Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - sirs

Pages: 1 ... 92 93 [94] 95 96 ... 102
1396
3DHS / Tin Foil Hat Award for 2006
« on: January 01, 2007, 06:48:18 PM »
Tin Foil Hat Award for Crazy Conspiracy Theories
— CBS Evening News, October 16. As Mason spoke, the camera zoomed in on the driver’s bumper sticker, "GOP: Grand Oil Party."

Anchor Katie Couric: "Gas is the lowest it’s been all year, a nationwide average of $2.23 a gallon. It hasn’t been that low since last Christmas. But is this an election-year present from President Bush to fellow Republicans?"
Reporter Anthony Mason: "...Gas started going down just as the fall campaign started heating up. Coincidence? Some drivers don’t think so."
Man in a car: "And I think it’s basically a ploy to sort of get the American people to think, well, the economy is going good, let’s vote Republican."
 

1397
3DHS / Record Stock Market
« on: December 30, 2006, 02:45:23 AM »
Stocks drop, closing out record year
By JOE BEL BRUNO, AP Business Writer
Fri Dec 29, 2006


NEW YORK - Wall Street slipped lower Friday, closing out a year that will be remembered for the stock market's great comeback, a year-end rally that pushed the Dow Jones industrials past 12,000 for the first time.
 
By all accounts, 2006 ended up a very good year for stocks as bullish investors bounced back from a slumping housing market and the Federal Reserve's two-year campaign of interest rate hikes. The markets approached record levels in the spring, pulled back sharply in the summer, but found a clear direction in the fall to send the major indexes to multi-year highs.

Blue chips were the standouts of 2006. The Dow Jones industrial average, the index of 30 of the nation's biggest companies, hit record levels dozens of times since achieving its first close above 12,000 on Oct. 19; it traded as high as 12,529.87 before dipping to its close for the year.

This was the best year for the stock market since 2003, when Wall Street staged a massive recovery from levels sideswiped by a bear market. But 2006 will really be remembered for the market's soaring to heights not seen since the height of the dot-com era — this time, however, Wall Street advanced cautiously, not recklessly.

The rally was fed by investors' growing belief that the economy has withstood well the Fed's rate hikes and the impact of record high oil prices. And some analysts expect the advance to continue.

"The stock market is correct in its judgment that we are probably only in the fifth or sixth inning of the game, and that this (economic) expansion may even go into extra innings," said Stuart Schweitzer, global markets strategist for JPMorgan Asset & Wealth Management. "This was a barn-burner of a year, and I expect reasonably solid results over the course of 2007."

On Friday, the Dow fell 38.37, or 0.31 percent, to 12,463.15.

Broader stock indicators also slipped. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 6.43, or 0.45 percent, to 1,418.30, and the Nasdaq composite index closed down 10.28, or 0.42 percent, to 2,415.29.

The major indexes posted healthy gains for the year, with the Dow Jones industrials rising 16.29 percent, the S&P 500 adding 13.62 percent, and the Nasdaq up 9.52 percent. That's the best showing since 2003, when the Dow closed up 25.3 percent, the Nasdaq rose 50 percent, and the S&P 500 gained 26.4 percent — but those gains were the beginning of the market's recovery from the trough of three straight losing years.

It wasn't just the stock markets that made significant gains in 2006.

The bond market moved in lockstep with stocks — a rare event on Wall Street. Investors bought into equities because of a strong economy and robust corporate confidence. Meanwhile, typically more conservative bond investors used the fixed-income market as a hedge for a possible recession and interest rate cuts.

This year was also a bit of a rule bender for Treasuries. Yields on long-term Treasury notes and bonds were lower than for short-term Treasury bills. Junk bonds were in such demand that their yields were on almost on parity with those of investment-grade bonds.

Bonds slipped further in Friday's session, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury rising to 4.71 percent from 4.69 percent on Thursday. The yield stood at 4.37 percent on the first day of trading this year, and was over 5 percent just a few months ago.

The dollar, which has struggled against the euro and other major currencies, was mixed on Friday. The U.S. currency lost support in 2006 after the Fed stopped raising rates on Aug. 8 and kept them unchanged in its past three meetings.

And gold prices continued their rally; investors have sent precious metals sharply higher, viewing commodities like gold and silver as safe-haven investments instead of the greenback.

Plunging oil prices also fed the stock market's 2006 rally. Crude reached all-time highs in the summer when it briefly surpassed $78 a barrel due to the resilience of consumer demand and expectations of a bad hurricane season. But energy prices soon plummeted back to 2005 levels by the fall when traders saw that refiners in the Gulf of Mexico were untouched by hurricanes, and realized global crude inventories remained ample.

That retreat gave momentum to the stock market's rally, and enable investors to tolerate upward blips in the price of crude and gasoline.

The price of a barrel of light sweet crude on Friday rose 52 cents to settle at $61.05 on the New York Mercantile Exchange — about 22 percent below its highs of the year.

Stocks are expected to rise further in the new year, but not without some resistance. A big question still hanging over the market is whether the Fed will feel comfortable enough with the balance between inflation and a moderating economy to start lowering interest rates. If inflation seems to be accelerating, an interest rate hike could still be in the offing.

"There is going to be a tug of war between the bulls and the bears as we head into next year," said Quincy Krosby, chief investment strategist for The Hartford.

"We could hit a speed bump as Treasury market yields grow higher, and that could put pressure on the stock market," she said. "We need to pay close attention to the Fed, and how they view what I believe is going to be a growth spurt that will be manifested by yields moving up."

She also pointed to fluctuations in the dollar as another greater influence on Wall Street. Rising interest rates in Europe could help the region lure foreign investment away from the United States, further pressuring the dollar next year.

