Welcome to Loserville – Mr Rick Santelli

So, the cat’s out of the bag. You wanna know what Wall Street traders really think of the millions of people who got jammed in the sub-prime mortgage scam?

Take a look at this CNBC clip.

Santelli’s Tea Party

CNBC’s Rick Santelli and the traders on the floor of the CME Group express outrage over the notion they may have to pay their neighbor’s mortgage, particularly if they bought far more house than they could actually afford, with Jason Roney, Sharmac Capital.

Politkovskaya murder – remains unsolved

(CPJ/IFEX) – The following is a 19 February 2009 CPJ press release:

RUSSIA: Three men acquitted in Politkovskaya murder

New York, February 19, 2009 -

Three defendants in the October 2006 murder of Novaya Gazeta journalist Anna Politkovskaya walked free out of the Moscow District

Anna Politkovskaya russianwriting.com

Military Court today after a jury unanimously acquitted them of helping to organize the crime, according to local news reports. The state prosecution said it will appeal the verdict. The Committee to Protect Journalists called on Russian authorities to vigorously seek out the masterminds and triggerman, thoroughly gather all available evidence, bring all perpetrators to trial with solid proof of their involvement in the crime, and try them in a court open to the press and the public. Those acquitted are Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, a former police officer with the Moscow Directorate for Combating Organized Crime, and ethnic Chechen brothers Ibragim and Dzhabrail Makhmudov. A fourth suspect, Pavel Ryaguzov, a former Federal Security Service (FSB) lieutenant colonel, was tried in a separate case but alongside the three because of his previous association with Khadzhikurbanov. The jury also acquitted Ryaguzov of unrelated charges of abuse and extortion today. All defendants had pleaded not guilty, according to local news reports and CPJ sources close to the trial.

Read the full story IFEX update

WHO killed Anna Politkovskaya, Russia’s best and bravest campaigning journalist? Who organised it? Who were the shadowy figures seen on CCTV footage, tailing her in the days leading up to her murder? And who gave the order? By the time the sometimes-farcical trial of four men charged in connection with the killing ended in an acquittal on Thursday February 19th, few believed that the answer to any of these questions would emerge. The story of Ms Politkovskaya’s death in 2006 and the bungling, evasive behaviour of the Russian authorities in dealing with it was just the sort of topic suited for her own fiery pen.

The jury acquitted two brothers, Dzhabrail and Ibragim Makhmudov, who were charged with acting as accomplices in the murder. A former police officer, Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, was found not guilty of organising it. Pavel Ryaguzov, a former agent with the FSB, Russia’s domestic-security service, was acquitted of a related extortion charge. But that bare summary does not do justice to the baroque mixture of intrigue, incompetence and official secrecy that followed Ms Politkovskaya’s murder.

No Justice The Economist

Their crisis – our right to resist

WE WON’T PAY FOR THEIR CRISIS!

Protest Key’s Summit this Friday Feb 27 from 4pm till 6pm, TelstraClear Pacific Events Centre, 770 Great South Road, Manakau.

Map HERE.
Summit programme HERE.
Contact Joe at 021 1861450
solidarityjoe@yahoo.com

I’m not expecting this protest on Friday to be huge, after all the trade union movement will be officially represented inside – the reformist way is to attempt to deal with the bosses. However, I think it’s about time that we organise and educate ourselves about the crisis. It’s not just a few bad eggs among the banking fraternity – though there are plenty of those – it’s a systemic crisis.

Irish protest – sign of things to come? Hopefully

A large protest march in Dublin this weekend is a hopeful sign of how we need to deal with the global crisis.

The march through the heart of Dublin – organized by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions – was meant as a warning shot to the government, which wants to cut public sector pay even as it pumps billions of euros into its troubled banks.

The government has argued that wage reductions are needed to keep Ireland’s ballooning deficits under control and reassure international markets that Ireland isn’t spiralling toward a default.

But the plan – which effectively docks 7 per cent from the paycheques of 350,000 Irish workers – comes amid revelations of shady dealings and irresponsible lending at the banks now getting the taxpayers’ help.

Anglo Irish Bank, which was nationalized last month after collapsing under the weight of its bad debts, said Friday it expected to lose about 300 million ($385 million) on loans made to favoured investors. Anglo’s former chairman, Sean FitzPatrick, was forced out last year after it emerged that he secretly took out 87 million in personal loans from the bank. [AP, NZH]

There is no way we should agree to take a pay cut while the obscenity of the system goes uncorrected. I thought we might see some similar issues arise here and so it’s come to pass. According to a piece in the Herald, a number of New Zealand’s top executives are still lapping up the cream.

Veitch: “It felt like a trial”

Tony Veitch has spoken publicly for the first time in almost eight months. In a statement sent to the Sunday Star Times and reported today, Veitch thanked Sky TV sports presenter Murray Deaker for throwing him a lifeline.

Veitch appeared on Deaker’s show last Wednesday and is slated for more guest spots in coming weeks, according to the SST.

Tony’s comments to the paper make interesting reading, particularly between the lines.

Veitch basks in limelight back on screen

Gossip queen Bridget Saunders also gets in on the rehab act

However, not everyone is singing Veitchy’s praises. According to the Herald on Sunday, legal eagles have been engaged to force an apology from Willie Jackson who said putting Tony back on television while there’s a “huge question mark” over his head was “not appropriate”.

Apparently Jackson went further than this on his radio show and Veitch’s lawyers were talking defamation before Jackson apologised.

Jackson apologises after slating Veitch

Well, I did say last week that it would all end in tears.

What a coincidence, it seems that the same (or almost identical) statement was  sent to the HoS as well as the SST, which makes me think it was a choreographed move. It just goes to show the value of having a good [spin] doctor in the house, or at least on a fat retainer.

Harry Nicolaides comes home

Author Harry Nicolaides is back in Melbourne after being granted a royal pardon by the Thai king.
Harry spent six months in jail for the crime of les majeste – insulting the Thai royal family.

Full story in the Melbourne Age. [Tx Medusa for the tip-off]

The obscenity of capitalism and doing something about it

I continue to be revolted by the scale of mendacity, hand-wringing, crocodile tears and ideological acrobatics coming from politicians, economists, billionaires and sections of the media about the economic crisis and the need for “bailouts”.

Lining up for food and water, Louisville, Kentucky, 1937. By Margaret Bourke-White/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images.

Who really needs a bailout? Well, according to the most recent Vanity Fair, it seems anyone one Wall Street forced to limp along on a base salary of less than $4 million a year. [VF has a great track-record on reporting the crisis - check it out]

There’s a certain obscene symmetry to capitalism. Those floating across the top like so much soapy scum often clean up while those sinking under debt and unemployment usually get cleaned out. It’s prompted me to do some creative accounting.

I think I have found a way to save the victims of the toxic debt fall out and get some moral justice karma happening for those who we should be holding accountable.

I have been thinking about this for a while and I think it’s time I offered some free (gratuitous) advice to Presidents, Prime Ministers and b(w)ankers, before things get out of hand.

So far the major banks on Wall Street, such as Merrill Lynch, have been given $125 billion dollars in tax-payer funded bailouts. That’s a lot of money and it’s not the only bag of cash on offer.

But $125 billion is a staggeringly big number. Let’s start with some smaller numbers.

When John Thain became CEO of investment bank Merrill Lynch in 2007 he got a $15 million signing-on fee. He’s since left the bank, which has been taken over by Bank of America.

At the other end of the social scale there’s Kathy Lovelace of Zephyrhills, Fla. She’s recently lost her job, now her bank wants to foreclose on her mortgage and repossess her $200,000 home.

Here’s an idea, why doesn’t John Thain pay off Ms Lovelace’s mortgage out of his signing on bonus. Let’s assume that Ms Lovelace owes her bank $175,000. If Mr Thain paid this he’d still have $14,825,000 of his sign-on fee. In fact, if Mr Thain had left his $15 million in a bank account for one year at 2% he would have earned around $300,000 in interest. So he’d still be in front of where he started and way out in front of Ms Lovelace.

I think we can apply this principle on a massive scale and save the houses of the poor working folk who are being kicked out of their homes because of the actions of men like Mr Thain.  Here’s how it might work…

Byers charges – more to come?

The Weekend Herald is reporting today that Blue Chip director, Mark Byers, is facing arouond 100 charges relating to the collapse of his company and fraudulent dealings with investors. The paper says more charges to come. I wonder if “brothel-creeping” will be among them?

Prostitutes, privacy and media harassment

Boquets, not brickbats

Muntadher Al-Zaidi defiant as trial adjourned

Thanks to Europe Turkmen Friendships and AFP

BAGHDAD (AFP) — 19 Feb 09 – The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush defiantly defended his actions in court on Thursday, saying he had become emotionally overwhelmed when confronted by the ex-US president.

Muntazer al-Zaidi won global fame when his footwear whizzed past Bush’s head on December 14 as the then president was making a farewell visit to Iraq before leaving the White House.

His lawyers used the trial’s opening arguments to assert that the remarkable protest was lawful, but the judge brought proceedings to a halt 90 minutes later, saying more information was needed about Bush’s trip.

The 30-year-old journalist had told the court that he had become outraged and been unable to control his emotions when Bush, who ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, started speaking.

“I saw only Bush and it was like something black in my eyes,” he said from the dock, with an Iraqi flag draped across his shoulders.

“So I took the first shoe and threw it but it did not hit him. Then spontaneously I took the second shoe but it did not hit him either. I was not trying to kill the commander of the occupation forces of Iraq.”

Join the cyber-revolt! Who owns your Facebook stuff?

I am well pleased with the current tide of resentment that’s building towards the way that Facebook is doing business.

We’ve had the amazing spectacle this week of the Facebook admins having to delete groups and personal accounts after public outrage over cyber-vigilantes baying for blood and revenge in the most obscene ways. [The witches of Facebook / Facebook vigilantes]

And, in an ironic twist of fateful timing, in the same week Facebook announced and then withdrew new terms of service because users kicked up a fuss.

The Facebook admins have been forced to create a group of their own Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, to allow users to address their concerns over who owns the rights to user-generated content on the site.

There’s certainly a fair smattering of dribblejaws on Facebook, but there’s also a large number of active citizens (netizens) who recognise the professional and social advantages of the networking site, but who are also savvy enough to argue points of law with the Facebook admins.

This could well be a watershed case about digital rights that rivals the Napster file-sharing case as a test of copyright and privacy law.

It’s a classic example of what I call the “techno-legal time-gap”. The law and the ethical regime do not keep pace with the technology. In this case it seems Facebook wants the right to sub-licence material (re-sell it) and to profit from what its members post.