Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine: A few months after Barack Obama was sworn in as president, Dick Cheney sat down with Sean Hannity for — I couldn’t call it an “interview,” more of an exchange of talking points — in which he lambasted the new president for coddling terrorists.

The conversation took the form of Hannity launching the attacks, and Cheney endorsing them. Obama lacks “the courage to call it a war on terror,” right? Right. “It’s telegraphing weakness,” right? Right. Obama loves Chávez, Ortega, Iran, and Mexico (Mexico?), so obviously he doesn’t understand the war on terror, right? Right. Cheney chimed in that Obama’s policy amounted to, “we don’t have to be as tough and aggressive as the Bush administration was.”

Following the killing of Anwar Awlaki, the administration’s latest success in a stepped-up campaign of targeting Al Qaeda, Cheney is back in the news again. Unsurprisingly, Cheney is not offering any apologies. Instead he’s demanding that Obama give one — to him. [ READ MORE ]

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

USER “First_And-Ten’s” COMMENT ON CHENEY’S PIC BELOW: His head looks like it has the texture of a salamander‘s egg. I would not be shocked to discover he has a room where he sheds his skin every 2 months and collects them.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

   Dr. Wolassa Kumo
Introduction

Economic theories state that FDI inflows contribute to the economic performance of a host country in a number of ways: First, the FDI inflows represent additional resources which can be used to build additional physical capital and create more employment. Second, by increasing the size of capital stock, FDI increases a country’s output and productivity by encouraging more efficient use of existing resources. Finally, the inflows of FDI can improve the local skills and promotes technological knowhow thereby enhancing the overall economic growth and development.

However, empirical evidence in support of these theories is not always straight forward. Macroeconomic and cross-country studies suggest a strong positive correlation between FDI inflows and economic growth, although there is no consensus on the direction of causality. Microeconomic evidence is much more unclear and results vary across firms, sectors and countries implying that under certain conditions, FDI can be an engine of growth. Benefits from FDIs therefore depend on the type of the inflows, and the absorptive capacity of a host country among other things.

In any case, global FDI flows showed consistent and rapid growth between 2004 and 2007. During this period, the global FDI grew by 155%, from $717.7 billion in 2004 to $1,833.3 billion in 2007. Developed countries received most of these FDI flows during this period. In 2007, 68.1 percent or $ 1,248 billion of the FDI went to the developed economies. The United States was the largest recipient of FDI followed by United Kingdom, France, Canada, and the Netherlands while the EU region attracted almost two thirds of the total FDI inflows to the developed countries (UNCTAD, 2008).

However, the 2008-2009 global economic and financial crises radically altered the pattern of global FDI flows with emerging and transition economies becoming the major destinations of FDI flows in 2010 for the first time.

Global FDI Flows in 2010

The global FDI flows declined by 39% to $1,114 billion in 2009 from $1,700 billion in 2008. The FDIs stagnated in 2010 with marginal 1% increase to $ 1,122 billion from the 2009 level (UNCTAD, 2011). The stagnation in global flows was accompanied by a further contraction in FDI flows into developed countries while the flows into developing and transition economies increased representing over 50% of the total global FDI flows in 2010 for the first time.

In 2009 developed economies received 50.8% or $565.9 billion of the total global FDI flows while the developing economies received 42.9% and the transition economies of South-East Europe and the Common Wealth of Independent States receiving the remaining 6.3 % of the 2009 total FDI flows. The Russian Federation alone accounted for 55% of the total FDI inflows to the transition economies.

However, in 2010, FDI flows into developed economies contracted by 7% compared to 2009. The European Union was the worst hit with FDI inflows contracting by 20% in 2010. Among the developed economies, Japan saw the biggest decline in FDI inflows in 2010 with FDI contracting by a whopping 83.4% due to major disinvestments. With 66.3% contraction in FDI, Ireland, whose economy was ravaged by the financial crisis, witnessed the second highest FDI contraction among the developed economies due primary to uncertainties about sovereign debt. The recent EU bailout is expected to assist Ireland’s economic recovery. FDI inflows to Germany and France declined marginally. Unlike other major industrialized nations, the United States, the world’s largest economy, enjoyed a robust expansion in FDI inflows in 2010. FDI flows into United States increased by 43.4% in 2010. The United States received over 35% of the total FDI flows into the developed world in 2010 followed by France, which received 10.9% of the total FDI flows into the developed countries, as a distant second. The Nobel Laureate President Barack Obama is not doing bad after all in spite of the repeated predictions of doomsday by his political opponents.

