SavvySugar

Obama and the Fed Trouble ahead

Grandpa — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:47:11 -0700

Obama and the Fed Trouble ahead.
by Irwin M. Stelzer
08/15/2009 12:00:00 PM

Almost exactly two years ago economists discovered that the problems in the housing and mortgage markets had spread to the financial sector. Subprime mortgages proved highly infectious, a couple of Bear Stearns funds collapsed, banks suddenly looked at their neighbors with such suspicion that they refused to lend to them, and economists dusted off their copies of histories of the Great Depression, looking for a guide to the future.

One year later they returned those books to the shelves as the "real economy" seemed to prove itself resistant to the diseases afflicting those greedy, over-bonused bankers. But summer's lease on a recovery proved all too short, and in a few months there was a run on the essays of one Ben Bernanke, in an effort to learn what the Federal Reserve Board chairman had in mind to stop the rush to economic collapse. We discovered that he was indeed in the great tradition of Walter Bagehot, who wisely advised in 1873 that "whatever bank or banks keep the ultimate banking reserve of the country must lend that reserve more freely in time of apprehension." The Fed not only pumped money into a frozen credit system to thaw it out, but joined the federal government in inventing new ways to cope with what was clearly a panic.

And now, two years after subprime mortgages became the domino that toppled or almost toppled many institutions, one year after the mother of all recessions scared consumers into zipping their wallets, corporate executives into cutting investment and letting inventories run down, it is glad, confident morning again in America.

Of 47 economists responding to a survey by the Wall Street Journal, 27 say the recession has ended, and 11 say the trough has been reached or will be by next month. They expect the economy to grow at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the current quarter, and many are looking forward to a 2.75 percent to 3 percent growth rate by year end. The housing market is showing signs of life. Toll Brothers, one of the nation's largest builders of up-scale homes, reports that lower prices, reasonable mortgage rates, a rebounding stock market and special incentives have combined to produce an increase in orders, and D.R. Horton, the country's largest builder, reports a 22 percent rise in sales from the past quarter.

Still, the housing industry has a long way to go before it returns to health. Even with the recent improvement, Robert Toll, the company's CEO says "Traffic still stinks" -- a statement of such blinding concision and clarity as to put economists to shame. Repossessed homes continue to flood and depress the market; high unemployment has consumers wary of taking on new commitments; and about one-quarter of all homes are now worth less than the mortgages owed on them.

The real question now is not only when will house prices and new construction show real zip, but when will consumers feel confident enough to start spending, and when the draw-down of inventories will leave retailers' shelves so bare that they have to place significant new orders.

Bernanke and his Fed colleagues pored over these tea leaves last week and decided that economic activity is "leveling out" but that the economy "is likely to remain weak for some time." Which calls for the sort of measured response by the central bank that has won Bernanke the plaudits of economists and demands from a vast majority of them that he be reappointed when his term as chairman ends on January 31 of next year, perhaps derailing Obama's plan to name his economic adviser, former Harvard president Larry Summers to that post.

In recognition of the headwinds the economy still faces, the Fed will continue its program of buying as much as $1.25 trillion in agency mortgage-backed securities so as to keep mortgage rates from rising. It will also keep its near-zero target for short-term interest rates for the foreseeable future. But in recognition of the improvement in the economy the Fed will complete its $300 billion program of purchases of Treasury IOUs in October -- it has already bought some $240 billion. That might push long-term interest rates up, making it more expensive for businessmen to invest, and more costly for consumers to take their already-decreasingly deployed credit cards out of their purses and wallets, perhaps aborting the recovery. The rise in interest rates would, under those circumstances, undoubtedly be accompanied by a rise in the presidential blood pressure.

And thereby hangs a tale. There is a war within the Fed concerning this program. Some of Bernanke's colleagues are unhappy and restive.

They don't think the Fed should be complicit in Obama's decision to run eye-watering deficits that will drive Treasury borrowing higher this quarter, and higher still in the next. Which is what they are doing by buying Treasury IOUs and thereby holding down rates. By calling a permanent halt to the Fed's purchase of still more Treasury bonds and notes, the central bank would be signaling the administration to get its fiscal house in order lest it abort the recovery. That's what an independent central bank is supposed to do, but at the right time -- and Bernanke is not as certain as his colleagues that now is the hour. But Obama is unlikely to appreciate such a move, especially when it will come right before the November congressional elections, in which the president will be campaigning to have his party retain control of both Houses of Congress by claiming credit for the economic uptick.

