Now to the article in Washington Post, “Clinton Puts Spotlight On Women’s Issues.” May I just say, before I share the article with you, that she is doing EXACTLY what she said she would do. I’m just sayin’ – she is remaining true to her principles and what she considers to be important. Unlike SOME people I could name. About time some in the MSM got the memo, but WaPo did:

She talked chickens with female farmers in Kenya. She listened to the excruciating stories of rape victims in war-torn eastern Congo. And in South Africa, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited a housing project built by poor women, where she danced with a choir singing “Heel-a-ree! Heel-a-ree!”

Clinton’s just-concluded 11-day trip to Africa has sent the clearest signal yet that she intends to make women’s rights one of her signature issues and a higher priority than ever before in American diplomacy.

She plans to press governments on abuses of women’s rights and make women more central in U.S. aid programs.

But her efforts go beyond the marble halls of government and show how she is redefining the role of secretary of state. Her trips are packed with town hall meetings and visits to micro-credit projects and women’s dinners. Ever the politician, she is using her star power to boost women who could be her allies.

“It’s just a constant effort to elevate people who, in their societies, may not even be known by their own leaders,” Clinton said in an interview. “My coming gives them a platform, which then gives us the chance to try and change the priorities of the governments.”

Wow. That is quite a statement. I am glad she is doing this work abroad, for the marginalized and oppressed. Oh, how I wish she was doing it as the President (and we know she would have kept her word then, too).

But, things don’t always run smoothly, as we know:

Clinton’s agenda faces numerous obstacles. The U.S. aid system is a dysfunctional jumble of programs. Some critics may question why she is focusing on women’s rights instead of terrorism or nuclear proliferation. And improving the lot of women in such places as Congo is complicated by deeply rooted social problems.

“It’s great she’s mentioning the issue,” said Brett Schaefer, an Africa scholar at the Heritage Foundation. “As to whether her bringing it up will substantially improve the situation or treatment of women in Africa, frankly I doubt it.”

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said that Clinton has to tread carefully in socially conservative regions, particularly those where the U.S. military is at war. “You might be right, in the narrow sense of women in that country or region need to be empowered, but you’re saying something inimical to other U.S. interests,” he said.

Despite Clinton’s efforts to spotlight women’s issues, it was her own angry response to what she perceived as a sexist question at a town hall meeting in Congo that dominated American television coverage of her Africa trip. A student had asked for former president Bill Clinton’s opinion on a local political issue — “through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton.” Snapped Hillary Clinton: “My husband is not the secretary of state. I am.”

Clinton is not the first female secretary of state, but neither of her predecessors had her impact abroad as a pop feminist icon. On nearly every foreign trip, she has met with women — South Korean students, Israeli entrepreneurs, Iraqi war widows, Chinese civic activists. Clinton mentioned “women” or “woman” at least 450 times in public comments in her first five months in the position, twice as often as her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

And that is why it still shocks me that women who consider themselves feminists, and womens organizations, did not wholeheartedly throw their support behind Hillary Clinton, rather going for the young, inexperienced man. Clinton is not new to this issue, and doesn’t just pay lip service to it, either:

Clinton’s interest in global women’s issues is deeply personal, a mission she adopted as first lady after the stinging defeat of her health-care reform effort in 1994. For months, she kept a low profile. Then, in September 1995, she addressed the U.N. women’s conference in Beijing, strongly denouncing abuses of women’s rights. Delegates jumped to their feet in applause.

“It was a transformational moment for her,” said Melanne Verveer, who has worked closely with Clinton since her White House days.

Clinton began traveling the world, highlighting women’s issues. She gradually built a network of female activists, politicians and entrepreneurs, especially through a group she helped found, Vital Voices, that has trained more than 7,000 emerging leaders worldwide. She developed a following among middle-class women in male-dominated countries who devoured her autobiography and eagerly watched her presidential run.

“She might not be having the same restrictions as we have, but she has had restrictions — and she’s moving on. That’s a symbol to us,” said Tara Fela-Durotoye, a businesswoman in Abuja, Nigeria.

Clinton’s legacy is evident in such places as the Victoria Mxenge housing development outside Cape Town, South Africa, a dusty sprawl of small, pastel-colored homes she championed as first lady. When her bus rolled into the female-run project during her trip, a joyful commotion broke out. Women in purple and yellow gowns lined the streets, waving wildly.

Huh. How does this match with the rhetoric spewed by Obama about Hillary Clinton and her work abroad? Does the expression, “Liar, liar, pants on fire” mean anything to you? And yet, people bought his words, hook, line, and sinker. I wonder how they’re feeling now, especially when they read what the effects of her work are, discernible, and quantifiable:

A youth choir swayed outside a community center decorated with photos of Clinton on her previous visits to the project, which has grown to 50,000 houses. Clinton vowed in a major policy address last month to make women the focus of U.S. assistance programs. The idea is applauded by development experts, who have found that investing in girls’ education, maternal health and women’s micro-finance provides a powerful boost to Third World families.

Ritu Sharma, president of the anti-poverty group Women Thrive Worldwide, said she already sees the results of Clinton’s efforts in the bureaucracy. When Sharma’s staff recently attended a meeting about a new agricultural aid program, she said, one State Department official joked, “We have to integrate women — or we’re going to be fired.”

Still, Sharma questioned whether the program would succeed in reaching poor women, especially given the weaknesses in U.S. foreign assistance.

“There’s a lot of healthy skepticism about ‘Will it really happen?’ ” she said.

In a sign of the priority she gives to the issue, Clinton has appointed her close friend Verveer as the State Department’s first global ambassador for women’s affairs.

“She will permeate the State Department, as I want her to, with what we should be doing about empowering and focusing on women across the board,” Clinton said.

This reminds me – do you remember that Obama has a school named after him in Kenya? You know, the one to which he has given not one thin dime? Uh, yeah. Who walks the walk here? Clearly, it’s Hillary:

One issue Verveer has been concerned about is violence against women, particularly the stunningly high number of rapes in eastern Congo. Last week, Clinton, Verveer and the delegation boarded U.N. planes to visit the remote, impoverished region and meet with rape victims. Clinton pressed the Congolese president to prosecute offenders and offered $17 million in new assistance for victims.

