With the announcement that President Obama postpones his trip to Jakarta till June 2010, Indonesia was left to decide on its candidate without the prodding presence of President Obama.

Having discussed with someone in the know of the four men and one woman on the Indonesian list we posted here, it seems that Mr. Hassan Wirajud who is now Member of the Advisory Council to President Yudhyono and was the Foreign Minister who led Indonesia’s delegation at the 2007 Bali conference, has the upper hand as he is considered to be a gifted diplomat and that is what Indonesia think it will be most appreciated in New York.

The other most prominent name is Mr. Rachmat Witoelar the continuing Environment minister who was the actual President of Bali’s Conference of the Parties (COP) 13 in 2007.

The strength of both these men is that they hark back to Bali – the pre-Poznan and pre-Copenhagen times – that is when in effect the last real UNFCCC document was forged. We still think that a Brazilian candidate could find much backing also. This could be seen on the other hand as disengagement from the Dutch leadership that was started with Ms. Joke Waller-Hunter, and the look for new ideas as we witnessed in Copenhagen.

=======================================

 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-17-…

IT’S A DOME DEAL

If it does matter where CO2 is released, cities are in trouble.

Recalling Obama’s words on May 23, 2008 concerning U.S. arrogance towards Latin America, it would appear that the U.S. is in need of a pressing review of a hemispheric policy that brings with it vital new ideas writes  COHA  ( The Council on Hemispheric Affairs ) Research Associate Katya Rodriguez. Her complaint is that nothing has changed yet compard to the Bush White House.

See article at:
 http://www.coha.org/cuba-u-s-rhetoric-ti…

BSR Conference November 2-5, 2010, Grand Hyatt, New York

Regularly ranked by  analysts as a top sustainability conference, the annual BSR Conference is one of the world’s largest events devoted to corporate responsibility.

Now entering its 18th year, the Conference features expert speakers, a creative program, and a global audience of senior business executives, entrepreneurs, and distinguished leaders from the public sector and civil society, giving participants opportunities to engage with sustainability leaders and practitioners.

In the post-Copenhagen era, and just before the Cancun meeting that is expected to emphasize country goals on the climate issue,there is no wonder that BSR has just released the BSR Report, “Communicating on Climate Policy Engagement: A Guide to Sustainability Reporting,”   http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Communica…).

There is also a press release at CSRwire  http://www.csrwire.com/press/press_relea…) and short article in ClimateBiz  http://www.climatebiz.com/blog/2010/03/1…).

Key messages of this short report:

1. Climate policy engagement has become a critical aspect of climate-related sustainability reporting, joining 1) impacts and 2) risks and opportunities as a key climate communication topic (p 5)

2. Stakeholders want companies to lead in policy-driven climate solutions and discuss their efforts—and they no longer need to “reduce first” (p 12)

3. In response to patchy advice about communicating efforts, we examine 150+ companies’ materials to show reporting in 5 mechanisms and 3 themes (p 5-7; and Appendix 1 and 2)

4. “Engagement” means more than lobbying and political spending. It includes calling-to-action more generally, plus informing, enabling, and stage-setting, which we summarize in a detailed framework (p 8)

5. Communicating on climate policy engagement should include governance, strategy, and activities integrated together. This enhances credibility, promotes meaningful dialogue, and fulfills multiple reporting needs (pp 13-17)

Further they say:

As we look towards COP16 and beyond, BSR hopes this guide will help companies that are not yet engaged in promoting strong climate policy the confidence they need to do so, while enabling more meaningful discussion about the proper role of business in the climate policy process—and movement towards climate stability in general.

Ryan Schuchard
Manager, Research & Innovation

BSR
111 Sutter Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
+1 415 984 3264
  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Copenhagen COP15, Future Events, Mexico, New York

Discuss this article

A Film production company’s court case brought out as true what were always our worst fears about the MEDIA – the fact that when you buy an advertisement you also take for granted that you bought their soul.

We looked for years at those quarter pages advertisements that oil companies bought on major newspapers’ prime pages, then we learned that some topics – such as alternate fuels – were taboo to those papers even on their news pages. oh well! How do you prove a non-existence?

Now we have it. The film got advertised on Variety magazine and it seems from the court papers that the company expected a “buzz” – so it gets noted and becomes a candidate for the Oscars – all this so it eventually obtains also a distributor, and beefs up its high hopes to make money.

So, the managers of that movie’s publicity campaign took for granted that Variety will do all of that in exchange for what was probably a nice charge for those advertisement fees.   It probably would have evolved this way except that the Variety movie critic, who went to see the movie, had not such a hot opinion about the movie.

To cut the story short – the movie people were not enthused seeing the review and asked Variety to remove the review which they did – saying that there were inaccuracies there. It probably would have ended with this if not for the movie producer mentioning that he intends to take Variety to court which finally stiffened Variety’s back. They put back a second version of the negative review.

Now comes the court case, and it becomes obvious that Variety was hungry for advertisement revenue and might have given wrong impression to the movie producer who on his part seems to have been unusually naive to step into the deal.

Does that negate our opening statement?

NO! The practice is general, and the naive behavior of the particular Hollywood folks is unusual. We learned the story on this Sunday’s TV programs.

————–

Now further information from the www.insidemoviefone,com  -
 http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/0…

‘Iron Cross’ Director’s Lawsuit Over Negative Variety Review Highlights Changing Status of Movie Critics.
March 15, 2010 | By: Gary Susman

Variety’s unflattering review of ‘Iron Cross,’ a film starring the late Roy Scheider as a retired cop plotting revenge against the man he holds responsible for the slaughter of his family during the Holocaust, predicted that the 2009 indie drama “will be remembered as Roy Scheider’s swan song and little else.”

But ‘Iron Cross’ may yet be remembered as the movie that destroyed Variety’s film review section — and perhaps the venerable trade paper itself, since its singular and comprehensive reviews have been the paper’s cornerstone for 100 years.

When ‘Iron Cross’ producer-director Joshua Newton griped about the December review to Variety, arguing that the article (written by freelancer Robert Koehler) had killed the movie’s chances for awards, scared off potential distributors and undermined the $400,000 ad campaign the paper had sold him, he claimed a staffer at the paper dismissed his complaint by telling him, “It’s only one person’s opinion,” and “No one takes these reviews seriously.”

As if to prove those contentions, last week, Variety laid off three of its staff critics, including chief film critic Todd McCarthy, who’d been reviewing films for the paper for 31 years.

Newton has since filed a lawsuit against Variety, claiming fraud and breach of contract. Meanwhile, in response to Newton’s initial complaint, Variety editor Tim Gray pulled Koehler’s review from its Web site; though it republished the review a few days later, the incident made it look like Variety was willing to censor its reviews to please advertisers. Of course, Newton’s lawsuit seems to complain that Variety doesn’t censor its reviews enough to please advertisers.

