If China artificially keeps its currency worth less than the America dollar, in order to take advantage of the unbalanced cost of production and value to international importers, and the American government has levers which affect the worth of the American dollar, than it is plausible that the American government has began a game of Financial Chinese Chicken.

If America cannot convince China to delink their economy’s value to ours, then perhaps we are exploiting China’s own unfair practices against them, in a Master’s stroke of economic Judo.

We may have simplified the argument to “Either you make fair your currency’s value, or we destroy it in a race to the bottom.”

This only works of course, if America can restore value to its currency faster than China can.

Maybe we aren’t planning to pay the Chinese back, maybe we have something else in mind.

• Play CBS Video Video Iran Nuclear Deal DraftedAfter years of growing tensions, Iran may soon reach a nuclear programs deal with Western nations. CBS News’ Elizabeth Palmer reports from Vienna, the site of the ongoing negotiations.

• A GeoEye-1 satellite image taken of the suspect nuclear enrichment facility under construction.  (GeoEye/IHS Janes Analysis via AP)

(CBS) 

Richard Grenell served as the spokesman for the last four U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations: Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, John Danforth and John Negroponte.

Unfortunately it wasn’t about the Iran nuclear issue they were talking about – it was about his opposition to the UN’s ineffective Human Rights Council.

Nevertheless, someone needs to say it now. John Bolton was right.

When the Obama Administration proclaimed victory on October 1st by announcing that a break-through had been reached in Geneva and that Iran had committed to shipping 2,600 pounds of fuel to Russia, expert Iran watchers were appropriately cynical. Bolton cautioned, yet again, that the Iranians had used some of the same diplomatic nuances they had been using for years to successfully buy more time to continue enriching uranium and fake cooperation with the international community.

Usually, the Europeans were the first to take the bait but this time the Obama Administration got hooked first. Bolton, however, was the first to stand up and call the Iranian pronouncement a sham – and he did it within hours of the announcement.

But as Obama officials were rushing to pat themselves on the back and the New York Times was proclaiming atop the paper “Iran Agrees to Send Enriched Uranium to Russia,” Iranian officials were telling reporters that they had not committed to anything. The Iranians called it “an agreement in principle” – code words for “we’d like to but…”

The Times’ reporter in Geneva, however, was taking what the Obama officials were saying and running wildly with the incredible news. Surprisingly, or maybe not, the Times had either not checked with Iranian officials or ignored their warnings in favor of the Obama Administration’s good news. Roughly a month later, the Iranian official statements confirmed the fact that the Obama Administration had been duped. The Times subsequently inched its way back to reality through multiple follow-up stories that increasingly showed skepticism in the Victory claims culminating with October 30th’s headline “Tehran Rejects Nuclear Accord.”

Today, while the Iranians reprocess more fuel, the Obama team continues to compromise and offer even more incentives to them. No wonder Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is waiting – the deal keeps getting sweeter. President Obama has offered the Iranians more time, more sites to place their illegal fuel, more personal correspondence with the Ayatollah, more excuses as to what happened to the original deal they announced and no Chinese and Russian arm-twisting. The Obama team also keeps claiming that if Iran ships 2600 pounds of fuel out to Russia for re-processing then Iran will be unable to pose a nuclear threat for at least a year.

This often told claim is a dangerous calculation based on an assumption that Iran doesn’t have more hidden fuel (we just found out about another reprocessing plant in September) and can’t quickly convert what would remain if the plan had been accepted. Additionally, the low enriched uranium in question was produced in violation of UN Security Council resolutions so any deal to help Iran convert illegal fuel undermines Security Council credibility. The naivety of President Obama could be chalked up to hope and inexperience in foreign policy matters if it wasn’t routinely and consistently happening.

Bolton should know. No American Ambassador has produced more Security Council Resolutions on the issue of Iran than John Bolton. Bolton was able to produce three UN Security Council resolutions on Iran, two with the increasing pressure of sanctions. The deadlines in the resolutions that Bolton insisted upon were kept mainly because he held his counterparts to their word.

When Iran tried to manipulate the process by asking for more time, more talks or giving empty and last minute commitments, Bolton enforced the deadlines. Bolton was incredibly patient and willing to have round the clock negotiations but in the end forced a vote of the Security Council to the dismay of the Europeans and the consternation of Russian and China. It’s true that John Bolton would not win the most popular Ambassador award at the UN but being popular shouldn’t be the priority.

I hope that the Obama team can now see that being popular at the UN doesn’t get us support from the Europeans on sanctions resolutions or an affirmative vote from Russia and China. If it did, President Obama would have passed another Security Council Resolution on Iran, North Korea and Sudan by now. Obama is so popular in foreign countries that one begins to wonder who is happier. But being popular only means you aren’t asking Countries to do anything different.

This month, the world is seeing the pressure turned down on Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. France’s Foreign Minister has signaled their refusal to block shipments of refined fuel to Iran, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov called sanctions “counterproductive when there are talks underway” and China needs Iran’s oil so badly that it not only is refusing to consider further sanctions but is cutting new energy deals with Iran.

