Dennis Rodman "Doesn't Give A Rat's Ass" What You Think About His 'Friendship' With Kim Jong Un

On a satellite interview from Pyongyang, North Korea, former NBA player Dennis Rodman ‘lost it’ this morning with the anchor from CNN’s “New Day” show. Describing his (and his team’s) visit to North Korea as a “great trip for the world,” Rodman started to get frustrated when questioned about whether he will use the opportunity to speak about Kenneth Bae, an American citizen who has been held in North Korea. “Do you understand what he did?” Rodman exclaimed, “You tell me! You tell me! Why is he held captive?” Having described Kim Jong Un as a “friend for life,” Rodman went on to tell the CNN anchor, “I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think.” Ah, the new normal diplomacy. We wonder if Kim’s uncle also described him as a ‘friend for life.’? As WaPo reports, The White House is not happy.

 

 

As The Washington Post reports, The White House is not happy,

White House press secretary Jay Carney was not impressed.

 

“I’m not going to dignify that outburst with a response,” Carney said  during his daily briefing.

 

Carney reiterated the administration’s position that the government of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will continue to face international economic and diplomatic sanctions until it takes steps to place its military and nuclear weapons programs under international monitoring.

 

“Sports exchanges can be valuable. Sports diplomacy can be valuable,” Carney said.  “But this is a private trip, and our focus when it comes to North Korea is on sharpening the choice that that regime faces between further isolation, further economic deprivation … and taking advantage of the opportunity to rejoin the community of nations to ease that and potentially end that isolation.”

 

 

We remain gravely concerned about Kenneth Bae’s health and continue to urge [North Korean] authorities to grant his amnesty and immediate release on humanitarian grounds.”


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/MJ046zvG2Iw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Guest Post: Pimping The Empire, Progressive-Style

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Supporting the central state to protect your favored cartels is simply pimping for the Empire.

The central illusion of both Left (so-called Progressives) and Right (so-called conservatives) is that the Central State's essentially unlimited powers can be narrowly directed to further their agenda.

(I say "so-called" because the "Progressives" are not actually progressive, and the "Conservatives" are not actually conservative. Those labels are Orwellian double-speak, designed to mask the disastrous consequences of each ideology's actual policies.)

Let's begin by stipulating that ideology, any ideology, is an intellectual and emotional shortcut that offers believers ready-made explanations, goals, narratives and enemies without any difficult, time-consuming analysis, study or skeptical inquiry. This is the ultimate appeal of ideology: accepting the ideology relieves the believer of the burdens of analysis, skeptical inquiry, uncertainty/doubt and responsibility: all the answers, goals and narratives are prepackaged and mashed together for easy consumption.

This is one of the core messages of Erich Fromm's classic exploration of ideology and authoritarianism, Escape from Freedom.

And what is the essential foundation of authoritarianism? A central state. This is not coincidental.

What few grasp is the teleology of the centralized state: by its very nature (i.e. as a consequence of its essentially unlimited powers), the central state is genetically programmed to become an authoritarian state devoted to self-preservation and the extension of its reach and power.

The central illusion of Progressives is that an all-powerful central state will not become a self-serving expansive empire, but will be content to wield its vast powers to protect its favored cartels/monopolies and distribute money skimmed from the citizenry to Progressive constituencies such as public unions, healthcare and education.

This is an absurd fantasy. Once you give a central state essentially unlimited power to stripmine income and wealth from its citizens, create and/or borrow essentially unlimited sums of money, protect private (and politically powerful) cartels from competition and project military, financial and diplomatic power around the globe, the state will pursue Authoritarianism and Empire as a consequence of possessing those powers.

You can't cede unlimited, highly concentrated powers to the central state and then expect the state not to fulfill its teleogical imperative to protect and extend its powers. The state with unlimited powers will be ontologically predisposed to view any citizen that seeks to limit its expansion of power as an enemy to be suppressed, imprisoned or marginalized.

The state with unlimited powers will be ontologically predisposed to protecting its powers by cloaking all the important inner workings of the state behind a veil of secrecy, and pursuing and punishing any whistleblowers who reveal the corrupt, self-serving workings of the state.

The state with unlimited powers will be ontologically predisposed to view any other nation or alliance as a potential threat, and thus the state will pursue any and all means to distrupt or counter those potential threats.

