McCain campaign interfering in Palin probe

Senator John McCain is accused of interfering with a probe on his vice-presidential nominee, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin by helping witnesses refuse to comply with subpoenas. Governor Palin was accused of firing her public safety commissioner because of personal issues. Ex-commissioner Walt Monegan said he himself was given the pink slip because he refused to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, who divorced Palin's sister. This is not allowed by law at any employment position, because personal and business matters are supposed to be kept separate. Palin states that Monegan was fired for insubordination, but Monegan rebuts that he had been a "team player" the whole time. The McCain campaign has been allegedly trying to prevent the probe ever since Palin's nomination. Lawyers for the two Senators say Sen. McCain has been "moving on many fronts" to stop the investigation. Before her nomination, Gov. Palin agreed to the investigation, but has now been trying to get the Alaskan State Personnel Board to investigate. Many members have refused to appear in court, Palin's husband among them. The Republican Vice-Presidential nominee's lawyer declared that the state law restricted federal investigations in internal state affairs. However, if McCain is elected, then Palin becomes the Vice-president, which is a federal position. Therefore, many people are refusing to appear in court, because they think a federal committee should not investigate a state issue. This is illegal, but only the full Senate has the power to vote sanctions on this power, which does not meet again until January. Therefore, McCain would be clear of a scandal before the election.

Personally, I think Sarah Palin is guilty, even without any evidence. If she has no skeletons in her closet, then the people ordered to testify would not skip the trials, because they know that Palin is innocent. The fact that Palin and McCain is trying to get someone, who might be biased towards them, to investigate this matter instead shows that they are trying to hide something. This is just dirty politics. In my opinion, a person that is not ready to lead a country if that person doesn't admit his or her mistakes. A dishonest leader will not be trusted by the people he/she rules over. Honesty is definitely a qualification to be the President/Vice-President of the US. If Palin does not have this qualification, and McCain acknowledges that, then the Republican team definitely is not ready to lead America.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/25/palin.probe/index.html

Bailout collapses, McCain loses support in the wake

On Sept. 30, 2008, a $700 billion bailout plan designed to help the US economy was shot down by the House of Representatives. This failure held back billions from Wall Street and deeply hurt Sen. McCain's presidential campaign campaign, lowering his approval rating, from 48% to 46%, while Obama gained from 48% to 51%. McCain suspended his presidential campaign for a week to try passing the bailout bill in the House of Representatives. This was a big gamble, because if the bill was passed, then McCain gets the credit for helping the economy recover. However, it failed. Even before the failed vote, people blamed Republicans more than Democrats for the ailing economy. After the failed vote, both supporters and opponents of the bailout became his enemies. The head Republican in the House, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, stated "Sen. McCain was actively involved in lobbying Republican House members Sunday to line up behind the bailout. I'm grateful for his support." However, the vote against the bill was 2:1, with his own Republicans opposing his bill (133 of them). McCain blamed Obama for the failed bill, stating Obama "infused unnecessary partisanship" into the talks. However, this did not help McCain in the end. His ratings lowered after the failed bill, and Obama is starting to have larger and larger gains in polls. His support for this bill may eventually cost him the election in November.

I personally 100% disagree with this bill. The government is basically using taxpayer money to fund private businesses. Some of these taxpayers were cheated of their money BY these corporations, because of hidden clauses on mortgage contracts, borrowing money, and more. Why should people that already have their money cheated once help the cheaters stay alive? Many of the big banks that are the focus of the bailout caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis. This means that even if people didn't have money, the bank still allowed people to borrow money from them, because the borrowers will not pay them back on time. This allows the bank to charge extra interest, and therefore make more money. The problem is, the longer the borrowers are in debt, the less able are they able to pay it back. Therefore, when most of the bank's money has been lent out, not much is coming back in. This led to foreclosures, in which started the domino effect in weakening the American economy. As one can see, it is the bank's fault for letting people that obviously can't pay back a loan borrow money. McCain, as a Republican, is mostly allied with the big banks and business that caused the recession to start in the first place. I think Obama would be better to be president, because he, as a Democrat, cares more about the middle to lower class more than the average Republican. I think it is a good thing that this bill was rejected. Americans shouldn't help the people that hurt them in the first place.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/bailout.candidates/index.html?iref=mpstoryviewd

