Showing posts with label options. Show all posts
Showing posts with label options. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Facebook"s Gender Options cover everybody but animals

At The Daily News Source, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by The Daily News Source and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, The Daily News Source makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


The Daily News Source does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on The Daily News Source.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to The Daily News Source and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on The Daily News Source send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


The Daily News Source has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. The Daily News Source"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Facebook"s Gender Options cover everybody but animals

Friday, January 31, 2014

Obama"s options on Keystone


President Barack Obama is pictured. | AP Photo

The State Department’s report only reinforces the wisdom that Obama will approve it. | AP Photo





Friday’s much anticipated State Department report on the Keystone XL pipeline is a body blow to environmentalists but does nothing to change President Barack Obama’s two eventual choices and the fact that either one will be unpopular.


Approve Keystone and he angers his liberal base — and donors. Reject it and it remains a thorn in the administration’s side for three more years.







The State Department report only reinforces the conventional wisdom is that Obama will eventually approve the Canada-to-Texas pipeline.


(MAP: Keystone XL pipeline)


But there’s no report the Obama administration can write that will convince greens the pipeline — and associated oil sands development — isn’t an environmental disaster-in-waiting. The effects of the carbon dioxide emissions from extracting the raw materials and risk of a pipeline break are too great, they say.


And nothing is going to slow down lobbying efforts by pipeline builder TransCanada, the Canadian government and the oil and gas industry. There also is no stopping Republicans, who have made the pipeline at a symbol of what they say is Obama’s failure to create jobs or keep gasoline prices low, although there’s no guarantee the pipeline would do either one in a significant matter.


So for now, back to waiting.


The political pros and cons for Obama are anything but simple. And his decision — by no means imminent — will affect his legacy, the prospects for congressional Democrats and the future of the liberal environmental movement, for starters.


(Also on POLITICO: Big win for big oil)


A group of big Democratic donors, including Esprit co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell and Taco Bell heir and Democracy Alliance head Rob McKay, have publicly pressured Obama to reject the pipeline. Billionaire Tom Steyer, who poured money to help Terry McAuliffe win the Virginia governor’s race last year, ran an anti-Keystone ad during the State of the Union and is expected to spend millions of dollars more.


But Obama isn’t running again and several moderate Senate Democrats, including Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor and Kay Hagan, already support building the pipeline. It’d take an anti-Obama talking point off the table and avoid the possibility of an international spat with Canada.


Greens also realistically have nowhere to go — even if disappointed on one issue, a Democratic president and Senate is far better than anything the GOP can offer them.


About 56 percent of Americans support building the pipeline, with 41 percent opposed, according to a poll conducted in November and December by Stanford University and Resources for the Future. But those numbers may be squishy — environmental issues generally rank far below topics like jobs, the economy and health care when it comes down to how much voters care.


(Also on POLITICO: Obama’s power play)


“These findings are suggestive but not conclusive,” said RFF President Phil Sharp told USA Today. “We simply don’t know how firm people’s attitudes are about this.”


In fact, the Republican pressure and expensive lobbying campaigns haven’t actually forced the president to do anything on Keystone but sit and wait for the State Department report. And the issue didn’t put Mitt Romney into the White House, despite his campaign pledge to sign the order on his first day in office to build the pipeline.


Building Keystone would in theory both appeal to independents and Republicans, yet it is just as likely that Obama wouldn’t get credit or love for granting the pipeline permit. The Republicans that have spent five years attacking his administration’s energy policies are not going to suddenly lay off.


In theory, the same moderate Democrats who support the pipeline could benefit from having another opportunity to separate themselves from an unpopular president. But the GOP is going to attack them no matter what.


“Politically, it’s an enormous opportunity and highlights the Obama/Reid anti-energy agenda that vulnerable Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich and [Rep.] Gary Peters [D-Mich.] represent,” said Senate GOP campaign spokesman Brad Dayspring.


For environmentalists, rejecting the pipeline is a way Obama can help cement his progressive legacy.


Obama laid out an ambitious climate agenda at a Georgetown University speech last June, but the realities of a divided and hostile Congress dictates that he limit himself to regulations or executive actions. The president has spent the last two weeks, including his State of the Union address, talking about just that – things he can do without the help of Congress.


The Keystone XL pipeline fits squarely in that mold — the choice is his, not the House or Senate’s.


“It’s pretty clear that Republican extremists in Congress are making it exceedingly difficult to make progress on other important issues,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld of the League of Conservation Voters. “The good news on addressing climate change is that President Obama has so much authority. He can go big and bold and do things that are truly transformative and will leave a lasting legacy.”




POLITICO – TOP Stories



Obama"s options on Keystone

Obama"s options on Keystone


President Barack Obama is pictured. | AP Photo

The State Department’s report only reinforces the wisdom that Obama will approve it. | AP Photo





Friday’s much anticipated State Department report on the Keystone XL pipeline is a body blow to environmentalists but does nothing to change President Barack Obama’s two eventual choices and the fact that either one will be unpopular.


Approve Keystone and he angers his liberal base — and donors. Reject it and it remains a thorn in the administration’s side for three more years.







The State Department report only reinforces the conventional wisdom is that Obama will eventually approve the Canada-to-Texas pipeline.


(MAP: Keystone XL pipeline)


But there’s no report the Obama administration can write that will convince greens the pipeline — and associated oil sands development — isn’t an environmental disaster-in-waiting. The effects of the carbon dioxide emissions from extracting the raw materials and risk of a pipeline break are too great, they say.


And nothing is going to slow down lobbying efforts by pipeline builder TransCanada, the Canadian government and the oil and gas industry. There also is no stopping Republicans, who have made the pipeline at a symbol of what they say is Obama’s failure to create jobs or keep gasoline prices low, although there’s no guarantee the pipeline would do either one in a significant matter.


So for now, back to waiting.


