Burma's detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is suffering from low blood pressure and dehydration and is barely eating, her party spokesman says.
Nyan Win said they were extremely worried about the 63-year-old Nobel Laureate's health.
A medical assistant has placed Ms Suu Kyi on an intravenous drip. Her own doctor was reportedly detained after visiting her earlier this week.
Ms Suu Kyi She has been under almost permanent house arrest since 1990.
It followed the victory of her National League for Democracy (NLD) in a general election in 1990. The junta has refused to allow the party to assume power.
Ms Suu Kyi's latest period of detention is due to expire at the end of May but the authorities have not yet said if it will be extended.
Break-in
"We are very concerned about her health and security conditions," Nyan Win of the NLD told the BBC.
He said Ms Suu Kyi had suffered a loss of appetite and had gone three to four days without eating.
As a result, her blood pressure had dropped and she was showing symptoms of dehydration
Nyan Win said the party was closely monitoring the situation, and would decide next week whether to press for greater medical treatment for Ms Suu Kyi.
Nyan Win said it was not clear why physician Tin Myo Win had been arrested last Thursday.
He speculated that it could be linked to the arrest on Tuesday of a man carrying a US passport who swam across a lake to the property.
About 20 police are reported to have entered Ms Suu Kyi's house on Thursday morning.
It followed reports that an American, identified as John William Yeattaw, had managed to breach tight security to swim across Inya Lake and enter Ms Suu Kyi's house secretly on Sunday.
He was arrested after swimming back across the lake late on Tuesday.
Such an incident would be the first time someone has broken into Ms Suu Kyi's compound
Sunday, May 10, 2009
US to review Afghan air strikes
A top US military commander has announced a review into the American use of air strikes in Afghanistan.
Gen David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, said "tactical actions" should not undermine strategic goals.
His comments came after Afghan President Hamid Karzai said US air strikes that kill civilians were damaging the fight against terrorism.
Washington again expressed regret over recent civilian deaths, but refused to rule out such strikes in the future.
On Sunday, hundreds of university students in the Afghan capital, Kabul, protested against air strikes last week targeting Taleban fighters in the western Farah province.
Afghan sources said nearly 150 had been killed, but that figure has been disputed by the US.
Gen Petraeus, who is responsible for US operations in the region, told Fox News television that he had named a brigadier general "with extensive experience in conventional and special operations" to go to Afghanistan and look at the issue "more broadly".
He said the unnamed military officer would serve to ensure that "our tactical actions don't undermine our strategic goals and objectives".
"That's essentially the conversation that President Karzai and I had yesterday on this particular topic," he added.
Gen Petraeus also said the Taleban bore "enormous blame" for firing on US troops from the protection of civilian houses.
'Fed up'
Speaking after talks with the German chancellor in Berlin, Mr Karzai said civilian deaths had to be avoided.
"Civilian casualties, of course, is a very serious matter for the Afghan people, (it) also is a serious matter for our allies," Mr Karzai said at the news conference.
"It's something that the Afghan people want to be addressed effectively and sooner."
In the protest in Kabul, students held up banners including one that called America "the biggest terrorist in the world".
Students in Kabul called for those responsible to be put on trial
The protesters also called for those responsible for the deaths to be put on trial.
"Our people are fed up with Taleban beheadings and suicide bombings. On the other hand, the massacre of civilians by the American forces is a crime that our people will never forget," a statement quoted by AFP news agency said.
President Obama's National Security Adviser, Gen James Jones, said the US would "redouble" efforts to limit civilian deaths, but added that it could not hamper its forces in Afghanistan by banning air strikes.
"We can't fight with one hand tied behind our back," General he told ABC television.
Last week, Mr Karzai urged the US to stop the use of such strikes
The air strike in Farah province overshadowed a summit on Wednesday between the President Barack Obama, Mr Karzai, and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari.
Gen David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, said "tactical actions" should not undermine strategic goals.
His comments came after Afghan President Hamid Karzai said US air strikes that kill civilians were damaging the fight against terrorism.
Washington again expressed regret over recent civilian deaths, but refused to rule out such strikes in the future.
On Sunday, hundreds of university students in the Afghan capital, Kabul, protested against air strikes last week targeting Taleban fighters in the western Farah province.
Afghan sources said nearly 150 had been killed, but that figure has been disputed by the US.
Gen Petraeus, who is responsible for US operations in the region, told Fox News television that he had named a brigadier general "with extensive experience in conventional and special operations" to go to Afghanistan and look at the issue "more broadly".
He said the unnamed military officer would serve to ensure that "our tactical actions don't undermine our strategic goals and objectives".
"That's essentially the conversation that President Karzai and I had yesterday on this particular topic," he added.
Gen Petraeus also said the Taleban bore "enormous blame" for firing on US troops from the protection of civilian houses.
'Fed up'
Speaking after talks with the German chancellor in Berlin, Mr Karzai said civilian deaths had to be avoided.
"Civilian casualties, of course, is a very serious matter for the Afghan people, (it) also is a serious matter for our allies," Mr Karzai said at the news conference.
"It's something that the Afghan people want to be addressed effectively and sooner."
In the protest in Kabul, students held up banners including one that called America "the biggest terrorist in the world".
Students in Kabul called for those responsible to be put on trial
The protesters also called for those responsible for the deaths to be put on trial.
