Month: December 2011

I’m kind of pissed that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act today. I wish he would have followed through with his veto threat. He issued a signing statement that said he found several provisions “minimally acceptable” and would work to repeal other elements. He asserted his executive authority to ignore part of the bill. I understand that he’s not planning on abusing the power he has been handed, but it would be better if he wasn’t creating a law he thinks needs, in part, to be repealed. After all, what if he is unsuccessful?

Obama initially had threatened to veto the legislation. In a signing statement released by the White House on Saturday, Obama said he still does not agree with everything contained in the legislation. But with military funding due to expire Monday, Obama said he signed the bill after Congress made last-minute revisions at the request of the White House before approving it two weeks ago.

In several cases, the president called those changes “minimally acceptable” and vowed to use discretion when applying the provisions.

“I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama said. “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.”

The president said his administration would seek to repeal any provisions that are inconsistent with his values and added that he would “reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat.”

Kind of a crappy New Year’s present, dontcha think?

I’m finally done fighting with my brand new Christmas smoker. I got it up to temperature and it’s smoking a 4lb. brisket. Now I can get back to blogging. One thing I feel is likely to come to a head in 2012 is the situation with Iran’s nuclear program. I’m pleased to see that new sanctions and threats of even more sanctions have finally brought Iran back to the negotiating table. The invasion of Iraq freaked the Iranian government out for a while and they stopped working on a nuclear weapon. At least, that’s what our intelligence community concluded, much to the neo-cons consternation. But it appears that they started it again once it became clear that we were bogged down in Iraq like a dinosaur in the La Brea tar pits. As Iraq marks today as a new national holiday, signifying the official end of the U.S. occupation, Iran can no longer count on America’s overextended military for protection. They can threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz, but they can’t think they’d be able to do it with impunity or that America would be stretched thin by their response.

The Obama administration does not want a military conflict with Iran, and it may not need one to stop Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Top negotiator Saeed Jalili has said Iran is ready to rejoin EU-led talks with major powers on assuaging Western concerns over its nuclear programme even as tensions with the United States soar in the Gulf.

“We will give a resounding and many-pronged response to any threat against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Jalili told Iranian diplomats gathered in Tehran in comments reported on Saturday.
But both he and other officials left the door open to resuming long-stalled talks led by European Union foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton on Western concerns over Iran’s nuclear program me.

“We officially told them to come back to the negotiation based on cooperation,” Jalili said.

The thing to worry about is the possibility that these talks fail. And that could be a big story in 2012 that has a big impact on the U.S. presidential elections and on the government and stability of Iran.

My own personal and truly random assortment of quotes from 2011, divided by topic.

Republican Presidential Candidates

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid …These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school.”

— Newt Gingrich

“I should tell my story. I’m also unemployed.”

— Mitt Romney, whose net worth is around $200 million, speaking to unemployed workers in Florida.

“Yes, that’s their goal, they’re setting up the stage for violence in this country, no doubt about it.”

— Ron Paul when questioned at the September GOP debate about “whether the National Emergency Center Establishment Act could lead to detaining American citizens in camps during martial law.”

“Absolutely, I’d vote against it. Get people to work.”

— Rick Perry responding to a question by CNN on whether he would vote against extending the payroll tax and unemployment benefits.

“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

— Michele Bachmann.

“We all get up every day and tell ourselves lies so we can live.”

— Rick Santorum on the campaign trail quoting a statement allegedly made by by Christopher Lasch, which may be spurious.

More below the fold:
Climate Change

“I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever.”

— Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency which predicts the following:

“We’re both doing the Lord’s work, Noel.”

— Sen James Inhofe (R-OK) in an interview with Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters describing his opposition to legislation to ameliorate climate change (look the link up if you want, I won’t provide it).

“A hotter, moister atmosphere is an atmosphere primed to trigger disasters … As the world gets hotter, the risk gets higher.”

— Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University climate scientist and a principal author of the IPCC’s “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” dated November 18, 2011.From Michael Oppenheimer’s CV:

Michael Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) at the Woodrow Wilson School and Faculty Associate of the Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences Program, Princeton Environmental Institute, and the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies.

