So "she" is moving with me....or should say, "I have a acquired a bankrupt company in the hope of being able to sell off it's stock at a later date." :D Yeah, it's pretty worthless stock but the board decided in acquiring it's assets current stock holders wouldn't loose at much as they would otherwise. Right now we're in negotiations. I'm trying to determine if the current employees will stay on or be led to the guillotine. :lol:

But more on that later.........I'm so very exhausted right now. :|

Change font size: A | A | A

The public should not expect "a decisive military victory" in Afghanistan, Britain's most senior military commander in the country warned today.

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the aim was to reduce the uprising to a level at which it could be managed by the Afghan army and made clear that this could involve talking to the Taliban.

It was necessary to "lower our expectations" and accept that it would be unrealistic to expect that multinational forces can entirely rid Afghanistan of armed bands, he suggested.

Brig Carleton-Smith, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan, told the Sunday Times that his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008".

But he added: "We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.

"We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency."

Brig Carleton-Smith said the aim should be to change the nature of the debate in Afghanistan so that disputes were settled by negotiation and not violence.

"If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this," he said.

"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."

A union official said he expects General Motors' SUV plant in the Dayton suburb of Moraine to close in January or February based on inventory and projected sales.

Harry Bogan, director of Regional 7 for the International Union of Electronic Workers-Communication Workers of America, said Monday that the automaker hasn't set a closing date for the plant that employs about 1,000 workers.

Read more...

So where does this leave us and Qwest?  Seems like no man's land.  I don't know if the union had a plan for this, it doesn't sound like it as nobody I've talked to knows anything about anything. Will it mean a strike? Will CWA members be willing to strike Qwest with a still significant portion of the membership voting for the contract.  This is why you strike when the contract is up, when you have a strike vote approval of 95%+ backing up your leaders.  Do a strike on Qwest now, and it will be difficult to truly be united.

Really what it speaks to in my mind is what a poor contract the negotiating committee came back to the membership with.   What exactly were are these people thinking when they brought this back to the membership.  Huge increases in health care premiums are not acceptable, especially when Verizon settles a week before us with a contract that preserved fully paid health benefits.  Those disappeared 3 years ago here at Qwest with "enrollment fees."

Didn't the negotiating committee think we would stand together.  They bought Qwest's cry wolf call again, and wimped out right before the DNC, the point in time we had the most power right before the 2008 conventions.

So what are your thoughts?  Should we go back to the table and tweak this deal, or should it be ripped apart and started again from square one?  All I know is that Qwest got over on  CWA this time, not the members but the leadership. They were able to save face before both national conventions, and now have the union split between the members and the so-called "leadership" of CWA.

Presidents must provide leadership that leads us away from crisis if they see it coming. If they didn’t see it coming, they must get us through it.

The current financial crisis that our nation is being warned of could have been avoided if we acted on some of the preventive measures that would have averted the recent need for a 700 billion dollar rescue package. Not avoiding it is something that I blame President Bush for. Note, I do not blame him for the problem but I do blame him and the administration for not seeing it coming. I blame him for not heading the advice of others who warned us about the mortgage lending practices which have inevitably threatened every other, major, area of the economy. People like John McCain who in 2005 proposed measures to correct our course and avoid the ice field.

Someone was asleep at the wheel on this one. It was akin to being on duty in the watchtower and still not seeing the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

I will blame the President for allowing the issue to get to this point and requiring an historic, expensive hurried, solution to what should have been avoided, but I will not blame him for creating the problem that he did not acknowledge until it was too late.

This was a problem created, in part, by the Clinton era.

Under the Clinton administration mandates were created that forced FannieMae and FreddieMac to extend high risks loans to low income and minority applicants. Clinton‘s National Homeowners Strategy was a financial scheme that promoted insanely low down payments and coerced lenders into giving mortgage loans to first-time buyers with unstable financing and incomes. It was a way to increase homeownership. That is an admirable motive but as usual,the  liberal mentality, forced government to do that which it should not have done. Essentially, the Clinton era initiatives that forced government action on private sector interests led to the need for government to take over FannieMae and FreddieMac. This is not to say that private sector greed and bad business practices did not add to the wrong minded government policy, it did, but what happened here is that government solutions to one problem, created another . Now, ironically, the government which helped to create this problem is having to solve it.

