-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
20% Off Annual Premium Subscriptions!*
Ends Jan 18... Click Here For More Information
* For new or current subscribers -
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
McDuck's Account Talk
- Thread starter McDuck
- Start date
- Status
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
The next bailout: Homeowners
Federal government help for Bear Stearns and other Wall Street firms increases the chance that assistance for those facing foreclosure will be approved.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: March 26, 2008: 6:25 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The federal government is keeping Bear Stearns out of bankruptcy. Are you next?
Momentum for federal assistance to struggling homeowners, a non-starter with the Republican administration and many members of Congress only a few months ago, has picked up steam in Washington.
The tipping point came March 16, when the Federal Reserve agreed to back up to $30 billion in Bear Stearns (BSC, Fortune 500) losses as part of JPMorgan Chase's (JPM, Fortune 500) fire sale purchase of Bear Stearns. (The Fed cut its guarantee by $1 billion earlier this week when JPMorgan boosted its offer for Bear.)
"I think there's a growing populist feeling that if you're going to bail out Bear Stearns you better bail out individuals," said Greg Valliere, political economist with the Stanford Group, a Washington think tank.
And some consumers clearly are in an uproar about the bailout. According to a Reuters report, about 60 protesters entered the lobby of Bear Stearns's New York headquarters Wednesday and made a fuss about how consumers needed more help from the government than Wall Street investment banks.
The Bear Stearns deal isn't the Fed's only direct exposure to the problems in the financial markets either.
The Fed also announced earlier this month that it would make billions in loans directly to Wall Street firms at the Fed's so-called discount rate, a right previously reserved for commercial banks. In addition, the Fed has said it will now accept troubled mortgage-backed securities as collateral on up to $200 billion in loans to Wall Street.
But some economists think the Fed's moves are only the beginning. Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's Economy.com., said he thinks the Fed is telling the presidential administration that more needs to be done to fix the mortgage mess.
Using FHA to help borrowers
Valliere said that the idea gaining the most support is a plan from Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank. Both are Democrats.
The proposal, likely to be introduced soon after Congress returns from the Easter recess next week, would have the Federal Housing Administration guarantee hundreds of billions of new, lower-cost loans to troubled homeowners. Many borrowers would see their total principal on these new mortgages reduced under this program.
According to an outline of this bill, homeowners could receive $30 billion in mortgage interest subsidies. But it's uncertain just how much this proposal will ultimately cost taxpayers because it depends on what will happen to the housing market going forward.
The bill would also benefit mortgage lenders and investors in many mortgages since it could prevent a wave of foreclosures. While lenders and mortgage holders would receive less than what is currently owed on the loans with the biggest risk of default, they would receive significantly more than they could hope to recover if the loan goes through the foreclosure process and the home is sold at a sharp discount. In other words, something is better than nothing.
With this in mind, some economists believe the Dodd-Frank proposal could cost more than $100 billion. This is obviously a pretty large number and because of this, there is a debate over whether taxpayer money should be used to bail out the relatively small percentage of homeowners that have run into problems paying their mortgages.
Some opposition to bailout
A poll by CNN in December found Americans almost evenly split on the idea of using federal dollars to help out struggling homeowners, with 51% supporting some kind of help and 46% opposed.
The poll also found that 51% believed the borrowers who were in trouble had only themselves to blame, while 46% believed they were victims of bad lending practices. The tide was overwhelmingly against helping out mortgage lenders, with 72% opposed and only 26% supporting.
But that poll was taken before job losses and other signs that the U.S. economy had fallen into recession. Congress has also stepped in since then with at $170 billion economic stimulus package that won wide bipartisan support, while the Federal Reserve has slashed interest rates three times this year to try and get the economy back on track.
On March 17, the day after the Bear Stearns deal was announced, Dodd told reporters he believed there was now "a greater deal of receptivity to this idea" from the Fed and presidential administration than there was before the Bear Stearns bailout.
The support for the mortgage bailout won't be as widespread as it was for the economic stimulus package, nor will it be enacted nearly as quickly as that bill, which went from early discussions to being signed into law in just about a month.
"It's going to be a tougher sell, just because this is messy, complicated. Giving a tax rebate is simple," said Zandi. "But it may be just as important if not more important, to the economy."
Where the administration stands
The idea of mortgage lenders agreeing to cut the amount owed to them has already won support from the Office of Thrift Supervision, the agency which regulates savings and loans firms. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke also said in a speech earlier this month to community bankers that he is in favor of such a plan.
But neither the OTS nor Bernanke called for the FHA or other federal agency to take a direct role in negotiating new mortgages.
The administration hasn't commented directly on the Dodd-Frank plan. But President Bush said Tuesday that if there needs to be further action taken to help the economy, the administration will take it.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson expressed some caution Wednesday over some of the proposals now being floated by Democrats. But he said the administration is interested in finding solutions to help homeowners who can't afford mortgage payments that are resetting higher.
Paulson also suggested the administration is looking for ways to deal with the Democratic-controlled Congress on the issue.
"We will continue to pursue policies that strike the right balance: that do not slow the housing correction, yet also help avoid preventable foreclosures and unnecessary capital market turmoil," he said.
What the presidential candidates think
Sen. Barack Obama is one of the co-sponsors of Dodd's bill, and his rival for the Democratic nomination for president, Sen. Hillary Clinton, said she also supports it.
However, Clinton proposed a step beyond his plan Monday. She suggested having the FHA become a temporary buyer of so-called "underwater mortgages" -- loans where the principal is now more than a home's value.
Clinton has also talked about a new housing stimulus package to provide $30 billion directly to states and local governments to buy foreclosed or distressed properties. The cities and states could then resell the properties to low-income families or convert them into affordable rental housing.
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, also expressed a willingness to look at Democratic proposals in a speech about the economy Tuesday.
"I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis," he said. "I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now."
McCain cautioned he wasn't ready to sign onto a bailout, though.
"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers," McCain said.
But Zandi, who is an economic advisor to McCain, said he believes McCain will support some kind of assistance to homeowners and borrowers.
"I think he...understands that the problems in the housing market are broad and deep and threaten the broader economy, and that there may be a role for the federal government to stem those losses," said Zandi, who cautioned he was not speaking on behalf of the McCain campaign.
Stanford Group's Valliere also said he doesn't believe McCain will be able to resist the growing tide to support federal help to troubled homeowners.
"You have to respect McCain's intellectual honesty on this but the Frank-Dodd bill is a steamroller that can not be stopped," he said.
© 2007 Cable News Network L
The next bailout: Homeowners
Federal government help for Bear Stearns and other Wall Street firms increases the chance that assistance for those facing foreclosure will be approved.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: March 26, 2008: 6:25 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The federal government is keeping Bear Stearns out of bankruptcy. Are you next?
Momentum for federal assistance to struggling homeowners, a non-starter with the Republican administration and many members of Congress only a few months ago, has picked up steam in Washington.
The tipping point came March 16, when the Federal Reserve agreed to back up to $30 billion in Bear Stearns (BSC, Fortune 500) losses as part of JPMorgan Chase's (JPM, Fortune 500) fire sale purchase of Bear Stearns. (The Fed cut its guarantee by $1 billion earlier this week when JPMorgan boosted its offer for Bear.)
"I think there's a growing populist feeling that if you're going to bail out Bear Stearns you better bail out individuals," said Greg Valliere, political economist with the Stanford Group, a Washington think tank.
And some consumers clearly are in an uproar about the bailout. According to a Reuters report, about 60 protesters entered the lobby of Bear Stearns's New York headquarters Wednesday and made a fuss about how consumers needed more help from the government than Wall Street investment banks.
The Bear Stearns deal isn't the Fed's only direct exposure to the problems in the financial markets either.
The Fed also announced earlier this month that it would make billions in loans directly to Wall Street firms at the Fed's so-called discount rate, a right previously reserved for commercial banks. In addition, the Fed has said it will now accept troubled mortgage-backed securities as collateral on up to $200 billion in loans to Wall Street.
But some economists think the Fed's moves are only the beginning. Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's Economy.com., said he thinks the Fed is telling the presidential administration that more needs to be done to fix the mortgage mess.
Using FHA to help borrowers
Valliere said that the idea gaining the most support is a plan from Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank. Both are Democrats.
The proposal, likely to be introduced soon after Congress returns from the Easter recess next week, would have the Federal Housing Administration guarantee hundreds of billions of new, lower-cost loans to troubled homeowners. Many borrowers would see their total principal on these new mortgages reduced under this program.
According to an outline of this bill, homeowners could receive $30 billion in mortgage interest subsidies. But it's uncertain just how much this proposal will ultimately cost taxpayers because it depends on what will happen to the housing market going forward.
The bill would also benefit mortgage lenders and investors in many mortgages since it could prevent a wave of foreclosures. While lenders and mortgage holders would receive less than what is currently owed on the loans with the biggest risk of default, they would receive significantly more than they could hope to recover if the loan goes through the foreclosure process and the home is sold at a sharp discount. In other words, something is better than nothing.
With this in mind, some economists believe the Dodd-Frank proposal could cost more than $100 billion. This is obviously a pretty large number and because of this, there is a debate over whether taxpayer money should be used to bail out the relatively small percentage of homeowners that have run into problems paying their mortgages.
Some opposition to bailout
A poll by CNN in December found Americans almost evenly split on the idea of using federal dollars to help out struggling homeowners, with 51% supporting some kind of help and 46% opposed.
The poll also found that 51% believed the borrowers who were in trouble had only themselves to blame, while 46% believed they were victims of bad lending practices. The tide was overwhelmingly against helping out mortgage lenders, with 72% opposed and only 26% supporting.
But that poll was taken before job losses and other signs that the U.S. economy had fallen into recession. Congress has also stepped in since then with at $170 billion economic stimulus package that won wide bipartisan support, while the Federal Reserve has slashed interest rates three times this year to try and get the economy back on track.
On March 17, the day after the Bear Stearns deal was announced, Dodd told reporters he believed there was now "a greater deal of receptivity to this idea" from the Fed and presidential administration than there was before the Bear Stearns bailout.
The support for the mortgage bailout won't be as widespread as it was for the economic stimulus package, nor will it be enacted nearly as quickly as that bill, which went from early discussions to being signed into law in just about a month.
"It's going to be a tougher sell, just because this is messy, complicated. Giving a tax rebate is simple," said Zandi. "But it may be just as important if not more important, to the economy."
Where the administration stands
The idea of mortgage lenders agreeing to cut the amount owed to them has already won support from the Office of Thrift Supervision, the agency which regulates savings and loans firms. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke also said in a speech earlier this month to community bankers that he is in favor of such a plan.
But neither the OTS nor Bernanke called for the FHA or other federal agency to take a direct role in negotiating new mortgages.