There was little corporate news Friday as traders looked toward a four-day break that includes a suspension of trading for New Year's Day and the funeral of President Gerald R. Ford. And, again trading was thin — typical of the week between Christmas and New Year's.

Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by about 2 to 1 on the        New York Stock Exchange, where consolidated volume came to 1.66 billion shares, compared to 1.67 billion on Thursday.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies dipped 6.82, or 0.86 percent, to 787.66. For the year, the Russell rose 17 percent.

Overseas markets also soared to multi-year highs in 2006. Japan's Nikkei stock average closed up 0.01 percent on Friday. Britain's FTSE 100 was down 0.32 percent, Germany's DAX index fell 0.23 percent, and France's CAC-40 was up 0.15 percent.

The Dow Jones industrials ended the week up 121.21, or 0.98 percent, to finish at 12,463.15. The S&P 500 index was up 7.55, or 0.54 percent, to end the week at 1,418.30. The Nasdaq rose 17.07, or 0.71 percent, to finish the week at 2,415.29.

The Russell 2000 index closed the week was up 7.37, or 0.94 percent, to end at 787.66.

The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index — a free-float weighted index that measures 5,000 U.S. based companies_ ended the week at 14,257.55, up 79.84 points from last week. A year ago the index was at 12,517.69.


As high as 12,529.87

1398
3DHS / Speaking of 'ouch'
« on: December 26, 2006, 02:30:18 PM »

1399
3DHS / Ben Franklin editorial cartoon, if drawn today
« on: December 26, 2006, 02:27:46 PM »

1400
3DHS / Just a little further, Bessie
« on: December 26, 2006, 02:24:47 PM »

1401
3DHS / An Early Merry Christmas to all
« on: December 22, 2006, 02:06:23 PM »
....and to all, a great holiday weekend, as I'm off to see relatives for several days nowHere's praying that God blesses you, your family & loved ones, this holiday season with ooodles of health & happiness. 

Especially to Miss Kim & Miss De.
  I personally miss your posts, and pray all is well with you & family
     8)

1402
3DHS / Imposing one's will
« on: December 19, 2006, 11:31:45 PM »
I collected couple of posts (1 from Js & 1 from Brass) that don't necessarily validate the debate topic at hand, but I'm hoping it spurs some dialog (unless of course Brass has read my mind already and has devined the nefarious alternate reasoning for my posting)   so, I'll post them, then initiate my thoughts, and let things go from there.

I don't think it is an "ideological goal of the left," <<We all fall into the middle class>> though it may be the goal of some.

I would much rather we all be "rich".   There is no reason whatsoever that we can't all be the upper class.  None.  If you turn society into one where the competition is not who can amass the most toys but who can amass the most honor, that world would easily make this one look like a shitbox.  Replace the dollar with honor.  There's your bumpersticker for the new socialist revolution.

Clearly, Domer, the answer lies in one's own ideology.  The predominant two can easily be summed up in these ways.  The conservative/capitalist "MINE! Get your own!"  The liberal/socialist "We're all in this together."  These are absolutes and regardless of a conservative's adherence to "charitable organizations lending a hand" idea or a socialist's desire for toys of every stripe, the two ideology's will remain at core.

The last 1 being quite the kicker, obviously.  So basically, to folks like Brass, this "we're all in this together" apparently translates into "you will abide by how I believe things are to be, by way of my taxing you or coercing you in some other way to do as I say".  Quite the compassionate soul there, so eager to use everyone else's resources for his personal satisfaction that it go to help everyone.  Tripping all over himsself, in the process, at trying to expalin how he HAS to buy gas, or else *cue violin*he has to turn his life around.  Yet continues to fail in grasping the freedom of choice he has, in doing such

So, whatever twisted definition you want to buy about "conservative/capitalist/mine, get your own", the one thing that can not be refuted, though often ignored by folks like Brass, is the freedom that such a philosophy brings in choosing, doing, pursuing, whatever one wants.  Will there be roadblocks?, of course.  Will many start somewhat handicapped by way of where they're born or the economic nature to which their born in?, yea.  Does that prevent anyone from striving to do or be anything they set their mind to?  absolutely not.  Yet apparently that freedom is "selfish".  That potential to be the greatest at whatever you are striving for is uncaring, mean, greedy in fact.   Ironically, it's that capitalistic freedom that allows one to strive for greatness, then return some of that success via charitable donations, financial donations, the setting up of scholarships, employing others, etc., etc., etc, that is routinely demagogued

Is Capitalism perfect? no one's ever claimed such.  Is America perfect? Laughable to even think it.  Do both provide and facilitate the freedoms that this country has come to cherish and make us great?, absofrellinloutely.  Is there any other country I'd rather live in?  That question doesn't even have to be asked.   Yet, what a sad commentary however for an ideological philosophy when in the name of "we're all in this together", it's we're all in this particular social structure together.....or else.      :(

1403
3DHS / Hypothetical Senate Question
« on: December 14, 2006, 04:11:55 PM »
Again, this is purely hypotehtical, and in no way is wishing to see Senator Johnson incapacitated or on his death bed.  Besides simple common human concern, as a medical professional, my position will always be in support of a complete recovery. 

If the poll allows for comments, by all means, please add the "why" to any option you choose, that doesn't follow both legal & historical precedent.  Legally, as Bt has indicated, the governor can appoint whomever, and historically, when Dems gained a 50/50 in the Senate, during Bush's 1st tenure, they demanded and received co-chairmanships.

So what-say-you folks?

