Efforts by the European Union and NATO to fight pirates off the coast of Somalia have proven futile. With a limited mandate, their ships cannot keep armed bandits from seizing merchant vessels and taking hostages. Pirates off the coast of Somalia captured another ship on Wednesday, Nov. 19. It is the third vessel since the spectacular hijacking of the Saudi supertanker "Sirius Star" last weekend. Although NATO, European and US vessels are stationed in the region, they are helpless in effectively battling the increasing problem of piracy -- though single operations are sometimes successful. The German navy, for example, said Tuesday one of its frigates had foiled attacks on two ships in the Gulf of Aden, using a helicopter to chase off pirates who fled in their speedboats.
Pirates off the coast of Somalia captured another ship on Wednesday, Nov. 19. It is the third vessel since the spectacular hijacking of the Saudi supertanker "Sirius Star" last weekend.
Although NATO, European and US vessels are stationed in the region, they are helpless in effectively battling the increasing problem of piracy -- though single operations are sometimes successful.
The German navy, for example, said Tuesday one of its frigates had foiled attacks on two ships in the Gulf of Aden, using a helicopter to chase off pirates who fled in their speedboats.
The US has long been a model for many parts of the Arab world, but the Bush administration's foreign policy led to rifts. Now, the region has high hopes from America, but they aren't sure what to expect from President-elect Barack Obama. It's about 120 kilometers (75 miles) from Dubai to Abu Dhabi, which is roughly the distance from Santa Monica to Santa Barbara. One hundred years ago, California was the El Dorado for the Americans, a land on the horizon, far off near the edge of their map and yet at the center of their fantasies. Today, the Gulf Emirates occupy a similar place in the imaginations of the Arabs. Rich. Modern. Bold. The Emirates are enlightened where much of the Arab world is repressed and held back by its self-imposed restrictions. Many a young man in the slums of Cairo, in the prisons of Baghdad or behind the walls of Palestine has dreamt of speeding, wild and free, along the road from Dubai to Abu Dhabi in an SUV or in a convertible earned through his own hard work. Fog rolls in to a construction site in Dubai. The Arab world is eager to find out what the Obama administration holds for it. The coastal road, known as highway 11, recently received new signs similar to those in the US, including emblems like those used in the Interstate highway system, indicating whether a driver is going "northbound" or "southbound." The step was not an arbitrary one. Even though the British controlled this part of the world for centuries, modern Gulf Arabs have always looked to their protective power, the United States, emulating its capitalism and megalomania. The skyscrapers of Dubai and the checkerboard urban landscapes of Doha and Kuwait are concrete acknowledgements of their role model. "I love everything about America," Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, said two years ago. His words reflected the sentiments of a growing class of ambitious Arabs who are tired of being seen as the eternal losers in world history. He spoke on behalf of those who are simply interested in doing business and have long felt alienated by the leftist and nationalist ideologies of pan-Arabism, by Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and by the Palestinians' obsession with victimhood. But despite the rapid pace of progress in this futuristic region during the last eight years, the current administration in Washington has made things difficult for these modern Arabs. This explains why the sheikh of Dubai followed his words of adoration with a much-quoted caveat: "I love everything about America, except for its foreign policy."
The US has long been a model for many parts of the Arab world, but the Bush administration's foreign policy led to rifts. Now, the region has high hopes from America, but they aren't sure what to expect from President-elect Barack Obama.
It's about 120 kilometers (75 miles) from Dubai to Abu Dhabi, which is roughly the distance from Santa Monica to Santa Barbara. One hundred years ago, California was the El Dorado for the Americans, a land on the horizon, far off near the edge of their map and yet at the center of their fantasies. Today, the Gulf Emirates occupy a similar place in the imaginations of the Arabs. Rich. Modern. Bold. The Emirates are enlightened where much of the Arab world is repressed and held back by its self-imposed restrictions. Many a young man in the slums of Cairo, in the prisons of Baghdad or behind the walls of Palestine has dreamt of speeding, wild and free, along the road from Dubai to Abu Dhabi in an SUV or in a convertible earned through his own hard work.
