Boston of all places. Not exactly a vast right-wing conspiracy type venue. And he looks rattled.
The chants are "Solyndra" and "Where are the jobs".
Boston of all places. Not exactly a vast right-wing conspiracy type venue. And he looks rattled.
The chants are "Solyndra" and "Where are the jobs".
Having posted this yesterday Marathon running and heart attacks here's another NYT article saying a small minority of people have one or more risk factors rise when they have an exercise program.
A very good article; hit the link ro the whole thing.
By analyzing data from six rigorous exercise studies involving 1,687 people, the group found that about 10 percent actually got worse on at least one of the measures related to heart disease:blood pressure and levels of insulin, HDL cholesterolortriglycerides. About 7 percent got worse on at least two measures. And the researchers say they do not know why.
“There are a lot of people out there looking for any excuse not to exercise,” said William Haskell, emeritus professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. “This might be an excuse for them to say, ‘Oh, I must be one of those 10 percent.’ ”
But counterbalancing the 10 percent who got worse were about the same proportion who had an exaggeratedly good response on at least one measure. Others had responses ranging from little or no change up to big changes, seen in about 10 percent, where risk factor measurements improved anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent.
“That should make folks happy,” said Dr. William E. Kraus, a co-author of the study who is a professor of medicine and director of clinical research at Duke. He was a member of the committee providing the scientific overview for the Department of Health and Human Services’ national exercise guidelines, which advise moderate exercise for at least 150 minutes a week.
The problem with studies of exercise and health, researchers point out, is that while they often measure things like blood pressure or insulin levels, they do not follow people long enough to see if improvements translate into fewer heart attacks or longer lives. Instead, researchers infer that such changes lead to better outcomes — something that may or may not be true.
Really pretty big news if the media covers it.
In a post published Tuesday on his website, Davis was vague about his future political endeavors, but declared: “If I were to run, it would be as a Republican. And I am in the process of changing my voter registration from Alabama to Virginia, a development which likely does represent a closing of one chapter and perhaps the opening of another.”
Davis, who represented Alabama’s 7th Congressional District from 2003 to 2011, was notably the first member of Congress outside of Illinois to endorse then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 presidential bid. And it was Davis who seconded the official nomination of Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Renouncing the party “is no light decision on my part,” he wrote. “Cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another.”
But “wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities,” he said.
“On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again,” he said. “I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.”
Davis was the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against Obamacare
Both mis-spoke and not meant as stated. if you're old enough you remember that Ford's error was during a debate with Carter and might very well have cost Ford the election. But Obama's error won't mean much in the coming election (and it shouldn't - it's easy to mis-speak. Obama should be dumped for his horrible policies).
Off Althouse blog -
Too quote this NY Times fitness article:
It's a pretty good short piece.
In Jacksonville Fl., a fabuloous result (unless you're Scottish ...) I'm not a soccer fan, but here's a nice goal.
A bit silly. The birther issue. This is the short version of the interview - there's an eleven minute version here.
CNN's ratings are awful though.
Queensland Reds (Australia) vs. Waikato Chiefs (NZ) in the inter-country provincial league.
Whew. A good game.Espcecially, if like Brigid's niece June, you live in Queensland!
Bad news for the economy.
Economists were expecting a reading of 70, according to a FactSet poll of analysts. The current level is below February's 71.6, which is the highest level it's been in a year.
The trend is not our friend. And here's more on house prices. No real economic recovery until the housing market improves.
... the major indexes ended the first quarter at new post-crisis lows, the report said. For the first quarter, prices were down 2 percent, compared to a 3.9 percent decline in the last three months of 2011.
A large portion of the Notre Dame Law School faculty are up in arms about the coercive mandate. (And I've done a few postings about this situation - here's the first one - The President's Administration launches a direct attack on Catholic - and other - Churches and conscience protection.) Several of them are leaders in rallying other lawyers and institutions to take action.
Good column here by McGurn on the WSJ op ed page today. Excerpts below, but hit the link for the whole column.
... Joe Donnelly, is a double Domer, boasting both undergraduate and law degrees from Notre Dame. He represents South Bend in Congress. Last week his Republican opponent, Richard Mourdock, used a visit to that city to declare his own support for the university's effort.
