Michael Pitt - World-of-Newave.info World-of-Newave.info http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 2008-12-02T13:06:49Z Latest news and articles about Michael Pitt Copyright (c)2004-2008. All rights reserved. {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Citigroup bailout blackout: Network news programs featured no one asserting deal is bad for taxpayers On their November 24 broadcasts, all three network evening news programs included reports on the bailout of Citigroup that included interviews with supporters of the deal. The report on NBC's Nightly News, for example, featured clips from interviews with Citigroup CEO Gary Crittenden and with "[o]ne of Citi's biggest investors," Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. However, only the CBS Evening News' report included any criticism of the bailout, and that criticism came from Egan-Jones Rating Co. founding principal Sean Egan, who said that the bailout was not large enough. None of the reports featured criticism of the bailout on the grounds that it is a poor deal for taxpayers, even though several economists have strongly criticized the bailout on those grounds. Prominent economists critical of the Citigroup bailout include: Andrew Samwick, professor of economics and director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College, who wrote of the bailout in a November 24 blog post: "The technical term for this is a joke." He continued: Citigroup has plenty of assets. It has just written too many claims on those assets. Those holding those claims need to face the reality that their claims are worth less than they were promised and adjust to that reality. That means either liquidating the firm, selling off the assets to the highest bidders, or becoming the new equity holders of the firm. The FDIC can get involved as needed to manage its contingent liabilities to insured depositors. If the government is to get involved beyond that, it should be senior debt to the restructured entity, not preferred equity (i.e. junior to the most junior debt) to the existing entity. New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who wrote in a November 24 blog post: "A bailout was necessary -- but this bailout is an outrage: a lousy deal for the taxpayers, no accountability for management, and just to make things perfect, quite possibly inadequate, so that Citi will be back for more" [emphases in original]. University of California at Berkeley economics professor J. Bradford DeLong, who cited Krugman in a November 24 blog post headlined "The Citigroup Bailout: What Are They Doing," adding: "It is unclear to me why they aren't just buying common stock. As it is, they're endangering their own reputations to an extraordinary degree." Additionally, The Hill reported in a November 24 article that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "criticize[d] the deal in a statement," and quoted his assertion, "Given the scope and size of this arrangement with Citigroup and the fact it is different from the others, Treasury should be prepared to defend that taxpayers are adequately protected." Further, in a November 23 blog post, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote: If you had any doubt at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street; the utter lack of transparency behind the biggest government giveaway in history to financial executives, and their shareholders, directors, and creditors; and the intimate connections the lie between Administrations -- both Republican and Democratic -- and the heavyweights on Wall Street, your doubts should be laid to rest. [...] This is not a particularly good deal for American taxpayers, but it is a marvelous deal for Citi. In return for all the cash and guarantees they are giving away, taxpayers will get only $27 billion of preferred shares paying an 8 percent dividend. No other strings are attached. The senior executives of Citi, including those who have served at the highest levels in the US government, have done their jobs exceedingly well. The American public, including the media, have not the slightest clue what just happened. On Nightly News, CNBC anchor Erin Burnett's report included interview clips from: Crittenden, who said: "I think what we've done is increase the confidence that the company has the strength to do what it needs to in this environment." Prince Al-Waleed, who said: "We have been with Citigroup since almost two decades, and we anticipate to continue with Citigroup." Harvard University economics professor Kenneth Rogoff, who asserted: "Citicorp is on life support, basically. A lot of the financial system is basically on a respirator, and it's just being given food through a food tube in this. It's not getting it off the respirator." Rogoff later added: "I think the thing is, is that if we lose financing in the country, everything goes to stop. It's like turning off the electricity." Sandler O'Neil chief strategist Robert Albertson, who stated, "Of the two, by a large factor, the financial sector is far more important to our economy than any single industry, even one as important as autos." On the CBS Evening News, correspondent Kelly Wallace's report included clips from interviews with Egan and Jordan Goodman, author of Fast Profits in Hard Times: 10 Secret Strategies to Make You Rich in an Up or Down Economy. Egan asserted, "The $20 billion is about 10 percent of what Citicorp needs to get back to financial health. They need about 200 billion. They got 20, they need 200." Goodman said, "Citigroup is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and if it was to go under, it would bring the entire financial system down with it." In the following segment, guest anchor Harry Smith interviewed former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt, who stated, "I think the government is doing what they should do. They have to help restore public confidence." On ABC's World News, correspondent Betsy Stark's report featured clips from interviews with David Trone, a bank analyst with Fox-Pitt Kelton CCW, and with Jonathan Corpina, a trader on the New York Stock Exchange. Trone said of the bailout, "This is the route they should have gone all along," while Corpina said it was "the news that was the catalyst for the market today. Everything else just rallied with it." From the November 24 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams: BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): And now to the sudden fall of Citigroup. Just a few months ago, they were giants, considering buying Wachovia to rescue it; now they need rescuing. So the government stepped in during the night last night. And this intervention, by the way, potentially putting a whole lot of taxpayer money at risk. CNBC's Erin Burnett is with us for more on this. What an epic story. BURNETT: It certainly is an epic story, and you said it. It was so different a few months ago. And now what we've learned is Citigroup is simply too big to fail, and the government rescue, as Brian said, announced last night sparked the biggest two-day rally in the market since 1987. [begin video clip] BURNETT: Another government bailout. This time, Citigroup and investors cheered. The government announcing Citigroup will get an influx of $20 billion and a taxpayer guarantee for more than 300 billion in troubled assets. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: This is a tough situation for America. But we'll recover from it. And the first step to recovery is to safeguard our financial system. BURNETT: In return, the government gets a more than 7 percent stake in a company weighed down by failed home, auto, and credit-card loans. ROGOFF: Citicorp is on life support, basically. A lot of the financial system is basically on a respirator, and it's just being given food through a food tube in this. It's not getting it off the respirator. BURNETT: Citi shares plummeted more than 87 percent this year, 60 percent just last week. Today, with the bailout news, the stock rebounded nearly 60 percent, giving the markets a sigh of relief. CRITTENDEN: I think what we've done is increase the confidence that the company has the strength to do what it needs to in this environment. BURNETT: One of Citi's biggest investors, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed, told CNBC that the company's troubles are temporary. PRINCE AL-WALEED: We have been with Citigroup since almost two decades, and we anticipate to continue with Citigroup. BURNETT: U.S. officials didn't want to risk a Citigroup collapse. With more than 200 million customers worldwide and more than 300,000 employees, analysts say the ripple effect would have been catastrophic. ROGOFF: I think the thing is, is that if we lose financing in the country, everything goes to stop. It's like turning off the electricity. BURNETT: That's why analysts are not surprised that this government bailout came before any deal had been reached with the auto industry. ALBERTSON: Of the two, by a large factor, the financial sector is far more important to our economy than any single industry, even one as important as autos. [end video clip] BURNETT: All right, Brian, the bottom line here is, I spoke to the CFO of Citigroup today, and he said no management changes. They're not exactly sure what the restrictions will be on executive compensation or whether they need to lend more, so there's still a lot of questions. And one of the biggest questions is this: Is this going to be enough for Citigroup, and once we've done this with Citigroup, do we need to do it with all the other banks? I mean, this isn't the first money that's gone into Citigroup from the taxpayer. WILLIAMS: It's all new territory. Erin Burnett, as always, thanks. From the November 24 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: SMITH: Now, to the latest bailout of Citigroup. The government said today it will give Citi another $20 billion from the $700 billion financial bailout package. And it will guarantee as much as $306 billion in risky Citigroup loans and securities. Kelly Wallace reports it's all aimed at preventing the financial giant from collapsing. [begin video clip] WALLACE: The market posted triple-digit gains after the government rescued Citigroup from the brink. The reason for the bailout, according to many analysts: The bank is just too big to fail. Until recently, it's been the largest bank in the U.S. in terms of assets, with businesses ranging from credit cards to home mortgages to investments, operating in more than 100 countries with 200 million customer accounts worldwide. GOODMAN: Citigroup is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and if it was to go under, it would bring the entire financial system down with it. WALLACE: This is the second time the feds have come to the aid of the struggling financial giant in weeks. After first pumping 25 billion into the bank last month, the government is injecting an additional $20 billion, with strings attached. The money will come in exchange for shares that will pay 8 percent back to the taxpayer. Citigroup also agrees to place limits on executive pay and help homeowners facing foreclosure. But some analysts say the bailout doesn't go far enough and that the company will need much more from Uncle Sam. EGAN: The $20 billion is about 10 percent of what Citicorp