Big financial institutions fall in the wake of the American recession

Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in America, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Another major American investment bank, Merrill Lynch, has been sold to Bank of America. AIG, American Investment Group, also announced a reorganization of the company today. This followed a series of financial giants that crashed. First was the Bear Stearns buyout in March. The US Federal Reserve helped J.P. Morgan Chase bailout Bear Stearns, but not before its stocks fell well over 80%. Next was the buy-out of mortgage giants Freddie and Fannie Mac, whose stocks dropped over 90% before the Federal Reserve stepped in. The Federal Reserve acknowledged that without these giants, the economy would probably collapse. Therefore, they would be ran by the government until they became stronger, and more likely to hold off the loss of capital on their own. Now, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, with the former established for 168 years and the latter established for 94 years, will be gone along with the other giants. All of these companies have been in business for at least 30 years. Lehman Brothers' stock fell by more than 95% to 19 cents a share before it announced bankruptcy, because it couldn't find a buyer. Merrill Lynch stock soared by eight dollars, while Bank of America's, the buyer, fell 15% to $28.29. AIG's stock fell by 55% in After these new changes have been announced, the Dow fell by 2.5%. However, these changes don't only affect the US. Many Asian markets were closed, but India's Sensex fell 5.4%, Taiwan's fell by 4.1%, Singapore's down by 2.9%, and Australia's by 2%. The European economy was also hit hard by the news of the falling of the financial giants. The FTSE in London fell immediately by 2.8% while the Paris CAC fell by 3.5%. Asian markets are also expected to decline. These strength of the wake was also felt in Canada. The TSX, Toronto Stock Exchange, fell by nearly 5%. No one knows what to expect after this, because, in the words of Art Hogan, chief strategist for Jefferies and Co., "We've never witnessed this before."

Personally, I think the US government should also bail out Lehman Brothers. It looked to Bank of America and the British Bank Barclays for a buyer, but Bank of America instead acquired Merrill Lynch while the British bank pulled out of talks. However, one must also remember that Lehman Brothers caused this troubles on this themselves. They are going bankrupt because they let people who couldn't afford mortgages have them, which is completely irresponsible. They have no one but themselves to blame. If it wasn't for their irresponsible practices, then there is no doubt that America would be much better off than it is today.
Buying Merrill Lynch was a good move for Bank of America. By buying Merrill Lynch, they were able to become the largest brokerage in the world, with more than 20,000 advisors and more than $2.5 trillion US in assets. This will put them into a good position when the US economy becomes strong again. Again, however, we must realize that Merrill Lynch got themselves into this mess. Lehman Brothers was not the only bank that lent money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back - most banks did. Because of their dishonest practices, they went bankrupt, like any other company would. However, in this case, I think Bank of America benefited from this buyout, because, as previously stated, they were in a position to become a leader the financial industry once the economy recovers. We will have to wait and see what happens after these deals, and if Lehman Brothers will actually gets bailed out.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/091508-wall-street-shakeup.html?fsrc=netflash-rss

Hurricane Ike will move to the Gulf of Mexico, but not after hitting Cuba twice

Hurricane Ike has now hit Cuba twice. The second hit came on today. It is barely a category 1 hurricane, but because it has now moved over waters again, it will pick up strength. Cuba has been hard hit during this hurricane season, with the most publicized ones being Gustav and Ike. The US economy, already in a recession, can decline even more if gas prices rise again. Hurricane Ike has caused at least five deaths in Cuba, and 73 deaths in Haiti. When it hits the Mexican or American coasts, it is expected to be at least a Category 3 storm, similar to Hurricane Gustav after it hit the coast of Louisiana. It is expected to cause millions, if not billions (in US dollars), of damage. The landing zone of Ike is unknown, but is expected to hit Texas. Because the route is unknown, there is no guarantee that the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico will be safe.
Hurricanes have a major effect on gas prices. Whenever a hurricane moves closer to the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico, gas prices start to rise. Whenever an oil-rich region is threatened, no matter if it's by human or natural actions, gas prices peak. Because the route of Hurricane Ike is still not determined, gasoline prices rise. This is because the oil companies are scared of a short supply of oil. Due to the economic rule of supply and demand, this will always happen. Canadians might feel their wallets getting smaller if the gas prices rise again. In August, gas rose to nearly $1.40/L in the GTA.

I think that Hurricane Ike can have a major effect on the Canadian economy. If it hits the worst places, then gas will suddenly rise again. Hurricane Ike can make the lives of many working Canadians harder. During the height of the oil crisis, people had to choose between either gasoline or fuel. If Hurricane Ike severely damages the oil facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, then people might have to face this decision again. We just have to wait and hope that Hurricane Ike misses the vital oil facilities. Otherwise, Canadians might face a time of hardship again.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/09/hurricane.ike/?iref=mpstoryview

Air Canada's Jazz takes out life jackets

On August 23, 2008, Air Canada decided on a new initiative to save fuel and operating costs - by taking out the life jackets off their airplanes, including planes that fly over water. Because of rising fuel prices, with most airline companies in the Americas operating at a net loss of millions of dollars, airlines have been desperate to save any amount of money possible. Canadian law allows airlines to just carry flotation devices as long as they are operating within 50 nautical miles of land. Jazz has altered some routes along the east coast to meet this requirement. This occurred at the height of the oil crisis, when oil was near its record price of $147.47 USD per barrel. By ditching the life jackets and using just the flotation devices, airlines lighten their planes by about 500 grams each, and therefore save operating costs. This is the latest effort to make up for the then-rising fuel costs, which had doubled. Other attempts at reducing costs include a surcharge for meals, baggage, and pillows.
This decision has been critized by many experts. The little amount of weight of each life jacket barely saves the airlines any fuel at all. Also, the function of the life jacket and the flotation cushion is different. The life jacket keeps a person's head above water, preventing them from drowning. Since it is worn on the body, it keeps the person's head above water without any further support. However, a person has to hold on to the flotation device to stay above water. It is very difficult to hold onto a device if the water is very cold. The person can't hang on for very long until their fingers and arms will not respond. Tom Hinton, a former director on Canada's Transportation Safety Board, states that the cushion takes too long to remove from the seat. This will shorten the time a person has to get out of a falling plane. Because the passengers only have a few minutes to get out, it lessens their chance of survival. In short, this decision is a dangerous hazard to the safety of passengers.

I personally believe that this is a stupid decision. The priority of any airline is its passengers' safety, not to save money. If an airplane's engine fails and the plane crashes into water, it is very possible that many passengers will perish, especially if it is during winter, due to hypothermia. Even though a person would get exposed to the cold waters with a life jacket, the life jacket should, in theory, conserve a little bit of body heat. It can be the t This should be an ethical, not a business decision. Also, they can not possibly save much from this decision. If the passengers are killed due to their hands falling out of the cushions' straps, then the passengers' families will sue. The money the airlines lose will be much more than the money saved from using the flotation devices. Money for the airlines, as well as the lives of the passengers, is lost. In the end, no one wins. I think the life jackets should be put back onto the planes now, because fuel has fell so much now. It is also the smart, sensible, and safe thing to do. A company should do its best to ensure the safety of its customers. That's why I believe that taking out the life jackets is a stupid idea, and Jazz should put them back as soon as possible.

http://www.thestar.com/article/484113