---
Revolting students revolt.
What's the big deal - they just want a cheap education. So they took to the streets and demonstrated what they have learned - ANARCHY! (See 1 and 1a below.)
When inflation begins to rise and food costs soar I would not be surprised if we saw something similar here.
But before that happens perhaps the next battle will be over the effort to impose Sharia Law on our nation. (See 1b below.)
---
Pelosi is beginning to come under fire from fellow Democrats. It will be interesting to watch her fight and eventually succumb, as I suspect she will. But then she is from California and therefore, might be totally oblivious to reality. (See 2 below.)
Then we have the other side which argues the end justifies the means. (See 2a below.)
---
Only a matter of time before the fissures in Obama's weakened presidency begin to reflect themselves in further rebuffs.
A thin resume, an extreme agenda, a host of character flaws, incompetent appointees and a resounding political rebuff are proving the ingredients for a growing pile of disappointments. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
California still doesn't get it and therefore, is going to get it. (See 4 below.)
---
George Friedman travel and reports. (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Students Are Revolting
By James Lileks
Student riots have a peculiar moral authority on the left, it seems. Your normal riot is to be commended for obvious reasons — direct action, spontaneous and enthusiastic agitation against injustice, plus distribution of consumer goods to the disenfranchised. (I’ll never forget watching footage of a riot in my neighborhood in D.C.; the protestors smashed a window and looted the salad bar, stepping over the jagged glass with styrofoam containers of food. No lettuce, no peace!) But student protests are even better. They’re more idealistic, since students are involved, and idealism is always to be commended no matter how skither-headed the ideal, or inapplicable to reality it may be. Idealists are our purer selves, no? They’re the dreamers whose lofty visions would lead to better things, if only we listened.
Well. There’s been an argy-bargy in Blighty over hiked-up college costs, and the photos show the usual pyrotechnical exuberance. Smashed windows in the Tory HQ, fires set, triumphant faces agleam with the adrenalin rush of destruction, and signs that blare [EXPLETIVE] FEES FREE EDUCATION NOW. Spray-painted signs called the Tories “scum” and “pigs.” Ask yourself what their majors might be. Economics? Molecular biology? (I suspect they’re mostly engaged in Colon Studies, meaning, every one of their college textbooks has a colon in the title. “Shearing the Flock: Mercantilism and Class Inequality in 19th Century New Zealand” or “Singing For Her Supper: Transgendered Nightclub Singers in Weimar Berlin.”)
Anyway. As you might expect, the protestors want free education to be paid for by taxing “the rich,” that unmolested demographic which generates inexhaustible wealth by building collector-units over the spots in the earth where gold bubbles up from underground caverns. Guarded by elves. (Who vote Tory.)
Will we see this sort of activity here when the cuts begin?
1a)Hijacking of a very middle class protest: Anarchists cause chaos as 50,000 students take to streets over fees
By Charlotte Gill
Met chief: This is an embarrassment for London and for us
It was supposed to be a day of peaceful protest, with students exercising their democratic right to demonstrate against soaring university fees.
But anarchists hijacked the event, setting off the most violent scenes of student unrest seen in Britain for decades. Militants from far-Left groups whipped up a mix of middle-class students and younger college and school pupils into a frenzy.
The focus of the violence was Tory HQ in central London, where hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage was caused.
Youths wearing hoodies and masks smashed through reinforced glass at Mllbank on Wednesday
The glass frontage was smashed and protesters swarmed seven floors up to the roof, from where a fire extinguisher was hurled down at police below.
Effigies of David Cameron and Nick Clegg were burnt to cheers from a roaring mob.
At least 14 casualties were taken to hospital, seven of them police officers, and 35 demonstrators were arrested.
More...Revealed: Crippling 30-year graduate debt trap that will see students paying off their loans even when their OWN children go to university
PAUL HARRIS: On the roof Cambridge students cheered and waved flags. Down below masked thugs kicked windows.
Just 225 police to hold back 50,000: I'm embarrassed, says Met chief over woeful preparation for riot
'You're like a Fresher who has met a dodgy bloke': Harman warns Clegg he'll regret tuition fees U-turn
Later Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson admitted his force had failed to predict the trouble, with just 20 officers holding back surging crowds at the main flashpoint.
He said: ‘It’s not acceptable. It is an embarrassment for London and for us.’
Student leaders condemned the violence. National Union of Students president Aaron Porter described it as ‘despicable’.
He blamed the trouble on a small minority who he believed had arranged it beforehand.
Mayor of London Boris Johnson said: ‘I am appalled that a small minority have today shamefully abused their right to protest.
‘This is intolerable and all those involved will be pursued and they will face the full force of the law.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has assured me that there will be a vigorous post incident investigation. He will also be reviewing police planning and response.’
The protest of 50,000 students, lecturers and supporters – including at least one Lib Dem MP – started peacefully with a march from Whitehall past Downing Street and Parliament.
But it turned violent when demonstrators halted outside Millbank Tower, home to Tory HQ, facing the Thames.
