The Daily Star Home About us Photos Videos Subscriptions RSS Feeds Today's Paper Classifieds Contact Us Sign in Register MONDAY, 30 MAY 2011 08:56 PM Beirut time Weather Beirut23 °C Blom Index 1,362.2 News Business Opinion Sports Culture Technology Entertainment Politics Local News Analysis Middle East International Environment Health
International Lebanon Middle East Analysis
Editorial Columnist Commentary Columnist Netanyahu was powerful, and misguided May 28, 2011 01:17 AM By Rami G. Khouri The Daily Star
By any standard, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s performance in Washington this week was stunning in its audacity and intensity.
However, his speech before the U.S. Congress will probably be seen as negative rather than positive for Israel in the long run, for the fault lines it revealed and the precedents it set.
Netanyahu’s performance exposed four major breaches that may be damaging for Israel: those between him and President Barack Obama; between the American presidency and the Congress; between the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and the rest of the country; and between the Israeli people and their government.
All four dynamics have their ups and downs, but when they converge, as may be the case now, Netanyahu the brash star performer in Washington, may be seen as a political jerk, in Israel and in the U.S.,,,,,,,,
Congressional subservience to Israel revealed itself as so exaggerated last week that many Americans took notice – and some started to speak out. Analysts, columnists and ordinary Americans alike started asking if they should put up with a foreign leader lecturing the president in the White House, and wondering if their Congress represents American or Israeli interests in the Middle East.
This attitude will once again open the debate that started a few years ago (after the publication of the book “The Israel Lobby”) about whether the pro-Israel lobbies are healthy or destructive for Americans. When the American and Israeli leaders mistrust or dislike each other and each other’s policies, and when foreigners intervene between the U.S. Congress and presidency, this can only spell trouble for Israel down the road, if these breaches are not quickly repaired.
The Obama position that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for a permanent peace accord should be based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps is not new. But it is significant for the fact that it marks the second major issue (the Israeli settlements freeze demand being the other) on which Obama has publicly declared the preferred American policy as one that is independent of Israeli policy.
Israel cannot accept that the U.S. and its president take positions on issues of strategic concern to Israelis that diverge from the Israeli position. That the U.S. president has now done this twice in two years is the equivalent of an existential threat from Israel’s perspective. That is why Netanyahu went berserk and showed how Israel can effectively dictate the position of the Congress on Middle East-related issues.,,,,,,
With the U.S. Congress now finding its extreme position on Israel somewhat isolated from the relatively more balanced position of the American president and public, Israel is slipping dangerously toward a point where its political support in the U.S. is as much a consequence of frightened, nearly prostituted, legislators as it is a reflection of the deep and firm support for the security of Israel that the United States traditionally saw as a worthy goal in its own right.
These fascinating movements in the Israeli-American relationship are worth monitoring. While being dazzled by Netanyahu’s powerful, self-assertive, performance in Washington, we should pay more attention to the underlying fault lines that such a dramatic show reveals.
Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on May 28, 2011, on page 7. Comments
Ted Rudow III, MA May 28, 2011
Congress pander
Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77@aol,com ) In a major speech on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and on the Arab Spring, President Obama said a Palestinian state must be based on the 1967 borders, the first time a U.S. president has explicitly taken this position. The Israeli government immediately rejected Obama’s comments, calling the 1967 borders "indefensible." --> President Bush, over three years ago, made a similar speech. He said that "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. [An] agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." The Camp David summit of July 2000 was the latest in a long line of attempts by Israelis and Palestinians to attain peace in the Middle East. Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion unilaterally declared Israel a nation on May 14, 1948, following the UN partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. And the list go on and on. So the World is fed up! And they have voted unanimously against further occupancy of the Palestinian lands by Israel. "The war crimes and occupation, oppression and inequality that Palestinians are suffering from must end. And it was absolutely despicable to see our Congress pandering to Netanyahu as if he was the president of the United States." Rae Abileah, a Jewish-American activist
Monday, May 30, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
History repeat
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/27/18680562.php
History repeat
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.cm ) Friday May 27th, 2011
Solomon said,"There is no new thing under the sun." Soon after Nehemiah return to Jerusalem, he convinced the nobles and people of the city to unite under his faithful leadership to rebuild the city. At first everything went well, and the work progressed rapidly.
-->
At the same time a great drought had begun to strangle the land. Food production had dropped disastrously and many of the poorer Jews who lived off the land had begun to suffer greatly. But famine was not the only cause of their hardship. There were certain well-to-do nobles and Jewish money lenders in Jerusalem who began to take advantage of the impoverished state of the common folk. They viewed economic disaster not as a reason to help their needy brethren, but as a way to make even more money! Then money-hungry profiteers offered them loans, charging interest rates to make profits. To obtain these loans, many of the starving, desperate families were forced to mortgage their own fields, vineyards and homes to the moneylenders. Others had already mortgaged their properties in order to pay taxes to the Persian government, which were levied every year throughout all the provinces. Some were so bad off that having already mortgaged their lands and still being short of necessary food, they were forced to sell their own children into slavery in order to get enough money to survive! History repeat itself!
Ted Rudow III, MA
History repeat
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.cm ) Friday May 27th, 2011
Solomon said,"There is no new thing under the sun." Soon after Nehemiah return to Jerusalem, he convinced the nobles and people of the city to unite under his faithful leadership to rebuild the city. At first everything went well, and the work progressed rapidly.
-->
At the same time a great drought had begun to strangle the land. Food production had dropped disastrously and many of the poorer Jews who lived off the land had begun to suffer greatly. But famine was not the only cause of their hardship. There were certain well-to-do nobles and Jewish money lenders in Jerusalem who began to take advantage of the impoverished state of the common folk. They viewed economic disaster not as a reason to help their needy brethren, but as a way to make even more money! Then money-hungry profiteers offered them loans, charging interest rates to make profits. To obtain these loans, many of the starving, desperate families were forced to mortgage their own fields, vineyards and homes to the moneylenders. Others had already mortgaged their properties in order to pay taxes to the Persian government, which were levied every year throughout all the provinces. Some were so bad off that having already mortgaged their lands and still being short of necessary food, they were forced to sell their own children into slavery in order to get enough money to survive! History repeat itself!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Congress pandering
Palestine U.S.
Congress pandering
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77@aol,com ) Wednesday May 25th, 2011
In a major speech on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and on the Arab Spring, President Obama said a Palestinian state must be based on the 1967 borders, the first time a U.S. president has explicitly taken this position. The Israeli government immediately rejected Obama’s comments, calling the 1967 borders "indefensible."