The political pros and cons for Obama are anything but simple. And his decision — by no means imminent — will affect his legacy, the prospects for congressional Democrats and the future of the liberal environmental movement, for starters.


(Also on POLITICO: Big win for big oil)


A group of big Democratic donors, including Esprit co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell and Taco Bell heir and Democracy Alliance head Rob McKay, have publicly pressured Obama to reject the pipeline. Billionaire Tom Steyer, who poured money to help Terry McAuliffe win the Virginia governor’s race last year, ran an anti-Keystone ad during the State of the Union and is expected to spend millions of dollars more.


But Obama isn’t running again and several moderate Senate Democrats, including Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor and Kay Hagan, already support building the pipeline. It’d take an anti-Obama talking point off the table and avoid the possibility of an international spat with Canada.


Greens also realistically have nowhere to go — even if disappointed on one issue, a Democratic president and Senate is far better than anything the GOP can offer them.


About 56 percent of Americans support building the pipeline, with 41 percent opposed, according to a poll conducted in November and December by Stanford University and Resources for the Future. But those numbers may be squishy — environmental issues generally rank far below topics like jobs, the economy and health care when it comes down to how much voters care.


(Also on POLITICO: Obama’s power play)


“These findings are suggestive but not conclusive,” said RFF President Phil Sharp told USA Today. “We simply don’t know how firm people’s attitudes are about this.”


In fact, the Republican pressure and expensive lobbying campaigns haven’t actually forced the president to do anything on Keystone but sit and wait for the State Department report. And the issue didn’t put Mitt Romney into the White House, despite his campaign pledge to sign the order on his first day in office to build the pipeline.


Building Keystone would in theory both appeal to independents and Republicans, yet it is just as likely that Obama wouldn’t get credit or love for granting the pipeline permit. The Republicans that have spent five years attacking his administration’s energy policies are not going to suddenly lay off.


In theory, the same moderate Democrats who support the pipeline could benefit from having another opportunity to separate themselves from an unpopular president. But the GOP is going to attack them no matter what.


“Politically, it’s an enormous opportunity and highlights the Obama/Reid anti-energy agenda that vulnerable Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich and [Rep.] Gary Peters [D-Mich.] represent,” said Senate GOP campaign spokesman Brad Dayspring.


For environmentalists, rejecting the pipeline is a way Obama can help cement his progressive legacy.


Obama laid out an ambitious climate agenda at a Georgetown University speech last June, but the realities of a divided and hostile Congress dictates that he limit himself to regulations or executive actions. The president has spent the last two weeks, including his State of the Union address, talking about just that – things he can do without the help of Congress.


The Keystone XL pipeline fits squarely in that mold — the choice is his, not the House or Senate’s.


“It’s pretty clear that Republican extremists in Congress are making it exceedingly difficult to make progress on other important issues,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld of the League of Conservation Voters. “The good news on addressing climate change is that President Obama has so much authority. He can go big and bold and do things that are truly transformative and will leave a lasting legacy.”




POLITICO – TOP Stories



Obama"s options on Keystone

Obama"s options on Keystone


President Barack Obama is pictured. | AP Photo

The State Department’s report only reinforces the wisdom that Obama will approve it. | AP Photo





Friday’s much anticipated State Department report on the Keystone XL pipeline is a body blow to environmentalists but does nothing to change President Barack Obama’s two eventual choices and the fact that either one will be unpopular.


Approve Keystone and he angers his liberal base — and donors. Reject it and it remains a thorn in the administration’s side for three more years.







The State Department report only reinforces the conventional wisdom is that Obama will eventually approve the Canada-to-Texas pipeline.


(MAP: Keystone XL pipeline)


But there’s no report the Obama administration can write that will convince greens the pipeline — and associated oil sands development — isn’t an environmental disaster-in-waiting. The effects of the carbon dioxide emissions from extracting the raw materials and risk of a pipeline break are too great, they say.


And nothing is going to slow down lobbying efforts by pipeline builder TransCanada, the Canadian government and the oil and gas industry. There also is no stopping Republicans, who have made the pipeline at a symbol of what they say is Obama’s failure to create jobs or keep gasoline prices low, although there’s no guarantee the pipeline would do either one in a significant matter.


So for now, back to waiting.


The political pros and cons for Obama are anything but simple. And his decision — by no means imminent — will affect his legacy, the prospects for congressional Democrats and the future of the liberal environmental movement, for starters.


(Also on POLITICO: Big win for big oil)


A group of big Democratic donors, including Esprit co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell and Taco Bell heir and Democracy Alliance head Rob McKay, have publicly pressured Obama to reject the pipeline. Billionaire Tom Steyer, who poured money to help Terry McAuliffe win the Virginia governor’s race last year, ran an anti-Keystone ad during the State of the Union and is expected to spend millions of dollars more.


But Obama isn’t running again and several moderate Senate Democrats, including Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor and Kay Hagan, already support building the pipeline. It’d take an anti-Obama talking point off the table and avoid the possibility of an international spat with Canada.


Greens also realistically have nowhere to go — even if disappointed on one issue, a Democratic president and Senate is far better than anything the GOP can offer them.


About 56 percent of Americans support building the pipeline, with 41 percent opposed, according to a poll conducted in November and December by Stanford University and Resources for the Future. But those numbers may be squishy — environmental issues generally rank far below topics like jobs, the economy and health care when it comes down to how much voters care.


(Also on POLITICO: Obama’s power play)


“These findings are suggestive but not conclusive,” said RFF President Phil Sharp told USA Today. “We simply don’t know how firm people’s attitudes are about this.”


In fact, the Republican pressure and expensive lobbying campaigns haven’t actually forced the president to do anything on Keystone but sit and wait for the State Department report. And the issue didn’t put Mitt Romney into the White House, despite his campaign pledge to sign the order on his first day in office to build the pipeline.