Fog rolls in to a construction site in Dubai. The Arab world is eager to find out what the Obama administration holds for it. The coastal road, known as highway 11, recently received new signs similar to those in the US, including emblems like those used in the Interstate highway system, indicating whether a driver is going "northbound" or "southbound." The step was not an arbitrary one. Even though the British controlled this part of the world for centuries, modern Gulf Arabs have always looked to their protective power, the United States, emulating its capitalism and megalomania. The skyscrapers of Dubai and the checkerboard urban landscapes of Doha and Kuwait are concrete acknowledgements of their role model.
"I love everything about America," Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, said two years ago. His words reflected the sentiments of a growing class of ambitious Arabs who are tired of being seen as the eternal losers in world history. He spoke on behalf of those who are simply interested in doing business and have long felt alienated by the leftist and nationalist ideologies of pan-Arabism, by Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and by the Palestinians' obsession with victimhood. But despite the rapid pace of progress in this futuristic region during the last eight years, the current administration in Washington has made things difficult for these modern Arabs. This explains why the sheikh of Dubai followed his words of adoration with a much-quoted caveat: "I love everything about America, except for its foreign policy."
With its enormous population and booming industrial economy, India is set to become one of the planet's chief polluters. India's chief climate treaty negotiator, Shyam Saran, talks to SPIEGEL ONLINE his country's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Saran, when will India oblige itself to start restricting its own CO2 emissions? Saran: Even though there is no legal obligation on India in this respect, the Prime Minister of India made a commitment that India's per capita emissions will at no time exceed the average of the per capita emissions of developed, industrialized countries. We have thus accepted a limit on our emissions and at the same time provided an incentive to our partners in developed countries to be more ambitious. The more significant their reductions of emissions, the lower the limit we would need to accept for our own. A Greenpeace protest in India: "Stop Climate Change" SPIEGEL ONLINE: India is expected, as a rising industrial power, to sign on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change -- especially now that the US under Barack Obama will likely begin reducing its own emissions. Saran: We see no link between what the United States, as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, does and India assuming legal commitments for emission reductions. The volume of US emissions today constitutes over 20 percent of the global total and 20 tons annually per person. Despite our much larger population, India produces only 4 percent of those emissions -- 1.1 tons per person. Therefore, while we would welcome a positive and forthcoming attitude on the part of a new administration to significantly reduce US emissions -- as President-elect Obama has promised -- this has no bearing on India. It will not lead India to accept rules that go beyond the current UN climate treaty, which does not stipulate legally binding reductions for developing nations.
With its enormous population and booming industrial economy, India is set to become one of the planet's chief polluters. India's chief climate treaty negotiator, Shyam Saran, talks to SPIEGEL ONLINE his country's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Saran, when will India oblige itself to start restricting its own CO2 emissions?
Saran: Even though there is no legal obligation on India in this respect, the Prime Minister of India made a commitment that India's per capita emissions will at no time exceed the average of the per capita emissions of developed, industrialized countries. We have thus accepted a limit on our emissions and at the same time provided an incentive to our partners in developed countries to be more ambitious. The more significant their reductions of emissions, the lower the limit we would need to accept for our own.
A Greenpeace protest in India: "Stop Climate Change"
SPIEGEL ONLINE: India is expected, as a rising industrial power, to sign on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change -- especially now that the US under Barack Obama will likely begin reducing its own emissions.
Saran: We see no link between what the United States, as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, does and India assuming legal commitments for emission reductions. The volume of US emissions today constitutes over 20 percent of the global total and 20 tons annually per person. Despite our much larger population, India produces only 4 percent of those emissions -- 1.1 tons per person. Therefore, while we would welcome a positive and forthcoming attitude on the part of a new administration to significantly reduce US emissions -- as President-elect Obama has promised -- this has no bearing on India. It will not lead India to accept rules that go beyond the current UN climate treaty, which does not stipulate legally binding reductions for developing nations.
