text:
What I Learned from My Parents About Bartending in 1980s New York
I talked to my parents about their respective bartending experiences, which included mixology school, snide clientele, and tricks to play on drunkards. I also learned to neither presume a customer's tipping ability nor fuck with your server.
Illustration by Stephanie Sarley.
When Noisey's resident teen columnist told us that he wanted to talk to his parents about their experiences serving booze to diplomats and scary men in trench coats, we could hardly say no.
My mom will drop an alcohol safety-themed platitude from time to time: "Don't get in the car if the driver's inebriated," "Don't drink solely to get drunk," or "Call whatever time of night if you need help." These lines are valid but also veritably parenty. Besides warnings, I knew that my mom had more to offer on the topic of alcohol, since she used to be a bartender. Oh, and my dad was a bartender too.
In a conversation that was just as hilarious as it was enlightening, I talked to my parents about their respective bartending experiences, which included mixology school, snide clientele, and tricks to play on drunkards. I learned about New York life in the 1980s and who Johnny Weissmuller was, as well as to neither presume a customer's tipping ability nor fuck with your server.
MUNCHIES: You attended the same bartending school, but at separate times.
Dad: Yes. It was the American School of Bartending in Montclair, New Jersey, and it was located, when I went there, on Park Street.
Mom: Yep, same location [for me]. Very seedy kind of building. I can't remember the exact street number.
Dad: I do. I know exactly where it is.
Mom: [ Laughs] Is it still seedy?
Dad: It's still kinda gross.
You once said you learned some tricks there.
Mom: First, just upfront, I didn't do any of these things. There was a shady character who was teaching the course. Instead of being a good bartender to get good tips, [one] of his tricks was you wet down the counter of the bar and you don't totally dry it, and then when you give the person change back you put the big bills on the bottom; so what he's found is that after a night of drinking, people are gonna grab their cash, but the big bill will stick to the wet bar [counter].
Dad: I wish I learned that. That's brilliant.
Mom: Yeah but that's terrible.
Dad: They taught us a lot of jokes and a lot of tricks to try to entertain our drunk patrons, so that they would give us tips. They were pretty corny jokes, but when you've had a few [drinks], they're pretty funny. One of them was: "What's worse than having a lobster on your piano? Having a crab on your organ." [mild chuckle] [The school] had lifetime job placement, so whenever you wanted a job, you can call their job placement office and they would have a list of restaurants and bars.
Could you guys possibly still get jobs from that today?
Dad: I think so. I got some private parties, and they got me a job tending bar in some New Jersey discos. They were filled with the kind of guys who were probably the parents of the cast of Jersey Shore.
Mom: The guys who tuck in their sweaters.
Dad: They wore gold.
Mom: They were very Jersey.
Dad: Yeah, they were Jersey guys. They were muscular and tan.
Mom: They overworked their biceps, didn't do any work on their legs.
Dad: I then got an opportunity to tend bar in a New York restaurant. I'd only been tending bar in these kind of disco places. The place was called the Park 10. It was on the corner of Park and 34th Street. They had a piano there and there would be singing. The clientele was a combination of washed-up Broadway types, functional alcoholics, strange people, and also people who lived in the neighborhood. Because of the way Manhattan was back then, you could live in a neighborhood like Park and 34th Street, on either a fixed income or a modest income, in one of their apartments. It really was [affordable]. So there were regulars that came in all the time to drink, and they were older.
Mom: I didn't think it was so affordable back then.
Dad: It was. These people all lived in the neighborhood, and they were not well-off at all. They were in their 40s and up. One of the customers was the brother of Johnny Weissmuller, who was an Olympic swimmer and he was also Tarzan in the 1930's in Hollywood.
Mom: Wait, it was the brother of Tarzan?
Dad: Yeah, that was his calling card. And it looked like some of the women may have been retired dancers or call girls or something.
Mom: Y'know, you're being so pigeonholing. Why would you say "call girls?"
Dad: Not dancers, like maybe, strippers.
Mom: Why would you even say strippers?!
Dad: I don't know! They dressed very loud, they had a lot of makeup. [Defeatedly] Alright.
Cabaret types, maybe?
Dad: Yeah maybe cabaret. Alright, don't say call girls.
Mom: Oh my god.
Dad: "Entertainment" types.
Mom: We're gonna come off like old farts.
Dad: I'll tell you my story of what I've learned from this experience. The big lesson was do not fuck with your servers. Don't do it, because they have contact with your drinks and your food, and they can contaminate it.
Mom: But you didn't.
Dad: I didn't, but a guy did it on my behalf, and here's how it happened. One of the customers was a diplomat of some sort, and he came in frequently and I'd never served him. He came in with two or three women, and he had some money. He would hold court at the bar for them, order around the bartenders and refer to all the bartenders as "Monsieur," and he would beckon to them and want them to come and serve him. These giggling girls were around him all the time. So one day I was serving him, and he asked for Courvoisier neat.
Mom: [It's pronounced] Cuh-vah-see-yay, anyway. You're saying Cuh- vwah-see-yay.
Dad: If you're French and you've got some couth, it's Cuh-vwah-see-yay. If you're from Jersey it's Cuh- vah-see-yay.
So he ordered a Courvoisier neat. Now, I'd been tending bar in these discos, and nobody ordered Courvoisier neat. So I turned around and looked at the rack of all of the higher-end liquors, and I was looking for Courvoisier neat. I saw Courvoisier, I didn't see any "neat." I said to one of the guys I was working with, "Where's the Courvoisier neat?" He said, "What're you talking about?" I said, "This guy, he wants Courvoisier neat."
So he goes, "Oh, that's the 'neat' guy." I said, "What is that?" He said, "He wants his Courvoisier without ice. 'Neat' means without ice. Be sure to warm it, because he wants it warm." I said, "Oh, alright." The way you warm a brandy, Courvoisier is a brandy.
Mom: [Mumbles] Cuh-vah-see-yay.
Dad: You put it in a snifter, which is an elaborate glass, and you pour the Cuh-vwah-see-yay in the glass.
Mom: It sounds silly with you saying it because you have this mega Jersey accent, and you're saying Cuh- vwah-see-yay.
Dad: No, I'm classy.
Mom: [Laughs]
Dad: That's the thing. I've got couth. I'm el-uh-gant.
Mom: Yeah, well you sound silly.
Dad: I'm warming [the snifter]. I give it to the "neat" guy and I put it down and walk away, and he goes, "Monsieur!" I walk back and he said, "That's not the way to warm my Courvoisier. You should use a lighter." So I took the stem of the glass and I held the lighter, quickly passed it underneath so it wouldn't burn when you held the glass. Then I gave it to the guy, and then he beckons me again. He says, "Monsieur!" I said, "Yes sir, what is it?" He said, "That's not very much Courvoisier. You can do a little better."
I looked at the guy I was working with, who had served him in the past, and he shrugged his shoulders. So I poured a little bit in, gave it back to him, walked away. He said, "Monsieur!" I said, "Yes?" He said, "That now needs to be warmed as well." So I did the warming thing. I guess I was giving off silent contempt, because I was getting pissed off. He seemed to be enjoying it, and the girls he was with were giggling at all of this. I gave [the drink] to him. He said, "Monsieur, are you being racist at me?"
"At me?"
Dad: He was Middle Eastern, but he didn't have an accent. He was just misusing the term, I guess. I said, "No, not at all." He said, "I believe you're being racist at me." I said, "No, no." He said, "Well I think you are, and I'd like to speak to your manager." So I get the manager, comes over to him, and he asked for someone else to serve him who'd give him more respect. I was sort of pushed to the side and this other bartender started working with him, the guy who told me what "neat" was.
So the manager went back to the kitchen and told the chef, and the chef comes out. This guy is having his drinks and the girls are being entertained. Chef comes up and says, "What's going on?" I said, "This guy is just an asshole." He said, "Oh yeah, that guy's a dick. Tell you what, get Tommy over here." So Tommy is the other bartender. He says, "Tommy, hereya go." Tommy takes something from the chef and Tommy puts it into his vest. I didn't know what was going on, I said, "What's going on?" He said, "That's Visine. He's gonna put it in the 'neat' guy's drinks, and the 'neat' guy's gonna have a little indigestion later on." I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "I dunno, stomachache, diarrhea, something. It works."
Now little did I know that this chef was notorious for spitting in customers' food. When waiters came back and told him that somebody was saying the steak was too hot, too cold, not enough marking, not well-done, after a certain point he would spit into their mashed potatoes and stir it around or do something. So this was a no-shit-taking guy, and he stuck up for the bartender who was going through his situation. My big lesson from this was, if you have a problem with your food or your drink, you [tell the server] in a way that's respectful and shows dignity to the server; don't talk down to them, don't be entitled.
Mom: To this day, I am so afraid to send anything back. When I send food back, I first apologize.
Dad: So now you tell your story.
Mom: Well, I don't have a long, drawn-out story like that. So, first of all, I got nothing through the American Bartending School.
Dad: They treat their alumni right!
Mom: Not me! Maybe there was a little gender inequality back then, I don't know. I didn't get anything through them, it was all on my own. I wound up working at a gourmet Chinese restaurant. It was a service bar. A lot of people would sit there and wait for their food if it was takeout, but primarily I was there to help the waiters and serve drinks to the people that were seated. The way I got that was I went in there one day and I saw it was really really busy on a Friday night; and I saw that the bartender was having trouble, he seemed overwhelmed. So I asked if they needed an additional bartender and they said yes.
One main thing that I learned, but I kind of knew it before, especially at the bar in this restaurant: you can never tell by the way a person looks how they're gonna tip you or how much they're gonna appreciate your service. I at first expected the people that were dressed very formally or, the way they carried themselves, they seemed to have a lot of money—I thought they would tip accordingly, or at least fairly. They wound up to be the absolute worst tippers, ever. And then people I found to be the best tippers were, if they were sitting at the bar waiting for food and we talked, if they were coming home from work—they worked for a living and they were mostly in blue-collar professions. Especially the people in the service professions, they would tip me incredibly well.
You can never really tell [the tipping ability] by the way a person was dressed. They could be in a long dress, dressed in a suit; I would expect a great tip and not necessarily [get one]. I shouldn't say all the time they would tip terribly. My memory of this was the people who came in dressed casually, seemed to be coming home from work, coming in for takeout, and then they were just waiting at the bar and they'd have a drink, they tipped absolutely the best.
I remember this one entitled—can I swear?
Mom: I remember this one entitled fucking asshole reach over my bar, like [there] was no boundary, reached into my speedrack, pulled out the vodka, and started adding to his drink. I was a 21 year-old, but it was as if I was reprimanding a small child. I was like, "What do you think you're doing?! Put that down! Do not touch that!" And he's like, "But I needed more vodka." I was like, "Uh, you ask me! I'll easily get that for you." The age that I am now is probably how old he was, and I was thinking he was this old guy. Just that he felt entitled to reach into my speedrack, and he was part of a group that seemed to definitely be on the wealthier side. [He] just felt like it was his bar. I couldn't believe it.
So what else?
Garfield, New Jersey?
Mom: So in Garfield, New Jersey, I worked in … I guess it would be considered a "dive bar." It was very local. A friend of mine was a co-owner and he asked me to come and work on the opening weekend. Not that it was a scary part of Garfield, but it wasn't in a really nice section of Garfield. The clientele was all guys, all coming in after work. Compared to the drinks at the Chinese restaurant, which was Scorpion Bowls and Mai Tais—
Dad: Elaborate. Lots of juice, lots of ingredients, pain in the ass to make.
Mom: Pain in the ass to make. All these guys ordered beers and shots. It was a bartender's dream. So all I had to do was pour shots, pour beers. They kept buying each other beers and shots. That was it! And they tipped me so great, I made the best tips. If you looked at this bar and if you looked at the people going to this bar, you'd think you're not gonna make any tips. I guess the takeaway [is] you cannot judge the clientele by how they're dressed or what part of town you're in—you just don't know. The people that I thought wouldn't tip me wound up tipping me the best and being the most appreciative.
There was a guy that came in—kind of a scary-looking guy in a trenchcoat—[who] pulled out this big wad of $100 bills. We'd just opened and I knew that in our cash register I did not have enough to break a hundred. Literally, the bar just opened, we did not have enough. So I said, following the rules even though he looked a little scary, "Sorry, Joe, I can't break that. Do you have anything smaller?" And [my friend] comes running over, breaks [$100] out of his own money and [he's] like, "We have it, we have it! It's OK, it's OK!"
What it made me think of, I guess, [was that] Joe carried some weight in that bar area, and it was very important that he got taken care of in a certain way. Then I was thinking back to the Chinese restaurant, there were certain people there that got treated with extra-special care by the management/owners. It always struck me as so unfair. Why do these people get special treatment? Why does everybody else have to follow the rules? There was Joe in the Garfield bar and then there was this other guy that got treated very gently in the Chinese restaurant.
Dad: You should've had Joe come to the Chinese place and take care of the assholes there.
Mom: Yeah, but Joe was getting special treatment, where these other dudes were not getting special treatment. These other dudes deserved exactly the same treatment. He wasn't demanding treatment, it just seemed like people were jumping to help him.
Dad: I think the people at the Chinese [restaurant] were jumping because they were impressed by his money, but the people at Garfield were jumping for Joe 'cause they feared for their lives.
Mom: Well I think so. There could've been some weaponry under that trenchcoat. I don't know.


