Having made its indelible mark on U.S. foreign relations of late, WikiLeaks is taking on another considerable force for its next act, targeting an as-yet-unnamed major U.S. bank with a big reveal planned for early next year. It doesn’t look good for said bank, as WikiLeaks’ honcho Julian Assange invoked the name Enron in an interview about the upcoming sting.
Continue reading …Ireland Gets $113 Billion Loan at 5.6%, Germany’s Proposal To Force Bondholders To Take Losses Is Watered Down
November 30, 2010 No CommentJust so we understand what’s really important: Governments “need to show they’re getting their economies in shape” and bondholders need to be protected from taking their losses. Oh, and it’s all the fault of the greedy unemployed working class, who actually expect their governments to help them out during hard times: European governments sought to quell the market turmoil menacing the euro, handing debt-strapped Ireland an 85 billion-euro ($113 billion) aid package and diluting proposals to force bondholders to cover a share of future bailouts. European finance chiefs ended crisis talks in Brussels yesterday by endorsing a Franco-German compromise on post-2013 rescues that means investors won’t automatically take losses to share the cost with taxpayers as German Chancellor Angela Merkel initially proposed to the consternation of bond traders. The first test of the twin decisions come today with markets resuming trading after speculation intensified last week that Portugal and perhaps even Spain will require external support. In a third move, Greece was told it could have an extra four-and-a-half years to repay emergency loans totaling 110 billion euros to match the seven-year term under Ireland’s deal. “People are now going to focus on Portugal and it’s probably also going to need some help,” said Axel Merk, president and chief investment officer of Merk Investments LLC in Palo Alto, California. “We’ll maybe see some relief in markets, but governments need to show they’re getting their economies in shape. ” Right. Not banks, because as we know, governments are always going to bail them out. And by the way, how fiscally sound is it to use a national pension fund to bail out banks? THE €85 billion EU-IMF bailout package for Ireland announced last night was roundly condemned by the Opposition parties who are now all likely to vote against the Budget on December 7th. Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Féin attacked the intention to use the National Pension Reserve Fund to help provide a further €10 billion in further capital for the banks. In total, the banks could end up getting another €35 billion if their losses are bigger than expected. The remaining €50 billion is to cover the State’s borrowing needs for the next three years. Opposition parties were highly critical of the 5.8 per cent average interest rate that will be charged by the EU and the International Monetary Fund. A memorandum of understanding to give legal status to the agreement is near completion and will be published before the budget. It will give quarter-by-quarter targets which will have to be met by the Government in order for funds to be released. Under the agreement the State will contribute €17.5 billion of the package from the National Pension Reserve Fund and cash held by the National Treasury Management Agency while the total external assistance in the fund will come to €67.5 billion. It is comprised of €45 billion from the EU, bilateral loans from Britain, Sweden and Denmark, and €22.5 billion from the IMF. Britain will lend nearly €8 billion, including €4 billion in a direct bilateral loan. The British have won a major concession from EU partners, particularly the Germans, by ensuring the UK will not be automatically part of any euro-rescue packages after 2013. Taoiseach Brian Cowen welcomed the fact that there would be no change to the corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent which was vital to Ireland’s economic recovery .
Continue reading …
On Monday, after two Iranian nuclear scientists were targeted in apparently coordinated bombings, killing one scientist and wounding another, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pointed to the West and to Israel to place blame for the attacks.
