HawthorneVillager.com

Granted, "fun" probably isn't the word that leapt to mind for most 15th-century Italians when it came to the Borgias, a ruthless, powerful family who did much and were accused of much more. But seen from a safe distance, captured by a sterling cast led in marvelous high style by Jeremy Irons, and presented with all the brio, flair and sumptuous design TV can muster, the infamous family is almost addictively entertaining.

MORE: No need to add drama to the Borgias
We meet them as Irons' Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia is about to become Pope Alexander VI, much to the delight of his mistress (Joanne Whalley) and their four children: Cesare (Francois Arnaud), Lucrezia (Holliday Grainger), Juan (David Oakes) and Joffre (Aidan Alexander). And yes, a pope having children today would be considered a drawback.

The new pope has determined enemies, led by Colm Feore's Cardinal Della Rovere, and he's just as determined to defeat them. (Warned that there are plots against him, Irons drolly and deliciously replies, "Oh, what would Rome be without a good plot?") Dad insists he draws the line at murder; his children may not be as scrupulous.

About the show
The Borgias
Showtime, Sunday, 9 ET/PT
* * * 1/2 out of four
Written and produced by The Crying Game's Neil Jordan, The Borgias takes at face value most every accusation ever leveled at the family (many of which were spread after their deaths by their enemies), while adding a few sins of its own. Still, if it plays a bit fast and loose with facts, it's nowhere near as outrageous as its Showtime cousin The Tudors, whose ever-young, ever-fit Henry VIII was an affront to history and to common sense. Irons may not look anything like the real Pope Alexander, but he makes you believe in him — and for The Borgias' purposes, that's what matters.

As those Renaissance Italians could have warned you about those Borgias, pity the show that gets in their way.

Olskool. Docile is putting it lightly. How about braindead

World Finance Chiefs Chastise US on Budget Gap
Reuters | April 16, 2011 | 05:07 PM EDT
World finance leaders Saturday chastised the United States for not doing enough to shrink its massive overspending and warned that budget strainsin rich nations threaten the global recovery.

Finance ministers in Washington for semi-annual talks took sharper aim than in previous years at the United States' $14 trillion debt.

While most of the criticism came from emerging market economies, some advanced nations joined the chorus.

Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager warned that if the United States and other advanced nations move too slowly it could undermine confidence in the global economy.

"Insufficient budgetary consolidation may spark off further escalation of debt sustainability issues, with repercussions on confidence and the still fragile financial sector," de Jager told the International Monetary Fund's steering committee."Debt dynamics in other advanced economies, including the United States, are of concern."

The IMF this week said the U.S. budget deficit was on course to hit 10.8 percent of nation's economic output this year, tying with Ireland for the highest deficit-to-GDP ratio among advanced economies. It urged Washington to move quickly to put a credible plan in place to tighten its belt.

Brazil's finance minister, Guido Mantega, offered sharp words in a thinly veiled attack on the United States. "Ironically, some of the countries that are responsible for the deepest crisis since the Great Depression, and have yet to solve their own problems, are eager to prescribe codes of conduct to the rest of the world," he said.

The Group of 20 countries agreed on Friday to a plan that could put more pressure on the United States to fix its deficits as well as push other leading economies to addresstheir own shortcomings.

The IMF's advisory panel on Saturday said issues of financial stability and sovereign debt stability must be addressed, saying in a communique that "credible actions are needed to accelerate progress." It emphasized the need for fiscal consolidation in advanced economies while avoiding overheating in emerging economies.

The Obama administration and the U.S. Congress are locked in battle over how best to fix the deficit. Republicans are pushing for deep spending cuts as part of the argument over raising the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit, something which is needed to avoid an unprecedented U.S. debt default.

The Republican-led House on Friday approved a plan to slash spending by nearly $6 trillion over a decade and cut benefits for the elderly and poor.

