Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:18pm EST
By Lucia Mutikani
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An unexpected improvement in U.S. home sales provided a rare dose of good economic news on Monday, but companies continued to wield the axe on jobs as the year-long recession inflicted more pain.
The pace of sales of previously owned homes rose for the first time since September and inventory declined, a bit of positive news amid a U.S. housing market crash that has chilled growth, sent unemployment soaring and sharply eroded household wealth.
The relentless wave of layoffs continued on Monday. Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar Inc announced nearly 20,000 job cuts and drugmaker Pfizer Inc, which announced plans to acquire rival Wyeth for $68 billion, said it would reduce its combined work force of about 130,000 by 15 percent.
Sales of previously owned U.S. homes increased 6.5 percent to a 4.74 million unit annual rate in December, the National Association of Realtors said. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected sales to set a 4.40 million unit pace.
Analysts said the uptick was encouraging and might be a signal the worst housing bust in decades was finally nearing a bottom following government steps to slow foreclosures and cut interest rates on home loans.
"Though unlikely to mark the bottom of the housing downturn, the report at least suggests the market is not spiraling downwards in response to mounting job losses and tightening credit standards," said Sal Guatieri, an economist at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto.
"An upward trend in home sales that gobbles up supply and stabilizes prices would be an important signpost of economic recovery, but that is likely still some ways off."
The surprise rise in home sales overshadowed steep job cuts from Caterpillar and other companies helped to lifted U.S. stocks. The Dow Jones industrial average ended up 38.47 points at 8,116.03, and the Dow Jones index of home builders' stocks rose 2.7 percent.
U.S. government bond prices and the dollar fell as the housing data eroded their safe-haven appeal, encouraging investors to seek riskier assets.
Stability in the U.S. housing market, the root cause of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, is seen key for any recovery in the domestic economy which has been stuck in recession since December 2007.
FORECLOSURES DRIVE SALES
December existing-home sales were largely driven by distressed sales, which dragged the median national home price down 15.3 percent from the year earlier to $175,400.
The chief economist of the National Association of Realtors, Lawrence Yun, said it was the largest price drop since NAR started keeping records in 1968 and probably the largest since the Great Depression.
"There is pent-up demand, which could be unleashed with the right stimulus. The Obama administration and Congress need to move fast ... to stabilize home prizes and set the foundation for a sustainable economic recovery," said Yun.
President Barack Obama is drumming up support for a $825 billion spending package, which he hopes will kick-start the economy and create or preserve 3 million to 4 million jobs.
Analysts were also heartened by the 11.7 percent drop in the inventory of existing homes for sale to 3.68 million units from 4.16 million in November.
That translated into 9.3 months of supply at December's sales pace. The supply stood at 11.2 months' worth in November.
"It suggests we are working through some of the inventory, which is the first thing to happen before we see any kind of housing recovery," said Frank Lesh, futures analyst at FuturePath Trading in Chicago.
"Until we work through the supply that's out there, it's going to be hard to see anything turn. The low rates the Fed has engineered is starting to create some demand, which is what we wanted to see."
Separately, the Conference Board said its index of leading economic indicators rose 0.3 percent, beating analysts forecast for a 0.3 percent decline.
Economists attributed the rise in the Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators to the improvement in credit markets thanks to action by the Federal Reserve.
The U.S. central bank has cut interest rates almost to zero and pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into financial markets to keep them operating.
The Fed meets on Tuesday and Wednesday and is expected to hold its target range for the key overnight federal funds rate steady at zero to 0.25 percent.
Tony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist at Miller, Tabak & Co., reckons that given the recent uptick in government bond yields and mortgage rates, the Fed could place emphasis on its plans to buy mortgage securities and possibly Treasuries.
(Additional reporting by Lisa Lambert in Washington, Deepa Seetharaman and Franklin Paul in New York; writing by Lucia Mutikani and Alister Bull; Editing by Leslie Adler)
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50L35320090126
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama begins reversing Bush climate policies
Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:35pm EST
By Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama began reversing the climate policies of the Bush administration on Monday, clearing the way for new rules to force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars.
The president told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider immediately a request by California to impose its own strict limits on vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for contributing to global warming.
Obama, a Democrat, took over from former President George W. Bush last Tuesday.
Bush's Republican administration had denied the request, prompting California and other states to sue.
"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said at the White House, taking a stab at his predecessor's policies.
"The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts, we will be guided by them. We cannot afford to pass the buck ... onto the states."
Obama's directive, which is likely to result in a formal change in the coming months, could prompt as many as 18 states to follow California's lead by putting into effect tailpipe emissions standards that are tougher than federal mandates.
The president also directed the Department of Transportation to set boost fuel efficiency standards for automobiles by March 30 for model year 2011, giving manufacturers 18 months to prepare.
The rules are part of a 2007 law that calls for automakers' fleets to reach an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The Bush administration left Obama to finalize the standards because of the uncertainty gripping car companies.
Obama's decisions piled pressure on the ailing industry, struggling to survive in a deepening recession with the help of federal bailouts.
General Motors Corp said it is "working aggressively" to develop better hybrids and electric cars to reduce emissions and improve mileage, but policymakers must weigh in economic factors when making their decision.
"We're ready to engage the Obama administration and Congress on policies that support meaningful and workable solutions and targets," the company said in a statement.
Their plight may worsen as the U.S. recession deepens. Economists polled by Reuters in advance of Friday's Gross Domestic Product report think GDP contracted at a 5.4 percent rate on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter, which would be the worst performance since 1982.
SIGNALS ON ENVIRONMENT
Obama's steps were likely to be well received in Europe, which saw the United States under Bush as a roadblock to global action on climate change and hopes for greater U.S. efforts to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions.
They drew praise from environmentalists, who supported Obama's election, but could annoy labor unions, another key constituency, whose members are upset about auto job losses.
Obama said the policy shift would help carmakers in the long run. "Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry, it is to help America's automakers prepare for the future," he said.
California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who urged the Obama administration to review the emissions decision, welcomed the move. "It is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House," he said in a statement. At a news conference later he said the whole country should follow California's lead.
Democratic EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Obama's move signaled a "sea change" in U.S. action on climate change.
But top Republicans accused the president of piling on the struggling auto industry and threatening jobs.
"Millions of American jobs will be placed in further jeopardy if automakers are forced to spend billions to comply with potentially dozens of different emissions standards in dozens of different states," said U.S. House of Representatives minority leader John Boehner, a Republican whose state of Ohio has been hard hit by automotive factory closures.
The moves followed similar actions by Obama to reverse Bush decisions on foreign and domestic policy and signaled his desire to proceed quickly with campaign promises to fight climate change and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Obama laid out broad principles that he said his administration would follow. It was time for the United States to lead on climate change, he said, and dependence on foreign energy sources was a threat to U.S. security.
