Europe Continues WIth Plan, Wants Obama to join

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12771308&source=features_box1

Today, at a summit in Europe

"on Friday December 12th, as they agreed that Europe would take a global lead in fighting climate change. But they also agreed to protect local heavy industry if the world’s biggest polluters did not follow suit, starting with America."

" the final summit conclusions preserved those headline promises, as well as a pledge that the EU would make 30% cuts in emissions if other big polluters agree to their own binding carbon limits at an important international meeting to be held in Copenhagen at the end of 2009."

So Basically they said if the US does not try changing, they would be unwilling to take certain steps.  The European countries decided to go with an ambitious plan which, "would involve cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% over 1990 levels, obtaining 20% of energy from renewables and making 20% savings in energy use over forecast levels, all by the year 2020."  But given the state of things, concessions had to be made for poorer or countries (such as germany and Italy) that emit large amounts of green house gas.  As for the US role, José Manuel Barroso said to the US, "to join Europe and with us lead the world". 

However, the US still has not even ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a widely accepted plan to reduce several greenhouse gases so it seems difficult to imagine that the US will respond well especially wth the current recession here.  I personally, think that the US is long due for doing something about this and as a European, it would be annoying to be doing all this work while the US does nothing.  Furthermore, it is during a crisus that we see how comitted we are.  After all, we can't fight climate change if every time something bad happens, conservation is flung to the bottom of the list.  Anyway, I hope that Obama takes up their other to join them and lead the world

By the way, the picture shows how utterly alone we are in terms of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol

American Car?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/12/american.cars/index.html

Now, in one of my previous articles I talked about how the Big Three outsources a lot but here are some interesting statistics.

"Fewer than half of the parts on some Big Three vehicles are made in the U.S.

Looking at a Ford Fusion? It is assembled in Mexico. The Chrysler 300C is assembled in Canada, but its transmission is from Indiana; the brand's V-8 engine is made in Mexico. Engines in the Chevrolet Equinox sport utility vehicle are from China."

Then, in comparison, 

"On the other hand, Toyota's Camry is comprised 80 percent of parts made in the United States, and 56 percent of Toyota's vehicles sold in the U.S. also are made here, according to Toyota spokeswoman Sona Iliffe-Moon."

The Toyota Sienna and Tundra also have 80 percent of their parts manufactured in the U.S."

Now, this is somewhat ironic is it not?  After all, our apparently "american" companies does not use American parts.  This information is somewhat disconcerting because if they are not made in the US, that means most of the jobs (a lot more than I though) are not here.  Then, it really would be better if these companies died because it will teach them that factories and jobs at home are most important to stimulate the economy that buys your car.  Honestly, maybe the collapse of one or two would not be such a bad idea since it would teach them such a lesson

Rape by both sides in the Congo (whyyyyyy?)

How does this EVER help a war effort?  

 http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/12/2206156-report-both-sides-in-congo-use-rape-as-a-weapon

"Amnesty International said much of the sexual violence committed by all sides has been directed at ethnic groups from opposing communities.  Failure by the army and rebel groups to stop or punish rape "suggests that, at the very least, they systematically condone the crime and thereby implicitly encourage its persistence on a mass scale," the group said"

People like this are totally unqualified to lead an army let alone lead a country when the fighting is done.  And worse, all this does is encourage people to fight harder.  In war, people die ok that is a sad truth but REALLY. In my opinion, rapist are the worst people in the world because like, you can justifiably kill someone but I don't think there is any way to justify raping a woman.  This country is really messed up at this point and it does not seem to matter who wins this conflict because in the end, a large number of people will suffer

Senate doe NOT pass auto industry bailout

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28183485

Shame really, this was discussed in my previous article and it was believed that this would pass but I guess not.