"[In Afghanistan] a small army would be annihilated and a large one starved."Duke of Wellington (1769-1852) (source) With recent attacks on convoys through the Khyber pass, the line of communications through Pakistan to Afghanistan is in deep trouble. WaPo reports: Security restrictions forced customs officials to slow the flow of traffic to 25 trucks every few hours. Before the Taliban raid and border closure last week, an average of 600 to 800 tractor-trailers moved through Torkham a day, according to Afghan customs officials. Customs officials said they hoped at best to see 200 trucks pass through on Tuesday. The U.S. military asking suppliers to evaluate alternatives:The first option is to move cargo between Northern Europe and various destinations in Afghanistan through Caucus' and Central Asia. The second option is to move cargo between CONUS and Afghanistan through Asia and Central Asia. Some European countries have arranged transport via railroad through Russia and Uzbekistan to Afghanistan. The U.S. seems not be willing to depend on Russian goodwill. That leaves the red and the green lines as the only possible transport routes. Both are much longer than the current blue route through Pakistan.
"[In Afghanistan] a small army would be annihilated and a large one starved."Duke of Wellington (1769-1852) (source)
With recent attacks on convoys through the Khyber pass, the line of communications through Pakistan to Afghanistan is in deep trouble. WaPo reports:
Security restrictions forced customs officials to slow the flow of traffic to 25 trucks every few hours. Before the Taliban raid and border closure last week, an average of 600 to 800 tractor-trailers moved through Torkham a day, according to Afghan customs officials. Customs officials said they hoped at best to see 200 trucks pass through on Tuesday.
The U.S. military asking suppliers to evaluate alternatives:
The first option is to move cargo between Northern Europe and various destinations in Afghanistan through Caucus' and Central Asia. The second option is to move cargo between CONUS and Afghanistan through Asia and Central Asia.
Some European countries have arranged transport via railroad through Russia and Uzbekistan to Afghanistan. The U.S. seems not be willing to depend on Russian goodwill. That leaves the red and the green lines as the only possible transport routes. Both are much longer than the current blue route through Pakistan.
Geneva, Switzerland, Thursday 8 November - Four Nordic countries, Sweden (1), Norway (2), Finland (3) and Iceland (4) once again top the latest Gender Gap Index released today by the World Economic Forum. All countries in the top 20 made progress relative to their scores last year - some more so than others. Latvia (13) and Lithuania (14) made the biggest advances among the top 20, gaining six and seven places respectively, driven by smaller gender gaps in labour force participation and wages. The performance of the United States (31) was mixed over the last year - its scores on political empowerment improved but this was offset by a bigger gap on economic participation - causing the United States to lose 6 places relative to its rank in 2006. Switzerland (40) loses 12 places relative to its position in 2006. The change was the result of a correction made by the UNDP in its calculation of estimated earned income for women and men - the ratio between women's and men's incomes is now larger than previously reported (0.61 in 2007 vs 0.9 in 2006). Switzerland's scores on all other variables remain largely static. France (51) remains one of the few countries holding the number one ranking on both education and health and has made considerable progress relative to its 70th position in the 2006 ranking. This significant increase is due to an improvement in the ratio between women's and men's labour force participation rates as well as the availability of new data on women in skilled employment. Calculations based on the new data show that the proportion of women among "professional and technical workers" as well as the proportion of women among "legislators, senior officials and managers" increased. In the bottom half of the rankings, countries such as Tunisia (102), Turkey (121) and Morocco (122) not only fall further in the relative rankings but also show a drop in scores relative to their own performance last year. On the other hand, Korea (97), the United Arab Emirates (105) and Saudi Arabia (124) show encouraging improvements in their 2007 scores as compared to their 2006 scores.
