Finding love in the wrong places

With Barack Obama heading towards his first Mid-term as president, concerns are developing among his core constituents.

Accompany me, if you will, to an alternative universe. It is one where President Richard Nixon said “we’re all Keynesians now” and founded the Environmental Protection Agency, and President Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex, and dismissed any party that would even think of eliminating unemployment insurance or Social Security.

In this world, President Gerald Ford supported the Equal Rights Amendment and even the high priest of Conservative daydreams, Ronald Reagan, raised corporate taxes and inaugurated a cabinet department to care for American veterans. As you may or may not know, this is not actually another world, but an accurate description of another time, when the Democratic Party and its progressive philosophy played offense, and Republicans felt a need to prostrate themselves before it, lest they join the Whigs, Federalists, and Know Nothings in that big political convention in the sky.

Yet, as a more assertive President Obama once pointed out, even while Reagan still bowed to some of the 50-year consensus that progress was good and with freedom came responsibility to our fellow countrymen, he lead a “transformative” presidency that blamed Big Government for all our nation’s ills (this “big government,” of course, only referred to economic issues, as growing the government to police your personal life and the world at large was as cool as a credit default swap).

It wasn’t only Reagan, of course, but the growth of talk radio buffoonery, new television channels that were not all that fair and balanced, and a wholesale movement by many segregationist Democrats into the Republican Party that also helped send the conventional wisdom in a more Jean-Marie Le Pen kind of direction.

Now fast forward to today. Most Democrats seem to stumble around like Leonard in Memento, possessing no institutional memory that when their forebears spoke out passionately with a strong progressive vision for the country, most Americans agreed with them and elected them overwhelmingly.

But they also seem to have forgotten—and George W. Bush could remind them if they need a refresher course—that even when people disagree with their President, Senators, Governors and Congressmen, they are looking for leaders—those who unabashedly stand up and tell you what they think is right. It’s what everyday people do in their own lives, and they expect at least as much from their leaders.

So why do many Democrats—and there certainly are a few impressive exceptions—hedge, hem, haw, hide and otherwise somersault to the Right on any number of issues when they feel threatened? Well, there are probably a few reasons, but the main one would seem to be that they simply buy wholesale the conventional wisdom doled out by lobbyists, big campaign contributors, certain media outlets, and Sarah Palin’s ghost-written, grammatically-challenged Twitter feed. Namely that America is a “center-right” or even conservative country.

You can’t go too far to the Left they repeat ad nauseam. You have to appease Big Business, or they’ll do to your political career what they did to the public option. You have to be “moderate,” or “centrist,” because Americans just love that mythical middle, like its cotton candy or the “Contest” episode of Seinfeld. Of course, all it takes is a couple of minutes perusing poll numbers on virtually any issue to know that this is as accurate as a Hutton Gibson’s Holocaust history or George Will’s “hair.”

Lets look at a few hot button issues, such as gun control, gay rights and taxes.

When asked by Republican pollster Frank Luntz whether they wanted to see the gun show loophole—or the lack of a background check for those purchasing guns from “private” gun sellers—even 85% of gun owners and 69% of those who are members of the radical National Rifle Association said yes.

A recent CNN poll showed that an overwhelming 78% of Americans support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Finally, when the argument is over taxes, a USA Today/Gallup Poll found that while only 37% want the richest Americans to keep tax cuts enacted by President Bush in 2001, while 59% either want only those making less than $250,000 a year to keep theirs, or want them to expire for everyone.

Now, I know that states are different and Congressional districts even more so, but with these overwhelming numbers, most to all Democrats are in safe territory to stand up for progressive values. And if being progressive kills candidates, once again looking to history, someone is going to have to explain to me how unapologetic liberals such as Frank Church of Idaho, Mike Mansfield of Montana (who introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and even George McGovern of South Dakota (to name only a few) managed to get elected and re-elected so many darn times.

This pattern of electing those who choose to lead continues today. Even as the Midwest, or Middle America, is fetishized in Washington for its middle-income, middle-class, moderate political bent, somehow Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and Al Franken of Minnesota are among the half-dozen to dozen most progressive Democrats in the Senate.

So to summarize, Democrats won for much of the 20th Century by being proudly progressive, forcing Republicans to tack to the left early and often, polls show Americans agree with progressives on hot button issues, and there are many current examples of proud and loud progressives who have made it to the Senate from swing or conservative states.

