Why Fear of Islamists Paralyzes the U.S. on Egypt

Egyptian antigovernment protesters attack riot police at the port city of Suez, Jan. 27, 2011

Mohamed Abd El-Ghany / Reuters

The language coming out of the Obama Administration as Egypt braces for another political showdown in the streets on Friday has verged on the bizarre. President Hosni Mubarak is hailed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her spokesman, P.J. Crowley, as an "anchor of stability" providing vital assistance to U.S. regional goals, yet the protests demanding his ouster are soothingly described as "an opportunity" for the regime to demonstrate that it is able to respond to the demands of its citizenry by means other than guns, batons and prison cells.

"Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people," Secretary Clinton said earlier this week, adding that the government "has an important opportunity at this moment in time to implement political, economic and social reforms." She urged the regime to refrain from blocking peaceful protest or shutting off communications networks — pleas that appear to have been ignored going into Friday as the government shut down Internet and SMS communication and arrested activists ahead of the demonstrations planned for after Friday prayers.

Mubarak may be listening more closely than Clinton is to what the protesters are saying: first and foremost among their "legitimate needs," by their own definition, is for Mubarak to step aside — a cause they have no place to press other than in the streets, since the regime has repeatedly rigged elections to keep Mubarak in power. He may be Washington's most important friend among Arab leaders, but those who will brave the wrath of his security forces in Egypt's streets on Friday believe he is a tyrant whose time is up.

Clinton's urging of Mubarak to make reforms and refrain from the temptation to simply crack down reflects lessons learned by the U.S. from the fall of other friendly autocrats, from the Shah of Iran in 1979 to Tunisia's Zine el Abidine Ben Ali earlier this month. Those governments failed to recognize the depth of popular anger and make sufficient political and economic concessions to defuse it. The Obama Administration is simply urging Mubarak to do what is necessary to preserve his regime — while recognizing that the order to fire on unarmed fellow citizens can provoke a crisis in the security forces that can bring down the regime.

Reform is not necessarily the same as democracy, however, and after 30 years under the same President, those who are taking to the streets want regime change rather than the kindlier, gentler Mubarak the U.S. would appear to prefer. The Obama Administration's dilemma over how to respond to Egypt's democracy movement became a little more acute on Thursday when the country's largest opposition party, the banned Muslim Brotherhood, declared its intention to openly participate in Friday's protests. Years of operating in conditions of twilight legality have given the Brotherhood an unrivaled organizational network — its members expect to be arrested and roughed up by the regime — and it is widely viewed as by far the most popular party in the opposition. That's a problem for the U.S., given its singular allergy to Islamist parties in the Arab world, particularly those that challenge its longtime allies.

Democracy movements are attractive to Washington when they target a regime such as Iran's, but in allied autocracies, they're a problem. There's no way for Egypt to be democratic and exclude the Islamists from political participation. The same is true for most other parts of the Arab world — a lesson the U.S. ought to have learned in Iraq, where Islamists have dominated all the democratically elected governments that followed Saddam Hussein's ouster. But when the Islamists of Hamas won the last Palestinian elections in 2006, held under pressure from Washington, the Bush Administration literally did a 180-degree turn on the question of Palestinian democracy. Meanwhile, much of the commentary on Ben Ali's ouster in Tunisia has hailed the apparent absence of Islamists from the protest movement, but that may be premature. After the repression they suffered under the dictatorship, Tunisia's Islamists have yet to emerge, as does the character of a new regime. Islamists may not dominate or even seek to, but don't bet against them becoming an integral part of Tunisian democracy.

There are many different models of Islamist politics competing with U.S. allies and with each other for support in the Middle East, ranging from the violent extremism of al-Qaeda to the modernizing, business-friendly democrats of Turkey's ruling AK Party. But they tend to share a hostility toward U.S. intervention in the region, and toward Israel.

Explaining why the U.S. continues to support Mubarak, the State Department's Crowley on Thursday told al-Jazeera that "Egypt is an anchor of stability in the Middle East ... It's made its own peace with Israel and is pursuing normal relations with Israel. We think that's important; we think that's a model that the region should adopt."

The problem for Washington is that Arab electorates are unlikely to agree. The democratically elected Iraqi government, for example, despite its dependence on U.S. support, has stated its refusal to normalize relations with Israel. A democratic Egypt, whether led by the Muslim Brotherhood or any other opposition party, is unlikely to go to war with Israel given the vast imbalance in military capability, but they're even less likely to accept normal ties given the present condition of the Palestinians. And the most secular liberal activists in Egypt reject with contempt the argument that regional stability can come at the expense of their right to choose their government.

Turkey, once its electorate was given a voice in matters of state, denied the U.S. the right to use its territory to invade Iraq. It has become more assertive in challenging both Israel and the U.S. strategy on Iran. Arab electorates are unlikely to give Washington the sort of support against Iran it gets from the region's pro-U.S. autocrats.

The problem the Administration now confronts is that backing autocrats who support U.S. regional policy is no longer simply uncomfortable given the values Washington professes to uphold: it's increasingly untenable as the forces of demographics, economics and technology gnaw at the bonds imposed by those autocrats. The Egyptians, young and old, that risk life and limb by taking to the streets on Friday may not have the patience for the pace and nature of change envisaged by Secretary Clinton.

By: Tony Karon (time magazine)

6 expenses you should never put on a credit card

There are some things experts say you should never put on a credit card if you can't pay the bill right away -- either because they're frivolous, or they can land you deep in debt or, in some cases, because there's a better alternative.

If you have plenty of money in your bank account, it can make sense to put just about any big purchase on your credit card because of the rewards , convenience and consumer protections that come with plastic. When you're broke, though, it's one thing to use your card for an emergency. It's quite another, however, to splurge on a mommy makeover, an island vacation or a diamond engagement ring .

Here are six credit card purchases experts say cash-strapped consumers should avoid at all costs.

1. A big tax bill. A tax bill from the IRS could make a nervous taxpayer reach for a credit card. But don't do it. "Federal income tax is right at the top of the list of things not to pay with a credit card," says David Jones, president of the Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies . "When people get in this type of situation, it's usually a fairly large tax bill, and it can be difficult to pay off those credit cards." In addition, you'll pay a processing fee that could be 2 percent or more of the total amount you pay by credit card.

The alternative: The IRS will set up a payment plan at a much lower interest rate than a credit card offers, experts say. "It's amazing, but the IRS actually charges less interest than anybody else. It's very low now, less than 5 percent," Jones says.

2. A gambling spree. Entrepreneur Rod Ebrahimi, who is developing an online financial application called ReadyforZero to help consumers pay down debt, says he has a friend who recently gambled away more than $3,000 taken from a credit card cash advance . "If you're sitting at a table in Vegas, they make it really easy to pull cash with your plastic. They'll process it for you, bring you some nice chips and you can keep on gambling," Ebrahimi says. "And a lot of people don't understand APRs for cash advances are much higher -- upward of 30 percent."