Even though the march had been publicised for weeks, Scotland Yard had policed the event with just 225 officers.
The 20 officers lining the route at Millbank faced an impossible task of trying to hold back thousands of demonstrators.
Officers watched helplessly as protesters charged the entrance lobby and caused hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage by using chairs and fire extinguishers to smash the glass frontage, effectively opening up the atrium to the entire crowd.
Anger: Thousands gathered outside Tory Party headquarters
Demonstrators waving a flag from the roof 30 Millbank after storming the building
They made their way to the roof, quickly followed by dozens more who flooded into the building.
A veteran of the Leftist anarchist group Class War, which has a history of violent clashes with police, was spotted while police sources said animal rights activists were also present. One bearded man in his 30s was using a loud hailer to incite the crowd.
Graffiti was scrawled on buildings along Millbank and a war memorial was defaced with the words ‘Fight back’.
Many students condemned the troublemakers but some said violence was an acceptable form of protest.
One student from King’s College said that 450 Cambridge students had attended the protest and she believed some from her college were on the roof.
Demonstrators chanted 'Tory scum' and daubed 'Tory pigs' on the walls of Millbank in protest
Demonstrators clashed with police as they clambered through a smashed window at 30 Millbank
On top of the world: Protesters on the roof of Millbank, home of Tory party headquarters
‘It was students from King’s who made the effigies of Cameron and Clegg. It’s been fantastic. The atmosphere is amazing and everybody is really nice.
The volatile situation started to calm down at about 4.30pm when the Metropolitan Police sent in hundreds of riot officers, who drove protesters away from the building.
There was concern that some would be pushed into one of several bonfires started in the crowd and police made efforts to disperse the crowd.
By 7pm, police began to let the several hundred protesters cordoned on the road in front of Millbank Tower out in ones and twos.
Flashpoint: Thousands of students outside Millbank Tower yesterday afternoon
'Even if you don't want to join in with the march just don't attend School/ College/Uni. Leave the class rooms empty! Let them know that the young people of today too mean business!!! This is our futures, they shouldn't be allowed to scam us like this!!'
Inside the severely damaged lobby of the tower, a group of around 25 protesters could be seen surrounded by police.
Conservative Party staff remained in their offices throughout with chairman Baroness Warsi among those inside.
The protesters in the Tory HQ building and on the roof released a statement which said: ‘We oppose all cuts and we stand in solidarity with public sector workers, and all poor, disabled, elderly and working people.
‘This is only the beginning of the resistance to the destruction of our education system and public services.’
Under the Government’s proposals, which represent the most radical shake-up of student funding for decades, the fee cap will be raised to £6,000, with universities able to charge up to £9,000 – triple the current cap – in ‘exceptional circumstances.’
1b)NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law
By Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers
NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour. It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.
A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed. Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.
In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.
Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam. After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?
Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law. The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.
The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam. Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009. And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.
When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred. The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world. The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.
Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise. But there is more here than meets the eye.
Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.
Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions. Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”
In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.
Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:
"Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.” Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns. I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence. It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”
Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing. Don’t shut down free speech. Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.
It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam. But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness. As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Embittered Democrats Turning Against Pelosi
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is facing her last days as majority leader under increasing fire from fellow Democrats, growing numbers of whom do not want her to lead them in the minority under Republicans. If they succeed, it will be a brutal end for a politician some have called the most powerful House speaker of modern times. Pelosi was known for keeping a tight lid on rebellious factions in the left and right of her party, even as she developed a skill for co-opting members into passing difficult legislation such as Obamacare.
Pelosi announced Friday that she’s running for minority leader in the new Congress. Although there are signs that her election still may hold, a movement by Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina and other members of the fiscally conservative blue dogs to block her ascent has picked up support from some liberals and even a handful of longtime Pelosi allies, according to Fox News.
Blue dogs faced an especially tough election this year, and many had to make their opposition to Pelosi the centerpiece of their campaigns. Liberals, meanwhile, think Pelosi gave up too much in pushing for President Barack Obama’s key pieces of legislation, even though such deals were necessary for the bills to pass.
At least 15 Democrats have said publicly that they have lost faith in Pelosi’s ability to lead. About two dozen more are indicating the same thing privately, while others haven’t taken sides, according to Fox.
Liberal Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio sent a letter to colleagues asking them to support a plan to forestall leadership elections until December. That’s a major slap to Pelosi. It’s seen as an effort to give the anti-Pelosi forces time to coalesce. Democratic leaders plan to go forward with the leadership contests Nov. 17, according to sources familiar with a Wednesday afternoon conference call.
"Elections matter, and the messages they send matter," Kaptur told Politico Wednesday — though she declined to say whether she would vote for or against Pelosi.
Fellow Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, a longtime Pelosi ally and protege of former Pelosi confidant Rep. John P. Murtha, told the Youngstown Business Journal that he's not sure how long he needs to be loyal to the outgoing speaker.
