LyrArc Article Gist
Raul Baduel, a Venezuelan military officer who rose to lead the Fourth Armored Division, the Army, and then became Defense Minister after he rescued Chavez during the chaotic days following the 2002 coup in Venezuela. He thought it was aainst the constitution then and now he felt that the efforts to amend the constitution with the recent referendum were also against the constitution. He come from humble beginnings like Chavez, and was determined like Chavez to follow the lead of Simon Bolivar in leading the oppressed classes in Venezuela get free from the ruling elites. However after Chavez concentrated power in himself and decided to amend the constitution in his favor, Baduel broke ranks with Chavez and worked to defeat the efforts to amend it through referendum vote. When the referendum was lost by Chavez, and the Election Commission decided to postpone announcing the results Baduel went on television saying that for the good of the country the Election Commission had to be fair and good not yield to any pressures. The Election Commission did so and Chavez within hours conceded defeat. Baduel has an interesting personal life. He is a vegetarian, is deeply mystical, follows his own religion and also religions of the east such as Islam, Buddhism and Taoism. He works while listening to Gregorian chants. Venezuelan opinion appears to have soured against military involvement in politics. Opposition leaders are now very unhappy about the military, the politicizing of the whole country and efforts to stay in power. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Interesting and quite useful from a sociological and psychological point of view, that people believe what they want to believe. Even today writes Slackman, the Arabs and Muslims from Dubai malls to people one meets in a park in Algiers, cafes in Riyadh, and in shops and places all over Cairo, say the USA organized 9/11 so that they could attack 2 Muslim states, Iraq and Afghanistan. If we changed it a bit and said Rumsfeld and Cheney got the perfect excuse to attack Afghanistan's Taliban government from 9/11. It created the kind of fears in the US public about terrorists, individual, or state sponsored terrorism like Iraq's against the Marsh Shiites after the Kuwait war (which was a personal affront to both Rumsfeld and Cheney as they let it happen right under their eyes), then one can extend that to say Rumsfeld and Cheney felt they now had the opportunity to get Saddam out. So once you have the US even for good moral reason eager to intervene, this eagerness may not require too much of a stretch to be seen as the US administration engineering this atmosphere by organizing 9/11, or by letting it happen. This is true for an Arab public that feels humiliated and sees a loss of respect from all the setbacks they have suffered, including in Egypt where a President has maintained himself in power for thirty long years and has American support. And most of these people haven't left their surroundings, so they haven't seen the world outside. What they beleieve is only what is possible from what they can see possible from their immediate surroundings. From a -sociological and psychological perspective this is certainly possible and even realistic. When Friedman in the New York Times says its shameless that the 2 Republican candidates can speak of being change agents when Republicans have been in power for 8 years, and still the Republican faithful and some independents believe this, they have not lost their wits but may see this in terms of their gut feel and in terms of their own personal experiences and surroundings. Even when Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal sees little hope from either candidate when it comes to lobbyists influencing them and proof of this from lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie as their senior advisors. Then its still possible for Republican faithful, however weird it may appear to an informed observer,to see McCain and Palin as agents of change. Same is true for Obama. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Not only have directors at companies like Washington Mutual, Countrywide Financial and Fannie Mae not taken responsibility for the crisis. They have simply moved on to other boardrooms says Gretchen Morgenson of the NYT. These direcotrs did little when these companies were leveraged and made dubious loans or risky investments. Says Paul Hodgson of the Corporate Library, "these directors have avoided the corporate limelight as far as blame is concerned." Companies like Sunoco, the oil company, Paccar, a truck manufacturer, and Tetra Tech each have directors from these failed companies. Thomas Gerrity, a professor of managemet at Wharton is one of the outside directors at Fannie Mae who is now at Sunoco. Robert Parry, a former president of the Federal reserve bank of San Francisco, was adirector at Countrywide from 2004 to 2008. Parry is on the board at Paccar. Says Frederick Rowe, president of Invesotrs for Director Accountability, a nonprofit shareholder advocacy group, the board member gets $475,000 a year, he plays golf with the CEO, he is apersonal friend, goes to nice places for board meetings, and he is just not going to one word that would jeopardize his position on the board. In the case of GM the board held together in one voice right up to the bankruptcy with a director who was a former CEO of Eastman Kodak and the lead person on the board, insisting that management had done everything right, all the way up to the end. These directors had to be fired once the government took an ownership interest in GM, and before this they survived just about everything, including tens of thousands of jobs lost in Michigan, and the devastation of communities and people around the state. Gretchen points out that the director dysfunction is because its almost impossible to have adirector fired for sleepwalking through the job or simply rubberstamping the maagement's decisions. Shareholders have to launch an expensive proxy fight to oust a director. Currently proposed changes by the SEC to allow those who have at least a stake of 1% in a big company to put up their own nomiees are not effective steps say shareholder advocates. John Gillespie, co-author of "Money for Nothing," a forthcoming book on board failures with David Zweig, says the problem lies in the culture of the boards which determines how directors behave. Solutions he suggests are instituting term limits for directors and separating the positions of board chairman and chief executive....

