Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bank Holding Company who wrote (242492)	3/28/2010 11:36:57 AM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 306849

He's 0 for 2 on the endless wars.....

To: Bank Holding Company who wrote (242492)	3/28/2010 1:50:03 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 306849

Good news! John Yoo lives on in the Oministration! === Drone Attacks Are Legit Self-Defense, Says State Dept. Lawyer By Nathan Hodge March 26, 2010 \| 12:57 pm \| Categories: Af/Pak America’s undeclared drone war has been controversial, for any number of reasons: Pakistani politicians have cried foul over “counterproductive” strikes. Critics worry they may create more popular support for militants. And civil liberties groups have asked whether, in effect, it amounts to a program of targeted killing. Now the State Department’s top legal adviser has offered a rationale for the ongoing campaign: Legitimate self-defense. In a keynote address last night to the American Society of International Law, State Department legal adviser Harold Koh said it was “the considered view of this administration” that drone operations, including lethal attacks, “comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war.” Al Qaeda and its allies, he continued, have not abandoned plans to attack the United States. “Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks,” he said. It’s worth giving a closer look at the speech, excerpted here by ASIL. But this is not likely to appease critics of the drone war. Most recently, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Defense Department, the State Department and the Justice Department, demanding that the government provide more details about the legal basis of the drone war, including details about who authorizes drone strikes, how the targets are cleared and the rate of civilian casualties. Koh addressed several of the concerns raised by rights groups: Some have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerent and, therefore, lawful targets under international law…. Some have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict — such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs — so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war…. Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Obviously, this doesn’t end the controversy, but the administration has made it quite clear it sees no legal reason to scale back the escalating drone war. Read More wired.com

To: Bank Holding Company who wrote (242492)	3/28/2010 2:07:10 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 306849

No doubt Dodd and Obama will "deliver" on financial reform just like they did on healthcare. -ng- --- SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 2010 Every silver lining has a little tarnish Sure, you're probably disappointed in the health insurance bill. But you're not the only one: Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products -- and providing subsidies worth billions -- insurers don't think the penalties are high enough. Really puts our petty complaints into perspective, doesn't it? AND: In case you're wondering: Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016. That's 2.5% of this hypothetical single person's salary. For comparison purposes, UnitedHealth Group had 2009 revenues of $87 billion, so a corresponding penalty of 2.5% for its numerous misdeeds would be roughly $2.2 billion. Which isn't high enough either, wouldn't you say? So you can see their point. Posted by John Caruso at 10:27 AM \| Permalink \| Comments (4) distantocean.com

To: Bank Holding Company who wrote (242492)	3/28/2010 2:12:53 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 306849

Turns out the "reform" was all rehashed Repiglican crap anyway. Yet the d loyalists bought it hook, line and sinker. Too funny. === So, I learn from Jane that: Yesterday after AEI sacked David Frum, Bruce Bartlett put up a post about it. Which the DNC promptly sent around in this email: From: dncpress.dnc.org Date: Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:38 PM Subject: Bartlett on Frum To: firedoglake Key point: "Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI 'scholars' on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do... donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line..." Well, now, at least, we know who it is who liked the health insurance bill - AEI, a bunch of far-right creeps. And the DNC is trumpeting this fact! And, it's just like I said: They only let their loonies talk about the bill, because it sucked up all the attention from the real criticisms of the bill, while the more "respectable" right-wingers were told to keep their mouths shut so no one would notice how much they loved it - and that liberal critics of the bill had damn good reasons to hate it for its right-wing goals and effects. Last month, bmaz wondered, "Why Doesn't The Obama White House Want Dawn Johnsen Confirmed?" Because, for some strange reason, everyone was just too busy to get around to confirming someone to head the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel - not exactly an unimportant position. Yesterday, Marcy Wheeler noticed that the White House had released a list of 15 people Obama had finally decided to give recess appointments to - and that Dawn Johnson is not on that list. When asked why, the White House delivered some post-partisan gibberish. Meanwhile in the financial sector, I've never understood why they got away with calling it "innovation" when it already had a nice, descriptive term everyone understood: "cooking the books". (Okay, okay, yes, I do understand. What I don't understand is why I've heard so few genuinely leftist people tear into it. It's just like "modernization" - a term that had positive connotations because it referred to good things - appropriated to refer to something that had nothing to do with what it was. Anytime someone said, "modernize" or "innovate" in those contexts, someone should have stopped them and said, "Why are you misusing this word? Oh, I know! To disguise the fact that what you're really doing is wrecking things that work and stealing people's money.") (via) sideshow.me.uk