When Bear Comes to Town

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

If Russia continues on it’s path to become a pro-democracy/pro-capitalism nation, many US officials who made their bones as experts of how to run Russia in to ground may end up without a cause. There are quite a number of stories that seem to indicate that while they aren’t perfect by any means, Russia is trying very hard to reintegrate itself into the global economy without being perceived as what Ronald Reagan called, “The Evil Empire.”

First off and probably the most important in terms of rehabbing their collective image, Russia agreed on Monday to shut its military bases in the former Soviet state of Georgia by 2008. This seems somewhat like a mea culpa toward the increasingly West-leaning Caucasus region after the frightful events of the Ukrainian election. It would appear that Russia is willing to loosen it’s grip on and influence on the former Soviet states, which can only help it’s image in the face of US accusations that it does not favor democracy. It should also be of note that Georgia has allied itself with both the US and the EU so Russia probably made the most diplomatically sound choice here.

While Russia may be having difficulties keeping close ties with it’s former states, the Bear is having no problems making friends in other regions. Russia is reforming close ties with Syria and has recently decided to write-off 73 percent - $9.8 million - of Syria's debt. Russia has approached the debt write-off as part of a new strategy to return its influence to the Middle East and Central Asia. According to the terms of the deal (as reported by the Daily Star), Syria must reimburse $1.5 billion of the remaining $3.6 billion debt over 10 years, and the remaining $2.1 billion will be converted to Syrian pounds and made available to Russian businesses that want to invest in Syria or in joint projects. Syria will start repayments in July.

Syria has been on the Bush administrations target list since before we invaded Iraq. With Russia now looking over Syria’s shoulder and then having such a great economic stake and their development, the administration will have to think twice (thinking at all would help) before deciding on a Syrian adventure.

Russia is also courting another familiar friendship in the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia. According to Novosti, “The Russian-Saudi inter-government commission on trade and economic cooperation, which concluded its meeting in Riyadh yesterday, decided to intensify cooperation, above all in the oil and gas industry, the peaceful exploration of outer space, and in the scientific and technological sphere in general.

Specific decisions were set out in a memorandum of the intentions members of Rosaviakosmos, Russia's aerospace agency, and of Saudi Arabia's King Abdel Aziz Science and Technology Center exchanged, Andrei Baklanov, the Russian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said on the telephone.

The members of the commission agreed to create, with time, a Russian-Saudi bank to facilitate mutual trade and promote economic cooperation.

Baklanov said opening a direct air service between Moscow and Riyadh was also discussed in that context.

A forum of the two countries' businessmen and experts took place in Riyadh simultaneously with the commission's meeting. Around 50 Russian business leaders took part in the forum. Women attended the forum for the first time in the history of Russian-Saudi business meetings.

"Contacts between Russian and Saudi business ladies proved very successful. They discussed issues of cooperation in the banking and insurance sectors, medicine, the perfume, and confectionary industries," said the ambassador.”

Russia has also been busy helping China and India mend fences and is vowing to continue to promote further trilateral relations with those two burgeoning economic powerhouses. The purpose of these talks is to strengthen their cooperation in energy and other issues and should help maintain stability and promote further economic growth and prosperity in the region.

There are many in the administration and our military that believe that the real looming threat to the US is China. I contend that if Russia continues to form these strong bonds with China, India, the Saudi’s, etc. it won’t matter how much a threat China is, there won’t be much we can logically do about it.

That being said, the most important news item featuring the Russians is their possible entry into the World Trade Organization. The plan on paper is for Russia to possibly join the WTO in 2006 if relevant talks are completed in 2005, Russian Economic Development and Trade Minister German Gref said recently. In addition, according to some analysts, Russia’s energy exporters have their sights set on American markets. That would make sense as those same analysts have cited Russia as being the leader in potential oil and natural gas exports if they can ever maximize their output.

Like Cyndi Lauper once said, “Money changes everything,” and now that Russia is making a staunch effort to rehab herself in the eyes of the world, we may have to face the hard reality that we will have to actively compete in the marketplace with a viable and friendly Russia. The Bear has come to town bearing gifts instead of bombs. It’ll be interesting to see how the old Cold Warriors in Washington deal with life in a world where Russia isn’t building an empire with guns but rather with money.

Old World Blues

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

We may be slouching toward a mutli-polar world but it won’t be the European Union that acts as a counterweight to US hegemony. Certainly the US has its fair share of conflicts and deep divisions. We’ve had one civil war and have come close revolution on more than one occasion. Even our last presidential election was an exercise in mass internal strife. But through it all we remain a republic, unified in both name and deed. Half of the country may hate the other half and wish they’d leave yet the republic still stands. The same cannot be said for the European Union whom even in infancy cannot get off the ground.

The latest setback in the affairs of the slowly blossoming and ever-dysfunctional EU is the resound “non” vote against the EU constitution. Reuters reports that, “France overwhelmingly rejected the European Union constitution on Sunday, pitching the EU deep into crisis and dealing a potentially fatal blow to a charter designed to make the enlarged bloc run smoothly.

EU leaders said after a referendum "no" vote that the treaty was not dead and member states should continue the ratification process. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the rejection raised profound questions about the future of the EU.

The heavy defeat dreaded by EU leaders could weaken France in the 25-member bloc, stall European integration and unsettle some financial markets. It also wounds President Jacques Chirac two years before presidential and parliamentary elections.”

There are many reasons why the French opted against the constitution. The one that stands out to me the most is their sense of distinct nationalism. It would appear that the French see the hierarchy of the universe as France below Heaven, the rest of the world below France and the US just above Hell. Many of the books that I have read show France to be extremely chauvinistic where their culture and society are concerned and often make grievous errors just to hold on to some semblance of distinct cultural identity.

Not that this behavior is entirely the sole province of the French. Most European countries want to guard their national sovereignty, their national culture, their national prerogatives and their protected national labor markets. We’re just as bad and just as schizophrenic. One moment we’re talking about free trade and globalization and in the next minute we’re all a bunch of protectionists screaming about outsourcing jobs and the plight of the poor American farmer. Everybody wants equality, we just want to be more equal than the next guy, and that’s probably why most of the French voted against the EU constitution.

It’s not all bad though and nor is the dream of a singularly unified Europe totally dead. I think what happened is that the politicians sold a radical idea to the people of Europe and when said people had questions their collective answers seems to have been, “mmm just trust us OK.” That never goes over very well with even a moderately informed public. Instead what this latest setback actually demonstrates is that there is a great desire among ordinary voters to have real input on the future of the EU. Ordinary voting Europeans were not sold on the nuts and bolts of the EU for far too long. Going forward the EU leaders should not retreat once more behind closed doors or call off the political process but instead make more of an effort to lobby the people behind what could be the future of global politics. They should be like President Bush and his campaign to dismantle Social Security only with less deception and the promise of abject poverty for the middle class.

Once again, all is not lost for the EU. All 25 members have signed the treaty, and all are committed to debating and ratifying it by November 2006. Nine states have already said, “Yes,” including two of the largest, Germany and Spain. Their views should not simply be dismissed because France has voted No. Nor should those of the countries yet to decide. If anything this would be an opportunity for other countries to take more of a lead in both domestic and global affairs rather than deferring to the leadership of a chauvinistic and opportunistic France.

In the immediate future, this does radically set back any real impact Europe has on Middle Eastern or Asian affairs. A unified Europe could have pushed aside an increasingly aggressive America and diplomatically resolved a number of international hot spots thus placing themselves in a very important role in global affairs. However, I contend that countries such as Iran and North Korea can hardly take the EU seriously when the will of the majority is not behind them. The US executive branch may be cynical and apt to mislead the public into war but at least when they do it results in having the will of the majority at your back…at least for a short time.

The old world is at a crucial juncture. As the Middle East and Asia slowly but methodically climb the ladder of development and the world’s economies become ever more entwined with one another, it may come to pass that Europe will continue to sink in importance. Markets have limits and if Europe is not careful the world may see that they do not need Europe’s markets, products or influence. If this happens the French will have more to worry about then their own petty nationalism.

I Wish I Was Dead : )

Star Wars Horoscope for Gemini

Like most Geminis, you are a playful little creature. You tend to be extremely curious, craving knowledge but sometimes having a short attention span. For the most part, you are charming and loveable. But at times, you can seem scattered and high-strung. Star wars character you are most like: Ewoks

What is Your Star Wars Horoscope?

Europeans Frustrated by State of Affairs

Ever since George W. Bush took office in 2001 and exponentially so since 9/11 much has been made of the perceived anti-Americanism in Europe. While I'm sure much of it was amplified by the war in Iraq, I believe what underlined said anit-Americanism was plain old envy. People are bitter in Europe...well people are bitter everywhere including America, but I think there's a level of impotence felt by the average European citizen that mutates into invective aimed at a conveinent target, America. Americans do it too. It's very easy for the average American to blame all the woes of our country on Muslims when only a fraction of the total population are murderous extremists. It's very easy to blame all of our unemployment woes on Mexicans rather that understand the complexities of our economy. I remember not too long that Japan was the target of our ire. I remember angry white dudes with bats smashing Japanese cars. It's a part of human nature to want to shift blame for your own problems to a safer target than actually make needed changes.

