Whoop Dee Dooo! & Broke Back-Mountain of Debt!

Obama has a radical proposal - seek out moderate terrorists and then negotiate. He has prepared for this by closing Gitmo, and no longer calling terrorists enemy combatants. Well Whoop Dee Dooooo! (See 1 below.)

Head spokesman for Hamas, Nasrallah - Hamas will never recognize Israel.

A stitched together Hamas and Fatah creates a problem for Israel which has stated it will not negotiate with a group sworn to its demise. However, an expedient foreign policy which creates the appearance of stability is better than one based on reality it seems.

Seven nations agree to try and limit arms inflow to continue the charade. (See 2,2a and 2b below.)

Islamic revolution quite alive and spreading despite what we hear and want to believe. (See 3 below.)

When things aren't going according to Hoyle get on the GW Penata and hit it! That's leadership and Obama learned it as Editor in Chief of The Harvard Law Review! (See 4below.)

Broke back because of a mountaion of debt - welcome to the future, youth of America. (See 5 below.)

Obama not only consistently blames others for his own shortcomings, lack of experience and leadership qualities but seems to appoint those with the similar character flaws.

So, let's hear it from Freeman himself who was interviewed by Robert Dreyfuss.(See 6, 6a and 6b below.)

The Economist on disappearing jobs! (See 7 below.)

Dialogue with Lebanon's Ayatollah. Long but interesting and well worthwhile read. (See 8 below.)

Is Ayn Rand relevant? More so than ever because her Atlas tells the story of the U.S. econonmy crumbling under the weight of crushing government regulations etc. DUH!(See 9 below.)

Dick



1) Obama's futile search for 'moderate radicals'
By Richard L. Benkin

The words we use are important, and each has its own specific meaning. So when the Obama Administration said that it was open to dealing with "moderate Taliban," people should ask what in the world it means. The Taliban is by definition a radical organization that is not about to give on its maximalist demand of imposing Sharia law wherever it attains power. It is in its very essence contrary to everything we believe in as Americans. When the US President, who considers himself a master of words, speaks about moderate radicals, he needs to be asked, "Are you crazy?"


President Obama is copying the policy of the Pakistani government whereby it has identified elements of the Taliban that it believes are moderate; that is, amenable to negotiation. This, of course, is criminally naïve. Our history with Islamist radicals is that the only time they negotiate is when they believe themselves too weak for a military win and consider themselves bound to any "negotiated peace" only until they are strong enough for total victory.


Last month, Pakistan's government concluded an agreement with those moderate radicals whereby it allowed Sharia law to replace the law of the land in the Swat Valley and Taliban control to replace its own. In exchange, the Taliban agreed to a "permanent peace." Does anyone want to guess how permanent that will be? The Swat Valley, moreover, is located less than 100 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. It is home to over 1.2 million people who now have been consigned to live under the same tyrannical rule that pertained in Afghanistan before the Taliban was defeated there. There is also a giant stone statue of Buddha in the area, which likely will meet the fate of those that used to exist in Afghanistan.


As reported on Fox News at the time, NATO "blasted" the agreement and predicted that the Taliban would only use the ceasefire to become more powerful. Even Amnesty International objected, fearing it would legitimize the Taliban's human rights abuses. The new Obama administration was silent, perhaps mulling over the idea for itself.


Pakistan's government claims that the agreement was not "capitulation but the price of peace" in the region. Taliban leaders, however, say that capitulation is precisely what is it-and I cannot believe that there is something on which we agree. Capitulation was the price of peace. Taliban leaders claim that it was their unrelenting war in the valley and their policy of burning homes and other buildings indiscriminately that forced the government to surrender.


Now, Obama has decided that this is a pretty good idea and has let it be known that he is ready to negotiate with "moderate Taliban." Thus far, the Taliban response has been that they, too, are ready, so long as the United States will "stop your military action in Pakistan and Afghanistan."


This is about as wrong-headed a policy as one could imagine. Although people grow weary of comparisons with the Nazis, we might consider this one. In 1937, the British and French agreed to let Hitler have the part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland as the price of "peace in our time," which was the British leader's famous quote after the concession. It was not long, however, before Hitler gobbled up the rest of that nation and soon embarked on his war for global domination that cost tens of millions of lives.


The Pakistanis ceded this one part of their country with same motives as their 1937 precursors. But less than one month later, Taliban forces already have taken over larger chunks of their country, and the civilian government is in shambles with politicians bickering while Pakistan burns. Most observers believe that only a military coup (which likely will occur as soon as March 16), will save nuclear Pakistan from becoming a Taliban state.


Mr. Obama better take note of the price of appeasement.

2) Nasrallah vows Hezbollah will never recognize Israel


Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah vowed on Friday that his organization will never recognize Israel.

In a speech delivered from his secret hiding place and beamed via video to thousands of Hezbollah followers in Lebanon, Nasrallah said his organization will never officially accept Israel, which in his words represents "a rapacious, racist, and illegal entity."

"We are strong and we are capable," Nasrallah said. "If we will stand on our feet, we can destroy this entity."


"As long as this rapacious entity exists, then resistance is our honor and our lives," Nasrallah added, imploring all Arabs and Muslims to adhere to the same path.

The Hezbollah chief also commented on the possibility of future talks with the United States in light of recent reports that Britain plans on reaching out to the political wing of the Lebanon-based Shi'ite movement.

"The United States is ready now to talk with any party, not out of a sense of morality, but because it failed in its attempts to implement its plans in the region," Nasrallah said. "It failed in its plan to conduct regime change in Syria and it failed in stopping Iran."

"The American plan to liquidate the resistance will fail in the same way," Nasrallah continued. "Generally speaking, before the U.S. lists its conditions for negotiations, we must ask ourselves if we want to hold contacts with it."

The Hezbollah chief also said he was supportive of Palestinian efforts to reach inter-factional consensus as part of the reconciliation talks currently being held in Egypt.

"The inner-Palestinian dialogue in Cairo is deserving of widespread support," Nasrallah said. "We in Hezbollah are joining all those who are calling on the Palestinian to make every effort to arrive at unity and cooperation."

Nasrallah also criticized voices in the moderate camp of Arab states that accuse Iran of sowing division in the region and for contributing to the plight of the Palestinians through its support for Hamas.

"We as Arabs must reach out with support and friendship and not accuse states like Iran and Turkey in harming the rights of Arabs," he said.

Report: U.S. slams renewed ties between Britain, Hezbollah

A senior official in the Obama administration said the United States disagrees with Britain's decision to renew contact with the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah.

The New York Times reported on Friday that the official, who spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity, said the British government had informed the "previous administration" of its decision.

Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office last Thursday said it was re-establishing contact with the political wing of the Lebanese militant group,as part of an effort to press the militant organization to disarm.

The official also said that the U.S. would like Britain to explain "the difference between the political, social and military wings of Hezbollah because we don't see the difference between the integrated leadership that they see."

Britain ceased contact with members of Hezbollah in 2005, and listed Hezbollah's military wing as a proscribed terrorist organization last year.

However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said last week that it had reconsidered its position following political developments in Lebanon.

"We have reconsidered the position...in light of more positive developments within Lebanon," Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell told a parliamentary committee last week. "For that reason we have explored establishing contacts."

Rammell said he was referring to the formation in July last year of a unity government in which Hezbollah and its allies hold effective veto power, as agreed under a deal that ended a paralyzing political conflict in the country.

"We will look to have further discussions and our overriding objective within that is to press Hezbollah to play a more constructive role, particularly to move away from violence," Rammell said.

The move could be significant because Britain, the United States and other powers are locked in a dispute with Iran, Hezbollah's backers, over its nuclear program.

The U.S. State Department said last Friday that it has not changed its stance regarding Hezbollah, and that it feels the time is not right for renewed contacts with the Lebanon-based militant group.

The U.S. also said it would closely follow developments between Britain and Hezbollah.

2a) ANALYSIS / Fatah-Hamas unity would pose major dilemma for Israel
By Zvi Bar'el


If the understandings reached on Thursday in Cairo between Fatah and Hamas remain valid even after the representatives from both sides return home, they are likely to expedite the release of Gilad Shalit. Because now Hamas has an additional incentive to wrap up the prisoner swap and claim for itself the credit and glory that comes with freeing Palestinian prisoners instead of bequeathing the task to a Palestinian unity government to which Fatah will also be a party.

