Mel Zelaya was attempting a soft coup of Honduran Constitution. Army stops him cold.

To maintain a credible constitutional democracy, it is necessary to have a slow and difficult procedure to change the constitution, otherwise you have a popular referendum, pack the ballot box and mob rule. The military in Honduras was right to have removed the Hugolito, Zelaya, and stop his Venezuelan mime. Of course our Acornated Master and Ruler objects. No shock there, as he is busy larding the electorate for his next election ascension.

Watch Obama go hard ass on this one to really make his lefty bona fides.

Dos amigos, Chavez y Zelaya. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (L) is embraced by his Honduran counterpart Manuel Zelaya upon his arrival at the Honduran Air Force base in south Tegucigalpa, 15 January, 2008. Chavez was in Honduras on an official visit to meet Honduran president Manuel Zelaya to sign a subsidized oil supply agreement between Honduras and Petrocaribe. No doubt they shared their thoughts and theories on constitutional democracy.

______________________ 

The National Debt explained in a way we can all understand.

Economic theory suggests that reasonable levels of borrowing by a developing country are likely to enhance its economic growth. Countries at early stages of development have small stocks of capital and are likely to have investment opportunities with rates of return higher than those in advanced economies. As long as they use the borrowed funds for productive investment and do not suffer from macroeconomic instability, policies that distort economic incentives, or sizable adverse shocks, growth should increase and allow for timely debt repayments. These predictions hold up even in theories based on the more realistic assumption that countries may not be able to borrow freely because of the risk of debt repudiation.

Why do large levels of accumulated debt lead to lower growth? The best-known explanation comes from "debt overhang" theories, which show that if there is some likelihood that, in the future, debt will be larger than the country's repayment ability, expected debt-service costs will discourage further domestic and foreign investment and thus harm growth. Potential investors will fear that the more a country produces, the more it will be "taxed" by creditors to service the external debt, and thus they will be less willing to incur costs today for the sake of increased output in the future. This argument is represented in the debt "Laffer curve" (Chart), which posits that larger debt stocks tend to be associated with lower probabilities of debt repayment. On the upward-sloping or "good" section of the curve, increases in the face value of debt are associated with increases in expected debt repayment, while increases in debt reduce expected debt repayment on the downward-sloping or "bad" section of the curve.



more at the IMF

US foreign indebtedness increased 62% in 2008

Back to the future?

As bad as that sounds, and it is, the situation is far worse for our significant others:

15. United States - 95.09%
External debt (as % of GDP): 95.09%
External debt per capita: $44,358

Gross external debt: $13.627 trillion (2008 Q3)
2008 GDP: $14.330 trillion

14. Norway - 114%
External debt (as % of GDP): 114%
External debt per capita: $118,353

Gross external debt: $551.59 billion
2008 GDP: $481.1 billion

13. Finland - 116%
External debt (as % of GDP): 116%
External debt per capita: $62,579

Gross external debt: $328.56 billion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $281.2 billion

12. Sweden - 129%
External debt (as % of GDP): 129%
External debt per capita: $73,245

Gross external debt: $663.58 billion (Q4 2008)*
2008 GDP: $512.9 billion

T-10. Spain - 137.5%
External debt (as % of GDP): 137.5%
External debt per capita: $57,091

Gross external debt: $2.313 trillion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $1.683 trillion

T-10. Germany - 137.5%
External debt (as % of GDP): 137.5%
External debt per capita: $63,767

Gross external debt: $5.25 trillion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $3.818 trillion

9. Denmark - 159%
External debt (as % of GDP): 159%
External debt per capita: $107,026

Gross external debt: $588.7 billion (Q3 2008)
2008 GDP: $369.6 billion

8. France - 168%
External debt (as % of GDP): 168%
External debt per capita: $78,070

Gross external debt: $5.001 trillion
2008 GDP: $2.978 trillion

7. Austria - 191%
External debt (as % of GDP): 191%
External debt per capita: $100,787

Gross external debt: $827.49 billion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $432.4 billion

6. Switzerland - 264%
External debt (as % of GDP): 264%
External debt per capita: $171,478

Gross external debt: $1.304 trillion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $492.6 billion

5. Netherlands - 268%
External debt (as % of GDP): 268%
External debt per capita: $145,959

Gross external debt: $2.439 trillion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $909.5 billion

4. Hong Kong - 295%
External debt (as % of GDP): 295%
External debt per capita: $93,539

Gross external debt: $659.93 billion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $223.8 billion

3. Belgium - 327%
External Debt (as % of GDP): 327%
External debt per capita: $155,362

Gross External Debt: $1.618 trillion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $495.4 billion

2. United Kingdom - 336%
External debt (as % of GDP): 336%
External debt per capita: $153,616

Gross external debt: $9.388 trillion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $2.787 trillion

1. Ireland - 811%
External debt (as % of GDP): 811%
External debt per capita: $549,819

Gross external debt: $2.311 trillion (Q4 2008)
2008 GDP: $285 billion

Source CNBC

U.S.'s debtor status worsens dramatically

Foreigners hold 50 percent

By David M. Dickson Washington Times | Saturday, June 27, 2009

In the midst of the longest, and probably deepest, postwar recession last year, the U.S. investment position with the rest of the world sharply deteriorated.

At the end of 2008, America's net international investment position was minus $3.47 trillion, the Commerce Department reported Friday. That represents the difference between the value of U.S. assets owned by foreigners ($23.36 trillion) and the value of foreign assets owned by Americans ($19.89 trillion).

At the end of 2007, the U.S. net international investment position was minus $2.14 trillion. Thus, America's net indebtedness with the rest of the world increased by $1.33 trillion, or 62 percent, during 2008. It was by far the biggest annual increase in data that go back to 1976.

Foreigners now hold nearly 50 percent of the federal government's publicly held debt. If foreign investors significantly reduce their purchase of future U.S. Treasury debt securities, without even dumping their current holdings, U.S. interest rates could soar and the dollar could collapse, analysts fear.

At minus $3.47 trillion, America's net debtor status with foreigners represents nearly 25 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, the highest level in history.

"Three decades of massive [trade] deficits have converted the United States from the world's banker - able to 'pay any price and bear any burden in the cause of freedom' - to the world's largest debtor, utterly dependent on China and other foreign interests," said Charles McMillion, chief economist of Washington-based MBG Information Services.

Essentially, America's net international investment position is driven by what the United States borrows from the rest of the world to finance its ongoing trade deficit, said Brad Setser, a fellow for geoeconomics at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Over the 2003-07 period, however, foreign equity markets outperformed the U.S. stock market, and the dollar steadily depreciated. These two factors reduced the annual deterioration in America's investment position that otherwise would have been dictated by massive U.S. trade deficits during this period.

"Both of those factors reversed themselves last year," Mr. Setser said. The dollar appreciated, and foreign stock markets suffered bigger declines than America's. As a result, America's net debtor status worsened significantly more during 2008 than its nearly $700 billion trade deficit would have dictated, Mr. Setser explained.

Over the years, America's status as a creditor or debtor has changed enormously. In the early 1980s, America's net international investment position averaged $350 billion, or 11 percent of GDP, making the United States the world's largest creditor. Today, it is the world's largest debtor - by far.

As recently as 1996, America's net debtor status was minus $456 billion. Since 1996, it has increased by more than $3 trillion, or 660 percent, as America's 12-year cumulative trade deficit soared by $5.7 trillion.

Foreign governments have taken notice - in particular, China, which now holds more U.S. Treasury debt than any other country. In the 12 months through April, China's portfolio of Treasury debt securities has soared by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars to nearly $800 billion.

In its annual financial stability report issued on Friday, China's central bank once again declared there were serious problems with the global monetary system's reliance on a single dominant currency - the dollar. An estimated 65 percent to 70 percent of China's $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, the world's largest stockpile, is held in dollar-denominated assets.

The People's Bank of China also warned the United States on Friday about its very expansionary monetary and fiscal policies.

"We are so deeply in debt and this money is so liquid that it hamstrings our monetary, fiscal and trade policies," Mr. McMillion said. "We've really mortgaged our financial future."

Honduran army sends their President to Costa Rica in his pajamas.

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in San Jose, Costa Rica, 28 Jun 2009

Honduran President Ousted by Military
By Laurel Bowman
Washington VOA
28 June 2009

Honduran military forces have ousted President Manuel Zelaya and exiled him to Costa Rica hours before a controversial constitutional referendum vote was set to begin. Organization of American States met in emergency session while the Obama administration expressed concern over events in the Central American nation.

President Zelaya says Honduran troops forcibly removed him from his home in the dead of night and sent him to Costa Rica in his pajamas.

The expulsion came on the day Mr. Zelaya had chosen for a referendum on whether to change the constitution to allow him to run for a second term in office. The president pressed ahead with the vote in defiance of Honduras' Supreme Court, which had declared the measure illegal.

In a news conference at the airport in San Jose, Costa Rica, Mr. Zelaya said he is the victim of a coup d'etat.

The Honduran leader said he has been kidnapped with violence and brutality, which he termed an affront to the entire world that brings back memories of past dictatorships in the Americas. Appearing alongside Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, Mr. Zelaya said he wants to return to Honduras as president and that he is counting on the support of all democratic governments, including that of the United States.

In Washington, President Obama issued a statement saying he is "deeply concerned" by events in Honduras. He urged all political and social actors in the country to respect democratic norms, the rule of law, and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Hondurans to respect their country's constitutional order.

Blocks away from the White House, the Organization of American States met in an emergency session. Honduras' ambassador to the body [Carlos Sosa Coello] demanded what he termed an 'emphatic condemnation" of the coup.

OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza echoed the call:

Inzulza said what has occurred is a military coup that must be condemned with energy. He said the OAS must issue a clear demand for a return to constitutional order and insist that human rights be respected.

President Zelaya is a political ally of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, who pledged to do everything possible to reverse the coup.

Honduras is to hold presidential elections in November. The country's 1982 constitution bans Mr. Zelaya's re-election.

The amazing political and judicial analysis of ordinary Americans

If you need a morning smirk, the Washington Post is a good place to start. The solemnity begins with the incredible headline: "Most Americans Want Sotomayor on Court."

"Soda who?" would be my guess for the most likely response. No one will convince me that more than 15% of most Americans could differentiate Sotomayor from soda crackers.

__________________

Most Americans Want Sotomayor on Court
Poll Indicates That 62 Percent Think Federal Judge Should Be Confirmed by Senate

By Jon Cohen and Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Washington Post

A sizable majority of Americans want the Senate to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, and most call her "about right" ideologically, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll Senate hearings on Sotomayor, President Obama's pick to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter, begin in two weeks, and 62 percent of those polled support her elevation to the court. Sotomayor, 55, is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York.

If confirmed, Sotomayor would become only the third female justice and the second on the current nine-member court. But there is no gender gap in support for her, with men and women about equally likely to be on her side.

Partisan differences, however, abound. Nearly eight in 10 Democrats and about two-thirds of independents said they want the Senate to confirm Sotomayor, but that drops to 36 percent of Republicans. Overall, most Republicans deem the judge a "more liberal" nominee than they would have liked.

But Obama's nominee also divides Republicans: While conservative Republicans are broadly opposed, most Republicans who describe themselves as moderate or liberal support her. More than seven in 10 conservative Republicans said she is too liberal, which is more than double the proportion of centrist or left-leaning Republicans who say so.

Some opposition to her, however, comes from the other side, as about one in five of those who want the Senate to reject her see her as insufficiently liberal.

Overall, 55 percent of Americans said Sotomayor is about right on a liberal-to-conservative scale. About a quarter said she is a more liberal nominee than they would have liked, about the same proportion who called Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. too conservative when President George W. Bush nominated them....But most Americans do not think her life experiences influence the way she decides cases: Fifty-nine percent said the fact that she is a women does not factor in, and 52 percent said the same about her racial and ethnic background.

Among the 33 percent who said her gender plays a role, more than twice as many say that is a good thing than a bad thing. The groups most apt to call her gender a factor are those with a postgraduate education and liberal Democrats, and they overwhelmingly approve. Here, too, is no gender gap in attitudes.

On race and ethnicity, however, some groups tip the other way: Half of Republican men and 59 percent of conservative Republicans said these play a role in her decision making, with most of those who do saying that that is a bad thing.

The telephone poll was conducted June 18 to 21, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Jenny Sanford, class act.

Who will get more from Cap and Trade, Pennsylvania or Costa Rica?

Rip-off artist, President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, Nobel Laureate

Pennsylvania

Fifty-nine percent (17.0) million acres of Pennsylvania's total land area (28.7 million acres) is
forest land, an increase of less than 1 percent since 1978.

Of the 17.0 million acres of forest land, 93 percent (15.9 million acres) is classified as timberland
(formerly known as commercial forest land). timberland acreage is virtually unchanged since the
1978 inventory.

Seventy-nine percent (12.5 million acres) of the timberland area in Pennsylvania is privately
owned.

The oak/hickory forest-type group is the most common in the state, making up 47 percent of the
timberland area. Northern hardwood forests cover 38 percent of the timberland area.

Sawtimber stands make up 54 percent of the timberland area, poletimber stands 31 percent, and
sapling/seedling and nonstocked stands 15 percent

Costa Rica

Costa Rica Forest Figures

Forest Cover

Total forest area: 2,391,000 ha
% of land area: 46.8%

Primary forest cover: 180,000 ha
% of land area: 3.5%
% total forest area: 7.5%
Primary forest loss since 1990:-29.4%

Forest Classification
Public: 24.3%
Private: 75.7%

There are approximately 24 families that control the land and assets in Cost Rica. Those families are the same that made fortunes de-foresting Cost Rica. They will be the same group to be net recipients of US taxpayer money under cap and trade. The tax payers of Pennsylvania will not.

The broken Iranian revolution

The Iranian breakout did not happen. No police or army defections. No leader on a tank. No national strikes. What happened? Envy and fear.

