Calculating the impact of Cyprus Bailout

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/business/global/calculating-impact-of-cypruss-bank-bailout.html?ref=world

Bailout of Cyprus seems to be the widely discussed topic in world economics. As pointed out in the article, the case of Cyrpus is pretty unique. However, this financial disaster reminds of the financial crisis in the US during 2007-2009. Major banks in the US had to declare bankruptcy as scared depositors tried to withdrew their savings. Since when did our banking systems fail us? The international financial system is intertwined and so interconnected that it is foolish to think that as long as one nation succeeds, it doesn’t matter what happens to others. As the example of Cybrus bank incidence shows us, the world is becoming a more one community than ever before in the human history.

 

In Cyprus, Feeling the Pain of a Bailout

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/business/global/pain-begins-to-register-in-cyprus.html?hp&_r=0

“Two weeks ago exiting the euro was never mentioned; now it is being widely discussed and a lot of people are considering it,” said Nicholas Papadopoulos, the chairman of the Cypriot Parliament’s finance committee,  “Europe has destroyed our banking system; now we need to consider all our options.”

What do you think about the Euro as a currency, it is really loosing its power as  some establishment figures are now openly discussing the option of leaving the euro currency union and defaulting on the country’s loans.

The Russian Angle on Cyprus

Tags

Europe, financial crisis

Turnabout is fair play? Russia gets its comeuppance in Cyprus, according to Joe Nocera:

To put it another way, the henchmen of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, who have gotten rich by trampling over the rule of law, are now getting a taste of their own medicine. In Cyprus, with no warning, the rules changed, and deposits larger than 100,000 euros may now face “haircuts” of as much as 40 percent. Though the purpose of the tax is to save the country’s banking system, the outcome is the same as when Russian officials create phony tax charges to steal a businessman’s assets. People feel they are being robbed. And they become extremely upset.

The funniest part is that according to Reuters, some Russian entities are threatening to sue. Actually, that makes a certain perverse sense: one of the reasons Russian bureaucrats are so quick to move their newly stolen wealth out of Russia is that they want it in a place where the rule of law actually has some meaning. They don’t want done to them what they’ve done to their fellow citizens.

via The New Russian Mob – NYTimes.com.

Marines rapid response team

Tags

Diplomacy, Military

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323466204578384693831418944.html?mod=rss_mobile_uber_feed

After the Benghazi attacks, the government has been looking for ways to provide rescue for diplomats that are facing increasing risk in the middle east. While I feel that the creation of this rapid response team could prove useful in the future, I wonder how future terrorists will view this new threat? It seems that any attempts at negotiating would be futile if terrorists know that the moment they begin an attack a rapid response team is on their way to kill them. On the other hand, the attack in Benghazi didn’t involve any negotiations.

Overall, it’s good to see the military stepping up to support the state department; diplomats take a lot of the same risks and hardships that military officers do, but don’t receive the same amount of recognition or protection. After the budget sequester, many state department consular offices and embassies were stripped of the funds they needed to improve security, so the creation of a military organization to rescue embassies from security breaches seems to be a workable alternative.

The best option would be to just increase security at each embassy to prevent attacks in the first place. Failing that, this seems to be the second best option. If destruction is assured, nothing short of suicide terrorists would be willing to attack U.S. institutions abroad.

She’s a Lady

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/politics/obama-appoints-woman-to-lead-secret-service.html?ref=politics&_r=0

President Obama has chosen for the director of the Secret Service a Ms. Julie Pierson. This marks the first woman director of the agency, and I must say, it seems that she is coming in to repair it’s image after the famous incident with prostitutes in Columbia last year. Sadly, the public has branded that situation in their minds, and it will be interesting to see what direction Ms. Pierson takes the Secret Service in response to that.

Of the 3,500 special agents today, 10% of them are women, lower than any other branch of law enforcement agencies.  Will a woman director garner more respect? Will we see any significant differences in the agency?

Future Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage: Will It Have Negative Effects on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE92P04820130327

This is the Supreme Court case most Americans have been waiting for, whether they are for or against gay marriage.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints played a strong role in passing Prop 8 in California and strongly advocated the Defense of Marriage Act.  If the Supreme Court’s decision in June points toward the unconstitutionality of DOMA, and by extension Prop 8, will the Church face greater persecution, maybe even legal persecution, for what many people would see as “discriminatory” behavior?  Would Latter-Day Saint temples be shut down because they don’t allow gay or lesbian men and women inside?  Will an ex-Mormon sue the Church because of their disapproval of gay and lesbian behavior, seen as discriminatory?  What do you think?

Supreme Court to Weigh on Gay Marriage

Supreme Court to Weigh on Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases on gay marriage. One is challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California ban on gay marriage. The other is questioning the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which denies gay couples certain federal benefits.

Although these cases may seem narrow in scope, it could potentially lead to a federal law allowing gay marriage in all states. Opponents claim that the states have the right to decide whether to allow gay marriage or not.

Will the Supreme Court uphold Proposition 8? Should states decide on gay marriage, or should the federal government? I think that since Proposition 8 was passed by popular vote, it should be upheld. What do you think?

Abortion Banned in North Dakota

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/north-dakota-governor-signs-strict-abortion-limits.html?hp&_r=0

The Governor of North Dakota approved the toughest abortion restriction in the nation. Abortion will be illegal as soon as a heartbeat can be detected using an ultra sound. That is generally possible after 12 weeks of pregnancy. This of course has many people riled. The law is the first of its kind in that genetic defects are not listed as a reason for an abortion. This is the toughest law ever to cross this far into the system. 

Will this law be deemed unconstitutional? It is taking a controversial subject far into the right wing. Do states have the right to define laws of this matter? If decisions like these are different between state lines then a car could change a life. Do you agree with the idea that once a heartbeat is detected abortion should be illegal? Is that limiting your right to choose? Should the government have the power to make these decisions on behalf of the individual?

Amid Fears of Releases, U.S. Cedes Prisons to Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/world/asia/us-cedes-control-almost-on-afghan-prisoners.html?hp&_r=0

If recent history is any guide, the decisions the Afghans make on Taliban releases after taking control are not likely to reassure the American military.

Among those released in recent years by Afghan officials or Afghan courts were most of the 46 Taliban prisoners who had been returned from the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. One became the top insurgent commander in southern Afghanistan: Maulavi Abdul Qayum Zakir, whose real name is Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul. He was released from an Afghan prison in late 2008, just before the American troop surge was to start. Another was the suicide bomber who in December very nearly killed Asadullah Khalid, the head of the Afghan intelligence service. The attacker had previously been freed by a presidential pardon, according to officials of that agency.

so my question is just like the rest of America ask themselves, what has been the benefit of the War in Afghanistan?

Senate proposes a budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/politics/senate-passes-3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html?hp

So the US Senate, controlled by the Democrats, has just passed $3.7 trillion budget that is quite different from the budge proposal made in the House, controlled by the Republicans. With the President also having a different budget plan, it seems like the disagreement is even harder to settle. Which is more important, economic growth through increasing government spending or balancing the budget by raising taxes and cutting back? Other questions that can be asked are, does spending more really create new jobs? How sure are we that we are not pouring money into a leaking bucket? All the groups involved in the debate share the common goal: doing the “right” thing for the US to get back on track of economic stability and growth. It will be a difficult task for America to decide on which path to take. But whichever it may be, a decision must be made and something should be done.