A prospector shuffled into the town of El Indio , Texas, leading an old tired mule. The old man headed straight for the only saloon in town, to clear his parched throat. He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail.
As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other.
The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, "Hey old man, have you ever danced?"
The old man looked up at the gunslinger and said, "No, I never did dance ... Never really wanted to."
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you old fool, you're gonna dance now," and started shooting at the old man's feet.
The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet.
Everybody was laughing, fit to be tied. When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon.
The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled shotgun, and cocked both hammers. The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air.
The crowd stopped laughing immediately. The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly.
The silence was almost deafening.
The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin 10 gauge barrels. The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man's hands, as he quietly said, "Son, have you ever kissed a mule's Ass?"
The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, "No sir ... But... I've always wanted to."
There are a few lessons for us all here:
Never be arrogant.
Don't waste ammunition.
Whiskey makes you think you're smarter than you are.
Always, always make sure you know who has the power.
I just love a story with a happy ending, don't you?
---
As you know by now I also love PJTV.com - go to the site and click on these two programs.
PJTV Special: Dangers of Democracy: Israel's Uzi Landau on Mideast Turmoil & How Oil Dependency Affects Security
Uzi Landau, Israeli Minister of National Infrastructure, talks with Tony Katz about the future of Middle East politics, Israel, Egypt, oil prices, and terrorism. He reminds PJTV viewers that we support terror every time we fill our tanks with gas. Do alternative fuels, such as ethanol, hold the key to peace in the Middle East? Find out.
Trifecta: At NPR, The Tea Party & Republicans are Undermining America. The Muslim Brotherhood? Not So Much
Trifecta takes a look at the undercover tape where an NPR executive rails against the Tea Party, Juan Williams, Republicans, middle America, and even Evangelicals. NPR executives thought that they were meeting with a Muslim Brotherhood front group but they were really meeting with a James O'Keefe guerrilla video team. Wait until you see how the executive fields questions about Jewish influence in the media. You won't believe your ears.
What the first program reveals is that Liberals and intellectual effete snobs are smarter because they say so. If this does not rip the mask off their holier than though state of mind, their smug arrogant double standards then nothing does , can or will!
---
Then, we can't have union members being represented by low priced executives can we? Fat Cats are not only found in Wall Street and Corporate America.
Roosevelt understood Democrats could gain a lock on being elected if they pandered to certain groups and created loyal voter fiefdoms. (See 1 below.)
There was a time when unions played a very important role but perhaps they no longer serve their purpose in a global economic world.
They have gained out sized power through their influence and money (predominantly to one party) and their use of thuggery to maintain control over members. Power corrupts. Even in unions! (See 1a and 1b below.)
---
Is it that Little Satan - Big Satan thing that escapes our naive president? Maybe Obama needs to return to Cairo and make another speech? (See 2 below.)
---
Obama assumed when Palestinians achieved statehood peace would descend upon The Middle East as Arabs and Muslims lock arms in brotherhood.
That is why he and our State Department devised such an effective plan to bring it all about.
Obama forgot one thing though. Most in the Middle East do not like Americans and Israelis but then Obama is not a student of history - even the recent variety.(See 3 below.)
---
'Some mo' Gitmo -It just won't go away even when you blame it all on GW. Gitmo is like a boomerang that keeps hitting Obama in the head. (See 4 below.)
---
Johm Mauldin has written: "The End of the Debt Supercycle and How It Changes Everything." I have not read it but have read many reviews and they are glowing. You might want to get a copy if you are interested in what could be ahead economically speaking.
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Fat Cat Union Salaries Exposed!
The Center for Public Integrity reports
By John C. Henry
These are the 10 largest unions, noting the number of employees who earn more than $200,000, leadership salaries and campaign contributions to federal candidates in 2009-2010.
