Links 5/13/12

Posted on by

Verizon finally performs, connection back as of Saturday PM. Keep your fingers crossed. I’ve kept threatening thin links. It is 5:00 AM and I need to turn in, so I hope the charitable among you will provide links in comments. We should be back to normal programming tomorrow.

EU central bankers ponder Greece euro exit BBC (Abe, NYC)

Is Europe on a Cross of Gold? Barry Eichengreen, VoxEU

Merkel faces tough election test BBC

U.S. may scrap costly effort to train Iraqi police New York Times

At JPMorgan, the Ghost of Dinner Parties Past Gretchen Morgenson, New York Times

Bitter origins of the Sicilian Mafia VoxEU

The Myth About Marriage Garry Willis, New York Review of Books

Antidote du jour:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. dearieme

    “U.S. may scrap costly effort to train Iraqi police.”

    Well, knock me down with a feather. Different cultures are different.

    1. Eureka Springs

      “Costly” may be the understatement of the new millennium. Nice to see the terrorists (USA) lose. I suppose now, we need a new foreign war/occupation or we will continue to turn upon ourselves.

    2. Amateur Socialist

      Am I the only one that sees a connection to the earlier post on the cost of higher education? Hrm, billion$ for training Iraqi (and also presumably Afghan) security forces but only cutbacks at public universities. We can afford this but not that. Ok then.

    3. Sy Krass

      To hell with different cultures, whose palm was or was not greased to keep that large $1billion contract going? This is all a load of crap, meaning, youve had since 2003, and you still havent “trained” the police? For or against the war at the beginning NO ONE IS IN FAVOR OF THIS BULL$HIT WAR PROFFITEERING!!!

    4. nonclassical

      how many were aware Iraqi police recruit numbers were seriously inflated, as “government” was paid by candidate “signed up”..?

  2. Aquifer

    And, seeing what was possible, the NBC peacock petitioned GE for more “spots” on the network ….

    1. melek tavus

      you will have to give back the ‘time difference artifact’ to Middle Ages:) fucking japan, and USA

  3. Schofield

    Ah the arrogance, hypocrisy and incompetence of yet another Bankster, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase. “Who will rid me of these surly dogs?”

  4. john bougearel

    “Ireland’s Declan Ganley, who led the country’s campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, is to join the ‘no’ side in a May 31 referendum on the European fiscal treaty, the Sunday Business Post reported. Supporting the treaty while it didn’t cut Ireland’s bank debt is “beyond unacceptable,” Ganley wrote in the Dublin- based paper today, adding that he would urge voters to reject the treaty”

    May 31 is also the Deadline for Greece to Detail its 5.5% Deficit Reduction Plan for 2013-14 – Failure to meet the deadline means the EU & ECB will begin to halt further payments.

    1. Ned Ludd

      Unfortunately, right now it looks like the Irish are ready to modify their constitution in order to embrace austerity.

      A Red C poll in the newspaper also revealed 53% of the electorate plan to vote Yes to the Fiscal Stability Treaty on May 31, while 31% voting No and 16% still undecided.

      When undecided voters are excluded, the Yes side leads by 63% to 73%.

      1. Ned Ludd

        The “63% to 73%” is a typo in the article. It should read “63% to 37%”. Also, this, from the BBC, is interesting:

        Only the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom refused to sign up to the pact.

        1. Ned Ludd

          I don’t know if the Irish want to embrace austerity. But if they vote to amend their constitution to join the fiscal stability compact, that is what they will be doing.

          This pact comes with tight budgetary rules that must be strictly adhered to; or else face automatic sanctions. Member states must… enshrine the balanced budget rule into national legislation within one year, preferably within the constitution.

          If budgetary targets are not met, the guilty nation can be brought to the European Court of Justice and be obliged to make penalty payments. The reins of strict budgetary oversight will be in Brussels’ hands.