European-style socialism has made it uncompetitive. More and more countries are quickly scaling the development ladder and more and more will eventually start making their way up the ladder. If you read "The End of Poverty" by Jeffery Sachs, the part of the prescription for success is always the same; liberal economies as opposed to fixed economies. The collective psyche of Europe has definitely suffered due to back to back world wars followed up by 50 years of possible invasion by the Soviets. Fear, victimhood and exhaustion can make liberals of us all and I don't mean that as an insult. Every collective decision that Europe has made has seemingly been done as to prevent the condition for yet another war or to elevate yet another hostile superpower (ie the Soviet Union). Such gun-shyness has stifled that continent both economically and politically as well as psychologically, in my opinion. The following article from the AP seems to allude to the same idea:

What's eating Europe? In theory, these should be the continent's glory days. Already united by a common currency, flag, legislature and more, the European Union's 450 million citizens now are looking at a landmark constitution that many leaders insist will translate to a greater voice in world affairs and the means to achieve even greater prosperity. In practice, there's an overwhelming sense of doubt, disillusionment and just plain disgruntlement - epitomized by polls that show France probably heading toward a rejection of the charter in a weekend referendum.

From Berlin to Brussels, a funk born of frustration with high unemployment, lackluster economies and perceived political paralysis is feeding a nagging feeling that Europe's moment may irretrievably have passed it by.

At the heart of the anxiety is an identity crisis: Many Europeans desperately want to preserve their generous social welfare systems, but realize that doing so puts them in danger of being left behind by the more cutthroat market economies of the United States and, increasingly, China and India.

"We are not equipped to deal with the challenges that are coming up," said Angelo Foriglio, a 27-year-old art student in Rome. "We need to enter into the American and Asian mentality. We have created the European Union and should think as one entity, as a whole, which is what America does."

For now, a bloc that's less a United States of Europe than an uneasy hodgepodge of 25 nations is united more in gloom than anything else.

The malaise is laid bare in widespread confusion and ambivalence over the constitution, which must be ratified by the people or parliaments of all 25 EU countries for it to take effect. Polls suggest the historic charter is likely to face a humiliating defeat Sunday in France - one of the architects of the European project - and another "no" three days later in the Netherlands.

Italy's top financial daily, Il Sole-24 Ore, captured the despondency with a front-page editorial this week bemoaning the end of a "model of society that was believed to last forever."

Even Britain's left-leaning Guardian newspaper published a commentary warning that Europeans must awaken to the realities of the new global era.

"The great challenge for our part of the world is to make the transition from the national and European protectionism of the 20th century to achieve competitiveness in the Asian and American-dominated global economy of the 21st," it said. "No nation will succeed by opting out."

With joblessness running at 12 percent in Germany and 10 percent in France, and the strong euro currency making goods and services expensive both for export and domestic consumption, the EU's top two economic engines are sputtering.
French President Jacques Chirac, waging an all-out campaign to persuade his divided countrymen to ratify the constitution, has promised it will help preserve the European economic model.

He spoke of dire consequences of a no vote to the treaty - planned as the next big step in a 50-year process of European integration.

"It would open a period of divisions, of doubts, of uncertainties," Chirac warned in the address from the presidential Elysee Palace, his last of a tumultuous campaign. "What a responsibility if France, a founder nation of Europe, took the risk of breaking the union of our continent."

Chirac's assurances aside, others suspect that the EU has been drifting toward a more free-market outlook - and that the treaty, with its provisions for streamlining the decision-making process, would continue that trend.

In a gamble to stay in power, embattled Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for early elections after alienating many Germans by chipping away at social protections to revive Germany's economy. Germany, the left-leaning Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily said in a withering assessment, is "sinking into a morass of self-doubt."

Chirac is also reaping a whirlwind of recriminations - a new poll showed his popularity ratings have plummeted to 39 percent.

Many in the "no" camp reflect the so-called "French paradox": a desire to be a global economic player, yet still retain a cultural and political identity distinct from the Anglo-Saxon approach rejected in France as domineering.

They may not be able to have it both ways, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier warned this week. "If we don't get this constitution," he said, "this would lead to a European political breakdown."

Anders Hellner, an analyst with the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, offers a bleak assessment. Much of Western Europe, he contends, is too overburdened with entrenched social costs and aging infrastructure to compete with the Asian tiger economies and the cheaper goods and outsourced services they can offer.

"This is a giant problem," he said. "Europe has not yet found replacements for the old industries. Some say that there won't be any car industry at all in Europe in the future. Europe has not yet given enough thought to how we are going to earn our living."

Not all Europeans, of course, are pessimists.

"The United States of Europe is the future," Daniela Oliveira, a 39-year-old Portuguese, said in London. "I think people forget that the EU is still a baby. We need to invest in it and give it time."

But Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic, an EU newcomer, believes many Europeans no longer feel they're in control - a sentiment espoused by those who fear the constitution will mute the voices of individual member states.

"Many people still believe that they are not true masters of their destiny," he said.

Public Campaign Action Fund: Texas Judge Finds DeLay's Political Committee Guilty of Violating Campaign Finance Law

To my fellow conservatives, being in the majority gives no man the right to run roughshod over our laws and principles. Tom DeLay may be one of many politicians whom have abuse their power and the issues his PAC have been found guilty may be no different than what others routinely do. That doesn't mean we the people should just let it stand. It means when we're done with DeLay we should go about the business of throwing the rest of the bums out on both sides of the aisle. Here's the latest from the US Newswire:

The watchdog group Public Campaign Action Fund released the following statement from its National Campaigns Director, David Donnelly, regarding today's ruling against Tom DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC):

"In a court of law DeLay's TRMPAC was found to have concealed from the public record more than half a million dollars in corporate campaign donations, in violation of state law.

"This decision, with an impartial judge and all the evidence laid out, further underscores the need for the House Ethics Committee to appoint an outside counsel. The public will not trust Tom DeLay's cronies in Congress to do what Judge Hart did today; specifically, he ruled on the facts, not the politics, of the case.

"Americans from across the nation need to ask themselves yet again whether they want a Congress led by a man with countless ethical violations, scandals, donors to repay, and, now, a guilty verdict against his own political committee.

"Most importantly, this finding of guilt should give all of Tom DeLay's Republican colleagues in Congress pause in considering the political future of their chosen Majority Leader."

Public Campaign Action Fund is a national nonprofit watchdog organization dedicated to working to advance comprehensive reform of the campaign finance system to level the playing field for all Americans, and to holding elected officials accountable for the favors they do for their political contributors.

China warns North Korea over nuclear tests

You want a mutli-polar world? Well this may be the first step in actually getting there. It looks as if the Chinese and the South Koreans are getting off their duffs and backing the slightly saner side of the North Korea nuclear debate. There are many ways to look at this. It could be a wonderful thing that China is asserting itself as a regional superpower and it could evolve to become a true counterweight to the US. It could also be the beginning of a slow head on collision between China and the United States (as some commentors on this blog have suggested). My philosophy is that if enough people in a country have plenty of money and distractions they are less likely to want to go to war anywhere in the world. China is on the fast track to economic development success. It would be foolhardy to risk what can easily be gotten through peace and trade on trying to sieze the US (which would be next to impossible). What does China have to gain by launching a missile at Washington or NY or Los Angeles etc? Only madmen think the taking the US headon is a winning gamble and while China's human rights record is deplorable, I don't see their leadership as particularly insane. I think the following story illustrates that point (in my opinion). Here's the story from the Australian IT:

CHINA has reportedly warned its ally North Korea of the "grave consequences" of conducting a nuclear weapons test.

Quoting sources from the stalled six-party negotiations, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported the Chinese had delivered the Pyongyang regime its sharpest warning against exploding a nuclear device.

"The Chinese Government has strongly warned and urged against the carrying out of a nuclear test," according to a source quoted by Kyodo, who also said the diplomatically menacing phrase "grave consequences" had been used.

That report follows a meeting in Beijing between South Korean opposition leader Park Geun-hye and two key Chinese officials - Wang Jiarui, head of the Communist Party of China's international department and Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan - where Ms Park said they described a North Korean nuclear test as a red line.

Neither account suggests what action Beijing would take if the red line were crossed, though dropping Chinese opposition to UN Security Council sanctions against the North is generally assumed to be an immediate consequence.

It now appears both South Korea and China have privately but clearly warned Pyongyang against a test explosion, though both governments publicly downplay the risk.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun confirmed yesterday he would make a special trip to Washington on June 10 to discuss with President George W. Bush a strategy for bringing North Korea back into the six-party talks it has boycotted since September.

"President Roh's visit to the United States is expected to be an important opportunity for the two leaders to discuss and seek a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue, as close consultations among related countries continue," a South Korean presidential spokesman said.

The visit also appears to be part of an attempt at South Korean bridge-mending after months of tension between the Bush and Roh administrations.

The South Koreans have persistently criticised US refusals to make concessions to Pyongyang to get the six-party talks back on track and rejected proposals for direct economic or Security Council sanctions agains Pyongyang.

US and Japanese officials have privately criticised South Korean "appeasement" which they say has complicated efforts to confront Pyongyang with a credible ultimatum to return to talks over its nuclear weapons programs.

South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, who is also Mr Roh's top national security official, will visit Tokyo tomorrow to discuss nuclear developments in North Korea.

Meanwhile the Americans are awaiting the Pyongyang regime's promised response to a proposal for resuming the six-party talks put by US special envoy Joseph DeTrani at a New York meeting with the North's UN ambassador, Pak Kil-yon.

The meeting on May 13 was the first direct contact between US and North Korean officials in more than six months.

US officials said they had made no concessions but repeated assurances by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Bush administration recognised North Korea's sovereignty and had no intention to invade.