Most of the Iranians, outside of a few cities, are poor and under the thumb and veil of the religious establishment. They did not see the street demonstrations of Tehran as being relevant to their lives and worse. They saw it as a threat. Better the devil they know.

Iran emerges as less credible and with a world less tolerant of its goal to be a nuclear power.

George Bush could never adequately explain why Iran was in the axis of evil; an axis of mullahs did it for him.

Israel and its casus belli against Iran advances.

Krauthammer argues that Mousavi needs to have a Yeltsin moment. He further sees Obama as having been dismissive to Mousavi as not that different from Khamenei-Ahmadinejad. Krauthammer believes it is still slimly possible for Mousavi to emerge.

Possibly I suppose, but not likely. More likely will be the dissipation of the dispirited, as many more will leave Iran and the economy worsens. After that who knows? Not me. Hope occluded observation.

_______________________

Iran: Desperately Seeking Yeltsin

By Charles Krauthammer Washington Post
Friday, June 26, 2009

Iran today is a revolution in search of its Yeltsin. Without leadership, demonstrators will take to the street only so many times to face tear gas, batons and bullets. They need a leader like Boris Yeltsin: a former establishment figure with newly revolutionary credentials and legitimacy, who stands on a tank and gives the opposition direction by calling for the unthinkable -- the abolition of the old political order.

Right now the Iranian revolution has no leader. As this is written, opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has not appeared in public since June 18. And the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime has shown the requisite efficiency and ruthlessness at suppressing widespread unrest. Its brutality has been deployed intelligently. The key is to atomize the opposition. Start with the most sophisticated methods to block Internet and cellphone traffic, thanks to technology provided by Nokia Siemens Networks. Allow the more massive demonstrations to largely come and go -- avoiding Tiananmen-style wholesale bloodshed -- but disrupt the smaller ones with street-side violence and rooftop snipers, the perfect instrument of terror. Death instant and unseen, the kind that only the most reckless and courageous will brave.

Terror visited by invisible men. From rooftops by day. And by night, swift and sudden raids that pull students out of dormitories, the wounded out of hospitals, for beatings and disappearances.

For all our sentimental belief in the ultimate triumph of those on the "right side of history," nothing is inevitable. This second Iranian revolution is on the defensive, even in retreat. To recover, it needs mass, because every dictatorship fears the moment when it gives the order to the gunmen to shoot at the crowd. If they do (Tiananmen), the regime survives; if they don't (Romania's Ceausescu), the dictators die like dogs. The opposition needs a general strike and major rallies in the major cities -- but this time with someone who stands up and points out the road ahead.

Desperately seeking Yeltsin. Does this revolution have one? Or to put it another way, can Mousavi become Yeltsin?

President Obama's worst misstep during the Iranian upheaval occurred early on when he publicly discounted the policy differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.

True, but that overlooked two extremely important points. First, while Mousavi himself was originally only a few inches to Ahmadinejad's left on the political spectrum -- being hand-picked by the ruling establishment precisely for his ideological reliability -- Mousavi's support was not restricted to those whose views matched his. He would have been the electoral choice of everyone to his left, a massive national constituency -- liberals, liberalizers, secularists, monarchists, radicals and visceral opponents of the entire regime -- that dwarfs those who shared his positions, as originally held.



Moreover, Mousavi's positions have changed, just as he has. He is far different today from the Mousavi who began this electoral campaign.

Revolutions are dynamic, fluid. It is true that two months ago there was little difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. But that day is long gone. Revolutions outrun their origins. And they transform their leaders.

Mikhail Gorbachev and Yeltsin both began as orthodox party regulars. They subsequently evolved together into reformers. Then came the revolution. Gorbachev could not shake himself from the system. Yeltsin rose up and engineered its destruction.

In the 1980s, Mousavi was Ayatollah Khomeini's prime minister, a brutal enforcer of orthodox Islamism. Twenty years later, he started out running for president advocating little more than cosmetic moderation. But then the revolutionary dynamic began: The millions who rallied to his cause -- millions far to his left -- began to radicalize him. The stolen election radicalized him even more. Finally, the bloody suppression of his followers led him to make statements just short of challenging the legitimacy of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the very foundations of the regime. The dynamic continues: The regime is preparing the basis for Mousavi's indictment (for sedition), arrest, even possible execution. The prospect of hanging radicalizes further.

As Mousavi hovers between Gorbachev and Yeltsin, between reformer and revolutionary, between figurehead and leader, the revolution hangs in the balance. The regime may neutralize him by arrest or even murder. It may buy him off with offers of safety and a sinecure. He may well prefer to let this cup pass from his lips.

But choose he must, and choose quickly. This is his moment, and it is fading rapidly. Unless Mousavi rises to it, or another rises in his place, Iran's democratic uprising will end not as Russia 1991, but as China 1989.

Why are Americans leaving? Iraqis having buyers remorse.

June 26, 2009
Iraqis have second thoughts over June 30 date for US troops to leave

Alice Fordham in Baquba Times on line

For six years Iraqis in this restless provincial capital have been waiting for US forces to withdraw, in the hope that the area will return to being Iraq’s sleepy rural backwater.

However, with only days to go before the last American soldiers are due to pull out of Baquba and other Iraqi cities, the residentshaving doubts.

There are fears that a premature departure will lead to a return of sectarian violence or allow al-Qaeda to re-establish itself. Many would like the Americans to remain until security is restored permanently.

“After you guys pull out from the city I don’t know what our enemies are going to do,Thaban Hassan said. The head of an Iraqi Army battalion in Baquba, he told the American soldiers gathered in his office that “safety is not 100 per cent . . . why are the Americans leaving?”

Colonel Burt Thompson, the commander of US forces in the area, whose troops still patrol Baquba, admitted that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, had taken a gamble by insisting that his forces take control according to an agreed timetable.

In the past few days a bomb hit a mayor’s convoy, another hit an Iraqi army patrol and there was a revenge killing of an al-Qaeda militant.

In line with the status of forces agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, which came into effect at the beginning of this year, all US troops will cease patrolling Iraqi cities from June 30.

Despite the spike in violence Mr al-Maliki has insisted that the withdrawal will go ahead as planned.

Colonel Thompson called this insistence political and said that he would prefer to keep US soldiers in Diyala province, which remains a hub for insurgents coming into the country, until after elections next January.

That view is shared by residents. Dhea Taha, 32, who lives with her children near Baquba, said: “The security situation is not stable in the first place ... there is an increase in terrorist activity.”

Mohammad al-Obeidi, the chairman of the Security Council of Qais and Khalis, areas of Baquba which still have sectarian tensions, said that Mr al-Maliki’s reassurances did not ease concerns.

“Iraq is like a baby right now," he said. "It needs people to look after it.”

The religiously and ethnically diverse province was split by sectarian conflict during the turmoil after the invasion and never fully recovered. Remnants of Sunni groups, including al-Qaeda in Iraq and Shia militia, are still active.

A Sunni in Khalis said that she fled after her house was hit by gunfire last year but when she tried to return two months ago her family’s homes and businesses were still occupied by a Shia militia.

First Lieutenant Hatem, head of an Iraqi Emergency Response Team in Baquba, said that his troops have been hit by roadside bombs and targeted by kidnappers. One soldier was seized last week and a ransom demanded.

“After you guys pull out,” he said to his American allies, “the situation is going to be bad.”

The border with Iran is patrolled by the Iraqi Army, but he had little faith in them, saying, “all insurgents escape from the country through the border ... and of course weapons are smuggled across the borders.”

“I certainly see that insurgent forces will perceive June 30 as a gap in our security plan,” said Colonel Shaun Reed, a battalion commander. “I think we will see a spike in violence based on the idea that the Iraqi security forces aren’t ready.”

Farrah Fawcett, sixties icon, sex symbol and actress, dies

Just shut up.

Just shut up and spare us your stupid tears.

Mark Sanford needs a new faith
The threat of eternal damnation didn't help the governor of South Carolina to keep his pants on

Melissa McEwan
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 June 2009 22.15 BST

So. After a whirlwind few days of speculation regarding the whereabouts of Republican South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, we now have the answer. He was not, in fact, hiking on the Appalachian Trail clearing his head after a tough legislative session, as we were repeatedly assured by his staff, but was instead in Buenos Aires, Argentina, having an affair. Or ending an affair. Or something.

On Wednesday afternoon, Sanford tearfully took to the airwaves – sans stoic wife standing loyally alongside, in a refreshing change of pace – to hold a press conference in which he admitted the affair with a woman who became a "dear, dear friend" eight years ago after an incredibly earnest conversation about how she should get back together with her husband "for the sake of her two boys", then, in the last year, became his lover after their relationship "sparked into something more than that."

Five months ago, their relationship was discovered, since which time Sanford has been seeking help from a prayer group – but nonetheless spent "the last five days crying in Argentina" and ultimately deciding he's now "committed to trying to get [his] heart right in life." Whatever that means.

I won't belabour the obvious here: Sanford is a hypocrite in the extreme, not just any old family values conservative, but a Republican governor (contra Fox News) who also happens to be (until he resigned during his presser) the chair of the Republican governors' association. As one would expect from a professional member of the Sanctimonious Panty-Sniffers Brigade, he championed laws that seek to publicly legislate personal, adult, consensual sexual activities because they don't adhere to his preferred interpretation of one religious text, but now clamors for privacy to deal with his own personal, adult, consensual sexual activities, although they don't adhere to his preferred interpretation of one religious text, even as he would deny others the same right and respect.

One hopes he has the decency to revisit his position, and suspects he will not.

Because Sanford, you see, also took time during his press conference to assert: "There are moral absolutes, and God's law indeed is there to protect you from yourself." Ah, that old canard. We're all inherently disposed to do the wrong things and too weak to stop ourselves doing them on our own, so there must be laws – God's or otherwise.

It's the position of a man who cannot fathom that not all of us need the threat of eternal damnation, or the promise of salvation, to keep us in line, who cannot conceive that there are people who reject the idea of any one religion as the singular genesis of morality and have, instead, faith in humankind – faith that individuals can make the best decisions for themselves.

Sanford, on the other hand, subscribes to a faith that tells him humans, even himself among them, aren't worth having faith in. That's why he wants to legislate morality – because he doesn't trust people to make good decisions; he couldn't even trust himself and never had to, was never encouraged to have faith in himself to aspire to more. He needs rules, so he thinks we all do.

It's a terrible thing that the people who have the least faith in their fellow humans are most often called the "values voters", as if equality is not a value, and who have commandeered the term "faith", because, on this earth, humans are the only ones who can guarantee equality – and it's the humans who have the admittedly grotty and earthbound faith in one another who are the most likely to extend it.

Those of us who have faith in each other value a decidedly earthy humanness, with all its flaws and foibles. That doesn't sound particularly inspiring: there are no hymns, no psalms, no Hallelujah chorus for having faith in other people. But maybe there should be.

Maybe that's what Governor Sanford needs in order to change his tune.

Neda of Persia

Neda will not be sailing today, or any other day. She will never know the joy and sorrow of living a long life with the man she loves – having orgasms, making babies, raising children. She will never feel the wind blowing through her long black hair or the exhilaration of the spray of salt water on her face as she turns into the sunset...

-Allen

Fort Lost in the Woods

Frankly, I never heard of it. But why should I have, since I was in the Air Force and my most enduring experience with the army was a recurring nightmare that I re-upped in the army by mistake. But it seems as two of our extinguished, check that, distinguished, repeat, distinguished board members are alumns.

Speaking of old mountains. Show a little more respect for your elders. The Poconos are the remnants of some of the greatest mountains this planet has ever scene, check that, seen, repeat seen. The Poconos are the debilitated veterans of climactic change, created some 12,000 - 15,000 years ago by the mother of all glaciers. The Wisconsinan Glacier carved them a new one, so speak.

Time travel and history adjustment.

Would you kill this child?*

June 23, 2009

The great time travel test

Daniel Finkelstein Timesonline

If you could travel back in time and intervene at one moment in history what would you do?

That was Michael Gove’s question in yesterday's Times, and one I’d now like to pinch for Comment Central.

“My own hunch”, writes Gove, “is you could avert the need for all of the above if you got between Gavrilo Princip's bullet and Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Almost all the miseries of the last century can be traced to the greatest civilisational catastrophe of all time - the First World War.

“There was a madness abroad in Europe in 1914, as the new Tate Modern exhibition of the war-worshipping Italian Futurists reminds us. Prewar Europe was a uniquely liberal and civilised place. And it was all swept away, in a ceremony of blood that ushered in eight decades of oppression.”

“So I'd wrench the gun out of Princip's black hand. And this is where the argument begins. I defy readers to think of a better use of a rent in history's tapestry. What's your answer to the Time Travellers' Test?”

Times writers give their own answers to his proposition below. But how about you? Would you assassinate Hitler? Catch a bullet for John Lennon? Ensconce yourself in the grassy knoll?

David Aaronovitch

Michael Gove seems to think that had the Archduke not been killed by Princip (and one should point out how nearly he wasn't) then the First World War would not have happened.

I wonder. Lenin's return to Russia is a better bet, though it was his second that year, and he might have kept returning, so the real need was to remove him permanently from the scene, which seems to be precluded by the terms of this discussion.

So I think we have to go with Von Stauffenberg's placing of his bomb on the wrong side of a solid table divide, thus saving Adolf from a certain death. That really was bad luck.

Oliver Kamm

The prudent course for the time traveller is to land in the French Legislative Assembly in time for the declaration of war on Austria on 20 April 1792, and refute with the benefit of hindsight the promise made by Jacques-Pierre Brissot and other republican deputies that victory would be easy.

The war was disastrous and it set off a virulent search for enemies of the revolution (which was stimulated by the inflammatory counter-revolutionary manifesto of the allied commander-in-chief, the Duke of Brunswick).

The consequences were catastrophic not only in the numbers of dead but also in the precedent thereby set for unconstrained actions of the revolutionary state. The brutality of the Bolshevik Revolution 125 years later was prefigured in this.

