Investments section compiled by Bob Wood, invest@muslimobserver.com

Courtesy Steve Saville, sas888_hk@yahoo.com

Below is an excerpt from a commentary originally posted at www.speculative-investor.com on 5th February, 2009.

In our 3rd December 2008 commentary we explained that the probability of an imminent great depression was uncomfortably high. Our reasoning, in a nutshell, was that the recent credit bubble was much bigger than any previous credit bubble of the past century and that the policymakers of today were blundering much more rapidly and on a much grander scale than their counterparts of the 1930s.

We can’t over-emphasise that the Great Depression did not become “great” due to the economic problems signaled by the 1929 stock market crash, but, instead, due to government policies undertaken to counteract the economic problems. The policy errors we are referring to do NOT include the Fed’s so-called failure to prevent the money supply from shrinking, but do include government actions designed to boost prices, expand credit, create employment, and re-distribute wealth. These actions delayed necessary adjustments, and as a result it took more than 15 years for the economy to do what it should have done in 2-3 years. As Franklin Roosevelt’s own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, lamented in an address to Congressional Democrats in May of 1939:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!”

Quote taken from Burton Folsom’s book “New Deal or Raw Deal?”

It is commonly believed that the Second World War finally ended the Great Depression, but this is not true — the Depression didn’t finally end until government controls were eventually relaxed after the War. Preparing for and fighting WWII made sure that everyone had a job, but minimal unemployment does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with economic strength. In the former Soviet Union there was very little unemployment, but living standards were “third world”. Herein lies the problem with treating job creation as a primary goal of economic policy.

As noted above and in our earlier commentary on this topic, government today is unfortunately enacting the same policies that made the Great Depression “great”. Additionally, policymakers have stepped-up their efforts and appear to be more committed than ever to the path of increased spending, monetary pump-priming and economic intervention. As a result, we think the probability of a great depression has risen to the point where such an outcome is almost inevitable.

At this point it is appropriate for us to address a couple of related issues. The first is the perceived problem of falling confidence.

The famous economist J. M. Keynes didn’t understand the link between the boom/bust cycle, fractional reserve banking and the central bank’s manipulation of interest rates. He therefore relied on mysterious changes in something he called “animal spirits” to explain how booms would evolve into busts. Many of today’s economists operate from within a similar faulty framework, and thus believe a key to turning the economy around is boosting the confidence of consumers and businesses. They don’t seem to appreciate that the problems are REAL, as opposed to figments of our collective imagination. A loss of confidence, leading to less spending on current consumption and a consequential increase in saving, is a RATIONAL response to the current economic REALITY. By putting a hallucinogen in the water supply you could probably make people feel more confident and thus cause them to go out and spend freely for a while, but how could this possibly help given that the current predicament involves too much debt, too little savings, and a mismatch between production and consumption? Obviously it wouldn’t help; it would just make a bad situation even worse.

Policies that encourage people to increase their borrowing and spending are, in effect, encouraging people to dig themselves into deeper financial holes, but such policies are now ‘all the rage’ in the world of economic policymaking. For example, one of this week’s US Government schemes puts in place a financial incentive for people to borrow money to buy new cars. This scheme will cause damage to the extent that it actually does what it is supposed to do, but fortunately for the US economy it probably won’t work (it probably won’t lead to many additional car loans).

In sum, the problems are real. Confidence will naturally return after savings and production have adjusted to the new reality, while policies that convince people to ignore reality and behave less prudently in the short-term will only exacerbate the problems.

The next issue we’ll cover is the implication of increasing the money supply. Many people, including the Fed Chairman, believe that the economy can be helped through its ‘rough patch’ via monetary inflation.

Those who share the Fed Chairman’s belief should explain in detail, using good economic theory as opposed to Keynesian “animal spirits”, how counterfeiting money can possibly strengthen the economy. One of the main considerations is that years of monetary inflation prompted massive investment in projects that should never have seen the light of day, leading to the situation where the economy’s capital structure doesn’t mesh with the needs of consumers. As far as we can tell, creating more money out of nothing couldn’t possibly alleviate this problem.

Some will argue that monetary inflation ‘works’ (does good) by pushing up asset prices and thus reducing the debt burden, but let’s think this through. If there’s enough monetary inflation to push up asset prices then lenders will start demanding higher interest rates due to anticipated currency depreciation. Also, the cost of living will rise. At the same time, the aforementioned mismatch between production and consumption — the root of the high and climbing unemployment rate — will remain in place and probably become even more pronounced due to additional mal-investment. So, rather than having their financial burdens lessened by falling prices and low interest rates, those without jobs and those with excessive debt loads will have to deal with higher living and debt-servicing costs.

The bottom line is that the government can’t improve the situation by creating money out of nothing, but it can CHANGE the situation. Specifically, it can make sure that the depression will be the inflationary kind rather than the deflationary kind. The inflationary kind is potentially worse because under this scenario the economy is less able to repair itself and you don’t get the benefits that would otherwise be conferred by a falling cost of living. Unfortunately, the actions being taken by today’s policymakers skew the odds in favour of an inflationary depression.

Finally, forewarned is forearmed. Our economic outlook could prove to be too pessimistic, but if you prepare for a depression — by, for example, getting out of debt and building up substantial reserves of cash and gold — and things turn out better than expected, you won’t lose much. On the other hand, you will probably lose a lot if you prepare for a rosy scenario and a depression actually occurs.

Hong Kong

11-8

Eboo Patel appointed to Obama’s Interfaith Council

WASHINGTON D.C– Prominent scholar and activist Eboo Patel has been named to a 25-member President’s Advisory Council composed of religious leaders and scholars from different backgrounds.

“No matter how much money we invest or how sensibly we design our policies, the change that Americans are looking for will not come from government alone,” Obama said, creating the new office by executive order. “There is a force for good greater than government.”

