Students of a private school founded by Turkish-
businessmen in the U.S. capital of Washington D.C. have been awarded first place at a competition encouraging youngsters to design the "city of future".
Students of Pinnacle Academy were awarded first place at the "Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area Future City Competition" and they were qualified to represent their region at the "2010 Future City
Competition National Finals" to be held between February 13 and 17.
Seventh grade students Selin Altintas, Nurbanu Simsek, Zehra Yilmaz and Madina Khurishanova were ranked the first at regional level thanks to their project "Yeshilist".
The students, working under the guidance of their teacher Hatice Evci and architect Emre Ozkan, developed an imaginary city that will cover the long-term accommodation needs of people who may lose their houses during a possible earthquake.
Using the Sim City4 Deluxe PC game, students founded a cyber city near Istanbul's Catalca region of Turkey and prepared a digital version as well as a three-dimensional model the city.
In front of a jury comprising of engineers and architects, Pinnacle Academy's team made a written and oral presentation to introduce their dream city.
With their project "Yeshilist", students of the academy will now compete at the national finals to be held at the Congress building in February.
Winners of the national finals will be awarded with a one-week trip to the Space Camp in Alabama, officials said.
Source:turkishweekly.net/
Showing posts with label Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift. Show all posts
Saturday, January 30, 2010
New Voices: Democracy won't be the same after decision
Lawyers around Washington, D.C., love to joke that the highest court in the land is not the Supreme Court of the United States-
, but rather the basketball court located on the fifth floor of the Supreme Court Building. Either way, five justices committed a flagrant foul last week.
On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It was an opinion legal commentators, politicians and law students had been awaiting for some time. In a bitterly divided 5-4 opinion, the court overturned more than a century's worth of precedent and cleared the way for corporations to flood elections with an exceptional amount of money.
The decision was announced to an audience that only half-filled the court gallery. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a one-time advocate of restrictive campaign-finance laws, delivered the majority opinion. It took him about 5 minutes to read a summary of the court's opinion, but astounded observers immediately grasped the wide-ranging impact of the decision.
It was clear that the court was extending an American citizen's right to freedom of speech to corporations — fictional individuals. Kennedy's new interpretation opened the door to corporations using general funds to support or oppose candidates in elections, and overturned restrictions enacted in McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reforms that limited independent corporate expenditures in elections. Corporate spending in electoral politics may be both direct and unlimited for the foreseeable future.
And, if spending money is speech, corporations are screaming. They are screaming at politicians over you, me and anyone else unable to empty millions of dollars from their coffers, unfettered.
This case, more than any other of my generation, has the potential to threaten American democracy. Every generation witnesses pivotal moments. This is ours.
Bush v. Gore is seen by many as a political decision. Roe v. Wade is seen by some as immoral. Dred Scott today is seen as unconscionable. Each, depending on your point of view, had potentially corrosive effects on our nation's history and identity. Each, however, was delivered within a political system that possessed legitimacy and provided an opportunity for recourse through its checks and balances.
The court in Citizens United abandoned this balancing of power. It inserted itself, and a substantial amount of new money, into the body politic. A vital check within our system of government vanished, only to be replaced with one of the monetary kind.
As I listened to Kennedy, I slumped over and contended with a roller coaster of emotions. But then, reminiscent of John Paul Jones' famous cry of "I have not yet begun to fight," Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a rousing summary of his dissenting opinion, which is one page longer than his age — 89 years, 90 pages. He spoke for about 20 minutes, and I could see that he and the minority were grappling with the same emotions as I was.
He said aloud, and reiterated in writing, "I regret the length of what follows, but the importance and novelty of the Court's opinion require a full response."
And, oh, what a response it was.
I urge you to read the passionate pleas of the elder statesman of the court and to consider the effect Citizens United will have on American democracy. It is an effect I fear.
I agree with Stevens when he concludes: "It is a strange time to repudiate … common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
Source:
, but rather the basketball court located on the fifth floor of the Supreme Court Building. Either way, five justices committed a flagrant foul last week.
On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It was an opinion legal commentators, politicians and law students had been awaiting for some time. In a bitterly divided 5-4 opinion, the court overturned more than a century's worth of precedent and cleared the way for corporations to flood elections with an exceptional amount of money.
The decision was announced to an audience that only half-filled the court gallery. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a one-time advocate of restrictive campaign-finance laws, delivered the majority opinion. It took him about 5 minutes to read a summary of the court's opinion, but astounded observers immediately grasped the wide-ranging impact of the decision.
It was clear that the court was extending an American citizen's right to freedom of speech to corporations — fictional individuals. Kennedy's new interpretation opened the door to corporations using general funds to support or oppose candidates in elections, and overturned restrictions enacted in McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reforms that limited independent corporate expenditures in elections. Corporate spending in electoral politics may be both direct and unlimited for the foreseeable future.
