Carl Sferrazza Anthony: Michelle Obama and the Covert Influence of First Ladies HNN
Source:Huffington Post (Blog)(1-30-09)
[Carl Sferrazza Anthony is the National First Ladies Library (www.firstladies.org)historian, author of political biographies of Jacqueline Kennedy, Florence Harding and Nellie Taft and the two-volume history of the role, First Ladies.]
"To what extent Mrs. Coolidge has influenced her husband's judgment only two persons many testify. One is too silent to say...and the other too smart!"-Editor William Allen White on the wife of taciturn President Calvin Coolidge
As memories of Inauguration Day 2009 begin to fade in and the new administration ensues, speculation will only increase about how politically influentialMichelle Obama will be as First Lady. She has stated unequivocally that she won't be a "senior advisor" but Barack Obama has far more frequently termedher his "rock." As time goes on, it's likely there'll be little difference. A First Lady testifying before Congress on policy related to her "project,"or convening experts at a conference to offer recommendations for programs that address problems which concerns her, or taping public service announcementsare usually the extent of what the media and public see and read about in making an assessment of how a spouse influences a president. That "show biz,"as Barbara Bush used to call it, is entirely intended for public consumption, but it represents the tip of the iceberg.
To glimpse the depth and magnitude of how a marital relationship in the White House assumes enormous power, one has to sink below the surface and routearound in the dark somewhat. It will require written evidence by husband or wife from some period in the marriage to be eventually released by an archive,or the memoirs, diary or interview disclosures of an aide or insider to go beyond mere speculation of the balance of that power.
Examples of this include Jackie Kennedy's 1956 drafting of JFK's endorsement of Stevenson for president, Edith Wilson's scribbled version of her paralyzedhusband's instructions to Cabinet members, Chief of Staff Don Regan's book which unintentionally shows Nancy Reagan's wisdom on presidential appearancesand statements and military aide Benjamin Montgomery's attesting that Ida McKinley successfully urged her husband to retain the Philippines after the Spanish-AmericanWar. Until that type of documentary proof turns up, it all remains a series of educated suppositions. Those suppositions will soon begin about Barack andMichelle Obama, but a fact-based review of how her personal strengths and professional experience might dovetail with him as president is a reliable start.
President Obama's political career has been confined to the collegial endeavors of the legislature. Predominant in Michelle Obama's resume are executiveroles. She was an assistant commissioner of Planning and Development for the city of Chicago, and headed a transit authority advisory board. As the firsthead of the Chicago branch of Public Allies, the non-profit which enlists young people as community leaders, she built the organization from the groundup, hiring and managing staff, seeking candidates with widely diverse educational and practical experiences for the program, aggressively and successfullyfundraising, planning budgets.
In her initial job at the University of Chicago, she worked in student services, forging alliances between university students and neighborhood residentsand achieving her intentions of getting each group to volunteer in the other's arena. Michelle also served on a committee to help arbitrate sexual harassmentcases. In her subsequent university position, she built the Medical Center's new community outreach division, assessing hospital services and how theycould be more effectively distributed to the dependent local population, getting doctors to also work in local clinics and reviewing how the predominatinghealth problems of area residents could be matched to new research sponsored by the medical center
Such executive sensibilities - and her well-documented certitude in her jobs, could come to bear on her husband's thinking process as he weighs optionsbefore making final decisions. In interviews with, and profiles of Mrs. Obama over the last year, there's ample suggestion it's already a role she's playedat crucial moments in the campaign.
On the trail, she was called "the closer," because she made a convincing case to those undecided about Obama. She was also believed to give him advice onhis most important speeches, imploring him to amp his emotions as a speaker. And there's no more evidence necessary that she never refrains from callinghim out if she feels its justified than her famous tales of tartly reminding him to do his part around the house. "Her role is whatever she thinks shecan make the biggest difference [in]," Obama predicted in December 2007 of his wife as First Lady, "Which isn't to say she won't be telling me what todo..."
As Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod recalled recently in a television interview, it was Michelle Obama who pointedly put to Barack a pithy and pivotalquery before blessing his candidacy: "What do you think you can provide that the other candidates can't?"
That forthrightness, combined with her executive experience could prove particularly vital in the necessity of continually assessing key personnel; havingeffective advisors in the right place at the right time can be the crucial factor in crafting and passing policy. There's an especially long history ofeven those First Ladies not interested in policy who took a pro-active role when they heard or suspected a chink in the chain of command: Edith Wilsonhelped oust Secretary of State Robert Lansing by making her case for his insubordination; Florence Harding learned of Veterans' Bureau Director CharlieForbes' malfeasance and pushed for his dismissal before the president did; Nancy Reagan was the single most important voice urging her husband to fireChief of Staff Don Regan after his botched handling of the Iran-Contra scandal.
If First Ladies don't always get bad apples fired, most presidents have depended on their assessments and observations. Lincoln took his wife's scaldingreports on Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase and Secretary of State William Seward cautiously, yet encouraged her judgments, telling her, "I give you creditfor sagacity." Jackie Kennedy's dim view of mad bomber Air Force General Curtis LeMay didn't result in his dismissal but further deepened JFK's mistrustof him.
It also doesn't mean Obama lacks judgment of his advisors, but a president does become absorbed in the stream of daily decisions - let alone the unexpectedcrises that arise. A First Lady hears more unvarnished talk, whether channeled to her own East Wing from the West Wing or directly from aides there hesitantto tell him. Much as Nancy Reagan had a West Wing liaison in her old and trusted friend Mike Deaver, Michelle Obama already has a long and deep personalbond with a woman who was first her boss at the Chicago mayor's office, Valerie Jarrett, now White House Senior Advisor. Jarrett was also on the boardof the university and its medical center when her protégé went to work, successively, at both places. No doubt it would be Jarrett who'd keep the FirstLady in the loop on how conflicting staff and advisors opinions might be proceeding at those times when the president is either travelling or too loadedwith larger matters to raise them with his wife.
First Ladies also have more frequent and easier contact with the outside world. They can linger and listen longer to citizens on the rope line and havethe little notes and pleas written to them scooped up by staff along the way. This is the "eyes and ears" role Eleanor Roosevelt perfected. Initially,it compensated for FDR's immobility due to polio, which prevented his going around New York State as governor to spot-inspect institutions that providedsocial services, and then around the nation when he was president to tour areas devastated by the Great Depression. It was Eleanor Roosevelt who beganappearing unannounced in the most unlikely of places, striking up direct rapport with people to learn the depth of their problems and how well New Dealprograms were meeting them.
One of the most damaging results of shoddy reporting and, in turn, public false alarm now seems likely to prevent Michelle Obama from doing what RosalynnCarter did when she attended Cabinet meetings (she was but one of two or so dozen aides and secretaries who sat quietly on the perimeter listening). Mrs.Carter did this only to learn directly about issues and problems, take her own notes and transmit it all directly to the American people when she wentout among them. Michelle Obama has stated that she especially enjoyed campaigning because it brought her into direct contact with the people and a chanceto speak with them without filters - and her wish to continue this direct dialogue.
While it's unlikely she'll show up in coal mines as Eleanor Roosevelt did, she'll surely make day trips around the country to various programs that addressthe issues she takes on, giving her that access to the citizenry who tend to share whatever problem is on their mind. Her continuing dialogue with everydayfolks can serve another purpose beyond translating his actions as a spokesperson to them and a reporter to him - but she can convey the way they are reactingto and perceive his decisions. Eisenhower famously told some economists that before he signed onto some policy he wanted to run it by "my Mamie" becauseshe understood how average citizens would see it. When Michelle Obama began hearing dire problems of military families, she decided she would find a wayto address them herself. If she hears larger problems across a wider cross-section of the population, there's no reason to imagine her not raising themwith Barack.
Or a Cabinet or senior staff member, for that matter - or a member of Congress or the Senate; another subtle but important aspect of a First Lady's morecovert influence - an alliance, friendship or shared area of legislative concern with an influential presidential advisor or legislative leader. Often,if a First Lady is making a case for particular action with the president, she'll learn more about an issue from, and find a valuable mentor and ally ina federal expert.
There's no instance of a First Lady getting a president to approve some initiative just because she wanted it: she has to make as much an air-tight casefor it as would any Cabinet member.
History, however, is rife with examples of their alliances with powerful federal figures. Eleanor Roosevelt teamed with Labor Secretary Frances Perkinsto get more women into the administration, Rosalynn Carter with HHS Secretary Joseph Califano to pass mental health legislation, Jackie Kennedy with CongressmanClint Anderson to get a preservation bill passed. Mary Lincoln found a partner in Senator Charles Sumner in their shared view that the president must cometo see abolition less as a political and more as a human issue. Viewing it as her genuine duty to intercede for worthy individuals lost in the system,Florence Harding worked through personal contact with the Attorney General, Interior Secretary, War Secretary, Navy Secretary, and Director of Prohibition.Approving the Federal Prison Superintendant's plan for the first all-women's reformatory facility, she then developed a friendship with, and lobbied HouseRepublican Leader Frank Mondell, leading to eventual passage.
Along these lines, it would seem logical that if Michelle Obama sees potential relief for working mothers in any legislation, she may form a working alliancewith HHS Secretary Tom Daschle, in his capacity as director of the newly-created White House Office of Health Care Reform. Daschle was an Obama supporteras early as February of 2007 and remained a reliable adviser through Election Day. With her intentions to provide greater support for military families,the new First Lady may build a bridge to and gain insight from the Veterans Affairs Secretary, retired general Eric Shinseki, native Hawaiian like herhusband and, as a Japanese-American, only the second Cabinet member of that minority group (or third if one counts the simultaneous Obama appointment ofEnergy Secretary Steven Chu).
In yet one other subtle way, the First Lady will likely influence the president's perspective. She's been adept at creating advisory boards and committeesfor the organizations she's headed, gathering disparate but collectively important voices. The president is already genius at this himself but as the cocoonwill inevitably tightens around him, Michelle Obama might well continue to widen their private sector network - especially at times he may be consumedwith crises. Eleanor Roosevelt was famous for bringing in differing voices to FDR, though it frequently exasperated him. Nancy Reagan's introducing herhusband to former Democratic National Chairman Bob Strauss during Iran-Contra was a turning point in opening Reagan's thinking at the time.
All of this can be vaguely couched as the role of "sounding board." Betty Ford called it "pillow talk." Pat Nixon said it was being a "helpmeet." NancyReagan simply shrugged off questions of her power by saying she was just doing what any committed and concerned spouse would do - helping her partner.Yet while she's most identified in the public imagination with her drug-abuse awareness project, Nancy Reagan's impact was greater in the intangible realmof being a loving spouse.
Likewise, Michelle Obama may prove to have a greatest impact on the presidency. The benefit of this sort of influence is that, unless she or Obama disclosetheir behind-closed-doors conversations, the degree of it will always, by its nature, remain intangible, noticeable to perhaps only their closest intimates.Whether it's about replacing a sofa or a Secretary of Commerce, such conferring falls within what Hillary Clinton called a "zone of privacy," and can keepa First Lady above reproach, leaving no fingerprints, stirring no public controversy. Operating more covertly may be as much a reflection of her own briefwork experience in the Chicago Mayor's office as it is a desire to avoid criticism - she has little patience for the grind and games of politics. "If politicswere my passion," she told a Chicago Tribune reporter five years ago, "I'd find out how to do it and make it work."
Beyond their love and children, if it's not politics that binds the Obamas, there is a fluid mutual influence in their hearkening a call to community service.It's already legendary how she first recognized Obama as different and gifted when she first witnessed his passion at a community meeting he asked herto join him in attending. But it was a similar impulse which drove her from Harvard back to her community and from a Chicago law firm to Public Allies.
If, as fellow actors, the Reagans were bound by that profession's training to help a fellow cast member if they lose focus while performing, and as lawstudents the Clintons relished the intellectual process of arguing a case, and the Stanford geology students Herbert and Lou Hoover together translatedan ancient mineralogy text, then community service is the core commitment which binds the Obamas. It was the impulse, which led them to jointly volunteerin Washington the day before the Inaugural on a "National Day of Service" instead of approving the traditional, official event honoring the new First Lady.
In all likelihood, the First Lady will continue the "Renew America Together" initiative, having listed her leadership of a national voluntary effort asone of her goals and emphasizing the January 19th call for volunteers wasn't just for that day but rather "an ongoing commitment to improving our communitiesand our country." It would be one of those rare First Lady projects that isn't just a component of the president's agenda but one of his personal and seriousintentions as well.
The most powerful of all the delineated ways Michelle Obama can politically impact the administration and influence the president, however, is the simplebut mysterious alchemy of love and support. It seems almost trite to address it - after all, the whole concept of First Lady is derivative, based solelyon the fact that these women happened to be married to men who are president.
The rest of that reality, however, is one rarely comprehended in full: most of these men would never have been elected president had they not been marriedto these particular women). Many know the tangible facts of how First Ladies helped make their husbands presidents: Martha Washington provided enormouswealth that let George enter and remain in public service. Mary Todd's powerful Whig Party family connections gave social and political entrée to Abe.Taft never would have run for and won the presidency without the career management of his savvy and organized wife Nellie. But it is less the practicaland more the emotional where the ultimate sacrifice is made, however much the riches might pour in.
Even though the majority of First Ladies before Hillary Clinton didn't have professional careers to give up so they could help their husbands pursue theirambitions, they sacrificed all claims to privacy and routine, often even better mental and physical health. All of them realized they might even sacrificethe idea of retiring with a husband. The only known remark attributed to Peggy Taylor, one of the most obscure First Ladies, was her protesting the nominationof her husband: "It is a plot to deprive me of his society and shorten his life." She was, of course, overruled - but she was right: he did after justsixteen months.
Sure, getting to the White House means they make history, live in luxury and secure greater advantages for themselves and their family's future - but itcan deaden any enjoyment of living in the moment. "I've given up everything I ever cared about," Pat Nixon poignantly observed of the toll her husband'spolitical career took. Even more wrought were those First Ladies who survived the especially stressful periods by fleeing into spheres estranged from theirhusbands, whether it was a place or state of mind - Louisa Adams, Jane Pierce, Ellen Wilson, Bess Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy. At the NationalFirst Ladies Library in Canton, Ohio, among the collection of First Ladies' stylish gowns worn in their public moments of glory - far superior to the famousSmithsonian assortment - is a sad, little faded pair of wool slippers. They were knit by Ida McKinley, one among thousands of pairs she made for needystrangers who reached out to her for help. While her husband worked often late into the night down the hall, she sat for hours each day in her room, alone.
By now, the tens of thousands of still and moving images of Barack and Michelle Obama holding hands, touching foreheads, kissing, hugging, beaming at oneanother - along with the frequently quoted excerpts from his book about the strains that politics created in their marriage, evidence a solid union thathas survived with open communication and commitment. They will need it.
Just after his ceremonial oath as Senator in 2005, as the press buzzed around him like a rock star, Michelle Obama raised a quizzical brow: shouldn't theywait and see what he does before lavishing so much attention on him? Beyond the value of keeping expectations realistic by reminding the people that he'sonly human, Michelle Obama's earlier habit of teasing his shortcomings in her speeches might also have helped him. Before taking the stage of the 2004Democratic Convention, Obama turned to his wife and admitted he was nervous. She looked him dead in the eye, he later wrote, quipped "Just don't screwit up, Buddy!" and hugged him. There was no turning back. Unspoken, perhaps, but both knew it.
The conventional wisdom is that Obama is almost preternaturally calm, seemingly cool under all pressure. Perhaps - but he did confess, post-election, thathis promise to Michelle that he would break his dependency on cigarette smoking forever hasn't gone well. It was all his wife has asked for, personally,when he sought her support in making the run for the presidency.
However different the personalities and circumstances, at a certain primal level, the same chords sound through all these presidential marriages and mostshare a certain truth: First Ladies have been the emotional concrete for the presidents - even when promises to the wives are broken and it takes awhilefor the depth of their strength and sacrifices to be appreciated by their husbands. Nixon wouldn't have won in 1968 had he not broken a pledge to his wifethat he was done with politics, following his 1962 defeat in the California governor's race. It was not until after his wife's death that he fully disclosedhis utter reliance on the woman who is today largely dismissed as inconsequential to politics:
"Just before going on T.V. for the fund broadcast in 1952, I turned to her and said, "I don't think I can do this one." She grasped my hand firmly and said,"Yes you can," and I did. In 1974, when I went into shock after an almost fatal operation, the first person I saw when I finally opened my eyes was Pat.She had been sitting by the bed for hours. I was profoundly depressed. I said, "I don't think I'm going to make it." As she had twenty-two years before,she took my hand and said, "yes you can," and I did. Had it not been for Pat, I would not have made it politically or physically.
In later years, Nixon was asked how he could have stood in the East Room and go on about his mother as a saint, express gratitude to his doggedly loyalaides and shower praise on the services of the domestic staff in the moments before he left the White House in disgrace, the only president to resign,and yet never once acknowledge - even with a glance, or turn or nod - his wife standing behind him. The depth to which he would have to go emotionallyto fairly credit her, to do her justice, Nixon suggested, was so overwhelming - live cameras and eyes of the world upon him - that he would have trulybroken down right there.
Nineteen years later, in 1993, as she was buried, Richard Nixon finally did just that: be broke down, sobbing openly, a starkly haunting image of a mannow truly alone.
Fifteen years later, in 2008, it was about six minutes into his election victory speech that Barack Obama acknowledged the "unyielding support of my bestfriend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life." It is progress.
Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Thursday 5 February 2009
Wednesday 4 February 2009
Usa, ministri nei guai col fisco Obama: "Ho fatto una cavolata" - esteri - Repubblica.it
Usa, ministri nei guai col fisco Obama: "Ho fatto una cavolata" - esteri - Repubblica.it
obama-daschle/obama-daschle
Il presidente ammette l'errore davanti alle reti tv per le nominedi Daschle e Killefer. "Una ferita autoinflitta, provo frustrazione"
Usa, ministri nei guai col fiscoObama: "Ho fatto una cavolata"
Usa, ministri nei guai col fisco Obama: "Ho fatto una cavolata"
Barack ObamaWASHINGTON - "Did I screw up? Absolutely". "Ho fatto una cavolata? Certamente sì". Diretto, senza giri di parole Barack Obama ammette davanti alle telecameretv il suo errore nel nominaredue ministri con problemi con il fisco.E' stata una "ferita autoinflitta", ha detto il presidente degli Stati Uniti, correndo ai ripari con una pubblica ammenda davanti a cinque reti televisiveconvocate alla Casa Bianca, per poter archiviare presto l'imbarazzante caso e passare ad occuparsi della crisi economica.