Where is the Obama Administration’s pressure on Iran to stop enriching uranium? Sadly, the Americans are getting hoodwinked by Iran and Europe is happy that they don’t have to vote for more sanctions or enforce the ones that are in place now. While the President gives up our missile shield to Russia, relaxes financial restrictions on Cuba, allows North Korea to violate their signed agreements and breaks campaign promises on a Sudan no-fly zone, the world applauds the most popular American President in history.

And here at home, Fareed Zakaria continues to call for more American compromises and more talk while characterizing Conservatives as unwilling to talk. It isn’t that Conservatives think speaking to Russia about Iran is bad, a claim Fareed Zakaria erroneously tries to tag Conservatives with, it’s that giving something without getting something in return is foolish and naïve. Zakaria and the other elites blinded by Obama’s global reset button want America to compromise and negotiate but fail to expect the same from the other side. Zakaria is that typical internationalist that views diplomatic success as merely sitting down to talk. Talking is the goal for them.

And if America needs to compromise in order to ensure that there are more talks, well, then so be it. Talking is success, right?

Completed as part of a final project for Campaigns and Political Activism (GOVT-596), American University, Fall 2009

The Governor’s Race as a National Referendum

Following his double-digit victory in Virginia’s 2009 gubernatorial election, Republican Bob McDonnell, the state’s former attorney general, made note of an essential voting bloc in his winning coalition: “A lot of independent voters, and Republicans as well, clearly told me they were very concerned about the direction of the country.”[1] In a simple statement, McDonnell acknowledged the stimulus his campaign received from the national debate on policies such as energy and health care. In fact, McDonnell’s use of the frame “very concerned about the direction of the country” was a conscious mechanism to criticize the Democratic Party and the Obama White House without implicating them by name. One of keys to McDonnell’s convincing victory was his campaign’s ability to nationalize the Virginia race and tie Democrat Creigh Deeds to his party’s actions on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Hanging over McDonnell’s victory is the fact that it has been more than 30 years since Virginian voters elected a governor from the same party as the president elected the year before. For example, Republicans George Allen and Jim Gilmore ascended to the governorship after President Clinton’s victories in 1992 and 1996. Later, Democrats Mark Warner and Tim Kaine won in the years following President George W. Bush’s triumphs in 2000 and 2004. University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato asserts that the minority party, left without government authority, is more motivated and aggressive in the year after electoral defeats. Moreover, Americans are unlikely to award one party by concentrating power in their camp over successive election cycles. George Mason University political analyst Stephen Farnsworth adds, “The party that loses the presidential election immediately wants to prove it is relevant and it is back—the party that controls the White House has to play defense in a Virginia governor’s race.”[2]

While the unpopularity of President Bush was an invaluable asset for the campaigns of Tim Kaine and Senator Jim Webb, it was difficult to imagine a successful campaign partially grounded in opposition to Democratic policies in the wake of President Obama’s exhilarating victory in 2008. Obama had captured Virginia by more than six percentage points, riding increased turnout among African-American and youth voters to the first Democratic presidential win in the state since 1964. The profile of the relatively conservative Creigh Deeds, however, did not energize these important Democratic constituencies in the way Obama’s campaign had done so effectively.[3] Recognizing that the electorate for the gubernatorial race was not going to mirror the variety that constituted the 2008 election, the McDonnell campaign rigorously appealed to suburban and independent voters in hopes of capitalizing on the angst over controversial reform measures in Washington. It did not hurt that events concerning national policy were taking place across the Potomac River from Virginia. Newspapers and television broadcasts covering Capitol Hill and the White House saturated Virginia markets.

Glen Bolger, McDonnell’s chief pollster, admitted that President Obama and Democratic control of Washington played a role in the campaign’s victory. “…Voters still like Obama personally, but they have significant doubts about his policies, particularly on fiscal issues and the size of government. Bob found a very receptive response from swing voters when he would talk about policies that hurt jobs, spending, and taxes.” A Washington Post political survey conducted one week before the election found that Obama maintained a 54 percent approval rating in state. Yet, 53 percent opposed the health care reform plans developed by the administration and Congress.[4] Election results revealed that McDonnell was the favored candidate of two-thirds of independent voters, propelling the Republican to victory in the Northern Virginia counties of Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William—all won by Obama in 2008.[5] With Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House, and their approval ratings dropping consistently, the national mood shifted against federal spending, stimulus plans, and bank bailouts. That toxic dynamic went a long way in undermining the Deeds campaign.

In pursuit of a strategy that tied Deeds to Democrats in Washington, McDonnell remained on the offensive throughout many of the televised debates. He repeatedly pressed Deeds to take a position on “federal measures that would limit greenhouse gas emissions and make it easier for unions to organize, both of which McDonnell said would hurt state businesses.” McDonnell’s attacks wisely connected unpopular national policies with their possible effects on Virginia’s economy.[6] He wanted to impress upon voters that electing Deeds would essentially certify the heavy-handedness of Obama’s economic and spending plans. McDonnell understood that Deeds’ natural constituency in southwestern Virginia would not be content if the Democrat embraced the more liberal positions of Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid. The health care reform debate was of particular importance to the governor’s race, with McDonnell and his Republican associates invoking the danger of “socialized medicine” as a form of encroaching government authority.