Reducing CO2 Emissions: A Man-Kind Challenge

A little good news/bad news on the climate and energy front. In the Sept. 10 Science, Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira of Stanford University have a study that estimates what future carbon emissions—and consequent global warming—would be from existing energy and transportation infrastructure. (In other words, what would happen if we used all the current buildings and power plants and cars we have today to the end of their operational lifetimes, but built nothing new.) It's a useful thought experiment, and the results are somewhat cheering. Davis and Caldeira estimated that our current, almost completely fossil-fueled infrastructure would lead to an additional 496 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions between now and 2060, which would lead to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of less than 430 parts per million and a mean warming of 1.3 C above pre-industrial levels. If we could achieve those goals, it would be a major success for climate policy—international negotiators have generally looked to keep atmospheric CO2 levels below 450 ppm and warming below 2 C. As Davis and Caldeira write in their paper (done with the help of H. Damon Matthews from Montreal's Concordia University): "The primary threats posed by climate change are a consequence of emissions from devices that do not exist."

To put it simply, it's not the cars and other fossil-fuel burning devices that we've already built that will push warming to edge—it's everything we're likely to build in the future, as the globe's population and economy keeps growing. And that might be the bad news—it's obvious that we're not going to simply stop building new planes and power plants. That's especially true in rapidly growing developing nations like China, where the mean age of power plants is just 12 years (compared to 32 years in the U.S.). And existing infrastructure doesn't just mean cars on the road and coal power plants—highways networks with gas stations facilitate more cars, just as our network of oil refineries and drilling platforms facilitate the use of more oil. Changing all of that will be incredibly difficult—and it's getting harder every day.

Butt, Amir, Asif to get Life Bans

According to ICC's code of conduct for players and officials, there is no way around for the Pakistani players accused of match fixing and involving in betting. The careers of skipper Salman Butt, Mohd Asif and Mohd Amir are but over - they will face a life ban. It remains to be seen how many other players of the side will be revealed to have been part of the match fixing ring, controlled by Mazhar Majeed, who is in Scotland Yard custody at the moment.

In the latest reveal by News of the world, rigger Mazhar Majeed boasted that cheating in the sport is rife, with the controversial second Test between Australia and Pakistan in Sydney last January netting a shady betting syndicate more than £830,000. Pakistan had managed to lose that Test from a supremely commanding position, chasing a mere 176 to win on the last day, they were bowled out for just 139. Incidentally Kamran Akmal had dropped as many as four catches and had missed an easy run out, apparently to give Australia chances to score higher. "Let me tell you the last test we did. It was the Second Test against Australia in Sydney. Australia had two more wickets left. They had a lead of ten runs, yeah. And Pakistan had all their wickets remaining," Majeed claimed, "The odds for Pakistan to lose that match, for Australia to win that match, were I think 40-1. We let them get up to 150 then everyone lost their wickets. That one we made 1.3. But that's what I mean, you can get up to a million. Tests is where the biggest money is because those situations arise."

Majeed claimed that when Pakistan's bowling was on a low, he used to go out into the field to hand the players some drinks, and used to slip in a lump of Vaseline after shaking their hands. All in order to make the ball swing more. Majeed went as far ahead as to justify the bribes - "They (the Pak players) need to make money" eh said, ""You'll find there's only a few players who are genuine and who are actually here for the love of the game and there's not many believe me. A lot of them are just looking for money, women and food. They make money and they need to make money. The problem is if they don't then they're not going to have enough money for the rest of their lives. In cricket there's not enough money. How much they're getting paid is a joke. I came from a football background and I can see the difference in football and cricket. It's huge."

IPL teams have the edge in the Champions League

A quick look at the playing XIs of quite a few of the non-IPL teams in the Champions League is enough to tell the story in no uncertain terms - they are the poorer cousins of their IPL counterparts. Let’s say they are as good as a Bengal or a Baroda, but are as run down as any state team would be, when playing an international outfit. The IPL teams swanking big names and decades of experience are of course better bets.

Logically then, the local teams sans star power should not be a patch on the three Indian teams. Yet not only have they put up a good fight, but have outperformed the IPL teams - none of the Indian teams qualified for the knock-outs in the first edition of the tournament. So what is it that is allowing the lesser teams to hold sway? More importantly, a question begs to be asked — how good are our IPL teams after all?