The administration hasn't commented directly on the Dodd-Frank plan. But President Bush said Tuesday that if there needs to be further action taken to help the economy, the administration will take it.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson expressed some caution Wednesday over some of the proposals now being floated by Democrats. But he said the administration is interested in finding solutions to help homeowners who can't afford mortgage payments that are resetting higher.
Paulson also suggested the administration is looking for ways to deal with the Democratic-controlled Congress on the issue.
"We will continue to pursue policies that strike the right balance: that do not slow the housing correction, yet also help avoid preventable foreclosures and unnecessary capital market turmoil," he said.
What the presidential candidates think
Sen. Barack Obama is one of the co-sponsors of Dodd's bill, and his rival for the Democratic nomination for president, Sen. Hillary Clinton, said she also supports it.
However, Clinton proposed a step beyond his plan Monday. She suggested having the FHA become a temporary buyer of so-called "underwater mortgages" -- loans where the principal is now more than a home's value.
Clinton has also talked about a new housing stimulus package to provide $30 billion directly to states and local governments to buy foreclosed or distressed properties. The cities and states could then resell the properties to low-income families or convert them into affordable rental housing.
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, also expressed a willingness to look at Democratic proposals in a speech about the economy Tuesday.
"I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis," he said. "I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now."
McCain cautioned he wasn't ready to sign onto a bailout, though.
"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers," McCain said.
But Zandi, who is an economic advisor to McCain, said he believes McCain will support some kind of assistance to homeowners and borrowers.
"I think he...understands that the problems in the housing market are broad and deep and threaten the broader economy, and that there may be a role for the federal government to stem those losses," said Zandi, who cautioned he was not speaking on behalf of the McCain campaign.
Stanford Group's Valliere also said he doesn't believe McCain will be able to resist the growing tide to support federal help to troubled homeowners.
"You have to respect McCain's intellectual honesty on this but the Frank-Dodd bill is a steamroller that can not be stopped," he said.
© 2007 Cable News Network L
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells
By DEBORAH SONTAG
April 5, 2008
Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.
The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.
“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.
Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.
A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”
The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.
Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.
As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.
“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.”
Indeed, saying that the story haunted her, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly offered it as a dire example of a broken health care system. At one March rally in Wyoming, for instance, she referred to Ms. Bachtel, a 35-year-old who managed a Pizza Hut, as a young, uninsured minimum-wage worker, saying, “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”
Mrs. Clinton does not name Ms. Bachtel or the hospital in her speeches. As she tells it, the woman was turned away twice by a local hospital when she was experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy. “The hospital said, ‘Well, you don’t have insurance.’ She said, ‘No, I don’t.’ They said, ‘Well, we can’t see you until you give $100.’ She said, ‘Where am I going to get $100?’
“The next time she came back to the hospital, she came in an ambulance,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “She was in distress. The doctors and the nurses worked on her and couldn’t save the baby.”
Since Ms. Bachtel’s baby died at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O’Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O’Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said.
The hospital would not provide details about the woman’s case, citing privacy concerns; she died two weeks after the stillbirth at a medical center in Columbus.
“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.”
Although Mrs. Clinton has told the story repeatedly, it first came to the attention of the hospital after The Washington Post cited it as a staple of her stump speeches on Thursday. That brought it to the attention of The Daily Sentinel in Pomeroy, Ohio, which published an article on Friday.
Neither paper named the hospital or challenged Mrs. Clinton’s account.
Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells
By DEBORAH SONTAG
April 5, 2008
Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.
The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.
“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.
Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.
A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”
The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.
Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.
As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.
“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.”
Indeed, saying that the story haunted her, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly offered it as a dire example of a broken health care system. At one March rally in Wyoming, for instance, she referred to Ms. Bachtel, a 35-year-old who managed a Pizza Hut, as a young, uninsured minimum-wage worker, saying, “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”
Mrs. Clinton does not name Ms. Bachtel or the hospital in her speeches. As she tells it, the woman was turned away twice by a local hospital when she was experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy. “The hospital said, ‘Well, you don’t have insurance.’ She said, ‘No, I don’t.’ They said, ‘Well, we can’t see you until you give $100.’ She said, ‘Where am I going to get $100?’
“The next time she came back to the hospital, she came in an ambulance,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “She was in distress. The doctors and the nurses worked on her and couldn’t save the baby.”
Since Ms. Bachtel’s baby died at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O’Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O’Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said.
The hospital would not provide details about the woman’s case, citing privacy concerns; she died two weeks after the stillbirth at a medical center in Columbus.
“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.”
Although Mrs. Clinton has told the story repeatedly, it first came to the attention of the hospital after The Washington Post cited it as a staple of her stump speeches on Thursday. That brought it to the attention of The Daily Sentinel in Pomeroy, Ohio, which published an article on Friday.
Neither paper named the hospital or challenged Mrs. Clinton’s account.
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Reducing Job Stress
Posted Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 10:10 am PDT
Our surroundings directly affect our health and wellness: consider that we spend 40 or more hours on the job weekly. Creating an inspiring environment for wellbeing in our working space is crucial to living a long and meaningful life.
Inner Peace on the Job: 7 Ways to Minimize Stress
Although it is not possible to eliminate stress completely, there are some things we can do to reduce it. Here are effective ways to reduce stress in your day.
1. Slow down and be in the present. It is natural to believe that the harder you work, the more you will get done. However, though it may seem paradoxical, if you work at a slow and steady pace with full awareness, you will most likely turn out better work with fewer mistakes - and feel better while doing it!
2. Set boundaries. Are you the go-to person for every favor and question that is needed in your workplace? Learn to respectfully set your boundaries and say no. Also, take a look at your calendar and make sure you are not over-scheduling yourself after work. Write in one night a week for yourself, and treat yourself to a tai chi or meditation class, a bath, or just an evening curled up with a good book.
3. Remember to breathe deeply all day. Most people who are under a lot of stress or tension breathe shallowly, up in the throat area. When you breathe deeply into your lungs, you are naturally bringing in more oxygen and activating energy in your body.
Try this to remember to breathe: set your intention to take 10 deep breaths once every hour. (If necessary, set a timer to help you remember.) It will only take a minute, but the rewards will be tenfold.
4. Bring nature inside. As much as possible, let natural light and fresh air permeate your workspace. Surround yourself with the inspiring colors of beautiful flowers, which have a powerful influence on a person's mind-set. A beautiful bouquet can lift a less-than-lovely mood and even eliminate stress. In fact, one study showed that people who sat next to an arrangement of colorful flowers were able to relax more during a five-minute typing assignment than those who sat near foliage-only plants.
5. Give yourself a time-out. Take the breaks that are given to you. In this high-paced world, people often work through their breaks, claiming they have too much work to do - this will lead to serious repercussions in the future.
Remember that you are a human, not a machine. Even a machine needs downtime for maintenance! Try taking a 15-minute powernap on your lunch break. If you only have five minutes to spare, just close your eyes. Even this brief rest can reduce stress and help you relax.
6. Meditation brings relaxation. Meditation gives your body a rest and produces slower brain waves that are similar to sleep, effectively combating tension. Regular practice of meditation, tai chi, or yoga can help you slow down and bring peace, not only in your job, but also in your life.
7. Perk up naturally! Skip the second latte, which stimulates your central nervous system, makes your mind race, and adds to your stress. Instead, try these simple and natural pick-me-ups:
• Take a tea break. Instead of coffee, go for teas that gently boost your energy, such as ginseng, eucalyptus, or ginger.
• Find ways to keep moving all day. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. Drink a glass of water from the water cooler every hour. Park your car a few blocks away from where you're going. Not only will this perk up your energy, it will also improve your mood.
• If it's a nice day outside, eat lunch outdoors or just take a walk around the block. The fresh air and the break from routine will be an invigorating addition to your workday.
• Get sustainable energy with snacks. Eat a snack at mid-morning and another one at mid-afternoon consisting of nuts, seeds, fruits, or protein-rich foods like humus made from beans will help you sustain your energy and prevent low blood sugar from setting in.
I hope you find the ways to minimize stress in your work environment! I invite you to visit often and share your own personal health and longevity tips with me.
May you live long, live strong, and live happy!
-Dr. Mao
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2007 Ask Dr. Mao.
Reducing Job Stress
Posted Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 10:10 am PDT
Our surroundings directly affect our health and wellness: consider that we spend 40 or more hours on the job weekly. Creating an inspiring environment for wellbeing in our working space is crucial to living a long and meaningful life.
Inner Peace on the Job: 7 Ways to Minimize Stress
Although it is not possible to eliminate stress completely, there are some things we can do to reduce it. Here are effective ways to reduce stress in your day.
1. Slow down and be in the present. It is natural to believe that the harder you work, the more you will get done. However, though it may seem paradoxical, if you work at a slow and steady pace with full awareness, you will most likely turn out better work with fewer mistakes - and feel better while doing it!
2. Set boundaries. Are you the go-to person for every favor and question that is needed in your workplace? Learn to respectfully set your boundaries and say no. Also, take a look at your calendar and make sure you are not over-scheduling yourself after work. Write in one night a week for yourself, and treat yourself to a tai chi or meditation class, a bath, or just an evening curled up with a good book.
3. Remember to breathe deeply all day. Most people who are under a lot of stress or tension breathe shallowly, up in the throat area. When you breathe deeply into your lungs, you are naturally bringing in more oxygen and activating energy in your body.
Try this to remember to breathe: set your intention to take 10 deep breaths once every hour. (If necessary, set a timer to help you remember.) It will only take a minute, but the rewards will be tenfold.
4. Bring nature inside. As much as possible, let natural light and fresh air permeate your workspace. Surround yourself with the inspiring colors of beautiful flowers, which have a powerful influence on a person's mind-set. A beautiful bouquet can lift a less-than-lovely mood and even eliminate stress. In fact, one study showed that people who sat next to an arrangement of colorful flowers were able to relax more during a five-minute typing assignment than those who sat near foliage-only plants.
5. Give yourself a time-out. Take the breaks that are given to you. In this high-paced world, people often work through their breaks, claiming they have too much work to do - this will lead to serious repercussions in the future.
Remember that you are a human, not a machine. Even a machine needs downtime for maintenance! Try taking a 15-minute powernap on your lunch break. If you only have five minutes to spare, just close your eyes. Even this brief rest can reduce stress and help you relax.
6. Meditation brings relaxation. Meditation gives your body a rest and produces slower brain waves that are similar to sleep, effectively combating tension. Regular practice of meditation, tai chi, or yoga can help you slow down and bring peace, not only in your job, but also in your life.
7. Perk up naturally! Skip the second latte, which stimulates your central nervous system, makes your mind race, and adds to your stress. Instead, try these simple and natural pick-me-ups:
• Take a tea break. Instead of coffee, go for teas that gently boost your energy, such as ginseng, eucalyptus, or ginger.