Building Keystone would in theory both appeal to independents and Republicans, yet it is just as likely that Obama wouldn’t get credit or love for granting the pipeline permit. The Republicans that have spent five years attacking his administration’s energy policies are not going to suddenly lay off.


In theory, the same moderate Democrats who support the pipeline could benefit from having another opportunity to separate themselves from an unpopular president. But the GOP is going to attack them no matter what.


“Politically, it’s an enormous opportunity and highlights the Obama/Reid anti-energy agenda that vulnerable Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich and [Rep.] Gary Peters [D-Mich.] represent,” said Senate GOP campaign spokesman Brad Dayspring.


For environmentalists, rejecting the pipeline is a way Obama can help cement his progressive legacy.


Obama laid out an ambitious climate agenda at a Georgetown University speech last June, but the realities of a divided and hostile Congress dictates that he limit himself to regulations or executive actions. The president has spent the last two weeks, including his State of the Union address, talking about just that – things he can do without the help of Congress.


The Keystone XL pipeline fits squarely in that mold — the choice is his, not the House or Senate’s.


“It’s pretty clear that Republican extremists in Congress are making it exceedingly difficult to make progress on other important issues,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld of the League of Conservation Voters. “The good news on addressing climate change is that President Obama has so much authority. He can go big and bold and do things that are truly transformative and will leave a lasting legacy.”




POLITICO – TOP Stories



Obama"s options on Keystone

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

WRAPUP 3-ECB, urged by OECD to buy assets, says all options on the table

WRAPUP 3-ECB, urged by OECD to buy assets, says all options on the table
http://currenteconomictrendsandnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/78f67__p-89EKCgBk8MZdE.gif




Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:10pm EST



* OECD says ECB should buy bonds to counter deflation risk


* Vice-president says ECB has not discussed QE in detail


* ECB’s Praet says no deflation risk visible


* Asmussen says ECB ready to move again if inflation undershoots


By Robin Emmott and Sakari Suoninen


BRUSSELS/FRANKFURT, Nov 19 (Reuters) – All policy options are open for the European Central Bank and it has discussed the broad possibility of asset buying, its vice-president said, as the OECD urged it to consider such action to aid a weak recovery.


Paris-based think tank the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development called on the ECB on Tuesday to emulate U.S.-style quantitative easing, or QE, to help the single currency area avoid a Japanese-style deflationary spiral.


ECB Vice-President Vitor Constancio said the bank had discussed the possibility of QE but no technical planning work had taken place, though he added that “everything is possible”.


“All those instruments are on the table … but no decisions, we did what we did and that’s it,” he said, referring to a Nov. 7 decision to cut the bank’s key interest rate to a record low of 0.25 percent.


One of the euro zone central bank’s hawks, Joerg Asmussen, said separately that more policy action was possible if inflation continues to be well below the ECB’s target.


“Risks of deflation may be slowly increasing,” OECD chief economist Pier Carlo Padoan told Reuters. “The ECB must be very careful and be prepared to use even non-conventional measures to beat any risk of deflation becoming permanent.”


Inflation in the 17-nation euro zone fell to its lowest in nearly four years at just 0.7 percent in October, prompting the latest rate cut. The euro zone economy is struggling to recover from its longest ever recession, which ended in mid-year.


In an Austrian radio interview, ECB executive board member Asmussen, a German, said the bank could move again if necessary to keep inflation in the euro zone in line with its target of below but close to 2 percent.


“If the situation in inflation requires it, we can act again and one of the possible measures would be to use the so-called negative deposit rate,” he told public broadcaster ORF.


The deposit rate is now at zero. Cutting it further would mean banks would have to start paying to park their funds at the ECB overnight.


Asmussen said he would be “very, very careful” to deploy negative deposit rates, but he also did not want to rule it out completely. For now, he said, the risks to price stability were balanced and there was no risk of deflation in the euro zone.


The ECB’s economics chief, Peter Praet, who first put the possibility of QE on the agenda last week, also said on Tuesday that there was no risk of deflation visible in the euro area, and inflation expectations were firmly anchored.


“We had several episodes where we measured in market prices the fear of deflation, which we don’t see today,” Praet said at a Euro Finance Week conference in Frankfurt.


TOO EARLY


Asmussen reiterated the ECB’s stance that it is still too early to exit from the ECB’s loose monetary policy.


“Our monetary policy will remain expansionary for as long as needed,” Asmussen said.


Praet raised the possibility of QE in a Wall Street Journal interview last week, saying the central bank could use its balance sheet to prevent inflation under-shooting.


“This includes outright purchases that any central bank can do,” he said, without any public contradiction from ECB hawks.


Asked if the ECB had undertaken technical preparations for QE, Constancio told reporters in Frankfurt: “That was only referred to as a possibility, nothing else.”


“I have nothing to add to what he (Praet) said. Everything is possible. That was what Peter Praet said … it was not discussed in any detail.”


German Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann led a minority of about a quarter of the ECB governing council members who opposed the November rate cut, a source familiar with the decision said.


Another ECB source said the dissenters would have been willing to back a rate cut in December that might have included further monetary easing by ending a policy of “sterilising” past ECB purchases of euro zone government bonds.


That could free up another 200 billion euros of liquidity which the bank currently withdraws each week to compensate for purchases in 2010-11 of Greek, Portuguese, Irish, Spanish and Italian bonds under the now defunct securities market programme.


Praet acknowledged on Tuesday that growth was fragile, inflation low and credit subdued. “Things are improving, but it is still a fragile environment,” he said.


The U.S. Federal Reserve, Bank of England and Bank of Japan have all resorted to QE to revive economic growth since the global financial crisis of 2008 but such measures are extremely divisive among the 23 members of the ECB’s Governing Council.


One bank economist said a shift to a QE policy would be a game-changer for the euro zone.