On the other hand, these understandings will present Israel with a difficult dilemma. Should Jerusalem recognize a united Palestinian government comprised of Hamas and other factions, or should it adopt anew the position of Israel's government since the elections in 2006 which posits that any entity of which Hamas is a part is illegitimate?

A union between Fatah and Hamas, particularly the clause which calls for the merger of Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization, will present Hamas with a difficult dilemma. Will "the new PLO" be committed to the decisions made by the "original" PLO, including the Oslo Accords, or will Hamas condition the establishment of a revamped PLO on the renunciation of all past agreements?


A Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement is likely to play nicely into the hands of the Netanyahu government, given that, at least in the foreseeable future, it is difficult to see the new Palestinian government as a partner for a final peace settlement. Conversely, such a government could be a worthy partner for someone who is angling for "economic peace" and no more, one which would preoccupy itself with answering to the needs of the local population, development of infrastructure, and security arrangements.

Indeed, the Fatah-Hamas understandings speak of the formation of just three security arms - interior, national, and foreign - which will all be under the purview of one agency. The division of powers and the essence of these forces remain unclear, but they are likely to represent a unified address from Israel's standpoint that will primarly build an authoritative, ruling apparatus that will manage security affairs in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in a way that will make it easier to deal with the Palestinians.

If Israel decides not to recognize a united government, it must also take into account that a Fatah-Hamas coalition will make it easier for the European Union, perhaps even Washington as well, to hold direct contacts with it. The rationale would be that such a government is one that rules with a mandate from all Palestinians, even if that government does not recognize Israel. It goes without saying that should Israel reject the idea of two states for two peoples, it would find itself on a collision course with the American administration.

A united Palestinian government is also an important first step for them to receive the financial donations earmarked for the rehabilitation of Gaza. It is true that the European Union and the U.S. conditioned the transfer of the funds on recognition of Israel, but the money committed from Arab states does not require such a condition be met. These countries can hand the money over to a Palestinian government that speaks for all the factions, paricularly if the alternative is money from Iran.

2b) 9 nations agree on plan to stem arms flow to Gaza
By Reuters


The United States, Canada and seven European nations agreed on Friday to try to stop the flow of weapons to Gaza by methods such as interception at sea, information sharing and diplomatic pressure.

Experts from the nine nations, meeting in London, agreed on a program of action to prevent arms reaching the Palestinian enclave bordering the Mediterranean, a senior British diplomat said.

But states are not obliged to join any particular action and the diplomat said that naval vessels would not use force.
Advertisement


Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway signed up to the program, the diplomat said.

Stopping the flow of arms is seen as a crucial part of international efforts to bring a durable ceasefire to Gaza and persuade Israel to lift tough restrictions on humanitarian and reconstruction aid reaching the Palestinian territory.

The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the program set guidelines for steps countries could take under international law. "What it does is provide a platform to start some form of practical cooperation," he said.

Israel and Hamas ordered ceasefires on Jan. 18 after a 22-day Israeli offensive against the Islamist group which controls the territory. A Palestinian human rights group said this week 1,434 Gazans, including 960 civilians, were killed.

Thirteen Israelis were killed during the offensive, which Israel said it launched to force Hamas to stop firing rockets and mortars at southern Israeli towns.

The program read out by the diplomat says the nine countries, all NATO members, will "take action, to the extent that national legal authorities permit and consistent with international law, to support interdiction efforts."

"Such efforts may include enquiry, boarding, searching, stopping, seizing, or other efforts necessary to prevent transfers of arms, ammunition and weapons components," it said, but added that naval ships would not use force.

The program proposes sharing information about points of origin, carriers and transit routes of suspected arms shipments to Gaza, and cooperation to put diplomatic pressure on countries involved to stop weapons reaching Gaza.

3)'Kayhan' Editor: 'The Islamic Revolution Is More Alive Than Ever; The Export of Its Ideas Is at Its Peak'

In an interview with the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari, an associate of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, referred to the revolution's achievements and to its influence in the Middle East. He stressed that the export of the revolution has peaked under Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and discussed the struggle of Iran and its allies Hizbullah and Hamas against the West.

Following are excerpts from the interview: [1]


"In the First Year After the Revolution, We Were Alone… [30 Years Later] We Have Many [Allies] Around the World… We Are the Leading Power in the Region"

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "What is the state of Iran [today], after 30 years of the Islamic revolution?"

Shariatmadari: "The [Islamic] Revolution is still alive in Iran. [In fact, after] 30 years, it is more alive than it ever was before. The revolution and its ideas are being exported to other Muslim countries.

"In the first year after the revolution, we were alone. We did not have many friends or allies around us who shared our convictions. Today the situation is different. We are no longer alone, but have many [allies] around the world.

"This can be seen in Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey and throughout the Islamic world. [In fact,] even some non-Muslim countries are supportive of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and have adopted its mottos and ideas.

"Thirty years after the revolution, we are the leading power in the region in terms of military [abilities], technology, science, medicine and nuclear technology."

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "Why do you contend that the revolution is more alive today than ever before?"

Shariatmadari: "Because despite all the conspiracies aimed at weakening us, those who wish to destroy our revolution have failed to do so. The Iranians know that America is a bitter enemy of their country, and that its hostility has not waned in [the last] 30 years.

"[America has tried everything,] from sanctions to [various] plots aimed at weakening us. Today, it is still exhibiting the same [hostile] position towards our nuclear program, which shows that it wishes to halt Iran's progress. But that will never happen.

"Look at America's stance towards Hizbullah and Hamas, and at its plot to wage war on them in order to crush the resistance. Praise God, the war on Hamas lasted 22 days, after which the Zionist forces were forced to withdraw. The war on Hizbullah lasted 33 days, and the resistance won. Will the next war last [only] 11 days, and the one after than only one day? (laughs)...

"When the Islamic resistance stands [so] courageously, it is a sign that the revolution is alive while the plans of America and Israel are failing. That is why I say that the revolution is [now] at its strongest, more alive than ever before, and that the export [of its ideals to other countries] is more intensive than ever."


"The Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Resistance of Hizbullah… the Resistance in Palestine, and the Current Position of Turkey [All Show that] Geographic Boundaries Cannot Stop the Spread of the Resistance Ideology"

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "What do you mean when you talk about exporting the revolution today?"

Shariatmadari: "Geographic boundaries are no barrier to the spread of ideas. When our neighboring countries or [other countries] around the world see that Iran has independence, freedom and sovereignty, and that, after 30 years of war and destruction, America has been unable to crush it, they draw inspiration from this.

"Iran is a shining example of sovereignty and steadfastness in the face of arrogance and tyranny. The Islamic Revolution in Iran, the resistance of Hizbullah, the intifada and resistance in Palestine, and the current position of Turkey [all show that] everything changes, and that geographic boundaries cannot stop the spread of the resistance ideology. Many things have changed in the region since the successful Islamic Revolution 30 years ago.

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "Some claim that... the numerous disputes among the various factions that led the revolution are still raging in Iran [today], and that, as a result, the revolution is not at its best."

Shariatmadari: "I do not like to use the word 'factions.' And I do not think that those who took part in the revolution disagree in terms of their support for [the revolution]. During the revolution, there were [various] streams and forces. If we examine [them], we find that [from the outset,] they did not all participate [in the revolution] to the same degree... [Moreover,] there were streams and figures that took part in the revolution and later forsook it and its path.

"If we examine [the situation] today, we see that [the forces in Iran] fall into [two categories]: the conservatives - and I prefer the term 'people of principle' - and the reformists. These two streams disagree on most issues, but before and during the revolution they did not quarrel or compete with each other. However, after the revolution, [under the rule of the reformists,] the positions of the regime's ruling [echelon] changed, and [the two streams] drifted apart. [But the reformists] were never against the revolution, and when we celebrate the revolution [today], we celebrate it together."

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "You speak of the reformists. Some say that, before the revolution, there was more freedom [in Iran] than there is today, and that the reformists are being subjected to pressure."

Shariatmadari: "That is not true at all. The answer is a matter of [presenting] the facts. In the Shah's era, there was no political freedom or freedom of thought in Iran. Prisons were full of political [prisoners]. There were [gaps] in socioeconomic status [between different population groups]. After the revolution, all that changed. The municipalities, parliament, and president are elected. There are active social movements, and the press is free to write whatever it wants..."