• Find ways to keep moving all day. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. Drink a glass of water from the water cooler every hour. Park your car a few blocks away from where you're going. Not only will this perk up your energy, it will also improve your mood.
• If it's a nice day outside, eat lunch outdoors or just take a walk around the block. The fresh air and the break from routine will be an invigorating addition to your workday.
• Get sustainable energy with snacks. Eat a snack at mid-morning and another one at mid-afternoon consisting of nuts, seeds, fruits, or protein-rich foods like humus made from beans will help you sustain your energy and prevent low blood sugar from setting in.
I hope you find the ways to minimize stress in your work environment! I invite you to visit often and share your own personal health and longevity tips with me.
May you live long, live strong, and live happy!
-Dr. Mao
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2007 Ask Dr. Mao.
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
A SATISFIED MIND
(J. H. "Red" Hayes/Jack Rhodes)
© 1955 by Starrite Publishing Co.
as reprinted ibid., pp. 255-256.
A SATISFIED MIND
(J. H. "Red" Hayes/Jack Rhodes)
© 1955 by Starrite Publishing Co.
"RED" HAYES:
The song came from my mother. Everything in the song are things I heard her say over the years. I put a lot of thought into the song before I came up with the title. One day my father-in-law asked me who I thought the richest man in the world was, and I mentioned some names. He said, "You're wrong, it is the man with a satisfied mind." It has been done a lot in churches. I came out of the Opry one night and a church service was going on nearby. The first thing I hear was the congregation singing "Satisfied Mind." I got down on my knees. as quoted in Country Music People, Jul 1973, reprinted in Dorothy Horstman, Sing Your Heart Out, Country Boy, New York, 1976, p. 255.
ORIGINAL LYRICS The song came from my mother. Everything in the song are things I heard her say over the years. I put a lot of thought into the song before I came up with the title. One day my father-in-law asked me who I thought the richest man in the world was, and I mentioned some names. He said, "You're wrong, it is the man with a satisfied mind." It has been done a lot in churches. I came out of the Opry one night and a church service was going on nearby. The first thing I hear was the congregation singing "Satisfied Mind." I got down on my knees. as quoted in Country Music People, Jul 1973, reprinted in Dorothy Horstman, Sing Your Heart Out, Country Boy, New York, 1976, p. 255.
as reprinted ibid., pp. 255-256.
How many times have you heard someone say,
"If I had his money I'd do things my way."
But little they know that it's so hard to find
One rich man in ten with a satisfied mind.
Once I was winning in fortune and fame;
Everything that I dreamed for to get a start in lifes game.
But suddenly it happened, I lost every dime,
But I'm richer by far with a satisfied mind.
Money can't buy back your youth when you're old
Or a friend when you're lonely or a love that's grown cold;
The wealthiest person is a pauper at times
Compared to the man with a satisfied mind.
When life has ended, my time has run out,
My friends and my loved ones I'll leave, there's no doubt.
But one thing for certain, when it comes my time,
I'll leave this old world with a satisfied mind.
"If I had his money I'd do things my way."
But little they know that it's so hard to find
One rich man in ten with a satisfied mind.
Once I was winning in fortune and fame;
Everything that I dreamed for to get a start in lifes game.
But suddenly it happened, I lost every dime,
But I'm richer by far with a satisfied mind.
Money can't buy back your youth when you're old
Or a friend when you're lonely or a love that's grown cold;
The wealthiest person is a pauper at times
Compared to the man with a satisfied mind.
When life has ended, my time has run out,
My friends and my loved ones I'll leave, there's no doubt.
But one thing for certain, when it comes my time,
I'll leave this old world with a satisfied mind.
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Episcopalian Showdown
By Quin Hillyer
Published 4/10/2008
Conservatives and common sense together won a big victory last week when a Virginia state judge ruled in favor of parishioners in 11 individual churches who have broken away from the Virginia Diocese and the national governing body of the U.S. Episcopal Church.
By astonishingly overwhelming votes within each congregation, the parishioners decided instead to join the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), which is affiliated with the worldwide Anglican Communion through the Church of Nigeria. Naturally, the state and national Episcopal churches have not taken kindly to the breakaway parishes, and have sued to force the parishioners to leave the church properties involved. What the parishioners won on April 4 was just the first battle in what may be a long-running, multi-pronged lawsuit, but it was a hugely important victory nonetheless. Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows ruled that something called the Virginia Division Statute means what it very clearly states, which is that the majority of a church parish is entitled to its property when there is a division within the congregation -- and that the 90-plus percent vote in eight of those 11 parishes (the lowest vote in favor of breaking away was 72 percent) clearly represent a "division" from the Episcopal Church.
The 11 parishes are theologically more "conservative" or "traditionalist" than is the institutional U.S. Episcopal Church (although their worship styles can tend far less toward traditional Episcopalian ceremony and more toward Evangelical enthusiasm). One of them, The Falls Church, is among the oldest churches in the nation, and it and nearby Truro Church both have large and active congregations that have spent many millions of dollars vastly expanding the physical plants of each parish. The Falls Church boasts significant numbers of current and former Bush administration officials and conservative journalists within its membership.
The national media tend to portray the split between these parishes and the Episcopal Church as being mostly about issues of sexuality, particularly homosexuality. And to be sure, those differences exist, although the conventional portrayal -- of the conservative parishes as being brutally censorious while the national Episcopal Church is merely "tolerant" -- is both simplistic and skewed. But the differences between CANA and the Episcopal Church involve issues both more numerous and deeper, theologically, than mere battles over whether to ordain lesbians or perform same-sex rituals. And it's also not a mere battle of conservative political activists versus liberal political activists; it's more a case where the conservatives abjure politics within worship, whereas the national Episcopal Church seems to believe that politics itself -- specifically, liberal politics -- is a form of worship.
Go to the national church website, and the site map doesn't even include the word "Creed" -- not Nicene, not Apostles' -- because almost nothing in the national church seems focused on internal spiritual beliefs. To quote one of the site's featured mini-essays (a highly representative example), "It's not about having answers as much as it is about engaging a story. It is about your story and how your story connects to an ancient story of desert wanderers that, in time, came to see that humanity and this energy they called God mingled and existed through Christ and thus, exists in all of humanity."
But even the Episcopal Church website's vapid pop psychology is overwhelmed by the volume of political statements and programs that make the site little distinguishable in tone or focus from that of, say, the Americans for Democratic Action. The first listed "mission" of the church is "justice and peacemaking," which has subsets that advocate "speak[ing] truth to the powerful," "social justice ministry," "criminal justice," "racism" defined not just as prejudice but only as "prejudice coupled with power," (hint: black Americans therefore can't be racist), and an "Office of Government Relations" which sees its goals as "including issues of international peace and justice, human rights, immigration, welfare, poverty, hunger, health care, violence, civil rights, the environment, racism and issues involving women and children."
Who has time to save souls when Caesar needs so much guidance?
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every facet of the lawsuit not because their beliefs or their politics are better, but because both law and equity, along with common sense, are on their side. Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute) explicitly apply to just such a situation as now exists, but the history especially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of the Virginia Diocese with which they have disassociated.
First, The Falls Church was founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed. Title to the land and buildings is held by the individual churches' trustees, not by the diocese. These churches (and others) helped create the diocese, not vice versa. And, to the tune of many, many millions of dollars, these churches have supported the diocese financially, not taken from the diocese. The very same sets of parishioners who voted so overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church are the ones who on their own, without diocesan help, raised the vast sums of money needed to expand, improve, modernize and beautify their church properties. Why the diocese should be able, despite all those facts, to swoop in and claim the land and buildings (to be peopled by whom, one wonders?) out from under the parishioners who paid for and nurtured them is a question that surpasseth human understanding.
Boiled down to their essence, the Episcopal Church arguments against this are twofold -- and nonsense twice over. First, the Episcopal Church will raise a federal First Amendment (free exercise of religion) issue, saying in effect that the state has no say over the internal laws of an organized Church. Because the organized Church (in other words, the institutional structure, the bureaucracy of the Diocese of Virginia and the U.S. Episcopal Church) has bylaws that claim corporate ownership of all individual churches' parish property, the state supposedly must uphold those bylaws despite any claims, evidence, or history to the contrary. Second, they will argue that "hierarchical" churches (e.g., Episcopal, Catholic), unlike "congregational" churches (e.g. United Church of Christ), are indivisible without the assent of the whole body (in this case, the diocese) -- much the same way that Lincoln argued that the Union was indivisible.
Of course, their arguments fail the smell test, because a civic polity and a religious one are two entirely different things. At issue in the lawsuit are civic property rights, which are always governed by the state, not the spiritual matters that are exclusively (and rightly) the province of churches alone.
Throughout this whole fight, the CANA churches have offered to negotiate a financial settlement, and they have kept their rhetoric low-key and respectful. After last Friday's ruling, Jim Oakes, vice-chairman of the new Anglican District of Virginia (the group of breakaway churches), struck just the right tone in his statement. "Let us choose healing over litigation," he said, "and peaceful co-existence over lawsuits, and let us devote all our resources to serving Christ and helping others around the world."
If only the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia would be so reasonable. The congregations of the CANA parishes built, care for, and worship in their churches. The Episcopal Diocese ought to adhere to the scriptural admonition against coveting those properties the diocese had no part in creating or maintaining. To do otherwise -- to continue attempts to confiscate those properties -- is to accomplish the exact opposite of social justice.
Quin Hillyer is an associate editor at the Washington Examiner and a senior editor of The American Spectator.
Episcopalian Showdown
By Quin Hillyer
Published 4/10/2008
Conservatives and common sense together won a big victory last week when a Virginia state judge ruled in favor of parishioners in 11 individual churches who have broken away from the Virginia Diocese and the national governing body of the U.S. Episcopal Church.
By astonishingly overwhelming votes within each congregation, the parishioners decided instead to join the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), which is affiliated with the worldwide Anglican Communion through the Church of Nigeria. Naturally, the state and national Episcopal churches have not taken kindly to the breakaway parishes, and have sued to force the parishioners to leave the church properties involved. What the parishioners won on April 4 was just the first battle in what may be a long-running, multi-pronged lawsuit, but it was a hugely important victory nonetheless. Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows ruled that something called the Virginia Division Statute means what it very clearly states, which is that the majority of a church parish is entitled to its property when there is a division within the congregation -- and that the 90-plus percent vote in eight of those 11 parishes (the lowest vote in favor of breaking away was 72 percent) clearly represent a "division" from the Episcopal Church.
The 11 parishes are theologically more "conservative" or "traditionalist" than is the institutional U.S. Episcopal Church (although their worship styles can tend far less toward traditional Episcopalian ceremony and more toward Evangelical enthusiasm). One of them, The Falls Church, is among the oldest churches in the nation, and it and nearby Truro Church both have large and active congregations that have spent many millions of dollars vastly expanding the physical plants of each parish. The Falls Church boasts significant numbers of current and former Bush administration officials and conservative journalists within its membership.