“Should the ECB really go down the route of buying government bonds, it would be transformative,” said Greg Fuzesi at JP Morgan in London. “It would change perceptions of where the euro area is heading and could have a huge effect on the outlook.”






Reuters: Bonds News




Read more about WRAPUP 3-ECB, urged by OECD to buy assets, says all options on the table and other interesting subjects concerning Bonds at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Peace Options on Iran


For decades, the default ideology of Official Washington’s foreign policy has been “tough-guy-ism,” wielding sticks and mocking those who offer carrots, a pattern that could start a disastrous war with Iran, say Tom H. Hastings and Erin E. Niemela.


By Tom H. Hastings and Erin E. Niemela


Tough talk by the U.S. and Iran — sometimes about nukes — has taken many turns over the past three decades, but there has been some relaxing of the tensions recently.


Iran signed a good-faith agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to allow inspectors broad access to its nuclear facilities. Signaling change, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani halted expansion of Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity since his election three months ago, according to U.N. inspection reports.


President Barack Obama talks with President Hassan Rouhani of Iran during a phone call in the Oval Office, Sept. 27, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama talks with President Hassan Rouhani of Iran during a phone call in the Oval Office, Sept. 27, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)



Yet, what has always been available are conflict management methods unexamined by our decision-makers. In developing potential options for adversarial nations, the U.S. government has the Joint Chiefs and security studies hawks on speed dial. Thus, the U.S. stumbles into war after war, informed of the full range of options from A to B. Attack or do nothing. Demonstrate a resolve to kill or show cowardice. It’s a wonder we haven’t nuked Canada.


Sometimes – as we saw in the 1990s with killer sanctions on Iraq – certain sanctions are hardest on the most vulnerable, innocent children and other civilians. To a large measure, this is the case vis-à-vis Iran. Peace scholars have been pushing for alternative options with Iran, backed by hard data and decades of conflict management experience, since the inception of the conflict. These alternatives have remained largely unnoticed amid the cyclical escalation/de-escalation of war drumming from both sides of the aisle.


In the spirit of sharing what we’ve learned in our obscure field of Peace and Conflict Studies, let’s think about some possible measures right now vis-à-vis Iran:


–Guarantee no-first-use of U.S. military force against Iran


As long as Iranian people and their government fear preëmptive military attack by the U.S. there will be strong motivation for development of nuclear weapons, and it will be easier for Iranian leaders to justify sacrifices, including resolve to endure crippling sanctions.


–Cease military aid to Israel


Even Israeli moderates remain belligerent toward Iran, reserving and openly referencing preëmptive military attack as an option. This keeps Iranian moderates on the defensive, emboldens hardliners, and continually prompts the average Iranian to hate Israel and its sponsor, the U.S. Stopping U.S military aid to Israel brings the region many steps closer to peace, helps take the target off the U.S., and prompts Israel to honestly negotiate its relationships constructively.


–Apologize


Now that declassified documents and an acknowledgment by President Barack Obama have formally recognized the CIA’s role in the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, a formal apology should be made for this outrageous transgression. A simple apology without qualification, equivocation, justification or even explanation is best.


–Put some U.S. nukes on the table


Make the demand that Iran cease its nuclear ambitions linked to an offer to dismantle (for example) 200 U.S. nuclear weapons, with each party subject to IAEA inspections. Treat Iran like a real country, not a minor player of which we can make demands we won’t ourselves honor.


–Open embassies


The two countries should each invite the other to open an embassy with the guarantee of the safety of the personnel that is backed by enormous collateral. The 2011 Obama initiative to maintain an online embassy is a good gesture and not enough; it is time for reciprocity and advancements.


–Reframing U.S.-Iran relations as peaceful scientific collaboration


Iranian domestic legitimacy rests partially on the option of developing nuclear capabilities. Iran’s nuclear policy acts as a rallying point for internal cohesion. Reframe Iran-U.S. relations to one of peaceful scientific and health research collaboration, taking care to emphasize Iranian past and present contributions and collaborations with the U.S.


Give President Rouhani a fresh rallying point, highlighting Persian history and collective identity in its peaceful pursuits of science, engineering, technology, medicine and mathematics, and reduce reliance on Iranian nuclear policy for domestic legitimacy. Continuing negotiations would include these peaceful collaborations as additional bargaining points.


–Banking channels and medical supplies


Offer to provide third country banks a waiver against sanctions for facilitating transactions involved in medicines and medical supplies, and/or designate certain U.S. and Iranian financial institutions as open channels for humanitarian transactions. In exchange, Iran must allow consistent international monitoring of its medical enrichment facilities.


Most of these action items would be nonstarters, right? President Obama would never initiate any of them because, after all, the minority of Congress would howl and call him a treasonous coward. Congressional hawks would light up, hair on fire, bullhorns set on sonic warp kill. Peace-loving people would fear the dripping scorn.


If we continue to see the pusillanimity more afraid of knee-jerks in Congress than of allowing Iran to either get nukes or get attacked, we will watch as helpless as Junebugs on our backs while we drift into an ever-uglier world with more nuclear weapons in more hands — or into a stupendously reckless war of grand bloodbath proportions with Iran, war that is completely avoidable.


You do not need to conduct a multivariate regression analysis to know that successful negotiation requires both carrots and sticks. Hardliners are stuck on sticks, both violent and economic, and even low and no-cost carrots drive them “round the bend.” Fine. Let them go. Constructive conflict management is the new realpolitik.


Tom H. Hastings is PeaceVoice Director and teaches in the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University.


Erin E. Niemela is PeaceVoice  Research Director and a Master’s Candidate of the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University.




