Politics | Politics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: LindyBill1/30/2012 11:30:47 AM
2 Recommendations   of 536416
 
Why Syria's Regime Is Surviving a Revolution
by Barry Rubin

Despite what is now the longest-running revolution in Middle Eastern history, the Syrian regime will probably be in power on December 31, 2012. I don't say that because it's what I want to happen — Syria's revolution is more democratic-minded than those in Libya or Egypt; the government is far more repressive than the former dictatorships in Tunisia or Egypt — but because it seems inevitable.

Why is it that, after so many months of massive demonstrations and really bloody repression, President Bashar al-Assad seems likely to survive? Of course no one knows what will happen, but there are three reasons to think that Assad's regime is surviving, though the cost of that will be a great deal of suffering and the wrecking of the country.

First, the rulers know that it is a case of kill or be killed. Given the hated and sectarian nature of the regime — overwhelmingly dominated by Alawites who comprise only about 12 percent of the population — the elite can expect no mercy if it falls. At least, the Alawite elite and its closest allies among the Sunni Arab Muslims will lose their wealth and power; at most, they and even their families will lose their lives.

A negotiated solution of any sort is not a real possibility and the elite's members — including army generals — are aware that they must all hang together or they will all hang separately. When they look at Egypt, where they see the former president on trial and the armed forces under serious challenge, they are not encouraged to believe they should compromise with the opposition. And when they saw the former leaders of Iraq and Libya executed, that conclusion is reinforced.

Second, the revolutionaries don't have a strategy for seizing state power. Daily they hold courageous demonstrations and suffer severe losses through killings and repression, yet the protests cannot force a determined dictatorship out of power. As in Iran — but not as in Egypt and Tunisia, where the armies were unwilling to mow down their own people — the regime's ruthlessness makes it quite willing to pursue a strategy of brutality.

The Free Syrian Army is the opposition's other potential route to power. But it remains too small, too inexperienced (many or most of its recruits are not former soldiers), and too lacking in international support to overthrow the dictatorship by force.

Third, the Syrian dictatorship is receiving ample international support, mainly from Iran but also from Russia. While the Arab League has supposedly come out against the regime, its intervention is so toothless and time-wasting that it serves the regime: as long as the League doesn't call for tougher measures, neither will Western countries.

The lack of Western intervention is another international problem for the opposition and advantage for the regime. At present, the opposition has two main requests, drawn from experience in Iraq and Libya. It asks that the West impose a no-fly zone on the Syrian military and that it help establish an exclusion area along the Turkey-Syria frontier where refugees and dissidents can flee, an opposition government can create a liberated zone, and the Free Syrian Army can mobilize.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (468386)1/30/2012 11:34:29 AM
From: MJ   of 536416
 
I agree with you that a 3rd party is not the way to go.

As long as Paul remains in the Republican Process, there would be
no reason for him to do a third party --------what he would do is affect the
final outcome via the Republican Party Convention process whether it be
at the individual state or the National level later.

Just my 1 or 2 cents worth today. mj

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: MJ who wrote (468384)1/30/2012 11:36:08 AM
From: Stan   of 536416
 
Thanks, MJ. You're right, I was assuming he'd be a 3rd party candidate by September.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: FUBHO who wrote (468379)1/30/2012 11:38:21 AM
From: DMaA   of 536416
 
Big difference between engineers and technicians.

But we both have been overlooking the core issue Jobs and the author of the article are, very obliquely, talking about.

China socializes the cost of training technicians. In the US we, for the most part, do not. Jobs is saying American companies cannot compete with Chinese companies if American companies have to pay the cost of training their own technicians.

You will never see this discussed in those terms but that is what politicians are calling for when they talk about the need to "Invest" in job training.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: DMaA who wrote (468394)1/30/2012 11:44:52 AM
From: LindyBill6 Recommendations   of 536416
 
The problem with the Gov educating our Techs is that the Pols end up picking what jobs are the most needed. They are just as bad at this as they are at everything else they attempt.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (468287)1/30/2012 11:45:57 AM
From: DMaA4 Recommendations   of 536416
 
if I thought he would put 10th of that energy into destroying Obama I wouldn't be so discouraged.

But he won't because he shares to much in common with Obama.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: LindyBill1/30/2012 11:46:00 AM
3 Recommendations   of 536416
 
More #Greenfail
by Steven Hayward
(Steven Hayward)

The green energy bubble continues to burst in about the same fashion as the housing bubble. The other day we noted here the collapse of German solar power subsidies, and now Spain is following suit:

Spain halted subsidies for renewable energy projects to help curb its budget deficit and rein in power-system borrowings backed by the state that reached 24 billion euros ($31 billion) at the end of 2011.

"What is today an energy problem could become a financial problem," Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria said in Madrid. The government passed a decree today stopping subsidies for new wind, solar, co-generation or waste incineration plants.

The system's debts were racked up as revenue from state- controlled prices failed to cover the cost of delivering power.

Costs have swollen in the past five years because of an increase in regulated payments for the power grid, support for Spanish coal mines and subsidies for renewable energy plants. . .

