What Caught My Eye Today

Fred's note: We have a rare hat trick for you today.

Economy (Part I) - Hoping to stave off what would be the ugliest chapter of the financial meltdown, American International Group (AIG) executives huddled with Fed officials and representatives from top banks at the New York Fed in downtown Manhattan to find the cash the huge insurer needs to stay in business. The government is increasingly likely to step in and provide financial backing to ensure that AIG could secure a short-term loan from banks worth up to $100 billion to stay out of bankruptcy court. The deal would avoid the biggest corporate bankruptcy ever and follows a government bailout of mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae just over a week ago. A potential bankruptcy filing by AIG could have a market impact of $180 billion, or 50% of total capital raised by financial institutions worldwide since the beginning of the credit crunch, according to one estimate. And that my friends is the textbook definition of 'too big to fail.' Of course, even if this bailout comes to pass, we're likely to see more carnage in the financial sector before all is said and done. Turns out most of the financial institutions that made stupid decisions in order to make a buck aren't too big to fail. And lest we forget--Wall Street's implosion isn't limited just within U.S. borders. Oh no. We're managing to take the whole world down with us. Who said the good ol' U.S. of A. couldn't still pack a punch.

Economy (Part II): With little explanation, President Bush scrapped a statement he planned to give on the tumultuous financial markets, abandoning any press coverage of his meeting with key economic advisers as more developments roiled Wall Street. Translation: "Sorry folks, me and my financial advisers got nothing. Looks like the economy is screwed." The White House said that Bush's comments of a day earlier still held. He told reporters that financial market adjustments can be "painful," but reiterated his standard message — that in the long run, capital markets are resilient and the economy will bounce back. Well sure. And in that same vein, in the long run world peace will be a reality and global warming will be a distant memory.

Economy (Part III): John McCain and Barack Obama traded increasingly barbed insults along with prescriptions for the ailing economy as financial fears shoved aside lipstick on pigs and every other political issue in a blink with just weeks left in the long presidential campaign. Here's a bonus trivia question for you. What well known politician coined the phrase, "It's the economy stupid."? (Check below for the answer). An ad by Democrat Obama sneered: "How can John McCain fix our economy if he doesn't understand it's broken?" Getting even more personal, Republican McCain retorted: "Senator Obama saw an economic crisis, and he's found a political opportunity. My friends, this is not a time for political opportunism; this is a time for leadership." Well no one said this was going to be pretty. After all these are insults we're talking about. However, since McCain did bring up the subject of leadership, here's my question. A day earlier, McCain was quoted as saying "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Then today, dude is calling for the formation of a crisis commission. I was sort of under the impression that leadership implied some inference that the guy calling the shots would be a bit more proactive in solving this mess instead of calling for the formation of a commission to spend months to produce a report telling us that the economy is messed up. The verbal dueling showed the importance both candidates put on the issue of the economy as the continuing financial meltdown on Wall Street has driven all other issues out of the news. Both campaigns now believe the candidate who manages to wrest control of the issue and gain voters' confidence could well be the next president. Now there's something I can finally agree with both campaign's on. Now here's' the answer to our bonus trivia question: "It's the economy, stupid" was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H.W. Bush. If you recall, Clinton won that election.

Pakistan - Pakistan's army said that its forces have orders to open fire if U.S. troops launch another raid across the Afghan border, raising the stakes in a dispute over how to tackle militant havens in Pakistan's unruly border zone. Bear in mind that just a couple of days ago (click here), President Bush signed an executive order authorizing American troops to carry out raids in Pakistan. It doesn't exactly take a psychic to predict this reaction from the Pakistani government. U.S. military commanders complain Islamabad has been doing too little to prevent the Taliban and other militant groups from recruiting, training and resupplying in Pakistan's lawless tribal belt. Pakistan acknowledges the presence of al-Qaida fugitives and its difficulties in preventing militants from seeping into Afghanistan. However, it insists it is doing what it can and paying a heavy price, pointing to its deployment of more then 100,000 troops in the increasingly restive northwest and a wave of suicide bombings across the country. That's a small price to pay considering the worthiness of the cause. Better the violence take place there than over here, right? Sure you could claim that the Pakistani people might come to a different conclusion, but they'd be wrong.

Ukraine - Ukraine's pro-Western coalition has collapsed, paving the way for complicated coalition talks or yet another early parliamentary election. That's not necessarily bad news, is it? The latest setback in the country's 4-year-old experiment with democracy seemed directly related to disagreements over how Ukraine should react to last month's war between neighboring Georgia and Russia. The 9-month-old alliance composed of parties loyal to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and his 2004 Orange Revolution partner, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, fell apart Tuesday amid infighting between the two leaders. The parliament now has 30 days to either form a new coalition or call a fresh election. That would be the third parliamentary vote in as many years and another blow to hopes for quick reforms in Ukraine and its integration with the West, which both leaders campaigned for. The final straw came as Yushchenko accused Tymoshenko of acting in the Kremlin's favor by failing to condemn Russia's war with Georgia. Tymoshenko fired back by saying that Yushchenko's overwhelming support of Georgia drags Ukraine into the conflict. Tymoshenko then teamed up with the Russia-friendly opposition to adopt a law that trims presidential powers and boosts her own. Yushchenko called that a coup attempt and his party pulled out of the coalition. Some analysts predict that a new governing coalition may involve the Russia-leaning Party of Regions. So let me see if I've got this straight. We've got two leaders, who I guess used to be friends at one point, that are both on record as wanting to integrate Ukraine with the West. However, in the course of trying to out maneuver each other in attempts to secure their own power base, they've managed to create a power vacuum that could very easily be filled by a political party with close ties to Russia--which I'm thinking would be somewhat opposed to Ukraine buddying up with the West. You just have to love politics, don't you?