You’ll have to go to the SNL website to watch.

posted by GeoT

Obama’s Secret Climate Pact
by Richard Wolffe
It’s no coincidence that one day after the White House announced new emissions targets, China followed suit with its own target.

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

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

---

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

---

Obama, Singh, Jintao

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

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

U.S.- China set emissions targets

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

read more here:

Via Associated Press:

BEIJING — China will seek binding pollution targets for developed countries and reject similar requirements for itself at an international climate summit next month, China’s top climate envoy said Wednesday.

Yu Qingtai said it is unfair that all countries be required to play a role combating global warming since most of the environmental damage was caused by developed nations during their industrialization over the last 100 to 200 years.

“Developed countries should not make requirements of developing countries that are unreasonable,” Yu told a news conference.

“Developed countries should also earnestly ask themselves: ‘In solving this problem that I have created, am I keeping my promises and honoring my commitments?’” he said.

You HAVE to watch this video.  I almost fell out of my chair, both from shock that SNL would do this, and from laughter.

Saturday Night Live is just a part of the right-wing hate machine at Fox News. The show is on NBC (the New Barack Channel), you say? That can’t be true. If that’s true, then it would appear that NBC is straying from the Barreservation.

Could it be that the TRUTH is finally sinking in to the thick skulls of these liberal political whores who have sold their journalistic souls to liberalism? Is it becoming apparent that spending a trillion dollars is not how to save a billion dollars? Is it becoming apparent that The American Rape Program (TARP), often called a “stimulus” by the left, doesn’t save or create jobs, doesn’t stimulate the economy, and only pays political debts while enslaving Americans economically for generations to come? Is it becoming apparent that Obama and nut-job liberals like Pelosi and Reid are willing and determined to sell YOUR soul to accomplish THEIR political and ideological goals?

We can only hope that there is somewhat of an awakening beginning to occur in the lame-stream media. Our future is going to be painful no matter what we do. But it will be much more painful than necessary, and possibly even destroy our nation if we don’t put a stop to Obama and the liberals NOW.

I don’t think we can afford to wait until 2010 anymore. Every city and state needs to begin the process to recall and fire the politicians who are supporting Obama’s anti-American policies, and they need to start NOW. If we wait, they will destroy too much by the time they are simply voted from office.

Saturday Night Live – Obama Jintao Press Conference in Beijing.

I had to update the broken link on 12/2/2009. It’s amazing how this has been yanked everywhere! Thanks Flopping Aces for having a copy of history! Kudos on the Climategate Break!

Almost 7 minutes of pure laughter. Sadly it’s more truth than fantasy.

Your New Bosses Say “Ni Hao”!

Thursday, November 19, 2009. If you’re a red-blooded American, you might want to pucker up and practice saying this: “Ni Hao”—that’s Mandarin Chinese for “hello.” Once you’ve mastered that, try this: “Ko-ni-chi-wa”—that’s how you say it in Japan. Now that we’re all working for these Asian giants, we’d better learn some basic communications skills.

Have you ever wanted to say something critical to somebody, but you owed them money, maybe a lot of money, so instead you swallowed your words, maybe even asked them if there was anything you could do for them? One thing you were sure of is that you were not in a position of power.

Today, we can count poor ol’ Uncle Sam in that disadvantaged group.

No wonder President Barack Obama bows to the Japanese Emperor Akihito. Should His Excellency Who Art Owed Vast Sums be offended, His Excellency Who Oweth Vast Sums might find himself grabbing his beloved mop and broom and getting in some sweat equity at the Emperor’s Palace. Bow deeper, Mr. President. While you’re at it, see if you can light Akihito’s cigar. Maybe the First Lady can tend to their gardens and, you know, see that they’re organic.

We can all take some lessons in obsequiousness from King Obama the First. He’s just happy he didn’t end up standing on one leg, polishing the Emperor’s car.

