USA: overtime pay redux

[Eubulides]

Labor Dept. Plans To End Overtime Controversy in March
Changes Will Affect Who Gets Time-and-a-Half Pay

By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 2, 2004; Page D01


The Labor Department plans to issue a controversial final rule changing
the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions by the end of March,
according to a regulatory plan published by the agency last week in the
Federal Register. The rule, which would redefine who must receive overtime
pay, has drawn opposition in the House and Senate by many Democrats and
some Republicans.

"We've said all along we hoped to have a final rule completed by the first
quarter of 2003, and that's still our plan," said Victoria A. Lipnic,
assistant secretary of labor for employment standards. She hinted that the
rules may be modified somewhat to reflect concerns raised by critics but
would not be more specific.

"We're certainly not deaf to Congress and to the debate in Congress and
what members of Congress are hearing from their constituents," Lipnic
said.

She said that the 1938 law needs to be revised and updated because the
economy today is different from when the law was enacted and that
confusion over who should qualify for overtime has led to lawsuits.
Changes in the overtime rules eventually could affect millions of workers
nationwide. About 11 million workers received overtime pay in 2002. The
administration has proposed changes that would end mandatory overtime pay
for many who now qualify but would expand overtime coverage to other
workers.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations
subcommittee on labor, health and human services, and education, said he
intends to call a hearing on the issue on Jan. 20, the day the Senate
comes back into session. He said he wants a full airing of the debate,
including testimony by employers, workers, Labor Department officials and
economists, to bring "some clarity" to the proposal.

"I believe we need a revision of the regulations, but this is a bad time
to be cutting back on overtime when so many workers are relying on
overtime for their sustenance," Specter said. He said he wonders whether
it is wise to cut workers' discretionary spending now, "given the
fragility of the economy."

Specter said his efforts to discuss the issue with Bush administration
officials had been fruitless. "I've been in touch with the White House,
but so far, there's no give," he said.

"It's really a pitched battle over a little time span," Specter said.
"That's what's happening in this legislative process."

Labor advocates have vowed to keep fighting the proposed changes, either
through legislation or litigation.

"Nothing is off the table as far as we're concerned," said Christine
Owens, the AFL-CIO's public policy director.

The Bush administration announced its plan to rewrite the Fair Labor
Standards Act in March. In the fall, both the House and Senate voted to
quash the department's proposal, which critics say could result in 8
million American workers losing their right to time-and-a-half pay when
they work more than 40 hours in a single week. Among the new rules are a
provision that would allow employers to redefine workers who hold "a
position of responsibility" as exempt from overtime. Workers earning more
than $65,000 a year could lose overtime pay under the rules.

Proskauer Rose LLP, a law firm that represents employers, has told its
clients that all the changes would be beneficial to employers.

The Labor Department says 1.3 million low-wage workers could become newly
eligible for overtime pay because the rules would update wage levels last
reviewed in 1975. Under the current rules, workers who earned less than
$8,060 a year are automatically eligible for overtime. The new rule would
raise the cap to $22,100. The Labor Department says 644,000 workers could
lose their overtime pay because of how their jobs are defined.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) sought to scuttle the Labor Department's effort
by blocking funding for implementing it, winning votes in the House and
Senate, which took the issue into the appropriations process. Under
intense pressure from the White House and the Republican leadership, which
strongly supports changing the overtime law, the language blocking the
funding was stripped from the omnibus appropriations bill. The bill passed
the House in a 242 to 176 vote in early December, paving the way for the
Labor Department to proceed with its plans. The Senate still must vote on
the final appropriations bill.

Tens of thousands of workers wrote the Labor Department to oppose the
revision, and about a quarter of a million have petitioned the White House
to try to stop it. Dozens of business trade groups support the changes and
have lobbied hard for them. Among the groups urging the Labor Department
to make the changes are the National Retail Federation, the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National
Restaurant Association and the 

Re: the political economy of oil; minor historical footnote

[Eubulides]

- Original Message -
From: "dmschanoes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


I don't know if the debate about scarcity can be settled here.

==

Our first understatement of 2004 :->


>
But the argument is repeatedly offered that oil is scarce, water is
scarce, cities
are too large, industrial farming doesn't work, etc. etc., and I think it
is
essential to clarify the issues and elements surrounding this debate, and
flatly oppose certain positions based on assumptions of scarcity.