-->
President Bush, over three years ago, made a similar speech. He said that "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. [An] agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." The Camp David summit of July 2000 was the latest in a long line of attempts by Israelis and Palestinians to attain peace in the Middle East. Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion unilaterally declared Israel a nation on May 14, 1948, following the UN partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. And the list go on and on. So the World is fed up! And they have voted unanimously against further occupancy of the Palestinian lands by Israel. "The war crimes and occupation, oppression and inequality that Palestinians are suffering from must end. And it was absolutely despicable to see our Congress pandering to Netanyahu as if he was the president of the United States." Rae Abileah, a Jewish-American activist
Congress pandering
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77@aol,com ) Wednesday May 25th, 2011
In a major speech on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and on the Arab Spring, President Obama said a Palestinian state must be based on the 1967 borders, the first time a U.S. president has explicitly taken this position. The Israeli government immediately rejected Obama’s comments, calling the 1967 borders "indefensible."
-->
President Bush, over three years ago, made a similar speech. He said that "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. [An] agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." The Camp David summit of July 2000 was the latest in a long line of attempts by Israelis and Palestinians to attain peace in the Middle East. Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion unilaterally declared Israel a nation on May 14, 1948, following the UN partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. And the list go on and on. So the World is fed up! And they have voted unanimously against further occupancy of the Palestinian lands by Israel. "The war crimes and occupation, oppression and inequality that Palestinians are suffering from must end. And it was absolutely despicable to see our Congress pandering to Netanyahu as if he was the president of the United States." Rae Abileah, a Jewish-American activist
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Seattle Times
The Seattle Times
Winner of Eight Pulitzer
Prizes Editorials / Opinion
58°F
Our network sites seattletimes.com Advanced
Home Local Home
Education Politics Opinion Home Letters to the Editor The Democracy Papers
Northwest Voices Letters to the Editor
Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words opinion@seattletimes.com. Blog Home E-mail Opinion staff Subscribe
May 22, 2011 at 4:00 PM Comments (0) E-mail article Print Share
President endorses '67 boundaries to ease Israeli-Palestinian disputes
Posted by Letters editor
A confused reaction
President Obama’s failure to end Israeli settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, where Palestinians seek statehood, has done much to quash the hopes many Arabs had in him two years ago.
“An eye for an eye” has always been the motto of those who live under the Mosaic Law — injury for injury, injustice for injustice, death for death.
Such is the situation in the Middle East today, where the Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Israelis though neither side is blameless and some on both sides have shed innocent blood.
I just love to see U.S. hypocrisy exposed! I’m afraid the poor Palestinians are going to have to suffer a while longer — along with many other refugees around the world. But blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
This is a confused U.S. reaction to Arab revolts, where it has appeared to be irrelevant, and its challenge now is nudging them toward conclusions compatible with U.S. foreign-policy goals. Analysts suggested U.S. aid will have strings attached on foreign policy. And they have not any peace.
— Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto, Calif.
Winner of Eight Pulitzer
Prizes Editorials / Opinion
58°F
Our network sites seattletimes.com Advanced
Home Local Home
Education Politics Opinion Home Letters to the Editor The Democracy Papers
Northwest Voices Letters to the Editor
Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words opinion@seattletimes.com. Blog Home E-mail Opinion staff Subscribe
May 22, 2011 at 4:00 PM Comments (0) E-mail article Print Share
President endorses '67 boundaries to ease Israeli-Palestinian disputes
Posted by Letters editor
A confused reaction
President Obama’s failure to end Israeli settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, where Palestinians seek statehood, has done much to quash the hopes many Arabs had in him two years ago.
“An eye for an eye” has always been the motto of those who live under the Mosaic Law — injury for injury, injustice for injustice, death for death.
Such is the situation in the Middle East today, where the Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Israelis though neither side is blameless and some on both sides have shed innocent blood.
I just love to see U.S. hypocrisy exposed! I’m afraid the poor Palestinians are going to have to suffer a while longer — along with many other refugees around the world. But blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
This is a confused U.S. reaction to Arab revolts, where it has appeared to be irrelevant, and its challenge now is nudging them toward conclusions compatible with U.S. foreign-policy goals. Analysts suggested U.S. aid will have strings attached on foreign policy. And they have not any peace.
— Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto, Calif.
The Daily Star
Weather Dhaka T: 24C H: 86%
The Daily Star
Your Right To KnowMonday, May 23, 2011
Home Business Sports National International Op-Ed Letters
Monday, May 23, 2011Letters
Flat-out failure
Ted Rudow III MA, Encina Ave, Palo Alto, CA
Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House - and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement of his resignation followed reports that the president's Thursday speech on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond."
The U.S. was trying to mediate a "roadmap to peace" between Israel and the Palestinians, but it's been a complete dead end so far. There's not even a road there, no sort of pathway that would lead toward peace, so I don't know if you could even say it went so far as a dead end, much less to the point where any sort of map would be required. It's just been a flat-out failure!
The Daily Star
Your Right To KnowMonday, May 23, 2011
Home Business Sports National International Op-Ed Letters
Monday, May 23, 2011Letters
Flat-out failure
Ted Rudow III MA, Encina Ave, Palo Alto, CA
Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House - and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement of his resignation followed reports that the president's Thursday speech on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond."
The U.S. was trying to mediate a "roadmap to peace" between Israel and the Palestinians, but it's been a complete dead end so far. There's not even a road there, no sort of pathway that would lead toward peace, so I don't know if you could even say it went so far as a dead end, much less to the point where any sort of map would be required. It's just been a flat-out failure!
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The Daily Star
The Daily Star
Home About us Photos Videos Subscriptions RSS Feeds Today's Paper Classifieds Contact Us Sign in Register SATURDAY, 21 MAY 2011 05:02 PM Beirut time Weather Beirut22 °C Blom Index 1,380.6 News Business Opinion Sports Culture Technology Entertainment Politics Local News Analysis Middle East International Environment Health
Lebanon Middle East International Analysis
Editorial Columnist Commentary
Volleyball Basketball Football Motor Sports Tennis Golf
Art Music Film Travel & Tourism Performance Lifestyle Books
International Regional
Movie Guide Sudoku Str8ts
Follow us on: Advanced Search Middle East Obama says U.S. will oppose U.N. acts against Israel May 19, 2011 08:00 PM (Last updated: May 19, 2011 09:06 PM) Reuters
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama on Thursday rejected what he called an effort to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September.
In a Middle East speech, Obama went further than he has in the past in laying out the parameters of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, but stopped short of laying out a formal U.S. peace plan.
He said any agreement creating a state of Palestine must be based on a 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. He said the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable.