If the Fed does hang tough, the president is likely to use his power of appointment to transform its board. Bernanke's term as chairman expires in January 2010, and he is unlikely to remain on the board if not reappointed chairman. Don Kohn has indicated a desire to step down in June 2010 when his term as vice-chairman expires. And there are two vacancies on the seven-man board. An angry president can be counted on to appoint a crew more sympathetic to his views, and less fixated on formulating the sort of anti-inflationary exit strategy that Bernanke has been touting, and the Chinese, their vaults stuffed with dollars, are demanding. There may indeed be a new chairman in the Fed's future.

Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times (London).

K-Fed named “Father of the Year” by club

justingirl1989 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:54:21 -0700

I could barely bring myself to write this article; and then I realized: if K-Fed can do this, Britney can too. Federline has been named Father of the Year by Prive Las Vegas. Is this a joke, you ask? Perhaps the club is hoping to get a discount in K-Fed’s hosting fees? Who knows, but either way the man’s going to have a new trophy… or maybe a plaque… or some sort of certificate… okay it’s likely just a “World’s Greatest Dad” mug, but it’ll be proudly displayed somewhere in the Federline mansion, I’m sure.

Kevin Federline is the new father of the year!

Just in time for Father’s Day, Prive Las Vegas will award the proud papa of four his “father of the year” status at a party he is slated to host there June 13.

Sources tell PEOPLE he will be awarded the title during a presentation at the club.

The unofficial honor is Federline’s second such recognition in a relatively short time. Last November, Details magazine also anointed him father of the year – an honor he shared with onetime Anna Nicole Smith boyfriend Larry Birkhead.

[From People]

While this seems like a great big giant joke, it’s pretty damn real. But there is some hope here: K-Fed has become a much better father. We can argue all day about why, but the point is by all accounts he’s been there for his kids lately. Two years ago, if someone had told me K-Fed would get an award for anything other than “Biggest Wife Beater Collection” I would have told them to give the crack pipe back to Tatum O’Neal and leave me alone. Which would have been quite prophetic of me, given that we’re talking two years in the past.

But anyway, if K-Fed can become father of the year, imagine what Britney can do. By this logic, she could easily be president or an astronaut within the next five years. See, there’s hope for us all…
http://www.celeb*tchy.com/12128/k-fed_named_father_of_the_year_by_club/

The Fed attempts to help JPMorgan bail out Bear Stearns....

mymellowman — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:06:41 -0700

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/24deal-web.html?ei=5065&en=8a...

March 24, 2008
JPMorgan Raises Bid for Bear Stearns to $10 a Share
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

JPMorgan Chase raised its offer for Bear Stearns, the beleaguered investment bank, to $10 a share Monday morning in an effort to pacify angry Bear shareholders.

The sweetened offer of about $1 billion, which was first reported Sunday night, is intended to win over stockholders who vowed to fight the original fire-sale deal, struck only a week ago at the behest of the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department.

Bear’s shares, which closed at $5.96 on Friday, rose to $12.21 by Monday afternoon; JPMorgan rose $1.07, to $47.04. The overall market rose sharply, with the Dow Jones industrials increasing 1.88 percent.

Under the new terms, JPMorgan would pay $10 a share in stock for Bear, up from its initial $2 a share - a figure that represented a mere one-fifteenth of Bear’s going market price. Each share of Bear Stearns common stock would be exchanged for 0.21753 shares of JPMorgan Chase stock, up from 0.05473 shares.

In addition, JPMorgan Chase will buy 95 million newly issued shares of Bear Stearns common stock, or 39.5 percent of the outstanding Bear Stearns common stock after giving effect to the issuance, at $10 a share.

In Monday’s statement, the banks said that the directors of both companies had approved the amended agreement and the purchase agreement. In addition, Bear’s directors have indicated that they intend to vote their shares - worth almost 5 percent cent of Bear’s shares after the dilution of issuing shares for JPMorgan - giving JPMorgan nearly 45 percent of the vote and a virtual guarantee that the deal will be approved by shareholders. The deal is expected to be completed by April 8.

The higher offer - the initial price was $236 million - comes after a tumultuous week on Wall Street and in Washington because of the near collapse of Bear and the hastily devised deal to save it.

While the initial agreement appeared to have defused the financial crisis of confidence that undid Bear, the initial terms of the deal - and the government’s controversial role in reaching them - drew criticism from those who say the takeover amounts to a government bailout of Bear, a firm at the center of the mortgage meltdown.