"We had some really good, substantive things to talk about that we didn't talk about and there's plenty of blame to go around. She's obviously in charge so she needs to take the brunt of the responsibility for it," he said. "I was brought up to be loyal to people who helped you and I want to be — but at the expense of what? I think we have to sit down as a Democratic Caucus in D.C. and ask what direction are we going in."
The New York Times’ liberal editorial page has called for her ouster, while other Pelosi admirers such as Al Eisele, an editor at large for The Hill newspaper, have suggested that Pelosi should leave merely for strategic reasons.
“Even though Pelosi did a yeoman's job in helping President Obama push through his ambitious legislative agenda, including historic reforms of the healthcare system and the banking industry — and raised tons of money for fellow Democrats — she has to share some of the blame for the Democrats' catastrophic defeat," Eisele wrote recently.
“She also figures to be an albatross around their necks if she continues as leader.
"Not only will she serve as a political piñata for Republicans ready to spend millions of dollars in attack ads to portray her as the face of the Democratic Party and a female Che Guevara bent on making America look like Haight Ashbury, but she's certain to divide Democrats as well.”
And then there are junior members of the Democratic caucus, which will number at least 189 in the 112th Congress.
"It's just vital that we need new leadership," Rep. Larry Kissell, a first termer from North Carolina who won a second term last week, told The Wall Street Journal.
The biggest thing that Pelosi has going in her favor so far is that she has no opponent. The Democrats are in such disarray following their mammoth losses that no one has yet stepped forward to run against her, another reason she’s still the odds-on favorite to win the job.
But, as Fox point out, “It should come as no surprise that Pelosi is facing challenges to her authority: She got whacked with a 60-seat loss, $65 million in commercials featuring her in districts across the country, and a minimum two-year stretch in the minority.
“If she's able to stay atop the Democratic Caucus, she won't be in control of it — at least not the way she used to be. The drip-drip-drip of public defectors demonstrates that some of her troops no longer fear the repercussions of challenging her authority. And some clearly see political benefit in publicly thumbing their nose at the unpopular outgoing speaker.”
2a)Speaker or not, she's a keeper
Judged solely by her record and not shrill Republican attacks, the House speaker deserves to retain her party leadership position.
To some, the "shellacking" of Democrats at the ballot box last week was nearly as much a referendum on Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, the lightning-rod speaker of the House, as it was on her party. According to an analysis by CNN, $65 million was spent on campaign ads attacking the speaker, mostly by Republicans trying to tie their Democratic opponents to her. Polls put her approval rating around 29%. So when she announced that she would not relinquish power — she will seek the post of House minority leader — it provoked dismay among some in her own party and glee from many Republicans, who see her decision as proof that Democrats still don't understand the reasons for their defeat.
Are Democrats, who presumably will give Pelosi the post, making a tactical mistake? When the ideologically opposed editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times agree that they are, it's a good indicator of trouble. But we're not convinced.
Many Republicans claim that Democrats lost control of the House because of voter disgust with Pelosi's high-handed ways and the policies she rammed through Congress. That doesn't seem likely. By approving healthcare reform and imposing tighter regulations on Wall Street, Democrats delivered precisely the "change" they promised two years ago, when they were wildly popular. Meanwhile, although the government's economic stimulus strategy has helped engineer a slow turnaround for the economy, it hasn't reduced joblessness, so it's hardly surprising that the party in power took a beating. That's not a good reason to dump Pelosi. The fact that she is despised by conservatives isn't either — in fact, it's probably a tribute to her skills as speaker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)China's Hu Rebuffs Weakened Obama at Summit
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA
SEOUL—President Barack Obama limped toward the close of the Group of 20 summit, weakened by an anemic economic recovery and an election drubbing that has left world leaders questioning U.S. authority.
In private meetings with Mr. Obama Thursday, Chinese President Hu Jintao resisted his pressure on currency revaluation. Mr. Obama also failed to secure a free-trade agreement with South Korea by his imposed Thursday deadline, a blow to a U.S. president who has pledged to double U.S. exports over the next five years.
The G-20 summit is expected to conclude with a communiqué that papers over differences on fiscal and monetary policy that had burst into the open in the run-up to the gathering.
Undersecretary of the U.S. Treasury Lael Brainerd said currency policy dominated a meeting between Messers. Obama and Hu after the U.S. president raised it. Mr. Hu told his U.S. counterpart that China will push forward on revamping the yuan exchange-rate mechanism—a longtime goal of U.S. policy—but that such a move requires "a sound external environment" and can proceed only gradually, according to state television and a government spokesman.
He also told Mr. Obama that China is paying attention to the U.S. Federal Reserve's decision to pump $600 billion into the U.S. economy, which critics charge is driving down the value of the dollar. Mr. Hu urged the U.S. to consider the interests of emerging markets, according to Chinese state TV.
"The major reserve-currency issuers, while implementing their monetary policies, should not only take into account their national circumstances but should also bear in mind the possible impacts on the global economy," Zheng Xiaosong, director general of the Ministry of Finance's International Department, reiterated at a press briefing.
