Risk of geological disaster, state cabinet admits, as project is linked to soil erosion, quakes, drought and social upheaval The Three Gorges dam, the flagship of China’s massive hydroengineering ambitions, faces “urgent problems”, the government has warned. In a statement approved by prime minister Wen Jiabao, the state council said the dam had pressing geological, human and ecological problems. The report also acknowledged for the first time the negative impact the dam has had on downstream river transport and water supplies. Since the start of construction in 1992 about 16m tonnes of concrete have been poured into the giant barrier across the Yangtze river, creating a reservoir that stretches almost the length of Britain and drives 26 giant turbines. The world’s biggest hydropower plant boasts a total generating capacity of 18,200MW and the ability to help tame the floods that threaten the Yangtze delta each summer. But it has proved expensive and controversial due to the rehousing of 1.4 million people and the flooding of more than 1,000 towns and villages. Pollution, silt and landslides have plagued the reservoir area. Given the 254bn yuan (£24bn) cost and political prestige at stake, the government focused for many years on the dam’s achievements and attempted to stifle domestic criticism of the project. But its public analysis has become increasingly sober. A statement on the government’s website read: “At the same time that the Three Gorges project provides huge comprehensive benefits, urgent problems must be resolved regarding the smooth relocation of residents, ecological protection and geological disaster prevention.” There were few specifics but China’s cabinet, the state council, admitted several problems had not been foreseen. “Problems emerged at various stages of project planning and construction but could not be solved immediately, and some arose because of increased demands brought on by economic and social development,” the statement said. Since the 1.5 mile barrier was completed in 2006 the reservoir has been plagued by algae and pollution that would previously have been flushed away. The weight of the extra water has also been blamed for tremors, landslides and erosion of slopes. To ease these threats the government said last year many more people may have to be relocated. This week it promised to establish disaster warning systems, reinforce riverbanks, boost funding for environmental protection and improve benefits for the displaced. This is not the first warning. Four years ago the state media quoted government experts who said: “There are many new and old hidden ecological and environmental dangers concerning the Three Gorges dam. If preventive measures are not taken the project could lead to a catastrophe.” Last year, site engineers recommended an additional movement of hundreds of thousands of nearby residents and more investment in restoring the ecosystem. The government has already raised its budget for water treatment plants but opponents of the dam say this is not enough. “The government built a dam but destroyed a river,” said Dai Qing, a longtime critic of the project. “No matter how much effort the government makes to ease the risks, it is infinitesimal. The state council is spending more money on the project rather than investigating fully. I cannot see a real willingness to solve the problem.” The timing of the statement – as the government prepares to flesh out the details of its latest five-year plan – has prompted speculation of a possible push back against hydropower interests. Peter Bosshard of International Rivers said: “While powerful factions within the government are pushing for the rapid expansion of hydropower projects, others are warning of the social and environmental cost of large dams and the geological risks of building such projects in seismically active regions. “By highlighting the unresolved problems of the Three Gorges dam now, Premier Wen Jiabao, who has stopped destructive projects in the past, may be sending a shot across the bow of a zealous hydropower lobby which would be only too happy to forget about the lessons of the past.” The frank assessment of the challenges posed and benefits offered by the dam came amid growing concerns about a drought on the middle stretches of the Yangtze. This has left 1,392 reservoirs in Hubei with only “dead water” and has affected the drinking supplies of more than 300,000 people. Chinese media reported this month that the Yangtze water levels near Wuhan hit their lowest point since the dam went into operation in 2003. Long stretches have apparently been closed to water traffic after hundreds of boats ran aground in the shallows. There have been claims that the Three Gorges plant has exacerbated the problem by holding back water for electricity generation, but operators claim they have alleviated the problem by releasing 400m cubic metres of water from the reservoir. As a result the levels have fallen below 156 metres – the amount needed for optimum power generation. China Wave, tidal and hydropower Energy Renewable energy Jonathan Watts guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Matthews Bashes Gingrich Citing Wrong Marx Brother: ‘Who You Gonna Believe – Me or Your Own Eyes?’
May 19, 2011 No Comment
