Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Hearst threatens to close historic 'San Francisco Chronicle'


San Francisco could become the biggest city in the US without a daily newspaper if the San Francisco Chronicle's owner, Hearst, follows through on a threat to shut its doors.
The historic newspaper company says the Chronicle's 1,500 staff must agree to deep cuts and at least scores of redundancies within the next few weeks if they want to save the paper.
The crisis in the US newspaper industry has accelerated in the past few weeks, as proprietors respond to a collapse in advertising revenue that has been compounding the longer-term problem of declining readership. Dozens of local titles are under threat of closure and two regional newspaper groups went bankrupt last weekend.
The San Francisco Chronicle would be by far the biggest casualty to date. It is the 12th most read paper in the US, serving the country's 14th largest city by population. Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor, warned of the consequences of its closure. "The Chronicle plays an important role in our civic life and we don't want to see this treasured institution close its doors," he said....

The loss of classified ads closed a 150 year old newspaper.



Left, The Rocky’s first issue on April 23, 1859. Right, its last issue Friday. Its owner, the E. W. Scripps Company, decided to close the paper after it lost $16 million last year.


Rocky kept swinging until the very end (click here)
Paper won four Pulitzers since 2000, but couldn't weather economic storm

By Kevin Vaughan, Rocky Mountain News
Published February 27, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

It came into being on a dark night two years before the Civil War's first gunshots, survived a flood that washed away its press and countless threats to its very existence, then enjoyed, in the twilight of its life, recognition as one of the best newspapers in the country.
But today marks the final milestone in the storied history of the Rocky Mountain News, Colorado's first newspaper and oldest continually operated business.
This is the last edition of the paper of Damon Runyon and Harry Rhoads, of Mrs. Molly Mayfield and Al Nakkula, of Gene Amole and Dusty Saunders and scores of other characters. The paper whose reporters fancied themselves the "Wildcats of Welton Street" in an earlier era. The paper that shed the bawdy image of the tabloid to win four Pulitzer Prizes since 2000.
In the end, it was the economics - not the history nor the people nor the Pulitzers - that mattered....


business
Rocky's last run (click here)
"People are in grief" at sudden end of longtime friend
By Steve Raabe The Denver Post

Posted: 02/27/2009 12:30:00 AM MST
Updated: 02/27/2009 10:17:36 PM MST

The Rocky Mountain News is no more.
A publishing run spanning nearly 150 years came to an end in the early morning hours as the News delivered its final edition. The precarious economics of newspaper publishing forced Denver into the growing ranks of cities that no longer can support two major daily publications.
To a saddened and somber newsroom staff, executives of News owner E.W. Scripps Co. announced Thursday at noon that the paper was shutting down after efforts to find a buyer failed.
"People are in grief," News editor, publisher and president John Temple said at a Thursday afternoon news conference when asked how his 220-member staff was responding....

Paul Harvey: An appraisal of his career by the Tribune's Phil Rosenthal


...Paul Harvey's career—his whole life, really—was packed with the sort of surprises, superlatives, bold statements and seemingly small details that, woven together, also made up a great Paul Harvey broadcast.
All that would be missing would be the distinctively halting pauses of Harvey's delivery, and that's because there was no one steadier or more consistent for decades, right up until the last few years, when the inescapable indignities of age began to catch up with arguably the most popular radio commentator of all time.
You know the rest of the story....

Oops, there it is ! The man in black tries to 'sex' (CPAP) CPAC with an open collar.



Rush Limbaugh, the man that became famous for bringing 'The Republican Base' an Oxycotin induced reality !

To Russia with Love, signed BHO


Let's start by saying that a 'friendly' letter does not consitute American foreign policy OR legislature. Okay? As a matter of fact, I like the idea that President Obama and/or Secretary Clinton feels strongly enough about the relationships they have with international partners to communicate on a personal level to 'introduce' themselves and speed along the 'task at hand.'

