Mon May 24, 2010
* European economy "teetering"
By Scott Malone
BOSTON, May 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. economy faces major problems while Europe's is "teetering," the head of General Electric Co (GE.N) told a class of graduating college students on Monday.
"We are at an unprecedented moment in the history of our country. There is economic and social anxiety," said Jeff Immelt, chairman and chief executive of the largest U.S. conglomerate. "Europe appears to be teetering."
Still, the risk that the Greek debt crisis could drag down other European economies does not appear to be enough to derail the world's overall economic recovery, he told reporters after addressing Boston College's commencement.
"It's going to be slow growth in the economic region, but look, I'm 28 years with GE and I can't remember when Europe was fast growth," Immelt said. "I think the U.S. economy is very good right now and improving. We have to see what happens in Europe, but I don't think it's enough to slow the recovery, I really don't."
China's economy -- a key growth market for GE, the world's largest maker of jet engines and electricity-producing turbines -- "remains reasonably robust," Immelt said.
'IT'S A MESS OUT THERE'
The U.S economy will have to confront problems ranging from the rising cost of healthcare to the loss of many of the manufacturing jobs that once sustained the nation's middle class, Immelt said at Boston College, where GE does extensive recruiting. The company currently employs some 270 alumni of the school.
"Look, it's a mess out there. There are some real problems that need to be fixed. I could really bum you out if I wanted to," Immelt told the graduates. "Your country will be better coming out of the financial crisis if we learn a few lessons: that real, honest, ethical leadership matters, that the U.S. cannot prosper today as just a service economy."
Improving the U.S. healthcare system is a pet cause of Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE, which is a major maker of medical imaging devices. GE aims to invest some $6 billion over the next four years in ventures it hopes will help lower the cost of healthcare.
"The problems with the American healthcare system are real and will require great determination," Immelt said.
The GE chief, who was awarded an honorary doctorate in business administration, also said the world needs to come to terms with the growing gap between rich and poor, both in the United States and abroad.
"The global economy will not tolerate a few people getting rich while other people get poor," said Immelt, who earned his Masters of Business Administration at nearby Harvard Business School.
He also told reporters he was confident that GE, which runs a hefty finance operation, was prepared to cope with any changes to U.S. regulations resulting from the sweeping financial reforms passed last week by the U.S. Senate.
"Is it perfect? No, but could we live with what's passed the Senate? Sure," Immelt said. "We'll have to adjust to new standards and we're ready for that."
Last year, some observers suggested the reforms could force GE to spin off its GE Capital unit, an idea the company fought.
europe on the brink
Monday, May 24, 2010
Fools Go First: Obama and his New World Order
Thanks for the link.
FOXNews.com
- May 24, 2010
Obama Call for 'International Order' Raises Questions About U.S. Sovereignty
President Obama is facing criticism for his declaration over the weekend that he would seek a new "international order," with some questioning how much U.S. sovereignty the administration is willing to cede in exchange for more global cooperation.
President Obama is facing criticism for his declaration over the weekend that he would seek a new "international order," with some questioning how much U.S. sovereignty the administration is willing to cede in exchange for more global cooperation.
Obama, delivering the commencement speech Saturday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, said that "stronger international standards and institutions" and stronger alliances can "resolve" challenges ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to climate change to economic decline.
"Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power," Obama said. "So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation."
[One way would be to NOT cut the military, NOT cut budgets for intelligence and military programs. But, that isn't part of his plan ...]
The president added that efforts by America's armed forces need to be "complemented" with greater diplomatic engagement "from grand capitals to dangerous outposts," more humanitarian assistance to needy nations, better communications among intelligence agencies, first responders to act after earthquakes, storms and disease and "law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us at home."
"America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of cooperation; we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice -- so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don't," he told the graduating class at the military academy.
"This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times -- countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds," he said.
The address seemed to mark a greater departure from the so-called "Bush Doctrine" than past Obama speeches like the president's address to Muslim nations last summer in Cairo. The Bush administration's approach to foreign affairs, dubbed the "Bush Doctrine," generally included a policy of unilateralism and the right to preemptive strike, among other tenets.
[Noooo, the US has always held the right to preemptively strike - BAD writing. Unilateralism - again, that was something Reagan did, first Bush ... it was not new ... the Bush Doctrine was ... suprise, it wasn't specific and encompassed preexisting policies.]
The address also drew a split reaction. Conservatives claimed Obama was putting undue faith in global institutions while progressives said he was rightly turning away from Bush-era policy.
[Progressives? As opposed to Conservatives. Progressives are so ... progressive. A good word versus LIBERAL which is what they really mean. I have to wonder about the author of the original piece.]
"He recognizes that you can't solve the economic, the military or the environmental problems by yourself, even if you wanted to," said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "You simply can't do it without working with other nations, so I think it's important to start doing that."
KT McFarland, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Ronald Reagan and a Fox News contributor, said the president is moving further from the view of "American exceptionalism."
"It's a very international sense that America is just one of many, that we are not going to be a superpower in leading the world and I think it's a very dangerous mindset and trend," she said.
Obama did not say Saturday which specific global institutions he wants to build. Obama has made enhanced international cooperation a priority dating back to the campaign and so far has carried out that goal by seeking global agreements for nuclear weapons reduction, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhanced support from the United Nations in dealing with rogue regimes.
But his West Point speech struck some as a stretch -- particularly since efforts at the United Nations so far have done little to halt nuclear development in Iran and North Korea.
James Carafano, an Army veteran and director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said the plodding and uphill battle to win sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program demonstrates the problems with over-relying on global institutions.
"It's just simply not grounded in reality," he said. "It's strategic nonsense."
The commencement address follows Obama's speech at the close of a nuclear security summit in Washington last month in which he said the United States is a superpower "whether we like it or not."
That remark touched off debate over whether the administration feels burdened by the superlative status.
Carafano said the superpower remark was no "Freudian slip" and that the West Point speech amounted to more than just rhetoric -- he said the administration has already started undermining U.S. sovereignty with its arms reduction treaty with Russia.
"He thinks diminished American power and independence in the world actually is a force for good," Carafano said.
Obama, in his speech, acknowledged that the "order" he was proposing was no cure-all.
"We are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system," he said. But, he added, "what we can do, what we must do, is work and reach and fight for the world that we seek -- all of us, those in uniform and those who are not."
fools
FOXNews.com
- May 24, 2010
Obama Call for 'International Order' Raises Questions About U.S. Sovereignty
President Obama is facing criticism for his declaration over the weekend that he would seek a new "international order," with some questioning how much U.S. sovereignty the administration is willing to cede in exchange for more global cooperation.
President Obama is facing criticism for his declaration over the weekend that he would seek a new "international order," with some questioning how much U.S. sovereignty the administration is willing to cede in exchange for more global cooperation.
Obama, delivering the commencement speech Saturday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, said that "stronger international standards and institutions" and stronger alliances can "resolve" challenges ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to climate change to economic decline.
"Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power," Obama said. "So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation."
[One way would be to NOT cut the military, NOT cut budgets for intelligence and military programs. But, that isn't part of his plan ...]
The president added that efforts by America's armed forces need to be "complemented" with greater diplomatic engagement "from grand capitals to dangerous outposts," more humanitarian assistance to needy nations, better communications among intelligence agencies, first responders to act after earthquakes, storms and disease and "law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us at home."
"America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of cooperation; we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice -- so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don't," he told the graduating class at the military academy.
"This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times -- countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds," he said.
The address seemed to mark a greater departure from the so-called "Bush Doctrine" than past Obama speeches like the president's address to Muslim nations last summer in Cairo. The Bush administration's approach to foreign affairs, dubbed the "Bush Doctrine," generally included a policy of unilateralism and the right to preemptive strike, among other tenets.
[Noooo, the US has always held the right to preemptively strike - BAD writing. Unilateralism - again, that was something Reagan did, first Bush ... it was not new ... the Bush Doctrine was ... suprise, it wasn't specific and encompassed preexisting policies.]
The address also drew a split reaction. Conservatives claimed Obama was putting undue faith in global institutions while progressives said he was rightly turning away from Bush-era policy.
[Progressives? As opposed to Conservatives. Progressives are so ... progressive. A good word versus LIBERAL which is what they really mean. I have to wonder about the author of the original piece.]
"He recognizes that you can't solve the economic, the military or the environmental problems by yourself, even if you wanted to," said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "You simply can't do it without working with other nations, so I think it's important to start doing that."
KT McFarland, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Ronald Reagan and a Fox News contributor, said the president is moving further from the view of "American exceptionalism."
"It's a very international sense that America is just one of many, that we are not going to be a superpower in leading the world and I think it's a very dangerous mindset and trend," she said.
Obama did not say Saturday which specific global institutions he wants to build. Obama has made enhanced international cooperation a priority dating back to the campaign and so far has carried out that goal by seeking global agreements for nuclear weapons reduction, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhanced support from the United Nations in dealing with rogue regimes.
But his West Point speech struck some as a stretch -- particularly since efforts at the United Nations so far have done little to halt nuclear development in Iran and North Korea.
James Carafano, an Army veteran and director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said the plodding and uphill battle to win sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program demonstrates the problems with over-relying on global institutions.
"It's just simply not grounded in reality," he said. "It's strategic nonsense."
The commencement address follows Obama's speech at the close of a nuclear security summit in Washington last month in which he said the United States is a superpower "whether we like it or not."
That remark touched off debate over whether the administration feels burdened by the superlative status.
Carafano said the superpower remark was no "Freudian slip" and that the West Point speech amounted to more than just rhetoric -- he said the administration has already started undermining U.S. sovereignty with its arms reduction treaty with Russia.
"He thinks diminished American power and independence in the world actually is a force for good," Carafano said.
Obama, in his speech, acknowledged that the "order" he was proposing was no cure-all.
"We are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system," he said. But, he added, "what we can do, what we must do, is work and reach and fight for the world that we seek -- all of us, those in uniform and those who are not."
fools
Times they are a changin' and Health Care is Losing Support as is Obama
With his lowest ratings yet and more than 60% wanting his health fiasco to go away, it really does not look good for Mr. Obama.
It helps to explain why Democrats are running away from him,. why James Carville has turned, why MSNBC is not as happy, why ... the media are turning.
If I was Nancy Pelosi, I would not be planning many more trips on her private jets at our expense.
Times, they are a changin'
RASMUSSEN POLLS
Health Care Law
63% Favor Repeal of National Health Care Plan
Monday, May 24, 2010
Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.
obama
It helps to explain why Democrats are running away from him,. why James Carville has turned, why MSNBC is not as happy, why ... the media are turning.
If I was Nancy Pelosi, I would not be planning many more trips on her private jets at our expense.
Times, they are a changin'
RASMUSSEN POLLS
Health Care Law
63% Favor Repeal of National Health Care Plan
Monday, May 24, 2010
Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.
obama
North Korea: On the Verge
Get Ready for War. The world is a dangerous place and we have a man who was a community organizer trying to organize the world, who, despite his best efforts, hold him in contempt (at best), or loathe him for his petulant attitude. They neither like, respect, nor fear him or the US - and the world becomes and even more dangerous place.
And we have Obama.
U.S. military told to get ready in Korea standoff
Obama orders commanders to prepare 'to deter future aggression'
msnbc.com
May 24, 2010
WASHINGTON - The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama "fully supports" the South Korean president and his response to the torpedo attack by North Korea that sank a South Korean naval ship.
In a statement, the White House said Seoul can continue to count on the full backing of the United States and said U.S. military commanders had been told to work with their South Korean counterparts "to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression."
The administration said it endorsed President Lee Myung-bak's demand that "North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior."
Late last week, a team of international investigators accused North Korea of torpedoing the Cheonan corvette in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the deadliest clashes between the two since the 1950-53 Korean War.
The United States still has about 28,000 troops in South Korea to provide military support. The two Koreas, still technically at war, have more than 1 million troops near their border.
"U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal, and the President has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," the statement said.
"We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue," it said.
"The U.S. will continue to work with the Republic of Korea and other allies and partners to reduce the threat that North Korea poses to regional stability," the statement added.
Lee said Monday that South Korea would no longer tolerate the North's "brutality" and said the repressive communist regime would pay for the surprise March 26 torpedo attack.
He also vowed to cut off all trade with the North and take Pyongyang to the U.N. Security Council for punishment over the sinking of the warship Cheonan.
Speaking earlier in Beijing, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the North must be held accountable and she is pushing to get the support of China, North Korea's top ally, for diplomatic action.
Clinton warned of a "highly precarious" security situation in the region, and said North Korea's neighbors, including Pyongyang ally China, understood the seriousness of the matter.
Clinton would not say whether such action would include new international sanctions against the North, and said she was engaged in intense consultations with China and other nations about the next step.
"We are working hard to avoid an escalation of belligerence and provocation," Clinton said.
So far, China has refrained from criticizing the North, which it supplied with troops during the Korean War
Obama and Lee have agreed to meet at the G20 summit in Canada next month, the statement said.
Korea
And we have Obama.
U.S. military told to get ready in Korea standoff
Obama orders commanders to prepare 'to deter future aggression'
msnbc.com
May 24, 2010
WASHINGTON - The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama "fully supports" the South Korean president and his response to the torpedo attack by North Korea that sank a South Korean naval ship.