There are many lessons that can be learned from this. Whether you refuse to learn those lessons is up to you but the lessons are there. The left , under Nancy Pelosi, want to point fingers at Republicans and blame the entire problem on their tendencies for deregulation. That could almost be plausible if it was true. Unfortunately for liberals, it is not true. Conservatives are not for no regulation. Conservatives are for less regulations. They are against government regulations such as the Clinton era housing initiatives which forced FannieMae and FreddieMac to enter into high risk loans that should never have had the opportunity to be defaulted on. Republicans are against the type of regulations that prevent reasonable growth of our economy that is based upon sound policy and business practices.

Such was the case in 2005 when John McCain sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act which was specifically aimed at reeling in the higher than acceptable risk taking of FannieMae and FreddieMac. It was also designed to reign in many of the shady recording practices that both institutions were conducting.

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 was, as it’s name indicates, a bill of regulatory reform, a bill that would have reformed the regulations which have added to the creation of the current economic crisis. The bill was ignored and denied by Democrats and the Democrat chairmen of the committees responsible for the bill. Congressman Barney frank and senator Chris Dodd did not act on this corrective initiative. Yet today, they join with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in blaming Republicans.

sessions.

Between President Bush sleeping at the economic wheel and the house Democrat leaders's lack of ability to accomplish anything, we need a leader to step forward. For me that leadership should come from the next President. It should come from the individual who will be steering our economic ship with whatever the burden of the solution to this crisis is.

Barack Obama and John McCain are incumbent senators. They have a responsibility to live up to in those capacities and they should not use a political campaign as an excuse for avoiding that responsibility.

John McCain was right when last week he suspended normal campaign activity in a stated attempt to deal with the legislative package aimed at rescuing the economy. He was wrong to back away from this original position. In doing so we are back to square one and Nancy Pelosi’s lack of leadership along with that of President Bush and Committee Chairs Dodd and Barney still leaves us crying out for effective leadership.

John McCain is no Nostradamus, but on this issue he has been ahead of the curve and his instincts have been right, at least since 2005 when he proposed measures that would have not allowed things to spiral out of control and bring us to this point. McCain should continue with those instincts and apply them in his capacity as a sitting senator.

I understand that neither McCain or Obama sit on the House Financial Services Committee or the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee, which are the primary committees handling the bailout package. However, their involvement on the issue,along, with their colleagues can interject some much needed initiatives and direction into those committees. To believe that since they are not on the committee, they have nothing to do with it or no ability to influence it is absurd.

If either of these two men have the capacity to lead us that their individual campaigns would have us believe than now is their chance to show it.

Now is the time for them to demonstrate their purported abilities to solve problems and unite people together to properly address our national concerns. If either of these men have the answers to our problems, than now is the time to provide those answers. If the economic dangers we are witnessing are truly a crisis, now is the time to answer their calls to duty.

Get off their high horses and get behind their legislative desks of responsibility. Do not politicize the crisis in stump speeches before adoring supporters in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Colorado.  Go to Washington, D.C. and rally the legislative geniuses of Capital Hill together behind appropriate, legitimate legislation that will address the crisis.

I want McCain and Obama to present their rescue packages. A package of legislative measures that:

A. - Produces an acceptable level of fluidity in the credit markets
B. - Prevent the abusive practice of an overextension of risky loans.
C. - Tightens the recording practices of all federal monetary institutions.
D. - Eliminates the Clinton era National Homeownership Strategy policies
E. - Levees a payback with interest on any and all monies invested in bailout packages
F. - Eliminate golden parachutes for executive officers responsible for insolvency

Obama and McCain may not sit on the committees charged with hammering out such a package but they are

charged with the responsibility to create a package that the proper committees must address. Through their leadership they can create a plan that is good enough to garner support and strong enough to rally behind. If they cannot do this than they have no right to comment on the process and use it to advance their candidacies for President.

I want them to demonstrate through deed, not word, how good their abilities are to resolve problems and deal with crisis.

If either McCain or Obama want to demonstrate that they have the ability to accomplish things as President, now is the chance to show it, not just talk about it. The cry for leadership in this crisis is loud and clear and if Obama and/or McCain refuse to answer those cries, than neither one should be asking for the chance to lead our nation for the next four years to come.