Obama says report on letter to Russia inaccurate
Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:41pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday dismissed as inaccurate a report he had linked U.S. plans for a missile defense shield to Russian help on Iran in a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Obama had offered the deal in a letter hand-delivered to Medvedev in Moscow last month by top administration officials.
Obama said the report did not "accurately characterize the letter."
Medvedev's spokeswoman earlier confirmed receipt of the letter but said it contained no concrete proposals.
(Reporting by Caren Bohan; Writing by Ross Colvin; Editing by John O'Callaghan)


Secondly, the Iranians view Russia as an ally TO SOME EXTENT. I believe to the extent Iran believes in any other entity as an ally is mute. They simply don't !

But.

Iran does 'get along' with Russia because it is dependant on Russia. After all, it was Russia that 'straightened out' the American generated blueprints to the nuclear reactor. So, there in lies 'the rub.' While Iran is busy building ICBM rockets and nuclear fuel rods, the Russians don't want 'MDS' at their borders. Hm.


At any rate, the 'idea' that Russia has complete influence over Iran to believe for one minute that it could 'bargain' unilaterally (without Iran at the table with the USA) to 'effect' a change by Iran regarding its nuclear capability is to recognize that Iran is a Russian satellite. It ain't, okay?


As a matter of fact, the closer the world grows greater intolerance to the Iranian aggression toward nuclear weapons the better it is that Russia moves away from any influence as it might be viewed as culpable as Iran itself. Currently, Russia views the UN Sanctions as a necessary step. So that should place all that into a perspective whereby Iran is responsible for its own international reputation or lack there of and NO other sovereignty should be considered 'a part' to nuclear holocaust or the language of hate by Iran toward Israel.

The 'issue' of placing MDS at Russian borders is a matter of cooperation and recognition of 'the purpose' of the defense shield for Europe and where it would be best placed. Playing into this is THE FACT that MDS isn't working. The interceptors can 'function' to collide with a missile 'on demonsration' but in 'the real world' it is the most grossly inappropriate concept to 'national security' of any nation. The reason Russia views it as aggression and not a welcome defense of Europe is because it is blastedly offensive to park missiles of any kind at a Russia border. It is grossly "W"rong to actively 'threaten' Russia which has been a demonstrated ally to other wars.

So, in actuality, what Bush did by making plans for MDS in Poland and otherwise, supposedly to protect Europe is to say that there was nothing that could be done to stop the Iranian development of a nuclear weapon capacity. Placing MDS at Russia borders is like sending up a 'white flag' to Iran stating, "Go ahead, we'll simply defend against you." The entire 'idea' behind MDS at Russian borders is an oxymoron. It has no meaning IF the nations of the international community are determined to stop Iran. To place MDS at Russia borders to protect Europe is like saying, "Israel go to hell, there is nothing that can be done."

The circumstances the world faces with Iran is serious. How serious? That's a very good question that needs to be adequately answered. I certainly hope Iran is not 'banking' on the international community being generous after its demonstration of anti-semetic policies and statements. It was after all the Iranian President that has been more egregious to that end.

Diplomatic relations that 'breed' 'real policy' takes some time. To attempt to expedite that process by building personal relationships with foreign leaders, considering the level of negligence to diplomacy and faux aggression of the Bush/Cheney State Department, by President Obama and his State Department is not only purdent, but, a direct intervention to stop any 'false' considerations or understandings 'left over' from the previous administration.

I believe Russia is a vital partner in international relations and I believe the USA is an integral partner to Russia. I look forward to 'the team' of these great nations reconvening "Non-Proliferation" including current nuclear nations such as India and Pakistan. If it takes a 'memo' to assist a better understanding between the USA and Russia then by all means, do it over the Blackberry.

