EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NEW ZEALAND

Team NZ grant poor use of precious $36m

Much can change over four years. In the case of the America's Cup, virtually everything has.

So much so that the previous government's commitment of $36 million of taxpayer funding to Team New Zealand's challenge for the 2013 regatta now looks a monumental blunder.

Worst of all, those responsible for the agreement did not take the sensible precaution of including a get-out clause that could be triggered by any radical switch in circumstances.

The current Government, therefore, had no option over the funding.

Economic Development Minister David Carter tried to make the best of things by insisting the regatta off San Francisco would showcase New Zealand's technology, products and services and encourage tourism.

But, he, with most New Zealanders, would surely wish that $36 million was available to be spent elsewhere.

There are two reasons for this. First, the country's economic condition has deteriorated markedly since 2007.

Labour government finance minister Michael Cullen warned frequently of a looming "rainy day", yet that prognosis seemed to hold no sway when it came to the long-term funding of Team New Zealand.

Now, the lingering impact of global recession and the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes have placed yacht racing in an entirely different light.

Secondly, the America's Cup has lost the mana and magnetism that it once held for New Zealanders. It was possible to make a strong case for the $33 million of taxpayer funding that went into Team New Zealand's campaign off Valencia in 2007.

This was the chance to recapture the Auld Mug from Alinghi after its ignominious departure from these shores in 2003. Duly, Team New Zealand made a spirited bid and some of the aura associated with the event returned.

Subsequently, however, there has been every reason for public support to evaporate. The rivalry between billionaires Ernesto Bertarelli and Larry Ellison led to long-running court wrangling and the farce of a catamaran racing a trimaran.

Finally, it emerged that Oracle wanted the 34th America's Cup to be contested between 22m catamarans. Not only is this a radical shift from the grace and tradition of the America's Cup but it introduces a type of racing with little pedigree in this country.

That means Team New Zealand is playing catch-up as it seeks to become competitive in multihull racing.

The taxpayer funding will help it achieve this, but it is money that should never have been committed. The Government, having been saddled with this payment, should now detail what, if any, future commitments have been made to Team New Zealand.

This - not vague and unsubstantiated statements about valuable publicity that may accrue from the latest $36 million - is imperative in the interests of transparency.

Some people are also uneasy that New Zealand will spend more than $1.2 billion on investments backing the Rugby World Cup, while the event will make only $700 million in direct economic returns.

It was sadly predictable that the staging of such an international tournament would develop along these lines. This has been the experience of most cities that have hosted the Olympic Games and countries that have staged soccer's World Cup.

The rugby cup deficit will be large. While the benefits should not be appraised purely in economic returns, it will take a whole lot of national pride and other intangibles to start to square that ledger.

Rugby's aura and status as our national game remain strong but a debt-ridden state needs to be wary of the vanity of subsidising global professional sport.

EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

The crisscross over Libya

Libya is now haunting the West. The NATO’s bomb-and-fly away strategy seems to have backfired, as there are no signs of Tripoli’s early fall.

The embattled leader Col Muammar Gaddafi, who had earlier hinted at bowing down for talks with the rebels, is now dictating more and more terms. This chaos would not have occurred had the Western powers and the United States not indulged in a kneejerk reaction while opting for a military solution over Libya. The British and French obsession to make Gaddafi kneel down has cost the entire region peace and stability. Besides, the oil-exporting country’s socio-economic infrastructure has been destroyed beyond recognition. This is in addition to the human exodus that has been rendered displaced and dispossessed.

The persisting military deadlock over Libya is quite problematic. The widening rift between NATO and the US is now no more over attaining a military solution, rather it’s on whether to make Gaddafi survive or not. The European powers’ contention that their action is not intended for a regime change is untenable. The brutal manner in which civil and governmental installations were hit by NATO sorties, and especially the bombardment of Gaddafi’s palace goes on to suggest the obvious. This discord in strategy over Libya is bound to multiply the grievances of the people and keep the country bogged down with the irritants of aggression and civil commotion.

It’s high time the African Union and many of the regional members in the Middle East to resort back to addressing the issue in its political context, and immediately broker a dialogue between warring factions. What is really worrisome is the United Nations’ mandate to protect the civilians has been thrown to the wind, and targets are now increasingly being chosen in an un-mindful manner. The rising number of casualties that the rebels themselves have faced is a case in point. Though a realistic solution can only be achieved with the exit of Gaddafi, the route to it inadvertently lies in talking it out with the dictator. This is why Russia and the African Union, who have time and again expressed their willingness to mediate, should rise to the occasion and spell out a strategy for defusing the volatility in and around North Africa. One hopes the AU-led talks with the Libyan opposition in Addis Ababa can harness ground for a broader interaction and resolution of the dispute at hand. 

The Kabul shootout

The unfortunate shootout at Kabul airport resulting in the deaths of eight NATO soldiers at the hands of an allied Afghan air force officer brings to light a serious problem. That, of the insurgents infiltration into the Afghan security forces.

While the claim by the Taleban of the incident is yet to be verified, the increasing number of such incidents raises concern. Even as the drive to boost recruitment to swell the numbers of the national security forces is given impetus, the issue of sifting and monitoring the ranks of the pro-insurgents and those committed against them is not easily solvable.

Moreover, the incidents involving civilian casualties at the hands of foreign forces also put an additional strain on loyalties of even those who may not be partial to the insurgents. Past incidents where Afghan soldiers and policemen have killed foreign soldiers have also led to an increase in mistrust among the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF).

This does not bode well for the transfer of security responsibility, from the ISAF to the national security forces.  Mutual trust and coordination of responsibilities is integral to the successful completion of this crucial process, being hailed as a major benchmark.  In fact, the withdrawal of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan is dependent on how quickly and efficiently the national forces take on the mantle of responsibility. 

Full-on efforts and resources have been diverted towards the bolstering of the Afghan national army and police force in order to attain this objective. Despite scepticism from independent quarters pertaining adequate training and monitoring of the security personnel, Kabul and Washington have been increasingly confident of major improvements in this arena. Of course, reports of the large-scale desertions and authority issues and divisions within the military ranks are dismissed as propaganda. The core issue however, notwithstanding the glossing remains. Will Afghanistan’s security forces be capable of handling the security on its own?

Even if the insurgents are dealt a blow and their momentum is halted in the next phase of the counterinsurgency, the continued presence of foreign forces will prove detrimental to Kabul. It will help the insurgents mobilise the people to rise against the government.

It is time the Afghan leadership understands the dynamics at play and formulates a national strategy in keeping with the state’s interests and the local environmental factors, rather than allowing imposition of such foreign policies that are far from feasible. 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY NATIONAL POST, CANADA

The Fed can be fallible

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke faced his first press conference in Washington on Wednesday, following a meeting of the Fed's monetary policy committee. He confidently rejected the idea that inflation posed any threat. Fed confidence is not necessarily a guarantee that the future will unfold as the Fed forecasts. For a lesson in the fallibility of economic forecasters, and the monumental policy blunders that (1) cause crises and (2) prolong crises, below are comments made by Mr. Bernanke in a speech on May 17, 2007, titled "The Subprime Mortgage Market."
Given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited.
We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.
The vast majority of mortgages, including even subprime mortgages, continue to perform well.
Past gains in house prices have left most homeowners with significant amounts of home equity, and growth in jobs and incomes should help keep the financial obligations of most households manageable.
Credit market innovations have expanded opportunities for many households. Markets can overshoot, but, ultimately, market forces also work to rein in excesses.

Inflation? What inflation?

He's the Man with the Golden Touch. As Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke went public with a Fed policy statement and press conference Wednesday, traders watched as every word seemed to add a few cents to the price of gold. After hitting US$1,530 late in trading, gold backed back down a bit, but the story was clear.

The euro gained and U.S. treasury bond yields went up. Also moving in directions that were inconsistent with the Fed chairman's world view was the American dollar, which went down.

Somebody clearly wasn't getting, or didn't quite believe, Mr. Bernanke's message. Inflation is not a problem, said Mr. Bernanke, and the Fed will take no action against inflation until it begins to see it in the whites of the eyes of consumers and businesses in the form of "inflation expectations."

As for oil prices, a key inflation driver, Mr. Bernanke said it was all a matter of supply and demand in the oil industry. Gasoline prices will "not continue to rise" and will eventually "stabilize" and even "come down" just as soon as the turmoil in the Middle East "stabilizes." There's nothing the Fed can do about it.

Following arguments that have become familiar in the Federal Reserve's recent policy pronouncements, Mr. Bernanke delivered what has emerged as the bedrock of Fed theorizing on the future of inflation. "For the most part," he said, "I think it's fair to say that medium-term inflation expectations have not really moved very much and they still indicate confidence that the Fed will ensure that inflation in the medium term will be close to what I've called the mandate-consistent level."

Part of Mr. Bernanke's problem is that the Fed has a bit of a credibility problem in the forecasting department. In the buildup to his Wednesday news conference, many media circulated excerpts from Mr. Bernanke's 2007 speech on the U.S. housing market. "We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system," he said then. (See below).

The Fed's reliance on "inflation expectations" in the market to telegraph when the risks are dangerous seems somehow all too similar to its reliance on readings of the mortgage market in 2007. It looks like a rerun of rational expectations -the theory that a problem is only a problem if it shows up in market data somewhere, the markets always being right.

There are also reasons to doubt that reliance on signs of rising "inflation expectations" on the part of wage earners and corporate managers is the right place to monitor the risk of inflation. By this theory, inflation is only a problem when wages and other price pressures begin to drive up prices throughout the economy. But what happens in a stagnant economy, where prices of many goods and services rise while wages are falling?

It wouldn't be the first time in economic history that growth and employment dragged while prices -due to monetary inflation -rose. This year, U.S. consumer prices in March rose at an annual rate of 6% and were 2.7% higher than a year ago. In a recent speech, Fed vicechairman Janet Yellin called the CPI gains "transitory" inflation. Meantime, producer prices are up almost 6% year over year and import prices -thanks to a falling dollar -are up almost 10%.

Despite this evidence, the Fed sees no real inflation and is waiting to see if price increases begin showing up in "inflation expectations." That will happen when workers begin insisting on higher wage demands and corporate managers begin passing rising costs on through higher prices. The logical impasse, however, is that wages are in decline in the United States, with real wages (nominal wage gains of 1% minus inflation of 2.7%) in decline.

By the Fed's standards, inflation is steady. For consumers, inflation is eating away at diminishing wages and incomes. Mr. Bernanke claims that the gap between inflation and wages will disappear just as soon as growth and jobs pick up and the Middle East turmoil subsides.

The Fed's claim, in summary, is that all that is happening in the world economy -rising commodity prices, a falling dollar, rising bond yields, price increases in developing nations and Europe -have nothing whatever to do with the Fed's unprecedented trillion-dollar quantitative easings and monetary expansion.

The gold, bond and currency markets aren't buying this line of argument. At some point, American consumers and businesses may stop buying it too.

Memo to HR: No leader makes the cut

Is Stephen Harper a good CEO? Could Michael Ignatieff be a better chief executive? What about Jack Layton?

As executive headhunters, we size up candidates for top corporate roles and make recommendations to clients every day. At election time, we assess the party leaders the same way we evaluate top corporate candidates. We find this gives clarity as we head to the polling station. After all, a number of the skills required of a prime minister are akin to what is needed to lead a corporation.

As recruiters, we've sifted through the candidates' qualifications and we're ready to present our findings to our client (you, the electorate).

First, we've immediately eliminated one candidate -or, rather he has declined the CEO's office at Canada Co. That would be Gilles Duceppe, a capable manager but one whose agenda is predicated on the organization's demise.

Second, upon consideration we've eliminated another candidate, Elizabeth May, because without a seat in the House of Commons (i.e. position of influence in the company) we believe it would be difficult to seriously consider her. We do, however, fully support diversity and recommend that one, two or three major parties offer voters a female leader in the next election.

For 2011, we are left with three candidates for Canada Co. CEO: Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton.

MANAGEMENT STYLE

This is an area of at least perceived contrast between the two top contenders. Mr. Harper is seen as a micromanager who has consolidated power in his office and away from his team.

Then again, corporate leaders are often forced to take a more centralized leadership approach when their organization lacks a unified mandate/ mission (i.e. minority government). But we wonder if he were given a majority whether he wouldn't loosen up on his direct reports.

Mr. Ignatieff is presenting an image that he is an inclusive and collaborative manager. His direct reports (the Liberal caucus) have suffered from a crisis of leadership and he is carrying that weight into the election. He loves to march his team out behind him for photo ops and chide his opponent for being a one-man-band. It may be genuine, but it can at times come across as posturing.

ABILITY TO INSPIRE

This generation of political leader is not as strong on the "inspire-meter" as Churchill, Trudeau or Reagan.

Employees prefer an inspirational leader over a transactional manager. Neither Harper nor Ignatieff have yet elevated themselves in this regard. Often actions speak louder than words and seeing Mr. Layton out on the hustings after prostate cancer and hip surgery is inspirational. Companies have historically galvanized around leaders who show courage and humanity and this directly correlates to the political sphere as well.

CRISIS MANAGEMENT SKILLS

Mr. Harper can hang his hat on the fact that he was at the tiller during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and Canada fared better than most. Truth be told, just as corporate leaders often take credit for their predecessors' achievements, Mr. Harper got some help from earlier Liberal moves. But perception is reality in politics and business.

Mr. Ignatieff has faced his own type of emergencies -from losing a Liberal leadership race, to supporting a coalition in 2008 to topple the Conservatives and then reversing his stance, to being painted as an interloper from the United States. Certainly recent candidate crises haven't helped his cause.

And while Mr. Harper is dealing with his own controversies (Bev Oda, Bruce Carson and Dimitri Soudas come to mind) he continues to demonstrate an ability to ride through the storm.

Mr. Layton has made astute moves in this area of crisis management, particularly when it comes to supporting or voting against Mr. Harper's government, depending on what he could negotiate for his constituents.

So while each of the candidates demonstrate their unique skills and experience, it will likely come down to overall fit, that elusive third factor that clients struggle with.

As executive recruiters we have the luxury of finding CEO candidates and developing a short list. None of the three would make our short list for CEO of the country. But we've got to work with what we've got. We recommend that it would be prudent to stay the course and urge the other parties to diversify and bring in fresh leadership with new ideas for the next election.

EDITORIAL : THE KOREA HERALD, SOUTH KOREA

Post-poll plans

The electorate in the Bundang B district said no to the status quo and, instead, endorsed a call for change when it elected Sohn Hak-kyu, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, in the April 27 parliamentary by-election. Of great concern to the conservative ruling party and the liberal opposition party is whether the electoral outcome will prove to be a tempest in a teacup or a prelude to the parliamentary and presidential elections next year.

Sohn’s election must have been shocking to the ruling Grand National Party. In previous elections, its candidates had been virtually assured of a win at the moment of nomination in Bundang B because the electorate in the district never failed to vote conservative. Not this time. Well-to-do and white-collar voters turned their back on the ruling conservative party. They picked Sohn, who had gambled his political career when he decided to run in the district in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province.

In his campaign, Sohn called on the Bundang B electorate to jump-start a change for the entire nation, saying it was not just the lower class but the middle class that was worse off now than before. But his opponent appealed to voters to help him prevent “leftists” from taking power in the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections. The electorate got their unmistakable message across to the political community when it elected Sohn.

White-collar workers are assumed to have held sway over the electoral outcome, although a detailed analysis of voters is needed to confirm it. The voting rates spiked during the morning and evening rush hours ― an indication that a large number of white-collar workers were at the polls. Their voting helped raise the total turnout to 49.1 percent of the eligible voters, up 3.9 percentage points from the 2008 general elections.

What the rival political parties will have to do now is develop strategies for the main events ― the parliamentary and presidential elections, respectively scheduled for April and December next year. The last thing the opposition party can afford to do is read too much into the Bundang B electorate’s verdict and become complacent. What the ruling party needs to do immediately is damage control, before making a fresh start.

Enhancing looks

Veteran singer Yoon Bok-hee said in an interview last week that she was afraid of watching TV these days because she sees so many entertainers who have undergone cosmetic surgery.

“With your skin yanked and bone carved, can you correctly express your emotion? With your mouth reconstructed, can you sing normally?” she asked.

The 65-year-old singer insists that a truly dedicated actor or singer should consider his or her body as the “original stage” for their performance. Yoon, who started her singing career at the age of 5, admonishes today’s entertainers against trying to change that sacred part of their art.

Yet, we wonder how many young performers will listen to Yoon’s advice. Images on TV convince people every day that beauty in this country is being “standardized” as it becomes increasingly difficult to tell one actress from another. The many doctors at aesthetic clinics in Seoul’s Gangnam district have done a great job in this national rush for appearance enhancement, which is not confined to the world of entertainment.

In Apgujeong-dong and Sinsa-dong in Gangnam-gu, some sections in the busy commercial streets are almost exclusively occupied by cosmetic surgery clinics. Their billboards line the walls of subway stations.

Of the 1,313 plastic or cosmetic surgery clinics licensed in Korea, Seoul has 607, of which 369, or 28 percent of the national total, are crammed together in Gangnam-gu. Reconstruction of disfigurement takes up only 5 percent of their work. The rest is devoted to eyelid surgery, breast implants, nose jobs and so on.

The number of medical establishments specializing in aesthetic plastic surgery has showed a sharp rise over the past decade. In Seoul, they account for 15 percent of the total 70,000 hospitals and clinics, with the relative decline in the proportion of other divisions of surgery: there are only 927 places offering cardiothoracic treatments, for example, according to 2010 statistics. A similar phenomenon is seen in Busan and other large cities.

If these clinics help increase national GDP through foreign clients from China, Japan and Southeast Asia, the cosmetic surgery boom calls for deep contemplation about certain uncomfortable trends in Korea. It reflects the increasingly tough competition in our society, particularly among the younger generation, and their inclination to seek better opportunities by improving their appearance.

Corporate policies emphasizing human relations potential in the recruitment of employees drive many job seekers to visit cosmetic surgery clinics. Applicants believe they can receive better scores in interviews with impressive physical features usually associated with better social acceptance. Young people would also like to enhance their appearance for their search for a romantic partner.

We are concerned that the ages of cosmetic surgery clients are getting younger, to include high school students, who are inevitably influenced by the “appearance first-ism” of adults. Wearing makeup is prohibited in secondary schools but even primary school students are reported to be carrying foundation creams and colored cosmetics that they use surreptitiously.

Commercial promotion by competition-pressured clinics affects young minds that lack self-confidence. Serious thought should be given to measures to discourage this, such as heavy taxes on revenues from aesthetic surgery or banning advertisements for such services.

The compelling problem is that so many young people spend their precious time and money in improving their physical appearance, possibly at the expense of developing more important inner assets. Yoon Bok-hee’s criticism needs to be echoed beyond the entertainment world.

EDITORIAL : THE AZZAMAN, IRAQ

China’s Shanghai Electric wins $900 million power contract in Iraq

China’s Shanghai Electric Group, a multinational power generation company, has won a $924 million contract for the construction of four power generators at Iraq’s al-Zubaidiya power plant, according to Electricity Minister Raad Shallal.

The minister said the new agreement will add 1,220 megawatts to Zubaidiya, boosting the plant’s total capacity 2,540 megawatts, he said.

Initially, the Chinese were to construct four 330-megawatt thermal generators at the site, the minister said, adding that the new agreement calls for the construction of two more thermal generators each capable of producing 610 megawatts.

Once completed, the  Zubaidiya thermal power plant will be the largest in the country.

“The new contract represents a gigantic leap in Electricity Ministry’s contracts. Thermal power plants are the backbone of the national grid,” the minister said.

EDITORIAL : RFI english, FRANCE

 

 

French press review

 

National reconciliation is going to be tough in Côte d'Ivoire, says Alassane Ouattara. Unemployment falls a little in France. Place your bets on the length of Kate's train and the sex of her progeny. And a certain lack of comradely relations in the French Socialist Party.

Côte d'Ivoire's president, Alassane Ouattara, is interviewed by Catholic paper La Croix.

Ouattara admits that the task of national reconciliation will be tougher than that of reconstruction.

On the ground in the commercial capital Abidjan, things seem to be getting back to normal, at least if the traffic jams are anything to go by.

But in the western suburb of Yopougon, the former centre of resistance by Gbagbo supporters, the after-effects of the struggle for the presidency are still being felt.

Ouattara has promised to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, along the lines of the South African model, within the next two weeks. He says the vast majority of Ivorians now simply want to settle down and live in peace.

There's good news on the front pages of both Le Figaro and business daily Les Echos. Apparently, there are fewer people out of work here in France, the number looking for jobs declining for the third month in succession.

But there are still 2,680,000 people without jobs here in France.

There probably aren't too many English bookmakers out of work, and that's thanks to tomorrow's royal wedding in London.

You can bet your last farthing on how long Kate will keep William waiting at the altar, or how long the train on her dress will be, or whether or not she will get the order of his many names and titles correct in announcing her vows.

There's also the question of whether brother Harry, who will make the after-dinner speech, will be sober enough to keep it all suitable for royal ears. And if that's not enough to be getting on with, you can bet on the sex and the birth-date of the couple's first child.

Ladbrokes have already taken in 1.13 billion euros, more than ten times their usual income for a major sporting event.

Barack Obama is on the front page of Le Figaro, brandishing his birth certificate. Conservative groups have recently been suggesting that he has no right to be president of the United States, because he is not a US citizen.

Well, they were wrong. Birth certificate 10,641 issued by the state of Hawaii on 4 August 1961 proves that the man is perfectly entitled to live in the White House.

There are socialists, lots of them, on the front page of leftist Libération. You will understand that the French Socialist Party will, next October, hold a primary election with a view to allowing paid-up party members choose who should be the Socialist candidate in next year's presidential election.

If that sounds complicated, you should look at the way the lads and lassies are tearing into one another at party meetings.

Latest round: Frank Hollande is accused of low punching by launching his campaign for the party nomination without warning the other main contenders.

He's now just two points behind Socialist boss, Martine Aubry, in the opinion polls, but he's trailing Dominique Strauss-Khan, the man who may not actually run, by nearly 20 points.

Aubry's people are fighting back, describing Hollande as the most right-wing of left-wing candidates. Ouch!

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE TEHRAN TIMES, IRAN

Persian Press Review

Tehran Times Political Desk

This column features excerpts from editorials, commentaries, interviews, and news articles of the leading Iranian newspapers and websites.

Wednesday’s headlines

KAYHAN: New price of bread in Tehran Province announced

JAME JAM: Referendum to be held about removing zeros from the national currency, central bank governor announces

HAMSHAHRI: Majlis approves draft of national budget bill

JAVAN: A new case against Mehdi Hashemi (son of Rafsanjani) is on judiciary desk

TAFAHOM: 67 countries will participate in Tehran book fair

HEMAYAT: Rafsanjani says the main goal of subsidy reform plan should not be ignored

MELLATEMA: Political dispute between Iran and Bahrain; Bahrain expels the second secretary of the Iranian embassy

MELLATEMA: IRGC economic contracts are transparent, commander says

FARHIKHTEGAN: Medvedev will return the Kremlin’s ‘key’ to Putin

GODS: Russia to sell Tupolev aircraft Tu-204SM to Iran

SHARQ: We will turn supermarkets into gold coin dealers if necessary, central banker says

IRAN: New plan to curb rising house rent prices

Leading articles

JAVAN in a news report quotes Ayatollah Seyyed Hashem Hosseini Bushehri as saying that enemies will take the dream of dual power in Iran to the grave. The enemies are seeking to find an issue in order to blow it out of proportion and launch a propaganda campaign, he said in an indirect reference to the row created over the resignation of the intelligence and the Supreme Leader’s opposition to the resignation. Hosseini Bushehri, a member of the Assembly of Experts, said through such ploys the enemies are trying very hard to deflect the public attention from the Islamic awakening movements in the Middle East and North Africa to unimportant things. The member of the Assembly of Experts also said as the Supreme Leader said, the concept of dual power which is raised by the enemies is unfounded. He went on to say that experience shows that whenever the governments (successive administrations) have come to power through public support, they have succeeded to achieve their goals with the backing of the Leadership.

MELLATEMA in an opinion piece says the story of two patients - who were abandoned by a state-run hospital’s ambulance in a farmland around Tehran as they had not been able to afford hospital costs - is not something which can be easily ignored. This issue casts doubt on the commitments of the health bodies in fulfilling their responsibilities towards patients. The incident has also raised great concern over how patients are being treated in medical centers. The writer in his article titled “What Will the Woman Minister Do?” goes on to say that people including those who have witnessed such an incident have the right to scold health ministry directors and seek punishment for them. When the staff of a hospital who have become oblivious of their humane and professional job and carry two patients - who reportedly were suffering from bone fractions and burnings – to outside the hospital and abandon them outside the city then how people should think about the commitment of the health ministry officials and the chairmen of these hospitals. The writer also says it is expected that the Majlis form a committee to launch a probe into the performance of the public-funded health sector to find out about the culture of responsibility by health workers and prevent the occurrence of such incidents.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

                          


It's decision time on semi-state sell off

THE attack by ESB chief executive Padraig McManus on the McCarthy report's observations on his company is one for students of accountancy. It appears to centre on how to treat the cost of giving extra years' pension entitlement to workers who avail of early retirement.

Or perhaps not. The best the non-accountant can say is that ESB pensions are very generous, but won't be as generous in the future. The significant thing is not the argument, but that it is about the only discussion we have had since the report was published. It adds to a palpable sense of inaction; in stark contract to the promises that the first 100 days of the new government would be ones of shock and awe.

Things are not helped by the spectacle of that most discredited of political activities, elections to the Seanad. It may have been impractical to try to cancel or postpone the elections, but they should be occurring in the context of firm evidence that they will be the last of their kind.

Opinions can vary as to whether there should be a senate or not. Hardly anyone believes that it should continue as it is, but more and more it is beginning to feel that, after all, it might.

For its part, the McCarthy report provides an analytical framework for policy on state companies. There is as yet no sense of any government policy to which that analysis could be applied. The ESB boss cut right to the chase on that one. If the purpose is to sell state assets to raise money, there is no reason not to get on with it. He also put a market value of around €6bn on the ESB, which indicates that perhaps considerable sums could be raised. In which case, it is difficult to know what is the sense of government suggestions that sales will be limited to €2bn.

Alternatively, the purpose might be to make the state companies more efficient so that they make a greater contribution to the economy. Whatever the merits of Mr McManus's points yesterday, the evidence of the report is that too much of the contribution of state companies goes to their employees, and not enough to the community in general.

The most important thing, though, is a decision on the purpose of policies for the semi-state sector, and the sooner the better.

All are equal in the eyes of the law

THE essence of victimisation or intimidation is that someone is picked upon and treated more harshly than others. It is therefore right and proper that the independence of judges is protected from governments trying to put financial pressure on them.

That, without doubt, is the purpose of the provision in the Constitution which prevents a government interfering with judicial pay. But there is something seriously wrong if this is taken to mean that judges are not to be treated in the same way as everyone else.

That is the mirror image of victimisation -- favouritism. It might be more dangerous if government were able to pick on the judiciary, but it is just as improper if the judges cease to be citizens and subject to the same rules as everyone else.

No doubt most judges would agree with that. The difficulty comes when the principle has to be put into practice.

The wrong methods could provide some future government with a precedent for specifically targeting judicial earnings as a way of pressuring the courts. But a right method will have to be found. It is unacceptable that judges decide whether they wish to take on the same burdens imposed on others.

Any review of judges' pay will have to keep this principle in mind. It may be that an independent mechanism will be needed, to keep politicians' hands out of the judicial pockets. Its purpose, however, is clear; to ensure that, at the end of such a process, the judges will be treated the same as every other public servant; neither worse -- nor better.

It does not make things any easier that the final arbiters of any such process will be judges. No-one else can determine whether the constitution has been observed. But, as the saying goes, that's what they're paid for.

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

Grim future for Thai netizens

Civil rights groups, advocates for freedom of expression, online media and netizens are all up in arms against the new computer crime bill which will replace the existing law that has been in force since July 18, 2007. They have a good reason to fear and despise the new law, which they believe will make the current legislation, already condemned as repressive, seem mild in comparison.

Evidence abounds as to how bad the current Computer Crime Act is. Ever since the law came into force four years ago, many tens of thousands of websites and web pages have been cached, blocked, blacklisted or shut down by the chief law enforcer, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology.

Worse, many people have been arrested on lese majeste charges, with the most celebrated case being that of  Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of Prachathai online media. Her case is still pending in court but has already been heavily criticised by both local and international rights organisations.