While at home it will focus on making community groups an integral part of US economic recovery as its top priority, beyond American shores the new office will work with the National Security Council to “foster interfaith dialogue with leaders and scholars around the world”.

The revamped office will work on behalf of Americans committed to improving their communities, no matter their religious or political beliefs, Obama said.

“It is an expression of faith, this yearning to give back, this hungering for a purpose larger than our own, that reveals itself not simply in places of worship, but in senior centres and shelters, schools and hospitals, and any place an American decides.”

The new office “will be a resource for nonprofits and community organisations, both secular and faith based, looking for ways to make a bigger impact in their communities, learn their obligations under the law, cut through red tape, and make the most of what the federal government has to offer”.

Headed by Joshua DuBois, a former associate pastor and advisor to Obama in his US Senate office and campaign director of religious affairs, the office will carry out its priorities upholding the principle of “the separation of church and state”.

The revamped office has reignited a contentious debate over whether religious organisations that accept funds from the government should be allowed to discriminate when hiring.

Obama’s executive order does not rescind Bush’s provision to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring practices, but does provide a legal process for organisations to go through in order to that ensure hiring is legal and non-discriminatory.

Lecture on rise of Muslim and Arab culture in Detroit

TUCSON, AZ–Andrew Shryock, the Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan, will give this year’s Sabbagh lecture in Tucson.

Shryock’s lecture, “Best of Times/Worst of Times: Citizenship and Its Contradictions in Arab Detroit,”  is Thursday, Feb. 26, at 7 p.m. at the Arizona Historical Society, at 949 E. Second Street in Tucson, on the corner of Park and Second Street.

Both the lecture and the reception that follows are free and open to the public.

Andrew Shryock has done ethnographic research in Yemen, Jordan and among the Arab and Muslim communities of Detroit. Shryock’s published works include “Nationalism and the Genealogical Imagination: Oral History and Textual Authority in Tribal Jordan,” which won the 1997 Albert Hourani Prize. His other books include “Arab Detroit: From Margin to Mainstream” (2000) and “Off Stage/On Display: Intimacy and Ethnography in the Age of Public Culture” (2004).

Next year, Shryock’s latest work on Detroit will appear in “Citizenship and Crisis: Arab Detroit after Sept. 11.” The Detroit Arab-American Study, or DAAS, which is based on interviews with more than a thousand Arab-Americans, produced findings that were both expected and surprising.

Shryock’s lecture will focus on the counterintuitive lessons this study can teach us about Arab Americans and the complex worlds they have created in Detroit.

Pakistani journalist remembered

WASHINGTON D.C.–A large number of Pakistani-Americans Saturday attended the funeral prayer for Khalid Hasan, the legendary journalist, who passed away last week. Besides several Washington and New York-based journalists, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani, visiting PML (N) leader Javed Hashmi, leaders of Pakistan Peoples Party, scholars including Prof Khurram Khursheed, leading U.S. experts and former State Department advisers including Dr Stephen Cohen and Dr Marvin Weinbaum attended the funeral prayer held at Dar ul Huda, Springfield, Virginia.

Meanwhile, several US-based literary organizations Kashmiri leaders including Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, leaders of Pakistani American Congress, PAL-C Advocacy Group on Capitol Hill and Pakistani American League mourned the loss and paid tributes to the memory of the journalist, who authored more than 40 books.

The Pakistani embassy here will host a reference next week to honor the memory of the outstanding writer, who died of cancer at the age of 74.

Close friends of Khalid Hasan and Ambassador Haqqani support the idea of housing the treasured collection of books in the journalist’s study at one place ­ at the proposed Jinnah Center in Washington D.C- for the benefit of Pakistani-Americans.

Khalid Hasan was laid to rest in Vermont, the native state of his wife.

Abusive Criticisms of Islam Violate Code of Ethics, Says Canadian Broadcast Standards Council

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council released its decision concerning an episode of the Lowell Green Show broadcast on CFRA (Ottawa) on December 3, 2007.  Prompted by the internationally-discussed Muslim reaction to the teddy bear naming incident in Khartoum, which fell afoul of Sudanese law, the topic of the day on the open-line talk show was Islam.  The CBSC concluded that some of the comments that the host made about the religion and its practitioners violated the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics.

The Lowell Green Show is a daily open-line talk show on which the host and callers discuss current events.  The question of the day on December 3 was “Is there something inherent in the Muslim faith that promotes violence and oppression of women?”  The majority of callers answered “yes” to the question, but a few callers disagreed.  Green adamantly expressed his own view that “almost every act of terrorism around the world today […] is carried out in the name of Islam.  […]  Don’t tell me this is the work of a few fanatics.”

Despite the fact that Green said, on a few occasions, that not all Muslims are “like that”, he reacted negatively to any caller who answered no to his question, including those who were Muslim or had personal knowledge of Islam and attempted, on that basis, to clarify some of his points.  In one instance, Green responded to a Muslim caller with the word “Baloney!” and, in another, told the sympathetic, apparently non-Muslim, caller she had “abandoned common sense” and was being “silly”.

The CBSC received a complaint from a listener who was concerned about Green’s depiction of Islam and Muslims.  The Ontario Regional Panel examined the complaint under two clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics: Clause 2 (Human Rights), which prohibits abusive or unduly discriminatory comment on the basis of religion (among other things), and Clause 6, which requires the full, fair and proper presentation of opinion and comment.  The Panel found a violation of both clauses.  As the Panel observed, the extending of the debate from the teddy bear incident to Islam itself bore certain consequences:

The broadened nature of the on-air debate does mean, though, that extra care must be taken by the broadcaster to ensure that sweeping generalizations, which are inherently more risky than pointed, focussed discussions, do not fall afoul of either of the foregoing codified standards.