As part of the original deal, the Fed guaranteed to take on $30 billion of Bear’s most toxic assets. Under the revised deal, JPMorgan Chase will bear the first $1 billion of any losses associated with the Bear Stearns assets being financed and the Fed will finance the remaining $29 billion on a non-recourse basis to JPMorgan Chase.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in a statement Monday, confirmed its role in the arrangement.

“We believe the amended terms are fair to all sides and reflect the value and risks of the Bear Stearns franchise,” the chief executive of JPMorgan, Jamie Dimon, said in a statement, “and bring more certainty for our respective shareholders, clients, and the marketplace. We look forward to a prompt closing and being able to operate as one company.”

In the same statement, the chief executive of Bear Stearns, Alan D. Schwartz, said: “Our board of directors believes that the amended terms provide both significantly greater value to our shareholders, many of whom are Bear Stearns employees, and enhanced coverage and certainty for our customers, counterparties, and lenders.”

“The substantial share issuance to JPMorgan Chase was a necessary condition to obtain the full set of amended terms, which in turn, were essential to maintaining Bear Stearns’ financial stability,” Mr. Schwartz said.

While the rules of the New York Stock Exchange generally require shareholder approval before a company issues securities that are convertible into more than 20 percent of the outstanding shares, an exception is permitted in cases where a delay would jeopardize the viability of the company. Under a Delaware precedent, where the companies are incorporated, a company can sell up to 40 percent without shareholder approval.

The new deal could raise even more questions about the Fed’s involvement in the negotiations. The central bank had directed JPMorgan to pay no more than $2 a share for Bear to assure that it would not appear that the Bear shareholders were being rescued, people involved in the negotiations said Sunday night.

A spokesman for the Federal Reserve would not comment on the central bank’s involvement in the negotiations and denied that it had directed the original sale price.

In television interviews last week, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., who has been closely involved in the negotiations, sought to portray the agreement not as a rescue effort but as a way to provide stability for the entire financial markets.

“Let me say that the Bear Stearns situation has been very painful for the Bear Stearns shareholders,” Mr. Paulson said last week on the NBC “Today” show, referring to the $2 a share price. “So I don’t think that they think that they’ve been bailed out here.”

With the price increase, some critics could have more ammunition to complain that taxpayers are helping to bail out a Wall Street firm that should be responsible for its own risky behavior. That is one reason the Fed was hesitant to approve the transaction at $10 a share, people briefed on the talks said.

Inside Bear, the vitriol over the original bargain-basement price was palpable last week. Bear employees own more than a third of Bear’s stock, and many longtime employees faced the prospect of losing all their savings. Last week , some were seen crying in the hallways of the firm’s Midtown Manhattan headquarters.

One employee started a Web site to rally opposition to the deal. Some employees said they talked back to their new supervisors from JPMorgan, which commandeered desks and conference rooms after being given operational control of the firm last week.

The new price would still be a small fraction of what Bear Stearns was worth before its recent meltdown. Its shares were trading at about $67 two weeks ago and as high as $170 a year ago.

Some large shareholders have even considered voting down the deal to send the firm into bankruptcy protection, where they speculate they might get more than $2 a share from creditors.

The British billionaire financier Joe Lewis, the firm’s largest shareholder, who had invested $1.26 billion in Bear over the last year at an average price of about $104, said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that he would seek to block the deal by taking “whatever action” necessary and would “encourage” the firm and “third parties to consider other strategic transactions.”

He and James E. Cayne, Bear’s chairman, were talking informally to friends and others about finding investors to mount a rival bid. Some shareholders could seek to file lawsuits to block the deal. JPMorgan and Bear were prompted to renegotiate after shareholders began threatening to block the deal and it emerged that several “mistakes” were included in the original, hastily written contract, according to people involved in the talks.

One sentence was “inadvertently included,” according to a person briefed on the talks, which requires JPMorgan to guarantee Bear’s trades even if shareholders voted down the deal. That provision could have could allow Bear’s shareholders to seek a higher bid while still forcing JPMorgan to honor its guarantee, these people said.

When the error was discovered, Mr. Dimon, who was described by one participant as “apoplectic,” began calling his lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz to seek a way to have the sentence modified, these people said. Finger pointing over the mistakes in the contracts began as bankers blamed the lawyers and vice versa.