Bob McDonnell liked to remind his audiences that a governor must resist federal actions that may harm a state. He promised Virginia voters that he would stand up against measures such as a cap-and-trade initiative and a union-backed “card check” program. McDonnell argued that these legislative measures would limit economic growth and cut off transparency in labor practices. Conversely, Deeds was in a precarious position from the start of the race, having to balance the enthusiasm for Obama’s agenda among his liberal supporters with the pragmatic outlook of Democratic-leaning business leaders opposed to increased regulations. Thus, receiving the endorsement of prominent Democratic businesswoman Sheila Johnson was evidence that McDonnell’s impressive record in the private sector swayed some who were wary of Deeds’ connections to national Democratic leaders. Johnson is a giant of the entertainment and hospitality industry, and is well-known in Washington circles.[7]

The “nationalization” of the Virginia governor’s race benefited the McDonnell campaign because it handcuffed Deeds’ ability to paint himself as an independent Democrat focused on strictly state issues. True or not, the perception of Deeds as a puppet for congressional policies fit well with the souring environment for Democrats nationwide.

[2] Chelyen Davis, “Bringing national issues to Virginia,” Fredericksburg.com, 4 October, 2009, http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/102009/10042009/498048/index_html?page=1.

[3] Aaron Blake, “Dems ponder drop in black voter turnout,” The Hill, 14 October, 2009, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/62967-democrats-ponder-a-big-drop-in-turnout-among-black-voters.

[4] “Washington Post Virginia Governor’s Race Poll,” Washingtonpost.com, 26 October, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_102709.html.

[5] Fred Backus, “McDonnell Won Due to Turnout, Independents,” CBS News: Political Hotsheet, 3 November, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5516020.shtml.

[6] Rosalind S. Helderman, “National Agenda Pushed In Debate,” Washingtonpost.com, 26 July, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/25/AR2009072501991_2.html?sid=ST2009072502461.

[7] Andy Barr, “BET co-founder endorses Bob McDonnell for Virginia governor,” Politico.com, 20 July, 2009, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25180.html.

Gilbert Teodoro at this point in time doesn’t care with politics right now. He was not afraid of getting zero votes on Maguindanao even if the Ampatuan clan were linked in the massacre in the said place and was expelled. It is bad that they will remain quiet in the incident. Isn’t he is right for his decision? I think Teodoro was that good enough for his decision

Well, more correctly out of money.

From the link:

The stimulus cash that helped boost small business lending this year just ran out.

The Small Business Administration said Monday that it has run through all of the $375 million Congress allocated to temporarily waive fees and boost guarantees on loans backed by the SBA’s lending programs. Businesses still hoping for a slice of the pie can get in line, cross their fingers and wait.

Texas 12-0
Texas 49
Texas A&M 39

Texas 11-0
Kansas 20
Texas 51

Ca sursă de informare, am folosit Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training (document în lucru al Comisiei Europene). Nu am parcurs integral textul de 167 de pagini, însă din cât l-am „răsfoi” aseară am evidențiat câteva aspecte.

În primul rând, din punct de vedere demografic Uniunea Europeană are o populație în creștere, dar îmbătrânită:

În ceea ce privește numărul absolvenților de liceu, ne situăm sub media europeană:

Contrar percepției generale, România nu are un număr mare de studenți, ca procent din populația totală. Bineînțeles, gradul lor de (ne)pregătire este cu totul altceva:

Raportul integral poate fi accesat aici.

DNAIndia redistributes the PTI bit that Germs Really are Good for Us. Am not shitting you when it says that a study has revealed that staying too clean can harm the body’s ability to heal itself. While this study is published in Nature magazine and must have been publicly funded paying for several academic gits for quite a few years, the hypothesis they developed is just old wine in a new bottle. One has to just look at much of the 3rd world to see that exposure to germs, bacteria, viruses and just about any snotty nosed cellular organisms are good in the long run to improve disease resistance and overall individual health. Consider poster woman for poverty and corruption, India for example. As people get poorer, their health seems to be more robust. I have never seen a poor guy who is bald to mention something that I suffer from. They just happen to die young and quick (with liver problems in the case of men and malnutrition and neglect in the case of women but let us not get into that). I have not heard any of the maids and drivers ever having a heart attack or inflicted with diabetes or down with cancer or taking sick leaves. I was wondering why that could be the case when this AFP news item by Phil Hazlewood titled, “In Modern India, 600-Million Lack Toilets” came into my purview (hat tip: Asian Correspondent), which essentially says that a majority of Indians (numbers twice the population of USA) lack toilets thereby public defecation and open urination is a way of life both out of necessity and unbridled freedoms and that this pathetic excuse of a nation is filthy and dirty beyond reason. Of course, if you cannot connect the dots, I pity thee but ever the opportunists, the politicians who are responsible for the crap (literally speaking) have not only put 2 and 2 together but are also now taking credit for the glowing health of the ‘aam aadmi’ as per this…

As the little birdie, in this case, Jairam Ramesh says, “India cities are the dirtiest cities of the world. If there is a Nobel prize for dirt and filth, India will win it, no doubt.” Here are some statistics and eye watering quotes consolidated from the items…