In a statement, the White House said Seoul can continue to count on the full backing of the United States and said U.S. military commanders had been told to work with their South Korean counterparts "to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression."
The administration said it endorsed President Lee Myung-bak's demand that "North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior."
Late last week, a team of international investigators accused North Korea of torpedoing the Cheonan corvette in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the deadliest clashes between the two since the 1950-53 Korean War.
The United States still has about 28,000 troops in South Korea to provide military support. The two Koreas, still technically at war, have more than 1 million troops near their border.
"U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal, and the President has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," the statement said.
"We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue," it said.
"The U.S. will continue to work with the Republic of Korea and other allies and partners to reduce the threat that North Korea poses to regional stability," the statement added.
Lee said Monday that South Korea would no longer tolerate the North's "brutality" and said the repressive communist regime would pay for the surprise March 26 torpedo attack.
He also vowed to cut off all trade with the North and take Pyongyang to the U.N. Security Council for punishment over the sinking of the warship Cheonan.
Speaking earlier in Beijing, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the North must be held accountable and she is pushing to get the support of China, North Korea's top ally, for diplomatic action.
Clinton warned of a "highly precarious" security situation in the region, and said North Korea's neighbors, including Pyongyang ally China, understood the seriousness of the matter.
Clinton would not say whether such action would include new international sanctions against the North, and said she was engaged in intense consultations with China and other nations about the next step.
"We are working hard to avoid an escalation of belligerence and provocation," Clinton said.
So far, China has refrained from criticizing the North, which it supplied with troops during the Korean War
Obama and Lee have agreed to meet at the G20 summit in Canada next month, the statement said.
Korea
Obama's Middle East Plan: Syria - a failure.
No friends, and your Middle East policy in shambles. How is this plan working for you.
Haaretz.com
15:36
24.05.10
Syria: Obama has failed in peace efforts and lost influence in Mideast
Assad's comments come as Obama set to meet with Lebanon PM to raise concerns about alleged Syria-Hezbollah Scud transfer.
Syrian President Bashar Assad said Monday that the United States has lost its influence in the Middle East due to its failure to contribute to regional peace, in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.
U.S. President Barack Obama "raised hopes" in the region, said Assad, but has failed to accomplish any significant peace maneuvers.
Assad's comments came just before Obama was to meet with Lebanon Prime Minister Sa'ad al-Hariri to raise Washington's concerns about Syria arming Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon
The Syrian leader met on Sunday with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in Damascus earlier Sunday and urged the West to "break its silence" in the face of Israeli "aggression" in the Middle East.
During their talks, Assad denounced "the ongoing Israeli threats to ignite wars and undermine the stability in the region."
"The region has changed and the West's policy in the area is no longer acceptable, keeping silent over Israeli violations is no longer acceptable," Assad told Kouchner, according to Syria's official news agency SANA.
"If the West wants security and stability to be established in the Middle East, [it] must start to play an effective role to contain Israel and put an end to its extremist policies," Assad said.
The Syrian president also told Kouchner that the Western countries pushing for harsh United Nations sanctions against Iran should understand that Tehran's contentious nuclear program was aimed at civilian and not military pursuits, according to SANA.
"The countries involved need to change their attitude to Iran's civil nuclear program, because this agreement is an important opportunity to reach a diplomatic solution and prevent a tragic dispute in the region and the world at large," said Assad.
Also Sunday, Syria defied Western pressure over its support for the militant group Hezbollah and said it would not act as a policeman for Israel to prevent weapons from reaching the Lebanese Shi'ite movement.
"Did Israel ever stop arming itself, did it stop instigating violence or making military maneuvers," Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said after meeting his German counterpart Guido Westerwelle. "Why are arms forbidden to Arabs and allowed to Israel?"
Citing Israeli occupation of Arab land and the technical state of war between Syria and Israel, Moualem said the Damascus government "will not be a policeman for Israel".
"Israel is beating the drum of war. In the absence of real peace every thing is possible," he added.
Syria, a country Washington says is critical for Middle East peace, has shown no signs of withdrawing backing for Hezbollah, which is also supported by Iran, although the issue has clouded rapprochement between Damascus and Washington.
The row intensified when President Shimon Peres last month accused Syria, which borders Lebanon, of sending long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah.
Syria said it only gives Hezbollah political backing and that Israel may be using the accusation as a pretext for a military strike.
"A Scud missile is as big as this room. How could it be hidden and smuggled with Israeli planes and satellites all over the region?" Moallem asked, adding that cumbersome Scuds were not suited to Hezbollah's guerrilla tactics.
middle east
Haaretz.com
15:36
24.05.10
Syria: Obama has failed in peace efforts and lost influence in Mideast
Assad's comments come as Obama set to meet with Lebanon PM to raise concerns about alleged Syria-Hezbollah Scud transfer.
Syrian President Bashar Assad said Monday that the United States has lost its influence in the Middle East due to its failure to contribute to regional peace, in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.
U.S. President Barack Obama "raised hopes" in the region, said Assad, but has failed to accomplish any significant peace maneuvers.
Assad's comments came just before Obama was to meet with Lebanon Prime Minister Sa'ad al-Hariri to raise Washington's concerns about Syria arming Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon
The Syrian leader met on Sunday with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in Damascus earlier Sunday and urged the West to "break its silence" in the face of Israeli "aggression" in the Middle East.
During their talks, Assad denounced "the ongoing Israeli threats to ignite wars and undermine the stability in the region."
"The region has changed and the West's policy in the area is no longer acceptable, keeping silent over Israeli violations is no longer acceptable," Assad told Kouchner, according to Syria's official news agency SANA.
"If the West wants security and stability to be established in the Middle East, [it] must start to play an effective role to contain Israel and put an end to its extremist policies," Assad said.
The Syrian president also told Kouchner that the Western countries pushing for harsh United Nations sanctions against Iran should understand that Tehran's contentious nuclear program was aimed at civilian and not military pursuits, according to SANA.
"The countries involved need to change their attitude to Iran's civil nuclear program, because this agreement is an important opportunity to reach a diplomatic solution and prevent a tragic dispute in the region and the world at large," said Assad.
Also Sunday, Syria defied Western pressure over its support for the militant group Hezbollah and said it would not act as a policeman for Israel to prevent weapons from reaching the Lebanese Shi'ite movement.
"Did Israel ever stop arming itself, did it stop instigating violence or making military maneuvers," Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said after meeting his German counterpart Guido Westerwelle. "Why are arms forbidden to Arabs and allowed to Israel?"
Citing Israeli occupation of Arab land and the technical state of war between Syria and Israel, Moualem said the Damascus government "will not be a policeman for Israel".
"Israel is beating the drum of war. In the absence of real peace every thing is possible," he added.
Syria, a country Washington says is critical for Middle East peace, has shown no signs of withdrawing backing for Hezbollah, which is also supported by Iran, although the issue has clouded rapprochement between Damascus and Washington.
The row intensified when President Shimon Peres last month accused Syria, which borders Lebanon, of sending long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah.
Syria said it only gives Hezbollah political backing and that Israel may be using the accusation as a pretext for a military strike.
"A Scud missile is as big as this room. How could it be hidden and smuggled with Israeli planes and satellites all over the region?" Moallem asked, adding that cumbersome Scuds were not suited to Hezbollah's guerrilla tactics.
middle east
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Obama to Cadets: You Picked a Fine Time to Join Up ...
Obama to West Point graduates on Saturday, May 22, 2010:
“Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation,” he said. “We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice — so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don’t.”
Washington Post, May 23, 2010
And how has that worked for you so far B.H.? Iran is on the verge of possessing or already has nuclear weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons and every so often threatens the world with destruction if they attempt to hinder their goals. How has that worked for you B.H.? The Taliban - the group you wanted to turn Afghanistan over to - trained and supported the attempted murderer of untold numbers of Americans in New York. How are those consequences working out B.H.?
The world leaders do not like you nor do they respect you, nor are they the slightest bit afraid of you B.H.. I am sorry to burst your bubble if you think they do - Merkle told a German magazine that she didn't trust you. Sarkozy has demonstrated how much he thinks of you by his actions toward NATO and Afghanistan. Canada has shown you the finger, as did Brown, when he had the nerve to actually stand up to you - and Cameron will not be any different. The Pakistani's do not like you, the government of Afghanistan does not like you, the government of India does not like or respect you, and in fact, outside of a few countries I cannot think of at the moment, no one likes or respects you and it is because of you, not Bush.
So how is that working out for you B.H.? Do tell.
Obama
“Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation,” he said. “We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice — so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don’t.”
Washington Post, May 23, 2010
And how has that worked for you so far B.H.? Iran is on the verge of possessing or already has nuclear weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons and every so often threatens the world with destruction if they attempt to hinder their goals. How has that worked for you B.H.? The Taliban - the group you wanted to turn Afghanistan over to - trained and supported the attempted murderer of untold numbers of Americans in New York. How are those consequences working out B.H.?
The world leaders do not like you nor do they respect you, nor are they the slightest bit afraid of you B.H.. I am sorry to burst your bubble if you think they do - Merkle told a German magazine that she didn't trust you. Sarkozy has demonstrated how much he thinks of you by his actions toward NATO and Afghanistan. Canada has shown you the finger, as did Brown, when he had the nerve to actually stand up to you - and Cameron will not be any different. The Pakistani's do not like you, the government of Afghanistan does not like you, the government of India does not like or respect you, and in fact, outside of a few countries I cannot think of at the moment, no one likes or respects you and it is because of you, not Bush.
So how is that working out for you B.H.? Do tell.
Obama
European Welfare State Disintegrating? One can always hope.
Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits
By STEVEN ERLANGER
The New York Times
May 22, 2010
PARIS — Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.
Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism.
Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net. “The Europe that protects” is a slogan of the European Union.
But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead.
With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle, at least not without a period of austerity and significant changes. The countries are trying to reassure investors by cutting salaries, raising legal retirement ages, increasing work hours and reducing health benefits and pensions.
“We’re now in rescue mode,” said Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister. “But we need to transition to the reform mode very soon. The ‘reform deficit’ is the real problem,” he said, pointing to the need for structural change.
The reaction so far to government efforts to cut spending has been pessimism and anger, with an understanding that the current system is unsustainable.
In Athens, Aris Iordanidis, 25, an economics graduate working in a bookstore, resents paying high taxes to finance Greece’s bloated state sector and its employees. “They sit there for years drinking coffee and chatting on the telephone and then retire at 50 with nice fat pensions,” he said. “As for us, the way things are going we’ll have to work until we’re 70.”
In Rome, Aldo Cimaglia is 52 and teaches photography, and he is deeply pessimistic about his pension. “It’s going to go belly-up because no one will be around to fill the pension coffers,” he said. “It’s not just me; this country has no future.”
Changes have now become urgent. Europe’s population is aging quickly as birthrates decline. Unemployment has risen as traditional industries have shifted to Asia. And the region lacks competitiveness in world markets. [Not true, entirely ... population increases but the birthrate referenced, does decrease ...]
According to the European Commission, by 2050 the percentage of Europeans older than 65 will nearly double. In the 1950s there were seven workers for every retiree in advanced economies. By 2050, the ratio in the European Union will drop to 1.3 to 1.
“The easy days are over for countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain, but for us, too,” said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, a French lawyer who did a study of Europe in the global economy for the French government. “A lot of Europeans would not like the issue cast in these terms, but that is the storm we’re facing. We can no longer afford the old social model, and there is a real need for structural reform.” [So why does the Obama administration believe this is the path to follow - the one which has failed Europe!]
In Paris, Malka Braniste, 88, lives on the pension of her deceased husband. “I’m worried for the next generations,” she said at lunch with her daughter-in-law, Dominique Alcan, 49. “People who don’t put money aside won’t get anything.”
Ms. Alcan expects to have to work longer as a traveling saleswoman. “But I’m afraid I’ll never reach the same level of comfort,” she said. “I won’t be able to do my job at 63; being a saleswoman requires a lot of energy.”
Gustave Brun d’Arre, 18, is still in high school. “The only thing we’re told is that we will have to pay for the others,” he said, sipping a beer at a cafe. The waiter interrupted, discussing plans to alter the French pension system. “It will be a mess,” the waiter said. “We’ll have to work harder and longer in our jobs.”
Figures show the severity of the problem. Gross public social expenditures in the European Union increased from 16 percent of gross domestic product in 1980 to 21 percent in 2005, compared with 15.9 percent in the United States. In France, the figure now is 31 percent, the highest in Europe, with state pensions making up more than 44 percent of the total and health care, 30 percent.
The challenge is particularly daunting in France, which has done less to reduce the state’s obligations than some of its neighbors. In Sweden and Switzerland, 7 of 10 people work past 50. In France, only half do. The legal retirement age in France is 60, while Germany recently raised it to 67 for those born after 1963.
With the retirement of the baby boomers, the number of pensioners will rise 47 percent in France between now and 2050, while the number under 60 will remain stagnant. The French call it “du baby boom au papy boom,” and the costs, if unchanged, are unsustainable. The French state pension system today is running a deficit of 11 billion euros, or about $13.8 billion; by 2050, it will be 103 billion euros, or $129.5 billion, about 2.6 percent of projected economic output.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has vowed to pass major pension reform this year. There have been two contentious overhauls, in 2003 and 2008; the government, afraid to lower pensions, wants to increase taxes on high salaries and increase the years of work.