"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state," he said. Home Middle East Comments
Ted Rudow III, MA May 19, 2011 08:45 PM
Dear Editor: Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House, and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement followed reports that the president's speech today on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond." Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions.
The U.S. was trying to mediate a "road map to peace" between Israel and the Palestinians, but it's been a complete dead-end so far. There's not even a road there, no sort of pathway that would lead toward peace, so I don't know if you could even say it went so far as a dead-end, much less to the point where any sort of map would be required. It's just been a flat-out failure!
Home About us Photos Videos Subscriptions RSS Feeds Today's Paper Classifieds Contact Us Sign in Register SATURDAY, 21 MAY 2011 05:02 PM Beirut time Weather Beirut22 °C Blom Index 1,380.6 News Business Opinion Sports Culture Technology Entertainment Politics Local News Analysis Middle East International Environment Health
Lebanon Middle East International Analysis
Editorial Columnist Commentary
Volleyball Basketball Football Motor Sports Tennis Golf
Art Music Film Travel & Tourism Performance Lifestyle Books
International Regional
Movie Guide Sudoku Str8ts
Follow us on: Advanced Search Middle East Obama says U.S. will oppose U.N. acts against Israel May 19, 2011 08:00 PM (Last updated: May 19, 2011 09:06 PM) Reuters
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama on Thursday rejected what he called an effort to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September.
In a Middle East speech, Obama went further than he has in the past in laying out the parameters of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, but stopped short of laying out a formal U.S. peace plan.
He said any agreement creating a state of Palestine must be based on a 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. He said the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable.
"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state," he said. Home Middle East Comments
Ted Rudow III, MA May 19, 2011 08:45 PM
Dear Editor: Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House, and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement followed reports that the president's speech today on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond." Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions.
The U.S. was trying to mediate a "road map to peace" between Israel and the Palestinians, but it's been a complete dead-end so far. There's not even a road there, no sort of pathway that would lead toward peace, so I don't know if you could even say it went so far as a dead-end, much less to the point where any sort of map would be required. It's just been a flat-out failure!
Mideast peace
MercuryNews.com
eEdition / Subscriber ServicesMobile Mobile Alerts RSS
Home
News breaking newsscienceearthquakespolitics / governmentcalifornianation / world
Tech newsopinionsectors Site Web Search by YAHOO! Peninsula POWERED BY
Latest Peninsula news
Peninsula readers' letters: May 21
From Daily News Group readers Posted: 05/20/2011 04:38:16 PM PDTUpdated: 05/20/2011 04:38:17 PM PDT
Mideast peace talks at dead end
Dear Editor: I rarely agree with Ted Rudow III (Letters, May 19) but he is absolutely correct that the Middle East peace talks are at a dead end. The Arab contingent has abandoned all pretexts that they are ready to negotiate in good faith. In the past, their leader Yasser Arafat rejected compromises offered by Israel that would have established a Palestinian state in Gaza and about 95 percent of the West Bank, with additional land taken from Israel.
Now the leadership under Abbas won't even go through the motions and has brought the terrorist group Hamas into its coalition. Read the Hamas charter and tell me if this is a partner for peace. President Obama has been wasting his time on this issue. He has been making demands on Israel but applying no pressure to Abbas, who has now decided to go in the opposite direction of negotiations and peaceful resolution.
Gil Stein,
Aptos
eEdition / Subscriber ServicesMobile Mobile Alerts RSS
Home
News breaking newsscienceearthquakespolitics / governmentcalifornianation / world
Tech newsopinionsectors Site Web Search by YAHOO! Peninsula POWERED BY
Latest Peninsula news
Peninsula readers' letters: May 21
From Daily News Group readers Posted: 05/20/2011 04:38:16 PM PDTUpdated: 05/20/2011 04:38:17 PM PDT
Mideast peace talks at dead end
Dear Editor: I rarely agree with Ted Rudow III (Letters, May 19) but he is absolutely correct that the Middle East peace talks are at a dead end. The Arab contingent has abandoned all pretexts that they are ready to negotiate in good faith. In the past, their leader Yasser Arafat rejected compromises offered by Israel that would have established a Palestinian state in Gaza and about 95 percent of the West Bank, with additional land taken from Israel.
Now the leadership under Abbas won't even go through the motions and has brought the terrorist group Hamas into its coalition. Read the Hamas charter and tell me if this is a partner for peace. President Obama has been wasting his time on this issue. He has been making demands on Israel but applying no pressure to Abbas, who has now decided to go in the opposite direction of negotiations and peaceful resolution.
Gil Stein,
Aptos
Friday, May 20, 2011
Obama's failure
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/20/18680128.php
Obama’s failure to end Israeli settlement
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Friday May 20th, 2011
Obama’s failure to end Israeli settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, where Palestinians seek statehood, has done much to quash the hope many Arabs had in him two years ago. "An eye for an eye" has always been the motto of those who live under the Mosaic Law--injury for injury, injustice for injustice, death for death. Such is the situation in the Mideast today, where the Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Israelis. Though neither side is blameless and some on both sides have shed innocent blood. I just love to see U.S. hypocrisy exposed! I'm afraid the poor Palestinians are going to have to suffer a while longer, along with many other refugees around the world. But blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
A confused U.S. reaction to Arab revolts where it has appeared to be irrelevant, and its challenge now in nudging them toward conclusions compatible with U.S. foreign policy goals. Analysts suggested U.S. aid will have strings attached on foreign policy. And they not have peace.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Obama’s failure to end Israeli settlement
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Friday May 20th, 2011
Obama’s failure to end Israeli settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, where Palestinians seek statehood, has done much to quash the hope many Arabs had in him two years ago. "An eye for an eye" has always been the motto of those who live under the Mosaic Law--injury for injury, injustice for injustice, death for death. Such is the situation in the Mideast today, where the Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Israelis. Though neither side is blameless and some on both sides have shed innocent blood. I just love to see U.S. hypocrisy exposed! I'm afraid the poor Palestinians are going to have to suffer a while longer, along with many other refugees around the world. But blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
A confused U.S. reaction to Arab revolts where it has appeared to be irrelevant, and its challenge now in nudging them toward conclusions compatible with U.S. foreign policy goals. Analysts suggested U.S. aid will have strings attached on foreign policy. And they not have peace.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Road map
MercuryNews.com
eEdition / Subscriber ServicesMobile Mobile Alerts RSS
Home
News breaking newsobituariescrime and courtsbay area news
Opinion columnseditorialsletters
Site Web Search by YAHOO! Peninsula POWERED BY
Latest Peninsula new
Peninsula readers' letters: May19
From Daily News Group readers Posted: 05/18/2011 03:04:57 PM PDTUpdated: 05/18/2011 10:39:34 PM PDT
Road map to failure
Dear Editor: Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House, and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement followed reports that the president's speech today on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond." Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions.
