Don't Be So Sensitive, Mr. President

photo of Roxana Saberi who continues to be held captive in Iran

Truth comes before reconciliation.

By Christopher Hitchens
Monday, April 13, 2009
from Slate.com

President Barack Obama's visit to Europe afforded us an opportunity to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of his style in operation. And, even though he has almost attained the Holy Grail of public relations—in other words, he is practically at that ineffable and serene point where he gets good press for getting good press—there may come a time when even his trans-Atlantic admirers will have to take a second look.

His speech in Strasbourg, France, was much too long, given the youth of the audience and the way in which presidential sonorousness ate into the time that was to be allowed for questions, but its aim of changing the American tone was largely successful. I thought that the best moment was when he focused on the German and French citizens who had perished in the World Trade Center. George W. Bush always spoke as if the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, were an attack on the United States only and drew the corollary in his rhetoric that you are either "with" the United States or with the "terrists" (as he always seemed to think they were called). By underlining the losses suffered by other countries, not only did Obama redress this imbalance, he also gently but firmly reminded Europeans that this was and is their struggle, too.
Related in Slate

One would have liked a bit more of this combination and perhaps very slightly less willingness to make disclaimers about American power. It's absurd to act as if, at NATO and G20 meetings, the United States is just another modest member. In the case of NATO, it is at least "first among equals," or primus inter pares, in that its military strength is greater than that of all the other members of the alliance combined. In the case of the world's economic powers, a disproportionate share of the blame for the current crisis lies with America and so does a comparably vast element of the chance that the decline can be reversed. It is obviously not a moment to strut around impersonating a hyperpower, but that doesn't mean that Madeleine Albright's injunction about the United States being a "necessary" power can be disowned, either.

The limitations of the Obama manner were exposed in his address to the Turkish parliament and his press conference with the Turkish leadership. The president did not take the opportunity to reiterate his principled stand on the Armenian genocide that we are commemorating this month and took refuge in platitudes about healing and negotiation. It's not as if the Turks don't know what he thinks, so it's difficult to see the value of undue reticence. And it's hardly an accident that, in all successful attempts at settling accounts with the past in other nations, the word reconciliation has invariably been preceded by the word truth. The first duty is to stop lying. Only then can any genuine attempt at settlement get under way.

It was also somewhat naive of Obama to deny that the United States is "or ever will be" at war with Islam. Of course, one cannot exactly make war on a faith, most especially a faith that is currently undergoing a civil war within itself, in which Turkey has several times been attacked by Bin Ladenist forces. But twice in the past, jihad has been officially proclaimed from Turkey's capital. It was in the name of the Quran that the piratical Ottoman provinces known as the Barbary States took hundreds of thousands of American and European voyagers into slavery in the 18th century, until Thomas Jefferson dispatched the fleet and the Marines to put down the trade, and it was from Constantinople that the Ottoman military alliance with German imperialism in 1914 was proclaimed as a holy war binding on all good Muslims. In other words, what one really wants is an assurance that Islam is not, nor ever will be, at war (again) with the United States.

That Obama is confused about this, and also slightly weak, is demonstrated by his earlier attempt at quiet diplomacy, or constructive engagement, or whatever we agree to call it, with Iran. He sent a message to "the people and leaders of Iran" on the occasion of Nowruz, or New Year—a day that he may or may not have known is slightly frowned upon by the Islamic authorities, because it involves fire ceremonies and other celebrations that predate the Muslim conquest of Persia. Any offense they might have taken on that score must have been mollified when the president twice referred to the country as "the Islamic Republic of Iran," as in, "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations."