But the unions are unhappy, and the Socialist Party opposes raising the retirement age. Polls show that while most French see a pension overhaul as necessary, up to 60 percent say working past 60 is not the answer.
Jean-François Copé, the parliamentary leader for Mr. Sarkozy’s center-right party, says that change is painful, but necessary. “The point is to preserve our model and keep it,” he said. “We need to get rid of bad habits. The Germans did it, and we can do the same.”
More broadly, many across Europe say the Continent will have to adapt to fiscal and demographic change, because social peace depends on it. “Europe won’t work without that,” said Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister, referring to the state’s protective role. “In Europe we have nationalism and racism in a politicized manner, and those parties would have exploited grievances if not for our welfare state,” he said. “It’s a matter of national security, of our democracy.”
France will ultimately have to follow Sweden and Germany in raising the pension age, he argues. “This will have to be harmonized, Europeanized, or it won’t work — you can’t have a pension at 67 here and 55 in Greece,” Mr. Fischer said.
The problems are even more acute in the “new democracies” of the euro zone — Greece, Portugal and Spain — that embraced European democratic ideals and that Europe embraced for political reasons in the postwar era, perhaps before their economies were ready. They have built lavish state systems on the back of the euro, but now must change.
Under threat of default, Greece has frozen pensions for three years and drafted a bill to raise the legal retirement age to 65. Greece froze public-sector pay and trimmed benefits for state employees, including a bonus two months of salary. Portugal has cut 5 percent from the salaries of senior public employees and politicians and increased taxes, while canceling big projects; Spain is cutting civil service salaries by 5 percent and freezing pay in 2011 while also chopping public projects.
But all three need to do more to bolster their competitiveness and growth, mostly by changing deeply inflexible employment rules, which can make it prohibitively expensive to hire or fire staff members, keeping unemployment high.
Jean-Claude Meunier is 68, a retired French Navy official and headhunter, who plays bridge to “train my memory and avoid Alzheimer’s.” His main worry is pension. “For years, our political leaders acted with very little courage,” he said. “Pensions represent the failure of the leaders and the failure of the system.”
In Athens, Mr. Iordanidis, the graduate who makes 800 euros a month in a bookstore, said he saw one possible upside. “It could be a chance to overhaul the whole rancid system,” he said, “and create a state that actually works.”
the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
By STEVEN ERLANGER
The New York Times
May 22, 2010
PARIS — Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.
Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism.
Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net. “The Europe that protects” is a slogan of the European Union.
But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead.
With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle, at least not without a period of austerity and significant changes. The countries are trying to reassure investors by cutting salaries, raising legal retirement ages, increasing work hours and reducing health benefits and pensions.
“We’re now in rescue mode,” said Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister. “But we need to transition to the reform mode very soon. The ‘reform deficit’ is the real problem,” he said, pointing to the need for structural change.
The reaction so far to government efforts to cut spending has been pessimism and anger, with an understanding that the current system is unsustainable.
In Athens, Aris Iordanidis, 25, an economics graduate working in a bookstore, resents paying high taxes to finance Greece’s bloated state sector and its employees. “They sit there for years drinking coffee and chatting on the telephone and then retire at 50 with nice fat pensions,” he said. “As for us, the way things are going we’ll have to work until we’re 70.”
In Rome, Aldo Cimaglia is 52 and teaches photography, and he is deeply pessimistic about his pension. “It’s going to go belly-up because no one will be around to fill the pension coffers,” he said. “It’s not just me; this country has no future.”
Changes have now become urgent. Europe’s population is aging quickly as birthrates decline. Unemployment has risen as traditional industries have shifted to Asia. And the region lacks competitiveness in world markets. [Not true, entirely ... population increases but the birthrate referenced, does decrease ...]
According to the European Commission, by 2050 the percentage of Europeans older than 65 will nearly double. In the 1950s there were seven workers for every retiree in advanced economies. By 2050, the ratio in the European Union will drop to 1.3 to 1.
“The easy days are over for countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain, but for us, too,” said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, a French lawyer who did a study of Europe in the global economy for the French government. “A lot of Europeans would not like the issue cast in these terms, but that is the storm we’re facing. We can no longer afford the old social model, and there is a real need for structural reform.” [So why does the Obama administration believe this is the path to follow - the one which has failed Europe!]
In Paris, Malka Braniste, 88, lives on the pension of her deceased husband. “I’m worried for the next generations,” she said at lunch with her daughter-in-law, Dominique Alcan, 49. “People who don’t put money aside won’t get anything.”
Ms. Alcan expects to have to work longer as a traveling saleswoman. “But I’m afraid I’ll never reach the same level of comfort,” she said. “I won’t be able to do my job at 63; being a saleswoman requires a lot of energy.”
Gustave Brun d’Arre, 18, is still in high school. “The only thing we’re told is that we will have to pay for the others,” he said, sipping a beer at a cafe. The waiter interrupted, discussing plans to alter the French pension system. “It will be a mess,” the waiter said. “We’ll have to work harder and longer in our jobs.”
Figures show the severity of the problem. Gross public social expenditures in the European Union increased from 16 percent of gross domestic product in 1980 to 21 percent in 2005, compared with 15.9 percent in the United States. In France, the figure now is 31 percent, the highest in Europe, with state pensions making up more than 44 percent of the total and health care, 30 percent.
The challenge is particularly daunting in France, which has done less to reduce the state’s obligations than some of its neighbors. In Sweden and Switzerland, 7 of 10 people work past 50. In France, only half do. The legal retirement age in France is 60, while Germany recently raised it to 67 for those born after 1963.
With the retirement of the baby boomers, the number of pensioners will rise 47 percent in France between now and 2050, while the number under 60 will remain stagnant. The French call it “du baby boom au papy boom,” and the costs, if unchanged, are unsustainable. The French state pension system today is running a deficit of 11 billion euros, or about $13.8 billion; by 2050, it will be 103 billion euros, or $129.5 billion, about 2.6 percent of projected economic output.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has vowed to pass major pension reform this year. There have been two contentious overhauls, in 2003 and 2008; the government, afraid to lower pensions, wants to increase taxes on high salaries and increase the years of work.
But the unions are unhappy, and the Socialist Party opposes raising the retirement age. Polls show that while most French see a pension overhaul as necessary, up to 60 percent say working past 60 is not the answer.
Jean-François Copé, the parliamentary leader for Mr. Sarkozy’s center-right party, says that change is painful, but necessary. “The point is to preserve our model and keep it,” he said. “We need to get rid of bad habits. The Germans did it, and we can do the same.”
More broadly, many across Europe say the Continent will have to adapt to fiscal and demographic change, because social peace depends on it. “Europe won’t work without that,” said Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister, referring to the state’s protective role. “In Europe we have nationalism and racism in a politicized manner, and those parties would have exploited grievances if not for our welfare state,” he said. “It’s a matter of national security, of our democracy.”
France will ultimately have to follow Sweden and Germany in raising the pension age, he argues. “This will have to be harmonized, Europeanized, or it won’t work — you can’t have a pension at 67 here and 55 in Greece,” Mr. Fischer said.
The problems are even more acute in the “new democracies” of the euro zone — Greece, Portugal and Spain — that embraced European democratic ideals and that Europe embraced for political reasons in the postwar era, perhaps before their economies were ready. They have built lavish state systems on the back of the euro, but now must change.
Under threat of default, Greece has frozen pensions for three years and drafted a bill to raise the legal retirement age to 65. Greece froze public-sector pay and trimmed benefits for state employees, including a bonus two months of salary. Portugal has cut 5 percent from the salaries of senior public employees and politicians and increased taxes, while canceling big projects; Spain is cutting civil service salaries by 5 percent and freezing pay in 2011 while also chopping public projects.
But all three need to do more to bolster their competitiveness and growth, mostly by changing deeply inflexible employment rules, which can make it prohibitively expensive to hire or fire staff members, keeping unemployment high.
Jean-Claude Meunier is 68, a retired French Navy official and headhunter, who plays bridge to “train my memory and avoid Alzheimer’s.” His main worry is pension. “For years, our political leaders acted with very little courage,” he said. “Pensions represent the failure of the leaders and the failure of the system.”
In Athens, Mr. Iordanidis, the graduate who makes 800 euros a month in a bookstore, said he saw one possible upside. “It could be a chance to overhaul the whole rancid system,” he said, “and create a state that actually works.”
the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Federal Government has Now Acknowledged it will Not Uphold Federal Law
So let me get this correct - the federal government may not process any illegals Arizona catches. The federal government will violate the laws of the federal government, the laws of the United States because .... Amazing.
FOXNews.com
- May 21, 2010
Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.
"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.
The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.
In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.
"That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."
Morton, according to a biography posted on ICE's website, began his federal service in 1994 and has held numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including as a trial attorney and special assistant to the general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and as counsel to the deputy attorney general.
Border apprehensions in Arizona, where roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to be living, are up 6 percent since October, according to federal statistics. Roughly 6.5 million residents live in Arizona.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Arizona
FOXNews.com
- May 21, 2010
Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.
"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.
The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.
In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.
"That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."
Morton, according to a biography posted on ICE's website, began his federal service in 1994 and has held numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including as a trial attorney and special assistant to the general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and as counsel to the deputy attorney general.
Border apprehensions in Arizona, where roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to be living, are up 6 percent since October, according to federal statistics. Roughly 6.5 million residents live in Arizona.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Arizona
Mexico and Arizona
Calderon urges U.S. to reinstate assault weapons ban
May 20, 2010
(Reuters) - Mexican President Felipe Calderon urged the U.S. Congress on Thursday to reinstate a ban on assault weapons to help cut cross-border gun smuggling and reduce drug gang violence for its southern neighbor.
U.S.
In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Calderon described efforts to fight organized crime in Mexico, where 23,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he came to power in late 2006 and launched an army offensive.
Washington is also aiding Mexico's battle against drug gangs with a 2007 pledge of $1.4 billion for equipment and police training to help fight the cartels that ship some $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.
The drug violence has become a major political test for Calderon and a growing worry for Washington and foreign investors as violence has spread across the southwest border.
"There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border," Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.
Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.
The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though guns rights groups oppose it.
Calderon said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.
SEIZING GUNS
Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.
"I would ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban," he said.
Though Calderon's request received applause and a standing ovation from mainly Democratic lawmakers, Republicans criticized the Mexican leader for discussing U.S. laws.
"It was inappropriate for President Calderon to lecture Americans on our own state and federal laws," said Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Republican leadership. "Moreover, the Second Amendment is not a subject open for diplomatic negotiation, with Mexico or any other nation."
On immigration -- a common theme during his visit to Washington -- Calderon said his country was trying to improve economic conditions so Mexicans would not feel the need to leave their country in order to succeed.
He said Mexico expected more than 4 percent growth this year, even though data released on Thursday showed the economy shrank quarter-on-quarter in the first quarter of this year.
Millions of people are still crossing the U.S. border illegally to seek work. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, most of them from Mexico and Central America.
Calderon repeated his opposition to a new Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.
"We must find together a better way to face and fix this common problem," he said.
[Reuters summarized a speech in one sentence and yet missed out some good bits, such as: this new law, when he referred to Arizona. It is not new - it is simply enforcing laws already on the books.]
stupid people
May 20, 2010
(Reuters) - Mexican President Felipe Calderon urged the U.S. Congress on Thursday to reinstate a ban on assault weapons to help cut cross-border gun smuggling and reduce drug gang violence for its southern neighbor.
U.S.
In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Calderon described efforts to fight organized crime in Mexico, where 23,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he came to power in late 2006 and launched an army offensive.
Washington is also aiding Mexico's battle against drug gangs with a 2007 pledge of $1.4 billion for equipment and police training to help fight the cartels that ship some $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.
The drug violence has become a major political test for Calderon and a growing worry for Washington and foreign investors as violence has spread across the southwest border.
"There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border," Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.
Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.
The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though guns rights groups oppose it.
Calderon said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.
SEIZING GUNS
Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.
"I would ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban," he said.
Though Calderon's request received applause and a standing ovation from mainly Democratic lawmakers, Republicans criticized the Mexican leader for discussing U.S. laws.
"It was inappropriate for President Calderon to lecture Americans on our own state and federal laws," said Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Republican leadership. "Moreover, the Second Amendment is not a subject open for diplomatic negotiation, with Mexico or any other nation."
On immigration -- a common theme during his visit to Washington -- Calderon said his country was trying to improve economic conditions so Mexicans would not feel the need to leave their country in order to succeed.
He said Mexico expected more than 4 percent growth this year, even though data released on Thursday showed the economy shrank quarter-on-quarter in the first quarter of this year.
Millions of people are still crossing the U.S. border illegally to seek work. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, most of them from Mexico and Central America.
Calderon repeated his opposition to a new Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.
"We must find together a better way to face and fix this common problem," he said.