Through this whole imbroglio, Variety’s treatment of its own reviewers has been baffling and troubling. The initial refusal to stand behind Koehler’s review, the unnamed staffer’s dismissal of reviews as something no one takes seriously, and the pink-slipping of McCarthy — none of these seem to make sense for a paper whose standout resource for the past 100 years has been a movie review section known for its independence, breadth and completeness. And when critics aren’t safe even at Variety, are they safe anywhere?

Reviews at trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are different from most other reviews because the critics who write them evaluate not just a movie’s artistic merit but also its commercial prospects. Variety reviews about 1,200 movies a year, many of them festival films that may never see the inside of a multiplex or get reviewed by anyone else. So Newton is correct to note that Variety’s reviews carry special weight within the film industry. At a time when Variety faces increased competition for trade news scoops (not just from the Reporter, but from online upstarts like The Wrap and Deadline Hollywood), its vast and encyclopedic archive of reviews is also an asset that still makes Variety unique and valuable to its readers.

McCarthy’s ouster is going to make that asset much harder to maintain. When the paper dismissed him and his colleagues last week, Gray insisted that the volume of reviews would remain the same, only they would now all be written by freelancers. (Before, the workload had been divided among staffers and freelancers; Gray defended the layoffs as a cost-cutting move.) It seems unlikely, however, that Variety will still be able to publish that many reviews without being able to depend on full-time staffers to write a large chunk of them. In fact, in an interview Sunday in The Wrap, Newton said he met with Variety publisher Neil Stiles after Koehler’s review ran, and that Stiles said “he had a problem with his critics. And he said he planned to cease all reviews this year, in 2010.”

Variety’s top brass has long had “a problem with its critics.” Gray’s predecessor, Peter Bart, frequently complained in his column that movie critics (including Variety’s) are film snobs who should be disregarded because their taste is often ignored at the box office. (Of course, if critics only echoed the populist judgments of ticketbuyers, why would you need their opinions at all?). Gray and Stiles seem to have taken Bart’s grumbling to its logical conclusion; pointedly, they got rid of McCarthy the day after an Oscar ceremony that honored ‘The Hurt Locker,’ a movie kept alive by critics, while the Academy snubbed moviegoers’ overwhelming favorite, ‘Avatar.’

Maybe Variety’s problem with its critics isn’t that they have lofty aesthetic standards but that they aren’t easily co-opted by publicists and can’t be relied upon to shill for movies whose creators have bought ads in Variety. Gawker, which broke the story that Gray had pulled Koehler’s review after Newton complained, reprinted an e-mail message written by Newton in which the filmmaker said that the freelance critic “took it upon himself to review the film first and managed to sneak it into the publication.” The notion of Koehler as some rogue agent bent on sabotaging the film and the ad campaign his paper had sold for it seems ill-informed; there’s no way Koehler’s review wasn’t assigned by and then approved for publication by a Variety staff editor. (It’s also unlikely that Koehler, as a freelancer, was privy to any arrangement between Newton and Variety’s business office, or that McCarthy or any other staff critic would have written a friendlier review just because ‘Iron Cross’ was an advertiser.)

Yet Gray’s yanking of the review suggested he didn’t trust his freelancer either. When he pulled the review, he at first offered no explanation to Gawker or anyone else (including Koehler); eventually, Gray told the Los Angeles Times, he did so not because Newton had spent money with the paper but because Newton had complained about the review’s accuracy. Gray himself had touted the film (along with about 60 others) as a potential Oscar contender in a column last summer, prompting Variety’s ad department to pursue ‘Iron Cross’ as a client, even though Gray hadn’t yet seen the then-unfinished film. After he pulled the review, however, Gray watched ‘Iron Cross,’ decided Koehler’s review was valid, and republished the article. Still, the damage had already been done, both to the movie’s awards and distribution prospects, and to Variety’s reputation for editorial independence.

Whether or not Newton can prove in court that Variety promised him favorable coverage (or at least the absence of unfavorable coverage) in return for his ad buy, he certainly seems to have expected Variety’s ad sales department to dictate editorial policy. And if he expected it, how many other advertisers do? And how often does Variety comply, even by such temporary measures as the scrubbing of Koehler’s review? Really, once that wall of editorial independence has been breached, how can Variety readers ever be sure that the reviews aren’t being skewed by advertising concerns?

Given the initial willingness to yank the review, the lawsuit that the review sparked and the paper’s longtime dismissive attitude towards its critics that culminated in the canning of McCarthy, Variety may have decided that independent-minded critics are a luxury it can no longer afford. Certainly, it’ll save a little money in the short term with the critics’ layoffs, and it’ll save even more money if, as seems likely, it cuts back on reviews when freelancers are unable to make up the slack — or when (if Newton is accurately quoting Stiles) it eliminates reviews altogether.

Variety’s campaign against its own critics does a disservice even to readers who don’t peruse Variety. General interest newspapers and magazines have been discarding staff critics by the dozens in recent years. If the show business bible, a publication that once made a point of publishing more reviews than anyone else, now thinks critics are irrelevant and expendable, other publications will feel justified in following Variety’s lead. And it’s moviegoers who will suffer. As the Koehler incident proves, sometimes an independent-minded critic is all that’s standing between a moviegoer’s wallet and the hype generated by a movie’s publicity campaign — including hype that may come from the business office at a critic’s own paper.

We were in a state of confusion when posting that James A. Goldston,  the founding executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, an operational program of the Open Society Institute that promotes rights-based law reform and the development of legal capacity worldwide, was the same as Judge Goldstone of South Africa.

The event last night dealt with racial profiling in Spain. It was an important case that involves a black American artist originally from San Francisco, Rosalind Williams, that moved to Spain in 1968, is Spanish citizen, and was singled out in 1995 to identify because of her color. It took 15 years to win this case and the resulting verdict is yet to be made public.

=============
 http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice…

Europe’s Highest Court Rules Roma School Segregation by Language Illegal.
Press Release
Date:
March 16, 2010
Contacts:
Luis Montero
 Luis.Montero at osf-eu.org
+44-20-70311704 (w) / +44-7798737516 (m)
Cat Twigg
 catherine.twigg at errc.org
+36-1-4132200 (w) / +36-30-5001289 (m)
Budapest/New York/Strasbourg/Zagreb—The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held today in the case Oršuš and Others v. Croatia that the segregation of Romani children into separate classes based on language is unlawful discrimination, violating the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Oršuš case involved 14 children attending mainstream primary schools in three different Croatian villages who were placed in segregated Roma-only classes due to alleged language difficulties. The applicants argued that actually, placement in these Roma-only classes stemmed from blatant discrimination based on ethnicity. The schools’ policies were reinforced by the local majority population’s anti-Romani sentiments.

Represented by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), the Croatian Helsinki Committee, and local attorney Lovorka Kusan, the case went to the European Court in 2004. After a negative judgment in 2008, it reached the Grand Chamber upon appeal.