Does this boilerplate goodwill represent anything true? In order for the great and civilized nation of Persia to take its rightful place in the community of nations, it would have to be able to demonstrate that its leadership was freely chosen by its own people and that it was willing to abide by agreements and undertakings (on nontrifling matters such as nuclear proliferation) that it had solemnly signed. The mullahs rule Iran on the basis of a Khomeini-ite dogma known as the veliyate faqui, which makes them the owners and "guardians" of all the country's citizens. And they have been covertly seeking enriched uranium of the sort not required for a civilian nuclear program, while never ceasing to proclaim the imminent and apocalyptic return of the 12th or "hidden" imam. In other words, in order to claim its "rightful place" in any recognizable community of nations, Iran would in effect have to cease to be an Islamic republic.

Meanwhile, the theocratic regime has several times exerted its power to arrest and imprison Iranian-Americans for "offenses" that would not be crimes in any civilized country. The most recent such outrage is the imprisonment of journalist Roxana Saberi, framed for allegedly buying a bottle of wine. We should hear more from the White House about her case and less about the sensitivities of her jailers. Some differences cannot be split. Many conflicts are real and do not arise from mere cultural misunderstandings. Obama must learn this or be taught it, whichever comes sooner.
Click to read the article

Right’s rage at overbearing Obama

The torrent of ideas flowing out of the White House is raising hackles across the US

From The Sunday Times
by Sarah Baxter in Washington
April 12, 2009

A CONSERVATIVE talk show host claims Barack Obama’s policies amount to dousing the American public with petrol and lighting a match. A top adviser to George W Bush calls the vice-president a liar. And a congressman says there are 17 “socialists” in the House of Representatives.

The political invective is turning ugly after the promise of hope and change. Some say it is Obama’s fault for his hyperactivist style of government. Others say it is time the Republicans realised they lost.

The meaning of “Obamaism” – yes, he already has his own “ism” – is being hotly debated. Is it style or substance? The hype about his cool has been overtaken by the realisation on both sides of the divide that Obama meant what he said on the campaign trail about being a transformational president.

In his first three months in office, his administration has put forward a $3.5 trillion budget, produced a rescue plan for banks and bailed out the car industry and is promising a green energy “revolution”, universal healthcare, school reform and an overhaul of immigration.

That’s not counting foreign policy after a week of European summits, dubbed the Obama “apology tour” after he called America “arrogant”, and topped off with a row over whether the president bowed ingratiatingly to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the G20 meeting in London.

There have been diplomatic overtures to Iran, the announcement of a “surge” in Afghani-stan and a demand for $83 billion in supplementary funding for the two wars, including Iraq, which will no longer be known as the “war on terror” but still upsets the left.

On top of it all, Obama turned salesman last week, urging homeowners to refinance their mortgages at the favourable new low interest rates.

“We’re starting to see glimmers of hope across the economy,” he said as the Dow Jones rose by 20% and jobless benefit claims recorded a slight fall.

For George Packer, a liberal commentator writing in The New Yorker, Obamaism is “activist government on every front”. The president’s attempt to preserve the fabric of society is not left-wing but “a pretty good description of what used to pass for conservatism”.

On the right, Peter Wehner argued in Commentary magazine that Obamaism represents the emergence of “European-style social democracy”, which will change America’s social and political landscape.

Moderate “blue dog” Democrats are concerned that Obama is taking on too much. Those who are defending tiny majorities in conservative-leaning districts fear a backlash from voters who worry the president is tilting too far to the left.

The scale of Obama’s ambition is enough to make Republicans see red. Glenn Beck, a Fox News host who has been generating his own headlines with exaggerated outbursts, said: “They’re marching us toward 1984. . . Like it or not, fascism is on the rise.”

Hearing of Obama’s plans for immigration reform, Beck imitated pouring petrol over a guest and lighting a match. “How much more can he disenfranchise us?” he fumed.

Spencer Bachus, a Republican congressman from Alabama, was accused of McCarthyism for saying Congress was pushing Obama too far to the left. “Some of the men and women I work with . . . are socialists,” he said. He has been keeping count. Pressed to explain, he said there were 17, but declined to name names.