Suicidal Ideations

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

I’ve been yelling and screaming about Iran for so long now I’m starting to go hoarse. It’s pretty obvious that the strategy for US protection is to have a controlling interest in Middle Eastern affairs. I’ve been echoing the sentiments of many top officials for months that have said that the next target is Iran, possibly Syria. Most of the time I don’t even register North Korea on my radar because their threats against America to me have always been the temper tantrum of a dying country. One might say they have kept the world hostage by waiving potential nuclear missiles around and demanding that said world allow them to go on as they have been.

According to the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, “North Korea's missile development programs are primarily motivated by a desire on the part of the military factions in control of this program to earn foreign exchange through exports for their own profit and for the perpetuation of their power internally. Thus, in order to curb these programs, the United States would have to buy off the factions involved as part of a larger strategy of economic engagement, including the gradual phasing out of Korean War economic sanctions on non-strategic trade and investment. Negotiating meaningful restraints on missile development would require direct U.S. military contacts with the North Korean armed forces, which were proposed to me (Selig S. Harrison) in Pyongyang in September, 1995; to Kenneth Quinones of the State Department in July, 1996; to former Senator Sam Nunn and former Ambassador James Laney in their August, 1997 visit; and to Senator Carl Levin in his December, 1997 visit.

We’ve coddled and cajoled them, presumably under the notion that North Korea will be restrained by China and Russia and for the reasons stated above. You can imagine my shock when as I’m Google searching news items I come across this number from the AP:

North Korea on Tuesday refused to rule out a pre-emptive attack, even amid signs it may be willing to return to the nuclear bargaining table.

The North poured out anti-American rhetoric - a tactic it has used in the past before entering negotiations - by claiming that Washington's "hostile policies" led it to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent and warning against any attack to dislodge its leadership.

"The United States should be aware that the choice of a pre-emptive attack is not only theirs," the North's official news agency quoted the state-run newspaper Minju Joson as saying. "To stand against force with force is our unswerving method of response."

Most assuredly there are folks whom were vehemently against the Iraq war saying in reference to North Korea, “Well you reap what you sow!” Many people believe that because of the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emption, we have spooked N. Korea into high paranoia and they are blanketing themselves in nuclear arms as a deterrent against our mad regime. The question then becomes, “At what point does mutually assured destruction end and suicide begin?”

When I read the above article I began to research what has been written about N. Korea’s potential to launch an ICBM at American continental targets. According to a Reuters article written on April 28th of this year, “North Korea has the ability to mount a nuclear missile on a long-range missile and the communist state could hit U.S. territory, including Hawaii, Alaska and the U.S. Pacific Northwest, the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said on Thursday.”

Some reports have North Korea’s nuclear potential as being quite high. “N Korea has deployed over 300 Nodong-x (medium range - Japan and Okinawa) and close to a thousand Scud-B/C missiles (short range - S Korea) all of which can carry nuclear or chemical warheads. NoDong-1's have a range of 1,300km and NoDong-2's have a range of 1,500-2,000km. N Korea is believed to have a limited number of Taepodong-x ICBMs (long range - America) hidden in underground tunnels.

The Taepo Dong-2 ICBM has a maximum range of 6,200 miles. The US DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) estimates that the missile has a range of about 4,650 miles with large nuclear warheads and 6,200 miles with smaller warheads. At the extreme of 6,200 miles, the missile could reach all major West Coast cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego,) and reach as Far East as Chicago.” (Kimsoft.com)

If there is more than a real hint that North Korea plans to lob a ballistic missile then the Korean Peninsula will cease to exist. According to latest issue of Executive Intelligence Review, “So as to remove any ambiguity from the Bush-Cheney nuclear madness, on March 15, 2005, the Pentagon placed on its public website a draft version of Joint Publication 3-12, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations." This 69-page report made clear that the Bush Administration has fully integrated nuclear weapons into the conventional war fighting. The Executive Summary stated: "For many contingencies, existing and emerging conventional capabilities will meet anticipated requirements; however, some contingencies will remain where the most appropriate response may include the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide U.S. leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy."”

The situation is a bit schizophrenic. In the same story you have the North Koreans threatening a pre-emptive strike while a paragraph later they are willing to return to talks. Are they stalling? What is the real intent here? I would like to believe as I have since Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech that Kim Jong-Il’s threats of nuclear war are nothing more than empty rhetoric. However, for him to think he can attack the US and survive is simply madness. It is suicide and surely he must know that. If he doesn’t then we’re in more trouble than I think we realize. There’s nothing more dangerous than a crazy person with suicidal ideations and nothing left to lose. Just ask the nearest Islamofacist.

New Review: Disneywar

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

“Disneywar” is more than just a story about corporate malfeasance or executive financial abuse. Stewart writes about Eisner in such a way that he becomes a character in a Shakespearean tragedy and in the end when he finally falls from grace you cannot help but feel somewhat sorry for the guy. This isn’t Enron or WorldCom but rather, this is “Macbeth.” And along the way is a treasure trove of executives, animators, producers, Disney family members, and other assorted talent who are every bit as a dramatic and entertaining as anything a Disney fan might see on the silver screen.

Through Stewart’s narrative we are given an almost day by day accounting of the 20-year rise and fall of Eisner as head mouse. In the beginning, Michael Eisner was a guy who wanted to tell stories, an entertainer. He made his bones at ABC and then had a good deal of success at Paramount. He had built himself a tidy enough resume that when Disney needed a facelift and new leadership they openly courted him for the top position.

World Bank Board Unanimously Confirms Paul D. Wolfowitz as 10th Bank President

Somehow I managed to miss this story when it went to press on March 31st. Though I suppose I shouldn't feel bad, apparently the mainstream press missed it as well. As I Google searched for some confirmation that Wolfowitz did indeed get the job, I realized that there were not a lot of articles to choose from, at least not recent ones. The confirmation of Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank is one of two controversial Bush appointments in the arena of world affairs. Folks like Scott Ritter and James Wolcott have opined that the reason Rice, Wolfowitz and John Bolton were nominated to the State Department, the World Bank and the UN respectively were for the purposes of the undermining them and rendering them ineffectual. "Destroy them," that's the phrase that's being bandied about on a variety of websites. It's certainly plausible.

I just have one question, why is it our only choices in politics are between folks who either want to raise Europe and destroy America (quasi-socialist liberals) or folks who want to destroy everything except their own house (neo-cons)?

Here's the story from March 31st:

The Executive Directors of the World Bank met today to select a new President of the World Bank following Mr. James D. Wolfensohn’s ten years of service as President of the World Bank. The Board expressed its deep appreciation for his outstanding leadership of the World Bank Group and for his passion for poverty reduction, the Bank’s core mandate.
The Executive Directors unanimously selected Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, effective June 1, 2005, to succeed Mr. Wolfensohn as President of the World Bank, when the latter retires on May 31, 2005. As an international civil servant of a multilateral organization, the President of the World Bank is ex officio President of the International Development Association (IDA) and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the Administrative Council of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Prior to the selection of the President, Executive Directors had discussions with Mr. Wolfowitz on issues related to the Bank‘s policies, programs and ongoing mission of poverty reduction. Issues discussed by Executive Directors included development strategy; the Bank’s role and multilateral character; synergies within the Bank Group; the financial sustainability of IBRD and IDA; the focus on development results and governance issues, including the fight against corruption; and issues related to the Bank’s organization and effectiveness, including the diversity of management and staff, and the process of selecting the President.

Mr. Wolfowitz, a United States national, currently serves as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was previously Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University. He held a number of significant posts within the U.S. government. In addition to U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, he served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, and as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Mr. Wolfowitz has also served as Head of the U.S. State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs and in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, as well as in the US Bureau of the Budget. He taught previously at Yale (1970-73) and John Hopkins (1981). Mr. Wolfowitz has received numerous distinguished government service awards.

Mr. Wolfowitz has a doctorate in political science from the University of Chicago.

Publishers Protest Google Library Project

This reminds me of the battles being fought between studios and the developers of peer-to-peer software. Technology marches on and the old guard of media is slow to catch up and then when they do it results in lawsuits flying everywhere. Personally, I'm all for having every bit of available information at ones fingertips for free. I think it's a great idea. I love the bands that produce and record all their own music and then post in on the internet for public consumption. I love the folks who shoot their own movies and do much of the same thing. This is all in the spirit of punk-D.I.Y. (do it yourself) that defined an entire generation and redefined the meaning of talent. Of course I am a bit biased, being a blogger after all. However, my own personal stake in this aside, a society with unlimited access to information is a society that can stave itself from utter destruction in my opinion. I think it is absolutely necessarry for a project like the one Google is putting together and I hope to see more in the future. It kind of reminds me of how the old Catholic religious order would control people and the meaning of Christianity by limiting access to the Holy Bible before the invention of the printing press. Once the average Joe could read the thing for himself, people could readily challenge what it was the local religious authorities were saying.

Here's the story:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A group of academic publishers is challenging Google Inc. (GOOG)'s plan to scan millions of library books into its Internet search engine index, highlighting fears that the ambitious project will violate copyrights and stifle future sales.

In a letter scheduled to be delivered to Google Monday, the Association of American University Presses described the online search engine's library project as a troubling financial threat to its membership - 125 nonprofit publishers of academic journals and scholarly books.

The plan "appears to involve systematic infringement of copyright on a massive scale," wrote Peter Givler, the executive director for the New York-based trade group.

The association asked Google to respond to a list of 16 questions seeking more information about how the company plans to protect copyrights.

