Newsweek Blogs

FBI Probes U.S. Link to Mumbai Attacks

Michael Isikoff — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:57:17 GMT

The FBI is expanding its investigation in a Chicago terrorism case to determine whether a key suspect may have helped scout targets for last year’s massive coordinated attack in Mumbai, India that killed 166 people, according to U.S. law enforcement officials.

The Justice Department announced late last month that it had charged two Chicago-area men—David Coleman Headley, the son of a former Pakistani diplomat, and a childhood friend, Tahawwur Hussain Rana-- for plotting to attack a Danish newspaper for publishing cartoons deemed offensive to the Prophet Mohammed.

But since then, the case has taken some dramatic turns that have attracted the interest of Indian Government investigators and transformed it into one of the most significant international terrorism cases that the FBI has brought since 9/11, the officials say.

After his arrest at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Oct. 3, Headley waived his rights to a lawyer and admitted to FBI agents that he had worked directly with Ilyas Kashmiri—a notorious Al Qaeda linked terrorist – to plan the assassination of an editor of the Danish newspaper (who he mistakenly believed was Jewish) and the cartoonist who drew the cartoon of Mohammed, according to a detailed 47 page FBI affidavit filed in federal court on Nov. 6.

In virtually no other case since the initial wave of post 9/11 investigations has the FBI confirmed such a direct link between a U.S. based suspect and a high-ranking international terrorist. (Kashmiri, identified by federal prosecutors as one of the Pakistan’st most wanted terrorists, is leader of a group closely associated with Al Qaeda and was the target of an unsuccessful CIA drone attack last September.)

Headley also told the FBI that he had “worked at various times” and “received training” from Lashkar-e Taiba, the Pakistani based terrorist group that is believed to have orchestrated the Mumbai attacks, the FBI affidavit states.

In the days after his arrest, Headley waived his right to a court hearing and continued to cooperate with the FBI, a senior law enforcement official (who like others interviewed for this story declined to be named told NEWSWEEK. The official said federal prosecutors now hope to file new charges in the case in the next “few weeks.” John Theis, a lawyer for Headley, declined to comment.

Based in part on statements made by Headley – as well as a wealth of intercepted emails, phone calls and other evidence--FBI agents have been aggressively investigating additional leads in the case and have been working with Indian investigators in Mumbai to nail down Headley’s admitted work for Lashkar, the U.S. officials say.

At the same time, India’s National Investigation Agency—which was created after the Mumbai attacks to specifically investigate terrorism cases-- has launched its own probe. The agency has developed evidence that between 2006 and 2009, Headley travelled to India at least nine times and scouted targets for Lashkar, Indian intelligence officials (who also asked not to be identified talking about the ongoing probe) told Sudip Mazumdar, a Newsweek reporter in India.

Among the targets that Headley scouted was the luxurious waterfront Taj Mahal Hotel where the Mumbai terrorists remained holed up for nearly two days killing guests and staff at random, the Indian official said. During one of his trips to India, Headley had stayed at the hotel.

Headley is also believed to have scouted other Mumbai targets, including the Jewish Chabad House that was seized by two of the terrorists during the Mumbai attacks, the Indian official said. (The Chabad House’s American rabbi, Gavriel Holtzberg, and his six month pregnant wife, Rivka, were among those killed in an ensuing gun battle.)

The Indian National Investigation Agency have filed charges against Headley in connection with the Mumbai attacks, the Indian officials told Muzamdar. The charges have not yet been made public.

Coming: More on the Chicago terror case: the Bollywood connection, Al Qaeda videos, and a look at jihadi life in Wazirstan.

How Not to Helicopter

Po Bronson — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:23:41 GMT

I’ve never bought macrobiotic cupcakes, or hypoallergenic socks. Nor have I hired a tutor for pencil-holding deficiency, or put covers on the stove knobs, or used a leash on a toddler to be safe in a busy airport. At the grocery store, my kids are often in other aisles, but they’ve never felt lost. When they were babies, we weren’t scared to leave them with babysitters. Their preschool didn’t teach Mandarin, nor even worry about teaching them to read. Nor have I ever questioned a teacher about one of my children’s grades.

In fact, nobody I know has done these things. The only parents I know who are super-protective are parents who have to be – and it’s totally justified – because their child has Down’s or Asperger’s.

But like all of you, I still suspect these horror stories – while not representative of reality – shine a light on the unmistakeable reality that we are not giving our kids anything like the freedom or independence we enjoyed as children when we were growing up. If we turned out fine, then why do we think our kids have to be raised so differently? This is the grand theme of Nancy Gibbs’ story on the cover of Time, “Can These Parents Be Saved?”

The problem with these using these horror stories to make a point is that they’re not helpful in finding the right line between parenting and overparenting. Carl Honore’s book Under Pressure is also filled with bad-parent stories ripped from the newspapers. Obviously it’s wrong to sue a college because they did not admit your child. Obviously it’s wrong for a tennis dad to spike his son’s opponents’ water bottles with Temesta, a drowsiness drug. Obviously it’s wrong for Japanese two-year olds to enroll in cram schools.

As Gibbs admits, deep into her article, having parents involved in children’s lives is exceptionally good for children. They get better grades, drink less and use less drugs, et cetera. Backing away completely is not the answer.

So the real question is, for regular parents – normal involved parents who are not crazy, headline-worthy overprotective freaks – in what dimensions do we need to back off?

We think our book NurtureShock, and our column here, have already noted many areas where good parents are going too far. Here’s a summary of those points, in some cases with additional commentary:

Praise them less, and help them develop accurate awareness of how well they’re doing – so don’t try to spin them into believing they’re better than they are.
Protect their sleep hours fiercely.
When young children hurt each other’s feelings, give them a chance to come back together on their own. You might not see apologies or overt repair, but scientists are learning that repair can be implicitly implied when kids end up side by side again.
Choose schools where they don’t assign too much homework (more than an hour in middle-school is too much), and the schools will finally get the message.
Protect play time, and as they mature, help make sure they still have outlets for fantasy.
By the time a child is 11, don’t encourage or expect her to tell you everything. Some things need to be none of your business. Set a few rules and enforce them, but in other domains encourage independence and autonomy.
Teens need opportunities to take good risks. They need more exposure to other adults, and even kids of other ages – and less exposure to teens exactly their age. They need part of their life to feel real, not just a dress rehearsal for college. They will mature more quickly if these elements are in their life.
Colleges have gotten better. It’s harder today to get into the top 30 name-brand colleges, because so many kids apply, but the next 70 colleges are now just as good as the top 30 were when you went to college, and the next 100 are darn good too. Care about your child’s education, not the notoriety of the name printed on his college sweatshirt.

Religious Leaders Warn of Civil Disobedience

Eve Conant — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:53:42 GMT

They are calling it the Manhattan Declaration, a 4,700-word manifesto reaching into scripture and signed by 148 Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders. It was released this afternoon at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and is designed to draw a line in the sand across three issues they argue are non-negotiable despite the law: the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman, and religious freedom.

Signers of the Declaration pledge to "...not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” nor will signers “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships” or “treat them as marriages.” The list of backers reads like a who’s who of the pro-life movement, and the document essentially argues that supporters of the movement deserve conscience rights.

What does noncompliance look like? Nonviolent civil disobedience. "Dr. King was very clear about nonviolence and we are committed to nonviolence,” said Robert George, drafting committee member and jurisprudence professor at Princeton University. He listed some examples of what religious civil disobedience might look like, such as a pharmacist quitting before providing abortion drugs or a physician changing jobs before performing an abortion or taking part in an assisted suicide. “There are limits to what can be asked of people,” said George, who was flanked by 15 religious leaders, including the Archdioceses of Washington and Philadelphia and evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and Tony Perkins.