Bush’s former aide, Karl Rove, caused a further stir last week after he called Joe Biden, the vice-president, a fantasist and a liar. Biden had recounted a conversation he had had with Bush in the Oval Office. “Well, Joe,” Bush said. “I’m a leader.”

“And I said: ‘Mr President, turn around and look behind you. No one is following’.”

Rove denied the exchange had ever taken place. “I hate to say this, but he’s a serial exaggerator. If I was being unkind, I would say liar.”

Despite the Democrats’ irritation with Rove, White House officials hope to take a leaf out of his book by keeping party activists in a state of permanent mobilisation. Obama’s campaign e-mail list of 13m supporters has already been used to drum up support in Congress for his spending plans.

In another attempt to energise the grass roots, plans are under way for activists from groups such as moveon.org and the labour organisation Change to Win to meet on Tuesdays in Washington.

Called the Common Purpose project, it is meant to provide “a way for the White House to manage its relationship with some of these independent groups”, according to one of those involved. Ellen Moran, White House communications director, has already turned up to one meeting.

The gathering is modelled on the Republicans’s long-established Wednesday meetings, run by Grover Norquist, the prominent tax reform activist.

But Norquist is sceptical the Democrats’ version will work. Various left-wing groups have been trying to copy it without success for years, he said.

“Our coalition holds together because nobody wants anything at the expense of anybody else. You can’t have healthcare reform that saves money if the labour unions take everything there is and you can’t have money for education workers if it is spent on health. That makes their coalition more brittle than ours.”

Norquist believes the president has pledged far more than he can deliver. But Obama is helped by the ability to raise colossal sums to stave off recession and reflate the economy. Temporarily, at least, there is plenty to go around.

The true nature of Obamaism may be revealed only once the money runs out. Then we will know if his hyperactivism has worked.
Click to read the article and comments

A crisis Obama won't waste

April 8, 2009
By Dick Morris & Eileen Mc Gann
from The Jewish World Review.com

This economic crisis is too useful for Obama to want it to end. When Rahm Emanuel — and later Hillary Clinton — spoke of never letting a good crisis "go to waste," many people were shocked. But now Obama seems to embody the corollary: that the crisis should continue until he has thoroughly milked it to reshape American politics, society and the economy. Like Faust, he seems to wish that this "given moment" will "endure forever." Unlike Faust, however, he will not lose his "life and soul" to such a wish. He'll sacrifice ours instead.

First came the "stimulus package." With only about $185 billion of its $800 billion in spending to be spent in 2009, Obama clearly never intended the spending to be about stimulus but wanted the need for a stimulus to trigger the spending he wanted anyway.

Then came the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding, often forced down banks' throats. Now comes word that even as banks want to return the money, the Treasury is making them keep it. One source at a TARP bank reports that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is insisting that banks go through their "stress test" before refunding the TARP money. As Stuart Varney speculates, in The Wall Street Journal, Obama wants the banks to keep the money so he can enforce his regulations on them.

Now comes Geithner's plea for extra regulatory powers and Obama's concession to global economic regulation at the G-20 summit. Both moves are game-changers for any major American business. Geithner wants the power to take over any business — presumably in any field — whose failure would imperil the national economy. Today it's banks, brokerage houses, car companies and insurance firms. Tomorrow? Who knows?

And Obama agreed to agree on international "high standards" for the regulation of all "systemically important" companies to be promulgated by the new global Financial Stability Board (FSB). The United States, occupying one of 20 chairs on the FSB board (21 if we count the EU), will come to a consensus with other central bankers from the G-20 nations on what these regulations should say. Then the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and the other regulatory arms of the U.S. government will impose them on our economy.

(Some have objected that Congress needs to be consulted, but as long as the agreements are "voluntary" and the U.S. agencies are merely "asked" to impose the regulations, no further grant of congressional authority is needed. But, of course, there will be nothing voluntary about the administration's demand that the agencies implement the coming FSB directives, no matter how intrusive they may be.)