[Reuters summarized a speech in one sentence and yet missed out some good bits, such as: this new law, when he referred to Arizona. It is not new - it is simply enforcing laws already on the books.]
stupid people
Schools and Colleges to Switch to Trojan: USC Should be Happy
D.C. to begin using more-expensive Trojan condoms in HIV prevention program
By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 21, 2010
High school students and college-age adults have been complaining to District officials that the free condoms the city has been offering are not of good enough quality and are too small and that getting them from school nurses is "just like asking grandma or auntie."
So D.C. officials have decided to stock up on Trojan condoms, including the company's super-size Magnum variety, and they have begun to authorize teachers or counselors, preferably male, to distribute condoms to students if the teachers complete a 30-minute online training course called "WrapMC" -- for Master of Condoms.
"If people get what they don't want, they are just going to trash them," said T. Squalls, 30, who attends the University of the District of Columbia. "So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want?"
Health officials and consumer advocates say that in terms of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, there's no difference between Trojans and the less-expensive Durex condoms that the city is offering.
But because Trojans are considered the better-known brand, city officials say, they are willing to spend an extra few thousand dollars a year to try to persuade sexually active teenagers to practice safer sex. The Durex condoms will still be offered.
"We thought making condoms available was a good thing, but we never asked the kids what they wanted," said D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), chairman of the health committee.
The addition of the more expensive Trojan condoms is the latest move in an effort by officials to flood city streets with latex to battle HIV/AIDS.
The District, where 3 percent of residents have HIV, studies show, recently received a grant to offer free female condoms. And, in what is thought to be a first for a local government, the city is mailing up to 10 free condoms at a time to residents who request them online. Free condoms are also available at more than 100 locations, including barbershops, liquor stores and youth centers.
"We want to support the regularization of condom use citywide," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the city's HIV/AIDS administration. "We are promoting this idea that using condoms is healthy . . . to try to destigmatize condom use, not only for kids, but for grown-ups."
Scientists and D.C. health officials said the appeal of Trojan condoms can be attributed to the company's marketing strategy, including the packaging of Magnums in a shiny, gold wrapper.
"The gold package certainly has a little bit of the bling quality," said Michael Kharfen, a spokesman for the city's HIV/AIDS administration.
New York model
Hader said the District, which began its publicly funded condom program in 2006, and New York are the only cities in the United States with large-scale, publicly financed condom distribution programs run through health departments. But health officials in both cities have been grappling over how to make government-issued condoms more appealing.
New York began its program in 1971 and packages its free condoms in wrappers selected by residents in an online poll. The current wrapper resembles an electronic computer power button. Since "NYC Condom" hit the streets in 2007, usage has soared, said Monica Sweeney, the city's assistant commissioner for HIV/AIDS prevention and control.
"Everyone knows this condom," Sweeney said. The city distributes 40 million condoms annually, she said.
The number of free condoms that the District dispenses has been steadily increasing. The health department distributed 3.2 million last year, including about 15,000 in schools. The city, which has 600,000 residents, is on pace to hand out more than 4 million condoms this year, having distributed about 2.5 million so far. The program cost about $165,000 last year. The Durex condoms cost the city 5.7 cents each, but the Trojans will cost 6 cents to 9 cents each (depending on size).
Last spring, Catania commissioned a committee to explore youth sex habits. The Youth Sexual Health Project survey found that 57 percent of high school students were sexually active and that they were not taking advantage of the condoms at school.
The first hurdle, the survey said, was that students did not like asking school nurses for them. So, city officials agreed to also allow other teachers or counselors who complete the WrapMC course to distribute them. "It's usually the younger teachers or the cool teacher or the coach," Hader said.
And, the report said, survey participants "felt Trojan brand condoms were of better quality and protection." Students also regarded Magnums as the best condom type because they were perceived as "thicker"; the Durexes were viewed as most likely to "pop or break."
"Trojan is more reliable, while Durex are kind of small," said Roger Perryman, 20, a Northeast resident and UDC student. "People just think of Durex as a cheap brand."
Consumer Reports magazine said in a report last fall that Trojan and Durex, as well as the Lifestyles condoms repackaged by the New York City health department, both scored 100 percent in tests of "strength, reliability, leakage and package integrity."
"All these condoms work completely equally," Hader said. "Believe it or not, the Durex condoms come in bigger sizes, too. Magnum has nothing to do with it."
Steve Mare, a senior brand manager for the Atlanta-based Durex, said "it's not surprising" that youngsters in Washington gravitate toward Trojan condoms. Although Durex is the top-selling condom worldwide, Trojan occupies 70 percent of the market in the United States.
"It's just the fact in this market they are better known," Mare said. "There are certainly no issues with the quality of the Durex condom in Washington, D.C." A spokesman for Trojan said their products are superior because when applied they are "a little more generous than your standard condom."
And when it comes to perceptions about pleasure, even New York has broadened its offerings. Despite the fancy packaging, Sweeney said, her agency has received requests for "larger sizes" and "extra thin" condoms. New York, like the District, is happy to oblige.
"I want everyone who is having a sexual relationship to do it with condoms," Sweeney said. "So we try to give them whichever condom will help them do that. . . . What they ask for, we will give them."
condo,ms
By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 21, 2010
High school students and college-age adults have been complaining to District officials that the free condoms the city has been offering are not of good enough quality and are too small and that getting them from school nurses is "just like asking grandma or auntie."
So D.C. officials have decided to stock up on Trojan condoms, including the company's super-size Magnum variety, and they have begun to authorize teachers or counselors, preferably male, to distribute condoms to students if the teachers complete a 30-minute online training course called "WrapMC" -- for Master of Condoms.
"If people get what they don't want, they are just going to trash them," said T. Squalls, 30, who attends the University of the District of Columbia. "So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want?"
Health officials and consumer advocates say that in terms of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, there's no difference between Trojans and the less-expensive Durex condoms that the city is offering.
But because Trojans are considered the better-known brand, city officials say, they are willing to spend an extra few thousand dollars a year to try to persuade sexually active teenagers to practice safer sex. The Durex condoms will still be offered.
"We thought making condoms available was a good thing, but we never asked the kids what they wanted," said D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), chairman of the health committee.
The addition of the more expensive Trojan condoms is the latest move in an effort by officials to flood city streets with latex to battle HIV/AIDS.
The District, where 3 percent of residents have HIV, studies show, recently received a grant to offer free female condoms. And, in what is thought to be a first for a local government, the city is mailing up to 10 free condoms at a time to residents who request them online. Free condoms are also available at more than 100 locations, including barbershops, liquor stores and youth centers.
"We want to support the regularization of condom use citywide," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the city's HIV/AIDS administration. "We are promoting this idea that using condoms is healthy . . . to try to destigmatize condom use, not only for kids, but for grown-ups."
Scientists and D.C. health officials said the appeal of Trojan condoms can be attributed to the company's marketing strategy, including the packaging of Magnums in a shiny, gold wrapper.
"The gold package certainly has a little bit of the bling quality," said Michael Kharfen, a spokesman for the city's HIV/AIDS administration.
New York model
Hader said the District, which began its publicly funded condom program in 2006, and New York are the only cities in the United States with large-scale, publicly financed condom distribution programs run through health departments. But health officials in both cities have been grappling over how to make government-issued condoms more appealing.
New York began its program in 1971 and packages its free condoms in wrappers selected by residents in an online poll. The current wrapper resembles an electronic computer power button. Since "NYC Condom" hit the streets in 2007, usage has soared, said Monica Sweeney, the city's assistant commissioner for HIV/AIDS prevention and control.
"Everyone knows this condom," Sweeney said. The city distributes 40 million condoms annually, she said.
The number of free condoms that the District dispenses has been steadily increasing. The health department distributed 3.2 million last year, including about 15,000 in schools. The city, which has 600,000 residents, is on pace to hand out more than 4 million condoms this year, having distributed about 2.5 million so far. The program cost about $165,000 last year. The Durex condoms cost the city 5.7 cents each, but the Trojans will cost 6 cents to 9 cents each (depending on size).
Last spring, Catania commissioned a committee to explore youth sex habits. The Youth Sexual Health Project survey found that 57 percent of high school students were sexually active and that they were not taking advantage of the condoms at school.
The first hurdle, the survey said, was that students did not like asking school nurses for them. So, city officials agreed to also allow other teachers or counselors who complete the WrapMC course to distribute them. "It's usually the younger teachers or the cool teacher or the coach," Hader said.
And, the report said, survey participants "felt Trojan brand condoms were of better quality and protection." Students also regarded Magnums as the best condom type because they were perceived as "thicker"; the Durexes were viewed as most likely to "pop or break."
"Trojan is more reliable, while Durex are kind of small," said Roger Perryman, 20, a Northeast resident and UDC student. "People just think of Durex as a cheap brand."
Consumer Reports magazine said in a report last fall that Trojan and Durex, as well as the Lifestyles condoms repackaged by the New York City health department, both scored 100 percent in tests of "strength, reliability, leakage and package integrity."
"All these condoms work completely equally," Hader said. "Believe it or not, the Durex condoms come in bigger sizes, too. Magnum has nothing to do with it."
Steve Mare, a senior brand manager for the Atlanta-based Durex, said "it's not surprising" that youngsters in Washington gravitate toward Trojan condoms. Although Durex is the top-selling condom worldwide, Trojan occupies 70 percent of the market in the United States.
"It's just the fact in this market they are better known," Mare said. "There are certainly no issues with the quality of the Durex condom in Washington, D.C." A spokesman for Trojan said their products are superior because when applied they are "a little more generous than your standard condom."
And when it comes to perceptions about pleasure, even New York has broadened its offerings. Despite the fancy packaging, Sweeney said, her agency has received requests for "larger sizes" and "extra thin" condoms. New York, like the District, is happy to oblige.
"I want everyone who is having a sexual relationship to do it with condoms," Sweeney said. "So we try to give them whichever condom will help them do that. . . . What they ask for, we will give them."
condo,ms
Friday, May 21, 2010
Pass One for Justice, Goodbye Privacy
Justice does not know only one party, nor does it find a home in one party, or one man. Justice is as universal as any idea in the history of man, and is and can be at home in any and every party, and any and every man alive today. Yet some people have decided safety trumps liberty, comfort trumps freedom - Justice prevails against the tide of men's hopes and dreams, to ensure bad men are caught and punished at any expense possible.
It is not just Republicans, but the majority of Democrats who are pushing this - that same party so many believe was protecting them from the evil Retardicans. The joke is on them.
House votes to expand national DNA arrest database
by Declan McCullagh
May 19, 2010 5:36 PM PDT
CNET
Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.
By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle, from adults "arrested for" certain serious crimes. Not one Democrat voted against the database measure, which would hand out about $75 million to states that agree to make such testing mandatory.
"We should allow law enforcement to use all the technology available to them...to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets," said Rep. Harry Teague, the New Mexico Democrat who sponsored the bill.
But civil libertarians say DNA samples should be required only from people who have been convicted of crimes, and argue that if there is probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a crime, a judge can sign a warrant allowing a blood sample or cheek swab to be forcibly extracted.
"It's wrong to treat someone as guilty before they're convicted," says Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute. "It inverts the concept of innocent until proven guilty."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership scheduled Tuesday's debate on the bill--called the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010--using a procedure known as the "suspension calendar" intended to be reserved for non-controversial legislation.
"Suspension of the rules is supposed to be for praising the winner of the NCAA championship or renaming Post Offices," Harper says. "Things like collecting Americans' DNA are supposed to be fully debated in Congress."
In a surprise move, as the U.S. Congress was expanding the FBI's DNA database, the U.K.'s new coalition government was pledging sharp curbs on its own databases.
Created in the mid-1990s, the UK National DNA Database originally was supposed to store data on convicted criminals, but grew to include records on more than 5 million Britons, including many who were only arrested on suspicion of a crime.
U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg promised once-in-a-century privacy reforms in a speech on Wednesday: "We won't hold your Internet and e-mail records when there is just no reason to do so. CCTV will be properly regulated, as will the DNA database, with restrictions on the storage of innocent people's DNA. Britain must not be a country where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question."
Background
The United States has followed a similar pattern: first, DNA was collected from convicted criminals, and then the practice was expanded to sweep in Americans arrested on suspicion of a crime.
A 2000 federal law called the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act required that DNA samples be taken from anyone convicted of or on probation for certain serious crimes. This was challenged in court on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds, but a federal appeals court upheld (PDF) the DNA collection requirement as constitutional.
A second bill that President Bush signed in January 2006 said any federal police agency could "collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested." Anyone who fails to cooperate is, under federal law, guilty of an additional crime. [Understand that a federal police agency is, absent a US Marshal, the FBI, and by the time you have been arrested by the FBI, we are not talking about drunk driving or shoplifting. We are talking federal crimes - INS, FBI, DEA ...]
In addition, federal law and subsequent regulations from the Department of Justice authorize any means "reasonably necessary to detain, restrain, and collect a DNA sample from an individual who refuses to cooperate in the collection of the sample." The cheek swab or blood tests can be outsourced to "private entities." [This began by early 2009 - under Obama]
A May 2009 ruling from a federal judge in California was the first decision to say that police can forcibly take DNA samples from Americans who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime. U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows said the requirement of DNA-sampling felony arrestees did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures"--but noted that he took no position on whether or not DNA sampling for misdemeanor offenses was reasonable and constitutional.