During his umpteenth day in a row bashing Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, MSNBC's Chris Matthews began a lengthy segment Thursday by referencing the famous Marx Brother line “Who you gonna believe – me or your own eyes?” Problem is the high and mighty “Hardball” host, despite playing a clip from “Duck Soup” clearly identifying the distinctive voice and accent of the speaker, gave credit to the wrong brother (video follows with transcript and commentary): (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARGARET DUMONT: Your Excellency, here’s your water. What in the world’s the matter? Your Excellency. I thought you left. CHICO MARX: On no, I no leave. MARGARET DUMONT: But I saw you with my own eyes. CHICO MARX: Well, who you gonna believe – me or your own eyes? (END VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Who you gonna believe – me or your own eyes?” The great Groucho Marx line. Welcome back. That famous Marx Brothers scene encapsulates the situation Newt Gingrich finds himself in right now. He’s on the record on “Meet the Press” criticizing the Republican plan on Medicare, but he says his own words are not to be believed even if they turn up in Democratic ads. For those unfamiliar with the film, during the scene in question, Chico and Harpo were both dressed up like Groucho trying to steal war plans out of Margaret Dumont's safe. Moments later, Groucho and Harpo engaged in the famous mirror scene duplicated by Lucille Ball and Harpo on “I Love Lucy.” Anyone familiar with the film, and the Marx Brothers themselves, knows that was Chico in Dumont's bedroom saying that line because Groucho was locked in the bathroom: Everyone but the holier than thou Matthews, that is, who after getting this wrong moments later had the gall to bash Sarah Palin's intellect. Having shown a video clip of the former Alaska governor speaking to Fox News's Sean Hannity Wednesday, Matthews raved: MATTHEWS: This is so pathetic watching her on television. It’s so pathetic that Roger Ailes has put her on television, sitting up in some box, some loony bin up in Alaska, sitting there answering these questions she doesn’t know anything about. Did you hear what she just said, John? She said he should continue to attack the Republican plan. What’s she up to here? Is she just not thinking or capable of thinking? What is going on here? Before you accuse someone of being pathetic to watch on television, maybe you should make sure you know who's speaking in the video clip setting up your entire ten-minute segment – unless of course you're not thinking or capable of thinking. Glass houses, Mr. Elite Media Member.
Continue reading …
Rob Summers was told he would never walk again after he was hit by a speeding car but was determined to prove doctors wrong Baseball champion Rob Summers was hit by a speeding car in Portland, Oregon, three years ago, which smashed into his legs and left him with appalling injuries. He was told he would spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair at best. But the 25-year-old is now making history – as the first person paralysed from the chest down to stand and take a step unaided. The small and shaky movements that Summers has achieved spell real hope for all those who have suffered a spinal cord injury, and possibly even for those paralysed by other causes such as stroke. When he was in hospital, doctors told Summers he would never walk again, he said. “They said that I had no hope and to just give up. My comment was you don’t know me very well. I’m going to fight until I get well again.” To stand again and take steps, he said, “felt incredible. It was amazing. It made me optimistic and hopeful again for the future. I’m excited at being a part of this.” Summers’ legs are able to move because of electrical stimulation from a device implanted in his lower spine. Two hard years of training, suspended over a treadmill with physiotherapists manipulating his legs to stand and walk have helped build up the spinal cord neural network which processes signals to and from his legs. The real discovery has been that it is not the brain that is in charge of movement, but the legs and the spinal cord. His achievement is the culmination of many years of hard work and intense scientific endeavour funded by the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, set up to try to find a way to restore movement to the former Superman star Christopher Reeve – who was paralysed in 1995 as the result of a riding accident – and others like him. Summers, a college baseball player for Oregon state who had helped his team win the college world series just six weeks before the hit and run driver wrecked his life, was exceptionally fit when he was injured. Although unable to move any part of his legs or feet, he has some residual feeling. This may mean that the astonishing progress made in his case may not be replicable in everybody. But there is now more than hope. “This is a breakthrough. It opens up a huge opportunity to improve the daily functioning of these individuals … but we have a long road ahead,” said Professor Susan Harkema from the Kentucky spinal cord research centre at the University of Louisville, one of two leading neurologists involved in Summers’ treatment. Harkema describes the impulse from the brain to start walking as “facilitatory”. What really starts the walking process, she says, is probably the shifting of weight to one foot. “The brain is not controlling movement to the extent we thought it was. If you think about walking, it sets up the nervous system to expect information related to walking,” she said. That