The performance of the United States (31) was mixed over the last year - its scores on political empowerment improved but this was offset by a bigger gap on economic participation - causing the United States to lose 6 places relative to its rank in 2006. Switzerland (40) loses 12 places relative to its position in 2006. The change was the result of a correction made by the UNDP in its calculation of estimated earned income for women and men - the ratio between women's and men's incomes is now larger than previously reported (0.61 in 2007 vs 0.9 in 2006). Switzerland's scores on all other variables remain largely static. France (51) remains one of the few countries holding the number one ranking on both education and health and has made considerable progress relative to its 70th position in the 2006 ranking. This significant increase is due to an improvement in the ratio between women's and men's labour force participation rates as well as the availability of new data on women in skilled employment. Calculations based on the new data show that the proportion of women among "professional and technical workers" as well as the proportion of women among "legislators, senior officials and managers" increased. In the bottom half of the rankings, countries such as Tunisia (102), Turkey (121) and Morocco (122) not only fall further in the relative rankings but also show a drop in scores relative to their own performance last year. On the other hand, Korea (97), the United Arab Emirates (105) and Saudi Arabia (124) show encouraging improvements in their 2007 scores as compared to their 2006 scores.
Ricardo Hausmann, Director of the Centre for International Development at Harvard University; Laura Tyson, Professor of Business Administration and Economics at the University of California, Berkeley; and Saadia Zahidi, Associate Director and Head, Women Leaders' Programme are the report's editors.
Tyson has been named among MSM nominees for US Treasury Sec in the Obama administration. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
"I don't think we have a government-run banking system. Most people believe we have a private banking system. But somebody -- the Federal Reserve -- is there to help set the guidelines within which this private banking system functions. Banks are free to do almost anything on banking practices if they want, just as long as it fits within those guidelines. And so it would be with the Federal Health Board. We would try to streamline the tremendous bureaucracy that exists today in our federal government when it comes to health-care. So this would really mean far less bureaucracy, not more. And I would simply ask the question, if you think our banking system today is reasonably regulated, why not try the same type of model for our health-care system?"
Gulp.
I excuse this incredibly short-sighted choice of comparison by telling myself that his book did not read at all as if he were on drugs-on the contrary, it seems that he understands far better than Hillary and co. ever did how to get a workable program through congress. Some links, for this incredibly important issue: Ezra Klein, The American Prospect CBS News, on the Daschle appointment WaPo on the same issue Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Responding to pleas for legal clarity from those on both sides of the issue, the California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would take up the case of whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions was constitutional. The court, however, stopped short of suspending the ban, which California voters passed as Proposition 8 two weeks ago after an expensive and hard-fought campaign. The proposition, which overturned a May decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage, has been challenged by a number of cities and civil rights groups, which say it is a substantial revision of the state's Constitution, and therefore requires legislative approval.In agreeing Wednesday to take the case, the court suggested in a two-page order signed by six of its seven justices that it would take up that question, as well as lingering questions over the legality of some 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state this year. Those ceremonies were halted after Proposition 8 passed.The court has also been asked to consider whether same-sex couples are being denied equal protection under the state's Constitution. An amendment banning same-sex marriages has never been challenged in a state where the marriages had been legal.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Responding to pleas for legal clarity from those on both sides of the issue, the California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would take up the case of whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions was constitutional.
The court, however, stopped short of suspending the ban, which California voters passed as Proposition 8 two weeks ago after an expensive and hard-fought campaign.
The proposition, which overturned a May decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage, has been challenged by a number of cities and civil rights groups, which say it is a substantial revision of the state's Constitution, and therefore requires legislative approval.
In agreeing Wednesday to take the case, the court suggested in a two-page order signed by six of its seven justices that it would take up that question, as well as lingering questions over the legality of some 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state this year. Those ceremonies were halted after Proposition 8 passed.
The court has also been asked to consider whether same-sex couples are being denied equal protection under the state's Constitution. An amendment banning same-sex marriages has never been challenged in a state where the marriages had been legal.
A major Christian Right organization is calling out Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the latest broadside in the post-election battle for the soul of the Republican Party and a clear sign that the culture war might be shifting back to the states. The Family Research Council's latest Action Alert urges social conservatives to contact Schwarzenegger's office directly and tell him to terminate his "inappropriate post-election behavior" regarding the passage of California's controversial Proposition 8 that bans same-sex marriage. Schwarzenegger opposed Prop 8. After the election, he said he hopes the California Supreme Court will overturn the ballot initiative. He predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already wed would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative. He encouraged Prop 8 opponents to protest "until they get it done."