The Panel pointed out that there was no problem with simply addressing the topic, but rather with the way it was handled.  With respect to Clause 2, the Panel made the following comments:

[T]he host has mounted a sweeping, abusive and unduly discriminatory criticism of Islam.  It was uninformed and unfair.  It conceded none of the diversity that exists in Islam or among its adherents.  […] [H]e consistently made it entirely clear that his issue […] was [that there was a problem with the faith and that it] was not the work of a few fanatics, but rather a reflection of the religion, problems and attitudes that he attributed to the “great, overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world.”  Moreover, he brooked no contradictory observations of persons who were admittedly Muslim, informed about the religion, or of a different viewpoint.

With respect to Clause 6, the Panel observed that

Green did not merely disagree with opposing points of view; he mocked, ridiculed and insulted their interlocutors.  Using terms like “silly” and “baloney”, he denied to callers that which is potentially best in talk radio: fair, interactive dialogue.  Although not all broadcasters admit the appropriateness of anything other than pure objectivity on the part of hosts, the CBSC has long upheld the right of talk show hosts to espouse a point-of-view on air.  The right to express an editorial perspective is one thing; the exclusion of the opinions of those who would express a conflicting perspective is quite another.  […]  Disparaging opposing views with condescending, even childish, words such as those noted above is neither fair nor proper.

11-8

Courtesy Faisal Kutty

Editor’s note:  An abridged version of this piece was published in the Toronto Star. 

Here they go again. Muslims just don’t give up trying to change our values and roll back hard fought rights of equality and justice. Though this time, we may have nipped it in the bud early – but should we?

Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman’s “admittedly difficult decision” to force a complainant to testify without her niqab, or face covering, in a sexual assault case has unleashed a torrent of discussion and debate. Again, the usual suspects with too little knowledge, appreciation or understanding of the complexities of the issue have jumped into the fray.

The ruling once again brings to the fore questions surrounding the limits of accommodation in a liberal multicultural society. But this time, in a novel twist, the clash pits a person’s religious right with the right of a defendant in a criminal trial to due process and procedural fairness; namely that of being able to face his or her accuser in open court. Obviously, both are important rights in a liberal democracy.

The niqab – which a small fraction of orthodox Muslim women use to cover their faces, and not to be confused with the hijab or head covering – is attacked by some as a symbol of oppression. By others as a badge of political Islam. By others as a public-relations nightmare for their “moderate” or more palatable versions of Islam. By others as something that should be compromised in the two-way dance of accommodation. And still by others as not compulsory or even totally unnecessary from a strict Islamic legal point of view.

True, the vast majority of Islamic scholars do not believe it is fard, or compulsory. A few acknowledge that it is recommended. And a very small fringe believe it is compulsory. But even these jurists will defer to Islamic rules of necessity (darura) and public interest (maslaha) to sanction its removal in certain official and medical contexts; ranging from identification to security needs.

It is also interesting to note that scholars are unanimous in holding that the face must be uncovered during circumambulation of the Kaaba in Mecca, during what is arguably considered a peak moment of Islamic spirituality.

Many non-Muslims are quick to oppose this practice, to borrow the idea and phrase coined by Professor Sherene Razack, “to rescue the imperiled Muslim woman.” Sadly, many Muslims are also quick to speak out against this woman’s right to practise her religion as she believes it should be. Understandably, they are worried about the potential backlash from mainstream society.

All of these people miss the point though, and there is a need to think through the issue in a more holistic manner. The question of the niqab in court must be tackled without resorting to fear and reductionism.

First, from the religious rights perspective, the law is clear and logically consistent with the core values of liberal democracy. In Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, a case that tackled the definition of freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the majority accepted a definition that included any practice the individual sincerely feels is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required, sanctioned or mandated by a religious authority. In other words, a person who claims rights to freedom of religion does not need to demonstrate that they were denied rights to worship in accordance with the manner required by a religious authority. Building on prior case law, the Court held that it was enough to demonstrate an individual’s religious belief and that the practice was connected to this belief – though practices sanctioned or required by religious authorities are also protected.

The reasoning was consistent with the desire to ensure that secular governments and courts should not be placed in the position to determine which religious practices are authentic or not.

To determine whether an individual belief is sincere, the Court followed the American lead in advocating for a minimally intrusive evaluation of an individual’s beliefs. Courts must only determine that religious claims are made in good faith and not feigned. The majority also held that courts should tolerate changes in beliefs; the individual’s beliefs held in the past or from time to time are not relevant to those claimed in the present.

From a religious rights perspective, the woman has a clear right to testify with her niqab. The judge seems to have discounted the significance of her belief because she was not unequivocal in stating how much she believed in it. Surely she cannot be expected to communicate the technical legal standard she needs to meet, particularly given that English may not be her mother tongue. Clearly, as the record and context show, she had a genuine belief in it even though she may not have used accurate language to convey her conviction.

Contrary to what some have argued, exposing her face for her driver’s licence photograph in the past does not void her right to insist on it in the present, as the Supreme Court clearly articulated. Moreover, this cannot be equated to open and public testimony in the presence of numerous men and the added stress of courtroom formality.

Muslim groups and individuals – well-intentioned but misguided and trying to champion a better public relations image for Islam and Muslims – clamouring to distance themselves from the issue must understand that religion is something personal. In line with the Supreme Court decision, it must be defended on a personal level. They must ask whether they really want to start allowing external forces and/or even others from within to dictate what of one’s religion is mandatory and what is not.

Today it is her niqab, tomorrow it will be her hijab, next it will be his beard and eventually it will be your right to educate your children in religious schools, which are teaching “hate” and “un-Canadian” values if you believe some of the anti-Muslim and anti-religion rhetoric that passes for debate and informed comment on Muslims and Islam.