The national media tend to portray the split between these parishes and the Episcopal Church as being mostly about issues of sexuality, particularly homosexuality. And to be sure, those differences exist, although the conventional portrayal -- of the conservative parishes as being brutally censorious while the national Episcopal Church is merely "tolerant" -- is both simplistic and skewed. But the differences between CANA and the Episcopal Church involve issues both more numerous and deeper, theologically, than mere battles over whether to ordain lesbians or perform same-sex rituals. And it's also not a mere battle of conservative political activists versus liberal political activists; it's more a case where the conservatives abjure politics within worship, whereas the national Episcopal Church seems to believe that politics itself -- specifically, liberal politics -- is a form of worship.
Go to the national church website, and the site map doesn't even include the word "Creed" -- not Nicene, not Apostles' -- because almost nothing in the national church seems focused on internal spiritual beliefs. To quote one of the site's featured mini-essays (a highly representative example), "It's not about having answers as much as it is about engaging a story. It is about your story and how your story connects to an ancient story of desert wanderers that, in time, came to see that humanity and this energy they called God mingled and existed through Christ and thus, exists in all of humanity."
But even the Episcopal Church website's vapid pop psychology is overwhelmed by the volume of political statements and programs that make the site little distinguishable in tone or focus from that of, say, the Americans for Democratic Action. The first listed "mission" of the church is "justice and peacemaking," which has subsets that advocate "speak[ing] truth to the powerful," "social justice ministry," "criminal justice," "racism" defined not just as prejudice but only as "prejudice coupled with power," (hint: black Americans therefore can't be racist), and an "Office of Government Relations" which sees its goals as "including issues of international peace and justice, human rights, immigration, welfare, poverty, hunger, health care, violence, civil rights, the environment, racism and issues involving women and children."
Who has time to save souls when Caesar needs so much guidance?
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every facet of the lawsuit not because their beliefs or their politics are better, but because both law and equity, along with common sense, are on their side. Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute) explicitly apply to just such a situation as now exists, but the history especially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of the Virginia Diocese with which they have disassociated.
First, The Falls Church was founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed. Title to the land and buildings is held by the individual churches' trustees, not by the diocese. These churches (and others) helped create the diocese, not vice versa. And, to the tune of many, many millions of dollars, these churches have supported the diocese financially, not taken from the diocese. The very same sets of parishioners who voted so overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church are the ones who on their own, without diocesan help, raised the vast sums of money needed to expand, improve, modernize and beautify their church properties. Why the diocese should be able, despite all those facts, to swoop in and claim the land and buildings (to be peopled by whom, one wonders?) out from under the parishioners who paid for and nurtured them is a question that surpasseth human understanding.
Boiled down to their essence, the Episcopal Church arguments against this are twofold -- and nonsense twice over. First, the Episcopal Church will raise a federal First Amendment (free exercise of religion) issue, saying in effect that the state has no say over the internal laws of an organized Church. Because the organized Church (in other words, the institutional structure, the bureaucracy of the Diocese of Virginia and the U.S. Episcopal Church) has bylaws that claim corporate ownership of all individual churches' parish property, the state supposedly must uphold those bylaws despite any claims, evidence, or history to the contrary. Second, they will argue that "hierarchical" churches (e.g., Episcopal, Catholic), unlike "congregational" churches (e.g. United Church of Christ), are indivisible without the assent of the whole body (in this case, the diocese) -- much the same way that Lincoln argued that the Union was indivisible.
Of course, their arguments fail the smell test, because a civic polity and a religious one are two entirely different things. At issue in the lawsuit are civic property rights, which are always governed by the state, not the spiritual matters that are exclusively (and rightly) the province of churches alone.
Throughout this whole fight, the CANA churches have offered to negotiate a financial settlement, and they have kept their rhetoric low-key and respectful. After last Friday's ruling, Jim Oakes, vice-chairman of the new Anglican District of Virginia (the group of breakaway churches), struck just the right tone in his statement. "Let us choose healing over litigation," he said, "and peaceful co-existence over lawsuits, and let us devote all our resources to serving Christ and helping others around the world."
If only the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia would be so reasonable. The congregations of the CANA parishes built, care for, and worship in their churches. The Episcopal Diocese ought to adhere to the scriptural admonition against coveting those properties the diocese had no part in creating or maintaining. To do otherwise -- to continue attempts to confiscate those properties -- is to accomplish the exact opposite of social justice.
Quin Hillyer is an associate editor at the Washington Examiner and a senior editor of The American Spectator.
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Let Them Eat Cake
April 22, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com
Famine and revolution go hand in hand. By Richard Palmer
In Paris they wanted blood. In the mid-afternoon, July 14, 1789, the mob marched on the Bastille. By the end of the day the revolutionaries had their first major victory. France was on the road toward a bloody revolution. A few years later, Napoleon Bonaparte strode across the continent of Europe.
The mob in Petrograd was also in a violent mood. What started out as a bread riot brought about the death of an entire royal family. The mighty Russian empire crumbled into dust and the Soviet Union rose from its ruins.
Two of the most momentous revolutions in history took place because of food prices.
Food was not the only cause, or even the root cause, of the revolutions—but it was the trigger. Hunger on its own does not cause a people to overthrow their rulers. But it does tend to convince people who are already dissatisfied with their lives that something must be done, and it must be done now.
The two years before the French Revolution saw two bad harvests. In the year before the revolution, bread prices rose by 88 percent. High taxes meant the poor could not afford to eat. In Russia, food shortages due to World War i led to strikes, protests and mobs marching through the streets shouting “We want bread” in 1917.
Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin, who was an adviser to the Russian government after the bread riots, believed “that famine is essential to any revolution, and that it is to be welcomed because it drives the hungry to cooperate with the revolutionaries,” according to the New York Times.
The fact that famine can lead to revolution is well known to militant socialists. The World Socialist Web Site gleefully proclaims that a food crisis “is threatening to unleash a revolution of the hungry that could topple governments across large parts of the world.”
Now the Trumpet is not predicting a global sweep toward communism as famine forces comrades around the world to unite. No—but a global food crisis could cause, and in fact already is causing, political instability around the world.
Today, food prices have risen around 40 percent in less than a year worldwide. Haiti has made headlines with food riots there leading to the ousting of Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis.
Haiti is not alone. Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Yemen and Ethiopia, to name a few, have all had food protests and demonstrations.
One of the most significant countries to experience instability is Egypt. Earlier this month, thousands of protestors “torched buildings, looted shops and hurled bricks at police,” according to the Associated Press. Nearly 100 were arrested and a 15-year-old boy was killed. The protesters tore down a billboard of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, whose popularity may well have sunk to an all-time low.
While the government is hated and being blamed for the bread shortages, the radical Muslim Brotherhood is on the streets handing out food. Could a regime change be on the horizon?
In his booklet The King of the South, first published in 1996, Gerald Flurry forecasts a “far-reaching change in Egyptian politics,” and that Egypt will be allied with the king of the south, or Iran. Bible prophecy indicates Egypt will turn to radical Islam. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood may bring this about.
Could food riots help bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power? They’ve certainly led to revolutions in the past. Even if they don’t, high food prices won’t help Mubarak’s government maintain order.
Egypt may not be alone. Food shortages could tip people in other nations to the point of rebellion. The examples of Russia and France show that when people start to riot over food, it is often extreme governments that get into power. •
This content was printed online at: http://www.theTrumpet.com/index.php?q=5064.3336.0.0
Copyright © 2008 Philadelphia Church of God
Let Them Eat Cake
April 22, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com
Famine and revolution go hand in hand. By Richard Palmer
In Paris they wanted blood. In the mid-afternoon, July 14, 1789, the mob marched on the Bastille. By the end of the day the revolutionaries had their first major victory. France was on the road toward a bloody revolution. A few years later, Napoleon Bonaparte strode across the continent of Europe.
The mob in Petrograd was also in a violent mood. What started out as a bread riot brought about the death of an entire royal family. The mighty Russian empire crumbled into dust and the Soviet Union rose from its ruins.
Two of the most momentous revolutions in history took place because of food prices.
Food was not the only cause, or even the root cause, of the revolutions—but it was the trigger. Hunger on its own does not cause a people to overthrow their rulers. But it does tend to convince people who are already dissatisfied with their lives that something must be done, and it must be done now.
The two years before the French Revolution saw two bad harvests. In the year before the revolution, bread prices rose by 88 percent. High taxes meant the poor could not afford to eat. In Russia, food shortages due to World War i led to strikes, protests and mobs marching through the streets shouting “We want bread” in 1917.
Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin, who was an adviser to the Russian government after the bread riots, believed “that famine is essential to any revolution, and that it is to be welcomed because it drives the hungry to cooperate with the revolutionaries,” according to the New York Times.
The fact that famine can lead to revolution is well known to militant socialists. The World Socialist Web Site gleefully proclaims that a food crisis “is threatening to unleash a revolution of the hungry that could topple governments across large parts of the world.”
Now the Trumpet is not predicting a global sweep toward communism as famine forces comrades around the world to unite. No—but a global food crisis could cause, and in fact already is causing, political instability around the world.
Today, food prices have risen around 40 percent in less than a year worldwide. Haiti has made headlines with food riots there leading to the ousting of Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis.
Haiti is not alone. Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Yemen and Ethiopia, to name a few, have all had food protests and demonstrations.
One of the most significant countries to experience instability is Egypt. Earlier this month, thousands of protestors “torched buildings, looted shops and hurled bricks at police,” according to the Associated Press. Nearly 100 were arrested and a 15-year-old boy was killed. The protesters tore down a billboard of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, whose popularity may well have sunk to an all-time low.
While the government is hated and being blamed for the bread shortages, the radical Muslim Brotherhood is on the streets handing out food. Could a regime change be on the horizon?
In his booklet The King of the South, first published in 1996, Gerald Flurry forecasts a “far-reaching change in Egyptian politics,” and that Egypt will be allied with the king of the south, or Iran. Bible prophecy indicates Egypt will turn to radical Islam. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood may bring this about.
Could food riots help bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power? They’ve certainly led to revolutions in the past. Even if they don’t, high food prices won’t help Mubarak’s government maintain order.
