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."