During his February 24 address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama spoke to the necessity of passing the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to improve the economy and commented that he wanted the stimulus bill passed “not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.”

In the days following the speech, media figures have contrasted that comment — that “I don’t” believe in bigger government — in isolation with the cost of Obama’s proposals to say that Obama “lied,” that he committed a “the biggest whopper of all” and that his “rhetoric does not match with his policies.” But, as is clear from the speech, Obama was taking the position that that failure to act on the scale he is proposing “would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships” and “would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years.”

From Obama’s February 24 speech:

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.

I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. And that’s why I pushed for quick action.

And tonight I am grateful that this Congress delivered and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Over — over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector, jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis, [Minnesota] tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make.

Because of this plan, 95 percent of working households in America will receive a tax cut, a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1.

Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college.

And Americans — and Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm. Now I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work, and I understand that skepticism.

According to a February 19 New York Times article, Obama’s proposed budget outline is “$2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials” due to new accounting rules that include in the Office of Management and Budget’s calculations “spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.”

Examples of media figures citing Obama’s statement that he doesn’t “believe in bigger government” as an example of dishonesty include:

• In his March 3 Washington Times column, headlined “Obama Lied; The Economy Died,” Tony Blankley asserted: “President Obama told a whopper last week when he claimed he was not for bigger government.” He went on to say: ‘This he asserted though the budget he proposed the next day asks for federal spending as 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), higher by at least 6 percent than any time since World War II.”

• In a February 26 Cleveland Plain Dealer column, Kevin O’Brien wrote: “President Barack Obama doesn’t believe in big government. He said so Tuesday night. The statement was one of two things. Best case: It was a huge, brazen, audacious, demonstrably outrageous lie. Worst case: It was testimony to a sincere belief that even the all-pervasive, all-powerful federal government he envisions doesn’t qualify as ‘big.’

• During the March 1 edition of CNN’s State of the Union, The Weekly Standard’sStephen Hayes suggested that Obama’s comment that he didn’t like bigger government should have been “corrected,” adding: “I mean, we have seen nothing but big government for five weeks, and this is the kind of line that, had President George W. Bush uttered it a year ago or two years ago, we would have seen front-page, above-the-fold analyses, saying, you know, ‘President’s rhetoric does not match with his policies.’ And I’ve been a little surprised about that.”

• In a column published in the March 9 Weekly Standard, editor Fred Barnes cited the purported disparity between Obama’s comment and his proposals in accusing him of “liv[ing] in a world of political make-believe in which everything from reconciling conflicting interests to paying for costly programs is easy”:

But there’s a problem. Candidates don’t have to deal with reality. They talk about the wonderful things they can accomplish as if advocating them is the same as achieving them. They live in a world of political make-believe in which everything from reconciling conflicting interests to paying for costly programs is easy.

That’s the world Obama continues to inhabit. Like a candidate, he’s a quick-change artist, constantly switching roles. Twice last week, he insisted he doesn’t favor “big government.” Then he proposed a budget that would vastly expand the size and reach of the federal government, add $600 billion to the deficit, and produce a one-year shortfall of $1.2 trillion (or more). This prompted House Republican leader John Boehner to proclaim, quite accurately, that the “era of big government is back.”

• In his February 28 Newsweek column, George Will mocked Obama’s campaign slogan and wrote: “Addressing Congress last week, the president said he is strengthening government ‘not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.’ Chant it, everybody: Yes you do.”

• A March 3 FoxNews.com Fox Forum blog post by Phil Kerpen, director of policy for Americans for Prosperity, listed this comment as “Promise #1″ to be broken and asserted “it’s the biggest whopper of all.”

Media figures have also broadly accused President Obama of having lied or of breaking a promise by stating that he would sign an omnibus appropriations bill that contains earmarks when he had previously “promised no earmarks.” However, as Media Matters noted, Obama consistently said while campaigning that he intends to “clean up” the process in an effort to curb spending on earmarks, not eliminate them entirely.

While Sen. John McCain repeatedly said during the presidential debates that he would “veto every earmark pork-barrel bill” if elected, Obama said in the first debate that “the earmarks process has been abused” and said he had “suspended any requests for my home state … until we cleaned it up.” During the second presidential debate, Obama said McCain’s criticism of earmarks was “important,” but that he wanted “to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.” And in the third presidential debate, Obama said: “There’s no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it’s not going to solve the problem.”