sensory information comes from the legs. This has been known and accepted in animals for some time, she added, but it was thought it might not be so in humans because of the highly developed brain. “The spinal cord is smart,” said Harkema’s chief collaborator, neurologist Professor V Reggie Edgerton from the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA. “The neural networks in the lumbosacral spinal cord are capable of initiating full-weight bearing and relatively coordinated stepping without any input from the brain. This is possible, in part, due to information that is sent back from the legs directly to the spinal cord.” The details of the neurologists’ work with Summers are published in the Lancet medical journal . The results need to be replicated in other patients and the neurologists also hope to work with paralysed patients with other kinds of injury. But, said Susan Howley, executive vice president for research at the Reeve Foundation, it demonstrates proof of concept. “It’s an exciting development. Where it leads from here is fundamentally a matter of time and money,” she said. Other neuroscientists applauded the work in a commentary in the Lancet. Dr Grégoire Courtine and Dr Rubia van den Brand from Zurich University and Dr Pavel Musienko from St Petersburg wrote that they expected “this novel phenomenon of electrically enabled motor control” would inspire new thinking. They added: “We are entering a new era when the time has come for spinal-cord injured people to move.” Meanwhile, Summers hopes to run and play baseball again one day. It has been, he acknowledged, “one great emotional rollercoaster with highs and lows. There were points of anger and frustration, but I would refocus on my goals.” His family, he said, had been incredibly supportive. He hopes now to make a movie. “My goal is that through making a movie of my life story, I will help the millions of people around the world, paralysed and in wheelchairs, who have lost hope, and show them there is a brighter future ahead.” United States Health Disability Medical research Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Lord Neuberger’s review expected to warn spate of restrictive privacy orders pose grave threat to tradition of open justice Superinjunctions should only be granted in exceptional circumstances because of the threat they pose to open justice, a report by one of Britain’s most senior judges is expected to warn on Friday. Pre-notification ought to be given to third parties, such as the media, of court hearings where celebrities or others are applying for restrictive orders protecting their anonymity, the study headed by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, is also expected to recommend. The proposals arrive as one of the most controversial privacy injunctions – which prevented coverage of Sir Fred Goodwin’s private life – was unexpectedly part-lifted . The decision followed a question in the House of Lords by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Stoneham of Droxford, who said: “Every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland, so how can it be right for a superinjunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?” Whether Neuberger’s report will add to the argument that the government needs to pass a privacy law is not clear. The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has ruled it out following a meeting with the justice secretary, Ken Clarke. Hunt said: “I don’t believe a privacy law is the way forward. We’re not minded to have a new privacy law but we’re not ruling out the need for legislative changes.” His remarks appeared in contrast to Clarke’s comments in the Commons on Tuesday when he implied that a privacy law might be the best way forward. The long-awaited survey of superinjunctions and privacy orders, which runs to around 100 pages, will provide the government with clearer evidence about the need for a privacy law. Established last year in the wake of the Trafigura affair and the row over the England footballer John Terry’s private life, the Neuberger committee of experts was asked to examine “the use of injunctions which bind the press and so-called ‘superinjunctions’”. There will be no proposals for changing the law, but calls for procedural changes in how courts process applications. The report is believed to suggest that a standard form of privacy injunction order should be drafted, providing a more rigorous and standardised approach to the process of granting gagging orders. There has already been a move away from superinjunctions – which prohibit even mention of the injunction’s existence – towards slightly less secretive orders that protect anonymity. The committee – which includes leading media lawyers, solicitors specialising in privacy issues and judges – is understood to welcome the fact that fewer superinjunctions have been granted in recent months. One of the committee members is the Guardian’s director of legal affairs, Gill Phillips. One of the most far-reaching proposals is likely to be the idea that pre-notification of application hearings will be given to third parties, including media organisations. That would allow news organisations to be represented in court and make submissions or objections to the judge considering the application. Those proceedings would not, for the most part, be reportable but it is hoped they could lift some of the suspicions of the judicial process that have arisen. Judges