Two unnamed publishers already asked Google to withhold its copyrighted material from the scanners, but the company hasn't complied with the requests, Givler wrote.

Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages left Monday.

The association of nonprofit publishers is upset because Google has indicated it will scan copyright-protected books from three university libraries - Harvard, Michigan and Stanford.

Those three universities also operate publishing arms represented by the group complaining about Google's 5-month-old "Libraries for Print" project. That means the chances of the association suing Google are "extremely remote," Givler said in an interview Monday.

Still, Givler said the association is very worried about Google's scanning project.

"The more we talked about it with our lawyers, the more questions bubbled up," he said. "And so far Google hasn't provided us with any good answers."

Google also is scanning books stored in the New York Public Library and Oxford in England, but those two libraries so far are only providing Google with "public domain" works - material no longer protected by copyrights.

Federal law considers the free distribution of some copyrighted material to be permissible "fair use." The company has told the nonprofit publishers that its library program meets this criteria.

Some for-profit publishers also are taking a closer look at Google's library-scanning project.

"We are exploring issues and opportunities with Google, including the potential impact of this program on our authors, our customers and our business," said John Wiley & Sons Inc. spokeswoman Susan Spilka.

Copyright concerns aren't the only issue casting a cloud over Google's library-scanning project. The project also has drawn criticism in Europe for placing too much emphasis on material from the United States.

One of Google's most popular features - a section that compiles news stories posted on thousands of Web sites - already has triggered claims of copyright infringement. Agence France-Presse, a French news agency, is suing for damages of at least $17.5 million, alleging "Google News" is illegally capitalizing on its copyrighted material.

The latest complaints about Google are being driven by university-backed publishers who fear there will be little reason to buy their books if Google succeeds in its effort to create a virtual reading room.

The university presses depend on books sales and other licensing agreements for most of their revenue, making copyright protections essential to their survival.

Google has turned its search engine into a moneymaking machine, generating a $369 million profit during the first three months of this year alone. The company is counting on its library scanning project to attract even more visitors to its site so it can display more ads and potentially boost its earnings even more.

Investors already adore Google. The company's shares surged $13.84, or 5.7 percent, to close Monday at $255.45 on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Earlier in the session, the shares traded as high as $258.10 - a new peak since the company went public nine months ago at $85.

Abbas heads to U.S., wants Bush to pressure Israel

I often hear people give credit to former President Bill Clinton for steering this country through unprecedented economic growth and prosperity during his time in office. However, most people who study technology and economics have stated that he happened to be in office when the tech boom and the internet boom hit at once and that economic growth occurred despite his being president, not because of it. It may come to pass that people will be saying the same thing about peace between Palestine and Israel and the presidency of George W. Bush. He's had the good fortune of being president in a post-Arafat world and now with Abbas in control, there's a very good chance that the region may actually settle into something that resembles a moderately peaceful region. When you combine the baby steps toward democracy in Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia with a crawl toward peace in Israel and Palestine, Bush's legacy may just end up being that he brought democracy and prosperity to the Middle East. Critics and cynics will say that all of the above happened despite Bush, not because of him to wit I can only answer that they said the same about Clinton.

Here's a story about Abbas' first visit to the White House from Reuters:

RAMALLAH, May 23 (Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants his first White House visit this week to yield assurances from George W. Bush of pressure on Israel to start heeding a "road map" peace plan, aides and diplomats say.
But Abbas has scaled back expectations of concrete promises from Bush of "final-status" negotiations on a Palestinian state once Israel evacuates the occupied Gaza Strip in three months.

Thursday's meeting has great symbolic importance as the first by a Palestinian president since 2000, when Middle East peace negotiations collapsed into violence for which U.S. officials often blamed Abbas's late predecessor Yasser Arafat.

Washington, keen to embark on the long-stalled "road map", has welcomed Abbas's vow to seek statehood by peaceful means as well as a ceasefire he declared with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in February and persuaded militants to respect.

But diplomatic momentum has diminished.

A spate of truce violations by Gaza militants, who say they are avenging Israeli assaults, have exposed Abbas's shaky grip. Meanwhile, Israel has suspended ice-breaking gestures like military pullbacks in the occupied West Bank.

Abbas wants to ensure there is movement towards talks on a state after Israel scraps Jewish settlements in Gaza -- slated for August -- and for that he needs Bush's support.

But Abbas's aides said he did not now anticipate a Bush pledge of talks on "final-status" peace issues like borders. Israel rejects such talks until Abbas subdues militant factions, a precondition for carrying out the "road map".

"Abbas doesn't have high expectations that Bush would commit to push Israel to enter final-status negotiations after it pulls out of Gaza," a senior Palestinian official said.

"But he does want assurances from Bush that he will make Israel implement the road map after the Gaza pullout (to set the stage for) a sovereign, territorially contiguous state."

He meant mainly a halt to Israel's expansion of large West Bank settlements. This contravenes the road map, but Sharon cites a Bush pledge to him in 2004 that Israel would not have to cede all the West Bank under any realistic peace deal.

POSSIBLE MILITANT THREAT

Abbas is expected to impress on Bush the threat he believes he will face from militants, especially the growing Islamist Hamas movement, if Palestinian hopes for a viable state through negotiations are dashed after a Gaza pullout.
Palestinians welcome the prospect of taking over Gaza. But Sharon has made clear Israel will keep larger tracts of the West Bank as the trade-off, absorbing what Palestinians say would constitute the centre of a future state.
Many analysts say that if Sharon slams the door to talks after uprooting all 21 settlements from Gaza and four of 120 in the West Bank, militants will resume major attacks.

Israel says no road map process is possible without an end to Palestinian militant activity. Palestinians say Abbas will have difficulty stopping it unless Israel also meets obligations under the plan, such as freezing West Bank settlement activity.
Washington has praised new Palestinian security reforms and wants Israel to help Abbas weaken the appeal of militants by doing more to ease restrictions on civilian movement in the West Bank. Both matters are initial "road map" requirements.
"But the Americans are not ready to confront Israel on other sensitive broader issues that could pose a problem for Sharon or disrupt the disengagement plan," one Western diplomat said.

Nationalist Jews are escalating a protest campaign against the pullout, denouncing it as "a reward for terrorism", and opinion poll support for the plan has slipped a little in reaction to fresh barrages on Gaza settlements by militants.

ISRAEL TO PRESS BUSH

Sharon's top security adviser Dov Weisglass will precede Abbas to Washington on Tuesday to urge the White House not to promise the Palestinian leader any concrete steps towards statehood, a senior Israeli political source said.
"Weisglass will explain to the Americans that there are growing fears in Israel of 'Hamas-stan' in Gaza after we leave, and that giving Abbas a prize before he has stamped out terrorism would damage Sharon's case for proceeding with disengagement," the source told Reuters.

Abbas will bring Bush up to date on reforms, praised by U.S. officials, in which he has retired force commanders who ignored his orders to rein in militants, merged feuding security agencies and tried to recruit militants as policemen.
"President Abbas will try to get the message across that changing the culture of terrorism works better than (forcibly) dismantling the infrastructure of militant groups. Luring those groups into the mainstream will moderate them," Rafiq Husseini, chief of staff of Abbas's office, told Reuters.

The Politics of Star Wars

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

It would seem that one cannot enjoy a good movie today without it becoming entangled in partisan politics. “Million Dollar Baby,” was mutated from story about the relationship between a man and his daughter into a strictly a movie about euthanasia. The Drudge Report targeted “Sin City,” as anti-catholic because the main villain was a cannibal priest. Drudge even had the audacity to imply that the creators of “Sin City,” purposely debuted the movie around the time of the Pope’s passing. Of course we all remember the brouhaha caused by Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” and how it’s specific purpose was to impact the forthcoming presidential election.

With the release of Lucas’ final Star Wars installment, “Revenge of the Sith,” there have been a bevy of stories drawing parallels from the fantasy world to our own political arena. For example, the New York Times reported that Moveon.org was preparing to spend $150,000 to run advertisements on CNN comparing Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, to Chancellor Palpatine. Apparently changing the rules on filibusters is the same as fabricating a civil war for the sole purpose of creating a galactic empire.

Conservatives are just as bad. Some sites are accusing Lucas of taking potshots at President Bush vis-à-vis the War on Terror when Anakin, on his way to becoming the evil Darth Vader, warns, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," which is reminiscent of Bush’s post-9/11 ultimatum, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." In addition to that nonsense there’s a site called Pabaah.com that has opted to boycott Lucas and his films because apparently in their eyes Lucas in the next Jane Fonda.

There is no doubt that Lucas is a peacenik as are most Hollywood types and most assuredly he would have a bias against perceived American imperialism. He’s stated that he had first devised the "Star Wars" story during the Vietnam War. "The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable," he told an audience at the Cannes Film Festival. All artists draw from what they see around them and it’s going to irrevocably framed by their inherent biases. That is perfectly normal and I personally don’t hold that against Lucas. While Lucas may have weaved a thread of underlying liberal ethos into the arc of the Star Wars story, it certainly wasn’t the primary message and it’s not even very noticeable unless you purposely look for it.

This sudden urge to use “Sith” as weapon between political ideologues to bludgeon each other strikes me as a bit absurd. By Lucas’ own admission, when he made Star Wars, it was a tribute to the action adventure serials of yesteryear. This was pirates, wizards, knights, princess’ and evil sorcerers but in space. While he wrote the Empire as a militaristic institution, his overall purpose was to make a kids fairytale, not to editorialize the Vietnam War or in this case, the Iraq War.