President Barack Obama, who has offered a competing vision to curb deficits by $4 trillion over 12 years, said Thursday the Republican plan would create "a nation of potholes." The White House is wary about cutting spending sharply while the economic recovery remains fragile.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told fellow finance ministers on Saturday caution was needed. "We are committed to fiscal reforms that will restrain spending and reduce deficits while not threatening the economic recovery," he said.

Geithner was quick to say others whose policies contribute to global imbalances must change too, "especially those whose fundamentals call for greater exchange rate flexibility..."

The United States has repeatedly called for China to relax its limits on the yuan currency.

Yi Gang, a deputy governor of China's central bank, called for "more rigorous" efforts by advanced economies to tighten budgets and said the IMF needs to strengthen its monitoring of these rich nations.

Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, taking aim at the U.S. Federal Reserve, said central banks that buy government debt to keep interest rates low were abetting fiscal profligacy.

The Fed is on course to complete the purchase of $600 billion in U.S. government debt by the end of June, which would take its total purchases of mortgage-related and government debt since December 2008 to nearly $2.3 trillion.

Echoing Republican lawmakers and even some Fed officials, Kudrin said those purchases blurred the line between monetary and fiscal policy in a way that could jeopardize a centralbank's independence.

"We observe this process with some wonderment, since it amounts to the monetization of those countries' budget deficits," Kudrin said.

This thread will always be present and shed light on the garbage going on south of the border.

W

NEW YORK — Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on Wednesday ramped up his warnings to the United States about the U.S. failure to tackle its deficit, telling New York’s business elite the fate of the world’s economic recovery rides on what Washington lawmakers decide.
House of cards is crumbling right before you very eyes. Stock market crash is imminent. This crash will be beginning of the end. The debt load remains but shifted. The banks are illliquid. With too much debt. This next leg down should in my opinion be the end game. With banks failing and finally paying the price. Sooner or later it will happen. The rich have been in capital preservation mode for the last 3-4 yrs. As soon as the whitshle blows. Watch out.


As america goes. So goes greece

Building on a warning Flaherty delivered in May when he gave the same message directly to Republican lawmakers in Washington, Flaherty insisted there is “no time to waste” if financial markets are to retain confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs.

“What’s required is a solid plan to eliminate deficits, reduce debt and create a cushion against the next global economic shock, combined with the determination to deliver results on time and as promised,” Flaherty said in a speech delivered during a luncheon at the New York Yacht Club.

“It’s a tall order, but it’s doable,” he said.

Flaherty’s warning echoes that of U.S. federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who warned the U.S. Congress Tuesday it must act “in a timely manner” to reduce the federal budget deficit.

U.S. debate is currently raging over whether to lift the “debt ceiling — or borrowing level — from its current US$14.3-trillion threshold

BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY OPPORTUNITY IS TO BUY BUY BUY

BYE BYE BILLY BOB!!!!

USA IS THE BEST PLACE TO GO BUY BUY, BUY BUY AND BUY.

IN GREEC YOU CAN BUY BUY BUY TOOOOO!!

HOW ABOUT OLIVES THATS A GOOD BUY BUY BUY

BYE BYE BILLY BOB! BYE BYE AND BUY BUY BUY

Brightway

Go for it

http://www.financialpost.com/m/news/the ... story.html

By:  John Browne
Friday, June 17, 2011
Most people, provided they have a minimum of experience, know that taking a bone from a dog is a risky proposition. In terms of political power, few dogs are bigger than the American voting public. Taking away, or even threatening to take away, the major entitlements to which they have become accustomed could expose politicians to a mauling at election time. As the American leadership begins to grapple with very large issues of entitlement reform in "sacred" programs such as Medicare and Social Security, many may recoil from the task once the fangs begin flashing.

According to polls, 77% of Americans feel the U.S. Government must cut spending. But when it comes to specifics, the support melts away very fast. Until recently, the strongly Republican 26th District of upstate New York had elected only three Democrats since the Civil War. But in a special election held this month (to replace the resigned Republican Chris Lee) the district fell to the Democratic column for the fourth time in 150 years. Many have theorized that the political upset was based on fears that the budget plan put forward by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would restrict entitlements, particularly Medicare.