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "Did [former] U.S. president George Bush inadvertently serve Iran's interests during his eight years in office?"

Shariatmadari: "I will answer by quoting a hadith attributed to the imam Zain Al-'Abidin bin Hussein bin Ali, [who said], 'Praise God for making our enemies fools.'"


"To Establish Any U.S.-Iran Ties, One of Them Must Change Its Principles and Its Way of Thinking; Iran Will Never Do This - Hence, It Is America That Must Change, and Must View Its International Relations in a New Light"

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "Some accuse Iran of causing friction. For example, [U.S. President Barack] Obama wants to hold dialogue on the nuclear dossier, but Iran is setting conditions, demanding an apology for past crimes against it."

Shariatmadari: "I do not believe that Obama will speak about change. To date, there has been no real change in [U.S.] policy. Barack Obama is expressing the same positions as his predecessor, Bush. [Moreover,] he is very close to the Jewish organization AIPAC, and has aides who are loyal to Israel. Had there been any change, it would have been reflected in his positions.

"Following the Zionist war on Gaza, people throughout the world demonstrated in support of the Palestinians, and leaders around the world condemned the Zionists' attacks - yet Obama said nothing against Israel and its massacre. How can we [possibly] be pleased with him? On the day he was elected, Kayhan's headline was 'A Vulture in the Guise of a Dove.'

"[What is needed] is a fundamental change in America's thinking and conduct. Obama represents a small change. In order to establish any U.S.-Iran ties, one of them must change its principles and its way of thinking; Iran will never do this. Hence, it is America that must change, and must view its international relations in a new light..."

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "Do you think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will win the next presidential elections?"

Shariatmadari: "Ahmadinejad has many achievements, chief among them his [success in] revitalizing the revolution and bringing it back to its original ideals. I believe that he will be reelected. His measures vis-à-vis the threats of the West regarding our nuclear program have proved him correct.

"The West's problem is that it relates to Iran using the language of power, which is [now] obsolete. We live in an age in which no superpower can impose its control and its will upon the rest of the globe. It is a new world."

[1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 17, 2009.

4) Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush:President Points to 'Inherited' Economy
By Scott Wilson

In his inaugural address, President Obama proclaimed "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

It hasn't taken long for the recriminations to return -- or for the Obama administration to begin talking about the unwelcome "inheritance" of its predecessor.

Over the past month, Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems "inherited" from the Bush administration, using increasingly bracing language to describe the challenges his administration is up against. The "deepening economic crisis" that the president described six days after taking office became "a big mess" in remarks this month to graduating police cadets in Columbus, Ohio.

"By any measure," he said during a March 4 event calling for government-contracting reform, "my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster."

Obama's more frequent and acid reminders that former president George W. Bush left behind a trillion-dollar budget deficit, a 14-month recession and a broken financial system have come at the same time Republicans have ramped up criticism that the current president's policies are compounding the nation's economic problems.

Obama had initially been content to leave partisan defense strategy to his proxies, but as the fiscal picture has continued to darken, he has appeared more willing to risk his image as a politician who is above petty partisanship to personally remind the public of Bush's legacy.

His approval ratings remain strong -- above 60 percent, according to the most recent Gallup poll -- but have dropped from their highs almost entirely because of falling support among Republicans since he took office.


Upon entering the White House in 2001, Bush pinned the lackluster economy on his predecessor, using the "Clinton recession" to successfully argue in favor of tax cuts that won some Democratic support. But for Obama, who built his candidacy on a promise to rise above Washington's divisive partisan traditions -- winning over many independent voters and moderate Republicans in the process -- blaming his predecessor holds special risks.

He will need support beyond his Democratic base as he begins lobbying for his $3.6 trillion budget, which proposes sweeping changes in health care, the energy sector and the public education system. The president did not receive a single House Republican vote for his stimulus plan, prompting some in his administration to view his bipartisan outreach efforts as having little hope of success.

And Republicans have seemed only more emboldened in their rhetoric. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), for example, recently called the borrowing needed to fund the president's economic recovery plans "generational theft."

"What the administration is involved in now is the politics of attribution," said Lawrence R. Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. "Each week that goes by with falling job numbers and Republican criticism of the administration's flaws means falling approval ratings. What's the antidote? That the guilty party is George Bush."

"The trick," Jacobs said, "is how do you shift blame to George Bush and retain any credibility on the idea that you are looking past partisan warfare? This looks like a doubling down on a very partisan approach."

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, denied that the president has changed his tone toward the previous administration. He said Obama is "not trying to place blame, but he is trying to say clearly: Here's what we've got and here's our way out of it. He's offered a positive alternative to their criticism."

"The truth is that 98 percent of his speeches are about the future, and 2 percent are about inheritance," Emanuel said. "Whereas I think for Republicans it's 2 percent about the future, and 98 percent hope that the people have amnesia."

Until recently, the job of reminding the country of the Bush-era legacy had been left mostly to senior administration officials, and it sometimes ranged beyond economic matters. Referring to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Vice President Biden said soon after the inauguration that "we're trying to figure out exactly what we've inherited here."

In early February, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that "after I accepted the position, I began looking at the broad array of problems that we were going to inherit," citing the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular.

But most of the Bush-era blame has focused on the economy and the dismal state of the government's finances. Bush's spokesman, Rob Saliterman, declined to comment for this article.

Obama has strengthened his rhetoric gradually. Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, said the administration's "sharpened language is a response to the Republican argument against Obama based on huge deficits and big spending."

Six days after taking office, Obama kicked off an event on jobs, energy reform and climate change with "a few words about the deepening economic crisis that we've inherited." He lamented announced job cuts at such economic mainstays as Microsoft, Intel, Home Depot and Caterpillar, among others.


Just over a week later, Obama, arguing for his stimulus plan, said that "we've inherited a terrible mess," and a few days after that, in the economically depressed city of Elkhart, Ind., he told the audience, "We've inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the Great Depression."

During a prime-time news conference later that day, he used "inherited" twice in the same sentence to describe the deficit and "the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

This month, Obama has described inheriting "a fiscal disaster" and "a real mess," as administration officials emphasized that the effects of the stimulus package have yet to be seen in paychecks and job-creating public-works projects.

"There's a fascinating behind-the-scenes trend taking place for someone who remains a very popular president," said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush press secretary, describing the decline in Obama's approval ratings and an increase in disapproval numbers. "His response to that trend is to turn up the blame on George Bush and everything that came before him. And he was the one who talked about getting past partisanship."

The economy continues to shed jobs -- 651,000 in February alone -- and the Dow Jones index is roughly 12 percent lower than when the market opened on the day of Obama's inauguration. Perhaps most damaging has been the uncertainty surrounding Obama's strategy to rescue the banking sector, a plan that has been criticized for lacking detail.

Host Chris Wallace asked on "Fox News Sunday" this month, "Can this now fairly be called the Obama bear market?"

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) said, "I want to take the president at his word that he wants to work on these problems plaguing American families," adding that "people are looking for leadership."

"It is the Obama economy and the Obama stock market," Cantor said. "This is about today, and he's assumed his post."

5) Welcome, kids, to the Brokest Generation
By Mark Steyn

The young aren't to blame for this mess, but they'll be paying for it.

Just between you, me, and the old, the late middle-aged and the early middle-aged: Isn't it terrific to be able to stick it to the young? I mean, imagine how bad all this economic-type stuff would be if our kids and grandkids hadn't offered to pick up the tab.

Well, OK, they didn't exactly "offer" but they did stand around behind Barack Obama at all those campaign rallies helping him look dynamic and telegenic and earnestly chanting hopey-hopey-changey-changey. And "Yes, we can!"

Which is a pretty open-ended commitment.

Are you sure you young folks will be able to pay off this massive Mount Spendmore of multitrillion-dollar debts we've piled up on you?

"Yes, we can!"

We thought you'd say that! God bless the youth of America! We of the Greatest Generation, the Boomers and Generation X salute you, the plucky members of the Brokest Generation, the Gloomers and Generation Y, as in "Why the hell did you old coots do this to us?"