Addressed not only to Christians, but to President Obama, Congress, and civil authorities, the treatise will be available online for individuals to sign as well. When asked whether nonpayment of taxes would be an acceptable form of protest, George, who is also a lawyer, said he was currently representing a West Virginia taxpayer who is refusing to pay the small percentage of her bill that might go toward state-funded abortions (“Litigation is still pending,” said George). Institutions were also called on to participate in the civil disobedience if, for example, if a Catholic hospital is under pressure to provide services that go against Catholic beliefs. Although conscience protections do exist for many institutions already, there are areas, cited on Friday, such as when the Catholic Charities of Boston halted adoption services, rather than comply with state law and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

According to the Declaration, “We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.” Yet similar documents, such as last year’s Evangelical Manifesto, have been unveiled with great fanfare but little consequence. Civil disobedience, especially giving up a job, is a lot to ask in the current economy and is a hard notion, even for some signers of the Declaration.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council tells NEWSWEEK the point of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce, which he says led directly to the breakup of families and high divorce rates. “I’m a former police officer, and I have hard time with civil disobedience, but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

Daily Mayor of New York Higher Office Debunking

Ben Adler — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:50:34 GMT

If it's not Mike Bloomberg, it's his predecessor. The New York Daily News reports that Rudy Giuliani is going to run for the Senate in 2010 and that he may use that as a stepping stone to a presidential run in 2012. Over at The Atlantic Chris Good claims "Giuliani will make a formidable Senate candidate, should he run—in fact, if he enters the race, he will likely become the frontrunner," noting that he polls ahead of incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand.

Repeat after me, punditariat: the mayoralty of New York is a stepping stone to nothing. Being mayor of New York is a good way to:

A) piss off a lot of powerful constituencies by making hard choices

B) piss off a lot of powerful constituencies by being the kind of obnoxious jerk who becomes mayor of New York in the first place

C) get entangled in the minor corruption that is endemic to even the best-run major city governments

and, D) become well known to the powerful national media figures in your hometown, who will talk about how you will or should run for senate, governorship, or the presidency.

But it ain't happening. Like Ed Koch and John Lindsay before him, Rudy Giuliani has been seen at times as a likely, and strong, candidate for statewide or national office. And, like both of them, he'll lose if he actually runs. Flashback to early 2000, when Giuliani's approval ratings were in the toilet, thanks to his contentious tenure, and he was losing to carpetbagger Hillary Clinton in every poll for the Senate race. He dropped out, citing health reasons, and was not expected to ever come back. But then September 11 made him America's mayor, his national name recognition soared, making him misleadingly appear to be a GOP frontrunner in the 2008 election, and off he went to New Hampshire and Florida. Forty-eight million dollars and 1 RNC delegate later, Giuliani crashed and burned, his image tarnished by revelations about his inappropriate use of his NYPD security detail, and his cronies' even worse behavior.

When will people learn? Polls three years in advance are about name recognition and little else. When the campaign actually starts and the New York press picks the bones of the skeletons of the Giuliani's closet, his numbers will go down. The rationale for his presidential or gubernatorial candidacy—crime-fighting and managerial credentials—don't apply to legislative, rather than executive, office. Democrats hold a 5-3 registration advantage in New York State. When people actually step in the voting booth, plenty of folks who currently don't know Gillibrand from Eve will pull the lever for her. And, Gillibrand has shown some political talent.

The better question is why anyone thinks Giuliani is running at all. He could make millions of dollars a year giving motivational speeches and working as a lawyer, with a direct line into all the cable news networks. Or, he can spend the next year going to county fairs Upstate, shaking hands, giving the same stump speech, asking donors for money and answering fascinating questions. "Mr. Giuliani, what are you going to do about the economy here in Elmira? Mr. Giuliani, how are you going to protect New York's dairy farmers? Mr. Giuliani, the public schools here in Herkimer County are teaching evolution, what do you think about that?"

All in the service of either losing or getting to be a junior senator in the minority party. Which he will chose? Either way, I don't think we'll talking about Senator Giuliani in 2011.

Mammograms, Pap Smears, and the PSA: How Other Screening Tests Measure Up

Krista Gesaman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:14:09 GMT

Earlier this week the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shocked legions of women when it recommended waiting until 50 for a first mammogram, despite previous recommendations that women begin mammograms at 40. Then today, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released new guidelines for Pap smears. Previously, all sexually active women were encouraged to get the test—which examines cells in the cervix to determine whether there are any abnormalities that could lead to cancer—every year. Now, the recommendations state that women begin the Pap test at 21, retest every other year, and then, once women hit their 30s, schedule a test every three years.

Quite often, new technology hits the market before long-term studies have been completed, says Ted Epperly, a family physician and past president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Only after years of using the equipment can experts then gather statistics about their efficacy. And, Epperly suggests, there may be other tests once considered annual necessities that are now being reevaluated in light of new evidence. We asked Epperly to evaluate other preventative tests—once considered lifesavers—and relay what the evidence currently suggests. As always, be sure to check with your doctor about your individual risks and treatment plan.

COLONOSCOPY

Both men and women are advised to have their first colonoscopy at 50, the American Cancer Society reports. In some cases, testing for colon cancer can be delayed until age 55, Epperly says. He goes on to warn that testing should not be delayed in instances where there is a family history of colon cancer or where a person experiences symptoms including weight loss, bloody stool, or unexplained abdominal pain. Colonoscopies have one of the highest success rates: they can reduce a person's chances of dying from colon cancer by between 60 and 70 percent.

PROSTATE SCREENING

The American Cancer Society reports that screenings should begin for men at 50. But just like mammograms, the final results can be misleading. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a protein produced by the cells of the prostate gland, and a prostate screening test measures the level of this protein in a man’s blood. It’s possible for a man to have high levels of the protein in his system, but not actually have cancer. The National Cancer Institute reports that “only 25 to 35 percent of men who have a biopsy due to an elevated PSA level actually have prostate cancer.” It's also possible that the PSA can detect cancer so slow-moving that it likely would have gone undetected before the patient died of other causes.

The test is most useful for men who have a family history of prostate cancer or are experiencing symptoms like painful urination, weight loss, or pelvic pain. Black men are also encouraged to seek screening because they have a higher potential rate of prostate cancer. Evidence seems to indicate that men who don’t fall into any of these categories can forgo the prostate-cancer screening test, Epperly says.

CHEST X-RAY

As late as 2005, smokers were encouraged to get chest X-ray’s to detect any signs of lung cancer. But studies indicate the X-ray can produce misleading results. The U.S. National Cancer Institute conducted a study where 67,000 people received chest X-rays. The results showed abnormalities in nearly 6,000 cases, but after follow-up consultations with doctors, only 126 patients were actually diagnosed with lung cancer. Currently, no major professional organization, including the American Cancer Society, recommends routine screening because it hasn’t been shown to prevent people from dying of cancer.

FULL BODY SCAN

Total-body MRIs can also strain your wallet and cause unneeded anxiety. Popular in the past seven years as a general preventative tool, an MRI will produce images of anatomic abnormalities and is designed to help diagnose tumors, spinal-cord injuries, and problems with the lungs, kidneys, and uterus, the Mayo Clinic reports. However, MRIs often detect small irregularities that ultimately don’t require more testing or surgery. Epperly says patients often become more anxious when these irregularities are spotted and invest in costly medical exams to confirm that they are, in fact, healthy. Patients primarily need MRIs when a doctor is exploring a specific symptom, like whether excessive headaches might be the result of a tumor, Epperly says. Unless recommended by a doctor, total body images can be a serious financial burden, and may expose the patient to harmful radiation.

Is Homeland Security Gun Shy About Confronting Far Right?