          1. Ignim Brites

            Sounds like the US States who we are regularly told have to balance their budgets. Not sure where this bit of ideological bondage comes from but it is certainly going to tested pretty soon in CA.

  5. UnlearningEcon


    I was wondering if you (or any commenters) have read ‘Engineering the Financial Crisis’ by Jeffrey Friedman & Wladimir Kraus. In it, they essentially claim that the crisis was caused by regulation.

    While it sounds like a poor argument that is trotted out by right wingers who can’t face reality, it’s supposedly well researched and fairly free of ideology. Anyone have any thoughts?

      1. Jeffrey Friedman

        The is the coauthor of Engineering the Financial Crisis, from the University of Pennsylvania Press. Both my coauthor, Wladimir Kraus, and I are ex-libertarians. If ifthethunderdontgetya had actually read the Wikipedia page to which he or she linked, he or she would have found out that I am most notorious for having written an article called “What’s Wrong with Libertarianism.”

        People who are actually interested in what the book says can get an idea by consulting our blog, “Causes of the Crisis.” There we present corrections and updated data–and I will say this: whether our book turns out to be right or wrong, it is based on data.

        Jeffrey Friedman
        Department of Government
        University of Texas, Austin
        Editor, Critical Review

        1. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

          Both my coauthor, Wladimir Kraus, and I are ex-libertarians.

          I saw that your “What’s Wrong with Libertarianism” was written well over a decade ago, while this review of Thomas E. Woods’s Meltdown by your co-author was done in April of 2009.

          So perhaps I should have used “Free Market Triumphalists”, instead? Some of us are not accustomed to making such distinctions.

          I might get around to reading your book. I’ll be interested to see what it has to say about credit default swaps. And the evolution of the mortgage-backed securities market over the last two decades.

          I will say this: whether our book turns out to be right or wrong, it is based on data.

          The data that is ignored might be far more important than how rigorously that which is included is analyzed.

          1. F. Beard

            If there is to be any hope of achieving a free and prosperous society, one of our top priorities must be to get rid of a monetary system that contributes to artificial money creation and credit expansion and thus to recurring boom-bust episodes in production and employment. Abolish the joint partnership of private fractional-reserve banking and central banking and establish in its stead a genuinely free-market monetary system that is both economically sound and morally defensible. Wladimir Kraus from [emphasis added]

            What is free market about a single choice in money?

            Nothing? Exactly.

        2. Hugh

          If you go to the book related site, it says up at the top”

          “Probably the most controversial claim of the book will prove to be our suggestion that the behavior of bankers before the crisis was actually risk averse, at least in the aggregate”

          It makes this claim based on the amount and kinds of mortgage related instruments the banks retained: bonds and CDOs. Of course, this misses the point that the banks passed on a lot of the risk to downstream bagholders through the securitization process. It doesn’t address the issue that a lot of what the banks held on to was dreck regardless of its AAA rating or provenance. Or all the seconds/HELOCs that were written on top of this crap. I wonder if the book gets into the failure of the banks to secure and validate the paper trail on both the mortgages it wrote and those it funded with mortgage underwriters, or doing the same with regard to securitization process itself and the proper recording of transfers and final conveyance into trusts.

          Off hand, much of this seems to be like taking a gambler who is millions underwater but arguing that if we only look at what he/she played and lost on slots, and not those from poker and roulette, and if we don’t look at all the bets, and potential losses still floating out there, plus the likelihood that almost everything this gambler did involved various frauds, well, if we take all that in, then we can say that overall this was a very risk averse gambler.

        3. Yves Smith Post author

          Looking at “data” presupposes you have the right data. You don’t.

          Read Chapters 7 and 9 and Appendix II of ECONNED. You are flat out wrong on your thesis and have engaged in classic “drunk under the streetlight” analysis. Or Charles Ferguson’s Predator Nation, coming out the week after next.

          1. chitown2020

            Thanks Yves for the heads up on the book by Charlie Ferguson. I am sure it is a must read. They can only deceive the uneducated consumer.