“Raising issues like the ones I’ve been raising on this trip to get governments to focus on them, to see they’re not sidelined or subsidiary issues, but that the U.S. government at the highest levels cares about them, is important,” she said. “It changes the dynamic within governments.”

Clinton’s efforts are being reinforced by a White House women’s council and a Congress with a growing number of powerful female members. One sign of that: Aid dedicated to programs for Afghan women and girls increased about threefold this year, to $250 million, because of lawmakers such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who was recently named head of the first Senate subcommittee on global women’s issues, and Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.

It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women’s events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention. In South Africa, a clearly delighted Clinton spent 90 minutes at the housing project, twice as long as she met with South Africa’s president. “It feeds my heart,” she explained. “Which is really critical to me personally since a lot of what I do as secretary of state is very formalistic. It’s meetings with other officials.”

“It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women’s events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention.” Because she doesn’t do it for the publicity, she does it because it is the RIGHT thing to do!! That is another big, huge, difference between Hillary Clinton and other politicians. She does a LOT of things about which people don’t know (as in, not publicized in the media) because she actually, genuinely cares about people.
And that is why she will always be my hero – because she cares, because she SHOWS she cares, and because she brings action to her words. I think we could use a whole lot more of that from our elected officials, don’t you?

If you wish to see where Secretary Clinton went, and what she did, click on this link: Secretary of State Clinton’s Africa Travels – Interactive Map

Wow. I imagine teachers everywhere just cringe when they hear about stories like this. Parents, too, I expect. And especially the latter when the child who was sexually assaulted says things like this:

The victim asked the judge not to give him the maximum sentence because he was a nice man.

Holy smokes. “A nice man.” Hardly. Her father didn’t think so, either. This was his response:

Her father then told the judge that his daughter was emotionally and psychologically scarred and that Judy had a power over her, Strickland said. (Strickland is the spokeswoman for that court district.)

I think we can agree that it goes without saying that the child is “emotionally and psychologically scarred…”

At least Judy acknowledged what he had done:

Judy admitted during the hearing to having sex with the girl, who was 14 at the time, and said he knew what he did was wrong, Strickland said.

I suppose that’s something. Better than him insisting the girl was lying, I guess.

Here’s the thing – this man COULD have gotten up to 20 years in prison. He has affected this child’s life in ways the extent of which cannot possibly known for years to come. Here are the legal particulars:

Tracy Lee Judy, 38, pleaded guilty to criminal solicitation of a minor and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor during an emotional hearing that included testimony from the 15-year-old victim and her father.

Circuit Judge Perry Buckner sentenced Judy to five years in prison and two years probation upon completion of the prison sentence. He also will be on the sex offender registry for life.

Five years in prison, two on probation. That just does not sound like enough to me. And yes, I know he will have a tough time in prison. No doubt, he will be in Protective Custody. That may, or may not, save him. Inmates have their own codes, after all (I worked with prisoners, both men and women, and had the Protective Custody Unit as part of my duties, so I do actually have some experience with that. I just didn’t want you to think I was writing, “words, just words.” Ahem.).

Oh, and there is one other little piece of this:

Judy tried to kill himself by overdosing on painkillers on May 10, the night before his trial was to begin. In a four-page suicide note, Judy described himself as a mentally ill Gulf War veteran struggling with “panic anxiety disorder, depression, agoraphobia and other undetermined social disorders.”

As part of his sentence, Judy must receive counseling through Veterans Affairs, Strickland said.

Let me say right off the bat that I have no doubt whatsoever Judy is experiencing those symptoms. No doubt. And it is terrible the long-lasting effects too many of our men and women in uniform carry with them after their service is done. Too many denied or ignored or minimized by the very entity that sent them in. That being said, it is NOT an excuse for this man to sexually assault this child. Good that he is going to get counseling – clearly he needs it, as the list above indicates, as does the “undetermined social disorders,” though I think we have a BIT of a clue as to what ONE of those is, and it is no longer “undetermined”: child sexual molestation.

That girl is going to need therapy, too. Probably her parents will also have to participate. Even still, that girl’s life will never, never be the same again. Never.

How does this happen? The paper the next day had an article announcing that “Violent Crime Is Down 12%,” but rape is up. I’m sorry, but when, exactly, did rape not qualify as a “violent crime”???

This can happen because this kind of mindset is cumulative. You rank rape below, say, bank robbery; have a president make a huge speech abroad in which he minimizes women’s rights and human rights (”Yo, Bitches, Wear That Hijab,” and “Cairo: The Emptiness Of Obama’s Rhetoric” address that issue nicely); and a teacher who gets all of 5 years for repeated sexual molestation of a 14 year old girl. That is some message here in the Good Ol’U.S. of A. to women, isn’t it? (I have also written about the use of rape as war tactic, and the treatment of women in other countries numerous times before, but this time, my focus is closer to home.)

Judy gets 5 years in prison, probation, and on the Sex Offender Registry for sexually assaulting this child. And the girl gets life without parole.

What did we learn in the markets over the last week and month and what do they mean for the weeks and months ahead?

What is happening overseas and how does that impact us here at home? What is happening in the municipal sector and how will that impact the markets and our personal finances?

Ultimately this show is less about the markets and the economy and more about you! Please join us and share your questions, thoughts, concerns, and opinions. A well diversified portfolio is the best form of risk management and in a similar vein we look for a diversified audience so we can all truly all from a wide array of opinions and perspectives as we try to most effectively navigate the economic landscape.

What is on your mind? What would you like to address? Please share your questions and thoughts by calling in to (347) 677-0792, and also join our live chat room, which I’ll start up about 10 minutes before the show begins!

