This blog is presently being redesigned/reconstructed to focus more on God's Truth as applied to life, the arts, science, politics, society, and culture. Please check back often.
About us...
Click here to find out more about our blog, our contributors, and our purpose.
One nation: under God.
Want to see the early work?
Some of the best work on this blog, due to the nature of blogs, no longer appears on our front page, and some of our best material can be found in the archives.
Use the "labels" and "archives" links to find posts by topic.
Enjoy the "back issues!"
Labels (click a label to see posts on that subject).
On a side note, you have to love the journalistic integrity these days:
"U.S. regulators and executives at Bank of America, which has already received $25 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, have grown increasingly concerned at greater-than-expected losses in the fourth quarter at Merrill, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the information."
So basically, someone whose name they won't tell us gave them unauthorized information about the company's internal discussions indicating what they might be considering doing in the future.
This is the basis for a news story that could damage the biggest bank in the US? Hearsay from one person who wasn't supposed to talk about it? For all we know this info came from a competing bank, or someone in the Treasury Department with stock in a different bank.
It's likely this is true, but that's the thing anymore -- I can only regard it as likely that something reported as fact by a major news organization is true.
On a side note, you have to love the journalistic integrity these days:
ReplyDelete"U.S. regulators and executives at Bank of America, which has already received $25 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, have grown increasingly concerned at greater-than-expected losses in the fourth quarter at Merrill, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the information."
So basically, someone whose name they won't tell us gave them unauthorized information about the company's internal discussions indicating what they might be considering doing in the future.
This is the basis for a news story that could damage the biggest bank in the US? Hearsay from one person who wasn't supposed to talk about it? For all we know this info came from a competing bank, or someone in the Treasury Department with stock in a different bank.
It's likely this is true, but that's the thing anymore -- I can only regard it as likely that something reported as fact by a major news organization is true.