In 2008, Bear Sterns collapsed. A couple months after its quick-acquisition by JP Morgan, I was sitting on a bus at 4am driving towards Masada in Israel. I turned to my friend Max from Boston, an associate at Lehmann Brothers. I asked him what he thought about Bear Sterns. He shrugged and told me that he would "wait and see." Three months later, Lehmann filed for bankruptcy.
And, so it began. Bank of America bought out Merrill Lynch (forced acquisition, depending on who you are talking to), JP Morgan bought Washington Mutual, AIG tanked, Goldman Sachs tanked and the NYSE dropped precipitously, sending the Down-Jones Industrial average from a high of over 14,000 to just below 6,000 (this occurred over a number of months). Small banks failed, big banks went bust, investments flopped and "too-big-to-fail" entered into the political and social lexicon.
As is the tradition with many major financial emergencies, politicians and businessmen pointed fingers. Democrats blamed the Bush Admin and Alan Greenspan, citing deregulation of banks and the egregiously bad enforcement of regulations by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Republicans blamed the Clinton Admin for its mission to allow anyone with a pulse to get a home loan. And, populists blamed shady and high risk investments by big firms like Goldman Sachs and AIG.
They are all correct:
The Clinton Administration's policies that gave home loans to individuals with terrible credit was a driver of many of the foreclosures when the housing bubble burst. But, in his compromise with the Republican-led Congress, he signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. This allowed for the creation of the behemoths that became "too-big-to-fail" by removing the separation between Wall St banks and Depository banks. Add in a host of high risk home mortgages that were packaged as securities based on an idea of a "never-ending" rise in housing prices, and you have the right mix for financial collapse stew.
What should be emphasized about the banking and investment environment, post-financial collapse, is the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The Act, passed in 1933, created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced bank reform measures to curb speculation. The Great Depression, caused by a combination of international monetary policy (see "Dollar Diplomacy") and high speculative financial policy (See "Buying on Margin c. 1920s), was the main driver for bank reform. During the 1980s, investment banks lobbied heavily to get the Act repealed. In 1987, arguments arose for preservation and repeal:
Preservation:
1. Conflicts of interest for granting credit - lending and investing would happen in the same place, an abuse the Act was created to curb
2. Depository banks have a lot of power because they control the people's money - they should be regulated
3. Investments banks could make risky moves, putting the people's money in jeopardy.
Repeal:
1. Banks are losing market share to securities firms
2. Conflicts of interest can be avoided by regulatory enforcement
3. Combination of commercial and investment banks would lead to diversification and a reduction in risk
For those who argued for preservation, it seems as if they had some sort of financial crystal ball. For those who argued for repeal, eating your words doesn't even cover it:
1. Banks are losing market share to securities firms
What Happened: Securities firms invested in the bundled high-risk mortgages that were backed by loans from banks. Once the housing market tanked, the defaults shot up. Banks were left with trillions (yes...trillions) in toxic investments, which the government was forced to buy out.
2. Conflicts of interest can be avoided by regulatory enforcement
What Happened: Government bodies responsible for overseeing financial markets (SEC) did a piss-poor job at enforcement where they took a complacent attitude towards high risk investments. Ponzi schemes like Bernie Madoff's showed that "regulatory enforcement" wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
3. Combination of commercial and investment banks would lead to diversification and a reduction in risk
What Happened: High risk, high return, highly insulated investments led to "too-big-to-fail" institutions to play Russian Roulette with people's deposits and long-term savings (401[k]s, Retirement Funds, etc). Now, imagine what it would be like if Social Security was privatized before this happened.
A major criticism of the TARP/Bank Bailout initiative was based on "dependence." (my characterization). When an financial institution makes a risky investment, like buying up sub-prime mortgage securities, and the investment fails, the institution will learn one of the major lessons of capitalism - learn from your mistakes. But, with the advent of "too-big-to-fail," the institution will never learn their lesson. If the consequences of allowing that institution to fail have such a detrimental effect on the global economy that it must be "bailed out" then policies that lead to such a status must be reviewed. Due to the lack of strong regulation in the financial market, coupled with the surety that a financial institution will be "bailed out," we will never learn from the mistakes of the financial crisis, and there will only be a continued proliferation of "too-big-to-fail."