The Spanish action follows Germany's announcement last week that it would phase out support for solar panels by 2017 and the U.K.'s legal battle to reduce its subsidies for the industry.

Meanwhile, Barclays Bank announced last week that it is closing its U.S. emissions trading desk, which had been a cornerstone of the northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, or "reggie"):

Investment bank Barclays Capital has closed its US emissions trading desk in New York, sources said Wednesday, a move that takes one of the primary traders of California carbon allowances (CCAs) out of the emerging market.

The London-based bank has decided to focus on more standard markets in the U.S. like power, coal and oil, said Kedin Kilgore, the former head of US Emissions Trading at Barclays, who has left the bank to explore other opportunities.

But wait! Isn't California, which is trying to launch an emissions trading program, going to save us?

"Clearly, if they thought California was going to be a liquid, viable program anytime soon they wouldn't be shutting down," he said.

Another blogger comments:

How times have changed. Back in 2007, Barclays said: "The market fluctuated greatly during 2006, but we believe in its long-term importance."

The face plant of the green energy sector wholly dependent on subsidies and government mandates is one the easiest calls you could make the last few years.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (468395)1/30/2012 11:46:51 AM
From: DMaA   of 536416
 
I just stated the proposition. Clearer than you will ever hear if from Big Government or Big Business.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (468293)1/30/2012 11:47:58 AM
From: FUBHO   of 536416
 
U Penn Conference on How to Dismantle Israel


by David Roberts
January 30, 2012 at 10:00 am


stonegateinstitute.org 

The University of Pennsylvania will be breaking all precedents about legitimizing and mainstreaming anti-Israel activism on prominent college campuses this week -- and crossing a new red line -- by hosting a conference, called PennBDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), which openly states that its intention is to train people and organize communities to try to dismantle Israel economically -- and, if conference participant Omar Barghouti's book, "BDS: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions," is any indication, otherwise, as well. The conference is scheduled to take place Feb. 3-5.


A Google search of "PennBDS Conference" yields over 1000 entries, including a apologistic article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency [JTA] saying that Penn is trying to "distance" itself from the conference, and that Penn's President, Amy Gutmann says she, "does not support the conference...or support its aims."

Then why are they enabling it?

According to another piece, "PennBDS: About the Conference," which appears to be the official notice for the conference, it is taking place "for a momentum-building opportunity for those already engaged with the fight for Palestinian freedom and equality."

The notice goes on to state: "Sunday's sessions will foreground movement-building and provide participants with the practical tools they need to launch or enhance BDS campaigns in their communities."

Speakers include Omar Barghouti, Cornel West, Nelson Mandela, and of course Jews....

Panels will discuss:

"Israeli Colonialism""BDS Successes, Challenges and Options for 2012" led by "US Campaign to End the Occupation Steering Committee Member""BDS 101""Connecting with Grassroots Palestine"A recent posting, "Clarifications about the 2012 National BDS Conference," states that "every topic that will be raised at the conference will be open to respectful debate with time allotted for questions and responses from the audience." Oh. Presumably this means that if protestors are allowed to ask questions and participants are "provided with practical tools.... to launch... BDS campaigns in their communities," Penn regards this as a level playing field.

The conference goes beyond the bounds of free speech in that it is not a debate about whether or not there should be BDS against Israel, but is outspokenly a workshop that intends not only how to wage an economic war-by-other-means against Israel, but also to hand out weapons to with which to wage it.


Penn President Gutmann is probably counting on its many successful Jewish trustees to continue throwing money at Penn anyway, out of sentimentality and for the "prestige".

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: LindyBill1/30/2012 11:49:25 AM
   of 536416
 
NRO WEB BRIEFING

2012 National: Romney ties Obama in swing states; Gingrich trails.

Michael Grabell: How the $800B stimulus failes.

Andrew Malcolm: Joe Biden admits he opposed the Osama bin Laden hit.

James Freeman: Will Buffet avoid the ‘Buffet rule?’

Mark Mills and Julio Ottino: Three breakthroughs are poised to transform this century as much as telephony and electricity did the last.

Michael A. Walsh: A Fast & Furious fib.

Steven Thomma, et al.: Romney opens lead in Florida as Republican rivals start to look elsewhere.

David Lightman and Lesley Clark: In Florida, big crowds for Gingrich, but Romney strategy puts him ahead

Christian Heinze: Jeb Bush asked Romney to soften immigration rhetoric.

Patrick Lee: The same-sex ‘marriage’ proposal is unjust discrimination.

Daniel Trombly: Does the Navy Undermine our Democracy? (Or, Drone Panic II)

Karol Markowicz: Self-deportation is no joke.

Minxin Pei: Five myths about China’s power.

Joe Scarborough: The Newt I know.

Aryeh Spero: What the Bible teaches about capitalism.

Bret Swanson: Steve Jobs' Jobs vs. 'Jobs.'

Jesse Eisinger and Chris Arnold: Freddie Mac bets against American homeowners.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.