If there is any truth to this, it shows how difficult the process may be for politicians who want to seriously trim the Federal budget. But any glance at the enormity of the problem should provide the necessary courage. This assumes, of course, that there is any courage at all left in Washington. 

Currently the U.S. Treasury has public debts of some $14.3 trillion and is pleading, and in fact coercing, Congress for a debt limit increase. But given are already abysmal situation, additional debts should not be considered.

According to the U.S. National Debt Clock, unfunded obligations such as Social Security and Medicare etc., total some $114 trillion -- or more than eight times the size of the annual Gross Domestic Product of the entire nation. Divide this figure by the number of households, approximately 115 million, and you come to the startling realization that each American household is liable for nearly $1 million. Add in another $54.9 trillion, which is the total debt held by all levels of government in addition to all business and household debt, and you begin to get an idea of why the future looks bleak.

To finance their spending, governments traditionally levy taxation and incur debts. But excessive taxation carries electoral risks. On the other hand, excessive debt risks a severe, even ruinous flight from government debt securities and skyrocketing interest rates. This is exactly what Greece is now beginning to suffer, despite massive compulsory support from the EU, ECB and the IMF.

But there is a third, decidedly stealthier method that governments are tempted to use. In the past, it was to dilute the gold or silver content of their coins. But with the advent of paper currencies, debasement merely requires printing. All that's required today is a stroke of a computer key.

Because the U.S. dollar is the international reserve currency, the Fed has been able to camouflage its debasement for decades. Given that many nations are obliged to buy dollars to manage their currency valuations, excess liquidity in the U.S. flows quickly offshore where it's pernicious effects fall on other nations. Recent news from China, where the government is struggling to contain inflation while civil unrest flares, confirms this hypothesis. Too much more of this and the dollar's reserve status will be placed in greater jeopardy.

Clearly something has to be done to cut government spending or America's debt crisis will result in a sudden collapse of the once mighty U.S. dollar. The key question, though, is how to persuade politicians to take the necessary actions when doing so could spell electoral defeat?

The answer is patriotism and an informed population. Only if politicians begin once more to put their country before their party and political careers will it be possible to avert a catastrophic currency collapse. This process must begin with a candid acknowledgement of the facts. America is in dire economic straits and increased hardship in the short-term is both necessary, and ultimately unavoidable, if we are to get back on the path to prosperity. Like Churchill in May of 1940, politicians need to deliver the ugly truth and prepare voters for the inevitable pain.

Only by enacting massive reforms of major entitlements, which includes cuts to Social Security and Medicaid benefits, and reductions in military and domestic spending, will America be enabled once more to balance its books, generate real wealth, and issue sound currency.

But given all that we know of how politics works in America, how many elected officials will grab the bone from the dog's mouth and pull? Regrettably, I can't assume many are up for the challenge. As a result, we must assume the worst for the U.S. dollar.

By:  John Browne
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The past few days have been very bad for the world’s largest banks. American behemoths Citigroup and Bank of America are down about 7% each. Across the Atlantic, things are far worse. BNP Paribas, Barclays, and Banco Santander are all down 13% or more... and Société Générale is down an astounding 16%!

Some pundits warn of an overreaction and suggest this is a buying opportunity for the beat-up financials. I disagree. Rather, I think the financials should now be considered toxic assets. Caution is justified. 

It was only a week ago that markets were preoccupied by a downgrade of Portuguese sovereign debt and renewed concerns that Greece will need about $100 billion by year’s end to remain solvent. Now, as eyes are quickly shifting towards the first tremors of financial crisis in Italy, concerns over Greece and Portugal seem rather quaint. With an economy roughly 7 times larger than that of Greece, Italy is simply too big to bail out. Its collapse, like the sinking of a great ship, could create a vortex that drowns Europe's major banks in red ink.

In addition to exposure to sovereign debt from insolvent nations like Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, major US and EU banks are also exposed to toxic mortgage debts, the value of which continues to be eroded by crumbling real estate markets across the West. Meanwhile, at the least opportune moment, the banks are being besieged by ill-targeted regulations devised by vote-chasing politicians. Finally, banks' balance sheets are skewed by ultra-low interest rates and new rules that shield them from pricing their assets to market. Beneath a thin veneer of smoke and mirrors, serious risks remain. 

Intractable budget negotiations in Washington and Rome have significantly increased the possibility of default by the West's two major economic blocs. It could be reasonably inferred that we are entering a new phase of sovereign decline: the US is within weeks of temporary default; Italy is teetering; and the consensus on Greece is shifting toward the 'German fix' of bondholder haircuts. What's worse, there are no long-term solutions readily apparent. The EU is so rigid that its only option is to break into pieces, while the US is so pliant that its main political parties are allowed to waste precious time scoring political points at the expense of the greater good.

Since the EU does not have a formal mechanism for handling default, large European banks have been ‘persuaded’ for many months by the ECB and national governments to invest in the debt of financially challenged nations within the EU, most importantly that of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (PIIGS). This approach was considered more politically viable than direct investment by the ECB. Now, these European banks are left holding the bag. Since there is still no viable mechanism to deal with this debt at the sovereign level, it's no surprise that EU banks are being hit hardest in this correction. The question remains: what were they promised in exchange for 'walking the plank' into the debt abyss?

American banks have a lesser exposure to sovereign debt of the European PIIGS, but many of these institutions have made healthy profits by selling insurance derivatives known as credit default swaps to their European counterparts. This is the same strategy that brought down insurance behemoth AIG in the wake of the 2008 Credit Crunch. Therefore, major American banks are far more heavily exposed to PIIGS debt than first appears. It’s as if they have learned nothing. Even conservative, and supposedly bulletproof, money market funds have exposure to debt of EU banks.

I do not expect all of these banks to hit a brick wall. Powerful governments are likely to resort to almost any means to salvage their grotesque central-banking/fiat-money system. Likely, that will include eventually forcing their citizens to rescue their banks again, from even larger losses. However, in the meantime, earnings and share prices could suffer dramatically. 

Moreover, Italy's situation brings some larger questions to the forefront: what happens should the next round of bank bailouts bring major sovereigns to their knees? Where will you want to have your assets positioned if the EU comes apart at the seems, or the US stops paying its soldiers and seniors? What's your plan if the central banks flood the market with even more cheap money?

Readers are strongly encouraged to start rowing away from the sinking great ships of state. You don't want to be caught in the vortex if they go down.

w hen greenspan gets on meet the press and says that america has the ability to repay its loans by printing more more. You know the guy is a moron. Time after time the market played that moron for a fool. And mainstreet is to stupid to realize what's happening. Poor souls.

W

As global stock markets crash in the backdrop of a soaring gold price, Euro Pacific Capital CEO Peter Schiff unleashed a series of salvos on the Obama Administration in the handling of the budget crisis, and slammed billionaire investor Warren Buffett for encouraging continued profligate policies of the White House and, by implication, the Congress.

Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. debt kicked off a firestorm of financial and political calamity that has now required an all out damage control operation from the White House and the government’s go-to “private sector” operative Warren Buffet.

“In Wall Street parlance, any downgrade means get the hell out … If they [rating agencies] go from a Strong Buy to a Buy, it means, you know, look out below,” Schiff told Max Keiser of Russia Today’s Keiser Report.

“What S&P is saying, as far as I’m concerned, is get out of U.S. debt, any dollar-denominated debt, because what they’re really downgrading is not Treasury bonds, but the dollar.”

And, immediately after the S&P downgrade, investors fled the dollar—in mass.  As U.S. Treasuries soared (dollar positive), gold sailed past Treasuries (dollar negative), turning what seemed like a dollar-positive event into a catastrophein the dollar in purchasing power against the ultimate currency, gold.

Even the Wall Street Journal headlined an article on Monday, following the rating agency’s announcement of a U.S. downgrade on Friday, heralded U.S. Treasuries as the “gold standard” of debt, in a well-place position atop Yahoo’s financial news feed.  The orchestrated response, crafted over the weekend, couldn’t be more obvious to those following closely the 3-year-long slow-motion global financial crisis.

Of course, the U.S. has other options apart from defaulting in a manner Argentina, Mexico or German had defaulted in the past.  Instead, it appears the U.S. has predictably chosen to inflate its way out of overburdening debt, which Schiff said, is the point of S&P’s downgrade.

“Because S&P knows—as Alan Greenspan said, and Warren Buffett said—they don’t have to default, they can print,” Schiff explained. “But that’s worse, especially if you’re a bondholder; you get paid back in Monopoly money.”

In complete agreement with European leaders, Schiff went on to ridicule a rating agency system that rates the world’s largest creditor, China, below the world’s largest debtor, the U.S.

“Why is China, the world’s biggest creditor nation—we owe China trillions—how could they be rated AA-, and we’re rated AA+?” Schiff asked, rhetorically.  ”What kind of twilight world is the world’s biggest debtor a bigger risk [meant to say, better risk] than world’s biggest creditor?”

Then, in a typical Schiff rapid-fire rant, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner entered Schiff’s sites.

Geithner, who said S&P made a math error in its calculations of projected U.S. deficits, calling the error a “$2 trillion mistake,” only serves as a red herring, or a canard, as Keiser put it in his question to Schiff about Geithner’s comments.

Schiff responded to Geithner’s comment by pointing out that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a political arm of the White House, had made grandiose growth and unrealistically low inflation assumptions in its forecast, which Schiff implied, were nothing more than typical self-serving propaganda budget forecasts out of Washington.

“The reality is that we are going back to recession,” Schiff scoffed.  “So you take all those rosy scenarios and throw them in the trash can where they belong.  The budget deficit is going to be much worse than both the Administration and S&P believe.  So they’re all wrong on the math.”

And on the subject of Warren Buffett’s comment following the S&P downgrade announcement, in which, he said U.S. Treasuries should hold a “AAAA rating,” Schiff again commented by implying that Buffett is a has-been, a kept man of the rigged system, and has become more of a humorous sideshow during the crisis than a man whose comments should actually be taken to heart by investors.

Buffett’s opinion is “moronic,” said Schiff.  In his advanced age, “senility is catching up with Warren.”

RBC blinks, boosts variable mortgages

Facebook | Twitter | Email | Instapaper

Eric Lam, National Post
Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2011

Paper-thin margins in the lucrative and highly competitive variable mortgage sector have forced the hand of Royal Bank of Canada, which hiked some of its variable mortgage rates Tuesday.

“It was a little bit of a surprise, but the reality is their margins are extremely thin, and the fixed-rate margins so wide that banks just want to regain some profitability,” Robert McLister, editor of Canadian Mortgage Trends, said Tuesday.

The posted rate for the five-year variable closed mortgage at Canada’s largest mortgage lender is now prime plus 0%, an increase of 0.20 percentage points. This brings the effective rate to 3.00%.

Meanwhile, the special variable rate offer for the five-year variable closed mortgage at RBC has also been upped by 0.20 percentage points, to prime minus 0.45%, or 2.55%.

The bank’s previous special offer rate of 2.35% aggressively undercut competition from the other big banks, putting RBC into the same range as private lenders such as ING Direct (2.25%) and President’s Choice Financial (2.35%).

RBC had also been slightly underpricing the big banks with its previous 2.80% posted rate, with the closest competition being Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Bank of Montreal at 2.85%.

“I’ve talked to quite a few lenders in the last couple weeks who have said they’re not making much money on variables and they’re not happy about it,” said Mr. McLister. “So every now and then you’ll get a trendsetting lender like RBC make a change and hope others follow.”

Fixed-rate mortgage rates are based on five-year bond yields, which have been steadily sinking as investors snap up safe harbour government bonds, but variable mortgages are murkier, relying on short-term credit markets.

As of Tuesday, the other major banks had not made any movement with their variable loan rates, although the major banks tend to move in lockstep within a week of any change from RBC.

Christopher Molder, a mortgage broker with Tridac Mortgages, said the hike is likely due to internal decisions at RBC and not anything affecting the wider market.

“Usually when movement is happening, when it’s something external affecting pricing of rates, it’s big news with the lenders and they’ll put out big blasts to their lenders. I haven’t seen anything like that,” he said.

In a statement, RBC said funding costs at banks have been increasing due to global economic concerns.

“While we have held off in passing on these high costs to our clients, it is now necessary for us to increase this mortgage rate,” the bank said.

Mark Chandler, head of Canadian fixed income and currency research with RBC Capital Markets, said the one-year Canadian Dealer Offered Rate, a measure of interbank cost of funds and lending, has almost doubled to 70 basis points compared with about 40 bp in mid-April.

There is “some truth” that there have been small increases in short-term borrowing costs on the variable side, thanks to higher risk premiums and new accounting rules, Mr. McLister said.

“But I don’t think it’s 20 basis points’ worth. Maybe 10 bp,” he said. “It’s drastically different on the fixed side. There, it’s based on the bond market and lenders are literally making double the profit margin.”

Mr. McLister estimates gross margins of about 197 bp for five-year fixed mortgages at 3.44%, but only 96 bp for variable mortgages based on prime minus 0.85%.

Just how screwed up are they. First a bailout. And now they want to sue. Should have collapsed the banks frrom day one.

U .S. to sue big banks over mortgage securities: report

Facebook | Twitter | Email | Instapaper

Reuters
Friday, Sept. 2, 2011

WASHINGTON – The agency that oversees mortgage markets is preparing to file suit against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgages they packaged and sold during the housing bubble, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is expected to file suit against Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among other banks, the Times reported, citing three unidentified individuals briefed on the matter.

The suits stem from subpoenas the finance agency issued to banks last year. They could be filed as early as Friday, the Times said, but if not filed Friday it said the suits would come on Tuesday.

The government will argue the banks, which pooled the mortgages and sold them as securities to investors, failed to perform due diligence required under securities law and missed evidence that borrowers’ incomes were falsified or inflated, the Times reported.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost more than US$30-billion, due partly to their purchases of mortgage-backed securities, when the housing bubble burst in late 2008. Those losses were covered mostly with taxpayers’ money.

The agency filed suit against UBS in July, seeking to recover at least US$900-million for taxpayers, and the individuals told the Times the new suits would be similar in scope.

A spokesman for the Federal Housing Finance Agency was not immediately available for comment.

The Times said Bank of America, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs all declined comment. A Deutsche Bank spokesman told the Times, “We can’t comment on a suit that we haven’t seen and hasn’t been filed yet.”

The practice of subprime lending, wherein mortgage brokers lowered their standards to entice homebuyers to take out large mortgages to buy more expensive homes than they could afford, was a root cause of the mortgage market implosion.

News of the suit could have a negative impact on stocks of the banks in question on Friday. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, while Deutsche Bank is traded on the German exchange.

S&P 500 stocks index futures were trading down 0.6% in Asia. U.S. Treasury futures also ticked higher.

The Times report said investors fear that if banks are forced to pay out billions for mortgages that defaulted, the suit could sap earnings for years and contribute to further losses across the financial services industry.j

Americans seeing the light

Americans going to Canada to find work
Posted: September 8, 2011, 2:12 pm ET
By John Ferri, GlobalPost
Usually, you hear stories of people fleeing to America, not the other way around.
But the jittery state of the U.S. economy is driving an increasing number of its citizens to seek better prospects north of the border.
Americans are the latest economic refugees, and they’re heading to Canada.
As he prepares to campaign for re-election, U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to make a speech Thursday night that calls for immediate stimulus spending to create jobs and improve infrastructure.
But those reforms will be difficult to make. Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, have resisted any efforts to boost the economy through additional spending.
As life in the U.S. worsens, prospects in Canada seem all the brighter.
Canadian officials say the number of Americans applying for temporary work visas doubled between 2008 and 2010.
Read: Pension debate heats up. 
Immigration lawyers in Toronto and the border city of Windsor, right across from job-starved Detroit, say they’re seeing a dramatic growth in clients seeking to come to Canada to work, or even as permanent residents.
So, is this a reversal of fortunes on an historic scale? Has Canada become “el Norte”?
Well, not quite. The number of U.S. citizens working in Canada is, at least by global migration standards, relatively small with some 30,000 at the beginning of last year.
Still, Americans make up the second-largest group of temporary workers in Canada, behind only Filipinos, most of whom work as nannies.
Canada was one of the few to escape the 2008 financial meltdown relatively unscathed, a turn of events largely attributed to Ottawa’s long-standing refusal to deregulate the banking sector.
“I’m looking for a quiet, calm, sane, civilized society to start the next phase of my life,” said Michael, an out-of-work, white-collar professional from Michigan who is seeking a temporary visa to come to Canada.
Like several others interviewed for this article, he did not want his full name used for fear of drawing unwanted scrutiny to his application.
Though he describes himself as both patriotic and a conservative, Michael says he’s lost faith in U.S. leadership — “on both sides of the aisle” — for failing to stem the excesses that led to the collapse of Wall Street, and for the current political brinkmanship over the debt ceiling.
“I’m looking for a country where the first role of the government is to protect its citizens,” he said. “It looks to me like all [of Canada’s] three major political parties seem to have proven that they are much more responsible than our leadership.”
Workers like Michael are drawn to Canada’s lower unemployment rate — 7 percent in July compared to 9.1 in the U.S. — and sustained economic strength in major centers such as Toronto, which alone attracts an estimated 100,000 new arrivals a year.
Read: Canada — naked in the streets.
These include not only people with temporary work visas, or those seeking permanent residency, but also increasing numbers of university students, drawn by highly-ranked Canadian schools where tuition, even at 3 or 4 times the rates for Canadians, is still a fraction of what it costs to attend many colleges in the U.S.
John Cameron’s mother lost her senior position at a bank branch in Maine in 2009 at the same time he was trying to finalize his choices for his freshman year in college.
He had his eye on American universities such as Loyola, University of Maryland, Columbia and Fordham.
His father, thinking about the finances, suggested the University of Toronto. Cameron was reluctant, but now he’s a Canadian convert.
”I really love it,” he said. “[It’s] hands-down one of the best schools in North America.”
Toronto has also become home to a couple in their mid-30s from New York City who both lost their full-time jobs in Manhattan in the wake of the 2008 crash. They now live in Canada on temporary visas.
“It’s important for us to live in a place with a lot of diversity and a good cultural sector,” said the woman, who asked that their names be withheld to avoid compromising their residency status in Canada. She says she was surprised at how quickly and efficiently they were able to qualify for Ontario health care.
Some Canadians who had considered America their adopted home are going back.
Al Brickman recently gave up on the United States after 30 years of running a Canadian-owned construction-supply business in Atlanta, Ga.
“I really did hold out for about two years,” he said, but business had bottomed-out in the economy. Brickman said that his billings, once around $100,000, had dropped on some months by as much as 95 percent.
Brickman moved home to Toronto to work at his company there, where he has a steady job as a general manager. His American wife and their 11-week-old baby, are now trying to emigrate to join him.
Since he got back, Brickman said he’s been fielding calls from American friends hoping he can get them a job up north, too.
Shawn Shepard, a legal software supervisor who was among hundreds laid off by his Manhattan law firm in 2008, is hoping a Canadian employer will sponsor him.
Read: Canada — quiet deadly export.
Shepard, who lives in Jersey City, N.J., is a regular visitor to Canada, with friends in Montreal and Toronto. With 20 years of experience, and, he admitted, “the arrogance of being a U.S. citizen,” he figured it would be a snap.
But now, he’s found himself in the classic migrant dilemma: “In order to get a work visa, you need a job offer. In order to get a job offer, you need a work visa.” And even if he were to interest a prospective employer, a visa would only be issued if the employer can show that no Canadian was qualified for the job.
“The economy up there is doing very well, despite the global slump,” Shepard wistfully told this reporter, a gainfully employed Canadian. “Your politicians didn’t put you in the same mess that ours did.”