===

Seems to me the question we need to be asking is *scarce for whom*? For
the poor, schools are scarce, medical care is scarce, violence free
communities are scarce, housing is scarce, nutritionally beneficial foods
are scarce, clean water is scarce, democratic participation is scarce,
electricity is scarce etc. etc

Let's make the polysemy of the concept work *for* our goals. For capital
only profits and passive people are scarce


Ian

China: secrecy and information economics

[Eubulides]

< http://www.feer.com >
CHINESE CREDIT RATINGS
By Joel Baglole/HONG KONG
Issue cover-dated January 08, 2004

AS INCREASING NUMBERS of Chinese companies turn to the capital market,
international credit-rating agencies are charging into China hoping to
capitalize on a huge new business opportunity. But they're operating in
such a murky atmosphere that many investors question the value of their
assessments.

Demand for credit ratings--an assessment of how willing and able a
company, bank or government is to repay its debts--is growing as more
Chinese companies list shares and issue bonds, both at home and in
international markets. The value of initial public offerings from China
has risen 45.6%, and the value of bonds issued has increased 253% in the
last five years, according to financial-data provider Thomson Corp.

The success of agencies such as Fitch Ratings, Moody's Investors Service
and Standard & Poor's in China could prove a key test of the country's
ability to develop world-class companies and capital markets. The ratings
assigned by the agencies help investors decide if a company is a risky or
safe investment. For companies, ratings can determine how costly it will
be to raise funds.

But while China is opening, it's a slow process. Faulty accounting,
evolving regulations, poor corporate governance, government interference
and a lack of transparency hamper agencies' efforts. Chinese companies
must get government permission before they can approach an agency for a
rating. And market research, a key factor to assessing sectors that
companies operate in, remains tightly controlled by Beijing.

Analysts at rating agencies say they're frustrated as China doesn't adhere
to international accounting standards, companies often don't know how to
collect certain data, publicly listed companies can be controlled by
private parent companies that aren't required to disclose financial
information and the government issues misleading economic statistics to
meet state planning targets.

"China is one large grey area," says John Bailey, director of corporate
ratings at Standard & Poor's in Hong Kong. "You have to go in with your
eyes wide open," he adds.

Yet, despite the enormous hurdles, agencies are issuing ratings in China.
So far Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's have been focusing on China's
sovereign bonds and companies listed on overseas stock exchanges, where
disclosure is better than at private enterprises. Public companies such as
China Mobile (Hong Kong) and Huaneng Power International as well as
several state-owned banks have been given investment-grade ratings.

China is a potentially lucrative market for rating agencies, with more
than 8 million corporations and 130 banks. To date, the international
agencies combined have rated less than 100 Chinese enterprises. "If they
can get their ratings well established in China, then eventually they'll
have millions of companies lining up to buy ratings from them," says
Pieter van der Schaft, director of economic research at Barclays Capital
Asia in Hong Kong.

Many analysts criticize the agencies' work in China, saying it's of little
use, based as it is on limited, often inaccurate information. "If you have
any credibility as a rating agency, you would probably be rating
everything junk in China," says Scott Kennedy, an assistant professor at
Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, who specializes in China's
political economy.

Kennedy adds that international rating agencies tend to give Chinese
institutions overly high ratings because they weigh favourably the
country's huge economic growth, low foreign debt and government support of
banks and state-owned enterprises. "They look at these factors and
conclude that the chances of a crisis emerging are low and so give them a
decent rating," he says.

Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's tie their ratings of China's banks to
the sovereign-debt ratings of the government's bonds. But executives say
they have to do this, as the country's banks are technically insolvent
with nonperforming loans accounting for as much as half their total loan
portfolios.

Institutional investors say that, given the limitations, they too are
reluctant to give much weight to credit-rating agencies' work.
"Credit-rating agencies can keep the markets and investors abreast of
ongoing structural problems in China, but in terms of data that affects
markets on a daily basis, rating agencies aren't that useful," says Brad
Aham, an Asian-equities portfolio manager at State Street Corp., who has
$2 billion invested in emerging Asian markets. "Most investors are hoping
to gain from [China's] economic growth."

