tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4060434147734261572024-02-01T23:03:35.176-05:00ITSSD Journal on Pathological CommunalismThe ITSSD Journal blogs are administered by the ITSSD's student interns or Advisory Board members as designated belowITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-39440782531718653042010-07-26T22:20:00.043-04:002010-07-27T11:37:36.081-04:00How Really Different Are Obama's Autocratic Philosopher King Style and Policies From Those of the European & Japanese Soft Socialist Welfare States??<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2005689-1,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2005689-1,00.html</a> <div><div><div><div><div><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">A Clouded Outlook<br /></span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>By <a id="emailWriter" style="CURSOR: pointer; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-DECORATION: none; outline-style: none" href="http://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.html">Michael Schuman / Sendai</a> </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Time Magazine</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Monday, Aug. 02, 2010</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Sometimes Japan seems to be on the wrong continent. Everywhere else in Asia, from Shanghai to Mumbai to Jakarta, there is an aura of perpetual motion, a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. The region is on a frenetic 365-day-a-year hurtle into a brighter future. Japan once shared Asia's dynamism and mission. But not anymore. Today, Japan is an island of inertia in an Asia in constant flux. Japan's political leadership is paralyzed, its corporate elite befuddled, its people agonized about the future. While Asia lurches forward, Japan inches backward.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />And yet no one in Japan is doing very much about it. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>For 20 long years, ever since the spectacular collapse of a stock-and-property price bubble in the early 1990s, the economy has existed in a near cryogenic state. The postbubble period of malaise called the "lost decade" has stretched into the lost decades. Growth has been practically nonexistent, the welfare of the Japanese people has suffered and the old industrial titans of Japan Inc. are retreating on the world stage.</strong></span> Japan will likely lose its cherished status as the world's No.2 economy this year, to a more energetic China. Though that was inevitable, the fact that China is so quickly closing the gap in economic power doesn't bode well for Japan's standing in the world. <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2005577,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of stagnant Japanese economy.)</a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Every few months, Tokyo's political revolving door spits out a new Prime Minister (Japan's had six PMs in the past four years) who inevitably vows that the time has come, finally, truly, to reform. But the proposals announced with expectant fanfare usually get swallowed up in Japan's dysfunctional political system. Even <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1994227,00.html" target="_blank">Prime Minister Naoto Kan</a> has acknowledged the atmosphere of suffocating hopelessness. "There is a growing feeling of being fenced in," he told the nation upon taking office in June, "a vague sense that the whole country is being stifled."</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTys1k-_OBnkmRcT9dEF14futyKYDUfQ1f2u9TzSuBfGbrGNO4D5nqm8mr5I66lH7eorHwMF7YpBAbewvSbLPeJKEEvJDM2sIrl65c3GRXRDgd2XwJKWRl7Me5jyiaO1AJm0D4hMrGr9ri/s1600/Democratic_Party_of_Japan.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5498609296508299154" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 125px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTys1k-_OBnkmRcT9dEF14futyKYDUfQ1f2u9TzSuBfGbrGNO4D5nqm8mr5I66lH7eorHwMF7YpBAbewvSbLPeJKEEvJDM2sIrl65c3GRXRDgd2XwJKWRl7Me5jyiaO1AJm0D4hMrGr9ri/s320/Democratic_Party_of_Japan.jpg" border="0" /></a>Kan is the latest political leader to promise a breakthrough. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The former Finance Minister has proffered a growth strategy he calls the "Third Approach" — an agenda mixing European welfare-state policies with government-supported efforts to create jobs in promising sectors like green energy and health care.</strong></span> But Japan's political process instantaneously became his ball and chain. In July elections, frustrated voters stripped <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Kan's Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)</span></strong> [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_of_Japan">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_of_Japan</a>]of its majority in the upper house of the Diet, the country's parliament, less than a year after sweeping the longtime opposition party into office in a landslide triumph. The continual disarray in Japanese politics threatens to make Kan's attempts to reform the economy even more difficult. <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952185,00.html" target="_blank">(Read "Can Japan Put Its Economy Back on Track?")</a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Time may finally be running out for Japan. In the wake of Greece's sovereign-debt crisis, investors have begun focusing on the sick state of national finances in the industrialized world, and Japan's are among the sickest. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Decades of fiscal mismanagement have saddled the government with debt equivalent to nearly 200% of the country's entire economic output — the biggest burden among developed nations</strong></span> — and pressure is building on Kan to introduce painful austerity measures. "There is an awareness that things can't stay the same," says Jeffrey Kingston, director of Asian studies at Temple University's Japan campus. "The problem is, people really don't know what is next. Japan's huge problems are just festering and Japan remains rudderless." <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2005689,00.html#comments" target="_blank">(Comment on this story.)</a></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">From Dynamo to Dinosaur</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>In many ways, Japan is a glimpse into a possible future for the U.S. and Western Europe</strong></span>. The Japanese have been struggling with major issues — an aging society, a fiscal disaster, weakening competitiveness — that the West is beginning to contend with as well. Japan's struggle today starkly shows the perils of inaction, of allowing domestic political calculations and ideological inflexibility to take precedence over the pragmatism necessary to thrive in a changing world.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>What makes Japan's story so much more frustrating is that not so long ago, the nation was at the forefront of change. Japan's bureaucracy-led economic system was heralded as a growth machine superior to the more laissez-faire approaches of the West.</strong> The management practices of Japan's biggest corporations — from ultra-efficient "just-in-time" manufacturing processes to consensus-based decisionmaking — were the envy of the world. Long before Apple's iPad, it was Japan's Sony that invented the must-have gadgets that changed global lifestyles (remember the Walkman?). Japan didn't need answers; Japan was the answer.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>Yet those same policies and practices that sparked Japan's miracle have come to strangle it. Japan has remained wedded to the same basic growth model it used in its miracle years — bureaucracy-led policymaking and a die-hard devotion to exports and manufacturing — even though it no longer fits Japan's modern, high-cost economy or keeps the country competitive</strong>. Though Japan's financial sector generally avoided the subprime-induced meltdown that hit the U.S., it got smacked much harder by the global downturn. In 2009 the economy sank 5.2% compared to 2.4% in the U.S.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1861089,00.html" target="_blank">See pictures of Japan's relationship with the world.</a><br /><a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1917631_1917629,00.html" target="_blank">See the new activism of Japan's youth.</a></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The Japanese people are paying the price. Though Japan is still the richest in Asia, on a per capita basis, it is not getting any wealthier. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">A distorted, overprotected labor market, much like those in Western Europe, forces 1 in 3 workers into temporary or contract jobs, denying them proper security, wages, benefits or training, and dampening the consumer spending the country needs to restart growth.</span></strong> The average wage, at $3,400 a month, was roughly the same last year as it was in the mid-1990s, while the household income of a worker's family, at $5,300 a month, fell 4.6% in 2009 from the year before.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Stumbling in Sendai</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">Sendai is a microcosm of what ails Japan. The modest town of 1 million people is the capital of the prefecture of Miyagi, where unemployment, at 6.4% in 2009, was well above the national rate of 5.1%. Sendai's young graduates are forced to relocate to bigger cities like Tokyo or Osaka since they are unable to find good jobs at home. Yet local government officials and business leaders display a distinct lack of creativity in addressing the region's economic woes. <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1919590,00.html" target="_blank">(Read "Japan's Government: Five Ways to Fix the Economy.")</a></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Take the local economic development plan. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The government intends to create jobs by attracting factories to Miyagi in three industries — automobiles, food processing and electronics — with special tax breaks and other financial incentives.</strong></span> Yoshinobu Ikuta, an assistant manager at the prefecture's New Industry Promotion Division, explains that the goal is to turn Miyagi into a major industrial hub, on par with the area around Nagoya. As a sign of the potential promise, he points to the construction of a car-assembly plant in Miyagi by Toyota subsidiary Central Motor, due to open in 2011. "We want autos to create more jobs so young people stay in the area instead of getting jobs outside," says Ikuta.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Such a plan might have worked — if the date were 1975. Back then, Japan was a rapid-growth economy with high rates of industrial investment. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>But the Japan of today is a high-cost economy suffering from excess capacity, in which companies have less incentive to invest heavily. Investment as a percentage of GDP was 20% in 2009, down steeply from 33% in 1990. Many manufacturers in industries like carmaking prefer to build plants overseas, where costs are lower or markets are expanding.</strong></span> The Central Motor plant is the first new assembly factory Toyota or one of its subsidiaries has opened in Japan since 1993. As a result, the essence of Miyagi's development plan is effectively to steal jobs from other parts of Japan, not create entirely new industries that could increase overall employment. <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1905385,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of Japan in the 1980s and today.)</a></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Ikuta is aware of such facts, but dismisses them. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>He and his colleagues — and their overlords in Tokyo, who still call most of the shots — are stuck on the decades-old idea to equate economic progress with physical factories.</strong></span> He defends the Miyagi plan, saying that technological changes in the auto industry, such as a potential shift to electric cars, will provide opportunities for Miyagi. "We hope that the whole industry will change and merge with other industries," Ikuta says. But what about targeting more cutting-edge sectors? Maybe IT services or R&D centers? Sendai, after all, is home to Tohoku University, one of the nation's top science and technology schools. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Ikuta and his colleague Hiroo Sato, who oversees efforts to woo electronics makers to Miyagi, say any investment is welcome, but the government's focus is still on factories. Nor do they seem interested in having foreigners create jobs for Miyagi's unemployed</strong></span>. Ikuta and Sato both say <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Miyagi is open to foreign investors, but, unlike competing cities and provinces in China, Taiwan and elsewhere in Asia, the local government is doing little to attract them.</strong></span></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Sendai's business leaders don't seem to have any better ideas. At the city's Chamber of Commerce, Morio Sato, the secretary general, simply repeats the exact same government development plan. Autos. Electronics. Factories. When pressed for their own ideas for creating jobs in the region, Sato and his colleagues go mum. What can the government do to help businessmen in Sendai? More squirming and nervous giggles, but no clear answers. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Perhaps Sato and the other chamber members have bold ideas for fixing the economy, but were uncomfortable speaking out due to their sense of politeness, a common trait among Japan's older generation. But that, too, is telling — it shows the lack of public debate on economic reform. Eventually Sato works up the nerve to express an opinion, muttering that more state subsidies for small businessmen would help.</strong></span></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The desire for government handouts is a constant theme in Sendai.</strong></span> Kazunori Chiba, director of the Miyagi branch of the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations, says that the region's tillers have come under strain from past liberalization policies and require continued government support to survive. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>He not only wants continued subsidies for farmers, but also state efforts to control food supply to support prices</strong></span>. Farmers had traditionally been loyal supporters of Kan's political rivals in the Liberal Democratic Party, he not very delicately points out, but many switched to the DPJ. Now, Chiba suggests, it's time for the payoff, whatever fiscal problems Tokyo might be facing. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"We are all aware of the government budget situation, and we are not demanding a great amount,"</strong></span> says Chiba.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1833048,00.html" target="_blank">See pictures of Japanese design's greatest hits.</a><br /><a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1914267_1914263,00.html" target="_blank">See the top 10 Japanese robots.</a></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Reformers Beware</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The business-as-usual approach in Sendai shows how stale Japan's bureaucracy-led economic model has become.</strong></span> "Japan still craves the old structure, but that structure is preventing the emergence of new industries," says Kazunori Kawamura, a political scientist at Tohoku University. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"The bureaucrats create a system that benefits themselves. They are reluctant to invest in something that has a chance of failure. They'd rather invest in something with a track record. We need to take the relationship between the bureaucrats and the economy apart."</strong></span></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>A few bold politicians have tried. Junichiro Koizumi, Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006, believed Japanese required more freedom to take risks to get the economy moving again. He undertook a wide-ranging American-style liberalization program, loosening up inflexible labor markets and deregulating the corporate sector to encourage new investment and entrepreneurship. But in a society that prides itself on egalitarianism, the disparities in welfare brought about by the Koizumi reforms made many Japanese queasy.</strong> The public was shocked when unemployed workers set up tents in downtown Tokyo during the Great Recession. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The idea of market reform has become so tainted in Japan that the DPJ actively campaigned against it during last year's general election</span>.</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Yukio Hatoyama, the first DPJ Prime Minister, decried what he called "market fundamentalism" as inherently immoral.</span></strong> <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1993382,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of Yukio Hatoyama's political life.)</a></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The DPJ is trying to fix Japan in a very different way. Kan, as Hatoyama also intended, wants to snatch policymaking power from the bureaucrats and put it into the hands of the Cabinet.</strong></span> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">The DPJ has also realized that selling reform to the average Japanese will be difficult without a major upgrade of the country's often weak social safety net. </span><span style="color:#ff0000;">The party has already waived high school tuition fees and introduced a state subsidy for families with young children, and it has promised to strengthen medical and child-day-care services</span></span></strong>. In doing so, Kan hopes to restart growth by bolstering consumer confidence and convincing Japanese families to spend more and save less. <strong>Kan has also raised the idea of cutting the corporate tax rate, which is higher than those in most other industrialized countries, to spur investment and create jobs</strong>. "The economy has continued to be stagnant because of the pursuit of economic policies that did not match the changes in the structure of industry and of society," Kan said in a June policy speech.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Doubts about Kan's plans are already mounting. Decades of wasteful fiscal spending — which previous Prime Ministers had used to stimulate growth with "bridge to nowhere" construction projects while sidestepping reform — have restricted Kan's ability to create growth with government policy.</strong></span> Kan himself has called the country's financial position "dire" and has warned of "fiscal collapse" if action isn't taken. In June, Kan rolled out a fiscal austerity package that would balance the budget over the next decade. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Kan <span style="font-size:180%;">also floated a controversial proposal to double the sales tax to 10% to help fill depleted coffers. He argues that his administration can simultaneously rein in fiscal deficits and fund his social-welfare expenses</span></strong></span>. <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1955028,00.html" target="_blank">(Read "New Scandal Hits Japan's Ruling Party.")</a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Yet his argument is unconvincing. Raising taxes would stifle the very consumer spending he wants to stimulate, while possibly only denting the country's fiscal problems</strong></span>. Carl Weinberg, an economist at research outfit High Frequency Economics, warns the Japanese government will have to take far more severe measures if it wishes to reduce its debt. "We presently have no plausible scenario in which the ratio of debt to GDP ever declines," Weinberg wrote in a recent study.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /><a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1993402,00.html" target="_blank">Read "Hatoyama Failed as PM but Set Japan on a New Course."</a><br /><a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1955058,00.html" target="_blank">See "World Economic Forum: Davos 2010."</a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Japan's corporate sector hasn't been any more enlightened. The biggest names of Japan Inc. have been steadily losing ground in key industries and markets around the world, often to more nimble competitors from elsewhere in Asia.</span></strong> That is especially the case in the crucial emerging markets of the future — China and India — where Japanese managers have been slow to adapt product lines to the different needs of their up-and-coming, but still low-income, consumers. In India, for example, South Korea's Hyundai sold two-and-a-half times more cars in the rapidly growing market in 2009 than Toyota and Honda combined, according to J.D. Power & Associates. Japanese brands are also falling behind in hot, new consumer markets. South Korea's Samsung and LG Electronics are tops in the expanding LCD TV business, not Sony, Sharp or Panasonic, while Taiwan's Acer is winning in the mini-PC netbook market.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />If Japanese companies continue to lose global market share, consulting firm Bain & Co. warns, they could shed half of their mid-2009 market capitalization by 2012. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Their problem is outdated boardroom practices. Work-your-way-up-the-ladder promotion systems and consensus-based decisionmaking have made managers risk-averse and opposed to outside influences</span></strong>. As a result, says Jean-Philippe Biragnet, a partner at Bain in Tokyo, Japanese firms don't absorb talent from around the world or identify new growth businesses as well as their American, European or even other Asian competitors. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>"Japan's consensus-based management becomes counterproductive in certain situations, when they use it as an excuse to not make tough decisions," Biragnet says.</strong></span> "What needs to be done is not rocket science. You need leaders who will be bold enough to make certain decisions." <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1931548,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of Tokyo Auto Show.)</a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Of course, some sound decisions are getting made. Japanese companies still possess the smarts to churn out some of the world's most inventive and beloved products — from Toyota's hybrid Prius sedan to Nintendo's Wii video-game console — and top-notch technology in key industries for the future, such as nuclear power and solar panels. Corporate managers are also learning to adjust to the needs of emerging markets. Toyota will begin production of its first model designed specifically for the India market, called the Etios, in late 2010, while in mid-July the company announced it will build a $600 million plant in Brazil to manufacture small cars for local consumers. In another sign Japanese companies are thinking more globally, both Internet retailer Rakuten and the company that operates the Uniqlo clothing-store chain announced this year that English would become their official language. Young people also appear more inclined to start their own businesses instead of automatically signing up with big corporations or government ministries as they did in the past. "Younger Japanese are definitely not company men in the old salaryman sense," says Kenneth Grossberg, a marketing professor at Waseda Business School in Tokyo.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The question is, What will they do instead? <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The economy is still so wrapped up by the old-fashioned bureaucracy that starting new businesses is a tough task. In fact, Japan's entire economic model needs an overhaul in order to create new opportunities for the nation's youth. Policymakers must break once and for all from the export obsession held dear for decades and find new sources of growth at home.</strong></span> <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>That means ending its traditional bias toward manufacturing and developing the inefficient services sector by slashing the red tape that stifles competition. </strong></span>Japan also requires major labor-market reform in order to boost wages, productivity and worker welfare, thus stimulating more consumer spending. Softening the protection of permanent employees to encourage more hiring would help, as would enhancing the benefits and training offered to part-timers. Japan could also do with a greater role for women in the workplace and wider acceptance of immigration to ease the burden of an aging society. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>More broadly, the Japanese should finally jump on the globalization bandwagon by opening more to foreign investment and talent while seeking greater international experience.</strong></span> In a disturbing trend, the number of Japanese students enrolled at American universities sank 38% to 29,264 over the past decade, while those from China increased 80%, according to the Institute of International Education. <a style="FONT: 15px georgia, arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,102); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1809157,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of young Japanese women in despair.)</a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Such a sweeping vision for the nation's future and its role in the world is regrettably absent. Katsuji Konno, president of Igeta Tea Manufacturing, a Sendai-based chain of specialty tea shops, complains that <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>the country's leaders are too focused on short-term fixes rather than long-term solutions.</strong></span> "You have to think of more drastic measures," he says. "You need to think 10, 30, 40 years ahead." Until Japan stops living in the past, it may not have a future.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br />— with reporting by Terrence Terashima / Sendai<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><br /><div><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704799604575357311577610390.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704799604575357311577610390.html</a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">U.S. Weighs Tax That Has VAT of Political Trouble</span></strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>Wall Street Journal</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>July 12, 2010<br /><br /></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">At least 139 countries, including most major economies except the U.S., levy a value-added tax on goods and services.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />But as the U.S. faces swelling deficits, talk of adopting one has become more commonplace and is likely to intensify. <strong>The latest rumblings came earlier this month, at a meeting of a White House commission looking for ways to dig the U.S. out of its fiscal hole</strong>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Asked by a commission member whether corporate leaders could live with what is known as a VAT, Business Roundtable officials said they would consider the idea, but only if Congress agreed to streamline and lower the U.S. corporate income tax.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"We certainly think, like everything, [a VAT] is something that should be examined, but examined in the context of...the overall structure of our tax system," John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, which includes chief executives of U.S. multinationals, testified at the hearing.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The VAT is a tax on sales that was first adopted in France in the 1950s. It's similar to a retail sales tax, but typically collected all along the production process, and businesses get a credit for VAT they pay to others. A car maker, for instance, would collect the tax from customers on all the cars it sells, but get a credit for the VAT it paid on tires and other on parts it bought to make the vehicles. The car maker would then pay the difference to the government.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>Advocates say a VAT creates less incentive for avoidance compared to a sales tax, while limiting economic damage compared to income taxes.</strong> <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>But conservative critics worry it's just another faucet for government to tap. And many business owners regard it with apprehension, in part because of its administrative complexity.</strong></span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Two months ago, <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>after pro-VAT comments by some high-profile figures including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi</strong></span>, the U.S. Senate voted 85-13 to condemn the VAT as "a massive tax increase."</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />But the VAT talk has continued in Washington, as political leaders confront the challenge of bringing the nation's soaring deficits under control. The talk will likely get louder for at least three reasons.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />First, the VAT raises a lot of money, and Congress and the White House need a lot to avoid politically difficult spending cuts. According to one recent estimate, a VAT of 5% would raise $161 billion a year in 2012, even assuming that lawmakers build in protections for lower-income people (such as exempting necessities from the tax). Many large economies with a VAT charge rates of up to 15% or 20%.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />And <strong>according to some economists, a VAT can produce all that revenue without discouraging investment as higher income taxes would</strong>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"If you're looking for more revenue, I think raising rates under the current income tax probably is not a good idea and could do significant economic harm," says Eric Toder, a co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank. By contrast, <strong>a VAT "doesn't interfere with where goods are produced...and doesn't interfere with savings, investment and capital formation." A White House spokeswoman said President Barack Obama "has not proposed this idea nor is it under consideration."</strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Second, many U.S. multinationals increasingly suspect they might have little choice but to accept a VAT, or some similar tax, if they hope to avoid further increases in U.S. corporate income taxes, or even win cuts in current rates. They regard current corporate taxes as too high, particularly given global trends toward reducing them. Some companies are hoping a VAT would encourage Congress to streamline and lower the corporate tax, something they regard as critical given international trends.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Third, even a few domestic businesses are beginning to eye the VAT as a possibility, despite the considerable administrative burden it creates. That's largely because <strong>value-added taxes are imposed on imports at the border, and refunded to domestic businesses on their exports, making a VAT an effective subsidy for U.S. producers, according to the advocates. (Some experts disagree.)</strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Still, there are many reasons why the VAT remains a heavy lift in Washington: <strong>As a consumption tax, the VAT hits lower-income earners disproportionately, because they spend more of their income. Fixing that problem probably requires offsetting the VAT with some kind of credit for the poor.</strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Even with such an offset, <strong>retailers dislike the idea, because they think a VAT creates a drag on overall spending, particularly among middle-income earners.</strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Also, many critics believe the VAT could start low—but then be steadily ratcheted up. They point to the experience of European countries that started with low VAT rates but gradually saw them increase. Congress also could lower the corporate rate now in exchange for a VAT, only to increase it again later, they worry.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>Perhaps the most important objection is purely political. Folk wisdom in Washington holds that every government that has ever created a VAT has been voted out at the next election</strong>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>At this point, a U.S. VAT is a long shot, particularly given the current anti-government mood that prevails among a large share of voters.</strong> <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>But it's not totally out of the question, assuming it's paired with enough reductions in other taxes to win support from key constituents.</strong></span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ </div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><a style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,204); TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/eurobama_6fLHQRfsBJUMrOPsybryvM">http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/eurobama_6fLHQRfsBJUMrOPsybryvM</a></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYJiN66wYbCRVmTyiNGlCRHqE8qZ1V4AbO_9hCsTbJPnAvDd_K_Ylwh4tiptYbIUmVVIaurIcJtX_8VG5NNKgzVvCwTcMCi9BSOaY7ZL1k-f1iz1sq_D-KRjsZP4SIO0Ip4yYpAISPUz91/s1600/eurobama+family+flag.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5498431748588824066" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 149px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYJiN66wYbCRVmTyiNGlCRHqE8qZ1V4AbO_9hCsTbJPnAvDd_K_Ylwh4tiptYbIUmVVIaurIcJtX_8VG5NNKgzVvCwTcMCi9BSOaY7ZL1k-f1iz1sq_D-KRjsZP4SIO0Ip4yYpAISPUz91/s400/eurobama+family+flag.jpg" border="0" /></a><a style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://www.blogger.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/eurobama_6fLHQRfsBJUMrOPsybryvM"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">EurObama</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">: </span></strong><a style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://www.blogger.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/eurobama_6fLHQRfsBJUMrOPsybryvM"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">President follows Europe into places Europeans no longer want to go</span></strong></a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>By MATT WELCH</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>NY Post</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br />April 25, 2010</div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">With the stunning emergence of the consumption-based Value Added Tax (VAT) as a legitimate public policy option, the Obama administration has now all but made it official: There is no European economic idea too extreme for 21st century America. Even if the Europeans themselves are largely headed in the opposite direction</span></strong>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />VAT, first rolled out in 1950s France, is a sales tax on everything that every person or entity buys within a country, with exceptions or reductions carved out for things like food, newspapers, or various links along the industrial supply chain.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Compared to the H&R Block subsidy program that is the US tax code, the VAT is a straightforward way for governments to skim 20% or so off the top of every transaction</strong></span>. By penalizing consumption and not earnings, it encourages savings and resists gaming by well-connected special interests. In an ideal world, you could enact a VAT while slashing America’s corporate income tax rate, which is the globe’s second-highest.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />But as the last 18 months of federal misgovernance has aptly demonstrated, we do not live in anything like an ideal world.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The only reason VAT is even on the table right now is that bureaucrats like VAT enthusiast Nancy Pelosi have an appetite for spending that far outpaces Americans’ willingness to cough up their hard-earned dough</strong></span>. Every statehouse and city council across the land is literally out of money, and turning to the only people who can print the stuff: Washington.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The federal government spent $3.5 trillion last year while taking in just $2.1 trillion, producing a deficit-to-Gross Domestic Product ratio of 10%, a level not seen since World War II. By contrast, the European Union requires member countries to keep deficits at 3% of GDP. If America was in Europe, we’d be Greece.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />What’s worse for us is that we’ve pretty much given up trying to address the root problem, which is the decade long spending binge initiated by George W. Bush and then tripled down on by Barack Obama. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The VAT isn’t a way to streamline a complicated tax code; it’s a new spigot to flood money into the pockets of teachers who can’t be fired, and securities regulators who can’t get enough porn.</strong></span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsD8NKf88twSHRhCTrEzLuh2dbcH8TtqtTdjW26Z2LcM-dJyt-HZRfy_iUKhxlkDxli2ytUZpfBkEEuAtjNPk0QYV38blSGsSBEG5WEB_f4b3L60-0blJALPEVSuT6qs9cuYXgZu52Vkpf/s1600/european+socialism.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5498432181651275090" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 195px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 192px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsD8NKf88twSHRhCTrEzLuh2dbcH8TtqtTdjW26Z2LcM-dJyt-HZRfy_iUKhxlkDxli2ytUZpfBkEEuAtjNPk0QYV38blSGsSBEG5WEB_f4b3L60-0blJALPEVSuT6qs9cuYXgZu52Vkpf/s400/european+socialism.gif" border="0" /></a>The grand irony here is that the very continent we’re scrambling to emulate has been moving aggressively in the opposite direction on taxes and economic policy</strong></span>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>While the US keeps corporate taxes frozen near 40%, EU countries have slashed them down to an average of around 25%. Top marginal income tax rates, which in the US are 35%, are under 25% all across the former East Bloc.</strong></span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">As the share of government spending in health care has been steadily increasing in the US, it has been inching downward in Europe</span></strong>. While first Bush and then Obama pushed through massive new public entitlements, governments from Stockholm to Rome have been grappling with real private reform.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Though conservatives especially like to sneer at the democratic socialism of Old Europe, it is precisely those cheese-eaters in France and Vikings up north who have been leading the world in privatization these last two decades, selling off everything from airports to sewage companies</span></strong>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It was hardly an accident that, in the midst of Washington’s partial nationalization of Detroit automakers, Swedish Enterprise Minister Maud Olofsson announced “The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories.”</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">With this week’s news that General Motors is “paying back” one set of Troubled Asset Relief Program loans from another pile of TARP money, we can see why Europeans have a lot to teach us about separation of industry and state</span></strong>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Where Republicans look across the Atlantic and see soft socialists worth avoiding, Democrats see enlightened progressives worth emulating. And it does not matter how little reality conforms to either fantasy.</span></strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>So now the federal government is pushing to ape Germany and France in paying individuals far-above-market prices for selling their excess solar or wind power back to the electricity grid. The only problem? Those countries are running, not walking, away from those unaffordable programs</strong></span>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The same dynamic is at play with labor relations. President Obama is on record pushing organized labor’s dream policy of “card check,” which would drastically bump up private sector unionism after decades of steady decline, and he has gone so far as appoint to his bipartisan “deficit commission” the notorious labor honcho Andy Stern.</strong></span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Meanwhile Germany, which has the tightest labor-management-government relations in the EU, has been aggressively loosening, not tightening, workplace rules</strong></span>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The fact that America’s most influential public-sector union leader is within a thousand miles of a deficit commission, let alone one that is floating the idea of an American VAT, tells you all you need to know about the relationship between any new consumption tax and fiscal responsibility. Which is to say, there isn’t any.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The solution to unsustainable budget deficits and precarious debt levels remains the same as when Barack Obama took office: Stop spending so much damned money. Until government gets serious about that, trial balloons for gobbling ever-more tax money deserve nothing more than a good swat</span></strong>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />And we’ll be left with a massive exodus of business geniuses to that bastion of capitalism — France.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><em>Matt Welch is Editor in Chief of Reason. matt.welch@reason.com</em></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><a href="http://www.social-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/SocialEurope-14.pdf">http://www.social-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/SocialEurope-14.pdf</a></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">EurObama: What lessons can Europe learn from Barack Obama’s victory?</span></strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br /><strong>Contributions by</strong><br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>George Akerlof<br />Robert Shiller<br />Steven Hill<br />Will Straw<br />Matt Browne<br />Henning Meyer<br />Martin Schulz<br />Jon Cruddas<br />Andrea Nahles<br />Andrej Stuchlik<br />Christian Kellermann<br />Claudette Abela Baldacchino</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Social Europe Journal</strong></span> • Volume 4 • Issue 2 • Winter/Spring 2009</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>... (p.20) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Where now for European Political Parties?</span></strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br />By Henning Meyer<br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Head of the European, Programme at the Global Policy Institute (London Metropolitan University) and Managing Editor of Social Europe Journal</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><em><strong>‘Barack Obama’s campaign was able to recreate old – rather than create new – characteristics that traditional European parties, especially left-of-centre parties, have lost over the years: a sense of community and belonging’</strong></em></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">(p.21) <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">In a nutshell, Barack Obama has managed to recreate the community aspects of old mass parties and integrate them into a professional-electoral party</span></strong>. In the contemporary context, however, culture does not mean a certain way of living but rather <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>being part of a community based on a charismatic political leader, new political ideas and a desire for grassroots activism</strong></span>. </span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The creation of this new culture in the Obama campaign has only been possible by the use of new media. So after it has transformed the economy and the way we communicate with each other, is the information, communication and technology (ICT) revolution now fundamentally changing the political process too? I think there are strong arguments in favour of this and Barack Obama’s success is evidence. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">What does this mean for European parties? The socio-economic circumstances and ideological believes of citizens have indeed changed dramatically since the foundation of early European parties, political activism has however not disappeared. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The success of single issue movements such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International and the Globalisation critics of Attac clearly shows the enduring desire for political activism. Some of these movements have even grown into political parties in their own right, for instance the German Greens or – with a rather different political agenda – the UK Independence Party (UKIP).</strong></span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>(p.23) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">European Parliamentary Elections 2009 – Time for a new Direction</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>By Martin Schulz</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTFNlgK21vhCA8gNf1RRJWLcccqihsXz_GRMZUSdXxBvTS4tpbirBli4ooFAuRvKd8be_dmm70PZqDk1gDmYpKWU8KBgKcLns4cO_yIFHvRMRzhpzRWWd1BRsdLMxyxF2T7Ng-ajwb0YbI/s1600/Party+of+European+Socialists+I.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5498433026304614098" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 72px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 106px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTFNlgK21vhCA8gNf1RRJWLcccqihsXz_GRMZUSdXxBvTS4tpbirBli4ooFAuRvKd8be_dmm70PZqDk1gDmYpKWU8KBgKcLns4cO_yIFHvRMRzhpzRWWd1BRsdLMxyxF2T7Ng-ajwb0YbI/s320/Party+of+European+Socialists+I.png" border="0" /></a>Leader of the </span><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">PES</span> [</strong></span><a class="l" onmousedown="return rwt(this,'','','','1','AFQjCNHCrLBXAV-akBjOu-MNRphu2y4ajw','','0CBIQFjAA')" style="CURSOR: pointer; COLOR: rgb(17,17,204)" href="http://www.blogger.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FParty_of_European_Socialists&ei=g0ZOTM3vHoOglAfBv-D4DQ&usg=AFQjCNHCrLBXAV-akBjOu-MNRphu2y4ajw"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Party of European Socialists</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">]</span></strong> Group in the European Parliament and the top candidate of the German SPD for the European parliamentary elections in June.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Europe’s success story had always been that the economy and social security are two sides of the same coin – until the 1990s when the neoliberal spirit began dominating the EU Commission and national governments.</span></strong> Since then the motto has been ‘deregulation’. Instead of social stability, strategies for deregulation and profit increase have governed the implementation of the single market.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>Conservatives and neoliberals claim that social and environmental regulations prevent growth and lead to lower wages; longer working hours and the lack of workforce participation in company decision-making, on the other hand, foster growth and higher wages.</strong> But employment and trade union rights are not cost factors. They are vital to our economic success as they contribute to motivating employees, improving the quality of jobs, promoting social harmony and fostering workforce participation in company decision- making. Economic growth does not mean anything if it benefits only some.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Europe is governed by centre-right governments and it is badly governed. 19 out of 27 heads of governments are from the centre-right and send conservative and neoliberal commissioners to Brussels. <strong>Whilst the economies of the EU member states have been harmonised, the welfare states have remained national. Now the balance between capital and labour is threatened</strong>. As a consequence social inequalities grow – on the one hand profits rise, on the other hand real wages fall. In the view of many people, instead of helping people coping with the risks and challenges of globalisation the EU has turned into a henchman for the globalised economy. <strong>Europe’s citizens rightly demand that the EU should not only consider the interests of the economy but strengthen social rights and foster active employment</strong>. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQMQ_kP4DejrQG22z-TCiF1Cu8Dh7vriLQ0uc6osrfkDjO6F7XiKy0_Gw6EZ3EsVrxEMCTd509Yjt-HizIu_xNuD96b90UgB1KztMiLO_PuplbianMgb2-O_QnhkyHNVO7f6NnNhLpdFAI/s1600/euroSocialistLogo.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5498431989992184562" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 117px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 150px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQMQ_kP4DejrQG22z-TCiF1Cu8Dh7vriLQ0uc6osrfkDjO6F7XiKy0_Gw6EZ3EsVrxEMCTd509Yjt-HizIu_xNuD96b90UgB1KztMiLO_PuplbianMgb2-O_QnhkyHNVO7f6NnNhLpdFAI/s400/euroSocialistLogo.gif" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We – the European social democrats – therefore focus on a Social Europe and putting people first.<br /></span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">For a Social Europe</span></strong><br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We want to create a European economic model that puts people and not the market in the centre of attention</span></strong>. The single market is the precondition for growth and employment. Economic growth, however, can never be an end in itself but must contribute to prosperity for everyone.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">...<strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">We propose a European social progress pact with joint European goals and standards for social and education expenditures</span></strong> based on the economic ability of the member states. Furthermore, every EU legislation should be assessed according to its social consequence for the citizens in Europe.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">We campaign for the inclusion of a social progress clause in EU legislation</span></strong>. Also, we want a review of the ‘Posting of Workers Directive’. In Europe the principle of ’same wages and labour conditions for the same employment in the same place’ must hold true. The rights of employees, in particular the rights of European works councils, must be strengthened in order to guarantee employees’ participation in economic decision-making processes. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">A new European Commission will only be politically supported by European social democrats if it obligates itself to take into account social impact assessments when developing European legislation</span></strong>. The EU will regain the trust of its citizens and create enthusiasm for the European project if it reveals again its social side.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">For a Fair and Social Globalisation</span></strong><br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">As we live in an age where nation states and societies work together more closely and inter-linked, many countries face obstacles in their ability to act. Especially the financial crisis and climate change reveal that we are living in a time of global responsibility and shared vulnerability. The basis of a globalised world is the interdependence of economies and societies. State boundaries have become permeable for people, ideas and money. On the one hand, many positive effects result from that. On the other, permeable boundaries give way to threats like international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and regional conflicts which may also affect Europe.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The major question is now how to tackle the darker sides of globalisation. No country will be able to solve global problems on its own. The European Union will be a necessary instrument to cope with the global challenges of the 21st century. The EU consists of 27 member states with almost 500 million inhabitants. Its economic power represents one quarter of world trade and economic performance, and it is the world’s biggest single market. <strong>The EU is an important actor on the international stage and can enforce common interests much better than nation states could do on their own.</strong> In the realm of climate change, the reorganisation of international financial markets, the fight against poverty or against international terrorism, the EU can and must act according to the motto ‘united we are strong’. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">We want Europe to campaign for reforms of the central international institutions, especially the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank, in order to strengthen their legitimacy and capacity to act.</span></strong> The EU can be actively involved in globalisation processes. It is a huge chance but also a huge responsibility for the EU. As an answer to globalisation, we want a strong, economically successful and social Europe.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Europe Strong and Social</span></strong><br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The European Parliament elections on June 7th will decide which direction Europe is going to take. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">What kind of Europe do we want? A Europe of free capital interests or of social welfare?</span></strong> <strong>Conservatives and liberals want a Europe which puts free market and competition above all, even above people and the environment</strong>. In times of economic and financial crises we witness every day that radical market ideologies have failed. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">In the new century, we will need a Europe which combines social justice, environmental policy and economic success</span></strong>. We need a Europe which is not ruled by the shortterm logic of financial markets but by a long-term social and democratic logic. If the EU were to reveal her social side, people, in particular the young generation, would become enthusiastic about European projects again. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">(pp. 28-35) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Building the Good Society: The Project of the Democratic Left</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">By Andrea Nahles, Vice-President of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and spokesperson for labour and social affairs of the SPD group in the Bundestag</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><em>and</em></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">By Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham (East London)</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Europe at a Turning Point</span></strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The economic wreckage of market failure is spreading across the continent</span></strong>.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">But this is not just a crisis of capitalism. It is also a failure of democracy and society to regulate and manage the power of the market</span></strong>. At this moment of crisis we reject the attempt to turn back to the business as usual of unsustainable growth, inequality and anxiety economics. But we recognise too that there is no golden age of social democracy to go back to either. The future is uncertain and full of threats; before us lie the dangers of climate change, the end of oil and growing social dislocation.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>But it is also a moment full of opportunities and promise: to revitalise our common purpose and fulfill the European dream of freedom and equality for all</strong></span>. To face these threats and realise this promise demands a new political approach. </div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">On the tenth anniversary of the Blair–Schroeder declaration of a European Third Way, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">the Democratic Left offers an alternative project: the good society. </span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This politics of the good society is about democracy, community and pluralism</span></strong>.</span> </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">It is democratic because only the free participation of each individual can guarantee true freedom and progress. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>It is collective because it is grounded in the recognition of our interdependency and common interest. </strong></span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">And it is pluralist because it knows that from a diversity of political institutions, forms of economic activity and individual cultural identities, society can derive the energy and inventiveness to create a better world.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><strong>The foundation of the good society is an ecologically sustainable and equitable economic development for the good of all.</strong></span> There are no short cuts or ready-made blueprints. Instead, based on these values and aspirations, we will take each step together and in this way we will make our world a better place to live in. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>As Willy Brandt said: ‘What we need is the synthesis of practical thinking and idealistic striving.’</strong></span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">...<strong>The historic stage of social democracy associated with the Third Way and the Neue Mitte was a response to the long period of right wing dominance that had taken hold following the economic crisis of the 1970s.</strong> A new historic stage of capitalism had emerged, destroying the post-war welfare consensus and establishing a new consensus around neo-liberal values and a free market economy. The electoral successes of the Third Way and Neue Mitte were tempered by compromises and limitations...</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />...<strong>The Third Way and the Neue Mitte models of social democracy uncritically embraced the new globalised capitalism</strong>. <strong>In doing so they underestimated the destructive potential of under-regulated markets. They misunderstood the structural changes taking place in European societies. They believed that a class-based society had given way to a more individualised, meritocratic culture.</strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />But the new capitalism has not created a classless society. Under market-led globalisation the economic boom created unprecedented levels of affluence but Third Way politics were not able to prevent it from dividing societies. After a decade of social democratic government, class inequality remains the defining structure of society. Success in education and life chances in general continue to depend on family background. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>The <span style="font-size:130%;">era of neo-liberalism was always going to end in self-destruction</span></strong><span style="font-size:130%;">.</span> Now the economic crash has created a turning point. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We have a choice: we can go back to how things were before – the unsustainable growth, the individualised and consumerised world of free markets, high levels of inequality and anxiety, and the failure to confront the danger of climate change</span></strong>. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Or we can define a new vision of progress based on justice, sustainability and security in which there is a balance in our lives between producing and consuming, and a balance between work and our lives as individuals and members of society. There is an alternative, and it must be constructed at a European level</strong></span>.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">...<span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The Good Society Our values of freedom, equality, solidarity and sustainability promise a better world free of poverty, exploitation and fear</strong></span>. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>We have a vision of the good society and a more egalitarian economy, which will create a secure, green and fair future</strong></span>. But to achieve it capitalism must now become accountable to democracy; and democracy will need to be renewed and deepened so that it is fit for the task. A good society cannot be built from the top down, but can only come from a movement made by and for the people.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">...<span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The task of the Democratic Left is to develop the idea of a shared common good</strong></span> through argument, collective political action and campaigning among the people. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The good society is about solidarity and social justice</strong></span>. Solidarity creates trust, which in turn provides the foundation of individual freedom. Freedom grows out of feelings of safety, a sense of belonging, and the experience of esteem and respect. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">These are the fundamental preconditions for the good society</span></strong>.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">The guiding principle of the good society is justice, the ethical core of which is equality</span>.</span></strong> Each individual is irreplaceable and of equal worth. In the good society each is afforded equal respect, security and chances in life, regardless of background.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Framing all these values is ecological sustainability. The good society is part of the planet and attuned to its ecology. It develops ways of flourishing within the constraints imposed on it.</strong></span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />A fair and sustainable economy At the centre of the good society is the individual as productive agent. Only by reorganising the system of production can we create a society of freedom and equality. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The neo-liberal consensus did not deliver the individual freedom it promised</span></strong>.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">...We need to develop a new kind of economy rooted in <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>the values and institutions of the good society</strong></span>. It will be one characterised by a variety of different economic structures and forms of ownership. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>It will make sure that workers codetermine economic decisions of their companies.</strong></span> From this economic pluralism we can ensure there is no going back to the globally unbalanced economic growth that led to the crisis. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>We need ecologically sustainable development that meets human needs equitably and improves the quality of life of all. Climate change, peak oil and the need for energy and food security demand largescale economic transformations</strong></span>. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The time has come to start to discuss and then implement a new model of prosperity, which can be globalised</strong></span> but without leading to ecological disaster. Quality growth, meaningful work and technological progress can lead to more wealth and a better quality of life, but markets alone cannot achieve these goals. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The future will demand a more active state engaging with long-term economic planning and development to build a sustainable economy</strong></span>. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The reform of the economy can begin with government taking services of general interest – utilities, transport, post, banks and public services – back into public ownership or placed under public control,</span></strong> where this is the most accountable, equitable and economically sustainable way of guaranteeing these services. New rules for markets have to be established and stronger incentives fashioned for a more sustainable economy.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>The market state and its agencies need to be transformed into a civic state that is democratised </strong></span>and made more responsive to individual citizens and small businesses. We need to balance a strong centre with effective power at local level for economic and social development. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The advocacy roles of civil society organisations and the trade unions need to be strengthened.</strong></span> The primacy of politics over the financial markets has to be restored...</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">A Politics for a better Europe</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>A politics for a Social Europe Europe needs a ‘Post Lisbon Strategy’ that is based on the concept of ‘social productivity’.</strong></span> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Social productivity is about social growth: increasing the social value and quality of work, accounting for the environmental and social costs of markets, and developing sustainable patterns of consumption</strong></span>. The wellbeing of citizens and general quality of life must be improved beyond simple numerical and monetary values. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Wealth needs to be redistributed in a more equal manner. </span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Effective regulatory standards need to be introduced to guarantee good, affordable and comprehensive public services, fair wages, good working conditions, free education for all and a human approach to immigration and global solidarity</span></strong>...</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">...Employment and social security Different national paths constitute a source of strength in the EU. To achieve a Social Europe does not mean enforcing a single system on all nations, but agreeing a set of welfare outcomes. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>A European minimum wage, corresponding to the national average income, would help limit the increasing wage differentials in Europe and prevent ‘social dumping’. To push forward its implementation will require an organisation similar to Britain’s Low Pay Commission with a remit for campaigning and working closely with the trade unions</strong></span>.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The series of European Court rulings – the Laval, Viking and Rueffert cases – have deregulated labour markets by changing the terms of the 1996 Posting of Workers Directive. This now needs reform to restore collective bargaining, workers’ rights to strike, and establish equality for posted and migrant workers across Europe. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Europe needs fair policies on taxation. Current tax competition in Europe is leading to a shifting of the tax burden from companies to individual income and consumption. This is regressive and unjust and there needs to be a harmonisation of corporate tax policy to safeguard the financial basis of national social security systems</strong></span>.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />In the medium term, the European Union (EU) should have its own financial resources, based on a European corporate tax and a European financial transactions tax. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Offshore tax havens should be outlawed and corporate profits taxed in the countries where they are earned</strong></span>.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Energy security and sustainability Europe must become the most ecologically sustainable economy in the world.</strong></span> <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>If the US is starting a competition to become the ‘greenest economy in the world’, Europe must take part in this race because all humankind will win. We need Europe-wide green standards for power stations that adopt a series of successively tougher targets for emissions standards, which will drive the introduction of carbon capture and storage</strong></span>. An efficiency target for electricity generation, which is similar to that proposed for cars in the EU, would make it difficult for a government to allow the construction of new coalfired power stations without some form of carbon capture technology attached.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Balancing the grid at an EUwide level will reduce the need for coal and improve energy security by reducing reliance on foreign oil and gas. It will make significant cuts in carbon emissions and in the long run bring down fuel bills too. The current bilateral schemes that are being negotiated need to be extended across Europe. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">(p.37) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Europe on the Way to a Social Union?</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">By Christian Kellermann, Project manager for European economic and social policies at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Berlin</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><em>and</em></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br />Andrej Stuchlík, Research associate at the University of Administrative Sciences in Speyer </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">(p.39-41) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Levels of European Social Policy</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The EU’s contribution to social policy is oriented towards the three great sets of objectives and cross-sectional tasks it has set for itself: </strong></span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">1. economic growth (as well as more and better jobs)</div><br /><div><br />2. high level of social protection </div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">3. equality of opportunity for all<br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>In order to perform these tasks the EU has five main instruments:</strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />1. the European Social Fund </div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">2. social policy legislation together with ECJ rulings</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>3. the Social Dialogue<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">4. the Open Method of Coordination (OMC)<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">5. the Civil Society Dialogue<br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>In the context of individual policy areas these instruments are assigned to three levels of social policy: substantive, regulatory and process-oriented (‘soft law’). </strong></span></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">a) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Substantive Social Policy Direct substantive payments to those in need</span></strong> </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">– for example, income support or housing benefit – require social security systems financed on a contribution/funded or pay-as-you-go basis. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The level of redistribution</span> varies considerably across Europe. Social benefits financed through taxation usually have a stronger redistributive effect than those financed directly by individual contributions. At European level the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) can be assigned to this category of classic social policy redistribution, of the kind characteristic of nation states</strong></span>. The purpose of the ESF is the labour market reintegration of workers in the member states. In keeping with the existing Community competencies as regards the social policy underpinning of internal market freedoms the emphasis is on work and employment. This includes the financial instrument PROGRESS (Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity) and the only recently established European Globalisation Fund (EGF).</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>b) Regulatory Social Policy and the role of the ECJ/EU legislation</strong></span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In contrast to redistributive social policy, the regulatory level is limited to rule-making</span>.</strong></span> No substantial financial resources are required for this purpose and consequently such measures can be pushed through far more easily in the European power structure. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><em>It is true that this aspect of European social policy is strongly under the influence of the European Court of Justice and its rulings often lead to an extension of EU powers</em>. In the area of regulatory social policy European law sets minimum social standards and basic rights at European level, and so creates uniform framework conditions for the internal market.</strong></span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The treaties</span></strong> contain legal provisions in the areas of equal treatment of men and women in employment and work, anti-discrimination, free movement of labour, health and safety in the workplace, labour law and working conditions, as well as information and consultation of workers.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>The two most important regulations in European law, and hence the supporting pillars of EU social policy powers, are those on freedom of movement and on migrant workers</strong>. Their influence extends to many other policy areas. EU regulation stops short at harmonisation, which is explicitly ruled out. Instead, minimum requirements are possible which may not infringe the systems of member states in terms of their basic principles. In this way the demarcation between the member states and the EU leads to sometimes intense conflicts. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Social Dialogue</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Social Dialogue has something of a special place in European social policy. It is laid down in the treaties and the role of the social partners is widely recognised. At the same time, the Social Dialogue provides for little in the way of substantive guidelines, but serves as a consultation forum for debate</span></strong> and as a procedural level between autonomous social partners. But it is not restricted to non-binding exchanges of views. Such agreements can be achieved either with the help of the Council or completely autonomously between the social partners. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>In the area of employment the active participation of the social partners is at the centre of the European Employment Strategy and Integrated Guidelines.</strong></span> <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>A substantial point of criticism of the Social Dialogue is the imbalance between the social partners due to the employers’ de facto veto right</strong></span>. </span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />c) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">‘Soft Law’<br /></span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>Coordinated social policy is often designated ‘soft law’ in EU jargon, ordinarily understood in contrast to ‘hard’ legislation (of the Acquis Communautaire). This encompasses the Community’s numerous social policy activities that lie outside direct treaty-based competencies</strong>. At European level the OMC is the central element for policy coordination. In essence it is a settlement procedure for national policies and not a binding instrument: there is no formal transfer of powers. In the foreground is the coordination of policy objectives rather than social policy convergence.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Certainly the OMC and this form of extension of EU social policy activities are attended by numerous difficulties. <strong>In terms of content, a discursive revaluation of EU social policy is taking place, but the focus is mostly on social policy that promotes competition and enhances market creation</strong>.</div><br /><div></div></div></div></div></div></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-36984413410606623812010-01-13T22:35:00.023-05:002010-01-14T22:23:15.844-05:00Will Sidelining the UN Climate Change Carnival/Circus Actually Lead to a Robust Enforceable New Accord?<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/climate-talks-un-sidelined">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/climate-talks-un-sidelined</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy9NsefojBTOzijAlkdt40WTrUK107HXlVRZvC8W6wyEjXCjgdA89iDPnPTgJ5kF8hqLV97R5Nc4ZCiL1veS-ZdabGth5v6CQic5oQAFJCtYYpc66eHBm_YBfQkzMF6MSL-kNyeXA-USBJ/s1600-h/copenhagen+climate+change+carnival.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5426439347707557010" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy9NsefojBTOzijAlkdt40WTrUK107HXlVRZvC8W6wyEjXCjgdA89iDPnPTgJ5kF8hqLV97R5Nc4ZCiL1veS-ZdabGth5v6CQic5oQAFJCtYYpc66eHBm_YBfQkzMF6MSL-kNyeXA-USBJ/s400/copenhagen+climate+change+carnival.jpg" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">UN should be sidelined in future climate talks, says Obama official</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Suzanne Goldenberg and John Vidal<br /><br /><br /><br />Guardian.co.uk<br /><br /><br /><br />14 January 2010<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLBrzk-aB04akbS4jdKaDhzKOzQTsTDJiA3xPFB2wYkVAMtFQx_mSZO1ZbWCNn4uOkded0N2p39QH_HlPHKSg_mgkE1VugzkRakm5oX3eKWwa-hJCbalSme5qVD5U0brX6UUV9Ym6MQnPk/s1600-h/climate_circus.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5426438853928353458" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 263px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLBrzk-aB04akbS4jdKaDhzKOzQTsTDJiA3xPFB2wYkVAMtFQx_mSZO1ZbWCNn4uOkded0N2p39QH_HlPHKSg_mgkE1VugzkRakm5oX3eKWwa-hJCbalSme5qVD5U0brX6UUV9Ym6MQnPk/s400/climate_circus.png" border="0" /></a>America sees a diminished role for the United Nations in trying to stop global warming after the "chaotic" Copenhagen </span></strong><a title="More from guardian.co.uk on Climate change" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">climate change</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> summit, an Obama administration official said today.</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>Jonathan Pershing, who helped lead talks at Copenhagen</strong>, instead sketched out a future path for negotiations dominated by the world's largest polluters such as China, the US, India, Brazil and South Africa, who signed up to a deal in the final hours of the summit. That would represent a realignment of the way the international community has dealt with climate change over the last two decades.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />"It is impossible to imagine a global agreement in place that doesn't essentially have a global buy-in. There aren't other institutions beside the UN that have that," Pershing said. "But <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">it is also impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail."</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEpzItvcvMw_DrbXuavLfHHE5am5mCRvyC-lWKGDzswWlhH1XBC9A-2-qQa3XPJuhOmNB9bf5aGPrv63Dgn2IrFtasgRFB5-YBWilnhdWgb6-IW93gtGd0nrWsQZVcPd0BmgJoSC9Zfr_z/s1600-h/un-flight-logo.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5426438281007822386" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 264px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 232px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEpzItvcvMw_DrbXuavLfHHE5am5mCRvyC-lWKGDzswWlhH1XBC9A-2-qQa3XPJuhOmNB9bf5aGPrv63Dgn2IrFtasgRFB5-YBWilnhdWgb6-IW93gtGd0nrWsQZVcPd0BmgJoSC9Zfr_z/s320/un-flight-logo.jpg" border="0" /></a>Pershing said <span style="color:#3366ff;">the flaws in the UN process, which demands consensus among the international community, were exposed at Copenhagen. "The meeting itself was at best <span style="color:#33ff33;">chaotic</span>,"</span></span></strong> he said, in a talk at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "We met mostly overnight. It seemed like we didn't sleep for two weeks. It seemed a funny way to do things, and it showed."</div><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;">The lack of confidence in the UN extends to the $30bn (£18.5bn) global fund, which will be mobilised over the next three years to help poor countries adapt to climate change.</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"The UN didn't manage the conference that well," Pershing said. "I am not sure that any of us are particularly confident that the UN managing the near-term financing is the right way to go."<br /></span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Pershing did not exclude the UN from future negotiations. But he repeatedly credited the group of leading economies headed by America for moving forward on the talks, including on finance and developing green technology.</span></strong> He suggested the larger forum offered by the UN was instead important for countries such as Cuba or the small islands which risk annihilation by climate change to air their grievances.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />"We are going to have a very very difficult time moving forward and it will be a combination of small and larger processes," he said.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The first test of the accord agreed by America, China, India, South Africa and Brazil arrives on 31 January, the deadline for countries to commit officially to actions to halt global warming. Here, too, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Pershing indicated the focus would be narrower in scope than the UN's all-inclusive approach. "We expect there will be significant actions recorded by major countries," he said.</span></strong> "We are not really worried what Chad does. We are not really worried about what Haiti says it is going to do about greenhouse gas emissions. We just hope they recover from the earthquake."</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Key groups of developing countries are to meet this month to try to explore ways to get to agree a binding agreement.</div><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div align="justify">As the dust settles on the stormy Danish meeting, environment ministers from the so-called Basic countries – <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will meet on 24 January in New Delhi. No formal agenda has been set, but observers expect the emerging geopolitical alliance between the four large developing countries who brokered the final "deal" with the US in Denmark will define a common position on emission reductions and climate aid money</span></strong>, and seek ways to convince other countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord that emerged last month.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Fewer than 30 countries out of the 192 who are signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organised Copenhagen, have indicated that they will sign.</span></strong> Many are known to be deeply unhappy with the $100bn pledged for climate aid and the decision not to make deeper cuts in emissions.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Under UN laws, consensus is required. There is confusion over the legal standing of the agreement reached in Copenhagen and many countries may not be in a position to sign up by 31 January because they have yet to consult their parliaments.</span></strong></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Meanwhile, Bolivia, one of a handful of poor countries which openly opposed the deal in Copenhagen, has invited countries and non-governmental groups which want a much stronger climate deal to the World Conference of the People on Climate Change.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Pershing said that he had told some of those leaders that there was no prospect of reaching a stronger deal that would limit warming to 1.5 degrees.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />The conference, to be held in Cochabamba in Bolivia from 20-22 April, is expected to attract heads of state from the loose alliance of socialist "Alba" countries, including Venezuela and Cuba. Alba, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America countries, was set up to provide an alternative to the US-led free trade area of the Americas.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Bolivia this week urged leaders of the world's indigenous ethnic groups and scientists to come. "The invitation is to heads of state but chiefly to civil society. We think that social movements and non government groups, people not at decision level, have an important role in climate talks," said Maria Souviron, the Bolivian ambassador in London.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />The meeting, which is intended to cement ties between <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>the seven Alba countries, is also expected to pursue the idea of an international court for environmental crimes</strong></span>, as well as the radical idea of "mother earth rights". This would give all entities, from man to endangered animal species, an equal right to life.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />"Our objective is to save humanity and not just half of humanity," said Morales in a speech at Copenhagen. "We are here to save mother earth. Our objective is to reduce climate change to [under] 1C. [Above this] many islands will disappear and Africa will suffer a holocaust. The real cause of climate change is the capitalist system. If we want to save the earth then we must end that economic model."</div><div></div><div align="justify">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div></div><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/comedy-central-scoops-network-news-on-climate-gate-scandal/">http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/comedy-central-scoops-network-news-on-climate-gate-scandal/</a></div><div></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXhlWPLXMhw4GoUj1a1GjhXPkxbE7OrzSapIPO42AYPCgrLER1bg-veQJRsGXGKzmuOdRLosZ2lhGekEboY6P-uwlfZ-AgI231mGw5Kqqlj6au_yuxcXRi9h0ywhdo77ebT0tKe66lmFWh/s1600-h/climategate-ii2.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5426444226433253858" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 293px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXhlWPLXMhw4GoUj1a1GjhXPkxbE7OrzSapIPO42AYPCgrLER1bg-veQJRsGXGKzmuOdRLosZ2lhGekEboY6P-uwlfZ-AgI231mGw5Kqqlj6au_yuxcXRi9h0ywhdo77ebT0tKe66lmFWh/s400/climategate-ii2.gif" border="0" /></a>Comedy Central Scoops Network News on Climate-Gate Scandal</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">European Union Times</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Dec 03, 2009</div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">ABC didn’t cover it. CBS didn’t either. And NBC apparently wouldn’t go near it.</span></strong></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they’ve even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpRMI9MPiIcscyXGAftEGm-osA0rGZDe2E3y1IdHRe0mgSG6Rn4i7e3mP1AX4vH-6LSKzbTJ6XYJsZ74ODaYJ3Pf3YtqhK_pNg8i2XE6lPNww72CMgBsOG21SJ6kP125CdiC8gOP43zK8Y/s1600-h/Jon+Stewart+-+dailyshow.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5426443188601193714" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 296px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 232px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpRMI9MPiIcscyXGAftEGm-osA0rGZDe2E3y1IdHRe0mgSG6Rn4i7e3mP1AX4vH-6LSKzbTJ6XYJsZ74ODaYJ3Pf3YtqhK_pNg8i2XE6lPNww72CMgBsOG21SJ6kP125CdiC8gOP43zK8Y/s320/Jon+Stewart+-+dailyshow.jpg" border="0" /></a>“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” produced its “reporting” on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”<br /></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain’s University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher’s “trick” to “hide the decline” in some temperature readings in recent decades.</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“It’s just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data -– in order to trick you,” Stewart said sarcastically.</span></strong></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Still, according to a report Wednesday morning by the conservative Media Research Center, “none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed Climate-Gate or the incriminating Jones development. … This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal.”</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />The Business & Media Institute had just as much trouble finding the networks’ Climate-gate coverage.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />“An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions,” the Institute reported Wednesday.<br />But during that time, the Institute says, “the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods’ ‘minor’ car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner.”</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacted to the findings saying, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">“To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism.”</span></strong></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">That left Stewart to fill the void — with his analysis of the scientists’ decision to discard the raw data used to formulate the adjusted data that much of the scientific community agrees confirms global warming.</span></strong></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“Why would you throw out raw data from the ’80s? I still have Penthouses from the ’70s!” he joked.</span></strong></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-65549742809134021632009-11-08T11:22:00.021-05:002009-11-08T13:05:32.973-05:00It's Wabbit Season: Aussie PM Kevin J. Fudd Attacks Global Deniers of Climate Change Religion, Even Those 'Believed' To Be Within His Own Government<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism</a><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKUZOc27JWqigcuXUa3kM55mfqowsW0SvMcdwtuSH2Q1b75cdayusTpiGPgi2XXEXbjQCPLVuAQPyN1sa0bH8oQg07gov3jP6s0XXedi4FOJ2xfOYy3fzYNQXPnakCV0XesuDjhsRkbg-_/s1600-h/eco_torture.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401769386631706802" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 289px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKUZOc27JWqigcuXUa3kM55mfqowsW0SvMcdwtuSH2Q1b75cdayusTpiGPgi2XXEXbjQCPLVuAQPyN1sa0bH8oQg07gov3jP6s0XXedi4FOJ2xfOYy3fzYNQXPnakCV0XesuDjhsRkbg-_/s400/eco_torture.gif" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We're doomed without a green religion: Arguments about climate change show up the incoherence of any purely individual morality</span></strong><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">The justification for burning heretics was perfectly simple: dissent threatened the survival of society.</span></strong> </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><br />Nothing was worse than anarchy. This is a viewpoint most people in the West today find pretty much incomprehensible. It is a self-evident truth to them that morality must be a matter of individual choice. And if you believe that, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/05/tim-nicholson-climate-change-philosophy">the arguments</a> around <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-nicholson-climate-change-belief">the Tim Nicholson case</a> are very difficult to resolve. If there is a moral imperative to preserve the human race, or as much of it as possible, collective consequences must follow. It is not enough for us to do the right thing. Others must as well. If you don't believe that, then there is no point in agitating for success in Copenhagen.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">But if collective consequences follow, others must be forced to do things against their will by our moral imperatives. This is exactly the quality that is supposed to be so very obnoxious about</span> </span></strong><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">religion</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">. </span></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The idea that morality is and must be a matter of individual choice is taken as axiomatic in these debates. It is thought true in the sense that it is held to describe a fact about the world. Very often the same people who believe this will also believe, and maintain with equal vehemence in other contexts the belief that morals are merely opinions, or at least that there couldn't in the nature of things be moral facts: true or false statements about whether something or someone is good or bad.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />This was neatly if not nicely expressed by one of the commenters on Tim Nicholson's article here, <a href="http://bit.ly/jYIX1">who said</a> </div><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><em>You may believe less flying and driving, and more wind farms, and so on to be moral imperatives. I don't. You are entitled to your beliefs, and should not be persecuted for them. But they are just beliefs. You want to argue the politics of how to respond to </em><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change"><em>climate change</em></a><em>: great. But you can stop wrapping your proposed solutions up in 'moral imperative' cotton wool.</em></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />These are not the only confusions which the Nicholson case raises. Many people who are upset by the court's equating a scientific opinion with a religion belief suppose that science is true and rational, religion is false and irrational, and that this division of the world is itself factual and rational. If this is how the world appears to you, then there is no question that climate change is not a religion. That would mean that it wasn't really happening, and that we were free to ignore it. Both supporters and opponents of environmentalism can often agree both that it might be a religion and that would be a bad thing. This is why, in general, the people who maintain that environmentalism is like a religion are opposed to it; while those in favour deny it is anything like a religion. (A further complication is supplied by right-wing Christians like <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1225358/Daniel-Johnson-Damn-false-God-How-sanity-green-religion.html">Daniel Johnson</a> who maintain that religion is a good thing, but environmentalism is a false religion.)</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />But can this sharp distinction between truth and falsity, fact and value, actually describe the world? The unexamined assumption is that we can split the world into a sphere of facts and a sphere of opinions and that the facts will speak for themselves. And, as a matter of fact, that is false. I'm not caliming here that there are no facts, or that there are only opinions, or that science is only socially constructed. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">I just need to point out that fact and opinion are not two distinct substances</span></strong>. </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/05/climate-change-ruling-beyond-belief-religion"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Myles Allen wrote yesterday</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">: "I don't ask anyone to believe in human influence on climate because I do, or because thousands of other scientists do. I ask them to look at the evidence."</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>But while this is an admirable ideal, it is wholly impossible in practice.</strong></span> You cannot believe in science if you do not also believe in scientists. That is why the faking of results is such a terrible threat to the whole enterprise. Nor is "evidence" a a simple thing visible to the naked eye. Without quite a specialised education, the nature and force of scientific evidence is quite literally invisible. Even when the evidence is overwhelming there will always be smart and otherwise well-educated people to ignore it if they have other more powerful reasons to do so. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The instinct of most scientists is to suppose that this can be cured by teaching people science. But that's never going to work, however desirable it is for other reasons. Scientists want to be believed becasuse of the truth they are telling is so overwhelming as to make trust unnecessary, but in practice they will either be trusted or ignored.</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">There is a strand of </span></strong><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/atheism"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">atheism</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">, or perhaps of anti-theism, <span style="color:#ff0000;">which redefines "religion" to include all forms of collective faith, chiefly communism.</span> Although this may have originated as a rhetorical move in order to deny that the communists who killed millions of Christians were actually atheists, it does express something deeper: a conviction that compulsion in the name of any belief is itself immoral.</span></strong> Now whether anyone actually truly and consistently believes this is another question. What matters in this context is that lots of people believe that they do believe it.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Climate change makes that position entirely incoherent. Because it is a global tragedy of the commons, individual action cannot be enough. I cannot ensure the survival of my grandchildren, nor even yours, without compelling you to behave in ways that science tells me are necessary. Not to act, not to coerce, itself becomes immoral.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">There is a further twist to the argument. Compulsion will be needed but compulsion alone won't do it. </span><span style="color:#ff0000;">People aren't made like that. They need to believe in what they are forced to do. They need idealism, and that will also mean its dark side: the pressure of conformism, the force of self-righteousness, huge moral weight attached to practically useless gestures like unplugging phone chargers. They need, in fact, something that does look a lot like religion.</span></span></strong> But we can't engineer it. It can only arise spontaneously. Should that happen, the denialists, who claim that it is all a religion, will for once be telling the truth, and when they do that, they'll have lost. I just hope it doesn't happen too late.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/06/2735769.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/06/2735769.htm</a></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Rudd wages war on Coalition climate deniers<br /></span></strong></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdNxsh5pq4Atiw2VweWizr860hgb6srTVZeYQWArqCGV1iiEjPeimdf3_mRENz7ujovw9F9txkWdA2KAT0j-4mmXHIRLTMN5sw41dVSoB8KUec58lqvKr9P1HtVebvGbizr75JtXuz0O8Y/s1600-h/elmer+j.+fudd+-+III.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401787813603020210" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 223px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 250px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdNxsh5pq4Atiw2VweWizr860hgb6srTVZeYQWArqCGV1iiEjPeimdf3_mRENz7ujovw9F9txkWdA2KAT0j-4mmXHIRLTMN5sw41dVSoB8KUec58lqvKr9P1HtVebvGbizr75JtXuz0O8Y/s400/elmer+j.+fudd+-+III.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRKfTxDPI1Fbtj8j-TEBbJ3re-uA4_yiPVQ8GkUglSiNjZWOjOqxYxoh7-FxV-P0pDGxOFj-sw463ZCHHoSgjXLriMg955gNfAznnQPzUL0ixL6WgCF1l1AOcOqx3DmhGJv55ryk5RpFgE/s1600-h/Kevin+Rudd.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401789375478650306" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 133px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRKfTxDPI1Fbtj8j-TEBbJ3re-uA4_yiPVQ8GkUglSiNjZWOjOqxYxoh7-FxV-P0pDGxOFj-sw463ZCHHoSgjXLriMg955gNfAznnQPzUL0ixL6WgCF1l1AOcOqx3DmhGJv55ryk5RpFgE/s200/Kevin+Rudd.jpg" border="0" /></a>By online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />ABC News</div><div><br /></div><div><br />Nov 6, 2009 5:17pm AEDT Updated Fri Nov 6, 2009 7:32pm AEDT </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has upped the pressure on the Opposition over its emissions trading stance, accusing it of being full of climate change deniers intent on delaying action.</strong> </span></div><div></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />In a speech to the Lowy Institute today <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Mr Rudd launched a strongly worded attack on the Opposition and climate change sceptics worldwide</span></strong> for holding up countries' efforts to combat climate change. </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change sceptics in all their colours, some more sophisticated than others,"</strong></span> he said.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"It is to destroy the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme at home and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad. </strong></span></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">"And our children's fate - our grandchildren's fate - will lie entirely with them. It is time to remove any polite veneer from this debate; the stakes are that high.</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change sceptics simply do not care."</strong></span></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong>His attack came as Climate Change Minister Penny Wong confirmed the Government could not accept all of the Coalition's proposed amendments to the scheme due to budgetary constraints</strong>.</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />Negotiations over changes to the scheme are continuing between the Government and Opposition and it will go to the Senate for a vote in the final parliamentary sitting week of the year.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Mr Rudd accused those who question climate change science of <span style="color:#ff0000;">"holding the world to ransom".</span></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"Climate change sceptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country,"</strong></span> he said.</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"They are a minority. They are however powerful and invariably they are driven by vested interests [and are] powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australia."</strong></span></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Quoting several Opposition frontbenchers at length as proof of scepticism and a "do-nothing" attitude within the Coalition, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Mr Rudd accused the Opposition of political cowardice and a "failure of logic" in so far refusing to pass the scheme.</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"The tentacles of the climate change sceptics reach deep into the ranks of the Liberal Party and once you add the National party it's plain the sceptics and the deniers are a major force,"</strong></span> he said.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />With only around a month to go until the Copenhagen climate change conference Mr Rudd said if no countries acted on climate change the world would be locked in a permanent stand-off.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"As we approach Copenhagen, it becomes clearer that the domestic political pressure produced by the climate change sceptics now has profound global consequences by reducing the momentum towards an ambitious global deal,"</strong></span> he said.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Mr Rudd also singled out Malcolm Turnbull in his speech, taking the Opposition Leader to task over his push to hold of passing ETS legislation until after Copenhagen</span></strong>.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"What absolute political cowardice," he said.</span></strong></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong>But the Opposition Leader refused to rise to Mr Rudd's bait</strong> </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"I'm not going to run a commentary on, or take the bait from Kevin Rudd, who's obviously given this extraordinary speech in order to create a fight," Mr Turnbull said</span></strong>.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />"Now the fact is, and he knows this as well, we are in good faith negotiations with the Government on the amendments we've proposed, and those negotiations should continue. </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />"He ought to calm down and concentrate on the negotiations; they have the potential to save thousands of jobs and produce a more effective environmental outcome."</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Earlier today Senator Wong said the recently released updated economic forecasts showed there would not be as much revenue from carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) up to 2020</span></strong>.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />"We have said consistently that we expect any amendments to the CPRS must be economically and fiscally responsible and environmentally credible," she said.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />"In light of budget impacts released on Monday, it is clear that carte-blanche acceptance of the entirety of the Opposition's current proposals does not pass these tests."</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />The Opposition has put up several changes to the scheme including more compensation for heavy polluters and the exclusion of agriculture.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has to take the outcome of the negotiations back to the party room, which will decide whether or not to support the scheme.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong>But the Nationals and </strong><a href="http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/30/2729215.htm"><strong>some Liberals </strong></a><strong>have already said they will not support it regardless of any changes made.</strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />The Government has committed Australia to cutting its emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.</div><div></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2735720.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2735720.htm</a></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Kevin Rudd attacks 'climate change sceptics'</span></strong></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik8xIMEGo4-q_d0ulAlbfDAmphxPHYnHzmIqDgxEkSPWNimzeD915oXRNjgYq9wQ6pGJG1mX3E3TjwV3cqIPlquxfBEvYSw7ZPt-DrivPqdH3PIrejJLMEsSI1UaDYVKT7cI3dStFDVC8v/s1600-h/elmer+j.+fudd+-+II.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401787736123615010" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 163px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik8xIMEGo4-q_d0ulAlbfDAmphxPHYnHzmIqDgxEkSPWNimzeD915oXRNjgYq9wQ6pGJG1mX3E3TjwV3cqIPlquxfBEvYSw7ZPt-DrivPqdH3PIrejJLMEsSI1UaDYVKT7cI3dStFDVC8v/s400/elmer+j.+fudd+-+II.png" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div><br />Reported by Samantha Hawley<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>November 6, 2009</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>PM with Mark Colvin</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div align="justify">MARK COLVIN: <strong>The Prime Minister, under fire in recent weeks for not presenting a strong and reasoned defence of his emissions trading scheme, went on the offensive today over climate change. He did so with a forceful speech attacking opponents of the scheme</strong>. Speaking at the Lowy Institute in Sydney this afternoon, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Kevin Rudd described climate change sceptics and what he called 'deniers' as reckless gamblers who were playing with the future of Australia's children and grandchildren. Mr Rudd said they were radicals not conservatives, and were driven by vested interests</strong></span>. And he accused the Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull of being a political coward. From Canberra, Samantha Hawley reports. </div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> The Prime Minister knows the clock is ticking.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>KEVIN RUDD:</strong> <em>In around 20 days the Senate will vote on Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. </em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> <em>This afternoon <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">at Lowy Institute address in Sydney Kevin Rudd abandoned what he calls political politeness by launching a stinging attack against the Liberal and National Parties and against <span style="font-size:180%;">so-called climate change sceptics.</span></span></strong></em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> </span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>KEVIN RUDD:</strong> <em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>They are a minority. They, however, are powerful, and invariably they are driven by vested interests; powerful enough so far to block domestic legislation in Australia; powerful enough so far to slow down the passage of legislation through the Congress of the United States.</strong></span></em></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> <em>And he went on</em>... </div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>KEVIN RUDD:</strong> <em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change sceptics in all their colours; some, more sophisticated than others. It is to destroy the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme at home, and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad.</strong></span> And our children's fate - our grandchildren's fate - will lie entirely with them. It is time to remove any polite veneer from this debate; the stakes are that high.</em></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> <em>Then there was this</em>:</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>KEVIN RUDD:</strong> <em>The legion of climate change sceptics are active across the world, and they happily play with our children's future. The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change sceptics simply do not care. The vested interests at work are simply too great. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Climate change sceptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives; they are in fact the radicals.</strong></span></em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong> </strong></span></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> <em>And as for the Opposition Leader's argument that Australia should wait to see what the rest of the world does on climate change:</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>KEVIN RUDD:</strong> <em>What absolute political cowardice</em>. </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> <em>The Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull spoke to PM after Mr Rudd's speech. </em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div align="justify"><strong>MALCOLM TURNBULL:</strong> <em><strong>Well, Kevin Rudd's policy on border protection has comprehensively failed. He's gone into a panic over that, and so he's trying to start a stoush with us on climate change. </strong>Now the fact is, and he knows this as well as anyone, we are in good faith negotiations with the Government on the amendments we've proposed, and those negotiations should continue. He ought to calm down and concentrate on the negotiations; they have the potential to save thousands of jobs and produce a more effective environmental outcome.</em> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> Well, he says you're a political coward for wanting to wait for the rest of the world to act on climate change. </div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>MALCOLM TURNBULL:</strong> <em>Well, I was meeting this morning with Ian McFarlane, my shadow energy minister, and his Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, in good faith negotiations. So we are sitting down endeavouring to find some common ground on the design of an emissions trading scheme. </em></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> <em>Do you agree with the Prime Minister that climate change sceptics are radicals?</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>MALCOLM TURNBULL:</strong> <em>Look, I'm not going to run a commentary on, or take the bait from Kevin Rudd, who's obviously given this extraordinary speech in order to produce a… well, in order to create a fight. </em><em>He wants to create a stoush over climate change at the very time that with his authority, his own Climate Change Minister, is sitting down and working through with us detailed, good faith negotiations on the design of the emissions trading scheme.</em> </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>SAMANTHA HAWLEY:</strong> <em>The chances of the ETS passing the Senate received another setback this morning. During a speech in Melbourne, the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said accepting all of the Opposition's amendments would not be fiscally responsible or environmentally credible. The Prime Minister says the Opposition leader should take the advice of singer Kenny Rogers.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>KEVIN RUDD:</strong> <em>You've got to know when to hold 'em; you've got to know when to fold 'em; you've got to know when to walk away and you've got to know when to run.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>My message to the climate change sceptics, to the big betters and the big risk takers, is this: you're betting on our children's future and the future of our grandchildren; the future of our economy, the future of our country; the future of our world. </em></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>You've got to know when to fold 'em and that time has come</em>. </span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">MARK COLVIN: The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ending Samantha Hawley's report. </div><div></div><div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/australia-prime-minister-kevin-rudds.html">http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/australia-prime-minister-kevin-rudds.html</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Science, Policy, Politics and Occasionally Some Other Stuff</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>Nov. 6, 2009</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx15yk1rPnQ6YSuJ2Rd5AiOwANn5N4W5l5YaxEYs6b5cj_WdFRZgcoULegMVus03bwiTtNEbf6Kt3T6CvJ4su5M9CCM2291cfnK9N_GFEKtkmnJDNRsX7HfLbD9lrkmocHgjsxDJnUxd6B/s1600-h/elmer+j+fudd+-+1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401787665948064226" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 118px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 180px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx15yk1rPnQ6YSuJ2Rd5AiOwANn5N4W5l5YaxEYs6b5cj_WdFRZgcoULegMVus03bwiTtNEbf6Kt3T6CvJ4su5M9CCM2291cfnK9N_GFEKtkmnJDNRsX7HfLbD9lrkmocHgjsxDJnUxd6B/s400/elmer+j+fudd+-+1.jpg" border="0" /></a>In <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd</span></strong> has given the most chilling speech (<a href="http://www.lowyinstitute.org/PublicationPop.asp?pid=1167">PDF here</a>) with respect to open policy debate that I have ever heard from a leader of a democratic country. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The focus of his speech is on "climate change deniers." Who are these people? They include people who are skeptical of climate change science, but remarkably, they also include people who believe that climate change is real and a problem, but disagree with the Prime Minister's preferred policy approach.</span></strong> </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Rudd states that "climate change deniers" fall into one of three categories:</strong></span></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><em>· <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>First, the climate science deniers</strong></span>.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify"><em>· <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action.</strong></span></em></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:100%;color:#000000;">·</span> Third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first</strong></span>.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">He says of these groups:</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em>As we approach the Copenhagen</em> <em>conference these groups of climate change deniers face a moment of truth, and the truth is this: we will need to work much harder to reach an agreement in Copenhagen because these advocates of inaction are holding back domestic commitments, and are in turn holding back global commitments on climate change.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Rudd uses extremely strong terms to characterize those who disagree with his policy prescriptions:</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Climate change deniers are small in number, but they are too dangerous to be ignored.</strong></span> They are well resourced and well represented by political conservatives in many, many countries.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>And the danger they pose is this by collapsing political momentum towards national and global action on climate change, they collapse global political will to act at all. They are the stick that gets stuck in the wheel, that despite its size may yet bring the train to a complete stop.</strong></span></em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em>And that is what they want, because they are driven by a narrowly defined self interest of the present and are utterly contemptuous towards our children's interest in the future.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em>This brigade of do nothing climate change skeptics are dangerous because if they succeed, then it is all of us who will suffer. Our children. And our grandchildren.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Rudd explains why it is that the Copenhagen meeting may fail:</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em>If Copenhagen does not deliver the outcome we so urgently need, no</em> <em>individual climate change skeptic will be responsible, but each of them will have played their part.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Rudd explains that there is no place in government for people holding these views</strong></span>, a position seemingly reinforced this week when the CSIRO stands accused of censoring a paper critical of the Australian ETS:</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Climate change skeptics</strong></span> in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives. They <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>are radicals.</strong></span></em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em>They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence.</em></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The logic of these skeptics belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government.</strong></span></em></div><em></em><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify">Can witch trials and pogroms be far behind? What bothers me about the speech is not so much the criticism of people who reject mainstream science. Fine, criticism of them as rolling the dice on a minority view is fair and appropriate. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">What bothers me is the explicit equation of people who question a policy's effectiveness or desirability with the idea of being a "denier" and thus being "dangerous." Rudd is openly conflating views on science with views on politics. Not only does this further the politicization of science, but it also make a mockery of democratic governance. </span></strong>Imagine if George W. Bush had given this same speech in 2003 but about people who deny the merits of his desired policy of going to war in Iraq. There would have been national and international outrage, and rightfully so.</div><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify">Rudd may be trying to set the stage for domestic failure of the CPRS and more generally that in Copenhagen. But he is doing so in a way that stomps on the notion of democracy and the fact that people have different values and perspectives that can only be reconciled through the democratic process. An observer at the Lowy Institute (where the speech was given) <a href="http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/11/06/Lowy-speech-Rudd-attacks.aspx">said afterward</a> (emphasis added):<br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify"><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The implication was that these descriptions applied to anyone who opposed the Government's climate change agenda — the PM seemed to admit of no possibility that anyone of good will could be opposed to that agenda.</strong></span></em></div><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify">That is a pretty good description of the climate debate. Demonizing one's opponents and calling their views "dangerous" is a first step down a path we don't want to go. </div><div></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.psupress.psu.edu/books/titles/978-0-271-03581-9.html">http://www.psupress.psu.edu/books/titles/978-0-271-03581-9.html</a></div><div></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCSGKFsoh3uwPGZmwXc7yRV408BycoNUBXFQ2yao3nBDq47hytgjISXAe61lTYny2NEoVRS4VNkyCN_ID0hxtxP-ug5e66kZIwDgqQBeI_x3ifWhOWIdDf36sdF79xeCdzW39ImH5oJbuP/s1600-h/the+new+holy+wars+-+economic+religion+vs+environmental+religion.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401771169122364050" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCSGKFsoh3uwPGZmwXc7yRV408BycoNUBXFQ2yao3nBDq47hytgjISXAe61lTYny2NEoVRS4VNkyCN_ID0hxtxP-ug5e66kZIwDgqQBeI_x3ifWhOWIdDf36sdF79xeCdzW39ImH5oJbuP/s400/the+new+holy+wars+-+economic+religion+vs+environmental+religion.jpg" border="0" /></a>The New Holy Wars: Economic Religion Versus Environmental Religion in Contemporary America<br /></div></span></strong><div><br /></div><div>By Robert H. Nelson<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Penn State Univ. Press</div><div><br /></div><div>416 pages 6.125 x 9.25 <strong>2010<br /></strong></div><div><br /></div><div>ISBN 978-0-271-03581-9 cloth: $39.95 tr</div><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">“Nelson makes an overwhelmingly persuasive case that in our times the leading secular religion was once economics and is now <span style="color:#33ff33;">environmentalism</span></span></strong>. . . . Out of that utterly original idea for scholarly crossovers—good Lord, an economist reading environmentalism and even economics itself as theology!—come scores of true and striking conclusions. . . . It’s a brilliant book, which anyone who cares about the economy or the environment or religion needs to read. That’s most of us.”—<em>Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago</em> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />“Nelson compellingly argues that religion is a powerful force in economic and social life, . . . even if that fact is seldom recognized by most academics and policy makers. The dominant religious influences are secularized versions of Catholicism and Protestantism, not because the leading scholars are piously trying to advance their faith by other means, but because their intellectual horizons have been shaped by worldviews that have framed their consciousness. He convinces me that unless these presuppositions are acknowledged, examined, broadened, and revised, the economic and ecological crises that the world now faces will not be understood or met at their deeper levels.”—<em>Max L. Stackhouse, Princeton Theological Seminary</em> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />“<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Robert Nelson argues that environmentalism is a religion</span></strong>. . . . This provocative thesis raises hard and embarrassing questions about the bases of environmentalism that every serious student of the subject must confront.”—<em>Dan Tarlock, Director of the Program in Environmental and Energy Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law</em> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />"Anyone who wants to understand twenty-first century politics should begin with The New Holy Wars, which makes clear the fundamental conflict between how economists and environmentalists see the world.”—<em>Andrew P. Morriss, H. Ross and Helen Workman Professor of Law and Business, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign</em> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The present debate raging over global warming exemplifies the clash between two competing public theologies. On one side, environmentalists warn of certain catastrophe if we do not take steps now to reduce the release of greenhouse gases; on the other side, economists are concerned with whether the benefits of actions to prevent higher temperatures will be worth the high costs.</span></strong> Questions of the true and proper relationship of human beings and nature are as old as religion. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Today, environmentalists regard human actions to warm the climate as an immoral challenge to the natural order, while economists seek to put all of nature to maximum use for economic growth and other human benefits</span></strong>.</div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Robert Nelson interprets such contemporary struggles as battles between the competing secularized religions of economics and environmentalism.</span></strong> The outcome will have momentous consequences for us all. This deep book probes beneath the surface of the two movements rhetoric to uncover their fundamental theological commitments and visions.</div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><em>Robert H. Nelson is a professor at the School of Public Policy of the University of Maryland and a Senior Fellow of The Independent Institute. Among his previous books is Economics as Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond (Penn State, 2001).</em></div><div></div><div align="justify"><em>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></div><div></div><div><a style="COLOR: #00c; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P01083">http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P01083</a><a href="http://undpress.nd.edu/books/L/2"></a></div><div></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqXHi4xqK8KbX2WkI7wJR5HHAn4OnxgDrChbe_LlfHtv6V3qvmW2DrfUOL0SMBZnysqUiSOvxUK0bE6PMY6rtcNT-VG0smtlWcmHfv7tEp4q-wYu72m4xU_AdAQYe_042fFGP0vefUq8R3/s1600-h/Religion+and+the+Newe+Ecology.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401773578077220674" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 238px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 357px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqXHi4xqK8KbX2WkI7wJR5HHAn4OnxgDrChbe_LlfHtv6V3qvmW2DrfUOL0SMBZnysqUiSOvxUK0bE6PMY6rtcNT-VG0smtlWcmHfv7tEp4q-wYu72m4xU_AdAQYe_042fFGP0vefUq8R3/s400/Religion+and+the+Newe+Ecology.png" border="0" /></a>Religion and the New Ecology: Environmental Responsibility in a World in Flux</span></strong></div><div></div><div><br />Edited by David M. Lodge and Christopher Hamlin</div><div>Foreword by Peter H. Raven<br /></div><div></div><div>Univ. of Notre Dame Press (c) 2006</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong>“Ecology has experienced a major paradigm shift over the last half of the twentieth century. This shift requires major rethinking of the relation of religion and environmental ethics to ecology because our scientific understanding of the nature side of that relationship has changed.</strong> This book is the first, to my knowledge, that is meeting this challenge head on, and it is doing so in an exemplary way.” —<em>J. Baird Callicott, University of North Texas</em></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />“Everything on Earth is becoming unbalanced—escalating populations and consumption, global warming, extinction, troubling ecosystems that by nature are fluxing, evolving, often disturbed, even chaotic. What can and ought we conserve, preserve, sustain on this planet in jeopardy? Here science and religion join in urgent dialogue, a seminal search for answers as we face an open future, with promise and peril.” —<em>Holmes Rolston, III, Colorado State University</em></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />For many years, ecologists and the environmentalists who looked to ecology for authority depicted a dichotomy between a pristine, stable nature and disruptive human activity. <strong>Most contemporary ecologists, however, conceive of nature as undergoing continual change and find that “flux of nature” is a more accurate and fruitful metaphor than “balance of nature.”</strong></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong>The contributors to this volume address how this new paradigm fits into the broader history of ecological science and the cultural history of the West and, in particular, how environmental ethics and ecotheology should respond to it.</strong> Their discussions ask us to reconsider the intellectual foundations on which theories of human responsibility to nature are built. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The provisional answer that develops throughout the book is to reintegrate scientific understanding of nature and human values, two realms of thought severed by intellectual and cultural forces during the last two centuries.<br /></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">DAVID M. LODGE is professor of biological sciences at the University of Notre Dame. </div><div align="justify">CHRISTOPHER HAMLIN is professor of history at the University of Notre Dame.</div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />CONTRIBUTORS: David M. Lodge, Christopher Hamlin, Elspeth Whitney, Mark Stoll, Eugene Cittadino, Kyle S. Van Houtan, Stuart L. Pimm, Gary E. Belovsky, Peter S. White, Patricia A. Fleming, John F. Haught, and Larry Rasmussen.</div><div></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Reviews</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify">“The book reflects the conviction that we must establish significant coherence between our historical, scientific, and religious understandings of nature if we are to effectively address current and emerging environmental problems . . . The editors effectively frame the overarching problems and the essays are serious, although still accessible to readers from various backgrounds.” — <em>The Quarterly Review of Biology</em></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />“Christians in environmental studies can use this book as an additional source of opinions on moral and ethical questions.” — <em>Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith</em></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />“. . . <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">[T]he authors firmly believe that religion has much to offer to modern environmentalism. They pragmatically argue that we need to engage with American Christians specifically</span></strong>, simply because of their prominence. More important, the authors genuinely believe that Christianity has the potential to contribute to a renewed environmental ethic; they unanimously dismiss Lynn White’s infamous thesis that Chirstianity is essentially the cause of ecological degredation.” — <em>BioScience</em></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />“Contributors to this volume address the question of how the new paradigm of continual change in ecology (‘flux in nature’) fits into the broader history of ecological science and the cultural history of the West, and, in particular, how environmental ethics and eco-theology should respond.” — <em>Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment</em></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-17871139318914622172009-10-02T08:27:00.020-04:002009-10-03T09:56:07.014-04:00European Centrists Are Socialist Wolves in Conservative Sheeps' Clothing - Are We Americans All Socialists Now?<div align="justify"><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6d8bdc0-af89-11de-ba1c-00144feabdc0.html">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6d8bdc0-af89-11de-ba1c-00144feabdc0.html</a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCP3d5E3TidoJHq_1NApIW6TFoLeTsCYbyjDHcNW3V1EG2QOXiv3KF9HQMadmLtPKtRPVFWEEFNkU05Idyq9M0EQWTFfTgNgj3pEAfgEv4VRBgWNTsmVs8l5xdCq5FlLVzhYrOingI3EsN/s1600-h/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+VII.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5388369437944630002" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 425px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 361px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCP3d5E3TidoJHq_1NApIW6TFoLeTsCYbyjDHcNW3V1EG2QOXiv3KF9HQMadmLtPKtRPVFWEEFNkU05Idyq9M0EQWTFfTgNgj3pEAfgEv4VRBgWNTsmVs8l5xdCq5FlLVzhYrOingI3EsN/s400/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+VII.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Europe’s centre-left suffers in the squeezed middle</span></strong><br /><br /><br />By John Lloyd<br /><br /><br />Financial Times<br /><br /><br />October 3, 2009<br /><br /></div><div align="justify">September was the cruellest month for Europe’s centre-left. The greatest bloodbath came a week ago, when the Social Democratic party – Germany’s oldest, the foundation stone of social democracy across the continent – garnered less than a quarter of votes cast. Britain’s Labour party, whose polls are little better than the SPD’s result, put on a creditable show at its annual conference. But Gordon Brown’s generally well-received speech was instantly undercut by The Sun newspaper, which ended a 12-year policy of New Labour support with a front page proclaiming: “Labour’s lost it.” </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><br />In Italy, the continuing weakness of the left was exacerbated by a book published this past week – La Svolta (the turning point) – in which Francesco Rutelli, a former leader of the left in the 2001 parliamentary elections and co-founder of the Democratic party, the main left group, flatly states that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">“if the party turns to the left, it’s finished”.</span></strong> In a talk in Rome last week, Mr Rutelli told me he thought such a turn was overwhelmingly likely. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">In France, the Socialist party remains transfixed by the feud between its former leader, Ségolène Royal, and the woman who narrowly secured a fiercely disputed succession, Martine Aubry, the mayor of Lille. The latter has sought a working truce with her rival; but, as the commentator Michel Noblecourt wrote in Le Monde, this “will be tainted with distrust, each doubting the legitimacy of the other and staying on guard”.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">The irony – that the left fails together with the banks – has been much noted, but may be less of a contradiction than is apparent. In different ways, European social democracy was pro-market and pro-globalisation – especially New Labour, which in Tony Blair’s early years in power was both leader and exemplar. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Liberal social reforms, a lesser role for trade unions and, above all, mass immigration were all part of centre-left politics and were broadly acceptable to the mass of the people so long as living standards rose and public services improved</span></strong>. Now, that implicit deal is threatened. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong></strong></span> </div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>In this situation, it is not only the right that exults. The left, within these mainstream parties and outside, now sees a chance</strong></span>. The times are propitious: those charged with writing a manifesto for a party such as Die Linke (The Left, founded by Oskar Lafontaine, the renegade former SPD finance minister whose vote increased last week) would have a pleasant task. <strong>The widely mooted collapse of capitalism; rapidly rising unemployment; the determined resumption of the habits of greed by bankers and others able to skim off fresh supplies of cream; the present or coming cuts in public services and pay; the continuing human cost and fiscal drain of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan</strong> – <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">these are a rich menu on which to make a meal of a centre-left that did well out of a successful capitalism’s surplus and now struggles in its decline</span></em></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">John Harris, the left-Labour commentator, encapsulated his position’s scorn for New Labour in the current issue of Prospect magazine, describing its policies as “a mishmash of beliefs that only entrenched the changes wrought by Margaret Thatcher”.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">It will be no balm to centre-left leaders to observe that they are victims of the success of many of their central projects – in particular, the maintenance of generous welfare states. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">No governing party of the right in Europe, from Sweden to Italy</span>, has sought radically to reduce taxes or make cuts to big social programmes; and though the latter may increasingly be the order of the day as the cost of anti-recessionary measures must be paid, the centre-left governments of Britain and Spain are as much implicated in this as the right. </span></em></strong></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Further, <em>the right steals leftist clothes:</em> an anti-elitist populism in <span style="color:#3333ff;">Italy</span>; a co-option of admired figures of the left into government in <span style="color:#3333ff;">France</span>; and in <span style="color:#3333ff;">Britain</span>, a resurgent Conservative party rails against Labour’s “top down” and “bureaucratic” reforms and talks of helping communities to help themselves. In ground long scorched for Conservatives – the constituency of <span style="color:#3333ff;">Glasgow</span> Central – the Tory candidate John Bradley brought in young Conservative students to work with local residents to clean up the Strathbungo area of the constituency. Mr Bradley claimed, on the website Conservative Home, that “bringing in local communities, and seeing their delight at what all of us have achieved at the end of a day’s work, is simply magnificent.”</strong></span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">The great causes</span> – race, women’s and homosexual equality, community involvement, the spread of democratic practice – which had been significantly dominated by the left, <span style="color:#ff0000;">are now largely uncontroversial on the western European right</span></span></em></strong>, except on its fringes and in parts of Italy’s governing coalition. The very success of decades of struggle render archaic the feminist rhetoric of Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy leader, and has caused a debilitating split in Britain’s Equality Commission between those who, like Ms Harman, believe the struggle must continue and those who seek a targeted, post-equality agenda.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><br />Neither success nor failure are permanent in politics; and in the gross inequalities of contemporary market societies, the centre-left may – as Mr Brown sought to do with his appeal to the “squeezed middle” of British society – recover a cause. But a remedy will be harder. For now, their party is over.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvDIxbK4eUiaGgCdZoX2hmpEapZXvefVCap8nctwV7ZvgG6wxvhIKnHI_UWYri5rDhsOvfgmM84xAAuAYfd5S_vWiyqw9g7Ua0oDWnlZ0SxgK3-Yf3BoeyBwWbKDodIWXBjL2M25Twlfzg/s1600-h/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+VI.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387987692142542242" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 253px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 334px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvDIxbK4eUiaGgCdZoX2hmpEapZXvefVCap8nctwV7ZvgG6wxvhIKnHI_UWYri5rDhsOvfgmM84xAAuAYfd5S_vWiyqw9g7Ua0oDWnlZ0SxgK3-Yf3BoeyBwWbKDodIWXBjL2M25Twlfzg/s400/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+VI.jpg" border="0" /></a>Europe’s Socialists Suffering Even in Downturn</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />By STEVEN ERLANGER<br /><br /><br /><br />New York Times<br /><br /><br /><br />September 28, 2009<br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">PARIS — A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of Socialism’s slow collapse.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Even in the midst of one of the greatest challenges to capitalism in 75 years, involving a breakdown of the financial system due to “irrational exuberance,” greed and the weakness of regulatory systems, European Socialist parties and their left-wing cousins have not found a compelling response, let alone taken advantage of the right’s failures. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><br />German voters clobbered the Social Democratic Party on Sunday, giving it only 23 percent of the vote, its worst performance since World War II. </div><br /><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><br />Voters also punished left-leaning candidates in the summer’s <a title="European election results" href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/archive/elections2009/en/new_parliament_en.html"><a title="More articles about European Parliament" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/european_parliament/index.html?inline=nyt-org">European Parliament</a> elections</a> and trounced French Socialists in 2007. Where the left holds power, as in Spain and Britain, it is under attack. Where it is out, as in <a title="More news and information about France." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/france/index.html?inline=nyt-geo">France</a>, Italy and now <a title="More news and information about Germany." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/germany/index.html?inline=nyt-geo">Germany</a>, it is divided and listless.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKsXuxbEX05h3jdzyU74vTb0D0J4kP-GVZ504qVqh5iVBpAF2k0PHO6232jGJAs6CUjB9Utv51Vn3He_kIVbk20krKYVomwRR8q_CDCLMb1p7G-ccMLIgjRjkr3ZeRIPzH9-PnChJIg8Cw/s1600-h/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+II.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387979693555728722" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 195px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKsXuxbEX05h3jdzyU74vTb0D0J4kP-GVZ504qVqh5iVBpAF2k0PHO6232jGJAs6CUjB9Utv51Vn3He_kIVbk20krKYVomwRR8q_CDCLMb1p7G-ccMLIgjRjkr3ZeRIPzH9-PnChJIg8Cw/s320/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+II.jpg" border="0" /></a></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Some American conservatives demonize <a title="More articles about Barack Obama." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per">President Obama</a>’s fiscal stimulus and health care overhaul as a dangerous turn toward <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>European-style Socialism</strong></span> — but <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#000099;">it is Europe’s right, not left, that is setting its political agenda.</span> </span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#000099;">Europe’s center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the </span></span></strong><a title="More articles about the European Union." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/european_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">European Union</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">. </span></strong>But <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><em>they have won votes by promising to deliver more efficiently than the left</em></span></strong>, while working to lower taxes, improve <a title="More articles about financial regulatory reform." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/financial_regulatory_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">financial regulation</a>, and grapple with aging populations. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#000099;">Europe’s conservatives</span>, says Michel Winock, a historian at the Paris Institut d’Études Politiques, “have adapted themselves to modernity.”</strong></span> </div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgluIeEHesj_IusynXfBxw266XMMRGvtEKLGFbPrGTmHJF5koQ2lT_eSf6-Nb2uVZOXigzz7gZFfVnFG4r_h2SObhogSsYhmi0rUyiKUuti7EA9ERI9DeujXV9IdmbsRPVlWEYU3pATZI-8/s1600-h/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+I.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387979234824888354" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 271px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 208px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgluIeEHesj_IusynXfBxw266XMMRGvtEKLGFbPrGTmHJF5koQ2lT_eSf6-Nb2uVZOXigzz7gZFfVnFG4r_h2SObhogSsYhmi0rUyiKUuti7EA9ERI9DeujXV9IdmbsRPVlWEYU3pATZI-8/s320/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+I.jpg" border="0" /></a>When </span></strong><a title="More articles about Nicolas Sarkozy" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/nicolas_sarkozy/index.html?inline=nyt-per"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Nicolas Sarkozy</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> of <span style="color:#3333ff;">France </span>and <span style="color:#cc0000;">Germany’s </span></span></strong><a title="More articles about Angela Merkel." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/angela_merkel/index.html?inline=nyt-per"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Angela Merkel</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> condemn the excesses of the “Anglo-Saxon model” of capitalism while praising the protective power of the state, <span style="color:#ff0000;">they are using Socialist ideas that have become mainstream</span>, he said.</span></strong> </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihIhYOJPfEIv_wRTbngSHWAa7Rbe_tENXxSjteHETZt-GAxYpoLY0n4heuOHEVHtuIZ3XfVkM-25DRZBR-zUvw_ZrTK_v0azf0JhSDVHCM7z44MqA_SBqh-GYhEvLup5IUThN6Xqxryl43/s1600-h/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+V+-+Barack+the+Plumber.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387983904117023394" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 308px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihIhYOJPfEIv_wRTbngSHWAa7Rbe_tENXxSjteHETZt-GAxYpoLY0n4heuOHEVHtuIZ3XfVkM-25DRZBR-zUvw_ZrTK_v0azf0JhSDVHCM7z44MqA_SBqh-GYhEvLup5IUThN6Xqxryl43/s400/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+V+-+Barack+the+Plumber.jpg" border="0" /></a>It is not that <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><em>the left</em></strong></span> is irrelevant — it <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">often represents the only viable opposition to established governments, and so benefits, as in the <span style="color:#3333ff;">United States</span>, from the normal cycle of electoral politics. </span></strong></em></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />In <strong>Portugal</strong>, the governing Socialists won re-election on Sunday, but lost an absolute parliamentary majority. In <strong>Spain</strong>, the Socialists still get credit for opposing both Franco and the Iraq war. In <strong>Germany</strong>, the broad left, including the Greens, has a structural majority in Parliament, but the Social Democrats, in postelection crisis, must contemplate allying with the hard left, Die Linke, which has roots in the old East German Communist Party. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />Part of the problem is the “wall in the head” between East and West Germans. While the Christian Democrats moved smoothly eastward, the Social Democrats of the West never joined with the Communists. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#cc0000;">“The two Germanys</span>, <span style="color:#ff6600;">one Socialist</span>, <span style="color:#ff0000;">one Communist</span> — two souls — never really merged,” said Giovanni Sartori, a professor emeritus at Columbia University.</span></strong> “It explains why the S.P.D., which was always the major Socialist party in Europe, cannot really coalesce.”</div><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The situation in France is even <span style="color:#ff0000;">worse for the left</span></span></strong>.</span> Asked this summer if the party was dying, Bernard-Henri Lévy, an emblematic Socialist, answered: “No — it is already dead. No one, or nearly no one, dares to say it. But everyone, or nearly everyone, knows it.” While he was accused of exaggerating, given that the party is the largest in opposition and remains popular in local government, his words struck home.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />The <a title="French Socialist Party Web site" href="http://larochelle2009.parti-socialiste.fr/">Socialist Party</a>, with a long revolutionary tradition and weakening ties to a diminishing working class, is riven by personal rivalries. The party last won the presidency in 1988, and in 2007, <a title="More articles about Ségolène Royal." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/segolene_royal/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Ségolène Royal</a> lost the presidency to Mr. Sarkozy by <a title="French presidential election results" href="http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/dossiers/election-presidentielle-2007/resultats-scrutin.shtml">6.1 percent</a>, a large margin.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />With a reputation for flakiness, Ms. Royal narrowly lost the party leadership election last year to a more doctrinaire Socialist, Martine Aubry, by 102 votes out of 135,000. The ensuing allegations of fraud further chilled their relations. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">While Ms. Royal would like to move the Socialists <span style="color:#000099;">to the center</span></span></strong> and explore a more formal coalition with the Greens and the Democratic Movement of François Bayrou, Ms. Aubry fears diluting the party. She is both famous and infamous for achieving the 35-hour workweek in the last Socialist government.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />The <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">French</span> Socialist Party</strong></span> “is trapped in a hopeless contradiction,” said <a title="His biography" href="http://remarque.as.nyu.edu/object/tony.judt">Tony Judt</a>, director of the <a title="The institute’s Web site" href="http://remarque.as.nyu.edu/page/home">Remarque Institute</a> at <a title="More articles about New York University." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org">New York University</a>. It espouses a radical platform it cannot deliver; the result leaves space for parties to its left that can take as much as 15 percent of the vote. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><em>The party</em></span></strong>, at its <a title="The retreat’s Web site" href="http://larochelle2009.parti-socialiste.fr/">summer retreat</a> last month at La Rochelle, a coastal resort, <em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>still talked of “comrades” and “party militants.”</strong></span></em> Its seminars included “Internationalism at Globalized Capitalism’s Hour of Crisis.” </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />But its infighting has drawn ridicule. Mr. Sarkozy told his party this month that he sent “a big thank-you” to Ms. Royal, “who is helping me a lot,” and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a prominent European Green politician, said “everyone has cheated” in the Socialist Party and accused Ms. Royal of acting like “an outraged young girl.”</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0zivndnWzyZmFSlKS6VqDxaf8R8fs-G6evDUa3WFhyphenhyphenOMGB2gzlZdKLXcmYqa4A9OcMVo1YAUZBo-dPwadBfBWC1dJDjoA6g0MEs0u36s9zTaUbuTvTPCoqIUoef6l3GyjEKfAorAiHO48/s1600-h/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+III.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387979783931624082" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 232px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 205px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0zivndnWzyZmFSlKS6VqDxaf8R8fs-G6evDUa3WFhyphenhyphenOMGB2gzlZdKLXcmYqa4A9OcMVo1YAUZBo-dPwadBfBWC1dJDjoA6g0MEs0u36s9zTaUbuTvTPCoqIUoef6l3GyjEKfAorAiHO48/s320/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+III.jpg" border="0" /></a>The internecine squabbling in <strong>France</strong> and elsewhere has done little to position Socialist parties to answer the question of the moment: how to preserve the welfare state amid slower growth and rising deficits. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The Socialists have, in this contest, become conservatives, fighting to preserve systems that voters think need to be improved, though not abandoned.</span></strong><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />“The Socialists can’t adapt to the loss of their basic electorate, and <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">with globalism, the welfare state can no longer exist in the same way</span></em></strong>,” Professor Sartori said.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Enrico Letta, 43, is one of the hopes of <a title="Italy’s Democratic Party of the left" href="http://www.partitodemocratico.it/"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Italy’s left</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">,</span></strong> currently in disarray in the face of Silvio Berlusconi’s nationalist populism. “We have to understand that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Socialism is an answer of the last century,” Mr. Letta said. “We need to build a center-left that is pragmatic</span></strong>, that provides an attractive alternative, and not just an opposition.”<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Mr. Letta argues that <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Socialist policies will have to be transmuted into a more fluid form to allow an alliance with center, liberal and green parties that won’t be called “Socialist.”</strong></span> </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Mr. Winock, the historian, said, “I think the left and Socialism in Europe still have work to do; they have a raison d’être, and they will have to rely more on environment issues.” Combined with continuing efforts to reduce income disparity, he said, “going green” may give the left more life.</div><div align="justify"><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimPoQiIw_jh74J7LMr-O4nbwjJRpeNZhXl_Y5fJA0lYp85qj140VvgCzylOOqRMoYEdyhobKqqE57oN_e5xzx8lGUgrdDlyl3hwKDSIcInq_AlHFTNFVjxExSXq88Uh9PuSm6Xrzo6pl87/s1600-h/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+IV+-+ObamaSocialistCartoon-MichaelR.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387983607393987330" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 271px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimPoQiIw_jh74J7LMr-O4nbwjJRpeNZhXl_Y5fJA0lYp85qj140VvgCzylOOqRMoYEdyhobKqqE57oN_e5xzx8lGUgrdDlyl3hwKDSIcInq_AlHFTNFVjxExSXq88Uh9PuSm6Xrzo6pl87/s400/wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing+IV+-+ObamaSocialistCartoon-MichaelR.jpg" border="0" /></a></div><div align="justify">Mr. Judt argues that <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>European Socialists need a new message — how to reform capitalism</strong></span>, “recognizing the centrality of economic interest while displacing it from its throne as the only way of talking about politics.”<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#000099;">European</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">Socialists</span></span><span style="color:#ff0000;"> </span>need “to think a lot harder about what the state can and can’t do in the 21st century</strong>,” he said.<br /></div><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Not an easy syllabus. But without that kind of reform, Mr. Judt said, “I don’t think <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Socialism </span></strong>in Europe has a future; and given that it <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">is a core constitutive part of the European democratic consensus</span></strong>, that’s bad news.”</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-72175961636245596402009-07-25T11:13:00.064-04:002009-07-27T16:34:22.872-04:00Obama's Mea Culpa Madness: Both Ineffective & Unsupported by the Majority of Americans<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/22/climate-change-global-warming-carbon-emission-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html">http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/22/climate-change-global-w</a><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/22/climate-change-global-warming-carbon-emission-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html">arming-carbon-emission-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html</a><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Stop The Apologizing</span><br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt3sBFChPAMVV2bcV_2wo4fuRsj5NGKGRargGDklKZPVXBEju_ptp1bltmBHCYNE_lRMj2p1goWpWwUQcVVLpRVwm0iw7aZywy0IgPV2jNja103dgnlSaUseqgfQSZxvRTWUkjfxrvVakt/s1600-h/mea_culpa+III.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 193px; height: 250px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt3sBFChPAMVV2bcV_2wo4fuRsj5NGKGRargGDklKZPVXBEju_ptp1bltmBHCYNE_lRMj2p1goWpWwUQcVVLpRVwm0iw7aZywy0IgPV2jNja103dgnlSaUseqgfQSZxvRTWUkjfxrvVakt/s200/mea_culpa+III.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362424455908980722" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFjlB1nFmdYRkw_miGmh5ZZ36L5vSe1TPer1dHIappzY9OiLWEtGEmcqFzI7IxN5JKIIGCUSzG5isX6SGktqvXm0uAD68NKKt99LUDGQQ0SXdXd_oIioieXxIo02xDxjbOO1-yYtdWV0_w/s1600-h/mea+culpa+II.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 175px; height: 254px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFjlB1nFmdYRkw_miGmh5ZZ36L5vSe1TPer1dHIappzY9OiLWEtGEmcqFzI7IxN5JKIIGCUSzG5isX6SGktqvXm0uAD68NKKt99LUDGQQ0SXdXd_oIioieXxIo02xDxjbOO1-yYtdWV0_w/s200/mea+culpa+II.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362424391847987890" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">By Claudia Rosett</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Fo</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">rbes.com</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">July 23, 2009</span><br /><br /><br /><h2 style="text-align: justify;" class="storyDek">Hillary Clinton shouldn't blame the U.S. for climate concerns.</h2><br /><br /><p style="text-align: justify; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">In a year t</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">hat has not lacked for <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:180%;" >absurd</span></span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:180%;" > moments</span>, one of the most bizarre just </span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">passed almos</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">t unnoticed. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">That would be th</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">e spectacle of the U.S. secretary of state apologizing to India for the climate of the p</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">lanet.</span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Hillary Clinton was speaking in Mumbai, making remarks last Saturday at the Taj Mahal hotel--which was one of the sites hit last November by Islamic radicals from Pakistan. During a three-day rampage, wielding AK-47s, pistols and grenades, they terrorized the city, killing more than 160 people and wounding more than 300, at locations including another hotel, the train station, a hospital and a Jewish community center.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">For Clinton to speak at the Taj was a potent reminder of the very real and urgent concerns of our time, which Clinton talked about under the label of "violent extremism." This formulation has become standard American diplo-speak, in which there are no specific actors, just generic forces of "extremism" and "violence."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: justify;" class="storyDek"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAo6W-ewYx34boAJCJ7jIIhqReCZYV9NRYKBqHn3vV2LF-yWH3LyTSIlNo4oiY5QHn5LIKcYcK5l8BwABzLhIbVUyB291rrYKHKwOKjhm0TqCmVd2e-w-Wcpwu2hbHF-NBKwQRC1ymmQ_5/s1600-h/mea+culpa+VII.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 338px; height: 338px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAo6W-ewYx34boAJCJ7jIIhqReCZYV9NRYKBqHn3vV2LF-yWH3LyTSIlNo4oiY5QHn5LIKcYcK5l8BwABzLhIbVUyB291rrYKHKwOKjhm0TqCmVd2e-w-Wcpwu2hbHF-NBKwQRC1ymmQ_5/s200/mea+culpa+VII.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362424774264812786" border="0" /></a></h2> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;">But at the same press conference, <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">when asked about "climate change," </span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Clinton in assigning </span></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">blame for t</span></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">he woes of mankind did not hesitate to name names--or at least one name: the United States. She said: </span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">"Our point is very simple: that we acknowledge, now with President Obama, that we have made mistakes--the United States--and we, along with other developed co</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">untries, have contributed most significantly to the problems that we face with climate change."</span></span></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Such U.S. breast-beating, of which there has been plenty in recent times, may start to sound like mere ritual; a sort of diplomatic throat-clearing. In the six months since taking office, <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Ba</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">rack Obama has made a habit of offering apologies abroad</span></span>--in places such as Istanbul, Cairo and Moscow--for the "mistakes" and "flaws" of the United States.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6IlONP2dVrUjOvQhZ2TeBvUoQNWzUGd4lIzrSU31Ecz9-ZpvnNiYrXV08hYCpykd-eC1ofyyiA2X1qqJxwb1B2kftyS3q2eSNE1nugOdKTSSN92BxEwqaZuJf6WHxBVFHe2-jCtJxzW7r/s1600-h/mea+culpa+xvii.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 420px; height: 277px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6IlONP2dVrUjOvQhZ2TeBvUoQNWzUGd4lIzrSU31Ecz9-ZpvnNiYrXV08hYCpykd-eC1ofyyiA2X1qqJxwb1B2kftyS3q2eSNE1nugOdKTSSN92BxEwqaZuJf6WHxBVFHe2-jCtJxzW7r/s400/mea+culpa+xvii.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362858559587067042" border="0" /></a></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Even speaking from the American Cemetery in Normandy, at commemorations last month of</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> the 65th anniversary of the World War II Allied campaign to liberate [OLD] Europe, Obama threw in a note abou</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">t the "mistakes" of the liberators.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;">But <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">there are real consequences and vast costs riding on some of this self-blame</span></span>, not least the idea that <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">America now owes apologies and compensation to the rest of the world for changes in the wea</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">ther. [???] </span></span>At the crux of this is a fixation on limiting carbon emissions. America is a big per-capita emitter. And low emission has become a new measure of virtue, propagated for years now by the ever-expanding climate bureaucracy of the United Nations and currently embraced by much of official Washington.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWW9zH2GCofdLYddamynKKzglEFotdZoEOZO3VOuJsBFytuX7XlB8v0yrI5h6ZKe89SKaW-AqwbS5iLu7lBm2FHW2GbEM4tkfj1FYH1mLBn6GTTqxAaoeZXPrezMNgdcW2UMZFkDWVqCGf/s1600-h/mea+culpa+IV.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 234px; height: 205px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWW9zH2GCofdLYddamynKKzglEFotdZoEOZO3VOuJsBFytuX7XlB8v0yrI5h6ZKe89SKaW-AqwbS5iLu7lBm2FHW2GbEM4tkfj1FYH1mLBn6GTTqxAaoeZXPrezMNgdcW2UMZFkDWVqCGf/s200/mea+culpa+IV.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362424536916049986" border="0" /></a></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >In a recent editorial headlined "King Canute at the G-8," </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">The</em></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" > </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Wall Street Journal</em></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:130%;"> ridiculed, with good reason, the declaration from a recent meeting of the world's major industrialized nations tha</span>t they would not permit the global average tem</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">perature of the earth to rise more than two degrees Celsius.</span></span> (The colossal costs of this ambition would be imposed in rising scale over the next four decades on many folks who are now not yet old enough to vote.)<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the U.N., in locations from Bali to Rio de Janeiro to New York, slews of conferences in recent years have been honing demands that high carbon emitters, such as the U.S., both limit their activities and pay compensation to low carbon emitters, such as Bangladesh, Bolivia or Tanzania. <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has most recently led the charge, decrying "global warming," or now, as global cooling has begun inconveniently manifesting itself, "climate change."</span></span> Ban is now campaigning for countries such as the U.S. to "seal the deal" at a United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen this December, which aims to produce a global protocol of rules and wealth transfers. <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">These would constrain and penalize Americans in </span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">servi</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">ce of U.N. dreams of controlling the climate and--yes, a la King Canute--the tides.</span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The problem with all this is not simply that <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">despite U.N. claims of "consensus" on "climate change," there is actually plenty of dissent from well-qualified scientists over what causes the climate to change, and whether carbon, or mankind, is responsible at all.</span></span> That is, in itself, a big glitch, and I find the skeptics persuasive. But even if we assume for purposes of argument that the U.N. version is correct, and global temperature and sea level can be fine-tuned to the decimal point by a vast political web of carbon regulation, <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">t</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">here is yet another aspect to all this--which U.S. apologies utterly fail to take into account.</span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:180%;">That would be the myriad ways in which human beings have been at work for millennia, and especially over the past century or two, inventing, creating, building and adapting to cope with climate and the broad forces of nature.</span></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: justify;" class="storyDek"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-LeOwgy3rbiUSaFe7FHus3ugGUV3gly7cmKn3SbSymtPn2xugb0nff_qB0SsOUqTjtNSWdbX0nDIZFlAlWsPecucJWJMb8Tn2o1WbQ2JGyAtA6KDdCgpqPO8ms-A_2lJtDCEcPdULkJ1s/s1600-h/mea+culpa+VIII.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 309px; height: 226px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-LeOwgy3rbiUSaFe7FHus3ugGUV3gly7cmKn3SbSymtPn2xugb0nff_qB0SsOUqTjtNSWdbX0nDIZFlAlWsPecucJWJMb8Tn2o1WbQ2JGyAtA6KDdCgpqPO8ms-A_2lJtDCEcPdULkJ1s/s320/mea+culpa+VIII.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362855315087823954" border="0" /></a></h2> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">A prime contributor to the success of those efforts has been the United States. </span>During those same two recent centuries, in which--not so coi</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">ncidentally <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">--America's free enterprise system has prospered</span>, the world has benefited in leaps and bounds.</span></span> <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Out of America have come such inventions as the light bulb, the internal combustion engine, the airplane, the telephone and medical progress on many fronts. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">American ingenuity, motivated by free markets, took the technology of computers from vacuum tubes to laptops</span>. And though Al Gore did not invent the Internet, America did. </span></span><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;">In many faraway places that most Americans rarely hear about and many will never visit, such U.S.-born bounty has helped illuminate the night, connect people with the world, raise productivity and living standards, and enhance health and extend lives. Nor has it been entirely inconsequential to human progress that America--with its mighty productive powers and dedication to democracy, as well as its carbon output--played a vital part in winning World War II and the Cold War. The U.S. is now on the front line of the Overseas Contingency Operation, until recently known as the Global War on Terror.</p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">If you believe that for the welfare and future of mankind, nothing matters but carbon emissions, then Ban Ki-Moon is right; and Hillary Clinton was right to apologize on behalf of America for the world's weather. </span></span><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;">Of course, that would actually make Clinton, and every other member of Obama's cabinet, a de facto Secretary of Combustion, because--remember--in this scheme, nothing matters but carbon emissions. From there, policy prescriptions unroll more naturally than apologies out of Obama's Cabinet. The U.S. can easily become the most virtuous country in the world simply by banning all human activity. There'd be no one left to apologize, but that's OK, because there'd also be nothing to apologize for.</p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In such a world, genocide would be a virtue, and poverty would be a good thing; all tending toward lower carbon emissions. Judged strictly by low carbon count, some ofthe admirable countries today, according to World Bank statistics, are Afghanistan, Albania, Laos, Myanmar, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Not coincidentally, the full roster of low emitters includes a large number of brutal dictatorships, or countries recovering from horrible misrule. In these countries, people are poor, and carbon emissions are low because individuals have (or had) no freedom to choose, to create or to pursue their dreams.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Obviously, however, Clinton and Obama do not think poverty is a good thing. Also while in India, Clinton pointed out that the G-8, of which the U.S. is a member, has just pledged another $20 billion to fight global poverty. The State Department and White House are flush with projects and programs aimed at fighting poverty.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">It seems that even in today's Washington, carbon is not the sole determinant of goodness and human well-being on earth.</span></span> Trade-offs matter. And just in case mankind, via U.N. protocols and Washington edicts, cannot succeed in transforming the planet into one vast, serene, unchanging and pleasantly cool Club Med, those trade-offs will matter a lot. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">It may well be that whatever the climate brings, for whatever reasons, the most valuable resource will be the creativity of mankind--which, carbon emissions and all, flourishes best with minimal constraints from government. America, at least until now, has been an excellent example of this, and that is a point an American secretary of State, or president, can be proud of. Political leaders could much better serve their country by repeating it clearly and often, in place of this parade of apologies for America's "mistakes."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence with the <a href="http://www.defenddemocracy.org/">Foundation for Defense of Democracies</a></em>,<em> writes a weekly <a href="http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?aname=Claudia+Rosett&author=claudia+and+rosett">column</a> on foreign affairs for Forbes.</em> </p><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamas-foreign-policy-Groveling-for-goodwill-51472962.html">http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamas-foreign-policy-Groveling-for-goodwill-51472962.html</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Obama’s foreign policy: Groveling for goodwill<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>Editorial<br /><br /><br />Washington Examiner<br /><br /><br />July 23, 2009<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><br /></span>On her recent trip to India, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton learned yet another lesson about <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">how much international goodwill President Obama has earned with his incessant apologies and submissive attitude in international affairs</span></span>. <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Clinton delivered to the Indians a ridiculous soliloquy apologizing for America's Industrial Revolution and our world-shaping technological achievements (which so often feed the hungry, cure the sick, and house the poor around the world).</span> </span>“We acknowl edge now with President Obama, that we have made mistakes – the United States – and we, along with other developed countries, have contributed most significantly to the problems that we face with climate change,” she said. “We are hoping that a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.”<div class="story_text"><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The groveling was in line with Obama’s foreign policy, both in its embarrassing nature and in its ineffectiveness. </span></span>For no amount of groveling could move Indian Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh to sacrifice his people's well-being in order to bolster the Obama administration’s self-defeating domestic program to curb global warming. “I would like to make it clear and categorical,” Ramesh declared, “India's position is that we are simply not in a position to take on legally binding emission reduction targets.”</div><div><br /><br /><p style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZPNVJcnQt5yZB8Z6ZDTeBgWDNIJxIgkUMfqiyRL3dJmHsG9F-c8O7k-AILLP9I9Xbq4rDZI0ta-DyXTVtBD2idg2h4S-u40neGgToFDFz0snPYaq-8dCxJzhynEjJwC17uFjPt9Cx9VDw/s1600-h/mea+culpa+X.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 170px; height: 244px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZPNVJcnQt5yZB8Z6ZDTeBgWDNIJxIgkUMfqiyRL3dJmHsG9F-c8O7k-AILLP9I9Xbq4rDZI0ta-DyXTVtBD2idg2h4S-u40neGgToFDFz0snPYaq-8dCxJzhynEjJwC17uFjPt9Cx9VDw/s200/mea+culpa+X.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362424994306754370" border="0" /></a></p> India's importance here cannot be overstated. I<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">f the United States follows Obama's plan to cap carbon dioxide emissions, the hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs it will lose as a result will migrate to India and other developing nations. </span></span>That will insure growing economies for p laces like India and China, even as they emit the carbon that Americans choose to forego. <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Thus, without India and other developing nations joining us in the <span style="font-size:180%;">economic self-immolation of Obama’s cap-and-trade program</span>, there will be no net reduction in carbon emissions.</span></span></div><div><br /><br /></div><div>Just in the last month, Obama has kept mostly quiet as Iranians sought freedom from the despotic mullahs who oppress them, and he has offered to trade our missile defense capabilities in return for meaningless arms reductions by the thugs running the Kremlin. And the Indian incident -- in which Obama’s Secretary of State sought India's cooperation on an economic policy certain to inflict great harm on America's economy -- appears to epitomize Obama's apparent lack of regard for legitimate U.S. security and economic interests around the world. As Obama begs for goodwill, leaders like Ramesh stand firm for their nations’ best interests. Shouldn’t Americans have a president who does the same?</div></div><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/romney-condemns-obamas-tour-of.html?wprss=thefix">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/romney-condemns-obamas-tour-of.html?wprss=thefix</a> .<br /><br /><p style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGYAhkVBSxPy7pWgGuj8ceUiXJhogMn_kT4RIXz1t8jho33mDx14x-DaIj-9SL4RIQwerE4yik1LGSkOSaIcm74V6AxN-E9Nkqv3O1FIt_wIadNDnQvVKOQcaVVvK43Yit3ElGXENtq1m3/s1600-h/mea+culpa+XII.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 310px; height: 116px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGYAhkVBSxPy7pWgGuj8ceUiXJhogMn_kT4RIXz1t8jho33mDx14x-DaIj-9SL4RIQwerE4yik1LGSkOSaIcm74V6AxN-E9Nkqv3O1FIt_wIadNDnQvVKOQcaVVvK43Yit3ElGXENtq1m3/s200/mea+culpa+XII.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362801366897972674" border="0" /></a></p> <span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Romney Condem</span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >ns Obama's 'Tour of Apology'</span><br /><br /><br />By Chris Cillizza<br /><br /><br />The Fix<br /><br /><br />Washington Post Blog<br /><br /><br />June 1, 2009<br /><br /><br /><p>Former Massachusetts governor <strong>Mitt Romney</strong> (R) roundly condemned the approach <span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" ><strong style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">President</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Obama</span></strong></span> has taken to redefining America to the world, describing it as a "<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">tour of apology"</span></span> in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation today.</p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>In an <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/01/text-of-romneys-speech-the-care-of-freedom/">address through which he sought to lay out his broad vision for national security</a> -- a $50 billion per year increase in the defense modernization budget, "regime-crippling sanctions" against North Korea, and full funding for a missile defense system -- Romney saved his harshest criticism for the current president. </p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"This is the time for strength and confidence, not for apologizing to America's critics," </span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">said Romney</span></span> at one point; at another, he said that "arrogant, delusional tyrants can not be stopped by earnest words and furrowed brows."</p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>Romney's speech is part of a stepped-up effort by the former Massachusetts governor to draw contrasts with Obama in expectation of challenging him for the presidency in 2012.</p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Less than 24 hours before hitting Obama on defense and national security, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523698,00.html">Romney was on "Fox News Sunday"</a> taking issue with the administration's plan to put General Motors into bankruptcy to restructure the company.</p> <p><br /></p> <p>"We don't want a president and a head of the [United Auto Workers] running General Motors," Romney said at the time. "The American public ought to own that enterprise."<br /></p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Romney's increasing willingness to speak out against Obama is an indication that he sees himself as far better suited than former vice president <strong>Dick Cheney</strong> or even former House Speaker <strong>Newt Gingrich</strong> (Ga.) to fill the leadership void in which the GOP currently finds itself.</p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>Romney, while derided by many Democrats, is one of the most popular figures among the party faithful, many of who believe his decision to step aside for Sen. <strong>John McCain</strong> (Ariz.) and subsequent work on behalf of the GOP presidential nominee last year proved his mettle.</p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Republicans also regard Romney as their most effective economic messenger, able to draw on his successes in the private sector to combat the bully pulpit afforded to Obama.</p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>Seeking to move into that leadership vacuum also has obvious benefits for Romney who is making little secret of his interest in running for national office again in 2012. The more he can emerge as Obama's foil, the more he will solidify his place as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in three years time.</p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Romney is also working tirelessly behind the scenes to line up support for such a bid, campaigning all over the country -- <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2009/05/post_222.html">most recently in Virginia</a> -- on behalf of Republican candidates.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>No one in the GOP is fighting on the policy and political fronts like Romney at the moment. It's why he holds down the number one slot on the <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/the-line-the-republicans-influ.html">Fix's Friday Line of the most influential Republicans in the country</a>.</p><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03f8b64a-38d6-11de-8cfe-00144feabdc0.html">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03f8b64a-38d6-11de-8cfe-00144feabdc0.html</a><br /><br /><p style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrR0Sm_372th0_qvetpXLQZ1g8zV3l-iKuiDpIlG1PILc6dQZz0S9rgWRksvYv26LU7OWOgDZsP_j8bmvrx5T6uUWRVdFCgM4k1Ml0y8N6fGpy8yN-q2Wp3Y4AhbgYgRaWUKv_uavNo2Hf/s1600-h/mea+culpa+xv.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 264px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrR0Sm_372th0_qvetpXLQZ1g8zV3l-iKuiDpIlG1PILc6dQZz0S9rgWRksvYv26LU7OWOgDZsP_j8bmvrx5T6uUWRVdFCgM4k1Ml0y8N6fGpy8yN-q2Wp3Y4AhbgYgRaWUKv_uavNo2Hf/s400/mea+culpa+xv.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362848667158682434" border="0" /></a></p> <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Obama’s ‘apologie</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">s’ are a strength [??]</span></span><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>By Gideon Rachman </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGYAhkVBSxPy7pWgGuj8ceUiXJhogMn_kT4RIXz1t8jho33mDx14x-DaIj-9SL4RIQwerE4yik1LGSkOSaIcm74V6AxN-E9Nkqv3O1FIt_wIadNDnQvVKOQcaVVvK43Yit3ElGXENtq1m3/s1600-h/mea+culpa+XII.png"><br /></a></p><br />Financial Times<br /><br /><br />May 4 2009<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“I will never apologise for the United States, ever</span></span>. <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I don’t c</span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">are what the facts are.” </span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">President George H.W. Bush</span></span>’s statement in 1988 was more than just a “Bushism”, of the sort that his son later made famous. It was also a pithy summary of a whole school of thought in the US.<br /><br /><p><br /></p><p>For many conservative Americans, one of the besetting sins of their liberal rivals is a tendency to go around apologising for their country. Jeane Kirkpatrick, a combative conservative, memorably excoriated <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255); font-weight: bold;">liberals</span></span> as the <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">“blame America first” crowd.</span></span></p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>Now conservatives are complaining loudly that one of those namby-pamby, self-flagellating liberals is sitting in the Oval Office – abasing himself and the country before foreigners. <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">President Barack Obama</span></span>, they complain, has turned himself into “<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">global apologiser-in-chief”</span></span>. Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of conservative talk radio, rages that <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“everywhere he goes, he’s just apologising for the United States”</span></span>.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">In the Los Angeles Times, the political commentator James Kirchik lambasted Mr <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Obama</span></span> for his <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">“grand, global apology tour this spring”</span></span>. </span></span>It all started, according to Mr Kirchik, when the president gave an interview to <a class="bodystrong" target="_blank" title="Obama vows to listen to Muslims" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae438e3c-ec2c-11dd-8838-0000779fd2ac.html">Al Arabiya </a>television and called for “mutual respect” between the US and the Muslim world. Mr Obama repeated the sin when, in a speech calling for nuclear disarmament, he said: “As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.” Then in <a class="bodystrong" target="_blank" title="Tone is key to Obama message and impact" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebe1070c-22d6-11de-9c99-00144feabdc0.html">Turkey</a>, the president “apologised some more” by talking of “strained trust” between the US and the Muslim world. And to compound his sins, at the Summit of the Americas, Mr Obama “calmly sat through a 50-minute anti-American tirade by the communist leader of Nicaragua ... and was disturbingly ebullient in glad-handing Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chávez”.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>The alert reader will have noticed that none of the examples cited by the outraged Mr Kirchik actually contains the word “sorry”. Nor is it clear what Mr Obama was expected to do with Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua – deck him? Even when Mr <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Obama</span></span> has been unambiguously apologetic, his opponents often quote him out of context. So Mr Kirchik cites the president’s <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">remark to a European audience that </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">“there have been times when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive”</span></span>. But he carefully omits the next line – <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">“But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious”.</span></span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>For many of Mr Obama’s critics, however, this kind of detail is beside the point. They believe that the president is running his country down – and that such a policy is weak, unpatriotic and ultimately dangerous. Newt Gingrich, a leading Republican, worries that Mr Obama is sending the wrong signal, arguing that “the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators – when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead”.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>This kind of debate is not unique to the US. John Howard, a conservative Australian prime minister, decried what he called <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">“the black armband version of Australian history”,</span></span> which saw his country’s history as “little more than a disgraceful story of imperialism, exploitation, racism”. It took 40 years to elapse before a Frenchpresident, Jacques Chirac, was able to acknowledge in public that Vichy France had collaborated in the Holocaust and to apologise.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: justify;" class="storyDek"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzebmheqvEhB43sCihtKdhMnj2jpjLew-rzvBLnPiiZUlbeKgGZ6hyphenhyphenCo05c_Fbx_Dcr-GyZCVATo8JQUq1ECHJJXUQiJ6z-A_UXKrlnr3juUOAg7HIAboEM9bdXvOk9i9IPTzrA7EyoHzy/s1600-h/mea+culpa+XIV.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 273px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzebmheqvEhB43sCihtKdhMnj2jpjLew-rzvBLnPiiZUlbeKgGZ6hyphenhyphenCo05c_Fbx_Dcr-GyZCVATo8JQUq1ECHJJXUQiJ6z-A_UXKrlnr3juUOAg7HIAboEM9bdXvOk9i9IPTzrA7EyoHzy/s400/mea+culpa+XIV.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362804199447045570" border="0" /></a></h2> <p style="font-weight: bold;">Many patriotic defenders of the US would bridle at any such comparison. In their view, other countries apologise because they have a lot to apologise for. But <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">America is, as Ronald Reagan liked to say, “a shining city on a hill”</span></span> – <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">the nation that restored freedom to Europe in 1945 and then faced</span> down the threat of the Soviet empire.</span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>It is true that modern <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">America has more to be proud of than most other nations</span></span>. But it would be absurd for Mr Obama, whose wife is descended from slaves, to deny that America, too, has shameful episodes in its past.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>What America thinks about its recent history, in particular, is of more than academic interest. The US is the global superpower – and what it says about its past tells us something about what it will do in the future. <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">S</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">o when Mr Obama suggests that the US has made mistakes in its dealings with Europe or the Muslim world, he is quite deliberately sending a signal.</span></span></p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[The US has NOT made mistakes when dealing with Europe. Europe is fortunate just to be alive and free. If Europe seeks an apology, it should look within itself, not to America.]</span></span><br /></p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p> <p>To his conservative critics, the signal he is sending is one of weakness. But no fair reading of Mr Obama’s various comments suggest that he is ashamed of his country, or that he intends to sacrifice American interests. <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">What he is doing is trying to improve some of the poisonous relationships that he inherited from President George W. Bush by acknowledging, usually in rather coded language, that the US, too, can make mistakes.</span></span> </span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[LAUGHABLE]</span></span> In the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and the torture scandal, this is not an unreasonable point to make. Proclaiming that the US is always right and virtuous may go down well in the American heartland, but it tends to antagonise foreigners – and that is simply counter-productive.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">More important, a willingness to discuss your country’s history self-critically is a mark of an open society.</span></p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Vladimir Putin has had Russian history textbooks rewritten to take a more positive view of Stalinism. The Chinese ferociously repress any challenges to the official version of the history of Taiwan. </span>Mature democracies do things differently. They are not afraid of open discussion.</p> <p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Mr Obama’s willingness to acknowledge past American errors is a sign of strength, not of weakness.</p><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[TO PLACE OBAMA'S APOLOGY TOUR ON PAR WITH THE ADMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND REPRESSION SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF THE STALINIST SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNIST CHINA REGIMES IS ABSURD.]</span></span><br /></div><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html</a><br /><p style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmr9wHNW-W_uAcW8GA7605xEH2PVp_CIfDG1X6SRvDfCD_oD7Cy7u3qLMyS9hsT_v0sErK2htIfAVgx55eoLTAT4MPDws2v5EwFYjMksMsBWI37hQvSEdyD4OaMBqOMU4jjtgVpjD5j6Os/s1600-h/mea+culpa+xvi.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 399px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmr9wHNW-W_uAcW8GA7605xEH2PVp_CIfDG1X6SRvDfCD_oD7Cy7u3qLMyS9hsT_v0sErK2htIfAVgx55eoLTAT4MPDws2v5EwFYjMksMsBWI37hQvSEdyD4OaMBqOMU4jjtgVpjD5j6Os/s400/mea+culpa+xvi.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362853255419369730" border="0" /></a></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-size:180%;">The President's Apology Tour</span><br /><br /><br /></span></div><h2 style="font-style: italic;" class="subhead"><span style="font-size:100%;">Great leaders aren't defined by consensus.</span></h2><br /><br />By Karl Rove<br /><br /><br />Wall Street Journal<br /><br /><br />April 22, 2009<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);font-size:180%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">President Barack Obama</span></span> has finished the second leg of his international confession tour. In less than 100 days, he <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">has apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. </span></span>In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">By confessing our nation's sins, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Mr. Obama has "changed the image of America around the world" and made the U.S. "safer and stronger."</span></span> As evidence, Mr. Gibbs pointed to the absence of protesters during the Summit of the Americas this past weekend.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">That's now the test of success? Anti-American protesters are a remarkably unreliable indicator of a president's wisdom. Ronald Reagan drew hundreds of thousands of protesters by deploying Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe. Those missiles helped win the Cold War.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">There is something ungracious in Mr. Obama criticizing his predecessors, including most recently John F. Kennedy. ("I'm grateful that President [Daniel] Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," Mr. Obama said after the Nicaraguan delivered a 52-minute anti-American tirade that touched on the Bay of Pigs.) Mr. Obama acts as if no past president -- except maybe Abraham Lincoln -- possesses his wisdom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Mr. Obama was asked in Europe if he believes in <span style="font-style: italic;">American exceptionalism</span>. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">He said</span> he did -- in the same way that "the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism." That's another way of saying, <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">"No."</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Mr. Obama makes it seem as though there is moral equivalence between America and its adversaries and assumes that if he confesses America's sins, other nations will confess theirs and change. </span></span>But he won no confessions (let alone change) from the leaders of Venezuela, Nicaragua or Russia. He apologized for America and our adversaries rejoiced. Fidel Castro isn't easing up on Cuban repression, but he is preparing to take advantage of Mr. Obama's policy shifts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">When a president desires personal popularity, he can lose focus on vital American interests. It's early, but with little to show for the confessions, <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">D</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">avid Axelrod of Team Obama was compelled to say this week that the president planted, cultivated and will harvest "very, very valuable" returns later. Like what?</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile, <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">the desire for popularity has led Mr. Obama to embrace bad policies. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Blaming America for the world financial crisis led him to give into European demands for crackdowns on tax havens and hedge funds. </span></span>Neither had much to do with the credit crisis. Saying that America's relationship with Russia "has been allowed to drift" led the president to push for arms negotiations. But that draws attention away from America's real problems with Russia: its invasion of Georgia last summer, its bullying of Ukraine, its refusal to join in pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, and its threats of retaliation against the Poles, Balts and Czechs for standing with the U.S. on missile defense.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. Obama is downplaying the threats we face. He takes comfort in thinking that Venezuela has a defense budget that "is probably 1/600th" of America's -- it's actually 1/215th -- but that hasn't kept Mr. Chávez from supporting narcoterrorists waging war on Colombia (a key U.S. ally) or giving petrodollars to anti-American regimes. Venezuela isn't likely to attack the U.S., but it is capable of harming American interests.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Henry Kissinger wrote in his memoir "Years of Renewal": "<span style="font-style: italic;">The great statesmen of the past saw themselves as heroes who took on the burden of their societies' painful journey from the familiar to the as yet unknown. <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">The modern politician is less interested in being a hero than a superstar.</span> Heroes walk alone; stars derive their status from approbation. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Heroes are defined by inner values; stars by consensus.</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">When a candidate's views are forged in focus groups and ratified by television anchorpersons, insecurity and superficiality become congenital.</span>"</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">A superstar, not a statesman, today leads our country.</span></span> That may win short-term applause from foreign audiences, but do little for what should be the chief foreign policy preoccupation of any U.S. president: advancing America's long-term interests.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.</strong><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"></p><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-39109899128176627652009-05-10T17:11:00.011-04:002009-05-10T17:52:13.203-04:00Climate Change Chicanery Admitted by NY Times: How Word Games Are Being Used to Create Fear of & Guilt About Global Warming<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmMI1izJQKZsQVZFaLYpqTyTSBEBVE5QOTbzJh1fUylZyL-vpqP44M8bg-rYFgrUU5BgBKOYnJxqcDaqF7VFjkrmClAsi1g4MjjdilJXinyKRGPCG776hMkD019qY68TdbMwCxUQYPh_hL/s1600-h/global+warming+-+Gore+-+You%27re+feeling+warmer+hypnotism.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 230px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmMI1izJQKZsQVZFaLYpqTyTSBEBVE5QOTbzJh1fUylZyL-vpqP44M8bg-rYFgrUU5BgBKOYnJxqcDaqF7VFjkrmClAsi1g4MjjdilJXinyKRGPCG776hMkD019qY68TdbMwCxUQYPh_hL/s320/global+warming+-+Gore+-+You%27re+feeling+warmer+hypnotism.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5334313070037886738" border="0" /></a>
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyyppcedIncGi07a2rj6jwynqKqZquyR7Xd8KWuts2Mu0LnuUjmyFInlYLaDfRX75EEO_U-4-NqlzmLQK7pGbk7oCgrv9rqsealPeO4HA0F-KjtTxeJJu9XZV_mu5PsiB3De9DPGISPcmx/s1600-h/global-warming-whose-to-blame.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 207px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyyppcedIncGi07a2rj6jwynqKqZquyR7Xd8KWuts2Mu0LnuUjmyFInlYLaDfRX75EEO_U-4-NqlzmLQK7pGbk7oCgrv9rqsealPeO4HA0F-KjtTxeJJu9XZV_mu5PsiB3De9DPGISPcmx/s320/global-warming-whose-to-blame.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5334311826587299682" border="0" /></a>
<br />
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss </a>
<br /><nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">
<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus</span></span></nyt_headline> <div id="toolsRight"><div class="articleTools"><div class="toolsContainer">
<br />By John M. Broder
<br />
<br />
<br /></div></div></div><nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "></nyt_byline>Published: May 1, 2009
<br />
<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[SAME ARTICLE ENTITLED DIFFERENTLY, RELEASED IN NEW YORK TIMES PRINT EDITION on MAY 2, 2009: <span style="font-style: italic;">Another </span></span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Weapon Emerges in the Combat Over Global Warming: A Thesaurus</span>].</span></span>
<br /></div><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></span></span><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CLKogan%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><title>Rulemaking Petition: Request for Rulemaking to Provide American Depository Receipt Owners With Certain Traditional Shareowner Rights When Foreign Corporations Advocate On Significant U.S. Social Policy Issues Or Have Significant U.S. Social Impacts</title><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:subject>SEC Rulemaking Petition No. 4-525</o:Subject> <o:author>Glenn</o:Author> <o:keywords>Petition No. 4-525</o:Keywords> <o:version>11.5606</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">WASHINGTON</st1:place></st1:state> — The problem with <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 255, 51); font-weight: bold;">global warming</span></span>, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-vVG9KoOirjA1sSxXybEROyiPucghHS0rMCIqeLPPpQOMhIVUH_Xex3oOP5reA2MdqxM5lch7ZuaV67PLT6hjZV5MgeAXqvg8U4zG0IUN6BJ9Ovl3WX_5jEZp8uu9fhqIs9xyrlle6Y7U/s1600-h/ecoAmericaLogo.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 79px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-vVG9KoOirjA1sSxXybEROyiPucghHS0rMCIqeLPPpQOMhIVUH_Xex3oOP5reA2MdqxM5lch7ZuaV67PLT6hjZV5MgeAXqvg8U4zG0IUN6BJ9Ovl3WX_5jEZp8uu9fhqIs9xyrlle6Y7U/s320/ecoAmericaLogo.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5334315870013274914" border="0" /></a></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">The term turns people</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;"> of</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">f, fos</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">tering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">ecoAme</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">rica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm </span></span>in </span><st1:state style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify; font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" ><span style="color: rgb(51, 255, 51);">Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.”</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-weight: bold;">Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.<o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.<o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. </span></span>A <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Pew</st1:placename> <st1:placename st="on">Research</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place> poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. <span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 0);font-size:180%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">“When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language.</span> </span></span>“Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 255, 51);">In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency </span></span>while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.<o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">to change the terms of the debate now under way in </span><st1:state style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state></span>.<o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /><o:p></o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p>
<br /></o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See also: <span style="font-style: italic;">Global Warming or Climate Change? It's ALL Relative If We Ignore Science, Reframe Issues, Redefine Words, Adjust Grammar and Use Symbols and Imagery!</span>, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism (Jan. 2009), at:</span></span> </o:p><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-or-climate-change-its.html">http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-or-climate-change-its.html </a><a href="http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-or-climate-change-its.html"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">.]</span></span></a>
<br /></p>
<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. </span></span>Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.<o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Robert J. Brulle of <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Drexel</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>, an expert on environmental communications, said <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">e</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">coAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. </span></span>“The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">I</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">t’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /><o:p></o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p>
<br /></o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective.</span></span> “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”<o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /><o:p></o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p>
<br /></o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Frank Luntz</span>, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He <span style="font-weight: bold;">suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">
<br /><o:p></o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p>
<br /></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></span></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></p><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></span></span>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-51107811548642371072009-03-01T11:03:00.076-05:002009-03-16T09:10:09.145-04:00American People to Obama Administration: Do NOT Surrender....To Global Governance!!<div align="justify"><em>The following blog entry features an article authored by John Bolton, former U.S. Permanent</em> <em>Representative to the United Nations, and former Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, which counters a recent report prepared by the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. In addition, there are two reviews of a book authored by Strobe Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State, former Ambassador-at-Large and Special Adviser to the Secretary of State on the New Independent States (NIS), and current President of the Brookings Institution. And, there is also a Washington Post article reviewing the works of both Messrs. Bolton and Talbott. </em><br /><br /></div><div align="justify"><em>The essence of the disagreement between these two authors follows from the different notions of <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">sovereignty</span></strong> each is promoting: Bolton - 'shared sovereignty'; Talbott - 'responsible sovereignty'. Arguably, Bolton's vision of sovereignty would permit the U.S. to retain a great deal more of its national sovereignty, than would Talbott's. Indeed, Bolton believes that were the US to adopt Talbott's vision of sovereignty, US national sovereignty would be irreversibly surrendered.</em></div><br /><p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmVuPdyz6JlIbh7ppOBMaxetF2ukGtPsHKKdQhCLaL1-suxwHCvWWfj0ZjhceoW4VFs8j2uASroMAEdvwSplzBej-YYYuLhEBbVLzyRvhRaMuqumj2AYyfHc87MZMLQ_BRCQ3UGkYzXnF2/s1600-h/TomPetty.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309203478705790802" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 231px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmVuPdyz6JlIbh7ppOBMaxetF2ukGtPsHKKdQhCLaL1-suxwHCvWWfj0ZjhceoW4VFs8j2uASroMAEdvwSplzBej-YYYuLhEBbVLzyRvhRaMuqumj2AYyfHc87MZMLQ_BRCQ3UGkYzXnF2/s320/TomPetty.jpg" border="0" /></a><em>To better understand what a 'surrender' of US national sovereignty would entail emotionally, it is helpful to review the lyrics to Classic Rocker Tom Petty's popular song <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">'Surrender'</span></strong>:</em><br /><br /><br /></p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdwW_13PtOA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdwW_13PtOA</a></p><p><br /> </p><p align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers - Surrender (1977)</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Don't talk crazy now<br />Take it easy<br />You just can't hold out forever<br />Don't you lie to me<br />You said you loved me<br />Don't say you don't remember<br />'Cause you told me<br />Yeah, you did<br />And I'm not gonna let you forget<br />Well, I'm down on my knees<br />And I'm begging again<br />You tell me why that you have to pretend<br />I know you want me<br />Why don't you give in?<br />Surrender </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">--------------<br /></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Don't let me down now<br />I just can't hang around<br />Feeling this way forever<br />On your balcony<br />You said you loved me<br />Don't say you don't remember<br />'Cause you told me<br />Yeah, you did<br />And I'm not gonna let you forget<br />Well, I'm down on my knees<br />And I'm begging again<br />You tell me why that you have to pretend<br />I don't like the way you're looking at him</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Surrender<br />Surrender... to me<br />Baby, Surrender<br />Surrender</span></strong><br /><br /></div><div align="center">------------<br /></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Surre</span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">nder<br />Surrender... to me<br />Baby, Surrender<br />Surrender</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />It is essential to understand the major premise underlying The Brookings Institution report and the Talbott book. They each emphasize the moral and ethical imperative to pursue supranational global governance for the sake of achieving a perpetual global peace. Unfortunately, this requires <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the surrender of national sovereignty by all independent States</span></strong>. In large part, the foundations for this pursuit are grounded in the writings of German <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0NLW7Ai27GQlJedKDB31fF40d2BVTfUCt6-1yiMwegWcJ68Ib5C2jAlytspUxYMJHGQsz8KJnabc6FVYkOc0lE6yb0Ykv9ttqpZUbasY319J5USUhubP4BhegZmIWIGruC-HNEYWTJ3ST/s1600-h/Immanuel+Kant+cartoon.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309118114317227730" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 336px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0NLW7Ai27GQlJedKDB31fF40d2BVTfUCt6-1yiMwegWcJ68Ib5C2jAlytspUxYMJHGQsz8KJnabc6FVYkOc0lE6yb0Ykv9ttqpZUbasY319J5USUhubP4BhegZmIWIGruC-HNEYWTJ3ST/s400/Immanuel+Kant+cartoon.jpg" border="0" /></a>philosopher Immanuel Kant.<br /><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">It is arguable that EU multilateral initiatives rooted in the United Nations, contain several elements of Kant’s philosophy of international relations. First and foremost, are EU efforts to bolster the image of the United Nations as the only universally legitimate institution through which individual countries can work collectively for the good of the global community on matters ranging from the environment to finance to healthcare to security. Similarly, EU efforts to establish General Assembly declarations, resolutions and draft norms on matters of the environment, health and corporate accountability to society as ‘soft’ norms of international law can arguably be traced to Kant’s theories. Likewise, continuing EU efforts to execute and interpret international conventions as enforceable obligations of the global community can also arguably be traced, in part, to this philosophy, which may be viewed as a possible framework for EU and UN notions of regional and supranational global governance.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ2WbGBv5sGOc_okZv6UEPEHRwKFtwKsoss60Z7_NE_yO7A8dgmbfavN_vyy8crHXTKciJ9tK5wcK-kDhnJupYNb8qidp-XW75tgHWJ1U2nnihfGAxhrg8gjI8NCvZl45aypjJYBocaTsu/s1600-h/Immanuel+Kant+-+Perpetual+Peace.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309159618593126290" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 235px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ2WbGBv5sGOc_okZv6UEPEHRwKFtwKsoss60Z7_NE_yO7A8dgmbfavN_vyy8crHXTKciJ9tK5wcK-kDhnJupYNb8qidp-XW75tgHWJ1U2nnihfGAxhrg8gjI8NCvZl45aypjJYBocaTsu/s400/Immanuel+Kant+-+Perpetual+Peace.jpg" border="0" /></a>For example, in his treatise on <em><strong>Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay</strong></em>, Kant “advocates a federation of free States, bound together by a covenant forbidding war. Reason he says, utterly condemns war, which only an international government can prevent.” [<em>See</em> Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, Simon and Schuster © 1945, 1972, at p. 712.] During the post-war [post-WWII] years, Kant’s theory seems to have prevailed in Europe over that advanced by Hegel. This may explain why the newly created EU institutions continually seek to persuade the European public in the areas of health and safety, the environment, finance, trade, etc. that they exist for the good of all Europe’s diverse citizens, rather than for the sake of any one nation's citizens or for the sake of the supranational institutions themselves. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify">This conscious effort may, perhaps, be rooted in a wholesale rejection of Hegel’s political philosophy. That philosophy glorifies the State as “the reality of the moral idea” or as “the rational in and of itself”. It also defines duty as “…solely a relation of the individual to his State…The duty of a citizen is entirely confined (so far as the external relations of his State are concerned) to upholding the substantial individuality and independence and sovereignty of his own State.” This philosophy also claimed that, “The purpose of the State is not merely to uphold the life and property of the citizens, and this fact provides the moral justification of war.” And it also “opposed…the creation of institutions – such as a world government – which would prevent such situations from arising, because he thinks it a good thing that there should be wars from time to time.” [<em>Ibid</em>., at pp. 740-741, 744.]<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">"In this writing of Kant, he argues in favor of civil constitutions with Republican forms of government, world citizenship, free states, the abolishment of standing armies and for states not being able to use force to interfere with the constitutions or governments of another given state." [See: Summary of Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay, 1795, BordersOnline (June 20, 2008) at: <a href="http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=1436513154">http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=1436513154</a> ].<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Considering these diametrically opposed philosophies and the different consequences that would have followed had the Hegelian model survived, it may, therefore, be argued that the forty-year drive to create a united Europe organized around purely European institutions has indeed been a significantly successful and profound undertaking. “[I]n disposing of [the] trappings of national sovereignty, Europe is putting aside something else: its long history of nationalism, bitter rivalries and ideological divisions, and war.” [<em>See</em> Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights – The Battle for the World Economy, Touchstone Publishers © 1998, 2002, at pp. 336-337.]</div><br /><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Also, instructive are Kant's views on morality, specifically, as they relate to Europe's quest to achieve global sustainable development (e.g., climate change) objectives.</span></strong></p><br /><br /><div align="justify">The EU has focused obsessively on sustainable development as an absolute moral duty (viewing it as an end in itself) and on the precautionary principle (as a means to that end) may, in part, be traced back to the system of morals/ ethics developed by Immanuel Kant. Arguably, a number of European conceptual rights and obligations have evolved from this notion of morality. They include: a) the obligation to treat all stakeholders equally (e.g., individuals and corporations); b) the absolute right of citizens to know through product labeling the ingredients of and processes by which products are made, when potential harms are believed to be posed by certain process and production methods; c) the right of all citizen stakeholders to participate in the Commission’s environmental policy formulation process and to be informed about planned company activities affecting the environment (as required by the Aarhus Convention[i]); and d) the pursuit of social and environmental justice for the good of the European Community and of the world (through internalization of environmental costs and implementation of the polluters pay principle), as a universal categorical imperative.</div><br /><br /><strong>FOOTNOTE</strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">[i] See: “Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters”, done at Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June 1998. Its objective reads as follows: “In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.”<br /></div><br /><br /><p align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPM_RVve_2NZk7L5OwbdUKDocIKAFr-2DHq1Jv4lBQNm_H55Wo0AQKH3qwb3URzdNx3_APAZa55WjB_9lwygbcI4cfIdaDvMze1DELKjJG8dz9GravG7VY4o3DlxqonklSeMtmIA1PBMYO/s1600-h/Immanuel+Kant+-+Metaphysics+of+Morals.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309163177668192402" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPM_RVve_2NZk7L5OwbdUKDocIKAFr-2DHq1Jv4lBQNm_H55Wo0AQKH3qwb3URzdNx3_APAZa55WjB_9lwygbcI4cfIdaDvMze1DELKjJG8dz9GravG7VY4o3DlxqonklSeMtmIA1PBMYO/s400/Immanuel+Kant+-+Metaphysics+of+Morals.jpg" border="0" /></a>According to Kant, as set forth in his famous treatise, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Metaphysic of Morals</span></strong></em>, “Moral worth exists only when a man acts out of a sense of duty; it is not enough that the act should be such as duty might have prescribed…The essence of morality is to be derived from the concept of law; for, though everything in nature acts according to laws, only a rational being has the power of acting according to the idea of a law, i.e., by Will. The idea of an objective principle, in so far as it is compelling to the will, is called a command of the reason, and the formula of the command is called an imperative." </p><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"There are two sorts of imperative: the hypothetical imperative, which says ‘You must do so-and-so if you wish to achieve such-and-such an end’; and the categorical imperative, which says that a certain kind of action is objectively necessary, without regard to any end’…"</span></strong></div><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"[T]he categorical imperative is a single one…‘Act only according to a maxim by which you can at the same time will that it shall become a general law.’ Or: ‘Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law’.</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">…Kant…states…that virtue does not depend upon the intended result of an action, but only on the principle of which it is itself a result…Kant maintains…that we ought to act as to treat every man as an end in himself. This may be regarded as an abstract form of the doctrine of the rights of man…If taken seriously, it would make it impossible to reach a decision whenever two people’s interests conflict. The difficulties are particularly obvious in political philosophy, which requires some principle, such as preference for the majority, by which the interests of some can, when necessary, be sacrificed to those of others. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">If there is to be any ethic of government, the end of government must be one, and the only single end compatible with justice is the good of the community.</span></strong> <em><strong>It is possible, however, to interpret Kant’s principle as meaning, not that each man is an absolute end, but that all men should count equally in determining actions by which many are affected. So interpreted, the principle may be regarded as giving an ethical basis for democracy…”</strong></em> [<em>See</em> Bertrand Russell, <em>A History of Western Philosophy</em>, supra, at pp. 710-712.]<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify">“For Kant perpetual peace is not an ideal, not merely as a speculative Utopian idea, but as a moral principle, which ought to be, and therefore can be, realised. Yet he makes it perfectly clear that we cannot hope to approach the realisation of it unless we honestly face political facts and get a firm grasp of the indispensable conditions of a last peace.<br /><br /></p><div align="justify">To strive after the ideal in contempt or in ignorance of these conditions is a labour that must inevitably be either fruitless or destructive of its own ends. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Thus Kant demonstrates the hopelessness of any attempt to secure perpetual peace between independent nations.</strong></span> Such nations may make treaties; but these are binding only for so long as it is not to the interest of either party to denounce them. To enforce them is impossible while the nations remain independent. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">‘There is…only one way in which war between independent nations can be prevented; and that is by the nations ceasing to be independent’.</span></strong></em> </div><br /><br /><br /><br /><p align="justify">But this does not necessarily mean the establishment of a despotism, whether autocratic or democratic. On the other hand, Kant maintains that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">just as peace between individuals within a state can only be permanently secured by the institution of a ‘republican’ (that is to say, a representative) government, so the only real guarantee of a permanent peace between nations is the establishment of a federation of free ‘republican’ states.</span></strong> ‘For if Fortune ordains that a powerful and enlightened people should form a republic – which by its very nature is inclined to perpetual peace – this would serve as a centre of federal union for other states to join, and thus secure conditions of freedom among the states in accordance with the idea of the law of nations. Gradually, through different unions of this kind, the federation would extend further and further’.<br /><br /><br />…According to Kant, pure reason has two aspects, theoretical and practical…The fundamental imperative of the practical reason is…<br /></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em>‘Act so that thou canst will that thy maxim should be a universal law, be the end of thy action what it will”.</em><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><br />If the end of perpetual peace is a duty, it must be necessarily deduced from this general law. And Kant does regard it as a duty. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">‘We must desire perpetual peace not only as a material good, but also as a state of things resulting from our recognition of the precepts of duty’.</span></strong> This is further expressed in the maxim:<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><p align="justify"><br /><em>'Seek ye first the kingdom of pure practical reason and its righteousness, and the object of your endeavor, the blessing of perpetual peace, will be added unto you.’<br /></em></p><br /><br />…[S]ince the idea of perpetual peace is a moral idea, an ‘idea of duty’, we are entitled to believe that it is practicable.<br /><br /><br /><br /><p align="justify"><br /><em>‘Nature guarantees the coming of perpetual peace, through the natural course of human propensities; not indeed with sufficient certainty to enable us to prophesy the future of this ideal theoretically, but yet clearly enough for practical purposes’.<br /></em></p><div align="justify"><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See <em>Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay, 1795</em>, By Immanuel Kant, Translated by Mary Campbell Smith (Publ. S. Sonnenschein & Co. © 1903), at Preface pp. vi-xi, at: </span></strong><a href="http://books.google.com/books/pdf/Perpetual_peace.pdf?id=EEYZAAAAMAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1JgqHJIx8OwDZHvUHApM6zPc6XMg&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0"><strong>http://books.google.com/books/pdf/Perpetual_peace.pdf?id=EEYZAAAAMAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1JgqHJIx8OwDZHvUHApM6zPc6XMg&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0</strong></a> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.constitution.org/kant/perpeace.htm">http://www.constitution.org/kant/perpeace.htm</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLES FOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES</span></strong></div><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">FIRST DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR PERPETUAL PEACE - "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican"</span></strong></em><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em></em></div><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">SECOND DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR A PERPETUAL PEACE - "The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States"</span></strong></em><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em></em></div><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">THIRD DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR A PERPETUAL PEACE - "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality"</span></strong></em><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">[See <em>Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch</em> by Immanuel Kant 1795]</span></strong><br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-previewthe-coming-war-on-sovereignty-15080">http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-previewthe-coming-war-on-sovereignty-15080</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Coming War on Sovereignty</span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGJONbtjXSk1ZRJkXAgmGHMSakhRujaaoldZMC_sk22Y5ka6MqRe1zTojstsYsH0x2F5hbTo20LzZx6bIkmYyuzZ5oUTmGykCeI1Q7hMJff-q2PbQKJEQyBZ80tM7jkH1In5QrlAh33XT_/s1600-h/John+Bolton.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309130588007241138" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 160px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGJONbtjXSk1ZRJkXAgmGHMSakhRujaaoldZMC_sk22Y5ka6MqRe1zTojstsYsH0x2F5hbTo20LzZx6bIkmYyuzZ5oUTmGykCeI1Q7hMJff-q2PbQKJEQyBZ80tM7jkH1In5QrlAh33XT_/s200/John+Bolton.bmp" border="0" /></a>By John Bolton </div><br /><br />Commentary Magazine Article Preview<br /><br /><br />March 2009<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Barack Obama’s nascent presidency has brought forth the customary flood of policy proposals from the great and good, all hoping to influence his administration. One noteworthy offering is a short report with a distinguished provenance entitled <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="font-size:180%;">A Plan for Action</span></em>,</span></strong><a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/the-coming-war-on-sovereignty-15080#foot1"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">1</span></strong></a><a id="one" name="one"></a> which features a revealingly immodest subtitle: <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">A New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and Beyond</span>.</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />In presentation and tone, <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A Plan for Action</span></strong></em> is determinedly uncontroversial; indeed, it looks and reads more like a corporate brochure than a foreign-policy paper. The text is the work of three academics—Bruce Jones of NYU, Carlos Pascual of the Brookings Institution, and Stephen John Stedman of Stanford. Its findings and recommendations, they claim, rose from a series of meetings with foreign-policy eminences here and abroad, including former Secretaries of State of both parties as well as defense officials from the Clinton and first Bush administrations. The participation of these notables is what gives <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A Plan for Action</span></strong></em> its bona fides, though one should doubt how much the document actually reflects their ideas. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">There is no question, however, that the ideas advanced in <em><span style="font-size:180%;">A Plan for Action</span></em> have become mainstays in the liberal vision of the future of American foreign policy.</span></strong><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />That is what makes <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A Plan for Action</span></strong></em> especially interesting, and especially worrisome. If it is what it appears to be—a blueprint for the Obama administration’s effort to construct a foreign policy different from George W. Bush’s—<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">then the nation’s governing elite is in the process of taking a sharp, indeed radical, turn away from the principles and practices of representative self-government that have been at the core of the American experiment since the nation’s founding. The pivot point is a shifting understanding of American sovereignty</span></strong>.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify">...While the term “sovereignty” has acquired many, often inconsistent, definitions, Americans have historically understood it to mean our collective right to govern ourselves within our Constitutional framework. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Today’s liberal elite, by contrast, sees sovereignty as something much more abstract and less tangible, and thus a prize of less value to individual citizens than it once might have been. They argue that the model accepted by European countries in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which assigned to individual nation-states the right and responsibility to manage their own affairs within their own borders, is in the process of being superseded by new structures more appropriate to the 21st century</strong></span>.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>In this regard, they usually cite the European Union (EU) as the new model, with its 27 member nations falling under the aegis of a centralized financial system administered in Brussels. On issue after issue, from climate change to trade, American liberals increasingly look to Europe’s example of transnational consensus as the proper model for the United States.</strong></span> That is particularly true when it comes to national security, as John Kerry revealed when, during his presidential bid in 2004, he said that American policy had to pass a “global test” in order to secure its legitimacy.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />This is not a view with which the broader American population has shown much comfort. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Traditionally, Americans have resisted the notion that their government’s actions had to pass muster with other governments, often with widely differing values and interests. It is the foreign-policy establishment’s unease with this long-held American conviction that is the motivating factor behind A Plan for Action</span></em></strong>, which represents a bold attempt to argue that any such set of beliefs has simply been overtaken by events.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>To this end, the authors provide a brief for what they call <span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">“responsible sovereignty.”</span> They define it as “the notion that sovereignty entails obligations and duties toward other states as well as to one’s own citizens,” and they believe that its application can form the basis for a “cooperative international order.”</strong></span> At first glance, the phrase “responsible sovereignty” may seem unremarkable, given the paucity of advocates for “irresponsible sovereignty.” But despite the Plan’s mainstream provenance, the conception is a dramatic overhaul of sovereignty itself.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>“Global leaders,” the Plan insists, “increasingly recognize that alone they are unable to protect their interests and their citizens—national security has become interdependent with global security.” The United States must therefore commit to “a rule-based international system that rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might,” or else “resign [our]selves to an ad-hoc international system.” Mere “traditional sovereignty” is insufficient in the new era we have entered, an era in which we must contend with “the realities of a now transnational world.”</strong></span> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">This “rule-based international system” will create the conditions for “global governance.”</span></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The Plan suggests that the transition to this new system must begin immediately because of the terrible damage done by the Bush administration. In the Plan’s narrative, Bush disdained diplomacy, uniformly preferring the use of force, regime change, preemptive attacks, and general swagger in its conduct of foreign affairs. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The Plan, by contrast, “rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might.”</span></strong> Its implementation will lead to the successful resolution of dispute after dispute and usher in a new and unprecedented period of worldwide comity.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />...As the Obama years begin, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">we certainly do need a lively debate on the utility of diplomacy, but it would be better if that debate were not conducted on the false premise offered by</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A Plan for Action</span></strong></em>. In reality, in the overwhelming majority of cases, foreign-policy thinkers on both sides of the ideological divide believe diplomacy is the solution to the difficulties that arise in the international system. That is how the Bush administration conducted itself as well.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The difference arises in the consideration of a tiny number of cases—cases that prove entirely resistant to diplomatic efforts, in which divergent national interests prove implacably resistant to reconciliation. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">If diplomacy does not and cannot work, the continued application of it to a problematic situation is akin to subjecting a cancer patient to a regimen of chemotherapy that shows no results whatever. The result may look like treatment, but it is, in fact, only making the patient sicker and offering no possibility of improvement</span></strong>.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Diplomacy is like all other human activity. It has costs and it has benefits. Whether to engage in diplomacy on a given matter requires a judicious assessment of both costs and benefits. This is an exercise about which reasonable people can disagree. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">If diplomacy is to work, it must be preceded by an effort to determine its parameters—when it might be best to begin, how to achieve one’s aims, and what the purpose of the process might be.</span></em></strong> At the cold war’s outset, for example, Harry Truman’s Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, frequently observed that he was prepared to negotiate with the Soviets only when America could do so from a position of strength.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Time is one of the most important variables in a diplomatic dance, because it often imposes a cost on one side and a benefit to its adversary. Nations can use the time granted by a diplomatic process to obscure their objectives, build alliances, prepare operationally for war, and, especially today, accelerate their efforts to build weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles that might carry them. There are concrete economic factors that must be considered as well in the act of seeking to engage an adversary in the diplomatic realm—the act of providing humanitarian assistance as an act of good will, for example, the suspension of economic sanctions, or even resuming normal trade relations during negotiations.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Obviously, the United States and, indeed, all rational nations are entirely comfortable paying substantial costs <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">when they appear to be wise investments that will lead to the achievement of a larger objective. </span></strong>Alas, such happy conclusions are far from inevitable, and failing to understand the truth of this uncomfortable and inarguable reality has led nations to prolong negotiations long after the last glimmer of progress has been snuffed out. For too many diplomats, there is no off switch for diplomacy, no moment at which the only sensible thing to do is rise from the table and go home.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Has one ever heard of a diplomat working to fashion an “exit strategy” from a failed negotiation? One hasn’t. One should.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Diplomacy is a tool, not a policy. It is a technique, not an end in itself.</span></strong> Urging, however earnestly, that we “engage” with our enemies tells us nothing about what happens after concluding the initial pleasantries at the negotiating table. Just opening the conversation is often significant, especially for those who are legitimized merely by being present. But without more, the meaning and potency of the photo op will quickly fade.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />That is why effective diplomacy must be one aspect of a larger strategic spectrum that includes ugly and public confrontations. Without the threat of painful sanctions, harsh condemnations, and even the use of force, diplomacy risks becoming a sucker’s game, in which one side will sit forever in naïve hope of reaching a settlement while the other side acts at will.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Diplomacy is an end in itself in</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A Plan for Action</span></strong></em>. So, too, is multilateralism. The multilateralism the Plan celebrates and advocates is, of course, set in sharp contrast to the portrait it draws of a Bush administration flush with unilateralist cowboys intent on overturning existing international treaties and institutions just for the sport of it. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Defining unilateralism is straightforward: the word refers to a state acting on its own in international affairs.</span></strong><a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/the-coming-war-on-sovereignty-15080#foot2"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">2</span></strong></a><a id="two" name="two"></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"> It is a critical conceptual mistake, however, to pose “multilateralism” simply as its opposite.</span></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Consider, for example, the various roles of the United Nations, the North American Treaty Organization, and the Proliferation Security Initiative. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The UN, the Holy Grail of multilateralism</strong></span>, is an organization of 192 members with responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security lodged in its Security Council. NATO is a defense alliance of 26 states, all of which are Western democracies. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), created in 2003 by the Bush administration, now includes 90-plus diverse countries dedicated to stopping international trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Each organization is clearly “multilateral,” but their roles are so wildly different that the word ceases to have any meaning. For example, if the United States confronted a serious threat, it would be acting multilaterally if it took the matter either to NATO or the UN. Both options would be “multilateral,” but widely divergent in diplomatic and political content, and quite likely in military significance as well. They would be comparable related in the same way a steak knife is comparable to a plastic butter knife.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The PSI offers an even starker contrast, for unlike either the UN or NATO, it has no secretary general, no Secretariat, no headquarters, and no regularly scheduled meetings. One British diplomat described the initiative as “an activity, not an organization.” In fact, the model of the Proliferation Security Initiative is the ideal one for multilateral activity in the future, precisely because it transcends the traditional structures of international organizations, which have, time and again, proved inefficient and ineffective.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />“<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Multilateralism</span></strong>” is, in other words, merely a word that describes international action taken by a group of nations acting in concert. For the authors of <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">A Plan for Action</span></strong></em>, however, multilateralism has an almost spiritual aspect, representing a harmony that transcends barriers and oceans. </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Harmony is designed to stifle any discordant notes, and so is the multilateralism envisioned by an American foreign policy guided by “responsible sovereignty.” It is one in which the group of nations, of which the United States is but a single player among many, initiates policies and activities that would likely be designed to constrain the freedom of action of the United States in pursuit of that harmony</strong></span>—not only in its activities abroad, but also in its activities within the 50 states.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />There is a precedent for this in the conduct of the European Union, whose 27 nations now possess a common currency in the form of the euro and an immensely complex series of trade and labor policies intended to cut across sovereign lines. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The EU is the model <em>A Plan for Action</em> proffers for the “responsible sovereignty” regime its authors wish to import to the United States</span></strong>. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>EU bureaucrats based in Brussels have been reshaping the priorities and needs of EU member states for a decade now, and proposing a system based on the design of the EU suggests a desire to subject the United States to a kind of international oversight not only when it comes to foreign policy but also on matters properly understood as U.S. domestic policy</strong></span>.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>That very approach has been on display at the United Nations for years in an effort to standardize international conduct that has come to be known as “norming.”</strong></span> In theory, there is good reason to create international standards—for measurement, for example, or for conduct on the high seas. But “norming” goes far beyond such prosaic concerns. The UN has, for example, repeatedly voted in different committees to condemn the death penalty, in a clear effort to put pressure on the United States to follow suit. Similar votes have been taken on abortion rights and restricting the private ownership of firearms.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />...Such issues have been, and likely will again be, the subjects of intense democratic debate within the United States, and properly so. There is no need to internationalize them to make the debate more fruitful. What is common to these and many other issues is that the losers in our domestic debate are often the proponents of internationalizing the controversies. They think that if they can change the political actors, they can change the political outcome. Unsuccessful in our domestic political arena, they seek to redefine the arena in which these matters will be adjudicated—moving, in effect, from unilateral, democratic U.S. decision-making to a multilateral, bureaucratic, and elitist environment. For almost any domestic issue one can imagine, there are likely to be nongovernmental organizations roaming the international arena desperately trying to turn their priorities into “norming” issues.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />This is what “<strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">responsible sovereignty</span></strong>” would look like. For the authors and signatories of A Plan of Action, sovereignty is simply an abstraction, a historical concept about as important today as the “sovereigns” from whose absolute rights the term originally derived. That is not the understanding of the U.S. Constitution, which locates the basis of its legitimacy in “we the people,” who constitute the sovereign authority of the nation.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“Sharing” sovereignty</span></strong> with someone or something else is thus not abstract for Americans. Doing so by definition will diminish the sovereign power of the American people over their government and their own lives, the very purpose for which the Constitution was written. This is something Americans have been reluctant to do. Now their reluctance may have to take the form of more concerted action against “responsible sovereignty” if its onward march is to be halted or reversed. Our Founders would clearly understand the need.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>About the Author<br /></strong><em>John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations (2005-2006) and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (2001-2005). He is the author of Surrender Is Not an Option.</em><br /></div><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Footnotes</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">1 The report can be downloaded free of charge at <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/11_action_plan_mgi.aspx">http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/11_action_plan_mgi.aspx</a> .<br /><a id="foot2" name="foot2"></a>2 An important subtext is the continuing confusion between unilateralism and isolationism, confusion especially evident in Europe in the late 1990’s. Even before the Bush administration, I tried to explain the distinction in “Unilateralism Is Not Isolationism” in Gwyn Prins, ed., Understanding Unilateralism in American Foreign Relations, Chatham House, 2000. More recently, Mackubin Thomas Owens makes a similar point in “The Bush Doctrine: The Foreign Policy of Republican Empire,” Orbis, Winter, 2009<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br /><a href="http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/11_action_plan_mgi/11_action_plan_mgi.pdf">http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/11_action_plan_mgi/11_action_plan_mgi.pdf</a><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic7pgg9j0o1GivszA9u2QeSdhvRZNncMrbNeKLHpNfMBh5ry9H_MaloU2HwybTx2azmeRAEY6tDiovSS88wakOM2TSG1BL1q1iY5n1q43_CjE8ONTACsII2okxSrgfD8dsBM4DcIK73Lv1/s1600-h/brookings_logo.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309169204483614978" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 148px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 71px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic7pgg9j0o1GivszA9u2QeSdhvRZNncMrbNeKLHpNfMBh5ry9H_MaloU2HwybTx2azmeRAEY6tDiovSS88wakOM2TSG1BL1q1iY5n1q43_CjE8ONTACsII2okxSrgfD8dsBM4DcIK73Lv1/s400/brookings_logo.gif" border="0" /></a>A Plan for Action - A New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and Beyond</span></strong><br /><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">"... U.S. domestic and international opinions are converging around the urgent need to build an international security system for the 21st century. Global leaders increasingly recognize that alone they are unable to protect their interests and their citizens—national security has become interdependent with global security.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Just as the founders of the United Nations and Bretton Woods institutions after World War II began with a vision for international cooperation based on a shared assessment of threat <em>and a shared notion of sovereignty</em></span></strong>, today’s global powers must chart a new course for today’s greatest challenges and opportunities. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>International cooperation today must be built on the principle of responsible sovereignty, or the notion that sovereignty entails obligations and duties toward other states as well as to one’s own citizens</strong></span>.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />...[T]he forces of globalization that have stitched the world together and driven prosperity can also tear it apart. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">In the face of new transnational threats and profound security interdependence</span></strong>, even the strongest nations depend on the cooperation of others to protect their own national security. No country, including the United States, is capable of successfully meeting the challenges, or capitalizing on the opportunities, of this changed world alone. It is a world for which we are unprepared, a world that poses a challenge to leaders and citizens alike to redefine their interests and re-examine their responsibilities.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">[CREATION OF A FALSE PRETENSE OF CRISES TO PROMOTE FEAR & 'BUY-IN' OF THIS THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS]</span></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">While that is true of every country, it is especially true of the most powerful—which must exercise the most responsibility. U.S. foreign policy has lagged behind these realities. A new approach is needed to revitalize the alliances, diplomacy, and international institutions central to <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>the inseparable relationship between national and global security</strong></span>.</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">...[T]he vision necessary for a 21st century international security system is clouded by a mismatch between existing post-World War II multilateral institutions premised on traditional sovereignty—<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a belief that borders are sacrosanct and an insistence on noninterference in domestic affairs</span></strong>—and the realities of a now transnational world <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>where capital, technology, labor, disease, pollution and non-state actors traverse boundaries irrespective of the desires of sovereign states</strong></span>. </div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">The domestic burdens inflicted by transnational threats such as poverty, civil war, disease and environmental degradation point in one direction: toward cooperation with global partners and a strengthening of international institutions.</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">...<strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">To protect national security, even to protect sovereignty, states must negotiate rules and norms to guide actions that reverberate beyond national boundaries.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Responsible sovereignty</span></strong> also implies a positive interest on the part of powerful states to provide weaker states with the capacity to exercise their sovereignty responsibly—a responsibility to build."</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">...<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Responsible sovereignty, in sum, is a guidepost to a better international system.</span></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">...<strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The Political Moment: U.S. and International Convergence</span></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">A new vision for global security will only succeed if it is powered by political commitment and has the support of diverse regions and influential constituencies. International politics and global realities are converging to make such cooperation possible.</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">...[C]urrent global realities leave no alternative to cooperation. On January 20, 2009, the next American President will inherit crises in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Darfur, Pakistan, and the Middle East. There will be many regional and national challenges to a viable foreign policy: the rise of India and China, an energy-brash Russia, and an African continent caught between new economic opportunities and a legacy of conflict and failed governance. The international community will demand action on climate change and the global food crisis. An American recession will focus attention on vulnerabilities in the global financial system. Key U.S. allies will seek renewed U.S. commitment to multilateralism.</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">The United States cannot retreat from this agenda any more than it can manage it alone. America needs global partners...It is in America’s self-interest to act now, while its influence is strong, to model leadership for the 21st century based on the premise of partnership and recognition of interdependence.</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">...Historically it has taken war or catastrophe to bring about a redefinition of sovereignty and a re-building of international order. Our challenge is to use the urgency of looming security challenges, and the prospect for positive results, to drive progress.</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">[See Report at pp. 6-15.]</div><br /><br /><br /><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_news/book_review_great_experiement_story_ancient_empires_modern_states_and_quest_global_nation">http://www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_news/book_review_great_experiement_story_ancient_empires_modern_states_and_quest_global_nation</a> </p><p></p><div align="justify"><strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr7ISYOphJ8KtgvkrB4baLjjjTQSlvX4Dsw98l_vHkwnAUETgh9ah69SyreWUOYTmHtLPJrn3mLu6pcpoSk9hRDXaZJimuF84amGjI9-ggEJnAmF4GwxZIuBAkEZcHvrrsMnUiSCgy2fYb/s1600-h/strobe+talbott.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309208185109243570" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 225px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 191px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr7ISYOphJ8KtgvkrB4baLjjjTQSlvX4Dsw98l_vHkwnAUETgh9ah69SyreWUOYTmHtLPJrn3mLu6pcpoSk9hRDXaZJimuF84amGjI9-ggEJnAmF4GwxZIuBAkEZcHvrrsMnUiSCgy2fYb/s320/strobe+talbott.jpg" border="0" /></a>BOOK REVIEW</strong>: <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Great Experiment: the Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States and the Quest for a Global Nation</span></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">By Strobe Talbott </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">(reviewed by Robert A. Enholm, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Citizens for Global Solutions</span></strong>)</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6l6nS5APONA_XzspN2SM5sbpn4gETBshwg5veTA9jAuM8Pw54pTDn66monnZQMr0e7W077RYMY8mMlroLYjsvnwLtE_fZ5IF45Y1tPLzE2aqTBzdqo2aiiEEjeej5W1BhkkJ6TsSZqdpr/s1600-h/RAEnholm+-+fensterstock.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309129770226851490" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 133px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6l6nS5APONA_XzspN2SM5sbpn4gETBshwg5veTA9jAuM8Pw54pTDn66monnZQMr0e7W077RYMY8mMlroLYjsvnwLtE_fZ5IF45Y1tPLzE2aqTBzdqo2aiiEEjeej5W1BhkkJ6TsSZqdpr/s200/RAEnholm+-+fensterstock.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Strobe Talbott's newest book is a call for the United States to return to the principles of international cooperation and the rule of law that have served our country well since its founding. He builds his case both by surveying philosophical and political history - from ancient to modern times - and by summarizing episodes in recent U.S. foreign policy in which he participated. As president of the Brookings Institution and a former deputy secretary of state, his insights on world affairs are profound. The result is a book that is engaging and persuasive while also being thought-provoking and entertaining.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Great Experiment</span></strong></em>, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Talbott has shouldered the task of explaining the wisdom of "global governance," chronicling the evolution of its philosophical underpinnings, reviewing historical progress toward that goal, and explaining the practical benefits of continuing in that direction.</strong></span></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">In the first part of the book, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">he tracks the idea of "global citizenship" from its early religious and philosophical principles to the modern day, bowing along the way to Socrates, Dante and Kant,</span> and acknowledging the World Federalist Movement with which Citizens for Global Solutions is affiliated</strong></span>. Talbott goes on to discuss how American leaders have wrestled with these ideas, from the founding fathers to twentieth century presidents.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />In the process, Talbott sheds new light on the significance of recent events, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of al-Qaeda, and the invasion of Iraq, drawing on observations and anecdotes from his own experience. Relying on the historical framework he has established, Talbott sees clearly that "9/11 stands as one of the great missed opportunities of American history." He laments,<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em>"The United States could have combined retribution on its own behalf with the formation of a global alliance against the perpetrators of terror everywhere and a comprehensive, sustained, sophisticated effort to address the root causes of the broader phenomenon...."</em></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />While Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt are often credited with establishing the precedents on which modern U.S. internationalism is based, Talbott describes the robust and progressive internationalism of Republican leaders, from Teddy Roosevelt through Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Modern-day Republicans may be surprised to learn that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Reagan spoke favorably of a standing U.N. military force</span></strong> and philosophically rejected preemptive war, or that, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Bush spoke encouragingly of a "new world order."</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />As Republicans consider in what direction the party should advance in the future, they may want to reconsider ideas on international engagement championed by party leaders of the past, and that are still promoted by prominent politicians such as Senator Richard Lugar and former Senator Chuck Hagel.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />In the final chapter of the book, written before the November elections, Talbott offers some prescriptions to guide U.S. foreign policy into the future, warning that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">"two clear and present dangers" - nuclear proliferation and climate change -will require "multilateralism on a scale far beyond anything the world has achieved to date."</span></strong> He also notes the unique responsibility the United Sates bears in addressing these dangers, as the most heavily armed nuclear state and <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the greatest producer of greenhouse gases</span></strong></em>.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Ultimately, Talbott's book is optimistic. He sees humankind progressing relentlessly toward greater and greater international cooperation and, despite episodic setbacks, with greater and greater success.</div><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://globalsolutions.org/node/1085">http://globalsolutions.org/node/1085</a><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTJdq0fI1vt-MxyfUAwPHVr1W3WTOjafukaJPAOUeBwEwr2KGApT0EhGQVI6qRCZDZkvuKS4EslALLHCXBul0jFiQPvxyJX80cna0wM7tRvGUtRVqUOwIm7XrcX0CJs8it3yvnQH7GRUXf/s1600-h/RonGlossop.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309128553038295234" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 149px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 190px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTJdq0fI1vt-MxyfUAwPHVr1W3WTOjafukaJPAOUeBwEwr2KGApT0EhGQVI6qRCZDZkvuKS4EslALLHCXBul0jFiQPvxyJX80cna0wM7tRvGUtRVqUOwIm7XrcX0CJs8it3yvnQH7GRUXf/s320/RonGlossop.png" border="0" /></a>Ronald J. Glossop's book review of <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation</span></strong> by Strobe Talbott<br /><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">[New York, London, Toronto, Sydney: Simon & Schuster, 2008]<br /><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Citizens for Global Solutions</strong></span></div><br /><br />April 3, 2008<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institute, provides us an excellent overview of human political history enriched by personal experiences and comments, all organized to show how humanity is slowly but surely creating ever larger political units to the point where now the next step is a creation of a global nation, a politically unified community that encompasses the whole Earth. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Talbott gave us his general viewpoint in his 1992 article in TIME when he said, "I'll bet that within the next hundred years . . . nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority"</strong></span> (pp. 126-27) He now adds,"I have qualified my forecast somewhat, but not in essence" (p. 127). The book's vast historical sweep, apparent in the subtitle, is also evident in the three parts into which the 405-page survey is divided: "The Imperial Millennia" (roughly up to 1914), "The American Centuries" (roughly up to the end of the Cold War in 1990), and "The Unipolar Decades" (from 1991 to the present). There are also another 71 pages of notes in this carefully documented work. </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />This book is a dramatic erudite narrative of human history told by a top-notch American scholar with an insider's view of current events. Strobe Talbott and Bill Clinton shared a house while both were Rhodes Scholars at Oxford University (p.17), and Talbott later was asked by Clinton to be his Deputy Secretary of State. Talbott's own account of his life and career, which includes 21 years with TIME, is in the "Introduction" (page 11). </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>World federalists will especially enjoy reading chapter 10 titled "The Master Builder," which covers the end of World War II, the beginning of the U.N., and the all-too-brief flourishing of the world federalist movement. </strong></span>Most readers will be surprised to learn that Harry Truman, from the time he graduated from high school in 1901, carried a scrap of paper in his wallet on which were written 12 lines of Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem "Locksley Hall," including the lines "Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd, In the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World." Talbott notes that "Truman recopied this text by hand as many as forty times during his life" (p.184) and that in a 1951 conversation with author John Hersey Truman said, "Notice that part about universal law. . . . We're going to have that someday. I guess that's what I've really been working for ever since I first put that poetry in my pocket" (p. 210). </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The negative reaction of world federalists to the U.N. plus their arguments for a radical change are described in detail. <span style="color:#ff0000;">One example is this quotation from Einstein's September 1945 letter to J. Robert Oppenheimer: "The wretched attempts to achieve international security, as it is understood today by our governments, do not alter at all the political structures of the world, do not recognize at all the competing sovereign nation-states as the real cause of conflicts.</span></span></strong> Our governments and the people do not seem to have drawn anything from past experience and are unable or unwilling to think the problem through. The conditions existing today force the individual states, for the sake of their own security based on fear, to do all those things which inevitably produce war. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>At the present state of industrialism, with the existing complete integration of the world, it is unthinkable that we can have peace without a real governmental organization to create and enforce law on individuals in their international relations.</strong></span> Without such an over-all solution to give up-to-date expression to the democratic sovereignty of the peoples, all attempts to avoid specific dangers in the international field seem to me illusory" (p. 197). </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The book also contains several statements that suggest that world federalist ideas are having some influence in unexpected places. For example, Talbott notes that <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">in the first edition of his 1948 classic POLITICS AMONG NATIONS prominent realist political theorist Hans Morgenthau noted that "the argument of the advocates of the world state is unanswerable. There can be no permanent international peace <em>without</em> a state coextensive with the confines of the political world <em>[and] a radical transformation of the existing international society of sovereign nations into a supranational community of individuals"</em></span></strong> </span>(p. 198). In 1992 Ronald Reagan said that he could foresee "a standing UN force--an army of conscience--that is fully equipped and prepared to carve out human sanctuaries through force if necessary" (p. 258). In his 2006 farewell address at the Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Missouri, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "The United States has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint. Its current moment of world supremacy gives it a priceless opportunity to entrench the same principles at the global level"</span></strong> (p. 391). </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Talbott provides interesting inside accounts of crucial events and international meetings during the years of the Clinton administration as well as an insightful analysis of the actions and views of individuals in the current Bush administration. His last chapter, "The Crucial Years," focuses on the upcoming U.S. Presidential election and the policies Talbott believes the United States should adopt as well as the issues that must be addressed. "The next administration should . . . waste no time in demonstrating that respect for international law is once again part of the bedrock of U.S. foreign policy" (p. 393). <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">There should be greater support for the United Nations, but beyond that "the UN needs to be incorporated into an increasingly variegated network of structures and arrangements--some functional in focus, others geographic; some intergovernmental, others based on systematic collaboration with the private sector, civil society, and NGOs" (p. 394). The United States should "encourage regional organizations to develop their own capacities as well as habits of cooperation with one another and with the UN itself" (p. 395).</span></em></strong> Also "ensuring a peaceful twenty-first century will depend in large measure on narrowing the divide between those who feel like winners and those who feel like losers in the process of globalization" (p. 395). </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />With regard to the most urgent problems to be tackled Talbott points to <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"two clear and present dangers. One is a new wave of nuclear-weapons proliferation; the other is a tipping point in the process of climate change.</span></strong> These mega-threats can be held at bay in the crucial years immediately ahead only through multilateralism on a scale far beyond anything the world has achieved to date" (p. 395). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Talbott concludes with this comment: "By solving [these] two problems that are truly urgent, we can increase the chances that eventually . . . the world will be able to ameliorate or even solve other problems that are merely very important</span></strong>. Whether future generations make the most of such a world, and whether they think of it as a global nation or just as a well-governed international community, is up to them. Whether they have the choice is up to us" (p. 401). <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>It seems to this reviewer that Talbott strays from his own basic insights when he suggests that the nuclear proliferation problem might be resolved by multilateralism on a grand scale in the absence of a prior revolutionary change to the global nation system (that is, to a world federation) which would substantially restrict national sovereignty. </strong></span></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><em>Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. Currently, Dr. Glossop is chairman of Citizens for Global Solutions of St. Louis, a member of the Political Action Committee of Global Solutions and Vice-President of the United Nations Association of St. Louis.</em></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><em>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></div><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402329.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402329.html</a><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Global Governance - To Strobe Talbott, it's inevitable. To John Bolton, it's surrender.</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Book Review</div><br /><br />By Joseph S. Nye Jr.<br /><br /><br />Washington Post<br /><br /><br />January 27, 2008<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">SURRENDER IS NOT AN OPTION<br />Defending America at the United Nations And Abroad</span></em></strong></div><br />By John Bolton (Threshold)<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">THE GREAT EXPERIMENT - The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, And the Quest for a Global Nation</span></strong></em><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">By Strobe Talbott (Simon & Schuster)</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">These two works -- each part memoir, part treatise on diplomacy -- serve as bookends in our current debate about America's role in the world.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">John Bolton, most recently President Bush's ambassador to the United Nations</span></strong>, and <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Strobe Talbott, </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+Clinton?tid=informline" target=""><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">President Clinton</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">'s deputy secretary of state and now president of the Brookings Institution,</span></strong> have some things in common. Both attended Yale in the troubled 1960s: Talbott as a classmate of George W. Bush, Bolton two years later. Both are baby boomers who did not serve in the Vietnam War: Talbott went to England as a Rhodes scholar, while Bolton made a "cold calculation that I wasn't going to waste time on a futile struggle."</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Their differences, however, far outweigh their similarities. Bolton, the son of a Baltimore firefighter, was a scholarship student who seems to have a chip on his shoulder about those he dismisses as the "High Minded." Talbott has a patrician background and refers to several illustrious relatives in his book, including a distant connection to the Bushes. He also reports that the current president "mentioned a grudge he bore against me as a bookish, hyperearnest undergraduate and a representative of the East Coast liberal foreign policy establishment" that represented "much of what he wanted to get away from."<br /><br /></div><div align="justify">After Yale, Talbott became a journalist for Time magazine, and Bolton became a lawyer, a fact he proudly mentions many times. Each writes with the grace of his original profession. Talbott's political approach is liberal in the old-fashioned sense of the word, and he quotes Edmund Burke that "nothing is so fatal to a nation as an extreme of self-partiality." Bolton's political style is aggressive, viewing diplomacy as "advocacy; advocacy for America." When Colin Powell, his former boss at the State Department, took a more multilateral approach, Bolton reports that he deliberately undermined Powell. "He knew it, and he knew I knew it."<br /><br /></div><div align="justify">From start to finish, these books reflect their authors' very different sensibilities. Bolton opens with his experience as a student campaign volunteer for Goldwater in 1964 and spends most of the book recounting his political battles in great detail. Talbott begins with a wide-ranging and lofty discourse on the concepts of empires, nations and states in world history. Both books conclude with a discussion of global governance, which is where they wholly diverge.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Talbott believes that global governance is coming -- that "individual states will increasingly see it in their interest to form an international system that is far more cohesive, far more empowered by its members, and therefore far more effective than the one we have today."</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Whether the United Nations will be the centerpiece of this new system is less clear to him</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify">In Talbott's view, the U.N. has the advantage of universal membership, global scope and a comprehensive agenda that makes it indispensable as a convener of governments and legitimizer of decisions, but also the disadvantage of being spread too thin; the sheer number and diversity of its members is a drag on its effectiveness. "To offset that defect," Talbott writes, "the U.N. needs to be incorporated into an increasingly variegated network of structures and arrangements -- some functional in focus, others geographic; some intergovernmental, others based on systematic collaboration with the private sector, civil society, and NGOs." <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In other words, what Talbott envisions is not a scary, all-powerful bureaucracy deploying black helicopters over Kansas but rather a flexible mesh of international agreements and organizations that support each other.</span></strong> Only in this way, he contends, will the world be able to deal with such clear dangers as a new wave in nuclear proliferation and a tipping point in global climate change.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Bolton is skeptical of such visions. He thinks the Eastern Establishment self-identifies with Europe in a way that is "both seductive and debilitating." In his view, the rapidly integrating countries of Western Europe show a proclivity to avoid confronting and resolving problems, "preferring instead the endless process of diplomatic mastication."</span></strong> This "decline in European will and capacity," he says, "is matched by <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>the related phenomenon, beloved by many Europeans, of using multilateral bodies for 'norming' both international practice and domestic policy, a development that, over time, most profoundly threatens to diminish American autonomy and self-government, notions that to us spell 'sovereignty.' "</strong></span> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>In other words, they want to constrain us by questioning the legitimacy of our unilateral policies.</strong></span> To reform the U.N., Bolton adds, contributions should be voluntary, and America should pay only for that with which we agree.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify">Both books have a point. The world today is a mixture of traditional international laws and agreements based on the sovereignty of individual nations and an emerging set of international humanitarian laws and norms that intrude inside sovereign states. The two are in tension and likely to remain so for decades. In 2005, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution regarding a "responsibility to protect" those endangered within sovereign states -- a resolution that Talbott admires and Bolton derides. In practice, it has led to intrusive but inadequate interventions in such places as Darfur and Myanmar. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Bolton is correct to warn that diplomacy is not cost-free and that U.N. diplomacy, in particular, is often convoluted and feckless. Talbott is correct to point out that "compromise, or at least the willingness to consider it, is at the heart of diplomacy,"</span></strong> and that the Bush administration's efforts to act without international constraints rested on hubristic and flawed analyses of American power. We may not need permission from others to act, but we often need their help to succeed.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Talbott provides a far richer, deeper account of the idea of global governance in American foreign policy. He reminds us that as recently as 1949, 64 Democrats, including John Kennedy, and 27 Republicans, including Gerald Ford, sponsored a resolution in favor of world federalism.</strong></span> But Bolton reminds us that many far less ambitious measures would never pass the Senate today. Which book should you read? Both, but if you have to choose, pick the one you are more likely to disagree with, because you will learn more about the range of the current debate. *</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em>Joseph S. Nye Jr., former assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, is a professor at Harvard and author of the forthcoming "The Powers to Lead."</em></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-27538010587858479202009-02-08T09:47:00.043-05:002009-02-19T10:11:29.508-05:00US Liberal Media Elite Redwash Away American and European Distinctions to Justify Obama's & Congress' European Socialist Act of 2009: Bon Chance!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHCDdUC-2YgObK3kBSRC4uTODk_xQypw6tCkGsKLv_GXZqy_Kvr2ErhlMH1hPsJWtu7QMBZcKlfTSur_DwwPrXOybJ4zCxSxClT1KEwenUiLrLMqXgZ1uX_uvab12zdT4oFLwpX1xME7i5/s1600-h/france+courier-obama.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300445011149600450" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 317px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHCDdUC-2YgObK3kBSRC4uTODk_xQypw6tCkGsKLv_GXZqy_Kvr2ErhlMH1hPsJWtu7QMBZcKlfTSur_DwwPrXOybJ4zCxSxClT1KEwenUiLrLMqXgZ1uX_uvab12zdT4oFLwpX1xME7i5/s400/france+courier-obama.jpg" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663">http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663</a><br /><br /><div><div><div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">We Are All Socialists</span> [NO, WE'RE NOT!!]</span></strong></div></div><div></div><div><div><br /></div><div>Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas</div><div><br /></div><div>NEWSWEEK<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><em><strong>In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.</strong></em></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[Signes de remise de Français!!!//Singes mangeurs de fromage!!]</span></strong></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr0Ca2UH_h76aX1um4Mjjzlnf0BeGqSChRMZ8AelNxI_bmQkV33rcScZfhe8pDzQsYqGKRCPnE58vPBp_OG0P0KxzslU_RWkP7q82suxTXcSyWqfl2z-pp8_cuif74iAtik2-wVpak1FEb/s1600-h/french_surrendermonkey.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300456612806650594" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 279px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 344px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr0Ca2UH_h76aX1um4Mjjzlnf0BeGqSChRMZ8AelNxI_bmQkV33rcScZfhe8pDzQsYqGKRCPnE58vPBp_OG0P0KxzslU_RWkP7q82suxTXcSyWqfl2z-pp8_cuif74iAtik2-wVpak1FEb/s400/french_surrendermonkey.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;"><strong>"It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009,"</strong></span> the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."</div><div><br /><br />There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.</span></strong><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct</span></strong>, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate.</span></strong> The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>[THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS STRUCTURED NOT FOR EFFICIENCY AND KUMBAYA POLITICAL CONSENSUS OR CORRECTNESS. IT WAS STRUCTURED PRECISELY FOR DEBATE. THE LIBERAL MEDIA ELITE ARE DOING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A DISSERVICE BY INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTING THE HISTORICAL PURPOSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND OUR STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT. SORRY, PRESIDENT OBAMA AND 111TH CONGRESS. YOU CAN JUST WIPE OUT OVER TWO CENTURIES OF HISTORY JUST TO SUIT YOUR SOCIALIST POLITICAL AGENDA!!]</strong></span></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>[OBAMA'S DECISION TO CAP THE SALARIES OF EXECUTIVES IN COMPANIES THAT RECEIVE FUNDS FROM THE 'TARP' MAKES SENSE INSOFAR AS THE EXECUTIVES ARE RECEIVING A GRANT OF TAXPAYER FUNDS TO RESOLVE A PROBLEM FOR WHICH THE EXECUTIVES WERE PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE. THESE FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE 'MISAPPROPRIATED' OR OTHERWISE 'MISUSED' OR 'WASTED' (THREE LEGAL TERMS OF ART') FOR PERSONAL GAIN AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. DEAR NEWSWEEK. LET'S GET IT STRAIGHT!]</strong></span></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction.</span></strong> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">[THIS IS NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. ONLY LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES WHO WISH TO REESTABLISH THEIR SOCIALIST 'SOLIDARITY BONDS' WITH THEIR EUROPEAN COUSINS SEEK THIS RESULT. IT IS EERILY REMINISCENT OF THE 1930'S. AMERICANS TODAY MUST BE SAAVY TO THIS AND RECOGNIZE THE INACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF AMERICA FOR POLITICAL & DIPLOMACY PURPOSES. NO DOUBT, THE GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE ARE BEHIND THIS MARKETING EFFORT.]</span></strong></div><div></div><div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPksPk3xuVCS53aWh2F2yBONSytwTvakPQhoqzL5L5ZM8l_wpkvBCPzJY3pZTHmVaCdrHSfP6NMpAayVjaQllYMaiZ22JF6iELIBJW7LB5s7qeaIAa__7rx1h44KebdjY46jqu_hHJ2GWC/s1600-h/fresocglobale-b.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300446416503776194" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 144px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 226px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPksPk3xuVCS53aWh2F2yBONSytwTvakPQhoqzL5L5ZM8l_wpkvBCPzJY3pZTHmVaCdrHSfP6NMpAayVjaQllYMaiZ22JF6iELIBJW7LB5s7qeaIAa__7rx1h44KebdjY46jqu_hHJ2GWC/s400/fresocglobale-b.jpg" border="0" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEyuwZQVFBGnxh5kIqNN1ru2OCSd2H9OLmHBXHUIauHflCPKUyWSFCpDJEc46dyWYuNTcFV10azjWHUjoLm75r1zsRN1aHrNXBQ7svcYCIIS2dMewhaElVOZCjX_cBlmuDhHNtnC9euFaq/s1600-h/frenchsocialismflag.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300444489985360274" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 128px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEyuwZQVFBGnxh5kIqNN1ru2OCSd2H9OLmHBXHUIauHflCPKUyWSFCpDJEc46dyWYuNTcFV10azjWHUjoLm75r1zsRN1aHrNXBQ7svcYCIIS2dMewhaElVOZCjX_cBlmuDhHNtnC9euFaq/s400/frenchsocialismflag.gif" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHWb4HxjTvJSbg-4UEP3ohpLG41wjiNr2ob02cII-9NrTBA9KzYG6uwSq3sNN-qoorE-01V7w-yhpekydV8QxS3-pN4Aa_YQ9rSEYUVMxpGnDQEuxG2wHQTqlk0lVwgPwCTMUE9Irfjbhx/s1600-h/socialist+obama.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300455012453376162" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 286px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHWb4HxjTvJSbg-4UEP3ohpLG41wjiNr2ob02cII-9NrTBA9KzYG6uwSq3sNN-qoorE-01V7w-yhpekydV8QxS3-pN4Aa_YQ9rSEYUVMxpGnDQEuxG2wHQTqlk0lVwgPwCTMUE9Irfjbhx/s400/socialist+obama.gif" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This is not to say that</span></strong> berets will be all the rage this spring, or that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven</span></strong>. </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff6600;"><strong>[HOW ABOUT AN EXTRA 'TRICK OR TREAT' IN EVERY JACK-O-LANTERN???]</strong></span></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">The architect of this new era of big government? <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush</strong></span>, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>Mission Accomplished: Bush Administration Delivers American Sovereignty on a Silver Platter to Socialist Europe</em>, ITSSD Journal on Political Surrealism, at:</span> </strong><a href="http://itssdjournalpoliticalsurrealism.blogspot.com/2008/11/mission-accomplished-bush.html"><strong>http://itssdjournalpoliticalsurrealism.blogspot.com/2008/11/mission-accomplished-bush.html</strong></a><strong> <span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government.</strong></span> The story, as always, is complicated. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government.</span></strong> They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.</div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdIXpRIE457GuqMcd9uxwo8RNLh6aeUrznwNS1eZwOfvFWv83YBHWw7Ftmei36L8xBqgCDNujYqZGbWtLDN__R59vaBRvdRp8GaqUAzXLEGhtdkFqI46jCsI_y7DylmtXqZif2-iwrS5qV/s1600-h/Socialism_Would_Mean.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300445841491339282" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 262px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdIXpRIE457GuqMcd9uxwo8RNLh6aeUrznwNS1eZwOfvFWv83YBHWw7Ftmei36L8xBqgCDNujYqZGbWtLDN__R59vaBRvdRp8GaqUAzXLEGhtdkFqI46jCsI_y7DylmtXqZif2-iwrS5qV/s400/Socialism_Would_Mean.jpg" border="0" /></a>Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>more government</strong></span>. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe</strong></span>, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.</div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">To get the balance between America and France right</span></strong>, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon. </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>Zut Alors! Is Obama More Like a European Socialist or a Nicolas Sarkozy?</em>, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: </span></strong><a href="http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/zut-alors-is-obama-more-like-european.html"><strong>http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/zut-alors-is-obama-more-like-european.html</strong></a><strong> <span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>Sliding Down the 'Slippery Slope' of 'Soft Socialism', ITSSD Journal on Political Surrealism</em>, at: </span></strong><a href="http://itssdjournalpoliticalsurrealism.blogspot.com/2008/11/sliding-down-slippery-slope-of-soft.html"><strong>http://itssdjournalpoliticalsurrealism.blogspot.com/2008/11/sliding-down-slippery-slope-of-soft.html</strong></a><strong> <span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>Europe & United Nations Try to Cram Down US Throat Socialist Financial and Environmental Global Governance; Will Bush & Successor Swallow?</em>, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: <a href="http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/10/europe-un-us-blue-party-cram-down-bush.html"><span style="font-size:100%;">http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/10/europe-un-us-blue-party-cram-down-bush.html</span></a>].</span></strong></div><div></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3761/print">http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3761/print</a></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama: Elected on a French Platform<br /></span></strong></div><div></div><div>By George Handlery<br /></div><div></div><div>The Brussels Journal</div><div></div><div></div><div>2009-01-24<br /></div><div></div></div><div align="justify">...9. Our day’s politically successful Left has its roots in the movement of “’68”. As the product of that wave, its roots reach back into a soil that has been critical of authority. In this they share a trait with Conservatives. The difference is that 68 had not only been critical of authority but also attacked all authority as long as it was found to be located in the democratic West. In the praxis of their “struggle”, not every authority had been attacked that exercised power. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The target of hostility was, and still is, every institution that is not controlled by the Left. This is why these anti-authoritarians advocate the expansion of state power as son as they gain control of the state. This makes them into selective anti--authoritarians. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>They preach disobedience toward everything that they or their ideological allies do no dominate.</em></span></span></strong> As they do so, they covet might that can be put into their service. A wise distinction because, the projects of radical transformation advocated by the Left are, on the long run, not implementable with the support of voluntary majorities based on consent. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">...12. One more thing. You might have been suspecting something like this. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Ségolène Royal, the failed Socialist opponent of Sarkozi, has attended Obama’s inauguration.</span></strong> She used the occasion to make an unsurprising statement. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>In her opinion, Obama was elected on a platform that she had been running on in France.<br /></strong></span></div><div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/schiffrin">http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/schiffrin</a></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Socialism Is No Longer a Dirty Word<br /></span></strong></div><div></div><div>By André Schiffrin<br /></div><div></div><div><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This article appeared in the December 29, 2008 edition of The Nation</span></strong></em><br /></div><div></div><div>December 10, 2008</div><div></div><div></div><div align="justify">John McCain's desperate attempts to smear Obama as a socialist during the last weeks of the campaign because of his defense of progressive income taxes are well behind us. Now that Obama's economic team has been named, primarily from the center-right, the question is more likely to be whether he is still a left-wing Democrat. But the attacks were a sign of how far right the Republicans had gone in questioning a policy long accepted by most Americans. We have forgotten that under that notorious left-winger Dwight D. Eisenhower, the tax on the highest bracket was 90 percent. In recent years tax cuts have been used, very effectively, to redistribute income upward. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">But "socialist" seemed to work as an epithet, replacing "communist," no longer useful now that Russia and China have become capitalist, and "liberal," now overused. </span></strong></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />While Socialist parties still play an important role in Western Europe and, increasingly, in Latin America, they have long disappeared from the American scene. Since the death of Michael Harrington, there has been no acknowledged spokesman. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Though Bernie Sanders was elected as a socialist, he has not chosen to forward any socialist alternatives</span></strong>. There is no one around to explain what socialist approaches to the present economic crisis might be, what a platform different from Obama's very careful centrist arguments would be like. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>In 1942 a quarter of the population thought that <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">socialism</span>, of the kind that would be elected in nearly all of Western Europe, would be a "good thing." <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Socialist ideas</span> were so popular that Harry Truman, old-style Democratic machine politician that he was, ran on a platform well to the left of Obama's--or of any of his Democratic successors.</strong></span> He faced important competitors to his left, not only the Socialist Party's Norman Thomas but also the more popular Progressive Party candidate, Henry Wallace. <span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Truman thus argued for a <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">socialized </span>national health insurance plan, for more TVAs as well as more public housing, hospitals and the like. Full employment, not tax cuts, was then the American priority</span></strong>. </span></div><div align="justify"></div><div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></div><div align="justify"><a href="http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/category/european-left/">http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/category/european-left/</a></div><div></div><div align="justify"><a href="http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/new-anti-capitalist-party-real-politics-emerge/">http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/new-anti-capitalist-party-real-politics-emerge/</a></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Tendance Coatesy</span></strong></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Left Socialist Blog</strong></span><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>Archive for the ‘European Left’ Category</strong></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">New Anti-Capitalist Party: Real Politics Emerge</span></strong>.</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">Now for some real politics: how the NPA will affect the French institutional and electoral scene. This is an interview with Henri Weber (a former leader of the LCR, co-founder of Rouge, passed long ago over to the social democratic wing of the Socialist Party and a MEP). From <a title="Nouvel Observateur" href="http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/opinions/interviews/20090205.OBS3325/le_logiciel_du_npa_est_celui_de_la_lcr.html">Le Nouvel Observateur</a>.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Onze partis de gauche, dont le NPA et le PS, ont signé un texte commun pour un “<a title="Change Course" href="http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/politique/20090205.OBS3271/onze_organisations_de_gauche_demandent_un_changement_de.html">changement de cap</a>” du gouvernement. Quelle peut être la suite de cette initiative ?</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Eleven left parties, including the <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>NPA and the Parti Socialiste</strong></span>*, have signed a common declaration calling on the government to change course. What could follow this initiative?</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Le PS doit débattre et agir avec la dizaine de partis qui se disent à sa gauche, même s’il est en désaccord avec la plus grande partie de leur programme, tant qu’ils se réclament de la démocratie – ce qui est le cas. PS et extrême-gauche se rejoignent pour dénoncer la politique du gouvernement, au sein des mouvements sociaux, et lors des élections pour battre la droite. Le but final est tout de même de rassembler très largement au-delà de son électorat. C’est une condition nécessaire pour remporter les élections (nécessaire, mais pas suffisante : LCR et LO avaient appelé à voter PS en 2007).Mais cette union de la grande famille de la gauche n’exclut pas la confrontation. Le PS doit apporter des solutions ambitieuses et radicales, dans le nouveau paysage idéologique mondial qui a suivi l’effondrement de Lehman Brothers.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />The <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>PS</strong></span> should debate and act in common with these 11 parties, who consider themselves as on the left, even if it disagrees with most of their programme, insofar as they are identify themselves as democratic - which is the case here. The PS and the far left meet each other and work together inside social movements, to denounce the government’s policies, and to beat the Right during elections. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The aim (ie of the PS, AC) is to bring together a much wider constituency than its own electorate. It’s a condition of winning elections, (necessary, but not sufficient - LO and the LCR called for a PS vote in 2007). Such a union of the great left family does not rule out differences. The PS should bring forward its own bold and radical solutions - in the new worldwide ideological landscape that followed the Lehman Brothers collapse.</span></strong></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Wary of the perennial efforts of the <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Parti Socialiste</span> to colonise other left organisations (or eclipse them), the LCR and now the NPA have decided to be resolutely independent. Not that this excludes such joint statements, or actions.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">These can be placed, obviously, within the movement born during the mobilisation for the January General Strike.</span></strong> As such I suppose the qualify as ‘United Front’ tactics, common action around agreed aims. As such rather more genuine than the British SWP’s who use the term to refer to their deals with the cabals that made up Respect. This united front strategy for the LCR/NPA goes hand-in-hand with demarcating themselves(that is, standing alone, or with very close allies) in electoral politics (such as municipal agreements). </div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Yet how far should they remain apart? The frontiers appear variable. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The LCR have called for votes for other parties, including ‘reformist’ ones, during many elections: in 1995 (when they had no candidate of their own) they recommended no less than three Presidential candidates, Robert Hue (PCF), Arlette Laguillerr (LO) and Dominique Voyant (Greens) ! </span></strong><a title="Wikipedia, LCR" href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligue_communiste_revolutionnaire"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">(here</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">)</span></strong> Now however, the will to strike separately’ is on the ascendent. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">It appears to extend even to left groups which, while independent, nevertheless have links and electoral agreements (local and often national) with the Socialists.</span></strong> As the extract below indicates.