Libby Purves

I'd go back even further than Michael Gove and make repeated visits to un-invent guns.

People who kill people should have to get close enough to feel their breath and look them in the eye. Fewer would be willing to do it.

Graham Stewart

The French Revolution had disastrous consequences for Europe at the time and sowed the seeds of ideological thought that were eventually reaped in the totalitarian horrors of the twentieth century.

The revolution might never have happened if the French exchequer had not been bankrupted by Louis XVI's decision to declare war on Britain during the American Revolution. Louis was persuaded down this calamitous course by his Foreign Minister, the Comte de Vergennes.

My role in time travel would have been to demonstrate to Vergennes that for all the gain of poking George III in the eye, his actions would not only bring down the French monarchy, create anarchy and ensure the Napoleonic Wars, but also turn the thinking of the Enlightenment into a curse.

Although I admit this does raise the supplementary question - what would have happened if, denied French help, the American colonists had lost their fight with Britain?

Daniel Finkelstein

While tempted to intervene between the moment when Michael Gove wrote the word "civilisational" and the time when it appeared in The Times, or just before John Terry took his penalty against Manchester United in the Champions League final, advising him to take a different run up, I fear these would be frivolous uses of a wonderful power.

David would like to have moved Von Stauffenberg's bomb. I think we can do better than that. I feel it would be worth a throw of the Time Travellers' dice to have landed in the 1920s and killed Hitler in a glassing fight outside a beer hall.

Now, this might not have prevented the Holocaust. But actually I think there is a good chance that it would have done

* A photo of Adolph Hitler as a child.

The Axis of Evil

Eyewitnesses Say Iranian Police Use Force to Break Up Protest
By Edward Yeranian Voice of America
Cairo
22 June 2009

Witnesses say Iranian riot police have fired tear gas to break up a new opposition rally in the centre of the capital Tehran, hours after a stern warning to protesters.

According to eyewitness reports, Iranian police Monday attacked hundred of demonstrators attending an opposition rally in a Tehran square with tear gas.

Demonstrators had gathered on Haft-e Tir Square despite the warning from Iran's Revolutionary Guards against holding unapproved rallies.

Earlier, defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi urged his supporters to continue demonstrating, but "with restraint."

"The country belongs to you," Mr. Mousavi told supporters on his Web site Kalam, adding that "it is your right to protest lies and fraud," in reference to disputed election results which gave a landslide victory to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards, however, vowed to crush further protest rallies, telling opposition supporters to be ready for a "revolutionary confrontation" if they continue to demonstrate.

Iran analyst Mehrdad Khonsari with the London-based Center for Arab and Iranian Studies says that government tactics to quell demonstrations is having limited results.

"The authorities are succeeding in trying to prevent a mass congregation in one place, which means they're stopping people coming to a central location or a central point from various avenues, but they have not succeeded in preventing people from coming out, so instead they're trying to control the crowds arriving at that central point from a number of other streets and locations," said Khonsari. "This tactic has been successful in preventing huge numbers from gathering in one place, but this does not mean that the demonstrations have fizzled out or that people have lost their enthusiasm."

He also notes that there are similarities between the period leading up to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and events of today.

"There are similarities in appearance, but what separates the two is that the government at that time did not have the resolve to want to quell the rebellion at any price, and the Shah was seeking to make compromises with the opposition," he continued. "This time, the regime is bent on quashing the rebellion, and they don't want to make any compromises, whatsoever. Finally, the revolution was sort of aimed at opposing forces of modernity in favor of traditional religious values. This time, you see the forces of modernity challenging conservative religious forces."

Iranian state radio reported earlier that at least 457 people were arrested Saturday, a day marked by clashes between security forces and demonstrators that resulted in the deaths of at least 10 people.

Nit Picking

Some guy over at American Thinker is trying to make an issue out of the date sequence used by Obama, pointing out that it is like the European system. I use the same system, and I think it makes more sense, but not because it makes me feel European. I used it for seven years in the military. It is on my DD-214. Out of curiosity, does the military still use that system?

________________________

June 22, 2009
Obama's dating system
Ben Hershorin, American Thinker

I was browsing through some White House photos published online, and saw one of where President Obama signed a wall in a high school. The interesting part of the signing was not the note he wrote, but rather the way he wrote his date. Instead of putting June 11, 2009, he put 11 June 2009, which is how Europeans, not Americans, write their dates.

California and the State Public Employee Unions

To assist minority employment, federal, state, and municipal governments gave priority to hiring minorities. It was the right thing to do. The employees returned the favor. They unionized and joined Democratic politicians and formed a coalition of interest. The consequences are becoming obvious and expensive. It is a national problem. California is on the cusp. Hasta la vista baby.

Moral Equivalency

Unlike Obama, Ali Khamenei and Aquavellvajad don't do, 'Moral Equivalence'.

President Pantywaist latest: Iran unclenches its fist - to slap Barack Obama's face
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Jun 19, 2009 Telegraph

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." That piece of classic Obamaguff, unloaded during his presidential inauguration, has come home to haunt President Pantywaist, as a consequence of the Iranian election.

Today Iran unclenched its fist - to slap President Pantywaist on the face. It seems, despite the chiding from Barack Obama, that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad feel quite comfortable on the wrong side of history. At Friday prayers - accompanied by encouragingly reformist shouts of "Death to America!" - the Supreme Leader (Khamenei, not Obama) delivered the most intransigently authoritarian speech heard in Iran since the reign of Cyrus the Great.

From behind the stage set on which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Mousavi have been acting as surrogates for the real power struggle between Khamemei and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the Supreme Leader injected a note of politically incorrect reality into the fantasy conjured by Obama and the Western media. The Basij militia will be unleashed on protesters. "If there is any bloodshed, leaders of the protests will be held directly responsible," announced the Ayatollah.

"Make my day!" is the American translation of this uncompromising challenge, to America as well as to the youthful protesters, by a regime emboldened by the patent weakness of President Pantywaist. Americans should realise, having undergone the Vietnam experience, that in the final analysis power does not depend on military hardware but on political will. The Islamic republic is not short of political will.

It could be, of course, that the threat of the Basij militia will turn out to be no more potent than the parading of the Shah's 'Immortals' of the Imperial Guard, shortly before they were annihilated and that a revolution will sweep aside the mullahs. But it does not seem likely. The auguries are not of revolution, but of either civil war or acquiescence by the reformers. Regime change will not be uncontested.

For America and the rest of the world, Iranian nuclear development is the supreme consideration. How many of those superficially Americanised young Iranians, so active on Twitter, does Obama think want to see their country stripped of the prestige of being a potential nuclear power, especially when Pakistan is already in the club?

This is a lose/lose situation for Obama. He is as flaky on Iran as on everything else. In 2004 he favoured "surgical" missile strikes against Iran. In 2007 he did not rule out force, but preferred "aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions" - but that was for the ears of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Since he moved address from Chicago to Washington, his stance has become more nuanced (ie he hasn't a clue what to do).

He is trying to steer a course between appeasement and rhetoric about the Iranian "threat", while knowing he may eventually have to knuckle down and accept a nuclear Islamic republic, since Barack doesn't do war. If the Israelis do the job for him, that will be ten times more provocative in Middle Eastern terms. Look forward to change you'd better believe in.

Iran video links not shown on MSM. Warning very graphic videos

Iran Links- Warning-some very tough video and pictures

Iran is entering Hell

Hat tip: Doug for videos below:





It was not what the civilized world was waiting to hear but once again we heard it. Once again we learn that there are no moderates in the Iranian straight jacket of governance. 

Iranians are trapped in a religious sewer of repression. The sins of the fathers visited upon them.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, told the students to end their protests. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was staying. No more discussion. 

At this time, the black shirts, the paramilitary Basij militia, are descending on Iranian cities like Mordor's Orks. It is hard to imagine there will not be slaughter as idealism gets bludgeoned by thuggery. 

Iran will show to the world it's true axis of evil.

Too bad that. 

Maybe next time. 

Never give up your guns.

Basij Repellant

The Pathos of the Mundane

The broken galley of the Air France disaster, found mostly intact, floating in the Atlantic.

Tragedy and pathos walk the same path; it leads to pity, but it takes the mundane objects of daily living to enhance the tragedy of a loss. We all experience the soft sorrow and sentiment of the little silly things you cannot bear to discard after the loss of a loved one. They remind us of the soft pleasures of the more mundane parts of a life. That is part of the power of this photo. It makes the tragedy personal. It somehow draws us into the terrible ending of that broken flight.

Enlightenment can be the compensation for sorrow and loss. A broken galley floating in the sea personalizes the terror of those lost and their terrible last moments.

Non-Chinese need not apply.

‘Buy China’ policy set to raise tensions
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
Published: June 16 2009 16:13

China has introduced an explicit “Buy Chinese” policy as part of its economic stimulus programme in a move that will amplify tensions with trade partners and increase the likelihood of protectionism around the world.

In an edict released jointly by nine government departments, Beijing said government procurement must use only Chinese products or services unless they were not available within the country or could not be bought on reasonable commercial or legal terms.

The government also said it was launching an investigation in response to complaints from domestic industry associations which accuse local governments of favouring foreign suppliers in procurement related to the country’s Rmb4,000bn ($585bn, €421bn, £356bn) economic stimulus package.

“From a domestic political perspective this makes some sense because local governments do tend to favour foreign products in some categories,” Dong Tao, chief China economist for Credit Suisse, said. “But given how important free trade is for China’s economy this is not the right message for them to be sending to the rest of the world right now.”

Just a few months ago Beijing was raging against a proposed “Buy American” clause included in the US economic rescue package.

“Some countries raised clauses to prioritise the purchase of products of their own countries in their economic stimulus packages,” Yao Jian, a Chinese commerce ministry spokesman, told reporters in February. “We express deep concern about these [measures] ... under the current financial crisis, measures issued by all countries should not cause negative impacts, and especially they should not send out wrong messages.”

Most economists agree China’s economy is starting to recover as a result of its aggressive stimulus package but the country is still struggling with unemployment and fears widespread layoffs could lead to serious social unrest.

“The whole world is dying to see China spread its orders around and save their economies,” said Mr Tao. “But what this policy reflects is heightened anxiety about these job pressures and the potential for social unrest.”

The edict was issued jointly by the legislative office of the State Council, China’s cabinet, the national development and reform commission (the country’s powerful state planning agency) and the ministries of industry and information, supervision, housing, transport, railways, water resources and commerce.

The new edict bans local governments and departments from discriminating against domestic suppliers in their procurement. Foreign companies operating in China argue that the opposite is in fact true and that they have been largely cut out of procurement related to the government’s stimulus package.

“We are puzzled by this discussion, especially since most European companies operating in China are locally incorporated and have not benefited directly from the government’s stimulus package,” said Joerg Wuttke, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China. “Requiring government procurement to favour Chinese goods and services certainly won’t help to address China’s trade surplus of €170bn.”

Trade data in recent months show import volumes, particularly of raw materials, have stabilised and started to increase strongly, while exports have stabilised but remain very weak following precipitous drops in both exports and imports since the fourth quarter of last year. China’s trade surplus rose 15.7 per cent to $88.8bn in the first five months from the same period a year earlier.

“Any movement – overt or subtle – to discriminate against foreign products and services is protectionist and an inefficient use of stimulus funds,” said James Zimmerman, partner with the international law firm of Squire Sanders & Dempsey in Beijing.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

"If the Iranian security forces are now taking the middle ground, then Ahmadinejad is truly in trouble."

Seven men killed by the Basiji at the end of Monday's march, were secretly buried by police in Cemetery 257

Robert Fisk: Fear has gone in a land that has tasted freedom

In defiance of the ban on foreign reporters, The Independent's Middle East correspondent ventures out to witness an extraordinary stand-off on the streets of Tehran

Wednesday, 17 June 2009 The Independent

The fate of Iran rested last night in a grubby north Tehran highway interchange called Vanak Square where – after days of violence – supporters of the official President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at last confronted the screaming, angry Iranians who have decided that Mirhossein Mousavi should be the president of their country. Unbelievably – and I am a witness because I stood beside them – just 400 Iranian special forces police were keeping these two armies apart. There were stones and tear gas but for the first time in this epic crisis the cops promised to protect both sides.

"Please, please, keep the Basiji from us," one middle-aged lady pleaded with a special forces officer in flak jacket and helmet as the Islamic Republic's thug-like militia appeared in their camouflage trousers and purity-white shirts only a few metres away. The cop smiled at her. "With God's help," he said. Two other policemen were lifted shoulder-high. "Tashakor, tashakor," – "thank you, thank you" – the crowd roared at them.

This was phenomenal. The armed special forces of the Islamic Republic, hitherto always allies of the Basiji, were prepared for once, it seemed, to protect all Iranians, not just Ahmadinejad's henchmen. The precedent for this sudden neutrality is known to everyone – it was when the Shah's army refused to fire on the millions of demonstrators demanding his overthrow in 1979.

Yet this is not a revolution to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Both sets of demonstrators were shouting "Allahu Akbar" – "God is Great" – at Vanak Square last night. But if the Iranian security forces are now taking the middle ground, then Ahmadinejad is truly in trouble.

As the fume-filled dusk fell over the north Tehran streets, the crowds grew wilder. I listened to a heavily bearded Basiji officer exorting his men to assault the 10,000 Mousavi men and women on the other side of the police line. "We must defend our country now, just as we did in the Iran-Iraq war," he shouted above the uproar. But the Ahmadinejad man trying to calm him down, shouted back: "We are all fellow citizens! Let's not have a tragedy. We must have unity."

Clearly the decision of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to instruct the Council of Guardians to recount Friday's election vote had done nothing to dispel the suspicion and anger of the reformist opposition in Iran.