“The Grand Chamber’s decision is of great importance to the applicants and other Romani children in Croatia, as it acknowledges that they have suffered unlawful discrimination,” said Ms Kusan. “It is now up to the government to ensure that these illegal practices stop and that remedies are offered to affected Romani children.”

The Court awarded the applicants 4,500 Euros each in non-pecuniary damages, plus a total of 10,000 Euros for costs and expenses.

“Today’s judgment rounds out the European Court’s jurisprudence concerning the most common grounds of segregation experienced by Romani children in education across Europe,” said ERRC managing director Robert Kushen. “National governments must now take decisive action to end segregated education in all its forms and truly integrate their school systems.”

The Grand Chamber decision builds on the Court’s groundbreaking judgments in D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic and Sampanis v. Greece, which rejected the segregation of Romani students into special schools for children with mental disabilities or within mainstream schools on the basis of ethnicity.

“Oršuš makes clear that language deficiency cannot serve as a pretext for racial segregation,” said ERRC board member and Open Society Justice Initiative executive director James A. Goldston, who helped argue the case. “Segregation remains all too common in Europe, and it is time to end this deeply degrading practice.”

The positive judgment by the Grand Chamber marks great progress for the advancement of Roma rights in general, as well as the right to quality education on equal terms for Roma and other marginalized groups.

——————

Challenging Ethnic Profiling in Europe
Location:    OSI-New York
Event Date:     March 17, 2010
Event Time:    6:30 – 8:00 p.m.
Speakers:    Rachel Neild, James Goldston, Rosalind Williams

On a brisk winter day in 1992, Rosalind Williams—an African-American woman and naturalized Spanish citizen—stepped off the train at a railway station in Valladolid and was immediately asked to produce her identity document. It was December 6, a national holiday celebrating Spain’s new constitution—one of the most modern in Europe. Yet when asked why Williams was the only person on the platform to be stopped, the police officer explained that he was following orders: it was because of the color of her skin.

Williams produced her identity document, and took the number of his badge. Eighteen years later, after winning a landmark ruling from the UN Human Rights Committee on her case, Williams is still waiting for the Spanish government to issue a public apology and end ethnic profiling by police.

Today, racial and ethnic profiling remains a pervasive—and ineffective—practice across Europe. With security concerns heightened, the debate on profiling has only intensified.

At this Open Society Institute forum, Rosalind Williams will discuss her personal experience challenging racial profiling in Europe, and what impact she hopes the Human Rights Committee’s landmark judgment will have in her adopted homeland. Rachel Neild of the Open Society Justice Initiative will talk more broadly about the prevalence of ethnic profiling throughout the European Union, and its ineffectiveness. Neild will discuss the steps being taken to document and eradicate ethnic profiling, including innovative projects being carried out in cooperation with Spanish police. Jim Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative—which helped bring Williams’ case to the UN Human Rights Committee—will moderate.

Speakers
Rosalind Williams is an African American artist and curator who became a naturalized citizen of Spain in 1968. After experiencing racial profiling by Spanish police in 1992, Williams took her case to court, culminating in a landmark decision by the UN Human Rights Committee in 2009.
Rachel Neild is senior advisor on ethnic profiling and police reform with the Equality and Citizenship Program of the Open Society Justice Initiative.
James A. Goldston is the founding executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, an operational program of the Open Society Institute that promotes rights-based law reform and the development of legal capacity worldwide.

A new BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM. | THEME: PRESSROW BY CHRIS PEARSON.

from: Andrew Pendleton <a.pendleton@ippr.org> Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:21 AM Subject: A New Response to Climate Change – this is about Political Climate Change.

For six weeks, Political Climate has been finding its feet in the blogosphere. Much of what we’ve written hitherto has been aimed at making our views clear on some of the most important issues in the climate change debate. Thus we’ve covered growth, innovation, the underlying politics of climate change and geo-politics.

http://politicalclimate.net/

We are also developing a Political Climate manifesto and a set of proposals for work in areas in which thinking needs to be developed, such as innovation policy and finance. In the meantime, we’ve been working on the appearance of the site.

March 15, 2010

A New Response to Climate Change

Liberals warn Democrats on health care
 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/031…

By BEN SMITH & GABRIEL BELTRONE | 3/15/10  – on POLITICO

Rep. Michael McMahon, a New York City Democrat who has indicated that he opposes the health care bill, seems to be angry progressives’ first target.

Labor and progressive leaders are threatening House Democrats who oppose health care legislation with potentially destructive third party challenges in November.

The discussions have already taken concrete form in New York State, where a handful of votes hang in the balance. They’re part threat, part an early attempt to channel what liberal leaders expect to be a wave of anger if Congress fails to pass health care.

New York and a handful of other states have “fusion” rules that allow candidates to run on multiple ballot lines, giving minor parties like the Working Families a great deal of political leverage. For wavering Upstate New York moderates like Reps. Michael Arcuri, Scott Murphy, and Bill Owens, the line could mean the margin between victory and defeat.

“It’s a very volatile time, and no one should believe that third party candidates don’t have a chance.”

In districts where Democrats vote “no,” voters “will have the Republican against health and the Democrat against health care, and they’re going to ask themselves, ‘Where’s the candidate that shares my values,’” Stern told POLITICO. “A lot of us would like to run another candidate.”

“I am not the only labor leader looking at [the question of] what is the price of betrayal,” he said, suggesting that Pennsylvania and Illinois could also see liberal third party challenges.

The left has already sponsored a serious primary challenge to Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, but backing third-party candidates – who could easily split the vote and hand a seat to the Republicans – would mark a new level of disgust with Democrats opposed to health care.

Rules for independent candidacies vary by state, and New York’s labor-backed Working Families Party has already taken the first step, with its state committee voting to bar endorsements of any candidate who votes against health care legislation.

nbsp;ttp://www.coha.org/brazils-growing-pains…

Brazil’s Growing Pains

This analysis was prepared by Council of Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) Research Associate William Mathis.
Posted 15 Mar 2010

By now the emergence of Brazil as a major power not only in the Western Hemisphere, but also on the world stage, is an undisputed fact. The country, until recently mentioned outside its borders for seldom more than in reference to the Girl from Ipanema, is now on everybody’s lips. Brazil is possibly one of the globe’s most popular and successful nations, experiencing limited negative impact from the global economic crisis that ravaged Western economies, and having beaten out both Chicago and Tokyo for home field advantage in the 2016 Summer Olympics. But as Brazil wows the international crowds with its economic, diplomatic and athletic prowess, the distance that the nation still needs to traverse before solidifying its South American powerhouse status could be formidable.

Noisy Neighbors
One of the most remarkable aspects of Brazil’s supersonic growth is the leverage it has developed on a continent so recently dominated by the U.S. foreign policy agenda. While its government may not be seeking a socialist Bolivarian Revolution, it is far enough to the left as to be deemed sabotage-worthy by Cold War standards and has perfectly cordial ties with left-leaning ideological foes of Washington, such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Iran.

