As revolutionary as the change that a President Barack Obama would bring, Thomas Klau of Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland thinks that his wife Michelle as first lady would herald an even greater revolution - but not the type that involves a Kalashnikov slung over her shoulder.
Klau writes that throughout American history, “As in a monarchy, the wife of America’s head of state is indisputably and for all, the First Lady of Society. Her tastes, her choice of curtains, or the style of her clothing are all legitimate topics of reporting for the nation’s most prestigious newspapers.”
“All of this reflects what an enormous breakthrough that the entry into the White House of Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic candidate Barack Obama, would be. In some respects, she would represent an even greater revolution than the parallel entry into office of her husband. … One suspects that she won’t be one to forget that the celebrity and success of rare social achievers like TV genius Oprah Winfrey, Secretary of State Rice and her predecessor in office Colin Powell - conceal, more than reveal, the reality that a majority of Black Americans experience - and the history that they have inherited.”
“For a considerable portion of the White majority, when Michelle Obama declared several months ago that for the first time she was proud of her country, it was an offence against the first commandment of unconditional American patriotism. … But the Black minority knows what Michelle Obama meant. Blacks are embittered and scoff at conservatives - a mortal sin against the second commandment of unconditional American patriotism. From a European point of view, this apparent bitterness seems like a much clearer perception of the realities in the country.”
July 19th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
If the arrival of The Beatles in the 1960s helped boost the backpacker traffic to India, it is now the turn of Americans to help in increasing, what is described as, ‘executive tourism’ to India. “India is now nearly as popular a destination for Americans as Spain,” reports The Canadian Press.
“Travel to India from the United States increased 10 per cent between 2006 and 2007, on top of an eight per cent rise the year before,according to the most recent data from U.S. Department of Commerce.
“The upsurge in Americans visiting India is part of broader boom in India’s tourism industry. In 2007, some five million travellers headed to India, nearly double from 2000, according to the Tourism Ministry. Visitors from the U.S. accounted for 15.7 per cent of the total.
“And while there are still plenty of Westerners seeking low-budget Eastern spirituality, India has recently started attracting a different class of visitors…These include a large number of business travellers, wealthy retirees out to explore India from the comfortable confines of an air-conditioned luxury bus or train…”
“More Americans visited India last year than went to Ireland or Thailand, according to the most recent data from U.S. Department of Commerce.” More here…
Why has the United States decided to resurrect the U.S. Navy’s Fourth Fleet, which has been in mothballs since the 1950s? And why has it chosen to do so now?
People in South America have been debating these questions for months now. Here WORLDMEETS.US presents an analysis that has been quoted widely by Latin American newspapers and politicians like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro since it was published June 30th by Argentine newspaper Clarin.
“What reason could the United States have to send such a powerful naval force to a region at peace, without nuclear weapons, without conflict or any real military threats? “They’re never going to admit that it’s because of our natural resources, but it’s no coincidence that this decision comes just as a structural change is underway in the global economy, in which reserves of fresh water, food and energy resources (which our region has in abundance) have assumed such vital strategic value,” said Clarín Khatchik Der Ghougassian, specialist on security issues at the University of San Andrés [Argentina].”
“The commander of the Navy of Brazil, Julio Moura Neto, made it clear that his country will not under any circumstances accept any American naval intervention in Brazilian waters. There is a leader, Hugo Chávez, who is making life complicated for them. And there is a country - Brazil - with plans for leadership that isn’t necessarily opposed to the U.S., but rather takes power away from it.”
“The first was economic: with neo-liberalism, the U.S. rearranged the use of natural resources to benefit large multinationals and other political and economic groups. Due to the failure of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, it was not entirely successful. The second was legislative. It had Latin American constitutions - which were very nationalist - changed to allow the entry of foreign private capital and the shrinking of state interference. The third was military: the U.S. pushed for the approval of security laws that in some cases allow the free movement of the FBI or the CIA on our territory.”
He’s in Afghanistan today and will go on to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England on what his campaign hopes will be a 21st century reprise of the Beatles’ Magical Mystery Tour with its theme of “All You Need Is Love” but at the same time has the potential to be a gauntlet of political minefields and security nightmares.