As it began to look more possible late last week that the deal might be struck down, JPMorgan approached Bear in earnest on Friday about renegotiating the sale price to guarantee its completion and brought the Federal Reserve into the talks as well, people involved in the negotiations said.

Mr. Dimon became increasingly desperate in recent days. He offered certain employees cash and stock incentives to stay on and made calls to his rival chief executives on Wall Street - John J. Mack at Morgan Stanley and John A. Thain at Merrill Lynch, among them - pleading with them not to recruit Bear employees during the transition.

Mr. Dimon had became convinced that the deal was in jeopardy after spending much of last week taking angry calls from Bear’s largest shareholders, including Mr. Lewis, these people said. Moreover, Mr. Dimon, who had indignantly told associates that he would “send Bear back into bankruptcy” if the deal was struck down, was persuaded by his advisers that he had less leverage than he thought, according to people briefed on the conversation. Such vindictive behavior, they told him, would turn into a legal and public relations nightmare.

Last week, in an impassioned speech to Bear’s employees seeking their support, Mr. Dimon said: “No one on Wall Street could have anticipated this. I feel terrible sometimes when people think we took advantage. I don’t think we could possibly know what you all are feeling, but I hope that you give JPMorgan a chance.”

K-Fed offerd a modeling deal

justingirl1989 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:41:09 -0700

Things aren’t looking so bad for Kevin Federline anymore. The former punch line to many a joke – and really anything involve the words ‘douche bag’ or ‘wifebeater’ – has actually managed to get a bit of a career going for himself, besides being a professional baby daddy. K-Fed’s musical skills are legendarily laughable, but he does have something going for him: his looks.

Before you yell at me… okay once you’re done yelling at me… in the right light - when you forget that he’s Kevin Federline – he can actually be kinda hot. I remember seeing him un-douched for the first time in Details magazine three or four years ago when he was still married to Britney, and I couldn’t believe it was the same person. He was damn hot. Then I read the accompanying interview, and all the hotness melted away. But if he does like a good model should: keeps his mouth shut and just stands there and looking pretty – he might have a good career for a little bit. And Federline’s already received some offers.

Kevin Federline, a former struggling backup dancer, is now being offered a seven-figure endorsement job! Britney Spears’ ex-husband has been approached to be the new face of Christopher Brian Collection, In Touch can exclusively reveal.

“We feel Kevin would be a great model for the line,” Chris Stokes, a music producer who co-owns the denim brand, tells In Touch. Nothing has been set in stone regarding the modeling gig because the 30-year-old father of four is busy with other projects.

“Kevin is also working with Chris on his music and movie career,” an insider tells In Touch. After being named Father of the Year by Privé nightclub in Las Vegas on June 13, K-Fed may soon give Britney a run for her money. “He is in everyone’s good graces right now, so he feels like it’s the time for his career to shine,” the insider says.

[From In Touch]

Being a bad boy isn’t necessarily bad for one’s career, but being a joke sure is – and that’s exactly what K-Fed was. He’s right, now that everyone’s taking him a little more seriously, he should take advantage of it. Of course it’s worrisome that the same guy that’s offered him a modeling gig is also helping him make more music. That’s like offering someone a heart-healthy orange and a tub of lard to eat at the same time. The good from the former is easily canceled out by the bad of the later
http://www.celeb*tchy.com/12563/k-fed_offerd_a_modeling_deal/

K Fed Offered Millions To Remarry Britney

justingirl1989 — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:37:36 -0700

Jamie Spears has reportedly offered K Fed millions of dollars to remarry Britney! $4.5 million to be exact. According to Star Magazine, he wants the two to get back together, but doesn't want Brit to know his plans. Britney seems to be doing just fine on her own right now, so we don't know what this is all about.

K Fed apparently wants to up the price to $20 million if he remarries Britney and doesn't want to have to sign a prenup. All we have to say is, don't do it Britney!!!
http://www.hollyscoop.com/britney-spears/k-fed-offered-millions-to-remar...

Britney’s dad Jamie wants K-Fed to reunite with Britney and become conservator

justingirl1989 — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:14:01 -0700

The National Enquirer is claiming that during that K-Fed and Jamie Spears’ golf outing they discussed the issue of whether Federline would step in for Britney’s dad as the conservator of her estate. They also claim that Britney’s dad tried to convince the Fed Ex to reunite with his daughter and get back with her. Since there was a custody hearing after this golf date, everyone assume that Jamie and the Fedex were trying to work out a way to let Britney spend more time with her sons, but it’s possible that they Jamie was also interested in a handover of his daughter’s affairs. The Enquirer focuses on the fact that Britney is going to need mental health treatment for the rest of her life, which would be a potential reason for her dad to want to bail out now:

With Britney Spears likely facing life-long mental health care, her dad Jamie Spears has asked her ex-husband Kevin Federline to reunite with her and assume legal control of her affairs, sources say.

But Kevin is resisting Jamie’s request to relieve him as a conservator of Britney’s estate, according to insiders.

“Jamie is tired, and he’d like Kevin to be involved with Britney’s medical care,” and insider told The Enquirer…

Jamie, 55, has been overseeing [Britney’s] medical care and estate as her court-appointed co-conservator. But his conservatorship expires on July 31 - and he discussed his troubled daughter’s future with Kevin while the two played golf on March 8, the source revealed.

“Jamie knows that Britney has never stopped loving Kevin - and Jamie wants his grandsons to be raised by both their parents,” added the insider.

But 30-year-old Kevin… says he’s too busy raising their sons - Sean, 2, and Jayden, 1, - to look after Britney, too.

“Kevin said he can’t worry about Britney - and worry about his children being around an unstable mother, too. Kevin doesn’t want the burden,” said the insider…

“Kevin told Jamie that he is not in love with Britney anymore - and he can’t get over the fact that Britney slept with some of hsi friends, plus other people he knows in the music business,” added the insider.

“Kevin just doesn’t see how they could ever get back together and make things work.”

[From The National Enquirer, print edition, March 31, 2008]

If all this is true, you can’t blame Britney’s dad for trying - or K-Fed for turning him down flat. Britney is doing better and all, but there isn’t much motivation for Federline to get back together with her. His life has only improved since they’ve split up while Britney’s has obviously been incredibly rough for her and her loved ones. At least she’s sort of back on track now and seems to have her medication stabilized.

According to the March 17 edition of In Touch, she is on just Lithium, Risperdal and Xanax now, which is down from a cocktail that included Ativan, Vicodin, Thorazine and Oxycontin. As to how they would know this, 13 hospital workers were fired for snooping through her records at UCLA medical center. These didn’t include her psychiatric records, but it’s possible that her medications were listed.

Meanwhile Britney’s creepy ex-friend Sam Lutfi is still not out of the picture. He filed papers last week asking that her commissioner case be reassigned to another judge. Lutfi’s restraining order which prevents him from seeing or contacting Britney was extended until April 16, at which point the man who bragged about drugging her food can appear in court to plead his case. He has no lawyer and will be representing himself.

source: celebtichy.com

Steve-O: My Mom Fed Me Alcohol As a Baby

justingirl1989 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:05:13 -0700

a new MySpace post titled "You Should All Know I Am In Rehab," Steve-O says he was fed alcohol as an infant and details his use of marijuana, LSD, amphetamines and nitrous oxide.

The Jackass star, who was involuntarily committed to L.A's Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after suicidal behavior last week, declares, "I'm not ready to die. I'm ready to live. I'm ready to breathe (properly, even). I'm ready to fall in love. I'm ready to become ready to start a family. I'm ready to be happy, fulfilled and meaningful."

The prankster writes that he has entered a rehab facility.

"It is not my intention to glorify my history as a drug abuser with elaborate stories about having sex in lavatories on airplanes after snorting amphetamines off the toilet at the tender age of seventeen," he writes.

"Mom was very alcoholic, and I feel that is a gross understatement," he says. "I know I was always powerless over alcoholism, because it had such a grip on Mom’s adulthood and my childhood, and I never chose to fight it. Until now."

"We were frequently on airplanes and, before Mom and Dad would find themselves in the embarrassing position of being caught by other passengers with a crying baby, I was fed alcohol," he writes.

Read his full blog post below.

For more on what led to Steve-O's tragic decline, check out the latest issue of Us Weekly, on newsstands now.