<br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><a title="Huma" href="http://www.humanite.fr/2009-02-06_Politique_Malaise-a-la-LCR-sur-fond-d-elections-europeennes">L’Humanité</a> reports a strained atmosphere at the founding Conference, and the following comments by Christian Picquet (Blog <a title="Picquet's Blog" href="http://www.unir.asso.fr/category/christian-picquet/">Here</a>) :</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify">Christian Picquet du courant UNIR a dressé un réquisitoire sévère contre la manière dont la direction a piloté la mue de la LCR. « Un tel projet méritait un autre congrès. » Il déplore « l’ambiance morose » dans les comités locaux. Il reproche à la direction de sacrifier le mouvement social, le rassemblement de la gauche vraiment à gauche à des intérêts de parti. Christian Picquet dénonce les « faux prétextes » pour refuser de participer à des listes du front de gauche avec le PCF et le Parti de la gauche aux élections européennes. Il est encore possible de faire un autre choix pour éviter que le premier geste du nouveau parti soit précisément le refus de l’union. « Ce serait la marque du nouveau parti. »</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Christian Picquet, of the Unir tendency, laid down a tough judgement on the way in which the LCR leadership has carried out its transformation, “such a project deserves another Conference”, and he deplored the “glum atmosphere” in the local branches. He accused them of sacrificing the unity of the real left and social movements to the interests of the party. Christian Picquet denounced the “false pretexts” used to reject an alliance , the Left Front, with the PCF (Communist Party) and the PG (Left Party) for the European Elections. Though “it is still possible to change this decision and avoid making the first choiceo f the new party a refusal of unity“. Otherwise “that will be the trademark of the new party”.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Anyone doing some elementary electoral arithmetic will know that to get over the 10% qualifying hurdle in the European ballots an agreement is needed if there is to be any reasonable potential for the success of left of PS candidates</span></strong>. Without it, a long stay on Mount Aventine is in store for the NPA.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Added Sunday: On the possibility of an agreement for the European Elections, (<a title="Nouvel Obs" href="http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/politique/20090208.OBS3678/naissance_officielle_du_nouveau_parti_anticapitaliste_d.html">Nouvel Observateur</a>) on the Conference (which definitely adopted the NPA name):</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Si le texte proposé au congrès affirme aussi le soutien du parti à “un accord durable de toutes les forces qui se réclament de l’anticapitalisme”, cette condition devrait rendre difficile un accord avec le Parti communiste, qui siège avec les socialistes dans les conseils régionaux.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">If the Congress’s text asserted that the party would back a firm agreement of all forces which affirm their anti-capitalism</span></strong>, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">this conditions will make it difficult to make an alliance with the Communist Party, which sits with the Socialists in regional council groups</span></strong>.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Note to NPA: get those warm woolies for the <a title="Mount Aventine" href="http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.j-m-w-turner.co.uk/gallery2/gallery2/d/161-2/Rome_from_Mount_Aventine.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.j-m-w-turner.co.uk/gallery2/gallery2/v/Rome_from_Mount_Aventine.jpg.html&usg=__0ULb7Z8-br-EU9proVRzYbqttEE=&h=474&w=628&sz=53&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=Rfemc_7oNRwpcM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMount%2BAventine%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN">peak-tops </a>ready now!</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em>* Les Alternatifs, la Coordination nationale des collectifs unitaires (CNCU), Lutte Ouvrière, le MRC, le NPA, le PCF, le PCOF, le Parti de gauche, le PS, Alternative Démocratie Socialisme (ADS), Alter-Ekolo. Full declaration </em><a title="Declaration of French Left organisations" href="http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/politique/20090205.OBS3285/communique_des_partis_de_gauche_pour_un_changement_de_c.html"><em>here</em></a></div><div></div><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div></div><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670678">http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670678</a></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">France’s Socialists: Left and ultra-left</span></strong> </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">The Economist</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div align="justify">July 3, 2008</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em><strong>A party that ought to be doing better looks for a new leader</strong></em></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>THIS should be a fertile time to be a French Socialist</strong></span>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Global capitalism, demon of choice for the French left, is in chaos</span></strong></em>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">President Nicolas Sarkozy’s popularity has collapsed</span></strong>. France is about to rejoin the military command of NATO, seen by the left as a tool of <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Anglo-Saxon hegemony</span></strong>. And yet the French Socialist Party is busy tearing itself apart.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />In November François Hollande, the party leader, is due to step down. Elbowing towards his seat are half a dozen candidates who have been publishing their “contributions” ahead of the party congress. The front-runners are Mr Hollande’s ex-partner and a defeated presidential candidate, Ségolène Royal; Bertrand Delanoë, mayor of Paris; and, in a late surge, Martine Aubry, mayor of Lille and architect of France’s 35-hour week.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />Given that the Socialists have lost three presidential elections in a row, some modernising might seem in order. The party has boldly given up a reference to “revolution” in its founding principles. There was a hint of renewal when Mr Delanoë, flush from his Paris re-election in March, called himself “liberal”, a term of abuse inferior in France only to “ultra-liberal”. But he hastily insisted he was “both liberal and socialist” and his liberalism was mostly “political”—eg, backing adoptions by homosexual couples. </div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Ms Royal’s pitch is an odd mix of old-style socialism (more workers on company boards) and surprising fiscal conservatism (a lone promise not to boost the tax take). In a recent speech to rock-star applause in Paris, she cited Engels and castigated Mr Sarkozy for favouring “the France of Falcon jets”, but called for an open mind over an alliance with the political centre.</span></strong> Farther left sits Ms Aubry, who has support from the teaching and public-sector backbone of the party. Her bid calls for a higher minimum wage and a tax on international capital flows, but also <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>argues in quasi-Blairite tones that “to redistribute wealth, it must first be created”. </strong></span></div><div></div><div align="justify"><br />As rival leaders grope for a definition of the centre-left, however, a political gap is opening up to their left. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>One far-left politician has been grabbing attention: Olivier Besancenot, a youthful-looking, T-shirt-wearing postman and former Trotskyite presidential candidate</strong></span>. In a startling recent poll, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">he was judged “the best opposition to Nicolas Sarkozy”</span></strong>, beating, in order, all the old guard: Mr Delanoë, Ms Royal and Mr Hollande.</div><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Appealing to anti-market hostility in France, the new darling of media talk-shows is launching <span style="color:#ff0000;">a “New Anti-Capitalist Party”</span>,</span></strong> to “prepare a radical revolutionary transformation of society” and “the end of capitalism”. Mr Besancenot’s ascent, and ready populist message for troubled times, is starting to worry the Socialists. Needless to say, the right, itself hurt for so long by the far-right National Front, can scarcely conceal its glee.</div><div></div></div></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-34578579205020842402009-01-17T10:17:00.051-05:002009-01-19T21:45:58.289-05:00European/UN Environment-Centric Sustainable Development Model Calls For Behavior Modification to Achieve Communal Global Welfare State?<span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>NEGATIVE</em> SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM REVEALED, ONCE AGAIN</strong></span><br /><br /><br /><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div align="justify">The following article substantiates the research performed by the ITSSD demonstrating how the Bruntland Commission notion of <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">‘negative’ sustainable development</span></strong> (<a href="http://www.itssd.org/issues.html">http://www.itssd.org/issues.html</a>) introduced to the world back in 1987 was never really intended to reflect the co-equal balancing of three related but mutually exclusive spheres - environment, social and economic. Rather, as is evidenced below, sustainable development has all along been 'framed' as <strong>a well-disguised anti-capitalist platform to promote widespread mass social ‘change’ and governance vis-a-vis individual 'changes' in human nature through subtle nuanced means – i.e., by employing little noticed academic (anthropological, sociological, psychological, philosophical and political) tools, along with religious and moral suasion</strong>, to achieve systemic behavior modification in developed countries, specifically those in the West. <em><strong>The stated objective is to achieve a new global utopian paradigm of WORLD GOVERNMENT directed environment-centric sustainable development</strong></em>. </div></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">This new paradigm would be defined by:<strong> </strong></div><div><br /> </div><div align="justify"><strong>1) European Continental-style slow-growth ‘social’ market-based collective capitalism and 'socio-economic democracy' that is designed to replace the currently prevalent model of Anglo-American laissez-faire-based capitalism. It would, for example, impose individual earnings caps - ‘maximum allowable personal wealth’; </strong></div><strong></strong><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>2) The political reorganization of global society around environmental and community concerns and moral, religious and legal obligations; </strong></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>3) Global economic wealth redistribution implemented politically by newly created national socioeconomic democratic parties that ultimately unite via the creation of new and expansion of existing UN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE institutions. Such political parties will work to replace GDP (Gross Domestic Product) with some form of GDW (Gross Domestic Welfare) measure that prioritizes the quality of life and the integrity of the human habitat over economic wellbeing; </strong></div></div><div> </div><div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>4) The creation of new broad, amorphous political and legal communal human rights, including the right to 'social and environmental justice’ and the right to ‘universal guaranteed personal income’; and </strong></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>5) The willing enlistment of large global corporations (which would otherwise be subject to legal duress &/or brand reputation disparagement) as 'agents' for national government to persuade citizen-consumers to change their currently 'bad' habits.</strong></div><div><br /> </div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The overarching goal is to convert homo economicus into homo solidarius.</span></strong> </div><div><br /> </div><div align="justify">Discerning readers must query the extent to which the thoughts and intentions expressed in the articles and papers below relate to the significant political debate that arose over competing forms of capitalism this past fall in response to the global financial crisis. </div><div> </div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>Eurocrats & US Liberal Progressives Declare End of Anglo-American Capitalism & US Superpower Status: Is Euro-Style Global Socialism Next?</em>, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at:</span> </strong><a href="http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/09/eurocrats-us-liberal-progressives.html"><strong>http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/09/eurocrats-us-liberal-progressives.html</strong></a><strong> <span style="font-size:180%;">]</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div> </div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>Europe & United Nations Try to Cram Down US Throat Socialist Financial and Environmental Global Governance; Will Bush & Successor Swallow?</em>, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom at:</span> </strong><a href="http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/10/europe-un-us-blue-party-cram-down-bush.html"><strong>http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/10/europe-un-us-blue-party-cram-down-bush.html</strong></a><strong> <span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong></div><div> </div><div align="justify">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.edc2020.eu/fileadmin/Textdateien/EDC2020_Briefing_Paper_No._1_web.pdf">http://www.edc2020.eu/fileadmin/Textdateien/EDC2020_Briefing_Paper_No._1_web.pdf</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">European Development Co-operation to 2020 – The EU as an answer to global challenges?<br /></span></strong><br /><br />By <strong>Sven Grimm<br /></strong><br /><br />[ BRIEFING PAPER ]<br /><br /><br /><strong>EDC 2020 – 7th Framework Programme<br /></strong><br /><br /><em><strong>(Project funded under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities theme)<br /></strong></em><br /><br />No. 1 . August 2008<br /><br /><br />The<span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;"><strong> European Union (EU)</strong></span> is changing from an intra-European project to a global player. By default and due to its very existence, the EU has a global impact, as it is the largest economic bloc in the world and has one of the globe’s leading currencies. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The question is whether Europe wants to actively shape globalisation and wants to proactively address global problems that also have repercussions on European polities. The EU is an endeavour to pool national sovereignty in order to gain political clout at the international level.</span></strong> Global risks and opportunities need to be managed, and the EU will be increasingly expected to act. International development is one of the important strands of the EU’s external relations, as it addresses root causes of conflict and includes work on <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">global public goods.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Given this context, this briefing paper will outline the background for policy-making in EU development policy. During the project, EDC2020 will be going to explore three areas in more depth: (i) engaging with new actors, (ii) combining energy security, democracy and development and (iii) addressing climate change. Further work on these key topics will contribute to EU thinking and will present policy options on how to address these issues in the framework of European development co-operation to 2020.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Long live the international consensus! And beyond 2015?<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Over the transition period following the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, Western donors and numerous recipient states came to an agreement on a consensus for international development co-operation. Europe actively engaged in this consensus seeking and embraced its core principles in its policies: </div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">± international goals as enshrined in the <strong>[UNITED NATIONS]</strong> Millennium Declaration (particularly the Millennium Development Goals, MDGs), with a timeline to 2015.<br /><br /><br />± financing targets for development (Monterrey) until 2015, and</div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br />± aid delivery modes, donor harmonisation and alignment (Paris Declaration) with a timeline to 2010.<br /><br /><br />At the latest around 2015, there will have to be a stock-taking of how far the aid system has come with the instruments defined in Paris and Monterrey to reach the MDGs. If substantial progress towards the MDGs can be demonstrated, they are likely to establish themselves as the development co-operation leitmotif even beyond 2015. But the closer to 2015 the donor community comes without being able to meet a substantial part of the goals, the more this consensus will come under pressure and will be challenged. <strong>There are two scenarios for failure. The first is that the policies were right but the money or the management were not forthcoming. The second is that the world and thinking about development has changed.</strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Can European co-operation successfully manage persistent challenges in the area of international development in a changing global environment?<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Newly emerging challenges to 2020<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Beyond some global progress and persistent problems in meeting the goals on the international MDG agenda in many regions (see box 1), new issues arise that will impact on global development:<br /><br /><br />± The importance of China, India and other emerging powers in the world economy and with respect to global economic growth will likely continue to increase. China and India’s combined GDP is expected to account for more than 10 % of global wealth by 2020. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">These new actors in international development include state as well as <span style="font-size:180%;">non-state actors</span> – and just like the EU, they have an impact on development prospects of others, whether they like it or not</span></em></strong>. In some sectors, these emerging powers are out-competing economic actors from other developing countries and their economic rise increases pressure on global resources.<br /><br /><br />± The linkage between various goals is often complex. Energy security, democracy promotion and development, for instance, come with considerable potential for contradictory agendas. When resources become scarce and energy needs are not decreasing, it might prove even more difficult to establish a coherent vision of balancing Europe’s policy on energy security with the value-laden aspiration to foster democracy and development at the same time. <strong>Political commitments by the EU read well. Yet, self-interests might become less enlightened</strong>, after all, as the world is moving quickly and unprecedentedly into a situation of possible global energy shortages. This affects Europe and also other development actors.<br /><br /><br />± A number of global challenges may well lie beyond the framework for development, but are crucial to address in order to advance development prospects. <strong>Ecosystems are changing rapidly through human activities. Scarcity of resources, whether fresh water or arable land, in some regions is likely to increase. Environmental and consequently developmental challenges resulting from climate change will be significant. </strong>The countries least responsible for CO2 emissions, such as the least developed countries, are in fact the most affected by climate change and will require – and demand – support to cope with consequences. Scenarios that go beyond the projected rise of global temperatures up to 2 or 3 degrees are more threatening and often described as the tipping point, the collapse of entire ecosystems representing one dire potential outcome.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In brief, the international system has come under pressure.</span></strong> The overarching question of EDC2020 is the role for development policy in the policy mix of the multilevel system of the European Union, explored in the three thematic areas outlined above.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Challenges for international development co-operation</span></strong><br /><br /><br />When discussing future challenges to international development and <strong><em>how Europe addresses them in its external relations</em></strong>, two general questions are emerging which press all European donors for clear answers:<br /><br /><br />± Which issues can and should be tackled by international development policy? Is the specialisation / compartmentalisation of aid in external policies the solution or the problem? Should development co-operation focus on the poorest countries only? What does development policy’s mandate and expertise embrace – and where should it end, leaving tasks to other experts in external relations?<br /><br /><br />Shifts in various external agendas such as security or trade policy are likely to influence development co-operation prospects. Due to the difficulty in managing competing interests, however, policy coherence for development remains a challenge.<br /><br /><br />± Who does what? The question of the international aid architecture<br /><br /><br />- <strong>Who should tackle which issues in international development?</strong> Or rather: with whom should we tackle them? More actors are entering the international arena, both state actors and private foundations, as well as an increasing number of global funds. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The EU is one likely force for cohesion and donor coordination, but at the same time it is a factor in proliferation of donors. The EU continues to consist of 27+1, and future enlargements (Western Balkans, Turkey?) are likely to increase the numbers.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br />One set of goals and instruments for co-operation?<br /><br /><br />The delivery of aid can at best assist countries in mobilizing their efforts to address challenges. Development cooperation should thus not be regarded as the one and only silver bullet to global problems. It is somewhat like providing risk capital: aid will work in some cases and not in others. And <strong>official development assistance (ODA) is, indeed, only a tiny fraction of global financial flows, additional to private capital flows</strong>.<br /><br /><br />Developing countries are increasingly differentiating; some countries are new stars, others are starting from a completely different basis due to conflicts or failed government policies. Accordingly, donors will have to think how to differentiate goals and instruments in international co-operation. These vary across different types of countries (cf. Faust / Messner 2004), for instance:<br /><br /><br />± the poorest countries (Least Developed Countries, LDCs) with substantial capacity constraints,<br />± fragile or failed states, with de facto non-existent internal or external sovereignty, and<br />± emerging powers (the ‘BRICS’- Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).<br /><br /><br />With regard to goals, discussions range between e.g. poverty reduction in the LDCs, establishing basic security in fragile / failed states, and jointly managing global governance with the emerging powers. Instruments also vary: from capacity building over nation building to co-opera-tion on global issues. Hence, the policy mix towards partner countries is necessarily different from country to country.<br /><br /><br />The EU in international development over the next decade Since the beginning of the 21st century, <strong><em>Europe has embarked on a renewal of its development co-operation. The EU will now have to turn to new global issues and challenges <span style="font-size:180%;">in order to even just maintain its role in the world </span>and to work for international development</em></strong>. The architecture of aid and modes of delivery in this fragmented system appear to be a problem. The major argument surrounding the future of EU development co-operation actually stretches beyond the scope of development cooperation as a policy area: <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Europe can only increase its influence at international level if it stands together</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />Decisions taken now within the EU will impact on European development co-operation for the next decade or so. As one of the key decisions to be taken, the Lisbon Treaty offers a number of changes in the area of international relations that are bound to have repercussions on development co-operation. It will be important to retain a voice for development at the highest level of political decision-making. How will a possible European President position him- or herself in external relations? How will the not-so-called EU Foreign Minister fill the position? And how will development co-exist alongside or become integrated in European external policy making and possible institutional changes (namely: the External Actions Service)? <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Structures can facilitate or hinder certain debates – thus structures are important and solutions to the stalemate over the Lisbon Treaty will need to be sought. They will determine if the EU is capable to manage global challenges to 2020.</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Specialisation of agencies is one way to keep actors in and relevant. Specialisation can be on countries / regions or on specific topics or on both, as the EU Code of Conduct for a Division of Labour of 2007 has rightly concluded. Reforms will not necessarily have to result in centralization in Brussels. It will be a key issue in the EU – and not an easy one – to make a better division of labour work amongst Member States and the Union’s institutions. This will be a crucial opportunity to reform the system from within and to achieve progress on better aid effectiveness, in order to avoid the risk of irrelevance.<br /><br /><br />Emerging powers have a strong bias for bilateral cooperation, thus co-operation schemes with some of them will become even more important. But how can these actors effectively be engaged? Options range from ‘business as usual’ over coordination / harmonisation to a greater emphasis on multilateralism. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Questions remain over the appropriate forum for dialogue with these emerging powers and other actors as well as with respect to what mechanisms should be used to enhance co-operation with them</span></strong></em>. <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg/488px-Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg.png"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 130px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 128px" alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg/488px-Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg.png" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3366ff;">The United Nations are important to obtain global legitimacy. They are thus one suitable forum to address issues of global public goods.</span></strong> Other setups, like the G8, are also pointing towards a potentially increasing role of the EU as a medium for European states to retain a meaningful role at the international level and to work for the protection and / or creation of global public goods. Europe will be expected to act; global impact comes with global responsibilities.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=920">http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=920</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=263">EADI</a> / <a href="http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=265">Events</a> / <a href="http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=285">General Conference</a> / <a href="http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=912">12th EADI General Conference</a> / <a href="http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=913">Introduction</a> / <a href="http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=920">Long version</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction to the Conference Topic<br /></span></strong><br /><a href="http://euro-med.dk/billeder/club-of-rome-logo.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 203px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 119px" alt="" src="http://euro-med.dk/billeder/club-of-rome-logo.gif" border="0" /></a>The writing on the wall is here to stay: <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Human civilisation will undermine its own foundations if we, the citizens of the Earth, do not change the course of our development paths. The limits to growth, predicted by the Club of Rome in the 1970s, are becoming only too evident</span></strong>. The combination of a growing population and worldwide increasing standards of living threatens to overstretch the carrying capacity of our planet at both ends: in the use of finite energy and non-renewable natural resources and in the capacity to absorb the polluting effluents of human activities. The impact of past and present carbon dioxide emissions is now felt around the world in turbulent weather conditions, melting glaciers, progressing deserts and rising sea levels. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The recent update of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (February 2007) confirmed that human activities were a driver of global warming</span></strong></em>. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Even the U.S. President has acknowledged, if late, that climate change needs action. Europeans have been more aware that this threat could not be met by a single country or even a group of countries alone. They are strongly committed to the Kyoto Protocol and to bringing developing countries - and the United States - into the process.<br /></strong></span><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span>See <em>Climate Change and Sustainable Development</em>, Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs Remarks to the Sustainable Development Forum 2008 New York City May 2, 2008, at </strong><a href="http://www.state.gov/g/rls/rm/104353.htm"><strong>http://www.state.gov/g/rls/rm/104353.htm</strong></a><strong>. (“Much has been said about sustainable development over these years, but more importantly, much has been done. In 2002, I went to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, which was a follow-up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. In Johannesburg, I witnessed an important evolution: the world turned the corner from identifying the critical problems we are facing to identifying solutions… This spirit of partnership and implementation carries over into our efforts to address climate change. Armed with the recent significant findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, leaders around the world are addressing this growing challenge head on. Last December's UN Climate Conference in Bali opened a new chapter in climate diplomacy. In Bali, the United States joined the other 191 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in forging consensus on the “Bali Action Plan,” an achievable roadmap toward a new multilateral arrangement on climate change… First, <em>in order to be both environmentally effective and economically sustainable</em>, a post-2012 approach must include meaningful participation from all major economies. The United States will do its part. Two weeks ago, President Bush announced a new national goal of stopping the growth in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, and reducing emissions thereafter.”)<span style="font-size:180%;">]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">If climate change is the worst - and fatal - market failure</span></strong>, there is a need for government action, and if the actions of individual governments do not suffice, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">there is an urgent need for international co-operation and effective </span><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">global governance</span></strong>…<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.edc2020.eu/28.0.html">http://www.edc2020.eu/28.0.html</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">EDC 2020 - European Development Cooperation to 2020 </span></strong><br /><br /><br />EDC2020 Panel at the EADI General Conference 2008<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDqYhfwespg5jIr5Ma1lX_jNw2WXHC3me8s5hnTmu76SsIqJgF3uX1gicfhlmrr5t4v7IdILCXqWNmVuOr4FmNbOSkRH2-1Bx07YAok65M4h4DbQC7nDi8OmHhI718o1g-dtkWqfyUnP50/s1600-h/EADI+logo.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292680033155566482" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDqYhfwespg5jIr5Ma1lX_jNw2WXHC3me8s5hnTmu76SsIqJgF3uX1gicfhlmrr5t4v7IdILCXqWNmVuOr4FmNbOSkRH2-1Bx07YAok65M4h4DbQC7nDi8OmHhI718o1g-dtkWqfyUnP50/s320/EADI+logo.jpg" border="0" /></a>From 24-28 June 2008 the EADI General Conference <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"Global Governance for Sustainable Development. The need for policy coherence and new partnerships</strong></span>" took place in Geneva, Switzerland. 500 researchers and practitioners came together to discuss and exchange ideas in lectures, plenary and parallel sessions as well as workshops. The EDC2020 project organised a parallel session on Friday 27 June to present the project and discuss its issues and workplan.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>Chair:</strong></em> Nadarajah Shanmugaratnam, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway</div><div> </div><div align="justify"><em><strong></strong></em></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><em><strong>Speakers:</strong></em> </div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>Sven Grimm</strong>, German Development Institute, Germany</div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">John Humphrey, Institute of Development Studies, UK</div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">Garth le Pere, Institute for Global Dialogue, South Africa<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">European Development Co-operation to 2020: Emerging Issues for Europe’s Development Policy-Making</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>Nadarajah Shanmugaratnam</strong> opened the parallel session by commenting on the background of the EDC2020 project. He highlighted challenges posed by the European structure such as the growing number of new member states to the European Union which bring in a diversity of member state policies. On the other hand, the global South is also highly differentiated and is facing dynamic processes in many countries. Emerging powers such as China, India and Brazil implement their own South-South co-operation; in many states national governance failure can be observed and underdevelopment is not overcome yet. Therefore, the questions “How to address development issues in the new complex environment” and “Which issues have to be addresses in development co-operation or international relations” remain crucial. </div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">EDC2020 project</span></strong> has identified three main emerging issues which European development co-operation is facing:<br /><br /><br />1. New actors in international co-operation<br />2. Energy security, democracy and development<br />3. Climate change and development<br /><br /><strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU1Bu4lWnBYWlcjejoent1KPb_u1s0KtYWzR691xUTLb1DLipH5Ga2KIc0a8enYgkuYcuHhpi02g10fAtiv38EUiI1fab20roa5vE_4MMQSvB7moc3x9wTLR_Hbus76Y7Mi4QX9NxE6pTL/s1600-h/German+Development+Institute+-+One+World+logo.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292680757867849874" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 218px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 252px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU1Bu4lWnBYWlcjejoent1KPb_u1s0KtYWzR691xUTLb1DLipH5Ga2KIc0a8enYgkuYcuHhpi02g10fAtiv38EUiI1fab20roa5vE_4MMQSvB7moc3x9wTLR_Hbus76Y7Mi4QX9NxE6pTL/s320/German+Development+Institute+-+One+World+logo.jpg" border="0" /></a>Sven Grimm</strong>, Research Fellow at the <strong>German Development Institute (DIE)/ Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik</strong>, gave a short overview of issues and aims of the project <strong>“European Development Co-operation to 2020"</strong>. In three topical work packages on emerging issues - namely New Actors in International Co-operation; Energy Security, Democracy and Development as well as Climate Change and Development - the three-year project aims at identifying different trends on the agenda for the next decade which impact on development co-operation. He referred to Charles Gore's presentation in the plenary session II <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">“Can Economic Growth Be Reconciled with Sustainable Development? </span></strong>On Knife-Edge between Climate Change and Millenium Development Goals” who had identified the same topics in his presentation. Sven stressed that various dates in the next years (e.g. 2015 for the MDGs) will force us to assess our work and to see whether we failed or were successful. The project is intending to provide input for those different scenarios. Issues, chances and risks of development co-operation will be analysed and policy advise will be given in a time when a number of reforms are pending on the European level and the future of the Lisbon Treaty is uncertain. The aid architecture is facing challenges with regard to the division of labour when new actors emerge on the international scene. </div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><strong>John Humphrey</strong>, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), presented some thoughts about the issue of new actors in international co-operation which is one of the work packages. Within the range of new actors (new EU members, countries in the Middle East, Latin America and parts of Asia) he focused on China and India and stressed the point that they are not new in a literal sense, but that the interest towards their politics is growing. China, who is widely criticized for not being pledged to DAC criteria and governance, only accounts for 10% of trade with Africa. If taking the EU member states together the Union and the United States are still by far the biggest partners of Africa. Moreover, with regard to the exploitation of resources, China exports far less than the US. Hence, John stressed that China's commitment in Africa is less outstanding than widely assumed. Two particular issues are of interest to development co-operation:<br /><br /><br />1. There may be lessons we Europeans want to learn from Chinese projects and their poverty reduction policies<br />2. Chinese politics are most relevant to the production of public goods like climate protection, equity or security.<br /><br /><br />The challenge which Europeans will have to address is the way in which China and India structure their development co-operation. They raise questions for EU policies as they do not split aid from trade, investments and other policy areas. For Europe this poses the question: How do European development ministries link to ministries for international relations or trade?<br /><br /><br />Garth Le Pere, Director of the South African Institute for Global Dialogue, depicted some important trends on the global scene that according to him should be taken into account by the EDC2020 project:<br /><br /><br />1. The global increase in population<br />2. Global food scarcity<br />3. Global economy and globalisation<br />4. Tension between national and global governance<br /><br /><br />He stressed that little if any progress has been made on the framework for global warming, in reaching MDGs and the threat of a nuclear catastrophe. The systemic order is in a weak state after the end of the cold war where<br /><br /><br />1. Values of the UN system have been contested<br />2. The future of the EU is unclear<br />3. WTO faces the divide in the DOHA round.<br /><br /><br />During the discussion various questions were raised and constructive feedback on the project was given.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Aid should not be separated from international relations and thus development co-operation should form part of a broader agenda.</strong> The sole focus on aid might well have contributed to the poisoning of relationships between many countries. Hence, the EU-Africa strategy also states that the EU envisages a broader partnership that goes beyond the mere aid relationship.<br /><br /><br />However, this complexity of issues – the whole of international co-operation set together by many different issues - is one of the main challenges of the project which tries to address some of the issues. Due to budgetary restrictions, a choice of which issues to focus on had to be made by the consortium and other important issues like security or global governance can not be addressed in detail.<br /><br /><br />The project seeks to build scenarios on project issues to give input for policymaking. Therefore, its focus is on the question: <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">How will a global Europe look like in 2020?.</span></strong> </div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br />The remark was made that so far comparative research is lacking. Therefore, it could be of interest to compare China and India to the EU and the US, as policy-makers are under the impression that China and India have a very big influence. Comparative data could give us a framework to estimate their impact and importance.<br /><br /><br />It was stated that a problem today might be, that until recently Europe did not see the two countries, China and India, as competitive actors to European policies. Now, the EU is in need of defining a new global strategy to meet the recent developments.<br /><br /><br />On the other hand, it was emphasized that the threat perception of China as an international actor is widely exaggerated. One should note that besides its own interests which China follows they have made some valuable input for Africa among others in the area of telecommunication and infrastructure. Chinese engagement allows African leaders to choose more freely what fits into their own national policies. However, it was stated that an important aspect for Chinese policies remains: China has to rethink their policy of non-interference.<br /><br /><br />An interesting comment was given saying that <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">the EU is no monolithic actor as often being assumed, but composed of many different member states. Therefore, it is less monolithic than for example China or the US</span></em></strong> and is also less threatening to partner countries.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.edc2020.eu/fileadmin/Textdateien/General_Conference_Report_2008.pdf">http://www.edc2020.eu/fileadmin/Textdateien/General_Conference_Report_2008.pdf</a><br /><br />12 General Conference EADI<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>GLOBAL GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT<br /></strong></span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Need for Policy Coherence and New Partnerships</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTe-dHOwp6zXz1Gl451nxLvtAxSmnasGrSYluVmCkaH0QbWTxVl3OGKJ3CAO9rDUA-oN1AYKQuhefC7yi4k_obr7j1gH4wvvRdFSdb4JIxg-qBQpTzUtv-FY2QGW_a-InjQLTwTz2bq4V5/s1600-h/Graduate+Institut+of+Geneva.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292685110008672338" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 234px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 135px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTe-dHOwp6zXz1Gl451nxLvtAxSmnasGrSYluVmCkaH0QbWTxVl3OGKJ3CAO9rDUA-oN1AYKQuhefC7yi4k_obr7j1gH4wvvRdFSdb4JIxg-qBQpTzUtv-FY2QGW_a-InjQLTwTz2bq4V5/s320/Graduate+Institut+of+Geneva.bmp" border="0" /></a>The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva<br /><br /><br />Geneva – June 24-28, 2008<br /><br /><br />The <em><strong>European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI)</strong></em> is the leading professional association and network in its field, with more than 350 institutional and individual members and partners in 29 European countries. EADI was founded in 1975 with the aim to create an adequate framework for pan-European collaboration and information exchange. Since February 2000, the Secretariat has been based in Bonn, Germany.<br /><br /><br />The <em><strong>Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID), Geneva</strong></em>, is the result of the merger of two academic institutions specialised in international relations and development studies and benefiting from a long experience in training students from all over the world: the Graduate Institute of International Studies (HEI) and the Graduate Institute of Development Studies (IUED), established respectively in 1927 and 1961. The Institute’s mission is to provide independent and rigorous analyses of current and emerging world issues. It has a particular concern for promoting international cooperation and bringing an academic contribution to less advanced nations.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Note from the President </span></strong><br /><br /><br />The 12th EADI General Conference was a great success and I would like to thank the speakers and conference participants who, through their challenging presentations, questions and debates, made it lively and stimulating. Many of the issues discussed are reflected in this report. In this short note I would like to recall some important points made in the plenary sessions and the public lectures.<br /><br /><br />The first plenary session focused on policy coherence among international organisations. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The transnational nature of many of today’s challenges and the increased interdependence of countries call for a better global governance and mechanisms for distributional impact</span></strong>. At present a limited group of countries lays down the law. However, this industrialised core is losing its place, not only in terms of legitimacy but also because of the power shift to emerging markets (China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Russia). <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>There is <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">a need to democratise the global economic governance</span></strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> </span><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">institutions</span> if we want to secure developing countries’ and emerging powers’ cooperation on urgent global challenges</strong></span>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“How to reconcile economic growth and sustainable development?”</span></strong> was the question asked to the panelists of the second plenary session. The shortage of environmental macro-data and statistics on long term poverty dynamics hinders the analysis. At the same time, there is a need for a more complex approach to MDGs and development issues. Until now the interpretation of MDGs has been too partial. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>A shift in paradigm is called for to widen the view of what wealth means and to include common goods.</strong></span> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>This implies changing the patterns of consumption and a structural change towards lower energy use</strong></span> at both national and international level but, first of all, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>thinking globally beyond the national frames of reference</strong></span>.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Politics is still national. Hence the necessity to mobilize people and networks to pressure political leaders.</span></strong></em> The third plenary session brought together representatives of the business community, an academic and a representative of global civil society. Beyond their diversity those panellists pointed to common problems: the difficulty to link different levels of action (the local and the global) and the difficulty to link different regions and actors.<br /><br /><br />The three public lectures touched upon topical and controversial issues. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ff33;">Tariq Banuri made us think of the world as a single country – Earthland </span><em><span style="font-size:130%;">– with all the characteristics of a developing country.</span></em></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">He showed that global challenges, such as climate change, would be best solved if approached as development problems</span></strong></em>. Ndioro Ndiaye stressed the linkages between migration and development. The dialogue between countries of origin and recipient countries has improved but there is still a long way to go to find win-win solutions. Gilbert Etienne looked at the structural causes of the food crisis that stem from the neglect of agriculture over the last decades. He denounced the cacophony of current dogmas and pleaded for a more balanced approach. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Jean Ziegler looked at the food crisis from the perspective of <span style="font-size:180%;">a human right</span> – the right to food.</span></strong> He analysed the aggravating effects of speculation, the spread of biofuels and the structural adjustment programmes, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">and advocated in favour of food to be considered as </span><span style="font-size:180%;">a public good</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />Three main conclusions can be drawn. First, unresolved or worsening development issues have invaded the agenda of international relations and domestic policies worldwide. Hence, the relevance of development research in setting today’s global policy agenda. Second, in the current period of multiple crises the need for global governance is more pressing than ever. Third, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>a shift in paradigm is necessary to make sustainable development possible.<br /></strong></span><br /><br />Lastly, I would like to thank all EADI members for renewing my mandate as President of the association. I stood for reelection knowing that I could count on the unfailing and efficient support of the EADI Secretariat and on a team of dedicated Vice-Presidents. The next three years will be challenging but also exciting. The current crises and dysfunctioning that affect the world system have shaken many assumptions. We have reached the turning point I mentioned in the text below, written three years ago:<br /><br /><br />“My vision is that both development studies and EADI have a promising future, on the basis of their interdisciplinary legacy since half a century, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>development studies will play again a crucial role when our humanity will shift away from the present day excesses of globalization, which predominately subordinates the well-being of society to the needs of the economy</strong></span>. Then it will be largely left to our field of specialization <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>to find a more reasonable pace for economic and social change</strong></span>, as well as to help implementing a global development model for our planet <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>that can be both socially equitable and ecologically sustainable.” </strong></span></div><div> </div><div align="justify"></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">A window of opportunity has opened up for development specialists to make their voice heard. Let EADI be equal to it.<br /><br /><br />Jean-Luc Maurer<br /><em>President of EADI<br />Professor, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva<br /></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Opening Session<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><em>Speakers:<br /></em></strong><br /><br />Jean-Dominique Vassalli, Rector, University of Geneva<br />Ambassador Jürg Streuli, Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations Office in Geneva<br />Jacques Forster, Vice-President, Board of the Foundation for International and Development Studies, Geneva<br />Jean-Luc Maurer, President of EADI, Professor at the Graduate Institute, Geneva<br />Chair: Jürgen Wiemann, EADI Vice-President, Deputy Director, German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik<br /><br /><br /><strong>Professor Vassalli<br /></strong><br />As a researcher in biology of development, Professor Vassalli gives great importance to sustainable development. He is convinced that if humanity does not change the course of its development it will exceed the carrying capacities of planet Earth. The poor and the disadvantaged will suffer most and this cannot be allowed. A system of global governance is needed. The concept of sustainable development is a noble concept but concrete actions seem to be slow to come. We need a radical change, we need to break the direction that our development has taken. Geneva is an appropriate venue to reflect on Global Governance for Sustainable Development.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Geneva has been the cradle of radical changes:</span></strong> the Reformation with Calvin, 450 years ago, the foundation of the Red Cross with Henri Dunant and the creation of the World Wide Web at CERN in the Canton of Geneva.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Geneva is also a place of dialogue. It is the EU regional headquarters of the United Nations and numerous international organisations</span></strong>. Every year, Geneva host more international meetings than any other place in the world.<br /><br /><br />Finally, Professor Vassalli recalled that Universities and research institutes have a major role to play in helping radical changes to be carried out, especially comprehensive universities that shelter a diversity of competences. Regarding sustainable development it is particularly important to integrate all concerned areas: hard sciences, life sciences, social sciences, etc. All are found at the University of Geneva and the University works in close partnership with the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Ambassador Streuli<br /></strong><br />On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Madame Calmy-Rey, Ambassador Streuli welcomed the participants to the EADI conference. He said that the choice of Geneva as conference venue is most appropriate to discuss international cooperation. <em><strong>Geneva hosts five competence centres: peace, security and desarmament; humanitarian affairs and human rights; health; labour, economy and trade; and sustainable development and conservation of natural resources.<br /></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Interdependence is what characterises the relations between countries today. The network of complex interactions generates risks difficult to forecast. A reshuffle of international politics and transnational cooperation is needed.</span></strong> Ambassador Streuli thought that Einstein’s remark that a problem could not be solved by the way of thinking that created it, applied very well to the theme of the EADI conference.<br /><br /><br />A quarter of human beings consume three quarters of the resources of planet Earth. This unequal distribution fuels fights over oil, water and fertile land. The last IPCC report shows the harmful effects of our consumption patterns. The consequences of global warming hit poor countries harder while they have contributed to it less. If the North countries want to preserve peace they have to change their consumption patterns. Those fundamental questions place equity between and within countries at the top of political concerns.<br /><br /><br />The EADI conference offers an opportunity to discuss a long term vision, understand correlations, review current thinking and develop new ideas. To answer the imperatives of sustainable development we need creative thinking and innovative policies. The good news is that some solutions already exist and could be implemented straight away. But a single country cannot overcome the foretold crisis alone. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Governments as well as people have to learn to think beyond their own borders. Solutions to and responsibility for global problems are international. A major task will be to democratise international regulations and institutions.<br /></strong></span><br /><br /><strong>Jacques Forster<br /></strong><br />The Board of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies was honoured and happy to co-host the 12th EADI General Conference and on its behalf Jacques Forster welcomed the participants. He explained that the Graduate Institute was a newly created institution that brought together two well known institutes, the Graduate Institute of Development Studies (IUED) and the Graduate Institute of International Studies (IUHEI). <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">IUED had been closely associated with EADI since the founding of the association</span></em></strong>. Jacques Forster himself had been member of the EADI Executive Committee and member of the working group on Aid Policy and Performance for a number of years.<br /><br /><br />The title and subtitle of the conference encapsulate in a few words what Jacques Forster considered to be the main item on the agenda of the international community. It represents a key meeting point for two areas of studies, international and development studies, that perhaps did not interact as intensively as what was taking place in society would have warranted.<br /><br /><br />The dichotomy between the developing world and developed countries, relatively clear half a century ago, has been replaced by a more complex constellation. The group of so called developing countries has become increasingly heterogenous while rich countries (OECD) are faced with development problems. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Nowadays all regions of the world are faced with development problems and sustainability is a universally relevant key concept</strong></span>.<br /><br /><br />The field of international relations has also significantly evolved. Globalization is a phenomenon that goes well beyond economic integration, it encompasses social, political, cultural, environmental and legal dimensions. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>External influences, external norms affect the everyday life of citizens of a nation state, blurring the line between domestic and foreign policy</strong></span>. The transformations taking place in international relations are also characterised by the growing diversity of international actors besides states and international organisations. NGOs and the corporate world have become necessary partners. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Global governance</strong></span> is a momentous challenge on the agenda of a very heterogenous international community marked by deep structural disparities, numerous conflicts and diverging priorities.<br /><br /><br />The theme of the conference is right at the crossroads of the academic fields of international and development studies. As representative of a new academic institution that has chosen to link the two fields of studies, Jacques Forster welcomed the EADI conference to Geneva.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Jean-Luc Maurer<br /></strong><br />Jean-Luc Maurer welcomed the participants to the conference and gave an overview of the conference programme. He thanked people who contributed to the organisation of the conférence: Thomas Lawo and Susanne Itter and their team from the EADI Secretariat, Janine Rodgers from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Anouar Belkhodja and Nicole Gilodi from the congress organising firm Axécible.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGrAeujeqFBhXxcvaCU0eWKUiBRjTOWroZ5vyuR1yQ-GF7Sqzi09II2aekWkfnYNfiqUAn6gKIYx2bn-dyWBJ9h1xROQSteleG0gpCy-KM7woDj9QMGMge3N7BdGBZKN4MYSmupRgWRyHj/s1600-h/french+development+agency.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292686989969597106" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 113px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 111px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGrAeujeqFBhXxcvaCU0eWKUiBRjTOWroZ5vyuR1yQ-GF7Sqzi09II2aekWkfnYNfiqUAn6gKIYx2bn-dyWBJ9h1xROQSteleG0gpCy-KM7woDj9QMGMge3N7BdGBZKN4MYSmupRgWRyHj/s320/french+development+agency.bmp" border="0" /></a>Thanks were also addressed to <em><strong>the institutions that sponsored the conference</strong></em>: </div><div><br /> </div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the French Development Agency</span></strong>, the Finnish Foreign Affairs Ministry, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, the Institute of Social and Economic Development of Paris (IEDES), the Institute of Social Studies of The Hague (ISS), the Advanced Studies Programme of the University of Geneva (Formation Continue), <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJHrgUzp2TdvCPbNvbJH6YMfkGlhdPXvNyOkHdwM350eGr8BMYjHN_HGpJsvVlhCsswyiO-s70lNjOTUVjpQsLrlICmieGdN48EXhPT51MWf0AD58S1fKaLh33rgIYZAe-9BBVexK44TxG/s1600-h/Agence+Universitaire+de+la+Francophonie.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292686408018908546" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 148px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 149px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJHrgUzp2TdvCPbNvbJH6YMfkGlhdPXvNyOkHdwM350eGr8BMYjHN_HGpJsvVlhCsswyiO-s70lNjOTUVjpQsLrlICmieGdN48EXhPT51MWf0AD58S1fKaLh33rgIYZAe-9BBVexK44TxG/s320/Agence+Universitaire+de+la+Francophonie.bmp" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF)</span></strong>, Taylor & Francis and the Canton of Geneva. Special thanks were addressed to the University of Geneva for putting its premises at EADI’s disposal. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMpOpl6ISXiRI0BDI01HN5pOWqcfRx3_qDcpV_kD3pQgEXK-UvOcjDJe3pPLqPI-cu6JXISx6ocvrCzvkdc3Y4i6cNu9XUCsUtgcFWPIgRSe8eeh35QI9DTlxV_6nUjOoCYE57a4Ymuq-Z/s1600-h/swiss+federal+department+of+foreign+affairs+logo.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293199489537814082" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 80px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 60px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMpOpl6ISXiRI0BDI01HN5pOWqcfRx3_qDcpV_kD3pQgEXK-UvOcjDJe3pPLqPI-cu6JXISx6ocvrCzvkdc3Y4i6cNu9XUCsUtgcFWPIgRSe8eeh35QI9DTlxV_6nUjOoCYE57a4Ymuq-Z/s400/swiss+federal+department+of+foreign+affairs+logo.gif" border="0" /></a><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Three fifths of the conference budget had been provided by the Federal Departement of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland through its division of Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC).</span></em></strong> Thanks were addressed to Ambassador Walter Fust, former director of the SDC and now CEO of the Global Humanitarian Forum, Serge Chapatte, the former Vice-Director, and their colleague Martin Faesler.<br /><br /><br />Lastly, the Graduate Institute, Geneva, being the host institute deserved a special mention for its support to EADI. However, for EADI it was very satisfactory that the first major Institute’s international event was a conference on development because, as shown by Tariq Banuri, development studies are more relevant than ever to understand and solve current world problems. Jean-luc Maurer concluded by asking the conference participants to think seriously about two challenging proposals: Tariq Banuri’s proposal to view the world as a single developing countries and Rector Vassalli’s notion of radical change.<br /><br /><br />Report by Janine Rodgers,<br /><em>Graduate Institute, Geneva<br /></em><br /><br />…III. Mobilizing networks to strengthen global governance: Research community, civil society and business communities<br /><br /><br />…Plenary Sessions<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnlwwq-8xYNPhEWtS29FIuk-Gis4-1GYs3yWgH61ZkVayQbWXlE-kxybEiV5mDUGMxeG1Tg7ZrZLJyzMOarNKItAfQUs8xnRi-eP6Kf5pDfYpcXWKFsE3zH3mFWznjOnFy5L9t4IoIsX3/s1600-h/CRES+-++Chamber+of+Social+and+Solidarity+Economy+of+Geneva.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292685422053465986" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 63px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnlwwq-8xYNPhEWtS29FIuk-Gis4-1GYs3yWgH61ZkVayQbWXlE-kxybEiV5mDUGMxeG1Tg7ZrZLJyzMOarNKItAfQUs8xnRi-eP6Kf5pDfYpcXWKFsE3zH3mFWznjOnFy5L9t4IoIsX3/s320/CRES+-++Chamber+of+Social+and+Solidarity+Economy+of+Geneva.gif" border="0" /></a>Christophe Dunand, local actor and activist [<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Chambre de l’économie sociale et solidaire de Genève, and Réalise, Geneva, Switzerland</span></strong>], presented the Chamber of Social and Solidarity Economy of Geneva, a local initiative all the more interesting since it came from the North. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The mission of the Chamber is to promote, encourage and help enterprises of the social and solidarity economy</strong></span>. Funded in 2004 it comprises already 200 enterprises active in all sectors of activities and employing between 6 and 9% of the Canton wage earners. <em><strong>The social and solidarity economy (the third economic sector beside the public sector and the profit-making private sector) creates utility and employment</strong></em> and is primarily characteristized by its practices. What are the values and principles of its entreprises?<br /><br /><br />• Their main goal is not to create profits but to serve the community<br />• Continous economic activity<br />• Paid employees<br />• Coherence between values and practice<br />• Democratic self management<br />• Long terme commitment to sustainable development<br />• Limited environmental impact<br /><br /><br />Their legal status is diverse: cooperative, association, foundation, non-profit making limited liability company.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The aim is to promote sustainable modes of functioning and consumption among individuals and communities</span></strong>, and develop a social and solidarity market through fair practices at the local and global level. Networking with likewise organisations is needed to influence regional and global governance towards sustainable development and coordination with national, regional or worldwide similar initiatives remain a challenge.<br />[website: <a href="http://www.apres-ge.ch/">http://www.apres-ge.ch/</a>]...<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv05n01.html">http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv05n01.html</a></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Sustainable Development Paradox</span></strong></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong>The E-Journal of Solidarity, Sustainability, and Nonviolence</strong><br /><br /><br />Vol. 5, No. 1, Rev. 1, January 2009<br /><br /><br />Luis T. Gutierrez, Editor<br /><br /><br /><a name="issuesummary">SUMMARY</a><br /><br /><br />The paradoxical nature of sustainable development is already discernible in the <a href="http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I">Brundlandt Commission Report (Chapter 2, Section 1, Item 15)</a>, United Nations, 1987: "In essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations."<br /><br /><br />It is in balancing the social, economic, and environmental dimensions that all dimensions of the process come into play. <em><strong>As part of the series on "dimensions of sustainable development," this issue is a reality check on the feasibility of integrating all the dimensions using the current paradigms in the social, economic, and environmental sciences.</strong></em> The twelve monthly issues during 2008 provide evidence that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">such integration should take place in the collective social mindset</span></strong> ("collective unconscious"), and this can happen only after it has taken root in the individual hearts and minds of human beings.<br /><br /><br />All the evidence collected thus far strongly indicates that, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>as long as the current paradigm of economic development (money is the one thing that really matters) remains normative, or as long as the current paradigm of social behavior (male domination, also known as patriarchy), or as long as the current paradigm in environmental management (use and abuse of natural resources) remains normative, attempting such an integration is an exercise in futility.</strong></span> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">To make the integration feasible, homo economicus must become homo solidarius.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />The invited paper this month is <a href="http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv05n01simms.html">The Cult of the Patriarch</a> by Glenda P. Simms, a Jamaican educational psychologist. It is a concrete example, in time and space, that the patriarchal social system is incapable of taking human development beyond a certain point. This example is replicated in all cultures and all phases of human history. Therefore, thinking inductively, it is legitimate to conclude that the patriarchal paradigm is intrinsically perverse and must be overcome. The same line of reasoning applies to the current economic development paradigm and the current environmental management paradigm. [i.e., <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>THE CURRENT ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PARADIGMS ARE INTRINSICALLY PERVERSE AND MUST BE OVERCOME].</strong></span><br /><br /><br />Just as oil and water don't mix, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>the prevalent socioeconomic and socioecological paradigms don't mix. And they don't mix at any place or any level, for they are rooted in a conception of humanity that has become obsolete.</strong></span> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The conclusion is that the sustainable development paradox is not to be resolved by mixing mutually incompatible paradigms, but by the advent of new paradigms (first in the human sciences, and then in the social, economic, and environmental sciences) that are mutually compatible and amenable to integration.<br /></strong></span><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">1. Dimensions of Sustainable Development</span></strong><br /><br /><br />At this point in the current series on <a href="http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust.html#volume4">Dimensions of Sustainable Development</a>, let us interrupt momentarily the analyses of single dimensions to reassess how the various dimensions fit into the "big picture." The reader may want to take a quick look at the themes and outlines for the <a href="http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust.html#volume4">twelve issues of 2008</a> and notice the year long focus on the basics of human and social behavior.<br /><br /><br />A classical visualization of sustainable development dimensions is a Venn diagram in which social, economic, and environmental factors overlap so as to produce a system that is sustainable in that it is socially bearable, economically equitable, and environmentally viable:<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLYEKsr5LwCGSeIIf6hCuGUmSd2sHB0XRh0FLf0Xw3hHU3yzYrBXooVzrfda3hWUtbu2BopTcGRwVFlMAZQ3DHa64fhXer2WabVzpnCnFsB1vLqPCI4w0tUwJiurObIqAbi3b0w2n3CYXo/s1600-h/sustainabledevelopmentwiki.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292296634544234786" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 300px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 225px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLYEKsr5LwCGSeIIf6hCuGUmSd2sHB0XRh0FLf0Xw3hHU3yzYrBXooVzrfda3hWUtbu2BopTcGRwVFlMAZQ3DHa64fhXer2WabVzpnCnFsB1vLqPCI4w0tUwJiurObIqAbi3b0w2n3CYXo/s400/sustainabledevelopmentwiki.png" border="0" /></a><br /><em>Figure 1. Basic Sustainable Development Dimensions Source: </em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development"><em>Wikipedia - Sustainable Development</em></a><br /><br /><br />This diagram is conceptually reasonable at the highest level of aggregation. Social, economic, and environmental systems have a life of their own, and even more so the intersection of the three systems. <strong><em>However, the behavior of the total system is not independent of human behavior, either individually or collectively.</em></strong> Furthermore, careful examination of the sustainable development process at lower levels of analysis reveals that there are many other dimensions that contribute to sustainable development. In fact, it is hard to find a knowledge domain that has nothing to do with sustainable development. <em><strong>The reason is the increasingly tight coupling between human behavior and the human habitat.</strong></em> The mission of the recently created <a href="http://www.chans-net.org/">International Network of Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems (CHANS-Net)</a> is to foster collaborative interdisciplinary research pursuant to improved understanding <a href="http://www.chans-net.org/publications.aspx?id=Complexity%20of%20Coupled%20Human%20and%20Natural%20Systems">Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems</a>:<br /><br /><br /><em>"Integrated studies of coupled human and natural systems reveal new and complex patterns and processes not evident when studied by social or natural scientists separately. Synthesis of six case studies from around the world shows that couplings between human and natural systems vary across space, time, and organizational units. They also exhibit nonlinear dynamics with thresholds, reciprocal feedback loops, time lags, resilience, heterogeneity, and surprises. Furthermore, past couplings have legacy effects on present conditions and future possibilities."</em><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5844/1513"><em>Jianguo Liu et al., Science, Vol. 317, No. 5844, pp. 1513-1516, 14 September 2007</em></a><em>.<br /></em><br /><br />Understanding this complexity is required for improved management of the sustainable development process. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sociologists, economists, and environmentalists need inputs from anthropologists, political scientists, social psychologists, theologians, philosophers, the physical sciences, the life sciences, and many other disciplines</span></strong>. This knowledge integration is indispensable to understand the <a href="http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf">counterintuitive behavior of social systems</a>; behavior that is, in the ultimate analysis, rooted in human behavior.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><a name="section2"></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">2. The Sustainable Development Paradox<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Sustainable development, as the name implies, requires development that is sustainable in the sense that it can unfold in harmony with the human habitat. The paradoxical nature of this process is already discernible in the <a href="http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I">Brundlandt Commission Report (Chapter 2, Section 1, Item 15)</a>, United Nations, 1987:<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>"In essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change</strong></span> are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations."</em> </div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br />A very appealing and conceptually clear summary and visualization of this paradox was provided in 1999 by Willard R. Fey and Ann C.W. Lam, who refer to it as the <a href="http://ecocosmdynamics.org/ED/paradox.asp">ecocosm paradox</a>:<br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"The </span></strong><a href="http://ecocosmdynamics.org/ED/paradox.asp"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">ecocosm paradox</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> is the set of dilemmas that arise from the compound hyper-exponential growth of annual world human consumption.</span></strong> The two main characteristics of the ecocosm paradox are: </div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">· If human consumption growth continues, the planetary life support system will be disabled and humanity will itself become endangered.<br />· If consumption growth is stopped, the viability of the world's economic and financial systems will be threatened, and the stability of governments and society will deteriorate.</span></strong><br /><br /><br />This paradox is best represented by a <a href="http://ecocosmdynamics.org/ED/fig16.asp">diagram</a> showing the major system feedback loops that perpetuate it."<br /><br /><br />In a recent open letter, <strong>Bill Powers, developer of the </strong><a href="http://www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/"><strong>Perceptual Control Theory (PCT)</strong></a>, describes the paradoxical choice between development and sustainability as follows:<br /></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><strong>Excerpt of Open Letter from Bill Powers, 5 December 2008</strong><br /><br /><br /><em>"This is a letter that needs to be conveyed to as many people who make economic decisions as possible. <strong>OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM CONTAINS DESTABILIZING FEEDBACK LOOPS THAT CAN DESTROY IT. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO REMOVE THEM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.</strong> This is a true time bomb. It is perfectly obvious, and it is to my shame and that of everyone who understands the dynamics of control systems that it was not noticed, publicized, and corrected long ago. It is very simple and we are watching it operate every day that this recession deepens.<br /></div></em><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><em><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>"Its cause is some set of policies or principles that are thought to be necessary to maintain the viability of a business, but which, when generally adopted, have the effect of exaggerating swings in the market</strong></span> and, if widespread enough, throw the market into a state of dynamic instability that feeds on itself. Increases in market activity cause a piling-on effect which drive the increases even further and induce more frenzied market activity. The same underlying relationships work the other way, too: when the market peaks and starts downward, this cause the enthusiasm to wane and the market activity to slow down, and the slowdown causes an even more dampening effect, which makes the slowdown accelerate.<br /></em></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><em><strong>"Whichever way the market tends to change, the change is exaggerated by this feedback effect. The initial result when the amount of feedback is small is that the economy displays "boom-and-bust" cycles of relatively small amplitude, which die out after a time.</strong> When the degree of this effect becomes large enough, the swings start to get larger and can enter a region in which a runaway effect occurs. Then the only way to stop the growing oscillations is for something in the system to be damaged enough to reduce the feedback effect below the fatal threshold of sensitivity." For the complete text of the letter, visit the </em><a href="https://listserv.illinois.edu/wa.cgi?A2=ind0812a&L=csgnet&T=0&P=1370"><em>CSGNET LISTSERV</em></a><em>.<br /></em><br /><br />Bill Power's letter is a timely contribution to increase awareness about the increasingly increasing urgency of reformulating social and economic development in an environmentally sustainable way. <strong>A limitation of his letter, however, is that consideration is given only to feedback dynamics generated within the economic sector, and no consideration is given to the web of feedback loops that tie the economic, environmental, and social sectors together</strong>.<br /></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><a name="section3"></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">3. Dynamics of Human & Social Behavior<br /></span></strong><br /><br />During the last century or so, most of the development work has been focused on economic growth, i.e., the economic subset in Figure 1. In recent years, the planet has started giving some signs of stress, such as climate changes; and we are barely beginning to pay some attention to the environment subset (better late than never). The social subset, however, has received attention only to the extent that it might have some financial impact. The question then arises as to <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">whether or not humans can adjust their individual and social behavior to avoid further environmental deterioration and ensure a future of socio-economic justice for humanity</span></strong>; and the answer is a cautious "yes." In the words of the <a href="http://www.e3network.org/">Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3) Network</a>:<br /><br /><br /><em>"The wealth and power of humanity in the 21st century could be used to create a far better world. We are economists who are troubled by environmental and social injustice, by the wide and growing inequality of wealth and income in America and in the world, and by the harmful impacts of the globalized economy on the natural ecosystems that surround and support human activity. In order to change what is wrong with the economy, we must change what is wrong with economics as it is currently taught and practiced. Economics for Equity and the Environment <strong>(E3) promotes a vision of an engaged, practical economics, in which an understanding of social equity and environmental protection cannot be separated."<span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"> </span></strong></em><a href="http://www.e3network.org/"><em>E3 Network</em></a><em>, 2007.</em><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Consumerist human behavior is the primary cause of both the current financial crisis and the current environmental crisis.</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It is the fundamental cause of the current financial meltdown, because the desire for profit maximization in the short-term -- sometimes exacerbated by the desire to have a free lunch whenever possible -- has been more powerful than the desire for acting with social and environmental responsibility</span></strong></em>. When human behavior is driven by short-term gain and the desire for instant gratification, any consideration of environmental stewardship becomes irrelevant. And it is easy to rationalize consumerist behavior, for there is always the hope (delusion?) that some technological breakthrough will come to the rescue and "fix" the consequences of financial speculation and environmental abuse.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>"Current concern over global climate change stems, in part, from the predominant evidence that its causes are anthropogenic: the result of human behavior.</strong> What is less widely recognized is that the solutions are also rooted in human behavior. Instead, the first and most common response from the public and policymakers alike is to look to technology to provide the answers. And, when available technologies aren’t adopted, we look to the field of economics to explain why not. <strong>This simplistic “techno-economic” approach is insufficient for solving complex environmental problems</strong> <strong>that are rooted in equally complex social structures and that involve multi-dimensional behavioral elements that extend beyond the realm of economics."</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>"Effective solutions must draw on a broader understanding of social systems and human behavior.</strong> This knowledge, when used in conjunction with economic insights, can help by: 1) ensuring the development of appropriate technologies, 2) increasing the adoption of existing technologies, 3) improving the effectiveness of economic policies and forecasts, and 4) identifying noneconomic mechanisms for catalyzing the types of social change required to reduce CO2 emissions and moderate climate change. Therefore, the question that economists must ask is: <strong>How can a more holistic understanding of the drivers of human behavior inform global climate change models and policy?"</strong> </em><a href="http://www.e3network.org/Ehrhardt-Martinez_8.pdf"><em>Changing Human Behavior to Reduce Climate Change: Moving Beyond the Techno-Economic Model</em></a><em>, Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), E3 Network, 2007.<br /></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Since human behavior is the cause of the problem, and human beings are rational creatures ("homo sapiens sapiens"), it follows that behavior modification is feasible.</span></strong> Easier said than done, but not impossible. The first step is to recognize the multi-dimensional nature of the sustainable development paradox. The second step is to seek a new paradigm that, while still including technological and economic factors, gives top priority to the social and behavioral factors that generate the dynamics of the sustainable development paradox:<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“</span><span style="font-size:130%;">Social scientific research has succeeded in identifying and measuring some of the important social dimensions of energy use and conservation that are not captured by the techno-economic model and in suggesting alternative frameworks that provide a more realistic and accurate picture of the relationship between energy consumption, information, incentives and disincentives, and a variety of social influences and structures that channel human behavior.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Additional work is needed to assess the breadth and nuances of the research that has been completed</span></strong>, as well as to identify knowledge gaps and promising areas of future research. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Only through a more comprehensive understanding of the non-economic variables that shape social preferences</span></strong> will it be possible to effectively catalyze the level of social change required to reduce energy consumption and forestall global climate change." </em><a href="http://www.e3network.org/Ehrhardt-Martinez_8.pdf"><em>Changing Human Behavior to Reduce Climate Change: Moving Beyond the Techno-Economic Model</em></a><em>, Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), E3 Network, 2007.<br /></em><br /><br />Actually, there are several sets of complex interactions that must be better understood: </div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /> The impact of social preferences on economic choices (and vice versa).<br /> The impact of social preferences on environmental changes (and vice versa).<br /> The impact of economic choices on social preferences (and vice versa).<br /> The impact of economic choices on the environment (and vice versa).<br /> The impact of environmental changes on social preferences (and vice versa).<br /> The impact of environmental changes on economic choices (and vice versa).<br /> All the above concurrently and dynamically over time.<br /> All the above plus many more we have yet to discover. </div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">Conceptually, Figure 1 becomes something like this:<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPyF1ynT2Qzfo9fx2gpXeQUvPf5MRnoEpYGYmcCOvUievYbRbuJHfu3vlWvw_ZJKJLxzkbblhK2zutuV5AT5JZKn_OjBzF9DHIBLIfjWzIuagJS5g5DVNxbQQepjBz8NLouG58SmRfarEn/s1600-h/sustainabledevelopment+wiki+-+feedback+loops.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292296728225445170" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 300px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 226px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPyF1ynT2Qzfo9fx2gpXeQUvPf5MRnoEpYGYmcCOvUievYbRbuJHfu3vlWvw_ZJKJLxzkbblhK2zutuV5AT5JZKn_OjBzF9DHIBLIfjWzIuagJS5g5DVNxbQQepjBz8NLouG58SmRfarEn/s400/sustainabledevelopment+wiki+-+feedback+loops.jpg" border="0" /></a>Within the economic sector, the relevant feedback loops might look, for example, like Valentino Viana's model of a <a href="http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/essays/is-lm2.htm">macroeconomic system</a>. Similar feedback loop diagrams could be postulated separately for the social and environmental sectors. But what about feedback loops that cross sector boundaries?<br /><br /><br />Analyses of social preferences and economic choices require inputs from all the living human sciences. Analysis of environmental changes requires inputs from all the living non-human and physical sciences. It follows that analysis of loops that cross the boundaries require inputs from all the sciences. At this level of complexity it has long been noted that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Notes">new modes of dynamic behavior emerge</a> that cannot be explained by the interaction of factors within each of the basic social, economic, environmental dimensions. Rather, they emerge from the interaction of many social factors with many economic factors and many environmental factors. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Furthermore, as </span></strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Wright_Forrester"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Jay Forrester</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> has pointed out, these </span></strong><a href="http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">emerging modes of behavior are often counterintuitive</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">. This means that "tweaking" the system here and there may induce no change in dynamics behavior (this is what happens most often), or induce behavior that is better, or induce behavior that is worse</span></strong>. Highly complex systems are generally insensitive to "tweaking," and "tweaking" may actually be counterproductive. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">A new, <span style="color:#33ff33;">GREEN</span> socio-economic and democratic paradigm may be needed.<br /></span></strong></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><a name="section4"></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">4. Renewable & Nonrenewable Resources</span></strong></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br />It is well known that natural resources can be either <a href="http://www.eco-pros.com/renewableresources.htm">renewable</a> or <a href="http://www.eco-pros.com/non-renew.htm">non-renewable</a>. Not so well known is the fact that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">renewable resources can become non-renewable if the rate of utilization exceeds the capacity of the planet to recycle them. Therefore, excessive consumption can lead to limits in the availability of both renewable and non-renewable resources</span></strong>, and consumption itself can become unsustainable.<br /><br /><br />"Asserting that "current global consumption patterns are unsustainable," and that "efficiency gains and technological advances alone will not be sufficient to bring global consumption to a sustainable level," a recent report issued by the Business Role Focus Area of the <a href="http://www.wbcsd.org/">World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)</a> calls on business to work in partnership with its customers and stakeholders to define sustainable products and sustainable lifestyles. The report, entitled <a href="http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/I9Xwhv7X5V8cDIHbHC3G/WBCSD_Sustainable_Consumption_web.pdf">Sustainable Consumption Facts and Trends: From a Business Perspective</a>, observes that global consumption levels are increasing due to such factors as rapid population growth, a rise in global affluence, and a culture of consumerism among higher-income groups." Source: <a href="http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2601.html">Report Warns of Unsustainable Consumption</a>, Robert Kropp, Social Funds, 24 December 2008.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Basically, this means that wasteful lifestyles will have to change.</strong></span> There is an increasing awareness of this, but the number of people who have actually changed their consumption habits remains minimal. It is not simply a matter of greed or gluttony. Complex social and psychological factors play a role in inducing this "resistance to change."<br /><br /><br />"The WBCSD report finds that consumers are increasingly concerned about environmental, social and economic issues, but because of a variety of factors such concerns do not always translate into sustainable consumer behavior. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The WBCSD calls on business to encourage sustainable consumption by developing products and services that maximize social value and minimizing environmental cost, by marketing campaigns that enable consumers to choose and use products more sustainably, and by removing unsustainable products and services from the marketplace."</strong></span> Source: <a href="http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2601.html">Report Warns of Unsustainable Consumption </a>, Robert Kropp, Social Funds, 24 December 2008.<br /><br /><br />It would be unfair to blame the business community for the entire mess. Surely, profit maximization in the short-term is part of the problem. But <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">profit maximization at the expense of sustainability would not remain popular if consumers learn to become less responsive to advertising and more discerning in choosing suppliers that are both socially and environmentally responsible</span></strong>. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Thus the practical importance of quality management standards like ISO-9000 and environmental management standards like ISO-14000. </strong></span></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Secular and religious leaders also have a decisive role to play. Even in the absence of corruption, it is hard to find politicians willing to tell their constituents that the common good requires them to change their consumption habits. And this applies to religious leaders as well.</span></strong></em> The practice of building expensive <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Basilica-of-Our-Lady-of-Peace-of-Yamoussoukro">churches</a>, <a href="http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/grantwalliser/2008/08/27/the-great-saudi-arabian-mosque-hypocrisy/">mosques</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue#World.27s_largest_synagogues/">synagogues</a>, as well as other luxurious religious buildings, is becoming part of the problem. If political and religious leaders remain addicted to wealth accumulation and excessive consumption, why should we expect the general public to do otherwise?<br /></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><a name="section5"></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">5. Money as the Driver of Human Behavior</span></strong><br /><br /><br />That money is a primary driver of human behavior is well known. Money itself is morally neutral; it is how we obtain it and how we use it that really makes a difference. The idolatry of money usually correlates with selfishness. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>But money can be used in socially positive ways and for the common good. </strong></span>If so, recent research seems to indicate that money is not only a driver of human behavior but also a factor that contributes to inner peace and happiness.<br /><br /><br /><em>"Money has been said to change people's motivation (mainly for the better) and their behavior toward others (mainly for the worse). The results of nine experiments suggest that money brings about a self-sufficient orientation in which people prefer to be free of dependency and dependents. Reminders of money, relative to nonmoney reminders, led to reduced requests for help and reduced helpfulness toward others. Relative to participants primed with neutral concepts, participants primed with money preferred to play alone, work alone, and put more physical distance between themselves and a new acquaintance." </em><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5802/1154"><em>The Psychological Consequences of Money</em></a><em>, by Kathleen D. Vohs, Nicole L. Mead, Miranda R. Goode. Science, Vol. 314. no. 5802, pp. 1154 - 1156, 17 November 2006.</em><br /><br /><br />See also <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;314/5802/1091">Money Is Material</a>, by Carole B. Burgoyne and Stephen E. G. Lea. Science, Vol. 314. no. 5802, pp. 1091 - 1092, 17 November 2006. Summary: <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"The psychology of money is now being studied experimentally. Even thinking about money changes behavior in reliable ways."</strong></span> But the following conclusion is the most interesting:<br /></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><em>"Although much research has examined the effect of income on happiness, we suggest that how people spend their money may be at least as important as how much money they earn. Specifically, we hypothesized that spending money on other people may have a more positive impact on happiness than spending money on oneself. Providing converging evidence for this hypothesis, we found that spending more of one's income on others predicted greater happiness both cross-sectionally (in a nationally representative survey study) and longitudinally (in a field study of windfall spending). Finally, participants who were randomly assigned to spend money on others experienced greater happiness than those assigned to spend money on themselves." </em><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5870/1687"><em>Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness</em></a><em>, by Elizabeth W. Dunn, Lara B. Aknin, and Michael I. Norton. Science, Vol. 319. no. 5870, pp. 1687 - 1688, 21 March 2008.</em><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">This insight encapsulates one possible way to resolve the sustainable development paradox.</span></strong> The emerging empirical evidence confirms ancient religious wisdom (for example, in the Bible, see Acts 20:35: </div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><em>"it is better to give than to receive") and contradicts the notion that further economic growth is incompatible with sustainable development. Growth per se is not unsustainable. <strong>It is the misuse of growth and wealth accumulation that is unsustainable; either because the growth is not managed for conservation of renewable and non-renewable resources, or because it fails to reverse the cycle of violence and the cycle or poverty, or both.</strong> In particular, the failure to reverse the trend toward the richer becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer is a sure sign that something is wrong. In fact, the effects of growth driven by selfish consumerism are measurable and clearly visible: "Resources tend to flow from the poor to the rich. Pollution tends to flow from the rich to the poor." (</em><a href="http://www.theo.kuleuven.ac.be/clt/RWeiler.ppt"><em>Vandana Shiva</em></a><em> in Raoul Weiler's "No Limits to Knowledge, but Limits to Poverty: Towards a Sustainable Knowledge Society," WSSD, Johannesburg, 2002, page 28)</em><br /><br /><br />In brief, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the sustainable development paradox</span></strong> is not an insurmountable dilemma. It <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">is a matter of managing growth in order to meet the basic needs of all human beings, now and in the future</span></strong>. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The sustainable development paradox can be resolved if growth is managed to attain both social and environmental justice</strong></span>. This is "simple, but not easy." It will require significant revision of current paradigms in the social, economic, and political sciences.<br /><a name="section6"></a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">6. Need for Socioeconomic Human Development</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>A radical change is needed in the concept of economic development.</strong></span> We had grown accustomed to thinking about economic development in terms of economic growth, with economic growth being measured by increasing value of GDP and other measures of wealth accumulation. But <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">research in the <span style="color:#ff0000;">social sciences</span> has shown that more is not necessarily better, and more is often worse. The central issue is (surprise!) conspicuous consumption.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />The term <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption">conspicuous consumption</a> was coined by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen">Thorstein Bunde Veblen</a> in his book <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class">The Theory of the Leisure Class</a>, published in 1899 (yes, 1899). More recently, many scholars and activists have expressed the same concern with increasing urgency: </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"> <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/060500-104.htm">The Current Trend Of Excessive Consumption Is Creating A Consumer Culture That Values Quantity Above Quality</a>, by Ralph Nader, CommonDream News Center, 2000.<br /> <a href="http://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/20397/">Are We Consuming Too Much?</a>, by Kenneth Arrow et al, Stanford University, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 18 no. 3, page(s) 147-172, Summer 2004.<br /> <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=zutxr7rGc_QC&vq=barry+schwartz+paradox+contents">The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less</a>, by Barry Schwartz, HarperCollins, 2004 (Google Book)<br /> <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/jie">Consumption: It is Time for Economists and Scientists to Talk</a>, by Betsy Taylor, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 9, Number 1-2, pp. 14-17, 2005.<br /><br /><br />Taylor, writing years before the current financial crisis, offers a hopeful perspective that the transition to a new mindset of consumption moderation is already underway: "Although economists, elected officials, and far too many traditional environmentalists refuse to examine the inexorable links between consumption and ecological problems, an economic and cultural transformation in consumption and production has already begun. ... <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">A new economic model is emerging, but it could be sped on by academics doing holistic research projects with greater practical application. </span><em>The new path must be supported by elected officials, economists, and private sector leaders </em></strong>willing to face the conundrum of our times: that increased consumption is literally bringing our biological home into ruin and yet, without consumption, millions fear for their security. It is time for economists and scientists to talk. Fortunately, despite the taboo on dialogue about a revamped economy, <em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>there are many business leaders, local elected officials, consumer activists, and others quietly modeling and championing the new way."<br /></strong></span></em><br /><br />The following are selected indices that attempt to show the effect of excessive consumption and combine consumption with other quality of life indicators:<br /><br /><br /> The <a href="http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm">Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)</a> developed by <a href="http://www.rprogress.org/">Redefining Progress</a>.<br /> The <a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/mediacentre/news/title,15493,en.html">Human Development Index (HDI)</a> of the <a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/">UNDP</a>.<br /> The <a href="http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/projects-by-theme/poverty-inequality/en_GB/social-development-indicators-measuring-human-well-being/">Social Development Indicators - Measuring Human Well-being</a> research program at <a href="http://www.wider.unu.edu/">UNU-WIDER</a>.<br /> <a href="http://www.islandpress.com/bookstore/details.php?sku=1-55963-831-1&cart=%255Bcart%255D">The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-By-Country Index Of Quality Of Life And The Environment</a>, by Robert Prescott-Allen.<br /> The <a href="http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/variables.html">Population, Health and Human Well-being</a> variables at the <a href="http://www.wri.org/">World Resources Institute (WRI)</a>.<br /> The <a href="http://www.spiritualcapitalresearchprogram.com/">Spiritual Capital Research Program</a> of <a href="http://www.metanexus.net/">Metanexus Institute</a>.<br /> <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa447.pdf">The Globalization of Human Well-Being</a>, by Indur M. Goklany, <a href="http://www.cato.org/">Cato Institute</a>.<br /> <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/p28586m73v691n27/fulltext.pdf">Combining Social, Economic and Environmental Indicators to Measure Sustainable Human Well-Being</a>, by Alex C. Michalos, <a href="http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/sociology/journal/11205">Social Indicators Research</a>.<br /> <a href="http://www.gesis.org/en/institute/gesis-scientific-sections/social-monitoring-social-change/social-indicators-research-centre/">Social Indicators Research Centre (ZSi)</a> at the <a href="http://www.gesis.org/">Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences</a>.<br /> <a href="http://www.bigpicture.tv/videos/watch/5737c6ec2">Gross Domestic Welfare</a>, Takashi Kiuchi, Big Picture TV, 2006. See also <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=z1fojIP1VFMC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=%22gross+domestic+welfare%22&source=bl&ots=iZ4G0O1NIF&sig=8Vlefr4GGZGwA77WNtw9Oag3Qis&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result">Integrating Economic and Ecological Indicators</a>, by J. Walter Milon and Jason F. Shogren, Greenwood, 1995, page 172.<br /> <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/A298.pdf">Towards a Socio-Economic Paradigm</a>, Amitai Etzioni, in "Advancing Socio-Economics: An Institutionalist Perspective ed. J. Rogers Hollingsworth, Karl H. Muller and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, pages 37-49.<br /> <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Sustainable_Society_Index">Sustainable Society Index</a>, Geurt van de Kerk and Arthur R. Manuel, Encyclopedia of the Earth, 29 December 2008. Note: This article provides a comprehensive review of socioeconomic sustainability indicators. See also the <a href="http://www.sustainablesocietyindex.com/">Sustainable Society Index</a> web site.<br /><br /><br />All the indicators point in the same direction: <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">economic factors alone are insufficient as measures of progress. Economic factors must be combined with social and environmental factors in order to become meaningful measures of progress.</span></em></strong> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>In the social dimension, the bottom line is human development: the opportunity for people to develop physically, psychologically, and spiritually so that, by <em>homo economicus</em> becoming <em>homo solidarius</em></strong></span>, they can in turn work for themselves, their families, and the common good, and contribute to socioeconomic development with social and environmental justice. This, however, is practically impossible without the support of a political system in which socioeconomic (as opposed to only economic) goals pursuant to human development are the standard basis for government policy. <a href="http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv05n01.html#issueoutline#issueoutline"></a><br /><a name="section7"></a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">7. Need for Sociopolitical Human Development</span></strong><br /><br /><br />In a recent article, <a href="http://www.uom.ac.mu/jugessur/html/cv.html">Professor Soodursun Jugessur</a> of the <a href="http://www.uom.ac.mu/">University of Mauritius </a>suggests that it <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>is time to replace GDP (Gross Domestic Product) by some form of GDW (Gross Domestic Welfare)</strong></span> measure that takes into account the quality of life and the integrity of the human habitat:<br /><br /><br /><em>"Our development has been marked by our mastery of science and technology (S&T) that have been the primary tools for changing our lives and ensuring basic needs. As tools, S&T are neutral. It is up to us to decide on what type of tools we develop, and what use we make of them. S&T on their own are ineffective. It is the economic, social and political visions that dictate their development and use. Unless we have sound economic, social and political orientations, we are likely to fall into a trap of inappropriate development, and soon destroy ourselves, and our planet. We need changes in our economic and social policies and a new vision for political development at the global level." </em><a href="http://www.mauritiustimes.com/261208jugessur.htm"><em>A New Development Paradigm</em></a><em>, Soodursun Jugessur, </em><a href="http://www.mauritiustimes.com/"><em>Mauritius Times</em></a><em>, 26 December 2008.</em><br /><br /><br />In the previous section, an overview is given of <strong>new socioeconomic paradigms</strong>. What about <strong>new sociopolitical paradigms</strong>? Some are beginning to emerge:<br /><br /><br /> <a href="http://hem.bredband.net/arenamontanus/Mage/democracy.html">A Democratic Paradigm</a>, Anders Sandberg, 1991.<br /> <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=V7zhUBg1qesC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=%22socio+political+paradigm%22&source=web&ots=kgFUhlBsJG&sig=aXSqX9CcjW4VDTq-WfLXzHUlX40&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result">The Future of the Universe and the Future of Our Civilization</a>, by V. Burdyuzha and G. Kohzin, World Scientific, 2000, page 24.<br /> <a href="http://www.payvand.com/news/03/aug/1014.html">Middle Eastern "Democratic" Paradigm in the 21st. Century</a>, Davood N. Rahni, Pace University, 2003.<br /> <a href="http://www.alhewar.net/Basket/Sadeq_sulaiman_democratic_paradigm.htm">A democratic paradigm must take shape</a>, Sadeq Jawad Sulaiman, 2005.<br /> <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119281495/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0">Elites and Regimes in Comparative Perspective: Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia</a>, William Case, University of New South Wales, Australia, 2005.<br /> <a href="http://www.psaindia.org/feb2005-issue.pdf">21st century post-modern global paradigm</a>, Dhirendra Sharma, <a href="http://www.psaindia.org/">Philosophy and Social Action</a>, Vol. 31 No.1 Jan-March 2005.<br /> <a href="http://www.mujca.com/">Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth</a>, Kevin Barrett and Faiz Khan, MUJCA-NET. Note: "MUJCA-NET is a group of scholars, religious leaders and activists dedicated to uniting members of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths in pursuit of 9/11 truth. We choose to respond grounded in love rather than fear and will not be indifferent to those who have suffered from policies based on unlikely explanations of 9/11."<br /> <a href="http://biostate.blogspot.com/">Toward a Bioregional State: Political Theory and Formal Institutional Design in the Era of Sustainability</a>, Mark D. Whitaker, iUniverse, 2005.<br /> <a href="http://centersds.com/thebook.htm">Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System</a>, by Robley E. George, Center for the Study of Democratic Societies, Praeger, 2002. See also <a href="http://centersds.com/dsep.html">A Democratic Socioeconomic Platform in search of a Democratic Political Party</a>, Robley E. George, Center for the Study of Democratic Societies, July 2008.<br /> <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121416183/abstract">Bringing deep democracy to life: an awareness paradigm for deepening political dialogue, personal relationships, and community interactions</a>, Amy Mindell, Psychotherapy and Politics International, September 2008 <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121582792/abstract">The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization</a>, by Daniel Treisman, Governance, 22 December 2008.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify">A review of this literature indicates that the pieces of <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>a new sociopolitical paradigm</strong></span> are beginning to emerge. There are many variations, but the general direction is toward <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>homo economicus becoming homo solidarius</strong></span> in order make it politically feasible to work for improvements in democratic systems, more collaboration, <em><strong>more transparency, social responsibility, environmental stewardship, and distributive justice</strong></em>. </div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2lcFL0b_CUE_-02Gx9_3G_GkzUNEfKRA8iOL2JZ8UInlJhvRapnlxs5rQbuToaP_wWXdIjCGMZWZ7G8OnJi50I8R0Mx96QYcune8-5i5Wmesm0VCWUFslTOC3Vskkx6uUt1TWEQmUoJt8/s1600-h/socioeconomic+democracy.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292315922935676578" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 250px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 380px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2lcFL0b_CUE_-02Gx9_3G_GkzUNEfKRA8iOL2JZ8UInlJhvRapnlxs5rQbuToaP_wWXdIjCGMZWZ7G8OnJi50I8R0Mx96QYcune8-5i5Wmesm0VCWUFslTOC3Vskkx6uUt1TWEQmUoJt8/s400/socioeconomic+democracy.bmp" border="0" /></a>The <a href="http://centersds.com/thebook.htm">Socioeconomic Democracy</a> of Robley E. George deserves further scrutiny, as it is the only one that attempts to define both the pieces and the democratic system in which the pieces are to be embedded. Furthermore, it postulates <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>a platform for a political party that could implement a socioeconomic democracy.</strong></span> George summarizes "socioeconomic democracy" as follows:<br /><br /><br />"Socioeconomic Democracy is a model economic system, or more precisely, socioeconomic subsystem, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>in which there is</strong></span> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>some form of Universal Guaranteed Personal Income (UGPI) as well as some form of Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth (MAPW)</strong></span>, with both the lower bound on personal material poverty and the upper bound on personal material wealth set and adjusted democratically by all society." </div><div> </div><div align="justify"><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">"UGPI. In the idealized state of the model, each participant in this democratic socioeconomic system would know that, regardless of what he or she did or did not do, a democratically determined Universally Guaranteed Personal Income (UGPI) would always be available.</span></strong> Put another way, society would guarantee each citizen some minimum amount of purchasing power, with that amount determined democratically by all of society and with citizenship the only requirement for eligibility to participate." </em></div><div> </div><br /><div align="justify"><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>"MAPW. In the ideal theoretical model, all participants of the democratic socioeconomic system would understand that all personal material wealth above the democratically determined allowable amount would, by due process, be transferred out of their ownership and control in a manner specified by the democratically designed and implemented laws of the land."</strong></span> </em></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><br /><em>"Hence, a rational, self-interested, and insatiable (as the neoclassical saying goes) extremely wealthy participant in the democratic socioeconomic system, who is at or near the upper bound on allowable personal wealth and who further desires increased personal wealth, would be economically motivated, that is, have economic incentive to actively increase the well-being of the less materially wealthy members of society. Only in this manner can these (still-wealthiest) participants persuade (a majority of) the also rationally self-interested less wealthy participants of the democratic society to vote to raise the legal upper limit on allowable personal wealth -- thus allowing those wealthiest participants to legally acquire and retain the increased allowable amount of personal net wealth and worth they so crave." </em><a href="http://centersds.com/verybrief.htm"><em>Socioeconomic Democracy: A Very Brief Introduction</em></a><em>, Robley E. George, Center for the Study of Democratic Societies, June 2002.<br /></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In other words, people who are at the MAPW level would have a propensity to desire a higher MAPW, and the only way to accomplish this is to promote the socioeconomic well-being of those who are at the UGPI level</span></strong>, and this includes protection of the environment and conservation of natural resources. Conversely, if they fail to do so and those at the UGPI level regress into unacceptable economic and environmental poverty, their MAPW might decrease in order to give them additional incentive to provide more and better education and access to jobs for those at the bottom of the ladder. People who are at the UGPI level would have a propensity to desire a higher UGPI, but this would not happen if there are job opportunities available that they do not take. In a socioeconomic democracy, the UGPI might actually be reduced if people prefer not to work. But MAPW and UGPI adjustments would have to be made democratically, so there may be a need for a new kind of institution that can make these adjustments in a timely manner and under the supervision of elected officials.<br /><br /><br />Could this be a new paradigm? Would this be the new paradigm of choice to deal with the complex local, regional, and global issues that increasingly make front page today? That remains to be seen. Politically, paradigm changes are difficult and often turbulent, especially if they require a restructuring of political and economic institutions. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">The following is George's description of the socioeconomic democracy political platform:</span><br /></span></strong><br /><br /><em>"The purpose of this Democratic Socioeconomic Platform (DSeP) is to present a new, fundamentally just, democratic and systemically consistent political platform capable of democratically enhancing the General Welfare of All Citizens of a Democratic Society." </em></div><br /><div></div><div align="justify"><em></em> </div><div align="justify"><em>"One of many important differences between this DSeP, and the typical run-of-the-mill political party platform laundry list of independent and not-infrequently inconsistent political promises often offered yet seldom satisfied, is that <strong>this DSeP proposes and describes how to democratically realize/accomplish a peaceful and societally beneficial transformation of the world’s obviously malfunctioning, not to more than mention decidedly undemocratic and deadly, present patriarchal politicosocioeconomic systems</strong>." </em></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><em>"More specifically, the presently harmful economic incentives, invariably, inevitably and inextricably created by contemporary economic systems, with their sorry-or-not socioeconomic consequences dramatically displayed daily, are, with this DSeP, democratically redesigned to create economic incentive that positively encourages the simultaneous reduction of society’s many painful, costly yet unnecessary socioeconomic problems, as well as contributes significantly to the Positive Empowerment and Healthy Development of All Citizens of a Democratic Society." </em><a href="http://centersds.com/dsep.html"><em>A Democratic Socioeconomic Platform in search of a Democratic Political Party</em></a><em>, Robley E. George, Center for the Study of Democratic Societies, July 2008.</em><br /><br /><br />If this rings a bell, readers may recall that the invited articles in the <a href="http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n12george.html">December 2007</a>, <a href="http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n07george1.html">July 2008</a>, and <a href="http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n08george2.html">August 2008</a> issues of this journal, dealing with socioeconomic democracy and sustainable development, were contributed by Robley E. George. We look forward to hear more about socioeconomic democracy, how it could be implemented politically, and how GDP and GDW (or some other indicator of human development) would compare under <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a socioeconomic democratic political system.<br /></span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><a name="section8"></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">8. The UN MDGs and other Case Examples<br /></span></strong><br /><br />The UN MDGs [UNITED NATIONS MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS] do not require any paradigm change in the social, economic, and political sciences. They would remain relevant and would be adaptable to paradigm changes, and the indicators being used to monitor progress toward the 2015 targets could be used to monitor progress under various social, economic, and political systems. But making progress in the MDGs is not contingent on any radical change in human mindsets about the present or future of humanity and the human habitat. They do require, however, decisions and actions pursuant to sustainable development as defined in the 1987 <a href="http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I">Brundlandt Commission Report</a> (see section 2).<br /><br /><br />The main obstacle to progress on the MDGs is that "<a href="http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I">sustainable development is a process of change</a>," and there is always resistance to change. There is a saying, "change is the name of the game," so it is commonly recognized that change is intrinsic to individual and social life. And there is another saying, "the more things change, the more they remain the same," so it is also recognized that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">changes do not bring about the end of the world. But there is always the human attachment to what is familiar, and this applies to mental ways of thinking as well as to physical surroundings. </span></strong>This may be the reason:<br /><br /><br /><em>"Cognitive dissonance theory... has shown how individuals cannot easily dismiss a belief or attitude they hold, even when the attitude is directly contradicted by evidence or events. People will sooner adopt farfetched ideas to explain events than relinquish their preconceptions. In so doing, they avoid having to face the dissonance between what they see and what they have long believed. The dismissal of plain reality can happen when people are confronted by challenges to their ingrained patriotism, their prejudices, or their religious values. Under these circumstances, they may ignore cruelty, hypocrisy, or incompetence, or create elaborate rationalizations rather than challenge the principles espoused by their leaders." </em><a href="http://mujca.com/bushcult.htm"><em>Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion</em></a><em>, Marc Galanter, Oxford University Press, 1989, page 152.</em><br /></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />It is safe to anticipate that the UN MDGs, let alone <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">more comprehensive changes in social, economic, and political theories, will have to overcome the ever present "resistance to change."</span></strong> This resistance may be exacerbated by our predilection for "quick fixes" to problems, even if the fixes will not last long. As a football coach used to say, "the future is now." And yet, there are fragments of historical wisdom that should not be forgotten:</div><br /><ul><br /><li><div align="justify"><em>"The diligent farmer plants trees of which he himself will never see the fruit" </em>Cicero (106-43 BCE) </div></li><br /><li><div align="justify"><em>"One generation plants a tree; the next generation gets the shade."</em> Old Chinese Proverb </div></li><br /><li><em>"A custom without truth is ancient error."</em> St. Cyprian (3rd Century CE)</li><br /><li><em>"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."</em> Marie Curie (1867-1934)<br /></li></ul><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">9. Prayer, Study, and Action</span></strong><br /><br /><br />The combined financial-environmental crisis that we are facing at the moment is causing many people to lose heart. The expectation of a long and difficult transition toward financial and environmental sustainability increases the level of anxiety, accustomed as we are to "quick fixes." To be sure, there is a lot of finger pointing, but not much constructive guidance on how to proceed. But quitting is not an option. There are wars to be brought to an end, and there is much violence to be mitigated. There are too many children dying of hunger. There are too many girls and too many women excluded from normal paths of human development and also excluded from roles of secular and religious authority. The human habitat continues to deteriorate. The United Nations' Millennium Development Goals are bound to be compromised, and progress toward the 2015 goals may stagnate in the midst of increasing uncertainty about the future of the global economy. One thing is clear: this is not the time to quit. </div><br /><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ </div><div><br /><a href="http://www.worldscibooks.com/economics/5353.html">http://www.worldscibooks.com/economics/5353.html</a></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtjfcyu5gYsCnEz-g9-e8xwhulX19-Tci3B88ftVz3v8n6RoAudyFTo7e_JG4RswfXOvhGgRKmtTcGi6yRJSZqzZTimGG9TjYxjhwNbrriJ0cEMnX2jVZ5BtbcdIe4kzNBaVDLOEZQ86fA/s1600-h/socioeconomic+democracy+and+world+government.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292321370099178098" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 170px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 259px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtjfcyu5gYsCnEz-g9-e8xwhulX19-Tci3B88ftVz3v8n6RoAudyFTo7e_JG4RswfXOvhGgRKmtTcGi6yRJSZqzZTimGG9TjYxjhwNbrriJ0cEMnX2jVZ5BtbcdIe4kzNBaVDLOEZQ86fA/s400/socioeconomic+democracy+and+world+government.bmp" border="0" /></a>SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AND THE WORLD GOVERNMENT - Collective Capitalism, Depovertization, Human Rights, Template for Sustainable Peace</span></strong></div><div> </div><br /><div>by Dhanjoo N Ghista (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) </div><div> </div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[INTRODUCTION EXCERPTED BELOW]</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In developing an enlightened socio-economic-political environment, this book provides <span style="color:#ff0000;">a new socio-economic-political system based on (i) Collective Capitalism</span> (CCP) of cooperatively managed institutions and enterprises, and (ii) a Civilian Democracy (CDM) sans political parties, whereby the most qualified representatives of all the functional sectors of the community get elected to the local legislature. It also specifies a new economic-political structure in the form of autonomous functionally-sustainable communities (FSCs), within regional economic zones (REZs) and self-reliant regional unions (SRUs, <em><span style="color:#000099;">such as the EU</span></em>).</span></strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">This system of FSCs, REZs and SRUs will come under the aegis of (and collectively represented by) a World government, over-seeing the development of a comprehensive charter of human rights and social justice for all the people of the world.</span></strong> The neo-humanistic integrated system of CCP and CDM, to be implemented within FSCs, will provide grass-roots socio-economic-political empowerment, contrary to the system of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">centralized economic and political governance. </span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />This book serves as a valuable teaching, learning, knowledge and research resource for (i) a holistic approach to a sustainable living environment <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">promoting collective welfare</span></strong>, and (ii) a multi-stage road-map towards a world government system for unification of all the communities of the world into one global cooperative. The combined system of socio-economic democracy (involving knowledge and conscientious governance executives elected by and directly representing the various functional sectors of FSCs) <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>and world government</strong></span> will help transform the current undignified north-south socioeconomic order into a democratic and equitable globalization order, for collective social security towards achieving sustainable local and global peace. </div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Contents:<br /></span></strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">From Under-Development to Self-Reliance:<br />Introduction: A Kaleidoscopic Survey of Under-Development and Its Solution<br />Third World Under-Development and Need for Self-Reliance<br />Functionally-Sustainable Communities: Socio-Economic-Political Framework<br />Neo-Global Political Governance Structure<br />Functionally-Sustainable Community (FSC) Design<br />From Corporatism to Cooperatism, and Power-Politics to Peace-Politics:<br />For an Enlightened Human Society<br />Corporate Capitalism to Cooperative Capitalism and Social Democracy<br />State and Group Terrorism, Justic and Reparation<br />Ethics of Politics: Politician versus People Sovereignty<br />From United Nations to World Government<br />Real Democracy and Neo-Humanistic Global Order:<br />Socio-Economic Democracy: Governance, Economic and Financial Policy<br />Truly Democractic Electoral Governance System and Global Political Structure<br />Human Rights and Constitutional Guarantees<br />Civilian-Centered Neo-Humanistic Global Order<br />Towards Universal Renaissance:<br />Neo-Humanistic University System<br />Replacing Hypocrisy by Straightforwardness<br />Sustainable Global Peace with Equitable Globalization<br />Strategizing the Role of the University in Society </div><br /><div>Epilogue: Towards a Neo-Era of Peace, Security and Enlightened Living </div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>Readership:</strong> Academics, politicians, sociologists, economists and business developers, as well as socially conscious people.<br /></div><div> </div><br /><div align="justify"><em>"The focus of Ghista's book is less on confrontation and more on the development of constructive alternatives to the dominant system. There will soon be an enormous demand for books that are concrete and constructive as a decreasing number believe in the dominant system. Ghista's book has the strength of weaving economic and political analysis together."<br /></em>Johan GaltungProfessor of Peace Studies, University of Hawaii, USACo-Director, TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network<br /></div><br /><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><em>"Ghista's broad-brush analysis of the world's socio-political systems is not merely radical, or hard-hitting � it is remarkably honest and straightforward ... His analysis is a fascinating blend of social and political science, with a visionary zeal ... A brave book, with noble objectives � it very much deserves to be read."</em><br />Edward Karani Allbless, <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Coudert Brothers LLP (Attorneys-at-Law, Singapore) </strong></span></div><br /><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><em>"This book is written with a deep human compassion for the Fourth Worlds, the persecuted, the poverty-stricken, the marginalized, and the truly destitute in our global society ... The scope is majestic: from local self-organized economic units all the way up to global world level government ... I applaud Ghista's efforts and hope that he is heard ... All I can say is that it is about time someone wrote from this perspective!"</em><br />Pauline V Rosenau, <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Professor of Management, Policy and Community Health University of Texas,</strong></span> <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Houston Health Science Center, USA</strong></span> </div><br /><div></div><div align="justify"><br /><em>"At a time of profound global change, Ghista is to be warmly congratulated on an invaluable contribution for achieving peace and security in all its diverse aspects � most importantly at grassroots level ... This book will become required reading in schools and universities as well as in business, NGO and government circles."</em><br />Eirwen Harbottle, Widow of the late Brigadier-General Michael Harbottle(Founder of Generals for Peace and Disarmament), Co-Creator of the Centre for International Peace building and the Youth Musical PEACE CHILD<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ </div><div><br /><a href="http://www.worldscibooks.com/economics/etextbook/5353/5353_chap01.pdf">http://www.worldscibooks.com/economics/etextbook/5353/5353_chap01.pdf</a></div><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">...1.3 Functionally-sustainable communities for local economic empowerment and governance</span></strong></div><div><br /> </div><div align="justify">...A functionally-sustainable and autonomously-governed community (FSC) is one that has adequate land and trade-specialities among its people, to be able to sustain the basic functional (revenue-generation, community-services, small-business and governance) sectors. In other words, the revenue generated by exporting its (natural-resource, agricultural and industrial) products should be able to sustain the services and small-business sectors of the community. An FSC is the grassroot unit of governance and functional socio-economic democracy. As such, it should have adequate qualified human resources, who could competently represent the various sectors of the community in governance by administering the portfolios of their sectors. (p. 7)</div><div> </div><br /><div align="justify">...In a typical FSC (made up of economic units), the inhabitants would manage the local enterprises, with gains relaying back for their benefit and for local development. For this purpose, it is useful for medium and large scale enterprises to be cooperatively organized, so that the employees have a stake in their corporation’s performance and success. The cooperatives in the various societal sectors (such as community services sector, healthcare sector, transportation sector, private business sector, etc.) would be organized into associations (such as of legal professionals, primary educators, etc.). Additionally, each FSC would have agencies (such as for trade and commerce, postal, municipal and transport services) and councils (such as township or neighborhood citizens councils for environmental and civil protection, and the sports council). Each of these associations, agencies and councils, together representing all the functional sectors of a community, would vote two of their most competent candidates to represent that sector in governance. The general public would then elect one of them to represent the sector on the local government legislature, thereby providing the framework of a truly democratic and knowledgeable (party-less) civilian professional-governance system (or PGS).<br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This verily constitutes a new concept of a people-centric democratic societal and governance system. This new democratic system would replace the current pseudo democratic system of governance management as a business undertaking, by the political parties securing public contracts (based on and legitimized by public votes) to manage the governance of the community</span></strong>. (p. 8)</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />...It would also be in the interest of FSCs to cooperate with one another (and organize themselves into economic blocs) to share their know-how and trade in resources and technologies, in order to help one another to uniformly raise their living standards. This cooperation among FSCs, based on the neo-humanistic attitude of promoting the welfare of all peoples and communities (as opposed to merely eliciting foreign investment-based development and perpetuating economic colonization), can contribute to a new equitable Global Order. It would hence be economically beneficial for two or more FSCs to come together and form a self-reliant socio-economic bloc (SEB), while several SEBs would form a selfreliant economic zone (SEZ).<br /></div><div> </div><br /><div align="justify">In the context of the present day setup, the SEZs would correspond to nations, while the SEBs would correspond to the states (and provinces) of nations. The FSC(s) will have the option of interacting with neighboring FSC(s) with whom they feel socio-culturally comfortable, to form self-reliant economic blocs or SEBs. An SEB would, in turn, need to have adequate land and resource density and diversity, such that it can function as a self-reliant agro-industrial and services-providing blocs. (pp. 8-9)</div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">1.4 Progressive socio-economic utilization system within FSCs</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh48aXTe3uN1z-1g37OQM9JQnhaXCUrdgqAaW53WEb5ScsIfgQuGANhmee2lngzde-UWVdhPoHRF1u9JJK6J29rVfj6pao_4WDvUtcz1PyEtAqNghqaX3K4d-mT7gcSnCJ-VB8Ur6IgIFFd/s1600-h/socioeconomic+democracy+-+Proust+-+After+Capitalism.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292327309943063906" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 222px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 300px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh48aXTe3uN1z-1g37OQM9JQnhaXCUrdgqAaW53WEb5ScsIfgQuGANhmee2lngzde-UWVdhPoHRF1u9JJK6J29rVfj6pao_4WDvUtcz1PyEtAqNghqaX3K4d-mT7gcSnCJ-VB8Ur6IgIFFd/s400/socioeconomic+democracy+-+Proust+-+After+Capitalism.bmp" border="0" /></a>With regard to the socio-economic organization of a community, we reject both the communist and capitalistic systems (due to their shortcomings and failures),</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">but incorporate some principles of a new socio-economic system (Prout),* entailing proper utilization and renumeration of all levels of human resources.</span></strong> Within FSCs, grassroots socio-economic development would be carried out by means of cooperatives, which will address business planning, factors of production cost and productivity, purchasing capacity and collective necessity. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">In our economic setup, cooperatively managed business enterprises and industries will enable work to be carried out in the spirit of coordinated cooperation, with due consideration for human rights and fair renumeration. (p.9)</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><br /><br />In FSCs, a cooperative economic system would be best able to utilize and provide <strong>fair renumeration to the locally available social-capital and knowledge capital in the community</strong>, business-corporational and governance sectors. Especially, in poverty-stricken rural areas of developing countries, as well as within the FSCs of liberated Fourth World communities, the cooperatives will bring together producers, distributors and consumers in a coordinated partnership. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">These cooperatives (based on optimal or progressive utilization of human, natural and material resources) will function on the principles of individual liberty, equality and democracy, with sharing of revenue and profits by the cooperative members.</span></strong> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>[OXYMORON??]</strong></span> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Such cooperatives will be organized in all spheres of economic activity as well as social life, <span style="color:#ff0000;">for the welfare of the people.</span> The cooperatives will constitute an organization of people coming together, to help one another and <span style="color:#ff0000;">save themselves from capitalist</span> as well as communist exploitation.</span></strong> (pp. 9-10)</div><br /><div></div><div align="justify"><br />The cooperatives will in fact constitute the catalysts of FSCs, wherein local people will generate revenue (through resource development, industry and trade) to in turn develop their own community services of water supply and sanitation, electrical power, healthcare, education and transportation. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>This cooperative system of economic development and management verily constitutes collective capitalism (or CCP, as opposed to subordinated capitalism).</strong></span> In this setup, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>the capital will be cooperatively generated, controlled and distributed.</strong></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />For people to interact and live in peace, we need to make provision for their satisfactory economic means and livelihood, cultural and psychic expression, enlightened and benevolent governance system, so that they can maximally develop all of their potentialities. In order for them to have a fulfilling lifestyle, they also need to feel that they constitute intrinsic members of the community they are living in, and that they are contributing to its development. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">This people-centered and people-empowered system of CCP (collective capitalism) and SED (socio-economic democracy) along with the civilian professional-governance (CPGS) system will auger well for optimal utilization of natural resources, community services and human potentialities.</span></strong> (p. 10) <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[????]......................</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><br /><div><a href="http://www.prout.org/Summary.html">http://www.prout.org/Summary.html</a><br /></div><div><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZw9puNLiV8Z_8lU5yeq3ndcYaYLZ5sFnok2hyyXnZ1CRq-agnA0lk3uUGjZcnSef81-SgyCcGPYGzmE6C-eJoKQ_vbtg7BgW5q7dL8ySaxWbnkRMVVTfGf2XIoa5vwGfLmLO6mmB09q2B/s1600-h/Prout.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292329983464394754" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 150px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 125px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZw9puNLiV8Z_8lU5yeq3ndcYaYLZ5sFnok2hyyXnZ1CRq-agnA0lk3uUGjZcnSef81-SgyCcGPYGzmE6C-eJoKQ_vbtg7BgW5q7dL8ySaxWbnkRMVVTfGf2XIoa5vwGfLmLO6mmB09q2B/s400/Prout.gif" border="0" /></a></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">PROUT is an acronym for PROgressive Utilization Theory</span></strong>, a socio-economic philosophy that synthesizes the physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of human nature. The goal of PROUT is to provide guidance for the evolution of a truly progressive human society.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">PROUT is an alternative to the outmoded capitalist and communist socio-economic paradigms.</span></strong> Neither of these approaches have adequately met the physical, mental and spiritual needs of humanity. PROUT seeks a harmonious balance between economic growth, social development, environmental sustainability, and between individual and collective interests. Combining the wisdom of spirituality with a universal outlook and the struggle for self-reliance, PROUTist thinkers and activists are creating a new civilizational discourse and planting the seeds for a new way of living.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">A few basic tenets of PROUT are:<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Spirituality and Progress</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Human beings are on an evolutionary path toward realizing their higher consciousness. True progress is movement that leads to self-realization and spiritual qualities such as compassion and love for all beings. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Material or intellectual gains do not necessarily constitute progress unless they contribute to deeper, spiritual well-being.<br /></strong></span></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The progressive orientation of society is maintained by making continual adjustments in the use of physical resources and mental potentialities in accordance with spiritual and Neo-humanistic values.</strong></span> Human beings are encouraged to construct economic and social institutions to facilitate the attainment of our highest potentialities.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Economic Democracy</span></strong></em><br />Political democracy and economic democracy are mutually inclusive. PROUT <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">advocates economic democracy based on local economic planning, cooperatively managed businesses, local governmental control of natural resources and key industries, and socially agreed upon limits on the individual accumulation of wealth. </span></strong>By decentralizing the economy and making sure decision-making is in the hands of local people, we can ensure the adequate availability of food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for all.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">A decentralized economy can better ensure that the ecological systems of the earth are not exploited beyond their capacity to renew themselves.</span></strong> Environmental stewardship is a requisite for people who are dependent upon these systems for their own survival and well-being.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Basic Necessities Guaranteed to All</span></strong></em><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The basic necessities of life must be a constitutional birth right of all members of society</strong></span>. People cannot attain their highest human potential if they lack <em><strong>food, shelter, clothing, health care and education</strong></em>. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Meaningful employment with a living wage must be planned to ensure adequate purchasing capacity for all basic necessities</strong></span>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">The standard of guaranteed minimum necessities should advance with increases in the economy's productive capacity</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Leadership</span></strong><br /></em>For a benevolent society, it is essential that leaders are morally principled and dedicated to serving society as part of their personal progress. Authority should not be centered in the hands of individuals, but should be expressed through collective leadership. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">[HOW ARE COLLECTIVE LEADERS TO BE ELECTED??]</span></strong> The viability of political democracy rests on an electorate possessing three factors:<br /><br />1) education,<br />2) socio-economic consciousness,<br />3) ethical integrity.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Freedom</span></strong></em><br />Individuals should have complete freedom to acquire and express their ideas, creative potential and inner aspirations. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Such intellectual and spiritual freedom <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">will strengthen the collectivity</span>.</span></strong> Restrictions should only be placed on actions clearly detrimental to the welfare of others. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Constraints need to be placed on the accumulation of physical wealth</strong></span>, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">as excessive accumulation by a few results in the deprivation of many.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Cultural Diversity<br /></span></strong></em>In the spirit of universal fellowship, PROUT <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">encourages the protection and cultivation of local culture, language, history and tradition. For social justice and a healthy social order</span></strong>, individual and cultural diversity must be accepted and encouraged.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Women's Rights</span></strong></em><br />PROUT encourages the struggle against all forms of violence and exploitation used to suppress women. PROUT's goal is coordinated cooperation, with equal rights between men and women. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">PROUT seeks the economic, social and spiritual empowerment of women throughout the world</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Science and Technology</span></strong></em><br />Scientific knowledge and technology are <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>potential assets to humanity</strong></span>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Through their proper use</span></strong>, the physical hardships of life decreases and knowledge is gained about the secrets of life. Time is freed for cultural and spiritual pursuits. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>However, the development and utilization of scientific knowledge must come under the guidance of spiritual and Neo-humanist values and ethical leadership. </strong></span>Without this, technology is often abused by profiteers and the power-hungry, resulting in destruction and exploitation.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">World Government</span></em></strong><br /></span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">PROUT supports the creation of a world governance system</span></strong> having a global bill of rights, global constitution and common penal code in order to guarantee the fundamental rights of all individuals and nations, and to settle regional and international disputes. As the global economy becomes decentralized, it will be advantageous to also have <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">a global political system</span></strong>. </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-40786754709170686862009-01-05T22:05:00.165-05:002009-01-06T15:12:14.378-05:00Global Warming or Climate Change? It's ALL Relative If We Ignore Science, Reframe Issues, Redefine Words, Adjust Grammar and Use Symbols and Imagery!