E-khmer, Khmer News, World news

Rasmussen: Tea party tops GOP on generic Congressional ballot

2009-12-08T05:18:00.002+03:00

Rasmussen has a warning shot across the bow of Republicans who may be feeling smug about the recent lead taken by the GOP in the generic Congressional ballot. Most people presumed that the sudden reversal had more to do with Democrats than Republicans. However, when offered a chance at a third party comprised of Tea Party protesters, Republicans fare worse than the alternative — and Democrats win:

Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.

Fortunately, there is no such thing as a Tea Party, er, Party, which Rasmussen asked respondents to assume when answering this survey. It would take too long to form such a party, and as the results above show, it would be a self-defeating process, especially in 2010. A split on the Right would produce another Democratic victory at a moment when Congress desperately needs a course correction from its radical, statist path.

The news here is not good at all for Republicans, however. Even registered GOP voters split 39/33 on whether to vote for a generic candidate from their own party. This reflects the damage done to the GOP during 2001-6, when voters thought they were electing small-government, fiscal-restraint politicians, and wound up instead with porkers who spent hand over fist. Democrats don’t have that same kind of problem; they have 71% of their voters locked in to the party, with only 7% favoring the Tea Party brand. Independents, as noted above, are even less enamored of the GOP, favoring the Tea Party 33/12, with 25% going Democrat.

The key in 2010 is to have the GOP represent the Tea Party brand, and the only way to do that is to firmly insist on fiscal restrain and reduction of government as the platform for the election. The Right needs to put aside all of its usual hobby horses and focus on the message from the Tea Party movement. If they need an excuse, call it a moment of national crisis as the Democrats attempt a takeover of the health-care and energy industries. The next election has to be fought on those narrow terms in order to bring the GOP into line with the tea-party momentum and unite against what is clearly a fringe progressive movement to massively expand an already-broke government.

If the Republican Party can do that, these generic numbers will become formidable. If not, expect another cycle of loss and frustration.

Update: Tom Maguire gets the zinger of the day: “Tea baggers on top in a three way.”world news

White House: Obama to accept Nobel as a “war president”

2009-12-08T05:17:00.002+03:00

I’m intrigued. Tom Friedman wrote a column back in October calling on him to accept the award in the name of the U.S. military — a “peacekeeper’s prize,” as Friedman put it — and while I doubt The One will go quite that far, it sounds like he’s planning something like that. Having Captain Hopenchange take the stage at Oslo and shock the congregation of doves with a tribute to peace through strength would be the most surreal moment of his presidency thus far. And probably the finest.

There’ll be no effort by Barack Obama to disguise or obscure the fact that he’s a war president when he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Thursday…

The judges said they selected Mr. Obama to honor “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

But asked specifically if Mr. Obama will be accepting the Nobel Peace Prize as a war president, spokesman Gibbs was unambiguous. “Exactly,” he stated bluntly. And he will mention Afghanistan in his acceptance speech…

“If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan,” said Mr. Obama [in his speech at West Point]. “I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.”

He can be expected to argue that the U.S. is escalating in Afghanistan in the cause of peace.

The media’s already starting to grumble that his generals are leading him around by the nose, and Petraeus told Fox News just yesterday that The One finally admitted during their deliberations that the surge in Iraq was a success (not surprising, given that they’re emulating it now for Afghanistan). Imagine the reaction on the left if he goes hawkish during his Nobel speech, of all things. Good lord.

Speaking of Afghanistan, take five minutes and watch the video of Fox News’s scoop tonight about an exit-strategy memo circulating at the Pentagon and within NATO. Most of it is unsurprising — the handover to Afghans will be piecemeal, district by district — but the the timeline is big news: If this plan is adopted, the July 2011 withdrawal will be every bit the token gesture we suspect it is. Then, when you’re done with the clip, read this gripping analysis at CBS of McChrystal’s skills as a general, especially the details on his adaptability as head of America’s hunter-killer teams in Iraq. Quote: “If anyone can pull it off, it’s Stan.” Click the image to watch.world news

Video: The obligatory “SNL goofs on Tiger getting beat up” clip

2009-12-08T05:16:00.001+03:00

It’s nice to see the media in high dudgeon over this given the tendency to treat domestic violence as male-on-female only, but I have to confess: This didn’t bother me 1/100th as much as it would have if the golf club was wrapped around a woman’s head. Whether that’s because I’m inured to the cartoonish image of the angry wife chasing her husband with a frying pan or because the strength disparity between the genders makes it hard to grasp the danger at a gut level, I don’t know. But let the record show that whatever happened that night outside Tiger’s house, he was hurt bad by it. How bad? This bad:

When Tiger Woods was brought to the Health Central Hospital in Ocoee, Fla., his condition was more serious than previously reported. According to a person with knowledge of Woods’ hospital admission, the star golfer had to be admitted directly to the hospital’s intensive care unit, where he was immediately intubated and his breathing stabilized.

Also, there’s clarification about the police interview with Woods’ neighbors, who called 911. At the time of the 911 call, neighbor Jarius Lavar Adams told dispatchers that Woods was asleep on the lawn, snoring. “Although the body can snore in any state of unconsciousness, it’s unlikely he was snoring,” said the source. “That was the sound of an airway that wasn’t stable. That’s part of the reason there was an intubation when he got to the hospital.”

After Woods underwent treatment, he was extubated, then immediately released home. One physician from the hospital said that discharging a patient directly to his home after being admitted to the ICU was “highly unusual.” The doctor, who did not treat Woods, said standard protocol “usually involves some sort of step-down — if your condition is serious enough to be admitted to ICU, you don’t go straight home. It points to some extreme privacy measures being taken for that decision to be made.”

The director of the National Council Against Domestic Violence told TMZ she’s “horrified” by the skit. Part of the problem here, I think, is that Tiger’s so rich, so powerful, and so, er, smooth that it’s hard to imagine anyone posing a threat to him, let alone his wife. But make up your own mind. Sounds like we may be nearing the end of the road for this horror show anyway.

Update: Oh, one not-so-fun fact that I forgot to mention: The musical guest this week was … Rihanna.world news

Oh my: Belief in man-made global warming now under 50%

2009-12-08T05:14:00.001+03:00

The good news for warmists: While only 45 percent believe in anthropogenic global warming, more than two-thirds believe that global warming is occurring. Moreover, these numbers are much rosier than the ones Pew got when they polled this question in October, with just 57 percent expressing a belief in GW at the time and a measly 36 percent subscribing to AGW. Even so, with all the buzz over Copenhagen and the effort expended to laugh at Climategate, it’s mind-boggling that the trend is towards skepticism, not belief. How much more hype do they need to manufacture to convince people? Are the statues not scary enough? Is Al Gore’s poetry not poignant enough? What’ll it take?

I know what it’ll take. It’ll take a guy no one trusts in the first place to blithely insist at today’s White House presser (for the second time this week) that “I think everybody is clear on the science.” Case closed. Bring on cap and trade! Click the image to watch.

Update: Ah, missed this in the CNN item at first glance:

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Monday, indicates that two-thirds of all Americans believe global warming is a proven fact.
That’s down eight points since June of 2008, with views among Democrats holding steady while Republicans’ belief in global warming dropping 11 points…

The poll indicates the number who say the U.S. should reduce emissions even if other countries do not follow suit has also dropped, from 66 percent in 2007 to 58 percent today.

“That drop is due to roughly equal changes among Republicans and Democrats, suggesting that economic conditions, rather than political factors, may be at play,” noted Holland.

Just another partisan issue, driven by a reaction to the president? If so, then ironically greens probably would have been better off with McCain in the White House: Republican opposition on this issue wouldn’t have been as dug in.world news

Finally: The complete Shatner/Limbaugh interview

2009-12-08T05:12:00.001+03:00

I called the teaser on ObamaCare surreal, but you know what the most surreal part of this ended up being? The sheer chumminess of it. Not that I expected a kal-if-fee between them over, say, cap and trade, but Shatner could have gone the provocateur’s route here and picked a fight if only to drum up buzz for his show. Instead, they spend very little time talking politics, just a few minutes or so on what conservatism means and how it applies to health care starting at around 5:45. The rest is devoted to growing up and personal struggles, with Rush delving into the agonies of withdrawal near the end.

If you’re pressed for time, I’d suggest watching at around 9:30 for their commiseration on hearing loss. A nice job here by the captain; if he’s smart, he’ll have on other political guests.world news

Porn star Holly Sampson is seventh woman linked to Tiger Woods as sex scandal continues to grow

2009-12-07T12:56:00.001+03:00

Tiger Woods' other New York girl spent the day holed up in her plush Chelsea pad Sunday after she was outed by the Daily News.

Cori Rist is now one of at least six women linked to the golf world's top swordsman.

The 31-year-old leggy and busty blond spent Sunday calling friends, saying, "My involvement with Tiger Woods has just surfaced," according to a pal.

Rist also had to explain the sudden media attention to her 7-year-old son, who has idolized Woods since his mother got him an autographed golf club from the Grand Slam-winning legend.

The alleged mistress' ex-husband, Neil Santos, stopped at her apartment Sunday night to drop off their son but refused to comment.

Woods met Rist at New York hot spot Butter last year, The News' George Rush and Joanna Molloy reported Sunday.

"They went on to another party," an insider told The News. "One thing led to another, and, pretty soon, Tiger was flying her to hook up with him on tour."

Rist said she is declining to comment "at this time" on the fling, which lasted about six months, sources said. She was last spotted at Butter with Woods and a party of friends on a Monday night four weeks ago, a source said.

Rist is said to have tired of being secreted around the country for her hookups with Woods.

"Tiger would typically get a large suite at a hotel. Someone would book Cori an adjacent room, so she wouldn't be seen coming into his room," an insider told Rush and Molloy.

"He would get the presidential suite," the source continued. "It was the ultimate in luxury. The trouble is, he never wanted to leave the room."

Hailing from the small rural town of Rossford, Ohio, Rist moved to the city determined tobecome a fashion model, butthe closest she got to her dream was modeling swimsuits and activewear in catalogues, a friend said.

She and Santos married in 2002, but by 2005 the relationship was starting to sour. A friend said Rist began taking mysterious trips around the country, frequenting city nightclubs and dressing in expensive clothes and jewelry.

After her divorce was finalized in January 2008, she met Woods, she told friends. She and Santos are battling in Family Court over custody of their son, records show.

As Woods remained in seclusion Sunday, talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey reportedly called him to offer advice - and an outlet to tell his side of the story. Image experts said it could be a good first step toward repairing his image.

While most of the women who have come out of the woodwork were often flown around the world to meet him, Woods didn't have to stray far from the comforts of his Florida home to find booze and blonds who were not his wife. He found plenty of homegrown action at Orlando clubs just minutes from his family home in Windermere, Fla., The News has learned.

He was a regular in the VIP rooms at Blue Martini and Club 23, where the billion-dollar man has been known to drop $1,500 a night at the swanky joints.

"When Tiger goes out in Orlando he certainly goes to Blue Martini," a local club insider told The News. "Any rich and horny guy from the suburbs can go there and leave with a girl on each arm."

The cavernous party spot is full of intimate corners where regulars say Woods was often seen with packs of women around him.

TMZ.com reported that nearby Club 23 even has a private section known as "The Tiger Room" because Woods spent so many nights there.

Reports of Woods' close-to-home dalliances come amid reports Sunday that he also hooked up with an Orlando waitress, Mindy Lawton, in a church parking lot and even his home while his then-pregnant wife was out of town.

She told London's News of the World that he "wanted to spank me and loved pulling my hair as we had sex."

Other reports linked Woods to 36-year-old blond porn star Holly Sampson. Britain's Daily Mail reported that the Los Angeles hottie - star of such recent adult films as "OMG, Stop Tickling Me" and "Flying Solo 2" - is "not denying she bedded Tiger."

"She has no comment on the matter," Sampson's Denver-based lawyer Andrew Contiguglia told The News.

If true, Sampson would be lucky No. 7 on the list of purported Woods' bedmates, which includes hot-bodied blonds and brunettes with an average age of 30.

The list started with big-lipped beauty Rachel Uchitel, a Manhattan club hostess who hoofed it to Los Angeles to meet lawyer Gloria Allred in the early days of the now-epic Woods scandal that first broke the day after Thanksgiving. Uchitel has both denied and confirmed a relationship with Woods.

Woods' scorecard of girls also includes:

- Jaimee Grubbs, former contestant on VH1's "Tool Academy" who has admitted to an affair.

- Kalika Moquin, a 27-year-old Las Vegas nightclub executive, who denies a relationship.

- Jamie Jungers, a Vegas cocktail waitress who allegedly had an 18-month fling with Woods.

The sex scandal erupted in the early-morning hours after Thanksgiving when the golfer crashed his SUV outside his house - apparently after an argument with his wife over another woman. world news

Virgin Galactic to unveil commercial spaceship

2009-12-07T12:51:00.002+03:00

LOS ANGELES — After five years of secret construction, the cloak is coming off a privately funded spacecraft designed to fly well-heeled tourists into space.

The long-awaited glimpse of SpaceShipTwo, slated for rollout Monday in the Mojave Desert, could not come sooner for the scores of wannabe astronauts who have forked over part of their disposable income for the chance to float in zero gravity.

"We've all been patiently waiting to see exactly what the vehicle is going to look like," said Peter Cheney, a 63-year-old potential space tourist from Seattle who was among the first to sign up for suborbital space rides marketed by Virgin Galactic. "It would be nice to see it in the flesh."

Virgin Galactic spokeswoman Jackie McQuillan promised a "theatrical unveil" followed by a cocktail party for paying passengers and other VIPs.

SpaceShipTwo's debut marks the first public appearance of a commercial passenger spacecraft. The project is bankrolled by Virgin Galactic founder, British billionaire Sir Richard Branson, who partnered with famed aviation designer Burt Rutan, the brains behind the venture.

SpaceShipTwo is based on Rutan's design of a stubby white prototype called SpaceShipOne. In 2004, SpaceShipOne captured the $10 million Ansari X Prize by becoming the first privately manned craft to reach space.

Since the historic feat, engineers from Rutan's Scaled Composites LLC have been laboring in a Mojave hangar to commercialize the prototype in heavy secrecy.

The last time there was this level of hoopla in the high desert was a little more than a year ago when Branson and Rutan trotted out to great fanfare the twin-fuselage mothership, White Knight Two, that will ferry SpaceShipTwo to launch altitude.

Despite the hype, hard work lies ahead before space journeys could become as routine as air travel.

Flight testing of White Knight Two has been ongoing for the past year. The first SpaceShipTwo test flights are expected to start next year, with full-fledged space launches to its maximum altitude by or in 2011.

It remains unclear when Virgin Galactic customers will receive their astronaut wings, but it will largely depend on how the test program fares. Some 300 clients have paid the $200,000 ticket or placed a deposit, according to the company.

SpaceShipTwo, built from lightweight composite materials and powered by a hybrid rocket motor, is similar to its prototype cousin with three exceptions. It's twice as large, measuring 60 feet long with a roomy cabin about the size of a Falcon 900 executive jet. It also has more windows including overhead portholes. While SpaceShipOne was designed for three people, SpaceShipTwo can carry six passengers and two pilots.

"It's a big and beautiful vehicle," said X Prize founder Peter Diamandis, who has seen SpaceShipTwo during various stages of development.

The ability to view Earth's curvature from space has been limited so far to government astronauts and a handful of wealthy people who have shelled out millions to board Russian rockets to the orbiting international space station.

After SpaceShipOne's history-making flights, many space advocates believed private companies would offer suborbital space joyrides before the end of this decade.

George Washington University space policy scholar John Logsdon called the milestones to date "measured progress."

"They've been appropriately cautious and making sure that every step is done correctly," he said.

Tragedy struck in 2007 when an explosion killed three of Rutan's engineers during a routine test of SpaceShipTwo's propellant system. The accident delayed the engine's development.

Virgin Galactic plans to operate commercial spaceflights out of a taxpayer-funded spaceport in New Mexico that is under construction. The 2 1/2 hour trips — up and down flights without circling the Earth — include about five minutes of weightlessness.

SpaceShipTwo will be carried aloft by White Knight Two and released at 50,000 feet. The craft's rocket engine then burns a combination of nitrous oxide and a rubber-based solid fuel to climb more than 65 miles above the Earth's surface.

After reaching the top of its trajectory, it will fall back into the atmosphere and glide to a landing like a normal airplane. Its descent is controlled by "feathering" its wings to maximize aerodynamic drag.

Virgin Galactic expects to spend more than $400 million for a fleet of five commercial spaceships and launch vehicles.

It's not the only player in the ultra-secretive commercial space race. A handful of entrepreneurs including Amazon.com Inc. Chief Executive Jeff Bezos, computer game programmer John Carmack and rocketeer Jeff Greason are building their own suborbital rockets with dreams of flying people out of the atmosphere.world news

WaPo: White House forgot that they told McChrystal to defeat the Taliban

2009-12-07T12:48:00.002+03:00

To set the scene, this comes from the October 8 war room meeting on Afghanistan, with McChrystal teleconferenced in from Kabul to explain what he’d been doing since receiving his orders in March. Smart power:

In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a PowerPoint slide: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”

“Is that really what you think your mission is?” one of the participants asked.

In the first place, it was impossible — the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a major part of the population. “We don’t need to do that,” Gates said, according to one participant. “That’s an open-ended, forever commitment.”

But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan — the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.

“I wouldn’t say there was quite a ‘whoa’ moment,” a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. “It was just sort of a recognition that, ‘Duh, that’s what in effect the commander understands he’s been told to do.’ Everybody said, ‘He’s right.’”

“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what he created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger, and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.”

They told him — in his official orders — to come up with a plan to eliminate the enemy and, dummy that he is, he thought that meant he was supposed to come up with a plan to eliminate the enemy. Then they told him he didn’t have to. Six months later.

They held another war room meeting the next day, this time with The One himself in attendance:

On Oct. 9, after awaking to the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama listened to McChrystal’s presentation. The “mission” slide included the same words: “Defeat the Taliban.” But a red box had been added beside it, saying that the mission was being redefined, Jones said. Another participant recalled that the word “degrade” had been proposed to replace “defeat.”

Already briefed on the previous day’s discussion, the president “looked at it and said, ‘To be fair, this is what we told the commander to do. Now, the question is, have we directed him to do more than what is realistic? Should there be a sharpening . . . a refinement?’ ” one participant recalled.

So it goes for our supposedly Spock-like president, who made such a pageant during the the past three months of deliberating over Afghanistan lest he waste time and lives by rashly adopting the wrong strategy. He wanted to show his commitment to the war early on, so he installed McChrystal, handed him 22,000 extra troops, stuck him with orders he either didn’t think carefully about or didn’t believe were feasible (Bush-lite?), and then forgot about it for half a year while he went off to chase his health-care dreams. Even more surreally, the only way McChrystal could have misunderstood the orders is if he’d had so little contact with people at the top — Obama, Gates, and Jones — that the occasion never arose for them to clarify that “defeat the Taliban” actually meant “degrade the Taliban.” Remember in September when he said he’d only had one teleconference with The One since taking over in Afghanistan in June? I guess this is the result. Question: How come closing Gitmo was such an urgent priority that Obama sent down the word literally two days after his inauguration, but appointing McChrystal and getting him started on a full strategic review — which would necessarily take weeks — had to wait until late March?

Speaking of confusion, here’s Jones telling the BBC that while some token withdrawal will begin in July 2011, ain’t no way, no chance, no how we’re leaving the country that year. Someone had better tell the left. Click the image to watch.world news

Video: McCain rips transparent, post-partisan president for closed-door “pep talk” with Dems

2009-12-07T12:45:00.002+03:00

It’s always fun watching Maverick work off some of his bitterness towards The One over last year’s election and this is no exception. So painfully slow was the news this afternoon, even by usual Sunday standards, that not only is Obama’s dopey rah-rah session with Senate Democrats the lead story on Drudge right now, but the only real news to come out of it is what wasn’t mentioned there — namely, the public option.

Obama spoke for roughly 30 minutes and did not take questions, senators said afterward.

Reid told reporters that Lieberman had approached him after the meeting to note the absence of the public option, but that folks shouldn’t read too much into Obama’s silence on the issue. “That doesn’t mean it’s not an issue, because the president didn’t talk about it,” said Reid.

Obama’s reluctance to stand up for the public option has been a source of contention between Reid, who is pushing for it, and Obama. Reid has asked five progressive senators and five conservatives to work out a compromise on the public option. The group will meet again Sunday afternoon, though without guidance from the president.

White House spokesman Bill Burton also mentioned insurance reform and affordability in his statement about the meeting, but neglected to mention the public option.

He didn’t mention Nelson’s abortion amendment either, which will be introduced as early as tomorrow. I remember reading last month, after Lieberman’s much-publicized announcement that he’d filibuster a final bill that had a public option, that it was all smoke and mirrors and that Joementum wouldn’t stand in the way when the time came. Really? Check out this bit from an interview he did with the Journal this past week. Does this sound like a guy who’s preparing to have an eleventh-hour awakening to the glories of government-run insurance?

Why is he adamant? Mr. Lieberman says that while he is not “a conspiratorial person,” he believes the public option is intended as a way for the government to take over health care. “I’ve been working for health-care reform in different ways since I arrived here,” he says. “It was always about how do we make the system more efficient and less costly, and how do we expand coverage to people who can’t afford it, and how do we adopt some consumer protections from the insurance companies . . . So where did this public option come from?” It was barely a blip, he says, in last year’s presidential campaign.

“I started to ask some of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus, privately, and two of them said “some in our caucus, and some outside in interest groups, after the president won such a great victory and there were more Democrats in the Senate and the House, said this is the moment to go for single payer.’” So, I joke, the senator is, in fact, as big a “conspiracy theorist” as me. He laughingly rejoins: “But I have evidence!”

No wonder Obama’s meeting one-on-one with Queen Olympia in the Oval Office again. If Reid decides he can’t afford to piss off the left by dropping the public option, they’re likely going to need not one but two votes (at least) to get to 60: Lieberman’s a lost cause and Blanche Lincoln would be committing kamikaze by voting yes. Expect to see reports of Oval Office meetings with Susan Collins sometime soon too.

Exit question: How low will Obama’s numbers go if he’s forced to drop the public plan just weeks after breaking the left’s heart with a surge in Afghanistan? What’ll be left of the cult of Hopenchange?world news

Click here to find out more! Your request is being processed... Sarah Palin Goes 'Birther': Obama Birth Certificate 'A Fair Question' (VIDE

2009-12-04T15:22:00.004+03:00

Sarah Palin declared on Thursday that the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate is "rightfully" an issue with the American public, and that it is "fair game" for politicians to question Obama's citizenship.

The comments came during an interview with conservative radio host Rusty Humphries, who asked Palin whether she planned to "make the birth certificate an issue" if she runs for president in 2012.

"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue," Palin said. "I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers."

Humphries -- who began the interview with a rendition of the song "Sarah, Queen Of The Wild Frontier" -- followed up: "Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?"

"I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game," Palin responded, adding that "the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."

Palin later referenced "that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son, and a lot of people that went 'Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one."

UPDATE: At 1:16 AM ET, Palin posted the following on her Facebook page:

Stupid Conspiracies

Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I've pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point - not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews - have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.

WATCH:

FactCheck.org has done the most comprehensive debunking of the various conspiracy theories related to Obama's citizenship. Here is their bottom line:

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.world news

Tiger Woods: Is He Really A Fallen 'Hero'?

2009-12-04T15:22:00.002+03:00

Of course the Tiger Woods scandal is disappointing. Adultery always is. When marital betrayal occurs, it isn't just the spouse who tastes the bitterness. Think of the children, the close family friends, the business partners, the neighbors. Adultery is like that. Its foulness isn't confined. Prostitution may be viewed as the oldest profession, but adultery is the oldest form of betrayal. Choose an era and select any civilization and adultery is there. Somewhere.

The more difficult observation about the circumstances surrounding Woods is that American culture has rewarded outward competence in just about everything. In Woods' case, we publicly serenaded his mastery of golf and cheered him as he reached a pinnacle where his competition was virtually just himself. We've done the same thing with political, business and entertainment leaders. They need only mouth a specific political ideology, resurrect a company from financial ashes or direct a great movie to be showered with book deals, outrageous bonuses and film awards. We often treat these leaders as if they were heroes.

If Woods is a hero who fell from grace, from where did he fall? While I'm saddened by his choice of adultery, horrified by the news of a revised prenup so that his wife will stay with him, I have to ask: Did Woods not fulfill what we slavishly awarded him? We awarded his skill at golf. We did not award his skill as a faithful husband. Personal character is not foremost in our thoughts in the capitalistic process of endorsements and media accolades. Everybody just wants to get paid. Maybe we should examine why we carelessly anoint leaders as heroes when all they have shown is physical strength or mental acumen. A hero is a person of convictions. Honorable men and women stand out in a lifetime and reveal their love, forgiveness, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and trustworthiness in the daylight and in the shadows. They are not perfect, but they seek forgiveness openly and labor to do good even if no human being acknowledges their progress. These are the ones we should seek to imitate, study and introduce to our children.

One of Woods' friends, Charles Barkley, famously said he was not a role model. He was right. But was Barkley a great power forward in the NBA? Absolutely. Did Woods and his other friend, Michael Jordan, transcend their respective games? You can bet your Masters' jacket and NBA Championship ring. Would any of these men be viewed as role models of marriage? No way. They could no more nab that title now than South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) or former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

But we all know real role models, real heroes. They are beloved and are birthed in the rock-strewn places of life, not in the glitter of praise that fawns over human skills and competition. With unforgettable personal character, they illuminate the places where there may never be hype or applause.world news

Afghanistan Withdrawal Date: 'Flexible' Or 'Locked In'?

2009-12-04T15:20:00.001+03:00

During his speech from West Point on Tuesday, President Obama specified the date when U.S. forces would start to withdraw from Afghanistan. "[A]dditional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces," he said, "and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." Obama added: "Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

What remains unclear is how firmly the administration is treating the July 2011 draw-down date.

On Wednesday, CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid questioned administration spokesman Robert Gibbs on this point. Reid reported later:

After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in - there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.

Yet, on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates offered a different assessment during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Officials from the Obama administration and the Pentagon tried on Thursday to reassure worried senators, telling them that plans to begin withdrawing American troops in July 2011 are definite, yet flexible enough to give American military commanders the discretion they need.

"The July 2011 date is the date on which we begin to transfer authority and responsibility to Afghan security forces," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, before adding that "the pace, the size of the drawdown, is going to be determined in a responsible manner based on the conditions that exist at the time."

Emphasizing that the Afghans are to take more and more responsibility for their own security, Mr. Gates said, "So it is not contradictory to set a date certain, yet to condition it on the reality that we confront at that time."

Likewise, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the July 2011 draw-down would be "responsible" and "conditions-based," a "real target for us to aim at."

But National Security Adviser Jim Jones articulated a different, middle-ground interpretation of the July 2011 date, calling the plan only "somewhat conditions-based" during an interview with Fox News reporter Major Garrett.

Garrett: Is the July 2011 date aspirational or is it a fixed date when those surge troops will move out, regardless of the situation on the ground?
Story continues below

Jones: It is a date in which we all believe that we will be able to effectively start the transition gradually - wherever possible - of responsibilities for the prosecution of conflict or for the governance of various provinces in the country, to the Afghans themselves. So it will mark the end of a significant ramp up of forces which will buy us time and space in order to create the conditions by which the Afghans can start owning their destiny more fully.

Garrett: So it's fixed not aspirational?

Jones: It is somewhat conditions-based, but we believe that the strategy that's been agreed to, which will involve the Pakistanis doing things on their side of the border, President (Hamid) Karzai really forming a cabinet and fighting corruption, fighting the war on drugs, and organizing training and equipping his Afghan national security forces to be more effective and more visible, and better integration of economic development so the Afghans can see a better future for themselves. (All this) Instead of an open-ended commitment that we currently have, and seems to be leading us nowhere fast -- and as a matter of fact -- seems to be victimized by a very resurgent Taliban.

Garrett: The conditions are about how fast we withdraw?

Jones: This isn't a cliff where everybody all of a sudden says 'That's it, it's over.' What is at stake here, in terms of the conditions, is how quickly we can do it. If things are going very well, we can do it more rapidly, if things need a little bit more attention, we can do it more slowly. But it is the point at which there will be a beginning to a different phase in our involvement in Afghanistan. And it's not to say to your viewers, but more importantly to the people of the region, the United States is leaving. We are not leaving the region. We have enormous strategic interest in Afghanistan, east of Afghanistan in Pakistan and we intend to be supportive and helpful partners with them for many years to come.

How does one interpret all these responses? Mike Allen's Playbook from Thursday may provide a helpful guide:

SIT ROOM MINDMELD: July 2011 is fixed: That is going to be the inflection point. That is going to be the date on which we begin to transfer authority and responsibility to Afghan security forces. But the pace, size of the drawdown, and areas to be handed over will be predicated on the situation on the ground. If things are going very well, a larger number of forces could come out of more areas. If not, the size and speed of the drawdown will be adjusted accordingly. This could be a long, gradual drawdown. So it's not contradictory to set a date-certain, yet be conditions-based. We have a high degree of confidence that the addition of 30,000 troops will change the dynamics in some parts o the country by mid-2011. And roughly 60 percent of the country is uncontested now. This policy is about balancing competing interests: On the one hand, we need to signal resolve, and tell the Afghan people and government we'll be their partner and friend -- and let our enemies now we are going to stand with Afghanistan for the long term. At the time, we want to send a signal that the heavy military presence is not permanent, and light a fire under the Afghans to do for themselves what we know they're capable of doing.

THIS WAS WORKED OUT LATE IN THE DELIBERATIONS. The date appealed to Vice President Biden. The "condition-based" proviso got Secretary Gates on board.

world news

Obama's Afghanistan Plan: 30,000 Troops, No Endless Committment

2009-12-02T15:03:00.001+03:00

WEST POINT, N.Y. — Declaring "our security is at stake," President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan Tuesday night, nearly tripling the force he inherited as commander in chief. He promised an impatient public he would begin bringing units home in 18 months.

The buildup to about 100,000 troops will begin almost immediately – the first Marines will be in place by Christmas – and will cost $30 billion for the first year alone.

In a prime-time speech at the U.S. Military Academy, the president told the nation his new policy was designed to "bring this war to a successful conclusion," though he made no mention of defeating Taliban insurgents or capturing al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

"We must deny al-Qaida a safe haven," Obama said in spelling out U.S. military goals for a war that has dragged on for eight years. "We must reverse the Taliban's momentum. ... And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government."

The president said the additional forces would be deployed at "the fastest pace possible so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers."

Their destination: "the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida."

"It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak," the president said.

It marked the second time in his young presidency that Obama has added to the American force in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has recently made significant advances. When he became president last January, there were roughly 34,000 troops on the ground; there now are 71,000.
Story continues below

After the speech, cadets in the audience – some of whom could end up in combat because of Obama's decision – climbed over chairs to shake hands with their commander in chief and take his picture.

Obama's announcement drew less-wholehearted support from congressional Democrats. Many of them favor a quick withdrawal, but others have already proposed higher taxes to pay for the fighting.

Republicans reacted warily, as well. Officials said Sen. John McCain, who was Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential campaign, told Obama at an early evening meeting attended by numerous lawmakers that declaring a timetable for a withdrawal would merely send the Taliban underground until the Americans began to leave.

As a candidate, Obama called Afghanistan a war worth fighting, as opposed to Iraq, a conflict he opposed and has since begun easing out of.

A new survey by the Gallup organization, released Tuesday, showed only 35 percent of Americans now approve of Obama's handling of the war; 55 percent disapprove.

He made no direct reference to public opinion Tuesday night, although he seemed to touch on it when he said, "The American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home."

"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home," he said flatly.

In eight years of war, 849 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and neighboring Uzbekistan, according to the Pentagon.

In addition to beefing up the U.S. presence, Obama has asked NATO allies to commit between 5,000 and 10,000 additional troops. The war has even less support in Europe than in the United States, and the NATO allies and other countries currently have about 40,000 troops on the ground.

He said he was counting on Afghanistan eventually taking over its own security, and he warned, "The days of providing a blank check are over." He said the United States would support Afghan ministries that combat corruption and "deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable."

As for neighboring Pakistan, the president said that country and the United States "share a common enemy" in Islamic terrorists. "We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border."

The speech before an audience of cadets at the military academy ended a three-month review of the war, triggered by a request from the commanding general, Stanley McChrystal, for as many as 40,000 more troops. Without them, he warned, the U.S. risked failure.

The speech was still under way when the general issued a statement from Kabul. "The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the president has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task," it said. McChrystal is expected to testify before congressional committees in the next several days.

Obama referred to a deteriorating military environment, but said, "Afghanistan is not lost."

The length of the presidential review drew mild rebukes from normally amiable NATO allies. There was sharper criticism from Republicans led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said the president was dithering rather than deciding.

Obama rebutted forcefully.

"Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war," he told his audience of more than 4,000 cadets seated in Eisenhower Hall.

Most of the new forces will be combat troops. Military officials said the Army brigades were most likely to be sent from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Campbell in Kentucky; and Marines primarily from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

Officials said the additional 30,000 troops included about 5,000 dedicated trainers, underscoring the president's emphasis on preparing Afghans to take over their own security.

These aides said that by announcing a date for beginning a withdrawal, the president was not setting an end date for the war.

But that was a point on which McCain chose to engage the president at a pre-speech meeting with lawmakers before Obama departed for West Point. "The way that you win wars is to break the enemy's will, not to announce dates that you are leaving," McCain said later.

Obama's address represents the beginning of a sales job to restore support for the war effort among an American public grown increasingly pessimistic about success – and among some fellow Democrats in Congress wary of or even opposed to spending billions more dollars and putting tens of thousands more U.S. soldiers and Marines in harm's way.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and liberal House Democrats threatened to try to block funding for the troop increase.

Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs a military oversight panel, said he didn't think Democrats would yank funding for the troops or try to force Obama's hand to pull them out faster. But Democrats will be looking for ways to pay for the additional troops, he said, including a tax increase on the wealthy although that hike is already being eyed to pay for health care costs. Another possibility is imposing a small gasoline tax that would be phased out if gas prices go up, he said.

The United States went to war in Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the United States.

Bin Laden and key members of the terrorist organization were headquartered in Afghanistan at the time, taking advantage of sanctuary afforded by the Taliban government that ran the mountainous and isolated country.

Taliban forces were quickly driven from power, while bin Laden and his top deputies were believed to have fled through towering mountains into neighboring Pakistan. While the al-Qaida leadership appears to be bottled up in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal regions, the U.S. military strategy of targeted missile attacks from unmanned drone aircraft has yet to flush bin Laden and his cohorts from hiding.world news

Video: Bold visionary (re)emerges to lead GOP

2009-12-01T03:31:00.004+03:00

A palate-cleansing treat for Romero fans, in which a loooong-running Internet meme finally become video reality. Consider this a companion to today’s WaPo poll of Republicans showing just 49 percent think the party’s headed in the right direction. (Just four years ago, the number stood at 76 percent.) On the question of who best represents the party’s core values, Palin leads but her support is soft — just 18 percent, five points ahead of, er, John McCain. The most revealing number:

gop

On social issues, you’ve got fully one-third of the GOP claiming moderation or outright liberalism. On fiscal issues? Just 18 percent, with a clear majority now calling themselves “very” fiscally conservative. The One’s statism on steroids is reorienting the conservative movement. I wonder if he realizes it yet.

Exit admission: I really want to see the full segment of the Hannity interview shown here.
Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP world news

GOP freshman: Bring the troops home

2009-12-01T03:30:00.002+03:00

I thought of writing about Michael Moore’s cri de coeur instead, just to give you something to beat up on in the comments, but (a) Moore hasn’t been relevant for five years and (b) his screed clunks along with so many anti-war cliches that it reads more like an attempt to start a drinking game than a serious argument. The “graveyard of empires” is mentioned, as is MLK, as is the war-is-a-racket-to-scam-the-poor meme, and on and on; the only things missing are a reference to the “brutal Afghan winter” and the realization that Obama’s “landslide victory” was built in part on promises to win the war in Afghanistan, not abandon it. But then, that’s all part of Moore’s schtick. He’s forever being betrayed by the Democrats (his open letters to Obama always have a treacly Sullivan-esque “don’t break my heart” tone to them), even on matters where they’ve explicitly campaigned against his position. If you care enough to read it, follow the link.

I’d rather talk about Jason Chaffetz. This is now the third prominent conservative voice in two weeks to call for getting out of Afghanistan because Obama won’t “fight to win” or some variation thereof. Fred Thompson led the charge, and then Glenn Beck chimed in with his free advice to vets about how maybe they shouldn’t reenlist. Now here comes Chaffetz advising Obama to “go big or go home” by defining the mission specifically and relaxing the rules of engagement — before proceeding to this:

Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home.

If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.

We have successfully rooted out Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda operatives are operating in Afghanistan according to Retired General James L. Jones’ assessment of the situation. “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban,” he said in an October 4 Associated Press report. Jones, who is President Obama’s National Security Advisor, continued: “Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

Mr. President, we all recognize that we will still have to fight Al-Qaeda around the globe. So let’s bring home the tens of thousands who have fought so valiantly to protect America.

Let’s instead use the best human and electronic surveillance available to allow our special forces to target and kill those who actually threaten us.

I don’t know where to begin. For starters, if he thinks it’s time to go home, why even preface this with the “go big” option? That smacks of CYA, as if he’s afraid to fully commit to his pullout position and is trying to fob off some of the blame for it onto The One because he won’t “fight hard enough” or whatever. If you want out, say so; I have few kind things to say about Ron Paul, but at least when he wants to quit, he doesn’t try to pretend it’s because Obama’s too soft. As for the specifics, where else around the world does he think we need a significant troop presence to fight Al Qaeda? Does the Chaffetz plan call for an invasion of Yemen or Somalia or something? (Bonus irony: While he’s busy demanding that we free up tens of thousands of troops to fight AQ around the globe, he insists that we can handle AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan with a small number of hunter-killer teams).

As for his dismissal of the threat still posed by AQ in that region, I’ll let lefty Fred Kaplan — who’s also ambivalent about the war, but not prepared to deceive himself about the consequences of withdrawal — handle it:

As with confronting most messes in life, the initial impulse is to flee. But if we simply pulled out, it’s a near-certain bet that the Taliban would march into Kabul, and most other Afghan towns they’d care to, in a matter of weeks. True, the Taliban are not the same as al-Qaida, but there’s little doubt that they would provide sanctuary and alliance (as they did after the Soviets were ousted), and this would strengthen al-Qaida in its struggle against Pakistan, the United States, and others.

One might dispute the significance of this, at least for its direct danger to the United States. Al-Qaida, after all, can plan attacks on U.S. territory from other sanctuaries, even from apartments in Western cities. But it’s naive to claim that leaving Afghanistan would have no broader effect.

Another problem with withdrawing is that it would signal, correctly or not, a huge victory for anti-American forces generally. If we left Afghanistan to the Taliban (and, by extension, al-Qaida), especially after such a prolonged commitment (at least rhetorically), what other embattled people would trust the United States (or the other putative allies in this war) to come in and protect them from insurgents? None, and they could hardly be blamed.

Beyond all that, after reading Chaffetz and listening to Thompson and Beck, I’m still not sure what it would mean to “go big” or “fight to win.” Those phrases are tossed around a lot as catch-all reasons to be skeptical of Obama, but rarely are they precisely defined. Assume he surprises us all tomorrow night by giving McChrystal the full complement of 40,000 troops that he requested. Good enough? Kaplan notes that a counterinsurgency strategy in line with the Army field manual would require 400,000 troops. Is that the new conservative position, and if so, are we prepared to support a draft to realize it? Also, how specifically should we relax the rules of engagement? The One, to his credit, continued Bush’s policy of drone attacks on AQ leaders even though the risk of collateral damage is high; he doesn’t seem strikingly more squeamish about civilian casualties than Dubya was, and yet conservative support for the war in Afghanistan was rock solid until this year. And yet the ROEs come up a lot in righty critiques of the war, even though none of the chief strategic challenges of Afghanistan — the government is weak and corrupt, the Taliban is hard to find and pin down, and we lack enough boots on the ground for a robust clear-and-hold counterinsurgency strategy — would seem to change dramatically by relaxing them. But then, my military ignorance got me in trouble last week so I may well be stepping in it again. How am I wrong here?world news

NBC: Obama now planning to request only 30,000 more troops

2009-12-01T03:08:00.004+03:00

Wasn’t it just last week that we were told that 34,000 was the magic number, replete with a confidence-boosting report from NBC News that McChrystal himself was satisfied with that amount? Now, suddenly, more than 10 percent of the force has been shaved off (the Times is hearing 30,000 too) and yet not a word is breathed here about the downward revision. On the contrary, we’re informed that the number could change again in the next 24 hours, meaning The One’s dithering would have stretched practically to the very last minute. Is the media simply so weary of fluid numbers from the White House — e.g., jobs saved or created, Americans without health insurance — that they’ve given up trying to follow the bouncing ball?

Leslie Gelb, the former head of CFR, claims he’s heard that Obama will reserve the right to send another 10,000 troops (but no more) next year if circumstances warrant. That strikes me as unlikely given the left’s paranoia about a protracted Vietnam-esque build-up — better to send the full force now and say no mas — but maybe The One’s using it as a bluff to placate hawks for the time being. Conservatives are his base on this issue, after all, and they’re more likely to accept a smaller force now if they think he has several thousand more troops ready to deploy later — even if, in reality, he has no intention of actually using those troops. Something to watch for tomorrow night.

If he does send a smaller force now, presumably that means he’s planning to dramatically expand Afghan forces to pick up the slack, right? Why, er, no:

But the administration seems prepared to reject another of Gen. McChrystal’s top priorities: his call to double the size of the Afghan police and army over the next few years.

The administration now favors an alternative plan that would seek to build a larger Afghan security force, but one that would be considerably smaller than what Gen. McChrystal had wanted, these people said. The president is likely to talk about Afghan troops Tuesday, without specifying a growth target for expanding their ranks.

“The president has a realistic view of how successful the training regimen can be, and that has helped inform his decision,” a senior administration official said Sunday.

Placing less emphasis on Afghan forces risks irking Democrats leery about an extended and expensive escalation.

Link via Bill Roggio, who wonders who, precisely, will be defending Afghanistan if it’s neither us nor the Afghans themselves. A suggestion from Hitchens: How about India? Expanding Indian influence inside the country would confront the jihadis with a powerful, westernized enemy capable of maintaining the sort of long-term presence that we can’t muster. The obvious problem? Facing Indian pressure on two borders instead of one will freak Pakistan out and inevitably lead to an anti-Indian alliance with the Taliban. Not sure what Hitch has in mind there by way of endgame, aside from another Indo-Pakistani war (proxy or otherwise).

Here’s the clip from NBC; only the first minute is necessary viewing. Exit quotation from veteran war reporter Tom Ricks, passing on advice from a friend: “If he uses the phrase ‘exit strategy,’ or dwells on the subject, then you’ll know you’re probably looking at a one-term president.”

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

world news

Supreme Court: Keep the detainee photos secret

2009-12-01T03:08:00.002+03:00

Barack Obama won an important case at the Supreme Court today, and so did Congress. Don’t expect to see a lot of congratulatory press releases about it, however. The high court ruled today that the detainee photos once slated for release by Obama should remain secret, upholding Obama’s reversal on the issue and a Congressional budget decision that intended to enforce it:

The Supreme Court did all it could Monday to lock up forever some incendiary photos that show U.S. soldiers abusing foreign prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan .

Yielding to Congress and the White House , justices took the expected but formal step of reversing a lower court’s order that the photos be released. Using its budget powers, Congress already had moved to keep the photos secret.

In a brief, unsigned decision issued Monday without elaboration, the court cited a provision in a Homeland Security funding bill that President Barack Obama signed Oct. 28 . The provision permitted the Pentagon to block the public release of the photos in question, as well as others deemed to “endanger” U.S. soldiers or civilians.

“Disclosure of those photographs would pose a clear and grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American troops and coalition forces,’” Solicitor General Elena Kagan had warned the Supreme Court .

That’s a clear victory for Obama, but probably not one he’s terribly happy to have won. In April, Obama ordered the release of the photos, which depicted abuse against detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, he did so to show he was “committed to more transparency,” as the ACLU put it at the time.

A month later, Obama had committed himself to reversing his order. As Jake Tapper reported, it was a “complete 180″ from just a month earlier, precipitated by a bipartisan round of condemnations for unnecessarily providing our enemies with a propaganda bonanza. Even then, the ACLU expected the courts to eventually force Obama into releasing the photographs, and some suspected that Obama expected it, too. Having the courts force his hand would make it easier for Obama to avoid responsibility for the damage the photographs would produce in the near- and long-terms.

Perhaps, then, the White House may be surprised by today’s decision. It means that only an executive order will produce those photographs now, although the news reports give a rather detailed description of their contents. The onus comes right back to the Oval Office and President Obama, who should have learned a lesson from George Bush and the McCain-Feingold BCRA and the court’s reluctance to overturn a rather blatantly unconstitutional law regulating political speech. Ironically, the law passed by Congress on which this decision relies may never have come to pass had it not been for Obama’s double-reverse on the photos in April and May.world news

Obama Administration To Shame Lenders That Don't Offer To Modify Mortgages

2009-12-01T03:06:00.004+03:00

Its signature foreclosure-prevention plan having definitively failed to actually help very many homeowners, the Obama administration today announced its new strategy to get balky lenders to the table: Nagging.

The U.S. government will start to publicly identify those companies that are failing to give troubled homeowners permanent loan modifications, and hound them daily to monitor their progress, the Treasury Department declared.

Top servicers will be required to submit a schedule demonstrating their plans to reach a decision on each loan for which they have documentation and to communicate either a modification agreement or denial letter to those borrowers. Treasury/Fannie Mae "account liaisons" are being assigned to these servicers and will follow up daily as necessary to monitor progress against the servicer's plan. Daily progress will be aggregated by the end of each business day and reported to the Administration.

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was launched in March to much fanfare as the administration's main response to a growing foreclosure problem. The government would provide cash incentives to mortgage servicers that reduced monthly payments for distressed homeowners, and that way those who were facing higher payments or lower incomes could stay in their homes.

But the program, which the administration refers to as "a primary focus of financial stability efforts," has been a disaster according to consumer advocates, economists, housing experts and government watchdogs. It does nothing for those who have lost their jobs, because they have too little income to qualify, and could make things even worse in the long run for those homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their homes are worth, because the plan does not require principal reductions.

Furthermore, only a tiny proportion of the relatively few homeowners in the program have obtained permanent relief. As of Sept. 1, only 1,711 homeowners, or less than two percent of those who received a temporary modification under Obama's plan, ended up with a permanent fix, according to a report by the Elizabeth Warren-led Congressional Oversight Panel.

And yet, the plan has cost taxpayers about $27 billion so far.

Meanwhile, as many as 3.4 million homes are expected to enter foreclosure by year's end, with some experts estimating that next year will be even worse.

The administration's latest push -- shaming the mortgage companies -- is "certainly a step forward after six months of operation," says Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University who has written extensively on mortgages and foreclosures. "But it's not going to help by itself."
Story continues below

"It's a long-overdue step," he said. "At this point, the servicers are propped up in [many] different ways by the taxpayer -- HAMP isn't the only subsidy they're getting -- and if we're going to prop them up then they ought to achieve our public policy objective."

The four big banks are also the biggest servicers, he noted, and American taxpayers are the majority shareholders in three of them: Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. "He who pays the piper should call the tune."

Others were even more critical. "The Obama administration's latest adjustments to its nine-month-old foreclosure prevention program do little but highlight the continued failure of lenders' voluntary efforts to stop the foreclosure crisis," Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), a consumer-advocacy group, said in a statement.

Consumers advocates have long said that the program is poorly managed and relies too heavily on mortgage servicers, whose interests are not necessarily aligned with those of homeowners. Economists and advocates point to principal reduction, for example, as perhaps the best way to achieve a permanent, sustainable modification. Lowering the total amount due -- particularly for those homeowners with negative equity -- could induce homeowners to keep up with their payments and stay in their homes.

But most servicers and banks are loath to reduce principal, particularly for those mortgages that have been securitized. Also, servicers' fees are based on the overall balance of the loan, so if the balance of the loan is reduced, then so are their fees.'

In the administration's plan, the servicers essentially call the shots, rather than the investors -- and yet they still don't want to participate.

One reason is that reducing the principal forces banks to recognize the losses on those loans. By not reducing the principal, the banks can essentially pretend that the loans may one day become current again. It's an accounting trick, consumer advocates say.

Yale economist John Geanakoplos is among those arguing that principal reduction is the best way to reduce foreclosures. By contrast, the administration simply requires that homeowners' monthly payments be lowered, which can happen either through an interest rate reduction, or by lengthening the term of the loan. If a bank turns a 30-year mortgage into a 40-year mortgage, for instance, the homeowner could see the monthly payments drop -- but with 10 years of extra interest, would actually end up owing more.
world news

Austin Fenner, Ex-NY Post Employee, Sues The Paper, Charges Racism

2009-12-01T03:02:00.004+03:00

Another former New York Post employee is suing the paper, alleging that he was subject to unfair employment practices and that editors engaged in racially-motivated news coverage.

Austin Fenner, who was fired from the Post on the same day that former editor Sandra Guzman sued the paper over her own dismissal, claims that he was "routinely humiliated," "openly cursed at" and subjected to "Jim Crow"-style segregation while working as a city desk reporter.

Using the same lawyer as Guzman, Fenner alleges that he too was fired from the paper both for being a minority (he is African-American) and for complaining about racist coverage. Fenner, like Guzman, publicly expressed his disappointment with a Post cartoon that depicted the author of the president's stimulus package as a chimpanzee shot dead by befuddled cops.

A spokeswoman for the New York Post, in an email to the Huffington Post, said that the allegations were "totally false and the claims of discrimination completely baseless."

The complaint filed by Fenner doesn't deliver as many jaw-dropping allegations as Guzman's complaint earlier this month. The 27-page document mainly asserts that editors repeatedly yelled profanities at Fenner, made him travel further and more frequently than his "White" colleagues and denied him the same resources that other reporters received to cover events. Such accusations are occasionally levied in other newsrooms, though the Post has a lengthy history of poor race relations in the newsroom.

There are, however, certain charges that do stick out. Fenner alleges that the two defendants -- Michelle Gotthelf, the metropolitan editor of the Post and Fenner's direct superviser as well as Daniel Greenfied, the assignment editor and deputy metropolitan editor at the paper -- banned him from entering the Post's newsroom for a five-month period.

"Specifically," the complaint alleges, "they told Mr. Fenner that he was forbidden from coming into the newsroom anymore unless he got their permission in advance... Mr. Fenner's ban from the newsroom was an act of utter humiliation designed to strip him of his dignity and self-respect as a reporter and as a man and was based on his race and/or color and implemented to punish him for his opposition to Defendants' discriminatory practices. It was also a throwback to the days of Jim Crow segregation."

The complaint also asserts that after the Post published the controversial chimpanzee cartoon, New York's Governor David Paterson approached the paper asking for an interview on the controversial matter.
Story continues below

"[T]hey refused a request by Governor David Paterson, the first Black Governor of the State of New York, to be interviewed about the cartoon," Fenner's complaint alleges. "Specifically, after Governor Paterson made it know that he wanted to be interviewed about the nature of that cartoon and had also agreed to be interviewed about any other subject, the White editors at the Post summarily refused to interview him.... Such a rejection of a sitting Governor is unprecedented and practically unheard of in journalism."

In alleging "discriminatory treatment, harassment and/or unlawful retaliation" at the hands of the paper's editors, Fenner lists Gotthelf, Greenfield, as well as News Corporation and the Post itself as defendants. His lawsuit comes just weeks after Guzman's, in which it was alleged that she and others were routinely subjected to misogynistic behavior, unfair hiring practices at the paper and an unlawful firing.

Both former employees are being represented by Ken Thompson of the firm Thompson, Wigdor & Gilly LLP.

Asked about Fenner's firing several weeks ago, a spokesperson for the New York Post said that the paper had "no comment on Mr. Fenner's employment status."

READ THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE:
fenner - world news

Gibbs: Obama 'Delivered The Orders' On Afghanistan

2009-12-01T03:01:00.002+03:00

President Barack Obama has issued orders for the implementation of his Afghanistan strategy to military officials and cabinet members, spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Monday.

"The commander in chief delivered the orders," said Gibbs, adding that the calls went out from the Oval Office between 5 and 6 p.m on Sunday afternoon, communicating his strategy to allied world leaders. Obama is slated to meet with roughly 30 select members of Congress to discuss his plans on Tuesday. And the president is set to meet on Monday with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in addition to hosting phone conversations with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.

Obama's strategy is believed to include an escalation of approximately 30,000 troops in the nine-year-long war. Gibbs added that in Obama's Tuesday night speech detailing the Afghanistan strategy to the American public, the president will stress that America's commitment to the war is not open-ended.

Gibbs did not get into specifics, including whether there will be timelines for removing U.S. troops, what will happen if benchmarks are not met by the Afghan government and how the war will be paid for.

"Obviously the president is going to reiterate a number of things that you have all had a chance to talk about: the limits on our resources, both from a manpower perspective as well as a budgetary perspective," said Gibbs. "And the president will talk about how... this is not an open-ended commitment. That the goal and the purpose of the strategy is to train an Afghan national security force comprised of an Afghan national army and a police that can fight an unpopular insurgency in Afghanistan."world news

Secret Service will tighten WH security after party crashers scandal

2009-11-30T17:49:00.002+03:00

A bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, no? The Secret Service says that guests to future White House events had better bring umbrellas on rainy evenings, because they will take their time in the future in confirming invitations rather than expedite waiting times — the situation that created an opening for two embarrassing but thankfully innocuous party crashers at a state dinner last week. The Washington Post takes a bit of credit for exposing them — but also an unnecessarily hysterical tone over presidential security:

The bizarre breach at the White House state dinner last week lends new urgency to a review of Secret Service procedures that was begun after President Obama’s inauguration, and threatens to revive questions about how much security is enough for the country’s elected leader.

A senior Secret Service official said a “top-to-bottom” review of the agency’s protective department was ordered shortly after Obama began his term amid the highest threat level for any recent president. The results are due soon, said spokesman James Mackin.

The highest for any President? The US prosecuted a man in Virginia for seriously plotting George W. Bush’s assassination (and convicted him). Ahmed Omar Abu Ali also got convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda. Perhaps they’re tracking that kind of threat at the moment against Barack Obama, but I’d call an operational AQ plot to assassinate a President a very high threat level indeed.

But who blew the whistle on the party crashers? Surprisingly, the Post says it was their reporter:

A source who had spoken to senior Secret Service officials said the Salahis were allowed inside in violation of agency policies by an officer outside the front gate who apparently was persuaded by the couple’s manner and insistence as well as the pressure of keeping lines moving on a rainy evening.

“Rather than stand there and get wet, he went ahead and let them go,” said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid offending his contacts.

Once inside, the couple were identified by a Washington Post reporter, who asked two White House staffers early in the evening about their absence from the guest list and raised the issue with them in an 11 p.m. e-mail. A report on what occurred that night — including their movements inside the White House — is expected in a matter of days.

But this part of Michael Shear and Spencer Hsu’s report is just silly:

But Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the Virginia couple who waltzed, uninvited, into the White House and shook hands with Obama on Tuesday night provided new evidence that in a democracy, it is far from impossible to breach the bubble of security around the chief executive.

What does “democracy” have to do with it? We could be a communist people’s republic with Pol Pot running security, and if guards don’t take the time to check the invitation list, you’ll still get crashers at state dinners. People on the queue outside the White House didn’t vote to allow the Salahis into the party. They didn’t vote for rain, either, or to let security off the hook for doing their job. Someone should be out looking for a new job, and I’m going to bet that someone won’t save the one he had last week by giving the Secret Service a discourse on democracy.

Besides, it’s apparently not the first time the Salahis have met Barack Obama. According to Canada Free Press and the American Power blog, the Salahis met Obama at a 2005 event hosted by Tariq Salahi, the America’s Polo Cup pre-event party:

So were they at the state dinner by invitation after all? The Secret Service says no, but they hardly crashed the 2005 event. Read more about Salahi’s interesting political background at Talking Points Memo. Would a lobbyist for Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have been invited but his name kept off the official list? That might explain the supposed security breach better than just a rainy night, or democracy.
world news

Gallup: Opposition to ObamaCare almost at majority … of adults

2009-11-30T17:47:00.002+03:00

Whatever uncertainty Americans feel about ObamaCare has begun to dissipate, and in the wrong direction for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Over the last month, the number of undecided respondents on Gallup’s question of whether American adults would advise their Congressman to vote for or against ObamaCare slid 11 points, while the overall disapproval of the bill itself hit 49%, as opposed to 44% approval:

Americans currently tilt against Congress’ passing healthcare legislation, with 49% saying they would advise their member to vote against a bill (or they lean that way) and 44% saying they would advocate a vote in favor of the bill (or lean toward advising a yes vote). …

Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to new healthcare legislation — 86% would advise their member of Congress to vote against it, while 12% would want their member to support it. Democrats, on the other hand, favor it by a 76% to 17% margin. Independents oppose passage of a bill by 53% to 37%.

Support among all three party groups has declined since the early October high — falling by 6 points among Democrats, 8 among independents, and 12 among Republicans. However, Democratic support recovered somewhat from early November (71%) to late November (76%).

Without leaners, the picture looks just as grim for ObamaCare advocates. Only 35% of adults — not registered or likely voters — support the bill, while 42% oppose it. Not only is the latter the highest level of opposition so far this year, it’s higher than support ever reached this year, too. Support rebounded from a low of 29% in October, but only claimed about half of those who made up their minds in that period.

Gallup doesn’t present any historical data on Obama’s approval rating on health care, but he’s upside-down by 13 points on this survey, 40/53. Democrats approve of his work on the issue at 74%, but as Gallup notes, they approve overall at 80%. Independents have Obama 25 points under water on health care, 33/58, a dangerous level of disapproval heading into the Senate debate.

Are our elected representatives listening? They’ll listen a year from now, but if these numbers are any indication, that will be far too late.world news

Lawmakers From Both Parties Raise Concerns Over Afghan War Escalation

2009-11-30T17:40:00.001+03:00

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) - Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) voiced their concerns Sunday about the war in Afghanistan, its cost, and the troop increase that President Obama is expected to announce on Tuesday.

Sen. Levin, the leading Senate Democrat on military matters, said Sunday that President Obama's anticipated plan for significantly expanding U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan must show how those reinforcements will help increase the size of the Afghan security forces. Levin argued that more Afghan troops and police are central to succeeding in the 8-year-old war and more U.S. trainers and equipment can help meet that goal. But it's unclear, Levin said, what role tens of thousands additional combat troops will play

Sen. Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday that Congress should consider a special tax to pay for the war. The president is expected to announce an increase of up to 35,000 more U.S. forces at an annual cost of $75 billion when the nation is struggling to reduce high unemployment and foreclosure rates. The LA Times:

"I think we will have to pay for it," Lugar said in an interview on CNN. "We may wish to discuss higher taxes to pay for it."

Lugar also said he believes that Americans, already faltering in their support of the war, would not be willing to sustain the military campaign beyond five more years.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-Vt.) also voiced concerns about the cost of an escalation in Afghanistan, saying it's 'immoral' to spend money on the war during a dfficult economic timewithout finding a way to pay for it.

A war surtax has been introduced by Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.). The tax would be begin in 2001 and service members and their families would be exempt.

The lawmakers' remarks are a preview of the possible roadblocks Obama faces as he prepares to sell a broader, more expensive battle plan for Afghanistan to the American public.

Lawmakers want a greater commitment from NATO allies so the U.S. isn't footing the bill on its own.
Story continues below

"I've got a real problem about expanding this war where the rest of the world is sitting around and saying, 'Isn't it a nice thing that the taxpayers of the United States and the U.S. military are doing the work that the rest of the world should be doing?'" said Sen. Sanders.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that several allied nations will offer a total of 5,000 more troops. But speaking Saturday at a news conference in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad, Brown also said Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government must meet specific benchmarks that allow foreign troops to gradually hand over control of the fighting to local forces.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has recommended speeding up the growth of the Afghan army and police. He wants an overall Afghan security force of 400,000 -- 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police officers -- by October 2013.

Levin has proposed moving that date back by a year to 2012. He says the manpower is available to support the faster timetable.

Levin appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Lugar and Obey appeared on CNN's "State of the Union." Sanders appeared on ABC's "This Week."
world news

Cyber Monday: Giving Online For The Holidays

2009-11-30T12:59:00.001+03:00

Though technically not the biggest online shopping day of the year, the Monday after Thanksgiving has come to be known as "Cyber Monday," a day when online retailers release a bevy of deals leading up to Christmas.

So, you could spend your down time at work today scouring the web for online deals, or you could follow our steps to giving online this season. Some retailers are offering some special ways to contribute along with purchases. Away we go:

•Your top bet for buying and giving is Good Shop, a site by GoodSearch.com which links to online coupons and gives up to 30% of each purchase you make to the organization or school of your choice. The donation money comes from commission paid by retailers to GoodSearch.com

•Animal-lovers can contribute to good through BringPetsHome.org, a site that's partnered with Amazon.com, Walmart, Macy's and others to donate a portion of online purchases to animal shelters.

•UncleVic.com is offering to donate $1 for every purchase made on the site through tonight as part of its Penny Pincher Promotion. Online shoppers can visit Uncle Vic's Facebook page to vote on which of six select nonprofit organizations should receive the donations.world news

Distorting Honduran History at the New York Times

2009-11-30T12:55:00.001+03:00

I’m having a hard time deciding whether this article in the New York Times is dishonest or just biased toward the Obama Administration’s point of view. The author purports to be critical of the administrations vacillations toward the situation in Honduras, but clearly she’s in the tank on the administration’s approved explanation about what happened there. Here is the offensive paragraph.

Mr. Zelaya, once a darling of the Honduran upper classes, fell from favor when he began increasing the minimum wage, reducing the price of fuel and allying himself with President Chávez. His critics say he crossed a line when he defied the Supreme Court and pushed a referendum to change the Constitution so that he could run for another term. The court called in the military

That poor Zelaya, hero of the working class and foe of the rich, huh? Except you and I both know that’s now what really happened. In this case, “his critics” included the entire government of Honduras. Zelaya did not merely defy the Supreme Court; he openly violated the Honduran constitution which is crystal clear on the matter of Presidents serving more than one term and on the penalty for anyone who even attempts to change that provision. Both the Supreme Court (which unanimous decision included members of Zelaya’s own party) and the Honduran legislature decided to remove Zelaya, even though they did not need to do so. Their actions were found appropriate by the Law Library of Congress. I suppose you could call all those people “his critics” but that does cover them under an umbrella of understatement that’s so obscure as to be misleading.

Which does seem to be the point.

It’s also worth noting that “his critics” also included every printing business in Honduras (none of which would print his illegal ballot, which is why he had them printed in Venezuela) and the head of the armed forces, General Romeo Vasquez, who refused to comply with his illegal order.

In other words, “his critics” include the whole of the Honduran government, the head of the Honduran armed forces, all the printers in Honduras, and the Law Library of the Congress of the United States. Biased or dishonest; you tell me.

There is a truth in that paragraph, though, but it is also understated to the point of deception as well. The court did indeed call in the military to enact its will, bit it did so because the military was the appropriate authority to use in that situation according to the constitution. If the court has used any other law enforcement authority, it would have been guilty of violating the constitution just as surely as Zelaya is. The way that little fact reads, though, you’d think that the court brought in the military just like the military came in on every other coup in Central America.

Honduras has worked very hard over the years to pull itself out of decades of being an unstable banana republic where various “Presidents for Life” were toppled by any general with enough soldiers. The country has a constitution that works and a government that is respectful of the rule of law and good order. The Obama administration has discredited itself badly and shown a staggering amount of ignorance by treating Honduras like it was just another banana republic when it clearly is not. I’m sorry the New York Times had to resort to rhetorical chicanery to help prop up the administration’s ignorant and callous treatment of a would-be ally.

The only consolation is that the author has billed her piece as “news analysis”. Hopefully she never gets the chance to flex her puny analytical muscles again.

(cross-posted at The Sundries Shack)

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.world news

Recovery.con?

2009-11-30T12:54:00.001+03:00

A little over a week ago, the Putnam County Courier joined the list of regional newspapers that have begun asking serious questions about Porkulus job accounting. The Courier goes as far as to call the “saved or created” claims of the Obama administration “Recovery.con,” in its headline. Michael Brendan Dougherty finds many of the same kinds of fraud that newspapers around the nation have in the claims by the White House of stimulus success:

Recovery.gov, the Obama administration’s attempt at creating transparency in the $787-billion dollar stimulus program, is a transparent failure in Putnam County.

The Federal government claims that when Putnam County purchased five Paratransit vans with $319,000 of federal stimulus funds, 60 jobs were saved. A casual visitor to Recovery. gov might think that those 60 jobs were in Putnam County. But John Lynch, Putnam County’s Commissioner of Planning/Development and Public Transportation, said, “That number of 60 jobs is incorrect.”

In fact, the number of jobs that should appear on the report is not 60, but just 1.54, and those one and a half jobs are actually in New Paris, Indiana. Whether by bureaucratic error, or deliberate maneuvering, the administration has inflated claims of job creation based on Putnam County stimulus spending. Other stimulus-funded projects in Putnam County are riddled with reporting errors and inaccuracies.

Recovery.gov reports that Putnam County has received $1,092,595 of stimulus money for projects, $319,000 of which was dedicated to purchasing five new Paratransit vans, manufactured by Turtletop Busses in Indiana. Lynch told the Courier that the inaccurate number of 60 jobs created by the purchase of vans “counted both the second and third fiscal quarters, when it was only supposed to count the third quarter.” Putnam County officials tried to correct the number before the third quarter report was issued, but were “frozen out of the system” according to Lynch.

As in other jurisdictions, the Courier finds that most of the money went to education — where jobs really weren’t at risk at all:

Many of the other projects listed on Recovery. gov relate to local schools. Education related stimulus spending was first dispersed from the federal government to states, and then the states in turn awarded grants based on applications. In Putnam, the Carmel Central School district received over $2.2 million dollars. According to the government’s own reporting, this money has saved and created no jobs whatsoever. Superintendent Dr. James Ryan did not immediately respond to inquiries for this story. But according to other school officials, such numbers on the government’s transparent Web site are inaccurate.

The Brewster Central school district received $1,828,466. “Basically a lot of it went to saving jobs that were slated to be eliminated last spring,” said Assistant Superintendent Timothy Conway. “Then a fair amount of it has gone to help children who are from low socio-economic backgrounds or those who need extra help in school. All of it is going in those areas of direct instruction.”

“I think it is somewhere between ten and twelve [jobs that were saved],” said Conway, “I think they were almost all teachers and one administrative position.” Documentation for these claims was not immediately available, though the Courier has requested it. Asked how long these jobs were off the chopping block, Conway said, “My understanding is the stimulus money is a two year commitment” Asked whether any of the teachers knew that their jobs would have been cut absent the federal money, Conway responded, “No.”

That’s because those jobs weren’t at risk. Porkulus funds allowed the states to shift money from education to other areas of the state bureaucracy by pasting over their budget gaps. States would not have laid off teachers, police officers, and firefighters in the absence of that cash. They would have been forced to cut other areas of the budget, trim bureaucracies and red tape, and position their states for better tax and spending policies in the future.

But even if we accept the notion that ten to twelve jobs got saved, the investment is rather eye-opening. It amounts to $152,372.16 for every job saved in the Brewster School District. That’s for a two-year commitment, by the way, which makes it over $76,000 for each job per year — which seems a little high for teachers, but not for some other bureaucrats in the state system. And what happens when the money runs out?

Let’s add New York to the list of states whose media are discovering the fraud of Porkulus:

* New Hampshire
* Florida and Georgia
* Ohio
* Wisconsin
* New Jersey
* Virginia
* Texas
* Illinois
* Colorado
* Washington
* Massachusetts
* Arkansas
* Connecticut
* Michigan
* California (San Diego)
* New York
world news

Black Friday sales flat against ‘08 figures

2009-11-30T12:53:00.001+03:00

Call it a wash. The biggest retail day of the year managed to match up against the sales figures from last year, eking out a 0.5% increase — perhaps not even enough to cover what little inflation may have occurred over the past year. Retailers took in $10.66 billion on Friday, but the news reports leave out an important question:

Shoppers who endured long lines and sometimes-frigid temperatures spent only slightly more during their Black Friday shopping sprees than they did last year, according to data released Saturday by a research firm.

At the same time, their pajama-clad counterparts, a much smaller group that accounted for only a fraction of overall sales, shopped online from the warmth of their homes and dramatically boosted their spending. …

Preliminary sales data from Martin’s organization, a Chicago research firm that tracks sales at more than 50,000 stores, showed shoppers spent $10.66 billion when they hit the malls on the day after Thanksgiving. That’s only 0.5 percent more than last year when Black Friday sales rose a striking 3 percent.

The problem with using retail sales as a calculation is the same as using topline figures for a business to determine its health. Sales numbers are important, but we’re missing a critical piece — the cost of the sales. After all, anyone can sell a lot of merchandise if they’re willing to do it at a loss.

The AP mentions that retailers had to deeply discount early and often to bait shoppers:

Stores offerred deals on more practical items to woo recession-weary shoppers who more than ever might want gifts that the recipients will really appreciate.

Translation: Discounts moved from traditional low-margin seasonal gift ideas to staples, where retailers usually hope to recoup their bottom lines. That could be very bad news; as Ashley Heher notes, last year’s 3% Black Friday increase heralded a 4.4% drop in the overall holiday shopping season, topline. If retailers bought a 0.5% increase through deeper discounts, the margin on those sales will be thinner, and they may have pulled some future sales into Black Friday as a result.

The good news is that consumers who have jobs are willing to shop for the right deals. Even with that, though, shoppers are less enthusiastic now than a year ago, when the economy was crashing and panic was starting to appear but retailers still got a 3% improvement on Black Friday from 2007. One might have thought that, with all of the “All is well!” rhetoric, that shoppers may have felt more comfortable expanding their buying, but apparently not. Even when they are willing to buy, they are not willing to shop at normal retail prices, and bargain-hunting now may mean fewer sales later. If retailers had hoped to get healthy on Black Friday, they may find themselves in for a very disappointing Christmas.world news

Cambodian Ex-Prison Chief Pleads for Release

2009-11-28T04:12:00.002+03:00

In this photo released by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Kaing Guek Eav, the... Expand
In this photo released by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Kaing Guek Eav, the former chief of the Khmer Rouge's notorious S-21 prison, sits in the courtroom of the U.N.-backed tribunal in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Friday, Nov. 27, 2009. Both sides in the genocide trial wrap up their cases on Friday amid allegations by prosecutors that the former school teacher's admissions of guilt are insincere. (AP Photo/Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia) Collapse
(AP)
Khmer Rouge prison chief asks Cambodia genocide tribunal to release him, citing time served
By SOPHENG CHEANG and LUKE HUNT Associated Press Writers
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia After claiming to feel great remorse for his part in Khmer Rouge atrocities, the defendant in Cambodia's first genocide trial on Friday surprised the court with a last-minute plea for his freedom, saying he should not have been prosecuted and has already spent ten years in jail.

Kaing Guek Eav, who headed a torture center from which about 16,000 men, women and children were sent to their deaths, seemingly stepped back from previous assertions of responsibility for his actions and expressions of sorrow to his victims, as well as willingness to accept severe punishment.

His Cambodian lawyer, Kar Savuth, went a step further and stunned the tribunal by issuing the trial's first clear call for an acquittal of his client, even after his French lawyer, Francois Roux, denied seeking such a verdict.

Only when directly pressed by a frustrated Judge Dame Silvia Cartwright of New Zealand did Kar Savuth say that in calling for Duch's release he was seeking his acquittal. After consultations, the judges at the U.N.-assisted tribunal accepted the plea for acquittal, even though the legal basis for it was unclear.

Acquittal in legal terms normally means a finding that the defendant is not guilty of the crimes he is charged with, while the defense case hinged generally on claims that Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch, ought to have any punishment lightened in view of his cooperation with the court and expressions of remorse.

Cambodian-American human rights lawyer Theary Seng said the call for an acquittal was difficult to understand.

"What he did totally undermines his efforts up until now in terms of remorse and it undermines his request for forgiveness, which I thought was genuine," she said. "It's inexplicable and calls into question his previous efforts of remorse. This is really disturbing."

Friday's dramatic turn of events came as the trial was in its next to last stage, with prosecution and defense making rebuttals to the other's closing arguments. Judges are expected to issue their verdict early next year.Duch is charged with crimes against humanity, war crimes, murder and torture.The prosecution earlier this week asked the court to sentence Duch to 40 years in jail, taking into account his cooperation and time served while waiting for trial. The maximum sentence he could receive is life imprisonment. Cambodia has no death penalty.

Some 1.7 million Cambodians died of torture, execution, disease and starvation due to the radical communist policies of the 1975-79 Khmer Rouge regime. Four senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge are also in the tribunal's custody, and they are expected to be tried next year or later.

Even Friday, Duch spoke of acknowledging and apologizing for "the more than one million souls who perished" due to the crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge.But he went on to claim that the tribunal's mandate was to prosecute senior Khmer Rouge leaders, and didn't apply to him, an argument that had already been rejected by the court.

Also pointing out the time he had already spent in custody, Duch said to the judges, "I ask the chamber to release me."

The tribunal earlier this year ruled that Duch had been held illegally for five of the eight years he was in the custody of Cambodia's military court before being transferred to the tribunal, and that if found guilty, he could get credit not only for time already served but also to compensate for the earlier violation of his rights.

The positions of Duch's two lawyers seemed to diverge in their closing arguments earlier this week, with Kar Savuth seeking an acquittal, and Roux pleading for a lenient prison sentence due to his client's contrition and cooperation with the court.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or world news

New group tries to convince Cheney to run in 2012

2009-11-28T04:06:00.002+03:00

Washington (CNN) – A new group wants former Vice President Dick Cheney back in the White House.

The organization - "Draft Dick Cheney 2012" - launched on Friday, and unveiled their new Web site. Their aim: To convince the former vice president to seek the Republican presidential nomination in the next race for the White House. But there may be a major roadblock to the group's pitch - Cheney himself.

"The 2012 race for the Republican nomination for President will be about much more then who will be the party's standard bearer against Barack Obama, the race is about the heart and soul of the GOP," said Christopher Barron, one of the organizers of the Draft Cheney movement. "There is only one person in our party with the experience, political courage and unwavering commitment to the values that made our party strong – and that person is Dick Cheney."

The former vice president has been a frequent outspoken critic of the Obama administration's security policy. He recently suggested that Obama was "dithering" over deciding on adding more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. National polls suggest that the former vice president remains popular among conservatives and Republicans.

Does Cheney want to run for the White House? He was quite blunt earlier this month about whether he had any desire make a bid for the presidency in the next election. At an event in Houston for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who's running for Texas governor, Hutchison was joined by Cheney, who endorsed her bid against fellow Republican incumbent Rick Perry. During the rally, Hutchison yelled out to the crowd "Cheney 2012!" and some one in the audience quickly responded "We need you, Dick!"

Cheney's response: "Not a chance."

Barron says the group hopes to follow up Friday’s Web launch with a more formal structure, which will include building a database and reaching out through social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Barron adds that there is no budget set yet, and that the effort is grassroots at this point. He says the group plans on targeting tea party events and plans on building grassroots chapters in key early presidential caucus and primary states including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.world news

What America Must Learn from India's 9/11

2009-11-28T03:59:00.002+03:00

Mr. Rajat Malhotra of the Center For Peace & Spirituality (right) and Rabbi Avraham Berkowitz (left)
By Forum Contributor

- FOXNews.com

When religious-inspired terrorists use the Web to spread hatred it falls to religious leaders to respond by building bridges. But our efforts will fail unless misguided politicians refuse to stop cloaking the enemies of humanity behind a shroud of dangerous and false political correctness.

I came to Mumbai to convene the first multifaith event of the many memorials on the first anniversary of 11/26 -- India’s 9/11. Together with my Hindu partner, the Art of Living Foundation, I walked through Mumbai’s main train station -- a terminal that handles 7 million passengers a day -- tracing the route where 100 commuters were slaughtered. I stared at the large sign “For Women and Children Hospital” which failed to deter those shooters from firing at the nearby Muslim-run hospital. A taxi driver outside the sea-front Trident hotel, which lost 6 employees, told me how the cabbie next to him had offered a ride to two backpackers who moments later would spray deadly automatic fire at the adjacent Oberi Hotel. I sat with Rajita, who together with her husband was held hostage for 13 hours before barely escaping with their lives. Scores of others weren’t so lucky. A thoroughly modern and charming professional, she finally overcame her trauma to re-enter the hotel for the first time since 26/11, in order to read a poem about love and forgiveness at our memorial.

Finally, I visited Mumbai’s Chabad House.

For those of us who travel extensively in Asia, Chabad is synonymous with joy and community — from Tokyo to Timbuktu—Chabad is every travelling and wandering Jew’s home away from home.

I found the five-story walk-up in a mixed residential and market area virtually untouched since Indian commandos finally stormed the place on November 29 to kill the terrorists and recover the bodies of six innocents, including a beautiful young couple, Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg. The room of their beloved toddler, Moishie—who was miraculously saved by his Indian nanny—was still lit up by the Hebrew alphabet and Jewish symbols painted on the wall. His toys and stroller were still there. On another bullet- riddled floor was the synagogue where a torah scroll inside the Holy Ark was pierced by a single bullet—that pierced the parchment of the Five Books of Moses that reads “Achrei Moat” (“after the death of martyrs”)!

The initial official reaction to the three day siege last year which left over 500 dead and injured, and a world-class city traumatized sounds eerily familiar to this American. Indian government officials were in denial about the extent and interrelations of terrorist threats, together with much of the media, they hid the hard reality of the terrorist attacks under a cloud of euphemism. Terrorists were labeled as “gunmen;” there was an initial failure to identify their Islamist affiliations and beliefs, and to describe the Jewish target—blocks removed from the hotels and train station—as merely an “accidental hostage scene.” Just as Dr. Phil sought to explain away the Fort Hood shooting spree as the result of Major Hasan’s “vicarious PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder)” triggered by his impending assignment to Afghanistan, last year Deepak Chopra claimed on CNN that the Mumbai massacre was “collateral damage” caused by delayed Muslim anger at the Bush administration’s attack on Iraq.

Meanwhile, back in the United States there were two related and perplexing developments. First, the refusal by official Washington and much of the media to apply the “T-word” to American-born Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage in Fort Hood. He will face a court martial for multiple murders but he will not tried for “terrorism.” Second, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s convoluted decision to try by military commission the international terrorists who attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Aden in 2000, while consigning the international terrorists, led by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, to a civilian trial in a federal courthouse not far from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center But the India I visited on the eve of the11/26 anniversary has come to realize, their attackers were no mere criminals, but trained terrorists who launched acts of war against the world’s largest democracy. The key player: A Pakistani-born American citizen, David Coleman Headley, aka Daood Gilani.

Headley was arrested last month for conspiring with Chicago businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Canadian citizen also born in Pakistan, in an international plot to kill the Danish cartoonist and target the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, responsible for the 2005 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. We now learn from a joint investigation by Indian and U.S. authorities that Headley, months before the Mumbai attack, also spied for the Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba, casing all ten Mumbai locations that were subsequently attacked. Headley even posed as a Jew when he visited the Mumbai Chabad House, learning the layout of the fellowship facility. The Calcutta Telegraph reports that Headley still had in his possession a book titled “To Pray as a Jew” at the time of his U.S. arrest. Far from the accidental tourist, it now emerges, during his visit last summer; Headley also may have mapped out India’s nuclear sites.