"It's ironic that a graduate of Ball State should be here defending Notre Dame when a Notre Dame graduate, my opponent Joe Donnelly, refuses to do so," said Mr. Mourdock. In response, Mr. Donnelly told the South Bend Tribune that he supports a solution and continues to "monitor the process."
When asked by this reporter for a follow-up, his spokesman emailed a statement in which Mr. Donnelly repeated his call for a solution that would exempt religious organizations, and he said that his alma mater has the "right" to go to court.
It's an indirect statement, and beyond its complaints that Mr. Mourdock is "picking a partisan fight," it goes to considerable lengths to avoid saying simply: I support Notre Dame in its suit and hope the school prevails.
That wasn't how an Obama administration was supposed to play out. It was Mr. Obama who in 2006 declared that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square." It was this same Mr. Obama whom Notre Dame lauded at its 2009 commencement for his "willingness to engage with those who disagree with him."
Now Notre Dame is effectively suing its own commencement speaker, specifically because the university found that for all its rhetoric, Mr. Obama's administration wouldn't engage.
Now, it's true that Notre Dame's current president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, has been criticized by some conservatives who think his statement on the lawsuit doesn't go far enough. In fact, the move required courage, and Notre Dame's participation renders nonsensical the Catholic left's charge that these lawsuits are the work of Obama haters, which Father Jenkins manifestly is not. It also augurs more difficulty for Mr. Obama come November.
... let's remember that the president who promised us in 2008 that his Democratic Party would be more sympathetic to people of faith has in his cabinet a health and human services secretary who described her push for her contraceptive mandate—and like-minded initiatives—as a "war" against all who oppose it. Ask Mr. Donnelly how that's working out for candidates like him.
This guy was wounded and lost an eye in Iraq. Nick Papaditch's book is here .
He gave this talk yesterday in San Diego, at the same venue that John McCain and Mitt Romney spoke.
Always a nice ceremony, put together by Pat Calcutti. Around 350 attendees.
Vietnam veteran (two purple hearts) Eugene Perotta spoke briefly. He's an important Veterans representative in New York, and works closely with State Senator Greg Ball.
In the middle of the ceremony Croton H.S. student Christine Turturro sang (as she has for several past years) "Amazing Grace."
A very fascinating look at the Machiavellian machinations of the power players at the NY Times - and what was behind the firing of the Times CEO Janet Robinson.
If you are a reader of the Times, or a New Yorker, or just looking for some good non-fiction, invest the 15 minutes or so it takes to read the feature.
Some tidbits - but read the whole thing!
As the paper’s stock price has declined in recent years, there has been increasing unease among the Ochs-Sulzberger clan, who control the paper through a special class of shares. Three years ago, facing huge debt problems, the company suspended the lucrative stock dividend that once flowed quarterly to the family’s 40-plus members, intensifying the need to solve the intractable advertising problems of the newspaper in the digital age and figure out a way to turn the family’s cash spigot back on. Janet Robinson, the company’s advertising brains, found herself caught between her increasingly remote boss and a frustrated family worried over the future of its 116-year-old fortune.
Between the About.com debacle and the sudden decline in print advertising, the paper was headed toward a 3 percent drop in revenue and an overall loss of almost $40 million in 2011. Since Robinson began as CEO in December 2004, the Times stock has lost more than 80 percent of its value. And this was significant not only for the business but also for the family that owns it. The Times has always had conflicting business prerogatives: to turn a profit, yes, but also to supply the family with what amounted to a trust fund by churning out several million dollars a year in stock dividends. At one time, the family received upward of $20 million a year, which served as a kind of Ochs-Sulzberger operating budget. But when the dividend was suspended, the family were left with only their stock wealth and whatever they had in trust funds and savings. That was fine for Sulzberger and the five other family members with salaried positions at the company, but the wider family of sons and daughters, nieces and nephews were now forced to sell stock at a historical low to raise money. Most of them have admirable if low-wage jobs as academics, novelists, musicians, and psychotherapists, but the money also funded second homes and hobbies such as underwater exploration. Two years ago, the clan began working with a company called Relative Solutions, which specializes in brokering disputes inside wealthy families.