The U.S. was trying to mediate a "road map to peace" between Israel and the Palestinians, but it's been a complete dead-end so far. There's not even a road there, no sort of pathway that would lead toward peace, so I don't know if you could even say it went so far as a dead-end, much less to the point where any sort of map would be required. It's just been a flat-out failure!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
eEdition / Subscriber ServicesMobile Mobile Alerts RSS
Home
News breaking newsobituariescrime and courtsbay area news
Opinion columnseditorialsletters
Site Web Search by YAHOO! Peninsula POWERED BY
Latest Peninsula new
Peninsula readers' letters: May19
From Daily News Group readers Posted: 05/18/2011 03:04:57 PM PDTUpdated: 05/18/2011 10:39:34 PM PDT
Road map to failure
Dear Editor: Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House, and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement followed reports that the president's speech today on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond." Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions.
The U.S. was trying to mediate a "road map to peace" between Israel and the Palestinians, but it's been a complete dead-end so far. There's not even a road there, no sort of pathway that would lead toward peace, so I don't know if you could even say it went so far as a dead-end, much less to the point where any sort of map would be required. It's just been a flat-out failure!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
SF Gate
SFGate
Home of the San Francisco ChronicleSubscribe to the weekend Chronicle SFGate Web Search by YAHOO! Businesses Advanced Home News Sports Opinion Politics Letters to the editor, May 18"California to close 70 state parks and beaches" (May 14) for lack of $22 million. That sum is peanuts to some California corporations. For example, Chevron, which says oil companies should put their profits to good use,...Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House - and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement of his resignation followed reports that the president's Thursday speech on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond." Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/17/EDRE1JGTSR.DTL#ixzz1Mj26DCuG
Home of the San Francisco ChronicleSubscribe to the weekend Chronicle SFGate Web Search by YAHOO! Businesses Advanced Home News Sports Opinion Politics Letters to the editor, May 18"California to close 70 state parks and beaches" (May 14) for lack of $22 million. That sum is peanuts to some California corporations. For example, Chevron, which says oil companies should put their profits to good use,...Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House - and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement of his resignation followed reports that the president's Thursday speech on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond." Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/17/EDRE1JGTSR.DTL#ixzz1Mj26DCuG
Flat-out failure
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/18/18679965.php
Flat-out failureby Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Wednesday May 18th, 2011
Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House - and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement of his resignation followed reports that the president's Thursday speech on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond." Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions. The U.S. was trying to mediate a "roadmap to peace" between Israel and the Palestinians, but it's been a complete dead end so far. There's not even a road there, no sort of pathway that would lead toward peace, so I don't know if you could even say it went so far as a dead end, much less to the point where any sort of map would be required. It's just been a flat-out failure!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Flat-out failureby Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Wednesday May 18th, 2011
Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House - and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement of his resignation followed reports that the president's Thursday speech on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint. Obama will "stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, describing that partnership as an "unshakable bond." Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions. The U.S. was trying to mediate a "roadmap to peace" between Israel and the Palestinians, but it's been a complete dead end so far. There's not even a road there, no sort of pathway that would lead toward peace, so I don't know if you could even say it went so far as a dead end, much less to the point where any sort of map would be required. It's just been a flat-out failure!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Monday, May 16, 2011
Spartan Daily
Spartan Daily
Monday, May 16, 2011
News Opinion Letters Sports
Fox News needs some 'Common' Sense
Wes Side Story
By Wesley Dugle
Published: Sunday, May 15, 2011
Updated: Monday, May 16, 2011 01:05
Wesley Dugle
You would think after releasing his birth certificate and getting rid of Osama bin Laden, President Obama would be spared frivolous non-issue attacks by conservative pundits on Fox News for at least a little while.
Nope.
Last week, Michelle Obama organized a poetry event at the White House in which she invited Grammy award-winning rapper Common to perform and Fox News went on the attack.
Fox lambasted this invite, calling Common a "vile" and "controversial" rapper and condemning the president for associating himself with him.
Being a fan of Common myself, I was infuriated by this.......
This is the final appearance of "Wes Side Story." Wesley Dugle is a Spartan Daily Staff Writer.
1 comments
Mon May 16 2011
My Dentist and his family from Hawaii went to school with President Obama! They were over developed in some of the world's most beautiful and peaceful cultures-- religions, art, sciences, philosophies, and beautiful, peaceful, pastoral ways of life. I know that this equality, this oneness of the races, this love between the brethren, this better world, cannot be found only through the path of legislation and politics. Itcertainly cannot be found through the path of violence and killing, and the destruction of our young people. It cannot be found when the brothers are pitted one against another in useless, wasteful neighborhood wars. I know that to become a reality is to love, the supernatural Love of God!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Class of 1996
Monday, May 16, 2011
News Opinion Letters Sports
Fox News needs some 'Common' Sense
Wes Side Story
By Wesley Dugle
Published: Sunday, May 15, 2011
Updated: Monday, May 16, 2011 01:05
Wesley Dugle
You would think after releasing his birth certificate and getting rid of Osama bin Laden, President Obama would be spared frivolous non-issue attacks by conservative pundits on Fox News for at least a little while.
Nope.
Last week, Michelle Obama organized a poetry event at the White House in which she invited Grammy award-winning rapper Common to perform and Fox News went on the attack.
Fox lambasted this invite, calling Common a "vile" and "controversial" rapper and condemning the president for associating himself with him.
Being a fan of Common myself, I was infuriated by this.......
This is the final appearance of "Wes Side Story." Wesley Dugle is a Spartan Daily Staff Writer.
1 comments
Mon May 16 2011
My Dentist and his family from Hawaii went to school with President Obama! They were over developed in some of the world's most beautiful and peaceful cultures-- religions, art, sciences, philosophies, and beautiful, peaceful, pastoral ways of life. I know that this equality, this oneness of the races, this love between the brethren, this better world, cannot be found only through the path of legislation and politics. Itcertainly cannot be found through the path of violence and killing, and the destruction of our young people. It cannot be found when the brothers are pitted one against another in useless, wasteful neighborhood wars. I know that to become a reality is to love, the supernatural Love of God!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Class of 1996
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Words of wisdom
San Mateo Daily Journal
Saturday
May 14 2011 Home Local News State / National / World Sports Opinion / Letters
Words of wisdom on war May 14, 2011, 03:44 AM The Associated Press
Editor,
Bertrand Russell, often considered among Britain’s leading philosophers and a recipient of the Nobel Prize for literature, felt he had to oppose World War II at the war’s outset. One of the things that makes me respect him so much is that he was so honest about talking about the conflict in his own feelings. Describing himself at that period, he said that, while he opposed war, “I desired the defeat of Germany as much as any retired colonel, and love of England is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess.”