needs to get back to financial health. They need about 200 billion. They got 20, they need 200. WALLACE: Citicorp stock shot up nearly 60 percent today to just under $6, but the stock market rally might be short-lived. Shares of other major U.S. banks like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase have lost more than 50 percent this year. President Bush signaled more bailouts may be needed. BUSH: And if need be, we're going to make these kind of decisions to safeguard our financial system in the future. WALLACE: Why rescue Citigroup and not the Big Three automakers? The Treasury secretary says the $700 billion bailout bill is for the financial sector only. Help for anyone else requires Congress to change the law. Kelly Wallace, CBS News, New York. [end video clip] SMITH: Earlier today, I spoke about the financial crisis and the government bailouts with former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt. I asked him if Citigroup's need for a second bailout means the crisis is even worse than we thought. [begin video clip] LEVITT: I think it probably is worse than we thought, but I think the government is doing what they should do. They have to help restore public confidence. SMITH: A lot of people at home are sitting watching this and they're saying, "These folks on Wall Street have been preaching economic Darwinism for decades. Why not let them fail? They made this mess, why not let them fail?" LEVITT: The implications of failure now are global. They cut across the economy at every level. We're talking about three basic pillars of the economy: finance, automobile, and housing. If all three of those tank, we have an economy absolutely in the depths of despair. Can't happen. SMITH: Barack Obama puts his economic team in place today. It's two months until he takes office. Is this audacious, or is this good management on his part? LEVITT: This is smart. I mean, we have an administration that is virtually powerless, certainly a president whom nobody listens to. What we've seen now with the new administration is we have a shadow administration in power, in place, acting in a constructive and in a cooperative way with the secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson. We cannot afford a lost two-month period where public confidence would disappear. We cannot afford that. SMITH: Arthur Levitt, thank you so much for your time this evening. LEVITT: You're quite welcome. From the November 24 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson: CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): For the second day in a row, stocks rallied on Wall Street. The Dow industrials rose nearly 400 points, fueled by news that the government had bolstered the terms of its bailout of Citigroup, whose stock soared nearly 60 percent just today. Betsy Stark is here with terms of what the government is going to do with Citigroup. STARK: Charlie, some say Citigroup, with $2 trillion in assets and 200 million customers around the world, is the very definition of too big to fail, so after marathon talks this weekend, and with Citi stock heading rapidly towards zero, the government orchestrated its latest and potentially most expensive taxpayer bailout to date. [begin video clip] STARK: Outside this Citibank in Manhattan today, some customers wondered if there is any bank where their money is now safe. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I do not think that my money is safe. I'm very, very nervous about it. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Where can you find a bank that is going to stay afloat these days? STARK: That chilling loss of confidence in the U.S. banking system was clearly on the minds of government officials as they mapped out a sweeping new plan to keep Citi afloat. The bank is getting $20 billion in cash from the government's $700 billion rescue fund on top of the $25 billion it received just a month ago. But now the government is going even farther, for the first time guaranteeing up to $306 billion in risky assets held by the bank. If the value of those assets drops, Citi is responsible for the first $37 billion of losses, and the taxpayer is on the hook for most of the rest. TRONE: This is the route they should have gone all along. The approach of giving money to the banks without, you know, carving out or guaranteeing their problem assets, you're leaving the fear factor still there. So, this new tactic is a different approach, which obviously is a response to that stock performance last week. STARK: Last week, shares of Citigroup tanked, dropping 60 percent to less than $4 a share. UNIDENTIFIED TRADER: How's U.S. Bank now? STARK: Today, news of the bailout ignited a powerful rally in financial stocks, Citi jumping 58 percent, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley all up dramatically. CORPINA: Clearly, you know, this was the news that was the catalyst for the market today. Everything else just rallied with it. STARK: And what's in it for the taxpayer? They get a $27 billion investment stake in Citigroup and the option to buy more. Plus, Citi has agreed to do more to help homeowners, to slash dividend payments to virtually nothing, and put stricter limits on executive compensation. [end video clip] STARK: Americans may be wondering if other banks will now need a government bailout. Today, President Bush said his administration will do what's necessary to safeguard the financial system. After today's bailout, those safeguards now seem to include dealing with toxic assets, an approach Secretary Paulson suggested was ineffective just a few weeks ago, Charlie. GIBSON: All right. Betsy Stark, reporting again, tonight. http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/citigroup-bailout-blackout-network-news-programs-20081126733.htm 2008-11-25T23:06:28Z 2008-11-25T23:06:28Z Mediamatters.Org http://mediamatters.org/items/200811250017 Citigroup bailout blackout: Network news programs featured no one asserting deal is bad for taxpayers {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On their November 24 broadcasts, all three network evening news programs included reports on the bailout of Citigroup that included interviews with supporters of the deal. The report on NBC's Nightly News, for example, featured clips from interviews with Citigroup CEO Gary Crittenden and with "[o]ne of Citi's biggest investors," Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. However, only the CBS Evening News' report included any criticism of the bailout, and that criticism came from Egan-Jones Rating Co. founding principal Sean Egan, who said that the bailout was not large enough. None of the reports featured criticism of the bailout on the grounds that it is a poor deal for taxpayers, even though several economists have strongly criticized the bailout on those grounds. Prominent economists critical of the Citigroup bailout include: Andrew Samwick, professor of economics and director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College, who wrote of the bailout in a November 24 blog post: "The technical term for this is a joke." He continued: Citigroup has plenty of assets. It has just written too many claims on those assets. Those holding those claims need to face the reality that their claims are worth less than they were promised and adjust to that reality. That means either liquidating the firm, selling off the assets to the highest bidders, or becoming the new equity holders of the firm. The FDIC can get involved as needed to manage its contingent liabilities to insured depositors. If the government is to get involved beyond that, it should be senior debt to the restructured entity, not preferred equity (i.e. junior to the most junior debt) to the existing entity. New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who wrote in a November 24 blog post: "A bailout was necessary -- but this bailout is an outrage: a lousy deal for the taxpayers, no accountability for management, and just to make things perfect, quite possibly inadequate, so that Citi will be back for more" [emphases in original]. University of California at Berkeley economics professor J. Bradford DeLong, who cited Krugman in a November 24 blog post headlined "The Citigroup Bailout: What Are They Doing," adding: "It is unclear to me why they aren't just buying common stock. As it is, they're endangering their own reputations to an extraordinary degree." Additionally, The Hill reported in a November 24 article that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "criticize[d] the deal in a statement," and quoted his assertion, "Given the scope and size of this arrangement with Citigroup and the fact it is different from the others, Treasury should be prepared to defend that taxpayers are adequately protected." Further, in a November 23 blog post, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote: If you had any doubt at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street; the utter lack of transparency behind the biggest government giveaway in history to financial executives, and their shareholders, directors, and creditors; and the intimate connections the lie between Administrations -- both Republican and Democratic -- and the heavyweights on Wall Street, your doubts should be laid to rest. [...] This is not a particularly good deal for American taxpayers, but it is a marvelous deal for Citi. In return for all the cash and guarantees they are giving away, taxpayers will get only $27 billion of preferred shares paying an 8 percent dividend. No other strings are attached. The senior executives of Citi, including those who have served at the highest levels in the US government, have done their jobs exceedingly well. The American public, including the media, have not the slightest clue what just happened. On Nightly News, CNBC anchor Erin Burnett's report included interview clips from: Crittenden, who said: "I think what we've done is increase the confidence that the company has the strength to do what it needs to in this environment." Prince Al-Waleed, who said: "We have been with Citigroup since almost two decades, and we anticipate to continue with Citigroup." Harvard University economics professor Kenneth Rogoff, who asserted: "Citicorp is on life support, basically. A lot of the financial system is basically on a respirator, and it's just being given food through a food tube in this. It's not getting it off the respirator." Rogoff later added: "I think the thing is, is that if we lose financing in the country, everything goes to stop. It's like turning off the electricity." Sandler O'Neil chief strategist Robert Albertson, who stated, "Of the two, by a large factor, the financial sector is far more important to our economy than any single industry, even one as important as autos." On the CBS Evening News, correspondent Kelly Wallace's report included clips from interviews with Egan and Jordan Goodman, author of Fast Profits in Hard Times: 10 Secret Strategies to Make You Rich in an Up or Down Economy. Egan asserted, "The $20 billion is about 10 percent of what Citicorp needs to get back to financial health. They need about 200 billion. They got 20, they need 200." Goodman said, "Citigroup is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and if it was to go under, it would bring the entire financial system down with it." In the following segment, guest anchor Harry Smith interviewed former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt, who stated, "I think the government is doing what they should do. They have to help restore public confidence." On ABC's World News, correspondent Betsy Stark's report featured clips from interviews with David Trone, a bank analyst with Fox-Pitt Kelton CCW, and with Jonathan Corpina, a trader on the New York Stock Exchange. Trone said of the bailout, "This is the route they should have gone all along," while Corpina said it was "the news that was the catalyst for the market today. Everything else just rallied with it." From the November 24 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams: BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): And now to the sudden fall of Citigroup. Just a few months ago, they were giants, considering buying Wachovia to rescue it; now they need rescuing. So the government stepped in during the night last night. And this intervention, by the way, potentially putting a whole lot of taxpayer money at risk. CNBC's Erin Burnett is with us for more on this. What an epic story. BURNETT: It certainly is an epic story, and you said it. It was so different a few months ago. And now what we've learned is Citigroup is simply too big to fail, and the government rescue, as Brian said, announced last night sparked the biggest two-day rally in the market since 1987. [begin video clip] BURNETT: Another government bailout. This time, Citigroup and investors cheered. The government announcing Citigroup will get an influx of $20 billion and a taxpayer guarantee for more than 300 billion in troubled assets. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: This is a tough situation for America. But we'll recover from it. And the first step to recovery is to safeguard our financial system. BURNETT: In return, the government gets a more than 7 percent stake in a company weighed down by failed home, auto, and credit-card loans. ROGOFF: Citicorp is on life support, basically. A lot of the financial system is basically on a respirator, and it's just being given food through a food tube in this. It's not getting it off the respirator. BURNETT: Citi shares plummeted more than 87 percent this year, 60 percent just last week. Today, with the bailout news, the stock rebounded nearly 60 percent, giving the markets a sigh of relief. CRITTENDEN: I think what we've done is increase the confidence that the company has the strength to do what it needs to in this environment. BURNETT: One of Citi's biggest investors, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed, told CNBC that the company's troubles are temporary. PRINCE AL-WALEED: We have been with Citigroup since almost two decades, and we anticipate to continue with Citigroup. BURNETT: U.S. officials didn't want to risk a Citigroup collapse. With more than 200 million customers worldwide and more than 300,000 employees, analysts say the ripple effect would have been catastrophic. ROGOFF: I think the thing is, is that if we lose financing in the country, everything goes to stop. It's like turning off the electricity. BURNETT: That's why analysts are not surprised that this government bailout came before any deal had been reached with the auto industry. ALBERTSON: Of the two, by a large factor, the financial sector is far more important to our economy than any single industry, even one as important as autos. [end video clip] BURNETT: All right, Brian, the bottom line here is, I spoke to the CFO of Citigroup today, and he said no management changes. They're not exactly sure what the restrictions will be on executive compensation or whether they need to lend more, so there's still a lot of questions. And one of the biggest questions is this: Is this going to be enough for Citigroup, and once we've done this with Citigroup, do we need to do it with all the other banks? I mean, this isn't the first money that's gone into Citigroup from the taxpayer. WILLIAMS: It's all new territory. Erin Burnett, as always, thanks. From the November 24 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: SMITH: Now, to the latest bailout of Citigroup. The government said today it will give Citi another $20 billion from the $700 billion financial bailout package. And it will guarantee as much as $306 billion in risky Citigroup loans and securities. Kelly Wallace reports it's all aimed at preventing the financial giant from collapsing. [begin video clip] WALLACE: The market posted triple-digit gains after the government rescued Citigroup from the brink. The reason for the bailout, according to many analysts: The bank is just too big to fail. Until recently, it's been the largest bank in the U.S. in terms of assets, with businesses ranging from credit cards to home mortgages to investments, operating in more than 100 countries with 200 million customer accounts worldwide. GOODMAN: Citigroup is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and if it was to go under, it would bring the entire financial system down with it. WALLACE: This is the second time the feds have come to the aid of the struggling financial giant in weeks. After first pumping 25 billion into the bank last month, the government is injecting an additional $20 billion, with strings attached. The money will come in exchange for shares that will pay 8 percent back to the taxpayer. Citigroup also agrees to place limits on executive pay and help homeowners facing foreclosure. But some analysts say the bailout doesn't go far enough and that the company will need much more from Uncle Sam. EGAN: The $20 billion is about 10 percent of what Citicorp needs to get back to financial health. They need about 200 billion. They got 20, they need 200. WALLACE: Citicorp stock shot up nearly 60 percent today to just under $6, but the stock market rally might be short-lived. Shares of other major U.S. banks like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase have lost more than 50 percent this year. President Bush signaled more bailouts may be needed. BUSH: And if need be, we're going to make these kind of decisions to safeguard our financial system in the future. WALLACE: Why rescue Citigroup and not the Big Three automakers? The Treasury secretary says the $700 billion bailout bill is for the financial sector only. Help for anyone else requires Congress to change the law. Kelly Wallace, CBS News, New York. [end video clip] SMITH: Earlier today, I spoke about the financial crisis and the government bailouts with former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt. I asked him if Citigroup's need for a second bailout means the crisis is even worse than we thought. [begin video clip] LEVITT: I think it probably is worse than we thought, but I think the government is doing what they should do. They have to help restore public confidence. SMITH: A lot of people at home are sitting watching this and they're saying, "These folks on Wall Street have been preaching economic Darwinism for decades. Why not let them fail? They made this mess, why not let them fail?" LEVITT: The implications of failure now are global. They cut across the economy at every level. We're talking about three basic pillars of the economy: finance, automobile, and housing. If all three of those tank, we have an economy absolutely in the depths of despair. Can't happen. SMITH: Barack Obama puts his economic team in place today. It's two months until he takes office. Is this audacious, or is this good management on his part? LEVITT: This is smart. I mean, we have an administration that is virtually powerless, certainly a president whom nobody listens to. What we've seen now with the new administration is we have a shadow administration in power, in place, acting in a constructive and in a cooperative way with the secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson. We cannot afford a lost two-month period where public confidence would disappear. We cannot afford that. SMITH: Arthur Levitt, thank you so much for your time this evening. LEVITT: You're quite welcome. From the November 24 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson: CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): For the second day in a row, stocks rallied on Wall Street. The Dow industrials rose nearly 400 points, fueled by news that the government had bolstered the terms of its bailout of Citigroup, whose stock soared nearly 60 percent just today. Betsy Stark is here with terms of what the government is going to do with Citigroup. STARK: Charlie, some say Citigroup, with $2 trillion in assets and 200 million customers around the world, is the very definition of too big to fail, so after marathon talks this weekend, and with Citi stock heading rapidly towards zero, the government orchestrated its latest and potentially most expensive taxpayer bailout to date. [begin video clip] STARK: Outside this Citibank in Manhattan today, some customers wondered if there is any bank where their money is now safe. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I do not think that my money is safe. I'm very, very nervous about it. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Where can you find a bank that is going to stay afloat these days? STARK: That chilling loss of confidence in the U.S. banking system was clearly on the minds of government officials as they mapped out a sweeping new plan to keep Citi afloat. The bank is getting $20 billion in cash from the government's $700 billion rescue fund on top of the $25 billion it received just a month ago. But now the government is going even farther, for the first time guaranteeing up to $306 billion in risky assets held by the bank. If the value of those assets drops, Citi is responsible for the first $37 billion of losses, and the taxpayer is on the hook for most of the rest. TRONE: This is the route they should have gone all along. The approach of giving money to the banks without, you know, carving out or guaranteeing their problem assets, you're leaving the fear factor still there. So, this new tactic is a different approach, which obviously is a response to that stock performance last week. STARK: Last week, shares of Citigroup tanked, dropping 60 percent to less than $4 a share. UNIDENTIFIED TRADER: How's U.S. Bank now? STARK: Today, news of the bailout ignited a powerful rally in financial stocks, Citi jumping 58 percent, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley all up dramatically. CORPINA: Clearly, you know, this was the news that was the catalyst for the market today. Everything else just rallied with it. STARK: And what's in it for the taxpayer? They get a $27 billion investment stake in Citigroup and the option to buy more. Plus, Citi has agreed to do more to help homeowners, to slash dividend payments to virtually nothing, and put stricter limits on executive compensation. [end video clip] STARK: Americans may be wondering if other banks will now need a government bailout. Today, President Bush said his administration will do what's necessary to safeguard the financial system. After today's bailout, those safeguards now seem to include dealing with toxic assets, an approach Secretary Paulson suggested was ineffective just a few weeks ago, Charlie. GIBSON: All right. Betsy Stark, reporting again, tonight.