The latter is not as far-fetched as some may think, if you recall some of the rhetoric and hysteria during the Ontario provincial election when the Conservatives were effectively defeated over the private school funding idea, partly because of the spectre of Islamic schools receiving tax dollars.

To the obvious glee of some, Many Muslims have been rightfully and vociferously representing that they are taught to respect and obey the laws of the land. But it is disingenuous to then not extend the benefits of the law when it is uncomfortable; does not accord with the exact image of Islam and Muslims one wants conveyed in public; or is not consistent with a paternalistic imposition on Islam and Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims have not forgotten the “banning” of faith-based arbitration by the McGuinty government when a small group of Muslims publicly tried to use the Arbitration Act or even the review of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act when four Muslim law students filed complaints against Maclean’s for communicating hate.

The defence lawyer in the case in which the woman is a witness has argued that allowing the woman to testify with the niqab will prejudice the ability to assess her credibility. He argued that it was of “critical importance” to be able to see her face. The lawyer is obviously doing his job, but society and the justice system needs to look deeper, beyond legal strategy.

First, assessing credibility through demeanour evidence is not something solely assessed from someone’s face. Those present in court will still hear her voice (including the inflections, tone, pauses, etc.); the content of her testimony (conviction, nuances, consistency, hesitations, etc.); and see her eyes and body language. Moreover, the judge can question her and the defence also has the right to cross-examine her, with the latter being the most effective and reliable tool to assess credibility.

Second, contrary to conventional wisdom, scholarly and judicial decisions have also questioned the efficacy of assessing credibility using demeanour evidence. There are numerous studies and reports challenging the reliability of demeanour evidence in assessing credibility, particularly when it comes to cultural, linguistic, racial and religious minorities.

In a widely cited piece on demeanour published in the Cornell Law Review, Professor Olin Guy Wellborn III writes:

On the contrary, there is some evidence that the observation of demeanor diminishes rather than enhances the accuracy of credibility judgments.

He also argues that the ability to accurately detect lying diminishes with observation of the face.

Professor Jeremy Blumenthal in another legal journal article on demeanour concludes that,

…it is unforgivable that the legal system deliberately ignores demonstrated, relevant findings about demeanor evidence and willfully adheres to an ineffectual traditional approach.

Of course, it is imperative for the judicial system to explore ways in which the procedural fairness of the accused can be respected while respecting religious rights and striving to remove cultural/religious barriers to access to justice. When such issues are merely brought up as technical legal arguments without substantiation, the system must not uncritically accept them, particularly when they clash with complex and conflicting rights and public policy imperatives.

Indeed, this case raises serious public policy concerns beyond those already touched upon. Even if technical Islamic and legal rules can be used to deny her the right to testify with her face covered, the decision sets a dangerous precedent in terms of access to justice and possibly discouraging women in such situations from coming forward. As ably argued by the woman’s lawyer, courtroom testimony is extremely difficult and often traumatic for the average person. Now throw in the compounded hardships for sexual assault victims and the additional cultural and religious hurdles and many women may not come forward to report such assaults.

As a relative of the woman told the press: “This is primarily an issue of protection the court offers to victims of sexual assault, especially those from minority communities, who experience the added stigma of bringing these deeply personal issues into open court.”

As the Law Reform Commission of New Zealand concluded in its 1997 report titled Evidence Law: Character and Credibility:

To misinterpret the demeanour of a witness is always a danger, but it is a particular danger when the fact-finder is confronted with a witness belonging to a different culture …

Maybe this time the niqab will be a catalyst to start to question the reliability of using demeanour to assess credibility in a multicultural context. Let’s not nip it in the bud, but rather step back and analyze these issues without resort to reductionism.

Faisal Kutty is general counsel for the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association and an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. His articles are archived at www.faisalkutty.com.

Courtesy WXYZ

WASHINGTON (WXYZ) – The Senate Tuesday approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, emergency legislation requested by President Obama that will create millions of jobs for American workers and begin to put the nation’s economy back on track.

What does this mean for Michigan?

WATCH THE ACTION NEWS INTERVIEW WITH SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW IN THE VIDEO PLAYER ON THE RIGHT

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is estimated to provide approximately $4.6 billion in the following benefits:

Michigan’s Infrastructure and Science

In order to rebuild our weakening economy, these investments in our physical and cyber infrastructure will put Michiganders immediately to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, and will also enable the creation of a stronger and more efficient infrastructure for the 21st century economy.

        •$68 million through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to address the backlog of drinking water infrastructure needs

        •$171.1 million through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to address the backlog of clean water infrastructure needs

        •$884.6 million in Highway Funding to be used on activities eligible under the Federal-aid Highway Program’s Surface Transportation Program and could also include rail and port infrastructure activities at the discretion of the states

        •$165 million in Transit Formula Funding for investments in mass transit

        •$53.7 million through the Public Housing Capital Fund to enable local public housing agencies to address a national $32 billion backlog in capital needs – especially those improving energy efficiency in aging developments – in this critical element of the nation’s affordable housing infrastructure

DPC Fact Sheet 1

        •$64.1 million in HOME Funding to enable state and local government, in partnership with community-based organizations, to acquire, construct, and rehabilitate affordable housing and provide rental assistance to poor families

        •$53.4 million through the Homelessness Prevention Fund to be used for prevention activities, which include: short or medium-term rental assistance, first and last month’s rental payment, or utility payments. As such, most of this funding will go directly into the economy of local communities, as the funds will be used to pay housing and other associated costs in the private market

Education and Training in Michigan

        •$1 billion through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to local school districts and public colleges and universities in addition to incentive grants as a reward for meeting key education performance measures and additional funding for other high-priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education

        •$464.1 million for Special Education Part B State Grants to help improve educational outcomes for individuals with disabilities, raising the federal contribution to nearly 40 percent, the level established when the law was authorized more than 30 years ago

