Share This

Monday, 25 July 2011

The world is run by Tiger Wives, Tiger Moms





The world is run by Tiger Wives

Wendi Deng is not alone in lashing out when her spouse is under fire.

Wendi Deng Murdoch, Cherie Blair and Melania Trump are formidable in defence of their husbands-The world is run by Tiger Wives
Wendi Deng Murdoch, Cherie Blair and Melania Trump are formidable in defence of their husbands Photo: REX FEATURES/GETTY,By Cristina Odone

The hearings were beginning to pall. What had started as the trial of the media’s biggest mogul was settling into the siesta of the patriarch: Rupert Murdoch seemed to be talking in his sleep, while James Murdoch fanned away the MPs’ annoying questions, lest they disturb Dad.

Viewers longing for drama felt short-changed. None of the lawmakers had laid a glove on the media mogul. And then – splat! – the (slapstick) comedian Jonathan May-Bowles threw a “pie” of shaving foam at Murdoch Senior and unleashed the Tiger Wife.

In an instant, Wendi Deng, Murdoch’s Chinese-American spouse, leapt to her feet and sprang past bystanders to pummel her husband’s assailant. MPs, Murdochs and media types could only gape, electrified as proceedings fast-forwarded from Perry Mason to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

By the time Rupert Murdoch’s bodyguard had reached his master, the 42-year-old Wendi had landed a sensational right-hook on her opponent.

She then gained her husband’s side, and gently cleaned his face of foam. Within minutes, Deng was the toast of Twitter: hailed as a “smack-down sister” in her native China, and as a heroine and stunning show-stopper everywhere else.

Those who know Wendi well (and they include Tony Blair, Mark Zuckerman and Bono) won’t have batted an eyelid at her jaw-dropping performance. Rupert Murdoch’s third wife has form.

A volleyball player from southern China doesn’t climb to the top (Murdoch’s personal fortune remains a healthy $340 million) without fierce determination. Other people on Wendi’s ascent have already experienced her fury.

The first victim was Joyce Cherry, a pleasant American who, together with husband Jake, befriended Wendi during their trip to China. Impressed by the teenager’s brilliance and thirst for self-improvement, Joyce and Jake sponsored Wendi’s application for a student visa to America. Alas, 19-year-old Wendi soon bewitched Jake, who left poor old Joyce to marry their young protégée.

Victim number two was Jake himself: his usefulness came to an end a few months later when Wendi, now armed with the right papers, won a place to study business at Yale University.



Days from graduation, Wendi had a job at the Murdoch-owned Star TV, where she quickly caught the Big Boss’s eye. Hence the third corpse in the trail to marry Murdoch: Rupert’s second wife, Anna.

Within 17 days of his divorce, Wendi wed Rupert. If the Wendi house conceals a few skeletons, it also offers glimpses of her protective instincts.

Conscious of the 38-year gap between them, Wendi has placed Rupert on a tough regime of 6am weightlifting, washed down by a fruit and soy protein cocktail. She wags her finger at his workaholic schedule and has hired a personal trainer to put him through his paces (even at the price of her husband turning up on front pages in baseball cap and tracksuit).

None of this marital nurturing distracts Wendi from pursuing her own agenda: she has just released a film, Snow Flower and the Secret Fan, that aims to promote a more positive image of China.

She enjoys a glittering social life, attending film premieres and art gallery openings. And she remains her husband’s chief adviser on his business in China.

Yet Wendi the film producer, like Wendi the business consultant or Wendi the mother of Rupert’s young daughters Chloe and Grace, has failed to fire our imagination. But Wendi Deng, invincible Tiger Wife, has transformed Rupert Murdoch’s image around the globe – from dodderer in the dock to prized partner in his wife’s life.

In a culture that mourns marriage as a moribund institution, one spouse leaping passionately to the other’s defence fills us with admiration. Even the most hardened cynics couldn’t help thinking, as the warrior in a pink blazer bounced into the ring: “Wow, she really believes in this union!”

