Zen Moment of the Day

Trust Florida, home of the hanging chad, to come up with a Jesus license plate. It is causing some controversy among Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, anarchists, Darwinists, Satan-lovers and everyone else who isn't sure the purported son of God should be out in the sun, hard by the asphalt, breathing fumes. So much for separation of church and state. John Prine, we need a song, please.

-- Abby Zimet - CommonDreams.org

Money for Nothing

Money for Nothing

Paul Krugman
April 26, 2009 - New York Times

.....

On July 15, 2007, The New York Times published an article with the headline "The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age." The most prominently featured of the "new titans" was Sanford Weill, the former chairman of Citigroup, who insisted that he and his peers in the financial sector had earned their immense wealth through their contributions to society.

Soon after that article was printed, the financial edifice Mr. Weill took credit for helping to build collapsed, inflicting immense collateral damage in the process. Even if we manage to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression, the world economy will take years to recover from this crisis.

All of which explains why we should be disturbed by an article in Sunday's Times reporting that pay at investment banks, after dipping last year, is soaring again — right back up to 2007 levels.

Why is this disturbing? Let me count the ways.

First, there's no longer any reason to believe that the wizards of Wall Street actually contribute anything positive to society, let alone enough to justify those humongous paychecks.

Remember that the gilded Wall Street of 2007 was a fairly new phenomenon. From the 1930s until around 1980 banking was a staid, rather boring business that paid no better, on average, than other industries, yet kept the economy's wheels turning.

So why did some bankers suddenly begin making vast fortunes? It was, we were told, a reward for their creativity — for financial innovation. At this point, however, it's hard to think of any major recent financial innovations that actually aided society, as opposed to being new, improved ways to blow bubbles, evade regulations and implement de facto Ponzi schemes.

Consider a recent speech by Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, in which he tried to defend financial innovation. His examples of "good" financial innovations were (1) credit cards — not exactly a new idea; (2) overdraft protection; and (3) subprime mortgages. (I am not making this up.) These were the things for which bankers got paid the big bucks?

Still, you might argue that we have a free-market economy, and it's up to the private sector to decide how much its employees are worth. But this brings me to my second point: Wall Street is no longer, in any real sense, part of the private sector. It's a ward of the state, every bit as dependent on government aid as recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a k a "welfare."

I'm not just talking about the $600 billion or so already committed under the TARP. There are also the huge credit lines extended by the Federal Reserve; large-scale lending by Federal Home Loan Banks; the taxpayer-financed payoffs of A.I.G. contracts; the vast expansion of F.D.I.C. guarantees; and, more broadly, the implicit backing provided to every financial firm considered too big, or too strategic, to fail.

One can argue that it's necessary to rescue Wall Street to protect the economy as a whole — and in fact I agree. But given all that taxpayer money on the line, financial firms should be acting like public utilities, not returning to the practices and paychecks of 2007.

Furthermore, paying vast sums to wheeler-dealers isn't just outrageous; it's dangerous. Why, after all, did bankers take such huge risks? Because success — or even the temporary appearance of success — offered such gigantic rewards: even executives who blew up their companies could and did walk away with hundreds of millions. Now we're seeing similar rewards offered to people who can play their risky games with federal backing.

So what's going on here? Why are paychecks heading for the stratosphere again? Claims that firms have to pay these salaries to retain their best people aren't plausible: with employment in the financial sector plunging, where are those people going to go?

No, the real reason financial firms are paying big again is simply because they can. They're making money again (although not as much as they claim), and why not? After all, they can borrow cheaply, thanks to all those federal guarantees, and lend at much higher rates. So it's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you may be regulated.

Or maybe not. There's a palpable sense in the financial press that the storm has passed: stocks are up, the economy's nose-dive may be leveling off, and the Obama administration will probably let the bankers off with nothing more than a few stern speeches. Rightly or wrongly, the bankers seem to believe that a return to business as usual is just around the corner.