The alternative: If you have a gambling problem, seek counseling or other help, recommends Jones, who recently helped a client who had racked up $113,000 in credit card debt playing online poker . If gambling is more of a hobby, Ebrahimi recommends steering clear of casinos when you're short on cash -- or playing poker online without betting money.

3. College tuition. Experts say it's not smart to finance college tuition on credit cards. "College tuition can be a very significant expense," Jones says, noting that charging tuition on credit cards might make sense only if you know you'll be able to pay it off in full within three months.

The alternative: Experts recommend putting all options on the table. That includes grants, scholarships, low-interest student loans, a part-time job, attending community college for a few years or attending a less-expensive university. "It's a good idea to meet with a credit counselor to get some help understanding all of your options," Jones says. "Student loans can be a very good option, but you need to make a plan to repay them. Some people get into a huge amount of debt with student loans."

4. Plastic surgery. Reality shows such as "Extreme Makeover" make it seem routine to get nips, tucks and D-cups, but pulling out plastic to pay for it is a bad idea, experts say. "Most of it is vanity stuff, and charging that is crazy," Jones says. Carrie Coghill, a personal finance author and director of consumer education for FreeScore.com, says she increasingly sees consumers being swayed by medical spa sales pitches to charge seemingly less expensive procedures such as Botox injections and laser treatments. "It might cost $1,500 each time, but those things can really add up -- people get grabbed in, and it never ends," Coghill says. She cautions consumers to read the fine print on offers for medical credit cards, such as CareCredit, that offer a zero percent introductory rate. "The day you make a payment late, they typically will go back and charge you interest from day one," Coghill says.

The alternative: As with any luxury purchase, consumers should either save up for it -- or skip it, experts say.

5. A lavish wedding. One consumer who turned to Ebrahimi for help got into trouble by charging up $50,000 in credit card debt -- much of it on a big wedding followed by a honeymoon in Barcelona. "I think a lot of times people get caught up in the event and spend more than anticipated. It's very common to blow your budget," says Clarky Davis, a financial counselor who runs TheDebtDiva.com. Statistics show finances can cause tension between couples , so starting off married life by running up debt is a bad idea, Davis says. "When you come home from the honeymoon and have to face a monster credit card bill, it can cause a lot of stress," Davis says. "You can't focus on where you are right now because you're still paying off the past."

The alternative: Most experts recommend scaling back and focusing on meaningful, rather than material, aspects of the wedding. "The people you love could care less if there's an open bar or you're wearing a $5,000 dress," Davis says. "Stay within your means."

6. A trip for two. It's a bad idea to finance a vacation with plastic, experts say, and that goes double for paying someone else's tab, too. Monica Lichi, a nonprofit manager in Ohio, spent years paying off a Hawaiian cruise she took with an ex. "Neither of us had the money, so I said, 'Oh, I'll just put it on my credit card,'" Lichi recalls. After living it up on the trip -- they island-hopped, went ziplining and sipped fruity cocktails -- Lichi returned home to a huge bill. "The inconvenient part comes when you break up and they don't pay you back," says Lichi, who is using the online service DebtGoal.com to pay down her five-figure credit card debt.

The alternative: Well in advance, start making a monthly payment into a bank account -- the reverse of what you'd do if you paid with a card, Coghill recommends. "It feels so much better to pay in cash and not come back from vacation with a credit card hangover," she says. If you're going with a friend, an online service such as WePay.com can allow you to pool money in advance and pay expenses with a shared debit card rather than your credit card.

So, how do you stay sane with your credit cards? Experts recommend taking your time and avoiding impulsiveness, especially when money is tight. "If you're thinking about putting a vacation on a credit card, or even a pair of shoes, you should walk away, think about it and come back later," Coghill says. "If you're charging anything over $1,000, you really should be asking yourself, 'What am I doing?'"

See related: How to finance an engagement ring , Stuck with a tax bill? Here are your payment options , 4 key questions to ask when considering a cash advance , Saved by plastic: 5 true credit card tales , Tales from the credit crypt: Counselors' crazy debt stories

By: allie Johnson (yahoo.com)

Does going to college make you smarter—or poorer?

With top-tier colleges charging as much as $50,000 per year, the idea that students may spend their first two years learning next-to-nothing is enough to make parents pause. How can you make that investment worthwhile? And does going to college really make you smarter?

It depends on what you study—and whether you study enough.

A "Room for Debate" discussion at the New York Times earlier this week tackled the issue, with several academics weighing in on whether college is worthwhile, and whether schools are dumbing down their curricula to appeal to more people. In their new book, "Academically Adrift," sociologists Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia found that 32 percent of the students they followed did not take "any courses with more than 40 pages of reading per week" in a typical semester, and half of the students didn't take any course in which they had to write more than 20 pages for the class." Using these criteria, they determined that 45 percent of college students make little academic progress during the first two years of a four-year degree.

Their research raises a few red flags. On the one hand: Is it any surprise that a public school system forced to "teach to the test" churns out students who are averse (or flat-out unable) to thinking analytically, learn on their own, or write a research paper? On the other: Does the number of pages read + the number of pages written = an accurate assessment of academic progress? A literature or history major, for instance, would have far more reading to do than a math major, but the math workload isn't lighter lifting just because it involves reading fewer pages per week.

And yet, the case for students learning less is a compelling one: A March 2010 report by two University of California researchers found that the amount of time students spend studying has dropped drastically over the past 40 years, from 40 hours a week in 1961 to 27 hours a week in 2003. One possible reason? Colleges are spending less of their budgets on instruction and more of it on recreation and student services, according to a July 2010 report by the Delta Cost Project. Most colleges are businesses after all, and the pressure to attract new students (and more money) is intense.

So, if colleges are focusing on building spa-like rec centers and luxury dorms instead of improving their academics, is a college education even worth the money anymore? Many academics and experts still think it is.

"Yes, college is worth the money—if you choose 
your classes wisely, take advantage of campus activities that teach you
 hands-on, transferable skills, and attend a school that gives you the
 strength and courage to focus on what you enjoy doing," says Steven Roy Goodman, an educational consultant and admissions strategist at Topcolleges.com.

"Going to college brings other important benefits, such as more developed analytical, numerical and communication skills, that will help you perform in the workplace and progress up the career ladder," agrees Danny Byrne, an undergraduate specialist and content manager for TopUniversities.com "College will introduce you to intelligent people from a huge range of backgrounds, and as your career progresses the value of this network of contacts may prove to be immeasurable."

Those types of things are difficult to assess in a survey or on a test, though. Which may be why so many educators and students take issue with the idea that college freshmen and sophomores are slacking off instead of studying.

"Even if a student enters college with no career goals, college is the best place to discover those goals," points out Robert Neuman, former Associate Dean for Academic Development in the College of Arts and Sciences at Milwaukee's Marquette University and the author of "Are You Really Ready for College: A College Dean’s 12 Secrets for Success." "The more education anyone has, the more advantages he or she will have in the job market."