Egypt may not be alone. Food shortages could tip people in other nations to the point of rebellion. The examples of Russia and France show that when people start to riot over food, it is often extreme governments that get into power. •
This content was printed online at: http://www.theTrumpet.com/index.php?q=5064.3336.0.0
Copyright © 2008 Philadelphia Church of God
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Jury Rejects Suit Over Attempted Rectal Exam
By Sewell Chan
April 21, 2008, 6:50 pm
Ending a case that has wended its way through the court system for several years, a Manhattan jury on Monday quickly rejected a Brooklyn man’s claim that employees of NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital improperly forced him to undergo a traumatic rectal examination after he sustained an on-the-job injury in 2003. After only a few minutes, the jury decided that the man, Brian Persaud, failed to prove the chief claim in his civil lawsuit, that he suffered assault and battery at the hands of hospital workers who wanted to perform a rectal exam to ensure that he did not have internal injuries.
The case raised interesting issues about medical ethics. In general, patients may decline medical treatment if they are informed of the consequences of doing so and capable of making such a decision. But doctors have more leeway to perform a procedure if a patient has sustained a potentially life-threatening injury and if the doctor doubts the patient’s capacity to make informed decisions.
On May 20, 2003, Mr. Persaud, who was 33 at the time, was injured on the head while working at a Midtown construction site. He was taken to the emergency room at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, where he received eight stitches to his head.
What happened next was a matter of dispute during the 11-day trial, which began with jury selection on April 3 and ended Monday, when the six jurors rendered their decision barely an hour after Justice Carol R. Edmead directed them to begin deliberations.
Both sides agreed that Mr. Persaud was told that he needed an immediate rectal examination to determine whether he had a spinal-cord injury.
Mr. Persaud contended that he adamantly objected to the procedure, and was held down as he begged, “Please don’t do that.”
During the trial, the emergency room doctor on duty that day, Dr. Eric M. Maniago, testified that Mr. Persaud was belligerent and confrontational and violently punched him as the staff tried to perform the examination.
Mr. Persaud testified that he slapped Dr. Maniago — accidentally — after managing to free one of his hands while being restrained. Mr. Persaud was indeed restrained and sedated, with a breathing tube inserted through his mouth.
Lynne C. Hewitt, a nurse who was part of the team trying to treat Mr. Persaud, also testified, as did the police officer who arrested Mr. Persaud. Dr. Susan M. Trocciola, who was a resident in trauma medicine at the time, testified that she placed a finger in Mr. Persaud’s rectal area after conducting a physical exam of his spine to check for a spinal-cord injury.
Whether the rectal exam was performed was a matter of dispute. Mr. Persaud testified that he felt a finger inserted in his rectum, but Dr. Trocciola said the exam was never carried out.
Each side put forward expert witnesses. Mr. Persaud’s lawyers turned to two experts, a neurologist-psychiatrist and a forensic psychologist, who testified that Mr. Persaud suffered from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the episode. The hospital put forward a doctor who testified that a rectal examination is an important part of advanced life support for trauma patients.
Gerard M. Marrone, Mr. Persaud’s lawyer, said he and his client were disappointed by the outcome. Mr. Marrone had argued, unsuccessfully, that even if the rectal exam was not performed, the decision to restrain his client — and insert a breathing tube — amounted to assault and battery.
Mr. Persaud was not necessarily the most sympathetic plaintiff. It emerged during the trial that Mr. Persaud, a native of Guyana who did not complete high school, had been convicted of two misdemeanors: attempted aggravated harassment for making phone calls to an ex-girlfriend’s mother in 2001 and criminal mischief for threatening a fellow motorist with a baseball bat after a minor car accident in 2007. Mr. Persaud had filed a workers’ compensation claim and also sued the owner of the site where he was injured. He was awarded about $4,000 in the compensation claim, but the suit was settled for a negligible sum, Mr. Marrone said.
In a phone interview, Mr. Marrone said of his client, “He’s not a perfect person, but he’s not a criminal by any standard of the word. He’s got a lot of anxiety. He reacts negatively in stressful situations and he has a short temper.”
Myrna Manners, a spokeswoman for NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, said in a phone interview, “We are happy that the case has been resolved, and it certainly reinforces our faith in the jury system. We think the verdict speaks for itself. We felt from the start that the case was without merit. It’s unfortunate that resources that could have been spent elsewhere had to be spent on this type of case.”
Jury Rejects Suit Over Attempted Rectal Exam
By Sewell Chan
April 21, 2008, 6:50 pm
Ending a case that has wended its way through the court system for several years, a Manhattan jury on Monday quickly rejected a Brooklyn man’s claim that employees of NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital improperly forced him to undergo a traumatic rectal examination after he sustained an on-the-job injury in 2003. After only a few minutes, the jury decided that the man, Brian Persaud, failed to prove the chief claim in his civil lawsuit, that he suffered assault and battery at the hands of hospital workers who wanted to perform a rectal exam to ensure that he did not have internal injuries.
The case raised interesting issues about medical ethics. In general, patients may decline medical treatment if they are informed of the consequences of doing so and capable of making such a decision. But doctors have more leeway to perform a procedure if a patient has sustained a potentially life-threatening injury and if the doctor doubts the patient’s capacity to make informed decisions.
On May 20, 2003, Mr. Persaud, who was 33 at the time, was injured on the head while working at a Midtown construction site. He was taken to the emergency room at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, where he received eight stitches to his head.
What happened next was a matter of dispute during the 11-day trial, which began with jury selection on April 3 and ended Monday, when the six jurors rendered their decision barely an hour after Justice Carol R. Edmead directed them to begin deliberations.
Both sides agreed that Mr. Persaud was told that he needed an immediate rectal examination to determine whether he had a spinal-cord injury.
Mr. Persaud contended that he adamantly objected to the procedure, and was held down as he begged, “Please don’t do that.”
During the trial, the emergency room doctor on duty that day, Dr. Eric M. Maniago, testified that Mr. Persaud was belligerent and confrontational and violently punched him as the staff tried to perform the examination.
Mr. Persaud testified that he slapped Dr. Maniago — accidentally — after managing to free one of his hands while being restrained. Mr. Persaud was indeed restrained and sedated, with a breathing tube inserted through his mouth.
Lynne C. Hewitt, a nurse who was part of the team trying to treat Mr. Persaud, also testified, as did the police officer who arrested Mr. Persaud. Dr. Susan M. Trocciola, who was a resident in trauma medicine at the time, testified that she placed a finger in Mr. Persaud’s rectal area after conducting a physical exam of his spine to check for a spinal-cord injury.
Whether the rectal exam was performed was a matter of dispute. Mr. Persaud testified that he felt a finger inserted in his rectum, but Dr. Trocciola said the exam was never carried out.
Each side put forward expert witnesses. Mr. Persaud’s lawyers turned to two experts, a neurologist-psychiatrist and a forensic psychologist, who testified that Mr. Persaud suffered from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the episode. The hospital put forward a doctor who testified that a rectal examination is an important part of advanced life support for trauma patients.
Gerard M. Marrone, Mr. Persaud’s lawyer, said he and his client were disappointed by the outcome. Mr. Marrone had argued, unsuccessfully, that even if the rectal exam was not performed, the decision to restrain his client — and insert a breathing tube — amounted to assault and battery.
Mr. Persaud was not necessarily the most sympathetic plaintiff. It emerged during the trial that Mr. Persaud, a native of Guyana who did not complete high school, had been convicted of two misdemeanors: attempted aggravated harassment for making phone calls to an ex-girlfriend’s mother in 2001 and criminal mischief for threatening a fellow motorist with a baseball bat after a minor car accident in 2007. Mr. Persaud had filed a workers’ compensation claim and also sued the owner of the site where he was injured. He was awarded about $4,000 in the compensation claim, but the suit was settled for a negligible sum, Mr. Marrone said.
In a phone interview, Mr. Marrone said of his client, “He’s not a perfect person, but he’s not a criminal by any standard of the word. He’s got a lot of anxiety. He reacts negatively in stressful situations and he has a short temper.”
Myrna Manners, a spokeswoman for NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, said in a phone interview, “We are happy that the case has been resolved, and it certainly reinforces our faith in the jury system. We think the verdict speaks for itself. We felt from the start that the case was without merit. It’s unfortunate that resources that could have been spent elsewhere had to be spent on this type of case.”
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Cuomo picks lawyer to head NY trooper investigation
Associated Press - April 22, 2008 4:25 PM ET
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says he's appointed an attorney to head an investigation into whether state troopers have allowed politics to interfere with their work.
Manhattan attorney Sharon McCarthy will act as special counsel for the case.
Gov. David Paterson asked Cuomo to pursue the investigation after an Albany prosecutor issued a report that former Gov. Eliot Spitzer may have lied when he told investigators he wasn't involved in a plot against a Republican rival. State police are accused of re-creating Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno's travel records to embarrass him.
Spitzer resigned after being connected to a prostitution ring.
McCarthy worked in the U.S. Attorney's office for more than 12 years.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Cuomo picks lawyer to head NY trooper investigation
Associated Press - April 22, 2008 4:25 PM ET
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says he's appointed an attorney to head an investigation into whether state troopers have allowed politics to interfere with their work.
Manhattan attorney Sharon McCarthy will act as special counsel for the case.
Gov. David Paterson asked Cuomo to pursue the investigation after an Albany prosecutor issued a report that former Gov. Eliot Spitzer may have lied when he told investigators he wasn't involved in a plot against a Republican rival. State police are accused of re-creating Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno's travel records to embarrass him.
Spitzer resigned after being connected to a prostitution ring.
McCarthy worked in the U.S. Attorney's office for more than 12 years.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Got no talent, but still want to be a celebrity?
Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 - 06:02 AM
By Jim Cook
I’ve got good news for you. Now more than ever, technology and our culture have made it easy for morons like you and me to capture the public’s attention.
Time was, becoming famous required a great talent or monumental achievement. Back in the day, if you were on the cover of a magazine or on television, chances were that you boldly cured polio, bravely fought off a horde of Nazis or were talking straight to the public about how awesome cigarettes were for their health (hey, lying is a talent too).
In the age of YouTube and MySpace, becoming a celebrity no longer requires achievement or merit of any sort. With a complete lack of commonsense, artisitc value or human decency, and a good Internet connection, you too can be famous.
Celebrity is a lot like children, syphillis and other STDs; it’s easily spread by intimate contact with the right person. Our most high profile recent example of this phenomenon is Ashley Dupre, who was catapulted into the public eye after it was revealed that she was the personal friction contractor for former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (named by Time Magazine as one of America’s Top Five Governors Who Look Like One of the Cavemen from the GEICO ads).
Dupre joins a long list of nobodies who became somebody by being naked at the right place at the right time with the right person. Notable past travelers on this path to fame: Kevin Federline, Yoko Ono, Elizabeth Dole, and Elizabeth Taylor’s husbands six through 15.
Another way to insert yourself into the public eye is to poke at some of our society’s scabbed over wounds in a very dumb and very public way. For example, consider the notoriety obtained by an Ohio state trooper who recently took a picture of himself in a white hood and mask and electronically sent it to his fellow troopers. For the investment of about $7 and five minutes, the trooper gained the attention of the public, who is always eager to find an incident they can have a knee-jerk reaction of outrage regarding.
