By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: “The Philippines’ largest warship is in a stand-off with Chinese vessels in the South China Sea”, Reuters; See Philippines ‘withdraws warship’ amid China stand-off, BBC news, April 12, 2012.

The maritime dispute in the China South Sea, according to recent news source, such as BBC news, between the competing interests of China and the Philippines recently almost broached the peace between these two nations.

As mentioned in an earlier writing,

The dispute concerning issues of sovereignty over the South China Sea has a long history, notwithstanding the dispute over the East China Sea – the Senkaku Islands or Diaoyutai Islands (Diaoyutai Qundao). The Spratly Islands comprise about forty-five (45) islands. These islands are also occupied by military units from Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and the Philippines. There is even occupancy, though not a military occupancy, of an island by Brunei, which claims an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (i.e., the Law of the Sea) in the southeastern part of the Spratly Islands.

This time the dispute involves the commercial activities of Chinese fishing vessels. The area in dispute occurred in the the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, which is  on the northwest coast of the Philippines.

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, as reported by BBC news, a Philippine coast guard vessel arrived in the Scarborough Shaol, and after boarding the Chinese fishing vessels found “a large amount of illegally-caught fish and coral.”

After boarding the Chinese fishing vessels, two Chinese surveillance ships subsequently arrived in the area, and positioned their ships between the Philippine’s coast guard ship and the fishing vessels; thereby, preventing the Philippine’s coast guard from making arrests.

China’s take on the story, according to BBC news, is that the Philippine’s coast guard were harassing the Chinese fishermen. Additionally, as concerns the maritime right of China, as reported by BBC news,

“China should take more measures to safeguard its maritime territory,” the newspaper stated.

“The latest moves by China’s two neighbours are beyond tolerance,” it added, also referring to Vietnam. “They are blatant challenges to China’s territorial integrity.”

In the aftermath of this incident, the dispute between China and the Philippines, as it has always been, is now a diplomatic dispute.

In the way of background information, for the past year, the disputes on the sovereignty claims of China, Vietnam, and the Philippines have been growing in intensity, as each of these nations vie for much-needed resources.

This is because what is at stake, as mentioned in an earlier writing, “the right of sovereignty symbolizes the right of access to much-needed natural resources, which includes the prize of access to potential oil and natural gas supplies. More accurately, these natural resources include fish, guano, and undermined oil and natural gas potentials.”

A problem for the international community is that the territorial disputes arising in the South China Sea are international in dimension, involve issues of international law (i.e., govern by the International Law of Sea), and affects many nations, including nations, such as the United States, which do not have a sovereign interest in the South China Sea.

It is especially for this reason, the involvement, if any, of the United States in these territorial disputes present the potential for difficult problems, difficulties in U.S. diplomacy, and clear and certain potential dangers.

For instance, a potential problem arises from officials in the Philippines seeking enhanced U.S. military support in the South China Sea against what many perceive as China’s new assertiveness in the South China Sea.

Granted, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did earlier announce, “We are concerned that recent incidents in the South China Sea could undermine peace and stability.” The United States has even recently expanded its military presence in the Asia-Pacific, such as the installment of a new military base in nearby Australia.

However, whether the United States will militarily engage China’s seemingly new assertiveness in the South China Sea presents a potential for a crisis in U.S. diplomacy. There are problems with U.S. military intervention, the problem of growing economic interdependence between the U.S. and China notwithstanding, in support of the sovereignty claims of the Philippines.

First, the United States must address its own right to freely navigation the South China Sea, including the issue of the right of U.S. military warships to operate in China’s two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). As Bonnie S. Glaser, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Council on Foreign Affairs, observed,

The most likely and dangerous contingency is a clash stemming from U.S. military operations within China’s EEZ that provokes an armed Chinese response. The United States holds that nothing in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or state practice negates the right of military forces of all nations to conduct military activities in EEZs without coastal state notice or consent. China insists that reconnaissance activities undertaken without prior notification and without permission of the coastal state violate Chinese domestic law and international law.

Second, as Glaser also noted, “A second contingency involves conflict between China and the Philippines over natural gas deposits, especially in the disputed area of Reed Bank, located eighty nautical miles from Palawan. Oil survey ships operating in Reed Bank under contract have increasingly been harassed by Chinese vessels.”

The United States could also arguably find itself drawn into a China-Philippines conflict under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines. A problem for the Philippines is a U.S. diplomatic approach that maintains that it will not take sides in the sovereignty disputes concerning the South China Sea, while also refusing to comment on how the United States would actually respond in the event of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. For the Philippines, this presents a problematic gap between Manila’s expectations and Washington’s policy view of its U.S. obligations (i.e., the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines).

Moreover, for many China’s geopolitical posturing regarding its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea is difficult to understand. This may well be due to many actually underestimating the diplomatic skills or the skills in geopolitical posturing of Beijing officials.

For instance, and quoting from an earlier writing,

Although Beijing persists in reminding all other claimant countries that the South China Sea is Chinese sovereign territory, China has been very careful about not officially demarcating its specific maritime claims. Thus, other countries can only infer China’s specific claims from Beijing’s statements and actions, and China retains the option to change or redefine its maritime border according to the situation (Dana Robert Dillon, U.S. Role in South China Sea Dispute, Paracel and Spratly Islands Forum, January 2008).

As evidenced by this brief quote, Beijing’s statements and actions (i.e., a growing assertiveness) actually speak to a seemingly well thought out diplomacy or skillful geopolitical posturing. Additionally, at least for now, one reasonably suspects, especially in light of Washington policy position regarding U.S. obligations under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines, the United States will not employ military force on behalf of the Philippines to resolve the China-Philippines South China Sea territorial dispute.

In other words, for now, the Philippines appear situated in an impasse between the balancing of Chinese geopolitical posturing against American geopolitical posturing.

In the end, for today, the good news is that the dispute did not evolve into a “shooting” war, because the territorial dispute for the moment remains a war of words.

_______________

See also China Seas

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: “A repeated Romney jab at Obama has been rated ‘mostly false’ by Politifact,”Reuters; Reid J. Epstein, Mitt Romney fumbles on women’s issues, Politico.com, April 11, 2012.

The GOP sure to be nominee, Willard Mitt Romney, and his handlers, are either out of their minds or think the American public is extremely gullible and as a whole lacking one iota of common sense. I say this, because in the face of poor polling on issues affecting the lives of women he is now seemingly, without conscious, trying to take a position on women’s rights that diametrically opposes his life, his career at Bain Capital, and his earlier and current political career and political positions.

Amanda Terkel (Huffington Post) writes, “In recent days, Mitt Romney’s campaign has been trying to squash the perception that he’s bad with the ladies.”

However, when one looks at his record and positions on women’s rights, the contraception issue, Planned Parenthood, abortion, health care, and the Blunt Amendment, the new twist (i.e., flip-flop) to his political tale is shocking, and begs the question, just who is swallowing the bait?

Willard is now revealing his new flip-flop or etch-a-sketch meme, while also reviving the relevancy of Seamus the dog riding on top of his car in an air tight container, which will forever serve as the epitome of his inability to show compassion and sympathy for others.

What is especially troubling about Willard and his handlers is that by taking blatantly false positions on critical issues of our time, such as women’s rights, they essentially trivialize these critical issues. The issue of women’s rights is a real issue about real life, which should not be reducible to a game or game of politics.

Photo Source: “Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, holds a flyer as he speaks in Hartford, Conn., Wednesday, April 11, 2012. Romney is intensifying his rebuttal of claims that he and fellow Republicans are insufficiently supportive of women, or even hostile to them. For the second straight day the presumptive GOP nominee campaigned Wednesday at a female-owned work site and denounced Democrats for saying his party is waging "a war on women” (AP Photo/Steven Senne). See also Romney holds the sheet that contains what the Associated Press dubs his “amazing statistic”, though, “it is dubious at best”, FACT CHECK: Romney’s eye-popping statistic on job losses by women raises eyebrows, too, Washington Post via AP, April 12, 2012.

For instance, as many are now aware, Willard is now talking about statistics that supposedly show that “Women account for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama.” The immediate problem for now is that PoliticoFact.com, when conducting a fact check found the assertion to be “mostly false.” They found his assertion to be mostly false because,

By comparing job figures with January 2009 and March 2012 and weighing them against women’s job figures from the same periods, Saul came up with 92.3 percent. The numbers are accurate but quite misleading. First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming. Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men. In every recession, men are the first to take the hit, followed by women. It’s a historical pattern, Stevenson told us, not an effect of Obama’s policies.

As the Washington Post also recently reported,

Mitt Romney has come up with an “amazing statistic” and Republicans inside and outside his presidential campaign are doing their utmost to spread it around: “92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women.”

Amazing it may be. As a meaningful measure of Obama’s economic record and its effect on women, though, it is dubious at best.

In response to Willard’s “amazing statistic,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, a financial services company, said, “This is political gaming.”

Additionally, whether one characterizes Willard’s new etch-a-sketch meme as “mostly false” or of “suspect” quality, it still does little to alleviate his poor record on women’s rights. As earlier mentioned he has a record on women’s right that will be extremely difficult for him to flip-flop on, unless, through some miracle, he is able to find the most willing and gullible to take his bait.

Then there is his private life at Bain Capital, which mostly remains a mystery. Willard as a co-founder of Bain Capital did, however, leave some evidence about his perspectives on life and people from this earlier period of his career.

In 1994, while still associated with Bain Capital, because he did not leave the firm until 1996, Romney challenged the senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). When doing so, Willard publicly announced his credentials as a man “dedicated to helping women and minorities shatter the glass ceiling.”