Some point out that the skills you gain matter more than the degree you earn.

"For me, college is about a life experience," says Jim Joseph, president of independent marketing firm Lippe Taylor. "Is it vital to getting ahead? Not sure anymore. With entrepreneurialism at an new high, you just need a good idea and some determination to make a name for yourself. Or if you have a specific skill set, there are many ways to build and exploit that."

University of Florida graduate Candy Keane now runs a business ( Three Muses, a clothing store) that has nothing to do with her degree (in magazine journalism). But still, "I could not have done all that I have without what I learned from college," she says. "I learned graphic design, layout, photography, Photoshop, PR, writing, web design—all the things that I was able to use and build on to start my business myself."

So what courses should a college-bound kid take in order to make the most of his or her (or your) time and money? The experts and students we talked to suggested that all students take these types of classes, regardless of their majors or grad-school plans:

• Public speaking or acting
• Sales
• Marketing
• Public relations
• Entrepreneurship
• Computer programming, especially HTML
• Introduction to psychology
• Introduction to economics
• Communication/Writing
• Internships that offer hands-on experience in a field

"Yes, college is certainly worth the money!" says David Reynaldo, co-founder of College Zoom. "Had I not gone to college, I never would have found the network, inspiration, or know how to make my dream come true."

By: Lylah l. alphonse (yahoo.com)

Egyptian Youths Drive the Revolt Against Mubarak

Protesters in Cairo on Wednesday defied a ban on public gatherings, risking clashes with riot police officers.

For decades, Egypt’s authoritarian president, Hosni Mubarak, played a clever game with his political opponents.

He tolerated a tiny and toothless opposition of liberal intellectuals whose vain electoral campaigns created the facade of a democratic process. And he demonized the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood as a group of violent extremists who posed a threat that he used to justify his police state.

But this enduring and, many here say, all too comfortable relationship was upended this week by the emergence of an unpredictable third force, the leaderless tens of thousands of young Egyptians who turned out to demand an end to Mr. Mubarak’s 30-year rule.

Now the older opponents are rushing to catch up.

“It was the young people who took the initiative and set the date and decided to go,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Wednesday with some surprise during a telephone interview from his office in Vienna, shortly before rushing home to Cairo to join the revolt.

Dr. ElBaradei, a Nobel prize winner, has been the public face of an effort to reinvigorate and unite Egypt’s fractious and ineffective opposition since he plunged into his home country’s politics nearly a year ago, and he said the youth movement had accomplished that on its own. “Young people are impatient,” he said. “Frankly, I didn’t think the people were ready.”

But their readiness — tens of thousands have braved tear gas, rubber bullets and security police officers notorious for torture — has threatened to upstage or displace the traditional opposition groups.

Many of the tiny, legally recognized political parties — more than 20 in total, with scarcely a parlor full of grass-roots supporters among them — are leaping to embrace the new movement for change but lack credibility with the young people in the street.

Even the Muslim Brotherhood may have grown too protective of its own institutions and position to capitalize on the new youth movement, say some analysts and former members. The Brotherhood remains the organization in Egypt with the largest base of support outside the government, but it can no longer claim to be the only entity that can turn masses of people out into the streets.

“The Brotherhood is no longer the most effective player in the political arena,” said Emad Shahin, an Egyptian scholar now at the University of Notre Dame. “If you look at the Tunisian uprising, it’s a youth uprising. It is the youth that knows how to use the media, Internet, Facebook, so there are other players now.”

Dr. ElBaradei, for his part, has struggled for nearly a year to unite the opposition under his umbrella group, the National Association for Change. But some have mocked him as a globe-trotting dilettante who spends much of his time abroad instead of on the barricades.

He has said in interviews that he never presented himself as a political savior, and that Egyptians would have to make their own revolution. Now, he said, the youth movement “will give them the self-confidence they needed, to know that the change will happen through you and not through one person — you are the driving force.”

And Dr. ElBaradei argued that by upsetting the old relationship between Mr. Mubarak and the Brotherhood, the youth movement posed a new challenge to United States policy makers as well.

“For years,” he said, “the West has bought Mr. Mubarak’s demonization of the Muslim Brotherhood lock, stock and barrel, the idea that the only alternative here are these demons called the Muslim Brotherhood who are the equivalent of Al Qaeda.”

He added: “I am pretty sure that any freely and fairly elected government in Egypt will be a moderate one, but America is really pushing Egypt and pushing the whole Arab world into radicalization with this inept policy of supporting repression.”

The roots of the uprising that filled Egypt’s streets this week arguably stretch back to before the Tunisian revolt, which many protesters cited as the catalyst. Almost three years ago, on April 6, 2008, the Egyptian government crushed a strike by a group of textile workers in the industrial city of Mahalla, and in response a group of young activists who connected through Facebook and other social networking Web sites formed the April 6th Youth Movement in solidarity with the strikers.

Their early efforts to call a general strike were a bust. But over time their leaderless online network and others that sprang up around it — like the networks that helped propel the Tunisian revolution — were uniquely difficult for the Egyptian security police to pinpoint or wipe out. It was an online rallying cry for a show of opposition to tyranny, corruption and torture that brought so many to the streets on Tuesday and Wednesday, unexpectedly vaulting the online youth movement to the forefront as the most effective independent political force in Egypt.

“It would be criminal for any political party to claim credit for the mini-Intifada we had yesterday,” said Hossam el-Hamalawy, a blogger and activist.

Mr. Mubarak’s government, though, is so far sticking to a familiar script. Against all evidence, his interior minister immediately laid blame for Wednesday’s unrest at the foot of the government’s age-old foe, the Muslim Brotherhood.

This time, though, the Brotherhood disclaimed responsibility, saying it was only one part of Dr. ElBaradei’s umbrella group. “People took part in the protests in a spontaneous way, and there is no way to tell who belonged to what,” said Gamal Nassar, a media adviser for the Brotherhood, noting the near-total absence of any group’s signs or slogans, including the Brotherhood’s.

“Everyone is suffering from social problems, unemployment, inflation, corruption and oppression,” he said. “So what everyone is calling for is real change.”

The Brotherhood operates a large network of schools and charities that make up for the many failings of government social services. Some analysts charge that the institutional inertia may make the Brotherhood slow to rock the Egyptian ship of state.

“The Brotherhood has been very silent,” said Amr Hamzawy, research director at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. “It is not a movement that can benefit from what has been happening and get people out in the street.”

Nor, Dr. ElBaradei argued, does the Muslim Brotherhood merit the fear its name evokes in the West. Its membership embraces large numbers of professors, lawyers and other professionals as well as followers who benefit from its charities. It has not committed or condoned acts of violence since the uprising against the British-backed Egyptian monarchy six decades ago, and it has endorsed his call for a pluralistic civil democracy.

“They are a religiously conservative group, no question about it, but they also represent about 20 percent of the Egyptian people,” he said. “And how can you exclude 20 percent of the Egyptian people?”