Media Matters - Citigroup bailout blackout: Network news programs featured no one asserting deal is bad for taxpayers {...} On all three network evening news programs, reports on the bailout of Citigroup included interviews with supporters of the deal, but only the CBS Evening News included any criticism of the bailout -- and that criticism came from a source who argued that the bailout was not large enough. None of the reports featured criticism of the bailout on the grounds that it is a poor deal for taxpayers, even though several economists have made that argument. {...}
Published: November 25, 2008, 11:06 pm - Indexed: November 27, 2008, 10:46 am - Page Size: 34KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Is this the final death knell for Citigroup? Vikram Pandit, chief executive of US bank Citigroup, started last week by telling the group's staff that 52,000 of them would lose their jobs. A few days later, it looked as if he could soon be following them. The bank's share price halved in just four days and continued to slide as investors and rivals started to bet it could not survive the financial crisis, despite a chorus of protests from its executives, one of its leading investors and some high-profile analysts.As the bank's executives staged a crisis board meeting, rumours swirled around Wall Street that it was preparing to ditch its Smith Barney brokerage business, or to sell off its cards business. Or that it would need an extra $100bn (£68bn) from the government, on top of the $25bn that it already has; or that Pandit's fellow directors were calling for his head. Others said it was poised to merge with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs - or, indeed, any bank with the financial capacity to absorb it. But as Pandit appeared to rule out a Smith Barney sale and putative buyers like Britain's HSBC - one of the few global banks with the wherewithal to stage a rescue - made it clear they were not interested, the crisis intensified.'It's fear and panic at this point,' said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets in Portland, Maine. 'Investors have seen similar movies this year, and the endings are very unpleasant.'Pandit told key employees on Friday morning that they should not focus on the falling share price as that was not what concerned regulators and rating agencies. Instead, he said, they should remember that it has a solid capital position and a good business model.Unfortunately, however, the market was beginning to suspect he was wrong on both counts: and his warning of job cuts was one of the things that brought those concerns to the fore.While rivals like JP Morgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have taken advantage of the financial crisis to make government-brokered acquisitions of Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch and Wachovia respectively, Citi has missed out. These moves gave its investment banking rivals the much stronger balance sheets of deposit-taking banks. When the deals are completed, these three will be the only US banks with more than $600bn in deposits, three times that of Citi. Pandit must regret having allowed Wachovia, with which it had agreed a deal, to defect to Wells Fargo. The $400bn of deposits it would have brought would have significantly bolstered its financial strength.Instead, last week's announcement of job cuts - which will affect a fifth of the workforce and, some insiders fear, even more to come in the future - made it clear that Citi's only real option now is to shrink its business, whether by shedding staff or selling businesses. Neither is particularly palatable: a workforce which is concerned about who is going to be next out of the door is unlikely to be productive. Nor will it be easy to sell any of its businesses: apart from a lack of buyers with the cash to pay for them, the prospects for financial business profits are grim in the teeth of a global recession and a race to reduce debt by consumers and businesses alike. David Trone, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller, wrote in a note last Wednesday that, although the sale of more assets was crucial to 'fortify the capital base,' it is unclear whether Citi 'will be able to continue to find buyers'. As significant as the job cuts was the announcement two days later that Citi had completed its withdrawal from SIVs - structured investment vehicles investing mainly in sub-prime mortgages, which have proved to be some of the most toxic assets in the financial crisis - by taking £17.4bn of them from one of its subsidiaries on to its own books. That made investors worry about two things: first, that by taking on the SIVs, Citi was effectively admitting that it would be one of the biggest losers from the US Treasury's decision to abandon its TARP programme, under which it had committed to buying the worst of these toxic assets from the big US banks.And second, without that support, Citi would be forced to make yet more swingeing write-downs. It has already written off more than $70bn this year alone and is the only one of the big US banks to have made losses in four consecutive quarters - the latest was more than $2.8bn. It is a far cry from the swaggering Citigroup created by Sandy Weill, one-time chairman and chief executive of the bank. At the peak of its fortunes in 2006, its $205bn of annual revenues eclipsed those of countries like New Zealand and made it the 50th largest company in the world, with operations stretching across the globe - including one of the largest operations in Asia by a Western bank. But a series of regulatory breaches exposed the difficulties of managing such a sprawling and gung-ho investment banking empire, and led to Weill's replacement as chief executive by Chuck Prince. He proved himself as ebullient as his predecessor: when the financial markets were starting to show signs of strain in July 2007, he told the Financial Times: 'As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing.' That aggressive expansion into the teeth of the downturn was one of the factors which led to him being replaced by Pandit, but the former Morgan Stanley executive has not had an easy start. While he has been much more aggressive about writing down assets than many of our British banks, some have questioned whether he has the strength of will to rein in the global empire, or the vision to determine where its future lies.His presentation to staff was full of platitudes about the future of its business like: 'Today, our strategy is simple: To be the world's truly global universal bank.' And on its financial strength: 'Over the past 15 months, Citi has added approximately $75bn in new capital, including approximately $50bn through public and private offerings.'But the bank ended the week worth less than a third of the amount it has raised this year alone. And even a robust statement of support from one of Citigroup's biggest shareholders, the Saudi prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal - accompanied by a $350m investment in the bank's shares - failed to have any impact on its decline. Ladenburg Thalmann's Dick Bove, one of the most influential banking analysts in the US, said in a note: 'I see no reason why [Citigroup should fail]. The only reason banks fail is because their cash flows turn negative and it does not appear that this is likely at this bank. This is because the bank is able to roll over its liabilities and because its net interest income is positive.'It would take a Depression every bit as large and long as the Thirties debacle to shake this company's viability.' The trouble is, that some commentators are now starting to worry whether we could be in for something worse than a Thirties-style depression as unemployment continues to rise and America's car giants look in danger of joining the list of casualties, risking putting many more millions out of work. In that climate, no amount of reassurance from analysts or bosses is enough to stem the panic.CitigroupRecessionguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/is-this-the-final-death-knell-for-citigroup-20081153527.htm 2008-11-23T00:07:08Z 2008-11-23T00:07:08Z Guardian.Co.Uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/23/citigroup-downfall Is this the final death knell for Citigroup? {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - Vikram Pandit, chief executive of US bank Citigroup, started