Nepal faces uncertain future with rebels - Yahoo! News

There seems to be an agreement between the rebels and the government of Nepal, which has had a violent revolution recently.

Those Maoist rebel "democrats" have what they wish. Are they ready for it?: "All that ended June 16 with an agreement to establish an interim government to replace the current national parliament as well as the 'people's government' that rules territory under rebel control.

The Maoists say they will abide by the decisions of a yet-to-be-formed constituent assembly, which will decide what type of government Nepal will have.

But after so many years of living as guerrillas, fighting the government and demanding goals steeped in a Marxist ideology much of the world has long forgotten, the big question is what their leader, known to all as Prachanda, wants for the nation.

The schoolteacher-turned-militant has few democratic credentials, tolerating no dissent as the leader of the guerrillas who call their overriding philosophy 'Prachandapath' — 'Prachanda's Way.'

In interviews since he emerged from hiding, his pronouncements about Nepal's new government have been vague and sometimes contradictory.

'There shouldn't be parliamentary republicanism' in Nepal, he recently told the weekly magazine Nepal. He ruled out an autocracy, but said that 'we need a republicanism of our own kind.' He didn't elaborate.

His plans for the struggling economy are equally hazy.

Despite the basics of the creed named after Mao Zedong, the Chinese communist leader, Prachanda says the rebels will encourage industry, job creation and the quest for profits.

"

I'll believe it when I see it.

Left to Right: the American way

Conversion from life in the real world of the CEO of Whole Foods Market: "Excerpt Of The Day: Business Is Not A Zero-Sum Game"

'At the time I started my business, the Left had taught me that business and capitalism were based on exploitation: exploitation of consumers, workers, society, and the environment. I believed that 'profit' was a necessary evil at best, and certainly not a desirable goal for society as a whole. However, becoming an entrepreneur completely changed my life. Everything I believed about business was proven to be wrong.

The most important thing I learned about business in my first year was that business wasn't based on exploitation or coercion at all. Instead I realized that business is based on voluntary cooperation. No one is forced to trade with a business; customers have competitive alternatives in the market place; employees have competitive alternatives for their labor; investors have different alternatives and places to invest their capital. Investors, labor, management, suppliers — they all need to cooperate to create value for their customers. If they do, then any realized profit can be divided amongst the creators of the value through competitive market dynamics.

In other words, business is not a zero-sum game with a winner and loser. It is a win, win, win, win game — and I really like that. However, I discovered despite my idealism that our customers thought our prices were too high, our employees thought they were underpaid, the vendors would not give us large discounts, the community was forever clamoring for donations, and the government was slapping us with endless fees, licenses, fines, and taxes.

Were we profitable? Not at first. Safer Way managed to lose half of its capital in the first year — $23,000. Despite the loss, we were still accused of exploiting our customers with high prices and our employees with low wages. The investors weren't making a profit and we had no money to donate. Plus, with our losses, we paid no taxes. I had somehow joined the 'dark side' — I was now one of the bad guys. According to the perspective of the Left, I had become a greedy and selfish businessman. At this point, I rationally chose to abandon the leftist philosophy of my youth, because it no longer adequately explained how the world really worked.' -- John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market"

Help the terrorists resist interrogation!

We don't want to surprise the terrorists with any of our interrogation techniques.

Pentagon won't hide interrogation tactics : "Under pressure from Congress, the
Pentagon has dropped plans to keep some interrogation techniques secret by putting them in a classified section of a military manual, defense officials said Tuesday.

...descriptions of interrogation techniques initially planned for the classified section are either being made public or are being eliminated as tactics that can be used against prisoners.

...Military leaders have argued that disclosing all the interrogation techniques public would make it easier for enemy prisoners to resist questioning.

...any interrogation technique not included in the manual would be considered illegal."

This is, of course, in response to the law passed last year, championed by McCain and others, to criminalize "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners by U.S. troops."

Let's hear it for giving terrorists a chance to practice their resistance techniques. We wouldn't want USA interrogators to have unfair advantage or anything.

Reuters roots for Islamic militia in Somalia?

Experts say US funding Somali warlords - Yahoo! News: "(Reuters) - The United States has been funneling more than $100,000 a month to warlords battling Islamist militia in Somalia, according to a Somalia expert who has conferred with the groups in the country."

Reuters' leftist slip is showing, as usual. The USA is funding "warlords", but the Islamists are "militia"... how noble of them!

Reuters names only one source, John Prendergast, a Senior Adviser at the (non-profit) "International Crisis Group." Prendergast worked in the White House and the State Department in the Clinton administration from 1996-2001, a bit of information Reuters omits, but which bears on the objectivity of Prendergast as the only named source. All the other sources are "anonymous".

Reuters seems to think it's bad for the US to fund anti-Islamist groups in Somalia, and implies the UN is investigating US provision of arms to Somalia "warlords". Outside of the hilarity of the UN investigating anything at all, the obvious point is simple.

Shouldn't the US do what it can to prevent an Islamist takeover of Somalia, with all the potential for Taliban-style rule that would be a certainty?