In This Issue:
Iraq Resists US Treaty.
Bush and his court: what a nice bi-partisan guy.
Cardiac NBC.
Fed-speak on Inflation and Wages.
Chacun a son gout: love in Third World cities.

Iraq Resists US Treaty:
Fresh from a trip to Tehran and Qom, and visiting some Arab states, Nuri al-Maliki has finally opined what he thinks of the draft US-Iraq security deal (Bush-secret, no one outside gov’t yet knows details). He seems to agree with everybody else (except perhaps Iyad Allawi) that it is a bad deal for Iraq, including: Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Muqtada al-Sadr, Ahmad Chalabi, various Sunni groups including PM al-Hashimi, as well as many Arabs and Iran’s Khamenai, et al.
AL-Maliki said that the talks have reached a dead end and that the draft agreement Mr. Bush is intent on ramming down his throat violates Iraq’s sovereignty.

"Today Muqtada al-Sadr announced that a new "Special Group" will be formed from his al-Mahdi Army to resist the American Occupation".

Meanwhile, the US premier national security expert, the potential next LBJ, Senator John McCain, has not yet opined on the matter. He is AWOL on this matter, unless his Florida hope Joe Lieberman is opining for him.

So why is the US pressing for a deal that Iraqis apparently overwhelmingly oppose because it clearly not acceptable for a sovereign state? I have not yet seen one Iraqi opinion outside Kurdistan supporting it (Mr. Allawi has not spoken yet).
Who the hell is advising them? What are they thinking? The idiots are making sure that next resurgence of terrorism in Iraq will not only be Sunnis or Shi’as, but both. They need to go back to 1920 and the years after: read up some more of the history.

"The American-Iranian partnership in the New Regional Order." alHayat columnist.

"Huge forces begin widespread operations in al-Amarah, supported with air power. The goal is to eliminate al-Mahdi army fighters from the city."

What a nice bi-partisan guy:
"Mr. Bush said that he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision about the Guantanamo detainees, but that he will abide by the ruling".

Fedspeak on Inflation and Wages:
A couple of TV analysts noted this AM that the CPI has gone up about 4+% this year, but that wages have declined. They noted that the Fed thinks this is good for the economy, because higher prices for gas, food, and medical care have not reached wages yet.That means: the average worker is getting screwed, and that is why things aren’t as bad as we think!

The analysts (on CNBC) claimed that consumers are being made to worry by all the headlines about increased prices, that the headlines may cause them to worry about inflation, and they might actually demand higher wages, and that would be real inflationary and harm the economy!

So far, they inferred, they have not sought higher wages to match the increased living costs, and that is a good thing! They also agreed that a weaker economy (perhaps they meant higher unemployment?) helps keep wages down and limits inflation, and that is a good thing!
(This is not exactly what I was taught in graduate school, but then I have not agreed with many things I was taught in school, beginning with kindergarten and summer religious school (I quit after one month) all the way through college and graduate school).

These analysts did not elaborate on who it is good for. There seems to be some agreement among various analysts this past week that price inflation is good for the economy, as long as it is not transmitted to wages. I suspect they were focusing on the effect on stock prices rather than on the national economy.
Now, talking about real world economics…

Cardiac NBC:
"NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert has died." News Agencies.
What is the matter with NBC? Why are its best public figures dying? First David Bloom in Iraq, now Tim Russert in Washington.

Chacun a son gout- In Third World cities:
"A court in Singapore has sentenced a man to 18 lashes followed by 14 years in prison. This man was original, I think, if anything : he was convicted of sexually harassing women by sniffing their armpits."

An Egyptian court has refused to approve the marriage of a 92 year old Arab man to a female who is younger by 75 years which makes her 17 years old. Usually when Egyptian media says “an Arab man” it means a man from one of the Persian Gulf states. Egyptian media quotes the Ministry of Justice that they do not approve of age differentials over 25 years, and that they frown upon trafficking in women.

Cheers
Mohammed