Le "elusioni fiscali" di due ministri di Obama - oltre a quello del Tesoro, Timothy Geithner, che nel frattempo ha saldato i suoi debiti ed è stato confermatodal Senato - hanno messo in difficoltà il presidente, che ha sempre sostenuto di voler portare un'assoluta trasparenza alla Casa Bianca. Finite così leaspirazioni di Nancy Killefer, la garante per lo sviluppo dei progetti economici, e poi, a sorpresa, di Tom Daschle, l'ex leader del Senato scelto comeministro della Sanità, un collaboratore strettissimo di Obama durante la campagna elettorale, tanto che il presidente lo ha difeso fino a ieri mattina.
Daschle ha risarcito 140.000 dollari in tasse che non aveva pagato in passato e i relativi interessi: tutto per un'auto di servizio con autista, fornitadalla società di consulenze per cui lavorava e non denunciata. Killefer aveva omesso di versare i contribuiti per un anno e mezzo alla governante.
"Provo frustrazione nei miei confronti e in quelli della mia squadra" ha detto Obama a Brian Williams della Nbc. Mea culpa, quindi, ma "in ultima analisiil mio compito è rimettere le cose sui giusti binari". A Charles Gibson della Abc ha detto che "non posso permettermi intoppi. Dovrei parlarle, adesso,di come ridare lavoro a tre o quattro milioni di persone. Questa è una ferita auto inflitta e mi fa arrabbiare". E a tutti i canali, in linguaggio decisamentelibero, usa una frase che il LA Times definisce "un mantra sorprendente". "Ho fatto una cavolata". La strategia sembra chiara: se George W. Bush non ammettevamai i suoi errori, Obama l'anti-Bush vuole evitare assolutamente questa critica.
obama-daschle/obama-daschle
Il presidente ammette l'errore davanti alle reti tv per le nominedi Daschle e Killefer. "Una ferita autoinflitta, provo frustrazione"
Usa, ministri nei guai col fiscoObama: "Ho fatto una cavolata"
Usa, ministri nei guai col fisco Obama: "Ho fatto una cavolata"
Barack ObamaWASHINGTON - "Did I screw up? Absolutely". "Ho fatto una cavolata? Certamente sì". Diretto, senza giri di parole Barack Obama ammette davanti alle telecameretv il suo errore nel nominaredue ministri con problemi con il fisco.E' stata una "ferita autoinflitta", ha detto il presidente degli Stati Uniti, correndo ai ripari con una pubblica ammenda davanti a cinque reti televisiveconvocate alla Casa Bianca, per poter archiviare presto l'imbarazzante caso e passare ad occuparsi della crisi economica.
Le "elusioni fiscali" di due ministri di Obama - oltre a quello del Tesoro, Timothy Geithner, che nel frattempo ha saldato i suoi debiti ed è stato confermatodal Senato - hanno messo in difficoltà il presidente, che ha sempre sostenuto di voler portare un'assoluta trasparenza alla Casa Bianca. Finite così leaspirazioni di Nancy Killefer, la garante per lo sviluppo dei progetti economici, e poi, a sorpresa, di Tom Daschle, l'ex leader del Senato scelto comeministro della Sanità, un collaboratore strettissimo di Obama durante la campagna elettorale, tanto che il presidente lo ha difeso fino a ieri mattina.
Daschle ha risarcito 140.000 dollari in tasse che non aveva pagato in passato e i relativi interessi: tutto per un'auto di servizio con autista, fornitadalla società di consulenze per cui lavorava e non denunciata. Killefer aveva omesso di versare i contribuiti per un anno e mezzo alla governante.
"Provo frustrazione nei miei confronti e in quelli della mia squadra" ha detto Obama a Brian Williams della Nbc. Mea culpa, quindi, ma "in ultima analisiil mio compito è rimettere le cose sui giusti binari". A Charles Gibson della Abc ha detto che "non posso permettermi intoppi. Dovrei parlarle, adesso,di come ridare lavoro a tre o quattro milioni di persone. Questa è una ferita auto inflitta e mi fa arrabbiare". E a tutti i canali, in linguaggio decisamentelibero, usa una frase che il LA Times definisce "un mantra sorprendente". "Ho fatto una cavolata". La strategia sembra chiara: se George W. Bush non ammettevamai i suoi errori, Obama l'anti-Bush vuole evitare assolutamente questa critica.
L'ora della nostra tristezza - LASTAMPA.it
L'ora della nostra tristezza - LASTAMPA.it
4/2/2009
L'ora della nostra tristezza
BARBARA SPINELLI
Tutte le grida perentorie, che cingono come fasce di pietra Eluana e il suo viaggio nell’aldilà; tutti gli insulti, e le accuse di assassinio pronunciateda politici che non nomineremo per non appiattire quel che deve restare profondo: questo è triste, nelle ore in cui Eluana, assistita dalla legge, giacenella clinica che l’aiuterà a morire com’era nelle sue volontà, dopo diciassette anni di coma vegetativo permanente.
Tristezza è lo sgomento che irrompe quando ci si trova in una situazione senza uscita: la parola vien meno, a soccorrere non c’è che il balsamo del silenziooppure quel sottile mormorio che si chiama amore ed è più forte, San Paolo lo sapeva, di ogni altra virtù: fede, speranza, dono della profezia e dellalingua, conoscenza delle scienze, perfino sacrificio di sé, delle proprie ricchezze (1 Corinzi 13).
Quando s’affievoliscono fede e speranza, si può sempre ancora amare: in particolare il sofferente, il morente. Nel momento in cui non sai più guardare unaltro essere con amore già sei nel biblico sheòl, scivoli nel nulla. Tristi son dunque le grida dei politici e anche dei vescovi: quando urlano all’omicidio.
E quando s’indignano con la magistratura e i medici, che hanno preso in mano il volere di Eluana per il semplice motivo che altra via non le era offerta.Non c’era una legge sul testamento biologico, non ci son state parole pudiche di comprensione, né una politica che tace invece d’infilarsi fin dentro lacamera, privata, dov’è la soglia per entrare nel mondo o uscirne.
Non è la sola tristezza, che ci accompagna dal 2006, quando Welby ci parlò dal suo letto di non vita e non morte. C’è la tristezza di non potersi parlaregli uni con gli altri, di non poter guardare in faccia insieme il proliferare straordinario di paure, primordiali e moderne, legate alla morte. Quasi findalla nascita esse ci visitano: chi ha memoria dell’infanzia ricorda quei mesi, quegli anni, in cui il pensiero della morte d’un tratto ci attornia comeacqua alta, in cui sembra inverosimile e atroce che i genitori possano morire, che anche noi passeremo di lì, che per ognuno verrà il turno. Il pensieros’insinua come ladro nelle notti alte dei bambini, per poi lasciarli in pace qualche anno. Poi s’installa la paura del morire, più che della morte: naufragarein dolori insopportabili, o non riuscire a morire malgrado la fine sia lì accanto, ineludibile epilogo di mali incurabili. E infine la paura moderna: terribile,prossima al panico. La paura di non padroneggiare la vita e il morire, perché ambedue sono stati affidati a forze esterne. Il diritto al morire nasce daldilemma fondamentale: chi è proprietario della morte? Come difendere gli espropriati: che siamo noi ma sono anche la natura e - per alcuni - Dio?
La scienza e la tecnologia medica hanno compiuto progressi che hanno stravolto il morire, essendo diventati i veri proprietari della soglia. Non si morivacosì, restando per decenni nella vita-non vita, quando non esisteva il gigantesco potere che prolunga artificialmente la vita con tubi, macchine, farmaci.Non c’era bisogno di fissare limiti all’accanimento terapeutico o all’idratazione-alimentazione di pazienti che non patiscono più sete e fame. Non c’erail fossato scandalosamente enorme tra l’individuo cosciente, che può invocare la libertà di cura prevista dalla Costituzione (art. 32), e chi non ha piùdiritti essendo appeso alle macchine, e possiede una biografia uccisa in nome del diritto alla vita.
La stessa parola eutanasia andrebbe adattata alla straordinaria mutazione che viviamo, rinominata. Non si chiede la bella morte. Si chiede il permaneredi un diritto prima della morte biologica, e il rispetto di questo diritto anche quando non c’è più coscienza. Questa strada è sottratta alla capacitàdell’uomo di darsi sue leggi (di darsi auto-nomia), ma non è sottratta solo a lui. La proprietà passa a macchine che trasformano l’uomo in un mezzo, chesi sorveglia e punisce allo stesso modo in cui son sorvegliati, nelle celle d’isolamento, i prigionieri. La prigione della tecnica che s’accanisce in nomedi valori morali è terrorista: taglia le ali alla preparazione della morte, che è nostra intima e nobile aspirazione; tratta l’individuo non come finema come mezzo. Lo trasforma in uomo docile e utile per la politica, l’ideologia: quale che sia l’ideologia. Welby e Eluana dicono l’indisponibilità, assaimeno prometeica delle macchine, all’esser docile, utile mezzo. È qui che insorge il panico: non solo di chi vuol staccare le sonde ma anche di chi, conamore eguale, non lo fa. La morte in sé non mette spavento: essa è terribile per chi sopravvive, Epicuro è saggio quando ricorda che «la morte non è nullaper noi, perché quando ci siamo noi non c’è lei, e quando c’è lei non ci siamo più noi». Il panico dell’espropriato insinua il sospetto: può accadere chequando ci sarà lei (la morte) anche noi ci saremo, ma morti-viventi.
È un panico cresciuto mostruosamente: per questo urge riprendersi la morte. Non è un diritto che spossessa la natura, il sacro. Se fossero loro ad agire,moriremmo senza respiratori. Quel che vediamo è il trionfo della tecnica umana sull’umanità, la natura, il divino. L’autonomia del morente restituiscenaturalezza e sacralità a un’esperienza inalienabile, sia che si stacchi la sonda sia che il malato non voglia farlo. L’etica del morire è una difesa dellavita, perché risponde all’estendersi del bio-potere con la forza, vitale, della responsabilità. Risponde con il testamento biologico, per evitare che ilpaziente senza coscienza sia ucciso in vita. Risponde col rifiuto dell’accanimento terapeutico e, se il corpo non sente più fame e sete, dell’alimentazione-idratazioneforzata. Risponde anche al timore di chi - non meno solitario - mantiene la sonda.
Anche questa solitudine va ascoltata: anche la paura dell’eutanasia, della morte della persona accelerata non per amore, ma in nome di volontà collettive,politiche. È già accaduto nella storia, e se esiste un tabù sull’eutanasia non è senza ragione. Non se ne può parlare leggermente (neppure dell’abortosi può): è talmente incerto il confine con il crimine. Chi decide infatti se una vita debba considerarsi indegna d’esser vissuta? Il malato o la società,la legge? Se decide il collettivo, il rischio è grande che non avremo la bella morte ma la morte utile alla società, alla razza, alla nazione, o alle spesesanitarie. L’eutanasia può estendere il bio-potere anziché frenarlo. Può snaturare la missione del medico, che vedrebbe i propri poteri ingigantiti nonsolo nel bene ma anche nel male. Ogni medico diverrebbe per il paziente una sfinge, scrive Hans Jonas: obbedirà a Ippocrate, cercando di sanare e lenire,o mi ucciderà per una sua idea di pietà o convenienza?
Scrive la Bibbia che la parola divina sorprese Elia in modo inaspettato, sul monte Oreb. Il vento soffiava ma la parola non era nel vento. Sopravvenne unterremoto ma la parola non era nel terremoto. S’accese un fuoco ma il Signore non era nel fuoco. Infine apparve: era una voce di silenzio sottile. È aquel punto che Elia si prepara all’incontro: non con discorsi prolissi ma coprendosi il volto col mantello (1 Re 19,11). Forse la voce di silenzio sottilesi sente a malapena perché viene da dentro, dalla nostra coscienza. Se solo si potesse parlare così delle questioni essenziali, del vivere e morire. Sforzandosidi capire il diverso, scoprendo quel che è comune nelle paure. Scoprendo l’aporia, che è la condizione dell’esistenza in cui manca la via d’uscita, ildubbio s’installa, e d’aiuto sono il senso del tragico o il mormorare sottile. Lì stiamo: non da una parte il popolo della vita e dall’altra la culturadella morte, da una parte i credenti dall’altra gli atei. Ma tutti egualmente confusi, sperduti, assetati, poveri di parole.
OPINIONIAnalisi BARBARA SPINELLI
4/2/2009
L'ora della nostra tristezza
BARBARA SPINELLI
Tutte le grida perentorie, che cingono come fasce di pietra Eluana e il suo viaggio nell’aldilà; tutti gli insulti, e le accuse di assassinio pronunciateda politici che non nomineremo per non appiattire quel che deve restare profondo: questo è triste, nelle ore in cui Eluana, assistita dalla legge, giacenella clinica che l’aiuterà a morire com’era nelle sue volontà, dopo diciassette anni di coma vegetativo permanente.
Tristezza è lo sgomento che irrompe quando ci si trova in una situazione senza uscita: la parola vien meno, a soccorrere non c’è che il balsamo del silenziooppure quel sottile mormorio che si chiama amore ed è più forte, San Paolo lo sapeva, di ogni altra virtù: fede, speranza, dono della profezia e dellalingua, conoscenza delle scienze, perfino sacrificio di sé, delle proprie ricchezze (1 Corinzi 13).
Quando s’affievoliscono fede e speranza, si può sempre ancora amare: in particolare il sofferente, il morente. Nel momento in cui non sai più guardare unaltro essere con amore già sei nel biblico sheòl, scivoli nel nulla. Tristi son dunque le grida dei politici e anche dei vescovi: quando urlano all’omicidio.
E quando s’indignano con la magistratura e i medici, che hanno preso in mano il volere di Eluana per il semplice motivo che altra via non le era offerta.Non c’era una legge sul testamento biologico, non ci son state parole pudiche di comprensione, né una politica che tace invece d’infilarsi fin dentro lacamera, privata, dov’è la soglia per entrare nel mondo o uscirne.
Non è la sola tristezza, che ci accompagna dal 2006, quando Welby ci parlò dal suo letto di non vita e non morte. C’è la tristezza di non potersi parlaregli uni con gli altri, di non poter guardare in faccia insieme il proliferare straordinario di paure, primordiali e moderne, legate alla morte. Quasi findalla nascita esse ci visitano: chi ha memoria dell’infanzia ricorda quei mesi, quegli anni, in cui il pensiero della morte d’un tratto ci attornia comeacqua alta, in cui sembra inverosimile e atroce che i genitori possano morire, che anche noi passeremo di lì, che per ognuno verrà il turno. Il pensieros’insinua come ladro nelle notti alte dei bambini, per poi lasciarli in pace qualche anno. Poi s’installa la paura del morire, più che della morte: naufragarein dolori insopportabili, o non riuscire a morire malgrado la fine sia lì accanto, ineludibile epilogo di mali incurabili. E infine la paura moderna: terribile,prossima al panico. La paura di non padroneggiare la vita e il morire, perché ambedue sono stati affidati a forze esterne. Il diritto al morire nasce daldilemma fondamentale: chi è proprietario della morte? Come difendere gli espropriati: che siamo noi ma sono anche la natura e - per alcuni - Dio?
La scienza e la tecnologia medica hanno compiuto progressi che hanno stravolto il morire, essendo diventati i veri proprietari della soglia. Non si morivacosì, restando per decenni nella vita-non vita, quando non esisteva il gigantesco potere che prolunga artificialmente la vita con tubi, macchine, farmaci.Non c’era bisogno di fissare limiti all’accanimento terapeutico o all’idratazione-alimentazione di pazienti che non patiscono più sete e fame. Non c’erail fossato scandalosamente enorme tra l’individuo cosciente, che può invocare la libertà di cura prevista dalla Costituzione (art. 32), e chi non ha piùdiritti essendo appeso alle macchine, e possiede una biografia uccisa in nome del diritto alla vita.
La stessa parola eutanasia andrebbe adattata alla straordinaria mutazione che viviamo, rinominata. Non si chiede la bella morte. Si chiede il permaneredi un diritto prima della morte biologica, e il rispetto di questo diritto anche quando non c’è più coscienza. Questa strada è sottratta alla capacitàdell’uomo di darsi sue leggi (di darsi auto-nomia), ma non è sottratta solo a lui. La proprietà passa a macchine che trasformano l’uomo in un mezzo, chesi sorveglia e punisce allo stesso modo in cui son sorvegliati, nelle celle d’isolamento, i prigionieri. La prigione della tecnica che s’accanisce in nomedi valori morali è terrorista: taglia le ali alla preparazione della morte, che è nostra intima e nobile aspirazione; tratta l’individuo non come finema come mezzo. Lo trasforma in uomo docile e utile per la politica, l’ideologia: quale che sia l’ideologia. Welby e Eluana dicono l’indisponibilità, assaimeno prometeica delle macchine, all’esser docile, utile mezzo. È qui che insorge il panico: non solo di chi vuol staccare le sonde ma anche di chi, conamore eguale, non lo fa. La morte in sé non mette spavento: essa è terribile per chi sopravvive, Epicuro è saggio quando ricorda che «la morte non è nullaper noi, perché quando ci siamo noi non c’è lei, e quando c’è lei non ci siamo più noi». Il panico dell’espropriato insinua il sospetto: può accadere chequando ci sarà lei (la morte) anche noi ci saremo, ma morti-viventi.
È un panico cresciuto mostruosamente: per questo urge riprendersi la morte. Non è un diritto che spossessa la natura, il sacro. Se fossero loro ad agire,moriremmo senza respiratori. Quel che vediamo è il trionfo della tecnica umana sull’umanità, la natura, il divino. L’autonomia del morente restituiscenaturalezza e sacralità a un’esperienza inalienabile, sia che si stacchi la sonda sia che il malato non voglia farlo. L’etica del morire è una difesa dellavita, perché risponde all’estendersi del bio-potere con la forza, vitale, della responsabilità. Risponde con il testamento biologico, per evitare che ilpaziente senza coscienza sia ucciso in vita. Risponde col rifiuto dell’accanimento terapeutico e, se il corpo non sente più fame e sete, dell’alimentazione-idratazioneforzata. Risponde anche al timore di chi - non meno solitario - mantiene la sonda.