We can only hope that our leaders prove them wrong, and carry through with real reform. In 2008, overpaid bankers taking big risks with other people's money brought the world economy to its knees. The last thing we need is to give them a chance to do it all over again.

China tires of Pyongyang's antics

China tires of Pyongyang's antics

Shen Dingli
Apr 28, 2009 - Asia Times

.....

SHANGHAI - North Korea has said it will permanently quit the six-party talks on its nuclear program. Although an undesirable outcome from the perspective of non-proliferation, it is a predictable move by Pyongyang. This has put immediate pressure on China-North Korea relations. Why has China been unable to prevent this from happening? And what will be Beijing's next step?

North Korea may have a lot of reasons to be resentful of the international system, in which it feels insecure and threatened, but this radical, confrontational move will not help.

Pyongyang should welcome the new international environment. Since the Barack Obama administration took over in the United States it has signaled it is ready to solve international disputes through dialogue. Yet North Korea still went ahead with its controversial "satellite" launch on April 4. This has fueled tensions in East Asia, and other players in the region have said the reckless move will certainly not be beneficial to the North.

Pyongyang does not have many international allies, and China is the key, if not sole, supplier of essential aid to it in areas ranging from food to energy, medicine to fertilizers, and cash to conventional weapons. But China also has its own reasons for maintaining ties, which include maintaining neighborly relations, the nations' comradeship in the Cold War era, and lingering geopolitical and strategic considerations.

However, China also has broader interests as a result of its past three decades of reform and opening up. Beijing plans to modernize its economy and society, and this requires a secure and peaceful neighborhood along its entire periphery. The present North Korean stance of seeking security through owning nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles does not agree with Beijing's.

Beijing has accommodated some of the Pyongyang regime's basic needs for survival, but North Korea has not repaid China in kind. North Korea assumes that the best way to attain benefits and ensure its survival is to put pressure on Washington through its nuclear and missile programs. This could be why Beijing has failed to dissuade Pyongyang from taking aggressive and provocative moves.

North Korea may resent any intervention by China in its foreign and defense policies, but it is also aware that China poses no threat to its security. North Korea's paramount security concern remains the United States.

Although North Korea is fully entitled to guard its sovereignty, its lack of interest in respecting Beijing's legitimate concerns will not help it sustain friendly relations with China. Respect and friendship must be reciprocal. If North Korea continues to recklessly jeopardize China's legitimate security interests while still receiving Chinese aid, Beijing will inevitably be forced to review its relationship with Pyongyang.

It is obvious that the current sanctions regime against North Korea, which is related to nuclear and missile technologies, heavy armaments and luxuries, has nothing to do with China's existing trade or aid to the country. But given the provocative behavior of North Korea, these sanctions could be strengthened and expanded.

One could question the wisdom of North Korea's recent launch, whether it was a missile or satellite and regardless of its success or failure. It is understandable that North Korea sees a deterrence factor in its nuclear program. But is it conceivable that Washington plans to launch a pre-emptive strike against Pyongyang? No. So why does the Hermit Kingdom want to waste its resources on nuclear and missile programs?

North Korea must be aware of Beijing's increasingly sophisticated and successful handling of its relationships with the rest of the world. Pyongyang's geopolitical and strategic importance for China will not increase, and therefore it could well become the victim of its own self-isolation.

China has done its part, and any failures will be the outcome of Pyongyang's own strategic mindset or Washington's stubborn unwillingness to effectively engage North Korea. The George W Bush administration was first too arrogant to engage with North Korea and later too eager after Pyongyang's proclaimed nuclear test. Neither was a healthy policy approach.

The international community needs to draft a new strategy to engage North Korea that is effective. It must be based on the principle that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to world peace and security. This is the United Nations Security Council's view which is supported by China and other countries.