<div align="justify"><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=eypII4Hatg4C&pg=RA2-PR9&dq=courts+shape+public+opinion+%2B+climate+change&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PRA2-PR1,M1">http://books.google.com/books?id=eypII4Hatg4C&pg=RA2-PR9&dq=courts+shape+public+opinion+%2B+climate+change&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PRA2-PR1,M1</a><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY_0vpgHcuf55TiQaUqUJfpQpTPyURTKoG0f6UWPrWMQ0jK7zgQ_c-iHGmvItvvfHJWWqnyq-s3HgJigxd5bei6v-zx06Jyv1iXUy2IHy6-29rJUNwx4ctBMN9Wjd6EsO06Od9ogTTsZaE/s1600-h/Hidden-Meanings1.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5288211868521902386" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 293px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY_0vpgHcuf55TiQaUqUJfpQpTPyURTKoG0f6UWPrWMQ0jK7zgQ_c-iHGmvItvvfHJWWqnyq-s3HgJigxd5bei6v-zx06Jyv1iXUy2IHy6-29rJUNwx4ctBMN9Wjd6EsO06Od9ogTTsZaE/s320/Hidden-Meanings1.gif" border="0" /></a>Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change</span></em></strong><br /><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Susanne Moser and Lisa Dilling Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press © 2007)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">“</span><span style="font-size:100%;">The need for effective communication, public outreach and education to increase support for policy, collective action and behavior change is ever-present, and is perhaps most pressing in the context of anthropogenic <span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span>.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>This book is the first to take a comprehensive look at communication and social change specifically targeted to</em> </span><span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong>. Creating a Climate for Change is a unique collection of ideas examining the challenges associated with communicating <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong> in order to facilitate societal response…”<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Foreword<br /></span></strong><br /><br />“There is a remarkable and recurring shape in both art and science. Hogarth, the seventeenths century artist, would have seen it as a <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">“S-shaped"</span></strong> “line of beauty”, and Verhulst, the mathematician, in 1838, as yet <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">another example of rapid but self-limiting growth</span></strong> in the form of logistic equation. And, for me it <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">is a powerful model of how social, behavioral and technological change takes place.</span></em></strong> So whether we are charting <strong>the proportion of the public expressing concern for <span style="font-size:180%;">global warming</span></strong> <strong>over time or the number of people, institutions and countries taking action to limit <span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong>, we hope the eventual path <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">will be<span style="color:#33cc00;"> “S”-shaped</span></span></strong>. <em><strong>Such a curve would show a slow increase of climate change risk perceptions, mitigation or adaptation policies, and individual behaviors followed by a period of rapid growth, until finally the rate of growth slowed once a very large proportion (but not all) of people, institutions or countries have changed</strong></em>.”<br /><br /><br />The chapters in this volume suggest that if we were to plot public awareness of global warming or <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong> we are probably high on the curve, although much of public knowledge of causes and solutions may be inaccurate by scientific standards. Yet public concern and political will have not yet turned the corner leading to an adequate response to this threat. And indeed if we use as a criterion specific actions, rather than vague ones such as ‘saving energy’ or ‘helping the environment’ – then it is still very early days.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />…Fortunately, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">there are many examples of such periods of rapid change following years of painful plodding. Recent history suggests that long-term trends in individual behavior can undergo dramatic change</span></strong>…”<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><em><strong>Why is climate change not perceived as urgent?</strong></em><br /><br /><br />This book highlights stories of success in communicating and action on climate change, while taking a realistic look at the challenges before us…Without doubt, global <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong> is a difficult topic to talk about, a tough issue to spark interest among non-experts. First detected and defined by scientists, <em><strong>human-induced</strong></em> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong> has been called by many names: a carbon dioxide problem, an energy problem, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">global warming</span></strong> an ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ – all abstract, benign-sounding and utterly…uninteresting, at least to most non-climate scientists.<br /><br /><br />In 1895, Svante Arrhenius, a nobel laureate in chemistry, laid the theoretical groundwork describing how fossil-fuel energy use could result in a warming atmosphere. As early as the 1950’s, scientists in the United States, Europe and elsewhere began to sound the alarm on <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong> and potential impacts as they realized how human activities were altering the atmosphere, and therefore potentially the climate, of the entire Earth, but it would be decades before this scientifically defined problem would be more widely recognized and make it into the public and policy agendas. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Why was it then and why does it now continue to be, so difficult to make climate change relevant and important in light of the climate’s central role as a life support system?<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br />…<em><strong>Lack of immediacy<br /></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Carbon dioxide</span></strong> and other GHGs are invisible and at atmospheric concentrations (even rising ones) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">have no direct negative health impacts on humans as do other air pollutants</span></strong>. Moreover, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">it has taken a while (in most places) for impacts on the environment to be detected</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Remoteness of Impacts<br /></strong></em><br /><br />The impacts of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">global warming</span></strong> are typically perceived as remote.<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Time Lags</strong></em><br /><br /><br />…Over time, the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere will cause large-scale changes such as warming of the ocean and changes in the climatic system that are not easily reversible…The human systems that create these emissions – such as the energy and transportation systems – also change only over periods of decades, making it difficult to reduce GHG emissions instantaneously should society decide to make it a priority…But these <strong>lags in the system…also work against making the problem urgent in the eyes of the general public</strong>.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>Solution Skepticism</strong></em><br /><br /><br />…When they are discussed, suggestions such as reducing home energy use or using public transportation can provoke skepticism and resistance as it is hard for individuals to see how alternatives could be made to work or how those small actions could make any discernible difference to this global problem. Similar skepticism – fed by political rhetoric, ignorance and some truth – prevails over international policy instruments such as those codified in the Kyoto Protocol.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>Threats to Values and Self-Interests<br /></strong></em><br /><br />In the United States, climate change remains a highly contested political issues as proposed solutions and policy mechanisms are viewed by some as conflicting with closely held values, priorities and <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">[e.g., PRIVATE PROPERTY - INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL ECONOMIC, LEGAL & POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY]</span></strong> interests such as national sovereignty, economic growth, job security, and the ‘American way of life’.<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Imperfect Markets<br /></strong></em><br /><br />The economic system of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">market-dominated capitalism</span></strong> relies on the straightforward notion of supply meeting demand, but it is well known that markets <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">exhibit failures in accounting for externalities such as pollution</span></strong>. These failures currently prevent the market from adequately accounting for externalized damages to the environment (or society).<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Tragedy of the Commons</strong></em><br /><br /><br />…When GHGs are emitted from anywhere, they affect the climate of the Earth as a whole. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Rules about using the atmosphere for the discharge of GHGs are only slowly being defined</strong></span>, while <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">monitoring, accountability, and consequences for ‘overusing’ the global atmospheric commons are extremely difficult to ensure and implement</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Communication and its Impacts on the Public Perception of Urgency</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Experience shows that the conundrum of the growing urgency of the problem vis-à-vis the lack of action is compounded by <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>common communication practices of scientists, communicators and advocates in the arena of</em> </span><span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong>. Many of these are not unique to the problem of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">global warming</span></strong> – <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">issues such as uncertainty, complexity, media practices, organized opposition, and people’s mental models often play a role in controversial social issues</span></strong>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Those who are skilled in communicating and moving toward action have found modes of operating that recognize these pitfalls and remain focused on strategies that appeal to the constituencies they are working with</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Uncertain Science as a Political Battlefield<br /></strong></em><br /><br />…<em><strong>Inappropriate Frames and Mental Models<br /></strong></em><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">People absorb new information from preexisting frames of reference or cognitive structures (so-called mental models) to order information.</span></strong></em> They intimately affect people’s understanding, perceptions and reactions to information. For example, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">if <span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span> is reported on TV accompanied by images of weather disasters, the ‘weather’ frame may be triggered. This frame suggests that <span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span> can neither be caused nor solved by humans, but is an ‘act of God’</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">By focusing on large scale ‘weather’-like impacts, there is thus a danger that the communication may invoke a sense of helplessness or resignation</span></strong>…<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Cultural Barriers<br /></strong></em><br /><br />There is no clear ‘brand’ or ‘cultural whirlwind’ defining the problem in a way that allows the public to easily relate…<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Alarmism and Other Ineffective Ways to Create Urgency</strong></em><br /><br /><br />[I]t is difficult for climate change to appear urgent except in cases of catastrophe or disaster…<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Cognitive Barriers<br /></strong></em><br /><br />…<em><strong>Psychological Barriers<br /></strong></em><br /><br />…<em><strong>Lack of Peer Support<br /></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Change is hard simply because it is a break in the routine, habit or tradition</span></strong>. It triggers fear of the unknown, or aversion to risk, or simply resistance to the hassle of having to do something differently. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">New information, however credible, thus does not easily persuade individuals to act in new ways unless it comes from a trusted source</span></strong>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Generally, personally familiar sources are more trusted than more distant and less familiar sources</span></em></strong>; those coming from similar circumstances are believed to understand one’s situation better than those coming from very different backgrounds. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Often it takes observing the actions by a neighbor, a friend or competing firm to spur action.</span></em></strong> Many (behavior) change initiatives such as social marketing, weight loss, and rehabilitation programs (to name a few) employ peer support and pressure, mutual accountability, and maybe a greater sense of responsibility to great success.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>Organizational Inertia and Resource Constraints</strong></em><br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Lack of Political Will and Leadership<br /></strong></em><br /><br />…Politicians are not rewarded – and sometimes even punished – for making tough, unpopular choices that have no immediate payoff and may even involve short-term sacrifice. In addition, interest group politics means that interests with the loudest voice are heard, while other interests are not fully represented. What politicians across the political spectrum have been able to agree on is the need for further research – hardly a sign of urgency given that the United States has been researching climate change for more than 25 years…<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>Technological Barriers<br /></strong></em><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">All of the proposed solutions to stabilizing the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted by humans, </span></strong>including improving energy efficiency, decarbonization, sequestration, alternative energy sources, and various geoengineering schemes <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">represent major technological challenges</span></strong>…<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>A Fresh Approach<br /></strong></em><br /><br />…For better or for worse, a large share of the responsibility for communicating <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span></strong> still falls to <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">scientists and others who lay claim to scientific or technical expertise</span></strong></em>. Among many of these communicators, the…conviction that (1) climate change is fundamentally a scientific issue, (2) experts understand it and others don’t, and (3) the purpose of communication thus is to educate the ignorant is, in short, still alive and well. Communication on <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">global warming</span></strong> based on these assumptions thus <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">creates an abiding rift between listener and speaker, preventing the listener from truly gaining ownership of the problem because of its alleged pure technical nature and the implicit hierarchy of expert/lay person in which it is approached</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /><br />…Climate change simply does not resonate deeply with the general public; it remains disconnected from people’s daily lives, from their more immediate concerns. This suggests, then, that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">climate change has not been communicated effectively until communicators understand how to bridge this ‘gap of meaning’</span></strong>. To do so…is impossible without understanding the ‘audience’ more fully.<br /><br /><br />…We have come to see <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the importance of dialogue, of the genuine exchange among</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">other-than-scientific</span></strong></em> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">viewpoints</span></strong> and needs, and <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the integration of climate change with <em><span style="font-size:180%;">other-than-climate change</span></em> concerns</span></strong>. This has led us to a broader definition of communication <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">in support of social change</span></strong> as a continuous and dynamic process unfolding among people that facilitates an exchange of ideas, feelings and information as well as the forming of mutual understanding and common visions of a desirable future.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/papers/Boykoff,%20Maxwell%20and%20Roberts,%20J.%20Timmons.pdf">http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/papers/Boykoff,%20Maxwell%20and%20Roberts,%20J.%20Timmons.pdf</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.unesco.org/ngo/issc/images/logo_UNDP.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="http://www.unesco.org/ngo/issc/images/logo_UNDP.jpg" border="0" /></a>Media Coverage of Climate Change: Current Trends, Strengths, Weaknesses</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Maxwell T. Boykoff and J. Timmons Roberts</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong>United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report 2007 </strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong>Background Paper 2007/3</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction</span></strong><br /><br /><br />…Through time, mass media coverage has proven to be a key contributor – among a number of factors – that have shaped and affected science and policy discourse as well as public understanding and action. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Mass media representational practices have broadly affected translations between science and policy and have shaped perceptions of various issues of environment, technology and risk</span></strong> (Weingart et al. 2000). Within the issue of climate change, two more terms need quick review and clarification: climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation of emissions is the reduction of greenhouse gasses released to the atmosphere. (p.1)<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Studies have found that the public learns a large amount about science through consuming mass media news</span></strong> (Wilson 1995). In what are conventionally regarded as ‘developed nations’, many polls have found that television and daily newspapers are the primary sources of information (Project for Excellence in Journalism 2006). For instance, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a United States (U.S.) National Science Foundation survey of U.S. residents found that television remains the leading source of news in most households (53%), followed by newspapers (29%) (National Science Foundation 2004).</span></strong> In <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">another U.S. poll that asked ‘where did you get your news yesterday’, participants most frequently also cited television (57%), followed by newspapers (40%), radio (36%) and internet (23%) (Pew Research Center for People and the Press 2006).</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In ‘developing countries’ and more specifically in rural areas, radio has been a principle medium</span></strong> through which climate change news is communicated (Luganda 2005). (p.2)<br /><br /><br />… <em><strong>Climate change mitigation and adaptation both require discussion, and for them the issues for media coverage and its impact differ</strong></em>. Mitigation is the reduction of greenhouse gasses released to the atmosphere, and for decades, the only aid to developing countries for climate change was linked to mitigation activities. (pp. 2-3)<br /><br /><br />… Adaptation to climate change has been defined by Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial activities” (McCarthy et al. 2001). That adjustment can be anticipatory or reactive, planned or grass-roots/spontaneous, public or private. Disaster management can be either based on preparation and prevention or relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (recovery) (Muller and Hepburn 2006). There is much debate about what counts as adaptation to climate change, how much funding is needed for poor nations to adapt to climate change, and on how much money is available under the Kyoto protocol and other aid mechanisms (e.g. Muller and Hepburn 2006).<br /><br /><br />… <strong><em>The mass media plays a largely unexplored role in the future of climate adaptation aid. We review here previous work that may point the way in assessing the role of media in influencing public opinion on assisting poor nations with adapting to climate change</em></strong>. This background paper surveys how mass media coverage has shaped discourse and action – in complex, dynamic and non-linear ways – at the interface of climate science and policy. Moreover, this work explores influences of media on practices, politics and public opinion and understanding related to climate change. In this production process, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the paper touches on political economics of how types of media communications, as well as ownership and structure shape these processes</span></strong>. Moreover, we discuss how cultural differences influence national and regional differences in reporting as well as public and policy consumption of news. (p.3)<br /><br /><br />… <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">THE FIRST PHASE of news production: framing, power and the power of framing<br /></span></strong><br /><br />As depicted in Figure 6, the first ‘phase’ of communication is that of the production of news. Media professionals – such as editors and journalists – produce news within a political, economic, institutional, social and cultural landscape. Moreover, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">news coverage of climate change – both mitigation and adaptation – is produced through journalistic norms and values</span></strong>. In the production of news, stories are partly generated from asymmetrical power relationships, and partly developed through the history of professionalized journalism (Starr 2004). Socio-political and economic factors have given rise to distinct norms and values (Lee 2006), and these that buttress journalistic practices (Bennett 2002). This mobilization of power is complex, and often subtle as well as contradictory. In fact, discontinuities can arise in media coverage through the very professional journalistic norms and values that have developed to safeguard against potential abuses of asymmetrical power (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). Thus, <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">media coverage of climate change (adaptation and mitigation) is not a simple collection of news articles and clips produced by journalists and producers; rather, representations signify key frames derived through complex and non-linear relationships between scientists, policy actors and the public, often mediated by news stories</span></em></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Framing </span>is a process, and an inherent part of cognition whereby content is constructed – in the form of issues, events and information – to order, organize and regulate everyday life. It can be defined as the ways in which elements of discourse are assembled that then privilege certain interpretations and understandings over others</span></strong> (Goffman 1974). <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Framing permeates all facets of interactions between science, policy, media and the public.</span></strong> For instance, <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Roger Pielke Jr. has examined the policy implications of the restricted definition of ‘climate change’ by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change</span></em></strong> (Pielke Jr. 2006). The process of media framing involves an inevitable series of choices to cover certain events within a larger current of dynamic activities. These events are then converted into news stories. In recent years, more researchers from fields of environmental sociology, geography, political science and communications have examined framing various scientific issues (Szasz 1995; Jasanoff 2004; Demeritt 2006; Nisbet and Huge 2006). Figure 7 depicts there interactions within journalism. (pp. 9-10)<br /><br /><br />Entman states that, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition…”</span></strong> (Entman 1993, 52). <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Therefore, the construction of meaning and discourse derive through combined structural and agential components</span></strong>. Asymmetrical influences also feed back into these social relationships and further shape emergent frames of ‘news’, knowledge and discourse. These processes take place at multiple scales. For instance, individual journalists must contend with time and space pressures when reporting the news. Many are codified and explicit (such as column inches), while others are implicit and shaped by social convention (time management in covering multiple ‘beats’ sufficiently). These related decisions are made in the context of larger-scale pressures. While some factors like access through ownership and control are more readily apparent, other influences, such as journalists’ training are more concealed. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The power dynamics that emerge from these elements then becomes re-embedded in macro-relations, such as decision-making in a capitalist political economy, and again micro-processes such as everyday journalistic practices</span></em></strong>. Overall, these norms, values and pressures are interrelated and therefore very difficult to disentangle. Multi-scale pressures can be considered in terms of political, economic, social, cultural, ethical and journalistic elements (providing the context for the ‘circuits of communication’ model in Figure 6). (p. 10)<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>The terrain: Macro-scale influences shaping media representations of climate change<br /></strong></em><br /><br />At the macro political-economic level, in recent years media organizations – dominated by developed country organizations – have continued to consolidate. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Efficiency and profit increasingly influence news production (Bennett 1996)…</span></strong>Economic considerations have led to decreased mass-media budgets for investigative journalism (McChesney 1999). This has had a detrimental effect on training for news professionals in covering news ‘beats’ (Gans 1979; Bennett 2002). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">According to research by Dunwoody and Peters, the typical journalist in the U.S. is “even less likely to have majored in science or math than is the average U.S. resident”</span></strong> (Dunwoody and Peters 1992, 208)… This trend has served to affect communications of scientific information when complex scientific material is simplified in media reports (Anderson 1997)… (pp. 10-11)<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong>The level of the story: Micro-scale pressures shaping media coverage of <span style="font-size:130%;">climate change</span></strong></em><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><br /><br />These issues begin to work across scales from macro-level political economic factors to micro-level processes such as journalistic norms and values intersect with these elements and shape news content (Jasanoff 1996). These include objectivity, fairness, and accuracy. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Much as storylines are fueled within science and policy, the mass media play an important role, particularly as the role of translator</span></strong>.</em> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Scientists have a tendency to speak in cautious language when describing their research findings, and have a propensity to discuss implications of their research in terms of probabilities.</span></strong> Sheldon Ungar has asserted, “science is an encoded form of knowledge that requires translation in order to be understood” (Ungar 2000, 308). <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Moreover, scientists tend to qualify their findings in light of uncertainties that lurk in their research</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">For journalists and policy actors, these issues of caution, probability and uncertainty are all difficult to translate smoothly into crisp, unequivocal commentary often valued in communications and decision-making.</span></strong></em> For example, in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the professional culture of science trains authors to build the case of the research and then place key findings in the results and discussion sections;</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">in professional media reports, journalistic norms instruct reporters to lead with the most important conclusions and discoveries. Therefore, scientific findings usually require translation into more colloquial terms in order for it to be comprehensible</span></strong></em>. As Weingart et al put it, “the media…tend to translate hypotheses into certainties” (2000, 274). (p.11)<br /><br /><br />News-production conditions in this first ‘phase’ of the Carvalho and Burgess model interact in important ways with <span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;"><strong>first-order journalistic norms: personalization, dramatization, and novelty</strong></span>. Boykoff and Boykoff call them ‘first-order’ norms, because these factors <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>are significant and baseline influences on both the selection of what is news and the content of news stories</strong></span> (Boykoff and Boykoff 2007). The lens of personalization focuses attention on competition between personalities struggling for power and acting strategically in order to improve their prestige and socio-political leverage. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The human-interest story conforms to the idea that news focuses on individuals rather than group dynamics or social processes</span></em></strong> (Gans 1979). The gaze is on the individual claims-makers who are locked in political battle, and thus structural or institutional analyses are skipped over in favor of stories that cover the trials and tribulations of individuals. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>As an effect, these stories are seldom linked to deeper social analysis</em></span></strong>. This connects to dramatization. Hilgartner and Bosk write that, “Drama is the source of energy that gives social problems life and sustains their growth” (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988, 62). Dramatized news tends to downplay more comprehensive analysis of the enduring problems, in favor of covering the movements at the surface of events (Wilkins and Patterson 1987). Aforementioned <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><em>scientific lexicon does not help the issue conform to this dramatization norm; in fact it makes the ‘story’ less appealing for journalists</em></span></strong> (Ungar 2000). Moreover, the journalistic valuation of drama can serve to trivialize news content, as it also can lead to the blocking out of news that does not hold an immediate sense of excitement or controversy. However, this norm does not necessarily lead to reduced coverage. In their report entitled ‘Warm Words’, Ereaut and Segnit have posited that presenting news in this dramatized form is most common, and <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">‘sensationalized’ or ‘alarmist’ reporting “might even become secretly thrilling – effectively a form of ‘climate porn’</span></em></strong> rather than a constructive message” (Ereaut and Segnit 2006, 14).<br /><br /><br />An example of <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a dramatic event that generated tremendous news coverage is Hurricane Katrina</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Despite scientific uncertainty that remains regarding links between hurricane intensity and frequency and climate change, this event spurred a ‘wave’ of coverage.</span></strong></em> In the U.S., Juliet Eilperin reported in the Washington Post, “Katrina's destructiveness has given a sharp new edge to the ongoing debate over whether the United States should do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming” (Eilperin 2005, A16). <strong>Considerations of links to implementation of international climate policy in the public domain were fuelled further in this case by comments made by prominent political actors. For instance,</strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Jurgen Trittin – Minister of the Environment in Germany – commented, “The American president has closed his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes such as Katrina – in other words, disasters caused by a lack of climate protection measures – can visit on his country”</span></strong></em> (Bernstein 2005, D5). (p. 12)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Dramatization intersects with the common journalistic attraction to novelty</span></strong> (Gans 1979; Wilkins and Patterson 1987; Wilkins and Patterson 1991). Pointing to the relationship between dramatization and novelty in the mass media, Hilgartner and Bosk assert, “saturation of the public arenas with redundant claims and symbols can dedramatize a problem” (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988, 71). Because of the perceived need for a ‘news peg,’ certain stories are deemed suitable and others are not (Wilkins 1993). Gans asserts there is a “repetition taboo” whereby journalists reject stories that have already been reported in favor of news that is fresh, original, and new (Gans 1979, 169). Stocking and Leonard comment that this “allows persistent, and growing, environmental problems to slide out of sight if here is nothing ‘new’ to report” (Stocking and Leonard 1990, 40). In practice, this feeds into a preference for coverage of crises, rather than chronic social problems. Therefore, <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">when it comes to climate-change coverage, Wilson notes, “The underlying causes and long-term consequences are often overlooked in the day-to-day grind to find a new angle by deadline”</span></em></strong> (Wilson 2000, 207). So a tension continues between science and mass media: <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">within established storylines of climate change, there is a need for novel ways to portray this story</span></strong>. (pp. 12-13)<br /><br /><br />In combination, through influences on the selection of news and the content therein, <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">these </span><strong>first order norms initiate and inform a set of second-order journalistic norms: authority-order, and balance </strong></span>(Figure 7). Together, these norms and influences contribute to what becomes news, and media coverage of climate change – both mitigation and adaptation. Previous research has argued that such <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">adherence to these first- and second-order norms to ‘episodic framing’ of news – rather than ‘thematic framing’ whereby stories are situated in a larger, thematic context – and this has been shown to lead to shallower understandings of political and social issues </span></em></strong>(Iyengar 1991; Boykoff and Boykoff 2007). This episodic framing can then skew media coverage that affects public understanding of climate change mitigation and adaptation. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Authority-order bias</span></strong> is a second-order journalistic norm <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">where journalists tend to primarily, and sometimes solely, consult authority figures – government officials, business leaders, and others (Bennett 2002, 48-49). This highlights “the desirability of social order” and “the need for national leadership in maintaining that order</span></strong></em>” (Gans 1979, 52). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Research has shown that through media coverage of <span style="font-size:180%;">climate change</span>, there is often significant acceptance of political and expert voices by the public (McManus 2000). Moreover, the complex issue of public trust in <span style="font-size:180%;">authority figures</span> may feed back into and influence climate policy decision-making</span></strong> (Pidgeon and Gregory 2004; Lorenzoni and Pidgeon 2006, see discussion in ‘third phase’ below). The sometimes explicit but often tacit drive to restore order can then serve to defuse or amplify concern about threatening social issues, even if such effects are not warranted. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Since environmental issues (such as climate change mitigation and adaptation) often appear in the news because of a looming or unfolding crisis, this penchant for authoritative – often government – sources is not a trivial matter </span></strong>(Miller and Riechert 2000). <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">However, effects of this journalistic norm become less straightforward when there is overt contestation and ‘dueling’ authorities clash.</span></strong></em> This leads both back to first-order norms of personalization and dramatization, and to the final second-order norm of balance. Balance is often seen as an activity that carries out the pursuits of objectivity (Cunningham 2003). <strong>With balanced reporting, journalists “present the views of legitimate spokespersons of the conflicting sides in any significant dispute, and provide both sides with roughly equal attention”</strong> (Entman 1989, 30). <strong>In coverage of climate science, balance can help reporters when they lack the requisite scientific background or knowledge, or are facing formidable time constraints (Dunwoody and Peters 1992).</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[ARGUABLY, 'BALANCED' REPORTING NO LONGER EXISTS, LET ALONE, CONCERNING CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING!]</span></strong> With coverage of climate change, the proclivity to personalize news dovetails in an important way with the notion of balance in that it leads to the scenario of the dueling scientists, who receive ‘roughly equal attention’. (p. 13)<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Boykoff and Boykoff (2004) quantitatively explored how the balance norm was applied to anthropogenic climate change in U.S. newspaper coverage. This study found that, over a fifteen-year period, a majority (52.7%) of prestige-press articles featured balanced accounts that gave “roughly equal attention” to the views that humans were contributing to global warming and that exclusively natural fluctuations could explain the earth’s temperature increase.</span></strong></em> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Coverage was divergent from the scientific consensus on this issue in a statistically significant way from 1990 through 2002.</span></strong> These analyses complement findings from other studies of news production and the issue of climate change. For instance, McComas and Shanahan examined ongoing narratives in reporting in the New York Times, and the Washington Post from 1980 to 1995. They <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">found the agenda-setting function of mass media as important, as well as the influences from external factors – such as dramatic events – that shape coverage</span></strong> (McComas and Shanahan 1999). In addition, Antilla examined newspaper coverage in 255 different sources from 2003 to 2004. She found that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">wire services have played a key role in shaping the ways in which climate change science is framed and discussed in reporting</span></strong> (Antilla 2005). In the UK, Burgess put forward key foundational and conceptual work regarding the cultural production and consumption of meaning via the media (Burgess 1990). Anderson examined these cultural practices through an analysis of environmental stories, as well as their relation to public and policy attention (Anderson 1997). Furthermore, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">in 2005</span></strong>, Carvalho examined social, political and cultural struggles to frame the climate change issue in UK newspapers. This study examined three ‘broadsheet’ or ‘quality’ UK national newspapers: The Guardian, The Independent, and The Times (Carvalho and Burgess 2005). The authors undertook critical discourse <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">analysis to examine social, political and cultural struggles to frame the climate change issue</span><em>,</em></span></strong> and analyzed these framing practices within the constraints of ideological parameters, maintained and perpetuated within the media sources themselves. Other research by Carvalho <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">finds that</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">through multiple feedback processes of communication of climate change risk via the media over time, prominent political actors successfully frame climate risk for their purposes</span></strong>,</span> and align frames with their interests and perspectives (Carvalho 2005). Similarly, Smith examined UK broadcast news media coverage of climate change risk, and the interactions between climate change science, policy, media and public spheres. Through analyses of seminar discussions from 1997 to 2004 by influential actors – such as BBC broadcasters – in these communities, he unpacked and assessed key factors that shape decision-making in the development of news stories (Smith 2005). (pp. 13-14)<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">THE SECOND PHASE of news in the public sphere: legibility of climate discourse</span></strong></em><br /><br /><br />Figure 6 shows the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">movements of ‘texts’ or ‘form’ </span></strong>into the second ‘circuit’ of public dissemination. These <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">encoded messages</span></strong> – television/radio broadcasts, printed newspapers/magazines, and internet communications – comprise communications that then compete in public arenas for attention. This coheres with the ‘Public Arenas’ model that can be nested in this second ‘phase’ of communication (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988) in considerations of the increases and decreases in media attention to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Hilgartner and Bosk’s model “stresses the ‘arenas’ where social problem definitions evolve, examining the effect of those arenas on both the evolution of social problems and the actors who make claims about them” (1988: 55). The focus here is on one such ‘arena’ – the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">mass media</span></strong> – and analytical attention is on <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“the ‘principles of selection,’ or institutional, political, and cultural factors that influence the probability of survival of competing problem formulations”</span></strong> (1988: 56). (p. 14)<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Previous attempts to theorize the rise and fall of media coverage and public concern for ecological issues have relied on Anthony Downs’s ‘Issue-Attention Cycle’.</span></em></strong> For instance, in mapping the environmental policy-making process, Roberts relies on this model to “provide an explanation of the waxing and waning of issues within the policy environment” (Roberts 2004, 141). More specific to climate change, Trumbo utilizes the ‘Issue-Attention Cycle’ to “present a brief history” of climate change coverage in the news and to “serve as a useful tool” for examining how climate is framed in the media (Trumbo 1996, 274). In terms of ‘agenda-setting’ of climate change discourse through the media, Newell leans on this model as an “all-embracing explanation for the nature of media coverage of global warming”, despite acknowledgement that the model fails to “accurately depict the complexity and challenging nature of the climate change problem” (Newell 2000, 86). (pp. 14-15)<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">In describing the ‘Issue-Attention Cycle’ Downs posited that public attention to environmental issues moves through five sequential stages</span></em></strong>. </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em><strong>First</strong></em> is the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“pre-problem stage”,</span></strong> when an ecological problem –such as anthropogenic climate change risk – exists but has yet to capture public attention. Downs posits that expert communities are aware of the risks, but this has not yet been disseminated more widely. In the case of media attention of climate change mitigation and adaptation, this might be considered the conditions before 1988, where there were just four stories across forty newspapers in the decade before.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">The <em><strong>second phase</strong></em> is that of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm”</span></strong>, where dramatic events make the public both aware of the problem and alarmed about it. The aforementioned events of the late 1980s can help explain how there were increased ‘hooks’ for climate change stories.<br /></div><br /><em><strong></strong></em><br /><em><strong></strong></em><br /><div align="justify"><em><strong>Third</strong></em>, is the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“gradual-realization-of-the-cost stage”</span></strong> where key actors acknowledge sacrifices and costs that will be incurred in dealing with the problem. <em><strong>One could argue that this characterization might coincide with the emergence of a cohesive group – since called ‘climate contrarians’ – that began to challenge scientific findings regarding the presence of an anthropogenic climate change signal</strong></em>.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em><strong>Fourth</strong></em>, is the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“gradual-decline-of-intense-public-interest stage”</span></strong> where, according to Downs, actors become discouraged at the prospect of appropriately dealing with the issue, and crises are normalized through suppression and in some cases boredom. It could be argued that this might coincide with the slight decrease in coverage of climate change adaptation in the mid-1990s (Figure 3) and climate change more generally (Figure 1).<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Finally, <em><strong>fifth </strong></em>is the catchall <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">“post-problem stage”</span></strong>, where the formerly ‘hot’ issue “moves into a prolonged limbo – a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic reoccurrences of interest”. In this stage, Downs covers all possibilities when he states that the issue “once elevated to national prominence may sporadically recapture public interest” (1972, 39-41). Scholars have analyzed media coverage of climate change through this model, periodizing media coverage of global warming into distinct phases (e.g. Trumbo 1996; McComas and Shanahan 1999). <strong><em>This cycle is argued to be “rooted both in the nature” of the problem and in the “way major communication media interact with the public”</em></strong> (Downs 1972, 42). (p. 15)<br /><br /><br />This ‘natural history’ framework is useful perhaps in considering the intrinsic qualities of the issues themselves that influencing these ebbs and flows of coverage. Yet, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">the Downs model does <em><span style="font-size:180%;">not </span></em>capture the contested terrain upon which ‘alarm’ and ‘costs’ are determined and contested, nor does it account for the non-linear factors that shape dynamic interactions between climate science, policy and the public via the mass media</span></strong> (Williams 2000). Logan and Molotch (1987), describe the “easy news” and the “hard news” to report upon (“if it bleeds, it leads”), and the difficulty reporters face when raising issues which might threaten their advertisers or owners’ news. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Dunlap argues that environmental issues have not conformed to Downs’ Issue-Attention Cycle, since the problems have worsened, new problems have arisen, and most importantly, professionalized social movement organizations have been built to keep them alive</span></strong> (1992). Critics have also made the point that cycles may have both sped up in recent years, as well as become less apparent (Jordan and O'Riordan 2000). Moreover, cross-cultural research has found evidence that while the Downs model appears to hold in some contexts, it does not hold in others (Brossard et al. 2004). In sum, this model is left wanting in that it is too partial an explanation, as well as too linear and rigid an interpretation, of the messiness multiple internal as well as external factors shaping climate science-policy/practice interactions. In terms of media coverage influencing public attention, understanding and engagement, it does not account for how the aforementioned journalistic norms such as personalization, dramatization and balance could under gird what becomes news, rather than just the issue itself. Therefore, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">the entrenched use of this Downs model has been detrimental in considerations of how these media representations are constructed, thus contributing to possible impediments to greater climate change mitigation and adaptation in the public purview</span></strong>. (pp. 15-16)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Considering the ‘</em><span style="font-size:180%;">Circuits of Communication’ and ‘Public Arenas’ models</span> <em>together enables examinations of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors – as well as dynamic and non-linear influences – that shape media coverage of both mitigation and adaptation</em></span></strong>. This helps move analyses beyond static representations to <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">more accurate analytical lenses for understanding current trends, strengths and weaknesses in media coverage of climate change</span></strong> – both mitigation and adaptation. </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">In this <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">‘Public Arenas’ model</span></strong>, there is <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">accounting for dynamic and competitive processes to define and frame the ‘problem’, and understanding of the institutional arenas that serve as “environments” where social problems compete for attention/grow</span></strong> (like the contexts described in the ‘Circuits of Communication’ model). Furthermore, there is acknowledgement of the ‘attention economy’ (Ungar 1992) that brackets the quantity and quality of all aspects of climate change coverage at a given time. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">There is also consideration of how various political, institutional and cultural factors – as well as actor networks, or ‘claims-makers’ – compete for the framing and selection (as well as de-selection) of mitigation and adaptation considerations</span></strong>. Media studies researchers have asserted that, “Journalists are less adept at reporting complex phenomena… (and) have difficulty reporting stories that never culminate in obvious events” (Fedler et al. 1997, 94). Moreover, journalists often focus reporting on events, which thus underemphasize these ‘creeping’ stories as well as the contexts within which they take place (Dunwoody and Griffin 1993). While scientific insights regarding complex issues such as anthropogenic climate change and adaptation evolve over years and decades, through journalistic norms and pressures, media take ‘snapshot’ selections from this steady stream of enhanced understanding, thus providing truncated interpretations. This feeds back into the production ‘phase’ of the ‘circuits’ model, where challenges such as time-scale are not compatible with news conventions (Carvalho and Burgess 2005). Above all, thinking through how these models account for these processes should be useful in considerations of increased media coverage of climate change coverage (including adaptation) in the last two years, as well as the crucial role that mass media plays in public understanding and engagement with the climate change issue.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Amid this increase in coverage in the last two decades, it has only been in recent years that media coverage of climate adaptation has increased substantially.</span></strong> Figure 3 shows results from a search using the keywords <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">‘climate change’</span></strong> or <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">‘global warming’</span></strong> and ‘adaptation’. This was conducted in forty of the most influential English-language world newspapers (congruent with Figure 1) (see Table I). There were increases evident during the times of the IPCC assessment reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001, as well as during the times of the UN FCCC in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. <strong>Outside of Europe and North America, coverage of climate change or global warming and adaptation is considerably lower.</strong> Moreover, coverage that does appear in many of the newspaper outlets are often reproduced news stories from Europe and North American sources. For instance, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">most coverage that appeared in the Yomiuri Shimbun was repurposed material from the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times in the US, as well as the Independent from the UK.</span></strong></em> Further distinguishing between what are conventionally considered ‘developing’ countries, from this initial sampling of forty newspapers, there is scant coverage of climate change/global warming and adaptation over the last two decades. (p.16)<br /><br /><br />…<em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">THE THIRD PHASE of personal engagement with climate change via mass media<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br />Figure 6 shows the third ‘phase’ of communication in the Carvalho and Burgess model, which focuses on <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the consumption of news media coverage of climate change – both mitigation and adaptation – in the personal sphere</span></strong>. This is a phase where these public discourses permeate and integrate to varying degrees into personal understanding and behavior. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><em>William Ruckelshaus – first US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator – has said, “If the public isn’t adequately informed [about climate change], it’s difficult for them to make demands on government, even when it’s in their own interest”</em></span></strong> (Ruckelshaus 2004). But how this information is interpreted and translated into decisions and potential behavioral change is complex, dynamic and contested. (p.19)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In theorizing interactions at the science-practice interface, researchers have considered three main ‘waves’ of engagement</span></strong> (Collins and Evans 2002).<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">The <em><strong>first wave</strong></em> of interactions was that of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">a ‘deficit model’ approach</span></strong> to understanding interaction. This perspective <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">posited that poor choices and actions were attributed to ‘deficits’ of knowledge and information to make the ‘correct’ choice</span></strong>. The approach was associated with norms and ideals of science as open, universal and objective practices. However, this set of ideal interactions is much more complicated in practice.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Since the 1950s, this view has been critiqued (within science studies) for being too simple a characterization of the dynamic interactions between science and policy/practice.</span></strong> However, in the policy and public spheres, there are residual impulses such as the stated reliance on ‘sound’ science in order to make decisions, as well as the stated pursuits to eliminate uncertainty as a precondition for action.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">The <em><strong>second wave</strong></em> of engagement is considered <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the wave of ‘democracy’</span></strong>. Ulrich Beck examined the democratization of the science-practice interface, particularly in his book ‘Risk Society’ (Beck 1992). There he <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">posited that there are common ‘bads’ in our risk society as well as common ‘goods’: techno-economic development itself could actually increase problems in practice rather than solve them.</span></strong> He <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">called for more non-state actor/policy/public engagement and feedback into the processes of science (or ‘upstream engagement’) in order to more properly account for and deal with the contested spaces of (public and private) engagement with science</span></strong>.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">The <em><strong>third wave</strong></em> is called the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">‘normative theory of expertise’</span></strong>. It is similar to the second wave in terms of the democratizing commitments, though it further maps institutional boundaries between formalized science-policy/politics and the lay public. This theoretical move seeks to delineate the variegated roles of generally legitimized and authorized ‘experts’ vis-à-vis specialist ‘experts’ in the field in question. In other words, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">in the case of climate change, this modeling seeks to clarify which groups and institutions may be ‘authorized’ speakers on climate science, while others are not</span></strong> (Collins and Evans 2002). (pp. 19-20)<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Research on public understanding of climate change</span></em></strong> has burgeoned in recent years. A subset of this work has examined how media representations of climate change influence ongoing science practice interactions. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A salient focus has been on representations of uncertainty</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Scientists often have difficulty placing the uncertainty associated with their research into a familiar context, through an appropriate analogy; in other words, “translating error bars into ordinary language”</span></strong> (Pollack 2003, 77). <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Scientific uncertainty has entered debates regarding action, sometimes serving to inspire inaction (Demeritt 2001);</span></strong></em> it is an inherent element in all scientific inquiry.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A study</span></strong> of US newspaper and magazine coverage from 1986 through 1995 – in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, and The Los Angeles Times and unspecified magazines from the popular press – found that uncertainty was consistently prominent theme in reporting. It <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">concludes that uncertainty “was used to help construct an exclusionary boundary between ‘the public’ and climate change scientists” thereby contributing to deferential citizens and diffused public involvement through acceptance of the need for ‘more research’ </span></strong>(Zehr 2000, 85). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><em>In practice, the mass media have effectively amplified uncertainty through coverage of climate contrarians’ counter-claims regarding anthropogenic climate change</em></span></strong> (Wilkins 1993; Zehr 1999; McCright 2007), <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><em>without providing context that these claims have been marginalized in the climate science community</em></span></strong> (Schneider 1993; Dunwoody 1999). <span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>Clearly, this can distract from further engagement with climate adaptation issues.</strong></em> </span><br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Research</span></strong> by Corbett and Durfee (Corbett and Durfee 2004) <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">examined coverage of climate change with a focus on uncertainty</span></strong>. Through an experiment design of three newspaper story treatments – controversy, context and control (neither context nor controversy) – they <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">found that greater contextualization within climate science stories helps to mitigate against controversy stirred up through uncertainty</span></strong>. Thus, <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">reader perceptions were affected by the sometime subtle characteristics</span></em></strong> (mentioned in the ‘first phase’ above). In regards to public understanding of climate adaptation, this information on how content impacts reader comprehension is useful. (p. 20)<br /><br /><br />Connected to content, a number of polls have queried reader comprehension of climate change. For instance, Bord, O’Connor and Fisher conducted a survey to investigate links between knowledge of climate change causes and behaviors (2000). Through 1,218 surveys, they found that increased understanding also increases people’s stated intentions to do something about it. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Providing greater texture to analysis of public perceptions and actions in regards to climate change, <span style="font-size:180%;">a study</span> of beliefs and attitudes about the severity of climate change was undertaken in 1997 and 1998 </span></strong>(Krosnick et al. 2006). Through telephone interviews of 1,413 adults, they <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">found that beliefs were a function of three main factors: possible relevant personal experiences (e.g. exposure to weather disasters), perceived consequences of climate change (e.g. relative vulnerability) and messages from informants (e.g. scientists via the mass media).</span></strong> Through this empirical research, the authors put forward a mechanism linking knowledge and action: <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">“knowledge may have increased certainty, which in turn increased assessments of national seriousness, which in turn increased policy support…knowledge about an issue per se will <em><span style="font-size:180%;">not</span></em> necessarily increase support for a relevant policy.</span></strong> </span><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">It will do so only if existence beliefs, attitudes, and beliefs about human responsibility are in place to permit the necessary reasoning steps to unfold”</span></strong> (Krosnick et al. 2006, 36-37). </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Among a number of important research projects carried out in this area by Leiserowitz (that I anticipate he will outline in his associated background paper), <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">a 2006 national survey in the US sought to examine climate risk perceptions via affect, imagery and values</span></strong>. Through 673 surveys, he <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">found that respondents perceive climate change as a moderate risk, melting glaciers and polar ice were the most prominent images associated with climate change, and bipartisan support for GHG reduction policies at the international and national levels</span></em></strong> (Leiserowitz 2006).<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">However, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the study found a disconnect between broad support for policy action and support for policies that could potentially curb individual behaviors related to GHG emissions</span></strong> (such as higher gas prices), and this was <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">influenced most strongly by values (from egalitarian to hierarchical and individual to communal)</span></strong>. He concluded that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">“messages about climate change need to be tailored to the needs and predispositions of particular audiences; in some cases to directly challenge fundamental misconceptions, in others to resonate with strongly held values”</span></strong> (Leiserowitz 2006, 64).<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">This association with values was also a strong feature that influenced views of the 1997 debate on climate mitigation action.</span></em></strong> Surveys of 1,413 adults found that despite about half of respondents seeing television news coverage of climate change debates on Kyoto action in 1997, few of their opinions on the issue changed (Krosnick et al. 2000). Furthermore, a psychological study of 76 experimental subjects found a preference for mitigation of GHG emissions (“undoing the effects of global warming”) over adaptation measures (“providing…economic assistance”). There was also a demonstrated preference for helping people in one’s own country before people in other countries (Baron 2006, 146). <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">These studies provide important evidence on the critical need for accurate information and active education of the populace to facilitate climate adaptation</span></strong></em>, keeping in mind the aforementioned complexities. Furthermore, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">these studies point out the importance of perspectives and preferences in determining which climate mitigation and adaptation strategies may be more readily accepted, and therefore more successful</span></strong></em>. (pp. 20-21)<br /><br /><br />Other studies have investigated the kinds of engagement that people have had with climate information…Connected to this, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a number of polls have also explored public understanding of climate change more generally</span></strong></em>. For instance, an <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">MIT study</span></strong> found that climate change is poorly understood overall. Through a 17-question internet survey, 1,200 participants responded to questions regarding climate change, and more specifically, mitigation technologies. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">In ranking ‘high-priority’ environmental issues for the public, ‘global warming’ ranked sixth</span></strong> (Herzog et al. 2005). </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Within this issue, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Yale University <em>conducted a poll regarding connections between energy technologies and climate change</em></span></strong>. Through 1002 interviews, the poll <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">found that [] an overwhelming number of respondents (93%) stated that they want government to work on breaking the links between energy use and environmental harm </span></em>(Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies 2005).</strong> </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">In 2007, the <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Nielson Company conducted a poll</span></strong> of 25,408 internet users across 46 countries, where they asked participants questions that referred to global warming. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Three key limitations may have affected and pervaded responses: 1) varying levels of acquiescence, 2) differentiated cultural interpretations of the term ‘global warming’, and 3) different socio-economic and educational levels of internet users in each country that may deem these response sets unrepresentative of larger public understanding in various countries.</span></strong> Nonetheless, the responses provide insights into public understanding and engagement with climate change, and the scope of the poll is unparalleled. The survey asked ‘what is your biggest concern’ as well as ‘your second biggest concern’ in ‘the next six months’? It also asked the question ‘have you heard or read anything about the issue of global warming?’ and, ‘from what you have heard or read about global warming, what do you think is causing it?’ <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Overall, Latin Americans and Europeans were found to be the most aware as well as the most concerned about climate change</span></em></strong>. On the other side, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">North Americans were reported as the least aware and least concerned</span></strong> (The Nielsen Company 2007). (pp. 21-22)<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Lorenzoni and Pidgeon’s findings concur with the Nielsen results</span></strong>. Through analyses of fifteen years of climate-change perception polling and research, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">they found that despite concern for climate change, it is an issue of lesser immediate importance than other daily issues.</span></strong> From this evidence, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">they state, “a risk communication strategy based on providing scientifically sound information alone…will not be sufficient in itself. </span></strong>Perceptions of climate change are more complex, defined by varied conceptualizations of agency, responsibility and trust. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Successful action is only likely to take place if individuals feel they can and should make a difference, and if it is firmly based upon the trust placed in government and institutional capabilities for adequately managing risks and delivering the means to achieve change”</span></strong> (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon 2006, 88). </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Thus, the issue of public trust in governance emerged as an important feature of climate change action.</span></strong> Moreover, there is an inherent difficulty in dealing with the issue of climate-change adaptation action when the costs are often concentrated and the benefits diffuse, relative to other daily concerns. This is supported by further risk perception research (e.g. Leiserowitz 2005; Lorenzoni et al. 2006) and more recent work on costs and benefits at the University of Purdue Climate Change Research Center (Patchen 2006). These contemporary projects are reminiscent of foundational sociological work across many issues by scholars such as Theodore Lowi (Lowi 1972). This is also mentioned at the beginning of this section. (p.23)<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Within this contested space, it is useful to briefly consider non-state actors, or ‘claims-makers’ that seek to frame the issue in particular ways. It is worthwhile to seek to understand how non-state actors have gained greater discursive traction through the media, and, as a result, have significantly affected public understanding</span></em></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">These actors can range from ‘contrarians’ to environmentalist NGOs, all seeking to shift discourses on climate change via the mass media in both particular and general ways</span></strong>. </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">An early analysis of claims-makers in the press examined coverage in five U.S. newspapers – the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Wall Street Journal – <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">from 1985 through 1995. The study found that over this period, scientists became less dominant sources of information reported in the news</span></strong> (Trumbo 1996). This movement of sourcing from scientists to other actors is consistent with associated studies (e.g. McCright and Dunlap 2003). In the US context, via the aforementioned survey data in 2002 -2003, Leiserowitz found that the interpretive community dubbed <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">‘alarmists’</span> only demonstrated a more prevalent demographic of being <span style="font-size:180%;">‘young’</span>.</span></strong> Meanwhile, those dubbed <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">‘naysayers’</span> – who believed that anthropogenic inputs to global warming are negligible and over-hyped in the media – were found to be </span><span style="font-size:180%;">largely male, Caucasian, Republican, individualist, hierarchical, and religious</span></strong> . The same pattern has been found in the U.S. for acceptance of risk of all sorts (Kaloff et al. 1993). Of particular interest is that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">naysayers reported to rely on radio as their main source for news </span></strong>(Leiserowitz 2005). In this work, Leiserowitz also acknowledges that these arenas of claims-making and framing are “an exercise in power…those with the power to define the terms of the debate strongly determine the outcomes” (Leiserowitz 2005, 1441), and then calls for a more democratized discourse, perhaps akin to the aforementioned interventions of Beck (1992). (pp. 23-24)<br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><br />Research by McCright and Dunlap has focused on the opposition movement dubbed <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">‘contrarians’</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">or ‘sceptics’</span></strong> (McCright and Dunlap 2000; McCright and Dunlap 2003). This opposition <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">speaks out stridently against the aforementioned consensus in climate science, and through this privileged access and power, has amplified uncertainty on human contributions to climate change by constructing the argument that human’s role is negligible</span></strong>. Freudenburg (Freudenburg 2000) discusses embedded power and leveraged legitimacy enabling privileged constructions of ‘non-problematicity’ in environmental issues more broadly. </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">In their research, McCright and Dunlap examined three major counter-claims: 1) the evidentiary basis of global warming is weak/uncertain/flawed; 2) global warming will have substantial benefits; and 3) climate policy action will do more harm than good. They also examined links between contrarians and conservative think tanks, anti-environment movements and carbon-based industry. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">They focused on five prominent contrarians – S. Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Sallie Baliunas, Richard Lindzen, and Patrick Michaels</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">They juxtaposed their influence with the work and influence of five prominent climate scientists – Stephen Schneider (Stanford University), F. Sherwood Rowland (University of California-Irvine), Bert Bolin (former chair of the IPCC), James Hansen (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies), and Benjamin Santer (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).</span></strong> Among their results, they <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">found that in the early and mid-1990s, these ‘contrarians’ gained increased visibility in seven major newspapers</span></strong> – the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune and Newsday. Furthermore, findings showed <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">that these dissenters successfully developed legible and competing discourses to disempower top climate science, and effectively gain a foothold in national and international discourse on the causes of climate change</span></strong> (McCright and Dunlap 2000; McCright and Dunlap 2003).<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">To date, there is little peer-reviewed work that has examined how climate NGOs have influenced climate change discourse via the mass media. <span style="color:#33cc00;">[???]</span></span></strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"> </span></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">However, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">a key study of NGOs in debates on environmental science and knowledge inform the case of climate change</span></strong>. For instance, researchers conducted twenty-one semi structured, in-depth interviews with UK NGOs around the issue of waste – Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund, Green Alliance, Women’s Environmental Network, Forum for the Future, the National Society for Clean Air, the Environmental Services Association, Business in the Environment, the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, and the Paper Federation. Their findings show that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">while NGOs still rely on the authority of science, the more contemporary spaces of science-policy interactions (see above on ‘the second wave of science studies’) allow for greater NGO access as legitimate claims-makers</span></strong>. In drawing lessons from their case-study, the authors make the point that across other environmental issues, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">“many challenges are not strategic but contextual…expertise built around one boundary does not automatically transfer to another”</span></strong></em> (Eden, Donaldson et al. 2006:1074, emphasis added). This analysis, along with others (e.g. (Yearley 1996) help illuminate ongoing challenges as well as opportunities facing traditional as well as emergent actors in the arena of media and climate science-politics. (p. 24)<br /><br /><br />More specific to climate change, Newell has <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">examined the role of environmental pressure groups in shaping the climate policy terrain. </span></strong>He focused on the <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Climate Action Network, which is a consortium of over sixty NGOs such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and Environmental Defense</span></strong>.</span> He found that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">environmental NGOs “constitute an important force for political change by helping to overcome social inertia and bureaucratic resistance to policy (action)”</span></strong> (Newell 2000, 152). As this NGO voice has grown, some scientists and journalists have raised concern in recent months regarding <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">NGO movements that push climate change discourse in the media beyond the parameters of what science can currently claim. </span></strong>This has been characterized in various ways such as<strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> ‘catastrophism’</span></strong> by Mike Hulme, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK (Hulme 2006) or <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">‘alarmism’</span></strong> in the IPPR report ‘Warm Words’ (Ereaut and Segnit 2006) or <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">‘climate fundamentalism’</span></strong>… However, (perhaps to justify ‘alarmist’ NGO work to motivate action) previous work has revealed the effectiveness of such movements. A study of media coverage of global warming – in the New York Times, the Toronto Globe and Mail, Time, Newsweek, the Economist, Science, Nature, and the New Scientist – from 1987 into the early 1990s found that “social scares…accelerate political demands, (and) can be important sources of social change” (Ungar 1992, 497). Thus, <em><strong>the terrain of science, policy and the public via in the media in the issue of climate change – both mitigation and adaptation – remains a dynamic and contested one</strong></em>. (pp. 24-25)<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusions<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Overall, in the milieu explored in this document, it has been important to investigate mass media’s portrayal of climate change/global warming mitigation and adaptation. It has also been worthwhile to consider the role of media coverage as it relates to science and policy. In discussing mass media influence, Bennett has said, “Few things are as much a part of our lives as the news…it has become a sort of instant historical record of the pace, progress, problems, and hopes of society” (Bennett 2002, 10). The survey above aims to help make sense of current trends, strengths and weaknesses of media representations of climate change, and thus assist in identifying and supporting potentially effective links that can be made to ongoing challenges of climate change mitigation and adaptation communications, as well as human development pursuits with the UNDP.<br /><br /><br />This paper set out to raise a series of questions and point a few directions in beginning to answer them: What role do the media play in influencing personal, national, and international action to address climate change? How much has the media covered climate change, and what is driving changes in that coverage? How do climate change stories come to be reported, and who gets cited as legitimate sources in those stories? What influence do the media play in forming public opinion? And a new awareness is to grow of the need for large amounts of foreign aid to help poor nations adapt to climate change, then what role can the media playing in mobilizing that aid? (p. 33)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The core of the paper uses</span></strong> Carvalho and Burgess’(2005) framework of <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the “three phases” of news production, public discourse, and media consumption and personal engagement with climate change.</span></strong> In the first phase we described how large-scale economic and political factors shape the production of news, as well as the norms and needs of journalists, editors, and producers such as novelty and balance. In the second phase, we described how climate news stories compete (often weakly) with other more immediate issues for public attention, and how this leads to their marginality in national budgets, as public officials face voters concerned with local issues like crime and jobs. Anthony Downs’ “Issue Attention Cycle” would lead one to expect climate change to quickly rise and fall as a hot news story, but the issue continues to garner huge amounts of coverage, and there is significant debate in the “Public Arenas” about what the scientific findings mean. The third phase examined citizen knowledge and engagement with the issue of climate change, and the influential role of climate ‘sceptics’ in paralyzing action. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Even without <em><span style="font-size:180%;">uncertainty</span></em> about the human causes of climate change, people are often demobilized by feelings of isolation, hopelessness, powerlessness and lack of public trust in government to effectively address the issues</span></strong>. We then examined the history of foreign aid for climate change, and reviewed a series of studies on how reporting on disasters drives aid agency budgeting. (pp. 33-34).<br /><br /><br />One could summarize from this review that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the media has at times kept the issue of climate change alive, but has also limited the extent to which real change in the organization of society and foreign assistance have been called for.</span></strong> To put it plainly, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">the press has been quite reformist in its portrayal of the needed action on climate change, when the scientific projections suggest the issue may call for truly revolutionary changes.</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The difficult position of the media in capitalist society is that commercial news outlets require huge amounts of advertising to pay their salaries and other expenses, and the greatest advertisers are for automobiles, real estate, airlines, fast food, and home furnishings. To create demand for real mitigation of climate change emissions would require the media to repeatedly and insistently call for truly revolutionary changes in society, precisely away from consumption of the products of their advertisers</span></strong></em>. By comparison, creating pressure for the allocation of significant resources for adaptation to climate change will be relatively less threatening to the system that supports these media outlets. Whether that allocation will include sending funds to poor nations, of course, remains to be seen. To date in the studies and analyses outlined above, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">in some cases the media has been demonstrated to actually have played a role in hampering accurate communications about climate science to policy actors and the public via the media</span></strong></em> (e.g. Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). However, in other cases the role of mass media in communicating climate science, mitigation and adaptation has been mixed or more positive (e.g. Boykoff and Boykoff 2007). Thus, through the rich and broad range of studies outlined in this background paper, one can conclude that many challenges as well as opportunities lay ahead. Throughout the paper, we have sought to provide insights and details that substantiate this ultimate point.<br /><br /><br />There are clear needs for further research in this arena of climate science-media policy/practice, as mentioned throughout this background paper. There are numerous areas where this can (and should) be pursued. For instance, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">there simply needs to be more research specifically examining media coverage of climate change adaptation</span></strong></em>. To date, the aforementioned studies in this background paper have focused on either climate change generally or climate change mitigation (forexample coverage of diminishing human contributions to climate change). Moreover, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">there is a clear need for more of this work to be extended into other countries, such as China, India and Brazil</span></strong></em>. Boykoff has examined U.S. and UK media coverage of climate change, and this survey notes other prominent studies also undertaken in the U.S. and UK, as well as countries such as Germany, France, Australia and New Zealand. However, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">analyses of media coverage in key countries in ongoing UN international climate policy negotiations can help to clarify ongoing impediments as well as enhance actions. </span></strong></em>There appears to be a new impulse of scientific and press coverage on the need for massive foreign assistance for adaptation to climate change, growing in part from the April 2007 release of the second Working Group of the IPCC’s report on climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (IPCC WGII 2007). For instance, Revkin’s New York Times article ‘Poorest Nations Will Bear Brunt as World Warms’ has recently drawn greater media attention to the issues of inequality, climate change, adaptation and human development (Revkin 2007a). This was the case also with the follow-up piece entitled, ‘The Climate Divide: Wealth and Poverty, Drought and Flood: Reports from Four Fronts in the War on Warming’ (Revkin 2007b). The question is whether this new understanding of the need for adaptation will result in sustained and effective media coverage of the issue, increases in citizen action, NGO activity, national policymaker initiatives, and international agreement.<br /><br /><br />Overall, the tools gained from the mapping of the terrain and the literature in the field of media coverage of climate change will help to identify key trends, strengths and weaknesses. It has been a challenging task for mass media to effectively cover this complex issue of climate change. As outlined throughout this document, there are external and internal pressures at multiple scales, both in the public and the private spheres over time. While reporting on the physical science has improved in recent years, coverage of the complex biological and human processes and activities (such as adaptation) is just emerging. Moreover, while coverage has focused on technical aspects (such as carbon sequestration), it has been more difficult to effectively cover moral, ethical and cultural issues. However, given the increase in quantity of climate change coverage overall, there are more spaces for quality coverage in these arenas. Many of these pressures and factors have proven contradictory (for example dealing with consumption questions amid corporate capitalist media organization pursuits) but some can be optimistically viewed as complementary (such as increased public attention on the issue and thus greater individual and well as collective engagement with the challenges therein). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This background research aims to assist in the challenges of grappling with ongoing and interacting human environment issues, such as climate change, adaptation and human development</span></strong>. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf&a=skip">http://www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf&a=skip</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZyv_agOMxhNCE26pcnT3dUlhNSRNrV0RhJFBtbkcpp5qsWILIiN_gVCw3b7RFCsPOTAN0FLCkDO35b82R-DFJUYk5dg6UHzxZjxTrr0KXxZQh_551YDTrk9BoOO03i44s6jGyGz_L5Y19/s1600-h/StoryTellers.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5288250680736495234" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZyv_agOMxhNCE26pcnT3dUlhNSRNrV0RhJFBtbkcpp5qsWILIiN_gVCw3b7RFCsPOTAN0FLCkDO35b82R-DFJUYk5dg6UHzxZjxTrr0KXxZQh_551YDTrk9BoOO03i44s6jGyGz_L5Y19/s320/StoryTellers.jpg" border="0" /></a>Warm Words: How Are We Telling the Climate Story and Can We Tell it Better?<br /></span></strong><br /><br />By Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit<br /><br /><br />The Institute for Public Policy Research (August 2006)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Preface<br /></span></strong><br /><br />…This report was commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) as part of its project on <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>how to stimulate climate-friendly behaviour in the UK.</strong></span> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Putting in place effective policies to achieve that is clearly essential, but so too is the use of effective communications.</span></strong> Today in the UK, more stakeholders, including every type of media outlet, the Government, environmental groups and companies, are discussing or communicating on climate change than ever before. But what impact are these stakeholders having? Are they helping or hindering efforts to achieve behaviour change? Will producing more of the same communications do the job, and if not, how could the way climate change is communicated be improved? To help answer those questions, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">ippr commissioned Linguistic Landscapes to analyse current UK constructions and conceptions of climate change in the public domain, using some of the tools and principles of discourse analysis and semiotics</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /><br />…In academic research, discourse analysis methods are hugely varied, ranging from macro-scale cultural or historical analyses to micro-level dissection of how everyday conversations work. Linguistic Landscapes selects tools and concepts from across this range as appropriate for the given project, and puts them to work to answer key questions for businesses and other organisations. Its methods are essentially qualitative, and so do not involve numerical analysis. They are a combination of art and science: interpretative, while also evidence-based and systematic.<br /><br /><br />…Semiotic analysis is a related research approach – another desk-based method with roots in the academic field. Again, through systematic analysis and informed interpretation, this approach allows us to understand cultural meanings and cultural change, and the ways these are encoded and decoded through communications of all kinds.<br /><br /><br />Together, the discourse analysis and semiotic approaches enable us to map structural patterns in communications and in other discussions of climate change, and to assess their implications for connecting with mass audiences.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Objectives and scope of the study</span></strong></div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The objectives Linguistic Landscapes was asked to meet for this study were to:<br /></span></strong><br /><br />● provide top-line analysis of the <strong>dominant discourses or ‘voices’ evidenced in popular media coverage of climate change and in communications designed to change relevant attitudes and behaviours</strong>, as well as the norms, values and lines of argument that go with them<br /><br />● <strong>examine who these communications are targeting</strong> – implicitly or explicitly<br /><br />● <strong>look, to a degree, at public discourse (for example, in chat rooms, jokes, popular language)</strong> and also at ‘competing’ discourses around climate change<br /><br />● <strong>explore the unspoken backdrop to different sets of communications approaches</strong> – for example, what is treated as true, obvious and unproblematic versus what is marked as contentious or contested<br /><br />● <strong>explore where these discourses might connect or clash with other discourses and value systems</strong>, helping or hindering the public’s understanding of the issues and attempts to change attitudes and behaviours<br /><br />● <strong>examine patterns in the detail of language and communications that might help explain why they fail to connect with popular imagination and consciousness</strong> at an effective level<br /><br />● explore, on this basis, <strong>how communications might need to develop, in order to most effectively communicate the issue of climate change</strong><br /><br />● provide broad guidance towards <strong>codes, concepts, discourses and tonality that could frame a new and more effective means of communicating climate change to the public</strong>. (pp. 5-6)<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Executive Summary</span></strong><br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">An Overview of the Discourse<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The research found that the climate change discourse in the UK today looks confusing, contradictory and chaotic.</span></strong></em> For every argument or perspective, whether on the scale of the problem, its nature, seriousness, causation or reversibility, there is a voice declaring its opposite. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The conclusion must be that the battle is not won: climate change is not yet an issue that is taken for granted</span></strong></em>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">It seems likely that the overarching message for the lay public is that in fact, nobody really knows.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Nevertheless, we may be coming towards the end of this period of disputation and uncertainty. Although the climate change discourse is still very unstable and in flux, some streams emerged through this study as dominant or stable enough to capture.<br /><br /><br />It is possible to identify several distinct linguistic repertoires on climate change in the UK today. <em><strong>Repertoires are systems of language that are routinely used for describing and evaluating actions, events and people. They offer different ways of thinking and talking and act as different versions of what can be considered ‘common sense’. They are important because they are resources that people can draw on as they try to make sense of an issue and what it means for them.<br /></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">There are three groups of climate change repertoires in the UK.</span></strong> There is an ‘alarmist’ repertoire, which is fundamentally pessimistic and is in a category of its own, as well as two groups of ‘optimistic’ repertoires – one that includes repertoires that assume ‘it’ll be alright’ and a more pragmatic set of repertoires that assume ‘it’ll be alright as long as we do something’.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Alarmism</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Climate change is most commonly constructed through the alarmist repertoire – as awesome, terrible, immense and beyond human control.</span></em></strong> This repertoire is seen everywhere and is used or drawn on from across the ideological spectrum, in broadsheets and tabloids, in popular magazines and in campaign literature from government initiatives and environmental groups. It is <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">typified by an inflated or extreme lexicon, incorporating an <span style="font-size:180%;">urgent tone and cinematic codes</span>. It employs a <span style="font-size:180%;">quasi-religious</span> register of death and doom</span></strong></em>, and it uses language of acceleration and irreversibility.<br /><br /><br />The difficulty with it is that the scale of the problem as it is shown <em><strong>excludes the possibility of real action or agency by the reader or viewer</strong></em>. It contains an implicit counsel of despair – ‘the problem is just too big for us to take on’. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Its sensationalism and connection with the unreality of Hollywood films also distances people from the issue</span></strong>. In this awesome form, alarmism might even become secretly thrilling – effectively a form of ‘climate porn’. It also positions climate change as yet another apocalyptic construction that is perhaps a figment of our cultural imaginations, further undermining its ability to help bring about action. (p. 7)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Settlerdom and British Comic Nihilism</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>‘Settlerdom’</strong> (named after the ‘settlers’ attitudinal typology devised to describe people with sustenance-driven needs) is one of two significant optimistic but ‘non-pragmatic’ climate repertoires. It <em><strong>rejects and mocks the alarmist discourse – and with it climate change – by invoking ‘common sense’ on behalf of ‘the sane majority’ in opposition to ‘the doom-mongers’</strong></em>. It dismisses climate change as a thing so fantastic that it cannot be true and reflects a refusal to engage in the debate. <em><strong>It is seen most clearly in the broadly rightwing popular press, but is also likely to be the stuff of pub conversations</strong></em>. It is significant because <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">it is immune to scientific argument and its prevalence underlines that the task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument but to develop a new ‘common sense’</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong>‘British comic nihilism’</strong> is another evasive rhetorical repertoire. Its rejection of climate change is whimsical, unserious, blithely irresponsible – <em><strong>a sunny refusal to engage in the debate, typified by comic musings on the positive possibilities of a future with climate change</strong></em>. It is currently <em><strong>marginal,</strong></em> seen in just a few places in the middle-class press and radio. <em><strong>But it is potentially important because it is a very British repertoire (self-mocking and contrary, dealing with adversity and threat by use of humour) and a <span style="font-size:180%;">very middle-class</span></strong></em> one, which could be important if agencies choose to address a middle-class or professional audience. (pp. 7-8) <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[IS CLASS-BASED POLITICS IN THE OFFING??]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Small Actions</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">‘Small actions’ is the pre-eminent ‘pragmatic’ optimistic repertoire, and, along with alarmism, is the most dominant of all the climate repertoires, prevalent in campaign communications and mainstream popular press</span></strong></em>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">It involves asking a large number of people to do small things to counter climate change. </span></strong>The language is one of ease, convenience and effortless agency, as well as of domesticity, seen in reference to kettles and cars, ovens and light switches.<br /><br /><br />The problem with it is that it easily lapses into ‘wallpaper’ – the domestic, the routine, the boring and the too-easily ignorable.<strong> It can be lacking in energy and may not feel compelling. It is often placed alongside alarmism –</strong> typified by headlines like ‘20 things you can do to save the planet from destruction’. But this contrast can also be used to deflate, mock and reject alarmism and, with it, climate change. <strong>Bringing together these two repertoires without reconciling them, juxtaposing the apocalyptic and the mundane, seems likely to feed an asymmetry in human agency with regards to climate change and highlight the unspoken but obvious question: how can small actions really make a difference to things happening on this epic scale?</strong> (p. 8)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusions and Recommendations</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act.</span></em></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications</span></strong>. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">that they need not be spoken.</span></strong> (p. 8)<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Treating climate change as beyond argument</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’</span></strong></em> described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach</span></strong></em>. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’</strong></span> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">– offering lay explanations for what is being treated as a simple established scientific fact,</span></strong> just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered… (p. 25)<br /><br /><br />…The disparity of scale between the enormity of climate change and small individual actions should be dealt with by actually harnessing this disparity. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Myth (which can reconcile seemingly irreconcilable cultural truths) can be used to inject the discourse with the energy it currently lacks.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />…Rather than offering the public a good solution, this juxtaposition of the apocalyptic and the mundane seems in fact to highlight the unspoken but obvious question: <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">how can small actions really make a difference to things happening on this epic scale?</span></strong></em> This approach perhaps offers the reader some semi-humorous ways to not worry, or tokenism, rather than ways to feel good, powerful, and active.<br /><br /><br />Some recent and current climate-change campaigns for personal behaviour change can also be seen as effectively (if unconsciously) disempowering and distancing audiences…<br /><br /><br />… It is clear, then, that current communications aiming to inspire domestic climate-friendly actions can easily come up against problems, even those seeking to build progressively on consumer feedback…However, inspiring such actions is critical for tackling climate change. So we need to ask how ‘small actions’ can better be presented to the British public. (pp. 25-26)<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Opposing the enormous forces of climate change requires an effort that is superhuman or heroic.</span></strong> The cultural norms (what we normally expect to be true) are that heroes – the ones who act, are powerful and carry out great deeds – are extraordinary, while ordinary mortals either do nothing or do bad things. The mythical position – the one that occupies the seemingly impossible space – is that of ‘ordinary hero’. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The ‘ordinary heroism’ myth</span></strong> is potentially powerful because it feels rooted in British culture – from the Dunkirk spirit to Live Aid. (p. 8)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">NOW WE BETTER UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONABLE LOGIC UNDERLYING GREEN NGO & BLUE PARTY EFFORTS IN THE U.S. TO ‘BRAND’ INCOMING PRESIDENT OBAMA AS A ‘PERSONALLY FLAWED’ ‘BATMAN - THE DARK KNIGHT’ AND TO PORTRAY HIS SELECTION OF SCIENCE, CLIMATE & ENERGY ADVISERS AS ENSURING ORDINARY ‘ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE’ See: <em>Move Aside Aquaman! Here Comes America's Caped Climate Crusader & the Environmental Justice League!</em>, ITSSD Journal on Political Surrealism, at: </span></strong><a href="http://itssdjournalpoliticalsurrealism.blogspot.com/2008/12/move-over-aquaman-here-comes-americas.html"><strong>http://itssdjournalpoliticalsurrealism.blogspot.com/2008/12/move-over-aquaman-here-comes-americas.html</strong></a><strong> <span style="font-size:180%;">].<br /></span></strong><br /><br />…More generally, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the challenge is to make climate-friendly behaviours feel normal, natural, right and ‘ours’ to large numbers of people</span></strong> who are currently unengaged, and on whose emotional radar the issue does not figure. The answer is not to try to change their radar but to change the issue, so it becomes something they willingly pick up, because it means something valuable in their own terms. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">This can be achieved by shaping communications in several key ways,</span></strong> including:<br /><br /><br />● <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Targeting groups bound by shared values and behaviours</span></strong> rather than by demographics – <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">making desired climate friendly behaviours feel simply like ‘the kinds of things that people like us do’ to large groups of people</span></strong></em>.<br /><br />● Reflecting the fact that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a large proportion of the population have esteem-driven needs – they want to feel special and are accustomed to achieving this through what they do and buy</span></strong>, rather than what they do not do or do not buy.<br /><br />●Working on the basis that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">people increasingly trust other people more than governments, businesses and other institutions</span></strong>.<br /><br />● Using non-rational approaches like metaphor as well as more rationalistic approaches to enable people to engage emotionally and make desired behaviours appear attractive.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Ultimately, positive climate behaviours need to be approached in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming</em></strong>.</span> This is the relevant context for climate change communications in the UK today – not the increasingly residual models of public service or campaigning communications. It amounts to treating climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is, we believe, the route to mass behaviour change. (pp. 8-9)<br /><br /><br />……<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Working within today’s cultural context: the real challenge<br /></span></strong><br /><br />More broadly, we strongly suggest it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages to convince people of the reality of climate change and urge them to act. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We need to work in different and more sophisticated ways, harnessing tools and concepts used by brand advertisers</span></strong></em>, <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>to make </strong></span><span style="font-size:100%;">it not dutiful or obedient to be </span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">climate-friendly</span></strong>, but <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">desirable</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /><br />Specifically, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">climate-friendly actions need to be made to feel attractive and compelling</span></strong></em> in terms that make sense to people today. Doing so means working within the cultural norms, value systems and communication contexts that are meaningful to large sections of the population. (p. 27)…<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.reference-global.com/doi/pdf/10.1515/text.2002.003">http://www.reference-global.com/doi/pdf/10.1515/text.2002.003</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0kxldks-eOyHgj5RxtQxWWQZ526w8-7WyxBRcTzvKr_nCsaFfKqYii4Auzc84IVQvTkDdAvUgzhJh-NbdtwvDtwhGqQdLFQn8PuaHqGGebhroWpum0GWRkSXsiO1HMxLX24HifRKIiqSG/s1600-h/bbc_news.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5288192861732072242" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 301px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 254px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0kxldks-eOyHgj5RxtQxWWQZ526w8-7WyxBRcTzvKr_nCsaFfKqYii4Auzc84IVQvTkDdAvUgzhJh-NbdtwvDtwhGqQdLFQn8PuaHqGGebhroWpum0GWRkSXsiO1HMxLX24HifRKIiqSG/s320/bbc_news.jpg" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLUrqiju0EEEJu9QDvaY9w5NqefsPYgL9LzYdynOvEz57pcX2kdBYQof3UemODgQ_EQub8SshVTT-RRPct2sKZjvC5KSMAaXOq2VaHxkVXR1xlvbzgF7UOcGZnhKR-QyUeGiiRmfDSqkwb/s1600-h/wordsworth+-+prelude.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5288193459251804210" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 255px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 255px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLUrqiju0EEEJu9QDvaY9w5NqefsPYgL9LzYdynOvEz57pcX2kdBYQof3UemODgQ_EQub8SshVTT-RRPct2sKZjvC5KSMAaXOq2VaHxkVXR1xlvbzgF7UOcGZnhKR-QyUeGiiRmfDSqkwb/s400/wordsworth+-+prelude.jpg" border="0" /></a>The Representation of Nature on the BBC World Service</span></strong><br /><br /><br />By ANDREW GOATLY<br /><br /><br />Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 1–27 (9/4/2002)<br /><br />ISSN (Online) 1613-4117, ISSN (Print) 0165-4888, DOI: 10.1515/text.2002. 003 , 09/04/2002<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Abstract</span></strong><br /><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em>This article takes a critical discourse approach to an investigation of the representation of nature in BBC World Service radio. Presuming a weak form of the Whorfian hypothesis, whose current evaluation in linguistics is discussed at some length, it uses systemic functional grammar and tools for computing collocations to interrogate the COBUILD Direct/Bank of English BBC World Service subcorpus. Firstly, having established a rough hierarchy of power among participants in the clause, it investigates the relative power of ten classes of natural ‘objects’, discovering that weather, and disease are the most powerful and plants and minerals the least. It finds nature frequently marginalized as ‘environment’ rather than involved as a participant. It then proceeds to look at the typical collocates of the natural objects selected, demonstrating the importance of economics, politics, and warfare to the representation of nature, which is largely seen as passive and exploitable. It argues that, due to the anthropocentric nature of news values, nature is typically recognized as powerful when the processes are open to human perception and are perceived as a threat to humans. A brief comparison is made with Wordsworth’s The Prelude which is shown to involve different representations, where nature is more communicative, reflecting a different genre and an oppositional ideology.<br /></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction</span></strong><br /><br /><br />The question I wish to look at in this article is <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">how patterns of choices of lexicogrammar in a corpus of material from BBC World Service radio represent nature and the power of nature</span></strong>. How helpful or harmful might this representation be to those interested in raising levels of ecological awareness and action, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">as compared with, for example, the representation of nature in Wordsworth’s <em>The Prelude</em></span></strong>? The effect of the BBC’s representation of nature in structuring thinking and action will presumably depend on the extent to which it is resisted and on how widespread the BBC’s reach is.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>The concept of nature is, of course, quite variable and controversial: it is a linguistic and semantic category, which itself constructs the world of material things into the natural and non-natural or man-made.</strong> <em><strong>‘Nature is what man has not made</strong></em><em><strong>, though if he made it long enough ago—a hedgerow or a desert—it will usually be included as natural’</strong></em></span> (Williams 1983: 223). This problem of ontological categorization itself illustrates that the world of our experience does not come to us in ready-made unproblematic categories, and that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">language mediates between our thoughts and perceptions of the world and its external reality</span></strong>. This assumption is based on the <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Whorfian hypothesis</span></strong>, in at least its weak form, namely that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the language we speak predisposes us to perceive, think (and act) in certain ways, and makes it more difficult to perceive and think in alternative ways.</span></strong> Since such a hypothesis underlies this present piece of research I will begin with a discussion of the position of Whorf in recent linguistic theory and in critical discourse analysis.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Language, thought, and action<br /></span></strong><br /><br />The Whorfian hypothesis (Whorf 1956) has gone out of fashion in mainstream North American linguistics (cf. Pinker’s superficial rejection in The Language Instinct [1994: 59–66]). In the Chomskyan movement the mainstream agenda has been to isolate semantics, by insisting on the autonomy of syntax (Chomsky 1965), to emphasize the commonalities of different languages, and to search for the universals of their grammar. For some, however, the more fascinating question might be why different humans, who have the same brain structure, the same cerebral cortex, more or less the same bodily structures, should speak different languages (Steiner 1975). A celebration of the diversity of languages, which seems inextricably linked with biodiversity (Mühlhäusler 1996), and a recognition that they construct different versions of ‘reality’, encourages a renewed interest in and a re-evaluation of Whorf’s views. Renewed interest has been shown in anthropological linguistic circles, as is evident from publications such as Gumperz and Levinson (1996). And there have been more or less successful attempts to defend, explain, or reclaim the hypothesis by John Lucy (1992) and Penny Lee (1996).<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>While Whorf was suffering neglect in theoretical linguistic circles, he was nevertheless being kept alive from the 1970s onwards in critical linguistics</strong></em> (e.g., Fowler, Hodge, Kress and Trew 1979; Hodge and Kress 1993) and critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1989; Fowler 1991; etc.). Here <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">his theory is transposed from an account of how different languages structure our thinking and construct or express our ontology/ideology, to a demonstration of how choices from within the resources of a single language do the same</span></strong> (e.g., Fowler 1991: chapter 5). This perspective on linguistic relativity builds on the recognition that, while Whorf intended his theory to be about the structure of language, ‘theoretically prior is a linguistic relativity that has to do with the use of language’ (Hymes 1996: 114).<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">That the Whorfian hypothesis applies to intra-linguistic use as well as across languages, explains the fuss over ‘political correctness’</span></strong>, and why feminism fights linguistic and discoursal battles as well as political ones (e.g., Cameron 1985; Coates 1986; Threadgold 1997). <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Examples of language use as a site for cognitive and ideological struggle can often be found in metaphorical language use</span></strong></em> (Goatly 1997: 131À133; 155À157). A particularly disturbing example of linguistic metaphors attempting to affect thinking and thereby justify behavior comes from descriptions of street children in Rio, Brazil:<br /><br /><br />‘<em>Street children’…are often described as ‘dirty vermin’ so that metaphors of ‘street cleaning’, ‘trash removal’, ‘fly swatting’, ‘pest removal’ and ‘urban hygiene’ have been invoked to garner broad-based support for police and death squad activities against them. (New Internationalist 10/1997, p. 21)<br /></em><br /><br />Lately, linguists reassessing the linguistic relativity hypothesis in Gumperz and Levinson (1996) have also recognized that it need not be confined to cross language comparisons but operates within the same language. For example Kay (1996) demonstrates how <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the semantics of English, as evidenced by the syntax of English allows each speaker to take a variety of perspectives on every separate instance of the commercial event frame</span></strong>. Such a frame can be perspectivized with the buyer as agent (buy, pay), the seller as agent (sell), or no agent (cost). (1996: 104) From a more sociolinguistic perspective Gumperz suggests: <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Different social networks in the same society, city or street are likely to yield different meaning systems, provided they persist over time and become ‘institutionalized’.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />The simple association of one tribe, one culture, one language, which was implicit in the older Humboldtian and Sapir-Whorfian traditions, then breaks down. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">We can have speakers of the same language fractionated by interpretive subsystems associated within distinct social networks in complex societies, and conversely, we can have social networks that transcend cultural and grammatical systems to create shared interpretive systems beneath linguistic diversity</span></em></strong> (Gumperz 1971, referred to in Gumperz 1996: 361). There are, according to this view, both centrifugal forces leading to a diversification of meaning systems, and compensating centripetal forces allowing meaning systems to operate across linguistic subcultures. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Which of these meaning systems comes to have cross-cultural significance is a matter of institutional and political power, the power of elites, and their associated cultural capital</span></strong> (Bourdieu 1991). In this article <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">I concentrate on the BBC World Service, an exemplar of a discourse which transcends local, subcultural, and indeed cultural systems to create a ‘shared interpretive system[s] beneath linguistic diversity’, by virtue of its institutional power, its elite status and its associated cultural capital.<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Why the BBC World Service?<br /></span></strong><br /><br />For most people in this world the source of information on global events and developments is radio and newspapers, with television and latterly the Internet important only in the rich world. The availability of newspapers (with wider distribution networks than books) and of the radio, which travels via satellites and airwaves, makes them staple information providers (Goatly 2000: 247). The BBC World Service, though many of its radio broadcasts are in languages other than English, boasts 140 million regular listeners worldwide. <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>It has built up an enviable reputation as reliable and relatively ‘unbiased’. One of its key aims is ‘to deliver objective information’, pace Whorf. It also claims to be ‘the world’s most widely trusted international radio network’ (BBC webpage). If this is indeed the case, it means that listeners are likely to lower their critical guard when listening to the BBC, in ways in which they would not if listening to, for instance, Voice of America.</em> <span style="font-size:180%;">So the influence of the BBC is considerable in its construction of ‘reality’,</span></strong> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">which is one good reason</span> why analyzing its representation of nature could be an interesting and important project. What are the institutionalized meanings or ‘shared interpretive system’ by which, through its habitual uses of language, its fashions of speaking, this elite institution represents and constructs nature?<br /><br /><br />A practical reason to use the BBC world service data is that COBUILD Direct, the corpus of 56 million words of English run by Collins and Birmingham University in the UK, has a subcorpus of BBC World Service material, which makes data collection and analysis easier (COBUILD Direct). This sub-corpus has two-and-a-half million words, gathered between April 1990 and August 1991.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Why lexicogrammar, and why systemic functional grammar?<br /></span></strong><br /><br />The choice to look at lexicogrammar rather than purely lexis has to do with its latency. We are usually, as language users, much more aware of the vocabulary choices we make than of the grammatical choices (Silverstein 1981). <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Because grammar remains at this unconscious level it is much more likely to convey latent ideology, an ideological stranglehold which joins hands with commonsense, and which is therefore more powerful and potentially dangerous</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />The discussion of grammatical categories is relevant because, on the Whorfian view, it is the underlying conceptual distinctions built into these categories that may, by virtue of their obligatoriness, repetition and unconscious nature be especially inclined to induce distinctive habits of thought. (Levinson 1996: 135)<br /><br /><br />Though we are dealing with language in use, and the choices that this involves within a single language, so that ‘obligatoriness’ is less strong, certainly <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">the elements of repetitiveness and unconsciousness are entirely relevant to the grammatical meanings in our corpus</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br />The grammatical or ‘transitivity’ model which I will be using for analysis is that of Michael Halliday (Halliday 1994), the prime mover in systemic functional grammar (SFG). There are two or three reasons for adopting this grammatical model for the analysis of my corpus. Firstly critical linguists and critical discourse analysis practitioners are on the whole sympathetic to <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">systemic functional grammar, with its highly developed notions of social context or register</span></strong></em>. Language is here seen as both constitutive and reflective of aspects of the context such as field (activity/subject matter), tenor (interpersonal roles and positions of participants in the discourse), and mode (the rhetorical role the language is playing in the interaction, including the choice of medium and channel). One branch of systemic functional linguistics associated with Jim Martin has developed a hierarchy in which phonology is an expression of lexicogrammar, lexicogrammar is an expression of semantics, semantics an expression of register (context of situation), register of genre (context of culture), and genre of ideology (Martin 1992: 494À497).<br /><br /><br />Secondly, systemic functional grammar is relatively favorable to the Whorfian hypothesis, though Halliday gives more stress to societal influences than Whorf did. Given the importance of register to his linguistic theory, Halliday’s own view on Whorf is that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">society mediates between worldview and language </span></strong>in ways which Whorf did not recognize. For example he endorses Bernstein’s view that places the <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">emphasis on changes in the social structure as major factors in shaping or changing a given culture through their effect on the consequences of fashions of speaking.</span></strong> It shares with Whorf the controlling influence on experience ascribed to ‘frames of consistency’ involved in fashions of speaking. It differs [from] Whorf by asserting that, in the context of a common language in the sense of a general code, there will arise distinct linguistic forms, fashions of speaking, which induce in their speakers different ways of relating to objects and persons. (Bernstein 1971: 123, quoted in Halliday 1978: 25) For Bernstein, as for Halliday, there is a dialectical relationship between language, society and thought. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Fashions of speaking on the one hand reflect changes in social structure and on the other induce particular kinds of social and physical action.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Hasan, following Halliday, has demonstrated how <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">fashions of speaking, selectively patterned uses of language resources, can form constellations which create a consistent semantic frame, which in turn reflect or generate an ideology</span></strong>, for instance of woman’s work. Important is her contention that it is not isolated linguistic features which relate an ideology, but patterned clusters of them or constellations, just as for Whorf it was such configurative rapport which reflected an ontology (Hasan 1996: 146–147). <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Fashions of speaking about nature on the BBC, and the ideology or ontology they represent are precisely the issue in this article.<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br />Thirdly, Halliday’s grammar, rather like case grammar, is particularly useful for our purposes, because he sees an intimate, though not unproblematic, relationship between the grammar and the semantics of the clause. For him the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">grammar encodes</span></strong>, ideationally, through its lexical verbs, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">four basic types of process</span></strong>, with the subjects and objects/complements of these verbs referring to corresponding participants, as in Table 1 (Halliday 1994: chapter 5). This article concentrates almost exclusively on material processes. So let us look at an example for analysis:<br /><br /><br />(1) ActorProcess AffectedCircumstance<br /><br />a. A Palestinian bomb killedtwo Israeli tourists on a beach.<br />b. The Russians left yesterday.<br /><br /><br />Roughly speaking, we can think of a power hierarchy with actors in transitive clauses like a Palestinian bomb in (1a) represented as the most powerful, actors in intransitive clauses like the Russians in (1b) as next most powerful; and ‘affecteds’ like two Israeli tourists in (1a) as the most passive and least powerful. Circumstances, e.g., on a beach in (1a), seem neutral and marginalized (See Figure 1).<br /><br /><br />Table 1. Processes, meanings, and participants<br /><br />Process type<br />Meaning<br />Participants<br />Material Action, event or happening<br /><br /><br />Actor and affected</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Mental<br />Sensing, feeling, thinking<br />Senser and phenomenon<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Verbal<br />Saying<br />Sayer, target, receiver, verbiage<br /><br /></div><div align="justify">Relational/Existential<br />Being and existing<br />Token and value<br /><br /><br />Of course Figure 1 is rather a crude hierarchy, and the type of verb involved varies a great deal in the amount of power or powerlessness it ascribes to the actor and the affected. If we rewrote (1b) as (2), according to the grammatical hierarchy the village would be as powerless as the two Israeli tourists in (1a), which is clearly out of step with the semantics of the verb leave. In what sense can the village be seen as much affected by the Russians leaving it? Still, with this caveat, the hierarchy gives us a serviceable guide to relative power, and I have made allowances in my analysis by discounting material processes of location like (2) when calculating affecteds.<br /><br /><br />(2) The Russians left the village yesterday<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Research questions</span><br /></strong></em><br /><br />This current research is framed by five questions, the last two enshrining hypotheses:<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">1.</span> <em><span style="font-size:130%;">Are natural ‘objects’ represented as powerful or not in the lexicogrammar of the clause? The kind of power I have in mind is calculated purely in terms of the hierarchy in Figure 1. (This is a more limited concept of power than that used in sociolinguistic analysis. Poynton [1985], for example, conceived of social power as having the dimensions of force, authority, status, and expertise. Power of natural objects is confined to the first of these dimensions.)<br /></span></em><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">2. <em>Which classes of natural objects are seen as most powerful in the lexicogrammar of the clause? To answer this question, nature is somewhat arbitrarily classified into insects, birds, land animals, aquatic animals, disease, plants, water, land and landscape, weather, and mineral substances. At least this gives us a chance to be more specific in our findings than in the more general question 1.<br /></em></span><br /><br />Figure 1. Power hierarchy in material process clauses<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">3. <em>What do collocations tell us about the typical lexicogrammatical patterns in which particular natural objects figure? Question 3 takes us to an even more specific level than question 2, giving the opportunity to look in detail at the most common collocations (and colligations) of specific lexical items, and to identify clichés of nature.<br /></em></span><br /><br />Having researched these questions I address two supplementary questions in an attempt to explain some of the patterns observable in our answers to the first three.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">4. <em>Are natural objects only depicted as powerful to the extent that they impinge directly on humans?<br /></em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">5. <em>Are the processes most frequently mentioned those which are easily noticeable and comprehensible by the human perceptual apparatus?<br /></em></span><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Questions 4 and 5 clearly relate to the question of news values, and how they affect the choice of news stories involving nature.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">From my personal ideological perspective, news values are becoming increasingly suspect, reinforcing, as they do, commonsense attitudes to nature (Gramsci 1971) beyond which we need to move if we are to survive ecologically</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Methods</span></strong><br /><br /><br />I selected roughly two hundred examples of concordance lines for each of the following categories, using the lexical items listed, though aquatic animals, birds and insects could not be found in quite those quantities. (The total number of concordance lines for each category is given in parentheses).<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Insects:<br /></span></em>insect, fly, mosquito, wasp, bee, mite, tick, bug, flea, louse, blackfly, larva. (140)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Birds:<br /></span></em>bird, chicken, parrot, penguin, pigeon, poultry, goose, duck, blackbird, ostrich, fowl, pheasant, magpie, martin. (140)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Land animals:<br /></span></em>animal, horse, cat, lion, dog, elephant, rat, monkey, wolf, cow, chimp, chimpanzee, kangaroo, mouse, fox, deer, rabbit, pig. (230)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Aquatic animals:<br /></span></em>fish, whale, shark, cod, shellfish, mussel, oyster, herring, dolphin, jellyfish, crab, lobster, plankton, salmon, newt, clam, perch, coral, seal, turtle, sea creature, toad. (138)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Disease:</span></em><br />pox, flu, influenza, measles, virus, bacteria, germ, tuberculosis, parasite, cholera, worm, screw-worm, malaria, hepatitis, HIV. (202)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Plants:</span></em><br />plant, tree, bush, flower, forest, woods, rose, grass, shrub, algae, vegetable, fruit, wheat, rice, straw, vegetation. (217)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Water:<br /></span></em>flood, ice, lake, ocean, pond, river, sea, stream, tide, water, Pacific. (188)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Land and landscape:<br /></span></em>land, bay, beach, continent, earthquake, field, hill, island, mountain, mudslide, avalanche, peninsula, plain, bush, valley, volcano. (242)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Weather:</span></em><br />weather, rain, air, cloud, fog, hail, hailstorm, snow, sun, lightning, thunder, wind, atmosphere, typhoon, gale, shower, storm, spell, depression. (205)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Mineral substance:</span></em><br />clay, coal, iron, oil, rock, sand, earth, soil, mud, metal, stone. (206)<br /><br /><br />Concordance lines that were not long enough to show participant function were discarded. The remaining lines were then classified according to which of the syntactic-semantic categories the natural element belonged in, namely:<br /><br /><br />AC actor in intransitive clause<br /><br /><br />ACT actor in transitive clause<br /><br /><br />AF affected<br /><br /><br />PC prepositional complement (as part of noun phrase)<br /><br /><br />CC circumstantial prepositional complement<br /><br /><br />PM premodifier<br /><br /><br />Collocational patterns for the most frequent lexical items were observed, and these were recorded if any significant patterns were noticed.<br /><br /><br />Results and discussion<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Question 1: Are natural ‘objects’ represented as powerful in the lexicogrammar of the clause?</span></em><br /><br /><br />In the BBC World Service subcorpus, the lexicogrammar of the clause <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">on the whole represents nature as powerless or marginal. </span></strong>As Figure 2 shows, in transitive material process clauses, natural elements count as affecteds (in 15.2 percent of cases) more than twice as often than as actors (6.4 percent). The following example would be typical, with three natural participants as affecteds:<br /><br /><br />(3) The delegates wanted Africa to look at its own resources, both where feed was concerned and <em>using</em> native breeds of bird. Dr Nwosu, also from Nigeria, said that during the colonial period and immediately after that, the policy had been to <em>import</em> exotic breeds, not only of chickens, but also other livestock like cattle, to <em>improve</em> animal protein.<br /><br /><br />(In these and subsequent examples the verb indicating the process is both italicized and underlined and the noun phrase referring to the participant is underlined. Circumstances of place are shown by italics without underlining.)<br /><br /><br />As actors in intransitive clauses they are represented even less often (4.4 percent). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">As well as being acted upon more than acting, nature is also marginalized, being a circumstantial element, very often part of a circumstance of place</span></strong> (shown in italics without underlining).<br /><br /><br />(4) At least a quarter of a million king penguins <em>live on Macquarie Island</em>. In fact, over 70 percent of these circumstantial elements are adverbials of location or direction. This is a favorite category when talking about nature—nature as the environment, the setting in which the important actions are performed by other actors. The word <em>environment</em> itself betrays such an attitude, with humans as central and nature as peripheral (Goatly 2000: 278).<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Question 2: Which aspects of nature are seen as most powerful in the lexicogrammar of the clause?<br /></span></em><br /><br />Figure 3 shows the relative percentages of actors in transitive clauses, actors in intransitive clauses, and affecteds, for each category of natural elements. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The general pattern is clear. Weather, disease and aquatic animals are the most active; insects, land, and water are moderately active and powerful, relative to the other categories; and birds, plants</span></strong> and Figure 2. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Relative frequencies of natural elements in syntactic-semantic categories minerals are extremely passive.</span></em></strong> But let us look at each category in turn in more detail.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Weather emerges as extremely active, not only because of the high number of weather actors in transitive clauses, but also because of the low number of affected weather participants</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Weather<em> </em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>is represented as though it is a law unto itself, avoiding being affected by, for example, humans</em></span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This is a rather naive representation of nature—human activity is causing the global warming which is affecting the weather. It might also be noted that weather is one of the natural elements, as well as disease, that modern city dwellers find it difficult to isolate themselves from</span></strong>. By contrast, they may go for days or weeks in the concrete jungle without experiencing seas or rivers or mountains. Closer inspection suggests that weather as a transitive actor often affects humans in more or less disastrous ways; lightning strikes people, typhoons kill people, rain ruins sporting events: (5) Rain has continued to interrupt play at the three men’s tournaments taking place in Britain.<br /><br /><br />Disease also poses a threat to humans, but, as Figure 3 makes clear, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the number of disease elements that are affecteds is much higher than is the case with weather</span></strong>. These to a large extent represent <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">humans ‘fighting back’ against viruses, bacteria and HIV,<em> with verbs like kill, get rid of, control, and deal with</em></span></strong> figuring prominently. It is also noticeable how <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the power of disease is often minimized by the choice of verbs like <em>contract, suffer from, carry, and catch</em></span></strong> which grammatically represent the disease as affected rather than an actor.<br /><br /><br />(6) Over a thousand haemophiliac patients contracted the AIDS virus after using contaminated blood. Figure 3. Percentages of transitive actors, in transitive actors affecteds Compare this with (6) The AIDS virus infected over a thousand haemophiliac patients. This gives a different perspective on disease in a way similar to the different perspectives on commercial transactions investigated by Kay (1996). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Turning to fish and aquatic animals, we note that five out of the fifteen actors in transitive clauses are sharks, and their affecteds are humans</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />(7) An underwater fisherman was attacked and eaten by a shark near the island of Elba. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sharks, like wolves, have a bad press. <em>The number of shark attacks on humans is minuscule, compared with the attacks of cars on humans</em></span></strong>, and yet, partly because of films like Jaws, belonging to a long line of archetypal fictions featuring hostile sea creatures such as Grendel in Beowulf and Moby Dick (Bodkin 1934), <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">their effects on humans are magnified out of all proportion</span></strong>. Analysis of the processes in which aquatic animals are affecteds is significant here. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Most processes are hostile to these animals</span></strong>—<em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">kill, catch, and hunt mostly directed at whales and turtles</span></strong></em>; a few are neutral, involving human observation—seek out, follow, track; and a few are friendly, but perhaps patronizing—protect, rescue, adopt.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Hostility to aquatic animals is overshadowed by hostility to insects</span></strong>— witness the large number of affecteds here, often the victims of verbs like <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">destroy, kill, fight off, eliminate, devour, and trap</span></strong></em>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The main foes are those insects implicated in disease, mosquitoes and tsetse flies making up the most common transitive actors because they are vectors of malaria and sleeping sickness.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />(8) Sleeping sickness caused by a parasite transmitted by the tsetse fly also threatens millions. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Land animals which are transitive actors also tend to be those which are threatening to humans if not human life,</span></strong> such as wolves, elephants, lions, and guard dogs.<br /><br /><br />(9) A keeper at Twycross Zoo in Leicestershire has been killed by an elephant.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Animals which are affecteds, are often, like insects, treated with hostility, especially those regarded by farmers as pests</span></strong>, such as kangaroos, with the verbs kill, shoot, destroy, and cull, prominent. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">However, unlike insects, many of these animals are exploited for human benefit: people</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">grow, feed, raise, and train them</span></strong></em> so that they can use them. We might remark that animals, birds, and water (and minerals) are the only categories in which intransitive actors are as frequent as transitive ones. Transitivity is probably privileged over intransitivity in the news, since some actor has to make a noticeable impact for its action to be newsworthy. So with animals these intransitive actions do not occur in news items but in feature programs. And they mostly involve verbs of motion or locomotion.<br /><br /><br />(10) We go out to the nests where the pygmy chimpanzees have slept. We are then there when they get up in the morning. They usually get up very slowly, and if it’s raining they like to stay in bed for a long time. They will then often head for a fruit tree.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Landscape is generally viewed as completely passive</span></strong>, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">but the three major exceptions </span></strong></em>are the transitive actors—<em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">earthquakes, mudslides</span></strong></em>, and to a lesser extent <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">volcanoes</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /><br />(11) An earthquake in Peru yesterday is estimated to have killed between sixty and a hundred people. These, like disease and insects, are seen as active in proportion to the human threats they pose. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Land is often depicted as a political entity or territory</span></strong>, which explains the remarkable numbers of verbs such as <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">control, defend, give up, divide, partition, or reunify</span></strong></em> applied to the affected peninsulas, valleys, continents, islands, and land in general.<br /><br /><br />(12) Kim Il Sung may be tempted once more to try to reunify the peninsula.<br /><br /><br />What is noticeable from Figure 3 is that actors and affecteds together account for only fifteen percent of the clauses. Circumstantial prepositional complements comprise, by contrast, thirty-six percent. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">If, in general, nature tends to be marginalized as the ‘environment’ in which things take place, then this is especially so for land and landscape</span></strong>. So the adverbials of location and direction are particularly common with this category.<br /><br /><br />(13) But Mujahadin rebels are still close and roam at will in the valley as soon as darkness falls.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Water too is passive, except for floods</span></strong>, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a further threat to human life</span></strong></em>, instances of which account for all the transitive actors.<br /><br /><br />(14) Fifty people are now known to have been killed by floods in the southern province of Hunan.<br /><br /><br />The low proportion of actors and affecteds for water (15.5 percent) is not due to their frequency in circumstantial adverbials, as with land, but rather to their prevalence as premodifiers (39 percent), for instance in names like the River Thames.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Birds are represented as very ineffectual</span></strong>, though their movements and dying are encoded regularly in intransitive clauses. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">They have the highest frequencies as affecteds</span></strong> (24 percent), where <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">we<em> breed, feed, and keep </em>them</span></strong> so that later <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">we</span></strong> can <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">kill or shoot and then eat or consume</span></strong></em> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">them</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Plants are constructed as even more passive than birds</span></strong>, being unable to move about in the way that birds and animals can, which gives them a very low score for intransitive as well as transitive actor roles. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">They are pretty regularly affecteds</span></strong> as well, as <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">we typically</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>grow, cut (down), and use or eat </em>them.</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Lastly, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">mineral substances are the most ineffectual and passive of our cl</span></strong>asses, though this would change if we had, with equal validity, placed mudslides and earthquakes in this category. As it is, there is only one example of a mineral transitive actor, How can iron kill snails?, with the question mark suggesting some surprise or doubt. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Coal, oil, iron, and metal feature as prominent affecteds, valuable to the humans who</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">use, burn, and work</span></strong></em> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">them</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Question 3: What do collocations tell us about the typical grammatical patterns in which particular natural objects figure?<br /></span></em><br /><br />Having looked at the general transitivity patterns for the different classes of natural elements, we can now take each class in turn, and observe any significant collocations for individual members of each class.<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Mineral substances<br /></span></em><br /><br />The collocations for oil and coal throw up some similarities. Produce and production are common collocates of both. <span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>Semantically this gives a false picture</strong>.</em> <strong><em>Presumably both coal and oil are produced by the pressure of sedimentary rocks, not by humans who simply extract them from the soil</em></strong>.