And, finally, there is Obama's delegation of a total overhaul of the tax code to a commission headed by Paul Volcker with a mandate to report back in December of this year.

So with the tax code totally changing, Europe about to formulate regulations for our economy, the U.S. government empowered to take over any large company, the deficit and spending reaching unbelievable levels and the feds insisting on continued control of banks, what businessman in his right mind is going to invest in anything? How could even the most foolish optimist pull the trigger on a business investment without knowing the tax consequences, the regulatory framework and the policy of the banks on lending?

But Obama knows all this. He knows that his steps will delay economic recovery. But he wants these changes, not as means to an end, but as the end itself. And he is determined to get them passed and set in stone while the rubric of "crisis" justifies his doing so.

He is not unlike a leader who takes his country into war, knowing that by "wagging the dog" he can reinforce his power.

But ultimately, does Obama care if he is reelected? Doesn't he know that he needs a good economy to extend his mandate to eight years? Yes, of course he does. But he probably figures that he can turn the economy around as Election Day 2012 draws nearer and reap all the credit then. In the meantime, no good crisis should ever go to waste.

Click to read the article

Hugo Chavez: 'Capitalism needs to go down'

AP Photo/ISNA, Mona Hoobehfekr)
from Breitbart.com
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday ridiculed the G-20 summit's attempts to deal with the global financial meltdown, saying that capitalism is in crisis and must end.

Chavez criticized the G-20 nations' pledges of more than a trillion dollars for lending to struggling countries at Thursday's summit in London, calling it "the same medicine that's killing the patient—a trillion dollars ... more money for a bottomless pit."

Speaking during a visit to Iran, the Venezuelan leader said the plans by the Group of 20 industrial and developing countries would strengthen "one of the great guilty ones behind the crisis: the International Monetary Fund."

The IMF and the World Bank are "tools of imperialism" and must be eliminated, Chavez said.
In earlier remarks, he also blamed the United States and Britain, calling them "the most guilty" for the financial crisis sweeping the globe because of the financial model "they've been imposing for years."

"It's impossible that capitalism can regulate the monster that is the world financial system, it's impossible," Chavez told Venezuela's state TV late Thursday. "Capitalism needs to go down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new model that we call socialism."

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, shared that critique, saying "some decisions by the world leaders cannot restore dead imperialism."

The two leaders, appearing Friday at the inauguration of joint commercial bank, referred to their nations as the "G-2." In recent years, Chavez and Ahmadinejad—both well-known for their anti-U.S. rhetoric—have boosted economic and political ties.

The G-20 leaders on Thursday promised $1.1 trillion for lending to struggling countries. They also vowed major efforts to clean up banks' tattered balance sheets, get credit flowing again, shut down global tax havens and tighten regulation over hedge funds and other financial high-flyers in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Chavez said the summit's efforts were not what the world needs "in the face of the great crisis of global capitalism."

Chavez's own economic program to institute socialism in Venezuela could slow as his country's oil-dependent economy suffers from falling crude prices. Inflation there has soared above 30 percent, eroding Venezuelans' salaries.

In his decade in power, Chavez has boosted state control over the economy and spent heavily on social programs meant to increase his popularity. [sounds like what Obama is doing!]
Click to read the article

No We Can't - Obama Fails to Secure Additional Troops for Afghanistan

From The Times
April 4, 2009
by Michael Evans and David Charter in Strasbourg

Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to America’s allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent’s leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.

Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.

The derisory response threatened to tarnish Mr Obama’s European tour, which yesterday included a spellbinding performance in Strasbourg in which he offered the world a vision of a future free of nuclear weapons.

Mr Obama – who has pledged 21,000 more troops to combat the growing insurgency and is under pressure from generals to supply up to 10,000 more – used the eve of Nato’s 60th anniversary summit to declare bluntly that it was time for allies to do their share. “Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone,” he said. “This is a joint problem it requires a joint effort.”