"Our people are fed up with Taleban beheadings and suicide bombings. On the other hand, the massacre of civilians by the American forces is a crime that our people will never forget," a statement quoted by AFP news agency said.
President Obama's National Security Adviser, Gen James Jones, said the US would "redouble" efforts to limit civilian deaths, but added that it could not hamper its forces in Afghanistan by banning air strikes.
"We can't fight with one hand tied behind our back," General he told ABC television.
Last week, Mr Karzai urged the US to stop the use of such strikes
The air strike in Farah province overshadowed a summit on Wednesday between the President Barack Obama, Mr Karzai, and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Manmohan soothes DMK's ruffled feathers
With just one phase in these elections remaining, the focus of all the major political formations has shifted to the process of cobbling together post-poll allies.
On Saturday, Manmohan Singh was giving bedside assurance that the Congress will not dump the DMK for the AIADMK after the polls was necessitated by what was seen as overtures by Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi to Jayalalithaa.
At a press conference in Chennai before his hospital visit to see the DMK chief M Karunanidhi, the Prime Minister tried to reach out to his only Tamil Nadu ally.
When asked if he is categorically ruling out any alliance with the AIADMK after the polls, Singh said, "As of now, we are fighting this election in the company of the DMK. It is our fervent hope that this alliance which has stood the test of time for the last five years and has delivered solid results, we will maintain this alliance as we form the government."
While reiterating the Centre's concern for Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka, Singh chose to side step a reference to Karunanidhi's recent pro-LTTE comments.
"I may not agree with them but it is a free country, a democracy and everyone has a right to express their views," he said.
But many believe that the Prime Minister is hedging his bets because he has refused to rule out a post-poll pact with the AIADMK.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
With just one phase in these elections remaining, the focus of all the major political formations has shifted to the process of cobbling together post-poll allies.
On Saturday, Manmohan Singh was giving bedside assurance that the Congress will not dump the DMK for the AIADMK after the polls was necessitated by what was seen as overtures by Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi to Jayalalithaa.
At a press conference in Chennai before his hospital visit to see the DMK chief M Karunanidhi, the Prime Minister tried to reach out to his only Tamil Nadu ally.
When asked if he is categorically ruling out any alliance with the AIADMK after the polls, Singh said, "As of now, we are fighting this election in the company of the DMK. It is our fervent hope that this alliance which has stood the test of time for the last five years and has delivered solid results, we will maintain this alliance as we form the government."
While reiterating the Centre's concern for Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka, Singh chose to side step a reference to Karunanidhi's recent pro-LTTE comments.
"I may not agree with them but it is a free country, a democracy and everyone has a right to express their views," he said.
But many believe that the Prime Minister is hedging his bets because he has refused to rule out a post-poll pact with the AIADMK.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
With just one phase in these elections remaining, the focus of all the major political formations has shifted to the process of cobbling together post-poll allies.
On Saturday, Manmohan Singh was giving bedside assurance that the Congress will not dump the DMK for the AIADMK after the polls was necessitated by what was seen as overtures by Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi to Jayalalithaa.
At a press conference in Chennai before his hospital visit to see the DMK chief M Karunanidhi, the Prime Minister tried to reach out to his only Tamil Nadu ally.
When asked if he is categorically ruling out any alliance with the AIADMK after the polls, Singh said, "As of now, we are fighting this election in the company of the DMK. It is our fervent hope that this alliance which has stood the test of time for the last five years and has delivered solid results, we will maintain this alliance as we form the government."
While reiterating the Centre's concern for Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka, Singh chose to side step a reference to Karunanidhi's recent pro-LTTE comments.
"I may not agree with them but it is a free country, a democracy and everyone has a right to express their views," he said.
But many believe that the Prime Minister is hedging his bets because he has refused to rule out a post-poll pact with the AIADMK.
On Saturday, Manmohan Singh was giving bedside assurance that the Congress will not dump the DMK for the AIADMK after the polls was necessitated by what was seen as overtures by Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi to Jayalalithaa.
At a press conference in Chennai before his hospital visit to see the DMK chief M Karunanidhi, the Prime Minister tried to reach out to his only Tamil Nadu ally.
When asked if he is categorically ruling out any alliance with the AIADMK after the polls, Singh said, "As of now, we are fighting this election in the company of the DMK. It is our fervent hope that this alliance which has stood the test of time for the last five years and has delivered solid results, we will maintain this alliance as we form the government."
While reiterating the Centre's concern for Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka, Singh chose to side step a reference to Karunanidhi's recent pro-LTTE comments.
"I may not agree with them but it is a free country, a democracy and everyone has a right to express their views," he said.
But many believe that the Prime Minister is hedging his bets because he has refused to rule out a post-poll pact with the AIADMK.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
With just one phase in these elections remaining, the focus of all the major political formations has shifted to the process of cobbling together post-poll allies.
On Saturday, Manmohan Singh was giving bedside assurance that the Congress will not dump the DMK for the AIADMK after the polls was necessitated by what was seen as overtures by Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi to Jayalalithaa.
At a press conference in Chennai before his hospital visit to see the DMK chief M Karunanidhi, the Prime Minister tried to reach out to his only Tamil Nadu ally.