Anche questa solitudine va ascoltata: anche la paura dell’eutanasia, della morte della persona accelerata non per amore, ma in nome di volontà collettive,politiche. È già accaduto nella storia, e se esiste un tabù sull’eutanasia non è senza ragione. Non se ne può parlare leggermente (neppure dell’abortosi può): è talmente incerto il confine con il crimine. Chi decide infatti se una vita debba considerarsi indegna d’esser vissuta? Il malato o la società,la legge? Se decide il collettivo, il rischio è grande che non avremo la bella morte ma la morte utile alla società, alla razza, alla nazione, o alle spesesanitarie. L’eutanasia può estendere il bio-potere anziché frenarlo. Può snaturare la missione del medico, che vedrebbe i propri poteri ingigantiti nonsolo nel bene ma anche nel male. Ogni medico diverrebbe per il paziente una sfinge, scrive Hans Jonas: obbedirà a Ippocrate, cercando di sanare e lenire,o mi ucciderà per una sua idea di pietà o convenienza?
Scrive la Bibbia che la parola divina sorprese Elia in modo inaspettato, sul monte Oreb. Il vento soffiava ma la parola non era nel vento. Sopravvenne unterremoto ma la parola non era nel terremoto. S’accese un fuoco ma il Signore non era nel fuoco. Infine apparve: era una voce di silenzio sottile. È aquel punto che Elia si prepara all’incontro: non con discorsi prolissi ma coprendosi il volto col mantello (1 Re 19,11). Forse la voce di silenzio sottilesi sente a malapena perché viene da dentro, dalla nostra coscienza. Se solo si potesse parlare così delle questioni essenziali, del vivere e morire. Sforzandosidi capire il diverso, scoprendo quel che è comune nelle paure. Scoprendo l’aporia, che è la condizione dell’esistenza in cui manca la via d’uscita, ildubbio s’installa, e d’aiuto sono il senso del tragico o il mormorare sottile. Lì stiamo: non da una parte il popolo della vita e dall’altra la culturadella morte, da una parte i credenti dall’altra gli atei. Ma tutti egualmente confusi, sperduti, assetati, poveri di parole.
OPINIONIAnalisi BARBARA SPINELLI
Tuesday 3 February 2009
Claire McCaskill, il terrore di Wall Street - Corriere della Sera
il ministro della giustizia holder: «andremo a fondo di questi scandali»
Claire McCaskill, il terrore di Wall Street
La senatrice ha proposto che stipendi e premi dei "big" non superino i 400mila dollari annui, lo stipendio del presidenteElenco di 2 elementi
NOTIZIE CORRELATE
Obama: «Irresponsabili e vergognosi i compensi dei top manager Usa» (29 gennaio 2009)fine elenco
Claire McCaskill (Epa)
Claire McCaskill (Epa)WASHINGTON - Per i "big" di Wall street, i responsabili dell'attuale catastrofe finanziaria che con incredibile arroganza si sono divisi quasi 20 miliardidi dollari in premi (versati dai contribuenti per salvarne le aziende), la senatrice Claire McCaskill è un diavolo. Ma per i normali americani è Giovannad'Arco, la purificatrice di un malcostume dilagante, un angelo vendicatore. Claire, democratica, ha proposto che gli stipendi e i premi dei "big" non possanosuperare i 400mila dollari annui, quanto percepito dal presidente degli Stati Uniti. «È immorale - ha protestato - che i capi delle imprese tenute in piedidal denaro pubblico se lo intaschino in parte mentre licenziano migliaia di dipendenti». Non solo: la senatrice ha invitato il ministro della GiustiziaEric Holder, il primo nero a ricoprire la carica, a indagare sulle malefatte dei "big". «Non sarà una caccia alle streghe - ha dichiarato Holder -, maandremo a fondo di questi scandali».
EX PON-PON GIRL - Chi conosce Claire McCaskill non si è sorpreso della sua offensiva contro gli stipendi e i premi d'oro dei "big", a volte di decine dimilioni di dollari l'anno. La senatrice del Missouri è un ex procuratore ed ex revisore statale dei conti, un apostolo dell'equità salariale e del risparmio.Ed essendo sposata a un ricco imprenditore, Joseph Shepard, è al corrente degli abusi dell'industria e della finanza americane. L'attuale crisi le è sembratala volta buona per stroncarli. «I premi - ha rilevato - sono nati come compensi per exploit eccezionali. Non devono essere assegnati a chi causa dei disastri».Claire spera che l'inchiesta di Holder porti alla restituzione del maltolto «agli americani che hanno bisogno di assistenza». A 55 anni, la McCaskill,eletta al Senato nel 2006, è così divenuta simbolo della giustizia economica e sociale. Nell'adolescenza nessuno le avrebbe attribuito tale ruolo: facevala ragazza pon-pon ai match di football e la reginetta di bellezza. Ma dopo due lauree, in Scienze politiche prima e in Legge poi, lanciò una crociatacontro la sperequazione e gli sprechi pubblici e a 29 anni fu eletta deputato al Parlamento locale. Si sposò con David Esposito, un italoamericano, dacui ebbe tre figli e da cui divorziò nel '95 e si creò un vasto seguito (si risposò nel 2002).
«TRUMAN IN GONNELLA» - I media la definirono un "Truman in gonnella", dal nome del più illustre figlio del Missouri, il combattivo presidente Truman, ilvincitore della seconda guerra mondiale. In un certo senso, Claire è il braccio armato diBarack Obama, che la scorsa settimana denunciò con indignazione la condotta dei "big" di Wall Street.Ma difficilmente otterrà che il Congresso adotti il tetto dei 400mila dollari. Gli stipendi e i premi d'oro verranno ridotti, ma di molto meno di quantolei voglia: si parla di un taglio del 40-50% rispetto al 2007, la metà del taglio adottato dalla Ubs in Svizzera. I repubblicani al Congresso fanno quadratoattorno ai "big", dicendo che se non venissero pagati bene passerebbero alla concorrenza. Una giustificazione che fa ridere persino i loro simpatizzanticome David Brooks, il noto columnist del New York Times: «Quale concorrenza? - ha chiesto Brooks - Sono tutti in braghe di tela». In un solo caso la senatricece la farebbe: se da qui a un anno la situazione peggiorasse, cosa che nessuno auspica.
Ennio Caretto03 febbraio 2009
Claire McCaskill, il terrore di Wall Street
La senatrice ha proposto che stipendi e premi dei "big" non superino i 400mila dollari annui, lo stipendio del presidenteElenco di 2 elementi
NOTIZIE CORRELATE
Obama: «Irresponsabili e vergognosi i compensi dei top manager Usa» (29 gennaio 2009)fine elenco
Claire McCaskill (Epa)
Claire McCaskill (Epa)WASHINGTON - Per i "big" di Wall street, i responsabili dell'attuale catastrofe finanziaria che con incredibile arroganza si sono divisi quasi 20 miliardidi dollari in premi (versati dai contribuenti per salvarne le aziende), la senatrice Claire McCaskill è un diavolo. Ma per i normali americani è Giovannad'Arco, la purificatrice di un malcostume dilagante, un angelo vendicatore. Claire, democratica, ha proposto che gli stipendi e i premi dei "big" non possanosuperare i 400mila dollari annui, quanto percepito dal presidente degli Stati Uniti. «È immorale - ha protestato - che i capi delle imprese tenute in piedidal denaro pubblico se lo intaschino in parte mentre licenziano migliaia di dipendenti». Non solo: la senatrice ha invitato il ministro della GiustiziaEric Holder, il primo nero a ricoprire la carica, a indagare sulle malefatte dei "big". «Non sarà una caccia alle streghe - ha dichiarato Holder -, maandremo a fondo di questi scandali».
EX PON-PON GIRL - Chi conosce Claire McCaskill non si è sorpreso della sua offensiva contro gli stipendi e i premi d'oro dei "big", a volte di decine dimilioni di dollari l'anno. La senatrice del Missouri è un ex procuratore ed ex revisore statale dei conti, un apostolo dell'equità salariale e del risparmio.Ed essendo sposata a un ricco imprenditore, Joseph Shepard, è al corrente degli abusi dell'industria e della finanza americane. L'attuale crisi le è sembratala volta buona per stroncarli. «I premi - ha rilevato - sono nati come compensi per exploit eccezionali. Non devono essere assegnati a chi causa dei disastri».Claire spera che l'inchiesta di Holder porti alla restituzione del maltolto «agli americani che hanno bisogno di assistenza». A 55 anni, la McCaskill,eletta al Senato nel 2006, è così divenuta simbolo della giustizia economica e sociale. Nell'adolescenza nessuno le avrebbe attribuito tale ruolo: facevala ragazza pon-pon ai match di football e la reginetta di bellezza. Ma dopo due lauree, in Scienze politiche prima e in Legge poi, lanciò una crociatacontro la sperequazione e gli sprechi pubblici e a 29 anni fu eletta deputato al Parlamento locale. Si sposò con David Esposito, un italoamericano, dacui ebbe tre figli e da cui divorziò nel '95 e si creò un vasto seguito (si risposò nel 2002).
«TRUMAN IN GONNELLA» - I media la definirono un "Truman in gonnella", dal nome del più illustre figlio del Missouri, il combattivo presidente Truman, ilvincitore della seconda guerra mondiale. In un certo senso, Claire è il braccio armato diBarack Obama, che la scorsa settimana denunciò con indignazione la condotta dei "big" di Wall Street.Ma difficilmente otterrà che il Congresso adotti il tetto dei 400mila dollari. Gli stipendi e i premi d'oro verranno ridotti, ma di molto meno di quantolei voglia: si parla di un taglio del 40-50% rispetto al 2007, la metà del taglio adottato dalla Ubs in Svizzera. I repubblicani al Congresso fanno quadratoattorno ai "big", dicendo che se non venissero pagati bene passerebbero alla concorrenza. Una giustificazione che fa ridere persino i loro simpatizzanticome David Brooks, il noto columnist del New York Times: «Quale concorrenza? - ha chiesto Brooks - Sono tutti in braghe di tela». In un solo caso la senatricece la farebbe: se da qui a un anno la situazione peggiorasse, cosa che nessuno auspica.
Ennio Caretto03 febbraio 2009
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Obama suffers blow over nominees
Obama suffers blow over nominees
Tom DaschleTom Daschle said he did not want to distract from Mr Obama's agenda
Former Senator Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination as US health and human services secretary after a controversy involving unpaid taxes.
US President Barack Obama said he had accepted his nominee's withdrawal "with sadness and regret".
It was revealed last week that Mr Daschle, an early Obama backer, had failed to pay some $130,000 in taxes.
His move came only hours after Nancy Killefer, nominated as budget watchdog, also withdrew over tax issues.
The two high-profile withdrawals were the latest setbacks for Mr Obama as he seeks to form his new administration.
Ms Killefer said she did not want a personal tax issue - reportedly concerning household help - to distract from Mr Obama's plans.
Tom has made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I
President Barack Obama
Her appointment as the first chief performance officer was intended to help cut wasteful government spending.
Announcing his withdrawal, Mr Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, said he would have not been able to operate "with the full faith of Congressand the American people".
He also said he did not want to "be a distraction" from Mr Obama's agenda.
In a statement, Mr Obama said: "Tom has made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I."
The president went on: "Now we must move forward with our plan to lift this economy and put people back to work."
Mr Daschle paid about $128,000 in back taxes and $12,000 in interest last month.
The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says the withdrawal of two nominees in a day appears to reveal the extent to which Mr Obama's public calls fora new era of responsibility are being undermined by the growing number of his nominees facing tax problems.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed last week only after long arguments over his failure to pay $34,000 (£24,500) in taxes he owed untilshortly before he was nominated.
In January, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced he was withdrawing from consideration as commerce secretary after an investigation was launchedinto a state contract that had been given to his campaign donors.
Republican Senator Judd Gregg was on Tuesday appointed instead, the second from his party to join Mr Obama's cabinet.
Tom DaschleTom Daschle said he did not want to distract from Mr Obama's agenda
Former Senator Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination as US health and human services secretary after a controversy involving unpaid taxes.
US President Barack Obama said he had accepted his nominee's withdrawal "with sadness and regret".
It was revealed last week that Mr Daschle, an early Obama backer, had failed to pay some $130,000 in taxes.
His move came only hours after Nancy Killefer, nominated as budget watchdog, also withdrew over tax issues.
The two high-profile withdrawals were the latest setbacks for Mr Obama as he seeks to form his new administration.
Ms Killefer said she did not want a personal tax issue - reportedly concerning household help - to distract from Mr Obama's plans.
Tom has made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I
President Barack Obama
Her appointment as the first chief performance officer was intended to help cut wasteful government spending.
Announcing his withdrawal, Mr Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, said he would have not been able to operate "with the full faith of Congressand the American people".
He also said he did not want to "be a distraction" from Mr Obama's agenda.
In a statement, Mr Obama said: "Tom has made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I."
The president went on: "Now we must move forward with our plan to lift this economy and put people back to work."
Mr Daschle paid about $128,000 in back taxes and $12,000 in interest last month.
The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says the withdrawal of two nominees in a day appears to reveal the extent to which Mr Obama's public calls fora new era of responsibility are being undermined by the growing number of his nominees facing tax problems.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed last week only after long arguments over his failure to pay $34,000 (£24,500) in taxes he owed untilshortly before he was nominated.
In January, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced he was withdrawing from consideration as commerce secretary after an investigation was launchedinto a state contract that had been given to his campaign donors.
Republican Senator Judd Gregg was on Tuesday appointed instead, the second from his party to join Mr Obama's cabinet.
Usa, guai per Obama: via ministro Sanità e capo budget per problemi con il fisco - Il Messaggero
Usa, guai per Obama: via ministro Sanitàe capo budget per problemi con il fisco
Il repubblicano Gregg nominato ministro del CommercioSondaggio Usa Today: gradimento alto, ma in calo
Commenti Invia StampaNancy Killefer con Barack Obama
Approfondimenti
¦E alla Casa Bianca un bimbo chiede a Obama la strada per il bagnoNEW YORK (3 febbraio) - Nuovi guai per Barack Obama. L'ex senatore democratico Tom Daschle ha rinunciato alla carica di ministro della sanità per problemicon il fisco. Poco prima la Casa Bianca aveva annunciato oggi il ritiro di Nancy Killefer dalla nuova carica di responsabile del controllo del budget.La Killefer ha rinunciato alla carica dopo che sono emersi problemi di tasse non pagate relative al personale di servizio. E' la seconda persona sceltada Obama a dover rinunciare alla carica: il primo era stato Bill Richardson, governatore del New Mexico, scelto come ministro del commercio e ritiratosiquando è venuta alla luce una inchiesta per corruzione nei suoi confronti.
Obama proprio oggi ha nominato il senatore repubblicano Judd Gregg ministro del Commercio al posto di Richardson. Gregg è il terzo repubblicano della squadracon il ministro della Difesa Robert Gates e il ministro dei trasporti Ray LaHood. «Mi aspetto una conferma rapida in Congresso», ha detto Obama annunciandola nomina. Al posto di Gregg in Senato siederà la collega di partito Bonnie Newman, secondo fonti di Capitol Hill. Quello di ministro del Commercio eral'ultima posizione ancora aperta dell'amministrazione Obama.
La Killefer è la terza persona scelta da Obama ad avere problemi di tasse dopo il ministro del tesoro Paul Geithner e il candidato a ministro della sanitàTom Daschle. Killefer era stata scelta da Obama per una nuova carica alla Casa Bianca centrata sulla verifica "paragrafo per paragrafo" delle propostedi budget per eliminare sprechi.
Oggi intanto Eric Holder ha giurato come ministro della Giustizia, diventando il primo afro-americano nella storia Usa ad occupare tale carica. Il vice-presidenteJoe Biden ha presieduto alla cerimonia affermando che, con Holder, il ministero della giustizia tornerà al suo standard di «non perseguire politica o ideologiama piuttosto una chiara valutazione dei fatti e della legge».
Gradimento alto ma in calo. Partito con un patrimonio di consensi senza precedenti, intanto Obama comincia a risentire della crisi che attraversa l'America.Secondo un sondaggio di Usa Today il presidente americano gode oggi, a due settimane dall'insediamento, di un indice di approvazione del 64 per cento:alto, seppure inferiore alle enormi aspettative della vigilia dell'insediamento.
Secondo la valutazione di UsaToday, due terzi degli americani approvano un cambio di rotta rispetto agli anni di George W. Bush, ma solo il 44 per centoè d'accordo sulla chiusura della base-prigione per sospetti terroristi di Guantanamo entro un anno e solo il 35 per cento è favorevole alla revoca dellerestrizioni degli aiuti all'estero per le organizzazioni di pianificazione familiare che offrono anche servizi di aborto.
Una serie di dubbi hanno raffreddato anche l'approvazione da parte dei cittadini Usa del pacchetto messo a punto dal Team Obama per il rilancio dell'economia:due terzi sono convinti che darà quanto meno un piccolo slancio alla locomotiva Usa in panne, ma questo non significa che gli elettori siano convinti cheil piano li aiuterà personalmente a sbarcare il lunario. Un americano su due, interpellato da Usa Today ha detto poi che le sue finanze familiari non sarannotoccate in meglio dall'intervento federale o che addirittura si aspettano un peggioramento.
Il sondaggio del giornale contrasta con le aspettative stratosferiche che avevano preceduto l'insediamento di Obama. Una raffica di rilevamenti condottiin vista dell'Inauguration Day, avevano mostrato che oltre l'80% degli americani promuovevano la gestione della transizione e la squadra di governo cheObama aveva creato.
Il repubblicano Gregg nominato ministro del CommercioSondaggio Usa Today: gradimento alto, ma in calo
Commenti Invia StampaNancy Killefer con Barack Obama
Approfondimenti
¦E alla Casa Bianca un bimbo chiede a Obama la strada per il bagnoNEW YORK (3 febbraio) - Nuovi guai per Barack Obama. L'ex senatore democratico Tom Daschle ha rinunciato alla carica di ministro della sanità per problemicon il fisco. Poco prima la Casa Bianca aveva annunciato oggi il ritiro di Nancy Killefer dalla nuova carica di responsabile del controllo del budget.La Killefer ha rinunciato alla carica dopo che sono emersi problemi di tasse non pagate relative al personale di servizio. E' la seconda persona sceltada Obama a dover rinunciare alla carica: il primo era stato Bill Richardson, governatore del New Mexico, scelto come ministro del commercio e ritiratosiquando è venuta alla luce una inchiesta per corruzione nei suoi confronti.
Obama proprio oggi ha nominato il senatore repubblicano Judd Gregg ministro del Commercio al posto di Richardson. Gregg è il terzo repubblicano della squadracon il ministro della Difesa Robert Gates e il ministro dei trasporti Ray LaHood. «Mi aspetto una conferma rapida in Congresso», ha detto Obama annunciandola nomina. Al posto di Gregg in Senato siederà la collega di partito Bonnie Newman, secondo fonti di Capitol Hill. Quello di ministro del Commercio eral'ultima posizione ancora aperta dell'amministrazione Obama.