Dr. ElBaradei, with his international prestige, is a difficult critic for Mr. Mubarak’s government to jail, harass or besmirch, as it has many of his predecessors. And Dr. ElBaradei eases concerns about Islamists by putting a secular, liberal and familiar face on the opposition.

But he has been increasingly outspoken in his criticism of the West. He was stunned, he said, by the reaction of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Egyptian protests. In a statement after Tuesday’s clashes, she urged restraint but described the Egyptian government as “stable” and “looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”

“ ‘Stability’ is a very pernicious word,” he said. “Stability at the expense of 30 years of martial law, rigged elections?” He added, “If they come later and say, as they did in Tunis, ‘We respect the will of the Tunisian people,’ it will be a little late in the day.”

Mona El-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo.

The Role Model: What Obama Sees in Reagan

(l. to r.) Michael Evans / Zumapress; J. Scott Applewhite / AP

In May 2010, Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to the White House for a working supper in the Family Dining Room. It was the second time he'd had the group in since taking office, and as he sat down across the table from his wife Michelle, the President pressed his guests for lessons from his predecessors. But as the conversation progressed, it became clear to several in the room that Obama seemed less interested in talking about Lincoln's team of rivals or Kennedy's Camelot than the accomplishments of an amiable conservative named Ronald Reagan, who had sparked a revolution three decades earlier when he arrived in the Oval Office. Obama and Reagan share a number of gifts but virtually no priorities. And yet Obama was clearly impressed by the way Reagan had transformed Americans' attitude about government. The 44th President regarded the 40th, said one participant, as a vital "point of reference." Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries and attended the May dinner, left with a clear impression that Obama had found a role model. "There are policies, and there is persona, and a lot can be told by persona," he says. "Obama is approaching the job in a Reaganesque fashion."

When Obama stood before Congress, the Cabinet and the American people to deliver his second State of the Union address, both the Reagan persona and policies put in appearances. He proposed a freeze in discretionary spending and federal salaries, a push to simplify the tax code and billions in cuts to the defense budget, and he made new calls for a bipartisan effort to repair Social Security. Each of these had been proposed before by another third-year President coming off a midterm defeat in a period of high unemployment. "Let us, in these next two years — men and women of both parties, every political shade — concentrate on the long-range, bipartisan responsibilities of government," Reagan said in his 1983 State of the Union, "not the short-range or short-term temptations of partisan politics."

At a glance, it's hard to imagine a President who had less in common with Reagan than the Ivy League lawyer from Hawaii who seeks larger federal investments, a bigger social safety net and new regulations for Wall Street and Big Oil. But under the surface, there is no mistaking Obama's increasing reliance on his predecessor's career as a helpful template for his own. Since the November elections, Obama has brought corporate executives into the White House, reached out to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and made compromise his new watchword. He signed a surprise $858 billion tax cut that would have made Reagan weep with joy and huddled with Reagan's former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein for lessons learned when the Gipper governed amid economic troubles. Over the Christmas break, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted that Obama was reading a Reagan biography, and just to confirm the bond, Obama recently wrote an homage to Reagan for USA Today. "Reagan recognized the American people's hunger for accountability and change," Obama wrote, conferring on Reagan two of his most cherished political slogans.

Every man who occupies the Oval Office discovers that the place is haunted — by both the achievements and the failures of his predecessors. It is only natural for them to ask, How will I stack up? Where will history rank me? And do I really belong here with the likes of Washington, Jefferson and all the rest? LBJ worried constantly about Eisenhower's opinion. Reagan often modeled himself in style on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for whom he cast his first vote for President, in 1932. George H.W. Bush asked himself, Can I be another Teddy Roosevelt? When George W. Bush was asked after his first term whether he thought more or less highly of any of his predecessors, he replied that having sat in the chair himself, he thought more highly of all of them.

Obama's affection for Reagan's political style carries with it a clear self-interest. White House aides gaze fondly at the arc of the Reagan presidency in part because they pray Obama's will mirror it. Both men entered office in wave elections in which the political center made a historic shift. Both faced deep economic downturns with spiking unemployment in their first term. Both relied heavily on the power of oratory. "Our hope," admits Gibbs, "is the story ends the same way."

What Reagan Taught Obama
In many ways, the Gipper gave Obama his start. Obama's first public political act occurred on Feb. 18, 1981, just 29 days after Reagan took the oath of office in Washington. The 19-year-old sophomore, who had just abandoned the nickname Barry for his birth name Barack, climbed onto an outdoor stage at Occidental College to urge his school to divest from companies doing business in apartheid South Africa. "There's a struggle going on," he called out. "I say, there's a struggle going on." As he spoke, Reagan was already laying the groundwork to shift U.S. policy on South Africa in the opposite direction, giving cover to the all-white government under a policy called constructive engagement.

In the years that followed, Reagan would come to epitomize all that Obama opposed. Reagan cut social spending in America's cities, backed what Obama called "death squads" in El Salvador and began to build what Obama regarded as an "ill conceived" missile-defense shield. "I personally came of age during the Reagan presidency," Obama wrote later, recalling the classroom debates in his courses on international affairs. When he graduated from Columbia in 1983, Obama decided to become a community organizer. "I'd pronounce the need for change," Obama wrote in his memoir. "Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds." A decade later, he was still at it, leading a 1992 Illinois voter-registration effort aimed at breaking the Reagan coalition's hold on his state's electoral votes.

But in Obama's story line, Reagan has been more than just the antagonist. As the 1980s rolled on and Obama matured, Reagan became a model for leadership. The attraction was less substantive than stylistic and instinctive. Both had strong mothers and dysfunctional fathers. Both prided themselves on bringing people together. Obama even conceded that he sometimes felt the emotional pull of Reagan's vision. "I understood his appeal," Obama recalled in his second book, The Audacity of Hope. "Reagan spoke to America's longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies." The Great Communicator, it seems, had struck a chord.

This admiration stayed with Obama after he rose to the U.S. Senate and as he weighed a run at the White House. In late 2006, his top strategist, David Axelrod, laid out an Obama-as-Reagan theory of the race. "I remember talking about the fact that this had the potential to be one of those big-change elections like 1980," Axelrod says now. "The Republican project seemed to have run out of gas." Axelrod believed the political pendulum, which had swung left with the New Deal and had been reversed by Reagan, was once again reaching the end of its arc.

Among Obama loyalists, the Reagan theory was received wisdom, and for political reasons it was closely held. In January 2008, Obama broke cover. "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," Obama told a newspaper editorial board in Nevada. "He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is, We want clarity, we want optimism." Obama's comments inflamed the Democratic left (not to mention the Clinton operation), but his aides thought little of it at the time. "I basically told headquarters, 'Sorry I didn't call this in,'" remembers Gibbs, who was traveling with Obama at the time. "I had just heard him say this so many times."