Food and other Natural resources

“Feeding some 9 billion people by mid-century in the face of a rapidly worsening climate may well be the greatest challenge the human race has ever faced.”

— Joe Romm of Climate Progress.

“The era of low food prices that we saw until the beginning of the millennium is over … We’re not going to go back to an era of declining prices.”

— Mahendra Shah, an adviser to Qatar’s food security program.

“The world is using up its natural resources at an alarming rate, and this has caused a permanent shift in their value. We all need to adjust our behavior to this new environment. It would help if we did it quickly.”

— Jeremy Grantham, hedge fund manager and Chief Investment Strategist of GMO Capital.

The Economy

“The banks got their bailout. Some of the money went to bonuses. Little of it went to lending. And the economy didn’t really recover—output is barely greater than it was before the crisis, and the job situation is bleak. The diagnosis of our condition and the prescription that followed from it were incorrect. First, it was wrong to think that the bankers would mend their ways—that they would start to lend, if only they were treated nicely enough. We were told, in effect: “Don’t put conditions on the banks to require them to restructure the mortgages or to behave more honestly in their foreclosures. Don’t force them to use the money to lend. Such conditions will upset our delicate markets.” In the end, bank managers looked out for themselves and did what they are accustomed to doing.”

— Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel award winning economist, in an article to be published in the January 2012 edition of Vanity Fair.

“We have seen increased evidence that a self-sustaining recovery in consumer and business spending may be taking hold.”

— Ben Bernanke Chairman of the Federal Reserve, testifying the the Senate Committee on the Budget in January.

“It could take four to five more years for the job market to normalize fully,”

— Ben Bernanke Chairman of the Federal Reserve, testifying the the Senate Committee on the Budget in January.

“China is central to GM’s global strategy … China is clearly a crown jewel in the GM universe.”

— GM CEO Dan Akerson during a trip to Beijing in February.

I realize Sen. Patty Murray and those on the debt-reduction “super committee” need to make some very difficult choices, but it would be foolish to generate tax revenue by cutting incentives to companies that are in a position to be instrumental in our economic recovery. U.S. oil and natural gas companies want to develop our domestic energy reserves; this will in turn create jobs and lessen our dependency on foreign sources of energy. This is one of the few win-win scenarios in this economy I implore Murray and her colleagues on the super committee to please empower our energy companies to create the jobs and the domestic energy sources we so desperately need.

— Kristopher Holien in a Letter to the Editor of The News Tribune (Tacoma). The claim that Oil companies are job creators is disputed in this report by the Democrats on the Committee of Natural Resources which shows large oil companies cut 11,000 American jobs while making record profits of $546 Billion during the years 2005-2010.

Occupy Wall Street

Leading Democratic party strategists have begun to openly discuss the benefits of embracing the growing and increasingly organized Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement to prevent Republican gains in Congress and the White House next year. We have seen this process of adopting extreme positions and movements to increase base voter turnout, including in the 2005-2006 immigration debate. This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street firms. If vilifying the leading companies of this sector is allowed to become an unchallenged centerpiece of a coordinated Democratic campaign, it has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.

It shouldn’t be surprising that the Democratic party or even President Obama’s re-election team would campaign against Wall Street in this cycle. However, the bigger concern should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies – and might start running against them too.

Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protesters and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism. Both the radical left and the radical right are channeling broader frustration about the state of the economy and share a mutual anger over TARP and other perceived bailouts. This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.

— A quote from the Washington lobbying firm’s (Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford – CLGC) proposal to conduct a smear campaign against OWS and politicians supporting OWS, and addressed to one of their major clients, the American Bankers Association.

Q. Did the Police deploy rubber bullets, flash-bag grenades?
A. No, the loud noises that were heard originated from M-80 explosives thrown at Police by protesters. In addition, Police fired approximately four bean bag rounds at protesters to stop them from throwing dangerous objects at the officers. —

Official Oakland Police statement regarding the incident in which Marine Veteran Scott Olsen skull was fractured and a flash grenade was seen being tossed at individuals who came to his rescue during the October 25, 2011 action to clear Occupy Oakland from its encampment. For video, pictures and reporting by the NY Times regarding the attacks by police on Scott Olsen and others at Oscar Grant plaza contradicting this police account, go to this link.