        •$36.6 million in education technology funds to purchase up-to-date computers and software and provide professional development to ensure the technology is used effectively in the classroom

        •$477.5 million for Title I Education for the Disadvantaged to help close the achievement gap and enable disadvantaged students to reach their potential

        •$14.2 million in State Employment Service Grants to match unemployed individuals to job openings through state employment service agencies and allow Michigan to provide customized reemployment services

        •$72.6 million in Dislocated Workers State Grants, particularly for grants that support immediate strategies for regions and communities to meet their need for skilled workers, as well as longer-term plans to build targeted industry clusters with better training and a more productive workforce

        •$31.2 million for Department of Labor’s Adult State Grants

        •$74.7 million for Department of Labor’s Youth State Grants

        •$16.8 million for Vocational Rehabilitation to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and sustain gainful employment

Michigan’s Energy

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 would provide investments in areas critical to the development of clean, efficient, American energy, including modernizing energy transmission, research and development of renewable energy technologies, and modernizing and upgrading government buildings and vehicles.

DPC Fact Sheet 2

        •$13.7 million through the State Energy Program

        •$146.2 million through the Weatherization Assistance Program

Protecting the Vulnerable in Michigan

The current economic crisis has affected all Michiganders, but none more so than the most vulnerable among us. The spending proposed here will serve to lessen the blow of the current recession, providing immediate relief for children, the poor, and others who may find themselves struggling to put food on the table or a roof over their head. It will also address the urgent need to provide safe and secure places to live, even in neighborhoods that are struggling with high unemployment and surging foreclosure rates.

        •$2.5 million for National School Lunch Program Equipment Assistance

        •$4.1 million through the Emergency Food Assistance Program

        •$552.1 million in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits (formerly Food Stamps)

        •$5.3 million for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which provides grants to nonprofit and faith-based organizations at the local level to supplement their programs for emergency food and shelter to provide for the immediate needs of the homeless

        •$58.7 million in Child Care and Development Block Grants to provide quality child care services for in low-income families who increasingly are unable to afford the high cost of day care

        •$11.8 million for Head Start to allow additional children to participate in this program, which provides development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities that prepare children to succeed in school

        •$7.4 million in Community Services Block Grants to local community action agencies for services to the growing numbers of low-income families hurt by the economic crisis, such as housing and mortgage counseling, jobs skills training, food pantry assistance, as well as benefits outreach and enrollment

        •$3.4 million for Senior Meals Programs to help senior meals programs cope with steep increases in food and fuel costs. Many programs are reducing meal deliveries to seniors or closing meal sites

Law Enforcement in Michigan

        •$40.6 million in Byrne/JAG grants to support law enforcement efforts

        •$1.9 million for crime victims compensation and assistance

        •$968,810 in Internet Crimes Against Children Grants to help law enforcement agencies enhance their investigative response to offenders who use the Internet, online communication systems, or other computer technology to sexually exploit children

        •$9.4 million in Violence Against Women Grants for victim services programs to improve the criminal justice system’s response to violent crimes against women and to assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking who are in need of transitional housing, short-term housing assistance, and related support services

Additional Benefits for Michigan

DPC Fact Sheet 3

DPC Fact Sheet 4

Unemployment Benefits in Michigan. According to the Department of Labor, Michigan could receive $209.6 million in new funding if Michigan fully enacts the UI modernization incentives that the legislation would provide.

Tax Relief for Michigan Families and Businesses. According to the Senate Committee on Finance, the following are examples of tax provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that will help Michigan businesses and families, create jobs and get Michigan’s economy moving:

        •Up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples for the Making Work Pay Tax Credit

        •$300 to Social Security beneficiaries, SSI recipients, and disabled veterans

        •$2,500 for the American Opportunity Tax Credit (an increase in the tax credit for higher education and allowing the credit for four full years)

        •Extended and increased Homebuyer Tax Credit to both help aspiring homeowners and stabilize plummeting home prices

        •Extended Bonus Depreciation and Small Business Expensing through 2009, allowing businesses that make capital investments to immediately deduct one-half the cost. Small businesses can immediately deduct 100 percent of the cost of these investments

        •$1.6 billion for grants to schools and hospitals for energy efficiency and combined heat and power system projects

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 would protect over 26 million working families across the nation from the Alternative Minimum Tax, representing thousands of dollars in additional income taxes. According to the Congressional Research Service, 568,000 Michiganders would be protected from the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2009.

* The benefits described in this fact sheet represent estimates of highlights of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is not a complete listing of all the programs included in the legislation. Due to rounding, the sum of the programs may not equal the estimated total.

11-8

And don’t go socialist

Courtesy Justin Raimondo

We’ve truly entered a Bizarro World universe, where up is down, right is left – and the Russians, of all people, are now lecturing us about the virtues of free enterprise.

Yes, it happened at the Davos conference of bigwigs, insiders, and their sycophantic hangers-on, where the elite meet to munch canapés and discuss the way the world works, or, in this case, the way it isn’t working. The conference was heavy with the sort of pessimism that doesn’t usually accompany a gathering of the rich and pompous, yet instead of the usual self-congratulatory vaunting of their own virtue and “concern” for the world’s peasants, these aristocrats of the conference table were less than ebullient about the downward spiral of the global economy – which, you’ll remember, yesterday was touted as the savior of us all, but these days is portrayed as the instrument of our collective doom.

While the walkout of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan grabbed the biggest headlines – he didn’t like it when David Ignatius of the Washington Post shushed him in favor of letting former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres drone on uninterrupted – the real shocker was Vladimir Putin’s peroration, which sounded more like Ron Paul than the leader of a nation that has intruded the state into the economy and polity in a big way.