Similarly, in May 2008, Obama issued a statement that “the entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed.” The statement said:

I also have championed greater disclosure requirements for earmarks to ensure that the public knows which member of Congress is sponsoring an earmark.

However, even with all of these reforms, I have come to believe that the system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.

The entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Senator DeMint’s amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois. Over the next year, I hope to work with my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, to improve the earmarks process.”

But in spite of Obama’s campaign statements, media outlets and figures have suggested he has broken “a campaign promise” about earmarks by stating that he would sign the omnibus appropriations bill:

• A March 4 Washington Times editorial claimed “President Obama has broken so many promises during the first month-and-a-half of his presidency that it is hard to keep track. … Last October Mr. Obama promised a net cut in government. He promised no earmarks.”

• On the March 3 edition of CNN’s Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, anchor Campbell Brown said, when referring to the omnibus bill “President Obama made a campaign promise to put Washington on a pork-free diet. No more spending on earmark projects he vowed. But they just can’t help themselves. We’re going to tell you who’s spending how much of your money on their pet projects.” Later, she continued: “President Obama keeps saying he is an anti-earmark crusader. But watch out, a monster spending bill working its way through Congress contains some 8,500 earmarks worth more than $7 billion.”

• On the February 26 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, Fox News anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested Obama was engaging in “two-faced politics” and “trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people” because “[h]e said that he wasn’t going to do this. We elected him because he said he was going to change things.”

• On the March 3 edition of Sean Hannity’s radio show, Hannity asserted that “we have a president that has lied to us. … A president that promised to eliminate earmarks. And you know what? This is a president that is far more radical than anybody ever dreamed. You bet — I’m angry.”

Further, Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro misrepresented Obama’s February 24 address to Congress to suggest he lied in that address regarding earmarks. In his March 2 column, Lambro wrote, “Nine thousand pork barrel earmarks were buried in the $410 billion omnibus budget that passed the House last week,” and added that “President Obama told Congress the day before it passed that he was happy it didn’t contain any earmarks, eliciting gales of laughter from the Republican side of the chamber who knew better.” But as Media Matters for America noted, Lambro’s claim that Obama made a false statement about earmarks is itself false. Obama was not referring to the omnibus spending bill, as Lambro claimed, but to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act when he said the bill did not contain any earmarks.

Winning an election by 52% of the population does not necessarily mean you have the mandate. It is how you keep your promises to the people. Clearly, we can foresee that within the 100 days, the Americans will sober up from what they did: Putting a Pork barrel President with a socialistic agenda.

Source: Media Matters

Beckström — a management theorist, entrepreneur and author — was named last year to head up the

Rod Beckström

 new National Cybersecurity Center, or NCSC. To some, it seemed an odd choice since Beckström isn’t an expert in security. But the hope was that he could use his management skills to help coordinate the nation’s often-dysfunctional network defenses.

Part of the Department of Homeland Security — for now, the government’s lead agency for cyber protection — the Center was supposed to be the one place where the defense of civilian, military and intelligence networks could all be marshaled together.

At least, that was the idea. But the Center never had a chance to even start doing its job, Beckström complained in a resignation letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that has been obtained by Danger Room. The Center “did not receive appropriate support” from the Department of Homeland Security to help coordinate network defenses, he said.

“During the past year the NCSC received only five weeks of funding, due to various roadblocks engineered within the department and by the Office of Management and Budget.”

What’s more, Beckström said, it is a fiction that DHS is in charge of the country’s cyber security. That power, he asserts, is held by the National Security Agency — the supersecret signals intelligence service — that “currently dominates most national cyber efforts.” And that, he says, is not a good idea.

While acknowledging the critical importance of NSA to our intelligence efforts, I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds. The intelligence culture is very different than a network operations of security culture. In addition, the threat to our democratic processes are significant if all top government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly of indirectly). During my term as Director we have been unwilling to subjugate the NSCS underneath the NSA.

Last Thursday, the new Director of National Intelligence told Congress that the NSA, not Homeland Security, should be put in charge of network defense.  A week and a day later, Beckström told his bosses that he was through.