Indeed, investors have shown themselves perfectly willing to charge into
China blind, even when rating agencies refuse to rate a company or bond.
In September, for example, Cosco Pacific, a Chinese container-leasing firm
that's listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, issued a $300 million
10-year bond without any rating on either the

Re: the political economy of oil; minor historical footnote

[dmschanoes]

sorry, wrong URL.  Try:

http://www.epw.org.in


dms

Re: the political economy of oil; minor historical footnote

[dmschanoes]

I've said just that at the time of OPEC 1.  But most of all the myth of oil
scarcity, and the reality of oil price rises, has been convenient in
hobbling the living standards of the working class.  1973 is marked by two
interlocked events-- OPEC 1 and the overthrow of Allende, both announcing
capital's offensive against the wage and welfare levels established from
1948-1973, and there is a quantifiable decline in the rate of profit
triggering both the specific and general maneuvers of capital.

I don't know if the debate about scarcity can be settled here.  But the
argument is repeatedly offered that oil is scarce, water is scarce, cities
are too large, industrial farming doesn't work, etc. etc., and I think it is
essential to clarify the issues and elements surrounding this debate, and
flatly oppose certain positions based on assumptions of scarcity.
Otherwise you get a discussion list that isn't, or becomes a billboard for
individuals to post their self-advertisements without engaging others,
without engaging in a real exploration of the social relations that make up
an economy, a history, a conflict.

Regarding water, 11/29/03 online issue of Economic and Political Weekly --
http://www.epw.org -- has a couple of interesting articles about the meaning
and history of water, scarcity, waste, and colonialism.

dms

Re: the political economy of oil; minor historical footnote

[Michael Perelman]

I am one who is convinced that scarcity of oil represents a crucial
bottleneck -- but not as serious as water.

I do not think that the existence of such scarcity will be decided by any
debates here.

David might have said though that my people, myself included, thought that
the oil scarcity was convenient in hobbling US's rivals -- esp. Germany
and Japan.

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: the political economy of oil; minor historical footnote

[dmschanoes]

But they, the US govt., didn't, use force that is, did they?  As a matter of
fact the oil majors experienced a miraculous recovery in their rate of
return on investment after OPEC 1, and when the Saudi royal family "decided"
to arrange for a compensated "nationalization" of Aramco, sort of like
privatization in reverse-- absorbing the infrastructure and its costs while
the oil majors skimmed the cream through marketing, downstream, contracting,
consulting, and the benefits of price increases to their upstream
operations-- did you hear one word of protest?  Were there any threats then?
Any saber rattling?

Hell no.

It is best to look at this report in context, the context of overall US
belligerence-- during the Yom Kippur war, the Israel Army was cut off in the
Sinai and threatened with real obliteration.  The US, with Schlesinger as
Sec. of Def., began a massive logistical and combat air support program,
letting it be known to the USSR and Egypt that the US would not allow the
destruction of the Israeli Army (think it was the 8th) and would undertake
direct combat missions if necessary.

We know what happened next.



dms

the political economy of oil; minor historical footnote

[Eubulides]

[happy new year penner's]


U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73
British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, January 1, 2004; Page A01


LONDON, Dec. 31 -- The United States gave serious consideration to sending
airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi
during the 1973 Arab oil embargo, according to a top-secret British
intelligence memorandum released Wednesday night.

The document, titled "Middle East -- Possible Use of Force by the United
States," says that if there were deteriorating conditions such as a
breakdown of the cease-fire between Arab and Israeli forces following the
October 1973 Middle East war or an intensification of the embargo, "we
believe the American preference would be for a rapid operation conducted
by themselves" to seize the oil fields.

It cites a warning from Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger to the
British ambassador in Washington, Lord Cromer, that the United States
would not tolerate threats from "under-developed, under-populated"
countries and that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States
could not use force."

Seizure of the oil fields, the memo says, was "the possibility uppermost
in American thinking [and] has been reflected, we believe, in their
contingency planning."

The document, dated Dec. 13, 1973, and sent to Prime Minister Edward Heath
by Percy Cradock, head of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee, goes on
to discuss the likely scenario for an American invasion, how Britain could
assist the United States and how Arab nations and the Soviet Union were
likely to respond.

Arab members of OPEC imposed the embargo on the United States and other
Western countries in October to try to force them to compel Israel to
withdraw from Arab territories. The embargo, which lasted until March
1974, cut off only 13 percent of U.S. oil imports but caused steep
gasoline price hikes in the United States, Europe and Japan.

U.S. officials at the time hinted that retaliation was possible but did
not describe the form it might take. At a news conference on Nov. 21,
1973, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger declared: "It is clear that if
pressures continue unreasonably and indefinitely, then the United States
will have to consider what countermeasures it may have to take."

In his memoir "Years of Upheaval," Kissinger added, "These were not empty
threats. I ordered a number of studies from the key departments on
countermeasures against Arab members of OPEC if the embargo continued. By
the end of the month, several contingency studies had been completed."

Neither Kissinger nor Schlesinger, contacted through aides, responded to
requests for comment.

The British document -- one of hundreds released by Britain's National
Archives in an annual disclosure of government papers that are 30 years
old -- goes beyond previous accounts in describing what the
countermeasures might have been. It assesses as unworkable such options as
replacement of Arab rulers with "more amenable" leaders or assembling a
show of force. Instead, it describes an airborne military operation as the
most feasible alternative, although "a move of last resort."

"The initial force need not be large," the document states, adding, "We
estimate that the force required for the initial operation would be on the
order of two brigades, one for the Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and
possibly a third for Abu Dhabi." After the initial assault, it adds, "the
remainder of the force which might eventually amount to two divisions
could be flown in from the United States."

"The area would have to be securely held probably for a period of some 10
years," it concludes.

In Saudi Arabia, it says, "the operation could be fairly straightforward,"
with U.S. forces facing only a "lightly armed national guard battalion at
Dharan" and a U.S.-made Hawk surface-to-air-missile battery. In Kuwait, it
says, "operational problems are greater" because the Kuwaitis had
stationed about 100 tanks near the airport. While the Saudis and Kuwaitis
might attempt to sabotage oil wells and terminals, the memo concludes, oil
could be flowing within weeks of occupation.

One complication, it notes, was that British officers were stationed in
Abu Dhabi. "For this reason alone the Americans might ask the U.K. to
undertake this particular operation," it says.

The document notes that military action could trigger a confrontation with
the Soviet Union, lead to a long occupation of Arab territory and deeply
alienate Arab and Third World public opinion. But it discounted the
possibility that the Soviet Union would use military force against a U.S.
invasion, saying it would seek instead to make political and propaganda
capital from the move.

"The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise
in Kuwait where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to
intervene," it says, presaging Iraqi President Saddam Hussei

Haunted Land (Dir. Mary Ellen Davis)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