"It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil," he said, adding previous administrations had made similar goals.
"We need more than the same old empty promises. We need to show that this time it will be different," he said.
The State Department also announced Todd Stern, a senior White House official under former President Bill Clinton, will be the administration's principal adviser on international climate policy and strategy and its chief climate negotiator.
(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Caren Bohan, Arshad Mohammed and Ross Colvin in Washington, Peter Henderson in San Francisco and Kevin Krolicki in Detroit; editing by Jackie Frank)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50P6MB20090126
By Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama began reversing the climate policies of the Bush administration on Monday, clearing the way for new rules to force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars.
The president told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider immediately a request by California to impose its own strict limits on vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for contributing to global warming.
Obama, a Democrat, took over from former President George W. Bush last Tuesday.
Bush's Republican administration had denied the request, prompting California and other states to sue.
"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said at the White House, taking a stab at his predecessor's policies.
"The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts, we will be guided by them. We cannot afford to pass the buck ... onto the states."
Obama's directive, which is likely to result in a formal change in the coming months, could prompt as many as 18 states to follow California's lead by putting into effect tailpipe emissions standards that are tougher than federal mandates.
The president also directed the Department of Transportation to set boost fuel efficiency standards for automobiles by March 30 for model year 2011, giving manufacturers 18 months to prepare.
The rules are part of a 2007 law that calls for automakers' fleets to reach an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The Bush administration left Obama to finalize the standards because of the uncertainty gripping car companies.
Obama's decisions piled pressure on the ailing industry, struggling to survive in a deepening recession with the help of federal bailouts.
General Motors Corp said it is "working aggressively" to develop better hybrids and electric cars to reduce emissions and improve mileage, but policymakers must weigh in economic factors when making their decision.
"We're ready to engage the Obama administration and Congress on policies that support meaningful and workable solutions and targets," the company said in a statement.
Their plight may worsen as the U.S. recession deepens. Economists polled by Reuters in advance of Friday's Gross Domestic Product report think GDP contracted at a 5.4 percent rate on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter, which would be the worst performance since 1982.
SIGNALS ON ENVIRONMENT
Obama's steps were likely to be well received in Europe, which saw the United States under Bush as a roadblock to global action on climate change and hopes for greater U.S. efforts to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions.
They drew praise from environmentalists, who supported Obama's election, but could annoy labor unions, another key constituency, whose members are upset about auto job losses.
Obama said the policy shift would help carmakers in the long run. "Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry, it is to help America's automakers prepare for the future," he said.
California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who urged the Obama administration to review the emissions decision, welcomed the move. "It is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House," he said in a statement. At a news conference later he said the whole country should follow California's lead.
Democratic EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Obama's move signaled a "sea change" in U.S. action on climate change.
But top Republicans accused the president of piling on the struggling auto industry and threatening jobs.
"Millions of American jobs will be placed in further jeopardy if automakers are forced to spend billions to comply with potentially dozens of different emissions standards in dozens of different states," said U.S. House of Representatives minority leader John Boehner, a Republican whose state of Ohio has been hard hit by automotive factory closures.
The moves followed similar actions by Obama to reverse Bush decisions on foreign and domestic policy and signaled his desire to proceed quickly with campaign promises to fight climate change and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Obama laid out broad principles that he said his administration would follow. It was time for the United States to lead on climate change, he said, and dependence on foreign energy sources was a threat to U.S. security.
"It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil," he said, adding previous administrations had made similar goals.
"We need more than the same old empty promises. We need to show that this time it will be different," he said.
The State Department also announced Todd Stern, a senior White House official under former President Bill Clinton, will be the administration's principal adviser on international climate policy and strategy and its chief climate negotiator.
(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Caren Bohan, Arshad Mohammed and Ross Colvin in Washington, Peter Henderson in San Francisco and Kevin Krolicki in Detroit; editing by Jackie Frank)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50P6MB20090126
Monday, January 26, 2009
Please note that Chase Budinger's face is not a doormat
By MJD
At 2-5 in the Pac-10, Arizona itself might be a bit of a doormat, but that doesn't make it OK to just go around and wipe your feet on Chase Budinger's face.
That's what Houston's Aubrey Coleman did to Budinger yesterday, and while I can't say for sure that I know the man's intent, you know, he did stomp on a guy's face, showed no signs of offering any kind of apology, and smiled while receiving a congratulatory "Hey, way to step on that guy's face!" high-five on his way off the floor. To me, that's unsportsmanlike.
Arizona went on to win 96-90 in overtime, despite the fact that Houston led 63-51 at the time of the face-stomping. Consider that your daily dose of karma, Mr. Coleman.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Please-note-that-Chase-Budinger-s-face-is-not-a-?urn=ncaab,136602
At 2-5 in the Pac-10, Arizona itself might be a bit of a doormat, but that doesn't make it OK to just go around and wipe your feet on Chase Budinger's face.
That's what Houston's Aubrey Coleman did to Budinger yesterday, and while I can't say for sure that I know the man's intent, you know, he did stomp on a guy's face, showed no signs of offering any kind of apology, and smiled while receiving a congratulatory "Hey, way to step on that guy's face!" high-five on his way off the floor. To me, that's unsportsmanlike.
Arizona went on to win 96-90 in overtime, despite the fact that Houston led 63-51 at the time of the face-stomping. Consider that your daily dose of karma, Mr. Coleman.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Please-note-that-Chase-Budinger-s-face-is-not-a-?urn=ncaab,136602
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The American Lunatic Asylum
by Sherwood Ross
Global Research, January 24, 2009
If America ever is going to stop making aggressive war, Americans will first have to get into contact with reality. That’s because U.S. administrations for the past century have periodically frightened the public out of their collective wits.
And a frightened nation is a malleable nation, one whose people are susceptible to being led into any struggle. There’s usually been some evil outside force lurking to take away what we have. There was the “Red Scare” during the Wilson administration and Joe McCarthy’s terror during the Truman and Eisenhower years. President George W. Bush gave fear a new twist with his “War on Terror” in which innocent nations were illegally invaded and tens of thousands imprisoned and hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. In his speech of September 20, 2001, Bush claimed terrorists attacked America because they “hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”
Those who believe this whopper will never deal with the reality that we might just be hated throughout the Middle East because the CIA at Eisenhower’s behest overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. Or that we might be hated for taking Israel’s side in its ongoing efforts to displace the Palestinians. Or for taking Iraq’s side in its war of aggression against Iran and supplying it with poison gas. Or for subsequently waging an illegal war of aggression against Iraq. The idea that Muslim extremists attacked America out of envy lacks any connection to reality, especially when much of the Arab world has long made known its vehement opposition to U.S. support of Israel.