Because, as politicians like to say, it's about "the future of all our children." And the future of all our children is that they'll be paying off the past of all their grandparents. At 12 percent of GDP, this year's deficit is the highest since the Second World War, and prioritizes not economic vitality but massive expansion of government. But hey, it's not our problem. As Lord Keynes observed, "In the long run we're all dead." Well, most of us will be. But not you youngsters, not for a while. So we've figured it out: You're the ultimate credit market, and the rest of us are all preapproved!

The Bailout and the TARP and the Stimulus and the Multi-Trillion Budget and TARP 2 and Stimulus 2 and TARP And Stimulus Meet Frankenstein And The Wolf Man are like the old Saturday-morning cliffhanger serials your grandpa used to enjoy. But now he doesn't have to grab his walker and totter down to the Rialto, because he can just switch on the news and every week there's his plucky little hero Big Government facing the same old crisis: Why, there's yet another exciting spending bill with 12 zeros on the end, but unfortunately there seems to be some question about whether they have the votes to pass it. Oh, no! And then, just as the fate of another gazillion dollars of pork and waste hangs in the balance, Arlen Specter or one of those lady senators from Maine dashes to the cliff edge and gives a helping hand, and phew, this week's spendapalooza sails through. But don't worry, there'll be another exciting episode of "Trillion-Buck Rogers Of The 21st Century" next week!

This is the biggest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world. If you're an 18-year-old middle-class hopeychanger, look at the way your parents and grandparents live: It's not going to be like that for you. You're going to have a smaller house, and a smaller car – if not a basement flat and a bus ticket. You didn't get us into this catastrophe. But you're going to be stuck with the tab, just like the Germans got stuck with paying reparations for the catastrophe of the First World War. True, the Germans were actually in the war, whereas in the current crisis you guys were just goofing around at school, dozing through Diversity Studies and hoping to ace Anger Management class. But tough. That's the way it goes.

I had the pleasure of talking to the students of Hillsdale College last week, and I endeavored to explain what it is they're being lined up for in a 21st century America of more government, more regulation, less opportunity and less prosperity: When you come to take your seat at the American table (to use another phrase politicians are fond of), you'll find the geezers, boomers and X-ers have all gone to the men's room, and you're the only one sitting there when the waiter presents the check. That's you: Generation Checks.

The Teleprompter Kid says not to worry: His budget numbers are based on projections that the economy will decline 1.2 percent this year and then grow 4 percent every year thereafter. Do you believe that? In fact, does he believe that? This is the guy who keeps telling us this is the worst economic crisis in 70 years, and it turns out it's just a 1-percent decline for a couple more months, and then party time resumes? And, come to that, wasn't there a (notably unprojected) 6.2 percent drop in GDP just in the last quarter of 2008?

Whatever. Growth may be lower than projected, but who's to say all those new programs, agencies, entitlements and other boondoggles won't also turn out to cost less than anticipated? Might as well be optimistic, right?

Youth is wasted on the young, said Bernard Shaw. So the geezers appropriated it. We love the youthful sense of living in the moment, without a care, without the burdens of responsibility – free to go wild and crazy and splash out for Tony Danza in dinner theatre in Florida where we bought the condo we couldn't afford. But we also love the idealism of youth: We want to help the sick and heal the planet by voting for massive unsustainable government programs. Like the young, we're still finding ourselves, but when we find ourselves stuck with a medical bill or a foreclosure notice it's great to be able to call home and say, "Whoops, I got into a bit of a hole this month. Do you think you could advance me a couple of trillion just to tide me over?" And if there's no one at home but a couple of second-graders, who cares? In supporting the political class in its present behavior, America has gone to the bank and given its kids a massive breach-of-trust fund.

I mentioned a few weeks ago the calamitous reality of the U.S. auto industry. General Motors has 96,000 employees but provides health benefits to over a million people. They can never sell enough cars to make that math add up. In fact, selling cars doesn't help, as they lose money on each model. GM is a welfare project masquerading as economic activity. And, after the Obama transformation, America will be, too. The young need to recognize that this is their fight. They need to stop chanting along with the hopeychangey dirges and do something more effective, like form the anti-AARP: The association of Americans who'll never be able to retire.


6) Charles Freeman Orchestrated His Own Fall
By Frank R. Wolf


I am one of a number of members of Congress who challenged the selection of former ambassador Charles Freeman for chairman of the National Intelligence Council. This sensitive, high-profile position is responsible for overseeing the nation's intelligence evaluations.

After Freeman abruptly withdrew from consideration Tuesday evening, he and some in the media pointed to the so-called Israel lobby to explain the congressional uproar over his appointment. Freeman's charges of an elaborate conspiracy to derail his nomination are disingenuous. The "Israel lobby" never contacted me. For me, the warning flags about Charles Freeman went up when I learned of his questionable associations and inflammatory statements about China and Tibet.

For almost four years, Freeman served on the advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), receiving $10,000 a year for his service. The communist government of China, along with other state-owned companies, are majority stakeholders in CNOOC. Yet Freeman claims that he never received money from a foreign government. The connection may not be direct, but it is certainly there. The same can be said of the paycheck he received from the Middle East Policy Council, which received ample funding from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia -- whose regime is responsible for funding madrassas around the globe that have given rise to Islamic fundamentalists such as Mohammad Omar, leader of the Taliban.


CNOOC's investment in Sudan's oil sector is part of the lifeline that has sustained the regime of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who was indicted by the International Criminal Court this month on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In 2004, Sen. Sam Brownback and I were the first two members of Congress to travel to Darfur, where we saw the suffering and destruction that have taken place under the Bashir regime.

We witnessed the haunting reality of the terror and destruction that have been inflicted on Darfuris. We listened to the accounts of women who were brutally abused and raped by janjaweed forces when they ventured beyond the refugee camps to gather firewood for their families.

Congress voted unanimously in December 2007 to authorize state and local governments to divest assets in companies that do business in Sudan. President Bush signed this legislation into law on Dec. 31, 2007. Yet Freeman's appointment to this high-level post would have undermined the policy of U.S. divestment from the genocidal regime of Sudan.

On top of all this, Freeman gave a speech at the National War College Alumni Association last April 25 in which he described the uprisings in Tibet the previous month as "race riots." A year after those uprisings, 1,200 Tibetan protesters remain missing.

The Tibetan people have been oppressed for decades by the merciless Chinese government. I have been to Tibet and seen the conditions under which people there are forced to live. I found Freeman's statement to be an affront to those brave people. When I traveled to Tibet, no one there knew I was a member of Congress. I slipped in with a group of trekkers. I visited the monasteries and spoke to Buddhist monks and nuns who had been brutally tortured in the infamous Drapchi prison simply for professing their allegiance to the Dalai Lama. Just this week, the House voted 422 to 1 to commemorate the Dalai Lama's flight to Dharmsala in India 50 years ago. I hope to one day commemorate his return to Tibet.

Equally disturbing to me was Freeman's take on the events at Tiananmen Square in 1989, as he wrote in an e-mail that has been reported by the media. While the Obama administration claimed that Freeman's comments were taken out of context, I had the opportunity to read the entire conversation, and I strongly disagree.

Freeman said, "I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government. . . . Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced." I was in China in 1991 and visited Beijing Prison No. 1, where Tiananmen protesters were enslaved, forced to make socks for export to the West, simply for seeking their freedom.

While the reports of Freeman's public statements first raised my concern about his suitability to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council, his words after his withdrawal crystallized exactly why Freeman was the wrong choice for the job.

6a)Obama's National Intelligence Crackpot What does the Jewish lobby have to do with China's dissidents?
By BRET STEPHENS

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal published a letter from 17 U.S. ambassadors defending the appointment of Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council. The same day, the leaders of the 1989 protests that led to the massacre at Beijing's Tiananmen Square wrote Barack Obama "to convey our intense dismay at your selection" of Mr. Freeman.

If moral weight could be measured on a zero to 100 scale, the signatories of the latter letter, some of whom spent years in Chinese jails, would probably find themselves in the upper 90s. Where Mr. Freeman and his defenders stand on this scale is something readers can decide for themselves.

So what do Chinese democracy activists have against Mr. Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia? As it turns out, they are all, apparently, part-and-parcel of the Israel Lobby.

In a recent article about Mr. Freeman's nomination in the Huffington Post, M.J. Rosenberg of the left-wing Israel Policy Forum writes that "Everyone involved in the anti-Freeman effort are staunch allies of the lobby." Of course: Only the most fervid Likudnik mandarins could object to Mr. Freeman's 2006 characterization of Mao Zedong as a man who, for all his flaws, had a "brilliance of . . . personality [that] illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it." It also takes a Shanghai Zionist to demur from Mr. Freeman's characterization of the Chinese leadership's response to the "mob scene" at Tiananmen as "a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership."

Mr. Freeman knows China well: He served as a translator during Richard Nixon's historic 1972 visit to Beijing. More recently, Mr. Freeman served on the advisory board of CNOOC, the Chinese state-owned oil giant. Is this also a qualification to lead the NIC?

But the Far East is by no means Mr. Freeman's only area of expertise. For many years he has led the Middle East Policy Council, generously funded by Saudi money. It's a generosity Mr. Freeman has amply repaid.

Thus, recalling Mr. Freeman's special pleading on behalf of Riyadh during his stint as ambassador in the early '90s, former Secretary of State James Baker called it "a classic case of clientitis from one of our best diplomats." Mr. Freeman has also been quoted as saying "It is widely charged in the United States that Saudi Arabian education teaches hateful and evil things. I do not think this is the case." Yet according to a 2006 report in the Washington Post, an eighth grade Saudi textbook contains the line, "They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied." Maybe Mr. Freeman was unaware of this. Or maybe he doesn't consider it particularly evil and hateful.

Whatever the case, Mr. Freeman has been among the Kingdom's most devoted fans, going so far as to suggest that King Abdullah "is very rapidly becoming Abdullah the Great." No sycophancy there.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Freeman was a ferocious critic of the war on terror. Not surprising, either, was his opinion about what started it: "We have paid heavily and often in treasure in the past for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel's approach to managing its relations with the Arabs," he said in 2006. "Five years ago we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home."

This is not a particularly original argument, although in Mr. Freeman's case it becomes a kind of monomania, in which Israel is always the warmonger, always slapping away Arab hands extended in peace. Say what you will about this depiction of reality, there's also a peculiar psychology at work.

Then again, as Middle East scholar Martin Kramer points out, Mr. Freeman's recent views on the causes of 9/11 contradict his view from 1998, when he insisted that al Qaeda's "campaign of violence against the United States has nothing to do with Israel." What changed? Mr. Kramer thinks Mr. Freeman was merely following the lead of his benefactor, Citibank shareholder Prince Al-Waleed, who opined that 9/11 was all about U.S. support for Israel, not what the Kingdom teaches about the infidels.

Is Mr. Freeman merely a shill? That seems unfair, even if it's hard to square his remorseless "realism" in matters Chinese with the touching solicitude he feels for Israel's victims (who, by his count, must be numbered in the tens of millions). James Fallows of the Atlantic has argued that Mr. Freeman's "contrarian inclination" would serve him well in the NIC post. But the line between contrarian and crackpot is a thin one, and knowing the difference between the two is a main task of intelligence.

Adm. Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence who asked Mr. Freeman to serve, is testifying today in Congress. Somebody should ask him if any of Mr. Freeman's views quoted above meet the definition of "crackpot," and, if not, why?


6b) Interview With Charles Freeman
By Robert Dreyfuss


What is this?
I've written several times (here, here, here, and here) about the battle over the nomination of Charles W. ("Chas") Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Committee. On Tuesday, he withdrew his name from consideration after what I called a "thunderous, coordinated assault" against him by the Israel lobby and its neoconservative allies.

On Friday, three days after he withdrew -- in the midst of a media storm, including front page stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post -- Freeman and I spoke in an exclusive interview for The Nation. Here is the unedited transcript:

Q. When were you first approached by Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence? A. It was in early to mid-December. My initial reaction was that I was reluctant to go back to the government at all. And then my reaction was about, as I've been quoted saying, giving up my freedom, my leisure, most of my income, undergoing a mental colonoscopy, and resuming a daily commute to a job with long hours and a ration of political abuse.

Q. So when did you accept the position? A. Probably late January. It took me five, six weeks to overcome common sense and agree to do it.

Q. And what happened between January and the leak of your appointment? A. Two things happened. One, I began to notify the various organizations I nominally head or on whose boards I sit that I would be leaving to go into the government, though I didn't say where, and when I was approached to join new activities I replied that I would be grateful but that I couldn't consider it because I was going into government. And, two, I took the various business activities I was engaged in and looked at them to see how I could bring projects that were ongoing to a stage where I could responsibly walk away.

Q. Did you start to work with Blair in terms of defining your job? A. I had a series of conversations with him in which we discussed the need for the Obama administration to have a strong National Security Council policy process that could re-examine things on the strategic level, which is clearly long overdue. To look at the preconceptions of policy and to take a zero-sum look at quite a range of issues, including some connected with the Middle East, and a few, not very many, connected with China, because I don't see too much broken there: the alliance relationships, the NATO-Russia relationship, the emergence of narco-states within Mexico spilling over our border, the increasingly defiant stance of countries in Latin America to our influence, issues of order and state collapse in Africa, the issue of Indo-Pakistani relationship, "Pashtunistan" on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, how to understand the possibility of an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, and what remains as the basis for a mutually agreed upon Arab-Israeli settlement. And a lot of economic issues, too.

Q. Then the appointment was reported by Laura Rozen at Foreign Policy? A. Oh, I think I can probably reconstruct how Laura Rozen got the information. I think it was an innocent thing. I think the person who leaked it thought it was a 'good news' story. And didn't have any idea of the level of opposition that would quite quickly congeal.

Q. Were you planning an announcement? A. There would have been an announcement when I got on the job, which is the normal way these things are done. And I had figured on taking all or most of March to complete the process of disengagement.

Q. So after the Foreign Policy report … A. Yes, and within a day or two the Steve Rosen and Daniel Pipes crowd began piling on. And there were various, well, you watched it all. [Note: Steve Rosen, a former AIPAC official, blogs for Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum.]

Q. You were confident that you could withstand this assault until just before you dropped out. A. Oh, I could have withstood it anyway. I don't mind criticism… The issue was, in the end, that while in my own mind I thought I could make rather significant improvements in the integrity of the analytical process, I couldn't enhance its credibility, because anything that it produced that was politically controversial would immediately be attributed to me as some sort of political deviant, and be discredited. These guys would pile on with their usual lies, and half-truths, and distortions, and everything else.

Basically what Denny Blair wanted was a broadly experienced iconoclast, which some people says fits me as a description. And somebody who wasn't afraid to tell it like he saw it, or to ask people writing things for him why he's so sure about X, Y, or Z. Do they know that because everybody knows it, or do they have some evidence? And one could argue that is fairly critical in a number of contexts.

The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.' This isn't really a lobby by, for or about Israel. It's really, well, I've decided I'm going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with. And I think they're doing Israel in.

I had a really amazing outpouring of support, privately, not just from individuals, from Jewish-Americans of other views who hope that this was going to open up room for a discussion.

Q. How did your discussions on Capitol Hill go? A. Well, they didn't go badly. But I'm one guy talking to one or two people, and they're quite a number of people and they're feeding all sorts of disinformation in, and they have established channels and they also have clout. So there wasn't much hope on my part that I could get many people to stand up and support me, because the down side of doing that is so obvious. Because if you go against this group, they either curtail your contributions or they arrange to contribute to an opponent. So it's not realistic to expect courage on the Hill. And I didn't.

Q. You say that you retain confidence in the president. You don't think that a quiet word from him to members of Congress might have stopped all this? A. Oh, I think it might well have, particularly at the beginning when it was still a purely partisan matter. Before Nancy Pelosi jumped on the bandwagon. When you had the seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence writing a letter that was particularly partisan, that's when, if the White House were going to weigh in, it might have done some good.

Q. So the White House might have jumped in quicker. Certainly the White House suffered a loss of credibility as a result, now. A. Yes. They probably could have avoided that appearance of embarrassment. Would I have preferred to have been backed? Of course. But it wouldn't have altered the basic problem, that anything that the NIC said under my chairmanship would have been subjected to a slanderous attack.