have pointed out that many applications involve complaints of blackmail and each case needs to looked at individually. The risk is that pre-notification will lead to details leaking out and being used before an injunction has been obtained. Larger hearings are also likely to mean increased costs, making resort to privacy orders open to even fewer, wealthier litigants. The scale of the issue remains unknown. The committee is known to have called for better information about the number of privacy orders being obtained. The Ministry of Justice has already said that its chief statistician is examining ways in which figures can be compiled about the number of superinjunctions and orders in force. Estimates vary from about 20 to as many as several hundred. Another issue the report may address is the question of how far parliamentary privilege protects the media in reporting speeches by MPs or peers that may be in contempt of court orders. Stoneham’s question on Thursday morning, widely reported by the media, led to the change in Goodwin’s order by mid-afternoon. Some legal authorities warn that current legislation leaves newspapers open to prosecution, while Twitter and the outer reaches of cyberspace are in effect immune to judicial disapproval. In advance of the report’s publication, the anti-censorship organisation Article 19 branded superinjunctions as “illegitimate limits to freedom of expression” and said they should be prohibited. It added: “The dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest.” Speaking in the Lords, the former chancellor Lord Irvine denied that judges have been “usurping the role of parliament” by creating novel legal precedents. “Judges are under instruction from parliament in the Human Rights Act to balance the right of respect for a person’s private family life against the right of freedom of expression in article 12,” he said. “The scales are weighted in favour of freedom of expression because the act requires judges to have particular regard to its importance.” (Section four of that article says that in granting injunctions courts ‘must’ have ‘particular regard to … freedom of expression’.) “It is often not just the rights of celebrities which are at stake but also those of innocent third parties, including children,” Irvine added. “There is typically no significant public interest in the disclosure of peccadillos of actors, footballers or reality television contestants, although that helps sell newspapers. A prurient interest does not equate to a legitimate public interest.” Superinjunctions Media law Privacy Privacy & the media Newspapers Newspapers & magazines Sir Fred Goodwin David Neuberger Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Leaked paper reveals ministers want to raise retirement age to 66 and increase contributions by 3.3 percentage points Millions of teachers, nurses, civil servants and members of the armed forces will be thousands of pounds poorer in retirement as well as having to work longer after ministers set out plans for the deepest cuts ever made to state employee pensions. The starting offer in the government’s negotiations, made privately to unions but leaked to the Guardian, reveals they are poised to adopt nearly all of the proposals in the independent report by Lord Hutton, the Labour ex-minister. It proposed 6 million state employees should pay more in, work longer and receive smaller pensions while keeping the final-salary (defined benefit) scheme, which is more generous than most in the private sector. But sources close to the talks say the government’s opening offer has further eroded the value of pensions. Some unions are now clamouring for strike action, claiming the government has left them nothing to negotiate with. Pensions is the only issue over which all unions could legally launch coordinated strike action. Civil service and education unions representing 750,000 people are already moving to a 30 June strike. Other unions have been awaiting the outcome of the formal negotiations at the end of next month before striking, but many of those have been angered by this first written offer, made last week. The stakes were raised further on Thursday when two of the biggest and most militant unions, the Public and Commercial Services Union and Unite, signed an accord pledging to fight “vicious” spending cuts. The leaked “discussion paper”, written by the chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander, reveals that the government proposes to raise the retirement age to 66 for most state employees, and replace final salary schemes with pensions based on career salary averages. Contributions will increase by 3.3 percentage points with some protection for those earning less than £15,000 or £18,000.But it goes further, changing the rate of accruals so that the proportion of the average salary accrued for each year worked is reduced. Currently new teachers accrue one 60th of their final salary for every year they work, meaning they have to work for thirty years to receive half their annual salary in pension when they retire. The models in the paper suggest that this should rise to either one 80th, 90th or 100th, of the salary accrued for each year worked. It means some public sector workers would have to work ten years longer to get half of their average salary. Treasury sources stressed that the paper was simply a discussion paper, and not the final formal offer and that the accruals rates should not be taken in isolation from the rest of the package as a sign of the scheme’s generosity. But a source close to the talks said: “This is not the basis for negotiations and much, much worse than we expected.” Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister leading the talks, said in a speech to senior civil servants on Thursday that civil service pensions would “remain among the very best available” and that all pensions already accrued would be honoured. He added: “However, it is a fact that people are living longer, which means that pensions are costing significantly more. We cannot expect other taxpayers to fund the increased costs of our pensions, particularly at a time when for many of them their pension benefits have been significantly reduced.” Public sector pensions Civil service Public services policy Public sector cuts Public finance Danny Alexander Trade unions Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Social scientist made remarks on his blog claiming he had analysed data from an online study of physical attractiveness Student groups at the London School of Economics are calling for the dismissal of a social scientist who has become embroiled in a racism row after claiming that a study showed black women to be less attractive than women of other races. Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the institution, published his comments on a blog and claimed he had analysed data from an online study of physical attractiveness. In his article for Psychology Today , Kanazawa wrote: “Black women are … far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.” The piece drew a barrage of complaints from readers and has since been removed from the site. The row has prompted the University of London Union Senate, the union’s legislative body, which represents more than 120,000 students, to vote unanimously for the dismissal of Kanazawa, and to condemn his research. Sherelle Davids, anti-racism officer-elect of the LSE students’ union, said: “Kanazawa deliberately manipulates findings that justify racist ideology. As a black woman I feel his conclusions are a direct attack on black women everywhere who are not included in social ideas of beauty.” Amena Amer, incoming LSE students’ union education officer, added: “We support free speech and academic freedom, but Kanazawa’s research fuels hate against ethnic and religious minorities promoted by neo-Nazi groups. Not only does he use the LSE’s credentials to legitimise his ‘research’ but this jeopardises the academic credibility of the LSE.” The LSE launched an internal investigation into Kanazawa’s comments after senior academics at the school, including the new director, Judith Rees, received letters of complaint over the remarks. Dr Kanazawa is abroad on sabbatical this year. The incident is the latest embarrassment for the LSE, following the resignation of previous director Sir Howard Davies, in March after admitting that the institution’s reputation had been damaged by the acceptance of a £1.5m donation from a foundation controlled by Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam. The investigation will look at the data Kanazawa analysed and the quality of his work, before deciding what punitive action, if any, it can take. In a statement, the LSE sought to distance itself from the researcher’s comments, but acknowledged freedom of academic expression. “The views expressed by this academic are his own and do not in any way represent those of the LSE as an institution. The important principle of academic freedom means that authors have the right to publish their views – but it also means the freedom to disagree. We are conducting internal investigations into this matter,” the statement said. Kanazawa has been criticised in the past for substandard research in the area of race and intelligence. Race issues London School of Economics and Political Science Higher education Women Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Report calls for £1bn to be stripped out of industry and recommends fares shakeup to reduce overcrowding Commuters face the biggest shakeup of the railways since the ignominious Railtrack era after a government-commissioned report called for £1bn in costs to be stripped out of the industry – and for it to give all involved a “better deal”. An overhaul of the fares system was the most eye-catching recommendation in a study by Sir Roy McNulty, former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. The report into rail industry costs also outlined changes to slash the £5.2bn state subsidy, including phasing out ticket offices in small stations, removing conductors and giving train operators control of maintenance on some routes. McNulty said fares in the UK were 30% higher than in France, Holland, Sweden and Switzerland, with operating costs running 40% higher than those countries. “There is a clear imperative to give both farepayers and taxpayers a better deal,” McNulty said. “This industry has a serious cost deficiency issue to address. Everyone concerned must be aware that passengers are paying above the odds.” In a warning that fares policy is needlessly increasing overcrowding, the report made radical proposals, including scrapping some cheap walk-up tickets for long-distance journeys and lifting price restrictions on selected commuter season tickets. The government announced a fares review in the wake of the report, which pledged not to add to the financial