That China was emboldened to lecture the U.S. on its currency, a notable reversal of recent meetings, underscores how it and other countries, including Brazil and Germany, have emerged from the global economic crisis faster and more strongly than the U.S. Mr. Obama found himself in the odd position of having to defend the U.S.'s independent central bank. He was also unable to quell concerns that the U.S. government is deliberately trying to weaken the dollar to boost exports.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Thursday he would press Mr. Obama to explain the Fed's move. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak demurred when asked about it. "I think that kind of question should be asked to me when President Obama is not standing right next to me," Mr. Lee answered.
The U.S. says the policy is designed only to boost U.S. domestic growth, which is critical to the global economy. It also argues that the dollar's value is correlated to confidence in the U.S. and global recovery.
The meeting of world leaders in Korea kicked off in earnest Thursday evening with a large dinner and closed-door meetings focused in part on disputes over currency valuations and trade imbalances. The leaders are expected to reach several agreements before they adjourn Friday, namely on financial regulation and the role of the International Monetary Fund. But the issues that divide them have led officials to quash expectations of a breakthrough on the top issues of currencies and trade.
"When you see the final communiqué, it will reflect a broad-based consensus about the direction that we need to go," Mr. Obama said. "There may be at any given moment disagreements between countries in terms of particular strategies."
The communiqué won't include a numerical target for trade surpluses or deficits, which the Obama administration had pushed. Nor is it likely to explicitly pressure China to accelerate increasing the value of the yuan, to make Chinese exports more expensive and to empower Chinese consumers.
Mr. Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to downplay the sniping from officials that dominated the run-up to the summit. Both resolved to pick up the phone before going public with their frustrations.
"They both agreed that it's not ideal in the run-up of a meeting like the G-20 to be reading attacks on specific economic or financial policies in newspapers from Germany or the U.S.," a German official said. "There was an agreement that in the future, perhaps, there could be better consultation."
—Ian Talley and Patrick McGroarty contributed to this article
3a)Obama, weakened after midterms, reveals limited leverage in failed S. Korea deal
By Scott Wilson and Howard Schneider
SEOUL - President Obama's failure to secure a free-trade agreement with South Korea reveals in sharp relief the limits of his leverage overseas after a devastating midterm election.
Obama's trip through four Asian democracies is aimed at promoting trade and other economic partnerships to boost long-term job creation in the United States, where midterm voters pounded his Democratic Party for a moribund employment market.
But after visits to India and Indonesia, where Obama on his own removed trade barriers and announced specific export contracts, the politically weakened president could not bring home the agreement that would have the most far-reaching effect on the U.S. economy.
Administration officials say the South Korea deal, which Obama inherited mostly complete from the Bush administration, would increase exports of U.S. goods by $10 billion annually and support 70,000 jobs in the United States.
Officials were aiming to finish the deal before Obama sat down Thursday with with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. But talks foundered, mostly on issues involving the auto and beef markets, and the two leaders were left with nothing more to announce than that they would keep working.
"We don't want months to pass before we get this done," Obama said in a news conference following his meeting Lee. "We want it done in a matter of weeks."
The setback, a characterization White House officials rejected, came in a country where the United States has more leverage than perhaps any other. Nearly 40,000 Americans died in the Korean War, and the United States maintains tens of thousands of troops here to guard this thriving commercial capital against North Korean attack.
It demonstrated the limits of Obama's appeal for countries to at times compromise their own agendas in order to advance mutually shared interests - in this case, U.S.-Korean trade expansion. That multilateral approach has been a mantra of Obama's foreign policy philosophy.
As in his dealings with Iran and North Korea on nuclear issues, Obama - who in June set this meeting in Seoul as his deadline for finishing the trade deal - saw negotiations falter because of a country's inability to move from a strongly held internal position: in this case, South Korea's overriding national interest in protecting its robust domestic auto industry from outside competition.
Lee, the former chairman of Hyundai Engineering and Construction, expressed gratitude for America's sacrifice on what was Veterans Day in the United States.
But he would not relent on measures to ensure an open market in South Korea for U.S. cars and beef, not even for an American president to whom he privately confessed - during their first lunch together a year ago - feeling a deep personal gratitude for the support of the United States.
"I know that it will be beneficial for everyone if we can create good jobs in the United States," Lee said. "And I said it before that that will be helpful not only to the American consumers but to the Republic of Korea, as well."
Obama's trip is meant to underscore the steps he has taken to reorient U.S. foreign policy toward Asia, the world's most dynamic economic region. He has made the United States a larger and more consistent presence in regional economic forums, including the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation, whose conference he will attend a few days from now in Japan.
He also has pushed to elevate the Group of 20 as the main forum for coordinating world economic policy. The change has given three of the nations on his Asian itinerary - including South Korea - a far larger voice on global economic issues.
But the G-20, which kicked off its conference here Thursday evening, has also defined the boundaries of America's influence in the aftermath of an economic crisis many blame on U.S. policy. The group has produced consensus around a set of core principles, but the details of how to implement them have been more elusive.
"There does seem to be a kind of leadership vacuum, and it's a surprise," said Yoon Young-Kwan, an international relations professor at Seoul National University and former foreign affairs minister. "People are recognizing that the U.S. can't go it alone, that they need other countries' help."
As the G-20 conference began, Obama was facing criticism, even from some close allies, over U.S. monetary policy. The group held a working dinner Thursday night, as discussions continued over how to resolve the dispute over world currency rates and unbalanced trade patterns.
In the run-up to the meeting, countries such as inflation-wary Germany said the Fed's decision to pump $600 billion into the economy would undermine Obama's ability to pressure China over its under-valued currency, which keeps its exports cheaper and imports from the United States and other countries more expensive.
Obama met separately Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese President Hu Jintao, who is scheduled to make a state visit to Washington in the spring.
White House officials said most of Obama's 80-minute meeting with Hu involved the currency issue, and they said Hu reiterated his commitment to adopting a more flexible exchange rate that could allow the yuan to appreciate against the dollar.
Both Obama and Merkel addressed the recent German criticism of the Fed move, administration officials said.
"There was a sort of glancing reference to the concern that, of course, we all have, which is that we're all trying to figure out that direct policy mix to bolster growth, but not create risks that are going to need careful management," said Lael Brainard, undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs.
But Obama appears to be heading into the G-20's policy discussions Friday with little support for U.S. policies.
Asked whether he worries that U.S. economic policy will cause inflation in Korea, Lee said, "I think that kind of question should be asked to me when President Obama is not standing right next to me."
Obama hoped to use a completed South Korea deal to place the issue of free trade squarely onto the U.S. agenda, over objections from protectionist voices that are loudest within his own party. Any agreement would require congressional approval.
Other nations, meanwhile, are pushing ahead.
The European Union and Korea recently completed a free-trade pact, meaning European cars and other products will soon face lower duties as they enter Korea.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is negotiating a regional agreement that might expand to include economic powers such as Japan. Australia, too, is making deep inroads in Indonesia and other Asian countries.
U.S. opponents of the Korea pact, including lawmakers representing districts involved in the auto industry, complimented Obama for insisting on more concrete steps to ensure that Korea would import more U.S. autos into a market dominated by local favorites Hyundai and Kia.
"It was essential for our government today to deliver a strong message," House Ways and Means committee leaders Sander Levin (D) and Dave Camp (R) said in a joint statement.
But in the context of Asia's fast growth and quick economic integration, the failure to seal a deal could worry U.S. business groups and others concerned that the United States is slipping behind.
"We urge both Presidents to direct their ministers and staff to resolve remaining details with the greatest possible speed and urgency," U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Thomas J. Donohue said in a written statement. "Time is of the essence. American jobs are on the line. Since South Korea will soon implement a similar arrangement with the EU, American workers stand to lose."
Ron Kirk, the U.S. Trade Representative who attended Obama's meeting with Lee, said the leaders spoke about the trade deal agreement for 40 minutes, the majority of their time together.
At the end, he said, U.S. automakers' access to the South Korean market was an issue "that we needed to address," despite some "very productive" discussions between U.S. and Korean negotiators over the past four days.
"It became apparent that we weren't going to resolve all of these in the remaining hours," Kirk said. "And I think President Obama and President Lee wisely made the decision to slow the process down but also keep a very tight time frame to conclude these over the next several weeks."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The ' Golden State ' Still Doesn't Get It
States: The midterm elections turned into a sweeping repudiation of the Democrats' failed status quo — except, that is, in California . There, not only did the Democrats not lose, they gained clout.
Even as voters in other states said they'd had enough of ever bigger, more intrusive and higher-cost government by the Democrats, California voters said, "More please."
With the exception of the governor's office, California has been a virtual one-party state since the 1960s. Now, thanks to decades of anti-business policies promulgated by a series of left-leaning legislatures, its economy and finances are a mess, and it's hemorrhaging jobs, businesses and productive entrepreneurs to other states.
The pattern continued on Tuesday, when voters rehired 1970s Democratic gubernatorial retread Jerry Brown and rejected moderate Republican and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for far-left, five-term incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer.
How bad has it gotten in the erstwhile Golden State ? Consider:
• Some 2.3 million Californians are without jobs, for a 12.4% unemployment rate — one of the highest in the country.
• From 2001 to 2010, factory jobs plummeted from 1.87 million to 1.23 million — a loss of 34% of the state's industrial base. Ask any company, and it'll tell you the same thing: It's now almost impossible to build a big factory in California .
• With just 12% of the U.S. population, California has almost a third of the nation's welfare recipients. Some joke the state motto should be changed from "The Golden State" to "The Welfare State." Meanwhile, 15.3% of all Californians live in poverty.
• The state budget gap for 2009-10 was $45.5 billion, or 53% of total state spending — the largest in any state's history.
• The state's sales tax is the nation's highest, and its income tax the third-highest, the BusinessInsider.com Web site recently noted. Meanwhile, the Tax Foundation's "State Business Tax Climate Index" ranks California 48th.