In the era of Arthur Sulzberger Jr., when newspapers have flailed under new digital realities, the New York Times Company has shrunk dramatically. Once it was a wide-ranging media empire of newspapers and TV stations and websites, and even a baseball team, that was worth almost $7 billion; today it’s essentially two struggling newspapers and a much-reduced web company, all worth less than $1 billion (for comparison, consider that the Internet music company Pandora is valued at almost $2 billion). Despite the shrinkage, the company has retained essentially the same top-heavy management, which it has kept well compensated. Even though the paper froze executives’ pensions in 2009, as it is threatening to do with union employees, the company created two loopholes, called the Restoration Plan and the Supplemental Executive Savings Plan, which allowed certain high-earning executives to take money out anyway. As a result, Janet Robinson received an additional lump-sum payment of over half a million dollars upon exiting the Times.
Janet Robinson's total termination package came to $24 million so don't weep too much.
UPDATE: Hayes apologizes, as well he should.
Christopher Hayes. What an embarrassing twit.
Here's the article the video is from -
Good for Tim. At the CHSAA varsity intersectional championships he hits a new PR/PB in the javelin of 135'10". That was good for ninth place in a field of 37. He was one of the very few freshman competitors in the whole meet.
This was far and away the biggest meet of the year. Between spectators and participants there had to be well over three thousand people. Of course in a track meet there are events going on simultaneously, so I suppose not too many people would be paying attention to the javelin throw, but still great experience for Tim to be participating in front of so many people.
The same venue as the past few weeks - Icahn Stadium on Randall's Island.
And another view - that's the East River separating Randall's from Manhattan. Tim is actually in this picture, sitting on a steeple chase obstacle over on the left side, talking to his coach.
Here they are. Tim's "flight" of throwers is finished and they are waiting for the final flight to finish throwing. Tim's coach, Nick Mitchell, has done a wonderful job with the Stepinac track team.You won't be able to tell, but Tim is smiling in this picture.
Here's Tim's last throw and a bit of blabbering by me. This throw put Tim into 2nd or 3rd place, but since there's seeding the final flight had the best throwers and they pushed Tim down the placing.
Yikes! Here's the coverage by ABC-
Parachute Center might be an outfit to avoid.
And here's an interview with Grandma. -
I didn't know th Pope had a butler. ...
Rome (CNN) -- Pope Benedict's butler has been arrested on suspicion of leaking confidential documents to an Italian journalist, the Vatican said Saturday.
Paolo Gabriele, 46, was arrested Wednesday for illegal possession of confidential documents, found in his apartment in Vatican territory, the Vatican said in a statement issued three days later.
Gabriele, who has worked as the papal butler since 2006, is one of only a handful of people with access to the pontiff's private desk.
His job included handing out rosaries to dignitaries and riding in the front seat of the "Popemobile," a vehicle used for public papal appearances, as seen in many photographs showing Gabriele with the pope.
I picked up Joe yesterday (Friday) and we came back from Rochester the same day. Round trip, door to door of less than 15 hours (It takes a bit less then six hours to go one way to or from Rochester - but we had to pack!)
There's no way I thought we'd get everything in the Ford Edge - but we did.
Here's the car with just the fridge and a couple of other things in it.
Note the fridge is flat on it's back with it's door open - we piled it full of clothes bags ...
The full car - more or less.
We had to carry everything down from Joe's third floor room - there's no elevator. It took us about twelve trips each. And it was hot and as Joe said, "oppressive.'
We had a very nice ride back to Croton and are thrilled Joe is home for the summer.
Too many people trying to get to the top.
A 2 minute ABC video. Abc doesn't allow embedding.
We're all excited - haven't seen Joe since Christmas!
Fitzgerald, the guy who nailed, among others, Rod Blagoyevich & "Scooter" Libby. BUT more importantly played rugby for the OMEX rugby club over 25 years ago. I last posted about him here - The Culture of Corruption - my friend Patrick Fitzgerald is onto it!
Here's the latest on Pat's wiki & it's pretty interesting. He doesn't look much different then when he was playing rugby - bulked up a little -
Patrick Fitzgerald, one of the most feared U.S. attorneys in the nation and the architect of convictions against two Illinois governors and a former vice presidential aide, announced Wednesday that he is stepping down from the post he has held for more than a decade in Chicago.