pressure on farepayers, who already spend £6.2bn a year on the railways. McNulty stated the case for airline-style pricing that would see fares raised for overcrowded services in order to encourage travel on less busy trains. He said overcrowding could be tackled by charging higher fares on busier trains and lower fares on less busy ones. Such an approach is impossible under the current fares regime, which limits increases on season tickets and some off-peak fares at inflation +3%. The government immediately quashed some of McNulty’s blue-sky proposals and ruled out lifting fare restrictions on the busiest peak commuter services and scrapping savers entirely. However, some off-peak fares are likely to be targeted. A number of saver fares from London become available after 7pm, encouraging overcrowding on services that would have been less busy at 6.30pm. Emphasising that his proposals represented “evolution not revolution”, McNulty said £1bn a year could be taken out of the industry’s £12bn operating costs before the end of the decade by devolving power at Network Rail, the owner of Britain’s tracks and stations, and tackling costs at the companies that run passenger services. Network Rail, a government-backed business, took over from a stricken Railtrack in 2002 and soon brought safety and punctuality records back to acceptable levels after a series of fatal accidents during the early years of privatisation. A former managing director at the Strategic Rail Authority, the government body that oversaw the birth of Network Rail, said the proposals represented the most serious changes to the industry in a decade. Jim Steer, now a rail industry consultant, said: “Together with the devolution of Network Rail, it signals the biggest shakeup of the industry since Network Rail was formed. It is seeking to change the way the different organisations involved in the railways behave with each other.” The changes will not require primary legislation. Network Rail has already launched a devolution programme, while many of the changes at operating companies will be written into franchises as they come up for renewal. The transport secretary, Philip Hammond, indicated that the government had no appetite for the kind of structural tinkering that broke up British Rail and rushed the system into private ownership in the 1990s. Questions were raised over the establishment of a Rail Delivery Group, made up of senior executives from across the industry, to co-ordinate the cost reductions. The powerful RMT trade union, which views the report as a shot across its bows, objected to appointing the chief executive of FirstGroup, a privately owned train operator, as chair of the group. Last week FirstGroup’s boss, Tim O’Toole, announced that the company was handing back its First Great Western franchise three years ahead of schedule, avoiding £826.6m in payments to the government. Blaming the industry’s high costs on the fragmentation caused by privatisation, the RMT’s general secretary, Bob Crow said: “A graphic example is FirstGroup bailing out of the Great Western franchise three years early, depriving the taxpayer of £826m in premium payments while soaking up £140m in government subsidy at the same time. Deal with that kind of scandal and the government could claw back their £1bn savings target at a stroke.” A senior rail industry source also raised doubts about whether privately owned train operators would sacrifice their profits to protect the taxpayer. London’s major commuter routes are all operated by listed businesses. “Company directors have no interest in reducing their profitability. It is a real tension,” said the source. McNulty defended the achievements of privatisation, saying that punctuality and safety standards were now at impressive levels. More than nine out of 10 trains now arrive on time, while the last fatal accident due to a maintenance error was in 2007. Rail transport Transport Rail travel Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media There was a pretty amazing moment Tuesday during the JPMorgan Chase shareholders meeting . A woman from the group Illinois People’s Action, Dawn Dannenbring, who as a shareholder had the right to speak at the meeting, said to CEO Jamie Dimon: “As a person of faith, my God believes you shouldn’t take advantage of people when they are down. Do you believe in the same God I believe in?” Dimon was apparently a little taken aback, answering, “That’s a hard one to answer.” Well, I’m sure on one level it was. He wouldn’t have known what religion the woman was, or what she truly thought about God. He probably has never been asked his theological views in his job as JPMorgan Chase CEO before. But even though I have no knowledge whatsoever of Jamie Dimon’s faith or theology, I feel extremely confident in saying I know the answer: it would be “no.” I don’t know what Dannenbring’s religion is, but it is clear she comes out of the historic faith tradition that takes the idea of a God caring about justice for regular people seriously. From the God of Genesis condemning Cain for not being his brother’s keeper, to Old Testament prophets who condemned their societies for throwing poor people out of their homes and leaving people to starve in the streets, to Jesus telling people to treat the weak and poor with mercy and help the least of these, the Judeo-Christian Bible shows us a God who cares deeply about economic justice and the downtrodden. And it isn’t