1404
3DHS / What if the NBA had quotas?
« on: December 14, 2006, 03:41:25 AM »
Posted: December 14, 2006

Imagine the following press release:

In a closed-door meeting, the owners voted to limit the number of black players in order to increase attendance from non-black customers. The NBA now consists of over 80 percent black players, which creates a non-diverse and less enlightening experience for the predominately non-black fan. Thus, in order to continue basketball's popularity, the NBA determines player diversity a necessity to maintain the game's prosperity.
– NBA commissioner David Stern

Before you could say "Michael Richards," in swoop the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, as well as the other usual suspect "black leaders." Marching, screaming, stomping and howling will precede enough lawsuits to keep the entire American and National Bar Associations fully employed for the next decade.

Yet, when it comes to colleges and universities admitting Asian-American students, this is, in effect, exactly what is happening. Because of the superior performance of Asian students on high school grades and pre-college aptitude tests, many colleges and universities, through unannounced policies, place these "minority students" at the back of the line.

California, in 1996, outlawed race-based preferences. After this new law, the percentage of Asian students enrolled at the elite, competitive campus of UC Berkeley increased from 34.6 percent to 42 percent by fall 2006. Similarly, the state of Washington outlawed preferences in 1998, and Asian enrollment at the University of Washington increased from 22.1 percent to 25.4 percent by 2004. Michigan recently passed laws outlawing the use of race in government hiring, contracting and admission into public colleges and universities. Expect an increase in the Asian student body at the University of Michigan.

Question: Why do Asian students and their parents put up with it?

Jian Li does not intend to. Li, a permanent U.S. resident, immigrated to America from China at the age of 4. He graduated at the top 1 percent of his high school class. On his SATs, he received a perfect 2400, and totaled 2390 (10 points less than perfection) on his SAT II subject tests in math and science. Yet Li received rejections from Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT. Li is not alone. Attorney Don Joe from Asian-American Politics, an enrollment-tracking Internet site, says he receives complaints "from Asian-American parents about how their children have excellent grades and scores but are being rejected by the most selective colleges. It appears to be an open secret."

Li filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, with the matter currently under review. On his college applications, Li left blank his country of origin and his race, although he did put down his citizenship and listed Chinese as his first language spoken and the language spoken at home. Inquires about his race, said Li, "Seemed very irrelevant to me, if not offensive."

Why did he sue? Li said he wants to "send a message to the admissions committee to be more cognizant of possible bias, and that the way they're conducting admissions is not equitable."

A study of the University of Michigan's 2005 applicants by the Center for Equal Opportunity documented the hit that white and Asian students take because of race-based preferences. In an apparent desire to increase the number of blacks and Hispanics, the school admitted Asian applicants with a median SAT score of 1400 (out of a possible 1600 for the test in use at that time). This made the Asian median 50 points higher than the median for admitted white students, 140 points higher than Hispanics, and 240 points higher than blacks. Of Asian students with 1240 on the SAT and a high school GPA of 3.2 in 2005, only 10 percent got into Michigan. But 14 percent of whites with those stats were admitted, as were 88 percent of Hispanics and 92 percent of blacks.

What's more, the "boost" given to Hispanic and Latino students by racial preferences often backfires. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a black attorney, said, "Would college administrators continue to mouth platitudes about affirmative action if their students knew that preferential admissions cause black law students to flunk out at two-and-a-half times the rate of whites? Or that black law students are six times less likely to pass the bar? Or that half of black law students never become lawyers?"

What took Asians so long to figure this out and file more lawsuits?

Perhaps Asians remain unaware of the damage these policies do to their own admission possibilities. Perhaps they consider themselves a discriminated minority, and thus support programs to "offset" the negative effects of their perceived opposition. Or perhaps they feel that despite the negative effect of race-based preferences on their own possibilities of admission, they feel sympathetic toward to the "need" to "help" blacks and Hispanics. Who knows?

In any case, 17-year-old freshman Jian Li now attends Yale. Not a bad foundation for a future. Just ask Yale law school grad and former President Bill Clinton, who, by the way, supports race-based preferences.


Article

1405
3DHS / The Blurring of News & Opinion
« on: December 14, 2006, 03:33:52 AM »
The Power of the Press
The media is in need of some mending.

BY PETER R. KANN
Wednesday, December 13, 2006


Thomas Jefferson, a better president than we've had in a very long time, penned a line back in 1787: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." By 1807, in his seventh year as president and after seven years of being subjected to severe press criticism, he wrote: "I deplore the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity and the mendacious spirit of those who write them."

You'll be relieved to know that Jefferson did remain true to his primary principle: "The press," he concluded, "is an evil for which there is no remedy. Liberty depends upon freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost." He was right then, and we are right now, to prefer a free press, however flawed, to any controlled alternative. Still, as we watched CNN flashing its pre-election logos each day--"Broken Borders," "Broken Government," "Broken Politics," Broken Everything--I can't help thinking the media, too, is in need of some mending.

At its best news informs and enlightens the citizens of a free society and thereby safeguards and strengthens our democracy. At its worst--dishonest, unfair, irresponsible--the media has potential to erode the public trust on which its own success depends and to corrode the democratic system of which it is so indispensably a part. So, let me touch on 10 current trends in the mass media that ought to disturb us.

- The blurring of the lines between journalism and entertainment. Journalism that puts too high a priority on entertaining is almost destined to distort and mislead. Compounding this confusion is a diffusing definition of "journalist." When political operatives moonlight at moderating news shows, when people alternate between being political editors and political consultants, when celebrity newspeople pocket $20,000 fees speaking at corporate conventions while criticizing congressman for conflicts of interest--we jumble public perceptions of newspeople as well as news.