Despite the advance secrecy, John McCain yesterday blurted out that Obama would be going “either today or tomorrow” and that “Sen. Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would’ve encountered before we started the surge.” Maybe so, but someone might remind McCain of the old World War II slogan, “Loose Lips Sink Ships.”
Physical security aside, Obama may get a warm reception in Baghdad if what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has told the German magazine Der Spiegel about troop withdrawal is any indication.
For some strange reason, I remember the scene with clarity. I was in the kitchen, early on a Friday afternoon about a month ago, cooking Shabbat dinner. Micha, our youngest, now 15, was hanging out in the living room. The radio was on in the background, and on the hour, the news came on. It was over in minutes, and then the music returned.
I hadn’t really paid attention to the news, but Micha apparently had. “Do you think we’re ever going to get Gilad Shalit back?” he asked. Without even looking at him, I said, without even thinking, “Of course we are. Definitely.”
“You don’t know that,” a different voice piped in. Now, I looked up. Avi, his older brother, was unexpectedly home. “We may get him back, and we may not. How can you possibly say that we definitely will?” But the conversation was over. Micha, overjoyed to see Avi, had quickly followed his brother upstairs, and I was left alone in the kitchen. So I never got to answer Avi.
But had he pressed, and had Micha not been around, I would have said to him, “Why did I say that? Because when he hears the news each and every day, the only thing that your brother thinks about is the fact that you’re about to get drafted. And he’s beyond worried he’s panicked. Because he worships the ground you walk on. And he needs to believe, to know. He needs to believe that you’re going to be OK. And he wants to know that though he lives in a country that asks its kids to do everything, to commit everything, that country also knows that it owes them everything in return. And getting them home – no matter what has happened to them – is part of that.”
When Barack Obama pointed out recently that Americans should - in their own interest - teach their children Spanish or some other second language, many were quick to pounce.
But, not surprisingly, people in South America wholeheartedly agree with him.
“The percentage of people in the United States who master a foreign-language is pathetic compared to other wealthy countries. … Obama is right, although it would’ve been nice if he himself spoke Spanish or some other language. … a recent survey taken in 27 countries of the European Union revealed that 56 percent of Europeans speak at least one language apart from their native tongue, which is an increase of 53 percent over five years ago.”
July 18th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
It is celebration time at my in-laws house in the hill State of Himachal Pradesh in India. A century-old Kalka-Shimla rail line that passes through their sprawling ancestral lower Himalayan farmland, has been finally chosen by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) as a world heritage site. More here…
During holidays I often walk along part of the rail track which, the Guinness Book of World Records states, offers steepest rise in altitude in the space of 96 kilometers, and whose more than two-thirds of the track is curved, sometimes at angles as sharp as 48 degrees. The picturesque rail journey begins at 640 meters above sea level at Kalka to the lofty heights of Shimla (former summer capital during the British colonial days) at 2,060 meters.
A living example of the extraordinary engineering feat of the early mechanical age, this narrow gauge train track - 2 ft 6 in (762 mm) - climbs steep cliffs and the train huffs and puffs at a leisurely pace of maximum 22-km an hour through deodar, pine, ficus, oak and maple woods and completes its 96-km journey in five hours. (The rail track passes through my in-laws farms where they grow apple, plum, apricot, walnut and cherries.)
The memorabilia of the British Raj in the form of old wall clocks, semi-porcelain hand-painted crockery, vintage communication and track control system, called Neals Token Instrument System, is still in use on the rail stations en route. In 1827, Lord Amherst, the Governor-General of India, spent the summer at Shimla and found the place to his liking. It was under his successor, Lord William Bentinck, that Shimla became the summer headquarters of the government of (British) India.
The Kalka-Shimla rail was formally opened on November 9, 1903. (The same year when Orville Wright flew an aircraft with a petrol engine at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.) Read the rest of this entry »
You didn’t have to be paying terribly close attention in order to see a bit of a double reverse volley from the McCain campaign this week re: Obama’s overseas trip. For some time now, Senator McCain and his surrogates have been hectoring Barack Obama for failing to visit Afghanistan and taking too long between trips to Iraq. As I pointed out in a previous column, I find the original argument faulty, as almost all of these trips by any candidate are junkets of questionable value, and the McCain team was just setting a trap for Obama anyway.