However, "GM, Ford and Chrysler employ nearly 250,000 people directly, and 100,000 more jobs at parts suppliers could hang on their survival. The companies say 1-in-10 U.S. jobs are related to the auto sector. " so if that is true and the companies really do start collapsing I wonder what Congress will do then

Billion Dollar Fraud

Great, the economy is having a hard time and then we find out someone has been charged with fraud in the Stock Market. Could this have had any possible large scale effects on the economy other than further ruin people's confidence and Madoff losing his reputation? Apparently his website he wants fair-deals and high ethical standards in his firm. Could it has seriously contributed to the economy's problems? It probably didn't have a huge effect but then again I don't know much about stocks and economics to have a good perspective to judge.

Obama and the Internet

Continuing on Obama's Internet campaign and presence, Henry from The Monkey Cage just recently posted an interesting article that compares how the Internet was seen to have helped Obama's campaign and how the Internet actually helped.

He points out that the Internet activity of the campaign was not just some big poster to claim people are contributing, but it is really a means of communicating and efficiently organizing people who wanted to make that difference. I can see why the Internet was such a useful tool for the Obama campaign. It provided just about everything an individual needed to do the door to door notices and phone call lists, like the Obama campaign volunteer guest speaker explained when we had him a week or so ago.

The Internet empowers the activists to organize, not just show off, and with how the campaign played out this year you can count on similar methods in the future.

Postelection Fatigue

News Ref

During Obama's campaign there always seemed to be talk of his great volunteer movement, getting people out to vote, and using the internet to get connected to the voters. But now that the election is over and Obama is now President-elect his internet prowess seems to be fading rapidly.

Initially after the election when Obama came out with the first of his "fireside chat" talking-to-the-people videos, it was viewed by many, however the trend lately has been fewer views with each new video he presents. While the approach is reminiscent of the "fireside chats" and seems like a good idea, this is one borrowed idea that hasn't been working as well as one would hope.

There could be a number of reasons to explain the decline. Perhaps it is the Presidential capital model starting even before Obama is in office, where his influence and effect on people is gradually decreasing. It could be because he won and now his supporters don't see as much of a compelling need to as attentive. Or maybe those videos are just boring. They should be on Youtube if you feel like looking.

The country is doing bad as a whole, but California is doing the worst

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28179777/

"California leads the nation in the sheer size of its budget gap, according to the most recent survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures. "

Yep, California budget deficit will reach 41.8 billion dollars by 2010 based on current estimates and Arnold Schwarzenegger himself says that the state is heading toward "a financial Armeggedon". One of the reasons for this would be about how California passes budgets and deals with taxes. Calironia requires "two-thirds majorities to pass a budget" and is "one of seven states that require two-thirds of the votes to pass taxes."

Therefore, Republicans have a much greater power and they have remained stalwart in refusing to raise taxes while they themselves have yet to present their own plan on how to fix the situation.

I am not surprised though that California is in such a pickle but really, that whole things about passing a budget and taxes seems ineffective. That needs to be fixed in all seriousness because whenever there is a crisus (like now), people always disagree on how to fix it so setting such a high requirement doesn't help. I wonder how this will affect colleges and other vital programs though and whether or not they will get cut more to try and fix the budget.

Wow, this does not seem like a good idea

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045687.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz (this is what Haaretz is by the way)

"U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran. "

Yeah, that's great, basically, if (possibly when at this point) Iran gets nuclear weapons and blows up Israel, Obama intends to blow them up more. Honestly, like nuclear weapons are deterrants but you do not just so harshly say such a thing I mean, it just escalates the conflict.

However, "The current debate is taking place in light of the Military Intelligence assessment that Iran has passed beyond the point of no return, and has mastered the technology of uranium enrichment. " so yeah, this is not good. By the way, it is wildly believed that Israel has its own nukes. They won't affirm it but yeah, it is generally believed so US saying that it will nuke Iran does not do anything except make us more involved in this whole affair (and hated more by the Middle East) which is annoying given the fact that the US is trying to withdraw from the Middle East. This is not the smartest idea for Obama and it just goes to show, you can't stop a determined nation from developing nukes with just bribes and sanction

Mugabe: "Cholera epidemic is over"

Despite Cholera rampaging across Zimbabwe, Mugabe think everything is fine

“I am happy to say…that there is no cholera”

While officials in South Africa are declaring a disaster area in a part of the Limpopo region on the Zimbabwean border, as a result of desperate refugees spreading cholera. As Zimbabwe (and its neigboring countries) continues to suffer, attempts are being made by outsiders for military intervention. Furthermore, "Mr Mugabe refuses to give up political control of either the police or the armed forces, leaving the opposition still vulnerable to arbitrary arrest, intimidation and physical attack"

What kind of person says this while people are suffering and dieing, and this man is going as far as to say that the disaster is over. He continues to hoard all the power while the UN is scrambling to help. Honestly, he does need to step down but what happens then? Someone will have the take the position and in the current situation, that may not even be possible. So far, Bush has simply called for Mugabe to stand down which is good i guess given the current state of things in the US but it does not seem likely that he will on his own accord. Junior soldiers are currently the only ones rioting and has yet to reach higher ranks but will military force work? I do not think so but with the way things are, that is very likely to happen given the terrible situation.

Hilary Clinton ineligible?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-s

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

Interestingly enough, this prevent Hilary from being eligible for Secreatary of State (at least constituitionally)

"A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position."

This is quite interesting but does it matter? I mean, a lot things the US has done is still technically unconstitional but as the president of judical watch Tom Fitton says,

"No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."

It doesn't really matter to me but that might be because I lack a full scope of the situation. Anyway, do you guys like Hilary Clinton? Should she still try to take the position risking something from the Republicans? Comment below

This is really disturbing

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12756824

Ok, to sum it up, US soldiers rape women in Japan and Japan (and apparently several other nations) does nothing to stop it or punish the man. You know, I hear a lot of things like this concerning US soldiers being less than honorable and I often wonder, does this happen with other countries? It's kind of difficult to say since the US is the current powerhouse of the world and yeah, I do not know. But really, like, US soldiers seem to cause a lot of problems. For example

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb137/is_/ai_n29136558

"While many women began to flock to the sex trade during the 1960s as a conscious decision to support their families, it was not until the influx of US soldiers during the Vietnam War that the trafficking trade developed to meet the demand, and traffickers began to kidnap women and children and forced them into the industry."

Really, like something needs to be done but of course, Japan is in kind of in a difficult situation. It needs US support because Japan is pretty rude/hostile to neigboring nations and the other nations are hostile to them as well and what with N. Korea and A-bombs, they need US help even more. I think that the US really needs to notice these sorts of things and put a stop to them especially with soldiers. And furthermore, is this sort of thing happening in the Middle East with US soldiers there? After all, there are plently of poor, desperate women there in need of money so is this happening there as well?

Olberman Commentary on Bush's Legacy

Keith Olberman seems to be a little too harsh however, a lot of what he says is true

China is doing poorly

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12758009&source=features_box1

Recently, China has published their trade figures and they don't look good. Exports have dropped, and it is China that has powered world trade and global growth. In fact, "During the 1990s China’s exports grew at an annual average of 12.9%; from 2000 to 2006 that growth nearly doubled to 21.1% each year." and now, suddenly, all of this growth has just stopped. The World Bank's expectations for China are much lower than hoped for while most analysts expect far worse with no growth in exports at all in 2009.

Furthermore, along with these terrible tidings, Chinese workers are growing restless with labor disputes rising rapidly and to make matters worse, an estimated 130 million have moved from the countrysides into the city looking for jobs at factories tha make exports.