And, if spending money is speech, corporations are screaming. They are screaming at politicians over you, me and anyone else unable to empty millions of dollars from their coffers, unfettered.
This case, more than any other of my generation, has the potential to threaten American democracy. Every generation witnesses pivotal moments. This is ours.
Bush v. Gore is seen by many as a political decision. Roe v. Wade is seen by some as immoral. Dred Scott today is seen as unconscionable. Each, depending on your point of view, had potentially corrosive effects on our nation's history and identity. Each, however, was delivered within a political system that possessed legitimacy and provided an opportunity for recourse through its checks and balances.
The court in Citizens United abandoned this balancing of power. It inserted itself, and a substantial amount of new money, into the body politic. A vital check within our system of government vanished, only to be replaced with one of the monetary kind.
As I listened to Kennedy, I slumped over and contended with a roller coaster of emotions. But then, reminiscent of John Paul Jones' famous cry of "I have not yet begun to fight," Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a rousing summary of his dissenting opinion, which is one page longer than his age — 89 years, 90 pages. He spoke for about 20 minutes, and I could see that he and the minority were grappling with the same emotions as I was.
He said aloud, and reiterated in writing, "I regret the length of what follows, but the importance and novelty of the Court's opinion require a full response."
And, oh, what a response it was.
I urge you to read the passionate pleas of the elder statesman of the court and to consider the effect Citizens United will have on American democracy. It is an effect I fear.
I agree with Stevens when he concludes: "It is a strange time to repudiate … common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
Source:
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State of the Union: Obama's national security rhetoric bogs him down
In sum, this State of the Union comes from a president still struggling to reconcile his lofty campaign hopes with the hard realities of governing, and the pressing demands of domestic politics with his inescapable responsibilities as commander in chief.
Source:shadow.foreignpolicy.com/
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
US STOCKS SNAPSHOT-Futures advance on Obama's speech
NEW YORK, Jan 27 (Reuters) - U.S. stock index futures added gains in late after-hours trading on Wednesday as investors took President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech as toning down some of the rhetoric that unnerved investors last week when he unveiled new restrictions on U.S. banks.
If you go back to what he said last week it was incredible how adversarial he was from a standpoint of the financial system: banks and fat-cats on Wall Street versus poor little Americans," said Alan Lancz, president of Alan B. Lancz & Associates Inc, an investment advisory firm, based in Toledo, Ohio. "It seems from what I've heard he has toned down the rhetoric."
S&P 500 futures SPc1 rose 5.30 points and were above fair value, a formula that evaluates pricing by taking into account interest rates, dividends and time to expiration of the contract. Dow Jones industrial average futures DJc1 gained 51 points, and Nasdaq 100 futures NDc1 added 7.25 points. (Reporting by Ellis Mnyandu; Editing by Tomasz Janowski)
Source:reuters.com/
If you go back to what he said last week it was incredible how adversarial he was from a standpoint of the financial system: banks and fat-cats on Wall Street versus poor little Americans," said Alan Lancz, president of Alan B. Lancz & Associates Inc, an investment advisory firm, based in Toledo, Ohio. "It seems from what I've heard he has toned down the rhetoric."
S&P 500 futures SPc1 rose 5.30 points and were above fair value, a formula that evaluates pricing by taking into account interest rates, dividends and time to expiration of the contract. Dow Jones industrial average futures DJc1 gained 51 points, and Nasdaq 100 futures NDc1 added 7.25 points. (Reporting by Ellis Mnyandu; Editing by Tomasz Janowski)
Source:reuters.com/
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Bank sector hails Obama bank levy as fair
LONDON — British bankers have welcomed US President Barack Obama's announcement of a levy to raise 55 billion pounds to recoup the Wall Street bailout, saying it restores parity to the global banking sector.
Obama's plan appeared to catch European governments and central banks by surprise, as did the president's aggressive tone -- he called corporate bonuses "obscene" and vowed "we want our money back and we are going to get it."
The proposals also raised eyebrows because the United States has shown great reluctance to impose global rules governing bankers' bonuses.
But the announcement appeared to be timed to tap into public anger at the paying of billions of pounds of bonuses over the next few weeks in a sector which had to be rescued by governments worldwide just months ago.
Until now, bankers in the City of London, the other main financial centre along with Wall Street, have claimed they were unfairly penalised by the tough conditions imposed by the Treasury when it intervened to prop up banks.
Banks have also argued that the government's imposition of a 50-percent tax rate on bonuses until April could cause high performers to pack their bags and head for jobs in countries with less restrictive rules.
A combination of the two factors, banks have warned, risks leaving them at a disadvantage compared to their colleagues in other financial centres.