On March 3, 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a stopover in Brazil to meet with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Foreign Minister Celso Amorim to discuss a central issue for Washington’s foreign policymakers, deterring Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. While Iran’s nuclear ambitions thus far have not been proven to extend beyond peaceful energy purposes, the Obama administration is not taking any chances and with distinctly mixed results has been attempting to gather support around the world for tougher sanctions against Tehran. Despite not too subtle pressure from Clinton, Lula and Amorim were prepared to not give in to her demands, refusing to support sanctions outright, although not ruling out the possibility of backing them at a later date. Similarly, in November of 2009, Brazil abstained from voting against Iran in an IAEA vote in the aftermath of the disclosure of the secret existence of an uranium enrichment site in Qom. In May, the Brazilian president is scheduled to meet with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This type of resistance to Washington’s focused policy goals has become characteristic of Brazilian foreign policy making, demonstrating to the US and the rest of the world that the country’s decisions are no longer automatically based on Washington’s interests, but rather its own.
However, despite Brasilia’s swelling activism it may be premature to rule out Washington’s influence on Brazil’s policy decisions. The specific statement that support for sanctions could come later may possibly be linked to election season politics. In addition to the Brazilian president and foreign minister, Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s pick to be the next president, was also present for negotiations with Secretary Clinton. With presidential elections looming on October 3, it would be unwise for Rousseff to portray herself as bending to Washington’s will even if more supportive measures toward the U.S. are indeed planned for the future.

Battle Wounds
In the wake of the bitter diplomatic row that has been ongoing as a result of the 2009 coup against the democratically-elected government of Honduras, there is much fence-mending to be done to heal the somewhat fractured relationship between Brazil and the U.S. Brazilian policy makers were among the most out-spoken critics of Tegucigalpa’s de facto government of golpista Roberto Micheletti and one of President Manuel Zelaya’s most powerful proponents. They even housed the ousted leader in their embassy for months after his secret return to Honduras.
While initially taking a far more cautious approach than most other hemispheric countries in denouncing the coup, the U.S. eventually joined ranks with its Latin American peers. However, its support for Zelaya was short-lived and amounted to far less than meets the eye, seemingly geared more to courting hard-line Senator DeMint’s (R-SC) release of his “hold” on several State Department nominations than fighting to exonerate any democratic principle. As a result, the Obama administration ended up eventually backing elections without the ousted president’s a priori restoration, a move strongly opposed by a majority of countries in the region, including Brazil. With the assured support of the US for the compromised elections, any reconciliation dialogue between Zelaya and Micheletti became irrelevant and ultimately dissipated completely. While few of the region’s nations recognized the legitimacy of the elections that gave office to newly elected President Porfirio Lobo as the new leader of Honduras on 29 November 2009, he was inaugurated two months later.
Despite its best diplomatic efforts, Brazil was ultimately unable to alter the course of events in Honduras, in effect losing a testy diplomatic tiff with the US. For the time being, Brazil continues to stand by its position that presidential elections conducted under the tutelage of the illegal government headed by Micheletti were prima facie illegitimate. But as Brazil tries to preserve its stand, events in Honduras are grinding on, and it’s just a matter of time before Washington will be able to work its will on Lula. Meanwhile, Washington will be doing what it can to force the country and the region to forget the tawdry events that began on June 28. On the same day that Clinton was meeting with the Brazilian president, she also was stopping in Costa Rica to announce, among other news, that the $31million in US aid to Honduras that had been suspended during the coup would now be restored. Clinton also praised the Lobo government and urged the region’s leaders to reinstate Honduras to the OAS.
If the State Department was humiliated by the outcome in Honduras—since it surely cannot say that its shabby script showed any class—it was Brazilian diplomacy that upheld the principle of honor and pro-democracy driven policy over the Honduran affair. One could even argue that it was the Bureau of Western Hemispheric Affairs rather that Zelaya that played the role of the joker. The US has clearly pursued a near-unilateral position on the issue, isolating itself from regional leaders like Brazil by correctly assuming that some other nations like Oscar Arias’ Costa Rica, Alan Garcia’s Peru as well as Alvaro Uribe’s Colombia were prepared to chuck their democratic fandango in favor of an open market and other little favors from Washington. Nevertheless, Washington correctly calculated that its self-serving strategy eventually would save the day with or without outside help.

Tectonic Shift
While Brazil may have been successfully side swiped by the US in relation to the former’s principled response to the Honduran coup, the issue seems not to have in any way augmented Washington’s political capital in the region, nor has it entirely convinced Brasilia to be more malleable to Washington’s demands. Brazil’s continued resistance to tougher sanctions on Iran coupled with its vocal criticism of the logic of President Obama’s policy is only part of that country’s continued flair for independence. Brazil then went on to prove itself to be capable of leadership in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in Haiti, as it continued its sometimes troubled role of coordinating UN relief efforts on the islands.
At the same time Brazil has made significant steps to replace what many now see as the lame duck OAS now rivaled by a new bloc of Caribbean and Latin American States consisting of an expanded Rio Group, which excludes the US along with Canada. The now expanded Rio Group has traditionally been seen as a talk show and little else. Now Brazil appears driven to institutionalize the group, turning it into a far more powerful actor in the region which rapidly could come to rival the importance of the OAS, or even replace it. Washington already has been feeling somewhat isolated in the OAS lately, where for decades it has been the sole nation to continue to oppose Cuba’s reintegration into the organization, an issue that it brought up once again at the most recent UN General Assembly.
A preeminent Rio Bloc, free of any US involvement, could come to further isolate the US from the region while confirming Brazil’s leadership position which long has been in the offing. The independent and laid back style of Brazil’s foreign policy making is warmly welcomed in the region as a friendlier and more respectful alternative to Washington’s traditional dictates, which in the past has treated Latin America with little respect. If Brazil can maintain its current rate of growth, neither the US nor the rest of the global community will be able to ignore its importance, especially as it comes to occupy a defining role in a region that is home to some of the largest deposits of oil, natural gas, lithium and scores of other commodities. Such importance may even be transformed into a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a feat that Brasilia has long sought after and which would likely permanently alter the balance of power both regionally and globally.

The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreed in 2001 to create a shared currency to help them integrate economies and pursue a monetary policy more independently of the US.

All of the council’s members except Kuwait peg their currencies to the dollar.

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar on December 15 announced the creation of a Monetary Council, a step toward establishing a shared currency. The board of the council, which will set a timetable for establishing a joint central bank and choose a currency regime, will meet for the first time on March 30.

Oman opted out in 2007. The UAE, the second-biggest Arab economy, withdrew from the currency project in May 2009 after the Saudi capital, Riyadh was selected as the location for the Monetary Council, the future central bank.