Some were counting on China to prop up the world as many rich places fall into recession but with these statistics, that does not seem likely. The world's economy is doing worse and worse and with Obama not even in office yet, I can already tell he is going to have it rough. After all, the entire world is going under and a lot is expected from him. Honestly, what can he do really to help the world. I wish him the best of luck because honestly, he is going to need it.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12381871

Final Evil Gasp Of Bush

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24991066/bushs_final_fu

With Bush leaving office, it appears he is hastening to screw the country over in various ways. I was hoping that he was going to try and leave a positive mark in the end however, he is attempting to ruin the country with some last-minute regulations. Bush intends (or has done):

• make it so that government scientists will not have to assess the impact on imperiled species before allowing logging, mining, drilling, highway building or other development and worse, prohibit federal agencies from taking climate change into account when weighing the impact of projects that increase greenhouse emissions
• "In early December, the administration finalized a rule that allows the industry to dump waste from mountaintop mining into neighboring streams and valleys, a practice opposed by the governors of both Tennessee and Kentucky"
• "has opened up nearly 2 million acres of mountainous lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming for the mining of oil shale — an energy-intensive process that also drains precious water resources"
• Allow "Circumventing the Clean Water Act, the administration has approved last-minute regulations that will allow animal waste from factory farms to seep, unmonitored, into America's waterways"

Anyway, there is a crapload of stuff (not listed here) that this man is doing to turn this nation into haven for business owners. He is ruining the environment, the poor, and AAARRGGG! This man is a natural disaster all by himself and I don't know but it seems like he is TRYING to be the worse president in the world. He is trying to make it some sort of utopia for businesses while the poor are forced to work in dangerous hostile environment. I mean, i can't even believe what he is doing I mean, never mind the recession, let's destroy the environment and make it hell for Obama. It could take freaking years to fix all this junk and I don't even know if Obama will have the time but it really is sad to see some much be destroyed in so little time.

New Russia-US treaty

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28161925/

With Obama coming into power, it seems that Russia wishes for a new treaty with nuclear weapons. The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is to expire in a year and Gen. Nikolai Makarov has presented a list of things that they wish to negotiate on. Russia wishes for the new treaty with the US to:

• specify limits for all kinds of nuclear weapons
• outline control and verification procedures
• Guarantee that stockpiled nuclear warheads cannot be returned to combat duty quickly

Now, both parties have been wanting such talks so as to avoid blowing up the world however, recent events including the US missle defense plan and the Russia-Georgia war have obviously strained relations.

It's always good though, when these sorts of things happen though because under the current treaty (Treaty of Moscow ), the restrictions are to cut down to 1,700-2,200 warheads by 2012 which obviously, is still a crap-load of firepower. Ultimately though, I am still kind of worried given that no matter how many disarm, there are still going to be a lot of nukes and if a war does start, will both sides be willing to ban all nukes from being used? After all with statements like "The domination of one state, even the biggest, most powerful or most successful one, is unacceptable in any case", and given Russia recent actions (such as Georgia conflict), it seems like things could get volatile and if violence breaks out, the world will see whether or not these treaties mean anything because after all, the reason there are still nukes is become people think they might use them. Personally, I think that having even 50 or so nukes in the whole world is far too deadly so yeah, these treaties don't seem to do enough.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/10/2198543-russia-argentina-tout-world-without-us-domination

How Goes the Bailout

In the Daily Journal toady, I discovered that of the 700 billion dollars stimulus that was enacted on October 3, 335 billion dollars have already been spent. Here are the statistics

250 billion $ for capital infusions to banks (although government receives partial ownership stakes)
25 billion for Citigroup
40 billion dollars to help American International group
and 20$ billion went to the Federal Reserve

Originally Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's strategy was to buy rottent mortages and other bad debts to free up balance sheets and spur lending however, he chose to abandon this rescue strategy and lawmaker have blasted him for it. They claim that this shift in strategy is sending confusing signals to the public hurting confidence in the government's abilities.