“Rod [was] trying to get over NSA’s power grab,” a cyber-security source with deep government ties tells Danger Room. But in the end, Beckström couldn’t. “He jumped nanoseconds before being pushed.”

Britain’s third-largest banking group joins government scheme to insure toxic assets.

Lloyds Banking Group has become the latest U.K. bank to fall under government control since the run onNorthern Rock in September 2007.

The U.K.’s third-largest bank confirmed Saturday that the government is raising its stake to at least 65%, and possibly as high as 77%, in return for insuring $367 billion dollars in toxic assets. The bank has also promised to increase its lending, primarily to businesses, by $39 billion over the next two years.

The increased stake will come about by the government converting its $5.7 billion of preference shares paying 12% into new ordinary shares.

“Participating in the government’s Asset Protection Scheme substantially reduces the risk profile of the group’s balance sheet,” said Chief Executive Eric Daniels in a statement. “Our significantly enhanced capital position will ensure that the group can weather the severest of economic downturns and emerge strongly when the economy recovers.”

Lloyds will bear up to the first $35 billion of any losses and will pay a fee of $21 billion to $23 billion to the government to participate in the scheme. Discussions to bring Lloyds into the arrangement have been under way for several days.

The bank says the toxic assets covered by the governments insurance are expected to include residential mortgages ($105 billion), unsecured personal loans ($26 billion), corporate and commercial loans, including commercial real estate and leveraged finance loans ($214 billion) and treasury assets, including the group’s Alt-A portfolio ($24 billion).

Eighty percent of the assets come from HBOS, which Lloyds agreed to buy in a government-brokered deal in September 2008. HBOS reported $14 billion of loan losses last year, up fivefold from 2007 .

Lloyds’ share price fell 31% in London trading in the past week on rising concerns about the bank’s ability to absorb the losses at HBOS.

The government’s objective in insuring bank assets is to promote lending by taking on some of the risk. Although last year’s round of capital injections did stem some of the sector’s share-price collapse and did build up banks’ capital reserves to better levels than before, lenders were under little pressure to actually spend the cash and grease the wheels of the rickety economy.

Royal Bank of Scotland , which is 70% government-owned, agreed in principle Feb. 26 to an asset-insurance deal that could see the state increase its stake to 95%.

It wasn’t until 1905 that Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen made the first trip from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific by way of Arctic waterways, a feat that took him three years. Since then, fewer than 200 ships have repeated the journey because of the constant threats of ice.

Still, the hope for a Northwest Passage lingers and has become central to a key international debate heating up over the Arctic north. If climate change and global warming are real — and there’s currently little doubt over that-then it stands to reason that the ice covering Arctic waterways will decrease in coming decades, presenting fewer navigational problems for shipping. 
If the ice recedes — and few experts expect it will do so year-round-cargo shipping times and distances could, the thinking goes, be cut: A 12,400-mile voyage from Japan to England by way of the Panama Canal could be shortened to less than 8,700 miles using the Northwest Passage, saving 14 days and costs.

Canada’s claim 

But then whose water is it? Practically all of the navigable Northwest Passage routes, and there are only a few, pass between Canadian islands. Thus, Canada has argued that these portions of the route are domestic waterways, and that ships traversing the area should do so with Canadian permission. 

That has touched off a bit of a row between the US and Canada. Just days before leaving office, President George W. Bush released a sweeping security directive asserting that the Northwest Passage is an “international waterway,” meaning that American ships, or in theory those of any other nation, should be able to sail through the area in the same way they do other international waterways. The directive has been seen as a sharp rebuttal to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has advocated boosting Canada’s military presence in the area.

Canada has maintained since the 1970s that it views the waters not as “international,” but rather “internal.” On all but three occasions of the 180-odd times that international ships have traversed the passage, Canadian permission and aid was sought, usually in the form of an icebreaking vessel, says Rob Huebert, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, who specializes in Arctic affairs. That fact also helps buttress Canada’s argument, he says. 

“Canada is the one with the expertise and the familiarity with the conditions,” Huebert says. For years, the US and Canada have quietly agreed to disagree over the matter — until Jan. 9, when Bush issued his Arctic security directive.

It’s partially a military question. Submarines are required under international law to surface before traversing internal waterways but can remain submerged in international waters. And US and Russian submarines have long been active in the area. For Canada, there’s also an enormous environmental motivation. 