Continue reading …Majority of Americans support repeal of DADT except Tea Partiers/extremists and John McCain
November 30, 2010 No CommentIf anyone has any doubts about the fact that the Tea Party doesn’t include the religious right, just check out the new PEW poll on DADT. As the Pentagon prepares to release its highly anticipated survey of military personnel about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, most Americans (58%) say they favor allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces. Fewer than half that number (27%) oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. — Large majorities of Democrats (70%) and independents (62%) favor allowing gays to serve openly. Republicans are divided (40% favor, 44% oppose). Among conservative Republicans, far more oppose than favor allowing gays to serve openly (52% to 28%). Nearly half (48%) of white evangelical Protestants oppose letting gays serve openly in the military, while just 34% support this proposal. Majorities or pluralities across other religious groups favor allowing gays to serve openly. — Only about four-in-ten (38%) Republicans and Republican leaners who agree with the Tea Party favor allowing gays to serve openly; 48% are opposed. Among those who disagree with the Tea Party or have no opinion of the movement, 52% favor letting gays serve openly and just 30% are opposed. The religious right used the health care town halls meetings to act out their aggression at progressives and that’s why they were quite until the end of the health care debate when they became very vocal in their attempts to get rid of any type of abortion coverage. John McCain made his almost weekly appearance on the Sunday Talk shows yesterday and continues to destroy his once “mavericky” persona by reversing himself on the DADT issue and now says that there really is no problem at all. David@ Video Cafe writes: In mid-November, McCain said he rejected that study because it didn’t ask service members whether the policy should be repealed. “[T]his study was directed at how to implement the repeal, not whether the repeal should take place or not,” McCain said. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates disagrees that there should be a new survey that amounts to a “referendum.” “I do not believe that military policy decisions — on this or any other subject — should be made through a referendum of Servicemembers,” Gates wrote to McCain in October. “I think he certainly has a point,” McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley Sunday. The Arizona senator believes that by repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the Obama administration is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. We all have been saying for years that McCain is a complete hack and I wonder how much more evidence do Villagers need to write him off as another fullofshit politician? He’s acting like a bitter old man who got his ass kicked in the 2008 election. His wife had no problem disagreeing with her hubby . The DADT report will be released on on 12/1/10 so it appears that McCain is doubling down now. He must know that this report will make his stance against DADT invalid. Joe Sudbay writes: McCain and Lindsey Graham begin renewed effort to prevent the end of DADT This week is a big week in the effort to finally end DADT on Tuesday. The Pentagon will release its DADT study and the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings about the report on Thursday and Friday. Two members of that committee, John McCain and his BFF, Lindsey Graham, were on the talk shows this morning trashing the efforts to end DADT. McCain’s opposition to ending DADT is based on pure homophobia. Lindsey’s support of DADT is probably based on internalized homophobia.. .read on Steve Benen writes: THE STATE OF PLAY FOR DADT REPEAL
Continue reading …
How’s this for a mental image ? In an effort to make our synapses sexier to the general public, one enterprising neuroscience aficionado and Ph.D.-to-be cooked up a book of pretty pictures of the human brain as rendered from past to present. Related Entries November 24, 2010 More News, Less Turkey November 17, 2010 Jet Lag Makes You Dumb (If You’re a Hamster)
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Fox News is helping a former Republican congressman spread the myth that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Appearing on Fox News Monday, John LeBoutillier explained that his new fictional book uses “real things” like Obama’s grandmother once claimed she was present for his Kenyan birth. LeBoutillier’s new book, The Obama Identity: A Novel (Or Is It?) , seems to be referring to a 2008 World Net Daily article where a Pennsylvania man is said to have a telephone recording of Obama’s grandmother. “Ed Klein and I, when we wrote this book, used real things in a book of fiction,” LeBoutillier told Fox News hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade. “There’s so much real stuff in this book. Like you asked me before we came on the air about Obama’s grandmother living today in Kenya. And we have her in the book. It’s fiction but in reality, she has claimed consistently that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya. She said this adamantly on the record. We took that and used it in the book in a very funny way,” he said. “I’m sure that will resonate well with everybody,” Kilmeade replied sarcastically. “I’m sure the White House will be thrilled,” LeBoutillier joked. The former New York congressman explained that his fictional Obama truly believes that he was “the one” Americans have been waiting for. “The day he is inaugurated in our book he goes right from the Capitol back to the Oval Office and goes in there and he is greeted by his staff in a way that you wouldn’t believe. They wash his feet. They have Filipino stewards come wash his feet and fan his smoking and blow the smoke out the White House window,” LeBoutillier said. “It’s symbolic of how everyone around Obama treats him. They treat him as Brian said. He’s like the second coming. He’s the one, the messiah, this man who has been parachuted into this country to save us from ourselves,” he continued. “[T]he only way to handle Obama, I think, is to make fun of him because the guy is a ridiculous creature that we’ve been handed by the left.” “Once again, the book is fiction,” Doocy pointed out. “Or is it?” LeBoutillier added. “I think it’s both,” Kilmeade concluded. It’s not the first time Fox News has given a platform to birther notions. In July 2009, Fox News anchor Bret Baier reported that a US soldier was refusing to deploy because Obama was not born in the US. “Baier never pointed out that Obama’s American birth certificate has been produced and authenticated,” News Hounds noted . In August 2008, FactCheck.org confirmed that it had examined and verified Obama’s birth certificate. In April of this year, Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs , “Do the complaints of birthers complicate the president’s dealing with the American Muslim community?” “I got to give you credit, Wendell, for getting a lot of crazy people in one question,” Gibbs replied. “I’ve said this many times, Wendell. If you’re — if after I asked that the President’s birth certificate be put on the Internet hasn’t dissuaded you from where he was being born, I’m almost positive that no argument is somehow going to dissuade you from that,” Gibbs added.