So the British Bankers' Association (BBA), an industry body representing the sector, welcomed the Obama plan as a "levelling of the playing field."
"The US has moved up to the playing field that we are already on," BBA chief executive Angela Knight said.
"These are two distinctly different situations. The US has a deficit that it wants banks to meet. In the UK we are paying more and we started paying earlier and UK taxpayers will get back more than they contributed, which I think is only right."
Knight said the "real competition" for global banking jobs now was not between the US and the UK," but between the rest of the world and the fast-developing finance sector in China and elsewhere in Asia.
"If you are at a headquarters and you are deciding on strategic plans for the next two, or five to 10 years, what we don't want to see is action here in the UK that would see those centres being moved to the Far East."
She told AFP that however much people in Britain were concerned about the bonuses issue "they would be even more concerned if all the other jobs that hang off the sector and the tax that comes from them were to move elsewhere."
But some analysts think banks are deliberately exaggerating the potential risks of staff fleeing the traditional centres because it allows them to argue that they should continue paying themselves the multi-million salaries.
Keith Pilbeam, professor of international finance at City University in London, praised the Obama plan for spreading the repayments levy over 10 to 12 years, but said it failed to address the "central issue."
"The market failure is banking pay. The share prices are down massively and yet the bonuses and high pay are continuing," he said.
"Something does need to be done about that and it might be necessary to bring in pay caps through legislation."
He scoffed at suggestions that bankers were likely to flee the City and Wall Street if stricter restrictions were clamped on their pay and bonuses.
"It is just scaremongering from the banks. There is no way these guys are leaving London and New York. Some people around the margins might leave, but so what?
"And anyway, where is the talent they talk about when these guys have just destroyed shareholders' companies?"
Kevin Young, a Fellow in Global Politics at the London School of Economics, said neither the Obama plan nor premier Gordon Brown's bonus tax would lead to the wider reform of the financial system that many think is necessary.
"It is inevitable that many banks and their associations won't like it (the levy) -- but ultimately it is a very minor measure designed to recoup funds, and does so over a long period of time," he said.
"It is more than a drop in the ocean, but is not an ambitious plan for reform -- rather just a way for the US taxpayer to recoup their cash."
What the introduction of both measures would change the most, he said, "is the public's perception that these leaders are addressing a systemic problem."
Source:AFP
Obama's plan appeared to catch European governments and central banks by surprise, as did the president's aggressive tone -- he called corporate bonuses "obscene" and vowed "we want our money back and we are going to get it."
The proposals also raised eyebrows because the United States has shown great reluctance to impose global rules governing bankers' bonuses.
But the announcement appeared to be timed to tap into public anger at the paying of billions of pounds of bonuses over the next few weeks in a sector which had to be rescued by governments worldwide just months ago.
Until now, bankers in the City of London, the other main financial centre along with Wall Street, have claimed they were unfairly penalised by the tough conditions imposed by the Treasury when it intervened to prop up banks.
Banks have also argued that the government's imposition of a 50-percent tax rate on bonuses until April could cause high performers to pack their bags and head for jobs in countries with less restrictive rules.
A combination of the two factors, banks have warned, risks leaving them at a disadvantage compared to their colleagues in other financial centres.
So the British Bankers' Association (BBA), an industry body representing the sector, welcomed the Obama plan as a "levelling of the playing field."
"The US has moved up to the playing field that we are already on," BBA chief executive Angela Knight said.
"These are two distinctly different situations. The US has a deficit that it wants banks to meet. In the UK we are paying more and we started paying earlier and UK taxpayers will get back more than they contributed, which I think is only right."
Knight said the "real competition" for global banking jobs now was not between the US and the UK," but between the rest of the world and the fast-developing finance sector in China and elsewhere in Asia.
"If you are at a headquarters and you are deciding on strategic plans for the next two, or five to 10 years, what we don't want to see is action here in the UK that would see those centres being moved to the Far East."
She told AFP that however much people in Britain were concerned about the bonuses issue "they would be even more concerned if all the other jobs that hang off the sector and the tax that comes from them were to move elsewhere."
But some analysts think banks are deliberately exaggerating the potential risks of staff fleeing the traditional centres because it allows them to argue that they should continue paying themselves the multi-million salaries.
Keith Pilbeam, professor of international finance at City University in London, praised the Obama plan for spreading the repayments levy over 10 to 12 years, but said it failed to address the "central issue."
"The market failure is banking pay. The share prices are down massively and yet the bonuses and high pay are continuing," he said.
"Something does need to be done about that and it might be necessary to bring in pay caps through legislation."
He scoffed at suggestions that bankers were likely to flee the City and Wall Street if stricter restrictions were clamped on their pay and bonuses.
"It is just scaremongering from the banks. There is no way these guys are leaving London and New York. Some people around the margins might leave, but so what?
