Night dancing in Kim Il-Sung Square, Pyongyang, North Korea. The Guardian revealed today that senior figures in Beijing told their South Korean counterparts China was leaning towards acceptance of reunification. Photograph: Dan Chung China supports the "independent and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula" and cannot afford to give the North Korean regime the impression it has a blank cheque to act any way it wants, Chinese officials based in Europe said today.
The officials, who asked not to be identified, spoke after the Guardian revealed that senior figures in Beijing, exasperated with North Korea behaving like a "spoiled child", had told their South Korean counterparts that China was leaning towards acceptance of reunification under Seoul's control.
China's moves to distance itself from the North Korean regime were revealed in the latest tranche of leaked US embassy cables obtained by Wikileaks and published yesterday by the Guardian and four international newspapers.
One Chinese official said today reunification was not going to happen overnight and China's first priority was to calm down the situation, restart a dialogue, and maintain stability in the region. But Beijing had always backed peaceful reunification as a longer term goal.
The officials admitted to a sense of frustration in Beijing over North Korea's recent actions, including its nuclear and missile tests – which China opposed – and last week's lethal artillery bombardment of a South Korean island.
A general discussion was continuing about the direction of North Korea policy, another official said. North Korea produced strong feelings among the Chinese leadership and public, and China had to be careful. Beijing wanted to maintain its friendship with Pyongyang. But it did not want to be led by the nose.
The officials expressed optimism that talks between the North and its regional interlocutors, South Korea, China and Japan, could be successfully restarted, despite Washington's dismissal of China's proposal as "PR activity".
South Korea might be tempted to indulge in tit-for-tat actions against the North, one official said. But a new war on the peninsula was unimaginable; it would be devastating for the two Koreas and for the region as a whole. Therefore China was trying to provide a steadying hand. If the current tense situation was allowed to escalate, North Korea was capable of taking radical actions.
The officials said the Chinese government was talking to the North on a regular basis; there were many channels that could be used. But the North was a proud nation and China could not ultimately control it, they said. Beijing told the North's leaders what it thought – but sometimes they behaved irrationally.
"We do not have an effective way to influence them. Sometimes when we try it only makes things worse," a senior Chinese diplomat said.
Referring to last week's artillery attack, the diplomat said it could be part of what North Korean leaders described was their strategy of "setting a fire under the Americans" in order to get their attention and win concessions.
There was growing evidence the Chinese public was running out of patience with the North's behaviour and this influenced the Chinese leadership's thinking, the diplomat said, adding that, in short, there was a limit to China's patience.
Officials described the Wikileaks disclosure of secret and classified US embassy cables relating to the Korean question as mischievous. When reading the diplomatic reports, they said, it was essential to distinguish between the personal opinions of those quoted and official government policy.
The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman noted the Wikileaks reports and urged the US to "appropriately resolve related issues" before declining further comment. View the original article here
President Obama aimed to undercut Republicans, who had been preparing their own proposal to cut federal pay next year. (Pool Photo, Getty Images / November 29, 2010) President Obama's proposal on Monday to freeze federal workers' pay was an unexpected announcement that represented the first in a series of White House moves to seize the initiative from Republicans on the economy.
The preemptive move was timed to precede a White House meeting Tuesday with congressional leaders on the subject of expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts, and came just days before a final report from Obama's fiscal commission on how to shrink the federal deficit.
"The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require broad sacrifice," Obama said from the White House. "And that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government."
By proposing the two-year freeze, Obama sought to stake his own claim to the argument that government must make tough decisions. A senior administration official said Obama's proposal is part of a larger plan to draw Republicans into an overdue conversation about deficits.
The move would save about $5 billion over two years, the White House said — a substantial sum, though a mere sliver of the $1.3-trillion federal deficit.
Republicans gained dozens of seats in the House and Senate in part by targeting what they characterized as out-of-control federal spending.
Federal workers became a favorite campaign target of Republicans, who argued that the Washington payroll had swelled as private workers nationwide suffered job losses during the recession. Republicans have pressed for even steeper cuts to federal workers' pay.
"As the recent election made clear, Americans are fed up with a government that spends too much, borrows too much and grows too much," said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the incoming House majority leader. "With so many Americans tightening their belts, Washington must do the same."
But Obama, by echoing a GOP theme in an effort to undercut Republicans, has angered many of his allies who complained that by cutting federal workers' pay, Obama was giving up something for nothing.
"No one is served by our government participating in a 'race to the bottom' in wages," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. "The president talked about the need for shared sacrifice, but there's nothing shared about Wall Street and CEOs making record profits and bonuses while working people bear the brunt."
The freeze, which would not apply to military personnel or postal workers, would affect about 2 million employees. Congressional approval would be needed for the proposal to take effect.
Excluding military and postal workers, there are about 250,000 federal employees in the Washington area and 150,000 in California, which has the highest concentration outside Washington, according to Office of Personnel Management figures.
Republicans, who had been preparing their own plan to slash federal pay and the workforce next year, said the proposal was long overdue. But some of the president's allies chided him for taking a symbolic step that they said would do little to affect the trajectory of federal spending, but would harm household budgets.
Congress reconvenes this week for a lame-duck session to confront a series of crucial deadlines. The Bush-era tax cuts lapse at the end of the year, and unemployment benefits will be cut off starting Wednesday, leaving up to 2 million jobless Americans without aid through the holidays.
Lawmakers are at a stalemate over the tax cuts. Republicans want to extend them to all households, including those with incomes above $250,000 annually, despite the $700-billion additional cost.
In Tuesday's meeting with congressional leaders, Obama will continue to push for making permanent only the tax cuts on those households earning below $250,000 annually.
"We simply cannot afford to borrow $700 billion to extend the tax cuts of those who make $1 million or $1 billion a year, or make in excess of $250,000 a year," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "We can't have an honest discussion about our debts and our deficits without understanding what those decisions mean in the short term and in the long term."
The pay cut proposal, along with Obama's embrace of earmark reform — another Republican priority to limit the special projects lawmakers designate for their home states, which is scheduled for a Senate vote Tuesday — is the kind of budget-cutting that deficit hawks see as more style than substance.
"Whether in earmark reform or freezing the pay of federal workers, the debate hasn't moved on to the big issues that need to be confronted," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, which advocates deficit reduction.
Even Obama's allies on Capitol Hill reacted with concern. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), the House majority leader, delicately critiqued the president's proposal.
"Because meaningful deficit reduction cannot be achieved through a piecemeal approach to trimming federal spending, I am hopeful that the administration will propose a comprehensive and serious program for deficit reduction that recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach," he said.
The president froze salaries for all senior White House officials upon taking office. In last year's budget, he proposed extending that freeze to other top political appointees.
In the White House meeting on tax cuts, aides say they are not expecting agreement, but rather view the session as the first of several meetings on the subject.
In a telling change to the schedule, the get-together originally scheduled as a dinner is now set to be a more abbreviated business meeting in the morning.