On the other hand, FDI flows into developing economies increased by 9.7% in 2010. Developing countries received 46.8% of the total global FDI flows in 2010 while transition economies received 6.3% of the total global flows. The two groups of economies together received 53.1% of the global FDI flows in 2010. For the first time, developing and transition economies overtook advanced economies as major destinations of the foreign direct investment.

The fastest growing and the world’s second largest economy, China, received the bulk of the FDI flows into the developing world. China received nearly 20% of the total FDI flows into the developing world and its FDI inflows surpassed $100 billion mark in 2010 for the first time. Hong Kong (China) is the second largest FDI receiver with $62 billion in 2010. In terms of the growth in FDI flows into developing economies in 2010, the best performers however are Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and Hong Kong (China), with annual growth rates of 410%, 163%, 123% and 29% respectively. FDI flows closly track performances in economic growth among other things. In this regard, South, East and South-East Asia will continue to drive global economic recovery and growth for many years to come. However, FDI flows to South Asia declined in 2010 mainly due to decline in FDI flows into India by 31.5%.

In Latin America, Mexico, Peru and Chile were the best performers with FDI growth rates of 52.9%, 44.7% and 43.4% in 2010 respectively while Brazil is the largest receiver of FDI receiving $30.2 billion in 2010.

Globally, the United States remained the top receiver of FDI flows in 2010 followed by China, and Hong Kong (China) in the second and third position respectively. Except the United States advanced economies lost their positions as the three leading destinations of FDI in 2010.

FDI Flows to Africa

During the high growth years anchored by the commodity price boom, i.e. 2001-2007, FDI flows into Africa increased rapidly. FDI flows into Africa reached an all time high of $87.6 billion in 2008 from a mere $14.2 billion in 2002. However, the decline in economic growth caused by global financial crisis and the plunge in commodity prices sharply reversed the trend in 2009. The FDI flows into Africa declined by over 33% in 2009 to $58.6 billion. While the growth in FDI flows into Asia and Latin America recovered in 2010, FDI flows into Africa continue a down ward spiral. It declined further by 14.4% in 2010 to $50.1 billion, the lowest level for four years.

The decline in FDI flows into Africa has been driven by the flows into four major FDI recipients: South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Morocco. In 2009 FDI flows into Morocco, South Africa and Egypt declined by 56.6%, 24.6% and 13.9% respectively. As a result, Morocco lost its status as a major receiver of FDI in Africa and Nigeria emerged as second largest receiver of FDI after Egypt in 2009. However, in 2010 FDI flows into Nigeria collapsed by over 60% while those into South Africa plunged by 78%. Only Egypt maintained a marginal increase in FDI to stay as a leading destination in the African continent. However, South Africa remains to be a major destination of portfolio investment in the continent driven primarily by near zero yields in advanced economies.

While UNCTAD did not give any reason for such drastic contractions in FDI flows into South Africa and Nigeria, this is likely to negatively affect economic development and job creation agenda of the respective governments.

However, the 2011 World Bank Prospects for Development report paints a bright future for sub Saharan Africa. With better than expected pace of recovery from global economic crisis and with annual average economic growth expected to be in excess of 5% between 2010 and 2012, several sub Saharan Africa countries are better positioned to attract more FDI inflows in the coming years. The investment climate in Africa is improving, and many countries have improved their macroeconomic policies and debt sustainability; as a result many are increasingly talking of several African countries being on the verge of an economic takeoff (World Bank, 2011).

Historically, FDI flows into Africa have exclusively focused on extractive industries but this has changed since recently. At present FDI inflows have diversified into the service sectors particularly telecommunications and banking sectors. For example, the recent offer of Walmart to acquire South Africa’s MassMart is an equivalent of 13 times the pre-tax earnings of the latter and represents a significant injection in FDI into Africa.

“Africa is also becoming an attractive destination for portfolio investment flows. Countries like Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Rwanda are identified by several fund managers as possible destinations for Africa-centric investment funds” (World Bank, 2011).