The UAE has no plans to rejoin the union project, said January 6, 2010 central bank Governor Sultan bin Nasser al-Suwaidi.Today, in Abu Dhabi, he said that the UAE remains committed to the concept of a single currency, though free trade in the region must come first. That is the reason for a Bloomberg new report on the topic.

Futures of the Obama Administration:

Dan Rather says the President must show resolve and steel. This was echoed by Helene Cooper (He must start showing his accomplishments) and Joe Klein (people want to see him crack the whip). Despite this 11 said he must play to the center and only one said he must play to the left.

There is no contradiction here – all agreed that the Democratic base is a varied coalition while the Republican base is the Republican idiosyncratic right (a much less flattering word was used).

So what do the Democrats need now? The answer in the TV and Internet age is that you must be authentic and have a conversation with the broad constituency that is the country.

——–

Helene Cooper reminded us that in Foreign countries Obama did very well – now he will have a huge welcome in Indonesia and the Tea Party folks will say that this proves he is not from here. But they may overplay because again the President will show he can raise in the world the essence of an ideal. Indonesia is a poor country in recession and a probable breeding ground for Al Qaeda with a war going on in nearby Philippines.

Joe Klein kept repeating that even in the US people rank Obama’s foreign policy much more then his economic policy – so some will say that when he goes overseas to take of the news the needed US internal economic policy – he does not face the economy.

But above is not correct – he actually goes to the energy markets – Indonesia, then India, and probably after that South Africa. This follows the trip he made to China. So there is a pattern here.

Also – we were reminded that Iran has an operation to extract Uranium in a remote location in Venezuela – and yes – there is now a daily flight from Tehran to Caracas while there is only a weekly flight from Caracas to Bogota. AHA – is this not what we say all the time since Copenhagen? Obama needs to have in the White House a clear Western Hemisphere desk in order to be able to do all these other needed activities that are mainly Asia oriented.

We learned that Rahm Emanuel – the White House pragmatist – said all the time – the futures are ENERGY and JOBS. That should have been the laser guided policy from day one.

On the Israeli Palestinian issue, with the latest misery for all to see and a consensus building that the killing in Dubai and the slap to Vice President Biden, were “botched-on-purpose” events. Simply – they are so botched that they must have been on purpose and the purpose was that Israel wanted the world to know that they are ready to take responsibility for their future because they do not want to have to pay for complicated world policies that may treat them as collateral.

The two issues with most impact on the Middle East are clearly the global look into the maze of State-to State energy policies and what seems to emerge – a border set between Israel and the West Bank run by the Palestinian Authority. This as a “what-can-be-done” approach to get us out of this impasse. With the AIPAC meeting coming up in Washington – March 21-23, 2010, President Obama out of town, and Vice President Biden having been pushed aside by the Israelis, it remains now for Secretary Hillary Clinton to try to build such an approach for the only two direct factors in the dispute, and the Arab States the US has friendly relationship with. If this is not accepted by the two sides, the best the US can do is to drop this topic from its agenda all together, and wait the sides come back begging for new mediation.

Karl Rove is making the rounds of the TV stations in order to sell his book “Courage and Consequences.” It is him, former VP Cheney, the daughter Liz Cheney (Chris Matthews Calls Liz Cheney ‘Daughter of Dracula’), and pundist Bill Krystal that try to reinvent history. Of interest to US foreign policy is the mention now that the mismanagement of the war in Iraq under the Bush-Cheney Administration was the fault of Turkey – because of their reluctance to allow NATO overflights. Quite true – but did not one look into such things when planning a war?

Gillian Tett of the Financial Times, declared that  US President Obama is liked in the world but not feared. Russia and China are not going to allow greater restrictions on Iran. She also said that Israel is probably not as fearful of Iran as it is assumed because had they had Iran in mind they would not have turned against the US and the UK the way they did. She thinks the events in Dubai were a clear provocation to the UK. France and the UK will go along with the US grudgingly on Iran but others at the UN Security Council, like Lebanon and Brazil will not.

Candy Crowley’s program was underlined with the idea that the gridlock in Washington on health-care has signaled to the world that it also carries no power overseasand that Obama will now stress in his relations to Congress what he already said: “Ignore the Washington Eco Chamber!”

————-

Pakistan turns into a US Administration’s Show-case: At least something that showed some changes for the better.

On Farred Zakaria with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke – “Pakistan is looking up – A victory for Obama. It helped by dangling of showers of aid – so the Hakami faction of the Taliban that was previously tolerated by the military is now being attacked.

Holbrooke finds that the Afghans in Khandahar and Marja in general, want a conservative society but no corruption. They want education including for girls and are mad at the Taliban. The district leader in Marja is an Afghan who returned from Germany. There are returnees and the US encourages also afghans in the US to return and participate in the rebuilding.

———–

With Fareed – The Jeffrey Sachs, Amity Schlaes (conservative formerly with The Wall Street Journal and presently Council of Foreign Relations specialist), and Christa Freeland (global editor-at-large, The Financial Times – middle of the road, right leaning):

The underlying Jeff Sachs dictum: “EVERY DECENT SOCIETY ENSURES CITIZENS HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTH-CARE.” Without reforms of the health-care delivery system we will get nowhere – this was really not discussed yet he said.

The problem is that we have no cost controls so we use four times more Cat-Scans then Switzerland or France.

Freeland concurred  and said THE SYSTEM ENCOURAGES DOCTORS TO DO TOO MUCH! She had found that in the American system you have to fight excessive treatment more then anywhere else. She herself gave birth in Toronto, Paris, New York and the US was worse. She asked why all those Cesarean treatments for first birth in the US? She concluded that it was not only a problem of greed – which it is – but also a problem of the legal system, the high insurance of the profession, that makes doctors more worried and pushes them to prescribe unnecessary treatments. SO – WE ARE BACK TO THE INSURANCE AND TO THE HEALTH-CARE IMPASSE. She also pointed out that 80% of the health-care cost is in the last years of life and this should be something to be looked at also.

The two seemed to agree that with 10% unemployment it is wrong to tie-in health-care to a job – and Freeland suggested HELP RATHER PEOPLE TO BUY AN INSURANCE.

Talking about the economy at large, Jeff Sachs said we were in a panic situation last year – that was removed – but we are out of control with the budget and a burdened debt consumer is no consumer. We risk a downward spiral as for two and a half years we really did nothing on the economy. He predicts that the US is out for a double recession.

Amity Schlaes in all of this was a parody of the Wall Street Journal – “A person who gets a job – not the happy consumer that goes to the mall – is who saves the economy. Which she is obviously right but nowhere in the discussion did we see an indication of how to get there. Cut spending? From where? She brings up Indiana State tax cuts as an example, but Professor Sachs cuts her short by saying the US is already the lowest taxed country in the developed world and we are paralyzed because we cannot do what a civilized country must do. Can we have a value added tax Fareed asks Schlaes and she gives a clear NO!. We read her stuff in the WSJ many times and wonder now what she can do for the Council on Foreign Relations. We thank Fareed Zakaria for having brought her in to the panel so we understand better what US institutions of long-standing have done to split America.