Eric M
AMERICANS NEED THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11
September 13, 2011
We Americans become like the moribund Hapsburg Empire which was said to have forgotten nothing and learned nothing.
Watching 9/11 commemorations, which have by now become an annual religious-political event,  reminds us of this old adage.  

One of the biggest tragedies within the tragedy of 9/11 is that the nation has not learned the real lesson of 9/11 – the reason why the 19 suicide hijackers attacked New York and Washington.

Before this attack, the hijacker’s ringleaders made clear their goal was to punish the United States for occupying the holy land of Saudi Arabia and for supporting Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.  

A subtext of the deadly operation was to make America experience some of the suffering and damage it had long inflicted  on the Mideast.

In short, the motive for the assault was entirely political.   But the Bush administration and then Congress were unable or unwilling to accept the fact that America’s Mideast policies were the cause of the attacks.  The US media cowered from  discussing the true reasons for the attack as a third-rail that had to be avoided.

Instead,  9/11 was spun by the White House and a remarkably tame media into an assault on America by crazed Muslim fanatics who hated, as President Bush said, our freedoms, values, religion and way of life.   Islam was to blame.  

This message reverberated through the US media and government.  Christian and some Jewish fundamentalist groups amplified the theme that Islam is a menace.  Pundits opined that Islam was inherently and dangerously flawed, a religion that preached violence and sought world domination.

The lurid proclamations of Osama bin Laden served as a convenient, perfectly timed proof of the wickedness and danger of Islam.    His tiny organization of no more than 300 men, as this writer saw firsthand, had been devoted to fighting the Afghan Communists, suddenly morphed into a mortal danger for the United States. 

Al-Qaida was vastly exaggerated into a worldwide menace.  Housewives in Peoria, Illinois, voted for George Bush because they feared Osama bin Laden was about to come and snatch away their children.  Paranoia gripped the United States and made it do terrible things that violated its own laws, ethics and values.

 

Muslims under our mattress replaced the old bogeyman of the 1950’s, reds under our beds. 
When Bush declared a “crusade” against terrorism, he really meant it.   Like all crusades, this ostensibly religious mission quickly became a scramble for plunder – in this case, Iraq’s vast troves of oil and gas.

Thanks to Washington’s anti-Islamic spin over 9/11, Americans were able to  steep themselves in righteous indignation and victimhood, free of any inconvenient questions that their policies in the Muslim world may have contributed to the 9/11 attacks. 

The British used to call such attacks, “the cost of empire.”  But Americans were simply not aware their nation had an empire.  This writer calls it the “American Raj.” 

 Blaming fanatical Muslims for 9/11 may have been a tactical success for the Bush White House. But in the longer run, laying off the blame on  Islam has proved strategically disastrous for the US and just as dishonest as blaming World War II on Christianity.  

Poll after poll is now showing that a majority in Muslim nations, even so-called “moderate” ones like Egypt, Indonesia and Morocco, mistakenly believe the US is out to destroy Islam.  

The fire and brimstone anti-Muslim hate fulminations of mountebanks like Rev. Hagee, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh are amplified at full volume across the Muslim world.

Pakistanis now regard the United States as their nation’s leading enemy.  Old foe India has fallen into second place.   Anti-Americanism is now raging across the Muslim world.  The next explosion will come in long-repressed Egypt.    

Washington has fallen into Osama bin Laden’s last and deepest trap.  First, two wars that have so far cost up to $4 trillion and thousands of US military casualties. Next, the undermining of the US economy by reckless deficit spending on the military and intelligence.  Under Bush, and now Obama, the runaway deficit has reached an astounding $1.4 trillion.

Finally, the so-called “war on terror,” that has earned America the searing hatred of much of the   Muslim world.