Headley’s arrest, as he prepared to fly back to Pakistan, is only one of a dozen Islamist terror plots uncovered in the U.S. in 2009. Just as terrorists today “think globally while acting locally,” we who oppose terrorism must build new digital-age networks from both the ground up and the top down to foster tolerance and cooperation between faiths and civilizations. Last year in Mumbai, the enemies of human decency indiscriminately slaughtered Hindus, Muslims, and Christians and sought out and murdered, peaceful, and pious individuals solely because they were Jews. This year, I came to Mumbai to further an interfaith coalition of nine faith communities—Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Bahia Sikhs, Jane and others—to rebuild bridges of cooperation within Mumbai and between it and global faith communities. This effort was launched jointly by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Art of Living Foundation.
When religious-inspired terrorists use Internet social networking to spread hatred and divisiveness, it falls to religious leaders to respond by building bridges. Where they organize hatred, we must create new paradigms of mutual trust. Where they polarize, we will harmonize. While they accuse us of “loving life over death,” we plead guilty as charged and sentence ourselves to a lifetime of building a world based on love and tolerance. But all these efforts will come to naught unless misguided politicians around the world stop cloaking the enemies of humanity behind a shroud of dangerous and false political correctness.

In Mumbai, a leading Muslim figure openly denounced the Muslim perpetrators of 11/26 as terrorists and then stepped from the podium to publicly embrace a grieving Chabad Rabbi before dozens of cameras and reporters. In the struggle to secure our Homeland, it’s high time for America’s leaders to entrust their citizens with the most powerful weapon of all: The Truth.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper is associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He’s traveled extensively throughout Asia, including India. He coordinated a multifaith solidarity meeting in Mumbai to remember the victims of the 11/26/08 terror attacks.
world news

Liberals Vow to 'Spank' Obama for Sending More Troops to Afghanistan

2009-11-28T03:57:00.002+03:00

By Stephen Clark

- FOXNews.com

President Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals within his own party who are vowing to "spank" the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.

President Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals who are vowing to "spank" the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.

In a prime-time speech Tuesday from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama is expected to announce that he is sending up to 35,000 additional troops to Afghanistan beginning next year.

The figure is short of the 40,000 troops his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, requested -- but enough to anger many congressional Democrats who oppose any potential troop surge, arguing that the mission is too expensive and lacks a clear objective.

"I think there will be some disillusionment within his base," said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president's announcement.

"We're going to spank him for sending more troops," he told FoxNews.com, adding that they may also "thank him" if he announces a quick exit strategy.

The White House has said that the U.S. won't be in Afghanistan for another eight or nine years. But that won't satisfy liberals, Martin said.

Even though Obama's announcement is sure to reawaken the anti-war movement, Martin said, the protests won't be as intense as they were in the Bush era because the movement has been weakened by the economic recession -- some organizations have shed up to 40 percent of staff in the past year, he said -- and is distracted by the national health care debate. He also said many members of the movement voted for Obama and trust him more than the Bush administration.

"So you don't have that same type of anger," he said.

But without the support of congressional Democrats, Obama will find himself in the awkward position of relying on the support of Republicans who largely oppose his domestic agenda. And he may have to explain how he supports a troop surge in Afghanistan when he opposed one in Iraq two years ago.

Republicans, though, see the announcement as a chance for Obama to finally work with both political sides.

"The president does face a serious battle inside his own caucus, his own party, particularly in the House of Representatives," former senior Bush adviser Karl Rove told Fox News. "But here's a moment for bipartisanship. I suspect the president will easily win support for this if he reaches out and melds together the Democrats who are willing to support his war policy with the Republicans. I suspect virtually every Republican will support the president in this if he asks for their support."

Before Obama speaks Tuesday, he is meeting at the White House with all the Democratic chairmen of the relevant committees along with their Republican counterparts.

Two top Democrats have already said they will push for a "war surtax," a new tax on the wealthy to pay for any increase in U.S. troops for the war.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which controls the pursestrings for the war, and Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are making the demands.

"If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well ... by having a war surtax," Obey told ABC News this week. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people that has to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody is blithely unaffected by the war."
world news

Finally: Red Eye interviews the “queen of conservative media”

2009-11-28T03:56:00.002+03:00

A racy roundtable segment to mark the boss’s first appearance on the show, featuring a surprisingly contentious Gutfeld/Levy argument about strippers and a soliloquy about breast implants from “Pinch.” No no, I kid: Everyone was on their best behavior for MM, thankfully. The highlight? Gut’s gotcha question about why she continues to employ a certain Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass. (No, kidding again. Next time, Levy!)

She does get a chance to talk about how it felt to kill that census worker she didn’t kill, and from there it’s an easy segue into the chalky whiteness of MSNBC’s “diverse” primetime line-up. Enjoy.world news

Video: Palin, like, totally pwn3d by Canadian comedian or something

2009-11-28T03:54:00.001+03:00

Via Think Progress, this one’s making the rounds on liberal blogs but even left-leaning Mediate can’t fathom why (“the video actually acquits Palin quite well”). The politics are elementary: She gets ambushed with a question about a boutique subject, i.e. Canadian health-care policy, and offers a boilerplate answer about carving out space for competition from the private sector (which is precisely what Canada’s been doing, when it’s not busy sending patients it can’t treat over the border for medical care). Ho hum. What makes it worth watching is the fact that the “comedian” actually got close enough to Palin to hit her with a gotcha question — and this is the best she could do. There are literally a million snotty/funny one-liners a talented comic could come up with for Sarahcuda — imagine what Robert Smigel would do with 30 seconds as Triumph the Insult Comic Dog — and these people, who are billed as Canada’s answer to The Daily Show if you can believe it, whiffed on all of them. Merely mentioning Levi Johnston’s bare ass in her presence would have earned an obligatory embarrassment chuckle, but they couldn’t even muster that. Never have I appreciated Jon Stewart more. And I don’t even like Jon Stewart.world news

The IAEA’s “ovewhelming display of disapproval” for Iranian nuclear program is …

2009-11-28T03:53:00.001+03:00

Well, this ought to do the trick! The IAEA, apparently angry at Iran’s refusal to stop doing what everyone knows damned well they’ve been doing for more than a decade, finally lost patience with Iran yesterday. In what the New York Times hilariously describes as “an overwhelming display of disapproval,” the UN’s nuclear-control agency has … wait for it … sent Iran a strongly worded letter:

One day after the director general of the United Nations nuclear watchdog castigated Iran for blocking inquiries into its nuclear program, the organization’s governing body added a further rebuke Friday, demanding that the country freeze operations “immediately” at a once-secret uranium enrichment plant.

In an overwhelming display of disapproval, the governing body also expressed “serious concern” about potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program.

The resolution censuring Iran was approved overwhelmingly by 25 votes to 3. It came after Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared in unusually blunt language on Thursday that Iran had stonewalled investigators about evidence that the country had worked on nuclear weapons design, and that his efforts to reveal the truth had “effectively reached a dead end.”

Are you overwhelmed by this display of disapproval? Jazz Shaw is decidedly underwhelmed, but sees reason for optimism:

This comes close on the heels of the IAEA report stating that Iran was not cooperating with their inspections of Iran’s secret uranium enrichment plant. Despite the somewhat snarky title of this column, there is some tentative good news in this report. Both Russia and China signed on this time, which comes as something of a shock compared to their past attitudes. Some are attributing China’s apparent change of heart to Obama’s recent visit to that nation along with warnings from U.S. representatives to the Chinese that the escalating situation could result in threats to their oil supply from Iran.

Still, while there’s some reason to be hopeful, a “strongly worded letter” is far short of real action. The question is, will the Russians and the Chinese sign on for serious additional sanctions against Iran. A bit of lip service is one thing. Building a coalition of the worlds greatest powers to hit them in the pocketbook would be something else entirely. And if you are serious about wanting to avoid war with Iran, preferring a diplomatic resolution to the tensions there, sanctions from a unified front of Tehran’s biggest customers is likely the only tool we have in the bag.

China may be more likely to damage their own economic interests than Russia, considering the relative strength of their economies, but in truth neither will be at all likely to go beyond the strongly-worded letter. As Jazz notes, the Chinese rely on Iranian oil, and even if they were willing to isolate Iran, the rest of the global supply probably couldn’t make it up. Russia’s economy has cratered, and they need the exports to Iran to keep them afloat.

Besides, this isn’t the first time that the IAEA has taken this action. They did it in 2006 as well, with similar results. A year later, the US intelligence community would produce a National Intelligence Estimate that completely undermined the IAEA action, and would turn out to be completely wrong, as the revelation of Irans’ Qom facility would embarrassingly demonstrate.

If we want Russia and China on board, we have to be able to show that failing to contain Iran would be more dangerous to their interests than letting them proceed. So far, neither Obama nor Bush has been able to make that case, and not for lack of trying. Bush tried pressure, Obama tried sweet talk, and neither succeeded because China and Russia don’t really care all that much about Iranian nuclear ambitions — at least, they don’t care about that more than they do their own pocketbooks. And that’s not likely to change.

The boys at South Park Studios lampooned the New York Times’ hyperbole years before in their movie,Team America: World Police. In the following not-safe-for-work (and I mean really NSFW) clip, Hans Blix tries the strongly-worded letter approach:world news

Your request is being processed... Dubai's Request For Debt 'Standstill' Shakes World Markets

2009-11-28T03:52:00.002+03:00

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Just a year after the global downturn derailed Dubai's explosive growth, the city is now so swamped in debt that it's asking for a six-month reprieve on paying its bills – causing a drop on world markets Thursday and raising questions about Dubai's reputation as a magnet for international investment.

The fallout came swiftly and was felt globally after Wednesday statement that Dubai's main development engine, Dubai World, would ask creditors for a "standstill" on paying back its $60 billion debt until at least May. The company's real estate arm, Nakheel – whose projects include the palm-shaped island in the Gulf – shoulders the bulk of money due to banks, investment houses and outside development contractors.

In total, the state-backed networks nicknamed Dubai Inc. are $80 billion in the red and the emirate needed a bailout earlier this year from its oil-rich neighbor Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

Markets took the news badly – with the Dubai woes and the continued fall of the U.S. dollar giving investors twin worries. Dubai's move raised concerns about debt across the Gulf Region. Prices to insure debt from Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain all rose by double-digit percentages Thursday, according to data from CMA DataVision.

In Europe, the FTSE 100, Germany's DAX and the CAC-40 in France opened sharply lower. Earlier in Asia, the Shanghai index sank 119.19 points, or 3.6 percent, in the biggest one-day fall since Aug. 31. Hong Kong's Hang Seng shed 1.8 percent to 22,210.41.

Wall Street was closed for the Thanksgiving holiday and most markets in the Middle East were silent because of a major Islamic feast.

"Dubai's standstill announcement ... was vague and it remains difficult to discern whether the call for a standstill will be voluntary," said a statement from the Eurasia Group, a Washington-based research group that assesses political and financial risk for foreign investors interested in Dubai.

"If it is not, Dubai World will be going into default and that will have more serious negative repercussions for Dubai's sovereign debt, Dubai World and market confidence in the UAE in general," the statement added.
Story continues below

Dubai became the Gulf's biggest credit crunch victim a year ago. But its ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, had continually dismissed concerns over the city-state's liquidity and claims it overreached during the good times.

When asked about the debt, he confidently assured reporters in a rare meeting two months ago that "we are all right" and "we are not worried," leaving details of a recovery plan – if such a plan exists – to everyone's guess.

Then, earlier this month, he told Dubai's critics to "shut up."

"He needs to produce a recovery plan that will be respected by those who want to do business with Dubai," said Simon Henderson, a Gulf and energy specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "If he does not do it right, Dubai will be a sad place."

After months of denial that the economic downturn even touched the glitzy city-state, the Dubai government earlier this year showed signs of trying to deal with the financial fallout that has halted dozens of projects and touched off an exodus of expatriate workers.

In February, it raised $10 billion in a hastily arranged bond sale to the United Arab Emirates central bank, which is based in Abu Dhabi.

The deal – seen by many as Abu Dhabi's bailout of Dubai – was part of a $20 billion bond program to help Dubai meet its debt obligations.

On Wednesday, the Dubai Finance Department announced the emirate raised another $5 billion by selling bonds – all taken by two banks controlled by Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi's ruling Al Nahyan family has been more conservative with its spending, investing oil profits into infrastructure, culture and state institutions. During Dubai's real estate bonanza, the Nahyans saw their flashy neighbor race ahead with development plans and tourism plans that had plenty of hype but few details on how they would be pulled off.

Some did materialize. The more than 2,600-foot (800-meter) Burj Dubai is scheduled to open in January as the world's tallest building. But many other projects, including a tower even taller than the Burj Dubai and satellite cities in the desert, are still just blueprints.

The standstill will likely not immediately affect CityCenter, an $8.5 billion casino complex opening next month in Las Vegas that is half-owned by Dubai World. A Dubai World subsidiary and casino operator MGM Mirage agreed with banks in April to fully fund and finish the six-tower, 67-acre development of plush resorts, condominiums, a retail mall and one casino on the Las Vegas Strip.

However, the standstill's effect may be felt on the famous Keeneland thoroughbred horse auctions near Lexington, Ky., where Sheik Mohammed is a prominent bidder.

Last week, Sheik Mohammed demoted several prominent members of Dubai's corporate elite and replaced them with members of the ruling family, including his two sons, one of whom is Mohammed's designated heir.

Businessmen who fell out of favor were closely associated with Dubai's phenomenal success. They include the head of Dubai World, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, and Mohammed Alabbar, the chief of Emaar Properties, developer of the Burj Dubai and hundreds of other projects.

"He is trying to shake things up," said Christopher Davidson, a lecturer on the Gulf at Britain's Durham University and an author of two books on the UAE.

However, Davidson added, Mohammed's decision to replace those who helped put Dubai on the world map with his relatives might be "read as an increase in autocracy which does not look good internationally."

Not everyone is upset at Dubai Inc.'s transformation into a family business, analysts say.

Mohammed's latest moves may have pleased Abu Dhabi more than the foreign investors, but it is Abu Dhabi that still has the strongest incentives to save Dubai from its financial misery.

"By shifting the power base back to the family things are as they should be as far as Abu Dhabi is concerned," said Mohammed Shakeel, a Dubai-based analyst for the Economist Intelligence Unit.

After an expensive adventure in doing things the Western way, it's "going back to basics" for Dubai, Shakeel added.world news

Gallup: Americans want KSM tried in a military tribunal

2009-11-28T03:51:00.002+03:00

Does the Obama administration ever get tired of getting things wrong? As their public support drains from the health-care overhaul they’ve pushed for the last several months, they have managed to find another way to marginalize themselves with the American public. By overwhelming numbers in the latest Gallup survey, Americans disapprove of the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a federal court — and can barely get a majority of Democrats to support it:

By 59% to 36%, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, rather than in a civilian criminal court. Most Republicans and independents favor holding the trial in a military court, while the slight majority of Democrats disagree.

These findings come from a Nov. 20-22 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Mohammed’s case would move from a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, where the admitted terrorist was originally charged, to a federal court in New York City.

As with most Gallup surveys, this poll was taken among adults, not registered or likely voters. That type of sample usually produces numbers that are more sympathetic to liberal policy positions but are less predictive in election forecasting. This suggests that the decision may be even less popular in the more predictive sampling of registered or likely voters.

The partisan breakdown is significant, too. Republicans oppose the decision 74/22, as might be expected. Independents, though, also oppose it by almost 2-1, 63/32. Democrats support it — but only by eight points, 51/43. Support for a federal court trial is a fringe position among everyone but Democrats.

The venue isn’t popular, either. The Obama administration decision to try KSM and his co-defendants in New York City, as opposed to another federal court, gets rejected 51/42 overall. Again, only Democrats support the venue choice by a majority, 55/36. Independents reject it by almost the same margin, 55/39, and Republicans oppose it 65/29.

Just about everyone agrees on the death penalty, though. Overall, 77% of Americans believe that KSM and the other 9/11 plotters should get executed if found guilty, while only 18% oppose it — and that number doesn’t get above 22% in any partisan demographic.

Once again, the Obama administration has taken a position that puts it in the fringe of American thought — and in this case, two decisions. With these kinds of splits, expect Obama’s job approval numbers to keep dropping.world news

Tiger Woods seriously injured in car crash? Update: “Domestic issue”

2009-11-28T03:50:00.002+03:00

Not our usual fare, but he’s the most famous athlete in the world and this is the slowest non-holiday news day of the year, which makes it darned near obligatory. Besides, there’s already intrigue swirling around the circumstances: Pulling out of his own driveway at 2:30 a.m., he hits a fire hydrant and a tree — and yet, according to the cops, there was no booze involved. Hmmmmm:

Woods, 33, pulled out of his driveway in the Isleworth community about 2:25 a.m. when he struck a fire hydrant, and then drove into a tree at his neighbor’s property, FHP reported.

Woods was transported to Health Central Hospital in Ocoee in serious condition, FHP said. No other information about his condition has been released…

FHP said the airbags in Woods’ Cadillac Escalade did not deploy, which means the vehicle was traveling under 33 mph.

Is he really in serious condition? His agent claims he’s fine and WESH says only that he suffered facial lacerations — although, according to the FHP, unspecified charges are pending. Hmmmm again. Stand by for updates, but in the meantime, an exit question: How do you lose control of a car so badly while pulling out of your own driveway that you end up playing pinball with not one but two fixed objects?

Update: TMZ: “As for reports charges are pending, we’re told charges could range from DUI to reckless driving … to nothing.”

Update: The Sentinel now says he was released from the hospital early this morning, which is hard to square with the reports of him having been in serious condition. The cuts to his face must have been awfully nasty.

Update: Yet another update from the Sentinel suggests that this wasn’t quite as bad as advertised: “FHP spokesman Jorge Delahoz said patients’ conditions are always classified as ’serious’ if they are transported to a hospital.”

Update: A neighbor tells TMZ that he looks fine.

Update: Commenters were speculating earlier that, given the hour, he might have left the house in a huff after arguing with his wife and pulled out of the driveway with the adrenaline pumping. Speculation confirmed.world news

Obama Pushes Lobbyists Off Federal Advisory Boards

2009-11-28T03:48:00.001+03:00

In a little-noticed blog post published on the White House website in September, President Obama's special counsel for ethics and government reform Norm Eisen announced that the administration no longer wanted federally-registered lobbyists appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions.

These appointees to boards and commissions, which are made by agencies and not the President, advise the federal government on a variety of policy areas. Keeping these advisory boards free of individuals who currently are registered federal lobbyists represents a dramatic change in the way business is done in Washington.

As has been reported, the President has made a commitment to close the revolving door that has in the past allowed lobbyists and others to move to and from full-time federal government service. In furtherance of this commitment, the President issued Executive Order 13490, which bars anyone appointed by the President who has been a federally-registered lobbyist within the past two years from working on particular matters or in the specific areas in which they lobbied or from serving in agencies they had lobbied. The aspiration we are announcing today builds on this commitment. While the letter of the President's Executive Order on Ethics does not apply to federally-registered lobbyists appointed by agency or department heads, the spirit does and we have conveyed that to the agencies who are responsible for these appointments.

On Friday, the Washington Post reported that the move "may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama," resulting in "hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists" being ejected from federal advisory panels.

Not surprisingly, lobby groups, corporations, and other K Street influencers are up in arms.

The reaction from the lobbying community has been swift and overwhelmingly negative. Some of the loudest criticism has come from the Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs), a collection of more than a dozen panels that provide policy advice and technical assistance to the Commerce Department and the U.S. Trade Representative. The ITACs, whose roughly 400 members include at least 130 lobbyists, officials say, have taken the lead in attacking the White House policy as misguided and harmful to U.S. business interests; a letter to Obama from committee chairs last month included executives from Boeing, IBM, Harley-Davidson and International Paper.

"This action will severely undermine the utility of the advisory committee process," the letter read. ". . . The characteristics that make many Advisors valuable to the Administration [are] the same characteristics that are being used to artificially disqualify them from participation in the Committee system."

Read the full Washington Post story here. You can read Norm Eisen's full letter responding to lobbyists' critiques of the decision here.
world news

Obama's Secret Climate Pact

2009-11-28T03:47:00.002+03:00

It's no coincidence that one day after the White House announced new emissions targets, China followed suit with its own target. The Daily Beast's Richard Wolffe on the behind-the-scenes negotiations during Obama's Asia trip that could help break the climate stalemate in Copenhagen.

After the Olympic-sized disappointment of his last trip to Copenhagen, why on earth would President Obama want to travel once again to the Danish capital for next month’s UN climate talks?

The answer, according to White House officials, lies in several weeks of intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy that the press corps entirely overlooked during Obama’s recent trip to China, and during the recent state visit by India’s prime minister.

"Obama is at the point where he feels on the verge of a breakthrough, based on the kind of talks that don’t get covered by reporters obsessing about state dinners."

Beyond the photo ops and press statements, Obama was pushing President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the kind of climate deals that eluded him at the G8 summit in Italy in the summer – and have eluded international negotiators for the last decade. China and India have played central roles in blocking past agreements, alongside the US, in a seemingly intractable dispute between fast-developing economies and the older, wealthier polluters.

Now Obama is at the point where he feels on the verge of a breakthrough, based on the kind of talks that don’t get covered by reporters obsessing about state dinners. “He had extensive conversations with President Hu specifically on climate and conversations with the prime minister of India,” said one senior White House aide. “So he has been building momentum for a political agreement to be brokered at Copenhagen.”

That was the backdrop for Wednesday’s White House announcement of specific targets to reduce emissions “in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020.” The next day, on Thanksgiving, China announced its own bargaining position to slow the growth of carbon emissions by 2020. Using a different standard from the US – measuring carbon intensity (relative to its own economic growth), China is offering a 40 to 45% cut below 2005 levels.

Environmental groups have criticized both the American and Chinese targets as too low. But the criticism was much sharper when it looked like President Obama might not attend Copenhagen. Now the White House says Obama believes he can be a decisive factor in turning the talks into a success. “He feels he can be a catalyst for getting a political agreement in place,” says one senior aide.

Obama’s decision to attend Copenhagen only crystallized over the last two weeks as the Chinese and Indian talks progressed, out of public view. However Obama will not stay for the conclusion of the week-long talks, and he arrives at the start of the conference before traveling on to Oslo, Norway, to accept his Nobel peace prize the following day. Instead, he will leave behind several White House and Cabinet officials, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and White House climate change czar Carol Browner.

By leaving early, Obama has drawn some European criticism since he will not be present for the later-stage arm-twisting that could be decisive in reaching an international agreement. Yet that scheduling decision also avoids any potential embarrassment in case Copenhagen ends up with no agreement whatsoever – a possible repeat of the Olympics fiasco. Speculation has already surfaced that the President might jet back to Copenhagen if a deal is within reach a week later. “Let’s hope there’s good karma in Copenhagen this time,” says one White House official.

The main difference between the Olympic trip and the climate talks: The White House has been doing its own prep work instead of relying on others. Obama’s personal investment in climate talks – from the G8 to his recent Asian travel – appears to have delivered some concrete, if modest, agreements. His prep has also delivered other benefits, including this week’s support from China for a strongly-worded, but limited, statement condemning Iran’s nuclear program at the IAEA. Both were overlooked during the Asia trip that was widely criticized for its lack of so-called deliverables.

However the climate negotiators may be more interested to hear about the kind of prep work the President has engaged in back home with his own Congress. Without a clear promise of binding US legislation, the Copenhagen talks may struggle to move ahead amid skepticism about America’s commitment to slowing climate change.

This week the White House was eager to point out that the President’s Copenhagen targets were in line with legislation currently before Congress. It also quoted favorably from a range of unlikely supporters, including Senator Joe Lieberman and several energy company CEOs, such as Jim Rogers of Duke Energy and Lew Hay of Florida Power & Light.

Whether those statements will satisfy the international negotiators, or add to any momentum inside Congress, is unclear. At least Obama will return from Europe with something golden and tangible in his hands: the medal dedicated to his Nobel prize.

Richard Wolffe is Daily Beast columnist and an award-winning journalist, and senior strategist at Public Strategies. He covered the entire length of Barack Obama's presidential campaign for Newsweek magazine. His book, Renegade: The Making of a President, was published by Crown in June.world news

Not all injuries suffered by our troops are physical – the psychological ones can be just as crippling

2009-11-27T12:40:00.002+03:00

JOHN HENDERSON carries his grief quietly. He is a friendly man. He cracks jokes and is up for a laugh, but his loss is always there, just on the edge of vision. "You hear a song on the radio or somebody says something to you so innocently, just something small and stupid," says the 43-year-old, shaking his head, "and it brings it all back."

In September 2005, Mr Henderson's 18-year-old son Stuart took his own life. Stuart was a soldier in Cyprus serving with 2 Scots the Royal Highland Fusiliers, a battalion that forms part of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. He had passed out three months earlier and had been posted to the island not long afterwards. Mr Henderson, from Carntyne in Glasgow, says neither he nor his wife, Catherine, had an inkling anything was seriously wrong. They knew Stuart, who was dyslexic and also suffered from dyspraxia, had been up and down on whether or not he was enjoying life in the army, but nothing more than that.

"He never said anything," his father says. "I had spoken to him the night before and he seemed a bit happier. The next day, I was at work and I got a phone call that somebody from the army was at the house looking for me, and I just thought 'what's he done? It must be something stupid'. I never for a moment thought it would be that."

The first few weeks following Stuart's death were terrible, as the Hendersons struggled to make sense of their only son's death. Then, at Christmas, they saw a programme on television about soldiers who suffered from mental health problems as a result of their time in the military.

"We started wondering just exactly what happened to these guys and if there was something we could do to help. So I contacted a guy at the Royal Highland Fusiliers who was really helpful and he told us if we wanted to start some sort of fundraising, Combat Stress would be a good place to start. I'd never even heard of them before," Mr Henderson says.

Combat Stress, which is 90 years old this year, is the country's largest veterans' mental health charity. It treats ex-forces men and women who have been involved in conflicts as far back as the Second World War and have suffered psychological problems as a result, most commonly post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a crippling condition that can result in severe trauma and repeated flashbacks, and significantly impair the sufferer's day-to-day life. Once known as shell shock, it is becoming increasingly common among Britain's armed forces veterans. Combat Stress has reported a 66 per cent increase in referrals in the past five years.

"I couldn't think of anything else to do, so I decided to set up a wee run and raise money that way," says Mr Henderson. "I wanted to raise money that I knew would go to helping these guys out."

In its first year, his "wee run" involved 30 competitors and raised £2,000. This year, 260 people took part, running a 5K race round Glasgow Green and raising more than £2,500. Next year, in March, he will hold it again, and hopes it will be the biggest and best yet.

John Henderson, whose son, Stuart, took his own life
John Henderson, whose son, Stuart, took his own life
But for Stuart's old battalion, the connection now runs deeper. Since his death, 2 Scots has adopted Combat Stress as its dedicated charity, helping to raise money and, perhaps even more importantly, adopting something of a two-way street, where serving soldiers can meet veterans suffering from PTSD, listen to their stories, and understand the issues at stake.

It is also an opportunity for the soldiers of 2 Scots – who completed a six-month tour in Afghanistan in 2008 and are due to return there next year – to relate their own combat experiences in such regions, so that when the staff at Combat Stress find themselves treating an Afghan veteran, they will better understand the environment in which their problems developed. It is a unique relationship, and one that could mark a sea-change in the way the armed forces approach mental health issues and lay down an important blueprint for the future.

"The army has always had a very male, macho culture," says Clive Fairweather, a former deputy commander of the SAS and chief fundraiser for Combat Stress in Scotland, where the charity has a large facility, Hollybush House, in Ayrshire.

"They don't want to talk about these problems and these issues. But that's beginning to change. It's a trickle that's become a swell. Civilian life has become more accepting of mental health problems and that has percolated through to the army – particularly an army that has been involved in two major conflicts in recent times."

Lieutenant Colonel Nick Borton, commanding officer of 2 Scots, agrees. "Everyone is now much clearer on what the problems are," he says. "Combat Stress are currently dealing with guys who served in the Falklands, Northern Ireland and Bosnia, but everyone is very conscious that we're fighting the most intense conflict we have done for many years, and we are aware that, downstream, there are going to be people who have difficulties as a result."

Combat Stress's place at Hollybush House treats veterans in a variety of ways, using relaxation techniques, cognitive behavioural therapy and eye movement desensitisation reprocessing, which attempts to "reprogramme" traumatic memories through intensive therapy. But perhaps its most important element is one of community: although the staff are mostly civilian, the men and women treated there are military veterans, and are often there for two weeks at a time. They provide a support network for each other that can be difficult to find in the civilian world, creating, as one veteran describes it, a feeling of "walking straight back into the barracks".

This was of particular importance when soldiers from 2 Scots visited Hollybush earlier this year. "They just sat down and were able to relate to these people, and the veterans were able to talk through their experiences without having to explain what this acronym means or that abbreviation means," says Major James Loudoun, 2 Scots officer commanding charities and a Scottish ambassador for Combat Stress.

"When somebody says 'I was bugging out towards the RV', my soldiers are able to say 'yep, I know exactly what you mean'. I think it was pretty good therapy for the soldiers to understand the help that is available and see it's not One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest – it's a proper facility where you can come and get help, meet people who understand, and then get on with your life."

Maj Loudoun also visited Hollybush with two colleagues to discuss with the nursing staff there the conditions men and women are facing on the front-line in Afghanistan. "We took the opportunity to say 'Look, this is what's happening here and now. You'll get soldiers talking about the living conditions and the shooting and the heat and we can tell you more about that'.

"We took along props so they understood the weight of what we were carrying, the size of the area we lived in, the harshness of the environment, the food, basically to highlight the stress that soldiers are under so that in the future, they'll be able to understand where soldiers talking about Afghanistan are coming from."

Mr Fairweather says: "It's been a completely two-way thing. They help us with funds, with practical knowledge and help, and then, coming the other way, they are now more aware of Combat Stress for their next tour of Afghanistan from the very start."

He says the importance of that must not be underestimated. "My opinion is that (2 Scots] are at the forefront of regiments taking mental health problems – be they minor or serious – in the spirit that I would love to see the rest of the army doing. Because, in the long run, aside from the practical and financial help, I feel it will lead to fewer serious mental health casualties in the future."

The relationship has been further cemented by a range of fundraising activities held by 2 Scots, such as walks, runs and even family days, in an effort to keep soldiers' families informed of the risks.

And then, of course, there is Mr Henderson's own run, in which a number of 2 Scots soldiers will take part. An inquest ruled in December 2006 that Stuart's death had been a suicide. In the months afterwards, organising the race – which is run in his memory – became a focus for Mr Henderson, something to concentrate his mind on.

"Even though Stuart was only in the army a short time, his mother and I were really proud of him," he says. "I think he'd be happy knowing that we're doing something now that means other soldiers can get the help that they need."
world news

Climate 'czar' says hacked e-mails don't change anything

2009-11-27T12:33:00.001+03:00

By Chris Versace

Today is Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving that kicks off the traditional Christmas shopping season, and as such refers to the beginning of the period in which retailers go from posting losses (being in the red) to making profits (being in the black). Will consumers shop in order to give gifts this holiday season? More likely than not, but how many gifts they will give and where they will buy them are all good questions.

In terms of our money and actual or potential investments, it behooves us to pay attention and see whether we can determine which retailers and products are poised to benefit this holiday season.

It's been rather easy to see or hear all about Black Friday sales - Kohl's is opening at 4 a.m., Target is opening at 5 a.m., and Wal-Mart is offering "Incredible In-Store Specials" from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. These are just a few of the Black Friday programs but rest assured other retailers such as Macy's, Nordstrom, Best Buy, Apple and others are offering "special holiday" hours, sales and promotions. While these extended hours and special sales have been the norm now for the past few years, they are rather important this year. Consumers' financial health is poor and thus retailers need as much holiday spending as they can get.

According to recent Gallup polls, Americans' estimate of the total amount they will spend on Christmas gifts this year has fallen precipitously over the past month, sending the figure back to last year's record lows. Americans' average Christmas spending prediction is now $638. This is marginally above the November 2008 level, one of the worst holiday retail seasons in recent memory. As a backdrop, last year's holiday retail spending fell 3.4 percent. Moreover, these findings are from Gallup's second holiday spending forecast and are down measurably from the first. Last month, Americans predicted they would spend an average $740 on gifts, a figure that offered more hope for holiday retailers. The most recent findings also reveal that while 57 percent now say they will spend the same amount on gifts as they did last Christmas, 34 percent indicate they will be spending less on gifts this year. By comparison, the National Retail Federation forecasts that this year's holiday sales will decline 1 percent, to $437.6 billion.

Despite the recent bump up in personal spending for October, it's not that hard to comprehend why consumers remain tight with their spending dollars. Even with the modest rise in October personal spending as reported earlier this week, the personal spending remains significantly below levels of the past 12 years. High unemployment rates and the current job crisis are easy to finger as both direct and indirect causes behind tepid consumer spending. Digging slightly deeper, we see the number of bankruptcies has jumped significantly in 2009. The American Bankruptcy Institute said 388,485 bankruptcies were filed during the last quarter, compared with 292,291 filed during the same period in 2008. Bankruptcy filings for the first nine months of the year are up 35 percent to 1,100,035 vs. the 841,496 filed for the same period in 2008 and a total of 1,117,771 for all of last year.

Another cause is that, despite the rebound in the stock market year to date (the S&P 500 is up 23 percent on that basis as I write this), the market is still 29 percent below its mid-October 2007 peak. By that measure, consumers still have lost close to one-third of their savings, retirement and other accounts that had significant stock market exposure. It should come as little surprise, then, that one in six Americans are saying that low wages and a lack of money are the number one financial problem facing their families today.

At the same time, merchants are scrambling to stock their shelves in preparation for the make-or-break holiday season. In normal times, retailers tend to borrow money in order to buy holiday inventory with the aim of repaying those borrowings once they have collected on their accounts receivable during and after the holiday shopping season. This year, however, is likely to be far more challenging as credit, particularly for small businesses, has dried up. Add to this the previously mentioned weak personal-spending trend, and business owners are faced with a cash crunch that could leave them challenged when it comes to stocking their shelves with products that consumers may want to buy this year.

As Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said, "The real concern is, can you sell stuff?"

With that in mind, the way I will determine which retailers will be successful and what products that will be bought is rather simple. Count the bags.

By counting the bags, I mean simply that - as you walk around the shopping centers, the malls and elsewhere keep an eye on which store-brand bags you are seeing people carry around and how frequent you see them. Not exactly rocket science, I admit, but as I have often shared here and elsewhere, investing is not rocket science. A healthy dose of good common sense mixed with keeping our eyes and ears open as to what is going on around us serves investors rather well.

So count those bags as you hunt down your holiday shopping bargains this year and if you see any stalwarts, you may want to see what people are buying. If it's compelling, you may want to sharpen your pencil on the company and its stock.

Happy counting.

Chris Versace is director of research at Think 20/20 LLC, an independent research and corporate access firm based in Reston. He can be reached at cversace@washingtontimes.com. At the time of publication, Mr. Versace had no positions in companies mentioned. However, positions can change. world news

Palin Tricked By Comedian Again, Says Canada Should Drop Public Health Care (VIDEO)

2009-11-27T12:30:00.001+03:00

At a recent stop on her "Going Rogue" book tour, Sarah Palin told Canadian comedian Mary Walsh that Canada should get rid of its public health care system.

Walsh is the co-creator and star of This Hour Has 22 Minutes -- a nightly news parody show in the same vein as The Daily Show -- and she arrived in character, as the conservative Marg Delahunty, to the Borders where Palin (the "Alaskan Aphrodite") was signing books.

"I just wanted to ask you if you have any words of encouragement for Canadian conservatives who have worked so hard to try to diminish the kind of socialized medicine we have up there." Walsh shouted to Palin as she approached the table.

Palin's handlers tried to help her by ushering Walsh out of the Borders, but Palin could not be deterred. When Palin left the signing, Walsh caught up with her in the parking lot, where Palin suggested that Canada should get rid of its public health care system. "Keep the faith" Palin said, "because common sense conservatism can be plugged in there in Canada too. In fact, Canada needs to reform its health care system and let the private sector take over some of what the government has absorbed."

Raw Story points out that it is unlikely this plan will go over well among Canadians -- even among conservatives.

A recent study found that 90 percent of Canadians support universal, single-payer health care. A poll taken last summer shows 82 percent of Canadians believe their health care system to be better than the US's, despite constant grumbling about waiting times for treatment of non-life-threatening conditions.

This is Palin's second brush with Canadian comedians. Last November a comedian from Montreal convinced the former governor she was speaking with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Watch the video below.

Later, Walsh remarked to the Canadian Press that "It was great fun, but also very strange."

Walsh said, she found it equally bizarre that no one was allowed to ask Palin any questions at the book-signing....

"We're in a bookstore, at a public event, in a place one would think was a bastion of free speech. And no one was allowed to ask questions. What are they afraid of?"world news

Your request is being processed... Black Friday Deals Online: BEST Websites For Black Friday 2009 Sales, Discounts

2009-11-27T12:28:00.001+03:00

The holiday shopping season is kicking into full force now that Thanksgiving is here.

With Black Friday and Cyber Monday just around the corner, some may prefer to stay home and do their shopping online.

There's plenty of great deals to be had online, and Iteya created the ultimate list of 101 websites to find the best deals for Black Friday and Cyber Monday 2009.

On the top of the rankings were:

1. Amazon: Free Super Saving Shipping on $25+ orders

2. eBay: Up to 90% off retail for some items

3. Fingerhut: Low monthly payments and six special offers

4. Walmart: Big markdowns on certain products
Story continues below

5. Kmart: $5 off $50 purchase with code KMART5OFF50

6. ShopNBC: Four special offers including 15% off first order

7. Sears: $5 off $50 purchase with code SEARS5OFF50

8. Buy.com: $5 off $100 orders or $10 off $200 orders

9. Target: Free shipping on more than 100,000 items when spend $50

10. Macy's: Savings of 20-60% on more than 25,000 itemsworld news

Your request is being processed... Black Friday 2009: Will Consumers Show Up On Key Shopping Day?

2009-11-27T07:16:00.002+03:00

2008 had the worst holiday shopping season in decades--will this year be any different? Retailers are hoping deep price cuts, social media specials, and early sales leaks will lure consumers in as the holiday shopping season kicks off.

Analysts predict a heavy turn out despite the recession, in part because there's less competition (45 retailers have gone under since last year's shopping season) and in part because of the promise of big bargains. But with unemployment in double digits will people buy or browse? Market research firm IBISWorld predicts retail sales will rise 2.8 percent over this weekend to $42.9 billion, while others give much bleaker estimates saying retail sales may DIP 1%. While this weekend does not always predict accurately spending for the next month, a weak Black Friday is a bad omen.

Even if consumers are on the hunt will lowered expectations from major retailers come back to bite them? Having failed to sell large parts of their supply last year some companies like J. Crew and the Gap have cut back between 10 and 20% on inventory, meaning popular items many not have a chance to become runaway successes. This hasn't stopped retail giants from throwing open doors early with massive sales to lure consumers in starting as early as midnight, but it might affect the overall sales.
world news

Dubai Request For Debt 'Standstill' Shakes World Markets

2009-11-27T07:13:00.002+03:00

Happy Thanksgiving!

2009-11-26T18:22:00.002+03:00

I’d like to offer a more traditional message of thanksgiving in this post, and wish all of our Hot Air community a happy Thanksgiving Day with their families and friends. I’ll be spending my day with our extended Minnesota family. My daughter-in-law’s family lovingly adopted us years ago and invite us to all of their family functions, and so we will get to relax with the whole crew over a traditional Thanksgiving meal. They have been a huge blessing to the First Mate and me, and I’m very thankful for that.

Of course, we will be thankful for the phone service that connects us to our families back home in California, where Thanksgiving Day is significantly warmer. I’m sure they’ll be thankful that the temperature won’t get down to the 41 degrees it will be today in Minnesota. We will catch up with them this morning and wish them a happy Thanksgiving, too, and be thankful for the opportunity to do so.

What will be the blessings I keep in mind for today, and for which I will thank our Lord? Of course, first and foremost will be our families and friends. After that, as always, I will thank Him for the good fortune to live in this nation where men and women can be free to pursue their dreams. I will thank the Lord for the men and women who safeguard that liberty and security, whether they be in Iraq, Afghanistan, on the seas, in the air, or in our local police and fire stations, ready to risk their own lives to secure ours. That is an awesome and moving dedication that may be difficult to comprehend fully, but I am fully grateful for its existence.

I’ll also be thankful for this forum, in which I get to express my sense of liberty, The Boss who graciously allows me to earn a living while doing so, my partner Allahpundit, and all of the readers and commenters who make it possible. It is such a blessing to be part of Hot Air, and the last six years of blogging has been a dream come true. Thank you, all of you, and may God bless you and your families on this contemplative holiday.

I’ll try to take the rest of the day off, but if I get some cute video of the granddaughters, I’ll be back.world news

Video: Turkey saved or created at the White House

2009-11-26T17:05:00.001+03:00

Via MKH. I wish I could take credit for the headline but that joke comes straight from The One himself, winking here at the sublime nonsense of his job numbers. And why not? No one’s buying it, so he might as well have fun with it. This is actually surprisingly funny in parts, most notably the line that comes at 2:35 but more generally in Obama’s amusement over the whole goofy ritual. Too bad Biden had to go and one-up him.

As for the policy implications here, Lileks has got you covered. When will we learn?world news

Your request is being processed... The Afghan Speech Obama Should Give, But Won't

2009-11-26T16:56:00.001+03:00

TomDispatch:

Sure, the quote in the over-title is only my fantasy. No one in Washington -- no less President Obama -- ever said, "This administration ended, rather than extended, two wars," and right now, it looks as if no one in an official capacity is likely to do so any time soon. It's common knowledge that a president -- but above all a Democratic president -- who tried to de-escalate a war like the one now expanding in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, and withdraw American troops, would be so much domestic political dead meat.

This everyday bit of engrained Washington wisdom is, in fact, based on not a shred of evidence in the historical record. We do, however, know something about what could happen to a president who escalated a counterinsurgency war: Lyndon Johnson comes to mind for expanding his inherited war in Vietnam out of fear that he would be labeled the president who "lost" that country to the communists (as Harry Truman had supposedly "lost" China). And then there was Vice President Hubert Humphrey who -- incapable of rejecting Johnson's war policy -- lost the 1968 election to Richard Nixon, a candidate pushing a fraudulent "peace with honor" formula for downsizing the war.world news

Vicki Kennedy On Oprah: I Can't Share Teddy's Last Words

2009-11-26T16:53:00.001+03:00

CHICAGO — The widow of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy told Oprah Winfrey in an interview broadcast Wednesday that even as her husband knew he was dying of brain cancer he had been "in training" to make sure he had enough strength to attend President Barack Obama's inauguration.

In the most extensive interview since her husband's death in August, Vicki Kennedy said she wouldn't try to run for her husband's former U.S. Senate seat and described how he battled brain cancer – but she would not talk about the last thing he said to her before dying.

"I think I'll just keep that one to myself," she told Winfrey on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."

During the hour-long interview was taped Friday, Kennedy was sometimes joined on stage by her two grown children as well as Ted Kennedy Jr. She described her husband's seizure in May 2008, which led to his diagnosis of the brain cancer that ended his life at the age of 77.

"We went from thinking he had lost his life, to thinking that he'd had a stroke, to thinking that he wouldn't speak to thinking that he was OK, to then finding out that he might have a brain tumor all in the span of about three hours," she said.

She also told Winfrey about how her husband kept working on his book after his diagnosis and even was calling colleagues in the Senate to talk about strategy to push through legislation as he was traveling to Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. to undergo brain surgery.

"It was an inspiration, really, to watch how Teddy grappled with such a grave diagnosis and always looked forward with hope," she said.

After watching a clip of her husband's speech at the Democratic National Convention, Kennedy said her husband, despite being told initially that he had just a few months to live, was determined to survive long enough to see Obama sworn in as president.
Story continues below

"He was in training to be there in January," she said. "He was exercising every single day to be strong enough to be there," and even calculated how many steps he would have to take that day.

During the interview, Winfrey held Ted Kennedy's memoir "True Compass," which was released shortly after Kennedy's death, and read from it a number of times. As of Tuesday, the book was 12th on the New York Times Best Sellers list for nonfiction titles.

Kennedy also adamantly told Winfrey that she had no intention of ever running for the Senate seat that her husband held for nearly a half century when the host mentioned about "talk" that she might run.

"No, no, not for me," she said. "We had Sen. Kennedy in our household."

The program also included clips from Kennedy's life. There was news coverage of assassinations of Ted Kennedy's older brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, along with Kennedy's own run failed run for president and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, who drowned after Kennedy drove the car in which she was riding into a pond on Chappaquiddick island.

There were also scenes from Kennedy's funeral service – including perhaps the most poignant moment during which in his eulogy of his father, Ted Kennedy Jr. told of having his leg amputated when he was 12 and how his father picked him up after he fell on a hill and told him that together they would "climb that hill together, if it takes us all day."

"He just gave me so much encouragement at a very difficult time in my life," Kennedy Jr. told Winfrey. "He was just such an optimistic person."

The younger Kennedy became emotional when he talked about a letter that his father wrote to Pope Benedict XVI after he was diagnosis of terminal brain cancer, a letter in which Kennedy acknowledged some of his failures and, as Winfrey read, how he had "tried to right my path."

"I though that was the most beautiful letter I've ever heard," he said.
world news

Haye Stacks up the wins

2009-11-25T06:32:00.003+03:00

With his win over Russian behemoth Nikolay Valuev, David Haye can finally revitalise a flagging heavyweight division, writes Richard Chambers

In the wake of his remarkable triumph over Nikolay Valuev, new WBA heavyweight champion David Haye will be eyeing the future with more than a degree of enthusiasm.

The majority decision has changed the heavyweight division, marking the coming to the fore of a man with the energy and drive to become the undisputed world champion.

david-haye-scared-of-the-KlitschkosThe showdown with Valuev – a man seven stone heavier and eleven inches taller than Haye – was appropriately billed as “David vs Goliath”. The encounter with such an imposing figure as Valuev was the perfect platform to launch Haye to the forefront of the boxing world.

A master of promotion, the “Hayemaker” used every available opportunity to antagonise his opponent. The underdog tag did not unsettle Haye, who presented a wonderful exhibition of the sweet science. Fighting with a broken right hand, earned in the second round, Haye displayed a tactical nous that his followers would not have been familiar with.

The South Londoner engaged in a defensive effort, avoiding the massive fists of the Russian with deft grace before unleashing flurries late in each round. One such volley at the finale rocked the Russian, leaving him swaying uneasily in an almost comedic style. If not for the bell, Valuev could well have befallen a knockout, an unthinkable outcome before the fight.

Becoming world champion is the realisation of a lifelong dream for Haye, one that has taken him through a successful amateur career and across weight divisions. Haye turned professional in 2002 as a cruiserweight, and armed with a combination of agility and power, quickly dispatched several talented boxers such as ‘King’ Arthur Williams and Lolenga Mock.

An unsuccessful IBO title fight against veteran Carl Thompson handed Haye the only defeat of his career to date, but Haye rebounded with a series of quick victories before capturing the World Cruiserweight Championship in 2007.

Before making the long-anticipated move to heavyweight, Haye defended his title against Wales’ Enzo Maccarinelli with a devastating display, stopping Maccarinelli in the second round. “The Hayemaker” was born.

With four heavyweight belts tied up in the hands of the Klitschko brothers, who refuse to fight each other, the destiny of the heavyweight division is now in Haye’s hands. He will command gargantuan fees for his bouts, and his emergence will revitalise a tired division, recapturing the showmanship of eras past. Richard Schaeffer of Oscar de la Hoya’s Golden Boy Promotions has predicted the end of the domination by Eastern bloc fighters, eulogising that “of all there is only one who is number one in terms of ability and charisma: David Haye.”

Where does Haye go after this? American John Ruiz is guaranteed a mandatory challenge to Haye’s title. Haye is thought to be in favour of holding any fight with Ruiz in London, with Greenwich’s O2 Arena the probable venue.

A money-spinning domestic title defence against former Olympic champion Audley Harrison has also been mentioned, but the ultimate objective must be the status of undisputed champion, a status that can only be achieved by defeating both of the towering, but ageing, Klitschkos.

Whoever the opponent, the presence of the twenty-nine year old will undoubtedly draw crowds and box-office revenue. Haye himself has promised to retire by age 31. Whatever the conclusion, the next two years will rank amongst the most captivating in recent boxing history. He is, as Schaeffer put it, “the heavyweight we have been waiting for.”
world news

Bears say 'no truth' to report of surveying for new coach, GM

2009-11-25T06:22:00.002+03:00

From WSCR-AM 670: Someone in the Bears' organization at a level above general manager Jerry Angelo has begun surveying options for changing the coach or general manager, or both, according to Hub Arkush, a football expert on WSCR-AM 670 and publisher of Pro Football Weekly.

"Inquiries have been made, feelers have been put out," Arkush said on the radio station today regarding the initial step of gauging interest and affordability of some of the big-names candidates available.

Arkush specifically named former Broncos coach Mike Shanahan, who groomed Bears quarterback Jay Cutler and helped him earn a Pro Bowl berth in Denver; former Steelers coach Bill Cowher and former Buccaneers and Raiders coach Jon Gruden. All three have won Super Bowls.

Asked about the report, a team source said, "There's absolutely no truth" to the report.world news

fMRI Evidence Used in Murder Sentencing

2009-11-25T06:19:00.002+03:00

by Greg Miller

For what may be the first time, fMRI scans of brain activity have been used as evidence in the sentencing phase of a murder trial. Defense lawyers for an Illinois man convicted of raping and killing a 10-year-old girl used the scans to argue that their client should be spared the death penalty because he has a brain disorder.

The defendant, Brian Dugan, pleaded guilty in July to killing Jeanine Nicarico after kidnapping her from her home in 1983. (Prior to that, the Nicarico case had taken more turns than a hangman's knot, detailed in a 1998 book Victims of Justice). Dugan was already serving life sentences for two other murders, but prosecutors sought the death penalty for Nicarico's murder.

"Nobody thought we had any chance at all going in," says Steve Greenberg, the lead attorney for the defense. But the defense tried an unusual strategy: They argued that Dugan was born with a mental illness—psychopathy—that should be considered a mitigating factor because it impaired his ability to control his behavior. Dugan exhibits the antisocial behavior, inpulsivity, lack of remorse, and other characteristics of psychopathy in spades, says Kent Kiehl, a neuroscientist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and the Mind Research Network, who served as an expert witness for the defense. Dugan scored 37 out of 40 points on the standard diagnostic checklist for psychopathy, putting him in the 99.5th percentile, Kiehl says.

Kiehl conducts research on psychopathy in New Mexico state prisons in which he and colleagues collect life histories, anatomical brain scans, and fMRI scans of brain activity as inmates perform various tasks, including tests of moral reasoning. Using scanners at Northwestern University, Kiehl ran Dugan through a similar battery of tests. Kiehl testified that Dugan exhibited abnormalities similar to those he and others have reported in other psychopaths. Kiehl says he was careful not to stretch beyond what the data show. He didn't claim, for example, that the brain scans prove that Dugan committed his crimes as a result of a brain abnormality. "It's just one piece of evidence that his brain is different," he says.

Jonathan Brodie, a psychiatrist at New York University testified for the prosecution. "I said the scans are of wonderful technical quality, but so what? They're not relevant here," Brodie says. "Using an fMRI scan done in September of 2009 … to indicate a thought process that was going on in 1983 could hardly be more silly."

After 5 hours of deliberation the jury told the judge on 10 November that they'd come to a decision. But before the sentence could be read, the jury asked for more time and the judge sequestered them overnight. The next day they returned with a death sentence for Dugan. According to media reports and interviews with defense attorneys afterwards, the jury initially planned to sentence Dugan to life in prison, with at least one juror holding out against the death penalty, which requires a unanimous vote. The last minute change is highly irregular, says Greenberg, who is planning an appeal.

Although evidence of anatomical abnormalities in the brain has been introduced previously in the sentencing phase of murder cases, and PET scans have been used to show abnormalities in brain metabolism consistent with mental illness, the Dugan case may be a first for fMRI. "I don't know of any other cases where fMRI was used in that context," says Hank Greely, a professor at Stanford Law School and co-director of the MacArthur Foundation Law and Neuroscience Project. Greely notes that the standards for admitting evidence in sentencing hearings are less stringent than those for evidence used to establish a defendant's innocence or guilt. "The penalty phase of a capital case … is a special situation where the law bends over backwards to allow the convicted man to introduce just about any mitigating evidence."

It's hard to know what effect the fMRI scans in particular had on the jury in the Dugan case, but Greenberg says the fact that they deliberated for a total of more than 10 hours shows that it was influential. "This guy was guilty of raping and killing little girls," Greenberg says. "Without the brain imaging stuff the jury would have been back in an hour."world news

Click here to find out more! Your request is being processed... Michelle Obama PHOTO: Google Buys Ad To Explain Offensive Image (IMAGE)

2009-11-25T06:17:00.001+03:00

Google has purchased online ads in an effort to explain to users why an offensive image of Michelle Obama is appearing, and is ranked so highly, in its Google Image search results.

The Google ad, titled "Offensive Search Results," appears directly over the pictures of the First Lady that show up when users perform a Google Image search for "Michelle Obama." (see the screenshot below).world news

Obama on Afghanistan strategy: 'It is my intention to finish the job'

2009-11-25T06:14:00.001+03:00

By Sam Youngman

President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he will announce his strategy for Afghanistan after Thanksgiving.

“My intention is to finish the job,” Obama said in comments from the White House.

This may be a hint that the president will send additional troops to a country where the U.S. has been embroiled in war for more than eight years. Obama also appeared to give a nod to weakening support for a war that, according to polls, is no longer though winnable by a majority of the public.

“I think once the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, they will be supportive,” Obama said.

The president hinted that the U.S. had lost focus on the mission and not provided adequate strategy or resources to the region, a theme from his presidential campaign. He said it is in the strategic interest of the U.S. to target al-Qaeda and its allies to “dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately destroy their networks.”

Obama spoke from the East Room of the White House after a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Obama is reportedly considering several options that involve different troops levels. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, has reportedly requested that an additional 40,000 troops be sent, but Obama is choosing between options that range from 10,000 troops to 80,000 troops.

The U.S. has 68,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Obama did not confirm reports that he will address the nation next Tuesday, saying only he would make his announcement after Thanksgiving. Several news outlets reported Obama will address the nation in primetime on Tuesday, Dec. 1.

The president spoke one day after a ninth meeting of his war council. Earlier on Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama received all the information he had asked for at that Monday night meeting.

Obama said he found the meetings to be “comprehensive and extremely useful,” adding that he heard from both military and civilian advisers.

Monday night’s meeting was the ninth that Obama has held with advisors on the policy going forward in Afghanistan. Those attending included Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and National Security Adviser Jim Jones.

Obama is scheduled to meet with Gates and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday afternoon.

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag also attended the meeting in a possible reflection of worries about how an increase in troops could impact the nation’s budget. The deficit has become an increasing worry for the White House and Congress as lawmakers gear up for the 2010 elections.

The decision will be one of the most momentous of Obama’s first year in office. After arguing during the presidential campaign about the importance of winning the fight in Afghanistan, Obama has clearly been torn over whether to send more troops to that country.

Obama’s party is divided over whether more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. Congress would have to approve funds to pay for the additional troops, and several senior lawmakers have floated the idea of paying for the war with a tax on the wealthy.

Republicans are urging Obama to back McChrystal’s request and have accused the president of dithering in his decision. Obama may depend on GOP lawmakers to support funding for the war if he loses liberals in his party.

After the eighth meeting of his war council, the president was said to be unhappy with the strategies laid out before him, and he emphasized in comments to the press that he needed to be convinced that there is a way to hand over control of Afghanistan's security to that country’s government.

Obama also met with Clinton Monday afternoon. She recently returned from an unscheduled trip to Afghanistan, where she met with President Hamid Karzai and attended his second inauguration.

The administration has worried over whether Karzai’s government, which has been accused of corruption, would make it difficult for any military action in Afghanistan to succeed.world news

Your request is being processed... Climategate: GOP Opens Probe Into Climate-Change E-Mails

2009-11-25T06:13:00.002+03:00

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are investigating e-mails stolen from a British climate change research center that they say show scientists attempting to suppress data that does not support man-made global warming.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a global warming skeptic, sent letters Tuesday to the inspectors general of several agencies and to scientists asking them to retain records related to the e-mails.

House Republicans want to know how much the scientists contributed to a widely cited U.N. report on climate change. The report has served as the basis for action in Congress and by the Obama administration to reduce greenhouse gases.

One of those scientists, Kevin Trenberth, said the e-mails do not show scientists colluding but arguing vigorously about the science.
world news

Brian Minto - "I Have to Make Chris Arreola Miss, And Then Make Him Pay"

2009-11-25T06:09:00.001+03:00

Exclusive Interview by James Slater - 34-year-old Brian "The Beast" Minto, 34-2(21) will fight the biggest fight of his pro career on December 5th in Atlantic City, N.J, as he will square off with fellow tough guy Chris Arreola. Fighting in an important heavyweight bout that could propel the winner into a world title shot, the #5 ranked WBO contender knows how hard the fight will be.

28-year-old Arreola, 27-1(24) is coming back after a brave loss to WBC heavyweight king Vitali Klitschko, while Minto, a warrior who has never been stopped, is hungry for his first crack at a world title.

Very kindly taking time out to speak with me over the phone from the offices of his manager Pat Nelson earlier today, Minto gave the following answers to my questions:

James Slater: It's great to speak with you, Brian. I know you have this big fight coming up. Your fight with Chris Arreola is obviously a big opportunity for you, you feel you have the style to beat him - what with your speed and your tenacity?

Brian Minto: Right. I will have to use my quickness, I'm sure he'll come out fast, trying to take me out the first couple of rounds. I know I'll have to be careful early. I have to make sure my defence is tight, and I have to make him miss. Make him miss and make him pay..

J.S: Did you see Arreola-Vitali Klitschko, and were you impressed?

B.M: Yeah, I saw it. I was impressed with his toughness. Not too many guys could take a shellacking like that and keep on fighting. He was never gonna quit in there. But as for his game-plan, I don't think he could really adjust in there when he knew what he was trying wasn't working. But I think he did a decent job. I mean, they're [the Klitschkos] monsters, they're tall and athletic, and it's an uphill job for anybody against them. I was actually rooting for him when I watched the fight. I think Chris has a similar style and approach to me - in that both of us always give our all and we give the fans what they want to see; and not a boring chess match type of thing.

J.S: You are both very exciting fighters, and you can both punch hard. Do you see yourself out-working Arreola and perhaps winning a decision? Or do you think you could stop him if you crack him right?

B.M: I can't make that prediction. This is heavyweight boxing and anything can happen. I could crack him, sure - but he could do the same to me. I know what I need to do in the fight, and that's not be on the outside of his punches, and not stand right on front of him. A couple of guys he's fought did that and got taken out real early. This is a risky fight for me, no doubt. It's the riskiest fight I could have taken in my whole career, definitely.

J.S: Is Arreola a guy you've kind of had your eye on for a while now, is he someone you always felt you'd fight one day?

B.M: Yeah, I always felt that it could happen. Boxing's a goofy sport you know? You never know when you'll have to be ready for an opportunity like this. I haven't had too much notice, but I'm always in the gym, I live clean and I keep in shape. These type of opportunities only come around once or twice in a lifetime. Now I'm just keeping sharp, sparring and working hard.

J.S: Can I ask you who you've been sparring with?

B.M: A few guys. I have a young kid, he's 3-0, and he's 6'4" and around 270. He's the biggest guy I've got working with me. I've also been working with Chris Koval and Nicolai Firtha. But Arreola has an effective style, it's not technical but it's effective - the way he throws the right hand, and there aren't too many guys you can use to get ready for him.

J.S: Just going back to your last fight, your 4-round TD win over Donnell Holmes in August. I read you were unhappy with the way the fight ended (due to a cut caused by a butt suffered by Minto). Were you unhappy with your performance?

B.M: I feel I was fighting a good fight. He was a tough guy, but I was getting to him. He was a little slower than I thought he'd be. I was disgusted with the way it ended, but this is boxing, it happens. It wasn't a punch [that caused the cut], but they [Team-Holmes] tried to make out that it was. I had to go to court to stop then from changing the result to a No-decision. I want to erase that whole fight, I don't like thinking about it. And this fight will do that for me. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

J.S: Did Holmes ever hurt you?

B.M: No, not at all. The cut was caused by a butt, and the ref saw that. You can see it on tape if you watch it frame-by-frame. Like I say, I want to move on from that fight.

J.S: Well, if you beat Arreola you'll totally make people forget about it! You'll be on a whole different level.

B.M: Yeah.

J.S: People are expecting a great action fight. Do you even think your fight could be the fight of the night, maybe even a candidate for heavyweight fight of the year?

B.M: Yes, I think so. I believe that can definitely happen. Also, I'm impressed he's back so soon - I mean that fight [Vs. Vitali] was only a short time ago. We'll have to see how seriously he's taking me though.

J.S: This is a big fight, and it's possible the winner will get a world title shot. If that's the case, which of the current champions would you like to challenge?

B.M: That's a bridge I'll have to cross at that time. But I guess any of them. David Haye is a very hard puncher, but he's only 6'3," so from that standpoint, with him not being as tall as the 6'7" Klitschkos, Haye would be a smarter fight for me. But I'd fight any of 'em.

J.S: Are you impressed with Haye? Did you see his win over Valuev? Is he the real deal?

B.M: I think he is. He's a very talented guy. I don't think I've ever seen anyone hurt Valuev the way he did in the last round. He's quick, he punches hard and he has a lot of ability.

J.S: Are you still working with Freddie Roach? Will you be for this fight on December 5th?

B.M: No, he's working Amir Khan's corner that same night in England.

J.S: But will you work with Freddie again in the future perhaps?

B.M: I'd like to in the future. I'm back with my old trainer right now, but yeah, I'd like to work with Freddie again.

J.S: It's been great speaking with you, Brian. I wish you best of luck for the big fight. Finally, you have fought twice in Atlantic City, NJ, and you won both times. That must be a good omen for you, right?

B.M: Yeah, I guess so. Actually, the first fight in Atlantic City (Vs. Vinnie Maddalone - W KO 10, July 2004), that was by far the roughest fight of my career. I was beat up but I came back to knock him out in the last round. I don't really look forward to going back to the hospital after this fight, but I'm sure it's gonna be rough. It's going to be a real battle! world news

Will The Unemployment Disaster Be Obama's Katrina?

2009-11-24T13:57:00.001+03:00

There's a Category 5 storm about to make landfall, and the president and the officials in charge of preparing for the approaching disaster don't seem to be particularly worried. Sound familiar?

Just as Katrina exposed critical weaknesses in the priorities and competence of the Bush administration, the unfolding unemployment disaster is threatening to do the same for the Obama White House.

The members of the Obama administration may not be attending a birthday party at John McCain's ranch in Sedona or shopping for expensive Ferragamo shoes in New York as a great American city is destroyed, but their decidedly lackadaisical response to what job losses are doing to multiple great American cities raises the question: will unemployment be Barack Obama's Katrina?

His economic team's resistance to a second round of stimulus, "lukewarm" reaction to Congressional jobs legislation, and prioritization of deficit reduction over job creation certainly has the feel of a taking-in-the-damage-from-2,500-feet flyover moment.

"There is no discussion of a package like a second stimulus," said deputy White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki. "But we are working closely with Congress and consulting with outside experts to determine the right policies and next steps." No word on whether those outside experts include the 1 in 6 workers currently unemployed or underemployed.

Of course, the real problem isn't the outside experts; the administration's wrongheaded approach is a classic inside job. Sen. Sherrod Brown summed it up on CNN, telling John King that when it comes to putting the focus on Main Street, the president's "advisors are mixed."

Which makes one wonder: what level of unemployment would it take to unmix them? Even 10.2 percent, the highest level in 26 years, after 22 straight months of job losses, doesn't seem to have quickened the pulse of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.

And it's not like the levees haven't begun to crack, with the real unemployment rate -- factoring in discouraged and partially employed workers -- at 17.5 percent, the unemployment rate for workers aged 16 to 24 at 19 percent, and the unemployment rate for young African-Americans at 30 percent. What's more, the average length of unemployment is at a record high, while the ratio of job seekers to open positions is now 6 to 1.

A new ABC/Washington Post poll reported that 30 percent of Americans say someone in their home has lost a job. I'm guessing that Summers and Geithner are comfortably in the other 70 percent. But even if it hasn't hit home for them, it should be clear that unemployment is going to be the singular issue of 2010.

Congressional Democrats have certainly gotten the message -- and have grown tired of waiting for the White House to take the lead. According to The Hill, House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, are "worried they've appeared unresponsive to rising unemployment because they were absorbed by health care." The article also says that Harry Reid has told colleagues he wants a jobs bill soon.

As John Larson, the fourth-ranking House Democrat puts it: "It's jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Members of this caucus feel... that a jobless recovery is just simply unacceptable to us."

The problem for the White House and for the Democratic Party -- and, most importantly, for the country -- is that the administration's response on jobs is being led by Summers, who actually opposed the extension of unemployment benefits Obama just signed. At this point you have to wonder what Obama's attachment to Summers and Geithner is. We know if you become a target of Glenn Beck and cause five seconds of embarrassment to the administration you need to start updating your resume (ask Van Jones, Greg Craig, and Anita Dunn), but if you slowly bring down the administration, and the party, and the country, that's apparently fine.

Back in February, when the $787 billion economic stimulus bill was signed, Summers and company promised that it would keep the unemployment rate from going any higher than 8.5 percent. With another 3.4 million jobs lost since then -- and the official unemployment rate at 10.2 and rising -- what does Summers say now?

"I think we got the Recovery Act right."

Really, Larry? What would getting it wrong look like?

The tone-deafness of that statement rivals the clueless response of a certain clothes-conscious former International Arabian Horse Association commissioner turned FEMA head.

I can hear it now: Heck of a job, Larry! Heck of a job, Timmy!

But though the alarm bells don't seem to be ringing in the White House, last week showed that there has clearly been a major shift in the tectonic plates on Capitol Hill.

For starters, there is increasing agreement that Obama's economic team is not up to the job of dealing with the unemployment crisis. According to Rep. Peter DeFazio, there is a "growing consensus" in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Geithner should resign -- and that Summers needs to go, too. "We need a new economic team," DeFazio said on MSNBC. "We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans."

And the next day, DeFazio told HuffPost's Sam Stein: "It is pretty embarrassing for a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress to be identified with total attention to Wall Street and nothing for Main Street and jobs."

This comes just a few weeks after Senator Maria Cantwell told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan that she was "not sure" why Geithner still has a job.

Even more dramatic evidence of the shift came in the House, where members of the House Finance Committee passed a measure to audit the Federal Reserve -- for the first time ever. The bill, sponsored by the bipartisan duo of Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Alan Grayson, was passed over the objections of Chairman Barney Frank -- and of the Fed and its big time friends and lobbyists. That's a group that doesn't lose many votes in Congress. What's more, a last-minute "compromise" amendment that would have significantly watered down the bill was submitted by Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina and heavily backed by the Fed. In normal times, this sort of "split-the-difference" amendment would likely have passed. But these are not normal times, and the amendment was defeated -- much to the shock of the Fed and its supporters.

The House Finance Committee was the site of another indication of how the ground is moving under the administration's feet. An hour before a scheduled final vote on the comprehensive financial regulation reform package sought by the White House, members of the Congressional Black Caucus cornered Chairman Frank and said they would refuse to vote for the bill because of the White House's lack of attention to unemployment. It was, as HuffPost's Ryan Grim reported, intended "as a direct rebuke of the White House."

When we hear about members of Congress holding up a vote (and we've heard it a lot lately), most of the time, it's a ploy to secure some kind of pork for their home district. This was an instance of the brakes being put on not for pork -- but for principle.

So, clearly, the winds of change are picking up in Washington and around the country. It's time for the White House to stop holding no-rush summits and insisting that everything is going as planned, and course-correct. Now. And there is no shortage of bold steps the administration can take to mitigate the damage before it turns into an all-out catastrophe.

Among the best ideas currently being floated:

-- Use Wall Street bailout funds left in the TARP program to hail out Main Street (via increased lending to small businesses and using money for public services being cut by states and cities).

-- Enact a one-year payroll tax holiday (creating a moratorium on Social Security, Medicare, and FICA taxes will encourage businesses to hire new workers).

-- Expand the Small Business Association's lending programs (45 percent of all job losses have been at small businesses).

-- Offer businesses a tax credit for every new job created over the next 12 months, or have the government pay a portion of the salary of new workers hired over the same period.

The bottom line: extending unemployment benefits, crossing your fingers, and waiting for things to turn around is just not enough.

In the post-Katrina fallout, video surfaced of a final briefing before the storm hit in which federal disaster officials warned President Bush that the hurricane could breach the levees and overwhelm the ability of rescuers to properly respond. Bush famously didn't ask a single question but assured local officials: "We are fully prepared." He later insisted, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Are we going to get similar protestations from Obama when the unemployment waters continue to rise?

The unemployment disaster has already inflicted great damage all across the country. And the Obama White House will be defined by its response to it.

So what is it going to be: a muscular, multi-tiered jobs plan to deal with reality or "heck of a job" delusion?world news

Burma Journal: Curiosity and Hope in the Land of the Lost

2009-11-24T13:53:00.001+03:00

They say that Venice is sinking, but really, when you arrive in Rangoon, it becomes clear that if any place is slowly edging deeper into the earth, it's this one.

There's a certain romance in the crumbling colonial buildings, covered in black mold like shrouds of mourning, or the public buses from the late-'60s, crammed with Burmese of every stripe, some hanging off the back with only one foot onboard. This is what the tourists come for -- a passing glimpse of especially acute third-world poverty that gives way to a countryside that has been (thus far) exempt from development, no Starbucks or Burger Kings to be seen. Just lush, green hills, quiet villages and monasteries filled with chanting monks.

I haven't been to the Burmese countryside, although I've always wanted to go, and I'm quite sure that some parts of it are stunning -- trapped in a mystical time before the Internet and subways and franchises. I won't begrudge the tourists, either: The Burmese are desperate for human contact, concrete evidence that they haven't been forgotten by the rest of the world; the tourists represent glimmers of life in the universe. To me, this human contact is worth far more than whatever change ends up falling into the pockets of Burma's generals, who siphon off dollars from hotel bookings and souvenir purchases.

I've spent the last few entries in this Burma Journal focusing on the extraordinary Burmese men and women who are fighting against one of the world's most repressive regimes, putting their lives on the line in the name of basic human rights. But after a few days in Rangoon last week, what struck me most about the visit was the citizenry itself: Fear and despair are omnipresent, but so is the commitment to try and make a decent life out of an impossible situation.

At the American Center, an outpost of the American Embassy in Rangoon, newspapers, magazines, movies, books and classes are available to any Burmese citizen able to pay the $5 yearly membership fee and withstand the interrogation and monitoring from the military government that comes with a visit to the center. Much has been written about this place, but it's still disarming to walk into a room filled with monks in saffron robes reading the International Herald Tribune, Burmese students reading Fortune (despite the fact that Burma's economic landscape is a calamity) and thin, elderly men lining up for an evening PowerPoint presentation on creative teaching practices. This curiosity, this desire to maintain a link to the outside world, is an expression of hope, of optimism that one day they will rejoin it.

I met one day with a young teacher who showed me copies of American films that she has reproduced illegally for students eager to learn more about cinema; the titles included "The Killing Fields" and "Hotel Rwanda." These were pirated, uncensored copies and could be seized at any time. Worse yet, the teacher could be detained and incarcerated for having supplied them -- but when asked about this possibility, she just shrugged. This was simply how it was done.

My cabdriver, whose parents had long ago been diplomats, told me with great enthusiasm about his time living in Washington, D.C., several decades ago. In the middle of this, his car broke down in bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic in downtown Rangoon. He spent 15 minutes under the hood, tinkering with the transmission, adding oil. The car finally restarted. An hour later, it broke down again.

"This car here, it costs $18,000 in Burma," he said, referring to government inflation of basic goods inside the country. "In America, you can find it in the garbage." When I left him, he cheerily waved goodbye.

There are frustrations here -- unbelievable substandard living conditions, neglect, and a lack of basic services that we cannot possibly fathom, living, as we do, in the age of unlimited, immediate access to pretty much everything. The Burmese people are not unaware of the preposterous circumstances under which they have been forced to exist. But they have not stopped pursuing information and ideas and technology -- they just know they have to work harder to get to all of them.

In this way, their culture exists at once both inside and outside of their own country: the rules of the military junta are a wholly Burmese construction, but at the same time completely irrelevant to the character of the country. Perhaps the most vivid illustration of this was in a classroom inside the American Center, where elementary school-aged Burmese children had made collages out of images cut from magazines. Above a picture of Barack Obama, one had written "Our President." This wasn't misplaced desire; this was national pride.world news

Detecting Military Radicalism in the Wake of Fort Hood Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/

2009-11-24T07:25:00.001+03:00

The first congressional hearing in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre took place Thursday morning, with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing from security experts, including a retired general and a former top White House advisor.

Lieberman wanted to hear from FBI officials about missed signals that Nidal Malik Hasan exhibited radical viewpoints and created concern among his colleagues. But the administration didn't allow any current government witnesses, in deference to the ongoing criminal investigation.

According to the Washington Post, Lieberman said conversations with Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates left him optimistic that the committee would gain access to some of the information it is seeking soon.

Thursday, the committee heard testimony on how to better identify potential radicals in the armed forces and how to empower people to report their concerns up the chain of command, even when the concerns involved an officer like Hasan. Among the witnesses were retired Gen. John Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Frances Fragos Townsend, President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser, and terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corp.

The New York Times reported that the Pentagon was initiating a review of the Hasan case that would have a similar focus. The Investigative Project on Terrorism covered the hearing and prepared a video summary below.

Transcript

SEN. LIEBERMAN: (Sounds gavel.) The hearing will come to order. This morning, our committee begins an investigation as serious and consequential as any it has ever undertaken. An American soldier, Nidal Hasan, has been charged with killing 12 of his fellow soldiers and one civilian on an American military base in Texas in what I believe, based on available evidence, was a terrorist attack.

The purpose of this committee's investigation is to determine whether that attack could have been prevented, whether the federal agencies and employees involved missed signals or failed to connect dots in a way that enabled Nidal Hasan to carry out his deadly attack.

If we find such errors or negligence, we will make recommendations to guarantee as best we can that they never occur again. That's our purpose here.
---

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Our staffs will be meeting with representatives of the Department of Justice and Defense very soon to try to work out ground rules for both investigations without interfering with each other.

But I can say that I'm encouraged and appreciative that Senator Collins and I and our staff -- our top staff -- have received one classified briefing on the Hasan case and will soon receive another and have been given access to some very relevant classified documents relating to this matter. So we're off to a good cooperative start.

----

GEN. KEANE: I suspect strongly that after we conduct these investigations, we will find that our policies will need revision again to account for the specific behavior and attitudes as expressed by radical Islamists or Jihadist extremists. It should not be an active of moral courage for a soldier to identify a fellow soldier who is displaying extremist behavior. It should be an obligation. And as such, the commanders needs specific guidelines as to what Jihadist extremists behavior is and re-emphasize how to use the many tools and options they have at their disposal to curb the behavior, to rehabilitate soldiers if possible, or to take legal or separation action.

Because Jihadist extremists are potentially linked to terrorist organizations that directly threaten the security of the United States, it is essential that our government agencies are sharing information about such individuals.

---

GEN. KEANE: Radical Islam and Jihadist extremism is the most transformational issue I have dealt with in my military service and continues to be so today. In my judgment, it is the most significant threat to the security of the American people that I have faced in my lifetime. We are a society that espouses tolerance and values diversity and our military reflects those values. But at the same time, we must know what a threat looks like and we must know what to do about it.

---

MS. TOWNSEND: To the extent that there would have been concern of infringing on Major Hasan's either right to free speech or his freedom to practice his religion, there were other factors to which you could point beyond that, having nothing to do with his religion or his speech, that could have caused concern.

The repeated -- while it's not public, the content of those communications, certainly those communications, and now what we're hearing from his other colleagues up at Walter Reed, any combination of those factors, as long as it was not based solely on his exercise of his constitutional freedom, could have formed the basis of further inquiry and investigation by the FBI.

SEN. COLLINS: So if we're being told that one reason this was not aggressively pursued was concerns that it would violate the FISA restrictions or the attorney general's guidelines, you would disagree with that decision, based on what you know?

MS. TOWNSEND: Based on what I know now, yes, I would disagree with that. And frankly, this is, Senator, why I mentioned my concern about political correctness. I think we have to ensure that our investigators feel sufficiently backed up, if you will, to follow the facts wherever they lead them. And if the facts lead them to an investigation of a senior member of the uniformed military, who happens to be a Muslim doctor, then that's where they lead them. But they have to feel confident that they can pursue the facts wherever they take them, against whoever the target may be.
----

MR. JENKINS: Now, at a glance, Major Hasan's rampage at Fort Hood looks a lot like what used to be called "going postal," a deepening sense of person grievance culminating in a homicidal rampage directed against co-workers, in this case, fellow soldiers. For Hasan, "going jihad" reflects the channeling of obvious personality problems into a deadly fanaticism.

We must wait, really, for a full inquiry to thoroughly understand Hasan's motives, his preparations, his objectives. But on the basis of what has been reported in the news media, we clearly have a troubled man who engaged himself with extremist ideologies via the Internet that resonated with and reinforced his own anger leading him, at some point, to a decision to kill.

---

GEN. KEANE: [So what we are dealing with here now, in my view, dealing with jihadist extremist, potentially, certainly the preliminary evidence would suggest that,] [SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right…] -- that those kind of guidelines, in terms of defining that and how to deal with that, as a specific case, and that behavior and that attitude and that rhetoric, are not in the hands of our commanders.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. Okay, that's a real -- if our investigation finds that that's true, and I suspect it is, that's a real omission and an area for correction, particularly in light of the record that other witnesses have testified to of the way in which jihadists, or people who are actually being self-radicalized or radicalized over the Internet, are being exhorted to attack the American military on bases, not just abroad but here at home.

My time is up. Thank you, General.

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/1528/detecting-military-radicalism-in-the-wake-of-fortworld news

Tensions Flare Between Religious Leaders and Lawmakers Over Abortion

2009-11-24T07:05:00.001+03:00

by

FOXNews.com

In an effort that has produced heated public feuds as well as significant changes in proposed health care legislation, religious leaders are zeroing in on followers of their faith in Congress to make sure that taxpayer money will not be used to fund abortions.

In this Sept. 22 file photo, Rep. Patrick Kennedy gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo)

In an effort that has produced heated public feuds as well as significant changes in proposed health care legislation, religious leaders are zeroing in on followers of their faith in Congress to make sure that taxpayer money will not be used to fund abortions.

The latest confrontation comes between Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., an abortion-rights supporter, and Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin, who asked Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion if he maintained his position.

The tension is palpable as senators prepare to take up a version of legislation that pro-life leaders say does not provide the same assurances as the version that passed the House early this month. Catholic leaders were considered key in pushing for the restrictions in the House bill.

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Monday that his group will "work with senators of both parties" to address their concerns. But his group blasted the Senate health bill on Friday, and Doerflinger said Monday that the conference will oppose it if their concerns are not met.

Here's a look at some of the lawmakers who are at odds with their religious leaders over the issue:

Rep. Patrick Kennedy

The dispute between Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and Tobin began in October when Kennedy criticized Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose health care reform without restrictions on federally funded abortion. Tobin demanded an apology and requested a meeting with Kennedy, but that meeting fell through. Tobin then wrote a public letter calling Kennedy's position "scandalous" and "unacceptable."

The latest chapter in the dispute came over the weekend, when Kennedy told The Providence Journal that Tobin instructed him not to take Communion and instructed other priests not to give it to Kennedy either. Though Tobin denied banning Kennedy from receiving Communion elsewhere, he said he did ask Kennedy to stop receiving Communion in 2007.

"He attacked the church, he attacked the position of the church on health care, on abortion, on funding," Tobin told The Associated Press on Sunday.

But Kennedy, a member of the most prominent Catholic family in American political life, has earned some support in his stand against the church.

Catholics for Choice issued a statement Monday applauding Kennedy and describing Tobin as part of a "small minority of bishops" trying to "intimidate" Catholic lawmakers.

"Despite what this minority of bishops has done -- and it is worth noting that the majority of bishops do not seek to use the sacraments as political weapons -- prochoice Catholic policymakers continue to stand by their consciences," the statement said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi has a long history of conflict with the Catholic Church.

But the church's intervention this time around may have helped persuade the California Democrat, who is Catholic, to allow a game-changing amendment.

Before the House passed its health care bill, representatives for Catholic bishops huddled with top officials in Pelosi's office to discuss the language. Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, also called Pelosi to discuss abortion restrictions with her personally.

In the end, an amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to impose tough restrictions on federal funding for abortion coverage passed along with the overall health care bill. And the bishops are taking credit.

"It was a good example of how we as a conference can work together to have a positive influence on legislation," Bishop William Murphy, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, told the Catholic News Service, pledging that the conference would remain "vigilant" on the Senate side.

But the bishops' harmony with Pelosi may be temporary.

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told FoxNews.com that he expects Pelosi to try to strip out the Stupak language in conference committee when differences between the House and Senate versions must be ironed out. Donohue was one of 150 Christian leaders who signed a declaration on Friday reaffirming their opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

Pelosi hasn't shied away from confrontations with the church. She was rebuked by the archbishop of Washington last year after she said in an interview that the church had been inconsistent on its abortion position over the years. At the same time, the archbishop of Denver warned then-vice presidential candidate Joe Biden not to take Communion. Pelosi later met privately with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. The Vatican released a statement at the time saying the pope spoke with Pelosi about "the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death."

Rep. Michael Capuano

Capuano, D-Mass., has also bucked leaders of his Catholic faith to take a firm stand in favor of abortion rights as the health care debate proceeds. He told FoxNews.com recently that he would "tend to vote against" the final bill if it restricted abortion funding -- though he voted for the House version weeks ago.

Capuano is focusing on abortion in part because it's a big issue in the race for the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Both he and state Attorney General Martha Coakley are playing up their abortion rights credentials in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Capuano, though, made clear that he won't be intimidated by Catholic leaders on the issue.

"I treat them with probably more respect, more deference. But they don't tell me how to vote," he said, according to The Boston Globe.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro

DeLauro, D-Conn., was among the female Democratic House members outraged by the Stupak amendment. DeLauro reportedly got in a shouting match with Rep. George Miller, a Pelosi ally, after the House speaker announced in early November that she would allow the amendment on the health care reform bill.

But as a Catholic, DeLauro has drawn fierce criticism from inside the religious community.

Deacon Keith Fournier, founder of The Catholic Way, listed DeLauro among those lawmakers "who supported the funding of the continued killing of children in the womb with tax dollars" in a recent online column.

In an interview with the Catholic News Agency, a representative for The National Right to Life Committee blasted a separate amendment offered by DeLauro on the issue of abortion funding as "ludicrous" and "an insult."

Sen. Bob Casey Jr.

Casey, D-Pa., is known for his pro-life stance but he's not been entirely clear on how forcefully he would come down on the issue in the Senate health care legislation.

Expect the Catholic senator to be a target of religious groups seeking tougher language in Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care bill.

"Bob Casey has had an on-again, off-again relationship with some of the bishops in his state," Donohue said. "I'm sure there's a tremendous amount of pressure on him to make good on this."

Casey told CNSNews.com in early November that he supports an amendment to prohibit federal funding from paying for abortion coverage in health care reform.

But then a few days later, his office put out a statement saying he's not in favor of new restrictions, suggesting he doesn't want to pursue language akin to the Stupak amendment in the Senate.

Galen Carey, director of government affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, told FoxNews.com that his group is hoping to persuade Casey, and even Reid, to change the abortion language in the Senate bill.

"The current Senate bill is a radical departure from the current U.S. government policy," Carey said.

The Senate bill as written would allow let private insurers that receive federal subsidies to offer plans that include abortion coverage, but the money for abortions is supposed to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries and not from the subsidy money.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. world news

Lawmakers Propose 'War Surtax' to Pay for Troop Increase in Afghanistan

2009-11-24T07:04:00.000+03:00

Two top Democrats say they want to impose a new tax on the wealthy to finance any increase in U.S. troops for the Afghanistan war.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the purse string-controlling House Appropriations Committee, is calling the idea a "war surtax." He said that just as the federal government is expected to pay for its proposed intervention in the health care sector with new taxes, any escalated involvement in Afghanistan should come with a payment plan.

"If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well ... by having a war surtax," Obey told ABC News in an interview that aired Monday. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people that has to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is making a similar demand.

President Obama plans to hold his ninth meeting Monday evening with his national security team to discuss options for overhauling the strategy in Afghanistan. The president has been considering requests for tens of thousands more U.S. troops from his top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for nearly three months. He is not expected to announce his new strategy before Thanksgiving.

But any request would likely come with a hefty price tag. One option presented by McChrystal would bring 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan -- a proposal estimated to cost about $40 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Obey said if an increase like that is approved without any payment mechanism, then other domestic initiatives would be wiped out.

"On the merits I think it's a mistake to deepen our involvement. But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to rebuild our economy," he said. "Ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan."

Obey's proposal would be a "graduated tax" on income. It reportedly would start at 1 percent for low-income earners and rise to 5 percent for high-income earners. He's calling it a surtax because it would essentially be a tax on income that is already subject to federal income tax.

Levin, D-Mich., offered a similar proposal in an interview with Bloomberg Television. He said he wants an additional tax on those making more than $200,000 or $250,000.

"They have done incredibly well, and I think that it's important that we pay for it if we possibly can," Levin said.

But the tax talk comes as Congress is already considering new taxes and fees to pay for health care reform. The proposals put out by the House and Senate versions include taxes on high-value health care plans as well as new taxes on the wealthy.

Asked about the resistance he would likely face in a push for new taxes to finance the Afghanistan war, Obey suggested he would use his position as chairman to push his demand.

"I'm going to be there fighting to get whatever they do paid for," he said. "I don't give up before I start."

Fox News' Mike Emanuel contributed to this report. world news

Quotes of the day

2009-11-24T07:03:00.004+03:00

“Asked why she is a better candidate than her Republican primary opponent Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Calif.), Fiorina said that a woman stands a better chance of defeating Boxer.

“‘With all due respect and deep affection for white men, I am married to one,’ Fiorina said at a breakfast at Americans for Tax Reform. ‘But [Barbara Boxer] knows how to beat them in California, she has done it over and over and over again.’”

***
“But it’s certainly not dirty pool for Fiorina to note the conventional wisdom, that for some women voters, or for some moderates, a female candidate is more appealing. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way, but it does, indeed, seem to be that way. (If you buy the conventional wisdom — which you don’t have to. But I don’t see the sin in noting that conventional wisdom.)

“And let me note: When Sarah Palin was attracting large swaths of previously-Obama-leaning women, no one objected and jumped up and down shouting ‘It’s not right that women are now inclined to vote Republican just because Sarah Palin is a woman! I renounce these votes!’

“If I remember right: We were all more than eager to accept those votes, even if they were cast for supposedly-bad reasons. In fact, I remember being positively giddy about that myself.”

***
“Now look just at Republicans: Republican men deem Palin ‘qualified’ by a margin of 60-38. But Republican women? Not even half think she is qualified: only 49%. 50% of Republican women say Palin is unqualified for the job.

“If you like Palin – well go ahead. It’s a free country. But quit saying that ‘the people’ love Sarah Palin.

“They don’t. Actually, they quite dislike her. The longer they know her, the more they dislike her. And even more than they dislike her, they do not respect her. That reaction of dislike and disrespect is most concentrated among American women.

“Sarah’s constituency is a relatively small cohort of conservative men. I offended a lot of these people last week by suggesting that there was some sexual dynamic at work in the enthusiasm for the politician whom Rush Limbaugh used to describe as ‘Governor Babe.’ So let’s put it this way: Whatever impulse it is that so excites Palin supporters, it is not shared by their wives.”world news

Gathering consensus: Obama’s Asia trip a flop

2009-11-24T07:02:00.002+03:00

Why did Barack Obama take a tour of Asia? That question has begun to be asked around the world, as Obama returns home with no major initiatives launched, no diplomatic openings achieved, and nothing of consequence broached. The Times of London takes the lead in its news section by saying that that “dream” of Obama appears to be fading:

The real problem may be Obama’s friends — or rather, those among his formerly most enthusiastic supporters who are now having second thoughts.

The doubters are suddenly stretching across a broad section of the Democratic party’s natural constituency. They include black congressional leaders upset by the sluggish economy; women and Hispanics appalled by concessions made to Republicans on healthcare; anti-war liberals depressed by the debate over troops for Afghanistan; and growing numbers of blue-collar workers who are continuing to lose their jobs and homes.

Obama’s Asian adventure perceptibly increased the murmurings of dissent when he returned to Washington last week, having failed to wring any public concessions from China on any major issue.

The New York Times worried about a bow, but not the one to Emperor Akihito. Even the most sympathetic editorial board in the nation to Obama gave the trip low marks:

We were especially disappointed that China made no discernible move to join with the United States and other major powers in threatening tougher sanctions if Iran fails to make progress on curbing its nuclear weapons program. President Obama should have made clear in his private talks that the United States and Europe will act anyway if Beijing and Moscow block United Nations Security Council action.

It was also dispiriting that Mr. Obama agreed to allow China to limit his public appearances so markedly. Questions were not permitted at the so-called press conference with Mr. Hu, and his town hall meeting with future Chinese leaders in Shanghai not only had a Potemkin air, it was not even broadcast live in China. It’s obvious that the last thing Mr. Hu wanted was to get questions about issues like his brutal repression in Tibet and Xinjiang. That doesn’t explain Mr. Obama’s acquiescence in such restrictions.

Mr. Obama did not meet with Chinese liberals. In Shanghai, he spoke of the need for an uncensored Internet and universal rights for all people, including Chinese, and at the press conference he called for dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lama. He delayed a meeting with the Dalai Lama until after the China summit and should schedule it soon.

President Obama was elected in part because he promised a more cooperative and pragmatic leadership in world affairs. We support that. The measure of the success (or failure) of his approach won’t be known for months, and we hope it bears fruit. But the American president must always be willing to stand up to Beijing in defense of core American interests and values.

Back to the foreign press, Der Spiegel calls the trip a complete flop in a piece titled, “Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage”:

When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it’s not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming. …

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama’s currency isn’t as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik. The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington’s new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences.

Back home, Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, says it’s time to clean house, starting at the top — and suggests that Obama stay out of foreign-policy decisions, where he’s clearly not qualified:

President Obama’s nine-day trip to Asia is worth a look back to fix two potent problems, past and future. First, the trip’s limited value per day of presidential effort suggests a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power. On top of the inexcusably clumsy review of Afghan policy and the fumbling of Mideast negotiations, the message for Mr. Obama should be clear: He should stare hard at the skills of his foreign-policy team and, more so, at his own dominant role in decision-making. Something is awry somewhere, and he’s got to fix it. …

It was not good optics for Obama to bow to Japan’s emperor. He seems to do this stuff spontaneously and inexplicably, as with his bow to the Saudi King some months ago. And it was truly unfortunate that Obama and his aides didn’t flatly insist that he be allowed to address the Chinese people directly on television and meet with non-stacked Chinese groups—as has been the case during previous presidential visits. Beijing’s leaders obviously didn’t feel confident enough of their own standing at home to give the popular Mr. Obama such access. But he and his team should have made it a precondition of the visit. Its absence left an unhappy taste.

The White House might try to blame the State Department (such an easy and delicious target) for the missteps. But State’s role in the conceptual planning of the trip was not central, and the department’s senior Asia hand, Kurt Campbell, surely knew better. It’s also hard to tar the National Security Council’s own senior Asia expert, Jeff Bader, another pro like Campbell. Perhaps even higher officials at the NSC dropped the ball. Perhaps Mr. Obama might take responsibility himself, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Now, that would truly clear the air—and open the door to some obvious and necessary changes in the administration’s decision-making machinery. Every decision, large and small, is shaped and made by the president himself and enforced by Denis McDonough, a deputy NSC adviser and the administration’s Lord High Executioner. Does Obama get enough pushback? Is he hearing a range of views? Can he see that his powerful intellect might profit from bowing to the voices of experience? If Mr. Obama reflects on the Asia journey and other mishaps, he might loosen the reins and bring in additional policy and diplomatic pros as inside counselors or outside advisers.

Even under normal circumstances, a presidential tour would have only been undertaken as part of an arranged sequence in which major issues were settled at meetings between heads of state. Instead, Obama seemed to treat this as a campaign tour. He shook a lot of hands, bowed to a monarch, and in general tried to be as obsequious as possible while accomplishing nothing.

But these aren’t normal circumstances. Obama postponed work on war policy to take this tour, and rejected an appearance at the Berlin Wall commemoration because this trip had him too busy to attend. At the end of it all, nothing was accomplished except some serious work avoidance by the Commander in Chief, and a lessening of respect for Obama and the US from his lack of testicular fortitude in dealing with the Chinese — even among Obama’s biggest supporters. After all, it’s not every day one sees Der Speigel nostalgic for some Bush-style American diplomacy.

Clearly, Obama is in way over his head, and his choice for Secretary of State isn’t helping. He needs a seasoned diplomat at the helm of State, and he needs to abandon his “smart power,” “reset buttons,” and campaign trail-style diplomacy in exchange for professionalism and protocol. And he needs to do it fast, before our allies in the Pacific and Europe write him off entirely.world news

O’Reilly to 9/11 defense lawyer: “You know people hate you, right?”

2009-11-24T07:00:00.001+03:00

Via JWF, another cameo from the guy who warned us this morning that the “defendants” will plead not guilty so that they’ll have a full opportunity to screech about America in court. Let’s hope they stick to the playbook and confine their rantings to enhanced interrogation under Bush rather than foreign policy generally (and Afghanistan in particular); to do otherwise would show ingratitude to the nice man in the White House who’s given them such a plum forum.

The most interesting part of this is Fenstermaker’s refusal to call 9/11 a case of murder. He could have conceded that it was while arguing that the defendants weren’t responsible for it; the fact that he doesn’t suggests at least the possibility that the defense will argue insanity or … some form of justifiable homicide. Doubtless The One would love to see them try, as it would make conviction a foregone conclusion — irrespective of how horrific relatives of 9/11 victims might find it. In his rush to procure a “political victory” by having them found guilty in a civilian court, I wonder if he understands the fantastic anger he’s going to unleash by letting these degenerates argue that the victims had it coming. I have only a tangential connection to the attack — my cousin’s husband, whom I used to see once every five years or so, disappeared in the rubble — and I’m already seething at the thought of reading long transcripts about how he deserved it. Free electoral advice to The One: Make sure the trial doesn’t start until you’re a lame duck.world news

9/11 Five lawyers: Trial will become their platform to the world

2009-11-24T06:59:00.001+03:00

But hey, don’t worry. Eric Holder is confident that a federal judge can keep them in line — because terrorists are so used to playing by the rules:

The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said. “Their assessment is negative,” he said.

Uh, thanks for clarifying that, genius.

Meanwhile, the DoJ continues to give us the Chip Diller “All is well” spin:

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, “we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past.”

Exactly. Just like they did with … Zacarias Moussaoui. And in that case, which turned into a media circus, with Moussaoui grandstanding as often as possible and using the trial as a platform for his propaganda, the DoJ and the court only had one defendant. This will have five, and at least one (KSM) with slightly more on the ball than Moussaoui, who was a little too screwy even for al-Qaeda, according to the 9/11 Commission.

Speaking of Chip Diller moments, remember this scene? The stampeding hordes will look like a Sunday stroll compared to the media crush coming to the Big Apple for this trial:

Update: Dave Feigel at Slate makes the case that anyone who may have to appear in a federal court facing criminal charges should be opposed to this decision — entirely for their own self-interest:

In an idealized view, our judicial system is insulated from the ribald passions of politics. In reality, those passions suffuse the criminal justice system, and no matter how compelling the case for suppressing evidence that would actually effect the trial might be, given the politics at play, there is no judge in the country who will seriously endanger the prosecution. Instead, with the defense motions duly denied, the case will proceed to trial, and then (as no jury in the country is going to acquit KSM) to conviction and a series of appeals. And that’s where the ultimate effect of a vigorous defense of KSM gets really grim.

At each stage of the appellate process, a higher court will countenance the cowardly decisions made by the trial judge, ennobling them with the unfortunate force of precedent. The judicial refusal to consider KSM’s years of quasi-legal military detention as a violation of his right to a speedy trial will erode that already crippled constitutional concept. The denial of the venue motion will raise the bar even higher for defendants looking to escape from damning pretrial publicity. Ever deferential to the trial court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will affirm dozens of decisions that redact and restrict the disclosure of secret documents, prompting the government to be ever more expansive in invoking claims of national security and emboldening other judges to withhold critical evidence from future defendants. Finally, the twisted logic required to disentangle KSM’s initial torture from his subsequent “clean team” statements will provide a blueprint for the government, giving them the prize they’ve been after all this time—a legal way both to torture and to prosecute.

This is why war criminals get tried in military tribunals, and American residents get tried in court.world news

Hewlett-Packard Fourth-Quarter PC Sales Top Estimates (Update3)

2009-11-24T06:55:00.002+03:00

By Connie Guglielmo

Nov. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Hewlett-Packard Co. reported personal-computer sales that topped some analysts’ estimates after the company took market share from Dell Inc. and benefited from surging demand in China.

PC sales in the fourth quarter ended Oct. 31 were $9.86 billion, a 12 percent drop from a year earlier and a 17 percent increase from the previous three months, Hewlett-Packard said today in a statement. On Nov. 11, the company reported revenue and profit that topped analysts’ estimates.

Hewlett-Packard took the PC lead from Dell in 2006 by cutting prices and introducing thinner, more stylish designs. Dell fell to No. 3 in the global market last quarter and reported earnings this month that missed analysts’ projections. Under Chief Executive Officer Mark Hurd, Hewlett-Packard also has expanded through acquisitions, including the $2.7 billion buyout of 3Com Corp. announced this month.

“The company is seeing momentum on the enterprise side as their peers, mainly Dell, lose steam,” said Bill Kreher, an analyst with Edward Jones & Co. in St. Louis. He rates the shares “buy.” “When you have both the consumer and business categories doing well, particularly in this economy, it bodes well for when things start to improve.”

Toni Sacconaghi, a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst in New York, had estimated PC sales last quarter of $9.73 billion.

Quarterly Profit

Fourth-quarter net income rose 14 percent to $2.41 billion, or 99 cents a share, from $2.11 billion, or 84 cents, a year earlier, Hewlett-Packard said today. Profit, excluding some items, was $1.14 a share. Sales fell 8.4 percent to $30.8 billion. Before Hewlett-Packard announced preliminary results this month, analysts had projected profit of $1.11 and sales of $29.8 billion.

Chief Financial Officer Cathie Lesjak said average selling prices of PCs stabilized in the quarter.

Hewlett-Packard, which gets 64 percent of its revenue from outside the U.S., said sales in China rose more than 20 percent.

Hewlett-Packard, based in Palo Alto, California, fell 27 cents to $50.75 in after-hours trading, after climbing 98 cents to $51.02 at 4 p.m. on the New York Stock Exchange. The shares have gained 41 percent this year through the NYSE close.

Revenue from printers and supplies, such as ink, dropped 15 percent to $6.45 billion. Printer shipments fell 20 percent. Profit from that business was $1.17 billion, yielding a margin of 18.1 percent, compared with 15.3 percent a year earlier.

‘Low on Inventory’

“We felt good about imaging and printing as we closed the quarter,” Hurd said in an interview. “We exited the year pretty low on inventory -- we saw higher demand for printers as we went through the end of the year.”

The company expects double-digit unit growth in the printer division this quarter.

Fourth-quarter revenue in Hewlett-Packard’s server and storage business declined 17 percent to $4.22 billion.

Hewlett-Packard increased services revenue 7.8 percent to $8.93 billion, buoyed by the acquisition last year of Electronic Data Systems Corp. The profit margin was 16.2 percent, compared with 11.4 percent a year earlier.

Hewlett-Packard signed new services contracts with customers including Coca-Cola Co., Alcatel-Lucent SA and Eli Lilly & Co., Hurd said. “A story within the story with services was the strength of the signings in the quarter,” Hurd said.

The company reiterated its first-quarter forecast for sales of as much as $29.9 billion and profit excluding acquisition- and restructuring-related costs of $1.03 to $1.05 a share.

Market Share

Hewlett-Packard captured 20.2 percent of the worldwide PC market in the third quarter, up from 18.9 percent a year earlier, according to researcher IDC in Framingham, Massachusetts. Acer Inc. passed Dell to take second place with a 14 percent share. Round Rock, Texas-based Dell, the only one of the three biggest PC makers to see its shipments fall, had a 12.7 percent share of the global market, down from 14.2 percent a year ago, IDC said.

Hurd, 52, is expanding businesses that yield higher profits than PCs and printers. Hewlett-Packard said it bought Marlborough, Massachusetts-based 3Com to bolster its ProCurve networking business and boost sales of computer gear for corporate data centers.

Adding 3Com increases competition with San Jose, California-based Cisco Systems Inc., the world’s largest maker of network equipment.

Hurd said the 3Com takeover is part of a long-term plan to deliver a package of software, services, servers and networking technologies.

“The biggest message we get from customers is: ‘We want more -- we want more from your portfolio,’” he said. world news

Why Geithner will stay

2009-11-24T06:54:00.002+03:00

One residual from Timothy Geithner’s rough confirmation back in January — “Turbo Tax Tim” and all that — is that his political position is probably a bit more precarious than that of the typical newbie treasury secretary.

Not only has Geithner been a frequent target of late-night comedy shows, he’s the public face of the unpopular bank and automaker bailouts. High unemployment rate isn’t helping either.

No surprisingly, a new Rasmussen poll finds that 42 percent of Americans think Geithner has done a “poor” job handling the economy versus 20 percent who rate him “good or excellent.” And
the furor over his handling of the AIG bailout has yanked the competence issue back to the forefront. So there is little political risk from calling for his resignation, as Representative Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, and several Republicans have done. But there seems to be little White House appetite at this moment for ousting Geithner, who certainly has no plans of his own for a fast exit.

And why would Obama cut him loose when doing so would be tantamount to a vote of disapproval in his own economic policies?

No one has charged Geithner with going rogue, after all. So blame the model, not the man, if you must. Not to mention a quick hook would stink of panic. Top cabinet secretaries of first-term presidents rarely leave before the midterm elections.

Nor does Geithner have much to fear from a whisper campaign to put JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon in the job. Despite the rumors, Dimon doesn’t want the gig. What banker would, given the current populist political climate?

It seems unlikely that radioactive Wall Street will be supplying Geithner’s eventual successor. More likely candidates: Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff; Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve; Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council; and Roger Ferguson, CEO of TIAA-CREF and former Fed vice chairman.

But the calls for Geithner’s resignation, as well as stunts like the Congressional Black Caucus blocking a key House committee vote on financial reform, indicate a degree of desperation among congressional Democrats. They see high unemployment and dissatisfaction with Obama’s scattered focus on the issue as driving the anti-incumbent mood.

Unlike in sports, in government it’s the players, not the coach, who gets fired. And that’s why some Dems think one way to save their jobs in 2010 is by suggesting that Geithner lose his today.
world news

Cribs recalled in U.S., Canada over safety concerns

2009-11-24T06:53:00.002+03:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc is voluntarily recalling more than 2.1 million baby cribs in the United States and Canada due to a potential suffocation hazard, U.S. safety officials said on Monday.

Four suffocation deaths related to cribs with drop-down sides made by the Canadian company have been reported in the United States, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said in a statement announcing the recall.

U.S. and Canadian safety officials have received a combined 110 reports of accidents involving Stork Craft drop-side cribs, the agency said.

The cribs were sold at major retailers such as J.C. Penney, Kmart and Wal-Mart, as well as online at Amazon.com, Costco.com and Target.com, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said.

The voluntary recall involves about 1.2 million cribs distributed in the United States and 968,000 units distributed in Canada, the agency said.

Problems with the cribs' plastic hardware or improper installation could cause the side that drops to detach, creating a potentially dangerous space between the crib and mattress, the agency added.

"The bodies of infants and toddlers can become entrapped in the space which can lead to suffocation. Complete detachment of drop-sides can lead to falls from the crib," the agency said.

The recall includes Stork Craft cribs made and distributed between January 1993 and October 2009, including 147,000 with the Fisher-Price logo. Parents should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and contact Stork Craft for a free repair kit, the agency said.

In January, Stork Craft recalled more than 1 million cribs in Canada and the United States because of a different defect, a potential suffocation hazard.

In that recall, the safety commission said, metal support brackets used to the support the mattress and mattress board could crack and break, which could create a gap between the mattress and crib rails that could entrap and suffocate infants.world news

U.S. to Propose Emissions Cut Before Climate Talks

2009-11-24T06:52:00.002+03:00

By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — The United States will propose a near-term target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions before the United Nations climate change meeting in Copenhagen next month, a senior administration official said Monday. President Obama, the official said, will announce the specific target “in coming days.”

The announcement of a target will take the current legislative stalemate over a climate bill into account, the senior official said, and thus might present a range of possible reductions rather than a single figure.

The lack of consensus in Congress puts Mr. Obama in a tricky domestic and diplomatic bind. He cannot promise more than Congress may eventually deliver when it takes up climate change legislation next year. But if he does not offer some concrete pledge, the United States will bear the brunt of the blame for the lack of an international agreement.

The official also said the president would decide shortly whether and for how long he might attend the December climate meeting, which runs from Dec. 7 to Dec. 18. He repeated the president’s assertion that he would consider attending if his presence could be a useful impetus to a deal.

The official, a member of the team of American climate change treaty negotiators, spoke at a White House briefing under the condition that he not be identified.

The Obama administration has so far resisted demands that it commit to a specific emissions reduction goal, saying that it could not pre-empt Congress, which has stalled on climate change legislation. China, the world’s largest emitter of climate-altering gases, has also refused to spell out its plans for reducing emissions, although President Hu Jintao promised in September that his country would reduce the amount of emissions per unit of economic output by a “notable margin.”

Many observers of the climate negotiations expect China to deliver a more specific pledge on this so-called carbon intensity target before the Copenhagen meeting opens.

Mr. Obama has come under criticism from leaders of dozens of countries that have already set domestic greenhouse gas reduction targets. He is also under fire from numerous environmental advocates who say the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter, must take a credible commitment to Copenhagen to ensure that the talks do not fall apart.

The House passed a measure in June that calls for a 17 percent reduction over 2005 levels of the domestic emissions of the gases that contribute to the heating of the planet. A Senate committee passed a bill last month that sets a 20 percent target, but that is likely to be weakened in future negotiations.

Paul Bledsoe of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy said the president’s hands were tied by Congressional inaction. “The U.S. cannot negotiate at Copenhagen above the targets in domestic legislation without risking support for that legislation in the Senate,” Mr. Bledsoe said. “If European demands continue above the U.S. domestic targets, they set up an impossible dynamic for the administration.”

A second administration official briefing reporters on Monday said that Mr. Obama would have a stronger hand at Copenhagen if Congress had already acted on climate change legislation, but that the debate on health care had blocked it.

“We would have preferred that health care be done a long time ago, and we’d be having an energy debate today,” the official said.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said Mr. Obama could credibly tell delegates to the climate conference that the United States intended to reduce its emissions by 17 percent to 20 percent, based on the legislation that has been approved by the House and the Senate environment committee.

“It’s important for the president to exert that leadership with consultation with Congress,” Mr. Kerry said in an interview late last week.

Mr. Obama and leaders of a number of other major countries have said that the Copenhagen talks would not yield a comprehensive and binding treaty to address global warming. Instead, the more than 190 nations represented there are expected to produce an interim agreement that addresses the major issues without requiring ratification or international enforcement.world news

Arroyo Deploys Troops as 22 Die in Philippines Political Attack

2009-11-24T06:51:00.002+03:00

By Cecilia Yap and Joel Guinto

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Philippine President Gloria Arroyo deployed extra troops and ordered her national police chief to lead investigations after gunmen abducted and killed at least 22 people in an attack on supporters of a local politician.

“No effort will be spared to bring justice to the victims and hold the perpetrators accountable,” Arroyo said at the start of a Cabinet meeting today after the attack in Maguindanao, a province on the southern island of Mindanao.

The military said about 100 gunmen yesterday stopped a convoy of 40 people on their way to file papers in support of Buluan City Vice Mayor Esmael Mangudadatu, who planned to run for provincial governor in elections next year. The politician’s wife and sister as well as journalists were among those abducted, possibly by backers of a rival candidate, according to the military.

Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Ponce, a regional military spokesman, said the death toll may rise from 22 as a suspected mass grave has been discovered in the area. He put the number of dead yesterday at 25.

At least 12 journalists were among those killed, Reporters Without Borders said.

“Never in the history of journalism have the news media suffered such a heavy loss of life in one day,” the Paris-based organization said in a statement. “We have often condemned the culture of impunity and violence in the Philippines, especially in Mindanao. This time, the frenzied violence of thugs working for corrupt politicians has resulted in an incomprehensible bloodbath.”

Police Chief

National Police Chief General Jesus Versoza is now in Mindanao “to oversee the investigation,” police spokesman Chief Superintendent Leonardo Espina said in a mobile phone text message. Twenty-four bodies have been recovered, he said.

Arroyo ordered her adviser in Mindanao, Jesus Dureza, to set up a crisis committee, her office said.

The Southeast Asian nation, which was wracked by violence during election campaigning in 2007, will choose a new president and thousands of national and local officials in May. The nation’s Commission on Elections will accept filings for candidacies until Dec. 1.

Elections in the Philippines are often marred by bloodshed, with provincial politicians maintaining private militias.

The province is a “hotspot” for political unrest, Armed Forces spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Romeo Brawner told ANC television yesterday.

Bodies Mutilated

The bodies were found in the mountainous area of Barangay Salman and the military is trying to confirm reports that they had been mutilated, Brawner said.

Mangudadatu, who wasn’t traveling with the convoy, said yesterday he suspected female members of the group were raped before they were killed.

In the 2007 mid-term elections, about 60 candidates were killed, according to a May 2007 Philippine Daily Inquirer report, citing data from the police. That number rose 46 percent from 41 in 2004.

The southern Philippines is home to the al-Qaeda-linked militant group Abu Sayyaf and several Muslim rebel groups. world news

Your request is being processed... US Debt A 'Phantom Menace,' Krugman Argues

2009-11-24T06:43:00.002+03:00

The United States is borrowing trillions of dollars under terms that seem "too good to be true" just as a "spending explosion" on benefits programs like Medicare and Social Security is set to begin, according to the New York Times.

In a series titled "Payback Time: Debt Bomb," the Times details the magnitude of our nation's borrowing and warns of an impending and monumental reality check:

The government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government's tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically."

Replete with charts and stupefying figures (Americans must pay off more than $1.6 trillion in debt by March 31, 2010), the piece states that there is "little doubt that the United States' long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone."

Au contraire, says Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who argues today that "Most economists I talk to believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: the stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence."

Krugman cites a recent interview during which President Obama warned that "if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

Krugman's response: "What? Huh?"

[T]he concerns Mr. Obama expressed become comprehensible if you suppose that he's getting his views, directly or indirectly, from Wall Street.

Ever since the Great Recession began economic analysts at some (not all) major Wall Street firms have warned that efforts to fight the slump will produce even worse economic evils. In particular, they say, never mind the current ability of the U.S. government to borrow long term at remarkably low interest rates -- any day now, budget deficits will lead to a collapse in investor confidence, and rates will soar. [...]

A better model [for our current scenario], I'd argue, is Japan in the 1990s, which ran persistent large budget deficits, but also had a persistently depressed economy -- and saw long-term interest rates fall almost steadily. There's a good chance that officials are being terrorized by a phantom menace -- a threat that exists only in their minds.

Read Krugman's full piece here.

Likewise, economist and blogger Dean Baker scoffs at the Times's over-hyped debt reporting. Baker's post -- titled, "In Just a Decade the U.S. Interest Burden Could Be as High as It Was in 1992!!!!!!!" -- notes that there is "no evidence presented in this article that the rise in interest rates will place the U.S. government in a situation where it will be unable to pay its bills and no one cited in this article makes such a claim."

Incidentally, today's Wall Street Journal features more evidence that the Obama administration is rejecting Krugman's advice. "The White House is lukewarm about proposals by congressional Democrats to introduce broad legislation to create jobs, instead favoring targeted measures that would be less likely to inflate the deficit," the Journal reports, citing administration officials.
world news

2009-11-24T06:39:00.001+03:00

The New York Post reported this morning that lawmakers are discussing JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon as a potential replacement for current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Leaving aside concerns that appointing a Wall Street CEO to the Treasury's top position would draw heavy criticism over Wall Street's coziness with Washington, it's not clear that Dimon would be a natural fit in the Obama administration. According to the Wall Street Journal, Dimon departs from White House policy on a handful of key issues.

For one, President Obama has pushed establishment of a consumer-protection agency that would keep watch over credit card and mortgage companies, but Dimon opposes the agency on grounds that it will drive up costs. JPMorgan says recent legislation regulating credit cards could cost the bank up to $750 million a year, a burden that may be passed along to consumers.

And while the White House's position on how to handle too-big-to-fail banks is still evolving, Dimon has staunchly defended big banks' right to exist -- and to fail. In a Washington Post op-ed this month, Dimon wrote:

"...ending the era of "too big to fail" does not mean that we must somehow cap the size of financial-services firms. Scale can create value for shareholders; for consumers, who are beneficiaries of better products, delivered more quickly and at less cost; for the businesses that are our customers; and for the economy as a whole. Artificially limiting the size of an institution, regardless of the business implications, does not make sense. The goal should be a regulatory system that allows financial institutions to meet the needs of individual and institutional customers while ensuring that even the biggest bank can be allowed to fail in a way that does not put taxpayers or the broader economy at risk."

Anonymous sources told the NY Post that Dimon "would love to serve his country," but is demurring. He has no plans, he says, to leave JPMorgan for the next "six or seven years."

For now, Geithner is still contending with critics in Congress. He was attacked last week during an appearance before Congress's Joint Economic Committee. "Mr. Secretary, the public has lost all confidence in your ability to do your job," Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) told him.world news

Your request is being processed... 21 Filipinos Killed On Way To File Election Papers

2009-11-23T18:39:00.001+03:00

MANILA, Philippines — Dozens of gunmen hijacked a convoy carrying journalists, and family and supporters of a candidate for provincial governor, killing at least 21 of the travelers Monday in the southern Philippines' worst political violence in years.

There was no claim of responsibility for the bloodshed in the predominantly Muslim region wracked by political tensions between rival clans.

The convoy of vans carrying about 40 people was hijacked in Maguindanao province, about 560 miles (900 kilometers) south of Manila, and army troops later found the bullet-riddled bodies of 13 women and eight men, regional military commander Maj. Gen. Alfredo Cayton said.

It was unclear if anyone survived the attack. An army and police search was under way for the other hostages.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said at least 10 local reporters were part of the convoy. Their organizations failed to reach them, leading them to conclude they too were killed.

"Never in the history of journalism have the news media suffered such a heavy loss of life in one day," Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.

"The frenzied violence of thugs working for corrupt politicians has resulted in an incomprehensible bloodshed," it said.

The politician, Ismael Mangudadatu, was not in the convoy and said his wife called him by mobile phone shortly before she and her entourage were abducted.
Story continues below

"She said ... they were stopped by 100 uniformed armed men ... then her line got cut off," he said. He said his wife and relatives were among the dead.

Victims' relatives blamed political rivals in national elections slated for May 2010.

Philippine elections are particularly violent in the south because of the presence of armed groups, including Muslim rebels fighting for self-rule in the predominantly Roman Catholic nation, and political warlords who maintain private armies.

The decades-long Muslim insurgency has killed about 120,000 people since the 1970s. But a presidential adviser, Jesus Dureza, said Monday's massacre was "unequaled in recent history."

"There must be a total stop to this senseless violence," he said, recommending a state of emergency be imposed in the area to disarm all gunmen. "Anything else will not work."

About 100 gunmen were involved in the hijacking, military spokesman Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner said.

Also in the convoy were Mangudadatu's two sisters, followers and several local journalists. They were traveling to nearby Shariff Aguak township to file Mangudadatu's nomination papers for the position of governor of Maguindanao province, Brawner said.

Mangudadatu, vice mayor of Buluan township, accused political rivals belonging to a prominent clan for the massacre. Representatives of that family did not respond to the allegations.

Maguindanao is part of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, which was created as part of a 1996 peace agreement with a large Muslim rebel group.

Army troops went on full alert in Maguindanao to prevent retaliatory killings, Cayton said.world news

China Slams US Report Warning Of Spying By Beijing

2009-11-23T18:38:00.002+03:00

BEIJING — Beijing on Monday criticized a U.S. government report that said Chinese spies are aggressively stealing American secrets, saying the report was "full of prejudice" and warning that it could damage US-China relations.

The annual report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to lawmakers said last week that American officials believe Chinese spying is "growing in scale, intensity and sophistication" and urges Congress to review the U.S. ability to meet the "rising challenge" of Beijing's espionage.

The report "ignores the facts and is full of prejudice and ulterior motives," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement.

"We advise this so-called commission not to always view China through tinted glasses," Qin said. "Do not do things that interfere in China's internal affairs and damage China-US relations."

The report also said Beijing is building a navy that could block the U.S. military from getting to the region if fighting should break out between China and Taiwan, the self-governing island off China's southeastern coast that China claims as its own.

The report follows President Barack Obama's visit last week to China, where he had extensive talks with President Hu Jintao. The commission tends to take a tougher stance on China than either Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama wants to nurture good ties with a country the United States needs to deal with some of the world's toughest crises, including nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, climate change and global economic recovery.
world news

Your request is being processed... 4 US Soldiers Die In Afghan Attacks

2009-11-23T18:37:00.002+03:00

KABUL — Bomb attacks and a firefight killed four U.S. troops in 24 hours in Afghanistan, the military said Monday, adding to the growing toll as NATO and the U.S. consider whether to send more forces to the war.

Three of the Americans died in southern Afghanistan on Sunday, NATO said in a statement. Two of them were killed in a bomb attack and the third in a separate firefight.

The statement said a bomb killed the fourth American in the east Monday.

The deaths bring the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan in November to 15. October was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in the eight-year war, with 58 dead.

Meanwhile, Afghan officials said three Afghan soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in southern Helmand province.

The Defense Ministry said the bombing occurred on Sunday in Musa Qala district. It did not give further details and it was not clear if there was any connection between the Afghan deaths and the American deaths.

In Brussels, NATO said Monday it wants allied nations to commit more forces to Afghanistan ahead of a U.S. decision on whether to send more troops.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in the midst of intense negotiations on getting more troops, equipment, funding and other resources for the newly established NATO Training Mission, spokesman James Appathurai said.world news

Al-Qaeda Somalia in U.S.: Supporters Blamed For Ohio Arson

2009-11-23T18:34:00.001+03:00

In the early morning of October 19, a fire ravaged through the property surrounding Masjid Salama, a growing Columbus, Ohio, mosque frequented primarily by members of the local Somali community. Several Somali-owned businesses surrounding the mosque were heavily damaged, but the mosque itself was not touched. However, because of the surrounding damage, the mosque itself has not been cleared for reopening.

As reported by the Columbus Dispatch, fire investigators immediately determined that arson was to blame for the blaze.

But rather than blaming the arson on unknown anti-Muslim individuals engaged in a religious hate crime, many inside the Columbus Somali community are fixing their suspicions on leaders of another local Somali mosque, Masjid Ibn Taymiya. This mosque is dominated by supporters of the al-Shabaab terrorist group, and members have made repeated attempts to take over the rapidly growing Salama congregation through an unsuccessful campaign of legal and physical intimidation.

Following the blaze, I met with two leaders of Masjid Salama, who described the ongoing efforts by the leaders of Ibn Taymiya to take over their burgeoning year-and-a-half-old congregation. On November 12, the Salama leaders had to obtain a temporary restraining order to prevent the bulldozing of their rented facility by a leader of the Ibn Taymiya mosque, Mohamed Hassan, who, they say, is the ringleader of the campaign.

“The first thing Hassan did was to obtain the lease rights to the property we rented, and then use his contacts in City Hall to try to illegally evict us,” one of the Salama leaders said. In fact, Hassan took the Salama mosque to court earlier this month, only two weeks after the arson at the mosque property, claiming that they had not paid rent — a claim that was soundly rejected by the judge when the Salama leaders provided canceled copies of the rent checks for the past year. Hassan had also rejected checks for the past three months rent.

But Hassan’s harassment campaign began earlier this year when he obtained trespassing orders from the Columbus prosecutor’s office. According to the Salama leaders, Hassan hoped to force them from the mosque property, change the locks overnight, and reopen the mosque the following day with a new imam appointed by Ibn Taymiya. That plan failed when it was pointed out that the mosque property wasn’t even in the Columbus prosecutor’s jurisdiction, making the orders invalid.

The Salama leaders said that Hassan then sent a team of “mediators,” who proposed that the entire Salama board resign, but the current imam would be retained and the “mediators” would appoint a new board. Needless to say, the Salama leaders rejected the proposal out of hand:

These people have nothing to do with our mosque. Who are they to demand mediation for anything? And all the proposals these mediators proposed would get rid of our board and finish the takeover of our mosque. This new board they would appoint would get rid of our imam as soon as they were in place. Why would we ever agree?

Not long after came the fire that has closed Salama ever since and the unsuccessful judicial hearing on the bogus claims that the mosque had not paid its rent.Mohamed Hassan’s obsession with taking over the Salama mosque appears to center on significant religious differences between the two congregations. “This has nothing to do with Somali politics, and everything to do with extremist ideology,” the Salama leaders claimed.

They noted the extremist connections to Ibn Taymiya — particularly its sister mosque, Masjid Omar Ibn El Khattab, which was home to the Columbus-based al-Qaeda cell broken up by the FBI. Three members of that al-Qaeda cell have been convicted and are currently serving prison sentences on terror-related charges. Masjid Ibn Taymiya and Masjid Omar are both controlled and operated by the Islamic Society of Greater Columbus.

The Salama leaders also point to their own vocal opposition to the al-Shabaab terrorist group and the extremist ideology it propagates:

We have openly disputed with the al-Shabaab supporters in Columbus, and we reject their ideology of offensive jihad and suicide bombings. As a result, many people have been leaving Ibn Taymiya, where they preach offensive jihad against the infidels, and coming to our mosque to get away from the extremists. That’s why they want to shut us down or take over our mosque — to get rid of the competition. (emphasis mine)

Ibn Taymiya’s ties to the local al-Qaeda mosque are not it’s only troubling connections to terror. The mosque is also affiliated with the Council of Imams, a national organization of Somali Islamic leaders that was incorporated by the previous imam at Ibn Taymiya. It is now headed by Sheik Abdirahman Ahmed, the Minneapolis imam at the center of the current nationwide terrorism investigation into al-Shabaab recruiting. As reported by Newsweek, the New York Times, and many other media outlets, more than a dozen young Somali men were recruited out of Sheik Ahmed’s Abubakar Siddique Islamic Center. The FBI has been investigating al-Shabaab recruitment in Columbus as well.

But the continuing campaign to take over Masjid Salama by Mohamed Hassan and his Ibn Taymiya allies has not deterred Salama’s leaders, and they remain defiant despite their months-long ordeal:

They have used their political contacts, the courts, and now arson to evict us and try to shut us down. And they have failed every time. We will keep fighting, because if we lose this battle here, we have nowhere else to go.

While arson investigators continue to look into the fire that has temporarily displaced Masjid Salama, the leaders are waiting to see whether local officials and the media in Ohio — who have thus far ignored the larger controversy surrounding the fire — will finally recognize the larger battle between Muslim moderates and extremists happening in the Columbus Somali community.

And waiting to see exactly who the politicians and media will side with in this struggle.world news

Where Has the Obama Thrill Gone?

2009-11-23T18:33:00.001+03:00

Who appointed over 40 ambassadors on the sole basis of campaign contributions, or has as many lobbyists in government as did any President in memory? And who releases touchy news—whether increased unemployment or trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civil courts—on Friday nights, or wants his Democratically-controlled Congress to debate unpopular legislation on Saturday nights?

You see where this is going. Prophets fall harder than normal politicians. When you claim that seas recede and planets cool before your presence, and that Latin mottos, new presidential candidate seals, neo-classical victory trophies, and faux-Greek temple sets are the appropriate backdrops for Your speeches, then you raise the bar a bit high. Obama is not necessarily any more partisan than a Nixon or Reagan or Bush, only just as partisan—but when he claimed something quite different.

Add in the hope/change mantra, and a cadre of lackeys talking about tingling legs, his majesty Caesar, and apotheosis into a “god”, and our young Icarus was simply soaring too near the sun for his own fragile wax-feather wings. The problem is not just that Obama is proving Clinton-like in his Chicago hardball partisanship (cf. the trash-talk of Rahm Emanuel, Mao-admirer Anita Dunn, or the Truther Van Jones), but that his entire persona was fabricated on a touchy-feely “there is no red state, no blue state America.”

Despite Obama’s vows to restore science to its rightful place in government (I think that was his dig at George Bush’s opposition to human embryo, stem-cell research), we get superstition. Instead of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ non-partisan, depressing unemployment figures, we are instead to rely on a new unproven notion of jobs “saved” and “created”, and in nonexistent, made-up congressional districts, listed, no less, on a government recovery.gov official website. War against reason?

Remember the “reset” button promises abroad? Do we have a safer, saner relationship with Putin? Is Iran closer to disarmament? North Korea quieter? Did George Mitchell transform the Middle East? Is the “good” war still good, the “bad” one still bad? Do the Brits feel the special relationship is stronger? Maybe Sarkozy is more impressed now with America, or are the Poles and Czechs?

And do Chavez, Castro, Ortega, Morales, Zelaya, and others in Latin America feel more pressure to be democratic or less? Is one third of the planet in India and China more comfortable with the messiah Obama or with the hated Bush?

At Home

And the future? Will the country look eagerly forward to cap-and-trade taxes? The new income tax rates? Will small businesses like the caps off FICA taxable income, and health car surcharges? Perhaps the people can get behind impending “comprehensive immigration reform” (in the way we are now for “comprehensive health care”), which will de-emphasize enforcement and emphasize amnesty?

As Obama’s popularity falls, expect his own partisanship to increase, and the Chicago brass knuckles to be more evident. Obama knows that he can hope and change only until he hits 35-40% approval ratings, and is rendered shouting to half-empty audience halls and a triangulating congress.A final prognosis—or why Obama is in deep, deep trouble, since he won’t quit in his dream to transmogrify American into something like Belgium at best and Brazil at worse.

Millions of independents and swing voters went for Obama for five reasons: (1) they believed the media hype that Bush was the “worst” (fill in the blanks); (2) the sudden financial panic of September 2008 and the anger at Wall Street banditry and bail-outs; (3) Obama’s youth, charm, and oratory; (4) the feel-good novelty of voting in our first African-American president; (5) Obama’s centrist campaign message of paying down debt, working with allies, drilling, being tough against Al Qaeda, and being bipartisan.

It’s taken almost 11 months, but voters now know that propositions 1-5 are now refuted or irrelevant:

1) Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bush’s sins that bothered voters— too much big government and big deficits—were simply trumped by Obama’s gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. “Bush did it” doesn’t work any more. “Obama did it even more” is the new worry.

2) The panic that we would lose all our 401(k’s) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isn’t working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depression—or at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, “Bush’s did it” will transmogrify into Obama’s recession. Obama can’t run against the economy, but must fix it—or take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans don’t run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.

3) Obama’s smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) “some” say/do, but “I” say/do… The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed “I” and “me” ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of us—mitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies; no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into I’m copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

4) On the matter of racial landmarks, some of the voters think, righty or wrongly, that they did their thing, proving America is not racist by the fact of Obama’s election. Now? A lot of independents, however, won’t seem obligated to vote in 2010 or 2012, motivated by the same sense of liberal assuagement of guilt. This been there/done that feeling will be accentuated should Obama’s supporters continue to play the race card as his popularity dips as a result of a statist and neo-socialist agenda.

5) We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.

All sorts of things can happen. Printing and borrowing can give us a brief, though unsustainable recovery around 2010. A war could break out. We could get hit big-time again as in 9/11.

That said, I think not merely the thrill is gone, but a righteous anger about an Obama trifecta— of serial apologies and bows abroad, massive borrowing and deficit spending, and government-take overs of private spheres of life—is swelling up in the electorate. I haven’t seen in my lifetime anything quite like it. And this furor of being had has the potential not just to take Obama down, but also his ideology and supporters along with him for a generation.world news

Jon Stewart Explains To Conservative Pundits Why He Doesn't Like Sarah Palin (VIDEO)

2009-11-23T15:55:00.002+03:00

Jon Stewart gave what seemed like his final word on Sarah Palin last night, explaining to Fox News pundits that he doesn't dislike her because she's from Alaska or because she hunts, but because "when you peel back the pretty, shooty layers of the Palin onion, there's no onion. It's just a conservative boiler plate mad lib: 'Freedom is good and taxes are--ooh I need an adjective--how about, I don't know, silly?' And the worst part it's a mad lib delivered as though it were the hard-earned wisdom of a life well lived," he explained.

Stewart took exception to the accusations that Democrats don't like Palin because she's attractive and religious, but he was particularly angered by the words of Bernie Goldberg who said on Fox that liberals have "Palin Derangement Syndrome" and are driven crazy by her because she has five kids--one with Down syndrome which "liberals certainly don't allow that to happen [to them.]" world news

McNabb, Eagles beat Bears 24-20

2009-11-23T15:52:00.002+03:00

By ANDREW SELIGMAN, AP Sports Writer Andrew Seligman, Ap Sports Writer

CHICAGO – Donovan McNabb and the Philadelphia Eagles found a way to pull out a close win. They also hurt the Chicago Bears in the process.

McNabb threw for 244 yards against his hometown team, LeSean McCoy scored the go-ahead touchdown on a 10-yard run following Antonio Dixon's block of a field goal attempt, and Philadelphia came away with a 24-20 victory over struggling Chicago on Sunday night after back-to-back close losses.

"It wouldn't have mattered if we had won 3-2, this was a game we needed to come out and win by any means necessary," McNabb said.

The Bears were leading 20-17 when Dixon blocked a 48-yard field goal by Robbie Gould with 11 minutes left. McNabb then led the Eagles (6-4) on a 62-yard touchdown drive that McCoy capped with a neat 10-yard run, sending Chicago to its fifth loss in six games and delivering another big hit to its playoff hopes.

Barring a big run, the Bears (4-6) will miss the postseason for the third straight season — certainly not what they expected when they made that big offseason trade with Denver for Jay Cutler.

The Bears had high hopes after that deal, but after a 3-1 start, all the optimism is gone.

"We're running out of time," Cutler said. "The window is getting smaller and smaller. Anything can happen, you get strange things happening in November and December, but for us it's smaller and smaller."

Or, as Bears coach Lovie Smith put it: "This wasn't part of the master plan."

Cutler, who came into the game with a league-leading 17 interceptions, did not get picked off until the final minute. Tracy White tipped a pass, Sean Jones came away with the ball near midfield, and that sealed the win.

"The last couple years we haven't had a lot of luck in close ones," Eagles coach Andy Reid said. "The guys battled, and they didn't worry about that. They just kept banging."

The Eagles also exhaled after losing 31-23 to San Diego and 20-16 to Dallas the previous two weeks, putting them in what McNabb said was a must-win situation.

The veteran quarterback was 23 of 32, and DeSean Jackson caught eight of those passes for 107 yards to lead Philadelphia to the win even though star running back Brian Westbrook missed the game with a concussion. The Eagles also lost cornerback Asante Samuel to a neck stinger, yet still pulled this one out.

McNabb's effort included a 48-yard touchdown pass to Jackson over the middle to give Philadelphia a 17-12 lead with just under six minutes left in the third.

Cutler responded by leading the Bears to their first TD in more than six quarters, lofting a 15-yard pass to Kellen Davis to cap a 55-yard drive, and then firing to Matt Forte for the 2-point conversion and a 20-17 lead with 2:52 left in the third, but the Bears couldn't hold it.

"We felt like it was a playoff game for us, that we needed to win every game we had left," Smith said. "We didn't. We're still not out of anything. We'll go on from here."

Cutler, who had 12 interceptions in the previous five games, completed 24 of 43 passes for 171 yards. The Bears also got three forced fumbles from Charles Tillman and a 72-yard run from Khalil Bell, who moved up from the practice squad after Garrett Wolfe went on injured reserve with a kidney injury.

The Eagles' Michael Vick took a direct snap and broke through the middle for a 34-yard run — his longest since returning to the league — on the game's first possession, leading to a 25-yard field goal by David Akers.

McNabb then made it 10-0 on their next possession when he threw a 13-yard touchdown pass to fellow Chicagoan Jason Avant. That capped a 76-yard drive in which the Bears committed two penalties — a 15-yarder for a facemask against McNabb and also an offside — and heard more boos from their restless fans.

Cutler did little to win them over in the early going, forcing passes into double coverage and overthrowing Greg Olsen and Devin Hester on possible touchdown passes. He nearly got intercepted on the first possession, but Philadelphia's Quintin Mikell couldn't hang onto the ball.

And after McNabb connected with Avant, the Bears had to settle for a 45-yard field goal by Gould in the opening seconds of the second quarter when Cutler missed Olsen and Hester on back-to-back deep passes along the right sideline.

The Bears again failed to reach the end zone after Bell's 72-yard run put the ball on the 10. Instead, they settled for a 28-yarder by Gould about five minutes into the quarter, and he kicked another 28-yarder with 13 seconds left in the half to make it a one-point game.

NOTES: Samuel is scheduled for an MRI on Monday. ... Starting weakside LB Akeem Jordan missed his second straight game with a knee injury. ... The Bears were without TE Desmond Clark (neck) and S Kevin Payne (back).
world news