Consortiumnews



Peace Options on Iran

Friday, November 15, 2013

Twitter dominates action in busy U.S. options market

Twitter dominates action in busy U.S. options market
http://currenteconomictrendsandnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/f7e99__?m=02&d=20131115&t=2&i=812166437&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBRE9AE1B3A00.jpg





CHICAGO/NEW YORK Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:57am EST



An illustration picture shows the Twitter logo reflected in the eye of a woman in Berlin, November 7, 2013. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

An illustration picture shows the Twitter logo reflected in the eye of a woman in Berlin, November 7, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Fabrizio Bensch




CHICAGO/NEW YORK (Reuters) – The first day of trading options in Twitter was an active one, with more than 50,000 contracts trading in less than two hours on Friday, a week after the social media name debuted in the equity market.


A total of 27,000 calls and 26,000 puts changed hands on Twitter Inc as of 11:13 a.m. EST, according to options analytics firm Trade Alert. Investors use options to bet on or hedge against a stock’s direction.


Twitter shares were down 1.6 percent to $ 43.99 on Friday. Twitter went public on November 6 at $ 26 a share. On its first day of trading the stock rose to $ 50 a share, before pulling back.


Strategists say Twitter could become one of the more active names in the options market, judging by trading in other technology companies.


“Given that peer Facebook now leads single stock average daily option volume, followed by Apple and then Microsoft, Twitter options are likely to be very active,” said Henry Schwartz, president of options analytics firm Trade Alert.


So far, the most heavily traded contracts were the February 2014 $ 50 strike calls followed by the December $ 40 strike put, each trading more than 2,500 contracts thus far. Call options give the buyer the right to buy a stock at a certain price by a specific expiration date, while put options convey the right to sell shares by a certain date at a specific price.


There are a total of 540 options contracts spanning 11 expirations, ranging from short-term options known as weeklies to longer term January 2016 contracts called Leaps.


Facebook Inc set a record with its first-day options debut, when more than 365,000 contracts changed hands, Trade Alert data showed. “Hedgers and Twitter bears are likely to dominate the flow,” Schwartz said. “The stock is still difficult to borrow.”


The cost to borrow Twitter shares for short bets was between 8 and 10 percent annualized, according to Markit. That’s down from the 20 percent level when shorting started earlier this week, but still more than the likes of Facebook and LinkedIn, both of which carry costs of less than 1 percent.


Strikes range from $ 25 to $ 65, with dollar increments in non-Leap options, and 50-cent strike increments for some of the weekly term options. The first weekly expiration is November 22.


The options order flow for Twitter during Friday’s trading will depend on how the options market prices risk.


A stock’s historical volatility helps market makers determine what they believe implied, or expected volatility will be. Implied volatility measures the perceived risk for future stock movement.


With only five days of data, realized volatility is currently around 50 percent, said Enis Taner, global macro editor of options trading firm RiskReversal.com in a report on Friday.


(Reporting by Doris Frankel; Editing by David Gaffen and Nick Zieminski)






Reuters: Business News




Read more about Twitter dominates action in busy U.S. options market and other interesting subjects concerning Business at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Thursday, September 26, 2013

House GOP considers options on possible shutdown







Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas talks to reporters as he emerges from the Senate Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept 25, 2013, after his overnight crusade railing against the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as “Obamacare.” Cruz ended the marathon Senate speech opposing President Barack Obama’s health care law after talking for 21 hours, 19 minutes. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)





Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas talks to reporters as he emerges from the Senate Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept 25, 2013, after his overnight crusade railing against the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as “Obamacare.” Cruz ended the marathon Senate speech opposing President Barack Obama’s health care law after talking for 21 hours, 19 minutes. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)





Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., and other lawmakers meet with new mothers and their babies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013, to criticize Republican efforts to kill the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as “Obamacare.” Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said Democrats would defend President Obama’s health care law, adding, she would not return to a time when insurance companies denied benefits to women because being a pregnant was considered a preexisting condition. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — Pressure is building on fractious House Republicans over legislation to prevent a partial government shutdown, as the Democratic-led Senate is expected to strip a tea party-backed plan to defund Obamacare from the bill.


As the Senate telegraphed its moves, House Republicans deliberated an array of imperfect options on both a temporary spending bill required to avert a shutdown and a separate measure to permit the government to borrow almost $ 1 trillion to keep paying its bills.


Lawmakers face a midnight Monday deadline to complete a stopgap spending bill to avoid a partial government shutdown that would keep hundreds of thousands of federal workers off the job, close national parks and generate damaging headlines for whichever side the public holds responsible.


The timeline is daunting since House GOP leaders appear all but certain to reject the Senate’s attempt at a simple, straightforward stopgap spending bill like those routinely passed since the 1995-96 government shutdowns that bruised Republicans and strengthened President Bill Clinton.


A 21-hour talkathon by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, whipped up the GOP’s tea party wing even as it complicated efforts by House GOP leaders to assemble rank-and-file support for a temporary spending measure.


Cruz wants to derail the spending bill to deny Democrats the ability to strip out the anti-Obamacare provision, a strategy that has put him at odds with other Republicans who say the move won’t work and fear it would spark a shutdown.


Many GOP senators, including the Senate’s top two Republicans, have said they’ll vote to advance the measure rather than filibuster it to death, a vote that promises to give Democrats controlling the chamber a procedural edge in a subsequent vote to kill the tea party’s effort to use the must-pass bill to derail Obamacare.


Wednesday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., unveiled his version of the stopgap spending bill, which would keep the government running through Nov. 15. It also contains, for now, the anti-Obamacare provision sought by Republicans. He set in motion a key vote on Friday that promises to expose the divide between Cruz and more pragmatic Republicans. Senate passage of the spending bill — stripped of the Obamacare provision — was expected no later than Saturday.


“Any senator who votes with Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats … has made the decision to allow Obamacare to be funded,” Cruz told reporters after his marathon speech ended Wednesday at noon. Cruz himself has predicted that is exactly what the Senate will do, and he’s already called on House Republicans to reject the bill when it comes back to them.