Mr. Fitzgerald has overseen thousands of criminal prosecutions and high-profile cases, including against Illinois Govs. Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan; former Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby; and media mogul Conrad Black. He took on public corruption, international terrorism, corporate fraud and organized crime.
He's married now with two small children, soooo may be looking for a better-paying job?
British of course. Out in the sun too long?
Hans Kung lost his right to teach theology in a Catholic setting in the 70's.
Here, he's upset that the Pope is trying to get a Catholic group that never accepted Vatican II (and also says the Pope is not Catholic!) back into the fold.
A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience. Pope Benedict would be therefore encouraging the already widespread popular movement of “disobedience” against a hierarchy that is disobedient to the Gospel. He would bear sole responsibility for the grave rift and the strife created inside the Church. , he would have alone the responsibility. ...
There were a few amusing comments left on the posting.
I've read two of Kung's books; one of them he co-authored entitled "Dying With Dignity." As you might guess from the title he's pro-euthanasia. The other one I read quite awhile ago - "Why I am Still a Christian." The link is to an updated version on amazon.
The Heineken Cup
A good op ed in the Journal yesterday, by the former head of American Express. summarizes all the obvious points.
... exactly how weak has this recovery been? The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis tracks economic performance for each recovery and compares gross-domestic-product growth and job growth, the two most important indicators of economic performance. Over the past 60 years, there have been 11 recessions and 11 recoveries.
Sadly, this recovery is near the bottom of all 11. Cumulative nonfarm job growth is just 1.9% 34 months into recovery, the ninth-worst performance and well below the average job growth of 6.5%. Cumulative GDP growth is just 6.8% 11 quarters into this recovery, less than half the average (15.2%) and the worst of all 11.
Uncertainty regarding ObamaCare and higher taxes on businesses and individuals has discouraged the type of borrowing and lending that low rates generally encourage. Near-zero interest rates have also resulted in historically low yields on savings and encouraged riskier investments. In effect, we have subsidized increased spending by penalizing savings.
Fiscal policy, under the control of the president and his party, increased expenditures by about $700 billion per year since 2008 and launched a spending package of about $800 billion (along with various "targeted" temporary tax reductions), all of which resulted in an increase in national debt of over $5 trillion. In other words, we borrowed $5 trillion, for which we will pay interest for who knows how long, in order to stimulate the economy now.
There's little doubt that this level of spending—$5 trillion in an economy with an annual GDP of about $15 trillion—has a temporary stimulative effect. The question is, was it a good investment? For the most part the money was spent poorly and we will get very little future value from it. Billions were spent to reward favored constituencies like government employees and the auto industry. Billions more were spent on training programs that don't work and unemployment insurance that reduces incentives to actually find work. Little went toward building infrastructure or other assets that will help the nation create wealth over time.
Indeed, this administration has been overtly hostile to business across the economy except for progressive favorites like electric cars or wind and solar power. It has tightened regulatory screws on the coal industry and all other fossil-fuel providers, enacted health-care "reform" based on false estimates of its likely costs and effects, unleashed a hostile National Labor Relations Board on businesses, and passed financial regulations in the form of Dodd-Frank along with hundreds of other regulatory actions that put increased burdens on the private sector. Meanwhile, the president has yet to pass a budget or announce a plan to rein in government expenditures.
In this negative environment, businesses are less willing to invest in the future, and individuals are less willing to spend what they can. Meanwhile, savers and retirees have seen much of their income decline because of low interest rates. The massive costs of all the stimulus have been wasted because of the heavy counterweight put on the economy by the administration's antibusiness and pro-redistribution policies.
Dionne, in charge of giving cover to Catholics to vote for you-know-who.
In what kind of polity, one wonders, would an adequate response to an unprovoked government abrogation of religious liberty not have the kind of political implications that, at least in democracies, usually involve elections? To be sure, saying that an appropriate response from Catholics citizens will have political consequences is not at all the same as saying it is a partisan exercise. Dionne conveniently conflates the two.
(If one believes, as Dionne does, that the “hyperbolic” lawsuits against the Obama administration are evidence of underlying partisanship, then one is faced with some rather absurd propositions: For example, that Father John Jenkins — who caused a firestorm of controversy in 2009 by inviting President Obama to Notre Dame and granting him an honorary law degree – is a GOP booster out to strike a blow against an honorary alumnus of his own making.)