Expectations of increased FDI inflows to Africa are boosted by the South-South cooperation or Africa’s emerging economic partnerships particularly with China, India, Brazil, Malaysia and Turkey in recent years. For instance, the mid 2010 acquisition of the Africa business of the Kuwait based telecom company, Zain Telecom for $10.7 billion by an Indian telecom giant Bharti Airtel represents the largest South-South acquisitions ever. Zain operates in 17 African countries.

Given its vast natural resource endowments and population of over a billion, Africa has a great potential to become one of the leading destinations of FDI in the near future. However, the realization of this potential depends on the size and sustainability of economic growth, continuity of economic reforms and political stability. The current events in Cote d’Ivoire, Tunisia, Algeria and a host of other countries have a potential of derailing Africa’s dream if not amicably resolved soon.

References

•   UNCTAD (2008). World Investment Report 2008. Transnational Corporations and the Infrastructure Challenge. Overview. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2008.

•   UNCTAD (2011). UNCTAD Global Investment Trends Monitor No.5 , January 17, 2011.

•   World Bank (2011). Sub-Saharan Africa may stand to gain more international capital flows in coming years. Prospects. January 21, 2011.

   By: Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez
Mexican oral tradition hands us the following narrative, a narrative that is arguably related to the ongoing battle over Raza Studies in the state of Arizona.

Soon after the Spanish invaded Mexico and laid siege to Mexico-Tenochtitlan, the Supreme Senate of the Confederation of Anahuac, sent out a decree. In Spanish, it is known as El Ultimo Mandato de Cuauhtémoc or Cuauhtémoc’s Final Decree. Cuauhtémoc — Eagle that Descends from the Sky — is considered the last Tlatoani (great speaker) and the last defender of the Aztec-Mexica peoples.

The decree speaks of their sun concealing itself, directing the Mexica to destroy all that which they hold dear: “Let us destroy our temples, our places of study, our schools, our ballgame fields, and our houses of song.” The people are directed, not to destroy their culture, but to preserve it and to take it inside their homes and to bury it deep within their hearts.

One could argue that the Raza Studies timeline begins at this point… with the call to both resist and preserve the history, knowledge and ancient culture. But in reality, this cultural timeline goes back some seven thousand years to when maiz was created on this continent. But the timeline that we’re interested in here is when Raza Studies became controversial. In 2006, farm labor leader, Dolores Huerta, addressed students at Tucson High School, telling them: “Republicans hate Latinos.” Enraged, state schools superintendent Tom Horne dispatched his deputy superintendent, Margaret Dugan-Garcia, to THS to counter that idea, arguing she was proof that “Republicans don’t hate Latinos.” The students, according to Leilani Clark, who is Pueblo and African American and who was present at the speech, were directed not to ask questions, except in written form, two weeks ahead of time. To protest this form of censorship, the students put duct tape over their mouths and as Dugan-Garcia spoke, the students turned their back on her and then proceeded to walk out of the auditorium.

Since then and with a vengeance, Huerta’s pronouncement has proven to be completely on the mark, particularly in Arizona.

The events of 2006 and the subsequent attempts to destroy Ethnic/Raza Studies are arguably related to Cuauhtemoc’s decree, a decree that many Mexicans hold to be sacred.

Unbeknownst to themselves, Russell Pearce, author of most of the state’s anti-Mexican, anti-Indigenous and anti-immigrant bills, along with Tom Horne, the intellectual author of the state’s anti K-12 Ethnic/Raza Studies bill, are players in a cosmic drama that they have no knowledge of. John Huppenthal, Horne’s successor, is also implicated as he intends to wage this campaign at the university level.

Despite their constant and disingenuous mischaracterizations of TUSD’s highly successful Raza Studies program, these state officials have not actually publically opposed the teaching of Raza Studies; they are Ok with students being taught their culture and history at home, just not in public schools.

This private/ public debate regarding culture is not new. Motivated by shame and subservience, it has been infamously advanced by reactionaries in regards to language and culture: keep them at home, not in public, not in the schools. And yet, to preserve the culture, this is precisely what Cuauhtémoc’s decree instructed.

However, the decree also instructed that one day, the need to hide the culture would cease and that there would come a time when there would no longer be a need to conceal the culture.

Some will call this private/public dynamic and allusion to Cuauhtémoc’s decree a metaphor and yet, this is precisely what Arizona state officials are again insisting upon, seemingly unaware that the era of shame, that the era of keeping one’s culture within the home has long past.

