On Friday Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the peaceful resolution of competing sovereignty claims to the South China Sea is a U.S. “national interest.” “The U.S. supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion,” she said in Hanoi during a regional security conference, the Asean Regional Forum. “We oppose the use or threat of force by any claimant.”

Beijing quickly reacted. Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi characterized Clinton’s comments as “an attack on China,” and in a sense he was right. China has claimed virtually all that body of water as its own. By doing so, Beijing has said it has sovereignty over the continental shelves of the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan and Vietnam. Most of China’s claims there are baseless, and some are ludicrous. That is perhaps why the Chinese have resorted to force to grab islands and islets from other claimants. China seized the western Paracels from Vietnam in 1974 and Mischief Reef from the Philippines in 1995.

Beijing opted for the softer approach by signing a multi-nation code of conduct in 2002. It was seen as largely succeeding in its recent efforts to gain control by preventing other claimants from banding together. China had shrewdly maintained a policy of participating in only bilateral negotiations so that it could use its heft to maximum advantage.

Yet it was nonetheless meeting resistance from nations in the region–especially Vietnam–and so it changed tack recently. When Jeffrey Bader, the top Asia official at the National Security Council, and James Steinberg, deputy secretary of state, traveled to Beijing in March, Chinese officials for the first time said the South China Sea was one of their country’s “core interests” and that they would brook no American interference there.

Beijing has tried to paint Clinton’s words as the U.S. inserting itself into the region, but that could not be further from the truth. Up until now, Washington has been largely oblivious to Chinese attempts to make the South China Sea a “Chinese lake.” It ignored Beijing’s seizure of territory and even did little to protect ExxonMobil ( XOM – news – people ) when China, in 2008, tried to intimidate the company from entering into an exploration deal with PetroVietnam, the state energy company, in the South China Sea. In adjacent areas it has done virtually nothing to prevent China’s navy from harassing Japanese warships, as it did most recently in April, and to stop Chinese submarines from regularly violating Japanese waters, which they have been doing for most of this decade.

In short, America looked like it was acceding to Chinese demands for control over the South China Sea. Beijing had overplayed its hand in recent months, however, and nations in the region were looking to oppose the Chinese. Nonetheless, all of them were seeking safety in numbers, with none wanting to aggravate Beijing by leading from the front.

Thanks Forbes.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]

Sharon Stone has never shied away from controversy, either on screen (see ‘Basic Instinct’ ) or off (see her comments on China’s earthquake being “karma”).

Now, according to DeadlineHollywood, the actress is joining the cast of the sure-to-be-protested comedy ‘Sweet Baby Jesus,’ which transplants the nativity story to ’70s-era Bethlehem, Maryland. Since the events play out at Christmas time, the locals begin expecting a Second Coming.

Stone will play the mother of pregnant hippie chick Mary, a role once reportedly offered to another 50-something sex symbol, Kim Cattrall.

In yet more cast changes, Adrien Brody is now in final negotiations to play Mary’s boyfriend Joseph, instead of Sam Rockwell. The lead role of Mary was once going to be played by Britney Spears; instead, 19-year-old British singer Pixie Lott — her hits include ‘Mama Do (Uh Oh, Uh Oh)’ and ‘Boys and Girls’ — was announced for the part in May.

Peter Hewitt, who gave the world ‘Garfield’ and ‘Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey,’ will direct. Filming begins in Maryland and Ireland next month.

Stone recently did a four-episode guest arc on ‘Law & Order: Special Victims Unit’ as A.D.A. Jo Marlowe.

Thanks Moviephone.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]

Reading tea leaves is not science. And what I’m about to discuss is an epic tea-leaf read. But it could make for an interesting strategy for 2012. Suspend a little disbelief and read on.

Here’s the background. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn’t spoken much on domestic policy since she took the foreign affairs gig. For someone so vocal during the campaign, it’s been clear she’s purposely sticking to her charter and staying out of domestic affairs.

Yesterday, according to Ben Smith at Politico.com, Hillary spoke to the Brookings Institution on national security strategy. That’s exactly what you’d expect from SecState.

But then she took an interesting foray into domestic affairs by saying, “The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues…”

The comment itself is what got Politico’s attention, but her rare move into domestic policy is what caught mine. Although Mrs. Clinton prefaced her statement by saying it was her personal opinion, that made it even more interesting.