When asked if he is categorically ruling out any alliance with the AIADMK after the polls, Singh said, "As of now, we are fighting this election in the company of the DMK. It is our fervent hope that this alliance which has stood the test of time for the last five years and has delivered solid results, we will maintain this alliance as we form the government."
While reiterating the Centre's concern for Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka, Singh chose to side step a reference to Karunanidhi's recent pro-LTTE comments.
"I may not agree with them but it is a free country, a democracy and everyone has a right to express their views," he said.
But many believe that the Prime Minister is hedging his bets because he has refused to rule out a post-poll pact with the AIADMK.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
With just one phase in these elections remaining, the focus of all the major political formations has shifted to the process of cobbling together post-poll allies.
On Saturday, Manmohan Singh was giving bedside assurance that the Congress will not dump the DMK for the AIADMK after the polls was necessitated by what was seen as overtures by Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi to Jayalalithaa.
At a press conference in Chennai before his hospital visit to see the DMK chief M Karunanidhi, the Prime Minister tried to reach out to his only Tamil Nadu ally.
When asked if he is categorically ruling out any alliance with the AIADMK after the polls, Singh said, "As of now, we are fighting this election in the company of the DMK. It is our fervent hope that this alliance which has stood the test of time for the last five years and has delivered solid results, we will maintain this alliance as we form the government."
While reiterating the Centre's concern for Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka, Singh chose to side step a reference to Karunanidhi's recent pro-LTTE comments.
"I may not agree with them but it is a free country, a democracy and everyone has a right to express their views," he said.
But many believe that the Prime Minister is hedging his bets because he has refused to rule out a post-poll pact with the AIADMK.
fast forward
Perhaps it’s the heat or maybe it’s excess of politics, but I’m going to make one of those reckless prognostications that make wise men weep and journalists howl with laughter. Worse, I have little more than my gut instinct to back up my prediction. It could seem rational, even logical, possibly analytical but I readily accept it’s also questionable, disputable and controversial.
Well, so much for the explanation. Or the apologia! What is it that’s prompted this self-effacing preface? Simply this: Priyanka Gandhi will be Prime Minister of India one day.
But let me quickly add it won’t happen immediately and possibly not for several years. And it’s what happens in the interregnum that will be critical to her candidature and its success. So now, lured no doubt by my own impetuosity, let me elaborate.
My hunch is we are going to see a messy outcome of the present elections. Whether it’s a third or fourth front government, or one that includes or is even led by the Congress or the BJP, it will be weak, short-lived and unable to tackle the economic, political or national security challenges we face.
However, the term khichdi falls short of fully describing this experience. Khichdi is usually light and easy to digest. This government will prove hard to accept and difficult to swallow. And the pain of endurance will determine the outcome of the next election. That could be as early as 2011.
My guess is at that point India will vote for a strong alternative led by a personality who has a national appeal and can command attention. And if at that stage the Congress is fronted by Rahul Gandhi and the BJP by Narendra Modi, then the latter fits the bill.
Secondly, the process that brings Modi to power will fracture or shatter the NDA. This means Modi will either have an outright BJP majority or, at most, depend on the Shiv Sena and Akali Dal. And I’d say his government will probably serve its full term.
So it’s seven years down the road that Priyanka Gandhi will step on to the political stage. It will be the shock of the Modi victory — and, perhaps, revulsion against the man, his policies and their outcome — that will overcome both her philosophical distaste for politics as well as her emotional reluctance to replace her brother.
Convincing Priyanka won’t be easy and it won’t happen quickly. In fact, she’ll have to convince herself — by living through Modi’s India, by wrestling with her doubts and inhibitions and by accepting, but perhaps never admitting, that Rahul, the brother she adores, cannot restore the Congress fortunes or India’s self-image and self-respect. She’ll have to convince herself that her party and her country need her.
And now, why do I believe if Priyanka steps into politics she could end up as PM? Because she has a magical spark that makes her compelling. It’s a combination of charm, charisma, presence, appearance and intelligence. You see it on tv, you sense it in her interviews and, if my colleagues are correct, it captivates the audiences she speaks to.
She has one further quality which is particularly rare. She understands herself and is comfortable with who she is. It’s a sort of Buddhist self-awareness and it’s reassuring to encounter. It makes you want to believe in her. Yet this is why she will struggle and agonise over becoming a politician but, when she does, this is also why she will rise to the top.
Pause now and ask how many ‘ifs’ have to happen for my prophecy to be fulfilled? I’d say three: an unpalatable khichdi at this elections, a Modi ‘majority’ at the next and a widespread acceptance of the Priyanka phenomenon in the interim.
The third of these three factors is already under-way. The first is likely to happen by next weekend. Thereafter, it all depends on Modi’s fortunes. The irony is that it could turn out like the disputed Modi comment of 2002 — Priyanka Gandhi will be the equal and opposite ‘reaction’ to his own coming to power!
excerpts taken from the hindusthan times as published :Karan Thapar( Sunday Edition)
Well, so much for the explanation. Or the apologia! What is it that’s prompted this self-effacing preface? Simply this: Priyanka Gandhi will be Prime Minister of India one day.
But let me quickly add it won’t happen immediately and possibly not for several years. And it’s what happens in the interregnum that will be critical to her candidature and its success. So now, lured no doubt by my own impetuosity, let me elaborate.