The state with unlimited powers will be ontologically predisposed to create and distribute propaganda to mask its self-serving nature and its perpetual agenda of extending its powers, lest some threat arise that limits those powers.

Democracy and a central state with unlimited powers are teleologically incompatible.

Progressives worship the central state and cede it essentially unlimited powers because they want that state to be powerful enough to impose their agenda on others and reward their constituencies.

But it doesn't work that way. Once you cede unlimited, highly concentrated power to the central state, you get an authoritarian empire that is driven to protect itself from any threat at all costs–including democracy, though the state may maintain a facade of carefully managed "democracy" as part of its propaganda machinery.

You cannot have a state with essentially unlimited power and not end up with cartel-capitalism. So-called Progressives defend their favored cartel-fiefdoms of healthcare and education (and the "conservative" banking and defense cartels, too, to insure banks fund their campaigns and to protect their political flank with a "strong on defense" carte blanche to the National Security cartels), yet these cartels are busy bankrupting the nation and destroying the very programs Progressives claim to hold dear.

You can't have it both ways, Progressives: if you support a central state with essentially unlimited power to protect and fund your constituent cartels, you end up with self-liquidating cartel-capitalism, a state bent on protecting itself from the uncertainties/risks of democracy and a global Empire that is teleologically driven to expand its reach and power by any and all means available.

Once you choose to cede essentially unlimited powers to the central state, all decisions after that are made in service of the state. The idea that the state can be limited to helping the needy is illusory.

The only legitimate duties of the state are limited: 1) protect the commons from destruction and exploitation; 2) protect the citizenry from exploitation or oppression by those with superior power or resources; 3) maintain transparency in all governance and 4) maintain a system of sound money.

The so-called Progressives will learn what the teleology of the state means in the real world when the state comes after them. Once you cede unlimited power to the central state, any attempt to limit that power marks you as an enemy.

War at Home: Covert action against U.S. activists.

Supporting the central state to protect your favored cartels and protect your political power over the state's tax revenues is simply pimping for the Empire. You can call it "progressive," but it's still pimping for the Empire.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/2iZYtdQX72Y/story01.htm Tyler Durden

First Post-Taper 3 Year Auction Yield Approaches September Highs, Bid To Cover Drops, Directs Spike

Back in September, just before the FOMC announcement in which Bernanke shocked everyone by not announcing a Taper, the 3 Year priced in the early part of the month at a yield of 0.913%: the highest since May 2011. After that, following the delay of the taper, yields dipped, but are once again rising higher, and moments ago the $30 billion 3 Year auction priced – in the first post-taper auction – at a high yield of 0.799%, a jump from the December 0.631%, and a tiny tail to the When Issued stopping at 0.797%, but still shy of the September wides.

Also of note: last month’s jump in the Bid to Cover, which had risen to 3.553, is once again declining, and today printed at 3.255 below the TTM average of 3.349. The internals were notable for the dramatic spike in Direct Bids, whose takedown doubled from 12% in December to 22.6%, the highest since Marh 2013 when Directs were buying the short end with reckless abandon. And with Indirects taking down a lowly 28% (compared to the TTM average of 30.5%), this means Dealers were once again left holding just half of the bag, or 49.4% compared to 49.6% last month. Altogether, a “normal” auction, but keep an eye on those creeping higher yields. Should the Fed continue to signal tapering in the coming months, expect the yield to hit 1% at some point in the coming 3-6 months.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/qq3hXkfpXII/story01.htm Tyler Durden

THe MoRoN VoRTeX…


.

Peter King says:

-It is perfectly acceptable for the NSA to spy on Congress because they might be palling around with Al Qaeda operatives (separation of powers is an illusion anyway);

-Rand Paul is lying about the NSA and spreading fear among the American people (you heard him, F-E-A-R as in AL-QAEDA-OPERATIVES palling around with Senators);

-Ed Snowden is a throwback to the “hate America” crowd from the 60s;

-Emperor Obozo should stop apologising for the NSA.

WB7:

First of all, it is well known that members of Congress such as King are closet Al Qaeda operatives. 

Secondly, King should be closely monitored by the staff of Creedmore not the NSA.