          2. Jeffrey Friedman

            F. Beard–You are quoting my coauthor from three years ago, before he researched the financial crisis and *changed his mind.* What part of “ex-libertarian” don’t you understand?

            Hugh–Read more carefully. As the blog post notes, triple-A and double-A privately issued MBS, and agency (Fannie and Freddie) MBS, both of which banks held in much greater concentrations than any other mortgage bonds, paid minuscule yields compared to the other mortgage bonds (lower rated) that banks could have acquired. You seem to be positing reckless, greedy bankers, but reckless, greedy bankers would not have bought the safest, least lucrative mortgage bonds–they would have bought the least safe, most lucrative bonds.

            Yves–Have you read the blog, or the book?

            I should not have gotten into a discussion here about a book nobody on this blog seems to have read. I am a scholar, and scholarship requires reading *before* forming an opinion–not slapping a political label on someone as an excuse not to read what he wrote. If you want to have your preconceptions challenged read the blog and the book. If you want to wallow in self-righteousness about the obviousness of your preconceptions, don’t.

        4. Lidia

          There can be no such thing as a free market if people are not allowed to move freely the way capital and goods do.

    1. wunsacon

      Who was bribing politicians to deregulate derivatives, eliminate Glass-Steagall, cut taxes, allow increased leverage, constrain SEC/FBI budgets while financialization expanded, etc? Wasn’t the “deregulation crowd” pushing this agenda?

      Yes, there are still laws/regulations on the books. Must there be no laws/regulations on the books whatsoever before the deregulatory crowd accepts responsibility for the deregulatory steps they pushed?

      1. Carla

        And who was taking the bribes? Democrats and Republicans alike.

        Democrats talk about regulation, but what they DO is take the money and deregulate every chance they get.

        1. wunsacon

          Yes, Clinton and many Dems were/are on the deregulatory bandwagon. That’s where the campaign contributions are. And it seems that’s what enough of the voting public keeps demanding, because various actors and circumstances convinced them it’s the better thing to do.

    2. F. Beard

      Anyone have any thoughts? UnlearningEcon

      So long as banks have government privileges they SHOULD be heavily regulated – that’s the price for the privileges. For banks to be unregulated, then ALL government privileges for them must be abolished.

      To insist on the privileges without the regulation is hypocrisy.

  6. Ned Ludd

    Microsoft Funded Startup Aims to Kill BitTorrent Traffic

    Glenn Greenwald often points out that once the government gains a new power, it always expands its use of that power beyond the original target. Any technology that disrupts the sharing of copyrighted works can also be used to disrupt the sharing of any information. BitTorrent is an economical way to share large files; it is vital to Wikileaks, which has limited funding for bandwidth. In the future, when there’s another leak from a whistle-blowing group, the government and private industry will have another tool to disrupt and stop the sharing of the leaked information.

    1. EH

      Copyright as the thin edge of the wedge for increasing intensities of speech control could be a fruitful angle on one facet of government power.

  7. joebhed

    On Barry E’s Cross of Gold question –

    Ultimately, it will be better if the European central bankers move together to solve their present deflationary problem, requiring acknowledgement and agreement on the nature of the problem.

    Listening to Chief Economist Praet last month at the Levy-Minsky conference, it is clear that today their policy options consist of choosing how much more of the same.

    Any beneficial outcome will require a candid pondering of the options available to overcome the potential monetary disruptions offered on why the EMU might continue.

    This would include an exit strategy that will shorten the 3 week currency normalization time period Barry identifies, so as to effect the most orderly transition possible?

    But first, agreement on the ultimate cause of the Euro crisis requires, I am afraid, the hugest Pogo moment for our modern monetary internationalists.

    1. Brian

      The people are never consulted because individuals in power can write down better hypothetical ideas of how to fleece those people (for their own good of course) while lining only the pockets of the benefactors of a rigged system.
      When you write it down, you can pretend it is complete. The only thing written in the streets is advertising and blood.