Medvedev denies Iran-missile shield tradeoff with U.S. - 2 (click title to entry - thank you)
18:47
03/ 03/ 2009

MADRID, March 3 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's president denied on Tuesday media reports claiming that Washington had pledged to drop its Central European missile shield plans if Moscow helped resolve Iran's controversial nuclear program.
A number of media outlets, including the New York Times and Russian business daily Kommersant, reported on Monday that a letter sent by U.S. President Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev had stated that the U.S. was ready to give up its plans to deploy missile shield elements in Central Europe in exchange for Russia's assistance on the Iranian nuclear program.
"We are in correspondence, but no tradeoffs have been discussed, I assure you," Medvedev told a news conference in Madrid....



U.S., Poland playing Patriot games (click here)
...Barack Obama has not yet curtailed that plan, but has ordered that its expediency and effectiveness be scrutinized, above all in terms of expenditure.
This may mean anything, from readiness to abandon the plan to reaffirming it, or to taking a pause to determine what additional benefits the White House could get from renouncing it. If it does, would such benefits be worth the effort?
The three-day visit by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski to Washington shows that the White House is considering the third scenario....

Bernanke finally says something that makes sense, BUT, refuses to demand for regulation to stop exploitation of the USA Treasury. Really?




It is amazing to listen to Bernanke explain to the government of the USA how they should be dumping more AMERICAN TAXPAYER ASSETS into already failing institutions without the benefit of regulation. Where does he get off?

The 'definivative' change that needs to occur, Bernanke didn't even address and that was how 'Mark the Market' continues to FORCE foreclosure on properties. If there is to be a 'consumer directed' administration that keeps people from defaulting and stops foreclosure, "Mark the Market' has to be stopped. The objection of this practice has been in contention over six months now. (click here)

...Bernanke said. “AIG exploited a huge gap in the regulatory system, there was no oversight of the financial-products division, this was a hedge fund basically that was attached to a large and stable insurance company.”...

Every company/bank borrowing from 'The Central Bank' should be required BY LAW and ENFORCED with heavy penalities including prison, to report and give full disclosure of any and all borrowing the institution has conducted with 'The Central Bank' AND otherwise.

The 'fitness' of the bank should be known to its customers. Should customers be allowed to participate in 'irregular' banking practices or not? Should consumers be allowed to place their monies with institutions they 'consent?' In other words, if a Dick Cheney wants to make money at the cost of every other 'solidly invested' institution than he should be allowed to do that with full recognition that he could loss his shirt the next day.

OR.

Should those practices simply be regulated out of existance and provide an 'honest' and 'respectable' market place for consumers so they don't have a worry in wondering if they will have money to pay the mortgage?

I think its high time to regulate the banks AGAIN, both domestic and those from foreign associations, to provide a 'level playing field' for all banks while protecting consumers. The word consumer takes on all meanings even if the consumer is the USA government.

Basically, in the recent 'financial environment' anyone banking with any institution, other than JP Morgan, was banking with risk taking incompetents.

The 'size' of JP Morgan alone and its ability to 'weather the storm' placed it in an advantageous position and its CEO is basically coated in gold today. Make no mistake, although JP Morgan is the only 'intact' entity from the 'Bush Fiscal Bungling,' it lost value when one would expect its assets to be viewed as more valuable. That just goes to PROVE that no matter the CEO, no matter the heartiness of the institution, the 'market place' can have profound impact on even the best and most stable of banking institutions. So, why then allow exploitation of 'choosing' to play by the rules rather than simply setting standards that uphold the integrity of stable institutions such as JP Morgan?

Banks are inherently 'at risk' because of the 'nature of their business' in providing monies in the way of loans. Why allow their 'risk' to be greater in a 'free for all' market system rather than one that stabilizes the environment at which they provide services? Obviously, the majority of CEOs cannot be trusted with the 'best interest' of the public and the USA Treasury, so why allow it?