A report by CBS News last week indicates how beholden the United States, once the great beacon of economic strength, has become to foreign creditors. China (23.4%) and Japan (21.1%) maintain the strongest foreign stake in America, they report. The amount owed China is staggering: almost $800 billion. The interest we taxpayers are burdened with for the honor of putting a happy face on the fiscal mismanagement of our lawmakers is $50 billion per year. That’s just the interest. That’s about $165 per year for every American citizen, including children, retirees, students, the uneducated, the homeless. To retire the entire debt, every American would have to cough up a mere $2600. And that’s to one country. Our total foreign debt is around $3.5 trillion.

America is not in a position to owe $3.5 trillion—the total GNP of the U.S. is under $15 trillion, which means about 25 percent of GNP is owed to foreign entities. (Just for giggles, let me point out that the U.S. has total unfunded debts ranging anywhere from $14 trillion to over $100 trillion, depending on whose books you’re deciphering. Don’t burn yourself! Congress’ books might still be in the oven.)

What a blessing it is that Obama loves baseball. He is living a childhood fantasy right now, up in the big leagues. The problem is that the President is like Pedro Martinez and the Chinese are like the New York Yankees. When Obama is in Beijing (AKA the “House that Mao Built”), Chinese President Hu Jintao and his comrades can chant “Who’s your daddy” all they want and Obama has to take it. When Obama addresses concerns his administration has with China, such as human rights, or Taiwan, or cap and trade and pollution, or China’s penchant for artificially devaluing ts currency, Chinese leaders can look at him as they would a precocious child and say, “Yeah, that’s cute—we’ll think about it. What we’d really like to know is how exactly you’re going to pay for your liberal agenda, and pay us back our money.”

As long as the United States owes money to China, the President is impotent to persuade China, which holds the purse strings, to do anything.

Imagine if the U.S. had owed mass amounts of money to Germany in the late 1930s. Could the U.S. have put much pressure on Adolph Hitler to stop his Alexander the Great march across Europe? No, not with the prospect of Germany calling back its loans. Could Roosevelt have gone to war with against the Nazis in the early 40s? Would he even have had the resources to fund it? And if America had not entered World War II, is there any possibility Europe and its inferior militaries could have prevented Hitler from overtaking the whole continent?

Politics aside, our foreign debt also places our economy, already at its shakiest in over 60 years, on precarious ground. Japan, for instance, already with a sputtering economy, is on the verge of financial collapse. Their debts are over $10 trillion, their GNP around $4.5 trillion. As the Land of the Sinking Economy falls deeper into an abysmal financial darkness, will they be more apt to reject the mere interest they get from us in favor of pressuring us to pay back a significant portion of the principle amount we owe them in order for them to better meet their dire obligations? How much heat will that put on our thin-iced economy?

China is also in trouble, as is the U.K., and several other U.S. creditors. What happens when they start demanding faster payments? The day is soon at hand that China and the others will not continue to invest more money in the U.S. Treasury because they won’t have it. When that day comes, Americans are sure to see rapid inflation at a time when they can afford to pay less, not more, for goods and services. Inflation will only compound and worsen the depression.

Obama will blame former President George W. Bush for this mess—he can’t help himself. Who is he going to blame—himself? Right. Yes, some of the blame rests on Bush’ shoulders. However, let’s remember that Bush’ “stimulus” plan was around $165 billion. It was designed to catalyze the economy, but supposedly backfired because the money, which was sent directly to American families, was used not to buy stuff but to pay off debts. But was that stimulus really a failure?

Our political leaders from both parties are under the illusion that what builds a solid economy is people consuming, spending, consuming, spending. In fact, early this year Obama said that what Americans need to combat the recession are more credit lines, which is stupider than the stupidest officer of the entire Cambridge, Massachusetts police department . Too much credit is fundamentally what has caused the financial meltdown! According to crack economist Peter Schiff, “giving more credit is like fighting a forest fire with gasoline.” The last thing Americans need right now is more debt.