Putin likened the economic crisis the world is facing to “the perfect storm, which denotes a situation when nature’s forces converge in one point of the ocean and increase their destructive potential many times over.” This is very similar to the apocalyptic tone not only of Rep. Paul, but of gold bugs and libertarians outside the Beltway: save your candles, the dark ages are coming!

Yet our leaders were unprepared: in spite of strong indications that the crisis was breaking over our heads, only a prescient minority realized that our chickens were coming home to roost, while the “majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or a billion, and did not want to notice the rising wave.” As the Remnant looked on, Western elites were oblivious to their onrushing doom:

“I just want to remind you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasized the U.S. economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism.

“The time for enlightenment has come. We must calmly, and without gloating, assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.”

Well, perhaps he was gloating just a little, but who can blame him? After all, the high-and-mighties of the West had recently undergone a spasm of unrestrained hubris, from which we have only just begun to recover. This manic mood was given expression not only by the Bush Doctrine and its attendant military campaigns, but also by a mad triumphalism that predated 9/11 and really started with the fall of the Soviet empire. The “unipolar” delusion distorted our thinking and gave rise to all sorts of grandiose projects that wound up costing us dearly.

One of those projects was – and is – the encirclement and economic strangulation of Russia: the ill-fated “color revolutions,” the deployment of “soft power” in the service of penetrating the former Soviet republics with “civil society” organizations, funded and directed by Western governments, and the challenge to Russian predominance in the “near abroad” of the Caucasus and central Asia, where the U.S. seeks to build bases ostensibly to fight the “war on terrorism” in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That this dagger pointed at the throat of Kremlin leaders will have to be withdrawn, albeit reluctantly and temporarily, is doubtless where the gloating comes in.

So far, Putin’s critique is pointed, yet hardly shocking. Well, hang in there, dear reader, because we’re just getting to the good part:

“Add to this colossal disproportions that have accumulated over the last few years. This primarily concerns disproportions between the scale of financial operations and the fundamental value of assets, as well as those between the increased burden on international loans and the sources of their collateral.”

This realistic perspective is in sharp contrast to the frantic gyrations of our own political and financial leaders, who are wholly invested in maintaining that disproportion in all its gargantuan perversity. Collateral? Real value? Such bothersome impediments to omnipotence have long since been thrown overboard by the Washington-Wall Street crowd. As a top White House aide once told journalist Ron Suskind, guys like him – disdainfully dubbed “the reality-based community” – who “believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality” aren’t clued in to the new reality:
“That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

The same hubris that drove the Iraq war and led us to believe we could “transform” the Middle East, as some of the more perfervid neocons insisted, drove our financial leaders over a similarly steep cliff. The empire is now crumbling, along with the economic assumptions that financed it, as Putin points out:

“The entire economic growth system, where one regional center prints money without respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional center manufactures inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a major setback.”

Whether the Russian leader has been boning up on the works of the Austrian economists and has absorbed or at least understood their critique of central banking as the flaw in the otherwise beneficial ointment of Western-style capitalism, or has independently come to similar conclusions, is open to speculation. Suffice to say that the parallelism is astonishing. For the long period of American economic and imperial expansion, the dollar was the reserve currency of choice, its markets the freest and most profitable in the world. As we enter a perhaps even lengthier period of decline, the leading indicator of our protracted contraction is the end of the dollar-denominated world economy. Whereas the Chinese premier, in his Davos speech, merely called for closer monetary regulation and restraint on the part of his American trading partner, Putin called on the markets to dump the dollar.

Putin accurately describes the bubble of American supremacism and diagnoses its cause.

It was “brought about ,” he avers, “by excessive expectations. Corporate appetites with regard to constantly growing demand swelled unjustifiably. The race between stock market indices and capitalization began to overshadow rising labor productivity and real-life corporate effectiveness.” The industrial West engaged in an orgy of consumption, without producing any more – indeed, while producing much less. Our entire system was and is based on the generation of “unearned wealth, a loan that will have to be repaid by future generations.” It all “would have collapsed sooner or later,” and “in fact, this is happening right before our eyes.”

As America’s political leaders rush to reinflate the bubble, Putin would let it pop:

“This means we must assess the real situation and write off all hopeless debts and ‘bad’ assets. True, this will be an extremely painful and unpleasant process. Far from everyone can accept such measures, fearing for their capitalization, bonuses, or reputation. However, we would ‘conserve’ and prolong the crisis, unless we clean up our balance sheets.”

In short, the malinvestment engaged in during the bubble years must be liquidated. The longer we try to conserve enterprises supposedly “too big to fail,” the more painful and prolonged will be the process of economic recovery. This is precisely what libertarians such as Ron Paul and analysts such as Peter Schiff have been saying all along.

Unlike Barack Obama and his advisers, whose faith in government action is near religious, Putin warns against “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence.” It may be a “natural reaction” to turn to an increased state role in such times as these, yet “instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent. The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

Oh, but this is my favorite part:

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

I lived to see an American president red-baited by the Kremlin! That, in itself, is utterly amazing, and proof positive that we have indeed slipped into an alternate universe, a Bizarro World where history runs backward – and in reverse. Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than any Russian leader I ever heard of, Putin took aim at the Obama-commies:

“Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”

Those remarks would not be out of place coming out of the mouth of a Republican congressman – and a fairly conservative one – inveighing against the “stimulus” package. Putin goes beyond even this, however, when he warns against the danger of military Keynesianism:

“Unfortunately, we are increasingly hearing the argument that the buildup of military spending could solve today’s social and economic problems. The logic is simple enough. Additional military allocations create new jobs.

“At a glance, this sounds like a good way of fighting the crisis and unemployment. This policy might even be quite effective in the short term. But in the longer run, militarization won’t solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them.”

