lily pads
the frog uses only one
at a time
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Monday, April 26, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Haiku 112909*
a mink stole
a lambskin jacket
thanksgiving guests
_______________
*For One Single Impression, Prompt 92: Migration (From one habitat to another, from one state of being to another...)
a mink stole
a lambskin jacket
thanksgiving guests
_______________
*For One Single Impression, Prompt 92: Migration (From one habitat to another, from one state of being to another...)
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Haiku 071409
baseball fans
cracking sunflower seeds --
gray squirrels
***************
Recently, we read the following:
Washington Post: “AIG Is Preparing to Pay Millions More in Bonuses” by Brady Dennis and David Cho
“American International Group is preparing to pay millions of dollars more in bonuses to several dozen top corporate executives after an earlier round of payments four months ago set off a national furor.
“The company has been pressing the federal government to bless the payments in hopes of shielding itself from renewed public outrage….
“AIG doesn't actually need the permission of Kenneth R. Feinberg, who President Obama appointed last month to oversee the compensation of top executives at seven firms that have received large federal bailouts. But officials at the troubled insurance giant, whose federal rescue package stands at $180 billion, have been reluctant to move forward without political cover from the government….
“AIG's proxy statement filed last month explains why AIG initially instituted the retention payments. The company stated that after the federal bailout began in September, ‘we needed to confront the fact that many of our employees, perhaps the majority, knew that they long-term future with us was limited, and our competitors knew that our key producers could perhaps be lured away ... Allowing departures to erode the strength of our businesses would have damaged our ability to repay taxpayers for their assistance…’
“The recent discussions between the company and Feinberg illustrate how politically sensitive the bonuses have become, both for AIG and for the Obama administration. No development in the government's bailout of financial firms has angered lawmakers and ordinary Americans more than the disclosure in mid-March that the global insurer was paying more than $165 million in retention bonuses. Those were aimed at retaining 400 employees at AIG Financial Products, the troubled unit whose complex derivative contracts nearly wrecked the global insurance giant….”
***************
And we thought:
… How can AIG strengthen its ability to repay taxpayers by retaining the very same people who wrecked AIG? In fact why weren’t they fired in the first place? How can you bring down your company and still be offered more money to stay?
This retention deal smells. Why are AIG officers and employees being allowed to snack on their bailout seed funds? Makes one wonder if the so-called retention bonuses are really hush money. Are the bonuses supposed to keep people from spilling the beans on a bigger scandal?
Are there silent players -- "insiders" -- being protected who made a bunch of money on the "complex derivative contracts"? Maybe top AIG executives and officials of the past administration?
Coffee shop talk....
baseball fans
cracking sunflower seeds --
gray squirrels
***************
Recently, we read the following:
Washington Post: “AIG Is Preparing to Pay Millions More in Bonuses” by Brady Dennis and David Cho
“American International Group is preparing to pay millions of dollars more in bonuses to several dozen top corporate executives after an earlier round of payments four months ago set off a national furor.
“The company has been pressing the federal government to bless the payments in hopes of shielding itself from renewed public outrage….
“AIG doesn't actually need the permission of Kenneth R. Feinberg, who President Obama appointed last month to oversee the compensation of top executives at seven firms that have received large federal bailouts. But officials at the troubled insurance giant, whose federal rescue package stands at $180 billion, have been reluctant to move forward without political cover from the government….
“AIG's proxy statement filed last month explains why AIG initially instituted the retention payments. The company stated that after the federal bailout began in September, ‘we needed to confront the fact that many of our employees, perhaps the majority, knew that they long-term future with us was limited, and our competitors knew that our key producers could perhaps be lured away ... Allowing departures to erode the strength of our businesses would have damaged our ability to repay taxpayers for their assistance…’
“The recent discussions between the company and Feinberg illustrate how politically sensitive the bonuses have become, both for AIG and for the Obama administration. No development in the government's bailout of financial firms has angered lawmakers and ordinary Americans more than the disclosure in mid-March that the global insurer was paying more than $165 million in retention bonuses. Those were aimed at retaining 400 employees at AIG Financial Products, the troubled unit whose complex derivative contracts nearly wrecked the global insurance giant….”
***************
And we thought:
… How can AIG strengthen its ability to repay taxpayers by retaining the very same people who wrecked AIG? In fact why weren’t they fired in the first place? How can you bring down your company and still be offered more money to stay?
This retention deal smells. Why are AIG officers and employees being allowed to snack on their bailout seed funds? Makes one wonder if the so-called retention bonuses are really hush money. Are the bonuses supposed to keep people from spilling the beans on a bigger scandal?
Are there silent players -- "insiders" -- being protected who made a bunch of money on the "complex derivative contracts"? Maybe top AIG executives and officials of the past administration?
Coffee shop talk....
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Haiku 042309
morning rain --
rabbit digging up
tulip bed
***************
Recently, we read the following:
Washington Post: “Defense Chief Gates Says He Backed Releasing CIA Memos” (by Ann Scott Tyson)
“Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates indicated Thursday that he supported the release of sensitive memos on detainee interrogation methods last week because he viewed their ultimate disclosure as inevitable. Gates, a former CIA director, said his foremost concern was that CIA officers who had used the interrogation techniques should be protected from prosecution.