Wendi Deng’s slap didn’t just scotch rumours that hers was a sham marriage: a purely trophy wife would have winked at the assailant for giving the old man a heart-stopping scare. With a quick right hook, she jumped to the head of the queue of the defenders of matrimony. It is a short but colourful roll-call that stretches from Cherie Blair, to Anne Sinclair (aka Mme Strauss Khan), Melania Trump and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

From the moment she moved into No 10, Cherie Blair was under constant attack for her (supposed) greed, stinginess, and self-importance. She let the criticisms bounce off her like spring rain. But let anyone touch her Tony, and Mrs Blair roared. She hissed at the ungrateful electorate that did not deserve a paragon of virtue like her husband; she gnashed her teeth at the sleazy media that insinuated Tony was a disappointment.

Her manner resembled the termagant’s fury rather than the bride’s solicitude, but no one could doubt Cherie’s heartfelt loyalty. It won her few fans: among the cheats and cuckolds of Westminster, the sight of a prime minister’s wife defending her husband was unusual; it also reassured voters that despite new Labour’s destruction of cherished institutions from the House of Lords to foxhunting, marriage would remain intact.

Far more testing has been Anne Sinclair’s lot. When her charismatic husband Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested on rape charges in New York, the French TV journalist sprang to his defence: “I do not believe for a single second the accusations levelled against my husband.” She flew to stand by her man and stumped up the $1 million bail to move him from prison to his plush Manhattan apartment.

Such wifely devotion may yet save the former IMF chief’s political career: his wife’s total support, as much as the derailing of the case against him, may prove a great boost to DSK’s credibility as a presidential candidate.

Her counterpart in the French presidential contest, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, also wants to show the world that she looks out for her husband’s interests. The First Lady of France, pregnant but still displaying every sign of focus and competitiveness, has imposed a culture vulture’s menu on her philistine hubby: he is to watch films by Alfred Hitchcock, as well as Russia’s Andrei Tarkovsky; and read the French classics, from Balzac to Hugo.

Driving this self-improvement, say insiders at the Elysée Palace, is Carla’s ambition: she wants her man to be re-elected, and fears his present lowbrow image won’t do.

Nor should we forget Melania Trump, fearlessly vocal in her millionaire husband’s defence: Donald Trump is “brilliant”, everyone is envious of his success, and America should be so lucky to have him as their Republican Party candidate.

But Mrs T also gives us a revealing insight into their marriage when she confides that she has two children: “I have a big boy, Donald, and a little boy, Barron. I take care of both very well.”

Tiger Wife often needs to play Tiger Mother, it would seem.

The Tiger Wives’ Club is small but perfectly informed: these women know that their husbands need their commitment and support. In her eagerness to make her man shine, the Tiger Wife will disarm any assailant. She knows that her spouse is less than he seems; and that she, in fact, is rather more. She’s plucky; he’s lucky.

Source: The Daily Telegraph

US Debt ceiling plan counts on war games savings






Budget games: Debt ceiling plan counts on war savings

@CNNMoney 
military-spending.gi.top.jpgWith the wars already winding down, should the savings count toward a debt deal?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Senate Democrats want to cut an eye-popping $1 trillion in war spending over the next 10 years.

The proposal is part of the plan Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday to raise the debt ceiling through 2013 and slash $2.7 trillion overall.

But many Republicans aren't likely to buy it.

The argument goes like this: Reid's proposed cuts for spending in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't real because Democrats are working off an inflated number that assumes the wars will continue at full tilt for the next decade.

And since the Obama administration has already started to wind down the wars, the extra money was never going to be spent, and shouldn't count as a cut.

"That's going to be a tough sell in some circles," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director and president of the conservative American Action Forum. "They're not going to be viewed as real spending cuts."

Indeed, Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, called it "phony scoring."

No deal on debt ceiling

Claims of budget savings often center around which budget "baseline" lawmakers are using for comparison. And Reid is using the Congressional Budget Office baseline as his starting point.

Because of the rules Congress itself has set, the CBO is required to take current war funding levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and extend them far into the future. Plus inflation.

"The way the CBO baseline is calculated is real simple," said Holtz-Eakin. "You take what is on the books and extrapolate at the rate of inflation."

But that isn't the best reflection of reality. War spending is at elevated levels at the moment. And it should soon decline. A lot.

The Obama administration has already announced plans to bring a large number of troops home. That will save tons of money, and it will happen whether Reid's plan is approved, or not.

In its January fiscal outlook, the CBO itself laid out the difference.