You Should All Know I Am In Rehab

A) HOW I GOT INTO ALCOHOL AND DRUGS

1) Mom was very alcoholic, and I feel that is a gross
understatement. I’d love to say that I first took to
alcohol out of affection for my mother (there was
never any shortage of that for me) but I think the
truth is that I was always powerless over it. I know I
was always powerless over alcoholism, because it had
such a grip on Mom’s adulthood and my childhood, and I
never chose to fight it. Until now. Dad was a
corporate executive whose job required the family to
travel the world fairly extensively and both Mom and
Dad were quite self conscious of how they were
perceived by others. We were frequently on airplanes
and, before Mom and Dad would find themselves in the
embarrassing position of being caught by other
passengers with a crying baby, I was fed alcohol.
Obviously I don’t have recollections from the time
when I was a baby, so this account is pieced together
from vague memories of being told stories that are
similar or exactly the same. Mom’s alcoholism truly
reared its ugly head when I was eight and nine years
old, it was in 1983 that she lied to the family about
having lymph node cancer so that she would have an
explanation for staying in bed drunk at all hours. I
forgave my Mom very easily for her act of dishonesty,
my love for her was unconditional. At this point in my
life I find myself hoping that I will be able to
forgive myself for similarly selfish acts that my own
addiction led me to commit. I can’t believe I just
called out my own dead Mom for what’s surely the worst
lie she ever told. I also can’t believe I ever picked
up my first drink on my own after the way alcohol
ruined her life. God, I miss my Mom. I think I was
eight years old when I was introduced to the family
tradition of children partaking in an alcoholic
beverage of their choice, just one, only on New Year’s
Eve, each year. I think it was right away that I knew
I wasn’t interested in beer, rather that I wanted
scotch whiskey. I can’t really remember, after all,
what alcoholic remembers the first drink they picked
up. The first time I vomited from truly drinking "too
much" alcohol, I was twelve years old, that I’m quite
sure of. I’m also quite sure that everything I
remember taking interest in from childhood, and
onwards, I poured myself into with an unhealthy
"excessive/compulsive’ attitude about it. Baseball.
Heavy metal music. Skateboarding. Drinking. Drugs. Oh
yeah, and the video camera...

2) I didn’t first try marijuana (it was actually hash
the first time) because I randomly bumped into it. I
tried it because I had made a decision to find it. I
tried it again the day after that, as I recall, and, I
believe the next day as well. Overnight, when I had
just turned sixteen years old, I became a
"stoner/druggie." Shortly thereafter, I was taking LSD
on a regular basis. It was my prerogative to try just
about any drug I could get my hands on. It is not my
intention to glorify my history as a drug abuser with
elaborate stories about having sex in lavatories on
airplanes after snorting amphetamines off the toilet
at the tender age of seventeen. I will simply say that
when I was interviewed about it all upon checking into
this rehab facility, it became frighteningly clear to
me how lucky I am to still have any chance whatsoever
at leading a happy, fulfilling, and meaningful life. I
am so lucky, there is no doubt in my mind that I have
a Higher Power that is incredibly interested in me
succeeding.

B) ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL MY ALCOHOL/DRUG USE

1) The first time I made an effort to stop drinking,
because I was an alcoholic, I was eighteen years old.
I recall looking up Alcoholics Anonymous, but not
making it to any meetings, and after, perhaps (I can’t
remember exactly), nineteen days of not drinking, back
to back, doing the same number of vodka shots back to
back. Mom forced me into a rehab facility when I was
twenty years old (she was sober at the time, I was in
jail, and going to rehab was my only chance to see
sunlight before court). Sobriety lasted for two and a
half months after the sun’s rays met my face, and it
ended as brutally as it had when I was eighteen.

2) Although I mentioned amphetamines, and can’t say
that I’ve not accepted them on numerous occasions
(especially in pill form), I’ve never purchased them
(correction-bought the pills once) or sought them out
when I wasn’t aware of their immediate presence. I’ve
never smoked crack before (despise the fictitious rap
song I wrote about smoking crack), but, powder cocaine
is an entirely different story. I have been aware of
significant problems that snorting powder cocaine has
caused in my life for many years now, and, on numerous
occasions, made efforts to give up the habit, with
varied success. The longest I was able to abstain was
one year and six days, the second longest was roughly
six months, and, you get the idea.

C) ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR

1) The abusive behavior that I feel will haunt me for
the rest of my life can be summed up by the words
"verbal and emotional attacks on my loved ones." As
I’ve expressed before for this behavior, and only this
behavior, I fear punishment by my Higher Power.

2) I have done a great deal to damage my mind and
body. Like I said, I am beyond fortunate to have this
chance at salvaging a happy, fulfilling, and
meaningful life. My luck will not last with continued
use of alcohol and drugs that are not prescribed to me
by doctors that are aware of my addictions.