U.S. senator wants Fed to name loan recipients (click here)
Tue Mar 3, 2009 4:49pm GMT
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - A U.S. senator berated Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday for refusing to name banks that borrow from the central bank, and said he would introduce legislation requiring public disclosure.
In a testy exchange at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, said he found it "unacceptable" that the central bank risked taxpayer money without detailing where the funds went.
"My question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?" Sanders asked, referring to the size of the Fed's balance sheet.
Bernanke responded that the Fed explains the various lending programs on its website, and details the terms and collateral requirements.
When Sanders pressed on whether he would name the firms that borrowed from the Fed, the central bank chairman replied, "No," and started to say that doing so risked stigmatizing banks and discouraging them from borrowing from the central bank.
"Isn't that too bad," Sanders interrupted, cutting off Bernanke's answer. "They took the money but they don't want to be public about the fact that they received it."...


I also don't believe in 'inhibiting' this type of responsible banking practice either. JP Morgan was positioned for any possible scenario and it did remarkably well.

I believe in 'community leadership' and far more liberal government policies with insitutions that have a proven track record of sustainable growth and contribution to the well being of the USA and its citizens.

The 'functionality' and 'agility' of JP Morgan should be rewarded with 'federal certifications' that can be displayed in their banks and offices recognizing leadership and accountability with a record of success. For an institution that rises above the fodder, there should an 'exemption' process to allow greater fluidity in its direction. Otherwise, regulation HAS to be the methodology of the day.

STOCKS NEWS US-JPMorgan made profits with OTC derivatives: BBG (click here)
Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:28pm GMT
0725 ET 03 March 2009
JPMorgan Chase (
JPM.N) generated $5 billion in profits during a turbulent year for Wall Street and financial stocks by trading over-the-counter fixed-income derivatives, according to a Bloomberg report, which cited two people with knowledge of the results.
As of Sept. 30, Bloomberg wrote, JPMorgan held $87.7 trillion worth of outstanding OTC contracts, more than the next two banks-- Bank of America (BAC.N) and Citigroup (C.N)-- combined.
JPMorgan hasn't disclosed earnings for its interest-rate swap, municipal bond and foreign exchange derivatives group, the agency reported, adding that the division was among JPMorgan's most profitable. [ID:nBNG470183]
Shares of JPMorgan rose 2.6 percent to $21.70 in premarket trade....

The 'D' Word. You know I am flyin' tired of hearing the Republicans MOARN their Wall Street. I really am.

You want to 'invest?' Buy bonds. Buy savings bonds, too.


"THE" reason that Wall Street is falling below TRADITIONALLY 'normal' values is because of the high 'liability' the stocks are carrying. There was a lot of 'inappropriate' investments made and ventures into areas where they did not belong and this is the result. If there is 'lack of confidence' it is because Paulson put it there.

The 'turn around' won't happen for another six months when the changes President Obama has made in the way of a 'recovery' is actually realized.

The 'slide' is going to get worse and it is just the way it is. Look, Bush should have never have been returned to office. However, I find myself grateful for the opportunity to have Barak as a President. There is always a silver lining to every cloud.

Instead of the Republcians moarning their 'Wall Street' they need to join with President Obama to celebrate a 'return' of a viable and HEALTHIER America. The Republicans ARE the trouble and they have been for over three decades. I don't want to hear it anymore. The banks that could not handle their business dealings in moral ways, certainly don't deserve another $350 billion. Poor babies.



Make no doubt about it. This is the REPUBLICAN 'Wall Street' that is still receiving 'blows' from the fourth quarter of last year.

Wind Turbine for Antarctica Outpost Undergoing Trial


Ready for a closeup
(HANS-CHRISTIAN WOESTE, EFE / February 23, 2009)
An emporer penguin near the German station Neumayer III, in Antarctica, Monday, February 23, 2009. The new station is situated next to an Emperor penguin colony.
PANAJI: A wind turbine (click title to entry - thank you) to drive down fuel costs at India's outpost on the Antarctica ice shelf is being put to trial at the National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) at Sada, Vasco.
The Maitri' station in Antarctica currently has two small scale wind turbines operational, and should the new 6 KW wind turbine clear its trial, fuel costs borne at the station should be more than halved.
The wind turbine has been built by the United Kingdom-based Proven Energy, which has already installed eight wind turbines for The Polar Foundation', located in Antarctica at the Princess Elisabeth Station back in 2008....