The UK feels the recession is not yet over and the country is hurting for funding – just like the United States. As a means of raising money, the UK Government has taken to selling off public assets.

The British government is holding a fire sale of public assets including the undersea Channel rail link to raise 16 billion pounds ($25 billion) as Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned on Monday that the country is “only halfway there” in overcoming the recession.

The sale of assets, which also includes the government’s 33 percent stake in European uranium consortium Urenco, spearheads the ruling Labour Party’s attempt to boost its economic credentials as it loses ground to the opposition Conservative Party ahead of next year’s general election.

…

Nonfinancial assets to be sold over the next two years include the Channel Tunnel rail link, the Dartford bridge and tunnel crossing the River Thames and betting company the Tote.

Local governments will sell off another 13 billion pounds ($21 billion) in assets such as business parks and leisure centers.

It makes one wonder how long it will be until the US starts a fire sale in order to raise money – assuming we just simply don’t try to print more. Oh, and who do you think will be doing the buying of the assets? I can almost guarantee it won’t be U.S. interests.

I am still in shock about President Obama winning the Nobel peace prize.  Flat out shock. The man has done nothing – NOTHING – that would ever come close to supporting this award at this point in his career.

This isn’t a political attack, it’s simply the truth.  Thus far, he:

• Didn’t end US involvement in Iraq
• Is on the verge of escalating Afghanistan
• Hasn’t closed down Guantanamo, despite his pledge to do so, and now is looking for another place to keep the prisoners
• Continues to support the warrantless wiretaps
• Forgot to criticize Israel for the use of excessive force in Gaza

Really, folks, this feels completely political to me.

Is President Obama a Theodore Roosevelt, George C. Marshall or Martin Luther King Jr..  No. Has he done anything on the scale of Mother Teresa?  Fight for people in the same manner that the Dalai Lama has?  No.  Did he help end the Communist Era like Mikhail Gorbachev did?  No.

All of the above have won the prize, and rightfully so. President Obama has done nothing.  For crying out loud, he was nominated only a month into taking office.  Really?  Come on, really?

Oh, and why did he win the prize:  “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”

Keep waiting for your Nobel peace prize for all that you do to improve the world.

The past June, when Iran was experiencing a huge uprising over the outcome of the presidential election, Twitter played a role in providing protesters with a means of communication.  The State Department felt the service provided a vital service to the Iranian people that it contacted Twitter to postpone system upgrades.

Confirmation that the U.S. government had contacted Twitter came as the Obama administration sought to avoid suggestions it was meddling in Iran’s internal affairs as the Islamic Republic battled to control deadly street protests over the election result.

…

“We highlighted to them that this was an important form of communication,” said a State Department official of the conversation the department had with Twitter officials.

Yay!  Freedom for the Iranian protesters!  Yay!  Let those voices be heard!

Apparently that only applies to people in countries the United States considers an enemy. The FBI arrested and charged a New York man with hindering prosecution after he allegedly utilized Twitter in order to help protesters at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh evade the police. What is hindering prosecution, you ask?

a person “renders criminal assistance” when, with intent to prevent, hinder or  delay  the discovery  or  apprehension  of,  or  the  lodging  of a criminal charge against, a person who he knows or believes has committed a crime  or  is being sought by law enforcement officials for the commission of a crime, or  with  intent  to assist a person in profiting or benefiting from the commission of a crime, he:

1. Harbors or conceals such person; or
2. Warns such person of impending discovery or apprehension; or
3. Provides such person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension

Here is the big assumption – and potentially the big risk prosecutors will run into – how will the government prove the intent of this individual?  He was communicating publically available information, and unless he was specifically stating protesters should commit a crime or avoid being arrested for a crime someone committed, how could he be tried for hindering prosecution?

For the record, I don’t agree with the people who were staging protests at the G20; however, if you agree or disagree with the G20 protesters  should have no impact this situation. It is flat out wrong for the U.S. to promote others to continue their protests (especially in governments they do not agree with) and then treat U.S. citizens – regardless of their political views – as if they are criminals for doing the exact same thing.

The only conclusion I can arrive at is the U.S. government is acting in a hypocritical fashion. If the United States truly stands for freedom for all then the United States needs to hold that view in all situations, both globally and locally.

I know nothing about the climate-change bill that just passed the house this past Friday. Life in general kept my focus on other events, so I have absolutely no working knowledge – what it hopes to accomplish, what taxes may be included or how the bill may impact the “everyday” person – all I know this this: the manner in which the bill was passed is akin to strong arming an unwilling participant into taking some action they oppose.

But didn’t the bill narrowly pass, 219 to 212, so how can that be “strong arming”?