But that law applied only to federal agencies, and the bill approved this week would provide a strong incentive for state and local governments to follow suit.
If states do follow suit, it's difficult to overstate how many more DNA samples would flood into the FBI's Convicted Offender DNA Index System (CODIS) database. Federal agencies arrested about 133,000 people in 2004, according to data compiled by the Urban Institute under a Justice Department grant.
But local and state governments arrested nearly 14 million Americans that year, not counting traffic offenses, according to FBI data.
Rep. Teague's proposal would extend DNA sampling and testing to anyone arrested on suspicion of burglary or attempted burglary; aggravated assault; murder or attempted murder; manslaughter; sex acts that can be punished by imprisonment for more than one year; and sex offenses against minors. The attorney general would be required to report to Congress which states have and have not signed up for the DNA database.
Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), a former sheriff who spoke on the House floor in favor of the bill, said the measure is supported by the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorney's Association, and the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN).
The legislation would allow states to receive 15 percent "bonuses" from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. The program gave out $165 million in local funding and $318 million in state funding for fiscal year 2009, not counting stimulus grants.
"We're strongly opposed to expanding collection," says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. He suggested the U.S. should follow the lead of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled two years ago that holding DNA samples from people arrested but not convicted of a crime violates their privacy rights. [I am loathe to agree with the Europeans on anything, but ... ]
civil liberties
It is not just Republicans, but the majority of Democrats who are pushing this - that same party so many believe was protecting them from the evil Retardicans. The joke is on them.
House votes to expand national DNA arrest database
by Declan McCullagh
May 19, 2010 5:36 PM PDT
CNET
Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.
By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle, from adults "arrested for" certain serious crimes. Not one Democrat voted against the database measure, which would hand out about $75 million to states that agree to make such testing mandatory.
"We should allow law enforcement to use all the technology available to them...to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets," said Rep. Harry Teague, the New Mexico Democrat who sponsored the bill.
But civil libertarians say DNA samples should be required only from people who have been convicted of crimes, and argue that if there is probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a crime, a judge can sign a warrant allowing a blood sample or cheek swab to be forcibly extracted.
"It's wrong to treat someone as guilty before they're convicted," says Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute. "It inverts the concept of innocent until proven guilty."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership scheduled Tuesday's debate on the bill--called the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010--using a procedure known as the "suspension calendar" intended to be reserved for non-controversial legislation.
"Suspension of the rules is supposed to be for praising the winner of the NCAA championship or renaming Post Offices," Harper says. "Things like collecting Americans' DNA are supposed to be fully debated in Congress."
In a surprise move, as the U.S. Congress was expanding the FBI's DNA database, the U.K.'s new coalition government was pledging sharp curbs on its own databases.
Created in the mid-1990s, the UK National DNA Database originally was supposed to store data on convicted criminals, but grew to include records on more than 5 million Britons, including many who were only arrested on suspicion of a crime.
U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg promised once-in-a-century privacy reforms in a speech on Wednesday: "We won't hold your Internet and e-mail records when there is just no reason to do so. CCTV will be properly regulated, as will the DNA database, with restrictions on the storage of innocent people's DNA. Britain must not be a country where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question."
Background
The United States has followed a similar pattern: first, DNA was collected from convicted criminals, and then the practice was expanded to sweep in Americans arrested on suspicion of a crime.
A 2000 federal law called the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act required that DNA samples be taken from anyone convicted of or on probation for certain serious crimes. This was challenged in court on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds, but a federal appeals court upheld (PDF) the DNA collection requirement as constitutional.
A second bill that President Bush signed in January 2006 said any federal police agency could "collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested." Anyone who fails to cooperate is, under federal law, guilty of an additional crime. [Understand that a federal police agency is, absent a US Marshal, the FBI, and by the time you have been arrested by the FBI, we are not talking about drunk driving or shoplifting. We are talking federal crimes - INS, FBI, DEA ...]
In addition, federal law and subsequent regulations from the Department of Justice authorize any means "reasonably necessary to detain, restrain, and collect a DNA sample from an individual who refuses to cooperate in the collection of the sample." The cheek swab or blood tests can be outsourced to "private entities." [This began by early 2009 - under Obama]
A May 2009 ruling from a federal judge in California was the first decision to say that police can forcibly take DNA samples from Americans who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime. U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows said the requirement of DNA-sampling felony arrestees did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures"--but noted that he took no position on whether or not DNA sampling for misdemeanor offenses was reasonable and constitutional.
But that law applied only to federal agencies, and the bill approved this week would provide a strong incentive for state and local governments to follow suit.
If states do follow suit, it's difficult to overstate how many more DNA samples would flood into the FBI's Convicted Offender DNA Index System (CODIS) database. Federal agencies arrested about 133,000 people in 2004, according to data compiled by the Urban Institute under a Justice Department grant.
But local and state governments arrested nearly 14 million Americans that year, not counting traffic offenses, according to FBI data.
Rep. Teague's proposal would extend DNA sampling and testing to anyone arrested on suspicion of burglary or attempted burglary; aggravated assault; murder or attempted murder; manslaughter; sex acts that can be punished by imprisonment for more than one year; and sex offenses against minors. The attorney general would be required to report to Congress which states have and have not signed up for the DNA database.
Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), a former sheriff who spoke on the House floor in favor of the bill, said the measure is supported by the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorney's Association, and the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN).
The legislation would allow states to receive 15 percent "bonuses" from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. The program gave out $165 million in local funding and $318 million in state funding for fiscal year 2009, not counting stimulus grants.
"We're strongly opposed to expanding collection," says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. He suggested the U.S. should follow the lead of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled two years ago that holding DNA samples from people arrested but not convicted of a crime violates their privacy rights. [I am loathe to agree with the Europeans on anything, but ... ]
civil liberties
The Euro is in danger, if the Euro fails, Europe fails.
Whatever Germany does, the euro as we know it is dead
Angela Merkel's ban on short-selling is just a distraction from the horror to come
By Jeff Randall
7:56PM BST 20 May 2010
The Telegraph
"Money can't buy you friends, but it does get you a better class of enemy" – Spike Milligan
For Angela Merkel, leader of the eurozone's richest country, a queue is forming of high-quality adversaries. As she tips German Geld und Gut into the furnace of a rescue package for the euro, while going it alone in a misguided ban on market "manipulators", the brass-neck Chancellor has infuriated domestic voters, angered her EU partners (in particular the French) and invited the so-called wolf pack of global traders to do its worst.
Germany to ban paintball in wake of high school shootingIn one respect, Mrs Merkel is right: "The euro is in danger… if the euro fails, then Europe fails." What she has not yet admitted publicly is that the main cause of the single currency's peril appears beyond her control and therefore her impetuous response to its crisis of confidence is doomed to fail.
The euro has many flaws, but its weakest link is Greece, whose fundamental problem is that for years it spent too much, earned too little and plugged the gap by borrowing in order to enjoy a rich man's lifestyle. It flouted EU rules on the limits to budget deficits; its national accounts were a moussaka of minced statistics, topped with a cheesy sauce of jiggery-pokery.
By any legitimate measure, Greece was unworthy of eurozone membership. That it achieved card-carrying status was down to the sleight-of-hand skills of its Brussels fixers and the acquiescence of central bank bean-counters. Now we know the truth, jet-hosing it with yet more debt makes no sense. Another dose of funny money will delay but not extinguish the need for austerity.
This is why the euro, in its current form, is finished. The game is up for a monetary union that was meant to bolt together work-and-save citizens in northern Europe with the party animals of Club Med. No amount of pit props from Berlin can save the euro Mk I from collapsing under the weight of its structural dysfunctionality. You cannot run indefinitely a single currency with one interest rate for 16 economies, when there are such huge fiscal disparities.
What was once deemed unthinkable is now, I believe, inevitable: withdrawal from the eurozone of one or more of its member countries. At the bottom end, Greece and Portugal are favourites to be forced out through weakness. At the top end, proposals are already being floated in the Frankfurt press for a new "hard currency" zone, led by Germany, Austria and the Benelux countries. Either way, rich and poor are heading in opposite directions.
When asked on Sky if, in five years' time, the euro will have the same make-up as it does today, Jeremy Stretch, a currency analyst at Rabobank, the Dutch financial services giant, told me: "I think it's pretty unlikely." The euro was a boom-time construct. In the biggest bust for 80 years, it is falling apart.
Telegraph loyalists with long memories will be shocked by none of this. In 1996, Sir Martin Jacomb, then chairman of the Prudential, set out with great prescience in two pieces for The Sunday Telegraph why a European single currency, without full political integration, would end in disaster. His prognosis of the ailments that might afflict the eurozone's sickliest constituents reads as if it was penned to sum up today's turmoil.
"A country which does not handle its public finances prudently will find its long-term borrowing costs adjusted accordingly," Sir Martin predicted. "Although theory says that default is unlikely, nevertheless, a country that spends too much public money, and allows its wage costs to become uncompetitive, will experience rising unemployment and falling economic activity. The social costs may become impossible to bear."
Welcome to the headaches of George Papandreou. The bond markets called his country's bluff. Greece is skint, but its unions don't want to admit it. There is insufficient political will to tackle incompetence and corruption, never mind unaffordable state spending. But, locked into the euro, Greece cannot devalue its way out of trouble, so it relies on the kindness of strangers.
Dishing out German largesse to profligate Athens, with little expectation of a reasonable return, is a sure way for Mrs Merkel to join Gordon Brown as a political has-been. Fully aware of the revulsion felt by Mercedes and BMW employees at the prospect of their taxes being used to pay for a Hellenic car crash, she has resorted to creating a bogeyman – The Speculator.
By announcing a ban on the activities of short-sellers (those who bet to profit from falling prices in financial markets), she is hoping her decoy will avert German attention from the small print of Berlin's support for Greece, which talks of developing processes for "an orderly state insolvency". This sounds ominously like a softening-up process for a form of default.
Greece's severe difficulties were home-made. The euro has come under pressure not from dark forces of speculation but respectable investors, many of them traditional pension funds, which, quite correctly, worked out that when the crunch came, the Brussels elite would sanction an abandonment of its no bail-out rule and cough up for a messy fudge.
In 1990, the late Lord Ridley, when still a government minister, caused a storm by telling The Spectator that Europe's planned monetary union was "a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe". One knew what he was getting at, but it has not turned out that way.
Protecting the euro has become a project via which profligate states dip their fingers in Berlin's till. Germany is taking on nasty obligations without gaining ownership of the assets. Germany's version of The Sun, Bild Zeitung, feeds its readers a regular diet of stories about the way ordinary Germans are being taken for mugs. Trust has turned to suspicion. Next stop is divorce.
As for the United Kingdom, we must be grateful that those frightfully clever Europhiles, such as Lord Mandelson and Kenneth Clarke, did not get their way. Had they been able to scrap the pound and embrace the euro this country would be even closer to ruin. Without a flexible currency, the colossal deficit clocked up by Mr Brown would have crushed us completely. We have little to thank him for, but it would be churlish to deny that his decision to reject Tony Blair's blandishments in favour of the euro was a life-saver.
Sterling's devaluation has not been pretty, but it is helping to keep our exports competitive while the coalition Government begins rebuilding the nation's finances. Siren voices from across the Channel, calling for closer integration between Britain and the rest of the EU, can be confidently rejected. As for joining the euro, I find it impossible to imagine any circumstances under which it would be in the UK's interest to do so.
the end of the euro
Angela Merkel's ban on short-selling is just a distraction from the horror to come
By Jeff Randall
7:56PM BST 20 May 2010
The Telegraph
"Money can't buy you friends, but it does get you a better class of enemy" – Spike Milligan
For Angela Merkel, leader of the eurozone's richest country, a queue is forming of high-quality adversaries. As she tips German Geld und Gut into the furnace of a rescue package for the euro, while going it alone in a misguided ban on market "manipulators", the brass-neck Chancellor has infuriated domestic voters, angered her EU partners (in particular the French) and invited the so-called wolf pack of global traders to do its worst.
Germany to ban paintball in wake of high school shootingIn one respect, Mrs Merkel is right: "The euro is in danger… if the euro fails, then Europe fails." What she has not yet admitted publicly is that the main cause of the single currency's peril appears beyond her control and therefore her impetuous response to its crisis of confidence is doomed to fail.
The euro has many flaws, but its weakest link is Greece, whose fundamental problem is that for years it spent too much, earned too little and plugged the gap by borrowing in order to enjoy a rich man's lifestyle. It flouted EU rules on the limits to budget deficits; its national accounts were a moussaka of minced statistics, topped with a cheesy sauce of jiggery-pokery.
By any legitimate measure, Greece was unworthy of eurozone membership. That it achieved card-carrying status was down to the sleight-of-hand skills of its Brussels fixers and the acquiescence of central bank bean-counters. Now we know the truth, jet-hosing it with yet more debt makes no sense. Another dose of funny money will delay but not extinguish the need for austerity.
This is why the euro, in its current form, is finished. The game is up for a monetary union that was meant to bolt together work-and-save citizens in northern Europe with the party animals of Club Med. No amount of pit props from Berlin can save the euro Mk I from collapsing under the weight of its structural dysfunctionality. You cannot run indefinitely a single currency with one interest rate for 16 economies, when there are such huge fiscal disparities.