Mark Hosenball — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:32:47 GMT

The Obama administration didn't hesitate recently to pick a fight with Fox News, but its Department of Homeland Security now appears to have backpedaled on a report expressing concern about what its analysts earlier this year described as "right-wing extremists." Back in April, Homeland Security's intelligence analysis division produced a nine-page "assessment" describing how the nation's economic problems and the ascent of the first African-American president "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists" and might even lead to violence between such groups and the government. Although the paper was stamped "for official use only" and bits of it were labeled "law enforcement sensitive." the document quickly made its way onto the Internet. Its contents provoked howls of rage from conservative activists (some of which was reflected in reports from ... Fox News). The report's critics expressed particular outrage at a paragraph stating that returning veterans "possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists." The report stated directly that Homeland Security's intelligence shop was "concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities." (Despite these concerns, the report also acknowledged up front that the Feds had "no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.")

After the report became public, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano backed away from it, telling members of Congress that it had been disseminated to state and local officials without proper authorization. She said the department's procedures for vetting such documents had not been followed. But Napolitano also indicated that the report would be "replaced or redone in a much more useful and much more precise fashion." After gunmen with extreme right-wing pedigrees separately killed a Kansas abortion doctor and a security guard at Washington's Holocaust Museum, some liberal activists raised questions as to when Homeland Security was going to produce an updated version of the April report.

That is unlikely to happen. Instead, said a source familiar with Homeland Security Department thinking, the contents of the April report have already been sliced and diced and put into other reports about extremism that the department has no plans to make public. "We have reused pieces of the [April] report in operational products that we've put out over the course of the last few months," a Homeland Security Department official said, asking for anonymity when discussing a politically sensitive topic. But the department evidently has no plans at this point to replace the old right-wing extremists report with a more useful or more precise version, as Secretary Napolitano initially suggested. Officials emphasize that Homeland Security keeps an eye on all kinds of extremists who could threaten violence inside the U.S., including Islamic extremists and left-wing extremists. In another paper leaked online (posted here on the Fox News Web site), the department's analysts did express concern that left wingers, such as animal-rights campaigners or environmental extremists, might try to use cyberattacks to cause economic damage.

News that Homeland Security is unlikely to revise its April report surfaces just as one of the nation's most prominent private monitors of political extremists, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, has issued a new report expressing alarm about a resurgence of right-wing extremism. This ultraconservative revival is contributing to a "toxic atmosphere of rage in America," the ADL says. Among the manifestations of such rage, according to the ADL, are antigovernment "tea party" protesters who have alleged that the current administration is acting like Nazis, a resurgent "militia" movement, and a proliferation of conspiracy theories. (The ADL explicitly condemns Fox News host Glenn Beck for "demonizing the Obama administration and promoting conspiracy theories about it.") Heidi Beirich, research director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, another private group that keeps an eye on the extreme right, told NEWSWEEK that Homeland Security's reluctance to stand by its analysis of the right-wing threat is disturbing. "From our perspective, this is ridiculous. The [April Homeland Security report] was dead-on. Why the [department] won't stand by an accurate report is incomprehensible."

Newsverse: The Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:26:47 GMT

By Jerry Adler

Exhibit A:

Consider, men and women of the jury

The evidence of displaced fury.

Rage flung like a prisoner’s feces

Against the walls. The human species

Unique in all biology

Kills for ideology.

Exhibit B:

Is entropy.

One hundred stories, ground to dust.

The twisted columns, growing rust.

Scraps of flesh and flecks of blood

Splashed outward, and then mixed with mud.

Exhibit C:

The cellphone calls.

From people trapped in stairs and halls

The roof above, below them fire.

And in the dark, the strong desire

To say goodbye, fed by belief

That one can store up memories

Against the coming grief.

Closing Argument:

Consider, if you will, the brain

And how it analyzes gain

And if anything worth having

Could justify such pain.

E-commerce Growing Despite Downturn

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:00:04 GMT

Credit: Michael Loccisano - Getty Images

High Stakes For Online Gamblers

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:50:57 GMT

By Jeremy Herb

Between online gambling and the countless ESPN reruns of the World Series of Poker, poker has become a mainstream "sport." More than 6,000 people paid $10,000 to enter this year's World Series main event, and gambling experts say 10 to 15 million Americans wager $100 billion on all forms of Internet gaming annually. The online gambling industry—made up of offshore companies—earns somewhere between $6 and $10 billion in the U.S. each year. But it's a poker game of politics, not cards, that will decide the fate of online gambling in the U.S.

The battle rests on a bill that was passed in the final hours of the 2006 Republican-controlled Congress, when Sen. Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) forbids banks from accepting illegal Internet gambling transactions. In essence, it prevents would-be players from using their debit or credit cards—a standard for online payments—for Internet gambling. Those who support Internet gambling, led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, are making a final plea to the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to push back the law for one year, giving them time to repeal it. In response, Sen. John Kyl and Rep. Spencer Bachus wrote a letter to Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke urging them to enforce the Dec. 1 deadline. The Treasury and Fed have yet to make a decision, according to a Federal Reserve official.

The problem with UIGEA is it raised more questions than it answered. The law does not make it illegal for people to gamble online, as it focuses on bank transactions. But it failed to define what's considered "illegal Internet gambling." The Treasury and Fed, which are instructing banks on how to enforce the law, did not define illegal gambling either. "The role of financial institutions is not to be policemen of the government," says Mary Dunn, senior vice president of the Credit Union National Association. The finance industry says the law is an unfair burden and also wants it delayed. But if the law goes into effect Dec. 1, all financial institutions must demonstrate they can block online transactions.

The new law won't prosecute individual players, but the risk for gamblers is that online casinos will pull out of the U.S. market. Last week, Golden Casino announced it would no longer take deposits from American players on Dec. 1, according to a gambling trade site. PartyGaming, a publicly traded company, left the U.S. in 2006 when UIGEA passed. The company paid a $105 million nonprosecution fine to the Justice Department, which took UIGEA's passage as a "Congressional mandate" to prosecute illegal online gambling.

The Justice Department believes all Internet gambling is illegal based on the 1960s Wire Act, which was designed to stop bookies from using telephones and passed long before the Internet as we know it existed. The gambling industry disputes this, arguing the Wire Act only applies to sports-betting, not games like poker or roulette. In 2002, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled the Wire Act only applied to sports-betting, but that didn't sway any opinions at Justice. Several offshore executives of online casinos and "e-wallet" payment processors have been arrested in the past few years. In June, the Justice Department froze $33 million in payments to American players from four online casinos.

If Frank gets his online gambling bill passed, however, the Wire Act dispute would disappear. Frank's bill, along with companion legislation from Rep. Jim McDermott, would legalize and tax online casinos, though online sports-betting would remain outlawed. Online gambling could generate up to $42 billion in tax revenue over the next decade, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation report. Spurred on by efforts from lobbyists and advocacy groups, Frank has vowed to overturn what he says is an "outrageous" law. His plans have been sidetracked by finance reform, however, which has eaten up most of the Financial Services Committee's time this year.

The morality debate over Internet gambling doesn't stray far from regular gambling, with a few exceptions. Opponents say the convenience of the Internet gives gambling addicts easy access to the lure of slots and cards, and encourages underage playing. Gambling advocates argue regulated sites will be more difficult for underage players because they will have stricter age verification, and that players should have the same rights online they already have in a casino. But another argument that's also being made is poker should be legalized online because it's a skill game-not a game of chance-and therefore it doesn't fall under UIGEA or the Wire Act. Sen. Robert Menendez has also introduced separate legislation that carves out an exception for poker. "People have been playing this great skill game that's been around for a long time," says Howard Lederer, a professional poker player and member of the Poker Players Alliance. "We're playing against each other, not the house."

Even if the UIGEA is enacted, it's unlikely online gambling would disappear completely. There are ways for American players to circumvent bank regulations, including setting up a foreign bank account. "We're all holding our breath and hoping the petition will be accepted," Lederer says, but that isn't the industry's only option. Online poker could be legalized through the courts on the argument that the Wire Act doesn't apply to poker. The industry is waiting to see what happens Dec. 1 before taking any action, he says. But if they do head to court, Lederer likes the odds.