One of my great uncles, Lt. Warren O. “Wedge” Grimm (March 9, 1888-Nov. 11, 1919), was born in Lewistown, Penn. An All-American at the University of Washington and an officer in the U.S. Army, he served with distinction as part of the American Expeditionary Force Siberia stationed in Russia in 1918-1919. He was assassinated Nov. 11, 1919, by members of the IWW (Wobblies) during the Centralia Massacre in Washington State.
Yet, when I think about the wars we’re engaged in today in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is nowhere that an American or anybody can go and see the toll of the war in this sense, especially since the great bulk of the casualties are Afghan and Iraqi civilians, as well as the American and allied troops who have died. Give them strength and give them wisdom. War is total waste, the most destructive total waste there is--in materials, in time, in lands, in people.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Palo Alto
Saturday
May 14 2011 Home Local News State / National / World Sports Opinion / Letters
Words of wisdom on war May 14, 2011, 03:44 AM The Associated Press
Editor,
Bertrand Russell, often considered among Britain’s leading philosophers and a recipient of the Nobel Prize for literature, felt he had to oppose World War II at the war’s outset. One of the things that makes me respect him so much is that he was so honest about talking about the conflict in his own feelings. Describing himself at that period, he said that, while he opposed war, “I desired the defeat of Germany as much as any retired colonel, and love of England is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess.”
One of my great uncles, Lt. Warren O. “Wedge” Grimm (March 9, 1888-Nov. 11, 1919), was born in Lewistown, Penn. An All-American at the University of Washington and an officer in the U.S. Army, he served with distinction as part of the American Expeditionary Force Siberia stationed in Russia in 1918-1919. He was assassinated Nov. 11, 1919, by members of the IWW (Wobblies) during the Centralia Massacre in Washington State.
Yet, when I think about the wars we’re engaged in today in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is nowhere that an American or anybody can go and see the toll of the war in this sense, especially since the great bulk of the casualties are Afghan and Iraqi civilians, as well as the American and allied troops who have died. Give them strength and give them wisdom. War is total waste, the most destructive total waste there is--in materials, in time, in lands, in people.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Palo Alto
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Bohemian
THE BOHEMIAN
News, music, movies, restaurants & wine culture in Sonoma, Marin and Napa counties
MUSIC REVIEWS SONOMA / NAPA / MARIN SILICON VALLEY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY THE BOHEMIAN METRO SILICON VALLEY METRO SANTA CRUZ 05.11.11
home north bay bohemian index news north bay
letters to the editor
Nobel Peace Prize Blues
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement, and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee's decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains, as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and now the war on Libya. The raid has further strained ties between the United States and Pakistan. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling for a review of billions in aid to Pakistan in light of the revelation that bin Laden was living inside a heavily fortified compound in a wealthy Pakistani suburb. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf criticized the United States for attacking the compound without Pakistan's knowledge, calling it a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. "It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said. We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world does not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Ted Rudow III ,MA
Palo Alto
News, music, movies, restaurants & wine culture in Sonoma, Marin and Napa counties
MUSIC REVIEWS SONOMA / NAPA / MARIN SILICON VALLEY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY THE BOHEMIAN METRO SILICON VALLEY METRO SANTA CRUZ 05.11.11
home north bay bohemian index news north bay
letters to the editor
Nobel Peace Prize Blues
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement, and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee's decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains, as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and now the war on Libya. The raid has further strained ties between the United States and Pakistan. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling for a review of billions in aid to Pakistan in light of the revelation that bin Laden was living inside a heavily fortified compound in a wealthy Pakistani suburb. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf criticized the United States for attacking the compound without Pakistan's knowledge, calling it a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. "It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said. We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world does not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Ted Rudow III ,MA
Palo Alto
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Russell
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/12/18679533.php
Bertrand Russell, Britain’s leading philosopher
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Thursday May 12th, 2011
Bertrand Russell, Britain’s leading philosopher, and many years later won the Nobel Prize for Literature, was leading scholar, Cambridge intellectual. When the war broke out, he felt he had to oppose it.
-->
And one of the things that makes me respect him so much is that he was so honest about talking about the conflict in his own feelings. Describing himself at that period, he said, "I desired the defeat of Germany as much as any retired colonel, and love of England is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess." One of my Great-Uncle, Lt. Warren O. "Wedge" Grimm (March 9, 1888 - November 11, 1919), was born in Lewistown, Pennsylvania. An All-American at the University of Washington and an officer in the United States Army, he served with distinction as part of the American Expeditionary Force Siberia stationed in Russia in 1918-1919. He was assassinated on November 11, 1919, by members of the IWW (Wobblies) during the Centralia Massacre in Washington State. Yet, when I think about the wars we’re engaged in today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is nowhere that an American or anybody can go and sort of visually see the toll of the war in this sense, especially since the great bulk of the casualties are, you know, Afghani and Iraqi civilians, as well as the American and allied troops who have died. All those poor boys and girls at the front. Give them strength and give them wisdom. War is total waste, the most destructive total waste there is--In materials, in time, in lands, in people.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Bertrand Russell, Britain’s leading philosopher
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Thursday May 12th, 2011
Bertrand Russell, Britain’s leading philosopher, and many years later won the Nobel Prize for Literature, was leading scholar, Cambridge intellectual. When the war broke out, he felt he had to oppose it.
