left to be done to protect depositors in the event of bank failures of massive institutions. In addition, one of the biggest fools in this parade is AIG which is not even a bank so such notions of nationalization still do not apply.

If the major banks are as insolvent as many suggest, then we’re likely in big trouble. Some are too deep into mortgages, others credit card lines, some autos, still others commerical real estate (or combinations of these). Either way, non-performance of these loans (to us, by the way) means that the depositors money never makes its way back to the bank. If all these banks are in extraoardinarily bad shape, then the obligations are massive.

The chart above is a bit dated, but it suggests that the obligation to depositors (assuming everyone conforms to FDIC limits…and depositors means us poor f**kers) is several trillion dollars. Clearly, the banks’ assets are not worth zero. But when one looks at the problem, at least a little pity has to be extended to those trying to fix this mess. But more importantly, we and the banks are ultimately a lot less about us and them. We all participated. It’s too convenient and intellectually dishonest to simply cast the banks out as the pariahs or villians in this story. Main Street and Wall Street are inextricably linked and mutually culpable. A lot of us had our own personal Geithner’s plans which we screwed up horribly. We should hope the hedge fund investors do a better job.

Apr
5th
Sun
permalink
Video link. When the Huffington Post sent in a blogger with a cell phone to a closed event and captured Barack Obama saying, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations;” the press gasped and prepared the country for outrage. Obama was responding to a question about how well-to-do San Franciscans can communicate to rural Pennsylvanians as part of their canvassing efforts. His point was that when people perceive that the system has failed them, they grasp for what they know. This last point seems well articulated when you listen to the full statements that were made. Now it seems that people are grasping for their guns all over the place. Richard Poplawski reached for his guns and planned a show down with police in of all places…western Pennsylvania. Friends suggest that Poplawski was worried about a coming gun ban and other “fascist-like” infringements on liberty that the Obama administration would carry out in their unhinged liberal ways. No suggestion had been made to date that the Obama administration was going to make any changes to gun laws, but that may all change with the recent spate of gun violence across the country. Mr. Poplawski may be a catalyst for the very curtailment of rights he feared by virtue of being an example of how those rights cannot be responsibly held by some. But the fears stoked in Mr. Poplawski, as disturbed as he might turn out to be, come from somewhere. These thoughts of impending fascist takeover don’t come from obscure extremists. Instead, they come from the former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and are distributed by the most popular cable news channel Fox News. And these actions are carried out with reckless abandon. Mr. Gingrich may feel he is warranted in having such thoughts, but Fox News should be more circumspect about giving them credibilty through its good (in some people’s eyes) offices. These comments and this thinking is distributed as valid fact on Fox News without much debate. There are consequences in stoking fears. Heat (controversy) versus light (insight) might get ratings, but Fox can no longer ignore the social implications…and oh by the way…they may want to examine the merits of Mr. Obama’s statements from last year that they so enthusiastically derided which seem to now have some merit.

Video link.

When the Huffington Post sent in a blogger with a cell phone to a closed event and captured Barack Obama saying, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations;” the press gasped and prepared the country for outrage. Obama was responding to a question about how well-to-do San Franciscans can communicate to rural Pennsylvanians as part of their canvassing efforts. His point was that when people perceive that the system has failed them, they grasp for what they know. This last point seems well articulated when you listen to the full statements that were made.

Now it seems that people are grasping for their guns all over the place. Richard Poplawski reached for his guns and planned a show down with police in of all places…western Pennsylvania. Friends suggest that Poplawski was worried about a coming gun ban and other “fascist-like” infringements on liberty that the Obama administration would carry out in their unhinged liberal ways. No suggestion had been made to date that the Obama administration was going to make any changes to gun laws, but that may all change with the recent spate of gun violence across the country. Mr. Poplawski may be a catalyst for the very curtailment of rights he feared by virtue of being an example of how those rights cannot be responsibly held by some.

But the fears stoked in Mr. Poplawski, as disturbed as he might turn out to be, come from somewhere. These thoughts of impending fascist takeover don’t come from obscure extremists. Instead, they come from the former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and are distributed by the most popular cable news channel Fox News. And these actions are carried out with reckless abandon. Mr. Gingrich may feel he is warranted in having such thoughts, but Fox News should be more circumspect about giving them credibilty through its good (in some people’s eyes) offices. These comments and this thinking is distributed as valid fact on Fox News without much debate. There are consequences in stoking fears. Heat (controversy) versus light (insight) might get ratings, but Fox can no longer ignore the social implications…and oh by the way…they may want to examine the merits of Mr. Obama’s statements from last year that they so enthusiastically derided which seem to now have some merit.