So if you’re looking for a quick route to fame, and you don’t mind getting fired or attacked on the street, do something glaringly insensitive like leaving a BLT on top of the Koran, showing up schnockered for a Mothers Against Drunk Driving event or holding a Civil War re-enactment on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, take pictures of your transgression and stupidly post them somewhere the public can see them.
Also, as mentioned before, YouTube and MySpace are excellent ways to promote yourself. Want a quick ticket to fame? Video yourself doing something abysmally stupid like beating someone up in front of the police station or trying to steal from the free sample lady at the grocery store and post it to the Internet.
Rejecting Scientology is also a great way to gain public attention. TV actor Jason Beghe recently made headlines when he described the religion, of which he was a member for 12 years, as a fraud. Beghe’s rejection of Scientology has led many Americans to ask the deep spiritual questions, “Who is this TV actor Jason Beghe guy? Was he on 90210 or Melrose Place?” bringing him more public attention than he’s received in probably 15 years.
If you’re looking for a few seconds in the public eye, take a few pictures of yourself tossing a copy of Dianetics into a volcano and send it to your friends. If people ask the obvious, “But hey Bob, I thought you were a Unitarian, not a Scientologist,” calmly panic and hit them on the head with a mackerel. People will then believe you are a recovering Scientologist, because who else but a former Scientologist would carry a mackerel around.
Lawyers for the Church of Scientology can send their mackerels to jcook@dothaneagle.com.
©2008 Media General Communications Holdings
Got no talent, but still want to be a celebrity?
Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 - 06:02 AM
By Jim Cook
I’ve got good news for you. Now more than ever, technology and our culture have made it easy for morons like you and me to capture the public’s attention.
Time was, becoming famous required a great talent or monumental achievement. Back in the day, if you were on the cover of a magazine or on television, chances were that you boldly cured polio, bravely fought off a horde of Nazis or were talking straight to the public about how awesome cigarettes were for their health (hey, lying is a talent too).
In the age of YouTube and MySpace, becoming a celebrity no longer requires achievement or merit of any sort. With a complete lack of commonsense, artisitc value or human decency, and a good Internet connection, you too can be famous.
Celebrity is a lot like children, syphillis and other STDs; it’s easily spread by intimate contact with the right person. Our most high profile recent example of this phenomenon is Ashley Dupre, who was catapulted into the public eye after it was revealed that she was the personal friction contractor for former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (named by Time Magazine as one of America’s Top Five Governors Who Look Like One of the Cavemen from the GEICO ads).
Dupre joins a long list of nobodies who became somebody by being naked at the right place at the right time with the right person. Notable past travelers on this path to fame: Kevin Federline, Yoko Ono, Elizabeth Dole, and Elizabeth Taylor’s husbands six through 15.
Another way to insert yourself into the public eye is to poke at some of our society’s scabbed over wounds in a very dumb and very public way. For example, consider the notoriety obtained by an Ohio state trooper who recently took a picture of himself in a white hood and mask and electronically sent it to his fellow troopers. For the investment of about $7 and five minutes, the trooper gained the attention of the public, who is always eager to find an incident they can have a knee-jerk reaction of outrage regarding.
So if you’re looking for a quick route to fame, and you don’t mind getting fired or attacked on the street, do something glaringly insensitive like leaving a BLT on top of the Koran, showing up schnockered for a Mothers Against Drunk Driving event or holding a Civil War re-enactment on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, take pictures of your transgression and stupidly post them somewhere the public can see them.
Also, as mentioned before, YouTube and MySpace are excellent ways to promote yourself. Want a quick ticket to fame? Video yourself doing something abysmally stupid like beating someone up in front of the police station or trying to steal from the free sample lady at the grocery store and post it to the Internet.
Rejecting Scientology is also a great way to gain public attention. TV actor Jason Beghe recently made headlines when he described the religion, of which he was a member for 12 years, as a fraud. Beghe’s rejection of Scientology has led many Americans to ask the deep spiritual questions, “Who is this TV actor Jason Beghe guy? Was he on 90210 or Melrose Place?” bringing him more public attention than he’s received in probably 15 years.
If you’re looking for a few seconds in the public eye, take a few pictures of yourself tossing a copy of Dianetics into a volcano and send it to your friends. If people ask the obvious, “But hey Bob, I thought you were a Unitarian, not a Scientologist,” calmly panic and hit them on the head with a mackerel. People will then believe you are a recovering Scientologist, because who else but a former Scientologist would carry a mackerel around.
Lawyers for the Church of Scientology can send their mackerels to jcook@dothaneagle.com.
©2008 Media General Communications Holdings
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Hooker look-see
Did Randolph College students see behind the mask of prostitution?
Date published: 4/20/2008
TALK about detours: Randolph College students started out studying water rights in Nevada and ended up in a brothel. Their sidetrack ostensibly was for a good reason: The motto of their American Culture class is "Don't just study America--live it." But did the kids buy a glossed-over version of flesh-for-sale, or did they see through the face paint to the ugly truth beneath? Prostitution, like porn, violates the soul and diminishes those caught in its grip.
That's a countercultural message in an era when pimps are cool and young women sell their bodies to governors to make rent. Did anyone ever tell "Ashley Dupre," who "served under" former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, that "Pretty Woman" was fiction?
A leading authority on women's rights, prostitution, and human trafficking, professor Donna Hughes of the University of Rhode Island, estimates that 89 percent of prostitutes want out of the trade, but are trapped by violence, addictions, and hopelessness. She says that 86 percent of these women have suffered physical assault, 80 percent sexual assault; some 65 percent have had weapons used against them.
Legalizing prostitution does not erase its inherent degradation; it simply legitimizes those who use women's bodies as a commodity. And the ripple effect continues: Wherever there's legal prostitution, illegal sex-for-hire also flourishes as brothels try to skirt taxation and required health checks. Melissa Farley, author of "Making the Connection: Prosecution and Trafficking in Nevada," says that women are illegally brought into that state and forced to whore as brothel owners try to meet strong market demand. She adds, "In the Netherlands, since legalization, there has been an increase in the use of children in prostitution."
Some people try to dress up prostitution, calling its practitioners "sex workers" and claiming that legalization lends them protection. But their sense of degradation remains. After all, there must be some reason why 99 percent of the Nevada hookers wouldn't talk to the Randolph College students.
Hooker look-see
Did Randolph College students see behind the mask of prostitution?
Date published: 4/20/2008
TALK about detours: Randolph College students started out studying water rights in Nevada and ended up in a brothel. Their sidetrack ostensibly was for a good reason: The motto of their American Culture class is "Don't just study America--live it." But did the kids buy a glossed-over version of flesh-for-sale, or did they see through the face paint to the ugly truth beneath? Prostitution, like porn, violates the soul and diminishes those caught in its grip.
That's a countercultural message in an era when pimps are cool and young women sell their bodies to governors to make rent. Did anyone ever tell "Ashley Dupre," who "served under" former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, that "Pretty Woman" was fiction?
A leading authority on women's rights, prostitution, and human trafficking, professor Donna Hughes of the University of Rhode Island, estimates that 89 percent of prostitutes want out of the trade, but are trapped by violence, addictions, and hopelessness. She says that 86 percent of these women have suffered physical assault, 80 percent sexual assault; some 65 percent have had weapons used against them.
Legalizing prostitution does not erase its inherent degradation; it simply legitimizes those who use women's bodies as a commodity. And the ripple effect continues: Wherever there's legal prostitution, illegal sex-for-hire also flourishes as brothels try to skirt taxation and required health checks. Melissa Farley, author of "Making the Connection: Prosecution and Trafficking in Nevada," says that women are illegally brought into that state and forced to whore as brothel owners try to meet strong market demand. She adds, "In the Netherlands, since legalization, there has been an increase in the use of children in prostitution."
Some people try to dress up prostitution, calling its practitioners "sex workers" and claiming that legalization lends them protection. But their sense of degradation remains. After all, there must be some reason why 99 percent of the Nevada hookers wouldn't talk to the Randolph College students.
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Paris Hilton talks about public search for new best friend
By SANDY COHEN, AP Entertainment Writer 15 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES (AP) — More than 85,000 people want to be Paris Hilton's best friend.
The 27-year-old is using the Internet to cast potential friends for her new reality show, "Paris Hilton's My New BFF." The MTV series, which begins production next month, will follow 20 contestants as they live together and vie for the chance to be Hilton's permanent plus-one.
Thousands of candidates have posted profiles and videos on ParisBFF.com in hopes of winning a spot on the show. Visitors to the site can vote for their favorites, and the top vote-getters will be added to the cast, producers said.
The site has already collected more than 6 million page views since it went live five weeks ago. And the heiress herself is among those checking out the daily posts.
Hilton, who also serves as the show's executive producer, took time out after an MTV business meeting to talk with The Associated Press about her public quest for friendship.
___
AP: Why take your search for a new best friend to the reality-TV world?
Hilton: Well I did "The Simple Life" for five seasons. I had a great time. I love reality TV. It's my favorite to watch. When I was approached with this idea I just thought it would be so much fun, being a producer on the show as well, having boys and girls move into a house all vying to be my best friend, I just thought it'd be fun and I'd also like to meet some new friends.
AP: Do you think you can find a real, lasting friendship this way? Do you have a preference of male or female?
Hilton: I just want to see the contestants and see how they are. I don't care if it's a boy or a girl, just as long as its someone I can trust, someone I can have fun with and just someone who's going to be able to like handle all the other things that are going to come with being my best friend.
AP: Like what?
Hilton: Just being in the media, just someone who's not going to care about that, just someone who cares about me.
AP: What are some of the qualities you're looking for in a new best friend?
Hilton: Just someone who's fun, someone who I can trust and just someone who, I don't know, just someone to get along with that is not going to screw me over. Just someone to have a great time with.
AP: You recently found a new best friend in Benji Madden. What are some of the challenges in finding friends you click with?
Hilton: It is hard meeting new people. Most of my friends I've had my entire life, like obviously my sister and Nicole Richie have been with me forever. So when I meet new people, I'm always a little wary of the reason they may want to become my friend. I can usually just tell by when we're out in public and there's paparazzi around, I see, you know, who gets a little bit too excited or whatever. I can tell how those people are.
AP: Because it's a show, it's possible that some contestants might be more interested in being on TV than being your best friend. How will you determine people's sincerity?
Hilton: We're at MTV right now and just going over all the challenges and different things we're going to be putting the contestants through. I can't really tell because they're all top secret.
AP: How has this experience been different from "The Simple Life" and your feature-film work?
Hilton: This is like completely different. "The Simple Life" was more fish-out-of-water, Nicole and I just doing things we've never done.