"One of the most important things the president can do is send a message to the American people that he will not be the obstacle to bipartisan politics," said William Galston, a former Clinton administration official who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "He wins by taking the first step." lisa.mascaro@latimes.com cparsons@latimes.com View the original article here
US climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing speaks at a press conference at the UN summit in Cancún, Mexico. Photograph: Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images
America has adopted a tough all-or-nothing position at the Cancún climate change summit, fuelling speculation of a walk-out if developing countries do not meet its demands.
At the opening of the talks at Cancún, the US climate negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, made clear America wanted a "balanced package" from the summit.
That's diplomatic speak for a deal that would couple the core issues for the developing world – agreement on climate finance, technology, deforestation – with US demands for emissions actions from emerging economies and a verifiable system of accounting for those cuts.
In a briefing with foreign journalists in Washington, the chief climate envoy, Todd Stern, was blunt. "We're either going to see progress across the range of issues or we're not going to see much progress," said Stern. "We're not going to race forward on three issues and take a first step on other important ones. We're going to have to get them all moving at a similar pace."
In the run-up to the Cancún talks, Stern has said repeatedly that America will not budge from its insistence that fast-emerging economies such as India and China commit to reducing emissions and to an inspection process that will verify those actions.
The hard line – which some in Washington have seen as ritual diplomatic posturing – has fuelled speculation that the Obama administration could be prepared to walk out of the Cancún talks.
It is already under pressure for its green agenda from a new conservative Republican power bloc in Congress determined to block the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to act on greenhouse gases and other sources of pollution, and defund programmes dealing with climate change. There is next to no chance Congress would take up cap-and-trade legislation or ratify any UN treaty.
The administration's weak domestic position, in turn, has cast doubts on its ability to deliver even the very modest 17% cut on 2005 emissions Obama agreed at the Copenhagen summit last year.
But a walk-out would wreck any lingering hopes that small progress in Cancún might put the UN negotiations process back on track after the debacle of Copenhagen.
However, Stern was insistent America will not move forward on climate finance without movement on its core issues. "We have heard a lot of talk this year about capturing the so-called low-hanging fruit by which countries who use that phrase often mean all the provisions dealing with financial and technology assistance, leaving the so-called hard issues of mitigation and transparency for sometime later," he told last week's foreign press briefing. "We are not doing that." In a blog post, Michael Levi, an energy and environment fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that the dynamics of Cancún could push America into a walk-out.
"There are decent odds that the United States will be presented with a final package that takes action on all sorts of things that developing countries want but doesn't have any clear wins for Washington," he wrote. "But I wouldn't be surprised to see the US reject such an outcome, even if it means walking away with nothing and being attacked for that."
The US has already drastically scaled down its presence at Cancún, compared with its participation at the Copenhagen climate change summit.
The Obama administration invested mightily in Copenhagen, seeing the summit as a chance to spotlight the changes in Washington after the exit of George Bush, who had pulled America out of the Kyoto protocols and blocked environmental measures at home.
Like other world leaders, Barack Obama made a personal appearance. But the administration also sent Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, and eight other cabinet secretary and White House officials. America also sent outsize delegations of Democratic leaders in Congress.
But as Levi noted, the dynamics of this year's meeting are decidedly different. Developing countries, and some in Europe, see Cancún as a last chance to reach agreement on the building blocks of an eventual treaty – with or without the US.
However, the Obama administration – more than ever with hostile Republicans in Congress – cannot walk away empty-handed, Levi wrote.
"Rule number one for US climate negotiators has always been to make sure that what happens in the UN talks doesn't hurt prospects for domestic action. Headlines that say 'US gives money, technology to developing world; gets nothing in return' won't exactly fit that bill," he wrote. View the original article here
The papacy has traditionally been seen as a job for life, with pontiffs expected to remain at the helm of the Church until death Photo: REUTERS Pope Benedict XVI had said in a new book that the use of condoms by Catholics would be morally justifiable in "certain cases", citing as an example the responsibility of a male prostitute not to pass on the deadly disease to a client.
The 83-year-old pontiff's initial comment on condoms was contained in the book "Light of the World", extracts of which were published at the weekend, but they were so ambiguous that the Vatican was forced to yesterday [Tue] offer clarification and interpretation. The Vatican's spokesman said that the Pope intended that the change of policy should apply to anybody with HIV/Aids, on the basis that preventing another person from being infected was the lesser of two evils, even it meant averting a possible pregnancy
"This is if you're a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We're at the same point. The point is it's a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another," Father Federico Lombardi said.
The landmark shift appeared to indicate that the Vatican's previous policy was unrealistic and even irresponsible. Only last year, at the start of a trip to Africa, the pope said that the spread of Aids could not be prevented by condom use and that they could even "aggravate" the crisis.
The Catholic Church has long been criticised for refusing to sanction the use of condoms, particularly in Africa, where the virus has spread the virus to an estimated 22 million people.
Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert at the Vatican's bioethics advisory board, said Benedict was articulating the idea in Catholic doctrine that there are degrees of evil.
"Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst," he said. "Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility."
The Pope's words do not change the overall Catholic disapproval of contraception, but were nevertheless welcomed by liberal Catholics, Aids activists and health officials.
Michel Sidibé, the head of the UN agency for fighting Aids, said it was "a significant and positive step forward."
Elsewhere in the book, Benedict described the paedophile priest scandals which have hit the Catholic Church as "almost like the crater of a volcano, out of which suddenly a tremendous cloud of filth came, darkening and soiling everything."
He also said he would never have lifted the excommunication of a British bishop had he known that he was a Holocaust denier, conceding that a simple search on the internet by his aides would have disclosed the inflammatory views of Bishop Richard Williamson.
The Pope caused controversy in January last year when he lifted Williamson's excommunication shortly after the bishop claimed in a television interview that the Nazis did not use gas chambers and killed no more than 300,000 Jews.
Bishop Williamson is facing expulsion from his order. He was convicted in Germany of 'incitement' in April and fined 10,000 euros. View the original article here
Negotiators will meet in Cancun, Mexico in late November to build on the Copenhagen Accord agreed last December.Governments must set in stone climate pledges made in Copenhagen, Steiner saidComes as UN releases a report saying government must do more to reduce emissionsReport finds that even if all pledges are met, temperatures will still rise above agreed levelsNegotiators meet in Cancun in late November for COP16
London, England (CNN) -- Governments must make bolder and more binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions, according to a new United Nations report.
The "Emission Gap Report" highlights the gap between pledges made and what's needed to avoid a dangerous rise in global temperatures.
Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, said negotiators must set in stone pledges made last year at the U.N. climate talksin Copenhagen, Denmark when they meet in Cancun, Mexico next week.
"This is not a matter of luxury choice that we can defer, but it is a matter of an ever narrower window of time in which action is feasible on a scale and compatible with also economic and technological transition paths," Steiner said.
"That's why we wanted to issue this report just before Cancun to remind the world that despite the struggles of Copenhagen, there is a climate path forward for the international community that it is feasible, but we have to accelerate it and there is a still a gap to meet the minimum objectives agreed in Copenhagen," he added.