True, we know that these stimulus plans are ultimately paid for by taxpayers. However, the money from the Bush stimulus went directly to the taxpayers’ bank accounts, and not to a myriad of goofy and wasteful government programs. Americans used it to pay off personal debts and to save, which means through Bush’ package, the government was somewhat divesting itself of cash that it ultimately would have wasted, and putting it into the hands of its wiser citizenry.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think Bush and his advisors thought of it that way. They were hoping Americans would get out and spend it. Americans outsmarted the government by reducing their debt burdens.

Obama, on the other hand, has done quite the opposite. His stimulus is for $787 billion, almost five times that of Bush’ plan. In addition, none of it goes directly to American taxpayers, who also have no control over how it is spent. This means the burden to taxpayers is roughly, oh, about 100 percent because they can’t pocket any of it to pay off personal debt. The stimulus has already proven virtually worthless. Some Democrat apologists are still naïve enough to think this debacle will pan out in coming years. Good luck on that, Dems. Here’s hoping you’ll enjoy Obama’s new book, The Audacity of Hopeful Stimulus Plans for Demmies.

So, America, while you’re at it with the new languages, here’s something you can say to the economy: Sayonara.

–CB

Watch CBS News’ Hari Sreenivasan’s Report on U.S. Foreign Debt:

Watch His Excellency Who Oweth Vast Sums Entertain Himself with his “Mop ‘n Broom” Routine:

AS with the Eastern bloc, our friction with China is driven by differences of ideology, not race or values.<p/><p/>IT is a useful thought experiment to speculate what eastern Europe would look like today if it had followed China’s path since 1989: that is, if rather than jubilant scenes at the Berlin Wall, we had instead witnessed a Tiananmen-style crackdown followed by 20 or so years of incremental economic liberalisation…. From The Australian. Full story

This site may contain information about: house of fashion. The blog is also related to: 1960 fashion.

AS with the Eastern bloc, our friction with China is driven by differences of ideology, not race or values.<p/><p/>IT is a useful thought experiment to speculate what eastern Europe would look like today if it had followed China’s path since 1989: that is, if rather than jubilant scenes at the Berlin Wall, we had instead witnessed a Tiananmen-style crackdown followed by 20 or so years of incremental economic liberalisation…. From The Australian. Full story

This site may contain information about: visiting china. For a different topic see great peach recipes. The blog is also related to: china rain.

Asia Times: Space is suddenly on the agenda

United States President Barack Obama is preparing to make his first official trip to Asia this week, and a growing list of important economic and defense-related issues are on his agenda. From the time he touches down in Tokyo on Thursday until the time he flies home from Seoul – stops in Singapore, Shanghai and Beijing are also planned – Obama is going to be watched closely back home.

Obama’s visit to China is going through some last-minute changes due to recent remarks about China’s plans for space by General Xu Qiliang, commander of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Air Force. On November 1, in advance of activities marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Air Force, Xu was interviewed by China’s PLA Daily.

“Only power could protect peace. Superiority in space and in air would mean, to a certain extent, superiority over the land and the oceans,” he said. “As the air force of a peace-loving country, we must forge our swords and shields in order to protect peace.”

According to Xu, “a country without adequate power would have no say when faced with challenges posed by the militarization in the space and air.” [1]

Xu also said that, “military competition has shifted towards space. Such a shift is a major trend now, and such expansion is a historical inevitability.” [2]

A few days later, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) made clear that Xu’s comments were incomplete and had to be taken in context.

“I want to point out China has all along upheld the peaceful use of outer space. We oppose the weaponization of outer space or a space arms race,” said MFA spokesman Ma Zhaoxu. “China has never and will not participate in an outer space arms race in any form. The position of China on this point remains unchanged.” [3]

Among other things, Xu had failed to stay on message. On at least two occasions last month in speeches made at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, China reaffirmed its established opposition to any arms race in space.