First it appeared that the council would examine every election result. Then only a few. Then Iranians were told that it might take 10 days to learn their decision. It was as well, perhaps, that Ahmadinejad had flown to Yekaterinburg for the Shanghai summit to bore conference delegates with his speeches instead of the Iranian people whom he believes he represents. But on Vanak Square last night, all this meant nothing.

Plain-clothes cops – perhaps at last realising the gravity of a situation which their own obedience to Ahmadinejad's men had brought about – persuaded middle-aged men from both sides to meet in the centre of the road in the middle of Vanak Square's narrow no-man's-land. The Mousavi man, in a brown shirt, placed his hands around the arms of the bearded Iranian official from the Ahmadinejad side. "We cannot allow this to happen," he told him. And he tried, as any Muslim does when he wants to show his desire for trust and peace, to kiss the side of his opponent's face. The bearded man physically shook him off, screaming abuse at him.

The two rows of police were now standing shoulder to shoulder, their linked arms holding both mobs back, as they stared at their own comrades opposite with ever increasing concern. An American-Iranian a few metres away, shouted at me in English that "we've got to prove they can't do this anymore. They can't rule us. We need a new president. Either they get their way or we get ours".

It was frightening, the absolute conviction of these men, the total refusal to accept any compromise, one side demanding obedience to the words of Ayatollah Khomeini and loyalty to the ghosts of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the other – emboldened by their million-strong march on Monday – demanding freedoms, albeit within an Islamic Republic, which they had never had before. Maybe they now have the police on their side; if last night's example was anything to go by, either some senior officer – or perhaps the cops themselves, appalled at their behaviour over the past four days – decided that the special forces would no longer be patsies to the frightening power of Ahmadinejad's ever-loyal bullies.

Only hours earlier, seven men killed by the Basiji at the end of Monday's march, were secretly buried by police in Cemetery 257, a large graveyard close to the Khomeini shrine, where the founder of the Islamic Revolution lies beneath a mosque of golden cupolas and blue-tiled walls. No such honours for the seven victims of the Basiji. They lay beneath a covering of earth, no markers on their graves, no word sent to their families of their fate.

But the pro-government newspapers in Tehran did report their deaths and one even gave its front page to the outraged condemnation of Tehran University's Chancellor at the Basiji intrusion onto the campus on Sunday night, when the security forces killed seven young men, wounded several others and smashed and looted the university dormitories. Farhad Rabar said he would pursue the killers through the courts, adding that "the invasion of the University of Tehran, which is the symbol of higher education... has caused a wave of sorrow and anger in me".

Is it too late to end this fratricidal violence now? For each side, the integrity of their cause is fast becoming more powerful than rational dialogue. The freedom which Mousavi's supporters have tasted – to ignore and disregard and despise the clerical autocracy which has so humiliated them – is now so intoxicating that they are confronting their political enemies in the street with a strange, unnerving, but genuine humour.

At one point last night, men and women wearing the green ribbons of Mousavi's election stood on the pavement beside that chilling 100 metres of no-man's-land next to chadored ladies clutching the Iranian flag – Ahmadinejad's patriotic symbol. They even chatted about the outcome of this fearful confrontation between their two sides.

It was a different narrative three hours earlier when Ahmadinejad's men and women held their own demonstration in Val-y-Asr Square. No word was said of Monday's opposition mass rally, nor of the street demonstrations in the cities of Shiraz, Mashad, Babol and Tabriz. Indeed, most Iranians have no knowledge of these events; Ahmadinejad's censors have seen to that. The banners were predictable. "Death to the Traitor" – Mousavi, of course, was the "betrayer" of the Republic. "Death to anyone who is against the Supreme Leader" – which was a bit odd because neither Mousavi nor his millions of supporters are against Ayatollah Khamenei (albeit that the two men dislike each other); it is Ahmadinejad for whom they have a visceral hatred and whom they are trying to depose.

The former parliamentary speaker, Gholamali Haddadadel, spotted Mousavi's weakest argument when he addressed a crowd that could not have been more than 5,000 strong. "Does Mousavi know how many people voted for Ahmadinejad in the rural areas and in the villages?" he asked. "Iran is not just Tehran. We know that Mr Mousavi got 13 million votes, but Mr Ahmadinejad got 24 million." But of course, those are the very statistics which Mousavi and his allies dispute. Preachers and Sayads lectured the little multitude, their bodyguards – even paramedics – keeping careful watch over them. There was a famous Iranian religious singer to preach to this banner-shrouded audience.

It was on my way out of Val-y-Asr that I noticed a truckload of men, all dressed in camouflage trousers and white shirts, many carrying police clubs, setting off to north Tehran. They were followed by the newly energised Islamist demonstrators, off on the four-mile trek up to Vanak. Two conscript soldiers were standing amid the Mousavi supporters there when an old man asked their advice. Should he stay if the Basijis break through the cordon? "The Basijis beat people hard – very hard," one of the soldiers said. And he patted the old man on the shoulder and shook his head.

And the plot thickens:

Iran, an analysis you will not find on MSM

Here is all you need to know about the Iranian vote. There were forty million paper ballot votes cast. The so-called vote count was done in four hours. Not possible.

The Obama speech was a pebble thrown into a lake created by eight years of George W Bush.

The short analysis is this is a military coup by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and a counter revolution by the students. My anarchical heart is routing for the students. My street smarts tell me thay have a steep wall to climb, with a short ladder. No one can predict where this is going. All of us can hope.
________________

The Ministry of the Interior was rumored to have authorized the use of live ammunition as the regime struggled to maintain control.

Supporters of Mr Mousavi, fought running battles with the police and Basiji, who have flooded into Tehran.

In one incident a witness told The Times how she watched from her car as riot police on six motorbikes opened fire on youths walking under a bridge after the rally.

“The riot police started shooting them with big guns,” she said. “It wasn’t like the films where there is just a small hole — the shooting was blowing off hands, limbs. It was terrible, terrible.”

The regime showed its first sign of alarm when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, who at the weekend hailed the result as a “divine assessment”, instructed the Guardian Council of 12 senior clerics to investigate allegations that the election was rigged. However, the move was seen widely as a ruse to buy time.

Freedom for Iran

I am fascinated about what is happening in Iran. The main stream media coverage is disgustingly vapid. They really are contemptible. The Iranian government is doing their best to cut communications between the students, but videos and photos are getting out. I selected three that I feel are representative of the scope and tenor of the revolution. Now if only a face and a voice steps forward.

West fooled again in Iran , but so was Sadegh Ghotbzadeh صادق قطب‌زاده

I was fascinated by Sadegh Ghotbzadeh. He was all over US television in the late 70's, urbane, witty, perfect English and the Iranian face seen by most Americans.

He was spokesman for everything.

He was also consumed by the revolution, tortured, forced to give false testimony, tried and shot. He has no grave and precious little video to recall who he was.

Once again Iranian Revolution stands.

No wishful thinking will make it go away. There is no internal actor tall enough, broad enough and bulletproof enough to make it go away. Obama may be as surprised as was poor old Sadegh at the enduring power of the mullacracy in Iran. He shouldn't be, but once again in his short rookie presidency he will have to backtrack on his new hopeful and changed way of doing business.

A Little history on Sadegh Ghotbzadeh

_______________________

Around the World; Iran Legislator Accuses Ghotbzadeh of a Plot

NY Times
Published: April 16, 1982

Teheran newspapers quoted a member of the Iranian Parliament today as having said that former Foreign Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh had planned to blow up Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's house with rockets.

The legislator, Movahed Savoji, was quoted as having told a rally in the city of Qum on Wednesday that the former minister had rented a house 150 yards from the Ayatollah's residence for that purpose.

Mr. Ghotbzadeh was arrested in Teheran last week and Iranian judicial authorities have accused him of leading a monarchist group plotting to kill Ayatollah Khomeini. According to the newspapers, Mr. Savoji said the monarchist group under Mr. Ghotbzadeh's direction had placed explosives in the house that were meant to go off before the rocket attack.

Mohsen Rezai, commander of Revolutionary Guards who arrested Mr. Ghotbzadeh in his house, said the former Foreign Minister had been arrested while smoking opium, the newspapers said. Mr. Ghotbzadeh faces a firing squad if convicted in the plot.

From Wikipedia:

Background

As a student Ghotbzadeh was active in the Student Confederation of Iran. He attended Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service 1959-1963, but was dismissed before graduating due to his skipping studies and exams to lead protests against the government of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, including storming a posh party put on by the Iranian Ambassador to the United States, the son-in-law of the Shah.[citation needed]

He was a supporter of the National Front of Iran and the Freedom Movement of Iran and was a close aide of Ayatollah Khomeini when Khomeini was in exile in France. He accompanied Khomeini on his travel back to Iran on February 1, 1979. After the Islamic Revolutionaries took power, Ghotbzadeh was appointed as managing director of National Iranian Radio and Television (NIRT) and tried to overhaul it to be in line with Islamic teachings, purging royalist, women, and leftists.[1] This was criticised by a group of Iranian intellectuals and also the Interim Government. He was appointed as Foreign Minister after Abolhassan Banisadr resigned as acting Foreign Minister amid heated disputes on the fate of the American hostages. He was "quoted by Agence France Presse saying that he had information that presidential candidate Ronald Reagan was `trying to block a solution` to the hostage crisis. ... Two friends of Ghotbzadeh who spoke to him frequently during this period said that he insisted repeatedly that the Republicans were in contact with elements in Iran to try to block a hostage release."[2] He later resigned when his diplomatic approach to resolve the crisis ended in a deadlock.

[edit] Arrest and execution

In April 1982, he was arrested along with a group of army officers and clerics (including son-in-law of religious leader Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari), all accused of plotting the assassination of Khomeini and the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. He denied the accusations but confirmed the existence of a plot to change the government, then led by Ali Khamenei as President. Ghotbzadeh's confessions came only after severe torture on the part of the Iranian government.

Further rumors include the story that Ayatollah Khomeini initially did not want to execute Ghotbzadeh; he was persuaded to do so after hearing a tape of Ghotbzadeh in prison agreeing to pay money and provide contact information of his allies in France in exchange for his freedom.[citation needed] Ghotbzadeh supposedly told this to a fellow prisoner specifically hired to entrap him.[citation needed] The veracity of these rumors is unknown.

At an April 1982 "press conference", hojjat al-Islam Mohammad Reyshahri, the chief judge of the newly created Military Revolutionary Tribunal, explained the plot with "an elaborate chart full of boxes and arrows linking Qotbzadeh and the royalist officers, on one side, to `the feudalists, the leftist mini-groups, and the phony clerics` and other side, to the `National Front, Israel, the Pahlavis and the Socialist International.` The last four were linked to the CIA."[3]

Ghotbzadeh was shot by a firing squad after a 26-day trial before the Military Revolutionary Tribunal found him guilty and sentenced him to death
________________

June 14, 2009
The West fooled itself Iran would allow reform
Amir Taheri Times on line

Barack Obama found it “exciting” and Hillary Clinton saw it as “a positive sign”. Others, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US national security adviser, went further and praised it as a “vibrant democracy”. A variety of useful idiots at home and abroad expressed similar illusions about the Iranian presidential election on Friday.

Many had hoped the exercise would dislodge President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the maverick who has vowed to chase the United States out of the Middle East, wipe Israel off the map and prepare the ground for the hidden imam, Shi’ite Islam’s “end of times” figure of retribution. In the event, the election turned out to be a choreographed affair designed to reinforce Ahmadinejad’s position as the leader of “resurgent Islam”.

Officially put at 85%, voter turnout was the highest in Iran’s history. Ahmadinejad won with 63%, collecting more votes than any of his predecessors. The results were arranged to give him a two-thirds majority among all categories of voters – men, women, young and old, poor and middle class, and in all of Iran’s 30 provinces. Whoever wrote the script also made sure that his three rivals, all veterans of the Khomeinist revolution, were roundly defeated even in their respective home towns.

Only one candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former prime minister, has tried to contest the results. Some analysts had tipped Mousavi, a cousin of the “supreme guide” Ali Khamenei, as the likely winner and the ideal partner for President Obama in his quest for unconditional talks with Iran. By midday Saturday it was clear that Mousavi would not try to rock the boat. Rather than calling his supporters into the streets, he wrote a letter to his cousin, pleading for “action to avoid injustice”. Ahmadinejad’s camp responded by announcing a rally in Tehran today to celebrate his victory.

Ahmadinejad’s narrative was simple. He presented himself as a man of the people with a mission to restore the purity of a revolution sullied by corruption and hypocrisy. He portrayed a ruling elite that spoke of the “downtrodden” but lived in palaces, of mullahs who spoke more of contracts and deals than of faith and doctrine.

Branded “a dangerous masquerade” by Mousavi, Friday’s election should end illusions about the possibility of changing the regime’s strategy through internal evolution and peaceful action. Ever since the mullahs seized power in 1979, Iran has suffered a crisis of identity, torn between its ambitions as a force for messianic revolution on the one hand and its interests as a nation-state on the other. Mousavi had incarnated the hope of Iran reaffirming its identity as a nation-state. Ahmadinejad’s victory symbolises the determination to emphasise the revolutionary aspect of Iran’s identity, even if that means sacrificing some of its interests as a nation-state. Iran may continue behaving like a cause rather than a country.

Ahmadinejad will have to cope with the deep divisions in the ruling establishment that he has brought to the surface. During his campaign he portrayed the terms of his two predecessors, Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani, as “murky periods” when some mullahs and their associates “plundered” the nation’s wealth and kowtowed to “imperialist powers”.

The president has a mandate to purge the regime of its allegedly corrupt elements who tried to form a united front to defeat him. By focusing on an internal purge, Ahmadinejad may want to ease tension on the foreign policy front.

The United States under Obama is bending over backwards to open a dialogue with the Islamic republic. In his Cairo “address to the Muslim world”, Obama implicitly accepted Iran’s right to seek a nuclear capability. “No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons,” he said. Since then Obama and Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, have tried to repackage the Iranian nuclear issue not as a problem in itself but because it might trigger “a nuclear arms race in the Middle East”.