The battle over Ethnic/Raza Studies represents this epic struggle. Speaking to Clark, she agreed. She said that the problem with Horne and Pearce “is that what they don’t realize is the size of our home; it is the entire continent.” This comports with another decree, proclaimed this September at a continental Indigenous encounter in Peru: “No somos inmigrantes en nuestro propio continente” — We can not be immigrants on our own continent.”

The other problem Arizona state officials don’t realize is that the idea of remanding culture to the home is no longer acceptable. Perhaps that sufficed for nearly 500 years, but as the students at Tucson High proclaimed in 2006 when they walked out on Dugan-Garcia: “You can silence our voices, but never our spirit.”

This is why students and community have walked out, have run, marched, walked, protested, rallied, gotten arrested, held vigils, sit-ins and teach-ins for the past few years. The sense of shame has lifted. The idea of concealing their culture — the idea of acquiescing in their own ethnic cleansing is no longer an option. Their/our sun will never again be concealed.

———————————————————————–
* In response to these issues, a national conference will be held in Tucson on Dec 2-4. For info, go to: http://drcintli.blogspot.com/
———————————————————————–

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

   By: Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez
In Arizona, we fight because we are spirit. Yet, in recent travels, I’ve gotten the distinct impression that many people think that human beings are made simply of flesh and blood and that only things material have consequence.

Human beings also have spirits. In Arizona, bigot forces are not content with simply getting rid of as many brown bodies as possible, but also ensuring that those that remain become assimilated into intolerant copies of themselves.

The world appears to be knowledgeable about the effort — via SB 1070 — to legalize hate, fear and racial profiling in Arizona. What most seem to be unaware of is that there is also an effort by state schools superintendant, Tom Horne, to brainwash the state’s school children via HB 2281 — the anti-Ethnic/Raza Studies law that unless stopped — will go into effect on Jan 1, 2011.

There is a third law in the works; the effort by state rep. Russell Pierce, chief sponsor of the state’s apartheid laws, to nullify the 14th Amendment in Arizona [guarantees U.S. birthright citizenship].

Tolteka, a renowned Los Angeles hip hop artist — inspired by a recent column — From Manifest Destiny to Manifest Insanity — has penned a rhyme called: The Trilogy of Terror. It breaks down these so-called laws that are intended to destroy our minds and spirits.

Those of us here in Arizona do not recognize these apartheid schemes as laws. At least not as moral or legitimate laws. Even the courts have already struck down the most odious parts of SB 1070.

But back to HB 2281. This is the one people are paying least attention to. While denouncing SB 1070 in May, five UN Special Rapporteurs also denounced HB 2281. They said: “Such law and attitude are at odds with the State’s responsibility to respect the right of everyone to have access to his or her own cultural and linguistic heritage and to participate in cultural life… Everyone has the right to seek and develop cultural knowledge and to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information.”

They further pointed out that controlling immigration and adhering to fundamental principles of non-discrimination are not mutually exclusive. “States are obligated to not only eradicate racial discrimination, but also to promote a social and political environment conducive to respect for ethnic and cultural diversity.”

Their report is self-evident, yet, we should pay close attention to the illogic of the bigoted forces; they claim they are not against immigration: only illegal immigration. So what does anti-bilingualism and Ethnic Studies have to do with illegal immigration?

There is an equal danger to both SB 1070 and HB 2281; one attacks our bodies, the other our minds and spirits. HB 2281 targets Tucson’s highly successful Raza Studies program. But as written, it applies to the entire state, and it can become copycat legislation — state by state — not simply targeting k-12 education, but universities as well. The authors erroneously claim Ethnic Studies result in hate, segregation, anti-americanism and advocates the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

What’s at stake with HB 2281 is not simply an attack on a program (Raza Studies), but on the right to teach/learn and the right of students to succeed as a result. As signed, HB 2281 creates a mechanism by which books and curriculums will be subject to approval by the state. The premise is that only Greco-Roman culture (“Western Civilization”) is acceptable for Arizona curriculums. Knowledge from other cultures is henceforth deemed to be “un-American.” Books such as Occupied America (Acuña) and Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire) have already been singled out.

In Arizona, the state superintendant of schools has appointed himself not simply education czar (opposing local control), but also, royal cosmographer — determining that not only is maiz-based or Maya-Nahua culture and knowledge — the philosophical foundation for Raza Studies — outside of Western Civilization, but also outside of humanity. In effect, he also fancies himself head of the BIA — determining who/what is Indigenous.