Much has been made of a line whispered by Padme toward the end of the movie. "This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause," bemoans Padme Amidala as the galactic Senate cheers dictator-in-waiting Palpatine while he announces a crusade against the Jedi. Whatever. Nearly the entire series paints democracy pure as the driven snow and the Empire as not having a single positive element to it. If you were to apply that theory to actual countries, say France and Saudi Arabia respectively, you’d find yourself with severe gaps in the argument.

At the end of the day, this is purely a work of fantasy. It is candy to be enjoyed by young and all alike. The whole idea of fantasy is to allow people to escape from real life and life in this magical world where physics and logic cease to exist. What made Star Wars work most of us as children was that it was just a fun movie. The characters were entertaining and action was exciting. Were there underlying messages about religion and politics in the narrative? Sure. Did most of us youngster’s care at the time? Absolutely not. If you were to ask children today what was there favorite part of, “The Phantom Menace,” you’d be hard pressed to find a kid that answered, “I thought the economic underpinnings of the Trade Federation blockade of Naboo were a fabulous metaphor for today’s use of blockades and trade sanctions.” Most would just say they thought pod race kicked ass and that the double bladed lightsaber was the coolest thing ever.

The liberal politics are there simply as a garnish. It’s extra to give the plot, good versus evil, some substance. I think people need to stop running everything through the prism of George W. Bush and just learn to enjoy the simply pleasures in life.

May the force be with you. Boba Fett in ’08!

Middle East Quick Hits

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

A couple of things have happened in the Middle East over the past couple of days that I found pretty compelling. I thought rather than trying to do individual posts for each story I would sum them all up in one article. The one thread that runs through them all is this schizophrenic jig the Middle East seems to be doing toward democracy. I’ve written before that countries in the Middle East seem to do one step forward and two steps back when it comes to progressive movements toward peace, stability and democracy. US involvement throughout the region certainly plays a part in how these countries conduct themselves, for better or worse. Many people, depending on their political point of view, will argue that the changes we are seeing are happening despite US military intervention and make the argument that left in isolation, the Middle East will evolve toward regional stability and cooperation all on it’s own. The other half, suggest that left to their own devices, the Middle East will become consumed by fanatics who will eventually declare open warfare on the West. They further argue that US military intervention is the sole catalyst of change in that region. I would suggest that as usual, the answer is little from column A and a little from column B. While finding the root cause of why these events are happening is certainly interesting, I’m more fascinated by the fact that they are happening at all.

Iranian Minister Makes Historic Iraq Trip:

First and probably the most important story is on Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, making a historic trip to Baghdad on Tuesday. During this trip he met with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, President Jalal Talabani and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. The big headline to date that came out these meetings is his vow to secure his country's borders to stop potential terrorists from entering Iraq. He also appears to be denying that the Iranian government is supporting the insurgency and stated that, "situation would have been much worse" if Tehran were actually supporting the terrorists as the US has claimed. Reading the article I smirked and thought that our government should take a page from Kharrazi’s rhetoric as he added, “We believe securing the borders between the two countries means security to the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Had I been drinking my usual evening glass of Arizona Green Tea I would have done a surefire comedic spit take when I read that line.

God only knows if he is telling the truth here. Back when the Shiites were rebelling under Moktada al-Sadr, it was reported that his followers were being supported by Iran/Hezbollah to undermine US efforts in Iraq and drive the occupying force out of the country a la the Soviets in Afghanistan. Since then Sadr hasn’t been in the news much and I haven’t found too many articles supporting Hezbollah’s role in the current wave of violence. From what I’ve been reading, the violence seems to be coming from the Sunni wing of disaffected Iraqi’s.

The other issue is that the Iranians most probably are looking to shore up an alliance with their Shiite brethren in Iraq’s new government rather than try to dismantle it with non-stop terrorist violence. It would appear that Iraq has become the maiden being wooed and fought over by the US and Iran in an effort to assert dominance in the reason. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in Iraq-Iranian relations as the months wear on.

Saudis Say They Have Enough Oil for Globe:

Hot Dog! Now make the with the wind/solar power plants and hydrogen cars.

This isn’t the first time I’ve read a story like this. A story that was buried in one paper stated that the problem wasn’t that Saudi Arabia doesn’t have enough oil but that they don’t have the technology to get to it all cheaply. Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi who stated that his country has plenty of oil to meet global demand for the foreseeable future endorsed this yesterday. He stated that Saudi Arabia would raise production if prices rose too high. Al-Naimi echoed some of the Bush administrations position on energy (big surprise) we he stated that the challenge for the global energy market is greater than just increasing crude oil capacity. Specifically, he that the industry must remove refining bottlenecks, improve efficiency and conservation, and provide better data on supply and demand, among other things, until the world no longer relies on hydrocarbons to meet its energy needs. Lastly, oil producers would continue to rely on evolving technology to help producers extract oil at lower costs and use energy more efficiently.

This may have been the fruit of a meeting between President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah back in April. The Saudi’s have tried, as much as a dictatorship can try I suppose, to help the US in the War on Terror. While I’m sure neither the Saudi’s nor the oil companies are completely innocent of putting the average oil consumer over a barrel (cue rim shot), I think the real issue is the increased demand for oil among other countries rising on the development ladder. Most people when they make this argument name China and India but they aren’t the only countries with burgeoning oil needs. The Saudi royals must realize, and I’m sure they do, that it is in their best interest to placate the US when feasible rather than purposely make our lives more difficult. I think this story serves as a sign that the Saudi’s are not trying to distance themselves from Washington despite other unresolved issues like Israel/Palestine.

Historic decision to allow Kuwaiti women to vote:

I’m thrilled about this story. The Kuwaiti parliament voted 35 for and 23 against women being allowed to vote and run for parliamentary polls despite fierce resistance by Islamist and conservative MPs. This is certainly a step in the right direction. It may take another 100 years but who knows, we may yet see something like a liberal democracy in the Middle East. Hopefully, despite Islamic holdouts, the greater population of that region will come to understand that you can only better your civilization when you increase your homegrown by potential in allowing women to participate in civil affairs (despite Ann Coulters negative opinion of women voters).

Egypt’s Nazif optimistic on free trade pact with US:

The United States and Egypt are once again looking at negotiating a free trade agreement but haven’t decided when to begin, according to Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif.

Economic experts report that a comprehensive free trade pact between the two countries could boost the output of Egypt’s economy by three percent. The US on the other hand would benefit far less financially. However, economic gain may not be the primary reason for wanting to establish a free trade agreement Egypt. The US might benefit from better relations with an Arab state that is a political, economic and cultural role model for the Middle East. One would assume that the more consumer driven societies develop throughout the world, the greater our safety will increase. Essentially this may be one the many PR campaigns that can boost our image among states that hold us in such contempt.

So other than a polio epidemic in Yemen and some saber rattling at Syria to close their borders into Iraq, that’s the news out of the Middle East for this week. Like my pappy used to say, “It ain't half bad…but it ain't half good neither.”

80 PERCENT FALURE: A Brief Analysis of the Casey Family Programs

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

I've been working in foster care or with children in need of services since 2001. I started in a group home in Massachusetts, and then moved to Brooklyn and now I work in Miami, Florida. I've said a few times on this blog in the past that it's open season on children because there are not sufficient systems in place to protect them and there most probably never will be. The best system of course is the one where two parents actually care for the children they bring into this world and place their needs above their own until the child(ren) becomes an adult. Of course while there are some great parent couples out there, between divorce and the unintended consequences of the "Me" generation, most of my job consists of picking up the pieces of parental systems that have disintegrated.

Some parents terribly abuse their children and it's in the best interest of that child to be removed. There's not much you can do with a family where the child is a victim of sexual abuse by a parent or a parent that is on drugs. I remember in one case a few years ago where a father took a wrench to his daughter’s skull, damaging her brain and blinding her in one eye. It's a testament to any God you believe in that she didn't die on the spot. In those cases foster care is a necessity. However, I've also seen women in public housing call child protective services on each other out of spite. Women have admitted to me that they use CPS as a proxy to cause harm to other families they don't like for any number of reasons. I've also met some CPS workers that think their job is to tear families apart without giving them the time or the resources to stay together. As one client said to me, "They just snatch babies!"

The following report states that foster care is an 80 percent failure. We continue to feed the beast instead of investing in trying to keep families together. More often than not I've seen families that with intensive services (like the program I work for now) can stay together and get healthy despite some of the most horrific circumstances. A program like mine where we do 5 hours of in-house family therapy per child per week has a high success rate and a dramatically low rate of child removal. Six months of our intensive service generally saves years of many more expensive services and legal bureaucracy.

Here's the report:

Imagine for a moment that you went to a doctor and he told you the following:

· 80 percent of my patients don’t get any better.

· A lot of the time, they get worse.

· One-third of the time, I commit malpractice.

But, the doctor continues, if you’ll just pay me even more money than I already get and build me a fancy new hospital, I’m sure I can reduce my failure rate to only about 60 percent. Do we have a deal?

Odds are you’d look for another doctor.

But what if all the other doctors told you the same thing? And what if none of them let on that there were, in fact, better treatments with fewer side effects?

Odds are you’d be furious.

Now, consider a study released on April 7, 2005 by a large, Washington State-based foster-care provider, Casey Family Programs, and Harvard Medical School. The study used case records and interviews to assess the status of young adult "alumni" of foster care.

When compared to adults of the same age and ethnic background who did not endure foster care:

· Only 20 percent of the alumni could be said to be "doing well." Thus, foster care failed for 80 percent.