In my humble opinion, it isn’t the standard but the sheer competitiveness that seals the deal in favour of the IPL. Most teams in the IPL are equally balanced or imbalanced and share similar strengths and handicaps. Teams have the luxury of being able to start slowly, since the league is a lengthy event. So it’s okay to start working as a unit a couple of weeks into the tournament.

But there are no such luxuries in the Champions League. It’s mandatory to hit the ground running or else you will be forced to play catch up. Since the IPL teams don’t play together year round, they find it tough to work as a team right from the beginning. Finding out out what makes certain players tick and how they will perform in certain situations consumes vital time. Of course, the local teams enjoy an edge on this account as the line-up works as a cohesive unit round the year.

Unfortunately, IPL teams have mostly banked on reputations and not on current form to bail them out of tough situations, while the other first-class teams have had in-form players to assume the responsibility.

Another major factor that has had a huge impact on the overall standing of the non-IPL teams is knowledge of the opposition. Since the IPL is a hugely watched worldwide spectacle, its players have been exposed to analysis. The other participating teams escape such scrutiny. For example T&T took everyone by surprise with a brand of West Indian cricket which was almost forgotten or absolutely new to others.

While non-IPL teams can plan and prepare in advance and hence know what to expect from the IPL teams, our teams need to be more fluid in their approach. The role of a coach becomes remarkably insignificant because it’s the captain who must think on his feet, analyse the opposition on the ground itself and react appropriately. He must back his instincts a great deal too.

The only thing that might bring parity in this year’s edition is its timing. Most teams are coming out of an off-season and might be equally rusty as our IPL teams. In spite of the IPL teams claiming to have more match-winners than the rest, it’s imperative to play as a single unit. The seasoned players are expected to adapt to tough South African conditions more easily than most first-class cricketers from around the world, but it is always a team that wins a match.

Israel-Palestine conflict: Imposing solutions

Peace talks in the Middle East could be about to resume this week after a gap of 16 months. The optimism, if such a concept applies to this moribund lifeform, is contained in hints last week that Palestinian negotiators were considering inducements to start talking: the release of 1,000 prisoners, the lifting of some roadblocks, the easing of the Gaza blockade. The Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has refused to halt settlement construction in East Jerusalem, and his partial freeze on construction in the West Bank is anyway due to expire, so the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas will not talk directly with him. After two decades which saw meetings between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, the fact that a Palestinian leader universally deemed to be more pliant than his predecessor can only engage in indirect talks shows how deadlocked the conflict has become.

Former true believers in the peace process are renouncing their faith. Aaron Miller, an adviser on Arab-Israeli negotiations who served six US secretaries of state, is one of them. Arguing against many of the memos he penned to past political masters (after the Wye River accords which were never implemented, he declared the move toward peace was irreversible), Mr Miller now questions whether the conflict is capable of a negotiated solution and if it isn't, whether it should continue to be regarded as central to the stability of the region. There are ample grounds for thinking that neither Mr Netanyahu nor Mr Abbas can negotiate a solution, one because he won't and the other because he can't.

In his refusal to consider the core issues – East Jerusalem, and the right of return, being just two on which no one could imagine Mr Netanyahu conducting any meaningful negotiations – the Israeli premier is doing those Palestinians who have renounced violence a favour. Sooner or later they are going to say that as Israel reneges on previous agreements - Camp David, the road map, Annapolis - they are better off not negotiating at all. Mr Abbas came close to this yesterday when he urged President Barack Obama to impose a solution. This has a certain logic to it. Hints at how close Mr Abbas and Ehud Olmert had got, the last time there were direct talks between the two sides, left the impression that the solution is there to be grasped and the script already written, if only the actors could be found to speak the words. The row over building in East Jerusalem has dispelled that illusion. The solution is not there. After 17 years of intermittent negotiation but continuous settlement in the West Bank, there is zero trust between the two sides.

So what will the proximity talks be about if they go ahead this week? It will not be the first time that Mr Netanyahu has miscalculated US politics, but he could be thinking that if only he strings this out to November when he hopes the Republicans will gain control of the House of Representatives, then the pressure will be off him. He will have defanged the Democratic president. Mr Obama could just as easily think that the harder he pushes, the greater the chance of forcing Ehud Barak to leave the coalition. Mr Barak has said it is in Israel's interest to build a Palestinian state.