It is possible that Ahmadinejad, radical rhetoric notwithstanding, may try to ease tension with Washington provided he is allowed to pursue his nuclear ambitions. Days before the election he dispatched Manouchehr Mottaki, his foreign minister, to Paris to ask President Sarkozy to broker a telephone conversation between Obama and the Iranian leader. Paris and Washington dismissed it as “electoral opportunism”.

Ahmadinejad has won a massive victory over his rivals in the Establishment. But the Khomeinist regime remains deeply unpopular, especially among young Iranians, who account for two-thirds of the population. Yesterday Tehran and other cities witnessed antiregime demonstrations, mostly young people shouting, “Shame on you Ahmadinejad! Quit the government!” Although small and isolated, these protests could in time grow into a mass movement. Iran is also heading for economic meltdown, with a daily loss of 1,000 jobs and inflation of more than 20%. Ahmadinejad’s election slogan is “Ma mitavanim” (We can), like Obama’s “Yes we can”. Iran’s leader has been true to his slogan by showing he can fix the election results to the last detail. But can he cope with a restive population, a divided establishment and an economy heading for deep recession?

Amir Taheri is an Iranian journalist and author

Iran election fraud...continued...I smell revolution, maybe.

strike in Vanak SQ, Tehran, Iran...after huge curroption in election's result by the current goverment. people fighting with anti riot forces. they are shouting for freedom.
"I'm really surprised and happy that even conservatives in USA are supporting the left-wing liberal protestors in Iran.

May Allah bless the protestors and help them prevail against the conservative puppet Ahmadinejad!"

Anger on the streets of Tehran

Riding around Tehran in dozen-strong posses, the groups of black-clad public order police on motorbikes looked like a bunch of Hells Angels in search of trouble.

By Colin Freeman in Tehran Telegraph
Published: 6:20PM BST 13 Jun 2009

And on Saturday afternoon, on the wide, treelined boulevard of Vali-asr Avenue in the city centre, they found it in spades, as tens of thousands of protesters, furious at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's questionable election victory, yelled a defiant cry in their faces: "Death to the dictator".

Vali-asr Ave stretches some 12 miles from the very north of Tehran to the very south, and is said to be the longest street in the Middle East. In the past week, however, it has also earned a different claim to fame – as the gathering point for supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the reformist challenger tipped to unseat Mr Ahmadinejad's in Friday's polls.

Yesterday, despite an official order banning demonstrations, it also became the venue for the biggest display of open defiance that the Iranian regime has seen in years. At midmorning, there were just a few hundred people there, with nervous-looking police dishing out beatings to any man or woman who attempted to loiter for any time.

But by lunchtime the crowds were growing, and by 4pm the streets were packed as far as the eye could see – mainly people in their 20s, but also their parents and even grandparents.

"People, come and support us," shouted the bolder groups, as the police started menacingly. Up went the cry, at first sporadic, but soon as a constant chant: "Marg Bar Dictator" (Death to the Dictator)
Then, as the protesters began to throw rocks, the police finally charged.

Yet as the Sunday Telegraph witnessed from the balcony of a nearby hotel, this was no ordinary public order exercise.

Having first badly beaten a few demonstrators who didn't escape in time, the riot squads went on a riot themselves, hurling rocks into the windows of nearby residential flats and smashing shop windows with their truncheons.

Joining them in their official vandalism were a number of civilians – believed to be basijis, the plain-clothes, pro-regime thugs that Iran's clerical regime deploys to both intimidate and mislead. Mousavi supporters who witnessed the destruction knew straightaway what tomorrow's Iranian newspaper headlines would be: "Reformists go on rampage."

"They were just vandalising everything and smashing windows, so that they could say publicly that it was the protesters' fault," said Abbas Mohammed, 26, watching in horror as the police laid into a woman protester. "This is their typical tactic."

By 6pm, as summer stormclouds gathered and lightning snaked down over the Alborz mountains that ring Tehran the crowds around Vali-asr Ave had dispersed. But in the distant streets, the sounds of further trouble could be heard, with demonstrators shouting and occasional bangs and crashes.

Palls of smoke rose up from side streets, while in shop entrances groups of demonstrators nursed people bleeding from truncheon wounds. Groups of basjis wandered around menacingly, clutching sticks of wood.

The police crackdown was chilling confirmation of last Wednesday's warning from a senior member of Iran's hardline Revolutionary that any attempt at a "Velvet Revolution" by Mr Mousavi's youthful supporters would be nipped firmly in the bud.

It was a sour end to a sour day, that had begun in the small hours of Saturday morning when Iran's interior ministry had announced that President Ahmadinejad had an unassailable lead in the vote. His victory came despite widespread predictions that he might head for a crashing defeat, amid widespread anger at his dismal economic policies and aggression towards the West.

Yet nobody in the reformist camp was that surprised at his 61.6 per cent showing. Why, they said, the authorities had simply rigged the vote again, just as they did in 2005, when Mr Ahmadinejad – then a virtual unknown – first came to power.

"There was a joke going around town that if there was no vote rigging, Mr Ahmadinejad would come fifth out of four candidates," said Mr Mohammed. "Now it doesn't seem so funny."

With no international observers present in Iran's elections, the supporters of Mr Mousavi know there is little chance that any alleged skulduggery will be revealed, never mind rectified. But as they chatted on the streets on Saturday, they noted all manner of suspicious things.

Why had Iran's text message system been switched off since Friday, the system they used to organise rallies? Why was the BBC Persian website blocked, along with a number of other reformist websites normally available? And most curious of all, why did Iran's official new agency announce early in the morning that Mr Ahmadinejad had already only won, when at that time, only 20 per cent of the vote had been counted?

Yet while the reformists might have lost the election on Saturday, the country's mullahs also seemed to have lost the confidence of their people.

The free and good-natured street campaigning last week generated a huge expectation that Iran was finally on the brink of a new era, with many comparing the vast pre-election crowds to those who greeted Ayatollah Khomeini when he arrived in Tehran to start the Islamic revolution in 1979.

But just as the optimism of that time quickly faded, so now has the optimism of last week. "I cannot see anybody wanting to participate in any kind of politics after this," said Mitra Khorshidi, 26, a government worker who attended last week's cheerful pro-Mousavi rallies. "But it has also been a defeat for the mullahs. They had a chance to regain the trust of the people and they lost it."

By 7pm, as trouble flared up yet again in Vali-asr Ave, and riot police laid into another female onlooker, word spread on the streets of another dubious official statement from the interior ministry. It declared that there had been "no post-election violence" in Tehran.

_______________

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States said Saturday it was monitoring reports of irregularities in Iran's hotly contested presidential race, in which hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared winner.
"Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a two-sentence statement.
"We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed hope the Iranian presidential vote would reflect voters' will.
"We hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people," the top US diplomat told reporters during a visit to Niagara Falls, Canada.

FOR SOME BACKGROUND:

Iran election results; Riots in street.

The final results of Iran's closely-contested 10th presidential election indicate that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a landslide victory.

"Of 39,165,191 votes counted (85 percent), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election with 24,527,516 (62.63 percent)," Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli told reporters on Saturday.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi came in second with 13,216,411 votes (33.75 percent), he added.

The two were followed by Mohsen Rezaei with 678,240 votes (1.73 percent) and Mehdi Karroubi with 333,635 votes (0.85 percent), the minister said.

He put the void ballots at 409,389 (1.04 percent).

Over 46 million Iranians aged 18 and older were eligible to vote in Friday's presidential election.

Source: Press TV

Clear cutting Tuna and a lesson in living.

Using one mile long nets to fish is the equivalent of shooting buffalo from a train. It is cutting every tree in the forest. If a one mile net is not ridiculous how about a ten mile net or a fifty mile net?

Just because something can be done, does not mean it should be. A true conservationist and a true conservative should object to the concept of pillaging a sustainable reproducible asset to extinction.

One life time does not make a universe. A happy man understands his short privilege at seeing and understanding life. He is inspired by the immensity of the universe in time and space. He is excited by the seasons and the God given bounty of life. A good man understands the gift, the blessing and the boundaries of decent stewardship.

Ahmadinejad to win in Iran

At 3:33 p.m. ET: Iran's official news agency, IRNA, says President Mahmoud Adhmadinejad "has secured victory in Iran election," Reuters reports, although rival Mir Hossein Mousavi has also claimed victory.

Official results are not expected until tomorrow.

Voting was extended six hours, to midnight, because of the huge turnout.




Ahmadinejad 'set for Iran victory'

Mousavi claimed victory shortly after
the polls closed on Friday [AFP]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's incumbent president, has taken a commanding lead in his bid for re-election with more than two-thirds of ballot boxes counted, Iran's interior ministry has said.

Ahmadinejad is currently ahead with 65.2 per cent of the 28 million ballots counted against 31 per cent for Mir Hossein Mousavi, his main rival, according to results released early on Saturday.

IRNA, Iran's official news agency, announced that Ahmadinejad had won re-election.

"Doctor Ahmadinejad, by getting a majority of the votes, has become the definite winner of the 10th presidential election," it reported.

Al Jazeera's Teymoor Nabili, reporting from Tehran, said: "The state media have declared victory for Ahmadinejad and he not only won, he blew Mousavi away."

Tehran celebrations

After the declaration, the president's supporters took to the streets of Tehran, waving Iranian flags and honking car horns.

"Where are the greens? In a mousehole," some of them said, referring to the campaign colours of Mousavi, whose supporters held mass rallies in recent weeks.

Mousavi had claimed victory just moments after polls closed on Friday.

"In line with the information we have received, I am the winner of this election by a substantial margin," he said. "We expect to celebrate with people soon."

But with the majority of votes counted according to Kamran Daneshjoo, chairman of the electoral commission at the interior ministry, the incumbent president had taken a seemingly unassailable lead.

Ahmadinejad had received 15,913,256 votes compared to 4,628,912 for Mousavi.

The two other candidates up for election, Mohsen Rezai, a former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and Mehdi Karroubi, an ex-parliament speaker - were set to finish a distant third and fourth with 470,549 votes and 212,855 votes respectively.

Al Jazeera's Nabili said that journalists following the elections have expressed surprise at the speed of vote counting.

"It does seem remarkably quick," he said. "But the explanation they are giving is that the counting has been going on throughout the day. They kept a running tally."

Latest reports show that 80 per cent of Iran's electorate voted in Friday's elections.

'Irregularity' claims

Mousavi alleged there had been irregularities in the voting, including a shortage of ballot papers.

He also accused the authorities of blocking text messaging, which his campaign has used to reach young voters.

Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Iran, told Al Jazeera: "There has been fraud alleged by the losing candidates in other Iranian elections and there has been good evidence produced that [it] actually happened.

"So one can't rule it out in this case. What is more important in the early stages is people's perceptions. If people perceive they were robbed that will stir up political passion in what is still a volatile country."

Scuffles broke out between police and chanting Mousavi supporters in a Tehran square early on Saturday, witnesses said. Police said they have increased security across the capital to prevent any trouble.

Never mind, Iranian woman are hot, hot, hot. Someday, maybe, I'll tell you my TWA story from Rome to Athens.

Petulant Queen of Mean, Barney Frank

Is it Ahmadinejad bye bye?

Ahmadinejad draws support mainly from the urban poor and rural areas, while his rivals, mostly Mir Hosssain Mousavi, have huge support among the middle classes and the educated urban population. There will most likely be a runoff election as any candidate must win 50% of the vote. That seems sensible to me.

Regardless, who ever wins, must pay the piper, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Jurist."

Recall the scenes of joyous crowds in Tieneman Square. The Iranian military and the mullahs do as well.

Palau wants Uighurs. Willing to take them for $12 million each.

U.S. Money May Have Swayed Palau to Take Uighur Gitmo Detainees

COMMENT: "You Reckon?"

Two U.S. officials reportedly said that the U.S. was prepared to give Palau up to $200 million in development, budget support and other assistance in return for accepting the Uighurs and as part of a mutual defense and cooperation treaty that is due to be renegotiated this year.

FOXNews.com
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Palau says its decision to temporarily take the 17 Uighurs, or Chinese Muslims, being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison was a "humanitarian gesture."

But the South Pacific island may have been motivated more by 200 million other reasons.

Two U.S. officials told the Associated Press that the U.S. was prepared to give Palau up to $200 million in return for accepting the Uighurs and as part of a mutual defense and cooperation treaty that is due to be renegotiated this year.

Figures on Palau's federal budget weren't immediately available, but if it is close to its size in 1999, when it was $71 million, the deal with the U.S. would in effect more than double the nation's spending and make it the fastest growing economy in the world.

In announcing the decision, Palau President Johnson Toribiong sounded as if the U.S. was doing his country a favor by sending the detainees there.

"I am honored and proud that the United States has asked Palau to assist with such a critical task," he said in a press release. "This is but a small thing we can do to thank our best friend and ally for all it has done of Palau."

But the move has riled some lawmakers.

"The Obama administration has still failed to present a credible plan for closing Guantanamo Bay by its self-imposed deadline, but paying $12 million per-head to send trained terrorists to an island paradise hardly seems like a good one," said Rep. Pete, Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

"There are many questions the administration must answer including what guarantees it has that the Uighurs will stay in Palau once freed and what plans are in place to keep them from linking up with the radical-jihaddist separatists operating a short distance away in Indonesia and on the Filipino island of Mindanao?

"Without solid answers to these questions, American is left with the first of many bad solutions to a problem solely of the administration's creation."

The 17 Uighurs are members of a Muslim group from China that received weapons training in Afghanistan so it could fight the Chinese government, according to U.S. officials. If they were sent back to China, U.S. officials worry they could face torture.

But the U.S. government has struggled to identify countries willing to accept the Uighurs. Now the Uighurs will join a population of nearly 20,000 and enjoy gorgeous weather in Palau where the average temperature is 81.6 degree.