· They have double the rate of mental illness.

· Their rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was double the rate for Iraq War veterans.

· The former foster children were three times more likely to be living in poverty – and fifteen times less likely to have finished college.

· And nearly one-third of the alumni reported that they had been abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home.

The authors went on to design a complex mathematical formula to attempt to figure out how much they could improve these outcomes if every single problem besetting the foster care system were magically fixed. Their answer: 22.2 percent.

Even if one argues that foster care didn’t cause all of these problems, clearly foster care didn’t cure them. Yet the authors of the study recommend only more of the same: Pour even more money into foster care to "fix" it to the point that maybe the rotten outcomes could be reduced by 22.2 percent.

At a two-and-a-half-hour briefing for advocates, there was barely a word about keeping children out of foster care in the first place.

Why, then, do we continue to pour billions of dollars into a system which fails 80 percent of the time and actually abuses at least one-third of those forced into it?

We do it because, over 150 years, we’ve built up a huge, powerful network of foster-care "providers" – "a foster-care industrial complex" with an enormous vested interest in perpetuating the status quo. They feed us horror stories about foster children whose birth parents really were brutally abusive or hopelessly addicted. But such cases represent a tiny fraction of the foster-care population.

As is documented in NCCPR’s Issue Papers, elsewhere on this site, far more common are cases in which a family’s poverty is confused with child "neglect." Several studies have found, for example, that one-third of foster children could be back home right now if their parents simply had adequate housing. (See NCCPR Issue Paper 5.)

Other cases fall on a broad continuum between the extremes, the parents neither all victim nor all villain. What these cases have in common is the fact that the children would be far better off if states and localities used safe, proven alternatives to foster care – alternatives that don’t come with an 80 percent failure rate, and a 33 percent risk of child abuse. (See Nine Ways to do Child Welfare Right).

Nearly as disturbing as the study’s findings is how the study authors attempted to spin them.

The finding about the rate of abuse in foster care is not mentioned in the press release accompanying the study. It’s not in the Executive Summary. It’s not in any of the glossy material that accompanies the report. One must dig it out of the report itself, on page 30. (The full report is available here: http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1/300/nw_alumni_study_full_apr2005.pdf)

During the entire briefing for advocates, I waited in vain for the study authors to even mention the issue of abuse in foster care. When I finally asked about it, at the very end of the briefing, one of the researchers tried to blame birth parents, speculating, without a shred of evidence, that maybe the foster children had been abused during visits.

But that is contradicted by the study itself, which states:

"One third (32.8%) of the sample, however, reported some form of maltreatment by a foster parent or other adult in the foster home during their foster care experience, as recorded in their case files" [emphasis added].

If anything, this underestimates the true rate of abuse, since a major problem in foster care is foster children abusing each other (see NCCPR Issue Paper 1) and those cases apparently were not counted in the study.

Of course, some will rush to conclude that because family foster care has failed so badly, we should go back to orphanages. There’s just one problem with that. Over a century of research is nearly unanimous: The outcomes for children warehoused in orphanages are even worse. (See NCCPR Issue Paper 15.)

Though the authors try desperately to ignore the obvious, their study is one more indication that the only way to fix foster care is to have less of it. Until we realize that, foster care systems will continue to churn out walking wounded – four out of five times.

U.S. Special Ops troops preparing to train foreign soldiers in Africa

Sometimes I dig for hours without turning up an interesting story that I haven't already written about. This one absolutely floored me. This is one of those rare instances in foresite that makes me not completely hate myself for helping George Bush get re-elected. Now if we can only follow this up with the finanicial aid we've promised Africa then we'd really be cooking with gas:

STUTTGART, Germany — U.S. forces are preparing to deploy in June to northern Africa for military exercises designed to help make the countries more stable and secure.

About 1,000 Special Operations troops, mostly from Europe, will be working for three weeks with troops from the African countries. The goals, like those of American trainers in Iraq, are to improve the professionalism of local troops and thus the legitimacy of their governments.

“This is just the start of decades worth of work in Africa,” said Army Maj. John Silkman, a long-range planner with U.S. Special Operations Command Europe, which is leading the exercise. “We can’t wait for a clear and present danger to arise to engage there.”

There will be two parts to June’s exercise, which is called Flintlock 05.

One will place 12-man Operational Detachments-Alpha, or ODAs, and other forces with specially selected troops from seven African nations. They will train on war-fighting skills such as combat-lifesaver training, marksmanship and hand-to-hand combat.

The U.S. forces will also perform medical missions and scout the region for future civil-affairs projects.

The second part will be a four-day command post exercise to be performed in Dakar, Senegal. Troops from the seven nations will be thrown into a crisis to solve. In addition to Senegal, the participating nations are Niger, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria and Tunisia.

“It’s to show them how to coordinate, so they can have some kind of protocol for working together in the future,” Silkman said. “They should be working to solve regional problems collaboratively rather than separately.

“It’s preventative in nature. We would like the region to not become like what you see in the Middle East.”

Much of the exercise is to help make the countries’ borders more secure. Because of their isolation, the borders can be sanctuaries for people who smuggle fugitives, weapons, drugs, money and influence, according to Maj. Darin Conkright, an exercise planner for the Special Operations Command.

“A lot of the border regions are pretty desolated,” Conkright said. “If I were a bad guy, I’d want to hang out on the borders.”

The exercise is one of several efforts by the U.S. military in recent years directed toward the African continent. Among them:

In December, the U.S. European Command hosted the second Africa Clearinghouse conference, where officers from Europe, Canada and the United States shared their upcoming plans for military and humanitarian efforts in Africa, in order to work together and avoid duplication.
Last summer, Army Special Forces soldiers and Marines trained security forces in Chad and Niger. The U.S. Air Force in October airlifted African Union troops and supplies into the troubled Darfur region of Sudan.
Troops from all service branches are now based at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, on the eastern Horn of Africa, to patrol the Red Sea and perform humanitarian missions.

Wisconsin's Welfare Experiment Fails To The Tune Of $3.3 Billions

Many people ask me how I can be conservative and still be a social worker. My usual answer is that I'm for the most cost effective solution whether it be from a liberal camp or a conservative. I believe if you invest in preventative measures you will inevitably save money in the long run. Spending money on the right kind of social programs is more conservative than attempting to demolish the middle class and build barriers between the rich and poor, which in the end cost our society in both material capital and well human capital. I'm a conservative social worker because I believe that all businesses need a proper business model to be framed within, especially since you are dealing with peoples tax dollars. Outcome measures can work with social services and again it will save the average tax payer in the long run. I believe part of the contempt leveled at social workers has come from the valid criticism that as an industry we have spent tax dollars like drunken sailors on programs with no system of accountability. So long as Democrats were in power the well would never run dry. However, the answer is not to swing the pendulum so far back that we completely dismatle the New Deal and revert to the days of Upton Sinclair. As with all good things, the truth is in the middle of compassion with responsible economic sense.

Social service reforms are still in an experimental phase. Much of the focus is on getting people out to work and time limiting any service the average impoverished American might qualify for. The following press release refers to just one experimental reform that has been an unmitigated disaster:

WI Legislative Audit of W2 Welfare Reform Finds:

o 81% Of Moms "Graduating" From W2 Earn Well Below-Poverty Wages

o 42% of Employment Secured by Moms under W2 are Temporary Jobs

o W2 Agencies Took $30 Million in Sanctions from Families with Nothing

o Wisconsin Spent $3.3 Billion For Only 13,300 Families Per Year

o Privatized W2 Agencies Received $149.9 Million in PROFITS

A 272 page audit of Wisconsin¹s $3.3 billion welfare experiment, W2, found that 81% of families formerly on W2 are still struggling to survive, with earnings 25%-50% below poverty. The audit, conducted by the non-partisan Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau in April, reports that 90% of W2 graduates work in the low-wage service industry: 41.9% in Temp jobs, 19% in Home Health Care and Nursing Homes; 18% in retail services; 11% in food service; and 10% in "other.

Only 19% of moms who secured employment under W2 are able to provide for their families on their income alone, despite W2¹s mandate to help family heads reach self-sufficiency. 53% of participants in 2004 were former clients who returned after loss of employment. Only 43% of W2 clients were screened for potential barriers to employment despite state law requiring this.

An average of 13,300 families were "served" each year to the tune of $3.3 billion dollars. But only 9,362 families received any cash benefits. Each family received an average of $6,561 in yearly cash W2 benefits. This was considerably lower than the $7800 fixed grant level because W2 families lost $30 million in benefits as a result of sanctions imposed for infractions of rules. (W2 agencies sanctioned 20% of their cases by 30% of their grants.)

W2 agencies imposed $30.2 million in sanctions against families in poverty. Seven agencies sanctioned more than 20% of their clients; Women of color were sanctioned at a higher rate than white women.

The Audit states that W2 agencies "erroneously" paid $1.3 million to 2,500 parents of newborn infants after 90 days ($520 per family). The audit refers to this as "excess payments." However, all families are eligible to continue receiving payments after their infant is 90 days old. The W2 agency is required to assign work activities to the mother when the baby is only 3 months old. Agency failure to assign work is not an excess payment to the parent; it is an agency error (perhaps based on simple human compassion.)

The audit states that W2 "is funded primarily by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program." Yet the 272 page report, which includes charts detailing dollar amounts and percents spent on W2, fails to include $1.9 billion in federal TANF dollars spent on W2. The non-partisan audit makes no mention of this absent $1.9 billion in its report, in the Highlights, or in the cover letter to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee who requested the audit. The Welfare Warriors, a Milwaukee activist group of mothers in poverty, discovered the $1.9 billion discrepancy after requesting a federal and state TANF breakdown from state auditors.