"And anyway, where is the talent they talk about when these guys have just destroyed shareholders' companies?"
Kevin Young, a Fellow in Global Politics at the London School of Economics, said neither the Obama plan nor premier Gordon Brown's bonus tax would lead to the wider reform of the financial system that many think is necessary.
"It is inevitable that many banks and their associations won't like it (the levy) -- but ultimately it is a very minor measure designed to recoup funds, and does so over a long period of time," he said.
"It is more than a drop in the ocean, but is not an ambitious plan for reform -- rather just a way for the US taxpayer to recoup their cash."
What the introduction of both measures would change the most, he said, "is the public's perception that these leaders are addressing a systemic problem."
Source:AFP
Saturday, January 16, 2010
US govt may hold Hambali trial in Washington
WASHINGTON, Jan 17 — The United States government is mulling over plans to bring Riduan ‘Hambali’ Isamuddin, the Indonesia-born terror suspect linked to the 2002 Bali bombings and several failed plots against Singapore, to Washington, DC for a trial.
The Justice Department is expected to make a final decision in a few weeks’ time, according to the Associated Press which first reported the news.
Attorney-General Eric Holder did not respond to the report, though the news immediately drew fierce criticisms from the opposition Republicans.
They argued that it would be too dangerous to conduct a high-profile terrorism trial in a major population centre like Washington, DC, adding that the costs of maintaining security during the proceedings would be prohibitive.
“Moving terrorist detainees to within a mile of the White House and blocks from the US Capitol for show trials is a mistake,” Congressman Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement posted on his website.
“The American people, already reeling under the debt of crushing federal spending, should not be asked to shell out hundreds of millions more to satisfy the symbolic wishes of the Obama administration.”
The Jakarta Globe quoted a source from Indonesia’s national police force who confirmed that Hambali will be tried in the US.
But Indonesia’s foreign ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah told the newspaper that his ministry has not received any notification from Washington.
A similar outcry also broke out when it was announced that alleged Sept 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be put on trial in New York.
President Barack Obama, however, has said that he believes criminal courts in the US can handle even the most dangerous terrorists.
His administration’s efforts to try these terror suspects in the US are part of broader plans to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention centre, which still holds hundreds of terror suspects, including “high-value” detainees like Hambali.
Hambali, the alleged leader of regional terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) and a key lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, was captured in Thailand in 2003. He was kept in secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) before he was transferred to Guantanamo in 2006.
He has been linked to the Bali bombings, which killed over 200 people, as well as foiled plots to attack foreign embassies and other targets in Singapore.
But media reports over the years suggest that the US authorities may not have enough evidence to convict Hambali. His treatment in the secret CIA cells could also raise serious legal challenges that could stop a trial or drag it out for a protracted period of time.
The cost of trying Hambali in Washington, DC could be in the range of US$250 million (RM835 million) a year, according to Republican Congressman Frank Wolf, who said his staff was briefed on the costs of the trial of the Sept 11 conspirators in New York.
“Similar assumptions could be made for security costs for any trial held in Washington, DC,” Wolf wrote in a letter to Attorney-General Holder that was posted online.
“A better solution would be to try these cases at the secure, state-of-the-art courthouse that has been constructed at Guantanamo Bay for this very purpose.” — Straits Times
Source: themalaysianinsider.com/
The Justice Department is expected to make a final decision in a few weeks’ time, according to the Associated Press which first reported the news.
Attorney-General Eric Holder did not respond to the report, though the news immediately drew fierce criticisms from the opposition Republicans.
They argued that it would be too dangerous to conduct a high-profile terrorism trial in a major population centre like Washington, DC, adding that the costs of maintaining security during the proceedings would be prohibitive.
“Moving terrorist detainees to within a mile of the White House and blocks from the US Capitol for show trials is a mistake,” Congressman Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement posted on his website.
“The American people, already reeling under the debt of crushing federal spending, should not be asked to shell out hundreds of millions more to satisfy the symbolic wishes of the Obama administration.”
The Jakarta Globe quoted a source from Indonesia’s national police force who confirmed that Hambali will be tried in the US.
But Indonesia’s foreign ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah told the newspaper that his ministry has not received any notification from Washington.
A similar outcry also broke out when it was announced that alleged Sept 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be put on trial in New York.
President Barack Obama, however, has said that he believes criminal courts in the US can handle even the most dangerous terrorists.
His administration’s efforts to try these terror suspects in the US are part of broader plans to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention centre, which still holds hundreds of terror suspects, including “high-value” detainees like Hambali.
Hambali, the alleged leader of regional terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) and a key lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, was captured in Thailand in 2003. He was kept in secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) before he was transferred to Guantanamo in 2006.
He has been linked to the Bali bombings, which killed over 200 people, as well as foiled plots to attack foreign embassies and other targets in Singapore.