Apr
4th
Sat
permalink

Many of us heard about the deaths of four Oakland police officers in March after a relatively routine traffic stop went bad. Two motor (motorcycle) police offers stopped a car near downtown Oakland. They were killed during that stop. As the Oakland SWAT team attempted to find and arrest the suspect, two more officers were killed and another slightly injured. But fewer people have heard about the “after story” that provides greater context to the killings. The after story is the adoration and praise being conferred upon the man who killed the officers. Further, an older man who attempted to help the officers is now being threatened.

The four Oakland police officers that were killed were:

John Hege

Mark Dunakin

Ervin Romans

Daniel Sakai

The individual suspected of killing the police officers was 26 year old parolee Lovelle Mixon. He apparently killed the firt two police officers execution style by shooting them in the head and face after initially injuring them.

Lovelle Mixon had been arrested in the past on forgery, identity theft, grand theft auto, assault, and was more recently suspected of raping a 12 year old girl. Yet despite his career criminal credentials, he is considered a martyr and soldier in a just war against the police in Oakland. The fact that someone who had such an impressive record of undermining the community could conjure so much affection from that same community deserves greater attention. Either way, it speaks of the police, the community, or both in substantially negative ways. It’s important for the media to lay out the facts to determine what’s going on.

But despite the significant community protest regarding police oppression, the resources that the government was attempting to provide Mixon were apparently not enough. The resources afforded to Mixon are outlined as part of the record of his parole officer contacts where numerous job placement services were made available to Mixon. These services may not have been enough or adequate, but the state was clearly doing more than just releasing Mixon into the wilds of society. Based on the support Mixon was getting after being put on parole, it’s unclear what more the community expected he deserved.

More confusing (and disturbing) are the threats that Clarence Ellis has received from members within his own community. Mr. Ellis saw the two motor officers lying in the street immediately after the shooting and attempted to offer first aid based on his past military training. Now, youth in his community where the shooting took place have threatened him and have labelled him a “snitch.”

Soon after the shooting and during the SWAT activity, young people were taunting the police and encouraging folks to celebrate in the streets if the officers were declared dead. Such antipathy toward the police has to have roots somewhere whether these sentiments are justified or not. If they are justified, then the reasons need to be squarely explored and addressed. If they are not justified, then the community has no one but itself to blame for its enfeebled condition. Negative sentiment toward the police stems from legitimate issues that originate decades ago. However, to what extent are those issues still relevant? These types of questions should be answered.

Common reasons given regarding the Oakland Africa American community’s antipathy toward the police include:

The fact that none of the 4 police officers killed lived in Oakland and, therefore, were oppressive ousiders,
44 of the last 45 police shootings involved African-Americans or Latinos despite these minorities comprising only 56% of the population,
20% of the population lives below the poverty line and is both frustrated and disenfranchised,
Only 60% of police shootings involve cases where the person shot by the police ends up having a gun, and
Oakland Police Departments implementation of “broken window” policies.
But many of these modern reasons for police anti-pathy have counter arguments worth exploring:

The Oakland Police Department is unable to recruit local labor because the police department is not perceived to be an attractive career path by members of the community,
Most violent crime in Oakland occurs in West Oakland with relatively low crime in more affluent sections such as Rockridge,
20% of the population of Oakland receives some sort of government assistance and 14% lives in some form of subsidized housing. In the case of Mixon himself, a substantial amount of post parolee support appears to have been provided,
Given the killings of 4 police officers as part of a routine traffic stop, officers are likely to move even more aggressively to a “shoot first” policy, and
The “broken windows” approach to law enforcement does go after minor infractions but has led to the revitalization of New York City with few complaints.
Alternative media interpretations of the events of March 21st lay all or at least nearly all blame for the incident at the feet of the police department. Such lack of introspection reveals a shocking degree of hypocrisy. Folks in this camp want the police to reexamine their approaches, want more help from the government, and want greater social justice. Yet they provide no alternative to the actions the police should have taken. Should the police not enforce traffice laws? Should parolees be able to ignore the terms of their parole? No clear alternatives or solutions are explored in either concept much less feasibility. The “alternative” media ridicules the mainstream press of knee-jerk cop glorification, but they themselves are guilty of similar knee-jerk responses of cop-killer diefication.