Union: National Education Association
Membership: 3.2 million
Assets: $216 million
The NEA, representing most of the nation’s teachers, has 31 headquarters officers and employees who earn over $200,000. The president, Dennis Van Roekel, received $397,721 in salary and benefits. Of the $3.7 million NEA spent on political activities in the last election cycle, 98 percent went to Democratic candidates. The NEA has 98,000 members in Wisconsin. Before taking the helm in 2008, Van Roekel received pay increases averaging more than 4 percent a year as NEA vice president. In 2009, public school teachers were paid a national average of $54,319 and received raises ranging from 2 percent to 4 percent over the previous five years.
Union: Service Employees International Union
Membership: 1.8 million
Assets: $187 million
The SEIU, whose membership has increased in recent years, has been organizing hospital, home care and nursing home workers, along with local and state government employees, janitors and security officers. The union has nine headquarters officers and employees who earn over $200,000. The former president, Andy Stern, was paid $306,388 in salary and benefits from the union in 2009. In his final year, Stern got a 5 percent pay boost, which came on the heels of the union growing by more than 88,000 members. Stern resigned in 2010 and was replaced by Mary Kay Henry, formerly the executive vice president. Over the past two years, SEIU gave almost $2 million to Democratic candidates and $8,500 to Republicans. It has 18,000 members in Wisconsin.
Union: United Food & Commercial Workers
Membership: 1.3 million
Assets: $157 million
The UFCW, whose members work in meatpacking, food processing and retail grocery stores, has 17 headquarters officers and employees who earn over $200,000. The president, Joseph T. Hansen, received $360,737 in pay and benefits in 2009. Of the $1.9 million the union donated to political candidates over the past two years, 99 percent of it went to Democrats. The union drew criticism from members in 2004 for paying outgoing president Douglas Dority $709,000 in salary and benefits and for keeping retired officers on the payroll with six-figure salaries. At the time, more than 250 UFCW employees across the country were being paid more than $100,000.
Union: International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Membership: 1.3 million
Assets: $175 million
The Teamsters, whose origins date to the horse- and mule-team drivers of the late 1800s, represents truck drivers and a wide array of blue-collar and government workers. Eight headquarters officers and employees received more than $200,000 in 2009.
The president, James P. Hoffa, was paid $362,869 in pay and benefits. Over the past two years, the Teamsters have donated $2.3 million to Democratic candidates and $46,500 to Republicans. Racketeering charges were filed against the union in 1989 after a Justice Department investigation that accused the Teamsters of being a “wholly owned subsidiary of organized crime.” Since 1992, the Teamsters have been overseen by an Independent Review Board.
Union: American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
Membership: 1.5 million
Assets: $97 million
AFSCME, one of the fastest growing unions in the United States, was founded in Wisconsin almost 80 years ago. At union headquarters in Washington, 10 officers and employees receive more than $200,000 a year. Gerald McEntee, who was first elected union president in 1981, was paid $479,328 in salary and benefits in 2009. Over the past decade, his salary has increased at almost 4 percent a year. Over the past two years, AFSCME has donated $2.3 million to Democratic candidates and $13,000 to Republicans. In the 2010 elections in Wisconsin, AFSCME gave almost $83,888 to Democratic candidates. Half that amount went to the campaign of Tom Barrett, whose top 10 donors were unions. Barrett lost to Republican Scott Walker, who promised during the campaign to take on the organized labor if elected.
Union: Laborers' International Union of North America
Membership: 633,000
Assets: $134 million
The Laborers represent mostly construction workers in 500 locals in the U.S. The headquarters in Washington has 18 officers and employees who earn more than $200,000 a year, including 11 who earn more than $300,000. Terence O’Sullivan, union president since 2000, received $618,000 in salary and benefits in 2009. Of the $1.7 million donated to political candidates over the past two years, 95 percent went to Democrats. In 2006, the Laborers broke from the AFL-CIO to join a new, rival labor federation. In 2010, the Laborers rejoined the AFL-CIO.
Union: American Federation of Teachers
Membership: 887,000
Assets: $115 million
AFT is the smaller of the two teacher unions and also represents school support staff, higher education faculty and staff, health care professionals and state and municipal employees. At AFT’s headquarters in Washington, nine officers and employees earn more than $200,000 a year. Randi Weingarten, who was elected president in 2008, received $428,284 in salary and benefits. Of the $2.4 million donated to political candidates in the past two years, the union gave all but $10,000 to Democrats. In 1998, a proposal to merge the AFT and the much larger NEA was rejected by NEA members.