Footballing Obama Experiences the Wonders of Slow Motion

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:12:20 GMT

If President Obama was looking for another way to differentiate himself from President Bush, he just found it. When it comes to sports, you might recall Bush as an avid mountain biker. He also showed off some lightening-quick reflexes that one time that would give him an edge in dodgeball, and certainly fencing. Obama’s forté so far has been shooting hoops. Now add to the list, football. Check out this PSA that will run during several football games on Thanksgiving Day that encourages kids to get more exercise. Between spliced footage of kids running and doing jumping jacks, Obama makes a cameo on the White House lawn, tossing around the old pigskin. An ordinary game of catch, right? Not quite. The whole spot comes off as rather moving, almost epic, but not because of Obama or his receiving skills. Producers slowed down the footage so much that a short-range pass from New Orleans’s Saints quarterback Drew Brees to Obama ends up looking like a Sports Center highlight. Then, add in some dramatic background music and the receiver-in-chief almost looks qualified for a Heisman. Of course that would be premature. First we would need to see his end-zone dance.

Ungenerous Japan

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:57:56 GMT

By Takashi Yokota

Japan, the globe's second-largest economy, has long prided itself on its reputation as one of the world's most generous nations. But the Center for Global Development (CGD) thinks the country is punching below its weight. A recent report by the reputable Washington think tank ranked Japan the second-worst contributor among the 22 countries it surveyed. The analysis of "how much countries are living up to their potential to help" found that while Japan's foreign-aid budget is large in absolute terms, it amounts to only 0.18 percent of gross national income, compared with 0.98 percent for Sweden, which ranks first. The report also dings Japan for its insular policies, such as Tokyo's steep tariffs on rice imports (to protect its farmers), its strict policy on refugees (it accepted a mere 410 out of 4,882 applicants between 1982 and 2005), and its small contributions to global peacekeeping efforts (due to restrictions in its pacifist Constitution).

The new Yukio Hatoyama administration may improve matters. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada has said he will review and increase Tokyo's official development assistance and make it easier to deploy peacekeeping personnel. Last week Tokyo also announced it will dole out $5 billion to Afghanistan over the next five years. But don't expect Japan to move up the ranks on the CGD's scale any time soon--considering the country's severe budget crunch, the coming changes are likely to be incremental at best.

What Did the Accused Fort Hood Shooter Say to a Jihadi Cleric?

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:09:54 GMT

By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff

The Fort Hood shooting may soon become more politically explosive. Two U.S. intelligence officials Thursday night confirmed to Declassified key details of a just-breaking ABC News report--that in emails sent to a radical Yemeni cleric, accused shooter Nidal Hasan asked when jihad is appropriate, and said “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife.

One U.S. official, who did not want to be named discussing sensitive information, said the emails could be “a problem,” but cautioned that they still needed to be viewed in context.

In background briefings for reporters and members of Congress, U.S. officials have insisted that Hasan’s communications with radical imam Anwar al Awlaki were consistent with a paper he was researching as an Army psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center. After a Joint Terrorism Task Force reviewed the emails last spring and concluded that Hasan was “not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning,” FBI and U.S. Army officials chose not to open an investigation. But members of Congress now are demanding answers about what the FBI and Army knew—and the ABC report is likely to fuel those demands. (The ABC story also reports that, while earning a salary of $92,000 a year including his housing and food allowances, Hasan contributed $20,000 to $30,000 a year to Islamic charities.)

To respond to Congress--and to prepare for Hasan’s trial--U.S. intelligence officials have been wrestling with how much of the email chain (intercepted by U.S. intelligence) can be declassified without compromising sources and methods. Given the leaks, that question may soon be academic.

Several officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that Awlaki has been a major target for American intelligence collectors since he left the United States in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, settling first in England and then Yemen. While in the United States, Awlaki had preached at a mosque in the Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C.; Hasan used to attend the same mosque, which reportedly hosted his mother’s funeral. Before moving to the Virginia mosque, Awlaki lived in San Diego, where investigators say he met two future 9/11 hijackers.

U.S. intelligence agencies monitored Awlaki once he settled in Yemen due to his relationship with 9/11 participants, but also because he was outspoken in favor of jihad. Even before his relationship with the accused Ft. Hood shooter came to light, Awlaki was recognized by experts on Islamic extremism (see this paper by the NEFA Foundation) as a leading radical preacher—one of the few who preached his message in English. Because of his pro-jihad postings on the Internet, Awlaki’s name has regularly turned up in terrorism investigations, including court cases in Canada, Britain, and the U.S. state of Georgia, as well as in a failed plot to shoot up a military training base at Ft. Dix, New Jersey.

Given all of that, Ft. Hood investigators will want to know why Hasan’s email contacts with Awlaki didn’t create more alarm. To answer that question, they’ll want to examine the contents of the emails. But intercepts gathered by U.S. intelligence—mainly by the ultra-secretive National Security Agency—are usually considered some of the government’s most sacred secrets. Historically, the NSA has exerted enormous effort to keep them that way. Intelligence officials argue that, at the very least, making the intercepts public would remind Awlaki and people like him that they are being monitored; going public might also give potential enemies clues as to how such monitoring is conducted.

Yet because the emails are central to discovering whether U.S. authorities ignored warning signs about Hasan’s behavior, the spy agencies may lose this argument. “I assume they will have to declassify material,” one veteran intelligence official said. Law enforcement and intelligence agency spokespeople either declined to comment or said that it is too early to address the declassification issue.

Earlier this week, the ABC News investigative team, led by correspondent Brian Ross, also reported that Hasan had tried to get government and military lawyers to open criminal investigations of soldiers he claimed had confessed to “war crimes” during psychiatric counseling sessions. According to ABC, however, Hasan’s military superiors “repeatedly ignored or rebuffed” Hasan’s complaints. ABC said that one military lawyer, Col. Anthony Febbo, had told investigators that on three occasions in the weeks before the massacre, Hasan had contacted him asking whether it was permissible, under medical privacy laws or rules, for him to provide prosecutors with information on "war crimes." Febbo told ABC News he could not comment because of the ongoing investigation, and a spokesman for Army Headquarters told Newsweek that the service was not commenting on any aspect of the Hasan investigation. Spokespeople for Defense Secretary Robert Gates and James Clapper, the Pentagon’s chief of intelligence, had no immediate comment.

Grumbling About China and the Renminbi

Robert J. Samuelson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:23:38 GMT

Wonder why President Obama’s trip this week to China didn’t go more smoothly? Meetings between Obama and top Chinese leaders were reportedly stiff; the Chinese also limited domestic press coverage of Obama’s appearances. The explanation is disarmingly obvious: huge disagreements separate the two countries that can’t easily be papered over.

Anyone doubting that ought to take a quick read of the latest annual report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group established by Congress in 2000 to examine the connections between the countries’ economic relations and broader issues of national security. The Commission has typically been more suspicious of Chinese policies and motives than many American analysts. This year’s report is no exception.

The picture of China drawn by the Commission is of a rapidly-growing country that, through an undervalued exchange rate and systematic industrial policies, increasingly challenges the U.S. economy and is rapidly expanding and modernizing its military. The commission cited estimates that China’s currency, the renminbi (RMB), is undervalued by 12 percent to 40 percent. Despite a 4 trillion RMB ($586 billion) “stimulus” package announced in Nov. 2008—to offset the effects of the global economic crisis—China “is still pursuing an export-led strategy,” the report said. At the end of September, China’s foreign exchange reserves totaled $2.27 trillion.