*   Haunted Land

Canada-Guatemala 2001, 74 minutes

Two paths cross on a descent into Guatemala's past: that of Mateo
Pablo, Maya survivor of one of many massacres that took place during
the country's recent civil war, and Daniel Hernández-Salazar,
Guatemalan artist and photographer whose work grapples with local
human rights violations.
Dos destinos se cruzan en el sendero de la memoria histórica de
Guatemala: Mateo Pablo, sobreviviente maya de una de las numerosas
masacres perpetuadas durante la reciente guerra civil, y Daniel
Hernández-Salazar; artista y fotógrafo guatemalteco cuyas obras
escrutan y denuncian las violaciones de los derechos humanos.
Together they travel to a remote site in the highlands where the
community of Petanac once stood. Mateo grew up and lived there until
1982, when his family and neighbours were tortured and murdered by
the Guatemalan army, whose soldiers later burned Petanac to the
ground.
Viajando juntos por el altiplano, visitan el lugar que había ocupado
la comunidad maya de Petanac. En ese lugar experimentó un vuelco la
vida de Mateo, cuando en 1982 el ejército guatemalteco torturó y
asesinó a su familia y a sus vecinos dejando el pueblo reducido a
cenizas.
Today, nothing has been forgotten. At Petanac and other Maya
communities across Guatemala survivors gather to bear witness as
forensic experts unearth the mass graves of their loved ones. The
bones found in clandestine cemeteries tell their own mute story of
agony and terror, once the dirt and dust have been patiently removed
by teams of archaeologists. A story far removed from the treasures of
ancient Maya culture.
Sin embargo, la memoria persiste. En las comunidades mayas los
sobrevivientes de las masacres se reúnen alrededor de las fosas
cavadas por los equipos forenses; los arqueólogos desentierran
pacientemente los huesos de los desaparecidos en lugar de tesoros de
la antigua cultura maya. Una vez descubiertas, las osamentas cuentan
su propia historia muda de agonía y de terror.
"A moving work, and a great testimony to break the silence about the
genocide in Guatemala."
- Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Nobel Peace Prize winner
"Una conmovedora obra, y un gran testimonio para seguir rompiendo el
silencio sobre el genocidio en Guatemala."
- Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Premio Nobel de la Paz
Avec la participation de Mateo Pablo, Daniel Hernández-Salazar,
Gabriela Santos, Sarah Baillargeon, les survivants de Petanac,
PAQG, ODHA, FAFG et FAMDEGUA
image Guillermo Escalón - son Cristobal Urbina
oeuvres photographiques Daniel Hernández-Salazar
montage Sol Millán, Mary Ellen Davis - montage sonore Paul Gauthier
musique originale Stephen de Oliveira
archives Lancerio Lopez (ODHA), José Vásquez, Sergio Alfaro, Carlos
Martínez Suárez
Productions B'alba en coproduction avec PRIM (bourse documentaire
d'auteur à risque PRIM)
Avec le soutien de: ACDI, FCFVI, CALQ , SODEC.
Premio Lanza de Amaru Siona 2001, IV Festival de la Serpiente, Quito, Ecuador
Festival Abya Yala des Premiers Peuples des Amériques, organisé par la CONAIE
Honorable Mention, Alucine Toronto Latino Film & Video Festival, Dec. 2002
L.A.S.A. Award of Merit in Film 2002 Latin American Studies Association, U.S.A.
Festivals: Quito/Équateur, Kerala/Inde, Mediawave/Hongrie,
Documentalistas/Argentine, Mexique, Montevideo/Uruguay,
Durban/Afrique du Sud, Las Americas/Texas, Cine-Accion/Californie,
Chicago Latino Film Festival, Alucine/Toronto
Contact us:
Productions B'alba
5704 rue St-Urbain
Montréal, Québec
H2T 2X3 Canada
Phone or fax: (514) 270-7983
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www3.sympatico.ca/medavis
   *

*   Tierra Madre

Canada-Guatemala 1996, 54 minutes

In Guatemala, property ownership is restricted to a very few: most
peasants, including the Mayas, possess no land. In a country dragged
down by war, many people endlessly seek a patch of land. This is what
the eloquent examples of Sacred Earth so touchingly reveal.
Despite arrests, threats and destruction of their harvest, a Q'eqchi
community defends its ancestral rights on the property of an
agricultural exporter. Elsewhere, when Q'eqchi peasants claim wages
or a few acres of earth, they're accused of being guerrillas. In
1982, the army massacred eight hundred peasants - men, women and
children - who had arrived four years earlier to found a village. The
story of "Las Dos Erres" is narrated by neighbours and survivors...
In the face of these terrible injustices, these tragedies, the people
continue to celebrate life through their music, dance, ceremonies and
religious offerings. Will hope triumph over violence? Sacred Earth
tells of courage and of faith, within the quest for peace.
image Guillermo Escalon - son Mark Sherman, Haroldo Martinez
montage Katharine Asals - musique traditionnelle de Alta Verapaz
avec la participation de Misioneros de la Preciosa Sangre, Pastoral
social de la Diocesis de Alta Verapaz, Famdegua, ODHA, CONIC, CONDEG
Productions B'alba. Avec le sou

AP: Trouble brewing in the model transitional government

[Michael Pollak]

The New York Times In America
December 31, 2003

Karzai Refuses Deal on 18th Day of Afghan Talks

   By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

   Filed at 2:36 p.m. ET

   KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- President Hamid Karzai's insistence on a
   powerful presidency under Afghanistan's new constitution is driving a
   dangerous wedge between his Pashtun kinsmen and smaller ethnic groups,
   delegates and analysts warned Wednesday.

   With marathon talks on the new charter at a stalemate, opponents said
   the strong Pashtun -- and American -- flavor of Karzai's support
   risked a backlash among minorities whose militias still control much
   of the country.