LyrArc Article Gist
Some of the key executives are leaving Airbus as the company faces turmoil in its executive ranks. CEO Tom Enders leaves in April 2019, Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bergier leaves Feb. 2018. John Leahy in sales left Airbus, and others who left the company include the head of engineering, and the chief technology officer. All this is happening as the company faces investigations in several countries including France and Austria for corruption, and according to this report for using middlemen and making illegal payments.

In France Airbus offices have been raided in an investigation. Enders is one of the executives being investigated in a combat jet deal. COO Bergier is leaving with a good record for managing the smooth development of the A350 wide body aircraft, and the production increase to 700 aircraft in 2017 for the first time in the company's history.

LyrArc Article Gist
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican Majority leader in the U.S. Senate has come up with a new health care bill that is aimed at winning over reluctant Republican Senators. Two taxes on high income people on 3.8% investment income and a payroll tax of 0.9% on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples are retained in this version of the bill, which adds $231 billion over a decade. Some of this is used to offset rising premiums in the new bill, and provide additional funds. The deep cuts to Medicaid are retained and Senator Collins of Maine says she is opposed to the new bill because this will hurt people in rural areas of Maine, and does nothing to change this. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is also opposed to the bill. Opposition comes from moderate Senators opposed to deep cuts to Medicaid in Republican health care alternatives to president Obama's Affordable Care Act, and from conservative Senators opposed for other reasons.  Senator Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana introduced their own version just minutes before Mitch McConnell brought up his revised bill. All Democratic Senators are opposed to the Republican bill and call the deep cuts to Medicaid disastrous for lower income people.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How taking sweep shots on the black soil pitch at Kotla where the ball tended to bounce low did the Australian batsmen in. Rahul Dravid and Rohit Sharma decided to remain calm and not keep changing the fielding. They decided to let Jadeja, Ashwin and Axar know that this was the best way to approach it. Australia lost wickets quickly after the Dravid Sharma huddle and decision to tackle the situation calmly, just when the Australian batsmen appeared to be settling in for a long run haul. Australia were all out for 113 from 62 for 1 wicket.

LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT editorial says the Democrats achieved much of what they wanted in the Ryan-Murray U.S. Budget deal by taking out 61.5% of the sequester cuts in domestic programs and adding back $31.5 billion for programs in transportation, health, education and other programs.

LyrArc Article Gist
An overwhelming number of readers who commented on this article by October 27, 2009, were opposed to sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Looking at all comments in detail one finds that of the 64 readers commenting only a handful, about 8-9 supported sending these troops. Ninety percent of the comments to this editorial asking Obama to fight this war with conviction seriously questioned the wisdom of doing this. Many readers asked why aren't the Europeans putting thier lives at stake, and two asked how the Economist could with astraight face say that Britain's 500 troop increase was a welcome gesture. Readers questioned the assumptions and statements made by the Economist such as" letting the region "slip into amaelstrom of conflict," or "permanent cross-border instability," and "a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, " in many of the comments. Readers seem conscious of the fact that its not a precipitate withdrawal that is being discussed, its a war for the long haul that it inevitably becomes as the US forces get deeper into the conflict in the mountains of Afghanistan. The discussion is not about the next 6 months but of next year and the year after that and the year after that. That is also what General Colin Powell advised President Obama. He asked Obama to think clearly about the clear goals of this mission. See the link to Powell. The question arises is whether the Economist sensitive to its readers thoughts on this subject, and it is how does it account for such an absolute majority of sensible readers having serious questions, doubts, and outright opposition to a deeper conflict in Afghanistan?...