The tiny nation, which has a GDP of nearly $170 million, relies heavily on tourism for revenues. More than 79,000 tourists visited last year and they spent $111.9 million in 2007.

Palau was once a trusteeship administered by the U.S. but it became independent in October 1994. The U.S. and Palau then entered into a Compact of Free Association, which a senior State Department official said plays no role in "any other discussions we might be having with the government of Palau."

Palauan citizens can travel to the U.S. without a visa and seek employment or education. It is unclear whether the Uighurs would enjoy the same perks once they are released.

The State Department did not return a call seeking comment, and no one in the Palauan government could be reached.

FOX News' Mike Levine and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Pignuts (thin shelled with very bitter nuts)

Young pignut hickories ready to go forth and multiply.

HatTip: Bobal, aka al-bob and of recent, Bard-I-Ho

Definitions of 'bitter pignut'

1. (noun) bitternut, bitternut hickory, bitter hickory, bitter pignut, swamp hickory, Carya cordiformis
hickory of the eastern United States having a leaves with 7 or 9 leaflets and thin-shelled very bitter nuts.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate foreign relations, tells Financial Times, Iran has right to uranium enrichment.

Right on cue, Kerry throws his weight behind the Obama opening to Iran. At a minimum Iran will be building nuclear power plants. Too bad the Democrats are not as enthusiastic for nuclear power plants in the US.

_______________

Senator opens Iran nuclear debate
By Daniel Dombey in Washington Financial Times
Published: June 10 2009 23:33 | Last updated: June 10 2009 23:33

One of the most senior Democrats in Washington has dismissed a key element in the west’s long standing strategy on Iran’s nuclear programme as “ridiculous”. His comments throw open the debate about how far the US and its partners should go in seeking a compromise with Tehran after on Friday’s presidential election.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee and the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee, told the Financial Times in an interview that Iran had a right to uranium enrichment – a process that can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material.

The US and the world’s other big powers have repeatedly demanded that Tehran suspend enrichment – a policy pioneered by the former Bush administration that has since been given the force of international law by successive United Nations Security Council resolutions.

“The Bush administration [argument of] no enrichment was ridiculous . . . because it seemed so unreasonable to people,” said Mr Kerry, citing Iran’s rights as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. “It was bombastic diplomacy. It was wasted energy. It sort of hardened the lines, if you will,” he added. “They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose.”

His comments come as Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, faces off against Mir-Hossein Moussavi, his main challenger in an increasingly intense re-election battle, with the first round of voting taking place on Friday. They also come amid increasing nervousness in Israel about the US stance on Tehran, in light of a series of warnings by Obama administration officials against an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which Washington believes would be counterproductive.

Enrichment – championed by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, but supported by almost all of Iran’s political class, with wide popular backing – is at the heart of the Iranian nuclear dispute.

Although the UN Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment date back to March 2006, Tehran has systematically accelerated its nuclear programme, producing 1.3 tonnes of low enriched uranium hexaflouride – more than enough, if further processed, for one nuclear device.

Mr Kerry argues that in the wake of the former Bush administration’s failure to enforce the “red lines” it set Iran, Barack Obama needs to build an international coalition around an enforceable demand that at the minimum would provide more information about the nature of Iran’s programme.

He added that he had sent Mr Obama his suggestions in a memo.

The president himself, who Mr Kerry helped rise to national prominence, has steered clear of specific statements favoured by former president George W. Bush over whether Iran should cease all enrichment. Instead he has stressed his goal of ensuring Tehran does not become a nuclear weapon state and called for negotiations, which Washington hopes will begin once the Iranian elections have concluded.

“We are willing to have direct negotiations with the Iranians . . . without preconditions,” Mr Obama said at the weekend, arguing Tehran needed to give the world confidence it was not seeking nuclear weapons.

Joke of the day: Pay as you Go.

It is a good thing that the US Press are unethical cowards and the US Public is to put it mildly, stupid. Will they buy this bullshit? Probably, but let me give the press a little hint. We have had pay as you go for many years. It is called the Social Security System. 

There has never been any money in social security. It has been financed by a regressive flat tax on employers and employees. That has been possible, because the country was rich enough to afford it, had a work ethic and had a credit rating to sustain it.

Pay as you go in social security mean that you actually had to work. Will health care be dependent on your working? Of course not. Pay as you go social security was work based not need based.

That will not be true under BO.

_________________

Free health care for all. Minorities lining up wish lists.

Minority lawmakers want bill to close health gaps
By BEN EVANS –AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Black, Latino and Asian lawmakers warned Democratic leaders that any health care overhaul that ignores health gaps between whites and minorities will face stiff opposition.
The lawmakers said they would be hard-pressed to support a bill without a new program providing access to health care for all Americans.

"The public health option has to be there," Rep. Mike Honda, a California Democrat who chairs the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said at a news conference. "If we don't have a public option, there's no discussion."
Republicans are resisting a government health insurance program that would compete with private insurance companies, arguing that the companies would be put at a competitive disadvantage.

Members of the Asian caucus, along with the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said they plan to introduce legislation this week that includes their wish list for broadening health care overhaul beyond various plans floated in the House and Senate. The three minority caucuses have a total of 91 members, most of them Democrats and enough to help shape the final legislation.

Citing federal research showing higher rates of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and infant mortality among minorities, they said they would seek more funds for community health centers that provide care in poor neighborhoods.

The lawmakers also called for expanding a National Institutes of Health center that focuses on minority health concerns, works to improve work force diversity in the medical industry and collects more data to better track disparities in health care.

They said the costs of reaching into low-income, minority communities to improve upfront health care would be more than offset in the long run by preventing expensive procedures and hospital stays.

"Believe me, a comprehensive health care reform bill without the aspects that we're discussing today will be set for failure," said Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New York Democrat who chairs the Hispanic caucus.

Later, at a discussion of minority health issues at the White House, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the Obama administration is committed to addressing the "alarming disparity in the delivery of quality health care."

Doing so, Sebelius told officials, is critical to lowering health care costs.

Sebelius noted that 75 percent of the nation's $2.2 trillion health care expenses go toward treating chronic diseases, referring to far higher rates of such diseases among minorities. She said the rising rates of HIV/AIDS among African-Americans is among "the most troubling" developments in U.S. health care.

"Minority Americans not only are more likely to be uninsured, so they don't have preventative care, don't have early intervention, but are less likely to have quality care when they come to seek the care that they need," she said.

The White House issued a summary report on minority health care showing that African-Americans are seven times more likely as whites to have HIV/AIDS, that blacks and Hispanics have diabetes rates nearly twice as high as whites, and that black men are 50 percent more likely than whites to have prostate cancer.

The report said more than one in three Hispanics and American Indians, and about one in five African-Americans, are uninsured. That compares to one in eight whites lacking coverage.

While the Michelle and Barack dazzle the press, 2 million lose jobs and one million lose their home.

"There's some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don't believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery act," he said. "Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying to come back to work."

Now that is compassion with change.

Obama's polling numbers are artificially held up by the world's largest Public Relations firm ever, the consolidated, amalgamated idolatrous US press.

I knew we were in the valley of deep dung when Baracko Boy took his shark skin suit for the first strut through Air Force One. "It's pretty nice," he told House Democrats in an after-dinner speech during the first days uptown. Sures beats shucking the Chrysler 300 in Chi.

"Hey man what's the sco?"

Well not too good, thanks for asking. $787 large spent and no one is counting. BO says, "good news" that it only took $135 billion obligated so far and that has saved or created "at least 150,000 jobs." Maybe.

I been looking at the man's face lately. It aint too good. Up tight and taut. This may be a short performance.

_______________________________ 

Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Obama to hurry recovery effort amid rising doubt

Jon Ward Washington Time

President Obama on Monday pushed to reinvigorate his $787 billion economic-stimulus program, promising to accelerate efforts to get money out the door, while dealing with critics who said some of his claims to create or preserve jobs have been exaggerated.

Mr. Obama said he was "not satisfied" with the results of the stimulus program so far, though he highlighted some of the achievements he said were the result of the massive spending bill, which he signed into law in mid-February.

He said it was "good news" that $135 billion obligated so far has saved or created "at least 150,000 jobs."

But with about 2 million jobs disappearing since the bill was enacted, White House officials conceded that their estimates of jobs "saved or created" were at best only blunting the pace of overall losses.

"Less bad is not good enough," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

A national poll released Monday showed that the public was losing confidence in Mr. Obama's handling of the economy. But the White House denied that Mr. Obama's effort to speed up the stimulus spending was a response to either growing anxiety about the program or its lackluster early performance.

Approval of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy has dropped from 59 percent in February to 55 percent, the USA Today-Gallup poll showed. More significantly, disapproval on the issue has gone up 12 percentage points to 42 percent.

The president, however, remains more popular than either of his two immediate predecessors at this point in his presidency, with a 67 percent overall approval rating.

Still, critics accused the White House with playing with numbers to make the stimulus appear more effective than it's been.

"The Obama administration is continuing to fabricate job-creation projections related to the stimulus," said Tony Fratto, a former George W. Bush administration official.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics - the only government agency counting jobs - cannot tell you how many Americans are working today. They cannot tell you how many Americans were working a month ago. And they cannot even tell you how many Americans, within 50,000, were at work when the stimulus was passed by Congress," Mr. Fratto said. "Without that information, there is no credible estimate for jobs 'created or saved.' "

Keith Hall, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, told Congress last week that it is "a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate" the Obama administration's projections of jobs "saved or created."

Jared Bernstein, an adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., called the Obama's team measurement "an estimate of how many jobs you believe you created."

The president's event at the White House on Monday, as he pivoted back to domestic policy after a trip to the Middle East and Europe, was intended to highlight "10 new major projects that will define the next three months," the White House said.

The projects include work at 107 national parks, 98 airports and 1,500 highway locations, and hiring or retaining 5,000 police officers - work designed to save or create 600,000 jobs. Mr. Obama said that all those jobs will be created or retained "over the next 100 days."

But 125,000 of those jobs - nearly 25 percent - are summer positions for youth, not full-time permanent employment, according to the White House.

Mr. Obama pledged in February that, all told, the stimulus package would save between 3 million and 4 million jobs.

Mr. Bernstein defended the administration's formula for its job numbers.

"This is an absolute, tried-and-true economic methodology," he said during a briefing with reporters at the White House. "There is simply no other way to make this kind of estimate."

But Republicans and conservative groups hammered the president, sensing a political opening.

"Today's announcement is an acknowledgment that the Democrats' trillion-dollar stimulus is not working, and the American people know it," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

The White House said its calculations project that every $92,000 of government spending creates one "job-year."

A May 11 report states that about two-thirds of that "job-year" is a direct or indirect benefit, such as a state worker being retained and not fired because of federal dollars being disbursed to state governments.

About one-third of each "job-year" is an "induced effect," the White House said, where tax cuts for consumers can create demand for products and allow businesses to hire or retain employees because of that demand.

Republicans pointed to the White House prediction in January that the unemployment rate would stay about 8 percent if Congress passed the stimulus package. The unemployment rate has risen to 9.4 percent.

Mr. Bernstein said that in January they had not yet learned of a massive 6 percent contraction in gross domestic product during the fourth quarter of 2008.

"At the time, our forecast seemed reasonable. Now, looking back, it was clearly too optimistic," he said.

The White House also faces questions over whether the massive spending program is still needed to stimulate an economy that administration analysts say is already beginning to show signs of recovery. Other analysts, however, warn that the stock market's recent gains may be a "bear rally," signaling another downturn ahead.

Some Republican lawmakers say they want to stop all $787 billion from being spent if the economy is on the mend, using the money instead to reduce federal debt and deficit levels.

The national debt is more than $11 trillion, and the deficit for the current fiscal year is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be almost $1 trillion. The country's debtors are increasingly anxious about the ability of the U.S. government to pay its debt with interest, and bond buyers have been driving up yields on long-term notes, making it more expensive for the Treasury to raise money.

Meeting with his Cabinet, the president on Monday gave a mixed review of the economy so far, stating that May job losses of 345,000 announced Friday were not as bad as expected but "still far too many." He also said that the United States is "still in the middle of a very deep recession, which is going to take a considerable amount of time to pull out of."

It was a different message from the one Mr. Obama offered at the end of May, when he cited the stock market's stabilization and other indicators as evidence that the economy had "stepped back from the brink."

Mr. Obama hit back at his critics Monday.

"There's some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don't believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery act," he said. "Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying to come back to work."

China demands computer makers install internet censoring software. Not our problem.

I have been back and forth on this, but have come to the conclusion that this is simply none of our business and not our problem. 

The US government restricts all sorts of things US manufacturers can and cannot do. It demands what ingredients can and cannot go into products that we eat, sleep in and drive.

What the Chinese do in their country is something that is for the Chinese to endure, accept or reject.

If the US wants to stop prohibitions on the internet, it can start by lifting the ban on online gambling.

______________

New China Web-Filtering Rules Still Murky

Researchers Caution 'Green Dam' Censorship Could Extend Beyond Pornographic Sites


By GEOFFREY A. FOWLER and BEN WORTHEN, Wall Street Journal

Computer makers and researchers are seeking answers to questions about Internet filtering software that the Chinese government is requiring PC manufacturers to ship with computers sold in the country beginning next month.

The software -- dubbed "Green Dam-Youth Escort" -- could give government censors additional control over the information that Chinese Internet users see online.

Though the company that makes Green Dam, China-based Jinhui Computer System Engineering Co., has said it is designed to let parents block access to Web content inappropriate for children, Internet freedom advocates have questioned whether it could be used to block politically sensitive sites, given China's history of censoring Web content.

The software works similarly to models long used by companies that sell security and parental-control software. Such programs come with a "black list" of Web sites that have previously been categorized as pornographic, violent, or containing hate speech, as well as words or combinations of words that appear on such sites. Each time a user tries to visit a Web site the address is checked against the list. When a Web site is blocked, a message will appear saying it contains prohibited content.

