Diana Owen, who leads the American Studies program at Georgetown University, said presidents were not advised to use e-mail because of security risks and fear that messages could be intercepted.

“They could come up with some bulletproof way of protecting his e-mail and digital correspondence, but anything can be hacked,” said Ms. Owen, who has studied how presidents communicate in the Internet era. “The nature of the president’s job is that others can use e-mail for him.”

This is a rationalization for a quaint anachronism.

Lose the BlackBerry? Yes He Can, Maybe

Chinese leaders have deliberately held down living standards for their own people and propped them up in the United States. This is the real meaning of the vast trade surplus—$1.4 trillion and counting, going up by about $1 billion per day—that the Chinese government has mostly parked in U.S. Treasury notes. In effect, every person in the (rich) United States has over the past 10 years or so borrowed about $4,000 from someone in the (poor) People’s Republic of China.

This is a good article. Fortunately, this relationship looks likely to continue for the time being, and it is the reason the present economic problems haven't turned into an all out catastrophy... The Chinese are literally bailing out our banks.

The $1.4 Trillion Question

The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said on Thursday.

The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.

What is the Democrat's Social Security Plan?

FT.com / World - Moody’s says spending threatens US rating

w1ld wrote:
Good message, but why does Jim have to yell so much??

Everyone in the Wallstreet media yells. They yell on CNBC too. I guess they are trying to sound like traders. It is annoying.

Flynn23 recently asked me what the impact of the Ron Paul campaign would be. Could the impact be the idea that it becomes more acceptable to criticise the federal reserve system? It strikes me that the "open process" that Cramer seems to desire is FAR less radical than Paul's objective.

YouTube - Ron Paul on Mad Money with Jim Cramer 12-14-07

"It's only when the markets are perceived to have exhausted themselves on the downside that they turn," he said. "Trying to prevent them from going down just merely prolongs the agony."

Taken as a general principal that argument is anarchocapitalist.

Greenspan sees early signs of U.S. stagflation: Reuters Business News - MSN Money

Very good coverage on the actions of the UN Security Council. Watch Online.

----

The world vowed "never again" after the genocide in Rwanda and the atrocities in Srebrenica, Bosnia. Then came Darfur. Over the past four years, at least 200,000 people have been killed, 2.5 million driven from their homes, and mass rapes have been used as a weapon in a brutal campaign - supported by the Sudanese government - against civilians in Darfur. In On Our Watch, FRONTLINE asks why the United Nations and its members once again failed to stop the slaughter.

Never Again. Then came Darfur.

Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian.

Congradulations Congress... The result of all this ineffectual pre-election grandstanding you've been doing this week is that the Sunni insurgency, who boycotted the elections a few years back, just declared victory. Anyone got any links on what, exactly, their problem is with the democratic government?

Insurgents form political front to plan for US pullout

The bee-otch air freshener (Note, this link appears to be dead...)

bee-otch air freshener

The Bush administration is developing plans to "internationalise" the Iraq crisis, including an expanded role for the United Nations, as a way of reducing overall US responsibility for Iraq's future and limiting domestic political fallout from the war as the 2008 election season approaches.

The move comes amid rising concern in Washington that President George Bush's controversial Baghdad security surge, led by the US commander, General David Petraeus, is not working and that Iran is winning the clandestine battle for control of Iraq.

This is an interesting report. The problem I see here is that they are called peace keepers and not peace makers, and when misapplied they will not work. The problem remains Iran.

Bush may turn to UN in search for Iraq solution

] Ten Reasons Why You Should Never Accept a Diamond Ring
] from Anyone, Under Any Circumstances, Even If They Really
] Want to Give You One

Ten reasons why you should never accept a diamond ring