Though the U.S.-China trade deficit in 2009 of $144 billion (through August) was down 17.6 percent from the same period in 2008, most of the decline reflected the deep U.S. recession and less demand from American consumers. In fact, the report said, China’s share of the total (non-oil) U.S. trade deficit continues to rise and is now about 80 percent, up from 40 percent as recently as 2005. The Commission echoed the criticism of many U.S. economists who argue that China’s large trade surpluses, reinvested in heavily in U.S. Treasury bonds, contributed to the present economic crisis. The argument is that the reinvested dollars kept interest rates down and caused banks and other investors to shift funds into riskier mortgage-related securities with higher interest rates.

“If China continues to pursue huge trade and investment surpluses and to accumulate vast financial claims, it will hinder the necessary global economic adjustment, create excess manufacturing capacity, and lay groundwork for the next [economic] crisis,” the report warned.

Aside from trade policies, the report also alleged that China has stepped up its cyber attacks against U.S. private and government data networks. It cited Defense Department estimates that “malicious” incidents against DOD systems had doubled since 2005, from 23,03l to 54,640 in 2008, and are on track to increase another 60 percent in 2009. The Commission conceded that tracing the origins of cyber attacks is difficult and that many come from “”private hacking groups.”. However, the report contended that the technical features and targets of some attacks pointed to heavy Chinese involvement.

On military matters, the Commission said that, supported by an expanding economy, China “has embarked on its largest naval modernization since the founding of the PRC [People’s Republic of China] in 1949.” The main aim is to deter “Taiwan from declaring independence” and “to impede other nations—including the United States—from intervening on Taiwan’s behalf.” In recent years, the report said, China had purchased or built 38 submarines, 13 destroyers and 16 frigates and has developed “advanced offensive and defensive weapons, such as anti-ship cruise missiles, land –attack cruise missiles, and sea mines.” However, American officials believe that the United States retains naval superiority in the region.

The Commission’s powers are confined to investigations and recommendations to Congress. Its recommendations this year included making more formal complaints to the World Trade Organization about Chinese trading practices and taking legislative steps to offset the effects of the undervalued RMB.

More Grumbling About China and the Renminbi

Robert J. Samuelson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:09:35 GMT

Photo: Getty Images

After the Bombs: The U.S. Needs to Figure Out Its Aid Plan for Pakistan. Fast.

Katie Paul — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:58:46 GMT

Photo credit: Anjum Naveed / AP

By this time next month, Pakistan is likely to have a monster of a reconstruction project on its hands. That’s not necessarily because latest anti-Taliban offensive has laid such waste to its tribal areas; it hasn’t. As those who went on the press junket through South Waziristan earlier this week pointed out, the army hasn’t had to wage much of a fight, and images of rubble (like the one above) are less common than evidence of sudden flight. The militants—Mehsuds, Uzbeks, and maybe some Arabs—have scattered, potentially to Afghanistan, mainstream Pakistan, or North Waziristan, where the Afghan Taliban is likely holed up. That raises a worrisome question about the next phase, once displaced civilians start heading back to their homes: what’s to keep the militants from simply coming back with them?

A big part of the answer was supposed to be beefed-up economic and civil society development. As security analysts point out, the official FATA (Federally Administrated Tribal Areas) government consists of a fragile, volatile, and increasingly beleaguered tribal structure, whose long-term bungling of basic services provided the political opening for firebrand Taliban leaders to gain power in the first place. Now, even that structure is in shards, with many tribal leaders among the casualties of the Taliban. Once the shooting stops in the coming weeks, those analysts say, the battle for control of the region will quickly become a hearts-and-minds competition based on who can provide essential services.

The Obama administration seems as keenly aware of that as anyone, talking up development and signing off last month on the ambitious Kerry-Lugar bill, which ratchets up non-military aid for Pakistan from around $400 million a year to $1.5 billion a year. As John Kerry explained it to the Council on Foreign Relations, the new approach should kick in as soon as the Pakistani army withdraws, when there will be a window of “immediate opportunities” to put those development initiatives to the test.

So what’s the plan for that money, exactly? Good question, is the most common response in Washington. “That’s the one thing we do not know,” says Sam Worthington, who heads up Interaction, a consortium of NGOs responsible for coordinating initiatives with the U.S government. While there has been near-unanimous support in Washington for ramping up development initiatives in Pakistan, U.S. development strategy has been in flux for months, as the State Department, USAID, and Congress wage bureaucratic turf battles over how and to whom the money should be funneled once it gets to Pakistan.

Shortly after he took on his new role as special envoy, Richard Holbrooke launched head-first into that fray (in typical fashion). He began making plans to shift aid money over to the Pakistani government and local NGOs, putting a hold on existing contracts, which are mostly with non-Pakistani contractors, while his team set about reviewing which ones to keep around and which ones to cut loose. Critics have long complained about the drawbacks of foreign contractors: high overhead costs, minimal local participation in the projects, and crippling security restrictions. Highlighting development as a key part of their diplomatic strategy, the Obama team promised to change that. So, while Holbrooke was characteristically bold in forging ahead on the policy change in Pakistan, the move actually reflects a pronounced philosophical shift in the administration’s thinking on aid.

The questions are how, and how fast, that shift can happen. A number of reviews are underway to determine those answers. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), run by policy planning chief Anne Marie Slaughter, is putting the State Department's inner workings under the microscope to better leverage American soft power. There were initial concerns the QDDR was a ploy to absorb USAID into the State Department—so-called “absorption conspiracy theories”—though Slaughter has stated in no uncertain terms that option is off the table. In the Oval Office, the President put Jim Jones and Larry Summers in charge of the Presidential Study Directive, a government-wide review of global development policy. Both the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees are putting together initiatives to overhaul the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, which controls USAID's mandate and funding, though aides grumble that they wish each would stay out of the other’s way—and the State Department wishes they would both stay out of its way. Finally, this summer Holbrooke brought on Ambassador Robin Raphel, an experienced foreign service hand, to oversee all development initiatives in Pakistan. She’s now conducting her own review of all the contracts in Pakistan.

None of those reviews are finished. In the meantime, say development workers, USAID projects currently underway are stuck in limbo, renewed for 45-90 days at a time as they wait for the word from Washington. Naturally, all that bureaucratic reshuffling has given USAID the jitters. A leaked memo from a senior USAID economist warned that the USAID office in Pakistan is receiving “contradictory objectives” from Holbrooke’s team, and that attempts to rapidly shift projects over to the Pakistanis are “shockingly counterproductive” to counterinsurgency and economic development objectives.” The USAID office in Islamabad seems just as conflicted; development workers say their USAID contacts have intentionally avoided putting any advisories in writing, wary of having contractors wind down much-needed projects when they’re most needed. “I have never seen an AID mission in as much chaos as the one in Islamabad right now,” said one sub-contractor, who did not want to be identified because of his ongoing work with USAID in the FATA.

Part of the confusion stems from the absence of a top USAID advocate within the administration. The agency’s top post sat vacant for ten months. When Rajiv Shah was finally appointed USAID administrator last week, staffers hoped the pieces might finally start falling into place. But mixed signals remain, mostly concerning how much power Shah will actually have to determine the way forward after the reviews are completed. Given the uncertainties over the future of his post, the administration reportedly had to reach out to more than a dozen candidates who turned down the job before Shah finally agreed to take it.

However the reviews shake out in Washington, the likely end result in Pakistan is a mix of routes for the money: some handed off to the Pakistani government, some run through international contractors, and some funneled directly to local groups—and even development wonks agree, that could be a good thing. That is, says Worthington, if they get the mix right. The devil is in the details, of course, and timing is a key one. According to a new report from the International Crisis Group, U.S. officials should hold off transferring control over development programs to the Pakistan government until the FATA secretariat, the FATA Development Authority and the office of political agent are abolished and their authority transferred to the NWFP secretariat. That could be a long, uncomfortable transition, especially considering the uproar in Pakistan over perceived U.S. micromanagement of the Kerry-Lugar billions. But given the warnings about the lack of "local capacity" in Pakistan, that may still be the right call. What remains to be seen is whether those devilish details will be ironed out in time to have an impact.