  8. Jim3981

    It’s a common misconception the Italian’s have a corner on the mafia.

    Apparently the Jewish mafia, Murder Inc, is considered more powerful and dangerous than the Italian Mafia.

    1. EH

      Don’t get hung up on the word “mafia,” they’re gangs and they exist the world over.

    2. KFritz

      Murder Inc. was a phenomenon of the 1930s and 40s, ending when a host of its members were electrocuted @ SingSing. It was primarily Jewish, with a few Italian members, most notably Albert Anastasia.

      The structure of organized crime in the US was first ‘envisioned’ by Arnold Rothstein. Meyer Lansky, Frank Costello, and Lucky Luciano were all his proteges–all were leaders in the ‘rationalization’ of crime from 1925-35

  9. Cynthia

    It seems to me that most “social conservatives” who oppose same-sex marriage do so not because they think homosexuality is morally wrong or a cancer on society, but because they don’t want gay couples to have the same privileges and that straight couples have under the law. They see marriage as a privilege that should only be reserved for the heterosexual population. This means, at least to me it does, that greed and selfishness, not religion and morality, is what’s driving them to oppose same-sex marriage and they should be called on the carpet and openly ridiculed for it.

    One surefire way to put an end this ridiculous war on same-sex marriage is to get the government out the business of licensing and regulating marriage. And since “social conservatives” despise government so much, they should support this idea of making marriage a private affair without any interference from government whatsoever.

    Then if someone who is married wants their spouse to be covered under their health insurance plan or to have special access to their bank account or retirement savings, and if married couples want to retain any tax advantages with regards to income or estate taxes, they can do so using contract law. This would enable rights, privileges, and entitlements between spouses to be spelled out in a way that’s legally binding.

    1. Tertium Squid

      “but because they don’t want gay couples to have the same privileges and that straight couples have under the law”

      Examples? My experience has generally been the opposite. Many want to arrogate the word “marriage” in its traditional sense, while they are indifferent or even favorably inclined towards a “civil union” designation that allows partnerships to be recognized by community and society, and ensures those rights and priviliges for all that want them.

      If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, I’d love to see it.

      1. Cynthia

        Tertium Squid,

        I was talking about the way social conservatives view marriage, not the way people such as yourself view it. Maybe I’m wrong, but I imagine that most posters here including yourself, and Lambert Strether, view most social issues more or less through a libertarian lens.

    2. Lambert Strether

      I actually agree with the libertarian critique. What the government should handle is “civil unions” for everybody of all genders.

      The churches should then perform whatever rituals strike their collective fancies, including marriage.

    3. Up the Ante

      It used to be said that the ‘institution’ was the problem. Now that it is being offered as the solution, is that a gaining of some sort or a failing ?

    4. LeonovaBalletRusse

      We need tangible, officially recognized records of births, marriages, deaths. it may be that the most meticulous running record in the USA is made and archived by the Archdiocese of New Orleans (RC the “State religion” in NOLA since the French founders of the “Metropole” arrived).

    5. Lidia

      My RWNJ sis gets exercised about this, but I can’t figure out why. She’s one of those who asserts that gays marrying will “take something away” from her marriage, but she refuses to say what. She seeks authoritarian solutions to problems, and believes that the State has an “overriding interest” in marriage due to legal issues over progeny (as property), so she would never advocate the State relinquishing that “interest”.

      I read one commenter who put the consternation over gay marriage more or less like this: It’s about ownership… An owner marrying an owner doesn’t make sense, nor does property marrying property.

  10. ZeroInMyOnes

    All hail the London Whale for accomplishing what our ‘regulators’ and Congress did not: taking down Jamie D.

    And this time when Jamie heads down to DC for his candy-coated bailout we will hear more from OWS. They are organized and ready to go…and the weather is so nice and warm…

    1. Lambert Strether

      And for only $2 billion! That’s chump change!