But media reports over the years suggest that the US authorities may not have enough evidence to convict Hambali. His treatment in the secret CIA cells could also raise serious legal challenges that could stop a trial or drag it out for a protracted period of time.
The cost of trying Hambali in Washington, DC could be in the range of US$250 million (RM835 million) a year, according to Republican Congressman Frank Wolf, who said his staff was briefed on the costs of the trial of the Sept 11 conspirators in New York.
“Similar assumptions could be made for security costs for any trial held in Washington, DC,” Wolf wrote in a letter to Attorney-General Holder that was posted online.
“A better solution would be to try these cases at the secure, state-of-the-art courthouse that has been constructed at Guantanamo Bay for this very purpose.” — Straits Times
Source: themalaysianinsider.com/
Friday, January 8, 2010
San Clemente to pay Washington lobbyist $45,000
San Clemente will pay a Washington lobbying firm $45,000 in 2010 to help win federal funding for beach restoration, a railroad "Quiet Zone" and expansion of recycling of wastewater into irrigation water at the sewage-treatment plant.
The City Council this week agreed to pay Marlowe & Co. $45,000 for services this calendar year. The firm said it has helped secure more than $2.1 million in federal funds for various San Clemente projects.
Source:ocregister.com/
The City Council this week agreed to pay Marlowe & Co. $45,000 for services this calendar year. The firm said it has helped secure more than $2.1 million in federal funds for various San Clemente projects.
Source:ocregister.com/
US Sen Dodd Now Immune to Lobbyists As Builds Fin Reform
WASHINGTON (MNI) - Without a reelection campaign ahead, Sen. Chris Dodd will be more immune to financial industry lobbyists as he spends perhaps months completing the Senate version of financial industry regulatory reform.
Dodd is surprising the Washington lobbying establishment by announcing later today he will not seek reelection, making it easier for Democrats to hold on to the Connecticut senate seat. The state's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is expected to run instead and be a stronger candidate than Dodd.
Before then, however, Dodd's decision is likely to alter the dynamics of the high-stakes drafting project that pits the banking and financial services industry against Dodd's efforts to revamp the way government relates to Wall Street.
As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd has already faced storms of criticism for his leading role in crafting the emergency measures that appeared necessary during the financial crisis but in retrospect were political liabilities.
The announcement Tuesday by North Dakota's Byron Dorgan that he also is leaving the Senate was as much of a surprise as Dodd's announcement but appeared to be less significant for the course of 2010 legislation. However Dorgan's voice as a deficit hawk will be missed by his fellow Capitol Hill campaigners for fiscal responsibility.
Dorgan's departure could also offer a new opportunity for Republicans, given the realities of North Dakota politics.
Source:imarketnews.com/
Dodd is surprising the Washington lobbying establishment by announcing later today he will not seek reelection, making it easier for Democrats to hold on to the Connecticut senate seat. The state's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is expected to run instead and be a stronger candidate than Dodd.
Before then, however, Dodd's decision is likely to alter the dynamics of the high-stakes drafting project that pits the banking and financial services industry against Dodd's efforts to revamp the way government relates to Wall Street.
As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd has already faced storms of criticism for his leading role in crafting the emergency measures that appeared necessary during the financial crisis but in retrospect were political liabilities.
The announcement Tuesday by North Dakota's Byron Dorgan that he also is leaving the Senate was as much of a surprise as Dodd's announcement but appeared to be less significant for the course of 2010 legislation. However Dorgan's voice as a deficit hawk will be missed by his fellow Capitol Hill campaigners for fiscal responsibility.
Dorgan's departure could also offer a new opportunity for Republicans, given the realities of North Dakota politics.
Source:imarketnews.com/
Full Body Scanner Lobby: Michael Chertoff & Rapiscan
Ever since the Christmas Day Bomb Scare, Chertoff has been making the rounds championing the Full Body Scanners as a way to detect hidden explosive devices.
Quote
Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosiveKate Hanni, FlyersRights
Source: http://flyersrights.orgHere is a Chertoff quote from the New York Times on December 29th.“If they’d been deployed, this would pick up this kind of device,” Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, said in an interview, referring to the packet of chemicals hidden in the underwear of the Nigerian man who federal officials say tried to blow up the Northwest Airlines flight.
A few days later the Washington Post revealed that Chertoff represents Rapiscan - a maker of full body scanners drawing criticism of groups who oppose full body scanners
"Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive," said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.
Rapiscan has already sold 150 full body scanners to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with a price tag of $25 million. Rapiscan full body scanners, like the Rapiscan WaveScan 200, seem to be the preferred scanner of choice because they obscure the "private parts."
But the fully body scanner lobby is also littered with a number of companies vying for the $300 million dollars the government has set aside for this type of technology for airports.