Q. The Israel lobby wasn't too happy with other Obama appointments, such as James Jones, George Mitchell, Samantha Power. Why do you think they went after you and let them slide by? A. Because I was seen as particularly vulnerable. I'm precisely not the things they accuse me of being. I'm not a lobbyist. I haven't had a profile on the Hill. I think they probably very early figured out that this appointment, while presumably known to Jim Jones – well, I know it was known to Jim Jones – that there wasn't a specific White House buy-in because there didn't need to be anybody in the White House to buy in, and it was a nice way of, as the Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys.

Q. Do think that's working? Are the ‘monkeys' scared? Is the administration deterred? A. By ‘monkeys' in this analogy I mean people who might accept an appointment in the administration who are independent, who have an open as opposed to a closed mind on these matters. I don't think it's working. But, I mean, I'm the last person to be able to judge that.

Q. Have you heard from members of the Jewish community and Israelis? A. Yes, of course, quite a few. Including many of those who are themselves concerned about Israel's settlement activities and other aspects of the occupation. What it shows is that despite efforts by the ‘Lieberman lobby' to make it seem like members of the American Jewish community speak with one voice, on behalf of Liebermanesque policies in Israel, in fact the American Jewish community has a broad diversity of opinion, and a good deal of it, maybe a majority, doesn't agree with this particular perspective and feels terribly afraid that it can't speak out without being trashed. So you're either anti-Semitic or you're a self-hating Jew. Either way it's an awful accusation to have to endure.


7) When jobs disappear
From The Economist

The world economy faces the biggest rise in unemployment in decades. How governments react will shape labour markets for years to come


LAST month America’s unemployment rate climbed to 8.1%, the highest in a quarter of a century. For those newly out of a job, the chances of finding another soon are the worst since records began 50 years ago. In China 20m migrant workers (maybe 3% of the labour force) have been laid off. Cambodia’s textile industry, its main source of exports, has cut one worker in ten. In Spain the building bust has pushed the jobless rate up by two-thirds in a year, to 14.8% in January. And in Japan, where official unemployment used to be all but unknown, tens of thousands of people on temporary contracts are losing not just their jobs but also the housing provided by their employers.

The next phase of the world’s economic downturn is taking shape: a global jobs crisis. Its contours are only just becoming clear, but the severity, breadth and likely length of the recession, together with changes in the structure of labour markets in both rich and emerging economies, suggest the world is about to undergo its biggest increase in unemployment for decades.

In the last three months of 2008 America’s GDP slumped at an annualised rate of 6.2%. This quarter may not be much better. Output has shrunk even faster in countries dependent on exports (such as Germany, Japan and several emerging Asian economies) or foreign finance (notably central and eastern Europe). The IMF said this week that global output will probably fall for the first time since the second world war. The World Bank expects the fastest contraction of trade since the Depression.

An economic collapse on this scale is bound to hit jobs hard. In its latest quarterly survey Manpower, an employment-services firm, finds that in 23 of the 33 countries it covers, companies’ hiring intentions are the weakest on record (see chart 1). Because changes in unemployment lag behind those in output, jobless rates would rise further even if economies stopped contracting today. But there is little hope of that. And several features of this recession look especially harmful.

The credit crunch has exacerbated the impact of falling demand, pressing cash-strapped firms to cut costs more quickly. The asset bust and unwinding of debt that lie behind the recession mean that eventual recovery is likely to be too weak to create jobs rapidly. And when demand does revive, the composition of jobs will change. In a post-bubble world indebted consumers will save more and surplus economies, from China to Germany, will have to rely more on domestic spending. The booming industries of recent years, from construction to finance, will not bounce back. Millions of people, from Wall Street bankers to Chinese migrants, will need to find wholly different lines of work.

For now the damage is most obvious in America, where the recession began earlier than elsewhere (in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research) and where the ease of hiring and firing means changes in the demand for workers show up quickly in employment rolls. The economy began to lose jobs in January 2008. At first the decline was fairly modest and largely confined to construction (thanks to the housing bust) and manufacturing (where employment has long been in decline). But since September it has accelerated and broadened. Of the 4.4m jobs lost since the recession began, 3.3m have gone in the past six months. Virtually every sector has been hit hard. Only education, government and health care added workers last month.

So far, the pattern of job losses in this recession resembles that of the early post-war downturns (starting in 1948, 1953 and 1957). Those recessions brought huge, but temporary, swings in employment, in an economy far more reliant on manufacturing than today’s. As a share of the workforce, more jobs have been lost in this recession than in any since 1957. The pace at which people are losing their jobs, measured by the share of the workforce filing for weekly jobless claims, is much quicker than in the downturns of 1990 and 2001 (see chart 2).

The worry, however, is that the hangover from excess debt and the housing bust will mean a slow revival—looking more like the jobless recoveries after the past two downturns than like the vigorous V-shaped rebounds from the early post-war recessions. Ominous signs are a sharp increase in permanent-job losses and a rise in the number of people out of work for six months or more to 1.9% of the labour force, near a post-war high.

Official forecasts can barely keep up. In its budget in February the Obama administration expected a jobless rate of 8.1% for the year. That figure was reached within the month. Many Wall Street seers think the rate will exceed 10% by 2010 and may surpass the post-1945 peak of 10.8%. Past banking crises indicate an even gloomier prognosis. A study by Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Ken Rogoff of Harvard University suggests that the unemployment rate rose by an average of seven percentage points after other big post-war banking busts. That implies a rate for America of around 12%.

Moreover, the official jobless rate understates the amount of slack by more than in previous downturns. Many companies are cutting hours to reduce costs. At 33.3 hours, the average working week is the shortest since at least 1964. Unpaid leave is becoming more common, and not only at the cyclical manufacturing firms where it is established practice. A recent survey by Watson Wyatt, a firm of consultants, finds that almost one employer in ten intends to shorten the work week in coming months. Compulsory unpaid leave is planned by 6% of firms. Another 9% will have voluntary leave.

Europe’s jobs markets look less dire, for now. That is partly because the recession began later there, partly because joblessness had been unusually low by European standards and partly because Europe’s less flexible labour markets react more slowly than America’s. The euro area’s unemployment rate was 8.2% in January, up from 7.2% a year before. That of the whole European Union was 7.6%, up from 6.8%. For the first time in years American and European jobless rates are roughly in line (see chart 3).

Within the EU there are big variations. Ireland and Spain, where construction boomed and then subsided most dramatically, have already seen heavy job losses. Almost 30% of Ireland’s job growth in the first half of this decade came from the building trade. Its unemployment rate has almost doubled in the past year. In Britain, another post-property-bubble economy, the rate is also rising markedly. At the end of last year 6.3% of workers were jobless, up from 5.2% the year before. Figures due on March 18th are likely to show unemployment above 2m for the first time in more than a decade.

In continental Europe’s biggest economies, the consequences for jobs of shrivelling output are only just becoming visible. Although output in Germany fell at an annualised rate of 7% in the last quarter of 2008, unemployment has been only inching up. The rate is still lower than it was a year ago. Even so, no one doubts the direction in which joblessness is heading. In January the European Commission forecast the EU’s jobless rate to rise to 9.5% in 2010. As in America, many private-sector economists expect 10% or more.

Structural changes in Europe’s labour markets suggest that jobs will go faster than in previous downturns. Temporary contracts have proliferated in many countries, as a way around the expense and difficulty of firing permanent workers. Much of the reduction in European unemployment earlier this decade was due to the rapid growth of these contracts. Now the process is going into reverse. In Spain, Europe’s most extreme example of a “dual” labour market, all the job loss of the past year has been borne by temps. In France employment on temporary contracts has fallen by a fifth. Permanent jobs have so far been barely touched.

Although the profusion of temporary contracts has brought greater flexibility, it has laid the burden of adjustment disproportionately on the low-skilled, the young and immigrants. The rising share of immigrants in Europe’s workforce also makes the likely path of unemployment less certain. As Samuel Bentolila, an economist at CEMFI, a Spanish graduate school, points out, the jump in Spain’s jobless rate is not due to fewer jobs alone. Thanks to continued immigration, the labour force is still growing apace. In Britain, in contrast, hundreds of thousands of migrant Polish workers are reckoned to have gone home.

Despite having few immigrants, Japan is also showing the strains of a dual labour market. Indeed, its workforce is more starkly divided than that of any other industrial country. “Regular” workers enjoy strong protection; the floating army of temporary, contract and part-time staff have almost none. Since the 1990s, the “lost decade”, firms have relied increasingly on these irregulars, who now account for one-third of all workers, up from 20% in 1990.