However, as Roger Fallihee rightly observed, “But, as is often the case with Mr. Romney, the rhetoric doesn’t match the results.”

In the 1994 debate against Senator Kennedy, Willard said (See YouTube video),

“I believe that public companies… should be required to report… the number of minorities and women… so we can identify where the glass ceiling is and break through it.”

This is his vision for breaking the glass ceiling for women and minorities. The problem is that he, thought not surprising, is talking about only breaking through the glass ceilings of public companies, rather than private companies, such as Bain Capital.

During this period, Bain Capital had 81 managing directors. According to Fallihee, “Of the 81 Managing Directors six are women and none appear to be African American.” Further, he states that for those aspiring to the position of managing director, “it would help greatly if you were a man, not African American, and have a BA or an MBA from Harvard.”

Fallihee even went as far as to contact the Harvard Business School African American Alumni Association, and verify that there was not a shortage of African American candidates with Harvard Business degrees (i.e., during this period over 2,200 graduates). Although, in rhetoric, “his entire life has been dedicated to breaking the glass ceiling,” Romney and Bain Capital never attempted to recruit African American Harvard Business School graduates.

Photo Source: Sen. Ted Kennedy campaign ad in 1994; Jason Cherkis, Mitt Romney Also Attacked On Women’s Issue By Ted Kennedy’s ’94 Campaign (VIDEO), Huffington Post, April 11, 2012.

During this earlier period and in response to question about the hiring practices of Bain Capital, Willard is quoted as saying, “It’s a profession that has yet to attract many women and minorities.”

There are also, and quoting the Huffington Post,  other sources, such as the Boston Global, which described the recruitment of women and minorities as being “almost exclusively white and male, adding that ‘there are no minorities among the 95 vice presidents of Bain & Co. Only 10 percent are women.’”

According to Jason Cherkis (Huffington Post),

The gender issue proved critical in that 1994 race, explained Tad Devine, a senior advisor and ad man for the Kennedy campaign.

“I think this narrative as Romney as a manager who couldn’t find a lot of slots for women …. I thought that was a very powerful story. I think it had a lot of impact,” Devine says. “We were trying to talk to women in particular — non-college educated women specifically. That narrative of Romney not being a good boss … I think that was very helpful in terms of the story we were trying to tell.”

Moreover, the story has an ending that is familiar to us. Before publishing his article, Fallihee sent an email to Romney’s campaign advising them about a pending publication concerning the lack of women and African American managing directors employed by Bain Capital, while also asking them a question about the employment of women and African American managing directors.

However, as Willard did when recently questioned about Bain Capital selling surveillance cameras to the Chinese government, he also failed to respond to Fallihee’s question.

As stated in an earlier writing, “‘Ritchie’ Romney is either in denial of his actions or simply dismissive of all things contrary to the beliefs of a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth.”

>>There is also the following article by Amanda Terkel, which addresses voting records and issues of women’s rights from the perspective of Willard Mitt Romney’s women surrogates. The following article is important, because it may well be the clearest indication of Romney’s position on women’s rights, rather than trying to have faith in his rhetoric.

____________________

“Mitt Romney’s Women Surrogates Voted Against Pay Equity Enforcement, Blasted Feminism”

By Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, April 11, 2012 –

WASHINGTON — In recent days, Mitt Romney’s campaign has been trying to squash the perception that he’s bad with the ladies.

It’s been bringing out everyone from Ann Romney — who insists that her husband really isn’t “stiff” when you "unzip him" – to other prominent Republican women. All are trying to make the case that the former Massachusetts governor will look out for women’s rights if elected president.

But the records of some of these surrogates seem to undermine the campaign’s message.

The campaign stumbled for a moment during a Wednesday call with reporters, when a Romney aide was unable to answer whether the former governor supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama signed the measure into law in 2009 and considers it one of the keynote achievements of his presidency. The law provides women with more legal channels to pursue receiving equal pay for equal work. Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul later clarified that Romney “supports pay equity and is not looking to change current law.”

But two of his surrogates did vote against the legislation in Congress. On Wednesday, the campaign sent out statements from Republican Reps. Mary Bono Mack of California and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, blaming women’s jobs losses on Obama’s policies. But both women voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Act as well as the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act.

A March 29 Wisconsin Women for Romney call with reporters featured Wisconsin state Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and conservative activist Bay Buchanan. Darling was a cosponsor of legislation repealing her state’s 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which was designed to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by granting workers more avenues for pressing charges. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill into law last week.

Buchanan has railed against feminism, stating in 1999 that the movement has hurt women. She blamed the high number of divorces, single-parent households and teen suicides on feminism in part.

“If the movement is about helping women, if it is moving them in a better direction, women have not done that well,” Buchanan said then. “This is not a good direction for the nation to be taking.”

And on Fox News on Monday night, Romney surrogate South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) was totally off-message, saying, “There is no war on women. Women are doing well.”

The Romney campaign is claiming that women account for more than 92 percent of jobs lost under Obama, but Politifact rated that statement as “mostly false.” The Romney campaign is now disputing this characterization.

Mitt Romney’s Women Surrogates Voted Against Pay Equity Enforcement, Blasted Feminism

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: Bo Xilai and his wife, Gu Kailai, Financial Times, April 10, 2012.

In the way of an update regarding Wang Lijun, the former vice mayor of Chongqing, the earlier story continues to evolves in different directions. While the fate of Wang still remains pending, though seemingly less discussed in the media, including the social media, the story very broadly appears to have affected the lives of many others, such as Bo Xilai, his wife, Gu Kailai, and a Bo family servant, and even now deceased or murdered British businessman Neil Heywood.

On February 8, 2012, Wang Lijun, then deputy mayor of Chongqing, reportedly attempted to defect to the United States. Although the rumors regarding his earlier disappearance were many, the story about his attempt to detect now appears to be the general consensus or simply the truth story behind his disappearance. In other words, the rumor about his visit to the U.S. embassy was confirmed. As of today, the consequences of his actions, however, are still pending.

Then there is Wang’s relationship to Bo Xilai. During this earlier period, Bo was then the Communist party municipal secretary of Chongqing, and Wang’s superior.

There were also many humors about Bo’s involvement with Wang and his attempt to defect to the United States. As the Financial Times reported, “Wang Lijun, the former police chief of Chongqing who tried to defect to the US last week, was often called RoboCop because of his ruthless pursuit of adversaries and his unquestioning loyalty to Bo Xilai, his political patron.”

Photo Source; In this Oct. 16, 2011 photo, Wang Lijun, the former Chongqing city police chief, delivers a speech during the 2nd International Forensic Science Meeting in Chongqing city.Color China Photo, via Associated Press; (Didi Kirsten Tatlow, Inside China’s Greatest Mystery, New York Times, February 12, 2012).

Accordingly, he sought refuge in the U.S. consulate in Chengdu, China, because, “many speculate that” Mr. Wang sought Mr. Bo’s protection when the investigation appeared to be getting close to him, but that Mr. Bo rebuffed him,” (Jamil Anderlini, Police chief turns against former mentor, Financial Times, February 13, 2012).

In the aftermath of humors surrounding Wang’s attempt to defect and Wang’s relationship to Bo, eventually Bo Xilai, one of China’s most high-flying communist officials and a contender for its top leadership, was purged by Chinese party members in the most significant political upheaval in the country in two decades.

Thus came the ending of Bo’s political career.

Photo Source: “Gu Kailai has been implicated in the death of Neil Heywood”; China: Leader’s Wife Linked To Brit’s Murder, NewsSky.com, April 11, 2012.

The story did not stop evolving at that point, however. This is because, on April 10, 2012, the Financial Times reported that the wife of Bo Xilai, Gu Kailia, and their family servant are now under arrest.

As reported by the Financial Times,

In what amounted to a formal government announcement, state media also said Mr. Bo’s wife, Gu Kailai, and a Bo family servant had been “transferred to judicial authorities” on suspicion of having murdered Mr. Heywood, who was found dead in a hotel room in Chongqing on November 15.

Mr. Heywood was a close associate and “foreign consigliere” to the Bo family. Mr. Bo was removed from his position as Communist party chief of Chongqing last month. According to the state media report, a police investigation found that Ms Gu and Mr Heywood had fallen out over a “conflict over economic interests”.

In the interim, while his wife, Gu Kailai, and their family servant are in police custody, as the Financial Times reported, “Three people familiar with the matter said Mr. Bo was being held at the Communist seaside resort of Beidaihe in eastern China.”

As earlier mentioned the story about Wang Lijun, the former vice mayor of Chongqing, continues to evolves in different directions.

In the end, the fate of Wang Lijun may be an arrest and conviction for treason when attempting to defect to the United States.

However, there are also rumors, supposedly from some Chinese officials, which, according to the Financial Times, suggest the possibility of Wang being shown clemency or some sort of lenient treatment for helping bring down Bo Xilai.

_______________

See also

• Bo and the Macau Connection
• Bo purged by Chinese leadership
• The Wang Lijun Mystery: Update No. 2
• The Wang Lijun Mystery: Update
• Wang Lijun, Crime Fighter, Is Said to Have Tried to Defect

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) –

Short-Term Energy Outlook

Release Date: April 10, 2012  |  Next Release Date: May 8, 2012

|  Full Report    |   Text Only   |   All Tables   |   All Figures

Highlights

• EIA has lowered the forecast 2012 average U.S. refiner acquisition cost of crude oil by $2 per barrel from last month’s Outlook to $112 per barrel, still $10 per barrel higher than last year’s average price. EIA expects the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to average about $106 per barrel in 2012, the same as in last month’s Outlook but $11 per barrel higher than the average price last year. Constraints in transporting crude oil from the U.S. midcontinent region contribute to the expected discount for WTI relative to other world crude oil prices. EIA expects WTI prices to remain relatively flat in 2013, averaging about $106 per barrel, while the average U.S. refiner acquisition cost of crude oil averages $110 per barrel.