But it’s not just partisanship that Dionne sees, its obstinate partisanship.
The uber-partisan is Dionne, not the Bishops - or the Prez of Notre Dame.
On CBS, & they don't allow embedding of their videos.
Great editorial making all the key points -
The 12 federal lawsuits filed Monday by 43 Catholic plaintiffs against the Obama Administration's birth-control mandate are a big political and Constitutional moment. The nation's most prominent Catholic institutions are saying that the same federal government they have viewed for decades as an ally in their fight for social justice is now a threat to their religious liberty.
This can't have been an easy decision, especially because the plaintiffs are hardly founding members of the tea party. They include the Archdioceses of New York and Washington but also Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and even the University of Notre Dame.
The famously liberal Notre Dame gave President Obama an honorary degree in 2009 despite his support for abortion rights. At the time, Notre Dame President John Jenkins applauded Mr. Obama's "willingness to engage with those who disagree with him and encourage people of faith to bring their beliefs to the public debate."
So much for that. The lawsuit signals that far from engaging with "those who disagree," Mr. Obama has rebuffed Catholic leaders in their attempt to work out a compromise over the Administration's mandate that all insurance plans offer contraception and sterilization services, including abortifacients. "If the government wants to provide such services," Father Jenkins said in a statement Monday, "means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents."
The Department of Health and Human Services offered a fig leaf in February, foisting the mandate onto insurance companies rather than religious employers. But the insurers would pass along the mandate's cost to the employers in any case, and institutions like Notre Dame that self-insure would still be subsidizing policies that violate core church teaching. As Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York put it, this so-called "safe habor" effectively gives religious institutions "a year to figure out how to violate [their] consciences."
The suit charges that the mandate violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, as well as the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires that the federal government meet a higher legal standard for any law that interferes with religious liberty. "If the Government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs in such a manner," argues the Notre Dame suit, "there is no apparent limit to the Government's power."
The Administration and Democrats have tried to obscure the real nature of this dispute by claiming that the church wants to deny contraception to women. But birth control will continue to be widely available and easily affordable no matter what the legal outcome. Nine out of 10 health plans currently provide it.
The real and startling question at issue is whether the entitlement state can pound everything, including religious belief, to its political will. Few previous Administrations would have dared such a high-stakes Constitutional battle, but Mr. Obama's willfulness reveals the change that is taking place in liberal politics.
Once upon a time the political left viewed Catholics and especially the bishops as their allies in using government to create more equal opportunity and redistribute income. But today's Democratic Party puts a higher cultural value on sexual politics and expanded reproductive freedom. We trust the courts will instruct the Administration that the Constitution still puts religious liberty first.
Way back in 1993 - passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate, and signed by President Clinton. You can bet he didn't imagine the Catholic Church using it against a despotic Democrat Administration.
From Business Insider -
According to a report from Elise Viebeck of The Hill, almost all of the over 30 lawsuits Catholic groups filed against the Obama Administration yesterday referred to a 1993 law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which Congress passed to allow the use of peyote in American Indian religious observances.
The law states, "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
In other words, the legislation introduces a test, in which the government has to prove that there is not a another option for achieving their intended result other than impinging on the practice of religion.
So while the law may be general and doesn't specifically single-out Catholic institutions, it could be shown in court that it is a substantial burden to them.
Last week competing at Hendrick Hudson HS in a varsity event, Tim had the best shot put throw of a freshman and overall came 6th. This video wasn't his best throw (it's a quarter inch short of 32') but it's pretty good and a good camera angle. That's a 12lb. piece of iron!
And this is Tim Saturday night, competing at Icahn Stadium in a varsity event - the javelin - and again having the best freshmen performance. He was tenth out of 29 overall. This was his best throw - 124' - but he did hit 134' the week before, and in the practice round here had a throw that must have been close to 140' (didn't count).
Here's a fascinating short feature and short video from today's NY Times.
Mr. Gordon is among an elite cadre who operate the roughly 200 cranes that swing across the Manhattan skyline in full public view, but few do their work at the height or the scrutiny that accompanies his work.
Surprising. Is that a Beck's (beer)?