just the Bible: pretty much every major religion, and every major ethical system ever developed, shares fundamental notions of fairness, compassion, honesty, treating others as you would want to be treated, and looking out for those weaker and poorer than you. These ideas are thousands of years old, and are the basis of a decent civilization. Now I know some people in the financial industry who are fine people. Some of them understood the flaws in our financial system, and helped make constructive proposals on financial reform. Some of them invested the old-fashioned way, in great companies that are creating new jobs in America. But it seems apparent that most of the top executives and traders of the biggest financial institutions in America — the six Too Big To Fail banking conglomerates that own assets equivalent to 64 percent of our GDP — tend to get deeply confused by any question related to this kind of moral, ethical, or religious set of values because they don’t think about them in any way in their work lives. Some — the people who blatantly steal bigger and bigger sums of money from their own companies and clients — have no ethical code at all. But even for most of those who do, the ethical code is constructed so that it allows them to abuse everyone outside of his or her own firm: what they believe is that their sole obligation is to their shareholders. Period. The bank clerks and secretarial staff don’t get paid very well and don’t share in the big bonuses handed out every quarter. Their clients sometimes get the short end of the stick, as these firms have frequently and notoriously traded against their clients’ interest. Their mortgage holders have been cheated over and over again, as the courts and more and more government investigators have been finding. The small businesspeople who accept debit and credit cards from the big banks have been forced to pay exorbitant swipe fees for years. Beyond these moral failings with the people they deal with most closely, these big bankers seem to have no ethics about other people in general. After gambling recklessly with other people’s money, creating the biggest financial panic since the crash of 1929, needing to take a massive government bailout (TARP ain’t the half of it, check out this article about the free money they got from the Fed), wrecking the world economy and throwing 8 million Americans out of work, and then handing themselves record bonuses the year after the crash, they seem to feel not even an iota of shame. One Wall Street banker even compared Obama to Hitler for daring to suggest they pay a fair share of taxes. Now, after outspending reformers more than 500 to 1 during the legislative fight over financial reform last year, and weakening the bill in some important ways, these same Wall Street bankers are trying to roll back the best of the reforms we did win, and they are trying to weasel out of any liability over destroying the housing market. On derivatives regulation, on swipe fee reform, on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and on helping homeowners with underwater mortgages, the big banks on definitely on the wrong side. They don’t want any oversight; they don’t want to negotiate with anyone over anything; they don’t want to help anyone they have wronged or anyone in financial stress; they don’t want to pay another dime in taxes even as they make record profits and take home record bonuses. They don’t care who they hurt, as long as they stay wealthy and overwhelmingly powerful. So look, I’m not going to claim to know whether a God of compassion, mercy, and justice exists. But I do feel quite confident in stating there is no way Jamie Dimon could believe in such a God, and still act the way he does as CEO of JPMorgan Chase.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media This is really funny. Rick Santorum, never known for his brains, is called out by one of John McCain’s aides for stating that McCain doesn’t understand torture . Yeah, because unlike Rick Santorum, he didn’t just read a story about it: WASHINGTON, May 17 (UPI) — GOP U.S. presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Tuesday John McCain, tortured as a prisoner of war, “doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works.” During an interview on Hugh Hewitt’s talk show on the Salem Radio Network, Santorum, a former Republican U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, credited so-called enhanced interrogation methods with helping the United States track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. When Hewitt pointed out that McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 and a U.S. senator from Arizona who spent years in a North Vietnamese prison camp during the Vietnam War, has said there is no such evidence, Santorum said everything he has read shows the trail to bin Laden began with “information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation.” Well, sure! If the only things you read are Townhall.com, Red State and World Net Daily, I can see where he might get that idea… “And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheik Mohammed was being waterboarded, he [McCain] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works,” Santorum said. “I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information. “Maybe McCain has better information than I do, but from what I’ve seen, it seems pretty clear that but for these cooperative witnesses who were cooperative as a result of enhanced interrogations, we would not have gotten bin Laden.” McCain aide Mark Salter responded on Facebook, saying, “For pure, blind stupidity, nobody beats Santorum. In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member, which he reminded me of today,” MSNBC reported.