A return to the Glass-Steagall Act may not be pertinent at this time. We have entered a post-Act era, and must accept the existence of "too-big-to-fail." It is in this environment that the Fed and the Private Sector have to dance a fine line between punishing institutions for risky investment and growing a recessed economy.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Massey Way
Massey Energy, the company that owned the Upper Big Branch Mine (UBB) in West Virginia, has finally been faulted with the disaster that killed 29 miners. It only took 13 months.
After the disaster, J David McAteer asked then governor Joe Manchin III (now Senator Joe Manchin III) for an independent investigation into Massey Energy and the cause of the UBB explosion. McAteer is the president for special programs at Wheeling-Jesuit University and was a former secretary of Labor in charge of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under President Clinton.
McAteer's report made the following conclusions about the cause of the UBB explosion:
1. The explosion was preventable
2. The explosion was the result of egregious failures and violations of minimum safety standards including proper ventilation and water of coal particulates. The free flowing particulates coupled with methane buildup ignited an explosion that killed the 29 miners.
3. Self regulating pre-shift examinations broke down leading to violations that were not recorded. MSHA did not provide enough oversight to ensure minimum safety standards were complied with and the West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training failed in its role to oversee miner's working conditions.
4. Self regulation of miner's working conditions and health as a responsibility of the coal company broke down.
5. The disaster revealed an egregious disregard for the health/safety of coal miners working for Massey.
McAteer also commented on the culture of violations and avoidance at Massey. This section of the report sums up the "Massey Way":
"...Massey is...well known for causing incalculable damage to mountains, streams and air in the coalfields; creating health risks for coalfield residents by polluting streams, injecting slurry into the ground and failing to control coal waste dams and dust emissions from processing plants; using vast amounts of money to influence the political system; and battling government regulation regarding safety in the coal mines and environmental safeguards for communities."
Close to one year ago, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed. The Bill had an obscure section that required all coal companies to report mine violations under MSHA's Federal Mine Safety and Health Act section 104. Section 104 defines and sets penalties for violations that are deemed "significant and substantial...where there exists a likelihood...of injury or illness of a reasonably serious nature."
According to Massey's most recent 10-Q filings, which include the reporting requirement, they received 1,158 violations, including 126 at the UBB-South mine. The resulting fines were $4,416,785.
And, that's just for the first quarter of 2011.
After the UBB disaster, Democrats in both chambers introduced legislation to expand the regulatory power of MSHA by giving them power of subpoena and the power to close a mine, bolster mine safety laws, hiking fines for mine violations and whistle-blower protection. Republicans complained that the regulations would kill jobs and put a burden on coal companies. Sen Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep George Miller (D-CA) have introduced bills that would strengthen health protection for miners. One bill passed the Education and Labor committee in House on a party-line vote, but stalled in the Senate. The bill has be reintroduced to the current Congress, but is taking a backseat to the debt ceiling debate.
What is so damning about the McAteer report was not the conclusion about Massey's fault in the UBB disaster or the safety violations. It was a short box on page 32 of the report that explained a post-mortem autopsy on 24 of the miners who died in the explosion. 17 of the 24 miners autopsied had Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis (CWP or Black Lung). That is a whopping 71%, or about ten times the WV average and thirteen times the national average. Of the seven that did not have an official diagnosis of CWP, four had "anthracosis" or what is often used as a placeholder for CWP. So, it is possible that 21 out of 24, or 87.5%, had CWP. The miners' ages ranged from 25-61.
A 25 year old with Black Lung...
After the disaster, J David McAteer asked then governor Joe Manchin III (now Senator Joe Manchin III) for an independent investigation into Massey Energy and the cause of the UBB explosion. McAteer is the president for special programs at Wheeling-Jesuit University and was a former secretary of Labor in charge of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under President Clinton.
McAteer's report made the following conclusions about the cause of the UBB explosion:
1. The explosion was preventable
2. The explosion was the result of egregious failures and violations of minimum safety standards including proper ventilation and water of coal particulates. The free flowing particulates coupled with methane buildup ignited an explosion that killed the 29 miners.