Paul Krugman and his media echo chamber happily inform us that it doesn’t matter how or where we spend the money, just as long as we “stimulate” the economy with massive injections of monetary steroids. So why not military spending – lots more military spending? After all, this is a point both conservatives and liberal Keynesians can agree on, as Putin surely realizes.

I suspect his call for disarmament will be largely ignored, along with his insight that demilitarization will “bring significant economic dividends.”

That a Russian leader is now telling Americans that their turn toward statism and militarism is harmful both to themselves and to the world is a turn of events no one of my generation could possibly have imagined, certainly not anyone of libertarian inclinations. It is a sad and telling commentary that no American leader of any stature, aside from the previously mentioned Rep. Paul, has the courage to tell us what we need to hear.

~ Justin Raimondo

Helium (He) is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic, inert monatomic chemical element that heads the noble gas group in the periodic table and whose atomic number is 2. Its boiling and melting points are the lowest among the elements and it exists only as a gas except in extreme conditions.

An unknown yellow spectral line signature in light was first observed from a solar eclipse in 1868 by French astronomer Pierre Janssen who is jointly credited with the discovery of the element with Norman Lockyer who observed the same eclipse and was the first to propose this was a new element which he named helium. In 1903, large reserves of helium were found in the natural gas fields of the United States, which is by far the largest supplier of the gas. The substance is used in cryogenics, in deep-sea breathing systems, to cool superconducting magnets, in helium dating, for inflating balloons, for providing lift in airships and as a protective gas for many industrial uses (such as arc welding and growing silicon wafers). Inhaling a small volume of the gas temporarily changes the timbre and quality of the human voice. The behavior of liquid helium-4’s two fluid phases, helium I and helium II, is important to researchers studying quantum mechanics (in particular the phenomenon of superfluidity) and to those looking at the effects that temperatures near absolute zero have on matter (such as superconductivity).

Helium is the second lightest element and is the second most abundant in the observable Universe. Most helium was formed during the Big Bang, but new helium is being created as a result of the nuclear fusion of hydrogen in stars. On Earth, helium is relatively rare and is created by the natural radioactive decay of some elements, as alpha particles that are emitted consist of helium nuclei. This radiogenic helium is trapped with natural gas in concentrations up to seven percent by volume, from which it is extracted commercially by a low-temperature separation process called fractional distillation.Helium is the least reactive noble gas after neon and thus the second least reactive of all elements; it is inert and monatomic in all standard conditions. Due to helium’s relatively low molar (atomic) mass, in the gas phase its thermal conductivity, specific heat, and sound speed are all greater than any other gas except hydrogen. For similar reasons, and also due to the small size of helium atoms, helium’s diffusion rate through solids is three times that of air and around 65% that of hydrogen.

Helium is used for many purposes that require some of its unique properties, such as its low boiling point, low density, low solubility, highthermal conductivity, or inertness. Helium is commercially available in either liquid or gaseous form. In gaseous form, small quantities of helium are supplied in high pressure cylinders holding up to 300 standard cubic feet, while large quantities of high pressure gas are supplied in tube trailers which have capacities of up to 180,000 standard cubic feet.

Because it is lighter than air, airships and balloons are inflated with helium for lift. While hydrogen gas is approximately 7% more buoyant, helium has the advantage of being non-flammable (in addition to being fire retardant).

11-8

By Sumayyah Meehan, MMNS Midease Correspondent

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made the development of Iran’s scientific programs one of the most fundamental tasks of his presidency and has done the utmost to ensure that Iran can compete with other nations ‘space races’ despite sanctions that have crippled his country’s economy.

Reaching even greater heights, this week Iran launched its first-ever domestically made satellite into orbit.

Coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the Islamic revolution, the Omid satellite was launched this past Tuesday to much fanfare from the Iranian public and touted by Ahmadinejad as a national “source of pride”.

Carried by the Safir-2 rocket, the purpose of Omid is to take orbital measurements of the Earth for environmental research. It will circle the Earth 15 times a day and will send vital data back to Iranian scientists.

The official word out of Iran is that the Omid satellite was completely manufactured by Iranian scientists without the assistance of outsiders. However, a debate is already raging about the truth to that claim. If other nations did assist Iran in the current launch it is most likely that either North Korea or Pakistan lended a helping hand. In the case of the latter, it’s no secret that many of Iran’s missiles are derivatives of Pakistani ones.

This is not the first time that Iran has launched a rocket into space. In August of last year, Iran launched the first Safir-2 rocket, which weighs more than 26 tons and measures a length of 72 feet with a diameter of 4 feet. And this past February Iran launched a probe into outer space in preparation for the recent Omid launch.

The worldwide reaction to Iran’s foray into space has not been met with much enthusiasm by global leaders.

Britain’s Foreign Office released a statement saying, “This test underlines and illustrates our serious concerns about Iran’s intentions. There are dual applications for satellite launching technology in Iran’s ballistic missile program. As a result, we think this sends the wrong signal to the international community which has already passed five successive UN Security Council resolutions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program.”

France also released a statement that they, along with other western countries, are concerned that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear bomb.

The US State Department also issued a statement, “Developing a space launch vehicle that could put a satellite into orbit could possibly lead to development of a ballistic missile system. So that’s of grave concern to us.” World leaders from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia met on Wednesday to discuss further actions to reign in Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran is one of the few countries in the Middle East to launch a space program. Israel has had its own space program for years–launching the Ofeq 1 test satellite, which was rocketed into space by the Shavit launcher, in 1988.

Iraq also made a feeble attempt into space by launching a test launcher in 1989 before the Gulf War. Iraq’s space program ended before it even could begin due to the war and crippling UN sanctions.

According to Iran, Omid has already successfully completed the first mission which was to broadcast a message from President Ahmadinejad back to Earth.  The message offered congratulations to the Iranian public on the success of the launch and affirmed that, thanks to Omid, Iran will enjoy a better status in the world. It is the hope of Iran’s space program to launch more rockets in the future, as the sky is limitless even when the odds are stacked against them. 