North Korea's nuclear weapons development can be averted with a strategy that includes at least three components:

The first is to make non-militarily overtures to North Korea that would render its nuclear program militarily useless, and economically self-destructive.

The second would be to not accept North Korea's nuclear status unless the weapons program was aborted. This would entail strategic cooperation among major powers. The US is the key to the success of such international cooperation. Washington's proper handling of the Taiwan issue is crucial to fostering the necessary confidence between China and the United States to form a united front.

The third tactic would be to impose incremental economic sanctions against North Korea to make it realize that its nuclear and missile programs are not welcome or rewarding. Given the availability of sanctions at various incremental levels, the international community has to take measured steps to send the right signals to affect its behavior.

In this regard, China is expected to be more proactive in using its own economic leverage on Pyongyang. This has to be taken in a concerted way - together with non-militarily overtures and measured political and economic pressure from the outside world.

.....

Professor Shen Dingli is director of Center for American Studies and executive dean of the Institute of International Studies, Fudan University, Shanghai

A new order emerges in Lebanon

A new order emerges in Lebanon

Sami Moubayed
Apr 29, 2009 - Asia Times

.....

Last week, one of America's top allies in Lebanon, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, caused a row when he made remarks - off the record - criticizing his allies in the pro-Western March 14 Coalition. Among other things, Jumblatt scoffed at his patron Saad al-Hariri, the head of the largest bloc in the Lebanese parliament, for having tried - and failed - to combat Hezbollah on the streets of Beirut last May.

Then, Hariri's armed men were round up and disarmed in a matter of minutes by the well-trained Hezbollah fighters. "We have seen the Sunnis in the field, huh!" he said, adding, "They didn't last for

more than 15 minutes!" Jumblatt quickly apologized - but the damage was already done.

Shortly afterwards, when landing in Beirut, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not meet the Druze warlord - who had often played host to her predecessor Condoleezza Rice, and been received previously at the Oval Office by George W Bush.

Jumblatt is a symbol of a loud anti-Syrian and anti-Hezbollah stance in Lebanon. The fact that he has lost faith in his own allies - who have bankrolled him for years - and was snubbed by Clinton, are testimony to how much things have changed in Lebanon. This is the same man after all who called for regime change in Damascus, and betted on American and Israeli forces to disarm Hezbollah in 2006.

Jumblatt is a political animal, however, who knows how to get off a ship before it sinks. The US is simply no longer interested in battle, either with Damascus or with Hezbollah. On the contrary, it is trying to find common ground with the Syrians to solve a basket of problems in the region, like Iran's nuclear file, Palestinian reconciliation and the future of Hezbollah.

If March 14 continues to challenge Syria, it should not except much support from the Barack Obama administration. That is why, according to some observers, Jumblatt might be toying with the idea of a u-turn - which from where the Syrians see it, is close to impossible, given the aggressive stance he took against Damascus during the difficult years in Syrian-American relations.

Why would the US continue to support March 14 if it is cooperating fully with the Syrians? March 14 was useful, after all, during the war against Syria in 2005-2008 - mainly to punish the Syrians for having worked against US interests in Iraq.

Jumblatt realizes that for all practical purposes, its only a matter of time until the United States begins dialogue with two arch-enemies of the former Bush White House - Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah. Delaying his own rapprochement with Hezbollah would harm nobody but him.

During the recent Summit of the Americas, Obama said that he would respect the "legitimacy" of all democratically elected governments, even if the US "might not be happy" with the results of any elections. He added that the US "condemns any efforts at a violent overthrow of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere". Talks with Hamas have already begun in Europe and it is only a matter of time until they are expanded to include Hezbollah.

Earlier this year, Britain announced that it would commence political dialogue with Hezbollah, much to the displeasure of March 14. In early April, British parliamentarians came to Damascus and met with Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal. Certain American political figures, like former president Jimmy Carter, also met with the Hamas chief in Syria last December.