What was once deemed unthinkable is now, I believe, inevitable: withdrawal from the eurozone of one or more of its member countries. At the bottom end, Greece and Portugal are favourites to be forced out through weakness. At the top end, proposals are already being floated in the Frankfurt press for a new "hard currency" zone, led by Germany, Austria and the Benelux countries. Either way, rich and poor are heading in opposite directions.
When asked on Sky if, in five years' time, the euro will have the same make-up as it does today, Jeremy Stretch, a currency analyst at Rabobank, the Dutch financial services giant, told me: "I think it's pretty unlikely." The euro was a boom-time construct. In the biggest bust for 80 years, it is falling apart.
Telegraph loyalists with long memories will be shocked by none of this. In 1996, Sir Martin Jacomb, then chairman of the Prudential, set out with great prescience in two pieces for The Sunday Telegraph why a European single currency, without full political integration, would end in disaster. His prognosis of the ailments that might afflict the eurozone's sickliest constituents reads as if it was penned to sum up today's turmoil.
"A country which does not handle its public finances prudently will find its long-term borrowing costs adjusted accordingly," Sir Martin predicted. "Although theory says that default is unlikely, nevertheless, a country that spends too much public money, and allows its wage costs to become uncompetitive, will experience rising unemployment and falling economic activity. The social costs may become impossible to bear."
Welcome to the headaches of George Papandreou. The bond markets called his country's bluff. Greece is skint, but its unions don't want to admit it. There is insufficient political will to tackle incompetence and corruption, never mind unaffordable state spending. But, locked into the euro, Greece cannot devalue its way out of trouble, so it relies on the kindness of strangers.
Dishing out German largesse to profligate Athens, with little expectation of a reasonable return, is a sure way for Mrs Merkel to join Gordon Brown as a political has-been. Fully aware of the revulsion felt by Mercedes and BMW employees at the prospect of their taxes being used to pay for a Hellenic car crash, she has resorted to creating a bogeyman – The Speculator.
By announcing a ban on the activities of short-sellers (those who bet to profit from falling prices in financial markets), she is hoping her decoy will avert German attention from the small print of Berlin's support for Greece, which talks of developing processes for "an orderly state insolvency". This sounds ominously like a softening-up process for a form of default.
Greece's severe difficulties were home-made. The euro has come under pressure not from dark forces of speculation but respectable investors, many of them traditional pension funds, which, quite correctly, worked out that when the crunch came, the Brussels elite would sanction an abandonment of its no bail-out rule and cough up for a messy fudge.
In 1990, the late Lord Ridley, when still a government minister, caused a storm by telling The Spectator that Europe's planned monetary union was "a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe". One knew what he was getting at, but it has not turned out that way.
Protecting the euro has become a project via which profligate states dip their fingers in Berlin's till. Germany is taking on nasty obligations without gaining ownership of the assets. Germany's version of The Sun, Bild Zeitung, feeds its readers a regular diet of stories about the way ordinary Germans are being taken for mugs. Trust has turned to suspicion. Next stop is divorce.
As for the United Kingdom, we must be grateful that those frightfully clever Europhiles, such as Lord Mandelson and Kenneth Clarke, did not get their way. Had they been able to scrap the pound and embrace the euro this country would be even closer to ruin. Without a flexible currency, the colossal deficit clocked up by Mr Brown would have crushed us completely. We have little to thank him for, but it would be churlish to deny that his decision to reject Tony Blair's blandishments in favour of the euro was a life-saver.
Sterling's devaluation has not been pretty, but it is helping to keep our exports competitive while the coalition Government begins rebuilding the nation's finances. Siren voices from across the Channel, calling for closer integration between Britain and the rest of the EU, can be confidently rejected. As for joining the euro, I find it impossible to imagine any circumstances under which it would be in the UK's interest to do so.
the end of the euro
Thursday, May 20, 2010
How the Euro Could Disappear, along with the European Union
How the euro might collapse
May 20, 2010 10:32 EDT
Felix Salmon
Reuters
euro
I had a little three-minute fantasia this morning on Radio 4 in the UK; if you prefer text to audio, here you go. The idea was to give an idea of one way in which the euro might fall apart, but I had no idea, when I recorded it, that markets would plunge again today.
August 18, 2010:
Markets around the world plunged on Wednesday, after Spain announced that the cost of bailing out its beleaguered mortgage lenders would amount to more than 250 billion euros. The country was immediately downgraded by both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, triggering fears of default or devaluation in both Spain and Portugal. Stocks fall by more than 5% in all major markets, including the US.
August 19, 2010:
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, in an unprecedented joint public appearance with Jean-Claude Trichet, the head of the European Central Bank, railed against “speculators and hedge funds” who were damaging European unity and threatening the viability of the common currency. She said that Europe would provide up to 500 billion euros in support of Spain, Portugal, and Greece, to help them bail out their banks during a period when investors have simply stopped lending them any new money.
August 22, 2010:
In the largest set of coordinated demonstrations since the run-up to the war in Iraq, angry voters and opposition parties across Europe came out in their millions, protesting the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on southern European countries, and the painful austerity measures being demanded of Greece, Spain, and Portugal by the IMF.
Opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of Eurozone members oppose the current bailout plans, both in northern European countries like Germany, which don’t want to see their money spent abroad, and in southern European countries like Greece and Spain, which refuse to be told how to run their countries by Brussels bureaucrats and the IMF.
The riot photos from Greece are becoming depressingly familiar, but now we’re seeing riots across Germany, too.
August 23, 2010:
As markets continued to plunge around the world today on civil unrest across Europe, governing coalitions across the continent broke apart, with no parties seeing any political upside in supporting the most unpopular policy that has ever been implemented in European history. Even Angela Merkel started backtracking from her earlier statements, saying that no democracy could unilaterally act against its citizens’ wishes.
August 24, 2010:
A solution, of sorts, was found to the European crisis today, when the governments of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy announced that they would no longer accept EU or IMF funds as part of the bailout program, and would solve their problems on their own. The joint statement was taken by markets as tantamount to default, since none of the four countries has access to the liquidity needed to roll over their debts.
August 25, 2010::
Greece has announced a debt restructuring that will push back the maturity of its bonds by three years.
It will swap existing debt for new bonds denominated in New Drachmas, which the Greek government is introducing at a 1-to-1 exchange rate but which are already trading in the “grey market” at just 50 euro cents each.
September 13, 2010:
Markets were shocked once again today as France joined, at the last minute, the joint restructuring offer from Italy, Spain, and Portugal. All four countries are offering to swap their old euro-denominated debt for new obligations denominated in a currency they’re calling “neuros”. Other eurozone countries have indicated that they, too, will leave the euro for the neuro, cutting their debt at a stroke. In the grey market, the neuro is already trading at 75 euro cents, while the new drachma is holding steady at 45 euro cents.
Today was the last day of the euro as we knew it for a decade: Europe is returning to a system of multiple floating currencies. And that means that political ties are much weaker, too. With the death of the euro, the future of the European Union itself looks very uncertain.
This is not a prediction, it’s just one way of many in which things could go wrong. There’s always a worst-case scenario. And although I didn’t have time to spell things out here, this really is a worst-case scenario, and would cause legal chaos with respect to the redenomination of assets and liabilities in what might be called the neurozone.
Which means that questions like this one, which I got via email this morning, are simply unanswerable:
What happens to the euros which I have in my travel wallet (or under the mattress or where ever) if the euro splits into various neuros? More importantly, what happens to euros held by a British bank? Answer needed!
Most likely, in this kind of a scenario, the euros would transform themselves into the currency of whatever country they’re on deposit in. You can see where the flight-to-quality trade comes from: cash flows away from euro-periphery banks and into German banks, and away from euros and into dollars, lest it end up forcibly converted into something else. Physical euros should be pretty safe: you could probably convert them into neuros at an advantageous exchange rate, assuming that it’s the weaker countries which leave the eurozone, rather than Germany and a few others deciding that they’re going to create a smaller, stronger, super-euro.
Returning back to reality, the euro itself could still fall further, especially if questions over its long-term survival continue to be raised. And all this uncertainty is bad for assets generally around the world. Expect lots more volatility going forwards.
reuters
May 20, 2010 10:32 EDT
Felix Salmon
Reuters
euro
I had a little three-minute fantasia this morning on Radio 4 in the UK; if you prefer text to audio, here you go. The idea was to give an idea of one way in which the euro might fall apart, but I had no idea, when I recorded it, that markets would plunge again today.
August 18, 2010:
Markets around the world plunged on Wednesday, after Spain announced that the cost of bailing out its beleaguered mortgage lenders would amount to more than 250 billion euros. The country was immediately downgraded by both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, triggering fears of default or devaluation in both Spain and Portugal. Stocks fall by more than 5% in all major markets, including the US.
August 19, 2010:
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, in an unprecedented joint public appearance with Jean-Claude Trichet, the head of the European Central Bank, railed against “speculators and hedge funds” who were damaging European unity and threatening the viability of the common currency. She said that Europe would provide up to 500 billion euros in support of Spain, Portugal, and Greece, to help them bail out their banks during a period when investors have simply stopped lending them any new money.
August 22, 2010:
In the largest set of coordinated demonstrations since the run-up to the war in Iraq, angry voters and opposition parties across Europe came out in their millions, protesting the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on southern European countries, and the painful austerity measures being demanded of Greece, Spain, and Portugal by the IMF.
Opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of Eurozone members oppose the current bailout plans, both in northern European countries like Germany, which don’t want to see their money spent abroad, and in southern European countries like Greece and Spain, which refuse to be told how to run their countries by Brussels bureaucrats and the IMF.
The riot photos from Greece are becoming depressingly familiar, but now we’re seeing riots across Germany, too.
August 23, 2010:
As markets continued to plunge around the world today on civil unrest across Europe, governing coalitions across the continent broke apart, with no parties seeing any political upside in supporting the most unpopular policy that has ever been implemented in European history. Even Angela Merkel started backtracking from her earlier statements, saying that no democracy could unilaterally act against its citizens’ wishes.
August 24, 2010:
A solution, of sorts, was found to the European crisis today, when the governments of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy announced that they would no longer accept EU or IMF funds as part of the bailout program, and would solve their problems on their own. The joint statement was taken by markets as tantamount to default, since none of the four countries has access to the liquidity needed to roll over their debts.
August 25, 2010::
Greece has announced a debt restructuring that will push back the maturity of its bonds by three years.
It will swap existing debt for new bonds denominated in New Drachmas, which the Greek government is introducing at a 1-to-1 exchange rate but which are already trading in the “grey market” at just 50 euro cents each.
September 13, 2010:
Markets were shocked once again today as France joined, at the last minute, the joint restructuring offer from Italy, Spain, and Portugal. All four countries are offering to swap their old euro-denominated debt for new obligations denominated in a currency they’re calling “neuros”. Other eurozone countries have indicated that they, too, will leave the euro for the neuro, cutting their debt at a stroke. In the grey market, the neuro is already trading at 75 euro cents, while the new drachma is holding steady at 45 euro cents.
Today was the last day of the euro as we knew it for a decade: Europe is returning to a system of multiple floating currencies. And that means that political ties are much weaker, too. With the death of the euro, the future of the European Union itself looks very uncertain.
This is not a prediction, it’s just one way of many in which things could go wrong. There’s always a worst-case scenario. And although I didn’t have time to spell things out here, this really is a worst-case scenario, and would cause legal chaos with respect to the redenomination of assets and liabilities in what might be called the neurozone.
Which means that questions like this one, which I got via email this morning, are simply unanswerable:
What happens to the euros which I have in my travel wallet (or under the mattress or where ever) if the euro splits into various neuros? More importantly, what happens to euros held by a British bank? Answer needed!
Most likely, in this kind of a scenario, the euros would transform themselves into the currency of whatever country they’re on deposit in. You can see where the flight-to-quality trade comes from: cash flows away from euro-periphery banks and into German banks, and away from euros and into dollars, lest it end up forcibly converted into something else. Physical euros should be pretty safe: you could probably convert them into neuros at an advantageous exchange rate, assuming that it’s the weaker countries which leave the eurozone, rather than Germany and a few others deciding that they’re going to create a smaller, stronger, super-euro.
Returning back to reality, the euro itself could still fall further, especially if questions over its long-term survival continue to be raised. And all this uncertainty is bad for assets generally around the world. Expect lots more volatility going forwards.
reuters
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Media and Obama
It is sad that the prostitute feels she is still not being treated well, considering all she has done for her pimp.
Sad. She is sad and frustrated.
Why reporters are down on Obama
By: Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin
Politico
April 28, 2010 04:38 AM EDT
One of the enduring story lines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.
“Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.
But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents’ dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press’s cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.
Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship — as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade, reporters who cover the White House say.
Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors, and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:
— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.
— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.
— Except toward a few reporters, press secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach — even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.
— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper — The New York Times — enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time.
“They seem to want to close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they’re doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected,” said The New Yorker’s George Packer.
“I don’t think they need to be nice to reporters, but the White House seems to imagine that releasing information is like a tap that can be turned on and off at their whim,” Packer said.