My hunch is we are going to see a messy outcome of the present elections. Whether it’s a third or fourth front government, or one that includes or is even led by the Congress or the BJP, it will be weak, short-lived and unable to tackle the economic, political or national security challenges we face.
However, the term khichdi falls short of fully describing this experience. Khichdi is usually light and easy to digest. This government will prove hard to accept and difficult to swallow. And the pain of endurance will determine the outcome of the next election. That could be as early as 2011.
My guess is at that point India will vote for a strong alternative led by a personality who has a national appeal and can command attention. And if at that stage the Congress is fronted by Rahul Gandhi and the BJP by Narendra Modi, then the latter fits the bill.
Secondly, the process that brings Modi to power will fracture or shatter the NDA. This means Modi will either have an outright BJP majority or, at most, depend on the Shiv Sena and Akali Dal. And I’d say his government will probably serve its full term.
So it’s seven years down the road that Priyanka Gandhi will step on to the political stage. It will be the shock of the Modi victory — and, perhaps, revulsion against the man, his policies and their outcome — that will overcome both her philosophical distaste for politics as well as her emotional reluctance to replace her brother.
Convincing Priyanka won’t be easy and it won’t happen quickly. In fact, she’ll have to convince herself — by living through Modi’s India, by wrestling with her doubts and inhibitions and by accepting, but perhaps never admitting, that Rahul, the brother she adores, cannot restore the Congress fortunes or India’s self-image and self-respect. She’ll have to convince herself that her party and her country need her.
And now, why do I believe if Priyanka steps into politics she could end up as PM? Because she has a magical spark that makes her compelling. It’s a combination of charm, charisma, presence, appearance and intelligence. You see it on tv, you sense it in her interviews and, if my colleagues are correct, it captivates the audiences she speaks to.
She has one further quality which is particularly rare. She understands herself and is comfortable with who she is. It’s a sort of Buddhist self-awareness and it’s reassuring to encounter. It makes you want to believe in her. Yet this is why she will struggle and agonise over becoming a politician but, when she does, this is also why she will rise to the top.
Pause now and ask how many ‘ifs’ have to happen for my prophecy to be fulfilled? I’d say three: an unpalatable khichdi at this elections, a Modi ‘majority’ at the next and a widespread acceptance of the Priyanka phenomenon in the interim.
The third of these three factors is already under-way. The first is likely to happen by next weekend. Thereafter, it all depends on Modi’s fortunes. The irony is that it could turn out like the disputed Modi comment of 2002 — Priyanka Gandhi will be the equal and opposite ‘reaction’ to his own coming to power!
excerpts taken from the hindusthan times as published :Karan Thapar( Sunday Edition)
Thieves make merry on poll day, steal 19 vehicles
Over 56,000 security personnel including the 38,834 strong Delhi Police force ensured smooth elections in the Capital but such a huge force couldn’t prevent vehicle thefts.
Automobile thieves managed to steal as many as 19 vehicles from the streets of the city in a single day on May 7.
Delhi police said 19 cases of vehicular theft were reported from various parts of the city on polling day.
Rahul Gupta, a resident of Sadar Bazaar, reported that his Santro car was stolen on the day of elections. “I parked my car at our residential parking lot around midnight. When I woke up in the morning around 6:00, I found out that my car was missing. There was such heavy police presence in our area but still the thieves managed to steal my vehicle,” he said.
According to Delhi Police records this year till May 8, as many as 8,704 vehicles were reported stolen in the Capital.
On an average around 70 vehicles are stolen per day and it seems that polling day was no exception. In 2007 the figure was 8,039, which rose in 2008 to 9,895 motor vehicle thefts in the Capital.
The Delhi Police on their part had rounded up various bad characters, car thieves and bootleggers before the elections. But all this has not helped in preventing car thefts in the city.
On May 7, 19 motorcycles and 8 cars were reported stolen from different parts of the city.
Even after a crackdown by police teams on a number of gangs, cases of carjacking of luxury vehicles are also on the rise in the city.
“Cars like Skoda, Honda Civic and even high-end luxury SUVs like Mitsubishi Pajeros are much in demand in the black market,” said a police officer.
courtsey: the hindusthan times
Automobile thieves managed to steal as many as 19 vehicles from the streets of the city in a single day on May 7.
Delhi police said 19 cases of vehicular theft were reported from various parts of the city on polling day.
Rahul Gupta, a resident of Sadar Bazaar, reported that his Santro car was stolen on the day of elections. “I parked my car at our residential parking lot around midnight. When I woke up in the morning around 6:00, I found out that my car was missing. There was such heavy police presence in our area but still the thieves managed to steal my vehicle,” he said.
According to Delhi Police records this year till May 8, as many as 8,704 vehicles were reported stolen in the Capital.
On an average around 70 vehicles are stolen per day and it seems that polling day was no exception. In 2007 the figure was 8,039, which rose in 2008 to 9,895 motor vehicle thefts in the Capital.
The Delhi Police on their part had rounded up various bad characters, car thieves and bootleggers before the elections. But all this has not helped in preventing car thefts in the city.
On May 7, 19 motorcycles and 8 cars were reported stolen from different parts of the city.
Even after a crackdown by police teams on a number of gangs, cases of carjacking of luxury vehicles are also on the rise in the city.