“Another concern, Gates said, was the possibility that the Obama administration's release of the memos would cause a "backlash in the Middle East" that could adversely affect U.S. forces operating there. In discussions, he said, senior administration officials realized the disclosure could be "used by al-Qaeda" to generate opposition against the United States....
" ‘All of us wrestled with it,’ he said when asked whether he personally supported the release of the memos. But he added that his own view was shaped by his belief that the methods would ultimately become known....”
***************
And we thought:
….This article reports that Mr. Gates’ support of the memos’ release “was shaped by his belief that the methods would ultimately become known.” If that was the extent of the Defense head’s concern, maybe the President needs to have a serious one-on-one with him.
We thought the administration disclosed the “torture” memos not simply because their disclosure was inevitable. We thought they were disclosed because the administration found the subject and the results of the memos – the justification of torture, the order to use torture, and the actual use of torture – to be essentially immoral and reprehensible, and that the administration wanted to clearly dissociate itself from the Bush-Cheney regime on this matter. We thought that, ultimately, the primary concern was that the Obama administration wanted the country to regain its “moral bearings”….
morning rain --
rabbit digging up
tulip bed
***************
Recently, we read the following:
Washington Post: “Defense Chief Gates Says He Backed Releasing CIA Memos” (by Ann Scott Tyson)
“Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates indicated Thursday that he supported the release of sensitive memos on detainee interrogation methods last week because he viewed their ultimate disclosure as inevitable. Gates, a former CIA director, said his foremost concern was that CIA officers who had used the interrogation techniques should be protected from prosecution.
“Another concern, Gates said, was the possibility that the Obama administration's release of the memos would cause a "backlash in the Middle East" that could adversely affect U.S. forces operating there. In discussions, he said, senior administration officials realized the disclosure could be "used by al-Qaeda" to generate opposition against the United States....
" ‘All of us wrestled with it,’ he said when asked whether he personally supported the release of the memos. But he added that his own view was shaped by his belief that the methods would ultimately become known....”
***************
And we thought:
….This article reports that Mr. Gates’ support of the memos’ release “was shaped by his belief that the methods would ultimately become known.” If that was the extent of the Defense head’s concern, maybe the President needs to have a serious one-on-one with him.
We thought the administration disclosed the “torture” memos not simply because their disclosure was inevitable. We thought they were disclosed because the administration found the subject and the results of the memos – the justification of torture, the order to use torture, and the actual use of torture – to be essentially immoral and reprehensible, and that the administration wanted to clearly dissociate itself from the Bush-Cheney regime on this matter. We thought that, ultimately, the primary concern was that the Obama administration wanted the country to regain its “moral bearings”….
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Haiku 040709
autumn leaves
the young rabbit nudges
her lifeless mom
***************
Recently, we read the following:
Philippine Daily Inquirer: "New York group hits Davao City vigilante killings"
"An international human rights group has expressed alarm at the reported resurgence of vigilante-style killings by a so-called death squad in Davao City. “What is worrying about the Philippines is that the trend [of killings] is upwards… Over the course of a decade, it is accelerating,” Executive Director Kenneth Roth of the New York-based Human Rights Watch said Monday. Roth also said, ” The Philippine people should understand that it is not in their long term interest to countenance this kind of extrajudicial violence....”
***************
And we thought:
.... In past years, the "favorite" targets of vigilantes were reportedly political activists and journalists. Now, those being killed are supposedly common criminals. One might dismiss the current killings as justified - "they were really bad guys anyway." The issue, however, is the rule of law: Are people willing to take the risk of a complete breakdown? Who decides who's a "proper" target of extra-judicial police actions? Who are they even accountable to?
The sad thing about this is Davao City, in itself, is a beautiful city. It deserves better press. Among Philippine cities, it is one that's truly worthy of a continuous influx of local and international tourists, considering the attractions it offers -- an international airport, fine hotels and restaurants, interesting places to see, a great variety of fresh seafood and local fruits....
autumn leaves
the young rabbit nudges
her lifeless mom
***************
Recently, we read the following:
Philippine Daily Inquirer: "New York group hits Davao City vigilante killings"
"An international human rights group has expressed alarm at the reported resurgence of vigilante-style killings by a so-called death squad in Davao City. “What is worrying about the Philippines is that the trend [of killings] is upwards… Over the course of a decade, it is accelerating,” Executive Director Kenneth Roth of the New York-based Human Rights Watch said Monday. Roth also said, ” The Philippine people should understand that it is not in their long term interest to countenance this kind of extrajudicial violence....”
***************
And we thought:
.... In past years, the "favorite" targets of vigilantes were reportedly political activists and journalists. Now, those being killed are supposedly common criminals. One might dismiss the current killings as justified - "they were really bad guys anyway." The issue, however, is the rule of law: Are people willing to take the risk of a complete breakdown? Who decides who's a "proper" target of extra-judicial police actions? Who are they even accountable to?
The sad thing about this is Davao City, in itself, is a beautiful city. It deserves better press. Among Philippine cities, it is one that's truly worthy of a continuous influx of local and international tourists, considering the attractions it offers -- an international airport, fine hotels and restaurants, interesting places to see, a great variety of fresh seafood and local fruits....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)