"The ability to close that five gigaton gap is simply beyond question. We can do it --Achim Steiner, U.N. Environment Program
A record 15,000 delegates converged on Copenhagen last December for the 15th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15).
The talks carried high hopes for a binding global agreement to curb carbon emissions but in the end delivered a disappointing and loose set of voluntary actions named the "Copenhagen Accord."
Eighty countries responsible for 80 percent of the world's carbon emissions signed the accord agreeing, among other things, that the global temperature rise should be limited to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Average global surface temperatures have already increased by about 0.74 degrees Celsius over the past hundred years to 2005, according to the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC has warned that a failure to reduce carbon emissions could lead to the disappearance of sea ice by the end of the 21st century causing sea levels to rise, water shortages in semi-arid areas and an increasing risk of extinction for up to 30 percent of the world's species.
Next week, negotiators will meet in Cancun, Mexico for COP16, to try to close the political gap between commitments made by developed and developing nations to reduce carbon emissions.
However, the "Emissions Gap Report," released Tuesday, found that even if all nations meet all pledges made in the Copenhagen Accord, the world will be still be only 60 percent of the way towards keeping the global average temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.
The report, compiled by 30 of the world's leading climate researchers, quantified how many gigatons of carbon emissions could be cut if all nations kept pledges made in the Copenhagen Accord, and the corresponding likely rise in global average temperatures.
It started from a base of 48 gigatons produced by the world in 2009. The report found that if nothing is done to cut carbon emissions they will rise to 56 gigatons by 2020. That equates to a likely global average temperature increase of seven degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
To keep the average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius the report found that carbon emissions must drop to 44 gigatons each year, ideally by 2020.
However, the report found that even if governments meet all the targets set out in the Copenhagen Accord, world carbon emissions would only drop to 49 gigatons.
The corresponding temperature rise would be around 2.5 degrees Celsius, higher than the two degree target.
"The ability to close that five gigaton gap is simply beyond question. We can do it," said Steiner. He added that it could be achieved by phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and by tightening up rules on carbon credits to discourage wasteful energy practices.
The executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has said Cancun can be a success if the parties compromise.
"They have to balance their expectations so that everyone can carry home a positive achievement while allowing others to do the same -- that's how multilateral agreements are made elsewhere and it is how it has to happen in climate, too," said Christiana Figueres.
The Cancun climate talks start on November 29 and end December 10.
By Annalyn Censky, staff reporterNovember 23, 2010: 9:26 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. recovery tugged along at a faster pace in the third quarter than originally reported, driven by stronger exports and spending, the government said Tuesday.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy, grew at an annual rate of 2.5% in the three months ending in September, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday. That's a significant improvement over the 2% growth rate first reported for the period.
"We're headed in the right direction, and a good deal of the concern that was evident with the initial release has undoubtedly diminished," said Michael Schenk, senior economist with the Credit Union National Association. "But it doesn't really get us to where we need to be."
The government calculates GDP as a measure of goods and services produced in the United States. The number is often revised multiple times. This is the second reading for the quarter.
While the number is much better than the 1.7% growth reported in the second quarter, the rate is still considered weak for a recovery.
"I think most economists would agree that 2.5% is probably too low for robust job growth. It's about neutral," said Zach Pandl, an economist with Nomura Securities.
Consumer spending increased at a 2.8% pace, the best reading for that measure since the end of 2006, up from 2.6% initially reported. Exports were also revised upward to 6.3%, from 5%.
Those two points mark a bright spot in the report, as consumer spending and U.S. exports are engines of growth needed to drive the recovery forward.
Pandl expects the Fed's latest monetary stimulus plan, referred to as quantitative easing, will help spur stronger growth in the fourth quarter, but still not robust enough to totally diminish the need for the full $600 billion plan.
"This level of growth would still be considered unacceptable from the Fed's perspective," he said. "It's not fast enough to bring inflation back up and lower the unemployment rate. On the other hand, it suggests no reason for alarm."
The reading was slightly better than expected, as economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast growth of 2.4% for the third quarter.
A major study shows for the first time that a drug duo widely used to treat the AIDS virus can block HIV infection, researchers said Tuesday.The drugs tenofovir and emtricitabine, packaged as a once-daily pill and sold in drugstores as Truvada, reduced HIV infections by an average of 44% among gay and bisexual men who took the drug, compared with those taking a placebo. Men who reported being the most diligent about taking their pill each day reaped an even bigger benefit, reducing their risk by 73%. "This is a huge step forward," says lead researcher Robert Grant, at the J. David Gladstone Institute at the University of California-San Francisco, a non-profit research foundation that carried out the study.David Paltiel of Yale University says that his research shows that Truvada could be as cost-effective a prevention method as those used to combat heart disease diabetes and cancer, despite its $8,700 annual cost. The findings have bred new enthusiasm in a field where, for years, optimism was rare. Over 30 years, HIV has infected 40 million people. But this year alone, researchers have demonstrated that a pill and a vaginal gel (containing a component of Truvada) can prevent HIV and shown, at least in concept, that a vaccine can work. "This is a very exciting, dynamic time in HIV prevention research," says Alan Bernstein, head of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, a non-profit effort to accelerate vaccine research. "It couldn't come at a better time. There's clearly a growing realization that we're not going to be able to treat our way out of this epidemic.Even with support from the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, only about a third of people with HIV worldwide get treatment, Bernstein says.Over the next two or three years, researchers hope to determine whether Truvada also works in heterosexuals and drug users and whether it can prevent infection if taken intermittently, hours before having sex.Federal health officials cautioned that the jury is still out on whether the drug works in groups other than gay and bisexual men, adding that they've just begun analyzing the findings from today's study so they can craft prevention guidelines and put the approach to work in "real world" settings."It's no time for gay and bisexual men to throw away their condoms or abandon other ways to prevent HIV," says Kevin Fenton, director of HIV prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The HIV epidemic is still growing among gay and bisexual men, Fenton says, who now account for more than half of roughly 60,000 new HIV infections that occur nationwide each year. Gay and bisexual men are 44 times more likely to get HIV than other men, CDC statistics show. A string of failures in HIV-prevention research — of 37 trials, only 6 have been successful, three of them involving male circumcision — prompted researchers to try to determine whether drugs capable of stopping HIV from multiplying could prevent infection, Grant says. Truvada was chosen because it is highly effective, has relatively few side effects and is less likely to promote HIV resistance than other drugs. Since its approval in 2004, Truvada has become the world's top selling AIDS drug, with more than $2 billion in sales last year, according to IMS Health, a medical information company.The new study involved 2,499 men and transgendered women in six countries, including the USA, who have sex with men. The participants were divided into two groups; half were given Truvada and half received a placebo, the researchers report online today in the New England Journal of Medicine. All of the volunteers were advised to use condoms and take other precautions to avoid getting sexually transmitted diseases."Everyone was told not to rely on this pill, because they might be getting a placebo," Grant says.After slightly more than a year of treatment, 36 people who were getting Truvada became infected with HIV, compared with 64 infections among those getting a placebo. An analysis of 34 of the 36 people in the Truvada group who got HIV found that they had very little of the drug in their blood or none at all, suggesting they weren't taking the drug as prescribed. Those with measurable amounts of Truvada in their blood had 13-fold greater protection from infection, says Anthony Fauci, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which sponsored the study."That translates into more than a 90% reduction in risk," Fauci says.Fauci cautioned that HIV is far too widespread to yield to one new prevention approach.Paltiel agreed. "This drug alone," he says, "isn't going to stop this epidemic,"Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more.