Why you care about a debt downgrade

In 2010, there were an average of 215,000 U.S. troops deployed for war-related activities. If that number were to drop to 100,000 in 2013 and 45,000 in 2015 and beyond, the savings would be significant.

"Under that scenario, total discretionary outlays for the period from 2012 through 2021 would be $1.1 trillion less than the amount in CBO's current baseline," the report said.

Travis Sharp, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said it is common for both parties to count savings this way.

"Both Democrats and Republicans tend to count cuts in planned future spending as real cuts," Sharp said. "And both parties tend to use the baseline that casts the best light on their policies."

If Republicans don't buy that the cuts are real -- they will have yet another reason to reject Reid's deal. One of their most steadfast demands has been a debt ceiling hike that is matched dollar for dollar by spending cuts.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that Republicans have to accept the savings as legitimate. But clearly, he anticipated the objections from the other side of the aisle.

"We know that some Republicans will quibble over these savings, but they have no leg to stand on," Schumer said. "If conducting the wars adds to our debt, it's undeniable that winding down the wars delivers savings."

Schumer's argument rests in part on the fact that Republicans counted the same savings as part of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget that was approved by the House earlier this year.

"They never criticized such accounting then," Schumer said. "It's hard to see how they could do so now." 

Australia and Malaysia sign 'refugee' deal






Human Rights Watch slams agreement to send 800 asylum seekers in Australia to Malaysia in exchange for 4,000 refugees. 
Demonstratrs protest against Malaysia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers [Reuters]

Australia and Malaysia have signed a deal to send 800 asylum seekers in Australia to Malaysia in exchange for the resettlement of 4,000 refugees.

The 4,000 refugees are to be resettled in Australia over a four year period, with that country bearing the cost of their tranfer and settlement.

Hishammuddin Hussein, Malaysia's interior minister, and Chris Bowen, Australia's immigration minister, formally signed the deal at a Kuala Lumpur hotel on Monday.

The 800 asylum seekers sent to Malaysia will be placed in a "holding centre" for six week before being allowed into the community, Hussein said.

From midnight on Monday, the next 800 asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat will not be processed there, but will be transferred to Malaysia, Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister said.

The government said they will receive no preferential treatment in the processing of their claims or arrangements for resettlement.



'Dumping ground'

Ahead of the signing, Brendan O'Connor, Australian's interior minister, said the deal represents "an historic and innovative approach" to undermining the people-smugglers' business model.

"We want to treat people fairly," he told ABC Television, but refused to confirm a report that those shipped to Malaysia would be allowed to work.

However, the deal has drawn criticism because Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees.

"Australia is using Malaysia as a dumping ground for boat people it does not want and in the process walking away from its commitments to follow the 1951 Refugees Convention," Phil Robertson, the deputy director at the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, said.

"Human Rights Watch has publicly called on UNHCR to not endorse this agreement because this is a deal that would allow Australia, a country that has signed the Refugee Convention, to devolve its obligations to another country that has not signed the Refugee Convention.

"This would set the worst type of precedent and we’re concerned it could start a wider erosion of protection for refugees throughout the Asia-Pacific region."

The UNHCR is not a signatory to the agreement, however appreciates that both governments consulted with the agency.

"The UNHCR’s preference has always been an Arrangement which would enable all asylum-seekers arriving by boat into Australian territory to be processed in Australia. This would be consistent with general practice," the agency said in a statement.

"The critical test of this Arrangement will now be in its implementation both in Australia and Malaysia, particularly the protection and vulnerability assessment procedures under which asylum seekers will be assessed in Australia prior to any transfer taking place."

Protests against agreement

In Malaysia, demonstrators gather outside the signing ceremony to protest against the country's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

One demonstrator holds up a placard that reads, "Malaysia's immigration laws still don't recognise 'refugees' and 'asylum seekers' - where's the guarantee for protection?"

The Australian government, which has a policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers until their claim for refugee status is resolved, is facing rising tensions in some of its detention centres over the processing of claims.

The migrants are held for months at Christmas Island detention centre, about 1,500 miles from the Australian mainland, and in other detention facilities.

About 200 people protested against the impending agreement outside Sydney's Villawood immigration detention centre on Sunday.

The immigration department said about 60 inmates were taking part in a peaceful protest at the Scherger detention centre in Queensland, with about 50 of these engaged in voluntary starvation.

 Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies Newscribe : get free news in real time