It’s OK Not to Care about the European Union Presidency

Adam B. Kushner — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:52:27 GMT

As Barrett points out, the world wasn't exactly riveted was by the selection of the next president of the European Union (whom you've never heard of). Good. Except for the fact that Gordon Brown failed to install his predecessor Tony Blair in the post, there's not much to say about it. The consensus is already emerging that he'll have no power. The truly important figure will be Europe's number-two, the Baroness Catherine Ashton of Upholland, who was just named EU foreign affairs chief.

Who? I started casting around to see what I might learn about Europe's top diplomat. The answer is next to nothing; after a few years as the continent's trade chief, she still has no profile. Will she fight for sanctions against Iran? Will she try to weaken Chinese support for the genocidal regime in Khartoum? Ashton is an unknown quantity. Reuters has started collecting her vitals.

Lula Foists Brazil into New Role: Middle East Power Broker

Andrew Bast — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:42:49 GMT

(Photo: Getty Images)

Next week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will make the rounds of South America. Hardly surprising that he will be dropping in to see Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales in Venezuela -- in recent years the 21st century socialists of Latin America have largely aligned themselves with the Iranian strongman. But Ahmadinejad is also making a more unexpected stop: Brazil.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has made his mark as the leader of one of the world's strongest up-and-coming economies, but now he is also asserting a new kind of diplomatic clout. Earlier this month, Lula hosted Israeli President Shimon Peres, and said, "We need to talk more and to find more partners who want to help in peace-building in the Middle East. And we do not refuse to talk to anyone, as long as in that chat we can get a word, or at least a comma, that might help build peace." Hosting the Iranian president next week -- though Lula has reportedly said there will be no holocaust-denying or Israel-bashing going on -- could well be an exclamation point.

This diplomacy down south has been in the making for a while. According to Reuters, earlier this year, President Obama asked Lula to step in as a broker with Iran. It very much remains to be seen what kind of leverage the Brazilian president might have in the Middle East, and just as much, why he would want to turn his attention away from the rapidly growing beast that is the Brazilian economy to deal with some of the most twisted, complicated, and convoluted conundrums in international politics.

Photo-ops may abound, but we fear that demonstrable progress may well prove elusive. That is, in the big-power circles of the permanent members of the Security Council, at least. If this is a play by Washington to build a consensus in the developing South to take a diplomatic lick at Ahmadinejad from those who he considers his kinsmen, something more interesting could be afoot. But would that mean that Lula is just Washington's pawn?

Poll: Majority of Republicans Believe ACORN Stole the Presidential Election

Katie Connolly — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:30:58 GMT

As his hopes of winning the congressional election in New York's 23rd district fade, conservative candidate Doug Hoffman is clearly getting desperate. Today he's blaming his loss on "ACORN, the unions, and the Democratic party" who he alleges, without a shred of evidence, tampered with votes to rig the election against him. Never mind that ACORN told David Weigel that they didn't have volunteers in the area, or that it largely operates in poor urban communities, which NY-23 is not. For conservatives, ACORN is shorthand for the evils of the left.

On the heels of that news, Public Policy Polling released this shocking nugget on its blog: "a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately." Say what? More than half of Republican respondents believe the president was elected fraudulently! That's a stunningly high number. It's disturbing, not only as a demonstrable lack of faith in America's democracy but as an expression of wanton ignorance. Worse, it illustrates the effectiveness of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al., alongside a well-funded "Stop ACORN" campaign, in creating an atmosphere where unquestioned lies become received wisdom.

Barack Obama won the election by an easy margin. In the end, it wasn't even close. John McCain knew that and delivered his concession speech before 9:30 p.m. Obama didn't just win in the urban areas where ACORN could actually be seen as a force—and which would likely have voted for him regardless of ACORN's participation. He won in places like North Carolina, where ACORN had just eight staffers. There's been no formal challenge to the electoral validity of the votes.There's simply no proof to back up claims that ACORN tampered with ballots. But there is evidence of irresponsible reporting catalyzing misguided fears.

In September, Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin at California's Occidental College released a study of media coverage of ACORN. Among their many findings was this laundry list regarding stories about ACORN's alleged involvement in voter fraud:

82.8% of the stories failed to mention that actual voter fraud is very rare;
80.3% of the stories failed to mention that ACORN was reporting registration irregularities to authorities, as required by law;
85.1% of the stories about ACORN failed to note that ACORN was acting to stop incidents of registration problems by its (mostly temporary) employees when it became aware of these problems;
95.8% of the stories failed to provide deeper context, especially efforts by Republican Party officials to use allegations of "voter fraud" to dampen voting by low‐income and minority Americans, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys who refused to cooperate with the politicization of voter-fraud accusations—firings that ultimately led to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

To be sure, ACORN has some serious credibility problems, including those infamous videos of ACORN staffers handing out advice about how to fool the IRS as well as an embezzlement scandal. The organization is indeed compromised. But that's even more reason why it's almost unimaginable that it could engineer a massive deceit on the American people and fraudulently steal an election. It's hard to conceive that hundreds of volunteers with clipboards and voter-registration papers were engaged in an elegant (and enormous) conspiracy to cheat and thieve a national election, or that such drastic measures were necessary in a fight against an unpopular incumbent party.

The conservative obsession with ACORN is sad and culturally debilitating. For some, it's politics as usual. Demonize the other side until you get the power back. But for others it's evidently an expression of fear of a world where poor people of diverse ethnic backgrounds become a mobilized political force. For its part ACORN hasn't been very virtuous, but it's far from the "criminal enterprise" that Rep. Steve King or Rep. Darrell Issa would have you believe. It actually does have a history of doing socially constructive work in low income and disenfranchised communities, legitimately helping people file taxes, register to vote and find employment. The people they serve—underprivileged, mainly nonwhite, inner-city dwellers—also happen to vote for Democrats, which is exactly why they're such a prime target of conservative animus. But ACORN's now public improprieties doesn't make it even remotely capable of stealing a hard-fought presidential election. If it did, America would have much bigger problems on its hands than some hookers trying to cheat on their taxes.

Europe Chooses Its President, The World Snores

Barrett Sheridan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:50:48 GMT

Down, and now out.

In late October, Denis MacShane, a British Labour MP, chimed in on Tony Blair's quest to become the EU's first president."Almost everyone recognizes that [Blair] can put Europe on the world map in a way that no Brussels Eurocrat has ever managed," MacShane wrote. "If Europe chooses a bland, barely known former national leader for its first true president, the continent and the rest of the world will roll over in boredom and promptly ignore him or her."

Well lie down and get ready to roll. Tony Blair has bowed out of the race, paving the way for Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian prime minister, to take the post (which, technically speaking, is "president of the European Council," the council being a governing body that consists of European heads of state). No matter how hard he fought, there really wasn't much Blair could have done to change the outcome. Conservatives are in ascendancy across most of Europe, and they (logically) wanted to be represented by one of their own in the EU. Van Rompuy, a center-right economist who started his career at the Belgian central bank, is surely a skilled technocrat. But a charismatic figurehead that can unite a fractious continent and serve as its outward face to the world? Judging by the fact that no one outside Europe has ever heard of him, the answer is no.

This Flower Won't Bloom(berg)

Ben Adler — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:48:44 GMT

Yesterday, political strategist Mark McKinnon made the case that Sarah Palin's popularity could create an opening for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run for president in 2012. Well, that's original. Too bad it's preposterous. Katie raises two of the correct counterpoints: Bloomberg is uninspiring, and his Wall Street background doesn't seem like such a strong suit these days. But, she says, "McKinnon's argument shouldn't be discounted, and my quibbles aren't insurmountable hurdles for someone like Bloomberg."

