The Arab states of the Gulf region have agreed to launch a single currency modelled on the euro, hoping to blaze a trail towards a pan-Arab monetary union swelling to the ancient borders of the Ummayad Caliphate.
#1
Modelled on the euro ... there's a recipe for success.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/15/2009 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Backed by the Emir of Dubai, no doubt.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
12/15/2009 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The initial Dollar:Euro exchange rate was $1.17:1. Today it is $1.45:1. I'd say the Europeans are doing a hell of a lot better job looking after their economy than the Americans.
Posted by: ed ||
12/15/2009 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Pan-Arab initiatives have been such a roaring success in the past. How can it fail?
To be fair the UAE has survived reasonably well, but this is due to it being surrounded by Iran, Saddam's Iraq and SA.
#5
Sorry. The initial Dollar:Euro exchange rate was $1.18:1. I looked it up.
Posted by: ed ||
12/15/2009 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Nobody has been minding the store in Washington. They are preoccupied with "impotent" stuff like global warming [and hot air]. I'm sure the Arab state share these concerns also.
#8
They should have done this long ago, as well as form a NATO type 'defensive' alliance so that they don't need to be defended by infidels. The fact that they didn't says a lot about how much they must dislike each other in the Arab world.
Via InstaPundit
In public, President Obama is on a tear against Wall Street. In private, not so much
Over the weekend, Obama attacked fat-cat investment bankers, telling "60 Minutes" he didn't become president to aid and abet Wall Street -- which, only a year after the financial meltdown and taxpayer bailout, is now scheduled to hand out tens of billions of dollars in bonuses to its bankers and traders.
But the president's meeting yesterday with the CEOs of the largest banks was nearly a lovefest, I'm told by attendees.
Yes, White House spinmeisters advertised the gathering as a chance for Obama to channel the public's disgust over Wall Street's celebrating while Main Street still suffers 10 percent unemployment, thanks largely to Wall Street's bungling. But that's not what he did.
But if you want to know why they're rolling in the dough, look to Wash Obama started off with the obvious, reminding bankers that the bailout of insurance giant AIG benefited them because it meant they could actually collect on the AIG insurance policies (credit-default swaps) on their risky bond-market bets. But he also seemed to concede their dubious claim that some of them probably would've survived an AIG collapse, given all the other billions the government threw at them during the crisis.
After that, people with first-hand knowledge of the sitdown said, it was a heavily scripted affair -- with none of the fireworks Obama displays in public.
Indeed, the White House last week sent the CEOs the president's talking points: bonuses (too high), lending (more loans to small businesses), the need for more regulation of the financial business (support the bill now before Congress), etc.
So there were no surprises for the likes of Jaime Dimon of JP Morgan, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, John Mack of Morgan Stanley or Citigroup's Richard Parsons. Said one CEO who attended: "I expected to be taken to the woodshed, but the tone was quite the opposite."
Said another senior exec with knowledge of the meeting: "The whole thing was so telegraphed that not much was accomplished, other than giving Obama a PR stunt . . . He might have sounded mean on '60 Minutes,' but during the meeting he was a hell of a lot nicer."
Maybe Obama's softened tone was recognition of Wall Street's election help. Campaign-finance filings show that firms like Goldman -- now getting ready to dish out $20 billion in bonuses after nearly imploding last year -- favored Obama over John McCain by a fairly wide margin. Nearly all the major Wall Street CEOs -- including Dimon, Blankfein and Mack -- have told people that they voted for Obama.
Posted by: ed ||
12/15/2009 15:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under:
To some observers, the Democrats' race to pass national health care seems irrational even suicidal. Don't party leaders understand how much the public opposes the bills currently on the table? Don't they know that voters are likely to take their revenge at the polls next year? Given that, why do they keep rushing ahead?
Just look at the RealClearPolitics average of polls, which shows that Americans oppose the national health care bills currently on the table by a margin of 53 percent to 38 percent. That's not just one poll that might tilt right or left, it's an average of several polls by several pollsters. And the margin of opposition seems to be growing, not diminishing. And yet Democrats seem determined to defy public opinion. Why?
I put the question to a Democratic strategist who asked to remain anonymous. Yes, Democrats certainly understand that voters don't like the current bills, he told me, and they are fully aware they will probably pay a price next year. But they have found a way to view going ahead anyway as the logical thing to do, at least in their eyes.
You have to look at the issue from three different Democratic perspectives: the House of Representatives, the White House and the Senate.
"In the House, the view of [California Rep. Henry] Waxman and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi is that we've waited two generations to get health care passed, and the 20 or 40 members of Congress who are going to lose their seats as a result are transitional players at best," he said. "This is something the party has wanted since Franklin Roosevelt." In this view, losses are just the price of doing something great and historic. (The strategist also noted that it's easy for Waxman and Pelosi to say that, since they come from safely liberal districts.)
"At the White House, the picture is slightly different," he continued. "Their view is, 'We're all in on this, totally committed, and we don't have to run for re-election next year. There will never be a better time to do it than now.'"
"And in the Senate, they look at the most vulnerable Democrats like [Christopher] Dodd and [Majority Leader Harry] Reid and say those vulnerabilities will probably not change whether health care reform passes or fails. So in that view, if they pass reform, Democrats will lose the same number of seats they were going to lose before."
All those scenarios have a certain logic (even if the Senate calculation undercounts the number of potentially vulnerable Democrats). But each scenario is premised on passing an unpopular bill that hurts the party. Even if there's a strategic rationale for doing it, why are Democrats dead-set on hurting themselves?
"Because they think they know what's best for the public," the strategist said. "They think the facts are being distorted and the public's being told a story that is not entirely true, and that they are in Congress to be leaders. And they are going to make the decision because Goddammit, it's good for the public." There is more but this is the money part.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/15/2009 11:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The donks are a friggin bunch of lemmings hell-bent on heading over the cliff. The only problem is that they want to take the rest of us with them. Dhimmicratic Congress; our equivalent to the suicide bombers.
IS RICK SANTORUM running for president of the United States, or isn't he?
I caught him by phone on a people mover at Dulles Airport and posed the question: He's not running, then again, he's not NOT running.
En route to South Carolina Tuesday to stump for gubernatorial candidate and Republican Rep. Gresham Barrett, Santorum wasn't being cagey, just practical. Whether the former Pennsylvania senator can raise the millions needed for a presidential bid remains to be seen.
In the meantime, he has some things to say. For starters: "I have no great burning desire to be president, but I have a burning desire to have a different president of the United States."
Santorum doesn't see anyone in his party who energizes the three legs of the stool, as Ronald Reagan described the Republican issue clusters -- the economy, national security and social conservatism.
Santorum is no mystery man. He left deep footprints on Capitol Hill, where he served 16 years -- 12 in the Senate -- before being defeated in 2006. Since then, he has been at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, primarily pumping out op-eds on national security and terrorism.
In fact, Santorum's "Gathering Storm" e-blasts to journalists and others at one time were so frequent that they began to feel like Chicken Little or Cassandra warnings of doom. You can leap for cover only so many times before you grab an umbrella and say, "I'll take my chances."
Though he has tempered the pace of his caveats, Santorum is still deadly serious about growing threats to America's security, the greatest of which, he says, is Iran: "Afghanistan is important, but Iran is more important and we're fumbling."
President Obama, he says, doesn't have a plan other than talking, the consequences of which will be much more dire than a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
While in the Senate, Santorum authored the "Iran Freedom and Support Act," which called for $10 million to support groups opposed to the Tehran government. The bill passed but was never funded. Consequently, says Santorum, "When the revolution did come, we had done no spadework and had no way to support them other than to open up Twitter channels. We didn't do the work that could have made a huge difference."
Santorum is equally critical of Obama's handling of the Honduran constitutional crisis and his hail-fellow-well-met attitude toward Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Although the public isn't focused on these concerns now, all may change in two years when, Santorum predicts, the economy will be better and Iran may be exporting a nuclear weapon.
"You never know what the important issues are going to be and you better have someone who is prepared on all fronts."
Some of those fronts are problematic for a candidate like Santorum. Both pro-life and pro-traditional family, Santorum is an irritant to many. But he insists that such labels oversimplify. Being pro-life and pro-family ultimately means being pro-limited government.
When you have strong families and respect for life, he says, "the requirements of government are less. You can have lower taxes and limited government."
Sometimes referred to as the conscience of Senate Republicans, Santorum also may be viewed as the nation's superego, reminding us of our moral charge at a time of swift cultural change. It is human nature to resist those perceived as morally superior, however, especially in the American Era of Id. Despite Santorum's friends' insistence that he is personally humble and nonjudgmental, communicating that may be the candidate's greatest challenge.
Otherwise, Santorum is considered a fighter, a team player and a principled insider, the latter nearly an oxymoron. As lobbyist Scott Hatch once described him to me: "He may break eggs, but he gets results -- more than anybody else I've seen in there. He's very willing to spend his precious political capital on not very politically popular issues."
For his trouble, Santorum's enemies have treated him viciously, as a quick Google search will confirm. But Santorum is, miraculously, unfazed.
Perhaps when one sleeps only five hours a day in order to help care for seven children, including a 1-year-old with a severe congenital condition, the slings and arrows of mere mortals are more easily ignored.
Whatever evolves, Santorum is sure to shake up the debate. The problem for voters may be in deciphering myths and fables. Is Rick Santorum the fabled Chicken Little, who mistakenly insisted the sky was falling? Or is he the tragic Cassandra, a prophet whose curse was never to be believed?
Posted by: Fred ||
12/15/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Parker's a moron. Nobody outside of Kathleen Lopez thinks Santorum is presidential material. He's not a bad guy, but he's weird. I don't mean funny-weird, or hollywood-weird. More uncomfortable silences weird. He's got some strange Victorian quirks, and he's missing the sort of filters politicians really need to avoid looking freakier than they are.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
12/15/2009 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wow! That's 179 pages of legalese for the Columbia Law Review. Too late this evening to scan over it and way out of my expertise to boot. Have fun folks.
#4
Picked the link up from Belmont Club. Civis Romanus Sum
Wretch has an excellent summary of the thesis.
The need to treat everyone identically will whatever its legal justification lead to some bizarre and even absurd situations. Its interesting to consider whether the necessity of convicting Khalid Sheik Mohammed will lead to developments which may have unfortunate consequences for the rights of citizens or fortunate consequences for the rights of terrorists. After all, if theyre both the same thing, then everyone gets mixed up in the same gravy. Making citizens equal to outlaws engaged in private warfare against America creates effects in both directions.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
#1
Climate has continually varied in the past, and the causes are not well understood - especially on the 100 year timescale relevant for todayâs climate change
Strong evidence for solar-climate variability, but no established mechanism. A cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate.
Excellent set of foils on historic climate variability, the effect of solar activity on the incidence of galactic cosmic rays on the earth, and the possible effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Followed by a discussion of the CLOUD experiment at CERN. Many graphs and photos. Rather large, over eight megabytes download.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