The simplest thing for Republicans to do would be to accept the Senate bill and send it to the White House for Obama’s signature, a prospect that’s unappealing to Republicans because it would make them look like they’re surrendering. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, originally preferred a plan to deliver to Obama a stopgap funding bill without the Obamacare provisions.


Now, GOP leaders are exploring adding face-saving options — like the repeal of a tax on medical devices, which many Democrats also oppose — to the stopgap spending bill. There’s also sentiment to take away the health insurance subsidy awarded lawmakers now that they’ll be required to purchase health care on Obamacare exchanges.


The House is expected to approve a measure this week allowing the Treasury to borrow freely for another year, although that legislation, too, would include a provision to carry out the Republican campaign against Obamacare. While no final decisions have been made, party officials said a one-year delay was likely to be added, rather than the full-fledged defunding that is part of the spending bill awaiting action in the Senate.


The GOP’s demands on the debt limit involves far less dramatic spending cuts than Republicans demanded from Obama in a debt showdown two years. Then, Republicans extracted $ 2.1 trillion in cuts over a decade for a similar increase in the borrowing cap. Now, GOP leaders are mulling a 14-month borrowing increase that would increase the debt ceiling by almost $ 1 trillion but are considering only modest cuts, like an increase in the contribution federal workers make to their pensions.


Shutdown-averting stopgap spending bills traditionally have been steered clear of these kinds of battles for fear of a politically damaging shutdown. But with the new health care law poised to enroll millions of people into Obamacare starting Oct. 1, there’s a new urgency among opponents to pull out all the stops to try to derail it.


Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters this week that consumers will have an average of 53 plans to choose from, and her department estimated the average monthly individual premium for a benchmark policy known as the “second-lowest cost silver plan” would range from a low of $ 192 in Minnesota to a high of $ 516 in Wyoming. Tax credits will bring down the cost for many.


Republicans counter that the legislation is causing employers to defer hiring new workers, lay off existing ones and reduce the hours of others to hold down costs as they try to ease the impact of the bill’s taxes and other requirements.


“Obamacare is destroying jobs,” Cruz said. “It is driving up health care costs. It is killing health benefits. It is shattering the economy.”


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



House GOP considers options on possible shutdown

Saturday, August 24, 2013

US forces move closer to Syria as options weighed







FILE – In this Aug. 22, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in Syracuse, N.Y. President Barack Obama says a possible chemical weapons attack in Syria this week is a “big event of grave concern” that has hastened the timeframe for determining a U.S. response. He said it is going to “require America’s attention.” While he appeared to signal some greater urgency in responding, his comments were largely in line with his previous statements throughout the two-year conflict.(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)





FILE – In this Aug. 22, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in Syracuse, N.Y. President Barack Obama says a possible chemical weapons attack in Syria this week is a “big event of grave concern” that has hastened the timeframe for determining a U.S. response. He said it is going to “require America’s attention.” While he appeared to signal some greater urgency in responding, his comments were largely in line with his previous statements throughout the two-year conflict.(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)





Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pauses during a news conference at the Pentagon, Wednesday, July 31, 2013. Hagel warned that the Pentagon may have to mothball up to three Navy aircraft carriers and order more sharp reductions in the size of the Army and Marine Corps if Congress does not act to avoid massive budget cuts beginning in 2014. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)





Syrian protester wears the mask of vendetta and chants anti- President Assad slogans, during a protest in front of the Syrian embassy to condemn the alleged poison gas attack on the suburbs of Damascus, during a protest in front of the Syrian embassy, in Amman, Jordan, Friday, Aug. 23, 2013. Anti-government activists accused the Syrian regime of carrying out a toxic gas attack that is thought to have killed at least 100 people, including many children as they slept, during intense artillery and rocket barrages Wednesday on the eastern suburbs of Damascus that are part of a fierce government offensive in the area.(AP Photo/Mohammad Hannon)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — U.S. naval forces are moving closer to Syria as President Barack Obama considers military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad government. The president emphasized that a quick intervention in the Syrian civil war was problematic, given the international considerations that should precede a military strike.


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel declined to discuss any specific force movements while saying that Obama had asked the Pentagon to prepare military options for Syria. U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.


U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military action, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.


“The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options — whatever options the president might choose,” Hagel told reporters traveling with him to Asia.


Hagel said the U.S. is coordinating with the international community to determine “what exactly did happen” near Damascus earlier this week. According to reports, a chemical attack in a suburb of the capital killed at least 100 people. It would be the most heinous use of chemical weapons since Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988.


Hagel left little doubt that he thinks the attack in Syria involved chemical weapons, although he stressed there is not yet a final answer. In discussing the matter, he said, “it appears to be what happened — use of chemical weapons.”


The United Nations disarmament chief, Angela Kane, arrived in Damascus on Saturday to press the Syrian government to allow U.N. experts to investigate the alleged chemical attacks.


Obama remained cautious about getting involved in a war that has killed more than 100,000 people and now includes Hezbollah and al-Qaida. He made no mention of the “red line” of chemical weapons use that he marked out for Syrian President Bashar Assad a year ago and that U.S. intelligence says has been breached at least on a small scale several times since.


“If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it — do we have the coalition to make it work?” Obama said Friday. “Those are considerations that we have to take into account.”


Obama conceded in an interview on CNN’s “New Day” program that the episode is a “big event of grave concern” that requires American attention. He said any large-scale chemical weapons usage would affect “core national interests” of the United States and its allies. But nothing he said signaled a shift toward U.S. action.


U.S. defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss ship movements publicly. But if the U.S. wants to send a message to Assad, the most likely military action would be a Tomahawk missile strike, launched from a ship in the Mediterranean.