Continue reading …
• President unveils shift in American policy towards Arab nations • ‘Status quo not sustainable,’ he warns region’s autocracies • Sets out two-state solution to Israel-Palestine conflict • Tells Syria’s al-Assad to lead transition or ‘get out of way’ President Barack Obama has sought to realign US policy on the Middle East, promising to shift from the long-held American backing for autocratic regimes to support for the pro-democracy movements and to set out the shape of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. “The status quo is not sustainable,” Obama said in a major speech at the state department in Washington on Thursday, the first on the Middle East since he spoke in Cairo in 2009. In a speech dubbed Cairo Two, he threw US weight behind the protesters, saying: “We face a historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator … After decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.” He was addressing criticism that America has been behind the curve in response to the pro-democracy movements sweeping the region. As well as support for the newly emerging democracies in Egypt and Tunisia, he criticised long-term US allies such as Bahrain, where America has a huge naval base, for its suppression of democracy movements. The US had been criticised as inconsistent in issuing only a mild rebuke to Bahrain. But Obama said: “We have insisted publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away.” He also addressed what he has previously said was one of the main sources of Middle East antagonism towards the west, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He set out the parameters of a deal and called on Israel to act boldly. It comes at a time when there is stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the US has long recognised that the boundaries of a Palestinian state should be based on those that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, it was a significant shift for Obama to stress this in his speech. “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states,” he said. Although he prefaced this by saying that Israel’s security remained a core US aim in the Middle East, it marks a move towards the Palestinians. Obama is due to see the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in Washington on Friday. “As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values,” Obama said. “Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.” He stopped short of calling for the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, to step down from office but told him he had a choice. “The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition or get out of the way,” Obama said. The speech made no mention of other autocracies such as Saudi Arabia, on which America depends for oil. He said that Osama Bin Laden’s death had changed the dynamic in the Middle East. “Bin Laden was no martyr,” Obama said. “He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the west, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favour of violent extremism.” It is the most important speech he has made on the Middle East since one in Cairo in June 2009, in which he called for a new beginning in relations between the US and the Muslim world after a decade dominated by 9/11 and the Iraq war. He focused then on a need for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, a deal in which Iran would give up any nuclear weapons ambitions, and ways to neutralise extremism. He also promised to close Guantanamo. Obama’s speech comes after intensive debate within the White House between those arguing that the US should be at the forefront of the democracy movement and those whose concern is US national security and protection of oil supplies. The few billion dollars proposed so far is not comparable to the vast sums the US sent to Europe after 1945, and some of it has already been announced by the World Bank and the IMF. The speech was aimed at a global audience, with the state department providing simultaneous translation into Arabic and Farsi, and was deliberately timed for midday in Washington so that it could be watched live in the evening in the Middle East. The White House view is that the best way to support democracy is through economic reform, and drew comparisons with the massive injection of American aid to Europe after the war, and with the support given to central and eastern Europe in 1989. The US is to relieve Egypt of up to $1bn in debt and lend or guarantee up to $1bn. The World Bank, the IMF and other multilateral institutions are to provide a further $2bn-3bn. The White House sees the investment as essential to help deal with problems such as unemployment in Egypt, where a majority of the population is under 30 and youth unemployment is estimated at 30%. The problem for Obama domestically is that Americans may look at the high unemployment rates in the US, officially around 9%, though the real figure may be double that, and question why billions are being sent overseas. Arab and Middle East unrest Barack Obama Middle East United States Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …