Tests on the volcano show Vesuvius is a ticking time bomb. Ten kilometres beneath its crater there is a 400 sq km chamber of molten magma. When it forces its way through the fractures of the Earth's crust the result will be disastrous. The authorities would get between 20 days and two weeks' notice. But the dilemma that would face those implementing the plan is when to start their evacuation.

But vulcanologist Giuseppe Mastrolorenzo from the Vesuvius Observatory says civil emergency planners are still ignoring the worst-case scenario "It is politically negative to talk about the cataclysmic event," he says. "The authorities have been told what could happen. But the evacuation plans they have in place still do not go anywhere near far enough." From a helicopter we could see the difficulty the civil planning authorities will face.

The slopes of the volcano are covered with farms, small towns and high-rise flats. The so-called "red zone" - the area that would be evacuated first - includes 18 towns. And they are connected by narrow, winding and often heavily congested roads.

When this next explosive eruption comes - as one day it will - this will not just be Campania and Italy's problem, it will be Europe's as well. There will be three million refugees. It will change climates and weather patterns across the continent. Iit will turn the green, fertile landscape around Naples into a lifeless desert.,

But this was no admission of defeat. Quite the contrary: it was a show of humility very deliberately deployed - an attempt to rally Americans behind an engagement in Iraq that will be longer, deeper and more costly in money and blood. The central focus of President Bush's "new way forward" in Iraq is Baghdad. Eighty per cent of the violence in Iraq, we were told, takes place within a 30-mile (48km) radius of Baghdad.

The president said that Baghdad had not been secured in the past because "there were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighbourhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents". A new security plan for Baghdad - formulated by the Iraqi government - had been presented to Mr Bush when he travelled to Jordan for a meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, late last year, according to a senior administration official.

The White House and the US military had reviewed it, said the president, and supported it. And it is this plan that is at the heart of the president's strategy. The plan, in essence, calls for a new battle for Baghdad - a battle conducted by Iraqi troops in the lead, with Americans in support. The number of US and Iraqi combat troops in Baghdad will be doubled.

Clear. Hold. Build. This is not a new strategy - it has been central to US operations in Iraq for a long while. But, according to retired Gen Jack Keane, who advised the White House on these plans, the manner of its implementation will be new.

"We're going to secure the population for the first time," he said. "What we've never been able to do in the past is have enough forces to stay in those neighbourhoods and protect the people." "Much of '07", he added, "will be spent getting Baghdad under control." And in 2008, said Gen Keane, the same process would be repeated in Anbar province, where the Sunni insurgency remains active and lethal.

But this strategy for securing the Iraqi capital is heavily dependent on the willingness and ability of the Iraqi government and armed forces to confront and disarm insurgents and militias.This means that Iraqi and US troops could find themselves fighting the militia of Moqtada Sadr - the largest, most powerful and the most murderous of the Shia groups, and one which controls much of eastern Baghdad. The potential for increased violence here is very great.

The president's speech was notably lacking in diplomatic initiatives. The recommendations of the Iraq Study group - that America engage Iran and Syria immediately and seek their support in stabilising Iraq - were nowhere to be seen. Instead, Mr Bush took a very confrontational tone.
He reminded Americans - and Iranians - that he had ordered an additional aircraft carrier strike group to the waters of the Gulf.

And he said the US would "seek out and destroy" networks that were providing advanced weaponry to America's enemies in Iraq. This appears to be a reference to Iranian covert operations groups which, US intelligence officials say, are operating in southern Iraq. Many members of the Democratic Party - who just last week took power in both houses of Congress - have expressed opposition to the president's plan.

Some Republicans, notably Senators Sam Brownback and Norm Coleman, have also split with the president.
The Democratic leadership has demanded the president consult with them before implementing his plan - something he seems unlikely to do. Short of cutting off funding for the Iraq war - an extremely aggressive step the Democrats are unwilling to take - there is little they can do to stop Mr Bush now.
President Bush is embarking on a new course in Iraq with a great many attendant dangers and something far short of unanimous political support at home.