With a 10% of GNP budget gap while the entitlement amount to a total of 15% for Social Security and existing Health-Care, there is just no way that the US can cut itself out of the coming recession without falling back into the ranks of a third world country – whatever the meaning of that term which we clearly do not accept as part of our own parlance. Clearly – Presidential leadership is needed here and plain conversation with the electorate is the way to honestly explain the situation to the public. Do not expect the media to be able to do this public relations job.

David Axelrod on all channels, kept saying that Illinois got 60% insurance increases this year and the President will speak in Ohio where a woman wrote to him that she had to chose between health insurance and her home – so she stopped her insurance. Then when cancer struck – now she will lose her home. This is the biggest driving force of the economy that the Federal Government must take into consideration first. We say power to him.

Further, on Fareed Zakaria’s program, we learned that March 9th was a year since the Wall Street Dow Index hit bottom from which it climbs up again. Banks have recapitalized with new $150 billion to a safe position, managers make fabulous pay again, Timothy Geithner who took the country on a middle road has shown success, refusing to nationalize the banks, but what did this do to the person on main street who will be voting in November?

———-

Intricacies of the Arab and Islamic world:

On the Amanpour program we started with Sheikh Dr. Tahir Ul-Qadri – an Islamic Theologian from London who started the JIHAD-AGAINST-JIHAD movement. He was a former special advisor on Islamic Law to the Pakistani Supreme Court.

He says – No ifs – No buts – Terrorism is Terrorism. Any good intentions cannot allow terrorism.

A terrorist does not reach Shihada (martyrdom) or in lay language – he does not go to heaven – he rather goes to hell!

He was questioned about “Khawarij” in the “Hadit” – the words of the Prophet as reported by men that wrote them down – “whoever fights against the people (that is the believers) has more rights to Allah then others.”

Sheikh Ul Qadri answered that the ideology that says those that are not Muslims – their blood is allowed – he does no accept. He fights for peace and when asked if his life is in danger he said he is not afraid “one has to live for truth and die for truth” – he is thus a jihadist-against jihad.

Elias Khouri is an Arab lawyer living on the West Bank near Jerusalem. Both – his father and his son were killed by other Palestinians as part of their war against Jews. The father back in the pre-Israel days, the son, George Khouri, who went to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in March 2004, when he was mistaken for a Jew.

Elias Khouri paid from his money for the translation into Arabic of the book “A Tale of Love and Darkness” by the famed Israeli author Amos Oz, and had it published in Beiruth so that Arab readers can learn something about the Israelis. This bereaved person wants to help remove prevailing stereotypes in the Middle East.

Amos Oz who can be defined as an Israeli who clearly wants to live in a Middle East mixed environment, depicted in this book the non-heroic ways of the first settlers who lead to the foundation of the State. Elias Khouri says that knowledge is needed to be able to understand if we want to fight them or go along. Since the offer to translate the book, the two families – the Khouri and the Oz families became close friends and visit each other. Amos Oz says that he tried always to put himself in the other’s shoes. Anyone in the Arab world who reads the book will understand the historical events better. Oz says – Imaging the other is a moral thing.

From: openDemocracy
Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Watch Amartya Sen;s Demos lecture live on openDemocracy

Watch Amartya Sen’s Demos lecture live on openDemocracy tonight at 18.30 GMT.

Towards a people-focused democracy

Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winning economist, gives the Demos Annual Lecture today at 18.30 GMT. In debate with Ed Miliband, Shirley Williams and Aryeh Neier, he explores the themes of power, justice and capabilities in the contemporary political landscape. Catch the Lecture and debate here, and post your question to the panel chair here or follow the debate on Twitter.

Also today, the Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society publishes its report calling for a radical devolution of power and active voice from parliament to the family.  Geoff Mulgan, Inquiry Chair, in the first of this week’s series of articles – which are all being published on openDemocracy – argues that three crises have triggered a major civil society challenge.

Read the first Making Good Society article here

Rosemary Bechler, Contributing editor, openDemocracy

Reuters from Berlin, where President Mubarak, 81 years of age, had a gallbladder operation, reports that his health is improving. The problem is that 30 years in office and having made sure there is no number 2 to him, the fact that he went for an operation plunged the Egyptian economic benchmark by 2.4%. We posted the information about Japanese and Kuwait funds made available to the stagnant economy of Egypt, for purpose of green, and perhaps nuclear energy. With this new information we wonder about the meaning of that that previous posting. Is investment in Egypt these days indeed a safe idea or do the foreign banks believe that Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA, will  be the winner in the upcoming elections in Egypt?

———————-

Egypt To Secure $430 Mln Loan For Wind Farm: Agency
Date: 15-Mar-10

by Alexander Dziadosz, Reuters from Egypt.

Egypt is set to secure a $430 million loan from Japan to fund a 220-megawatt wind farm as it tries to boost its renewable energy output, the state news agency MENA said on Friday.

Egypt, an oil and gas producer, has been developing wind power along its eastern Red Sea coast. It aims to generate 12 percent of its power from wind and 20 percent from renewables overall by 2020.

The loan, inked this week, will be used to build a wind farm in Gebel el Zeit on the Gulf of Suez, the report said.

Officials say Egypt’s combined oil and gas reserves will last it roughly three decades, pushing it to develop alternative energy sources, including nuclear and solar.

Last week Egypt said it would receive a $100 million loan from the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development to fund a 1,300 megawatt power plant in the Red Sea coastal town of Ain Sokhna, east of Cairo.

Honda Drives Toward Home Solar Hydrogen Refueling
Date: 15-Mar-10

Author: Mary Milliken, Reuters from California.

{Jon Spallino (L) with his wife Sandy (R) and their daughters Anna (2L) and Adrianna accept their new 2005 Honda FCX fuel cell powered vehicle in Los Angeles on June 29, 2005.
Photo: by Mario Anzuoni}

Coming not so soon and probably not to a house near you is the home solar hydrogen refueling station — Honda Motor Co’s latest idea in its drive to make hydrogen the fuel of choice for zero emission cars.

The Japanese auto giant believes hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles offer the best long-term alternative to fossil fuels and the company showed on Friday a refueling breakthrough that it says points to a home version down the road.

Most major automakers have spent billions of dollars in researching hydrogen-powered fuel cells, tempted by the idea of a car that uses no gasoline and emits only water vapor. But Honda is widely seen as the hydrogen leader, while others like General Motors put more effort into battery-powered electric vehicles like the upcoming Volt.

One of the big barriers to hydrogen car deployment is the lack of refueling infrastructure, leading Honda to bet that the future lies in combining a public station network with a more modest home option.

Honda’s home option will comprise a solar-powered hydrogen refueling station using solar panels.

“Customers can choose how they interact with both of them based on their annual miles and their habits,” said Stephen Ellis, fuel cell manager at the Honda’s North American headquarters in Torrance, California.

‘BIGGEST PROGRESS’

“The key thing to remember is that with five-minute refueling you are good for another 240 miles,” Ellis added.

That range comes from the “fast-fill” public station, of which there are just a handful in Southern California, where Honda leases 15 FCX Clarity hydrogen-powered vehicles and is set to distribute more in coming months.

Eight hours of home solar refueling would guarantee a smaller range of 30 miles or about 10,000 miles (16,000 km per year — enough for an average commuting car.

At the Los Angeles R&D center, engineers refueled the sleek FCX Clarity sedan with a new single-unit station connected to a solar array that replaces a two-unit system, cutting costs and improving efficiency by 25 percent.

“This is wonderful progress, the biggest progress,” said Ikuya Yamashita, the chief engineer of the station.

The station uses a 6-kilowatt solar array, composed of 48 panels and thin film solar cells developed by a Honda subsidiary. It breaks down the water into hydrogen in what Honda calls a “virtually carbon-free energy cycle.”

The FCX Clarity’s hydrogen “stack” — or the electricity generator — is around the size of an attache case, tucked between the two front seats, and is a fifth of the stack size developed a decade ago.

The car is likely to be sold commercially around 2018 in the luxury large sedan category, while the solar hydrogen refueling system could move beyond the research stage and into the market-ready phase around 2015.

“A lot of this work is not necessarily for today’s economic situation,” said Ellis. “This is for tomorrow, when most people feel energy prices will be higher.”

At the UN meeting of women commemorating Beijing+15, we picked up a TerraViva IPS handout that made us aware that THE WOMEN OF IRAQ MISS SADDAM. The fscts are that under secular Dictator Saddam Hussein the women had it better then under the present touted democracy.

——–

Women Miss Saddam.
Abdu Rahman and Dahr Jamail, March 13, 2010
 http://original.antiwar.com/jamail/2010/…

BAGHDAD – Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year’s maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: “Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation.” Sub-head A says “No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.” Under this Article the interpretation of women’s rights is left to religious leaders – and many of them are under Iranian influence.

“The U.S. occupation has decided to let go of women’s rights,” Yanar Mohammed, who campaigns for women’s rights in Iraq, says. “Political Islamic groups have taken southern Iraq, are fully in power there, and are using the financial support of Iran to recruit troops and allies. The financial and political support from Iran is why the Iraqis in the south accept this, not because the Iraqi people want Islamic law.”

With the new law has come the new lawlessness. Nora Hamaid, 30, a graduate from Baghdad University, has now given up the career she dreamt of. “I completed my studies before the invaders arrived because there was good security and I could freely go to university,” Hamaid tells IPS. Now she says she cannot even move around freely, and worries for her children every day. “I mean every day, from when they depart to when they return from school, for fear of abductions.”

There is 25-percent representation for women in parliament, but Sabria says “these women from party lists stand up to defend their party in the parliament, not for women’s rights.” For women in Iraq, the invasion is not over.

The situation for Iraq’s women reflects the overall situation: everyone is affected by lack of security and lack of infrastructure.

“The status of women here is linked to the general situation,” Maha Sabria, professor of political science at Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad tells IPS. “The violation of women’s rights was part of the violation of the rights of all Iraqis.” But, she said, “women bear a double burden under occupation because we have lost a lot of freedom because of it.

“More men are now under the weight of detention, so now women bear the entire burden of the family and are obliged to provide full support to the families and children. At the same time women do not have freedom of movement because of the deteriorated security conditions and because of abductions of women and children by criminal gangs.”

Women, she says, are also now under pressure to marry young in family hope that a husband will bring security.

Sabria tells IPS that the abduction of women “did not exist prior to the occupation. We find that women lost their right to learn and their right to a free and normal life, so Iraqi women are struggling with oppression and denial of all their rights, more than ever before.”

Yanar Mohammed believes the constitution neither protects women nor ensures their basic rights. She blames the United States for abdicating its responsibility to help develop a pluralistic democracy in Iraq.

“The real ruler in Iraq now is the rule of old traditions and tribal, backward laws,” Sabria says. “The biggest problem is that more women in Iraq are unaware of their rights because of the backwardness and ignorance prevailing in Iraqi society today.”

Many women have fled Iraq because their husband was arbitrarily arrested by occupation forces or government security personnel, says Sabria.

More than four million Iraqis were estimated to have been displaced through the occupation, including approximately 2.8 million internally. The rest live as refugees mainly in neighboring countries, according to a report by Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement.

The report, titled, “Going Home? Prospects and Pitfalls For Large-Scale Return Of Iraqis,” says most displaced Iraqi women are reluctant to return home because of continuing uncertainties.

The Washington-based Refugees International (RI) says in a report “Iraqi Refugees: Women’s Rights and Security Critical to Returns” that “Iraqi women will resist returning home, even if conditions improve in Iraq, if there is no focus on securing their rights as women and assuring their personal security and their families’ well-being.”

The RI report covered internally displaced women in Iraq’s semi-autonomous northern Kurdish region and female refugees in Syria. “Not one woman interviewed by RI indicated her intention to return,” the report says.

“This tent is more comfortable than a palace in Baghdad; my family is safe here,” a displaced woman in northern Iraq told RI.

The situation continues to be challenging for women within Iraq.

“I am an employee, and everyday go to my work place, and the biggest challenge for me and all the suffering Iraqis is the roads are closed and you feel you are a person without rights, without respect,” a 35-year-old government employee, who asked to be referred to as Iman, told IPS.

“To what extent has this improved my security?” she asked. “We have better salaries now, but how can women live with no security? How can we enjoy our rights if there is no safe place to go, for rest and recreation and living?”

——————————
(*Abdu, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who reports extensively on the region) (Inter Press Service)

Sunday March 7, 2010, Fareed Zakaria took the measure of the Big Crescent that Stretches from Gaza via Jerusalm, Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, to Islamabad. He had quite o few first line guests.

Turned out that it is unrealistic to expect democracy in Iraq – what we get at best will be a cross-sectarian coalition – maybe.

There is no certainty that the Iraqis will want to end up in a relationship with the US with less then 25,000 US and other NATO forces present.

The important question came up: “Do we have any economic influence in Iraq?” and the answers included pearls like “This is capitalism at work – there will be competition.” “With the money spent on the invasion the US could have bought all the Iraqi oil production for a decade.” We hope Mr. Cheney was watching the program wherever he is. We wonder if he will evr move finally to the headquarters of Haliburton in Dubai.

———

Regarding Iran – the main observation is that the Basij have had to turn inwards because of the stirring of a political opposition.

“Do you think that Dr. Ahmad Chalabi is an Iranian agent?”

“He was behind the de-Bathification – indeed the Iraqis believe so.”