La Killefer è la terza persona scelta da Obama ad avere problemi di tasse dopo il ministro del tesoro Paul Geithner e il candidato a ministro della sanitàTom Daschle. Killefer era stata scelta da Obama per una nuova carica alla Casa Bianca centrata sulla verifica "paragrafo per paragrafo" delle propostedi budget per eliminare sprechi.
Oggi intanto Eric Holder ha giurato come ministro della Giustizia, diventando il primo afro-americano nella storia Usa ad occupare tale carica. Il vice-presidenteJoe Biden ha presieduto alla cerimonia affermando che, con Holder, il ministero della giustizia tornerà al suo standard di «non perseguire politica o ideologiama piuttosto una chiara valutazione dei fatti e della legge».
Gradimento alto ma in calo. Partito con un patrimonio di consensi senza precedenti, intanto Obama comincia a risentire della crisi che attraversa l'America.Secondo un sondaggio di Usa Today il presidente americano gode oggi, a due settimane dall'insediamento, di un indice di approvazione del 64 per cento:alto, seppure inferiore alle enormi aspettative della vigilia dell'insediamento.
Secondo la valutazione di UsaToday, due terzi degli americani approvano un cambio di rotta rispetto agli anni di George W. Bush, ma solo il 44 per centoè d'accordo sulla chiusura della base-prigione per sospetti terroristi di Guantanamo entro un anno e solo il 35 per cento è favorevole alla revoca dellerestrizioni degli aiuti all'estero per le organizzazioni di pianificazione familiare che offrono anche servizi di aborto.
Una serie di dubbi hanno raffreddato anche l'approvazione da parte dei cittadini Usa del pacchetto messo a punto dal Team Obama per il rilancio dell'economia:due terzi sono convinti che darà quanto meno un piccolo slancio alla locomotiva Usa in panne, ma questo non significa che gli elettori siano convinti cheil piano li aiuterà personalmente a sbarcare il lunario. Un americano su due, interpellato da Usa Today ha detto poi che le sue finanze familiari non sarannotoccate in meglio dall'intervento federale o che addirittura si aspettano un peggioramento.
Il sondaggio del giornale contrasta con le aspettative stratosferiche che avevano preceduto l'insediamento di Obama. Una raffica di rilevamenti condottiin vista dell'Inauguration Day, avevano mostrato che oltre l'80% degli americani promuovevano la gestione della transizione e la squadra di governo cheObama aveva creato.
Thirty years since the revolution: Iran and the US From Financial Times FT.com
Thirty years since the revolution: Iran and the US From Financial Times FT.com
Thirty years since the revolution: Iran and the US
By FT reporters
Published: February 2 2009 19:03 Last updated: February 3 2009 12:09
The 1953 overthrow of Iran’s nationalist prime minister, Muhummed Mussadeq, was largely orchestrated by American and British intelligence agencies. It sawpower shift from a democratically-elected government to the US-backed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose reign continued until 1979 when fundamentalistcleric Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to be religious and political leader of the world’s first Islamic republic. This timeline shows how the 1979revolution has shaped Iranian-US relations.
CopyrightThe Financial Times Limited 2009
Thirty years since the revolution: Iran and the US
By FT reporters
Published: February 2 2009 19:03 Last updated: February 3 2009 12:09
The 1953 overthrow of Iran’s nationalist prime minister, Muhummed Mussadeq, was largely orchestrated by American and British intelligence agencies. It sawpower shift from a democratically-elected government to the US-backed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose reign continued until 1979 when fundamentalistcleric Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to be religious and political leader of the world’s first Islamic republic. This timeline shows how the 1979revolution has shaped Iranian-US relations.
CopyrightThe Financial Times Limited 2009
Wen Jiabao: does not see it as China’s role to save capitalism from itself. from Financial Times FT.com
Wen Jiabao: does not see it as China’s role to save capitalism from itself. from Financial Times FT.comBy Lionel Barber, Geoff Dyer, James Kynge and Lifen Zhang
Published: February 1 2009 22:00 Last updated: February 1 2009 22:00
Wen Jiaboa
Wen Jiabao: does not see it as China’s role to save capitalism from itself
Wen Jiabao is on the fifth leg of what he calls his “Journey of Confidence” in Europe and he has been up since before dawn jogging in London’s Hyde Park.But the 67-year-old Chinese premier looks sprightly and dapper as he raises his index finger, looks his interviewers in the eye and says: “I am ready tobe open and sincere.”
HisEuropean tripmight come as a welcome relief from political pressures at home. Mr Wen is under fire because of the slump in the Chinese economy – which, he acknowledges,slowed sharply in the period after the August Olympics in Beijing.
But in London he is the man of the moment. Tony Blair, former UK prime minister, and David Cameron, leader of the opposition Conservative party, are bothwaiting in the wings at the Mandarin Oriental hotel for an audience, while at Davos, Switzerland, last week the delegateshung on his every word.
In a rare interview, Mr Wen outlined in forceful terms Beijing’s approach to dealing with the global financial crisis – frenetic activity at home, cautiousengagement abroad. International expectations of China are intense – almost on the same scale as those facing US president Barack Obama. But Mr Wen doesnot see China’s role as saving capitalism from itself.
Hopes in London and elsewhere that China would hand over a large chunk of its near $2,000bn (€1,560bn, £1,380bn) foreign reserves to help recapitalise theInternational Monetary Fund are likely to be disappointed. Mr Wen also plays down the idea of signing up to a new environmental treaty at the talks inCopenhagen later this year that would place limits on the country’s carbon emissions.
Asked if China bore any responsibility for causing the financial crisis, as a number of economists believe, he stiffens and says in a low voice: “It isa ridiculous view.”
Inizio blocco con virgolette
For the fulltranscriptof this interview,click hereFine blocco con virgolette
But he makes it clear that Beijing will do whatever is needed to maintain growth at “about 8 per cent” this year. “Running our own affairs well is our biggestcontribution to mankind,” he says. If necessary, some of the country’s huge stash of foreign currency reserves could be put towards this endeavour – anew plan to enable the use of reserves for domestic purposes is under discussion, he says.
Even before the crisis, 2009 was going to be another big year for China. It is laden with important and potentially controversial anniversaries, from the60th anniversary of the foundation of the People’s Republic of China to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests. The economy is slowing sharply– the 6.8 per cent growth in the fourth quarter of last year represented the country’s poorest economic performance in a decade. Chinese exports have startedto shrink and tens of thousands of manufacturers have gone bankrupt, sending 12m redundant migrant factory workers tramping home to their villages. MrWen, who was the visible face of the government during the earthquake last year and has intimate knowledge of rural China, is facing his sternest testsince taking the helm as premier in 2003.
“We must take forceful steps. Under special circumstances, necessary and extraordinary measures are required,” he says. “We should not be restricted byconventions. Success or failure depends on the pace and intensity of those measures.”
Stimulating growth before the current slowdown deepens into a prolonged slump is the top priority. Referring to a raft of initiatives that the governmenthas already announced,including a Rmb4,000bn ($585bn, €460bn, £400bn) fiscal spending packageaimed mainly at infrastructure spending, Mr Wen says that further efforts may be required.
The government intends to fight on several fronts. Most important is the infrastructure spending and this, he says, is already well under way. But alsokey is a long list of measures aimed at providing the softer context to a comprehensive stimulus effort – including initiatives to boost consumer spendingand welfare.
The sales tax on vehicles with small engines has been halved. Meanwhile, 74m low-income people have received lump-sum spending subsidies. Former employeesof state-owned enterprises received pension supplements, there have been subsistence allowances for vulnerable groups, and Beijing has significantly increasedthe salaries of 12m primary and middle school teachers in the state system.
China's strengthening currency..
The trick in spurring consumer spending is not to engage in sloganising, Mr Wen says, but actually to put money into people’s pockets. “We do believe thatconsumer spending is vital in boosting economic development.”
Several commentators in the west have called upon China to overhaul its economic model by rebalancing away from its current heavy reliance on investment,savings and exports and embrace a more consumer-oriented system instead. Most observers agree that such a shift would require Beijing to relieve pressureon consumers by beefing up social welfare, healthcare and education provisions.
Mr Wen reiterates his pledge to put in place a “fairly comprehensive social safety net”. He adds that Beijing has already announced an Rmb850bn medicalcare spending plan and would spend Rmb600bn on unspecified technological upgrading.
The rural economy, which offers a livelihood to more than 700m Chinese, is also in for a boost, says Mr Wen, with the recapitalisation of the AgriculturalBank of China, the last of the big five state-owned banks to receive a large injection of state funds. The ABC is receiving an injection of $30bn, he says.
If Mr Wen expresses confidence in the government’s ability to weather the challenge to the domestic economy, he strikes a more defensive note about someof the international questions raised by the crisis.
Shortly before he left office, Hank Paulson, former US Treasury secretary,said in an interview with the Financial Timesthat the huge volume of savings in countries such as China had been one of the root causes of the crisis because it reduced risk premiums around the world.
Mr Wen ishaving none of it.“I think the main reason for this global financial crisis is the imbalances of some of the economies themselves. For a long time they have had double [fiscaland current account] deficits and kept up high consumption based on massive borrowing.” Banks used excessive leverage to reap huge profits. “And when sucha bubble bursts, the whole world has been exposed to a big disaster,” he says.Inizio blocco con virgolette
Path to power: a mandarin’s mandarin
When Wen Jiabao took over as Chinese premier in 2003, one of the few things that people outside of China knew about the former geologist was a famous photographtaken in Tiananmen Square at the height of the 1989 protests.
As a high-ranking official in the Communist party apparatus, Mr Wen worked closely with the reformist general-secretary Zhao Ziyang, and he was with MrZhao on the evening he went to the square for a tearful talk with some of the students.
When Mr Zhao and most of his reformist allies were purged, Mr Wen managed to keep his job. The skills that saved his career were a keen attention to detailand a reputation for unswerving loyalty to his superiors. He was the mandarin’s mandarin.
Since becoming premier, he has shown a different side that has won him considerable popular support. In a political system where the top leaders wear thesame suits and dye their hair the same colour, Mr Wen – the son of rural teachers – has demonstrated a populist touch. He spends Chinese New Year in poorrural areas and is often photographed visiting hospitals or schools.
Within hours of the May earthquake in Sichuan, Mr Wen was on an plane to the disaster zone to direct operations, with television cameras covering his everymove. “This is Grandpa Wen here,” he called down to one child trapped in the rubble. Authoritarianism for a new media age.Fine blocco con virgolette
“It is completely confusing right and wrong when some countries that have been overspending then blame those that lend them money for their spending,” heargues. Mr Wen points to a famous proverb in China about Zhu Ba Jie, a fictitious character in the 16th-century Chinese fable, Journey to the West , whoalways blames others who try to help him. “When I shared this view at Davos with the world business leaders, they all agreed with me on that,” he says.
He gives equally short shrift to the argumentput forward by Timothy Geithner,the new US Treasury Secretary, that China is “manipulating” its currency. “Completely unfounded,” he says: the renminbi had appreciated 21 per cent sinceChina adopted a managed float of its currency in 2005.
Mr Wen refuses to make an explicit commitment not to devalue the Chinese currency during the crisis – as the government did after the Asian financial crisisin 1997, a pledge that helped engineer the eventual recovery and won China a lot of prestige. But he does rule out any big shifts in the value of the Chinesecurrency.
“I want to make it very clear that maintaining the stability of the renminbi at a balanced and reasonable level is not only in the interests of China butalso the interests of the world,” he says. “Many people have not yet come to see this point that if we have drastic fluctuation in the exchange rate ofthe renminbi, it would be a big disaster.”
Mr Wen says that Hu Jintao, China’s president, and Mr Obama spoke late last week on the telephone, but would not confirm reports in the US that Mr Obamahad told his Chinese counterpart that the new administration would not take a confrontational approach over the currency issue. He expresses a hope for“increased co-operation” with the US, but says that there are a lot of different “voices” in the US debate.
Mr Wen says China, which is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury bonds, would continue to be an active participant in the market. “We believe thatit is important to stabilise the current Treasury bond market. To do so will be in the interest of shoring up market confidence, overcoming the globalfinancial crisis and facilitating the early recovery of international markets,” he says.
But he also issues a veiled warning that China might rethink its long-term investment strategy for its reserves once the immediate crisis is over, whensome economists believe the huge borrowing the US is undertaking could lead to a slump in the value of the dollar. “We will take into account China’s ownneeds to maintain the safety and good value of our foreign exchange reserves,” he says.
. . .
China’s new prominence is coming with new responsibilities, yet Mr Wen is keen not to be pushed into too many expensive commitments. He plays down any ideathat China will use a large slice of its reserves to recapitalise international financial institutions, notably the IMF. Any process of reforming the IMFshould start not with capital injections but with reorganising its voting rights to give developing countries a bigger role. Mr Wen also stresses thatChina is still a relatively poor nation with huge development challenges ahead, which will limit its generosity.
He uses the same argument to push back against pressure to sign up for carbon emission cuts under the negotiations for the revised Kyoto treaty, which aredue to be completed at Copenhagen later this year. China will continue to set itself targets for improving its energy efficiency, he says. But it wouldbe difficult for a developing nation “to undertake quantified quotas to reduce our emissions”.
The Chinese government is equally nervous that the crisis will spur calls for swifter political reform and challenge its monopoly on power. That anxietyhas beenevident in the arrest and harassmentof some of the backers of Charter 08, a manifesto that calls for direct elections, the rule of law and an end to the one-party state.
Mr Wen is accustomed to fending off questions about the pace of political reform in China, with broad-brush statements about eventual liberalisation. “Manypeople in the west think that China is afraid of elections and democracy. Only if you have the trust of your people will they be willing to keep you inpower,” he says. But he provides little detail about any timetable for expanding direct elections beyond villages and the few townships where experimentshave been held.
An eclectic reader, Mr Wen says that when he travels he always carries a copy of The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, the Scottish economist, whichlays out the moral underpinnings for governing societies – and market economies.
“Adam Smith wrote that in a society if all the wealth is concentrated and owned by only a small number of people, it will not be stable,” he says. It isan observation that holds just as well for the crisis-ridden US as it does for China, with its skewed model of development and rising inequality.
CopyrightThe Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: February 1 2009 22:00 Last updated: February 1 2009 22:00
Wen Jiaboa
Wen Jiabao: does not see it as China’s role to save capitalism from itself
Wen Jiabao is on the fifth leg of what he calls his “Journey of Confidence” in Europe and he has been up since before dawn jogging in London’s Hyde Park.But the 67-year-old Chinese premier looks sprightly and dapper as he raises his index finger, looks his interviewers in the eye and says: “I am ready tobe open and sincere.”
HisEuropean tripmight come as a welcome relief from political pressures at home. Mr Wen is under fire because of the slump in the Chinese economy – which, he acknowledges,slowed sharply in the period after the August Olympics in Beijing.
But in London he is the man of the moment. Tony Blair, former UK prime minister, and David Cameron, leader of the opposition Conservative party, are bothwaiting in the wings at the Mandarin Oriental hotel for an audience, while at Davos, Switzerland, last week the delegateshung on his every word.
In a rare interview, Mr Wen outlined in forceful terms Beijing’s approach to dealing with the global financial crisis – frenetic activity at home, cautiousengagement abroad. International expectations of China are intense – almost on the same scale as those facing US president Barack Obama. But Mr Wen doesnot see China’s role as saving capitalism from itself.
Hopes in London and elsewhere that China would hand over a large chunk of its near $2,000bn (€1,560bn, £1,380bn) foreign reserves to help recapitalise theInternational Monetary Fund are likely to be disappointed. Mr Wen also plays down the idea of signing up to a new environmental treaty at the talks inCopenhagen later this year that would place limits on the country’s carbon emissions.
Asked if China bore any responsibility for causing the financial crisis, as a number of economists believe, he stiffens and says in a low voice: “It isa ridiculous view.”
Inizio blocco con virgolette
For the fulltranscriptof this interview,click hereFine blocco con virgolette
But he makes it clear that Beijing will do whatever is needed to maintain growth at “about 8 per cent” this year. “Running our own affairs well is our biggestcontribution to mankind,” he says. If necessary, some of the country’s huge stash of foreign currency reserves could be put towards this endeavour – anew plan to enable the use of reserves for domestic purposes is under discussion, he says.
Even before the crisis, 2009 was going to be another big year for China. It is laden with important and potentially controversial anniversaries, from the60th anniversary of the foundation of the People’s Republic of China to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests. The economy is slowing sharply– the 6.8 per cent growth in the fourth quarter of last year represented the country’s poorest economic performance in a decade. Chinese exports have startedto shrink and tens of thousands of manufacturers have gone bankrupt, sending 12m redundant migrant factory workers tramping home to their villages. MrWen, who was the visible face of the government during the earthquake last year and has intimate knowledge of rural China, is facing his sternest testsince taking the helm as premier in 2003.
“We must take forceful steps. Under special circumstances, necessary and extraordinary measures are required,” he says. “We should not be restricted byconventions. Success or failure depends on the pace and intensity of those measures.”
Stimulating growth before the current slowdown deepens into a prolonged slump is the top priority. Referring to a raft of initiatives that the governmenthas already announced,including a Rmb4,000bn ($585bn, €460bn, £400bn) fiscal spending packageaimed mainly at infrastructure spending, Mr Wen says that further efforts may be required.
The government intends to fight on several fronts. Most important is the infrastructure spending and this, he says, is already well under way. But alsokey is a long list of measures aimed at providing the softer context to a comprehensive stimulus effort – including initiatives to boost consumer spendingand welfare.
The sales tax on vehicles with small engines has been halved. Meanwhile, 74m low-income people have received lump-sum spending subsidies. Former employeesof state-owned enterprises received pension supplements, there have been subsistence allowances for vulnerable groups, and Beijing has significantly increasedthe salaries of 12m primary and middle school teachers in the state system.
China's strengthening currency..
The trick in spurring consumer spending is not to engage in sloganising, Mr Wen says, but actually to put money into people’s pockets. “We do believe thatconsumer spending is vital in boosting economic development.”
Several commentators in the west have called upon China to overhaul its economic model by rebalancing away from its current heavy reliance on investment,savings and exports and embrace a more consumer-oriented system instead. Most observers agree that such a shift would require Beijing to relieve pressureon consumers by beefing up social welfare, healthcare and education provisions.
Mr Wen reiterates his pledge to put in place a “fairly comprehensive social safety net”. He adds that Beijing has already announced an Rmb850bn medicalcare spending plan and would spend Rmb600bn on unspecified technological upgrading.
The rural economy, which offers a livelihood to more than 700m Chinese, is also in for a boost, says Mr Wen, with the recapitalisation of the AgriculturalBank of China, the last of the big five state-owned banks to receive a large injection of state funds. The ABC is receiving an injection of $30bn, he says.
If Mr Wen expresses confidence in the government’s ability to weather the challenge to the domestic economy, he strikes a more defensive note about someof the international questions raised by the crisis.
Shortly before he left office, Hank Paulson, former US Treasury secretary,said in an interview with the Financial Timesthat the huge volume of savings in countries such as China had been one of the root causes of the crisis because it reduced risk premiums around the world.
Mr Wen ishaving none of it.“I think the main reason for this global financial crisis is the imbalances of some of the economies themselves. For a long time they have had double [fiscaland current account] deficits and kept up high consumption based on massive borrowing.” Banks used excessive leverage to reap huge profits. “And when sucha bubble bursts, the whole world has been exposed to a big disaster,” he says.Inizio blocco con virgolette
Path to power: a mandarin’s mandarin
When Wen Jiabao took over as Chinese premier in 2003, one of the few things that people outside of China knew about the former geologist was a famous photographtaken in Tiananmen Square at the height of the 1989 protests.
As a high-ranking official in the Communist party apparatus, Mr Wen worked closely with the reformist general-secretary Zhao Ziyang, and he was with MrZhao on the evening he went to the square for a tearful talk with some of the students.
When Mr Zhao and most of his reformist allies were purged, Mr Wen managed to keep his job. The skills that saved his career were a keen attention to detailand a reputation for unswerving loyalty to his superiors. He was the mandarin’s mandarin.
Since becoming premier, he has shown a different side that has won him considerable popular support. In a political system where the top leaders wear thesame suits and dye their hair the same colour, Mr Wen – the son of rural teachers – has demonstrated a populist touch. He spends Chinese New Year in poorrural areas and is often photographed visiting hospitals or schools.
Within hours of the May earthquake in Sichuan, Mr Wen was on an plane to the disaster zone to direct operations, with television cameras covering his everymove. “This is Grandpa Wen here,” he called down to one child trapped in the rubble. Authoritarianism for a new media age.Fine blocco con virgolette
“It is completely confusing right and wrong when some countries that have been overspending then blame those that lend them money for their spending,” heargues. Mr Wen points to a famous proverb in China about Zhu Ba Jie, a fictitious character in the 16th-century Chinese fable, Journey to the West , whoalways blames others who try to help him. “When I shared this view at Davos with the world business leaders, they all agreed with me on that,” he says.
He gives equally short shrift to the argumentput forward by Timothy Geithner,the new US Treasury Secretary, that China is “manipulating” its currency. “Completely unfounded,” he says: the renminbi had appreciated 21 per cent sinceChina adopted a managed float of its currency in 2005.
Mr Wen refuses to make an explicit commitment not to devalue the Chinese currency during the crisis – as the government did after the Asian financial crisisin 1997, a pledge that helped engineer the eventual recovery and won China a lot of prestige. But he does rule out any big shifts in the value of the Chinesecurrency.
“I want to make it very clear that maintaining the stability of the renminbi at a balanced and reasonable level is not only in the interests of China butalso the interests of the world,” he says. “Many people have not yet come to see this point that if we have drastic fluctuation in the exchange rate ofthe renminbi, it would be a big disaster.”
Mr Wen says that Hu Jintao, China’s president, and Mr Obama spoke late last week on the telephone, but would not confirm reports in the US that Mr Obamahad told his Chinese counterpart that the new administration would not take a confrontational approach over the currency issue. He expresses a hope for“increased co-operation” with the US, but says that there are a lot of different “voices” in the US debate.
Mr Wen says China, which is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury bonds, would continue to be an active participant in the market. “We believe thatit is important to stabilise the current Treasury bond market. To do so will be in the interest of shoring up market confidence, overcoming the globalfinancial crisis and facilitating the early recovery of international markets,” he says.
But he also issues a veiled warning that China might rethink its long-term investment strategy for its reserves once the immediate crisis is over, whensome economists believe the huge borrowing the US is undertaking could lead to a slump in the value of the dollar. “We will take into account China’s ownneeds to maintain the safety and good value of our foreign exchange reserves,” he says.
. . .
China’s new prominence is coming with new responsibilities, yet Mr Wen is keen not to be pushed into too many expensive commitments. He plays down any ideathat China will use a large slice of its reserves to recapitalise international financial institutions, notably the IMF. Any process of reforming the IMFshould start not with capital injections but with reorganising its voting rights to give developing countries a bigger role. Mr Wen also stresses thatChina is still a relatively poor nation with huge development challenges ahead, which will limit its generosity.
He uses the same argument to push back against pressure to sign up for carbon emission cuts under the negotiations for the revised Kyoto treaty, which aredue to be completed at Copenhagen later this year. China will continue to set itself targets for improving its energy efficiency, he says. But it wouldbe difficult for a developing nation “to undertake quantified quotas to reduce our emissions”.
The Chinese government is equally nervous that the crisis will spur calls for swifter political reform and challenge its monopoly on power. That anxietyhas beenevident in the arrest and harassmentof some of the backers of Charter 08, a manifesto that calls for direct elections, the rule of law and an end to the one-party state.
Mr Wen is accustomed to fending off questions about the pace of political reform in China, with broad-brush statements about eventual liberalisation. “Manypeople in the west think that China is afraid of elections and democracy. Only if you have the trust of your people will they be willing to keep you inpower,” he says. But he provides little detail about any timetable for expanding direct elections beyond villages and the few townships where experimentshave been held.
An eclectic reader, Mr Wen says that when he travels he always carries a copy of The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, the Scottish economist, whichlays out the moral underpinnings for governing societies – and market economies.
“Adam Smith wrote that in a society if all the wealth is concentrated and owned by only a small number of people, it will not be stable,” he says. It isan observation that holds just as well for the crisis-ridden US as it does for China, with its skewed model of development and rising inequality.
CopyrightThe Financial Times Limited 2009
Monday 2 February 2009
Obama's promise of ethics reform faces early test - International Herald Tribune
Obama's promise of ethics reform faces early testBy Peter BakerPublished: February 3, 2009 E-Mail Article Listen to Article Printer-Friendly
WASHINGTON: During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher inwhat he would later call in his Inaugural Address a "new era of responsibility." What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.
The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a militarycontractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industryeven if not formally registered as lobbyists.
President Barack Obama said Monday that he was "absolutely" standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary,and Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had "no excuse" and wanted to "deeplyapologize" for his failure to pay $128,000 in U.S. taxes.
But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Obama has proved willing tocompromise.
Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcilethe clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules ofany president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.
Related ArticlesChoice of Gregg creates its own political gameDaschle gives apology over taxes as allies offer supportHolder is confirmed as U.S. attorney general
Today in AmericasBolivia has lithium, and the president intends to make world pay for itObama's promise of ethics reform faces early testHolder is confirmed as U.S. attorney general
"This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibilityand Ethics in Washington. "He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skepticalof politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual."
And so in these opening days of the administration, the Obama team finds itself being criticized by bloggers on the left and the right, mocked by televisioncomics and questioned by reporters about whether Obama is really changing the way Washington works or just changing which political party works it.
Some Republicans saw a double standard. "What would it be like if Hank Paulson had come in without paying his taxes, or any other member of the cabinet?"asked Terry Nelson, a political strategist who worked for President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, referring to Bush's Treasury secretary. "Itwould be roundly attacked and roundly criticized."
Several Democrats, including some who have advised Obama, said privately that he had only himself to blame for laying out such an uncompromising standardas a candidate without recognizing how it would complicate his ability to assemble an administration.
In the campaign, Obama assailed Washington's "entire culture" in which "our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an armyof Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play." He vowed to "close the revolving door" and "clean upboth ends of Pennsylvania Avenue" with "the most sweeping ethics reform in history."
The language, however, was always more sweeping than the specifics. He spoke of refusing campaign money from lobbyists but took it from the people who hiredthem. The ethics plan he outlined, and eventually imposed on his administration, did not ban all lobbyists outright but set conditions for their employmentand did not cover many who were lobbyists in everything but name.
Daschle, for instance, is not a registered lobbyist, but he made a handsome living advising clients seeking influence with the government, including somein the health industry. Obama also gave himself the right to grant waivers in cases he deemed exceptional, most prominently to William Lynn III, an ex-Raytheonlobbyist he nominated as deputy defense secretary. Others were lobbyists more than two years ago, and therefore not covered by the Obama rules.
Some who worked as lobbyists have found places in the administration, including Mark Patterson, who represented Goldman Sachs and is now chief of staffto Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. William Corr, who lobbied for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has been selected as deputy health and humanservices secretary.
Obama advisers said that the exceptions were minimal given the thousands to be hired and that appointees like Lynn would be barred from work on mattersdirectly related to their former employers. The exceptions, they said, were needed for particular skills and experience.
Some advocates said the rules were still more significant than any previously imposed. "This is a direct attack on the culture of Washington and in an extremelypowerful way," said Fred Wertheimer, founder of Democracy 21, an advocacy group.
As for Daschle and Geithner, who also failed to pay some taxes, White House officials said the errors should not obscure their records. Obama "believesthat both Secretary Geithner and Secretary-Designate Daschle are the right people for very important jobs," said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary,"and he does not believe that that will undercut their ability to move forward on an agenda that makes sense for the American people."
That argument has drawn sharp criticism from left and right. "Is this really the message he wants to convey to voters in just his first month in office,a message that it's O.K. to break or skirt the law just as long as you're a good guy with a special skill set?" asked Andy Ostroy, a blogger writing onThe Huffington Post, a liberal Web site.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, a liberal magazine, said Obama should withdraw Daschle's nomination to "revive the change brand he campaignedand won on."
Obama is running into crosscurrents that bedeviled his predecessors. Jimmy Carter promised a new day in Washington after Watergate but still found top associatescaught up in scandal. Bill Clinton promised "the most ethical administration in history" and then endured the most independent counsel investigations inhistory. Bush vowed a new era of responsibility only to be accused of selling out to energy and military industries.
Jody Powell, who was Carter's press secretary and later founded a prominent lobbying firm, said it was better to establish lofty goals that might not bemet than to not have any at all.
"If you set standards, you're going to fall short on occasion and you're going to have to compromise on occasion," Powell said. "But you're probably alsogoing to get more done."
David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.
WASHINGTON: During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher inwhat he would later call in his Inaugural Address a "new era of responsibility." What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.
The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a militarycontractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industryeven if not formally registered as lobbyists.
President Barack Obama said Monday that he was "absolutely" standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary,and Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had "no excuse" and wanted to "deeplyapologize" for his failure to pay $128,000 in U.S. taxes.
But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Obama has proved willing tocompromise.
Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcilethe clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules ofany president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.
Related ArticlesChoice of Gregg creates its own political gameDaschle gives apology over taxes as allies offer supportHolder is confirmed as U.S. attorney general
Today in AmericasBolivia has lithium, and the president intends to make world pay for itObama's promise of ethics reform faces early testHolder is confirmed as U.S. attorney general
"This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibilityand Ethics in Washington. "He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skepticalof politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual."
And so in these opening days of the administration, the Obama team finds itself being criticized by bloggers on the left and the right, mocked by televisioncomics and questioned by reporters about whether Obama is really changing the way Washington works or just changing which political party works it.
Some Republicans saw a double standard. "What would it be like if Hank Paulson had come in without paying his taxes, or any other member of the cabinet?"asked Terry Nelson, a political strategist who worked for President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, referring to Bush's Treasury secretary. "Itwould be roundly attacked and roundly criticized."
Several Democrats, including some who have advised Obama, said privately that he had only himself to blame for laying out such an uncompromising standardas a candidate without recognizing how it would complicate his ability to assemble an administration.
In the campaign, Obama assailed Washington's "entire culture" in which "our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an armyof Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play." He vowed to "close the revolving door" and "clean upboth ends of Pennsylvania Avenue" with "the most sweeping ethics reform in history."
The language, however, was always more sweeping than the specifics. He spoke of refusing campaign money from lobbyists but took it from the people who hiredthem. The ethics plan he outlined, and eventually imposed on his administration, did not ban all lobbyists outright but set conditions for their employmentand did not cover many who were lobbyists in everything but name.
Daschle, for instance, is not a registered lobbyist, but he made a handsome living advising clients seeking influence with the government, including somein the health industry. Obama also gave himself the right to grant waivers in cases he deemed exceptional, most prominently to William Lynn III, an ex-Raytheonlobbyist he nominated as deputy defense secretary. Others were lobbyists more than two years ago, and therefore not covered by the Obama rules.
Some who worked as lobbyists have found places in the administration, including Mark Patterson, who represented Goldman Sachs and is now chief of staffto Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. William Corr, who lobbied for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has been selected as deputy health and humanservices secretary.
Obama advisers said that the exceptions were minimal given the thousands to be hired and that appointees like Lynn would be barred from work on mattersdirectly related to their former employers. The exceptions, they said, were needed for particular skills and experience.
Some advocates said the rules were still more significant than any previously imposed. "This is a direct attack on the culture of Washington and in an extremelypowerful way," said Fred Wertheimer, founder of Democracy 21, an advocacy group.
As for Daschle and Geithner, who also failed to pay some taxes, White House officials said the errors should not obscure their records. Obama "believesthat both Secretary Geithner and Secretary-Designate Daschle are the right people for very important jobs," said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary,"and he does not believe that that will undercut their ability to move forward on an agenda that makes sense for the American people."
That argument has drawn sharp criticism from left and right. "Is this really the message he wants to convey to voters in just his first month in office,a message that it's O.K. to break or skirt the law just as long as you're a good guy with a special skill set?" asked Andy Ostroy, a blogger writing onThe Huffington Post, a liberal Web site.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, a liberal magazine, said Obama should withdraw Daschle's nomination to "revive the change brand he campaignedand won on."
Obama is running into crosscurrents that bedeviled his predecessors. Jimmy Carter promised a new day in Washington after Watergate but still found top associatescaught up in scandal. Bill Clinton promised "the most ethical administration in history" and then endured the most independent counsel investigations inhistory. Bush vowed a new era of responsibility only to be accused of selling out to energy and military industries.
Jody Powell, who was Carter's press secretary and later founded a prominent lobbying firm, said it was better to establish lofty goals that might not bemet than to not have any at all.
"If you set standards, you're going to fall short on occasion and you're going to have to compromise on occasion," Powell said. "But you're probably alsogoing to get more done."
David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.
Bob Herbert: A crazy dream - International Herald Tribune
Bob Herbert: A crazy dreamBy Bob HerbertPublished: February 2, 2009
Printer-Friendly
In the documentary film "Pray the Devil Back to Hell," a woman whose family had endured the agony of civil war in Liberia talks about a dream she had in2003 in which someone urged her to organize the women of her church to pray for peace.
"It was a crazy dream," she said.
Prayer seemed like a flimsy counterweight to the forces of Charles Taylor, the tyrannical president at the time, and the brutally predatory rebels who weretrying to oust him from power. The violence was excruciating. People were dying by the tens of thousands. Rape had become commonplace. Children were starving.Scenes from the film showed even small children whose limbs had been amputated.
The movie, for me, was about much more than the tragic, and then ultimately uplifting events in Liberia. It was about the power of ordinary people to intervenein their own fate.
The first thing that struck me about the film was the way it captured the almost unimaginable horror that war imposes on noncombatants: the looks of terroron the faces of people fleeing gunfire in the streets; children crouching and flinching, almost paralyzed with fear by the sound of nearby explosions;homes engulfed in flames.
Today in OpinionObama on Al ArabiyaA new subpoena for Karl RoveAmerica's nativists are getting restless
It's the kind of environment that breeds feelings of helplessness.
But Leymah Gbowee, the woman who had the crazy dream, would have none of that, and she should be a lesson to all of us.
The filmmakers Abigail Disney and Gini Reticker show us how Gbowee not only rallied the women at her Lutheran church to pray for peace, but organized theminto a full-blown, all-women peace initiative that spread to other Christian churches - and then to women of the Muslim faith.
They wanted the madness stopped. They wanted an end to the maiming and the killing, especially the destruction of a generation of children.
They wanted to eradicate the plague of rape. They wanted all the things that noncombatants crave whenever the warrior crowd - in the U.S., the Middle East,Asia, wherever - decides it's time once again to break out the bombs and guns and let the mindless killing begin.
When the Liberian Christians reached out to "their Muslim sisters," there was some fear on both sides that such an alliance could result in a dilution offaith. But the chaos and the killing had reached such extremes that the religious concerns were set aside in the interest of raising a powerful collectivevoice.
The women prayed, yes, but they also moved outside of the churches and the mosques to demonstrate, to protest, to enlist all who would listen in the causeof peace. Working with hardly any resources, save their extraordinary will and intense desire to end the conflict, the women's initial efforts evolvedinto a movement, the Liberian Mass Action for Peace.
Their headquarters was an open-air fish market in the capital, Monrovia. Thousands of women responded to the call, broadcast over a Roman Catholic radiostation, to demonstrate at the market for peace. The women showed up day after day, praying, waving signs, singing, dancing, chanting and agitating forpeace.
They called on the two sides in the conflict to begin peace talks and their calls coincided with international efforts to have the two sides sit down andbegin to negotiate.
Nothing could stop the rallies at the market, not the fierce heat of the sun, nor drenching rainstorms, nor the publicly expressed anger of Taylor, whowas embarrassed by the protests. Public support for the women grew, and eventually Taylor, and soon afterward the rebel leaders, felt obliged to meet withthem and hear their grievances.
The moral authority of this movement that seemed to have arisen from nowhere had become one of the significant factors pushing the warring sides to thepeace table. Peace talks were eventually held in Accra, the capital of Ghana, and when it looked as if they were about to break down, Gbowee and nearly200 of her followers staged a sit-in at the site of the talks, demanding that the two sides stay put until an agreement was reached.
A tentative peace was established, and Taylor went into exile in Nigeria. The women continued their activism. Three years ago, on Jan. 16, 2006, in an absolutelythrilling triumph for the mothers and wives and sisters and aunts and grandmothers who had worked so courageously for peace, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf wassworn-in as the president of Liberia, the first woman ever elected president of a country in Africa.
Liberia is hardly the world's most stable society. But "Pray the Devil Back to Hell" reminds us of the incredible power available to the most ordinary ofpeople if they are willing to act with courage and unwavering commitment.
Printer-Friendly
In the documentary film "Pray the Devil Back to Hell," a woman whose family had endured the agony of civil war in Liberia talks about a dream she had in2003 in which someone urged her to organize the women of her church to pray for peace.
"It was a crazy dream," she said.
Prayer seemed like a flimsy counterweight to the forces of Charles Taylor, the tyrannical president at the time, and the brutally predatory rebels who weretrying to oust him from power. The violence was excruciating. People were dying by the tens of thousands. Rape had become commonplace. Children were starving.Scenes from the film showed even small children whose limbs had been amputated.
The movie, for me, was about much more than the tragic, and then ultimately uplifting events in Liberia. It was about the power of ordinary people to intervenein their own fate.
The first thing that struck me about the film was the way it captured the almost unimaginable horror that war imposes on noncombatants: the looks of terroron the faces of people fleeing gunfire in the streets; children crouching and flinching, almost paralyzed with fear by the sound of nearby explosions;homes engulfed in flames.
Today in OpinionObama on Al ArabiyaA new subpoena for Karl RoveAmerica's nativists are getting restless
It's the kind of environment that breeds feelings of helplessness.
But Leymah Gbowee, the woman who had the crazy dream, would have none of that, and she should be a lesson to all of us.
The filmmakers Abigail Disney and Gini Reticker show us how Gbowee not only rallied the women at her Lutheran church to pray for peace, but organized theminto a full-blown, all-women peace initiative that spread to other Christian churches - and then to women of the Muslim faith.
They wanted the madness stopped. They wanted an end to the maiming and the killing, especially the destruction of a generation of children.
They wanted to eradicate the plague of rape. They wanted all the things that noncombatants crave whenever the warrior crowd - in the U.S., the Middle East,Asia, wherever - decides it's time once again to break out the bombs and guns and let the mindless killing begin.
When the Liberian Christians reached out to "their Muslim sisters," there was some fear on both sides that such an alliance could result in a dilution offaith. But the chaos and the killing had reached such extremes that the religious concerns were set aside in the interest of raising a powerful collectivevoice.
The women prayed, yes, but they also moved outside of the churches and the mosques to demonstrate, to protest, to enlist all who would listen in the causeof peace. Working with hardly any resources, save their extraordinary will and intense desire to end the conflict, the women's initial efforts evolvedinto a movement, the Liberian Mass Action for Peace.
Their headquarters was an open-air fish market in the capital, Monrovia. Thousands of women responded to the call, broadcast over a Roman Catholic radiostation, to demonstrate at the market for peace. The women showed up day after day, praying, waving signs, singing, dancing, chanting and agitating forpeace.
They called on the two sides in the conflict to begin peace talks and their calls coincided with international efforts to have the two sides sit down andbegin to negotiate.
Nothing could stop the rallies at the market, not the fierce heat of the sun, nor drenching rainstorms, nor the publicly expressed anger of Taylor, whowas embarrassed by the protests. Public support for the women grew, and eventually Taylor, and soon afterward the rebel leaders, felt obliged to meet withthem and hear their grievances.
The moral authority of this movement that seemed to have arisen from nowhere had become one of the significant factors pushing the warring sides to thepeace table. Peace talks were eventually held in Accra, the capital of Ghana, and when it looked as if they were about to break down, Gbowee and nearly200 of her followers staged a sit-in at the site of the talks, demanding that the two sides stay put until an agreement was reached.
A tentative peace was established, and Taylor went into exile in Nigeria. The women continued their activism. Three years ago, on Jan. 16, 2006, in an absolutelythrilling triumph for the mothers and wives and sisters and aunts and grandmothers who had worked so courageously for peace, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf wassworn-in as the president of Liberia, the first woman ever elected president of a country in Africa.
Liberia is hardly the world's most stable society. But "Pray the Devil Back to Hell" reminds us of the incredible power available to the most ordinary ofpeople if they are willing to act with courage and unwavering commitment.
Obama hits new snag as Cabinet nominee questioned - International Herald Tribune
Obama hits new snag as Cabinet nominee questionedThe Associated PressPublished: February 3, 2009
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama's young administration hit a new snag as a second Cabinet nominee faced questions over his tax returns, an unwelcome distractionas the president urges swift passage of his massive economic stimulus plan.
Former Sen. Tom Daschle apologized Monday for failing to pay more than $120,000 in taxes and appealed to his former colleagues in the Senate to approvehim all the same. Obama said he was "absolutely" sticking with his nominee for health secretary.
The White House both underscored the magnitude of the problem and tried to downplay it in the space of seven words. "Nobody's perfect," said press secretaryRobert Gibbs. "It was a serious mistake. ..."
The administration did receive some good news Monday, as another Cabinet choice, Eric Holder, was confirmed as the first African-American U.S. attorneygeneral.
Holder's nomination initially had been viewed as problematic because of questions over his role in controversial pardons when he was the No. 2 Justice Departmentofficial under President Bill Clinton. Now Holder will be the country's chief law enforcement official as head of the Justice Department.
Today in AmericasBolivia has lithium, and the president intends to make world pay for itObama's promise of ethics reform faces early testHolder is confirmed as U.S. attorney general
Nobody was predicting defeat for Daschle's nomination as secretary of health and human services, but it was proving an unsavory pill to swallow for senatorswho only last week confirmed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary despite his separate tax-payment problems. The issue strikes a nerve as many Americansare struggling with their own serious money problems.
The Commerce Department reported that personal spending fell for the sixth straight month in December by 1 percent. Analysts had predicted a decline of0.9 percent. Incomes also dipped, and the personal savings rate shot higher, a sign that consumers remain extremely nervous about the economy.
The president predicted Monday some of America's troubled banks still could fail, despite a $700 billion financial bailout program, half of which has alreadybeen spent by the former Bush administration. The bailout program is separate from the Obama administration's more than $800 billion stimulus plan.
Obama has struggled to win Republican support on his stimulus plan. He did not win Republican votes when the $819 billion version of the bill passed theHouse of Representatives last week. Republican senators also have not been well disposed toward it, declaring the measure too focused on government spendingto the exclusion of tax cuts. The Senate version of the plan totals $900 billion and a vote was expected later this week.
The president appealed to Congress on Monday saying that "very modest differences" should not keep it from getting approved quickly.
Obama issued his new appeal at a meeting with Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association. Douglas is amongseveral Republican governors who have broken with their party colleagues in Congress in seeking approval of the Obama measure.
Separately, the financial bailout program appeared likely to be expanded beyond the $700 billion now allocated by Congress.
"We can expect that we're going to have to do more to shore up the financial system," Obama said in an interview with NBC television.
An announcement is expected next week on how the Obama administration plans to use the last $350 billion of that effort, which has come under heavy congressionaland public criticism.
The massive infusion of taxpayer money into the financial sector has largely failed to thaw U.S. credit markets, while some financial institutions usedthe money to pay dividends, buy other banks and pay out big year-end bonuses to employees.
The president also said that he was taking full responsibility for rescuing the U.S. economy, which is facing its worst downturn in 80 years.
In the NBC interview, Obama referred to establishing a review board for the financial bailout program, but aides later corrected that, saying he meant tosay it would be put in place for the stimulus package.
"If I don't have this done in three years then there's going to be a one-term proposition," Obama said, already looking forward to the 2012 presidentialelection.
Also Monday, Daschle sought to explain how he overlooked taxes on income for consulting work and the use of a car service. He also deducted more in charitablecontributions than he should have.
"I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them," he told committee members.
Daschle was an early supporter of Obama's presidential bid, and several of Daschle's former congressional staffers went to work for Obama after Daschlelost his re-election bid in 2004.
Daschle filed the amended tax returns after Obama announced he intended to nominate him as secretary of health and human services.
Before Daschle's difficulties over back taxes, Geithner's confirmation as treasury secretary was delayed after it was revealed that he had failed to paymore than $34,000 in taxes.
Meanwhile, Democratic officials said Obama will nominate Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as commerce secretary on Tuesday. The two Democratic officials familiarwith the plan disclosed Gregg's pending nomination late Monday on condition of anonymity because a formal announcement had yet to be made.
Gregg would be the third Republican to join Obama's Cabinet, if confirmed. The others are Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Transportation Secretary RayLahood.___Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama's young administration hit a new snag as a second Cabinet nominee faced questions over his tax returns, an unwelcome distractionas the president urges swift passage of his massive economic stimulus plan.
Former Sen. Tom Daschle apologized Monday for failing to pay more than $120,000 in taxes and appealed to his former colleagues in the Senate to approvehim all the same. Obama said he was "absolutely" sticking with his nominee for health secretary.
The White House both underscored the magnitude of the problem and tried to downplay it in the space of seven words. "Nobody's perfect," said press secretaryRobert Gibbs. "It was a serious mistake. ..."
The administration did receive some good news Monday, as another Cabinet choice, Eric Holder, was confirmed as the first African-American U.S. attorneygeneral.
Holder's nomination initially had been viewed as problematic because of questions over his role in controversial pardons when he was the No. 2 Justice Departmentofficial under President Bill Clinton. Now Holder will be the country's chief law enforcement official as head of the Justice Department.
Today in AmericasBolivia has lithium, and the president intends to make world pay for itObama's promise of ethics reform faces early testHolder is confirmed as U.S. attorney general
Nobody was predicting defeat for Daschle's nomination as secretary of health and human services, but it was proving an unsavory pill to swallow for senatorswho only last week confirmed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary despite his separate tax-payment problems. The issue strikes a nerve as many Americansare struggling with their own serious money problems.
The Commerce Department reported that personal spending fell for the sixth straight month in December by 1 percent. Analysts had predicted a decline of0.9 percent. Incomes also dipped, and the personal savings rate shot higher, a sign that consumers remain extremely nervous about the economy.
The president predicted Monday some of America's troubled banks still could fail, despite a $700 billion financial bailout program, half of which has alreadybeen spent by the former Bush administration. The bailout program is separate from the Obama administration's more than $800 billion stimulus plan.
Obama has struggled to win Republican support on his stimulus plan. He did not win Republican votes when the $819 billion version of the bill passed theHouse of Representatives last week. Republican senators also have not been well disposed toward it, declaring the measure too focused on government spendingto the exclusion of tax cuts. The Senate version of the plan totals $900 billion and a vote was expected later this week.
The president appealed to Congress on Monday saying that "very modest differences" should not keep it from getting approved quickly.
Obama issued his new appeal at a meeting with Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association. Douglas is amongseveral Republican governors who have broken with their party colleagues in Congress in seeking approval of the Obama measure.
Separately, the financial bailout program appeared likely to be expanded beyond the $700 billion now allocated by Congress.
"We can expect that we're going to have to do more to shore up the financial system," Obama said in an interview with NBC television.
An announcement is expected next week on how the Obama administration plans to use the last $350 billion of that effort, which has come under heavy congressionaland public criticism.
The massive infusion of taxpayer money into the financial sector has largely failed to thaw U.S. credit markets, while some financial institutions usedthe money to pay dividends, buy other banks and pay out big year-end bonuses to employees.
The president also said that he was taking full responsibility for rescuing the U.S. economy, which is facing its worst downturn in 80 years.
In the NBC interview, Obama referred to establishing a review board for the financial bailout program, but aides later corrected that, saying he meant tosay it would be put in place for the stimulus package.
"If I don't have this done in three years then there's going to be a one-term proposition," Obama said, already looking forward to the 2012 presidentialelection.
Also Monday, Daschle sought to explain how he overlooked taxes on income for consulting work and the use of a car service. He also deducted more in charitablecontributions than he should have.
"I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them," he told committee members.
Daschle was an early supporter of Obama's presidential bid, and several of Daschle's former congressional staffers went to work for Obama after Daschlelost his re-election bid in 2004.
Daschle filed the amended tax returns after Obama announced he intended to nominate him as secretary of health and human services.
Before Daschle's difficulties over back taxes, Geithner's confirmation as treasury secretary was delayed after it was revealed that he had failed to paymore than $34,000 in taxes.
Meanwhile, Democratic officials said Obama will nominate Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as commerce secretary on Tuesday. The two Democratic officials familiarwith the plan disclosed Gregg's pending nomination late Monday on condition of anonymity because a formal announcement had yet to be made.
Gregg would be the third Republican to join Obama's Cabinet, if confirmed. The others are Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Transportation Secretary RayLahood.___Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.
Commuting | Home again, home again | The Economist
Correspondent's Diary
Commuting
Home again, home again
Feb 2nd 2009From Economist.com
Getting from one place to another in four cities
IT SEEMS odd to be talking about the daily grind of commuting on a day when most of London stayed at home. There were no buses running, many trains werecancelled and if The Economist’s Monday morning conference was anything to go by, people whose presence is normally regarded as essential phoned in instead.But as it happens my train from Cambridge ran only a few minutes late, and although I had to walk my bike much of the way from King’s Cross to The Economist’soffices in St James’s (why are London’s roads not gritted in preparation for snow that has been forecast for days?) I got to work only a little later anddamper than usual.
I moved out of London for the same reason as thousands of others: I became a parent. I was no longer getting any benefit from the good stuff (theatres,galleries, shops and so on) and suddenly the bad stuff—the dirt, the lack of space, the cost and above all the schools, so many of them depressingly dreadful—startedto matter. I was working a day or two a week in Cambridge at the time, so in 2003 I traded one three-bed Victorian semi-detached house for another. Mynew house was almost identical to my old, but it was within a short cycle of one of the world’s most beautiful town centres, on a quiet street, with ahundred-foot garden and facing a park. It was cheaper, too.
So two years later, when The Economist offered me a job in London, I was not keen to move back. Instead I acquired a folding bike and an eye-wateringlyexpensive yearly season ticket (every year the price goes up by more than retail-price inflation; it now costs £3,500), and became one of around 700,000people who commute by train into London every day.ReutersShut it all down
My trains come and go from King’s Cross, one of London’s biggest and busiest stations, which is undergoing seemingly interminable renovation. The platformson the underground get dangerously overcrowded during the morning rush hour as people change between the six lines that stop there, so one of the entrancesto the underground station is closed, forcing my fellow commuters who need to use the tube for their onward travel to queue at the other entrance in singlefile. Many of them will already have endured a cramped and uncomfortable journey: the line from Cambridge to King’s Cross is Britain’s most overcrowded,with figures published last August showing that it had four of the six trains with the highest ratios of standers to sitters in the country. I am lucky:I can work varied hours and mostly miss the worst of it.
I lived in London for a spell in the early 1990s. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was experiencing London at almost its most depopulated in 50 years.In 1939 8.6m people lived in Greater London, but that fell to a low of 6.7m in 1988. Since then the population of London has risen by almost 50,000 a year—anincrease largely fuelled by immigration. Around 7.5m people now live in the city.
In the past year or so, however, net migration has turned negative, and there is a great deal of churn: last year around 150,000 people come to London fromabroad, and around the same number from other bits of the United Kingdom—most of them young and childless. Roughly 380,000 Londoners left, many of themolder, or parents.
Modern travel patterns poorly suit an old, crowded city, and much of London’s infrastructure is crumbling. London’s underground was the world’s first (theMetropolitan line opened in 1863), and in recent decades repairs on the ageing trains and escalators were often let slide, creating a huge backlog. Otherdevelopments over that period: the congestion charge, introduced in 2003, without which London would presumably face total gridlock; “bendy buses”, anincomprehensible waste of precious road real estate; and unpredictable diversions due to Thames Water’s constantly shifting upgrade-works on London’s Victoriansewers and water mains.
Among the biggest changes in commuting habits has been the increase in cycling. In 1992 it was an eccentric habit I had picked up while studying in Cambridge—bya wide margin Britain’s most cycle-friendly city. Now lots of Londoners do it, which is good—other road users are more aware of us—and bad—now that theynotice we exist, they almost uniformly hate us. Ask them why and most will say it’s because cyclists break rules, which they do—but no more frequentlythan pedestrians or motorists. As I leave behind the morning hordes queuing to go underground at King’s Cross, or sail past a bendy bus straddling threelanes and blocking a busy junction as it tries to turn a corner, I know the true reason is jealousy.
When I came back from maternity leave after my second child our editorial manager asked if a BlackBerry would help me to manage my time. I turned the offerdown on the grounds that I needed somewhere to get some real work done. In the mornings, the 50-minute journey is perfect for sketching out an article;in the evenings I read, usually something work-related, or muse over a story lead or title, or (on Wednesdays) sleep. I feel sorry for commuters I seereading newspapers, or emailing: they are wasting the best bit of the day.
Commuting
Home again, home again
Feb 2nd 2009From Economist.com
Getting from one place to another in four cities
IT SEEMS odd to be talking about the daily grind of commuting on a day when most of London stayed at home. There were no buses running, many trains werecancelled and if The Economist’s Monday morning conference was anything to go by, people whose presence is normally regarded as essential phoned in instead.But as it happens my train from Cambridge ran only a few minutes late, and although I had to walk my bike much of the way from King’s Cross to The Economist’soffices in St James’s (why are London’s roads not gritted in preparation for snow that has been forecast for days?) I got to work only a little later anddamper than usual.
I moved out of London for the same reason as thousands of others: I became a parent. I was no longer getting any benefit from the good stuff (theatres,galleries, shops and so on) and suddenly the bad stuff—the dirt, the lack of space, the cost and above all the schools, so many of them depressingly dreadful—startedto matter. I was working a day or two a week in Cambridge at the time, so in 2003 I traded one three-bed Victorian semi-detached house for another. Mynew house was almost identical to my old, but it was within a short cycle of one of the world’s most beautiful town centres, on a quiet street, with ahundred-foot garden and facing a park. It was cheaper, too.
So two years later, when The Economist offered me a job in London, I was not keen to move back. Instead I acquired a folding bike and an eye-wateringlyexpensive yearly season ticket (every year the price goes up by more than retail-price inflation; it now costs £3,500), and became one of around 700,000people who commute by train into London every day.ReutersShut it all down
My trains come and go from King’s Cross, one of London’s biggest and busiest stations, which is undergoing seemingly interminable renovation. The platformson the underground get dangerously overcrowded during the morning rush hour as people change between the six lines that stop there, so one of the entrancesto the underground station is closed, forcing my fellow commuters who need to use the tube for their onward travel to queue at the other entrance in singlefile. Many of them will already have endured a cramped and uncomfortable journey: the line from Cambridge to King’s Cross is Britain’s most overcrowded,with figures published last August showing that it had four of the six trains with the highest ratios of standers to sitters in the country. I am lucky:I can work varied hours and mostly miss the worst of it.
I lived in London for a spell in the early 1990s. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was experiencing London at almost its most depopulated in 50 years.In 1939 8.6m people lived in Greater London, but that fell to a low of 6.7m in 1988. Since then the population of London has risen by almost 50,000 a year—anincrease largely fuelled by immigration. Around 7.5m people now live in the city.
In the past year or so, however, net migration has turned negative, and there is a great deal of churn: last year around 150,000 people come to London fromabroad, and around the same number from other bits of the United Kingdom—most of them young and childless. Roughly 380,000 Londoners left, many of themolder, or parents.
Modern travel patterns poorly suit an old, crowded city, and much of London’s infrastructure is crumbling. London’s underground was the world’s first (theMetropolitan line opened in 1863), and in recent decades repairs on the ageing trains and escalators were often let slide, creating a huge backlog. Otherdevelopments over that period: the congestion charge, introduced in 2003, without which London would presumably face total gridlock; “bendy buses”, anincomprehensible waste of precious road real estate; and unpredictable diversions due to Thames Water’s constantly shifting upgrade-works on London’s Victoriansewers and water mains.
Among the biggest changes in commuting habits has been the increase in cycling. In 1992 it was an eccentric habit I had picked up while studying in Cambridge—bya wide margin Britain’s most cycle-friendly city. Now lots of Londoners do it, which is good—other road users are more aware of us—and bad—now that theynotice we exist, they almost uniformly hate us. Ask them why and most will say it’s because cyclists break rules, which they do—but no more frequentlythan pedestrians or motorists. As I leave behind the morning hordes queuing to go underground at King’s Cross, or sail past a bendy bus straddling threelanes and blocking a busy junction as it tries to turn a corner, I know the true reason is jealousy.
When I came back from maternity leave after my second child our editorial manager asked if a BlackBerry would help me to manage my time. I turned the offerdown on the grounds that I needed somewhere to get some real work done. In the mornings, the 50-minute journey is perfect for sketching out an article;in the evenings I read, usually something work-related, or muse over a story lead or title, or (on Wednesdays) sleep. I feel sorry for commuters I seereading newspapers, or emailing: they are wasting the best bit of the day.
BBC NEWS | England | London | Heavy snow disrupts London travel
Heavy snow disrupts London travel
A skier in Pimlico, central LondonPeople are finding innovative ways to travel in London
Thousands of people are unable to travel as London's transport network has been disrupted due to snow.
The majority of the bus network and three Underground lines - the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Waterloo & City lines - have been suspended.
London Mayor Boris Johnson has suspended the city's congestion charge for the day.
Both runways at Heathrow Airport closed although one has since reopened. London City Airport remains closed.
The snow caused a Cyprus Airways flight to slip off a taxiway at Heathrow and land in grass.
Passengers were unharmed in the incident which took place at about 0820 GMT, airport operator BAA said.
The authority added it was the last flight to land before the runways were closed.
British Airways said it has cancelled all its flights until 1700 GMT.
Earlier, all bus services in the city were suspended. A few are being reintroduced but most remain withdrawn.
London has seen the heaviest snowfall in 18 years, weather experts said.
Buses and Tube
Up to 10cm (4in) of snow has already fallen in some parts of Greater London, with 6cm (2in) of snow reported at Heathrow Airport.
The conditions led the Met Office to issue an extreme weather warning for London and the south east of England.
On the Underground, the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Waterloo & City lines are fully suspended. The Bakerloo, Jubilee, Piccadilly, Northern and Districtlines are partly suspended.
There are severe delays on the Central Line. Several Tube stations are also closed.
Impact of the snowfallMost London buses suspendedCircle, Hammersmith and City, Waterloo and City lines suspendedSoutheastern Trains and Gatwick Express cancelledReduced service on Southern and First Great WesternLondon City airport closedOne runway at Heathrow closedTreacherous driving conditionsMore than 260 schools closed
A spokesman for Transport for London (TfL) said: "Heavy snowfall across the London area last night has severely disrupted transport services and furthersnow is forecast throughout Monday.
"The biggest difficulty today is the road conditions which are extremely dangerous and drivers should take extreme care."
All services are currently suspended until further notice on Southeastern Trains and there is no service on Gatwick Express. Southern and First Great Westernare running reduced services.
Although Gatwick Airport was open, there were significant delays and cancellations, he added.
Passengers were advised to check before leaving for the airport.
Treacherous conditions
On the roads, the southern section of the M25 has treacherous driving conditions between the M23 and the A3.
The A2 is shut into London at Lewisham Road in Blackheath because of snow with many other roads across London extremely slippery.
Scotland Yard said it had reports of a number of crashes in the early hours, though no-one was seriously hurt.
A commuter at a Tube stationMost Tube services have been severely disrupted
The Highways Agency said there have been too many minor accidents on the roads "to put a number on".
The agency recommended people should only take essential journeys.
A London Ambulance Service spokesman said it received more than 650 calls between midnight and Monday morning and stressed that it would only respond to"life-threatening calls" as it was under "severe pressure".
London NHS has advised patients, who have outpatient appointments or booked to undergo non-emergency surgeries, to call their local hospitals before travelling.
More than 260 schools across London have been closed with the boroughs of Haringey and Camden in north London, Westminster in central London, Hounslow andEaling in west London,
Bromley and Lambeth in south London and Barking and Dagenham in the east being the worst affected.
Eurostar services from London are currently operating but are subject to possible delays.
Night-time temperatures across London could drop to -3C as a blast of cold air sweeps in from the North Sea.
Are you prepared for the coming snow? Has the bad weather arrived with you already? Show us your snow by sending pictures in via the form below.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via MMS please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.
Do not endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.
A skier in Pimlico, central LondonPeople are finding innovative ways to travel in London
Thousands of people are unable to travel as London's transport network has been disrupted due to snow.
The majority of the bus network and three Underground lines - the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Waterloo & City lines - have been suspended.
London Mayor Boris Johnson has suspended the city's congestion charge for the day.
Both runways at Heathrow Airport closed although one has since reopened. London City Airport remains closed.
The snow caused a Cyprus Airways flight to slip off a taxiway at Heathrow and land in grass.
Passengers were unharmed in the incident which took place at about 0820 GMT, airport operator BAA said.
The authority added it was the last flight to land before the runways were closed.
British Airways said it has cancelled all its flights until 1700 GMT.
Earlier, all bus services in the city were suspended. A few are being reintroduced but most remain withdrawn.
London has seen the heaviest snowfall in 18 years, weather experts said.
Buses and Tube
Up to 10cm (4in) of snow has already fallen in some parts of Greater London, with 6cm (2in) of snow reported at Heathrow Airport.
The conditions led the Met Office to issue an extreme weather warning for London and the south east of England.
On the Underground, the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Waterloo & City lines are fully suspended. The Bakerloo, Jubilee, Piccadilly, Northern and Districtlines are partly suspended.
There are severe delays on the Central Line. Several Tube stations are also closed.
Impact of the snowfallMost London buses suspendedCircle, Hammersmith and City, Waterloo and City lines suspendedSoutheastern Trains and Gatwick Express cancelledReduced service on Southern and First Great WesternLondon City airport closedOne runway at Heathrow closedTreacherous driving conditionsMore than 260 schools closed
A spokesman for Transport for London (TfL) said: "Heavy snowfall across the London area last night has severely disrupted transport services and furthersnow is forecast throughout Monday.
"The biggest difficulty today is the road conditions which are extremely dangerous and drivers should take extreme care."
All services are currently suspended until further notice on Southeastern Trains and there is no service on Gatwick Express. Southern and First Great Westernare running reduced services.
Although Gatwick Airport was open, there were significant delays and cancellations, he added.
Passengers were advised to check before leaving for the airport.
Treacherous conditions
On the roads, the southern section of the M25 has treacherous driving conditions between the M23 and the A3.
The A2 is shut into London at Lewisham Road in Blackheath because of snow with many other roads across London extremely slippery.
Scotland Yard said it had reports of a number of crashes in the early hours, though no-one was seriously hurt.
A commuter at a Tube stationMost Tube services have been severely disrupted
The Highways Agency said there have been too many minor accidents on the roads "to put a number on".
The agency recommended people should only take essential journeys.
A London Ambulance Service spokesman said it received more than 650 calls between midnight and Monday morning and stressed that it would only respond to"life-threatening calls" as it was under "severe pressure".
London NHS has advised patients, who have outpatient appointments or booked to undergo non-emergency surgeries, to call their local hospitals before travelling.
More than 260 schools across London have been closed with the boroughs of Haringey and Camden in north London, Westminster in central London, Hounslow andEaling in west London,
Bromley and Lambeth in south London and Barking and Dagenham in the east being the worst affected.
Eurostar services from London are currently operating but are subject to possible delays.
Night-time temperatures across London could drop to -3C as a blast of cold air sweeps in from the North Sea.
Are you prepared for the coming snow? Has the bad weather arrived with you already? Show us your snow by sending pictures in via the form below.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via MMS please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.
Do not endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.
Londra | 2 febbraio 2009 Tempesta di neve a Londra, niente autobus e scuole chiuse
Londra 2 febbraio 2009
Tempesta di neve a Londra, niente autobus e scuole chiuse
La City bloccataLa City bloccata
Una fortissima tempesta di neve ha praticamente paralizzato Londra ed altre zone della Gran Bretagna sud orientale. L'aeroporto di Gatwick e' stato completamentechiuso mentre ad Heatrow e' stata chiusa una delle piste, provocando ritardi e disagi ai passaggeri. Anche molte autostrade sono bloccate da automezzi pesantiche ostruiscono il passaggio.
E nella city la situazione non migliora: sono completamente fermi gli autobus pubblici, molte linee dalla famosa Tube, la metropolitana di Londra. E' stataordinata la chiusura delle scuole e moltissimi lavoratori non sono stati in grado di recarsi al lavoro.
Tempesta di neve a Londra, niente autobus e scuole chiuse
La City bloccataLa City bloccata
Una fortissima tempesta di neve ha praticamente paralizzato Londra ed altre zone della Gran Bretagna sud orientale. L'aeroporto di Gatwick e' stato completamentechiuso mentre ad Heatrow e' stata chiusa una delle piste, provocando ritardi e disagi ai passaggeri. Anche molte autostrade sono bloccate da automezzi pesantiche ostruiscono il passaggio.
E nella city la situazione non migliora: sono completamente fermi gli autobus pubblici, molte linee dalla famosa Tube, la metropolitana di Londra. E' stataordinata la chiusura delle scuole e moltissimi lavoratori non sono stati in grado di recarsi al lavoro.
Per fermare la crisi la Merkel vuole un'Onu dell'economia - Corriere della Sera
ere della Sera >
Economia >
Davos 2009 >
Per fermare la crisi la Merkel vuole un'Onu dell'economia
«non si pensi di potere vivere a lungo sopra le proprie possibilità»
Per fermare la crisi la Merkelvuole un'Onu dell'economia
Piano in cinque punti per un nuovo ordine mondiale. «Nella Costituzione l'obbligo di pareggio del bilancio»
World Economic Forum: sito ufficiale
Il premier tedesco Angela Merkel durante il suo intervento a Davos (Epa)DA UNO DEI NOSTRI INVIATI DAVOS (Svizzera) — Idee forti da Angela Merkel, ieri, a Davos. E potenti della terra in piedi ad applaudirla. In un discorso duratomeno di venti minuti, la cancelliera tedesca ha proposto al mondo una Carta per un nuovo ordine internazionale (contenuti compresi), un Consiglio di SicurezzaEconomico da istituire presso l'Onu, ha prospettato il modello sociale di mercato tedesco come punto di riferimento globale e ha indicato la via tedescaper uscire dalla crisi come la migliore e più efficiente. La leader che per settimane è stata attaccata perché troppo timida nella risposta alla recessioneè stata salutata dal World Economic Forum come unica leader capace di guidare l'Europa fuori dalla recessione. Sul breve periodo, Frau Merkel ha spiegatoche il pacchetto di stimolo varato dal governo di Berlino, 80 miliardi tra 2009 e 2010, è «senza precedenti» perché senza precedenti sono i tempi. Ha peròdetto che il mondo deve evitare di «ripetere questo schema» di indebitamento all'infinito. Quindi, assieme alle misure anti-crisi il governo di Berlinovuole un meccanismo di rientro certo dal debito una volta che l'economia sarà in ripresa e introdurrà l'obbligo di pareggiare i conti pubblici nella Costituzione.«E' importante — ha aggiunto — che anche a livello internazionale non si pensi di potere vivere a lungo sopra le proprie possibilità ». In effetti, ilpiano di stimolo e di rientro dal debito tedesco sta per certi versi diventando lo standard anche per altri Paesi: il presidente della Commissione europeaJosé Barroso ne è per esempio diventato un sostenitore.
G20 AL POSTO DEL G8 - Sul medio-lungo periodo, la signora Merkel ha poi detto che la formula del G20 al posto del G8 è positiva. Al prossimo incontro delGruppo delle 20 maggiori economie, a Londra a inizio aprile, proporrà di iniziare a scrivere una Carta che detti le regole di un nuovo ordine economicomondiale. Su cinque linee di fondo. Primo, ribadire l'impegno al libero mercato, strumento di crescita. Secondo, affermare i modi per prevenire gli eccessisui mercati. A questo proposito, ha spiegato, «l'economia sociale di mercato (tedesca, ndr) ha funzionato bene: lo Stato è guardiano dell'economia, laconcorrenza va bene ma deve essere disciplinata». A questo scopo, servono «regole chiaramente definite» e un trasferimento di responsabilità e di poteridagli Stati nazionali a organismi internazionali per quanto riguarda i mercati finanziari: misura che (questo la cancelliera non l'ha detto) limiterebbeil potere unico di cui gli Stati Uniti e il dollari hanno goduto nei decenni scorsi. Terzo, serve un coordinamento economico internazionale. «Noi - haaffermato - siamo sospettosi sui sussidi al settore auto in America. Se portati avanti troppo a lungo, distorcono la concorrenza e, diciamolo chiaramente,diventano una forma di protezionismo ». Contro i rischi di protezionismo che crescono nel mondo ieri, sempre a Davos, si è espresso decisamente anche ilprimo ministro britannico Gordon Brown. La questione coordinamento diventa così decisiva per evitare politiche nazionaliste. Quarto, favorire l'uso dirisorse sostenibili e promuovere la protezione del clima. Quinto punto della Carta, combattere la povertà non solo come dovere ma come necessità dell'economia globale. L'anno prossimo, la cancelliera riunirà i vertici di Fondo monetario internazionale, Banca mondiale, Organizzazione internazionale delLavoro e altri organismi per cercare assieme a essi un nuovo approccio ai problemi del pianeta, anch'esso da inserire nella Carta per un nuovo ordine economicomondiale. «Perché questo deve avere anche le sue istituzioni», ha aggiunto. Al proposito, sarebbe utile pensare a «un Consiglio Economico delle NazioniUnite che abbia la funzione che ha avuto il Consiglio di Sicurezza in altri campi». Frau Merkel ha ricordato di essere cresciuta nella Germania Est e cheora è la cancelliera della Germania unita. «Niente è impossibile», ha quindi concluso. Scesa dal podio, se n'è andata subito. Mentre, tra gli applausi,il Forum faceva considerazioni sulla leadership in Europa.
Danilo Taino31 gennaio 2009
Economia >
Davos 2009 >
Per fermare la crisi la Merkel vuole un'Onu dell'economia
«non si pensi di potere vivere a lungo sopra le proprie possibilità»
Per fermare la crisi la Merkelvuole un'Onu dell'economia
Piano in cinque punti per un nuovo ordine mondiale. «Nella Costituzione l'obbligo di pareggio del bilancio»
World Economic Forum: sito ufficiale
Il premier tedesco Angela Merkel durante il suo intervento a Davos (Epa)DA UNO DEI NOSTRI INVIATI DAVOS (Svizzera) — Idee forti da Angela Merkel, ieri, a Davos. E potenti della terra in piedi ad applaudirla. In un discorso duratomeno di venti minuti, la cancelliera tedesca ha proposto al mondo una Carta per un nuovo ordine internazionale (contenuti compresi), un Consiglio di SicurezzaEconomico da istituire presso l'Onu, ha prospettato il modello sociale di mercato tedesco come punto di riferimento globale e ha indicato la via tedescaper uscire dalla crisi come la migliore e più efficiente. La leader che per settimane è stata attaccata perché troppo timida nella risposta alla recessioneè stata salutata dal World Economic Forum come unica leader capace di guidare l'Europa fuori dalla recessione. Sul breve periodo, Frau Merkel ha spiegatoche il pacchetto di stimolo varato dal governo di Berlino, 80 miliardi tra 2009 e 2010, è «senza precedenti» perché senza precedenti sono i tempi. Ha peròdetto che il mondo deve evitare di «ripetere questo schema» di indebitamento all'infinito. Quindi, assieme alle misure anti-crisi il governo di Berlinovuole un meccanismo di rientro certo dal debito una volta che l'economia sarà in ripresa e introdurrà l'obbligo di pareggiare i conti pubblici nella Costituzione.«E' importante — ha aggiunto — che anche a livello internazionale non si pensi di potere vivere a lungo sopra le proprie possibilità ». In effetti, ilpiano di stimolo e di rientro dal debito tedesco sta per certi versi diventando lo standard anche per altri Paesi: il presidente della Commissione europeaJosé Barroso ne è per esempio diventato un sostenitore.
G20 AL POSTO DEL G8 - Sul medio-lungo periodo, la signora Merkel ha poi detto che la formula del G20 al posto del G8 è positiva. Al prossimo incontro delGruppo delle 20 maggiori economie, a Londra a inizio aprile, proporrà di iniziare a scrivere una Carta che detti le regole di un nuovo ordine economicomondiale. Su cinque linee di fondo. Primo, ribadire l'impegno al libero mercato, strumento di crescita. Secondo, affermare i modi per prevenire gli eccessisui mercati. A questo proposito, ha spiegato, «l'economia sociale di mercato (tedesca, ndr) ha funzionato bene: lo Stato è guardiano dell'economia, laconcorrenza va bene ma deve essere disciplinata». A questo scopo, servono «regole chiaramente definite» e un trasferimento di responsabilità e di poteridagli Stati nazionali a organismi internazionali per quanto riguarda i mercati finanziari: misura che (questo la cancelliera non l'ha detto) limiterebbeil potere unico di cui gli Stati Uniti e il dollari hanno goduto nei decenni scorsi. Terzo, serve un coordinamento economico internazionale. «Noi - haaffermato - siamo sospettosi sui sussidi al settore auto in America. Se portati avanti troppo a lungo, distorcono la concorrenza e, diciamolo chiaramente,diventano una forma di protezionismo ». Contro i rischi di protezionismo che crescono nel mondo ieri, sempre a Davos, si è espresso decisamente anche ilprimo ministro britannico Gordon Brown. La questione coordinamento diventa così decisiva per evitare politiche nazionaliste. Quarto, favorire l'uso dirisorse sostenibili e promuovere la protezione del clima. Quinto punto della Carta, combattere la povertà non solo come dovere ma come necessità dell'economia globale. L'anno prossimo, la cancelliera riunirà i vertici di Fondo monetario internazionale, Banca mondiale, Organizzazione internazionale delLavoro e altri organismi per cercare assieme a essi un nuovo approccio ai problemi del pianeta, anch'esso da inserire nella Carta per un nuovo ordine economicomondiale. «Perché questo deve avere anche le sue istituzioni», ha aggiunto. Al proposito, sarebbe utile pensare a «un Consiglio Economico delle NazioniUnite che abbia la funzione che ha avuto il Consiglio di Sicurezza in altri campi». Frau Merkel ha ricordato di essere cresciuta nella Germania Est e cheora è la cancelliera della Germania unita. «Niente è impossibile», ha quindi concluso. Scesa dal podio, se n'è andata subito. Mentre, tra gli applausi,il Forum faceva considerazioni sulla leadership in Europa.