- The blurring of lines between news and opinion. Newspapers have a format that helps maintain the distinction. The Internet, TV and most magazines have neither that format nor that tradition. The result is a blending of news and views. The two are not ingredients to mix together for a tastier meal, they are different courses. Part of the problem here lies in fashionable new philosophies that argue there are no basic values of right and wrong, that news is merely a matter of views. It's a dangerous philosophy for our society and a dagger at the heart of genuine journalism.

- The blending of news and advertising, sponsorships or other commercial relationships. The resulting porridges may be called "advertorials" or "infomercials"; they may be special sections masquerading as news, news pages driven by commercial interests, or Web pages where everything somehow is selling something. Without clear distinctions between news and advertising, readers or viewers lose confidence in the veracity of a news medium. And advertisers lose the business benefit of an environment of trust.

- The problems and pitfalls inherent in pack journalism. Individually, most reporters are decent, dedicated, fair-minded people. But the press, en masse, tends to lose its common sense and its sense of fairness and independence and what we see all too often is the spectacle of a pack of hounds in pursuit of a quarry. We frequently see this phenomenon in political reporting, where the faintest whiff of scandal, or even of weakness, can send the pack in pursuit. At its worst, the pack, not finding a real problem, proclaims the "perception" of one and this perception becomes self-fulfilling.

- The issue of conflict and context. On most issues most Americans are not on polar extremes. On abortion, for example, most seek a sensible center. Where is that center reflected in media coverage that mainly portrays rabid feminists or irate pro-life activists? Balance is not achieved by the talk show format of two extremists yelling at each other. And how many of us recognize our own communities from their depiction on local TV news shows--a nonstop montage of mayhem, murder, rape, arson, child molestation and more?

- The exaggerated tendency toward pessimism. Just look back a few years over much of the media coverage of "American competitiveness." All those news magazine covers on the coming "Japanese Century." And along with it, all the pessimism about the ability of U.S. industry to compete globally. It was nonsense. Similarly, it's one thing--and an appropriate one--for the press to probe particular instances of political corruption. It's quite another thing to jump to the cynical conclusion that our political process, and all politicians, are corrupted--that "they all do it." They don't, and they aren't. Skepticism and criticism are essential to the media's role; reflexive pessimism is not.

- The growing media fascination with the bizarre, the perverse and the pathological--John Mark Karr journalism. Such so-called journalism helps instantly legitimize crackpot ideas, deviant behavior, or alleged victimization in our society. My point is not to argue for "good news" vs. "bad news," but to ask whether much of this amounts to news at all?

- Social orthodoxy, or political correctness. These are reflected in a media whose job is not to parrot prevailing fashions, but to question, probe and thereby challenge them. Businessmen are not, by definition, greedy, and environmentalists, by definition, saintly. Third World poverty is not, by definition, a result of overpopulation as opposed to inane economic policies. And so on.

- The media's short attention span. As the press hops from Baghdad to Beirut, Natalee Holloway to Valerie Plame, Super Bowls to Super Tuesdays, it justifiably can blame some combination of the nature of the news and the short attention span of the public. The public, meanwhile, bombarded and bewildered can blame a fickle and shallow press. There are too many instant celebrities. Too many two-day crises. Too many "defining moments" from people in search of instant history. In a world where everything is considered critical, nothing needs to be taken very seriously.

- The matter of power. The press is at least partially responsible for greater public skepticism toward traditional institutions in America. But the truth, not lost on our public, is that the press is a large and powerful institution, too: "60 Minutes" is more powerful than almost all of the subjects it exposes. This newspaper, arguably, has more influence on national economic policy than do most corporations. Networks are owned by giant industrial corporations, magazines by entertainment conglomerates, and most newspapers by national chains. Given these realities, we cannot plausibly pretend to be a David out there smiting Goliaths and expect the public to believe it.


Article

1406
3DHS / Captain Obvious to the Rescue
« on: December 12, 2006, 05:12:21 AM »
The problem with the Iraq Study Group.

BY ROBERT TRACINSKI
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
 

In my student days back at the University of Chicago, there was a campus comedy troupe modeled on Second City, their more well-known uptown uncle. The U of C group was pretty funny, if in a somewhat bookish way. (Who else does a comedy routine based on "Oedipus Rex"?) One of their funniest bits was a recurring skit about a superhero named Captain Obvious. In each scene, a character would face a mundane problem, only to be "saved" by the banal and utterly unhelpful advice offered by Captain Obvious. "I've locked my keys in my car. What am I going to do?" "Well then," replies Captain Obvious, "all you have to do is open the door to your car, and then you can get your keys." Each scene ended the same way, with Captain Obvious proclaiming, "No, don't thank me. It's all in a day's work for Captain Obvious.

I've been reminded of this skit many times since, because I frequently hear the same kind of advice being given in Washington. Take, for example, the recommendations offered, to much fanfare, by the Iraq Study Group.

The problem in Iraq is that we can't withdraw U.S. troops because the Iraqi military is not adequately trained to maintain security on its own? Well then, the ISG tells us, all we need to do is to train the Iraqi military so that they can maintain security on their own, and then we can withdraw our troops.

The problem in Iraq is that the Iraqi government won't approve a crackdown to dismantle the Shiite militias? Well then, all we have to do is to convince the Iraqi government to approve a crackdown to dismantle the Shiite militias.

The problem in Iraq is that Iran and Syria are arming, funding, and encouraging Sunni and Shiite insurgents? Well then, all we have to do is to convince Syria and Iran to stop supporting these insurgents.

The problem in the region is that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict inflames anti-American sentiment? Well then, all we have to do is to convene a conference to negotiate peace in the Middle East.

See how simple that was? It's amazing that no one ever thought of these ideas before the Iraq Study Group came along. But no, don't thank them. It's all in a day's work for Captain Obvious.

Few have recognized the empty banality of the ISG report because they have focused on a few seemingly radical recommendations. But all of these recommendations are conditional on events that are unlikely to happen, as became clear in Thursday's press conference with the members of the commission.

We should withdraw all U.S. combat troops by early 2008, ISG co-chair Lee Hamilton tells us, "subject to unexpected developments on the ground"--such as the fact that the troops will still be needed. Similarly, we will shift troops from fighting the enemy to training the Iraqi military "if the commanders in place determine that's the best way to do it," according to commission member William Perry. Pressed on the subject of whether Iran would be willing to help us in Iraq, co-chair James Baker replies, "In our discussions with them--and the report points this out--we didn't get the feeling that Iran is champing at the bit to come to the table with us to talk about Iraq. And in fact, we say we think they very well might not."

There you have it: a series of recommendations based on conditions that "very well might not" happen.

The whole ISG report is a spectacular punt. It contains a few broad, vague goals for our policy--and a whole range of specific recommendations for actions that are not in the power of the American government to take.

It recommends, for example, that the Iraqi government "accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army Brigades," that the Iranian government "use its influence over Iraqi Shiite groups to encourage national reconciliation" and that the Syrian government "stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq."

The members of the commission certainly hope that these governments will take those actions. But then again, they very well might not.

What the ISG offers us are mere aspirations, with no serious consideration of the concrete means required to fulfill those aspirations.

We should negotiate with Iran and Syria to convince them to help stabilize Iraq, but then James Baker angrily denies that this would mean caving in and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program, and he angrily denies that it would mean caving in and allowing Syria to re-conquer Lebanon. In other words, he wants to ask Iran and Syria to help us in Iraq--while ruling out the only concessions that might induce them to do so. At the same time, the ISG also rules out any serious military threat that would force Iran and Syria to abandon their current strategy.

This is the pattern of the whole report: to stipulate the achievement of a result, while denying the actual means that might achieve that result.

When you desire a result without enacting the means for achieving it, that's called a "fantasy" which is ironic, considering that James Baker is a dean of the "realist" school of foreign policy.

For the original Captain Obvious, the final punch-line comes when he rescues a philosopher who is struggling to prove that the world really exists--the one problem Captain Obvious is perfectly equipped to solve. Perhaps someone ought to provide the same service for the "realists" on the Iraq Study Group.

A real change in policy for Iraq wouldn't start and end with a collection of vague aspirations. It would start with a clear-eyed, realistic assessment of the facts that explain the chaos in Iraq--the facts that explain why all of the aspirations stated by the Iraq Study Group have not yet been met.

The basic fact is that the conflict in Iraq, from the very beginning, has been stoked by Syria and Iran. These dictatorial regimes are stoking the conflict because the success of the American mission in Iraq is an obvious threat to their very existence. They can't afford the example of a free nation in the region, nor can they afford the example of a successful exertion of American power on their doorsteps.

That's why all the debate over whether Iraq is in a "civil war" is beside the point. Calling Iraq a "civil war" has the effect of narrowing our focus, making the conflict look like a purely internal fight between Iraqi factions. But the real picture is regional. The civil strife in Iraq is just the instrument of a regional fight for dominance between Iran and the United States.

Recognizing this reality would produce some truly interesting and radical recommendations.

Since Iran and Syria are the most important source of the chaos in Iraq, then we need to topple those regimes. They won't agree to help us, because doing so does not and never will serve their interests. So we have to replace them with governments that do share our interests--or at least, with governments that will stay out of our way.

Then, since the Shiite militias are the leading edge of Iranian influence in Iraq, we have to act to dismantle them now--and not wait for approval from the Iraqi government. We should grasp that the Iraqi government's approval and disapproval on this issue simply doesn't matter, because if we don't take down the militias, there will be no Iraqi government left.

Instead of pointing to the bad results in Iraq and simply declaring that we must achieve better results--which is all that the ISG report really amounts to--we have to identify the real root of the problem: the regimes in Iran and Syria, and the Shiite militias they support. And then we need to dig up that root.

We'll know we're really making progress in talking about Iraq when that recommendation is seen as being as obvious as it really is.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009374




1407
3DHS / Getting back to 'normal'
« on: December 12, 2006, 12:39:48 AM »

1408
3DHS / I think we finally caught Bush in a lie
« on: December 11, 2006, 11:48:04 PM »
"I thank you for coming into the White House today to give me a copy of this report," said President Bush, regarding the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

Now, is anyone buying that?       ;)

1409
3DHS / Islam to Rule America?
« on: December 11, 2006, 11:41:32 PM »
Did CAIR founder say Islam to rule America?
Muslims confront Omar Ahmad as newspaper insists report of controversial remarks accurate

Posted: December 11, 2006
By Art Moore
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


It's a citation used frequently by critics to argue the highly influential Council on American-Islamic Relations is an extremist organization – founder Omar Ahmad's alleged 1998 assertion that Islam must one day dominate the U.S. – but now Muslim leaders have confronted Ahmad, expressing concern that someone from their community could voice such radical sentiments.
Ahmad told the Muslim leaders – and WND in an interview – the attribution is a "total fabrication" and assured them the newspaper, the Fremont Argus in California, issued a "clarification" after he "challenged" reporter Lisa Gardiner.

That seemed to satisfy the Muslim leaders, but Gardiner told WND she continues to stand by the story, and Editor Steve Waterhouse said he's confident she got it right. After hearing that news Thursday, one of the Muslim leaders immediately resurrected the issue with his colleagues, declaring Ahmad and CAIR need to find a way "to extinguish this fire."