According to a January 9 article in The Guardian, "sources close to the [Obama] transition team" will change course via Hamas, and "initiate low-level clandestine approaches". For that to be done, not only would there be a need for a change in US mentality - both in the media level, on the street and in American officialdom - but it would also require changing a 2006 Congressional law banning any kind of assistance to the Islamic group.

Recently, however, Paul Volker, a senior economic advisor to Obama, was among those who authored a letter calling for a more rational approach to dealing with Hamas. Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel, who is close to Clinton, recently wrote that any peace deal without Hamas was destined to fail.

Additionally, former British prime minister Tony Blair in his capacity as international envoy for the Middle East warned of the dangers of continuing to ignore the Gaza Strip, which effectively is under the command of Hamas. He was quoted saying, "I think it is important to find a way to engage Hamas in dialogue."

Richard Hass, a diplomat under both president George H W Bush and George W Bush, who was earmarked to become Obama's Middle East envoy, also supports low-level contacts with Hamas. James A Baker, former secretary of state now based at the Baker Institute at Rice University in Houston, was quoted in Newsweek as saying that Obama must involve Hamas in any peace process in the Middle East. Baker said, "You cannot negotiate peace with only half the Palestinian polity at the table."

Richard W Murphy, a veteran American diplomat and former ambassador to Syria, added, "I don't think it will happen quickly but I think it is inevitable. Hamas is, in my opinion, a legitimate representative of part of the Palestinian community."

Taking all of that into account, many raised questions about Clinton's weekend visit to Beirut ahead of parliamentary elections in June, which are expected to bring about a smashing victory for Hezbollah. Already, France has said that it will not boycott any Lebanese government, even if it is packed with members of the Islamic group.

With loud voices coming out of Washington calling for engagement with Hezbollah, Obama promising to respect any election, Britain taking the lead in dialogue with non-state players, and the Syrians back in the international arena, times are not good for leftovers of the Bush era in the Middle East.

Decision-makers around the world have reasoned that not talking to Hezbollah or Hamas will not make them disappear. On the contrary, it will only lead them to radicalize.

Looking back at the Hamas tenure in government, everybody realizes that the Bush administration missed a golden opportunity when the Palestinian group said that it was willing to accept a long-term truce with Israel, and abide by the borders of 1967. Israel couldn't get them to disarm by force, clearly demonstrated by the results of the December 2008 war on Gaza.

The United Nations couldn't disarm them, nor could Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or the United States. The same applies to Hezbollah, which emerged victorious from the war of 2006. Obama, a practical leader by all accounts, realizes that if these groups are voted into power, it would be sheer hypocrisy not to deal with them and repeat what was committed by Bush.

Walid Jumblatt - and anti-Hamas figures in Palestine like President Mahmud Abbas - is among the first to fully grasp this new attitude in Washington.

.....

Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria.

Climate Change Hitting Entire Arctic Ecosystem

Climate Change Hitting Entire Arctic Ecosystem, Says Report

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme study tells of profound changes to sea ice and permafrost, among others

John Vidal
April 28, 2009 - The Guardian/UK

.....

Extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic, according to a major new assessment by international polar scientists.

In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing.

In addition, says the report released today at a Norwegian government seminar, plants and trees are growing more vigorously, snow cover is decreasing 1-2% a year and glaciers are shrinking.

Scientists from Norway, Canada, Russia and the US contributed to the Arctic monitoring and assessment programme (Amap) study, which says new factors such as "black carbon" - soot - ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide.

"Black carbon and ozone in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic," it says.

The report's main findings are:

* Land

Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.

* Summer sea ice

The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.

* Greenland

The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.

* Warmer waters

In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.

* Black carbon

Black carbon, or soot, is emitted from inefficient burning such as in diesel engines or from the burning of crops. It is warming the Arctic by creating a haze which absorbs sunlight, and it is also deposited on snow, darkening the surface and causing more sunlight to be absorbed.