-->
And one of the things that makes me respect him so much is that he was so honest about talking about the conflict in his own feelings. Describing himself at that period, he said, "I desired the defeat of Germany as much as any retired colonel, and love of England is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess." One of my Great-Uncle, Lt. Warren O. "Wedge" Grimm (March 9, 1888 - November 11, 1919), was born in Lewistown, Pennsylvania. An All-American at the University of Washington and an officer in the United States Army, he served with distinction as part of the American Expeditionary Force Siberia stationed in Russia in 1918-1919. He was assassinated on November 11, 1919, by members of the IWW (Wobblies) during the Centralia Massacre in Washington State. Yet, when I think about the wars we’re engaged in today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is nowhere that an American or anybody can go and sort of visually see the toll of the war in this sense, especially since the great bulk of the casualties are, you know, Afghani and Iraqi civilians, as well as the American and allied troops who have died. All those poor boys and girls at the front. Give them strength and give them wisdom. War is total waste, the most destructive total waste there is--In materials, in time, in lands, in people.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The Daily Star
The Daily Star Home About us Photos Videos Subscriptions RSS Feeds Today's Paper Classifieds Contact Us Sign in Register WEDNESDAY, 11 MAY 2011 09:59 PM Beirut time Weather Beirut20 °C Blom Index 1,394.7 News Business Opinion Sports Culture Technology Entertainment Politics Local News Analysis Middle East International Environment Health
Lebanon Middle East International Analysis
Editorial Columnist Commentary
Football Basketball Motor Sports Tennis Golf
Performance Lifestyle Art Film Music Books Travel & Tourism
International Regional
Movie Guide Sudoku Str8ts Columnist Panetta’s and Petraeus’ brief is imagining the worst May 03, 2011 01:36 AM (Last updated: May 03, 2011 01:36 AM) By Fareed Zakaria The Daily Star
As Leon Panetta and David Petraeus move into their new jobs at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency, they should use the occasion to fundamentally reorient U.S. intelligence and national security planning.
Consider the intelligence community. The United States spends around $80 billion on intelligence every year – more than the rest of the world put together – and yet the country seems perpetually unprepared for global events.
The CIA did not imagine the fall of the Soviet Union, the revolutions of Eastern Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against New York and Washington, the nonexistence of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, the global financial crisis and, most recently, the Arab Spring.
I’m not suggesting that it was possible to predict these events. Very few people or organizations foresaw them, certainly not in a timely manner, and those who did might well have simply been lucky. International crises happen when they happen for a variety of complex reasons that are always easier to see in hindsight.
However, the goal should instead be preparedness. Government agencies should be readying policymakers and bureaucrats for sharp changes in international, regional and national patterns. They should be imaginative about the possibilities of sudden shifts and new circumstances, and force policymakers to confront the scenarios in advance.
This is what has distinguished the most successful private-sector firms in managing crises. Contrary to the mythology rampant in Washington and across the country, banks such as J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs did not “know” the housing market would collapse in 2007. They could have made that prediction as easily in 2005 or 2006, bet on it and lost lots of money, as many firms did. What J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and others that weathered the financial crisis did was to carefully manage their risk – being prepared for sharp shifts in the market. Rather than betting on continuity – which is usually the default mechanism for people and organizations – they prepared for the possibility of a sudden shock.
That’s why I hope that at the highest levels of the United States government, there are multiple scenarios envisioned for a crisis in Saudi Arabia. Of all the possible effects of events in the Middle East, the most complex by far would be serious protests in Saudi Arabia. This is not probable, but it is possible. The Saudi monarchy has roots in its society, a compact with powerful religious groups and staggering amounts of money with which to bribe its people. But still, there are fissures – most notably between the kingdom’s Shiites and Sunnis. If these were to erupt, there would be seismic implications ($200-a-barrel oil, anyone?), and Washington would have to react shrewdly and quickly. It would make perfect sense to have a basic set of responses planned and even discussed with our allies instead of having to react on the fly as television images demand action in the heat of the moment.
The other way to be prepared is to be in a position of stable finances and commitments, so you can deal with a shock. The analogy with the private sector holds here, too. The key to riding out a financial crisis is to not be overleveraged but to have comfortable reserves of cash that will allow you to manage difficult times. And yet the United States is overextended in every sense: struggling with debt, fighting military actions in multiple places and beginning to be hit by a demographic time bomb. We might be able to navigate through all this as long as we don’t hit another big crisis. That’s not a comfortable place to be.
Look at Japan. It prepared well for the possibility of earthquakes, so that even when a mega-earthquake plus a tsunami hit, it was able to minimize the loss of life. But over the previous two decades, it had run up such enormous deficits – its debt is 200 percent of gross domestic product – that it lacks resources to properly respond and rebuild its economy.
We will never be able to predict the next geopolitical, economic or natural disaster. But we can position ourselves to be prepared, and have a little more cash in the bank than we do now.
Fareed Zakaria is published twice monthly by THE DAILY STAR.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on May 03, 2011, on page 7. Home Columnist Comments
Ted Rudow III, MA May 09, 2011
In Orwell’s book “1984, the main character worked for the “Ministry of Truth, dedicated to eliminating every vestige of the truth and replacing it with what the government said was truth. Winston is painfully aware of the telescreen, which is both a receiver and transmitter at the same time. It incessantly relays messages from the Party and simultaneously allows the dreaded “thought police to tune into the activities of any individual at any given time." Obama continued to give fear to try again to win the voter confidence, selling "the Party" agenda in his speech last night. "WAR IS PEACE- FREEDOM IS SLAVERY -IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" It would have seem that the constant abuse of language by the Obama administration would end --This was Orwell's future, our present!
Lebanon Middle East International Analysis
Editorial Columnist Commentary
Football Basketball Motor Sports Tennis Golf
Performance Lifestyle Art Film Music Books Travel & Tourism
International Regional
Movie Guide Sudoku Str8ts Columnist Panetta’s and Petraeus’ brief is imagining the worst May 03, 2011 01:36 AM (Last updated: May 03, 2011 01:36 AM) By Fareed Zakaria The Daily Star
As Leon Panetta and David Petraeus move into their new jobs at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency, they should use the occasion to fundamentally reorient U.S. intelligence and national security planning.
Consider the intelligence community. The United States spends around $80 billion on intelligence every year – more than the rest of the world put together – and yet the country seems perpetually unprepared for global events.
The CIA did not imagine the fall of the Soviet Union, the revolutions of Eastern Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against New York and Washington, the nonexistence of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, the global financial crisis and, most recently, the Arab Spring.
I’m not suggesting that it was possible to predict these events. Very few people or organizations foresaw them, certainly not in a timely manner, and those who did might well have simply been lucky. International crises happen when they happen for a variety of complex reasons that are always easier to see in hindsight.
However, the goal should instead be preparedness. Government agencies should be readying policymakers and bureaucrats for sharp changes in international, regional and national patterns. They should be imaginative about the possibilities of sudden shifts and new circumstances, and force policymakers to confront the scenarios in advance.
This is what has distinguished the most successful private-sector firms in managing crises. Contrary to the mythology rampant in Washington and across the country, banks such as J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs did not “know” the housing market would collapse in 2007. They could have made that prediction as easily in 2005 or 2006, bet on it and lost lots of money, as many firms did. What J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and others that weathered the financial crisis did was to carefully manage their risk – being prepared for sharp shifts in the market. Rather than betting on continuity – which is usually the default mechanism for people and organizations – they prepared for the possibility of a sudden shock.