Whatever the truth, it must be uncovered. Too much of America is either victim of or ruled by “snitch” culture - whichever is your perspective. That culture is either a self-defense evolution or some sort of social devolution, and we as a country better find out which of the two it is and address the issue. We complain that Pakistan has poor control of part of its territory…that Waziristan is ungovernable. The US may have a hundred Waziristans pock-marking its geography already.

Apr
3rd
Fri
permalink
Even during an economic crisis the press will devolve into covering an event that includes the leaders of the 20 most powerful economies of the world in the most trivial of ways. Based on the coverage, we’re not really sure happened aside from Mrs. Obama feeling up the queen, being in a stylistic cage match with the first lady of France, Gordon Brown laughing too hard at one of President Obama’s jokes, and Obama himself ending a Fight Club round between the Chinese premier and the French president. Oh, and someone said something about the possibility of a global regulatory framework that the US largely rejected in form though not in principle and something about a trillion dollars for the IMF. What’s the IMF? Must be something like TARP, PPIP, TALF, et al. All that stuff must be pretty unimportant. We really should be focusing on the important stuff, like… You have Arianna Huffington as the guest commentator on CNBC earlier in the week having an impromptu interview with Noriel Roubini about the soundness of the Geithner plan, and then you have her talking about Michelle Obama’s style. We appreciate the versatility, but is that the only thing to comment on coming out of the G20. Either the G20 was a complete waste of time or the media’s not sure what’s important and what not at these events. Beyond all the foreign policy and trade stuff (yawn- that’s what the G20 is about?), we know what’s wrong with Michelle Obama’s style in Europe, but do we really have a clear sense of what progress was made with regard to US-Russian relations. Anyone know how Obama reassured the Chinese leadership of their ability to maintain the value of the Chinese investment in US treasuries? These questions go unasnwered, but we do understand that what Michelle Obama wore made her ass look too big. Speaking of junk-in-the-trunk issues, apparently the US-UK relationship has hit an iceberg with a careless attempt at grab-ass. All of these “high-impact” stories are on the front page of the Huffington Post (all right now, all at the same time)…not People or US Weekly. Over saturation with stories such as these call into question the credibility the HuffPo’s upcoming adventure into “investigative journalism.” We wonder what that would entail…plumbing the true depths of Michelle Obama’s Amelda Marcos-like shoe collection?

Even during an economic crisis the press will devolve into covering an event that includes the leaders of the 20 most powerful economies of the world in the most trivial of ways. Based on the coverage, we’re not really sure happened aside from Mrs. Obama feeling up the queen, being in a stylistic cage match with the first lady of France, Gordon Brown laughing too hard at one of President Obama’s jokes, and Obama himself ending a Fight Club round between the Chinese premier and the French president. Oh, and someone said something about the possibility of a global regulatory framework that the US largely rejected in form though not in principle and something about a trillion dollars for the IMF. What’s the IMF? Must be something like TARP, PPIP, TALF, et al. All that stuff must be pretty unimportant. We really should be focusing on the important stuff, like…

You have Arianna Huffington as the guest commentator on CNBC earlier in the week having an impromptu interview with Noriel Roubini about the soundness of the Geithner plan, and then you have her talking about Michelle Obama’s style. We appreciate the versatility, but is that the only thing to comment on coming out of the G20. Either the G20 was a complete waste of time or the media’s not sure what’s important and what not at these events.

Beyond all the foreign policy and trade stuff (yawn- that’s what the G20 is about?), we know what’s wrong with Michelle Obama’s style in Europe, but do we really have a clear sense of what progress was made with regard to US-Russian relations. Anyone know how Obama reassured the Chinese leadership of their ability to maintain the value of the Chinese investment in US treasuries? These questions go unasnwered, but we do understand that what Michelle Obama wore made her ass look too big.

Speaking of junk-in-the-trunk issues, apparently the US-UK relationship has hit an iceberg with a careless attempt at grab-ass.

All of these “high-impact” stories are on the front page of the Huffington Post (all right now, all at the same time)…not People or US Weekly. Over saturation with stories such as these call into question the credibility the HuffPo’s upcoming adventure into “investigative journalism.” We wonder what that would entail…plumbing the true depths of Michelle Obama’s Amelda Marcos-like shoe collection?