The GOP Is Acting Like a Guy Who Got Dumped

Bill Maher
April 25, 2009 - Los Angeles Times

.....

If conservatives don't want to be seen as bitter people who cling to their guns and religion and anti-immigrant sentiments, they should stop being bitter and clinging to their guns, religion and anti-immigrant sentiments.

It's been a week now, and I still don't know what those "tea bag" protests were about. I saw signs protesting abortion, illegal immigrants, the bank bailout and that gay guy who's going to win "American Idol." But it wasn't tax day that made them crazy; it was election day. Because that's when Republicans became what they fear most: a minority.

The conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because ... well, nobody knows. They're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore. Even though they're not quite sure what "it" is. But they know they're fed up with "it," and that "it" has got to stop.

Here are the big issues for normal people: the war, the economy, the environment, mending fences with our enemies and allies, and the rule of law.

And here's the list of Republican obsessions since President Obama took office: that his birth certificate is supposedly fake, he uses a teleprompter too much, he bowed to a Saudi guy, Europeans like him, he gives inappropriate gifts, his wife shamelessly flaunts her upper arms, and he shook hands with Hugo Chavez and slipped him the nuclear launch codes.

Do these sound like the concerns of a healthy, vibrant political party?

It's sad what's happened to the Republicans. They used to be the party of the big tent; now they're the party of the sideshow attraction, a socially awkward group of mostly white people who speak a language only they understand. Like Trekkies, but paranoid.

The GOP base is convinced that Obama is going to raise their taxes, which he just lowered. But, you say, "Bill, that's just the fringe of the Republican Party." No, it's not. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is not afraid to say publicly that thinking out loud about Texas seceding from the Union is appropriate considering that ... Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on 5% of the people? I'm not sure exactly what Perry's independent nation would look like, but I'm pretty sure it would be free of taxes and Planned Parenthood. And I would have to totally rethink my position on a border fence.

I know. It's not about what Obama's done. It's what he's planning. But you can't be sick and tired of something someone might do.

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota recently said she fears that Obama will build "reeducation" camps to indoctrinate young people. But Obama hasn't made any moves toward taking anyone's guns, and with money as tight as it is, the last thing the president wants to do is run a camp where he has to shelter and feed a bunch of fat, angry white people.

Look, I get it, "real America." After an eight-year run of controlling the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, this latest election has you feeling like a rejected husband. You've come home to find your things out on the front lawn -- or at least more things than you usually keep out on the front lawn. You're not ready to let go, but the country you love is moving on. And now you want to call it a whore and key its car.

That's what you are, the bitter divorced guy whose country has left him -- obsessing over it, haranguing it, blubbering one minute about how much you love it and vowing the next that if you cannot have it, nobody will.

But it's been almost 100 days, and your country is not coming back to you. She's found somebody new. And it's a black guy.

The healthy thing to do is to just get past it and learn to cherish the memories. You'll always have New Orleans and Abu Ghraib.

And if today's conservatives are insulted by this, because they feel they're better than the people who have the microphone in their party, then I say to them what I would say to moderate Muslims: Denounce your radicals. To paraphrase George W. Bush, either you're with them or you're embarrassed by them.

The thing that you people out of power have to remember is that the people in power are not secretly plotting against you. They don't need to. They already beat you in public.

Senator Arlen Specter To Switch Parties (an Editor's Post)

With over 40 years as a republican, the Sr. Senator from Pennsylvania just announced that he's switching over to the Democratic party.

This comes as quite a surprise to me, hailing from the Harrisburg, PA area. Senator Specter has been unique in the Republican Party as he was never one to simply carry the "party-line" unless he actually believed in the issue. He frequently crossed "party-lines" when the GOP stance simply didn't sit well with him.

He has also always been one to hold somebody's feet to the fire, regardless of party affiliation, when called to sit in on hearings over a number of issues.

Welcome aboard, Senator Specter.

-The Editor