Venezuela says it plans to hold joint naval exercises in its territorial waters with Russian forces in November. A senior Venezuelan naval officer said four Russian ships would take part in the exercises, which would also involve Venezuelan aircraft and submarines. Correspondents say the move is likely to raise concern in the US, whose relations with Russia have been soured by Moscow's recent conflict in Georgia. Washington already has rocky relations with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.
Venezuela says it plans to hold joint naval exercises in its territorial waters with Russian forces in November.
A senior Venezuelan naval officer said four Russian ships would take part in the exercises, which would also involve Venezuelan aircraft and submarines.
Correspondents say the move is likely to raise concern in the US, whose relations with Russia have been soured by Moscow's recent conflict in Georgia.
Washington already has rocky relations with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.
People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN's top climate scientist. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will make the call at a speech in London on Monday evening. UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport. But a spokeswoman for the UK's National Farmers' Union (NFU) said methane emissions from farms were declining.
People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN's top climate scientist.
Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will make the call at a speech in London on Monday evening.
UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.
But a spokeswoman for the UK's National Farmers' Union (NFU) said methane emissions from farms were declining.
WE all must think anew about Russia. But this process will prove harder for some of us than for others. When I grew up in the late 1960s and early '70s, the Soviet Union had already begun to look like the Ottoman Empire on its last legs; the face of Soviet Communism belonged to Leonid Brezhnev, with his drooping cheeks and beetle brows and thick, square glasses. What was there to fear from this pitiful giant? In my left-wing, antiwar, social democratic hothouse world, anti-Communism seemed almost as absurd as Communism. John Kennedy's call in 1961 to "bear any burden" in the struggle between two world systems was as remote to us as the sectarian debates of the 1930s between Trotskyites, Shachtmanites and so on. We were, unlike an older generation of "cold war liberals," anti-anti-Communists. Fear of the spread of Communism had gotten us into Vietnam, and rationalized American support for right-wing dictators across the third world. That fear, to us, was thus a far more dangerous force in the world than the thing that we as a country were afraid of -- Soviet and Chinese expansionism. "The war against Communism is over," declared George McGovern, our tribune, in 1972. Several years later, a much more centrist figure, President Jimmy Carter, would lament the "inordinate fear of Communism" that he said dominated public discussion of foreign policy. (That remark looked slightly less sage after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.)
WE all must think anew about Russia. But this process will prove harder for some of us than for others. When I grew up in the late 1960s and early '70s, the Soviet Union had already begun to look like the Ottoman Empire on its last legs; the face of Soviet Communism belonged to Leonid Brezhnev, with his drooping cheeks and beetle brows and thick, square glasses.
What was there to fear from this pitiful giant? In my left-wing, antiwar, social democratic hothouse world, anti-Communism seemed almost as absurd as Communism. John Kennedy's call in 1961 to "bear any burden" in the struggle between two world systems was as remote to us as the sectarian debates of the 1930s between Trotskyites, Shachtmanites and so on.
We were, unlike an older generation of "cold war liberals," anti-anti-Communists. Fear of the spread of Communism had gotten us into Vietnam, and rationalized American support for right-wing dictators across the third world. That fear, to us, was thus a far more dangerous force in the world than the thing that we as a country were afraid of -- Soviet and Chinese expansionism.
"The war against Communism is over," declared George McGovern, our tribune, in 1972. Several years later, a much more centrist figure, President Jimmy Carter, would lament the "inordinate fear of Communism" that he said dominated public discussion of foreign policy. (That remark looked slightly less sage after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.)
Actually this is about the story that the US has been spying on Maliki [dog bites man]
HARRISBURG, Penn. -- Sen. Barack Obama made his first appearance on Fox News's conservative talk show "The O'Reilly Factor" and was pressed on his foreign policy views. According to excerpts released by Fox, host Bill O'Reilly questioned Obama on two issues that Republicans view as vulnerabilities, his opposition to the troop surge in Iraq and his willingness to talk even with U.S. adversaries. "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama told O'Reilly of President Bush's decision last year to increase troop levels. "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." But he added, "The Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility. And we still don't have that kind of political reconciliation."
HARRISBURG, Penn. -- Sen. Barack Obama made his first appearance on Fox News's conservative talk show "The O'Reilly Factor" and was pressed on his foreign policy views.
According to excerpts released by Fox, host Bill O'Reilly questioned Obama on two issues that Republicans view as vulnerabilities, his opposition to the troop surge in Iraq and his willingness to talk even with U.S. adversaries.
"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama told O'Reilly of President Bush's decision last year to increase troop levels. "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."
But he added, "The Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility. And we still don't have that kind of political reconciliation."