This is an especially IMPORTANT video, as will be more we’ll post for you from Fareed Zakaria’s Sunday CNN program, a riveting hour. Really! (I stopped working on the blog, and listened! That’s rare!) We’ve differed with Zakaria’s views, but I admire his persistence in bringing world news to Americans, who often ignore international news, despite our gathering closeness. Right? I plead guilty and wish I knew more about the rest of the world. That’s why I make myself watch Zakaria’s program and PBS’s WorldFocus. So I honor Zakaria’s success in bringing this program to CNN. I imagine it wasn’t easy to sell an essentially American news network to devote a Sunday morning hour to world news!

FAREED ZAKARIA: “… Secretary Clinton’s trip to Asia, critiqued by some of the region’s best minds.” (The full transcript is below the fold.)

I’ve also included a fascinating remark that Zakaria used to open his program this morning on CNN in praise of the statements of Secretary Clinton about the besieged people of Burma – and ALL of the countries that we are affecting with our economic sanctions:

FIRST, before what Zakaria said about Hillary’s remarks on Burma and all of the economic sanctions we impose around the world thre are these reports from the BBC News and the New York Times:

New York Times, United States – Feb 18, 2009
“Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn’t influenced the Burmese junta,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters after meeting with Indonesia’s …

TRANSCRIPT 1, Zakaria’s opening remarks that refer to Secretary Clinton’s progressive view on economic sanctions in re Burma:

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I’m Fareed Zakaria.

It’s been a week full of news — the housing bailout, more troops for Afghanistan — and we’ll get to all of it.

But I noticed something I thought was significant. On her trip through Asia, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that our policy of economic sanctions against Burma — Myanmar — has not worked.

The reason I think this is significant is that I’m hoping it is the beginning of a rethinking. There’s a standard U.S. policy toward any regime that we don’t like. There’s not much we can do about it, and we can’t change the regime’s policies. But we decide we can’t just sit there, so we slap sanctions on the country.

Now, look at the effects. In Cuba, 50 years of sanctions have allowed Fidel Castro and his brother to wrap themselves in the mantle of Cuban nationalism and stay in power.

In Iraq, sanctions destroyed the middle class, leaving a civil society composed of criminals and religious zealots.

In Pakistan, which we sanctioned for their nuclear tests in 1990, two generations of army officers were deprived of any contact with the U.S. and grew to be anti-American — and in many cases, pro-Taliban.

In Iran today, sanctions have allowed the regime to claim that they are heroically battling efforts by Washington to strangle the nation and its aspirations.

So, how much more evidence, in the form of misery for the people and power for the dictators, do we need before we conclude that economic sanctions are a feel-good policy that have had only bad effects on the ground?

[...]

Stay with us.

TRANSCRIPT 2, Zakaria’s panel on Secretary Clintons’ trip to Asia:

ZAKARIA: The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has just wrapped up her first foreign tour to East Asia. Significantly, 1961 was the last time that a secretary of state chose that region for a first visit.

Joining me now, three experts on Asia, two of them from Asia, to talk about what that trip accomplished.

From Singapore, Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School and author of “The New Asian Hemisphere.” From New Delhi, Shekhar Gupta, the editor-in-chief of “The Indian Express.” And here in New York, the China scholar Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Kishore, what do you make of the fact that Hillary chose East Asia as her first region?

KISHORE MAHBUBANI, AUTHOR, “THE NEW ASIAN HEMISPHERE”: Well, I think it’s a clear indication, frankly, of how power is shifting to Asia.

And frankly, at a time when you’re facing the greatest financial crisis in several decades, to put Asia on top of the list of priorities is also a clear signal that, if you want to have a solution to this massive financial crisis, you have to work with Asia, because this is where all the reserves are.

Hillary is coming at a time when she is essentially representing — you know, in the past, secretaries of state represented symbols of power. Now, there is the sense that the United States is a wounded animal, a deeply wounded animal coming to some extent to Asia for assistance.

So I think they’re looking for a signal to see, is the United States now ready to deal in a position of equality with the Asian countries and say, can we work together to get out of this mess?

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, the one thing that Indians have worried about the Obama administration is that it is going to be a little — how shall I put it — softer on the war on terror, that it might be a little bit more willing to accommodate itself to certain forces, whether they are, you know, militant — forces of militant Islam. And one of the problems Hillary Clinton will probably face in private conversations in Japan is their concern that both Bush and, now, Obama will be too soft on the North Korean issue.

Is there a fear that the United States is kind of losing its muscle in Asia?

SHEKHAR GUPTA, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, “THE INDIAN EXPRESS”: Well, I think there is a fear that the United States may be distracted. They’ve got so many problems back home that they may become more inward-looking.

Because we believe that many of the problems we face in our region, particularly that India faces in terms of terrorism, that the U.S. can’t walk away from them, because they were largely responsible for creating them — the creation of the Taliban, before that the mujahedeen. You know, there is no need to go into the entire history.

So you can’t create all of that, and then walk away. We’ve got a nuclear weapons power sitting next door to us.

On the other hand, many of us here believe that Obama, because there was some expectation that he might be soft on terror, he will in fact go out of his way to show that he has focus in that area. And frankly, what we have seen so far from Richard Holbrooke’s visit in the region suggests that that is true, that he is focused on the terror issue.

But the other big concern in these parts about the Obama administration, which I think is a more real concern, is this whole protectionism. And I think that, to me, is a bigger concern right now.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, let’s pick up on something Shekhar Gupta talked about with regard to protectionism.

We’re all in this crisis together, and yet, all the governments of the world are busy protecting all their banks, their inefficient industries. They’re raising tariffs everywhere.

The U.S. has this “buy America” provision in the fiscal stimulus. But frankly, so do almost all countries in one way or the other.

Is this the end of the kind of world trade system that Asia grew prosperous in?

MAHBUBANI: I completely agree with Shekhar that we should be very deeply, deeply worried about the rise of protectionism and of us backtracking away from the system of the past.

But I think the big difference in Asia is that the Asians have not lost their faith in globalization.

And what’s interesting is that, you know, when you watch — I was listening to your program earlier on, the American economists talking about the American reaction to this crisis. You know, there’s an old expression: never waste a crisis.

And the sense I have is that, if you look at the Chinese, for example, the Chinese government is not wasting this crisis. It is actually using this crisis, using this stimulus plan, to focus on the long-term investment and doing the right things.