The country's first computer crime law originated from a controversial videoclip posted on YouTube which was seen as offensive to the monarchy by the government of Surayud Chulanont. Despite the government's requests to have the clip in question removed, YouTube declined, prompting the government to draft the law which clamps down on internet usage. The consequences of the repressive law are already well-known and hurtfully felt as far as freedom of expression in the cyber world is concerned.

It should not be surprising why the first computer crime law sought to restrict free expression on the internet as it was crafted by a military-appointed government. After all, state censorship in the national interest, real or perceived, has always been the mindset of the military establishment. But for a democratically-elected government _ like the present one led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva which pledged strong support for freedom of expression _ to introduce a more repressive law to control internet use is quite deplorable.

Indeed, why do we need a new computer crime law? Are the tens of thousands of websites and web pages that have been closed, blocked or blacklisted not high enough already for the ICT Ministry?

Respected professor Nidhi Eeo-seewong of Midnight University has pointed out that the public has not had any say in the entire process of the new law's formation _ from the drafting, deliberating and passing into law by Parliament. There has not been a single public hearing to allow members of the public to share their opinions as required for a law that has such a serious impact on the population.

It appears the law was drafted in haste and behind closed doors by a handful of bureaucrats with the obsolete conviction that ``tight control'' is the best defence against misuse of the internet and for the protection of the revered institution. As such, some of the provisions in the law have been drafted in such a way that merely downloading a song may be construed as an offence; or illegally possessing software such as a Word program can be construed as an offence because it could be used to write a message deemed offensive to the monarchy.

We do not need a new computer crime law. Indeed, the ICT Ministry would do us all a much greater service by refocusing its energies on developing computer software and communications technology, instead of being obsessed with internet censorship.

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Leaks reveal terrorism concern

GUANTANAMO papers show why authorities were worried.

Wikileaks documents have been paid unduly high regard by some sections of the media when the leaks have suited their particular world view. Thus when diplomatic cables revealed Australian politicians routinely met with US diplomats to discuss politics, the Fairfax press breathlessly reported "Yanks in the ranks". But when the information in leaked documents doesn't suit a pre-ordained agenda, some seek to contest or downplay the information. The truth is, of course, the information contained in leaked diplomatic cables and other documents needs to be judged on its merits.

The latest revelations are documents relating to Guantanamo Bay and, in particular, the two Australian detainees, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, which have been incongruously discounted by some. The documents do contain some obvious errors, but they also provide an insight into allegations and evidence assembled by the US about these two detainees.

The documents are not primary intelligence material, but rather summaries relating to each man, so clearly errors could have been made in their compilation. In fact, there is not a great deal of information contained in the leaks that was not already on the public record through previous legal proceedings and statements. The most concerning new revelation is that "under extreme duress" in his native Egypt Mr Habib had admitted to planning a Qantas plane hijacking. This is perturbing both because of the startling allegation, which Mr Habib later recanted and still denies, and because the reference to duress lends weight to Mr Habib's claim that he was tortured by Egyptian authorities.

Seen in toto the leaks explain exactly why the US and Australian authorities were interested in these men. Charges were not laid against Mr Habib and he was returned to Australia a free man. After a range of charges and extended legal manoeuvring, Mr Hicks pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism and served the remainder of his sentence in Australia before being released.

The Australian maintains doubts about the military commission process and the extended delays in administering justice at Guantanamo Bay. While the Australian government must maintain its vigilance on security matters, it must also do all it can to ascertain exactly what happened to Mr Habib while he was in the custody of the Egyptian authorities. 

Accounting for classroom cash

BUT good schools need much more than funding reform.

Just as clear and accurate information on teacher performance is essential to education, so sound public policy demands transparent funding of both public and private schools. As education minister, Julia Gillard provided parents with essential information on classroom performance by creating the My School website. But we still do not have a straightforward funding formula and the Gillard government was right to appoint business leader David Gonski to review how federal money for schools is allocated.
While the states are primarily responsible for public education, Canberra contributes 42 per cent of private school income, based on formulas that inconsistently apply historic and current classroom costs and a community's capacity to pay. One of the most contentious funding mechanisms assesses a school's resources on the basis of census data that shows the household incomes on the streets where students live, rather than their family incomes. This creates anomalies in inner-city areas, where low- and high-income families can live near each other, and the remote bush, where rich farming families who send their children to boarding school are assessed as if they earned only as much as their farm-hand neighbours. Another issue is the need for funding to take account of the cost of educating children with disabilities and from disadvantaged families. These are generally above the average, whether students are in private or, more commonly, public classrooms.
But, whatever changes the Gonski Review recommends, it is important we reject public education activists who argue tax money must not go to non- government schools. For a start, state funds should follow the student, and private school parents already pay hefty premiums. Just as important, quality education is not only about funding, it is also about empowering school communities. Schools where principals have the power to hire and fire staff, to reward great teachers and encourage others can outperform their peers. Such reforms, generally opposed by union officials in state school systems, can do more than additional spending that cuts class sizes by one or two students. Certainly, we need fair shares of available public funding for all schools -- but what occurs in them does not always depend on money.

Boom or bust? Mixed messages for taxpayers

SPENDING cuts are needed in state capitals and Canberra.

Budget season is upon us and the Australian people could be forgiven for being a little confused by the mixed economic messages being sent their way. Unemployment is at such an historic low that we debate how close we are to full employment, and policy-makers are grappling with measures to lure people out of their homes or away from welfare into the workforce to relieve our skills shortage. Our dollar is more valuable than the greenback, boosting our export income and generating historically beneficial terms of trade. The drought has broken across most of the continent (West Australians still look to the skies in hope), leading to a boost in the agriculture outlook. We have run out of superlatives to describe the dimensions of the resources boom, the investments it will bring and the income it will generate for workers and government revenue. Yet, for all this optimism, taxpayers are being softened up for budgetary hardship.

In Victoria and NSW, incoming Coalition governments have "discovered" budget black holes and are using them to explain the need to trim spending. In Canberra, Wayne Swan has found a dark lining even on the clear skies of the mining boom, claiming it won't generate the tax revenue of previous upturns.

As in most economic arguments, there is a grain of truth to support every claim. Premiers Ted Baillieu and Barry O'Farrell are right to look at the underlying structure of their budgets and curtail their spending to reach genuine budgetary balance. Yet some of their claims stretch the argument. Mr Baillieu, for instance, complains BER allocations for new school infrastructure has left him short by not funding the building maintenance. This is like being gifted a car and complaining about the lack of petrol vouchers. For all its waste and mismanagement, the BER program must have saved the states some capital expenditure, and the maintenance costs cannot be overly burdensome.

The expenditure side of state budgets have swollen over the past decade with public sector job and wages growth outstripping that in the private sector. This means that to structurally repair their budgets Mr Baillieu and Mr O'Farrell, and for that matter all the premiers, need to stand up to the public sector unions, particularly in the high-spending areas of health and education. Job numbers need to be curbed, particularly in non-productive parts of the bureaucracy, and wages need to be constrained to sustainable levels. All the more so because the revenue side of state budgets is increasingly restricted. The GST has the states increasingly dependent on federal funding, and that trend is set to continue, with the new mining tax perhaps removing royalty flexibility and poker machine reforms likely to reduce gambling tax revenue.

While the Treasurer might agree with the need for the states to improve their budget discipline, he must also indulge in some self-examination. He can blame some of his predicament on natural disasters and the need for GFC stimulus, but he has presided over shameful waste and locked himself into the ongoing NBN and BER, continuing expansionary spending at the same time he's looking to cut expenditure in his own budget. And, for all the talk, we have seen little real reform to improve efficiency in federal-/state relations.  

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

‘Rasa Sayange’ PM Wen

When Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao arrives in Indonesia on Thursday, we hope he will be humming “Rasa Sayange” (the feeling of love) to himself, the Indonesian folk song he learned and loved while growing up in school. That affectionate feeling between Indonesia and China is the one element that has apparently been missing in the relations between the two countries.

Robust yes, but to date, relations have been mostly, if not strictly, business. As Wen pointed out in a meeting with Indonesian journalists in Beijing this week, China-Indonesia relations date way back to the fourth Century. History, he said, has seen close links between China and Indonesia both culturally and politically, and he mentioned the 1955 Bandung conference which brought the two countries together.

Today, those relations are being underpinned more by economies of the two countries. The rise of China has been a boon to the region. Like much of the rest of the world, Indonesia has realigned its economy with this reality. China is increasingly becoming its main trading partner and also an important source of investment. Indonesia is now supplying energy resources, processed and semi-processed natural resources, which China needs to keep its economic momentum.

Closer cooperation will ensure not only our common prosperity, but also that of the rest of Asia and the world. China and Indonesia, along with India, are emerging Asian markets that now lead in global economic recovery. But with this growing economic size and power comes greater responsibility.

This takes us to the question of cooperation in other areas, among the most important of which is the security of the region. Indonesia, through its chairmanship of ASEAN this year, is pushing the concept of “dynamic equilibrium” in which no single country dominates and in which everyone engages in a peaceful and mutually beneficial way.

Prime Minister Wen’s visit provides a golden opportunity for the two countries to strengthen ties even further. He and host President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono need to address some urgent problems such as Indonesia’s grievance over the implementation of the ASEAN-China free trade agreement (ACFTA), and international concerns about maritime security in the South China Sea.

We welcome Prime Minister Wen’s assertion that China and Indonesia need to engage through dialogue to build mutual trust. We cannot think of a more fitting greeting than singing “Rasa Sayange”

EDITORIAL : THE NEW STRAITS TIMES, MALAYSIA

Bridging the gulf

UNDER a deal brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council, a coalition of seven opposition parties has agreed to a plan under which Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh would step down within 30 days and hand over power temporarily to his deputy until new presidential elections can be held. If the accord is signed and the transfer of power proceeds as planned, this would be a significant step towards resolving the political deadlock in Yemen in a peaceful and orderly manner. But the problem, of course, is that this is far from being a done deal. For one thing, though the embattled president has agreed to transfer power, he said it should be carried out through ballot boxes and referendums -- hardly the words of a man who is ready to pack his bags and make his exit. Moreover, the opposition is anything but united. What is clear is that the opposition coalition does not have authority over the protesters or other political and tribal factions. Protests continue to rock cities throughout Yemen. On Monday, government forces fired at protesters, killing three at three separate rallies. Neither does the official opposition speak for the protesters who are not prepared to countenance any deal which protects the president from persecution.

Given the blood that has been shed and the level of anger, the implacable demand that the president gives up power at once without the guarantee of immunity is understandable. And so is the lack of trust that the president will keep his promises. After all, Saleh has repeatedly backtracked on pledges to step down and continues to cling to office. In fact, an agreement which gives a Parliament packed with the president's men the authority to accept or reject his resignation is not a comforting assurance that it could finally lead to the end of his 32-year rule. Clearly, forming a unity government will be made more difficult as the opposition coalition has expressed reservations about its terms.

Nevertheless, though not all the terms and conditions are acceptable to all, it is critical that all support this commendable effort at a peaceful solution by the Gulf states. Whatever the scepticism about the credibility of the political transition, it is important to give the peace plan a chance. There is nothing to lose by putting demonstrations on hold and giving Saleh one final chance to prove he will keep his word and step down. It is hoped that all sides will step back from the brink and make the effort to bridge the gulf that has separated them and spilled so much blood.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

No dividing line

Click to enlarge

 
With several allies of Noynoy Aquino — coming from the executive, legislative and even local executives, once allies of Gloria Arroyo when she was in power and position — being charged by the Ombudsman’s office for plunder and graft, how would the Malacañang tenant handle this, especially since these complaints on the P728-million fertilizer fund scam will likely be elevated before the Sandiganbayan?
Already, Speaker Sonny Belmonte quickly reacted by claiming that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had these charges filed against certain congressmen in her bid to weaken the impeachment charges against her and he said he does not consider this move as retaliatory on her part.
Said he: “The members of the House are already out of this, since we have voted on it. I look at it as a move to defang one of the impeachment charges, which is related to the fertilizer scam,” adding that the fact that it took seven years after the 2004 fertilizer scam to come up with this charge “only proves that there was prolonged delay of action,” which is also a charge leveled against Merci by the House.
But shouldn’t the logical reaction be — since Noynoy and his allies keep on claiming that they are the “good” and all the rest are “evil” — to applaud the fact that finally, the law is catching up on all those who got a share of the fertilizer fund to help finance their 2004 election bid?
Does it matter if these charges have been delayed? And does it really matter if this move is meant by Merci to defang one of the impeachment charges? After all, no matter the charges leveled against Merci for her impeachment trial, everything should depend on how well, or how badly the House prosecutors prove their case, and how well or how badly Merci defends herself and disproves the charges against her — that is, if the senator-judges decide on the merits of the case, and not be influenced by political partisanship or even the so-called public opinion, because in the end, what may be claimed to be public opinion may only reflect the opinion of the noisy Yellows. In then sitting president Joseph Estrada’s impeachment and the Edsa II elite mob rule, removing him through a coup was not the popular public opinion, as gleaned from the Edsa III revolt.
Noynoy’s mouthpiece, Edwin Lacierda, had a different reaction, calling on the Office of the Ombudsman to exercise caution in naming government officials it said were liable in the fertilizer fund scam, pointing out that even Noynoy had been unfairly included as among its recipients.
“I don’t know if that list (of respondents for plunder) is vetted. The Ombudsman should study and scrutinize it further. Investigators should vet the names of persons, whoever they may be,” Lacierda was quoted as saying.
Yet it was also clear in all the reports that the Ombudsman’s Office had already made clear that Noynoy, although listed, was not a recipient of the fertilizer fund scam as it was Joc-Joc’s list.
Budget Secretary Butch Abad, along with Neric Acosta and other Liberal Party mates of Noynoy were also listed. Acosta already has a case before the Sandiganbayan for graft. This would be the second one.
The truth is, all of these congressmen listed — whether they got their share of the fertilizer fund scam, or appear merely on the list of Joc-joc Bolante — were then all the allies of Gloria, and even when they knew all these were irregular, they nevertheless kept their trap shut. They even knew at that time that there was massive electoral cheating in 2004, and they kept the lid on this, precisely because Gloria was their candidate, and they wanted to make sure she stayed in Malacañang, so that they, her allies, could continue to enjoy power and privilege.
Even Noynoy was her ally and he certainly was part of that “protecting Gloria” caper. Never once did he speak against her and her regime; never once did he denounce the many charges of graft and corruption in her regime, despite the many scandals in which she and her regime were embroiled.
How can they who claim to be “good” be good and clean when they came from “evil,” and the corruption connected with it?
There does not appear to be any dividing line bteween good and evil, after all.

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

             

 

The economy: Flatlining

UK plc has made back the income it lost – nothing more. This does not count as a recovery; it is more of a stabilisation

The following statement sounds unbelievable, yet it is true: yesterday, the GDP report confirmed that the UK economy has essentially flatlined since autumn; David Cameron described it as "good news". The inevitable question arises: what would the prime minister consider bad news? Because even Doctor Pangloss would struggle to greet that grim GDP release with a smile.

The line the government is keen to push about yesterday's report is that the economy grew 0.5% in the first three months of this year. Yes, not everything is picture-perfect, but manufacturing is going great guns, and the service sector is not far behind. And even if the figures show construction falling off a cliff, the statisticians might well be wrong. This is the story that Mr Cameron brought out at prime minister's questions yesterday; the first problem with it is that it is flatly contradicted by the chief statistician at the Office for National Statistics, Joe Grice, who yesterday morning described the economy as having been "on a plateau" since last summer. Yes, national income rose 0.5% in the three months to the end of March – but it slumped 0.5% in last winter's terrible snow. So all that has happened is that UK plc has made back the income it lost – nothing more. This does not count as a recovery; it is more of a stabilisation.

The second problem with Mr Cameron's story is that these figures are disappointing even by the reckoning of his own Office for Budget Responsibility. Just last month, the OBR – which now supplies the Treasury's macroeconomic forecasts – predicted that the economy would have grown 0.8% in the first quarter. There is more behind this than just a clash of numbers: the UK is actually underperforming. Two years out of a recession, the economy should be powering ahead, in a classic V-shaped recovery. Instead of which, the economy is limping along in what looks more like an L-shaped journey.

To reiterate, these figures are for the period from January to March – that is, before George Osborne's austerity programme began in earnest this month. They show the impact of this January's increase in VAT but not the other tax rises and spending cuts that have only just kicked in. This picture then is of an economy already in a perilously weak condition even before Whitehall, town halls and other parts of the public sector started making their biggest cuts. Against this backdrop, many Treasury ministers would be thinking about changing their strategy. Mr Osborne has yet to produce a Plan B – despite calls from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others. Yesterday, Jonathan Portes, former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, reiterated his call for "scaling back" the "fiscal overkill". Mr Portes worked in a senior policymaking capacity with coalition ministers until recently; his intervention deserves to be taken very seriously.

Instead of which, the government talks about the need for a growth strategy and unveils changes to the planning laws. The problem with this is threefold. One, the greatest threat to the economy at the moment is of insufficient demand – of families not buying things (for fear of job losses) and businesses not investing. Fiddling with what economists call the supply side will not help with that. Two, under Thatcher and Blair there have already been successive "bonfires of the red tape" and all the rest. And three, any payback from these reforms is likely to take a long time to materialise. What is needed now is another shot of government spending, or at least an easing of the spending cuts; but that is a political impossibility, given Mr Osborne's rhetoric that any such thing would be reckless.

Meanwhile, unemployment continues to rise and wage rises are not keeping pace with high inflation. Cabinet colleagues of Mr Osborne report him remarking that the economy is broadly "on the right track". What would he consider the wrong track?

David Petraeus: Born in the USA

Unlike his president, the general is already the closest thing to an all-American hero

David Petraeus, the son of a Dutch sea captain who emigrated to the US after the second world war, has no need to produce his birth certificate to prove that he was born in the USA. Unlike his president, the general is already the closest thing to an all-American hero. The Republican nomination in 2016 could be his for the taking and, to this end, a stint heading the CIA – widely trailed yesterday – would do his political ambitions no harm. Articulate, charming and driven – the 58-year-old can still outrun his marine escorts around Hyde Park – this philosopher king is adept at marketing his own brand.

Whether that story is quite the star-studded success that Gen Petraeus's CV suggests is less clear. Widely credited with turning the war in Iraq around, he was in charge of two disasters, the capture of Mosul in 2003, only to lose it to insurgents nine months later, and the training of Iraq's army, a process that involved the disappearance at one stage of its procurement budget. Neither is the war in Afghanistan going according to the counter-insurgency rule book that he rewrote. He is due in Washington this week to present his plans for the troop reductions which are scheduled for July. The draw down of US troops is expected to be modest and will be spread over a longer period, a reflection of how hesitant the Pentagon are about the territorial gains made in Helmand and Kandahar.

The flaw of the strategy he has been pursuing is a political one. After all this time, there is still no state strong enough to occupy the areas that US troops have been clearing and holding. Local support is tentative and conditional. The handover of US military control to an Afghan one will still mean replacing one set of foreign troops with another. The percentage of southern Pashtuns in the Afghan National Army is small. State-building is proving to be patchy and conditional. And the insurgency always has another card up its sleeve – the mass prison break, the infiltration of the Afghan security forces, the multitude of soft targets. The most potent recruiter for the insurgency is the presence of foreign troops on Afghan soil, and that will not change soon. If Gen Petraeus's move to the CIA means that the policy will be less military-led, and that a clear political strategy will start to emerge, then this is to be welcomed. But no one should be holding their breath.

The other major move expected to be announced today is that of Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, to the position of defence secretary. Robert Gates, who is retiring, served as a senior cabinet member in both Republican and Democrat administrations. The Democrats needed him, but it is also a testament to his experience and realism. Alas, his advice that the US should stay out of Libya was ignored.

In praise of ... Wittgenstein

A newly discovered archive will illuminate his relationships as well as the emergence of his later thought

Solving the problems of philosophy once is quite something, but solving them twice? Now that is unique. After a spell in engineering, the young Ludwig Wittgenstein had his first go, tracing the limits of language to provide a cocksure account of what could be said with any meaning. The rest, said the last line of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, "one must pass over in silence". The author planned to do just that, packing his bags to work in an Austrian primary school. He stopped penning difficult words, and instead published a manual for children about how to spell them. But the meditative itch returned after he noticed the semantics of colour didn't fit with his grand model of meaning. He was soon back in Cambridge, with Keynes writing: "God has arrived. I met him on the 5.15 train." An otherworldly appearance fed this caricature, as did the monastic digs and the band of disciples. Wittgenstein would harangue them to quit the academy and do something useful, like grinding lenses in Omsk. A newly discovered archive from the most devoted of the devotees, Francis Skinner, will illuminate the relationships of the master's "wonderful life", as well as the emergence of his later thought. It uses weird images (beetles in boxes) and off-the-wall questions (can dogs have headaches?) to expose ontological anxieties as mere confusions, produced by entanglement in words. Ill at ease with modern life, he tried dissolving that with language too. Encountering a jukebox at the end of his life, he asked "what, pray, is a juke?"

 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

A Certificate of Embarrassment

With sardonic resignation, President Obama, an eminently rational man, stared directly into political irrationality on Wednesday and released his birth certificate to history. More than halfway through his term, the president felt obliged to prove that he was a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office. It was a profoundly low and debasing moment in American political life.