He said that failing to support the US surge would leave Europe open to a fresh terrorist offensive. “It is probably more likely that al-Qaeda would be able to launch a serious terrorist attack on Europe than on the United States because of proximity,” he said.

The presidential charm offensive failed to move fellow Nato countries. President Sarkozy told Mr Obama that France would not be sending reinforcements to bolster its existing force northeast of Kabul.

Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada and Denmark said that they were considering their positions. After a meeting with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, Mr Obama tried to apply further moral pressure. “I am sure that Germany, as one of the most important leaders in Europe, will be stepping up to the plate and helping us to get the job done.”

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato Secretary-General, warned that new laws proposed by President Karzai in Afghanistan sanctioning child marriage and marital rape had made it harder to raise more soldiers.

“We are there to defend universal values and when I see, at the moment, a law threatening to come into effect which fundamentally violates women’s rights and human rights, that worries me,” he said.

“I have a problem to explain to a critical public audience in Europe, be it the UK or elsewhere, why I’m sending the guys to the Hindu Kush.”

The temporary British deployment falls short of the 2,000 soldiers that the Army had planned to deploy long-term to Afghanistan and appeared to catch defence chiefs by surprise.

Mr Brown announced the commitment as he flew into Strasbourg for the two-day summit, but hopes that it would spur other allies to follow suit were soon dashed. British officials said that the extra troops, expected to number between 500 and 700 – increasing Britain’s military strength there to about 9,000 – would be dispatched to southern Afghanistan for a four-month period leading up to and beyond the election, due to take place on August 20.

The plan is to withdraw them once the election is over. Mr Brown said that the extra troops were only supposed to provide a “temporary uplift”.

Military contingency plans remain on the table to send up to 2,000 more troops long-term, taking the total to 10,000, but that will depend on the political will to approve the deployment.

Although the Prime Minister discussed Afghanistan with President Obama when they held bilateral talks before the G20 summit in London, it is understood that no formal offer of extra troops was made.
Click to read the rest of the article

Brown and Obama deny G20 splits as protesters scuffle with police

Anti-capitalist protesters scuffled with police outside the Bank of England today as Gordon Brown received a series of world leaders in Downing Street to prepare for tomorrow's G20 summit.

First up was Barack Obama, making his first trip outside North America since his inauguration, The US President and his wife, Michelle, received a rare round of applause from staff at No 10 as they arrived for a breakfast meeting this morning.

Mr Obama's outsized motorcade was just the first in a series of armoured convoys due to pass through the Downing Street gates. The Prime Minister was also holding talks with President Medvedev of Russia, President Hu of China, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh and Taro Aso, Prime Minister of Japan.

But the two leaders who most threaten to upset Mr Brown's plans for the G20 are not due at No 10 until this evening when all the G20 heads of state and government meet for a pre-summit dinner.

Mr Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, have already scuppered UK attempts to have the meeting endorse a massive and coordinated fiscal stimulus. They are now pushing for the summit to make clear progress on tighter regulation of financial markets to replace the "light-touch" Anglo-Saxon model blamed for the current crisis.

Asked on Europe 1 this morning about a Times report that he would be prepared to walk out of the summit if he does not agree with its conclusions, Mr Sarkozy replied: "I will not associate myself with a summit that would end with a communiqué made of false compromises that would not tackle the issues that concern us."

He went on: "As of today, there is no firm agreement in place. The conversation is going forward, there are projects on the table. As things stand at the moment, these projects do not suit France or Germany."

At a joint press conference with Mr Brown, Mr Obama denied that there was any real disagreement on the need for governments to boost their economies, just normal discussions as to how best to do it.

"The truth is that that's just arguing at the margins," he said. "The core notion that government has to take some steps to deal with a contracting market place and to restore growth is not in dispute."