</span> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Burning collocates frequently with coal suggesting its primary human use, and prices with oil, indicating its fundamental importance as a commodity, whose value has important economic effects</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />The use to which stones are put is, by contrast, building as in laying a foundation stone, or throwing during political disturbances. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Soil is of some interest, because, in the same way as we noted with land earlier, it is often paired with a national adjective—German, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, and Indian—as though it stands for political territory rather than as a mineral in its own right.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Mud collocates significantly with slides, only literally significant when a danger to humans</strong> (contrast the metaphorical slinging, its most common collocate).<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Birds</span></em><br /><br />The production collocating with poultry is a more accurate use of the word than with oil and coal, and generally applies to eggs. Feed, keeping/keepers attest to the farming for later human consumption, which applies to birds generally.<br /><br />It is not surprising then that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the most significant collocate of bird is killed</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Disease</span></em><br /><br />The strong interest in the active potential of disease organisms can be explained when we note that the most important collocates of virus are infect/infection aids/HIV, human, and spread/contracted. Reciprocally, <em><strong>the frequent collocates of HIV are virus, aids, and infection/infected.</strong></em> In the same pattern bacteria collocates most significantly with infect and patient, and hepatitis with vaccine, suffering, and infection. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This supports our earlier suggestion that it is their life-threatening nature which prompts the recognition of diseases’ power</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />Of course <strong>bacteria can be used for human purposes</strong> just as birds and plants are, but this time as a weapon. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The highly significant collocate of germ is warfare</span></strong>, and the five most significant collocates produce the cliché phrase Iraq carrying out germ warfare experiments.<br /><br /><br />Cholera’s collocates give us a similar stereotyping—outbreak, epidemic, and Latin America.<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Fish<br /></span></em><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Whales come across very much as victims, with killed and killing and hunting the most statistically significant collocating verbs</span></strong> or nominalizations.<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Animals</span></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Animal itself collocates most importantly with breeding and livestock, underlining the importance of farming, and rights</span></strong>. We have yet to talk about plant rights—if animals are to be pitied because they are dumb, how much more are plants to be pitied, generally dumb, defenseless, and without even the ability to run away. But <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">any popular political movement on behalf of nature has to start with animals (preferably those with big eyes like baby seals). The World Wide Fund for Nature had to begin as the World Wildlife Fund, with its panda logo</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />The collocates of dog show a predictable pattern. Dangerous is very prominent, presumably highlighting danger from dogs to the public, while trained, watch, and sniffer indicate the uses which humans make of dogs.<br /><br /><br />Horse pairs up very significantly with racing and race, suggesting the interest in sport on the BBC. I found in an earlier study of the Times (Goatly 2000: 287) that dogs and horses were the most frequently mentioned animals, indicating that the most important contact with animals for city dwellers is in this domesticated form. Horses are also connected with money, hence the prominence of back (verb) as a collocate. Mice collocated with diabetic, gene, liver, and molecule, pointing to their role in medical research and experimentation.<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Land and landscape</span></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The most common collocates of land include return, dispute, forced, rights, ownership/owners, claims.</span></strong> Obviously land has become a territory, commodity, and a possession occasioning battles. Particularly bitter are the fights between indigenous societies such as Indians, who traditionally had no concept of land ownership, and who had their land taken away by colonizers/settlers/invaders with highly developed notions of property. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It is instructive to note the difference in meaning between land rights and animal rights.</span></strong> Golf is quite a significant collocate too, suggesting the kinds of use the white invaders finally made of the land they possessed.<br /><br /><br />Peninsulas are land areas especially prone to territorial conflict—mainly the Jaffna and Korean peninsulas. Bases, troops, division, nuclear, and stronghold attest to this as collocates. The same is true, to a lesser extent, with valleys which collocate with explosions, bomb, strike, and security. The collocates of beach were skewed by a number of repetitive reports about a PLO raid and bomb attack on a crowded Israeli beach in Tel Aviv. Quite apart from this particular story, the collocates palm, resort, and coconut suggest stereotyping as a holiday destination. The most common collocate on reinforces the evidence that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">features of landscape are typically complements in prepositional phrases functioning as adverbials</span></strong>. Island and mountain too are particularly significant in this respect with on and the highly predictable collocates.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Earthquake participates in a number of semi-fixed expressions</strong> as indicated by the statistical t-score of between 5.6 and 3.5<em><strong> for victims, toll, killed, hit, struck, devastated, and shook</strong></em>. <strong>This projects earthquakes as one of the most powerful of natural phenomena, along with floods and typhoons</strong>. Typically earth is a metaphor for solidity, terra firma, and the psychological as well as the physical shock of having the ground move beneath one’s feet is considerable.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Volcanoes are portrayed as less powerful</strong> since their most typical process collocates are erupting and eruption, in their denominalized form intransitive verbs.<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Plants</span></em><br /><br /><strong>With trees the news is mixed</strong>. Cut and down are the most common collocates, but grow and planting are prominent especially in the compound tree-planting. Economic interests associate them strongly with crops and fruit. On the other hand <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">fixing and nitrogen are welcome reminders of their active role in the wider ecosystem. And the rather surprising communicating raises our awareness that </span></em></strong>communication is not confined to animals and humans—<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Gaia, the earth goddess, has communicative potential quite apart from us</span></strong> (Lovelock 1979).<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The picture is a bit bleaker with forests</span></strong> where <em><strong>destroyed is common along with the cliché destruction of tropical rain forests, though this is balanced by management and sustainable</strong></em>. Resource, value, output, crops, and products again emphasize the economic perspective. Nottingham reminds us of sporting preoccupations.<br /><br /><br />The collocates of fruit also underline human control and use with growing and eat. But trees and bear/bearing suggest the expression fruit-bearing trees, which confer some power of production on trees, though not fruit.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Wheat with production, growing, hundred, tons, suggest cultivation and its economic measurement as the major focus.</strong> Rice like wheat is seen in terms of production but to a greater extent than wheat is associated with food. Both are mentioned extensively in relation to convoys carrying supplies as part of relief efforts.<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Water</span></em><br /><br />Water, if clean, is represented mainly as an essential human resource— supply, supplies, drinking, running, and sanitation. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Issues of pollution, purification, and contamination seem paramount.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Floods give us the set expression people have died/been killed by floods in China which accounts for its eight most statistically significant collocates. Caused, affected, and triggered underline their power as actors, sometimes Instigators in chains of events.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;">Ice </span>collocates with sea level and melting suggesting a further area of ecological concern on the Antarctic continent, besides rainforests and whales</em></strong>. Hockey is another reminder of modern affluent society’s obsession with sport.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Ocean</span></strong></em> is identified as a geographical area—Indian, Pacific, Comorros but is also mentioned in terms of its ecological and meteorological significance with circulation, surface, model, temperature, and <strong>carbon dioxide</strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Similarly sea prompts ecological questions—rise, level, air—but also commercial interest port, crude, and oil.<br /></strong><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Weather</span></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The most significant collocate of weather is bad, and poor is also frequent</span></strong>. This illustrates two points. News is generally bad. But, more seriously, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the value judgment in these attitudes is probably that of a modern city dweller in a temperate climate, where rain and other precipitation mean bad weather, and what is desirable is as much sun as possible</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />This attitude is highlighted by the collocates of rain which emphasize its adverse effect on sport, suggesting the set phrase Cricket matches/play affected/delayed by rain. <em><strong>Rain’s very frequent pairing with forest and destroy/destruction and with acid highlight further environmental concerns.<br /></strong></em><br /><br /><strong>The atmosphere</strong>, as might be predicted for a semi-scientific term, <strong>collocates with terms indicating a scientific awareness of environmental problems—carbon dioxide, gases, into the upper atmosphere.<br /></strong><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Question 4: Are natural objects only depicted as powerful to the extent that they impinge directly on humans?<br /></span></em><br /><br /><strong>Around 46 percent of the affecteds are <span style="font-size:130%;">nonhuman</span></strong>. The remainder are either humans or parts of the human body (34 percent), places of human habitations like houses, cities, and other demographic areas (9 percent), and human activities, especially sport or rescue efforts affected by the weather (11%). However, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a closer look at the forty-six percent of nonhuman affecteds shows that fourteen percent of these are involved in processes which cause other natural elements such as disease (AIDS, malaria) with their adverse effects on humans</span></strong></em>. This means that two-thirds of the affecteds directly or indirectly involve humankind.<br /><br /><br />We saw earlier, when discussing question 2, that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">a major determining factor in which categories of nature are represented as powerful seems to be the direct negative effect that they have on people</span></strong>. <em><strong>This explains why storms, lightning and typhoons, diseases, sharks, lions and elephants, and mudslides and earthquakes get noticed and reported in all their life-threatening potential.<br /></strong></em><br /><br />What ideological implications does this have? Well, it confirms certain news values, not surprising since news comprises the majority of the BBC World Service’s output. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Presumably anthropocentrically stressing disastrous effects on humans makes the natural phenomena more relevant and conforms to the value of negativity</span></strong> (Galtung and Ruge 1973; Bell 1991: 156–157). <em><strong>But in addition it stresses unexpectedness, so that the everyday normal and beneficial natural processes disclosed by science are largely ignored</strong></em>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Unfortunately</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the sway of these values over news selection has two results</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Firstly it tends to depict the power of nature as hostile to human beings</span></strong>. And, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">secondly it fails to recognize or celebrate the beneficial power of, for example, mineral substances and plants</span></strong>. Photosynthesis, for instance, gets overlooked, a very powerful and beneficial provision of oxygen. Or we might look at the importance of certain algae in contributing to the sulphur cycle by producing dimethylsulphide. Minerals, we are discovering, do much for us too. The inorganic opaline skeletons of diatoms, fall to the sea-bed when the diatoms die, and thereby control the amount of silica in the sea by adding about 300 million tonnes to the ocean bed each year. (Lovelock 1979: 88)<br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Question 5: Are the processes most frequently mentioned those which are easily noticeable and comprehensible by the human perceptual apparatus?</span></em><br /><br /><br />Returning to the concordance data for <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">all the natural elements which have powerful positions in clauses</span></strong>—namely actors in transitive material process clauses—<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">not only are they anthropocentric in the sense that humans are directly or indirectly affected in the majority of cases, but also the processes recognized are largely those which are open to <em>unaided</em> human perception</span></strong>. While the production of dimethylsulphide by algae and the photosynthesis of oxygen by plants are just as vital to the ecological process as volcanoes and earthquakes, they receive little recognition. This is because they are either colorless, odorless gases such as oxygen, or ones which, while not odorless, are limited to geographical areas beyond everyday experience. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Processes which are imperceptible to the average urbanite are ignored or marginalized</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />Geographical proximity, another news value, operates here (Bell 1991:157). <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Disease and weather cannot be escaped. Even though we might attempt to avoid the latter through air- conditioning, central heating, or dehumidifiers, it is not entirely possible</span></strong></em>. And, paradoxically, the attempt at isolation from the weather might lead to disease—Legionnaires’, or others associated with the sick building syndrome.<br /><br /><br />This naive and commonsense attitude to nature, especially in the news and weather sections of the BBC world service, is unfortunate. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">We could have a more educated attitude to nature, in which we raise awareness of the not-so-obvious effects of natural elements, and which allows us to see natural elements as communicating with us—these material processes might be re-coded as phenomena or verbiage in verbal processes, detectable by more and more sophisticated measuring instruments—the extensions of our nervous systems</span></strong> (Bateson 1975). <em><strong>The development of scientific measuring instruments giving us feedback is the kind of technological advance we need, rather than the advances made in the technologies</strong></em> which encourage us in a vain attempt to ‘dominate’ nature.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Summary<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong>The ‘frames of consistency’, or stereotypical patterns of representing nature in the BBC can be summarized as follows:</strong><br /><br /><br />1. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The BBC shows nature as more acted upon than acting, with the exception of weather, and also marginalizes it as an ‘environmental’ circumstance, especially landscape features such as mountains and islands</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />2. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The most frequent depiction of nature as powerful is when it is (a) hostile to human life and human purposes, e.g., weather, disease, and earthquakes; (b) accessible to human perception</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />3. This power is transitive power—to be worth reporting, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">natural actors in the news need to make an impact.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />4. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The most frequent depiction of nature as powerless is when (a) it is being exploited by humans</span></strong> (e.g., mice, birds, wheat, rice, coal, oil); (b) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">it is being fought against by humans</span></strong> (e.g., insects).<br /><br /><br />5. Areas of ecological concern and awareness include the state of the atmosphere, rising sea levels, and forest destruction. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The human orientation towards nature in points 2 and 4 of our summary actually calls into question the culture–nature distinction</span></strong>. </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">As Bill McKibben points out in The End of Nature: ‘We have changed the atmosphere and thus we are changing the weather. By changing the weather we make every spot on earth man-made and artificial</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">We have deprived nature of its independence’ </span></strong>(1990: 54). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">When nature is not threatening human life then it is categorized, processed or valorized by humans into cultural rather than natural categories.</span></strong> The categorization was most evident in relation to land/sea area, where peninsulas, for example, were seen as political entities rather than physical ones—the Jaffna peninsula, or the Korean peninsula—and singled out because they are sites of long-running conflict. The processing of oil and coal with the frequent collocate production suggests they count as much as cultural products as natural ones. To what extent are rice and wheat, after centuries of genetic improvement by hybridization, let alone in the era of genetic modification, natural any more? Our obsession with them and with changing them is presumably in proportion to their value for us. Oil prices are of abiding interest precisely because of their role in the human economy. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The extent to which we have modified, exploited and used raw nature, like no other species before us, suggests that natural objects are becoming, at least for the moment, but a subset of cultural objects</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />The bipolar distinction of nature and culture, a manifestation of the Whorfian hypothesis, expresses ideological as well as economic value. Finding a suitable label as an alternative to nature is in itself an ontological problem: environment has connotations of marginality with humans taking center stage; and ecology is equally anthropocentric if we trace its etymology back to the word for home (Williams 1983: 111).<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Comparison with Wordsworth’s <em>Prelude</em></span></strong> [<a href="http://www.wordsworth.org.uk/history/index.asp?pageid=100">http://www.wordsworth.org.uk/history/index.asp?pageid=100</a>]<br /><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">The representation or construction of nature (culture) that we have on the BBC World Service</span> is governed by human connections and news values. But in other contexts without these generic and ideological imperatives, nature can be represented quite differently.</span></strong> To demonstrate this I will make a brief comparison and <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><em>contrast with</em> Wordsworth’s long poem <em>The Prelude</em> (1850 version) </span></strong>(Goatly 2000: chapter 10). <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This clearly belongs to a different genre, a different ideology and ontology of nature which arose in the Romantic movement as a reaction to the widespread urbanization of the Industrial Revolution and the Newtonian ontology which made it possible</span></strong>. In these different genres with different meaning potentials reflecting a different culture, ideology, and ontology, we can see an illustration of Martin’s theory of planes of expression (1992: 494–497). Genres express an ideology within the context of culture. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Within early nineteenth-century culture, the genre of the epic poem, with nature as its subject matter (Field), expressed a then emergent ideology of celebration of the powers of nature, which opposed the increasingly dominant ideology of the power of industrialization.</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Table 2. Comparison of actor proportions in the BBC data and <em>The Prelude</em><br /><br />BBC Prelude<br /><br />Weather<br />21.5 %<br />54 %<br /><br /><br />Animals<br />9.5 %<br />20 %<br /><br /><br />Water<br />7.5 %<br />12 %<br /><br /><br />Landscape<br />6.5 %<br />8 %<br /><br /><br />Plants<br />2.5 %<br />15.5 %<br /><br /><br />A comparative perspective, summing up the findings, can be gained by looking at Table 2. This shows the relative frequencies with which members of the classes of natural elements figure as actors (as a proportion of all the times they are mentioned).<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Nature (quite apart from the fact that it is mentioned much more frequently in <em>The Prelude</em> than in the BBC data) comes across as roughly twice as powerful in terms of the likelihood of the natural elements being encoded as actors</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In both texts, weather and animals are the most powerful elements</span></strong> (as disease is not mentioned in The Prelude comparisons cannot be made). Water and landscape are relatively more powerful in the BBC subcorpus, largely because of floods, earthquakes, and mudslides. On the other hand, plants have more relative power in <em><strong>The Prelude</strong></em>.<br /><br /><br />If we look at the figures in more detail, giving a breakdown of transitive and intransitive actors (Figure 4), we see that <em><strong>The Prelude</strong></em> considers intransitive actors worth mentioning whereas the BBC favors transitive actors. <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>In order to get into the news, actors have to make an impact and, as we have seen, this usually means impacting on humans</em></strong>.</span> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Wordsworth, on the other hand, is more likely to be interested in what nature does, even if its actions do not carry over beyond the actor</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />Figure 4. Relative power of transitive and intransitive actors<br /><br /><br />Sensers, phenomena, and sayers<br /><br /><br />So far we have been concentrating on material processes. <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>But an important contrast between the BBC data and Wordsworth’s <em>The Prelude</em> is in the area of mental and verbal processes</strong>.</span> In a sense they are linked: <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">by careful perception of nature (a mental process) we may pick up signals which count as verbal processes</span></strong>—bearing in mind that Halliday counts <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">any symbolic process</span></strong>, even such as clocks telling the time, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">as verbal</span></strong> (Halliday 1994: 140).<br /><br /><br />In the BBC data, the incidence of sayers is negligible. In the clause samples I found only one—trees that talk to each other—though remember that communicating occurred four times as a collocate of plants/trees, probably in this same feature program. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Nature as a phenomenon occurs in only a tenth of one percent of our BBC clauses, and most of these are cognitive processes, only a quarter of them being perceptual.</span></strong> Only three clauses see natural elements as sensers (0.015 percent): the damp conditions the mites love, to make the birds think they are part of a much larger [colony?], and bacteria learn more and more to biodegrade.<br /><br /><br />Contrast this with the much higher figures in <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The Prelude</span></strong></em>, especially for animals/birds and water (Tables 3 and 4). For instance, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the regularity with which water communicates is startling</span></strong>:<br /><br /><br /><em>And when at evening on the public way I sauntered, like a river murmuring And talking to itself when all things else Are still.<br />The wild brooks prattling from invisible haunts<br /></em></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Table 3. Animals and birds as mental and verbal participants in The Prelude<br /><br /><br />Participant<br /><br />Sayer<br />10.7 %<br />Senser<br />4.6 %<br />Phenomenon<br />19.8 %<br /><br /><br />Table 4. Bodies of water as mental and verbal participants in The Prelude<br /><br /><br />Participant<br /><br />Sayer<br />5.8 %<br />Senser<br />1.2 %<br />Phenomenon<br />4.6 %<br /><br /><br /><em>The sands of Westmoreland, the creeks and bays<br />Of Cumbria’s rocky limits, they can tell<br />How, when the Sea threw off his evening shade<br />the roar of waters, torrents, streams<br />Innumerable, roaring with one voice!<br />Indeed, inhibiting water’s powers of communication is almost sacrilegious:<br /><br /><br />The famous brook, who, soon as he was boxed<br />Within our garden, found himself at once,<br />As if by trick insidious and unkind,<br />Stripped of his voice and left to dimple down<br />(Without an effort and without a will)<br />A channel paved by man’s officious care.<br /></em><br /><br />We are getting near to the heart of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Wordsworth’s philosophy</span></strong> here, with his autobiography of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">a discoursal relationship with nature</span></strong>. He is by his own admission a spoiled child in daily intercourse<br /><br /><br /><em>With those crystalline rivers, solemn heights,<br />And mountains, ranging like a fowl of the air<br /></em><br /><br />To sum up, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">water and to a lesser extent animals/birds in <em>The Prelude</em> are much more serious communicators than their counterparts in the BBC data</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The idea that nature can speak to us and that we should be receptive to its messages as sensers can give us another trajectory for our scientific and technological advances, perhaps a more positive one than when technology is used to enhance our material power as actors</span></strong>. Scientific measuring instruments convey messages from nature which may lead to a more reciprocal relationship. Will we respond to messages about the ozone layer and global warming which nature is sending us?<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion</span></strong><br /><br /><br />The article has attempted to show that the <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">consistent language choices within a particular language might have the same kinds of effect on cognition that different languages are said to have under the Whorfian hypothesis</span></strong>. The BBC, with its high cultural capital, institutionalizes an interpretative system which has a significance transcending local, subcultural and cultural systems. The article has illustrated the <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">BBC World Service’s typical ‘fashions of speaking</span></strong>, which <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">induce in their speakers different ways of relating to objects and persons’. </span></strong>(Bernstein 1971: 123, quoted in Halliday 1978: 25)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The unconscious repetitions in the BBC World Service radio content of patterns of transitivity structures and collocations</span></strong>—Hasan’s constellations of <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">linguistic features</span></strong>—<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">confer a certain reality on, or construct a position for, natural objects, one which predisposes us to relate to nature in a certain way</span></strong>. </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">First, nature is represented as relatively powerless vis-a`-vis humans, more acted upon than acting. The participant ‘nature’ represented in the news has human cultural imprints all over it.</span></strong> These are particularly economic (agricultural), in which nature is an exploitable commodity, and military, in which nature is a territorial possession. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">These express consumer capitalist and militarist ideologies</span></strong>. </span></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Second, untamed nature is constructed as a threat to humanity</span></strong>. Both these representations can be seen as a more general consequence of the fact that <span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>news ideology privileges the human, is manifestly anthropocentric</strong></span>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Wordsworth’s fashion of speaking is rather different, since his emergent ideology is a reaction against the forces of industrial capitalism</span></strong> <em><strong>whose social and environmental consequences were beginning to be seen in the nineteenth century.</strong></em> </div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><em><span style="font-size:130%;">We have discovered from an analysis of his transitivity structures that</span></em> nature is not only more powerful, but more talkative, a companion and a teacher</span></strong>—it/she does not have to have economic use or territorial significance to be valuable.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">In the dialectic between fashions of speaking and fashions of practice, linguistic representations can both induce action or be used to justify it</span></strong>, as we saw with the metaphors for street children and the actions of death squads. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Marginalizing and economically exploiting nature, and defending ourselves against its power are the acts which are justified or induced by the representation of nature on the World Service radio</span></strong></em>, which at the moment broadcasts a daily World Business Report and only one weekly program on the environment. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">By contrast, Wordsworth’s linguistic representation induces us to celebrate nature’s power, perceive its intransitive activities and processes, and listen to it.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Notes</span></strong><br /><br />An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA) at Waseda University, Tokyo in 1999, as part of the Symposium on Ecolinguistics.<br /><br /><br />Andrew Goatly is currently Associate Professor in the Department of English in Lingnan University, Hong Kong, having also taught in universities in Rwanda, Thailand, and Singapore. He has published widely in stylistics and critical discourse analysis, most notably with two books, The Language of Metaphors (Routledge 1997) and Critical Reading and Writing (Routledge 2000). He is at present the Chief Investigator in a research project comparing metaphors in the lexicon of English and Chinese, and a convenor of the AILA Scientific Commission on Ecolinguistics. Address for correspondence: Department of English, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong <a href="mailto:goatly@ln.edu.hkw">goatly@ln.edu.hkw</a> .<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">References<br /></span></strong><br />Bateson, G. (1975). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.<br />BBC webpage: nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtmlo.<br />Bell, A. (1991). The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell.<br />Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control. Vol. 1. London: Routledge.<br />Bodkin, M. (1934). Archetypal Patterns in Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.<br />Coates, J. (1986). Men, Women and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: Macmillan.<br />Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. COBUILD Direct: nhttp://titania.cobuild.collins.co.uk/javatest/o.<br />Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. Harlow: Longman.<br />Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News. London: Routledge.<br />Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G., and Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge.<br />Galtung, J. and Ruge, M. (1973). Structuring and selecting news. In The Manufacture of News: Social Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media, S. Cohen and J. Young (eds.), 62–72. London: Constable.<br />Goatly, A. (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge. —(2000). Critical Reading and Writing. London: Routledge.<br />Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: Lawrence and Wishart.<br />Gumperz, J. (1971). Language in Social Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. —(1996). Introduction to Part IV. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds.), 359–373. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold. —(1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.<br />Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning. London: Cassell.<br />Hodge, R. and Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology. London: Routledge.<br />Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality. London: Routledge.<br />Kay, P. (1996). Intra-speaker relativity. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds.), 97–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />Lee, P. (1996). The Whorf Theory Complex. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />Levinson, S. (1996). Introduction to Part II. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds.), 133–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: The World as Living Organism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />Lucy, J. A. (1992). Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />McKibben, B (1990). The End of Nature. Harmondsworth: Penguin.<br />Martin, J. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology. London: Routledge.<br />Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: Morrow.<br />Poynton, C. (1985). Language and Gender: Making the Difference. Geelong: Deakin University Press.<br />Silverstein, M. (1981). The Limits of Awareness. (Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 84.) Austin: Southwestern Educational Laboratory.<br />Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />Threadgold, T. (1997). Feminist Poetics. London: Routledge.<br />Whorf, B. L. (1956) Language, Thought and Reality (edited by J. B. Carroll). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.<br />Williams, R. (1983) Keywords. New York: Oxford University Press.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=WdO9wBNPgMUC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=%22on+the+meaning+of+words%22&source=web&ots=6W-VO6PdKJ&sig=YAxOzTdNv_wzb5_q8SuXCA9yjTk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA127,M1">http://books.google.com/books?id=WdO9wBNPgMUC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=%22on+the+meaning+of+words%22&source=web&ots=6W-VO6PdKJ&sig=YAxOzTdNv_wzb5_q8SuXCA9yjTk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA127,M1</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZvkSxj-FOq7hRF6hSpBX0sPw9EUJaoXsjcq8UHuFSe3MafpyG78htotA6d41NCIzeN_Ns-Vd1nAJCTzOF-yfk4diXvgFsQgLUD-I5p_Lda8xtgwNSafafIYcgXkwnCHAPlbYYsHNajnZd/s1600-h/legal+meaning+-+lawyer+building.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5288259540088878610" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 225px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZvkSxj-FOq7hRF6hSpBX0sPw9EUJaoXsjcq8UHuFSe3MafpyG78htotA6d41NCIzeN_Ns-Vd1nAJCTzOF-yfk4diXvgFsQgLUD-I5p_Lda8xtgwNSafafIYcgXkwnCHAPlbYYsHNajnZd/s320/legal+meaning+-+lawyer+building.jpg" border="0" /></a>Legal Language</span></strong> </div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Peter M. Tiersma<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">(Univ. of Chicago Press (c) 1999)</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Meaning</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Meaning is obviously <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">one of the most important issues in the law.</span></strong> A tremendous amount of judicial energy is devoted to interpreting the language of statutes, contracts, wills and other legal documents. Meaning is also a central concern of linguists and other students of language.<br /><br /><br />…Experts on language have come to distinguish <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">different types of meaning</span></strong>. One important kind is <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">word meaning</span></strong>. Definitions concentrate on <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the meaning of words, based on how they are ordinarily used</span></strong></em>. For example, as speakers of English we know that <em><span style="font-size:130%;">chair</span></em> often refers to an object for sitting on, is supported by four legs, and has a back rest. But it can also refer to objects that deviate from the prototypical chair; if it had five legs and a back rest, it would probably still be a <em><span style="font-size:130%;">chair</span></em>, albeit an unusual one. Furthermore, <em><span style="font-size:130%;">chair</span></em> is used in the figurative sense to refer to the head of a department or a committee, or to a particular type of professorship, among other possibilities.<br /><br /><br />Words can, of course, be combined into sentences, allowing us to speak of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">sentence meaning</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">To derive the sentence meaning, we consider the possible word meanings, as well as grammatical relationships between the words</span></strong></em>. Often the context that a sentence provides allows us to provisionally eliminate some of the many possible word meanings. Thus, although <em><span style="font-size:130%;">chair</span></em> can mean ‘chairman’ in isolation, when it occurs in the sentence <em><span style="font-size:130%;">Sandra sat on the chair</span></em>, its most likely interpretation is ‘something to sit on’. On the other hand, in the sentence <em><span style="font-size:130%;">the dean appointed Bill to be chair of the committee</span></em>, the meaning of <em><span style="font-size:130%;">chair</span></em> is probably ‘chairman’. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">By combining our knowledge of the possible meanings of the words with the linguistic rules for combining words into sentences, we can generally derive at least one – and often more – potential interpretation for any specific sentence</span></strong></em>. Very roughly speaking, the sentence meaning corresponds to what is called the literal meaning.<br /><br /><br />Yet what matters most is not the word or sentence meaning, but what the speaker intended to communicate by means of the utterance. This is called the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">utterance meaning or the speaker’s meaning</span></strong>. When we speak of a word or sentence meaning, we generally say that <em><span style="font-size:130%;">this word/sentence means X</span></em>. On the other hand, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">with utterance or speaker’s meaning</span></strong>, we would say that <em><span style="font-size:130%;">Jane meant X in uttering this word or sentence</span></em>. (p. 124)<br /><br /><br />Of course, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">what Jane meant by the sentence – what she intended to communicate – is limited by the possible meanings of the words and the sentence</span></strong></em>. Without highly unusual circumstances, Jane cannot rationally intend to communicate “I bought a new typewriter” by saying <em><span style="font-size:130%;">Sandra sat on the chair.</span></em> (pp. 124-125)<br /><br /><br />To determine what Jane intends to communicate in saying <em><span style="font-size:130%;">Sandra sat on the chair</span></em>, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">we begin by looking at the word and sentence meaning</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">But, we also rely on the linguistic context, what we know about Jane and about Sandra and the chair, and any other information that may be relevant</span></strong>. If the conversation is about who sat where in a room with only one chair and a sofa, we will probably assume that Jane meant that Sandra rested her body on a type of furniture that had four legs and a back rest. On the other hand, suppose that the conversation is about a committee meeting that devolved into a fistfight, with Sandra knocking the chairman – Bill – to the floor. Now, if Jane tells us that <em><span style="font-size:130%;">Sandra sat on the chair</span></em>, Jane might well mean that Sandra sat on Bill. Another scenario might involve a verbal slugfest in the committee, in which case Jane might well mean that Sandra metaphorically sat on the chairman, Bill, in the sense of figuratively overpowering him.<br /><br /><br />Assuming that language is mainly concerned with the communication of information and ideas, it should be evident that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>the ultimate question is</em> </span><span style="font-size:180%;">the speaker’s meaning</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">What matters is the speaker’s communicative intentions, rather than just the meaning of her words and sentences</span></strong></em>. Word and sentence meaning are a means to an end – a way to figure out what the speaker intends to communicate. (p. 125)<br /><br /><br />…Despite its prominence in ordinary communication, the role of the speaker’s meaning is a problematic issue in <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">legal interpretation</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">With private legal documents, like wills and contracts, it is well established that the intent of the testator or of the parties should govern the meaning</span></strong>. Thus, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the speaker’s meaning should prevail</span></strong></em>. Nonetheless, this general principle is undercut by severe limitations on the use of any evidence other than the words of the document itself, primarily imposed by the plain meaning rule. Although the rule has been stated in different ways over the centuries, it basically provides that <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">if a document is plain or unambiguous, as determined solely from the language contained in the ‘four corners’ of the document, a judge cannot refer to any outside (‘extrinsic’) evidence to decide what it means</span></strong></em>. In other words, the sorts of factors that we would normally use to gauge the speaker’s or writer’s intent are inadmissible, and cannot be considered. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The rule has the practical effect of focusing the court’s attention on the meaning of words and sentences, rather than on the speaker’s intent,</span></strong> even though that intent is legally what should decide the issue.<br /><br /><br />Similar questions arise with more public legal documents, such as statutes and constitutions. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">There is extensive debate in American courts on when, and to what extent, judges should consider legislative intent (the speaker’s meaning) when interpreting statutes</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Under the plain meaning rule</span></strong></em>, courts would look beyond the statutory language only when the text was ambiguous. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">There would</span></strong></em>, in other words, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">have to be more than one plausible sentence meaning before judges could look at evidence of the legislature’s intent</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /><br />…<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Over time, however, American judges began to refer almost routinely to evidence of legislative intent, including committee reports and speeches made on the floor</span></strong>. In other words, courts paid more attention to <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">what the speaker</span> – the legislature – <em><span style="font-size:180%;">meant </span></em>by the words of a statute</span></strong>. (p. 126)<br /><br /><br />Recently, the pendulum may have begun to swing back. Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court has championed an approach called <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">textualism</span></strong>. Scalia and others argue that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">legislative history should rarely be relevant, in essence advocating sentence meaning over speaker’s meaning. </span></strong>To be more exact, textualism claims that it does try to discover the intent of the legislature, but limits this inquiry to the text of the statute itself. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Practically speaking, textualism must rely almost entirely on word and sentence meaning, which may explain why the Supreme Court so often consults dictionaries and why many of the canons of interpretation (like expressio unius) have been revived</span></strong></em>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Only when the text is ambiguous will the textualist look to other indications of legislative intent.</span></strong> To a large extent, therefore, textualism is a revival of the traditional plain meaning rule.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">For the plain meaning rule to operate properly, judges must be able to decide when the language of a legal document is, in fact, plain and unambiguous. Lawrence Solan has shown that this is quite difficult.</span></strong> Too often a group of judges of the United States Supreme Court have concluded that a statutory provision ‘plainly’ means <em><span style="font-size:130%;">X</span></em>, while a substantial minority has argued just as fiercely that it ‘plainly’ means <em><span style="font-size:130%;">Y</span></em>.<br /><br /><br />Furthermore, because interpretation tries to discover what a speaker meant by his words, excluding evidence that bears on the speaker’s intent seems hard to justify…Yet, despite much valid criticism, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the plain meaning rule is not irrational. To a large extent, the notion that legal language should be interpreted in isolation, without reference to the surrounding circumstances and other clues of the speaker’s actual intent, is a product of the historic shift from speech to writing.”</span></strong> (p.127)<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages</span></em></strong><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">By Tom Bethell</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />(N.Y. St. Martins Press ©1998)<br /><br /><br />“<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It bears repeating that the rise of equality before the law and the rise of the freedom of contract were the crucial legal antecedents to the free-market economy. But many in the West today have repudiated that past, or have failed to grasp its significance</span></strong>… <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Traditionally, courts enforced contracts as written. More recently, this sensible doctrine has been replaced by an ambition to ‘deconstruct’ contracts. Judges have felt emboldened to deny that written contracts really represent an agreement of the parties</span></strong></em>. A landmark along this unwise road was created by the California Supreme Court in a 1968 case, <em>Pacific Gas & Electric Co v. G.W. Drayage & Rigging Co.</em> The court ruled that oral testimony could be used to supplement and amend the written contract, no matter how unambiguous its wording. ‘If words had absolute and constant referents,’ the court decided, ‘it might be possible to discover contractual intention in the words themselves and in the manner in which they were arranged. Words, however, do not have absolute and constant referents.’ Excluding oral clarifications therefore reflected a ‘judicial belief’ in the possibility of ‘perfect verbal expression.’ This was borne of ‘a primitive faith in the inherent potency and inherent meaning of words.’<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This flight of judicial fancy allowed the intention of the parties to be divined ‘by partisan witnesses whose recollection is hazy from passage of time and colored by their conflicting interest,’ as federal appeals court judge Alex Kosinski wrote in 1988</span></strong>. The overall effect of <em>Pacific Gas</em> was to cast ‘a long shadow of uncertainty over all transactions negotiated and executed under the law of California’. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>It also attacked the foundation of our legal system, he added, for the basic principle that language provides a meaningful constraint on private conduct was undermined.</em></span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">If we are unwilling to say that parties to a contract can come up with language that binds them, how can we send anyone to jail for violating written statutes? </span></strong></em>They, too, consist of mere words lacking ‘absolute and constant referents.’ Kosinski observed in a later (1989) opinion that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the willingness of courts to subordinate voluntary contracts to their own sense of public policy and proper business decorum deprived individuals of an important measure of freedom. ‘The right to enter into contracts - to adjust one’s legal relationship by mutual agreement with other free individuals </span></strong>- was unknown through much of history, and is unknown even today in many parts of the world. Like other aspects of personal autonomy, it is too easily smothered by government officials eager to tell us what’s best for us. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The recent tendency of judges to insinuate tort causes of action into relationships traditionally governed by contract is just such overreaching.’</span></strong>”<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1026514&blobtype=pdf">http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1026514&blobtype=pdf</a><br /><a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1026514&pageindex=1">http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1026514&pageindex=1</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">On the Meaning of Words ['CLINICAL TRIAL' OR 'EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH'??]<br /></span></strong><br /><br />West J Med. 1988 October; 149(4): 466<br /><br /><br />PMCID: PMC1026514<br /><br /><br />TO THE EDITOR: The words research, experiment, and investigate are frequently used interchangeably by members of the scientific community; standard dictionaries consider these words synonymous or analogous. No pertinent references concerning the definition or use of these words could be found in either the medical or legal libraries at the University of New Mexico.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">That the concern over the interchangeable use of the words research, experiment, and investigate can be at times more than a mere exercise in semantics</span></strong> was brought to the attention of the authors when, during a recent trial, the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">plaintiff's attorney informed the jury, with emphasis, that the defendant had performed research on the plaintiff</span></strong>. This, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">despite the fact the plaintiff's attorney was well aware that the defendant had conscientiously engaged in laboratory research by doing an adequate series of experiments on dogs to investigate (determine) the feasibility of a new operation</span></strong>. The defendant had also presented his data to the Human Research Review Committee of the University of New Mexico, School of Medicine.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We suggest that the words research, experiment, and investigate be reserved for the chemistry, biology, or animal laboratory and recommend that when the use of a new drug, device, procedure, or operation is applied to humans, the term clinical trial be used</span></strong></em>. In time, the distinction between laboratory research and clinical trial will, we hope, become more universally accepted. <strong>This would ameliorate confusion and the implication of assault on the human body</strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It might further deny some future plaintiff's attorney the opportunity of inaccurately implying that the defendant has treated a patient improperly</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /><br />FRED H. HANOLD, MD<br />Clinical Professor of Medicine<br />LAWRENCE H. WILKINSON, MD<br />Clinical Professor of Surgery<br />University of New Mexico School of Medicine<br />Albuquerque, NM 87131</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.doyletics.com/_arj1/wlm87rvw.htm">http://www.doyletics.com/_arj1/wlm87rvw.htm</a></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiETLbjjIrfYriBHi6umsFRpbI-o81Tv_wMzp65hjvx9bdb0wUi2g6BODIx8mWf5oVUm5MtjT37fJRBkgdDrHgO3TPd0XzEBT9kvK4I_hmv1kCUjphSAa1us1JTkrFEAlScomXJM6X8tnW-/s1600-h/When_Words_Lose_There_Meaning.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5288255708309748242" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 150px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 231px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiETLbjjIrfYriBHi6umsFRpbI-o81Tv_wMzp65hjvx9bdb0wUi2g6BODIx8mWf5oVUm5MtjT37fJRBkgdDrHgO3TPd0XzEBT9kvK4I_hmv1kCUjphSAa1us1JTkrFEAlScomXJM6X8tnW-/s400/When_Words_Lose_There_Meaning.jpg" border="0" /></a></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">When Words Lose Their Meaning: Constitutions of Language, Character and Community </span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;">B</span>y James Boyd White</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">(University of Chicago Press (c) 1984</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em><strong>Book Review by Bobby Matherne ©2002</strong></em></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">This book might easily be titled "How to Read a Book, Part II" - as the information within is a logical extension of <a href="http://www.doyletics.com/art/htrabart.htm">Mortimer Adler's classic book</a> on reading. This book is about the reading process itself. Professor James Body <em><strong>White addresses the changes that occur in the reader during the reading process.</strong></em> He brings to bear a wealth of experience in the fields of Law/Rhetoric/Literary Criticism/Philosophy as the back cover subject matter attests.<br />The following quotes illuminate the theme of the book:</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />[page 270] . . . <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">reading involves a dialectic between the ideal version of oneself that a particular text seeks to call into being and the rest of who one is</span></strong>.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />[page 279] Our concern has thus been with the <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">ways in which words - and languages - acquire and hold and lose their meanings</span></strong>, with the methods by which culture is maintained, criticized, and transformed.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">[page 277] The <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">language marks the mind, and one will normally see that one's language is contingent, not necessary, only if one experiences a basic cultural dislocation</span></strong>: the sense that words have lost their meaning.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The author draws us skillfully into <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">readings of Homer, Thucydides, Swift, Samuel Johnson, Jane Austen, Edmund Burke, and John Marshall (Chief Justice)</span></strong> by <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">analyzing one of their texts in light of his theme, which theme deals with</span></strong> <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the establishment of new meanings that come into being because the old meanings are lost, discarded by the writers</span></strong></em>.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Jane Austen establishes <span style="font-size:180%;">new meanings</span> in Emma Woodstock</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">and in us in the course of <em>Emma</em></span></strong><em>.</em> </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Burke creates <span style="font-size:180%;">new meanings</span> in his penpal and us during the course of his "Reflections on the French Revolution."</span></strong> Burke's work becomes a discourse on the beauty of the British Constitution, a right-brain, territory-to-map, bottom-up design, and on the evils of the French Constitution, a left-brain, map-to-territory, top-down design.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">This is an intriguing book and sent me scurrying for copies of Austen's Emma and the books of the other authors he discusses. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiETLbjjIrfYriBHi6umsFRpbI-o81Tv_wMzp65hjvx9bdb0wUi2g6BODIx8mWf5oVUm5MtjT37fJRBkgdDrHgO3TPd0XzEBT9kvK4I_hmv1kCUjphSAa1us1JTkrFEAlScomXJM6X8tnW-/s1600-h/When_Words_Lose_There_Meaning.jpg"></a></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-4592849191103410842008-11-26T12:35:00.015-05:002008-11-26T13:13:57.307-05:00Does Europe 'Walk the Talk' on International Law? Apparently, What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander, Only Sometimes!<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757164701554711.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757164701554711.html</a><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgBtPik8vkDXlhVQWDYJUAZVV2rMM0ZhNnPwfRBRGvohLd0Qw-kaC1cmbiNTOyr9HkTQRwNoqhHWJLN_hllzfOnAIQQ-6MIhFEk6eUo1RkV22echEACzfRhiAxc1l-pjw3RH7I4jwMX9TI/s1600-h/Walking_The_Talk1.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5273027989840068194" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 287px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 168px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgBtPik8vkDXlhVQWDYJUAZVV2rMM0ZhNnPwfRBRGvohLd0Qw-kaC1cmbiNTOyr9HkTQRwNoqhHWJLN_hllzfOnAIQQ-6MIhFEk6eUo1RkV22echEACzfRhiAxc1l-pjw3RH7I4jwMX9TI/s400/Walking_The_Talk1.gif" border="0" /></a>Does Europe Believe in International Law?</span></strong> </div><br /><br /><em>Based on the record, it has no grounds to criticize the U.S.<br /></em><br /><br />By JACK GOLDSMITH and ERIC POSNER<br /><br /><br />Wall Street Journal<br /><br /><br />Nov. 25, 2008<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Many of President-elect Barack Obama's supporters <span style="font-size:180%;">hope</span> he will scrap the Bush administration's skeptical attitude toward international law and take <span style="color:#000099;">a more European approach.</span> This is presumably to bring us in line with what these supporters regard as more enlightened practices abroad.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2hZQtoj-9ZfRCv1e0RFRtMG2-fEUHIaRO2V_rLeGZIdvlDXPp-qANYlxKGaVMGk6y04Ulndv-qLlmpllZSmEh2dASr2XZDn7Lk-ppLUizh7JXlo4ztVBKtgPF9mi_q5pbcFd7A27aXqyw/s1600-h/what+is+good+for+the+goose+is+good+for+the+gander.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5273023238471409634" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 390px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2hZQtoj-9ZfRCv1e0RFRtMG2-fEUHIaRO2V_rLeGZIdvlDXPp-qANYlxKGaVMGk6y04Ulndv-qLlmpllZSmEh2dASr2XZDn7Lk-ppLUizh7JXlo4ztVBKtgPF9mi_q5pbcFd7A27aXqyw/s400/what+is+good+for+the+goose+is+good+for+the+gander.jpg" border="0" /></a>In fact, Europe's commitment to international law is largely rhetorical.</span></strong> Like the Bush administration, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;"><em>Europeans obey international law when it advances their interests and discard it when it does not.<br /></em></span></strong><br /><br />Consider the case of Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the al Barakaat International Foundation. A United Nations Security Council resolution has ordered nations to freeze the assets of Mr. Kadi, a resident of Saudi Arabia, and the foundation, and to take other sanctions against those suspected of financing al Qaeda and related organizations.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><em>On Sept. 3, the European Court of Justice ruled that the Security Council resolution was invalid.</em></span></strong> The duty to comply with the U.N. Charter, it declared, "cannot have the effect of prejudicing [regional] constitutional principles." In doing so, the ECJ followed its advocate general's argument that "international law can permeate [the European Community] legal order only under the conditions set by the constitutional principles of the Community."<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">In other words, European countries must disregard the U.N. Charter -- the most fundamental treaty in our modern international legal system -- when it conflicts with European constitutional order.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">This is the third time in a decade that Europe has defied the U.N. Charter.</span></strong> <strong>In 1999, for example, European nations participated in NATO's bombing of Kosovo without Security Council authorization. There was much hand-wringing in Europe at the time, but in the end other concerns trumped legal niceties. Similarly, when nations led by Europe created the International Criminal Court (ICC), they purported to limit the Security Council's power to delay or halt ICC trials, also in disregard of the U.N. Charter, which states that Charter obligations trump the requirements of any other treaty.</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">It is not just the U.N. Charter that European nations and institutions brush aside when convenient. The most fundamental human-rights treaty is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. European governments, like the U.S. government, have declined to give effect to provisions of that treaty with which they disagree</span></strong> on matters ranging from immigration to hate speech, emergency powers, criminal procedure and more. European courts, too, have ignored provisions and interpretations of this treaty that deviate from European law.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Europeans have also shown a less than robust commitment to the ICC. <em><span style="font-size:130%;">Earlier this fall, the world witnessed the strange spectacle of the U.S., long an ICC skeptic, successfully resisting a British- and French-led attempt to corral the U.N. Security Council into delaying ICC indictments of the perpetrators of atrocities in Darfur</span></em>.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Europe also has violated international trade laws when public sentiment gets riled up -- for example, in resisting importation of genetically modified foods, or beef from cattle raised with growth hormones. European countries defied adverse World Trade Organization (WTO) rulings in both cases.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">European countries have violated WTO law by granting trade preferences to certain banana-exporting nations with which they have strategic relationships; they've also reportedly cooperated with the U.S. in extraordinary renditions of terrorist suspects (sending suspects to other countries), a practice that many believe violates international law. </span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ff33;">Climate change? With every passing year, it has become increasingly clear that many European countries will violate their obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto protocol.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />There is a simple explanation for all this. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Europeans hold their values and interests dear, just as Americans do, and will not subordinate them to the requirements of international law.</span></strong> When a conflict arises, international law must yield.<br /><br /><br />International law has long suffered this fate, and not just at the hands of dictatorships. In liberal democratic societies where leaders are constitutionally beholden to constituents -- and thus compelled to serve their changing interests -- international law gives way to domestic politics.<br /><br /><br />Why, then, do so many people believe the U.S. and Europe have different attitudes toward international law? Partially this is because <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">American politicians frequently express their skepticism about international law</span>, <span style="color:#000099;">while European politicians loudly proclaim its central role in their value systems, even when they are defying it.</span> This difference, in turn, is grounded in differing historical experiences.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />America sees itself as an exceptional nation, not bound by the rules that bind others. On the other hand, the enormously successful, decades-long process of treaty-based European integration has led Europeans to identify peace and prosperity with a commitment to international law. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">What is overlooked is that the treaties that established the European Union created institutions that jealously guard the interests of Europeans when these interests conflict with an international law that reflects global aspirations.<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">European nations today are like the American states agreeing to form a federal union in the 18th century, or the German states forming a German union in the 19th. Their devotion to their union is real. Their devotion to international law -- even the U.N. Charter <em>-- is less pronounced</em>.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Specific treaties that have served their purposes are honored, and it may be that the success of particular regional treaties endows treaty-making with special glamour. But international law as such has no special importance.</span></strong> Here, as in other settings, Americans and Europeans have more in common than meets the eye.<br /><br /><br /><em>Mr. Goldsmith teaches at Harvard Law School. Mr. Posner teaches at the University of Chicago Law School. They are the authors of "The Limits of International Law" (Oxford University Press, 2006). </p></em>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-75859942725571911272008-11-06T18:06:00.015-05:002008-11-06T20:10:28.938-05:00Zut Alors! Is Obama More Like a European Socialist or a Nicolas Sarkozy?<a href="http://euobserver.com/9/27049/?rk=1">http://euobserver.com/9/27049/?rk=1</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">All-night parties cheer Obama in EU capital<br /></span></strong><br /><br />By Leigh Phillips and Valentina Pop<br /><br /><br />EU Observer.com<br /><br /><br />11/5/08<br /><div></div><div><br /><div align="justify">EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">EU officials, expats working for the European headquarters of multinational firms, Erasmus students and locals from every quarter of the Belgian capital partied on Tuesday night (4 November) in anticipation of a victory for Barack Obama in the US presidential vote.</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Over 2,000 US expats and other international workers crammed into the Brussels Renaissance hotel down the road from the European Parliament for a party organised by the American Chamber of Commerce Belgium and the local chapters of Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad. The crowd celebrated as results came in on the huge screens through the night, despite the time zone difference. </div><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">The organisers set up a debate between representatives of the Republicans and Democrats. But the audience was clearly in favour of senator Barack Obama, who won 93 percent of the votes cast at a straw poll at the event, with only seven percent favouring his Republican rival, John McCain.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />To Matt Graves, a 37-year-old French-speaking Texan who has lived in Belgium for 14 years, the election of senator Obama was a dream come true. Proudly wearing his cowboy hat with the inscription "Texans for Obama," Mr Graves told EUobserver that his home state is not all "red," despite the Texas end result coming out in favour of senator McCain.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"These are historical elections, it's absolutely amazing," he said, convinced that the new president will "greatly improve" relations with the European Union.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Belgian nationals were also present at the celebrations, such as Eric and Micheline Mathay, a couple who had also joined the election party for French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">"Mr Obama is the American Sarkozy,"</span></strong> the 52-year-old accountant told this website, noting that Europeans have very high expectations from the newly elected US president in terms of a better dialogue on international affairs. But Mr Obama's popularity was likely to drop after the honeymoon ends, Mr Mathay argued, just as with the French president. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong>More responsibilities for the EU</strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />An Obama presidency would mean not only more dialogue and involvement with the Europeans on the world stage, but also more responsibilities for the EU countries, argued Jamie Shea, the head of NATO's policy planning unit during the debate ahead of the first results.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The cost of multilateralism, for the EU countries, would soon be felt when "President Obama picks up the phone to Germany and France and tell them to commit more troops for the war in Afghanistan," he said. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />In terms of the consequences of the first truly global financial crisis, Mr Shea said that multi-lateralism would also mean that rich countries such as Saudi Arabia and China would soon feel entitled to more voting rights in the International Monetary Fund than, for example, Luxembourg or Belgium, if their contribution is required to stabilise the markets. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />This would also pose a challenge for the EU, especially in the context of a US president having to face pressure from a Democratic congress to keep his campaign promises in terms of social programmes and thus increase spending - in turn inflating the country's $33 trillion debt, Mr Shea argued.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />To Michael R. Kulbickas, chair of Republicans Abroad Belgium, an Obama presidency would mean lower military spending. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"There is a danger that a reduced defence budget means fewer security guarantees for EU countries, especially eastern European ones," he told EUobserver. In terms of dealing with Russia, Mr Obama would prefer "appeasement" at the expense of countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Republican argued. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Meanwhile, on the other side of town</div><br /><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRPL94B0qLgD9hHd510pfDmzEnh6MAy3UVOeli8AeJXi1iG8A9zk84YxgTOtiBMMXRgfrI9y7dnoBPHCzyRRDMYG_a-NtdLrVE1xBkxFg3cEgCEC7YcifrMDkrfqDYbO5Iqd_THPuCfvHa/s1600-h/Party+of+European+Socialists+I.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265712515054973746" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 72px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 106px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRPL94B0qLgD9hHd510pfDmzEnh6MAy3UVOeli8AeJXi1iG8A9zk84YxgTOtiBMMXRgfrI9y7dnoBPHCzyRRDMYG_a-NtdLrVE1xBkxFg3cEgCEC7YcifrMDkrfqDYbO5Iqd_THPuCfvHa/s320/Party+of+European+Socialists+I.png" border="0" /></a>Across the city from the European quarter, outside the cafe at the Maison du Peuple [the people's house] - bedecked in red-white-and-blue bunting and red-white-and-blue Obama posters - <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">a raucous crowd was trying to get into an election party hosted by the Party of European Socialists.<br /></div></span></strong><br /><div align="justify">If there was a single McCain supporter amongst the gathered hipsters and immigrants in the student-heavy and working-class neighbourhood of St Gilles, he made himself well-disguised.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">The square stretching out from the cafe, built as a house of working class self-education for Belgian trade unionists in the last century, was more packed than could ever be likely for any domestic election.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Zach Ellis, a young backpacker from New York happened across the event having not long got off the train in Brussels, and was dumbstruck that so many Belgians were paying attention to the election.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">"It's awesome - the energy, the sympathy of the people in the street. They want somebody who's committed to ending our wars overseas - wars I don't want to fight in."<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">His new European friend, Martti Kaartinen, a "stagaire" with the Yehudi Menuhin Foundation, said he found out about the party via the internet, adding that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">the campuses of the francophone Universite Libre de Bruxelles and the Dutch-speaking Vrije Universiteit Brussel were covered in Obama posters.</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"All of Europe is behind Obama. He's going to bring back some of the good things we think of about America," he said, while also preparing to be disappointed. "People here see him as a kind of European, but he's an American really, and a politician. Democrats have started wars as well."</div><br /><br /><div>Julio Diankenda, who moved to Belgium from the Congo when he was three, said he thought of Obama as a great symbol of hope for immigrants both in the US and in Europe. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"He tells people in Africa they can come from immigrant backgrounds and even be president. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify">That's important for people to recognise here in Europe too."</div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:100%;color:#ff0000;"></span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">European socialists roll out red carpet</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Midway through the evening, it was time for the politicians to arrive, slicing their way through the crowds. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">Elio di Rupo, the president of the Walloon <span style="color:#ff0000;">Socialists</span>, was quick to say that Barack Obama was the choice of Belgium and of Europe.</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">"Obama is the sole candidate that is in accord with Europe. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">On the financial crisis, climate change - all the essential elements, his is a progressive programme, a humane discourse that is in accord with the grand ensemble of Europe."</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />He admitted that there were differences between a European Socialist view of the world and that of a free-market American Democrat, however. <strong><span style="color:#000099;"><span style="font-size:180%;">"We can't demand that he agree 100 percent with Europe.</span> </span></strong>The reality is different in the United States."<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVlAtW_TGphIPvb8Wod3Q7-qoHF2a7qFZfG-dwMu1n-_Wg5l6OKEHPkRVskiXTrxD8SqSwb_IXOT2WWDzjy7aWp9avDQkQhIju-q4hqP4sYzCQGiJKs4nya88iK_U8BF836t6vN-tyskAi/s1600-h/euroSocialistLogo.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265711794856142338" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 117px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 150px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVlAtW_TGphIPvb8Wod3Q7-qoHF2a7qFZfG-dwMu1n-_Wg5l6OKEHPkRVskiXTrxD8SqSwb_IXOT2WWDzjy7aWp9avDQkQhIju-q4hqP4sYzCQGiJKs4nya88iK_U8BF836t6vN-tyskAi/s320/euroSocialistLogo.gif" border="0" /></a>His colleague, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the president of the European Socialists, agreed that despite ideological differences, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Mr Obama was the preferred candidate of the left in </span><span style="color:#000099;">the European Parliament.</span></span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#000099;">"The United States is <em>not the same type</em> of welfare state as we have here in Europe</span>, but what is clear is that the overall vision is the same as Socialists, as Europeans," he said. </div></span></strong><div><br /></div><div align="justify">"[He believes] that the people come first and shouldn't pay for the mistakes of the better off whether in Wall Street or Frankfurt, that markets cannot do it all any longer on their own."</div></div><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See <em>The European Socialist Party Publicly Campaigns for Obama</em> (Sept. 1, 2008), at:</span> </strong><a href="http://www.pes.org/content/view/1383/109"><strong>http://www.pes.org/content/view/1383/109</strong></a> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong><br /></div><div></div><div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-sarkozy-versus-world-financial/story.aspx?guid=%7B3D8F2085-BD17-4ECF-B273-EB7E263DCD1C%7D&dist=TNMostMailed">http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-sarkozy-versus-world-financial/story.aspx?guid=%7B3D8F2085-BD17-4ECF-B273-EB7E263DCD1C%7D&dist=TNMostMailed</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">America's new French connection<br />Commentary: Sarkozy and Obama prepare combination to save the world -- at least for a while</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br />By David Marsh<br /><br /><br />MarketWatch<br /><br /><br />Oct. 27, 2008<br /></div><div align="justify"><br />LONDON (MarketWatch) -- <span style="font-size:180%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Franco-</span><span style="color:#3333ff;">American</span></strong> </span>presidential combinations have frequently stirred the blood, but they produce a cocktail that has mostly been laced with venom.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Charles de Gaulle</span></strong> challenged <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">John F. Kennedy</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">and Lyndon Johnson</span></strong> over gold; <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">François Mitterrand</span></strong> tried to stand up to <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Ronald Reagan</span></strong> over Star Wars; <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Jacques Chirac</span></strong> defied <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">George W. Bush</span></strong> on Iraq.<br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify">In the future, such acrimony could all be forgotten. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">If Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidency, expect an extraordinary love-in with French President Nicolas Sarkozy</span></strong> across a broad range of economic and monetary issues. Franco-American relations may never be the same again.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge5LSOnrIsVJskq25W5H1pbXBVgLtEIaOkEjgEWR-9NY7lDcCI7R7bEQ6xfCbT-yR9yUMQpbrY8thoO2Rpl7GXoGhqv4rHGxmd56Za-HV91Tf4rqmLZoC7Qu1Jv5DlaTuWSq47oqCa7x7I/s1600-h/sarkozy-obama.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265709207967261794" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 382px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 301px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge5LSOnrIsVJskq25W5H1pbXBVgLtEIaOkEjgEWR-9NY7lDcCI7R7bEQ6xfCbT-yR9yUMQpbrY8thoO2Rpl7GXoGhqv4rHGxmd56Za-HV91Tf4rqmLZoC7Qu1Jv5DlaTuWSq47oqCa7x7I/s320/sarkozy-obama.jpg" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff99ff;"><em>The ingredients are all in place.</em></span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The French president swept to power in May 2007, <span style="color:#3333ff;">burning with</span> <span style="color:#3333ff;">Americanophilia</span> -- and with ill-concealed passion for hyper-active political management.</span></strong> </div><div><br /><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[<span style="color:#ff99ff;">NOUVEL AMOUR!!</span> DOES MONSIEUR SARKOZY STILL HAVE THESE PASSIONS & URGES??]</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />Sarkozy spent much of his first 15 months in office nursing grievances that the rest of the world was not taking much notice of his demands for high-level measures to improve the international economy.<br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify">Since the beginning of October, however, Sarkozy has burst into the headlines with a vengeance. </div><div><br /><br /></div><div align="justify">Presiding over European affairs while France takes its six-month turn in the chair of the European Union, Sarkozy played a leading role in a series of high-profile measures to coordinate the continent's attempt to climb back from the economic abyss. </div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />Provided he wins, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Obama seems to be just the man to join a duet with Sarkozy that could complete the French president's transformation.<br /></div></span></strong><div></div><div><br /></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Problem: Freshly-elected American leader promises to change the world, but lacks any kind of foreign policy experience.</strong> </span><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>Solution: Find a successful and energetic mentor with similar inspirational ideas. </strong></span></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">What better candidate than the enfant terrible in the Elysée Palace? Six years Obama's senior, Sarkozy can dispense advice with the aura, by comparison with the Democrat leader, of an elder statesman.</span> </strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">The alternative sources of wisdom for Obama -- <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#000099;">the U.K.'s Gordon Brown</span> <span style="color:#cc0000;">and Germany's Angela Merkel</span> -- look pale and tired by comparison, and both face difficult elections in the next two years.<br /></div></span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[SO MUCH FOR THE ADVICE OF VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDEN! HE'S NOT ONE OF THE MENTORS MENTIONED HERE!! DO THEY KNOW SOMETHING THAT THAT AMERICANS DON'T??]</span></strong></div><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The two men's similarities are striking.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Like Obama, Sarkozy has managed to build a brilliant political career that has overcome his "outsider" status as the son of an immigrant father. Like Obama, Sarkozy exudes missionary fervor. Like Obama, Sarkozy presides over ample reserves of innovative thinking. </span></strong>The potential list of issues on which both men would like to spend time could hardly be wider-ranging.<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Reforming the International Monetary Fund? <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Expanding public spending on infrastructure? </span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Improving coordination between the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank? Establishing new mechanisms for banking supervision? Safeguarding domestic companies against aggressive sovereign wealth funds? <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Whatever the questions, the Sarkozy & Obama combination can be relied upon to come up with the answers.<br /></div></span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify">All these topics can be expected to make the agenda when Sarkozy attends the planned world economic summit to be convened by George W. Bush and his designated successor on Nov. 14 in Washington. A fine opportunity to put the world to rights.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">With the right kind of American at his side, Sarkozy can escape the cares of recession, high unemployment and low competitiveness at home, and open up a new front for an improved transatlantic alliance in a troubled world.<br /></div></span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THEY CALL THIS DIVERTING THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION AND/OR RUNNING AWAY FROM ONE'S PROBLEMS, WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRAVENES FRENCH EXISTENTIAL THINKING. MONSEIUR SARKOZY: RAPPELEZ-VOUS HUIS CLOS/NO EXIT??]</span></strong></div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Exit"><strong>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Exit</strong></a><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff99ff;">The stuff of dreams -- and there's just a chance that the anticipated new bond between Paris and Washington will last longer than a honeymoon period. </span></strong></div><br /><br /><em>David Marsh is chairman of London and Oxford Capital Markets. The Marsh on Monday column appears in German in the newspaper Handelsblatt.</em><br /><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br /><div align="justify"><a href="http://blogs.chron.com/beltwayconfidential/2008/07/sarkobama.html">http://blogs.chron.com/beltwayconfidential/2008/07/sarkobama.html</a></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">SARKOBAMA!!!</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Beltway Confidential Houston Chronicle Blog</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">July 25, 2008</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">"The French love the Americans!"</span></strong> Sarko declared. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[???]</span></strong></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Barack Obama and a giddily enthused French President Nicolas Sarkozy had a joint presser in Paris today. Fun!</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">"I want to say to Barack Obama that the French have been following with passion the election campaign in the United States</span></strong>, because the United States are a great democracy and that it's fascinating to watch what's happening there, and because America, the America that France loves, is an America that is farsighted, that has ambitions, great debates, strong personalities," Sarkzoy said. "We need an America that is present, not absent. We need friends who are independent but who are true friends. And you have to know that here in Europe, here in France, we're watching with great interest what you're doing."</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />He added, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">"Of course, it's not up to the French to choose the next president of the United States of America." </span></strong><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sarkozy's passion for </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802245.html"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">jogging and all things American</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> -- including </span></strong><a href="http://blogs.chron.com/beltwayconfidential/2007/11/wise_men_say_only_fools_rush_i.html"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">President Bush</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> -- earned him the not-entirely flattering sobriquet <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">Sarko l'Americain </span></em>at home. So, perhaps he doesn't speak for all of France. But for Obama, it's enough.</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"I'm asking him what he eats so that I can find out how I can always have as much energy as this man beside me," Obama said of Sarkozy. "He is on the move all the time."<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">The two discussed Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, climate change and more. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">A reporter from AFP asked Obama whether it wasn't such a positive to be loved by France, noting it did little for John Kerry</span></strong> in 2004, and asked whether that's the reason Obama's visit to France was so brief.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"Well, the -- the truth is that the speech that I gave in Germany was hopefully speaking to a broad European audience, and <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">I hope that some of my friends in France were able to hear my desire for a strengthening relationship between the United States and Europe," Obama said</span></strong> (unconvincingly, we thought)<br /></div><div align="justify"><br />And, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/">Freedom fries and Freedom toast</a> notwithstanding:</div><br /><br />"I think the average American has enormous fondness for the French people. And I think people -- <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">people in France and people throughout Europe should not underestimate how much interest there is</span> in America in seeing the transatlantic relationship improving."</span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">Obama made reference to "my dear friend President Sarkozy"</span> and Sarkozy called him "my dear Barack Obama."</span></strong> <a href="http://blogs.chron.com/beltwayconfidential/2008/06/for_him_theres_vous_and_there.html">Poor Bushie</a> -- already yesterday's international love affair. Obama's the new flame.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Sniffed Sarkozy, "We're entitled to agree, are we not?" </div><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><div align="justify"><a style="COLOR: #00c; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://revue-republicaine.fr/spip.php?breve681">http://revue-republicaine.fr/spip.php?breve681</a></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sarkobama</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />samedi 26 juillet 2008<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Revue-Republicaine.fr</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Les republicaines and Gaullistes en ligne</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">A l’occasion de la venue de Barack Obama en France, Nicolas Sarkozy a prouvé une fois encore son étonnante capacité à faire feu de tout bois. Le candidat démocrate à la présidence américaine a consacré l’essentiel de sa tournée européenne à l’Allemagne, signe qu’il tient la France pour un partenaire bien secondaire ? Qu’à cela ne tienne, Nicolas Sarkozy n’a eu de cesse de souligner les « convergences » entre les deux côtés de l’Atlantique. Et d’afficher sa préférence pour le sénateur de l’Illinois, lequel ne s’est jamais privé de louer l’énergie et le dynamisme sarkoziens. Ce choix tient de la vile caresse de l’opinion dans le sens du poil, tant la campagne de presse pro-Obama tourne au bourrage de crâne [<a class="spip_note" id="nh1" title="[1] 80% des sondés préfèreraient Obama à John McCain !" href="http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:MZ9hXvZDZ3gJ:revue-republicaine.fr/spip.php%3Fbreve681+sarkobama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us#nb1" name="nh1">1</a>]. Petit plaisir supplémentaire pour Sarkobama, cette visite très médiatisée a permis au Président de la République de faire la nique aux socialistes qui, eux, ont été incapables d’organiser une rencontre avec un candidat dont ils se veulent les meilleurs représentants en France... Car si les Démocrates ont plus à voir avec le MoDem qu’avec le PS, il n’en demeure pas moins qu’avec son discours ampoulé, ses multiples changements de position, un positionnement politique indécis, Barack Obama tient plus de Ségolène Royal.<br />__________<br />[<a class="spip_note" title="Notes 1" href="http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:MZ9hXvZDZ3gJ:revue-republicaine.fr/spip.php%3Fbreve681+sarkobama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us#nh1" name="nb1">1</a>] 80% des sondés préfèreraient Obama à John McCain !</div><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br /><div align="justify"><a style="COLOR: #00c; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2008/07/sarkobama.html">http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2008/07/sarkobama.html</a></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sarkobama</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Posted by Arthur Goldhammer </div><br /><br /><div align="justify">French Politics Blog</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Saturday, July 26, 2008</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Barack Obama has come and gone from Paris, not without exposure to the irrepressible palpations of the French president</span></strong>, whose "energy" <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2008/07/25/17-heures-obama-accueilli-par-sarkozy-a-l-elysee_1077403_3222.html#ens_id=904503">evidently impressed </a>the American candidate. "What does he eat, what does he take?" Obama asked. Many French also wonder what their Energizer Bunny may be ingesting but take a rather less benign view of the consequences.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2008/07/25/barack-obama-a-paris-le-rendez-vous-manque-du-ps_1077434_3222.html#ens_id=904503"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">It has been reported</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"> that various Socialists sought a meeting with Obama but were eventually spurned, even though he agreed to meet with the opposition in Britain</span></strong>. I wouldn't read too much into this. French politics is largely opaque to Americans (my humble efforts notwithstanding), and to have singled out any particular Socialist pretender would have been to wade into a morass without obvious profit. I note that Obama for President HQ visited the French Politics site in the days before he left on his world tour. I would hate to think that my relatively positive view of Manuel Valls might have inspired the wacky idea of a meeting with the mayor of Evry, which Le Monde seems to think Obama's staff seriously contemplated. Would it be too much to suggest that such a meeting might have been comparable to a Sarko-Kucinich powwow during last summer's visit to Wolfeboro? I like Valls, but still, there are protocols to be observed in international relations. I can't believe this idea went very far. </div><br /><br />Posted by Arthur Goldhammer at <a class="timestamp-link" title="permanent link" href="http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2008/07/sarkobama.html" rel="bookmark">12:28 AM</a> <a title="Email Post" href="http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=9077113549693847021&postID=7254502845247907731"></a><a title="Edit Post" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=9077113549693847021&postID=7254502845247907731"></a><br />Labels: <a href="http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/search/label/presidency" rel="tag">presidency</a><br /><br /><a name="comments"></a><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">3 comments:</span></strong><br /><a name="c542614790884239308"></a></div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">1) <strong><em>Anonymous</em></strong> said... </div><br /><br />Actually, a prominent blogger-journalist shared with me in a private email that the real reason is even stupider and more benign that you would expect.<br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">The reason Barack Obama did not meet anybody from the French opposition is because the idea of meeting a "Socialist" was considered too risky in the context of DeLay and co trying to see the idea he is a closet Marxist</span>. The word was a huge roadblock for them. </strong>That was one of the considerations at play here although I am sure the fact there is no set leader did not help.<br /><a title="comment permalink" href="http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2008/07/sarkobama.html?showComment=1217048820000#c542614790884239308">July 26, 2008 1:07 AM </a></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><a name="c4141136613878282787"></a>2) <strong><em>Alain Q.</em></strong> said...<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">In view of above it is both ironic and appropriate that Valls himself has proposed that the PS drop the word " socialist" from its name...<br /><a title="comment permalink" href="http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2008/07/sarkobama.html?showComment=1217049600000#c4141136613878282787">July 26, 2008 1:20 AM </a><a title="Delete Comment" href="http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=9077113549693847021&postID=4141136613878282787"></a></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><a name="c9185416954116256391"></a>3) <strong><em>alexpri</em></strong> said... </div><br /><br /><strong>Well, it may be stupid that the Obama team felt he couldn't meet with a socialist, but Obama would have had to have been an idiot to do it. <span style="color:#ff0000;">There is no upside to such a meeting and obvious risk: the last thing Obama needs is Fox News talking about how he met with French socialists</span> (while refusing to visit wounded Americans in Germany…).</strong><br /><a title="comment permalink" href="http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2008/07/sarkobama.html?showComment=1217277960000#c9185416954116256391">July 28, 2008 4:46 PM </a><a title="Delete Comment" href="http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=9077113549693847021&postID=9185416954116256391"></a><br /><a name="links"></a><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br /><a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=1045413&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01">http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=1045413&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama et Sarkozy affichent leur complicité<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify">Article publié le 25 Juillet 2008</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Source : LE MONDE.FR Le Monde.fr, avec AFP et ReutersTaille de l'article : 708 motsExtrait :<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Les deux hommes ont tenu une conférence de presse commune pendant un peu moins d'une heure, au cours de laquelle ils ont affiché leur proximité. 18 h 55 : La conférence de presse s'achève, mettant fin à une visite éclair de deux heures de Barack Obama en France. Au-delà de quelques déclarations générales sur les grandes questions internationales, c'est la proximité affichée entre le candidat démocrate à l'élection présidentielle et Nicolas Sarkozy qui aura marqué cette entrevue. Proximité de parcours – ils ont tous deux rappelé être issus de l'immigration – et proximité de vues sur les grandes questions de politique étrangère. </div><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=1045406&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01">http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=1045406&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01</a></div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Barack Obama à Paris, le rendez-vous manqué du PS</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Article publié le 25 Juillet 2008<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">Source : LE MONDE.FR Thibaud VuittonTaille de l'article : 402 motsExtrait :<br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Les ténors de la gauche française avaient contacté l'équipe du candidat démocrate, aucun n'a réussi à s'inscrire sur son agenda européen. Si le système politique américain est bien différent du système français, la proximité entre le Parti démocrate de Barack Obama et l'UMP de Nicolas Sarkozy ne tombe toutefois pas sous le sens. Et même si la classe politique française, dans son ensemble, s'est entichée du sénateur de l'Illinois, les liens auraient pu paraître plus naturels entre le camp démocrate américain et le Parti socialiste français. Certains ténors du PS l'ont d'ailleurs bien compris et entendent s'inspirer de l'"Obamania" pour les échéances à venir. </div><a class="comment-link" id="Blog1_backlinks-create-link" href="http://www.blogger.com/" target="_blank"></a>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-29648370694319858722008-11-02T11:33:00.033-05:002008-11-27T13:46:29.373-05:00Will Socialist 'Change' Desired In Europe Become Part of the Evolving TransAtlantic Solidarity Agenda??<a href="http://ft.onet.pl/0,17657,europe8217s_socialists_should_look_to_obama,artykul_ft.html">http://ft.onet.pl/0,17657,europe8217s_socialists_should_look_to_obama,artykul_ft.html</a><br /><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Europe’s socialists should look to Obama</span></strong></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">By John Thornhill</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Financial Times</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">November 25, 2008</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">You have to hand it to France’s Socialist party. It may no longer be much good at winning elections but it boasts a rare genius for staging jaw-dropping political farce. If the futility of war has been likened to two bald men fighting over a comb then the ferocious electoral stand-off between the two candidates for the Socialist party’s leadership is akin to two well-coiffed women scrapping over a wig.<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br />Objectively (a word that appears to have disappeared from the socialists’ dictionary), there are few discernible political differences between Ségolene Royal and Martine Aubry. The fight is almost entirely about personality. That perhaps helps explain the extreme rancour of the contest, with neither candidate willing to concede defeat.<br /><br /><br />In the early hours of Saturday morning, the rival camps were desperately contesting votes from as far away as New Caledonia and Guadeloupe while trading accusations of electoral fraud and threats of lawsuits. Well might one French newspaper wonder whether PS (Parti socialiste) now stands for Parti suicidaire.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">The naive supposition would have been that this should be an ideal time to run a leftwing party, with capitalism in crisis and even free market champions such as Alan Greenspan, former US Federal Reserve chairman, admitting there has been something wrong with their conception of the economic universe. <span style="font-size:180%;">For years Europe’s socialists have been calling for stricter regulation of lawless capitalism and a fairer redistribution of the fruits of globalisation.</span> Should this not be their hour?<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">To be sure, many socialist parties in Europe have faced severe challenges in reinventing themselves following the collapse of the Berlin Wall. When the communist God failed it shook faith in minor deities such as socialism. The weakening of trade union membership in many countries has also removed an important institutional support.</span></strong><br /><br /><br />In the 85 legislative elections in Europe over the past decade the political right has won 52.4 per cent of the vote, with the left accounting for 44.5 per cent. In 2007 the right was in power in 16 of the European Union’s 27 member states. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">While many socialist leaders floundered to rethink their economic strategy, they channelled their radicalism into socio-cultural reforms. <span style="color:#33ff33;">Student leaders of the 1968 generation who often emerged to run these parties championed issues such as gender equality, gay marriage and environmentalism.<br /></span></span></strong><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Valid though these campaigns may have been, they were not the main focus of most working-class male voters who provided the bedrock of socialist parties during the 20th century. But these voters’ core concern – preserving their jobs and income – presented socialist parties with a big strategic conundrum. </span></strong></em>Should socialist parties be about defending the jobs and privileges of “insiders” in the workplace, particularly in the public sector? Or should they be about opening up opportunities for the “outsiders”, very often immigrants, part-time workers and women?<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Some socialist parties, in the UK and Spain for example, have found an answer. But the difficulty in resolving that dilemma elsewhere has led to a seepage of support towards extreme parties offering less ambiguous solutions. In Sweden the opposition Social Democratic party fears losing votes to the anti-immigrant right. In Germany the Social Democrats’ support is leaking to the anti-capitalist Linke party.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The broader worry for France is that the socialists’ psychodrama could turn into political tragedy. Few politicians are so in need of strong opposition as the headstrong President Nicolas Sarkozy. The absence of such opposition might further fuel extremist parties of which France has a bewildering choice.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">If they need inspiration Europe’s socialists should look to the one place they normally never seek it: the US. In spite of Republican claims, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Barack Obama</span> is no socialist. But he has just delivered a master class in political strategy that should educate all opposition parties.</span></strong> Three relevant lessons emerge. First, politicians must address their supporters’ core concerns. Second, they must compete for new supporters by emphasising change. Third, they should project an image of calm, non-ideological competence.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em><strong>The language of the market may not be very popular at the moment but it speaks to a fundamental political truth: the offer has to correspond to the demand. There is a huge demand for fresh, responsible, centre-left thinking and effective leadership across Europe. Can the political offer respond?</strong></em><br /><br /> <br />John Thornhill<br /><br />The writer is editor of the FT’s Europe edition</div><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/danish-scenario-outcome-eu-treaty-crisis/article-176799">http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/danish-scenario-outcome-eu-treaty-crisis/article-176799</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">'Danish' scenario 'most likely outcome' of EU Treaty crisis</span></strong><br /><br /><br />EurActiv.com<br /><br /><br />30 October 2008<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">A<em> 'Danish scenario' based on opt-outs from the EU's new Reform Treaty seems to be the most likely outcome of the stalemate following the failed referendum on the text in Ireland on 12 June, according to an Irish-based scholar writing for the Robert Schuman Foundation</em></div><br /><br />Background:<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">On 12 June, Irish voters rebuffed the Union's entire political class by giving a resounding 'no' to the draft Lisbon Treaty, throwing the EU into yet another political crisis.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Ireland was the only EU country to require ratification of the Lisbon Treaty through a nationwide referendum. This is due to a 1987 ruling by its Supreme Court, analysed in more detail in this article.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Laurent Pech, a lecturer at the Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law at the National University of Ireland, argues that whatever the legal arguments may be, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">at the end of the day, political considerations will determine the Irish government's decision on the way forward</span></strong>. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The scholar argues that from the legal point of view, the option of passing the Lisbon Treaty via parliamentary ratification was perfectly valid, but <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">politically unacceptable following a failed referendum. </span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In Pech's view, over the years the Irish government has submitted several EU treaties to popular vote without strong legal reasons for doing so, acting rather out of "tradition". </span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Past mistakes</span></strong><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Pech points to a controversial 1987 decision of the Supreme Court, which he says explains the intricacies of the Irish practice of submitting amended European treaties to referenda. Earlier that year, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">historian and social scientist Raymond Crotty launched legal action against the Irish government, aimed at dismissing the ratification by Parliament of the Single European Act, on the grounds that it contradicted the Irish constitution. By three votes to two, the Court ruled that Title III of the Single Act ran contrary to the Irish constitution</span></strong>, as it was judged to limit the country's sovereignty on foreign affairs issues. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The Single Act was finally put to popular vote to amend the Constitution, and the same procedure was later repeated later for further modifications of the EU treaties, despite the fact that ratification through parliament would have also been a valid option in cases where the Union's competences and objectives were not fundamentally changed, the scholar argues. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Indeed, except for the Maastricht Treaty, which established the European Union and introduced changes to the competences and the functioning of the Union, no referenda were needed to pass the Amsterdam and Nice treaties, Pech believes.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[???]</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">However, legal arguments carry little weight with the 'no' camp, which is adamant that the Lisbon Treaty introduces major changes to the functioning of the Union. As an overarching argument, the 'no' camp considers that if the Irish are unsure what they are voting for, they should reject the text. </span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">New situation<br /></span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">In the past, referenda passed relatively smoothly, the scholar argues. The Single European Act was approved by 69.9% in 1987, then the Masstricht treaty was adopted with 69.1% in 1992, followed by the Amsterdam Treaty with 61.7% in 1998. In 2002, the first Nice Treaty vote was negative, with 50.4% against after a low turnout of 34.8%, which helped to hold a successful revote the next year with 62.9% in favour, at a turnout of 49.5%. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#33cc00;">The problem following the failed Lisbon referendum, according to the author of the study, is that </span><span style="color:#33cc00;">the turnout was high (53.13%)</span>. Moreover, <span style="color:#ff0000;">external interference, such as an alleged incitation last July by French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the Irish to re-vote</span> (</span></strong><a onclick="javascript:urchinTracker('/Links/www_euractiv_com_en_future-eu_ireland-quietly-seething-sarkozy-remarks_article-174291');" href="http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/ireland-quietly-seething-sarkozy-remarks/article-174291" target="_blank"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">EurActiv 16/07/08</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">), has <span style="color:#ff0000;">strengthened the 'no' camp, Pech writes.</span></span></strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"> </span></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Likely scenarios</span></strong><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) Joint Committee on the Constitution is already exploring the option of passing the Lisbon Treaty via parliament.</span></strong> Meeting on October 23, the committee agreed to review the framework governing the referendum process. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">As part of its review, "it will examine whether referendums are constitutionally required or if a supra-majority of both Houses of the Oireachtas could change the Constitution". </span></strong></em></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />But <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Pech rejects the option of passing the Lisbon Treaty via parliamentary vote as "unrealistic" as it would amount to lawmakers disregarding the sovereign will of the people.</span></strong> But <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#000099;">he thinks it is possible for the Irish government to obtain a "Lisbon Plus" treaty from its European partners which would survive another referendum. </span><em><span style="color:#000099;">This would involve adding an additional text to the present treaty (a European Council declaration, for instance), to argue that it was not exactly the same treaty that the Irish rejected on 12 June.</span></em></span></strong> </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The scholar does not expect the Irish Government to ask the Supreme Court to rule on whether the Lisbon Treaty is compatible with the Irish Constitution. This would be risky, in his view, since the Court, seen by the author as conservative and nationalist, may be tempted to humiliate the government by issuing a negative assessment</span></strong>. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">The most realistic scenario, according to Pech, is a "Danish scenario" (Denmark negotiated four opt-outs from the Masstricht Treaty,</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">following its rejection in a 1992 referendum).</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">In the case of Ireland, these opt-outs could include a right of derogation from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and defence agreements. </span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"It is possible that such a manoeuvre would convince sceptics that the [Lisbon] Treaty will not require the Irish to die for Georgia or for their country to accept abortion," Pech writes. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">He adds that the package could include a deal on the size of the Commission, as a recent poll showed that the Irish want to keep their commissioner (</span></strong><a onclick="javascript:urchinTracker('/Links/www_euractiv_com_en_future-eu_study-reveals-irish-lisbon-treaty-anxieties_article-175232');" href="http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/study-reveals-irish-lisbon-treaty-anxieties/article-175232" target="_blank"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">EurActiv 10/09/08</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">). </span></strong></div><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/sarkozy-accused-hijacking-czech-eu-presidency/article-176688">http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/sarkozy-accused-hijacking-czech-eu-presidency/article-176688</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sarkozy accused of hijacking Czech EU Presidency</span></strong><br /><br /><br />EurActiv.com<br /><br /><br />27 October 2008<br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Weakened by electoral defeat over the weekend (24-25 October), the survivor Czech government came under attack from eurosceptic President Vaclav Klaus, who accused France of planning to "siphon" the Czech EU Presidency in the first half of 2009</span></strong></em></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Just days after it survived a no-confidence vote in Parliament (<a onclick="javascript:urchinTracker('/Links/www_euractiv_com_en_opinion_czech-survivor-cabinet-hopes-lead-eu_article-176604');" href="http://www.euractiv.com/en/opinion/czech-survivor-cabinet-hopes-lead-eu/article-176604" target="_blank">EurActiv 23/10/08</a>), the Czech ruling coalition led by the Civic Democrats (ODS) of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek suffered a setback over the weekend, losing its majority in the Senate. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />A third of the 81 senate seats are up for election every two years in the Czech Republic, and Topolanek's ODS won just three of the 26 seats that were up for grabs. It still has 35 seats, but lost its majority of 41, while the opposition Social Democrats now have 29 from only six before the polls.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Topolanek's government, which comprises his Civic Democratic Party (ODS), the Christian Democrats (KDU-CSL) and the Greens (SZ), does not have a majority in Parliament and relies on a dozen independent MPs. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">President Vaclav Klaus, who is co-founder of the ODS, attacked his prime minister over the "arrogance" of his governance.</span></strong> He also hinted at the possibility of his being replaced, comparing the political developments to the situation of Sparta Praha football club, which changed coach after a series of defeats. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Klaus also lashed out at French President Nicolas Sarkozy for allegedly planning to "siphon" the Czech EU Presidency, which is set to begin on 1 January 2009. Klaus used the term "siphon", which in the Czech political vocabulary refers to the depletion of national resources in the early 1990s after the fall of Communism.<br /></div></span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify">But Klaus added that for a small country, the EU presidency was of little importance. In his words, the big decisions are made by France, Germany, Great Britain and Italy. <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">He added that these were the same countries "who wrote the Munich agreements" that allowed Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia in 1938. </span></strong></em></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"It's driving me mad that they [the government of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek] want to ratify the Lisbon Treaty and climate change," Klaus said on national television. Klaus is known for his opposition to the view that climate change is a result of human activity.</span> </strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The Czech press writes that Topolanek's post of prime minister is under threat and that the country may face early elections, to be held together with European elections in June 2009. The future of the Lisbon Treaty ratification is also in dount. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">On 10 November, the Constitutional Court will make its position known, following questioning by the Senate as to the reform treaty's conformity with the Czech constitution. </span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br /><div align="justify"><a href="http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=node/6306">http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=node/6306</a></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Legally binding social progress clause required in existing EU treaties</span></strong> </div><br /><br /><div align="justify">EurActiv.com</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">October 21, 2008</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">"Workers across Europe have a right to decent work, to equality. They have a right to organise, agitate, and campaign to improve their lot at work. They have a rightful expectation that the law should recognise and vindicate these rights", said Irish GUE/NGL MEP Mary Lou McDonald during a debate in the European Parliament this morning. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />She was speaking on the Anderson report, a Parliamentary report which looks at the challenges to collective agreements in the EU in the wake of a series of European Court of Justice rulings on labour law. "These rulings, said MEP McDonald "represent an audacious attack on these basic rights. They have given the green light to the wholesale exploitation of workers. They are a reflection of the legal staus quo, a reflection of the fact that when workers' rights collide with rules of competion, the rule of competition prevails."</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />MEP McDonald expressed disappointment at the report which she said avoided calling for the changes to the EU Treaties. The call for treaty change was "deliberately and cynically" removed from the first draft, despite overwhelming calls from the Trade Union movement across Europe for a Social Progress Clause to be inserted in the Treaties, she explained.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"The vulnerability of workers' rights was one of the main reasons for the Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty. If any new Treaty is to be acceptable then it must ensure adequate protection for workers." she said.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />"We now have an opportunity to insist that the Treaties include a binding Social Progress Clause or Protocol. If the amendments to this effect do not pass today, the European Parliament will have taken another step away from the people we purport to represent will have let them down," she concluded. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">"Trust in binding social legislation in the EU can only be achieved if fundamental social rights are defined as primary law," said German GUE/NGL MEP Gabi Zimmer.</span></strong> "The judgements referred to in this report give priority to the single market freedoms and I regret that we do not send a stronger signal to the Council, the Commission, the ECJ and the Member States and that we only demand a balance between fundamental rights and these freedoms." </div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">"Basic social rights are human rights," said MEP Zimmer. "How do we, as Members of Parliament, accept that these human rights are restricted by the freedoms accorded to the EU internal market?" she asked. </span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">"We are talking here about the defence and improvement of the European Social Model so it is high time to implement a legally binding social progress clause in the existing treaties of the EU," MEP Zimmer concluded.</span></strong> </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />GUE/NGL Press</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Gianfranco Battistini +32 475 64 66 28</div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Gay Kavanagh +32 473 842 320<a title="www.guengl.eu" href="http://www.guengl.eu/">http://www.guengl.eu/</a><br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Source:<br /><a href="http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=node/1396">Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left</a><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><a href="http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=source/1396">http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=source/1396</a></div><br /><div align="justify">Source: <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left</span></strong></div><br /><br /><p align="justify">Active in: <a class="source" href="http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=node/219/392">Section EU Treaty & Institutions</a>The GUE/NGL Group in the European Parliament is made up of 41 MEPs from 17 political parties in 13 European countries. As the name indicates, it is a confederal group where each component party retains its own identity and policies while pooling their efforts in pursuit of common political objectives.<br /></p><br /><br /><p>Latest Press Releases:<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><a class="Title" href="http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=node/6306">Legally binding social progress clause required in existing EU treaties </a><br />"Workers across Europe have a right to decent work, to equality. They have a right to organise, agitate, and campaign to improve their lot at work. They have a rightful expectation that the law should [...]<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p><a href="http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=node/6047">http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=node/6047</a></p><br /><p><a href="http://www.gue-ngl.org/showPage.jsp?ID=6665&AREA=27&HIGH=1">http://www.gue-ngl.org/showPage.jsp?ID=6665&AREA=27&HIGH=1</a></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Start acting for a social Europe!</span></strong></p><br /><p>EurActiv.com</p><br /><p>9 October 2008</p><br /><p align="justify">Source: <a href="http://pr.euractiv.com/?q=source/1396">Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left</a>Section: <a class="termsource" href="http://pr.euractiv.com/?node/219/415">Social Europe</a><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">My report on social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty in the EU, adopted by the European Parliament today, sends a strong message to the Council and the Commission: Start acting for a social Europe!"</span></strong>,</span> said GUE/NGL MEP Gabi Zimmer (Germany).<br /></p><p> </p><p>The report recommends concrete measures and EU-wide targets to <em><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>reduce and eradicate </strong><span style="font-size:100%;">poverty</span><strong> </strong><span style="font-size:100%;">and</span><strong> social exclusion. [???]</strong></span></em><br /></p><p align="justify"><br />MEP Zimmer expressed her satisfaction with the outcome of today's vote - 540 of the 629 MEPs present voted in favour of her report. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">"The Parliament urges the Council to agree an EU target for minimum wages (statutory, collective agreements at national, regional or sectoral level) to provide for remuneration of at least 60% of the relevant (national, sectoral, etc.) average wage. </span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The Parliament also calls on the Council to agree an EU target for minimum income schemes and contributory replacement income schemes providing income support of at least 60% of national median equalised income.</span></strong> Setting such targets is not an instrument for harmonisation - each Member State is free to choose how to implement these. But it is a strong signal that the basic social safety net and also minimum wages should allow for incomes that prevent poverty", she concluded. </p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The report calls for support measures to facilitate social inclusion e.g. in housing, education, training, and lifelong learning</span></strong> plus targeted additional benefits for disadvantaged groups (people with disabilities or chronic diseases, lone parents or households with many children). It also calls for child poverty to be reduced by 50% by 2012, and an EU-wide commitment to end street homelessness by 2015.</p><br /><p align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><a href="http://cms.horus.be/files/99931/Newsletter/draft-report-social-inclusion-Zimmer.pdf">http://cms.horus.be/files/99931/Newsletter/draft-report-social-inclusion-Zimmer.pdf</a></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong>EU PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS</strong></p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">DRAFT REPORT: </span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">on Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the EU</span></strong><br /></p><br /><p align="justify">(2008/2034(INI))<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Rapporteur: Gabriele Zimmer</p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify">2008/2034(INI) 10.4.2008 (April 10, 2008)</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">A more holistic approach to active social inclusion</span></strong></em><br /></p><br /><p align="justify">1. Welcomes the Commission’s approach to active inclusion; considers that the overarching aim of active inclusion policies must be to implement fundamental rights in order to enable people to live in dignity and participate in society as well as the labour market;<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">2. Agrees with the Commission that a more holistic approach to active inclusion should be based on common principles:<br /></span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">(a) <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Income support sufficient to avoid social exclusion: Minimum income schemes, related benefits and social assistance must be easily accessible and provide sufficient resources to lift people out of poverty and prevent social exclusion;</span></strong> active inclusion policies must promote greater equity of social protection systems and also provide specific flanking measures (e.g. rehabilitation, training, counselling, childcare, housing, language training for migrants, support services) to enable people to lead a dignified life;</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />(b) Link to inclusive labour markets: Active inclusion policies must aim at creating stable and secure high-quality employment, improving the quality of jobs, providing specific support measures and services to accompany people into employment and promoting job retention, providing high-quality education, vocational training, further training and lifelong learning;</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />(c) Link to better access to quality services: The accessibility, affordability and quality of essential services - social services, services of general (economic) interest - must be strengthened in order <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">to promote social and territorial cohesion, guarantee fundamental rights and ensure a decent existence especially for the vulnerable and disadvantaged groups of society</span></strong>;</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />(d) Gender mainstreaming, anti-discrimination and active participation: <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Active inclusion policies</span></strong> must ensure the promotion of gender equality and contribute to the elimination of discrimination in all three pillars mentioned above; good governance, participation and integration of all relevant actors must be promoted by directly involving those affected by poverty and social exclusion, as well as social partners and non-governmental organisations, in the development, management, implementation and evaluation of strategies;</p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Guaranteeing sufficient income to ensure a dignified life for all</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">3. Points out that there are still Member States in the EU-27 which do not have schemes providing for minimum wages as a default in place;</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />4. Agrees with the Commission that social assistance levels are already below the at-risk-of poverty line in most Member States; insists that the central objective of income support schemes must be to lift people out of poverty and enable them to live in dignity;<br /></p><br /><p align="justify">5. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Calls on the Council to agree on an EU target for minimum income schemes and contributory replacement income schemes of providing income support of at least 60 % of national median equalised income</span></strong> and on a timetable as to when this target shall be achieved by all Member States;<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">6. Considers that poverty in employment must be properly addressed; recalls that remuneration in general and especially minimum wages – regardless whether they are of a statutory nature or collectively agreed – must prevent income poverty in any event; </p><br /><p align="justify"><br />7. Calls on the Council to agree on an EU target for minimum wages <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">(statutory, collective agreements at national, regional or sectoral levels) to provide for a remuneration of at least 60 % of the respective (national, sectoral etc.) average wage</span></strong> and on a timetable for when that target is to be achieved in all Member States;</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />8. Considers that schemes providing for minimum wages must be <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">complemented by supportive measures for social inclusion, e.g. on housing, education, training, re-training and lifelong learning and income support schemes</span></strong>, to cover the costs to individuals and households...</p><br /><p align="justify">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/about">http://www.solidarity-us.org/about</a></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">About Solidarity</span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">WHAT IS SOLIDARITY AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM?</span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Solidarity is an independent socialist organization dedicated to forming a broad regrouping of the U.S. left.</span></strong> We include activists from many long-standing socialist traditions, as well as younger members from newer movements. We do not attempt to put forward a monolithic platform which we all have adapted to; rather, we rely on the richness of our traditions and the creativity and newer experiences of our younger members to foster and develop a forward-looking socialist thought. </p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Solidarity was founded in 1986 by revolutionary socialists who stand for "socialism from below," the self-organization of the working class and oppressed peoples.</span></em></strong> We are feminist, anti-racist, and democratic. Within our group, we are trying to foster cultural diversity, flexible practice, and straight-forward socialist politics.<br /></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">We are activists in many grassroots movements. We are members of unions, where we oppose corporations as well as bureaucratic "business unionism." We are involved in solidarity with the people of Central and South America, Indonesia, Iraq, the Balkans, Palestine, and many other countries, where we fight against U.S. aggression and imperialism.</span></strong> We work for reproductive rights and other feminist demands. We fight for an ecologically balanced society. We support the struggles of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender activists. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">We include activists of color and we work in solidarity with people of color organized independently fighting for dignity and power and self determination.<br /></span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">In these movements, we try to build broad coalitions, organize the unorganized, activate the apathetic, develop ties between movements and strengthen the rank-and-file democracy. </p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">We argue against participation in the Democratic Party, which has been the graveyard of radical movements, and promote the idea of a new, independent political party.<br /></span></em></strong></p><br /><p align="justify">We see Solidarity as a contribution to a new U.S. left, one neither sectarian nor reformist. We advocate a new, creative politics with an attitude of openness and collaboration.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Solidarity's politics are summarized below in our 12 Points of Agreement (also found at the back of the Founding Statement).<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">This is obviously an "in a nutshell" description. For more background, check out our <a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/foundingstatement">Founding Statement</a> (<a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/spfoundingstatement">En Español</a>), <a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/atc">Against the Current Magazine</a> and some of our <a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/publications">pamphlets and working papers</a>.<a name="12points"></a><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">BASIS OF POLITICAL AGREEMENT(as amended in 2004)<br /></span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Capitalism is an outmoded social system now deep in crisis. This crisis is producing a declining standard of living and an escalating drive toward war.</span> This crisis is the unavoidable outcome of capital's most basic drives. <span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">Humanity will only be freed</span> from the barbarism of war, environmental devastation, poverty, unemployment and declining living standards for millions <span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">when capitalism has been displaced by a rational, planned, democratic, and participatory economic system: socialism.</span> </span></strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Socialism is the political and economic rule of the working class, in which the means of production are under the social ownership of the working class, which democratically plans economic life. The working class organizes its political and economic rule through councils of workers and popular representatives, freely chosen among a variety of organized working class and popular parties. Socialism can only be achieved by a revolutionary mass political movement of the working class which ends the political rule of the capitalist class and private ownership of the means of production. </span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The aim of this organization is to build a revolutionary socialist movement in the working class and allied sectors of the oppressed. Membership is open to all who share our principles and work toward achieving them.</span></em></strong> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The capitalist parties, especially the <span style="font-size:180%;">Republican and Democratic parties</span>, are fundamentally anti-working class, racist and sexist. We oppose any form of participation in or support for these parties. We call for the working class and its allies to form a new, independent political party that fights for their needs. </span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The capitalist crisis has set in motion an employers' offensive that necessitates national and international labor solidarity as well as organizing the unorganized.</span></strong> The labor bureaucracy for the most part acts as a brake on labor action. We therefore support all efforts to transform the unions into militant vehicles, including rank and file groupings within the unions as well as coalitions against concessions and strike support committees.Racial and national oppression divide the working class and create poverty and misery for millions. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We join in the fight against racism, such as the struggle for affirmative action, and support the efforts of oppressed national minorities to organize independently for their liberation.</span></strong> We fight for women's liberation, and for women's equality today. The oppression of women within the family and in society divides the working class, keeps women's wages low and burdens women unequally in the task of social reproduction. We are supporters of lesbian and gay liberation, of their struggles for civil rights and against all forms of anti-gay bigotry. We support, as with all oppressed groups, the efforts of gays and lesbians to organize independently for their liberation.</p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We are internationalists. We support movements for self-determination and national liberation throughout the world and the struggles of workers for better living standards and social and political power everywhere. Whatever may be our differing theoretical analyses of any particular struggle, we are unconditional defenders of movements for genuine trade unionism and workers' democracy.</span></strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify">We actively oppose the growing drive towards war, whether that be in the form of intervention in Central America, the Middle East or elsewhere, or the buildup of the U.S. war machine. We fight for unilateral disarmament in the U.S. and, at the same time, we extend our solidarity to the independent peace movements of Eastern Europe. Toward these ends we are committed to building an effective revolutionary socialist organization in the U.S. capable of acting together without presenting a monolithic face to the world or engaging in pretenses of being "the vanguard."<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Solidarity is an independent socialist organization dedicated to forming a broad regrouping of the U.S. left.</span></strong> We include activists from many long-standing socialist traditions, as well as younger members from newer movements. We do not attempt to put forward a monolithic platform which we all have adapted to; rather, we rely on the richness of our traditions and the creativity and newer experiences of our younger members to foster and develop a forward-looking socialist thought",</p><br /><p align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </p><br /><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/obama">http://www.solidarity-us.org/obama</a></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Socialists and Barack Obama: Viewing An Historic Presidential Nomination</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">by Malik Miah</p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong>NOW THAT ILLINOIS Senator Barack Obama has become the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, what does it say about U.S. civil society?</strong> What stance should progressives and socialists take? </p><br /><p></p><br /><p align="justify">When Obama crossed that 2118-delegate threshold with the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota, all African Americans—Democrats, Republicans, independents and even socialists—understood the meaning of a son of a African immigrant from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, to get this far in American politics. Martin Luther King, Jr., may have had a "Dream” that it could happen, but few believed it could occur in the lifetime of those who marched in Selma. </p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">An Important Discussion</span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify">In the previous issue of Against the Current (ATC 134) I explained why Obama’s campaign was an important indicator of changes in U.S. society. At the same time, I noted that racism is still alive and well as reflected in the virulent attack on Obama’s former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I particularly explained the fact that Obama did not immediately throw Wright under the bus when Wright used old fashioned Black Nationalist rhetoric to criticize U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Obama’s Philadelphia speech on the history of race relations was noteworthy coming from a major capitalist politician having a chance to become president.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In response to my article in the May-June issue, which included a look at the history of Black Liberation Theology</span></strong>, some on the left felt my stance implied sympathy for lesser evilism – perhaps that saying independents and socialists should embrace and engage the supporters of Obama, especially his young backers, was a move toward supporting a candidate of one of the major Big Business parties which have a global policy of neocolonialism and neoliberalism. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify">Nothing could be further from the truth. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Rather, the Obama ascendancy reflects some fundamental changes in society that must be recognized by those of us seeking a working class government and state. </span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The societal changes are based on the victory of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. We are not in a “colorblind” society as the neoconservatives pretend. The fact that most of his supporters, and Obama himself, is a by-product of an era where most young people freely mingle with other races and ethnic groups is new.</span></strong> </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Most believe a Black man or a woman can be elected president is a direct result of real changes. They are not simply cosmetic or temporary. At the same time, racism is a daily occurrence for the typical Black person. A tall Black man walking down the street who is not known still strikes some fear in many. Going into an all white area where a Black person is not known strikes a similar response. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify">However, what’s “new” is you can now do that without necessarily being attacked or arrested. An African American can now move into those neighborhoods if you have the wealth to do so. </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The power structure, of course, is still controlled by white men.</span></strong> </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">But the rise of a middle class of all races is real. The fact that Hillary Clinton received 18 million votes and had a fervent following of women who grew up in the second wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, means young women believe a woman can now become commander in chief of the United States. </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert observes in a June 7 column, “Savor the moment,” that 40 years ago, the same year that Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy were both assassinated, “The notion in ’68 that a Black person — or a woman — might have a serious shot at the presidency would have been widely viewed as lunacy.” He adds, “A Black man president? You must be joking.” A woman as president? “According to the National Organization for Women, in a statement of purpose issued in 1966, fewer than 1 percent of all federal judges were women, fewer than 4 percent of all lawyers, and fewer than7 percent of doctors,” Herbert notes. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sexism and racism are still prevalent. But the real progress is evident everywhere</span></strong> — the majority of medical school graduates are now women, and there are many women on Fortune 500 Boards and officers, and dozens of women in the Senate and House. These positive changes must be acknowledged. </p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">My Stance — Positive Opposition</span></strong></p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">The reality is young people have been galvanized by the Obama phenomenon. The stance toward Obama thus should be of <em><span style="color:#cc0000;">positive opposition, not “critical support”</span></em> as some progressive Black leaders have advocated.</span></strong> </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">I cannot vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate, as each party represents the policies of the ruling class. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">As a socialist, it is not possible to vote for an African American or woman as the head of either party that is responsible for wars of aggression and occupation</span></strong> in Afghanistan or Iraq and threatens Iran and Palestine. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">I firmly believe we need to build a mass labor party and political party of the left that can defend the true interest of working people. <span style="color:#3333ff;">I reject “critical support” to Obama for that reason.</span></span></strong><span style="color:#3333ff;"> </span></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">But since we don’t yet have the labor or mass left party, and we don’t have mass social movements or a large-scale active antiwar movement, the challenge is to raise the class issues in the context of the electoral arena. How?</span></strong> </p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">It means <span style="color:#3333ff;">positively engaging the Obama supporters</span> and campaign on the broad agenda issues. It means attending the campaign’s events and talking to the young supporters about upcoming rallies against the war, solidarity with striking workers, and for single payer health care.</span></strong> Electing the first African American president, like electing the first Black mayors 40 years ago, is relative progress but not a solution to underlying class and social issues. That’s why the campaigns of progressive third parties are important electorally. </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">But for me the stance of attacking Obama as a Democrat</span>, quoting Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech, and going all out for a small socialist group's campaign on ideological grounds, or for the Green Party campaign of Cynthia McKinney or the “independent” candidacy of Ralph Nader, <span style="color:#ff0000;">is not the most effective way to influence those who will become disillusioned.</span></span></em></strong> While I will likely vote for one of these options (even though pure electoralism is not the road to mass independent working class action), <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">I consider the priority to be positive engagement with Obama supporters</span></strong>. The challenge is to recognize history in the making while not moving away from the goal of a mass labor party and working-class based government.</p><br /><br /><p align="justify">The challenge is to recognize history in the making while not moving away from the goal of a mass labor party and working-class based government.</p><br /><p align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </p><br /><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1469">http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1469</a></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Reverend Wright and Black Liberation Theology</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">— Malik Miah<br /></p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify">THE GROUNDSWELL OF broad <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">support for Barack Obama</span></strong> (both among Blacks and whites) is a phenomenon that deserves a serious analysis and understanding. <strong><em>It cannot be down played by passing it through the lens of pure-and-simple lesser-evilism.</em></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Some radicals dismiss the mass phenomenon, because Obama is a candidate of a ruling-class party. That simplistic rejection of Obama’s campaign and its mass support is sectarian:</span></strong> The issue isn’t whether to vote for a Democrat, but rather our response to a development that is having a wide-scale impact. How many times, in state after state, have we ever seen citizens of all races line up for hours to hear an African-American man talk about “hope,” on a platform that is fundamentally no different than his opponents?<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">While I do sympathize with those activists choosing the Green party campaign of Cynthia McKinney or the “independent” Ralph Nader for their more progressive political program, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">I believe progressives and socialists should focus our attentions on critically engaging Obama supporters, identifying with their desire for a “new type of politics and direction for the country”</span></strong> — while explaining that Obama is no answer to stop the aggressive wars of U.S. imperialism.</p><p align="justify"><br /> </p><p align="justify">In that spirit of critical engagement, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">an objective evaluation of Obama’s support, and why it’s grown, is instructive.<br /></p></span></strong><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Mass Appeal Beyond Electoralism</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">The mass sentiment for the Obama campaign represents more than pure electoralism. It indicates a possible shift in political consciousness, which can either lead to broad-scale disillusionment or begin to awaken the new young generation to engage in more radical politics when the first African-American president acts like all his predecessors in defending the imperial state.</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br /><strong><em>The Obama phenomenon is a result of fears and frustrations, and of hopes that the country can be better</em></strong>. Most Blacks, of course, are excited by an unprecedented possibility of a “Black president.” Others, including many white workers, are fed up with standing still or going backward as the country enters a recession. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Obama taps these multiple anxieties. His mass rallies show the desire for change.</span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The “messiah effect” is why Obama could take on the issue of “race and racism” in the way he did on March 18 in Philadelphia.</span></strong> It’s appropriate to look at that speech and fallout — some 40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. — to see the complexities of racial progress.</p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Outstanding Speech</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">As a Democrat and mainstream politician, Obama’s speech was far superior to what anyone on the left or the country likely expected. Some have criticized it for not analyzing the institutional racism deeply embedded in capitalism — another case of looking much too narrowly at what Obama means for tens of millions of people.</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />Overall, this was an outstanding speech. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Obama refused to throw his former Chicago minster, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, under the moving bus for Wright’s sermon outlining the history of violence by the rulers of the United Stares.</span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"><br />(It should be noted that Obama later told the ABC daytime talk show, The View: “Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and was inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country — for all its flaws — then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church.”)</p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The speech’s significance, however, is</span></strong> not what he said or didn’t say about Rev. Wright. It is the fact <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">that Obama dared to elaborate on the topic to a national audience even if it hurt his chances to win the presidential nomination or to be elected in November</span></strong>. It confirmed to his followers and detractors alike that he is a different kind of mainstream politician.<br /></p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong>Obama outlined the origins of American racism</strong> from the dawn of English colonialism and Independence to the present — the slave trade, chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation and the racism still prevalent in society, especially among many whites who speak and act certain ways in private, not necessarily consciously but because of cultural upbringing.<br /></p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify">Obama told the story of his white Kansas grandmother, who feared Black men even though she loved him. These honest views are felt by all ethnic groups. Everyone has similar family contradictions.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Obama did not discuss institutional discrimination and disadvantages that “people of color” still face for simply being Black, Latino, Native American or Asian — something a white person has never experienced. That discrimination is why some employment and other opportunities are not offered, or the benefit of the doubt not given, by a mostly white male-dominated power structure.</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />Yet he went further than I expected, which is the only way to view his comments on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and racial politics. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It’s why what he said about Wright rang true to the audience:<br /></span></strong><br /></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">“Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation [of Rev. Wright’s ‘divisive’ comments] are not enough.... But the truth is that isn’t all that I know of the man.<br /></span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.... who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community (by) housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS…</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />“Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />I can no more disown him than I can disown the Black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother....”<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Wright is No Hatemonger [???]</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Reverend Jeremiah Wright is no “hatemonger” as slandered by the right and many Clinton supporters. He did not give a “hate” speech. His sermons are, in fact, in the best tradition of Black Liberation Theology.</span></strong><br /><br /></p><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Read what Rev Wright (now retired) said in his now infamous December 2007 speech:</span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"><br />“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, and the Navajo. Terrorism.<br /></p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify">“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, and non-military personnel,” he preached.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“We bombed the Black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. ‘Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.’ [This is a reference to the seldom-quoted final two verses of Psalm 137, which was Rev. Wright’s text for this sermon on the dangers of revenge lust —ed.]<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go to work that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.<br />“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are [here the congregation joins in completing the sentence —ed.] coming home to roost.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador [a U.S. diplomat previously quoted in Wright’s sermon —ed.] said that y’all, not a Black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">True or false?</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">King’s Precedent</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">In 1967 and 1968, shortly before his assassination, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at the Riverside Church in New York City about the Vietnam War. This is what he said:<br /></p><p align="justify"><br />“The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.”</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />King called for the immediate end to this “madness.” In his 1968 speech at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, he returned to the theme:</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />“It is said on the Statue of Liberty that America is a home of exiles. It doesn’t take us long to realize that America has been the home of its white exiles from Europe. But it has not evinced the same kind of maternal care and concern for its Black exiles from Africa. It is no wonder that in one of his sorrow songs, the Negro could sing out, “Sometimes I feel like a motherless child.” What great estrangement, what great sense of rejection caused a people to emerge with such a metaphor as they looked over their lives.”</p><p> </p><p><br />He added:<br /></p><br /><p align="justify">“There are those, and they are often sincere people, who say to Negroes and their allies in the white community, that we should slow up and just be nice and patient and continue to pray, and in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out because only time can solve the problem.”<br /></p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify">“I think there is an answer to that myth. And it is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I’m absolutely convinced that the forces of ill-will in our nation, the extreme rightists in our nation, have often used time much more effectively than the forces of good will. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words of the bad people and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">“Somewhere we must come to see that social progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated Individuals. And without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. And so we must help time, and we must realize that the time is always right to do right.”<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Wright and King delivered the same message of truth.<span style="color:#cc0000;"> [???]<br /></span></span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">Black Liberation Theology</span></strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">This political mixture of the Black Christian church and militancy has deep origins in the African-American community. It is called “Black Liberation Theology.” It is rooted in Black Nationalism and the traditions of Black radicalism.</span></strong> It goes back to the resistance to slavery. The modern version arose during the civil rights movement. It basically combines the philosophy of the Black Christian church and Black Nationalism.</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />Supporters of the ideology of Black Liberation Theology believe that the system can be reformed and Blacks can bring themselves up by the bootstraps and become full equals in U.S. society. The advocates see a future where the poor can become middle class and CEOs of major corporations; and, of course, elected U.S. Senator or even President of the country — some day. One of the main intellectual articulators of the theory is the Rev. James Hal Cone of Arkansas.</p><br /><br /><p align="justify">As part of his theological analysis, Cone argues for God’s own identification with “Blackness.” He explains in A Black Theology of Liberation:<br /></p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify">“The Black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles Black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism...The Blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God’s own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering...Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity.” (63-64)<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Based on the preeminence of “Black experience,” Cone defines theology as “a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ.”<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Cone’s theology asks (and seeks to answer) the question, “What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless Black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?” His answer emphasizes that there is a very close relationship between Black theology and what has been termed “Black Power.”<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Black Power is a phrase that represents both Black freedom and Black self-determination “wherein Black people no longer view themselves as without human dignity but as men, human beings with the ability to carve out their own destiny.” Cone says Black theology is the religious counterpart of Black Power. “Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology.” And “while Black Power focuses on the political, social, and economic condition of Black people, Black Theology puts Black identity in a theological context.”<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Black Nationalists (self identified or not; few are today) — whether of the Booker T. Washington philosophy of seeking to reform the system, or the more militant Black power ideology of Marcus Garvey and the 1960s followers of Malcolm X — all argued that Blacks must pull themselves up and stand on their own two feet.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Wright’s United Church of Christ congregation includes middle-class Blacks like Obama but in the majority are poor and working class. Rev. Wright speaks to the reality of Black history and the subtle and actual racism that his typical church goer has experienced.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">His sermons are mainstream, and not anti-American — or against capitalism. He is a “patriot,” as Obama described; but he is the Black American version, who serves as a medic for the Marines, fights the wars and comes home to face racial discrimination!</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />To Rev. Wright there is no contradiction in condemning real racism and urging Blacks to take more personal responsibility for the problems of their community. This is not “radical” or “hate” speech. His criticisms are based on hard facts, not make-believe or white liberal conservative views of patriotism. Its that understanding that enables him to make the comparison between the U.S. empire today and that of the Roman era.<br /></p><br /><p align="justify">In Wright’s speech before the National Press Club, he identifed himself with Black Liberation Theology and pointed out that the attack on Obama and him by the corporate media and others is in reality an attack on the Black community.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Barack Obama, the former Chicago community organizer, learned his roots as a Black man at his wife’s church. He learned his internationalist outlook from his white mother, who worked among the poor in Indonesia. But he is not an advocate of Black Liberation Theology even though he listened to Wright for 20 years.</span></strong> That’s why he can say he never heard Wright speak the words he did last December. He did, and probably nodded in agreement — but as a mainstream presidential candidate with a chance of winning the presidency, of course, he must disassociate from Wright.<br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Those who expect otherwise are not realistic. The way he did so, by rejecting but not throwing Wright under the bus, was a nod to his youthful base and recognition of his historical roots in the Black community.</p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong>Obama is obviously aware of what is called the “Bradley effect” where a certain percentage of whites will never vote for an African American as president. </strong>(The Bradley factor refers to Tom Bradley, the African-American former mayor of Los Angeles, who had a double digit lead in the 1982 California governor’s election days before the vote. He then narrowly lost due to racial dynamics — whites telling pollsters one thing, and voting the opposite.)<br /></p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong>Barack Obama is also a strong proponent of modern day Black capitalism.</strong> He told Business Week (April 14 issue) that, “My opponents to the right like to paint me as this wild-eyed liberal. But I believe in the market. I believe in entrepreneurship.”</p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong>(Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson is one of most prominent advocates of the market system and Black capitalism. The concept of Black capitalism has evolved over the decades. It used to mean advocating an independent “Black economy” —- tied to the nationalist goal of “Black control of the Black community”</strong> — tapping the $800 billion spent by African Americans within the American economy. <strong><em>Today it means striving and believing it is possible to become a capitalist like Bill Gates.)</em></strong></p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />Ironically, there has been more success in gaining a foothold in big business then in the political arena where Obama is the only Black in the U.S. Senate. Several African Americans have become heads of major corporations. Forty years ago there were none. African American Stanley O’Neil, for example, was CEO of Merrill Lynch, one of the largest investment firms on Wall Street. His grandfather had been a slave.</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />Since the decline of the civil rights and Black Power movements in the 1970s, the conservative pro-big business wing dominates the discussion on improving the lives of African Americans. <strong>Traditional Black Nationalism, including those who reject “Black Capitalism,” has few advocates today.<br /></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong>What Next</strong><br /></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">If Obama happens to get the Democratic nomination and wins the presidency it can sharpen the debates even more. That’s good for society.</span></strong> The real test is yet to come when the Republican right launches its inevitable race-baiting. To this point, the integration of elite African Americans in business, media, the military and politics has made that less effective.</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />The most interesting aspect about the Obama campaign for me, and what should be for those on the left of the political spectrum, is the mass consciousness unfolding in front of our eyes in support of a “color blind” or nonracial society. It is evident in all 50 states where “race does not matter” the way it did in the past.</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"><br />Obama’s speech on race, and more importantly his campaign, has initiated a broad discussion about American history including its violence, racist past and why young people need to engage in politics. It could not happen if that change in attitudes weren’t taking place.</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />The left in particular should resist a sectarian response towards this unique mass phenomenon for Obama. The critical choice isn’t about voting for Obama, or even a third party alternative. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Progressive political consciousness at the end of the day is not primarily an intellectual transformation. For most, it occurs by joining struggles to end wars and occupations like Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting racism and ending economic inequalities</span></em></strong>.</p><br /><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">I for one think it is important to critically embrace those backing Obama’s campaign. It is not a betrayal of socialist principles to do so.<br /></span></strong></p><p align="justify">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </p><br /><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/obama">http://www.solidarity-us.org/obama</a></p><br /><p align="justify"><em><strong>Solidarity congratulates the Cynthia McKinney "Power to the People" presidential campaign on winning the <span style="color:#33ff33;">Green Party endorsement</span>. McKinney, a former Georgia congresswoman who joined the Green Party in 2007, is joined by hip-hop activist Rosa Clemente to form the first all woman of color presidential ticket in United States history. </strong></em><a href="http://www.runcynthiarun.org/ReconstructionManifesto" target="_blank"><em><strong>McKinney's platform</strong></em></a><em><strong> <span style="color:#cc0000;">includes withdrawal from Iraq, support for high labor standards, environmental justice, reparations, and resources for human needs such as education, housing, and health care.</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">Solidarity's National Committee</span> endorsed Cynthia McKinney in May. Get involved with the "Power to the People" campaign at </strong></em><a href="http://www.runcynthiarun.org/"><em><strong>runcynthiarun.org</strong></em></a></p><br /><p align="justify">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><br /><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.solidarity-us.org/mckinney_obama">http://www.solidarity-us.org/mckinney_obama</a></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Statement by Cynthia McKinney on the nomination of Barack Obama</span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"><strong><em>Statement by Cynthia McKinney, Power to the People Candidate for U.S. President, on the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's Presidential Candidate in 2008 (statement issued June 9, 2008)</em></strong> </p><br /><br /><p align="justify">On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton announced that her 2008 presidential bid is over, making Barack Obama the first-ever Black presidential nominee of a major party in the history of the United States. Congratulations to Senator Obama for achieving such a feat! </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">When I was growing up in the U.S. South in the racially turbulent 1960s, it would have been impossible for a Black politician to become a viable Presidential contender. Nothing a Black candidate could have done or said would have prevented him (or her) from being excluded on the basis of skin color alone. Many of us never thought we would see in our lifetime a Black person with a real possibility of becoming President of the United States. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify">The fact that this is now possible is a sign of some racial progress in this country, more than 40 years after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. But it is also a sign of the deep discontent among the American people, and particularly among African Americans, with the corporate-dominated, business-as-usual politics that has prevailed in Washington for too many years. </p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Coming from Barack Obama, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">the word "change"</span></strong> did not appear as just another empty campaign slogan. It galvanized millions of people --mostly young people--to register to vote and to get active in the political system. </p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><p align="justify">The U.S. political system needs the energy and vision of all is citizens participating in the political process. Citizen participation is always the answer. Senator Obama called for healing the wounds inflicted on working people and the poor in our country after eights years of a corrupt and criminal Bush-Cheney Administration. </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">Just as in November 2006, people full of an expectation for change, including those the system has purposefully left out and left behind, flocked to the polls to vote for Senator Obama. </p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Across a broad swath of the people of this country, and from those who are impacted by U.S. foreign policy, there is a real expectation, a real desire, for change.</span></strong> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p align="justify">While congratulating Senator Obama for a feat well done, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">I would also like to bring home the very real need for change and a few of the issues that must be addressed for the change needed in this country to be real. </span></strong></p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify">First of all, a few of the more obvious facts: <strong><span style="color:#000000;">United for a Fair Economy (UFE) produces studies each year on the anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. entitled, State of the Dream reports.</span></strong> UFE has found that on some indices the racial disparities that exist today are worse than at the time of the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. For example, infant mortality, where the overall U.S. world ranking falls below Cuba, Israel, and Canada. They also have found that, without a public policy intervention, it would take over 5,000 years to close the home ownership gap between blacks and whites in this country, especially exacerbated because of the foreclosure crisis disproportionately facing Blacks and Latinos today. They have found that it would take 581 years, without a public policy intervention, to close the racial gap in income in this country. UFE has found unacceptable racial disparities extant on economic, justice, and security issues. After analyzing the impact of the Democratic Party's "First 100 Hours" agenda upon taking the Congressional majority, UFE concluded in its 2007 report that Blacks vote in the Blue (meaning, they support Democrats in the voting booth), but live in the Red (they do not get the public policy results that those votes merit). And UFE noted that Hurricane Katrina was not even mentioned at all in the Congressional Democratic majority's 2007 First 100 hours agenda. <strong><span style="color:#000000;">United for a Fair Economy</span></strong> is not the only organization to find such dismal statistics, reflecting life for far too many in this country. </p><br /><br /><p align="justify">In a study not too long ago, <strong>Dr. David Satcher</strong> found that over 83,000 blacks died unnecessarily, due to racial disparities in access to health care and because of the disparate treatment blacks receive after access. <strong>A Hull House study</strong> found that the racial disparity in the quality of life of black Chicagoans and white Chicagoans would take 200 years to be eliminated without a public policy intervention. </p><br /><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong>The National Urban League</strong> in its annual "State of Black America" publication basically concludes that the United States has not done enough to close long-existing and unacceptable racial disparities. </p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong>The United Nations Rapporteur for Special Forms of Racism</strong>, Mr. Doudou Diene of Senegal, just left this country in an unprecedented fact-finding mission to monitor human rights violations in the United States. Dr. Jared Ball submitted to Diene on my behalf, my statement after the Sean Bell police verdict. The United Nations has already cited its concern for the treatment of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita survivors and the extrajudicial killings taking place across our country, that especially target Black and Latino males, and especially at the hands of law enforcement authorities. I hope it is clear that the desire for change is so deeply felt because it is deeply needed. </p><p align="justify"></p><br /><br /><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Politics, through public policy, can address all these issues and more in the favor of the people. We do not have to accept or tolerate such glaring disparities in our society</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">We do not have to accept or tolerate bloated Pentagon spending, unfair tax cuts, attacks on our civil liberties, and on workers' rights to unionize. We don't have to accept or tolerate our children dropping out of high school, college education unreachable because tuition is so high, or our country steeped in debt.</span></strong> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The 21st Century statistics for our country reflect a country that can still be characterized as Dr. King did so many years ago: the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet. It doesn't have to be that way. And the people know it.<br /><br /></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">I have accepted as the platform of <span style="color:#ff0000;">the Power to the People Campaign, the 10-Point Draft Manifesto of the Reconstruction Movement,</span> a grouping of Black activists who came together in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to advocate for public policy initiatives that address the plight of Blacks and other oppressed peoples in this country. Among its many specific public policy planks, <span style="color:#ff0000;">the Draft Manifesto</span> calls for:<br /></span></strong></p><br /><ul><br /><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">election integrity</span></strong>, if our vote is to mean anything at all, all political parties must defend the integrity of the votes cast by the American people, something neither of the major parties has done effectively in the past two Presidential elections;<br /><br /></div></li></ul><ul><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">funding a massive infrastructure improvement program</span></strong> that is also a jobs program that greens our economy and puts people to work, and especially in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, Hurricane survivors, treated as internally displaced persons whose right to vote and right of return are protected, play a meaningful role in the rebuilding of their communities;<br /><br /></div></li></ul><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>recognizing affordable housing as a fundamental human right</strong></span>, and putting a halt to the senseless destruction of public housing in New Orleans;<br /><br /></div></li></ul><ul><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">enacting Reparations for African Americans</span></strong>, so that the enduring racial disparities which reflect the U.S. government's failure to address the reality and the vestiges of slavery and unjust laws enacted can be ended and recognition of the plight of Black Farmers whose issues are still not being adequately addressed by USDA and court-appointed mediators despite a US government admission of guilt for systematic discrimination;<br /></div></li></ul><ul><br /><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">acknowledging COINTELPRO and other government spying and destabilization programs from the 1960s to today and disclosing the role of the US government in the harassment and false imprisonment of political activists in this country</span></strong>, including Mumia Abu-Jamal, the San Francisco 8, Leonard Peltier, including restitution to victims of government abuse and their families for the suffering they have long endured;<br /></div></li></ul><ul><br /><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">ending prisons for profit and the "war on drugs,"</span></strong> which fuels the criminalization of Black and Latino youth at home and provides cover for U.S. military intervention in foreign countries, particularly to our south, which is used to put down all social protest movements in countries like Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and elsewhere; </div></li></ul><ul><br /><br /><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">creating a universal access, single-payer, health care system and enacting a livable wage,</span></strong> equal pay for equal work, repealing the Bush tax cuts, and making corporations and the rich pay their fair share of taxes;<br /></div></li></ul><ul><br /><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">establishing public funding for higher education</span></strong>--no student should graduate from college or university tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt;<br /></div></li></ul><ul><br /><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">ensuring workers' rights</span></strong> by 1) repealing Taft-Hartley to stop the unjust firing of union organizers, ban scabbing, and enable workers to exercise their voices at work and 2) enacting laws for U.S. corporations that keep labor standards high at home and raise them abroad, which would require the <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, the Caribbean FTA, and the U.S.-Peru FTA; </span></strong></div></li></ul><ul><br /><br /><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">justice for immigrant workers, including real immigration reform that provides amnesty for all undocumented immigrants</span></strong>; </div></li></ul><ul><br /><br /><li><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">creating a Department of Peace that would put forward projects for peace all over the world</span></strong>, deploying our diplomats to help resolve conflicts through peaceful means and overseeing the orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from the more than 100 countries around the world where they are stationed, and an immediate end to all wars and occupations by U.S. forces, beginning in Iraq and Afghanistan, and slashing the budget for the Pentagon.</div></li></ul><br /><br /><p align="justify"><em><strong>The Power to the People Campaign has visited 24 states and I believe there is already broad support across our country for these policy positions. The people deserve an open and honest debate on these issues and more. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">I encourage the Democratic Party and its new presumptive nominee, Senator Obama, to embrace these important suggestions for policy initiatives</span></strong></em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">.</span></p>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-69305411400387491362008-10-23T14:10:00.051-04:002008-10-25T11:29:00.354-04:00Let Me 'Educate' You, Said the Brussels Spider to the Irish Fly<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhybQPlA7oomhlcRBkIyNEZLTceN2-KT0k8fcpXLqUofEczLzK_aUBhwtPAIkxrKjuEJ_XXeC-Y6eZiBkh8BRVs4rLvBEwsCesgn8VwYnmTSlORJh1unGtOsv4pAXK69ENquyW3DZUUplmT/s1600-h/eu.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260534040256231410" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 250px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 149px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhybQPlA7oomhlcRBkIyNEZLTceN2-KT0k8fcpXLqUofEczLzK_aUBhwtPAIkxrKjuEJ_XXeC-Y6eZiBkh8BRVs4rLvBEwsCesgn8VwYnmTSlORJh1unGtOsv4pAXK69ENquyW3DZUUplmT/s200/eu.png" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5hYQCjt2qJ3Wmao3KNhDUY-Y5k9rQCRwuxPv47DcpPAQv0ex5xST8asF1bEhT-hSqm7gRn_ySLWXLjIO1nMRX3Ow6lGGagQfy3uKRZwrz85iRqwA9hh0K_OaMleZD1Fxuqe3AOe5uLZ1i/s1600-h/Irish_flag.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260533498470150066" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 244px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 147px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5hYQCjt2qJ3Wmao3KNhDUY-Y5k9rQCRwuxPv47DcpPAQv0ex5xST8asF1bEhT-hSqm7gRn_ySLWXLjIO1nMRX3Ow6lGGagQfy3uKRZwrz85iRqwA9hh0K_OaMleZD1Fxuqe3AOe5uLZ1i/s200/Irish_flag.bmp" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">There is a famous poem, authored by 19th Century English poet Mary Howitt, which holds as important a lesson for adults as it does for children. It is entitled, <em><span style="color:#cc0000;">The Spider and the Fly</span></em>.</span> </strong></div><strong><div align="center"><br /></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ffff33;"><span style="color:#000099;">T</span><span style="color:#ffff33;">h</span></span><span style="color:#000099;">e</span> <span style="color:#ffff33;"><span style="color:#ffff33;">S</span><span style="color:#000099;">p</span>i</span><span style="color:#ffff33;"><span style="color:#000099;">d</span>e</span><span style="color:#000099;">r</span> and <span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#33cc00;">t</span><span style="color:#ff9900;">h</span></span><span style="color:#33cc00;">e</span> <span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33cc00;">F</span>l</span><span style="color:#33cc00;">y</span></span></strong></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"></span></strong></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#000000;">-----</span></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"></span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"></span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there." </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "to ask me is in vain, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."</span></strong></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">-----</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">"I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high; </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Will you rest upon my little bed?" said the Spider to the Fly. </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!" </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "for I've often heard it said, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!"</span></strong> </div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">-----</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, "Dear friend what can I do, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you? </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice; </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?" </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"</span></strong></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">-----</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">"Sweet creature!" said the Spider, "you're witty and you're wise, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes! </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself." </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you 're pleased to say, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."</span></strong> </div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">----</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again: </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly. </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">"Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing; </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Your robes are green and purple -- there's a crest upon your head; </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!"</span></strong><br /></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">-----</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by; </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue -- </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Thinking only of her crested head -- poor foolish thing! At last, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast. </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Within his little parlour -- but she ne'er came out again!</span></strong></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">-----</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">And now dear little children, who may this story read, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed: </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye, </span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.</span></strong> </div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">-----</div><div align="center"></div><div align="left">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://euobserver.com/9/26979/?rk=1">http://euobserver.com/9/26979/?rk=1</a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5sASNZVVB97F0HA2qu9zJprtLhpgBU16lod01VEHq0b33j8ucIZ2EIBqxLE1UqovFgsdjDoQgHJEOzBZwRCIHQsKNj4LuPZtAp3B9_dqQjnScifVNaRiYrrh5f-RdqzLSk17Ve4YnfKXe/s1600-h/fear+of+spiders+-+psychologist.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260522787668490850" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 424px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 394px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5sASNZVVB97F0HA2qu9zJprtLhpgBU16lod01VEHq0b33j8ucIZ2EIBqxLE1UqovFgsdjDoQgHJEOzBZwRCIHQsKNj4LuPZtAp3B9_dqQjnScifVNaRiYrrh5f-RdqzLSk17Ve4YnfKXe/s320/fear+of+spiders+-+psychologist.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong><span style="color:#000099;">Brus<span style="color:#ffff33;">sels</span> </span>to <span style="color:#cc0000;">'</span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#cc0000;">educate'</span> </span><span style="color:#33ff33;">Ire</span><span style="color:#ff6600;">land</span> on EU realities</strong><br /></span><br /><br />VALENTINA POP<br /><br /><br />22.10.2008 @ 18:58 CET<br /><br /><br /></div><div align="justify">EUOBSERVER / STRASBOURG - <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#000099;">The European Commission</span> plans to help the Irish government communicate "Europe" better to citizens</span></strong> after June's shock No vote on the Lisbon treaty, with a new inter-institutional agreement to pull together the PR efforts of the main EU institutions. </div><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">"<strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">It's not about the European Commission interfering with the procedures and referenda on the Treaty, but it is investing in trying to correct the situation where so many people said they didn't know anything about the EU</span></em></strong>, or didn't know enough to take a position when they were asked," communication commissioner Margot Wallstrom said on Wednesday (22 October) in Strasbourg.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THIS IS MOST LIKELY THE CASE SINCE THE BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATIC AGENCIES ARE <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>NOT</em></span> REALLY TRANSPARENT OR INCLUSIVE, EXCEPT TO THE FAVORED FEW ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL NGOs AND INDUSTRY GROUPS WITH SUFFICIENT POWER & INFLUENCE. THE PEOPLE OF THE EU, HOWEVER, ARE LARGELY DISENFRANCHISED. THIS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO WIDELY WITHIN EUROPE AS THE EU'S 'DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT.']</span></strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">Commissioner Margot Wallstrom says the citizen's right to know should be enshrined in the EU Treaty.</span></strong></div><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THIS IS AKIN TO THE SPIDER 'FLATTERING'/'SEDUCING' THE FLY].</span></strong></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong>Ms Wallstrom plans to </strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#000099;"><strong>sign</strong> </span><span style="color:#000099;"><strong>a "memorandum of understanding"</strong></span></span></em> <strong>on launching a new communication "management project"</strong> <strong><span style="color:#000000;">in </span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#33cc00;">Ire</span><span style="color:#ff9900;">land </span></span></strong>when she visits Dublin on 13 to 14 November. </div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><p></p><p></p><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The one year partnerships</span></strong> - already up and running in Germany, Hungary and Slovenia with eight other EU states about to sign up - <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">see the commission provide EU literature, journalist training, school manuals and other civic education programmes</span></strong>. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THE 'SPIDER' ALSO MADE ATTRACTIVE OFFERINGS TO THE 'FLY' TO ENTICE IT INTO ITS PARLOUR.]</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000099;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">One concrete project in Germany was "Guess who is going back to school," in which about 500 German officials paid visits to their former schools</span></strong>,</span> explaining to pupils what their job is within the EU institutions.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">The commissioner on Wednesday also signed an inter-institutional agreement between the European Parliament, commission and Council to co-ordinate the three institutions' communication efforts.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">She said the move was</span></strong> not designed to create a "propaganda machine" but <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">to support the fundamental democratic principle of the right to know</span></strong>. "It is the first time we have this framework after heavy resistance from member states," the commissioner explained.<br /></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See:</span></strong> <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>EU institutions agree to communicate in partnership</em>, IP/08/1568 (10/22/08), at: </strong></span><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/wallstrom/pdf/press_20081022_en.pdf"><strong>http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/wallstrom/pdf/press_20081022_en.pdf</strong></a> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong></div><p> </p><div align="justify">The new agreement foresees <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">co-ordinating future communication efforts on common priorities</span></strong>, such as the 2009 European elections, energy and climate change and the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">It is also designed to avoid situations where both the parliament and the commission organise events or print leaflets on the same topic without knowing what the other is doing.<br /></div><p align="justify"><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Co-ordination will be provided by the Interinstitutional group on information (IGI) comprised of Ms Walstrom on behalf of the commission, French minister Jean Pierre Jouyet on behalf of the European Council and the vice-president of the European Parliament, Spanish conservative MEP Alejo Vidal-Quadras. </span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><br /> </p></span></strong><p></p><p></p><p>IGI will not have its own budget, but will draw from the coffers of the three institutions. </p><p></p><p><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6k0uL5PqOOacgZ6fxUBkyGzvvwBdr7eqRndAYfS7uaRbAGX0h-nKAjruaX9wOpFasaBwsxIvD_w9ZQDLpDpDVR6a-gsDqtWkRbwGYbENYQFgJgEbEDSledGlA84ckEBc5DPHwO2uBmUN/s1600-h/Helvetius+-+De+L%27Esprit.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260525070891526802" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6k0uL5PqOOacgZ6fxUBkyGzvvwBdr7eqRndAYfS7uaRbAGX0h-nKAjruaX9wOpFasaBwsxIvD_w9ZQDLpDpDVR6a-gsDqtWkRbwGYbENYQFgJgEbEDSledGlA84ckEBc5DPHwO2uBmUN/s400/Helvetius+-+De+L%27Esprit.jpg" border="0" /></a>[A SIMILAR RATIONALE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN EMPLOYED BY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY FRENCH PHILOSOPHER, CLAUDE, ADRIEN HELVETIUS, TO JUSTIFY HIS 'HIGHLY REGARDED' CENTRALIZED STATE-DRIVEN CITIZEN 'EDUCATION' PROGRAMS WITHIN FRANCE. -- <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">See discussion below</span></em>]</span></strong> </p><p> </p><p></p><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Irish public was <span style="font-size:130%;">'misinformed'</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[??]</span></strong><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ5MaL51rLzlYl5Ql3xLWRQQk2mJUzL0hBBnrRAbDEGMIIt-WKJbONuNR8_cUMqGtGi2J3NJlIxQ7DD6sZHJBtNE2WGYPEBCAmFhBgECnDwCOZfL5YWqiPOEiI2MbJAN9aIRQQW7ggBSQh/s1600-h/irelandnovote.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260523719117288322" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 160px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ5MaL51rLzlYl5Ql3xLWRQQk2mJUzL0hBBnrRAbDEGMIIt-WKJbONuNR8_cUMqGtGi2J3NJlIxQ7DD6sZHJBtNE2WGYPEBCAmFhBgECnDwCOZfL5YWqiPOEiI2MbJAN9aIRQQW7ggBSQh/s320/irelandnovote.jpg" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8ciAXmib3JBv_9gVQr0NKGHej8g1Ik6mknMtz0bizKzmS6H8Lja8G5EMaeXWgFVmXLqnbjU8MzcRTEPQFnHe2wyua4UDhxxT4aYgPb8zCpfxhErcEFcY6eoRY5RqcoSyX3tjd92jkJZtF/s1600-h/irish+-+don%27t+be+bullied.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260531634982890802" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 269px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 187px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8ciAXmib3JBv_9gVQr0NKGHej8g1Ik6mknMtz0bizKzmS6H8Lja8G5EMaeXWgFVmXLqnbjU8MzcRTEPQFnHe2wyua4UDhxxT4aYgPb8zCpfxhErcEFcY6eoRY5RqcoSyX3tjd92jkJZtF/s320/irish+-+don%27t+be+bullied.jpg" border="0" /></a>Going back to the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, Ms Wallstrom said the public debate included a lot of "emotional arguments" and "disinformation,"</span></strong> such as the idea that by voting Yes, people would have to send their children to an "EU army."<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">"The EU uses too much bureaucratic language, too much of a jargon impenetrable to normal people. There is no need for emotional arguments either, but for a factual language that people can understand," she explained.<br /></div></span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THIS IS A CLEVER 'WORKAROUND' TO SUBJUGATE THE IRISH PEOPLES' ULTIMATE ACT OF FREEDOM - TO VOTE THEIR INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS, EMOTIONS & CONSCIENCES - TO EU RULE & GOVERNANCE].</span></strong></div><p><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>What Aspect of the Irish 'NON' Do the Brussels & Paris Philosopher Kings Not Understand?</em>, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: </span></strong><a href="http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-aspect-of-irish-non-do-brussels.html"><strong>http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-aspect-of-irish-non-do-brussels.html</strong></a> .<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">]</span></strong><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>The Irish People Have Spoken: NO EU TREATY; EU Commission & US Democratic Congress BEWARE!!</em>, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: </span></strong><a href="http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/06/irish-people-have-spoken-no-eu-treaty.html"><strong>http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/06/irish-people-have-spoken-no-eu-treaty.html</strong></a> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>UK Government Provides Guidance On Behavior Modification Techniques Used to Shape Personal Lives of UK Citizens</em>, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: </span></strong><a href="http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/uk-government-provides-guidance-on.html"><strong>http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/uk-government-provides-guidance-on.html</strong></a> <span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>]</strong> <strong>.</strong></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">See: <em>UNESCO Promotes Behavior Modification For Sustainable Future Through Universal Mandatory Education</em>, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at:</span> </strong><a href="http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/unesco-promotes-behavior-modification.html"><strong>http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/unesco-promotes-behavior-modification.html</strong></a> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong></p><p><br /><br />Asked what would be the outcome of <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">a pan-European referendum on the Lisbon treaty</span></strong> - as suggested by some Irish campaigners - <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Ms Wallstrom stressed that it is "the ultimate challenge" from a communication point of view to hold any referendum on a complex legal text</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />"Whatever you do, you won't have in the end everybody reading a 400-page document," she said. "That's what MEPs are being paid for."</p><p><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></p><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[</span><span style="font-size:130%;">The following excerpt discusses Claude Adrien Helvetius' lasting influence on contemporary European political, legal and social thought, which should be of extreme concern both to the Irish AND American people. See: Lawrence A. Kogan and Robert Stein, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>Precautionus</em> <em>Principilitis: A Psychosocial Disorder Causing Luddite Psychobabble</em></span> (c), ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: </span></strong><a href="http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/precautionus-principilitis-psychosocial.html"><strong>http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/precautionus-principilitis-psychosocial.html</strong></a> .<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">]</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2918CexAjn5naBEOaF-KWP94jC3MtGjnBsIsIuFye1OMw5KIcOtpHXWUj1BLPUyp2dhZDvwpQ3WQgtIYYcHkMlVcazdzbzMAfXi9MLoEWS6V6t_3bbzCIJXRF22U6fIb0nyHCzf6GX9Ni/s1600-h/helvetius-2-sized.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260527569807096658" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 152px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2918CexAjn5naBEOaF-KWP94jC3MtGjnBsIsIuFye1OMw5KIcOtpHXWUj1BLPUyp2dhZDvwpQ3WQgtIYYcHkMlVcazdzbzMAfXi9MLoEWS6V6t_3bbzCIJXRF22U6fIb0nyHCzf6GX9Ni/s200/helvetius-2-sized.jpg" border="0" /></a>[</span>"The reader, at this point, should not overlook the indelible impression that the philosophy of eighteenth century Frenchman, Claude Adrien Helvetius, had left on the European social behaviorists of his time, and apparently, now, the politicians of today. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>Helvetian-favored communalism and utilitarian logic are most definitely the driving force behind the current indoctrination climate under which European cultural preferences are being converted into an almost universal and unquestioning acceptance of national, regional, and potentially, supranational governmental mandates to employ the hazard-based precautionary principle in every day economic life. <span style="color:#000099;">Helvetius “advocated legislation...as the means by which happiness for the greatest number would be achieved.” </span></em></span>[27]"</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#000000;">"</span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>“Men develop according to the cultural pressures to which he is subject. Education accounts for all differences between individuals and must be utilized to realize ‘the ideal of general intelligence, virtue, and happiness’... In [Helvetius’] system, the only pleasure that is immoral is one that conflicts with the pleasure of the greatest number...</em></span> The final test of any action, then, is its utilitarian value - its use to the public. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>The ideal government, he believed, would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, and universal education would make children useful to such a society. He advocated legislation of punishments and rewards to force men to contribute to public welfare.</em></span> <span style="color:#000099;"><em>Under such a system, he felt only madmen could prevent themselves from being good citizens. Individual preferences and rights are lost to Helvetius in the all-consuming importance of public interest”</em></span> (emphasis added). [28]"</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#000099;">"Hence, the wisdom of Helvetius has permeated the Brussels bureaucratic mindset</span><span style="color:#000099;">,</span> which has recognized how cultural pressures influenced by individual perceptions of others’ preferences and by the educational power of universally applicable (national, regional and international) laws, regulations and standards can help shape societal behavior in ways that may facilitate government’s fulfillment of socially and politically desirable policy objectives</span></em>. It is therefore only in this light that one can truly appreciate why people would ever clamor for more rather than less regulation and taxation."</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="color:#000099;">"Regretfully, European governments’ inclination towards providing</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">centralized ‘soft’ socialist solutions to perceived market failures</span> <span style="color:#000099;">has only become more pronounced following the fall of the Berlin Wall</span></em></span><span style="color:#000099;">.</span> And, it is this institutional predilection for more and more governmental control and oversight over private lives that has now seized the imagination of a militant European environmental and social movement whose ideological bias against globalization, industry and individualism is rooted largely in the <span style="color:#33ff33;">‘eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments’</span> brought to the movement by discredited <span style="color:#ff0000;">pro-Soviet western groups</span>.[29]"</span></strong></div><br /><br /><strong>[27] See Eric Samuelson, A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF COLLECTIVISM (1997) at: <a href="http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/samuelson.html#preserve%20the%20rights">http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/samuelson.html#preserve%20the%20rights</a> .</strong><br /><br /><strong>[28] Ibid., citing Mordecai Grossman, THE PHILOSOPHY OF HELVETIUS 16 (1926).</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>[29] See Patrick Moore, “Environmental Movement Has Lost its Way – Scare Tactics, Disinformation Go Too Far”, Miami Herald (1/30/05), at: (<a href="http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ifvfRUvEbFUJ:www.greenspiritstrategies.com/D131.cfm+%E2%80%9CEnvironmental+Movement+Has+Lost+its+Way%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us">http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ifvfRUvEbFUJ:www.greenspiritstrategies.com/D131.cfm+%E2%80%9CEnvironmental+Movement+Has+Lost+its+Way%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us</a>); Patrick Moore, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, Leadership Quarterly 5(3/4) 1994, at: <a href="http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:tP6yt5WVc1QJ:www.greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm%3Fmsid%3D34+%E2%80%9CHard+Choices+for+the+Environmental+Movement%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us">http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:tP6yt5WVc1QJ:www.greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm%3Fmsid%3D34+%E2%80%9CHard+Choices+for+the+Environmental+Movement%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us</a>.</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">]</span></strong>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-58980762325464796352008-10-15T08:48:00.022-04:002008-10-15T09:31:29.493-04:00Why are Obama & Congressional Democrats Covering Up Their MISjudgement Concerning Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac?? To Secure Your Votes in November!!<a href="http://z.about.com/d/usliberals/1/0/z/3/KerryObamaRichardEllis.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://z.about.com/d/usliberals/1/0/z/3/KerryObamaRichardEllis.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div><a href="http://champaigncountydemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dem-logo.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 218px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 184px" height="256" alt="" src="http://champaigncountydemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dem-logo.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /></div><div></div><div><br /><br /></div><div></div><div><br /><br /></div><div></div><div><br /><br /></div><div></div><div><br /><br /></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#000099;">RES</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">IPSA</span> <span style="color:#000099;">LOQUITOR</span></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0&feature=related</a></div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=related</a><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Barack Obama & John McCain</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING<br /></span></strong><br /><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w&feature=related</a></div><div><br /></div><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Democrats Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Economic Crisis</span></strong></p><div><br /></div><p></p><div> </div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYz1rbB5V1s&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYz1rbB5V1s&feature=related</a></div><div><br /></div><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Who is Responsible - Meltdown - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Wall Street</span></strong></p><div> </div><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg&feature=related</a></p><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><p></p><div><br /><br /><br /></div><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXNrbMW4RRo&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXNrbMW4RRo&feature=related</a></p><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Dodd & Shelby at Financial Bailout Hearing</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><p></p><div><br /> </div><div> </div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Yv7jT0TX0&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Yv7jT0TX0&feature=related</a></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Inside Look: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac</span></strong></div><div><br /> </div><div> </div><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related</a><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae</span></strong></p><div><br /> </div><div><a href="http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/09/itssd-democrats-in-congress-opposed.html">http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/09/itssd-democrats-in-congress-opposed.html</a></div><div><br /><span style="color:#000099;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">ITSSD - Congressional Democrat Opposition to 2003 & 2005 Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Reforms Contributed Greatly to Current US Financial Crisis!!</span></strong><br /></span></div><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></p><div> </div><div><a href="http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-should-not-try-to-deceive.html">http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-should-not-try-to-deceive.html</a></div><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Obama Tries to Deceive Americans About Cause of the Current US Financial Crisis: But, History Shows that Banking Deregulation Was a Bipartisan Effort</span></strong><br /><br /></div><p></p>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-69164234137110103002008-09-24T07:54:00.115-04:002008-09-25T11:15:18.826-04:00ITSSD - Congressional Democrat Opposition to 2003 & 2005 Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Reforms Contributed Greatly to Current US Financial Crisis!!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1wz9egqgrgHqAbgR7CSByuWMspnpi0hblEE4k_rxBHSgBWJaEHEHAkKum-UY-zDedxbJuq3Kt5Hs3IFy7-8dAO2Cwzea56RyH0WE8E0UswNJFu2HFOdzXKt5SiEybEEaORauirvG3IvVz/s1600-h/ofheo.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249819534756248674" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1wz9egqgrgHqAbgR7CSByuWMspnpi0hblEE4k_rxBHSgBWJaEHEHAkKum-UY-zDedxbJuq3Kt5Hs3IFy7-8dAO2Cwzea56RyH0WE8E0UswNJFu2HFOdzXKt5SiEybEEaORauirvG3IvVz/s400/ofheo.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ37PA_QV-558Vjng1AC39g7SyVP2NPhNCOE0eSM9gCH1ID_di9PIi48JzcrjBiD4GQbs3sSQahDb_3TY23iiA8KVk-EC4YVYMmbj9AXSsnRxvsOMEjm2dDizrzDY-jHImih_uHiMZCfBY/s1600-h/freddie+mac+logo.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249804794207487570" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ37PA_QV-558Vjng1AC39g7SyVP2NPhNCOE0eSM9gCH1ID_di9PIi48JzcrjBiD4GQbs3sSQahDb_3TY23iiA8KVk-EC4YVYMmbj9AXSsnRxvsOMEjm2dDizrzDY-jHImih_uHiMZCfBY/s400/freddie+mac+logo.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-FQAKHdrtWLa9juXhrn9o-Tp7Myd-Rg6jv-CKSjIQrvM7mWLX3cd9HEfaV6dwHx8Onc1P2bAfFJxw-s25pSJzYBIyRUj5XOStPnkxbtq6s6CbWELu1Ych3laTepxot5AEUupJqB-dFRlk/s1600-h/fanniemae.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249804414788576546" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-FQAKHdrtWLa9juXhrn9o-Tp7Myd-Rg6jv-CKSjIQrvM7mWLX3cd9HEfaV6dwHx8Onc1P2bAfFJxw-s25pSJzYBIyRUj5XOStPnkxbtq6s6CbWELu1Ych3laTepxot5AEUupJqB-dFRlk/s400/fanniemae.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><br /></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[EVIDENCE OVERWHELMINGLY SHOWS THAT DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS AND BARACK OBAMA OPPOSED, DURING 2003 and 2005, MUCH-NEEDED STRUCTURAL REFORMS TO FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC THAT WOULD HAVE MITIGATED THE RISKS POSED TO THE ENTIRE U.S. FINANCIAL SYSTEM. OBAMA et. al. OPPOSED SUCH CHANGES </span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">BECAUSE THEY WOULD DIMINISH THE CAPACITY OF THESE INSTITUTIONS TO PROVIDE HIGH-RISK 'AFFIRMATIVE ACTION' MORTGAGES TO LOW & MODERATE INCOME EARNERS WHO COULD ILL-AFFORD THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. THESE ARE <em>NOT</em> THE 'INNOCENT HOMEOWNERS FACING FORECLOSURE' OF WHICH OBAMA SPEAKS.]</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL EMAIL ISSUED BY THE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY VOTERS WHO REGISTERED ON THE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT WEBSITE INTENTIONALLY OBFUSCATES THIS ELEMENT OF FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC REFORM BY FOCUSING INSTEAD ON (DIVERTING PUBLIC ATTENTION TO) THE GREED OF WALL STREET. EACH OF THESE FACTORS, ALONG WITH LAX FEDERAL REGULATORY OVERSIGHT OF NON-BANK BANKS & HEDGE FUNDS, INSIDER TRADING, OVER-LEVERAGING, NONTRANSPARENCY, OFF-BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNTING & OTHER VIOLATIONS OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, INADEQUATE EQUITY </span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">CAPITALIZATION & EXECUTIVE OFFICER FRAUD & CORRUPTION, IS ALSO LARGELY TO BLAME FOR THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS.]</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">OBAMA CAMPAIGN E-MAIL COMMUNICATION:</span></strong><br /></p><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong>Date:</strong> Wed, 24 Sep 2008</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>To:</strong> XXX</div><div></div><br /><br /><div><strong>From:</strong> Barack Obama</div><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div><strong>Subject:</strong> Greed and irresponsibility</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />XXX<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression</span></em></strong>. Congress and the President are debating a bailout of our financial institutions with a price tag of $700 billion or more in taxpayer dollars. We cannot underestimate our responsibility in taking such an enormous step. Whatever shape our recovery plan takes, it must be guided by core principles of fairness, balance, and responsibility to one another. <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c134d6/507e2d16/75b57cc6/1188ae2c/1561710658/VEsH/" target="_blank">http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c134d6/507e2d16/75b57cc6/1188ae2c/1561710658/VEsH/</a><br /><br /><br />Please sign on to show your support for an economic recovery plan based on the following:<br /><br /><br />No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.<br /><br /><br />Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.<br /><br /><br />Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved > demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight. Show your support and encourage your friends and family to join you: <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c134d6/507e2d16/75b57cc6/1188ae2c/1561710658/VEsE/" target="_blank">http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c134d6/507e2d16/75b57cc6/1188ae2c/1561710658/VEsE/</a>><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/ourplan" target="_blank">http://my.barackobama.com/ourplan</a><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The failed economic policies and the same corrupt culture that led us into this mess will not help get us out of it</span></strong>. We need to get to work immediately on reforming the broken government -- and the broken politics -- that allowed this crisis to happen in the first place. And we have to understand that a recovery package is just the beginning. We have <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a plan that will guarantee our long-term prosperity</span></strong> -- including tax cuts for 95 percent of families, an economic stimulus package that creates millions of new jobs and leads us towards energy independence, and health care that is affordable to every American. It won't be easy. The kind of change we're looking for never is. But if we work together and stand by these principles, we can get through this crisis and emerge a stronger nation. Thank you, Barack Paid for by Obama for America<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[OBAMA IS AT IT AGAIN, AND TRYING TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT THE 'FAILED ECONOMIC POLICIES' THAT LED THE U.S. TO THIS CRISIS. ACTUALLY, THE CRISIS AROSE, IN PART, BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES LIKE OBAMA, THAT TORPEDOED PRIOR EFFORTS TO REFORM FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE. THUS, OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HIS "PLAN WILL GUARANTEE OUR LONGTERM PROSPERITY IS NOTHING BUT EMPTY WORDS. AMERICANS WANT TO SEE DEEDS; THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR WORDS.]</span></strong> </p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-7896:1">http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-7896:1</a><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs): Regulatory Reform Legislation</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">CRS Report for Congress # RL32795</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />By Mark Jickling<br /><br /><br /><br />Updated October 27, 2005<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are privately owned, congressionally chartered financial institutions created for specific public policy purposes. They benefit from certain exemptions and privileges, including an implied federal guarantee,1 intended to enhance their ability to borrow money. Two of the largest GSEs are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (herein referred to as the enterprises or GSEs).2</span></strong> These institutions were <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">created by Congress to establish and maintain a secondary mortgage market, increasing liquidity and improving the distribution of capital available for home mortgage financing.3</span></em></strong> To help these institutions accomplish this mission, Congress has provided them with several benefits not available to other financial institutions.4 These statutory benefits provide the enterprises with lower funding costs, the ability to operate with less capital, and lower direct costs.5 The advantages of GSE status have enabled the enterprises to grow rapidly and become dominant players in the secondary mortgage market.<br /><br /><br />Congress has always been concerned that the safety and soundness of the enterprises be maintained so that they can meet their public policy mission and not pose risks to taxpayers. Prior to 1992, oversight was the responsibility of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. <span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In 1992,</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Congress established the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)</span></strong>,</span> an independent agency within HUD, to oversee the financial safety and soundness of the enterprises. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">The office is authorized to set capital requirements, conduct annual risk-based examinations, and generally enforce compliance with safety and soundness standards.</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />Since the creation of OFHEO, total assets at the GSEs have grown by more than 820% to $1.9 trillion.6 The GSEs have become two of the largest private debt issuers in the world. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">At the end of 2003, outstanding debt securities of the enterprises totaled $1.7 trillion — an amount equal to nearly half of all publicly held U.S. Treasury debt. </span></strong>In addition to enterprise debt, investors hold about $1.7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.7 <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">As a result of the rapid growth of these institutions and their implied federal backing, there has been an increasing concern that the enterprises may pose a problem of systemic risk to the financial system.8</span></strong> <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Many financial institutions around the world hold large quantities of GSE debt and default by either GSE could have widespread, unpredictable, and potentially serious repercussions.</span> Accordingly, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the current regulatory environment.</span></em></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Events of the past two years have brought a new urgency to the GSE reform issue. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In 2003, Freddie Mac admitted that it had used improper accounting policies to create the appearance of steady earnings growth and issued a restatement of financial results, revising net income for 2000-2002 upwards by $5 billion.9</span></strong> OFHEO imposed a $125 million fine and is pursuing civil actions against several former Freddie executives.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Following the special examination of Freddie Mac, OFHEO began to review the accounting policies and practices at Fannie Mae, and published its preliminary findings in September 2004.10 OFHEO charged that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Fannie Mae did not follow generally accepted accounting practices in two critical areas: (1) amortization of discounts, premiums, and fees involved in the purchase of home mortgages and (2) accounting for financial derivatives contracts.</span></strong> According to OFHEO, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">these deviations from standard accounting rules allowed Fannie Mae to reduce volatility in reported earnings, present investors with an artificial picture of steadily growing profits, and, in at least one case, to meet financial performance targets that triggered the payment of bonuses to company executives.11</span></strong> On December 15, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) essentially endorsed OFHEO’s report and directed Fannie Mae to restate its accounting results since 2001 after finding inadequacies in Fannie’s accounting policies and methodologies. Fannie Mae’s CEO and CFO stepped down soon thereafter.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />While problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have provided the main impetus for reform, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the regulation of the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) may also be affected by the GSE. <em>The 12 FHLBs comprise one collective governmentsponsored enterprise. Originally chartered by Congress to provide liquidity to the nation’s predominant lenders for home mortgage loans — savings and loan associations and savings banks — the FHLBs have undergone a series of changes over the years as financial institutions have changed. Still a lender to lenders primarily for housing, the FHLBs can now lend for many other purposes as well, and have special responsibilities for low- and moderate-income housing, for debts incurred by the federal government in handling deposit insurance crises of the 1970s and 1980s, and for some community development projects.</em></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Several bills were considered in the 108th Congress that would have restructured OFHEO. While the proposals took somewhat different approaches to regulatory reform, all appeared to:<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">1)</span></strong> abolish OFHEO and reconstitute the GSE regulator within the Department of the Treasury, or as an independent agency;12<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">2)</span></strong> increase the budget autonomy of the new office by exempting its assessments from the annual appropriations process; and<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">3)</span></strong> enhance the safety and soundness and enforcement tools available to the new regulator.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><em><strong>Legislative proposals in the 109th Congress incorporate most of the features of the 108th Congress bills, but also include significant new provisions...</strong></em><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The Bush Administration has generally supported GSE regulatory reform. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Treasury Secretary John Snow issued a statement following the mark up of S. 190, praising the legislation, though noting that certain elements the Administration wanted were not present in the bill:</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br /><em>The legislation ... creates significantly enhanced market discipline and capital requirements for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The legislation strikes a proper and prudent balance <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">in ensuring that the activities undertaken by these entities do not engender systemic risk while providing broad access to housing finance</span></strong>.13</em></div><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Major Differences Between House and Senate Bills</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The House and Senate bills take a common approach in the restructuring of the GSE regulator</span></strong>. There is a general consensus that OFHEO needs to be strengthened — <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">given the importance of the GSEs to the financial system and the potential risks they pose</span></em></strong>, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">there is very little support for keeping the GSE regulator inside HUD. </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Both H.R. 1461 and S. 190 give the new agency tools and authorities that resemble those of federal bank regulators.</span></strong> <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Where the bills differ most significantly is in their approaches to the business operations of the GSEs, particularly Fannie and Freddie.</span></em></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />...The House bill seeks to increase GSE support for low-income housing and would permit Fannie and Freddie to buy larger mortgages than current law permits, while the Senate bill seeks to shrink the companies’ portfolios by restricting the kinds of assets they can purchase.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Affordable Housing Fund</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>Section 128 of H.R. 1461</strong> (as passed the House) requires Fannie and Freddie to establish affordable housing funds to increase homeownership among very low and extremely low income families, to increase investment in housing in low income and economically distressed areas, and to increase and preserve the supply of rental and owner-occupied housing for very low and extremely low income families.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...<strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Proponents of the affordable housing funds recognize that Fannie and Freddie receive a valuable subsidy in the form of their GSE status, which permits them to borrow at lower rates than other private financial firms. The affordable housing fund proposal can be viewed as a means of capturing some of the value of this subsidy and applying it to a worthy policy objective</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Opponents argue that Fannie and Freddie would likely use the funds to reward political allies. During floor consideration of H.R. 1461, an amendment was adopted that prohibited the use of money disbursed by the affordable housing funds for political, lobbying, or advocacy purposes.</span></strong> Other amendments included a five-year sunset for the fund (with the Director of the new regulator to recommend to Congress whether the fund should be extended) and established a priority for activities in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and in other areas designated by the President as major disaster areas.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Conforming Loan Limits</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Current law sets a limit on the size of mortgages that Fannie and Freddie can buy. Mortgages above the limit, called jumbo loans, are less likely to be securitized than the conforming mortgages that Fannie and Freddie are allowed to purchase. Partly as a result, mortgage rates for nonconforming loans are slightly higher than conforming loan rates.14 <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Critics of the conforming loan limit argue that the limit has a disparate geographical effect: in some areas of the country the current limit, which is $359,650 for single-family homes, covers all but the high end of the market, while in other areas, such as San Francisco or New York City, virtually all real estate transactions take place over the limit.<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">H.R. 1461 would raise the conforming loan limit in metropolitan areas where the median home price exceeds the current limit</span></em></strong>. In those areas, the limit would be set at the median home price, up to a ceiling of 150% of the current limit. For more information on this proposal, see CRS Report RS22172, <em>Proposed Changes to the Conforming Loan Limit</em>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">The Senate bill has no comparable provision</span>.</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Portfolio Limits</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />While the two House bill provisions discussed above seek to redistribute the fruits of the GSE subsidy, <strong>the Senate bill contains a provision that could dramatically reduce the value of that subsidy</strong>.<br /><br /><br />Both Fannie and Freddie hold large portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, which generate interest income. They pay for those mortgage assets by issuing debt securities at rates below what the mortgages and mortgage-backed bonds pay. The difference between the yield on mortgage-related assets and the GSEs’ cost of funds is profit. <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Thus, the GSEs have a strong incentive to pursue portfolio growth: the two firms together have over $1.5 trillion in portfolio assets, leading some observers to describe them as the world’s largest savings and loan institutions.</em></strong> </span><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The size of their portfolios represents a concentration of mortgage market risk that has led Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and others to urge Congress to consider ways to shrink the size of the GSEs’ asset portfolios.15</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 109 of S. 190 as reported enumerates the types of “permissible assets” that Fannie and Freddie would be permitted to purchase. They would only be allowed to acquire mortgages and mortgage-backed securities for purposes of securitization, and for certain other limited purposes.</span></strong> Under this proposal, Fannie and Freddie’s business models would be considerably altered: instead of very large investment funds, they would be transformed into conduits, buying mortgages from the original lenders, pooling them, packaging them into mortgage-backed securities, and selling them to bond investors. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This would greatly reduce their portfolio earnings, currently one of the chief sources of their profits</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Proponents of portfolio limits argue that this step is necessary to reduce the cost of the GSE subsidy to taxpayers, which takes the form not of annual appropriations, but of the assumption of risk — the potential cost to the Treasury of having to bail out either Fannie or Freddie to avoid the possibility of a systemic catastrophe in the financial markets, should either firm encounter serious difficulties</span></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Opponents argue that reducing the GSE’s interest earnings would mean less support for low- and moderate-income housing goals. The House bill contains no similar provision.</span></strong><br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/4255/RS22307_20051021.pdf?sequence=1">https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/4255/RS22307_20051021.pdf?sequence=1</a><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Limiting Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Portfolio Size</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />By Eric Weiss<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">CRS Report for Congress # RS22307</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />October 25, 2005<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary John W. Snow recently have urged the 109th Congress to pass legislation to limit the size of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio to reduce the risk to the federal government and the economy. In 2003, these government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) combined retained portfolio had risen to $1.6 trillion from $136 billion in 1990.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">One of the more controversial aspects of GSE reform is this proposal to limit the size of the investment portfolios, which consist of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) that are subject to several types of financial risk.</span></strong></em> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">If these risks are not managed properly, or if market movements turn dramatically against the GSEs, the government may face two unsatisfactory alternatives: either let the GSE go into default and hope that the financial repercussions can be controlled, or step in and assume payments on the GSE debt at a significant cost to taxpayers.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Proponents of portfolio limits argue that shrinking portfolio size reduces the likelihood and cost if this choice will ever have to be made. <span style="color:#3333ff;">The GSEs and their supporters argue, on the other hand, that the profits generated by the investment portfolios enhance the GSEs’ ability to support affordable housing programs and reduce mortgage interest rates.</span></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This report analyzes the types of risk that the GSEs pose to the economy, and the advantages and disadvantages of proposals to limit portfolio size</span></strong></em>.<br /><br /><br />...Recently Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan1 and Treasury Secretary John<br />Snow2 have warned that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">the mortgage portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the housing government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs for short) present a risk to the<br />nation’s financial system and federal government</span></strong>... Letter from Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to the Honorable Robert F. Bennett, U.S. Senate, Sept. 2, 2005, at [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Greenspan091505.pdf">http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Greenspan091505.pdf</a>].<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from the original lenders and package them into mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), which are either sold to investors or held in portfolio by the GSEs themselves.3 These portfolios are large and have grown rapidly, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of all MBSs outstanding. According to the most current complete information (the end of 2003),4 Fannie Mae’s retained mortgage portfolio was $902 billion5 and Freddie Mac’s was $661 billion.6 <strong><em>At the end of 2003, their combined portfolios were more than 11 times their size in 1990.</em></strong><br /><br /><br />...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">GSE Risks</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The GSEs share many risks with all business. These risks can affect the companies, stockholders, employees, bondholders, and business partners. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The GSEs’ risks can also affect the nation’s financial system and the economy</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Credit Risk</span></strong>. Credit risk is the risk that the borrowers (mortgagors) will not repay<br />their loan on time — in other words, the risk of delinquency and default. When Fannie<br />and Freddie buy mortgages and combine them into MBSs, they add their guarantee that<br />the loans will be repaid on time...<strong>credit risk is not a serious problem</strong>.10<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Prepayment Risk</span></strong>. Prepayment risk <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">is potentially more serious.</span></em></strong> This is the risk<br />to an investor that a 30-year mortgage will be paid before the full 30 years is concluded...<br />As the cost of refinancing has declined over the last 10 years, the decline in interest rates<br />necessary to justify refinancing (with or without cash out or financing improvements to<br />the home) has been reduced. In recent years, the decline in mortgage rates has caused<br />prepayment rates to increase. This results in uncertainty for lenders and the holders of<br />MBSs.11<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Interest Rate Risk</span></strong>. Interest rate risk comes from financing the MBS portfolios by borrowing money (issuing bonds), and is <em><strong>related to prepayment risk</strong></em>. In 2003, Fannie had $962 billion of debt outstanding; Freddie had $740 billion...an increase or decrease in market rates can cause the GSEs’ unhedged portfolios to lose value.12...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...Interest rate risk can be very serious. Many savings and loan associations became insolvent in the early 1980s because of it. During that time, Fannie Mae’s portfolio was poorly hedged. According to Secretary Snow, “Fannie Mae became insolvent on a markto-market basis. Only a combination of legislative tax relief, regulatory forbearance, and a decline in interest rates allowed Fannie Mae to grow out of its problem.”13 <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Despite state-of-the-art hedging today, the GSEs’ portfolios have significant interest rate risk.</span></em></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Operational Risk</span></strong>. Operational risk is the <em><strong>risk of loss due to inadequate or failed internal procedures and systems</strong></em>. It is addressed by the various reforms in the House and Senate bills that increase regulatory powers, and in S. 190 reducing the size of the GSEs’ portfolios...<strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Fannie Mae’s current accounting problems, and those of Freddie Mac in 2003, raise questions about internal controls</span></em></strong>. Accounting systems provide the basis for portfolio adjustment decisions. If the accounting system is providing inaccurate information, the resulting portfolio adjustment decisions are likely to be incorrect.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...At a summary level, risk has two dimensions: the probability that the event will occur and the cost if it does...<strong>Reducing the size of the portfolios would reduce both dimensions</strong>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the implied guarantee allows the GSEs to grow without the usual market forces that would raise their costs as their risks rose</span></strong>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">As a result, Fannie and Freddie represent significant systemic risk to the nation’s financial system</span></em></strong>, both because they can make mistakes and because their size and concentration raise the likelihood of high costs for the economy when they do. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Reducing the seriousness of the systemic risk requires reducing the size of the implied guarantee</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This bill never became law.</span></strong> This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Last Action:</span></strong><br /><strong>Jul 28, 2005:</strong> Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong></strong></em><br /><em><strong>The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.</strong></em><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300050" property="foaf:name" datatype="xsd:string" about="http://www.rdfabout.com/rdf/usgov/congress/people/H001028"><strong>Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]</strong></a><br /><br /><strong>Cosponsors [as of 2007-01-08]<br /></strong><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300035">Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]</a><br /><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]</span></strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300095">Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]</a><br /><br /><br /><br />1/26/2005--Introduced.<br /><br /><br />Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish:</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and<br /><br /><br />(2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: </span></strong><br /><br /><br />(1) assessment authority;<br /><br /><br />(2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets;<br /><br /><br />(3) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">minimum and critical capital levels</span></strong>;<br /><br /><br />(4) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">risk-based capital test</span></strong>;<br /><br />(5)<strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises</span></strong>;<br /><br /><br />(6) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">enforcement actions and penalties</span></strong>;<br /><br /><br />(7) <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">golden parachutes</span></strong>; and<br /><br /><br />(8) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">reporting</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.<br /><br /><br /><br />Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.<br />Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />GovTrack.us. S. 190--109th Congress (2005): Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary</a> (accessed Sep 24, 2008)<br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1461">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1461</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This bill never became law.</span></strong> This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Last Action:<br /><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong>Oct 31, 2005</strong>: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><em><strong>The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.</strong></em><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">10/26/2005--Passed House amended</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005</span></strong> -<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Title I - Reform of Regulation of Enterprises and Federal Home Loan Banks</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Subtitle A - Improvement of Safety and Soundness</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 101 -</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Act) to establish the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which shall have supervisory and regulatory authority over the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (both hereinafter referred to as the "enterprises") and the Federal Home Loan Banks.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 102</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth duties and authorities of the Director of FHFA, which include regulating and overseeing the operations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (all three of which referred to as "regulated entities").<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 103</span></strong> -<br /><br /><br /><br />Establishes the Housing Finance Oversight Board to advise the Director.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 104</span></strong> -<br /><br />States that the Director, with respect to regulated entities: (1) may require regular reports on condition, management, activities, or operations, and any special reports; (2) shall require reports of fraudulent financial transactions; (3) shall require annual reports of charitable contributions; (4) shall collect annual assessments; and (5) shall establish risk-based capital requirements for the regulated entities.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 112</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes the Director to: (1) raise minimum capital levels to ensure that regulated entities operate in a safe and sound manner; (2) establish temporary minimum capital increases; and (3) establish additional capital and reserve requirements for a particular program.<br />Requires the Director to periodically review, and adjust as necessary, the capital levels of regulated entities.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 113</span></strong> -<br /><br />Requires the Director to periodically review enterprise assets and liabilities. Authorizes the Director to require the disposition or acquisition of certain assets and liabilities as appropriate.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 114</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth enterprise governing provisions.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 115</span></strong> -<br /><br />Requires each regulated entity to register at least one class of stock with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 116</span></strong> -<br /><br />Amends the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 to include the Director on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 117</span></strong> -<br /><br />Directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study regulated entity pricing, transparency, and reporting of guarantee fees.<br />Subtitle B - Improvement of Mission Supervision<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 121</span></strong> -<br /><br />Amends the Act to transfer authority to approve programs and to oversee the mission requirements of the enterprises from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to FHFA.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 122</span></strong> -<br /><br />Requires Director review and approval of an enterprise's new programs and activities, including pilot programs. Sets forth review and approval provisions.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 123</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth enterprise conforming loan limits for single-, two-family, three-family, and four-family residences.<br /><br /><br />Provides for: (1) annual loan limit increases or decreases; and (2) loan limit increases in areas where the median home price is greater than the conforming loan limit.<br /><br /><br />Requires the Director to: (1) develop a Housing Price Index, which shall be subject to a GAO audit on Index methodology and timing; and (2) conduct a study of issues related to loan limits in high cost areas.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 124</span></strong> -<br /><br />Requires the Director to report annually to the appropriate congressional committees respecting each regulated entity's activities.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 125</span></strong> -<br /><br />Replaces current housing goals with three single-family housing goals and a multifamily special affordable housing goal, to be established annually.<br /><br /><br />Requires: (1) an enterprise to disclose information to allow the Director to assess if there are interest rate disparities between minorities and non-minorities of similar creditworthiness; and (2) that if interest rate disparities exist, those findings must be reported to Congress and the Director must instruct the enterprise to take appropriate remedial action.<br /><br />Requires the Director to establish (and authorizes increases of) an annual purchase goal for each enterprise for conventional, conforming, single-family, owner-occupied, and purchase money mortgages financing housing for: (1) low-income families; (2) families residing in low-income areas; and (3) very low-income families.<br /><br /><br />Requires the Director to establish a Multifamily Special Affordable Goal for mortgages that finance dwelling units: (1) for low-income families; (2) for very low-income families; and (3) assisted by the low-income housing tax credit. Requires the Director to establish additional requirements within the Multifamily Special Affordable Goal for small loans measured by either mortgage amounts or number of dwelling units in the project or both.<br /><br />Authorizes an enterprise to petition the Director for a housing goal reduction.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 126</span></strong> -<br /><br />States that each enterprise shall: (1) undertake activities relating to mortgages on housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families involving a reasonable economic return that may be less than the return earned on other activities; and (2) have the duty to increase the liquidity of mortgage investments and improve the distribution of investment capital available for mortgage financing for underserved markets.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 127</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth housing goal monitoring and enforcement provisions.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 128</span></strong> -<br /><br />Requires each enterprise to establish an affordable housing fund to: (1) increase homeownership for extremely low- and very low-income families, (2) increase investment in housing in low-income areas and areas designated as qualified census tracts or an area of chronic economic distress; (3) increase and preserve the supply of rental and owner-occupied housing for extremely low- and very low-income families; and (4) increase investment in economic and community development in economically underserved areas.<br /><br /><br />Sets forth fund allocation provisions. Sunsets such required funding five years after the sixth month after enactment of this Act.<br /><br />Sets forth recipient (for-profit, governmental, and other than for-profit entities) and activity (including leveraged grants and homeownership) eligibility provisions.<br /><br />Requires each enterprise to submit quarterly reports to the Director and the affordable housing board.<br /><br />Requires the Director to appoint an affordable housing board.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 130</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes the Director to issue cease and desist orders and impose civil money penalties on an enterprise that has failed to: (1) meet a housing goal; (2) submit certain reports; (3) submit an acceptable housing plan; or (4) comply with a housing plan.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Subtitle C - Prompt Corrective Action</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 141</span></strong> -<br /><br /><br />Amends the Act to require the Director to establish capital classifications for regulated entities.<br />Revises capital classification provisions. Prohibits, with a specified exception, a regulated entity from making a capital distribution that would result in such entity's undercapitalization.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 142</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth supervisory action applicable to undercapitalized regulated entities, including restrictions on asset growth.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 143</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth supervisory actions applicable to significantly undercapitalized regulated entities, including: (1) making current discretionary actions mandatory; and (2) limiting executive officer compensation or bonuses.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 144</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes the Director to establish a conservatorship or receivership over a critically undercapitalized regulated entity in order to reorganize, rehabilitate, or terminate the entity's affairs. Requires that FHFA be appointed as conservator or receiver.<br /><br /><br />Sets forth provisions respecting: (1) grounds for conservator or receiver appointment; (2) FHFA duties and powers as conservator or receiver; and (3) judicial review.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Subtitle D - Enforcement Actions</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 161</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes the Director to: (1) issue a cease and desist order if a regulated entity or affiliated party is engaged in an unsafe or an unsound practice or is violating a rule or condition; and (2) deem a regulated entity to be engaged in unsafe and unsound practices if such entity receives a less than satisfactory rating for asset quality, management, earnings, or liquidity in its most recent exam.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 162</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes the Director to: (1) issue a temporary cease and desist order if the violation or threatened violation or unsafe or unsound practice specified in the notice of charges is likely to cause insolvency or a significant dissipation of assets or earnings or is likely to weaken the condition of the regulated entity prior to completion of the proceedings for issuance of a permanent cease-and-desist order; and (2) enforce such orders by a court injunction.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 163</span></strong> -<br /><br /><br />Authorizes the Director to seek prejudgment attachment.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 164</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes the Director to seek judicial enforcement of this title in U.S. district court.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 165</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth civil money penalties.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 166</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes the Director to issue removal and prohibition orders against a party for the protection of the regulated entity, including suspension or removal of a party charged with a felony.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 167</span></strong> -<br /><br />Provides that a person who is subject to a removal or prohibition order and who knowingly participated in the conduct of the affairs of any regulated entity shall be fined not more than $1 million, imprisoned for up to five years, or both.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 168</span></strong> -<br /><br />Grants the Director subpoena authority.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Subtitle E - General Provisions<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 181</span></strong> -<br /><br />States that the boards of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively, shall have between 7 and 15 members. (Current law requires 18 members.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 182</span></strong> -<br /><br />Requires the Director to report to Congress respecting: (1) the portfolio holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and (2) alternative secondary market systems.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Title II - Federal Home Loan Banks</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 201</span></strong> -<br /><br /><br />Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to define "Director" and "Agency" (FHFA) for purposes of such Act.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 202</span></strong> -<br /><br />Revises Federal Home Loan Bank board of director provisions, including the number of directors for each bank and their qualifications and terms of office.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 203 -<br /><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong>Replaces the Federal Housing Finance Board with FHFA.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 204</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes two or more Federal Home Loan Banks to establish a joint office in order to perform functions for, or providing services to, the Banks on a common or collective basis.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 205</span></strong> -<br /><br />Requires the Director to prescribe rules to ensure that each Federal Home Loan Bank has access to information to determine the nature and extent of its joint and several liability.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 206</span></strong> -<br /><br />Authorizes Bank mergers.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 207</span></strong> -<br /><br />Exempts Federal Home Loan Banks from certain disclosure requirements respecting: (1) capital stock; (2) tender requirements; and (3) reporting requirements.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 208</span></strong> -<br /><br />Redefines "community financial institution" to raise the maximum asset level to $1 billion. Permits such institutions to use advances for community development lending.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 210</span></strong> -<br /><br />Directs that GAO study the use of the Federal Home Loan Banks' affordable housing program to fund long-term care facilities for low- and moderate-income individuals.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Title III - Transfer of Functions, Personnel, and Property of Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Federal Housing Finance Board, and Department of Housing and Urban Development<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Subtitle A - Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight<br /><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 301</span></strong> -<br /><br />Abolishes the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) of HUD and the positions of the Director and Deputy Director six months after enactment of this Act.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 302</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth provisions respecting: (1) continuation and coordination of operations; and (2) transfer (and rights) of OFHEO employees, property, and facilities to FHFA.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Subtitle B - Federal Housing Finance Board</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 321</span></strong> -<br /><br />Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board six months after enactment of this Act.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 322</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth provisions respecting: (1) continuation and coordination of operations; and (2) transfer (and rights) of Board employees, property, and facilities to FHFA.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Subtitle C - Department of Housing and Urban Development<br /><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 341</span></strong> -<br /><br />Directs the Secretary of HUD to determine and transfer the enterprise-related functions and employees of HUD to FHFA within six months of enactment of this Act. Provides that during the six-month period after enactment of this Act HUD will continue to oversee the affordable housing goals, new programs, and mission of the enterprises.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Section 342</span></strong> -<br /><br />Sets forth provisions respecting: (1) continuation and coordination of operations; and (2) transfer (and rights) of employees, property, and facilities.<br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae</span></strong><br /><br /><br />By STEPHEN LABATON<br /><br /><br />New York Times<br /><br /><br />September 11, 2003<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. </span></strong><br /><p><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. </span></strong></p><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. </span></em></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.</span> </strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies. </span></em></strong><br /><br /><br />The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session. </span></em></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992</span></strong> after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve.</em> </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families.</span></strong> This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.<br /><br /><br /><br />Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''</span></strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the</span></strong> National Association of Home Builders and <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said. </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending<br /></span></strong><br /><br />By STEVEN A. HOLMES<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />New York Times<br /><br /><br />September 30, 1999<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.</span></em></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The action, which will begin as <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">a pilot program</span></em></strong> involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans</span></em></strong>. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><em><strong>Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.<br /></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent</span></strong>. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Fannie Mae officials stress</span></strong> that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's.</span> </strong>The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, <span style="color:#ff0000;">50 percent </span>of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups. </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.<br /></span></strong>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-27477840226815020522008-09-21T13:52:00.312-04:002008-09-23T01:22:38.798-04:00Obama Tries to Deceive Americans About Cause of the Current US Financial Crisis: But, History Shows that Banking Deregulation Was a Bipartisan Effort<strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Although the Republicans and Democrats have blamed each other for precipitating the current financial crisis on Wall Street by enacting laws that deregulated the various arms of the U.S. financial services sector, the evidence shows that BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES IN CONGRESS and the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION TREASURY DEPARTMENT had previously agreed, (along with the financial services industry), that financial deregulation was in the best interests of the country. Apparently, they had the global competitiveness of U.S. financial institutions in mind.</em></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The following information provides access to the legislation, legislative history and congressional voting that led to the overwhelming bipartisan passage of S.900, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, during November 1999. There are also articles which describe the bipartisan effort to deregulate the U.S. financial services regulations in order to increase U.S. global competitiveness against foreign </span></em></strong><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">government-championed private and national banks. </span></em></strong><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em></strong><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">H.R.10 Title</span></strong>: <em><strong>To enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.</strong></em><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">SHORT TITLE(S) <span style="font-size:180%;">AS PASSED HOUSE</span>:</span> </strong><br /><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Financial Services Act of 1999</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999</span></strong><br /></p><p><br /><strong>Sponsor:</strong> <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d106&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+Leach++James+A.))+00672))">Rep Leach, James A.</a> [IA-1] (introduced 1/6/1999) <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR00010:@@@P"><strong>Cosponsors</strong></a> (12) Related <strong>Bills: </strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HE00235:"><strong>H.RES.235</strong></a><strong>, </strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00900:"><strong>S.900</strong></a><strong> Latest Major Action: 7/12/1999</strong> Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 204. House <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Reports: </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1(hr074)"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">106-74</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> Part 1, </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1(hr074)"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">106-74</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> Part 2, </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1(hr074)"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">106-74</span></strong></a> Part 3 Note: For further action, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">see </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:S.900:"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">S. 900</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">, which became Public Law 106-102. </span></strong><br /><br /></p><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 276<br />(<span style="color:#ff0000;">Republicans in roman</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">;</span> <span style="color:#3333ff;">Democrats in italic;</span> Independents underlined)</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong>H R 10 RECORDED VOTE</strong> <strong>1-Jul-1999</strong> 11:32 PM </div><br /><strong>QUESTION: On Passage</strong><br /><br /><strong>BILL TITLE: Financial Services Act</strong><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml#Y#Y"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Ayes</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> </span></strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICAN 205</span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">DEMOCRAT 138</span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">INDEPENDENT</span><br /><br /><strong>TOTAL 343</strong><br />-----------------<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml#N#N"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Noes</span></strong></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICAN 16</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;color:#3333ff;">DEMOCRAT 69</span></span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">INDEPENDENT 1</span><br /><br /><div align="left"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>TOTAL 86</strong></span></div>----------------<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml#NV#NV"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">NV</span></strong></a><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICAN 2<br /></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">DEMOCRAT 4</span><br /><br /><strong>TOTAL 6</strong><br />-------------<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">(<span style="color:#ff0000;">Republicans in roman</span>; <span style="color:#3333ff;">Democrats in italic</span>; Independents underlined)<br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Notable Democrats who voted in favor of the Financial Services Act of 1999 [H.R. 10]: (<span style="font-size:180%;">*</span> <span style="color:#000000;">Currently holds seat in House Committee on Financial Services) See:</span> <a href="http://financialservices.house.gov/who.html"><span style="font-size:100%;">http://financialservices.house.gov/who.html</span></a></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>Ackerman (NY)</strong> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>*</strong></span><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2hyOZzWYcQ5sobrEnxyL5_bzu-P3jv9gtWRoy2E7-Mcx1UMtZopG_dwfHD1aKnSk08BnLl5e_PuICJ3-Y9XJ-GUTFHsUw4SFAyKJXsU1NtCr5EZ6Wf0tWBa7yNFKreIz9x057Pp5x1FNT/s1600-h/congressman+ackerman.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249054915658719442" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 98px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 144px" height="187" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2hyOZzWYcQ5sobrEnxyL5_bzu-P3jv9gtWRoy2E7-Mcx1UMtZopG_dwfHD1aKnSk08BnLl5e_PuICJ3-Y9XJ-GUTFHsUw4SFAyKJXsU1NtCr5EZ6Wf0tWBa7yNFKreIz9x057Pp5x1FNT/s200/congressman+ackerman.jpg" width="120" border="0" /></a><strong>Baldacci (ME) <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">(**Now 2nd term Governor of Maine)</span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHeSBzBBVxZIEGjpMji_PoBzmAtq2uQ0X-RligZq-5wC_U6rvjLorm_pKGf76s4oGxsIYZ-qtjq3qlS7shXYEo3_jtRMHJwezY0XYVM4OpMPWS88OBbFkzGCQcCj056qQio_XSDpyZApHc/s1600-h/Governor+Baldacci+-+Maine.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249052425332596370" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 135px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 123px" height="144" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHeSBzBBVxZIEGjpMji_PoBzmAtq2uQ0X-RligZq-5wC_U6rvjLorm_pKGf76s4oGxsIYZ-qtjq3qlS7shXYEo3_jtRMHJwezY0XYVM4OpMPWS88OBbFkzGCQcCj056qQio_XSDpyZApHc/s200/Governor+Baldacci+-+Maine.jpg" width="158" border="0" /></a><br /><strong>Carson (IN) <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">*</span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji9wUfZu-5wIx_z1sBp0sktO5uZ7cQ8IpHxR_Y69JHyLRsLZzCJk1Ba6xx6YI6Y2919TzzMfz1d4b90JWDd_DRdkPjzjGf12d6RCs9gMc0sN-9lugYd8XUGudqrsJsogeVH0xt7i8y-NvX/s1600-h/congressman+carson.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249052048863161074" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 108px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 121px" height="165" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji9wUfZu-5wIx_z1sBp0sktO5uZ7cQ8IpHxR_Y69JHyLRsLZzCJk1Ba6xx6YI6Y2919TzzMfz1d4b90JWDd_DRdkPjzjGf12d6RCs9gMc0sN-9lugYd8XUGudqrsJsogeVH0xt7i8y-NvX/s200/congressman+carson.jpg" width="126" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Gutierrez (IL)</strong> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>*</strong></span><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhksGgeu3Pt44GTMSNpZm8VvX-SnrfY9qGnLOOsnT8JoC0fUGjOi9wdUCZPhCqlN5U5LU-SsHGObGs5fstye3ARBAt-1jy2k84Hyd7AZapTf_7bfg7eDFKg2GFiQ7m77MhU8DJHkMP5U1hm/s1600-h/congressman+LuisGutierrez4th.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249051411684029138" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 113px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 144px" height="172" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhksGgeu3Pt44GTMSNpZm8VvX-SnrfY9qGnLOOsnT8JoC0fUGjOi9wdUCZPhCqlN5U5LU-SsHGObGs5fstye3ARBAt-1jy2k84Hyd7AZapTf_7bfg7eDFKg2GFiQ7m77MhU8DJHkMP5U1hm/s200/congressman+LuisGutierrez4th.jpg" width="133" border="0" /></a><strong>Hastings (FL)</strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDvSDqnb8qk6P2tLhAbom3A8arjGHYjf3CFV1Zlfd1iWhr6bHcIsdz0a2wTUXBEnSpto3zIXE4UnlgVVf1G6JhuUTarW4PPKnT6n7Onmp7vL-0HR8FC-EGEd-5Tgpoc36JLfn_9DSNWvNt/s1600-h/congressman+Alcee_hastings.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249049113088748994" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 117px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 100px" height="158" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDvSDqnb8qk6P2tLhAbom3A8arjGHYjf3CFV1Zlfd1iWhr6bHcIsdz0a2wTUXBEnSpto3zIXE4UnlgVVf1G6JhuUTarW4PPKnT6n7Onmp7vL-0HR8FC-EGEd-5Tgpoc36JLfn_9DSNWvNt/s200/congressman+Alcee_hastings.gif" width="167" border="0" /></a><br /><strong>Hinojosa (TX)</strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> <span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>*</strong></span></span><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH6g89AV8uUoQoHpszBgLHveJF-htvFCcVJeNprWKfu2m1Mp4Da_Fr_WiAAnlAPDA_fu9oSgYES1ESe0mFkARfrFZ2pJJiYImexeVtXQkKeKlyNivzJFgHVS9-Iww_qud6424-e8j2giJZ/s1600-h/congressman+hinojosa.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249047815587489826" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 119px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 148px" height="163" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH6g89AV8uUoQoHpszBgLHveJF-htvFCcVJeNprWKfu2m1Mp4Da_Fr_WiAAnlAPDA_fu9oSgYES1ESe0mFkARfrFZ2pJJiYImexeVtXQkKeKlyNivzJFgHVS9-Iww_qud6424-e8j2giJZ/s200/congressman+hinojosa.jpg" width="121" border="0" /></a> <strong>Holt (NJ)</strong><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr6AimHmRDWhc-OJ_Lqv41cRz2imuJPsAGNyKqVCU9Me_-Bmtv9-6oitGKqnmYZE6pW-iXpjwsOEqdic5o5_Jps5QMQI83lqjR2F2rEbLzMgdETx9jVk7uNromCSAAnVzWvmlbZzZtp1g1/s1600-h/congressman+holt.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249047144550819266" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 162px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 126px" height="143" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr6AimHmRDWhc-OJ_Lqv41cRz2imuJPsAGNyKqVCU9Me_-Bmtv9-6oitGKqnmYZE6pW-iXpjwsOEqdic5o5_Jps5QMQI83lqjR2F2rEbLzMgdETx9jVk7uNromCSAAnVzWvmlbZzZtp1g1/s200/congressman+holt.jpg" width="181" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Kennedy (RI) </strong><br /><strong></strong><strong></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzISa1TH-rdGS8ZpBeG5JAnj_oVQsTwB6E5Gga5c9WpKW8ErdZNtubXbTg7jrNwj9QpBIuIcLVqfLTT7qTXFNHi3cxX8BvO5K65Qdfnm5jF3sQwRcjKN-UWuDgV4k3TwV23OMbwKXmc65U/s1600-h/congressman+kennedy.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249046266144083650" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 115px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 152px" height="170" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzISa1TH-rdGS8ZpBeG5JAnj_oVQsTwB6E5Gga5c9WpKW8ErdZNtubXbTg7jrNwj9QpBIuIcLVqfLTT7qTXFNHi3cxX8BvO5K65Qdfnm5jF3sQwRcjKN-UWuDgV4k3TwV23OMbwKXmc65U/s200/congressman+kennedy.jpg" width="126" border="0" /></a><strong>Levin (MI) <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">(*** Currently holds seat in Committee on Ways and Means)</span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQvcU6wRsqKRR1CqBD1632WKhmYP9ExvOXUb8OltBRK8q2MfQVquV5nGAUdEwLCXtbZfxiD_PERixFPBQSqgyww9B6w2QC0Dg0qhc5SawSZ3dUq0Sqz3rOQi9KU3WVhfw187Ju05RebLCi/s1600-h/congressman+levin.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249045770729256706" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 118px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 121px" height="151" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQvcU6wRsqKRR1CqBD1632WKhmYP9ExvOXUb8OltBRK8q2MfQVquV5nGAUdEwLCXtbZfxiD_PERixFPBQSqgyww9B6w2QC0Dg0qhc5SawSZ3dUq0Sqz3rOQi9KU3WVhfw187Ju05RebLCi/s200/congressman+levin.jpg" width="155" border="0" /></a><br /><strong>Maloney (NY)</strong> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>*</strong></span><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMKqVYwGEpR1KgG7p8jOckP1G2k3C1uRWmv-HGXyf7S3heuAeTNDVA65vMKeapJesE7q29C9-JJfpxfRzI4NYEA-xCV41PAA9_koJaRUClGm6cke-JAIts4IUmaXfr4BkWtHC8a2CZTdWP/s1600-h/congresswoman+maloney.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249044997619959554" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 108px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 132px" height="176" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMKqVYwGEpR1KgG7p8jOckP1G2k3C1uRWmv-HGXyf7S3heuAeTNDVA65vMKeapJesE7q29C9-JJfpxfRzI4NYEA-xCV41PAA9_koJaRUClGm6cke-JAIts4IUmaXfr4BkWtHC8a2CZTdWP/s200/congresswoman+maloney.bmp" width="110" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Meek (FL) <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">***</span></strong><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd8LaGe_K42sij6_P1biyj81nQwggC2bW5uju3ZD18ylJNR9kiQcR9Hi8xQd7B12DzknFIxV85fWnYqlhAwL6P6oMvEG9-euJtAjIOP3leBUkrir1XyZ4ZaJqiFiZU2w1RpRRaTQfqzjbK/s1600-h/congressman+kendrickmeek.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249044125988787106" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 113px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 129px" height="165" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd8LaGe_K42sij6_P1biyj81nQwggC2bW5uju3ZD18ylJNR9kiQcR9Hi8xQd7B12DzknFIxV85fWnYqlhAwL6P6oMvEG9-euJtAjIOP3leBUkrir1XyZ4ZaJqiFiZU2w1RpRRaTQfqzjbK/s200/congressman+kendrickmeek.jpg" width="143" border="0" /></a>(Meeks (NY) <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">*</span></strong><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqOpM3Zz8oCpDi6w6JBT9adWojsgshxBgh7_MZXl4qWZfTZpFKkZPEOiXUwDp2QjQQ0kJuywRVSFtOcuaRcD-j13CZMtffPZukuaPjFWjbhlLR1c7SKiMMZT0cieK8mcTIPZWH4HBMOfon/s1600-h/congressman+meeks_gregory.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249043049153500290" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 111px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 134px" height="175" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqOpM3Zz8oCpDi6w6JBT9adWojsgshxBgh7_MZXl4qWZfTZpFKkZPEOiXUwDp2QjQQ0kJuywRVSFtOcuaRcD-j13CZMtffPZukuaPjFWjbhlLR1c7SKiMMZT0cieK8mcTIPZWH4HBMOfon/s200/congressman+meeks_gregory.jpg" width="136" border="0" /></a><strong>Menendez (NJ) <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">(** Now U.S. Senator for NJ)</span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimwGhsMleXupskBggdpDlXo47YZ77EW3wlyoAROit0XCdulJ4KHzIX5zQEJqr92kMGsx0wuwUPw9-NBtTJmZy0CpQ9FK1pg2ajIszw09eyFvzN2Uu_EovLCAgYLZoQJUXeCqi7jxQb29ls/s1600-h/menendez_2nd_round_nr.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249040067901025986" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 143px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 112px" height="142" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimwGhsMleXupskBggdpDlXo47YZ77EW3wlyoAROit0XCdulJ4KHzIX5zQEJqr92kMGsx0wuwUPw9-NBtTJmZy0CpQ9FK1pg2ajIszw09eyFvzN2Uu_EovLCAgYLZoQJUXeCqi7jxQb29ls/s200/menendez_2nd_round_nr.jpg" width="168" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>McNulty (NY)</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">***</span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVm9WNoToa1v3p-ImJfIveUgHf6-mX3auZWkcrIDu7LqFImUuMWZip5OFDRtAfqqFvJwQpS2Cqw1Rim5ZAFF3JabNduTn_3EX5aqliVYsXRz7Fwc1QCxT7KNS29ZnI1Rw1IQeT70aRd1XJ/s1600-h/congressman+rep_mike_mcnulty.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249031836159503698" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 103px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 136px" height="182" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVm9WNoToa1v3p-ImJfIveUgHf6-mX3auZWkcrIDu7LqFImUuMWZip5OFDRtAfqqFvJwQpS2Cqw1Rim5ZAFF3JabNduTn_3EX5aqliVYsXRz7Fwc1QCxT7KNS29ZnI1Rw1IQeT70aRd1XJ/s200/congressman+rep_mike_mcnulty.gif" width="119" border="0" /></a><strong>Moore (KS)</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">*</span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYnUa322GlRV3a1pBnYNqQ0S4L00kvsee_IqNFHXOa3vyFqF9ON466PRZmuYmLdJ6Mh9YAMmD2o-Qb9Wm-keNjoyLMdlZeWXQMRpNw0EB2xZPUyk-SOieyW-9fF3U8f_IKFSP_qk7SYyPX/s1600-h/congressman+moore.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249031159987084466" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 103px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 137px" height="148" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYnUa322GlRV3a1pBnYNqQ0S4L00kvsee_IqNFHXOa3vyFqF9ON466PRZmuYmLdJ6Mh9YAMmD2o-Qb9Wm-keNjoyLMdlZeWXQMRpNw0EB2xZPUyk-SOieyW-9fF3U8f_IKFSP_qk7SYyPX/s200/congressman+moore.jpg" width="124" border="0" /></a><strong>Moore (WI)</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">*</span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgatl1BIO4xgrv0uCAHVGnOYVhPmSvsiJuqzyMkn5EnopmDzaUORjyTM3-KkuFPnbFl3SrKBb2y5rIJmOyGDR17eGWk0E5zUOUz90qu7TawYEfY5cZkbbjcu5x_sxtAVD0vK9ZOQiNdW-y1/s1600-h/congresswoman+moore.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249030539494851186" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 88px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 141px" height="147" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgatl1BIO4xgrv0uCAHVGnOYVhPmSvsiJuqzyMkn5EnopmDzaUORjyTM3-KkuFPnbFl3SrKBb2y5rIJmOyGDR17eGWk0E5zUOUz90qu7TawYEfY5cZkbbjcu5x_sxtAVD0vK9ZOQiNdW-y1/s200/congresswoman+moore.jpg" width="106" border="0" /></a><strong>Neal (MA) <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">***</span></strong><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4lTcrOBTBYneRZ-odFbs5vkAjQkiYHqT7bSnI3EsS4M0uVFwwXa6P5unfHSV5tB0t-4GukvQt81WGkx_4yC7pFr6Y4SNZNu31oL2P5AeiJdGnDR0xOybCzytpbLWwBH7-JL7Z9HURfJm_/s1600-h/congressman+neal.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249029962395353442" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 101px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 131px" height="157" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4lTcrOBTBYneRZ-odFbs5vkAjQkiYHqT7bSnI3EsS4M0uVFwwXa6P5unfHSV5tB0t-4GukvQt81WGkx_4yC7pFr6Y4SNZNu31oL2P5AeiJdGnDR0xOybCzytpbLWwBH7-JL7Z9HURfJm_/s200/congressman+neal.jpg" width="134" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Rangel (NY)</strong> <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>(**** Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means)</strong></span><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwHaINlfsejGDfgl7m1Iyonw8kxxcfI3Sj9Hbzc5JF0Z2FJ5F1SBv9F91Rd5s98BBI8bLuE69eVoAudqRvTjjGDPYWYvr2ZYsyX1WtPJGujxZhcTUKDFFXdj7jFWCOUUvScLb9YHO8DvRH/s1600-h/congressman+rangel.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249028286841179666" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 144px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 117px" height="134" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwHaINlfsejGDfgl7m1Iyonw8kxxcfI3Sj9Hbzc5JF0Z2FJ5F1SBv9F91Rd5s98BBI8bLuE69eVoAudqRvTjjGDPYWYvr2ZYsyX1WtPJGujxZhcTUKDFFXdj7jFWCOUUvScLb9YHO8DvRH/s200/congressman+rangel.jpg" width="167" border="0" /></a> <strong>Scott (GA) <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">*</span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRR7bByPoX9idW4Ep8b-yDA-zFrbrD7367AkxKQz7YHw0vSC2FP4ehLU51ihCcShvMK3_f2Y1xezEcJtugI3IqLHsRUbdkAFq3SZFNXAAg0wYBH5rpA9ET9jYfyaT2Pfdo2r5_94TjRK6m/s1600-h/Congressman+david+Scott.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249026534939725522" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 114px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 162px" height="182" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRR7bByPoX9idW4Ep8b-yDA-zFrbrD7367AkxKQz7YHw0vSC2FP4ehLU51ihCcShvMK3_f2Y1xezEcJtugI3IqLHsRUbdkAFq3SZFNXAAg0wYBH5rpA9ET9jYfyaT2Pfdo2r5_94TjRK6m/s200/Congressman+david+Scott.jpg" width="122" border="0" /></a><br /><strong>Velazquez (NY)</strong> <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>*</strong></span></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDiQbWVO1oART2tYaSLTyg8FTUNQLgaNp_IJu-7YZnU-4dbhfgoJIcPm32BliV5NzMQhG1vV3ExkWMwEONtZl4YGziA45qScMJAZaoOtMceTbI63-vu3PoqOXHZ8eI5wfImkc8MHKZBMjz/s1600-h/congresswoman+velaquez.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249004964071128626" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 116px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 136px" height="157" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDiQbWVO1oART2tYaSLTyg8FTUNQLgaNp_IJu-7YZnU-4dbhfgoJIcPm32BliV5NzMQhG1vV3ExkWMwEONtZl4YGziA45qScMJAZaoOtMceTbI63-vu3PoqOXHZ8eI5wfImkc8MHKZBMjz/s200/congresswoman+velaquez.jpg" width="140" border="0" /></a> <strong>Watt (NC)</strong> <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>*</strong></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2abu6RYIT7VjTqRZWQvggEKakShaJi0pgaxMt8ALw4RVJqVyqKsjhzGKvexWiGtpm_XKV3TzeKSFHS2YaDiQiKFjT9em4j_zupCa7KeRbF57k7wh6eD0Zxxc-PMFUP2Gp6-QhefWJkmx9/s1600-h/congressman+watt.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249005391420296994" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 102px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 132px" height="153" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2abu6RYIT7VjTqRZWQvggEKakShaJi0pgaxMt8ALw4RVJqVyqKsjhzGKvexWiGtpm_XKV3TzeKSFHS2YaDiQiKFjT9em4j_zupCa7KeRbF57k7wh6eD0Zxxc-PMFUP2Gp6-QhefWJkmx9/s200/congressman+watt.jpg" width="136" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Notable Democrats who did NOT vote on H.R. 10:</span></strong><br /><strong>Green (TX)</strong> <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>*</strong></span><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi74aNjcJSwuAQ-pGJpzbprRN9nfrJZ8S5yvqJmmGUw6mfjbcv8YY7KCwk7ppAuTMmkTG0dxeDKX7AyHDkhtyLDTfhbcQpLIgqGXn5Sr0yODkWFUMYBBLbTALEzCdGNwRiskgXfSKsnFLNj/s1600-h/congressman+green+tx.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249006498226591922" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" height="175" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi74aNjcJSwuAQ-pGJpzbprRN9nfrJZ8S5yvqJmmGUw6mfjbcv8YY7KCwk7ppAuTMmkTG0dxeDKX7AyHDkhtyLDTfhbcQpLIgqGXn5Sr0yODkWFUMYBBLbTALEzCdGNwRiskgXfSKsnFLNj/s200/congressman+green+tx.bmp" width="127" border="0" /></a> <strong>Pelosi (CA)</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">(***** Currently, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives)</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000000;">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>S.900 Title:</strong> </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><em><strong>An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes. </strong></em></span><br /><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">SHORT TITLE(S) AS ENACTED:</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[INTO LAW - P.L. 106-102]</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act</span></strong></div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Prime Act </span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999</span></strong><br /><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Sponsor: </strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d106&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Gramm++Phil))+00453))"><strong>Sen Gramm, Phil</strong></a><strong> [TX] (introduced 4/28/1999) </strong><strong>Cosponsors (None) <span style="font-size:130%;">Related Bills: </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HE00355:"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">H.RES.355</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">, </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR00010:"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">H.R.10</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 106-102 [GPO: </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/toGPObss/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ102.106"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Text</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">, </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/toGPObss/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ102.106.pdf"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">PDF</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">] Senate Reports: </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1(sr044)"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">106-44</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">; Latest Conference Report: </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1(hr434)"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">106-434</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> (in Congressional Record </span></strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:H11256"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">H11255-11292</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">)</span></strong><br /><div align="center"><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 570</span></strong><br /></div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">(<span style="color:#ff0000;">Republicans in roman</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">;</span> <span style="color:#3333ff;">Democrats in italic;</span> Independents underlined)<br /><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong>S 900 YEA-AND-NAY 4-Nov-1999 11:17 PM </strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>QUESTION: On Agreeing to the <span style="font-size:180%;">Conference Report </span></strong><br /><br /><strong>BILL TITLE: Financial Services Modernization Act</strong><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml#Y#Y"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Ayes</span></strong></a><br /><br /><div align="left"><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICAN 207<br /></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">DEMOCRAT 155<br /></span>INDEPENDENT</div><br /><strong>TOTAL 362</strong><br />-----------------<br /><br /><br /><strong><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml#N#N">Nays</a></strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICAN 5<br /></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">DEMOCRAT 51<br /></span>INDEPENDENT 1<br /><br /><div align="left"><strong>TOTAL 57</strong></div>----------------<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml#NV#NV"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">NV</span></strong></a><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICAN 10</span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">DEMOCRAT 5<br /></span>INDEPENDENT<br /><br /><strong>TOTAL 15 </strong><br />---------------<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session<br />as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate<br /></div></span></strong><br /><br /><strong>Vote Summary</strong><br /><br /><strong>Question: On Passage of the Bill <span style="font-size:180%;">(S.900 as amended BEFORE CONFERENCE)</span></strong><br /><br /><strong>Vote Number: 105 </strong><br /><br /><strong>Vote Date: May 6, 1999, 08:14 PM<br /><br /></strong><strong></strong><br /><strong>Required For Majority: 1/2<br /></strong><br /><br /><strong>Vote Result: Bill Passed<br /></strong><br /><br /><strong>Measure Number: </strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN900:"><strong>S. 900</strong></a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Measure Title:</span> </strong><em><strong>An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.<br /></strong></em><br /><strong>Vote Counts: <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105">http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105</a><br /></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">YEAs</span></strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICANS<strong> </strong>53</span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">DEMOCRATS 1</span><br /><br /><strong>TOTAL 54</strong><br />-----------------<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">NAYs </span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICANS </span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">DEMOCRATS 44<br /></span><span style="color:#3333ff;"></span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>TOTAL 44</strong></span><br /></span><span style="color:#3333ff;"></span>----------------<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Present </strong></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICANS 1</span><br /><br /><strong>TOTAL 1</strong><br /><br />----------------- <div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Not Voting</span></strong> </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;">REPUBLICAN 1</span><strong><br /></strong></div><div><br /></div><div><strong>TOTAL 1</strong><br />-----------------</div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Notable ADDITIONAL Democrats who voted in favor of THE CONFERENCE BILL S.900 - The GRAMM–LEACH–BLILEY ACT, enacted into law as PUBLIC LAW 106–102—NOV. 12, 1999 </span></strong>- See: <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ102.106.pdf"><strong>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ102.106.pdf</strong></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><strong>Pelosi (CA)</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">(***** Currently Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives)</span></strong></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYjZqWxHlVG6O2IfcPm0tCuQcEobk3kLoQjq24JfKxxvKbHRgYEXJhY3KOTGWq25lcyASXyRwLULLGNj_x_e3lwIy2FwRYPmSK5_fpPLE6YZLsPeh9Enmc2A1FH7FEApUteyzR2vsP2Dn8/s1600-h/nancy-pelosi.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249021725911335938" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" height="161" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYjZqWxHlVG6O2IfcPm0tCuQcEobk3kLoQjq24JfKxxvKbHRgYEXJhY3KOTGWq25lcyASXyRwLULLGNj_x_e3lwIy2FwRYPmSK5_fpPLE6YZLsPeh9Enmc2A1FH7FEApUteyzR2vsP2Dn8/s200/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="174" border="0" /></a><strong>Sherman (CA)</strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">*</span></strong><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhop2yQxWAmahrOUbt5ohIx1auw1cPDGw7C1g5lzf9cPXMtX0arhgzjTmxEJ3m5XkMYjnLAUa2qLsPHgHfi6c3MRzG1jl3KPam7oxxUH7Z4zeKtqk3-erHtph9V9txYgE8ArAGa3igdy_bB/s1600-h/congressman+Brad+Sherman.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249020380645400114" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" height="159" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhop2yQxWAmahrOUbt5ohIx1auw1cPDGw7C1g5lzf9cPXMtX0arhgzjTmxEJ3m5XkMYjnLAUa2qLsPHgHfi6c3MRzG1jl3KPam7oxxUH7Z4zeKtqk3-erHtph9V9txYgE8ArAGa3igdy_bB/s200/congressman+Brad+Sherman.bmp" width="134" border="0" /></a><br /><br /></div><div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">THE PARTISAN RHETORIC</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5HcfD1xBcY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5HcfD1xBcY</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama: Wallstreet Crisis Caused by McCain-GOP Policies<br /></span></strong><br /><br />YouTube<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9374EMO0&show_article=1">http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9374EMO0&show_article=1</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama blames Wall St. crisis on Republican policy</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Sep 15 07:26 AM US/Eastern<br /><br /><br />By TERENCE HUNT<br /><br /><br />CHICAGO (AP) - <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Monday the upheaval on Wall Street was "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression" and blamed it on policies that he said Republican rival John McCain supports.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy," Obama said after the shock-wave announcements that financial giant Lehman Brothers was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while titan Merrill Lynch was being bought by Bank of America for about $50 billion.</span><br /></strong><br /><br />Obama's statement, issued as he prepared to fly to Colorado to begin a swing through contested Western states, was intended to serve two purposes: to link McCain with the unpopular presidency of George W. Bush and to express sympathy with the anxiety of most Americans who say the economy is issue No. 1 in the election.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store,"</span> </strong>Obama said in a statement. "Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."<br /><br /><br />"I certainly don't fault Sen. McCain for these problems," Obama said, "but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to."<br /><br /><br />In a presidential race turning increasingly negative, Obama also drew on editorial comments from U.S. newspapers and magazines to accuse McCain of running a dishonest campaign with some of the "sleaziest ads" ever seen.<br /><br /><br />Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said McCain was "launching a low blow a day" and went on to say the Republican candidate stands "with George Bush firmly in the corner of the wealthy and well-connected."<br /><br /><br />Obama's campaign launched a new television commercial that aggressively pushes back against charges by McCain, the GOP presidential nominee. Obama has been under increasing pressure from Democrats to strike back harder at McCain, who has taken a slight lead in national polls. Some leading Republicans faulted both presidential campaigns Sunday for the increasingly negative tone of their advertising.<br /><br /><br />Former Bush political adviser Karl Rove said McCain and Obama had both shaded the truth in campaign advertising.<br /><br /><br />"McCain has gone, in some of his ads, similarly gone one step too far in sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100-percent truth test," Rove told "Fox News Sunday."<br /><br /><br />The Obama campaign has complained especially about an ad that declares Obama supports sex education for kindergartners. He supported legislation that would teach age-appropriate sex education to kindergartners, including information on rejecting advances by sexual predators.<br /><br /><br />"Both campaigns are making a mistake, and that is they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far," Rove said. "They don't need to attack each other in this way."<br /><br /><br />Obama's new commercial opens with a picture of McCain saying, "I will not take the low road to the highest office in this land." The announcer then asks, "What happened to John McCain?"<br /><br /><br />The ad uses brief phrases from editorials and commentators from The Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Tribune, CBS and The New Republic: "one of the sleaziest ads ever seen," "truly vile," "dishonest smears," "exposed as a lie," "a disgraceful, dishonest campaign." It concludes, "It seems `deception' is all he's got left."<br /><br /><br />The McCain campaign also has put out an Internet ad accusing Obama of calling Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin a pig when he used the phrase putting "lipstick on a pig" to criticize the GOP ticket as trying to make a bad situation look better. McCain supporters said Obama was slyly alluding to Palin's description of herself as a pit bull in lipstick, but there was nothing in his remarks to support the claim.<br /><br /><br />Biden, in an appearance planned Monday in St. Clair Shores, Mich., tried to link McCain with President Bush.<br /><br /><br />"If you're ready for four more years of George Bush, John McCain is your man," Biden said in prepared remarks. "Just as George Herbert Walker Bush was nicknamed `Bush 41' and his son is known as `Bush 43,' John McCain could easily become known as `Bush 44.'"<br /><br /><br />Excerpts of Biden's speech were released in advance by the Obama-Biden campaign.<br /><br /><br />With a passing reference to McCain's sacrifices as a Vietnam prisoner of war, Biden said: "America needs more than a great solider, America needs a wise leader. Take a hard look at the positions John has taken for the past 26 years, on the economy, on health care, on foreign policy, and you'll see why I say that John McCain is just four more years of George Bush."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803159.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803159.html</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">'Always for Less Regulation'?</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.<br /></strong></span></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div>Washington Post Editorial<br /><br /><br />Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A18<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">TO LISTEN to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain is a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of regulating financial markets. "He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis," Mr. Obama said in New Mexico yesterday. "When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal -- and I quote -- 'I'm always for less regulation.' </span></em></strong>"<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">But the full quotation from Mr. McCain's March interview with the Journal's editorial board belies </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Mr. Obama</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">'s one-sided rendition</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Republican candidate went on to say, "But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight</span></strong></em>. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis -- that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight."<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">It's fair to say that Mr. McCain has dramatically ramped up the regulatory rhetoric in the wake of the meltdown on </span></em></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Wall+Street?tid=informline"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Wall Street</span></em></strong></a><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">. Mr. Obama made the argument about the need for increased oversight much earlier. And Mr. McCain has generally taken an anti-regulatory stance, although not in all cases</span></em></strong> -- his support for federal regulation of tobacco and boxing being prominent counter-examples. Mr. McCain backed a moratorium on all new federal regulation in 1995, saying that excessive regulations were "destroying the American family, the American dream." On the campaign trail in 2000, he touted his record of voting "for smaller government, for less regulation."<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">However, when it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporate misconduct, Mr. McCain's record is more in keeping with his current rhetoric. In the aftermath of the </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Enron+Corporation?tid=informline"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Enron</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;"> collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader</span><span style="color:#3333ff;">, with </span></span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Carl+Levin?tid=informline"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.)</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">, in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets.</span></strong> <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">"I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation,"</span></em></strong> he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+New+York+Times+Company?tid=informline">New York Times</a>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">"But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor -- and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years -- can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work."</span></em></strong> </div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Mr. McCain</span> was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he "seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government's demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well."</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fannie+Mae?tid=informline"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Fannie Mae</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> and </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Freddie+Mac+Holdings?tid=informline"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Freddie Mac</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent.</span></strong> "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," Mr. McCain warned at the time.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">One element of the Obama campaign's brief against Mr. McCain is that he supported repeal of the law separating commercial banks from investment banks. "He's spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers," Mr. Obama said yesterday</span></strong></em>. "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Phil+Gramm?tid=informline">Phil Gramm</a>, one of the architects of the deregulation in Washington that led directly to this mess on Wall Street, is also the architect of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline">John McCain</a>'s economic plan." <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoODi8eYUpXYJIdN5AsKwATZLSottYw6O-G-FZ0eMoODu1S8E8JSQFwy7Pkzsb3xhXLGGe9O5mW5DgRvBNifFWBsMXkHXoB8Po5OST2DOEToSuCpD4OazFTFx5PxFXEspOiC3f83wmZhqm/s1600-h/US+representative+jim+leach.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5248952284711179170" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" height="159" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoODi8eYUpXYJIdN5AsKwATZLSottYw6O-G-FZ0eMoODu1S8E8JSQFwy7Pkzsb3xhXLGGe9O5mW5DgRvBNifFWBsMXkHXoB8Po5OST2DOEToSuCpD4OazFTFx5PxFXEspOiC3f83wmZhqm/s200/US+representative+jim+leach.jpg" width="218" border="0" /></a>Would it be churlish to point out that another author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law is former congressman </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jim+Leach?tid=informline"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Jim Leach</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">, a founder of Republicans for Obama? Or that Obama advisers </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Lawrence+Summers?tid=informline"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Lawrence H. Summers</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9AYdLFIon7jQooJjQCPVBHRraIFa_7KRh8UBX7sEFRKKXrRYz2wr4eqMC-U3CCLBVnTlTzA7NEfPge9VUb3Ds2iu_v3S0gZkZNvIbXykXCs-Gu6N1hOxeEMQjuKGCDCKHBzOuON8nMeTo/s1600-h/clinton+former+treasury+secretary+lawrence+summers.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5248950885668388514" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 145px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 216px" height="264" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9AYdLFIon7jQooJjQCPVBHRraIFa_7KRh8UBX7sEFRKKXrRYz2wr4eqMC-U3CCLBVnTlTzA7NEfPge9VUb3Ds2iu_v3S0gZkZNvIbXykXCs-Gu6N1hOxeEMQjuKGCDCKHBzOuON8nMeTo/s320/clinton+former+treasury+secretary+lawrence+summers.jpg" width="173" border="0" /></a>and </span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheXhwPX-BGl9OwpOyUHb7dFT-Q3sBpgRqfj4c_BrpNTJ0lKNuS0mxFgM0i6ZNDngvbFzOLyCOheHEJLd6Tlk0X0lb8rQ712LgohJcyihqmmCMc4bHxxQ3_P9Ap3oj8xxxmogvciS1vC1Sm/s1600-h/clinton+former+treasury+secretary+robert+rubin.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5248950346754777522" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheXhwPX-BGl9OwpOyUHb7dFT-Q3sBpgRqfj4c_BrpNTJ0lKNuS0mxFgM0i6ZNDngvbFzOLyCOheHEJLd6Tlk0X0lb8rQ712LgohJcyihqmmCMc4bHxxQ3_P9Ap3oj8xxxmogvciS1vC1Sm/s320/clinton+former+treasury+secretary+robert+rubin.jpg" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Robert+Rubin?tid=informline">Robert E. Rubin</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtXJQtWKhjF96ZqhU0sOqnFQQFFoBTfQHThn9uoaOGqyhnwpHZWr5OoyOSE9K2T4eL7iBs6Soyxn60T5WAhq8paBPa6RtY3c4npwJKBbIIaC3E6gOs_UV5aVi4yH9fGRE7ps8WTt1riubL/s1600-h/bill+clinton0807.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5248951561828731746" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 248px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 163px" height="193" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtXJQtWKhjF96ZqhU0sOqnFQQFFoBTfQHThn9uoaOGqyhnwpHZWr5OoyOSE9K2T4eL7iBs6Soyxn60T5WAhq8paBPa6RtY3c4npwJKBbIIaC3E6gOs_UV5aVi4yH9fGRE7ps8WTt1riubL/s320/bill+clinton0807.jpg" width="248" border="0" /></a>supported the repeal -- which was signed by President </span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+Clinton?tid=informline"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Bill Clinton</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">?<br /></span></strong><br /><br />It's a reasonable question which candidate has been more attentive to the brewing problems on Wall Street and which has a better prescription for them. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">But Mr. Obama's attack does not give a fair reading of the McCain record.<br /></span></strong></div><div></div><div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div></div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1173539,obama091908.article">http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1173539,obama091908.article</a></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama meets economic advisers to offer new plans</span></strong> </div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Associated Press</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div>September 19, 2008</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div>MIAMI -- <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Barack Obama turned to a team of advisers that shaped America's economy in happier days to fashion fresh ideas for calming the stomach-churning financial crisis that has thundered from Wall Street to Main Street.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVa3KtD8CopDZUt7IR9ZAk9x0f_GQnY0myPs8cezFAjk7MUQ2HFTyRKjyedFTYG-6-HcfAbiG8eqAK1trppvMkJtb0s_NTNSVvOlsvLzC1-CdxD6t1OhRGPZ9kn7o968jA5wrPno007009/s1600-h/obama+financial+advisors+1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249033006074348578" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVa3KtD8CopDZUt7IR9ZAk9x0f_GQnY0myPs8cezFAjk7MUQ2HFTyRKjyedFTYG-6-HcfAbiG8eqAK1trppvMkJtb0s_NTNSVvOlsvLzC1-CdxD6t1OhRGPZ9kn7o968jA5wrPno007009/s320/obama+financial+advisors+1.jpg" border="0" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdW-5n2x_MtImPRjHREFeQT1WPdFEPPp_Ca8fxEKD-EOfHhLndYTuzhO3YuWzI38Q7BeSIUM__QoAJbFUOYGGItk0oBpH54cEfiZV6h33W61KSWODBRrxkJ_GIvEMQT3Yf9dSpxaSssyr2/s1600-h/obama+financial+advisors+2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249034447131769218" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdW-5n2x_MtImPRjHREFeQT1WPdFEPPp_Ca8fxEKD-EOfHhLndYTuzhO3YuWzI38Q7BeSIUM__QoAJbFUOYGGItk0oBpH54cEfiZV6h33W61KSWODBRrxkJ_GIvEMQT3Yf9dSpxaSssyr2/s320/obama+financial+advisors+2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div><div><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Some of the most respected names in the business world were pitching in Friday, including billionaire investor Warren Buffett, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, former Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers <span style="color:#ff0000;">and Paul O'Neill</span> and <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1rSP0-jNV6GLkSm3mfkNhshrh4kNRuepzA6KsR6eN-q2f1bdhsoc7src9P53ePe-1aD_Wax3igHjvtrdiMqc6kon64Wc2hrfXz7ripAcxc0-8U4wvvv5JPzib5o0k7_ddqgGNQ7Y4mPZo/s1600-h/Laura+Tyson.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249035830055180754" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1rSP0-jNV6GLkSm3mfkNhshrh4kNRuepzA6KsR6eN-q2f1bdhsoc7src9P53ePe-1aD_Wax3igHjvtrdiMqc6kon64Wc2hrfXz7ripAcxc0-8U4wvvv5JPzib5o0k7_ddqgGNQ7Y4mPZo/s200/Laura+Tyson.jpg" border="0" /></a>Laura Tyson, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton.<br /></div></span></strong><div><br /></div><div>Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, was to meet with advisers in Coral Gables, Fla., on the campus of the University of Miami and then announce his new proposals. Buffett and O'Neill and perhaps others were to participate by way of a telephone conference call.<br /></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>Less than seven weeks before Election Day, the high-profile consultations appeared designed to portray Obama in a presidential-like setting, grappling with the nation's gravest problems and making decisions with the help of a big-name team of experts.<br /></div><div></div><div>Republican rival John McCain has charged that Obama is too inexperienced to sit in the Oval Office. Friday's meeting was tailored to show that McCain is wrong. But at the end of the day, Obama's proposals will be campaign fodder as opposed to the real bailout plan taking shape in Washington to rescue banks from bad debt.<br /></div><div></div><div><br />''This is not a time for fear, it's not a time for panic,'' Obama said Thursday in New Mexico. ''This is a time for resolve and it is a time for leadership.''<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The anxious focus on the economy is an advantage for Obama because McCain-ally President Bush has set the nation's economic priorities for the last eight years with tax cuts, global trade deals and a veto-pen threat over Democratic initiatives. On the campaign trail, Obama relentlessly tries to tie McCain with the unpopular Bush.<br /></div><div></div><div><br />Briefly outlining his proposals, Obama said he would call for a Homeowner and Financial Support Act ''that would establish a more stable and permanent solution than the daily improvisations that have characterized policy-making over the past year.''<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>He said his measures would provide capital to the financial system, insure liquidity to allow the financial markets to function and ''get serious about helping struggling families to restructure their mortgages on affordable terms so they can stay in their homes.''<br /></div><div></div><div><br />Obama also mocked McCain's promise to fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission if elected.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><strong>''I think that's all fine and good but here's what I think,'' Obama said. ''In the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path. </strong></div><div><strong></div></strong><div><br /></div><div>''Don't just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration,'' he said. ''Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who's going to fight for you.''<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div>Obama came up with yet another way to poke fun at McCain for his comment Monday that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. ''This comment was so out of touch that even George Bush's White House couldn't agree with it when they were asked about it. They had to distance themselves from John McCain.''<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div>Bush has used the same language many times but his press secretary would not repeat the line Wednesday in the face of historic financial turbulence.</div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;"></span></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">Obama had telephone discussions Thursday about the financial markets with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Fed chief Paul Volcker and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.<br /></span><em>Saying that McCain strongly advocated deregulation and then changed his mind, Obama said, ''We can't afford to lurch back and forth between positions depending on the latest news of the day when dealing with an economic crisis.</em></span></strong></div><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em></strong><br /><br /><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><span style="font-size:130%;">''We need some clear and steady leadership and that's why I was ahead of the curve in calling for regulation,'' he said.</span> </span></strong>''And that's why I'm calling on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to use their emergency authorities to maintain the flow of credit, to support the availability of mortgages and to ensure that our financial system is well capitalized.''<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong>In response, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said, ''When Barack Obama came to Washington, he chose to strengthen his ties to spiraling lenders like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and their jet-set CEOs, not make change. The American people cannot afford leadership that puts a higher premium on campaign contributions than protecting hardworking Americans.''</strong></div><div><br /></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/30/EDP9121LGN.DTL">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/30/EDP9121LGN.DTL</a> </div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Banking expertise we don't need</span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div>by Robert Scheer</div><div></div><div></div><div><br />SF Gate.com<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>July 30, 2008</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>This is a time to condemn the bankers, not to embrace them. They are the scoundrels who got us into the biggest economic mess since the Great Depression, lining their own pockets while destroying the life savings of those who trusted them. Yet <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">both of our leading presidential candidates are scrambling to enlist not only the big-dollar contributions but, more frighteningly, the "expertise" of the very folks who advocated the financial industry deregulations at the heart of this meltdown.<br /></span></em></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Republican candidate John McCain even appointed as his campaign co-chairman Phil Gramm, who went from being chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, where he sponsored disastrous legislation that empowered the banking bandits, to becoming one of them at UBS Warburg</span></strong>. Gramm was forced to resign from McCain's campaign only after he went public with his contempt for the financial concerns of ordinary Americans, calling them "whiners" and perpetrators of a so-called "mental recession."<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><em>But Gramm and the Republicans couldn't have done it without the support of leading Democrats. The most egregious of Gramm's legislative favors to the financiers took the form of legislation named in part after him - the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which only became law when Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin prevailed upon President Clinton to sign the bill.</em></span></strong> The bill's immediate major effect was to legitimatize the long-sought merger between Citibank and insurance giant Travelers. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Rubin's critical support for the bill was rewarded with an appointment, within days of its passage, to a top job at Citibank (later Citigroup) paying more than $15 million a year.<br /></span></strong></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">That is the same Rubin with whom Democratic candidate Barack Obama met, along with other influential advisers, on Tuesday to figure out what to do about the sorry state of our economy.</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">But what in the world did he expect to learn from Rubin? And why did he appoint Rubin's protege, Jason Furman, who ran the Rubin-funded Hamilton Project, to be the Obama campaign's economic director? Hopefully, during their encounter Tuesday, Rubin offered himself as a contrite model of everything that the candidate of change needs to change.</span><br /></span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><span style="font-size:130%;">After all,</span> <span style="color:#006600;">Goldman Sachs</span>, where Rubin spent 25 years <span style="font-size:130%;">of his business career before entering the Clinton administration, has been one of the prime corporate villains in the financial shenanigans that led to the sub-prime mortgage scandal. As co-chairman of the firm, surely he had knowledge of the financial hanky-panky that would prove so disastrous down the road. Indeed, as Treasury secretary, he favored an extension of the deregulation that enabled this explosion of banking avarice. </span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Not surprisingly, the current Treasury secretary,</span> Henry Paulson, also previously headed </span><span style="color:#006600;">Goldman.<br /></span></span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>When <span style="color:#000099;">Rubin</span> assumed a top position at Citibank after his stint at the Treasury, he <span style="color:#000099;">was not above influencing his former employees in the government.</span> In one notorious instance during the fall of 2001, when Enron was going down the tubes, <span style="color:#000099;">Rubin telephoned a Treasury undersecretary and asked him to consider intervening with credit-rating agencies to hold off downgrading Enron's ratings</span>. Some media accounts noted</em> <span style="font-size:180%;">the possibility of a conflict of interest</span> <em>when the story was leaked, because Enron owed Citibank $750 million, which it could not pay if bankrupt.</em></span><br /></span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div>Despite his skills and his vaunted position <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">as Citibank's chairman, Rubin </span><span style="font-size:130%;">was not spared the disastrous consequences of Citibank's own wild financial manipulations that, if anything, even exceeded those of Enron. Tens of billions in bad mortgage and credit card debt placed the bank at the forefront of the current economic crisis, and so it is weird that Obama would now turn to Rubin for advice. </span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></div></span></strong><div></div><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><em>It's even weirder that the presumptive Democratic nominee would pick <span style="color:#000099;">Rubin's man Furman</span> as his campaign economic director at a time when cleaning up the mess left by the bankers is the highest priority. Furman hardly distinguished himself in that role in <span style="color:#000099;">John Kerry's</span> failed presidential campaign four years ago</em></span></strong>, with its muffled economic message that could not be blamed on the candidate's stiff style alone.</p><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">The bigger problem is that folks such as Rubin and Furman, perhaps best known as an economist for his bold but woefully misguided defense of the Wal-Mart business model, clearly do not feel the pain of the voters who are losing their homes.<br /></span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">But then again, why should Rubin, or Gramm on the Republican side, be expected to care when they have made so many millions off of the suffering of those voters? </span></strong></em>Not good at a time when we need a presidential candidate who sticks it to the bankers instead of sucking up to them. </div><div></div><div><br />Robert Scheer is author of a new book, "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America."</div><div></div><div></div><div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div></div><div></div><div><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080919/pl_usnw/republican_national_committee__questionable_advice__obama_meets_with_advisers_that_back_deregulation_and_have_ties_to_financial">http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080919/pl_usnw/republican_national_committee__questionable_advice__obama_meets_with_advisers_that_back_deregulation_and_have_ties_to_financial</a><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Republican National Committee: Questionable Advice? Obama Meets With Advisers That Back Deregulation and Have Ties to Financial Crisis<br /></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div>Fri Sep 19, 10:12 AM ET </div><div></div><div><div><br /></div><div>To: POLITICAL EDITORS<br /><br /><br />Contact: Republican National Committee, +1-202-863-8614<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama At Odds With Advisers Over Deregulation</span></strong><br /><br /><br />WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following release was issued today by the Republican National Committee:<br /><br /><br />(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080519/RNCLOGO )<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Today, Obama Is Meeting With Economic Advisers Who Supported The Deregulation He's Railed Against:<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Obama Is Meeting With A Team Of Economic Advisers, Including Warren Buffett, Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, Former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers And Paul O'Neill And Former Chair Of The Council Of Economic Advisers, Laura Tyson. </span></strong></div><div><br /><br /></div><div>"Barack Obama turned to a team of advisers that shaped America's economy in happier days to fashion fresh ideas for calming the stomach-churning financial crisis that has thundered from Wall Street to Main Street. Some of the most respected names in the business world were pitching in Friday, including billionaire investor Warren Buffett, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, former Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Paul O'Neill and Laura Tyson, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton."(Terence Hunt, "Obama Meets Economic Advisers To Offer New Plans," The Associated Press, 9/18/08)<br /><br /><br />Obama Has Criticized The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act Of 1999, Which Deregulated The Financial Services Industry:<br /><br /><br />Obama Has Attacked The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act As A Lobbyist Driven Deregulation. Obama: "By the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework. ... The regulatory environment failed to keep pace."(Cheyenne Hopkins, "Regulatory Revamp Newest Plank In Obama's Platform," American Banker, 3/28/08)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">But Obama's Economic Advisers Robert Rubin And Larry Summers Were Central To The Passage Of Gramm-Leach-Bliley:<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Only Became Law Because Then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin Urged President Clinton To Sign The Legislation. "[T]he Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ... only became law when Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin prevailed upon President Clinton to sign the bill." (Robert Scheer, Op-Ed, "Candidates Seek Banking 'Expertise' We Don't Need," San Gabriel Valley[CA] Tribune, 8/3/08)<br /><br /><br />-- "The Bill's Immediate Major Effect Was To Legitimatize The long-Sought Merger Between Citibank And Insurance Giant Travelers."(Robert Scheer, Op-Ed, "Candidates Seek Banking<br />'Expertise' We Don't Need," San Gabriel Valley[CA] Tribune, 8/3/08)<br /><br /><br />-- "Rubin's Critical Support For The Bill Was Rewarded With An Appointment, Within Days Of Its Passage, To A Top Job At Citibank (Later Citigroup) Paying More Than $15 Million A<br />Year." (Robert Scheer, Op-Ed, "Candidates Seek Banking 'Expertise' We Don't Need," San Gabriel Valley[CA] Tribune, 8/3/08)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><em>Obama Adviser Larry Summers Was Involved In Negotiating The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, And Called It A "Major Step Forward Toward The 21st Century." "Mr. Summers, the Obama adviser, was among those who negotiated the [1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley] measure on behalf of the Clinton administration, and he praised it as a 'major step forward toward the 21st Century.'"</em></span></strong> (Michael M. Phillips, Elizabeth Holmes and Amy Chozick, "Candidates Call Upon Big Names For Advice," The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/08)<br /><br /><br />President Bill Clinton Signed The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Into Law On November 12, 1999 As Public Law No. 106-102. (P.L. No. 106-102)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama Has Attacked Irresponsible Wall Street Firms, But In The Past Rubin Looked To Help Enron:<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><em>In 2002, Rubin's "Star Was Tarnished" By His Phone Call To Treasury To Discuss Helping Enron. "Rubin's star was tarnished a little when it was revealed that he called a Treasury official to discuss the possibility of helping Enron -- Citigroup was one of Enron's lead bankers -- but his public comments can still send ripples through markets." (Lori Calabro and Alix Nyberg, Op-Ed, "The Global 100: The Kingmakers, Deal Breakers, And Power Brokers That Shape Finance," CFO, 6/02)<br /></em></strong></div><div><br /><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Rubin Called Credit Rating Agencies On Behalf Of Enron</span></strong>. "Officials of Wall Street credit-rating agencies told Congress Wednesday that Enron executives misled them about partnerships used to conceal massive debt. Senators criticized the agencies for not more closely questioning Enron's finances. Two of the officials said Enron's former chairman, Kenneth Lay, called them when the energy trading company was seeking a higher credit rating. One reported calls to his agency from former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, a top executive of Citigroup, one of the banks that lent hundreds of millions of dollars to Enron, and from Richard Grasso, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. Nothing came of the calls, said John Diaz, a managing director of Moody's Investors Service, during testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee." (Marcy Gordon, "Officials Of Credit-Rating Agencies Say Enron Misled Them," The Associated Press, 3/20/02)<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />Citigroup's Responsibility Questioned In Enron Affair. "Something is wrong with commercial banks that become 'owned' by the plungers to whom they lend vast sums. Doesn't Citigroup, which supposedly never sleeps, have a responsibility to its stockholders to look closely at the books of a company borrowing $600 million? Must nervousness about that uninformed loan force its top man, Robert Rubin, to call a former associate at Treasury to help shore up his debtor's credit rating?" (William Safire, Op-Ed, "You Wuz Robbed!" The New York Times, 2/11/02) </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">OTHER OBAMA ADVISERS HAVE OPPOSED REGULATION AND HAVE TIES TO FINANCIAL CRISIS</span></strong> </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama Economic Adviser Austan Goolsbee Defended Subprime Lending In 2007 And Warned Against Tightening Regulations:</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></div></span></strong><div></div><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In March 2007, Goolsbee Wrote "An Economic Defense ... Of The Sub-Prime Loans" That Spurred The Housing Crisis. </span></strong>"He's written extensively ... He even penned an economic defense in March 2007 of the sub-prime loans that have helped trigger the nationwide housing crisis." (Kevin G. Hall, "Obama Relies On Untested Advisors," McClatchy Newspapers, 4/3/08) </div><div><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Goolsbee Highlighted New Housing Research That Indicated Congress Should Be Careful Not To Tighten Regulations Too Much On "The New Forms Of Lending."</span></strong> "Congress is contemplating a serious tightening of regulations to make the new forms of lending more difficult. New research from some of the leading housing economists in the country, however, examines the long history of mortgage market innovations and suggests that regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening too much." (Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, "'Irresponsible' Mortgages Have Opened Doors To Many Of The Excluded," The New York Times, 3/29/07)<br /><br /><br />-- <strong>Goolsbee Said "This Study Shows ... The Mortgage Market Has Become More Perfect, Not More Irresponsible."</strong> "These economists [Kristopher Gerardi and Paul S. Willen from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Harvey S. Rosen of Princeton] followed<br />thousands of people over their lives and examined the evidence for whether mortgage markets have become more efficient over time. ... <strong>And this study shows that measured this way, the mortgage market has become more perfect, not more irresponsible. People tend to make good decisions about their own economic prospects."(Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, "'Irresponsible' Mortgages Have Opened Doors To Many Of The<br />Excluded," The New York Times, 3/29/07)<br /></strong><br /><br />-- Goolsbee Said Cracking Down On Subprime Mortgages Could Hurt "Exactly The Wrong People" -- Those Who Previously Would Have Been Denied Loans."Also, the historical evidence suggests that cracking down on new mortgages may hit exactly the wrong people. ... It has allowed them access to mortgages whereas lenders would have once just turned them away."(Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, "'Irresponsible' Mortgages Have Opened Doors To Many Of The Excluded," The New York Times, 3/29/07)<br /><br /><br /><strong>Former CEO Of Fannie Mae And Former Obama Advisor Jim Johnson Resigned Under Criticism:<br /></div></strong><div></div><div></div><div><br />Jim Johnson Is The Former CEO Of Fannie Mae. (David A. Vise, "Fannie Mae Lobbies Hard To Protect Its Tax Break," The Washington Post, 1/16/95)</div><div><br /><br />"Jim Johnson, The Former Chairman Of Fannie Mae Who Was One Of Three Advisors Tapped By Democrat Barack Obama To Vet Vice Presidential Candidates, Resigned Today After Questions Were Raised About Favoritism He May Have Received From Countrywide Financial Corp."(Johanna Neuman, "Barack Obama Advisor Jim Johnson Quits Under Fire," Los Angeles Times, 6/12/08)<br /></div><div><br /><br />Johnson Remains A Bundler For Obama's Presidential Campaign And Has Committed To Raising $100,000 To $200,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 9/19/08)<br /></div><div></div><div><strong>Johnson Earned Large Bonuses At Fannie Mae Due To An Accounting Manipulation</strong>: </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div>In 1998, Fannie Mae's Earnings Were Manipulated, Which Resulted In "Maximum Payouts" To Executives Including CEO Jim Johnson. "As CEO of Fannie Mae, Johnson, a former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale and chairman of the board of the Kennedy Center, was the beneficiary of accounting in which Fannie Mae's earnings were manipulated so that executives could earn larger bonuses. The accounting manipulation for 1998 resulted in the maximum payouts to Fannie Mae's senior executives -- $1.9 million in Johnson's case -- when the company's performance that year would have otherwise resulted in no bonuses at all, according to reports in 2004 and 2006 by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight." (Jonathan Weisman and David S. Hilzenrath, "Obama's Choice Of Insider Draws Fire," The Washington Post, 6/11/08)<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />Johnson Engineered An Effort To Lobby Politicians So That Fannie Mae Would Not Have To Pay Local Taxes To Washington, D.C.:<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div>While Johnson Was CEO, Fannie Mae Did Not Have To Pay Washington D.C. Taxes Which Cost The City Hundreds Of Millions Per Year. "While Wall Street benefits from Fannie Mae's prosperity, the District government does not. Fannie Mae, the biggest, most profitable company in Washington, is exempt from local income taxes. That exemption costs the cash-strapped D.C. government hundreds of millions of dollars a year."(David A. Vise, "The Financial Giant That's In Our Midst," The Washington Post, 1/15/95)</div><div><br /><br /></div><div>-- "If Fannie Mae Were Required To Pay Taxes, It Would Wipe Out he District's Budget Deficit." (David A. Vise, "The Financial Giant That's In Our Midst," The Washington Post, 1/15/95)<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Before Heading Fannie Mae, Johnson Was A Registered Foreign Agent For Lehman Brothers:<br /></div></span></strong><div></div><div></div><div>In The 1980s, Johnson Worked For Shearson Lehman Brothers. "In the early 1980s Johnson had already started his own Washington consulting company, Public Strategies, with his Carter administration colleague Richard Holbrooke. And now he followed Holbrooke to Wall Street as an investment banker at Shearson Lehman Brothers." (Lloyd Grove, "The Big Chair," The Washington Post, 3/27/98)<br /></div><div><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama Solicits Advice From Former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines Who Was "Under The Shadow Of A $6.3 Billion Accounting Scandal":<br /></span></strong></div><div><br /><br />The Obama Campaign Has Solicited Franklin Raines, Who "Stepped Down As Fannie Mae's Chief Executive Under The Shadow Of A $6.3 Billion Accounting Scandal," For Advice On Mortgage And Housing Policy. "In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." (Anita Huslin, "On The Outside Now, Watching Fannie Falter," The Washington Post, 7/16/08)</div><div></div><div></div><div><br />Like Jim Johnson, Raines Received Low-Rate Home Loans From Countrywide, A Major Seller To Fannie Mae. "Fannie Mae's former CEO, Jim Johnson, resigned Wednesday as the leader of likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's search for a running mate after The Wall Street Journal reported that he and another former CEO, Franklin Raines, received low-rate home loans from troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. a major seller of home loans to Fannie Mae." (Alan Zibel, "Fannie Mae CEO Says Ethics Policy Bans Discounts," The Associated Press, 6/12/08)</div><div></div><div></div><div><br /><strong>Former Fannie Mae Chairman Frank Raines Was Accused Of Manipulating The Company's Earnings.</strong> "Former Fannie Mae chairman and chief executive Franklin D. Raines, accused of manipulating the housing finance company's earnings, is challenging regulators to make their case against him beginning Feb. 16 instead of waiting until the end of the year." <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">(David S. Hilzenrath, "Fannie Mae's Former Chief Wants Earlier Hearing Date," The Washington Post, 2/6/07)</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><p></p><p>Under Raines' Leadership, Fannie Mae Committed "Extensive Financial Fraud" And Was Forced To Pay A $400 Million Civil Penalty. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">"In a May report, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight found that Fannie Mae under Raines perpetrated 'extensive financial fraud' so that executives could collect big bonuses. There have been no criminal charges, but the conduct of Raines and other senior Fannie executives 'was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,' the agencies said. Fannie paid a $400 million civil penalty this year to the SEC and OFHEO."</span></em></strong> (Jay Hancock, Op-Ed, "Raines Claiming Accountability Isn't Enough," The [Baltimore] Sun, 12/10/06)<br /><br /><br /><em>Paid for by the Republican National Committee.<br /><br />Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.<br /><br />SOURCE Republican National Committee</em></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </p><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:100%;color:#ff0000;"></span></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">THE</span> <span style="color:#3333ff;">BIPAR</span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">T</span>ISAN</span> <span style="color:#3333ff;">REALITY</span></span></strong> </div><div><br /><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7960">http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7960</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It's The Deregulation, Stupid<br /></span></strong><br /><br />by James Ridgeway</div><div></div><div></div><div>Mother Jones<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div>March 29, 2008</div><div></div><div></div><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Speaking at Cooper Union in New York City on Thursday, Barack Obama went where few Democrats have dared to go in the past quarter-century: He made a case for more regulation</span></strong>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">As part of a speech on his economic platform, Obama depicted the current economic crisis as a consequences of deregulation in the financial sector. </span></em></strong>"Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it," he said. <strong><span style="color:#000099;">"Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one-aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight."<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">This is quite a statement from a candidate who's received $6 million in campaign contributions from securities and investment firms, just slightly less than rival Hillary Clinton</span></strong>, who cashes in at $6.3 million. Obama's criticism was sharp, but his six-point plan for rebuilding a regulatory structure was short on both details and teeth, and relies on the Federal Reserve, which is like having the fox guard, well, the other foxes. Still, his use of the r-word signals what is at least a rhetorical departure for a party that has been running from regulation for decades.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Obama isn't the only one. Last week at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, also argued that years of banking deregulation were in part responsible for creating the subprime mortgage crisis and the larger economic downturn</strong>, which he didn't hesitate to call a recession. He talked about the need to impose more "discipline" on investment banks, requiring a higher level of capitalization and transparency. <strong><em>Frank called on Congress to consider establishing a "Financial Services Risk Regulator" that would have "the capacity and power to assess risk across financial markets" and "to intervene when appropriate."</em></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Such a proposal may seem like too little too late in a month when the likes of Bear Stearns crumbled to dust, yet, like Obama's speech, it suggests <em>a small shift in what has long been the dominant position of the Democratic Party. Without entirely eschewing the sacred myth that the free market always knows best, some congressional Democrats are envisioning a more direct role for the federal government in carrying out economic policy and imposing rules and restrictions on banks and brokerages</em></span></strong><em>.</em> Calls for increased oversight of financial markets come at a time when the Federal Reserve System, the quasi-public institution that is seen as the fulcrum for managing the economy, is losing credibility, what with its failure to predict or head off the current crisis and its ineffective and controversial responses once it arrived. Americans are beginning to look elsewhere for leadership on these issues. As the economy continues to decline, some voters may finally start asking their government to rein in Wall Street. And <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">some Democrats may finally be willing to veer out of lockstep in the party's long march toward deregulation.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Deregulation has been the mantra on both sides of the aisle since the late 1960s.</span></strong> Long gone are Democrats like Michigan's Phil Hart who, as chair of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, held hearings on the concentration of economic power in the United States, and proposed expanded government regulation of everything from the oil and auto industries to pharmaceuticals to professional sports. Hart believed that because wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of such a small number of corporations, the market economy had become no more than a facade. In this context, what would bring about lower prices and greater productivity and innovation was more government intervention and regulation, not less.<br /><br /><br />Hart got a Senate building named after him, but his warnings about the threat of unbridled corporate power and consolidation went unheeded. Instead, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the rush to deregulation began, first in the transportation sector. Efforts begun under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford <span style="color:#3333ff;">came to fruition under Jimmy Carter</span>, who hired deregulation guru Alfred E. Kahn to head the Civil Aeronautics Board, the widely loathed agency responsible for regulating the airline industry.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><em>Senator Ted Kennedy and his then aide, future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, embraced deregulation as a consumer issue</em></span></strong>, and with their support, Kahn quickly worked his way out of a job: <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act dissolved the CAB and removed most regulation of commercial airlines</span>. <span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Carter also signed into law bills deregulating the railroads and the trucking industry</span>.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />You could argue that transportation deregulation has been a wash-replacing a system of bureaucratic incompetence with one of profit-seeking negligence, and exchanging safety for lower prices. The same cannot be said for <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">the deregulation of the energy sector, notably the natural gas and oil industries under Ronald Reagan</span></strong>, and <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">the electric utilities under George H.W. Bush</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">and Bill Clinton</span></strong>. Left to its own devices, a deregulated energy industry has given us Enron and Exxon-California brownouts and $100 barrels of oil. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Deregulation of the telecommunications industry, also under Clinton</span></strong>, reduced the number of major phone service providers to just a handful of multimerged giants.<br /><br /><br />Even more damaging, in light of today's economic crisis, was <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><em>the sweeping deregulation of the banking and financial services industries that took place in the 1990s. What makes this enterprise particularly confounding is not only the fact that it took place under a Democratic president with support from a majority of Democrats in Congress</em></span></strong>, but that it followed so closely on the heels of the savings and loan crisis, which ought to have served as a cautionary tale on the dangers of deregulation in the banking sector. The Depository Institutions Act of 1982, another Reagan initiative, was supposed to "revitalize" the housing industry by freeing up the S&Ls to make more loans. Instead, the regulation rollback led to what economist John Kenneth Galbraith called "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time" as they engaged in a fury of high-risk lending. The collapse that followed cost taxpayers an estimated $150 billion in government bailouts, and contributed to the recession of the early 1990s.<br /><br /><br />Yet <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Bill Clinton, elected in large part because of that recession (a la James Carville's "It's the economy, stupid"), was talking about deregulation before he was even inaugurated. The National Review reported that "Bill Clinton embraced at least one Reaganesque idea at the Little Rock economic summit" he held in December 1992: "banking deregulation."</span></strong><br /><br /><br />The banking industry objected to regulations put in place in 1989 after the S&L debacle, as well as others dating back to FDR. The heads of the six major U.S. banking associations, according to the National Review, had written "a long letter to the President-elect in December advocating nine substantive reforms." The conservative magazine concluded that the new president seemed more than willing to oblige, but <strong>bank deregulation was being held back by such powerful congressmen as "House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez (D., Tex.), a populist throwback to the Thirties who believes bankers are by definition out to exploit the 'little guy'" and "House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D., Mich.), who holds a quasi-religious belief that banks caused the Great Depression and must be tightly regulated. (Dingell's father was a principal author of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.)"<br /></strong></div><div></div><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">The Glass-Steagall Act was, in fact, a primary target of the Clinton-era deregulation effort</span></strong>. An early piece of New Deal-era legislation, the act was passed in response to speculation and manipulation of the markets by huge banking firms, which most liberal economists believed had brought on the crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall imposed firewalls between commercial banking and investment banking, and between the banking, brokerage, and insurance industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying and campaign contributions, "Eager to create financial supermarkets that peddle everything from checking accounts to auto insurance, the three industries for years have lobbied Congress to streamline regulatory hurdles that bar such operations."<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Despite Bill Clinton's announcement that "the era of big government is over," it took the better part of his administration for him to push these initiatives through Congress. In 1999, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, always a good friend to Wall Street, finally brokered a deal between the administration and Congress that allowed banking deregulation to move forward</span></em></strong>. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Shortly after the compromise was reached, Rubin took a top position at Citigroup, which went on to embark upon mergers that would have been rendered illegal under Glass-Steagall.</span></strong> As the New York Times put it, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Rubin <span style="font-size:130%;">would be leading "what has become the first true American financial conglomerate since the Depression"-a conglomerate that could exist only because of legislation he had just shepherded through Congress.<br /></span></span></strong><br /><br /><strong>Passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was celebrated</strong> in a Wall Street Journal editorial as an end to "unfair" restrictions imposed on banks during the Great Depression, under the headline "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade." But Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, writing in Mother Jones, warned that the legislation, which amounted to the "finance industry's deregulatory wish list," would "pave the way for a new round of record-shattering financial industry mergers, dangerously concentrating political and economic power." Mokhiber and Weissman also predicted that such mergers would eventually "create too-big-to-fail institutions that are someday likely to drain the public treasury as taxpayers bail out imperiled financial giants to protect the stability of the nation's banking system."<br /><br /><br />Enter Bear Stearns. In addition, the merging of commercial and investment banking helped enable high-risk mortgage lending to make its way into the mutual funds and 401Ks of millions of Americans in the form of mortgage-backed securities. "Diversifying bad debt just spreads the poison," as Frank said in his Boston speech. It also makes a falling housing market reverberate throughout the economy far more than it did even during the S&L collapse. Enter the subprime crisis. And welcome back, 1929.<br /><br /><br />As these new financial giants go into freefall, a little regulation once again sounds like a good idea, just as it did in 1933. But increased regulation will never come willingly from the Federal Reserve, an "independent entity" that is answerable to no one, and has always operated largely in the interests of the big banks that make up its membership and provide its funding. Under two decades of leadership by the notorious anti-regulator Alan Greenspan, the Fed took a hands-off approach, preferring to set "guidelines" for the financial industry rather than enforce rules. In December 2007, the New York Times compiled a rundown of the multiple warnings and pleas made to Greenspan, over a period of at least seven years, to address the dangers posed by subprime lending-all of them, of course, rebuffed by the man who still claims he couldn't have predicted that the housing bubble would someday burst. The Fed's approach is unlikely to change much now-at least, not without a fight.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The Federal Reserve is set up in such a way that Congress cannot force its hand. But it can apply pressure, by way of threatening to pass legislation to accomplish what the Fed refuses to do. That's what Barney Frank did last summer, when he thought Fed chair Ben Bernanke wasn't doing enough about predatory lending practices. "The Fed has the authority to spell out rules about what is unfair and deceptive," Frank said in an interview with Bloomberg News. "If by default the Fed is not in the process of doing it, we, I think, should pass a law giving the authority" to other government agencies.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Now, in addition to outlining a plan to deal with the epidemic of foreclosures, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee are looking at legislation that could force financial firms to sing for their supper-a few bars, at least.</span></strong> The Financial Services Risk Regulator proposed by Frank last week would have the power to demand "timely market information from market players, inspect institutions, report to Congress on the health of the entire financial sector, and act when necessary to limit risky practices or protect the integrity of the financial system." In return, he said, financial institutions would have "potential access to the discount window for nondepository institutions."<br /><br /><br />Frank was referring to the lending program for brokers started by the Fed on March 17, which extends the same lending rules previously employed by commercial banks to securities firms. Two days after it opened, Financial Week reported, under the headline "Investment bank CFOs Not Proud," that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had already overcome concerns that borrowing from the Fed might "make them appear financially weak," and had taken advantage of the discount window, at the new rock-bottom interest rate of 2.5 percent. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">So Barney Frank's modest proposal simply says that if the government is going to back loans to billionaire investment firms at rates that middle-class credit card holders can only dream about, the companies are going to have to submit to a little oversight in return.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Critics outside the government have taken things a step further, advancing the view that if the taxpayers are going to be responsible for bailing out greedy financial giants like Bear Stearns, they ought to get a piece of them in return, as well as some say in how they are run. Conceivably, the federal government could either take over and run the affected enterprises, or at the very least take a share of the stock in order to exercise control</span></em></strong>. "I think it makes the most sense to take it [Bear Stearns] over outright," Dean Baker, codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said in an email last week. "The key point is that we don't want Bear Stearns taking big risks with the public's money. I suppose it's better that we at least share in the gains if they do this sort of gambling, but it would be better to have the government directly step in and not allow the gamble." </div><div></div><div></div><div><br />Such measures are highly unlikely. But Baker argues that a bailout without some kind of consequences will have no impact at all on the kind of unrestrained, irresponsible behavior on the part of financial firms that got us into this mess in the first place. "The issue here is essentially the moral hazard problem that you had with the S&Ls," he said. "If you have the option of making a bet where the government covers your losses, you might as well make it a risky one."<br /><br /><br />Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also says he wants to "pin down just how the government decided to front $30 billion in taxpayer dollars" to back the sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase. He and Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) have both said they will hold hearings on the matter. But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Baucus and Dodd are among the top recipients of donations from the securities and investment industry</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />In the end, the real question is what kind of regulation of these industries can come from a Democratic Party that now relies on them to fund its campaigns. A few reform-minded Democrats in Congress won't get far without support from the White House. And <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">while financial industry campaign contributions to Democrats have climbed ever since Bill Clinton shifted the party's rhetoric and policymaking away from "big government," donations in this election cycle dwarf those of the past.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">With his speech in New York, Obama is clearly trying to show himself to be a man who isn't afraid to bite the hand that's feeding him. He is also putting space, on this issue, between himself and Hillary Clinton, in part by reminding voters of the outcomes of Bill Clinton's policies</span></strong>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">He denounced both "Republican and Democratic administrations" for regulatory failures leading to the current crisis</span></em></strong>, and, as the New York Times reported, "handouts supporting the speech" noted that "the banking and insurance industries spent more than $300 million on a successful campaign to repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act in 1999." Any effort Hillary Clinton might make to separate herself from her husband's positions will be undermined by the fact that Robert Rubin, promoter of bank deregulation and still a top official at Citigroup, is an advisor to her campaign. On Monday in Philadelphia, in her own speech on economic issues, Hillary Clinton urged President Bush to immediately form an "Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures," which "could be headed by eminent leaders like Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Bob Rubin."<br /><br /><br />For the moment, at least, Obama has staked out the higher ground on this issue. In the end, though, says Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"No matter who becomes our next president, Wall Street will have an indebted friend in the White House." Once the campaign rhetoric fades, the only thing that might bring change on Wall Street is a revolt on Main Street, from Americans who finally cast blame for their lost homes and depleted retirement accounts on its rightful source.<br /></div></span></strong></em><div></div><div><br />James Ridgeway is Mother Jones' senior Washington correspondent.<br />© 2008 Mother Jones<br /></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></div><div><a href="http://lists.essential.org/corp-focus/msg00048.html">http://lists.essential.org/corp-focus/msg00048.html</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Teflon Bob and Banking Deregulation<br /></span></strong><br /><br />To: corp-focus@essential.org<br />Subject: Teflon Bob and Banking Deregulation<br />From: Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org><br />Date: Sat, <strong>6 Nov 1999</strong> 13:25:03 -0500 (EST)<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />Teflon Bob and Banking Deregulation</span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div>By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Few top government officials, whether elected or appointed, have managed to emerge as unscathed from a half dozen years in the Washington, D.C. spotlight as former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.</span></strong> And Rubin did better than escape without scratches -- he ended his term of office with his image enhanced.<br /><br /><br />Wall Street and the financial press practically beatified him for his role in overseeing the global economy through difficult times and working in tandem with Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan to keep the U.S. economy working smoothly.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Rubin helped precipitate the Asian financial crisis which has inflicted untold suffering on tens of millions, orchestrated the bailout of foreign bankers and investors in connection with the Mexican and Asian financial disasters, and crafted or helped implement domestic policies that ensured the overwhelming portion of benefits from economic growth would go to the rich -- but none of this managed to sully the reputation of the <span style="font-size:180%;">Secretary Rubin</span>.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br />Now Teflon Bob appears on the verge of demonstrating that his immunity to criticism makes Ronald Reagan look like he was coated with bubble gum.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><span style="font-size:130%;">When he stepped down from his Treasury post this past summer, <span style="font-size:180%;">Rubin</span> left unfinished a legislative effort to re-write the nation's banking laws. Misnamed "financial modernization" legislation was really a deregulatory initiative -- reminiscent of the S&L deregulation that led to a corporate crime spree, the collapse of the industry and the subsequent taxpayer bailout of epic proportions. </span><br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">The centerpiece of the deregulatory bill, which different fragments of the finance industry have pushed for a decade and a half, is the repeal of the revered Glass-Steagall Act, which bars the common ownership of banks on the one hand, and insurance companies and securities firms on the other.</span><br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><em>Although powerful interests have long backed the legislation, it has repeatedly failed to make it through Congress because of a maze of intra-industry disputes, turf fights between different parts of the federal regulatory structure, and the concerted efforts of consumer and community development advocates.<br /></em></strong><br /><br />Another failure seemed possible or likely this fall, especially as Senate Banking Chair Phil Gramm, R-Texas, refused to compromise on privacy and community development issues.<br /><br /><br />Another failure, however, was not acceptable to one company above all -- Citigroup. The product of the merger between Citibank and Travelers, Citigroup is operating in apparent violation of the bar on common ownership of banking, and insurance and securities, thanks to a loophole that provides for a two-year transition period.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Enter Robert Rubin. According to a report in the New York Times, Rubin helped broker the final compromise language on financial deregulation. And while he was brokering a deal between Congress and the White House, he was also, according to the New York Times account, negotiating his own deal with Citigroup. A few days after the banking deal was finalized, Citigroup announced it was hiring Rubin as a de facto co-chair of the corporation.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><span style="font-size:130%;">This chronology and these arrangements raise serious issues about whether federal ethics statutes and informal Clinton administration rules have been violated.</span><br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><em>Rubin told the New York Times that he was proud of his work in preserving the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA -- an important law that requires banks to make loans in minority and lower-income communities in which they do business).</em></span></strong> In fact, the final version of the bill significantly weakens CRA: there will be no ongoing sanctions against holding company banks that fail to meet CRA standards, it will lessen the number of CRA examinations, and provisions of the bill will discourage community groups from challenging banks' CRA records.<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div>And the weakening of the CRA is only one element of the finance industry's deregulatory wish list which is included in the compromise legislation.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The bill will:</span></strong><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><br />* Pave the way for a new round of record-shattering financial industry mergers, dangerously concentrating political and economic power;<br /><br /><br />* <strong><em>Create too-big-to-fail institutions that are someday likely to drain the public treasury as taxpayers bail out imperiled financial giants to protect the stability of the nation's banking system;<br /></em></strong><br /><br />* <em><strong>Leave financial regulatory authority spread among a half dozen federal and 50 state agencies, all uncoordinated, that will be overmatched by the soon-to-be financial goliaths;<br /></strong></em><br /><br />* Facilitate the rip-off of mutual fund insurance policy holders by permitting mutual insurance funds to switch domicile states – thereby enabling them to locate in states where they can convert to for-profit, stockholder companies without properly reimbursing mutual policyholders (a conversion of tens of billions of dollars);<br /><br /><br />* Aggressively intrude on consumer privacy (and promote a still-greater intensification of direct marketing), thanks to provisions permitting the new financial giants to share finance, health, consumer and other personal information among affiliates; and<br /><br /><br />* Allow banks to continue to deny services to the poor (Congress rejected an amendment requiring banks to provide "lifeline accounts" to the poor, so they would have refuge from check-cashing operations and the<br />underground economy).<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Robert Rubin helped deliver this ticking time bomb of a bill to Wall Street, first while in Treasury and then while in negotiations to land a top spot at the finance industry's largest and highest-profile company. He may well escape unscathed yet again, but it is sure to blow up on the rest of us.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><em>Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999; http://www.corporatepredators.org)<br /></em><br />(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman<br /></div><div></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml">http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml</a></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system<br /></span></strong><br /><br />By Martin McLaughlin<br /></div><div></div><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">World Socialist Website</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>1 November 1999<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">An agreement between <span style="color:#3333ff;">the Clinton administration</span> and <span style="color:#ff0000;">congressional Republicans</span></span></strong>, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal.</span></strong> Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.<br /><br /><br />The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The Wall Street Journal wrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies</span></em></strong>, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.<br /><br /><br />Kenneth Guenther, executive vice president of Independent Community Bankers of America, an association of small rural banks which opposed the bill, warned, "<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This is going to begin a wave of major mergers and acquisitions in the financial-services industry. We're moving to an oligopolistic situation."<br /></span></strong><br /><br />One such merger was already carried out well before the passage of the legislation, the $72 billion deal which brought together <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Citibank, the biggest New York bank, and Travelers Group Inc., the huge insurance and financial services conglomerate</span></strong>, which owns Salomon Smith Barney, a major brokerage. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">That merger was negotiated despite the fact that the merged company, Citigroup, was in violation of the Glass-Steagall Act, because billionaire Travelers boss Sanford Weill and Citibank CEO John Reed were confident of bipartisan support for repeal of the 60-year-old law. </span><br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Campaign of influence-buying<br /></span></strong><br /><br />They had good reason, to be sure. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The banking, insurance and brokerage industry lobbyists have combined their forces over the last five years to mount the best-financed campaign of influence-buying ever seen in Washington. In 1997 and 1998 alone, the three industries spent over $300 million on the effort:</span></em></strong> $58 million in campaign contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates, $87 million in "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties, and $163 million on lobbying of elected officials.<br /><br /><br />The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, himself collected more than $1.5 million in cash from the three industries during the last five years: $496,610 from the insurance industry, $760,404 from the securities industry and $407,956 from banks.<br /><br /><br />During the final hours of negotiations between the House-Senate conference committee and White House and Treasury officials, dozens of well-heeled lobbyists crowded the corridors outside the room where the final deal-making was going on. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Edward Yingling, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, told the New York Times, "If I had to guess, I would say it's probably the most heavily lobbied, most expensive issue" in a generation.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">While Democratic and Republican congressmen and industry lobbyists claimed that deregulation would spark competition and improve services to consumers, the same claims have proven bogus in the case of telecommunications, airlines and other industries freed from federal regulations.</span></em></strong> Consumer groups noted that since the passage of a 1994 banking deregulation bill which permitted bank holding companies to operate in more than one state, both checking fees and ATM fees have risen sharply.<br /><br /><br />Differing versions of financial services deregulation passed the House and Senate earlier this year, and the conference committee was called to work out a consensus bill and avert a White House veto. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The principal bone of contention in the last few days before the agreement had nothing to do with <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">the central thrust</span> <span style="color:#3333ff;">of the bill</span><span style="color:#3333ff;">, on which</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">there was near-</span><span style="color:#3333ff;">unanimous bipartisan support</span>.<br /></em></span></strong><br /><br /><strong>The sticking point was the effort by Gramm to gut the <span style="font-size:180%;">Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law</span> which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods</strong>. Gramm blocked passage of a similar deregulation bill last year over demands to cripple the CRA, and bank lobbyists were in a panic, during the week before the deal was made, that the dispute would once again prevent any bill from being adopted.<br /><br /><br />Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.<br /><br /><br />The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship.<br /><br /><br /><strong>The banks and other financial institutions did not themselves oppose continuation of the CRA, which they have treated as nothing more than a cost of doing a highly profitable business in minority areas</strong>. Loans tied to the CRA average a 20 percent rate of return. Financial industry lobbyists complained that they were being caught in a crossfire between the Republicans and Democrats which was unrelated to the main purpose of the bill.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">The Clinton White House threatened to veto the bill if CRA provisions were substantially weakened, in response to heavy pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Reverend Jesse Jackson</span><span style="color:#3333ff;">, whose Operation PUSH has made extensive use of CRA in its campaigns to pressure corporations and banks for more opportunities for black businessmen.</span></span></strong> But eventually the White House caved in to Gramm, accepting his amendments so long as the program remained formally in place.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em>The White House similarly retreated on pledges that consumer privacy would be protected in the legislation. Consumer groups pointed to the potential for abuse of financial information once giant conglomerates were created which would handle loans, investments and insurance at the same time</em></strong>. For example: a bank could refuse to give a 30-year mortgage to a customer whose medical records, filed with the bank's insurance subsidiary, revealed a fatal disease.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The final draft of the bill contains a consumer privacy protection clause, but it is extremely weak, applying only to the transfer of information outside of a financial conglomerate, not within it.</span></strong> Thus <em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Citigroup will be able to pass on financial information about its bank depositors to Travelers Insurance, but not to an outside company like Prudential.</span></strong></em> Even that limitation would be breached if there was a contractual relationship with the outside company, as in the case of a telemarketer which did work for Citigroup and was given private information about Citigroup depositors to aid in its telephone solicitations.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Threat to financial stability</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors</em></strong>.</span> Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market</span></strong>, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><em>The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which the deregulation bill would repeal, was not adopted to protect consumers, although one of its most celebrated provisions was the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees bank deposits of up to $100,000. </em></span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#000099;">The law was enacted during the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration to rescue a banking system which had collapsed, wiping out the life savings of millions of working people, and threatening to bring the profit system to a complete standstill.</span><br /></span></strong><br /><br />As a recent history of that era notes: "The more than five thousand bank failures between the Crash and the New Deal's rescue operation in March 1933 wiped out some $7 billion in depositors' money. Accelerating foreclosures on defaulted home mortgages—150,000 homeowners lost their property in 1930, 200,000 in 1931, 250,000 in 1932—stripped millions of people of both shelter and life savings at a single stroke and menaced the balance sheets of thousands of surviving banks" (David Kennedy, Freedom from Fear, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 162-63).<br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The separation of banking and the stock exchange was ordered in response to revelations of the gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses, above all the House of Morgan, which organized huge corporate mergers for its own profit and awarded preferential access to share issues to favored politicians and businessmen. Such insider trading played a major role in the speculative boom which preceded the 1929 crash.<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Over the past 20 years the restrictions imposed by Glass-Steagall have been gradually relaxed</span></strong> under pressure from the banks, which sought more profitable outlets for their capital, especially in the booming stock market, and which complained that foreign competitors suffered no such limitations to their financial operations. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">In 1990 the Federal Reserve Board first permitted a bank (J.P. Morgan) to sell stock through a subsidiary, although stock market operations were limited to 10 percent of the company's total revenue. In 1996 this ceiling was lifted to 25 percent. Now it will be abolished.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression</span></strong>. The headline of one Journal article detailing the impact of the proposed law declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse</span></strong>. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.<br /><br /><br />And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.</div><div><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div></div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/10/25/banks.2.t_1.php">http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/10/25/banks.2.t_1.php</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Deregulation to Unleash New Competition : Giant Banks Prepare For a U.S. Onslaught</span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div>By John Schmid and Philip Segal<br /></div><div></div><div><br />OCTOBER 25, 1999<br /><br /><br />International Herald Tribune<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The global financial industry, fresh from a round of megamergers, now must brace for another jolt of competition in the wake of a historic change in U.S. banking laws, executives said over the weekend.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />"It means more competition globally for everybody in the field, and it will lead to bigger American banking institutions, no doubt," said Detlev Rahmsdorf, a spokesman for Deutsche Bank AG, which currently ranks as the world's biggest bank in terms of assets.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">U.S. lawmakers broke a decades-old gridlock Friday and agreed to repeal a Depression-era law that kept banks from merging with securities and insurance firms.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br />Although the biggest financial institutions had long found ways around it, <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was nonetheless an impediment to the efforts of U.S. banks to match the financial sweep and power of their rivals abroad.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">All but one of the world's eight largest banks are European or Asian institutions. Banks in those regions face significantly fewer restrictions about the creation of "financial supermarkets" with banks, insurers and brokers under one roof.</span><br /></span></strong><br /><br />Yesterday's giants look ever smaller with each new merger. The trend took on new dimensions two months ago when a triad of Japanese banks announced plans to forge the world's only bank with more than $1 trillion in assets. When Fuji Bank Ltd., Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank. Ltd. and Industrial Bank of Japan Ltd. complete their merger, they will outstrip Deutsche Bank's $756 billion balance sheet and take the No. 1 spot.<br /><br /><br />The U.S. overhaul still requires congressional approval and has yet to be signed into law, but American financiers immediately celebrated the prospect of fresh international possibilities.<br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"By liberating our financial companies from an antiquated regulatory structure, this legislation will unleash the creativity of our industry and ensure our global competitiveness," Sandy Weill and John Reed, the co-chairmen of Citigroup Inc., said in a statement.<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><em>With about $670 billion in assets, Citigroup ranks as the biggest financial institution in the world except for Deutsche Bank. But as the sole U.S. bank on the list of the world's biggest banks, Citigroup is an anomaly.<br /></em></strong><br /><br />But, as foreign competitors pointed out, that may not always be the case. "American banks, which are not the biggest in the global view, can merge and become bigger," Mr. Rahmsdorf at Deutsche Bank said.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em>For Asia's financial sector, the prospect of bigger and possibly stronger U.S. financial institutions only strengthens the urgency of reforms already under way, at varying speeds and with varying degrees of success.<br /></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In fact, Japan is home to what could be the biggest prize of all in international finance after its "Big Bang" deregulation measures: access to the trillions of dollars of Japanese household savings that can now be managed overseas or by foreigners within Japan.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">With Congress's action Friday, larger and comparatively dynamic U.S. institutions may gain even more of an advantage in fund management over Japan's banks</span></em></strong>, even though the country's banks are enormous in terms of raw assets.<br /><br /><br />Japan's bank mergers are creating institutions that are large but still under-capitalized. They face immense challenges from nimbler foreign competitors that spend far more on technology.<br /><br /><br />In the major markets of Asia's healthiest banks, the international financial centers of Hong Kong and Singapore, institutions and regulators have already decided that staying within small home markets is not the path to long-term viability.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">HSBC Holdings Ltd., the London-based banking group that grew out of Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., is perhaps the best placed to take on international giants</span></strong>. Too big for its small home market, the bank began an expansion drive in the early 1990s, snapping up large banks in Britain and the United States and moving its headquarters to London. HSBC's appetite for acquisitions continued as it bought banks in Latin America after financial deregulation in that region.<br /><br /><br />A deal to acquire SeoulBank of South Korea has foundered, but <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">HSBC is now in the midst of a $10.3 billion bid to take over Republic New York Corp</span></strong>. It also has been beefing up its equities research arm in Hong Kong, which has consistently been outperformed by the leading U.S. investment banks.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In Singapore, the government has already decided that the country's major banks need more vigorous international competition</span></strong>. Last week, Singapore awarded four expanded banking licenses to foreign banks; but it shunned HSBC, the largest bank operating in Hong Kong, which is battling with Singapore to attract an international banking, brokerage and fund-management presence. </div></div></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-78248877030604878112008-09-02T12:54:00.083-04:002008-09-02T23:19:41.805-04:00EURObama & Biden Claim They Must Heal America's Decline & World Image, But Fundamentally Misunderstand the Antecedents to Anti-Americanism<a href="http://www.politickerme.com/jessicaalaimo/2277/allen-biden-will-repair-country-s-world-image">http://www.politickerme.com/jessicaalaimo/2277/allen-biden-will-repair-country-s-world-image</a>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Allen: Biden will repair the country’s world image</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />By Jessica Alaimo
<br />
<br />
<br />PolitickerME.com
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">America’s image around the world has never been worse, and U.S. Rep. Tom Allen (D-Portland) said the best person to help Sen. Barack Obama improve this is Sen. Joe Biden, who was tapped as the Vice Presidential nominee this morning.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />“I think it’s a great choice,” Allen said in a phone interview Saturday. “Barack Obama and Joe Biden make a well balanced team – young and experienced at the same time. This was the best possible choice.”
<br />
<br />
<br />Allen said Biden’s greatest asset is his foreign policy experience, which comes from years of leading the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate.
<br />
<br />
<br />Also, Biden is also very knowledgeable on Constitutional issues from his work on the Judiciary Committee – necessary with the abuses of power that have occurred in the Bush Administration.
<br />Allen said it was difficult to evaluate the political effect of the choice. Obama is strong in Maine, regardless of who the VP is, he said.
<br />
<br />
<br />Allen said he has had some interaction with Biden in Washington.
<br />
<br />
<br />“He’s a very engaging guy, smart, and he has tremendous energy,” Allen said. “A lot of people thought he was the best debater of all the Presidential candidates.”
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">The election of Obama and Biden will help the country regain the respect of its allies and regain its authority around the world, Allen said.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />“Biden seems to make a great deal of sense for the very difficult challenges that this team will have governing,” Allen said.
<br />
<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080901faessay87502/robert-kagan/the-september-12-paradigm.html">http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080901faessay87502/robert-kagan/the-september-12-paradigm.html</a>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The September 12 Paradigm - America, the World, and George W. Bush
<br /></span></strong>
<br />
<br />By Robert Kagan
<br />
<br />
<br />Foreign Affairs, September/October 2008
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Summary: The next administration must learn from Bush's mistakes, but should not shy away from using U.S. power to promote American values.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><em>Robert Kagan is a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of The Return of History and the End of Dreams.</em>
<br />
<br />
<br />The world does not look today the way most anticipated it would after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Great-power competition was supposed to give way to an era of geoeconomics.
<br />
<br />
<br />Ideological competition between democracy and autocracy was supposed to end with the "end of history."
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Few expected that the United States' unprecedented power would face so many challenges, not only from rising powers but also from old and close allies.</span></strong> How much of this fate was in the stars, and how much in Americans themselves? And what, if anything, can the United States do about it now?
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Hard as it may be to recall, the United States' problems with the world -- or, rather, the world's problems with the United States -- started before George W. Bush took office. French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine complained about the "hyperpower" in 1998. In 1999, Samuel Huntington argued in these pages that much of the world saw the Unites States as a "rogue superpower," "intrusive, interventionist, exploitative, unilateralist, hegemonic, hypocritical." </span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /></span></strong>
<br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Although Huntington and others blamed the Clinton administration's constant boasting about "American power and American virtue," the Clintonites did not invent American self-righteousness. The source of the problem was the geopolitical shift that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subtle psychological effects of this shift on the way the United States and other powers perceived themselves and one another. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">By the late 1990s, talk of a crisis in transatlantic relations had already begun, and despite all the finger-pointing, the underlying cause was simple: the allies did not need one another as much as before. </span><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The impulse to cooperate during the Cold War had been one part enlightened virtue and three parts cold necessity. Mutual dependence, not mutual affection, had been the bedrock of the alliance. When the Soviet threat disappeared, the two sides were free to go their own ways. </span></em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">And to some extent, they did. <span style="font-size:180%;">Europe</span>, liberated from fear of the Soviet Union, became consumed with the hard work of building the new Europe. In the 1990s, the European Union charted a new course in human evolution, proving that nations could pool sovereignty and replace power politics with international law. This helped fuel an era of international norm setting and institution building. For many around the world, but especially for Europeans, a new international conversation about global governance supplanted old Cold War preoccupations. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />Concerns about climate change produced the Kyoto Protocol. A new International Criminal Court was in gestation. Many worked for international ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a strengthening of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, and a new treaty outlawing land mines. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke of a "doctrine of international community" in which the common interests of humanity overrode the individual interests of nations.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In the United States, the conversation remained more traditional. Clinton officials shared the European perspective, but they also believed that the United States had a special role to play as the guardian of international security -- the "indispensable" leader of the international community -- in a traditional, power-oriented, state-centric way</span></strong>. Faced with crises over Taiwan or in Iraq or Sudan, they dispatched aircraft carriers and fired missiles, often unilaterally. Even Bill Clinton would not endorse the land-mines treaty or the International Criminal Court without safeguards for the United States' special global role. There were still international "predators," he warned -- terrorists and "outlaw nations" seeking "arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Nor could Clinton officials hide their impatience with what they regarded as a European lack of seriousness about these perils, especially Iraq. As then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it, "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. . . . We see further into the future." </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#000099;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The end of the Cold War gave everyone a chance to take a fresh look at one another, and the Europeans, in particular, did not like what they saw. American society seemed to them crass and brutal -- just as it had to their nineteenth-century ancestors. Védrine called on Europe to stand against U.S. hegemony partly as a defense against the spread of Americanism. "We cannot accept . . . a politically unipolar world," he said, and "that is why we are fighting for a multipolar" one</span></strong>. </span>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">By the late 1990s, the moment for multipolarity seemed ripe. U.S. relations with China and Russia were also turning sour. The Chinese had long complained about the United States' "superhegemonist" ambitions, and Beijing justifiably considered Washington to be hostile to China's rising power. Anti-American nationalism exploded after the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 by U.S. pilots during a war in Kosovo that both the Chinese and the Russians regarded as illegal. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov called the war the worst aggression in Europe since World War II. It did not help the Russian mood that 1999 was also the year the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO.</span></strong> The days of a quiescent Russia, yearning for integration into the liberal West, on the West's terms, were ending. Russian President Boris Yeltsin made Vladimir Putin prime minister in August 1999. Putin invaded Chechnya in September, and in less than a year he was leading Russia under a more nationalist, less democratic banner.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">BUSH, THE REALIST</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />Into this fracturing world stepped George W. Bush. Even before he took office, cartoonists were drawing him as a Texas cowboy with six-shooters and a noose. The French politician Jack Lang called him a "serial assassin." The Guardian's Martin Kettle wrote, on January 7, 2001, in The Washington Post, that "the mounting global impatience" with the United States predated Bush but that his election was the "best recruiting sergeant that the new anti-Americanism could have hoped for."
<br />
<br />
<br />The irony, one of many, was that Bush came to office hoping to pare down U.S. global pretensions. Foreign policy realism was in vogue. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">When asked in the presidential debates what principles should guide U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic nominee, Al Gore, said it was "a question of values."</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">Bush said it was a question of "what's in the best interests of the United States."</span> <span style="color:#3333ff;">Gore said the United States, the world's "natural leader," had to "have a sense of mission" and give other peoples the "blueprint that will help them be like us more."</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">Bush said the United States should not "go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be," that this was "one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American."</span> </span></em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">But the Bush administration's brand of realism, it turned out, did not win friends around the world either. Bush officials had contempt for the international conversation of the 1990s. In its first nine months, the administration pulled out of the Kyoto process, declared its opposition to the International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and began pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Some of these had already died under Clinton, but whereas Clinton had tried to soothe international anger by holding out hope that the United States might eventually ratify them, Bush opposed them on principle.</span></strong> As in the 1920s, Republicans worried about agreements that might diminish U.S. sovereignty. Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's foreign policy adviser and a self-described "realpolitiker," complained in 2000 in these pages about all the airy talk of "humanitarian interests." U.S. foreign policy had to be rooted in the "firm ground of the national interest," not in the "interests of an illusory international community."
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Lying behind the new approach was a realist calculation: in the new post-Cold War world, U.S. interests and obligations had contracted. What was needed was a more circumscribed, interests-based foreign policy. Most Bush officials agreed with the political scientist Michael Mandelbaum's critique, also published in these pages, in 1996, that <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">the Clinton administration had engaged in international "social work" in the Balkans and Haiti, where no vital national interests were at stake</span>.</span></strong> Candidate Bush, asked whether he would have sent troops to Rwanda, said that the United States should not "send troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in nations outside our strategic interest." <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Once in office, the Bush realists, from Vice President Dick Cheney to Rice to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to Secretary of State Colin Powell, all agreed that humanitarian interventions and nation building were to be avoided. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><em>The strategy was to turn the United States into something of an offshore balancer, a savior of last resort, or in the words of Richard Haass, a "reluctant sheriff." During the 2000 campaign, Rice spoke of a "new division of labor," in which local powers would keep the regional peace while the United States provided logistical and intelligence support but no ground troops. Richard Perle argued for a new military posture in which U.S. ground forces would be cut in half</em></strong>. Global problems would be dealt with not with armies but with precision-guided missiles. The one immediate threat -- from rogue states armed with long-range missiles -- could be addressed unilaterally through missile defense. It was a time of "strategic pause," when the United States could lighten its global burden and prepare for the threats that might emerge 20 or 30 years down the road. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In the realist view, a world in which U.S. national interests were not seriously threatened was a world in which U.S. power and influence should contract. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The United States, to put it another way, was no longer in the global leadership business, at least not as it had been during the Cold War. In 1990, with communism and the Soviet empire defeated, Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that the United States should cease carrying the "unusual burdens" of leadership and, "with a return to 'normal' times, . . . again become a normal nation."</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">As John Bolton put it in a 1997 essay, it was time "to acknowledge that our greatest challenge is now behind us." Much of the world could take care of itself now, as would the United States. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />This was roughly the policy Bush pursued during his first nine months in office, and the rest of the world quickly got the message. According to a Pew Research Center poll released in August 2001, 70 percent of western Europeans surveyed (85 percent in France) believed that the Bush administration made decisions "based only on U.S. interests."
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">NOUS SOMMES TOUS AMERICAINS, MAIS . . .</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This was the mood when the terrorists struck on September 11, 2001. The attacks naturally brought about a shift in the Bush administration's foreign policy, but it was not a doctrinal revolution. </span><span style="font-size:180%;">The administration did not abandon its national-interests-based approach.</span></strong> It was just that the protection of even narrowly defined interests -- such as the defense of the homeland -- suddenly required a more expansive and aggressive global strategy. The "strategic pause" was over, and the United States was back in the business of extensive global involvement in what became known as "the war on terror."
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Did that mean that the United States was also back in the business of global leadership? The Bush administration believed that it did. Yet there were serious obstacles to returning to the old Cold War style of leadership in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />One was the understandable self-absorption of Americans and their leaders after September 11. The first sign that the old solidarity would not be so easily revived came in Afghanistan. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The invasion of Afghanistan -- unlike both the war in Kosovo and the first Gulf War -- was about U.S. security first, not about forging a "new world order." Unlike during the Persian Gulf War of 1991</span></strong>, when George H. W. Bush made painstaking efforts to summon the international community, during the war in Afghanistan, the second Bush administration, with many of the same people in top positions, preoccupied itself with the task of eliminating al Qaeda bases and overthrowing the Taliban. This meant acting quickly and without the alliance-management problems that had bothered General Wesley Clark in Kosovo.
<br />
<br />
<br />This narrower approach was hardly surprising given the panic and rage in the United States. But <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">neither was it surprising that the rest of the world saw the United States not as a global leader seeking the global good but as an angry Leviathan narrowly focused on destroying those who had attacked it. For this effort, the world had less sympathy. And this was the second great obstacle to a return to the old style of U.S. global leadership: the rest of the world, including the United States' closest allies, was also self-absorbed. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />There was no escaping the reality of the post-9/11 situation. What had happened to the United States had happened only to the United States. In Europe and most other parts of the world, people responded with horror, sorrow, and sympathy. But Americans read more into these outpourings of solidarity than was really there. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Most Americans, regardless of political party, believed that the world shared not only their pain and sorrow but also their fears and anxiety about the terrorist threat and that the world would join with the United States in a common response. Some American observers cling to this illusion even today.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">But in fact, the rest of the world shared neither Americans' fears nor their sense of urgency. Europeans felt solidarity with the superpower during the Cold War, when Europe was threatened and the United States provided security. But after the Cold War, and even after 9/11, Europeans felt relatively secure. Only the Americans were frightened. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">When the shock and horror wore off, it turned out that the September 11 attacks had not altered fundamental global attitudes toward the United States. The resentments remained.</span></strong> A Pew poll of opinion leaders around the world taken in December 2001 revealed that while most were "sad to see what America [was] going through," equally large majorities (70 percent of those polled worldwide, 66 percent in western Europe) believed it was "good that Americans know what it is like to be vulnerable." <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">Many opinion leaders around the world, including in Europe, said they believed that "U.S. policies and actions in the world" had been a "major cause" of the terrorist attacks and that, to borrow a phrase, the chickens had come home to roost. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />Many also felt that the United States was undertaking the fight against terrorism strictly in its own interests. In western Europe, 66 percent of the opinion leaders surveyed said they believed that the United States was looking out only for itself. This was not surprising given how little the Bush administration was attempting then to make U.S. allies feel differently or to turn the struggle in Afghanistan into a struggle for international order.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Yet Americans did not perceive themselves as self-interested. A full 70 percent of the American opinion leaders surveyed said they believed that the United States was acting also in the interests of its allies. This gap in perceptions revealed a central problem with the "war on terror" paradigm. Americans, suddenly back in the business of extensive global involvement, believed that they were also back in the business of global leadership. Most of the world did not agree.
<br /></span></strong>Judged on its own terms, the war on terror has been by far Bush's greatest success. No serious observer imagined after September 11 that seven years would go by without a single additional terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Only naked partisanship and a justifiable fear of tempting fate have prevented the Bush administration from getting or taking credit for what most would have regarded seven years ago as a near miracle. Much of the Bush administration's success, moreover, has been due to extensive international cooperation, especially with the European powers in the areas of intelligence sharing, law enforcement, and homeland security. Whatever else the Bush administration has failed to do, it has not failed to protect Americans from another attack on the homeland. The next administration will be fortunate to be able to say the same -- and will be contrasted quite unfavorably with the Bush administration if it cannot.
<br />
<br />
<br />The problem with the "war on terror" paradigm is not that the war has failed in its main and vitally important purpose. It is that the paradigm was and is an insufficient one on which to base the entirety of U.S. foreign policy.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In a world of selfish states and selfish peoples -- which is to say, the world that exists -- the question is always, "What is in it for us?" The inadequacy of the "war on terror" paradigm stems from the fact that very few nations other than the United States consider terrorism to be their primary challenge. The United States' fight has not been regarded as an international "public good" for which the rest of the world can be grateful. On the contrary, most nations believe that they are doing the United States a favor when they send troops to Afghanistan (or Iraq), often at a perceived sacrifice to their own interests. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><em>All foreign policy paradigms are flawed, of course. The anticommunist containment paradigm was also inadequate, since there was much more going on in the world from 1947 to 1989 than the struggle between communism and democratic capitalism. Still, anticommunism did tend to attract the allegiance of others to the United States and persuade them to accept U.S. leadership.</em></strong> This was more important than the United States' image, which was not always pristine. If the Vietnam War did not produce the same rifts in the United States' alliances that the Iraq war has produced, it is not because Lyndon Johnson's and Richard Nixon's America was more beloved than Bush's America is. <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>It is because the United States was providing things that other peoples believed they needed -- primarily protection against the Soviet Union -- which made many of them overlook U.S. actions in Vietnam and an American culture that in the space of only seven years managed to produce the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy, the Watts riots, the Kent State shootings, and Watergate</strong>.</span>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><em>The war on terror has never attracted that kind of international allegiance. China and Russia have welcomed it because it has distracted the United States' strategic focus away from them -- and because both have seen utility in a war on terror that for Moscow has meant a war on the Chechens and for Beijing a war on the Uighurs. But to most of the United States' traditional allies, it has been at best an unwelcome distraction from the issues they care about more. </em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;">In Europe, it has been more than a distraction. Americans believe that Europeans share their concern about radical Islam. But European concerns are different. For Americans, the problem is largely "out there," in faraway lands from which radical Islamic terrorists can launch attacks, and therefore the solution is also "out there." For Europeans, Islamic radicalism is first and foremost a domestic issue, a question of whether and how Muslims can be assimilated into twenty-first-century European society. To European eyes, U.S. actions only inflame Europe's problems. When the United States whacks a hornets' nest, the hornets fly to Europe, or so Europeans fear.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />The war on terror, in short, has been a source more of division than of unity. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The United States, which in the 1990s was already seen by many as a bullying hegemon, came to be viewed after September 11 as a self-absorbed, bullying hegemon, heedless of the consequences of its actions.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">THE INCOMPETENT HEGEMON?
<br /></span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">It was from this perspective that many viewed the decision to attack Iraq in 2003. And that is yet another irony. The toppling of Saddam Hussein was one of the less selfish actions of a post-9/11 United States, more in keeping with the pre-9/11 U.S. self-image as an active and responsible world leader than with Bush's narrower, interests-based foreign policy.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />The invasion was partly related to the war on terror. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">The Clinton administration had also worried about Saddam's terrorist ties and had used those suspected links to justify its own military action against Iraq in 1998. Clinton himself warned that if the United States did not take action against Saddam, the world would "see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />After September 11, a dramatically lowered tolerance for threats helps explain why realists such as Cheney, who had earlier believed Saddam could be safely deterred and contained, suddenly felt differently. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The same logic drove Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and many other Democrats and moderate Republicans in Congress to authorize the use of force in October 2002, producing the lopsided Senate vote of 77-23. It was why outspoken opposition to the war was so rare. The Time columnist Joe Klein reflected the mood in an interview on the eve of the war: "Sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. . . . The message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now . . . it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there." </span></em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The principal rationales for invading Iraq predated the war on terror, however, and also predated Bush's realism. <span style="color:#3333ff;">They were consistent with the broader view of U.S. interests that had prevailed in the Clinton years and during the Cold War. Iraq in the 1990s had been seen by many not as a direct threat to the United States but as a problem of world order for which the United States had a special responsibility. As then National Security Adviser Sandy Berger had argued in 1998, "The future of Iraq will affect the way in which the Middle East and the Arab world in particular evolve in the next decade and beyond."</span></span></strong> That was why people such as Richard Armitage, Francis Fukuyama, and Robert Zoellick could sign a letter in 1998 calling for Saddam's forcible removal. That was why, as The New York Times' Bill Keller (now the paper's executive editor) wrote at the time, liberals in what he called "The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club" supported the war, including "op-ed regulars at [The New York Times] and The Washington Post, the editors of The New Yorker, The New Republic and Slate, columnists in Time and Newsweek," as well as many former Clinton officials.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Those liberals and progressives who favored war against Iraq did so for much the same reason they had favored war in the Balkans: as necessary to help preserve the liberal international order. They preferred to see the United States get UN backing for the war, but they also knew this had been impossible in the case of Kosovo. Their chief worry was that the Bush administration, after toppling Saddam, would take a narrow realist approach in dealing with the aftermath. As Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) put it, "Some of these guys don't go for nation-building." A former Clinton official, Ronald Asmus, asked, "Is this about American power, or is it about democracy?" If it was about democracy, he believed, the United States would "have a broader base of support at home and more friends abroad."
<br /></span></strong>
<br />
<br />This broad consensus among American conservatives, liberals, progressives, and neoconservatives, however, was not replicated in the rest of the world. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">For Europeans, there was a big difference between Kosovo and Iraq. It was not about legality or the UN. It was about location. Europeans were ready to go to war without UN authorization in a matter that concerned them, their security, their history, and their morality. Iraq was another story. To American liberals such as the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, "Europe's cynicism and insecurity, masquerading as moral superiority," was "insufferable." </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />Iraq had long been a divisive issue. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">In the 1990s, a wide gap had opened up between the United Kingdom and the United States on one side, which favored containing Iraq with sanctions and military pressure, and China, France, Russia, and most other nations on the other, which favored an end to containment. By 2000, the Clinton administration feared that containment was becoming unsustainable, but it had already lost the battle to convince others that this was so.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Not much had changed by 2003. The rest of the world's tolerance of Saddam's Iraq had not been reduced by the September 11 attacks, as the United States' tolerance had. On the contrary, it was the world's tolerance of the United States that had decreased. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">By 2003, few nations were moved by the urgency of the war on terror, by humanitarian concerns in Iraq, or by a desire to see the United States once again lead an international crusade to bring order by force, as it had in the Persian Gulf War of 1991.</span></strong> Few could believe that the United States, especially under Bush, was now suddenly acting on behalf of world order. Hence, many could only explain the war as a war for oil, or for Israel, or for U.S. imperialism, or as anything but what its supporters across the U.S. political spectrum thought it was: a war that was both in the United States' interests and in the interests of the better part of humanity.
<br />
<br />
<br />Who knows what would have happened had the United States discovered the weapons materials and programs that everyone, including the Europeans and antiwar critics in the United States, believed were in Iraq? Even when no weapons were discovered, how would the world have reacted if the United States had quickly brought relative order and stability to Iraq? Then Secretary of State Colin Powell believed at the time that "once we have been successful and we have prevailed, and people realize that we have come to provide a better life for the people of Iraq," it will be possible to turn world opinion around "rather quickly."
<br />
<br />
<br />That is not what happened, of course. The United States, after successfully toppling Saddam, immediately began to fumble the task of bringing order and stability to post-Saddam Iraq. There were many reasons for this failure, including the combination of bad judgment and bad luck that can occur in any war and the inherent difficulties of a fractious Iraqi society. But part of the problem was the worldview that many top Bush officials still retained from the 1990s and the early days of the administration. Top officials at the Pentagon were still wedded to the concept of "strategic pause" and hostile to a heavy reliance on ground forces. In addition, as Biden had feared, the Republican realists' allergy to nation building persisted. The consequence, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, was the deployment of too few troops to take effective command of the countries and to suppress the inevitable power struggles following the fall of the previous dictatorships and too little civilian capacity to undertake the massive social and economic regeneration necessary in the inescapable task of postwar national reconstruction. In Iraq, these errors became apparent within months of the invasion. It took the administration another four years to adjust.
<br />
<br />
<br />The Bush administration did finally adjust its strategy, and as a result the prospects for success in Iraq are considerably brighter today than would have seemed possible two years ago. But the United States has paid a huge price for the years of stumbling. Whatever damage was done to the United States' reputation by the invasion itself, the damage done by four years of failure -- including the more spectacular manifestations of that failure, such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal -- has been incalculably greater. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In a fracturing world, the only thing worse than a self-absorbed hegemon is an incompetent self-absorbed hegemon.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">POWER AND ILLUSION</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />The next administration has a chance to learn from the Bush administration's mistakes, as well as to build on the progress the Bush administration has made in correcting them. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">The United States' position in the world today is not nearly as bad as some claim. Predictions that other powers would join together in an effort to balance against the rogue superpower have proved inaccurate. <span style="font-size:130%;">Other powers are emerging, but they are not aligning together against the United States. China and Russia have an interest and a desire to reduce the scale of U.S. predominance and seek more relative power for themselves. But they remain as wary of each other as they are of Washington. Other rising powers, such as Brazil and India, are not seeking to balance against the United States. </span></span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />Indeed, despite the negative opinion polls, most of the world's great powers are drawing closer to the United States geopolitically. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">A few years ago, France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schröder flirted with turning to Russia as a way of counterbalancing U.S. power.</span></strong> <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">But now, France, Germany, and the rest of Europe are tending in the other direction. This is not out of a renewed affection for the United States. The more pro-U.S. foreign policies of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel reflect their judgment that close but not uncritical relations with the United States enhance European power and influence. The eastern European nations, meanwhile, worry about a resurgent Russia. </span></em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">States in Asia and the Pacific have drawn closer to the United States mostly out of concern about the rising power of China.</span></strong> In the mid-1990s, the U.S.-Japanese alliance was in danger of eroding. But since 1997, the strategic relationship between the two countries has grown stronger. Some of the nations of Southeast Asia have also begun hedging against a rising China. (Australia may be the one exception to this broad trend, as its new government is tilting toward China and away from the United States and other democratic powers in the region.) <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The most notable shift has occurred in India, a former ally of Moscow that today sees good relations with the United States as critical to achieving its broader strategic and economic goals. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Even in the Middle East, where anti-Americanism runs hottest and where images of the U.S. occupation in Iraq and memories of Abu Ghraib continue to burn in the popular consciousness, the strategic balance has not shifted against the United States.</span></strong> Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia continue to work closely with the United States, as do the nations of the Persian Gulf that worry about Iran. Iraq has shifted from implacable anti-Americanism under Saddam to dependence on the United States, and a stable Iraq in the years to come would shift the strategic balance in a decidedly pro-U.S. direction, since Iraq sits on vast oil reserves and could become a significant power in the region.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This situation contrasts sharply with the major strategic setbacks the United States suffered in the Middle East during the Cold War.</span></strong> In the 1950s and 1960s, a pan-Arab nationalist movement swept across the region and opened the door to unprecedented Soviet involvement, including a quasi alliance between the Soviet Union and the Egypt of Gamal Abdel Nasser, as well as a Soviet alliance with Syria. In 1979, a key pillar of the U.S. strategic position in the region toppled when the pro-American shah of Iran was overthrown by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's virulently anti-American revolution. That led to a fundamental shift in the strategic balance in the region, a shift from which the United States is still suffering. Nothing similar has yet occurred as a result of the Iraq war.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Those who today proclaim that the United States is in decline often imagine a past in which the world danced to an Olympian America's tune. That is an illusion. Nostalgia swells for the wondrous U.S.-dominated era after World War II.</span></strong> But although the United States succeeded in Europe then, it suffered disastrous setbacks elsewhere. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The "loss" of China to communism, the North Korean invasion of South Korea, the Soviet Union's testing of a hydrogen bomb, the stirrings of postcolonial nationalism in Indochina -- each was a strategic calamity of immense scope, and was understood to be such at the time.</span></strong> Each critically shaped the remainder of the twentieth century, and not for the better. And each proved utterly beyond the United States' power to control or even to manage successfully. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Not a single event in the last decade can match any one of those events in terms of its enormity as a setback to the United States' position in the world</span></strong>.
<br />
<br />
<br />Chinese strategists believe that the present international configuration is likely to endure for some time, and they are probably right. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy and continues to be the predominant military power and the leading apostle of the world's most popular political philosophy; so long as the American public continues to support American predominance, as it has consistently done for six decades; and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors, the structure of the international system should remain as it has been, with one superpower and several great powers. </span></em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">It would also be an illusion, however, to imagine that there can be an easy return to the U.S. leadership and the cooperation among U.S. allies that existed during the Cold War era. There is no single unifying threat along the same lines as the Soviet Union to bind the United States and other nations together in seemingly permanent alliance.</span></strong> The world today looks more like that of the nineteenth century than like that of the late twentieth. Those who imagine this is good news should recall that the nineteenth-century order did not end as well as the Cold War did.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[<span style="color:#000099;">EUROPE</span> HAS LONG HOPED THAT THE SINGLE UNIFYING THREAT WOULD BE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE & ENVIRONMENTAL ARGMAGEDDON].</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />To avoid such a fate, the United States and other democratic nations will need to take a more enlightened and generous view of their interests than they did even during the Cold War. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;">The United States, as the strongest democracy, should not oppose but welcome a world of pooled and diminished national sovereignty.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;">It has little to fear and much to gain in a world of expanding laws and norms based on liberal ideals and designed to protect them.</span></strong> At the same time, the democracies of Asia and Europe need to rediscover that progress toward this more perfect liberal order depends not only on law and popular will but also on powerful nations that can support and defend it.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[A DIMINISHED NATIONAL UNITED STATES SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE GENERALLY PROMOTED, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS THE EUROPEAN MODEL OF 'SHARED SOVEREIGNTY', WHICH WOULD IRREVERSIBLY WEAKEN U.S. POLITICAL, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY, POWER & INFLUENCE. ACCEPTABLE 'SHARED SOVEREIGNTY' WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS-BASED FEDERALISM MODEL SET FORTH WITHIN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ITS ACCOMPANYING BILL OR RIGHTS, <em>NOT</em> THE EUROPEAN UNION'S CONSTITUTION. IN AN ERA OF GLOBALIZATION, SMALL NATIONS, SUCH AS GEORGIA, AND THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF THEIR CITIZENS CANNOT SIMPLY BE CAST ASIDE BECAUSE THEY ARE PERCEIVED AS AN 'IMPEDIMENT' TO 'EFFICIENT GLOBAL GOVERNANCE', AS RUSSIAN PRESIDENT DMITRI MEDVEDEV HAS REMARKED.]</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THE UNIQUENESS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL IS THAT IT PREMISES INDIVIDUAL POLICIAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND PROTECTION OF NATURAL RIGHTS ON THE U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS BEING UPHELD BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and BY THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. NO OTHER NATION HAS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL. ALL OTHERS, INCLUDING THOSE WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION, PROMOTE THE COLLECTIVE GOOD OVER THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD AT ALL LEVELS - REGIONAL, NATIONAL & LOCAL.]</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[A MODEL OF 'SHARED NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY' PREMISED ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION'S FEDERALIST FRAMEWORK, COUPLED WITH A UNIVERSAL BILL OF RIGHTS PREMISED ON THE U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS, RATHER THAN UPON THE EUROPEAN UNION'S SUBSIDIARITY FRAMEWORK AND THE EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION, COULD THEORETICALLY SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR AN UPDATED U.N. CHARTER, PROVIDED SUFFICIENT BENCHMARKS, ANALOGOUS TO THOSE WITHIN THE U.S., WERE ALSO ESTABLISHED TO PREVENT ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS BUREAUCRATIC DECISION-MAKING, and INEFFICIENT ADMINISTRATIVE/ ORGANIZATIONAL REDUNDANCIES AND CONFLICTS, INCLUDING: SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND VALIDATION, ECONOMIC COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, and PRIVATE PROPERTY 'TAKINGS' ANALYSIS.]</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />In a selfish world, this kind of enlightened wisdom may be beyond the capacities of all states. But if there is any hope, it lies in a renewed understanding of the importance of values. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The United States and other democratic nations share a common aspiration for a liberal international order, built on democratic principles and held together, however imperfectly, by laws and conventions among nations. </span></strong>This order is gradually coming under pressure as the great-power autocracies grow in strength and influence and as the antidemocratic struggle of radical Islamic terrorism persists. If the democracies' need for one another is less obvious than before, the need for these nations, including the United States, to "see further into the future" is all the greater.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[YET, AS NOTED ABOVE IN BRACKETS, 'THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS'.]</span></strong>
<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2008%20-%20Summer/full-Lieber.html">http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2008%20-%20Summer/full-Lieber.html</a>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Falling Upwards: Declinism, The Box Set</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />By Robert J. Lieber
<br />
<br />
<br />Summer 2008
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Is America finished? Respected public intellectuals, think tank theorists, and members of the media elite seem to think so. The scare headline in a recent New York Times Magazine cover story by Parag Khanna titled “Waving Goodbye to Hegemony” asks, “Who Shrunk the Superpower?”</span></strong> Almost daily, learned authors proclaim The End of the American Era, as the title of a 2002 book by <strong><em>Charles Kupchan</em></strong> put it, and instruct us that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">the rise of China and India, the reawakening of Putin’s Russia, and the expansion of the European Union signal a profound shift in geopolitical power that will retire once and for all the burden of American Exceptionalism.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">America has become an “enfeebled” superpower</span></strong>, according to <em><strong>Fareed Zakaria</strong></em> in his book, The Post-American World, which concedes that, while the U.S. will not recede from the world stage anytime soon, “Just as the rest of the world is opening up, America is closing down.” <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">With barely contained satisfaction, <span style="color:#3333ff;">a </span><span style="color:#3333ff;">French</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">foreign minister </span>says of America’s standing, “The magic is over . . . It will never be as it was before.”</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>The United States does contend with serious problems at home and abroad, but these prophecies of doom, which spread like a computer virus, hardly reflect a rational appraisal of where we stand. Moreover, it is not too difficult to see the ghosts of declinism past in the current rush to pen America’s epitaph. Gloomsayers have been with us, after all, since this country’s founding. Late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century European observers, especially royalists and reactionaries, commonly disparaged and discounted the prospects of the new American enterprise.</em></span></strong> <span style="font-size:180%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">(As the French author Phillip Roger has written in his insightful history of anti-Americanism, influential Parisian authors deprecated not only the new country, but also its animals and plants.)</span></strong> <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">In the 1920s and 1930s, Communist and fascist critics alike offered sweeping condemnations of the U.S. as a degenerate nation. “The last century [the 19th] was the winter of the West, the victory of materialism and skepticism, of socialism, parliamentarianism, and money,” proto-declinist Oswald Spengler famously wrote. “But in this century blood and instinct will regain their rights against the power of money and intellect. The era of individualism, liberalism and democracy, of humanitarianism and freedom, is nearing its end.”</span></strong></span>
<br />
<br />
<br />It was in the 1970s that declinism began to take on its modern features, following America’s buffeting by oil shocks and deep recessions, a humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam, victories by Soviet-backed regimes or insurgent movements in Africa, Central America, and Southeast Asia, and revolution in Iran along with the seizure of the U.S. embassy there. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">A 1970 book by Andrew Hacker also announced The End of the American Era. At the end of the decade, Jimmy Carter seemed to give a presidential stamp of approval to Hacker’s diagnosis when he used concerns about a flagging American economy, inflation, recession, and unemployment as talking points in his famous “malaise” speech calling for diminished national expectations.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />By the early 1980s, declinism had become a form of historical chic. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">In 1987, David Calleo’s Beyond American Hegemony summoned the U.S. to come to terms with a more pluralistic world. In the same year, Paul Kennedy published what at the time was greeted as the summa theologica of the declinist movement—The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, in which the author implied that the cycle of rise and decline experienced in the past by the empires of Spain and Great Britain could now be discerned in the “imperial overstretch” of the United States. But Kennedy had bought in at the top: within two years of his pessimistic prediction, the Cold War ended with the Soviet Union in collapse, the Japanese economic miracle entering a trough of its own, and U.S. competitiveness and job creation far outpacing its European and Asian competitors.</span></em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Theories of America’s obsolescence aspire to the status of science. But cycles of declinism tend to have a political subtext and, however impeccable the historical methodology that generates them seems to be, they often function as ideology by other means</span></strong>. During the 1980s, for instance, these critiques mostly emanated from the left and focused on Reaganomics and the defense buildup. By contrast, in the Clinton era, right-of-center and realist warnings were directed against the notion of America as an “indispensable nation” whose writ required it to nation-build and spread human rights. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Likewise, much of today’s resurgent declinism is propelled not only by arguments over real-world events, but also by a fierce reaction against the Bush presidency—<em><span style="color:#000099;">a reaction tainted by partisanship, hyperbole, ahistoricism</span></em>, and a misunderstanding of the fundamentals that underpin the robustness and staying power of the United States.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />What is new in the new declinism? A typical variation stipulates that slow- motion shifts in the distribution of global power make it impossible for this country to continue to play the dominating role it has since the end of the Cold War. Yet we have heard this argument, made most recently in Foreign Affairs by Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, many times before. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">As far back as 1972, President Richard Nixon depicted an emerging balance among five major powers: the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, and Japan. In recent years, some commentators have detected an analogous dilution of U.S. influence in the rise of the “BRICs” (Brazil, Russia, India, China), coupled with an expanded and increasingly unified European Union and a flourishing East Asia.</span></strong> In this telling, not only has global power become more widely diffused, but other powers have started to “balance” against the United States, seeking to minimize Washington’s role and thwart its global ambitions.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">The new declinists usually pin the blame (or credit) on the Bush administration’s grand strategy (the Bush Doctrine)—a crudely unilateralist assertion of American power that disregards both the views of other countries and international law. This conduct is said to have provoked a global backlash against the United States, evidenced both in rising anti-Americanism and in the “balancing” policies of many foreign governments. In his New York Times article, Khanna rehearses the orthodoxy: “America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order.”</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />Declinists cannot help but acknowledge that the U.S. still possesses the world’s most formidable military power, but they view America’s armed forces as gravely over-extended and trapped in a costly misadventure. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">The immediate problem is the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq without formal UN authorization; beyond that there are doubts about America’s moral credibility in projecting force anywhere at all. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>The declinists also see the U.S. reeling economically. A massive inflow of manufactured goods from East Asia coupled with huge trade and payment deficits has severely weakened the dollar and created an enormous buildup of financial reserves in countries like China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. This, in turn, raises the possibility of a crippling financial crisis were these countries suddenly to unload their U.S. Treasury securities. Making matters worse, a spike in world oil prices has accelerated financial outflows and piled up dollar reserves in the OPEC countries and in Russia</em></strong>.</span> Foreign sovereign wealth funds have used these funds to acquire American assets at basement prices and, with them, the capacity to wield economic and political leverage against Washington. The run- up in oil prices has also boosted the fortunes of hostile regimes, including those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">With impressive detail and more than a hint of condescension, the new declinists mine this data to make the case for an America in jeopardy—watching helplessly as its global power crumbles away. The solution: a more “realistic” America that lowers its sights and shifts course at home and abroad in line with the new realities.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />In a time of war, televised terror threats, and economic and political pessimism, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">declinism has some of the qualities of a universal solvent: it explains everything. But while it may harmonize with current tremors of fear and uncertainty, declinism succeeds less well as a “new paradigm.”</span></strong> In contrast to the declinists’ arguments and analyses, America boasts a position of unmatched preponderance. No single country or even grouping of countries has emerged as a plausible counterpart or peer competitor, and apart from the very long-term possibility of China, none is likely to do so.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">Consider the frequently cited alternatives. With its twenty-seven member states, 500 million people, and the sum of its aggregate economies, the European Union is always mentioned by those who predict an imminent counterbalancing to the United States. But Europe faces steep obstacles in achieving anything resembling a common foreign and security policy. <span style="color:#3333ff;"><em>Its cumbersome institutions, public demands for enormous rates of domestic expenditure, hamstrung attempts at political integration, as well as its Hamlet-like uncertainties about the use of force and military spending, give Europe a global impact far less than its size and wealth would otherwise dictate.</em></span> An additional reason why it punches far below its weight is that, rather than fielding a true pan-European military, its member states continue to maintain separate (and barely funded) defense establishments. Another is that, with limited exceptions, European countries can deploy only modest forces in the field and, lacking critical mass, render themselves far less effective than even their aggregate numbers might suggest. </span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />For these reasons and more, when national leaders attempt to galvanize opposition to American policies, they seldom prove successful. As a conspicuous case in point, during the months prior to the Iraq War, French, German, and Belgian leaders launched a campaign to gin up opposition to the Bush strategy. Though they gained Russian backing in the UN, they largely failed to do so at home within the EU, where some two-thirds of member governments (including, most significantly, those of “New” Europe) ended up endorsing the American-led war. With the passage of time as well as the coming to power of Atlanticist leaders in Germany (Merkel), France (Sarkozy), and Italy (Berlusconi), there appears to be, if anything, even less inclination to stand in America’s way.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Farther East, and despite its economic recovery and the restoration of central power under Putin, Russia remains overwhelmingly dependent on the current boom in energy and commodity prices—and correspondingly vulnerable in the event of their decline.</span></strong> The country suffers from pervasive corruption, with a ranking from Transparency International that puts it at 121 among 163 countries in this category. Its population, already less than half that of the U.S. and plagued with alcoholism, chronic violence, a decrepit health-care system, and a male life expectancy of fewer than 60 years of age (lower than that of Bangladesh), shrinks by some half a million people per year. And its army, while bidding for attention and resources, remains weak and in disarray. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">As The Economist recently summarized Putin’s Russia, it has become one of the most “criminalized, corrupt and bureaucratized countries in the world.”</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">True, the Putin regime plays to its domestic base with strident nationalism and xenophobia. In doing so, it has actively opposed and occasionally subverted American policies on some issues while providing a degree of cooperation on others.</span></em></strong> Instances of the former include opposition to NATO enlargement and to the stationing of anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, the use of oil and gas resources as leverage against neighboring countries, overt and covert pressure against former Soviet Republics, and arms sales to Syria and Iran. Yet Moscow grudgingly collaborates where it has shared concerns, as with North Korea and combating terrorism. Russia presents a problem for the United States, but its erratic behavior, its priorities at home, and its own internal decline put it well short of being a major power challenger.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">As to Japan, having been touted in the 1980s as the emergent world power (and the primary justification of the declinist theories of twenty years ago), it only recently recovered from the effects of its economic collapse in the early 1990s. Moreover, as a result of China’s newfound economic weight and military power, Japan has moved into a closer embrace with the United States than ever before.</span></em></strong> This has meant greater cooperation from military logistics through to the strategic realm, and it has even included logistical and personnel support in Iraq. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Japanese case offers a basic reminder of something declinists too often forget: When assessing a rising power such as China, one ought to consider the near-historical certainty that the rising power will provoke a counterbalancing of its own.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />India, too, has adopted a far more positive and intimate commercial, political, and security relationship with Washington than at any time since its independence in 1947. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">During the Cold War, India, although formally non-aligned, had tilted toward the Soviet Union. India’s substantial shift toward the United States, made partly in response to China’s awakening, offers another example of “bandwagoning” with us rather than balancing against us.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />Finally, there is <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">China—America’s most serious, and in many respects only true, competitor</span></strong>. It projects greater influence in Asia by the day, and it has been a problematic actor in other regions as well, where it has bolstered and sustained repressive regimes that the U.S. and Europe have sought to isolate, as in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and to some extent Iran. Its ability to do so, needless to say, rests on economic growth. <strong><em>A huge trade surplus with the United States has spurred the accumulation of $1.5 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, the bulk of it invested in U.S. government securities. In theory, this could allow Beijing to undo the American economy in one fell swoop. However, in triggering a run on the dollar China would subvert its own national interest, boosting its own currency against America’s and thereby undercutting its own competitiveness as well as its ability to export to the U.S. market</em></strong>.
<br />
<br />
<br />Still, Beijing now plays an outsized role in global affairs. But, again, as China has become the dominant power in East Asia, its muscle flexing has pushed not only Japan but also Vietnam, Singapore, Australia, and others farther into the U.S. orbit. In any case, China’s priorities for the immediate future center mostly on internal development and the absorption of hundreds of millions of workers from its lagging rural and agricultural sectors. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The quickening pace of China’s military buildup seems intended primarily to deter the United States from intervening in support of Taiwan and, beyond that, to establish regional rather than global power.</span></strong> Over the very long-term China may indeed emerge as a great power rival to the United States. But this seems very, very unlikely in the near or medium term.
<br />
<br />
<br />Not only is there no superpower challenge visible on the horizon, but some regions, particularly much of Africa and Asia, have been either largely untouched by post-Iraq reactions against the United States or, as with Vietnam, Singapore, and Australia, have even adopted a more pro-American stance. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Anti-Americanism exists, but it always has, waxing and waning since the end of World War II and becoming especially virulent during the Vietnam, Reagan, and Bush eras. Viewing the malady as acute rather than a chronic staple of the international arena hugely overstates its impact. </span></strong>In fact, the truly new element in the mix is globalization, which, far from being a source of decline, tends to work in favor of the United States. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">As authors such as Francis Fukuyama and Walter Russell Mead have demonstrated, the more globally integrated developing countries tend to be the least anti-American, placing a premium on liberalism, the rule of law, and other traditions that have come to be seen as U.S. exports.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Not surprisingly, the declinist outlook carries with it policy prescriptions—yearnings, really—that a fading superpower will exit center stage gracefully. Earnest liberal internationalists such as Anne-Marie Slaughter and John Ikenberry admonish Washington to show far more deference and even subservience to world opinion and to work in concert with, and on behalf of, the global community. Indeed, for some declinists, the U.S. has become a sort of genteel version of a rogue nation.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">The portrait is often tinged with partisan politics. Merely as a result of a change in administration, two former National Security Council staffers, Nina Hachigian and Mona Sutphen, write in The Next American Century, a solipsistic recounting of the Clinton years, their halcyon days in government bureaucracy were exchanged for a condition of “America on one side, the rest of the world on the other.”</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A broader critique assigns responsibility for America’s overstretch to the entire post-Cold War era. On this count, authors and public intellectuals loosely associated with the realist tradition, such as Christopher Layne and Dimitri Simes, indict not only neoconservatives, who are said to have engineered the Bush Doctrine, but also liberal internationalists, whom they depict as emboldening neoconservatives with their own enthusiasms for humanitarian intervention, nation-building, and democracy promotion.</span></strong> Still others look inward for the cause of America’s demise. Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger has complained about the effect of ethnic groups on U.S. foreign policy and questioned whether the Constitution itself contains the seeds of America’s decline. Similarly, James Kurth has pointed to multiculturalism and the pollution of pop culture as the culprits, while Samuel Huntington, who writes that “Cultural America is under siege,” sees America’s fabric frayed by racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity.
<br />
<br />
<br />Much of the case, however, wilts under close analysis, relying as it does overwhelmingly on transient or reversible indicators. (Comparing America’s share of the global economy in the late 1940s with its share today, for example, gives a skewed result for the simple reason that much of the rest of the world was in ruins sixty years ago). <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Declinism gains much of its power from cherry-picking among daily reports of bad news and from the assumption that those who defend this country’s basic strength have blinkered themselves to the Hegelian logic behind America’s weakening.</span></strong> As with the pessimistic intellectual troughs that followed the Depression, Vietnam, and the stagflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">there is a tendency among declinists to over-extrapolate from a momentous but singular event—in this case, the Iraq War, whose wake propels many of their gloomy forecasts.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />
<br />On the economic front, without minimizing the impact of today’s challenges, they will likely prove less daunting than those that plagued the U.S. in the 1970s and early 1980s. The overall size and dynamism of the economy remains unmatched, and America continues to lead the rest of the world in measures of competitiveness, technology, and innovation. Here, higher education and science count as an enormous asset. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">America’s major research universities lead the world in stature and rankings, occupying seventeen of the top twenty slots. Broad demographic trends also favor the United States, whereas countries typically mentioned as peer competitors sag under the weight of aging populations. This is not only true for Russia, Europe, and Japan, but also for China, whose long-standing one-child policy has had an anticipated effect.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />In the realm of “hard power,” while the army and Marines have been stretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact is that no other country possesses anything like the capacity of the United States to project power around the globe. American military technology and sheer might remain unmatched—no other country can compete in the arenas of land, sea, or air warfare. China claims that it spends $45 billion annually on defense, but the truth comes closer to three times that figure. Still, America’s $625 billion defense budget dwarfs even that. The latter amounts to just 4.2 percent of GDP. This contrasts with 6.6 percent at the height of the Reagan buildup and double-digit percentages during the early and middle years of the Cold War.
<br />
<br />
<br />Not surprisingly, given all this, few global problems can be solved, let alone managed, absent a significant American commitment. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The United States, as Michael Mandelbaum has put it, remains the world’s principal provider of public goods. This can mean, variously, leadership, political backing, financial or diplomatic assistance, logistics, intelligence, or the use of military assets for tasks ranging from disaster relief to combat support.</span></strong> In many instances, and particularly in urgent and dire cases such as the Balkan crises, the choice boils down to this: either the United States will act or no one will.
<br />
<br />
<br />Other countries understand the unique nature of American power—if not wholly selfless, not entirely selfish, either—and its role in underpinning global stability and maintaining a decent world order. This helps to explain why Europe, India, Japan and much of East Asia, and important countries of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America have no use for schemes to balance against the United States. Most would rather do business with America or be shielded by it.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">In the end, then, this country’s structural advantages matter much more than economic cycles, trade imbalances, or surging and receding tides of anti-Americanism.</span></strong> These advantages include America’s size, wealth, human and material resources, military strength, competitiveness, and liberal political and economic traditions, but also a remarkable flexibility, dynamism, and capacity for reinvention. Neither the rise of important regional powers, nor a globalized world economy, nor “imperial overstretch,” nor domestic weaknesses seem likely to negate these advantages in ways the declinists anticipate, often with a fervor that makes their diagnoses and prescriptions resemble a species of wish fulfillment.
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Over the years, America’s staying power has been regularly and chronically underestimated—by condescending French and British statesmen in the nineteenth century, by German, Japanese, and Soviet militarists in the twentieth, and by homegrown prophets of doom today. The critiques come and go. The object of their contempt never does.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><em>Robert J. Lieber is professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University. His most recent book is The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century.
<br /></em>
<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />
<br /><strong>See also:</strong> <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>The Historical and Philosophical Antecedents to the Current Wave of Anti-Americanism, </em>ITSSD Website at: </strong><a href="http://www.itssd.org/Issues/TheHistoricalAntecedentstotheCurrentWaveofAnti-Americanism.pdf"><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>http://www.itssd.org/Issues/TheHistoricalAntecedentstotheCurrentWaveofAnti-Americanism.pdf</strong></span></a></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> .</span>
<br />ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-182937909604803082008-08-19T21:17:00.064-04:002008-08-19T23:08:16.999-04:00Eurobama Seeks Support From Green EU Social Welfare Regulatory State to 'Change' America<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/26/obama.london/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/26/obama.london/index.html</a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj5oSPbtX49aziiBN1ZiwQtIfTLEo4PekP1FAsDb7DVu2OdgjoS_kg7DcEfRxHuArb6G_T_zZgW8EApZps15xktY4DE8tFJEpZu1FLP7mcHGwM_2imQndAeJv3catQ830-db7GgcPD6DjT/s1600-h/Eurobama+flying+on+his+EU+carpet.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236403118721600386" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj5oSPbtX49aziiBN1ZiwQtIfTLEo4PekP1FAsDb7DVu2OdgjoS_kg7DcEfRxHuArb6G_T_zZgW8EApZps15xktY4DE8tFJEpZu1FLP7mcHGwM_2imQndAeJv3catQ830-db7GgcPD6DjT/s400/Eurobama+flying+on+his+EU+carpet.gif" border="0" /></a> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama, Brown discuss 'special relationship'</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">LONDON, England (CNN)</span> </span><br /><br /><br />July 26, 2008<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3366ff;">U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama</span></strong> met with British Prime Gordon Brown on Saturday on the last leg of his weeklong overseas tour.<br /><br /><br />The two discussed foreign policy issues and <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhryCzIhbC0Yzgj7T8EZpNuPsaLOyTqzioxaotCD362EBfessttf3O5qAoZYw6MKNEouDAzDUHDh2ZS7gBL7IaMJRdjExXuWWijO_yhgh4JIz4oWl3aQvzZ2stiwAANDELfqxEiHTfSH1Np/s1600-h/UKUS.gif"><strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236405075097390130" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 60px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 42px" height="38" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhryCzIhbC0Yzgj7T8EZpNuPsaLOyTqzioxaotCD362EBfessttf3O5qAoZYw6MKNEouDAzDUHDh2ZS7gBL7IaMJRdjExXuWWijO_yhgh4JIz4oWl3aQvzZ2stiwAANDELfqxEiHTfSH1Np/s400/UKUS.gif" width="68" border="0" /></strong></a><strong><span style="color:#000099;">the "special relationship" between Britain and America</span> </strong>during two hours of talks inside <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">10 Downing Street</span></strong>, the prime minister's London residence.<br /><br /><br />The pair made the most of the sunshine by sitting outside on the patio, even taking a stroll toward adjacent St. James's Park, much to the surprise of nearby tourists.<br /><br /><br />"The prime minister's emphasis, like mine, is on <strong><em>how we can strengthen the transatlantic relationship to solve problems that can't be solved by any single country individually</em></strong>," Obama said outside Downing Street after the meeting.<br /><br /><br />Those problems, Obama said, include <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">climate change</span></strong>, international terrorism and turmoil in world financial markets. Obama and Brown also discussed cooperation in resolving the problems in the Middle East and burden-sharing in Iraq and Afghanistan.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33cc00;"><strong>Earlier, Obama met with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair</strong></span>, who now serves as the Middle East envoy for the "quartet" of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. Watch more on Obama's visit to London »<br /><br /><br />After his meeting with Brown, Obama met with opposition leader David Cameron, head of the Conservative Party, before heading back to the United States.<br /><br /><br />During the meeting, a camera microphone picked up some light banter between the two men about Obama's current state of fatigue.<br /><br /><br />Cameron told the candidate, "You should be on the beach. ... You need a break. ... You need to be able to keep your head together."<br /><br /><br />Obama told Cameron he would try to take a week off in August. He said he got advice from a Clinton White House veteran on how to handle the demands on his time.<br /><br /><br />"Somebody who had worked in the White House -- not Clinton himself -- but somebody who had been close to the process, said that [should we be successful] ... the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you're doing is thinking. And the biggest mistake that a lot of these folks make is just feeling as if you have to be ..."<br /><br /><br />Cameron interjected, "These guys just chalk your diary up." Obama agreed: "Right, exactly, in 15-minute increments."<br /><br /><br />Cameron told him: "We call it the dentist waiting room. You have to scrap that, because you've got to have time." Obama said that not taking a break is when "you start making mistakes or you lose the big picture."<br /><br /><br />Obama's trip has taken him through the Middle East and Europe, starting with Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and the West Bank and finishing with Germany, France and Britain.<br /><br /><br />Though Obama joked with the British press that London was the highlight for him, his trip has included several other moments that have garnered positive international headlines, most recently a Friday news conference in Paris with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and a speech in Berlin on Thursday to about 200,000 people.<br /><br /><br />The Democratic candidate admitted that his ratings may have slipped in the United States since he's been away, as Americans focus more on domestic problems like gas prices and home foreclosures than on his travels abroad. But he said he still considers the trip important.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">"The reason that I thought this trip was important is that I am convinced that many of the issues that we face at home are not going to be solved as effectively unless we have strong partners abroad</span></strong> and unless we get a handle on Iraq and Afghanistan," Obama said.<br /><br /><br />The military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, are costing America money that could be better spent on rebuilding the U.S. economy.<br /><br /><br />"This was important for me not only to try to highlight or amplify how the international situation affects our economy back home but also hopefully to give people at home and also leaders abroad some sense of where an Obama administration might take our foreign policy," he said. Watch Obama's complete interview with CNN's Candy Crowley »<br /><br /><br />Obama's staff has repeatedly said that the tour is not political and not intended as a campaign trip, although Obama's meetings with troops and world leaders were designed to boost his <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">foreign policy credentials</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[???]</span></strong> and help voters back home envision him as commander in chief.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhePXXyfj9lcCYJCfc7XXDYif-PnYTsml-eKlVZrbv7CE3pF-WQPIgB5_D4s-RO-Aeu4Irt1OMUx8jJFg6YtqPhhl427mk01175dVL-trlfIgWmHbyUEIJAoLP5tot-JasuAQ0hAbrPwTpG/s1600-h/France+Irrelevant+for+over+150+years.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236409560301891650" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhePXXyfj9lcCYJCfc7XXDYif-PnYTsml-eKlVZrbv7CE3pF-WQPIgB5_D4s-RO-Aeu4Irt1OMUx8jJFg6YtqPhhl427mk01175dVL-trlfIgWmHbyUEIJAoLP5tot-JasuAQ0hAbrPwTpG/s200/France+Irrelevant+for+over+150+years.jpg" border="0" /></a>The warm atmosphere in <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Paris</span></strong> -- <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">where Sarkozy repeatedly called Obama a friend</span></strong> -- continued in London, and not just because of the warm summer temperatures that finally settled on the British capital this week. Watch France's obsession with Obama. »<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">[WITH<span style="color:#ff0000;"> 'FRIENDS'</span> LIKE FRANCE, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?? ANYHOW, WHY IS FRANCE ANY MORE RELEVANT NOW THAN IT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN?]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">Obama</span> and <span style="color:#000099;">Brown</span> were shown laughing and smiling as they walked together, and Obama reiterated to reporters that <span style="color:#000099;">the</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">special</span> <span style="color:#000099;">relationship</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">between</span> <span style="color:#000099;">Britain</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">and</span> <span style="color:#000099;">America</span> continues</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ3hL4-dBOI3bQFY6IjBDfvSsR5CsLCavewU0G-btl92BTuX6sUW9MmghWPWRSHacotCybdcIScCEjRYqXCYEGP36CwflDpcOrTadV8NCNeWY9b6AUdYS5k3tKyBfqb0sQo1jHE8_KP6Rd/s1600-h/Animals+Have+Human+Rights+in+Britain.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236411190038006930" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ3hL4-dBOI3bQFY6IjBDfvSsR5CsLCavewU0G-btl92BTuX6sUW9MmghWPWRSHacotCybdcIScCEjRYqXCYEGP36CwflDpcOrTadV8NCNeWY9b6AUdYS5k3tKyBfqb0sQo1jHE8_KP6Rd/s320/Animals+Have+Human+Rights+in+Britain.jpg" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQi9Mxk2EAlK59wvl5Vv1vnli-h5nuyPEgSHBMyyiEpi-3SVprla8qji31S8OQMEOkbZHDPGkOO6W2oxrLqCIyS93kGKATYCgLcVOYa4mdoqmJfmSfYtE-aKcK-V3g5kVDc_bxKX4tUwce/s1600-h/UK+fascination+-+logo_green.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236408469200736786" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 150px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 148px" height="148" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQi9Mxk2EAlK59wvl5Vv1vnli-h5nuyPEgSHBMyyiEpi-3SVprla8qji31S8OQMEOkbZHDPGkOO6W2oxrLqCIyS93kGKATYCgLcVOYa4mdoqmJfmSfYtE-aKcK-V3g5kVDc_bxKX4tUwce/s200/UK+fascination+-+logo_green.gif" width="174" border="0" /></a>"I think there's a deep and abiding affection for the British people in America and <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em><span style="color:#33cc00;">a fascination with all things British</span> that is not going to go away any time soon," Obama said</em></strong>.<br /></span><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:180%;color:#006600;"><strong>[DOES EUROBAMA REALLY MEAN GREEN?? <span style="color:#990000;">OR, DOES HE MEAN ANIMALS HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?</span><span style="color:#990000;">]</span></strong></span><br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>In a radio address Saturday, presumptive Republican candidate Sen. John McCain took aim at Obama's "long-distance affair."<br /><br /><br />"With all the breathless coverage from abroad, and with Sen. Obama now addressing his speeches to 'the people of the world,' I'm starting to feel a little left out. Maybe you are, too," McCain said.<br /><br /><br />Britain was a low-key stop on Obama's itinerary, in part because no major events were planned. Brown also decided not to greet the U.S. senator on the doorstep of 10 Downing Street because he didn't grant the same honor to McCain when the Republican visited in March.<br /><br /><br />That protocol comes at a difficult time politically for the British prime minister, who could have benefited from a photo opportunity with a man so hugely popular in Europe. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><em>Brown's Labor Party lost a local election this week in what had been considered safe territory for the party, adding to existing political woes for Brown and raising questions about his future as prime minister.<br /></em></span></strong><br /><br />Asked by a British reporter whether he had any advice for Brown, Obama said no -- but he said elected officials must always be prepared to deal with a fickle public.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://en.ce.cn/World/Europe/200807/28/t20080728_16310413.shtml">http://en.ce.cn/World/Europe/200807/28/t20080728_16310413.shtml</a><br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama ends last leg of his Middle East, European tour</span></strong><br /><br /></div><div>Last Updated(Beijing Time):2008-07-28 14:43<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is winding up the last leg of his "world tour" to the Middle East and Europe designed to boost his say in foreign affairs amid a presidential campaign dead heat back in the United States.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />On Saturday, Obama told a news conference that <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ff33;">"the reason that I thought this trip was important is that I am convinced that many issues that we face at home are not going to be solved as effectively unless we have strong partners abroad."</span></strong><br /><br /><br />When meeting with <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">British Prime Minister Gorden Brown</span></strong> Saturday, he said "We share the same language and the same belief" and Britain and the United States have gone through the world wars together and <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><em>share same views on the world order</em></span></strong>."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3366ff;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidPb08eCCWQ7klPMaQPCmtT_5A_LY4ymFo16NouDixT_ctXjDboXaRZDkDTtB6lqT52VSAL02GoGPrQgEUS0hks3WW9OIvCdryJlEpy4SMy-AEdqckE_W8zr9ES21RGGC3tgGMAuzJ2N-p/s1600-h/UN_Fish_USA.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236415820677367826" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidPb08eCCWQ7klPMaQPCmtT_5A_LY4ymFo16NouDixT_ctXjDboXaRZDkDTtB6lqT52VSAL02GoGPrQgEUS0hks3WW9OIvCdryJlEpy4SMy-AEdqckE_W8zr9ES21RGGC3tgGMAuzJ2N-p/s200/UN_Fish_USA.jpg" border="0" /></a>[THE <span style="color:#ff0000;">U.S.</span> AND <span style="color:#000099;">BRITAIN</span> SHARE THE SAME WORLD VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THE UNITED NATIONS & INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ???]</span></strong></div><div><br /></div><div><br />In a move to respond to criticism that he is "naive and innocent" in foreign policy, Obama also discussed climate change, international terrorism and the Middle East situation with Brown and reiterated his call for increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.<br /></div><div><br />During his visit to France, Obama held discussions with <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">French President Nicolas Sarkozy</span></strong>. </div><div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_g5FSUgty146mhngz3w-Nodht7ss1NOJLYj0pKNQFcrmBID8u_01wYmZ83B3bxQKP7HUPQ5jxJwb4hVlNxhzEi4osBv0kpEBRcZ6uzKFbnOwcv9-ZuYM98RbLZ4lmNzRts57mmbT-6KAh/s1600-h/UN+middle+east+peace.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236414808940901090" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_g5FSUgty146mhngz3w-Nodht7ss1NOJLYj0pKNQFcrmBID8u_01wYmZ83B3bxQKP7HUPQ5jxJwb4hVlNxhzEi4osBv0kpEBRcZ6uzKFbnOwcv9-ZuYM98RbLZ4lmNzRts57mmbT-6KAh/s200/UN+middle+east+peace.bmp" border="0" /></a>Speaking at a joint press conference, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3366ff;">Sarkozy said there was a "great convergence of views" with Obama and that they had much to do in dealing with issues such as climate change, reform of world institutions</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3366ff;">and the maintenance of world peace.<br /></div></span></strong><div><br /><br /></div><div><br />In Germany, <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#009900;"><span style="color:#cc0000;">German</span> <span style="color:#ffff00;">Chancellor</span> <span style="color:#000000;">Angela Merkel</span></span></strong> had <strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#009900;">"very open and in-depth" talks with Obam</span><span style="color:#009900;">a</span></span></em></strong> on Thursday.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />During the one-hour talks, Merkel and Obama exchanged views on a wide range of key international issues, including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the <strong>Middle East peace process</strong>.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCcvWZ3jFFf4wJva5i-VbDDiZA86TAJnZoLThK6e7yylIyGB1qNOyLvJuGQhssBD5ui_pKIb3U4wkL_nT8QBuLwadwI0EM9Acc0YhQTpOGzS01gAL6DmwNdc5OFFRHonpyVy_Fo7eojfTZ/s1600-h/EU-USA-Germany.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236418410291693602" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCcvWZ3jFFf4wJva5i-VbDDiZA86TAJnZoLThK6e7yylIyGB1qNOyLvJuGQhssBD5ui_pKIb3U4wkL_nT8QBuLwadwI0EM9Acc0YhQTpOGzS01gAL6DmwNdc5OFFRHonpyVy_Fo7eojfTZ/s200/EU-USA-Germany.jpg" border="0" /></a>They also discussed <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#009900;">the trans-Atlantic economic partnership, climate change and energy issues</span></strong>, the state of the global economy and <span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;">the need for cooperation on the international level and in international organizations to tackle important global issues</span></em></strong>.</span><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />During his 30-hour stay at Israel and the Palestinian territory, the White House hopeful projected himself as an active and constructive partner in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and as a steadfast opponent to a nuclear Iran.<br /></div><div><br /><br />"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States and my abiding commitment to Israel's security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a U.S. senator or as president," he told Israeli President Shimon Peres on Wednesday.<br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div>Obama also made a gesture to the Palestinians, pledging active and constructive involvement in the protracted Middle East peace process.<br /></div><div><br />In a brief visit to the West Bank, Obama assured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he would be "a constructive partner in the peace process" and "would not waste a minute if elected."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />He emphasized that what Israelis and Palestinians need is a true and lasting peace instead of a piece of paper, and that it is in Israel's interests to establish "a viable, peaceful Palestine."<br /></div><div><br />Turning to another front that manifests the U.S.-Israeli alliance, Obama said he would "take no options off the table" to prevent a nuclear Iran.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />"A nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation, not just in the Middle East, but around the world," said Obama. "A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat, and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />Asked about his previously stated notion of having talks with Iranian leaders, Obama said he still holds that if it would promote the national security interests of the United States, he would be willing to meet with any leader.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />"We should exhaust every possible avenue" on Iran, dealing with the issue with "carrots and sticks," said the candidate, adding that if Iran rejects the offers, then "we will be in a stronger position" to call on the international community to respond collectively against the Islamic republic.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />Obama arrived in Iraq Monday morning after a visit to Afghanistan, the first leg of his Middle East and European tour.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />The Democratic presidential candidate has promised, if elected, he will withdraw the U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months, and send more troops to Afghanistan where security situation is getting worse.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />In addition, Obama also promised long-term support to Afghanistan when he met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the Presidential Palace on Sunday.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />Matters pertaining situation in Afghanistan, regional stability, fight against drug, war on terror and enhancing Kabul-Washington relations were discussed.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />Both sides had exchanged views on boosting economic relations between Afghanistan and the United States and on bolstering reconstruction process of the post-Taliban nation in the meeting.<br /><br />Obama has embarked on a multi-stop overseas trip for meetings with a number of heads of states since last week.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />The trip is aimed to bolster the U.S. presidential hopeful's credentials in foreign policy and national security, which is considered his "weak point" in comparison to his Republican rival John McCain.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 48 percent of registered voters said Obama would make a good commander in chief, compared with 72 percent for McCain.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />Source:Xinhuanet<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/obama.interview">http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/obama.interview</a></div><div><br /><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama: Help from allies will improve things at home</span></strong><br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#009900;">America's allies in Europe are crucial</span></strong> to the success of anti-terror efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#33cc00;">in </span><span style="color:#33cc00;">helping solve economic problems at home, Sen. Barack Obama told CNN on Friday</span></span></strong>.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />"Part of getting that right is having the Europeans engaged and involved in this same battle that we're involved with," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told CNN's Candy Crowley on Friday in <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#cc0000;">Berlin, Germany</span></strong>, where he had addressed a crowd estimated at 200,000 a day earlier.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbQSY7M-yVdEmHeEKajl-Pdmixf3tGoOOJAcFZFuQaCPgiKujmrSWqBGsLBgxnMeaIALuw-EXHmDHPEj20o66lxzPZWBqNkKxVg5MR31Pe8AabYeq0LzaB0fK85JKzk0QpwXqDlyrmdx4P/s1600-h/eu%20borg%20collective_lrez.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236426023659031442" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 259px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 268px" height="200" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbQSY7M-yVdEmHeEKajl-Pdmixf3tGoOOJAcFZFuQaCPgiKujmrSWqBGsLBgxnMeaIALuw-EXHmDHPEj20o66lxzPZWBqNkKxVg5MR31Pe8AabYeq0LzaB0fK85JKzk0QpwXqDlyrmdx4P/s200/eu%2520borg%2520collective_lrez.jpg" width="283" border="0" /></a>Asked what message his traveling abroad three months before the election sent to Americans, Obama said <strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ff33;">getting commitments from the United States' partners would help address some of the domestic issues Americans are facing.<br /></span></em></strong></div><br /><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">[WHAT EUROBAMA LIKELY HAS IN MIND IS FOR THE U.S. TO ADOPT EU REGULATORY, TRADE, TAX, SOCIAL WELFARE AND FOREIGN POLICIES SO THAT WE <em>'BECOME ONE WITH THE EU'</em>, MUCH LIKE A 'COLLECTIVE'. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGeeCzNCkNCuSRhFlLM8MilEVADuibiabtTynGC4cTIN_5xr8JAKt71b79oPwyIlLFKloSnJio5SyFU74xaTjvPrZ9p1KNcP7NvqYaKqCQOaGYLBKpymi-y9RG_p3vEQ4CG-_xu5We6MnT/s1600-h/EU-US-small.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236427707872983618" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGeeCzNCkNCuSRhFlLM8MilEVADuibiabtTynGC4cTIN_5xr8JAKt71b79oPwyIlLFKloSnJio5SyFU74xaTjvPrZ9p1KNcP7NvqYaKqCQOaGYLBKpymi-y9RG_p3vEQ4CG-_xu5We6MnT/s200/EU-US-small.jpg" border="0" /></a>WHY DOES THE U.S. NEED EUROPEAN HELP TO RESOLVE OUR DOMESTIC MATTERS, <span style="color:#ff0000;">UNLESS EUROBAMA REALLY WANTS TO PURSUE GREATER TRANSATLANTIC REGULATORY & TAX HARMONIZATION, AND A WEAKENING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION & ITS ACCOMPANYING BILL OF RIGHTS ???</span>]</span></strong><br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#006600;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQgd4CGKZUcdJ6uy5kJ1p8RmSwejnF1rnYiwHms3WiTEiQOsHBuI6-ocegZn_Z3u-tJ7Z5JTlE-7AxWvnuPzjpPlVbs85oHXvwXLzwKLUyYR0O86K5Vz4ZXEXQ6wTyA1XgQaSWzcLsngSM/s1600-h/Green+EU.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236424400509522546" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 252px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 263px" height="200" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQgd4CGKZUcdJ6uy5kJ1p8RmSwejnF1rnYiwHms3WiTEiQOsHBuI6-ocegZn_Z3u-tJ7Z5JTlE-7AxWvnuPzjpPlVbs85oHXvwXLzwKLUyYR0O86K5Vz4ZXEXQ6wTyA1XgQaSWzcLsngSM/s200/Green+EU.png" width="252" border="0" /></a>[<span style="color:#33cc00;">WHAT </span><span style="color:#000099;">EUROBAMA</span> <span style="color:#33cc00;">MEANS TO SAY IS THAT, GETTING HELP FROM EUROPE ON ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY & TAX MATTERS</span>, WILL PERMIT <span style="color:#3333ff;">A DEMOCRATIC WHITE HOUSE AND DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS</span> TO 'PAINT THE TOWN <span style="color:#ff0000;">(WASHINGTON)</span> & THE NATION <span style="color:#33ff33;">GREEN'</span>].</span></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div> </div><div>"If we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan, then that's potentially fewer American troops over the long term," he said, "which means we're spending fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in making sure we're providing tax cuts to middle-class families who are struggling with higher gas prices ... that will have an impact on our economy." Watch Obama explain why he's in Berlin three months before the election »<br /></div><div></div><div><br />Obama was asked about criticism by the campaign of his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, that the Berlin speech was a "premature victory lap."<br /></div><div><br />"I'll leave it up to the pundits to theorize on that," Obama responded. "I would point out that John McCain, after he won the nomination, met with all the leaders that I am meeting with, that he has made speeches in Colombia and Canada and Mexico. ...<br /></div><div><br />"I would be hard pressed to find a big difference between what I've done over the last week and what John McCain has been doing since he won the nomination."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />"Just you got more attention?" Crowley asked.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />"I did," Obama replied with a smile.<br /><br /></div><div>Obama left for Paris later Friday for a visit with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The Illinois Democrat is in the middle of a multi-nation tour in an effort to boost his foreign policy credentials.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Obama, accompanied by fellow Sens. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska</span></strong>, has visited Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and the West Bank, and Germany. He will visit Great Britain after his meeting with Sarkozy.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">The meetings are meant "to send the message that Americans want to partner with these countries</span></em></strong> in order for us to be successful, and also to relieve some of the burden on our fighting men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq," Obama said.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br />Asked if he saw his trip as some sort of rebuke against President Bush's foreign policy, Obama said that was not his intention.<br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div>"That is not my job on this trip. I think that, if you look at how we've tried to conduct this trip, that I have tried to abide by a rule that has been historically, I think, very important -- which is that whatever political differences we have, we have one government at a time, and that when public officials like myself, who are not the president, travel overseas, that we are not in the business of spending all our time second-guessing our president," he said.<br /></div><div><br />• On criticism that he didn't spend enough time observing the situation of Palestinians:<br /></div><div><br />"Obviously you make some judgments in terms of where you are going to allocate the day. But I don't think, if you look at my statements and my positions when it comes to Israeli and Palestinian peace talks, that I could be more clear about the belief that the Palestinian people are suffering -- partly because of the failures of their government to provide leadership for them.<br /></div><div><br />"And that one of the reasons that we need to bring about this kind of lasting peace is so that Palestinians can have economic opportunity, send their kids to school -- enjoy the sort of prosperity that I think is so important for them as well as the Israelis."<br /></div><div><br />• On Israel allowing new home construction in the West Bank:<br /></div><div><br />"The Israelis, sitting down with the Palestinians in Annapolis and in previous agreements, have recognized that these settlements are not helpful. And I think it is important for the Israelis to abide by their commitments when it comes to settlements, in the same way that the Palestinians abide by their commitments for cracking down on terrorists in the West Bank. ... The key is for both parties to do what they say and build trust and confidence so they can move forward.<br /></div><div><br />• On why his trip didn't include a visit to a mosque:<br /></div><div><br />"We have jammed about as much as we could have in a week, but in terms of our Muslim outreach back in America, in terms of my consistent message, it's always been that I have the deepest respect for the Muslim community.<br /></div><div><br />"One of the things I want to do in my first year in office is convene a summit of Muslim countries, so that some of the suspicions and mistrust that has developed between the United States and the Muslim world can be broken down. We're going to need the help of all people of goodwill -- especially Muslims of goodwill -- if we are going to solve some of these problems." </div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-7789143500527349632008-07-09T15:52:00.016-04:002008-07-09T16:36:16.147-04:00Anti-Federalist Australian Legislator Calls for Constitutional Amendment To Do Away With States' (Individual) Rights<a href="http://news.theage.com.au/national/abbott-wants-states-stripped-of-powers-20080710-3cow.html">http://news.theage.com.au/national/abbott-wants-states-stripped-of-powers-20080710-3cow.html</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Abbott wants states stripped of powers</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Australian Associated Press<br /><br /><br />July 10, 2008<br /><br /><br />The federal government should be given powers to strip the states of theirs, opposition frontbencher Tony Abbott says.<br /><br /><br />Mr Abbott said the strengthening of federal powers is the only way to tackle what he called the "dysfunctional federation", responsible for the constant buck-passing between the commonwealth and states.<br /><br /><br />Mr Abbott will argue for a referendum to enact the changes in a book he hopes to publish next year, Fairfax newspapers said.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><em>"I will be arguing for a constitutional amendment to establish that, where it so wishes, the commonwealth can pass laws to override the states - not just Section 51 as it is now, but in all areas," he said.<br /></em></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">"We need to face the fact that we are a nation today, not a federation of states, and we need to clearly establish in law that, when it comes to the crunch, the federal government is in charge." <span style="color:#000000;">[THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO REPLACING RULE <em>OF</em> LAW WITH RULE <em>BY</em> LAW (RULE OF MEN)].<br /></span></span></strong><br /><br />Mr Abbott said the federal government was hamstrung by the states, and often had to offer bribes to get their support.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"The electorate wants problems solved and they don't want a treatise on why the relevant level of government can't solve a problem because it lacks the power," he said. </span></strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;">[THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A UTILITARIAN PRETENSE FOR DOING AWAY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF STATES, OR MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE RIGHTS OF <em>INDIVIDUALS</em> PROTECTED BY THE STATES. WITHOUT A BILL OF RIGHTS, THE BUREAUCRATS CAN FAVOR COMMUNAL OVER INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS, CONSISTENT WITH JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU'S 'GENERAL WILL' POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THAT TODAY GOVERNS MUCH OF THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT].<br /><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;"></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE 10 & 11TH AMENDMENTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ACCOMPANYING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ALONG WITH OTHER ENUMERATED <em>INDIVIDUAL</em> RIGHTS (e.g., CONTAINED IN THE 5TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, AMONG OTHERS), SERVE THIS VERY PURPOSE.]</span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;"><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000000;">[THE ABSENCE OF ANY BILL OF RIGHTS ACCOMPANYING THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION LEAVES THE CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA EXPOSED TO PRECISELY THE TYPE OF SWEEPING PROPOSAL NOW BEING RECOMMENDED BY MR. ABBOTT.</span></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">See: The Hon Mr Justice David Malcolm AC, <em>Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?</em>, Comment Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law Volume 5, Number 3 (Sept. 1998) at: </span></strong><a href="http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v5n3/malcolm53.html"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v5n3/malcolm53.html</span></strong></a> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">].</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"The federal government is hamstrung by the legal authority that resides in the states.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />"Where the federal government needs to take charge, it shouldn't need to bribe the states to do so - and it only operates as long as the bribe is in place."<br /><br /><br />Mr Abbott admitted the treatise, which will form part of the book provisionally titled Conservatism After Howard, was part of a future bid for the Liberal leadership.<br /><br /><br />"I accept that I'm unlikely to be leader any time soon but I think I have reasonable credentials to be considered for the leadership at some point and I hope I can burnish my credentials," he said.<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/29/2018239.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/29/2018239.htm</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Courts 'becoming irrelevant' without bill of rights</span></strong><br /><br /><br />ABC News Australia<br /><br /><br />August 29, 2007<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Internationally-recognised human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC says Australia's courts are becoming irrelevant </span><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">because of the lack of a bill of rights.</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Last night in Sydney, Mr Robertson addressed the Australia's Right to Know coalition - a group of major media companies, including the ABC, who argue that <span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><em><strong>press freedoms are becoming increasingly limited in Australia.<br /></strong></em></span><br /><br />Mr Robertson says <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Australia's failure to adopt a bill of rights may explain why the nation has been ranked low in two recent surveys about the freedom of the press</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />He says courts in other progressive liberal democracies are able to argue for first principles from bills of rights, in which there are freedom of expression clauses.<br /><br /><br />"The Australian courts... whose judgements were once cited all the time, are becoming less relevant to that because <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Australia is the only country without a bill of rights</span></strong>," he said.<br /><br /><br />This morning, Mr Robertson told ABC 702 Local Radio host Virginia Trioli that Australia was behind not only Britain and the US on press freedom but also less developed countries like Bolivia, San Marino and Malta.<br /><br /><br />"Our rating is number 39 [in the world] and slipping in terms of press freedom. We've got to find some reason for this," he said.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">"We are alone amongst advanced liberal democracies in not having a bill of rights which has a presumption in favour of freedom of expression.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br />"That produces the situation where in New South Wales alone you have over 1,000 suppression orders."<br /><br /><br />He says the Freedom of Information Act has become irrelevant over 20 years, while journalists are offered no protection against being ordered to reveal their sources.<br /><br /><br />Mr Robertson has also condemned reforms under which legal action will be allowed to be taken against groups that call for boycotts of Australian products.<br /><br /><br />He says <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">Australia inherited a flawed legal system from Britain but has failed to draw inspiration from the country's later democratic reforms.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">"It's all down to the British judges in the 19th century, who crafted laws of defamation and contempt in order to protect themselves..." he said.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />"I think we're mugs to keep the laws that the British themselves have abandoned."<br /><br /><br />But Mr Robertson says <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">press freedom needs to be balanced with the right to privacy in </span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Australia.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br />"You can muckrake with private tittle-tattle as much as you like because there's no protection against misuse of personal information," he said.<br /><br /><br />"On the other hand, there are 101 suppression orders and ways in which news gathering, of genuine news, is prohibited."<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/159.html">http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/159.html</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Should Australia have a Bill of Rights? - Time for debate</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br />By Ron Dyer<br /><br /><strong><em><br />Recent history causes Ron Dyer to change his mind.</em></strong><br /><br /><br />The question of whether Australia, and for that matter the Australian states, should have a Bill of Rights enacted is coming under increasing examination. This especially is the case against a background of increasingly draconian security or 'anti-terrorism' laws. The traditional response to those who have argued for a Bill of Rights in the past has been that Australians can rely on our traditional and proud background of respect for civil liberties and the democratic freedoms of the individual citizen or resident of Australia. It has often been asserted that the protection of our rights can be safely left to our parliamentary representatives and that to legislate for a Bill of Rights would distort our system of government by giving unelected judges too much influence over how our democracy develops.<br /><br /><br />However, this traditional response has been questioned by those who point out that Australia now is in an arguably anomalous position, when we compare ourselves to other democratic countries. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Great Britain, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and South Africa all have Bills of Rights in some form or another, while Australia does not</span></strong>. In November 1999 the then New South Wales Attorney-General the Hon Jeff Shaw QC referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice of the NSW Legislative Council, then chaired by me, the question <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">whether it would be appropriate and in the public interest to enact a statutory, as distinct from a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights in NSW</span></strong>. The committee reported in October 2001, after an exhaustive inquiry which included public hearings and a review of models of Bills of Rights in the countries mentioned above.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The Committee found <em>against</em> a Bill of Rights for NSW, substantially on the basis that such a Bill would undermine the roles of both Parliament and the Courts</span></strong>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;">The rationale for this decision was that a Bill of Rights would derogate from parliamentary supremacy and also lead to a politicisation of the judiciary</span></em></strong>. It was felt that parliamentary representatives are directly elected by and accountable to the people, in a way that unelected judges cannot be, though they do give detailed reasons in writing for their decisions. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Standing Committee also found that uncertainty is unavoidable in a Bill of Rights which traditionally, and perhaps inevitably, specify rights in brief, general terms, such as a right to freedom of speech, without taking account of detailed countervailing factors,</span></strong> which in this example would include defamation or racial vilification. Thus, it was felt that the judiciary is then left in the position of "filling in the gaps" and in effect legislating by finding what is the appropriate decision and remedy in a given fact situation arising under a Bill of Rights.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It must be conceded that the committee inquiry I chaired occurred against a background of strong opposition to the concept of a Bill of Rights expressed publicly by the then NSW Premier, the Hon Bob Carr</span></strong>, who also forwarded a detailed submission to the Standing Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee was sincere in the views it expressed. It recommended, as an alternative to Bill of Rights, a NSW Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which was intended, among other matters, to raise parliamentarians' awareness of their responsibility to protect human rights. Such a Scrutiny of Legislation Committee was in fact set up following the Standing Committee's report.<br /><br /><br />In the years that have followed the above inquiry in which I participated, I have had cause to revise my views very substantially. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">I had always held the opinion that parliaments in Australia could be trusted to preserve individual freedoms and not diminish them by enacting draconian legislation. My confidence in this regard has been eroded, if not destroyed, by recent State and Federal legislation in Australia characterised as 'anti-Terrorism laws.' It seems to me that these laws go well beyond the proper limits that should apply in a liberal democracy.</span></strong> They certainly call into question my hitherto long-held belief that Australian parliaments could always be relied upon to be a bulwark against encroachment upon our democratic freedoms.<br /><br /><br />To illustrate my concern, I refer to the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 (Commonwealth). This legislation, together with complementary legislation enacted by the Australian States and Territories, contains quite extraordinary preventive detention and policing powers. We are told by those in authority, including the Prime Minister, the Commonwealth Attorney-General and State Premiers, that these newly-enacted powers are necessary to meet a perceived terrorist threat. Yet the terrorist threat assessment remains to the present time at 'medium', which was the level set on 12 September 2001 following the terrorist attacks in the USA. If there is no increased threat, why is legislation containing greatly increased powers necessary? Why also has the Parliament enacted additional measures to deal with terrorism when reviews of already enacted legislation following 9/11 have not been completed and assessed? There seems to be an irrational rush to vest ever-increasing powers in various policing authorities, with little or no public justification by governments.<br /><br /><br />As my confidence in the ability and willingness of most parliamentarians to stand against the removal of democratic freedoms has been eroded, I believe that one's thoughts must turn to the role that an independent judiciary can play in the preservation of these freedoms. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">In my view, there needs to be a basic law of some sort against which legislation threatening civil liberties can be measured.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">From my perspective, constitutionally entrenched Bills of Rights such as the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are excessively rigid</span></strong>. <em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">There are quite notorious examples of this in the US Bill of Rights</span>, such as the constitutional right to bear arms and the apparent inability of the Congress to effectively deal with the law and order problems thrown up by the widespread availability and use of firearms. In Canada corporations, as well as individuals, are able to take advantage of the rights enacted by the Charter. It has been argued that this has made the task of corporate regulation in Canadian jurisdictions problematic.<br /></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The model I consider most attractive for use in the Australian context is the UK Human Rights Act, 1998.</span></strong> Like Australia, Britain had an historical attachment to the protection of human rights through the common law. However, Britain's engagement with the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union, especially since the UK accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court in 1966, has changed Britain's outlook radically. A series of decisions by the European Court had overruled English courts on the basis that there were breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The UK Human Rights Act is often referred to as a "dialogue" model in that a higher court is able to make a declaration that legislation is incompatible with European Convention rights. This initiates a dialogue between the judiciary, Parliament and the Executive government. The declaration of incompatibility allows a Minster to seek parliamentary approval for a remedial order to amend legislation to make it compatible.</span></strong> It is true that the declaration of incompatibility can be ignored by the Executive government. In this case the legislation remains valid. However, to do this will often invite political embarrassment for a government.<br /><br /><br />Perhaps the most useful aspect of the UK Human Rights Act is that a Minister must, before the Second Reading of a Bill in either House, either (a) make a statement of compatibility with European Convention rights or (b) make a statement to the effect that, although he or she is unable to make a statement of compatibility, the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The practical effect of this provision is to require government departments and agencies to undertake a formal review in relation to Convention rights when preparing legislation or regulations. Ministers may introduce legislation incompatible with Convention rights, but the Human Rights Act obliges the Minister to explain to Parliament why the rights have been ignored.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Clearly, if the UK model were to be adopted in Australia, there would have to be a yardstick - as there is with the European Convention on Human Rights - against which the proposed legislation could be measured. That is, there would have to be an Australian Human Rights Act, called by this or some other similar title.<br /><br /><br />The Evatt Foundation believes that the question of a Bill of Rights for Australia is one which warrants public attention and debate. If you have any relevant views, please feel free to express your opinion.ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-47801498399324256802008-06-16T09:42:00.008-04:002008-06-16T10:35:51.650-04:00What Does Europe Fear and Why Does it Lead to Military Sclerosis?<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">What Does Europe Fear and Why Does it Lead to Military Sclerosis?</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">By Robert Stein, PhD<br /><br /><br />June 13, 2008<br /><br /><br />Only sixty years ago, more than 70 million people died during and after World War II. Even in our wildest imagination, it is difficult for most of us alive today to conceive what life was like for those who suffered through the devastation of a near universal war. The experience of two successive massive bloodlettings in only twenty years, resulting in the death of two generations dramatically altered the mentality of Europe. The bloodiest continent for the previous five centuries, where the efficient science of human slaughter was perfected, has been peaceful since then. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6600;">Pan-europeans, the offspring of the arrogant militarists who began those wars, are now largely socialist. They take pride in their pacifist traditions and limited military budgets</span></em></strong>. They scold the inexorably retro patriotism of Americans and their belief in the value of military hard power, while simultaneously ignoring the international stability which has accompanied the emergence of America as superpower.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"><span style="color:#000099;">However, what Europeans really fear, is not America, but themselves. When they criticize the muscular exercise of American power, which ended two world wars, they are really criticizing the racism and chauvinism of their own colonial past</span></span></strong>. America’s greatest bloodletting, the Civil War, purged the stain of slavery from the nation, rather than advancing national ambition. The First and Second World Wars so undermined European’s belief in themselves, that they are now fearful anytime America exercises its military superiority. Their overly developed sense of fear even extends to situations entailing the removal of malignant tyrants, such as Saddam Hussein, in order to prevent the emergence of a new fascism. Europeans are unable to understand why America, too, is not paralyzed with self-doubt. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;">To protect the world, they advocate parceling out American power to the United Nations where most governments are not democratically chosen. Why an institution where most members are plagued by state sanctioned murder, abject racism, political repression, corruption and a lack of legal due process would act equitably is the height of illogic</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />But cultural demons and national psychoses are rarely permanently exorcized. Europe’s insomnia during the 90’s Balkan conflicts brought into consciousness its latent fear that the dogs of war, long repressed, would exploit that opportunity to re-emerge. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Despite ample economic capacity to support a high tech military, they so feared themselves that American intervention was required to again resolve another European conflict</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />The problem resembles that of a reformed alcoholic. As a prohibitionist without exception bans alcohol, today’s socialist Europe and their new one-world sympathizers, don’t believe America can be a social drinker. <span style="color:#000099;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Despite attempts to project their cultural impulses elsewhere, it is European fear of themselves and jealousy of America that currently poses the greatest danger to their own safety and economic wellbeing</span></strong>.</span> As aged grandparents no longer able to drive themselves often shout out backseat commands, today’s socialists believe they can sloganeer America into retreating from the responsibility which has inevitably devolved on the world’s leading power.<br /><br /><br />The conflict in the Middle East and South Asia is a battle to advance the most important values of western civilization. Those who believe in the essential goodness of America, despite its inevitable flaws, will accept that the nation which was founded upon the best of European traditions, cannot sit silently while it is left to almost single-handedly protect those western values on the battlefield. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">It is time for Europe to emerge from its postwar phobia. There is no good reason why Europe cannot assume greater global military responsibility. Europe is not so infirm that it must sit and tremble inside its own continental home, debating whether the psychopathic criminal wishes it harm, and the American policeman wishes it well</span></strong>. If it chooses to recover from its trauma of sixty years, it might just realize that it doesn’t have to obey madmen with weapons and go quietly into the night.</span></span><br /><br /><br /><p><span style="font-size:100%;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></p>In many ways, Dr. Stein's article addresses the ongoing problems of 'burden sharing' - i.e., Europe continues to benefit from the U.S. continuing to bear the lion's share of the obligation to maintain 'international peace and stability' through support of an expensive and extensive military infrastructure.<br /><br /><br />As the following article reflects, Europe has exploited this relationship by diverting its resources to various initiatives (e.g., <em>NEGATIVE</em> SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICYMAKING) that run COUNTER U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS.<br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="left"><a href="http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=864">http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=864</a></div><br /><br /><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">THE SECOND BERLIN WALL</span></strong> </div><br /><br />By Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Millen<br /><br /><br />Strategic Studies Institute<br /><br /><a href="http://www.charleslipson.com/Images/flag-NATO-flag-w-wrinkles.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://www.charleslipson.com/Images/flag-NATO-flag-w-wrinkles.jpg" border="0" /></a>The latest contretemps in NATO regarding burden sharing in Afghanistan has the distinguishing feature of being altogether pedestrian. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">European reluctance to contribute more troops and funding to Afghanistan has less to do with disagreements over strategy than it does with a pattern of behavior stemming back to the birth of the Alliance</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Few recall the contentious deliberations at the beginning of the Cold War between the United States and its European allies regarding military contributions to the Alliance</span></strong>. The Truman administration expected the European powers to reconstitute their armies once they had recovered economically. But, having little faith in the American security guarantee, European statesmen refused to raise sufficient forces for defense without a tangible commitment from the United States. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">With no movement on the matter, the United States relented, deploying several divisions to NATO in 1949. Yet, the European reciprocal pledge did not materialize</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.fmft.net/EU%20Constitutional%20treaty%20Britannia.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 341px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 251px" height="142" alt="" src="http://www.fmft.net/EU%20Constitutional%20treaty%20Britannia.jpg" border="0" /></a>With security assured through collective defense and the U.S. nuclear umbrella, European states progressively invested in social welfare programs that demanded a greater portion of gross domestic products (GDP). And social welfare states are voraciously self-indulgent.</span></strong> During this transformation, an interesting pattern of behavior manifested. Rather than share collective defense equitably, member states attempted to shift security burdens subtly to other members. Other than voicing annoyance, the United States, as a global superpower in a bipolar world, accepted this behavior because the larger goal of peace in Europe remained intact.<br /><br /><br />Even had the United States objected to this sort of behavior, what could be done? Every state west of the Iron Curtain, whether a member of NATO or not, enjoyed the collective good of security. The United States certainly could not have denied this security to any particular state. Hence, allied compliance with U.S. security policy initiatives alternated between acceptance of America’s leadership role and American use of bargaining (e.g., financial and prestigious incentives). Ultimately, it was easier to ignore the behavior.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">The end of the Cold War held different meanings for both sides of the Atlantic. For the Europeans, it meant a peace dividend with the inexorable drop in military expenditures, falling well below 2 percent of GDP. Perhaps this laxness would not have evolved had the United States withdrawn from NATO as most Realists predicted</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br />However, the United States, ever fearful of a security dilemma emerging again in Europe, sought to keep a united Germany subordinated to NATO, while also using the prospect of NATO membership to moderate the behavior of Central and East European states. With both policy vectors, the United States was eminently successful, but then, reacting to questions of NATO’s continued relevance, the Alliance added collective security missions to its repertoire. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Whether the Europeans understood the implications of collective security or simply went along, never believing in its implementation, is anyone’s guess</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">With the extension of the U.S. security commitment to Europe affirmed, along with the rise of the European Union (EU) in 1993, there arose among European statesmen a nontraditional view of foreign and security policy. <span style="font-size:180%;">The centerpiece of this new policy would rest on international institutions, regimes, and other normative devices to undergird security and stability.</span> <span style="font-size:180%;">In theory, this approach obviated the need for high military readiness</span>, which declined precipitously, and <span style="font-size:180%;">permitted even greater budgetary allocations toward social welfare programs</span>, much to the satisfaction of everyone—except for the United States</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />Much to the chagrin of western European statesmen, <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Hobbes’ state of nature threw cold water on the soft power approach in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo, requiring American intervention (under the aegis of NATO) to resolve the conflicts.</span></em></strong> In response and with great fanfare, European governments pledged to improve military capabilities, first with the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI) and the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC), and, second, by the creation of the EU Rapid Reaction Force (EURRF) under the EU Headline Goal. Regrettably, European states did not increase military expenditures to meet the DCI/PCC goals, at least not with any type of urgency. Contrary to initial lofty pronouncements, the EURRF has not evolved into a European security pillar. Its offspring, the EU Battle Groups (EUBG), suffer from an inability to handle large crises and also from a lack of political will to deploy contingents into dangerous environments. Hence, the European security pillar is little more than a peacekeeping force with paltry combat capabilities.<br /><br /><br />The dichotomy between European rhetoric and action regarding Afghanistan is certainly perplexing. In the wake of 9/11, NATO did provide some assets to Operation Enduring Freedom under Article V; the coalition in Afghanistan includes many non-NATO nations; and all participating governments agree with the overarching goals for Afghanistan. Yet, <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">the majority of European governments consistently fail to deliver on their financial and military pledges, many of which date back to 2003. </span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">A plausible explanation may be that European statesmen are prisoners of their political systems.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Fundamentally, European affinity for extravagant social welfare programs, the obsession with cutting military spending, and a distinct predilection for peacekeeping operations are manifestations of European political institutions. Because of their pluralistic design, parliamentary governments tend to be unduly influenced by the mercurial passions of the electorate.</span></strong> Moreover, coalition governments, that is, governments which lack a legislative majority and must form a government with other political parties, often experience paralysis over contentious issues and can even fall as a result.<br /><br /><br />The security challenges in Afghanistan have become divisive among coalition states precisely because they expose the old practice of burden shifting and because the United States uncharacteristically has not backed off its insistence for greater military contributions.<br /><br /><br />Transatlantic tensions will very likely become intractable. On the one hand, the old European standbys of claiming overtaxed militaries and implying other allies are not fulfilling their obligations have become threadbare with the United States. <span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>But on the other hand, populist attitudes that increased military spending to meet new challenges will threaten cherished social welfare programs appear to have boxed in European governments</strong>.</span> The pawns of these national policies are the armed forces, which are deployed into theater as a coalition or Alliance balm and not as a force to render decisive results. Small troop contingents combined with a plethora of national caveats tend to undercut the theoretical advantages of multilateralism. In Afghanistan’s case, the sum appears to be smaller than the whole.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The real issue at stake is not whether success or failure in Afghanistan will endanger the Alliance; rather it is whether the United States will continue to see utility in NATO’s integrated military structure</span></strong>. NATO as an institution will remain because the United States sees utility in its continuance. However, in the future, the United States will likely revert to bilateral negotiations to build coalitions because of the niggard behavior of too many NATO members.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Similar to the first Berlin Wall, today’s metaphorical Berlin Wall symbolizes the enslavement of statesmen to the social welfare state and weak political systems. And while future generations will look back and ask why Europe slept when a challenge grew into a threat, this should be the starting point</em></strong>.</span><br /><br /><br />****<br />The views expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This colloquium brief is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.<br /><br /><br />*****<br />Organizations interested in reprinting this or other SSI opinion pieces should contact the Publications Department via e-mail at SSI_Publishing@conus.army.mil. All organizations granted this right must include the following statement: "Reprinted with permission of the Strategic Studies Institute Newsletter, U.S. Army War College."ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-31366787817162061442008-06-08T13:33:00.009-04:002008-06-08T13:53:19.080-04:00Obama's Collectivist Message of 'Inclusiveness' is Not a Marketing Gimmick - It is Nothing Less than 'Repackaged' European Kumbaya Communalism<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08rich.html?ref=opinion">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08rich.html?ref=opinion</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">One Historic Night, Two Americas</span></strong><br /><br /><br />by: Frank Rich<br /><br /><br />The New York Times<br /><br /><br />June 8, 2008<br /><br /><br />When Barack Obama achieved his historic victory on Tuesday night, the battle was joined between two Americas. Not John Edwards's two Americas, divided between rich and poor. Not the Americas split by race, gender, party or ideology. What looms instead is an epic showdown between two wildly different visions of the country, from the ground up.<br /><br /><br />On one side stands Mr. Obama's resolutely cheerful embrace of the future. His vision is inseparable from his identity, both as a rookie with a slim Washington resume; and as a black American whose triumph was regarded as improbable by voters of all races only months ago. On the other is John McCain's promise of a wise warrior's vigilant conservation of the past. His vision, too, is inseparable from his identity - as a government lifer who has spent his entire career in service, whether in the Navy or Washington.<br /><br /><br />Given the dividing line separating the two Americas of 2008, a ticket uniting Mr. McCain and Hillary Clinton might actually be a better fit than the Obama-Clinton 'dream ticket,' despite their differences on the issues. Never was this more evident than Tuesday night, when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain both completely misread a one-of-a-kind historical moment as they tried to cling to the prerogatives of the 20th century's old guard.<br /><br /><br />All presidential candidates, Mr. Obama certainly included, are egomaniacs. But Washington's faith in hierarchical status adds a thick layer of pomposity to politicians who linger there too long. Mrs. Clinton referred to herself by the first-person pronoun 64 times in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/us/politics/03text-clinton.html" target="_blank">her speech</a>, and Mr. McCain did so 60 times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/us/politics/03text-mccain.html" target="_blank">in his</a>. Mr. Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/us/politics/03text-obama.html" target="_blank">settled</a> for 30.<br /><br /><br />Remarkably, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain had the grace to offer a salute to Mr. Obama's epochal political breakthrough, which reverberated so powerfully across the country and throughout the world. By being so small and ungenerous, they made him look taller. Their inability to pivot even briefly from partisan self-interest could not be a more telling symptom of the dysfunctional Washington culture Mr. Obama aspires to mend.<br /><br /><br />Yet even as the two establishment candidates huffed and puffed to assert their authority, they seemed terrified by Mr. Obama's insurgency, as if it were the plague in Edgar Allan Poe's 'Masque of the Red Death.' Mrs. Clinton held her nonconcession speech <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/06/04/in-the-clinton-bunker.aspx" target="_blank">in a Manhattan bunker</a>, banishing cellphone reception and television monitors carrying the news of Mr. Obama's clinching of the nomination. Mr. McCain, laboring under the misapprehension that he was wittily skewering his opponent, compulsively <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/us/politics/03text-mccain.html" target="_blank">invoked</a> the Obama-patented mantra of 'change' 33 times in his speech.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Mr. McCain only reminded voters that he, like Mrs. Clinton, thinks that change is nothing more than a marketing gimmick</span></strong>. He has no idea what it means. 'No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically,' he said on Tuesday. He then grimly regurgitated Goldwater and Reagan government-bashing talking points from the 1960s and '70s even as he presumed to accuse Mr. Obama of looking 'to the 1960s and '70s for answers.'<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">Mr. Obama is a liberal, but it's not your boomer parents' liberalism that is at the heart of his appeal.</span></em></strong> He never rattles off a Clinton laundry list of big federal programs; he supports abortion rights and gay civil rights with a sunny bonhomie that makes the right's cultural scolds look like rabid mastodons. He is not refighting either side of the domestic civil war over Vietnam that exploded in his hometown of Chicago 40 years ago this summer, long before he arrived there.<br />He has never deviated from his much-quoted formulation in 'The Audacity of Hope,' where he <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html" target="_blank">described himself</a> as aloof from 'the psychodrama of the baby boom generation' with its 'old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago.' <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">His vocabulary is so different from that of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain that they often find it as baffling as a foreign language, even as they try to rip it off.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">The selling point of Mr. Obama's vision of change is not doctrinaire liberalism or Bush-bashing but an inclusiveness that he believes can start to relieve Washington's gridlock much as it animated his campaign</span></em></strong>. Some of that inclusiveness is racial, ethnic and generational, in the casual, what's-the-big-deal manner of post-boomer Americans already swimming in our country's rapidly expanding demographic pool. Some of it is post-partisan: he acknowledges that Republicans, Ronald Reagan included, can have ideas.<br /><br /><br />Opponents who dismiss this as wussy naivete do so at their own risk. They at once call attention to the expiring shelf life of their own Clinton-Bush-vintage panaceas and lull themselves into underestimating Mr. Obama's political killer instincts.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The Obama forces out-organized the most ruthless machine in Democratic politics because the medium of their campaign mirrored its <em><span style="color:#000099;">inclusive </span></em>message</span></strong>. They empowered adherents in every state rather than depending on a Beltway campaign hierarchy whose mercenary chief strategist <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/06/penn_out_as_clintons_top_strat.html" target="_blank">kept his day job</a> as chief executive for a corporate P.R. giant. Such viral organization and fund-raising is a seamless fit with bottom-up democracy as it is increasingly practiced in the Facebook-YouTube era, not merely by Americans and not merely by the young.<br /><br /><br />You could learn a ton about the Clinton campaign's cultural tone-deafness from its stodgy generic Web site. A similar torpor afflicts <a href="http://johnmccain.com/" target="_">JohnMcCain.com</a>, which last week gave its graphics <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/mccain-rips-off-obamas-sl_n_105266.html" target="_blank">a face-lift that unabashedly mimics</a> <a href="http://barackobama.com/" target="_">BarackObama.com</a> and <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/198945.php" target="_blank">devoted prime home page real estate</a> to hawking 'McCain Golf Gear.' (No joke.) The blogs, video and social networking are static and sparse, the apt reflection of a candidate who repeatedly invokes 'I' as he boasts of his humility.<br />Mr. Obama's deep-rooted worldliness - in philosophy as well as itinerant background - is his other crucial departure from the McCain template. As more and more Americans feel the pain of spiraling gas prices and lost jobs, they are also coming to recognize, as Mr. Obama does, that the globally reviled American image forged by an endless war in Iraq and its accompanying torture scandals is inflicting economic as well as foreign-policy havoc.<br /><br /><br />Six out of 10 Americans do want their president to talk to Iran's president, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx" target="_blank">according to the most-recent Gallup poll</a>. Americans are sick of a national identity defined by arrogant saber-rattling abroad and manipulative fear-mongering at home. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Mr. Obama closed his speech on Tuesday by telling Americans they 'don't deserve' another election 'that's governed by fear.'</span></strong> Of the three candidates, he was the only one who did not mention 9/11 that night.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Mr. Obama isn't flawless. But it's hard to see him hitching up with Mrs. Clinton, who would contradict his message, unite the right, and pass along her husband's still unpacked post-presidency baggage.</span></em></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">A larger trap for Mr. Obama is his cockiness. His own tendency to preen and to coast</span></strong> could be encouraged by recent events rocking the Straight Talk Express: Mr. McCain is so far proving an exceptionally clumsy candidate prone to accentuating everything that's out-of-touch about his American vision.<br /><br /><br />Mr. McCain's speech in a New Orleans suburb on Tuesday night spawned a <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/198681.php" target="_blank">cottage industry</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T1Yo9IBQZ0" target="_blank">of ridicule</a>, even among Republicans. The halting delivery, sickly green backdrop and spastic, inappropriate smiles, presumably mandated by some consultant hoping to mask his anger, left the impression that Mr. McCain isn't yet ready for prime-time radio.<br /><br /><br />But the substance was even worse than the theatrics. Incredibly, Mr. McCain attacked Mr. Obama for being insufficiently bipartisan while speaking to the most conspicuously partisan audience you can assemble in today's America: a small, nearly all-white crowd that seconded his attack lines with boorish choruses of boos. On TV, the audience came across as a country-club membership riled by a change in the Sunday brunch menu.<br /><br /><br />Equally curious was Mr. McCain's decision to stage this event in Louisiana, a state that is truly safe for the G.O.P. and that he'd last visited <a href="http://www.nola.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/04/mccain_to_visit_lower_9th_ward.html" target="_blank">less than six weeks earlier</a>. Perhaps he did so because Louisiana's governor, the 36-year-old Indian-American Bobby Jindal, is the only highly placed nonwhite Republican he could find to lend his campaign an ersatz dash of diversity and youth.<br /><br /><br />Or perhaps he thought that if he once more returned to the scene of President Bush's Katrina crime to (belatedly) slam that federal failure, it would fool voters into forgetting his cheerleading for Mr. Bush's Iraq obsession and economic policies. This time it proved a levee too far. The day after his speech Mr. McCain was <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/04/mccain-katrina/" target="_blank">caught on the stump misstating and exaggerating</a> his own do-little record after Katrina. Soon the Internet was alight with <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050829-5_p082905pm-0125-515h.html" target="_blank">documentation of what he actually did</a> on the day the hurricane hit land: a let-us-eat-cake photo op with Mr. Bush celebrating his birthday in Arizona.<br /><br /><br />Anything can happen in politics, and there are five months to go. But Tuesday night's McCain pratfall - three weeks in the planning by his campaign, according to Fox News - should be a clear indication that Mr. Obama must accept Mr. McCain's invitation to weekly debates at once. Tomorrow if possible, and, yes, bring on the green!<br /><br /><br />Mr. Obama must also heed Mr. McCain's directive that he visit Iraq - as long as he avoids Baghdad markets and hits other foreign capitals on route. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">When the world gets a firsthand look at the new America Mr. Obama offers</span></strong> as an alternative to Mr. McCain's truculent stay-the-course, the public pandemonium may make J.F.K.'s 'Ich bin ein Berliner' visit to the Berlin Wall look like a warm-up act.ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-55272963378077865622008-04-21T11:44:00.007-04:002008-04-21T12:01:40.954-04:00Presidential Debate About the Importance of US National Sovereignty and its Role in International Affairs is Sorely Needed, Says Former US Statesman<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601660.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601660.html</a><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Three Revolutions</span></strong><br /><br /><br />By Henry A. Kissinger<br /><br /><br />Washington Post<br /><br /><br />Monday, April 7, 2008; A17<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The long-predicted national debate about national security policy has yet to occur</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><em>Essentially tactical issues have overwhelmed the most important challenge a new administration will confront: how to distill a new international order from three simultaneous revolutions occurring around the globe: <strong>(a)</strong> the transformation of the traditional state system of Europe; <strong>(b)</strong> the radical Islamist challenge to historic notions of sovereignty; and <strong>(c)</strong> the drift of the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.</em><br /><br /><br />Conventional wisdom holds that disenchantment with President Bush's alleged unilateralism is at the heart of European-American disagreements. But it will become apparent soon after the change of administrations that the principal difference between the two sides of the Atlantic is that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">America is still a traditional nation-state whose people respond to calls for sacrifices on behalf of a much wider definition of the national interest than Europe's definition</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">The nations of Europe, having been drained by two world wars, have agreed to transfer significant aspects of their sovereignties to the European Union. Political loyalties associated with the nation-state have proved not to be automatically transferable, however</span></strong>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Europe is in a transition between its past, which it seeks to overcome, and a future it has not yet reached</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br />In the process, the nature of the European state has been transformed. <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">With nations no longer defining themselves by a distinct future and with the cohesion of the European Union as yet untested, the capacity of most European governments to ask their people for sacrifices has diminished dramatically</span></strong>. The states with the longest continuous histories, such as Britain and France, have been most willing to assume international military responsibilities.<br /><br /><br />The disagreement over the use of NATO forces in Afghanistan is a case in point. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the North Atlantic Council, acting without any request by the United States, invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty, calling for mutual assistance. But when NATO set about to assume military responsibilities, domestic constraints obliged many of the allies to limit the number of troops provided and to constrict the missions for which lives could be risked. As a result, the Atlantic alliance is in the process of evolving a two-tiered system -- an alliance a la carte whose capability for common action does not match its general obligations. <strong><em><span style="color:#000099;">Over time, one of two adaptations must take place: either a redefinition of the general obligations or a formal elaboration of a two-tiered system in which political obligations and military capabilities are harmonized through some system of alliances of the willing</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br />While the traditional role of the state in Europe is being diminished by the choice of its governments, the declining role of the state in the Middle East is inherent in the way those states were founded. <strong>The successor states of the Ottoman Empire</strong> were established by the victorious powers at the end of the First World War. <strong>Unlike the European states, their borders did not reflect ethnic principles or linguistic distinctiveness but the balances between the European powers in their contests outside the region</strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#009900;">Today it is radical Islam that threatens the already brittle state structure via a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran as the basis of a universal political organization</span></strong>. <strong><span style="color:#009900;">Jihadist Islam rejects national sovereignty based on secular state models; it seeks to extend its reach to wherever significant populations profess the Muslim faith.</span></strong> Since neither the international system nor the internal structure of existing states has legitimacy in Islamist eyes, its ideology leaves little room for Western notions of negotiation or equilibrium in a region of vital interest to the security and well-being of the industrial states. That struggle is endemic; we do not have the option of withdrawal. We can retreat from any one place, such as Iraq, but only to be obliged to resist from new positions, probably more disadvantageously. Even advocates of unilateral withdrawal from Iraq speak of retaining residual forces to prevent a resurgence of al-Qaeda or radicalism.<br /><br /><br /><strong>These transformations take place against the backdrop of a third trend, a shift in the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans</strong>. Paradoxically, this redistribution of power is to a part of the world where nations still possess the characteristics of traditional European states. <strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">The major states of Asia -- China, Japan, India and, in time, possibly Indonesia -- view each other the way participants in the European balance of power did, as inherent competitors even when they occasionally participate in cooperative ventures</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />In the past, such shifts in the structure of power generally led to war, as happened with the emergence of Germany in the late 19th century. Today the rise of China is assigned such a role in much alarmist commentary. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">True, the Sino-American relationship will inevitably contain classical geopolitical and competitive elements. These must not be neglected. But there are countervailing elements. Economic and financial globalization, environmental and energy imperatives, and the destructive power of modern weapons all impose a major effort at global cooperation, especially between the United States and China</span></strong>. An adversarial relationship would leave both countries in the position of Europe after the two world wars, when other societies achieved the preeminence the nations of Europe sought through self-destructive conflict with each other.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">No previous generation has had to deal with different revolutions occurring simultaneously in separate parts of the world. The quest for a single, all-inclusive remedy is chimerical. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">In a world in which the sole superpower is a proponent of the prerogatives of the traditional nation-state, where Europe is stuck in halfway status, where the Middle East does not fit the nation-state model and faces a religiously motivated revolution, and where the nations of South and </span><span style="font-size:130%;">East Asia</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> still practice the balance of power, what is the nature of the international order that can accommodate these different perspectives?</span> </em><br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">What should be the role of Russia, which is affirming a notion of sovereignty comparable to America's and a strategic concept of the balance of power similar to Asia's? </span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Are existing international organizations adequate for this purpose? </span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">What goals can America realistically set for itself and the world community? </span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Is the internal transformation of major countries an attainable goal? </span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">What objectives must be sought in concert, and what are the extreme circumstances that would justify unilateral action?<br /></span></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">This is the kind of debate we need, not focus-group-driven slogans designed to grab headlines.</span></strong>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-80820894593298141542008-04-20T08:34:00.039-04:002008-12-09T16:20:36.941-05:00Religious Environmentalists Lament Earth Day Commercial Opportunism, as Too Many Company Converts Raise Risks of 'Green' Vendor Fraud<div><div><div><a href="http://adage.com/article?article_id=126362">http://adage.com/article?article_id=126362</a><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Is Earth Day the New Christmas?: As More Marketers Pile On, Consumerism May Eclipse Spirit of Event</span></strong><br /><br /><br />By Natalie Zmuda<br /><br /><br />April 14, 2008<br /><br /><br />NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">It's nearly Earth Day: Time to consume more to save the planet</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><a href="http://egoist.blogspot.com/WeightoftheWorld-E.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 389px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 260px" height="145" alt="" src="http://egoist.blogspot.com/WeightoftheWorld-E.gif" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#009900;">As April 22 approaches, marketers of all stripes are bombarding consumers with green promotions and products designed to get them to buy more products -- some eco-friendly, some not so much. And while that message seems to contrast with the event's intent, the oxymoron seems to have been lost on marketers jumping on the Earth Day bandwagon in record numbers</span></strong>. This year it seems that just about everyone has found a way to attach themselves to what is fast becoming a marketing holiday that barely resembles the grass-roots event founded in 1970.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[IT IS QUITE COINCIDENTAL THAT THE 'MAKE OR BREAK' DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA WILL TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 22, 2008, EARTH DAY. AMERICANS SHOULD EXPECT TO HEAR MUCH ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT FROM MADAME CLINTON & MONSIEUR OBAMA.]</span></strong><br /><br /><a href="http://cbest.web.wesleyan.edu/PIA2%20Spring2000%20Image004.JPEG"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 404px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 473px" height="315" alt="" src="http://cbest.web.wesleyan.edu/PIA2%20Spring2000%20Image004.JPEG" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;">"This month I've definitely seen a lot of companies that I never would have associated with green popping up," said Steven Addis, CEO of Addis Creson, a branding firm. "Companies are saying, 'We need something to green ourselves up, so let's ... sponsor Earth Day.' ...</span></em></strong> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">It's really now in this hype curve</span></strong>, and hopefully we're getting toward the top, so we can start having some fallout."<br /><br /><a href="http://egoist.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/06.04.19.FarceNature-X-777652.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 399px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 315px" height="149" alt="" src="http://egoist.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/06.04.19.FarceNature-X-777652.gif" border="0" /></a> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Sustainable for one day</span></strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/04/gr_religion_narrowweb__300x303,2.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 263px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 282px" height="202" alt="" src="http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/04/gr_religion_narrowweb__300x303,2.jpg" border="0" /></a>Indeed, many have begun to worry that as nearly every company out there paints themselves green, they are losing touch with Earth Day's reason for being.</span></em></strong> </span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">"My concern is that some companies just view [Earth Day] as a marketing event, like Thanksgiving or Christmas," said Larry Light, chairman-CEO of Arcature, a management consulting firm</span></strong>.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">"Then they've fulfilled their obligation for the rest of the year. The whole issue of sustainability means that a commitment also has to be sustainable. If it's only for one day, then it's a marketing event."</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>[THE PAGAN RELIGION OF ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE TO THANK FOR THIS COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNISM AND 'ONE-DAY' CONSUMER CONFESSIONAL WORSHIP, GIVEN HIS GLOBAL CELEBRITY, BOX OFFICE RECEIPTS AND 'NOBEL PRIZE'.] </strong><br /></span><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33cc00;">To be fair, many companies are already looking beyond the month of April by embracing comprehensive sustainability programs. But, regardless, the fact remains that as Earth Day approaches, consumers will find it difficult to avoid green messaging.<br /></span></em></strong><br />Consumers can, for example, shop at <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Banana Republic</span></strong>, where 1% of sales from April 22 through April 27 <strong><span style="color:#3366ff;">benefit the Trust for Public Land</span></strong>. Or they can participate in <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Macy's</span></strong> <strong><span style="color:#3366ff;">"Turn Over A New Leaf" campaign</span></strong> by making a $5 donation to the National Park Foundation. In exchange, customers receive 10% or 20% off most merchandise the weekend of April 26.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Newsweek </span></strong>subscribers can actually fashion the cover of the April 14 issue into an envelope to send plastic bags to <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Target </span></strong>in return for a reusable tote bag. Then there's <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Toys 'R' Us'</span></strong> launch of "enviro-friendly playthings," <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Sweet Leaf Tea</span></strong>'s missive to "Don't just think green. ... Drink green" and <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Fairmont Hotels</span></strong>' introduction of "Lexus Hybrid Living Suites." These days even Barbie has a green-accessories collection.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Seeing green</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33cc00;">Major marketing dollars are behind these efforts. Experts concede it's difficult to quantify the amount of money spent on green marketing, but, collectively, it's clear companies are spending tens of millions</span></em></strong>.<br /><br /><br />This month, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>Wal-Mart</strong></span> is running seven national 30-second spots, created by the Martin Agency. The commercials, bearing the tagline "Budget-friendly prices. Earth-friendly products," promote T-shirts made of recycled bottles and organic coffee, among other things.<br /><br /><br />In addition to charity shopping days, <span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>Macy's</strong></span> campaign involves giveaways of saplings and reusable totes, promotes eco-friendly merchandise and includes TV and newspaper advertising, as well as mention in the retailer's direct-mail catalog and in-store signage.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Clorox</span></strong> is also flexing its green muscles this month. Its Brita brand's integration with NBC's "The Biggest Loser" has resulted in the elimination of plastic water bottles from the show's campus. And with the season finale slated for Earth Day, the brand is planning plenty of in-store marketing around the TV program.<br /><br /><br />"It's not black or white," said <strong>Mr. Addis</strong>, of the Earth Day conundrum. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#009900;">"It's great that people are paying attention. It's great that companies are starting to do something, but what really drives me crazy is when it's used as a vehicle of greenwashing</span></em></strong>. I call it the 95-5 rule. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">Five percent of somebody's business is green, but 95% of their PR is green."<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[WE WONDER WHEN THE STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE 50 U.S. STATES AND THE U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WILL DECIDE TO CONDUCT FORMAL INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONSUMERS HAVE UNWILLING BECOME THE VICTIMS OF WIDESPREAD VENDOR FRAUD and/or MISREPRESENTATION AS THE RESULT OF CORPORATE 'GREENWASHING'.]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;">Wolves in green clothing</span> </strong><br /><br /><a href="http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/5/24/Project%20Earth%20Day.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 230px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 234px" height="188" alt="" src="http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/5/24/Project%20Earth%20Day.jpg" border="0" /></a>And that seems to be the sentiment among <strong>many experts</strong>, who <strong>recognize that separating the good from the bad is a tricky endeavor.</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>"There are some companies that are still feeling their way around and probably greenwashing to some extent," said Ken Rother, president-chief operating officer of <span style="font-size:180%;color:#33cc00;">Tree Hugger</span> and VP-operations of Planet Green Interactive. "This is the problem of our times, but anything that raises awareness is good."</em></strong><br /><br />Experts said that, generally, initiatives that raise money for a specific cause or increase awareness, such as Macy's "Turn Over a New Leaf" campaign, are in keeping with the Earth Day message. However, those companies that play up tenuous links to Earth Day simply to drive sales are contributing to the din and confusing consumers.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[UNTIL NOW, RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENTALISTS DIDN'T MIND TOO MUCH IF THE ADHERENTS WERE HERETICS AS LONG AS IT SOUNDED GOOD.]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The Federal Trade Commission has begun to respond to concerns about that.</strong></span> <strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">It announced in November it would begin reviewing its green-marketing guides, last updated in 1998, this year</span>. <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">The move comes a year ahead of schedule, in response to the increase in green-advertising claims, the FTC said. </span></em></span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#000099;">Wal-Mart: Ads tout recycled materials</span>.</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#009900;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">But until the FTC updates its guidelines, the green-marketing landscape is akin to the Wild, Wild West</span>. Anybody, it seems, can claim the mantle of green, if it suits them.<br /></strong></span><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THIS IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM WITH PROCLAIMING ONE'S GREENNESS - THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS, ONLY SUBJECTIVE POLITICAL STANDARDS.]</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">"The combination of indiscriminate messaging, where everybody has a green message [and some are] flat out greenwashing, and people who are clearly not friends of the environment portraying themselves as that is leading a lot of people to be a little more skeptical," said Alex Steffen, executive editor of World Changing, a sustainability blog.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;"><br /></span></strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKBqWbPSM6H3EHxgtWYizG_e3L7yXawsaMCvBjwj8t9eMPx8L04Ola5jMXFL8DlpTWuOpS9yKb5tYUKImfR8YUO6y8XfsVqYUk-I_JRoDrV2sHbukeq2udGyTl9xYkjjuzWdmijHtpfjHR/s1600-h/453-greenwash-large.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5225151714423078066" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 173px" height="136" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKBqWbPSM6H3EHxgtWYizG_e3L7yXawsaMCvBjwj8t9eMPx8L04Ola5jMXFL8DlpTWuOpS9yKb5tYUKImfR8YUO6y8XfsVqYUk-I_JRoDrV2sHbukeq2udGyTl9xYkjjuzWdmijHtpfjHR/s200/453-greenwash-large.png" width="275" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxOAyuAXssL9PdYX-YxnELUlZ3l9ZlySJouV2OSmi1XYLGkiT28ku2XRH9G9ZdbpSxNEZu08e9pjWayN6EVcJnYOZ57xr3y8TIL0FA1VtP8gubMwGMXmMk3Fuw6saW7y9NcsE_8R4pOsMR/s1600-h/greenwater_logo.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5225151540270103122" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxOAyuAXssL9PdYX-YxnELUlZ3l9ZlySJouV2OSmi1XYLGkiT28ku2XRH9G9ZdbpSxNEZu08e9pjWayN6EVcJnYOZ57xr3y8TIL0FA1VtP8gubMwGMXmMk3Fuw6saW7y9NcsE_8R4pOsMR/s200/greenwater_logo.png" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[IN OTHER WORDS, MANY WHO SUPPORT MADAME CLINTON & MONSIEUR OBAMA, AND ARGUABLY EVEN THESE CANDIDATES, AND AL GORE<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC0eazey0Gr_WoNxFXGTzfth8d9rOEWa4r2fq-T43q6nXymhsxIEMPPduTHgNtxT9eqZnSr1EOtQYoTJNySCRNwkw6DiM6AFx1L2eU09766G4ID_B3-QzzGAQaXXuEC-be4mhPO5LMXy2B/s1600-h/Gore-+being+green.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5225152129850264322" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 129px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 144px" height="100" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC0eazey0Gr_WoNxFXGTzfth8d9rOEWa4r2fq-T43q6nXymhsxIEMPPduTHgNtxT9eqZnSr1EOtQYoTJNySCRNwkw6DiM6AFx1L2eU09766G4ID_B3-QzzGAQaXXuEC-be4mhPO5LMXy2B/s200/Gore-+being+green.jpg" width="110" border="0" /></a>, ARE INSINCERE ABOUT THEIR 'GREEN' CREDENTIALS. THEY MERELY SEEK TO MAKE $$ GREEN FROM APPEARING 'GREEN'. THIS REALITY GIVES CREDENCE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT CLIMATE CHANGE AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL / SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS INTO AN HYSTERIA TRULY SERVE AS FALSE PRETENSES FOR MORE & MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION THAT CAN MAKE POLITICAL SUPPORTERS MUCH $$ MONEY.]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Saving the world ... yawn</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;">And, if skepticism among consumers increases, one concern is that they could stop paying attention altogether. "Consumers can see through messaging that is not backed with a longer-term commitment to green," said David Wigder, senior VP-Digitas and author of the blog Marketing Green. "Moreover, if consumers are bombarded with too much messaging, they may simply tune it out."<br /></span></strong></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[EVEN THE RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENTALISTS SENSE A 'TRAIN WRECK' OF SORTS IF CONSUMERS BEGIN TO LEARN HOW THEY ARE BEING DUPED BY ALL OF THE GREEN PROPAGANDA PROMOTED IN THE MEDIA AND NOW BY INDUSTRY.]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33cc00;">Maureen O'Connor, publisher of sustainability blog Alternative Consumer, said the number of green pitches hitting her inbox is just one indication of the amount of noise in the market. "There are so many wannabes, it's frightening," she said. "There is such a proliferation of PR efforts that are over the top."<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[EXACTLY RIGHT. ENVIRONMENTAL 'NOISE' / CLIMATE CHANGE HYSTERIA / RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NONSENSE / GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ARMAGEDDON.]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">That is leading some to declare Earth Day an overcommercialized event that has lost the cachet that made it so successful in the first place.</span></strong><br /></span><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;">"Earth Day's usefulness has passed," said Mr. Steffen. "The idea that we're going to direct our attention to the planet for a day or a week ... is not a sufficient response anymore. An awful lot of people view Earth Day as the time to express the idea that they are sympathetic to change. We need to move from being sympathetic to change to actually changing things</span></em></strong>."<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THIS IS WHERE MONSIEUR OBAMA'S 'CHANGE' MANTRA COMES IN - HE WANTS TO CHANGE AMERICA INTO EUROPE WHERE THE RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENTALISTS DETERMINE EUROPEAN UNION SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND LEGAL POLICIES.]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Beware the Bloggers</span></strong><br /><br /><a href="http://photos10.flickr.com/17463498_d486897b34_o.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 293px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 319px" height="221" alt="" src="http://photos10.flickr.com/17463498_d486897b34_o.gif" border="0" /></a><strong><em><span style="color:#006600;">As consumers become increasingly skeptical of green marketing messages, there's no better forum than the blogosphere.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">Bloggers, with their witty posts and reputation for carefully vetting information, are fast becoming the most trusted resource for truly green products and promotions. As David Binkowski, senior VP-director of word-of-mouth marketing at Manning Selvage & Lee put it, "[It] better not just be window dressing, because bloggers fact-check everything."</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THAT IS WHY THE ITSSD JOURNALS HAVE BEEN CREATED: TO EXPOSE THE HYPOCRISY AND FALSE PRETENSES BEHIND THE DESIRED OVERREGULATION OF PRIVATE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES/PROPERTY RIGHTS, HERE & ABROAD.]</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Blogroll:</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">alternativeconsumer.com<br /><br />biopact.com<br /><br />causerelatedmarketing.blogspot.com<br /><br />eco-chick.com<br /><br />ecofriend.org<br /><br />ecogeek.com<br /><br />ecorazzi.com<br /><br />greenlivingideas.com<br /><br />greenthinkers.org<br /><br />gristmill.org<br /><br />groovygreen.com<br /><br />inhabitat.com<br /><br />jetsongreen.com<br /><br />lime.com<br /><br />marketinggreen.wordpress.com<br /><br />sustainablog.org<br /><br />thegoodhuman.com<br /><br />theoildrum.com<br /><br />treehugger.com<br /><br />worldchanging.com<br /><br /></span></strong><br />A recent report from Nielsen Online ranked Tree Hugger, World Changing, The Oil Drum and Alternative Consumer among the most popular sustainability blogs on the web. And all are far from ragtag operations.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Motley crew</span></strong><br /><br /><br />The sites boast a mix of activists, scholars and experts in topics as varied as green building, energy and nutrition. Some came to the cause early -- one of Alternative Consumer's bloggers is Zach McGrath, a high-school junior -- but others, such as Tree Hugger's Kenny Luna, turned green more recently in response to climatic events.<br /><br /><br />Tree Hugger is the largest of the environmental blogs, with 10 staffers and more than 50 regular contributors around the world. Its founder, Graham Hill, dabbled in fashion, viral e-mail and plant-based air filters, among other things, before launching the site in 2004. He's also the guy that designed the ceramic cup that looks like a paper cup and reads, "We are happy to serve you."<br /><br /><br />According to Ken Rother, president-chief operating officer, as one of the more influential green sites out there, Tree Hugger aims to take advertising that adds as much value to the site as the content. Advertisers include Wal-Mart, Simple Shoes, Envirolet composting toilets and a band, The Weepies.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Pitching in</span></strong><br /><br /><br />But even a smaller organization, such as Alternative Consumer, has eight regular contributors. Founded in 2007 by Maureen O'Connor, a native New Yorker, the site takes more of a lifestyle approach to green topics. Recent posts highlight hemp skirts and outdoor furniture made from recycled milk jugs, detergent containers and the like. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33cc00;">Advertising, meanwhile, runs the gamut from smaller green companies touting plastic-free diapers and eco-friendly dog sweaters to national brands such as <span style="font-size:180%;color:#006600;">GE, Sun Chips</span> and <span style="font-size:180%;color:#006600;">Hush Puppies</span></span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />The nonprofit blog World Changing counts 150 contributors around the globe, with 25 regulars and five staff members. Its ranks include writers in Stockholm, Shanghai, Mumbai and Las Vegas, as well as one "Global Nomad." The Oil Drum, which carries only barebones Google ads, is slightly more mysterious. Its writers are largely anonymous and include "Prof. Goose," a professor in the social sciences, and "Heading Out," a faculty member in an energy production discipline.<br /><br /><br />-- <em>Natalie Zmuda and Michael Bush</em><br /><br /><em>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </em><br /><a href="http://news.aol.com/st">http://news.aol.com/st</a><a href="http://news.aol.com/story/_a/even-funerals-are-going-green/20080420074309990001">ory/_a/even-funerals-are-going-green/20080420074309990001</a><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Even Funerals Are Going Green</span></strong><br /><br /><br />AP<br /><br /><br />LONDON (April 20)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.johnweir.co.uk/assets/coffins/bamboo.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 326px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 191px" height="79" alt="" src="http://www.johnweir.co.uk/assets/coffins/bamboo.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">It's no longer enough to live a greener life — now people are being encouraged to be environmentally friendly when they leave the Earth too</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Cardboard coffins, clothes sewn from natural fibers, a burial plot in a natural setting. Green funerals attempt to be eco-friendly at every stage. <span style="color:#33cc00;"><em>See, e.g.,</em></span> <a href="http://www.stibbards.co.uk/ecocoffins.htm">http://www.stibbards.co.uk/ecocoffins.htm</a> ; <a href="http://www.greenendings.co.uk/coffinsandurns.htm">http://www.greenendings.co.uk/coffinsandurns.htm</a> ;<br /></span></strong><br /><a href="http://www.funeralsearch.co.uk/images/ccad2.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 439px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 147px" height="51" alt="" src="http://www.funeralsearch.co.uk/images/ccad2.gif" border="0" /></a>"People are trying to think about what's the best way to live and with that, what's the best way to die," said Roslyn Cassidy, a funeral director for Green Endings, which provides eco-friendly funerals.<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#009900;">Britain has been a world leader in eco-friendly funerals for years and a source of green burial products and ideas for countries like the United States</span></strong>, where the trend is just starting to catch on. Over the weekend in London, those in the business showcased their products and services at the Natural Death Center's Green Funeral Exhibition.<br /><br /><br />Some may expect green funerals to be as cheap as a do-it-yourself project, while others might brace for price hikes similar to those fair trade food.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33cc00;">But, funeral directors say green funerals — like any — run the gamut.<br /><br /><br />"It's about choice, not price," said Fran Hall, marketing director for Epping Forest Burial Park</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">For a concept aimed at saving the Earth by going back to basics, an eco-funeral can be more complicated than it sounds. The Natural Death Center provides a handbook that suggests environmental targets for cemeteries</span></strong>.<br /><br /><br />"You can take any funeral and make it greener," said Michael Jarvis, the center's director.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">In a green funeral, bodies are not embalmed and are dressed in pure fiber clothes. Green campaigners say refrigeration or dry ice is a good alternative to formaldehyde, which can seep into the water system.<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong>Biodegradable coffins also differ from the traditional mahogany</strong>. Coffins on display included one made from wicker and decorated with flowers.<br /><br /><br /><strong>One visitor, Linda McDowall, admired another coffin bundled in a beige, leaf-adorned felt shroud, saying it looked comfortable</strong>.<br /><br /><br />"Cozy and warm are not words you associate with death," said McDowall, a 48-year-old German and French translator.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Cardboard coffins — which are as thick as their wooden counterparts — can be decorated by family and biodegrade within three months</strong>.<br /><br /><br />"The trouble is, they are a bit ungainly to use," said Oakfield Wood burial ground director Oliver Peacock. "They're not terribly easy to handle and if it's wet, they don't look their best either."<br /><br /><br />Particular care is taken in how coffins are buried at <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">eco-friendly graveyards</span></strong> like Oakfield Wood, Peacock said.<br /><br /><br />The cemetery was a pasture when it opened in 1995. It is now speckled with more than 1,600 trees that mark plots along with a wooden plaque.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Marble tombstones are frowned upon</span></strong>. Jeremy Smite, a funeral director at Green Endings, notes that <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">shipping and mining produce carbon and that marble is not a renewable resource.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#006600;">For cremations — which account for 70 percent of British funerals — a person's ashes and the remains of the eco-friendly coffin are placed in bamboo, glass or ceramic urns.</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">New legislation in Britain requires reductions in the mercury content of plastics and treatments used in coffins starting in 2010. All biodegradable coffins meet the new standards.<br /><br /></span></strong><br />Cassidy said small details are important for green funerals, such as using smaller cars instead of limousines in funeral processions.<br /><br /><br />"What people are wanting is to know that they're doing the best they can both for their loved ones and for the environment," Cassidy said.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/about/environz/environz-nov07/page10.html">http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/about/environz/environz-nov07/page10.html</a><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Move over for Sustainable Product Design </span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">(New Zealand Ministry for the Environment website)</span></strong><br /><br /><br />November 2007<br /><br /><br />Sustainability is a driving force for product innovation and yes, it’s good for our environment, too.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Mortality is not something people like to dwellon every day, but have you ever considered the environmental impacts of a coffin?<br /></span></em></strong><br /><br />Mortality is not something people like to dwell on every day, but have you ever considered the environmental impacts of a coffin? Plastic, synthetic linings and glue containing formaldehyde are features in most New Zealand coffins. <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ff33;">Now that more New Zealanders are becoming aware of their impact on the environment, the demand for natural burials and eco-friendly coffins is growing.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[WE SURMISE THAT ALL OF THAT ISOLATION & SHEEP FARMING IN OCEANIA MUST HAVE GOTTEN TO THESE KIWIS]</span></strong><br /><br /><br />This is where the Return to Sender eco coffin, designed by Greg Holdsworth from Holdsworth Design, comes into play. It uses a minimum of materials which are also bio-degradable and non-toxic.<br /><br /><br /><strong>The interest in and uptake of the coffin are proof that its stylish, unique design appeals to a wide range of people, not just ‘green’ consumers.</strong> It is a great example of how good product design can go hand-in-hand with sustainable principles.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Designers are increasingly aware they have a responsibility to include sustainable principles into their work, says Cathy Veninga, Chief Executive Officer of Designers Institute of New Zealand.</strong><br /><br /><br />“Ideally, products should be designed in such a way that consumers can rest assured the product of their choice is sustainably sound,” said Veninga.<br /><br /><br />With research showing that about 70 per cent of the environmental impacts of a product are determined at design stage, thinking about sustainability at the drawing board is an effective way to improve a product’s green credentials.<br /><br /><br />The Return to Sender eco coffin won a silver award for sustainable product design at the 2007 BeST Design Awards, supported by the Ministry. Formway Furniture struck gold, at the same awards, for their Met Adapt office furniture range.<br /><br /><br />However, the design world are not the only ones thinking sustainability at the drawing-board. Awareness is also gaining moment in the packaging industry. </div></div></div>ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-406043414773426157.post-34244458989928519592008-04-19T14:44:00.019-04:002008-04-19T17:43:37.377-04:00The Moral, Ethical & Religious Justification for the European Regulate, Tax & Spend Welfare State; Will Clinton & Obama Import This System to America?<a href="http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070830/COMMENTARY/108300003">http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070830/COMMENTARY/108300003</a><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Papal indulgence of OECD thugs</span></strong><br /><br /><br />August 30, 2007<br /><br /><br />Walter E. Williams - London's Times Online recently reported that, according to Vatican sources, Pope Benedict XVI is working on his second encyclical, a doctrinal pronouncement that will condemn tax evasion as "socially unjust." (See <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2237625.ece">www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2237625.ece</a> ) <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">The pontiff will denounce the use of tax havens and offshore banking by wealthy individuals because it reduces tax revenues for the benefit of society as a whole.<br /></span></strong><br /><br />Pope Benedict could benefit from a bit of schooling. Tax avoidance is legal conduct whereby individuals arrange their affairs to reduce the amount of income that is taxable. <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Tax avoidance can run the gamut of legal acts, such as investing in tax-free bonds, having employer-paid health plans, making charitable gifts, quitting a job and banking in another country</span></strong>. <strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Tax evasion refers to the conduct by individuals to reduce their tax obligation by illegal means</span></em></strong>. Tax evasion consists of illegal acts such as falsely claiming dependents, income underreporting and padding expenses.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><a href="http://www.geonames.de/flag-oecd.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://www.geonames.de/flag-oecd.gif" border="0" /></a>Pope Benedict's second encyclical puts him squarely in company with a group of thugs known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international bureaucracy headquartered in Paris and comprised of 30 industrial nations, mostly in Western Europe, the Pacific Rim and North America. One OECD report said low-tax nations are bad for the world economy and named 35 jurisdictions as guilty of "harmful tax competition."</span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000099;">To the OECD, harmful tax competition occurs when a nation has taxes so low that saving and investment are lured away from high-taxed OECD countries</span>.</strong> The countries they've identified as tax havens, having strong financial privacy laws and low or no taxes on certain activities, include Panama, the Bahamas, Liberia, Liechtenstein, the Marshall Islands and Monaco.<br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>The OECD demands these nations, as well as offshore financial centers in the Caribbean and the Pacific, in effect surrender their fiscal sovereignty and act as deputy tax collectors for nations like France and Germany</em></strong>.</span></span> This would be a dream for politicians and bad news for the world's taxpayers. Fortunately, the hard work of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has stymied the OECD's proposed tax cartel.<br /><br /><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/Social_Expenditures_in_the_EU.jpg/400px-Social_Expenditures_in_the_EU.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 416px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 416px" height="227" alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/Social_Expenditures_in_the_EU.jpg/400px-Social_Expenditures_in_the_EU.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Pope Benedict shares some of <strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">the OECD goals in its attack on low-tax jurisdictions. <em><span style="color:#000099;">To support their welfare states, European nations must have high taxes</span></em>. <span style="color:#ff0000;">Government spending exceeds 50 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in France, Sweden, Germany and Italy</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">If Europeans, as private c<a href="http://workforall.net/English/Tax_Cartel.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 426px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 364px" height="157" alt="" src="http://workforall.net/English/Tax_Cartel.gif" border="0" /></a>itizens and businessmen, relocate, invest or save in other jurisdictions, it means less money is available to be taxed to support their welfare states.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">The pope expresses the same concern in saying tax havens reduce revenues for the benefit of society as a whole. Survival of an ever-growing welfare state requires an assault on jurisdictional tax competition.<br /></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">[<em>See</em><span style="color:#660000;">:</span><span style="color:#660000;"> Martin De Vlieghere, Paul Vreymans and Willy De Wit, "The Myth of the Scandinavian Model", The Brussels Journal (11/25/05) at</span></span></strong><span style="color:#660000;">: </span><a href="http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510">http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510</a> .]<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">[THIS IS A FALSE PRETENSE-BASED JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSATLANTIC, AND EVEN GLOBAL REGULATORY AND TAX HARMONIZATION. THIS WAY, EUROPEAN INDUSTRIES IN HIGH-TAX JURISDICTIONS WILL NO LONGER BE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. IT IS WHAT THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES CLINTON & OBAMA REFER TO AS, 'LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD'. </span></strong><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong><br /><a href="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a300/tescosuicide/ALa2/ALa3/Socialism.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 295px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 334px" height="236" alt="" src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a300/tescosuicide/ALa2/ALa3/Socialism.jpg" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">IT IS ALSO WHAT UK PRIME MINISTER REFERRED TO IN HIS RECENT SPEECH AT THE JFK LIBRARY AS MORAL / ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR EACH NATIONS' CITIZENS BEING THEIR BROTHERS' KEEPER ALL AROUND THE WORLD.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">BUT, NO MATTER HOW YOU DRESS IT UP (OR 'SEX IT UP', TO BORROW A PHRASE FROM FORMER UK PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR), EUROPEAN-STYLE REGULATION & TAXATION REGIMES REMAIN UNDESIRABLE. WHY THEN WOULD MADAME CLINTON AND MONSIEUR OBAMA BE DARING ENOUGH TO IMPOSE THEM HERE IN THE U.S.??]</span></strong><br /><br /><br />There's a more fundamental question I would put to the pope: Should the Roman Catholic Church support the welfare state? Or, put more plainly, should the Church support using the coercive powers of government to enable one person to live at the expense of another? Put even more plainly, should the Church support the government taking one person's property and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong? Such an act done privately is called theft.<br /><br /><br />The pope might say the welfare state reflects the will of the people. Would that mean the Church interprets God's commandment to Moses "Thou shalt not steal" as not an absolute, but as "Thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Parliament or Congress"?<br /><br /><br />I share Pope Benedict's desire to assist our fellow man in need. But I believe that reaching into one's own pocket to do so is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into another's pocket to assist one's fellow man in need is despicable and worthy of condemnation.<br /><br /><br /><em>Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist</em>.ITSSD Charitable Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00790887154748866904noreply@blogger.com0