The Illinois Senator hadn’t even finished loading his luggage on board Messiah One, (sorry… I couldn’t resist) when the two prong trap was sprung. First, McCain surrogate Jill Hazelbaker leapt into action.
“Let’s drop the pretense that this is a fact-finding trip and call it what it is–the first of its kind campaign rally overseas,” … During a later appearance on MSNBC she also called the trip “one giant photo opportunity…not designed to inform his world view.”
She was clearly referring to the entire trip when I watched this interview, not just the European portion. At that same time, however, Senator McCain took time out on the Straight Talk Express to give a different message.
“I’m glad that he is (traveling overseas) and pleased that he is going to Iraq for only the second time and going to Afghanistan for the first time,” McCain said. “I can only give you my opinion, and I will talk to (Hazelbaker). But the fact is, I’m glad that he’s going to Iraq and I think it’s - I’m glad that he’s going to Afghanistan. It’s long, long overdue, if you want to lead this nation and secure our national security.”
This is a tactic we’re seeing from both campaigns far too often and it’s beginning to get tiresome. Send out a surrogate to deliver the dirt while the candidate waves it away and takes the high road. It was a bit of a relief to see that Senator McCain dropped the portion of the speech where he talks about Obama not holding committee meetings on Afghanistan, and that’s probably good timing, considering that we recently learned that McCain’s record on this score isn’t exactly spotless.
It turns out that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has attended even fewer Afghanistan-related Senate hearings over the past two years than Obama’s one. Which is a nice way of saying, McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, has attended zero of his committee’s six hearings on Afghanistan over the last two years.
The defense from the McCain campaign and his supporters regarding Hazelbaker’s comments is that Obama’s trip to Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn’t be a photo op excepting the fact that he’s still sticking to his “sixteen month troop removal plan” before even going on his “fact finding mission” this summer. I find these protestations unsatisfying in two regards.
First, they conveniently ignore the fact that Obama has repeatedly stated that the sixteen month goal is a target which may be modified as matters progress on the ground. Second, and more to the point, is the denial of the fundamental principle that the civilian government gives the orders to the military - not the other way around. The current Commander in Chief has issued directives that our military forces achieve victory in Iraq, regardless of how victory is being defined this month or how long it takes. That’s what they are doing, and in an admirable fashion. However, if we have a new civilian Commander in Chief next year who directs that the goal is now to achieve the fastest, safe draw-down of troops as possible and to turn over control of the country to the Iraqi government, that is what the generals will have to accomplish. Agree or disagree, if the majority of Americans wind up electing Obama, it’s also the “will of the nation” and it is not the military’s place to countermand that.
As a side note, this is a gambit by the McCain campaign which may still either pay off large dividends or backfire completely on them. Should Obama seriously stumble under the massive media glare during his international appearances, it could hurt him at the polls. However, if he pulls off the media aspect of this trip with aplomb and Americans are treated to a series of images of Obama reviewing the troops, meeting with foreign leaders and looking presidential in international settings, it could close the perception gap Americans seem to have about the two candidates’ relative strength on foreign policy and undercut McCain’s campaign efforts.
Is the Bush plan to meet with Iran’s nuclear negotiator a significant change in policy? And if so, why - and why now?
Say what one will about the French - they are no strangers to political intrigue and bureaucratic gamesmanship.
According to this Le Figaro editorial by Pierre Rousselin, this was a major change in policy - not the minor adjustment claimed by the White House. And the reason it’s coming now is to boost John McCain’s fortunes.
“The fact remains that the American administration has made an about-face: it has agreed to participate in discussions, even if those are presented as preliminary to Iran even accepting its conditions.”
“It comes particularly in the context of the U.S. election campaign. Negotiating with Iran is a demand put forward by Democratic candidate Barack Obama. In making this decision, the Republican Administration means to cut the grass out from under his feet and promote John McCain.”
“The Islamic Republic wants to be recognized by the United-States as an indispensable interlocutor. It can seize its chance now or wait for the next American president. But if it waits, escalating tensions could resume quickly.”