Only posted on youtube five days ago, and already hundreds of thusands of views -
The basic Obama-liberal critique goes like this: Bain buys a company, loads it with debt and then sucks out cash before foisting the wounded business upon an unsuspecting buyer or a bankruptcy court. In the risk-taking world of private equity such a scenario can certainly happen, and it's true that Bain likes management fees and dividends as much as the next partnership.
If Bain's standard operating procedure were to hand the next owner of one of its companies a ticking bankruptcy package, how is Bain still finding buyers nearly three decades later? And who would agree to lend money to a company backed by Bain? Wouldn't word have gotten around by, say, 1987 that Bain's portfolio companies weren't creditworthy?
The liberal critique of private equity assumes that the financial industry is full of saps who have been eager to lose money across the table from Bain for 28 years. This is the same financial industry that the same liberal critics say is full of greedy schemers when it comes to padding their own pay or ripping off consumers. But financiers can't be both knaves and diabolical geniuses at the same time.
From Brigid's sister Libby -
Subject: FW: Angela Merkel
German Chancellor Angela Merkel arrives at French Immigration at Charles de
Gaulle airport in France.
"Nationality?" asks the French officer.
"German," she replies.
"No, just here for a few days."
I used to like Friedman (the NYT columnist) until he fell totally in love with himself. He joins the pantheon of self-proclaimed geniuses like Chris Matthews (although no one is in Matthews class ... Further proof that there is a God; Chris Matthews bombs on Jeopardy) who blew up on Jeopardy.
See it here.
I can only pray that other egomaniacs from the NY Times, like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, go on Jeopardy.
As always with her and EJ Dionne (here's his latest on Catholicism - "I'm not Quitting"), create a straw man and then attack it ...
Her latest rant -
For both Dowd and Dionne, party loyalty comes first, last, and always.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I've never had more people call me about an IPO. A definite fascination with the company.
An interesting chart up on Business Insider.
The underwriters/selling consortium (the investment bankers involved in bining Facebook to market and selling the shares) kept big bids (an offer to buy) at $38 to prop up the price.
Here's the chart, with a short commentary.
Basically, because the underwriters of the IPO (Morgan Stanley, et. al.) bid heavily right at $38 to make sure there was no chance that selling pressure would drive the stock lower than that level. It would be an embarrassment if their clients lost money on their first day of the IPO.
And here'sthe Wall Street Journal analysis.
Facebook Inc. took eight years to stage one of the most anticipated initial public offerings ever. The anticlimax came Friday, as Wall Street bankers struggled to prevent the newly minted stock from ending its first day with a loss.
The stock had been widely predicted to soar on its first day. Instead, up until the closing moments of the trading session, Facebook's underwriters battled to keep the stock from slipping below its offering price of $38 a share. Such a stumble would have been a significant embarrassment, particularly for a prominent new issue like Facebook, the most heavily traded IPO of all time.
In the end, the bankers succeeded. When trading on Nasdaq ended at 4 p.m., the social network's stock was up just a hair, 0.6%, at $38.23.
The roller-coaster day—Facebook's shares started out jumping roughly 11%, before cooling off—was also beset by trading glitches and a 30-minute delay in the opening of trading. Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. NDAQ -4.39% didn't respond to requests for comment.
Facebook was also hurt by investors' high expectations of a healthy first-day pop in the price, according to people familiar with the matter. When that pop didn't happen, it prompted a selloff, these people said.
That's when Facebook's underwriters had to step in to support the company's share price, people familiar with the matter said. In particular, lead underwriter Morgan Stanley MS -0.82% was assigned to be the deal's "stabilization agent"—meaning it was the firm's job to keep the shares above the offering price, these people said. In that role, Morgan Stanley was forced to buy Facebook shares as the price slid toward $38 in order to prevent the price from crossing into negative territory, according to these people.
Morgan Stanley, which led the platoon of 11 Wall Street banks that arranged the listing, had to dip into an emergency reserve of around 63 million Facebook shares—worth more than $2.3 billion at the offer price—to boost the price and create a floor around $38 a share, according to people close to the situation. In successful IPOs, the reserve, known as the "overallotment" or "green shoe," is used by underwriters to meet soaring demand but in this case, it was used to prop up Facebook's ailing share price.
The process is common in IPOs and works like this: The underwriters have the extra shares available to either sell or buy for a period after the IPO. If demand is strong, they sell them like all the other shares. But if the stock price falls, they can buy them back, effectively creating a floor for the price.