And the Chinese, by the way, have become the biggest believers in globalization, because they know that they and India are going to become the biggest beneficiaries of globalization. So there is no intellectual retreat from globalization in the Chinese and Indian elites in the way that you see in Europe or America.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, what do you think the Chinese want from America? What do you think they conveyed to Hillary Clinton privately?

MINXIN PEI, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: First of all, keep your rhetoric down, don’t raise expectations. Second, I think, on the…

ZAKARIA: On issues like?

PEI: … on protectionism, of course, they do want Obama — and, of course, Secretary Clinton — to take their stand and draw a line in the sand, because the initial noises from Congress are not very reassuring.

But I want to say something. Right now, it’s very hard actually to make protectionism work, because of globalization. Half of China’s exports are made by American companies and other multinationals. So, half of Chinese exports to the U.S.

If you want to stop Chinese exports, you are actually penalizing American companies. So, not many congressmen actually get this. Once they look deeper into this, they will find that the task is almost impossible for them.

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, what do you think the Japanese have been pressing? Because there is sometimes talk about how the rise of China means that India and Japan are kind of moving closer together, and the U.S. is encouraging this kind of anti-Chinese — or perhaps not anti- Chinese, but a hedge strategy against China.

Do you think Hillary Clinton’s trip has in some ways as a backdrop this idea?

GUPTA: Well, I don’t think there is any juice in this idea in India. I don’t think there’s any section of Indian society, Indian politics, Indian elites, which wants to join any kind of a bulwark against China.

At the same time, India understands that unless it gets its act together, unless it takes the process of reform forward, it’s going to get left so far behind China. That’s why India is going to be watching both China and America very carefully.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: And we are back Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, Shekhar Gupta from India, of New Delhi, and Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kishore, what is being described, in a sense, is an Asia that is, I wouldn’t say optimistic, but seems fairly comfortable, forward- looking, even though this crisis has devastated Asia economies. I mean, the news this week was that Taiwan’s economy shrunk by 8 percent. Singapore is in very bad shape.

Why is this not producing massive social turmoil, pessimism, things like that?

MAHBUBANI: Well, I’m glad that you have confirmed the thesis of my book, that Asia is the most optimistic place in the world. And I think it’s important to emphasize the difference between short-term and long-term perspectives.

This year will be very bad. Singapore will shrink minus 5 percent, Taiwan is shrinking, Japan is shrinking. But, you know, most Asians actually — you know, we had just gone through the Asian financial crisis only about 10, 12 years ago — which was massive, you know.

But we went through it, and came out of it stronger. And the one reason why the Asians are in some ways more relaxed about this crisis, they say, “Hey, we’ve been through this once before. And we’ve actually accumulated the reserves that we needed for this crisis. So we are ready for it.”

And in some ways, this crisis may create wonderful opportunities for the region.

And one of the points I completely agree with Shekhar about is that the Indians no longer see the world as a zero-sum game, that China’s rise is not necessarily bad for India, and nor is India’s rise bad for China. In fact, the region actually wants to see both China and India succeed and be the two new engines of economic growth to drive the region up.

So, frankly, when I talk to people in the region, yes, they’re worried about the next 12 months or so. But they’re absolutely confident that, when this crisis is over, Asia will bounce back faster than any other part of the world.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, a lot of people wonder whether this economic crisis has rattled the Chinese elite, rattled the Communist Party, you know, that they will not actually be that outward-looking, because they’re going to face internal protest, turmoil.

What is your sense of the impact of this economic crisis on the Chinese leadership? PEI: Well, indeed, they have been deeply, deeply rattled. Initially they were not prepared for this. They did not understand the depths and the potential risks of this crisis. And now, I think they’re caught in a downward spiral, because the deceleration of growth in China has exceeded all the worst forecasts.

And now with unemployment looming in China, and then a leadership succession coming up in three to four years, the Communist Party’s leaders are now, of course, much more focused on domestic affairs.

So, this trip may do some very nice door-opening or getting-to- know-you. There are substantive issues I’m not so sure that the Chinese leaders are ready to talk or engage on a really substantive level.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, do you think that the Chinese are in the mood to be very cooperative with the U.S.? Or are they — is there some feeling that they have been swindled by the Americans, that they have made massive investments in America from Treasury bills to private equity firms, all of these investments are doing badly, and there is a sense that maybe they need to turn away from the United States?

MAHBUBANI: I think it’s important to emphasize one thing. You know, when the Chinese look at these things, they always take a long- term perspective and not a short-term perspective. I mean, yes, they may lose some money from U.S. Treasury bills, but there are much larger long-term considerations.

And I was trying to see what I think would be going on in Chinese minds as they receive Hillary Clinton. I see the combination of two or three factors. One, of course, they are very happy that she is coming to send a signal — hey, Asia matters, China matters. And they welcome that.

And the other point that is also critical in Chinese minds is that they realize that we are all in the same boat. We have to get out of this big crisis. And the only way we get out of this is to work together.

And if that’s the attitude of the United States, China will say, yes, we will cooperate with you to fix this.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, finally, Hillary Clinton comes back from Asia. Do you think that this, you know, that her trip will have in some way laid the groundwork for some shift in policy that the Obama people will put in place?

PEI: No, no. This is a symbolic trip, no substance attached to it. Well, if anything that will come out of this trip where China is concerned, I think is climate change, because she brought with her the top person on climate change, Todd Stern.

And if Obama wants to accomplish something in his first term that will be of truly historic proportion, an agreement with China on climate change will be it.

ZAKARIA: And on that note, Minxin Pei, Shekhar Gupta from New Delhi, Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, thank you very much.

WAIT! THERE IS MORE TO COME! STAY TUNED!!!

Later today, stay tuned for more fascinating offerings from Fareed Zakaria on Pakistan.

You will NOT want to miss it, I promise you.

Please join us this evening from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. ET on No Quarter Radio for LD’s Dollars and Sense. These are truly historic times in the global economy. Let’s “navigate the economic landscape” without the pandering or nonsense found elsewhere!