Should Barack Obama be permitted to speak at Berlin’s famed Brandenburg Gate? It seems the latest obsession in Germany, with politicians and pundits of every stripe urging or decrying the notion of allowing the American political phenom to utter remarks at the landmark.
“What the Jews were to the Third Reich and Blacks are to the United States, the Turks are to Germany today … So rather than have Obama deliver a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate, wouldn’t it be more suitable to let him deliver it at a summer BBQ along with thousands of Berlin-Turks!? … And he could end it on a legendary note, like his role model Kennedy, only not with a German quote - but a Turkish one: ‘Evet, siz’de baschara bilirsiniz’ - Yes, you can.”
Cohabiting among older people increased 50 percent from 2000 to 2006, the McClatchy Newspapers report today:
“The total–1.8 million–counts only couples who live together full time and were willing to admit it to census interviewers. Part-time cohabiting–traveling together, sharing a summer house, spending weekends together–is up at least as sharply, according to seniors and people who work with them.”
This news about the growth of “love expectancy” may come as a shock to younger generations, whose sophistication does not extend to the notion that parents and grandparents, despite all the evidence of Viagra commercials, may not be immune to a culture of supersex on TV and in the movies.
It’s creating almost as much controversy as the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad did last year: Does The New Yorker cover - with Barack and Michele Obama dressed like terrorists - go too far?
Pascal Riche of France’s Rue 89 suggests that the episode is a cautionary tale for French newspapers - and whatever the left-wing American weekly was trying to do - it has failed.
“Irony is a tool that should be used with care. French newspapers Libération and Rue89 had best remember that. … Irony is rarely a good mix with news. Though a majority of readers of any newspaper understand the subtext, many others are terribly narrow-minded. I remember a headline that we wrote for Libération when [former French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre] Raffarin was named prime minister: Finally, Raffarin!! Such a reaction over such an uncharismatic character made journalists laugh during the news meeting [when editors decide what to publish]. But readers didn’t completely understand.”
A regular feature of news and opinion pieces from the Israeli and Palestinian press.
1.) The Israeli press is dominated by coverage of today’s prisoner swap between Israel and Hezbollah. By an overwhelming vote, the Israeli Cabinet recently agreed to hand over several prisoners – including the infamous militant Samir Kuntar – in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers. Opinion columns in the leading English-language dailies are almost equally split on the wisdom of this decision – from a “bring them back at any price” argument to those who would appeal for more cool-headed decision-making.
Columnist Uri Orbach, writing in Ynet News, argues that prisoners released today will be the killers of tomorrow. “The next people to die will be killed by the senior terrorist who will be freed in the Gilad Shalit swap; or alternately, the abduction of the next soldier will be masterminded by the terrorist freed in the upcoming deal.” But Uri Misgiv, another columnist for Ynet News, disagrees. In an op-ed, he suggests that securing the release of the former IDF soldiers is important for national unity, in order that Israel might be able to finally “put away the Lebanon failure” of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war.
As one Israeli columnist has noted, whether you agree or disagree with the deal, there is no denying that it is a major win for Hezbollah.
In the eyes of the Arab world, Hizbullah pulled off a major victory: It survived a war against Israel, kept a million Israelis in bomb shelters for a month and got its POWs back, including an important symbol, Samir Kuntar. Israel sent the IDF into Lebanon to retrieve its two kidnapped soldiers and got them back two years after the army withdrew, and through negotiations, not force. In the eyes of the Hizbullah leadership and much of the Arab world, the deal is a victory. And they will make it look like one just in case anyone over there has any doubts. As far as Hizbullah is concerned, the Second Lebanon War account is closed. It is now looking to close the Imad Mughniyeh account.
That it got Israel to agree to release Palestinian prisoners further raises its stock in the Arab world. Through this it strengthened Hamas and weakened the Palestinian Authority, further propagating the rise of extremists over moderates in the Middle East. Housing and Construction Minister Ze’ev Boim, voting against the deal, said, “Hamas is watching and taking this swap into account, and the price we will have to pay for Gilad Schalit will be higher. We come out weaker; we strengthen [Hizbullah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, whose image in the Middle East will be boosted. His way will be perceived as the right way.”