Jinhui founder Bryan Zhang says the company compiles the list of sites to be blocked, which he says is limited to pornography. The software also could be used to block other types of content and collect private data -- but he says the company had no reason to do so.

Seth Young, spokesman for the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, said initial testing indicated that the system only blocked pornography and not politically sensitive Web sites. However, he cautioned that the list of blocked sites could be changed in the future.

Such software is usually programmed to receive updates via the Web to the black list at regular intervals. The computer owner doesn't need to do anything to load these updates, which are delivered directly from the software publisher to the computer.

An important question for computer manufacturers -- facing a July 1 deadline to comply with the order -- is whether installation of the software is mandatory. The order from China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology mandating the software left vague whether it had to be pre-installed on a computer or simply distributed on a CD with the computer.

The agency also didn't specify what penalty companies might face if they don't comply.

It also remains unclear whether the software can be turned off, or circumvented. Mr. Zhang said the software could be uninstalled, but requires a password to do so in order to make it difficult for children to uninstall it themselves. He also said blocked sites can be accessed either with a password set by the software's administrator, or by adding addresses to a "white list" of allowed sites. Similarly, addresses can be added to the black list on the user's hard drive.

The two largest U.S. PC makers, Hewlett-Packard Co., and Dell Inc., said they were evaluating the software. A spokesman for Dell said the company is still "working to understand the application."

Last year, researchers discovered that a Chinese version of eBay Inc.'s Skype Internet calling software contained the ability to block politically sensitive words in instant messaging chats, and to keep a record of the use of such words.

—Loretta Chao and Amy Schatz contributed to this article.

Write to Geoffrey A. Fowler at geoffrey.fowler@wsj.com and Ben Worthen at ben.worthen@wsj.com

The surplus economies of China, Japan, and Germany to be shattered?

Merkel's inflationary fretting may wake the bears from hibernation

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Telegraph

It is lonely in the diminishing camp of bears, says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.


Published: 10:11PM BST 06 Jun 2009

Those of us who still question whether the world has purged its toxins are reduced to the same tiny band of moaning Druids from early 2007, when we shook our heads in disbelief as the carry trade swept Iceland to fresh madness and bankers laughed off sub-prime rot at Bear Stearns.

We learned then to thicken our skins with walnut juice, lie down in dark rooms, and dissent from Goldman Sachs. Such seclusion is called for once again as Goldman replays its BRIC anthem and raises its oil forecast to $85 a barrel this year, betting that the world will roar back on a tidal wave of liquidity.

It is perhaps unkind to mention that Goldman issued a $200 call at the top of the speculative frenzy last year, just before oil crashed, but they have broad shoulders.

Note that Total's Jean-Jacques Mosconi said markets are awash with so much crude that almost 100m barrels (a near record) are stored on tankers at sea. Note too that May electricity use fell 10pc in China's industrial hub of Guangdong from a year earlier. This is revealing, given that China's fiscal boost has reached peak and will fade later this year.

For guidance on where we are in this long-drawn saga, I look to Berkeley's Barry Eichengreen, author of the Great Depression classic Golden Fetters – which avoids the error of viewing the 1930s through a US prism.

He has crunched the latest data with Trinity College Dublin's Kevin O'Rourke for VoxEU, concluding that the global rupture over the last nine months has been more violent than in the early slump. This is logical. Global debt leverage is much greater this time.

The fall in industrial output has been roughly equal to the 1929-1930 stage for Germany and the Anglo-Saxons, but worse for Japan, France, Italy, and Eastern Europe. The collapse in world trade has been swifter: the global equity crash has been twice as bad. "It's a depression alright. The good news is that the policy response is very different. The question now is whether that response will work," they said.

The elastic was bound to snap back, just as it did in the bear rally of early 1931. Whether the underlying economy has begun to heal is another matter. World Bank chief economist Justin Yifu Lin said capacity utilization is running at an historic low of 50pc-60pc. Companies will have to fire a lot of workers. This is where the danger lies, and why he fears that deflation is creeping up on us.

Trade data from Asia are flashing warning signals again. Korea's exports were down 28.3pc in May, reversing the April rebound. Malaysia has slipped to -26pc, and India has touched a new low of -33pc.

US freight data is getting worse, not better. The Association of American Railroads said traffic was down 22pc in the third week of May from a year earlier. Canadian freight was down 34pc.

The American Trucking Association (ATA) said it saw fresh drops of 4.5pc in March and a further 2.2pc in April. Tonnage is down 13pc over 12 months. Bob Costello, the ATA's chief economist, said companies have not cut inventories fast enough to keep pace with declining sales. The contraction in truck volume has "accelerated".

Yes, the Baltic Dry Index for bulk shipping of resources has quadrupled since January, but this reflects China's bid to stockpile metals while prices are low.

Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley's Far East chief, fears an "Asian Relapse", saying the region is prisoner to its fatal dependency on exports to the West. The export share of GDP has risen from 36pc to 47pc across developing Asia over the last decade.

"China's incipient rebound relies on a time-worn stimulus formula: upping the ante on infrastructure spending in anticipation of an eventual rebound of global demand," he said. The strategy cannot work this time because Americans have exhausted their credit, and their desire to borrow. Consumption will fall from its peak of 72pc of GDP to the "pre-bubble norm" of 67pc, if not more.

David Rosenberg from Gluskins Sheff expects Americans to retrench ferociously as 78m baby boomers face the looming threat of penury in old age. "The big story is that the personal savings rate hit a 15-year high of 5.7pc in April. I believe it could test the post-War peak of 15pc. Too many pundits are still living in the old paradigm of Americans shopping till they drop," he said.

If he is right, this will shatter the surplus economies of China, Japan, and Germany, unless they adjust fast to the new world order. Germany does not even seem to understand the problem it faces. Chancellor Angela Merkel lashed out last week at quantitative easing by the Fed, the Bank of England, and the European Central Bank, repeating the silly mantra that this will set off an inflationary storm.

How can it do so when the velocity of circulation has collapsed, and unemployment is rising everywhere? The Fed's "monetary multiplier" ended last week at 0.867, half its average of 1.7 over the last decade. The credit mechanism is still broken. This is what happened in Japan in its Lost Decade.

The ECB says the eurozone economy will contract until mid-2010, at best. Germany's trade association (Wirtschaftsverbände) warned Mrs Merkel last week that the credit drought threatens to become "life-threatening by the summer at the latest".

The list of countries in deflation is growing every month: Ireland (-3.5), Thailand (-3.3), China (-1.5), Switzerland (-1), Spain (-0.8), the US (-0.7), Singapore (-0.7), Taiwan (-0.5), Belgium (-0.4), Japan (-0.1), Sweden (-0.1), Germany (0).

Yet markets seem to think otherwise, and this has its own awful consequences. Inflation fears have driven 10-year US Treasury yields to 3.86pc, a full point above levels in March when the Fed intervened to force rates down. US mortgage rates have jumped to 5.29pc. Gilts have reached 3.92pc, and French 10-year bonds are at 4.05pc.

This bond revolt is enough to bring any global recovery to a shuddering halt. The irony is that those fretting loudest about inflation may themselves tip us into outright deflation, with all the perils of a debt compound trap. It is Angela Merkel who plays with fire.

Obama in an Islamic Wonderland.

We all enjoy fairy tales. Some of us are good at telling them. Enjoying a fairy tale from a clever teller of them is a big leap to believing in them. Seriously, Will anyone buy this toffee?

You betcha.

______________________________

Obama's Challenge to the Muslim World

Washington Post

The historic significance of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. Obama directly enlisted a religion to build global peace and to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, end nuclear proliferation and stop terrorism.

In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the "Clash of Civilizations," which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved.

Perhaps most important, he put religion at the core of the peacemaking process. For too long, Americans had come to fear Islam as an intolerant, violent religion. Obama cited examples from the Quran that belied those stereotypes. He emphasized the core similarities among Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

"Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism," he said. "It is an important part of promoting peace."

To Muslims, that was a powerful statement. "Islam is the solution" is the mantra of many Muslims. They believe their religion can and does solve problems. Now they have the leader of the most powerful nation on earth agreeing with them and seeking their help. He is challenging them to live up to Islam's ideals, just as he insisted that the United States must live up to its own ideals.

He captured the attention of Muslims because, unlike most politicians, he was willing to critique both his own country and Muslims where they fell short of their ideals.

The question now is whether Muslim governments and warring factions can embrace the true meaning of Islam.

For each of the problems Obama cited -- American occupation in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the spread of nuclear weapons, development of democracy, religious freedom, women's rights and economic development -- Islam presents a solution.

Islam denounces suicide of any sort, especially suicide bombings that kill innocents. Even in a defensive war sanctioned by Islamic law, suicide is expressly forbidden.

As Obama pointed out, the Holy Quran says that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind. Adherence to Islam would end indiscriminate firing of missiles from Gaza into Israel that kill innocents.
Islam certainly opposes Muslims killing Muslims, which has been the staple of the dispute between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias as well as in Pakistan and Darfur.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Islamic jurists ruled that under Islamic law those type of attacks did not fall under the norms of a just war.

Even top clerics and government officials in the Islamic Republic of Iran concede that Islam prohibits nuclear weapons because they kill indiscriminately.

Islam supports democracy with government run by consent of the people. A Shariah-compliant state owes its existence to the will of the people and is subject to control by them. The Prophet Muhammad himself said, "The hand of God is on the majority."

Religious freedom is at the core of Islam. The Quran expressly and unambiguously prohibits the coercion of faith because that violates a fundamental human right - the right to a free conscience. The Quran says in one place "There shall be no compulsion in religion." And in another it says, "To you your beliefs and to me, mine."

The Prophet Muhammad has been known as the first feminist. "The best of you are those who are best to their women," he said. Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief. The Qur'an makes no difference in the religious obligations of men and women and set the stage for women's rights. Many of the limits placed on women in Muslim societies are due to local custom more than to Islamic teaching.

If using these Islamic principles, peace can be found in the region, Palestinians and Israelis can find accommodation, and Muslims can stop killing Muslims in Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, then the economic aid Obama promised can lead to a flourishing economy. Dubai and Kuala Lumpur have shown us the way.

By embracing Islam in the peacemaking process, Obama has laid down a challenge to Muslims. Live up to the tenets of our religion, embrace Shariah law as conceived by the Prophet, and see what happens.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, an independent, non-partisan and multi-national project that seeks to use religion to improve Muslim-West relations. (www.cordobainitiative.org) He is the author of "What's Right with Islam is What's Right With America."

D-Day

Hitting back at your enemy is not contrary to my American ideals.

...9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year...

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace." - Barrack Hussein Obama, Cairo

Speak for yourself, Barack Hussein Obama.

Natural Growth of Israeli Settlements or Illegal Taking of Palestinian Land?

To my way of thinking the argument is irrelevant to hard facts: Israel and Palestine share the same land. 

The Arab population, by weight of demography, will overwhelm the Jews. In a democracy, the Jews have the same problem as the American Republicans; there are simply too many of the others and they are growing faster.

The irony is that expanding Israeli settlements only increases the Arab population within Israeli borders.  The expanding settlements hasten the day when Jews become the minority in Israel.

Without a compromise acceptable to both sides, democracy or the minority loses. If Israel gives up on democracy, Israel loses. If Israel devolves into a pluralistic society with a majority Arab population, it ceases to be a Jewish state and ceases to be Israel.

No nice words or pretty speeches are going to resolve this mess. No defiance from Israeli hard-liners will be sustainable over time.  

The settlements should stop if Israel wants to survive. 

If I were a cynic, I would  suggest something far more polite and acceptable, a quiet policy of Jewish gentrification of poorer Arab neighborhoods in Israel proper.   It is Israel's problem to make better or worse.

______________________

Some in Congress uneasy with Obama's Mideast policy

Democrats say they strongly support the peace initiative, but some have voiced anxiety about the president's call for a freeze on Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank.

By Paul Richter and Richard Boudreaux LA Times
June 4, 2009

Reporting from Washington and Jerusalem -- Key U.S. lawmakers whose support is crucial to the Obama administration's Middle East peace effort are showing signs of unease with the administration's aggressive approach to Israel.

Though they strongly support the peace initiative, many say they want the White House to back off its demand that the Israeli government halt all growth in Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. Some members of Congress are also unhappy that the Obama administration has gone public in its dispute with Israel.

Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House foreign affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said focusing on settlement activity "detracts" from top U.S. goals in the region. However, he added: "I do not support a settlement freeze that calls on Israeli families not to grow, get married, or forces them to throw away their grandparents. Telling people not to have children is unthinkable and inhumane."

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) told reporters Wednesday that "we have to be careful not to cross the line where it sounds like we are exerting overwhelming pressure . . . on our rather isolated ally."

Congress has always been a pivotal player on Mideast policy. When Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush pressed Israel for concessions, Israeli leaders turned to their allies in Congress, who in turn brought pressure on the White House.

This year, the Democratic Congress has been strongly on the side of the popular new president's Middle East policy, and the Israeli leadership appears to be in a weaker position. When new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington last month, top lawmakers told him that rapid settlement growth was hurting Israel's cause, and urged him to slow it down, lawmakers said.

Yet ripples of concern are radiating through Congress and pro-Israeli organizations.

The disagreement seemed to sharpen in the last week, as President Obama called for a freeze on settlement growth. Israeli officials have complained that the administration was not recognizing secret oral agreements they say the George W. Bush administration reached with Israel to permit some expansion.

Palestinians and moderate Arab governments have made it clear that nothing short of a full freeze would satisfy them.

Though U.S. lawmakers and many advocacy groups continue to stand with Obama, there are hints that that position could shift.

The lawmakers "are feeling cross-pressured," said Steven J. Rosen, a former senior official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobby. "Lots of Democrats have long wanted to see less settlement activity, so they're not inclined to intervene in a fight in defense of settlements. Yet there's no love for the theory that the United States should try to dictate to Israel its policies."