AP: What kinds of things appeal to you when you're looking at the videos on ParisBFF.com?
Hilton: Just people who are fun, people who I know are going to be great on TV, people who have fun personalities, they're not shy, the people who tell their deepest secrets, people who are open to being honest and having a great time. That's what my show's about.
AP: Talk about your role as executive producer.
Hilton: Actually I was a producer of "The Simple Life" as well. Well, just being in control of everything and making all the decisions and just really being on top of everything, coming up with ideas. The casting process, with "The Simple Life" I didn't do all that, so this has been a lot of work but a lot of fun as well.
AP: What else is going on with you?
Hilton: I've just been traveling for a while and just launched my clothing line and my shoe line. I'm just getting ready for my movie — "Repo! The Genetic Opera" is coming out soon. So I'm just getting ready for that.
AP: With all your projects, do you still have time for fun?
Hilton: Not as much as I used to when I was younger. But I'm always traveling. I have a lot of businesses I run. Everything is so successful so it feels really great and I'd rather be working than doing anything else.
___
On the Net:
http://www.parisbff.com
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press
Paris Hilton talks about public search for new best friend
By SANDY COHEN, AP Entertainment Writer 15 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES (AP) — More than 85,000 people want to be Paris Hilton's best friend.
The 27-year-old is using the Internet to cast potential friends for her new reality show, "Paris Hilton's My New BFF." The MTV series, which begins production next month, will follow 20 contestants as they live together and vie for the chance to be Hilton's permanent plus-one.
Thousands of candidates have posted profiles and videos on ParisBFF.com in hopes of winning a spot on the show. Visitors to the site can vote for their favorites, and the top vote-getters will be added to the cast, producers said.
The site has already collected more than 6 million page views since it went live five weeks ago. And the heiress herself is among those checking out the daily posts.
Hilton, who also serves as the show's executive producer, took time out after an MTV business meeting to talk with The Associated Press about her public quest for friendship.
___
AP: Why take your search for a new best friend to the reality-TV world?
Hilton: Well I did "The Simple Life" for five seasons. I had a great time. I love reality TV. It's my favorite to watch. When I was approached with this idea I just thought it would be so much fun, being a producer on the show as well, having boys and girls move into a house all vying to be my best friend, I just thought it'd be fun and I'd also like to meet some new friends.
AP: Do you think you can find a real, lasting friendship this way? Do you have a preference of male or female?
Hilton: I just want to see the contestants and see how they are. I don't care if it's a boy or a girl, just as long as its someone I can trust, someone I can have fun with and just someone who's going to be able to like handle all the other things that are going to come with being my best friend.
AP: Like what?
Hilton: Just being in the media, just someone who's not going to care about that, just someone who cares about me.
AP: What are some of the qualities you're looking for in a new best friend?
Hilton: Just someone who's fun, someone who I can trust and just someone who, I don't know, just someone to get along with that is not going to screw me over. Just someone to have a great time with.
AP: You recently found a new best friend in Benji Madden. What are some of the challenges in finding friends you click with?
Hilton: It is hard meeting new people. Most of my friends I've had my entire life, like obviously my sister and Nicole Richie have been with me forever. So when I meet new people, I'm always a little wary of the reason they may want to become my friend. I can usually just tell by when we're out in public and there's paparazzi around, I see, you know, who gets a little bit too excited or whatever. I can tell how those people are.
AP: Because it's a show, it's possible that some contestants might be more interested in being on TV than being your best friend. How will you determine people's sincerity?
Hilton: We're at MTV right now and just going over all the challenges and different things we're going to be putting the contestants through. I can't really tell because they're all top secret.
AP: How has this experience been different from "The Simple Life" and your feature-film work?
Hilton: This is like completely different. "The Simple Life" was more fish-out-of-water, Nicole and I just doing things we've never done.
AP: What kinds of things appeal to you when you're looking at the videos on ParisBFF.com?
Hilton: Just people who are fun, people who I know are going to be great on TV, people who have fun personalities, they're not shy, the people who tell their deepest secrets, people who are open to being honest and having a great time. That's what my show's about.
AP: Talk about your role as executive producer.
Hilton: Actually I was a producer of "The Simple Life" as well. Well, just being in control of everything and making all the decisions and just really being on top of everything, coming up with ideas. The casting process, with "The Simple Life" I didn't do all that, so this has been a lot of work but a lot of fun as well.
AP: What else is going on with you?
Hilton: I've just been traveling for a while and just launched my clothing line and my shoe line. I'm just getting ready for my movie — "Repo! The Genetic Opera" is coming out soon. So I'm just getting ready for that.
AP: With all your projects, do you still have time for fun?
Hilton: Not as much as I used to when I was younger. But I'm always traveling. I have a lot of businesses I run. Everything is so successful so it feels really great and I'd rather be working than doing anything else.
___
On the Net:
http://www.parisbff.com
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Wright's Voice Could Spell Doom for Obama
Posted at 12:55 PM ET, 04/28/2008
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, explaining this morning why he had waited so long before breaking his silence about his incendiary sermons, offered a paraphrase from Proverbs: "It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Barack Obama's pastor would have been wise to continue to heed that wisdom.
Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.
Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.
In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.
Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."
Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."
Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.
"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."
That significantly complicates Obama's job as he contemplates how to extinguish Wright's latest incendiary device. Now, he needs to do more than express disagreement with his former pastor's view; he needs to refute his former pastor's suggestion that Obama privately agrees with him.
Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons -- yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.
His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?
Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."
His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."
He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").
And he vigorously renewed demands for an apology for slavery: "Britain has apologized to Africans. But this country's leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I'm not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt, do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I'm still stepping on your foot. Understand that? Capisce?"
Capisce, reverend. All too well.
Wright's Voice Could Spell Doom for Obama
Posted at 12:55 PM ET, 04/28/2008
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, explaining this morning why he had waited so long before breaking his silence about his incendiary sermons, offered a paraphrase from Proverbs: "It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Barack Obama's pastor would have been wise to continue to heed that wisdom.
Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.
Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.
In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.
Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."
Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."
Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.
"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."
That significantly complicates Obama's job as he contemplates how to extinguish Wright's latest incendiary device. Now, he needs to do more than express disagreement with his former pastor's view; he needs to refute his former pastor's suggestion that Obama privately agrees with him.
Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons -- yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.
His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?
Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."
His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."
He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").
And he vigorously renewed demands for an apology for slavery: "Britain has apologized to Africans. But this country's leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I'm not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt, do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I'm still stepping on your foot. Understand that? Capisce?"
Capisce, reverend. All too well.
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Detroit's mood grim as automakers face the brink
Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:13pm EDT
By Poornima Gupta
DETROIT (Reuters) - After three decades at work in a GM factory, John Martinez has reached a crossroads.
Martinez, 50, must choose between retiring and making a long and expensive commute across state lines to stay with General Motors Corp. Any future he can imagine is going to be costly and tough.
"My whole family is under stress," he said.
The same can be said of the embattled U.S. auto industry and its recession-hardened hometown, Detroit. GM, once an emblem of U.S. post-war economic might, is being driven to the brink by dwindling sales that are expected to test cash reserves and the nerves of investors in the months ahead.
Crosstown rivals Ford Motor Co and privately held Chrysler LLC face similar pressures. As the automakers weigh their options to ride out the industry's most-trying slump in 25 years, thousands of Detroit families are doing the same.
For many, the choices line up from bad to worse.
With four kids, retirement is not an option for Martinez. But driving more than 100 miles daily between home in the Detroit suburb of Lincoln Park and Toledo, Ohio -- where GM has a job for him -- is going to hurt with gas over $4 a gallon.
Moving from Detroit, one of the markets hit hardest by the ongoing housing slump, could prove impossible.
"I can't probably sell my home for what it's worth," said Martinez. "I will owe more than I sell it for."
When Martinez joined GM in the late 1970s, it controlled 46 percent of the U.S. vehicle market. A union job in the U.S. auto industry was seen as steady work with good wages and rock-solid benefits -- for life.
But last week, GM shares skidded to their lowest level since 1955. The stock had its worst week since trading in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, with Wall Street analysts handicapping when and how it will raise new capital.
GM's sales have dropped 15 percent so far this year, and its share of the U.S. market is down to just 21 percent.
When major automakers report sales for June on Tuesday, there is a chance that GM will be overtaken by Toyota Motor Co as the monthly sales leader, a reversal that points to the popularity of small cars like the Yaris and the abandonment of SUVs and trucks like the Yukon and Silverado.
CUTS, CUTS, AND THEN MORE CUTS
GM has responded by slashing costs, cutting truck production and slashing its factory work force to less than half of the 118,000 it employed four years ago.
When Martinez joined GM, it was near its peak factory payroll of 468,000 with a new factory in Oklahoma City set to start up. Now it is rolling back, shuttering plants and cutting jobs. On Friday, 17,000 more GM workers took buyouts to leave.
On a combined basis, GM, Ford and Chrysler have cut more than 100,000 factory jobs since sales began to slow in 2006.
For Detroit, the downturn has been brutal. Michigan's jobless rate jumped to a 16-year high of 8.5 percent for May. Detroit led the nation with its home foreclosure rate in 2007.
In nearby Inkster, hometown of Motown's Marvelettes, businesses on either side of the Picture Perfect beauty salon are boarded-up.
Tasha Shaw, the salon owner, is considering giving up too. Sales have dropped 60 percent over the last year as clients in the auto industry been forced to cut back.
"I have never seen it this bad," she said.
Inkster is tied to the fortunes of Ford, headquartered in nearby Dearborn. In the industry's boom days, jobs were plentiful, drawing workers from around the country. Civil rights activist Malcolm X lived in Inkster in the early 1950s and worked briefly in a local Ford plant.
But now, for many left in Inkster, a haircut is no longer an affordable luxury, Shaw said. "They have so many bills. People have lost their cars, homes... It's terrible," she said.
Across town in the suburb of Oak Park, Lauri Kopack's husband, an electrician, has been forced to take a job in West Virginia. He comes home on weekends when he can, but gas is expensive for his Ford F-150 pickup truck.
"There are no jobs here," Kopack said, adding that about 1,400 in her husband's union local are out of work.
"It's tough," she said. "When he comes home, he is like a visitor."
(Editing by Braden Reddall)
© Thomson Reuters 2008
Detroit's mood grim as automakers face the brink
Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:13pm EDT
By Poornima Gupta
DETROIT (Reuters) - After three decades at work in a GM factory, John Martinez has reached a crossroads.
Martinez, 50, must choose between retiring and making a long and expensive commute across state lines to stay with General Motors Corp. Any future he can imagine is going to be costly and tough.
"My whole family is under stress," he said.
