Afghan officials confirmed there had been "many casualties" in the attack in the southern province of Kandahar as the US military announced it had launched an investigation into the incident.Villagers in Wech Baghtu said 37 people had died, including 23 children and 10 women after planes flattened houses shortly after US troops had fought Taliban insurgents nearby on Monday afternoon.A US military statement said it had sent investigators to the site and added: "If innocent people were killed in this operation, we apologise and express our condolences to the families and the people of Afghanistan."
Afghan officials confirmed there had been "many casualties" in the attack in the southern province of Kandahar as the US military announced it had launched an investigation into the incident.
Villagers in Wech Baghtu said 37 people had died, including 23 children and 10 women after planes flattened houses shortly after US troops had fought Taliban insurgents nearby on Monday afternoon.
A US military statement said it had sent investigators to the site and added: "If innocent people were killed in this operation, we apologise and express our condolences to the families and the people of Afghanistan."
California has voted to ban gay marriages only months after the practice was legalised, in a move which left thousands of homosexual couples stranded in a legal limbo. The proposal to limit marriage to members of the opposite sex was approved by 52.1 percent of voters, compared with 47.9 percent who voted against, with 95 per cent of votes counted. The referendum, known as Proposition 8, called for the California constitution to be amended by adding the phrase that: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California." The plan, for which groups voted at the same time as for the president, was viewed by Conservatives as the people's way of overturning the state Supreme Court's ruling in May that legalised gay marriage.
California has voted to ban gay marriages only months after the practice was legalised, in a move which left thousands of homosexual couples stranded in a legal limbo.
The proposal to limit marriage to members of the opposite sex was approved by 52.1 percent of voters, compared with 47.9 percent who voted against, with 95 per cent of votes counted.
The referendum, known as Proposition 8, called for the California constitution to be amended by adding the phrase that: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California."
The plan, for which groups voted at the same time as for the president, was viewed by Conservatives as the people's way of overturning the state Supreme Court's ruling in May that legalised gay marriage.
Awfully disappointing that this thing passed. "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
---------------- Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, raised these explosive questions in a stinging letter sent to Paulson this week. The union did what any private investor would do. Its finance experts vetted the terms of the bailout investment and calculated the real value of what Treasury bought with the public's money. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the analysis could conveniently rely on a comparable sale twenty days earlier. Billionaire Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and bought the same types of securities--preferred stock and warrants to purchase common stock in the future. Only Buffett's preferred shares pay a 10 percent dividend, while the public gets only 5 percent. Dollar for dollar, Buffett "received at least seven and perhaps up to 14 times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms," Gerard pointed out. "I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett's investment," the union president wrote. "In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal--50 percent invested and 50 percent as a gift--is quite consistent with the Republican version of spread-the-wealth-around philosophy." ---------------------- "The analysis is based on the assumption that Warren Buffett is an intelligent third party investor who paid no more for his investment than he had to," Bloom's report explained. "It also assumes that Gold Sachs' job is to protect its existing shareholders so that it extracted from Mr. Buffett the most that it could.... Further, it is assumed that Henry Paulson is likewise an intelligent man and that if he paid any more than Mr. Buffett--if he paid $1 for something for which Mr. Buffett would have paid 50 cents--that the difference is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States to the shareholders of Goldman Sachs." The implications are staggering. Leo Gerard told Paulson: "If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions--which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return--you paid a$125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. That means you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions." If the same rule of thumb is applied to Paulson's grand $700 billion bailout fund, Gerard said this will constitute a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers "to reward the institutions that have driven our nation and it now appears the whole world into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years."
"I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett's investment," the union president wrote. "In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal--50 percent invested and 50 percent as a gift--is quite consistent with the Republican version of spread-the-wealth-around philosophy." ---------------------- "The analysis is based on the assumption that Warren Buffett is an intelligent third party investor who paid no more for his investment than he had to," Bloom's report explained. "It also assumes that Gold Sachs' job is to protect its existing shareholders so that it extracted from Mr. Buffett the most that it could.... Further, it is assumed that Henry Paulson is likewise an intelligent man and that if he paid any more than Mr. Buffett--if he paid $1 for something for which Mr. Buffett would have paid 50 cents--that the difference is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States to the shareholders of Goldman Sachs."
