New Intelligence?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Kingdom has MI-5, which roots out spies and terrorists in the British Isles.

The RAND Corporation said one option would be for domestic intelligence to operate under the FBI.

Canada has CSIS -- the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Now Congress is asking: Should the U.S. have its own domestic intelligence agency?
On Monday, at the request of Congress, the RAND Corporation outlined the pros and cons of establishing a domestic intelligence agency. It also discussed different ways to organize a new entity, either as part of an existing department or as a new agency.
But there's one thing you won't find in the report -- a recommendation on what to do.
"We were not asked to make a recommendation, and this assessment does not do so," the report says.
Instead, says RAND's Gregory Treverton, the report provides a "framework" for policymakers to use when deciding whether and how to reorganize counter-intelligence efforts at home.
RAND is a nonprofit think tank seeking to help improve policy and decision making through objective research and analysis.
Collecting intelligence domestically always has been a sensitive issue, at least partially because of episodic abuses by the government, notably against civil rights leaders, unions, antiwar organizations or even communists and hate groups.
But the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks renewed calls for increased domestic intelligence to prevent future attacks. Critics said that in the lead-up to the attacks, the FBI devalued counterterrorism agents and failed to heed signs that an attack was imminent.
"If you didn't carry a gun, you didn't count so much," Treverton said.
After the attacks, the FBI moved to transform its primary mission from law enforcement to counterterrorism intelligence and prevention. It now focuses on terrorism through its National Security Branch and the National Counterterrorism Center.
....
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/domestic.intelligence.agency/index.html

Comments: As the government breaches more and more boundaries and stimulate more hype with civil rights leaders, it begs the question: when is enough, enough? I am all for the government knowing as much as it can, even if it trespasses certain human rights given to us by the constitution, but since 9/11, the government hasn't stopped. Years after the incident, the government relentlessly calls back to it using the "but what if something like 9/11..." to enforce greater and greater 'intelligence' efforts. Where are the boundaries?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States pledged on Tuesday to pump $250 billion into its banks, following similar action in Europe, but data showed the threat of recession has not been banished even if a financial sector meltdown has.
In Europe, major economies showed signs of flagging output and falling business confidence, but smaller countries also suffered acutely. Iceland sought to save its economy at loan talks in Moscow, while its stock market plunged 76 percent.
Under the U.S. Treasury plan, the government will buy preferred shares in qualifying financial institutions, with stakes in each limited to $25 billion.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said 9 banks described as "healthy institutions" had agreed to accept government stakes for the good of the U.S. economy -- a state intervention unthinkable before a crisis widely compared to the great crash of the 1930s.
"Government owning a stake in any private U.S. company is objectionable to most Americans, me included.," he said. "Yet the alternative of leaving businesses and consumers without access to financing is to tally unacceptable."
President George W. Bush called it an essential step to ensure the viability of America's banking system,"
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke promised continued action to stabilize financial markets.
"We will not stand down until we have achieved our goals of repairing and reforming our financial system and thereby restoring prosperity to our economy," he said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49A36O20081014

Comments: Look! The invisible hand isn't invisible anymore! In times of crisis though, isn't this what we want? Capitalism is always in full stride on a daily basis here in America, but even our "free" market needs a hand at times. In 1929 we were bailed out, post WWII we were bailed out, and again we're in the mix of yet another bailout. In all cases up until today, a bailout was necessary and effective. We'll soon see if the invisible hand yet again has an effective slight of hand.

Some more equal than others

Income inequality around the world

NOT everyone agrees that income inequality is a problem to be solved. America and Britain are reckoned to have among the greatest inequality, among rich countries, as measured by the Gini coefficient. Such inequality may be associated with certain problems, for example a study produced last year by Unicef, the UN children's agency, suggested that the two countries have particularly low levels of child wellbeing. For many ordinary Americans and Britons, however, social mobility and getting opportunities to prosper may be more important. Nordic countries, which are the most equal, regularly do well in happiness surveys. The highest levels of inequality are in poor countries, especially in South America and Africa.
AFP


Link: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12331632&fsrc=rss

Comment

Inequality is an ongoing issue, not only among Third World and First World nations. The gap between rich and poor within First World nations such as the U.S. is getting bigger and bigger as well.
What kind of appropriate actions should be taken to confront this issue? In rich countries tax progression might be one approach, but this does not work for Third World countries because of the lack of wealth. Would it be one option to use tax money of richer countries to contribute against poverty in the Third World? What is the World Trade Organization doing to address this issue?

Oezguer (Oscar).

Government Spells out Exercise Goals

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Get moving: The nation's new exercise guidelines set a minimum sweat allotment for good health. For most adults, that's 2½ hours a week. How much physical activity you need depends largely on age and level of fitness.
Moderate exercise adds up for sluggish adults. Rake leaves, take a quick walk around the block or suit up for the neighborhood softball game. More fit adults could pack in their week's requirement in 75 minutes with vigorous exercise, such as jogging, hiking uphill, a bike race or speedy laps in the pool.
Children and teens need more -- pretty brisk activities for at least an hour a day, say the government guidelines being released Tuesday.
Consider it the exercise version of the food pyramid. The guidelines, from the Health and Human Services Department, aim to end years of confusion about how much physical activity is enough, while making clear that there are lots of ways to achieve it.
"The easy message is get active, whatever your way is. Get active your way," HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt told The Associated Press.
It's OK to start slowly. Someone who's done no exercising will start seeing benefits with as little as 10 minutes of moderately intense exercise a day, which is an incentive to work up to the recommended amounts, said Rear Adm. Penelope Royall, deputy assistant secretary for disease prevention.







Response:

I could not agree with this article anymore, I feel that it is time people get off their lazy bums and get active. Ten minutes a day is very little when you have twenty four. With fast food so convenient and work slowing people down, I feel it is good for the mind and body to at least get ten minutes of exercise everyday. Maybe ten minutes is not enough, twenty minutes is even better and gets your metabolism going faster to burn more calories. It is very good that the government want people to start being more active and have a more positive outlook on life and their day. It is proven that working out sets off endorphins in the brain escalating your sense of achievement. Very good atricle.



David Caldwell