Israeli media is also fixated on the news that Samir Kuntar will receive an “official state welcoming” when he arrives at the Beirut airport. This event will be followed by a massive rally to be held in the suburbs of the capitol. As several stunned journalists have pointed out, giving Kuntar a hero’s welcome is beyond the pale. Read the rest of this entry »
Being Israel and protecting the values on which it was founded is one helluva tough job, but a funny thing happened on the way to the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state: It has subsumed some of those values for political convenience and is kissing George Bush’s ass when it comes to torture.
This has great pertinence because Israel apparently is one of the relatively few countries that would roll out the welcome mat for administration officials who approved of and participated in the use of torture at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere in the Rumsfeld Gulag in violation of international law. As a consequence, they might risk arrest as war criminals in, say, France, Germany or Italy.
Said Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff of those officials — all practicing attorneys — in a pointed public statement:
“Haynes, Feith Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez and — at the apex — Addington, should never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In the future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court.”
It should be noted that Wilkerson can be outspoken to the point of intemperance, and he is no friend of the conservatives who run Israel.
It is no surprise that he would mention Saudia Arabia, a safe country for sure for those administration lawyers given its own religious and cultural embrace of torture. But Israel? A nation that emerged phoenix-like from the ashes of the Holocaust and the Nazi’s embrace of the very torture techniques that the CIA and other U.S. operatives have used?
How terribly sad.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House and here for an index and links to previous torture-related posts.
Photo illustration for Vanity Fair by Chris Mueller
One of the hallmarks of a civilized society is how they treat their less fortunate members. From the earliest days of American society we have tried to meet that noble goal. There has always been an unspoken understanding that ‘Society should provide the less fortunate with their basic needs’. This goal is correct and proper and I strongly support the basic premise.
However over the years the meaning of those words have gone through many changes, usually much needed ones but also often controversial ones.
For example the term ’society’ has changed dramatically in the past couple of centuries. At one point it meant mostly the private sector. Families, religious groups, private charities and the like were expected to help those in need. Sometimes local government might become involved but that was about it.
Then we saw the growth of the welfare state and the increasing role of the federal government and the decline of the religious and private charity groups. Today they exist in a balance, with most people agreeing that they should share responsibility (though still debating to what degree each side should be involved).
The term provide has also changed, at one point it was assumed that you would provide the needy with the means to obtain their needs (IE work) while today it has evolved to something of a mix, with some people advocating that everyone should work for their needs while others suggesting that to require any work is wrong.
The term ‘the less fortunate’ has perhaps taken the broadest path of change over the years. At one point racial, religious and ethnic prejudices led to limitations on who was helped. Often moderately needy people would get aid while truly needy ones would be ignored.
Even the term ‘their basic needs’ has gone through a number of changes. If you were to visit a welfare agency at the start of the 20th century they would consider a bed, some clothes and some food to be pretty much all anyone needed to survive.
Today most people look to items like telephone service, television, etc as fairly basic needs. Again, there is considerable debate over how far the change should go but the basic idea that more than food/clothing/shelter is needed is a pretty common assumption.
However in all of the years of evolution there is one thing that has never happened before. People have never sought to remove words from the statement…… but that may be changing. For the first time I am seeing signs that people would like to remove the term ‘the less fortunate’ and require society to provide everyone with their needs.
I first saw signs of this when I began to talk with younger people who came in to my office to discuss their financial needs. Time and time again they talked about how ‘government should provide’ them with the money needed for everything they wanted in life.
I am not talking about just a basic place to live but rather a home as luxurious as they wanted. My parents worked hard to provide my sister and I with a house of about 1500 square feet, which was considered fairly nice by the standards of the day.
Today people expect homes of twice that size and don’t care if they cannot afford it. I have seriously had bankruptcy clients expect that they could erase their mortgages and car loans completely but still keep the property.
I have also seen this is some of my younger friends who expect to be able to buy any car, take any trip and get anything they want right now. Their logic is that someone else has it so they should get it too.
I consider these things to be signs of the Barney effect. These people I mention have been raised with the idea that everybody should be equal, everything should be fair. If you play a game there should not be a score kept because somebody might lose. If you have a competition at school then everybody ought to get a prize.