• During the April-through-September summer driving season this year, regular gasoline retail prices are forecast to average about $3.95 per gallon, peaking in May at a monthly average price of $4.01 per gallon. EIA expects regular gasoline retail prices to average $3.81 per gallon in 2012 and $3.73 per gallon in 2013, compared with $3.53 per gallon in 2011. The June 2012 New York Harbor Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) futures contract averaged $3.28 per gallon for the five trading days ending April 5. Based on the market value of futures and options contracts, there is a 40 percent probability that its price at expiration will exceed $3.35 per gallon, consistent with a monthly average regular-grade gasoline retail price exceeding $4.00 per gallon in June.

• The warmer-than-normal weather this past winter contributed to high natural gas working inventories that continue to set new record seasonal highs, with March 2012 ending at an estimated 2.48 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), about 57 percent above the same time last year. EIA’s average 2012 Henry Hub natural gas spot price forecast is $2.51 per million British thermal units (MMBtu), a decline of $1.49 per MMBtu from the 2011 average spot price. EIA expects that Henry Hub spot prices will average $3.40 per MMBtu in 2013.

• EIA expects electricity generation from coal to decline by about 10 percent in 2012 as generation from natural gas increases by about 17 percent. EIA forecasts that electricity generation from coal will increase by about 7 percent and generation from natural gas fall by 3 percent in 2013 as projected coal prices to the power sector fall slightly while natural gas prices increase, allowing coal to regain some of its power sector generation share.

>>Read the Full Short-Term Energy Outlook here.

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source; “The Post’s report gave the Obama campaign the opportunity to fully embrace the line of attack that Romney’s GOP rivals have used in the primary, casting him as a self-interested corporate raider, part of the unfairly privileged 1 percent of society. On CBS’ Face the Nation last Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said "Romney is a little out of touch" with the middle class. This election, he said, "is about the middle class and none of what he is offering, does anything." Attacks casting Romney as a wealthy elite — illustrated by his ties to the company he founded, Bain Capital”; by Stephanie Condon, Wealth, transparency issues dog Romney campaign, April 6, 2012; (Credit: AP Photo).

Recently, President Obama with his campaign manager Jim Messina, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Ill.), rightly brought to the attention of potential American voters what defies description of being anything other than the exotic financial portfolio of Willard Mitt Romney.

What is even more alarming is Willard’s inability to understand that while he intends to hide his exotic portfolio from the eyes of an America public, he reveals more about himself than he neither imagines nor desires.

For instance, Willard earlier offered a very limited amount of information regarding his holdings, which were “only” his 2010 tax return and tax estimates for 2011. However, as Stephanie Condon (CBS news) correctly observed, and presenting a problem for his candidacy,

Romney’s disclosure reports do raise serious questions about the nature of Romney’s investments, as well as the level of transparency that should be required of politicians. As the Post points out, Romney used a legal loophole to give a limited picture of his assets, leaving it unclear whether his wealth is invested in controversial companies. He declined to identify the underlying assets in 48 accounts with Bain Capital because they are covered by a confidentiality agreement with the company.

Apparently, he wants to reveal as little about himself as humanly and legally possible, such as Willard employing an obscure ethics exception to avoid disclosing his wealth, especially his Bain holdings. He still refuses to release his tax returns.

Sam Stein writes,

But in the course of calling for millionaires to pay higher tax rates, the participants began working to depict the presumptive GOP nominee as the embodiment of an unfair tax code, while urging him to make more information about his financial portfolio public.

"Romney should meet the same standard now so the American people can judge whether he would be a suitable president and whether there would be any conflict of interest that could cloud his judgment," Messina said. "I see no reason why he would give John McCain 23 years and the American public only two."

There is also the earlier controversy regarding his earnings from the sales of security cameras to the Chinese government. In this example, when revealing as little as possible about his holdings, he would do so while hiding behind a confidentiality agreement with Bain Capital.

Photo Source; “Rick Perry upped the ante on his criticism of rival Mitt Romney on Tuesday, likening the former Massachusetts governor’s company, Bain Capital, to a band of "vultures" who wait to loot failing companies”; by Rebecca Kaplan, Perry labels Romney, Bain Capital as “vultures”, CBS News, January 10, 2012; Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks during a campaign stop at the Sun City Lake House, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012, in Fort Mill, S.C. (Credit: AP Photo/David Goldman).

During this earlier period of the GOP primary race, the American public was already beginning to see the emergence of a discernible pattern about Willard, which commences the process of confirming our worst suspicions about his self-interested corporate raider image, corporate buyout specialist image,  “vulture” capitalist image, or quoting former GOP candidate Rick Perry, simply a “vulture.”

In the article titled, Perry labels Romney, Bain Capital as “vultures”, according to Texas Governor Perry,

"They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass," Perry told a group of about 200 voters here during a town hall here. "They leave with that and they leave the skeleton."

Talking to reporters after the event, the Texas governor suggested that Romney’s record hasn’t been assessed in the race, though other candidates recently have been joining that line of attack. He has talked about businesses in South Carolina that were restructured or shut down by Bain Capital, costing people jobs.

He fended off criticism of his own his attacks by people who say Bain Capital is just an example of the free market at work – a concept Perry champions in his stump speech, especially when talking about the energy industry. He disagreed with the premise of the criticism, saying that "greedy people" on Wall Street have been taking advantage of Americans.

An additional problem for Willard, however, is that, as the GOP primary race continues, the narrative of “who” is the real Romney starts taking on a life of its own, while neatly revealing a discernible shape and form of his candidacy for public viewing, though contrary to his intentions.

The pattern or evidence is unfolding before our eyes. For instance, the earlier reference to his exotic holdings directly addresses the oddity of a candidate for the office of the U.S. presidency having Swiss bank accounts and/or offshore bank accounts.

Willard simply doesn’t get it, and by that I mean, though doing fairly well in electoral votes via the blunt instrument of Super PAC funds, he fails to understand why he is not doing so well with the popular vote. There are also the issues of likability, trust, and genuineness; all of which are presenting problems for him.

Willard’s only defense, though a desperate one, is that President Obama is out of touch with average Americans, as opposed to himself. The assertion, however, is only good for a couple of laughs, because, as usual, by making such an assertion he only proves that he is in fact the most out of touch GOP primary candidate.

As for the Swiss banks accounts and/or offshore accounts, one suspects that this will present a problem for most potential voters, though Willard, as usual, will also try to sidestep this issue too (i.e., his “etch-a-sketch” meme, which, for example, was on full display on April 9, when he attempted to sell to unsuspecting voters a “centrist”-Willard, rather than a conservative Republican Willard or Tea Party Willard).

“Ritchie” Romney is either in denial of his actions or simply dismissive of all things contrary to the beliefs of a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Sam Stein’s article aptly characterized Willard’s new problem as follows.

"I asked Warren Buffet in a meeting we had recently, ‘Have you ever had a Swiss bank account?’ He said, ‘No, there are plenty of good banks in the United States,’" Durbin said.

"So I started asking people: ‘Why do you have Swiss bank account?’ One, you believe the Swiss Franc is a stronger currency than the United States dollar. And that is apparently the decision the Romney family made during the Bush presidency. And secondly, you want to conceal something. You want to hide something. Why would you have a Swiss bank account instead of one in the United States? I would like to … ask the press to really press some of these questions, the obvious questions. When is the last time a presidential candidate for the United States had a Swiss bank account? I think the answer is never."

It was the most direct the campaign has been on the topic of Romney’s offshore funds. . . .

The Romney campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.

Stein’s article well summarizes Willard’s new problem, as it also presents a clear picture of the narrative unfolding around him. This is because the only thing that he genuinely reveals to us is his pattern of concealing and hiding the real “Richie” Romney.

There is also an inherent danger to his concealing, hiding, and using offshore bank accounts rather than, as Warren Buffet  suggested,  “good banks in the United States.”

This is because, Willard’s denial  notwithstanding, a critical problem is his deliberate failure to inform the American public about any conflicts of interest that would impair his judgment in the office of the U.S. presidency.

His unknown and potential conflicts of interest present a serious problem.

For example, as earlier mentioned, there are his earnings from the sales of security cameras to the Chinese government. Willard appears very cavalier about his earnings, and seemingly throws caution to the wind in this case.

In other words, we once again see Romney—the “Great Ruffian”— in full form, because he exhibits his typical insensitivities and a selflessness that denies any consideration of real world realities, such as China’s government using the security cameras (i.e., surveillance equipment) to suppress human rights, arrest and detain dissidents, and other violations of human rights.

Even assuming truth in his assertion that there is a confidential agreement with Bain Capital, this would not have stopped him from speaking out, if Willard actually wanted to do so, against the practice of selling surveillance equipment to the Chinese government, which they could employ as a means to suppress human rights.

Photo Source; “Mitt Romney is depicted as a financier “more ruthless than Wall Street” and a son of privilege responsible for firing thousands of workers in a film. . . The film also depicts Romney as “rich beyond imagination” and out of touch with most Americans as a result of his wealth”; by Joshua Green, Gingrich-Allied Attack Film Shows Romney as ‘Ruthless’ Rich, Bloomberg, January 11, 2012; Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) — Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to Winning Our Future, a pro-Newt Gingrich political action committee, talks about a 28-minute film that depicts former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as a financier "more ruthless than Wall Street." Tyler speaks with Bloomberg’s Peter Cook in Manchester, New Hampshire. (Source: Bloomberg).