Why would she say such a thing when she’s been so disciplined about her messaging? Especially with China and Korea heating up, the Middle East still simmering, and all sorts of other threats and risks across the world – why would she move to the topic of wealth disparity?

Well, here’s one idea. What if she’s getting ready to go back on the domestic stage? How could it possibly make sense for her or for President Obama?

Here’s how: Obama/Clinton 2012.

Think about it. For many true believers, it was the dream team to end all dream teams in 2008, but instead Barack chose Biden. There were many reasons, including Biden’s clear foreign policy experience. But another was Obama really couldn’t take a chance on being upstaged by Hillary before he’d proven he could be President. And then, of course, there was the Bill Factor.

But all that’s changed now. Obama’s been President and he’s 99.9% likely to be the Democratic candidate in 2012.

Joe Biden hasn’t distinguished himself – he hasn’t hurt himself much, but he also hasn’t been a standout either. As much respect and affection as I have for Joe, he doesn’t add anything to a 2012 ticket – and you know 2012 is going to be the battle to end all battles.

Plus, Mr. Biden’s recently had some pretty serious challenges with the failing health of his son.

Finally, Biden’s not likely to be a serious candidate for the top office in 2016. He just doesn’t have the brand power and so he’s unlikely to be the heir apparent.

Here, then, are three solid reasons why Joe probably shouldn’t be on the 2012 ticket: 1) he doesn’t add anything in an election where every advantage is needed, 2) he’s got family health issues that are probably sapping his attention and energy, and 3) he’s not going to be able to carry the torch in 2016.

But if Biden shouldn’t be in the veep slot for 2012, who should be?

What about Hillary?

First, who (after Obama) has more star power in the Democratic party than Hillary? Not Nancy Pelosi. Not Harry Reid. Hillary.

Next, who can bring more juice, excitement, and support to a party that’s kind of lost some of its juice and excitement? Not Pelosi. Not Reid. Not some governor from the sticks. Hillary.

What if Sarah Palin is nominated on the GOP side? She’d automatically grab a lot of the women’s vote. Who can counter that, has comparable star power, and also show a tangible difference between “momma grizzly” and world-wide policy experience? Hillary.

And, finally, what if Obama’s numbers go low enough that another Democrat tries to unseat him in the primaries? Is there any Democrat who stands even a tiny chance? Yep. Only one. Hillary.

Here we have some very compelling reasons for Hillary on the ticket. 1) she has star power, 2) she can bring excitement and loyalty back to the party, 3) she adds the women’s vote element, 4) she has wide foreign policy experience, and 5) she could otherwise be a possible competitor.

Finally, which Democrat has the best chance to win in 2016, at least based on today’s information? Hillary.

If Biden were out and Hillary were in, an Obama/Hillary ticket would make for a very interesting campaign season. Plus, there’d be Bill. Every election’s tons more fun with Bill involved.

Like I said at the beginning of this piece, I’m only reading tea leaves.

Thanks CNN.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]

Hillary “the Hammer” Rodham Clinton

One of my friends is a classic Republican: He’s a businessman from a Southern “red state,” and a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam who earned a Silver Star for heroism at Hué. To put it mildly, he’s never been a fan of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yet he recently called to acknowledge a conversion like Paul’s on the road to Damascus. He now kind of likes her.

“She’s out there doing things … she’s smarter than Bill. If she was [messing] up, the far right would be all over her and they’re not coming up with anything.”

He’s got a point. Hillary Clinton, the once-hated first lady, appears to have hit her stride as secretary of State. The right wing, even “talk radio,” deems her the “good” member of the Obama team.

The right-wing Republican mantra goes something like this: “If only the president were more like her. She’s pushing him on Iran, pushing for more troops in Afghanistan. He’s wobbly. She’s the iron fist in the velvet glove.”

The right is right that Clinton is tough on Iran, but it’s wrong to think that there’s much daylight between her and the president.

Clinton has been intolerant of Tehran’s dissimulation. As the administration “hammer,” her message is steely: First, Iran must live up to its nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations or it will find itself globally isolated. Second, if Tehran builds nuclear weapons, it will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Sunni Arab world with more than a few of the Sunni nukes likely to be pointed at Shiite Iran, a historic rival.

“Both the president and his secretary knew there was a good chance Obama’s initial outreach to Iran would fail,” says a Clinton aide who sat down with me recently for an interview on condition that he not be named. But it was part of a
long-term calculation.