Danilo Taino31 gennaio 2009
Warren Harding, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Whaat? from HNN
Warren Harding, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Whaat? from HNN
2-02-09
Warren Harding, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Whaat?
By Phillip Payne
Mr. Payne is the author of Dead Last: The Public Memory of Warren G. Harding's Scandalous Legacy (Ohio University Press, September, 2008). He is an AssociateProfessor of history at St. Bonaventure University.
I/51Nfi-nYYAL._AA240_In the movieGabriel Over the White House(1933) an ineffective, philandering, president is transformed by a near-tragic accident from a party hack into an activist president who tackles the nation’sseemingly insurmountable problems. In this Depression-era film, fictional President Judson C. Hammond is transformed from Warren G. Harding to FranklinD. Roosevelt. The idea of the presidency transforming the man is a common theme in presidential literature and movies. While these sorts of transformationsmay make for good fiction, they are a historical rarity. As George W. Bush exits the national stage and Barack Obama steps onto the presidential stage,we are watching this process play out before us as we hope to move from Harding to Roosevelt. In some ways, inaugurations, as much as the movies, are aboutthe importance of image to our understanding of the presidency.
George W. Bush and his allies have launched a legacy campaign. In a series of interviews and articles, President Bush and those associated with his administrationhave argued that despite current low poll numbers they will be redeemed in history. Their argument boils down to two basic points. One, they enumeratea variety of policy successes. Two, they argue that some policies (chiefly related to Iraq) that currently seem like unpopular failures, over the long-term,will prove to be successful. The end result will be the redemption of the Bush legacy. They might be right. There are a few instances of historians,the public, or both changing their minds about a past president. There does seem to be a certain willingness on the public’s part to let bygones be bygonesfor former presidents as long as they stay out of the political arena.
However, as of this writing, the central legacy debate playing out in the media is of whether Bush is the worst president of all time; is the better comparisonwith Herbert Hoover or Warren Harding? A Washington Post/ABC poll finds Bush with a 33 percent public approval rating, noting that in the post-World WarII period only Richard Nixon and Harry Truman have had lower numbers. Similarly, the pollster reportsthat the public’s mood on the direction of the country and the state of the economy are “the most negative assessment in more than 23 years of Post-ABCpolling.”
In contrast Barack Obama enters the presidency evoking Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, two men of different parties who are regularly ranked asgreat presidents. The Washington Post reports enormous crowds waiting to see Obama as he retraces Lincoln’s route to the White House while traveling ina Depression-era railcar. Again history seems to be a force of nature as the Post reports: “On the final leg of a two-year road trip,Barack Obamarode into Washington on Saturday in an antique caboose with the contented look of a man convinced he was arriving at his rightful destination.”
No president enters the White House expecting to fail. Neither Harding nor Hoover entered the White House planning on going down in history as failures. After his death in office Harding was compared with Lincoln for his ability to bring people together. Hoover spent years defending his record as president. The irony is that Bush, like Obama, realizes that history, in the omnipresent third person, often rewards the activist president, the president who, asBush likes to phrase it, did not play “small ball.” As he transitions into his post-presidential years, Bush is announcing the creation of a “FreedomInstitute” in Dallas that will be a combination library, museum, and public-policy think tank. Margaret Spellings, the outgoing Secretary of Education,says that center will focus on “game-changing” policies and decisions.
Obama, of course, is just starting to make decisions as president. The incoming Obama administration has brought into the public light a debate over theeffectiveness of the New Deal, but at this moment in time, he embodies our hope for transformation. While movie makers, film makers and writers oftenuse the deus ex machina to explain when the man becomes the president, the prosaic transition from Bush to Obama is one of the more important changes tothe country and the democratic process. It remains to be seen if Bush will be able to refurbish his reputation and whether Obama will be the next Lincoln.
2-02-09
Warren Harding, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Whaat?
By Phillip Payne
Mr. Payne is the author of Dead Last: The Public Memory of Warren G. Harding's Scandalous Legacy (Ohio University Press, September, 2008). He is an AssociateProfessor of history at St. Bonaventure University.
I/51Nfi-nYYAL._AA240_In the movieGabriel Over the White House(1933) an ineffective, philandering, president is transformed by a near-tragic accident from a party hack into an activist president who tackles the nation’sseemingly insurmountable problems. In this Depression-era film, fictional President Judson C. Hammond is transformed from Warren G. Harding to FranklinD. Roosevelt. The idea of the presidency transforming the man is a common theme in presidential literature and movies. While these sorts of transformationsmay make for good fiction, they are a historical rarity. As George W. Bush exits the national stage and Barack Obama steps onto the presidential stage,we are watching this process play out before us as we hope to move from Harding to Roosevelt. In some ways, inaugurations, as much as the movies, are aboutthe importance of image to our understanding of the presidency.
George W. Bush and his allies have launched a legacy campaign. In a series of interviews and articles, President Bush and those associated with his administrationhave argued that despite current low poll numbers they will be redeemed in history. Their argument boils down to two basic points. One, they enumeratea variety of policy successes. Two, they argue that some policies (chiefly related to Iraq) that currently seem like unpopular failures, over the long-term,will prove to be successful. The end result will be the redemption of the Bush legacy. They might be right. There are a few instances of historians,the public, or both changing their minds about a past president. There does seem to be a certain willingness on the public’s part to let bygones be bygonesfor former presidents as long as they stay out of the political arena.
However, as of this writing, the central legacy debate playing out in the media is of whether Bush is the worst president of all time; is the better comparisonwith Herbert Hoover or Warren Harding? A Washington Post/ABC poll finds Bush with a 33 percent public approval rating, noting that in the post-World WarII period only Richard Nixon and Harry Truman have had lower numbers. Similarly, the pollster reportsthat the public’s mood on the direction of the country and the state of the economy are “the most negative assessment in more than 23 years of Post-ABCpolling.”
In contrast Barack Obama enters the presidency evoking Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, two men of different parties who are regularly ranked asgreat presidents. The Washington Post reports enormous crowds waiting to see Obama as he retraces Lincoln’s route to the White House while traveling ina Depression-era railcar. Again history seems to be a force of nature as the Post reports: “On the final leg of a two-year road trip,Barack Obamarode into Washington on Saturday in an antique caboose with the contented look of a man convinced he was arriving at his rightful destination.”
No president enters the White House expecting to fail. Neither Harding nor Hoover entered the White House planning on going down in history as failures. After his death in office Harding was compared with Lincoln for his ability to bring people together. Hoover spent years defending his record as president. The irony is that Bush, like Obama, realizes that history, in the omnipresent third person, often rewards the activist president, the president who, asBush likes to phrase it, did not play “small ball.” As he transitions into his post-presidential years, Bush is announcing the creation of a “FreedomInstitute” in Dallas that will be a combination library, museum, and public-policy think tank. Margaret Spellings, the outgoing Secretary of Education,says that center will focus on “game-changing” policies and decisions.
Obama, of course, is just starting to make decisions as president. The incoming Obama administration has brought into the public light a debate over theeffectiveness of the New Deal, but at this moment in time, he embodies our hope for transformation. While movie makers, film makers and writers oftenuse the deus ex machina to explain when the man becomes the president, the prosaic transition from Bush to Obama is one of the more important changes tothe country and the democratic process. It remains to be seen if Bush will be able to refurbish his reputation and whether Obama will be the next Lincoln.
Sunday 1 February 2009
Regenerative medicine receives the kiss of life | Can I serve you now? | The Economist
Regenerative medicine receives the kiss of life Can I serve you now? Science & Technology
Embryonic stem cells
Can I serve you now?
Jan 29th 2009From The Economist print edition
American attitudes to stem-cell therapies are changing fast
Illustration by Stephen Jeffrey
FOR the past eight years, America’s government has declined to fund new research into one of the world’s most promising medical technologies: the use ofhuman embryonic stem cells to repair or replace damaged tissue in the diseased and injured. Embryonic stem cells are special for two reasons, one scientificand one ethical. The scientific reason is that they are able to turn into any of the body’s myriad cell types, which is why they might be used in thisway. The ethical reason is that, at the moment, harvesting them usually involves killing human embryos. The embryos in question have no future anyway (theyare usually “spares” from in vitro fertilisation procedures). But it was this destruction of potential human life that disturbed George Bush and his supporters.
Barack Obama has promised to reverse the ban. When that happens, American academics will no longer have to watch enviously from the sidelines as their colleaguesin Australia, Britain, China, the Czech Republic, Israel, Singapore and South Korea push ahead. But though the legislative wheels have yet to start turning,the mood has already shifted.
One sign of this shift came on January 23rd when the country’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted permission for the first clinical trial of a therapybased on human embryonic stem cells to Geron, a firm based in Menlo Park, California. Geron was able to ask for permission, and the FDA was able to grantit, because the ban does not apply to privately financed research. America, it seems, is back in the stem-cell business.
Off we go
Geron’s trial is of a treatment for paralysis caused by damage to the spinal cord. Between eight and ten patients with severe spinal-cord injuries willbe recruited to test this treatment for safety. At the same time both the researchers and the patients will be looking for signs of improvement in thecondition. If the trial is successful, larger ones will follow.
The trick that Geron’s researchers have learned is how to turn embryonic stem cells into cells called oligodendrocytes. These, in turn, generate a structurecalled the myelin sheath, which insulates nerves against leakage of the electrical signals that carry their messages around. Geron plans to inject itsoligodendrocytes into the damaged spines of patients between one and two weeks after their injury.
Tests in rats, using human cells, have shown that oligodendrocytes injected this way can indeed help repair myelin sheaths and restore the ability of nervecells to carry signals. The hope is that the same will happen in people. The nerve cells themselves will not be replaced, so even in principle such treatmentcould not help everyone with a spinal injury. Many observers do, however, see this research as a step along the road to reconnecting the brains and limbsof those with severed spinal cords, by growing new nerve cells to bridge the gap.
All new medical procedures need to be tested for safety, of course. With stem cells, the main risk is not the sort of chemical toxicity associated witha drug; rather it is of an unusual type of tumour called a teratoma. Teratomas are more or less normal bodily structures—eyes or teeth, for example—thatare growing in the wrong place. They are a special risk with stem cells precisely because such cells can turn into any other sort. If the wrong geneticswitch is flicked, the wrong sort of tissue results.
Another risk, though, is immune rejection. Introducing stem cells into a body is a bit like transplanting an organ: the recipient’s immune system mightthrow a wobbly and try to destroy the intruder. Geron’s patients will therefore have to spend two months taking anti-rejection drugs. Other people, though,think they may be able to get round this difficulty. The International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCo), in Oceanside, California, for one, reckons it cando so and, at the same time, deal with the ethical issue of embryo destruction.
ISCo has found a way of producing embryonic-like stem cells from unfertilised eggs. The egg is chemically stimulated to create a group of cells that forma non-viable (and unfertilised) “embryo”. This, explains Kenneth Aldrich, the firm’s boss, is something that could not be implanted into a woman’s womband produce a child. Nonetheless, the cells it contains have the same characteristics as stem cells.
Besides any ethical advantages this procedure may have, it could also have medical ones. Because lines of stem cells created in this way have only one parent,they are immunologically simpler than normal embryonic cells—in other words they have a smaller variety of the proteins that trigger rejection. That lackof variety, says Dr Aldrich, means it might be feasible to create a bank of stem-cell lines that could be matched to every immune type in the human population,rather as a blood bank carries blood of all the different groups (A, B, O and so on). Replacement stem cells might then be ordered off the shelf.
Nor are spinal-cord injuries the only condition lined up for treatment. Both ISCo and Advanced Cell Technology, of Los Angeles, are trying to create stemcells that could stop—and possibly reverse—a process called macular degeneration, which leads to blindness. ISCo says it hopes to start human trials laterthis year. Using embryonic stem cells in this way is regarded as a particularly promising route because a similar form of treatment that employs stem cellsrecovered from still-born children is already known to work.
Try, try, try again
The true potential of this approach is unknowable. It might yet prove too difficult to use as widely as its supporters hope. Stem-cell therapy has beensuggested as a way of dealing with arthritis, angina and Parkinson’s disease, as well as spinal-cord injury and blindness—a range of conditions that makesit look like a panacea. That risks disappointment and overreaction if things go wrong. But the only way to find out is to try.
Michael West, the founder of Geron and now head of BioTime, another biotechnology company, says the existing legislation has affected privately financedresearch as well as the public sort. Investors have been frightened off by the political debate. Once it is gone, the full brunt of America’s innovativeknow-how, academic and private, could transform the subject, as other countries may soon find out.The Economist
Embryonic stem cells
Can I serve you now?
Jan 29th 2009From The Economist print edition
American attitudes to stem-cell therapies are changing fast
Illustration by Stephen Jeffrey
FOR the past eight years, America’s government has declined to fund new research into one of the world’s most promising medical technologies: the use ofhuman embryonic stem cells to repair or replace damaged tissue in the diseased and injured. Embryonic stem cells are special for two reasons, one scientificand one ethical. The scientific reason is that they are able to turn into any of the body’s myriad cell types, which is why they might be used in thisway. The ethical reason is that, at the moment, harvesting them usually involves killing human embryos. The embryos in question have no future anyway (theyare usually “spares” from in vitro fertilisation procedures). But it was this destruction of potential human life that disturbed George Bush and his supporters.
Barack Obama has promised to reverse the ban. When that happens, American academics will no longer have to watch enviously from the sidelines as their colleaguesin Australia, Britain, China, the Czech Republic, Israel, Singapore and South Korea push ahead. But though the legislative wheels have yet to start turning,the mood has already shifted.
One sign of this shift came on January 23rd when the country’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted permission for the first clinical trial of a therapybased on human embryonic stem cells to Geron, a firm based in Menlo Park, California. Geron was able to ask for permission, and the FDA was able to grantit, because the ban does not apply to privately financed research. America, it seems, is back in the stem-cell business.
Off we go
Geron’s trial is of a treatment for paralysis caused by damage to the spinal cord. Between eight and ten patients with severe spinal-cord injuries willbe recruited to test this treatment for safety. At the same time both the researchers and the patients will be looking for signs of improvement in thecondition. If the trial is successful, larger ones will follow.
The trick that Geron’s researchers have learned is how to turn embryonic stem cells into cells called oligodendrocytes. These, in turn, generate a structurecalled the myelin sheath, which insulates nerves against leakage of the electrical signals that carry their messages around. Geron plans to inject itsoligodendrocytes into the damaged spines of patients between one and two weeks after their injury.
Tests in rats, using human cells, have shown that oligodendrocytes injected this way can indeed help repair myelin sheaths and restore the ability of nervecells to carry signals. The hope is that the same will happen in people. The nerve cells themselves will not be replaced, so even in principle such treatmentcould not help everyone with a spinal injury. Many observers do, however, see this research as a step along the road to reconnecting the brains and limbsof those with severed spinal cords, by growing new nerve cells to bridge the gap.
All new medical procedures need to be tested for safety, of course. With stem cells, the main risk is not the sort of chemical toxicity associated witha drug; rather it is of an unusual type of tumour called a teratoma. Teratomas are more or less normal bodily structures—eyes or teeth, for example—thatare growing in the wrong place. They are a special risk with stem cells precisely because such cells can turn into any other sort. If the wrong geneticswitch is flicked, the wrong sort of tissue results.
Another risk, though, is immune rejection. Introducing stem cells into a body is a bit like transplanting an organ: the recipient’s immune system mightthrow a wobbly and try to destroy the intruder. Geron’s patients will therefore have to spend two months taking anti-rejection drugs. Other people, though,think they may be able to get round this difficulty. The International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCo), in Oceanside, California, for one, reckons it cando so and, at the same time, deal with the ethical issue of embryo destruction.
ISCo has found a way of producing embryonic-like stem cells from unfertilised eggs. The egg is chemically stimulated to create a group of cells that forma non-viable (and unfertilised) “embryo”. This, explains Kenneth Aldrich, the firm’s boss, is something that could not be implanted into a woman’s womband produce a child. Nonetheless, the cells it contains have the same characteristics as stem cells.
Besides any ethical advantages this procedure may have, it could also have medical ones. Because lines of stem cells created in this way have only one parent,they are immunologically simpler than normal embryonic cells—in other words they have a smaller variety of the proteins that trigger rejection. That lackof variety, says Dr Aldrich, means it might be feasible to create a bank of stem-cell lines that could be matched to every immune type in the human population,rather as a blood bank carries blood of all the different groups (A, B, O and so on). Replacement stem cells might then be ordered off the shelf.
Nor are spinal-cord injuries the only condition lined up for treatment. Both ISCo and Advanced Cell Technology, of Los Angeles, are trying to create stemcells that could stop—and possibly reverse—a process called macular degeneration, which leads to blindness. ISCo says it hopes to start human trials laterthis year. Using embryonic stem cells in this way is regarded as a particularly promising route because a similar form of treatment that employs stem cellsrecovered from still-born children is already known to work.
Try, try, try again
The true potential of this approach is unknowable. It might yet prove too difficult to use as widely as its supporters hope. Stem-cell therapy has beensuggested as a way of dealing with arthritis, angina and Parkinson’s disease, as well as spinal-cord injury and blindness—a range of conditions that makesit look like a panacea. That risks disappointment and overreaction if things go wrong. But the only way to find out is to try.
Michael West, the founder of Geron and now head of BioTime, another biotechnology company, says the existing legislation has affected privately financedresearch as well as the public sort. Investors have been frightened off by the political debate. Once it is gone, the full brunt of America’s innovativeknow-how, academic and private, could transform the subject, as other countries may soon find out.The Economist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)