last week by telling the group's staff that 52,000 of them would lose their jobs. A few days later, it looked as if he could soon be following them. The bank's share price halved in just four days and continued to slide as investors and rivals started to bet it could not survive the financial crisis, despite a chorus of protests from its executives, one of its leading investors and some high-profile analysts.As the bank's executives staged a crisis board meeting, rumours swirled around Wall Street that it was preparing to ditch its Smith Barney brokerage business, or to sell off its cards business. Or that it would need an extra $100bn (£68bn) from the government, on top of the $25bn that it already has; or that Pandit's fellow directors were calling for his head. Others said it was poised to merge with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs - or, indeed, any bank with the financial capacity to absorb it. But as Pandit appeared to rule out a Smith Barney sale and putative buyers like Britain's HSBC - one of the few global banks with the wherewithal to stage a rescue - made it clear they were not interested, the crisis intensified.'It's fear and panic at this point,' said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets in Portland, Maine. 'Investors have seen similar movies this year, and the endings are very unpleasant.'Pandit told key employees on Friday morning that they should not focus on the falling share price as that was not what concerned regulators and rating agencies. Instead, he said, they should remember that it has a solid capital position and a good business model.Unfortunately, however, the market was beginning to suspect he was wrong on both counts: and his warning of job cuts was one of the things that brought those concerns to the fore.While rivals like JP Morgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have taken advantage of the financial crisis to make government-brokered acquisitions of Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch and Wachovia respectively, Citi has missed out. These moves gave its investment banking rivals the much stronger balance sheets of deposit-taking banks. When the deals are completed, these three will be the only US banks with more than $600bn in deposits, three times that of Citi. Pandit must regret having allowed Wachovia, with which it had agreed a deal, to defect to Wells Fargo. The $400bn of deposits it would have brought would have significantly bolstered its financial strength.Instead, last week's announcement of job cuts - which will affect a fifth of the workforce and, some insiders fear, even more to come in the future - made it clear that Citi's only real option now is to shrink its business, whether by shedding staff or selling businesses. Neither is particularly palatable: a workforce which is concerned about who is going to be next out of the door is unlikely to be productive. Nor will it be easy to sell any of its businesses: apart from a lack of buyers with the cash to pay for them, the prospects for financial business profits are grim in the teeth of a global recession and a race to reduce debt by consumers and businesses alike. David Trone, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller, wrote in a note last Wednesday that, although the sale of more assets was crucial to 'fortify the capital base,' it is unclear whether Citi 'will be able to continue to find buyers'. As significant as the job cuts was the announcement two days later that Citi had completed its withdrawal from SIVs - structured investment vehicles investing mainly in sub-prime mortgages, which have proved to be some of the most toxic assets in the financial crisis - by taking £17.4bn of them from one of its subsidiaries on to its own books. That made investors worry about two things: first, that by taking on the SIVs, Citi was effectively admitting that it would be one of the biggest losers from the US Treasury's decision to abandon its TARP programme, under which it had committed to buying the worst of these toxic assets from the big US banks.And second, without that support, Citi would be forced to make yet more swingeing write-downs. It has already written off more than $70bn this year alone and is the only one of the big US banks to have made losses in four consecutive quarters - the latest was more than $2.8bn. It is a far cry from the swaggering Citigroup created by Sandy Weill, one-time chairman and chief executive of the bank. At the peak of its fortunes in 2006, its $205bn of annual revenues eclipsed those of countries like New Zealand and made it the 50th largest company in the world, with operations stretching across the globe - including one of the largest operations in Asia by a Western bank. But a series of regulatory breaches exposed the difficulties of managing such a sprawling and gung-ho investment banking empire, and led to Weill's replacement as chief executive by Chuck Prince. He proved himself as ebullient as his predecessor: when the financial markets were starting to show signs of strain in July 2007, he told the Financial Times: 'As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing.' That aggressive expansion into the teeth of the downturn was one of the factors which led to him being replaced by Pandit, but the former Morgan Stanley executive has not had an easy start. While he has been much more aggressive about writing down assets than many of our British banks, some have questioned whether he has the strength of will to rein in the global empire, or the vision to determine where its future lies.His presentation to staff was full of platitudes about the future of its business like: 'Today, our strategy is simple: To be the world's truly global universal bank.' And on its financial strength: 'Over the past 15 months, Citi has added approximately $75bn in new capital, including approximately $50bn through public and private offerings.'But the bank ended the week worth less than a third of the amount it has raised this year alone. And even a robust statement of support from one of Citigroup's biggest shareholders, the Saudi prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal - accompanied by a $350m investment in the bank's shares - failed to have any impact on its decline. Ladenburg Thalmann's Dick Bove, one of the most influential banking analysts in the US, said in a note: 'I see no reason why [Citigroup should fail]. The only reason banks fail is because their cash flows turn negative and it does not appear that this is likely at this bank. This is because the bank is able to roll over its liabilities and because its net interest income is positive.'It would take a Depression every bit as large and long as the Thirties debacle to shake this company's viability.' The trouble is, that some commentators are now starting to worry whether we could be in for something worse than a Thirties-style depression as unemployment continues to rise and America's car giants look in danger of joining the list of casualties, risking putting many more millions out of work. In that climate, no amount of reassurance from analysts or bosses is enough to stem the panic.CitigroupRecessionguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Is this the final death knell for Citigroup? | Business | The Observer {...} The once-confident bank is unrecognisable as it faces 52,000 job losses and a spiralling share price. What comes next, asks Heather Connon {...}
Published: November 23, 2008, 12:07 am - Indexed: November 23, 2008, 1:38 pm - Page Size: 80KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> {SOCIAL SCIENCES > URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING} - Brad Pitt on Transportation The celeb narrates the PBS series e2, which tackles transportation in its third season. read more http://articles.world-of-newave.info/science/social-sciences/urban-and-regional-planning/brad-pitt-on-transportation-20081175926.htm 2008-11-18T18:00:00Z 2008-11-18T18:00:00Z Planetizen.Com http://www.planetizen.com/node/36100 Brad Pitt on Transportation {new window}   Www.Planetizen.Com - The celeb narrates the PBS series e2, which tackles transportation in its third season. read more
Brad Pitt on Transportation | Planetizen {...}
Published: November 18, 2008, 6:00 pm - Indexed: November 19, 2008, 8:28 am - Page Size: 21KB
Category: Science > Social Sciences > Urban and Regional Planning