“Cars like Skoda, Honda Civic and even high-end luxury SUVs like Mitsubishi Pajeros are much in demand in the black market,” said a police officer.
courtsey: the hindusthan times
Better, but hardly great
The economy no longer is in a free fall. Everyone has heard that by now, whether or not they feel that it's true in their own lives.
Wall Street believes it's true enough: The winter plunge in stocks has given way to a two-month-old rebound that has pushed most major share indexes up 30% or more, and back into positive territory for the year.
The market's job is to anticipate key inflection points in the economy. Sometimes, it even gets them right.
Yet there's a specter over this market recovery that looms larger as stocks climb: The short-term outlook for the economy has improved significantly. But there is a glaring lack of faith in the longer term.
Many big investors fear that the huge structural problems facing the economy -- the ongoing need for consumers to shrink their debt loads, for example -- will make it very difficult to foster an expansion robust enough to justify a sustained climb in share prices.
The real challenge for Wall Street, then, isn't staying optimistic this spring but figuring out how to be hopeful beyond the end of the year, even if the recession has ended.
That's why faith in a bona fide new bull market is hard to locate among veteran investors. And the two alternatives -- another bear-market swoon, or a long period of share prices bouncing back and forth in a narrow range -- hardly inspire joy.
For the moment, however, the markets are reacting logically to more signs that the economy is bottoming.
After reaching the depths of despair early in March, investors have been cheered by the "green shoots" appearing in the financial system and economy, a term coined by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke in March.
On Friday, the government reported that the economy lost a net 539,000 jobs in April. That should qualify as a disaster -- except in the context of far larger declines in the last few months, including net losses of 699,000 in March. Compared with the recent trend, April's employment report looks like a green shoot.
Likewise, in its long-awaited report Thursday on the financial health of 19 major banks, the Fed said it would require 10 of them to bolster their balance sheets by a total of $75 billion to protect against potential loan losses.
After the meltdown of much of the financial system last fall, Wall Street figures that a capital shortfall of $75 billion is a cinch: Bank stocks rocketed Friday, leading another broad advance that pushed the Standard & Poor's 500 index up 2.4%, bringing its gain since March 9 to 37%.
Skeptics say the Fed's so-called stress test of the banks is a joke, and doesn't come close to assessing the likely damage to the banks if commercial real estate loans, credit card loans and other debt follow the path of subprime mortgages.
But there have been enough other green shoots appearing, here and abroad, to push financial system fears off to the side for now.
Indeed, the rebound in U.S. stocks hasn't happened in a vacuum. Markets have surged around the globe over the last two months. So have prices of many commodities -- another bet on a reviving economy.
Crude oil in New York jumped $1.92 to $58.63 a barrel Friday, the highest price since November, even though U.S. oil inventories are at 19-year highs.
Some investors who correctly called the turn in markets this spring are sticking with the idea that the global economy has seen the worst of the recession.
Veteran money manager Jeremy Grantham, chairman of Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo in Boston, urged investors early in March to start putting cash to work. Because he has long been well-known as a market bear, Grantham's bullish turn got attention.
In a commentary to clients this week, Grantham said government spending aimed at ending the recession "is so extensive globally that surely it will kick up the economies of at least some of the larger countries, including the U.S. and China, by late this year or early next year."
Yet Grantham sees very little hope of lasting gains for stock investors in coming years. Any steep rally this year, he says, "Will set us up for a long, drawn-out disappointment not only in the economy, but also in the stock markets of the developed world."
Why? Look to the massive amount of wealth destroyed by the global stock crash and by the housing market's collapse, Grantham says. In the U.S., the total market value of housing, commercial real estate and stocks plummeted from $50 trillion at the peak to below $30 trillion at the recent low, he says.
That plunge, he says, "is enough to deliver a life-changing shock for hundreds of millions of people.
"Collectively, we will save more, spend less and waste less. It may not even be a less pleasant world when we get used to it, but for several years it will cause a lot of readjustment problems," Grantham says.
Notably, he warns, this New World Order will keep downward pressure on corporate profit margins. If earnings can't accelerate meaningfully, stocks' upside will be limited. And without a powerful earnings recovery, companies will have less incentive to expand and add jobs.
Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist for Deutsche Bank Securities in New York, says many investors may still be overestimating U.S. consumers' ability to bounce back from the economic and financial debacles of the last two years.
The severity of job losses in this recession have blown a hole in the nation's personal income statistics, LaVorgna notes. Add to that the burden of repaying the debt mountain built up over the last 25 years, the inability of many consumers to get new credit and the evaporation of home equity, and "we believe consumer spending will be extraordinarily weak for some time to come, even after the economy stabilizes and begins to improve sometime next year," he says.
Grantham and LaVorgna are generalizing about the future as they see it, obviously. It's a big planet with a lot of still-well-off consumers and enterprising companies. If the world isn't ending, there will be opportunities to make money in stocks even in a slower-growing global economy.
But their central point is that investors overall won't want to pay up aggressively for stocks if the economy is likely to face a slog, at best.
Of course, when recessions end there always are doubts about the economy's growth prospects in a recovery, and about how high stocks can go.
The last time doubts were this pervasive was in the expansion and bull market that began in 1982. Many investors were sure that the wild inflation and record-high interest rates of the 1970s would persist, limiting the economy's potential.