The Washington Examiner has a list of other full body scanner lobbyists including another heavy weight, Tom Blank, with the lobby group Wexler & Walker(pdf) - A lobby group that represents American Science and Engineering (AS&E) another full body scanner manufacturer.Blank was the former Deputy Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration - essentially Blank is lobbying the same federal department where he was boss.
Lost in the hysteria surrounding full body scanners are two fundamental questions Are they effective? and are they worth the cost?
They are certainly effective in the same way an x-ray machine is effective but as we all know x-ray machines are good at some things (detecting broken bones) and terrible at detecting other things (soft tissue injuries). That is why we use CT Scans and MRI technology because they are better at detecting other things.
So for example, these fully body scanners may well have detected the Christmas Day Bomber but they would not have detected the Al Queda operative who used an anal body bomb in a September assassination attempt on the Saudi Interior Minister.
It raises the question once we introduce one costly technology the terrorists are already one step ahead so security officials seem to be in a constant and very costly game of catch up.
It is tough to win that sort of game so perhaps it is time to change the strategy? Oh say, focus on intelligence and clear open lines of communication between security agencies to begin with.
Source:nowpublic.com/
Dodd's Retirement Is Indictment of Campaign Finance System
Since Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-Conn.) announcement on Wednesday that he will not run for re-election, many observers have noted that passing legislation to overhaul our financial system will now become easier.
This isn't because he can ignore an angry base or bad polling, but because Sen. Dodd no longer has to worry about raising money from the same Wall Street interests he would be working to regulate. As my colleague David Donnelly pointed out in The New York Times today, "unfortunately, the other senators are still too reliant on financial sector cash for their re-elections."
Through the 2008 election cycle and the first three quarters of 2009, the financial, real estate, and insurance interests poured more than $560 million in campaign contributions to Congress and spent millions more on lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has made the influence of these interests clear. "Frankly, the banks own the place," he said.
Sen. Dodd's retirement, and the freedom it gives him, is a perfect example of why we need to change the way campaigns are financed in this country. That it takes retirement to boost the likelihood of good policy is an indictment of our broken campaign finance system. To change the system, Congress must pass the Fair Elections Now Act.
The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752, H.R. 1826) would give candidates for Congress the option to run a competitive race with a blend of small dollar donations and limited public funds directed to candidates by individual voters. Candidates using the system could take no contribution of more than $100. Sen. Dodd, a co-sponsor of the legislation, has long supported the measure. "Whether you're a Washington lobbyist or a Chicago lobbyist, what we ought to have is public financing for congressional and presidential campaigns. That would solve the whole problem," Sen. Dodd told an audience at the YearlyKos convention in 2007 (it's at the 12:10 point in the video).
Sponsored by Sen. Durbin and Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), this legislation would put people in office unencumbered by special interest campaign cash. In addition to Rep. Larson, the House bill has the broad bipartisan and broad cross-caucus support of 124 co-sponsors.
With Sen. Dodd's long-time support for Fair Elections, and the new-found freedom his retirement gives him, he should work with Congress to make sure it takes up this important legislation.
Source:huffingtonpost.com/
This isn't because he can ignore an angry base or bad polling, but because Sen. Dodd no longer has to worry about raising money from the same Wall Street interests he would be working to regulate. As my colleague David Donnelly pointed out in The New York Times today, "unfortunately, the other senators are still too reliant on financial sector cash for their re-elections."
Through the 2008 election cycle and the first three quarters of 2009, the financial, real estate, and insurance interests poured more than $560 million in campaign contributions to Congress and spent millions more on lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has made the influence of these interests clear. "Frankly, the banks own the place," he said.
Sen. Dodd's retirement, and the freedom it gives him, is a perfect example of why we need to change the way campaigns are financed in this country. That it takes retirement to boost the likelihood of good policy is an indictment of our broken campaign finance system. To change the system, Congress must pass the Fair Elections Now Act.
The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752, H.R. 1826) would give candidates for Congress the option to run a competitive race with a blend of small dollar donations and limited public funds directed to candidates by individual voters. Candidates using the system could take no contribution of more than $100. Sen. Dodd, a co-sponsor of the legislation, has long supported the measure. "Whether you're a Washington lobbyist or a Chicago lobbyist, what we ought to have is public financing for congressional and presidential campaigns. That would solve the whole problem," Sen. Dodd told an audience at the YearlyKos convention in 2007 (it's at the 12:10 point in the video).
Sponsored by Sen. Durbin and Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), this legislation would put people in office unencumbered by special interest campaign cash. In addition to Rep. Larson, the House bill has the broad bipartisan and broad cross-caucus support of 124 co-sponsors.
With Sen. Dodd's long-time support for Fair Elections, and the new-found freedom his retirement gives him, he should work with Congress to make sure it takes up this important legislation.