Last Wednesday, when McCain embraced the issue and suspended his campaign, he was on track. It was the right thing to do. Since than he has strayed off this track and now we still do not have a rescue package in place. Now, more than ever he needs to get back on track, suspend his campaign and take the lead on the issue. Develop a plan that can win the day and help propel him to the White House.

A campaign is a great forum for ideas to be expressed but a time of crisis is a great forum for leadership to be practiced. McCain and Obama need to practice it now.

A Guide to U.S. Newspapers 

- The lead in an article on Politico.com, describing the power the "Maverick" had over members of his own party. He is so out of touch, he didn't even know his peeps were going to kill the bill.  Hat tip, Wonkette.  Article HERE.

“The key to everything is patience. You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it.”
Arnold H Glasgow

When I was a kid, I was always on my way to somewhere. I couldn’t tell you why that way, or the importance of getting there in an instant. However, I knew that I was missing something by not being on my way. It was important to me to find out all those things that others knew, and to see all of the new and exciting things in the world before they faded away.

I have to admit, I am still a little bit like the kid I once was. Now, I am bigger and taller, slower and more gray, but I still have an urge to rush to the front of the line. This propensity, however, seldom works in my favor. Early adopters of technology pay higher prices and suffer through more retrofits and patches than those coming behind.

In negotiations, the first person to loose their cool or to state a price will loose, because in doing so, they have furnished their opponent with a leverage point. In a salary negotiation, you should never state what you would take as your minimum salary, because that is the salary that you are most likely to receive.

In negotiations with vendors, many of you will have had at least one experience with customer service that is more laughable than affable. Where in every iteration of your request for service, you are baited calling your practices into question. Such cases require that you document their responses, perform a gap analysis, demonstrate why a complete fix is necessary, and stipulate why they are legally bound to complete the work. This process is tedious, but it generally results in a superior system.

My experiences with dealing with poor customer service have taught me many things about the people involved both on my side and on the other side. Those times where we were patient and persistent with well conceived processes for change were the times that we won. The times when we lost our cool reacting to our opponents taunts were the times that we lost. For every feature missing from our system or project, I can trace back to an impulsive and impetuous response. In being reactive, we lost our position of authority and in most cases our legitimacy.

People who are reactive are dismissed as irrational. They are not seen as agents for change and are seldom judged as being capable of making a difference. In fact, they are usually seen as damaged in some way — ostracized from their own group and ignored by their opponents.

Patience is one of the most valuable assets that a person can have. This is as true in life as it is in work. Those who lack patience often pay a penance, and those that have it reap the benefits. I am still working on my patience, but admittedly, the process is taking forever. I just hope that the time I’ve got left is greater than or equal to the time required to complete my journey.

“It is strange that the years teach us patience; that the shorter our time, the greater our capacity for waiting.”
Elizabeth Taylor

Got to go.

This article was written by David E. Harwell, Ph.D.,Assistant Director for Career Management and Development at the American Chemical Society.

First you have the fact that House Republicans were largely excluded from the negotiating process.  And then, surprise: they weren't happy about it.

Then we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calling upon John McCain to become directly involved in the negotiation process - only to viciously attack him when he actually tried to become directly involved.  A whole bunch of Democrats then dove onto the pile, falsely claiming that a bipartisan deal had been struck when none actually had, and that McCain had thrown a monkey wrench into it - even though he had said very little at the explosive and divisive meeting which Democrats had Obama chair.  Democrats - in an obvious act of presidential politics - were out claiming that John McCain was playing "presidential politics."

Then we get to look at the actual bill that the Democrats have been working on - and expect Republicans to agree to - only to find that it is a clear pork-laden giveaway to traditional Democratic allies such as ACORN, Big Labor, and the trial lawyer lobby.  ACORN has been involved in more cases of documented voter fraud than any organization in history; yet STILL receives federal money thanks to Democrats' efforts.

And, of course, when Democrats came back this morning for more "bipartisan" negotiations, the two Republicans were shocked to find not two Democrats joining them, but NINE:

Pelosi made her remarks as the negotiators streamed into her office, and that group is much bigger than expected; instead of just the four principals, a number of other prominent Democrats, including Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (Mont.), Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.) and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer also entered the meeting.

This leaves House Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg severely outnumbered as the only Republicans in the room. Oh yeah, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. But he's been at loggerheads with the House GOP for the last week, so he they might not be singing from the same songbook on this one.