      Putting on my tinfoil hat, I suspect Dimon is being measured for the drop, possibly even by the administration. It’s expedient that one bankster be hung out to dry for the good of the people, even though, if you think about how accounting control fraud works, an entire stratum of society is guilty, and not just Dimon.

      That is the “tell” in Morgenstern’s story; the dinner party shows that even Dimon’s own class is turning against him, so he’s vulnerable. And by scapegoating Dimon, they will immunize themselves. It’s a two-fer!

      So, even if it is summer, Obama’s out in the White House garage, checking out the ol’ Russian sleigh and musing over symbolic gestures…. (See here at “Off the droshky”, which I picked because the article is a nostalgic look at the newspaper trade when reporters actually investigated stuff…)

          1. chitown2020

            Yes…the commies are hiding behind the scenes dictating policy in the US. It is being done under the guise of money lending and investment that I say….SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE RECEIPTS THAT PROVE YOU LENT US ANY MONEY…! THEY CANT….! Globalization was another scam to ship our jobs overseas…so if you hate the economy the GLOBALISTS created…don’t pay the fraudulently induced debts and dont buy their foreign made crap. Take the money out of everything.

  11. Jim Haygood

    A classic example of MSM misdirection, in an article about New York:

    (Reuters) – New York police conducted more than 200,000 frisk searches in the first three months of this year, a 10 percent increase from the same period last year, even as critics say the practice often is racial profiling.

    Last week, the New York Civil Liberties Union released a study that found that in 2011, police performed more stop and frisk searches of young black men than the total number of young black men living in New York.

    So far this year, almost all of the stops have involved men, while blacks made up more than half of the stops and a third involved Latinos. About one in ten of those stopped were white and 3 percent of the stops were Asian.

    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have long defended the program as one that saves lives and has helped bring violent crime down to historic lows, making New York one of the safest big cities in America.

    Stopping violent crime has very little to do with stop-and-frisk searches. This is the War on Drugs at the street level.

    In New York, possessing less than an ounce of cannabis is a summons offense. But ‘public exhibition’ of cannabis is an arrestable offense.

    When cops feel something suspicious during a frisk, they order the victim to empty his pockets. If drugs are present — bingo! — arrested for public exhibition of same.

    If they could afford one, an attorney would advise Bloomberg’s minority targets not to cooperate with an order to empty their pockets. In the real world, noncooperation would get their head smacked to the sidewalk, and a ‘resisting arrest’ charge added to the drug charge.

    This is your ‘liberal’ ‘progressive’ New York City, keepin’ the N-words in they place.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Interesting they are frisking young black men way out of proportion and only 3% Asian (I assume thats young Asian men and women).

      This is in contrast with the way they handle #OWC where they target women if I remember correctly.

    2. LeonovaBalletRusse

      JH, “War On Drugs” on the cheap = Prison Plantation labor + vig for the1%.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      If GM seeds land on the front lawn of the White House, can they be arrested by Homeland Security or will their owner sue the WH for patent violation?

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Current energy usage from oil emits certain amount of heat.

      If you replace that source with solar, the emitted heat remains the same from that usage (unless you use you AC less often, for example).

      When you cover the entire Arabian Penisula with solar panels , does it lower the average temperature of the peninsula by a few degrees and if so, what will that do to the global weather patterns?

      1. LeonovaBalletRusse

        Air conditioning creates heat+ — go figure the desert heat with AC full blast (an excessive example would be Dubai before the bust).

      2. K Ackermann

        If you replace that source with solar, the emitted heat remains the same from that usage

        That’s right. The equation has to balance, but that is beside the point. The point is that the useful work was supplied without adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

  12. KFritz

    There’s no arguing with the gist of the Mafia article, however of the Sicilian cities listed, Messina and Syracuse were outside of Mafia domination until the 1950’s. So grouping them with the other area dominated by the “Honored Society” is problematical. Sources are Luigi Barzini’s “The Italians” and the more reliable “King of the Mountain” by Professor Billy Jaynes Chandler.