We have two very interesting guests joining us. Lynn Marshall has one of the most unique backgrounds in the world of finance today. How does one develop a background that includes senior level experience in investment banking, agriculture, and community banking? Think Lynn has some amazing perspectives on the economy and markets? Don’t miss him.

Additionally, in light of the developments at Stanford Financial, we are very happy to have John Moynihan return to our show to discuss the dynamics in the world of offshore banking. Find out more than you could ever imagine by talking to these enlightened experts on LD’s Dollars and Sense, starting at 8 p.m. ET.

What are your questions and comments for me? Please share your questions and thoughts by calling in to (347) 677-0792, and also join our live chat room, which I’ll start up about 10 minutes before the show begins!

Let’s not forget that we live in a global economy. What developed overseas this week and how does it impact us here in the United States?

What is on your mind? What would you like to address? So much to talk about as we “navigate the economic landscape!!”

LD’s Dollars and Sense on NQ Radio at 8:00 p.m. ET. This show, as well as all prior shows and every show on NQ radio, is archived and can be downloaded on iTunes (see our instructions in the right column).

Look forward to hearing from you!!

LD

And now, CLASS: Please compare, and contrast, these two examples of television journalism:

Yes, well. Actually, there was some news in there.

And, Rachel, I’d flat-out kill for Hillary’s coat BUT it is NOT your lead, Rachel. So not your lead! (North Korea, for example

Hillary, you rock. Rachel? You not so much.

And why oh god why Rachel do you over-enunciate and over-emote every single word that comes out of your mouth in a very much too-high-pitched way?

Breathe, Rachel.

Take it from an old former French horn player: Use your diaphragm.

You’re supposed to be engaging, not grating!

Oh, that second example? That’s from the new PBS world news program that I’m very fond of, WorldFocus. Besides the above video, there’s this “blog” report:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Tokyo on Monday night on her first trip as the nation’s chief diplomat.

“I have come to Asia as my first trip as secretary of state to convey that America’s relationships across the Pacific are indispensable to addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the twenty-first century,” Clinton said to a crowd in Tokyo.

Sheila A. Smith, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how Clinton will approach North Korea, Japan and how the Japanese view China’s growing economic and military power.

Read what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say about Clinton’s stop in Japan and what her visit means for internal Japanese politics: Clinton plans for a rare meeting with Japan’s opposition.

Check out MORE at WorldFocus.

P.S. Last night’s program included a quite disturbing if fascinating examination of the fascination with and admiration for Joseph Stalin that today’s Russians have: “Stalin Makes a Comeback With Russia’s Youth.”

Here are THREE TOPICS that I’d love to hear LD talk about: (1) How we can find jobs for all the people out of work? (2) What can the world’s richest economies do to help people worldwide survive this crisis? (3) And can more banks for “poor people” be opened around the U.S., with — as the video at the end of this post points out — the first of its kind having just been opened in Queens, New York? (And is this even a good idea?)

(1) Do you recall Chris Martin’s recent jarring story that described his own observations at a California job fair? (Chris’s “When 500 thousand feels like 500 million” paints an accurate portrait of what millions of Americans are facing.) Now, watch this CNN global correspondents’ report on unemployment crises ’round the world:

BELOW: (2) WHAT THE WORLD’S RICHEST ECONOMIES PLAN + (3) THE FIRST “POOR PEOPLE’S BANK” comes to the United States:

Before we move on, here are some questions for YOU about the above video on unemployment: Are you unemployed? Do you have relatives and friends who’ve recently become unemployed? How are they coping? Have they had any success with special methods that are working, and helping them get interviews, and maybe even a job?

CNN: World’s richest countries pledge to fix economy” (news story) and video:

HIGHLIGHTS of the news report:

• Group of Seven ministers urge countries not to close markets to goods from abroad
• Focus must be on stabilizing economies, U.S. treasury secretary says
• Officials call for urgent reform of global financial system

The world’s richest countries committed to “any further action that may prove necessary” to restore confidence in the global financial system, their finance ministers said as they wrapped up a two-day meeting in Rome.

The Group of Seven finance ministers also urged countries not to close their markets to goods and services from abroad.

“An open system of global trade and investment is indispensable for global prosperity,” they said in a statement at the end of their meeting Saturday. Read full article »

Poor people’s bank thrives: A bank that helps poor people in the Third World now in the U.S. CNN’s Susan Lisovicz reports.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

There are countless news stories out there that can stimulate an hour’s worth of discussion on LD’s show, including the new PBS program WorldFocus, which on Friday night featured this hot-potato topic: “Global economic crisis threatens U.S. security interests.”

The new director of U.S. national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told Congress on Thursday that the top threat facing the United States was not terrorism or nuclear proliferation, but the global economic downturn, which has led to increasing anger, despair and protest around the world.” – From WorldFocus.”

What is my most memorable, and moving, moment from this interview? What Ricks says he wishes so much that President Bush had done, what he wishes that President Bush had ASKED of this nation’s youth. I was deeply affected by his comment.

Description: “Feb. 8: The Washington Post’s Tom Ricks, author of a new book on Iraq, The Gamble, talks about the changes he’s seen in that region and answers some of our viewers’ e-mail questions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Here is a link to the portion of the Meet The Press transcript covering this interview of Thomas Ricks.

Here is a backgrounder on both the book and its author, Thomas Ricks:

Fiasco, Thomas E. Ricks’s #1 New York Times bestseller, transformed the political dialogue on the war in Iraq—The Gamble is the next news breaking installment

Thomas E. Ricks uses hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews with top officers in Iraq and extraordinary on-the-ground reportage to document the inside story of the Iraq War since late 2005 as only he can, examining the events that took place as the military was forced to reckon with itself, the surge was launched, and a very different war began.

Since early 2007 a new military order has directed American strategy. Some top U.S. officials now in Iraq actually opposed the 2003 invasion, and almost all are severely critical of how the war was fought from then through 2006. At the core of the story is General David Petraeus, a military intellectual who has gathered around him an unprecedented number of officers with both combat experience and Ph.D.s. Underscoring his new and unorthodox approach, three of his key advisers are quirky foreigners—an Australian infantryman-turned- anthropologist, an antimilitary British woman who is an expert in the Middle East, and a Mennonite-educated Palestinian pacifist.