]]> {NORTH AMERICA > LODGING} - Cabo San Lucas Sunset Beach (hayward / castro valley) $3500 2bd Enjoy a week Pick a weak in May-Dec Book now for this 5 Star, RCI Gold Crown resort. The Pueblo Bonito Sunset is a beachfront resort terraced into a landscaped hillside providing panoramic views of the ocean. Enjoy fabulous sunsets and a private beach with no solicitation of vendors! Ranked #3 out of 54 hotels in Cabo San Lucas by TripAdvisor’s Popularity Index and listed in the 2007 Condé Nast Traveler Gold List of the world’s best places to stay! This Presidential Suite would cost you $925.00 a night (incl. 23% tax) for one week if you were to book it as a regular guest! It measures about 2,000 sq. ft. and sleeps up to 8 adults. It has a master bedroom, guest bedroom, 2 bathrooms, full kitchen, 3 living rooms and a large terrace with view of the Pacific (watch the whales go by!). The master bedroom has a king size bed, its own living area and a spa tub in its bathroom. The guest bedroom has two queen size beds, its own living room and bathroom. There is a pull-out queen size bed in front of the satellite TV located in the main living room. Maid service and nightly turn down service occurs daily. Complimentary shuttles transport guests to four heated freeform pools (two with infinity edges located right along the beach and a Sky Pool with awe-inspiring views 500 ft. up.), spa tubs, swim-up bars/lunch spots, restaurants, and a spa. Free shuttle service and full access to 3 partner resorts within blocks of downtown shopping, restaurants and bars. The resort is located next to Bill Gates’ vacation palace as well as the beach where the movie “Troy” starring Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom was filmed. It is also the location of last season’s filming of the Bachelor! For more information visit: http://www.pueblobonitosunsetbeach.com FEATURES: • Private patios or balconies with ocean views • Feather-top beds and extensive pillow menu • 24-hour in-room dining • Nightly turn down service • In-room safes • Daily Maid Service • Non-smoking and wheelchair-access rooms • Fully Equipped Kitchen • Ceiling Fans • Air Conditioning • Purified Running Water • Satellite Television • High-speed Internet access • Three free-form pools, swim-up bar and Jacuzzi • Children's pool area • Lighted tennis courts • Full European Style Spa • Signature spa and salon treatments • State-of-the-art gym with individual plasma screen TVs • Ocean view VIP treatment rooms • Outdoor, ocean view juice bar • Daily activities schedule • Deli & convenience store • Signature boutiques • Wedding chapel • 7,000 sq. ft. of flexible meeting space • Babysitting & nanny services • Valet parking and on-site auto rental • Dry Cleaning • Doorman • On-site Parking • Free Shuttle Service to the Pueblo Bonito Rosé and Pueblo Bonito Los Cabos running daily, every hour from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. • Complete concierge service Call 510 427 2714 or email for reservations http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/travel-and-tourism/lodging/cabo-san-lucas-sunset-beach-hayward-castro-valley-20081156221.htm 2008-11-18T06:27:06Z 2008-11-18T06:27:06Z Sfbay.Craigslist.Org http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/vac/923711823.html Cabo San Lucas Sunset Beach (hayward / castro valley) $3500 2bd {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - Enjoy a week Pick a weak in May-Dec Book now for this 5 Star, RCI Gold Crown resort. The Pueblo Bonito Sunset is a beachfront resort terraced into a landscaped hillside providing panoramic views of the ocean. Enjoy fabulous sunsets and a private beach with no solicitation of vendors! Ranked #3 out of 54 hotels in Cabo San Lucas by TripAdvisor’s Popularity Index and listed in the 2007 Condé Nast Traveler Gold List of the world’s best places to stay! This Presidential Suite would cost you $925.00 a night (incl. 23% tax) for one week if you were to book it as a regular guest! It measures about 2,000 sq. ft. and sleeps up to 8 adults. It has a master bedroom, guest bedroom, 2 bathrooms, full kitchen, 3 living rooms and a large terrace with view of the Pacific (watch the whales go by!). The master bedroom has a king size bed, its own living area and a spa tub in its bathroom. The guest bedroom has two queen size beds, its own living room and bathroom. There is a pull-out queen size bed in front of the satellite TV located in the main living room. Maid service and nightly turn down service occurs daily. Complimentary shuttles transport guests to four heated freeform pools (two with infinity edges located right along the beach and a Sky Pool with awe-inspiring views 500 ft. up.), spa tubs, swim-up bars/lunch spots, restaurants, and a spa. Free shuttle service and full access to 3 partner resorts within blocks of downtown shopping, restaurants and bars. The resort is located next to Bill Gates’ vacation palace as well as the beach where the movie “Troy” starring Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom was filmed. It is also the location of last season’s filming of the Bachelor! For more information visit: http://www.pueblobonitosunsetbeach.com FEATURES: • Private patios or balconies with ocean views • Feather-top beds and extensive pillow menu • 24-hour in-room dining • Nightly turn down service • In-room safes • Daily Maid Service • Non-smoking and wheelchair-access rooms • Fully Equipped Kitchen • Ceiling Fans • Air Conditioning • Purified Running Water • Satellite Television • High-speed Internet access • Three free-form pools, swim-up bar and Jacuzzi • Children's pool area • Lighted tennis courts • Full European Style Spa • Signature spa and salon treatments • State-of-the-art gym with individual plasma screen TVs • Ocean view VIP treatment rooms • Outdoor, ocean view juice bar • Daily activities schedule • Deli & convenience store • Signature boutiques • Wedding chapel • 7,000 sq. ft. of flexible meeting space • Babysitting & nanny services • Valet parking and on-site auto rental • Dry Cleaning • Doorman • On-site Parking • Free Shuttle Service to the Pueblo Bonito Rosé and Pueblo Bonito Los Cabos running daily, every hour from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. • Complete concierge service Call 510 427 2714 or email for reservations
Cabo San Lucas Sunset Beach {...}
Published: November 18, 2008, 6:27 am - Indexed: November 18, 2008, 10:07 am - Page Size: 7KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Travel and Tourism > Lodging

]]> {ENTERTAINMENT > PUBLICATIONS AND MEDIA} - Aniston: Jolie was 'out of line' Actress Jennifer Aniston says Angelina Jolie was "inappropriate" in the way she revealed details of her romance with Brad Pitt. http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/entertainment/publications-and-media/aniston-jolie-was-out-of-line-20081169119.htm 2008-11-12T11:45:49Z 2008-11-12T11:45:49Z News.Bbc.Co.Uk http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7724123.stm Aniston: Jolie was 'out of line' {new window}   News.Bbc.Co.Uk - Actress Jennifer Aniston says Angelina Jolie was "inappropriate" in the way she revealed details of her romance with Brad Pitt.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Aniston: Jolie was 'out of line' {...} Actress Jennifer Aniston says Angelina Jolie was "inappropriate" in the way she revealed details of her romance with Brad Pitt. {...}
Published: November 12, 2008, 11:45 am - Indexed: November 14, 2008, 12:47 pm - Page Size: 46KB
Category: Arts > Entertainment > Publications and Media

]]> {EUROPE > NEWSPAPERS} - Jennifer Aniston: Angelina Jolie was really uncool over my marriage breakup Actress Jennifer Aniston has spoken for the first time about Brad Pitt's relationship with Angelina Jolie branding her rival's behaviour "really uncool". http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/newspapers/jennifer-aniston-angelina-jolie-was-really-uncool-20081126816.htm 2008-11-11T21:16:23Z 2008-11-11T21:16:23Z Telegraph.Co.Uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3442556/Jennifer-Aniston-Angelina-Jolie-was-really-uncool-over-my-marriage-break-up.html Jennifer Aniston: Angelina Jolie was really uncool over my marriage breakup {new window}   Www.Telegraph.Co.Uk - Actress Jennifer Aniston has spoken for the first time about Brad Pitt's relationship with Angelina Jolie branding her rival's behaviour "really uncool".