As the aide explained: “Failure would set us up to pursue the ‘pressure track’ more effectively … if Iran didn’t respond affirmatively [on its nuclear program], then you can bring the hammer down on them with an international consensus you could not otherwise have created.”

Indeed, on May 18, a day after Brazil and Turkey announced a nuclear fuel deal with Iran, Clinton said she had secured the support of Russia and China for “strong” new sanctions against Iran.

Clinton may appear to have been born a diplomatic pro, but at least some of her exemplary patience, discipline, and professionalism were probably forged on the anvil of some bruising blows during the eight years of her husband’s presidency.

Her battle-tested political savvy may be one reason today’s national security establishment – the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council – has shown less backstabbing, bureaucratic rivalry, or policy contradictions than I’ve seen in 45 years of watching Washington.

In the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and second Bush administrations, infighting between State and the Pentagon, and the National Security Council and State, was at times poisonous.

Today, there seems to be less clamoring for celebrity status amid an overpowering realization the president is the celebrity.

Sure, there is some difference in tone between this White House and Foggy Bottom, but totally similar views between the commander in chief and the secretary of State would smack of redundancy or lack of imagination. Where all people think alike, no one thinks very much.

The Clinton aide says it was Obama who set the harmonious tone for his national security team, insisting he wanted a team without internal rivalries. That’s a welcome change from the contentious relations between President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Secretary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates reportedly “see the world through the same glasses.” Each has a huge number of items on their plate, so there is no time for argument over the grand ideological disputes – the kind that hobbled previous administrations.

On the face of it, Obama’s team is an odd mix: Defense Secretary Gates is a former CIA director; National Security Adviser James Jones Jr. is a highly decorated retired US Marine Corps four-star general. And Clinton is a Midwestern lawyer turned first lady turned New York Senator.

Clinton’s experience as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee no doubt helps the chemistry. As a member of that committee she became quite close to senior military officials. “She also came to understand the workings of the military and the way it fits into the broader national security fabric,” says the aide.

Is she in the same league as James Baker, the most recent “great” secretary of State? Not yet, perhaps. But then the simpler bipolar world that Mr. Baker had to manage no longer exists. We no longer live even in a multipolar world. As Clinton put it recently, we now belong to a “multipartner world.” Still, she notes, there is no major global problem that can be solved without US involvement.

Ironically Clinton’s greatest diplomatic challenge now may be convincing Israel, an American ally, that Obama is no less a friend of the Jewish State than was her husband. It is not proving easy.

Thanks the Christian Science Moniter.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]

At the start of broad bilateral talks in Beijing, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is urging China to cooperate on formulating an international response to North Korea and Iran.

Secretary Clinton said there are few global problems that can be solved by the United States or China acting alone or without them working together.

In her opening remarks to the high-level Strategic and Economic Dialogue that got underway in Beijing Monday, she pointed to North Korea and Iran as two cases where strong U.S-China relations are vital.

She said the U.S. and China cooperated last year in the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on North Korea after it conducted a nuclear weapons test.

“And today we face another serious challenge, provoked by the sinking of the South Korean ship,” said Clinton.  “So we must work together, again, to address this challenge and advance our shared objectives for peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.”

In Seoul, President Lee Myung-bak announced Monday his country would cut most trade ties with the North and bar its ships from its waters in response to the sinking of a South Korean navy ship and the death of 46 sailors in March.

Secretary Clinton also pointed to the recent negotiations among the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council, which include China and the U.S., in agreeing on a draft resolution that would impose new measures on Iran for its suspect nuclear program.

“The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran concerns us all,” she said.  “And to address that threat, together we have pursued a dual-track approach of engagement and pressure, aimed at encouraging Iran’s leaders to change course.  The draft resolution agreed to by all of our P-5+1 [five permanent Security Council members plus Germany] partners and circulated at the Security Council sends a clear message to the Iranian leadership:  Live up to your obligations, or face growing isolation and consequences.”

Secretary Clinton added that U.S-Chinese cooperation is needed on a wide range of other issues, including terrorism, climate change, energy, health, education and development. On the economic side, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the two economic powers have a common interest in a strong and balanced world economy.

The Chinese side of the talks is being led by State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Vice Premier Wang Qishan.