Source:huffingtonpost.com/
Group looks to change Grand Strand lobbyists in Washington
MYRTLE BEACH, SC (WMBF) - Concerned if they're getting they're money's worth, mayors along the Grand Strand say they are looking to change lobbyists in Washington.
The Grand Strand Coastal Alliance, made of the mayors of Surfside Beach, Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle Beach and Atlantic Beach, met on Wednesday to talk about the needs of the area.
Included in their discussions was the most recent news that Congressman Henry Brown was retiring. The group is concerned that without his leadership, the Grand Strand may miss out on millions of dollars needed for several projects from beach renourishment to funding of Interstate 73.
They expressed their dissatisfaction with the lobbying group representing them in Washington, DC. They're worried that with Brown leaving in a few years, they may need someone pushing their interests.
"We're not in the best situation that we've been in for a long time when the congressman leaves office. Hopefully whoever is elected will have the same respect for the Grand Strand," said Myrtle Beach Mayor John Rhodes. "So it's going to be a learning process for whoever is elected and it's a waiting process for us. Unfortunately, we can't afford to wait and I go back to that's why the importance of a lobbyist now."
The mayors noted that with Brown's help from their current lobbyists, the area did get $40 million for beach renourishment. The mayors decided to meet with several lobbyists over the coming weeks to see if there maybe a better option out there. They say they'll also look closely at anyone who wants to run for office to replace Brown.
"That is the message that we have to get out to our next congressman. You need to work closely with us to help us with our needs," said Mayor Marilyn Hatley of North Myrtle Beach.
The mayors will be in Washington in the coming weeks for a conference plan on meeting with some that already have ties to Horry County then.
"Our lobbyist is going to be more important to us now than ever before because they're going to have to work the congressman and the senators, people we don't know. We are going to have to depend on our lobbyists to lead us down that lane," added Rhodes.
Source:wmbfnews.com/
Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift From Barney Frank: David Reilly
To close out 2009, I decided to do something I bet no member of Congress has done -- actually read from cover to cover one of the pieces of sweeping legislation bouncing around Capitol Hill.
Hunkering down by the fire, I snuggled up with H.R. 4173, the financial-reform legislation passed earlier this month by the House of Representatives. The Senate has yet to pass its own reform plan. The baby of Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the House bill is meant to address everything from too-big-to-fail banks to asleep-at-the-switch credit-ratings companies to the protection of consumers from greedy lenders.
I quickly discovered why members of Congress rarely read legislation like this. At 1,279 pages, the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” is a real slog. And yes, I plowed through all those pages. (Memo to Chairman Frank: “ystem” at line 14, page 258 is missing the first “s”.)
The reading was especially painful since this reform sausage is stuffed with more gristle than meat. At least, that is, if you are a taxpayer hoping the bailout train is coming to a halt.
If you’re a banker, the bill is tastier. While banks opposed the legislation, they should cheer for its passage by the full Congress in the New Year: There are huge giveaways insuring the government will again rescue banks and Wall Street if the need arises.
Nuggets Gleaned
Here are some of the nuggets I gleaned from days spent reading Frank’s handiwork:
-- For all its heft, the bill doesn’t once mention the words “too-big-to-fail,” the main issue confronting the financial system. Admitting you have a problem, as any 12- stepper knows, is the crucial first step toward recovery.
-- Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.
-- Oh, hold on, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Secretary can’t authorize these funds unless “there is at least a 99 percent likelihood that all funds and interest will be paid back.” Too bad the same models used to foresee the housing meltdown probably will be used to predict this likelihood as well.
More Bailouts
-- The bill also allows the government, in a crisis, to back financial firms’ debts. Bondholders can sleep easy -- there are more bailouts to come.
-- The legislation does create a council of regulators to spot risks to the financial system and big financial firms. Unfortunately this group is made up of folks who missed the problems that led to the current crisis.
-- Don’t worry, this time regulators will have better tools. Six months after being created, the council will report to Congress on “whether setting up an electronic database” would be a help. Maybe they’ll even get to use that Internet thingy.
-- This group, among its many powers, can restrict the ability of a financial firm to trade for its own account. Perhaps this section should be entitled, “Yes, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., we’re looking at you.”
Managing Bonuses
-- The bill also allows regulators to “prohibit any incentive-based payment arrangement.” In other words, banker bonuses are still in play. Maybe Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. shouldn’t have rushed to pay back Troubled Asset Relief Program funds.
-- The bill kills the Office of Thrift Supervision, a toothless watchdog. Well, kill may be too strong a word. That agency and its employees will be folded into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Further proof that government never really disappears.
-- Since Congress isn’t cutting jobs, why not add a few more. The bill calls for more than a dozen agencies to create a position called “Director of Minority and Women Inclusion.” People in these new posts will be presidential appointees. I thought too-big-to-fail banks were the pressing issue. Turns out it’s diversity, and patronage.