“If there’s ever an oil spill, it’s a disaster,” Huebert says. “There’s no technology that can remove heavy [oil] from under the ice. Canada tends to be hypersensitive about that.” But sovereignty over shipping lanes that may or may not open up in the coming decades is only part of the ever-widening strategic game taking place in the Great White North.

Awaiting new technology 

A 2008 report by the US Geological Survey, which took four years of study, estimated that as much as 20 % of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas may lie beneath the Arctic sea floor. The region may hold as much as 90 bn barrels of oil — believed to be about 13 % of the world’s undiscovered oil — and some 1.7 tcf of natural gas reserves, roughly equivalent to the gas reserves in Russia, the world’s leading supplier. 

These findings made the question over sovereignty far more strategic — and contentious. Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the US all assert territorial claims in the Arctic. And if oil prices ever rebound to the levels seen during the summer of 2008, topping $ 147 per barrel, less ice could help make fossil fuel recovery more cost-effective, if not exactly easy.

“To get to the exploitation phase, you have to wait for the technology to advance,” says Peter Zeihan, an analyst with Stratfor, a strategic consulting firm in Austin, Texas. But with the ice cap disappearing at a rate of more than 20,000 square miles per year, the technical challenges are expected to dwindle over time. 

And that’s where drawing the map of borders in the Arctic Ocean becomes paramount — and complicated. In August 2007, a Russian submersible descended through a hole in the ice to plant a Russian flag on the sea floor at the North Pole. It was a provocative stunt that caused some hand-wringing around the globe, especially in light of Russia’s increasingly aggressive military stance.

Countries are allowed to consider waters out to 12 miles from their coasts as their own territory. For countries that have signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the US has not but may do so soon, waters that go out 200 miles over a country’s continental shelf are considered “exclusive economic zones.” 

But if signatory countries can prove that their continental shelf extends beyond that 200-mile line, they have rights to oil, gas, and minerals beneath the seabed. Thus the scramble over competing claims of sovereignty.

Russia claims its shelf runs some 1,200 miles from Siberia — almost to Ellesmere Island, Canada’s northernmost point — although Russia claims only the portion of the shelf on its side of the North Pole. 

Even so, if there is as much natural gas there as the US Geological Survey thinks, and much of it is concentrated in areas Russia claims for itself, then it could conceivably solidify Russia’s already dominant hold on the world’s natural gas market — and thus raise the stakes in a strategic scramble now heating up at the top of the world.

Source: http://www.kivitv.com

President Obama: Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, and the first lady of the United States, who’s around here somewhere.

I have come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and women in this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the men and women who sent us here.

I know that for many Americans watching right now, the state of our economy is a concern that rises above all others, and rightly so. If you haven’t been personally affected by this recession, you probably know someone who has: a friend, a neighbor, a member of your family.

You don’t need to hear another list of statistics to know that our economy is in crisis, because you live it every day. It’s the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It’s the job you thought you’d retire from but now have lost, the business you built your dreams upon that’s now hanging by a thread, the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope.

The impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere.

But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and our universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.

Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more.

Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long we have not always met these responsibilities, as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or to look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.

We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy, yet we import more oil today than ever before.

The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform.

Obama at the State of Union

Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for.

And though all of these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.

A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations…

Regulations — regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

Well, that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely, to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.

Now is the time to jump-start job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that is what I’d like to talk to you about tonight.

It’s an agenda that begins with jobs. As soon…

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.

I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. And that’s why I pushed for quick action.

And tonight I am grateful that this Congress delivered and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Over — over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector, jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis, [Minnesota] tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make.

Because of this plan, 95 percent of working households in America will receive a tax cut, a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1.

Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college.

And Americans — and Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm. Now I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work, and I understand that skepticism.

Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.

And that’s why I’ve asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort, because nobody messes with Joe.

I have told each of my Cabinet, as well as mayors and governors across the country, that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend.

I’ve appointed a proven and aggressive inspector general to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud.

And we have created a new Web site called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.

So, the recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our economy back on track, but it is just the first step, because even if we manage this plan flawlessly, there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system.

I want to speak plainly and candidly about this issue tonight, because every American should know that it directly affects you and your family’s well-being. You should also know that the money you’ve deposited in banks across the country is safe, your insurance is secure. You can rely on the continued operation of our financial system; that’s not the source of concern.