• In a ranking by corporate relocation expert Ronald Pollina of the 50 states based on 31 factors for job creation, California finished dead last.
• In another ranking, this one by the Beacon Hill Institute on state competitiveness, California came in 32nd — down seven spots in just one year.
• California is home to 25% of America 's 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. A 2004 study estimated that illegals cost the state's citizens $10.5 billion a year — roughly $1,200 per family.
• Unfunded pension liabilities for California 's state and public employees may be as much as $500 billion — roughly 17% of the nation's total $3 trillion at the state and local level.
This has been building for decades. Yet, despite the abysmal track record, Democrats in this election not only won six of the state's seven top jobs, they extended their hold over the state legislature, too. The GOP gained a record 680 seats in statehouses nationwide on Tuesday. In California , they gained none.
Even Democratic candidate Jenny Oropeza, who died two weeks ago, still managed to defeat live Republican John Stammreich in a race for a state Senate seat.
California really bucked the national trend.
"Democrats had a 13-point party identification advantage among California voters, compared with an even split nationwide," wrote Jack Pitney, a professor at Claremont McKenna College , on the National Review's blog. " California voters approved of President Obama's performance by a 10-point margin, whereas the national electorate disapproved by nine points.
"It's a different kind of state," he said. That may be the understatement of 2010.
A large part of the state's Democratic tilt comes from its massive Latino population. The Los Angeles Times noted that it made up 22% of the voting pool, "a record tally that mortally wounded many Republicans."
Indeed, Latinos went for Democrats by 2-to-1 — perhaps ending the naive idea of some in the GOP of a New Majority built on the burgeoning Latino population.
But the real political problem lies in Sacramento, the state capital, which is run not so much by politicians as by the unions they've sold out to — state employees, nurses, teachers and prison guards.
For their part, politicians have largely ignored the state's crumbling infrastructure, failing schools and dismal job market. And it's about to get worse.
Voters also approved a new measure requiring a simple legislative majority to approve a state budget. It previously took two-thirds, giving Republicans far more leverage. Democrats, in other words, will now find it even easier to spend money they don't have.
Moreover, as its tax base shrivels, the state is lurching ever closer to fiscal insolvency. At some point, it will ask Congress for a bailout, and how likely is that with the new Republican majority?
Worse is the feeling among the state's businesses of an entrenched, almost pathological antipathy toward any job-creating activity.
As Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers memorably put it: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, 1,000 blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways."
So far this year, thanks to California 's unfriendly political environment, strict regulations and high taxes, 32 companies have announced they'll either expand elsewhere, move or shut down operations, according to the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.
For many, it's as simple as ABC — Anywhere But California . This is an issue near and dear to our hearts. Investor's Business Daily was founded in 1983 in Los Angeles — and for a quarter of a century has proudly called California its home.
But we too have been affected by the state's poisonous, anti-business political environment. With de facto one-party rule in the state since the 1960s and few signs of change anytime soon, our optimism about the state's future has begun to wane.
As a result, sad to say, much of IBD's future growth will happen at a new facility in Texas — where local and state authorities have bent over backwards to make us feel welcome.
California was once like Texas , but lost its way. Today, when comparisons are made, California is most often compared to Greece — another idyllic place with a sunny, Mediterranean climate on the verge of bankruptcy.
In the end, only the voters of California can change things. But on Tuesday, they opted for more of the same governance that will only make conditions worse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Geopolitical Journey, Part I: The Traveler
Editor’s note: This is the first installment in a series of special reports that Dr. Friedman will write over the next few weeks as he travels to Turkey, Moldova, Romania, Ukraine and Poland. In this series, he will share his observations of the geopolitical imperatives in each country and conclude with reflections on his journey as a whole and options for the United States.
By George Friedman
I try to keep my writing impersonal. My ideas are my own, of course, but I prefer to keep myself out of it for three reasons. First, I’m far less interesting than my writings are. Second, the world is also far more interesting than my writings and me, and pretending otherwise is narcissism. Finally, while I founded STRATFOR, I am today only part of it. My thoughts derive from my discussions and arguments with the STRATFOR team. Putting my name on articles seems like a mild form of plagiarism. When I do put my name on my articles (as Scott Stewart, Fred Burton and others sometimes do) it’s because our marketing people tell us that we need to “put a face” on the company. I’m hard pressed to understand why anyone would want to see my face, or why showing it is good business, but I’ve learned never to argue with marketing.
I’ve said all of this to prepare you for a series of articles that will be personal in a sense, as they will be built around what I will be doing. My wife (who plans and organizes these trips with precision) and I are going to visit several countries over the next few weeks. My reasons for visiting them are geopolitical. These countries all find themselves sharing a geopolitical dilemma. Each country is fascinating in its own right, but geopolitics is what draws me to them now. I think it might be of some value to our readers if I shared my thoughts on these countries as I visit them. Geopolitics should be impersonal, yet the way we encounter the world is always personal. Andre Malraux once said that we all leave our countries in very national ways. A Korean visiting Paris sees it differently than an American. The personal is the eccentric core of geopolitics.
