One forgotten aspect of the Charles Keating story was that when wasn't
robbing Grandmother's, he was an anti-porn crusader.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Charles+Keating+Anti-Porn
http://www.sexuality.org/l/davids/cn55.html
(Larry Flynt Meets Albert Brooks: Some Thoughts on Sex, Class, Age, and Dear
Old Mom
Wankers of the World Unite: You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Shame.)
Nixon appointed him to the Commission on Pornography. When, either the
majority or minority on the Commish in 1970 was going to come out in favor
of legalization like Denmark, Nixon refused to accept their report. One time
in a really dusty (not a clean, well lighted place for books!) used
bookstore/magazine shop in Denver, I saw a satire of that commission report.
Illustrated with 70's era porn.
Michael Pugliese
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:53 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:16810] Re: financial news
>Well, to keep the Fed from picking winners and losers, the Fed could hire
>Michael Millken to do the picking. Or does that just shift the picking
back a
>level? Maybe split it between Millihen and Charles Keating? \
>
> Or maybe the Fed should rely on the method I use to pick winners --
>randomly. I put my $2.00 every week into Lotto and the winner will come in
>the long run. Hope Keynes is wrong about when my retirement starts vs my
>internment.
>
>Gene Coyle
>
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>> From SLATE --
>> >... USA [TODAY] leads with word that the Federal Reserve is considering
>> >buying corporate bonds for the first time ever, because of the
increasing
>> >scarcity of the Treasury bonds it usually invests in. The paper reports
>> >that the Fed might seek congressional approval to do this in two years
and
>> >if it's granted, be in the private bond market by 2005.
>> >
>> >... The USAT lead says the Fed move into corporate paper could open the
>> >way for the Social Security Administration, which
>> >currently also only buys Treasury bonds, to do the same. (Now that would
>> >be a lockbox, wouldn't it?) The story explains that the traditional fear
>> >about such a move is that it would be a case of the Fed picking
corporate
>> >winners and losers, but it doesn't explain why this is any different
from
>> >say, when the Air Force buys a fighter from Lockheed and not from
Grumman.
>> >Also, the story says Treasury bonds are getting scarcer because "current
>> >projections" say the national debt will be virtually retired by 2010,
but
>> >doesn't explain how this can be on the new, new, disappearing surplus
>> >current projections. ...
>>
>> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