Using the $3.3 billion figure, the state spent an average of $35,467 per family each year, yet only 19% of those families escaped poverty. (Four years after leaving W2 the average income was still only $11,400 for a family of 3.) W2 families received a total of $430 million in cash benefits, but W2 agencies received $150 million in profits.

While the total 7 year cost of Wisconsin's W2 welfare program was $3.3 billion for 13,300 families, its frugal predecessor, AFDC, cost $2.7 billion to serve 78,380 families each year for 7 years. (Wis Briefs 98-4 April '98)

W2: Punitive, Not Empowering


W2 has unsuccessfully used the stick--sanctions, time limits, denials, infant warehousing--rather than positive incentives to assist single-mothers to maintain families without government support. This strategy has failed in four ways:
1) W2 has cost taxpayers far more than AFDC for ten times fewer clients;
2) W2 has increased infant death and family homelessness in Wisconsin;
3) W2 has graduated 81% of their clients into sub-poverty and temporary jobs;
4) W2 has reduced wages for low-wage workers.

W2 was created to improve on AFDC, but has failed to attain its goal. The average stay on AFDC, W2¹s frugal predecessor, was two years. Yet more single mothers leaving AFDC after two years were able to support their families than those leaving W2. And far fewer family-heads leaving AFDC relied solely on temp jobs.

Welfare Warriors¹ Recommendations:

1. Extend W2 Time Limits to 5 years as federal law allows (and eliminate two-tier grant sizes). Current 2 year time limits are unrealistic, unnecessary, and severely harm families with the most obstacles. Thousands of such families reached two-year CSJ time limits and have been living with no income and no homes. No study has determined the actual number. The $628 W2-T grant also discriminates against families with disabilities and special hardships. W2 must provide ALL families the $673 grant.

2. Allow post-secondary education to fulfill work requirements. To escape poverty while supporting a family with only one breadwinner, any single mother who can do so must be allowed to pursue upper education, with no additional work requirements. As a SINGLE parent she is already overburdened with tasks normally handled by the second parent. All studies comparing education / income prove that education defeats poverty wages.

3. Allow infants to be cared for by their parent until the age of one year. This will reduce the shameful, unnecessary deaths (37% increase) among Milwaukee African American infants and Wisconsin infants (11% increase). This will reduce the cost of W2. (Infant care costs far more than the W2 grant.) This will allow infants, already deprived of a second parent, to receive essential one-on-one care, and benefit from the security/ bonding necessary for healthy growth and a positive future.

4. Eliminate Full-Family Sanctions. Children should not be sanctioned for any parental failure. And sanctions have FAILED to accomplish their goals while gravely endangering family stability ($30 million taken from moms with nothing). We recommend the elimination of ALL sanctions, but if policy-makers insist on keeping W2 a punitive system rather than an empowering program, the sanctions should be limited to the parent¹s portion of the grant, not to exceed 20% of family income.

5. Put an End to Privatized Administration of W2 Cash (Milwaukee).
Privatization of W2 cash administration has been a failure economically and practically. Corruption has been rampant. Goodwill, Maximus, and OIC all admitted "misspending" over half a million W2 dollars each. YWCA sanctioned half of their cases by half of their grants. UMOS "errored" in 86 out of 110 cases studied‹yet every "error" benefited the agency financially. And 80% of the clients who successfully graduated from the five private W2 businesses were thrust into the workforce to earn sub-poverty wages and work temp jobs. Besides the human suffering, the cost to taxpayers is exorbitant, with multiple layers of directors, administrators, buildings. Separating foodstamp and medical cases from cash cases has been an enormous burden on taxpayer money, client time and community stability.

6. Reinstate the Right to a Fair Hearing. No complex system can effectively police itself. No underprivileged people can access justice in the absence of basic legal rights.

"Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcey: a review

This review was written in partnership with Mind and Media.

Reading this book was like going on a journey. I had vague direction of where I was going and I knew where the end of the road was but the trick was getting through of all of the twists and turns in the middle. It started off super slow and I was wondering whether or I’d ever actually finish it but when it was over I felt like it was worth the read. “Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity” by Nancy Pearcey is well worth the read by both the most ardent Christians as well as the most defiant secularist.

Pearcey’s premise is that at least since the day Darwinian naturalism planted itself firmly in the arena of ideas, religion, and especially Christianity, has been relegated to the province of private life and personal choice. We all seem to view the world through a naturalistic lens, which at first glance would appear to be normal. Most people today would frame their entire world outlook on what we have learned through the sciences rather than an “unproven” philosophical outlook. In “Total Truth” Pearcey says nuts to that! What she is suggesting is that we as a society need to employ a Christian worldview and accept a biblical framework as divine design. Now if you are an atheist you’ve probably stopped reading by this point but as I stated above, the woman makes a compelling argument throughout the book that at least needs to be weighed against our current commonly held beliefs.

The book is broken up into four sections. In the first section, Pearcey lays out the foundation of her argument and introduces the reader to what she refers to as the two tier split. She writes, “The first step in forming a Christian worldview is to overcome this sharp divide between “heart” and “brain.” We have to reject the division of life into a secular realm that includes science, politics, economics, and the rest of the public arena. This dichotomy in our own minds is the greatest barrier to liberating the power of the gospel across the whole of culture today.

Moreover, it is reinforced by a much broader division rending the entire fabric of modern society-what sociologists call the public/private split.”

The book is filled with examples of the two-tier split and she employs it to frame a number of commonly held beliefs both in “science” and in “faith.” The tier looks like this:


PRIVATE SPHERE
Personal Preferences/Nonrational, Noncognitive
____________________________________________________
PUBLIC SPHERE
Scientific Knowledge/Rational, Verifiable

What anchors her narrative is the idea that religion has been forced into the private sphere while science/politics/business etc. are in the public sphere. Pearcey spends the rest of the book systematically disarming the two-tier methodology and putting forth the argument that faith and science are actually one in the same.

The first section of the book is very high on college level philosophy. She spends a great deal of time examining everyone from Aristotle to Rousseau and 100’s of “ism’s” that have cluttered the arena of ideas. I personally found this part of the book the hardest to get through. Not only is she dealing with the kind of subject material one should be arguing about in a college dorm at 3:00 AM in the morning but she also keeps hearkening back to how all of these philosophical tracts pale in comparison to the “truth” that is Christianity. It all makes wonderful sense if you go into the book being a believer but it’s bit a top heavy when you’re a pagan unbeliever trying to make it to at least the next chapter.

Where “Total Truth” really becomes interesting is in the next two sections. Section 2 deals exclusively with establishing Darwinian science as just as much a belief as Intelligent Design. Here Pearcey doesn’t use any demagoguery to try and convince the reader that Darwinian science is flawed but rather seems to be relying on actual science itself. She methodically debunks natural selection by referring to gaps in the scientific literature itself. She also points out that many of the most ardent defenders of Darwinian science do so out of philosophical necessity rather than unshakable science. In the end she makes a compelling argument that both Darwinian naturalism and Intelligent Design are both matters of faith.

The next section featured probably the best reason to read this book even if you are Bill Maher and would never consider Christianity to be anything more than a security blanket for the weak-minded. Section 3 is about the history evangelicalism in America. Pearcey lays out its foundation and underlying history with the understanding that evangelicalism did a tremendous amount to relegate Christianity to the private sphere of people’s lives. According to Pearcey, evangelicalism is ripe with a history of anti-intellectualism, thus it reinforced the idea that Christianity as a belief system could not compete with any intellectual worldview. This chapter was the most illuminating part of the entire 400 + page book.

“Total Truth,” is both chauvinistic and fascinating all at the same time. The author is obviously biased in favor of Christianity as being the one true religion, which of course colors all of her arguments no matter how rational they may actually be. As a reader, if you can forgive her for her bias and read this with an open mind then I think you will be pleasantly surprised with what you will learn about the roots of our modern intellectual/philosophical divide.

Border Patrol told to stand down in Arizona

If this is true boy will I be upset! I hope O'Reilly makes a big stink of this:

U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.

More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.

"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."

Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.

Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar at the agency's Washington headquarters called the accusations "outright wrong," saying that supervisors at the Naco station had not blocked agents from making arrests and that the station's 350 agents were being "supported in carrying out" their duties.

"Border Patrol agents are the front line of defense against terrorism," Chief Aguilar said, adding that the 11,000 agents nationwide are "meeting that challenge, head-on ... as daunting a task as that may sound."

The chief -- a former head of the agency's Tucson sector, which includes the Naco station -- said that with the world watching the Arizona border because of the Minuteman Project, agents in Naco "demonstrated flexibility and resilience in carrying out their critical homeland security duties and responsibilities."

But Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, yesterday said "credible sources" within the Border Patrol also had told him of the decision by Naco supervisors to keep new arrests to a minimum, saying he was angry but not surprised.

"It's like telling a cop to stand by and watch burglars loot a store but don't arrest any of them," he said. "This is another example of decisions being made at the highest levels of the Border Patrol that are hurting morale and helping to rot the agency from within.

"I worry about our efforts in Congress to increase the number of agents," he said. "Based on these kinds of orders, we could spend the equivalent of the national debt and never have secure borders."

Mr. Tancredo, chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, blamed the Bush administration for setting an immigration enforcement tone that suggests to those enforcing the law that he is not serious about secure borders.