11-7

Mr. Hussain most recently served in the US Department of Justice and has a stellar academic and professional record.

His parents are naturalized citizens from India and live in Plano, Texas.

Elected to Phi Beta Kappa, he holds bachelor’s degrees with highest distinction in both philosophy and political science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which he completed in two years.

He received highest honors for his philosophy thesis, “Assessing the Theistic Implications of Big Bang Cosmological Theory.” Hussain also holds an MA from Harvard University in Near Eastern languages and civilizations. He finds his heritage central to his identity as a Muslim American and his career goals, especially in light of events in recent history.

He  has worked extensively on Capitol Hill, both as an intern in the office of former House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt during the summer of 2000 and as a legislative aide on the House Judiciary Committee, where he worked for a year and a half between his time at Harvard University and Yale University.

Mr. Hussain recently served as a Trial Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice.  Prior to that, he was as a Law Clerk to Damon J. Keith on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Earlier in his career, Mr. Hussain served as a legislative assistant on the House Judiciary Committee, where he reviewed legislation such as the USA Patriot Act. Mr. Hussain earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, his Master’s degree in Public Administration and in Arabic & Islamic Studies from Harvard University, and his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

11-7

Courtesy Golnar Motevalli

KABUL (Reuters) – As Afghanistan moves centre-stage in U.S. foreign policy, the new administration will need more than a troop surge to defeat the Taliban and bring peace: it will also have to engage Iran, its long-time foe sitting in the wings.

President Barack Obama’s administration is conducting a full policy review on Iran which is expected to include Tehran’s role in Afghanistan, while the head of NATO, which leads some 55,000 troops in Afghanistan, said dialogue with Iran was crucial to fighting the insurgency there.

“It is absolutely essential, you cannot stabilise Afghanistan without Iran,” said Ahmed Rashid, author of a widely acclaimed book on the Taliban.

Germany, the third largest troop contributor in Afghanistan, has also joined the chorus of diplomatic voices for dialogue with Iran, suggesting recently a “contact group” of nations to kick-start rapprochement.

With the U.S. planning to deploy up 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan in the next 12 to 18 months, and faced with supply-line challenges over insecure routes from Pakistan, the need for wider regional cooperation is acute and urgent.

“Pakistan has only been partially helpful in fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban … talking to Iran will put a lot more pressure on Pakistan and neighbouring countries to cooperate with NATO and American forces in Afghanistan,” Rashid said.

When asked whether any future talks with Tehran might touch on Afghanistan, U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said there needed to be a regional approach to Afghanistan and that included Iran last week.

Alternative routes to Afghanistan for U.S. and NATO supplies have been agreed with Central Asian states to the north, but given its access to major ports on the Caspian Sea and the Gulf, Iran would be an invaluable transit route, though the likelihood of military supplies coming through Iran is a distant prospect.

Elusive Friendship

Trade between Iran and Afghanistan is already strong, facilitated by a well-paved highway built by Iran, which crosses the border into the western Afghan province of Herat.

“If the relationship between the U.S. and Tehran stabilises, things will be much better for us in Afghanistan,” said Davood Moradian, senior policy advisor at the Afghan foreign ministry.

Iran shares a common language and cultural and historical ties with Afghanistan, but it has been an avowed enemy of the United States since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and its relationship with Afghanistan has been complex.

“As a whole Iran’s contribution has been constructive and positive, but there are some in Tehran who are still ambiguous about Afghanistan … because the U.S. is here and because we are an emerging democracy,” Moradian said.

While Iran and the United States sat at the same table to discuss Afghanistan’s future after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration, wary of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, made sure the new pro-Western Afghan government kept Iran at arm’s length.

The Bush administration repeatedly stated that all options were open if Tehran developed nuclear weapons, a thinly veiled threat of attack, heightening the insecurity already felt by Iran with already 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to its east, and another 140,000 in Iraq to its west.

Iran’s defence has been to make sure those troops are either too tied down fighting insurgents to pose a threat, until, as in the case of Iraq, its influence and interests are assured.

My Enemy’s Enemy

Though Shi’ite Iran is no friend of the Taliban and almost launched its own war to overthrow the austere Sunni Islamist movement in 1998, Tehran is not above drip-feeding supplies to Taliban militants, military sources say: not enough to hand them victory, but enough to sap U.S. military strength.

“The Iranians have an influence inside Afghanistan … and Iranian-origin improvised explosive devices (IEDs) appear inside Afghanistan,” said a NATO diplomat, who requested anonymity.

“There may be elements inside the Iranian government or military of one kind or another that may be providing these.”

Taliban expert Rashid said the Iranians have stepped up their support to dissident groups inside Afghanistan, “not necessarily as political proxies — because clearly they don’t want the Taliban back — but as forces who could disrupt the U.S. if there was going to be an attack on Iran”.

Using military proxies is a tactic of both the United States and Iran, and if the two sides were to narrow their differences — removing the need to support groups with which they would otherwise be at odds — Afghanistan could be more stable.

“A lot of the countries in the region that have involuntarily become the battleground for U.S.-Iranian rivalry can only benefit tremendously if that rivalry will transform into a more collaborative relationship,” said Trita Parsi, president of the Washington-based National Iranian-American Council.

But Iran also has good reason for wanting a more stable Afghanistan, both to boost trade and to stem the flow of Afghan drugs that feed the habits of some 1 million Iranian addicts.

That is something the Obama administration can appeal to, but more than anything else Washington will have to convince Tehran that its presence in Afghanistan does not pose a threat to Iran.

“The critical thing … is that the Americans give assurances to Iran that they will not use Afghan soil to destabilise Iran,” Rashid said.

11-7