3. Self regulating pre-shift examinations broke down leading to violations that were not recorded. MSHA did not provide enough oversight to ensure minimum safety standards were complied with and the West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training failed in its role to oversee miner's working conditions.
4. Self regulation of miner's working conditions and health as a responsibility of the coal company broke down.
5. The disaster revealed an egregious disregard for the health/safety of coal miners working for Massey.
McAteer also commented on the culture of violations and avoidance at Massey. This section of the report sums up the "Massey Way":
"...Massey is...well known for causing incalculable damage to mountains, streams and air in the coalfields; creating health risks for coalfield residents by polluting streams, injecting slurry into the ground and failing to control coal waste dams and dust emissions from processing plants; using vast amounts of money to influence the political system; and battling government regulation regarding safety in the coal mines and environmental safeguards for communities."
Close to one year ago, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed. The Bill had an obscure section that required all coal companies to report mine violations under MSHA's Federal Mine Safety and Health Act section 104. Section 104 defines and sets penalties for violations that are deemed "significant and substantial...where there exists a likelihood...of injury or illness of a reasonably serious nature."
According to Massey's most recent 10-Q filings, which include the reporting requirement, they received 1,158 violations, including 126 at the UBB-South mine. The resulting fines were $4,416,785.
And, that's just for the first quarter of 2011.
After the UBB disaster, Democrats in both chambers introduced legislation to expand the regulatory power of MSHA by giving them power of subpoena and the power to close a mine, bolster mine safety laws, hiking fines for mine violations and whistle-blower protection. Republicans complained that the regulations would kill jobs and put a burden on coal companies. Sen Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep George Miller (D-CA) have introduced bills that would strengthen health protection for miners. One bill passed the Education and Labor committee in House on a party-line vote, but stalled in the Senate. The bill has be reintroduced to the current Congress, but is taking a backseat to the debt ceiling debate.
What is so damning about the McAteer report was not the conclusion about Massey's fault in the UBB disaster or the safety violations. It was a short box on page 32 of the report that explained a post-mortem autopsy on 24 of the miners who died in the explosion. 17 of the 24 miners autopsied had Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis (CWP or Black Lung). That is a whopping 71%, or about ten times the WV average and thirteen times the national average. Of the seven that did not have an official diagnosis of CWP, four had "anthracosis" or what is often used as a placeholder for CWP. So, it is possible that 21 out of 24, or 87.5%, had CWP. The miners' ages ranged from 25-61.
A 25 year old with Black Lung...
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Ideology Gives Tax Cuts a Double-Meaning, Right?
What is a Tax Cut? Seriously...I am very confused.
I am under the impression that a tax cut is good for business, grows the economy, reduces the deficit (somehow) and allows for a smooth transition out of the recession, right?
Tax cuts are only for those who make $250,000 or more, right?
But, that's good for the economy, right?
The money is invested back into the economy with massive hiring and the tax and entitlement revenues that are taken out of workers wages, right?
But, if you take away a tax cut, you are essentially raising taxes, right?
But, that only works for ideologies that you support, right?
So, if you repeal tax cuts for oil companies, you are raising taxes, right?
If you repeal taxes for oil companies, you are not reducing the deficit by not collecting billions in tax revenues, right?
But, if you repeal tax write-offs for private insurance that covers abortion, that is NOT a rise in taxes, right?
I think I have confused myself once again. Maybe addressing the "right?" wasn't a good idea.
I am under the impression that a tax cut is good for business, grows the economy, reduces the deficit (somehow) and allows for a smooth transition out of the recession, right?
Tax cuts are only for those who make $250,000 or more, right?
But, that's good for the economy, right?
The money is invested back into the economy with massive hiring and the tax and entitlement revenues that are taken out of workers wages, right?
But, if you take away a tax cut, you are essentially raising taxes, right?
But, that only works for ideologies that you support, right?
So, if you repeal tax cuts for oil companies, you are raising taxes, right?
If you repeal taxes for oil companies, you are not reducing the deficit by not collecting billions in tax revenues, right?
But, if you repeal tax write-offs for private insurance that covers abortion, that is NOT a rise in taxes, right?
I think I have confused myself once again. Maybe addressing the "right?" wasn't a good idea.