Union: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Membership: 685,000
Assets: $482 million
IBEW represents electricians, linemen and other public utility employees, along with some computer, telecommunications and broadcasting workers. Sixteen of the IBEW’s officers and employees in Washington earned more than $200,000 in 2009. Edwin D. Hill, the union president since 2001, received $375,767 in pay and benefits. Hill and other top officials received salary increases averaging at least 4 percent each in the past several years, even as membership declined by 5 percent. Membership peaked at about 1 million in 1972. The IBEW says a chief reason for the decline was a loss of union jobs when the Bell System was broken up and deregulation of the utility industry.
Union: International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Membership: 613,000
Assets: $147 million
IAM, which grew out of a secret meeting of 19 machinists in a Georgia rail yard in 1888, represents machinists and aerospace workers in over 200 industries. At the union’s Maryland headquarters near Washington, 34 officers and employees earn over $200,000 in salary and benefits. Robert Buffenbarger, who became president in 1997, received $284,975. Over the past two years, the IAM donated $1.98 million to Democratic candidates and $34,000 to Republicans. Popularly known as the machinists union, IAM is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Its membership jumped in the 1950s and 1960s with the growth of the airlines and aerospace industries. More than 1 million belonged to the union in 1968. In the early 1970s, membership began declining, a change the union blames on layoffs in the defense industry.
Union: United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
Membership: 538,000
Assets: $1.2 billion
The UAW, founded in 1935 by automobile plant workers, currently represents workers at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, along with workers in the aerospace and agriculture industries. None of the officers or employees at the UAW headquarters in Detroit earn over $200,000 a year. Ronald Gettelfinger, who resigned as UAW president in 2010, was paid $173,065 in salary and benefits. Elected to replace Gettelfinger was Bob King, a bargaining member at Ford’s plant in Dearborn, Mich. Over the past two years, the UAW donated more than $1.6 million to political candidates, and all but $3,000 went to Democrats. Union membership hit 1.5 million in the late 1970s, but a decline in the U.S. auto industry and opening of non-union plants in the South took its toll on membership. The UAW’s success over the years at negotiating higher pay and benefits, including one of the wealthiest pension and health plans for retired autoworkers, was blamed by domestic automakers and conservatives in Congress for the industry’s crisis in 2008 and 2009.
1a)The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions
The main reason so many state and local governments are bankrupt, or on the verge of bankruptcy, is the combination of government-run monopolies and government-employee unions. Government-employee unions have vastly more power than do private-sector unions because the entities they work for are typically monopolies.
When the employees of a grocery store, for example, go on strike and shut down the store, consumers can simply shop elsewhere, and the grocery-store management is perfectly free to hire replacement workers. In contrast, when a city teachers’ or garbage-truck drivers’ union goes on strike, there is no school and no garbage collection as long as the strike goes on. In addition, teachers’ tenure (typically after two or three years in government schools) and civil service regulations make it extremely costly if not virtually impossible to hire replacement workers.
Thus, when government bureaucrats go on strike they have the ability to completely shut down the entire “industry” they “work” in indefinitely. The taxpayers will complain bitterly about the absence of schools and garbage collection, forcing the mayor, governor, or city councilors to quickly cave in to the union’s demands to avoid risking the loss of their own jobs due to voter dissatisfaction. This process is the primary reason why, in general, the expenses of state and local governments have skyrocketed year in and year out, while the “production” of government employees declines.
For decades, researchers have noted that the more money that is spent per pupil in the government schools, the worse is the performance of the students. Similar outcomes are prevalent in all other areas of government “service.” As Milton Friedman once wrote, government bureaucracies — especially unionized ones — are like economic black holes where increased “inputs” lead to declining “outputs.” The more that is spent on government schools, the less educated are the students. The more that is spent on welfare, the more poverty there is, and so on. This of course is the exact opposite of normal economic life in the private sector, where increased inputs lead to more products and services, not fewer.