Sarah Palin's new book, "America by Heart," is released A promotional book tour will take her through key states in 2012 racePalin's book takes aim at Obama and liberal Democrats' policiesBook offers personal perspective, but no detailed policies or proposals
(CNN) -- Sarah Palin has yet to formally declare she will run for president, but the book released Tuesday titled "America By Heart" is as clear a statement of intention as there could be.
Palin's 11-day, 13-state tour to promote the book begins Tuesday, and will take her through states that have early presidential caucuses and primaries, including Iowa and South Carolina.
A personal screed that lays out the former Alaska governor's values, faith and political views, the roughly 300-page book is a blueprint for the conservative battle plan against President Barack Obama's re-election in 2012.
Chapters with titles such as "America the Exceptional" and "Raising (small-r) Republicans" argues that Obama and liberal Democrats are threatening the freedom of individuals at home while harming America's standing in the world.
"If Democrats are driving the country toward socialism at a hundred miles per hour, while the Republicans are driving at only fifty, commonsense constitutional conservatives want to turn the car around," Palin wrote in the book's conclusion, titled "Commonsense Constitutional Conservatism."
"We want to get back to the basics that have made this country great -- the fundamental values of family, faith, and flag that I have talked about in this book," she continued.
The book attacks policies and legislation championed by Obama and congressional Democrats, such as the health care reform bill, energy reform proposals and the economic stimulus bill, while lamenting all things labeled liberal or progressive.
It offers no detailed policies or proposals and instead provides the personal perspective of the GOP vice presidential candidate in 2008 on religion, patriotism, family and what ails America.
Palin's main target is Obama, her likely adversary in 2012 if she runs for president and wins the Republican nomination.
Since her emergence on the national scene as the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008, Palin has been arguably the country's most polarizing political figure. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation found 49 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of her. But that poll also found that nearly three-quarters of Republican voters view her favorably.
The book tour also comes on the heels of another Palin foray into the public consciousness: "Sarah Palin's Alaska," a reality TV show that follows the adventures of the former governor and her family in their home state, debuted November 14 on TLC.
The program, which showcases her as a rugged outdoorswoman, is not aimed at political junkies, but the scheduling is timely. It wraps up in mid-January when some potential GOP candidates will be deciding whether to run for president.
In her book, Palin levels blame at both major parties for what she calls "overspending and government growth that is robbing our children of their future," as well as a "Washington culture of entitlement" that has brought a "corrupt mind-set" to Congress.
In the end, though, she argues that the blame rests with Obama and his liberal allies.
"No wonder millions of Americans are up in arms (figuratively, of course), demanding relief from the 'change' Barack Obama and the left have thrust upon them against their will," Palin wrote.
"We have a president, perhaps for the first time since the founding of our republic, who expresses his belief that America is not the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known," her book said. "Now I know that sounds a little overblown to many educated liberals, a little jingoistic. But so many of us do believe America is an exceptional force for good."
Palin criticizes Obama on both foreign and domestic policy, accusing the president of making an "apology tour" to foreign capitals for America's success in the world.
At home, she wrote, "this president's rejection of American exceptionalism has translated into a stark lack of faith in the American people."
"There's no other way to describe a governing philosophy that won't trust individual Americans to control their own health care, plan for their own retirement, or even spend their own money," Palin wrote.
On personal issues, Palin touches on the pregnancy of her unmarried, teenage daughter, Bristol, and subsequent birth of Bristol's son by boyfriend Levi Johnston. Her account never mentions Johnston by name, referring instead to the "new father" or "Tripp's father," but shows the continuing strain of a public rift with him.
"It was disgusting to watch as his fifteen minutes of fame were exploited by supposed adults taking advantage of a lost kid," Palin wrote, later adding: "Along with our sorrow, of course, was some justifiable anger as well. The lies told about our family on national television were outrageous."CNN's Jillian Harding, Adam Aigner-Treworgy and Jim Acosta contributed to this report.
A traveler undergoes a pat down at Denver's main airport. Doctors say they hope the TSA takes into account medical conditions.TSA says pat downs, full-body scans are necessary to prevent weapons from getting on planesTSA trying to balance safety concerns and travelers' right to privacyDoctors say extra scrutiny raises concerns for cancer patients, elderly, childrenThe process is evolving, and concerns are being taken into account, White House says
(CNN) -- Thomas Sawyer, a cancer survivor, has worn a urostomy bag for the past three years. Yet, he says, little could have prepared him for his recent airport pat down, when an officer broke the bag's seal and urine spilled out "onto my shirt and down my pants."
"I'm a good American. I know why we're doing this, and I understand it," Sawyer told CNN. "But this was extremely embarrassing, and it didn't have to happen. With educated TSA workers, it wouldn't have happened."
With the height of Thanksgiving holiday travel the next two days, the Transportation Security Administration is trying to strike a delicate balance between ensuring the safety of the traveling public and not invading people's privacy rights.
But the screening raises an array of questions from health-care professionals:
• Are TSA officers trained to deal with patients like Sawyer who may have medical conditions?
• What about the elderly and others with hip replacements and similar ailments?
• Will cancer patients have to take off wigs?
• How is the TSA dealing with pat downs of children?
• What about people with mental illness?
The TSA says it has taken all of these concerns into account -- that children are not to be separated from their parents if pat downs are deemed necessary and that travelers with medical conditions should be treated with "the dignity, respect and courtesy they deserve."
"Our program covers all categories of disabilities -- mobility, hearing, visual and hidden," the TSA says on its website. "As part of that program, we established a coalition of over 70 disability-related groups and organizations to help us understand the concerns of persons with disabilities and medical conditions."
Jonathan Bricker, a psychologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Washington state, says he advises anyone traveling right now to come mentally prepared for the unexpected.
"Go in with an expectation that this is going to happen, and go in with the expectation that you're going to be the one singled out to go through a pat down," Bricker says.
By doing that, people "can take more control of the situation." He says people with medical conditions should also carry notes from their doctors.
If a tense situation does arise while being screened, passengers should think about the big picture, he says. "There is a larger purpose to this trip that has nothing to do with the TSA and nothing to do with the government. And the purpose is: You're visiting people you love."
The TSA has said the ramped-up use of pat downs and full-body scanning is necessary to prevent weapons and explosives from getting aboard planes.
The White House on Monday said the process is evolving and that the government is taking into account the public's concerns. "The evolution of the security will be done with the input of those who go through the security," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
Recent polls have shown most Americans support the measures, and a periphery glance at airports nationwide shows that the vast majority of travelers are dealing well with the extra scrutiny, even if it makes them uneasy at times.
Dr. Gina Villani, the head of oncology at The Brooklyn Hospital Center, says the extra scrutiny raises concerns for cancer patients, who could have metallic dishes for chemo placed under their skin, external catheters or other necessary medical devices on their bodies.
"You can imagine during a pat down, you're feeling this piece of metal under somebody's skin. If you don't know what it is, then it's going to create a lot of problems for people," she said.
Doctors must be more aware of when their patients are traveling and write notes explaining their conditions, she says. Most of the time, though, "patients only think about it after they've had a terrible experience."
A doctor's note also carries a demoralizing stigma. "You want to go on vacation and forget you have cancer," Villani says. "It's just one more reminder of how different you are from the rest of the population."
Another area of concern is the pat down of children. Craig Fabrikant, a psychologist at Hackensack University Medical Center, has simple advice for the TSA: Have officers trained to deal with children on shift at all times, and always have the parent or guardian undergo a pat down first, in front of the child.
"Why not let the child see the parent go through it, that it's no big deal, that it's fine," Fabrikant says.
He says it's simple and practical advice, but he's doubtful any of it will be used. After all, he says, it's big government.
"Not only does it not use common sense, it doesn't move that quickly."
To the agency's credit, TSA administrator John Pistole called Sawyer to apologize Monday after he learned of the incident. The two had a cordial conversation, and Sawyer even shared some advice.
"He asked me what I thought," Sawyer said. "So I talked to him -- that I really don't believe that they've been trained as well as [they could] to handle medical conditions."
S. Korean President Lee Myung-bak -- pictured talking at the Seoul G-20 summit -- said the provocation was like an invasion.South Korea threatens to punish North Korea "through action," not wordsThe United States calls the shelling "belligerent action"Japan, Indonesia, Russia and China also criticize the shelling
(CNN) -- Nations reacted swiftly Tuesday in condemning a North Korean artillery attack that South Korea said killed two marines and wounded 15 soldiers and civilians.
The strongest reaction came from South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who ordered his military to punish North Korea "through action," not just words, the official Yonhap news agency said.
"The provocation this time can be regarded as an invasion of South Korean territory," Lee said during a visit to the headquarters of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in central Seoul. "In particular, indiscriminate attacks on civilians are a grave matter."
The United States also offered quick comment, with the White House saying it "strongly condemns" the "belligerent action" by North Korea.
Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said Defense Secretary Robert Gates was scheduled to speak with his South Korean counterpart Tuesday morning.
"Obviously we're in close contact with U.S. forces, Korea and our allies there in monitoring the situation," Lapan said.
U.S. forces in the area have taken no additional measures, he said.
"Right now it is too soon," Lapan said, adding, "At this point it is premature to say we are considering any action on this.
"Any incidents like this we view with concern. They certainly increase tensions on the (Korean) Peninsula."
Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's Cabinet is to meet Tuesday night to discuss the regional situation.
"The artillery attack carried out by North Korea today was unpardonable and the Japanese government strongly condemns North Korea," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku said in a statement.
"This provocation by North Korea compromises the peace and security of not only South Korea, but also the entire region of North East Asia, including Japan," the official said. "Japan demands North Korea to stop such action immediately. Based on prime minister's orders, Japan will take appropriate measures in close coordination with [the] U.S. and South Korea, as well as other related countries."
Indonesian Foreign Minister R.M. Marty M. Natalegawa also expressed his nation's "deep concern."
"Indonesia calls on both sides to immediately cease hostilities, exercise maximum restraint and avoid further escalation of tension," Natalegawa said.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China had taken note and expressed its concern.
"Relevant facts need to be verified and we hope both parties make more contributions to the stability of the peninsula," he said.
Russia's Interfax news agency said Russia condemned North Korea's artillery shelling, pointing out that "those who initiated the attack on a South Korean island in the northern part of the inter-Korean maritime border line assumed enormous responsibility."CNN's Charley Keyes contributed to this report.
A jawbone suspected to belong to Natalee Holloway does not belong to the missing Alabama teen, officials say.
The jawbone discovered on a beach in the Caribbean did not belong to Natalee Holloway, officials said on Tuesday.
The Aruban prosecutor's office examined the remains, which experts believe belonged to a young woman, but revealed that an analysis of dental records concluded the bone is not from the missing Alabama teen.
"It could be excluded that the investigated bone material and molar came from Natalee Holloway," prosecutors said, and the true identity of the person whose jawbone it is remains unknown.
Holloway's family had submitted the dental records over the weekend after speculation the human remains could be from their daughter.
The bone, which included one intact molar, was found by tourists on Nov. 12.
Speculation about 18-year-old Holloway's fate has been fueled by false starts and dead ends since she vanished in 2005.
Dutch poker-playing playboy Joran Van der Sloot has long been considered a suspect in her disappearance, but has never been charged. He is now in a Peruvian prison for allegedly killing a young woman in Lima.
Pope Benedict XVI delivers his message from his studio window, overlooking the Vatican's St. Peter's Square, Nov. 14, Italy's Thanksgiving Day. He addressed modern agriculture and its growing popularity.
Alessandra Tarantino / AP Enlarge By Joshua M. Brown, Guest blogger / November 22, 2010
Uplifting news for ag bulls from, of all places, the Vatican. Joshua M. Brown
Joshua has been managing money for high net worth clients, charitable foundations, corporations and retirement plans for more than a decade. Pope Benedict XVI chose to discuss his thoughts on modern agriculture during a St. Peter's Square address on Italy's Thanksgiving Day...
"The current economic crisis," the Holy Father began, "must be taken in all its seriousness: It has numerous causes and sends a powerful message about the need for a profound revision of the model of global economic development."
And one area that needs revision and "a strategic re-launching," he added, is agriculture."I believe that this is the moment for the reevaluation of agriculture, not in a nostalgic sense, but as an indispensable resource for the future," the Pontiff affirmed.
His Holiness has even picked up on the trend of booming farmland and the new rural landgrab...
"More than a few young people have already chosen this path," The Holy Father concluded. "Also, many professionals are returning to dedicate themselves to the agricultural enterprise, feeling that they are responding not only to a personal and family need, but also to a 'sign of the times,' to a concrete sensibility for the 'common good.'"
The Pope rightfully points out the problem of the traditional production/consumption paradigm and calls for long-overdue change. Hopefully the people burning (gov subsidized) corn for (gov subsidized) fuel will heed his message. Of course they won't.
None of the reporters present managed to get his buy, sell, or hold opinion on soybeans or the Agribusiness ETF ($MOO), but at least we know he's on board with the theme in general. Add/view comments on this post.
------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above. The Vote
'Dirty Sexy Politics' author Meghan McCain says she and her parents won't be discussing 'don't ask, don't tell' when she goes home for Thanksgiving.
Kim Hae Sung helps migrant workers and the urban poor, winning compensation and access to education and health care through his charitable group Global Sarang – ‘love’ in Korean – and his Korea Migrants’ Center. Helping South Korea's foreign workers win fair treatment
Using a message of love, Kim Hae Sung provides legal counseling, language training, and schools to help foreigners fit into a tight-knit society in South Korea. View the original article here
Wall Street indexes fell on Monday, following the lead of European exchanges, as enthusiasm over a plan to bailout Ireland started to wane and traders began to worry about the problem spreading.
The Dow Jones industrial average was down 93.35 points, or 0.83 percent, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index fell 8.22 points or 0.69 percent. The technology-heavy Nasdaq dropped 3.43 points, or 0.13 percent. On Friday, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 0.2 percent, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 index rose 0.3 percent.
Shares on European exchanges lost their momentum in afternoon trading on Monday after initially opening higher. The Euro Stoxx 50 index, a barometer of euro zone blue chips, lost 1 percent, while the FTSE 100 index in London also dropped 0.7 percent. The CAC 40 in Paris was 0.81 lower, and the DAX in Frankfurt was down 0.11 percent.
The euro, which initially strengthened against the dollar, also slipped as traders began to worry whether other European countries would need some assistance.
“News that the Irish government were going to accept assistance with a debt bailout package certainly gave traders something to cheer about at the start of the week, but there seems to be a creeping realization that this won’t necessarily mark the end of the euro zone sovereign debt crisis,” Will Hedden, a sales trader at IG Index, told The Associated Press.
Ireland’s rescue package, which several European officials said would be worth 80 billion to 90 billion euros, or $109 billion to $123 billion, was made necessary by soaring borrowing costs for the Irish government and ebbing confidence in the country’s troubled banks. Just over six months ago, officials worked out a similar package to aid Greece amid fears that the problems of the euro-zone “periphery” could undermine the common currency.
Although the deal was inevitable, “there are still hurdles ahead for other countries, particularly next year,” Nick Stamenkovic, rate strategist at RIA Capital Markets, told Reuters. Those other countries include Portugal and Spain.
Ireland’s request spurred some concern among traders that Portugal and Spain may also need help in repaying their debts.
Bond prices reacted mildly to the Irish bailout news, which had been expected since last week. The Irish 10-year yield fell 18 basis points, but — at 7.73 percent — still carried a hefty premium to the comparable German bond, the European benchmark, which ticked up 2 basis points to 2.72 percent. The yield on Greek bonds was 11.5 percent.
The dollar fell against other major currencies in early trading in Europe, and then recovered lost ground in the afternoon. The euro, at $1.3672, and the British pound, at $1.5979, were both down slightly. The dollar slipped to 83.46 yen from 83.55 yen, and to $0.9893 Swiss francs from $0.9923 francs.
Asian shares were mostly stronger. The Tokyo benchmark Nikkei 225 stock average rose 0.9 percent. The main Sydney market index, the S.&P./ASX 200, rose 0.3 percent. In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng index fell 0.4 percent as the Shanghai composite index fell 0.2 percent.
Crude oil futures for January delivery rose 35 cents to $82.33 a barrel. Comex gold rose $8.90 to $1,361.20 an ounce.
The company announced that its latest operating system update for iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad users will be available today, though at of 7:00 am PT, the software was not yet available for download either on Apple's Web site or directly through iTunes. MacStories and MacWorld are making the assumption that iOS 4.2 will debut starting at 10:00 am PT.
The eagerly awaited update will bring a host of new features to the iPad that already hit the iPhone and iPod Touch through last summer's iOS 4.0 release. iPad users will now be able to multitask by switching from one app to another, organize apps through folders, and more easily jump from one e-mail inbox to another.
"iOS 4.2 makes the iPad a completely new product, just in time for the holiday season," Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. "Once again, the iPad with iOS 4.2 will define the target that other tablets will aspire to, but very few, if any, will ever be able to hit."
But iOS 4.2 is bringing new features to all three of Apple's mobile devices.
Users who've been asking for the ability to print now have their wish. The new AirPrint feature will print content directly from the mobile device to an AirPrint-enabled printer, a list that currently includes the HP Photosmart, HP LaserJet Pro, and HP Officejet, along with a host of other printers.
AirPlay will wirelessly stream music, videos, and photos from an iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad to Apple TV. Music can also be streamed directly to AirPlay-enabled speakers or to any stereo using AirPort Express.
Those worried about losing their devices can use the Find My iPhone feature, which also works for the iPad and iPod Touch. Freely available as a download through the App Store, this tool lets people find a lost device by locating it on a map and having it flash a message or play a sound. Users can also remotely lock or erase data from their lost device.
iOS 4.2 will be available for the iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4; the iPod Touch 2G, 3G, and 4G; and the iPad. Updating any of these devices with iOS 4.2 first requires iTunes 10.1, which Apple released last week.
Three questions to determine if Palin is serious about being a successful presidential candidate: 1) Does she broaden her appeal… 2) Does she become more disciplined?... 3) Does she expand her policy portfolio?... New Q-poll shows Palin performing the worst among other GOPers in a head-to-head against Obama… The president's trip to Portugal was more successful than his trip to Asia… START has become the next big Washington battle… Expect to see more White House staff movement sooner rather than later… And an update on the uncalled House races.
From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg *** Three questions for Palin: As Sarah Palin comes out with a new book this week, as she goes on a book tour (hitting some battleground states), and as she hints that she might run for president in a New York Times magazine profile, the political world finds itself in the midst of another round of Palin-palooza. Will she run for president? If not, what is she up to? While we're still not sure she actually runs (if she found the scrutiny of remaining Alaska governor too much, then she might not enjoy running for president or even being president), we’ve come up with three questions to determine if she’s truly serious about being a successful presidential candidate. After all, almost anyone can run for president (see: Mike Gravel, Alan Keyes, Fred Thompson, even Rudy Giuliani). But being a successful candidate -- coping with the campaign’s highs and lows, outlasting your opponents, and still appealing to a sizable portion of the country -- is another matter.
*** Does she broaden her appeal? First, does she broaden her appeal beyond her conservative/Tea Party base? Most successful presidential candidates --- at least at this point in the cycle -- are viewed more as uniters than dividers. Yet per a NBC/WSJ poll conducted earlier this fall, Palin is loved by conservatives (53%-19% fav/unfav) and Republicans (55%-17%), but not by Democrats (9%-73%), moderates (14%-62%), or independents (25%-55%). And in our most recent NBC/WSJ poll, which was released after the midterms, being endorsed by Palin was one of the more negative candidate qualities; in fact, it was worse than being endorsed by a labor union, than supporting allowing workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market, and than supporting the economic stimulus.
*** Does she become more disciplined? Second, does she begin to be more disciplined? Since resigning her governorship last year, Palin has not only picked fights with the Obama White House and congressional Democrats -- but also with David Letterman, Katie Couric, Politico, the Wall Street Journal, and even some establishment Beltway Republicans. While that kind of combat can work for a political pundit or entertainer (like Rush Limbaugh), it’s harder for an actual presidential candidate, who will be a target of slings and arrows from Democrats and the White House, from fellow GOP presidential candidates, and from the news media. “She gives as good as she gets,” Mary Matalin told Robert Draper in his New York Times magazine piece on Palin. “But I don’t know her well enough to know if she’s developed the thick skin you need to be endlessly resilient, the way Reagan could take things for decades and let them roll off his back.”
*** And does she expand her policy portfolio? Third, do we see Palin expand her policy portfolio beyond her wheelhouse -- energy, special needs, and neoconservative foreign policy? Recently, Palin weighed in on the Federal Reserve’s action to pump more money into the economy (however, she mistakenly said that prices have risen over the last year or so when, in fact, inflation has been very low). There are two perceptions of Palin: One hits at what Lisa Murkowski said last week. ("You know, she was my governor for two years, for just about two years there, and I don't think that she enjoyed governing," Murkowski told CBS. "I don't think she liked to get down into the policy."). And the other is what Draper said of her. (“Less well known was the Palin who … was seen more than once passed out on her hotel bed half-buried in briefing books and index cards…”). But will somebody explain how she is helping herself to be taken more seriously when she’s using her new book to talk about things like “American Idol”?
*** More numbers on Palin: Meanwhile, a brand-new Quinnipiac poll shows Palin leading a hypothetical GOP primary field at 19% -- followed by Mitt Romney at 18%, Mike Huckabee at 17%, Newt Gingrich at 15%, and Tim Pawlenty at 6%. But in the GOP field, Palin's negatives are the highest (36%-51% overall fav/unfav and 33%-54% among indies), while Huckabee (41%-25%) and Romney (38%-26%) are positive, and Gingrich’s is negative (30%-43%); Obama is 48%-48%. And Palin also performs the worst in a head-to-head against Obama: Romney narrowly edges the president, 45%-44%; Obama leads Huckabee, 46%-44%; Obama leads the largely unknown Daniels 45%-36%; and Obama gets closest to 50% against Palin, whom he leads 48%-40%.
*** A better trip for Obama: Turning from Palin to American foreign policy, the NATO summit in Portugal was a very productive trip for President Obama. NATO endorsing major troop reductions in Afghanistan by Dec. 31, 2014 is a big deal. Yes, it's punting, but it's also an international coalition supporting the U.S.’s end game. So there's no second guessing outside the U.S. on this issue. The only second guessing will come from anti-war Democrats inside the U.S. And frankly, it's legitimate second guessing, but could the U.S. realistically pull out any sooner? The international community’s answer: no.
*** If you START me up, I’ll never stop: But Afghanistan was just one storyline in Lisbon; the other was the new START treaty. This is turning into a key political battle for Team Obama, and they know it. They got every European leader imaginable to go public this weekend supporting the treaty. Indeed, there's a real fear in the White House that if Sen. Jon Kyl and the GOP roll them on this, it will weaken the president on the world's stage. Right now, the White House is struggling to agree on a strategy to get this done. At a press conference over the weekend, Obama hit the Republicans for playing politics on foreign policy and national security. “This is an issue that traditionally has received strong bipartisan support,” he said. “There’s no other reason not to do it than the fact that Washington has become a very partisan place.” But he dodged the question of whether Kyl is playing politics. “I’ve spoken to Sen. Kyl directly,” he said. “Sen. Kyl has never said to me that he does not want to see START ratified.”
*** Sooner rather than later: Here’s a tip: Expect to see some more White House staff movement sooner rather than later. Nobody likes working in limbo, and this may speed up Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett, the two people other than the president himself who may know more about the re-arranging of the staff.
*** The uncalled races: Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY-1) has come back to overtake Republican Randy Altschuler with counting of absentee and provisional ballots. That means of the five House races still uncalled, Republicans lead in two. They are currently +61 in the House and could get to about +63 -- if current numbers hold. The uncalled races: CA-11, CA-20, NY-1, NY-25, and TX-27. In CA-11 and CA-20, the Democrats appear to be on track to win narrowly. In NY-25, Republican Ann Marie Buerkle expanded her lead over incumbent Democrat Dan Maffei. And in TX-27, Blake Farenthold (R) continues to lead, as a recount requested by incumbent Solomon Ortiz nears completion.
This is the fifth installment of The Influencers, a six-part interview series that Lynn Parramore, the editor of New Deal 2.0 and a media fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, is conducting for Salon. She recently sat down for a conversation with nuclear disarmament advocate Jonathan Schell, author of "The Fate of the Earth," Fellow at the Nation Institute and Distinguished Fellow at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. They talked about America’s conflicted nuclear stance, the obstacles to nonproliferation and the connection between global warming and the nuclear dilemma.
Where are we today in terms of nuclear nonproliferation?
I think you have two contending waves. On the one side you have President Obama’s new commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons, although he says that’s not going to happen in his lifetime. He’s framed that very much as a kind of weapon to use against proliferation -- most specifically against proliferation by Iran and North Korea. But on the other side you have a kind of counter-movement against that commitment within the U.S. government. And there are people in the woodwork of the bureaucracies who have struck back. The vehicle for doing that was the Nuclear Posture Review (a process that determines U.S. nuclear weapons strategy), and, to a certain extent, the new agreement with Russia.
Each has good things in it. I’m glad the numbers are coming down. I’m glad they’ve promised not to make any new nuclear weapons or have any new nuclear missions. But on the other hand, there are some things which are very disappointing and which do not really reflect at all Obama’s commitment. In the Nuclear Posture Review there was a refusal to have a thorough-going renunciation of what’s called "first use" -- in other words, refusing to have a no-first-use policy. What that means is that the United States still reserves the right in certain circumstances to use nuclear weapons -- even when nuclear weapons are not used or threatened against it.
If this country, with all its conventional superiority and so on, thinks that it can’t be safe in the world without a threat to use nuclear weapons -- even against conventionally armed countries -- then what country in the world could say to itself, by that standard, "well, we’re safe without nuclear weapons?" And most particularly, if you’re a North Korean, or if you’re an Iranian, and you’re facing a very hostile and angry United States, you might well decide, "we need these things, too." So there’s a kind of contradiction that’s built in there. On the one hand, the United States is saying: "we’re ready to do without nuclear weapons over some long term." But on the other hand, "we need them now, and we even need them against countries that don’t have nuclear weapons." So in the contention between those two points of view, some direction will eventually emerge. But in my opinion, it hasn’t really emerged yet.
Of course, I should have said, there are really three waves, because you also have proliferation itself. You have countries who are looking a little bit more interested in nuclear weapons. It takes the form of an interest in nuclear power. There are almost a dozen countries in the Middle East who are suddenly saying, "we’re really interested in nuclear power." That’s a way of keeping your options open for nuclear weapons. And so whether Obama’s commitment to disarmament is going to be enough to bring to the table with the countries that are potential proliferators is very much open to doubt at this point.