The disbelief fairly dripped from Mr. Obama as he stood at the West Wing lectern. People are out of work, American soldiers are dying overseas and here were cameras to record him stating that he was born in a Hawaii hospital. It was particularly galling to us that it was in answer to a baseless attack with heavy racial undertones.

Mr. Obama practically begged the public to set aside these distractions, expressing hope that his gesture would end the “silliness” and allow a national debate about budget priorities. It won’t, of course.

If there was ever any doubt about Mr. Obama’s citizenship, which there was not, the issue was settled years ago when Hawaii released his birth certificate. The fuller document that Mr. Obama had to request contains some extra information, including his parents’ signatures and the name of the hospital where he was born, but it was unnecessary to show his legitimacy.

So it will not quiet the most avid attackers. Several quickly questioned its authenticity. That’s because the birther question was never really about citizenship; it was simply a proxy for those who never accepted the president’s legitimacy, for a toxic mix of reasons involving ideology, deep political anger and, most insidious of all, race. It was originally promulgated by fringe figures of the radical right, but mainstream Republican leaders allowed it to simmer to satisfy those who are inflamed by Mr. Obama’s presence in the White House.

Sarah Palin said the birth certificate issue was “fair game,” and the public was “rightfully” making it an issue. The House speaker, John Boehner, grudgingly said in February that he would take Mr. Obama “at his word” that he was a citizen, a suggestion that the proof was insufficient. He said, however, that it was not his job to end the nonsensical attacks. “The American people have the right to think what they want to think,” he said at the time. That signal was clearly received. Lawmakers in nearly a dozen states introduced bills requiring presidential candidates to release their full birth certificates.

It is inconceivable that this campaign to portray Mr. Obama as the insidious “other” would have been conducted against a white president.

There was a price to the party for keeping the issue alive; inevitably, it was picked up by a cartoon candidate, Donald Trump, who rode birtherism directly to the prime-time promontories of cable TV. The Republican establishment began to wince as it became increasingly tied to Mr. Trump’s flirtations with racial provocation, and Karl Rove told him to knock it off. Naturally, he did not.

Finally, his taunting and the questions of television correspondents obliging Mr. Trump got on the president’s nerves. Mr. Obama was tactically smart to release the certificate and marginalize those who continue to keep the matter alive. It is tragic that American politics is fueled by such poisonous fire. Mr. Trump quickly moved on to a new fixation, questioning Mr. Obama’s academic credentials. Mr. Boehner, and other party leaders, have a new reason to call a halt to the politics of paranoia and intolerance. 

The Limits of Fed Policy

For too long policy decisions by the Federal Reserve were cloaked in secrecy and Alan Greenspan, the longtime chairman, was notoriously Delphic. So it was good to see the current chairman, Ben Bernanke, meeting the press on Wednesday, in the first of what are to be quarterly question-and-answer sessions. It shows that the Fed has learned, albeit the hard way, that it must build understanding and support for its policies.

For all the talk, there is little Mr. Bernanke can say, or do, to alter today’s grim economic realities. The tools the Fed has to raise or lower interest rates, are not, by themselves, going to fix what most ails the economy today: continued high unemployment; falling home prices; weak income growth; the erosion of the manufacturing sector.

Only fiscal policy can directly address those crushing problems. That requires Congress and the White House to agree on ways to raise and invest taxpayer dollars for specific programs, projects and recovery efforts.

That is not to imply, as Fed critics contend, that current Fed policy has failed. Its most controversial action — a $600 billion bond-buying program intended to keep long-term interest rates low — has succeeded in preventing a deflationary spiral and has correlated with more robust job growth. The Fed’s decision on Wednesday to continue the bond-buying program as scheduled through June, together with its decision to keep interest rates near zero for the foreseeable future, represent sensible support for a still fragile economy.

So long as fiscal policy is off the table, the economy is likely to limp along for years. The White House has some good ideas, including proposals to boost educational achievement and, importantly, to raise taxes for needed spending. A bipartisan group of senators have recently proposed creating an infrastructure bank to lend out seed money — and attract private capital — for major public works projects. But most Congressional Republicans are fixated solely on cutting federal spending as quickly as possible, and have successfully dominated debate and policy-making.

In his press conference, Mr. Bernanke emphasized the need to control the long-term budget deficit. Just as clearly, he emphasized that the best approach would be to enact a credible plan soon — to be implemented over time. If only Congress would take heed.

It is important that the Fed not prematurely raise interest rates or otherwise tighten its policy. The Fed’s ability to boost economic activity is limited. Unfortunately for now, monetary policy is the only game in town.

Recidivism’s High Cost and a Way to Cut It 

Corrections costs for the states have quadrupled in the last 20 years — to about $52 billion a year nationally — making prison spending their second-fastest growing budget item after Medicaid. To cut those costs, the states must first rethink parole and probation policies that drive hundreds of thousands of people back to prison every year, not for new crimes, but for technical violations that present no threat to public safety.

According to a new study by the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Center on the States, 43 percent of prisoners nationally return to the lockup within three years. The authors estimate that the 41 states covered in the study would reap a significant savings — $635 million in the first year — if they managed to cut their recidivism rates by just 10 percent. For California’s hugely costly prison system, that would mean $233 million in savings; for New York, $42 million; and for Texas, $33.6 million.

The study, which looked at prisoner release data in 1999 and 2004, found recidivism rates varied widely. Some of the highest rates were in California (57.8 percent) and Missouri (54.4). New York is slightly under the national average (39.9 percent). Oregon had the lowest: only 22.8 percent of inmates released in 2004 returned within three years. Crime has also declined significantly.

In the 1990s, the Oregon Legislature created a rating system that allows parole officers to employ a range of sanctions — short of a return to prison — for offenders whose infractions were minor and did not present a danger. A parolee who fails a drug test can be sent to residential drug treatment or sentenced to house arrest or community service. In 2003, the state passed a law requiring all state-financed correctional treatment programs to use methods that have been shown to improve client compliance and to reduce recidivism.

Pressured by the dismal economy, many states, including New York, are looking for ways to cut recidivism. The wise approach would be to adopt the programs that have proved so successful in Oregon.

The Duty of Counsel

We strongly oppose the federal statute known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans recognizing same-sex marriage. House Republicans should not have used taxpayer money to hire outside lawyers to defend it. But the decision of those lawyers, the law firm of King & Spalding, to abandon their clients is deplorable.

King & Spalding had no ethical or moral obligation to take the case, but in having done so, it was obliged to stay with its clients, to resist political pressure from the left that it feared would hurt its business. Paul Clement, a former solicitor general who quit as partner in King & Spalding over the decision, said, “a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters.”

Justice is best served when everyone whose case is being decided by a court is represented by able counsel.

When Brown v. Board of Education was argued almost 60 years ago, two of the great American lawyers squared off, Thurgood Marshall for the winning side of desegregation and the renowned Wall Street lawyer John Davis for the principle of separate but equal. Segregation in public schools was the law of the land then.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, remains on the books despite rulings against it. That did not mean the administration was required to defend the law, and it was right to decide to stop. But that is separate from the law firm’s action.

About twice every three terms, the justices hear a case in which one side is abandoned by a party in the lower courts. The court appoints counsel for that unpopular side, and he argues for the client as best he can. Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. expressed the court’s gratitude to the appointed lawyer in such a case. King & Spalding seems to have forgotten that ideal of advocacy.