The concern is that, if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins. You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education, how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.

But credit has stopped flowing the way it should. Too many bad loans from the housing crisis have made their way onto the books of too many banks. And with so much debt and so little confidence, these banks are now fearful of lending out any more money to households, to businesses, or even to each other.

When there’s no lending, families can’t afford to buy homes or cars, so businesses are forced to make layoffs. Our economy suffers even more, and credit dries up even further.

That is why this administration is moving swiftly and aggressively to break this destructive cycle, to restore confidence, and restart lending.

And we will do so in several ways. First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small-business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.

Second — second, we have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages.

It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values, Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped to bring about. In fact, the average family who refinances today can save nearly $2,000 per year on their mortgage.

Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.

Now, I understand that, on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives bank bailouts with no strings attached and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions, but such an approach won’t solve the problem.

And our goal is to quicken the day when we restart lending to the American people and American business and end this crisis once and for all. And I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer.

This time — this time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks, or buy fancy drapes, or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government and, yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade.

That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen.

Now, I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and the results that followed. So were the American taxpayers; so was I.

So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you: I get it.

But I also know that, in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger or yield to the politics of the moment.

My job — our job — is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility.

I will not send — I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can’t pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can’t get a mortgage.

That’s what this is about. It’s not about helping banks; it’s about helping people.

It’s not about helping banks; it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to spend. And if they can get a loan, too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car or open their own business.

Investors will return to the market, and American families will see their retirement secured once more. Slowly, but surely, confidence will return, and our economy will recover.

So — so I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary, because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system.

It is time. It is time.

It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation and punishes shortcuts and abuse.

The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate steps we’re taking to revive our economy in the short term, but the only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world.

The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care, the schools that aren’t preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit. That is our responsibility.

In the next few days, I will submit a budget to Congress. So often, we’ve come to view these documents as simply numbers on a page or a laundry list of programs.

I see this document differently. I see it as a vision for America, as a blueprint for our future.

My budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. It reflects the stark reality of what we’ve inherited: a trillion-dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession.

Given these realities, everyone in this chamber — Democrats and Republicans — will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars, and that includes me.

But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term challenges.

I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves, that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity, for history tells a different story.

History reminds us that, at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas.

In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry.

From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age.

In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.

And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.

In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.

We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril and claimed opportunity from ordeal. Now we must be that nation again.

That is why, even as it cuts back on programs we don’t need, the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education.

It begins with energy.

We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.

Well, I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders, and I know you don’t, either. It is time for America to lead again.

Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years. We’ve also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history, an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in medicine, in science and technology.

We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills.

But to truly transform our economy, to protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.

So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. That’s what we need.

And to support — to support that innovation, we will invest $15 billion a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

Speaking of our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink. We should not and will not protect them from their own bad practices.

But we are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it; scores of communities depend on it; and I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

Now, none of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what’s necessary to move this country forward.

And for that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.

This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, 1 million more Americans have lost their health insurance.

It is one of the major reasons why small businesses close their doors and corporations ship jobs overseas. And it is one of the largest and fastest-growing parts of our budget.

Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold. We can’t afford to do it.

It’s time.

Already, we’ve done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last 30 days than we’ve done in the last decade. When it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for 11 million American children whose parents work full-time.

Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives.

It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American, including me, by seeking a cure for cancer in our time.

And — and it makes the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that’s one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.

This budget builds on these reforms. It includes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform, a down payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment

It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue, and it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.

Now, there will be many different opinions and ideas about how to achieve reform. That’s why I’m bringing together businesses and workers, doctors and health care providers, Democrats and Republicans to begin work on this issue next week.

I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. Once again, it will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and our conscience long enough.

So let there be no doubt: Health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.

The third challenge we must address is the urgent need to expand the promise of education in America.

In a global economy, where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity. It is a prerequisite.

Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma, and yet just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation, and half of the students who begin college never finish.

This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education, from the day they are born to the day they begin a career. That is a promise we have to make to the children of America.

Already, we’ve made a historic investment in education through the economic recovery plan. We’ve dramatically expanded early childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life.