The ship is sinking, and Democrats are determined to cynically use every ideological play in their playbook, apparently counting upon a biased media and an ignorant population to set up their next play.

And what is their next play?  When the Republicans refuse to accept the crap the Democrats are trying to feed them, Democrats will flood the airwaves to proclaim that Republicans are refusing to play ball and stave off a meltdown.

This noted thinker told me that in negotiations each party had to come to a point on which they could agree before any meaningful discourse or movement could be made. He said that sometimes the only thing that two people could agree upon was that they were each a member of the human race - but that THAT point was a position from which to start.

We might look at this and say, "so what?", yet it is an important reminder that when conflict occurs, the only way to interrupt escalation is to get out of the I/Thou sense of good guy/bad guy, or enemy mindset, and make our way to the place where we can find a point on which to agree.

To prove our might by sticking  rigidly to our point of view solves nothing. It only perpetuates the football game mentality of winners and losers that short circuits meaningful growth and the flourishing of everyone rather than one group alone.

It's interesting in our electoral system how whoever wins an election takes the whole prize, whereas the voters who lost have no representation. In countries like Germany, there is representation according to the percentage of votes. This insures that everyone has a voice in governance - not just the majority. In our country, we've seen the results of continuous blame and unwillingness to take responsibility. It's always "the other's" fault. The winner take all approach is only expedient for the win, but not when it comes to accepting liability for unfortunate decisions. So, we inherit a system that is basically flawed, in that it supports a  black/white mentality of either/or, win/lose, and lack of willingness to adapt and reconcile.

In California, Willy Brown, who used to be the mayor of San Francisco, made a very astute observation. He said that the governor was having trouble getting his agenda passed because he didn't understand the art of political negotiation. In order to get anything done in the legislature, Brown said, one must be willing to give a little to get a little, and the governor didn't understand that basic political reality.

So, apply this to our national politicians where contentiousness and rigid views have become the nature of the new game. We all lose in this climate of unyielding self-righteousness, and we are also the ones who end up having to pay the bill at all levels for the self-importance of our elected officials.

The question if it meets everyones' standard of social equity shouldn't be at the center of such considerations. Even for just one reason alone, this aspect would make little sense. After all, it took two parties for each subprime mortgage contract - creditors (the "big shots"?) and borrowers ("common people"?). In many cases, the borrowers weren't exactly judgmental either (to put it mildly), and aren't they grown-ups? When many potential borrowers and would-be home owners went for the biggest amount at the "best" (i. e. easiest) possible conditions, it became hard for any bank to be a saint, while competitors struck the deals. For sure, it would be wrong to make decisions with such far-reaching implications as TARP with the motivation to see a huge ostracism within the financial world. The costs of such righteous indulgence could be way out of proportions.

Equity questions have to arise when governments provide help to whoever - usually based on tax money. They also have to arise in the current TARP discussion. But if the latest edition of the Economist (September 27) publishes accurate numbers, concerning the gross fiscal cost in per cent of GDP, America would fare better with TARP, than Finland, Mexico, and above all Japan and South Korea with their bail-outs from 1991 to 1997. And it is hard to imagine how anyone who considers the welfare state an accomplishment should be happily leave the crisis to itself, with the (more or less) foreseeable effects on home owners, employees, and society in general.

Yet I'm getting the impression that both the debate on the electronic media, plus the savvy Economist, leave too many questions open. I hear too little about the possible or foreseeable costs of leaving the crisis to itself. And some of the Economist's arguments in favor of TARP and against other options make me wonder. Stuff like this:

Why buying assets, rather than injecting cash directly into the banking system? This could discourage private investors, says the Economist. That may be so - I can't judge that. But the second argument against this suggestion sounds dubious: ".. banks might not volunteer to sell equity to he government before they reach death's door (...) In any event, the Treasury plan could be flexile enough to permit such capital injections."

If such stubbornness among bankers is likely, one has to wonder if things are really as serious as Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke painted them in Congress. Or, if the stakeholders in this crisis are still not ready to act in a responsible way. That doesn't speak for a long-term learning effect from the crisis. What are the costs if state intervention after every excessive spate of speculation encourages more of the same irresponsible behavior? Is inaction really more dangerous than action, in the long run?