While singling out people of color, these Inquisition-era “laws” in reality, are an attack against all people. The legalization of racial profiling and cultural mind-control belongs in the Dark Ages and the battle against the sanctioning of hate, censorship and forbidden curriculums is being fought right here in Arizona (This is the subject of a forthcoming conference in December at the University of Arizona). Within weeks, this battle will step into the courtroom via a lawsuit against the state. We are confident we will easily win against the forces of fear, hate and ignorance.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

   By: Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez
By now, most of the world has learned that the Republican-dominated legislature in Arizona and its unelected governor are capable of creating laws more associated with repressive regimes — or bygone eras — than with modern states. And it also knows it has become a magnet for supremacists of every stripe and color.

That’s not a good thing, but for those thousands who are bankrolling Gov. Jan Brewer’s defense of the state’s racial profiling law SB 1070 — scheduled to go into effect July 29 — many actually believe she is putting up a valiant defense against invading and violent [brown] hordes. Seemingly unbeknownst to her supporters, contrary to her recent claims, the vast majority of migrants are not involved in the drug trade. Despite Border Patrol officials telling her otherwise, she continues with her uninformed falsehoods and fear-mongering, with the effect of continuing to associate migrants with [drug] criminality.

Also unbeknownst to these legislators, is that ironically, one of their wacko laws can actually provide the solution to ending the drug cartel violence raging across Mexico: the state’s anti-human smuggling law. In this state, migrants can be charged and convicted of conspiring [with their coyote] to smuggle themselves into Arizona. The law was not designed that way, but leave it to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to interpret the law in such a manner.

After having been stripped of his 287g federal immigration powers — stemming from his penchant for media choreographed mass dragnet raids aimed at red-brown communities — he now relies on the state’s anti-human smuggling law to stage his dehumanizing productions.

As bizarre and abused as this law is — if emulated to fight the drug war in the United States — the drug cartel wars in Mexico would come to a virtual halt overnight. If the same Arpaio logic were applied to the nation’s drug trafficking laws, then every American who uses imported illegal drugs would be complicit and guilty of conspiring to smuggle those drugs into this country. And we would need a lot more prisons.

Either that or perhaps the drug demand by Americans would drop quite precipitously… pronto. No one can seriously doubt that it is the American demand for drugs that is fueling the drug cartel wars in Mexico. The American market is extremely lucrative. Cocaine, for example, is not grown or produced in Mexico. Yet, it is funneled through Mexico to quench the voracious American appetite. As part of this demand, American noses and arms are satisfied while many thousands of Mexicans die in the crossfire.

The state legislature or Congress could charge drug users with conspiracy to smuggle the drugs they use. There is but one reason this will never happen: WE ARE AMERICANS!

Americans have rules for everyone else and rules for themselves (Invading nations without a just cause is one example). Actually, “Americans” in this case is more specific; when it comes to drugs, there are rules for White, middle and upper middle class Americans, and then there are rules for people of color.

Cocaine is the perfect example. Since 1986, there has been a 100 to 1 possession disparity between its consumption as crack (wrongly associated with poor blacks) or in its powder form (middle class whites). Historically, under federal law, 5 grams of crack is the same as 500 grams of powdered cocaine. Each trigger a 5-year prison sentence. Over the past generation, this sentencing and incarceration disparity, not coincidentally, has long been indisputably racial in nature, resulting in the filling up of this nation’s prisons with black and brown drug offenders.

But back to how Arizona’s bizarre anti-smuggling law could be used to stem the drug cartel violence. American drug users — most of whom are white — could be charged, not with simple possession, but with felony conspiracy to bring in their own drugs. If applied judiciously and uniformly, the fear of long-term prison incarceration — 10 years, for example — would invariably dry up the fuel for the drug cartel violence.

It would also deflate the conflation between drug smuggling and migrants.

As most of the world already knows, that conflation has always been false.

Yet that’s par for Arizona where bizarre is normal and truth is difficult to find. Perhaps the Justice Department — which has now sued Arizona over SB 1070 on the grounds that immigration policy is the purview of the federal government, not the states — will bring a little bit of truth to the desert. Meanwhile, 153 bodies have thus far been recovered this year in that same merciless desert (http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net/).

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————