The Gamble offers news breaking information, revealing behind-the-scenes disagreements between top commanders. We learn that almost every single officer in the chain of command fought the surge. Many of Petraeus’s closest advisers went to Iraq extremely pessimistic, doubting that the surge would have any effect, and his own boss was so skeptical that he dispatched an admiral to Baghdad in the summer of 2007 to come up with a strategy to replace Petraeus’s. That same boss later flew to Iraq to try to talk Petraeus out of his planned congressional testimony. The Gamble examines the congressional hearings through the eyes of Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and their views of the questions posed by the 2008 presidential candidates.

For Petraeus, prevailing in Iraq means extending the war. Thomas E. Ricks concludes that the war is likely to last another five to ten years—and that that outcome is a best case scenario. His stunning conclusion, stated in the last line of the book, is that “the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered by us and by the world have not yet happened.”

About the Author
Thomas E. Ricks is The Washington Post’s senior Pentagon correspondent, where he has covered the U.S. military since 2000. Until the end of 1999 he held the same beat at The Wall Street Journal, where he was a reporter for seventeen years. A member of two Pulitzer Prize- winning teams for national reporting, he has reported on U.S. military activities in Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is the author of Fiasco, Making the Corps, and A Soldier’s Duty.

[...] This week, New York University’s [Nouriel Roubini] returned to the WEF and the Swiss ski resort of Davos as the prophet of the worst economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression – - joining the ranks of previous “Dr. Dooms” who made their names through contrarian calls that proved correct.

Even as he wins plaudits for his prescience, Roubini, 50, says worse lies ahead. Banks face bigger credit losses than they realize, more financial companies will require state takeovers and the world economy will keep shrinking throughout 2009, he says.

“The consensus is catching up with me, but it’s still behind,” Roubini said in an interview in Davos. “I don’t know what some people are smoking.” [MORE BELOW.]

What astonished me in this CNN video of world leaders, hosted by Fareed Zakaria, was how much they are all looking to the United States, and specifically TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, to help get them out of this worsening crisis:

Here’s more from the Bloomberg article on Roubini:

By 1998 he had attracted the attention of President Bill
Clinton’s administration, joining it first as a senior economist
in the White House Council of Economic Advisers and then moving
to the Treasury department as a senior adviser to Timothy
Geithner, then the undersecretary for international affairs and
now Treasury secretary in the Obama administration.

Roubini returned to the IMF in 2001 as a visiting scholar
while it battled a financial meltdown in Argentina. He co-wrote
a book on saving bankrupt economies entitled “Bailouts or Bail-
ins?” and opened his own global consulting firm, which now
mploys two dozen economists and publishes a popular Web site and blog.

“Nouriel has a rare combination of economics and the real
world, and so has great insight because of that,” says Shiller. “He looks into the details and rolls up his sleeves.”

Roubini says working on emerging-market blowouts in Asia
and Latin America allowed him to spot the looming disaster in
the U.S. “I’ve been studying emerging markets for 20 years, and
saw the same signs in the U.S. that I saw in them, which was
that we were in a massive credit bubble,” he says.

Still a Pessimist

With that bubble now popped, Roubini remains more
pessimistic than economists elsewhere. The IMF forecasts global
growth of 0.5 percent this year and bank losses from toxic U.S.-
originated assets of $2.2 trillion. By contrast, Roubini sees
the global economy shrinking this year, and banks writing down
at least $3.6 trillion — compared to the $1.1 trillion
disclosed so far.

While the U.S. government is resisting nationalizing its
biggest banks, Roubini says it will have no choice because they
are now “effectively insolvent.” And the outcome may be even
worse than even he anticipates if governments fail to take
aggressive steps to recapitalize banks and revive their
economies, he says: “The risk of a near-depression shouldn’t be
underestimated.”

Roubini, who’s now working on a book about the crisis, says
he takes no particular pleasure in his role as Dr. Doom or the
attention it brings him.

“I’m not a permanent bear,” he says. “I’ll be the first
to call a recovery, but I just don’t see it yet, and it’s
getting uglier.”

And NOW, an open thread — the floor is yours:

Is the stimulus Obama’s Iraq?

As the $819bn stimulus bill passed the House on Wednesday, Mike Pence, the Republican congressman from Indiana, explained why it was doing so without the benefit of a single Republican vote. Mr Pence called the stimulus a “dusty old wish-list of liberal spending priorities”. It is meeting little Republican enthusiasm as it approaches the Senate for a vote next Monday.

… Liberals are now in power, led by a popular president. It is in the nature of things that the nation’s agenda will be their agenda. But an emergency stimulus is a special case. Mr Pence’s warning should not go unheeded. The problem he mentions is serious, with the potential to divide the country even if the stimulus works. [...]

They are willing to be excited by what their government can do. But where is the Tennessee Valley Authority in all this? The Concorde-type project? The Apollo programme? Such initiatives work not just on economic fundamentals but also on the public’s entrepreneurial imagination and its optimism. But this bill is about funding babysitters, writing unemployment cheques and installing septic tanks with not enough money left over to give even one city a subway system. [...]

Bipartisanship offers little shelter over the long run. The stimulus will be expensive, more expensive than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined and Nancy Pelosi, Senate majority leader, has called it a mere “down payment”. The stimulus bill, whether it succeeds or fails, could be the Democrats’ Iraq. Like Iraq, it is a long-standing partisan project that is being marketed as an ad hoc response to a national emergency. It reflects the pre-existing wishes of the party’s most powerful interest groups more than the pre-existing wishes of the country. Democrats are now liable to be judged by the standard they created when they abandoned the Bush administration over the Iraq war: you break it, you own it. [Read all -- and I've added some of my own thoughts at the very end of this piece, which includes my RANT against Speaker Pelosi's behavior during this crisis.]