The Economist, despite all the laudable warnings of its own against unchecked financial manoeuvring during recent years, seems shy to answer such questions now. But they still matter - even in a situation that is calling for rapid decisions.

________________________________

Economist: In favor of TARP  /  Douglas Elmendorf: Concerns about TARP.

In an attempt to revive his sagging poll numbers by exerting leadership and looking presidential, McCain attended a meeting at the White House, along with Congressional leaders from both parties. His contribution, according to those in attendance, was virtually nothing.

From Talking Points Memo:
“During the late afternoon meeting at the White House McCain sat silently at the table until nearly the end, according to a Hill source who was briefed on the meeting. At that point, I'm told, McCain vaguely brought up the proposal being pushed by the Republican Study Committee, the group of House conservatives that is bucking the GOP leadership. But McCain didn't offer any specifics and didn't necessarily advocate for the plan, according to the Hill source.

Responding to McCain, Treasury Secretary Paulson said that the RSC proposal was unworkable, my source says, at which point McCain didn't really advocate for it or state his own position. The meeting adjourned soon after, amid confusion over where negotiations could go next.”

The House Republicans, by the way, are pushing a plan which includes more deregulation and more corporate tax breaks. Great idea, let’s put out the fire by pouring gasoline on it.

But some Republicans in the House may have other plans, from  Politico:
“According to one GOP lawmaker, some House Republicans are saying privately that they’d rather “let the markets crash” than sign on to a massive bailout.”

Nice job Republicans, let’s sacrifice the economic stability of the country to try and score some political points. For some reason I have this image of Emperor Nero in my head.

Here’s my take on what happened. McCain saw that progress toward an agreement was being made without him. So he went to Washington and joined with House Republicans to create a deadlock where none existed in order to appear to be the one who brings the Republicans on board, thus showing his leadership and presidential qualities.

What Senator McCain has actually shown is that he is so desperate to become president that he is willing to risk our economic future and the possible collapse of the financial markets for his own personal gain. This is putting country first? I don’t think so.

The plan which McCain unveiled later at a White House meeting would relax regulation and temporarily get rid of certain taxes in the hope that they could bring more money into Wall Street.  Thank goodness for John McCain and his willingness to go out on a limb in favor of deregulation.  Wall Street should not have to accept this bailout with strings attached and he knows it.

Today and the Client

Insecurity monsters, they can sneak up on you at the strangest of times.  It could be something that you have done a million times before or something that is for the very first time.  It doesn't matter, they can strike you at the oddest of times and with the most assurities.

I have in the past been involved in large meetings involving millions of Rand's, have negotiated and managed projects worth millions and yet I was stumped at a simple negotiation meeting with my client.  Blew my mind.

When I woke up this morning I realised that it was only that, the insecurity monster had struck and was feeding me lie after lie. That barsteward had me in his clutches and I had been oblivious!  I decided right then and then that enough was enough, who was he to try and knock me to my knees over a stupid negotiation and proposal meeting. I mean come on!

So I meditated, I visualised it all and then I concentrated on her, how I wanted her to be around me and how I wanted her to react.  Simple, that woman was going to bow to my fair requests. The old business me was back!  Odd?

I had my agenda, I had everything planned.  I knew what I was going to say and where I wanted to direct the meeting to go. I was ready for anything she threw at me. I was ready and in the "Bring it ON sistah" mode.

She arrived naturally late which totally solidified the "Mode" I can't stand it when people I am meeting, especially clients or people working for me, are late.  It was my worst with interviews as well.  In she walked like a bull in the china shop, bouncing around off the walls speaking so fast that it was a blur. Normal behaviour by her.  I just sat there said my hello and then continued working on my laptop.  When she finally calmed down she came to sat next to me like a pussy cat looking for cream. 

So as she sat there she noticed my full agenda next to me and started to follow my lead. Before she could open her mouth I started going through everything on my agenda.  We made good progress and slowly she started to understand how a website actually works. 

I flipped it on her and used the time she had taken to do a document to quantify just how long 700+ (I counted don't ask) takes when you have to create the information, code and do everything else at the same time.  Her face was a picture and then at the end of the meeting she got up and hugged me thanking me profusely and apologising non stop.