Last month, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) collected 329 signatures on a letter that urged the administration to keep disagreements with Israel private, and to leave negotiations to the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the settlement question "is pretty much an isolated issue" and that the U.S. and Israel broadly agree on matters such as Iran's nuclear program and dealings with Palestinian militant groups.

He said the administration was justified in focusing on the settlements, since their growth puts in doubt for some Palestinians the possibility that they will ever have their own viable state. Even so, Berman said, he believes it is "not reasonable" to deny all settlement growth.

Israeli and U.S. officials continue seeking middle ground in almost daily conversations, yet the rift continues to grow.

Israeli officials say they have gone public on the secret oral deal during the Bush era to clear up the impression that Israel has "hoodwinked the world" on the settlements.

A senior Israeli official said Israel had followed the terms of the 2003 peace plan supported by the U.S. called the "road map" -- not appropriating new Palestinian land, not building new settlements, not providing new financial incentives for Israelis to move to the West Bank. But he said the deal permitted some "natural growth" in existing settlements.

"When Israel committed to the road map, it was based on private understandings," the official said. "It's hard for the United States to come and say, 'You have made these commitments,' but to ignore the understandings."

Elliott Abrams, a Bush administration official who took part in 2003 talks preceding the road map agreement, supported the Israeli arguments in an op-ed article that appeared April 8 in the Washington Post. He wrote that the Israelis had "largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted" and aimed at permitting growth with only limited impact on Palestinians.

Who will win, Obama and US Socialists or Chinese Capitalists?

If any one of the people at this work bench lose a job, none of them will be on CNN two years later saying they cannot find a job.


The Chinese are ascending from two hundred years of bad political and economic policies. A six day, sixty hour work week is not unusual and they save 30-40% of what they earn. The average Chinese believes in hard work and individual effort. They have to, there is no generous Chinese safety net for laid-off Chinese workers.

Compare that with the Obama fashionable collective thinking of the majority of US voters. There is no affirmative action in China. You work or get fired. You make money or go out of business. So sorry.

__________________________ 

The trillion dollar question: China or America?

Who is going to come out of the economic crisis stronger and with the whip hand - China or America, asks Niall Ferguson.

By Niall Ferguson Telegraph
Published: 7:27PM BST 01 Jun 2009

Two years ago, economist Moritz Schularick and I coined the word "Chimerica" to describe what we saw as the key relationship in the then-booming global economy: China plus America. Cheap Chinese labour was making US corporations highly profitable. Spendthrift American consumers, in turn, were keeping Chinese corporations busy with export orders. And the Chinese monetary authorities were converting export surpluses into dollar denominated reserves with the aim of preventing their own currency from appreciating. The unintended consequence was a multi-billion dollar credit line to the United States, financing America's deficit at rock-bottom rates.

It was those low long-term rates – combined with monetary policy errors by the Fed, excessive bank leverage and reckless financial engineering – that inflated the American property bubble, the bursting of which triggered this crisis.

To simplify the story, think of an unhappy marriage in which one partner does all the saving, while the other does all the spending. (We all know at least one couple like that.) But then the partner with the retail therapy habit maxes out on his/her credit cards. At the same time, the parsimonious partner finds her/his job under threat. What previously was a stable relationship is suddenly on the rocks.

In February, the People's Daily acknowledged the "global importance and influence" of Chimerica, but warned of an impending "period of chillness". Could this be one of those great turning points in history, when the balance of power tilts decisively away from an established power and towards a rising challenger? It is possible. Financial crises often accelerate the gradual shifting of the geopolitical tectonic plates; they are to history what earthquakes are to geology.

It was inflation that undermined the foundations of Habsburg power and opened the way for the Dutch Republic. It was the disastrous Mississippi Bubble of 1718-19 that fatally weakened ancien régime France, while Britain survived the contemporaneous South Sea Bubble with its fiscal system intact. For most of the nineteenth century, financial crises in the United States had only marginal effects on the City of London. By 1907, however, a Wall Street crash could send a shockwave across the entire British Empire, a harbinger of a new era of American power.

Something similar may be happening as a consequence of the American financial crisis that began nearly two years ago. The flapping of a butterfly's wings may trigger a hurricane in the Home Counties; in much the same way, a crisis in the market for subprime mortgages could signal the waning of US hegemony and the advent of a Chinese century. Just visit the nearest bookshop if you don't believe me. There, alongside Fareed Zakaria's prophetic The Post-American World, you'll soon find Martin Jacques's darkly visionary When China Rules the World.

Just consider the impact of this crisis on the United States and China. According to the International Monetary Fund, the US economy will contract by 2.8 per cent this year – while China's is forecast to grow by more than 6 per cent.

The US stimulus package – worth $787 billion – has had rather a muted impact. The economy will do better in the current quarter than in the last one. But house prices are still falling at close to 20 per cent year on year. The rate of foreclosures per month is still rising. And a crisis in commercial real estate could blow a new hole in the balance sheets of US banks.

Moreover, no amount of stimulus can swiftly reduce the debt burden weighing down America's over-leveraged consumers. According to Bank Credit Analyst research, for household debt to return to a more sustainable level, real consumer spending would need to grow at no more than 1.3 per cent a year between now and 2013. If that calculation is correct, the Obama administration will have to junk its predictions of 3 per cent growth next year and 4 per cent the year after that.

China's stimulus is worth less in dollar terms – $585 billion – but Beijing is clearly getting more bangs for its bucks. In April, fixed investment surged by nearly 34 per cent. Net imports of iron ore leapt by a third, and imports of oil by just under 14 per cent. It's a measure of China's new economic influence that commodity traders attribute much of the recent upward pressure on oil, copper and other raw material prices to Chinese purchases. Indeed, China's growing presence in commodity markets in sub-Saharan Africa and South America – not just as a buyer, but also as an investor – has an almost imperial character to it.
Of course, China has not been wholly unscathed by the astonishing collapse of exports that struck Asian economies in late 2008 and early 2009. Many more Chinese than American workers have lost their jobs since this crisis began. Yet I do not believe (as some Sino-pessimists do) that the regime in Beijing faces a serious threat of social unrest. Like other rising powers in past centuries, China is imbued with a remarkable sense of patriotism that is not just a product of Communist Party propaganda. People are proud of their country's economic miracle over the past 30 years. After two wretched centuries, they believe China is on the way back. People whose grandparents survived the Great Leap Forward and whose parents endured the Cultural Revolution can surely cope with a decline in the growth rate from 11 to 6 per cent.

In short, it may be time to start believing the projections made by Jim O'Neill and his colleagues at Goldman Sachs, who predicted just a few years ago that China's gross domestic product could equal that of the United States by 2027. Three years ago, China did not have a single bank among the world's top 20, measured by market capitalisation. Today the top three are all Chinese. In 2006, the United States had seven of the top 20 banks, including the top two; today it has three, and the biggest, JP Morgan Chase, is rated fifth.

Even before its economy becomes the world's biggest, China can play a much more assertive role in its relations with the United States. The spouse with the money generally wins the argument, after all. Especially when the argument is about the other spouse's debts.

And what debts! The US federal government's deficit this year will be $1.84 trillion – roughly half of total expenditure and nearly 13 per cent of GDP. Not since the Second World War has the gap between income and spending been so huge. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office anticipates that total debt will nearly double in the decade ahead. With the lion's share (around 70 per cent) of their $2 trillion of international reserves held in the form of US bonds, the Chinese are understandably alarmed by this tsunami of red ink. Last week's financial market action – which saw both bonds and the dollar drop sharply – will have caused palpitations in Beijing.

To be sure, China is still piling up those dollar-denominated bonds. In March alone, China's holdings of US Treasuries rose $23.7 billion. But Deutsche Bank recently predicted that Chinese reserves will rise by only $100 billion this year, compared with $418 billion last year. You don't need a Nobel prize in economics to know that $100 billion won't finance much of a $1.84 trillion deficit.

We know pretty much what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is hearing in Beijing this week because the Chinese have been grumbling about American profligacy for months. "We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States," Wen declared in March. "Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am a little bit worried." Soon after that, on the eve of the G20 Summit in London, the Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochun proposed that the US dollar might eventually be replaced as the world's main reserve currency.

"The United States is making policy decisions purely according to domestic considerations and is giving little thought to the outside world," complained Zhang Ming, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in April. "This being so, the Chinese government should prepare its defences. We can keep buying US debt but we have to attach some conditions."
The big question is: what conditions? For Mr Geithner knows the truth of the old adage: when you owe the bank a small amount, the bank has the power. But when you owe the bank a huge amount, it's the other way round. Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission, put it nicely in an interview back in February: "Except for US Treasuries, what can you hold? US Treasuries are the safe haven. For everyone, including China, it is the only option. We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion to $2 trillion [of bonds] we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys, but there is nothing much we can do."

"We hate you guys?" Now that really does have the ring of marital breakdown. Let's hope Mr Geithner is good at ducking crockery. Like divorces, major shifts in the balance of power are seldom amicable.

Niall Ferguson's 'The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World' is published in paperback by Penguin this week

Does the Government investment in the car industry make sense?

The Obama administration's commitment of $30 billion on Monday to General Motors Corp. as it files for bankruptcy, brings the total amount of funds allocated and promised to the auto industry to $110 billion, including bailout capital and funds to be made available for green car component suppliers. Does that make sense?

Possibly.

When BMW built a new plant in South Carolina, 17 years ago , BMW promised 2,000 direct jobs and $500 million in capital investment. By early 2008, the company reported that it had 5,400 full-time jobs at the 1,150-acre site. More than $5 billion had been invested (in 2007 dollars), much more than originally promised. In March 2008, BMW announced it would invest $750 million more in South Carolina, taking production capacity to 240,000 units by 2012. The new investment will augment the plant size to 4 million square feet.

Chrysler has less than 30,000 UAW workers. GM has 70,000. A little math and we have 100,000 active members. Remember the $110 billion figure committed to the auto industry? That is ONE MILLION DOLLARS per job. BMW created 5400 jobs with $5 billion. That is one million dollars per job.

BMW produces 45 cars per job or $1.8 million in production per worker.

GM and Chrysler should be able to meet that.

Blonde Day in Latvia.

Blondes march in Latvia 'to cheer-up nation'

Several hundred blonde women marched through the Latvian capital Riga yesterday in a bid to cheer up the crisis-hit Baltic nation, suffering the worst recession of all 27 EU member states.

Last Updated: 5:33PM BST 31 May 2009 Telegraph

Led by an orchestra, the first-ever blonde parade featured women dressed in pink and white, some accompanied by lapdogs, in a charity fund-raising event that organisers hope will become an annual event.

"I'm not stupid. I'm beautiful and I'll prove it," Ilona Zigure, a participant, said.

Organisers said they were determined to bring positive energy to their country, expected to see its economy contract by 16 per cent this year.

The parade was part of a "Blonde Weekend" which also featured a blonde golf tournament, a little lady fashion show, an evening ball, and a children's drawing competition.

"It's a great time to spend in the parade and contribute to a charity," said Ieva, one blonde spectator.

"Finally something different, something positive because I'm tired of hearing about the crisis," said another, 70-year-old Ausma.

The event attracted many locals and puzzled tourists.

Following the parade, blondes climbed into open-topped cars and drove to the local shopping centre.
The money collected during the event will be donated to support children's safety and playgrounds for disabled children in Riga and across Latvia.

The organisers want to make May 31 official Blondes' Day in Latvia.

Latvia, a small Baltic nation with the population of 2.3 million people has been going through the deepest recession in the European Union, which it joined in 2004.

"As goes General Motors, so goes the nation."

Doug said...
The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M.-

And now, from the mold of the Novice in Chief...
Outrageous.
Everybody acts like the Company that was selling as many vehicles Worldwide as Toyota was on the ropes, in every way hopelessly uncompetitive.
(1 - 2, or 2 - 1)
When in fact, they were doing just fine, except for "Legacy Costs"

BHO Could have taken his and Rufus's Experiment in Healthcare out on the UAW "workers" at our expense (far cheaper than BHO OneCare for the nation)

...and let GM drop that anchor, hire some real labor, and get on with business.
Instead, we'll get something that makes TARP look like a beauty queen.
...and lose one of the World's Great Automakers.

Sun May 31, 11:47:00 PM EDT
_________________________________________


Cutting through all the bullshit, here is a sample of some of what killed GM.

Social Management GM

Diversity Management

Throughout GM, our Diversity Initiative is the process of creating and maintaining an environment that naturally enables our employees, dealers, suppliers and communities to achieve their fullest potential. We believe that diversity is the collective mixture of similarities and differences. This recognizes that managing diversity includes race and gender as well as the broader aspects of age, education level, family status, language, military status, physical abilities, religion, sexual orientation, union representation, and years of service.

We believe that workforce diversity adds to competitive advantage. As a global employer, we understand that working with a diverse group of individuals with differing backgrounds and perspectives, creates and maintains competitive advantage and assists in achieving global success. Through our Diversity Initiatives we seek to create an environment that optimizes the contributions of our diverse work force, our suppliers, customers, and the communities where we work. We recognize that it is essential that our work force structure reflects both the marketplace and our customers.

This program made enormous strides in 2000 with a number of exciting changes and improvements. With a new look, due to the development and marketing of a brand for diversity, Diversity Initiatives is fast becoming a very recognizable part of the corporation.

With the introduction of an additional core value — Individual Respect and Responsibility — our goal in 2001 is to integrate Diversity Initiatives further into the company and to engage with management. Support for this sixth core value is demonstrated on a Diversity E-card entitled, It's What's Inside that Matters. Our Diversity E-card is a multimedia CD-ROM that provides an overview of our current Diversity Strategies. The E-card was distributed to all North American GM Executives in March 2001. Diversity is also being aligned with the corporate "GoFast!" initiative, and the "GoFast!" principle is expressed through the logo with the words, "Many People, One GM, NOW."