Original Story: There isn’t a country on this entire planet that isn’t being hit hard by the global recession. Here’s the latest on Japan’s massive lay-offs, via CNN:

Then there’s Iraq — remember Iraq? — where unemployment is over 50%:

All you hear on Fox News is the conservatives patting each other on the back that, the Democrats be damned, Iraq is progressing wonderfully and this election is going well. Fox is devoted, at every turn, to point out that, despite the left’s naysayers, Iraq is going well. But with unemployment at 50%, just how much success is there really? (And, of course, you can count on not hearing that unemployment figure on Fox News, so as not to detract from the chance to pound the Democrats for their insistent pessimism about Iraq.)

NEXT, Sir David Frost, the great television interviewer, covers the world economic crises:

Frost over the World – The world economy – 30 Jan 09

Advertising guru, Sir Martin Sorrell, joins Sir David from the World Economic Forum in Davos to talk about the future of the world economy. Plus, Simon Long, the Asia editor of The Economist, talks about censorship and ‘lese majeste’ laws in Thailand.

NOW: Here are some of my quick thoughts on “Is the stimulus Obama’s Iraq?,” which it is importat to point out, was argued in the Financial Times by Christopher Caldwell, a hard-right conservative who usually writes for The Weekly Standard.

(I am not a conservative or a liberal; I’m more of a centrist than anything else, but I am always open to reading the writings of the hard right as well as the far left.)

The author is correct that we need a program that quickly employs and involves large numbers of small and large companies and tens of thousands of ordinary people, all involved in a project of grand scale and ambition that excites and stimulates people’s optimism.

I didn’t include the portions of his essay indicating his distress about the “welfare” portions of the stimulus bill. You can read that in the full essay yourself. But, in my opinion, he is wrong in his arguments against the “welfare” aspect to the bill because those same arguments were used by the far right against Roosevelt’s Social Security plan when it was originally proposed. And, these days, everyone agrees that Social Security has been a lifeline for countless generations of senior citizens, as well as the disabled and children whose parents are deceased or disabled. (Yes, adjustments need to be made to some point but, had George Bush not plundered Social Security’s monies, it would be in far greater shape.)

The other day, I watched Nancy Pelosi give a press conference just before the House voted on the stimulus bill. Speaker Pelosi’s angry demeanor and hostile tone, and her choice of negative descriptions of the House Republicans, were utterly shocking to me.

The intensity of Speaker Pelosi’s self-righteous, contentious polemic reminded me of the angry, hostile Daily Kossacks who can ONLY see their OWN arguments as being correct and who rabidly intolerant of anyone who dares to differ. The curse of the far left is its intolerance for any viewpoint but its own — actually, it is censorship — and Speaker Pelosi is Exhibit A for that kind of intolerance and censorship, both of ideas and speech.

How can Barack Obama be urging “bipartisanship” while his primary voice in the House of Representatives is viciously opposed to any consideration of any viewpoint other than her own?

How can Barack Obama be speaking to the entire nation when his primary voice in the House is closeted with her hard-left San Francisco attitude that tolerates NO input, let alone any bending or compromise?

Speaker Pelosi has nothing about her that speaks of inspirational leadership. She haranques against the Republicans, but in such a negative way that even Democrats cannot be inspired. I vividly remember the day she became Speaker and, like most Democrats, I was thrilled. But her performance has been utterly depressing to me since she has no gift for bringing diverse groups together, and she can’t even stitch together a critically important stimulus bill that permits 11 Democrats, all at risk of losing their seats because they are in “Blue Dog” districts, to vote for the bill.

Then there’s her insistence on the pet pork projects, dutifully added by Rep. Obey (D-WI), which indicated her inability to grasp what most Americans need: A strong sense that their elected officials will grab this monstrous financial problem by the throat and revive our country’s financial condition through exciting and BIG ideas, quickly made “shovel ready” and truly beneficial in both the short- and long-term. See the author’s unhappiness with what the infrastructure spending will likely go towards — it’s not good:

The $43bn for highway construction and other transport will almost certainly be squandered. It will be rushed into “shovel-ready” projects and that means highways. As such, it will make more viable a lot of sprawl that ought never to have been built in the first place and help lock in habits of profligacy and gas-guzzling for a couple more generations.

It is late, and I am going to stop here, but I urge you to continue this discussion below.

Via one of my favorite new Web sites, for the new PBS world news show, WorldFocus, which is now airing on many PBS stations instead of BBC World News. The WorldFocus site features bloggers’ reports and videos from around the world through its “Blogwatch” so that — besides the usual top experts on the news program — we also get to hear from “real people” just like you and me on what’s happening in their countries with the recession.

HERE’s one thing that strikes me every time I visit this site, or view videos of people fighting the recession in other countries! What WE DO IN THIS COUNTRY will have an enormous effect on the lives of people in all of these other countries! Instead of dithering about condoms, our Congress needs a tight, fit, robust stimulus package that will inject a rush of adrenalin into our economic system, because of the ripple effect around the world. We are no longer just U.S. citizens. We are also citizens of the world.

Based almost entirely on bloggers’ stories and videos, this report, “Competing global forums tackle the economy,” focuses on the two world forums going on, each with different agendas:

As several nations gather in Davos, Switzerland, for the 2009 World Economic Forum, others are meeting in Brazil for the World Social Forum.

Both forums will focus on the global economy, though the Davos conference centers around policy and the Brazil meeting looks at social need.

At the World Social Forum, Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa blamed the Davos attendees for the financial crisis, saying, “They are the ones responsible for the crisis. They are not the ones to give us lessons.” Other leaders called for an overhaul of global capitalism.

(I’m not indenting the rest of “Competing global forums tackle the economy,” for ease of reading.”)

THE VIDEOS BELOW ARE QUITE INTERESTING:

The “Musings” blog writes the World Social Forum in Brazil, and argues that people who strictly oppose market-based policies are being “disingenuous.”

“The Mormon Worker” blog also reports on the forum from Brazil, discussing talks on deforestation.

Blogger “Jim Stormes” describes the opening festivities, including an energetic and diverse march.