There are those who travel to sample wine and others who travel to experience art and others to enjoy the climate. I travel to sample the political fault lines in the world, and I have done this all my life. This is an odd preference, but there might be some others who share it. Traveling geopolitically is not complex, but it does take some thought. I thought you might find my description of geopolitical travel interesting. It’s how I think this series should start.
The geopolitical is about the intersection of geography and politics. It assumes that the political life of humans is shaped by the place in which they live and that the political patterns are frequently recurring because of the persistence of nations and the permanence of geography. I begin my travels by always re-reading histories and novels from the region. I avoid anything produced by a think tank, preferring old poems and legends. When I travel to a place, when I look at the geography and speak to the people, I find that there is a constant recurrence of history. In many places, a few centuries ago is like yesterday. Reading literature can be the best preparation for a discussion of a county’s budget deficit. Every place and every conversation is embedded in the centuries and the rivers and mountains that shaped the people who shape the centuries.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and withdrew to the borders of old Muscovy, there were those who said that this was the end of the Russian empire. Nations and empires are living things until they die. While they live they grow to the limits set by other nations. They don’t grow like this because they are evil. They do this because they are composed of humans who always want to be more secure, more prosperous and more respected. It is inconceivable to me that Russia, alive and unrestrained, would not seek to return to what it once was. The frontiers of Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union had reasons for being where they were, and in my mind, Russia would inevitably seek to return to its borders. This has nothing to do with leaders or policies. There is no New World Order, only the old one replaying itself in infinitely varying detail, like a kaleidoscope.
Our trip now is to countries within and near the Black Sea basin, so the geopolitical “theme” of the trip (yes, my trips have geopolitical themes, which my children find odd for some reason) is the Russian re-emergence as viewed by its western and southwestern neighbors: Turkey, Romania, Moldova, Poland and Ukraine. I was born in Hungary and have been there many times, so I don’t need to go there this time, and I know Slovakia well. My goal is to understand how these other countries see and wish the present to be. It’s not that I believe that their visions and hopes will shape the future — the world is not that accommodating — but because I want to see the degree to which my sense of what will happen and their sense of what will happen diverge.
This is the political theme of the trip, but when I look at these countries geographically, there are several other organizing themes as well. Turkey, Romania, Ukraine and in a way Moldova are all partly organized around the Black Sea and interact with each other based on that. It’s a sea of endless history. I am also visiting some of the countries in the Carpathian Mountains, a barrier that has divided the Russian empire from Europe for centuries, and which the Russians breached in World War II, partly defining the Cold War. Romania, Ukraine, Moldova and even southern Poland cannot be understood without understanding the role the Carpathians play in uniting them and dividing them. Finally, I am visiting part of the North European Plain, which stretches from France into Russia. It is the path Napoleon and Hitler took into Russia, and the path Russia took on its way to Berlin. Sitting on that plain is Poland, a country whose existence depends on the balance of power between other countries on the plain, a plain that provides few natural defenses to Poland and that has made Poland a victim many times over. I want to understand whether this time will be different and to find out whether the Poles realize that in order for things to be different the Poles themselves must be different, since the plain is not going to stop being flat.
Part of traveling geopolitically is the simple experience of a place. The luxury of a hotel room facing the Bosporus, and me with a drink in hand and the time to watch the endless line of ships passing through the narrow straits, teaches me more about Alexander’s conquests, Britain’s invasion of Gallipoli or Truman’s obsession with Turkey than all the books I’ve read and maps I’ve pored over. Walking a mountain path in the Carpathians in November, where bandits move about today as they did centuries ago, teaches me why this region will never be completely tamed or easily captured. A drive through the Polish countryside near Warsaw will remind me why Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin took the path they did, and why Poland thinks the way it does.
The idea of seeing geographical reality is not confined to this trip. I recall visiting Lake Itasca in Minnesota, where the Mississippi River begins, following it to St. Louis, where the Missouri flows into it, and then going down to New Orleans, where the goods are transferred between river barges and ocean-going vessels. Nothing taught me more about American power and history than taking that trip and watching the vast traffic in grain and steel move up and down the river. It taught me why Andrew Jackson fought at New Orleans and why he wanted Texas to rebel against Mexico. It explained to me why Mark Twain, in many ways, understood America more deeply than anyone.
In visiting countries of the Black Sea basin, I am fortunate that a number of political leaders and members of the media are willing to meet with me. Although not something new, this access still startles me. When I was younger, far less savory people wanted to make my acquaintance. A cup of coffee and serious conversation in a warm office with influential people is still for me a rite of passage.
These visits have their own dangers, different from older dangers in younger days. Political leaders think in terms of policies and options. Geopolitics teaches us to think in terms of constraints and limits. According to geopolitics, political leaders are trapped by impersonal forces and have few options in the long run. Yet, in meeting with men and women who have achieved power in their country, the temptation is to be caught up in their belief in what they are going to do. There is a danger of being caught up in their passion and confidence. There is also the danger of being so dogmatic about geopolitics that ignoring their vision blinds me to possibilities that I haven’t thought of or that can’t simply be explained geopolitically. Obviously, I want to hear what they have to say, and this trip presents a rare and precious opportunity. But these meetings always test my ability to maintain my balance.