Overall, this does not seem to be working. Half has already been used up and it doesn't seem to be making any significant differences. Jobs are still being slashed, companies are still filing bankrupcy and i don't know if this stimulus is really making a difference. It seems very likely that more needs to be done to stop this recession

Anti-Gay Vatican

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/the_vaticans_grotesque_approach_to_homosexuality

This is just interesting and there really isn't much to argue about. It is bad, it's wrong and yeah, Gays shouldn't be punished for being gay.

Side comment though, a man decided to try to go around and not acknowledge marriage at all. Seems to have been mildly amusing for him what with the responses he got when he said "girlfriend" or "lifelong partner" instead of wife.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/755/

Venezuela, how is it going down there?

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/05/2179458-traditionally-pro-chavez-slum-turns-to-opposition

Now recently, i have talked about the falling oil prices harming the OPEC so i decided to find out how some of them are doing and found this about Venezuela. Hugo Chavez has been quite popular in this country for some time due to the oil prices and yet now, he seems to be taking the heat. Being a socialist leader, Chavez has depended on the poor for getting elected yet in a surprising turn of events, he has lost Petare, one of the biggest slums in Latin America.

"Mountains of trash are strewn along the dirt roads of the slum, a vast jumble of brick homes — or "ranchos" — clinging to hillsides. Some residents credit Chavez with bringing free health clinics staffed by Cuban doctors but others complain about rampant violent crime and potholes."

Regardless, Chavez continues to hold most of the country and something I found out was that there will be a vote this February on whether to do away with term limits which would allow him to stay president.

I for one am glad that Chavez is losing power because he has not done enough to help the poor. Poverty is still rampant and is at 28.5 which is an improvement from previous years but i believe it is more because of the originally high gas prices than anything else. Furthermore, he does not strike me as the nicest person. He seems a nasty person who crushes opposition such as when he detained a military general for protesting the motto of Venezuela ("socialism or death"). Furthermore, i am skeptical because this is going to be the second atttepmt to extend the term limit which seems more like a personal power grab than anything else. I hope that a better president is elected and that the country can improve as a whole without the need for oil.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/01/1630628-anti-chavez-venezuelan-general-is-released

Saving the Big Three

Congress just might be helping to save the Big Three after all.

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12755433&source=features_box3

Now, for those of you, like me, who probably do not fully understand the situation and why the Big Three are being hit so bad, i will mention several possible reasons why. First off, many foreign companies, in particular Japan, are doing better than US car companies and it may be because the Japanese haved a better structure and it may also be because of outsourcing. One commentor, z3m says that because of oursourcing, the big 3 ended moving factories away from the US and because of that, US workers were out of a job and out of money. Generally, when making something, companies hire workers in a area and because of that, the area does generally better due to jobs and such and because they moved out, workers were not hired, did not get money, could not buy things and thus, could not buy cars. In contrast, the Japanese have moved into the US and established factories and their workers buy those japanese cars. Leading to Japan faring better than the US. Another possible reason is that Japan has tougher circumstances and thus, have improved more than the US. As Dan M said, Japan has had tougher cirumstances to sell in the US since Japan has greater difficulty in procuring resources and thus, they have a much harder time. Therefore, the Japanese had to improve manufacturing techniques and cost management while the US companies have been generally lazy about such things. They have benefited from the US government too greatly and thus, these companies hare having difficulty surviving.

Anyway, should these companies be bailed out?

I don't really think it would be a good idea because these companies are failing for a reason. The government has done a lot to help these companies and generally, it seems like letting them live won't change anything. These companies would need to reformat themselves in order to survive and make themselves more "green" which at this time seems impossible. These companies are way behind in the times and it doesn't seem like they can survive on their own given the current market so it might be better to instead of paying huge amounts of American tax dollars to these foolishe companies, not help them and whatever survives will have a painful lesson to learn and not make it again. However, if these companies do fall, many people will be out of work although, i personally wonder if it would be better to simply give the money to the workers outright and cut the middle-man. Anyway, what does everyone think? Should these companies be bailed out and will they be able to survive?