Obama May Delay Rescinding Giveaways for Super Rich Honestly I didn't think I read this right, but....I did. Obama said: he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy. and even further: Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts This is trickle upon economics, a supply-side Reagan philosophy that is not proven to work. Where is it written that running these budget deficits and giving tax cuts to the super rich helps the economy? Their own Congressional Budget Office has said these tax cuts failed to stimulate the economy. The short-term effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA in stimulating aggregate demand in the economy have largely dissipated by now, and the supply-side effects of those policies are uncertain but are probably small
Honestly I didn't think I read this right, but....I did.
Obama said:
he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
and even further:
Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts
This is trickle upon economics, a supply-side Reagan philosophy that is not proven to work. Where is it written that running these budget deficits and giving tax cuts to the super rich helps the economy?
Their own Congressional Budget Office has said these tax cuts failed to stimulate the economy.
The short-term effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA in stimulating aggregate demand in the economy have largely dissipated by now, and the supply-side effects of those policies are uncertain but are probably small
Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.
Personally I would say screw the middle class, give financial incentives that help the poor. But what he described is not the standard "trickle upon economics" via "tax cuts to the super rich".
In my woefully under-informed opinion, Obama will indeed probably be pretty bad in terms of how and to whom he gives tax breaks. I have no doubt the super rich will do just fine if he becomes president. But I doubt very much he will ever be caught actually explicitly saying that. Of the evidence can be produced against him, very little of it will come from his own mouth because, whatever else he is, he is not stupid.
Obama does have a few good economic advisers, the best in my opinion being Alan Blinder. Blinder's cash for clunkers program creates an economic stimulus targeted at the poor and gives lie to those that argue the government can do no good.
The plan calls for the government to purchase older vehicles that emit large amounts of pollution and get poor gas mileage to be purchased. The cut off is generally 7 years, but the monsters that we are talking about may be from the 1970s or earlier. The government offers something like 2x Kelly Blue Book (The standard American guide to used car values, available online no less.)
I think that coupled with a government contract with the big three (Ford, Chrysler, GM) to purchase at least half the line production of a stripped down no frills fuel efficient vehicle that offered the bare minimum, that you could both save the US auto industry, cut US oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, all while creating a recurring cash stimulus into the hands of people who will actually spend the money. Demand creation, not trickle upon economics.
And it doesn't have to stop there. The greatest limitation to low income individuals trying to justify the capital expense of an energy saving feature is access to capital. A no interest loan allowing low income individuals to finance the long term energy cost savings would create a tremendous economic stimulus. These are folks who will spend the money.
This idea isn't unheard of. Spain has something similar called Plan Renovable that they put into place in the 1990s. I'd like to get more info on it, but I've hit a wall searching on the internet. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
His centrism puts him economically well to the right, not only of the democrat party, but entirely to the right of most of the USA.
does he think that keeping the tax cuts will give him an easier ride from the press pack ? I dunno, charlie Gibson of ABC seems to think his $200K makes him on average earnings, so we know they aren't remotely connected with reality either. But it's a huge big clue he won't do anything if he agrees with repugnican frames. keep to the Fen Causeway
The irony of the political spectrum that you give is its inaccuracy. Americans are willing to move to the Left, they just lack leadership.
I swear, I'm to the point that I've thought that maybe it's time to get to work organizing local chapters of something like Die Linke here. I'm not voting for Obama, I'm going to be writing in my vote for Nader, mostly to express my dissatisfaction with what the Democratic party has deemed to offer up this time around. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
There are two choices available. That's it. If you didn't like Obama, the time to work against him was in the primaries. I did. The 'heightening the contradictions' strategy is both morally questionable and very unlikely to work. For one thing, it's more likely to push the Dems to the right rather than the left. Nader ain't leadership, he's a Repub funded concern troll working on their behalf, just like the PUMA's. Take a good look at how Dem legislators from swing areas voted after 2000 - did they move left? Eight years after 2000, with all that happened, you'd have to be a fool to think that electing Republicans will make things better.
If you've got the energy for it, organize where you are on a local level to try to move the Democrats leftwards. City council, education boards, county dem committees, etc.
Marek, how many people do you know who've been told that the reason that their job was sent overseas was for the better good?
How many people do you personally know who have worked in a factory that has been offshored?
In you own community, what percent of the population knows someone who's suffering hardship because we've been told that there is no alternative (TINA) to voting for the lesser of two evils for the past 20 years?
How many empty lots are there where you live that were once factories that supported thousands of jobs that allowed your friends and family to enter the middle class?