Jennifer Aniston: Angelina Jolie was really uncool over my marriage break-up - Telegraph {...} jennifer aniston,brad pitt,angelina jolie,vogue,uncool,affair, Celebrity news, latest celebrity news, breaking celebrity news, celebrity news uk, gossip, society, Kate Middleton, Prince Harry, Prince William, David Cameron, Helen Mirren, Fabio Capello, Sienna Miller, Hugh Grant, Celebrity news,News Topics,News {...}
Published: November 11, 2008, 9:16 pm - Indexed: November 12, 2008, 8:35 am - Page Size: 46KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media > Newspapers

]]> {NEWS > BREAKING NEWS} - A Scythe for Sore Eyes Remember the guy in high school who drove the clapped-out rat rodthat looked like hell but went like stink? Everyone made fun of his rust bucket, but only because they were jealous that he got to drive it while they could only look at it. We imagine he's the guy who would buy the Galpin Auto SportsScythe if he hit the lottery. We're sure Beau Boeckmann's crew at GAS were specifically commissioned to build a vehicle with two steering wheels, 1,005 horsepower and a face like a cicada. We can't imagine any other reason an ordinarily top-tier custom shop would create such so hideous a monster. After all, these are the folks who bring you the custom-for-custom's sake reinterpretations seen on Pimp My Ride. "With Scythe, we set out to showcase all of our unique fabrication abilities here at GAS," Boeckmann said in press release. "From the handmade composite body and voice-activated on-board computer system to the twin-supercharged 1,005 horsepower engine, this car was built to make a statement." That statement is "We turned a 2008 Mustang GT convertible into a 1994 Hot Wheelsreject." Boechmann unveiled the Scythe at a big charity event that featured more B-, C- and D-List celebs than an episode of I Love the 90's. Heck, even Mark McGrath and Scott Baio were there. We hope proceeds went to the AMC Gremlin Memorial Foundation for Terminally Unattractive Cars. Beyond not having to look at the exterior of the car, the driver of the Scythe will find pleasantries like a voice-activated Shuttle XPCcomputer that, connected to a 3-G network, provides real-time traffic, news and weather updates. Flush-mounted exterior security cameras will capture the horrified stares of passersby and the howls of crying children losing control of their bodily functions. It's really a pity that GAS decided to pour so much effort into a car that makes the Elephant Man look like Brad Pitt because it's got some amazing engineering under that ugly skin. The twin Magnuson supercharged 5.0-liter engine? Custom built by GAS. The Air Ride Technologies suspension with computer-adjustable ride height? A GAS original. With dual automatically-retracting steering wheels, the Scythe is even configurable for right- and left-hand drive should drivers want to terrify the British or use it to deliver mail. While we wouldn't turn down the chance to drive the Scythe -- 1,005 horsepower is, after all, 1,005 horsepower -- we have to say it is seriouslyugly. All that technology doesn't make up for the fact that looks like just the perfect child-terrifying cross between a Dirt Devil and an earwig. Photos courtesy Galpin Auto Sports. Sorry, guys ... http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/breaking-news/a-scythe-for-sore-eyes-20081145410.htm 2008-11-11T11:55:28Z 2008-11-11T11:55:28Z Blog.Wired.Com http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/galpin-auto-spo.html A Scythe for Sore Eyes {new window}   Blog.Wired.Com - Remember the guy in high school who drove the clapped-out rat rodthat looked like hell but went like stink? Everyone made fun of his rust bucket, but only because they were jealous that he got to drive it while they could only look at it. We imagine he's the guy who would buy the Galpin Auto SportsScythe if he hit the lottery. We're sure Beau Boeckmann's crew at GAS were specifically commissioned to build a vehicle with two steering wheels, 1,005 horsepower and a face like a cicada. We can't imagine any other reason an ordinarily top-tier custom shop would create such so hideous a monster. After all, these are the folks who bring you the custom-for-custom's sake reinterpretations seen on Pimp My Ride. "With Scythe, we set out to showcase all of our unique fabrication abilities here at GAS," Boeckmann said in press release. "From the handmade composite body and voice-activated on-board computer system to the twin-supercharged 1,005 horsepower engine, this car was built to make a statement." That statement is "We turned a 2008 Mustang GT convertible into a 1994 Hot Wheelsreject." Boechmann unveiled the Scythe at a big charity event that featured more B-, C- and D-List celebs than an episode of I Love the 90's. Heck, even Mark McGrath and Scott Baio were there. We hope proceeds went to the AMC Gremlin Memorial Foundation for Terminally Unattractive Cars. Beyond not having to look at the exterior of the car, the driver of the Scythe will find pleasantries like a voice-activated Shuttle XPCcomputer that, connected to a 3-G network, provides real-time traffic, news and weather updates. Flush-mounted exterior security cameras will capture the horrified stares of passersby and the howls of crying children losing control of their bodily functions. It's really a pity that GAS decided to pour so much effort into a car that makes the Elephant Man look like Brad Pitt because it's got some amazing engineering under that ugly skin. The twin Magnuson supercharged 5.0-liter engine? Custom built by GAS. The Air Ride Technologies suspension with computer-adjustable ride height? A GAS original. With dual automatically-retracting steering wheels, the Scythe is even configurable for right- and left-hand drive should drivers want to terrify the British or use it to deliver mail. While we wouldn't turn down the chance to drive the Scythe -- 1,005 horsepower is, after all, 1,005 horsepower -- we have to say it is seriouslyugly. All that technology doesn't make up for the fact that looks like just the perfect child-terrifying cross between a Dirt Devil and an earwig. Photos courtesy Galpin Auto Sports. Sorry, guys ...
A Scythe for Sore Eyes | Autopia from Wired.com {...} Remember the guy in high school who drove the clapped-out rat rod that looked like hell but went like stink? Everyone made fun of his rust bucket, but only because {...}
Indexed: November 11, 2008, 11:55 am - Page Size: 110KB
Category: News > Breaking News

]]> {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Ask Hadley on fringes and white suits I am a thirtysomething brunette and increasingly tempted by the idea of a fringe. Is this a good idea, or will I end up looking like Dannii Minogue?Diane Sharpe, LondonPoor Minogue. Truly, the woman is like an entire Shakespearean cast in her own super-shrunken body: the jealousy, the bitterness, a life lived in the cold shadow of a more beloved sibling. She's not a celebrity, she's a psychological experiment. To quote Mugatu from the greatest ever film about fashion, Zoolander, we must not get distracted by the beautiful celebrities (for the moment anyway). Your point is wise, both in making the Minogue comparison, and in your desire to avoid it. I admit, I do love a fringe - on hair, that is, though I shall never understand fringing on items of clothing, which merely makes you look as if you need a wax, are wearing a merkin, or have a misguided liking for cowboy fashion. It's hard to say which of these three causes the most visual offence. There are two downsides to the style, though. For one, you always look the same: put your hair up, put your hair down - you have still got a fringe. And for those of us who have had a fringe since the dawn of time, with the exception of an unwise break in our early 20s, such uniformity, although reassuring, can occasionally feel a wee bit monotonous. But monotony is nothing compared to accusations of cheap Botox.I'm sure we all remember the charming name for the similarly charming tight ponytail. Oh come on, Guardian readers, admit it. You know we're all thinking it: "Croydon facelift". Well, the fringe now has similar connotations, albeit in a more upmarket context. Many a beauty editor has recommended getting a fringe as a pain-free, credit-crunch-friendly alternative to Botox (urgent note: this is just for the forehead - presumably you still need to get the cheeks, eyes, nose and neck done, otherwise you would resemble Cousin Itt from the Addams Family). It's actually not bad, as beauty editor's suggestions go, but it does tar all of us fringers with the same brush. Are we lunatics with a phobia of wrinkles, yet too cowardly to actually do anything medical about it? Or are we mere innocent fringe fans, who were once told by a callous hairdresser that a fringe was crucial because "your face needs softening"? A very different kettle of fish, I'm sure you'll agree.Back to your question specifically, Diane. I think at this point, it's too late. La Minoguette is now the highest profile befringed thirtysomething in the land: jumping on the bandwagon at this time will make everyone think you are an improbable fan. Instead, I recommend taking inspiration from a different D Minogue look: the punk one she so impressively worked as Emma Jackson, niece of the irreplace-able Ailsa on Home and Away back in the day. With the eyeliner of Marilyn Manson, pompadour of Amy Winehouse and acting ability of Andie MacDowell, it's no surprise we are still discussing her, nearly 20 years on. I have a white suit. I recently saw a shot of Brad Pitt in a white suit, looking dashing and splendid in a brown loafer. I have, however, fallen foul of this mistake