The Bush regime fanned the fears of Islamic terrorism in the American mind by making it appear the 2001 anthrax attacks that shut down Congress were staged by Muslims. One anthrax envelope read “Death to America! Death to Israel!” Bush press agents leaked stories that the attack emanated from the Middle East when, in fact, it originated at a U.S. biowarfare complex in Maryland under management of George W. Bush, commander-in-chief. This lie helped rush through the Patriot Act and opened the door to a $50 billion spending spree to develop new bioweapons, although experts say the U.S. is under no threat of such attack. Meanwhile, we have real influenza epidemics that kill thousands every year that must be prevented and scientists who tell us they no longer are getting the money to fight. What do you call a country that ignores realities and arms itself against fantasies? Try lunatic asylum.
Down through the years our politicians have shamelessly advanced themselves by playing on the public’s fears. George W. Bush is only the most recent culprit. Presidential campaigner Jack Kennedy, for example, in 1960 falsely warned Americans of a “missile gap,” i.e., that we lagged behind the Soviets in our ability to deliver nuclear weapons. These fears were encouraged by the military-industrial complex to pump up spending on atomic bombs and their delivery systems. Late in his life, the eloquent General Douglas MacArthur came to this realization: “Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear---kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of a grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded.”
In the past eight years, the Big Lies have flown thick and fast. Americans today suffer from a “master race” delusion akin to what Germans believed in the 1930s. The Neocon’s “New American Century” philosophy posits the U.S. is ordained (Bush believed by god) to provide leadership and spread democracy around the globe. In this vision, America is the self-appointed policeman for the planet. Delegates to Republican National Conventions only have had to hear the phrase “United Nations” to jeer. This poisoning of the public mind could make it difficult for President Obama to use the UN effectively just as it made it easy for Bush to sell his “preventive war” doctrine.
Americans have been conditioned to think the U.S. is always in the right and its enemies are always in the wrong. A prime example: the POW/MIA flags that flutter over public buildings everywhere. Americans believe the Vietnamese held hundreds of U.S. prisoners after the war ended. If so, why couldn’t the Pentagon with its spy satellites that can spot a wooden nickel from 60,000 feet ever find and rescue them? By claiming they refused to live up to its obligations, the Vietnamese are made to look like the bad guys even though we waged a war of aggression in their country and bombed their cities, not the other way around.
I’m not saying there were no POWs being held illegally, only that the issue has been framed to inflame the public out of all proportion to reality. Today, it’s the U.S. that imprisons “ghost” POW/MIAs. Only the victims are Arabs and Muslims. General Paul Kern, who headed an Army inquiry, told the Senate in 2004 the CIA may be keeping up to 100 “ghost detainees” at Baghdad’s infamous Abu Ghraib. And it has been disclosed that the U.S. under Bush/Cheney operated a string of secret prisons where the Red Cross is denied entry. Isn’t that illegally holding POW/MIAs? To accuse others of crimes you are committing raises the suspicion that your own charges may not be true. It also suggests you might be deluded.
Again, there’s our rationale for every defeat. They’ll tell you at any veteran’s post we lost in Viet Nam only because “our boys fought with one hand tied behind their backs” and not because their foes were worthy---when we dumped more tons of bombs on Viet Nam than we did on all of Europe in WWII. Such myths are dangerous.
Recall Hitler told Germans they didn’t lose WWI because they were outfought but because they were “sold out by Jews and the Communists” that made peace behind their backs. So they should fight a new war. Millions of people the world over saw through Bush’s lies about Iraq being in league with 9/11 terrorists and possessing WMD. The war was condemned by the Vatican and termed “illegal” by the UN Secretary-General. But Congress bought the lie that Saddam Hussein, with his $5 billion military budget, threatened America with its $300 billion military budget, and voted to attack. Why could the rest of the world see reality when Americans could not?
Americans have repeatedly subscribed to policies of aggressive war based on lies and delusions engineered by their own chief executives. An Obama presidency will not restore peace unless such falsehoods are first exposed and expunged from the American psyche. Time to open the asylum’s doors and windows and let in the fresh air and sunshine.#
Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant who formerly worked for the Chicago Daily News and wire services. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11999
Global Research, January 24, 2009
If America ever is going to stop making aggressive war, Americans will first have to get into contact with reality. That’s because U.S. administrations for the past century have periodically frightened the public out of their collective wits.
And a frightened nation is a malleable nation, one whose people are susceptible to being led into any struggle. There’s usually been some evil outside force lurking to take away what we have. There was the “Red Scare” during the Wilson administration and Joe McCarthy’s terror during the Truman and Eisenhower years. President George W. Bush gave fear a new twist with his “War on Terror” in which innocent nations were illegally invaded and tens of thousands imprisoned and hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. In his speech of September 20, 2001, Bush claimed terrorists attacked America because they “hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”
Those who believe this whopper will never deal with the reality that we might just be hated throughout the Middle East because the CIA at Eisenhower’s behest overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. Or that we might be hated for taking Israel’s side in its ongoing efforts to displace the Palestinians. Or for taking Iraq’s side in its war of aggression against Iran and supplying it with poison gas. Or for subsequently waging an illegal war of aggression against Iraq. The idea that Muslim extremists attacked America out of envy lacks any connection to reality, especially when much of the Arab world has long made known its vehement opposition to U.S. support of Israel.
The Bush regime fanned the fears of Islamic terrorism in the American mind by making it appear the 2001 anthrax attacks that shut down Congress were staged by Muslims. One anthrax envelope read “Death to America! Death to Israel!” Bush press agents leaked stories that the attack emanated from the Middle East when, in fact, it originated at a U.S. biowarfare complex in Maryland under management of George W. Bush, commander-in-chief. This lie helped rush through the Patriot Act and opened the door to a $50 billion spending spree to develop new bioweapons, although experts say the U.S. is under no threat of such attack. Meanwhile, we have real influenza epidemics that kill thousands every year that must be prevented and scientists who tell us they no longer are getting the money to fight. What do you call a country that ignores realities and arms itself against fantasies? Try lunatic asylum.
Down through the years our politicians have shamelessly advanced themselves by playing on the public’s fears. George W. Bush is only the most recent culprit. Presidential campaigner Jack Kennedy, for example, in 1960 falsely warned Americans of a “missile gap,” i.e., that we lagged behind the Soviets in our ability to deliver nuclear weapons. These fears were encouraged by the military-industrial complex to pump up spending on atomic bombs and their delivery systems. Late in his life, the eloquent General Douglas MacArthur came to this realization: “Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear---kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of a grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded.”
In the past eight years, the Big Lies have flown thick and fast. Americans today suffer from a “master race” delusion akin to what Germans believed in the 1930s. The Neocon’s “New American Century” philosophy posits the U.S. is ordained (Bush believed by god) to provide leadership and spread democracy around the globe. In this vision, America is the self-appointed policeman for the planet. Delegates to Republican National Conventions only have had to hear the phrase “United Nations” to jeer. This poisoning of the public mind could make it difficult for President Obama to use the UN effectively just as it made it easy for Bush to sell his “preventive war” doctrine.
Americans have been conditioned to think the U.S. is always in the right and its enemies are always in the wrong. A prime example: the POW/MIA flags that flutter over public buildings everywhere. Americans believe the Vietnamese held hundreds of U.S. prisoners after the war ended. If so, why couldn’t the Pentagon with its spy satellites that can spot a wooden nickel from 60,000 feet ever find and rescue them? By claiming they refused to live up to its obligations, the Vietnamese are made to look like the bad guys even though we waged a war of aggression in their country and bombed their cities, not the other way around.
I’m not saying there were no POWs being held illegally, only that the issue has been framed to inflame the public out of all proportion to reality. Today, it’s the U.S. that imprisons “ghost” POW/MIAs. Only the victims are Arabs and Muslims. General Paul Kern, who headed an Army inquiry, told the Senate in 2004 the CIA may be keeping up to 100 “ghost detainees” at Baghdad’s infamous Abu Ghraib. And it has been disclosed that the U.S. under Bush/Cheney operated a string of secret prisons where the Red Cross is denied entry. Isn’t that illegally holding POW/MIAs? To accuse others of crimes you are committing raises the suspicion that your own charges may not be true. It also suggests you might be deluded.
Again, there’s our rationale for every defeat. They’ll tell you at any veteran’s post we lost in Viet Nam only because “our boys fought with one hand tied behind their backs” and not because their foes were worthy---when we dumped more tons of bombs on Viet Nam than we did on all of Europe in WWII. Such myths are dangerous.
Recall Hitler told Germans they didn’t lose WWI because they were outfought but because they were “sold out by Jews and the Communists” that made peace behind their backs. So they should fight a new war. Millions of people the world over saw through Bush’s lies about Iraq being in league with 9/11 terrorists and possessing WMD. The war was condemned by the Vatican and termed “illegal” by the UN Secretary-General. But Congress bought the lie that Saddam Hussein, with his $5 billion military budget, threatened America with its $300 billion military budget, and voted to attack. Why could the rest of the world see reality when Americans could not?
Americans have repeatedly subscribed to policies of aggressive war based on lies and delusions engineered by their own chief executives. An Obama presidency will not restore peace unless such falsehoods are first exposed and expunged from the American psyche. Time to open the asylum’s doors and windows and let in the fresh air and sunshine.#
Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant who formerly worked for the Chicago Daily News and wire services. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11999
Antarctica is warming, not cooling: study
Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:15pm EST
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
ROTHERA BASE, Antarctica (Reuters) - Antarctica is getting warmer rather than cooling as widely believed, according to a study that fits the icy continent into a trend of global warming.
A review by U.S. scientists of satellite and weather records for Antarctica, which contains 90 percent of the world's ice and would raise world sea levels if it thaws, showed that freezing temperatures had risen by about 0.5 Celsius (0.8 Fahrenheit) since the 1950s.
"The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling and that's not the case," said Eric Steig of the University of Washington in Seattle, lead author of the study in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
The average temperature rise was "very comparable to the global average," he told a telephone news briefing.
Skeptics about man-made global warming have in the past used reports of a cooling of Antarctica as evidence to back their view that warming is a myth.
Cooling at places such as the South Pole and an expansion of winter sea ice around Antarctica had masked the overall warming over a continent bigger than the United States where average year-round temperatures are about -50 Celsius (-58.00F).
The scientists wrote that the Antarctic warming was "difficult to explain" without linking it to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels.
Until now, scientists have generally reckoned that warming has been restricted to the Antarctic Peninsula beneath South America, where Britain's Rothera research station is sited.
Temperatures at Rothera on Wednesday were 2.6 C (36.68F).
WEST ANTARCTICA
"The area of warming is much larger than the region of the Antarctic Peninsula," they wrote, adding that it extended across the whole of West Antarctica to the south.
Rising temperatures in the west were partly offset by an autumn cooling in East Antarctica. "The continent-wide near surface average is positive," the study said.
Antarctica's ice contains enough frozen water to raise world sea levels by 57 meters (187 ft), so even a tiny amount of melting could threaten Pacific island states or coastal cities from Beijing to London.
West Antarctica "will eventually melt if warming like this continues," said Drew Shindell, of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was one of the authors. A 3 Celsius (5.4 F) rise could trigger a wide melt of West Antarctica, he said.
Greenland is also vulnerable. Together, Greenland and West Antarctica hold enough ice to raise sea levels by 14 meters.
"Even losing a fraction of both would cause a few meters this century, with disastrous consequences," said Barry Brook, director of climate change research at the University of Adelaide in Australia.
Ten ice sheets on the Antarctic Peninsula have receded or collapsed since the 1990s. The Wilkins sheet is poised to break up, held in place by a sliver of ice 500 meters (1,640 ft) wide compared to 100 km in the 1950s.
Other scientists said that the study did not fully account for shifts such as a thinning of ice sheets in West Antarctica.
"This warming is not enough to explain these changes," said David Vaughan, a glaciologist for the British Antarctic Survey at Rothera, by an iceberg-strewn bay. He said the thinning was probably linked to shifts in the oceans.
The Nature study compared temperatures measured by satellites in the past 25 years with 50-year records from 42 Antarctic weather stations, mostly on the coast. Scientists then deduced temperatures back 50 years.
(Editing by Richard Balmforth)
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE50K5BM20090121
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
ROTHERA BASE, Antarctica (Reuters) - Antarctica is getting warmer rather than cooling as widely believed, according to a study that fits the icy continent into a trend of global warming.
A review by U.S. scientists of satellite and weather records for Antarctica, which contains 90 percent of the world's ice and would raise world sea levels if it thaws, showed that freezing temperatures had risen by about 0.5 Celsius (0.8 Fahrenheit) since the 1950s.
"The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling and that's not the case," said Eric Steig of the University of Washington in Seattle, lead author of the study in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
The average temperature rise was "very comparable to the global average," he told a telephone news briefing.
Skeptics about man-made global warming have in the past used reports of a cooling of Antarctica as evidence to back their view that warming is a myth.