In the 2008 general election, Obama's aides saw their challenge as the same one Reagan faced against Jimmy Carter: a need to demonstrate authority and credibility to the American people, many of whom thought Reagan might not be suitable as Commander in Chief. While Reagan solidified his support in a televised debate with Carter, Obama did it by outmaneuvering John McCain with his far steadier handling of the financial collapse. Obama's campaign team even sought for a time to stage an event at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, where Reagan made history.

Theory into Practice
Shortly after the election, reporters Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson asked Obama if he thought his victory marked the end of the Reagan era. "What Reagan ushered in was a skepticism toward government solutions to every problem," Obama said. "I don't think that has changed." But then he went on to say he believed his election would spell "an end to the knee-jerk reaction toward the New Deal and Big Government." In Obama's mind, his election was not an endorsement of the outsize government role that Reagan battled — bureaucratic, ever expanding, self-interested — but a cry for government that could carry out its basic missions more effectively. "I think what you're seeing is a correction to the correction," Obama explained.

That's not the sort of slogan that fits easily on a bumper sticker. One reason was that, unlike Reagan's, Obama's central theme remains somewhat mysterious. No one was unclear about Reagan's guiding philosophy: "Government is the problem," he declared on his Inauguration Day, and by then he had been saying it for nearly 20 years. Obama's is more complex. He wants to reset the public's attitude toward government, reverse 30 years of skepticism and mistrust and usher in a new era in which government solutions are again seen as part of the answer to the nation's ills. But the yearlong health care debate only reminded Americans of government's tendency to slow things down, muddle the choices and perhaps make them more expensive. A September Gallup poll found that 7 in 10 Americans had a negative impression of the federal government; they used words like too big, confused and corrupt to describe it. Obama's signature initiative, a vast expansion of the federal role in health care, has mostly polled under 50% since mid-2009.

Yet even the midterm wipeout has become part of the borrowed Reagan script. For months, aides like Axelrod warned Obama to expect a drop in the polls like the one Reagan suffered during the 1982 recession. Reagan "wasn't the Great Communicator then," notes one senior Obama aide. Just as Reagan's revolutionary agenda coincided with a historic recession, massive unemployment and a humbling defeat in the 1982 midterms, the story went, Obama's new spending programs coincided with a historic recession, deep unemployment and midterms that cost the Democrats control of Congress. As the 2010 elections approached, White House aides struggled to recast press expectations in the mold of Reagan's early struggles. "The most analogous election to the midterms probably isn't the environment Clinton faced in 1994," argued communications director Dan Pfeiffer. "It's the one Reagan faced in 1982."

This is where the Obama-Reagan comparison begins to break down. Lou Cannon, who wrote the Reagan biography that Obama read on vacation, points out that economic growth in the U.S. in the four quarters following the 1982 elections averaged a steroidal 7%. Most economists expect the U.S. economy to grow no more than half as fast this year. "If you were to say to anyone now that the U.S. would have a 7% growth rate in 2011, they would be writing the second Inaugural speech already," says Cannon.

Duberstein, Reagan's chief of staff, believes that Obama and Reagan share some traits: both loners more than backslappers, both heavily reliant on their spouses, both more trusting of their instincts than their advisers. But the 44th President has some ways to go before matching the 40th in the communications department. "Obama for the first two years has tried to forge a consensus in Washington," Duberstein says. "He needs to take a page from Reagan and forge a consensus in America. Let his aides worry about the back and forth in D.C. He needs to be communicating with the American people."

When Obama's Jan. 25 speech soared highest, it streaked far above Washington's often pointless political skirmishes and spoke directly to the nation's pride. "As contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be," the President said, "I know there isn't a person here who would trade places with any other nation on earth."

Blessed by Weakened Rivals
Historians have noticed that Obama's current situation shares one other similarity with the dark days of the Reagan era: the eroding unity of their opponents. Democrats were splitting in two in the early 1980s, into a labor-backed left and a new group of moderates who wanted to move the party to the center. Today, Obama faces a Republican Party that is struggling to reconcile its traditional, business-friendly wing and the upstart, impatient Tea Party faction. The split is starting to be distracting for the GOP. After Obama's speech, Republicans came back with two responses — one from the party's leadership and one from a junior Congresswoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann, under the Tea Party banner. Bachmann said she did not intend "to compete with the official Republican remarks," but that was exactly the effect. "It was problematic and confusing for the Republican Party," says Mark McKinnon, a former strategist for John McCain. When reporters asked McCain about the Bachmann rebuttal, he said with a wink, "It's a free country."

Reagan's fiercest defenders naturally are suspicious about Obama's bromance with Reagan. "He's been trying to unspool everything Reagan stood for," says one old hand. Nor is the Reagan role model something the President can really boast about to his nervous allies on the left. Obama will not take part in the 100th birthday celebration for Reagan at Simi Valley, Calif., in early March, though he may have something to contribute when a black-tie gala is held in Washington later this spring.

Obama invited Nancy Reagan to the White House 19 months ago, when he signed legislation creating a commission to plan for her husband's centennial. The meeting was cordial and generous on both sides. Nancy and Michelle Obama had lunch. Nancy, who in her ninth decade retains a healthy sense of humor, didn't miss a chance to point out one difference between Obama and her late husband. "You're a lefty," she said as Obama inked the Reagan commission into law.

"I am a lefty," Obama replied. A lefty who wants to be remembered just like Ronnie.

By: Michael Duffy (time magazine)

Is Egypt About to Have a Facebook Revolution?

Egyptians hold up Tunisian national flags as they take part in a gathering in Cairo of support for the latest developments in Tunisia on Jan. 15, 2011

The Middle East is walking into an anxious week after a busy weekend, one that saw authoritarian regimes from Algeria to Yemen experience the ripple effect of the fall of Tunisia's President, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali.

Large antigovernment demonstrations broke out in Jordan, Yemen and Algeria, while more men — particularly in Egypt and Algeria — have joined the ranks of self-immolators inspired by Mohammed Bouazizi, the Tunisian whose suicide sparked that country's revolution. "What is very important about what happened in Tunisia, regardless of whether it spreads, is that it certainly raised a lot of hope among Egyptians and among other Arab people in different countries," explains Hassan Nafaa, a political-science professor at Cairo University and a vocal critic of the regime of President Hosni Mubarak.

Beyond the wave of protests, that hope has found a voice in independent newspapers across the region and in new, audacious political demands made by opposition groups. In Jordan and Yemen, analysts say, verbal attacks by opposition groups show an unprecedented confidence and ferocity, including calls by Jordanian opposition members to have an elected Prime Minister and turn King Abdullah of Jordan's nominally constitutional monarchy into a real one.

On Facebook, more than 85,000 people have pledged to attend a nationwide antigovernment protest planned for Tuesday, Jan. 25, in Egypt. It's an effort that has so far been facilitated almost entirely online, and if even half that many people show up, it will be a historic day for Egyptian political activism under the Mubarak regime. The "Revolution Day" Facebook page presents a list of demands for Mubarak's nearly 30-year-old administration, ranging from raising the minimum wage to limiting presidential terms. "There are definitely interesting things that are happening. [Tunisia] has injected new energy in terms of the demands being articulated by opposition movements in the Middle East," says Kent State political scientist Joshua Stacher. But, Stacher clarifies, voicing a demand is different from seeing that demand realized.