Thirty years ago, the economist Sharon Smith was publishing research showing that government employees were paid as much as 40 percent more than comparable private-sector employees. If anything, that wage premium has likely increased.
The enormous power of government-employee unions effectively transfers the power to tax from voters to the unions. Because government-employee unions can so easily force elected officials to raise taxes to meet their “demands,” it is they, not the voters, who control the rate of taxation within a political jurisdiction. They are the beneficiaries of a particular form of taxation without representation (not that taxation with representation is much better). This is why some states have laws prohibiting strikes by government-employee unions. (The unions often strike anyway.)
Politicians are caught in a political bind by government-employee unions: if they cave in to their wage demands and raise taxes to finance them, then they increase the chances of being kicked out of office themselves in the next election. The “solution” to this dilemma has been to offer government-employee unions moderate wage increases but spectacular pension promises. This allows politicians to pander to the unions but defer the costs to the future, long after the panderers are retired from politics.
As taxpayers in California, Wisconsin, Indiana, and many other states are realizing, the future has arrived. The Wall Street Journal reports that state and local governments in the United States currently have $3.5 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. They must either raise taxes dramatically to fund these liabilities, as some have already done, or drastically cut back or eliminate government-employee pensions.
Government-employee unions are primarily interested in maximizing the profits of the union. Consequently, they use civil-service regulations as a tool to protect the job of every last government bureaucrat, no matter how incompetent or irresponsible he or she is. Fewer employed bureaucrats means fewer union dues are being paid. Thus, it is almost guaranteed that government-employee unions will challenge in court the attempted dismissal of all bureaucrats save the occasional ones who are accused of actual criminal behavior. This means that firing an incompetent government school teacher, for example, can take months, or years, of legal wrangling.
Politicians discovered long ago that the most convenient response to this dilemma is to actually reward the incompetent bureaucrat with an administrative job that he or she will gladly accept, along with its higher pay and perks. That solves the problem of parents who complain that their children’s math teacher cannot do math, while eliminating the possibility of a lawsuit by the union. This is why government-school administrative offices are bloated bureaucratic monstrosities filled with teachers who can’t teach and are given the responsibilities of “administering” the entire school system instead. No private-sector school could survive with such a perverse policy.
Government-employee unions are also champions of “featherbedding” — the union practice of forcing employers to hire more than the number of people necessary to do the job. If this occurs in the private sector, the higher wage costs will make the firm less competitive and less profitable. It may even go bankrupt, as the heavily unionized American steel, automobile, and textile industries learned decades ago.
No such thing happens in government, where there are no profit-and-loss statements, in an accounting sense, and most agencies are monopolies anyway. Featherbedding in the government sector is viewed as a benefit to both politicians and unions — but certainly not to taxpayers. The unions collect more union dues with more government employees, while the politicians get to hand out more patronage jobs. Each patronage job is usually worth two or more votes, since the government employee can always be counted on to get at least one family member or close friend to vote for the politician who gave him the job. This is why, in the vast literature showing the superior efficiency of private versus government enterprises, government almost always has higher labor costs for the same functions.
Every government-employee union is a political machine that lobbies relentlessly for higher taxes, increased government spending, more featherbedding, and more pension promises — while demonizing hesitant taxpayers as uncaring enemies of children, the elderly, and the poor (who are purportedly “served” by the government bureaucrats the unions represent).
It is the old socialist trick that Frédéric Bastiat wrote about in his famous essay, The Law: The unions view advocates of school privatization, not as legitimate critics of a failed system, but as haters of children. And the unions treat critics of the welfare state, not as persons concerned with the destruction of the work ethic and of the family that has been caused by the welfare state, but as enemies of the poor.
This charade is over. American taxpayers finally seem to be aware that they are the servants, not the masters, of government at all levels. Government-employee unions have played a key role in causing bankruptcy in most American states, and their pleas for more bailouts financed by endless tax increases are finally ringing hollow.