Monday, May 9, 2011
UC System, Tiered to Ruin
An idea has been floated by the University of California in response to the drastic budget cuts by the Brown Administration's "live-within-our-means" strategy:
A tiered tuition system, whereby the most popular "flagship" campuses charged more.
The UC flagship campuses are Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego. The proposal was followed by a numbers game that theoretically put tuition for UCLA at $16,000/yr. Adding the average cost of shelter, food, books and other amenities, the cost to attend UCLA would hover around $30,000+/yr. Tuition at other UC schools (Irvine, Merced, Davis, Riverside, Santa Cruz) would stay around $11,000/yr. With extras, the cost remains closer to $20,000/yr. While UCLA and UC Berkeley are more expensive schools to attend, the difference is nominal. That difference is defined by the prestige of faculty and institution, which translated to slightly higher costs for students. This is reasonable. A tiered system is not.
A tiered system would make a mockery of the purpose of the UC campuses. In the first blog post I wrote for Middle of the Road, I lambasted the governor for cutting funding to the UC system. I proselytized about cutting classes, increased tuition and less prestige. While the UC system has not lost its prestige, they are going through a restructuring which has included higher tuition and class cutting. Again, I find myself reminding the UC Regents of the purpose of public education:
To create a system of universities where merit (in its most subjective form) is the only measure of accessibility. In other words, regardless of background or wealth, an individual who is deemed eligible to attend UCLA, Berkeley or UCSD, then they should be offered the resources to do so. These resources should be funded partially by tax money, research grants and private donations.
This tiered system will make the the flagship campuses less accessible to large populations of CA students. It will also create a hierarchy whereby the more affluent students will be able to attend the flagship colleges. This is in direct conflict with the directive of the UC system. But, the worst result will be the inherent competition that might arise from a tiered system. If UCLA, Berkeley and San Diego raise tuition because of a perceived "higher" status, other campuses will attempt to obtain the same status through the same means resulting in a uniform increase in cost. This will be, what UC David law school professor Daniel Simmons calls "competition that would be destructive." Richard Blumenthal, Chancellor of Santa Cruz, also made the point that the uniformity in cost in the UC system gives taxpayers certainty, and any drastic tier-based system will result in a splintering of shared resources. If given the opportunity, according to Blumenthal, schools like Berkeley would raise tuition 25% or more. Affordability and accessibility, something that Berkeley touts when it accepts those who "show promise" as opposed to those with deep pocket books, will be thrown out the door. A good example would the flagship of the University of Wisconsin school system (UW-Madison), which is attempting to secede from the system to have more freedom to raise tuition.
Another important factor to consider is the perceived prestige of the tiered system. The UC system gets its international lauds for being an affordable, near-uniform priced, public university system that allows people from diverse backgrounds to attend classes from internationally known and highly regarded faculty. Whether your at UCR, UCI, UCLA or Berkeley, your diploma will have the "UC" stamp of recognition. The commission admitted that a higher tuition will create a perception of an unequal prestige level. This refers to the committee's statements of "potential negative impact on the perceived reputation or academic quality of some campuses." In other words, your UCR diploma might mean less than your friend's UCLA diploma.
Again, the committee might need a reminder as to the purpose and charter of the UC system.
A tiered tuition system, whereby the most popular "flagship" campuses charged more.
The UC flagship campuses are Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego. The proposal was followed by a numbers game that theoretically put tuition for UCLA at $16,000/yr. Adding the average cost of shelter, food, books and other amenities, the cost to attend UCLA would hover around $30,000+/yr. Tuition at other UC schools (Irvine, Merced, Davis, Riverside, Santa Cruz) would stay around $11,000/yr. With extras, the cost remains closer to $20,000/yr. While UCLA and UC Berkeley are more expensive schools to attend, the difference is nominal. That difference is defined by the prestige of faculty and institution, which translated to slightly higher costs for students. This is reasonable. A tiered system is not.