"She was a good, solid reporter," Waterhouse said of Gardiner. "She was absolutely certain about what he said and what she reported."

Gardiner, who now works for a non-profit group, told WND last week she's 100-percent sure Ahmad was the speaker and that he made those statements, pointing out nobody challenged the story at the time it was published eight years ago.

"She's lying," Ahmad said upon hearing Gardiner's defense of the story. "Absolutely, she's lying. How could you remember something from so long ago? I don't even remember her in the audience."

CAIR, which has enjoyed access to the White House as the country's largest Islamic advocacy group, recently defended the six imams removed from a US Airways flight because they were deemed a potential security threat.

Ahmad, who stepped down as CAIR chairman last year, maintained to WND he "never uttered those words."

"It is not my stance, it is not what I believe in," said Ahmad, CEO of SiliconExpert Technologies in Santa Clara, Calif. "The year before (the 1998 event) I was a commissioner for my city and took an oath on the constitution and never had a problem. It doesn't make sense for me to think that way. I was shocked to hear somebody reported that."

It was WND's 2003 story about Ahmad's alleged remarks that prompted the Muslim leaders to query the CAIR founder two months ago. In a string of e-mail correspondence copied to WND, the leaders first debated among themselves, then asked Ahmad to tell them whether the report is true and, if so, to repudiate the remarks.

Mike Ghouse, president of a Dallas-based group called World Muslim Congress, told colleagues in the e-mails that Ahmad allegedly has made a "dangerously militant statement."

"The harsh reality [that] we do not want to hear and acknowledge [is] that no Muslim in America or anywhere else in the world wants to live in an Islamic nation," Ghouse wrote.

The 1998 Argus article, also published in the sister San Ramon Valley Herald, paraphrased Ahmad saying: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," and, "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

In one of his replies to the Muslim leaders, Ahmad wrote: "These statements are total fabrication and I never said them at all. Actually there (sic) were not direct quote and I challenged the reporter and the newspaper and they published a clarification 3 years ago."

The Muslim leaders, at the time, seemed satisfied with the denial, including Ghouse.

Ghouse told WND he understood Ahmad to be saying the newspaper and the reporter had backed off on their claim that the story is true, perhaps, at least, expressing some doubt about it.

But Waterhouse said flatly, "We did not publish a clarification."

''This is not going to die'

The editor explained that after hearing from Ahmad in the wake of WND's May 1, 2003, article, his paper published a story of its own one month later referencing Ahmad's denial but also clearly stating the newspaper was not backing down.

Upon hearing that information Thursday from WND, Ghouse sent out an e-mail to colleagues on his World Muslim Congress list with a copy of the June 2003 story by Waterhouse's newspaper chain and stated: "We had discussed this a few months ago, it appears that it still has some fire in it, this is not going to die."

"I think Mr. Omar Ahmad and CAIR need to think hard and figure out a way to extinguish this fire," Ghouse wrote. "The above statement is one of the most anti-Islamic, most arrogant, bullying statements made in behalf of Islam. Let's strip this for good."

Ghouse acknowledged in the e-mail, "Most of us do not want to deal with this. However, that statement is dangerous, it is indeed frightening to the average American, given the false propaganda that Islam spread through sword is still in currency and I see that non-sense (sic) once a week on the net. The neo-cons live and thrive on propogating (sic) fear, their survival is dependent on hating and denigrating some one or the other. This is going to be a relentless battle."

Another Muslim leader who participated in the string of e-mails in October, Iftekhar A. Hai, told WND that as a Sufi from India, he has a different view of Islam than Ahmad, an Arab, but he respects CAIR as the leading Islamic human rights organization in the U.S.

"If he said it, I say that he's wrong, but if he said he has not said it, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt," said Hai, co-founder and director of interfaith relations for United Muslims of America in Sunnyvale, Calif.

But Hai, who noted he was educated at a Catholic school in India, says his main job "is to work among religions for peace," and he is a part of CAIR only to the extent that once a year he buys a ticket for a local fund-raiser.

Ghouse also is a native of India.

'How Should We As Muslims Live in America?'

WND tried to get comment from others reported to be at the 1998 event in Fremont, Calif., a session organized by the local Islamic Study School titled, "How Should We As Muslims Live in America?"

Gardiner's article mentions two other speakers – Sheik Hamza Yusuf, a prominent American convert who directs the Islamic Study School's parent group, the Zaytuna Institute; and Hatem Bazian, an adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Bazian drew national attention during a 2004 anti-war protest in San Francisco when he asked why there is not an "intifada," or uprising, in the U.S. as there is in the Holy Land. Later, in an "O'Reilly Factor" interview, he explained he was referring to a non-violent, "political intifada."

Bazian did not respond to messages from WND, and an assistant to Hamza said the sheik was on sabbatical and was too busy to reply.

Hamza's aide, however, referred WND to Feraidoon Mojadedi, the director in 1998 of the Islamic Study School.

Mojadedi said in an e-mail he had no record – audio or visual – of Ahmad's presentation.

"I don't know if the article is accurate or not, because it's been about 10 years since that event," he wrote.

Mojadedi did not reply to a follow-up e-mail asking specifically if he heard Ahmad's speech, and, if so, what the CAIR founder said.

Gardiner's 1998 article, which quotes Mojadedi, said in part:
Omar M. Ahmad, chairman of the board of the Council on American-Islamic relations, spoke before a packed crowd at the Flamingo Palace banquet hall on Peralta Boulevard, urging Muslims not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with those who are "on the wrong side."
Muslim institutions, schools and economic power should be strengthened in America, he said. Those who stay in America should be "open to society without melting (into it)," keeping mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam, he said.
"If you choose to live here (in America) ... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam," he said.

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said.

'We have to respect others and be respected'

Ahmad told WND he had no recollection of what he said at the 1998 event. Asked what he would say about the subject of the role of Muslims in America, he replied: "We're here as a minority, and we live in a pluralistic society, and we have to respect others and be respected."

Ahmad said it was only in 2003 that he learned of Gardiner's story, and by then it was too late to press any legal action.

"I would have gone there and sued them if I had known about it," he said.

In April 2003, CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told WND his group had demanded a retraction from the California newspaper. But he amended his statement after being informed by WND the editors and reporter had not been contacted with any such demand.

Ahmad told WND he has tried to find some way of verifying the contents of his speech and even "offered $1,000 to someone" to find a tape of it, if any existed.

"I know I didn't say that," he said. "How could anybody believe that when I say Muslims enjoy freedom here to worship, and it's better for them than anyplace in the world.

"If people know me personally, they will say it's nonsense," he continued. "Look at the whole of my life, what I've said."

He was one of several contributors to an editorial published by the San Jose Mercury News, April 27, 2003, titled, "We need a conversation on the post-9/11 world; What does allegiance in a time of war mean?

Ahmad began his piece saying, "America is one nation out of many peoples. Many of us from diverse backgrounds and diverse experiences can band together around a common theme: freedom. The protection and preservation of freedom should be the mission of all of us today."

At the same time, he entered into another flap over explosive verbiage, protesting Rev. Franklin Graham's invitation to hold a Good Friday service at the Pentagon after calling Islam a "very wicked and evil religion."

"One day you get a signal from the administration that Islam is a religion of peace and of tolerance to the Muslim community," Ahmad told the New York Times in an April 28, 2003, story. "More of the time you get the other signal – the silence of the administration over comments made by evangelical Christians."

Terrorism charges

While Ahmad insists the alleged 1998 comments are inconsistent with his character, CAIR and a number of its staff members have been tied to jihadist groups bent on Islamic conquest.

Ahmad served as president of CAIR's parent group, the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, or IAP, which was founded in 1981 by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty this year to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The U.S. deported Marzook to Jordan in 1997.

Ahmad denied any association with Hamas, arguing U.S. authorities never shut down the IAP – it folded in 2005 – and it was founded before the emergence of Hamas itself in 1987.

Two former FBI counter-terrorism chiefs, however, called the IAP a front organization in the U.S. for Hamas, which features in its charter the goal of Israel's destruction and Islam's dominance over the Holy Land.

Last year, investigative journalist Steven Emerson testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information that "internal Hamas documents strongly suggest that parts of the Hamas charter … were first written by members of the IAP in the United States in the early to mid-1980s."

Emerson said the IAP "has a long history of links to Middle East terrorism and its financial support." He pointed to a 2001 Immigration and Naturalization Service memo that "extensively documented IAP's support for Hamas and noted the 'facts strongly suggest' IAP is 'part of Hamas' propaganda apparatus."

In August 2002, a federal judge ruled there was evidence the IAP "has acted in support of Hamas," and in November 2004, a federal magistrate judge held IAP civilly liable for $156 million in the 1996 shooting of an American citizen by a Hamas member in the West Bank.

Further, Emerson testified, in November 2004, an immigration judge labeled IAP a "terrorist organization" and noted its "propensity for violence."

Organizing holy warriors

A number of figures associated with CAIR have been convicted on terrorism-related charges since 9-11, including Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, a former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, and Bassem Khafagi, former director of community relations.

Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the U.S. and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida.

In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.

Khafagi was arrested in January 2003 while serving with CAIR and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges in connection with a probe of the Islamic Assembly of North America, an organization suspected of aiding Saudi sheiks tied to Osama bin Laden.

In October, Ghassan Elashi, a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of CAIR, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking terrorist and for making illegal computer exports to countries that back terrorism.

In his interview with WND, Ahmad downplayed the convicted figures' connection to CAIR, contending they acted as individuals. He argued that if someone who worked for WND went out and murdered, it wouldn't necessarily say anything about the nature of the news organization.

Critics of Ahmad and CAIR also have pointed to comments he made at a youth session of the Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago in 1999 in which he praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by Emerson's Investigative Project.

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."

Ahmad told WND he does not justify suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism but says the desperation of Palestinians under Israeli "occupation" explains why many are willing to do it.

'I'm going to do it through education'

Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes – whose nomination by President Bush to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace was fiercely opposed by CAIR – has cited Ahmad's 1998 remarks frequently as one piece of evidence showing CAIR is not the mainstream group it claims to be.

Pipes calls it a "major statement," especially when put in the context of undisputed comments by CAIR spokesman Hooper, who indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune he wants to see the U.S. become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the paper. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Ahmad's alleged comments "fit a pattern" and show a "disposition," according to Pipes.

"Given that the reporter contemporaneously wrote this, and given that she stands by what she wrote, I'm inclined to believe it," he said.

Pipes pointed out he says this despite having been in a similar situation himself.

"But I've been able to show, in context, this is out of character, this is not how I talk," Pipes said. "If he can plausibly show this is at odds with views elsewhere, with employees and members, then I would be inclined to accept it. But it doesn't, it fits, and I do not accept it."

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam and director of Jihad Watch, believes such declarations of Muslims' role in America should be taken very seriously.