Much of the criticism is off the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.
“These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt,” said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. “They’ve lost all that goodwill.”
And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn’t done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.
Obama's White House aides can rightfully say they've set new standards for opening up access on several fronts, such as releasing previously secret visitors' logs, expanding White House Web content and offering more than 150 sit-down interviews with Obama to selected reporters.
But Gibbs is unapologetic about sometimes taking a hard line in his dealings with the press, saying it’s a response to the viral nature of modern media.
“There’s a danger in letting something go. Trust me, I read a lot of news every day. Not a day goes by that something that I didn’t pay enough attention to, or close attention to, doesn’t go from being myth to reality over the course of several hours,” Gibbs told POLITICO.
“I understand if you’re a reporter and get 95 percent right, and your word choice isn’t right on 5 percent. But that 5 percent goes on to become reality. I’ve got to live with that, when it may or may not be true,” Gibbs said. “It does make our jobs difficult.”
The correspondents association recently met with Gibbs to discuss, in the words of Bloomberg's Ed Chen, "a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”
A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”
Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.
The press’s bill of particulars boils down to this:
Dodging questions
If you cover City Hall, you talk to the mayor. If you cover the Yankees, you’ll hang around Derek Jeter’s locker. The White House is no different, and aides past routinely filled that need by letting the press pool toss the president a couple of questions every so often, usually at one of the various events that fill his calendar every day.
Not Obama. He has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access.
The numbers speak for themselves: During his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q & A sessions — an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University professor Martha Kumar.
“Too many of the president’s meetings are ‘no coverage’ for my taste,” said ABC’s Ann Compton. “That is a stark reduction in access for us.”
White House aides say Obama has hardly avoided the media. Indeed, he has done so many interviews that at times journalists have accused him of being overexposed. In his first year, Obama gave 161 interviews, according to Kumar’s tally. Bush and Clinton each did about 50.
Reporters point out that the Bush White House was no paragon of press transparency. And since the meeting with Gibbs this month, Obama took a couple of questions at a meeting with congressional leaders last week and still photographers got into a couple more events.
“I give credit to Robert for having the meeting, hearing our concerns and taking some action after the meeting to show that, while he may not agree to all the things we’re pushing for, he respects our concerns,” said CNN’s Ed Henry, the correspondents association’s secretary.
Playing favorites
It’s one thing to feed a scoop to the Times. Every White House does it.
But Team Obama did it right in front of the other reporters’ faces — then, in their view, lied about it.
It was last September in Pittsburgh, when about 20 journalists were attending an off-the-record dinner with Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel during the G-20 summit. Also in attendance: New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent David Sanger, a White House favorite.
As one White House reporter tells it, "Jim Jones and Denis McDonough and Gary Samore were lurking in this very dark, nice dining room that we were in. And we were all kind of wondering why they were there. Then, at one point at the dinner, McDonough tapped on Sanger's shoulder and whispered something in his ear. Sanger got up and walked towards this clutch of NSC people, including Jones, and they walked off."
"We were all flummoxed and floored by this whole thing," said the reporter. "A few reporters cornered McDonough and said, 'You can't do that. You can't do that in front of other reporters.' He said, 'Oh, you guys, you're barking up the wrong tree! We didn't give anything. You've got nothing to worry about.'”
But later that night, Sanger posted a blockbuster scoop: As Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy would announce the next morning, the Iranians had a secret nuclear site but kept it hidden for years from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The other reporters — Sanger’s dinner companions earlier — were sent scrambling at around midnight to match the Times’s account.
“I don’t have a great recollection of the timing of all those events. ... It was obviously at the end of a long week” of meetings, McDonough told POLITICO. “I probably didn’t have dinner with anyone that night.”
Sanger doesn’t dispute that the White House confirmed the Iran story, but he had earlier written about suspicions of such a site in his book "Inheritance," and he says he put "urgent" questions to officials earlier that day after learning that Iran had abruptly disclosed a new site in a letter to the IAEA.
“It's clearly the case that they're playing favorites,” said Bloomberg’s Chen, when asked about the White House’s relationship to the Times. "It's kind of par for the course. Some people understand that — none of us really like it — but that's the way the administration does business."
Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.
But Stevenson said, “like every other journalist in Washington, I would say there’s a lot more they could do in terms of access for us and everyone else. While we appreciate the instances in which they cooperate and are accessible, there are plenty of cases where they’re not terribly accessible or responsive.”
While the Obama administration’s decision to stiff-arm Fox News caused a huge dust-up for a time last year, his back-benching of The Wall Street Journal has barely generated a peep. The Journal’s White House reporter, Jonathan Weisman, occasionally vents his frustration over the near freeze-out that has left the Journal with a single exclusive interview since Obama took office.
“The Times got the POTUS interview, but we got the story first,” he tweeted this month after Obama granted the Times an interview about the Nuclear Posture Review. After Obama agreed last week to another interview with John Harwood, who works for CNBC and the Times, Weisman tweeted: “Sheesh, how many times have you read that? Not that I’m bitter or anything.”
“Jonathan talks to many people, many senior advisers here. He talks to Rahm and [David] Axelrod fairly repeatedly. There may be a little of Mark Twain in this. The mention of his not having access is greatly exaggerated,” said Gibbs, who also noted that Jerry Seib, the Journal’s Washington executive editor, has been in to talk to Obama, for an interview and as part of Obama’s off-the-record lunches.
Another event that riled many in the press corps took place March 20. The Washington Examiner's Julie Mason confronted former Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, author of a highly favorable book about the Obama campaign, when he attempted to join the White House pool on the Saturday before Congress's big health care vote.
"You're not in the pool," Mason recalled telling Wolffe. "You shouldn't be joining." Mason said Wolffe claimed that he was there courtesy of "a special invitation from the Obama administration." Wolffe is working on a second book on the Obama administration.
"Are you working for them officially now?" shot back Mason.
“The White House wants their friend to be in the pool and we don't know what recourse we have,” Mason later told POLITICO. “It's just completely unfair to the press corps and flies in the face of the concept of a free press."
Where’s Gibbs?
During Obama’s recent, brief trip to Prague, a message went out to one of the top reporters to assemble the handful of traveling reporters for a dinner with Gibbs and other top members of the president’s entourage. The journalists dutifully complied, picked out a restaurant, made a reservation and showed up at the appointed time.
When Gibbs and the others were late, it wasn’t too surprising. But soon several hours passed with no sign of the White House contingent. The food came and went.
Eventually, the press gave up and headed out on some late-night sightseeing. As they strolled the Charles Bridge, they ran into Gibbs, who was doing the same. Asked about the dinner appointment, Gibbs said the White House group had simply decided to grab some pizza.
“We got pulled in about 10 different directions,” Gibbs said this week. “Denis, for instance, never made it out of the hotel for dinner. He got pulled back in. By all accounts, and judging by having seen them later that night, they [the reporters] did not look the worse for wear.”
The press’s annoyance may strike some as a fit of childish pique over being stood up for a trivial social engagement. However, foreign trips with the president often cost tens of thousands of dollars per reporter, and the promise of some proximity to the president and his top aides is one of the few ways to sell a reluctant editor on the value of being there.
The difficulty in tracking down Gibbs isn’t limited to the road. Even reporters for major newspapers say they have trouble getting their calls and e-mails returned.
Journalists say that Gibbs seems to spend a lot of time with Obama and that it cuts down on his time to talk with them. “One thing we really want is a press secretary who has access,” said Congress Daily's George E. Condon Jr., a longtime White House correspondent. “The tradeoff in that is because he’s sitting in meetings a lot; it does cut down on his ability to get back to us.”
“That door is always open,” Gibbs insists, but he acknowledges that he does devote a lot of time to policy confabs. “I went to 10 three-hour Afghanistan sessions. ... The dominant question in that time period in the media and in society writ large was, What are we going to do on Afghanistan? I made a decision that I was going to go to those meetings to have a sense of where the president was, where the other players were.”
One current focus of press corps ire are gauzy video features the White House’s staff videographer cranks out, taking advantage of behind-the-scenes access to Obama and his aides, such as a recent piece offering “exclusive footage” of first lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden touring Haiti.
“I think someone out there might mistake them for news, as opposed to slick publicity handouts for the White House,” said Compton. “To me, they’re mocking what we do.”
Getting mad
And just what happens when you upset the White House?
Among White House reporters, tales abound of an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice-mail messages.
“It’s not unusual to have shouting matches or the e-mail equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior, taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all sorts of things,” said one White House reporter.
“It’s a natural outgrowth of campaigning, where control of the message is everything and where a very tight circle controls the flow of information,” The New Yorker’s Packer said. “I just think it is a mistake to transfer that model to governing. Governing is so much more complicated and is all about implementation — not just message.”
One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story — only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.
“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graph that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off-the-record, angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain. Engage!”
Gibbs said the White House’s efforts to push back tend to focus on fixing factual mistakes before they take hold in the media.
“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments, and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now. ... This isn’t unique in terms of us, and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”
Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things. ... I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”
Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.
While some reporters note improvements since the Bush era, like more informed deputy press secretaries and assistants, others complain of a rigid image control pervading the government. “The access is much poorer than in the Bush administration,” one national newspaper reporter who regularly covers the White House said. “This is wider than just the White House. I feel like the political appointees in a variety of agencies are more difficult to get to. There are people ... you could reach in the Bush administration that now say, ‘That position does not speak to the press. We do not give background. We do not give anything.’’’
Compton said that if the Obama White House’s sense of being besieged by the press is authentic, it bespeaks a kind of innocence born from a candidate and a president who has never confronted a full-on Washington feeding frenzy.
“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter said. “Wait till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration is under attack, wait till there’s a scandal, wait till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”
Getting even
While complaining about stories is hardly unique to the Obama administration, White House reporters charge that sometimes, aides even retaliate against reporters who cross them.
One reporter said that after he wrote a story the White House viewed as critical, aides tried to cancel meetings he’d lined up with other administration officials. “I was told very clearly the press office tried to stop those appointments going ahead,” the journalist said.
Gibbs said he couldn’t recall any such instance. “I’m sure people may have thought that, though,” he said.
While the Times clearly enjoys more access than any other publication, its perceived transgressions often get a heated and sustained response from the White House. “There certainly is no lack of friction or the appropriate tension that goes into this relationship — to put it mildly,” Stevenson said.
Last year, Times reporter Helene Cooper was the target of a fusillade of complaints from Obama staffers and was for a time essentially frozen out by the administration, several colleagues said. Recently, a story by Sanger and Thom Shanker about an Iran policy memo from Defense Secretary Robert Gates received a public drubbing from Gibbs.
Gibbs said he recalled complaints about a story Cooper wrote from Japan that “had a bent nobody else’s story had. The bent was also wrong.”
Cooper was matter of fact when asked about her run-ins with the White House. “We cover the White House. Sometimes they like what we do. Sometimes they don’t. That’s just the way it is,” she said, declining to elaborate.
Cooper’s editor, Stevenson, wouldn’t comment on her case but acknowledged the White House has made life difficult for his team from time to time. “There are times when the relationship between a reporter and the rather-closed community in any West Wing and even in an administration more broadly becomes particularly fraught or tense. That has happened with us in a number of instances both public and private,” he said. “All of our reporters come to work the next day, do their jobs, make phone calls, do their best. In none of these cases has any complaint from the White House or any criticism, publicly or privately, changed the way we staff anything, approach any stories, or in the least bit affected our coverage.”
Last year, colleagues noticed that David Corn of Mother Jones went through a noticeable dry spell at White House briefings, with Gibbs seeming to overlook his raised hand for a period of several weeks or more.
“I remember tangling with David, but I would just say I think David has probably gotten more questions at the briefing in the last few months than he got in the entire last eight years,” Gibbs said. Corn declined to comment.
“They throw some brush-back pitches every now and then,” one White House reporter for a major newspaper said. “They’ve been pretty heavy-handed and have cut some people off.”
Edward Luce of The Financial Times drew the ire of Obama aides for a couple of articles arguing that decision making in the Obama administration is extremely centralized. Neither piece was a devastating indictment of the White House, but they prompted a furious reaction.
“I was just in awe of the pummeling Ed took from top White House people,” said policy blogger and New America Foundation senior fellow Steve Clemons. He began talking to White House reporters and came away convinced that what he calls an “extremely unhealthy” relationship has developed in which the White House generally cooperates only with reporters who are willing to write source greasers or other fawning articles.
Gibbs referred questions about the Luce stories to McDonough. “Who’s Ed Luce?” McDonough said. “I’m not familiar with that.”
Clemons’s post on his findings, “Communications Corruption at the White House,” was harsh, particularly coming from a policy wonk who tends to agree with most of Obama’s stances.
“Has the bar moved so far that a reasonable piece that gives and takes a little but provides both criticism and applause is something White House has to respond to in such a prickly, thin-skinned way?” asked Clemons.
the honeymoon ended, when's the divorce
Sad. She is sad and frustrated.
Why reporters are down on Obama
By: Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin
Politico
April 28, 2010 04:38 AM EDT
One of the enduring story lines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.
“Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.
But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents’ dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press’s cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.
Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship — as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade, reporters who cover the White House say.
Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors, and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:
— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.
— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.