While the political process has always included last second maneuvers or grandstanding aimed at obtaining a desired outcome, say a large amount of pork barrel spending included countless pages of seemingly mundane text, the climate change legislation that just passed takes this to a new level.  At roughly 3AM Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman tacked on another 300 pages of to a bill that was already 1,200 pages in length. Thankfully Minority leader John Boehner exposed exactly what was taking place and the amendment was dropped.

It’s obvious politicians only read the bullet points to said bills, they don’t pay attention to what every single detail.  With the volume of law that is being pushed these days, I can understand where that would be the case, however; adding 300 pages of unread, un-vetted, text to an already monster bill is not only political strong arming, it’s disingenuous and is in no way helping the general public in the United States as such acts remove the ability for people to contact their representatives in order to voice their feelings.

There was a time when politicians actually worked for the best of the nation.  The special interest groups and big business did not have the control we are currently witnessing. But that was supposed to change.  Recently, promises were also made by politicians that bills would be viewable for 5 days in an attempt to create a new era of openness within the government, a level of transparency and accountability that would usher in a new era of government, and provide constituents the understanding of what is taking place.

Obviously, on a majority, that is not the case any longer.

As with most thing these days, this isn’t about Republican or Democrats, no, this is about power.  It’s about checks and balances.  It’s about the blatant disregard of the wishes of the many for the special interests of the few.  In the end, this isn’t about the Energy Bill, this is about how politics are practiced in the United States. We will continue to witness politicians taking advantage of the system in order to move their agenda forward and as the balance of power between the two political parties swings in favor of one over the other, the questionable activities will only become more extreme leaving the American public at the whim of those in power.

You need to check out these picture from Iran.

Boston.com has a number of impresssive pictures, but this set of pictures from twitpic is VERY impressive.

Just to point out the “outside world” does not know exactly what is taking place in Iran, but it is very clear something is taking place.

6/22/ 09 Update:  Here is another set of pictures from Boston.com title A Troubled Week In Iran.  Some great stuff here.

Just hearing a few bit and pieces on the news today regarding Iran, but not too much.  Here are a number of links to keep you up to date:

War In Context – Iran’s political coup (thanks Gianna!).

Someone doesn’t want the world to see what is going on, BBC Says election broadcasts disrupted from Iran.

People are taking to the rooftops protesting Ahmadinejad.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad celebrates win with show of brutality.

US Withholds Judgment on Iran Election Results.

Dick Cheney continues his public attacking of President Obama – and doing so with a bit of humor. That said; let’s focus on Cheney’s latest major statement.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says Saddam Hussein “provided sanctuary … and resources to terrorists.”

He strongly defended the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, however, arguing that Hussein’s previous support for known terrorists was a serious danger after 9/11.
…
“I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true,” Cheney conceded.
But Hussein was “somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. … [It] is, without question, a fact.”

Cheney restated his claim that “there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. It’s not something I made up. … We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor — a state sponsor — of terror. It’s not my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and State Department.”

Now… at the risk of sounding unpopular here, I believe the war in Iraq was the right thing to do. (Though there have been serious errors and, in hind sight, things should have executed in a different manner)

Why?

Not because of the terror ties, but because of the fact that Iraq had continually ignored the treaty of the First Gulf War. On a monthly basis since the early 90’s, Iraq would violate the terms of cease fire. Be it rocket launches, flying in restricted air space, or defying U.N. resolutions. The Iraqi terror ties provided cause for someone to take action when it was clear that the United Nations wasn’t going to uphold the law.

What is the point of having law if no one is going to enforce it?

Anyway, to be even more unpopular, to the best of my knowledge – after years of following and reading on the subject – at no time did the administration specifically say Saddam Hussein was directly linked to 9/11. There was initial “evidence” that looked as if he was (that was just false – made up, anyone?) but they never pinned their hopes on that claim. What took place, however; is the press blurred the lines and the administration did not rebut.

They should have, but didn’t. Why they didn’t is beyond me, and why Cheney is publically making this statement is even more confusing.

All of that said, here is the real juicy content.

He reiterated his call for President Obama to declassify documents detailing the results of “enhanced interrogations” of high-value detainees.

Since Obama has already released memos detailing the interrogation methods, Cheney said, it is important to share the results of those interrogations with the public as well.

“I would not ordinarily be leading the charge to declassify classified information, otherwise they wouldn’t call me Darth Vader for nothing,” Cheney said.

But “once the [Obama] administration released the legal memos that gave the opinions that were used to guide the interrogation program, they’d given away the store. … I [therefore] thought it was important to have the results that were gained from that interrogation program front and center as well.”