As earlier stated, the Willard narrative earlier began to take on a life of its own.

In the interim, there he is standing on his soapbox, in the most hypocritical fashion, as the loudest voice against China, while bashing China on human rights, trade practices, outsourcing, and everything else under the sun.

It is also for these reasons, as the narrative continued to unfold, many adjectives would employ to describe his unique candidacy, such as the epitomes of ruthless winning, ruthless rich or simply ruthless.

The reasons are obvious, as equally true of the many questions waiting Romney’s answer.

This is because the American people do not have any idea about which of his investments, and holdings or offshore accounts directly or indirectly involve conflicting foreign transactions, conflicts with U.S. trade embargoes, conflicts with U.S. trade laws, conflicts with U.S. diplomatic policies and practices, or simply, find themselves nestled comfortably in a grey area of law or policy, such as the sale of surveillance equipment to the Chinese government.

In other words, as Obama campaign manager Jim Messina succinctly observed, Romney simply “put his personal financial assets in a black box and hid the key.”

It is a danger only enhanced by the fact that, as billionaire super Pac donor  Julian Robertson explained, “Half of the pro-Romney super PAC’s revenue to date has come from the industry, according to an analysis by the Center For Public Integrity.” By industry, both Robertson and the Center for Public Integrity are referring to the same finance industry intricated with the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis or 2008 global finance crisis, which occurs during the U.S. presidency of George W. Bush (from 2001-2009).

Moreover, assuming the truth of the seeming truism that most people use offshore accounts to conceal or hide something, begs the question of what might Romney be hiding or concealing?

Finally, for those actually contemplating casting a vote against the man—President Obama, you will be wasting your vote, because, in the end, you will not be voting for the man—Willard Mitt Romney.

>>With that being said, the full text of the article by Sam Stein also follows.

____________________

“Barack Obama Campaign Attacks Mitt Romney Over Swiss Bank Account”

By Sam Stein, Huffing Post, April 9, 2012 –

WASHINGTON — A conference call organized by President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign on Monday to push for higher tax rates for millionaires quickly descended into an attack on Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney for his secretive Swiss bank account, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) declaring that no presidential aspirant has ever had such an exotic financial portfolio.

"I asked Warren Buffet in a meeting we had recently, ‘Have you ever had a Swiss bank account?’ He said, ‘No, there are plenty of good banks in the United States,’" Durbin said.

"So I started asking people: ‘Why do you have Swiss bank account?’ One, you believe the Swiss Franc is a stronger currency than the United States dollar. And that is apparently the decision the Romney family made during the Bush presidency. And secondly, you want to conceal something. You want to hide something. Why would you have a Swiss bank account instead of one in the United States? I would like to … ask the press to really press some of these questions, the obvious questions. When is the last time a presidential candidate for the United States had a Swiss bank account? I think the answer is never."

It was the most direct the campaign has been on the topic of Romney’s offshore funds. The issue arose during the heart of the GOP primary, when Romney released 2010 tax returns and 2011 estimates. Recently, the Obama campaign has tried to revive the charge that the former Bain Capital executive is playing loose with the tax code.

The Romney campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.

Monday’s call, which featured campaign manager Jim Messina, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Ill.) and Durbin, started out with a defense of the Buffett rule, a plan named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett and designed to address income inequality. But in the course of calling for millionaires to pay higher tax rates, the participants began working to depict the presumptive GOP nominee as the embodiment of an unfair tax code, while urging him to make more information about his financial portfolio public.

"Romney should meet the same standard now so the American people can judge whether he would be a suitable president and whether there would be any conflict of interest that could cloud his judgment," Messina said. "I see no reason why he would give John McCain 23 years and the American public only two."

If Romney were to release 23 years of tax returns, it would constitute a historic amount of transparency on his part. Obama himself released eight years’ worth of tax returns during the 2008 presidential campaign. When pressed whether the president would match Romney and release 23 years’ worth himself, Messina all but ducked the question.

"We have gone back to 2000," he said. "This is the standard that Romney set when he was talking to McCain about the VP deal. We have been very clear about what we have laid out. We have done tons of transparency throughout government."

Barack Obama Campaign Attacks Mitt Romney Over Swiss Bank Account

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: AP Photo/GeoEye/SIME; Iran’s Nuclear Program (Nuclear Talks, 2012), New York Times, April 9, 2012.

On Friday, in Istanbul, Turkey, previously scheduled negotiations between Iran and world powers, which are the United States, China, Russia, and key European nations,  will take place.

As many are aware, the dispute with Iran concerns Iran’s nuclear program, its levels of uranium enrichment, and whether those levels are reaching weapon grade levels.

As the New York Times, April 9, 2012, reports,

Iran’s nuclear program is one of the most polarizing issues in one of the world’s most volatile regions. While American and European officials believe Tehran is planning to build nuclear weapons, Iran’s leadership says that its goal in developing a nuclear program is to generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply it prefers to sell abroad, and to provide fuel for medical reactors.

Iran and the West have been at odds over its nuclear program for years. But the dispute has picked up steam since November 2011, with new findings by international inspectors, tougher sanctions by the United States and Europe, threats by Iran to shut the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments and Israel signaled increasing readiness to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Fears of an attack on Iran have driven up oil prices and represent a threat to  the already fragile state of a global economy still reeling from a sovereign debt crisis in Europe. At the same time, the Iranians have acutely felt the squeeze from a round of  sanctions aimed at getting Iran to freeze  its uranium enrichment program.

In March 2012, the global powers dealing with the program announced that they had accepted an Iranian offer to resume negotiations that broke off in stalemate more than a year before. Talks were set to begin in Turkey in mid-April, with both sides jostling for advantage in the days running up to the negotiations.

American and European diplomats said that one demand from the Obama administration and its allies would be a halt in the production of uranium fuel that is considered just a few steps from bomb grade, and a stop to the shipment of existing stockpiles of that fuel out of the country. . . .

Ahead of the scheduled negotiations, however, Iran’s nuclear chief Fereidoun Abbasi is suggesting the possibility of compromise between Iran and world powers.

As concerns Iran’s nuclear program, Abassi is suggesting that Tehran may be amenable to stopping its uranium enrichment process at the threshold of 20 percent, which is below a weapons grade level.

The 20 percent level is significant because that is the threshold amount necessary for a research reactor.

Abassi also suggested that Iran could continue to enrich uranium at an even lower lever for power generation.

_______________

See also Iran

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

By M. Ulric Killion

[Photo Source: “The National Organization for Marriage, a lobbying organization dedicated to battling the prospect of certain people getting married, recently had some tax documents leaked to the press, via their enemies at gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, which says it received the documents from a “whistleblower.” The documents reveal that Mitt Romney’s campaign donated $10,000 to NOM right before the 2008 election, when the group was fighting to ban gay marriage in California. Romney’s donation was not disclosed in public documents”; by Alex Pereene, NOM unveiled: It’s not pretty, Salon, March 6, 2012; Supporters gather during a "No on Prop 8" rally in West Hollywood.  (Credit: Reuters/Mario Anzuoni)].

On Easter Day, it seems appropriate to revisit the recently revealed secret documents of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). This is because lying at the heart of their efforts, or what many are characterizing as marriage discrimination, are strategies of setting minority groups against one other, or simply, out and out race baiting.

The source of NOM’s now exposed strategy is the  “Confidential 2009 Strategic Report,” which is titled “National Strategy for Winning the Marriage Battle.”

The Human Rights Campaign, pursuant to an ongoing ethics investigation of NOM’s campaign finances in the state of Maine, was able to obtain documents marked confidential, which, despite their attempt to block the disclosure of these documents in state court, were unsealed on March 26, 2012.

For example, an excerpt of one of the earlier confidential documents of NOM, which is from the Confidential 2009 Strategic Report to NOM’s Board, reads:

The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity — a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation.

In another example, which is actually an update of the “Confidential 2009 Strategic Report,” there is their explicit strategy of attempting to divide LGBT and African Americans, which reads:

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of his party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the costs of pushing gay marriage to its advocates … find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally.

Personally, I found this shocking and appalling, especially for what many are characterizing as a post-racial American society. Quoting from the words of Rev. Dr. Nancy Wilson,

Leaders of a group that calls itself the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) were exposed for their plan to manipulate the religious sensibilities and identities of African Americans and Latino Americans so that marriage for loving, same-sex couples would become a wedge issue that would divide the vote of people of color in the upcoming election.

The words of Rev. Dr. Wilson directly addressed the insensitivities of NOM and their intended and shameful exploitation of race (i.e., race baiting), and equally the same of those who would associate with groups like NOM, and their intended shameful activities.

As for Willard, given his seeming insensitivities to the plight of others or, just simply, his perpetual state of being out of touch with average Americans or real America, it hardly comes as a surprises that:

The documents reveal that Mitt Romney’s campaign donated $10,000 to NOM right before the 2008 election,

Granted, Willard has neither the compassion nor sympathy to understand the plight of others. Given his insensitivities and his consistent state of being out of touch with average Americans, one would hardly expect him to feel a sense of shame from his name now being associated with the shame of NOM and their race baiting.

But then again, Willard also displayed neither appropriate feelings, nor appropriate comments, about Rush Limbaugh referring to Georgetown law Student, Sandra Flute, as a slut and prostitute. 

In the same vein, Willard shows no remorse for probably making millions of dollars from the sales of security cameras to the Chinese government. He also recently used a near obscure ethics exception to avoid disclosing his wealth, especially his Bain holdings. One suspects that his financial records will reveal the real Willard, who is a person that he does not really want us to see.

Nonetheless, and despite the suspected lack of shame and normal sensitivities on Willard’s part, this is why on Easter Day, I thought it would be appropriate to share Rev. Dr. Wilson’s words with others.

This is because Rev. Dr. Wilson has a message for all of us, especially those who consider themselves to be Christians and even those who consider themselves to be Mormons.

With that being said, the article written by Rev. Dr. Wilson follows.

____________________

“NOM Insults Dr. King’s Dream”

By Rev. Dr. Nancy Wilson, Global Leader, Metropolitan Community Churches

March 6, 2012 –

Our nation marked April 3 as a tragic day in our country’s history, when one of our most historic leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on a Memphis hotel balcony. We mark the day; we do not celebrate it. But we dare not forget that this country’s pattern of racism is not over.

As the head of a Metropolitan Community Churches, a multi-racial denomination with ministries in 37 countries, we know that Dr. King is known worldwide, and "We Shall Overcome" is sung in movement after movement that seeks freedom.

Last week the need for freedom and for challenging racism arose again. Leaders of a group that calls itself the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) were exposed for their plan to manipulate the religious sensibilities and identities of African Americans and Latino Americans so that marriage for loving, same-sex couples would become a wedge issue that would divide the vote of people of color in the upcoming election.

Through crass manipulation of people’s deepest desire to serve God and be loyal to their communities, NOM hopes to compel people of color to make condemnation of loving gay and lesbian couples a marker for religious and racial/ethnic identity. This strategy aims to divide the votes of African Americans and Hispanic Americans — and ignores the fact that all families and communities include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

In NOM’s words, "The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies." In another memo: "The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future…" NOM wants to make rejection of marriage for same-gender couples "a key badge of Latino identity."

Dr. King faced interlopers in his day who used fear of communism to "divide and conquer" communities of color to make sure there was doubt and internal conflict rather than a cohesive struggle for freedom and justice for all. It is up to each community to expose the falsehoods on which these strategies lie.

Today, NOM’s leaders and members want to convince this country that prejudice should be protected as a religious freedom, but NOM is not interested in protecting freedom; it is only interested in dissolving marriages and families of loving couples of all races who happen to be the same gender. And if you are not with them, they will say you are against Christianity.

A growing number of leaders know that justice is at stake for all of us. Coretta Scott King said, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union." This year Dr. King’s daughter Bernice moved away from her anti-LGBT stand to say that we need LGBT people to fulfill her father’s dream of unity.

Today, churches must speak out and let the world know that the mark of a Christian is not exclusion and condemnation but love and respect for all of God’s unique families. If we do not speak out, we will continue to be vulnerable to the machinations of political operators who would drive a wedge between us, not because they care about what is right, but because they want to divide our vote and turn us against our own family members and church members.

Source: NOM Insults Dr. King’s Dream

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

By Robert Reich*, March 5, 2012 —

Imagine a country in which the very richest people get all the economic gains. They eventually accumulate so much of the nation’s total income and wealth that the middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going full speed. Most of the middle class’s wages keep falling and their major asset — their home — keeps shrinking in value.

Imagine that the richest people in this country use some of their vast wealth to routinely bribe politicians. They get the politicians to cut their taxes so low there’s no money to finance important public investments that the middle class depends on — such as schools and roads, or safety nets such as health care for the elderly and poor.

Imagine further that among the richest of these rich are financiers. These financiers have so much power over the rest of the economy they get average taxpayers to bail them out when their bets in the casino called the stock market go bad. They have so much power they even shred regulations intended to limit their power.

These financiers have so much power they force businesses to lay off millions of workers and to reduce the wages and benefits of millions of others, in order to maximize profits and raise share prices — all of which make the financiers even richer, because they own so many of shares of stock and run the casino.

Now, imagine that among the richest of these financiers are people called private-equity managers who buy up companies in order to squeeze even more money out of them by loading them up with debt and firing even more of their employees, and then selling the companies for a fat profit.

Although these private-equity managers don’t even risk their own money — they round up investors to buy the target companies — they nonetheless pocket 20 percent of those fat profits.

And because of a loophole in the tax laws, which they created with their political bribes, these private equity managers are allowed to treat their whopping earnings as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent — even though they themselves made no investment and didn’t risk a dime.

Finally, imagine there is a presidential election. One party, called the Republican Party, nominates as its candidate a private-equity manager who has raked in more than $20 million a year and paid only 13.9 percent in taxes — a lower tax rate than many in the middle class.

Yes, I know it sounds far-fetched. But bear with me because the fable gets even wilder. Imagine this candidate and his party come up with a plan to cut the taxes of the rich even more — so millionaires save another $150,000 a year. And their plan cuts everything else the middle class and the poor depend on — Medicare, Medicaid, education, job-training, food stamps, Pell grants, child nutrition, even law enforcement.

What happens next?

There are two endings to this fable. You have to decide which it’s to be.

In one ending the private-equity manager candidate gets all his friends and everyone in the Wall Street casino and everyone in every executive suite of big corporations to contribute the largest wad of campaign money ever assembled — beyond your imagination.

The candidate uses the money to run continuous advertisements telling the same big lies over and over, such as "don’t tax the wealthy because they create the jobs" and "don’t tax corporations or they’ll go abroad" and "government is your enemy" and "the other party wants to turn America into a socialist state."

And because big lies told repeatedly start sounding like the truth, the citizens of the country begin to believe them, and they elect the private equity manager president. Then he and his friends turn the country into a plutocracy (which it was starting to become anyway).

But there’s another ending. In this one, the candidacy of the private equity manager (and all the money he and his friends use to try to sell their lies) has the opposite effect. It awakens the citizens of the country to what is happening to their economy and their democracy. It ignites a movement among the citizens to take it all back.

The citizens repudiate the private equity manager and everything he stands for, and the party that nominated him. And they begin to recreate an economy that works for everyone and a democracy that’s responsive to everyone.

Just a fable, of course. But the ending is up to you.

*Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Robert Reich: The Fable of the Century

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

By Patrick Chappette*, Opinion Page – New York Times, March 5, 2012 —

President Obama has declared a strategy of shifting the American military’s long-term focus toward the Pacific and an increasingly assertive China.

*Patrick Chappatte is an editorial cartoonist for the International Herald Tribune. View more of his work, visit his Web site or follow him on Twitter.

United States and China in the Pacific – NYTimes.com

_______________

See also As Part of Pact, U.S. Marines Arrive in Australia, in China’s Strategic Backyard, New York Times, April 5, 2012

See also China Seas

President Thein Sein said the weekend’s elections reflected well on his country

The regional Asean grouping has formally called for all sanctions against Burma to be lifted immediately.

BBC news, March 4, 2012 — It said the move would support Burma’s democratic and economic development.

The two-day summit also discussed a proposed regional code of conduct to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea, a statement said.

The leaders attending the meeting in Cambodia also called for six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear programme to resume.

Asean leaders welcomed Burma’s by-elections on Sunday, which they described as "free, fair, and transparent".

The opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won at least 40 of the 45 seats contested. . . .

‘Disagreement’

Asean members also discussed proposals to draft a code of conduct to resolve territorial disagreements in the South China Sea.

The region is rich in resources, and encompasses shipping routes important to traders across the world.

However, China has competing claims to several territories with Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said there was a "big disagreement" over the order in which the accord should be drafted.

Some members, including Vietnam and the Philippines, wanted Asean to craft the accord before sharing it with China. However, Cambodia, who is Asean chair in 2012, wanted China to be involved in the drafting process. . . .

BBC News – Asean summit confirms support to lift Burma sanctions

_______________

See also The Official Website of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

See also China Seas

By M. Ulric Killion

[Photo Source: (Random House) - “Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death, and Hope in a Mumbai Undercity” by Katherine Boo; Shashi Tharoor, Book review: ‘Behind the Beautiful Forevers,’ by Katherine Boo, Washington Post, February 10, 2012].

What follows is a book review by Arvind Subramanian (Peterson Institute for International Economics) of Katherine Boo’s new book, “Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death, and Hope in a Mumbai Undercity.”

While Boo’s book focuses on China and India, and the trials of globalization and transformations within their respective economies, it also offers a lesson for Americans, especially those who would deny the “very poor” an escape from the dire lack of sympathy of the uncaring.

In the way of an example, and why this book is both revealing and speaks to a growing crisis in America of the uncaring, an excerpt from a recent writing of Sowellread seems appropriate. As observed in his article titled, Who Killed Compassionate Conservatism?, and quoting a brief excerpt from his article, he writes:

Stick a fork in compassionate conservatism, because it’s done. The Bush-era formulation was always more of a marketing device than an actual philosophy — just ask New Orleans about that vaunted compassion — but the past few months have been particularly cruel. Already on its last legs, Republican compassion took a serious hit in the September 12 primary debate, when the crowd seemed to cheer the prospect of an uninsured 30-year old dying on the street. Ron Paul, who denounced the “welfarism and socialism” of government-sponsored health care and maintained that “freedom is all about taking your own risks,” was asked by host Wolf Blitzer whether “you saying that society should just let him die.” The audience erupted into cheers and shouts of “yeah!”

Coming on the heels of a debate in which the audience jeered a gay soldier and cheered at the mention of the death penalty, this was perhaps not a surprising reaction. Viewers shaking their heads at home could at least chalk up the response to an auditorium packed with Florida Tea Party members. But blaming the lack of empathy on the redneck wing of the GOP will only get you so far, as last week’s Supreme Court arguments over the Affordable Care Act demonstrated.

The latter lack of sympathy by conservative republicans, tea party conservatives, or perhaps even a following of “severely” conservative republicans, strongly resembles the trials of India. This is because, in India, they typically treated the “very poor” as a collectivity, and as the object of ideologues’ outrage.

What Boo’s book does for all of us is present the marginalized “very poor,” or the collectivity of the poor and the object of ideologue’s outrage, as human. In other words, and many of us need to learn this lesson, she humanizes the poor.

For those unfamiliar with the works of Katherine Boo,  and quoting Shashi Tharoor (Washington Post),

Katherine Boo, a New Yorker staff writer who won a Pulitzer Prize while working at The Washington Post, spent three years and four months (from November 2007 to March 2011) following the lives of some of Mumbai’s most deprived citizens, the dirt-poor residents of a squatter slum on the periphery of its international airport. Annawadi, in the shadow of luxury hotels, is “a bitty slum popped up in the biggest city of a country that holds one third of the planet’s poor.” Built on swampy land abutting a sewage lake, it is home to a motley collection of marginal Indians desperate to make a living out of the detritus of the city’s economic boom.

With that being said, a synopsis of Arvind Subramanian’s book review follows.

 ____________________

“Katherine Boo, India, and China”

By Arvind Subramanian, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Op-ed in the Business Standard, New Delhi
March 28, 2012

Katherine Boo’s new book Behind the Beautiful Forevers—which explores the generalized economic dynamism of life in a Mumbai slum—can be interpreted as a warning against a serious misreading of China’s phenomenal growth experience. Growth-addled India is in danger of overlooking the colossal costs to the poor of deteriorating Indian governance. A collective action trap condemns the poor to coping with, rather than having any chance of reforming, India’s institutions. "Instead of uniting, poor people competed ferociously with one another for gains as slender as they were provisional," Boo writes. Within China, all the preoccupation is with the need for reform and the rollback of the state. That is entirely appropriate because China’s state continues to be an economic drag and a political yoke. What distinguishes China is that in the Communist Party, it has had a resoundingly effective state/public institution, better than in any other part of the developing world, with regard to delivering certain essentials for development: social stability; rule of law; basic services such as health, education, and sanitation; and enviable physical infrastructure. And these essentials have protected those citizens who are most in need while facilitating transformational possibilities for them. What the poor of India need is basics from the state, as in China. Provision of these basics would make life at the bottom of the scrapheap less nasty, brutish, and short.

Read the Full Review here: Op-ed: Katherine Boo, India, and China

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Hong Kong Trader, March 30, 2012 –

The opening on 7 March of two multi-agency centres to improve the administration of U.S. export controls was hailed by the White House as a “significant step forward” in the implementation of President Obama’s Export Control Reform Initiative. The goal of these two centres is to streamline and improve the U.S. export control regime by fostering a more co-ordinated and harmonised approach that facilitates secure trade. The administration believes such an approach will better protect critical military technologies from being transferred to countries or entities of national security and proliferation concerns while strengthening the U.S. defence industrial base by helping U.S. exporters be more competitive and reliable suppliers.

The Export Enforcement Coordination Center will be responsible for enhanced information sharing and co-ordination between law enforcement and intelligence officials regarding possible violations of U.S. export controls laws. The E2C2 will be administered by the Department of Homeland Security with a leadership team comprised of officials from DHS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Commerce. The White House states that the opening of the E2C2 “builds on the increased criminal penalties for export control violations and the provision of Commerce’s permanent law enforcement authorities implemented in partnership with Congress in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act.”

The Information Triage Unit, which will be housed at the DOC, will be responsible for assembling and disseminating relevant information from which to base informed decisions on proposed exports requiring a U.S. government licence. This multi-agency screening will co-ordinate the reviews of separate processes across the government to ensure that all departments and agencies have a full dataset, consistent with national security, from which to make decisions on export licence applications. The White House indicates that such screening contributes to more timely, predictable and consistent processes that U.S. exporters engaged in global trade have confirmed are critical to their competitiveness.

Moreover, the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive has been designated as the entity responsible for co-ordinating export control issues involving the intelligence community. The White House states that this designation represents “another significant process improvement for more seamless and comprehensive access to intelligence.”

hktdc.com – Additional Steps Taken to Enhance U.S. Export Control Regime

By M. Ulric Killion

[Photo Source: Dogs Against Mitt Romney, Dogs Against Mitt Romney: Be in Our First Ad (You Tube Challenge), March 28, 2012].

The three state victories (i.e., Wisconsin, Maryland, and the District of Columbia) by Seamus’ owner may be much ado about nothing. This is not to say that Seamus’ owner, Mitt Romney, does not still have the Republican electorate strapped to the roof of his car and driving for the nomination whether they like it or not.

In order to understand the significance, if any, of Mitt’s three state victories, one must consider the prevailing demographics of these three states, which in this instance did favor—the Mitt. The problem for Mitt and media pundits is finding a spin that would suggest a broader conclusion, such as suggesting that Mitt is actually expanding his base support, when, in fact, he is not doing so.

Professor Matthew Dickinson, at Presidential Power | A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, clearly explains why this is so. Even before the final counting of votes, Professor Dickinson, in “Tonight’s Primaries, Move Along, There’s Nothing To See Here,” writes:

The short story is that this is a good night for Mitt Romney who, the networks are projecting, is likely to win all three contests.   More importantly, he’s likely to win 80 or more delegates tonight, leaving Rick Santorum to take maybe a dozen delegates, give or take a few.   None of this is surprising, given the demographics of the three states.  In Wisconsin, evangelicals constituted about 37% of voters, according to exit polls – far below the 50% threshold that has to date signified a certain Santorum victory. . . .

Meanwhile, media pundits are clearly hoping to create the impression that the Republican race is over by talking about the momentum Romney will pick up because of his victories tonight. . . .

Bottom line tonight?  The media will come out strong tomorrow about how tonight’s results indicate that Romney has  regained momentum and is poised to close this nomination fight out.  The reality is that tonight’s results change nothing; Romney went into tonight as the frontrunner, and he will come out as the frontrunner, but there’s no evidence that he’s gaining “momentum” or expanding his coalition. . . .

In other words, there is hardly any real change in Romney’s stoic drive to the nomination with Republicans strapped to his roof, such as an expanding base that stems from his recent three state victories.

In the end, Mitt is still weird and mean. Mean mostly because of his treatment of a dog—the now famous Seamus—who was mistreated or, according to Dogs Against Romney, simply flat out subject to abuse. He also appears mean to us, because of his attitude toward the “very poor” and many other reasons.

As for why Mitt is weird, Brent Budowsky best described why, when he wrote:

Who ever heard of a presidential candidate who says that he likes firing people and does not care about the very poor, while glancing at statements from his Swiss bank accounts? But Romney needs an elevator to lift his cars up his mansion? Really? But I never heard of anyone dragging his poor pooch on the roof of his car down a highway, either. Romney needs a lobbyist to push for the mansion elevator for the Cadillac cars? Pardon my sarcasm, but I wonder if Romney hired a butler to care for the needs of his cars, or a pedicurist to tend to his feet for those hard times when Romney must bear the burden of walking up the stairs.

Romney has a very big problem. He conveys a weird and strange elitism and softness, an otherworldly super-duper-ultra- lifestyle of the rich and famous, and an inability to control his impulse to tell us how wealthy he is and to bask in the luxuries of his life.

As earlier stated, Seamus’ owner, the Mitt, may just be simply mean and weird, while also being genuinely out of touch with average Americans.

I would even venture to say that Seamus would enjoy knowing that Mitt’s three state victories were actually much ado about nothing.

To this, the Mitt would no doubt retort—“Well, dogs, no, huh, regularly, no feelings.”

_______________

See also Mitt Romney’s dog rides on the roof, while his Cadillacs ride the elevator in his mansion!

See also Mitt Romney has the GOP strapped to the roof of his car

See also Teaching Mitt new tricks

See also My pet Mitt

See also Dogging Mitt Romney

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

China Labour Bulletin, 12 January, 2012 –

Graph Source: The Mass Production of Labour: The exploitation of students in China’s vocational school system, China Labour Bulletin Study.

Around nine million students graduate each year from China’s vocational schools and colleges. They hope for a decent job with good prospects but all too often end up working on the factory production line.

Even before they graduate, students are routinely exploited when deployed, for up to one year of their studies, as interns. Under the current system, interns are not technically “employees” and lack the legal protection guaranteed to those with an employment contract. If interns are injured, forced to work excessively long hours or are cheated out of their pay, they often have no one to turn to. And if they complain to their school, they run the risk of not getting their diploma.

This China Labour Bulletin study provides a concise introduction to the vocational school system in China. It examines some of the key issues being discussed in the Chinese media, such as forced internships, employment rates and the mismatch between government regulations and reality. The report also discusses the government’s current policy initiatives to improve the system, which focus almost exclusively on creating a better fit between businesses and the vocational schools supplying them with labour. And finally, CLB offers a series of alternative policy recommendations focusing more on the protection of interns’ rights.

CLB recommends that the government, courts and employers should all recognise that interns are employees and be treated accordingly: They should be paid directly by the enterprise, and no salary deductions of any kind should be passed on to the vocational school. Interns should be guaranteed at least the local minimum wage and be paid the same overtime rates as regular workers. The employer should have the statutory obligation to provide a safe working environment. There should be strict limits on the number of interns employed at any one enterprise and students should only intern at enterprises that have a direct relevance to their studies.

In short, CLB argues the government should recognise that the interests of China’s next generation of workers are just as important as the interests of the enterprises who will hire them. The government went some way towards improving the rights of current workers when it implemented the Labour Contract Law in 2008, and it should now give similar consideration to those who will follow.

>>The Mass Production of Labour: The exploitation of students in China’s vocational school system is available now as a downloadable PDF

The Mass Production of Labour: The exploitation of students in China’s vocational school system | China Labour Bulletin

[Photo Source: “We agree it will dog you, Mitt Romney, but one thing you can't wipe away is your history of pet abuse. Grr!,” Dogs Against Romeny, Mitt Romney "Etch-A-Sketch" Moment Will Dog Him, March 22, 2012].

By Brent Budowsky, The Hill’s Pundits Blog, March 29, 2012  –

I see a growing number of pundits are repeating what I wrote here on Wednesday: the delicious (for Democrats) irony that Obama wins and Romney loses from the healthcare case. And now, another Romneyism with news that he wants to build an elevator in his mansion so his various cars can ride painlessly to his penthouse, or whatever one calls it, and the Romneys can painlessly enter the car without the burden of walking down the stairs. I expect Ron Paul to run a new ad making excuses for this latest Romney gaffe, as Paul did for Romney after the Etch a Sketch news, and I expect Newt Gingrich (whose campaign is collapsing as fast as Paul’s) to continue being nicer to Mitt, but:

Who ever heard of a presidential candidate who says that he likes firing people and does not care about the very poor, while glancing at statements from his Swiss bank accounts? But Romney needs an elevator to lift his cars up his mansion? Really? But I never heard of anyone dragging his poor pooch on the roof of his car down a highway, either. Romney needs a lobbyist to push for the mansion elevator for the Cadillac cars? Pardon my sarcasm, but I wonder if Romney hired a butler to care for the needs of his cars, or a pedicurist to tend to his feet for those hard times when Romney must bear the burden of walking up the stairs.

Romney has a very big problem. He conveys a weird and strange elitism and softness, an otherworldly super-duper-ultra- lifestyle of the rich and famous, and an inability to control his impulse to tell us how wealthy he is and to bask in the luxuries of his life.

Of course, Gingrich likes expensive jewelry from Tiffany’s. Gingrich, like Romney, supported the healthcare mandate, as did the Heritage Foundation and a long list of Republicans who advocated the mandate until Obama accepted it, at which point the Republican mandate proposal became a socialist government takeover.

Which brings me to Romney’s second big problem, which I have noted for some time, most recently here on Wednesday. Obama wins, Romney loses, from the healthcare case. You read it here first on The Hill’s Pundit Blog.

The truth is, the mandate was a Republican idea and a conservative idea. Mitt Romney was the godfather of the mandate. With the help of Ted Kennedy, with whom Romney celebrated after the Massachusetts mandate was enacted, the mandate was Romney’s crowning achievement as governor. Obama merely adopted it as president.

I would pay the price for tickets to watch Obama dissect and demolish Romney on the healthcare issue in the presidential debates.

Meanwhile, let’s see what the candidate of the 1 percent, the vulture capitalist who likes firing people, the man with the Swiss bank account, the elitist who cannot stop telling us how wealthy he is, comes up with next. These gaffes seem to come up every seven days. Mark next Tuesday on your calendar.

Can you believe the guy actually needs an elevator for his deluxe cars in his expanding mansion, and needs a lobbyist to renovate his home?

The Etch a Sketch plan will not save him.

My sympathies are with the dog.

Mitt Romney’s dog rides on the roof, while his Cadillacs ride the elevator in his mansion! – The Hill’s Pundits Blog

_______________

See also Mitt Romney has the GOP strapped to the roof of his car

See also Teaching Mitt new tricks

See also My pet Mitt

See also Dogging Mitt Romney

See also The Republican Conundrum

Photo; Book  cover of “Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust” by Wang Jisi and Kenneth Liberthal.

By Jane Perlez, April 2, 2012 — BO’AO, China — The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst.

China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country, according to the analyst, Wang Jisi, the co-author of “Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust,” a monograph published this week by the Brookings Institution in Washington and the Institute for International and Strategic Studies at Peking University. . . .

In contrast, China has mounting self-confidence in its own economic and military strides, particularly the closing power gap since the start of the Iraq war. In 2003, he argues, America’s gross domestic product was eight times as large as China’s, but today it is less than three times larger. . . .

Both Mr. Wang and Mr. Lieberthal argue that beneath the surface, both countries see deep dangers and threatening motivations in the policies of the other. . . .

“It is now a question of how many years, rather than how many decades, before China replaces the United States as the largest economy in the world,” he adds. . . .

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions – NYTimes.com

_______________

See also Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust:

Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Director, John L. Thornton China Center
Wang Jisi, Director, Center for International and Strategic Studies and Dean of the School of International Studies, Peking University

The Brookings Institution

MARCH 30, 2012 —

Although both Beijing and Washington consider the U.S.-China relationship to be the most important in the world, distrust of each other’s long term intentions ("strategic distrust") has grown to a dangerous degree.

The coauthors of this path-breaking study—one of America’s leading China specialists and one of China’s leading America specialists—lay out both the underlying concerns each leadership harbors about the other side and the reasons for those concerns. Each coauthor has written the narrative of his government’s views without any changes made by the other coauthor. Their purpose is to enable both leaderships to better fathom how the other thinks. The coauthors have together written the follow-on analysis and recommendations designed to improve the potential for a long-term normal major power U.S.-China relationship, rather than the adversarial relationship that might otherwise develop.

 Posted by Michael Klare, Tomgram, April 1, 2012 –

Here’s a simple rule of thumb when it comes to energy disasters: if it’s the nuclear industry and something begins to go wrong — from Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 to Fukushima, Japan, after the 2011 tsunami — whatever news is first released, always relatively reassuring, will be a lie, pure and simple. . . .

When it comes to the oil and gas industry and disasters, a similar rule of thumb follows. . . .

And here’s the sad thing, you’re going to get all too many chances to test out these simple rules when it comes to bad energy news.  After all, as Michael Klare has been writing at this site for years, we’re entering the “tough energy” era.  The big energy companies are going to be extracting hydrocarbons in ever more hazardous, difficult-to-reach places like the Arctic and they’re going to be using ever uglier methods to do so.

It’s a guarantee that, however bad the environmental damage we’ve seen so far, it’s only going to get worse as the energy industry despoils various regions to give us our fossil-fuel fix and their mega-profits.  As Klare points out, one of those regions is slated to be not in distant Africa, the Persian Gulf, or the Caspian Sea, but right here in the U.S.  Klare has been ahead of the energy curve ever since, in the late 1990s, he suggested that we would soon be on a planet embroiled in “resource wars.”  His new book, The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources, catches the nightmarish nature of the planet’s last energy boom in a way no one else has.  And don’t be surprised if that nightmare lands squarely in your backyard Tom.

A New Energy Third World in North America?
How the Big Energy Companies Plan to Turn the United States into a Third-World Petro-State
By Michael T. Klare

The “curse” of oil wealth is a well-known phenomenon in Third World petro-states where millions of lives are wasted in poverty and the environment is ravaged, while tiny elites rake in the energy dollars and corruption rules the land.  Recently, North America has been repeatedly hailed as the planet’s twenty-first-century “new Saudi Arabia” for “tough energy” — deep-sea oil, Canadian tar sands, and fracked oil and natural gas.  But here’s a question no one considers: Will the oil curse become as familiar on this continent in the wake of a new American energy rush as it is in Africa and elsewhere?  Will North America, that is, become not just the next boom continent for energy bonanzas, but a new energy Third World?. . . .

Tomgram: Michael Klare, Welcome to the New Third World of Energy, the U.S. | TomDispatch

_______________

See also Green Jobs: Alternative fuels gain favor and could gas up 600,000 jobs

See also The U.S. surpassed Russia as world’s leading producer of dry natural gas in 2009 and 2010

See also Four Lies About America’s Energy "Crisis"

See also Big Oil’s Banner Year – Higher Prices, Record Profits, Less Oil

See also The Republican Conundrum

Robert Shrum

Republican voters are the Seamus of 2012 — slowing Mitt down by dumping on him, but unable to stop him from reaching his ultimate destination

Posted on March 15, 2012 –

Republican voters are now the political equivalent of Mitt Romney’s famously abused dog Seamus. Mitt has put voters on the roof of his car, and he’s driving for the nomination whether they like it or not. More accurately, he’s sputtering toward the nomination as the roof-bound electorate periodically poops on his parade.

His message is inevitability; the voters don’t have any effective say left. He’s racked up 53 percent of the delegates with just 38 percent of the popular vote. Rick Santorum has to capture 65 percent of the remaining delegates to reach a majority — an almost impossible task.

It would comfort those of us who’ve conceded Romney’s inevitability if he’d actually win a round of critical close-out contests. . . .

The fact that he was beaten by both the disorganized, distinctly unpresidential Santorum and the Macy’s hot air balloon known as Newt Gingrich is more proof of Romney’s near fatal flaws as a candidate. . . .

The economic argument hasn’t worked well for Romney with Republicans who are the descendants of the Reagan Democrats, those who earn $50,000 a year or less; he’s lost their votes across the primary season. And for the general election, if not before, the inauthentic, aloof Romney, the job-destroyer and "vulture capitalist" (to use Rick Perry’s felicitous phrase), will have to muster an appeal other than his checkered background as a CEO, espeically if the economy continues to create jobs — and more Americans grow more confident in the future and more suspicious of Romney as an avatar and champion of privilege and unfairness. . . .

Mitt Romney has the GOP strapped to the roof of his car – The Week

_______________

See also Teaching Mitt new tricks

See also My pet Mitt

See also Dogging Mitt Romney

See also The Republican Conundrum

Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi is surrounded by media as she visits polling stations in her constituency as Burmese vote in the parliamentary elections on April 1, in Kaw Hmu, Burma. Paula Bronstein / Getty Images.