The Egyptian regime, to its credit, seems to be aware of that distinction — or at least the necessity of maintaining the status quo while allowing for a bit of steam to be blown off. Local media reported over the weekend that business owners had been told to keep their doors shut on Tuesday, and some members of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood say they received warnings from state security against participating in the protests. Meanwhile, some of the organizing activists worry that their technique has been flawed from the start. "The first thing was fixing the dates and places," says 20-year-old activist Khaled Kamel of the main Facebook site, which lists four specific Cairo locations for the protest. "Because of that, security is going to be prepared."

As for social-network mobilization, observers say that Facebook is easier than word of mouth or cell-phone use for the government to monitor. Some say the strategy also makes events actually more of a free-for-all and less tactical as an instrument of dissent. "What we've seen time and time again is that this organizing on the Internet actually leads to more fragmentation," says Stacher. The government "will mobilize a great number of security forces," predicts Nafaa. "Security forces are very concentrated in a city like Cairo. It's easy for them to intercept the demonstrators."

Other analysts say that at least the region's governments seem worried — and that's a start. "The authorities were scared," says Nafaa; he adds that this has been reflected in the press and will be reflected in the streets tomorrow: "Not only did the official media emphasize [the bad side of] what's going on in Tunisia, but the government also tried to prevent any writing about similarities between the Tunisians and the Egyptian regime."

Egypt isn't the only regime that has sought to publicly distance its predicament from that of ill-fated President Ben Ali. "Yemen is not Tunisia," Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh said at an annual military-security conference, according to the Yemen Observer, after a weekend that saw sometimes violent protests. He added, "I would ask for pardon from the people if I made mistakes or I fell short of my duties. Only God is perfect."

For Egypt, so far, the impact of Tunisia has been less tangible but still troubling to officials. The Egyptian stock market fell 8% last week, owing to investor fears of instability, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said Sunday. And local independent media reported that a government-backed group had started printing pro-Mubarak posters and T-shirts to counter Tuesday's protest.

The state news wire said over the weekend that the recent spate of suicides — many by self-immolation like Tunisia's Bouazizi — were due to personal problems, not the perpetrators' unemployment woes. And state newspapers were flooded with stories about the upcoming celebration of Egypt's police forces, a holiday that the Tuesday protest coincides with.

In a Sunday op-ed in Al-Ahram Weekly, Abdel Moneim Said, the state-appointed president of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, attributed the regional fallout from Tunisia to little more than "media sensationalism" and "groupthink" by Western think tanks obsessing over the "impending eruption of suppressed popular fury." But if all 85,000 Facebook attendees of tomorrow's "Revolution Day" actually show up, Said might have his theory put to the test.

By: Abigail Hauslohner (time magazine)

Obama Climate Adviser Stepping Down

(WASHINGTON) — President Barack Obama's top adviser on energy and climate matters is stepping down, two White House officials confirmed Monday. The departure of Carol Browner underscores that there will be no major White House push on climate change, given that such efforts have little chance of succeeding on Capitol Hill.

Browner, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President Bill Clinton, will be leaving the White House just as Republicans in Congress prepare to take on the Obama administration over global warming and the administration's response to the massive Gulf oil spill.

Browner successfully helped negotiate a deal with automakers boosting federal fuel economy standards and requiring the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. She also pushed for billions of dollars for renewable energy in the economic stimulus bill.

But the administration fell short on it key domestic priority of passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill to place a firm limit on the pollution blamed for global warming. Just after the November elections, which gave Republicans a majority of seats in the House, Obama admitted the legislation was dead.

One White House official said Monday that Browner was "confident that the mission of her office will remain critical to the president." The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Browner was "pleased" with the clean energy commitment Obama would lay out in his State of the Union address Tuesday and in his budget request.

Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani, said Browner's exit could "be a part of a legitimate effort to pay careful attention to addressing some of the real regulatory obstacles in the way of job creation."

Besides regulations to curb global warming, industry groups — and Republicans on Capitol Hill — are questioning a host of EPA rules targeting other air pollutants as job killers that will increase the costs of doing business.

And recently Browner's office had come under scrutiny for politicizing the response to the massive Gulf oil spill. The commission set up by Obama to investigate the disaster said Browner misconstrued on national television the findings of a federal scientific report by saying most of the oil was gone. The White House later said she misspoke.

Browner's office also has been criticized by the Interior Department inspector general for editing a department document in a manner that implied scientists supported the administration's decision to place a moratorium on deep water drilling. The commission found no evidence that the change made was intentional, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar later apologized for the misunderstanding.

By: AP (time magazine)

Hezbollah Chooses Lebanon’s Next Prime Minister

Bryan Denton for The New York Times Sunni supporters of Saad Hariri blocked the main road into the neighborhood of Tariq Jadida in protest of Hezbollah’s candidate, Najib Miqati.

BEIRUT, Lebanon — A prime minister chosen by Hezbollah and its allies won enough support on Monday to form Lebanon’s government, unleashing angry protests, realigning politics and culminating the generation-long ascent of the Shiite Muslim movement from shadowy militant group to the country’s pre-eminent political and military force.

Hezbollah’s success served as a stark measure of the shifting constellation of power in this part of the Middle East, where the influence of the United States and its Arab allies — Egypt and Saudi Arabia — is seen by politicians and diplomats as receding, while Iran and Syria have become more assertive.

American diplomats tried to forestall the triumph of Hezbollah’s candidate, Najib Miqati. Although the final votes will be cast Tuesday, Mr. Miqati won the decisive vote from a politician who said he had to deal “with the reality on the ground.”

The government that Mr. Miqati, a billionaire and former prime minister, forms may in the end look much like past cabinets in this small Mediterranean country. Indeed, Mr. Miqati struck a conciliatory tone, calling himself a consensus candidate.

But the symbolism of Hezbollah’s choosing Lebanon’s prime minister was vast, potentially serving as the beginning of a new era for a combustible country whose conflicts have long entangled the United States, Iran and Syria. A practical impact may be the realignment of Lebanon away from the United States, which treated the government of Prime Minister Saad Hariri as an ally.

“The country is moving from one stage to another, from one approach to another,” declared Michel Aoun, a Christian leader and key ally of Hezbollah.

By nightfall, angry opponents of Hezbollah took to the streets in parts of Beirut, Tripoli and other cities, burning tires, shouting slogans and offering at least an image of what many feared Hezbollah’s victory might unleash: strife among communities in a country almost evenly divided over questions of foreign patrons; posture toward Israel; and the relative power of Lebanon’s Shiite Muslims, represented by Hezbollah, and its Sunni foes.

Acrid smoke billowed into a nighttime sky, as barricades temporarily blocked some roads into Beirut before security forces dispersed the demonstrators. Hezbollah’s foes called for “a day of anger in all of Lebanon” on Tuesday, and martial language and cries of treason began punctuating the public discourse.