“The prevention of weaponization of and an arms race in outer space is an issue of high strategic significance. It also represents the common mission and responsibility on the part of international community,” ambassador Wang Qun, head of the Chinese delegation told an audience at the UN on October 10. He also urged the UN to “soon start its substantive discussions on the draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Object which was jointly presented by Russia and China in February last year, so as to contribute to improving the legal system concerning outer space and maintaining security in outer space.”

Just days later at another UN session devoted more specifically to space-related matters, China’s position was spelled out yet again.
“China has all along adhered to peaceful uses of Outer Space. We call for joint efforts by the international community to build a ‘harmonious outer space order’ which is conducive to peace, development, cooperation and the rule of law. China is of the view that any act that contravenes the principle of peaceful uses of outer space, such as weaponization of and arms race in outer space, runs counter to the common interest of mankind,” said ambassador Liu Zhenmin as he commended the UN Bureau of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs for “the positive outcome of the 52nd Session of COPUOS”.

It is unlikely that Xu was unaware of China’s official position, but was he either just speaking his mind or, perhaps, marking the start of new Chinese chapter in space. Some have said that the fact that any senior PLA officer is commenting on military space matters is noteworthy, because the PLA has been so silent on these matters for so long.

“Clearly – and all of Washington is aware of this – the PLA has been thinking, even planning, to respond to what they perceive as US plans to dominate space for some time, though they have kept their public statements focused on peaceful uses, largely to contrast with statements and policies of the US,” said Dr Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the US Naval War College. “So, this does not indicate a major policy shift that should surprise Washington.”

One expert on space and proliferation issues who was contacted in Japan, said that English-language translations in this instance failed to accurately convey what Xu said and that much of the context might have been lost entirely. Xu was not talking about space weaponization but rather about space militarization in the form of satellite-based reconnaissance, communications, and targeting etc. And he was stressing increased competition not conflict.

When Asia Times Online recently focused on the remarks made by PLA Senior Colonel Yao Yunzhu during a dinner held in early 2007 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, questions were raised about what exactly she said, too, when she became the first Chinese military officer to comment publicly about the controversial 2007 Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) test. (See Omaha greets an ‘unusual visitor’ from China, Asia Times Online, Oct 15, 2009)

According to Eric Hagt, China program director at the World Security Institute in Washington DC, Xu’s comments will not greatly impact the tenor of Obama’s trip, which will be dominated by climate change, North Korea and the economy more than the PLA’s military modernization or the PLA Air Force’s opinion on the role of space as a future domain of war. Still, the Obama administration should seek an official clarification from China, since that could be instrumental when negotiations on a ban on space weapons proceed, according to Hagt.

“The statements, as bold as they were, do not actually represent a shift in Beijing’s posture in space. Beijing will not back down from acquiring the ability to protect its interests there, including defensive and tactically offensive operations. But that is a different story than weaponizing space,” said Hagt. “A clarification will help put the comments by Xu in context, which were more than likely the result of internal jockeying for attention or at best a strong reiteration of China’s determination to pursue its interests in space and for the US to treat it as an equal. The US will get that if not in public certainly in private. In fact, the MFA is already doing that.”

At roughly the same time that Xu’s remarks appeared – and just a few days after a meeting with General Xu Caihou, vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission (CMC) and the second-highest ranking officer in the PLA – US Air Force General Kevin Chilton, commander of the US Strategic Command, told reporters that the US and China needed to sit down together so that the China could better explain its intentions in space.

It is not as if space has suddenly become a kind of South China Sea in the sky where the US is anxiously looking over its shoulder as it awaits the next unexpected and volatile close encounter with Chinese forces. Interestingly, both Chilton and Xu made a special effort to focus on “the need for greater transparency”.

“The PLA air force will continue to deepen exchanges and cooperation with its foreign counterparts on an opener, more transparent, confident and practical basis,” Xu said.