Either way Mr Obama could be clearing away any last hope in the viability of the peace process, before coming up with his own plan. That would be based on the guidelines for a permanent status agreement which were offered by Bill Clinton in 2000, known as the Clinton Parameters. It would then be endorsed by the EU, UN and Russia, who would then have to implement it. Having declared the solution of the conflict vital to US interests, Mr Obama can hardly walk away. Mr Netanyahu would kick and scream against an imposed plan, but that is the consequence of rejecting lesser demands now.

• This article was amended on 26 April 2010, to eliminate the stray "not" in a phrase referring to "[issues] on which no one could not imagine Mr Netanyahu conducting any meaningful negotiations".

CIA Red Cell: Wikileaks Info

CIA Red Cell
A Red Cell Special Memorandum

This CIA ”Red Cell” report from February 2, 2010, looks at what will happen if it is internationally understood that the United States is an exporter of terrorism; ’Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin. This dynamic belies the American belief that our free, open and integrated multicultural society lessens the allure of radicalism and terrorism for US citizens.’ The report looks at a number cases of US exported terrorism, including attacks by US based or financed Jewish, Muslim and Irish nationalism terrorists. It concludes that foreign perceptions of the US as an ”Exporter of Terrorism” together with US double standards in international law, may lead to noncooperation in renditions (including the arrest of CIA officers) and the decision to not share terrorism related intelligence with the United States.

What If Foreigners See the United States as an “Exporter of Terrorism”?

Much attention has been paid recently to the increasing occurrence of American-grown Islamic terrorists conducting attacks against US targets, primarily in the homeland. Less attention has been paid to homegrown terrorism, not exclusively Muslim terrorists, exported overseas to target non-US persons. This report examines the implications of what it would mean for
the US to be seen increasingly as an incubator and “exporter of terrorism.”

Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin. This dynamic belies the American belief that our free, open and integrated multicultural society lessens the allure of radicalism and terrorism for US citizens.

• Late last year five young Muslim American men traveled from northern Virginia to Pakistan allegedly to join the Pakistani Taliban and to engage in jihad. Their relatives contacted the FBI after they disappeared without telling anyone, and then Pakistani authorities arrested them as they allegedly attempted to gain access to al-Qa’ida training facilities.

• In November 2008, Pakistani-American David Headley conducted surveillance in support of the Lashkar-i-Tayyiba (LT) attack in Mumbai, India that killed more than 160 people. LT induced him to change his name from Daood Gilani to David Headley to facilitate his movement between the US, Pakistan, and India.

• Some American Jews have supported and even engaged in violent acts against perceived enemies of Israel. In 1994, Baruch Goldstein, an American Jewish doctor from New York, emigrated to Israel, joined the extremist group Kach, and killed 29 Palestinians during their prayers in the mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron which helped to trigger a wave of bus bombings by HAMAS in early 1995.

• Some Irish-Americans have long provided financial and material support for violent efforts to compel the United Kingdom to relinquish control of Northern Ireland. In the 1880s, Irish American members of Clan na Gael dynamited Britain’s Scotland Yard, Parliament, and the Tower of London, and detonated bombs at several stations in the London underground.In the twentieth century, Irish-Americans provided most of the financial support sent to the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The US-based Irish Northern Aid Committee (NORAID), founded in the late 1960s, provided the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) with money that was frequently used for arms purchases. Only after repeated high-level British requests and then London’s support for our bombing of Libya in the 1980s did the US Government crack down on
Irish-American support for the IRA.

XLRI

XLRI was founded in 1949 by Fr Quinn Enright, S.J. in the Steel City of Jamshedpur. Fr. Enright visualized XLRI to be a partner in the liberation and development journey of the independent India with a vision of "renewing the face of the earth". Fr. Bill Tome joined hands with him to bring that vision to fruition. Both, together with the other Jesuit companions, worked tirelessly towards translating the Vision "Renewing the face of the earth" into action.

Over many years XLRI has developed its own identity. The hall mark of this identity is, not to walk on the beaten path but to strike new routes; not to benchmark but to be benchmarked, to be second to none but to be the first to respond to the needs of the people and the nation, by taking up the tasks which are bold but necessary which nobody has hitherto taken up.This enterprising and pioneering spirit can be witnessed throughout the history of XLRI.