I should add that I make it a practice to report neither whom I meet with nor what they say. I learn much more this way and can convey a better sense of what is going on. The direct quote can be the most misleading thing in the world. People ask me about STRATFOR’s sources. I find that we can be more effective in the long run by not revealing those sources. Announcing conversations with the great is another path to narcissism. Revealing conversations with the less than great can endanger them. Most important, a conversation that is private is more human and satisfying than a conversation that will be revealed to many people. Far better to absorb what I learn and let it inform my own writing than to replicate what reporters will do far better than I can. I am not looking for the pithy quote, but for the complex insight that never quite reduces itself to a sentence or two.
There is another part of geopolitical travel that is perhaps the most valuable: walking the streets of a city. Geopolitics affect every level of society, shaping life and culture. Walking the streets, if you know what to look for, can tell you a great deal. Don’t go to where the monuments and museums are, and don’t go to where the wealthy live. They are the least interesting and the most globally homogenized. They are personally cushioned against the world. The poor and middle class are not. If a Montblanc store is next to a Gucci shop, you are in the wrong place.
Go to the places where the people you will never hear of live. Find a school and see the children leave at the end of the day. You want the schools where there is pushing and shoving and where older brothers come to walk their sisters home. You are now where you should be. Look at their shoes. Are they old or new? Are they local or from the global market? Are they careful with them as if they were precious or casual with them as they kick a ball around? Watch children play after school and you can feel the mood and tempo of a neighborhood.
Find a food store. Look at the food being offered, particularly fruits and vegetables. Are they fresh-looking? What is the selection? Look at the price and calculate it against what you know about earnings. Then watch a woman (yes, it is usually a woman) shopping for groceries. Does she avoid the higher priced items and buy the cheapest? Does she stop to look at the price, returning a can or box after looking, or does she simply place it in her basket or cart without looking at the price? When she pays for the food, is she carefully reaching into an envelope in her pocketbook where she stores her money, or does she casually pull out some bills? Watch five women shopping for food in the late afternoon and you will know how things are there.
Go past the apartments people live in. Smell them. The unhealthy odor of decay or sewage tells you about what they must endure in their lives. Are there banks in the neighborhood? If not, there isn’t enough business there to build one. The people are living paycheck to paycheck. In the cafes where men meet, are they older men, retired? Or are they young men? Are the cafes crowded with men in their forties drinking tea or coffee, going nowhere? Are they laughing and talking or sitting quietly as if they have nothing left to say? Official figures on unemployment can be off a number of ways. But when large numbers of 40-year-old men have nothing to do, then the black economy — the one that pays no taxes and isn’t counted by the government but is always there and important — isn’t pulling the train. Are the police working in pairs or alone? What kind of weapons do they carry? Are they everywhere, nowhere or have just the right presence? There are endless things you can learn if you watch.
All of this should be done unobtrusively. Take along clothes that are a bit shabby. Buy a pair of shoes there, scuff them up and wear them. Don’t speak. The people can smell foreigners and will change their behavior when they sense them. Blend in and absorb. At the end of a few days you will understand the effects of the world on these people.
On this I have a surreal story to tell. My wife and I were in Istanbul a few months ago. I was the guest of the mayor of Istanbul, and his office had arranged a lecture I was to give. After many meetings, we found ourselves with free time and went out to walk the city. We love these times. The privacy of a crowded street is a delight. As we walked along we suddenly stopped. There, on a large billboard, was my face staring down at us. We also discovered posters advertising my lecture. We slunk back to our hotel. Fortunately, I am still sufficiently obscure that no one will remember me, so this time we will try our walk again.
There are three things the geopolitical traveler must do. He must go to places and force himself to see the geography that shapes everything. He must meet with what leaders he can find who will talk to him in all parts of society, listening and talking but reserving a part of his mind for the impersonal reality of the world. Finally, he must walk the streets. He won’t have time to meet the schoolteachers, bank tellers, government employees and auto repairmen who are the substance of a society. Nor will they be comfortable talking to a foreigner. But geopolitics teaches that you should ignore what people say and watch what they do.
Geopolitics is everywhere. Look at the patterns of an American election and you will see it at work. I would like, at some point, to have the leisure to study the geopolitics of the United States in detail. But geopolitics is most useful in understanding conflict, and therefore the geopolitical traveler will be drawn to places where tensions are high. That’s a pity, but life places the important above the interesting.
In future pieces, I will be writing about the region I am visiting in a way more familiar to our readers. The next one will be about the region as a whole. The series will replace my weekly geopolitical analyses for several weeks, but I hope you will find it of value. By all means, let us know what you think. We do read all of your emails, even if there isn’t time to answer them. So what you say can help shape this series as well as our work in general.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment