A More Conservative Union: November 2009

Monday, November 30, 2009

Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelan banks

By Walker Simon Walker Simon – Sun Nov 29, 6:43 pm ET

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he could nationalize private banks unless they comply with the law, adding he had "no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor."
In a broadcast from nationalized farmland in central Venezuela, he said: "To all the country's private bankers ... (I'm saying) he who slips up loses; I'll take over the bank, whatever its size."
"You want me to nationalize the banks?" he said during the broadcast of his weekly TV show "Alo Presidente."
"I have no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor, they don't comply, they don't want to comply with the bank's purpose for existence, and that is the law."
Chavez said the purpose of banks was not to enrich a small group of people but "should be to collect funds and savings to help aid the country's development by making loans, extending credits for housing."
In power for a decade, Chavez has nationalized broad swathes of the economy.
His banking nationalization threats on Sunday appeared to be broader in scope than his well-publicized warnings in recent years to nationalize Spanish-owned banks in Venezuela.
He repeatedly threatened to seize Spanish bank subsidiaries in Venezuela unless Spain's king apologized for telling him to "shut up" in November 2007 at a regional summit where Chavez branded a recent ex-Spanish prime minister a fascist.
But the only major private bank, foreign or Venezuelan, to fall into state hands under Chavez's rule was Spain's Banco Santander unit Banco de Venezuela, sold to Venezuela in July for $1.05 billion.
The government's last banking takeover was on November 20, when it seized four small banks, accounting for about 6 percent of Venezuela's deposits.
Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez then said the move stemmed from concerns about credit portfolios, problems explaining the source of funds and failure to comply with some obligations.
BANKERS NOT IN COMPLIANCE - CHAVEZ
Chavez spoke Sunday from the countryside behind a table strewn with a jumble of books, maps and documents, against the background of farmland growing black beans.
Addressing the banking theme, he said unnamed bankers "are not complying, they do not want to comply with the function for which a bank should exist (such as) that is in the law.
"This is occurring right now with a group of private banks, that's a demonstration that those private banking sectors don't want to learn, they don't want to accept that there is a constitution ... and that there are laws."
Venezuela's banking sector is dominated by 10 banks that control 70 percent of the total funds.
Chavez said he ordered the nation's chief prosecutor to investigate why a state bank, Banfoandes, deposited "a giant amount of resources in private banks."
"How is it that state resources, which belong to the people ... end up being placed in private banks?" he asked in his broadcast. "This is counterrevolutionary."
The four banks seized on November 20 were Banco Confederado, Banco Canarias, Banco Provivienda and bolivar Banco.
On Friday, a court acting on prosecutors' request banned travel abroad of 16 executives -- eight from Confederado, six from Provivienda and two from bolivar Banco.
Chavez said if it were up to him, he would have jailed the 16 executives due to flight risk. "They have (their own) light aircraft and private airports and (can) leave."
Chavez also criticized what he termed as excessive spending by state entities in the private medical sector.
"We have made a gift of millions and millions of bolivares this year to the bourgeoisie, which owns the private clinics, the great insurance companies," he said. "Enough already."
He said those funds should go directly to "the people."
(Reporting by Walker Simon, additional reporting by Fabian Cambero, editing by Matthew Lewis)

Friday, November 27, 2009

'Cap and Trade Is Dead'

The recently disclosed emails and documents from University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit compromise the integrity of the United Nations' global warming reports.

So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."
If any politician might be qualified to offer last rites, it would be Mr. Inhofe. The top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee has spent the past decade in the thick of Washington's climate fight. He's seen the back of three cap-and-trade bills, rode herd on an overweening Environmental Protection Agency, and steadfastly insisted that global researchers were "cooking" the science behind man-made global warming.
This week he's looking prescient. The more than 3,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have found their way to the Internet have blown the lid off the "science" of manmade global warming. CRU is a nerve center for many of those researchers who have authored the United Nations' global warming reports and fueled the political movement to regulate carbon.
Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Sen. Jim Inhofe

This scandal has real implications. Mr. Inhofe notes that international and U.S. efforts to regulate carbon were already on the ropes. The growing fear of Democrats and environmentalists is that the CRU uproar will prove a tipping point, and mark a permanent end to those ambitions.

Internationally, world leaders finally acknowledged that the recession has sapped them of their political power to impose devastating new carbon-restrictions. China and India are clear they won't join the West in an economic suicide pact. Next month's summit in Copenhagen is a bust. Instead of producing legally binding agreements, it will be dogged by queries about the legitimacy of the scientists who wrote the reports that form its basis.
The next opportunity to get international agreement is in Mexico City, 2010—a U.S. election year. Democrats were already publicly acknowledging there will be no domestic climate legislation in 2009 and privately acknowledging their great unease at passing a huge energy tax on Americans headed for a midterm vote.
Add to that the CRU scandal, which pivots the focus to potential fraud. Republicans are launching investigations, and the pressure is building on Democrats to hold hearings, since climate scientists were funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Mr. Inhofe's office this week sent letters to federal agencies and outside scientists warning them not to delete their own CRU-related emails and documents, which may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests.
Polls show a public already losing belief in the theory of man-made global warming, and skeptics are now on the offense. The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell argues this scandal gives added cover to Blue Dogs and other Democrats who were already reluctant to buck the public's will and vote for climate legislation. And with Republicans set to pick up seats, Mr. Ebell adds, "By 2011 there will hopefully be even fewer members who support this. We may be close to having it permanently stymied." Continued U.S. failure to act makes an international agreement to replace Kyoto (which expires in 2012) a harder sell.
There's still the EPA, which is preparing an "endangerment finding" that would allow it to regulate carbon on the grounds it is a danger to public health. It is here the emails might have the most direct effect. The agency has said repeatedly that it based its finding on the U.N. science—which is now at issue. The scandal puts new pressure on the EPA to accede to growing demands to make public the scientific basis of its actions.
Mr. Inhofe goes so far as to suggest that the agency might not now issue the finding. "The president knows how punitive this will be; he's never wanted to do it through [the EPA] because that's all on him." The EPA was already out on a legal limb with its finding, and Mr. Inhofe argues that if it does go ahead, the CRU disclosure guarantees court limbo. "The way the far left used to stop us is to file lawsuits and stall and stall. We'll do the same thing."
Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They'd be better off acknowledging that the only "consensus" right now is that the world needs to start over on climate "science."
Write to kim@wsj.com

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

In the Shadow of Hoover

Capitolism

By William Greider

November 23, 2009

In an interview with Fox News, the president said: "It is important to recognize if we keep on adding to the deficit, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point people could lose confidence in the US economy in a double-dip recession." Maybe he didn't mean it. Or was merely nodding to Chinese leaders, our leading creditor, who had scolded him for profligate spending.

While he was in China, Barack Obama made a bizarre declaration that the US government must reduce its budget deficits in order to avoid "a double-dip recession." The remark was alarming because it suggests the president may not fully understand the country's economic predicament. Deficit spending is a cure for our troubles, not the cause. If Obama follows through and actually reduces the red ink, the Great Recession could be born again with new fury.
Still, his backward logic gave me a chill. If Obama acts on it, he will be walking in the footsteps of Herbert Hoover, not Franklin Roosevelt, and I fear his presidency could be doomed as a result. I know that sounds too strong and brutally unfair, given the president's energetic vision for the country and his early efforts to stimulate economic recovery. But history is often unfair to leaders who do not get their priorities straight and fail to deliver what they promise.
Hoover was the Republican president from 1929 to 1933 and faced a far more dramatic unwinding of the economy after the 1929 stock market crash. In popular memory, he was blamed, somewhat unfairly, for causing the Great Depression. People came to loathe him personally for the repeated pep talks--"Prosperity is just around the corner"--and Democrats ran against "Hoover" for many years after.
Barack Obama is a towering political talent by comparison, but also has troubling similarities. In an age of limited government, Hoover preached "volunteerism" and worked earnestly to persuade business to cooperate with labor and "do the right thing." Obama's softball approach to the financial crisis reveals a similar reluctance to use government's powers to compel results. Instead of directing bailed-out banks to lend more aggressively, Obama asked them nicely. The bankers blew him off. His economic stimulus was a good start, yet clearly insufficient.
If Herbert Hoover was guilty of anything, it was ambivalence and confusion of purpose. Hoover was a very intelligent technocrat who sincerely tried various sound measures to relieve the general suffering. But Hoover never found the will to follow through decisively. He was pulled in an opposite direction by failed market orthodoxy that was still influential. To his subsequent regret, Hoover heeded the steely advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate." In other words, let nature takes its course. Clear away the wreckage and capitalism will heal itself.
In the era of big government, Obama is a far more activist president, but he has followed a less brutal version of the same conservative thinking. Pour billions first into restoring the financial system, then it can revive the real economy. That approach was backwards, as nervous members of Congress are beginning to grasp.
Like Hoover, Obama is pulled between opposing imperatives. Deficit hawks demand he get control over the budget deficits to restore confidence among investors (those Chinese creditors who buy our Treasury bonds). Bleeding-heart politicians, on the other hand, want him to focus on rescuing the folks (who need jobs and foreclosure relief and can renew consumer demand for businesses). Obama would like to do both, but hesitates to choose decisively.
Blaming this on his center-right advisors--Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Rahm Emmanuel--is too easy. Obama picked them. He obviously agrees with their reluctance to go full bore in behalf of the real economy. Geither and Summers, meanwhile, are taking victory laps for saving the country. Ordinary citizens wonder what they are talking about. Obama should tell them to shut up with their self-congratulations (better still, he should replace them with more imaginative policy thinkers).
Piling up more government debt is undesirable and involves risk, but it is not as bad as a low-grade depression that would go on for many years without relief. In this crisis, the United States is astride a fundamental disjuncture that only the federal government can repair by borrowing tons of money and spending it--force-feeding recovery, then cleaning up the balance sheet afterward.
The awkward truth about capitalism is the machine does not function unless someone is borrowing money and spending it. The genius of the capitalist system is that it recycles surplus wealth--savings and profits from past economic activity--by lending the wealth for new production and consumption. When nobody in the private economy can borrow and nobody will lend--neither households nor business and finance--government has to step up to the task. In a crisis like this, if the federal government declines to get things moving again by borrowing and spending, as heavily as necessary, then the economy will stumble along far below its potential (that is, higher unemployment, weaker production, more failures). If Obama decides to curtail the deficits now, he is disarming unilaterally.
In history, even FDR wanted to have it both ways, but New Dealers learned from painful error they could not serve both masters. In 1936, they decided the recovery was complete so they reduced federal spending and raised interest rates. The depression was resumed with new viciousness. Obama and advisers now seem to think they are out of the ditch and can safely tilt toward fiscal responsibility.
The truth is, nobody knows what comes next. Just as plausibly, the trouble is not over but may even get worse. Instead of cresting, unemployment could rise further for another year or more, spreading the suffering and loss more widely. If the "recovery" proves to be an illusion, then another stock market break might follow. Uncertainty is still in the saddle.
Liberal-labor forces, in and out of Congress, are mounting a counter-attack on Obama's timidity and demanding major new spending for direct job creation. The president has agreed to a "jobs summit" to consider the problem.
This is an opening for Obama to announce a major "course correction." If he states the gravity of the situation honestly, people will not be angered by his truth-telling. They already see things are worse than officials acknowledge. If Obama opts instead for half-way measures--too little too late--then he will fall squarely under Hoover's shadow.
Herbert Hoover tried to emphasize the positive as the economy continued to unwind. He expressed his deep faith in the country's future and offered helpful suggestions for coping. Americans were at first reassured, then gradually they became angered as they saw the president's optimism contradicted by events. In the end, Hoover's good intentions frightened people. Hearing from the president, again and again, that things were getting better, when they knew otherwise, told them he was indifferent to their plight or, more frightening, he had lost touch with reality.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Amid Calif. Attorney General Investigation, ACORN San Diego office dumps 20k docs in dumpster...

by Derrick Roach
On October 1st, 2009 California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that an investigation had been opened into ACORN’s activities in California, resulting from undercover videos showing employees seemingly offering to assist the undercover film makers with human smuggling, child prostitution and even tax advice to boot.
Although ACORN has denied any wrongdoing, some of the employees involved were terminated, and ACORN has publicly stated that they would fully cooperate with any investigations that followed.

SanDiegoACORNDocumentDumpScandal-100909-Photo1

Interestingly, the local head ACORN organizer in California, David Lagstein was caught on tape earlier this month speaking to an East County Democratic Club.
Mr. Lagstein stated: “…the attorney general is a political animal, but certainly every bit of the communication we have had with them has suggested that the fault will be found with the people that did the video and not the people with ACORN.”
Continuing, Mr. Lagstein stated: “…we are fully cooperating, some of the investigators visited our office this morning and I think they really understand what’s going on.”

Shockingly, we now learn that the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County) engaged in a massive document dump on the evening of October 9th, containing thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents, just days prior to the Attorney General’s visit.

SanDiegoACORNDocumentDumpScandal-100909-Photo4

BigGovernment.com has learned that not only did this document dump occur, but the documents in question were irresponsibly and brazenly dumped in a public dumpster, without considering laws and regulations as to how sensitive information should be treated.

I am a local licensed private investigator. I took it upon myself to keep an eye on what the local ACORN office was up to, in light of the release of the undercover videos. I retrieved these documents from the public dumpster.

SanDiegoACORNDocumentDumpScandal-100909-Photo3

Documents shared with BigGovernment.com include information exposing not only the inner workings of ACORN in California, but also personal, sensitive information belonging to employees, members and clients of ACORN. ACORN and its few remaining defenders insist that the “good” ACORN provides outweighs the transgressions exposed in the recent undercover video sting. But, ACORN’s massive dumping of these documents and the cavalier manner in which it betrayed the trust of its supporters betrays that talking point. (Unlike ACORN, we have redacted sensitive and personal information.)

Ex-ACORN official gets probation for voter registration plan

Justin M. Bowen

Christopher Edwards, former ACORN Las Vegas field director, testifies Sept. 29 during a preliminary hearing regarding a voter registration incentive plan.

By Cara McCoy (contact)

Monday, Nov. 23, 2009 | 10:01 a.m.

Amy Busefink, ACORN's deputy regional director, who authorities allege was involved with an alleged illegal voter registration incentive program, appears in court Sept. 29 in Las Vegas.

A former field director for the political advocacy organization ACORN was sentenced today in district court to up to three years of probation.
Christopher Edwards, who in August pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit a crime of compensation for registration of voters, a gross misdemeanor, received a suspended jail sentence and a $500 fine. He has agreed to testify against ACORN and one of its former regional directors, Amy Busefink.
The Nevada attorney general’s office has accused ACORN and Busefink of operating an illegal bonus system. Tying money to or setting quotas for collecting voter registration cards is illegal under Nevada law.
“I take responsibility for what I did,” Edwards told the court. “I’m sorry, I truly am.”
Busefink and ACORN pleaded not guilty on Oct. 27. A trial date is set for April 19.
If convicted, Busefink likely would face probation or less than one year in jail. ACORN could see a $5,000 fine.
The attorney general’s office said Edwards organized and operated a quota system called “blackjack” or “21+” through which the group paid canvassers based on the number of voter registration cards they collected each day. The canvassers were to gather at least 20 completed cards daily and anyone who turned in 21 or more would be given an extra $5.
Busefink, as a manager, is said to have approved the “blackjack” program. But ACORN officials have said Edwards acted alone in developing and carrying it out.
In handing down his sentence, Judge Donald Mosley said he wasn’t pleased with the negotiations but cited Edwards’ agreement to testify in giving him probation. Edwards is also required to complete community service.
Nevada Chief Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen is the lead prosecutor in the case. He wasn’t present in court today; David Rickert, a prosecutor in the attorney general’s office, declined comment after the hearing. Edwards and his attorney, Dan Silverstein, declined to speak with the media.
An election task force last year began to investigate ACORN over questionable voter registration tactics. The charges against Edwards, ACORN and Busefink stemmed from information obtained during that investigation.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Cuba: military exercise braces island for US attack

Nearly 50 years after a botched US-directed invasion of Cuba, the communist nation said Saturday it is holding a military exercise next week to boost preparedness against any future US attack. "It is a necessity of the first order given the political-military situation that now defines relations between Cuba and the empire," Major General Leonardo Andollo warned, referring to the United States.
He told the official Granma newspaper that the "Bastion-2009" exercises will "raise the deterrent capacity to prevent a military confrontation, under the principle that there is no better way to win a war than by avoiding it."
The military exercise, Cuba's largest in five years and the first since Barack Obama's inauguration as US president in January, will be held Thursday through Saturday, followed by Sunday's armed forces day to be marked nationwide.
The government of President Raul Castro, a longtime defense chief, expects that as many as four million Cubans may take part in Sunday's events, in this Caribbean country of 11 million, the Americas' only one-party communist regime.
Major General Ermio Hernandez, head of the military's directorate, said the exercise will involve tactical maneuvers, command of ground troops, artillery practice and military flights.
Washington quickly recognized the new Fidel Castro government after the 1959 Cuban revolution, but by 1961 the United States broke ties with Havana.
In April that year, a 1,400-strong force of CIA-trained Cuban exiles invaded Cuba's Bay of Pigs -- a disastrous venture fatally compromised by leaky intelligence and poor execution.
In its aftermath the Central Intelligence Agency hatched many failed plots to remove the elder Cuban leader, now 83 and still head of the Cuban Communist Party.
A US trade embargo on Cuba begun in 1962 remains in place despite calls by every country in the Americas to have it lifted.
Obama has largely abandoned the confrontational rhetoric with Havana that marked past administrations, and has sought to allow unlimited family travel and financial remittances from the United States to Cuba.
But he has stressed that elimination of the embargo would require Cuba to open up democratically and improve its human rights record.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Engaging Cuba on Human Rights

The regime should be asked to release political prisoners in exchange for normal relations.

By JORGE G. CASTANEDA

Normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba was widely seen as exactly the kind of high-value, low-hanging fruit that would be ideal for a president elected under the banner of "change." But a scathing new Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, "New Castro, Same Cuba," will make lifting sanctions against the Castro regime—on travel, remittances, trade—more difficult for President Obama.
Sadly, the human-rights situation on the island remains dismal, despite new leadership. According to HRW, the Raúl Castro government has harassed and imprisoned dissidents using an Orwellian provision of the Cuban Criminal Code that punishes "dangerousness." Authorities can lock up individuals on the suspicion that they may commit a crime in the future, or for engaging in behavior that is "antisocial" or contrary to "socialist morality."
Among the activities the government has deemed "dangerous" are: handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, failing to attend pro-government rallies, or simply being unemployed. In its report, based on more than 60 interviews carried out in Cuba without official permission or by phone from abroad, HRW documented more than 40 cases of dissidents who have been sentenced for "dangerousness."
Cuban law is replete with laws like the "dangerousness" provision that may be used to punish anyone seen as critical of the government. Human-rights defenders, journalists, political activists and others charged with breaking such laws find themselves at the mercy of a system that violates virtually every due process right.
Political detainees are denied access to legal counsel and family visits. They are subjected to abusive interrogations, and they may be detained for months or even years without being charged. Trials are pure theater, mostly conducted behind closed doors and finished in minutes.
Once in prison, abuse is commonplace. On Dec. 10, 2008—Human Rights Day—a political prisoner tried to read aloud to fellow prisoners from a book his wife had brought him called "Your Rights." In response, a guard came into his cell and told him to eat the book. When the prisoner refused, he was beaten and later sentenced to six more years in prison for "disrespecting authority."
Dissidents are subjected to public "acts of repudiation," in which crowds gather outside of their homes, throwing stones, shouting threats, and sometimes physically assaulting them. Those labeled "counterrevolutionaries" are fired from their jobs, monitored, threatened and prevented from traveling. The beating of dissident blogger Yoani Sánchez by two men she says were Cuban agents in civilian clothes in Havana just two weeks ago is further proof of this regrettable state of affairs.
Without outside pressure, the human-rights situation in Cuba will not improve. But outside pressure—sadly absent today, in the case of Europe or Latin America—has proved insufficient. At the same time, the U.S. embargo policy has been a unmitigated failure.
The logical route to follow is the one HRW and others have suggested: The U.S. should shift from a policy of regime change to a policy of human-rights promotion. The Obama administration should approach the European Union and the Latin American democracies and offer to lift the embargo on the condition that these countries join the U.S. in pressuring Cuba on a single demand: the release of all political prisoners, including those incarcerated for "dangerousness."
Once the U.S. government has secured this commitment and a multilateral coalition is in place, the U.S. should end its failed embargo policy. Cuba should be given a brief and specified period—the report recommends six months—to release all of its political prisoners.
If the government of Raúl Castro complies, it will set in motion a process whose ultimate goal is the full normalization of relations with the U.S. and the EU, as well as compliance with the democratic standards of the Organization of American States. If it does not, this multilateral coalition should enact targeted sanctions directed at the leadership of the Castro government.
The Castro brothers know that nothing would be more threatening to their half-century monopoly on power than the end of the U.S. embargo, which they use as a justification for their ongoing abuses. Indeed, they appear to be deliberately sabotaging normalization by making the human-rights situation worse.
This is why a multilateral approach is crucial. According to the Spanish daily El País, President Obama asked Spanish Prime Minister Rodríguez Zapatero three weeks ago to "Tell the Cubans we are taking steps, but if they don't take them too, it will be very difficult for us to continue." The Obama administration gets it. Now, if only we could get more Latin American countries to stop countenancing Cuba's human-rights violations and play a constructive role.
Mr. Castaneda, a professor at New York University and fellow at the New America Foundation, was Mexico's foreign minister from 2000 to 2003.

As Usual, Holder Undone by Holder

As I noted in addressing Attorney General Eric Holder's testimony this morning, the heart of his defense of the administration's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 terrorists in civilian court is the howler that there is no real difference between a civilian trial and a military commission.

Holder absurdly claimed that he believed it would be easier to get a conviction in civilian court — notwithstanding that the more lax evidentiary standards in military commissions make it easier for the government to get its proof admitted. And that's beside the fact that the jihadists wanted to plead guilty and proceed to execution in their military commission. (In Holder-world, conviction in an unpredictable civilian trial two years from now is somehow a surer thing than a military commission in which the defendants asked to plead guilty eleven months ago.)
Holder also claimed that there was no real difference between the protection of classified information in civilian and military courts. I explained in the aforementioned post why this isn't true. But I neglected to mention the most obvious reason why it isn't true: the Justice Department's own "protocols" for sorting out which enemy combatants get military commissions and which get civilan trials with all the rights and privileges of American citizens.
During today's testimony, Holder was especially incoherent in trying to explain the rationale — which has resulted in the worst war criminals getting a civilian trial while lesser war criminals are stuck in military tribunals. He kept falling back on DOJ's newly developed "protocols" for making this judgment. Scott Johnson has an excellent post at Powerline discussing these protocols. There are only three and they are very elastic. But for now, I want to focus on the second one (my italics):

B. Efficiency. The factors to be considered here are protection of intelligence sources and methods; the venue in which the case would be tried; issues related to multiple-defendant trials; foreign policy concerns; legal or evidentiary problems that might attend prosecution in the other jurisdiction: and efficiency and resource concerns.

So here are a couple of questions the Judiciary Committee might want to ask Holder in its follow-up:
1. If, as between civilian trials and military commissions, there is no real difference in the degree to which national defense secrets are protected, why does the Justice Department apply a protocol which asserts that the "protection of intelligence sources and methods" will be different in the two systems?
2. If the evidentiary rules in the two systems are virtual mirror images, why does DOJ apply a protocol that says evidence that is admissible in one system may not be admissible in the other? And, since Holder claims the government has an easier time proving its case in civilian court, can he identify a single category of evidence that is admissible in civilian court but not in a military tribunal?
On number 2, here's a hint: One of the major attacks on the military commissions, advanced by lawyers like those in Holder's firm who volunteered their services to the enemy, was that military commissions permitted too much hearsay and, potentially, evidence obtained by "torture." They argued that the government should be required to prove its case under what they insisted were the more demanding standards that govern civilian trials.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The White House Butler

A judge twice rejected by voters is nominated by President Obama.

As consolation prizes go, Louis Butler can't complain. After being twice rejected by Wisconsin voters for a place on the state Supreme Court, the former judge has instead been nominated by President Obama to a lifetime seat on the federal district court. If he is confirmed, Wisconsin voters will have years to contend with the decisions of a judge they made clear they would rather live without.
Judge Butler served on the state Supreme Court for four years, enough time to have his judicial temperament grow in infamy. Having first run unsuccessfully in 2000, he was appointed by Democratic Governor Jim Doyle to the seat vacated by Justice Diane Sykes in 2004. But after serving four years, voters had seen enough of his brand of judicial philosophy, making him the first sitting justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in four decades to lose a retention election last year.
In Ferdon v. Wisconsin Partners, he drew the rage of doctors and others when he dismantled the state's limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractices cases—the kind of tort reform that had been serving the state well. Business groups were likewise floored by his decision in Thomas v. Mallet, which allowed "collective liability" in lead paint cases—making any company a potential target, regardless of whether they made the paint in question. His nickname as a public defender was "Loophole Louis," a name that stuck when, as a judge, he was considered to be soft on crime.
At his confirmation hearing this month, Mr. Butler was quick to make light of his double rejection by Wisconsin voters, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that "After 16 years on the bench, I may be a better judge than a politician."
Ahem. That's a coded nod to liberal groups like the George Soros-funded Justice at Stake that are trying to eliminate judicial elections. Rather than letting voters choose judges, they prefer so-called "merit selection" plans whereby judges are selected by committees of lawyers.
State court judges like Mr. Butler are likely to be an important source of nominees for President Obama. Because Democrats have been out of office since the Clinton Administration, many of the liberal judges on the federal district courts are older, an incentive for the White House to comb state courts for new judges—especially for the federal appeals courts.
Mr. Butler's nomination also shows the return to prominence of judicial ratings by the American Bar Association, which traditionally gives extra weight to "judicial experience." The ABA, which was ousted by the Bush Administration in part because of the ABA's notorious liberal bias, is now back in favor in the Obama White House. Mr. Butler served on the ABA's Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, a group that like Justice at Stake critiques how that independence is supposedly compromised by the need to raise money for judicial elections.
Mr. Butler's nomination shows the dominance of liberal ideology in Mr. Obama's judicial selections, and especially a contempt for Wisconsin voters.

Bigger U.S. Role in Broadband Is Likely

By AMY SCHATZ

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission began to lay the groundwork for a bigger federal role in the broadband business Wednesday, outlining the hurdles the U.S. needs to overcome to improve the availability of high-speed Internet access.
The FCC identified a number of issues the government should address, including the high cost of laying new broadband lines in rural areas, a lack of airwaves for wireless Web access and ill-informed consumers.
"This focus on broadband is a reflection of a recognition that the U.S. is lagging behind," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Wednesday at the agency's monthly meeting.
The FCC is drafting a National Broadband Plan, which will lay out ways the government can improve broadband service in the U.S. The plan is scheduled to come out in February, and it's uncertain how many of its suggestions will ultimately be adopted. Already, some big cable and telecommunications companies are concerned the agency wants to impose rules that could undermine their business strategies and profitability.
FCC officials noted Wednesday that because more Americans are relying on smart phones to access the Internet, more airwaves need to be devoted to wireless broadband service. Agency officials have previously floated a plan to take some airwaves from television broadcasters and use them for wireless devices instead. Broadcasters are unhappy about that plan.
The agency took a step toward expanding wireless Web access by passing a new rule Wednesday to help wireless companies speed up local officials' decisions on new cellphone towers. Wireless companies asked the FCC for help, because they have had problems in the past getting state and local land-use regulators to make decisions on siting new cellphone towers.

Getty Images

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski testifies on Capitol Hill in October.

Of the 3,300 applications for new towers or to put a new antenna up on an existing tower, more than 700 have been pending for more than a year, FCC officials said. The FCC said local communities should have 90 days to consider applications from carriers who want to put an antenna up on an existing tower, and 150 days for new tower applications. The decision means that if local officials don't make a decision in that time, the wireless carriers can appeal to a court.
The FCC's latest broadband moves are part of a multi-stage process mapped out by Mr. Genachowski for examining whether American consumers have suffered from the largely hands-off approach the U.S. has taken on Internet infrastructure.
FCC officials said they are concerned consumers don't know enough about the actual speeds of broadband connections before they sign up with a provider. Often, the speed advertised by an Internet provider is much faster than the actual speed a consumer gets at home, which makes it harder for consumers to compare competing services. FCC officials Wednesday didn't say exactly what they would propose to address this.
The agency is also looking at how to increase the use of broadband among lower-income people and minorities, who subscribe at lower rates than the general population.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Finally, A Congressman With a Solution: Stop Complaining So Much

by Capitol Confidential
Sure, the economy sucks. Unemployment is at least 10.2% and, yes, if you include part-time workers who would rather have full-time jobs it may be over 17%. The government is showering our cash on Wall Street and burning through piles of our children and grandchildren’s money “saving” phantom jobs in Congressional Districts that don’t exist.
Oh yeah, and Congress is planning for a government take-over of our health care system, legislating higher energy prices and raising taxes. Sheesh, no wonder we’re feeling blue.
Well, not to worry, three-term Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) has found a solution: Stop Complaining So Much. Rep. Cleaver is currently circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter, seeking co-sponsors for House Concurrent Resolution 155, designating the day before Thanksgiving as the official “Complaint Free Wednesday.”
You see, as the Congressman explains:

From time to time, we all experience anxiety, frustration, stress, and regret. And often, we respond to these feelings with a criticism or a complaint. Regrettably, complaining keeps people stuck on current problems, inhibiting them from thinking constructively to find solutions. Research has also shown that complaining can be harmful to one’s emotional and physical health; relationships; and can limit professional career success.

Really. Full letter and more after the jump.

We will set aside the question of whether Rep. Cleaver has discovered the risk of too much complaining only because his party’s legislative proposals are tanking in the polls. We do think it is interesting that he believes we should focus on “solutions” and “look forward”, subtle prods to enact new laws and programs.

We are torn on the larger question of whether Congress should even be wasting any time on such silliness as “official” days for this or that. On the one hand, it is surely a waste of taxpayer money and a decidedly unserious response to our challenges. On the other, though, every moment spent on things like this is a moment that isn’t spent re-regulating huge swaths of the economy.

We do know one thing, though: The Age of Pericles this ain’t.

[Ed Note: Cleaver's letter was sent electronically to Hill Offices. To better present the letter to the public, the text has been copied onto House of Representatives letterhead. The text wasn't changed or edited in any way.]

California budget shortfall to top $21 billion

OAKLAND, Calif., Nov 17 (Reuters) - California faces a budget gap of nearly $21 billion over its current and next fiscal years, according to the state government's budget watchdog agency, the Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday.
The newspaper said California's Legislative Analyst's Office would issue an official report on Wednesday with its shortfall estimate.
The projection comes less than four months after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers agreed to a budget plan that closed a deficit of more than $24 billion largely with deep spending cuts to respond to plunging revenues amid the worst economic crisis to hit the most populous U.S. state since the Great Depression.
Schwarzenegger said last week he expects a budget gap for the rest of the current fiscal year of between $5 billion to $7 billion. His finance advisors had previously said the state government would see a $7.4 billion gap in the next fiscal year beginning in July.
But next year's budget shortfall will be much larger than initially forecast, the Los Angeles Times said. Citing sources briefed the upcoming report, it said the deficit will be $14.4 billion. (Reporting by Jim Christie; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Andy Stern Must Go

AP source: NYC papers' circulation offices raided

NEW YORK (AP) - Investigators in New York City raided circulation offices at some of the nation's largest newspapers Tuesday as part of a union corruption probe, a law enforcement official said. Police officers working with the Manhattan district attorney's office searched circulation offices of The New York Times in Queens, the New York Post and the Daily News in Manhattan, and El Diario in Brooklyn, the official said, speaking to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Investigators were seeking paperwork related to the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union, which packages and delivers newspapers across the region. Calls to the union's headquarters were not answered Tuesday.
Calls to the newspapers seeking information on whether the news operations were involved were not returned. The New York Times issued a statement saying that the office of an employee at its plant in Queens' College Point area had been searched but that its news side was not part of the investigation.
No arrests have been made, and the district attorney's office refused to comment.
The 1,600-member union wields considerable power over news companies that rely on their drivers to deliver hundreds of thousands of papers each day, and allegations of connections to organized crime are not. More than a decade ago, District Attorney Robert Morgenthau charged that the union was under mob control.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Obama Aide Dunn Renews Criticism of Fox, Hails Jon Stewart

By Hans Nichols

Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s outgoing communications director, Anita Dunn, renewed her attacks against Fox News as she praised the “investigative journalism” of Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and said MSNBC isn’t a biased cable news network.
She criticized Fox for using edited footage of a rally to make it appear that opposition to the president’s health-care plan was bigger than it was.
“The people who exposed this: Jon Stewart of the Daily Show on Comedy Central,” Dunn said yesterday at the Bloomberg Washington Summit. “That’s where you are getting fact-checking and investigative journalism these days.”
She also suggested, when asked, that Obama was aware of the strategy to criticize Fox. “I am not a person who is known for going rogue,” she said.
“We’re under no illusions of what the political agenda of, you know, certain news networks are,” Dunn said of Fox. “We obviously have talked to them before. We’ll talk to them again in the future.”
After the controversy between the White House and Fox News erupted, Karl Rove, former President George W. Bush’s political adviser, said that cable news channel MSNBC had a left-leaning bias. Dunn disputed that contention.
“MSNBC has as a host of their morning program a former Republican congressman who was a member of Newt Gingrich’s revolution,” she said, referring to Joe Scarborough, the former Florida Republican congressman who hosts “Morning Joe.”
Different Network
“I do regard them as different as a network,” Dunn said of MSNBC.
Dunn also criticized Rove and the Bush administration for holding secret meetings in the White House.
“We are running this transparent and very accountable administration,” she said. “That was not the case when Karl Rove was calling the shots in the White House for eight years.”
Responding to criticism that Obama has taken too much time for his review of Afghanistan policy and U.S. troop deployments, she said Americans appreciate a deliberative approach.
The White House is “taking the time to do it correctly, making sure that you’ve asked all the questions, that you’ve challenged all the assumptions,” Dunn said.
She said Obama’s September speech to Congress about health care redefined the debate and was a highlight of her eight-month tenure as the communications director.
Health-Care Momentum
Obama’s congressional address gave the issue “the momentum that you’re seeing today” for overhaul legislation, she said.
She also said she expects the “toughest” financial- industry revisions to be completed this year.
“At the end of the year, there’s going to be the toughest financial reform law signed by President Obama that we have seen in generations,” she said. “And hopefully be able to prevent future meltdowns.”
Dunn will be replaced next month by Dan Pfeiffer, a longtime Obama aide. She assumed her position in April after interim communications director Ellen Moran left the White House to serve as chief of staff to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.
Her husband, Bob Bauer, will replace Greg Craig as White House counsel, the administration announced yesterday. Dunn will remain a consultant to the White House.
Dunn said the White House could have done a better job in harnessing new technologies to reach the American people, as she said they successfully did during the campaign.
She reserved her sharpest barbs for News Corp.’s Fox and played down the network’s prospects for an interview with Obama while the president is on a four-country, eight-day trip to Asia.
“There are no confirmed television interviews in China,” she said.
“We wish her well in her new position,” said Dana Klinghoffer, a spokeswoman for Fox News.
To contact the reporter on this story: Hans Nichols in Washington at hnichols2@bloomberg.net

Federal oversight of subways proposed

Red Line crash spurred safety plan Obama administration to push for Congress to change law

By Joe Stephens and Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 15, 2009

The Obama administration will propose that the federal government take over safety regulation of the nation's subway and light-rail systems, responding to what it says is haphazard and ineffective oversight by state agencies.
Under the proposal, the U.S. Department of Transportation would do for transit what it does for airlines and Amtrak: set and enforce federal regulations to ensure that millions of passengers get to their destinations safely. Administration officials said the plan will be presented in coming weeks to Congress, which must approve a change in the law.
The proposal would affect every subway and light-rail system in the country, including large systems in Washington, New York, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Administration officials said they are responding to a growing number of collisions, derailments and worker fatalities on subways -- and in particular to the fatal June 22 crash on Metro's Red Line and failures in oversight that have surfaced in its wake. Those failures have been the subject of an ongoing investigative series in The Washington Post.
"After the [Metro] train crash, we were all sitting around here scratching our heads, saying, 'Hey, we've got to do something about this,' " Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in an interview. "And we discovered that there's not much we could do, because the law wouldn't allow us to do it."
Metro spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said the agency had not seen details of the proposal. "The bottom line is we welcome additional safety oversight with open arms," she said.
LaHood said he expects the proposal to be welcomed on Capitol Hill, but some Republicans said Saturday night that more federal oversight might not be the answer.
"The administration is right to raise this issue, but federal regulation should only apply to systems that cross state lines," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who had not been briefed on the plan.
Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) said the proposal sounded like a credible way to fix a broken oversight system. "Without seeing the details, it would make sense," Wolf said. "Some states have done a good job, while others have not. There needs to be consistent safety enforcement."
Critical details of the plan remain unclear, including how much it would cost, where the money would come from, how the federal government would enforce its rules and whether it is equipped to carry out enhanced oversight. Existing state oversight bodies could remain in place to enforce the new regulations but would need to meet federal standards and gain federal approval.
Safety experts praised the initiative.
"It's long overdue," said Kitty Higgins, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board until August. "I applaud the secretary and his team for recognizing the gap in oversight in the current law. I hope that Congress will act on it swiftly."
An exception to the rule
The federal government long has regulated the safe operation of airplanes, Amtrak and even ferries. But a law passed in 1965 prohibits federal regulation of subways. When that law was put into effect, there were only a handful of subways -- Metro wouldn't open its first line for another 11 years -- and lawmakers reasoned that federal oversight would hamper their growth.
As a result, rail transit operates under two very different federal systems offering disparate levels of safety oversight.
Commuter rail systems, such as MARC and the Virginia Railway Express, are subject to a long list of federal regulations and are regularly inspected by federal safety monitors.
Safety oversight of light-rail and subway systems, on the other hand, is delegated to 27 regional bodies controlled by states. Quality varies widely, as does funding and enforcement power. With a few notable exceptions, those agencies tend to be threadbare, averaging less than one staff person per agency, according to federal statistics.
The state organizations have been criticized for lacking expertise and independence. Some rely on the transit systems they oversee to supply their funding. Many lack the legal authority to force transit agencies to grant them access to equipment and documents, and cannot compel transit agencies to correct any deficiencies they identify.
For Metro, the second-busiest subway system in the nation, the monitoring body is the Tri-State Oversight Committee, which has six members but no employees, office or phone number. It also has no direct regulatory authority over Metro.
As it stands, the Transportation Department also cannot direct subway systems to adopt safety recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Details of the proposal
Under the administration's proposal, states that kept their oversight bodies would have to pass safety certification programs and demonstrate that they had an adequately trained staff, as well as financial independence and authority to compel compliance from systems they oversee.
States running their own programs would receive federal funds to cover salaries, training and other expenses. Federal regulations would ensure that the state programs established standards similar to those set by federal monitors.
The Federal Transit Administration would assume direct oversight for states that opt out of safety monitoring. The agency also would take over for state organizations that the administration determined to be inadequate.
If subway or light-rail systems did not meet the new safety standards, they would risk losing federal funding for capital expenditures, according to an administration official who was briefed on the plan.
Transit systems would be responsible for shouldering the cost of complying with new federal safety requirements.
The plan would also allow the FTA to issue safety regulations for bus transit systems, but officials said early efforts would focus on rail.
In August, The Post reported that Metro's supposedly fail-safe crash avoidance system had failed in March on Capitol Hill, allowing two trains to come perilously close to colliding. A few weeks later, the newspaper reported that the automatic crash avoidance system also failed in 2005, when three trains narrowly escaped what records said would have been "disastrous collisions" in a tunnel under the Potomac River. That system is a focus of the federal investigation into the cause of the June 22 crash, which killed nine people and injured 80, making it the deadliest incident in the history of Metro.
Last week, an article revealed that Metro had barred independent safety monitors from walking along live subway tracks to assess compliance with safety rules. Since the ban began, two track workers have been fatally injured on the rails.
Metro board Chairman Jim Graham said Friday that the agency is increasing supervision of safety chief Alexa Dupigny-Samuels, who denied access to the monitors.
Also last week, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) called on LaHood to investigate Metro's oversight by the committee. And Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who chairs a transportation subcommittee, said he would hold a hearing in the next few weeks that will look into issues raised as part of the investigation.

Chavez asking Cubans to 'bomb clouds' amid drought

Source: Reuters

*Cubans to try to seed clouds in South American nation *Government criticized for poor planning in drought CARACAS, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez says he will join a team of Cuban scientists on flights to "bomb clouds" to create rain amid a severe drought that has aroused public anger due to water and electricity rationing. Chavez, who has asked Venezuelans to take three-minute showers to save water, said the Cubans had arrived in Venezuela and were preparing to fly specially equipped aircraft above the Orinoco river. "I'm going in a plane; any cloud that crosses me, I'll zap it so that it rains," Chavez said at a ceremony late on Saturday with family members of five Cubans convicted of spying in the United States. Many countries have programs aimed at altering weather patterns, commonly known as cloud seeding, although the effectiveness of such techniques is disputed. Firing silver iodine at clouds is one common method. China uses rockets loaded with the chemical to spur rainfall in arid regions. Chavez did not say what technology the Cubans will use. Venezuela has suffered water and electricity shortages this month after a drought caused by the El Nino weather phenomenon led to critically low water levels at several reservoirs in the oil-exporting nation. The government has been criticized for poor planning after it was forced to impose strict water rationing in the capital Caracas and power rationing in other parts of the country. Venezuela produces much of its electricity from hydroelectric projects, including the giant El Guri dam close to the Orinoco. Chavez provides Cuba with subsidized oil and is a close friend of the communist island's former leader Fidel Castro. Chavez said Castro was in excellent health and invited the Cuban to participate in a trade conference he is hosting next month in Havana. Castro has not been seen in public since undergoing intestinal surgery in 2006. (Reporting by Frank Jack Daniel; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Saturday, November 14, 2009

The Chavez Diet: Venezuelans urged to lose weight

(AP) – 12 hours ago

CARACAS, Venezuela — Call it the Bolivarian battle of the bulge.
President Hugo Chavez said in a televised speech Friday that "there are lots of fat people" in Venezuela and advised his supporters to exercise and eat healthy to trim their waistlines.
"I'm not saying fat women, because they never get fat," he added. "Women sometimes fill out."
The 55-year-old leader said he himself has lost nearly 20 pounds (9 kilograms) by exercising and eating well. But Chavez, who still appears heavier than when he first took office in 1999, acknowledged that he could lose a few more pounds (kilograms).
"Doing sit ups," he said. "Eating well. One has to learn how to eat."
Chavez suggested rice pasta instead of spaghetti made from wheat, and recommended drinking soy milk, saying soy products help fight aging.
Chavez said his diet and exercise have made him feel stronger and "ready to continue commanding the Bolivarian Revolution" — the name he has given his socialist-inspired political movement.