When she hugged me it totally threw me, I had been in such a "zone", my old zone that her reaction was unexpected.  I was thankful beyond words that she now understood (lets hope it lasts) what is going on with her site and how her changing her mind every split second can lengthen delivery time.

As for the maintenance agreement I have explained to her what I will require from her and that I can do it internationally.  At first she did not fully grip the concept but she is now with the program.  Nothing is signed on the dotted line yet but we will have a follow up meeting in two weeks.  The deal is that I get to keep the laptop AND get paid a monthly retainer. 

Insecurity monsters can bring us to our knees, they can make us believe that we can't do things that we used to do or things that we are more than capable of doing.  Sometimes they are just plain barstewards that deserve slaying, not sometimes ALWAYS.

Slay them monsters before they eat you alive... I am now going to have a burial service for mine, done with them... they are no more.

Kaput Nada Kapoof may the monsters remain

Good Morning friends,

How are you today? Taking the first coffee of the morning, was reading the first newspaper on the first day of the negotiations with the opposition Evo Morales to end the conflict.

The agreement in government and the rebel governors of the East of Bolivia has opened the path to peace after weeks of violent clashes that led the country to the brink of civil war.

The government put forward the points about what you're willing to negotiate: autonomies, the oil tax revenues and return to the state authorities of the offices occupied by the opposition in several regions.

The negotiations were convened   in recent days; both sides are willing to negotiate to resolve the violent conflict in which it is engulfed Bolivia.

  “Progressing  negotiations to bring peace to Bolivia”

Best regards,

Mireya

In the face of a historic federal bailout that is intended to save a crucial sector of the financial markets, Senator John McCain has suspended his campaign for President. In doing so the Senator has taken politics out of problem solving, at least for the moment.

Some may call it a political ploy. I see it as an example of one of the driving forces behind his campaign and his service to our country. John McCain has repeatedly stated that we must serve a cause greater than ourselves and throughout his life he has done so. The temporary suspension of his campaign, in deference to one of the most drastic economic decisions in our nation’s history, is done in, fact, to again serve a greater cause .

The collapse of Wall Street financial institutions that over extended their risks has raised the need for the federal government to step in, in  order to prevent a ripple effect that could deepen the crisis. John McCain warned of this crisis over two years ago. As a sponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, McCain saw the needs to reign in unbridled overextension of risk. This bill would have headed off what is now being called a crisis. However this bill was blocked by Democrats as well as some of the Republican, good old boys, that Sarah Palin and John McCain have been known to take on before.

A check of the congressional record shows McCain giving a speech about apparent accounting fraud at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Not only that, McCain said he was "concerned" about the magnitude of the role played by these government sponsored entities in the mortgage market, when they were obviously not being regulated in a responsible manner.

Now some may argue that deregulation led to this crisis. They may claim that the ideological penchant for less regulations credited to conservative Republicans are responsible for it. You may claim that but such a claim cannot be made about John McCain who warned us of this situation and provided a bill that would have prevented it. A bill that Democrats blocked.

I contend that proper regulation was not applied to these troublesome institutions. However, overregulation would also produce negative effects. The right type of regulation in the form of moderation was required and that is what John McCain offered. I will also add that the accounting fraud McCain mentioned in the congressional record was conducted in large part by Democrats, some of the very Democrats who led groups like FannieMae and are now economic advisors to Barack Obama. People like Franklin Raines who had to go before a House subcommittee to address allegations that he and his finance team had cooked the mortgage giant's books, when Raines was the C.E.O. of the now failed Fannie Mae. In 2004.

It should also be noted that Under the Clinton administration mandates were created that forced FannieMae and FreddieMac to extend a set percentage of high risks loans to low income and minority applicants. This was a government fiat that obliged these institutions to enter even more higher risk loan extensions.

So one side can blame the other. Republicans can be blamed for too little regulation and Democrats can be blamed for attempts to create too much regulation and shady record keeping. But whichever side you want to blame you cannot blame Senator John McCain.

Despite the record that shows McCain was right, politics prevented his solutions from being applied to avoiding the crisis we are now in. Now, faced with hammering out a solution to the problem we did not avoid, John McCain has made a bold move to suspend politics and politics as usual. John McCain has stepped up to bat and he has declared his intentions to put country first.

Senator McCain has said that he would rather lose an election and win a war than win an election and lose a war. These words are now echoed by deed. They are echoed in his actions to put a cease to talking about action and actually taking action.