Assholes

“I hope he’s taking his blood pressure medication.”

— Paul Ryan at a recent town hall meeting after a 71 year old man was thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested for voicing his opinion that Ryan’s plan to slash entitlements was unjustified.

Koch: “We’ll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowds was planting some troublemakers.

Scott:[…] We thought about that that… My only fear is that if there is a ruckus caused, that would scare the public into think maybe the government’s got to settle in order to avoid all these problems. […]

Murphy-as-Koch: Well, not the liberal bastards on MSNBC.

Walker: Oh yeah, but who watches that? I went on “Morning Joe” this morning. I like it because I just like being combative with those guys, but they’re off the deep end.

Murphy-as-Koch: Joe’s a good guy. He’s one of us.

Walker: Yeah, he’s all right. He was fair to me.

Murphy-as-Koch: Beautiful; beautiful. You gotta love that Mika Brzezinski.

Walker: Oh yeah.

Murphy-as-Koch: She’s a real piece of ass. […]

Murphy-as-Koch: Well, I tell you what, Scott: once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

Walker: All right, that would be outstanding.

— Scott Walker, Republican governor of Wisconsin, who though he was speaking to David Koch when he was really speaking on the phone to Buffalo Beast editor Ian Murphy impersonating David Koch.

Feel free to add your own quotes in the comments.

Hello again painting fans.

This week I’ll be with the painting of the Physick Estate in Cape May, New Jersey. It is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 12×12 inch canvas.

When last seen, the painting appeared as it does in the photo directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

This was a crazy week and left me little time to do more work.  I did manage a few changes.  I’ve now begun the foundation under the porch.  Right now it exists as a red line of paint.  Eventually it will have the stairs and foundation plantings seen in the photos.  Additional changes are seen in the trees seen on either side of the house.  To the left, the large tree has been mapped out with the exception of the trunk.  The smaller tree to the right has received the same green paint.  Each will have highlighted and shadowed areas in future installments.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

That’s about it for now. Next week I’ll have more progress to show you. See you then. As always, feel free to add photos of your own work in the comments section below.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.

Some of the people who know me and love me thought I needed to feed my brain on something different from politics, or, at least, something not strictly about politics. For Christmas, I received 11/22/63 by Steven King and The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt. I have now consumed both of them.

Here’s a description of The Swerve:

Nearly six hundred years ago, a short, genial, cannily alert man in his late thirties took a very old manuscript off a library shelf, saw with excitement what he had discovered, and ordered that it be copied. That book was the last surviving manuscript of an ancient Roman philosophical epic, On the Nature of Things, by Lucretius — a beautiful poem of the most dangerous ideas: that the universe functioned without the aid of gods, that religious fear was damaging to human life, and that matter was made up of very small particles in eternal motion, colliding and swerving in new directions.

The copying and translation of this ancient book-the greatest discovery of the greatest book-hunter of his age-fueled the Renaissance, inspiring artists such as Botticelli and thinkers such as Giordano Bruno; shaped the thought of Galileo and Freud, Darwin and Einstein; and had a revolutionary influence on writers such as Montaigne and Shakespeare and even Thomas Jefferson.

The poem of Lucretius almost disappeared like so many other books of antiquity.

Meanwhile, Steven King imagines what it would be like to go back in time to 1958 and to try to save President Kennedy’s life. How would you go about it? What might stand in your way? And what might be the consequences? You have five years to accomplish your task.

So, I’ve been neglecting my blogging duties while I contemplated threads of time and alternate universes and how I would have gone about writing King’s novel much differently, but never with as much skill.

I’m back now, and my brain’s fed, if a little off-kilter.

Assuming everyone cannot agree that it was Anthony Weiner, who do you think was the Person of the Year?