By Hannah Beech, April 1, 2012 —

The line of disappointed Burmese wandered down the dirt road from the polling station to the betel-nut shack. Perhaps a hit of the addictive chew would soothe their nerves. On April 1, Burmese went to the voting booths for just the third time in more than half a century. At stake were fewer than 50 parliamentary seats being contested out of 664 total. But this small by-election was the first time that the National League for Democracy (NLD), the country’s beloved opposition force, was participating in the political process since 1990 polls, which the party won by a landslide only to have the military regime ignore the people’s will. With reforms blossoming across the country after a hybrid civilian-military government took office last year, ordinary Burmese were reveling in the chance to vote for the party led by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

But in the 67^th Quarter of Dagon Seikkan township—a muddy patch of thatch huts, fallow rice paddies and pigs wallowing in stagnant water—many would-be voters said they were foiled in their attempt to cast ballots for the NLD. Within a couple-hour period, at least 10 Burmese emerged from the thatch-hut polling station clutching their ID cards and saying that their names were not on the vote-registration list. Strangely, many of them had been able to vote without incident back in 2010. Then, the military junta held what were considered widely rigged elections that brought the new quasi-civilian government, dominated by the military’s proxy Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), to power. . . .

Expectations are still high, however, that the NLD will prevail in the by-elections. Official results are supposed to be released within a week, although unofficial outcomes began trickling out late in the afternoon of April 1. An hour after the polling stations closed at four p.m., rumors began circulating of other NLD candidate victories even in the new capital Naypyidaw, which the junta built at great expense a few years ago to the horror of ordinary Burmese. If the NLD doesn’t win big, then an outraged populace could turn against a government that has, so far, won accolades for its incipient reforms. But a total washout for the USDP would be hugely embarrassing for the military and could compel hardliners within the administration to halt reforms. . . .

A Landmark Election Unfolds in Burma and the Opposition Starts Celebrating Victory | Global Spin | TIME.com

_______________

See also

• Myanmar’s democratic reforms attract Taiwan, Vietnam investors
• Press Release: Statement at the Conclusion of the 2011 Article IV Mission to Myanmar
• U.S. Restores Full Ties to Myanmar After Rapid Reforms
• Myanmar prisoner release not enough, say rights groups
• Myanmar democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi released
• Aung San Suu Kyi release ‘certain’
• Burma’s Elections: Junta Believes in Politics
• Burma’s Upcoming Elections
• EDITORIAL – Burma shunned U.S. diplomacy with new election law. Now what?
• Myanmar Denies Dissident’s Appeal
• Suu Kyi to appeal Myanmar detention
• Myanmar: Chinese takeaway kitchen

By M. Ulric Killion

Opponents of Mitt Romney protest outside a recent fundraiser in Los Angeles. (Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images / March 27, 2012); Romney’s joke about father’s factory closure falls flat, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2012.

Many are growing increasingly weary of Mitt Romney’s tendency to flip-flip on issues, and his consistent gaffes or pour mouthing.

All of which only leaves one puzzled by the fact that there are conservative republicans, tea party conservatives, or perhaps even a following of “severely” conservative republicans that continue to bolster his ascendancy to Republican Party candidate for the highest office in the land—the U.S. presidency.

Granted, Romney’s handlers appear to be trying to address the problem of his pour mouthing, but not necessarily his proclivity to flip-flop on issues, because the latter may present a more difficult problem for them.

As for Romney’s tendency to commit gaffes, it boils down to a problem of whether they can either stop him from talking too much or minimize the damage when he does talk too much. In other words, it is a question of whether his handlers still have time to train the poor mouthing of “Richie” Romney (i.e., “I like to fire people,” “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners’,” “the trees are the right height,” and on and on).

Obviously, his handlers have made some progress, because, during the last week of March, Romney admittedly made fewer gaffes than usual. Although this week’s new gaffe, which is the  etch-a-sketch gaffe did originate from his campaign, the words (i.e., etch-a-sketch) did not come directly from the often poor mouthing of Romney (i.e., Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom made the gaffe).

Nonetheless, and presenting a challenge to Romney’s candidacy, the words—etch-a-sketch—have come to symbolize and characterize both the candidacy and person.

Spencer Platt/GETTY IMAGES – Members of the media gather around an English bull terrier named Petey during a small protest by a group called Dogs Against Romney outside of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show on Feb. 14 in New York;  Mitt Romney’s dog-on-the-car-roof story still proves to be his critics’ best friend, Washington Post, March 14, 2012.

While his critics ran with the “dog on the roof” story, the etch-a-sketch gaffe directly and uniquely summarizes the problem with Romney and his candidacy. As Sowellread poignantly observed, “More serious pundits opine that the etch-a-sketch meme is so potent because it reinforces an existing narrative about Romney — that he has no core and erases his previous positions faster than an impatient kid shaking his red plastic toy.”

It is not that his “etch-a-sketch” behavior reveals something new about Romney and his candidacy; rather, it succinctly describes a lack of “genuineness” about him and his candidacy, and our thoughts about him as both a person and candidate. In other words, for most Americans, this lack of “genuineness” epitomizes both the politics of Romney and the person of Romney.

In the same vein, and for the same reasons, for most of us, or average Americans, he fails the tests of likability and trust. Even those conservative republicans, tea party conservatives or “severely” conservative republicans that worked toward pushing Romney’s candidacy to the forefront in the GOP race are still searching for the real or genuine politics of Romney, and the  real or genuine person of Romney.

As reported by the New York Times (March 29, 2012), his supporters are “pleading with Mitt Romney to share personal details of his life,” which “would help them connect with the real Mitt Romney.” Even within the ranks of his conservative Republican supporters, Romney fails the tests of likeability and trust, including the test of genuineness.

In response to the problems of Romney and his supporters urging that he help them connect with the real or genuine Mitt Romney, his campaign is trying to personalize Romney and make him more likable, trustworthy, and genuine. The attempt to do so, however, is failing.

Source: “MittBot3000 was in full effect last night while talking stiffly to Jay Leno about all kinds of snooze-inducing things like Russia and Health Care, but he was at his very worst in this clip when Jay asked him to play a little game and come up with one word for each possible Vice Presidential candidate. Uh oh. Does not compute. MittBot melting down. Mittbot melting down. Miffffffffff,” Jezebel, Mitt Romney Suffers Tragic Humor-Circuit Malfunction, March 29, 2012.

For instance, recently Romney was a guest on the Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show,” and as the Los Angeles Times (March 29, 2012) observed,

Romney was no Roosevelt in front of the NBC cameras. For the most part, he stuck to generalities about the economy and exuded all the charisma of an earnest bank manager. Though he did get in a couple of clever quips, Romney wisely refrained from trying to be a comic. There’s one thing worse than being dull, and that is trying to be funny and failing.

Romney seems reminiscent of the Republican presidents who came after Roosevelt — Taft, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Like Romney, they were undramatic men who believed the business of America is business. They did their best to make life easier for the tycoons of their time. We can expect the same from Mitt.

In an exchange with Leno on the subject of healthcare, Romney once again displayed his lack of affinity with less-fortunate Americans.

While Romney is known for his awkward sense of humor, he still, earlier in the week, took a try at humor, though failing miserably. Romney told what he thought was a "humorous" story about his father shutting down a factory in Michigan and then moving production to Wisconsin, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Angel Clark, Examiner, March 29, 2012) wrote, “The event Mitt Romney was joking about cost thousands of people their jobs. Maybe not the best joke during a rough economy with high unemployment and people struggling to make ends meet. This does not make Mitt Romney seem more likeable.”

According to the National Journal (March 29, 2012), “An attempt at humor and friendly voter outreach backfired for Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney on Wednesday when he was roundly criticized by leading Democrats for joking that his father, George Romney, as an American Motors executive decades ago, once shut down a factory in Michigan and moved it to Wisconsin.”

In an article titled, Romney’s joke about father’s factory closure falls flat, Morgan Little (Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2012) writes,

In seeking to connect to thousands of Wisconsin voters during a conference call Wednesday, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney decided to break out what he thought was a humorous anecdote about his personal connection to the state.

The only problem was that the story, about his father, George, shutting down an American Motors factory in Michigan in favor of shifting production to Wisconsin, ended up highlighting the very problem that many pundits and voters have with Romney.

"Now later he decided to run for governor of Michigan," Romney said during the call. "And so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign.”

The punch line, that his father would eventually have to cope with the fallout from the factory’s closure and the layoff of more than 4,300 workers when running for governor in Michigan, exacerbated by a school band’s inability to play Michigan’s fight song instead of Wisconsin’s, has been immediately pounced upon by his critics as a prime example of how out-of-touch the former Massachusetts governor is.

It is for these reasons and a host of others that Romney fails to connect with us. He also fails, for the same reasons, in the areas of likable, trust, and genuineness.

Some might try to ascribe his human failing (i.e., an inability to connect with others), or his cold-hearted and stoic business person mannerisms, to the qualities necessary for success in business.

The latter, however, is a very tenuous position, because most successful business executives, especially those born without a silver spoon in their mouths and worked their way to the top on their own merits, have both personality and at least some charisma. While Romney has the misfortune of having neither a glowing personality, nor much if any in the way of charisma.

While his handlers might be able to teach him about politics, political strategies, and how to manage a political campaign, one thing that they will not be able to teach “Richie” Romney— is personality and charisma. The same holds true for likability, trust, and genuineness.

In this respect, the old saying might well be true, which is, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” such as teaching a dog to ride tied to the roof of a car in an airtight container, while, according to Romney, “regularly, enjoying himself.”

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.