In slum areas, where more than half of Mumbai lives, an average 81 people share a single toilet. In some places it rises to an eye-watering 273 according to local municipal authority figures. Unsurprisingly, it is still common to see people squatting by roads and railway tracks or along the coast, openly defecating in where some of the world’s richest people live. The UN estimates 55% Indians or 600-million shameless undignified brownies still defecate outside, more than 60 years after the scrupulously clean independence leader Mahatma Gandhi first talked of the responsible disposal of human waste. India has to improve sanitation, to control the spread of diseases like diarrhoea, which UNICEF says kills 1,000 Indian children aged under five every day. Extrapolating it to the the entire 3rd world, the numbers are staggering and beyond belief. Lots of humans still live like animals.

Public toilet provision faces the same problem affecting housing, water and other basic services: supply cannot keep up with demand as India’s population explodes. A UN Human Development Report 2009, published earlier this month, points out that even where public toilets exist, most have no running water, drainage or electricity, making them unhygienic and unusable. Embarrassment means women and girls often wait all day until it is dark to go to the toilet, increasing their chances of infections and exposing them to violence or even snake bites as they seek out remote places. Poor sanitation and the illnesses it causes cost the Indian economy 12-billion rupees (255-million USD) a year, according to health ministry and according to the tourism industry, irrevocably tarnishes the image although some argues that does add charm and allure to India spun as open-air toilets.

Every year over a third of a million Indian kids below five die, all because of a lack of adequate disposal of human waste which is one of the most toxic in developing countries. Sanitation is a public good. The availability of public goods – just like private goods – depends on the supply as well as the demand. It can be argued that the demand for sanitation is low. People are content to just go along with the lack of sanitation. And then there is the problem of supply. Public funds are allocated based on what those who control the public purse consider to be high priority. Providing public toilets is not a priority. If the population valued a clean environment, they would have had it – both through private actions and through their voting for those who spend public money on public sanitation. The public does not demand it and the politicians don’t care to provide it. Perhaps they deserve to be living like this if at all a case has to be made for their existence, nay, mere survival.

Speaking of septic tanks and poops, some nut over at Acorn argues that “Fixing Drains will Help Counter Terrorism”. Finally, I dont know what makes Isaac Asimov an authority on human dignity, democracy and population growth when he was obsessed with replacing humans with robots but all the same, in conversation wth Bill Moyers (captured in “World of Ideas”, 1989), he says that over-crowding is not conducive to human dignity using a bathroom metaphor. The same way democracy cannot survive over-population, human dignity cannot survive it and convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. The more people, less the individuals.

germs good, nature magazine, academic study, disease resistance, poor people, robust health, 600 million, toilet poverty, politicians rally, jairam ramesh, dirtiest cities, dirt filth nobel, india great, defecate outside, railway tracks, unbridled freedoms, 1000 children daily, population explosion, resource strain, diarrhoea victims, mahatma gandhi, waste disposal, public goods, supply demand, government apathy, vote criminals, corrupt leaders, 12-billion rupees, public sanitation, fix drains, counter terrorism, isaac asimov, bill moyers, democracy breaks, human indignity, over crowding, world of ideas, DNA India, press trust of india, AFP google, acorn INI, bathroom metaphor, asian correspondent, atanu dey

Article: U.S. allies must send more troops to Afghanistan: NATO

It’s been eight years since Mr. Bush launched the wars in the Middle East. Since then, a gargantuan amount of capital has been injected into these wars- Iraq and Afghanistan. However, results have been abortive, not only did the Americans failed to exterminate the terrorists but also failed to prevent the growth of terrorism across the globe. Terrorist attacks are still frequent, and as I write this commentary, we’re remembering the Mumbai attacks.

As Mr. Obama is about to reveal his new Afghanistan war strategy, people wonder if we should have started the war in the first place.

A successful warfare requires at least three conditions- equipments, rightful cause of starting the war and most importantly, the adherence of the people.

U.S. indubitably has the best military power in the world. However, recall how much has been spent? Why a superpower fails to declare victory over an ill-equipped group of people? Not only U.S. but also the Soviet Union and the UK in the last century. Who bestowed the Taleban’s power of surviving the Western powers’ blasts time and again? I suppose it’s faith.The militants have a goal, even if they misinterpreted the Kohan. Militants can be killed but an idea cannot be killed, what we need is to address that idea by educating people, which leads to the second condition, the rightful cause of starting the war, did we have one?

Of course U.S has one. The 9/11 explains the rationale behind this war- too many have been killed by the terrorists, who are getting out of control. If so, why did the UN refuse to send in its troops? And did people support the war after all?

So, the Americans are divided on the war…

As I just come to know that Mr. Obama has finally decided to “commit close to 30,000 additional American troops, on top of the 68,000 already there”, I was reminded of KMT’s failure in defeating the communists in the 1940s and the U.S.’ fiasco in Vietname of the 1970s– when the adversary starts a guerilla warfare, it means that they are ready to go on a long-term warfare with you.