"It's the same goal as Osama bin Laden has, to Islamize the U.S.," said Spencer, also a frequent target of criticism from CAIR. "Even though Omar Ahmad is not pushing that in the same way, the fact that it is the same goal is something that hasn't been adequately appreciated by law enforcement and government officials.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, from which CAIR is derived, Spencer said, "have affirmed the traditional Islamic notion that the law of Islam must be ultimately imposed by Muslims."

An immediate response, he offered, would be for the U.S. government to stop all contact with CAIR, such as "sensitivity training," and "stop treating CAIR as if it were a moderate group."

Recipients of CAIR's cultural training include Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and the military. In June, a senior Department of Homeland Security official from Washington guided CAIR officials on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.

CAIR also has regular meetings with the Justice Department and FBI, prompting complaints from case agents, who say the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board.


WND

1410
3DHS / The War at Home
« on: December 09, 2006, 09:29:05 PM »
Baker-Hamilton won't stop Beltway bloodshed.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, December 8, 2006


Notwithstanding its 79 recommendations for "the way forward," the Iraq Study Group's primary purpose wasn't saving Iraq from catastrophe but saving the political system of the United States from catastrophe.

The commission's two chairs, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, make this explicit in the report's first pages. "U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure . . . if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus." Leon Panetta, a Democrat in the House from 1977 to 1993, said at their news conference, "This country cannot be at war and be as divided as it is today."

These are essentially restatements of GOP Sen. Arthur Vandenberg's 1952 dictum amid the Truman presidency that "politics stops at the water's edge." More than a sentiment, Vandenberg's point was, as he put it, "to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us." For the past three years, we have had the opposite--a domestic political war waged relentlessly at the water's edge.

Now comes the ISG report, and based on the Beltway reaction to it, one has to wonder whether the call yesterday for unity and bipartisanship by Messrs. Baker, Hamilton, Panetta and former Sen. Alan Simpson was disingenuous or naive. Washington took their study and went completely over the edge. The morning-after press reporting on the Baker-Hamilton report can only be described as neurotic glee. Over endless columns, reporters ransacked their thesauruses for words to unload pent-up antipathy toward the Bush White House: failed, repudiated, dire, abject failure, deeply pessimistic, disdain, replete with damning details, a rebuke, a remarkable condemnation.

For the Bush opposition and its beliefs, this White House has become the most odious and illegitimate presidency (the disputed 2000 Florida result) of the last century. Opposing it became a moral imperative. We can pinpoint the moment the Vandenberg ethos died. It was when one Democratic senator, Joe Lieberman, tried to bridge the partisan divide. He was culled from the party herd, shunned and left for dead by his oldest friends in the Senate.

Note that the ISG report at no point includes the words Guantanamo, warrantless wiretaps, Swift surveillance, secret prisons or the Patriot Act. These are the Bush policies in the war on terror, presumably the war "we all support." And they are the names of the most famous Washington battlefields of recent years. All this, like Iraq, has been repudiated, denounced and condemned as a moral violation.

This bloodbath at the water's edge has produced a divided, bitter nation. The American people are dispirited and depressed, even after the election. An AP/Ipsos poll taken the week after the November vote showed Congress's ratings fell, to 26%, 10 points below the president's in the same poll. It looks like the voters have replaced the traditional post-election honeymoon with a political prenuptial agreement.

Before this Sunday's talk shows use the Baker-Hamilton bulldozer to bury alive the Bush Doctrine and the "neoconservatives," let us suggest there is an alternative version of the Iraq narrative--one that is less a collapse of doctrine than simply the result of bad, possibly fatal, decisions the administration made in 2003.

The years 2003-05 don't exist in the ISG study, which is almost wholly about the horrors of the past year. But in the war's immediate aftermath, from May 2003 onward, Baghdad was rebuilding, notwithstanding continued violence. Retail commerce came to life. A strong real-estate market emerged. New cars filled the streets, and Iraq's universities reopened. But it was also in May that someone in the Bush administration made the worst decision of the war, as described on this page in June by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in an interview with our Robert Pollock.

"The biggest mistake, honestly, if you go back," said Mr. Zebari, "was not entrusting the Iraqis as partners, to empower them, to see them do their part, to fill the vacuum, to have a national unity government."

The opportunity existed at that moment to form an Iraqi unity government, likely consisting of the religious Shiites Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Sunni Adnan Pachachi, Kurdish leaders Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, and secular Shiites Ahmed Chalabi and Ayad Allawi.

Instead, someone in Washington (it has never been clear exactly who) decided to push them aside in favor of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. This was fatal because for two years, until last December's election, Iraqis had nothing--other than tribes, sects and militias--to commit themselves to politically.

Recall how over that period the insurgents repeatedly targeted police stations and police recruits. They knew that a functioning police posed the greatest danger to their plans to reduce Baghdad to a brutal anarchy that would drain the spirit of both Iraqis and Americans. It worked. For two years there was no "Iraqi" entity for their police to fight and die for.

Certainly opinions can differ on whether these Iraqi leaders in 2003 could have achieved the vaunted "national reconciliation" at the heart of the ISG report. But it is a more plausible, discrete explanation of what went wrong than the preposterously exaggerated celebration (there is no other word) of total American "failure" emanating from the Baker-Hamilton report now.

In short order, the Iraq story will enter 2008's presidential politics. To his credit, John McCain distanced himself from the report, which has turned into an unedifying pig-wallow for one swath of our political culture. The Washington Post yesterday reported that Democratic congressional aides say they'll make sure Mr. Bush still "owns" the Iraq war so he gets tagged if Baker-Hamilton fails.

Leon Panetta is already getting an answer to his belief that a divided nation cannot be at war. Oh yes it can--if defeating the enemy at home is more important than defeating the enemy abroad.




article

Pages: 1 ... 92 93 [94] 95 96 ... 102