What is your earliest recollection of nuclear danger?
I began my life as a writer as a reporter in the Vietnam War. That was way back in 1966. And the experience of being in Vietnam certainly set me on the path that eventually led me to thinking about nuclear weapons. When I arrived in Vietnam I really didn’t know anything about the war. I didn’t know the history and so on. But just from what I saw with my own two eyes it became apparent in the first day that this was a massive governmental enterprise that was absolutely making no sense of its own terms. It was radically and 100% mistaken. Shockingly so. It was self-defeat, which you could see every day, every hour of that war.
So it was the fallibility of government that struck you?
Precisely. It opened my mind to the idea that there could be vast governmental enterprises that most people were saying were sensible but were actually chaotic and made no sense whatever. I still believe that about the presence of nuclear weapons in our world. That was one way that I arrived at it. The other way was that when you looked into the reasons that the United States had got into the war in Vietnam, and, more particularly, the reasons why it couldn’t get out -- the whole arena of nuclear strategy began to loom large. The way that worked, to say it very quickly, is that Vietnam was conceived as a so-called limited war. There was actually a "Bureau of Limited War" in the Kennedy White House before there was ever any major intervention in Vietnam. Well, what was limited war? What was the opposite of limited war? General war? That was nuclear war. So in a certain way, the fighting in Vietnam was an escape from the paralysis of the unfightability of the general war, which meant a nuclear war. Now these two things were joined at the hip in a paradoxical way, so it led me to think about it. That was a pathway into thinking about it.
How does attitude towards nuclear weapons reflect our evolution as human beings?
I now think that the nuclear dilemma is the first in an array of dilemmas that have arisen in which we discover the self-destructive potential of human life is unlimited. We’ve seen that most notably through global warming, but also through a whole other array of ecological threats including the incredible acceleration in the extinction of species in the rain forest and elsewhere around the world, and in the depletion of fish stocks and the whole multi-dimensional ecological crisis. So what we are finding is -- and again it goes back to my experience in Vietnam -- that many of the activities that seem to be our salvation or that seem to be positive turn out to have an unlimited dark side to them. They have their positive side, too, industrialization being an example, or the use of fossil fuels. It’s great: We can sit here and have this conversation because we have a tape recorder that’s fueled by fossil fuels, and so on -- your computer and all the rest. But to state what’s now becoming clearer in an array of fields -- these sources of hope and betterment have turned out to have a dark side that really is without limit.
A nuclear holocaust is often described as "unthinkable." How do the limits of our imagination impact our ability to prevent such a catastrophe?
Well, it’s a problem with many levels. I don’t think that we have succeeded yet, collectively, to apprehend what is at stake here. After all, in some ultimate sense, it is the survival of the species that is at stake. That was put on the table in 1945; it became very acute during the Cold War. Now it’s receded quite a bit, although the technical means are still in place. One problem -- and the whole arena is full of paradoxes -- is that with nuclear weapons present, you can’t really fight a major power war. Well, that’s a great thing -- not to fight a great power war. But one result of it is that you have no experience of nuclear destruction since Nagasaki. And so thought is given little to chew on. We’re left with a lot of theory, and all nuclear strategizing is pure theory. Military strategizing used to be based on actual experience -- millennia of experience of war. But nuclear strategy is quite otherwise because there’s never been a nuclear war. The Japanese didn’t have nuclear weapons, so that wasn’t a nuclear war.
So nuclear holocausts are relegated to science fiction movies?
Well, that’s right. And now, we don’t even have the Cold War. And yet the dilemma is there. These things are deeply embedded in our world. And we can see from the resistance that Obama gets -- or anyone gets -- who actually talks about eliminating nuclear weapons. They’ve become part of the furniture of the world. They’ve become domesticated and deeply lodged in our institutions and our thinking, and so on. And yet, they rarely are brought into consciousness.
On the flip side of that domestication is the romance of the idea of this world-destroying weapon. Do you think that’s part of our attachment?
When the H-bomb was invented, they called it "The Super," and I think it was this use of "super" that put the word "super" in "superpower." So, the weapon is associated very deeply and primally with holding immense power. And that’s of course a legacy of war itself traditionally throughout the millennia. The countries that had the best weapons and the best militaries and so forth were the most powerful. They could fight these wars and win them. It’s no longer true with nuclear weapons. They turn out in actual practice to be rather a paralyzing influence than an enabling one. But I think that that deep association that’s left over inappropriately from the whole tradition of warfare. Psychologically, it means that people still hold tight to these instruments of seeming supreme power even though they are nothing of the kind in reality or in experience.
What is the most dangerous illusion that we cling to with regard to nuclear weapons?
The idea that we can hold onto nuclear weapons while at the same time stopping their proliferation to other countries. That is an absolutely unworkable proposition. It just cannot happen in the real world. And that’s why I think that Obama’s pledge, or his commitment, that the United States is ready to surrender its nuclear weapons has to become something that’s active and real in our world now. It’s the only way we’re going to be able to stop proliferation, including proliferation conceivably to a terrorist group.
Can human beings create policies big enough to deal with a threat as huge as nuclear weapons?
I think that in a whole array of areas, there really are new stakes on the table in politics. And the essence of it is the threat to the natural world. Only a part of it is the threat of the extinction or mutilation of our own species. So, really there’s a new framework in which you have to consider political actions and political thinking -- and the nuclear weapon really was the first expression of that, the first manifestation of this new crisis, which is a crisis of the natural order, as I say. But now others have appeared. And so I don’t know whether we’ll find out whether we’re able to act on that scale -- whether we’re able to step up to the level of danger that we now live with.
Subscribe to this Feed by Email
Negotiators will meet in Cancun, Mexico in late November to build on the Copenhagen Accord agreed last December.Governments must set in stone climate pledges made in Copenhagen, Steiner saidComes as UN releases a report saying government must do more to reduce emissionsReport finds that even if all pledges are met, temperatures will still rise above agreed levelsNegotiators meet in Cancun in late November for COP16
By Annalyn Censky, staff reporterNovember 23, 2010: 9:26 AM ET 
A traveler undergoes a pat down at Denver's main airport. Doctors say they hope the TSA takes into account medical conditions.TSA says pat downs, full-body scans are necessary to prevent weapons from getting on planesTSA trying to balance safety concerns and travelers' right to privacyDoctors say extra scrutiny raises concerns for cancer patients, elderly, childrenThe process is evolving, and concerns are being taken into account, White House says
S. Korean President Lee Myung-bak -- pictured talking at the Seoul G-20 summit -- said the provocation was like an invasion.South Korea threatens to punish North Korea "through action," not wordsThe United States calls the shelling "belligerent action"Japan, Indonesia, Russia and China also criticize the shelling
A jawbone suspected to belong to Natalee Holloway does not belong to the missing Alabama teen, officials say. 
Joshua M. Brown 
(Credit: Apple) 