A tiered system would make a mockery of the purpose of the UC campuses. In the first blog post I wrote for Middle of the Road, I lambasted the governor for cutting funding to the UC system. I proselytized about cutting classes, increased tuition and less prestige. While the UC system has not lost its prestige, they are going through a restructuring which has included higher tuition and class cutting. Again, I find myself reminding the UC Regents of the purpose of public education:
To create a system of universities where merit (in its most subjective form) is the only measure of accessibility. In other words, regardless of background or wealth, an individual who is deemed eligible to attend UCLA, Berkeley or UCSD, then they should be offered the resources to do so. These resources should be funded partially by tax money, research grants and private donations.
This tiered system will make the the flagship campuses less accessible to large populations of CA students. It will also create a hierarchy whereby the more affluent students will be able to attend the flagship colleges. This is in direct conflict with the directive of the UC system. But, the worst result will be the inherent competition that might arise from a tiered system. If UCLA, Berkeley and San Diego raise tuition because of a perceived "higher" status, other campuses will attempt to obtain the same status through the same means resulting in a uniform increase in cost. This will be, what UC David law school professor Daniel Simmons calls "competition that would be destructive." Richard Blumenthal, Chancellor of Santa Cruz, also made the point that the uniformity in cost in the UC system gives taxpayers certainty, and any drastic tier-based system will result in a splintering of shared resources. If given the opportunity, according to Blumenthal, schools like Berkeley would raise tuition 25% or more. Affordability and accessibility, something that Berkeley touts when it accepts those who "show promise" as opposed to those with deep pocket books, will be thrown out the door. A good example would the flagship of the University of Wisconsin school system (UW-Madison), which is attempting to secede from the system to have more freedom to raise tuition.
Another important factor to consider is the perceived prestige of the tiered system. The UC system gets its international lauds for being an affordable, near-uniform priced, public university system that allows people from diverse backgrounds to attend classes from internationally known and highly regarded faculty. Whether your at UCR, UCI, UCLA or Berkeley, your diploma will have the "UC" stamp of recognition. The commission admitted that a higher tuition will create a perception of an unequal prestige level. This refers to the committee's statements of "potential negative impact on the perceived reputation or academic quality of some campuses." In other words, your UCR diploma might mean less than your friend's UCLA diploma.
Again, the committee might need a reminder as to the purpose and charter of the UC system.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
A Farce in Egypt: Hamas-Fatah Unity is a Step Backwards
This week Fatah and Hamas signed an agreement to form a united government, or what has been the called a big step towards the recognition of a Palestinian State.
Doubtful...
There have been many big obstacles in the way of peace and a two-state solution (settlements, rocket attacks, etc), but none is so insurmountable as the inherent and violence-fueled separation between Fatah and Hamas. But, here are some reasons why this "paper-tiger" will never hold up:
1. Hamas is a terrorist organization.
The necessary "other-side" of the negotiation table (Israel and the US) have identified Hamas as a terrorist organization.
2. Hamas refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist.
An LATimes article: "Fatah leader say it doesn't matter if Hamas does not recognize Israel as long as the government does." This quote is an explicit recognition that a united Fatah-Hamas government will be inherently divided over the most important issue - the Peace Process. In 2007, a united government collapsed because the US, Israel and a host of other nations refused to recognize it because Hamas did not accept Israel's right to exist. If a functional government is to be formed form the two warring factions, then it must recognize that a two-state solution only works when one state gives legitimacy to the other. No Israel, no Palestine.
3. Recognition of a country by the UN does not mean it can be stable enough to be independent
Those who refer to Israel going to the UN as a mirror to Hamas-Fatah using the same route are running down a slippery slope. Israel, while facing outside forces that vowed to destroy it, was united in its cause. This unity is a driving force behind its innovative power and its survivability. Hamas and Fatah are deeply divided, and a UN recognition will not persuade Hamas to compromise on its extremism. A Palestinian state will resemble the government of Lebanon, which is in constant civil war with Hezbollah and a breeding ground for international terrorism.
4. A two-state solution cannot exist with a dependent state
If we were to accept the idea that the Palestinian State is its own, independent state, then we need to expand the definition of what "independent" means:
-If it cannot prevent extremism from within its borders from spilling out into Israel, then it cannot be an independent state
-If it depends on tax revenues from Israel for construction and aide, then it cannot be an independent state
-If a government of two warring factions cannot reconcile a peace agreement with their neighbor, then it cannot represent an independent state.