As Japanese industry has collapsed, almost all the jobs shed have been theirs. Most are ineligible for unemployment assistance. A labour-ministry official estimates that a third of the 160,000 who have lost work in recent months have lost their homes as well, sometimes with only a few days’ notice. Earlier this year several hundred homeless temporary workers set up a tent village in Hibiya Park in central Tokyo, across from the labour ministry and a few blocks from the Imperial Palace. Worse lies ahead. Overall unemployment, now 4.1%, is widely expected to surpass the post-war peak of 5.8% within the year. In Japan too, some economists talk of double digits.

In emerging economies the scale of the problem is much harder to gauge. Anecdotal evidence abounds of falling employment, particularly in construction, mining and export-oriented manufacturing. But official figures on both job losses and unemployment rates are squishier. Estimates from the International Labour Organisation suggest the number of people unemployed in emerging economies rose by 8m in 2008 to 158m, an overall jobless rate of around 5.9%. In a recent report the ILO projected several scenarios for 2009. Its gloomiest suggested there could be an additional 32m jobless in the emerging world this year. That estimate now seems all too plausible. Millions will return from formal employment to the informal sector and from cities to rural areas. According to the World Bank, another 53m people will be pushed into extreme poverty in 2009.

History implies that high unemployment is not just an economic problem but also a political tinderbox. Weak labour markets risk fanning xenophobia, particularly in Europe, where this is the first downturn since immigration soared. China’s leadership is terrified by the prospect of social unrest from rising joblessness, particularly among the urban elite.

Given these dangers, politicians will not sit still as jobs disappear. Their most important defence is to boost demand. All the main rich economies and most big emerging ones have announced fiscal stimulus packages.

Since most emerging economies lack broad unemployment insurance, the main way they help the jobless is through labour-intensive government infrastructure projects as well as conditional cash transfers for the poorest. China’s fiscal boost includes plenty of money for infrastructure; India is accelerating projects worth 0.7% of GDP. However, a few emerging economies have more creative unemployment-insurance schemes than anything in the rich world. In Chile and Colombia formal-sector workers pay into individual unemployment accounts, on which they can draw if they lose their jobs. Many more countries have created prefunded pension systems based on individual accounts. Robert Holzmann of the World Bank thinks people should be allowed to borrow from such accounts while unemployed. Several countries are considering the idea.

In developed countries, governments’ past responses to high unemployment have had lasting and sometimes harmful effects. When joblessness rose after the 1970s oil shocks, Europe’s governments, pressed by strong trade unions, kept labour markets rigid and tried to cut dole queues by encouraging early retirement. Coupled with generous welfare benefits this resulted in decades of high “structural” unemployment and a huge rise in the share of people without work. In America, where the social safety net was flimsier, there were far fewer regulatory rigidities and people were more willing to move, so workers responded more flexibly to structural shifts. Less than six years after hitting 10.8%, the post-war record, in 1982, America’s jobless rate was close to 5%.

Policy in America still leans towards keeping benefits low and markets flexible rather than easing the pain of unemployment. Benefits for the jobless are, if anything, skimpier than in the 1970s. Unemployment insurance is funded jointly by states and the federal government. The states set the eligibility criteria and in many cases have not kept up with changes in the composition of the workforce. In 32 states, for instance, part-time workers are ineligible for benefits. All told, fewer than half of America’s unemployed receive assistance. The benefits they get also vary a lot from state to state, but overall are among the lowest in the OECD when compared with the average wage.

America’s recent stimulus package strengthened this safety net. Jobless benefits have increased modestly, their maximum duration has been extended, and states have been given a large financial incentive to broaden eligibility. The package also includes temporary subsidies to help pay for laid-off workers’ health insurance. Even so, benefits remain meagre.

Housing is a far bigger drag on American job mobility. Almost a fifth of American households with mortgages owe more than their house is worth, and house prices are set to fall further. “Negative equity” can lock in homeowners, making it hard to move to a new job. A recent study suggests that homeowners with negative equity are 50% less mobile than others.

Europe’s governments, at least so far, are trying hard to avoid the mistakes of the 1970s and 1980s. As Stefano Scarpetta of the OECD points out, today’s policies are designed to keep people working rather than to encourage them to leave the labour force. Several countries, from Spain to Sweden, have temporarily cut social insurance contributions to reduce labour costs.

A broader group including Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Spain, are encouraging firms to shorten work weeks rather than lay people off, by topping up the pay of workers on short hours. Germany, for instance, has long had a scheme that covers 60% of the gap between shorter hours and a full-time wage for up to six months. The government recently simplified the required paperwork, cut social-insurance contributions for affected workers, and extended the scheme’s maximum length to 18 months.

Britain has taken a different tack. Rather than intervening to keep people in their existing jobs, it has focused on deterring long-term joblessness with a package of subsidies to encourage employers to hire, and train, people who have been out of work for more than six months.

Of all rich-country governments, Japan’s has flailed the most. Forced to confront the ugly reality of its labour market, it is trying a mixture of policies. Last year it proposed tax incentives for companies to turn temps into regular employees—a futile effort when profits are scarce and jobs being slashed. The agriculture ministry suggested sending the jobless to the hinterland to work on farms and fisheries. As Naohiro Yashiro, an economist at the International Christian University in Tokyo, puts it: “Although temporary and part-time workers are everywhere in Japan, they are thought to be a threat to employment practices and—like terrorists—have to be contained.”

Recently, a more ambitious strategy has emerged. The government is considering shortening the minimum work period for eligibility to jobless benefits. It is providing newly laid-off workers with six-month loans for housing and living expenses. It is paying small-business owners to allow fired staff to remain in company dorms. It is subsidising the salaries of workers on mandatory leave. It is paying firms for rehiring laid-off staff, and offering grants to anyone willing to start a new business.

Whether these policies will be enough depends on how the downturn progresses. For by and large they are sticking-plasters, applied in the hope that the recession will soon be over and the industrial restructuring that follows will be modest. Subsidising shorter working weeks, for instance, props up demand today, but impedes long-term reordering. The inequities of a dual labour market will become more glaring the higher unemployment rises. Politicians seem to be hoping for the best. Given the speed at which their economies are deteriorating, they would do better to plan for the worst.

8) A Dialogue With Lebanon's Ayatollah
By ROBERT L. POLLOCK
Beirut:

'I have not found in the whole long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict even one neutral American position. We used to love America in the region in the '40s. [President Woodrow] Wilson's principles [of national self-determination] represent freedom facing a Europe that was colonizing us. But America now is living a policy worse than that of British and French colonialism."

So said Muhammad Hussein Fadhlullah early one morning last week, and I suppose I should not have been surprised.

We met in a nondescript -- but heavily guarded -- office building in south Beirut. On my way there I had noticed, as in the Bekaa Valley a day earlier, numerous posters celebrating Hezbollah "martyrs." According to many, the Grand Ayatollah Fadhlullah is Hezbollah's spiritual leader. He is not actually a member of the famous Lebanese Shiite organization headed by Hassan Nasrallah. But his interpreter tells me the Israelis bombed his house during their 2006 air campaign in Lebanon. There is no doubt someone -- the CIA and the Saudis, according to a detailed account in Bob Woodward's book "Veil" -- targeted him in 1985, when a massive bomb aimed in his direction killed nearly 80 civilians in Beirut.



Terry ShoffnerThat, readers may recall, was not long after alleged Hezbollah suicide bombers directed by the late Imad Mugniyeh -- one of the "martyrs" celebrated in the posters -- murdered hundreds at the American Embassy and Marine barracks. And it was in the midst of the hostage crises that would define Lebanon in the minds of my own generation of Americans. Outside of the Iranian theocrats, no group did more than Hezbollah to associate Shiism, once known for its political quietism, with radicalism and terror.

And what of Mr. Fadhlullah today? The aging cleric (born 1935), sports the requisite black turban and a disarming twinkle in his eyes. He is often described as a "progressive" religious thinker because of views such as his egalitarian outlook on the role of women in Muslim society (he is online at english.bayynat.org.lb). Yet there can be little doubt the Ayatollah's views have also shaped, and been shaped by, the fragile and often violent country he has called home since the mid-1960s.