    As an aside, today the ‘Ndrangheta is richer and more powerful than the Mafia.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      If free competition produces the best mafia, regulation ought to slow that down.

  13. KFritz

    From Der Spiegel

  14. Not the In-Crowd

    About ‘The Myth of Marriage’. Hmmmm. A point seems to be missed in this. To say that the use of the word marriage as a religious term only started in the 13th century, therefore Christians can’t really claim it, is a bit silly as a justification for all this. Last I checked the 13th century predates the current conversation by a wide margin.

    Think of the term ‘gay’. It’s only been an alternative lifestyle phrase for what, less than 50 years. But that doesn’t keep the gays from fully ‘owning’ that word by current understanding. What happens if someone tries to use the word gay in any other way than the current usage? Wrath, that’s what.

    So to say that because the religious definition of marriage does not go all the way back 2000 years, is a pretty weak rebuttal to those claiming the word marriage has a meaning that predates the current conversation about it.

    Sure, the marriage fanatics are being stubborn and hypocritical, but remember how important the word gay has come to be for gays, and maybe one can get a sense of where they are coming from.

    If same-sex partners would be willing to choose a different word, most of the struggle would dissolve, I reckon. It seems making it about just one word, keeps it as political fodder. IMO.

    1. Tertium Squid

      I think you minimize the importance of the symbolism involved in the word “marriage”. People on both sides of the debate care a lot about that symbolism, and that’s just fine to care.

      Not that I disagree in general. For me, the fact that conflict is to a large extent centered around the word “marriage”, shows that there is precious little else to argue about. Nobody in the mainstream is talking any more about whether they should be murdered or jailed, for example.

      From either side, merely accepting gays’ right to exist isn’t exactly the mark of enlightenment, but it sure beats the alternative. And even in states like California where legislative steps have restricted homosexual choice in “marriage” partners, there were robust civil union alternatives already in place. I don’t know a lot about Proposition 8, but for as much as it was demonized, as far as I am aware the main change was the words at the top of the “marriage” license.

      That’s important for people to remember, as the rhetoric becomes ever more gassy, spicy and overblown. The disagreements certainly matter, but so do the agreements, and there is a lot for both sides to agree upon.

      1. Ignim Brites

        “…precious little to argue about.” Maybe. But part the intelligent design of the President’s evolution is that it puts Mormon sexual radicalism on the agenda for discussion this fall.

        1. Tertium Squid

          Well, maybe you’re right that the President wants to run against “mormonism” as opposed to any specific candidate. But I should point out:

          As far as I know, the LDS church has not officially opposed any notion of civil unions for homosexuals, nor the rights commonly associated with marriage.

          Their main political action to this date on the issue has been advocacy of a specific proposition that switched out gay marriages for gay civil unions, in a state where lots of LDS live. As far as I know that’s it. There’s no doubt about how they want LDS members to conduct their romantic lives, but they have no intent to export those teachings via force. If there’s evidence to the contrary, I am not aware of it.

          The individual members of the church are of course a different story, but their views run the gamut from militant traditionalism to militant equality, with most (like me) somewere in between, though probably leaning strongly towards traditionalism.

          So yes, in the end it IS only about the word “marriage”, and not your curious notion of “Mormon sexual radicalism”. Being LDS has certainly not been sexually radical for me.

          1. Ignim Brites

            Well look how many children Romney has. Mormons want to maintain marriage as a heterosexual institution because they are natalists. That is the radicalism and the problem.

          2. Cynthia

            It’s nice to see Barry standing up for same-sex marriage, despite it is being largely irrelevant as most social issues are and not having a legislative leg to stand on. Then I remembered, he did something very similar in 2008, then sold us down the river on healthcare and financial reform, all the while assassinating anyone that gets in his way (think about it, if he so casually orders the death of people in the international arena, what’s keeping him from doing it here?)

            Orwell would be proud.

            Then again, if Barry really and truly wanted to see same-sex marriage the law of the land, he would use his executive authority to do so. If he is willing to use his executive authority to incarcerate and even kill those whom he deems a national security threat, he should be more than willing to use this authority to give gays and lesbians the constitutional right to marry.

          3. Tertium Squid

            What a fascinating kind of radicalism. Romney’s an establishment private-equity parasite who thinks we’re being too NICE to Iran. Are his five kids really the worst thing about him? If the president really wants to run against FATHERHOOD he’s welcome to it, though I don’t think it will help him much. Perhaps he will, just because child count is one of the few genuine differences between them.

            If birthrates were going up anywhere in the world right now, I’d be more inclined to agree with you.

            Anyway, historically speaking, you don’t have to go too far back the family tree to realize that it’s US and our 2.1-kids-or-less-per-family that is radical, and not eight or ten or twelve. We’re the ones outside the norm. Way outside it.

    1. Up the Ante

      “We noticed that there was a big disconnect between the forecasts of where the oil was going to be the next day and where the oil actually was the next day,” Jerolmack said.

      I bet. Due to the use of spotter planes for locating the slicks and dosing them at night w/the Corexit spray planes “discernably” catalogued countless time on FloridaOilSpillLaw .

      And that “mound” they measured ? Heh, doubtless coordinated to the moment by FAA Houston, the coordinators of the Coast Guard/ANG Corexit flights.

  15. matt

    Lots of links, sorry if they’re repeated anywhere else:

    From Counterpunch:

    How the Ayn Rand-Loving Right Is Like a Bunch of Teen Boys Gone Crazy:

    Chicago Police Ready for NATO Summit Protesters With ‘Sound Cannon’

    More protests in Madrid:

    Exposed: The US military’s ‘anti-Islam classes’

  16. Fiver

    Noted Friday that Jamie Dimon was vulnerable on the latest JPM ugliness, and that vigorous scrutiny right now could topple him. Well, based on what he said on Sunday, I’d upgrade that to “He’s desperate to stop this here.”

    And I ask again: how did people with this level of expertise put on a position so easily detected by opposing sharks? You’d almost think it was deliberately so clumsy it couldn’t be missed.

  17. Herman Sniffles

    I’m 100% in favor of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to be as abjectly miserable as the rest of us?

    1. Up the Ante

      It should be Quite entertaining to watch how Family Courts handle these arrangements.

      Family Court being a pillar of the ‘institution’, of course.

      Have at it, cluster away !


    1. skippy

      Science daily… an ivillage network… cough… a division of NBCUniverssal… cough…. GE.

      Skippy… or the belly of the beast.

      PS. beardo are you sure you don’t work for these folks… so much drum beating ie. I read science daily – daily… beardo,

      1. F. Beard

        I like Science News and National Geographic too but they don’t update so often.

        1. skippy

          Its science daily, not news, and you broadcast their wares as often as you can.

          Skippy… Preacher of fog.

          1. F. Beard

            “Too” was the hint that I might be referring to another science website though the sentence is admittedly a bit ambiguous. Still, it was no cause for you to “correct” me.

          2. F. Beard

            but they [Science News and National Geographic] don’t update so often[as Science Daily]. FB

            No, I take it back; the sentence is NOT ambiguous.

          3. F. Beard

            I was simply saying that I have no particular love for Science Daily EXCEPT that it updates often.

          4. skippy

            Stop feeding the beast fog boy. Its the nith time you linked to that crap site and you were made aware of its origins long ago.

            Skippy… now go apologise to defiant for spanking the his fog… as if it was a lesser fog than yours.

          5. Up the Ante

            “I was simply saying that I have no particular love for Science Daily EXCEPT that it updates often. ”

            Their wide range of coverage is good, but they do seem to have perfected the art of telling you as little as possible while implying the authors of their pages understood much more. [ ?? ]

Comments are closed.