They were wrong. And as inflation and interest rates plunged, that underpinned the recovery and stocks' gains. So did a renewed borrowing binge by consumers, companies and government in the 1980s.
This time around, key interest rates, such as on mortgages, already are near record lows. The Fed's benchmark short-term interest rate is at zero. And given the credit catastrophe we're still living through, we know the next consumer borrowing binge is a long, long way off.
So investors, LaVorgna says, will keep running into the same sobering question about the economy if stocks keep rising: "How good is it going to get, really?"
Wall Street believes it's true enough: The winter plunge in stocks has given way to a two-month-old rebound that has pushed most major share indexes up 30% or more, and back into positive territory for the year.
The market's job is to anticipate key inflection points in the economy. Sometimes, it even gets them right.
Yet there's a specter over this market recovery that looms larger as stocks climb: The short-term outlook for the economy has improved significantly. But there is a glaring lack of faith in the longer term.
Many big investors fear that the huge structural problems facing the economy -- the ongoing need for consumers to shrink their debt loads, for example -- will make it very difficult to foster an expansion robust enough to justify a sustained climb in share prices.
The real challenge for Wall Street, then, isn't staying optimistic this spring but figuring out how to be hopeful beyond the end of the year, even if the recession has ended.
That's why faith in a bona fide new bull market is hard to locate among veteran investors. And the two alternatives -- another bear-market swoon, or a long period of share prices bouncing back and forth in a narrow range -- hardly inspire joy.
For the moment, however, the markets are reacting logically to more signs that the economy is bottoming.
After reaching the depths of despair early in March, investors have been cheered by the "green shoots" appearing in the financial system and economy, a term coined by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke in March.
On Friday, the government reported that the economy lost a net 539,000 jobs in April. That should qualify as a disaster -- except in the context of far larger declines in the last few months, including net losses of 699,000 in March. Compared with the recent trend, April's employment report looks like a green shoot.
Likewise, in its long-awaited report Thursday on the financial health of 19 major banks, the Fed said it would require 10 of them to bolster their balance sheets by a total of $75 billion to protect against potential loan losses.
After the meltdown of much of the financial system last fall, Wall Street figures that a capital shortfall of $75 billion is a cinch: Bank stocks rocketed Friday, leading another broad advance that pushed the Standard & Poor's 500 index up 2.4%, bringing its gain since March 9 to 37%.
Skeptics say the Fed's so-called stress test of the banks is a joke, and doesn't come close to assessing the likely damage to the banks if commercial real estate loans, credit card loans and other debt follow the path of subprime mortgages.
But there have been enough other green shoots appearing, here and abroad, to push financial system fears off to the side for now.
Indeed, the rebound in U.S. stocks hasn't happened in a vacuum. Markets have surged around the globe over the last two months. So have prices of many commodities -- another bet on a reviving economy.
Crude oil in New York jumped $1.92 to $58.63 a barrel Friday, the highest price since November, even though U.S. oil inventories are at 19-year highs.
Some investors who correctly called the turn in markets this spring are sticking with the idea that the global economy has seen the worst of the recession.
Veteran money manager Jeremy Grantham, chairman of Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo in Boston, urged investors early in March to start putting cash to work. Because he has long been well-known as a market bear, Grantham's bullish turn got attention.
In a commentary to clients this week, Grantham said government spending aimed at ending the recession "is so extensive globally that surely it will kick up the economies of at least some of the larger countries, including the U.S. and China, by late this year or early next year."
Yet Grantham sees very little hope of lasting gains for stock investors in coming years. Any steep rally this year, he says, "Will set us up for a long, drawn-out disappointment not only in the economy, but also in the stock markets of the developed world."
Why? Look to the massive amount of wealth destroyed by the global stock crash and by the housing market's collapse, Grantham says. In the U.S., the total market value of housing, commercial real estate and stocks plummeted from $50 trillion at the peak to below $30 trillion at the recent low, he says.
That plunge, he says, "is enough to deliver a life-changing shock for hundreds of millions of people.
"Collectively, we will save more, spend less and waste less. It may not even be a less pleasant world when we get used to it, but for several years it will cause a lot of readjustment problems," Grantham says.
Notably, he warns, this New World Order will keep downward pressure on corporate profit margins. If earnings can't accelerate meaningfully, stocks' upside will be limited. And without a powerful earnings recovery, companies will have less incentive to expand and add jobs.
Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist for Deutsche Bank Securities in New York, says many investors may still be overestimating U.S. consumers' ability to bounce back from the economic and financial debacles of the last two years.
The severity of job losses in this recession have blown a hole in the nation's personal income statistics, LaVorgna notes. Add to that the burden of repaying the debt mountain built up over the last 25 years, the inability of many consumers to get new credit and the evaporation of home equity, and "we believe consumer spending will be extraordinarily weak for some time to come, even after the economy stabilizes and begins to improve sometime next year," he says.
Grantham and LaVorgna are generalizing about the future as they see it, obviously. It's a big planet with a lot of still-well-off consumers and enterprising companies. If the world isn't ending, there will be opportunities to make money in stocks even in a slower-growing global economy.
But their central point is that investors overall won't want to pay up aggressively for stocks if the economy is likely to face a slog, at best.