Cooling at places such as the South Pole and an expansion of winter sea ice around Antarctica had masked the overall warming over a continent bigger than the United States where average year-round temperatures are about -50 Celsius (-58.00F).
The scientists wrote that the Antarctic warming was "difficult to explain" without linking it to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels.
Until now, scientists have generally reckoned that warming has been restricted to the Antarctic Peninsula beneath South America, where Britain's Rothera research station is sited.
Temperatures at Rothera on Wednesday were 2.6 C (36.68F).
WEST ANTARCTICA
"The area of warming is much larger than the region of the Antarctic Peninsula," they wrote, adding that it extended across the whole of West Antarctica to the south.
Rising temperatures in the west were partly offset by an autumn cooling in East Antarctica. "The continent-wide near surface average is positive," the study said.
Antarctica's ice contains enough frozen water to raise world sea levels by 57 meters (187 ft), so even a tiny amount of melting could threaten Pacific island states or coastal cities from Beijing to London.
West Antarctica "will eventually melt if warming like this continues," said Drew Shindell, of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was one of the authors. A 3 Celsius (5.4 F) rise could trigger a wide melt of West Antarctica, he said.
Greenland is also vulnerable. Together, Greenland and West Antarctica hold enough ice to raise sea levels by 14 meters.
"Even losing a fraction of both would cause a few meters this century, with disastrous consequences," said Barry Brook, director of climate change research at the University of Adelaide in Australia.
Ten ice sheets on the Antarctic Peninsula have receded or collapsed since the 1990s. The Wilkins sheet is poised to break up, held in place by a sliver of ice 500 meters (1,640 ft) wide compared to 100 km in the 1950s.
Other scientists said that the study did not fully account for shifts such as a thinning of ice sheets in West Antarctica.
"This warming is not enough to explain these changes," said David Vaughan, a glaciologist for the British Antarctic Survey at Rothera, by an iceberg-strewn bay. He said the thinning was probably linked to shifts in the oceans.
The Nature study compared temperatures measured by satellites in the past 25 years with 50-year records from 42 Antarctic weather stations, mostly on the coast. Scientists then deduced temperatures back 50 years.
(Editing by Richard Balmforth)
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE50K5BM20090121
Spanish wind power sets new record
Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:17pm EST
MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's booming wind parks set a new record for power generation late on Thursday, national grid operator REE said.
REE temporarily logged output of 10,923 megawatts, beating a previous maximum of 10,880 MW set on April 18 last year.
Spain's government has encouraged the development of renewable energy in recent years to cut greenhouse emissions -- which are far above levels permitted by the Kyoto protocol -- and reduce its heavy dependence on imported fuel.
Wind parks have the capacity to produce about 16,000 MW and the government forecasts that 20,000 will be installed by 2010. Wind power lobby groups say that figure could rise to 40,000 MW by 2020.
In comparison, Spain's aging nuclear power plants have an installed capacity of 7,800 MW and produce a constant 7,300 MW when working normally.
The government has pledged it will commission no new nuclear plants, but has said it may extend the current reactors' working lives depending on the conclusions of safety and feasibility reports being prepared by the CSN watchdog.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE50M1ZD20090123
MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's booming wind parks set a new record for power generation late on Thursday, national grid operator REE said.
REE temporarily logged output of 10,923 megawatts, beating a previous maximum of 10,880 MW set on April 18 last year.
Spain's government has encouraged the development of renewable energy in recent years to cut greenhouse emissions -- which are far above levels permitted by the Kyoto protocol -- and reduce its heavy dependence on imported fuel.
Wind parks have the capacity to produce about 16,000 MW and the government forecasts that 20,000 will be installed by 2010. Wind power lobby groups say that figure could rise to 40,000 MW by 2020.
In comparison, Spain's aging nuclear power plants have an installed capacity of 7,800 MW and produce a constant 7,300 MW when working normally.
The government has pledged it will commission no new nuclear plants, but has said it may extend the current reactors' working lives depending on the conclusions of safety and feasibility reports being prepared by the CSN watchdog.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE50M1ZD20090123
U.S. industrials see green in Obama stimulus plan
Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:05pm EST
By Scott Malone - Analysis
BOSTON (Reuters) - Diversified U.S. manufacturers including General Electric Co and United Technologies Corp could be among the first companies to benefit from U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed $825 billion stimulus, but likely will not feel any effects until late this year.
The program, which Obama said on Friday could be approved by mid-February, is intended to create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs and help the United States pull out of a year-long recession.
One goal of the plan is to spur investment in energy-saving technologies, which could boost demand for windmills, electric-grid components and other heavy equipment.
Executives at both GE and United Tech this week cited the stimulus as a factor that could boost their results, though the companies and investors agree that it will be some time before they start to see sales related to the program.
"We think it could help us by the second half of the year and more realistically could help us in 2010," said Keith Sherin, GE's chief financial officer.
But the world's largest maker of jet engines and electricity-producing turbines is not factoring stimulus-related spending into its 2009 financial planning.
"We don't have anything that we're specifically counting on from the stimulus," Sherin said in an interview.
Obama's proposal includes $550 billion of government spending and $275 billion of tax cuts.
NOT JUST WATCHING WASHINGTON
Both conglomerates generate about half their sales outside the United States, so they are not just looking at Washington's efforts to spark the ailing economy.
"Based on the intensive global stimulus efforts underway today, we still expect a modest recovery in the latter part of 2009," said Greg Hayes, CFO of United Tech, the world's largest maker of elevators and air conditioners, on a conference call with analysts.
For example, executives with Hartford, Connecticut-based United Tech said sales at their Otis elevator unit could start to pick up as China's stimulus plans take effect.
Analysts agreed the program could directly spark demand for wind mills, solar panels as well as energy-saving devices.
"It's more than two or three quarters away in terms of when it will have a material impact, but it's definitely helpful to the GEs of the world out there that supply power generation products," said Morningstar analyst Daniel Holland. "They'll be one of the first ones that end up seeing the benefits of it."
United Tech's Hayes said the U.S. stimulus could in particular boost demand for products made by its Carrier air conditioner, Fire and Security and Otis elevator units.
"We actually are optimistic that we will get a little bit of a bump just from those particular programs," Hayes said.
Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE has been in talks with the Obama administration about its plans, Sherin said.
"We've been carefully working with the administration about what can help the country create more jobs and what can help us with renewable energy and energy independence and what can help us with health care productivity, things that are part of the administration's new platforms," Sherin said.
Investors see opportunity for GE and United Tech in the stimulus, though they agree it will be some time before they feel it in terms of revenue.
"Maybe beginning in the fourth quarter when a contractor starts to subcontract for some equipment from GE or (United Tech) they would begin to see that at least go into their backlog, which is always a good indicator of future business for them," said Douglas Ober, CEO of Adams Express Co in Baltimore, Maryland, which counts GE and United Tech among its top holdings. "I suspect that the bulk of funds that they might see would not hit till 2010."