Mr Brown also did his best to laugh off Mr Sarkozy's walk-out threat. "I'm confident that President Sarkozy will be here not just for the first course of our dinner but will still be here when we complete our dinner this evening," he said.

The Metropolitan Police said that around 4,000 protesters had gathered in the City for a protest outside the Bank of England and a "Meltdown Carnival" headlined by the left-wing rock singer Billy Bragg.

Mixing in with them were City workers who had deliberately "dressed down" – on police advice – to avoid being the targets of protesters.

In clear spring sunshine, the protests were initially good-natured, but isolated scuffles soon saw police retreat behind their barriers. By 1pm, the violence was worsening, with police using their batons to push back the crowds.

Even before the protest began, 11 people were arrested as they drove an armoured personnel carrier - painted blue with the words "riot police" in capital letters – towards Bishopsgate. All 11 were arrested for being in possession of police uniforms.

More than 30 forces have provided specialist officers for the days around the summit when there will be unprecedented levels of protests and 40 diplomatic delegations requiring security.

While hopes of a new co-ordinated international stimulus of the world economy have faded, negotiations are proceeding on rules to curb excessive bonuses, control tax havens, extend regulation to hedge funds, introduce greater co-operation between national regulators and draw up fresh mechanisms to stop protectionism.

The summit at the ExCeL centre in Docklands comes as the World Bank said that the global economy would shrink by 1.7 per cent this year and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicted a 2.7 per cent contraction, the worst since the Second World War.

But while Mr Brown pointed out that G20 governments had already agreed fiscal stimulus packages totalling more than $2 trillion, Mr Obama warned that the rest of the world could not simply rely on "voracious" American consumers to drive the global recovery.

"If there is to be new growth, it cannot just be the United States as the engine," he said. "Everyone is going to have to pick up the pace."

Click to go to the article

G20 Protests turn violent

Protesters break into RBS building

from the Times Online

April 1, 2009

Anti-capitalist protesters are believed to have broken into a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland in the centre of London today after smashing windows with a volley of missiles.

With police on horseback unable to maintain control and being forced back, a series of windows at the building were broken, graffiti was daubed on the walls and there were reports that some protesters had broken into the branch.

Hundreds of protesters were seen to converge on the bank, on the corner of Threadneedle Street and Bartholomew Lane, as a total of 4,000 demonstrated outside the Bank of England nearby.

As police on horseback and in riot gear proved unable to protect the building, which was thought to be empty, officers with dogs charged at the crowd in an attempt to force them back. The crowd were heard to chant: "Shame on you" as officers drove them away from the door.

With the demonstrations - carried out by a combination of anarchists, anti-war protesters, environmentalists and others - rapidly heating up, Scotland Yard said cordons had been put up all around the surrounding area in response to "increasing levels of violence". The marchers had made their way to the bank using four different routes - from Moorgate, Cannon Street, Liverpool Street and London Bridge.

A Met Police spokesman said: "There have been a number of missiles thrown at officers and a number of surges at the police cordons, and increasing levels of violence towards police. Cordons have been put in place to maintain safety and control the crowd."

Police confirmed earlier that 11 people had been arrested for impersonating police officers as they travelled towards Bishopsgate in uniform in a fake armoured personnel carrier.

Their vehicle was escorted to Wapping, in east London, where it was taken off the road and later driven away by a police officer.

Speaking to The Times as the van was being driven away, a protester calling himself Greenman said he organised the stunt along with other members of a group calling itself Spacehijackers.

He said it was designed to highlight how Britain was increasingly becoming a police state.

"Terrorism laws are always encroaching on our freedoms and discouraging dissent," he said.

At the Bank of England, marchers confronted police standing on the building's steps. Several police helmets were grabbed and thrown in the air as dozens of protesters surged forward and forced officers to retreat on to higher plinths at the base of the building.

A red smoke canister was set off, leaving at least one officer covered in bright red powder.