Regards,
Thomas DiLorenzo
Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He is the author of many books, including How Capitalism Saved America.
1b) Ruger is coming out with a new pistol in honor of Obama's support of unions.
It will be named the.....Union Worker.
It doesn't work and you can't fire it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Uses of Antisemitism
By Paul Greenberg
It was the always observant Mary McCarthy who observed that antisemitism is the one form of intellectuality that appealed to stupid people. But she may have overlooked its appeal to ambitious politicians, too. They're always on the lookout for some mania they can use for their own purposes. Whether to seize power at the beginning of their rise or to hold onto it at the end. Or anytime in between.
Think of the way Southern demagogues back in the bad old days knew that, whenever they needed a way to stir folks up, they could always rely on the Race Issue.
How far and wide today's tide revolutionary tide may sweep in the Islamic world isn't yet clear, but the most predictable development is that the Jews will be blamed for it.
In a pinch, America will serve nicely as a whipping boy, too. The best strategy is to blame both. Just listen to some of the statements out of Yemen, where an autocrat struggling to hold on against his subjects' growing discontent is much in need of a scapegoat, or two, to distract his people. Addressing gullible students in Sana'a, that country's embattled ruler -- one Ali Abdullah Saleh -- shared a great discovery he'd made:
"I am going to reveal a secret. There is an operations room in Tel Aviv with the aim of destabilizing the Arab world. The operations room is in Tel Aviv and run by the White House."
Call it a twofer. It turns out that both the Americans and the Jews are responsible for all his troubles. In that little room in Tel Aviv, insidious plotters are orchestrating all the unrest in the Arab world. That's where those rising up against their betters from Tunisia to Saudi Arabia "are sitting day and night with the American ambassador…" They "hand him reports and he gives them instructions." Now we know.
It sounds like an Arab version of that old forgery, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a staple of European antisemitism that Hosni Mubarak's propaganda machine serialized on Egyptian television back in the day, when his hold on power seemed permanent.
Antisemitism remains the last resort of Arab dictators desperate to survive, as it was their first resort on their way up. It's a trajectory as old as Herr Hitler's rise -- and fall -- in Germany. Once the most advanced of nations. It soon enough became the most depraved. East or West, the fatal virus is the same.
But antisemitism is no longer the rage it once was in France, where the Nazis set up a puppet regime in Vichy. And in occupied France, the French obliged their occupiers by rounding up their Jews for what was politely called Resettlement in the East.
But the times (and fashions) have a-changed. Last week the colorful, not to say bizarre, fashion designer John Galliano was dropped by Dior just three days before his fall-winter collection for 2011-12 was due to be unveiled at the Paris fashion show. It seems he'd made some unseemly remarks about Jews during a late-night blow-up at a trendy Paris bar. Naturally, his performance was captured on video. Isn't everything nowadays? The more things change, the more they're videotaped.
Who knows, M. Galliano may be able to find a new career in Iran designing the latest in burqas. But even in Teheran, cries for democracy are heard again. And again the leaders of the opposition are jailed and demonstrators beaten. It's a hard thing to extinguish, the hope of freedom. Anywhere.
The crumbling old pillars of tyranny are shaking throughout the Middle East. Which is when scapegoats are most in demand, and the Jews are the traditional choice. But there may come a time when even Jew-baiting won't work any more.
What country will be the next to be roiled by revolution? It's a question that must keep various Middle Eastern potentates awake at night. Now it's they who wait for the knock on the door. Or for it to be kicked in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Revealed: Palestinians' risky gambit for statehood
By Edmund Sanders
Will calling the world's bluff -- and defying America -- work? Netanyahu is already weakening his positions
AMALLAH — (MCT) Palestinian leaders are embarking on a risky statehood strategy that will seek to isolate Israel's hawkish government in the international community and rely less on U.S. backing, a move that reflects growing disappointment here with the Obama administration.
The campaign will include U.N. resolutions such as one proposed last month on Israeli settlement-building, boycotts against Israeli products, complaints in international courts and attempts to win formal recognition from as many countries as possible, Palestinian officials say.