(Reporting by Scott Malone, editing by Leslie Gevirtz)
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE50M6GX20090123
By Scott Malone - Analysis
BOSTON (Reuters) - Diversified U.S. manufacturers including General Electric Co and United Technologies Corp could be among the first companies to benefit from U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed $825 billion stimulus, but likely will not feel any effects until late this year.
The program, which Obama said on Friday could be approved by mid-February, is intended to create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs and help the United States pull out of a year-long recession.
One goal of the plan is to spur investment in energy-saving technologies, which could boost demand for windmills, electric-grid components and other heavy equipment.
Executives at both GE and United Tech this week cited the stimulus as a factor that could boost their results, though the companies and investors agree that it will be some time before they start to see sales related to the program.
"We think it could help us by the second half of the year and more realistically could help us in 2010," said Keith Sherin, GE's chief financial officer.
But the world's largest maker of jet engines and electricity-producing turbines is not factoring stimulus-related spending into its 2009 financial planning.
"We don't have anything that we're specifically counting on from the stimulus," Sherin said in an interview.
Obama's proposal includes $550 billion of government spending and $275 billion of tax cuts.
NOT JUST WATCHING WASHINGTON
Both conglomerates generate about half their sales outside the United States, so they are not just looking at Washington's efforts to spark the ailing economy.
"Based on the intensive global stimulus efforts underway today, we still expect a modest recovery in the latter part of 2009," said Greg Hayes, CFO of United Tech, the world's largest maker of elevators and air conditioners, on a conference call with analysts.
For example, executives with Hartford, Connecticut-based United Tech said sales at their Otis elevator unit could start to pick up as China's stimulus plans take effect.
Analysts agreed the program could directly spark demand for wind mills, solar panels as well as energy-saving devices.
"It's more than two or three quarters away in terms of when it will have a material impact, but it's definitely helpful to the GEs of the world out there that supply power generation products," said Morningstar analyst Daniel Holland. "They'll be one of the first ones that end up seeing the benefits of it."
United Tech's Hayes said the U.S. stimulus could in particular boost demand for products made by its Carrier air conditioner, Fire and Security and Otis elevator units.
"We actually are optimistic that we will get a little bit of a bump just from those particular programs," Hayes said.
Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE has been in talks with the Obama administration about its plans, Sherin said.
"We've been carefully working with the administration about what can help the country create more jobs and what can help us with renewable energy and energy independence and what can help us with health care productivity, things that are part of the administration's new platforms," Sherin said.
Investors see opportunity for GE and United Tech in the stimulus, though they agree it will be some time before they feel it in terms of revenue.
"Maybe beginning in the fourth quarter when a contractor starts to subcontract for some equipment from GE or (United Tech) they would begin to see that at least go into their backlog, which is always a good indicator of future business for them," said Douglas Ober, CEO of Adams Express Co in Baltimore, Maryland, which counts GE and United Tech among its top holdings. "I suspect that the bulk of funds that they might see would not hit till 2010."
(Reporting by Scott Malone, editing by Leslie Gevirtz)
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE50M6GX20090123
"Green" tech a money saver in global downturn: U.N.
Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:44pm EST
By Thin Lei Win
BANGKOK (Reuters) - Business should use the global downturn to forge ahead with green technologies that will save hard pressed firms money as well as the planet, a U.N. environment agency said on Thursday.
Proven and commercially available technologies can cut buildings' energy use by 30 percent without a significant increase in investment cost, said Angela Cropper, deputy executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP).
"Now is the time to pick up the pace in our efforts to address both climate change and economic development," she told a climate change business forum in Bangkok.
A 2008 UNEP report found venture capital and private equity investment in sustainable energy rose 34 percent in the second quarter of 2008 from the same period in 2007.
Although the report was released last July before the credit crisis really bit, some executives backed Cropper's call for more green innovations in the business world.
Teresa Au, head of HSBC's corporate sustainability in the region, said the bank's climate sustainability products, such as financing for green equipment, had done very well in the second half of 2008 despite the credit crunch.
Cropper said micro-finance could also help developing countries pursue environmentally friendly policies. In Bangladesh, small loans have allowed female entrepreneurs to install solar panels and bring electricity to 100,000 homes.
"Adaptation is not only big ticket items," Cropper said. "It can also be done and it has to be done in household and community levels."
With 11 months to go before climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, where a successor to the Kyoto Protocol may be hammered out, speakers at the Bangkok forum were optimistic about the year ahead.
They pointed to South Korea's $38 billion plan to invest in green projects, and President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to double the output of renewable energy in the United States within three years.
Nevertheless, many embattled Asian firms are looking to cut their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, some of which benefit environmental causes, said Richard Welford, chairman of CSR Asia, a Hong Kong-based consultancy on sustainable business practices.
Environmentalist Sunita Narain opposed government bailouts for troubled car companies, who have received billions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayer.
"If you are really serious about green business, give bailouts perhaps to bus companies or putting money into rail works instead of roadworks," she said.
(Editing by Darren Schuettler and Jon Boyle)
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50L53M20090122
By Thin Lei Win
BANGKOK (Reuters) - Business should use the global downturn to forge ahead with green technologies that will save hard pressed firms money as well as the planet, a U.N. environment agency said on Thursday.
Proven and commercially available technologies can cut buildings' energy use by 30 percent without a significant increase in investment cost, said Angela Cropper, deputy executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP).
"Now is the time to pick up the pace in our efforts to address both climate change and economic development," she told a climate change business forum in Bangkok.
A 2008 UNEP report found venture capital and private equity investment in sustainable energy rose 34 percent in the second quarter of 2008 from the same period in 2007.
Although the report was released last July before the credit crisis really bit, some executives backed Cropper's call for more green innovations in the business world.
Teresa Au, head of HSBC's corporate sustainability in the region, said the bank's climate sustainability products, such as financing for green equipment, had done very well in the second half of 2008 despite the credit crunch.
Cropper said micro-finance could also help developing countries pursue environmentally friendly policies. In Bangladesh, small loans have allowed female entrepreneurs to install solar panels and bring electricity to 100,000 homes.
"Adaptation is not only big ticket items," Cropper said. "It can also be done and it has to be done in household and community levels."
With 11 months to go before climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, where a successor to the Kyoto Protocol may be hammered out, speakers at the Bangkok forum were optimistic about the year ahead.
They pointed to South Korea's $38 billion plan to invest in green projects, and President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to double the output of renewable energy in the United States within three years.