That’s why I hope that at the highest levels of the United States government, there are multiple scenarios envisioned for a crisis in Saudi Arabia. Of all the possible effects of events in the Middle East, the most complex by far would be serious protests in Saudi Arabia. This is not probable, but it is possible. The Saudi monarchy has roots in its society, a compact with powerful religious groups and staggering amounts of money with which to bribe its people. But still, there are fissures – most notably between the kingdom’s Shiites and Sunnis. If these were to erupt, there would be seismic implications ($200-a-barrel oil, anyone?), and Washington would have to react shrewdly and quickly. It would make perfect sense to have a basic set of responses planned and even discussed with our allies instead of having to react on the fly as television images demand action in the heat of the moment.
The other way to be prepared is to be in a position of stable finances and commitments, so you can deal with a shock. The analogy with the private sector holds here, too. The key to riding out a financial crisis is to not be overleveraged but to have comfortable reserves of cash that will allow you to manage difficult times. And yet the United States is overextended in every sense: struggling with debt, fighting military actions in multiple places and beginning to be hit by a demographic time bomb. We might be able to navigate through all this as long as we don’t hit another big crisis. That’s not a comfortable place to be.
Look at Japan. It prepared well for the possibility of earthquakes, so that even when a mega-earthquake plus a tsunami hit, it was able to minimize the loss of life. But over the previous two decades, it had run up such enormous deficits – its debt is 200 percent of gross domestic product – that it lacks resources to properly respond and rebuild its economy.
We will never be able to predict the next geopolitical, economic or natural disaster. But we can position ourselves to be prepared, and have a little more cash in the bank than we do now.
Fareed Zakaria is published twice monthly by THE DAILY STAR.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on May 03, 2011, on page 7. Home Columnist Comments
Ted Rudow III, MA May 09, 2011
In Orwell’s book “1984, the main character worked for the “Ministry of Truth, dedicated to eliminating every vestige of the truth and replacing it with what the government said was truth. Winston is painfully aware of the telescreen, which is both a receiver and transmitter at the same time. It incessantly relays messages from the Party and simultaneously allows the dreaded “thought police to tune into the activities of any individual at any given time." Obama continued to give fear to try again to win the voter confidence, selling "the Party" agenda in his speech last night. "WAR IS PEACE- FREEDOM IS SLAVERY -IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" It would have seem that the constant abuse of language by the Obama administration would end --This was Orwell's future, our present!
Fear
MercuryNews.com
eEdition / Subscriber ServicesMobile Mobile Alerts RSS
Home
News breaking newsobituariescrime and courtsbay area newsdata centerscienceearthquakespolitics / governmentcalifornianation / world Site Web Search by YAHOO! Peninsula POWERED BY
Latest Peninsula news
Peninsula readers' letters: May 11
From Daily News Group readers Posted: 05/10/2011 05:32:29 PM PDTUpdated: 05/10/2011 11:43:31 PM PDT
Dear Editor: In George Orwell's book "1984," protagonist Winston Smith worked for the Ministry of Truth, dedicated to eliminating every vestige of truth and replacing it with what the government said was truth. Winston is painfully aware of the telescreen, which is both a receiver and transmitter at the same time.
It incessantly relays messages from "the Party" and simultaneously allows the dreaded "thought police" to tune into the activities of any individual at any given time.
President Obama continued to use fear to try again to win voter confidence, selling the party agenda on "60 Minutes" Sunday night: "War is peace ... freedom is slavery ... ignorance is strength."
This constant abuse of language by the Obama administration should end. Orwell's future is our present.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
eEdition / Subscriber ServicesMobile Mobile Alerts RSS
Home
News breaking newsobituariescrime and courtsbay area newsdata centerscienceearthquakespolitics / governmentcalifornianation / world Site Web Search by YAHOO! Peninsula POWERED BY
Latest Peninsula news
Peninsula readers' letters: May 11
From Daily News Group readers Posted: 05/10/2011 05:32:29 PM PDTUpdated: 05/10/2011 11:43:31 PM PDT
Dear Editor: In George Orwell's book "1984," protagonist Winston Smith worked for the Ministry of Truth, dedicated to eliminating every vestige of truth and replacing it with what the government said was truth. Winston is painfully aware of the telescreen, which is both a receiver and transmitter at the same time.
It incessantly relays messages from "the Party" and simultaneously allows the dreaded "thought police" to tune into the activities of any individual at any given time.
President Obama continued to use fear to try again to win voter confidence, selling the party agenda on "60 Minutes" Sunday night: "War is peace ... freedom is slavery ... ignorance is strength."
This constant abuse of language by the Obama administration should end. Orwell's future is our present.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
Our security
San Mateo Daily Journal
WednesdayMay 11 2011 Home Local News State / National / World Sports Opinion / Letters
Diminishing our national security
May 11, 2011, 03:46 AM Letter
Editor,
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee’s decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and now the war on Libya.
The raid has further strained ties between the United States and Pakistan. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling for a review of billions in aid to Pakistan in light of the revelation bin Laden was living inside a heavily fortified compound in a wealthy Pakistani suburb. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf criticized the United States for attacking the compound without Pakistan’s knowledge, calling it a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
“It’s very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for,” Representative Barbara Lee said.
We’ve got to remove our young men and women out of harm’s way, and we’ve got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world do not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
WednesdayMay 11 2011 Home Local News State / National / World Sports Opinion / Letters
Diminishing our national security
May 11, 2011, 03:46 AM Letter
Editor,
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee’s decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and now the war on Libya.
The raid has further strained ties between the United States and Pakistan. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling for a review of billions in aid to Pakistan in light of the revelation bin Laden was living inside a heavily fortified compound in a wealthy Pakistani suburb. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf criticized the United States for attacking the compound without Pakistan’s knowledge, calling it a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
“It’s very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for,” Representative Barbara Lee said.
We’ve got to remove our young men and women out of harm’s way, and we’ve got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world do not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
Friday, May 06, 2011
Remove the troops
PaloAltoOnline.com
Town Square Login RegisterSign up for eBulletinsJoin UsFollow Us
HomeNews Palo Alto Weekly The Almanac Mountain View VoiceFogster ClassifiedsTown Square ForumsSportsShopping Shop Palo Alto Pizazz Coupons 'Best of' Results.
Remove the troops Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee's decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and now the war on Libya.
The raid has further strained ties between the U.S. and Pakistan. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling for a review of billions in aid to Pakistan in light of the revelation that bin Laden was living inside a heavily fortified compound in a wealthy Pakistani suburb. Former Pakistani president Pervez... Musharraf criticized the U.S. for attacking the compound without Pakistan's knowledge, calling it a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
"It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said.