Finally, if Obozo has been apologising for the NSA it’s news to me. He must have been doing so in 20 second Snapchats with the Danish PM.

You know, I love America. But there is also a dark side of America that I hate and King sits at the vortex of that dark side, the Moron Vortex…

 

.

 

.

.

This moron is packing the heat

The TERRORISTS he will defeat

But if we don’t bite

To join in his fight

He’s willing to practice deceit

The Limerick King


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/3-t2EFatkuw/story01.htm williambanzai7

Tuesday Trivia: How Many Americans Applied For 36 Ice Cream Maker Jobs?

Of all the case studies in our “it is easier to get into Harvard than to get a job at X” series (flight attendants, Goldman summer interns, McDonalds, etc), this one may be our favorite because it captures at its core, just how “strong” the US economic “recovery” truly is for all those who don’t have a spare million or two in financial assets to throw at the levitating, centrally-planned markets. As the WaPo reports, when a Maryland ice cream plant, shut down in 2011 and subsequnetly was brought back to life when a Co-op of dairy farmers purchased it in the summer of 2013 to process milk and icream, sent out “jobs wanted” notices to fill some three dozen open job positions, it got a surprise: 1,600 applicants (and counting) “a deluge” – 44 applicants for every position – or nearly three times more difficult than getting into Harvard to get a simple job… To make ice cream!

But that’s not the punchline. The punchline: the name of the ice cream plant? “Good Humor.”

Indeed, how can one possibly doubt that the US recovery is in full swing after reading the following:

Many applicants are desperate former employees still without work in a county with 7.3 percent unemployment and in an economy where manufacturing job openings now require more specialized abilities than the lower-skilled positions that have gone overseas or, in the case of Unilever, to Tennessee and Missouri, where labor and operating costs are cheaper.

 

Wall Street is booming, the Federal Reserve is paring back its stimulus, there are bidding wars for houses again, but for blue-collar workers in places like Hagerstown the economic recovery has yet to materialize, and many around town worry that it won’t. Laid-off workers are living week-to-week on unemployment. They’re working temp jobs and trying to reeducate themselves. They are trying to save their houses from foreclosure.

 

“You’d think that after 20-some-years working someplace at least somebody would think you are a good person, that you’d show up on time every day, and that would be worth something,” said Luther Brooks, a 50-year-old single father of four who lost his $40,000-a-year pasteurization job at the ice cream plant. “But I can’t get nothing. I’ve tried.”

For some it was a moment of hope, quickly turning to despair:

One worker who went through the job training program was starting over after 28 years at the plant as a mechanic. He met his wife on the job. He had been working third shift — the graveyard shift — at the plant for years, and it was taking its toll.

 

When the plant closed, “I wasn’t really depressed,” he said. “I was ready for a change.”

 

He got a truck driver’s license, but he wound up taking a job working on a dairy farm. There weren’t many other options. He was earning $26 an hour making ice cream. He’s making $13 an hour now. His wife is studying to be a nurse.

 

“We have no benefits at all,” he said. “We’re going to look into the Obamacare thing if we can ever get online to do it.”

And then you will have to pay for it too, but that’s a bridge the welfare state will cross when it comes to it.

The comments from the job seekers, some successful, are as expected priceless:

“I’ve been hounded on Facebook,” said the 60-year-old mechanic who had been working in lawn care before he got hired back. He has told the job seekers, “Put in a résumé; put in an application.”

 

“I’d even take a hand-packing job just to start,” he said, meaning a job stuffing boxes with ice cream. “I didn’t even get a call.”

 

“Workers need to be a step above what their fathers and grandfathers were capable of doing,” Fuchs said. “The manufacturing employees of today need to be cross-skilled. They need to know how to do a lot. It’s not just monitoring a machine and pushing a button when you’re supposed to.”

Well what about two buttons, namely CTRL and P?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/haFQTtPtgXs/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Chicago’s “Out Of Step And Outrageous” Gun Sales Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

After ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits, U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. As AP reports, the decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation; with the NRA noting it "shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago’s ordinances really are." Despite the city's ban "to protect its citizens," Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation.

Via AP,

A federal judge has potentially opened a new market to gun dealers after ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits.

 

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.

 

The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation.

 

 

National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde applauded Chang’s decision, saying it “shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago’s ordinances really are.”

 

 

Every year Chicago police recover more illegal guns than officers in any city in the country, a factor of lax federal laws as well as lax laws in Illinois and surrounding states related to straw purchasing and the transfer of guns,” Drew said. “We need stronger gun safety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city.”

 

 

“That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens,” he wrote. “But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”

 

Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation. City officials have long acknowledged the ban on gun sales has been weakened due to the legal sale of guns in some surrounding suburbs and states.

 

 

“All the people I know who own guns legally are really careful,” said Pacholski, whose wife, also was a plaintiff. “I’m a collector; my guns are not going anywhere unless I know where they’re going because I don’t want to be responsible for someone’s death.”

 

Illinois Council Against Hand Gun Violence campaign coordinator Mark Walsh said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling.

 

“I’m not sure what the city’s plan is (following the ruling), but I think obviously there is a need to make sure gun dealers coming into the city are aware of those who have restrictions on gun ownership and don’t sell to them,” he said.

 

Chicago still has a ban on assault weapons.

As we noted previously, the facts are problematic for the anti-gun lobbyists (no matter how much common sense they believe they have)…

In an inconvenient truth moment for the anti-gun lobby, Harvard's Don Kates and Gary Mauser expose the facts behind gun control and violent crime. While not the first time we have discussed this awkward reality, the depth of the academics' datasets and the findings are unquestionable that there is in fact a "negative correlation" between violence and gun ownership. As they state,

"where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest,"

The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.

To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Wi2qxhh9kx4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Chicago's "Out Of Step And Outrageous" Gun Sales Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

After ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits, U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. As AP reports, the decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation; with the NRA noting it "shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago’s ordinances really are." Despite the city's ban "to protect its citizens," Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation.

Via AP,

A federal judge has potentially opened a new market to gun dealers after ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits.

 

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.

 

The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation.

 

 

National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde applauded Chang’s decision, saying it “shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago’s ordinances really are.”

 

 

Every year Chicago police recover more illegal guns than officers in any city in the country, a factor of lax federal laws as well as lax laws in Illinois and surrounding states related to straw purchasing and the transfer of guns,” Drew said. “We need stronger gun safety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city.”

 

 

“That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens,” he wrote. “But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”

 

Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation. City officials have long acknowledged the ban on gun sales has been weakened due to the legal sale of guns in some surrounding suburbs and states.

 

 

“All the people I know who own guns legally are really careful,” said Pacholski, whose wife, also was a plaintiff. “I’m a collector; my guns are not going anywhere unless I know where they’re going because I don’t want to be responsible for someone’s death.”

 

Illinois Council Against Hand Gun Violence campaign coordinator Mark Walsh said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling.

 

“I’m not sure what the city’s plan is (following the ruling), but I think obviously there is a need to make sure gun dealers coming into the city are aware of those who have restrictions on gun ownership and don’t sell to them,” he said.

 

Chicago still has a ban on assault weapons.

As we noted previously, the facts are problematic for the anti-gun lobbyists (no matter how much common sense they believe they have)…

In an inconvenient truth moment for the anti-gun lobby, Harvard's Don Kates and Gary Mauser expose the facts behind gun control and violent crime. While not the first time we have discussed this awkward reality, the depth of the academics' datasets and the findings are unquestionable that there is in fact a "negative correlation" between violence and gun ownership. As they state,

"where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest,"

The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.

To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Wi2qxhh9kx4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

President Obama Is Back From Vacation – Live Feed

With 1.3 million Americans having lost (or about to lose) their emergency unemployment benefits, President Obama is back from vacation and ready to re-start the blame-and-shame game (supported with the now ubiquitous crowd of needy entitled onlookers, ready to faint on command). As he explains, “this is money that helps pay the bills while folks work hard to find their next job…” as long as it’s well-paying and not at McDonalds. Of course, the uncomfortable truth is…

  • *BOEHNER SAYS EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT AID MUST BE PAID FOR

But that’s what the rich are for, right?

 

Here is Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, explaining why the world will end if congress does not extend UI…

 

And President Obama is due to speak at 1140ET


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/7J6nbP6QYRc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

SocGen Initiaties Coverage On Goldman With “Sell” Rating, $138 Price Target

Moments ago shots were fired when a (French) bank broke the unspoken Omerta code among sellside bankers: it downgraded another bank in a time when the S&P is just shy its all time highs (downgrading banks when the market is tumbling is usually a-ok). The note came from SocGen’s Andrew Lim, whse thesis is rather simple: “Valuation too expensive in light of regulatory and revenue challenges.”

From the note:

Initiation of coverage We initiate coverage of Goldman Sachs with a Sell rating and target price of $138. This is part of our Global Investment Banks initiation.

 

Key investment themes GS is a top-tier bank in primary and secondary capital markets business. However, with expectations of rising US 10-year yields, we fear the  prospect of a credit bear market will pressure FICC trading revenues.

 

We see GS as already strong on B3 leverage (and B3 common equity). However, in endeavouring to maximise ROE by maximising share buybacks, we feel that management’s capital return policy is too aggressive and needs to be scaled back. Dividends and buybacks combined should account for just over 100% of earnings in 2013.

 

We see a risk of GS continuing to be impacted more than peers by regulations. The Volcker rule, while manageable for the bank, should nonetheless put pressure on revenues as it forces GS to scale back investments in covered funds. Meanwhile, we see the risk of market RWA inflation from the BCBS’s review of the trading book.

 

How we value the stock We use an SPFV approach to obtain a target price for GS of €138. We include on top of this the expected 12m forward DPS of $2.20, which results in a total shareholder return of -21%. Our full SPFV model is available on page 68 of our global investment banks initiation report. Looking at the valuation from another perspective, an ROE of only c.10% does not support a P/BV rating of over 1.0x in our view.

 

Risks to our target price and rating Pressure on the credit market may prove temporary rather than structural and longer term in nature as we model. On top of this, GS may be able to take much more market share from competitors than we estimate. GS may be able to reduce leverage and RWA considerably without hurting revenues. Management may be able to mitigate the impact of the Volcker rule with much less detriment to group ROE than we expect.

Sorry Andrew, no Goldman “elves” Christmas party invitation for you this year.


    

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/TrxsFVmRYto/story01.htm Tyler Durden

SocGen Initiaties Coverage On Goldman With "Sell" Rating, $138 Price Target

Moments ago shots were fired when a (French) bank broke the unspoken Omerta code among sellside bankers: it downgraded another bank in a time when the S&P is just shy its all time highs (downgrading banks when the market is tumbling is usually a-ok). The note came from SocGen’s Andrew Lim, whse thesis is rather simple: “Valuation too expensive in light of regulatory and revenue challenges.”

From the note:

Initiation of coverage We initiate coverage of Goldman Sachs with a Sell rating and target price of $138. This is part of our Global Investment Banks initiation.

 

Key investment themes GS is a top-tier bank in primary and secondary capital markets business. However, with expectations of rising US 10-year yields, we fear the  prospect of a credit bear market will pressure FICC trading revenues.

 

We see GS as already strong on B3 leverage (and B3 common equity). However, in endeavouring to maximise ROE by maximising share buybacks, we feel that management’s capital return policy is too aggressive and needs to be scaled back. Dividends and buybacks combined should account for just over 100% of earnings in 2013.

 

We see a risk of GS continuing to be impacted more than peers by regulations. The Volcker rule, while manageable for the bank, should nonetheless put pressure on revenues as it forces GS to scale back investments in covered funds. Meanwhile, we see the risk of market RWA inflation from the BCBS’s review of the trading book.

 

How we value the stock We use an SPFV approach to obtain a target price for GS of €138. We include on top of this the expected 12m forward DPS of $2.20, which results in a total shareholder return of -21%. Our full SPFV model is available on page 68 of our global investment banks initiation report. Looking at the valuation from another perspective, an ROE of only c.10% does not support a P/BV rating of over 1.0x in our view.

 

Risks to our target price and rating Pressure on the credit market may prove temporary rather than structural and longer term in nature as we model. On top of this, GS may be able to take much more market share from competitors than we estimate. GS may be able to reduce leverage and RWA considerably without hurting revenues. Management may be able to mitigate the impact of the Volcker rule with much less detriment to group ROE than we expect.

Sorry Andrew, no Goldman “elves” Christmas party invitation for you this year.


    

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/TrxsFVmRYto/story01.htm Tyler Durden