Nevertheless, many embattled Asian firms are looking to cut their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, some of which benefit environmental causes, said Richard Welford, chairman of CSR Asia, a Hong Kong-based consultancy on sustainable business practices.
Environmentalist Sunita Narain opposed government bailouts for troubled car companies, who have received billions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayer.
"If you are really serious about green business, give bailouts perhaps to bus companies or putting money into rail works instead of roadworks," she said.
(Editing by Darren Schuettler and Jon Boyle)
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50L53M20090122
Drought, heat killing trees in western N.America
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:45pm EST
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Trees in the western United States and Canada are dying twice as quickly as they did just 30 years ago, with rising average temperatures almost certainly to blame, researchers reported on Thursday.
These thinner and weaker forests will become more vulnerable to wildfires and may soak up less carbon dioxide, in turn speeding up global warming, they said.
The U.S. and Canadian researchers from a variety of agencies and universities studied trees in old-growth forests for more than 50 years to document the die-off, which they say is beginning to outpace replacement by new trees.
Warmer temperatures may be encouraging pine beetles and other organisms that attack trees, the researchers said. That, along with the stress of prolonged droughts, may be accelerating death rates.
"Average temperature in the West rose by more than 1 degree F (half a degree C) over the last few decades," said Phillip van Mantgem of the U.S. Geological Survey, who helped lead the study.
"While this may not sound like much, it has been enough to reduce winter snowpack, cause earlier snowmelt, and lengthen the summer drought."
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers said they found trees of various species, ages and sizes are dying faster at every elevation.
"Wherever we looked, mortality rates are increasing," Nathan Stephenson of the USGS told reporters in a telephone briefing.
'CARBON SOAKS'
Forests are usually called "carbon soaks" because plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, removing carbon from the atmosphere. But when trees die or burn, this carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
So a dying forest adds to the carbon that in turn helps warm the planet's surface.
The findings fit in with other studies and with changes that have become obvious -- such as the 3.5 million acres (1.4 million hectares) of pine forest that has been destroyed by mountain pine bark beetles in northwestern Colorado.
Thomas Veblen of the University of Colorado said new regulations may be needed to help the forests survive.
"We need to consider developing land-use policies that reduce the vulnerability of people and resources to wildfires," Veblen said.
"Activities include reducing residential development in or near wildland areas that are naturally fire-prone and where we expect fire risk to increase with continued warming."
Mark Harmon, a professor of forest ecology at Oregon State University, said the overall mortality rates are low but they add up.
"We may only be talking about an annual tree mortality rate changing from 1 percent a year to 2 percent a year, an extra tree here and there," Harmon said in a statement.
"Forest fires or major insect epidemics that kill a lot of trees all at once tend to get most of the headlines. What we're studying here are changes that are much slower and difficult to identify, but in the long run extremely important."
(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Will Dunham and John O'Callaghan)
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50L5UQ20090123
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Trees in the western United States and Canada are dying twice as quickly as they did just 30 years ago, with rising average temperatures almost certainly to blame, researchers reported on Thursday.
These thinner and weaker forests will become more vulnerable to wildfires and may soak up less carbon dioxide, in turn speeding up global warming, they said.
The U.S. and Canadian researchers from a variety of agencies and universities studied trees in old-growth forests for more than 50 years to document the die-off, which they say is beginning to outpace replacement by new trees.
Warmer temperatures may be encouraging pine beetles and other organisms that attack trees, the researchers said. That, along with the stress of prolonged droughts, may be accelerating death rates.
"Average temperature in the West rose by more than 1 degree F (half a degree C) over the last few decades," said Phillip van Mantgem of the U.S. Geological Survey, who helped lead the study.
"While this may not sound like much, it has been enough to reduce winter snowpack, cause earlier snowmelt, and lengthen the summer drought."
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers said they found trees of various species, ages and sizes are dying faster at every elevation.
"Wherever we looked, mortality rates are increasing," Nathan Stephenson of the USGS told reporters in a telephone briefing.
'CARBON SOAKS'
Forests are usually called "carbon soaks" because plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, removing carbon from the atmosphere. But when trees die or burn, this carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
So a dying forest adds to the carbon that in turn helps warm the planet's surface.
The findings fit in with other studies and with changes that have become obvious -- such as the 3.5 million acres (1.4 million hectares) of pine forest that has been destroyed by mountain pine bark beetles in northwestern Colorado.
Thomas Veblen of the University of Colorado said new regulations may be needed to help the forests survive.
"We need to consider developing land-use policies that reduce the vulnerability of people and resources to wildfires," Veblen said.
"Activities include reducing residential development in or near wildland areas that are naturally fire-prone and where we expect fire risk to increase with continued warming."
Mark Harmon, a professor of forest ecology at Oregon State University, said the overall mortality rates are low but they add up.
"We may only be talking about an annual tree mortality rate changing from 1 percent a year to 2 percent a year, an extra tree here and there," Harmon said in a statement.
"Forest fires or major insect epidemics that kill a lot of trees all at once tend to get most of the headlines. What we're studying here are changes that are much slower and difficult to identify, but in the long run extremely important."
(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Will Dunham and John O'Callaghan)
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50L5UQ20090123
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Palestinians stunned by first presidential phone call
PATRICK MARTIN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 21, 2009 at 8:09 PM EST
JERUSALEM — U.S. President Barack Obama's first full day in office certainly made a big impression on some people. His first action – the suspension of the Guantanamo system for alleged Islamic terrorists – caught the attention of Muslims around the world. And his first overseas telephone call, to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, stunned Palestinians and many Israelis as well.
“We were not expecting such a quick call from President Obama, but we knew how serious he is about the Palestinian problem,” said a very excited Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior adviser to Mr. Abbas.
Faced with a struggle to regain control of the Gaza Strip, and growing popular support for the Islamic resistance movement, Hamas, in the West Bank, the beleaguered PA president could take particular comfort from the call.
“The speed of the call is a message signalling to all concerned parties that the Palestinian people has one address and that's president Abbas,” Mr. Abed Rabbo said.
Many in the Arab world had taken encouragement from Mr. Obama's address the day before in which he specifically called on “the Muslim world” to join him in “a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”
Young Jordanians and Palestinians were ready to join him. They flooded radio programs and YouTube with their comments.
“I'm ecstatic,” said Omar Jibril from Ramallah. “The world is fed up with Bush,” said a teenaged Jordanian. “Don't we deserve a better future?” another asked.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak wrote Mr. Obama to congratulate him. “This region is looking forward to your handling of the Palestinian cause from the first day of your tenure,” he said. “It is an urgent priority and the key to all the other difficult crises of the Middle East.”