   ``If they don't include our ideas in the constitution, we won't give
   up our weapons,'' said Habiba Danish, an ethnic Tajik delegate to the
   ongoing loya jirga in Kabul. ``If they want national unity, we want
   equal rights.''

   The council is in disarray amid open feuding over Karzai's reluctance
   to share power in a country he says needs strong leadership because it
   is fractured by ethnic mistrust.

   Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group and traditional rulers,
   have rallied behind Karzai -- a boost for a leader maligned here as
   the ``mayor'' of Kabul for his lack of influence beyond the capital.

   But smaller groups from farther north including Tajiks, Uzbeks and
   Hazaras protest that Pashtuns are ignoring their demands, such as
   recognizing their languages and sharing more influential government
   posts.

   Karzai allies, confident they have a majority, are pressing for a vote
   on dozens of articles still contentious in an already amended draft.
   Minorities want a consensus hammered out in advance.

   Karzai has said even a slim majority of the 502 delegates is enough to
   pass the constitution. But council leaders and Western diplomats
   acknowledge that the charter could be stillborn if it doesn't command
   broad support.

   Officials said they would try again Thursday, Day 19 of the gathering
   in a huge tent on a Kabul college campus, to begin voting on proposed
   amendments. There was no sign of a let up in the rancor.

   ``The Pashtuns were in power for years and should now behave like
   equal brothers under the umbrella of democracy,'' said Mohammed Hashim
   Mehdawi, a Hazara delegate.

   Pashtuns are equally indignant -- railing at attempts to sideline
   former king Zaher Shah, a Pashtun, and insert the name of Tajik
   resistance hero Ahmad Shah Massood into the charter.

   Delegates insist the acrimony of the past must be overcome, but the
   current fault lines are uncomfortably familiar.

   Militias from the north fought a losing battle against the
   Pashtun-dominated Taliban militia until the United States weighed in
   two years ago to punish the Taliban for sheltering Osama bin Laden.

   Karzai, with strong American backing, was installed at the resultant
   peace conference in Bonn, Germany, on an understanding that he would
   try to reunite the country.

   But the struggle over the constitution ``may sound alarm bells'' among
   minorities that they are once again slipping under Pashtun hegemony,
   said Vikram Parekh, an analyst in Kabul for the International Crisis
   Group, a Brussels-based think tank.

   Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, for instance, has pressed in vain for
   regional devolution and for the Uzbek language to be used in schools
   in the areas where his group is strongest.

   Tajiks, meanwhile, are incensed that under the current draft the
   national anthem will be sung only in Pashto -- not Dari, the
   Farsi-related lingua franca of much of northern Afghanistan.

   ``I don't think (the splits) will lead to civil war, but they could
   throw up road blocks to the Bonn process and efforts to extend the
   central government's control,'' Parekh said.

   That process was supposed to culminate in national elections under the
   new constitution next summer. But the United Nations warns security
   must first improve -- and has made the disarming of the armed
   factions, most of them ethnically rooted, a priority.

   Hedayatullah Hedayat, an Uzbek delegate from Faryab province,
   predicted warlords would regain power in his region if the minorities
   don't get their way.

   ``We are against the warlords. But if they don't recognize our
   languages, those warlords will get angry and the people will follow
   them,'' he said.

   Observers are at pains to name a candidate who could present a serious
   challenge to Karzai in a presidential vote. Still, they said his
   credibility as a national figurehead had taken a knock.

   ``He should be neutral, despite his Pashtun ethnicity,'' said
   Christopher Langton of the Institute for International Institute for
   Strategic Studies. ``The emergence of a Pashtun bloc is good. It is
   the close linkage to Karzai that is not so good.''

   Copyright 2003 The Associated Press | Home | Privacy Policy | Search |
   

Alterman quip

[Michael Pollak]

   URL: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040112&s=alterman

   George W. ("You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and
   Saddam when you talk about the war on terror") Bush cannot pretend to
   defend deceiving the nation into war anymore. When ABC's Diane Sawyer
   pressed him in an interview about whether Saddam possessed weapons of
   mass destruction or merely would have liked to have them, Bush replied
   contemptuously, "What's the difference?" (Try this, Mr. President: "I
   shot that man, Your Honor, because he pointed a gun at me and was
   about to pull the trigger," or "I shot that man, Your Honor, because
   he looked like he was thinking about getting a gun.")