We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world do not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Town Square Login RegisterSign up for eBulletinsJoin UsFollow Us
HomeNews Palo Alto Weekly The Almanac Mountain View VoiceFogster ClassifiedsTown Square ForumsSportsShopping Shop Palo Alto Pizazz Coupons 'Best of' Results.
Remove the troops Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee's decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and now the war on Libya.
The raid has further strained ties between the U.S. and Pakistan. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling for a review of billions in aid to Pakistan in light of the revelation that bin Laden was living inside a heavily fortified compound in a wealthy Pakistani suburb. Former Pakistani president Pervez... Musharraf criticized the U.S. for attacking the compound without Pakistan's knowledge, calling it a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
"It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said.
We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world do not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Spartan Daily
Spartan Daily
Friday, May 6, 2011
News Opinion Letters Sports A&E
No, the war is not over now that Osama bin Laden is dead
By Melissa Sabile
The Real Deal
Published: Thursday, May 5, 2011
Melissa Sabile
I can still remember everything about that day. It was my mom's birthday, though she had already been at work at the coffee shop for three hours.
I was getting ready for school and still had no idea what was happening on the other side of the country, and all I could think about was how I hadn't gotten my mom a birthday present yet.
My dad called, like he did every morning, to tell me that he was on his way and I needed to be waiting outside for him to pick me up.
As I climbed into his car a few minutes later, I can remember him asking me what I wanted for my birthday, because in about three more weeks, I would be 15 years old. His radio was off, like every morning on the way to school, and still I had no clue what was going on in New York..............
When I heard the next day on the radio that people were celebrating bin Laden's death by running in the streets, screaming obscene things and wrapping the American flag around themselves like a blanket, I was upset.
Is the world a better place because his is dead? Yes, of course. Is it going to change the fact that thousands of people died because of his reign of terror? No. Is it going to bring the U.S. troops back? Absolutely not.
The war is not over, why are we running amok in the streets?
It's a debate that I've been following on my morning talk show and it's something I don't understand. One side of the debate is that people are celebrating bin Laden's death because it is an American victory. The other side of the debate is that people shouldn't be celebrating his death because it does nothing to improve their lives — celebration is pointless.
Don't get me wrong, I'm proud that our American soldiers have given him the justice he deserved.
I'm in no way relieved or believe that the world is at peace now that he's gone.
The fact of the matter is terrorism will still exist, regardless of whether bin Laden is dead or alive. No amount of U.S. troops deployed in any part of the world will change that.
Oprah had Tweeted shortly after the president's speech on Sunday, "Does this mean the war is over?" The answer is no. Many people, like Oprah, believe that we are safe now that bin Laden is dead.
Someone new will rise up and violent acts will still take place — perhaps there will even be more attacks as people in enemy countries, no doubt, will see bin Laden as a martyr.
I hope and pray that there will not be any more attacks on our nation and that our troops will soon return safely. In 10 years I probably won't remember so vividly what happened on May 1, 2011, but I will never, ever forget what happened on Sept. 11.
"The Real Deal" is a weekly column appearing on Thursdays. Melissa Sabile is a Spartan Daily Sports Editor.
1 comments
Fri May 6 2011 Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee's decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and now the war on Libya.The raid has further strained ties between the U.S. and Pakistan. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling for a review of billions in aid to Pakistan in light of the revelation that bin Laden was living inside a heavily fortified compound in a wealthy Pakistani suburb. Former Pakistani president Pervez... Musharraf criticized the U.S. for attacking the compound without Pakistan's knowledge, calling it a violation of Pakistani sovereignty."It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said.We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world do not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Ted Rudow III, MA.
Class of 1996
Friday, May 6, 2011
News Opinion Letters Sports A&E
No, the war is not over now that Osama bin Laden is dead
By Melissa Sabile
The Real Deal
Published: Thursday, May 5, 2011
Melissa Sabile
I can still remember everything about that day. It was my mom's birthday, though she had already been at work at the coffee shop for three hours.
I was getting ready for school and still had no idea what was happening on the other side of the country, and all I could think about was how I hadn't gotten my mom a birthday present yet.
My dad called, like he did every morning, to tell me that he was on his way and I needed to be waiting outside for him to pick me up.
As I climbed into his car a few minutes later, I can remember him asking me what I wanted for my birthday, because in about three more weeks, I would be 15 years old. His radio was off, like every morning on the way to school, and still I had no clue what was going on in New York..............
When I heard the next day on the radio that people were celebrating bin Laden's death by running in the streets, screaming obscene things and wrapping the American flag around themselves like a blanket, I was upset.
Is the world a better place because his is dead? Yes, of course. Is it going to change the fact that thousands of people died because of his reign of terror? No. Is it going to bring the U.S. troops back? Absolutely not.
The war is not over, why are we running amok in the streets?
It's a debate that I've been following on my morning talk show and it's something I don't understand. One side of the debate is that people are celebrating bin Laden's death because it is an American victory. The other side of the debate is that people shouldn't be celebrating his death because it does nothing to improve their lives — celebration is pointless.
Don't get me wrong, I'm proud that our American soldiers have given him the justice he deserved.
I'm in no way relieved or believe that the world is at peace now that he's gone.
The fact of the matter is terrorism will still exist, regardless of whether bin Laden is dead or alive. No amount of U.S. troops deployed in any part of the world will change that.
Oprah had Tweeted shortly after the president's speech on Sunday, "Does this mean the war is over?" The answer is no. Many people, like Oprah, believe that we are safe now that bin Laden is dead.
Someone new will rise up and violent acts will still take place — perhaps there will even be more attacks as people in enemy countries, no doubt, will see bin Laden as a martyr.
I hope and pray that there will not be any more attacks on our nation and that our troops will soon return safely. In 10 years I probably won't remember so vividly what happened on May 1, 2011, but I will never, ever forget what happened on Sept. 11.
"The Real Deal" is a weekly column appearing on Thursdays. Melissa Sabile is a Spartan Daily Sports Editor.
1 comments
Fri May 6 2011 Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee's decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and now the war on Libya.The raid has further strained ties between the U.S. and Pakistan. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling for a review of billions in aid to Pakistan in light of the revelation that bin Laden was living inside a heavily fortified compound in a wealthy Pakistani suburb. Former Pakistani president Pervez... Musharraf criticized the U.S. for attacking the compound without Pakistan's knowledge, calling it a violation of Pakistani sovereignty."It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said.We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world do not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Ted Rudow III, MA.
Class of 1996
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)