We’ve made college affordable for nearly 7 million more students, 7 million. And we have provided the resources necessary to prevent painful cuts and teacher layoffs that would set back our children’s progress.

But we know that our schools don’t just need more resources; they need more reform. And that is why…

That is why this budget creates new teachers — new incentives for teacher performance, pathways for advancement, and rewards for success. We’ll invest — we’ll invest in innovative programs that are already helping schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps. And we will expand our commitment to charter schools.

It is…It is our responsibility as lawmakers and as educators to make this system work, but it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it.

So tonight I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be a community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.

And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself; it’s quitting on your country. And this country needs and values the talents of every American.

That’s why — that’s why we will support — we will provide the support necessary for all young Americans to complete college and meet a new goal: By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That is a goal we can meet.

That’s a goal we can meet.

Now — now, I know that the price of tuition is higher than ever, which is why, if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education.

And to encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch, as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country, Sen. Edward Kennedy.

These education policies will open the doors of opportunity for our children, but it is up to us to ensure they walk through them.

In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a parent, for a mother or father who will attend those parent-teacher conferences, or help with homework, or turn off the TV, put away the video games, read to their child.

I speak to you not just as a president, but as a father, when I say that responsibility for our children’s education must begin at home. That is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. That’s an American issue.

And there is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children, and that’s the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. That is critical.

I agree, absolutely.

See, I know we can get some consensus in here.

With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that, as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down. That is critical.

Now, I’m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.

And yesterday, I — I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs.

As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time, but we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.

In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them.

We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq and — and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.

We will root out — we will root out the waste and fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier. We will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

Now, let me be clear. Let me be absolutely clear, because I know you’ll end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people. If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter-million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

In fact — not a dime.

In fact — in fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut — that’s right, a tax cut — for 95 percent of working families. And, by the way, these checks are on the way.

Now, to preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing cost in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come, and we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.

Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead 10 years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules and, for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For seven years, we’ve been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.

Along with our outstanding national security team, I am now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war.

And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it.

As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy. To each and every one of them, and to the families who bear the quiet burden of their absence, Americans are united in sending one message: We honor your service; we are inspired by your sacrifice; and you have our unyielding support.

To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned.

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. And that is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists, because living our values doesn’t make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger.

And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture. We can make that commitment here tonight.

In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun, for we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.

We cannot shun the negotiating table nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand.

To seek progress towards a secure and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors, we have appointed an envoy to sustain our effort. To meet the challenges of the 21st century — from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, from pandemic disease to cyber threats to crushing poverty — we will strengthen old alliances, forge new ones, and use all elements of our national power.

And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are working with the nations of the G-20 to restore confidence in our financial system, avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism, and spur demand for American goods in markets across the globe, for the world depends on us having a strong economy, just as our economy depends on the strength of the world’s.

As we stand at this crossroads of history, the eyes of all people in all nations are once again upon us, watching to see what we do with this moment, waiting for us to lead.

Those of us gathered here tonight have been called to govern in extraordinary times. It is a tremendous burden, but also a great privilege, one that has been entrusted to few generations of Americans, for in our hands lies the ability to shape our world, for good or for ill.

I know that it’s easy to lose sight of this truth, to become cynical and doubtful, consumed with the petty and the trivial.

But in my life, I have also learned that hope is found in unlikely places, that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power or celebrity, but from the dreams and aspirations of ordinary Americans who are anything but ordinary.

I think of Leonard Abess, a bank president from Miami who reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who used to work for him. He didn’t tell anyone, but when the local newspaper found out, he simply said, “I knew some of these people since I was 7 years old. I didn’t feel right getting the money myself.”

I think about — I think about Greensburg — Greensburg, Kansas, a town that was completely destroyed by a tornado, but is being rebuilt by its residents as a global example of how clean energy can power an entire community, how it can bring jobs and businesses to a place where piles of bricks and rubble once lay.

“The tragedy was terrible,” said one of the men who helped them rebuild. “But the folks here know that it also provided an incredible opportunity.”

I think about Ty’Sheoma Bethea, the young girl from that school I visited in Dillon, South Carolina, a place where the ceilings leak, the paint peels off the walls, and they have to stop teaching six times a day because the train barrels by their classroom.