Of course, when recessions end there always are doubts about the economy's growth prospects in a recovery, and about how high stocks can go.
The last time doubts were this pervasive was in the expansion and bull market that began in 1982. Many investors were sure that the wild inflation and record-high interest rates of the 1970s would persist, limiting the economy's potential.
They were wrong. And as inflation and interest rates plunged, that underpinned the recovery and stocks' gains. So did a renewed borrowing binge by consumers, companies and government in the 1980s.
This time around, key interest rates, such as on mortgages, already are near record lows. The Fed's benchmark short-term interest rate is at zero. And given the credit catastrophe we're still living through, we know the next consumer borrowing binge is a long, long way off.
So investors, LaVorgna says, will keep running into the same sobering question about the economy if stocks keep rising: "How good is it going to get, really?"
Memos shed light on CIA use of sleep deprivation
As President Obama prepared last month to release secret memos on the CIA's use of severe interrogation methods, the White House fielded a flurry of last-minute appeals.
One came from former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, who expressed disbelief that the administration was prepared to expose methods it might later decide it needed.
"Are you telling me that under all conditions of threat, you will never interfere with the sleep cycle of a detainee?" Hayden asked a top White House official, according to sources familiar with the exchange.
From the beginning, sleep deprivation had been one of the most important elements in the CIA's interrogation program, used to help break dozens of suspected terrorists, far more than the most violent approaches. And it is among the methods the agency fought hardest to keep.
The technique is now prohibited by President Obama's ban in January on harsh interrogation methods, although a task force is reviewing its use along with other interrogation methods the agency might employ in the future.
Because of its effectiveness -- as well as the perception that it was less objectionable than waterboarding, head-slamming or forced nudity -- sleep deprivation may be seen as a tempting technique to restore.
But the Justice Department memos released last month by Obama, as well as information provided by officials familiar with the program, indicate that the method, which involves forcing chained prisoners to stand, sometimes for days on end, was more controversial within the U.S. intelligence community than was widely known.
A CIA inspector general's report issued in 2004 was more critical of the agency's use of sleep deprivation than it was of any other method besides waterboarding, according to officials familiar with the document, because of how the sleep deprivation was applied.
The prisoners had their feet shackled to the floor and their hands cuffed close to their chins, according to the Justice Department memos.
Detainees were clad only in diapers and not allowed to feed themselves. A prisoner who started to drift off to sleep would tilt over and be caught by his chains.
The memos said more than 25 of the CIA's prisoners were subjected to sleep deprivation. At one point, the agency was allowed to keep prisoners awake for as long as 11 days; the limit was later reduced to just over a week.
According to the memos, medical personnel were to make sure prisoners weren't injured. But a 2007 Red Cross report on the CIA program said detainees' wrists and ankles bore scars from their shackles.
When detainees could no longer stand, they could be laid on the prison floor with their limbs "anchored to a far point on the floor in such a manner that the arms cannot be bent or used for balance or comfort," a May 10, 2005, memo said.
"The position is sufficiently uncomfortable to detainees to deprive them of unbroken sleep, while allowing their lower limbs to recover from the effects of standing," it said.
In the Red Cross report, prisoners said they were also subjected to loud music and repetitive noise.
"I was kept sitting on a chair, shackled by hands and feet for two to three weeks," said suspected Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner captured by the CIA, according to the Red Cross report. "If I started to fall asleep, a guard would come and spray water in my face."
In the Justice Department memos, sleep deprivation was described as part of a "baseline" phase of interrogation, categorized as less severe than other "corrective" or "coercive" methods.
Within the CIA, sleep deprivation was seen as a method with the unique advantage of eroding prisoners' will to resist without causing lasting harm.
"Waterboarding was obviously the most controversial," said a former senior U.S. government official who was briefed extensively on CIA interrogation operations. But "sleep deprivation is probably the most effective thing they had going."
Facing congressional efforts in 2005 and 2006 to block the use of certain techniques, CIA lawyers and Bush administration officials lobbied to keep a core set of methods, including sleep deprivation.
In 2007, after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling compelled the White House to bring the CIA program into compliance with the Geneva Convention, President Bush signed an executive order that outlined detainees' rights to the "basic necessities of life." The order listed "adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing" and protection from extreme heat and cold. But it made no mention of sleep as a basic necessity.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said sleep deprivation multiplied the coercive power of other techniques that included face-slapping and confinement in small boxes.
"It was viewed as a tool that enabled all the others," said a former CIA official directly involved in the program. The former official, like others, described internal thinking on condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department memos also cited research that suggested sleep deprivation was not harmful.
"Experience with sleep deprivation shows that 'surprisingly, little seemed to go wrong with the subjects physically,' " said the May 10, 2005, Justice Department memo -- one of many instances in which government lawyers cited scientific papers in asserting the program was safe.
But some authors of those studies have since said that the conclusions of their research were grossly misapplied.
James Horne, director of the Sleep Research Center at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom, said he was never consulted by U.S. officials and didn't know how his work was being used until the memos were released.
"My response was shocked concern," Horne said in an e-mail interview. Just because the pain of sleep deprivation "can't be measured in terms of physical injury or appearance . . . does not mean that the mental anguish is not as bad."