Whatever your opinion, John McCain has just upped the ante. The suspension of his campaign and call for his opponent to head back to Washington, D.C. with him, allows McCain to get hold of this crisis and take control of it. He has just forced Barack Obama to either show up or shut up. Either continue with your campaign of words or demonstrate leadership through action.

Both presidential candidates are incumbent senators. They can talk about what they will do as a president but what are they doing within their current capacities? John McCain has just shown us that he will live up to those responsibilities. Once again John McCain answers a call to duty.

The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Governor Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Biden say they were comfortable with either format.

Both campaigns see the four debates as pivotal moments in a presidential race that is not only extraordinarily close but also drawing intense interest from voters; roughly 40 million viewers watched the major speeches at the two parties' conventions. The upheaval in the financial markets has recast the race in recent days, moreover, which both sides believe will only heighten attention for the debates.

A commission member said that the new agreement on the vice-presidential debate was reached late Saturday morning. It calls for shorter blocks of candidate statements and open discussion than at the presidential debates.

McCain advisers said they were only somewhat concerned about Palin's debating skills compared with those of Biden, who has served six terms in the Senate, or about his chances of tripping her up. Instead, they say, they wanted Palin to have opportunities to present McCain's positions, rather than spending time talking about her experience or playing defense.

While the debates between presidential nominees are traditionally the main events in the fall election season, the public interest in Palin has proved extraordinary, and a large audience is expected for her national debate debut.

Indeed, both the McCain and Obama campaigns have similar concerns about the vice-presidential matchup in St. Louis: that Palin, of Alaska, as a new player in national politics, or Biden, of Delaware, as a loquacious and gaffe-prone speaker, could commit a momentum-changing misstep in their debate.

The negotiations for the three 90-minute debates between the men at the top of the tickets were largely free of brinksmanship. Neither side threatened to pull out, and concerns about camera angles and stagecraft were minor.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic nominee for president, and McCain did not intercede personally to settle any disputes. They agreed to one substantive change to the format originally proposed by the debate commission, giving them two minutes apiece to make a statement at the beginning of each segment on a new topic.

Obama successfully sought to flip the proposed topics for the first and third debates, so foreign policy is now coming first and economic and other domestic issues come last. There is a second debate, in the format of a town hall meeting, in which the candidates will sit on director's chairs and take questions from the audience and Internet users on any topic.

The debate commission had proposed that the first debate be on economic issues and the third on foreign policy — in part, people involved in the process said, because the first debate is usually the most watched, and many voters rank the economy as their top concern.

Obama wanted foreign policy first to show viewers that he could provide depth, strength and intelligence on those issues, his advisers said, given that McCain consistently wins higher ratings in opinion polls as a potential commander in chief.

Obama wanted domestic issues to come last; advisers said that they believed even before the start of the financial crisis that the election was most likely to turn on the state of the economy and that he wanted the final televised exchange to focus on those concerns. He has argued that McCain would continue the economic policies of President George W. Bush.

please continue reading: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/21/america/21debate.php?page=2

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A

Doing a bit more research turns up this, from the New York Post.

Both claims are supported by the Daily Telegraph.

Now... I don't like to support a lot of media sources out there.  The bias involved - on both directions - is irritating.  But when I come across something like this, with three separate sources, I've gotta start taking it seriously.  Especially when the defense - from the Obama campaign - is this.

"In fact, Senator Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a Strategic Framework Agreement governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said."

While they do follow up with a statement pointing out that Obama says that such an agreement must be reviewed by Congress, the fact remains that he wasn't advocating they insist on Congress reviewing it (BTW - unless you consider this a treaty, which it isn't, such review would be... well... unconstitutional.  It's an agreement related to the strategy to be pursued, which I would think is under the Commander in Chief's jurisdiction, not Congress'.)

What he was advocating was that they not make such an agreement until Bush is out of office.  In other words, he told the leaders of Iraq that they shouldn't deal with the current administration.

It doesn't matter what the reason is - this is despicable conduct for a presidential candidate.

Doesn't matter who does it.  The fact is that a presidential candidate shouldn't be screwing around with the operations of the current president, whether he likes him or not, unless it's in the context of another official position he already holds.  I don't hear about any other Senators bugging Iraq to not make agreements about how long our troops are there.