Eight days ago, I stuck my neck out and made some predictions about how the Iowa Caucuses would go. Here’s a reminder of my bottom line:

I’m a believer in late momentum, and on that score it appears that Paul and Santorum are the ones set to exceed expectations, while Gingrich and Bachmann are set to disappoint. Right now, I expect the following order in Iowa: 1. Ron Paul 2. Mitt Romney 3. Newt Gingrich 4. Rick Santorum 5. Rick Perry 6. Michele Bachmann 7. Jon Huntsman.

Even small news events can reshuffle the deck, and I expect plenty of news events, but this is my prediction as of tonight.

I didn’t talk too much about Rick Santorum. I noted that he had late momentum, that a fourth place finish in Iowa would cause some people to give him a fresh look, said that Huntsman would outperform him in New Hampshire, and asserted that Santorum isn’t a natural fit in the South. In other words, I didn’t think it would ultimately matter a whole lot if Santorum finished in fourth place. But, what if he finishes higher than that?

The only way I can see Santorum winning any contests outside of Iowa, except maybe in his home state of Pennsylvania, is if he can emerge as the lone social conservative in the race. And I include Newt Gingrich in the social conservative category, because that is where he gets most of his support. If Santorum finishes in the top three in Iowa, as now appears entirely possible, and the other two top-finishers are Romney and Paul, then Santorum could quickly find himself in an ideal position. If Perry, Bachmann, and Gingrich are knocked out before the contest heads to the South, Santorum would be the only candidate who has both a convincingly socially conservative record and acceptable positions on international affairs. Compared to Romney, Santorum is a model of consistency. Compared to Romney and Huntsman, he’s clearly more conservative. And he doesn’t hold unorthodox positions on U.S. foreign policy or U.S. relations with Israel. Say what you want, but this is a problem for Ron Paul:

Mr. [David] Duke, who was something of a mentor to [Stormfront founder] Mr. [Don] Black during their days in the Klan, called in to discuss Mr. Paul. Though he said he wasn’t ready to make an official endorsement, Mr. Duke explained why he’ll be voting for Mr. Paul.

“Again, I go back to that, you know, traditional topic that I always talk about, you know, the powers of international Zionism–a power in banking, a power in media, a power in government influence, in campaign finance–a power that’s, you know, hurting the values of this country on behalf of Israel,” Mr. Duke said. “So, I would vote for Ron Paul at this moment because he’s one of the few candidates who have policies in this regard and this realm that I wholeheartedly support, and that’s why I’d vote for him.”

Rick Santorum has some baggage, but he doesn’t have anything comparable to that. I’d be shocked if Rick Santorum started winning primaries. I could see him, maybe, catching lightning in Iowa, but that’s about it. But if things fall just right for him, who knows? If he doesn’t have Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich dividing up the socially conservative vote in the South, he could do some damage. He doesn’t have Mike Huckabee’s personal charisma or his outsider status, but he could nonetheless become the Huckabee of this election cycle.

Another question is whether or not Ron Paul can win in Iowa. If he doesn’t, Romney could coast through the first two contests and look a bit inevitable. As I analyze the race just four days before Iowa kicks things off, the two most important things I am looking for are if Ron Paul can win and if Rick Perry can do well enough to keep himself alive for South Carolina. If neither of those things happen, I expect Romney to have a casual walk to the nomination, even if he doesn’t win every contest along the way.

My updated predictions involve some hunches. Paul and Romney appear to be tied in the polls, but Paul is bringing new voters and has a better ground game. For now, that leads me to give him the slightest of edges.

1. Ron Paul 2. Mitt Romney 3. Rick Santorum 4. Rick Perry 5. Newt Gingrich 6. Michele Bachmann 7. Jon Huntsman

And, to really stick my neck out, here’s my New Hampshire prediction:

1. Mitt Romney 2. Ron Paul 3. Jon Huntsman 4. Rick Santorum 5. Newt Gingrich 6. Rick Perry 7. Michele Bachmann

Assuming these results, what will the lead-up to South Carolina feel like?

First, Romney will look strong after stumbling in Iowa. But both he and Paul will have to contend with the poll numbers coming out of the Palmetto State. Will either of them be polling in the top two? Currently, Newt Gingrich has a strong lead in South Carolina polls, but after 5th and 6th place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, I expect his support to go to someone else. A tiny bit of it would go to Jon Huntsman, but most of it would go to Santorum and Rick Perry (if Perry is still in the race). I say that there is no reason for Perry to quit before South Carolina, but that doesn’t mean he won’t.

At this point, I’ve engaged in enough conditional arguments that further speculation is not going to be fruitful. Let’s just say that Romney still looks quite strong, even if he comes in second place in Iowa. No scenario has emerged that allows me to envision someone else winning the nomination.

What say you?

While I was traveling earlier this week, I was disheartened to pick up Monday’s print New York Times and find three front-page stories hinting at the zeitgeistiness of libertarianism. I’m counting the story about self-appointed crime-fighters in superhero costumes as libertarian, because that sort of Vigilantism Lite presupposes that government is hopelessly inadequate; I’m also counting the story about Asperger’s kids in love because the young man featured in the story is an avowed libertarian. (The third of the front-page stories was about Ron Paul.)

Capitalism ran amok in the last decade ,and we’re still trying to bounce back from the mayhem — and yet, for all the attention lavished on the Occupy movement in recent months, the hip ideology of our era is clearly the one that wants to take capitalism and remove as many restraints from it as possible, thus giving it far greater opportunities for rapaciousness. Frankly, this terrifies me. It terrifies me that the repulsiveness of Ron Paul’s newsletters of the ’80s and ’90s is now widely known and yet the Paul Youth in Iowa clearly don’t care. What if this really is to our time what ’60s leftism was to that era. What if this is the spirit of the age?

Well, maybe Democrats and liberals have ourselves to blame. I saw that Charlie Pierce was attacking David Brooks a couple of days ago for writing this:

But, in the 1930s, people genuinely looked to government to ease their fears and restore their confidence. Today, Americans are more likely to fear government than be reassured by it.

Pierce’s response was this:

Yes, because we have had 30 years of reckless vandalism by the political movement in which you cut your teeth. We have had three decades of anti-government rhetoric from people who then set out to prove themselves correct by cutting taxes, spending money on useless weaponry, conducting wars off the books, and hiring boobs and bunglers to staff the federal agencies. We have had Michael Brown. We have had James Watt. We have had Anne Gorsuch and Silent Sam Pierce. People don’t trust government? You know what? I don’t trust my car if I hire a blind drunk to drive it.

But you can’t just blame Republican presidents and Republican appointees. Democrats come into office and simply fail to demonstrate to the public that government can work — Barack Obama’s administration didn’t modify enough mortgages, didn’t inject enough stimulus into the economy to get a significant number of people back to work, didn’t throw any of the Wall Street bastards in jail. There wasn’t even a single perp walk! If people don’t see government working to help solve a new crisis, I guess it shouldn’t surprise us when they think government doesn’t do anything right, ever. But elected Democrats no longer think this matters — they no longer think government has to work or the foundations of this society will crumble as we move inexorably to a Third World level of inequality.

Give people a reason to believe in government — or wake up twenty years from now to find that America has only two widely held ideologies left, mainstream Republicanism and libertarianism, and the banana-republican economy to go with that arrangement.

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

.
Well, at least the two signatories of the Camp David Peace Accords have some shared values. Naturally, the US approach is not evenhanded … freedom and democracy are the big losers.

Clinton concerned over Israeli democracy

WASHINGTON – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced deep concern over a wave of anti-democratic legislation in Israel and in particular a bill proposing to limit donations to human rights organizations. Clinton also criticized the growing exclusion of women from Israel’s public life.

‘Foreign funding bills our death sentence’

The right wing parties may have sought to constrain the left wing but their move could damage many social activities: The non-profit sector is concerned that the foreign funding bills approved Sunday by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation could harm the activities of a long line of human rights and social organizations.

Dr. Nissan Limor, head of the Institute for Civic Responsibility at the College for Academic Studies and head of the Van Leer Forum for the Third Sector, told Ynet that “donations from abroad constitute two-thirds of the sum total of donations to the sector and non-profit organizations.”

According to Limor, “it doesn’t just hurt the associations that will now suffer from lack of resources, it is also damaging to the quality of Israeli democracy and tolerance in Israeli society.”

The Ministerial Committee on Legislative Affairs approved two bills which will hurt Israel’s leftist organizations. The bill initiated by MK Faina Kirshenbaum (Yisrael Beiteinu) proposes denying certain groups of their tax-exempt status and collecting 45%, while another proposal seeks to limit donations from foreign government and bodies to NIS 20,000 ($ 5,000) a year.

Joint Open Letter to the Israeli Knesset

• Education Ministry blasts Israeli Arab school for taking students to human rights march

‘Countries we would not like to emulate’

“Sister” is a Mizrahi feminist organization with an annual budget of $300,000, a third of which comes from European funds. Shula Keshet, the organization’s Executive Director, told Ynet that “if the bill passes I don’t know if our organization will survive, the criteria according to which the law will filter the organizations remains unknown.”

Kav LaOved (the Worker’s Hotline) has an annual budget of NIS 3 million ($810,000) a third of which comes from the European Union. The organization claims the new legislation could be “devastating” for them.

Ron Pundak, former Director General of the Peres Center for Peace said that bills are a real threat to the center’s existence. “This is a death sentence to the Peres Center, it could destroy it. The center lives off projects with Palestinians – if there are no projects, there is no center.”

Professor Yedidia Stern, the Vice President of the Israel Democracy Institute at the Bar Ilan University Law School, noted that “this legislation was accepted in countries we do not wish to emulate, like Russia. Its purpose is to silence criticism of the rule of law.”

• US Legislators treated to trips in Israel, not for influencing US foreign policy?

Netanyahu has support from the NGO Monitor group of people. This is a hasbara organization to stifle any criticism on the state of Israel. Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal has used their argument to revoke the yearly donation from The Netherlands to B’Tselem. Previously this human rights NGO has received an award for their work for the Palestinian people. The Dutch Likud Minister has decided otherwise.

Egypt security forces storm Freedom House, other NGO offices

CAIRO, Egypt (Reuters/Ahram) – “The United States is deeply concerned that Egyptian judicial and police officials raided the offices of a number of non-governmental organizations today,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told a news briefing.

“This action is inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we have had over many years. We call on the Egyptian government to immediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolve this issue immediately.”

Egyptian prosecutors and police raided offices of 17 pro-democracy and human rights groups in what rights defenders described as a campaign against them by the military rulers.

The official MENA news agency said the groups had been targeted as part of an investigation into foreign funding of such organizations, which included the U.S.-based International Republican Institute IRI.L, the National Democratic Institute NDI.L, and Freedom House, a democratic watchdog group.

Nuland said U.S. officials had been in touch both with Egyptian Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri and with Egypt’s ambassador in Washington to underscore Washington’s concern.

Secret talks military peace accords Israel  

Can USAID Be a Force for Good In Egypt?

(The Nation) July 22, 2011 – Millions of American tax dollars are being funneled into Egypt via the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an autonomous organization overseen by the State Department. Just a few weeks after Mubarak was overthrown, USAID directed some $65 million toward “democratic development” programming, projects to build civil society and political parties. This sounds like a lot, particularly to many Egyptian activists, but when compared to other areas of US foreign policy, it’s negligible: A former Pentagon official recently told NPR that the military spends $20.2 billion a year on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also pales in comparison to the direct aid that Washington gives to Egypt: About $2 billion a year since Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. More than half of that goes to the military.

Most of these millions will go to American NGOs doing “capacity building” projects in Egypt, while a smaller amount goes directly to Egyptian organizations. The three biggest American democracy and governance programmers are the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), Washington-based NGOs that say their mission is to strengthen democracy around the world. These groups intend to tutor Egypt’s young democrats on electoral politics, training them on conducting opinion polling and using its data, tailoring messages to constituencies, volunteer recruitment and organizing, and all the other trappings of a free and fair election, something Egypt has never seen in its modern history.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."