Facebook's price began falling almost immediately after shares began trading. It is unclear exactly when Morgan Stanley stepped in, but traders said that the price movements throughout the day, with the shares occasionally touching the IPO price but never crossing below it, suggested the firm was active throughout much of the session.
Facebook's opening-day travails suggested how tough it can be to live up to high expectations in the market.
There's more in the article.
I posted the last proof for God here - Further proof that there is a God; Chris Matthews bombs on Jeopardy
And now we have this!
Ridiculously good skills.
London. USA scores the first one, gives up the second.
Here's Glasgow, two weeks ago
I'm impressed. hit the link for the whole (not very long) story
The remote track ... winds through desert and grasslands, climbing and descending constantly for its whole length. Chuck hiked the trail solo and carried all food, filtering water from streams and at least one “cow pond.” (He noted he could “still taste the cow” even after purification!) On the trek, Chuck battled blisters, vague trail spurs that took him off route, and wild, free-range steer not happy to see him in their grazing grounds along the way. Here son Stephen Regenold interviews his dad on the Maah Daah Hey experience.
Here's a chart up on the Business Insider website.
"Middle class Joe."? Who calls him that? This guy is a heartbeat away from the Presidency!?
Pretty interesting interview. The surgeon, Mary Neal, has written a book To Heaven and Back. Hit the link to read the mixed reviews on amazon. Mary Neal "drowned" in a kayaking accident.
FOX doesn't allow embedding their videos.
Answer below, but first here's a pretty good article from the usually awful Daily Beast (either they own Newsweek or Newsweek owns them - not sure which way it works).
I never heard of the woman author, Nomi Prins. The initial point of the article is that Dimon has just been renamed Chairman and CEO, with a $23 million salary package, despite the bank having just lost over $2 billion with speculative "synthetic derivatives" disguised as a hedge.
A self-inflicted loss conjures up images of someone shooting himself or herself during a game of Russian roulette. Sure, the shooter might have shot the gun into his or her brain, egregiously mistaken in the belief it wouldn’t be loaded. But he or she also chose to play. It’s not so much that the $2 billion loss is catastrophic, (it isn’t) but that it happened. It can continue to bleed into JPM Chase’s books, or pop up in another form elsewhere, and be equally “surprising.”
Sure, betting mistakes happen (ask former MF Global head Jon Corzine), but it’s the characterization of the loss that’s egregious. First, because by swaggering, “we will fix it—we will move on,” Dimon has claimed dominance over global markets. (No banker who truly understands risk should be so cavalier about it.)
Secondly, the fact that after a formal announcement, a friendly Meet the Press chat, and a face-to-face with the firm’s shareholders, Dimon can still call it a mistaken hedge is ludicrous. It was a directional bet on the health of North American corporate bonds that the firm got wrong, enacted via the synthetic derivatives market to worsen the blow. To the extent that it’s betting wrong, it’s a mistake, but it’s not a hedge.
From what I've read, that's exactly right. It was speculation not hedging. So why does Meet the Press, and the President, et al, give him a pass?
Because he's a DEMOCRAT and was a huge supporter and fundraiser for Obama in 2008. Not because he agrees with the administration's economic and fiscal policies, but because he (like Buffett, Gates, etc) is a social progressive. So he gets a pass. Don't believe me? Read Charles Gasparino's Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street. It's all laid out in exquisite detail. Remember, Obama raised over $20 million from Wall Street in 2008, while the real reformer McCain, only $13 million.
Worth watching the one minute video of this 93 year old (amazing!) lady.
CBS doesn't allow embedding of videos, and sorry for the short commercial.
After years of making fun of Palin as a dolt who would embarrass herself on Jeopardy, Matthews makes the mistake of going on the show (FULL DISCLOSURE: I've never watched Jeopardy).
I especially liked his answer "Istanbul" when the question required a "six letter world Capital." (More FULL DISCLOSURE: I knew the answer was Moscow!)
In a delicious example of instant karma, the self-proclaimed brainiac got his chance to show America how smart he was in a special "Power Players" version of the show Monday, but came up quite short finishing dead last
Of course, private equity firms are neither good nor bad ...
Anderson Cooper of CNN -