Dareh Gregorian has written an article in the New York Post about Susan O'Malley's lawsuit against Sharad Karkhanis (also see earthtimes.org coverage here). While the article is a good one (see below), Gregorian fails to ask a few critical questions:
(1) Why haven't O'Malley and her attorney contacted the producers of Judge Judy, which is a more appropriate venue for a case that O'Malley herself describes as "silly" than is the New York State Supreme Court?
(2) Why are the people of the state of New York being asked to subsidize a case that the plaintiff describes as "silly"? Here are the synonyms of "frivolous" from dictonary.com :
barmy*, childish, dizzy*, empty-headed*, facetious, featherbrained*, flighty, flip, flippant, foolish, fribble, frothy, gay, giddy*, harebrained*, idiotic, idle, ill-considered, impractical, juvenile, light, light-minded, minor, niggling*, nonserious, not serious, paltry, peripheral, petty, playful, pointless, puerile, scatterbrained*, senseless, shallow, silly, sportive, superficial, tongue-in-cheek*, trivial, unimportant, unprofound, volatile, whimsical
(3) Why is the Professional Staff Congress unable to provide a dispute resolution mechanism that will spare the public the cost of resolving this "silly" dispute through the courts?
(4) One of the chief justifications of unionism is the provision of low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms. If unions like the Professional Staff Congress utilize the court system as a dispute resolution method of first resort, can such unions be justified from the standpoint of public policy?
(5) Has the Professional Staff Congress ever established guidelines for competent hiring?
CUNY PROF WAR
LIBEL SUIT OVER 'TERROR'
By DAREH GREGORIAN
November 5, 2007 -- A CUNY professor has filed a $2 million lawsuit against a fellow Ph.D. who's been lambasting her for allegedly trying to "recruit terrorists" to teach within the City University system.
In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Susan O'Malley charges that professor emeritus Sharad Karkhanis defamed her by accusing her of having an "obsession with finding jobs for terrorists" in recent issues of a newsletter he's been e-mailing to CUNY faculty members for 15 years.
Citing O'Malley's efforts to land jobs for convicted activist lawyer Lynne Stewart's co-defendant Mohammed Yousry and former Weather Underground member Susan Rosenberg, Karkhanis wrote:
"Has Queen O'Malley ever made a 'Job Wanted' announcement like this for a nonconvicted, nonviolent, peace-loving American educator for a job in CUNY? . . . Why does she prefer convicted terrorists bent on harming our people and our nation over peace-loving Americans?"
The retired Kingsborough Community College political-science professor said O'Malley, an English professor there, "is recruiting naive . . . faculty into her Qaeda-Camp to infiltrate . . . Personnel and Budget Committees in her mission - to recruit terrorists in CUNY. Given the opportunity, she will bring in all her indicted, convicted and freed-on-bail terrorist-friends."
O'Malley believes the terrorist-recruiter claim to be libelous. But an unapologetic Karkhanis, 73, told The Post: "Give me a break. I'm going to fight this vigorously."
He added that he considers what he wrote to be satire but that he was also "raising questions I believe are appropriate."
He said O'Malley crossed the line when she tried to land a job for Yousry, who's out on bail pending appeal of his conviction for helping Stewart disseminate messages from 1993 World Trade Center bomb plotter Omar Abdel-Rahman.
O'Malley, on leave from CUNY, could not be reached for comment.
dareh.gregorian@nypost.com
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Gold and Commodity Exposure in Your Portfolio
John Maynard Keynes quoted Lenin as saying that best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. There is debate whether Lenin said it or not. In any case much harm can be done from inflation. Since 1979, the compound inflation rate in the United States has been 3.7%. This has accompanied a lengthy stock market increase and a much larger production of dollars by the Federal Reserve Bank. The US money supply has increased several times, but there is a much larger amount of dollars in circulation around the globe, perhaps as much as 8 or 9 times the number of dollars in circulation in the US. The result of this is that the dollar is at all-time lows against a range of currencies, and has the prospect of depreciating further. The reduction in the buying power of the dollar is beneficial for exporters and may attract some factories back to the US. But it will harm those who hold dollars. In particular, those who hold savings accounts and long term bonds will be harmed as prices increase. Similarly, those on pensions and annuities will be harmed. The days when inflation was merely a domestic affair are over. The depreciating dollar means that many prices are increasing now. If Ben Bernanke continues to inflate the number of dollars (reduce the Fed Funds rate) then there could be a sell-off by foreign governments, who are holding trillions of dollars that are depreciating in value. In turn, this would cause inflation here.
This kind of instability poses as serious a risk to your portfolio as the risk of a stock market decline. A stock market decline is a possibility if the Fed reacts to the sharp dollar declines appropriately, that is, by raising interest rates. If the Fed continues to cater to Wall Street and America's wealthy on food stamps (those who benefit from the stock market increases that unrealistically low interest rates have caused) then the stock market might continue to go up until the inflation gets so bad that nominal interest rates are forced up by inflation. Jim Cramer will literally be forcing senior citizens to eat dog food just so he can see his portfolio increase.
It is conceivable that given the irresponsibility that the Bernanke Fed has demonstrated so far there will be a major inflation. This will exacerbate the income inequality that liberal economists harp on but erroneously attribute to fiscal policy.
Gold stocks have been performing very well this year and I have been quite happy as a result. As well, the metal itself as well as other commodities such as oil and grain have been going up very nicely. If there is a massive dollar depreciation, which is not an unrealistic risk, having a good share of your money in commodities will protect you.
One way to invest in commodity stocks is through the Ivy Natural Resources Fund . The trailing 5 year returns are 34.05% versus 21% for the S&P 500. As well, the Powershares index fund family has a number of commodity and dollar bearish indexes. These include gold, silver, oil, energy, agricultural, commodity index, dollar bearish and a number of others.
The frightening thing about massive inflation is that the investment that you naturally think of as most safe, cash, gets trashed. A dollar held since 1979 is worth about 34 cents today. In a massive inflation, the depreciation would go much further much more quickly.
Friends, I urge you to cover yourselves. The "economic miracle" of the past 25 years has been a three-card-Monty game. The 25-year old bliss in the stock market results from currency depreciation that is inherently unethical (because it is based on stealing from the poor to give to the rich). It will have serious consequences for conservative investors, and possibly end with a major stock market decline. It could be much worse than what I am describing if there is a major sell off of the dollar.
This kind of instability poses as serious a risk to your portfolio as the risk of a stock market decline. A stock market decline is a possibility if the Fed reacts to the sharp dollar declines appropriately, that is, by raising interest rates. If the Fed continues to cater to Wall Street and America's wealthy on food stamps (those who benefit from the stock market increases that unrealistically low interest rates have caused) then the stock market might continue to go up until the inflation gets so bad that nominal interest rates are forced up by inflation. Jim Cramer will literally be forcing senior citizens to eat dog food just so he can see his portfolio increase.
It is conceivable that given the irresponsibility that the Bernanke Fed has demonstrated so far there will be a major inflation. This will exacerbate the income inequality that liberal economists harp on but erroneously attribute to fiscal policy.
Gold stocks have been performing very well this year and I have been quite happy as a result. As well, the metal itself as well as other commodities such as oil and grain have been going up very nicely. If there is a massive dollar depreciation, which is not an unrealistic risk, having a good share of your money in commodities will protect you.
One way to invest in commodity stocks is through the Ivy Natural Resources Fund . The trailing 5 year returns are 34.05% versus 21% for the S&P 500. As well, the Powershares index fund family has a number of commodity and dollar bearish indexes. These include gold, silver, oil, energy, agricultural, commodity index, dollar bearish and a number of others.
The frightening thing about massive inflation is that the investment that you naturally think of as most safe, cash, gets trashed. A dollar held since 1979 is worth about 34 cents today. In a massive inflation, the depreciation would go much further much more quickly.
Friends, I urge you to cover yourselves. The "economic miracle" of the past 25 years has been a three-card-Monty game. The 25-year old bliss in the stock market results from currency depreciation that is inherently unethical (because it is based on stealing from the poor to give to the rich). It will have serious consequences for conservative investors, and possibly end with a major stock market decline. It could be much worse than what I am describing if there is a major sell off of the dollar.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
New York Times at New Lows
Joseph E. Stiglitz reviews Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine in the September 30, 2007 New York Times Book Review. Klein's book is currently number 4 on the New York Times bestseller list. I have not read it, and do not intend to, so I will not comment on the book, but rather on Stiglitz's review on p. 12.
The most intriguing part of Stiglitz's review is Naomi Klein's photograph in the print edition. Klein peers from a heavy swath of expensive makeup, I suspect Estee Lauder, and her hairstyle and lipstick alone probably cost about as much as an African farm worker makes in a year. What better image for a phony liberal/left critic of capitalism?
Given that Ms. Klein's coiffure is magnificently appointed, we may expect her to rail against globalization and the provision of manufactures to low income consumers who, probably in her view, would be better off prancing about in grass skirts and of course chucking spears. We are not disappointed.
Professor Stiglitz's review illustrates why the Times has become increasingly irrelevant and dull. For instance, Ms. Klein associates Milton Friedman with Pinochet's crimes, which were indeed horrific. According to Conservepedia.com and moreorless.com Pinochet was responsible for 3,197 murders, roughly the same number as occurred on 9/11. Recently, though, the Times's Thomas L. Friedman has suggested that he hopes that "anyone who runs on a 9/11 platform gets trounced." Despite the 17-year gap since Pinochet held office, Klein's book pounces on Pinochet's 3,197 murders (horrific they be)while Thomas L. Friedman, also in the pages of the Times sneers at al Qaeda's 3,000 murders that occurred six years ago. In contrast to Pinochet, Fidel Castro, currently in office and rarely criticized in the Times, has murdered roughly 100,000 victims, 33 times the number that Pinochet murdered. The New York Times had supported Castro in his insurgency and yet Stiglitz does not qualify his remarks about Milton Friedman.
Stiglitz and Klein sociopathically ignore that the chief mass murders of the last century were committed by those who opposed globalization, many of whom found themselves in the good graces of the Times. These include Stalin, for whom Walter Duranty apologized in the 1930s, as well as Castro and Mao, whom John Kenneth Galbraith praised to the heavens in a 1972 New York Times Magazine article. Mao alone was responsible for 25 million murders 8,333 times the number that Pinochet killed. The sick, sociopathic history of the anti-globalization left, in which Stiglitz and Klein participate, is repugnant.
Klein and Stiglitz together with the anti-globalization movement have blood-soaked hands. That anyone takes what this crew has to say seriously is astonishing.
The most intriguing part of Stiglitz's review is Naomi Klein's photograph in the print edition. Klein peers from a heavy swath of expensive makeup, I suspect Estee Lauder, and her hairstyle and lipstick alone probably cost about as much as an African farm worker makes in a year. What better image for a phony liberal/left critic of capitalism?
Given that Ms. Klein's coiffure is magnificently appointed, we may expect her to rail against globalization and the provision of manufactures to low income consumers who, probably in her view, would be better off prancing about in grass skirts and of course chucking spears. We are not disappointed.
Professor Stiglitz's review illustrates why the Times has become increasingly irrelevant and dull. For instance, Ms. Klein associates Milton Friedman with Pinochet's crimes, which were indeed horrific. According to Conservepedia.com and moreorless.com Pinochet was responsible for 3,197 murders, roughly the same number as occurred on 9/11. Recently, though, the Times's Thomas L. Friedman has suggested that he hopes that "anyone who runs on a 9/11 platform gets trounced." Despite the 17-year gap since Pinochet held office, Klein's book pounces on Pinochet's 3,197 murders (horrific they be)while Thomas L. Friedman, also in the pages of the Times sneers at al Qaeda's 3,000 murders that occurred six years ago. In contrast to Pinochet, Fidel Castro, currently in office and rarely criticized in the Times, has murdered roughly 100,000 victims, 33 times the number that Pinochet murdered. The New York Times had supported Castro in his insurgency and yet Stiglitz does not qualify his remarks about Milton Friedman.
Stiglitz and Klein sociopathically ignore that the chief mass murders of the last century were committed by those who opposed globalization, many of whom found themselves in the good graces of the Times. These include Stalin, for whom Walter Duranty apologized in the 1930s, as well as Castro and Mao, whom John Kenneth Galbraith praised to the heavens in a 1972 New York Times Magazine article. Mao alone was responsible for 25 million murders 8,333 times the number that Pinochet killed. The sick, sociopathic history of the anti-globalization left, in which Stiglitz and Klein participate, is repugnant.
Klein and Stiglitz together with the anti-globalization movement have blood-soaked hands. That anyone takes what this crew has to say seriously is astonishing.
Friday, November 2, 2007
An invitation to Barbara Bowen and Susan O'Malley of the Professional Staff Congress
Dear Professor Karkhanis, President Bowen and Community College Officer O'Malley:
I have contacted the Judge Judy television show at http://www.judgejudy.com/home/home.asp. I have suggested that they contact President Bowen and Community College Officer O'Malley as co-complainants and Professor Karkhanis as defendant in an arbitration of O'Malley v Karkhanis on Judge Judy. I urge you to contact the show independently via the Judge Judy website, as this would provide an appropriate venue for the activities of the Professional Staff Congress and, as well, help the PSC to work on and improve its dispute resolution ability.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