Conservative critics of Obama, particularly those who harbor a deep distrust of China, have jumped on Xu’s comments. They view these comments by Xu as further proof that China poses a strategic threat to the US and is not to be trusted either in space or on the ground. They contend that Obama is deliberately disarming the US on two fronts, putting the US increasingly at risk. First, in his attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons, and second, by scaling back and even eliminating funds for certain ballistic missile defense programs. Critics also see Xu’s comments as proof that China’s intended objective is space supremacy at all costs.

“The Obama administration came into office promising to cool the rhetoric and work through multilateral institutions to oppose various agreements that would prevent the militarization of space – space supremacy was out, space partnerships are in. Except the ChiComs [Chinese communists] are actually serious about global hegemony, and they aim to dominate and militarize space regardless of any ’strategic reassurance’ (aka appeasement) pursued by this administration,” wrote Michael Goldfarb, editor of conservative blog site The Weekly Standard.

The Obama administration has reportedly deleted “strategic reassurance” from its vocabulary and no mention of it will be made in Beijing. What this means in terms of any ongoing negotiations is unclear, especially since, according to Hagt, the

Chinese find themselves in a better position to negotiate due to their advancing space program and previous successful tests.

“Negotiations over ASATs or space weapons will raise the stakes for China strategically, and increase transparency, but China’s military build up is an inevitability as I see it,” said Hagt. “As for coming to agreement, an understanding in the form of an unofficial moratorium on further debris – creating ASAT tests is already understood between the US and China. There is no formal agreement here, but the strategic signaling between the two and likely behind-the-scenes military-to-military talks makes this highly likely. An official agreement however, is a long way off.”

Hagt describes the US as being on the defensive in terms of the broader diplomatic framework and a joint Chinese and Russian proposal involving a ban on space weaponization.

“It is an unbalanced starting point, but it is a starting point. The ball is now in the US’s court and the US will have to make the next move with its own draft treaty,” said Hagt. “The most likely is something that stops debris – creating ASAT tests, but in exchange China is going to want a wider ban on all ASAT technologies, since the US dominates in non-kinetic ASAT capabilities.”

Last week, in a column for Forbes magazine entitled, “The Space Arms Race Begins,” Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China, wrote that the “Chinese want to dominate space. General Xu did the United States a favor by removing any doubt about where his country stands. Whether we like it or not, there is now a brutal competition between the United States and China to control the high ground of space.” [4]

Obama also seems reluctant to express any concerns about a large faction inside the PLA, and inside other branches of the Chinese government as a whole, which supports a more confrontational, anti-US stance.

“There are certainly hawkish elements in China that will balk at any ban on space weapons or ASATs or any accommodation with the US. And the statement could very well be a public reaction to growing pressure for US – China discussions on space weaponization and nuclear disarmament,” said Hagt. “But, that is not the unified voice of the PLA and furthermore, disarmament discussions go beyond PLA concerns and involve huge stakes for the US-China relations calculus, international prestige and image.”

Perhaps if Xu did not command the PLA Air Force, his remarks would have slipped by unnoticed. However, as the Obama administration shows signs of slowly warming to the idea that joint manned spaceflight activities involving the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the China National Space Administration (CNSA) might be well worth pursuing, Xu has undermined this effort. Xu is highlighting the role of the PLA in space, and in the process, leaving many with the impression that despite any claims to the contrary, the PLA is in complete control of China’s space program.

“It is highly likely that Xu’s statement will be added to a long list of ‘indicators’ that the US must aggressively move to cross the Rubicon into development and deployment of space weapons, regularly cited by ASAT and BMD supporters,” said Johnson-Freese. “The Obama administration has been much more open to the possibility of cooperation with China in space – potentially even including human spaceflight opportunities – than the [George W] Bush administration. Certainly Xu’s comments will complicate any discussions in that regard.”

Chang, among others, is warning the US not to pursue these ties in space with China for several reasons.

“There is no such thing as a civilian space program in China. The [CNSA] is really a military operation. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves a question: Should we transfer technology to a potential adversary so that it can improve its war-fighting capabilities?” wrote Chang.

If little else, Obama’s critics will be watching closely to see how Obama proceeds once a more detailed clarification is provided by China. Thus, Xu has handed Obama’s critics perhaps another opportunity to portray Obama as vulnerable and to gain round at Obama’s expense.

“‘Only power can protect peace’, the 59-year-old commander said. The man is right, but no one believes that the Chinese are accruing this power for the sake of peace. The question is, what will the Obama administration do to make sure that it is we, and not the Red Chinese, who win the race to dominate space?” wrote Goldfarb.

Whether Obama will feel compelled to demonstrate any heightened sense of concern over Xu’s remarks or whether Obama will simply overlook them – deeming them in effect as a mere distraction – remains to be seen.

One thing is certain. US conservatives are lining up to label Obama as too soft on China, and they see something in motion here that betters their chances of sending him on another trip – this time back to Chicago after the next presidential election.

Notes
1. China’s PLA eyes future in space, air: air force commander, Xinhua, Nov 11
2. US praises China’s space progress, BBC, Nov 4
3. China disavows general’s comments on space militarisation, Agence France-Press, Nov 5
4. The Space Arms Race Begins, Forbes, Nov 6

Aujourd’hui j’ai noté deux éléments importants dans les infos:

• D’une part, la décision du gouvernement brésilien d’accorder refuge au président du Honduras Manuel Zelaya à l’ambassade brésilienne de Tegucigalpa. Effectivement, rares ont été les manœuvres diplomatiques du Brésil, qui dénotaient jusqu’à il y a peu une très faible influence diplomatique, étrange car asymétrique par rapport à son poids économique en Amérique du sud. Est-ce le début du réveil brésilien ou la reprise en main brésilienne des affaires sud-américaines? L’achat quasi-finalisé, il y a quelques jours, d’avions de chasse français de type rafale, en dépit de l’offre du constructeur américain boeing de F-18, peut être un indice dans ce sens. Le Brésil chercherait probablement à légèrement se dégager d’une influence américaine, via une dépendance technologique de ton système d’armement (les États-Unis se réservent le droit d’annuler des contrats d’armements de ses sociétés nationales si des transferts de technologies  liés à ses accords “portent atteintes aux intérêts nationaux”).
• D’autre part, des discussions poussées entre les dirigeants chinois Hu Jintao, et japonais Yukio Hatoyama, soulignent un rapprochement entre les deux pays. Durant la campagne électorale japonaise, le DJP (parti démocrate japonais) n’a pas caché son intention de réviser les relations privilégiés que le Japon entretient avec les États-Unis depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Le nouveau premier ministre a mis l’emphase sur une coopération bilatérale plus forte avec son puissant voisin continentale, principalement dans un cadre économique. Deux points importants sont à noter dans les déclarations de Mr Hatoyama: le premier point est sa volonté de régler certains sujets de désaccords entre les deux pays, en engageant le sujet de la mer de Chine du sud, riche en gaz, revendiqué par plusieurs pays limitrophes. Le deuxième point est la décision de ne pas renouveler la mission des Forces japonaises d’autodéfense (JSDF) de ravitaillement des troupes américaines dans l’Océan Indien, prouve l’engagement du gouvernement japonais à une activité diplomatique régionale plus importante, ce qui change radicalement de sa posture antérieure consistant à une omniprésence américaine. Le premier ministre s’est même entretenu avec le président russe Medvedev au sujet de disputes territoriales, en l’occurence les iles Kouriles.

Dans le livre de Zbigniew Brzezinski, l’auteur parle de la politique extérieur que pourrait mener le gouvernement japonais face à l’émergence de la Chine comme puissance régionale, voire globale. Il est intéressant de noter que les dirigeants japonais se conforment pratiquement trait pour trait à cette politique qui consiste à avoir une attitude amicale avec la Chine et développer des rapports économiques solides, tout en ré-assurant des liens forts avec les États-Unis afin de diluer les tensions inter-états, et de n’en pousser aucun à vouloir ni même penser développer une posture belliqueuse vis-à-vis des autres puissances de la région.