Chavez's policies go from bad to worse

OUR OPINION: Hugo Chávez's economic policies driving Venezuela to ruin

Friday, November 13, 2009

Castro as commentator on US politics

By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer Paul Haven, Associated Press Writer – Fri Nov 13, 3:47 am ET

HAVANA – Think you're obsessed with President Barack Obama and the many challenges he faces at home and abroad?
Well, you're not alone.
Fidel Castro appears to have a fascination with the American leader that would make Obama Girl jealous, writing obsessively not only about his politics, but of his youth and vigor.
And unlike with past American heads-of-state — he slammed President George W. Bush as a genocidal drunk — Castro seems to genuinely like the fresh face in Washington.
Since handing over the Cuban presidency to his brother in February 2008, the 83-year-old has continued to publish his thoughts in essays called "Reflections of Comrade Fidel," which are dutifully printed in state media and read repeatedly on government-controlled radio and television.
Hardly a week goes by without a mention of his nemesis to the north, the most recent on Thursday. In an opinion piece that took up an entire newspaper page, Castro waxed philosophic about everything from Obama's Asia trip to his prospects for re-election.
Last month, Castro pronounced it a good thing that the American president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In September, he termed Obama's call-to-action on global warming courageous.
"It really is an obsession," said Ann Louis Bardach, a longtime Cuba observer and author of the recent book, "Without Fidel: A Death Foretold in Miami, Havana and Washington."
She noted that Castro confessed to being riveted by coverage of Obama's January inauguration, which he told visiting Argentine President Cristina Fernandez made him very happy.
Obama Girl, a.k.a. model Amber Lee Ettinger, sang of her crush on the presidential candidate in bit of political satire that went viral on the Internet.
"I think he has genuine appreciation for Obama," Bardach said. "He sees in him a charismatic politician and brilliant strategist, and he admires that. Obama is a guy who came from nowhere and wasn't part of the establishment, just like Castro."
Opining on the actions of U.S. leaders is nothing new for Castro, who came to power when Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the Oval Office and has been on the world stage long enough to see 10 other presidents in the same chair.
But in less than a year of near-constant commentary, Castro has called Obama intelligent, sincere, serene, courageous, honest and well-meaning. He praised his work ethic, pondered the historical nature of his barrier-shattering election and fretted that he might face assassination.
"I really hate to criticize Obama," Castro began apologetically in Thursday's column. "And I realize that that job in the United States is a giant headache."
Castro writes that he is impressed by the scope of Obama's agenda in Asia. The trip is scheduled to take the president to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea for bilateral meetings with world leaders and to participate in two regional summits.
"Perhaps no other U.S. president would be capable of committing to such an intense schedule," said Castro, who was known in his youth for his extraordinary stamina — particularly when on the stump.
Still, the former Cuban leader can't help scolding Obama for continuing what he says is a U.S. tradition of strong-arm tactics and trickery. Castro criticizes him for maintaining the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay and for a pact with Colombia that allows American soldiers increased access to seven military bases in that country.
Some U.S. officials are skeptical of Castro's motives, noting the Cuban leader cannot be too critical of the first African-American president, who is wildly popular among Cuba's population. He also has had to formulate a fitting response to Obama's change in tone.
The American leader came to office promising to extend a hand of friendship to America's adversaries, but he has moved cautiously so far on Cuba. The administration has softened U.S. rhetoric toward the island and loosened some travel restrictions. But Obama has said he has no plans to lift Washington's 47-year trade embargo unless the single-party, communist state accepts some political, economic and social changes.
Cuba has indicated it has no plans to do anything of the sort, but that hasn't stopped the warm words.
By the end of Thursday's opinion piece, Castro seemed to have made up his mind: Obama is not perfect, but he's a lot better than the alternative.
Meaning to Castro that he won't last long atop the empire.
"Soon, the ultra-right of the United States will try to limit (Obama's) rule to four years," Castro warned, looking to 2012. "A Nixon, a Bush or somebody like Cheney will be the new president, and then the purpose of these unjustifiable military bases that threaten the peoples of South America will be very clear."

Russia's Putin wins respect at hip-hop party

* Russia's powerful PM Putin meets local rappers
* Rappers chant: "Respect, Vladimir Vladimirovich"

By Darya Korsunskaya
MOSCOW, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rubbed shoulders with rappers and was hailed with "respect" in a television show on Friday that could help boost his flagging ratings.
Putin, wearing a turtleneck sweater and jacket, went on stage to present awards to participants in "Battle for Respect", a hip-hop music contest run by Muz TV, a Russian rival to MTV.
"It would have been cool to record a joint track with Vladimir Putin because he is a legendary man and our idol," sang rapper Zhigan who won the contest. "Let's make so much noise in his honour that the whole world can hear."
A presenter told the audience of about 100 young rappers in a makeshift television studio in an abandoned Moscow factory building that he wanted "smiles to stay on your faces throughout the evening".
Despite hip-hop's violent image, Putin had a stern message for the rappers about healthy living.
"I do not think that 'top-rock' or 'down-rock' breakdance technique is compatible with alcohol or drugs," Putin told cheering hip-hoppers who responded with chants of "Respect, Vladimir Vladimirovich".
Putin's approval ratings last month had the sharpest fall since he stepped down as Kremlin chief in May 2008. His rating fell 6 percentage points to 66 percent on Oct. 24-25, according to leading pollster FOM. [ID:nL2370140]
Putin's aides responded with plans for a flurry of prime ministerial appearances, including a televised question-and-answer session with the Russian people this month.
Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied there was a link between the hip-hop appearance and the ratings fall.
"Putin has a high and stable rating which does not require any support," said Peskov. "The main goal of this event was to contribute to the promotion of a healthy lifestyle."
Putin, who stepped down as president last year, remains Russia's most popular and powerful politician. Most Russians believe he will run for President again in 2012.
Putin's carefully orchestrated image also include bare-chested photos on fishing trips in Siberia, appearances with rare animals such as Siberian tigers, leopards and beluga whales and encounters with fringe social groups like bikers.
"He communicates to all social groups. Hip-hop culture is very popular and youths from all corners of our country are fans of this culture," Peskov said. (Writing by Gleb Bryanski; Editing by Jon Hemming)