I will not be told to how to vote out of some vague sense that there is no alternative, because when we are held to that standard, there is in fact no alternative. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
As far as poverty and lost industrial jobs go - guess what, in my area they're long, long gone - they were exported in the fifties to all those places which have been losing factories for the past thirty years.
In any case, traditional industrial labour is not the solution. Productivity keeps going up. Even if we cut our manufactured products imports by half, that would be what - a couple percentage points of GDP, a couple million jobs, at ever decreasing real wages? What we need to do is transform the service sector the way the industrial sector was transformed from the New Deal through the fifties, from poorly paid, crappy jobs, to well paid ones that provided a decent life. We can't go back to the sixties economy.
But not in a million years would I have considered abstention, even though the result was clear. I was not going to have been among those who let Sarkozy happen. Not if you had paid me for it.
With McCain, it's far worse. You may hate Obama (I sure wanted Edwards), but he won't take you to Iran, nor appoint another lunatic fringe extreme right of a Supreme Court judge, who will then deliver the election to the Rightist candidate everytime forever. Please, don't let him happen. Then I will join you in your vocal complaints that Democrats are way too far to the right. Democrats are not even centrist, and Obama is campaigning as in between the parties, yes, that is awful. But McCain-Palin??? Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
The problem is this is the real world, not academia! This is not a test, this is survival, ManfM. This is not just the, perhaps, last...... chance to turn the US around, but to stop the destruction that it causes worldwide! It´s not a game to be taken lightly or used as a fancy intellectual vendetta on a whim.
I truly, sincerely, hope you are not serious, or that you will very seriously reconsider. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
This is not just the, perhaps, last...... chance to turn the US around, but to stop the destruction that it causes worldwide!
And you really believe that electing Obama will do that?
I'm sorry, I don't.
I've been in this game called politics long enough to know when I'm being played, and that, I believe, is precisely the case here.
Electing Obama will change nothing.
And as for the "moral" obligation to vote for Senator Obama, does electoral relevance also mean that Germans should be forbidden from voting for Die Linke?
Or is the United States the only country who's internal politics should be subject to international condemnation?
I have seen the damage that neo-liberal policies have done to my country, and the only people in the United States who think that this is something new are those who live in protected shells on the coasts who have been largely immune to the consequences of their actions.
Why is it that America is supposed to vote in a milquetoast neo-liberal who may, or may not, oppose further military adventures in order to atone for the world's sins?
As I remember it, there where Spanish troops in those columns that took Baghdad? Did the Spanish people want that?
Why is it that the Spanish and Italians are exempted from this need for public flagellation while the United States is not?
Because our government demanded it? Because there were those who did not fight back?
So we're into collective punishment, now? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Germany is a PR system with multiple parties. Here we have a choice between two candidates. In European terms what you're doing is the equivalent of writing in the Postman's name in the second round of the French presidential election.
Canada's prime minister on Sunday triggered an early election, dissolving Parliament in a bid to bolster his party's grip on power in a vote next month that will be the country's third national ballot in four years. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he expects the Oct. 14 vote to produce another minority government but recent polls show the Conservatives could win the majority they need to rule without help from opposition parties. Analysts said Harper's party has a better shot of winning now than if they had waited until being forced into a vote later when the Canadian economy might be worse off or after Canadians could be influenced by the U.S. presidential election results.
Canada's prime minister on Sunday triggered an early election, dissolving Parliament in a bid to bolster his party's grip on power in a vote next month that will be the country's third national ballot in four years.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he expects the Oct. 14 vote to produce another minority government but recent polls show the Conservatives could win the majority they need to rule without help from opposition parties.
Analysts said Harper's party has a better shot of winning now than if they had waited until being forced into a vote later when the Canadian economy might be worse off or after Canadians could be influenced by the U.S. presidential election results.
Hong Kong voters headed to the polls Sunday in lower numbers, with the city's pro-democracy parties scrambling to avoid heavy losses and several high-profile politicians facing potential defeat.Despite warm sunshine in the afternoon, official figures showed only about 45 percent of registered voters cast their ballots, down from the nearly 56 percent turnout in 2004.The vote was expected to provide a barometer for pro-democracy parties in the former British colony in the face of growing Chinese patriotism, with results expected early Monday.Only 30 of the 60 legislative seats were being chosen by the city's 3.37 million registered electors. The remaining 30 "functional constituencies" represent various business and industry interests chosen by select electorates.
Hong Kong voters headed to the polls Sunday in lower numbers, with the city's pro-democracy parties scrambling to avoid heavy losses and several high-profile politicians facing potential defeat.
Despite warm sunshine in the afternoon, official figures showed only about 45 percent of registered voters cast their ballots, down from the nearly 56 percent turnout in 2004.