She had been told that her school is hopeless. But the other day after class, she went to the public library and typed up a letter to the people sitting in this chamber. She even asked her principal for the money to buy a stamp.

The letter asks us for help and says, “We are just students trying to become lawyers, doctors, congressmen like yourself, and one day president, so we can make a change to not just the state of South Carolina, but also the world. We are not quitters.”

That’s what she said: “We are not quitters.”

These words and these stories tell us something about the spirit of the people who sent us here. They tell us that, even in the most trying times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres, a willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity.

Their resolve must be our inspiration. Their concerns must be our cause. And we must show them and all our people that we are equal to the task before us.

I know that we haven’t agreed on every issue thus far.

There are surely times in the future where we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed.

I know that.

That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground.

And if we do, if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis, if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity, if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then some day, years from now, our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, “something worthy to be remembered.”

Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America. Thank you. 

Source: CNN

I imagine investors in Geron stock are delighted now as its price soared some 50% with this news, and Geron stock has moved from “hold” to “buy” status. We shall see.

From Geron’s news release:

Geron plans to initiate a Phase I multi-center trial that is designed to establish the safety of GRNOPC1 in patients with “complete” American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade A subacute thoracic spinal cord injuries.

Geron will recruit patients who have “documented evidence of functionally complete spinal cord injury with a neurological level of T3 to T10 and agree to have GRNOPC1 injected into their lesion site 7-14 days after their spinal cord injury.” They hope to begin their study as early as this summer.

While the world watches and waits as Geron begins this clinical trial, let me point out a rather significant statistic that most people don’t know. The majority of Phase 1 clinical trials fail, and they fail pretty miserably. Keeping this in mind, the scientific world should be watching even closer as Geron begins recruiting patients and the actual clinical trial unfolds.

How’s this for a statistic:

“In clinical trials, teams of physicians carry out studies designed to determine if the drug is safe in people and is an effective treatment for the disease in question. Of the 250 compounds that enter preclinical testing, only five will make it this far.”

Sources I spoke with tell me that the Phase 1 failure rate is 60%-90% and even as high as 95% with cancer drugs. So, the majority of new drugs in the Phase 1 trial, where safety is the primary focus, fail. If the drug is deemed safe, then it is permitted to move on to Phase 2 of the trial. With this kind of failure rate, you can quickly understand why the FDA takes safety in human clinical trials so seriously and why it is so very expensive to move a new drug or therapy onto the market.

Historically the biotech-cures-all approach to medicine is full of stops and starts, hype and hope, and disastrous results. Therefore those in the scientific community who have pinned everything on embryonic stem cells being the Holy Grail (the gold standard against which all other research will be measured) and holding the secret of cures (remember, that is what this is all about), will be watching and holding their breath, hoping that Geron doesn’t fail. Art Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Bioethics Center, said, “It is going to take years to develop therapies” and we shouldn’t give patients false hope.

So very much is at stake for those of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research. While we hope that the patients who enter into this clinical trial are not further harmed, we also hope that embryonic stem cells don’t work because we object to using nascent human life instrumentally, no matter what good can be achieved. If embryonic stem cells are successful in providing benefit to patients, it will be close to impossible to turn back the clock. This is a watershed moment.

Since Phase 1 trials focus primarily on safety, you can be sure that there will be a very strict and stringent protocol that will need to be followed, and at any given moment the trial could be stopped. This, of course, would be the kind of result that would significantly hinder any future studies using human embryonic stem cells in human subjects. The scientific community has placed so much hope in this area of research. But one wrong move and it all comes to an end. That’s reason to be nervous.

Two examples of safety concerns quickly came to mind when I heard of Geron’s news:

1) The failure of Fetal Tissue Transplantation, which came about right after President Clinton took office in 1993, as the cure-all for Parkinson’s disease.

2) The disastrous gene-therapy news of Jesse Gelsinger in 1993.

For all the hope and hype over fetal tissue transplants, the research has provided mixed results at best, and certainly the 15 years of research has not proved to be beneficial to patients. And the sad story of Jesse Gelsinger set gene therapy back decades. Can you say GM foods and Monsanto or e. coli and spinach?