For a year now, Obama has threatened to punish Assad’s regime if it resorted to its chemical weapons arsenal, among the world’s vastest, saying use or even deployment of such weapons of mass destruction constituted a “red line” for him. A U.S. intelligence assessment concluded in June chemical weapons have been used in Syria’s civil war, but Washington has taken no military action against Assad’s forces.


U.S. officials have instead focused on trying to organize a peace conference between the government and opposition. Obama has authorized weapons deliveries to rebel groups, but none are believed to have been sent so far.


In his first comments on Syria since the alleged chemical attack, Obama said the U.S. is still trying to find out what happened. Hagel said Friday that a determination on the chemical attack should be made swiftly because “there may be another attack coming,” although he added that “we don’t know” whether that will happen.


After rebels similarly reported chemical attacks in February, U.S. confirmation took more than four months. In this instance, a U.N. chemical weapons team is already on the ground in Syria. Assad’s government, then as now, has rejected the claims as baseless.


Obama also cited the need for the U.S. to be part of a coalition in dealing with Syria. America’s ability by itself to solve the Arab country’s sectarian fighting is “overstated,” he said.


___


AP National Security Writer Robert Burns was traveling with Hagel. AP writers Josh Lederman and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



US forces move closer to Syria as options weighed

US forces move closer to Syria as options weighed

Sunday, June 9, 2013

In Iran vote, reformists struggle with few options








In this Friday, June 7, 2013 photo, an Iranian man reads one of electoral leaflets, covering the street, after Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran. Despite four years of non-stop arrests and intimidation, Iran’s dissidents still find ways to show their resilience. Protest messages ricochet around social media and angry graffiti pops up. But it only takes a closer look at the lockdown atmosphere across Iran ahead of Friday’s presidential election to show how much the organized opposition has fallen since massive protests in 2009. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)





In this Friday, June 7, 2013 photo, an Iranian man reads one of electoral leaflets, covering the street, after Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran. Despite four years of non-stop arrests and intimidation, Iran’s dissidents still find ways to show their resilience. Protest messages ricochet around social media and angry graffiti pops up. But it only takes a closer look at the lockdown atmosphere across Iran ahead of Friday’s presidential election to show how much the organized opposition has fallen since massive protests in 2009. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)





In this Friday, June 7, 2013 photo, an Iranian woman looks out of the window of a public bus as supporters of presidential candidates attend a street campaign, reflected at the window after Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran. Iranian Presidential election will be held on June 14, 2013. Despite four years of non-stop arrests and intimidation, Iran’s dissidents still find ways to show their resilience. Protest messages ricochet around social media and angry graffiti pops up. But it only takes a closer look at the lockdown atmosphere across Iran ahead of Friday’s presidential election to show how much the organized opposition has fallen since massive protests in 2009. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)





FILE – In this file picture released by the semi-official Fars news agency on Tuesday, June 4, 2013, mourners show the victory sign during a funeral ceremony for Ayatollah Jalaluddin Taheri, shown in the poster at center, in the central city of Isfahan, Iran. Despite four years of non-stop arrests and intimidation, Iran’s dissidents still find ways to show their resilience. Protest messages ricochet around social media and angry graffiti pops up. But it only takes a closer look at the lockdown atmosphere across Iran ahead of Friday’s presidential election to show how much the organized opposition has fallen since massive protests in 2009. (AP Photo/Fars News Agency, Hamid Reza Nikoumaram, File)





FILE – In this June 15, 2009 file photo, a demonstrator wears a mask in the party’s color of green, due to fears of being identified, as hundreds of thousands of supporters of leading opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims there was voting fraud in election, turn out to protest the result of the election at a mass rally in Azadi (Freedom) square in Tehran, Iran. Despite four years of non-stop arrests and intimidation, Iran’s dissidents still find ways to show their resilience. Protest messages ricochet around social media and angry graffiti pops up. But it only takes a closer look at the lockdown atmosphere across Iran ahead of Friday’s presidential election to show how much the organized opposition has fallen since massive protests in 2009. ( AP Photo/Ben Curtis, File)





FILE – In this Monday, June 15, 2009 file photo, hundreds of thousands of supporters of leading opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims there was voting fraud in Friday’s election, turn out to protest the result of the election at a mass rally in Azadi (Freedom) square in Tehran, Iran. Despite four years of non-stop arrests and intimidation, Iran’s dissidents still find ways to show their resilience. Protest messages ricochet around social media and angry graffiti pops up. But it only takes a closer look at the lockdown atmosphere across Iran ahead of Friday’s presidential election to show how much the organized opposition has fallen since massive protests in 2009. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis, File)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Despite four years of non-stop pressure, arrests and intimidation, Iran’s dissidents still find ways to show their resilience.


Protest messages still ricochet around social media despite Iran’s cyber cops’ attempts to control the Web. Angry graffiti pops up and then quickly painted over by authorities. Mourners at the funeral of a dissident cleric flashed V-for-victory gestures and chanted against the state.


But just a look at the sidewalks around Tehran’s Mellat Park shows how far Iran’s opposition has fallen as the country prepares for Friday’s presidential election.


Four years ago, girls on rollerblades sped around the park delivering fliers for the reform camp’s candidate-hero Mir Hossein Mousavi. Emerald-colored head scarves and wrist bands representing Mousavi’s Green Movement were in such demand that bloggers would list shops with available fabric.


This time, there are just a few subdued election placards for candidates considered fully in sync with Iran’s ruling clerics. Security forces and paramilitary volunteers are never far away.


Mousavi and other opposition leader, Mahdi Karroubi, are under house arrest and hundreds more activists, bloggers and journalists have faced detention as part of relentless crackdowns since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election in 2009 brought accusations of vote rigging and something Iran has not seen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: Huge crowds in the streets chanting against the leadership.


Iran’s forces for reform are not so much crushed as now bottled up tightly. Now the election that marks the end of Ahmadinejad’s eight-year era also brings another moment of political transition: Whether the loose affiliation of reformists, liberals and Western-leaning activists can somehow remain relevant in a time when the guardians of the Islamic establishment are consolidating their defenses.