Apr
2nd
Thu
permalink

Get Ready for the “Baby Banks”

Remember the “Baby Bells” that came out of the breakup of the AT&T telecom monopoly? Well you heard it here first — after reality sets in and we finally nationalize the insolvent bohemeths of Bank of America, Citibank, etc. the likely outcome will be a group of smaller “baby banks.”

Let’s do a quick reality-based (the non-fiction version) review:

Several (and perhaps most) of the major US “money center” (aka large) banks are effectively insolvent.
The success of the Geithner plan is predicated on overpaying for toxic assets in order to prevent #1.
As Paul Krugman, summarizes:

“This plan will produce big gains for banks that didn’t actually need any help; it will, however, do little to reassure the public about banks that are seriously undercapitalized. And I fear that when the plan fails, as it almost surely will, the administration will have shot its bolt: it won’t be able to come back to Congress for a plan that might actually work.”
So what happens when the reality finally collectively smacks us in the face? Look for an expensive restructuring of these monsters into smaller Baby Banks, in theory none of which will be too big to fail (again).

As always check us out all sides of the story at skewz.com.
Download our Mozilla toolbar to submit stories to skewz.com and learn the bias of sites you visit on the Internet.
Check our our daily podcasts as well.

Apr
1st
Wed
permalink
Can You Run a Campaign on Pizza? In Silicon Valley they say that you can start a business with an idea, an engineer, some beer, and an endless supply of pizza. Seems like the CEO of Dominos has naturally subscribed to that approach. The company’s recent commercials poke fun at the recent string of bailouts the government has undertaken. Interestingly, Domino’s CEO Dave Brandon who is prominently featured in the commercials is considered an “avid participant in Republican politics.” In fact, he considered running for a US Senate seat in Michigan in 2006 and is now rumored to be considering a run at being the next governor of Michigan in 2010. He has also reportedly donated nearly $200,000 to various GOP candidates. We’re not sure how effective the advertising campaign has been for selling more pizzas, but it’s curious to see the CEO so prominently featured in coporate advertising in the context of a potential run at political office. This could all be light banter, but it seems clear that the chief executive of Dominos wants to be perceived as someone who is not a big fan of “fat cat” bailouts and is a real man of the people. In some respects, his bailout for the little guy sentiment may jive well right now with folks in Michigan in the wake of the federal government essentially walking away from the auto makers. Either way, this could be just another CEO centered commerical which have become increasingly popular over the years or a slyly funded pre-campaign exposure effort. It would be nice to get the media figure out which is which. If the ads sell more pizzas than would have other creative advertising choices, so much the better for shareholders of DPZ (dominos NYSE ticker symbol). If not, then this would be just another example of a CEO taking advantage of some truly unusual corporate perks. As always check us out all sides of the story at www.skewz.com. Download our Mozilla toolbar to submit stories to skewz.com and learn the bias of sites you visit on the Internet. Check our our daily podcasts as well.

Can You Run a Campaign on Pizza?

In Silicon Valley they say that you can start a business with an idea, an engineer, some beer, and an endless supply of pizza. Seems like the CEO of Dominos has naturally subscribed to that approach. The company’s recent commercials poke fun at the recent string of bailouts the government has undertaken.

Interestingly, Domino’s CEO Dave Brandon who is prominently featured in the commercials is considered an “avid participant in Republican politics.” In fact, he considered running for a US Senate seat in Michigan in 2006 and is now rumored to be considering a run at being the next governor of Michigan in 2010. He has also reportedly donated nearly $200,000 to various GOP candidates.

We’re not sure how effective the advertising campaign has been for selling more pizzas, but it’s curious to see the CEO so prominently featured in coporate advertising in the context of a potential run at political office. This could all be light banter, but it seems clear that the chief executive of Dominos wants to be perceived as someone who is not a big fan of “fat cat” bailouts and is a real man of the people. In some respects, his bailout for the little guy sentiment may jive well right now with folks in Michigan in the wake of the federal government essentially walking away from the auto makers. Either way, this could be just another CEO centered commerical which have become increasingly popular over the years or a slyly funded pre-campaign exposure effort. It would be nice to get the media figure out which is which.
If the ads sell more pizzas than would have other creative advertising choices, so much the better for shareholders of DPZ (dominos NYSE ticker symbol). If not, then this would be just another example of a CEO taking advantage of some truly unusual corporate perks.

As always check us out all sides of the story at www.skewz.com.
Download our Mozilla toolbar to submit stories to skewz.com and learn the bias of sites you visit on the Internet.
Check our our daily podcasts as well.