before: it is not the shoe or the outfit that I'm taken in by, but the face of the man who wears it. I am also tempted by a brown leather brogue, spiv though it might be. Please advise.David, by emailI have included David's query in full because there are so many valuable components to be Onaddressed. First, big up for the use of the fashion singular: "A loafer", "a jean", "a trouser", "a stocking" - this is the proper way to describe all normally plural garments (garment?), although the jury remains out on whether the rule should be applied to pants: "a pant". Second, you should be congratulated for your open acknowledgement of the havoc celebrities wreak by wearing clothes. They should all be forced to go naked so that no one is misguidedly taken in. Finally, the word "spiv": no fashion lesson here, just enjoyment of the word's debut on this page. Tally-ho all round. But to your question. To be honest, David, I struggled to get to your question as my eyes were caught by your opening gambit. You have a white suit? Are you planning to write The Bonfire of the Vanities? Of course, you might be David Hockney, though it seems unlikely since he has probably perfected his coordinating footwear, after working the look for half a flipping century. If you really must wear the white suit, and I'm not wholly sure I approve of this, then I would recommend the spivvy brogue. Loafers are just too Mediterranean playboy. And anyway, as you say, Brad Pitt wears them. Spiv over Pitt any day of the week, and Sundays, too.FashionBeautyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/ask-hadley-on-fringes-and-white-suits-20081130217.htm 2008-11-10T01:59:44Z 2008-11-10T01:59:44Z Guardian.Co.Uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/10/fashion-beauty Ask Hadley on fringes and white suits {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - I am a thirtysomething brunette and increasingly tempted by the idea of a fringe. Is this a good idea, or will I end up looking like Dannii Minogue?Diane Sharpe, LondonPoor Minogue. Truly, the woman is like an entire Shakespearean cast in her own super-shrunken body: the jealousy, the bitterness, a life lived in the cold shadow of a more beloved sibling. She's not a celebrity, she's a psychological experiment. To quote Mugatu from the greatest ever film about fashion, Zoolander, we must not get distracted by the beautiful celebrities (for the moment anyway). Your point is wise, both in making the Minogue comparison, and in your desire to avoid it. I admit, I do love a fringe - on hair, that is, though I shall never understand fringing on items of clothing, which merely makes you look as if you need a wax, are wearing a merkin, or have a misguided liking for cowboy fashion. It's hard to say which of these three causes the most visual offence. There are two downsides to the style, though. For one, you always look the same: put your hair up, put your hair down - you have still got a fringe. And for those of us who have had a fringe since the dawn of time, with the exception of an unwise break in our early 20s, such uniformity, although reassuring, can occasionally feel a wee bit monotonous. But monotony is nothing compared to accusations of cheap Botox.I'm sure we all remember the charming name for the similarly charming tight ponytail. Oh come on, Guardian readers, admit it. You know we're all thinking it: "Croydon facelift". Well, the fringe now has similar connotations, albeit in a more upmarket context. Many a beauty editor has recommended getting a fringe as a pain-free, credit-crunch-friendly alternative to Botox (urgent note: this is just for the forehead - presumably you still need to get the cheeks, eyes, nose and neck done, otherwise you would resemble Cousin Itt from the Addams Family). It's actually not bad, as beauty editor's suggestions go, but it does tar all of us fringers with the same brush. Are we lunatics with a phobia of wrinkles, yet too cowardly to actually do anything medical about it? Or are we mere innocent fringe fans, who were once told by a callous hairdresser that a fringe was crucial because "your face needs softening"? A very different kettle of fish, I'm sure you'll agree.Back to your question specifically, Diane. I think at this point, it's too late. La Minoguette is now the highest profile befringed thirtysomething in the land: jumping on the bandwagon at this time will make everyone think you are an improbable fan. Instead, I recommend taking inspiration from a different D Minogue look: the punk one she so impressively worked as Emma Jackson, niece of the irreplace-able Ailsa on Home and Away back in the day. With the eyeliner of Marilyn Manson, pompadour of Amy Winehouse and acting ability of Andie MacDowell, it's no surprise we are still discussing her, nearly 20 years on. I have a white suit. I recently saw a shot of Brad Pitt in a white suit, looking dashing and splendid in a brown loafer. I have, however, fallen foul of this mistake before: it is not the shoe or the outfit that I'm taken in by, but the face of the man who wears it. I am also tempted by a brown leather brogue, spiv though it might be. Please advise.David, by emailI have included David's query in full because there are so many valuable components to be Onaddressed. First, big up for the use of the fashion singular: "A loafer", "a jean", "a trouser", "a stocking" - this is the proper way to describe all normally plural garments (garment?), although the jury remains out on whether the rule should be applied to pants: "a pant". Second, you should be congratulated for your open acknowledgement of the havoc celebrities wreak by wearing clothes. They should all be forced to go naked so that no one is misguidedly taken in. Finally, the word "spiv": no fashion lesson here, just enjoyment of the word's debut on this page. Tally-ho all round. But to your question. To be honest, David, I struggled to get to your question as my eyes were caught by your opening gambit. You have a white suit? Are you planning to write The Bonfire of the Vanities? Of course, you might be David Hockney, though it seems unlikely since he has probably perfected his coordinating footwear, after working the look for half a flipping century. If you really must wear the white suit, and I'm not wholly sure I approve of this, then I would recommend the spivvy brogue. Loafers are just too Mediterranean playboy. And anyway, as you say, Brad Pitt wears them. Spiv over Pitt any day of the week, and Sundays, too.FashionBeautyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Ask Hadley on fringes and white suits | Life and style | The Guardian {...} Hadley Freeman I am tempted by the idea of a fringe, should I wear a white suit? {...}
Published: November 10, 2008, 1:59 am - Indexed: November 10, 2008, 1:04 pm - Page Size: 76KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> {NEWS > BREAKING NEWS} - New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward stirs and rebuilds Three years after Katrina obliterated the community, a coterie of volunteers, including actor Brad Pitt, begins to repopulate these modest streets. http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/breaking-news/new-orleans-lower-ninth-ward-stirs-and-rebuilds-2008116747.htm 2008-11-05T06:00:00Z 2008-11-05T06:00:00Z Csmonitor.Com http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1105/p01s07-usgn.html New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward stirs and rebuilds {new window}   Www.Csmonitor.Com - Three years after Katrina obliterated the community, a coterie of volunteers, including actor Brad Pitt, begins to repopulate these modest streets.
New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward stirs and rebuilds | csmonitor.com {...}
Published: November 5, 2008, 6:00 am - Indexed: November 5, 2008, 10:17 am - Page Size: 76KB
Category: News > Breaking News

]]> {NORTH AMERICA > RENTALS} - VERY NICE IN-LAW UNIT 1BEDROOM 1 BATH LOTS OF NATURAL LIGHT (san mateo) $1350 We have an in-law unit in our home in San Mateo. It's close to the mall, train, bus. The unit is on the second floor. The door in to the unit is off it's own private deck. This is a very quite and safe area. It has off street parking. The kitchen has stainless appliances, granite counter tops. One bath, The unit has lot's of natural light. We feel that this unit is better suited for a single person The rent includes: PG&E,garbage, cable tv, internet. If your interested call, 650-787-5191. Thanks for taking the time to read our add.Pitt Reese http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/very-nice-in-law-unit-1bedroom-1-bath-lots-of-natural-2008116261.htm 2008-11-01T07:27:01Z 2008-11-01T07:27:01Z Sfbay.Craigslist.Org http://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/apa/901409453.html VERY NICE IN-LAW UNIT 1BEDROOM 1 BATH LOTS OF NATURAL LIGHT (san mateo) $1350 {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - We have an in-law unit in our home in San Mateo. It's close to the mall, train, bus. The unit is on the second floor. The door in to the unit is off it's own private deck. This is a very quite and safe area. It has off street parking. The kitchen has stainless appliances, granite counter tops. One bath, The unit has lot's of natural light. We feel that this unit is better suited for a single person The rent includes: PG&E,garbage, cable tv, internet. If your interested call, 650-787-5191. Thanks for taking the time to read our add.Pitt Reese
VERY NICE IN-LAW UNIT 1BEDROOM 1 BATH LOTS OF NATURAL LIGHT {...}
Published: November 1, 2008, 7:27 am - Indexed: November 1, 2008, 9:48 am - Page Size: 5KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals

]]>