Continue reading …Tea Partiers sure seem to want to tear up the Constitution they loudly proclaim to love
November 29, 2010 No CommentClick here to view this media Our friends at the Institute for Research and Education in Human Rights — who earlier put together that devastating study on racism within the Tea Parties for the NAACP — recently caught Judson Phillips, organizer of the National Tea Party Convention and one of the movement’s leading lights, offering up some interesting advice to his Internet radio listeners : In a stunning set of declarations aimed at the Tea Party faithful, however, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips sounded more like an economic and political royalist. On the November 17 edition of his Tea Party Nation internet radio program, Phillips said: “The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.” Sure, let’s just do away with the principle of “one man one vote” altogether! After all, the Roberts Court has now enshrined corporate personhood — this would be the next logical step. But that, as it turns out, was just the start of a conversation Phillips had with a guy named David DeGerolamo, who is the founder of Tea Party outfit called North Carolina Freedom. Conspiracy theories aside, Phillips and DeGerolamo had their own special way of holding the Constitution dear to their patriotic hearts, by discussing which parts of it they would like to rip out. Judson Phillips: “Of course, when people talk, three Amendments that really are the only ones that seriously get talked about getting repealed: the 16th Amendment, for the income tax, and we can only hope that happens; the 17th Amendment for having the appointment of Senators got back to state legislatures; and the 26th Amendment, I believe it is. Do you know which one that is, David?” David DeGerolamo: “No, but I know which one I want repealed.” Judson Phillips: “Which one is that?” David DeGerolamo: “I want the 14th Amendment repealed.” Judson Phillips: “At least modified, but yeah…” What’s especially noteworthy about all this is that al lthis talk is straight out of the Patriot movement of the 1990s, which often and openly discussed its belief in the “the organic Constitution,” to wit, the core text and the Bill of Rights, and that by and large Patriot did not believe any of the ensuing amendments had been properly passed or were legally binding. In particular, militiamen and Patriots have traditionally despised the 14th and 16th amendments, and would be delighted to see a raft of other overturned as well. Of course, this crossover between the Patriots and the Tea Parties was also the subject of my report for AlterNet last week. Indeed, the more we see this kind of rhetoric coming from the movement’s national leaders, the more it becomes clear the Tea Parties are becoming a kind of surreptitious way for the Patriot movement to mainstream itself on a massive scale.
Continue reading …SHORTER David Broder : “If President Obama wants New START badly enough, he’ll give Sen. Kyl everything he wants.” Yeah… except Kyl was already offered a robustly funded nuclear weapons budget and promises that the treaty wouldn’t hurt the US national missile defense program, everything he asked for. Kyl just doesn’t like arms control treaties, which I can understand better than the false acts of these so-called moderate Republicans pretending that they don’t know which side to take . Consider Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). She thinks that it would help to get either Bush 41 or Bush 43 to publicly support the treaty, while ignoring
Continue reading …
In his latest bid to chip away at our nation’s trillion-dollar deficit, President Obama announced a new proposal Monday to freeze civilian federal employees’ salaries for the next two years, pointing to the need for all Americans to “sacrifice” … Related Entries November 29, 2010 The Pentagon Gets What It Wants November 29, 2010 White House Proposes Federal Pay Freeze
Continue reading …Backchannel Diplomacy: Conversation Between Sen. Kerry and Qatar’s Amir
November 29, 2010 No CommentSensational headlines aside, there are some revealing moments among the few newly-released Department of State cables published by Wikileaks. Although the transcript for this particular cable is long , it’s worth reading the entire strand in context rather than by excerpt. A somewhat long cable narrative, relating the gist of a meeting between Senator John Kerry and the Amir of Qatar reveals how the urgent the Obama administration views Iran’s misbehavior in the region, and how frustrated they are at Iran’s continued rebuffs. Qatar’s Amir is clearly biased toward Iran, claiming that Ahmadinejad’s success is due to the fact that he is “uncorrupted” as he chides Kerry and the US for siding with the protesters during the Iran elections. At one point, the Amir points out that the US must remember that Iranians are Persians first, and must be approached on that basis. What does that mean, exactly? There is another cable from 1979 , written by Victor Tomseth before he was taken hostage later that year which outlines the basis upon which the US should approach any negotiations with Iran, beginning with the understanding that the single dominant aspect of the Persian psyche is an “overriding egoism”. I’m not sure if this was what the