This article does not do anything more than repeat the same pastiche of disjointed assertions that are already filling re-cycling bins. The premise of the article 'changes course' is also not accurate. A 'no' turning to a 'yes' was about continuous consideration of the global impact of AIG's failure to secure bridge financing from a source other than themselves. Where are the quotes from the free-market theorists ?? Grover Norquist ? William Krystoll ?? Paul Wolfowitz ?? Ralph Reed ?? Where are the claims of the neo-con think tanks about small government ?? The article fails to connect the 'changes course' assertion to what happened. Changes course - yes - indeed - but it isn't about AIG - its about a philosophy that began with the abrogation of Glass -Steagall by vriture of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 - (Phil Gramm) which permitted the wholesale opportunities for Investment banks without the regulatory prohibitions imposed on retail banking. The article only addressed the most basic elements that are available on any cable news show. The article rehashed the problem and never supported the assertion of changing course. The changing course is that US Government economists are pedaling as quickly as possible. away from Reaganomics not that tentative 'NO' became a 'YES' It was never a NO. Is it news ... sure. Was it a good article ... not particularly ... there was no new information that wasn't available yesterday ... including the interest rates - the rationale and the short term prognosis for re-capitalization from another source.