While they did not mention North Korea or Iran by name, they did urge candid and in-depth discussions between the two countries and acknowledged that the two powers are becoming increasingly interdependent on the world stage.

President Hu Jintao also addressed the opening of the two days of economic and political talks. He said China and the U.S. have worked together to counter the world financial crisis, furthered trade and economic ties and stepped up cooperation on new and clean energy sources.

He said although the two countries are different and may disagree on some issues, China attaches great importance to its relations with the United States. He said both countries want to develop a “long-term, sound and steady relationship” that would contribute to peace, stability and prosperity.

Thanks VOA News.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has briefed her Chinese counterpart Dai Bingguo on the inquiry into the sinking of a South Korean warship, a senior US official said Sunday.

We’ve shared with them some specific information” during a dinner ahead of US-China dialogue due to start in Beijing on Monday, the official said on condition of anonymity.

Clinton also told Dai the substance of a statement due to be made Monday evening by South Korean leader Lee Myung-Bak, and said Washington would back all measures announced.

The US has strongly condemned Pyongyang for its “provocative behaviour” in the sinking of the South Korean corvette the Cheonan in March.

On Thursday, a multinational panel released its findings in the incident, concluding that a North Korean submarine torpedoed the ship, killing 46 South Korean sailors.

Several world powers have condemned the regime of Kim Jong-Il but China — Pyongyang’s sole major ally — called for restraint and said it would make its own assessment of the investigators’ report.

“The Chinese are still digesting the implications” of the inquiry, said the official, adding that Washington expected Beijing “to take some steps in the international arena to underscore the seriousness of the matter.”

South Korea wants to take the affair to the UN Security Council and the support of Beijing, one of five veto-wielding members, is seen as key for any international action targeting the North.

Pyongyang quickly rejected the investigators’ findings and launched threats of war if it is punished by the international community.

“In a situation like this it’s not unusual for China to move extraordinarily carefully, said the diplomat. “It’s incumbent on us to try to carefully work with them.”

He said China had made clear “that they are prepared to look seriously at the evidence and to give it due consideration.”

Clinton and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will lead the US delegation in two days of talks on Monday and Tuesday with China, on everything from trade disputes to the value of the yuan to the international standoff on Iran.

The sinking of the Cheonan — and a possible international response — is now expected to move high up the agenda of the talks, also to be attended by US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and other top-level officials.

Clinton will wrap up her Asia tour on Wednesday in South Korea, where she could offer her “responses” to North Korea on the Cheonan affair, US officials say.

Thanks Bangkok Post.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]

A man charged into a kindergarten in northwestern China with a cleaver Wednesday and hacked to death seven children and two adults—the fifth such rampage in less than two months. The attacker then went home and killed himself.

The assault, which left 11 other children hospitalized, occurred despite heightened security countrywide, with gates and cameras installed at some schools and additional police and guards posted at entrances.

It was not clear if security had been increased at the school on the outskirts of Hanzhong, a relatively poor area in the heart of China. Images taken from local TV and posted online showed the school, which only had about 20 students, in a tumble-down, two-story farmhouse.

Sociologists say the recent attacks that have left 17 dead and scores wounded reflect the tragic consequences of ignoring mental illness and rising stress resulting from huge social inequalities in China’s fast-changing society.

“The perpetrators have contracted a ‘social psychological infectious disease’ that shows itself in a desire to take revenge on society,” said Zhou Xiaozheng of Beijing’s Renmin University.

“They pick children as targets because they are the weakest and most vulnerable,” Zhou said.

Wednesday’s carnage started as class was beginning at 8:20 a.m. at the private Shengshui Temple Kindergarten, the local government said.

The assailant, identified as 48-year-old Wu Huanming, entered the kindergarten and killed school administrator Wu Hongying and a student on the spot, then began hacking at the 18 others, according to the city government’s statement.

Six students and Wu Hongying’s 80-year-old mother died later in the hospital of their wounds, it said. None of the 11 hospitalized survivors was in immediate danger.

Wu is a common Chinese surname, and it wasn’t clear if the assailant and administrator were related.

Citing the police, the official Xinhua News Agency said Wu Huanming had rented his house to Wu Hongying for the kindergarten without government approval. He then demanded the property back, but Wu Hongying had asked to hold onto it until the children went on summer vacation.

The ages of the children killed were not disclosed, but kindergarten students would typically be 5 or younger. Xinhua said they were five boys and two girls.

The recent attacks are classic “copycat crimes,” the effects of which may be amplified by media coverage, Zhou said.

Boosting security at schools would provide only a temporary solution unless the root problems of social injustice and economic inequality are addressed, he said.

It’s also difficult to protect so many places.

About 500 kindergartens, primary and high schools in Beijing have hired more than 2,000 professional security guards to increase safety, said He Gang, a police officer at the Beijing Public Security Bureau. Thousands more guards are needed for the city’s remaining 4,500 kindergartens, primary and high schools, He said.

Early reports on Wednesday’s attack were removed from Chinese websites or moved to less prominent pages. There was no mention of it on state television’s national evening news report—which instead announced an urgent directive from the education and public security ministries to further protect schools.

State media have steered clear of examining what might be motivating school attackers, preferring to focus on security.

The government has sought to show it has the problem under control, mindful especially of worries among middle-class families who, limited in most cases to one child due to population control policies, invest huge amounts of money and effort to raise their offspring.

Recent scandals in which children have been the main victims have sparked public anger and occasional protests, such as when at least 3,000 children across China were found to have lead poisoning from polluting factories built too close to villages, and more than 300,000 infants were sickened by tainted baby milk powder.

The Hanzhong city government vowed to “leave no stone unturned, learn from the mistakes, and strictly ensure nothing happens like this again.”

The city government said about 2,000 police officers and security guards had been assigned to patrol public schools, kindergartens and surrounding areas beginning last week. The city has a population of nearly 4 million.

Parents and grandparents waiting to pick up children at schools in Beijing and Shanghai said they were reassured by the increased security.

“When we hear about those attacks on children, all parents worry. We don’t let the child walk home alone,” said Guo Xiumei, 52, waiting to pick up her 7-year-old grandson at Beijing’s Yonganli Elementary School. Two police officers and a pair of security guards flanked the downtown school’s tall metal gate.

In Shanghai, a father waiting in his car outside the Aiguo Elementary School, where a single uniformed policeman stood watch at the gate, said he would adjust his work schedule to drop off and pick up his daughter.

“Who knows how those people think? They shouldn’t take out their dissatisfaction with society on innocent children. It’s not fair,” said the man, who gave only his surname, Su.

The string of assaults began with an attack on a primary school in March in the city of Nanping, where eight children were slashed to death by a former doctor with a history of mental health problems.

The man convicted for that crime was executed April 28, the same day a 33-year-old former teacher broke into a primary school in the southern city of Leizhou and wounded 15 students and a teacher with a knife.

The following day, in the city of Taixing, a 47-year-old unemployed man with a knife wounded 29 kindergarten students—five seriously—plus two teachers and a security guard.

Hours later, a farmer hit five elementary students with a hammer in the eastern city of Weifang before burning himself to death.

Thanks Breitbart.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]
Tagged with:
 

Americans’ confidence in the economy rose in April to its highest level since September 2008, just as the financial crisis escalated, according to a private research group.

The upbeat reading, combined with bullish earnings reports this week from companies ranging from Whirlpool Corp. to UPS Inc., offers more hope the economic rebound is gathering steam. Meanwhile, a key home price index reported its first annual increase in more than three years, though it’s too early to say the housing market is recovering.

In morning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 13.07 points, or 0.1 percent, to 11,191.96, as fresh worries about Greece’s debt problems and China’s latest move to slow a hot economy dampened investor enthusiasm over upbeat earnings reports and increasing confidence.

The Conference Board, a private research group based in New York, said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence index increased to 57.9, up from a revised 52.3 in March. The April reading is the highest since September 2008′s 61.4. That was when the financial crisis intensified with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, sending confidence into freefall the following month. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters were expecting a reading of 53.5.

The index—which measures how shoppers feel about business conditions, the job market and the next six months—had been recovering fitfully since hitting an all-time low of 25.3 in February 2009.

Economists watch the number closely because consumer spending including health care and other major items, accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity.

April’s reading is still far from what’s considered healthy. A reading above 90 indicates the economy is on solid footing; above 100 signals strong growth. Still, the monthly survey of consumers showed that consumers’ current and short-term concerns about jobs and the overall economy are easing.

One component of the overall index, which assesses how consumers feel now about the economy, rose to 28.6 in April from 25.2 in March. The other component, which measures shoppers’ outlook over the next six months, climbed to 77.4 from 70.4.

“Looking ahead, continued job growth will be key in sustaining positive momentum,” said Lynn Franco, director for The Conference Board Consumer Research Center.

Economists believe confidence will remain relatively weak for at least another year because companies haven’t begun to dramatically ramp up hiring.

“I think it is good to see the (confidence) numbers moving up again, but I don’t call it a major change in confidence,” said Gary Thayer, chief economist at Wells Fargo Advisors. “But it does reflect a more optimistic view in the job market.”

Thayer noted that he still expects an overall modest economic recovery citing both weak and strong pockets. Manufacturing may be showing signs of strengthening, but small businesses, which are typically a big source of hiring, are still struggling as they continue to have a hard time getting credit, he said.

According to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home price index, home prices in February posted a 0.6 percent increase on a non-seasonally adjusted basis from a year ago, but 11 of the 20 cities in the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home price index showed declines.

“We have this divergence in the economy,” Thayer said.

Employers are expected to add 175,000 jobs in April, but economists project unemployment will remain at 9.7 percent. The Labor Department is due to release monthly job figures May 7. Thayer said that companies need to add at least 250,000 jobs monthly in order to reduce the unemployment rate.

First-quarter earnings reports from big manufacturers including Caterpillar Inc. and Whirlpool along with Tuesday’s upbeat forecast from UPS are underscoring that consumer demand is strengthening across all types of goods.

Against this economic background, signs of life in consumer spending are sprouting this spring, and stores are primping for a recovery by increasing inventories and re-evaluating their marketing.

Retailers reported a 9 percent increase in sales at stores open at least a year for March, the biggest gain since March 1999, though much of that was a result of an earlier Easter that pushed more spending into March. Sales at stores open at least a year are considered a key indicator of a retailer’s health. March’s performance marks the fourth consecutive month of sale gains.

The Conference Board survey—based on a random survey of consumers sent to 5,000 households from April 1-20—showed worries about jobs were easing. Those saying that jobs are “plentiful” increased to 4.8 percent from 4.0 percent, while those saying jobs are “hard to get” decreased to 45.0 from 46.3.

Consumers were also more upbeat about the job outlook. The percentage of consumers anticipating more jobs in the months ahead increased to 18 percent from 14.1 percent,while those anticipating fewer jobs fell.

Thanks Breitbart.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]
Tagged with:
 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said six world powers are united on possible sanctions against Iran.
   Speaking at the United Nations, Clinton said those powers include China and Russia and said talks will continue over the next several weeks.
   The UN Security Council, along with Germany, has agreed to begin work on drafting a sanctions resolution against Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program.
   Clinton said there will be, quote, “a great deal of further consultation” involving the Security Council and other nations.
   President Obama said this week he expects new UN sanctions against Iran in a few weeks.

Thanks My State Online.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]

Rural traditions of abandoning dead infants because they’re considered bad luck may have played a role in the case of 21 babies’ bodies found along a river in eastern China, apparently dumped by hospital mortuary workers.

The little bodies—at least one stuffed in a yellow bag marked “medical waste”—were found floating and strewn along the bank of a river on the outskirts of Jining city in Shandong province last weekend.

Police detained two mortuary workers at a hospital who were paid by the babies’ families to dispose of the bodies.

One question that arose Wednesday was why would the parents of so many dead children simply abandon their remains?

Hospital procedures normally call for families to take away dead infants, the Shandong province-based Qilu Evening News reported. However, the death of a young child is considered bad luck among some rural families, and the body is often abandoned or buried in unmarked graves.

“According to customs in some places, dead infants are not considered to be a family member and will not be buried in family tombs,” said Cao Yongfu, professor with Medical Ethic Institute of Shandong University.

Some families would rather leave the body at the hospital or pay someone to bury it, Ma Guanghai, deputy dean at Shandong University’s School of Philosophy and Social Development, was cited as saying by the official Xinhua News Agency.

Some local customs go even further. When a baby dies, the family burns its clothes, toys and photos—anything that would remind them the child ever existed. The traditions stem from China’s agrarian past, where child deaths were common, and not considered something to dwell on.

Though the case has shocked the public, Cao said a more pressing issue was developing clear regulations on how the bodies of infants and fetuses should be disposed.