Actually, McKinnon's argument should be dismissed out of hand, as there is no rationale for a third-party candidacy on the political, or policy, merits. Of course you can see why he made it. Like Bloomberg, McKinnon is a Democrat-turned-Republican but not a movement conservative. That describes a lot of rich white guys, who are overrepresented in the media. But it doesn't describe a lot of Americans, much less a plurality in a presidential election. McKinnon's thesis makes for a great web op-ed: it's pegged to Palin, but not a love-her-or-hate-her argument, and it works in the name of the billionaire New York mayor.

But, as the Gaggle's resident New Yorker, let me disabuse McKinnon and others who think Mike Bloomberg is popular in his hometown. He isn't. In 2001 he would have lost decisively to Mark Green despite spending $70 million on his campaign were it not for September 11 (the ensuing beatification of Rudy Giuliani turned his endorsement into gold). Bloomberg has governed effectively and yet he barely beat Bill Thompson, despite spending $100 million or so on his reelection campaign. Well, Barack Obama isn't Bill Thompson or Freddy Ferrer. He's brilliant, charismatic, had a well-run campaign that raised plenty of money, and he will have the advantages of incumbency. If Bloomberg were the Republican nominee, I'd bet heavily against him.

But that's not even the scenario McKinnon envisions. Nor should it be. The only idea more preposterous than Bloomberg beating Obama would be Bloomberg—a short, divorced, Jewish, socially moderate media mogul from New York by way of Boston—getting the Republican nomination. No, McKinnon thinks that if Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee in 2012 then Bloomberg could run as a third-party candidate.

While it is true that a Palin, or even a Mike Huckabee, nomination would leave moderate Republicans, both of them, out in the cold, there is no evidence that they amount to a larger constituency than the Republican or Democratic base. The oft-cited fact that the number of independents is growing is misleading. Most independents vote regularly for one party or the other. The days of one-party control of entire regions of the country, thus making the primary the actual election, are over, so there is no longer the same incentive to register with a party. But just because Southern conservatives and liberals battle it out in the general election instead of the Democratic primary doesn't mean the country is any more centrist.

What is more centrist than it was 40 years ago, though, is the Democratic Party. Bloomberg was a perfectly happy mainstream Democrat until he decided to run for mayor in a city where the Democratic field would be crowded. In New York, where unreconstructed Great Society liberals still roam, there may even be an ideological distinction between Bloomberg and some of his opponents. But look at his putative presidential platform: pro-abortion rights and gay rights, associated with racial harmony and welcoming of immigrants, concerned for the environment, committed to fiscal responsibility, combatting crime, and improvements in public education. That sounds an awful lot like the presidency of Bill Clinton, and what Barack Obama hopes to achieve.

If that's what Mark McKinnon wants he can just vote Democratic. The voters who fit this profile do not constitute any kind of majority. Split them from the minorities and other core Democratic constituencies in the blue and purple states where Bloomberg would have to exclusively focus and maybe you just throw those states to Republicans. Anyway, the idea that all of those voters would abandon Obama is absurd. What, exactly, does Bloomberg offer that Obama doesn't? Competence? That sure worked well for Mike Dukakis.

Opportunity Cost: Studying Health Care's Sticker Shock

Andrew Bast — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:39:50 GMT

The new number is $849 billion. That is the cost the Congressional Budget Office has stamped on the health bill now in the Senate, which, spread out over 10 years, would provide medical coverage to some 31 million uninsured Americans. It's an awe-inspiring number, so how to make sense of such a whopping price tag? What about 849 thousand million? Or call it "just shy of a trillion"? It's stupendously difficult. That hasn't stopped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from trying: "It saves lives. It saves money," he said bluntly Wednesday night. Largely by way of increased taxes, Democrats argue that the legislation would in fact trim the federal budget by more than $100 billion. Undeniable though, is that any trillion-dollar program is a ridiculously huge undertaking.

That's not to say plans of such scale are unfamiliar. To compare, let's round the cost of the health-care bill to $85 billion a year and stand it up alongside some other massive spending projects currently underway:

War in Afghanistan
COST SO FAR: $300 billion ($33 billion a year)
According to the Congressional Research Service, the American war in Afghanistan through the end of 2010 will have cost Americans just about $33 billion a year, about a third of what health care would cost. However, since 2006, Congress has been allocating more and more funds for the effort (the request for 2010 alone is $73 billion), and should President Obama decide to deploy more troops (at an estimated cost of $1 billion per 1,000 soldiers), that number could continue to spike, and even surpass the sticker shock of health care.

Iraq War
COST SO FAR: $750 billion ($125 billion a year)
Dividing what has been spent thus far in Iraq by six (the number of years since the invasion) results in an astronomical figure: $125 billion annually. It's hardly a stretch to claim that health care would cost less than Iraq. Some, like Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, have claimed that total costs, when counted after the fact, will top $3 trillion. But since spending peaked in 2008 ($141 billion), the war budget has dropped as violence receded and American troops began pulling out. At least in terms of funds from Congress, and despite the treasure already expended, expenses for Iraq are now ebbing.

Federal Stimulus Bill
COST: $787 billion
Eerily similar in cost to the health-care bill was the Obama administration's federal stimulus package that passed in February. (Like Bilmes and Stiglitz on Iraq, the Heritage Foundation claims that the real cost is somewhere above $3 trillion over 10 years.) At $787 billion, it was the largest move by the federal government to avoid a recession since the end of World War II and consisted largely of tax cuts and aid to states.

In one sense, comparing a plan to give health care to tens of millions of Americans to wars overseas or reviving a seizing national economy is a non sequitur. Health, war, economy—each must be argued on its own merits. Perhaps. But this raft of spending is driving a whopping national deficit that could well prove that so many initiatives and wars may not all be affordable. (The cover of the new Economist hauntingly reads, "Dealing with America's fiscal hole".) And if that moment is coming, then the comparison might well be all the more apt and make the setting of priorities all the more urgent.

A Thousand Words: Balloon Boy of Afghanistan

Katie Paul — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:45:56 GMT

Photo: AP / Altaf Qadri

An Afghan balloon seller sells his wares at a street in Kabul. Balloons were illegal under the Taliban, but are now commonly sold on the streets as inexpensive gifts for children. They float in colorful contrast to the bleak mood in Kabul today, as President Hamid Karzai was inaugurated without any cheering, crowds, or parades.

North Korean Crybabies: Preparing for Post-Kim Jong-Il

Andrew Bast — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:05:37 GMT

(Photo: Getty Images)

Last, but not least. President Obama’s arrival in Seoul marks the end of his battered-policy tour of Asia. Several items marked the agenda. First, the military alliance between the U.S. and South Korea and the handing back of rights to some 50 U.S. military bases on the peninsula. Also at issue: the next step in a free trade agreement, which Obama is haltingly negotiating.

And then, of course, there is North Korea.

Tensions, to put it mildly, are already red hot. Take, for instance, the skirmish earlier this month when the two Korean navies went head to head and fired on each other in the Yellow Sea. That, however, plays second fiddle to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program—the North conducted a nuclear test in May, not long after it test-fired a long range ballistic missile.

According to Victor Cha, a Bush-era North Korea negotiator, the North has long feared U.S. aggression and demanded assurances in negotiations. As he explains in an essay in the Washington Quarterly, the U.S. has repeatedly offered exactly what the North wanted:

June, 1993, in a joint statement: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States have agreed to principles of: Assurances against the threat and use of force, including nuclear weapons.”

October, 2000, Madeleine Albright: “Hostility between our two nations is not inevitable, nor desired by our citizens, nor in the interests of our countries.”

February, 2002, George W. Bush: “We’re a peaceful people. We have no intention of invading North Korea. South Korea has no intention of attacking North Korea. Nor does America.”