Watch a video from YouTube user OskarPCastro featuring presentations and gatherings at the World Social Forum:

Ian Bremmer writes in Harvard’s “Davos Diary” about the gloomy mood at Davos, while Jeff Jarvis at “BuzzMachine” writes, “The snow here is much thicker than the discussion.”

Blogger “Ángel Cabrera” writes that the conference in Davos could be an effective way to examine the financial crisis from multiple lenses.

The “Scobleizer” blog writes that the Davos conference could bring about change, but that discussions have not focused enough on small businesses.

Watch a video from the Davos conference’s YouTube page featuring world citizens’ responses to a question about the world’s economic future in 2009.

FROM BBC Business:

President Obama has called the contraction of the US economy in the final quarter of 2008 a “continuing disaster” for the US.

Speaking at the White House, he also announced a new task force to help middle-class working families.

US economic output fell 3.8%, the worst quarterly contraction in more than 26 years, official figures have shown………

Notice in the graph how the economic tanking seems to follow the ups and downs since Obama came roaring on the scene.  Obama up, economy down.

If I was a little more mistrusting than I already am, I’d swear that Obama wants to make the Depression Prophecy self fulfilling.  After all, Great Presidents are made in the cauldron of strife and war.  Boring times make for boring history.

* President In Training Obama

Cross Posted from my Partizane

(1) You must provide a legitimate e-mail address in your comments. No one but the administrators sees the address. We need it in case we need to contact you about your comments. If your e-mail bounces, that’s grounds for immediate banning. This morning, an e-mail I sent bounced, but I but the person (Bazooka) on moderation in the hopes that he/she sees this and responds to susanunpc at gmail dot com.

(2) We need to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the subjects. Now, ahem, Larry and I are imperfect this way; I’ve “gone off” on a reader whose remarks irritated me, but I’m trying to change my ways because it’s not conducive to good, rational discussion where we can all learn from each other. We do NOT require that you agree with each other or the writer’s POV. In fact, we encourage disagreement. But let cooler heads prevail!

NOW, a video from the UK, via CNN, on more unrest among workers due to the worldwide recession. Of note: This protest has spread across the entire nation, including Scotland and Wales. (Story below.)

If you missed it, be sure to check out all the videos from France, Iceland, and other countries where economic unrest is hitting the streets: “Recession Sparks Protests Across the World, from Iceland to Paris to Latvia to China.

There were over one million protesters in France yesterday. Iceland has had days and days of riots in front of its parliament building. And WorldFocus.org’s worldwide bloggers are reporting in on more protests and riots around the world.

Here’s the accompanying CNN story on the UK unrest:

Oil refinery dispute spreads across Britain

Photo Caption: “Protesters gather outside the Total Lindsey oil refinery in north-east England on January 30.”

LONDON, England (CNN) — Hundreds of energy workers across the UK have taken strike action Friday in protest over the use of foreign workers on a multimillion-dollar oil refinery project on the northeast coast of England.

The dispute surrounds the decision by oil giant Total to award Italian company IREM a contract to build a new hydro desulphurization facility at its Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire.

The British Press Association reported that several hundred demonstrators had gathered for a third day outside the plant, following a walk-out by contractors on Wednesday, but the unofficial action has now spread to other parts of the UK, including Scotland and Wales.

In Scotland, hundreds of workers at the giant Grangemouth oil refinery walked out following an early morning meeting Friday. According to PA, the mechanical contractors, who work for BP and INEOS, said they were supporting their colleagues in Lincolnshire.

Elsewhere, PA reported that police were called to the Aberthaw power station near Barry in South Wales after workers staged a protest, while around 400 workers staged a demonstration at the Wilton oil refinery in Teesside, north-east England. ….

It disturbs me that people are looking to President Obama desperately for help. Not when the bill is full of pork and measures that, while valuable in some ways, are extraneous to the extremely serious business of giving our economy a giant boost, which will have a ripple effect on other countries’ economies around the world. Even China is hurting; thousands and thousands of its citizens are losing jobs as hundreds of factories are closed down because American and other people around the world are no longer buying as many Chinese-made goods.

The reports and video of Iceland, Latvia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and several other countries are below the fold. FIRST, there’s Paris (actually, these protests occurred throughout the nation, and involved over ONE MILLION people):

Thanks to the resourceful Truthtelling007 of CheneyWatch.org for grabbing this video for us from an Australian TV outlet.

FROM WORLDFOCUS.ORG’s round-up of bloggers across the globe (WorldFocus.org is the lively Web arm of the new PBS half-hour world news program):

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects that economic growth worldwide will fall to 0.5 percent in 2009, the lowest rate in 60 years.

In response to failing economies, the IMF has issued emergency loans of close to $49 billion to countries including Pakistan, Hungary, Ukraine, Latvia and Iceland.

The Icelandic government has virtually collapsed, as the prime minister resigned and the two-party ruling coalition fell apart — just months after the country’s banking system collapsed.

Riots and protests have already occurred in Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary, leading to concern that the economic slide around the world is going to lead to much more unrest.

Michele Wucker, the executive director of the World Policy Institute, joins Martin Savidge to provide insight into the social and political fallout from the economic crisis. They discuss whether social unrest brought on by the financial climate is likely to grow and how world governments will respond to such unrest.

Below, bloggers from around the world discuss the political and social consequences of the economic crisis.

An Icelandic blogger at “The Huffington Post” writes about riots outside the Icelandic parliament building, issuing a plea for help to Barack Obama.

A blogger at the “National Post” writes that rioting in Iceland is the worst in over a century.

YouTube user “haukursmagnusson” has been sharing videos of protests in Iceland, including this footage from a large protest in Reykjavik:

The “All About Latvia” blog writes that peaceful protests turned violent in Latvia’s capital city, while blogger “wanchope” provides images.

The “Baltic” blog discusses how Latvia’s protesting farmers may shake up the political scene, arguing that the present government is “living in a power bubble.”

The “Europe EcoMonitor” blog writes about possibly policy solutions for governments facing social unrest, forecasting future protests in Romania and Hungary.

The “Hungarian Spectrum” blog writes about an economic summit in Budapest, as Hugarian leaders attempt economic reform.