They hope the effort will culminate this September in an internationally backed proposal for membership in the U.N. or a resolution recognizing a Palestinian state, even if it means invoking an obscure rule to circumvent the threat of a U.S. veto in the Security Council.
"We have moved into the internationalization stage," senior Palestinian official Nabil Shaath said in an interview.
The strategy is a long shot, no question. It risks alienating the United States, a longtime ally of Israel and also the major financial backer of the Palestinian Authority. Israelis are certain to fight back and are already dismissing the campaign as a ploy to bypass the negotiating table and unilaterally win statehood.
The Palestinians' effort may already be drawing a reaction. Under pressure from the international community to show that Israel is making a good-faith effort to restart talks, Netanyahu is considering launching a new initiative in coming weeks that would offer Palestinians a provisional state with temporary borders, Israeli officials say. Palestinians have long rejected such interim peace plans as insufficient.
The biggest move so far in the Palestinian effort was last month's proposed Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. The Obama administration lobbied hard against the resolution, saying it would only heighten tensions. In a 50-minute phone call, President Barack Obama warned Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas three times about "repercussions," Abbas aides say.
Abbas defied U.S. pressure, and the U.S. vetoed the measure in the Security Council. But even in defeat, Palestinians said they had crossed a fear barrier of sorts and now feel emboldened to take their campaign to other international forums.
The next step will come later this month, when Palestinians turn to the so-called Middle East Quartet, comprising the U.S., U.N., Russia and European Union. They hope to extract a public commitment for the first time that any peace deal be based on borders that existed before Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967. Netanyahu, who rejects 1967 borders as a basis for talks, is reportedly boycotting the meeting.
Meanwhile, Palestinians are circling the globe to make their case. With formal recognition of statehood from 112 countries, including eight South American nations during the last few months, Palestinians aim to have as many as 150 countries recognizing them by September, including, they hope, Spain and Britain, said Riad Malki, the Palestinian Authority foreign minister.
The goal, Malki said, is to use the international momentum to win membership in the U.N. and then ask the international body to help impose a solution on the parties.
To overcome a possible U.S. veto in the Security Council, Palestinians say they plan to take their case to the General Assembly, where they believe they would have a majority of the votes. To give the resolution more teeth, they plan to invoke U.N. Resolution 377, which allows the General Assembly to approve binding — albeit harder to enforce — resolutions in the event of deadlock in the Security Council.
"No question we're getting more assertive," Malki said.
A senior Obama administration official, however, called the Palestinian approach "a strategic mistake. It's not going to be a successful strategy. Lining up countries to recognize a Palestinian state is not a substitute for successful negotiation with the Israelis. You're not going to solve the challenge of Jerusalem in Buenos Aires."
It's not the first time Palestinians have turned to the international community, but officials say prior efforts have been less effective because peace talks were under way at the same time.
"Whenever there's been an opportunity for serious talks, we've tried our best not to be adversarial in our international actions," Shaath said. "But when you lose hope and nothing serious is happening, that's the time you can become more adversarial."
The Palestinians have grown increasingly disenchanted with the Obama administration, which they say started out strong in 2009 by demanding that Israel halt all construction in the West Bank. But in December the administration formally backed away from that stance and last month stood alone in vetoing the U.N. anti-settlement resolution.
To many senior Palestinian leaders, who in recent years have held out U.S.-brokered peace talks as the only option for achieving statehood, the vote was the strongest signal yet that the Obama administration is unable or unwilling to deliver.
"We are going through a major turning point, away from the period that was characterized by the belief in the primacy of negotiations," said Palestinian pollster and analyst Khalil Shikaki. "For many Palestinian elite, the U.S. veto was the last straw."
The U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, rejected assertions that Washington wasn't trying hard enough. "The challenge right now is not a lack of U.S. interest," the official said. "It's the inability of Israelis and Palestinians to commit to a negotiation without having one issue or another interrupt."