And then in September, 2005, in a written statement: the “United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.”

Even the last of these, the most formal declaration, did little for negotiations. Cha writes, “The North dismissed this as a piece of paper with no meaning.” So, more assurances would seemingly just make for more of the same. But Cha makes a fascinating point -- that the ailing Kim Jong-Il knows that not only are his days in power are numbered, but more, that handing off power off to his son will open the weak regime to outside influence. Thus:

What Pyongyang wants is not just a negative security assurance from the United States against nuclear attack, but a positive security assurance that it will not allow the House of Kim Jong-Il … to collapse as Pyongyang partially denuclearizes and goes through a modest reform process to absorb the economic assistance and opening to the outside world that would come with a grand deal.

President Obama has announced that Ambassador Stephen Bosworth will now deploy for talks with the North. And it seems that now the question is no longer assuring the North that it's not under the gun, but that should the crumbling come, that everyone else, especially the U.S., will keep their hands out of the mess.

Is Motherhood Keeping Good Scientists Down? How To Fix Research's "Mommy Gap"

Newsweek — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:01:29 GMT

by Jeneen Interlandi

Since Lawrence Summers’s ill-considered remarks at a 2005 economics conference (he blamed the lack of tenured female scientists on their biologically inferior intelligence and aptitude; he was president of Harvard University at the time) there has been a steady stream of books, reports and panel discussions chronicling the woes of women who wear lab coats.

Last week, the Center for American Progress (CAP), reports that family obligations (read: child rearing) are still pushing young female researchers out of science. The findings build on a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report from earlier this year that also dissected the biases against women in science, but concluded that much progress was being made. Taken together, the two studies suggest that the stumbling block for women researchers is not being a woman, but being a mother.

The NAS study found that although women are still underrepresented in the applicant pool for faculty positions in math, science, and engineering, women who do apply are hired at rates equal to or higher than men. In mathematics, for example, women made up only 20 percent of the applicant pool, but received 32 percent of the job offers. But according to the CAP study, which compared not only women to men, but parents to those without children, married women with children were 35 percent less likely to secure a tenure-track position than married men with children, and 33 percent less likely to do so than single women without children.

There's no dearth of suggestions on how to fix the problem. The National Association for Women in Science suggests that universities make a more concerted effort to recruit women for open faculty positions—by targeting their advertising toward women and being sure to include female faculty members on any search committee.

CAP recommends providing financial support to labs to offset the productivity loss when a scientist takes family leave, and providing women who are pregnant or have newborns with special funds to hire a technician to help them out in the lab.

And the NAS and others have endorsed ‘stopping the tenure clock’ for faculty members who want to start families. Tenure-track scientists have a certain number of years to establish themselves—this means publishing as many influential papers in as many prestigious journals as possible, usually over the first decade of their employment. Stopping the clock means adding an extra year or two to that timeframe to allow for a less productive year after the birth of a child.

Those all sound like good ideas, and depending on which report you read, some of them are being implemented effectively and are indeed making a difference. But none of those solutions address the real problem. It’s not innate gender differences that hold women back (just look at this year’s Nobel Prize winners in science). It’s not even gender bias (OK, maybe a little, but that’s not the biggest problem). It’s that science is demanding and very, very competitive. No matter how family-friendly a given university is, a scientist who chooses to have a baby risks having her next big breakthrough scooped up by a competitor who chooses to spend 24-7 in the lab. Changing that will take more than a handful of policies; it will require changing the nature of the game itself. I don't think that's possible, and I'm not entirely convinced it's desirable. It’s competition, after all, that spurs innovation and advancement.

What should be possible is distributing those trade-offs more evenly between women and men. Instead of obsessing over mother-scientists, universities should strive to create an atmosphere that encourages their male scientists to be active fathers. Only then will both genders be equally compelled to confront the family-work balance issue that right now rests too squarely on the shoulders of women.

Some suggestions: pay female scientists as much as their male counterparts so that when scientist-couples plan for a family, the woman isn’t automatically compelled to ditch her career simply because she earns less and he earns more. Have paternity leave on par with maternity leave: if you’re going to stop the tenure clock for child rearing, extend that offer to new fathers as well as new mothers.

The rest will be up to the mother-scientists themselves. After factoring out the nine months of pregnancy, women who want to be scientists and have families are faced with the same problem as men who want to do the same: time. Science and parenthood are two more-than-full-time jobs and there are not enough hours in the day to do both. Men seem to have gotten around this problem easily enough by having their wives stay at home and take care of the whole parenting thing while they run their labs, publish their papers, and rise through the ranks of their respective disciplines. Women, I think, have four choices: chose a mate who will either stay at home with the kids or split the parenting responsibilities down the middle (I mean really split them, not just pretend to split them), accept a less ambitious career path (a smaller university, more teaching, less research or a less competitive area of research), or hire some help (and accept that you will not get to see your kids as much).

No matter what institutions or individuals do, having both a career—any career—and children requires making choices, and then making sacrifices. The more demanding the career, and the more ambitious the individual, the more difficult those choices will be. But women shouldn’t be the only ones who have to choose.

Jeneen Interlandi is a writer for NEWSWEEK.

Beijing: Act Now or Risk a Trade War With the U.S.

Rana Foroohar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:03:17 GMT

President Obama’s eight day tour of China is over now, and both sides are probably breathing a sigh of relief. The idea of this visit was to move the US-China conversation beyond the usual economic conflicts and towards a broader range of global issues like climate change and nuclear proliferation. But the giant white elephant in the room, as always, was money. Thanks to the financial crisis, the Chinese have been emboldened to say what they have long thought, which is that Americans are feckless spendthrifts and we’re driving the entire world into a financial black hole. Indeed, Yu Yongding, a leading Chinese economist and former central bank adviser said earlier this week that the world was “being held hostage” by U.S. economic policy. And Obama’s comments to Fox News yesterday that “people could lose confidence in the American economy” if we don’t get our act together was clearly a direct response to the concerns of the Chinese leadership (who have been grilling him about how all those new healthcare costs are going to affect the budget deficit). Let’s hope he at least had time for a couple of Tsingtaos in between the brow-beating.

There’s certainly no doubt that America has done its share to screw up the world economy, and that we’re not doing a very good job cleaning up the mess. A lot of smart folks in New York and Washington are actually worried that we’re headed towards a deregulation, rather than a reregulation, of the financial system in the wake of the Great Recession (the recent derivatives bill, for example, is a sieve). And there’s no doubt that Americans need to rein in our spending at both an individual and a government level. But the truth is that we are doing that. U.S. corporations are now largely in the black. American consumers have upped their savings exponentially in the last year. And while the public debt load is huge, Obama’s comments in Beijing could also have been designed to prepare us for a slimmer government budget in February.

While China has the PR high-ground at the moment, the next phase of repair work on the global economy must be done in Beijing—in particular, it’s time to let the Chinese currency rise to reflect the country’s new heft in the global economy (the FT’s Martin Wolf wrote a fabulous piece on this topic earlier this week, and I couldn’t agree more with his thoughts). There were some signs that this might happen prior to the Obama visit, but it was false hope. Despite Beijing’s bluster, China is still very insecure about its own economic position. Morgan Stanley Asia chairman Stephen Roach, who seems to have a line into the Communist Party leadership, told me last week that the Chinese view the recovery as “fragile” (which is no surprise when you consider that a shocking 88 percent of economic growth in China in the first half of this year came not from real people buying real Chinese goods, but from the government pumping money into the economy).

The problem is that the recovery is fragile in the U.S. too. Even if we don’t see a double dip recession next year (which I think is likely), unemployment will remain high. That’s a prescription for populist politics and protectionism. Note to Beijing—stepping up and doing your part on the economy isn’t just about rebalancing. It’s about avoiding a future trade war.