Saturday and Sunday nights are now reserved for reading and research. My work-a-day routine has taken a turn for the worse with a new assignment, perhaps the worst in my military career. Much more busy than before, but with nothing to really do but go through the motions and hope for the best. By far the least challenging, least rewarding assignment I’ve ever had, with perhaps the least constructive guidance and the most uninspiring and disinterested leadership.

It could be a deal breaker for me — once the organization you trust and love turns its back on you, with the cold shrug of institutional impunity, it’s time to move on. (I believe the term used in the familiar patois of my organization would be to “suck it up”. I never “suck it up” for very long. I’m not that kind of Marine.) To be fair, the USMC has invested a significant amount of time and treasure in me…all the more reason for me to wonder why it seems so passive about this investment. I took it seriously. I believe I’ve demonstrated this amply. To no avail. On a personal level, a colonel has made a deliberate decision to sacrifice my career in order to satisfy a temporary but non-urgent requirement. (We have a phrase for that: “Needs of the Marine Corps”.) So be it.

I try to remind myself that this is what happens in any large organization, when the bureaucracy tends to sacrifice purpose and creativity to process and procedure at precisel the wrong time for a useful asset. Despite the logic and actions of the individual who has condemned me to this posting, perhaps I’m after all just a number, a statistic, a check in the box, a code on some staffer’s spreadsheet back in Quantico or DC. Perhaps my perception of my own value to the organization is overestimated. Nobody is irreplaceable, after all. There are more than 200 thousand people in this organization now and its strategic focus has been stretched in unprecedented ways. Not surprising that a few of us who were once promised bright futures should languish in the inertia of what is still a government agency trying to find its way in “uncertain times” — whatever those may seem to be to the decision-makers.

Anyway, the point is that I’ve had to sacrifice a bit of personal time to maintain my commitment to what has become a passion. It is a bitter pill for wifeykins, but she is on board as long as I am careful and don’t overstretch. I’ve been in tighter spots before. I know I’ll succeed. I will balance family, friends, profession, person and passion once again. With a little moto riding and maybe some lolcats surfing in between.

Enough of the throat clearing. The markets seem nervous. We seem to be in the eye of the storm right about now. Winds have abated. The sails are slack. The tell-tails are fluttering in no particular direction. The skies seem clear, but there is an uneasy pressure and smell in the air. The light is a bit strange. “Not quite right,” as wifey would say. Ambient noise seems oddly attenuated, muffled. What will happen to the USD? What will happen to equities in the US, Europe and Asia? What will happen with crude, gold and ags? Where are the funds? Where is the real money? What is following what? Who is following who? We know the other side of the storm is coming. What will be the best course of action?

As for the who part, I think hedge funds are following the real money. In the US markets, the funds are late to the risk party and will probably get hammered (again) unless the rally extends through the end of the year. Bravo to those funds who were winners. This has been a tough year for them and we aren’t even on the final lap yet. Most of the flows are still moving out of USD and US equities to MOE — markets other than Europe. This is one of the reasons I added to the short EURUSD trade — because the flows certainly aren’t going into Europe as far as I know. There is little yield to be had there and risk aversion trading will gain substantial momentum starting in October, if not this coming week, and continue into 2010. Probably helpful for my EURUSD short, but not very much for the USDJPY long, as another unwinding of too hastily taken young carry trades will benefit both USD and JPY. Probably the former less than the latter. But when will this unwinding occur? And then at what level will it be good to get back in? (Note to self: Watch NZD and AUD, as well as treasuries.)

I would like to build a large-ish short ES position in the 1180-1100 area, but I think I’ll stay tactical for now because markets usually tend to move further than any rational explanation would allow. (One of the principles behind the Knotty positioning strategy, but I’m not well capitalized enought to execute this strategy in the futures markets and would get a margin call holding ES over a several thousand tick range!) My expectation is that the S&P could move as high as 1150, but that it will eventually retrace to 750 at least. I may also take tactical shorts 6E over the same time horizon. But what about the yen? This is what I’m trying to make sense of at the moment.

FM Fujii has made some careless but revealing remarks, and I like them. Letting economic conditions determine the value of the yen more than narrow interests and cronyism would allow me to get a better feel for general direction. Time will tell if Hatoyama’s regime can make it a reality. I don’t think Fujii’s remarks mean the yen will appreciate to wild and wacky levels, but I doubt the yen will weaken much in the near term. We certainly won’t see 100 anytime soon. (I’m still hoping for 97.40, however.) And then there is the meeting between President Obama and President Hu ahead of the G20 meeting. Both are very formidable minds from very different intellectual spaces. Wish I could be a fly on that wall. In any event, I’ll be paying attention to the buzz around that meeting.

Leading indicators coming out that will put that meeting into context as well. I’m interested in what the Fed will say about an exit strategy — or what it won’t say. I can’t imagine the Fed will extend QE much more. I just can’t imagine it. Seems something would snap. The G20 itself will probably be a sleeper. The sideshows during and after will be interesting, however. Probably lots of the typical BS from China, Russia and Japan and lord only knows from who else. And of course, our own brand of it here in the US — hard to tell which branch of government is more full of it, these days. Most of the stink will probably be about trade. China’s predatory practices vs. our protectionism, is how the MSM will probably frame it. In reality, it is China’s predatory practices and its protectionism, vs. our protectionism. This is why the US and others will have no choice but to do what they do. China itself has no choice. It cannot develop internal markets fast enough so it must engage in predatory trade. Financed by our debt. It is a matter of survival for China’s regime, which has no intention of letting go of power. I digress. Any progress between Obama and Hu in the meetings ahead of and after the G20 session will be good for risk appetite. I’ll be watching for that from a tactical standpoint.

Check out the remarks made by Almunia with respect to Chinese diversification into the euro. To sum up: “No bueno.” Developing…

Oh sure they saw it coming...

Without taking sides in the food VS fuel argument, I’m thrilled about this latest discovery made by Wayne Fish and his team at the USDA South Central Research lab in Oklahoma. Apparently, watermelons are a great source of sugar. (no, that’s not the discovery, wait for it…) The sugar is ‘easily fermentable’ and can be converted to ethanol!

Now you may not want to drink it, but with some tweaks to the engine, you can run your car on it, or farmers can run their tractors on it, heat a home, make electricity, and so on. Great stuff. So where are we going to get all the watermelon to make fuel from? I mean people are hungry, for Pete’s sake.

You know how when you go grocery shopping you grab the pick of the lot? No blemish or imperfection will ever make it to your fruit bowl. What happens to all the ’second rate’ fruit? Well, some of it stays in the field – a sort of graveyard for the tainted. The soil is revitalized with the decaying matter of corrupt currants, blighted bananas, and so on. The sneaky bad apples that actually make it to the store end up being thrown away (or if the store owner is responsible, go to a compost heap and end up in the soil again.)

Wayne and his team collected the juice from watermelons that didn’t cut the grade because they were misshapen or evil looking (which, incidentally, is 1/5th of any crop) and turned it into power juice for machines – in a similar way that you can get fuel from corn or sugarcane, or even algae.

I did a little research (read: googled it) and found out that the world’s largest producer of watermelons is China. In 2007, China banned the expansion of the biofuel production industry because of the problems associated with planting corn for fuel. If Jintao were to reconsider his plans and cash in on this watermelon idea, there’s no telling what heights they could reach. I’m picturing world domination. Or at least they’ll take Tibet.

Okay, so this post is a bit of an inflation. I like stretching the truth every now and then. Facts are facts though – if you want to get in touch with my little birdie, here are some sources:

Telegraph
Wikipedia
National Geographic
Bad Apple