A major Christian Right organization is calling out Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the latest broadside in the post-election battle for the soul of the Republican Party and a clear sign that the culture war might be shifting back to the states.
The Family Research Council's latest Action Alert urges social conservatives to contact Schwarzenegger's office directly and tell him to terminate his "inappropriate post-election behavior" regarding the passage of California's controversial Proposition 8 that bans same-sex marriage.
Schwarzenegger opposed Prop 8. After the election, he said he hopes the California Supreme Court will overturn the ballot initiative. He predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already wed would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative. He encouraged Prop 8 opponents to protest "until they get it done."
WASHINGTON -- An effort by the New York Police Department to get broader latitude to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects has run into sharp resistance from the Justice Department in a bitter struggle that has left the police commissioner and the attorney general accusing each other of putting the public at risk. Skip to next paragraph Annie Tritt for The New York Times Raymond W. Kelly, the New York police commissioner, accused federal agencies of blocking the police's surveillance requests. Readers' CommentsShare your thoughts.Post a Comment » The Police Department, with the largest municipal counterterrorism operation in the country, wants the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to loosen their approach to the federal law that governs electronic surveillance. But federal officials have refused to relax the standards, and have said requests submitted by the department could actually jeopardize surveillance efforts by casting doubt on their legality.Under the law, the government must in most cases obtain a warrant from the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before it can begin electronic monitoring of people suspected of spying or terrorism. The requests are subjected to sharp scrutiny, first by lawyers at the F.B.I., then by lawyers at the Justice Department, and finally by the court itself.New York's department, as a local police force, cannot apply directly, but must seek warrants through the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. The police want those agencies to expedite their requests, and say that the federal agencies unfairly blocked the city's applications for surveillance warrants, first in June and then in September. The disagreement, in which the Bush Justice Department has taken a more cautious approach than police officials, is something of an unexpected twist for an administration that has more often seemed willing to stretch legal boundaries to fight terrorism. [...] While the letters do not specifically identify the target of the eavesdropping requests, Mr. Mukasey said that the Police Department had sought authority in one of them to eavesdrop on "numerous communications facilities" without providing an adequate basis for their requests. Some officials who have been briefed on the cases said the requests, from the police Intelligence Division, were unusually broad, and included telephones in public places, like train or subway stations, rather than phones used by a specific individual.
WASHINGTON -- An effort by the New York Police Department to get broader latitude to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects has run into sharp resistance from the Justice Department in a bitter struggle that has left the police commissioner and the attorney general accusing each other of putting the public at risk. Skip to next paragraph Annie Tritt for The New York Times
Raymond W. Kelly, the New York police commissioner, accused federal agencies of blocking the police's surveillance requests. Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
The Police Department, with the largest municipal counterterrorism operation in the country, wants the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to loosen their approach to the federal law that governs electronic surveillance. But federal officials have refused to relax the standards, and have said requests submitted by the department could actually jeopardize surveillance efforts by casting doubt on their legality.
Under the law, the government must in most cases obtain a warrant from the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before it can begin electronic monitoring of people suspected of spying or terrorism. The requests are subjected to sharp scrutiny, first by lawyers at the F.B.I., then by lawyers at the Justice Department, and finally by the court itself.
New York's department, as a local police force, cannot apply directly, but must seek warrants through the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. The police want those agencies to expedite their requests, and say that the federal agencies unfairly blocked the city's applications for surveillance warrants, first in June and then in September. The disagreement, in which the Bush Justice Department has taken a more cautious approach than police officials, is something of an unexpected twist for an administration that has more often seemed willing to stretch legal boundaries to fight terrorism.
[...]
While the letters do not specifically identify the target of the eavesdropping requests, Mr. Mukasey said that the Police Department had sought authority in one of them to eavesdrop on "numerous communications facilities" without providing an adequate basis for their requests. Some officials who have been briefed on the cases said the requests, from the police Intelligence Division, were unusually broad, and included telephones in public places, like train or subway stations, rather than phones used by a specific individual.