text:
The American Loggers Council (ALC) today urged the Trump Administration and United States Congress to take action to address the nation's wildfire crisis. So far this year 47,000 fires have burned nearly eight million acres across the country. As the national organization representing America's professional timber harvesters, ALC believes the federal government should actively manage its forests through logging and mechanized thinning to reduce the risks of severe fire and protect adjoining state and private lands.
With 193 million acres in the National Forest System alone, much of America's forest land is controlled by the federal government. The U.S. Forest Service estimates up to 80 million acres of federal forest land vulnerable to wildfire, insects and disease and are in need of treatment. A large portion of federally-owned forests are non-reserved and suitable for sustainable timber production. Yet harvest levels on federal lands remain low, with tree growth and mortality rates far exceeding removal.
ALC supports reforms to increase the pace and scale of forest projects. ALC supports sensible reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act, and supports giving the U.S. Forest Service adequate resources to prepare and implement forest projects.
"The U.S. House of Representatives should pass the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 to reduce dangerously high fuel loads on our national forests," said American Loggers Council Executive Vice President Daniel Dructor. "The U.S. Senate must also take action by passing this legislation, or other comprehensive solutions to restore our nation's forests back to health."
The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 gives the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management new tools to reduce the threats to federally-owned forests. It enables agencies to expedite forest health projects on watersheds, remove dead trees after wildfires, and generate new revenues to replant and rehabilitate burned forests. The legislation also provides an alternative to costly and obstructive litigation from special interest groups, reduces project planning times and lowers costs to American taxpayers.
Dructor says addressing America's wildfire crisis is also critical to preserving the nation's forest products infrastructure, which continues to be threatened by low timber harvest levels on federal lands as well as challenging markets due to low energy prices and high imports of wood products from other countries. Putting the nation's loggers and milling infrastructure to work will create more manufacturing jobs and support small family-owned businesses.
"As we've seen in some parts of the country, restoring forest health on federal lands has become enormously expensive and inefficient where loggers, log truckers and mill facilities have disappeared," Dructor said. "Taking action now, and working with the private sector, will enable the federal government to achieve its goal of increasing the pace and scale of forest management activities on federal land. Passing legislation now will allow federal agencies to get ahead of future fire seasons and lower the intensity of fires we're experiencing today."
The American Loggers Council is the only national organization solely dedicated to representing the independent contract logger on the national level. We have the combined forces of independent contractors and state and regional logging associations around the country to impact our industry positively and pro-actively by sharing the benefits of education and training opportunities, networking, research, promotion and legislative coordination. The Council is committed to enhancing the logging profession, establishing a more level playing field for professional loggers and providing accurate information about the logging profession to the forest products companies, landowners and the public. It serves as a national network and communication center, linking local, state and regional organizations around the country.

subset: commoncrawl


text: If you're looking to join a team of creative, experienced, leaders within the unified communications industry you should consider XCast Labs as your next career move. We also offer competitive compensation packages, and a exciting and fulfilling work environment for its employees. XCast Labs has you covered with offices in Los Angeles CA, Chicago IL (Northfield), Charleston SC and Fairfield IA. You can also send your resume to email@example.com by clicking the "get started" button above.


text:
Sky Vega IM A800S Firmware Flash File Free
Sky Vega IM A800S Firmware Flash File
First step to Install Firmware
- Sky Offline Flash Tool V1 Sky Flash Tool 2014 B2
- Sky Offline Flash Tool V2 Sky Offline ROM Flasher
- Sky Vega All USB Driver Install on Computer
- Update Microsoft Internet Explorer
How To Flash Sky Vega IM A800S
- Download Offline Flash Tool And Drivers.
- Install Offline Flash Tool And Sky Vega Drives
- Update Your Microsoft Internet Explorer
- dissable all antivirus ,right click on fixserver run as administartor press enter
- right click on fixserver run as administartor
- Put Device in SW Upgrade Mode
- Connect Device With PC Via USB Cable
- Check Installed Drivers in devices manager
- Press Firmware Upgrade Icon in Internet Explorer
- your phone start flashing, and your phone will be flashed about 5 to 10 minutes after flash phone automatically restart when phone reboot unplug the cable now you have successfully flashed your phone.
- After flashing process, starts, it might take up to 5-10 minutes. So, keep patience and wait.
- Like this post? Hit the share buttons below to share this article with your friends on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter.


text:
Roylin is feeling under the weather. What does that have to do with sex?
Roylin interviews Dr. Megan Fleming about making and keeping monogamy great.
Roylin answers some questions that anyone new to anal sex may have. It's not as scary as you might think!
Roylin considers the question, "What is sexual hibernation, and how can we snap ourselves out of it?"


text:
Sacking of Essex fire chief David Johnson was 'unfair'
PUBLISHED: 16:37 28 April 2017 | UPDATED: 11:23 30 April 2017
The sacking of Essex's chief fire officer has been branded unfair and unjust by union leaders.
Alan Chinn-Shaw, of the Fire Brigade Union's Essex branch, has questioned why David Johnson faced further investigations, costing the taxpayer thousands of pounds, after a senior barrister previously found no evidence of misconduct.
Mr Johnson, who was dismissed on Tuesday after being suspended in April 2015 following a period of sick leave, had been cleared of misconduct in a report by Naomi Ellenbogen QC last year, which looked at 10 allegations.
The Essex Fire Authority, which commissioned the report and also dismissed Mr Johnson, who lives in Suffolk, said previously the report was "not the only piece of evidence in the investigation".
However Mr Chinn-Shaw said it went against "natural justice" for an employee to be cleared by one report only to be overruled by another.
"I don't think the decision will withstand any sort of scrutiny," he said.
"It's clearly unfair that the group of people who commission one report into the conduct of a member of staff then commission a new report to unpick its findings."
Mr Chinn-Shaw said the costs to the authority, including legal fees, are likely to exceed £1million.
He is calling for the Fire Authority to explain why Robin Allen QC was commissioned for the second report, given the significant sums already spent on Ms Ellenbogen's investigation.
Mr Johnson said he was not able to discuss the reasons for his dismissal.
He told the BBC he was "utterly devastated". "I don't understand the malice in doing this to me, particularly when I'm innocent," he added.
Essex Fire Authority said the details of the dismissal will remain confidential.
Chairman Anthony Hedley said it followed "a robust process in compliance with the law".
Mr Johnson's union The Fire Officers' Association, said it was "disappointed" by the outcome and "very concerned" it took so long.
"The last couple of years have been very difficult for David and his family to the extent that his health has suffered considerably as a result of his long-term suspension from duty," it said.
"Since the Fire Authority appears to consider that there is compelling evidence of misconduct warranting dismissal it is extremely difficult to understand why it has taken some two years to reach this point."


text:
Whistler – The Pedestrian Village
Whistler is the beautiful resort town in southern Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains in the British Columbia.
The Village is the central neighborhood of the town of Whistler, located at the base of both Whistler and Blackcomb Mountains, Where you can experience Peak to Peak Gondola ride which is one of the breathtaking experience during your US Tour Packages from India.
It is divided into distinct areas. The Village, Village North and Upper Village. All the areas are connected by the flagstone/bricks, pedestrian only Village Stroll.
Whistler Village is where locals and Tourist visitors intermingle throughout the year, coming and going from outdoor adventure experience. There are people shopping and hire skis and bikes, kids examine and explore the playgrounds and luxury of people-watching opportunities from sunny veranda and restaurants. Depending on the period, you can hook events like free open air shows, street entertainment and markets with variety of stuff.
Whistler Village is the charm of whistler there is always something to see and do in the sightseeing's and sound change with the seasons making your visit new and exciting on US Tour Package.


text: These pictures are from a bowl in my bathroom. It's from one of those bed and bathroom places that sells pot pouri. I just love looking at it (long after the smell is gone), and I would really like to be able to reproduce the green spiral thingy. I've seen websites and blogs where people seem to have an image that is there own, and they use it in most of their art, and sometimes it's a very powerful message. On my list of things to do is to find an image or shape I like, and use it over and over again.


text:
Sign up to study at Cultura Italiana Language School in Arezzo through the Matta Blog and receive a special one-on-one, half hour of conversation with a teacher over an aperitivo in Arezzo! Follow this link to sign up for classes.
Let me know that you have signed up to attend La Cultura Italian Language School in Arezzo by sending an email to email@example.com and I will also send you a special thank you Italian gift!
Remember Roberto Benigni's Oscar Award-Winning movie Life is Beautiful? Most of it took place in Arezzo, Tuscany, which is also the home of Giorgio Vasari, Michelangelo and Petrarch – who knew?? It is also home to Cultura Italiana Arezzo is a centre of Italian language and culture, founded in 1998, specialized only in teaching Italian to foreigners.
The school offer students at all levels flexible, tailored Italian courses taught in a friendly, personable way by our committed teaching team. As part of your language course, you can experience Italy close up, soak up the culture and make new friends by choosing from our many additional activities and we are always on hand to organise a place to stay, and give help and advice during your time in Italy.
'La famiglia' is very important in Italy and a 'family-like' atmosphere is what we aim to create here at Cultura Italiana Arezzo, our accredited Italian language school located right in the heart of Arezzo, one of Tuscany's most beautiful cities. We offer students at all levels the chance to improve their language skills through a range of flexible, tailored courses taught in a friendly, relaxed environment.
However you prefer to study – intensively or on a part-time basis, as part of a small group or in one-to-one lessons – we can help.
We are a team of young, enthusiastic professionals who are all passionate about teaching and helping our students get the most out of their course. Together we will establish your personal objectives, then work with you to help you achieve them. What's more, we want you to really enjoy learning with us. Whether you are completely new to Italian or are a more advanced student wanting to improve your fluency, whether you are relocating permanently to Italy and are keen to integrate or just want to brush up on your language skills while you are here on holiday – whatever your requirements, we have a language course to suit you!
Here at Cultura Italiana Arezzo you can learn how to prepare delicious traditional cuisine with a local chef: for many students, one of the highlights of their stay here is the opportunity to take a cooking class with trained chef, Signora Lalla who will teach you how to make tasty, traditional Tuscan dishes in her kitchen.
After the class, you get to try your dishes over a glass of wine and take the recipe with you to impress friends and family when you get home!
Do you want to learn to sing with an opera singer or play an instrument ? If you are a fan of opera and classical music, you may like to consider combining your language course with a singing or music class. We can organise for you to either learn or improve your basic singing techniques under the tuition of a trained Italian opera singer. If you prefer playing an instrument or would like to learn, we can arrange for you to take a class at the music school of Arezzo (www.scuoladimusicale7note.it)
Take a trip with us to a picturesque local winery where you can sample Tuscan wines and olive oil or join our new evening Italian conversation group to chat and make new friends – the choice is yours!
During your time here in Arezzo we can organise a place for you to stay and have access to a range of accommodation from luxury apartments in the centro storico, independent and shared apartments in the town centre to lodging with a local family, hotels and b&bs. We can even assist you in renting a villa in the country if you are planning a holiday around your language course.
Janie Trayer I've been a student at Cultura Italiana twice. During my first stay in Arezzo I enrolled in the school for a month. I had done quite a bit of research looking for a school where I would be immersed in the language and Cultura Italiana turned out to be the perfect choice. The classes are small and you get all the personal attention that you need. The instructors are all wonderful and are incredibly patient and immediately put you at ease as you try to learn the language. I absolutely loved the afternoon excursions to different towns and locations around Arezzo and especially appreciated having the opportunity to hear and speak the language outside of a classroom setting.
Gabriella Moller & Henry Burton During the nine months we have spent in Arezzo, Cultura Italiana became our home away from home. Taking classes at the school began almost by accident, and initially we had no intention of continuing lessons for the duration of our stay, but once we began we found the experience to be so richly rewarding we did not want to stop. We have been taking classes twice a week for our entire time in Arezzo. The school offers lessons, activities, and field trips to help students learn not only the Italian language, but also the history and culture of Italy. When we first signed up we had no idea how integral the school would become to our lives. The teachers are exceptionally dedicated, professionally trained, talented, and fun! We have also appreciated how flexible the school has been with our rather erratic schedule. We are coming to the end of our time in Italy, and certainly one of our greatest losses will be leaving the school and the friends we have made there. Our experience at the school has enriched and deepened our experience immeasurably. We can't recommend Cultura Italiana highly enough
Mirella Gazzoni "Two years ago, a friend and I were looking for a School where to improve our Italian but we wanted this school to be in a small city where we could live the Italian way. We found THE school , Cultura Italiana, and we found THE city, Arezzo. Arezzo is in Tuscany, so it's gotta be beautiful, right? And it sure is… It's big enough that culturally speaking there's plenty of food for the mind and for the eyes and … it's small enough that after a few days, you get to know people, you know where to go and go and go again… After a few days, you almost become Italian… Now THE school… Cultura italiana… Mamma mia… No school could have a better name! Of course, you get to learn the language… The teachers are great! Not only are they great -and molto simpatici- professionals who master the intricacies of the Italian language, but they LOVE their language and they LOVE their culture. And this is what they communicate to you no matter how long you stay. This year, I'll be returning to Arezzo and Cultura italiana. It will be my third time and I don't plan for it to be my last time."


text:
Archive for the 'Snapchat Photo Leaks Hacked Time To Wake Up' Category
Snapchat Photo Leaks Hacked Time To Wake UpOctober 13, 2014
Snapchat photo leaks are not the first service to get hacked and people see their photo's being released online. There have been more services other then snapchat where hackers were able to steal thousands of photo's and some photo's were nude pictures.
It really is time to wake up and realize that nothing is safe. Also time to think that if your going to take a picture of yourself that you don't want everyone to see then think twice before you take the picture. (more…)


text:
Run Wild
Louth's Tom Reynolds and Wicklow's Lillian Deegan raise €12,000 for charity as first to complete 1,800 mile Wild Atlantic Way
Two ultra-running enthusiasts have become the first ever people to complete the 'Wild Atlantic Route' (WAR) – a 1,800 mile journey along Ireland's west coast. Tom Reynolds, from Co. Louth, came home in 34 days, covering, on average, the equivalent of two marathons a day. His running partner, Lillian Deegan, from Co. Wicklow, matched this feat 13 days later, crossing the line after almost seven weeks on the road.
The duo battled wind and rain, treacherous pathways, multiple injuries and excruciating mental and physical pain during their mammoth expedition. But now, not only do they hold the esteemed titles of WAR finishers; they have also managed to raise an impressive €12,000 for charity. Tom, who selected the suicide-prevention charity Pieta House as his cause, explained how this was the main reason for undertaking the challenge.
"A lot of people have been affected by suicide and we need to give the issue more exposure," he said. "Also, I don't think enough is being done to educate young people and it's at risk of being forgotten about."
Lillian, who picked Billy's World Ireland as her chosen charity, managed to complete the run despite suffering an injury on only the second day.
"She got a pretty bad injury early on so we were separated from each other after day two," Tom said. "I think we both felt that, every now and then, we just wanted to curl up into a ball and call it a day. But then we would get some great encouragement and we'd be able to carry on."
The route is relatively mountainous in parts, particularly in Donegal, and the pair also had to contend with dangerous traffic along the flatter stretches. Swirling storms coming off the Atlantic and the bruising effect of pounding the pavement day after day meant the effort required for such an arduous journey would often play on their minds.
"It was mentally very tough. From the start you get very tired and, although your body gets used to it, you're always at risk of injury," Tom said.
"I'd lie in bed some evenings and my legs were so hot you could have fried an egg on them. "And you really had to push through the harsh terrain and terrible weather we had in the first couple of weeks."
Despite the struggle, Tom added that he would do it again in a heartbeat. He's now set his sights on a run across the Pennines, where he hopes to better his previous effort of 238 miles.
"I must say, it was probably a bit of a mid-life crisis that got me into it," he said. "It's a great challenge for the body and mind and, even though I was probably just grateful to be finished, it's nice to have that sense of achievement.
"And you get to do it for a good cause – that was my motivation. Whenever I found it particularly tough, I would remember the stories I'd been told from Pieta House."


text:
We've written before on our blog about the importance of creating online discussion forums that balance quality with workload. It's crucial that these discussions provide students with a valuable learning experience, while keeping this task manageable for both them and instructors.
That's why we conducted a year-long study exploring the perceived workload and value of online discussions for our online MBA students and instructors. Our goal was to understand if our students believed these discussions were insightful and useful, and whether the workload was manageable and matched the value they were receiving.
Likewise, we wanted to ascertain how our instructors were managing to evaluate the hundreds of entries in the forum, and if they believed the discussions were helping students improve their competency in the subject matter at hand.
I presented the findings from our online discussion study at Post University's Online Learning Conference 2012. In case you missed it, take a listen to my presentation, where I cover how we created the study, the different response profiles we measured, and the implications we drew for course and discussion design.
This study also validated the value of Post University's Online Discussion Guideline, which we've written about before on our blog. I've also published a paper in the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT) detailing best practices for creating online discussion forums that foster and optimize student-to-student and student-to-instructor engagements, without demanding too much time from students and instructors. Flip back to these resources for more information and recommendations on creating online discussion forums.


text:
CBS This Morning
The ladies of The Talk in the green room of CBS This Morning on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 on the CBS Television Network. Sheryl Underwood, from left, Aisha Tyler, Sharon Osbourne, Sara Gilbert and Julie Chen, shown. Photo: Heather Wines/CBS ©2013 CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Time to invest in the surprisingly versatile spring pick.
Bringing back lightweight denim is one of the best parts of spring style. But it doesn't have to be limited to jeans—denim shirts are another stylish way to wear the fabric come transitional seasons. From light and distressed, to dark and embroidered, there's a denim shirt for every style. Here are a few of our favorites.
Slim Fit Denim Shirt
Think beyond blues when it comes to denim. Dark gray is another easy color to wear.
$65, everlane.com
Blue Denim Nolan Shirt
A darker blue looks cool with contrasting black or gray denim.
$85, topman.com
Beck Denim Sports Shirt
The slight acid wash on this really pops when you wear it with black leather boots.
$150, nordstrom.com
Isherwood Denim Shirt
If you've ever felt the desire, this is another good time to try the air tie look.
$220, endclothing.com
Poppy Denim Shirt
The Western take on the denim shirt is always a move. White denim with some simple detailing is a good way to do it.
$149, endclothing.com
Fit III Chambray Denim Shirt
A shirt this light is easy to pair with indigo or black denim.
$250, nordstrom.com
Denim Western Shirt
Take a cue from Old West with Raf Simons' expert riff on the western shirt for Calvin Klein.
$435, mrporter.com
Print Denim Shirt
An all-gray Canadian tuxedo makes every wardrobe better. (All you have to do is add the dark gray jeans.)
$890, endclothing.com


text:
It is a special pleasure to participate in a joint meeting of Women in Housing and Finance and the Exchequer Club. This is an excellent forum not only for all of you who can share experiences with your peers from the industry and hear from speakers in the financial services world, but also for those of us who are regulators and policy makers in Congress and the executive branch, because your gatherings provide the opportunity for dialogue with an audience of influential and thoughtful leaders who work in finance and markets.
Many of you were here for the meeting a few months ago when my regulatory colleague Sheila Bair addressed the Exchequer Club. She talked about why the FDIC was, as she put it, spending time worrying about what a year ago seemed such a low probability event — the failure of a large bank. And she observed that the failure of a large bank was no longer unthinkable, because, for example, the UK's FSA had recently taken over Northern Rock. Even so, she said back in June, "the failure of a large bank remains highly unlikely."
I am sure that back then, that was the view of most of you in this room as well. I mention this only to highlight the remarkably rapid pace of events since June of 2008. It seems a world away, in light of what has happened in the second half of this year.
As we meet here today, we find ourselves just days away from the federal government having had to rescue no less an exemplar of a large bank than Citigroup, by providing a guarantee of up to $306 billion for its loans and securities backed by residential and commercial real estate. In addition, the federal government has twice made equity injections into Citigroup totaling $45 billion, and received additional preferred stock in connection with the guarantees. Leaving aside the one-third of a trillion dollar guarantee for Citi, the U.S. government's $52 billion in preferred equity makes all of you in this room who are taxpayers 7.8% owners of Citigroup.
Beyond that, as part of the rescue of Citi the FDIC agreed to insure its newly issued debt, which has the effect of giving it a AAA credit rating. Just this week Citi issued $5.5 billion in debt against this guarantee. Nor is this federal debt guarantee limited to Citigroup; it also has been extended to such large institutions as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. We have come a long way since your June meeting — from considering the failure of a large bank to be highly unlikely, to having to prevent one with previously unimaginable commitments of taxpayer dollars.
And of course, it is not just commercial banks and thrifts such as Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and IndyMac, or investment banks such as Bear Stearns, or the nation's largest insurance company, AIG, that have preceded Citi in having had to be rescued by the taxpayers, but even the enormous government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The total amount of federal support committed so far this year to bail out financial institutions is conservatively estimated at well over six trillion dollars.
And as the bank failures in Europe and Asia have made clear, regulated enterprises around the world have been susceptible as well.
These developments are only the most recent reminders that we are living through one of the most challenging economic times in our nation's history.
I'd like to share some thoughts with you about how we got where we are today, and report on the most recent regulatory actions the SEC is taking even this week to deal with the crisis. But more importantly, having gotten the government so deeply involved in so many private financial institutions, I believe we must now begin to build a framework for our exit strategy from this myriad of new programs and commitments. That exit strategy should be consistent with the fundamental policy objectives of the interventions themselves, and also with the protection of taxpayers, a point that Chairman Bair made earlier this week as well. Even though we are on the front end of what are multi-year government investments, guarantees, and conservatorships, it is vital to understand where we are headed, or else we will never arrive at the desired destination of returning these institutions to fully private ownership and financing.
No audience knows better than you that at its root, the current credit market crisis began with the noble goal of broader home ownership. But it is now widely acknowledged that this goal led to a range of bad policies and dangerous lending practices, in particular in the subprime arena. This was typified by the notorious no-down payment loans, and "no-doc" loans in which borrowers not only didn't have to disclose income or assets, but even employment wasn't verified. It is now abundantly clear, as the SEC's former Chief Accountant testified at a recent Congressional hearing on the failure of AIG, that "if honest lending practices had been followed, much of this crisis quite simply would not have occurred."
Securitization of these bad loans was advertised as a way to diversify and thus reduce the risk. But in reality it spread the problem to the broader markets through financial instruments that packaged risky loans into products that won top credit ratings from the credit rating agencies. Most of those ratings were quickly exposed as unfounded Moody's alone had to downgrade over 5,000 mortgage-backed securities. As of September 2008, banks had reported over one-half trillion dollars in losses on U.S. subprime mortgages and related exposure, and that figure is far higher today.
In September of last year, Ray McDaniel, the CEO of Moody's, told a meeting of the firm's managing directors that the subprime market "was a slippery slope." He said that what happened in 2004 and 2005 with respect to subordinated tranches was that firms in the credit rating industry "went nuts" and that "[e]verything was investment grade. It didn't really matter." A Standard and Poor's employee in the structured finance division wrote in an internal email: "It could be structured by cows and we would rate it." Another S&P internal email stated that "Rating agencies continue to create [an] even bigger monster — the CDO market. Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters."
While this was taking place and the credit rating agencies were enabling the securitization of record amounts of complex mortgage securities, the credit rating industry wasn't regulated by the federal government. Today, however, that is changed. Under new statutory authority from Congress that authorized the SEC to register and examine credit rating agencies, we conducted an extensive 10-month examination of the three major credit rating agencies' processes for rating subprime related securities from January 2004 to 2008, and reported the results to Congress and the public last summer. The examinations uncovered significant weaknesses in ratings practices, serious conflicts of interest, and the need for major improvements in disclosure to investors.
Based on the findings of these examinations, the SEC last summer proposed comprehensive reforms to regulate the conflicts of interest, disclosures, internal policies, and business practices of credit rating agencies. Yesterday, we issued final rules for reform in many of these areas. These new rules will promote the goals that Congress laid out in the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of improving ratings quality for the protection of investors, and advancing the public interest by fostering accountability, transparency, and competition in the credit rating agency industry. The new rules have also benefited from consultation with other regulators and supervisors of financial markets both here and abroad, including the Financial Stability Forum and the International Organization of Securities Commissions, where during the last year I have served as Co-Chairman of the Credit Rating Agency Task Force.
Beyond the impact of the new rules enacted this week, the Commission's implementation of the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act over the last year has already produced more competition in this concentrated industry than ever before. Ten credit rating agencies have registered with the Commission since the law was passed. This competition, as we know, promotes higher-quality ratings and provides a check on slack and inferior practices.
The SEC's response to the credit crisis has included several other regulatory and enforcement initiatives as well. When the auction rate securities markets froze early in 2008, we immediately commenced investigations of potential securities law violations by the largest sellers of these instruments. The settlements in principle that we've reached with six of the largest firms would return more than $50 billion to injured investors. The settlements, when concluded, will be by far the largest in the SEC's history.
The Commission currently has over 50 pending subprime related investigations involving lenders, investment banks, credit rating agencies, insurers, and broker-dealers. During the past year the Commission returned $356 million to investors who were harmed when Fannie Mae issued false and misleading financial statements. And the SEC's Division of Enforcement is currently in the midst of a nationwide investigation of potential fraud and manipulation of securities in some of the nation's largest financial institutions through abusive short selling and the intentional spreading of false information.
The exceptional economic turmoil of the past year has created dangerous new opportunities for market manipulation. As a result, during 2008, the SEC brought the highest number of enforcement actions against market manipulation in the agency's history, including a precedent-setting case against a Wall Street short seller for spreading false rumors. Overall during the past year, the SEC has completed the highest number of enforcement investigations in any year to date, by far. We also initiated the second highest number of enforcement actions in agency history.
As you know, accounting issues have also been central to the evaluation of credit and liquidity risk in our markets. The Office of the Chief Accountant and the Division of Corporation Finance have acted on multiple occasions in recent months to address questions regarding the disclosure of fair value measurements of hard-to-value assets in inactive markets, consolidation of off-balance sheet entities, and the accounting treatment of bank support for money market funds.
Most recently, I have been focused on oversight and advisory responsibilities for both the Troubled Asset Relief Program administered by the Department of the Treasury, and the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, gave the Chairman of the SEC a formal role on the oversight boards for both the TARP and the GSEs.
It is in this capacity that I have had the opportunity to consider how our national government came to intervene to such an extent in the private sector, and how we can ensure that this intervention comes to an end and is unwound as early as possible.
While each of us here today is undoubtedly aware of the significant recent decisions by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the FHA to commit massive federal resources to support the financial markets, housing, and financial institutions, it has all happened so quickly, and the scale is so vast, that a quick summary is in order. After all, before discussing exit strategies it is important to focus on exactly what it is we will have to be exiting from.
The total amount of federal resources committed so far this year to support the financial markets, housing, and financial institutions conservatively exceeds $6.4 trillion. This amount is certain to grow, as already-announced programs are brought online and existing programs are expanded.
This $6.4 trillion figure, I should hasten to point out, does not include the $5.7 trillion in Fannie and Freddie debt and mortgage-backed securities that is currently outstanding, and that Congress has not backed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Nor does it include the $165 billion stimulus package enacted earlier this year.
To recap the various sources of this $6.4 trillion in federal support so far:
The Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program accounts for $700 billion, and its Money Market Mutual Fund Guarantee program accounts for $50 billion. For the Treasury, this totals three-quarters of a trillion dollars.
The Fed's GSE Debt and MBS Purchase Program accounts for $600 billion, and its swap lines for another one-half trillion. Its Money Market Investor Funding Facility has been estimated at $540 billion. Beyond that, its Term Auction Facility represents $400 billion; its Commercial Paper Funding Facility, $280 billion; the Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility another $200 billion; and the Term Securities Lending Facility, $190 billion.
The Fed's share of the Citi bailout is $291 billion. Its commitment to the AIG bailout, including the credit facility, Maiden Lane II, and Maiden Lane III, is currently $113 billion. The Fed's Primary Credit Facility is $100 billion. And the Fed's Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Fund Liquidity Facility is $60 billion, on top of its Primary Dealer Credit Facility at $52 billion. All total, this comes to just under $2.5 trillion for the Fed — not counting the $29 billion to fund the JP Morgan Chase acquisition of Bear Stearns.
The FDIC has committed $1.4 trillion to its Senior Unsecured Bank Loan Guarantees. And its Non-Interest Bearing Deposit Guarantees account for another $500 billion. Its guarantee to GE Capital represents $139 billion. And its share of the Citigroup bailout is $10 billion. That is a total of $2.049 trillion for the FDIC.
Finally, the FHA's Hope for Homeowners Guarantee Program represents a commitment of $300 billion.
As a Member of Congress for 17 years, I became accustomed to budgeting in large numbers. When I first came to Washington to work in the White House in 1986, the total annual budget of the federal government was less than $1 trillion. The amount of taxpayer money that has been committed in just the last few months for bailouts and guarantees is more than six times that. By comparison, that is far more, even in inflation-adjusted dollars, than we spent fighting all of World War II.
The $700 billion TARP program alone is worth more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the combined cost of the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, the first Gulf War, the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, and all of the moon missions. Multiply that ninefold, and you have the current running total of the federal government's economic rescue programs.
Beyond the sheer magnitude of this new federal spending and the debt burden that it has added, one has to be equally concerned about the new role that it has given to the federal government in our economy. Uncle Sam is now a shareholder in banking and financial institutions and other private firms across the United States. Recipients of federal funding and guarantees are naturally coming under scrutiny by Congress, which rightfully believes it should control the purse strings in our system of government. As a result, there will be demands for compliance with congressional investment preferences and corporate governance policies, which will grow in direct proportion to the length of time that the federal investments and guarantees remain outstanding.
All of these are good reasons for policy makers today to carefully and deliberately construct an exit strategy for each and every aspect of these extraordinary federal interventions in the markets. But there are more good reasons as well. Virtually every aspect of the federal regulatory system is premised on the notion that markets will make investment decisions, while government will regulate both the market and the market actors at arm's length. Conflating the roles of market regulator and market actor would ultimately threaten the integrity of the regulatory system, and is certain to produce dangerous unintended consequences.
When the SEC was created, its purpose was to serve as an independent regulator of the unbridled profit-seeking activity of self-interested individuals and firms in the securities markets. It was not, however, to supplant the market or directly participate in it. Government ownership of the economy was an issue in other countries at that time, but not in America. In Germany during the 1930s, the independence of the private sector was a pre-World War I memory. In the Soviet Union, where the Bolshevik Revolution was not yet a generation old, government virtually occupied the field. And in Italy, where Benito Mussolini's Fascist party promoted an economic approach called syndicalism, nominally private property was devoted to state purposes. Even in France at that time, the corporatist spirit was in the ascendancy, and the government controlled many industries.
But for all of the time since America's founding, our country had far less government involvement in the economy than Europe. This was true mostly because we had far less government, period. Federal revenues totaled less than 5% of GDP in the early 1930s. Even today — at least, prior to the extraordinary actions of 2008 — more than 70% of the U.S. economy remained in private hands, with the balance accounted for by federal, state, and all other government.
It is true that during the 1930s, America first experimented seriously with government ownership in industry. Since our earliest days, of course, government had carried the mail, but under FDR the United States embarked upon experiments in other federally-owned enterprises, such as energy production. The repeal of Prohibition in 1933 put many states into the retail liquor business, and many were already involved in the ownership of public utilities. But these were exceptions, and the essential approach of the Roosevelt administration was to regulate business, not own it. So, for example, the government did not attempt to acquire ownership of farms (putting aside the question whether that would have been constitutionally permitted), but rather chose to closely regulate production. From minimum wage laws to the abolition of child labor to a National Planning Board that provided production recommendations across many industries, the New Deal aimed to forge all elements of society into a cooperative unit. This was America's response to the more radical integration of business and government that was underway abroad.
In the case of the securities markets, which also came under regulation for the first time in the 1930s, there was never an impulse for the federal government to own the exchanges, the investment banks, or the broker-dealers. The creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934 marked a deliberate effort to clearly define and separate the role of the national government, on the one hand, and the capital markets, on the other. Henceforth, fraud and unfair dealing in the stock and bond markets would be subjected to external discipline by the federal government. Minimum standards would be enforced, such as requiring that every investor be told the essential details about the security in which he or she was investing. Registration of securities, and licensing of broker-dealers, would be required. It was, in short, arms-length regulation of an unabashedly private market, rather than nationalization.
Over the years, as the role of the SEC and its relationship to the markets has been refined through experience, the agency has acquired three explicit goals: protecting investors; maintaining fair and orderly markets; and promoting capital formation. These three complementary missions are logically consistent with the original premise of the securities laws, which was that government is an auxiliary to the market, not a substitute for it or a participant in it. Virtually every aspect of the 1933 and 1934 Acts, and the regulations implementing them, follows from the notion that markets should be efficient, competitive, transparent, and free of fraud.
The normative judgment implicit in this legislative and regulatory scheme is that markets are good. So long as they are in fact operating efficiently, competitively, openly, and honestly, they are good for consumers, investors, producers, and our entire economy.
We have not spent enough time reminding ourselves of this essential premise during the past several months, when events have called it into question. But because the idea of the market is so fundamental to everything that the SEC does, it is now incumbent upon us to revisit the reasons that we value markets so highly.
Our emphasis on private ownership is directly tied to America's dedication to individual freedom. It's in our DNA. It is in large part why the United States came to be at all. Our Declaration of Independence is a recitation of the abuses of excessive government power. Our Constitution is a brilliantly crafted system of checks and balances to prevent that abuse by limiting government's authority over individuals — including in the economic realm, where we're guaranteed our constitutional rights to liberty and property, to freedom from expropriation, and to freedom of contract.
But beyond that, beyond ideals of freedom, the national preference for private ownership is also based on the most basic practicality: it works. America's rise from New World outpost to global superpower was fueled by the dramatic growth of our free enterprise economy into the world's largest. Free enterprise has produced spectacular results. Compared to other national economies with substantial government ownership and central planning, America's economy has been more creative, resilient, and dynamic. We've found that decentralized decision-making, in which millions of independent economic actors make judgments using their own money, results in the wisest allocation of scarce resources across our complex society. And we've found the market to be more reliable in heeding price signals and meting out discipline to failing enterprises than government could ever be.
Financial markets, of course, are not perfect. In particular, they are susceptible to boom-and-bust cycles. Cycles of this sort have been a hardy perennial over the past 400 years of experience with organized markets. Addressing the results of these cycles is why we have protective mechanisms such as the Federal Reserve System and federal deposit insurance. Clearly, these mechanisms have proved inadequate to prevent the current crisis. We will need to carefully examine what needs to be done as a result, but that is a topic for another discussion.
From the standpoint of the SEC, the most obvious problem with breaking down the arm's length relationship between government, as the regulator, and business, as the regulated, is that it threatens to undermine our enforcement and regulatory regime. When the government becomes both referee and player, the game changes rather dramatically for every other participant. Rules that might be rigorously applied to private sector competitors will not necessarily be applied in the same way to the sovereign who makes the rules. On several occasions during the past year the Treasury and the Fed took on the unusual role of negotiators and principals in merger and acquisition transactions that normally would have been arranged by private parties. Even in these extraordinary cases, however, it remained the role of the SEC to regulate these transactions for the protection of investors. We took pains to stay at arms length in these cases, but our close collaboration with these same government agencies has made this truly terra incognita.
For all of these reasons, it is incumbent upon federal policy makers to ensure that the extraordinary actions of the past month are understood to be temporary, and constructed so that they are self-liquidating. Since government programs do not on their own go away, there has to be a deliberate design to eliminate them, and a relentless adherence to execution of that plan. Anything short of this will almost certainly guarantee eternal life for these vast new federal roles.
Let's begin with the TARP. There are four different types of securities that we will need, or may need, to exit from. The first is the perpetual preferred stock issued under the Capital Purchase Program and the Systemically Significant Failing Institutions Program. The second category is the warrants acquired under any of the programs. The third is any debt purchased. And finally, there are the guarantees issued for the various kinds of debt.
Our objective in each case should be to monetize the federal government's positions as quickly as possible. But our ability to do so will be highly contingent on the type of instrument, the type of individual issuer, and the then-prevailing market conditions. As a result, we will need to constantly monitor these positions, the firms, and the markets. We will also need to be very mindful that the size of our positions is material, and we should seek strategies for liquidating them that are the least disruptive to the capital markets. Liquidations must be regular and predictable, in order to reduce market surprises and to avoid depressing the market into which we are selling.
An exit strategy for the government's currently substantial role in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will require resolving an inherent conflict in their current status. Back in September, when the magnitude of the residential mortgage crisis became clear, the Federal Housing Finance Agency announced that they were placing both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship — and that the Department of the Treasury would commit to purchase up to $100 billion in senior preferred stock from each, to support them during the conservatorship.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency established the conservatorship for five stated reasons. First, both Fannie and Freddie were operating in an unsafe and unsound manner. Second, the current market conditions were deteriorating. Third, the financial performance at each company was poor. Fourth, the companies were unable to access the private capital markets for regulatory capital. Fifth and finally, they were critical to supporting the residential mortgage market in this country.
But recent political pressures have added a new dimension. As the economic slowdown continues, and more homeowners risk losing their homes, it has become a political priority to reduce the number of foreclosures. Toward that goal, the government, as the functional owner of Fannie and Freddie, has committed both entities to ambitious plans to reduce foreclosure. The goal of reducing foreclosures, however, does not necessarily align with the goal of returning both entities to fiscal stability and solvency.
How do we balance these priorities? Job one should be ensuring that Fannie and Freddie return to financial health, because the alternative is that Congress and the taxpayer will be asked to bail out these institutions at far greater cost than already has been absorbed. Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee $5.7 trillion of mortgage assets. By comparison with that $5.7 trillion, the entire U.S. public debt in late November was $10.6 trillion, so Fannie and Freddie carry more than an additional 50% of that between the two entities alone. Maintaining the viability of an exit strategy requires that, in the near term, Fannie and Freddie not be forced to engage in unsound business practices that would threaten their financial stability.
A further priority must be ensuring that the full cost of purchasing and guaranteeing mortgages is borne by those from whom these companies purchase mortgages. Since the establishment of the conservatorship, investors have required a greater spread over Treasuries for Fannie and Freddie debt, and for mortgage-backed securities. The FHFA has indicated that the statutory capital levels that Fannie and Freddie operated at were too low, and that they should be increased. Both of these input costs need to be factored into the pricing that Fannie and Freddie offer to the market. To ignore these costs, both legacy and current, will result in greater financial distress at these firms, and therefore a greater likelihood that the government will not be able to execute its exit strategy.
The final critical element of an exit strategy for Fannie and Freddie is the determination of what structure we should adopt for these firms in order to have the greatest chance of restoring their financial health. Congress and the new administration must decide if we want to continue the programs in their current form as shareholder-owned structures with linkages to the U.S. government through the congressional charter, whether they can be privatized and broken up into several competing companies, or whether a cooperative structure, such as the Federal Home Loan Bank System, makes sense.
To make this choice, we will have to consider what role we want the firms to play in the implementation of federal policy, and how best to regulate the risks to which that choice exposes the taxpayer. Are these entities intended to advance the interests of their investors? Or is it more important that they advance the policy goal of broader home ownership? Should there be more than two players in this space, and if so, how do we encourage additional competition among potential entrants? Should there be a statutory guarantee for their obligations? On this point, recent experience suggests that in no case should we be left with an ephemeral "sort-of" guarantee that increases uncertainty in both the companies and the system around them.
An exit strategy for the alphabet soup of new facilities created by the Federal Reserve is far easier to devise. That is because these guarantees are more easily undone as the capital markets return to normalcy. What is of greatest importance to ensuring a successful unwinding of the Fed's extraordinary lending and guarantee programs is that the markets be assured that the Fed will in fact do so, and in the most prudent manner possible. To this end, a concerted strategy of public diplomacy, with consistent messaging commenced well in advance, will provide welcome guidance and comfort.
The FDIC's intervention is by its construction also temporary, as the senior unsecured debt guarantees expire on June 30, 2012. An exit strategy for these guarantees requires simply that policy makers adhere to that date and resist temptations to extend or expand the program.
Constructing an exit strategy for the FHA's recent extraordinary expansions of its programs will require, in the short run, that these new authorities be carefully implemented as the private market increasingly originates to FHA standards. Since the FHA advertised underwriting standards require no minimum credit score, accept non-traditional credit, and provide for a low 3% down payment, care must be taken to ensure that the moral hazards of lax underwriting standards and under-pricing of risk that contributed greatly to our current crisis do not inhere in federal programs. Beyond being a responsible lender, maintaining a viable exit strategy means the FHA should seek to originate to standards that will allow these loans to be sold without a federal guarantee when the capital markets return to normal functioning.
Focusing on exit strategies now is of vital importance to ensure that we do not stumble along a dangerous path of confusion that may end in far greater financial exposure for the American people, and a far worse situation for America's taxpayers and investors. If we answer the tough questions now, and make sturdy plans for the future, we can position our mortgage market, our financial services industry, and the broader economy for renewed growth and prosperity.
That is the destination, and it is up to us to find the path to it. We will only arrive at this destination if, once our course is set, we keep that path clearly in focus, every step of the way, starting right now.
Once again, I want to thank all of you who are leaders and participants in Women in Housing and Finance, and in the Exchequer Club, for all that you do to promote the economic health and well-being of our nation. These are challenging times and daunting issues, and we will only surmount them by working together. So let me conclude by saying, on behalf of the thousands of dedicated men and women of the SEC who work to protect investors and markets every day, that we are grateful for your leadership, and proud to be your partners.


text:
Boxing News
Boxing Schedule
Date With Destiny
Jack Green on behalf of Goodwin Boxing bring a big card to York Hall, including two Southern Area title fights alongside some classy undercard action:
Chris Davies vs Curtis Gargano, 4x3 - Light Heavyweight
Road warrior Gargano comes out with a tight guard inviting Davies in, Davies handling the opening round with his jab. Couple of left hooks to the body the highlight for Davies. The second round, the big right hand that Gargano likes to load up on finds a home a couple of times, but again Davies has a solid handling on the proceedings.
In the third round a couple of left hooks from Davies on the ropes land, but Gargano starts to showboat - winding the right arm around, giving the Ali shuffle in the middle of the ring and trying to draw Davies in, but the round ends with a nice uppercut from Davies.
In the fourth, Gargano starts with some 'wooooing' to the crowd, Davies starts to target the body as Gargano keeps the guard high. The round ends on some good exchanges and the two embrace mid ring.
Referee Chaz Coakley scored the bout 40-37 to Davies who goes to 6-0 in his career.
Mitchell Preedy vs Iain Jackson, 4x3 - Super Middleweight
Preedy has a vocal support and comes out in his southpaw stance. A nice counter left early from Preedy. The first round brightens up nicely as Jackson pins Preedy to the ropes and lands some clean shots, catching Preedy when he comes in. Preedy would be well served to use his long reach, but seems intent on making the fight range.
In the second that suits Jackson fine as he looks to roughen up Preedy, catching him flush with a left hook and then looks to roughen him up inside. Preedy comes back strongly through, firing off in the ropes as Jackson fires back himself to finish a cracking second round.
Early in the third the hair of Jackson comes undone, causing a slight delay. The hair starts to go as wild as the fight, swinging about alongside the punches. It's not good enough though, and trainer Michael Balingall takes the scissors to it to the applause of the crowd! The fight is back on and Preedy seems to have benefitted from the rest, landing some nice straight lefts.
In the fourth a cut opens over the left eye of Jackson after the two get in close on the ropes, a head clash starting the wound that leaves blood on the back of Preedy. It seems to ignite the two, who once again open up on each other as the round ends from what was an entertaining fight.
Referee Chaz Coakley scored the bout 39-37 In favour of Preedy who goes 2-0.
Ramez Mahmood vs Stefan Sashov, 4x3 – Featherweight
The man with the best ring name in boxing, the Mathamagician Rahmood, opens the round wel with a solid left hook to the body. Sashov feels it and backs up, Mahmood follows across the ring and again lands the same shot to drop his opponent early on. He's up at eight, but he's clearly hurt. Mahmood goes back to the same shot, again dropping Sashov but is then told off by the referee for pulling down.
In the second round Mahmood is concentrating on the left to the body which Sashov is wary of. He targets both sides of the body, landing solid punches. Sashov is varying his stance to try and stop the onslaught, but Mahmood continues where perhaps he should be varying the shots.
At the start of the third round a nice right overhand by Mahmood sees Sashov fall to a knee but he doesn't quite touch the canvas, to the confusion of those in and out the ring. Mahmood comes straight back for him and puts him down properly. He gets up, only to find Mahmood again on top of him and it's a big left hand to the head that drops Sashov. He beats the count, but the referee correctly decides he isn't in a state to continue and waves this off.
Referee Kieran McCann stops the bout at 2:32 of round number three for the winner Mahmood.
Daniel Mendes vs Jan Hrazdira, 6x3 - Cruiserweight
Mendes in phenomenal shape here. He looks athletic as he circles the ring, using the right hook well out of the southpaw stance. He seems reluctant to use the left hand but when he does it opens spaces to utilise the hooks and uppercuts.
Mendes boxes well off the back foot in the second, again trying to bring Hrazdira into range to unload the left hand but his opponent is too wily to fall for it. The third round again Mendes is looking for the right hook but passes without too much action. In the fourth a Mendes uppercut, on the back of it Hrzdira drops his gloves and laughs, allows Mendes to throw a jab and smiles at him. The round is paused as a change of gloves is required for Mendes. It finishes with Mendes in control.
In the fifth again Mendes suffers with his glove, needing the attention of the corner and a new glove. In the sixth a nice left hook to the body is followed by a right up top by Mendes but it draws nothing but a smile from Hrazdira as he keeps approaching.
Referee Ian John-Lewis scores the bout 60-54 to Mendes who carries on his good run of form.
Ollie Pattison vs Tayar Mehmed, 6x3 - Light Heavyweight
Pattison in control through the first round. A nice jab, keeping control of the ring from Pattison as he controls the tempo of the bout. In the second a solid right hand to the body from Pattison, Mehmed unable to land when he comes forward. He does cover well though from the Pattison hooks to the body. More feeling out from the two, Pattison easily controlling.
A nice combination in the third from Pattison, left hook to the body followed by the right uppercut and a right hand over the top which brightens the crowd up. The fourth passed without note. In the fifth the highlight is a nice left hook that Pattison lands with a follow up right hand just on the bell.
The sixth starts well, Mehmed landing a nice uppercut but Pattison landing some nice straight rights. There is blood coming from the nose of Pattison, but he lands a nice right over the top as Mehmed comes in. As the round is closing and Mehmed is tiring a big left hook from Pattison, which leave Mehmed spitting out his gum shield which looks on purpose. It gets replaced and gives Mehmed some recovery time, enough to see him through to the final bell.
Referee Kieran McCann scores the bout 58-57 to the winner Pattison.
Ryan Walker vs Antonio Horvatic, 4x3 - Featherweight
Walker starts off with some nice working from angles, stepping to the side to open gaps up and throwing some nice combinations. The highlight though is a solid straight right that breaks the Hortavic guard and rocks his head back.
A nice step to the left at the start of the second round opens a gap for a good Walker left hand, followed by the right. Walker is showing a good ability to make his own angles. Hortavic comes back looking for the left hook but Walker is fleet footed enough to be out of the way and when he does get caught up with, can plant his feet and pull out a rear uppercut.
In the final round Walker lands a left hook that is deemed a slip, but Hortavic looks troubled, his gum shield coming out straight after. The round ends scrappily, Hortavic pinning Walker to the ropes, but Walker doing the cleaner work.
Referee Ian John-Lewis scored the bout 39-37 to winner Ryan Walker who goes to 4-0.
Charlie Beardon vs Kevin McCauley, 4x3 - Middleweight
An uneventful first round, the two unwilling to engage one another. A bit scrappy as the two fall to the floor together. Beardon dominates well in the second, the jab effective in keeping McCauley at distance. There are times McCauley rushes into the attacks but Beardon does well to cover and hold.
The third is quiet, but in the fourth they start to really engage. A tussle mid ring seesa solid straight right from Beardon land but McCauley is happy to exchange. He catches a glancing overhand right of his own, before the two stand and trade flurries in the centre. A big left hook from McCauley sees Beardon start to circle off, looking to slow the pace down. A big straight right from Beardon and a flush left hook, but McCauley has seen it a before and laughs it off to see the fight out.
Referee Chaz Coakley scores the bout 40-37 to winner Charlie Beardon who moves to 3-0.
Paul Greenidge vs Borislav Zankov, 4x3 - Middleweight
Greenidge has a very impressive following with him tonight making his debut. Nice lead uppercut from Greenidge early on in the corner, Zankov happy to take the back foot here. A nice left hook, straight right from Greenidge sends his crowd into a frenzy. Very composed performance for a debut here, nice footwork controlling the ring. A cut has opened early on the left eye of Zankov, who swings a left hook that Greenidge rolls smartly out the way of to end the round.
In the second, Zankov comes out to attack as he rushes forwards. Again though nicely controlled by Greenidge who is able to stem the attack and force Zankov back with the jab. A big left hook from Greenidge results in Zankov holding on and getting a telling off from the referee. Every shot Zankov throws is blocked well
Highlight of the third round sees Greenidge step right to open an angle for an uppercut before stepping back to his left and swap hands to land again. The round ends with a big straight Greenidge right to the head.
The final round, Zankov opens well with a good right hand that Greenidge takes well. Zankov starts to showboat on the ropes but Greenidge doesn't take the bait. The pace slows down, Zankov bloodied around the eye and Greenidge seemingly content with what ha been a very good debut performance.
The referee Chaz Coakley scored the bout 40-37 in favour of Greenidge to the delight of a vocal home crowd.
Liam Dillon vs Harvey Hemsley, 4x3 - Lightweight
An impressive first round for Dillon, landing a crushing right hand that sends Hemsley to the canvas. He looks spent here, but somehow makes his way back to his feet to beat the count. In the second, Dillon looks to push the pace of the fight and starts to target the body, which has now marked up around the waist band as some spiteful hooks come in.
In the third Diillon is getting the better of this with ease, hard uppercuts coming in and still working those body shots. In the fourth Dillon again shows the more ambition, those rear uppercuts ripping through the Hemsley defence. He is unable though to follow up on that first round display of power as the round closes off.
Dillon moves to 3-0 with a 40-35 points victory as scored by referee Kieran McCann.
Ricky Heavens vs Jack Green, 4x3 - Super Welterweight
Heavens out with his loud Brentford support in the balcony. Solid first round from Heavens, able to fire off body hooks that find a home on the Green ribs. A solid jab, Green kept at length. In the second Greene starts to show a bit ore ambition throwing some wide right hands coming in. However Heavens is still firmly controlling the bout, working well off that quick jab that although Greene can parry at times, is effective enough. The third carries a similar tempo, Heavens using his longer reach to control centre ring, Greene retreating throughout.
In the final round Heavens keeps pushing that jab into Green's face, Ho is unable to find a way around it to land back. Heavens is wise not to over reach with his attacks or over commit, seeing the fight through to a solid victory.
Referee Chaz Coakley scores the fight 40-36 to the winner Ricky Heavens.
Bout 11
Linus Udofia vs Ashley Bailey Dumetz
6x3 - Middleweight
A cagey first round, Udofia looks to weigh up the Dumetz attack, a couple of counter rights finding a home. Dumetz does the better work on the inside of a tight round.
In the second round Dumetz starts to target the body, Udofia trying to land counters as the awkward Dumetz comes forward. A solid left hook from Dumetz lands on the chin of Udofia as the highlight of the round, but Udofia does the more consistent clean work. Lovely right hand from Udofia catches Dumetz coming in at the start of the third. The two battle at close range along the ropes through the round, difficult to see which shots are finding a home.
In the fourth a cut opens over the Udofia left eye, seemingly from a clash of heads. Udofia lands some heavy right uppercuts as Dumetz comes forward, a handful of times Udofia does well to turn Dumetz in the corner and do his own work.
Dumetz comes out busy again in the fifth but Udofia is so composed when the pressure is on, again waiting for his opening to turn Dumetz which he does with ease and sends Dumetz into the ropes, landing a lead uppercut that rocks Dumetz. Dumetz tried to fire back, but is caught by a beautiful right hook from Udofia that seems to have Dumetz out on his feet. Udofia throws again but Dumetz is down. The referee sees immediately that the fight is over, Udofia waiting for confirmation before celebrating.
1:08 seconds of the fifth round, referee Chaz Coakley calls a stop to the action for the winner by stoppage, Linus Udofia.
Wadi Camacho vs Ossie Jervier, 10x3 - Cruiserweight
Slow starting round here between two men who are renowned for their ability to bang. Camacho towers over Jervier and uses that long jab to make Jervier circle the ring. The second is surprisingly quiet still neither man wanting to commit to their attacks, possibly wary of what may be coming back.
The third, Camacho is trying to keep the jab going while Jervier is looking to get inside, but neither are having things their own way. Through four it is surprising how little either man will let their hands go, failing to ignite in the way many had anticipated. A clipping right off the jaw of Camacho from Jervier, but Jervier is off balance so can't follow it up. The fifth passes without much more action.
In the sixth the two start the round in close quarters and Camacho lands an ice right hand. He throws a flurry of jabs that allows a big left hand through in a nice combination. Jervier though lands a big right hand that shakes Camacho centre ring that ends the sixth round. In the seventh, Jervier seems to be tiring and Camacho seems to be wanting him to come forward, dropping the hands and trying to bring Jervier forward. Into the eighth and the pair are tiring more, a nice Camacho uppercut to start the round in close. A good left hook from Jervier to end the round.
The ninth starts with them both putting their all in, throwing hard inside hooks and uppercuts to varying success. the big shot of the round though comes from Jervier who shoots a right hook clean off the Camacho jaw and he looks hurt before the bell goes to end the round.
In the final round Camacho really tries to stick behind the jab but some nice clean shots come in from Jervier that trouble Camacho. You sense neither has the energy to really put an end to this now - a close fight that could go either way. Jervier perhaps with the harder, cleaner shots - Camacho with the more technical boxing display.
Referee Ian John-Lewis scored the bout 97-95 to the winner and still southern Area cruiserweight champion Wadi Camacho.
Tunji Ogunniya vs Jordan Grannum, 4x3 - Super Welterweight
Ogunniya impressive in the first round, constantly the aggressor. Nice control of distance, but unable to put a dent in the slippery Grannum. The second, Grannum slips a number of jabs well, Ogunniya again taking the front foot to control tempo of the fight.
In the third, it erupts towards the end of the round as Grrannum steps on the gas a bit, landing some crisp uppercuts and hooks, before letting Ogunniya escape. It sparks Ogguniya into action and the two trade to end the round. An exciting final round between the two, trading body hooks on the ropes firing uppercuts at one another. It's hard to tell who has the cleaner work, but both are having a real go at this in the final round.
Referee Ian John-Lewis scores the bout 40-36 to Ogunniya.
Freddy Kiwitt vs Louis Greene, 10x3 - Welterweight
Overhand right from Greene in the first round with a left uppercut is a nice start to the fight, but Kiwitt is sharp and lands two hooks to the body. The two spend the majority of the round trading punches, Kiwittt targeting the body with lefts and rights. Hugely enjoyable opening.
The next two go in a similar fashion, each happy to plant their feet and trade big shots, neither seemingly having the power to really deter the other.
The fight is so hard to call, the two unable to be separated. Both are happy to do their work on the toes of the other, meaning that rounds fly by in a flurry of hooks to the body by both men, uppercuts being launched into. The cleaner work seems to be coming from Kiwitt in the mid rounds, while Greene is maybe busier. A nice right uppercut left hook from Greene in the eighth sparks the fight and he lands a nice right hand later in the round. Greene seems to be asserting himself as the round progresses. Kiwitt himself though gets fired up, pounding uppercuts in and turning Greene on the ropes as the round ends.
When the two give themselves some more room to box in the ninth there are some nice skills on display. Kiwitt rolls a left hook nicely to land a counter right.
The left eye of Kiwitt is swollen up by the final round, treated heavily in the corner. A good left hook counter from Kiwitt early in the final round, Greene takes it well. The round ends in the same style as the fight, two men giving everything in the pocket of one another, with neither having the requisite power to put the other off.
Referee Kieran McCann scored the bout 97-95 to the new Southern Area champion Louis Greene in a bout that really could have gone either way.
Miles Shinkwin vs Josip Perkovic, 6x3 - Light Heavyweight
Shinkwin returning to action here against a game Perkovic. Some big shots thrown by Perkovic through the opening rounds that Shinkwin does well to block and cover. By return though he is doing the classier work of the two, although unable to put his combinations together through the early stages.
Shinkwin is clearly the classier of the two through the middle rounds catching shots on the gloves, keeping the Perkovic shots at bay while working his own jab and some classy counter. A nice right hand off the ropes catches Perkovic. The fifth ends with the two eye balling one another mid ring. The sixth is uneventful, a good showing by both lads.
Referee Chaz Coakley scores the bout 59-55 for Miles Shinkwin.
Danny Couzens vs Spiros Demetriou, 10x3 - Cruiserweight
Demetriou is the far shorter of these two, looking to utilise that squat frame to buzz around Couzens then unload his big shots. Couzens though does well to evade the bombs coming into him. Demetriou ducks so low though that it's difficult to jab, Couzens having to adapt his shots here.
Through the second Couzens again is looking to keep the fight at length, switching his stance between orthodox and southpaw. More ducking from Demetriou, the Couzens shots going over the guard of Demetriou and connecting to the head. The two have a brilliant exchange in the corner, a big left hook by Couzens getting through and a right hand, Demetrious then returning with a swinging right as they both show solid chins.
Demetriou in the fourth seems to be reaching for his shots, Couzens footwork getting him out of range with ease. The big height difference makes Demetriou easy to pick off for Couzens as he comes in. Good right hand by Demetriou, then he backs himself in a corner, looking to draw in Couzens as the bell goes. In round five the height issue is evident again as Demetriou slips reaching for a shot onto the canvas. Demetriou has the rare success in the round with single shots, but it is clearly Couzens with the better boxing. In the sixth A nice lead uppercut from Demetriou, Couzens starts to then take the front foot, peppering jabs off Demetriou. Right at the end of the round a leaping Demetriou attack is met by a right hand hook by Couzens timed perfectly that sends Demetriou to the canvas. He looks in trouble on his knees, just beating the count but it's a struggle on the bell.
In round seven Couzens can sense the damage he has already done. However he shows real patience in his work. A beautiful left hook to the body by Couzens sees Demetiou wince, a right to the head by Couzens rocking him back. Credit to Couzens here for his patience and not rushing to look for a finish.
Round eight, Demetiou is starting to let his hands go more often again but with limited success. However he quickly tires and Couzens controls off a slick jab. Demetriou loses the gum shield towards the end of the round as Couzens is firmly on top. A few second brought, he looks to be running out of steam as Couzens dominates.
The ninth is slowed down, both men seemingly running out of fuel. It suits Couzens more though, able to handle things at distance with that solid jab, whereas Demetriou's reaching attacks are struggling with the tiredness.
Demetriou in the final round tries to up his work rate, rushing into the range of Couzens who is happy to cover, hold and turn. A solid left counter hook from Couzens lands clean before he goes back to sitting behind the jab to finish the fight in the same style that he has controlled the majority of this fight. Credit must go to Demetriou too, who saw the final bell in a tough nights work.
Referee Keiran McCann scored the bout 98-91 in a clear points victory for a controlled Couzens.
There were two further bouts, Oli Edwards versus Dan Blackwell and Sam Barron vs Michal Ciach, but unfortunately due to time constraints I was unable to see these.