——-

With Yossi Melman, now with Tel Aviv newspaper HAARETZ, and former Mossad operative and Fawaz A. Gerges, from the London School of economics and Political Science, author of Journey of the Jihadist” present, and Osama Hamdan on video in Damascus – we heard from Mosab Hassan Jousef Jr. how he was, and in many ways still is, a double or triple agent between the Hamas, Patach and the Israelis. His contention is that he saved his father’s life, Sheick Hassan, a founder of the Hamas, by telling his location to the Israelis, so he is now well and alive in Israeli prison with a six years term, while he would have been dead otherwise. That is another tid-bit of Middle East lore. Mosab did not seem to worry having exposed himself before the cameras – seemingly he is more interested in getting royalties from a book he published.

——

In this program we also learned – at least the first time I heard so – finally a religious Islamic leader, talking of the atrocities of 9/11, say the magic words I was waiting for these last 8 years: “COMMITTINGG A TERROR ATTACK LANDS THE PERPETRATORS IN HELL.” So, there is now a “JIHAD AGAINST JIHAD” among some Muslim leaders and they regard 9/11 as the “WAKE UP CALL.”

So far so good – but the announcement by the news-caster that the Pakistanis caught in the city of Karachi, among its 30 million people, American-turncoat Adam Gadahn, the Al Qaeda Spokesman – that was a bum announcement. The beaded man was not caught.

The news this morning, March 13, 2010, at least on CNN, seems to be
the coming out of a new political ferment – perhaps in response to the
achievements of the Tea Party that started a while ago.

The Tea Party, despite the fact that they declare that they try to be
all inclusive on the basis of the American people feeling cheated by
the interests that operate government in Washington, by bringing in
Sarah Palin as their $100,000 paid for speaker in their first National
convention, have clearly branded themselves as new spokespeople for
extreme right wing Republican conservatism in America.

The truth is that the numbers of people disappointed with Washington
is immense – by some counts probably pushing 80%, but not all say like
Ms. Palin that the problem is in big government – actually most people
realize that the country must be governed – the problem being is just
in the present Washington culture. What they want is more open
government – not less government. There is clearly a large number of
disappointed people that are progressive and Democrats.

This weekend, after preparation that led to 125,000 names subscribed
on Facebook.com and organized in 60 different locations in America,
the new COFFEE PARTY came out from its preparatory closets.

The founder is Annabel Park and groups in Baltimore, Atlanta, and
Washington DC were shown on CNN. In Baltimore their meeting place is
at the “One World Café.” We found this a very attractive location for
a nice spirited forward-looking group.

Ms. Park stated the situation clearly: While Tea wants to downsize
Federal Government – Coffee wants to improve it and work with it. The
joint part is that both groups are saying the Federal Government does
not serve the people.

At www.SustainabiliTank.info – we drink to the Coffee people who seem
to be more to the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party folks of the
American Revolution then the Tea Party of today. We thought originally
that a Tea revolution could push America in the correct direction (I
have obviously a difficulty using the word “right” here) – now we
think that Coffee may have the day and take over from where the Tea
failed.

We would love to see the Coffee Party push actually both parties to
put up candidates for as soon as the November 2010 elections that are
capable to accept proposed Coffee ideas.

—————-

An evening update:

AOL News NATION: Liberals Hope to Stimulate Obama With Coffee Party
Updated: 1 hour 50 minutes ago
Print Text Size E-mail More

Barry Weintraub, Contributor, AOL News.
NEW YORK (March 13) — In coffee shops — and at least one bar — people fed up with the Tea Party movement gathered Saturday to discuss issues and launch what they call the Coffee Party.

Inspired by a late February rant on the Facebook page of Annabel Park, the Coffee Party (not limited to coffee drinkers alone) declared March 13 National Coffee Party Day, and on the group’s Web site invited individuals to organize in coffee shops across the country in hopes of eventually growing into an influential political movement.

Park — a documentarian and former Obama volunteer — said in a video on her Web site that she wants to “stop the shouting” and replace “obstructionism” with action.

“Their name is brilliant,” said Ann Morris, “because it captures patriotism.”

Morris, a psychologist, was one of the 20 people who gathered at the Bleecker Street Bar in Manhattan Saturday.

Coffee, Morris noted, became America’s beverage of choice after the tax revolt that is now known as the Boston Tea Party.

Morris usually leaves the city every weekend for her upstate home. She chose to stay, rather than make her usual journey, because she is concerned the Tea Party movement is growing too influential. “[They] are not interested in discourse,” she said. “They think different than we do.”

The Bleecker Street Coffee Party meeting was originally scheduled to meet at the NoHo Star, an eatery that serves coffee. The gathering had to shift to a bar next door because the crowd was too large.

Organizer Amanda Martinez chose to hold the event near New York University in the hope of attracting young people. The Tea Party, she said is populated “by a lot of older people.”  On that measure, Martinez was disappointed. Only a few of the attendees appeared to be under 50.

As the meeting began, Martinez read Coffee Party “ground rules,” asking participants to “listen and respect everybody’s opinion.” Then, participants broke into groups of five or six to talk about the issues that concerned them most.

Anne Miller told her group that campaign finance reform is key. “To me,” said Miller, “that’s the most important issue. We’ve got to get money out of campaigns.”

Bob Pargament, a hypnotist from Harrison, N.Y., drove more than 40 miles through heavy rain and wind to attend. He said he “is concerned about the shift to the right” and the “know-nothing mentality bent on shutting down and interrupting the debate needed in a democracy.”

Citing what he sees as a growing anti-science movement across the country, Pargament said “it’s time to start thinking like 21st century citizens.”

Also among the participants was a gentleman who identified himself only as Tyler, an anthropologist who says he’s been studying the Tea Party movement for months.

In group conversation, Tyler asked fellow members how they felt about taxes — an issue at the heart of the Tea Party fervor. The others agreed taxes were important to them as well.

Lamar Bennett, a university researcher from Brooklyn, who describes himself as being from the left wing of the Democratic party, pointed out that “while everyone wants lower taxes, everyone wants services, too.” Everyone in that group nodded their heads in agreement.

Jean Stevens, a writer also from Brooklyn, said she felt after the campaign of 2008 that too many Obama supporters sat back and waited for him “to do all the work.” Stevens says she now realizes that she and others will need to do more if they want to see the change they voted for in the last presidential election.

Martinez said the gathering produced a wide spectrum of opinions. “Everything from no government to the government is the people,” she said.

Martinez agreed with the sentiment that Obama supporters had grown complacent, but she remains hopeful.

“Things will happen,” Martinez said. “Obama is staying behind the curtain and when the time is right he’s going to mobilize his army and get it done.”

“It was great,” Stevens said as she got up to leave, calling the day inspiring and hopeful.

“People are concerned,” she said. “They want to break the logjam.”

But when asked if she might take the lead and organize a future Coffee Party gathering in Brooklyn, she said, “I don’t know.”