The same can be said of the embattled U.S. auto industry and its recession-hardened hometown, Detroit. GM, once an emblem of U.S. post-war economic might, is being driven to the brink by dwindling sales that are expected to test cash reserves and the nerves of investors in the months ahead.
Crosstown rivals Ford Motor Co and privately held Chrysler LLC face similar pressures. As the automakers weigh their options to ride out the industry's most-trying slump in 25 years, thousands of Detroit families are doing the same.
For many, the choices line up from bad to worse.
With four kids, retirement is not an option for Martinez. But driving more than 100 miles daily between home in the Detroit suburb of Lincoln Park and Toledo, Ohio -- where GM has a job for him -- is going to hurt with gas over $4 a gallon.
Moving from Detroit, one of the markets hit hardest by the ongoing housing slump, could prove impossible.
"I can't probably sell my home for what it's worth," said Martinez. "I will owe more than I sell it for."
When Martinez joined GM in the late 1970s, it controlled 46 percent of the U.S. vehicle market. A union job in the U.S. auto industry was seen as steady work with good wages and rock-solid benefits -- for life.
But last week, GM shares skidded to their lowest level since 1955. The stock had its worst week since trading in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, with Wall Street analysts handicapping when and how it will raise new capital.
GM's sales have dropped 15 percent so far this year, and its share of the U.S. market is down to just 21 percent.
When major automakers report sales for June on Tuesday, there is a chance that GM will be overtaken by Toyota Motor Co as the monthly sales leader, a reversal that points to the popularity of small cars like the Yaris and the abandonment of SUVs and trucks like the Yukon and Silverado.
CUTS, CUTS, AND THEN MORE CUTS
GM has responded by slashing costs, cutting truck production and slashing its factory work force to less than half of the 118,000 it employed four years ago.
When Martinez joined GM, it was near its peak factory payroll of 468,000 with a new factory in Oklahoma City set to start up. Now it is rolling back, shuttering plants and cutting jobs. On Friday, 17,000 more GM workers took buyouts to leave.
On a combined basis, GM, Ford and Chrysler have cut more than 100,000 factory jobs since sales began to slow in 2006.
For Detroit, the downturn has been brutal. Michigan's jobless rate jumped to a 16-year high of 8.5 percent for May. Detroit led the nation with its home foreclosure rate in 2007.
In nearby Inkster, hometown of Motown's Marvelettes, businesses on either side of the Picture Perfect beauty salon are boarded-up.
Tasha Shaw, the salon owner, is considering giving up too. Sales have dropped 60 percent over the last year as clients in the auto industry been forced to cut back.
"I have never seen it this bad," she said.
Inkster is tied to the fortunes of Ford, headquartered in nearby Dearborn. In the industry's boom days, jobs were plentiful, drawing workers from around the country. Civil rights activist Malcolm X lived in Inkster in the early 1950s and worked briefly in a local Ford plant.
But now, for many left in Inkster, a haircut is no longer an affordable luxury, Shaw said. "They have so many bills. People have lost their cars, homes... It's terrible," she said.
Across town in the suburb of Oak Park, Lauri Kopack's husband, an electrician, has been forced to take a job in West Virginia. He comes home on weekends when he can, but gas is expensive for his Ford F-150 pickup truck.
"There are no jobs here," Kopack said, adding that about 1,400 in her husband's union local are out of work.
"It's tough," she said. "When he comes home, he is like a visitor."
(Editing by Braden Reddall)
© Thomson Reuters 2008
Corepuncher
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
I cannot find any statistics on 401K contributions over time. Obviously, with the huge bull markets we've had, it has really "caught on"...but I wonder exactly how important these contributions are, in the grand scheme of things (for the market in general?).
For example, what % of the value of the S&P 500 is solely from retirement contribution? If you took it ALL away, would it cause a 100 pt drop? 500 pt drop??
It is an important question...because people may start to cut back their contribution, not only because the market is "falling", but because they might need more money. This becomes even more critical, when you think of retiring boomers. Could draws on retirement accounts over the next several years result in a relatively flat or down market??
I cannot find any statistics on 401K contributions over time. Obviously, with the huge bull markets we've had, it has really "caught on"...but I wonder exactly how important these contributions are, in the grand scheme of things (for the market in general?).
For example, what % of the value of the S&P 500 is solely from retirement contribution? If you took it ALL away, would it cause a 100 pt drop? 500 pt drop??
It is an important question...because people may start to cut back their contribution, not only because the market is "falling", but because they might need more money. This becomes even more critical, when you think of retiring boomers. Could draws on retirement accounts over the next several years result in a relatively flat or down market??
McDuck
Well-known member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
International funds may have seen their best days
By John Waggoner, USA TODAY
[SIZE=-1]Jul 7, 2008[/SIZE]
If you loaded up on international funds to boost your returns, you might want to trim back a bit: The days of huge gains from abroad could be drawing to a close.
Investors have poured billions of dollars into international funds in the past five years, in part because their red-hot returns have glowed when compared with the moribund U.S. stock market. The MSCI Europe, Australasia and Far East index has soared 121% over the past five years, compared with 44% for the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index.
But the bear market has taken a bite from international stocks as well as domestic ones. The average large-company core international fund fell 10.8% in the first half of 2008, vs. an 11.5% tumble for U.S. large-company core funds.
Other international funds fared worse: Emerging markets funds plunged an average 12.4%. And the average China fund left a 25.4% crater in investors' portfolios.
The funds' returns mask the extent of the damage in foreign markets. International funds are priced in U.S. dollars, which have fallen sharply against many foreign currencies. Five years ago, $100 would buy 87 euros. At the end of June, $100 bought just 63 euros.
When the dollar falls in value, investments denominated in other currencies rise. Five years ago, it took $1.15 to buy a euro. Now, it's $1.57.
The dollar's fall is painful for tourists, but it's beneficial for Americans who invest abroad. The EAFE index fell 22.4% during the first half of the year, when calculated in foreign currencies. But when translated into dollars, the EAFE fell just 13%.
Now, though, many analysts think the dollar's fall could be abating, which would mean smaller gains from international funds. Money tends to flow to the countries with the highest interest rates.
Ronald Simpson, currency analyst for Action Economics, thinks that the Federal Reserve is finished lowering rates and that the European Central Bank won't be raising rates again any time soon.
"The dollar has probably seen its worst levels for the time being," Simpson says.
In the meantime, spiraling gas prices are hobbling the world's economies. The European bank's rate increase last week could restrain economic growth in Europe, and the British economy is suffering many of the same problems as the USA.
China's and India's economies will slow, too, says Andrew Foster, co-manager of the Matthews Asian Growth & Income fund. "If the rest of the world is slowing down, then India and China will suffer," Foster says.
More of a concern, Foster says, are the rising inflation rates in rapidly growing economies, such as China — something that could tempt those countries to curb trade or raise price subsidies.
The one bright spot: Because stock prices have fallen so sharply, many Asian markets are much more reasonably valued than they were before.
India's stock market, for example, has fallen 42.6% this year :worried:. Hong Kong shares have fallen 27.4%.
International funds are still a good diversifier for your portfolio, if only because so many companies are based abroad. But the days of soaring returns from foreign stocks — boosted by a falling dollar — could be over.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/funds/2008-07-07-international-funds_N.htm
Copyright 2008 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
International funds may have seen their best days
By John Waggoner, USA TODAY
[SIZE=-1]Jul 7, 2008[/SIZE]
If you loaded up on international funds to boost your returns, you might want to trim back a bit: The days of huge gains from abroad could be drawing to a close.
Investors have poured billions of dollars into international funds in the past five years, in part because their red-hot returns have glowed when compared with the moribund U.S. stock market. The MSCI Europe, Australasia and Far East index has soared 121% over the past five years, compared with 44% for the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index.
But the bear market has taken a bite from international stocks as well as domestic ones. The average large-company core international fund fell 10.8% in the first half of 2008, vs. an 11.5% tumble for U.S. large-company core funds.
Other international funds fared worse: Emerging markets funds plunged an average 12.4%. And the average China fund left a 25.4% crater in investors' portfolios.
The funds' returns mask the extent of the damage in foreign markets. International funds are priced in U.S. dollars, which have fallen sharply against many foreign currencies. Five years ago, $100 would buy 87 euros. At the end of June, $100 bought just 63 euros.
When the dollar falls in value, investments denominated in other currencies rise. Five years ago, it took $1.15 to buy a euro. Now, it's $1.57.
The dollar's fall is painful for tourists, but it's beneficial for Americans who invest abroad. The EAFE index fell 22.4% during the first half of the year, when calculated in foreign currencies. But when translated into dollars, the EAFE fell just 13%.
Now, though, many analysts think the dollar's fall could be abating, which would mean smaller gains from international funds. Money tends to flow to the countries with the highest interest rates.
Ronald Simpson, currency analyst for Action Economics, thinks that the Federal Reserve is finished lowering rates and that the European Central Bank won't be raising rates again any time soon.
"The dollar has probably seen its worst levels for the time being," Simpson says.
In the meantime, spiraling gas prices are hobbling the world's economies. The European bank's rate increase last week could restrain economic growth in Europe, and the British economy is suffering many of the same problems as the USA.
China's and India's economies will slow, too, says Andrew Foster, co-manager of the Matthews Asian Growth & Income fund. "If the rest of the world is slowing down, then India and China will suffer," Foster says.
More of a concern, Foster says, are the rising inflation rates in rapidly growing economies, such as China — something that could tempt those countries to curb trade or raise price subsidies.
The one bright spot: Because stock prices have fallen so sharply, many Asian markets are much more reasonably valued than they were before.
India's stock market, for example, has fallen 42.6% this year :worried:. Hong Kong shares have fallen 27.4%.
International funds are still a good diversifier for your portfolio, if only because so many companies are based abroad. But the days of soaring returns from foreign stocks — boosted by a falling dollar — could be over.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/funds/2008-07-07-international-funds_N.htm
Copyright 2008 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
marcel54
New member
Re: Greg's Account Talk
Great question? Let us know if you find the answer. It would also be interesting for the DOW & NASDAQ also. And if it breaks it down into individual IRA and institutional plans that would also be very interesting.
I cannot find any statistics on 401K contributions over time. Obviously, with the huge bull markets we've had, it has really "caught on"...but I wonder exactly how important these contributions are, in the grand scheme of things (for the market in general?).
For example, what % of the value of the S&P 500 is solely from retirement contribution? If you took it ALL away, would it cause a 100 pt drop? 500 pt drop??
It is an important question...because people may start to cut back their contribution, not only because the market is "falling", but because they might need more money. This becomes even more critical, when you think of retiring boomers. Could draws on retirement accounts over the next several years result in a relatively flat or down market??
Great question? Let us know if you find the answer. It would also be interesting for the DOW & NASDAQ also. And if it breaks it down into individual IRA and institutional plans that would also be very interesting.
- Status