Horne said it was dangerous for the CIA to extrapolate from independent research in which subjects had gone for as long as a week without sleep, voluntarily, and were free to eat, rest, watch television or leave the research facility at any time. By contrast, CIA prisoners were subjected to major additional stresses that risk physical and mental collapse.
"To claim that 180 hours is safe in these respects is nonsense," Horne wrote in a separate online posting. Even if sleep deprivation succeeded in getting prisoners to talk, he said, "I would doubt whether the state of mind would be able to produce credible information, unaffected by delusion, fantasy or suggestibility."
One came from former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, who expressed disbelief that the administration was prepared to expose methods it might later decide it needed.
"Are you telling me that under all conditions of threat, you will never interfere with the sleep cycle of a detainee?" Hayden asked a top White House official, according to sources familiar with the exchange.
From the beginning, sleep deprivation had been one of the most important elements in the CIA's interrogation program, used to help break dozens of suspected terrorists, far more than the most violent approaches. And it is among the methods the agency fought hardest to keep.
The technique is now prohibited by President Obama's ban in January on harsh interrogation methods, although a task force is reviewing its use along with other interrogation methods the agency might employ in the future.
Because of its effectiveness -- as well as the perception that it was less objectionable than waterboarding, head-slamming or forced nudity -- sleep deprivation may be seen as a tempting technique to restore.
But the Justice Department memos released last month by Obama, as well as information provided by officials familiar with the program, indicate that the method, which involves forcing chained prisoners to stand, sometimes for days on end, was more controversial within the U.S. intelligence community than was widely known.
A CIA inspector general's report issued in 2004 was more critical of the agency's use of sleep deprivation than it was of any other method besides waterboarding, according to officials familiar with the document, because of how the sleep deprivation was applied.
The prisoners had their feet shackled to the floor and their hands cuffed close to their chins, according to the Justice Department memos.
Detainees were clad only in diapers and not allowed to feed themselves. A prisoner who started to drift off to sleep would tilt over and be caught by his chains.
The memos said more than 25 of the CIA's prisoners were subjected to sleep deprivation. At one point, the agency was allowed to keep prisoners awake for as long as 11 days; the limit was later reduced to just over a week.
According to the memos, medical personnel were to make sure prisoners weren't injured. But a 2007 Red Cross report on the CIA program said detainees' wrists and ankles bore scars from their shackles.
When detainees could no longer stand, they could be laid on the prison floor with their limbs "anchored to a far point on the floor in such a manner that the arms cannot be bent or used for balance or comfort," a May 10, 2005, memo said.
"The position is sufficiently uncomfortable to detainees to deprive them of unbroken sleep, while allowing their lower limbs to recover from the effects of standing," it said.
In the Red Cross report, prisoners said they were also subjected to loud music and repetitive noise.
"I was kept sitting on a chair, shackled by hands and feet for two to three weeks," said suspected Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner captured by the CIA, according to the Red Cross report. "If I started to fall asleep, a guard would come and spray water in my face."
In the Justice Department memos, sleep deprivation was described as part of a "baseline" phase of interrogation, categorized as less severe than other "corrective" or "coercive" methods.
Within the CIA, sleep deprivation was seen as a method with the unique advantage of eroding prisoners' will to resist without causing lasting harm.
"Waterboarding was obviously the most controversial," said a former senior U.S. government official who was briefed extensively on CIA interrogation operations. But "sleep deprivation is probably the most effective thing they had going."
Facing congressional efforts in 2005 and 2006 to block the use of certain techniques, CIA lawyers and Bush administration officials lobbied to keep a core set of methods, including sleep deprivation.
In 2007, after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling compelled the White House to bring the CIA program into compliance with the Geneva Convention, President Bush signed an executive order that outlined detainees' rights to the "basic necessities of life." The order listed "adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing" and protection from extreme heat and cold. But it made no mention of sleep as a basic necessity.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said sleep deprivation multiplied the coercive power of other techniques that included face-slapping and confinement in small boxes.
"It was viewed as a tool that enabled all the others," said a former CIA official directly involved in the program. The former official, like others, described internal thinking on condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department memos also cited research that suggested sleep deprivation was not harmful.
"Experience with sleep deprivation shows that 'surprisingly, little seemed to go wrong with the subjects physically,' " said the May 10, 2005, Justice Department memo -- one of many instances in which government lawyers cited scientific papers in asserting the program was safe.
But some authors of those studies have since said that the conclusions of their research were grossly misapplied.
James Horne, director of the Sleep Research Center at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom, said he was never consulted by U.S. officials and didn't know how his work was being used until the memos were released.
"My response was shocked concern," Horne said in an e-mail interview. Just because the pain of sleep deprivation "can't be measured in terms of physical injury or appearance . . . does not mean that the mental anguish is not as bad."
Horne said it was dangerous for the CIA to extrapolate from independent research in which subjects had gone for as long as a week without sleep, voluntarily, and were free to eat, rest, watch television or leave the research facility at any time. By contrast, CIA prisoners were subjected to major additional stresses that risk physical and mental collapse.
"To claim that 180 hours is safe in these respects is nonsense," Horne wrote in a separate online posting. Even if sleep deprivation succeeded in getting prisoners to talk, he said, "I would doubt whether the state of mind would be able to produce credible information, unaffected by delusion, fantasy or suggestibility."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)