It is thus hardly surprising that these people now expect that they should be given everything they want or need as an adult. Of course there are many very hard working members of the Barney generation and hopefully they will overcome this trend.
If they do, then there can be much to gain from a generation whose desire to achieve is tempered with a sense of fair play.
If they do not, then we will continue on our trend towards a society where the many depend on the few, and that can never last.
From Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza, here’s an in-depth explanation of why the Bush Administration’s negotiations with that nation on the U.S. anti-missile shield have gone so terribly wrong - and an inside look at how the White House managed to turn relations with one of our staunchest allies sour. Read the rest of this entry »
July 14th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Pakistan has come under a blistering attack from Afghanistan and India. Afghanistan alleges that Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) and army are behind the bloody Taliban-led insurgency, calling the security forces the “world’s biggest producers of terrorism and extremism.” While India has blamed Pakistan’s ISI for the suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, and said: “ISI is playing evil. The ISI needs to be destroyed.” (What is ISI?…Click here…)
Could it be that Pakistan’s ISI believes that Taliban would be the ultimate winner in Afghanistan?
Last year the newly released US official documents stated that the Pakistani government gave substantial military support to the Taliban in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks, sending arms and soldiers to fight alongside the militant Afghan movement. The suspicion has lingered that some elements of Pakistani intelligence are still protecting the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies in the autonomous tribal areas along the Afghan border.
Islamabad has acknowledged diplomatic and economic links with the Taliban but has denied direct military support, The Guardian reported. The US intelligence and state department documents, released under the country’s freedom of information act, show that Washington believed otherwise.
Afghanistan has accused Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of involvement in a number of recent attacks in the country — an attempted assassination of President Hamid Karzai in April, the July 7 suicide bomb attack outside Indian Embassy in Kabul that left over 60 people killed and a spate of suicide bombings and roadside bombs blamed on Taliban militants.More here…
The New York Times says: “Afghanistan is in some ways the test case of the extent to which India is willing to use its hard power to advance its strategic and commercial interests.” The NYT quotes Rahul Roy-Chowdhury, a research fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies: “As India’s influence grows it will become increasingly involved in the local politics of a foreign country. It cannot afford to see itself as an innocent bystander anymore.”
The NYT adds: “C. Raja Mohan, an Indian foreign policy analyst, said the time had come for India and Pakistan to look beyond their traditional rivalries and fuse a joint strategy to confront extremists operating on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Such an initiative, he argued, would be to both countries’ advantage.”More here…
Another Indian expert has this to say: “Neither the Afghans nor the Pakistanis, as distinct from their governments, concede that they and the US-led forces have a common enemy. The ‘war on terror’ is perceived widely as a war on the people, and not only because of allegedly accidental strikes on Pashtun homes and hamlets in the border areas. The fact is that the antiterrorist credentials of ‘the Americans and the agencies’ lack credibility because of a pro-Taliban past.
“Nor do the governments of the triangle see a common enemy in terrorism as such. On paper, New Delhi, Islamabad and Kabul may be allies in a US-headed antiterror front. But, in practice, they have only been busy trying to turn the alliance and its leader against each other. There would seem to be no sound reason to hope for early arrival of a time when the region won’t reverberate with terrorist blasts.”More here…
Even Pakistan’s capital city Islamabad is under serious militant threat with foreign diplomats making preparations to flee at short notice. Read the full story here…
Trot out the clichés about closing the barn door for news today that the Federal Reserve is cracking down on shady lending practices to home buyers and President Bush is fighting high gas prices by lifting a ban on offshore drilling for oil.
As Americans drown in bad economic news, these daring rescue moves are the equivalent of throwing them concrete life preservers.
The Fed’s new rules to protect the public against predatory lenders of subprime mortgages are too little for future home buyers and too late for the millions who are losing their homes at the highest rate in history.
July 14th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
]
Australian Ms Olive Riley, renowned as the world’s oldest blogger, has died at the age of 108, with her last posting talking about her ailing health but also how she still sings a happy song every day, reports Reuters.
“Born in the outback town of Broken Hill on October 20 1899, she lived through two world wars and raised three children while doing various jobs, including ranch cook and barmaid.” More here…And here…
How many bloggers in the world sing a happy song???