Even Iran appeared to have noticed Mr. Obama's offer to “extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
“We are ready for new approaches by the United States,” said Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, even allowing that “a new Middle East is in the making.
“The new generation in this region seeks justice and rejects domination,” Mr. Mottaki explained, referring to U.S. domination.
Hamas was non-committal about the message of the new President. “We will judge him by his policies and actions on the ground and how he will learn lessons from the mistakes of the previous administrations, especially that of George Bush and his criminal and unjust policies,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum, in Gaza.
He said Hamas expects Mr. Obama “to respect the will of the Palestinian people, support their usurped rights and their right to defend themselves, away from any pressure or bias in favour of Israel.”
You can be sure that every Israeli watching the Obama inaugural address Tuesday was listening carefully to hear their country named. They were disappointed.
“He only mentioned ‘Iraq' and the ‘Muslim world,'” said Eytan Gilboa, a specialist on American-Israeli relations at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, who had been keeping careful track. “But I take that to mean that these are his priorities.
“I don't believe there's any cause for concern,” he said.
Many Israelis disagreed.
“Does he [Mr. Obama] have a solution to the greatest threat to the free world – Islamic fundamentalism?” asked the lead editorial in yesterday's Maariv newspaper. Islamic extremists “are not looking for a free world that understands them; they want to eliminate the free world.”
The respected Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea, writing in Yediot Ahronot, Israel's most popular daily, said that there were moments in his address Tuesday when Mr. Obama looked “like a bar-mitzvah boy who found himself at a grown-up game – impressive, but not presidential; a rock star – not the CEO of the world.”
Mr. Barnea zeroed in on the Obama foreign policy appointments as a more concrete way to judge the new President's performance. He railed against the expected appointment of former senate majority leader George Mitchell as a new Middle East envoy.
Mr. Mitchell, appointed by Bill Clinton to examine the events surrounding the Palestinian uprising in 2000, had concluded that the spread of Israeli settlements, as well as terrorism carried out by Palestinians, had contributed to the tensions.
Mr. Mitchell's report “was received with great anger by [Ariel] Sharon's government,” Mr. Barnea wrote. “[Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert's government also does not consider him a friend.”
Mr. Barnea goes on to conclude: “Since it is reasonable to assume that the next government will be more right-wing than the current government, it is doubtful whether it will feel as comfortable in Washington as the Sharon and Olmert governments felt.”
Moshe Arad, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, is much more positive about the appointments.
“Obama hasn't put a foot wrong,” he said. “George Mitchell is a very skilled, patient, fair man. He is opposed to settlements, yes, but he is in favour of Israeli security, and he knows both sides quite well.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090121.wobama_mideast22/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090121.wobama_mideast22
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 21, 2009 at 8:09 PM EST
JERUSALEM — U.S. President Barack Obama's first full day in office certainly made a big impression on some people. His first action – the suspension of the Guantanamo system for alleged Islamic terrorists – caught the attention of Muslims around the world. And his first overseas telephone call, to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, stunned Palestinians and many Israelis as well.
“We were not expecting such a quick call from President Obama, but we knew how serious he is about the Palestinian problem,” said a very excited Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior adviser to Mr. Abbas.
Faced with a struggle to regain control of the Gaza Strip, and growing popular support for the Islamic resistance movement, Hamas, in the West Bank, the beleaguered PA president could take particular comfort from the call.
“The speed of the call is a message signalling to all concerned parties that the Palestinian people has one address and that's president Abbas,” Mr. Abed Rabbo said.
Many in the Arab world had taken encouragement from Mr. Obama's address the day before in which he specifically called on “the Muslim world” to join him in “a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”
Young Jordanians and Palestinians were ready to join him. They flooded radio programs and YouTube with their comments.
“I'm ecstatic,” said Omar Jibril from Ramallah. “The world is fed up with Bush,” said a teenaged Jordanian. “Don't we deserve a better future?” another asked.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak wrote Mr. Obama to congratulate him. “This region is looking forward to your handling of the Palestinian cause from the first day of your tenure,” he said. “It is an urgent priority and the key to all the other difficult crises of the Middle East.”
Even Iran appeared to have noticed Mr. Obama's offer to “extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
“We are ready for new approaches by the United States,” said Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, even allowing that “a new Middle East is in the making.
“The new generation in this region seeks justice and rejects domination,” Mr. Mottaki explained, referring to U.S. domination.
Hamas was non-committal about the message of the new President. “We will judge him by his policies and actions on the ground and how he will learn lessons from the mistakes of the previous administrations, especially that of George Bush and his criminal and unjust policies,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum, in Gaza.
He said Hamas expects Mr. Obama “to respect the will of the Palestinian people, support their usurped rights and their right to defend themselves, away from any pressure or bias in favour of Israel.”
You can be sure that every Israeli watching the Obama inaugural address Tuesday was listening carefully to hear their country named. They were disappointed.
“He only mentioned ‘Iraq' and the ‘Muslim world,'” said Eytan Gilboa, a specialist on American-Israeli relations at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, who had been keeping careful track. “But I take that to mean that these are his priorities.
“I don't believe there's any cause for concern,” he said.
Many Israelis disagreed.
“Does he [Mr. Obama] have a solution to the greatest threat to the free world – Islamic fundamentalism?” asked the lead editorial in yesterday's Maariv newspaper. Islamic extremists “are not looking for a free world that understands them; they want to eliminate the free world.”
The respected Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea, writing in Yediot Ahronot, Israel's most popular daily, said that there were moments in his address Tuesday when Mr. Obama looked “like a bar-mitzvah boy who found himself at a grown-up game – impressive, but not presidential; a rock star – not the CEO of the world.”
Mr. Barnea zeroed in on the Obama foreign policy appointments as a more concrete way to judge the new President's performance. He railed against the expected appointment of former senate majority leader George Mitchell as a new Middle East envoy.
Mr. Mitchell, appointed by Bill Clinton to examine the events surrounding the Palestinian uprising in 2000, had concluded that the spread of Israeli settlements, as well as terrorism carried out by Palestinians, had contributed to the tensions.
Mr. Mitchell's report “was received with great anger by [Ariel] Sharon's government,” Mr. Barnea wrote. “[Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert's government also does not consider him a friend.”
Mr. Barnea goes on to conclude: “Since it is reasonable to assume that the next government will be more right-wing than the current government, it is doubtful whether it will feel as comfortable in Washington as the Sharon and Olmert governments felt.”
Moshe Arad, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, is much more positive about the appointments.
“Obama hasn't put a foot wrong,” he said. “George Mitchell is a very skilled, patient, fair man. He is opposed to settlements, yes, but he is in favour of Israeli security, and he knows both sides quite well.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090121.wobama_mideast22/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090121.wobama_mideast22
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