One senior officer was overheard telling colleagues to watch out for people with paint spray cans attempting to write on their backs. Many protesters were dressed colourfully, and claimed that they represented a host of causes.

Among them were campaigners from War on Want, who carried a giant toy canary on a stretcher after setting off from Moorgate station for the Bank of England. Attached to the makeshift stretcher was a placard which read "RIP Canary Wharf 1990-2009". It also listed banks including RBS, HSBC, NatWest, Abbey and LloydsTSB.

Many of the protesters chanted as they walked towards the Bank of England. Chants included "Revolution" and "Palestine will be free".

Other demonstrators, carrying placards such as "Bring on decent decision making" and "0% interest in others", then began to make their way to the Bank of England.

Several individuals, some wearing masks and hoods to cover their faces, were involved in minor scuffles with officers as they were shepherded onwards.

Among those spotted among the crowd was the comedian Russell Brand, who said he was accompanying the marchers because he was interested to see why the protest was taking place.

As the demonstrations kicked into gear, many City workers reported for duty dressed down or in jeans, attempting to avoid any trouble

Jeremy Batstone-Carr, head of research at stockbrokers Charles Stanley, based in the heart of the City, said they were "preparing for the worst, but hoping for the best".

His firm has extra security on the door, while workers were "aggressively" dressed down.

"It’s a strange atmosphere around the City and everyone seems somewhat apprehensive - everyone that should be in the office is in, but we’re not taking any chances," he said.

Click to read the rest of the article

G20 - A Group too diverse to succeed?

Group of 20 too diverse to succeed

Wednesday, April 1, 2009
By KEVIN RAFFERTY
Special to The Japan Times

HONG KONG — Amid great fanfare, pestered by a rainbow alliance of protesters, and protected by almost blanket security costing $30 million for a mere seven hours of meetings and making London a virtual no-go area, the leaders of the Group of 20 (G20) countries meet this week, promising to restore hope and prosperity to a world battered and bruised by financial and economic crises.

Unfortunately, there are too many doctors already squabbling over the diagnosis and which medicines to take, vitamins or antibiotics, starvation or a rich diet, energy boosters or that new but expensive wonder drug that might have damaging side effects; moreover, the doctors are going to have to take some of their own medicine, and they don't like that at all.

There are many good reasons for the world's top economic powers to come together, not least because the global economy has fallen off the proverbial cliff edge. In October, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), was more pessimistic than his own economists, but all scorned the idea that the world as a whole would fall into recession. Indeed, the economists expected positive growth of 3 percent, thanks to rapidly growing developing countries like China and India.

There has been a rude awakening. Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank predicted, that global growth this year will be minus 2 percent, the first time since the end of World War II that there has been negative global growth.

The IMF is slightly less pessimistic, expecting only minus 0.5 percent. But there are plenty of ominously gloomy signs. World trade, the main engine of growth, has spluttered and fallen by 9 percent. Protectionism is growing from the United States and Russia, to China and India. The U.S., France, Germany and Japan are looking for ways to protect their carmakers.

Jobs are being lost in the thousands, adding up globally to tens of millions. The U.S. and China are being noticed most because of the large numbers involved, but every country is suffering except perhaps North Korea (the harder-hit victim of its own isolation). The idea that rapidly growing developing countries had their own momentum and would be immune to global trends has been found wanting: The poorest countries are faring relatively worst, with children being taken out of school to try to earn pennies for their families.

One problem for the summit is where to start. The extensive agenda includes too many key issues, including: How much extra stimulus governments should pump to revive their own and the global economy and get sustainable growth going again; what new rules and regulations should be put in place to stop future financial excesses and restore confidence; how to stimulate trade and prevent the resurgence of protectionism; what special measure should be taken to help the poorest countries; what new powers and funds should be given to the IMF and World Bank; what part the two should play in a reformed international financial system.