He is isolated, but emphatic that Iraq must not be lost. His new strategy in Iraq is an intensification of America's role and depends heavily on Prime Minister Maliki to deliver. It appears to place many more American soldiers in harm's way for an indeterminate period. It appears to entirely disregard any and all pressure from the Democrats and ordinary Americans to begin scaling down America's presence in Iraq.

Let's also not forget that just this past summer Israel was engaged in military skirmishes to its northern border with Lebanon, fighting a group known as Hezbollah (Party of God), an Islamic terrorist militia backed by Iran and Syria. One can only hope that the sanctions implemented recently by the United Nations on Iran in reference to its nuclear ambitions will take hold. But as it always is with the United Nations, it's just the usual slap on the wrist.

It goes something like this: for 15 years Russia has been supplying oil and gas to its former Soviet brethren at far below market rates. But these days many of its neighbours are no longer all that friendly to their one-time elder brother.

First it was Ukraine, then Georgia and now, it seems, Belarus. Moscow has decided that its generosity is being abused, and so it is time for the largesse to end. Last winter it imposed large price hikes on natural gas to Ukraine. On the eve of 2007, it became the turn of Belarus to pay a more realistic price.
Overnight the cost of natural gas to Minsk was nearly doubled.

When it comes to oil, Moscow is even more upset. It claims the cheap crude it sends to Belarus is being refined there, and then resold as petrol and diesel at market rates. From the Kremlin's point of view, the Belarusian government is enriching itself at Moscow's expense.

So last week the Russian government decided to impose an export tariff on the crude oil it sends to its erstwhile ally. It looks like a harsh way to treat a one-time friend. But Russia's actions could hardly be described as illegal, or even unjustified. Even Monday's pipeline shutdown can be explained in a rational way.

Russia says Belarus has begun stealing large quantities of oil from the pipeline - nearly 80,000 tonnes in the last few days. Russia's deputy trade minister described the shutdown as "force-majeure", something Russia is very reluctant to do, but has no other choice.

But looked at it another way, one cannot help feeling there is something very deliberate about the way Russia has precipitated this latest crisis. That still begs the question - why? Why further jeopardise Russia's own reputation as a reliable partner and energy supplier for the rest of Europe.

Why deliberately destabilise a neighbouring country?

Is it simply that the Kremlin has had enough of its cantankerous and authoritarian neighbour? Is Moscow just tired of seeing its cheap oil being used to profit a regime that refuses to embrace economic reform and is increasingly unfriendly towards its erstwhile big brother? Or does the Kremlin have bigger political designs upon Belarus

The transitional government was on its back foot. But, just days later, the situation is pretty much reversed. Things have been moving so fast that people have had little time to consider the really big question - what next?

Here is the current situation: reports from Somalia suggest that government forces, backed by Ethiopian troops, have captured the Islamists' last stronghold of Kismayo. Islamist leaders say they have retreated for tactical reasons, and because they wanted to avoid further bloodshed.

The worst case scenario for the future is that the situation could end up mirroring Afghanistan or Iraq: a quick defeat followed by protracted fighting from insurgents. Diplomats in Addis Ababa believe this is a real possibility.

The Union of Islamic Courts stoked these concerns yesterday by warning they will start an insurgency. The head of the Islamic movement in the Kismayo region said, "Even if we are defeated we will start an insurgency.
"We will kill every Somali that supports the government and Ethiopians."

The transitional government is formally supported by the African Union, the United Nations and the regional grouping, the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (Igad). But its strongest support comes from Ethiopia, where Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is determined not to see an Islamic state established on his borders. Somalia's interim President Abdullahi Yusuf has always had close ties with Ethiopia.

His first foreign visit after taking office in 2004 was to Addis Ababa, and it was reported that he wanted a 20,000-strong mainly Ethiopian force to strengthen his government, which has been based in Baidoa, not the capital, Mogadishu. The Somali parliament in Baidoa approved the deployment of foreign forces inside Somalia, a move strenuously resisted by the Islamists in Mogadishu.

For months, Ethiopia denied claims that it had troops in Somalia, only admitting to having military trainers there working with government forces. But in late December Ethiopia launched a large-scale offensive taking territory captured by the Islamists over the last six months. Ethiopia says it has no plans to stay in Somalia in the long term.

Apart from the support President Yusuf's government has received from Ethiopia, there are a number of reports of Yemeni planes arriving in Baidoa, bringing arms and ammunition. A group of Europeans and Australians has been arrested in Yemen, accused of breaking a United Nations arms embargo on Somalia.

The Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) also accuses Kenya, where the transitional government was formed after years of discussions, of being biased in favour of the government.

THE UNION OF ISLAMIC COURTS

During the six months that the Union of Islamic Courts ruled Mogadishu, it brought order to the capital. Finances for the courts were reportedly being provided by rich individuals in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. The government also says that Islamist radicals from around the world have gone to help the UIC. This is strongly denied by the Islamic courts.

There have also been reports that Eritrea - which has a long-running border dispute with Ethiopia - has been supplying arms to the Islamists. A leaked UN report says that 2,000 "fully equipped" Eritrean troops are working with the UIC. This is denied by the authorities in Asmara.

The chairman of the Union of Islamic Courts, Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, wrote to the UN, the European Union and the United States, calling for the establishment of friendly relations with the international community, based on mutual respect. In a four-page letter he denied giving sanctuary to Islamic extremists, or groups loyal to al-Qaeda. But another key UIC leader, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, is on a US list of individuals linked to terror groups. There are now fears that the UIC will now operate as an insurgency group.

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

The African Union has called for Ethiopian forces to leave Somalia following their offensive, however the UN Security Council has failed to agree on a statement calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces. Earlier in December, the Security Council passed a unanimous resolution to provide an 8,000-strong African peacekeeping force to protect the weak government.

This follows the establishment of the International Contact Group on Somalia by diplomats in June, which had the support of the US, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Tanzania and the EU. The African Union, Arab League and Kenya participated as observers. The Contact Group was formed after the collapse of the previous US strategy, which was to back the warlords who had controlled Mogadishu for many years.

The US was represented by Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. She has claimed that radical forces have sidelined more moderate forces in the Union of Islamic Courts. "The top layer of the courts are extremists to the core, they are terrorists and they are creating this logic of war," she said in December. Earlier she had said the union needed to be aware that the status of terrorists was a "core interest" of the US.

Meanwhile, the contact group had called for talks between the interim government and the UIC But three rounds of peace talks in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, organised by the Arab League were inconclusive.
At one stage, the rivals had agreed a ceasefire but the Islamists continued to gain ground and both sides swapped fiery rhetoric.

The government no longer trusts the Arab League to mediate and the final round broke up without agreement in November.

The European Commission said the cuts posed no immediate risk to European supplies but it was seeking an urgent explanation from Belarus and Russia. Belarus has been in dispute with Russia over the price of Russian oil and gas.

Minsk says Russia has not been paying a transit tax for moving oil through Belarus, imposed after Russia doubled the price it charges Belarus for gas supplies. Exports were halted after Belarus began legal action against Russia for failure to pay the new oil shipment tax.

Transneft later said it had been forced to cut off supplies through the Druzhba pipeline after Belarus began siphoning off oil as payment in kind for the duties. The Russian firm has so far refused to pay the oil export taxes as it claims the charges are illegal. Separately, Azerbaijan has suspended oil exports to Russia following a pricing dispute with Russian state-backed oil giant Gazprom.

Neither Germany nor Poland is in any immediate danger of experiencing oil shortages, as both maintain substantial reserves. But BBC economics correspondent Andrew Walker says the suspension is an uncomfortable reminder to Europe of the large and growing role that Russia has in meeting its energy needs.
The decision to shut down the Druzhba pipeline is the latest twist in an energy row between Belarus and Moscow that began when Russian energy giant Gazprom forced Belarus to accept a huge increase in the price of Russian gas.

Last week Belarus said it would charge Russia $45 (£23) per tonne of oil that passed through its country. News of the disruption to supplies was a key factor helping to drive oil prices through the $57-a-barrel barrier after falling to around the $55 level last week.

US light sweet crude rose 89 cents to $57.20 in New York trade, while in the UK Brent crude stood at $56.71 - up $1.08. News that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, planned to cut output by 158,000 barrels a day also helped to drive crude prices higher.

A judge said the plan, designed to lift the Spokane diocese out of bankruptcy, includes non-economic provisions to give victims some "closure". The Spokane diocese serves some 90,000 Catholics in Washington state. It is the latest in a series of multi-million dollar settlements offered by US churches in abuse claims.

Federal Bankruptcy Judge Gregg W Zive told the Associated Press news agency the settlement also includes a mechanism for paying off future claims. He said money for the settlement would come from insurance companies, the sale of church property, contributions from Catholic groups and from the diocese's parishes.

Victims and another bankruptcy judge must approve the move before it comes into effect. In December last year, the largest Roman Catholic diocese in the US agreed to pay $60m (£30m) to settle dozens of lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by priestsThe settlement by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles related to 45 cases among more than 500 that are pending.

It was one of the largest settlements since the Roman Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal erupted in the US in 2002. In February 2004, a report commissioned by the Church said more than 4,000 Roman Catholic priests in the US had faced sexual abuse allegations in the last 50 years.

The program openly advocates for the integration of economic issues across the continent, and in many places goes further such as the call for a common North American currency.

One teaching module made available online for professors to integrate into their teachings was written by George Haynal, senior fellow at the Norman Patterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, and implied a joint military is required. Since the security of the continent "is a joint need; it should be supplied as a common enterprise."

"Given the nature of the threats against our security in the current environment, the first task is to reinvent 'borders.' We must exercise the responsibility for protecting our society against external threats where we can do so most effectively, not where infrastructures happens to be in place," he added. "Multilateral cooperation is going to be essential among governments."

"It is clear, to me at least, that we must move beyond NAFTA and do so with a purposeful determination," he wrote.

Another teaching paper advocates the adoption of a unified North American currency, the "amero," modeled after the euro currency of the European Union.

The programming the university is providing for help in teaching the new North American focus is just the latest evidence of the mounting campaign for a de facto North American Union. Although most in the establishment press are not covering the controversy, it has earned the opposition of a number of high-level voices including congressmen like Tom Tancredo, Virgil Goode and Ron Paul, and newsmen like CNN's Lou Dobbs who has described the U.S. government's actions in this effort as "Orwellian."

Ellison's swearing in came as Democrats formally took control on Thursday of the US Senate and House of Representatives following their defeat of the Republican party in the last year's midterm elections. Elllison, a Democrat congressman for Minnesota, shrugged off controversy over his use of the Quran instead of the Bible.

"It was good, we did it, it's over, and now it's time to get down to business," he said. Asked if he was relieved to have the ceremony behind him, Ellison said, "Yeah, because maybe we don't have to talk about it so much anymore.

"Not that I'm complaining, but the pressing issues the country is facing are just a little bit more on my mind right now." Ellison was born a Christian but converted to Islam in college.

Republicans have questioned Ellison will succeed in juggling his loyalty to the Ummah, or the global Muslim community, with his loyalty to the US and its constitution.

They accuse the body that grants licences for embryo research, the HFEA, of bowing to government pressure if it fails to consider their applications. Ministers proposed outlawing such work after unfavourable public opinion. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is to discuss if two research requests come under its remit.

The creation of hybrid human-animal embryos was first suggested as a way of addressing the shortage of human eggs available for research. But the HFEA says it is unresolved whether this type of controversial work is permissible under existing laws - or even whether it falls under the HFEA's jurisdiction to grant a licence. The resulting embryos made are more than 99% human, with a small animal component.

Opponents say this is tampering with nature and is unethical.

The researchers have called for greater understanding of what they are trying to achieve.
If the HFEA decides it is outside its remit, the scientists will not legally need a licence to continue with their work.
A spokesman for the Department of Health stressed that the new law, which still needs to be debated in Parliament, would contain a clause allowing for the possibility that this type of work should be permitted in the future.

Josephine Quintavalle, of CORE ethics, said: "This is creating an animal-human hybrid and that has to be acknowledged as something that does not meet with approval.

"We hope that the HFEA has found this is one hurdle too many and they are not prepared to jump over it."

The bloc, now of 27 countries, is still in a state of disarray 18 months after French and Dutch voters issued their clear "No" to the Union's draft constitution.

And the constitutional impasse has contributed to a growing "enlargement fatigue" not only over Turkey - whose membership talks are now partially suspended - but also over the various western Balkan states queuing up to join. Some senior EU officials in Brussels admit, off the record, that the atmosphere remains miserable.

And a senior French diplomat agrees: "It is really miserable. The mood could change? but there's not much concrete going on at the moment."

Krzysztof Bobinski of the Unia & Polska think tank in Warsaw is a pessimist too. I can't see the EU picking up momentum in 2007," he says. "Too many political leaders see Europe through a national perspective? of how to play 'Europe' to their own political advantage at home. Complacency is the name of the game."

But others disagree, pinning their hopes on Germany, which has said it will re-open the constitutional debate during its EU presidency (from now until the end of June) and on this year's elections in France.
Jose Ignacio Torreblanca, co-editor of BlogEuropa.eu in Madrid, says that: "The key event is the French presidential elections. No matter who wins, Royal or Sarkozy will have a mandate to fix the constitution."

Some even foresee rapid developments in the second half of the year, under the Portuguese presidency. A senior French diplomat envisages the EU's June summit launching an inter-governmental conference (IGC) to produce a cut-down version of the constitution. But few expect the way ahead to an IGC to be smooth.

Mr Torreblanca says: "My guess is that reaching a deal, say, among Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain is not going to be that difficult? but the difficulties will arise in: first, 'selling' it to the Poles, Dutch, Danes etc and second, to the citizens, thus risking a second ratification failure."
A senior British diplomat argues: "It would be a real stretch to do the IGC under the Portuguese? and it would have to be a much more modest proposal and if France opens up the question of Commission size, and Poland and Spain the question of double-majority voting, it will take at least 18 months."

He also points out that Segolene Royal, France's Socialist presidential candidate, has committed herself if she wins to holding a new referendum on the constitution, "something she will want to put off to 2009 or later".
David Kral, director of the Europaeum think tank in Prague agrees that an extended timetable is more realistic, doubting even that the end of 2008 is feasible.

"If there's a new treaty to come? to have it in place by the French EU presidency (in the second half of 2008) is just not workable," he says. And while rescuing a more modest version of the constitution remains up in the air, the EU at 27 is not going to find it easy to agree on any more enlargement.

Some suggest that Germany - and France - would like to draw the borders of Europe more clearly, perhaps slowly bringing in the western Balkans but leaving the rest (apart from any fudge over Turkey) as neighbours, not candidates. Sparks could fly over this.

Martin Koopmann, European expert at the Germany Society for Foreign Policy in Berlin, sees "a growing reluctance in the EU concerning new enlargements". He says the German EU presidency will focus on reforming the EU's eastern neighbourhood policy away from a set of bilateral agreements - "which is very close to the logic of enlargement policy" - to a more multilateral approach.

Mr Koopmann goes on: "As a kind of important side-effect, any reform in this direction would take away pressure from the constitutional crisis". But defining Europe's borders divides the current EU members.

As Krzysztof Bobinski says: "Fairly obviously those who want the EU as small as possible will want borders defined, once and for all, and the enlargers will want to leave the process vague and see who manages to slip in - Ukraine, Georgia, others from the Caucasus, even something Central Asian maybe." David Kral is strongly opposed to stopping enlargement.

"Drawing a priori borders of Europe would be the most damaging thing one could currently do - this would be a symbolical building of fortress Europe," he says. And Jose Ignacio Torreblanca says the EU is not about hard borders, it is about soft boundaries. "Creating dividing lines will not help the EU," he adds.

A French diplomat agrees that this divides the EU. France, Belgium and Mediterranean member states want to keep a clear distinction between the enlargement policy and the neighbourhood policy, he says.
But other member states - those in the east, but also Sweden and the UK - want to open a "European perspective" in particular for Ukraine, in the new enhanced agreement with that country.
"Germany is in between, in the longer term it is ready for new eastern enlargements, but in the short term it has other priorities such as the constitution," he says.

Meanwhile, the senior British diplomat warns that any move on borders would be "doomed". "Lots of the Central Europeans support staying open to enlargement, as well as the UK, Spain, Italy, Sweden and Finland," he says.

And though some in the UK - not least Britain's putative next prime minister Gordon Brown, and even Conservative leader David Cameron - argue that the EU should turn outwards and focus on key issues such as climate change and global poverty, for now the EU looks set to carry on arguing over its internal divisions.

At the earliest, a new constitution might be agreed and ratified by 2009 and such a new deal might release enough energy to reduce enlargement fatigue and lessen the dividing lines over whether or not to build a Fortress Europe.

But the odds are not high for seeing a re-energised, newly confident and dynamic EU in 2007.

In the Palestinian Authority-controlled Gaza Strip and the parts of Judea and Samaria under its rule, a full-scale civil war is likely to erupt among the local Arabs, with unpredictable consequences.

This time around, the talk of "brotherhood" will likely be finally exposed for the myth it is. Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other assorted terrorist gangs will participate, while outside sponsors such as Iran, Syria, and Jordan will supply the bullets, rockets, money and ill-will.

International and American sanctions against Iran and Syria will likely increase, as will defiance by the two nations. Will George Bush unleash an attack on Iran to foil its ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons? Judging by America's dismal performances in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel will be left holding the bag forced alone to face an existential threat in which the options are all bad.

Damascus and Tehran will team up to destabilize Lebanon by activating their proxy, Hizbullah and their allies - the 400,000 Arabs who left Israel in the 1948 and 1967 wars. The bigger powers will push Israel's northern neighbour into a second civil war, one likely to be far more vicious than the 15-year conflict that ended in 1990.

Like the PA Arab battle, Lebanon's civil war will attract support and weapons, drawing in Western and Middle Eastern sponsors to supply the country's Christians, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Druze and Armenians. Jihadists, always on the lookout for training spots, also will flock into Lebanon to establish new bases of operations.

In Iraq and Iran, but also in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Pakistan, and at least one major country in the Persian Gulf jihadist Muslim fundamentalists will become the main agenda-setters, emerging from the shadows to dictate the tempo of events, war, and peace.

The flow of refugees from Iraq, which now stands at two million, will double. Meanwhile the trickle of educated Arabs leaving the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria will continue to grow, resulting in a brain drain of the region's best and brightest.

In America, a Democratic-controlled Congress will turn the Iraqi mess into a full-blown tragedy by opposing any proposals advanced by the Bush administration short of a total and immediate withdrawal of American troops. The American population will progress toward a total rejection of further overseas involvements.

Somalia, which has disintegrated into a vast morass sheltering international jihadist Muslim fundamentalists, will continue its descent into bloody chaos, drawing the Horn of Africa down with it.

The presence of American military personnel already involved in Somalia, as well as the CIA and other semi-military American outfits, will increase with more western advisors to the local army. The flow of weapons to Christian Ethiopia will explode, as will Western satellite and surveillance outposts there. With the Indian Ocean thus wide open, the U.S. Navy and NATO will have to double their presence to block incoming mayhem from the sea.

In Israel - which in the summer of 2006 painfully discovered the limits of its military prowess against Hizullah's guerrilla-style warfare in Lebanon - politicians and the military will find that their enemies have been further emboldened.

