The same kind of unmanned spy drone used to track militants in the badlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan is finding a growing number of uses in the US. Predator drones, already used to patrol America’s borders with Mexico and Canada, are being used to fight fires, survey flood damage, and…
Continue reading …U.S. News and World Report released its annual list of America’s Best Colleges today and the news is, well, not exactly surprising. Like most every year, the Ivies are at the head of the pack, holding all four of the top spots, closely followed by the four other Ivy League schools, which all place in
Continue reading …The outrage concerning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's disgusting comments on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 came from all quarters of the political arena Monday. Never one to mince words, Fox News's Greg Gutfeld on “The Five” said what many Americans were feeling about this liberal sociopath , “Go to hell, Paul Krugman, you bearded, bitter buffoon” (video follows with transcript and commentary): GREG GUTFELD, HOST: Welcome back to THE FIVE. So, on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, “New York Times” columnist Paul Krugman delivered the odious piece of dribble ever on the attack — well, at least since the last time he wrote about it. The headline is, quote, “The Years of Shame,” end quote. And no, it's not directed at radical Islam. Instead, he targets America and the, quote, “fake heroes.” Krugman claims that the atrocity has been hijacked. The sick word given that he's not actually talking about the real hijackers who killed some 3,000 Americans. No, he's referring to people like George Bush and Rudy Giuliani who he thinks capitalized on the horrible crimes. But the worst part, at the end of this column, the creep writes, “I'm not going to allow comments on the post for obvious reasons.” That obvious reason, he's a coward. I mean, why else would you ban responses? He's like a 10-year-old boy crank-calling all of us only to hang up even before he hears a response, hearing his shame for his own wickedness. Now, I watch the memorial services and I feel sorrow for the families whose grief never really ends. But since I'm lousy at emotional reflection I usually avoid it. But at least I can summarize what many feel today in nine words: go to hell, Paul Krugman, you bearded, bitter buffoon. Hey, Dana, there is something wrong with him. Can we pretty much agree? DANA PERINO: Yes, week after week, it gets a little bit more crazy. I mean, when he did that thing about like for the stimulus bill, we should to have the alien invasion, if you all remember that. Perino was referring to a story first reported by NewsBusters last month wherein Krugman,
Continue reading …NEW YORK — Bank of America will cut about 30,000 jobs over the next few years in a bid to save $5 billion per year. The cost-cutting drive is part of a broader effort to reshape and shrink the nation’s largest bank as it copes with fallout from the housing bust. The bank announced the job cuts in a statement shortly after Brian Moynihan, the bank’s CEO, disclosed the cost-saving goals in an address to investors in New York. “We’re a much simpler company than we were 24 months ago,” Moynihan said. Bank of America stock was up 2 cents at $7 at midday. The stock has lost half its value this year, largely over problems related to poorly-written mortgages it acquired with its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp. The bank faces lawsuits from investors and regulators over the sales of mortgage-backed securities that lost value after the housing boom collapsed. The job cuts follow a revamp of the bank’s top management team last week. Two senior executives, wealth management head Sallie Krawcheck and head of consumer banking Joe Price, left the bank. The bank also elevated commercial banking chief David Darnell and investment banking head Tom Montag to co-chief operating officers, reporting to Moynihan. The latest job cuts will lead to a 10 percent reduction in the bank’s work force of 288,000. The cuts come on top of 6,000 positions the bank has already eliminated through the third quarter of this year. The Charlotte, N.C. company said it expects many of the cuts to come through attrition and eliminating unfilled positions. The bank says the number of job cuts isn’t fixed, but that it expects they will total 30,000. It hopes to save $5 billion in annual costs through 2014 under a cost-cutting plan dubbed internally as “Project New BAC.”