LyrArc Article Gist
Eyal Press brings ups the issues of moral injury when physicians work under a system of corporate takeover of medicine. She cites  the situation of Emergency Room's at hospitals where the service is outsourced to private groups working only with profits in mind. Sociologist Paul Starr in his book  The Social Transformation of American Medicine said that about 50 years ago this was not the prevailing practice in America, when physicians earned the public's trust by being "above the market and pure commercialism." The trend now is to form unions such as the one at Stanford University for medical professionals, as this provides a balance when dealing with corporate interests. A 30 year old resident at Stanford is cited, who says the prestige of the profession of medicine does not any more prevent the degradation that is being experienced by workers in other sectors of todays economy. With its excesses in one direction away from the values of the past. Physicians he sees as moving to the category  of "laborers," like other workers in such an economy, that is far removed from what existed in America 50 years ago. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Fundamentals such as private inventories buildup, are about 10% higher than last year according to EIA, suggesting prices $3 to $15 lower than they are now. Prices are higher because of uncertainties in the VIIN countries (Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Nigeria) which combined produce just as much as the Saudis. And the VIIN component is there for the long haul. OPEC does not need to cut output, output is cut by the VIIN countries with their political and geopolitical issues.

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Volcker before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee on May 9, 2012, before the announcement of the $2 billion trading losses by J.P. Morgan Chase. The following day Chase announced the losses from trades made by JP Morgan trader Bruno Iksil- nicknamed the "London Whale"- who made a complex hedge on a group of corporate bonds, betting $100 billion that the bonds would not default. The Volcker rule as it is currently written would not prevent such a transaction. The problem as Volcker pointed out before the Banking Committee is that under "too big to fail," "the losses would be socialized with the potential gains all private."

LyrArc Article Gist
The Fed announced that it will review compensation policies of 28 of the large complex banking organizations in the USA. The review will be an horizontal one that compares them to each other. The other significant move is that the Fed wants to see employees who take greater risks and use large amounts of borrowed money, to receive negative points in evaluating how well they have done, and consequently to be compensated less than other employees who earn money for banking firms while controlling the risks associated with transactions. This ties in with the discussions at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, where the Europeans pushed for tighter regulation on bonuses and pay, to control the excessive risktaking of banking firms. This is because the prevailing culture in global financial institutions is a high risk high return culture, which ignores the social consequences of bad decisions. There is no cost to individuals taking the risks on other people's money, and regulations discouraging risk are not in place. The question remains, is this an adequate response to prevent future crises, or too little too late? If the banking community does not see it this way, and financial regulation is watered down in Congress- see the links to this- then it will much like Don Quixote swinging at windmills. In this sense the title of this piece is a misnomer, as the Fed has not hit banks with sweeping pay limits. It only said it would review pay practices. It is jawboning of the mild kind to show the public something is done. See Paul Volcker's point that pay practices would adjust and desirable goal of less risktaking and reasonable salaries would be achieved by separating deposit taking banks from banks engaged in trading activities. Similiarly, the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, made the point recently that the biggest banks should be broken up. That is supported by the intuitive sense of experts that banks engaged with depositors should be engaged in the social functions of society, lending and supporting economic activity, and the trading desks of investment banks should operate entirely separately from this. One should be insulated from the other. In this sense there is a bit of evasion in these actions. A Wall Street capture of regulatory activity continues, of regulators and senior economic advisors in the administration, as the coziness between the two lingers on from a previous era of deregulation. This has the potential to cost the country and the global economy dearly in another crisis, and the jobless and young jobless people especially. In this economy both in Europe and the USA, the jobless young have been left with the least hope. ...