The implications are staggering. Leo Gerard told Paulson: "If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions--which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return--you paid a$125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. That means you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions."
If the same rule of thumb is applied to Paulson's grand $700 billion bailout fund, Gerard said this will constitute a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers "to reward the institutions that have driven our nation and it now appears the whole world into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years."
A conscious swindle--or just staggering incompetence? Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
A conscious swindle--or just staggering incompetence?
Hmm, let me see, nobody gets to such positions within Goldman Sachs by being incompetent, so I'd guess the other is true. And oddly, that trait'd also be useful for rising up the hierarchy of GS.
But then again, republicans and a big pile of money invariably equals crookery. keep to the Fen Causeway
My dream: Dean Baker for Treasury, Bill Greider for second in command. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
incompetence at foreseeing the consequences of their greed, followed by conscious swindle.
the savings and loan bailout, followed by enron, followed by the Great Halliburton Wealth Transfer to Dubai, all were warm-ups for this last one.
how far can they push the credulousness envelope?
how long will jargon and obfuscation hold back the tide of public feeling?
how many 401K's have to vaporise? how many bushvilles? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Although Ted Stevens holds a small lead in Alaska and is the favorite to retain his seat, the outcome is not as inevitable as it might appear to be. Stevens currently holds a lead of 3,353 votes, or about 1.5 percent of the votes tallied so far. But, there are quite a large number of ballots yet to count. According to Roll Call, these include "at least 40,000 absentee ballot, 9,000 early voting ballots, and an undetermined number of questionable ballots". Indeed, it seems possible that the number of "questionable" ballots could be quite high. So far, about 220 thousand votes have been processed in Alaska. This compares with 313 thousand votes cast in 2004. After adding back in the roughly 50,000 absentee and early ballots that Roll Call accounts for, that would get us to 270 thousand ballots, or about a 14 percent drop from 2004. It seems unlikely that turnout would drop by 14 percent in Alaska given the presence of both a high-profile senate race and Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket. But even if Begich were to make up ground and win a narrow victory, this would seem to represent a catastrophic failure of polling, as three polls conducted following the guilty verdict in Stevens' corruption trial had Begich leading by margins of 7, 8 and 22 points, respectively. The emerging conventional wisdom is that there was some sort of a Bradley Effect in this contest -- voters told pollsters that they weren't about to vote for that rascal Ted Stevens, when in fact they were perfectly happy to. Convicted felons are the new black, it would seem. The problem with this theory is that the polling failures in Alaska weren't unique to Stevens. They also applied to the presidential race, as well as Alaska's at-large House seat. In each case, the Republican outperformed his pre-election polling by margins ranging from 12 to 14 points:
Indeed, it seems possible that the number of "questionable" ballots could be quite high. So far, about 220 thousand votes have been processed in Alaska. This compares with 313 thousand votes cast in 2004. After adding back in the roughly 50,000 absentee and early ballots that Roll Call accounts for, that would get us to 270 thousand ballots, or about a 14 percent drop from 2004. It seems unlikely that turnout would drop by 14 percent in Alaska given the presence of both a high-profile senate race and Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket.
But even if Begich were to make up ground and win a narrow victory, this would seem to represent a catastrophic failure of polling, as three polls conducted following the guilty verdict in Stevens' corruption trial had Begich leading by margins of 7, 8 and 22 points, respectively.
The emerging conventional wisdom is that there was some sort of a Bradley Effect in this contest -- voters told pollsters that they weren't about to vote for that rascal Ted Stevens, when in fact they were perfectly happy to. Convicted felons are the new black, it would seem.
The problem with this theory is that the polling failures in Alaska weren't unique to Stevens. They also applied to the presidential race, as well as Alaska's at-large House seat. In each case, the Republican outperformed his pre-election polling by margins ranging from 12 to 14 points:
Alaska has had a spotlight shined on it by McCain's catastrophic (for him) choice of Gov. Dingbat as running mate,--and it aint pretty. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