-When groups within the government call for using "every method of resistance" against its neighbor, then it cannot represent an independent state.
5. All parties must recognize Israel's right to defend itself
We root for the underdog. I understand that. But, this isn't South Africa resisting apartheid, Egyptians toppling Mubarak or Libya fighting Qaddafi. If these two factions want to create a stable state, they must recognize the right of their neighbor to defend against outside forces. Israel is not purposefully oppressing Arabs from the area because they believe in some sort of inherent inequality.
Unfortunately, the most visible elements of the dynamic between Fatah-Hamas and Israel is that of Israel can do not good. If Hamas shoots rockets at settlements, it's because there are settlements. If Israel kills Hamas militants and there are civilian casualties, the report conveniently leaves out the fact that the militants put their mortars in and around residential areas. Israel gives an inch, their image loses a mile. We aggrandize the steps taken towards small investments in a Palestinian state, but forget about their dependence on Israeli largesse.
A poll came out recently that showed support for Osama Bin Laden had faded in the Arab world. The place where there was the highest support was amongst the Palestinian territories. Fatah supported the killing of Bin Laden and Hamas condemned it. Unity? Not really.
Doubtful...
There have been many big obstacles in the way of peace and a two-state solution (settlements, rocket attacks, etc), but none is so insurmountable as the inherent and violence-fueled separation between Fatah and Hamas. But, here are some reasons why this "paper-tiger" will never hold up:
1. Hamas is a terrorist organization.
The necessary "other-side" of the negotiation table (Israel and the US) have identified Hamas as a terrorist organization.
2. Hamas refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist.
An LATimes article: "Fatah leader say it doesn't matter if Hamas does not recognize Israel as long as the government does." This quote is an explicit recognition that a united Fatah-Hamas government will be inherently divided over the most important issue - the Peace Process. In 2007, a united government collapsed because the US, Israel and a host of other nations refused to recognize it because Hamas did not accept Israel's right to exist. If a functional government is to be formed form the two warring factions, then it must recognize that a two-state solution only works when one state gives legitimacy to the other. No Israel, no Palestine.
3. Recognition of a country by the UN does not mean it can be stable enough to be independent
Those who refer to Israel going to the UN as a mirror to Hamas-Fatah using the same route are running down a slippery slope. Israel, while facing outside forces that vowed to destroy it, was united in its cause. This unity is a driving force behind its innovative power and its survivability. Hamas and Fatah are deeply divided, and a UN recognition will not persuade Hamas to compromise on its extremism. A Palestinian state will resemble the government of Lebanon, which is in constant civil war with Hezbollah and a breeding ground for international terrorism.
4. A two-state solution cannot exist with a dependent state
If we were to accept the idea that the Palestinian State is its own, independent state, then we need to expand the definition of what "independent" means:
-If it cannot prevent extremism from within its borders from spilling out into Israel, then it cannot be an independent state
-If it depends on tax revenues from Israel for construction and aide, then it cannot be an independent state
-If a government of two warring factions cannot reconcile a peace agreement with their neighbor, then it cannot represent an independent state.
-When groups within the government call for using "every method of resistance" against its neighbor, then it cannot represent an independent state.
5. All parties must recognize Israel's right to defend itself
We root for the underdog. I understand that. But, this isn't South Africa resisting apartheid, Egyptians toppling Mubarak or Libya fighting Qaddafi. If these two factions want to create a stable state, they must recognize the right of their neighbor to defend against outside forces. Israel is not purposefully oppressing Arabs from the area because they believe in some sort of inherent inequality.
Unfortunately, the most visible elements of the dynamic between Fatah-Hamas and Israel is that of Israel can do not good. If Hamas shoots rockets at settlements, it's because there are settlements. If Israel kills Hamas militants and there are civilian casualties, the report conveniently leaves out the fact that the militants put their mortars in and around residential areas. Israel gives an inch, their image loses a mile. We aggrandize the steps taken towards small investments in a Palestinian state, but forget about their dependence on Israeli largesse.
A poll came out recently that showed support for Osama Bin Laden had faded in the Arab world. The place where there was the highest support was amongst the Palestinian territories. Fatah supported the killing of Bin Laden and Hamas condemned it. Unity? Not really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)