However, as the Obama administration announced the deadline for withdrawal- 2017, I think the U.S. has already lost the war in terms of morale and determination. Not only does the administration have to gather support from its citizens, but also from its allies. [Article: US scrambles to gain support of allies in Afghanistan]  But is this declining superpower capable of doing it?

Over at New York Magazine, they have unveiled a feature that I have to say is just incredibly cool.  The piece is their Political Fictions Project where they invited seven different writers to pen short stories based on seven prominent political figures.  From President Obama to Mitt Romney, nobody is safe from the imaginations of their group of merry scribes.

There’s something that I always have enjoyed about novels and films centered around the private and clandestine lives of powerful politicians.  The sexiness of the power and intrigue, and the humanity of the men and woman when all of the status is stripped away, is just very alluring to the eye.  This being the case, I often can’t help but get a perverse pleasure when that fictional lens is turned onto the lives of actual, living, politicians.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t love the stuff unconditionally, when it’s bad, it often plays like crappy fan-fiction.  However, when it is good, it’s some of the most fun guilty-pleasure reading that you can find (I think this might be why I love James Ellroy’s “underworld trilogy” as much as I do) — and the NYM stuff is pretty damn good.

The flagship piece, of course, is centered around Barack Obama.  The story, written by Adam Haslett, is accompanied by a cool little “fictional photograph” of the President, sitting on a bench outside the white house, exhaling smoke from the cigarette dangling between his fingers.  The noir’ish photo is a small touch, but it really helps to set the tone of the story.  The story takes place as the President has a surprise encounter while grappling with a difficult decision.  Yet what impressed me about it was Haslett’s ability to mine material from the little details, without losing his sense of mystery or mysticism.  Here is one of my favorite bits, focused on the cigarette that is in the picture:

“A cigarette suspended all that. And for a moment, even here amid the splendor and consequence, it joined him back to the counterlives: the kid who didn’t care about his grades; the freshman listening to the young leftists quote Nietzsche and Foucault; the short-story writer alone in his room after a day miming faith in progress (kneel and you shall pray), believing for a few evening hours that a well-wrought sentence might set people free. Before the organizing principle of Michelle. Before the sorting power of a more concrete ambition. Taking him briefly back to the comforts of the slacker and the cynic. That dark, scattered home promising its own kind of safety.”

The link also features a contest that the magazine is holding, enter your own political fiction and you can win some cool prizes.  Worth a shot.  Even if you don’t win, though, spending some time with some of the most powerful men and women on the planet is reward enough all on its own.

Totally say India is IN!  Michelle Obama wearing India-born US-based designer Naeem Khan to the first state dinner.  Gorgeous!

Image by Nicolas Kamm / Getty Images via Mrs-O.org

I was watching CPAC today and wow I had flashbacks to Yes Minister.

“Can you guarantee prior to the to the 2007 update that no Canadian transfer prisoner was tortured?” Asks Dewar.

Cue evasion, answering a different question, chairperson interruptions etc. Wow Colvin was right, the testimony of the generals and Mulrooney just add weight to how correct our man in Washington was. He reported torture and folk tried to run/hide until they eventually reformed the process in May 2007.

Mulrooney meet Sir Humpy

It has been a year since 26/11/08, when a city, of almost two billion people, was held hostage for sixty hours by ten gunmen. The carnage left over 350 people dead including nine terrorists. The macabre drama was televised, live, by a host of TV channels- all promising exclusive action by their intrepid correspondents. Frankly, it was a little sick for them to have jostled for prime positions to cover it as if it were some theatrical performance. It seems, that, the terrorists were watching the show themselves and getting valuable updates on what the police were doing to flush them out.

The authorities were caught with their pants down-as always. The terrorists had managed to travel from Karachi to Mumbai, after hijacking an Indian fishing vessel, inspite of the Navy and the Coastguard. They managed to land on the shores of Mumbai, carrying arms and ammunition, without being challenged once by any of our policemen; who otherwise can be found harassing the common man everywhere. It was only at CST that a RPF policeman had the guts and the gumption to fire at them. But they walked away after mowing down innocent passengers in a hail of bullets.

It was after several hours that the police could make out that it was a well planned and executed operation  carried out by a suicide squad having some semblance of military training. By then the police had lost three senior officers who had been gunned down by two of the fidayeen. It looks as if these officers had no idea what they were up against. Imagine a vehicle full of armed policemen being cut down by two men, who had the time to throw out the bodies before driving away in the police vehicle! By the time anti terrorist squads could be deployed, hundreds had been killed by the terrorists. The situation came under control only after two and a half days. Nine terrorists were killed and one captured alive. The manner of his capture showed what normal policing could achieve. It was no fancy sharp shooter who captured him but an extraordinary policeman who had the courage to grapple with the armed terrorist. It was not institutional excellence but personal bravery which had carried the day for Mumbai police.

The sheer lack of common sense of the authorities was displayed by the way in which television crews were allowed to film the whole episode as if it were some tamasha. The streets around the epicenters of action were crowded by thousands of people who had come to have a dekho at what was happening. They were not a help in any way but a hindrance to the authorities who did nothing to keep these curious bystanders away. It looked as if a movie was being shot and not a life and death situation.

It’s been a year since then. As expected, it’s time again for the glitterati to adorn television studios. They are not amused, no sir, for the battle was carried to their haunts- South of Mumbai- this time. No one has heard one practical suggestion from them so far. They are all mouthing the well-known cliches-about how the political and bureaucratic classes are corrupt, how we must take the war deep inside Pakistan, etc. But what analysis can one expect from television debates where the issue hangs from one break to another?

It is the time to face the truth. This was not the last outrage of this kind. There will be more in the future, not only in India but abroad also, for the perpetrators are willing to die in their so-called holy war. And we must be prepared. It is not the governments alone who have to fight this war but common people also. We must be prepared to undergo the inconvenience of body frisking, intrusive camera surveillance, and police check posts-the works- while in public places. We must be prepared not to let our curiosity get the better of us and crowd places as we did during the last carnage. We are quick to appreciate the Israelis or the Americans on their handling os similar situations, but how many of us are prepared to face conscription like the Israelis or show the same kind of civic responsibilities as the Americans? Let us also be like them.

It’s also time to remember those who died in vain, for no fault of theirs. They were just unlucky-to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have been any one of us in their place, really.

The home of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of Bangladesh, sits down a tree-lined street in an affluent corner of the capital, Dhaka. Tourists and locals file into the compound daily to view its insides and his personal belongings — a dressing gown, old books, his favorite pipe. But they also come to see signs of his death. On Aug. 15, 1975, soldiers rushed into the house at dawn, shooting indiscriminately, killing Mujib — as he is known — and 19 others. Traces of the blood that splattered the staircase where he fell are preserved beneath panes of glass, as are bullet holes on the opposite wall. But while Bangladeshis have gathered here often over the years to mourn Mujib’s passing, it has taken more than 30 years for some of his assassins to finally face justice.

On Thursday, with the backing of the government led by Mujib’s daughter, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected the appeal of five former army officers convicted of killing him and participating in a coup that toppled his rule 34 years ago. They had been sentenced to death in 1996, but a change in government led to the case being stymied in court. Now, the five are to be hanged. (Seven others who were convicted in absentia in 1996 remain fugitives overseas, although one is thought to be dead.) Thousands cheered the verdict outside the court, while some lawmakers broke down in tears of triumph. “The judgment … is a new milestone for the nation,” hailed an editorial in the Daily Star, a leading Dhaka-based English-language daily.

Seeking Bangladeshi identity: Bangladesh was created in the name of Bengali nationalism. However the Hindu Bengalis who had opposed the parition of Bengal in 1906 opposed and did not join Muslim Bangladesh as Bengalis. On August 14th, 1975 Bangladeshi nationalists buried the secularism deep into the Bay of Bengal. Today Bangladesh faces new threats from India again. . After failing to take over Bangladesh on Dec 6th 1971, India is forcing a transit policy on defenseless Bangladesh that is fighting for her existence. The Transit facilites that Bharat is asking would clog existing Bangladeshi roads and pose a security threat to Bangladesh. It would also exacerbate the situation in Northeast "India" where the sevean Assamese states want freedom from Delhi. The Transit agreement poses a mortal threat to Bangladesh

To outsiders, this celebration of a justice long deferred may seem a bit too rapturous. But it cuts at the heart of the political traumas that have plagued Bangladesh since its bloody independence from Pakistan in 1971. Mujib had been President of the new country for just four years before a coup hatched by disgruntled military officers, some of whom harbored Islamist or pro-Pakistani sentiments, led to his assassination and the installation of a military government. Since then, Bangladesh has endured a succession of army-run regimes, as well as a period of dysfunctional democratic rule marred by corruption and partisan bickering. “What you’re dealing with is a very fractured, highly politicized society,” says Ali Riaz, chair of the Department of Politics and Government at Illinois State University.

The case against Mujib’s suspected killers only moved forward when his daughter Hasina rose to power in 1996 as head of the secular, center-left Awami League party he had founded. Hasina’s government lifted the legal ordinance put into place by Mujib’s usurpers that protected the coup’s conspirators. But in 2001, Hasina was ousted in an election by her bitter rival, Khaleda Zia, the widow of Ziaur Rahman, a general who ruled Bangladesh not long after Mujib’s death and who was also killed by a group of rebellious army officers. The case fell into legal limbo, and the feuding between the two women and their political parties grew so rancorous over the years that the military once again stepped in, throwing both Hasina and Zia temporarily into jail. (Read: “Keeping Dhaka’s Ghosts Alive.”)

This time, though, the generals relented and democratic elections were held in late 2008. Hasina took office again with a massive mandate, giving many Bangladeshis hope that the country could finally put its destructive, divisive politics behind it. Years of political upheaval, analysts say, have damaged the rule of law in Bangladesh and created a culture of impunity for both powerful politicians as well as for a military that has often acted as a law unto itself. The Supreme Court verdict was a sign, says the Daily Star editorial, “that the wheels of justice have finally rolled.”

Bangladesh 14th August 1975: Bengali patriots killed Shaikh Mujib who was seen as an Indian agent and a sell out to Delhi. Bangaldeshis revolted against the Indian imposed "Rakhi Bahni" (run by a sitting Indian General) and rose against the so called "Treaty of Friendhsip" whose aim was to absorb Bengal into India. Shaikh Mujib's body lay in the streets of days. It was Awami League of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman that mortgaged the national independence and state sovereignty signing the 25 years long-term unequal treaty with India. By creating Rakkhi Bahini, Lal Bahini, Sheccha Shebok Bahini and other private Bahinis AWAMI-BKSALISTS unleashed an unbearable reign of terror killing 40000 nationalists and patriotic people with out any trial. Ishaan Tharoor in an article in Time magazine published on Nov. 20, 2009 "To outsiders, this celebration of a justice [death penalty for mutiny against Mujib) long deferred may seem a bit too rapturous. But it cuts at the heart of the political traumas that have plagued Bangladesh since its bloody independence from Pakistan in 1971. Mujib had been President of the new country for just four years before a coup hatched by disgruntled military officers, some of whom harbored Islamist or pro-Pakistani sentiments, led to his assassination and the installation of a military government. Since then, Bangladesh has endured a succession of army-run regimes, as well as a period of dysfunctional democratic rule marred by corruption and partisan bickering. "What you're dealing with is a very fractured, highly politicized society," says Ali Riaz, chair of the Department of Politics and Government at Illinois State University. "

Some suggest that true stability will never exist in Bangladesh as long as an incident even older than Mujib’s assassination remains buried. Can an Execution Help Heal Bangladesh? By Ishaan Tharoor Nov. 20, 2009.http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1941224,00.html

It’s not just Black Friday, it’s also Buy Nothing Day.

In Iran, Shirin Ebadi’s Nobel Prize has been confiscated.

Thanksgiving was not a good day to work in the Emergency Room.

What the hell am I doing walking in LA?

Hotness makes for weird politics.

Looking at the comments on an article about the Emissions Trading Scheme and if Climate Change is real, its littered with statements like this

You are aware that 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus that humans are causing global warming?
If you care to do the research, you’ll find that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely NONEXISTANT amongst the experts (ie climate scientists who have had more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years on the subject of climate change).
Anyone who thinks there is not a consensus on this really should take the time to check the facts.
The challenge is how to effectively communicate this FACT to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists so we can get on with trying to fix this problem.
Your argument is like saying there is still a ‘debate’ about evolutionary theory. Do you also believe that, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the world was created in 6 days by a supernatural being 6,000 years ago?

So, lets take Lizs (the name given on the comment) statements one at a time and look at how they actually stack up.

• You are aware that 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus that humans are causing global warming?

97%?  where did that come from Liz?  And since when was science a consensus?  I’m sure 97% of scientists believed the sun orbited the earth until one person showed they were wrong.   Media and communications allow opinions to become fact before proof – hell, George W Bush got into Office on just that basis.  Trouble is – there are a LOT of climate scientists, physicists, geologists etc who all agree also that the evidence shows climate change is happening but not linked to CO2, man made or otherwise.  Check your facts Liz – its not proven, settled or anything of the kind.

• If you care to do the research, you’ll find that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely NONEXISTANT amongst the experts (ie climate scientists who have had more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years on the subject of climate change).

Ah yes, the famous peer review, which we know and thanks to the Hadley Climate Research Unit leaks last week, have proof,  is controlled and operated by the members that believe in AGW.  Its a closed loop – Warmists only review each other ’s data – open up the data to everyone and lets have a proper peer review shall we.  Then we’ll see.  I think you’ll find the so called experts have no more clue about the climate than the anyone else – even the IPCC themselves admit they don’t know how it works.  Computer models have all failed to predict any of the recent trends, there’s no mid atmosphere warming, ice sheet extents are normal, in fact cold records are being broken, temperatures are static not rising exponentially as the models told us.  Get next weeks weather for the whole planet right in a model, then we’ll talk.

• The challenge is how to effectively communicate this FACT to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists so we can get on with trying to fix this problem.

The problem is that we’re so sure we know what the problem is.   Well, its not CO2, even a casual glance at climate science data can tell you that.  What if its natural?  Governments cant control that, so thats all so easily glossed over.

• Your argument is like saying there is still a ‘debate’ about evolutionary theory. Do you also believe that, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the world was created in 6 days by a supernatural being 6,000 years ago?

Erm, lets not be so sure we understand evolution  – the fossil record is very very spartan and even avid evolutionists will tell you they only have very small bits of evidence.  Evolution is a theory like any other and still open to challenge if someone has a better idea supported by fact.   I can’t imagine someone with genuine, independently verifiable data that disproves evolution being vilified in the same way as someone who shows a graph of light absorption of CO2 at different percentages, pointing out that its a logarithmic scale and increasing CO2 does very very little to influence temperature after 20-40ppm in the atmosphere.   Even doubling or tripling the CO2 in the atmosphere from 380 ppm today only adds a tiny fraction of a additional absorbtion and a fraction of a degree of warming.  Yet someone that says that today gets chased out of town with cries of Heretic!!

You’re right, Liz, there is no debate, CO2 and man made climate change is a religious belief, not science.

So – there, as you can see, brainwashing, zealous denial, plucked statistics (for fucks sakes, quote the source of the numbers people!) and religious fervour on the glaciers are melting and its our fault camp, vs transparent and open science and a willingness to debate from the no man made global warming camp.    And they have the cheek to compare it to evolution.

‘Elisabeth Murdoch, her husband PR maestro Matthew Freud, and Ruth Rogers, owner of the dining room for everyone important, the River Cafe [and wife of the architect Lord (Richard) Rogers], pooled their impressive address books to organise an inauguration party yesterday afternoon.’

The Guardian, 21 Jan 2009, ‘[Richard] Curtis [screenwriter] leads Notting Hill celebrities in raising champagne glass or two’ (Obama inauguration)

‘And then, into this glossy mix came the latest addition to the west London scene: the oligarch. As the lights dimmed in anticipation of Obama’s speech, Evgeny Lebedev crept in, the son of Alexander Lebedev, the Russian billionaire and possibly the future proprietor of the London Evening Standard. At the first sight of a journalist’s notebook, Evgeny fled to the bar, accompanied by Freud.’ (from the same article)

More on Ruth Rogers and the River Café:

‘Rogers is appallingly well connected, in part because the River Café quickly established itself as a salon for the left-wing cognoscenti, with leading lights of the literary, media and political worlds turning up in droves. On a typical night you could spot a Salman Rushdie here, an Alan Rusbridger there, and, over by the bar, a Peter Mandelson. Still can, for that matter. ‘I suppose my husband brought some of that. With his connections. It did help in the beginning, but if it was just about being fashionable they wouldn’t have kept coming back. It’s true, we did overlap with the rise of New Labour in the mid 1990s, but we also coincided with a change in national taste. Now sophistication is not just knowing about paintings and the arts, it means knowing about food. When you come back from New York or London the first question used to be, “What plays did you see? What exhibitions?” Now people ask, “Where did you eat?”’’

The Daily Telegraph, 18 November 2007, Ruth Rogers: a woman for all seasons

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/recipes/3340503/Ruth-Rogers-a-woman-for-all-seasons.html

Lately I’ve become really impressed by various articles about Esperanto that I’ve read by Claude Piron. Piron was a psychotherapist and taught from 1973 to 1994 in the psychology department at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. He apparently spoke Esperanto since he was a small child, and is a notable author in it.

I first encountered him as I was reading his instructional novella “Gerda malaperis” (“Gerda disappeared“). It’s a book that gradually introduces Esperanto vocabulary, moving from the basics quickly up to an intermediate/advanced level by the end of the book. It seems very well thought out as instructional material. I’m reading it online at Lernu.net, where it’s available with audio and vocabulary lists for each chapter.

After working through some of this instructional book, I somehow stumbled upon Claude Piron’s articles in English. In them, he demonstrates a powerful ability for critical thinking and analysis of arguments. I particularly enjoyed his Psychological reactions to Esperanto.

Also illuminating was his shorter article, The language of power, wherein English is analyzed. He asks if English is actually an “international language”, and argues strongly that it isn’t. Very few people in the world actually speak English, and because of its great irregularity and mishmash of romance and germanic roots, it takes thousands and thousands of hours of work in order to master it. Only about 3% of people in India can speak it, despite the elite there being quite good at it, and even people in France who rate themselves as “quite good” at English were unable to figure out 3 short English paragraphs in one test.

As a consequence, most speakers of English as a second language who don’t already come from a germanic language background, are from a higher economic class where they can afford to go to fancy schools and spend significant time living or working in an english-speaking country. Not many people have the opportunity to spend 2000 – 10000 hours learning English, and those of us fortunate enough to be born in an English-speaking country have received a free-ride in that department. In the words of one Korean that Piron quotes, he could have achieved several PhDs in the time it took him to learn fluent English. In contrast, Esperanto can be learned by most people in around 150 – 200 hours, so on a scale of months rather than years or decades.

Beyond the realm of language politics, Piron had some interesting articles about the evolution of Esperanto itself. Quite an interesting read from a linguistics perspective, and even more interesting for me as a learner of Esperanto.

In many of his articles, such as Linguistic Communication – A comparative field study, Piron stresses the hierarchy of power that develops in circumstances where some people are native speakers of a language, and have to communicate with those that aren’t. Inherent in this situation is the fact that those native speakers will always be authoritative, and the others will be in an inferior position. This could be remedied somewhat if everyone opted to speak a language other than their native language, to level the playing field, but of course in the realm of power relations this is rarely an option. In such situations, it makes plenty of sense to take as a working language one that takes an order of magnitude less time to acquire, one in which everyone is on equal footing.

It seems clear to me now that this is a role that Esperanto could and should play. Not as a “replacement” for any other languages, but as a tool of international communication that levels the current language hierarchies. Everyone can and should speak their own language or dialect in their “home” situations where everyone else around them can also do so, but in those situations that require communication with outsiders that don’t speak that language, Esperanto is the logical and efficient tool for the job. Whether it is up to the task is an empirical question rather than philosophical, and I think this has been proven by the 100+ year tradition that it has enjoyed as a language for poetry, novels, theatre, children’s play, and international communication.