Continue reading …Bank of America has made it official: They plan to lay off 30,000 employees to bolster their bottom line and keep stock prices high. Via Wall Street Journal : We knew the Bank of America ax was going to fall, but we didn’t quite know the number. Today — after BofA CEO Brian Moynihan made no direct mention of job cuts during an investor presentation — the bank said it will cut about 30,000 jobs over the next few years. The job cuts are part of the first phase of a sweeping Bank of America efficiency drive. BofA said in a statement that attrition and leaving vacant jobs unfilled with be a “significant part” of the expected headcount cuts. That’s a whole lot of attrition. As Laura Clawson over at Daily Kos points out: Dealbook offers some insight into the lack of detail about 30,000 jobs and the emphasis on stock prices: Bank of America just isn’t talking about it. When the bank’s CEO described cost-cutting measures, he didn’t even mention job cuts; that came later, in a statement that offered no specifics. Because to the big banks, jobs just aren’t important. And financial reporters overwhelmingly go along with that. While I agree with that analysis, there’s something else people aren’t talking about here that jumped out at me from this Reuter’s article: The Moynihan speech “was pretty underwhelming. They need to address the bigger issues the bank faces ,” said Jason Ware, equity analyst at Salt Lake City-based Albion Financial Group. Ware is exactly right. The whole “job cuts and attrition” thing is BofA’s way of putting employees on the firing line for continuing mismanagement of their mortgage division. Reuter’s again : Yet it also has one big, fat albatross on its balance sheets: Countrywide Financial. Bank of America acquired Countrywide for $4 billion, a deal that has proven a huge headache not just in dollars and cents, but in terms of the bank’s reputation. “Basically all the mortgages that Countrywide produced from 2004 to 2007 were excrement,” Geracioti says. “The question is: What are Bank of America’s liabilities from Countrywide? Some say $100 billion, others say, ‘Who knows?’ The liabilities could be ginormous. The government is hassling the bank in a big way.” Bank of America has long held that Countrywide’s problems were it own doing. But on September 2, the Federal Housing Finance Agency sued 17 firms – including Bank of America and Countrywide – for violations of federal securities laws in the sale of mortgage-backed securities. In an 88-page filing, the FHFA alleges that around 2005, top executives of Countrywide – which it labels as a “notorious mortgage lender” for its practice – “complained to each other at the time that BOA’s appetite for risky products was greater than that of Countywide.” You just have to love how these executives blame the government “hassling” Bank of America for their woes. Never mind that it’s totally justifiable in light of how desperately they needed to be bailed out when it all came to light. Bank of America has a systemic problem that it’s desperately trying to cover up: It holds billions in toxic mortgages. Those mortgages are probably legally invalid due to the sloppy paperwork/signature issues on many of them, and represent a large chunk of the mortgage scam that landed us in this mess to begin with. The only good thing to come out of this news is the shiny-bright message that corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs. BofA paid no corporate income taxes in 2009 or 2010, they received a tax refund of nearly $1 billion in 2010. See how that works? No taxes and a big tax refund equals 30,000 lost jobs. Where is the money going? Well, let’s see. In 2011 alone, $1,570,000 has been paid to lobbyists . How many jobs would that money have saved or created? They paid big cash bonuses to executives, too — $900,000 in all, though they did manage to tie payment to stock prices, which have plummeted this year. In 2010, they spread around $1.3 million in campaign contributions, and those are just the ones we know about. How many jobs might that cash have preserved? It’s really difficult for me to weep big tears over BofA’s mortgage troubles, when they were of their own making and when they drove the engine that drove the crisis . If they’re looking to cut costs, they ought to start by dropping executive pay to zero and resolving not to spend even one thin dime lobbying Congress or contributing to candidates. It would be a good start.
Continue reading …Remember Krystal Ball? She was last year’s wackily-named congressional candidate who became well-known only after finding herself in the center of a sexy photo scandal . She lost the election by 29 percentage points, but also found a new career—as a professional pundit, the Washington Post reports. Ball, who started…
Continue reading …Paul Krugman drew conservative outrage on Sunday when he wrote that the anniversary of 9/11 had become a marker of “shame” for the U.S. (Scroll down for Krugman’s new post on the subject.) The New York Times columnist wrote a blog post called “The Years of Shame,” in which he said that “what happened after 9/11″ was “deeply shameful.” Krugman castigated people like Rudy Giuliani and President Bush as “fake heroes” who exploited the attacks for their own personal, political or military gain. He also said that many in the media had “[lent] their support to the hijacking of the atrocity.” Krugman concluded, “the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And, in its heart, the nation knows it.” He said he had turned off the comments on the post “for obvious reasons.” Conservative commentators quickly seized on Krugman’s post. Blogger Michelle Malkin called him a “smug coward.” Writer Glenn Reynolds called the post “an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man.” A writer at the Big Journalism site called Krugman “vile.” And former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that he was cancelling his subscription to the Times. However, some progressives defended Krugman. Blogger Glenn Greenwald vociferously backed the post on Twitter. “Michael Moore & The Dixie Chicks were just as right back then as Krugman is today – but today the taboos (& their enforcers) are much weaker,” he wrote. And, on Crooks & Liars, Nicole Belle said that Krugman was simply telling the truth. “That day was the impetus for us to attack and invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks and posed no threat to us,” she wrote. “To date, we’ve lost 4,752 allied service members in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. How is this not a black mark of shame on the legacy of 9/11?” UPDATE: Paul Krugman responded to his critics on Monday, writing another blog post about the 9/11 anniversary. He did not apologize for anything he wrote. Rather, he said that “the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America” and that “I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.” Krugman did say that “the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared.” But he insisted that “the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it’s a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.” Read the full post here.
Continue reading …