The new Palestinian strategy is also an attempt by Abbas to prove to an increasingly skeptical Palestinian public that he has a Plan B. Alarmed by the regional unrest in the Arab world, Palestinian leaders over the last month have made a series of surprising announcements, including a call for national elections and a Cabinet reshuffling, which some critics say are signs of desperation.
"It seems they are scrambling and don't really know what they're doing," said Diana Buttu, an analyst and former Palestinian Authority negotiator.
Others warn there are no guarantees the strategy will change the situation on the ground.
"Let's say they declare a state in September," Shikaki said. "How does this in any way change the situation for Palestinians living under occupation?"
U.S. officials have come out against taking the conflict to the United Nations. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told lawmakers in February that the U.S. was working to block the Palestinian campaign to win recognition from other countries, calling such moves "counterproductive."
Israelis have also threatened to retaliate against Palestinians should they escalate their international activism. Among other things, Israel could increase the number of military checkpoints in the West Bank, tighten borders, ramp up settlement construction or withhold tax revenue, officials said.
But Palestinians predict such punishments would backfire.
Said Shaath: "Anything they do will only bring the wrath of the world against them and make it even more difficult for the U.S. to stand by them."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)With Obama's new Gitmo policy, Administration officials had some 'splainin to do
By Dana Milbank
It was another important moment in the education of Barack Obama.
He began his presidency with a pledge to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay within a year. Within months, he realized that was impossible. And now he has essentially formalized George W. Bush's detention policy.
With Monday's announcement that the Obama administration would resume military tribunals at Gitmo, conservatives rushed out triumphant I-told-you-sos. Liberal supporters again felt betrayed. Administration officials had some 'splainin to do.
And so they assembled some top-notch lawyers from across the executive branch and held a conference call Monday afternoon with reporters. The ground rules required that the officials not be identified, which was appropriate given their Orwellian assignment. They were to argue that Obama's new detention policy is perfectly consistent with his old detention policy.
Not only had he revoked his pledge to close Gitmo within a year, but he also had contradicted his claim that a detention policy "can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone." His executive order did exactly what he said must not be done, in a style favored by his predecessor in the Oval Office.
"This detention without trial - what's different from the Bush administration?" a French reporter from Le Monde asked on the call.
Good question. The answer, from the Anonymous Lawyers, was technical: "We have a much more thorough process here of representation. . . . There's an opportunity for an oral presentation to the board."
CBS's Jan Crawford was not impressed with this answer. "What specifically is different in this than what we were living under that was so bad in the Bush administration?" she asked.
Anonymous Lawyers replied that cases would be reviewed every six months instead of every year. They also spoke about their "intent to comply with Article 75 of Additional Protocol One."
This still wasn't working for Yochi Dreazen of National Journal. "It seems like what is happening now with this executive order is effectively ratifying the status quo," he said. "Is that a fair read?"
The Anonymous Lawyers did not think this was a fair read. Over and over again, they repeated their theme: "The basic message is the National Archives speech remains the framework under which Guantanamo closure is being done."
Oh? Let's review.
Anonymous Lawyers were referring to Obama's speech at the National Archives in May 2009.
There, he said: "Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. . . . By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year."
It was then, too, that Obama said detention policies "can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. . . . In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime."
In a sense, Monday's announcement was an acknowledgment that Obama had set expectations unrealistically high during the campaign and early in his term. "The president has now institutionalized a process that a lot of his political base imagined he was going to get rid of," said my former Post colleague Benjamin Wittes, now a Brookings authority on detention policy.
Less easy to fathom is Obama's unwillingness to involve Congress in creating his new detention regime, as he had promised. As Obama himself argued, the procedures won't have legitimacy without "judicial and congressional oversight."
The Wall Street Journal's Evan Perez asked the Anonymous Lawyers about this during the teleconference. He pointed out that Obama, in his Archives speech, "hinted at" a court review for indefinite detentions.
"I'm not quite sure what . . . you think the president hinted at," one of the Anonymous Lawyers answered.
And how about working with Congress? An Anonymous Lawyer said that this was a "discretionary executive act" that is "well within the authority . . . of the president."
Funny, that's just what Bush's lawyers used to say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment