Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Announced yesterday in Sydney, the shortlist for Australia’s most prestigious literary award, the Miles Franklin Literary Award, includes only women for the first time in the award’s history. The award had been criticized in the past for its exclusion of women on the short list, with no women appearing on it in 2009 and 2011.

This year’s authors on the short list include Romy Ash for Floundering, Michelle de Kretser for Questions of Travel, Annah Faulkner for The Beloved, Drusilla Modjeska for The Mountain, and Carrie Tiffany for Mateship with Birds. The winner gets a cash prize of AU$60,000.

Judges said the shortlist selection was based on the quality of the literature, with gender not playing a role in their decision processes. Richard Neville, a librarian at the State Library of New South Wales and judge, is quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald saying, “People will probably think this is a riposte to the Stella Prize, [..] But I’ve judged this for four years, including the infamous year of the ‘sausage fest’, and we always try to view the books as literature. We felt the books on the shortlist selected themselves.”File:Brian Castro2.jpg

The longlist, announced in the last week of March, included two men out of ten total listed authors: Brian Castro for Street to Street, and Thomas Keneally for The Daughters of Mars.

Perceived discrimination against women’s writers in Australian literary circles led to the creation this year of the Stella Prize. The chair of the Australia Council’s Literature Board Sophie Cunningham played an integral role in creating the Stella Prize, modeled after the United Kingdom’s Orange Prize. The award derives its name from Miles Franklin’s birth name, Stella Maria Sarah Miles Franklin.

The winner is scheduled to be announced on June 19 in Canberra.

Monday, April 14, 2008

This weekend, April 12–13, the joint Development Committee of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) held its annual Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C.

The Group of Seven (G7), which is comprised of the economic policy makers from the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Japan, held its annual meeting on Friday, April 11. This meeting, which rotates locations, was also held in Washington, D.C.

The Development Committee meeting ended on Sunday, with a call from the economic leaders for assistance to the countries which been adversely affected by rising food prices. Economic growth has slowed to its lowest rate in five years, while the rising costs of food and energy have not slowed.

Robert Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, said, “We have to put our money where our mouth is. Now. So that we can put food into hungry mouths. It’s as stark as that.” He called for US$500 million in emergency funds for the United Nations’s World Food Programme by May 1, 2008.

“All that has been done [in the past decade] can be undone very rapidly by the crisis coming from the increase in food prices,” said Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the IMF.

“Children will be suffering from malnutrition, with consequences for all their lives,” he said. He cited the growing use of land for biofuels as contributing to rising food costs. In the end growing violence and civil unrest could be a result.

Strauss-Kahn further warned that eventually it could become “not only a humanitarian question,” but could also affect developed nations by leading to trade imbalances.

Specifically cited as a current example, was Haiti, where just this weekend, violence escalated resulting in the death of a United Nations peacekeeper and the ousting of Prime Minister Jacques-Édouard Alexis.

United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson cautioned that affected countries “need to resist the temptation of price controls and consumption subsidies that are generally not effective and efficient methods of protecting vulnerable groups.”

Price controls and subsidies “tend to create fiscal burdens and economic distortions while often providing aid to higher-income consumers or commercial interests other than the intended beneficiaries,” Paulson said.

In their Friday statement, the G7 said “there have been at times sharp fluctuations in major currencies, and we are concerned about their possible implications for economic and financial stability.” This marked the first time since the February 2004 meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, that the wording on foreign exchange has been altered.

The G7 presented a plan to strengthen regulation of capital markets. They urged financial firms to “fully” disclose their at-risk investments and improve capital reserves. While the G7 did not outline new monetary or fiscal policies, it did promise action “as appropriate.” The timetable for the plan is 100 days.

The head of G7 Market Economics at Tullett Prebon, Lena Komileva, observed, “The implicit message is that the G7 is moving closer towards concerted action in the event that persistent volatility in the foreign exchange market presents new risk of systemic failure in the financial industry.”

“While action is unlikely in the short run, they are probably already considering a pre-emptive move in foreign exchange markets to slow the dollar’s decline,” added Komileva.

Economists at Goldman Sachs told their clients, “After a period where the possibility of G7 policy intervention seemed very remote, providing no counterweight to the dollar depreciation forces, we are moving towards a regime where G7 intervention is a more real possibility.”

Saturday, February 24, 2007

On 19 February 2007, XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio announced a move that will change the face of satellite radio in the United States and Canada: XM and Sirius will be merging, creating a single satellite radio provider.

Multi-million dollar losses, combined with increasing competition from internet radio, downloadable music, and HD radio were factors in this merger.

Mel Karmazin, CEO of Sirius Satellite Radio, described the problem: “We don’t want to take subscribers from XM. We won’t make money that way. We need new subscribers.” Likewise, XM executives say they can’t succeed by stealing Sirius subscribers. This leaves both companies with the problem of attracting new customers and distinguishing their brand, while at the same time trying to convince potential customers to pay $12.95 a month for radio, something that people are used to getting for free. Even if one company were to force the other out of the marketplace, the remaining company would have won a Pyrrhic victory, without enough capital remaining to take advantage of the situation.

The solution: make a deal now, while both companies are both strong and in a position to expand their technologies and services. That’s exactly what they plan to do: In press releases and news postings on both of their web sites, both companies have pledged to make the combined company better than either service by itself. “You’ve heard of 1+1=3,” Karmazin said during an invester conference call, “that’s what this is.”

Pending approval of the deal, each share of XM stock will be replaced with 4.6 shares of Sirius. Each company’s stockholders will retain approximately 50% of the joined company. Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin will retain his CEO title in the new company, and XM chairman Gary Parsons will retain his. XM CEO Hugh Panero will retain his position until the merger is complete, which should happen near the end of 2007.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has clarified his earlier statement that “you could take out their holy sites,” in the event of a nuclear attack upon the U.S. by Islamic terrorists. Rep. Tancredo has refused to make any apologies, saying “When we bombed Hiroshima, when we bombed Dresden, we punished a lot of people who were not necessarily (guilty). Not every German was a member of the Nazi Party. You do things in war that are ugly.” However, Tancredo emphasized that he was speaking hypothetically and not necessarily suggesting policy.

The remarks, made in a July 15th radio interview, hosted by Pat Campbell of WFLA in Orlando, Florida, have drawn support from conservatives groups such as Northeast Intelligence Network and Free Republic, and have offended the American Muslim community.In the interview, Tancredo discussed his request for information from the Justice Department regarding the claim of evangelical Christian journalist Joseph Farah that al-Qaida has smuggled multiple nuclear weapons into the U.S.

Friday, May 1, 2009

The American auto company Chrysler filed for bankruptcy Thursday, however a deal with European auto maker Fiat went through. The emerging Chrysler will be owned 55 percent by the United Auto Workers, eight percent by the United States Government, two percent by the Canadian Government and Fiat would begin with a 20 percent share.

Chrysler Chief Executive Robert Nardelli will step down when the bankruptcy proceedings are finalized.

Initially, the Italian company, Fiat, will appoint three members on the emerging Chrysler’s new board, and the United States government will appoint six. Fiat can assume the majority of the ownership upon repayment of American loans.

Chrysler administrators expect that the bankruptcy should take a couple of months.

“We expect this to be a very short, 30-to-60-day bankruptcy process, during which the company will function normally,” a top administration official said, “People will be able to buy cars, they will have their warranties honored, and everything should go on normally.”

The bankruptcy filing indicated that Chrysler was in debt to 20 creditors to a tune of more than $10 million each.

Meanwhile, the deal with Fiat did go through, and Chrysler should have cars designed by Fiat out on the market by 2011.

“It’s a partnership that will give Chrysler a chance not only to survive, but to thrive in a global auto industry,” said American president Obama, “Fiat has demonstrated that it can build the clean, fuel-efficient cars that are the future of the industry.”

However, automotive analyst Erich Merkle has hesitations.

“History would show that alliances really don’t work that well,” Merkle said, “even though, no matter how good they may look on paper.”

The restructuring has been managed by Steve Rattner, a former investment banker, and the U.S. Government auto task force.

Obama has set three ultimatums before Fiat. Fiat should produce a 40 mile per gallon vehicle while managing the new Chrysler, transfer fuel efficient Fiat technology to Chrysler factories in the United States, and produce cars in Chrysler factories and distribute them in Europe.

Wednesday, March 2, 2005

Bucharest, Romania — The city centre of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, is set to get a major facelift due to a real estate project called Esplanada (The Esplanade), which will be constructed by TriGranit Development Corporation. The total investment in the project will be greater than 800 million euro and aims to build a modern commercial pedestrian area in downtown Bucharest, with several shopping malls, office buildings, hotels and dwellings. It will be the largest real estate program in Romania since the fall of Communism in 1989.

Bucharest is currently looking at possibilities to improve its appearance and rebrand itself as a lively, creative and vibrant city. Many initiatives have sprung up to improve the city, including the organisation of CowParade later this year. Additionally, the old town centre will be restored. Due to Romania’s current economic boom, several other major construction projects are taking place.

Bucharest City Hall has blocked traffic in the city center due both to the old town restoration and to the Esplanada project.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

In a vote of 74-25 last Thursday, the US Senate passed a measure that would change bankruptcy laws, making it harder for individuals seeking relief from their debt burden to avoid repayment. Almost twenty Democrats joined Republicans, who currently hold a majority of the seats in the US Senate, in passing the bill.

Lobbyists for credit card companies and financial services firms have worked for the bill during the last two administrations. A similar measure passed both the Senate and House during the previous administration, but then President Bill Clinton pocket-vetoed the measure in 2000.

Democrats sought to soften the bill by allowing bankruptcy filers to negotiate directly with lenders for relief, but the amendments were defeated by the Republican-controlled Senate. Proponents of the bill claim the rise of bankruptcy filings to nearly 1.5 million a year shows that abusers of credit use the filings to shield themselves from irresponsible practices.

“There has been an explosion of bankruptcy,” said Iowa Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the bill’s sponsor. “We preserve the principle of a fresh start, but we also establish a principle that if you have the ability to repay some of your debt, you are not going to get off scot-free.” However, Massachusetts Democratic Sen., Edward M. Kennedy said, “This legislation makes the bankruptcy courts of the United States the collection agency for the credit-card industry.”

The bill impacts a broad spectrum of bankruptcy law, but the most significant impact is on personal bankruptcy filings. Individuals who get behind in repaying credit card debt face high interest charges and stiff late payment fees. By only meeting minimum payment requirements, borrowers remit to the lender over the life of the loan an amount in interest and other fees that can far exceed the value of the principal balance of the loan. This can put consumers who run up high balances on various cards at financial risk of default. Critics of the bill blame these aggressive lending practices as a contributing factor in the rising trend of bankruptcy filings from 1996.

The proposed bill doesn’t only affect debtors with credit card debt.

It also affects debtors who have run up large medical bills.

Patients with a past medical history that disqualifies them from full medical coverage, can easily find themselves facing insurmountable medical bills after just a short stay in the hospital. These individuals will no longer be able to get a fresh start after these personal disasters, and will be forced to live in poverty until they can pay off their medical bills as part of their Chapter 13 filing. (Prior to this bill, they would have been able to file Chapter 7, completely discharging their debt.)

Chapter 7, which accounts for 70% of bankruptcy filings, allows individuals to eliminate most non-secured debts after liquidating assets, with the notable exemption of one’s principle residence in most states. The Senate passed bill would change Chapter 7 eligibility by applying a means-test, where those with a median income higher than the state average would be required to file under Chapter 13 provisions. Under Chapter 13 protection, an individual’s debt is not forgiven; rather it is restructured for payment under more lenient terms.

This was the first major overhaul of federal bankruptcy law in many years.

Under the old bankruptcy law, a personal bankruptcy attorney could not be held financially responsible for his clients mendacity. Under the new bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy attorney is responsible for his client’s lies to the Court about his assets and the bankruptcy attorney and his insurance carrier can be held responsible by the Bankruptcy Court.

The result is that personal bankruptcy attorneys (this does not apply to corporate bankruptcy attorneys) are likely to flee the personal bankruptcy field when the new law takes effect. Their insurance companies will not offer the sort of coverage that they would need to continue to practice.

So when consumers need to file personal bankruptcy under the new law, they will be unlikely to find a bankruptcy attorney to represent them. Consumers will have to file pro se: such consumers will be likely to fail due to the complexity of the law.

The bottom line is that the field of personal bankruptcy law as a practice area of law will cease to exist when the new bankruptcy law takes effect, and consumers will be unable to secure legal counsel and so consumers will lose what legal protections counsel now affords them.

Under the new bankruptcy law about one half million Americans will be forest to pay for at lest 5 years on longer they will be held in servitude as chattel they will be completely subservient to a dominating influence of the company that holds the loan. Their loan will be put on the market for sale for profit. The people will be forced to work harder. People who fail to go to court will have a arrest warrant made out in their name and people who refuseto pay. They will be subject to fines and or jail. About fifty thousand Americans will punished by a fine and or about three thousand Americans every year will go to jail under the new bankruptcy law. For some people this will be a third strike they will be put in jail for life.

The bill has the support of President Bush, and its passage in the House sometime next month seems likely. If enacted into law, lending companies will recover more money on what otherwise would be written off as bad loans. Those persons of median and higher income seeking relief would be required to file under Chapter 13 status and pay up to $100 per month under court imposed conditions. It is expected the proposed changes would cause a sharp increase in filings before the new law could take effect.