On its Web site, the G20 boasts that its members account for 85 percent of global output. In striving for inclusiveness it has become unwieldy. Ideas of giving emerging economic mega-powers China and India a greater voice have been lost in the profusion of voices at the top table, though critically Bangladesh, Pakistan and the oil-rich Gulf, apart from Saudi Arabia, are missing.

The G20 has become the G-22 with the unaccountable admission of the Netherlands and Spain. Places also have been found for the Czech Republic, as chair of the EU, plus the president of the EU commission — how the Europeans love double and triple dipping — the heads of the IMF and World Bank, the U.N. secretary general and chairs of the African Union, ASEAN and other regional bodies, making it a "G30something" circus of more than 1,000 summiteers.

Mutual bitching has already started. A small taste greeted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week in Brazil where he went trying to find common cause to set the world to rights. On the same platform as the British leader, President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva launched a stinging attack on the "white and blue-eyed" people "who appeared to be gods of wisdom" who started the crisis that has engulfed the world.

President Barack Obama is not blue-eyed, but there are plenty of leaders who are gunning for the U.S. and American-style capitalism. There is a great gulf between the U.S. and Europe, and the leaking in Der Spiegel of a draft final communique containing plans for a $2 trillion global spending boost has been seen as a German ploy to defeat such spending.

There is a real danger that infighting among the old G7 members preoccupied by domestic politics may prevent China, India or the emerging countries being heard. Canada has already said specifically that helping the world's poorest countries is "secondary" to the need to restore global growth.
Kevin Rafferty, editor in chief of PlainWords Media, was managing editor at the World Bank.
Click to read the rest of the article

Tax Problems for HHS nominee Kathleen Sebelius

from Michelle Malkin.com
by Michelle Malkin
March 31, 2009

Knock me over with a feather. Another Obama nominee made “unintentional” errors, meaningless goofs, nothingburger mistakes on her tax returns.

It’s HHS nominee Kathleen Sebelius. Via Brian Montopoli of CBSNews:

Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s nominee to become Health and Human Services secretary, said in a letter obtained by the Associated Press that she made "unintentional errors” on her taxes and has corrected her returns from three different years.

In the letter, which was sent to senators and dated today, Sebelius wrote that she had made changes related to charitable contributions, business expenses and the sale of a home, according to the AP.

The wire service reports that she and her husband paid just over $7,000 in back taxes, along with $878 in interest, for the years 2005-2007.

Hey, where’s that stamp? Oh, yeah. There it is.

Click to read the article and comments

G20 Protesters - David vs Goliath - Capitalism vs Socialism

Brave dissenters at the G20 anti-capitalist orgy
By Michelle Malkin
March 31, 2009

This is heartening: A small band of rational students is standing up to the G20 anarchist mob in defense of free markets.
Godspeed!


Capitalist-David rally versus Goliath-protests for Socialism
by Michelle Minton
March 31, 2009

During the G20 summit something like 40,000 plus protesters slated to descend upon London. Of that number, there is a small but growing and prodigiously brave group of idealists planning to throw their message and bodies into the breach. They are not there to demand government action against climate change, stricter business regulations, nor are they requesting money for the poor, hungry, or infirm. Their message is simple, but profound: Get out of our way.

This small band, comprised mostly of university students and recent graduates wants only to communicate the message to the world that capitalism is not to blame for the current economic crisis. In fact, they want people to know that interventionist policies are what got us into the mess in the first place and increased state intervention is unacceptable.

“The point must be made, essentially, that we do not live in a Capitalist system and certainly not a Laissez-Faire Capitalist system. The sectors of the economy that failed were the most regulated sectors of a ‘mixed-economy’,” said Rory Hodgson, University of York student and protest organizer.

Perhaps because those still in university and recent graduates have the most to lose that they are willing to risk physical harm in order to oppose the ever-tightening choke-hold the government has on the economy. But we should all be as worried about the future and willing to fight the increasing anti-capitalist sentiment and the vulnerability of individual liberty.
Click to go to the article and read comments