The Lebanese-born scholar Fouad Ajami draws my attention to Mr. Fadhlullah's preface to the 1984 edition of his book, "Islam and the Logic of Force": "Civilization does not mean that you face a rocket with a stick or a jet-fighter with a kite, or a warship with a sailboat. . . . One must face force with equal or superior force. If it is legitimate to defend self and land and destiny, then all means of self-defense are legitimate."

I decide to start our interview by asking what people mean when they describe him in "progressive" terms. "When man thinks," he tells me, "he should live in his own age, not think through the past . . . When I am in dialogue with anyone, I attempt to study their mind and to speak to them in the language of their mind, not to address them in the way I think but rather in the way they think. On this basis we begin this dialogue with you."

Mr. Fadhlullah tells me that though he is originally Lebanese, he was born in Najaf, Iraq, where his father was a teacher at the Hawza, or religious seminary, from which he would eventually earn his current distinction. (He holds the same rank as Iraq's Ali Sistani; Shiites recognize a small number of "grand ayatollahs" who issue religious rulings known as fatwas and serve as objects of "emulation.") He says his international upbringing shaped his way of thinking.

I ask if he thinks Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam. Iraq had a problem with "dictatorship," he concedes. But this "dictatorship had a relationship with the former American administration," he says, pointing to Saddam's invasion of Iran and other actions that allegedly "serv[ed] the American strategy . . . Saddam Hussein was an employee of the CIA but his job was finished by the end." He accuses the Bush administration of pursuing a policy of "constructive chaos" during the occupation.

Mr. Fadhlullah's fellow Shiite scholars in Najaf have been heard to complain about such sour pronouncements, but I see no reason to belabor the point. There is a rivalry of sorts with Mr. Sistani. And when it comes to the upcoming parliamentary elections in Lebanon -- the country shook off Syrian occupation in 2005, some say inspired by Iraq -- Mr. Fadhlullah even points to the West as a good example:

"We hope that that the elections will be as free as in civilized nations. Our problem in the Arab world is that people fear their rulers and therefore fall short of changing them, whereas the natural course of things is that rulers should fear their peoples. . . . We appreciate the way elections are run in America or the West; the Americans or the Europeans are not frozen over one personality. They study the success or failure of this president or this administration, and therefore they change it from time to time."

I point out that many people associate political Shiism with Iran and a concept known as Welayat al-Faqih -- or Guardianship of the Jurist -- which has been used to justify the authoritarian regimes of the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khameini.

"I don't believe that Welayat al-Faqih has any role in Lebanon," Mr. Fadhlullah says without hesitation. "Perhaps some Lebanese commit themselves to the policy of the Guardian Jurist, as some of them commit themselves to the policy of the Vatican [Lebanon's large Maronite community is Catholic]. My opinion is that I don't see the Guardianship of the Jurist as the definitive Islamic regime."

When a Muslim goes to vote should he care more about a cleric's opinion than anyone else's?

"He should care about his own stance . . . . The Islamic idea says: When you cast your ballot, you have to watch for God because God will hold you responsible for the results of this ballot. If the person you voted for was unjust, God will hold you accountable for participating in his injustice. . . . Hence, the Americans who voted for George Bush are responsible for all the blood shed in his wars and occupations."

That seems as good an opening as any to broach the subject of Hezbollah. Does he think it's healthy that Lebanon's Shiites are increasingly associated with such a party?

His answer, in effect, is that Hezbollah is a force for modernization: "Hezbollah is a group of Shiites who are university educated. We know that you will find at universities, whether here in Lebanon or in the West, many who agree with the thought of Hezbollah." True enough, at least as concerns attitudes toward Israel.

Then the answer gets more interesting: "We do not reject the West. But we disagree with some Western administrations. We believe that America is not the administration ruling America. America is rather the universities, the research centers and the American people. That is why we want to be friends with the American people with all their variation. I was the first Islamic figure to denounce what happened on September 11. I issued a press release after four hours saying that this affair is not acceptable by any mind, divine law or religion. What these people did was directed to the American people not to the American administration."

I can't help but interject. Hadn't he just told me the American people were in fact responsible for the actions of the leaders they voted for?

He responds that the people bear "a responsibility," but concedes they can't predict their leaders' future actions. "What I am trying to say," he continues, "is that perhaps we want to be friends with the American people to engage them in a dialogue about their choices as they engage in a dialogue about our choices. Friendship does not mean adhering to whatever your friend commits to and does. Dialogue strengthens friendship; it does not annul it."

What does the Ayatollah think of President Obama? Does he think he might improve relations between the Islamic world and the United States?

Again, an interesting answer: "I think that some of his statements show that he believes in the method of dialogue. But here is an important point: America is not ruled by a person, it is ruled by institutions. The question is what is the influence of institutions like the Congress and others on the president. Can the president, if he has private opinions, can he carry them out facing institutions and conditions challenging the administration? We, in the Arab countries or in the East, we don't have institutions. The ruler is one person or one family. Therefore the people cannot object.

"We wish that President Obama tries with all his mandate to confirm the slogans he launched while still a candidate, that he tries with all power to make the world a field of dialogue not a field of war. We don't have a problem with any American president, but our problem is with his policy that might affect our strategic interest. We love freedom, therefore we are with whoever lives with us on the basis that we are free."

But didn't George Bush say that he wanted to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East? Was he not sincere in those words?

"Does occupation . . . ?" He pauses. "Could democracy be forced upon peoples? Does occupation represent a title of democracy for people? Democracy sets out from the free choices of peoples. Therefore President Bush managed to get America hated everywhere in the world. His policy was the mentality of war, not a humane mentality. He might have spoken about 'peace,' but he saved 'war' inside the word 'peace.' That is why he was even rejected by American public opinion."

I raise Hezbollah again. Does the Iranian-backed group have Lebanon's best interests at heart? Or does it have ambitions outside Lebanon? For whom is it working?

"I don't think that the Lebanese Hezbollah has a project beyond Lebanon. Because it does not have the capacity to do so . . . . Hezbollah emerged in Lebanon as a reaction to the recurrent Israeli aggression over decades. The Lebanese army is weak with regard to its power of deterrence. Therefore it cannot face any Israeli aggression. Hezbollah is supplementary to the Lebanese Army defending the country. If the Lebanese Army reaches a level of strength enabling it to defend the country, there would be no longer a need for the resistance."

And what about the posters, I ask? Imad Mugniyeh didn't just fight Israel, he killed a lot of Americans. Does he think the children of the neighborhood should look at the posters and think Mugniyeh is a hero?

"I think that the stage Lebanon lived [when the Americans were killed] was one without clear limitations. It is very natural that the American policy was interconnected with the Israeli policy. The stage when this took place was one of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West. Therefore the issue was not setting out from a person, but from the conflict between the East and the West, and through the political and security anarchy in Lebanon. In my own belief, this stage is no longer existent, but the problem remains that the American policy is 100% identical to the Israeli policy. We have not found an American position condemning the massacres in Palestine and particularly in Gaza. The missiles launched by the resistance were a reaction to the Israeli aggressors, who own American fighter jets that are never used but in massive warfare . . . .

"We in the region therefore consider the American policy responsible for whatever Israel does, because there is a strategic alliance between Israel and America in all the aggressions carried out by Israel. There is an impression in the Arab region, that might be controversial, that Israel is the one ruling the United States and not the other way around. America is one of the Jewish colonies."

Does the Ayatollah believe that?

"I am close," he says. "Anyway, we believe that Obama lived in a poor and disadvantaged environment. He was poor. Therefore, we might listen to some of his statements trying to alleviate taxes on the poor and impose them on the rich. We say to him: Be with the disadvantaged, be with the poor, be with the people living and seeking their humanity, and you will be the best American president in history. Be humane."

The interview is over. We pose for pictures and the Ayatollah presents me with an English translation of one of his books: "Islam: The Religion of Dialogue." He signs it for me in Arabic: "With my affection and prayers."

9) Is Rand Relevant?
By YARON BROOK

Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?

The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand said this message is wrong -- selfishness, rather than being evil, is a virtue. By this she did not mean exploiting others à la Bernie Madoff. Selfishness -- that is, concern with one's genuine, long-range interest -- she wrote, required a man to think, to produce, and to prosper by trading with others voluntarily to mutual benefit.

Rand also noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism -- and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention -- and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest.

Rand offered us a way out -- to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today.