But I lost $134M - that makes me one of the good guys (non-quote from Richard S Fuld Jnr)

As I sit here with my trews getting a bit threadbare around the rear, wondering where my next crust is coming from and worried about the flow-on effect from that Yankee bovine madness rampaging on Wall Street, I think it is hilarious that Richie Rich Fuld appeared before the US Congress and tried to present himself as one of the losers in the Lehman Brothers collapse.

Congress saw it differently.

ABC News from America last Monday:
"In the first Congressional hearing into the financial crisis, the former CEO of the bankrupt Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, became the poster boy for Wall Street greed today as he defended the $484 million he received in salary, bonuses and stock options since 2000.
"Is that fair?" asked committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who pointed out Fuld owns a mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut, an ocean front estate on Jupiter Island, Florida, a ski chalet in Idaho and a Manhattan apartment.
"If you haven't discovered your role, you're the villain today," said Rep. John Mica (R-FL)."

But don't just think that Lehman wages and salaries were unrealistic at the top - take a keek at this two month long summer analyst job for a bi-weekly base salary of $55,000.
But don't have a heart attack just yet.
This appears to be a very badly-worded offer of employment and no lowly analyst was being offered tens of thousands per month.
Just another sloppy piece of work from a very sloppy Lehman Brothers.

According to the Business and Media Institute, at least one other Lehman's executive type tried to pass on their portion of the blame in what appears to have been an it's 'all the boss's fault' knockout:
"While former Lehman CEO Richard Fuld was testifying before the House Oversight Committee Oct. 6, CNBC reported he had been punched in the face at the Lehman Brothers gym after it was announced the firm was going bankrupt."

Americans still unamused with Bush's bailout

Cartoon from SinFest

Click to enlarge

LA Times yesterday pointed out what ordinary people have known from the start.

Hating the bailout? You won't like the next one, either

News item from Bloomberg this morning:
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700-billion plan to buy troubled assets from financial firms may not work because it doesn't recapitalize banks, said Edmund Phelps, winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize for economics.
“There are lots of reasons to think the Paulson plan won't succeed in cleaning up banks' balance sheets any time soon,” Phelps, an economics professor at Columbia University, said at a conference today in Washington. “It may aggravate the second problem banks have, which is that they're quasi-insolvent.”
Speaking at the same conference, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman agreed, saying the Paulson plan fails to recapitalize banks, and that another government intervention, to inject capital into the banking system, is probably inevitable.

Is the Rudd Government really about fair dealing or is it just posturing?

In November 2007 Indonesia was reported as again refusing to share viral material with the World Health Organisation (WHO) because of structural barriers to poorer countries sharing in the benefits of any vaccines created.

Last Sunday Science Daily reported that just because Avian Influenza has dropped off the mainstream media radar, doesn't mean that better vaccines are not being pursued.

What is less clear is the progress on producing vaccines, stockpiling and proposed distribution in times of pandemic.

In June this year the WHO prepared a draft document PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS: MULTILATERAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SHARING OF INFLUENZA VIRUSES AND ACCESS TO VACCINES AND OTHER BENEFITS

Wikileaks source says this of the document:

On the risk of Avian Pandemic Influenza (Avian/Bird Flu) negotiations at the World Health Organisation (WHO)
There's not enough flu vaccine to go around in the event of a pandemic. If it happens, you can bet that the rich will be vaccinated, and the poor will suffer.... and that multinational drug companies will make a fortune. Remember Tamiflu?
Ever since Indonesia began withholding flu viruses from the WHO to protest the injustices of the system, governments have been trying to renegotiate the terms of international flu virus sharing. Although Indonesia, African countries, and others in Asia and Latin America have put detailed proposals on the table, wealthy countries are staunchly resisting making any major concessions to make the system more fair.
This text, drafted by the Australian chair of the WHO negotiating group, purports to be a balanced take on various countries proposals; but it's not. It's more like business as usual. Under the scheme put forward by Australia, developing countries would continue to be ripped off, and continue to submit their viruses to WHO "for global public health", only to see those viruses claimed by multinational companies and put into products too expensive for them to afford.

Reading the draft does not reveal anything to refute this claim. Indeed, on the surface it does not seem to fulfill the SAGE recommendation to WHO in April 2007.

The Rudd Government is quick to use the media to trumpet its commitment to good international relationships, but detail often points to a contrary practice.

Perhaps the Federal Minister for Health Nicola Roxon, Minister for Aging Justine Elliot, Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith and Prime Minister Rudd might like to comment on what appears to be a proposal put forward by their man which favours the large multinationals over our near neighbours and the poor and elderly.

Ladybird, ladybird............

One of the delights of childhood used to be the wonder of the existence of Ladybirds, which turned up in the garden dressed in a variety of colours and designs - black, yellow, red, orange, blue, big dots, small dots, no dots, matt-finish or highly glossy.

There are supposedly about 500 kinds of Ladybird in Australia.

When was the last time you saw a one?
Like cicadas they appear to have largely gone missing from our urban life.

Courtesy of the Australian Botanic Gardens some ladybird facts can be found here.

Also here is a CSIRO webpage if you want to find out more about these little winged gems.

Please explain, Mr. Crawford

It has long been rumoured that North Coast Area Health Service CEO Chris Crawford has his damage control down pat and the outcome of the service's complaints process heavily favours a positive outcome for the regional hospitals involved.

So it came as no surprise that a 2003 complaint appears by default to have gone in favour of the named doctor and Lismore Base Hospital.

Nor does it surprise that last June Crawford wrote to the patient involved and apologised for the mishandling of her complaint.

Seeing the light and genuinely sorry? Hardly.

Chris was sprung by unfolding events, because the doctor's registration was suspended in February 2008.

What many of us would like to know is why it took a former patient to jog NCAHS memories about Hasil and why it took Crawford four months after the doctor's suspension to write to this patient?

Also why it was that NCAHS did not react to local media reports on this doctor in February other than to supply the misleading information that "Dr Hasil was never formally accused of malpractice during his time at Lismore Base Hospital" and why senior hospital medical staff virtually ignored the doctor's alleged behaviour between 2003 and 2005.

Not good enough, Chris, not bl**dy good enough!

Current list of deregisterd doctors in NSW

Current list of suspended doctors in NSW

What happens to the Internet Harpies if Obama wins the White House?

Both the Republicans and Democrats are naturally trying to control media spin in the 2008 US presidential election.

Cease and desist letters are flying back and forth between candidates and lobby groups (such as the National Rifle Association), as well as between media outlets and the Obama and McCain campaign machines.
Legal action is apparently being regularly threatened over a broad area.

After a failed attempt to allegedly buy internet censorship, Obama has relied on a number of websites in his attempt to control this spin.
His Fight the Smears site asks for help in spreading the 'truth' about political rumours and falsehoods.

However, his supporters appear to be going a little overboard and are apparently attempting to censor what goes up on the Internet.

As a Wikipedia discussion points out in relation to the Obama-Ayers matter (raised again by Palin on the weekend):

It's clear this is a hot potato, but something has to be done about Obama/Ayers wording. Look over the last few days and you'll see sections and sentences about Obama appear and disappear. Some of the wordings are clear vandalism, or, at best, provocations, but even short, sober mentions of a controversy has been removed.
The topic is not without interest or published material to work with. Today the NYT published a front page article on the Obama/Ayers relationship—the overall thrust of which cannot cheer Obama's detractors, but which spends some column inches investigating the relationship. And Sarah Palin made it a campaign issue. Yet the Bill Ayers page has no mention of the principle reason most people will be visiting it in the weeks to come.

Image from TinyPic

Which raises an obvious question - if Obama wins the White House will the harpies he has unleashed still try to censor what is said about him out in hyperspace and is that what he really intends/condones?

Will the NSW North Coast lose its valuable fishing industry?

The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday:

CLIMATE change is likely to hit supplies of many of Australia's favourite eating fish, including barramundi, salmon, rock lobster and prawns, the most extensive study on the subject yet undertaken by the Federal Government has warned.
The CSIRO study, commissioned by the Department of Climate Change and to be released today, reports the overall impact of global change "will pose some very significant risks to the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture in Australia".
Projected changes in temperature, ocean currents, rainfall and extreme weather events due to climate change are all likely to significantly influence fish stocks and marine ecosystems in the $2.1 billion Australia fishery and aquaculture industry, the report finds.

The NSW North Coast has a regional economy whichs depends significantly on commercial and recreational fishers.
In the Clarence Valley alone commercial fishing (including prawning) supports at least 370 jobs and is worth around $27 million annually.
Tourism across the region also depends on vistors whose focus is ocean or river fishing.

Everyone it seems is beginning to notice the absence of big fish numbers along the coast and locals are complaining that it is becoming harder to catch a feed.
This latest CSIRO report points to the possibility that these complaints are not just an excuse for an empty creel.

CSIRO report here.