The vote was expected to provide a barometer for pro-democracy parties in the former British colony in the face of growing Chinese patriotism, with results expected early Monday.
Only 30 of the 60 legislative seats were being chosen by the city's 3.37 million registered electors. The remaining 30 "functional constituencies" represent various business and industry interests chosen by select electorates.
Worries about inflation and other livelihood issues were at the top of voters' agendas during legislative elections here on Sunday, as pro-business candidates lost out to rivals promising to introduce a minimum wage and reduce pollution. The biggest rift in Hong Kong politics, between those who favor greater democracy and those who support the Beijing-backed local government, produced little change on Sunday. Most of the pro-democracy legislators kept their seats despite low turnout by middle-class and upper-middle-class voters, who make up their main support. Democracy advocates won 24 seats in the 60-member Legislature, down from 26 in the current Legislature. They captured 19 of the 30 seats selected in voting by the general public and 5 of the 30 chosen by business groups, the professions and labor unions.
The biggest rift in Hong Kong politics, between those who favor greater democracy and those who support the Beijing-backed local government, produced little change on Sunday.
Most of the pro-democracy legislators kept their seats despite low turnout by middle-class and upper-middle-class voters, who make up their main support. Democracy advocates won 24 seats in the 60-member Legislature, down from 26 in the current Legislature.
They captured 19 of the 30 seats selected in voting by the general public and 5 of the 30 chosen by business groups, the professions and labor unions.
OPEC ministers headed for Vienna on Monday to wrestle with the issue of falling oil prices, with analysts expecting them to agree to trim output to help keep crude above 100 dollars a barrel. The question facing the oil producer group, which is to hold a policy meeting Tuesday, is when, not if, to cut its oil production target as crude prices slide in the face of weakening global economic growth, analysts say. Most observers expect the 13-nation cartel to agree to reduce its output informally before waiting until later, possibly at a scheduled gathering in December, to alter its official output target. The informal cut will be achieved by members, mainly powerhouse Saudi Arabia, agreeing to cut their excess production above their OPEC quota, which would remove oil from the market but not amount to a formal change in policy.
The question facing the oil producer group, which is to hold a policy meeting Tuesday, is when, not if, to cut its oil production target as crude prices slide in the face of weakening global economic growth, analysts say.
Most observers expect the 13-nation cartel to agree to reduce its output informally before waiting until later, possibly at a scheduled gathering in December, to alter its official output target.
The informal cut will be achieved by members, mainly powerhouse Saudi Arabia, agreeing to cut their excess production above their OPEC quota, which would remove oil from the market but not amount to a formal change in policy.
Since Pakistan shares also a border with Iran, its role as a US ally becomes even more important. With Pakistan being largely Sunni, one would think that not a great deal of sympathy exists between the people of these two countries, but quite contrary, according to this Asia Times story from May last year, large portions of the Pakistani population would not support any US attacks on its Shia neighbors. What I found most interesting though in the above quoted AT article were the last 4 paragraphs, where the author, M K Bhadrakumar, a former Indian Foreign Service diplomat, is suggesting that the real issue for America in the US-Iran-Pakistan politics triangle is, surprise surprise, natural resources and their distribution, as in pipelines and US access to them: ...there is a sideshow to these happenings that is no less profound. US intelligence operatives must be laughing all the way to Washington that they could manage with such ease what their suave diplomats (and wily Congress members) have had a hard time achieving in recent years - arresting Islamabad and New Delhi from finalizing the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas-pipeline project. In geopolitical terms, the project holds the definite potential to forge a unified Asian energy market, with deep implications for US energy security.
Since Pakistan shares also a border with Iran, its role as a US ally becomes even more important. With Pakistan being largely Sunni, one would think that not a great deal of sympathy exists between the people of these two countries, but quite contrary, according to this Asia Times story from May last year, large portions of the Pakistani population would not support any US attacks on its Shia neighbors.
What I found most interesting though in the above quoted AT article were the last 4 paragraphs, where the author, M K Bhadrakumar, a former Indian Foreign Service diplomat, is suggesting that the real issue for America in the US-Iran-Pakistan politics triangle is, surprise surprise, natural resources and their distribution, as in pipelines and US access to them:
...there is a sideshow to these happenings that is no less profound. US intelligence operatives must be laughing all the way to Washington that they could manage with such ease what their suave diplomats (and wily Congress members) have had a hard time achieving in recent years - arresting Islamabad and New Delhi from finalizing the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas-pipeline project. In geopolitical terms, the project holds the definite potential to forge a unified Asian energy market, with deep implications for US energy security.