“Down with Hezbollah! Down with Miqati!” young men shouted in Beirut.

Like so many crises in Lebanon, this one is maddeningly complex. It revolves around a United Nations-backed tribunal set up in 2007 to investigate the assassination of a former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, who was killed with 22 others in a spectacular bombing along Beirut’s seafront in February 2005.

Hezbollah has denied any role in the killing, but by its own admission, its members were named in indictments handed to a judge last week, though not yet made public. It demanded that the government of Mr. Hariri’s son, Saad, end its cooperation with the court. When he refused, Hezbollah and its allies withdrew, forcing the government’s collapse after a 14-month tenure that brought some calm here.

The country is almost evenly split in its attitudes toward the court. Hezbollah’s supporters believe it is hopelessly compromised, amounting to little more than an American-Israeli tool to bludgeon the movement. Mr. Hariri’s supporters believe the vehemence of Hezbollah’s reaction only underlines its guilt in the assassination.

To form a new government, one that would denounce the tribunal’s indictments and end Lebanon’s cooperation, Hezbollah needed at least 65 of the 128 Parliament members. Diplomats and politicians say they now have that number.

Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, pledged Sunday to respect the institutions of the state and work toward what he called “a partnership government.”

But Mr. Hariri, who effectively leads the Sunni Muslim community, has insisted he will not join the new government, meaning that a cabinet supposed to be built on consensus will lack representation of one of the country’s main communities.

Though Mr. Hariri and Mr. Miqati are both Sunnis — by tradition, the sect that occupies the prime minister position — Mr. Hariri has far more support among Sunnis.

“It will not be easy for them to control Lebanon alone,” warned Antoine Zahra, a Christian lawmaker allied with Mr. Hariri’s bloc. “They will turn it into an isolated country, ostracized by the Arab world and the international community.”

He called Mr. Miqati’s victory “a constitutional coup.”

In a tense city, everyone seemed to have an opinion on what the new government represented. With Mr. Miqati’s elevation, the Shiite community that Hezbollah represents has formalized a reality that has been clear since 2008, when Hezbollah and its allies seized parts of Beirut. The movement and, by default, its Shiite constituency are the pre-eminent players in a country still beholden to rules laid down by its Christian and Sunni Muslim representatives.

The new equation was best illustrated by Walid Jumblatt, a mercurial politician who went from being an ally of Hezbollah to one of its most outspoken foes to ally again. “No victor, no vanquished,” goes the formula Lebanon has long touted as the key to stability in a country inclined to crisis. On Monday, Mr. Jumblatt dismissed its validity.

“In Lebanon, there is always a loser,” he said before voting for Mr. Miqati.

The Obama administration was expected to urge the new government not to work against the tribunal, which Hezbollah contends is being used as an American tool to put pressure on it, along with its allies, Iran and Syria. The United States has said the tribunal itself could serve as a way to end a long tradition of having assassination serve as just another weapon in crises here.

“Our expectation is that any new government would continue to live up to its international obligations to support the activities of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon,” a senior United States diplomat said.

Israel, with which Hezbollah fought a monthlong war in 2006, has warned of the implications of the new cabinet. In a radio interview, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom described it as effectively “an Iranian government on Israel’s northern border.”

Mr. Miqati’s elevation represents another turn in the long odyssey of Hezbollah, which was forged with Iranian support in the destruction of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

It has evolved from the clandestine group blamed for two attacks on the American Embassy and the 1983 bombing of the United States Marine barracks here that killed 240, into an expansive movement with an armed militia more powerful than the Lebanese Army and a sprawling infrastructure that delivers welfare services to its Shiite constituency.

Over those decades, its political role has grown as well, particularly when it felt vulnerable and felt it needed safeguards in Beirut.

The risks from Mr. Miqati’s selection, though, are numerous: from deepening sectarian strife that could tarnish Hezbollah’s formidable reputation in the predominantly Sunni Arab world to the growth of Sunni militancy in resentful locales like Tripoli and the region beyond it.

“Forming a government is not something Hezbollah has been enthusiastic about because they know it exposes them to very serious risks,” said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center. “Their preferred mode of operation is in the background.”

By: Anthony Shadid (ny times)

Bomb Kills Two on Philippine Bus, Maims 18

(MANILA, Philippines) — A powerful explosion ripped through a passenger bus in the Philippine capital on Tuesday, killing at least two people and wounding at least 18 others, officials said.

The explosion was so powerful that it punched a hole in a nearby concrete fence along metropolitan Manila's main highway in suburban Makati city, Mayor Junjun Binay said.

The bus was approaching a commuter railway station when the blast occurred inside the vehicle, taking out half of its front windshield, punching holes in windows and immediately killing a female passenger near the center of the explosion, Binay said.

He said the damage indicated that it was caused by a bomb.

He said one hospital reported two people dead and 18 wounded.

Metro Manila police chief Nicanor Bartolome said "an explosive" must have been placed under a passenger seat somewhere in the middle of the bus where it caused a "big hole" in the vehicle large enough for a man to pass through.

Bomb investigators were examining the debris to determine the type of explosives used, he said.

Binay said he was one of the first at the scene, describing the carnage to reporters.

"There were bones and flesh on the pavement. A bloodied body was still there. This is an act of terrorism," he said.

It wasn't immediately clear how many people were on the bus, but some were unharmed. Officials temporarily blocked traffic on the highway, causing a massive gridlock on Manila's busiest thoroughfare.

By: time magazine

The Moscow Airport Bombing: How Will Putin Respond?

Medics wheel a victim of a bomb explosion at Moscow Domodedovo Airport from an emergency vehicle into the N.V. Sklifosovsky Scientific Research Institute of First Aid in Moscow on Jan. 24, 2011

The scene was horrific, and after the subway bombings that shocked Moscow last March, it was also tragically familiar. Early Monday evening, Jan. 24, the blast from another suicide attack filled the arrivals hall of Moscow's largest airport with piles of bodies, severed limbs and plumes of smoke. This time, at least 31 people were killed and more than 150 injured in what President Dmitri Medvedev immediately deemed an act of terrorism. But as he surely knows, his credibility and that of the government are among the victims. With this attack occurring less than a year after the subway slaughter that killed some 40 people, it seems unlikely that Russians will be reassured about security even if Prime Minister Vladimir Putin — the country's strongman and Medvedev's mentor — steps in.

Police cited surveillance tapes indicating that a man bearing the bomb apparently snuck past lax security to enter the airport terminal. It is not yet clear whether he was the same man police were looking for earlier Monday morning, when they swept through the Moscow suburb of Zelenograd. According to police sources quoted in the Russian press, that raid was prompted by a tip that a terrorist attack was about to take place. But no arrests were made, and no warnings were issued to the public. Since the airport blast, the police have claimed that the attacker came from the same mountains in the North Caucasus as the two female suicide bombers who struck the Moscow metro during the morning commute on March 29, 2010. Those mountains are a breeding ground for Islamist terrorists who have been fighting for more than a decade to break away from Moscow's rule.