D) SPIRITUAL ISSUES

1) I believe that I was chosen by my Higher
Power/Guardian Angels, and led to the spiritual path
which I am currently on. I try not to ask of God,
rather, to work for what it is I want, and communicate
with God only in "Thank You’s." For my Higher Power I
am more grateful than I could possibly express.

2) I used to consider myself agnostic, as recently as
September of 2006. I now consider myself, well,
"spiritual," actually, let me say, "Thankful..."

E) EFFECTS ON FAMILY, SIGNIFICANT OTHERS, FRIENDS

1) I’ve already covered the communication problems
with family members and expressed that I fear
punishment for such problems.

2) I’ve communicated to you all before that I , fairly
recently got on both knees and proposed marriage to a
girlfriend, in front of her Grandma. I also
communicated that she later expressed that she
completely changed her mind about getting married. Now
I am in recovery and do not have a significant other.
My friends are still my friends, but also understand
that my health requires that I not be around drugs and
alcohol.

F) EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS

1) I do not have poor self esteem or anxiety issues.

2) While I do have guilt issues related to past
behavior, I am too excited about my future behavior
and the prospect of becoming a healthy parent to let
them remain an obstacle.

G) WORK PROBLEMS

1) I’ve never had problems making it to work or
getting paid--the nature of my work almost embraced my
addictions.

2) There were jobs that I showed up to in absolutely
horrible shape, and some of them ended prematurely due
to that fact.

H) FINANCIAL PROBLEMS

1) I have no financial problems.

2) I have no second financial example.

I) CONSEQUENCES OF BEHAVIOR

1) While under the influence of drugs and alcohol, my
behavior is so impossible to predict, it is
unbelievable. I don’t know where to begin, anyone who
has known me for so much as a couple of months, sh*t,
even the police offices who arrested me this month can
tell you that I’ve got to be the craziest mutherfukker
they’ve ever laid eyes on.

2) Really, I’m not trying to "toot my own horn," it’s
time for me to "hang up my hat," to "throw in the
towel," it’s time for me to "call it quits."

J) PREOCCUPATION WITH CHEMICALS

1) I haven’t mentioned nitrous oxide, the drug I
"fiend" for, by far, the most. I used to inhale this
gas by the cartridge, specifically, by the case (a
case containing 600 cartridges). I would call a taxi
to come bring me, to pick up a case, and be searching
under my mattress for cartridges while awaiting its
arrival. When it did arrive, I would bring my
cartridge dispenser in the taxi and be dispensing the
gas into my lungs for the entire ride home from the
pick-up. When I say that I feel I was chosen by
Guardian Angels, I say that quite literally. I had a
number of not-at-all-subtle experiences that indicated
to me that I had to give up the nitrous oxide, and
did, six months ago.

2) Another drug that I haven’t mentioned is ketamine.
It is also a drug that I had not-at-all-subtle
experiences on. Enough said.

A GOODBYE LETTER TO MY DRUGS OF CHOICE

At this point,
All you f*cking things are good for is dying. I’m not
ready to die. I’m ready to live. I’m ready to breathe
(properly, even). I’m ready to fall in love. I’m ready
to become ready to start a family. I’m ready to be
happy, fulfilled and meaningful. Maybe I’ll see you
fukkers if and/or when I’m ready to die

sad

source: usmagazine.com

K.Fed's Christmas With The Kids

justingirl1989 — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:24:11 -0800

Super dad Kevin Federline got to spend time with his kids Sean Preston and Jayden James after noon on Christmas day. Mommy dearest had to kids before that.

According to Page Six, K.Fed had his entire family over and a chef to prepare a Filipino dinner for everybody.

"Kevin did not spend much money on the boys for Christmas because he knew Britney would go nuts and get them more than they will ever need," a family insider said. "He wanted to make sure that all of his kids, [including Kori, 5, and Kaleb, 3, his children with ex-girlfriend Shar Jackson,] had an equal and happy Christmas."

But it doesn’t end at gifts. K.Fed has one big surprise for all his kids including Kori and Kaleb. "They might all be going to Disneyland this week," the source told Page Six. "Kevin wants to take all the kids: Preston, Jayden, Kori and Kaleb."