-- Not that the House is entirely sure of what the issues are, at least judging by the two dozen or so studies the bill authorizes. About a quarter of them relate to credit-rating companies, an area in which the legislation falls short of meaningful change. Sadly, these studies don’t tackle tough questions like whether we should just do away with ratings altogether. Here’s a tip: Do the studies, then write the legislation.
Consumer Protection
-- The bill isn’t all bad, though. It creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, currently head of a panel overseeing TARP. And the first director gets the cool job of designing a seal for the new agency. My suggestion: Warren riding a fiery chariot while hurling lightning bolts at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
-- Best of all, the bill contains a provision that, in the event of another government request for emergency aid to prop up the financial system, debate in Congress be limited to just 10 hours. Anything that can get Congress to shut up can’t be all bad.
Even better would be if legislators actually tackle the real issues stemming from the financial crisis, end bailouts and, for the sake of my eyes, write far, far shorter bills.
Source:businessweek.com/
Hunkering down by the fire, I snuggled up with H.R. 4173, the financial-reform legislation passed earlier this month by the House of Representatives. The Senate has yet to pass its own reform plan. The baby of Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the House bill is meant to address everything from too-big-to-fail banks to asleep-at-the-switch credit-ratings companies to the protection of consumers from greedy lenders.
I quickly discovered why members of Congress rarely read legislation like this. At 1,279 pages, the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” is a real slog. And yes, I plowed through all those pages. (Memo to Chairman Frank: “ystem” at line 14, page 258 is missing the first “s”.)
The reading was especially painful since this reform sausage is stuffed with more gristle than meat. At least, that is, if you are a taxpayer hoping the bailout train is coming to a halt.
If you’re a banker, the bill is tastier. While banks opposed the legislation, they should cheer for its passage by the full Congress in the New Year: There are huge giveaways insuring the government will again rescue banks and Wall Street if the need arises.
Nuggets Gleaned
Here are some of the nuggets I gleaned from days spent reading Frank’s handiwork:
-- For all its heft, the bill doesn’t once mention the words “too-big-to-fail,” the main issue confronting the financial system. Admitting you have a problem, as any 12- stepper knows, is the crucial first step toward recovery.
-- Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.
-- Oh, hold on, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Secretary can’t authorize these funds unless “there is at least a 99 percent likelihood that all funds and interest will be paid back.” Too bad the same models used to foresee the housing meltdown probably will be used to predict this likelihood as well.
More Bailouts
-- The bill also allows the government, in a crisis, to back financial firms’ debts. Bondholders can sleep easy -- there are more bailouts to come.
-- The legislation does create a council of regulators to spot risks to the financial system and big financial firms. Unfortunately this group is made up of folks who missed the problems that led to the current crisis.
-- Don’t worry, this time regulators will have better tools. Six months after being created, the council will report to Congress on “whether setting up an electronic database” would be a help. Maybe they’ll even get to use that Internet thingy.
-- This group, among its many powers, can restrict the ability of a financial firm to trade for its own account. Perhaps this section should be entitled, “Yes, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., we’re looking at you.”
Managing Bonuses
-- The bill also allows regulators to “prohibit any incentive-based payment arrangement.” In other words, banker bonuses are still in play. Maybe Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. shouldn’t have rushed to pay back Troubled Asset Relief Program funds.
-- The bill kills the Office of Thrift Supervision, a toothless watchdog. Well, kill may be too strong a word. That agency and its employees will be folded into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Further proof that government never really disappears.
-- Since Congress isn’t cutting jobs, why not add a few more. The bill calls for more than a dozen agencies to create a position called “Director of Minority and Women Inclusion.” People in these new posts will be presidential appointees. I thought too-big-to-fail banks were the pressing issue. Turns out it’s diversity, and patronage.
-- Not that the House is entirely sure of what the issues are, at least judging by the two dozen or so studies the bill authorizes. About a quarter of them relate to credit-rating companies, an area in which the legislation falls short of meaningful change. Sadly, these studies don’t tackle tough questions like whether we should just do away with ratings altogether. Here’s a tip: Do the studies, then write the legislation.
Consumer Protection
-- The bill isn’t all bad, though. It creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, currently head of a panel overseeing TARP. And the first director gets the cool job of designing a seal for the new agency. My suggestion: Warren riding a fiery chariot while hurling lightning bolts at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
-- Best of all, the bill contains a provision that, in the event of another government request for emergency aid to prop up the financial system, debate in Congress be limited to just 10 hours. Anything that can get Congress to shut up can’t be all bad.
Even better would be if legislators actually tackle the real issues stemming from the financial crisis, end bailouts and, for the sake of my eyes, write far, far shorter bills.
Source:businessweek.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)