Jennifer Couzin wrote a good article on this topic in Science, “Celebration and Concern Over U.S. Trial of Embryonic Stem Cells.” One chilling quote comes from John Gearhart, one of the leaders who first isolated embryonic stem cells back in 1998. Gearhart said, “We’re still a long way from really understanding a good deal about these cells and how to use them safely.” So with massively high failure rates in clinical trials, the experts in embryonic stem cell research reminding us how little we still know about these cells and their safety and efficacy, the massive breach of the ethical use of human subjects in research (yes, I do believe the human embryo is a human subject) and progress in iPSC and adult stem cell research, we should all pause at this moment in time and ask ourselves: do we want to set ourselves up for such a huge fall?

*****

Jennifer Lahl is TSR´s Bioethics Contributor.

Briefly, the situation in Gaza prior to Operation Cast Lead was: 

– An economy completely dominated by foreign aid, unconditionally provided by democratic countries, for the most part.

–A not-too-high standard of living, high enough however to sustain a very high birth rate and to prevent the population from having to concentrate on productive work in order to feed themselves.

–A ruling regime bent on destroying Israel, as made clear on multiple occasions.

–An asymmetrical conflict in which rockets were constantly being launched at Israel without this prompting a military response from the IDF.

–A permeable border with Egypt, traversed by multiple tunnels, employed to supply Hamas with weapons and munitions.

But above all, the situation was marked by an obsession with “negotiating” with “Palestinians”, both Hamas and Fatah, in the vain hope that a deal might be achieved and peace finally secured.  

Is peace possible in the Middle East? Of course it is, however the road leading to it does not go through endless negotiations and does not depend on Israel being more generous here or there. Peace in the Middle East will only come when the Palestinians have been defeated. 

One might be tempted to believe they have, and of course they have gone from defeat to defeat in the battlefield, but it is not such battles that define who wins and who loses a war. After all the Viet Cong suffered horrendous losses in their ill-fated Tet offensive … and went on to win the war.  

Defeat is the loss of the will to fight on, once it has been made clear that further belligerence will only result in meaningless loss of life and bring one not an inch nearer one’s objectives. According to this definition, the Palestinians have not been defeated. 

They have not been defeated because they still believe that by prolonging their half-a-century campaign against Israel, a democratic state which has never allowed its military a free hand in dealing with its enemies, they will destroy its will to resist and end up succumbing to a second Holocaust. They have not been defeated because they still think that Israel’s friends, the community of democratic nations, will desert it in order to appease Jihadists and hope to be eaten last by the crocodile.  And they have not been defeated because they are being fed by a wide assortment of NGOs, international agencies, and governments, who have turned Gaza into a large-scale welfare state experiment.  

Welfare destroys the human soul and the work ethic, which set apart free men from slaves. Welfare allows families to send their sons into battle, knowing that they won’t miss the fruit of their labor. Welfare lets young men spend all their days plotting the destruction of their democratic neighbor. 

Has Israel’s foray into Gaza changed any of this? Unfortunately not. Of course, some hundreds of terrorists have been killed, which is a cause for celebration, but governments, international organizations, and NGOs are already queuing up to “reconstruct” Gaza. There is nothing which leads us to believe that Hamas will suddenly decide to recognize Israel’s right to exist. 

When a country decides to go to war, the gloves must be taken off. Otherwise the ensuing stalemate will only result in prolonged indecision and the need to, after a short period of time, take once again the same steps.  It is precisely this which has taken place in Gaza, where Israelis have not played to win. 

It is therefore time to start looking at other options.

********

Alex Calvo is TSR´s International Security and Defense Editor.

A law graduate of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, Alex spent some time travelling in Asia before embarking on a career in banking. His duties gradually shifted to international law, while his strong interest in international relations made him spend an increasing amount of time studying the subject and following current events. Three years ago, he finally decided to start working for himself as legal consultant an embark on a PhD in strategic studies. A professor at European University’s Barcelona campus, he is spending a semester at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Academy in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan), and holds a commission as reserve officer.

Alex’s main area of interest is Asia, including Central, South, and East-Asia. He is also a keen student of military history and doctrine, with an emphasis on counter-insurgency operations.

Bailout on my Mind Video 

Writer/Performer/Video Creator: MJ Santos

Musical Arrangement: Glenn Longacre

Copies can be purchased soon through iTunes, Amazon, Rhapsody and Napster–will be available for worldwide distribution before March 23rd