Maybe this is change we can believe in.  If that's the case... I don't think I want this particular change.

Do you?

Lost Knowledge

People who can't negotiate end up on the bottom.  That's because not being able to persuade is as effective as not having an opinion in the first place. People with no opinions are never members of my team that get bonuses. Following a proven negotiation strategy involves planning to more favorably control the problem solving process. This isn't just business, think of how the negotiations unfold when decieding on a restaurant and how much power the local expert has in that discussion. Marty Latz changed his life from leveraging his plans to build relationships - an awesome example of how to play nice and win.

Preparation in Action

Sports Illustrated highlighted the depth of planning involved with an issue as complicated as negotiating players. Most of us can't understand why athletes are hired for $23m to play for two years, including myself! Why not $21m?  Both sides have run the statistics gauntlets, planned out their budget, and have a very strong idea of what other teams are willing to pay for the same player.  This planning is so important to the sucess of the negotiations that it can even generate infamy from the fans. 

Gregory Schadt

Idealist Student

Today, the State Security Police came to talk with me. They said that Hu Jia can't be released into medical care on bail, and to move him to another prison is no possibility either, because he is disobedient and hasn't changed his behaviour after entering jail. To make sure that the inprisonment isn't wasted time, I should persuade and influence him.

I asked by what kind of behavior Hu Jia had violated regulations.

State Security Police said they weren't sure, and added that a prison is a dictatorship tool [not sure if that's the actual meaning in Chinese, but it apparently is - translator] and not a place where Hu Jia can  defend himself against an injustice.

I couldn't say anything. I had hoped more than anyone else that Hu Jia could soon return, and I had even hoped that after this tribulation, could look at the problems from a higher perspective and work more strategically. But I haven't even seen him, and in a pessimistic mood I thought, what can I do? Should he better not be allowed to speak out in prison? No matter if he is right or not, one can listen if he is right, and ignore where he is not - why can't that work? Is it about sending a work group, including me, into Hu Jia's brain?

I came back from outside at about 7 p.m., got off the car. It was raining from dark clouds, it was lightning and windy, but I can't tell my feelings. [not sure about meaning - translator.]

At home, I got the news about melamine toxic substances added to milk powder. Apart from milk powder, what else contains toxins? We are living under a political power that doesn't respect human rights and that doesn't cherish life, we are living in a system that can't rethink and acknowledge a mistake, we live in a society that speaks lies, therefore, the milk powder case won't be the last case. On the one hand, the educational system intoxicates children, turns them ignorant, blind, and deforms their conscience. On the other hand, our food, poisons childrens' health, weakens them and disables them. Is there still hope when carrying on like this?

http://web.archive.org/web/20020607150035/www.uwinnipeg.ca/web/faculty/admin/index.shtml

…Ah, the simple days when we had about 1/4 less students and half as many VPs. AVPs were almost unheard of and FIPPA and even Human Rights had prominence on the main Administration home page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040701230905/www.uwinnipeg.ca/web/faculty/admin/index.shtml

A new President and one more VP added.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050205231657/www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/admin-index

Another VP…are they breeding or have we discovered cloning?

http://web.archive.org/web/20051229185753/www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/admin-index

AVPs? …and many Deans, oh my! A detailed org chart and the rationale behind the reorgs that have already occurred and will continue.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060922235842/www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/admin-index

A changing of the old guard for many new names and faces. Many more actors are “acting” as this plot thickens. Did someone mention something about FIPPA missing from the page? Let’s add a Corporate Secretary & General Counsel. Well we’re at it, let’s take a snap shot of University Committees -

http://web.archive.org/web/20060714042715/www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/committees-index

and see where things go on that front

http://web.archive.org/web/20061231080438/www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/committees-index

and perhaps wonder where the real decisions are being made.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070826071221/www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/admin-index

Welcome to the present! Another Dean…More admin units represented…A couple colleges. Are we feeling a bit top heavy or have the Faculty foot soldiers done reasonably well with this [r]evolution?

So many and such dramatic changes in administration since 2002. How well does a 5 year old Collective Agreement hold up to such changes at the top? Grievances in terms of significance and number are possibly one indicator that may provide some perspective on that front, but we’ll also examine many other aspects of this [r]evolution at the top in upcoming newsletters.

by Michael Hohner