Though shaken by the March bombings, Muscovites have since shrugged at reports of would-be terrorists in their midst — perhaps comforted by a crackdown in the Caucasus in April. There was little alarm on Dec. 10 when police arrested a woman from the Caucasus suspected of preparing a suicide attack in Moscow: the news was given short shrift by the Russian press, and the government did not visibly increase security in the capital. "Clearly, it does not take long for people to be lulled into a sense of security, especially when they are only confronted with the danger [from the North Caucasus] when it is too late, when it comes to Moscow," says Pavel Baev, an expert on the region at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo.

Typically, it is Putin's job to calm the public by pledging to "liquidate" terrorists or to "drown them in the outhouse," as he did after each of the dozen terrorist attacks to hit Moscow on his watch. But so far he has restrained his bravado, limiting his public statements to a perfunctory meeting with the Health Minister, whom he urged to make sure that the victims of Monday's attack get help. That left Medvedev, a far less nimble rhetorician, to fumble for an explanation. "What happened suggests that far from every one of the laws that should be working is working in some places," he said at an emergency meeting of his security chiefs — hardly the kind of verbal toughness that Russians expect from their leaders.

But talking tough may have seemed inappropriate after the failures of Russia's antiterrorism campaign over the past few months. In November, Medvedev rebuked police officials for giving him what he called "crap" statistics to mask the region's terrorist activity, which has continued to soar even after the crackdown that followed the subway blasts. On Dec. 8, the General Prosecutor's office admitted that terrorist attacks in the North Caucasus quadrupled in 2010. And now it has again returned to Moscow, forcing the city's residents to call loved ones to check on whether they were among the latest batch of victims. For some, it is beginning to feel like a ritual.

Taken together, these failures form a lengthening indictment of the ruling duo's approach to the Caucasus dilemma. Since Medvedev rose to power in 2008, he and Putin have turned their focus to developing the region's economy and creating jobs, all in the hope of luring Muslim youths away from extremism. They pressed ahead with this strategy even after it was discredited by the subway bombings in March, and last week, Putin pledged an additional $13 billion in 2011 alone to help fight unemployment in the North Caucasus.

Compared with the brutality that had defined Moscow's attempts to control the region in the past — including the kidnappings, executions and acts of collective punishment reported by human-rights groups for years — these financial efforts had marked a welcome turnaround. "But the latest attack shows there are grievances against Moscow down there not connected to any economic factors," says Baev. "You can't buy these people off."

If so, Russia's leaders are left with few options when it comes to the Caucasus. They may no longer even have words. "The macho line can't work this time, not even for Putin," says Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst in Moscow. "You can't pound your chest for the 150th time when the past 149 times have failed to bring any results. The Russian people can't be fooled by this anymore."

Short of a declaration of all-out war, it is hard to imagine an effort to pacify the North Caucasus with any more police and special forces. Already the region is a patchwork of police states run by dictators installed by Moscow, but the terrorist cells continue to thrive. So as Monday's airport bombing pushes the issue of security back to the center of the national debate, Putin and Medvedev are likely to find their usual methods dulled. They could look for scapegoats among their deputies, or they could again promise to annihilate the terrorists in the most colorful way they can think of. But neither of these maneuvers will do much to convince the Russian public that the terrorist threat is under control. The bombings are already convincing them of the opposite.

By: Simon Shuster (time magazine)

Britain bans ‘Koran burn’ US pastor

Jones leads the tiny Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville, Florida. He says his daughter lives in England and that his grandchildren are English and he should have the right to visit them. The pastor insists that he is not against Islam and said he had personal reasons for wanting to visit UK.

Britain yesterday barred firebrand US pastor Terry Jones from the country, saying the controversial preacher who had threatened to burn the Koran was guilty of “unacceptable behaviour.”

“The government opposes extremism in all its forms which is why we have excluded pastor Terry Jones from the UK,” said a spokesman from the Home Office, or interior ministry.

Pastor Jones, who triggered an international furore last year with plans to burn the holy book of Islam on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, said he was disappointed with the ban.

“We are very disappointed. We would ask that they reconsider, that the ban be lifted,” he told Sky News television.

He was originally invited to speak in Britain at a rally organised by far-right group the English Defence League (EDL) on February 5 in Luton, a town just north of London.

The EDL says it fights what it calls the spread of militant Islam in Britain.

But the group withdrew its offer in the face of public opposition to the visit and concerns that Jones’ presence could inflame tensions in the town, which has a significant Muslim population.

After the invite was retracted, the radical evangelist said he still planned to visit Britain and was thinking of organising an event in London. He also said he would fight any attempt to block him from visiting the country.

Announcing the ban on Wednesday, the Home Office said many comments made by Jones provided “evidence of his unacceptable behaviour”.

“Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and we are not willing to allow entry to those whose presence is not conducive to the public good,” said the spokesman.

“The use of exclusion powers is very serious and no decision is taken lightly or as a method of stopping open debate.”

By: AFP

Indian Bureaucrats Amassed Unexplained $80M

(NEW DELHI) — As top officials in a state government of India, Arvind and Tinu Joshi should have led a comfortable middle-class existence.

But an income tax investigation found more than two dozen apartments, nearly 400 acres (160 hectares) of land, piles of jewelry and foreign currency stashed in bank lockers and millions of rupees stuffed into pillowcases and plastic bags in their home.

Tax authorities valued the Joshi's wealth at more than $80 million — for a couple who likely made about $2,500 a month combined, given their seniority and positions in the Madhya Pradesh state government.

The discovery, which newspapers called the largest case of unexplained wealth ever linked to an Indian government official, startled a country usually inured to tales of graft and corruption.

Recent scandals include irregularities in a telecoms deal that cost the country billions and India's hosting of the Commonwealth Games, which was marred by allegations of corruption and mismanagement.

Speaking generally on corruption, the Supreme Court this week rapped the government for failing to act against Indians who parked unaccounted money in foreign banks, calling it "the plunder of national wealth."

The Joshis had distinguished government careers over three decades, including stints in the prime minister's office and the defense ministry. Last year, Arvind Joshi was the top administrator in Madhya Pradesh's water resources department, while Tinu ran the women and child welfare department.

Then, in February, investigators raided their home as part of a probe into another official's unexplained wealth. Around 30 million rupees (nearly $70,000) stuffed into plastic bags and pillow cases were found in their home in Bhopal, the state capital.

The Joshis were suspended on suspicion of graft as the tax investigation developed. The 7,000-page report on their assets released by state tax authorities this week was seen as a first step to eventually prosecuting the Joshis, who have not spoken publicly since the investigation started.

Officials have yet to detail their theories as to how the Joshis amassed such an enormous fortune without detection.

The top official in Madhya Pradesh, Chief Secretary Avni Vaish, told the Hindustan Times newspaper, the state was verifying the report before taking action against the couple.

By: AP (times magazine)