Amir was referring to, and Senator Kerry seems to look at his warning as an admonition to recognize the Persian tradition in arts, education and music. It might be instructive for him to consider the content of Tomseth’s cable. The takeaway for me so far with regard to the Middle Eastern set of cables is how the Obama administration is taking that region as a holistic endeavor, recognizing that peace between Israel and Palestine is part of finding a peaceful resolution to the ever-restive Iranians, and they are serious about trying to broker a peace throughout that region. The full quote from the cable of this portion of the conversation follows. ¶25. (C) Senator Kerry observed that the international community is moving toward imposing additional economic sanctions on Iran. Understanding and respecting that Qatar needs to balance its relationships with regional powers, including Iran, the Chairman asked the Amir for his perspective on where we are going on Iran. ¶26. (C) The Amir answered by affirming that his first obligation is to defend the interests of Qatar. Due to the natural gas field Iran shares with Qatar, Qatar will not “provoke a fight” with Iran. He added that in the history of the two countries, “Iran has not bothered us.” That said, the Amir noted that Iran is an important country in the Middle East. He faulted the U.S. for “making the mistake of speaking up for protesters” after the disputed Iranian presidential elections. ¶27. (C) The Iranian regime is strong, continued the Amir, because President Ahmadinejad is uncorrupted. “That is the secret to his success.” Khatami is also not corrupted, but as a reformer he is in a weak position. Rafsanjani, on the other hand, is corrupt. ¶28. (C) Senator Kerry lamented that every communication the current Administration has attempted to the Government of Iran has gone back channel and been met with no response. There have been non-U.S. initiatives, too. Again, no success. The Chairman observed that the Iranians are scared to talk. The Supreme Ayatollah had met with Russian President Putin, but seems not inclined to meet with other political leaders. Our instinct is that we need to find a way to talk to him. ¶29. (C) Your instinct is right, replied the Amir. The U.S. needs to talk directly with senior Iranian officials. The Amir then asked, “What if I talk to the Iranian President. What would you have me say?” ¶30. (C) Senator Kerry responded, “The U.S. seeks serious discussion and sought to create a new foundation for a relationship based on Iran’s non-confrontational compliance with IAEA requirements and other mutual interests.” Those interests include dealing with drug-running, the Taliban, and illicit trade. T he Chairman told the Amir he feared that Iran still thinks it is dealing with the 1953 America that tried to overthrow the Iranian government. ¶31. (C) The Amir responded that you cannot blame them for having that attitude, and Senator Kerry agreed, adding that the U.S. has a very different posture in the post-Cold War world of today. Iran has ambitions; I know this from other regional leaders, said the Senator. These are the first words that come out of their mouths. ¶32. (C) Iran wants to be a “big power,” agreed the Amir, but what sort? He reminded Senator Kerry the U.S. should not forget that Iranians are Persian and the U.S. needs to approach them in that framework. ¶33. (C) Senator Kerry stressed that the U.S. “would love to have that dialogue.” The U.S. respects Iranian civilization — talent, art, culture, etc. It is crazy to continue on this collision course. The region needs schools and jobs, emphasized the Chairman, not another war. The Amir agreed that “demographics are a big worry.” Not just for the countries in the region but for the U.S. too. ¶34. (C) Many scientific and technological transformations are underway, noted the Senator, “but Iran misinterprets the road to being a great power and the degree to which the international community is concerned about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.” We are at a “fork in the road,” and Iran must choose between confrontation or building partnerships. If the latter, we can open up new opportunities for cooperation in the sciences, technology, education, robotics, energy and other ongoing transformations. ¶35. (C) Going back to the speech he had delivered in Doha the previous evening, Senator Kerry told the Amir that 17 former U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense had come out in favor of eliminating nuclear weapons. Every stop closer to realizing that goal is a sign of progress, but “no one believes Iranian nukes get us closer to that goal.” ¶36. (C) Senator Kerry reported that leaders of regional Arab countries tell me they want nuclear weapons if the Iranians have them. The Amir responded that he did not believe they were serious, but are saying this to put additional pressure on Iran. ¶37. (C) The Chairman noted that the disputed Iranian presidential elections may have derailed U.S. efforts to have serious dialogue with Tehran. The Amir agreed, offering that the Israelis are also using Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons as a diversion from settling matters with the Palestinians. The historical backdrop of Arab-Persian relations does not help, the Amir added.
Continue reading …