“There is no shortage of people in Iran who would like to see a different way of being governed and a different world view from the leadership,” said Theodore Karasik, a security and political affairs analyst at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. “Trouble for them is that they now fragmented and disorganized. This is exactly what Iranian authorities want to see.”


The entire process has been derided by Western governments and rights groups as a farce after Iran’s election overseers — all loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — blacklisted former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani from the ballot despite his lofty status as one of the architects of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


For Iran’s rulers, the relatively moderate Rafsanjani represents an unsettling force who could breathe some life into the battered opposition.


Any momentum toward a backlash over Rafsanjani’s barring quickly dissipated. He grumbled over the rebuff and Iranian reformist websites buzzed with complaints. But there have been no major street protests, suggesting — once again — there are only remote chances for a revival of the 2009 mass demonstrations. His backers have retreated to election boycott calls or drifted to other candidates who have no apparent intention to shake up the system.


The only significant public show of dissent before the election came in a coincidence of timing. Some mourners at the funeral procession of dissident Ayatollah Jalaluddin Taheri, who died last Sunday in the central city of Isfahan, used the march to revive the opposition chants from 2009 such as “death to the dictator,” according to video clips posted on the Internet. But the outburst did not seem to inspire other rallies around the country.


“There is significant opposition in Iran to a lot of things, international relations, crackdowns on the Internet, but its dispersed over all classes of society and without a real focus,” said Rasool Nafisi, an Iranian affairs analyst at Strayer University in Virginia. “There is opposition, but I doubt you can call it a movement.”


Opposition voters now face the choice of whether to boycott the polls or turn to whatever they see as the least objectionable candidate. So far, the top figures of the reform movement, like former President Mohammad Khatami, have not given an indication to their supporters which avenue to take — meaning a unified strategy may only emerge at the last minute, if at all.


A likely major indicator in the final vote will be how many eligible voters stayed away, in comparison to a reported 85 percent turnout in 2009. It worries officials enough that Khamenei used one of the country’s most somber occasions — the memorial ceremony marking the death of Islamic Revolution founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — to say that a low turnout will only help Iran’s “enemies” such as the U.S. and Israel.


Most of the eight hopefuls cleared to run are bathed in pro-establishment credentials, including such insider figures as top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and Khamenei adviser Ali Akbar Velayati.


Some reformists have migrated toward former nuclear negotiator Hasan Rowhani as a sort of default, since he is closely aligned with Rafsanjani. Khatami’s former vice president, Mohammad Reza Aref, has made a strong bid to draw reformist voters, speaking with the most passion about freedoms Wednesday during the second television debate among the eight candidates.


“An unprecedented security atmosphere has been imposed in recent years that caused lack of motivation among students,” he said. “The solution is not confrontation, elimination or shutting down. We are living in the age of communications.”


Others have gravitated to Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf in hopes his hands-on reputation could halt the downward slide of Iran’s sanctions-wracked economy.


But there is little sense left of the unified Green Movement that poured onto the streets in 2009 over claims that vote rigging robbed Mousavi of victory and handed re-election to Ahmadinejad. The protests — the worse domestic unrest since the Islamic Revolution — momentarily stunned authorities with once-unthinkable acts of rebellion, such as burning portraits of Khamenei, a full 18 months before even the first hints of the Arab Spring uprisings.


Mousavi and fellow candidate Karroubi have been under house arrest since early 2011. Security forces and intelligence units have been bolstered to the point where any form of dissent — in public or online — risks arrest. Most recently, several people were detained at a Rowhani rally after calling for Mousavi’s release.


Iranian police chief, Gen. Ismail Moghadam warned: “Police will confront individuals who have counter-revolutionary behavior.”


Authorities have sharply limited visas for Western media to cover the election. Tehran-based journalists also face sweeping restrictions on street reporting and travel. On Thursday, the Paris-based media rights group Reporters Without Borders accused Iranian officials of blocking coverage of the “government’s suppression of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of information.”


“The regime is showing its true colors,” said Abdollah Mohtadi, a member of a London-based opposition group Unity for Democracy in Iran. “When Iranians cannot campaign or give voice to their political views without fear of persecution or prosecution, any claims the regime might make to democracy are shown to be a lie.”


Farid Kia, 45, a university instructor in business administration who backed Mousavi four years ago, now says, “Voting is fruitless.”


Hossein Yekkeh, a 30-year-old engineer who voted for Mousavi, said he doesn’t plan to vote because “none of current candidates represent reformists.”


Prominent U.S.-based Iranian blogger Mehdi Saharkhiz — whose father Isa, a well-known journalist, has been jailed since 2009 — has engaged in online debates with Iranians on the value of a mass boycott. Saharkhiz encourages voters to stay away after the rejection of Rafsanjani and in protest of the vote-rigging claims four years ago.


“So you think they won’t do it again this time?” he wrote.


Another variable is the deepening Western sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, which may have the indirect consequence of boosting the vote.


Many former Green Movement backers have put ideology aside and have fallen behind candidates, such as Tehran Mayor Qalibaf, seen as capable fiscal managers as the economy reels under 30 percent unemployment and prices rising more than threefold on goods such as chicken and beef. The only sporadic protests in the past years, in fact, have been over pocketbook issues and not the squeeze on political freedoms.


“Is there still an organized Green Movement? No,” said Scott Lucas, an Iranian affairs expert at Britain’s Birmingham University. “Whatever was there, the authorities have been successful in breaking it up with detentions and crackdowns. But the issues the protesters raised — accountability, political transparency, reforms, openness — are still there and very much alive. They just have no cohesive expression.”


___


Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran contributed to this report.


Associated Press




Top Headlines



In Iran vote, reformists struggle with few options