"We need to get the president to come to grips with the seriousness of the problem," he said. "I know he doesn't like to utter the words, 'I was wrong,' but if we have another incident like September 11 by people who came through our borders without permission, I hope he doesn't have to say 'I'm sorry.' "

During the Minuteman vigil, Border Patrol supervisors in Arizona discounted their efforts, saying a drop in apprehensions during their protest was because of the Mexican government's deployment of military and police south of the targeted area and a new federal program known as the Arizona Border Control Initiative that brought manpower increases to the state.

The Naco supervisors blamed the volunteers for unnecessarily tripping sensors, disturbing draglines and interfering with the normal operations of the agents. They said that their impact on illegals was "negligible" and that civilians should leave immigration enforcement "to the professionals."

Several field agents credited the volunteers with cutting the flow of illegal aliens in the targeted Naco area, saying the number of apprehended illegals dropped from an average of 500 a day to less than 15 a day.

More than 850 volunteers, in a protest of the lax immigration enforcement policies of the White House and Congress, sought to reduce the flow of illegal aliens along a popular immigration corridor on the Arizona-Mexico border near Naco by reporting illegals to the Border Patrol as they crossed into the United States.

Their goal was to show that increased manpower on the border would effectively deter illegal immigration. Organizers said the protest resulted in Border Patrol arrests of 349 illegal aliens.

Area residents, in a half-page ad in the Sunday edition of the Sierra Vista Herald, told the volunteers: "Thanks for doing what our government won't -- close the border to illegal aliens. It was the quietest month we've had in many years ... You made us feel safe because the border was closed."

Clinton, Gingrich Unite on Health Care

What an odd pairing. Aside from the fact that Gingrich was the bane of Bill Clinton's existence as president, both Hillary and Newt are potential contenders for the Presidency in 2008. On this issue, it would seem that Newt is trying to soften his image by appearing bi-partisan and portraying himself to be apt to listen to ideas from the other side of the political aisle. Hillary appears to be employing this opportunity to once again try and convince the voters she's not Joseph Stalin's daughter. The bill itself they are working seems nifty too, which is always good. Here's the story from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Longtime political foes Newt Gingrich and Hillary Rodham Clinton joined cheerfully Wednesday to promote legislation on health care changes, joking that some might view it as a sign of a soon-to-come doomsday.
Clinton, D-N.Y., and Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, appeared outside the Capitol to promote a bill that would modernize medical record-keeping.

The senator joked that their joint effort has raised plenty of eyebrows since they began working together behind closed doors on a panel examining ways to improve military effectiveness.

"At our first meeting when we were agreeing so much with each other I think people thought: 'The End is Near,'" she said.
As first lady, Clinton spearheaded a White House health care reform effort that failed in Congress. The resistance to her effort helped fuel Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" and his rise to the speaker position in 1995.

A decade later, they sound downright chummy.

"I find he and I have a lot in common in the way we see the problems that we're going to have to deal with in order to have a 21st century health care system," said the senator.

Gingrich was equally effusive, saying he was "thrilled" to be part of the bipartisan effort to reduce the amount of paperwork the health care industry creates.

"I'm confident there are things like votes in the Senate and judges where there would be dramatic differences, but I think we're both mature enough as adults that we can separate this argument," said Gingrich.

"We're at the stage in our lives where getting some good things done for the country strikes us as a pretty important way to spend your time," he said.
The former House speaker told a meeting of newspaper editors last month that he expects Clinton to win re-election next year, then capture her party's presidential nomination in 2008 and have a good chance to win.

"Any Republican who thinks she will be easy to beat has total amnesia about the Clintons," Gingrich said. He also said she has the added benefit of her husband, "the smartest American politician as her adviser."

Standing next to the senator Wednesday, Gingrich argued that both parties should agree to move health care records from the realm of scribbled doctors' notes to electronic record-keeping.

Proponents of the measure being offered in the House by Reps. Tim Murphy, R-Pa. and Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., say the bill would greatly reduce the 98,000 estimated U.S. deaths a year caused by preventable medical errors such as misreading a prescription.

"Paper kills," said Gingrich. "This is not complicated. If you see paper in the health system, it risks killing people."

The 21st Century Health Information Act would create regional health information networks to help transfer health data quickly between doctors, hospitals and nurses, and ensure that different hospitals adopt technologies that are compatible.
The bill is H.R. 2234.

Blowing in the Wind

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

Having a balance between industrial progression and development, and keeping ones environment from being completely polluted and degraded is a delicate task indeed. Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond’s new book, “Collapse” deals with that very topic in the most thoughtful and methodical way I’ve seen yet. In order for economies to produce wealth they must be allowed to conduct business in a way that generates profit. However, they must also be conscious enough to stop themselves from rendering their own well of natural resources barren, thus causing chaos and probable societal collapse. This equation is a strange mix between ones subjective view of where the line between good business sense and environmental degradation is and the objective fact that there can be only a finite amount of resources per well/field.

I’ve written in the past that I felt Kyoto was not as fair as it could have been toward the United States and I’ve supported President Bush’s decision to pull out of it because of that very caveat. But according to this article from the BBC, countries such as Germany are going ahead with keeping to the Kyoto Protocols mandates without much issue.

“Germany has shut down its oldest nuclear reactor as part of the country's plan to phase out nuclear power by 2020.

The 36-year-old 340-megawatt plant in the southwestern town of Obrigheim was turned off at 0758 (0558 GMT), said energy firm EnBW.

It is the second of Germany's 19 reactors to be closed down.

To replace the energy demands, the government is proposing investment in other sources such as wind power.

Germany's nuclear program and its efforts to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels have made it a leader in efforts to fulfill the Kyoto protocol.”

Whenever I think of wind power, I think of uptight and hypocritical Green Cape Codders who complain about energy issues and environmental pollution but then consistently vote against wind power in their own backyard. Admittedly I’m not one who is apt to follow the energy industry so I didn’t realize wind power plants were a viable alternative to nuclear power. The Germans seem to think otherwise.

“Germany already produces 40% of all the world's wind power and the hope is that by 2010, wind will meet 12.5% of German energy needs.

The country has 16,000 wind turbines, mostly concentrated in the north of the country, near the border with Denmark - including the biggest in the world, owned by the Repower company.” (News.bbc.uk)

After reading this article I immediately thought about Iran (I know I’m always thinking about Iran these days but stay with me here). In the run-up to the Iraq War accusations that Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction rose above the cacophony of arguments that orbited around the central issue. Hussein’s response was something to the effect of, “No we don’t neither! You people are just plain nuts!” And of course the Bush administrations response was, “Yes you do too! Liar liar oil fields on fire!”

Here we are in the midst of the same argument. The Americans and the Israeli’s are pointing and shouting that Iran is right around the corner from building the dreaded “Arab Bomb” and they are doing under the cover of “peaceful nuclear facilities.” Iran has responded by saying their facilities are indeed peaceful, there are no weapons be built or researched and that they have a right to nuclear power. In fact, the official word from Tehran is that in terms of development and economic growth, nuclear power is essential.

Most conservatives aren’t buying that excuse and are committed to the idea that it’s just a stall tactic so that they can continue to work on a bomb unfettered. Of course most conservatives thought Hussein was stalling too so who knows what the total truth is. However, going back to the BBC article on Germany and wind power, I began to think maybe the Iranian’s really don’t nuclear power.

According to an article published last October on EngergyBulletin.net, “Primarily, it has been figured that some 6500 megawatts of the country’s power output is produced by wind turbines, Iran's Mehr News Agency said.

Head of Iran Renewable Energies Organization, Yusef Armoodeli said Friday that experts are preparing Iran’s wind atlas through compiling data that is obtained from 17 wind farms in Zanjan, Gilan, Qazvin, West Azerbaijan, East Azerbaijan, and Ardebil. “Each wind farm is 40 meters in height”, he added.

“We will build 50 more wind farms in other parts of the country in order to have a fairly accurate calculation of the country’s power production capability”, Armoodeli stated. The first step of the work would be to figure out the wind speed in different areas, he uttered.

So far, he said, 26 points have been marked all over the country, which are estimated to bring the highest amount of power out of winds. “We expect a total of 6500 megawatts for the first stage”, Armoodeli stated, adding that some 120 megawatts have been already produced by the new wind farms.

Meanwhile, he added that the organization is to share the projects with private companies. “It is seen in the Fourth Development Plan that we collect power from private-owned wind farms”. Tavanir has recently accepted offers from several private companies, which tend to take part in wind power production projects, Armoodeli stated.”

The trend across Europe and to some extent in the US is to move away nuclear power and invest renewable sources of energy such as wind. As stated above, it would appear that Iran has already been investing in wind power for their own region and continue to do so at this very moment. “Wind power plants built and installed by Iranian specialists in Armenia’s soil will become operational by the end of June, this year.
Being first of their kind built in the transcaucasian state, the four power plants have cost the country about 3.5 million dollars, the report noted.

Also, Iran will soon start another electricity project in Azerbaijan Republic which consists of the installation of 315 kilometers of transmission lines of power along with the related power stations in the Caspian Sea littoral state, the project is estimated to cost about 75 million dollars.

Iran is currently exporting electricity and industrial electricity equipments to Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Economic cooperation between Iran and some of the countries in the region are carried out on the basis of barter trade.” (Mehrnews.Ir)

I’m no energy expert but it doesn’t sound like Iran needs nuclear power plants. Their claims for nuclear sovereignty sound like a bunch of hooey blowing in the wind.