K.Fed gave a the kids a normal Christmas, I’m curious on how Britney celebrated the holiday with the kids.

source: hollyscoop.com

K-Fed wants to get his sons into acting - now

justingirl1989 — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:29:20 -0700

This week’s Star Magazine - which is going to have to do a lot more than score interviews to gain back any percentage of my trust - has a story that Kevin Federline wants to get his sons, Preston and Jayden, who turn two and three this month, into acting. This is said to have made Britney livid as she feels the boys are already subject to too much exposure. K-Fed has a laid back approach to it, and thinks that if they’re happy and having fun with it, there’s no harm. He probably thinks it might be a good way to supplement the $20,000 a month child support he gets from Britney, too. After all, he has his other family with ex Shar to think of too:

Britney, who’s been performing since she was 8 years old, “blew up when Kevin asked her about letting the kids act,” says the source. “She has said she would support them if they wanted to pursue a career in Hollywood - but when they’re old enough to actually know if they want to be in the industry. She wants them to have a normal childhood and feels like they are in the limelight quite enough as it is.”

Despite her opposition, Kevin has quietly taken the boys to audition for TV and film projects around L.A. He “thinks it can be a good outlet for them,” explains the source, because “Preston and Jayden are always singing and dancing around the house. They’re total clowns, even at their toddler playgroup, My Gym. Kevin feels it’s okay as long as they are watched over carefully and not pushed into it.” And right now, the kids are having a blast. Adds the source, “Kevin hopes Britney will come around when she realized how much fun they’re having.”

[From Star Magazine, print edition, September 8, 2008]

If anyone should know the perils of getting involved in show business from a young age, it’s Britney. Her lack of a childhood is said to have contributed to the many problems she’s had under intense pressure and scrutiny.

There’s a huge difference between enjoying dancing for fun and being asked to do it in a certain way for a job. Britney knows that, and she doesn’t want her sons forced to work long hours like she was. If this story is true, and if Kevin has any sense, he’ll back off and let his sons enjoy being kids. They’re only toddlers and they’re not able to make decisions about whether they want to get into acting at this point. They rely on their parents to watch out and provide for them, and there’s no reason for them to be working. It’s not like either side of their family needs the money. Maybe if Kevin would sell off some of the bling from his Britney days he could live a little larger without having to send his sons to work.

http://www.celeb*tchy.com/13914/k-fed_wants_to_get_his_sons_into_acting_...

Britney Spears gives full custody to K-Fed!

La dee da dee — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:28:42 -0700

Britney Agrees to Sole Custody for K-Fed Claudia Rosenbaum
Fri Jul 18, 3:47 AM ET

Britney Spears has agreed to hand the parenting reins over to Kevin Federline.

K-Fed's longtime attorney, Mark Vincent Kaplan, exclusively tells E! News the divorced duo have reached a settlement in their long-gestating custody case.

According to the agreement signed by all parties, Federline gets sole legal and physical custody of sons Sean Preston and Jayden James and Spears will have visitation rights.

"The case has been settled," Kaplan said. "The court still has to approve it. " Both parties are due in court Friday morning.

The case had been set to go to trial next month but all had been hoping to settle up beforehand.

"As of this evening there is a fully executed deal memo...All the issues that would have been addressed at trial have been settled," Kaplan told E! News. "Can't speak to the exact terms of the deal, [but the] orders in place...will stay in place."

Although this is theoretically good news for Federline, Kaplan maintains it isn't exactly what his client had in mind.

"Kevins was not [out] to get custody. Kevin's goal was to set up some kind of template so the mother of his children can coparent," Kaplan said.

"He said, 'I need to have Britney to be involved in the coparenting of the kids, but I need there to be a structure.' "

But this is the structure he got, and "Kevin is absolutely delighted," Kaplan continued.

"Nobody could have anticipated the terms of events that have occurred...This was a two-year journey that will be halted at a point that is good for these children. Custody is always modifiable. If there is a final order, it means there is nothing to try."

Spears has been enjoying monitored visits with her boys since late February after temporarily losing any on-hand-mommying privileges following a stretch of noticeably erratic behavior on her part and two brief hospital stays.

Federline's camp has credited the influence of Spears' father, Jamie, who was appointed a coconservator of his daughter's estate Feb. 1, for helping to get the 26-year-old popster back on track.

A court commissioner is scheduled to review whether to make the conservatorship permanent at the end of this month. If the arrangement were to end, what then happens to Spears' current deal?

"While I can't tell you the terms, the order does anticipate what happens if the conservatorship is ended," Kaplan told E! News. "The devil is always in the details, and this is a very detailed deal memo.

"Nobody can predict what the future will bring, but to the extent possible, I think we have really anticipated how to proceed."