Hamas and Hizbullah rockets aimed inland from Gaza and from Lebanon will test Israel again. Prime Minister Olmert's unwieldy coalition government once more will be pushed to the edge. The government is widely expected to remain in place, but its ability to develop effective responses will be as incomplete and as incompetent in 2007 as it has showed itself to be this year.

More important, PM Olmert and his feckless Defence Minister Amir Peretz as well as Israel's entire opposition will continue to exhibit a shocking lack of vision, failing to put forward a strategy to deal with the tide of Islamic fundamentalists and the consequences of Egypt's failed government. The total collapse of the Palestinian Authority will increase the internal challenge for Israel.

On the macro-economic front, the price of oil will continue to slip, as more alternative sources, from coal to oil sands to ethanol, grab a larger share of the world's markets.

The role of Russia as the world's major new supplier of "conventional energy"- now bigger than that of Saudi Arabia - will grow remarkably. Russia is already Europe's main supplier of natural gas, and it is moving to become a major supplier of oil and gas to Asia, as well. Canada, with its endless reserves of oil sands in remote northern Alberta, will join Russia as a major new energy power. The strategic consequences of these two countries' advances for American influence have yet to be calculated by think tanks, NATO, and the OECD.

Where does all this leave the Israeli man in the street? The slight cut on December 31 of the government-set price for gasoline, together with the Bank of Israel's decision earlier last month to slash interest rates by half a percent to 4.5 % - three quarters of a point below the Federal Reserve Bank's rate suggest continued strong growth in the Israeli economy and an ongoing reduction in the unemployment levels.

Want some unsolicited investment advice? Park your dollars in Israeli shekels, and watch as the greenback continues to shrink.

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., decided to use the centuries-old Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in on Thursday after he learned that it is kept at the Library of Congress. Jefferson, the nation's third president and a collector of books in all topics and languages, sold the book to Congress in 1815 as part of a collection.

"It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran," Ellison said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

"A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system," Ellison said. "This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of."
Some critics have argued that only a Bible should be used for the swearing-in. Last month, Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., warned that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims" will be elected and follow Ellison's lead. Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college.

Ellison said an anonymous person wrote to tell him about the Quran, and he arranged with the Library of Congress to use it. The chief of the Library of Congress' rare book and special collections division, Mark Dimunation, will walk the Quran across the street to the Capitol and bring it back after the ceremony.

Ellison's decision to use Jefferson's Quran was first reported by The Washington Post on Wednesday.
Jefferson was born in Albemarle County, in what is now Goode's congressional district in central Virginia. Goode's office did not return phone and e-mail messages left Wednesday.

An English translation of the Arabic, Jefferson's Quran was published in 1764 in London, a later printing of one originally published in 1734."This is considered the text that shaped Europe's understanding of the Quran," Dimunation said.It was acquired in 1815 as part of a more than 6,400-volume collection that Jefferson sold for $24,000 to replace the congressional library that had been burned by British troops the year before, in the War of 1812."It was a real bargain," Dimunation said.

The Quran survived an 1851 fire in the Capitol. Dimunation described it as a two-volume work, bound in leather with marble boards."As a rare book librarian," he said, "there is something special about the idea that Thomas Jefferson's books are being walked across the street to the Capitol building, to bring in yet another session of governmental structure that he helped create."

Although most in the media regard the notion of a merger agenda as sheer conspiracy theory, an increasing number of high-level voices including congressmen like Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, and newsmen like CNN's Lou Dobbs who calls the government's actions on this issue "unconscionable" and "Orwellian" are sounding the alarm over recent moves in the direction of a de facto North American Union.

For example, confirmation has surfaced that the U.S. government will indeed provide full Social Security benefits to Mexicans which critics predict will bankrupt the already-shaky system. And a report by the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, regarded by many as something of a "shadow government," has called for a massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. to Mexico and the establishment of a "security perimeter" around North America rather than securing America's borders with Mexico and Canada.