On May 14, the CIA rejected the former vice president’s request to declassify the documents. CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano, in a written statement, said the two documents are the subject of pending lawsuits and therefore cannot be declassified.

Cheney said Monday that the memos previously released also were the subject of ongoing lawsuits. He said Obama can release the additional documents with “the stroke of a pen.”

Former Vice President Cheney is attempting to put the current Administration on defense. He is saying “Hey, prove me wrong”. He is sitting on the side lines poking away, trying to get attention – and it is working.

The President need not get involved in a “he said, he said” conversation in the press. He simply needs to look the other way while members of his administration address Cheney. Cheney is trying to contaminate President Obama, trying to create doubt and the continued attacks will only create a sense of wonder about President Obama in the public eye. It may not be significant at first but the cumulative effect can be devastating.

Last week, during a meeting at work, someone made a comment about new travel I.D. requirements in the United States. I really didn’t pay much attention to it.  I heard something about passports, something about not getting in… I just kinda mentally noted it but didn’t research it.

Turns out I apparently missed this new restriction: New federal rules took effect Monday requiring anyone entering the country by land or sea — including U.S. citizens — to show a passport or other approved document.

I have mixed feelings out this.

Part of me things it only makes sense to have I.D. Requirements in order to enter a country (any country).  As I am not a frequent international traveler, maybe someone can fill me in on this – don’t travelers need to show passports in order to enter a country?  Ever time I’ve ever visited a foreign country that was the case.

Passports are used to document international travel, I mean, isn’t that the point? Should anyone need to show this documentation in order to travel from country to country? Isn’t it about time the U.S. joined the rest of the world?

Here is my big issue with the new law:

Another reason the lines may get shorter: The nation’s busiest border crossings have received new equipment that reads small chips embedded in passport cards, enhanced driver’s licenses and trusted traveler cards as people pull into an inspection booth.

The chips, which also are in passports issued since August 2007, contain a unique identification number that links with a database. Once a chip is read, customs officers have on their computer screen everything they need to know about a traveler.

While data is being collected by our credit card companies, utility providers we use and even Google, I begin to get very apprehensive when the government starts to collect this data.  Yes, the data can be mined from any source with – and sometimes without – a search warrant, it is just a matter of time before the government starts to mine data in the name of security.

We are slowly witnessing the erosion of our freedom and it will only get worse as time goes on.

In an interesting move, China has suspended diplomatic ties with North Korea over the latest military actions:

China suspended government exchanges with North Korea after Kim Jong-Il’s regime last week tested a nuclear device and fired short-range missiles, Yonhap News said.

China has halted plans to send officials to North Korea and won’t accept visits from Kim’s government either, the Korean- language news agency said today, citing unidentified diplomatic sources in Beijing.

China’s foreign ministry has said the country “resolutely opposes” North Korea’s nuclear test. China on May 25 agreed with the U.S., Japan and Russia to work toward a United Nations Security Council resolution censuring North Korea. The U.S. and Japan want the statement to call for cutting the communist country’s global financial ties, UN diplomats said.

As China was North Korea’s biggest political supporter in the past, what signal does this send and how will North Korea react? Is this political grandstanding or something more on the part of China?

Yesterday I had feared/lamented/complained that Sonia Sotomayor was an under qualified candidate for the supreme court.  While I did not go into great deal, my main issues were her apparent belief that judging is based in empathy, not reason and law – ALSO – the fact that she made borderline racist statements.

I worried that no one, Republican or Democrat, would stand up and say this individual is more of a show position for Mr. Obama than the best person for the job. While very few politicians have pointed out the fact that she has a 60% reversal rating, one former politician has pointed out the hypocrisy that race plays in this process:

Imagine a judicial nominee said “my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman” Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism.

A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.

He is right.  Had a white man said such a thing, everyone would be all over him. Not only would he be forced to withdraw, he would be branded as a racist for the rest of his life.

To be clear, here is what Sotomayor had said:

First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

She is right, there is no universal definition of wise.  That said, at best, the second part of the statement is poorly worded and at worst, she is sexist and racist.  Two people of different backgrounds will not – most likely – arrive at the same conclusion.  Problem is this: when you are a judge, you need to adhere to the LAW and not make decisions based on your life experiences with no regard to the law. If the LAW was broken you cannot simply dismiss the actions of an individual because of their race.

Let’s say the comment is not racist.  It is then a highly insensitive position for a public figure, one who “makes policy” (her words, not mine) and one who is supposed to be unbiased, to voice.

The comment above, along with others, is a very disturbing patter that can be seen with Sotomayor. Not only is she under qualified, she is simply the wrong person for the job.  This is not about political party, this is about having a qualified individual in the role. A brave politician on either side of the aisle needs to take a stand.