“It’s necessary for China to issue a legal explanation on how to deal with the bodies of dead infants and fetuses, otherwise it is possible there will be loopholes in hospital management,” he said.

Thanks  Breitbart.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]

Hillary to China: Vote for Iran Sanctions, or Face Gulf Conflagration and Oil Cutoff.

In an interview with Russia Today Webster G. Tarpley talks about the growing US-China confrontation, exposing Hillary Clinton’s blackmail against China. The Iran attack scenario has been revived, but this time as a means of threatening China’s oil supply and strangling that country’s further growth.

For her Jan. 29 speech at the Ecole Militaire in Paris [1], Mrs. Clinton was evidently wearing that stylish new French perfume from the House of Sarkozy called Chantage – meaning blackmail. Mrs. Clinton gloats because she thinks she has the Chinese leadership in a bind.

As she stated, she knows that China increasingly depends on oil from the Gulf. She demanded that China vote for crippling sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council this month, while Sarkozy — the craziest of all western leaders against Iran — controls the presidency of that body.

For China, approving crippling sanctions against Iran means in all probability the loss of 10% to 12% of its oil imports, the aborting of some $80 billion in development projects by Beijing in Iran, the sacrifice of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil which the Chinese have locked in via futures contracts, and, above all, a farewell to the best chance of getting a secure overland oil pipeline far away from the US-UK fleets — the pipeline from Iran via Pakistan into China.

If the Chinese fail to captitulate on this point, Mrs. Clinton darkly hinted, the US would no longer restrain the Israelis, who might then launch their long-threatened air attack on Iran, which the US has emphatically vetoed over the past two years. At that point, the Iranians would try to interdict Gulf maritime traffic and close the strait of Hormuz, meaning that about a third of China’s oil could be cut off. (The other 20% comes from Saudi Arabia.)

The US-UK elite is in a state of collective hysteria about the growth of Chinese economic power. China is now the largest exporter in the world, and officially about to become the second largest economy, passing Japan to challenge the US.

The US is way behind China in fast rail, and will soon fall behind in modern nuclear energy production. China is clearly aiming to put astronauts on the moon, but the Obama-Orszag NASA budget makes clear that the US is going nowhere when it comes to manned space flight. If US elites really want to keep pace, they should put aside their feckless attempts to contain China by subversion, economic warfare, and fomenting conflicts in the Guif and on the India-China border. Match the Chinese programs in nuclear reactors, fast rail, and manned space flight, or prepare for the status of has-been.

But for right now, the Iran attack scenario, which had been pushed to the back burner by the US National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 — which stated that there was no Iranian nuclear weapons program — is once again operational, this time as a means at striking at China’s oil supply.

Thanks Voltaire Net.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]
Tagged with:
 

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says trans-national Islamic extremist networks pose greater threats to the United States than the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

Clinton says the Obama administration is concerned about connections between non-state groups loyal to al-Qaida with bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and North Africa. She was speaking in an interview with U.S. television network CNN, broadcast Sunday.

Clinton says a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea also pose both a “real or potential threat” to the United States. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and says its atomic program is peaceful.

North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and has blocked six-party talks on dismantling that program in return for international aid and other incentives.

Clinton says she does not believe Iran possesses a nuclear weapon, but says Tehran’s behavior is evidence of its intentions. She noted what she called Iran’s “failure” to disclose its uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom until after it began building the site.

Iran revealed the existence of the previously-secret facility last September, triggering outrage from Western nations who suspect Iran is enriching uranium to develop nuclear weapons.

Clinton also criticized Tehran for refusing to accept what she called a “very reasonable” U.N.-brokered proposal for sending Iran’s low-enriched uranium to Russia and France for processing into fuel. Western nations fear unsupervised enrichment could feed a nuclear weapon program.

The U.S. secretary of state defended the Obama administration’s policy of pursuing engagement with Tehran and Pyongyang to try to resolve disputes about their nuclear programs.

She says North Korea’s lack of response to U.S. engagement efforts persuaded Russia and China to sign on to what she called “very strong” sanctions against Pyongyang that are being enforced worldwide.

Clinton also says the rest of the world is beginning to see Iran’s nuclear program the way Washington sees it, because of what she called “very slow and steady U.S. diplomacy.”

Thanks VA News.

[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [Mister Wong] [MySpace] [Netvouz] [Newsvine] [OnlyWire] [Propeller] [Shoutwire] [Squidoo] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!]