— Except toward a few reporters, press secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach — even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.
— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper — The New York Times — enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time.
“They seem to want to close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they’re doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected,” said The New Yorker’s George Packer.
“I don’t think they need to be nice to reporters, but the White House seems to imagine that releasing information is like a tap that can be turned on and off at their whim,” Packer said.
Much of the criticism is off the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.
“These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt,” said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. “They’ve lost all that goodwill.”
And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn’t done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.
Obama's White House aides can rightfully say they've set new standards for opening up access on several fronts, such as releasing previously secret visitors' logs, expanding White House Web content and offering more than 150 sit-down interviews with Obama to selected reporters.
But Gibbs is unapologetic about sometimes taking a hard line in his dealings with the press, saying it’s a response to the viral nature of modern media.
“There’s a danger in letting something go. Trust me, I read a lot of news every day. Not a day goes by that something that I didn’t pay enough attention to, or close attention to, doesn’t go from being myth to reality over the course of several hours,” Gibbs told POLITICO.
“I understand if you’re a reporter and get 95 percent right, and your word choice isn’t right on 5 percent. But that 5 percent goes on to become reality. I’ve got to live with that, when it may or may not be true,” Gibbs said. “It does make our jobs difficult.”
The correspondents association recently met with Gibbs to discuss, in the words of Bloomberg's Ed Chen, "a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”
A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”
Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.
The press’s bill of particulars boils down to this:
Dodging questions
If you cover City Hall, you talk to the mayor. If you cover the Yankees, you’ll hang around Derek Jeter’s locker. The White House is no different, and aides past routinely filled that need by letting the press pool toss the president a couple of questions every so often, usually at one of the various events that fill his calendar every day.
Not Obama. He has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access.
The numbers speak for themselves: During his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q & A sessions — an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University professor Martha Kumar.
“Too many of the president’s meetings are ‘no coverage’ for my taste,” said ABC’s Ann Compton. “That is a stark reduction in access for us.”
White House aides say Obama has hardly avoided the media. Indeed, he has done so many interviews that at times journalists have accused him of being overexposed. In his first year, Obama gave 161 interviews, according to Kumar’s tally. Bush and Clinton each did about 50.
Reporters point out that the Bush White House was no paragon of press transparency. And since the meeting with Gibbs this month, Obama took a couple of questions at a meeting with congressional leaders last week and still photographers got into a couple more events.
“I give credit to Robert for having the meeting, hearing our concerns and taking some action after the meeting to show that, while he may not agree to all the things we’re pushing for, he respects our concerns,” said CNN’s Ed Henry, the correspondents association’s secretary.
Playing favorites
It’s one thing to feed a scoop to the Times. Every White House does it.
But Team Obama did it right in front of the other reporters’ faces — then, in their view, lied about it.
It was last September in Pittsburgh, when about 20 journalists were attending an off-the-record dinner with Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel during the G-20 summit. Also in attendance: New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent David Sanger, a White House favorite.
As one White House reporter tells it, "Jim Jones and Denis McDonough and Gary Samore were lurking in this very dark, nice dining room that we were in. And we were all kind of wondering why they were there. Then, at one point at the dinner, McDonough tapped on Sanger's shoulder and whispered something in his ear. Sanger got up and walked towards this clutch of NSC people, including Jones, and they walked off."
"We were all flummoxed and floored by this whole thing," said the reporter. "A few reporters cornered McDonough and said, 'You can't do that. You can't do that in front of other reporters.' He said, 'Oh, you guys, you're barking up the wrong tree! We didn't give anything. You've got nothing to worry about.'”
But later that night, Sanger posted a blockbuster scoop: As Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy would announce the next morning, the Iranians had a secret nuclear site but kept it hidden for years from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The other reporters — Sanger’s dinner companions earlier — were sent scrambling at around midnight to match the Times’s account.
“I don’t have a great recollection of the timing of all those events. ... It was obviously at the end of a long week” of meetings, McDonough told POLITICO. “I probably didn’t have dinner with anyone that night.”
Sanger doesn’t dispute that the White House confirmed the Iran story, but he had earlier written about suspicions of such a site in his book "Inheritance," and he says he put "urgent" questions to officials earlier that day after learning that Iran had abruptly disclosed a new site in a letter to the IAEA.
“It's clearly the case that they're playing favorites,” said Bloomberg’s Chen, when asked about the White House’s relationship to the Times. "It's kind of par for the course. Some people understand that — none of us really like it — but that's the way the administration does business."
Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.
But Stevenson said, “like every other journalist in Washington, I would say there’s a lot more they could do in terms of access for us and everyone else. While we appreciate the instances in which they cooperate and are accessible, there are plenty of cases where they’re not terribly accessible or responsive.”
While the Obama administration’s decision to stiff-arm Fox News caused a huge dust-up for a time last year, his back-benching of The Wall Street Journal has barely generated a peep. The Journal’s White House reporter, Jonathan Weisman, occasionally vents his frustration over the near freeze-out that has left the Journal with a single exclusive interview since Obama took office.
“The Times got the POTUS interview, but we got the story first,” he tweeted this month after Obama granted the Times an interview about the Nuclear Posture Review. After Obama agreed last week to another interview with John Harwood, who works for CNBC and the Times, Weisman tweeted: “Sheesh, how many times have you read that? Not that I’m bitter or anything.”
“Jonathan talks to many people, many senior advisers here. He talks to Rahm and [David] Axelrod fairly repeatedly. There may be a little of Mark Twain in this. The mention of his not having access is greatly exaggerated,” said Gibbs, who also noted that Jerry Seib, the Journal’s Washington executive editor, has been in to talk to Obama, for an interview and as part of Obama’s off-the-record lunches.
Another event that riled many in the press corps took place March 20. The Washington Examiner's Julie Mason confronted former Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, author of a highly favorable book about the Obama campaign, when he attempted to join the White House pool on the Saturday before Congress's big health care vote.
"You're not in the pool," Mason recalled telling Wolffe. "You shouldn't be joining." Mason said Wolffe claimed that he was there courtesy of "a special invitation from the Obama administration." Wolffe is working on a second book on the Obama administration.
"Are you working for them officially now?" shot back Mason.
“The White House wants their friend to be in the pool and we don't know what recourse we have,” Mason later told POLITICO. “It's just completely unfair to the press corps and flies in the face of the concept of a free press."
Where’s Gibbs?
During Obama’s recent, brief trip to Prague, a message went out to one of the top reporters to assemble the handful of traveling reporters for a dinner with Gibbs and other top members of the president’s entourage. The journalists dutifully complied, picked out a restaurant, made a reservation and showed up at the appointed time.
When Gibbs and the others were late, it wasn’t too surprising. But soon several hours passed with no sign of the White House contingent. The food came and went.
Eventually, the press gave up and headed out on some late-night sightseeing. As they strolled the Charles Bridge, they ran into Gibbs, who was doing the same. Asked about the dinner appointment, Gibbs said the White House group had simply decided to grab some pizza.
“We got pulled in about 10 different directions,” Gibbs said this week. “Denis, for instance, never made it out of the hotel for dinner. He got pulled back in. By all accounts, and judging by having seen them later that night, they [the reporters] did not look the worse for wear.”
The press’s annoyance may strike some as a fit of childish pique over being stood up for a trivial social engagement. However, foreign trips with the president often cost tens of thousands of dollars per reporter, and the promise of some proximity to the president and his top aides is one of the few ways to sell a reluctant editor on the value of being there.
The difficulty in tracking down Gibbs isn’t limited to the road. Even reporters for major newspapers say they have trouble getting their calls and e-mails returned.
Journalists say that Gibbs seems to spend a lot of time with Obama and that it cuts down on his time to talk with them. “One thing we really want is a press secretary who has access,” said Congress Daily's George E. Condon Jr., a longtime White House correspondent. “The tradeoff in that is because he’s sitting in meetings a lot; it does cut down on his ability to get back to us.”
“That door is always open,” Gibbs insists, but he acknowledges that he does devote a lot of time to policy confabs. “I went to 10 three-hour Afghanistan sessions. ... The dominant question in that time period in the media and in society writ large was, What are we going to do on Afghanistan? I made a decision that I was going to go to those meetings to have a sense of where the president was, where the other players were.”
One current focus of press corps ire are gauzy video features the White House’s staff videographer cranks out, taking advantage of behind-the-scenes access to Obama and his aides, such as a recent piece offering “exclusive footage” of first lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden touring Haiti.
“I think someone out there might mistake them for news, as opposed to slick publicity handouts for the White House,” said Compton. “To me, they’re mocking what we do.”
Getting mad
And just what happens when you upset the White House?
Among White House reporters, tales abound of an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice-mail messages.
“It’s not unusual to have shouting matches or the e-mail equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior, taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all sorts of things,” said one White House reporter.
“It’s a natural outgrowth of campaigning, where control of the message is everything and where a very tight circle controls the flow of information,” The New Yorker’s Packer said. “I just think it is a mistake to transfer that model to governing. Governing is so much more complicated and is all about implementation — not just message.”
One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story — only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.
“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graph that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off-the-record, angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain. Engage!”
Gibbs said the White House’s efforts to push back tend to focus on fixing factual mistakes before they take hold in the media.
“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments, and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now. ... This isn’t unique in terms of us, and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”
Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things. ... I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”
Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.
While some reporters note improvements since the Bush era, like more informed deputy press secretaries and assistants, others complain of a rigid image control pervading the government. “The access is much poorer than in the Bush administration,” one national newspaper reporter who regularly covers the White House said. “This is wider than just the White House. I feel like the political appointees in a variety of agencies are more difficult to get to. There are people ... you could reach in the Bush administration that now say, ‘That position does not speak to the press. We do not give background. We do not give anything.’’’
Compton said that if the Obama White House’s sense of being besieged by the press is authentic, it bespeaks a kind of innocence born from a candidate and a president who has never confronted a full-on Washington feeding frenzy.
“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter said. “Wait till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration is under attack, wait till there’s a scandal, wait till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”
Getting even
While complaining about stories is hardly unique to the Obama administration, White House reporters charge that sometimes, aides even retaliate against reporters who cross them.
One reporter said that after he wrote a story the White House viewed as critical, aides tried to cancel meetings he’d lined up with other administration officials. “I was told very clearly the press office tried to stop those appointments going ahead,” the journalist said.
Gibbs said he couldn’t recall any such instance. “I’m sure people may have thought that, though,” he said.
While the Times clearly enjoys more access than any other publication, its perceived transgressions often get a heated and sustained response from the White House. “There certainly is no lack of friction or the appropriate tension that goes into this relationship — to put it mildly,” Stevenson said.
Last year, Times reporter Helene Cooper was the target of a fusillade of complaints from Obama staffers and was for a time essentially frozen out by the administration, several colleagues said. Recently, a story by Sanger and Thom Shanker about an Iran policy memo from Defense Secretary Robert Gates received a public drubbing from Gibbs.
Gibbs said he recalled complaints about a story Cooper wrote from Japan that “had a bent nobody else’s story had. The bent was also wrong.”
Cooper was matter of fact when asked about her run-ins with the White House. “We cover the White House. Sometimes they like what we do. Sometimes they don’t. That’s just the way it is,” she said, declining to elaborate.
Cooper’s editor, Stevenson, wouldn’t comment on her case but acknowledged the White House has made life difficult for his team from time to time. “There are times when the relationship between a reporter and the rather-closed community in any West Wing and even in an administration more broadly becomes particularly fraught or tense. That has happened with us in a number of instances both public and private,” he said. “All of our reporters come to work the next day, do their jobs, make phone calls, do their best. In none of these cases has any complaint from the White House or any criticism, publicly or privately, changed the way we staff anything, approach any stories, or in the least bit affected our coverage.”
Last year, colleagues noticed that David Corn of Mother Jones went through a noticeable dry spell at White House briefings, with Gibbs seeming to overlook his raised hand for a period of several weeks or more.
“I remember tangling with David, but I would just say I think David has probably gotten more questions at the briefing in the last few months than he got in the entire last eight years,” Gibbs said. Corn declined to comment.
“They throw some brush-back pitches every now and then,” one White House reporter for a major newspaper said. “They’ve been pretty heavy-handed and have cut some people off.”
Edward Luce of The Financial Times drew the ire of Obama aides for a couple of articles arguing that decision making in the Obama administration is extremely centralized. Neither piece was a devastating indictment of the White House, but they prompted a furious reaction.
“I was just in awe of the pummeling Ed took from top White House people,” said policy blogger and New America Foundation senior fellow Steve Clemons. He began talking to White House reporters and came away convinced that what he calls an “extremely unhealthy” relationship has developed in which the White House generally cooperates only with reporters who are willing to write source greasers or other fawning articles.
Gibbs referred questions about the Luce stories to McDonough. “Who’s Ed Luce?” McDonough said. “I’m not familiar with that.”
Clemons’s post on his findings, “Communications Corruption at the White House,” was harsh, particularly coming from a policy wonk who tends to agree with most of Obama’s stances.
“Has the bar moved so far that a reasonable piece that gives and takes a little but provides both criticism and applause is something White House has to respond to in such a prickly, thin-skinned way?” asked Clemons.
the honeymoon ended, when's the divorce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments