DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Estudio: 1 contra 1 no lo es
on: August 03, 2010, 09:40:34 AM
Lastima que no veamos todo.
?Donde se fue el "backpack" (?Como se dice "backpack"?) del hombre de la camisa blanca?
?Por que esta' haciendo golpes de martillo (hammerfist)?
?Que es el liquido que se ve en 0:49?
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WaPo on Kandahar
on: August 03, 2010, 08:43:11 AM
"Our man (formerly in) Iraq" flags this article for our attention:
Some cogent points made in a Wash Post article today in re Kandahar. The whole article is worth reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080205235.html
In Baghdad, the use of checkpoints, identification cards and walled-off communities helped to reduce violence because there were two feuding factions, riven by sect. Because the city had been carved into a collection of separate Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, U.S. forces were able to place themselves along the borders. Both sides tolerated the tactics to a degree because they came to believe U.S. troops would protect them from their rivals.
The conflict in Kandahar is far murkier. There are no differences in religion or ethnicity: Nearly everyone here is a Sunni Pashtun. There are divisions among tribes and clans, but they are not a reliable indicator of support for the Taliban. And many residents regard U.S. forces as the cause of the growing instability, rather than the solution to it.
"Since they put the cement walls up, security is better, but nobody is coming to our shops," an elderly man named Rafiullah told Hodges as he visited his small stall filled with sundries next to a checkpoint on the western border.
Perhaps the most important reason population control worked to the extent it did in Baghdad was because each side believed the other posed an existential threat, and both turned to the United States for security. In many parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan, the population has yet to seek protection.
Many Kandaharis regard the Taliban as wayward brothers and cousins -- fellow Pashtuns with whom they can negotiate and one day reconcile. They also worry about siding with their government because they fear Taliban retribution, both now and when U.S. troop reductions begin next summer.
But the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy depends on persuading Pashtuns to get off the fence and cast their lot with their government. The U.S. military and civilian agencies are trying to help the government win over the public by delivering services to the population that the Taliban does not offer, including education, health care, agricultural assistance and justice based on the rule of law.
That requires capable civil servants willing to work in an unstable environment -- and that's where the strategy is hitting its most significant roadblock.
A recent effort by Karzai's local-governance directorate to fill 300 civil service jobs in Kandahar and the surrounding district turned up four qualified applicants, even after the agency dropped its application standards to remove a high school diploma, according to several U.S. officials.
The main impediment is security. Afghans don't want to work for their government or U.S. development contractors in such an unsafe environment.
In the Panjwai district to the west of Kandahar, U.S. officials say, the district governor and the police chief recently got into a fight. The chief hit the governor with a teakettle and the governor smashed a teacup on the chief's head, the confrontation culminating in a shootout between their guards.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Mexico-US matters
on: August 03, 2010, 07:52:40 AM
The final paragraph is drivel, but overall the piece is an interesting read nonetheless.
Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations
August 3, 2010
By George Friedman
Arizona’s new law on illegal immigration went into effect last week, albeit severely limited by a federal court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will settle the matter, which may also trigger federal regulations. However that turns out, the entire issue cannot simply be seen as an internal American legal matter. More broadly, it forms part of the relations between the United States and Mexico, two sovereign nation-states whose internal dynamics and interests are leading them into an era of increasing tension. Arizona and the entire immigration issue have to be viewed in this broader context.
Until the Mexican-American War, it was not clear whether the dominant power in North America would have its capital in Washington or Mexico City. Mexico was the older society with a substantially larger military. The United States, having been founded east of the Appalachian Mountains, had been a weak and vulnerable country. At its founding, it lacked strategic depth and adequate north-south transportation routes. The ability of one colony to support another in the event of war was limited. More important, the United States had the most vulnerable of economies: It was heavily dependent on maritime exports and lacked a navy able to protect its sea-lanes against more powerful European powers like England and Spain. The War of 1812 showed the deep weakness of the United States. By contrast, Mexico had greater strategic depth and less dependence on exports.
The Centrality of New Orleans
The American solution to this strategic weakness was to expand the United States west of the Appalachians, first into the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by the United Kingdom and then into the Louisiana Purchase, which Thomas Jefferson ordered bought from France. These two territories gave the United States both strategic depth and a new economic foundation. The regions could support agriculture that produced more than the farmers could consume. Using the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river system, products could be shipped south to New Orleans. New Orleans was the farthest point south to which flat-bottomed barges from the north could go, and the farthest inland that oceangoing ships could travel. New Orleans became the single most strategic point in North America. Whoever controlled it controlled the agricultural system developing between the Appalachians and the Rockies. During the War of 1812, the British tried to seize New Orleans, but forces led by Andrew Jackson defeated them in a battle fought after the war itself was completed.
Jackson understood the importance of New Orleans to the United States. He also understood that the main threat to New Orleans came from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexican border then stood on the Sabine River, which divides today’s Texas from Louisiana. It was about 200 miles from that border to New Orleans and, at its narrowest point, a little more than 100 miles from the Sabine to the Mississippi.
Mexico therefore represented a fundamental threat to the United States. In response, Jackson authorized a covert operation under Sam Houston to foment an uprising among American settlers in the Mexican department of Texas with the aim of pushing Mexico farther west. With its larger army, a Mexican thrust to the Mississippi was not impossible — nor something the Mexicans would necessarily avoid, as the rising United States threatened Mexican national security.
Mexico’s strategic problem was the geography south of the Rio Grande (known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo). This territory consisted of desert and mountains. Settling this area with large populations was impossible. Moving through it was difficult. As a result, Texas was very lightly settled with Mexicans, prompting Mexico initially to encourage Americans to settle there. Once a rising was fomented among the Americans, it took time and enormous effort to send a Mexican army into Texas. When it arrived, it was weary from the journey and short of supplies. The insurgents were defeated at the Alamo and Goliad, but as the Mexicans pushed their line east toward the Mississippi, they were defeated at San Jacinto, near present-day Houston.
The creation of an independent Texas served American interests, relieving the threat to New Orleans and weakening Mexico. The final blow was delivered under President James K. Polk during the Mexican-American War, which (after the Gadsden Purchase) resulted in the modern U.S.-Mexican border. That war severely weakened both the Mexican army and Mexico City, which spent roughly the rest of the century stabilizing Mexico’s original political order.
A Temporary Resolution
The U.S. defeat of Mexico settled the issue of the relative power of Mexico and the United States but did not permanently resolve the region’s status; that remained a matter of national power and will. The United States had the same problem with much of the Southwest (aside from California) that Mexico had: It was a relatively unattractive place economically, given that so much of it was inhospitable. The region experienced chronic labor shortages, relatively minor at first but accelerating over time. The acquisition of relatively low-cost labor became one of the drivers of the region’s economy, and the nearest available labor pool was Mexico. An accelerating population movement out of Mexico and into the territory the United States seized from Mexico paralleled the region’s accelerating economic growth.
The United States and Mexico both saw this as mutually beneficial. From the American point of view, there was a perpetual shortage of low-cost, low-end labor in the region. From the Mexican point of view, Mexico had a population surplus that the Mexican economy could not readily metabolize. The inclination of the United States to pull labor north was thus matched by the inclination of Mexico to push that labor north.
The Mexican government built its social policy around the idea of exporting surplus labor — and as important, using remittances from immigrants to stabilize the Mexican economy. The U.S. government, however, wanted an outcome that was illegal under U.S. law. At times, the federal government made exceptions to the law. When it lacked the political ability to change the law, the United States put limits on the resources needed to enforce the law. The rest of the country didn’t notice this process while the former Mexican borderlands benefited from it economically. There were costs to the United States in this immigrant movement, in health care, education and other areas, but business interests saw these as minor costs while Washington saw them as costs to be borne by the states.
Three fault lines emerged in United States on the topic. One was between the business classes, which benefited directly from the flow of immigrants and could shift the cost of immigration to other social sectors, and those who did not enjoy those benefits. The second lay between the federal government, which saw the costs as trivial, and the states, which saw them as intensifying over time. And third, there were tensions between Mexican-American citizens and other American citizens over the question of illegal migrants. This inherently divisive, potentially explosive mix intensified as the process continued.
Borderlands and the Geopolitics of Immigration
Underlying this political process was a geopolitical one. Immigration in any country is destabilizing. Immigrants have destabilized the United States ever since the Scots-Irish changed American culture, taking political power and frightening prior settlers. The same immigrants were indispensible to economic growth. Social and cultural instability proved a low price to pay for the acquisition of new labor.
That equation ultimately also works in the case of Mexican migrants, but there is a fundamental difference. When the Irish or the Poles or the South Asians came to the United States, they were physically isolated from their homelands. The Irish might have wanted Roman Catholic schools, but in the end, they had no choice but to assimilate into the dominant culture. The retention of cultural hangovers did not retard basic cultural assimilation, given that they were far from home and surrounded by other, very different, groups.
This is the case for Mexican-Americans in Chicago or Alaska, whether citizens, permanent residents or illegal immigrants. In such locales, they form a substantial but ultimately isolated group, surrounded by other, larger groups and generally integrated into the society and economy. Success requires that subsequent generations follow the path of prior immigrants and integrate. This is not the case, however, for Mexicans moving into the borderlands conquered by the United States just as it is not the case in other borderlands around the world. Immigrant populations in this region are not physically separated from their homeland, but rather can be seen as culturally extending their homeland northward — in this case not into alien territory, but into historically Mexican lands.
This is no different from what takes place in borderlands the world over. The political border moves because of war. Members of an alien population suddenly become citizens of a new country. Sometimes, massive waves of immigrants from the group that originally controlled the territory politically move there, undertaking new citizenship or refusing to do so. The cultural status of the borderland shifts between waves of ethnic cleansing and population movement. Politics and economics mix, sometimes peacefully and sometimes explosively.
The Mexican-American War established the political boundary between the two countries. Economic forces on both sides of the border have encouraged both legal and illegal immigration north into the borderland — the area occupied by the United States. The cultural character of the borderland is shifting as the economic and demographic process accelerates. The political border stays were it is while the cultural border moves northward.
The underlying fear of those opposing this process is not economic (although it is frequently expressed that way), but much deeper: It is the fear that the massive population movement will ultimately reverse the military outcome of the 1830s and 1840s, returning the region to Mexico culturally or even politically. Such borderland conflicts rage throughout the world. The fear is that it will rage here.
The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona — between those who benefit from the migration and those who don’t — and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation.
Centuries ago, Scots moved to Northern Ireland after the English conquered it. The question of Northern Ireland, a borderland, was never quite settled. Similarly, Albanians moved to now-independent Kosovo, where tensions remain high. The world is filled with borderlands where political and cultural borders don’t coincide and where one group wants to change the political border that another group sees as sacred.
Migration to the United States is a normal process. Migration into the borderlands from Mexico is not. The land was seized from Mexico by force, territory now experiencing a massive national movement — legal and illegal — changing the cultural character of the region. It should come as no surprise that this is destabilizing the region, as instability naturally flows from such forces.
Jewish migration to modern-day Israel represents a worst-case scenario for borderlands. An absence of stable political agreements undergirding this movement characterized this process. One of the characteristics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual demonization. In the case of Arizona, demonization between the two sides also runs deep. The portrayal of supporters of Arizona’s new law as racist and the characterization of critics of that law as un-American is neither new nor promising. It is the way things would sound in a situation likely to get out of hand.
Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a subnational issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom
on: August 03, 2010, 07:40:27 AM
"Despite librarians’ fervent belief to the contrary, this analysis applies equally to library patrons’ book borrowing or Internet use. The government may obtain those records without violating anyone’s Fourth Amendment rights, because the patron has already revealed his borrowing and web browsing to library staff, other readers (in the days of handwritten book checkout cards), and Internet service providers. Tombstones declaring the death of the Fourth Amendment contain no truth whatsoever.
, , ,
"The target of this ire? A section that merely updates existing law to modern technology. The government has long had the power to collect the numbers dialed from, or the incoming numbers to, a person’s telephone by showing a court that the information is “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Just as in section 215 of the Patriot Act, this legal standard is lower than traditional Fourth Amendment “probable cause,” because the phone user has already forfeited any constitutional privacy rights he may have in his phone number or the number he calls by revealing them to the phone company."
GM, I confess to a visceral unease at the notion that I have no privacy rights about what I read or with whom I speak by telephone.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Laffer: Soak the Rich Catch 22
on: August 02, 2010, 12:07:09 PM
By ARTHUR LAFFER
Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.
—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,
If only more of today's leaders thought like JFK. Sadly, in the debate over whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and if so whether the cuts should be extended to those people who are in the highest tax bracket, there is a false presumption that higher tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will raise tax revenues.
Anyone who is familiar with the historical data available from the IRS knows full well that raising income tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will most likely reduce the direct tax receipts from the now higher taxed income—even without considering the secondary tax revenue effects, all of which will be negative. And who on Earth wants higher tax rates on anyone if it means larger deficits?
Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We've also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.
During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period. (See the nearby chart).
.These results shouldn't be surprising. The highest tax bracket income earners, when compared with those people in lower tax brackets, are far more capable of changing their taxable income by hiring lawyers, accountants, deferred income specialists and the like. They can change the location, timing, composition and volume of income to avoid taxation.
Just look at Sen. John Kerry's recent yacht brouhaha if you don't believe me. He bought and housed his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, where he is the senior senator and champion of higher taxes on the rich, avoiding some $437,500 in state sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.
Howard Metzenbaum, the former Ohio senator and liberal supporter of the death tax, chose to change his official residence to Florida just before he died because Florida does not have an estate tax while Ohio does. Goodness knows what creative devices former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has used to avoid paying taxes.
In short, the highest bracket income earners—even left-wing liberals—are far more sensitive to tax rates than are other income earners.
When President Kennedy cut the highest income tax rate to 70% from 91%, revenues also rose. Income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.9% of GDP in 1968 from 1.3% in 1960. Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.
Or perhaps you'd like to see how the rich paid less in taxes under the bipartisan tax rate increases of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter? Between 1968 and 1981 the top 1% of income earners reduced their total income tax payments to 1.5% of GDP from 1.9% of GDP.
And then there's the Hoover/Roosevelt Great Depression. The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. President Hoover then thought it would be clever to try to tax America into prosperity. Using many of the same arguments that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are using today, President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. He raised many other taxes as well.
President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well. The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.
Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?
We all know that there are lots of factors influencing tax revenues from the rich, but the number one factor has to be the statutory tax rates government tells the rich they have to pay. Not only do the direct income tax consequences of higher tax rates on those in the highest brackets lead to higher deficits, the indirect effects magnify the tax revenue losses many fold.
As a result of higher tax rates on those people in the highest tax brackets, there will be less employment, output, sales, profits and capital gains—all leading to lower payrolls and lower total tax receipts. There will also be higher unemployment, poverty and lower incomes, all of which require more government spending. It's a Catch-22.
Higher tax rates on the rich create the very poverty and unemployment that is used to justify their presence. It is a vicious cycle that well-trained economists should know to avoid.
Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010).
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Appleseed 2
on: August 01, 2010, 05:39:58 PM
Page 4 of 6)
Dailey’s frustration with the government peaked during the 1990s after the fatal conflicts at Ruby Ridge and Waco. “Uncle Sam told 76 Americans to come out of their own house, lay down their arms and spread-eagle on the ground,” he says of Waco. “Does that sound to you like the sovereignty of the individual?” At that time, growing restive, he bought more than half a million pounds of rifle stocks at an army-surplus auction. He named his new venture “Fred’s,” after his dog, and wrote indictments of the Clintons and the “New World Order” that reached 94,000 readers. As the radical right gathered steam in the ’90s, Dailey’s anger fixated on the United Nations, which he saw as a metagovernment bent on covertly undermining American sovereignty. He organized a “U.N. Day” shoot at a local gun club, painting targets United Nations blue and firing holes through a steel U.N. helmet. In 2002, Dailey wrote “Battlin’ the U.N.,” a near-future story of six riflemen who ambush a U.N. convoy rolling through Iowa. Using the accompanying targets, Dailey’s readers could practice shooting Boris, the villainous U.N. commander.
Dailey calls all this “my young and stupid years.” The Appleseed Project appeals to a broad constituency, one whose edges blur into the N.R.A. at one end and into violent militias like the Hutaree, nine of whose members were indicted in March for conspiracy to murder, at the other end. Notices of Appleseed shoots appear regularly on militia Web sites. Dailey argues that outreach like this attracts radical anger and then moderates it. Many Appleseeders have stories like that of Rod Jackson, a former bouncer whom I met at a shoot in Fresno, Calif. After leaving the Navy, Jackson spent years as a homeless alcoholic but now works by day as a telecommunications technician and by night at a gun range. He has long been preparing for an event he read about online — Teotwawki, which stands for “the end of the world as we know it.” He stored up enough food to feed his family for 30 days and planned to relocate to a remote valley. “I was going to hide myself in a hole,” he said. “Then Fred made this comment that people who build caves are cowards. That stung.”
As his involvement with Appleseed deepened, Jackson found his focus shifting to what he could accomplish within the present system. “A lot of folks in the gun community talk about stepping up and fighting,” he said. “That’s skipping over the easy stuff for the hard stuff. The point is that we don’t need to fight now. We have another option.” That option, he said, was contacting elected representatives.
In a cramped room adjoining the warehouse, Dailey monitors the message board and plows through queries from instructors. In a recent post he acknowledged that though he once “flirted with the dark side,” there was no place for the rhetoric of deterrence within Appleseed. Statements like “we’ll soon be in a future when the shooting starts,” he wrote, are not compatible with Appleseed’s mission.
During my travels through Appleseed country, I spoke with nearly 100 cooks and riflemen and corresponded with dozens more. None seemed as close to the dark side as James Faire of Monroe, Wash., a man obsessed with reducing the space between readiness and action to the thinnest possible line. After years of practice Faire has whittled that space down to the fraction of a second that it takes him to open the snap holster on his belt, draw and level the Kimber 1911 he carries whenever outside the house, apply pressure to the hair trigger and fire a hollow-point .460-caliber round into his target, all while backpedaling at a 45-degree angle. “This is called moving off the X,” he told me. “By the time you draw on them and say, ‘Drop the weapon,’ you’re already dead.”
Faire has practiced this maneuver thousands of times. He says he came close to using it last year while trying to clear a downed tree from the road leading to his five-acre homestead in Monroe. A sheriff’s deputy drove up, lights flashing, with his own ideas about how best to clear the tree. Words were exchanged. The hands of both men drifted down toward their holsters. The way Faire tells it, the peace of Snohomish County momentarily teetered. Then the deputy got back in his car and drove away.
Deputies, Faire says, are criminals operating “under the color of law.” He refuses to vote, and the signature on his driver’s license appears with the disclaimer “all rights reserved.” Some of Faire’s views resemble those of the sovereign-citizen movement, extremists who deny the legitimacy of federal law. Faire heard about Appleseed through a Web site he administers called A Well Regulated Militia. Last year he began hosting monthly Appleseed shoots on his land, which appeared on Appleseed’s print and online schedules. In 2008, a government informant reportedly observed Andrew Steven Gray shooting an AR-15-style rifle and a pistol on Faire’s range. Gray, a 33-year-old convicted felon, is legally barred from owning any firearms. In Gray’s storage locker, according to a government complaint, federal agents found a cache of 21 guns, four silencers, two bulletproof vests and 9,000 rounds of ammunition. At his home nearby, says the complaint, were several hundred marijuana plants. Last month Gray was sentenced to four years in prison on gun and drug charges.
The complaint against Gray states that Faire’s range is known as the Militia Training Center, which “routinely holds training for individuals involved with the militia movement.” When I brought all this up to Dailey, he said Faire was “wrapping himself in the flag of Appleseed” to manage his troubles with the county, which closed his range for code violations. I asked Faire whether Dailey had given him any flack. “Privately, they’ve been very supportive,” he said. Though Faire says he obeyed Appleseed’s prohibition against talking politics during his shoots, he can still be seen explaining Appleseed’s basics on YouTube and accusing President Obama of “telling people to shut up and not talk.”
Shortly after the arrests in March of nine people thought to be members of the Hutaree militia, I e-mailed Faire and asked whether he had any contact with the group. He replied that he trained with one of the accused Hutaree in 2005, “although he showed mental instability and further association was discouraged.” Faire says the charges were “made up of whole cloth. They had the motive and means and opportunity to resist their arrest but did not. If they were guilty, they would have resisted.”
Page 5 of 6)
On an overcast winter day in Monroe, Faire and I sat beside a wood stove in a classroom a few steps away from his house. Targets of kaffiyeh-clad figures armed with rocket-propelled grenades leaned against the wall. I sipped coffee as Faire split wood and unfurled his politics. “The government has quite literally become tyrannical,” he said. “It is fulfilling the principles outlined in ‘The Communist Manifesto.’ ” His seemed to have a deep urge to see himself as a revolutionary, and it was hard to imagine him at a loss for a framework that would let him do so.
“It’s completely out of control,” he continued, “from city to state to federal to international law. All predicate their existence on plundering the individual and his rights. The only thing to do now is to organize citizens into a militia to abolish this government. They’re the supreme law of the land, the only ones who have the moral and legal authority to do it.” His voice was calm. It was as if he knew these things were true to both of us.
Faire, who is 50, has a neat mustache and moves with a martial steadiness. He often grips his belt with his right hand during conversation. It holds the holster of his 1911, the muzzle of which peeks out from beneath the waist of his black tactical jacket. The police, he said, often mistake him for an off-duty officer. He gave me a tour of his land, pointing out a ruined minivan used for sniper practice. Somewhere in the surrounding hills he once buried waterproof tubes containing clothes, provisions and six M1 Garands; he later dug them up and sold them to pay for his legal battle with the county over the code violations.
After lunch in the nearby city of Gold Bar, we returned to Monroe for a meeting at a diner with two friends that Faire met while working on the Ron Paul presidential campaign. One talked of establishing a camp where like-minded dissidents might be trained in the use of arms. The man asked for Faire’s help. Faire seemed reluctant to commit. The man said, “I told my wife 30 years ago, ‘I’m tired of being an insignificant man living in a broken culture.’ ” And yet here he was three decades later, still looking for his first recruit. Did he really want to be dangerous?
When American men talk like this, they are usually giving voice to fantasy. Only in fantasy, after all, are governments overthrown by men trained to do nothing more than shoot long-distance targets in a controlled environment. Some of these men seek out unlikely battlefields, where they can be warriors of the future, warriors of the imagination or reluctant warriors in waiting who are passing their time on the Internet. The power of a gun to take a life is not so much a threat as a talisman connecting these fantasies to the real world.
“When I hold a rifle in my hands, I can feel the choice that I’m making,” one Appleseeder, a computer programmer from Southern California, told me. “I know what I can do with this gun, but I also know I’m not going to do that. I have become death. When you have that power and that choice, you know what choice you’re going to make. When someone can be death over a quarter mile, that’s a tremendous responsibility.”
The exceptions to the rule of the responsible gun owner generate headlines and casualties. The largest threat that Appleseed poses is the possibility that some future gunmen will find their way from some dark-side message board to an Appleseed boot camp. “There’s always going to be someone who thinks the revolution is sooner rather than later,” Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center says. “Now they’re learning to be snipers. You would hope Appleseed would do some screening.”
When I asked Dailey about this, he said, “If we recruited 500 people from one of these crazy boards and 499 of them wound up agreeing with us, then what would you say?”
“I would want to know about the one who didn’t agree,” I said. “You’ve taught him how to kill with a rifle out to 500 yards.”
Page 6 of 6)
“Well, the only precaution for that is not to teach the skills at all. Why even let them have the hardware, in that case?” He proposed an analogy. “What if the inmates in the asylum were stabbing each other with knives? Do you give them plastic spoons? Or do you cure the insanity?”
“But part of what you’re doing is sharpening the knives.”
“If we can cure the insanity, I think it’s a fair trade.”
On my last day in North Carolina, Dailey and I visited a Revolutionary War battlefield an hour’s drive from the warehouse. We walked through the wooded site as joggers and couples passed us on the trail. We came to a stop at two cannon replicas beside what had once been colonial lines. Dailey paraphrased what he called “the gay quote,” John Adams’s sentiment that he would study war, so his sons could study business and agriculture, so their sons could study the arts. “What a bad plan!” Dailey said. “The bad people of the world are still going to be there in three generations. So your grandson better know something about war. You can’t just have the third generation sitting around, ballet dancing, playing pianos and talking dilettante talk.”
I asked whether Appleseed was really about the decline of the American man. Dailey vehemently disagreed. To prove me wrong he stopped two young women, introduced himself and began to pitch the program. Wearing sandals and modish sunglasses, they appeared to be the sort of prospective Appleseeders who could buttress the program against the dark side.
“Pop quiz,” Dailey said. “When was the American Revolution won?”
“Yorktown is considered the final victory,” one of the women, Melissa Hogg, said. She majored in history at the University of Virginia, she said, specializing in the Revolutionary War.
“Would you believe what a founder said?” Dailey asked. “It was won before the first shot was fired, in the hearts and minds of the American people.”
“Of course,” Hogg said. “It’s a matter of ideology.”
Dailey seemed to bristle at this, hearing in Hogg’s words a disbelief in the specialness of American hearts and minds — and the suggestion that the motives behind the American Revolution were no better or worse than those of any other. Nevertheless, he gave the women Appleseed’s Web address.
As we made our way back to the parking lot, he shook his head. “You see what we’re up against?” he asked. “Imagine 300 million of those.”
a call to arms Online video of an Appleseed Project target practice in Iowa at nytimes.com/magazine.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / POTH: The Appleseed Project
on: August 01, 2010, 05:39:02 PM
This is exactly the sort of subject in which POTH must be read with maximum care:
One June morning last year, Jack Dailey drove from his home in North Carolina’s Piedmont country, through verdant, hilly farmland to a rifle range near the town of Ramseur. Eleven men and a woman had mustered there for a weeklong boot camp run by the Appleseed Project, a group Dailey started that is dedicated to teaching every American how to fire a bullet through a man-size target out to 500 yards. So far Appleseed has taught 25,000 people to shoot; 7,000 more will learn by the end of this year. Its instructors teach this skill not for the purpose of hunting or sport. They see marksmanship as fundamental to Americans’ ability to defend their liberty, whether against foreigners or the agents of a (hypothetical) tyrannical government. Appleseed frames this activity as being somewhere between a historical re-enactment and a viable last resort. I came to find out how serious they were.
Dailey, Appleseed’s founder and rhetorician in chief, is a tall man with silver hair. He wore black sneakers, a red polo shirt tucked into jeans and a red baseball cap. Sixty-six years old, he could have been a grandfather spending a leisurely morning on a public golf course if not for his unyielding expression and his voice, which is well equipped for the stirring up of men.
In the previous day’s lecture, Dailey discussed taxes — the situation of the American taxpayer, he said, compared unfavorably with the lives of slaves in ancient Egypt. Today he got down to the matter at hand: defense against overweening government. “Look at the choice those guys made,” he said, referring to the colonial-era militia. “I’ll post you 65 yards from the road. In a few hours there’s gonna be hundreds of redcoats marching down that road. Your liberty depends on you stopping ’em.”
Two lead musket balls were passed around the clubhouse, through the hands of a camouflaged Navy midshipman, two sheriff’s deputies, a farm-owning factory worker, a college professor, a pilot, a retiree and a high-school sophomore. Those who shot an “expert” score on Dailey’s qualification test would become “riflemen,” as designated by olive-green patches. For now, most of these novice shooters were referred to as “cooks.”
“When you fire that first shot, those redcoats are gonna be mad,” Dailey said. “They’re gonna come at you with those 16-inch bayonets. There’ll be three or four of ’em before you load your second shot.” He paused. Thoughts of bayonets seemed to linger in the silent room. “Not much percentage in that choice. We know now that they won. But for them? No guarantees.”
The Appleseed Project began with commentaries Dailey writes, under the byline of “Fred,” that run beside advertisements for his surplus-rifle-stock business in the magazine Shotgun News. In 2005, he organized his first Appleseed shoots in Wyoming and Texas. The combination of military-style rifle training, star-spangled rhetoric and low cost ($70 for two days; free for women, minors and military personnel) proved catching. Word of the program spread through gun culture and survivalist Web sites. The tax filings of the Revolutionary War Veterans Association, the nonprofit group that oversees Appleseed, show that the group now has $334,000 in cash. The Appleseed Web site lists as many as 100 shoots a month on the outskirts of towns like Eureka, Kan., Pine Bluffs, Wyo., and Coeur D’Alene, Idaho.
At the North Carolina shoot, the cooks came from Georgia, Florida, Illinois and Ohio, bearing .22-caliber Rugers and Marlins outfitted with custom sights — what Appleseed calls Liberty Training Rifles. Though they were diverse in age and class, their uniformly white skin, down-home talk and traditional values suggested a common attachment to an America that had lost its long-held claim to the cultural center. While Dailey has said Appleseed should be apolitical, the talk at this Appleseed boot camp and at several others I attended across the country over the course of a year contained pieces of a conversation that has unfolded behind the motley carnivals of the Tea Party movement: a serious deliberation on the right about the nature of the American founding and the limits of incivility. Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for Senate in Nevada who is campaigning against Harry Reid, has spoken of the possibility of “Second Amendment remedies” for Congressional action. “The nation is arming,” she told The Reno Gazette-Journal in May. “What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?” Rick Barber, a Republican candidate for Congress in Alabama, has broadcast an ad in which an actor dressed as George Washington declares, “Gather your armies.”
Published: July 29, 2010
(Page 2 of 6)
Are statements like these rhetorical flourishes or calls to arms? Determining whether this revolutionary talk constitutes a threat comes down to finding the fine line between expressing anger and inciting the angry to action, a distinction that is clear as a matter of law but less so in cultural practice. In April, on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, former President Bill Clinton sought to move this cultural line, comparing today’s antigovernment sentiment with that of the mid-’90s. Clinton argued that those who demonize the federal government could be courting another tragedy. There is, however, a rejoinder to this from the right. “The sense in the year 2010 that there’s something threatening about civilian marksmanship is a function of 1990s political correctness and guilt by association,” Nick Dranias, director of the Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute, said. “These groups are trying to take guns out of the shadows and display them proudly, in public, not as a bunch of weirdos crawling around the forest at night.”
nside the Appleseed Project, the question of where an armed citizenry should draw this line remains open. Later that week, as he sipped a Coke at a nearby McDonald’s, Dailey flirted with an answer. “If you ever have to reach for your guns, you’ve lost before you started,” he said, and then doubled back. “Now, there are probably some narrow, hypothetical exceptions to that. Like if somebody in the government said, ‘We’re taking over the country.’ You might find there’d be a spontaneous. . . . I don’t know. I don’t know what it would be. And to be perfectly honest with you, I wouldn’t want to see it.”
The ﬁrst night’s campfire sounded less like sedition and more like men telling stories of times they looked death in the eye. Ron Vandiver, the boot camp’s head instructor, made death’s acquaintance while trying to repair a swaying radio tower on a stormy afternoon. Vandiver is the kind of man that Dailey likes to characterize as a “regular American,” words intended as the highest praise. A stout 42-year-old with a gadget-laden belt, he looked like a dad I might see at Home Depot. His eyes watered up when he spoke of an ancestor who fought in the Continental Army. He asked how far back each of us could feel our national history as opposed to just reading about it. “The war between the states,” one man said. “World War II,” another said. “That’s a shame,” Vandiver said. “We’re here to extend your historical horizon of empathy.”
The main zones for projecting the past onto the present were the “redcoats,” paper targets stapled to wooden poles at 25 meters. Four red silhouettes represented kills at 100, 200, 300 and 400 yards. On the third day the cooks moved to the 500-yard range, where they fired AR-15’s, M1As, and M1 Garands. In the middle of the firing line lay David and Darrell Garvey, two brothers with sun-reddened skin and graying beards. Before the housing crash, the Garveys grossed as much as $1 million a year installing floors in vacation homes. Now they were unemployed. They loaded their magazines and pulled the charging handles. “Ready on the right!” Vandiver bellowed. “Ready on the left! All ready on the firing line. . . . Fire!”
Darrell Garvey pressed his eye to the scope, trying to keep a red dot fixed on the blurry figure in the distance. He stilled his breathing and slowly squeezed the trigger. “Cease fire!” Vandiver shouted. “Unload and clear!” Darrell disarmed his rifle. He walked up the slope to his target and huffed in exasperation. A few shots hadn’t even hit the paper.
Darrell turned to Vandiver. “If, God forbid, the worst happens and this all becomes reality, would you recommend shooting out at 500 or waiting ’til they came closer in?”
“I’m too old and fat to run fast,” Vandiver answered. “So I like to give myself as big a head start as possible. On a two-way shooting range, I’m inclined to hit them out at 500.”
“Fred’s Plan to Save America,” an early photocopied manifesto, sets forth a doctrine of deterrence. Shooting is “training for the Day,” Dailey wrote. “The Day that will never come, if enough of us are ready for it.” Appleseed occasionally attracts those who believe this Day is already here. Dailey calls such fringe beliefs “the dark side.” One man at an Appleseed boot camp in Nevada announced his plan to assassinate county officials and ignite a guerrilla war. “It kinda floored me when he blurted that out,” Dailey recalls. “We fight this militia stuff all the time. If there’s the slightest truth to what he said, he was a dead man. Which means there’s probably no truth at all.” In Ramseur, Dailey’s rousing talk was followed by an introduction to the “soft war” fought with “ballots, not bullets.” Dailey did not say how the ballots should be cast, but I did meet many senior Appleseed instructors with affinities for The Limbaugh Letter and Tea Party rallies (all of whom nonetheless obeyed the prohibition on partisan discussions during the program itself).
Page 3 of 6)
Last fall, a report by the Anti-Defamation League called Appleseed part of a trend in which romanticized notions of armed resistance have “percolated beyond extremist groups and movements into the mainstream.” It stopped short of saying Appleseed was itself an extremist group, though Mark Pitcavage, the A.D.L.’s director of investigative research, characterized Appleseed as a potential gateway to militias. “I’m concerned not in the sense that I think the Appleseed Project is dangerous,” he told me. “But it does have a goal of indoctrination.”
But the sociologist James William Gibson, whose book “Warrior Dreams” analyzed civilian paramilitary culture since the mid-’70s, says Appleseed and the broader movement around it are unlikely to pose a danger to civil society. “When a culture is in crisis, the first response is often to go back to the creation myth and start over again,” he told me. “The narrative is ‘we’re going to redo the narrative of the United States by returning to origins, to marksmanship.’ People are focusing on the idea that America’s problems can be resolved into something that can be shot. It doesn’t exactly encourage systematic reflection, but it’s a long ways from a civil war.”
The National Rifle Association declined to address the question of where Appleseed fits into the gun culture. “We are familiar with who they are and what they do,” a spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, told me. “But given that we don’t have firsthand experience, we are reticent to say anything beyond that.” Maynard Reid Jr., the sheriff of Randolph County in North Carolina, which includes the Ramseur range, told me he hadn’t heard of the Appleseed Project, though he sometimes rents the range from Dailey for sniper training. “Jack Dailey is a straightforward guy,” he told me. “He don’t try to sugarcoat things. He’s a good man, as far as I know.”
Appleseed’s claim to mainstream legitimacy is bolstered by the group’s ties to active-duty members of the military. In March, an instructor who works as a researcher at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico arranged for Appleseed to conduct five days of training with a brigade from the Second Engineer Battalion. Appleseed also gave free on-base training to a unit from the South Carolina National Guard. I shot at Appleseed boot camps alongside Marines looking to hone their skills before deployment. They came to Appleseed out of uniform, on their own accord. The final two days of the Ramseur boot camp were led by 26-year-old John Hawes, who won a Silver Star in Afghanistan and recently taught marksmanship to soldiers at Fort Jackson. “The Army’s gotten away from the basics,” he told me.
On one of the final afternoons of boot camp, Gordon Wade, a math professor at Bowling Green State University, was cooking outside his tent. Dailey lumbered up and told Wade he had the makings of a good instructor. Wade said he wasn’t sure how many of his academic peers he could bring into the Appleseed fold. “They might think it’s some kind of militia,” he said.
The men stood in silence. Wade stirred his dinner. “A man should have a rifle,” he said. “Not just a .22. A man should have an AR-15 the same way he should have one good suit. Now, I can’t really think of a scenario where I’m going to use my AR-15 as an AR-15. I can’t quite articulate it. It sounds like I want to go out fighting zombies” — slang for the unprepared — “or feds. I don’t want to. But if it ever comes to that, God forbid, I want to be able to. But no, no. . . .” He shook his head. “That isn’t it either. It’s just something that I think I should have. Fred, why should I have an AR-15?”
Dailey stood with his arms crossed. He said: “Because they want to tell us what to do. And we don’t want them to tell us what to do.”
Dailey keeps his rifle stocks in an old Coca-Cola warehouse filled to the rafters with the remainders of war — empty bandoleers, rifle slings, rifle butt plates, rifle brushes, rifle grease. Thousands of wooden stocks stripped of their actions lay in jumbled piles. Dailey fired his first gun at age 6, a .22 aimed at a tree stump. He pulled the trigger; his father held the stock. His first rifle was a Japanese Model 99, a present from his mother for his 19th birthday. The physical fact of the gun led him to consider what action it might have seen. “The joy of owning these things is tough to explain,” he says. “Either you feel it or you don’t.” In the Army R.O.T.C. at North Carolina State University, he learned to fire and strip an M1 Garand. Academic deferments kept him out of Vietnam. In 1969, he took a bus to Washington to march against the war. “I thought this was a serious thing,” he says. “Everyone else was there to party.” He gave up his activist stirrings for law school, married, graduated and began rehabbing apartment buildings in Chicago. He did well enough to retire at 42, but the experience eroded his idealism. “A landlord is like a cop or a bartender,” he says. “You get to see people as they really are.” His politics moved toward “the iron rule of life: everyone wants to be first in line to eat and last in line to die.” The economic malaise of the late 1970s seemed to confirm this pessimism. He sought comfort in survivalist magazines and stockpiled rifles and canned food. In the mid-1980s, he sold off his properties and moved with his wife back to North Carolina.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Prudent Bear
on: July 31, 2010, 01:36:29 PM
Quantitative Easing Two:
Not even a week had passed since ECB President Trichet’s article, “Stimulate No More – It Is Now Time to Tighten,” before Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard thrusts himself into the debate with his paper, “Seven Faces of ‘The Peril.’”
Dr. Bullard’s concluding sentences: “To avoid [the Japanese] outcome for the U.S., policymakers can react differently to negative shocks going forward. Under current policy in the U.S., the reaction to a negative shock is perceived to be a promise to stay low for longer, which may be counterproductive because it may encourage a permanent, low nominal interest rate outcome. A better policy response to a negative shock is to expand the quantitative easing program through the purchase of Treasury securities.”
The New York Times (Sewell Chan) had a reasonable spin on Bullard’s piece: “A subtle but significant shift appears to be occurring within the Federal Reserve over the course of monetary policy amid increasing signs that the economic recovery is weakening. … James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, warned that the Fed’s current policies were putting the American economy at risk of becoming ‘enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years.’ The warning by Mr. Bullard… comes days after Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, said the central bank was prepared to do more to stimulate the economy if needed…”
Reading Dr. Bullard’s paper - and listening carefully to his comments – recalls Dr. Bernanke’s historic speeches back in late-2002: “Asset-Price ‘Bubbles’ and Monetary Policy”; “On Milton Friedman’s Ninetieth Birthday”; and “Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here.” Dr. Bernanke fashioned the backdrop – erudite academic justification for aggressive “activist” monetary management - and today the Federal Reserve appears poised to embark only farther into perilous uncharted waters. Last week, I presumed that Mr. Trichet’s stark warning against further stimulus was in response to market clamoring for additional quantitative easing from the Fed. It would now appear his comments may have been directed squarely at our central bank.
“The Peril” in Dr. Bullard’s title is in reference to a 2001 academic article “The Perils of Taylor Rules.” In simple terms, many accept the thesis that there is potential “peril” confronting a monetary management regime at the point when policymakers have lowered rates to near zero – yet the inflation rate remains stuck in negative territory (“deflation”). Japan is used as a contemporary example of how policymakers failed to act convincingly to ensure operators throughout the markets and real economy understood that deflationary pressures would not be tolerated.
From Bullard: “The policymaker is completely committed to interest rate adjustment as the main tool of monetary policy, even long after it ceases to make sense (long after policy becomes passive), creating a second steady state for the economy. Many of the responses to this situation described below attempt to remedy this situation by recommending a switch to some other policy in cases when inflation is far below target. The regime switch required has to be sharp and credible. Policymakers have to commit to the new policy and the private sector has to believe the policymaker.”
Ten-year Treasury yields dropped to 2.92% today. Benchmark MBS yields sank 15 bps in two sessions to 3.49%. The markets are taking Dr. Bullard’s talk of a “sharp and credible” regime switch – Quantitative Easing Two – seriously. The dollar dropped another 1.1% this week and the CRB Commodities index jumped 2.9 %. The market backdrop is increasingly reminiscent of the summer of 2007. The initial ’07 eruption in subprime incited market weakness and volatility, an aggressive Federal Reserve response, a weak dollar and quite a run for commodities markets.
Back in 2002, I thought (and wrote as much) Dr. Bernanke’s monetary views were radical and dangerous. He burst onto the scene as the right guy at the right time to lead an epic battle against the scourge of deflation. I view the period 2001 through 2006 as a historic period of faulty analysis and failed monetary management. In short, zealous policy measures were implemented from a flawed analytical framework. While fighting so-called deflation risk, our central bank accommodated a perilous Bubble throughout mortgage and Wall Street finance. The Fed’s “activist” approach was an unmitigated disaster. Dr. Bullard’s paper addresses this period from an opposing perspective: “2003-2004… This period was the last time the FOMC worried about a possible bout of deflation.”
From Bullard: “The Thornton [St. Louis Fed economist] analysis emphasizes how the FOMC communicated during this period, and how the market expectations of the longer-term inflation rate responded to the communications. At the time, some measures of inflation were hovering close to one percent, similar to the most recent readings for core inflation in 2010. At its May 2003 meeting, the Committee included the following press release language: .... ‘the probability of an unwelcome substantial fall in inflation, though minor, exceeds that of a pickup in inflation from its already low level.’ At several subsequent 2003 meetings the FOMC stated that ‘…the risk of inflation becoming undesirably low is likely to be the predominant concern for the foreseeable future.”
During the three-year period ’02-’04, benchmark MBS yields averaged 5.22%, down significantly from the 7.16% average from 2000-’01. The Fed was “successful” in jawboning rates lower, in spite of the unprecedented surge in demand for mortgage borrowings. “Activist” monetary policymaking circumvented market forces, allowing a huge increase in the demand for mortgage Credit to be satisfied at historically low market yields.
Well, you either believe that the market forces of supply and demand should be left to determine the price (market yield) of finance - or you don’t. And you either appreciate that the price of finance plays a fundamental role in the effective allocation of financial and real resources in a Capitalistic system – or you disregard this critical dynamic at the system's peril. Inarguably, Federal Reserve rate policy and communications strategy were instrumental in distorting market prices (MBS, real estate, stocks, etc.) and perceptions of risk and, in the process, fomenting the great mortgage/Wall Street finance Bubble.
Focusing instead on the general price level, or “inflation,” Dr. Bullard comes to a very different conclusion with respect to policy performance during this crucial period: “In the event, all worked out well, at least with respect to avoiding the un-intended steady state. Inflation did pick up, the policy rate was increased, and the threat of a Japanese-style deflationary outcome was forgotten, at least temporarily. Was this a brilliant maneuver, or did the economic news simply support higher inflation expectations during this period?”
Regular readers know that I use the terms “Keynesian” and “inflationism” interchangeably. Inflationism has been an influential concept for centuries; Keynes just created the most sophisticated and alluring conceptual framework. I argued against the Keynesians earlier in the decade. The critical flaw in their theoretical construct is that the Federal Reserve somehow controls “THE” general price level. This is a dangerous myth perpetuated by those committed to activist monetary management.
The Keynesians take Credit for thwarting the deflationary forces from earlier this decade. After declining to about a 1% y-o-y rate during the first half of 2002, inflation was a “safer” 4% or so by 2006. This, it was said, provided policymakers the latitude they required to ensure the U.S. did not succumb to the Japanese predicament. In the process, total U.S. mortgage Credit almost doubled in just six years. The aggregate of consumer prices may have been reasonably tame, but asset prices and economic maladjustment were not. The Fed used mortgage Credit to reflate the system and, not surprisingly, we now face a much worse predicament.
The problem with inflationism has always been that once it gets ingrained within the system – in the Credit system, the real economy, within market perceptions, expectations and asset prices – there’s just no turning back. The more protracted the inflationary Credit boom – and the more problematic the associated Bubbles – the more unpalatably painful the bust is viewed in the minds of politicians and central bankers. Historically, it often became a case of “just one more bout of money printing to get us over the hump.” Just get through the pressing crisis and then it will be time to find monetary religion.
It is the nature of protracted Credit Bubbles that devastating busts are held at bay only through increasingly expansive monetary stimulus. Invariably, this corrosive process destroys the soundness of system debt and the underlying currency. Too often, a crisis of confidence in private debt incites a dangerous cycle of public Credit (“money”) inflation. Commenting this morning on CNBC, Dr. Bullard stated, “In monetary policy, you can never say you’re done.” This is precisely the nature of inflationism.
Dr. Bullard makes passing mention of Bubble risk: “The FOMC’s near-zero interest rate policy and the associated ‘extended period’ language has caused many to worry that the Committee is fostering the creation of new, bubble-like phenomena in the economy which will eventually prove to be counterproductive. One antidote to this worry may be to increase the policy rate somewhat, while still keeping the rate at a historically low level, and then to pause at that level.”
When I read (and listen) to such comments from our leading central bankers, I can only scratch my head and ponder the degree to which they appreciate financial and economic history – including recent financial crises. Dr. Bullard’s paper suggests that the Japanese predicament of long-term substandard growth is the worst-case scenario for the U.S. economy. It is more likely the best-case.
And I find myself increasingly frustrated by the ongoing “inflation vs. deflation debate.” With today’s low level of consumer price inflation, those arguing that deflationary forces are the paramount systemic risk now dominate policy dialogue. Most tend to be inflationists. Most argue for additional stimulus and see little risk in such activist policymaking.
I see risks altogether differently. We are in the late-phase of a multi-decade historic Credit Bubble. The greatest risk at this point is that massive issuance of non-productive governmental debt foments a crisis of confidence at the very heart of our monetary system. The top priority must be to ensure that such a devastating outcome is avoided – and at significant unavoidable cost. It is imperative that we as a nation come to the recognition that real financial and economic pain must be endured to protect the long-term viability of our monetary system. The inflation rate is not the key issue. And efforts to try to inflate our way out of structural debt problems are a lost cause. We must instead move forcefully to rein in our deficits and avoid further debt monetization in order to protect the soundness of our money and Credit - or else risk a financial crash.
Most regrettably, Washington policymaking (fiscal and monetary) is on a trajectory that will inevitably destroy the creditworthiness of our nation’s vast liabilities. With ominous parallels to the mortgage/Wall Street finance Bubble, Federal Reserve policies have fostered Bubble dynamics throughout our Treasury, agency and debt markets, more generally. Instead of market dynamics working to discipline Washington’s profligate debt expansion, Federal Reserve interventions ensure that a distorted marketplace again accommodates perilous Credit excess. Our central bankers should heed Mr. Trichet’s warning. Additional quantitative ease will only fuel the Bubble and risk calamity.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / POTH: some German muslims going rad
on: July 31, 2010, 10:00:25 AM
As Some Young Muslims Turn to Radicalism, Concern Grows
By SOUAD MEKHENNET
Published: July 30, 2010
FRANKFURT — Before Abi left her parents’ house in northern Germany last year, she asked her father, “Daddy, what can I bring you from my journey?” He looked up from his book and answered, “Some perfumed oil.” “Will do,” she said, hugging him goodbye.
Enlarge This Image: A video still from a media affiliate of the Islamic Jihad Union and German Taliban Mujahedeen, is said to show a jihadist practicing his shooting skills.
He is still waiting, more than a year later, for her to return.
Abi, now 23, and her husband never made the trip they said they had planned to Saudi Arabia to visit Mecca and Medina. Instead they became part of a growing number of young Muslims from Germany and other European countries who travel to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, eventually ending up in the camps of groups affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
One German man, Eric Breininger, was later reported killed in a battle with Pakistani troops.
A Turkish-language Web site announced that in recent days nine foreign fighters were killed as they traveled to carry out operations with the Taliban. Two of them were identified as Germans, from Bonn and Berlin. Others have been arrested on a variety of charges. In one case, several people were convicted of planning attacks against American military facilities in Germany.
Intelligence officials are concerned that the young people, most in their 20s, will be used by the militants for propaganda purposes or trained to take up arms. They also worry that some will slip back into Germany to recruit others or to join sleeper cells and ultimately commit acts of terrorism.
“This is a very dangerous situation and German security services are very nervous about it,” said Guido Steinberg, terrorism expert of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. “Al Qaeda and other organizations have put Germany on their target priority list as one of the top places.”
Security officials believe that the number of young Germans who make the trip is relatively small, perhaps fewer than 200 since the early 1990s. But they also believe the number is growing, inspired in part by German-language videos on the Internet, including some made by a group called German Taliban Mujahedeen, which promise a happy life with others committed to Shariah law.
It is difficult to pin down an exact figure because most of those headed for the border regions first leave Germany by car, to elude airport security checks; many go to Turkey and then illegally into Iran, where they meet smugglers who take them to their destination.
Security officials are also troubled because it appears that whole families are now making the move, after selling all their possessions and taking their savings from the bank.
A man who helps smuggle foreigners into the region offered an explanation for the need for cash. In the past, said the man, Abu Yahia, who is from Waziristan, the militant groups once had enough money to support those who joined them. Now, he said, with all the fighting going on, the newcomers are asked to “bring enough money so they can support the groups and themselves.”
The parents of Abi — her mother is German and her father is from a West African country — are appalled by their daughter’s transformation from a Westernized dental student to a radicalized Muslim. (Fearing harassment, the parents consented to be interviewed only if their names were not disclosed. Abi is a shortened form of their daughter’s real name.)
The changes came slowly, they say, after Abi fell in love with a young Iranian man, who grew up in Germany. After marrying in a mosque in 2008 — a shock to her father, though he is Muslim — the young couple changed their behavior and their dress. He converted from Shiism, started to follow a radical Sunni form of Islam and grew his beard; she started wearing head scarves and cut off contact with friends. “My husband told her that this was not what Islam was teaching, to stop friendships, but she would not listen,” Abi’s mother said.
At the beginning of March last year, Abi, her husband and three others left their homes in Germany and ultimately made their way to the Pakistani border region of Waziristan. At the beginning Abi told her parents through e-mail that she and her husband wanted to live in an Islamic society, though her husband later sent signals to his parents that he wanted to return to Germany. But then he appeared in a propaganda video with a gun in his hand. “I knew then, that it would be very tough for them to return,” Abi’s mother said.
Security officials, as well as the parents of Abi, her husband and other parents of young people who have gone to the Pakistani border region, hope to learn more about their situation from Rami Makanesi, a 25-year-old German national of Syrian descent, who was recently arrested by Pakistani officials while in the tribal district of North Waziristan.
Page 2 of 2)
Since his arrest Mr. Makanesi has been in the custody of Pakistan’s main spy service, the ISI. According to a senior ISI official, Mr. Makanesi told Pakistani investigators that he was a member of Al Qaeda and had trained suicide bombers for them in Waziristan. “He did not leave the impression that he was someone who had no idea what he was doing there,” said the ISI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak publicly about the case.
Mr. Makanesi also spoke about dozens of Qaeda-recruited Europeans fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “He spoke about six other German men who had been in the same region with him,” the official said.
“There are connections between the circles from Hamburg to circles in Berlin, Bonn and Frankfurt,” said a senior German intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the case. “It is very possible that Mr. Makanesi has met some people from Germany who traveled from other cities as well.”
One of the families desperate for some information is that of Thomas, a 24-year-old convert to Islam who has grown more observant over the past two years. The family grew alarmed when Thomas, now using the name Haroun, and his wife began talking about moving to a place where they could practice their faith more completely.
“We went to the police and intelligence service and asked for help, because we noticed how they had changed,” his mother said. “We’ve cried for help.” But the authorities had no legal basis to intervene.
Last September, he and his wife told his parents that they were leaving Berlin for a trip to celebrate their first wedding anniversary. Instead, they made their way to Waziristan.
At the beginning, Thomas sent e-mails to his parents, telling them the living conditions were tough. Last December, he wrote that he didn’t know if he would see the next summer.
“Since then no message, no idea if he is still alive or dead, no certainty, which is making it very complicated,” his mother said.
German security officials say that they believe Thomas went through military training in Waziristan. “We have indications that he has appeared in one propaganda video, but with his face covered,” one official said.
The parents of Abi and Thomas still hope that their children will return to Germany. But security officials say that in nearly all cases those who return continue to associate with more militant Muslims.
Abi’s mother says the signals that she is getting from her daughter about a return are not very hopeful.
Abi has told her mother that Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan are oppressed and need help. That reaction is typical for her daughter, who always wanted to help people, Abi’s mother said, adding, “I was always proud of her for this.”
Then tears filled her eyes, as she said: “My husband and I became very weak because of what she has done, and I would like to ask her, ‘Doesn’t the Koran say you should never lie to your parents and have to honor them?’ ”
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / POTH: Ground Zero mosque
on: July 31, 2010, 09:42:51 AM
An influential Jewish organization on Friday announced its opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque two blocks north of ground zero in Lower Manhattan, intensifying a fierce national debate about the limits of religious freedom and the meaning of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The decision by the group, the Anti-Defamation League, touched off angry reactions from a range of religious groups, which argued that the country would show its tolerance and values by welcoming the center near the site where radical Muslims killed about 2,750 people.
But the unexpected move by the ADL, a mainstream group that has denounced what it saw as bigoted attacks on plans for the Muslim center, could well be a turning point in the battle over the project.
In New York, where ground zero has slowly blended back into the fabric of the city, government officials appear poised to approve plans for the sprawling complex, which would have as many as 15 stories and would house a prayer space, a performing arts center, a pool and a restaurant.
But around the country opposition is mounting, fueled in part by Republican leaders and conservative pundits. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, has urged “peace-seeking Muslims” to reject the center, branding it an “unnecessary provocation.” A Republican political action committee has produced a television commercial assailing the proposal. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has decried it in speeches.
The complex’s rapid evolution from a local zoning dispute into a national referendum highlights the intense and unsettled emotions that still surround the World Trade Center site nine years after the attacks.
To many New Yorkers, especially in Manhattan, it is a construction zone, passed during the daily commute or glimpsed through office windows. To some outside of the city, though, it stands as a hallowed battlefield that must be shielded and memorialized.
Those who are fighting the project argue that building a house of Muslim worship so close to ground zero is at best an affront to the families of those who died there and at worst an act of aggression that would, they say, mark the place where radical Islam achieved a blow against the United States.
“The World Trade Center is the largest loss of American life on our soil since the Civil War,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And we have not rebuilt it, which drives people crazy. And in that setting, we are told, why don’t we have a 13-story mosque and community center?”
He added: “The average American just thinks this is a political statement. It’s not about religion, and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive.”
Several family members of victims at the World Trade Center have weighed in against the plan, saying it would desecrate what amounts to a graveyard. “When I look over there and see a mosque, it’s going to hurt,” C. Lee Hanson, whose son, Peter, was killed in the attacks, said at a recent public hearing. “Build it someplace else.”
Those who support it seem mystified and flustered by the heated opposition. They contend that the project, with an estimated cost of $100 million, is intended to span the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim, not widen it.
Oz Sultan, the programming director for the center, said the complex was based on Jewish community centers and Y.M.C.A.’s in Manhattan. It is to have a board composed of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders and is intended to create a national model of moderate Islam.
“We are looking to build bridges between faiths,” Mr. Sultan said in an interview.
City officials, particularly Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, have forcefully defended the project on the grounds of religious freedom, saying that government has no place dictating where a house of worship is located. The local community board has given overwhelming backing to the project, and the city’s landmarks commission is expected to do the same on Tuesday.
“What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?” Mr. Bloomberg asked recently.
“Democracy is stronger than this,” he added. “And for us to just say no is just, I think — not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it.”
Still, the arguments against the Muslim center appear to be resonating. Polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose building it near ground zero.
Page 2 of 2)
Resistance is particularly strong among some national Republican leaders. In stump speeches, Twitter messages and op-ed articles, they have turned angry denunciations of the plan into a political rallying cry that they say has surprising potency.
The two major Republican candidates for governor of New York, Rick A. Lazio and Carl Paladino, are making it a central issue in their campaigns, attacking the state’s attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, who is also the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, for not aggressively investigating the project’s finances..
In North Carolina, Ilario Pantano, a former Marine and a Republican candidate for Congress, has also campaigned on the issue, and says it is stirring voters in his rural district, some 600 miles away from ground zero.
A few days ago, at a roadside pizza shop in the small town of Salemburg, he attacked the proposal before an enthusiastic crowd of hog farmers and military veterans.
“Uniformly, there was disgust and disdain in the room for the idea,” Mr. Pantano said.
The issue was wrenching for the Anti-Defamation League, which in the past has spoken out against anti-Islamic sentiment. But its national director, Abraham H. Foxman, said in an interview on Friday that the organization came to the conclusion that the location was offensive to families of victims of Sept. 11, and he suggested that the center’s backers should look for a site “a mile away.”
“It’s the wrong place,” Mr. Foxman said. “Find another place.”
Asked why the opposition of the families was so pivotal in the decision, Mr. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said they were entitled to their emotions.
“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”
The Anti-Defamation League’s statement drew criticism almost immediately.
“The ADL should be ashamed of itself,” said Rabbi Irwin Kula, president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, which promotes interethnic and interfaith dialogue. Speaking of the imam behind the proposed center, Feisal Abdul Rauf, he said, “Here, we ask the moderate leaders of the Muslim community to step forward, and when one of them does, he is treated with suspicion.”
C. Welton Gaddy, the president of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington group that emphasizes religious freedom, called the decision “disappointing,” and said he read about it “with a great deal of sorrow.”
On Friday, Mr. Sultan, the programming director for the proposed Muslim center, expressed surprise and sadness at the news. Told of Mr. Foxman’s remarks about the families of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “That response is just not well thought out.” He said that Muslims had also died on Sept. 11, either because they worked in the twin towers, or responded to the scene.
“The ADL has always been antibigotry,” he said. “This just does not seem consistent with their message.”
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Patriot Post on Bolton's decision
on: July 30, 2010, 01:51:45 PM
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson
Government & Politics
Judge Blocks Part of Arizona's Immigration Law
Trash left along the border by illegal aliensClinton-appointed District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked most of Arizona's immigration law this week, ruling that it would "impermissibly burden federal resources." In other words, enforcing federal law is a violation of federal law. The preliminary injunction, she said, would merely preserve the status quo and be less harmful to immigrants than allowing the law to be enforced in full. The next step for Arizona is an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Bolton said that the Justice Department's suit was "likely to succeed on the merits."
Bolton blocked the primary provisions of the law -- including those requiring state law enforcement officials to check immigration status when other legitimate contact occurs, as well as the requirement that foreigners carry their papers at all times (federal law already requires this). On the other hand, 12 provisions, including some on human smuggling and transporting illegals, were left intact. All told, though, her ruling went even further than the DoJ had hoped.
The Department of Homeland Security is bound by federal law to "respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status ... for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information." Yet Bolton wrote, "An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration ... will divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities." Or as National Review put it, "she accepts Justice's implicit argument that it's not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce."
National Review concludes:
The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it's best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department's suit -- and Judge Bolton's line of argument -- prevails, then we'll know that they don't. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim.
For the administration, the bottom line isn't the law, but getting voters from the Hispanic bloc. With the help of their Leftmedia minions, they are succeeding. Meanwhile, America's immigration system remains broken and in desperate need of repair -- preferably by those who value and uphold the Rule of Law.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues
on: July 29, 2010, 04:00:32 PM
I voted for 187 and would do so again.
187 also led some of the Mexican-Americans who voted Republican to perceive the Reps as anti-Latino and now they vote Dem. It also got some of the non-voting MAs to bother to vote, and they now vote Dem. Also, Latino citizens who came of age to vote now vote Dem in larger % than would otherwise have been the case. Given the underlying demographics, this last category is not to be underestimated and will become increasingly Democratic.
The net result here in CA is that the Rep party is locked in to a declining demographic and we are headed towards becoming like the northeast of the US we Rep victories are a great rarity and the Reps that do win are RINOs e.g. Snowe of Maine.
One reason for the perception of anti Mex/Latino bias is comments like those about "scal(ing) back welfare and transfer payments". I am NOT NOT NOT suggesting actual bias on your part. I am saying that such comments are PERCEIVED as such. The preferred story in the Mex-Amer population, and one with considerable basis in reality, is of hard working people doing the work that Americans are unwilling to do, and sending the money home to support their families. Suggestions that they are bums on welfare go over very poorly.
IMHO the Reps must align with the natural family values and entrepeneurial spirit of this population.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Patriot Post: Taxes do not create jobs
on: July 29, 2010, 11:37:17 AM
Alexander's Essay – July 29, 2010
Taxes Do NOT Create Jobs
Recovery Rhetoric v. Reality
"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands." --Thomas Jefferson
Funded by whom?Fact: Despite all of the claims by Barack Hussein Obama and his cadre of Socialists about "creating or saving" jobs through their so-called "stimulus plan," their taxing revenue out of the private sector (from this and future generations) does NOT "stimulate" private sector job growth -- quite the contrary. (Nor is there any expressed authority in our Constitution for such redistribution of wealth -- but who pays attention to that venerable old parchment?)
Late last Friday, after the White House press corpse had departed for weekend resorts, Obama released his administration's "Mid-Session Budget Review," which analyzed the results of his effort to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" with his "stimulus" plan. From almost any vantage point, the report is tantamount to an admission of failure, but Obama's rhetorical smokescreen continues to imply otherwise.
That plan, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act but more accurately known as the American Socialization and Redistribution Act, is Obama's ruse to confiscate from taxpayers -- and borrow primarily from the Red Chinese -- almost a trillion dollars, then redistribute it to his constituents through government-controlled conduits.
As George Bernard Shaw wrote, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
The deficit created by Obama's plan this year alone is projected to be $1.471 trillion. That's the largest deficit in our nation's history and the largest as a percentage of U.S. economic output since World War II. According to Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl, "Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $36,000 per household by 2020 -- an inflation-adjusted $12,000-per-household expansion of government."
Notably, if federal spending were reduced to the per-household rates under Ronald Reagan, we'd have a balanced budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. Of course, that would require cutting government spending, and such a notion is antithetical to the Socialists in control of the U.S. government. That might explain why unemployment in Washington, DC, is just 3 percent.
Of such debt, Thomas Jefferson observed, "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ... I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. ... The fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follow that, and in its turn wretchedness and oppression."
There is much to be feared because Obama's plan, if unaltered, will break the back of free enterprise and the consequence will, most assuredly, be "wretchedness and oppression."
Obama claims that his stimulus package "creates or saves jobs." Setting aside the utter ridiculousness of this made-up metric and the mainstream media's willingness to let him trot it out, Obama's "stimulus" does nothing more than take income from the private sector and use it to grow government. It is not about job creation but about job displacement. It's about embezzling funds from the private sector to underwrite jobs that a small cadre of central government planners determines are necessary to further centralize their power and control over the economy.
Memo to Obama, et al.: Private sector job creation occurs when private enterprises have sufficient capital to improve and expand their operations in order to meet growing demand in a competitive, healthy economy. The job creation that occurs when the private sector is able to compete in a free market unfettered by excessive government interference (taxation and regulation) is the most stable and secure type of job growth.
Of course, taxes are necessary to fund some government jobs -- most notably those actually authorized by our Constitution, such as in national defense.
However, the current debate is not even centered on tax reductions, but merely holding the line on taxes now. When the current Bush-era tax rate limits expire on 1 January 2011, Obama will, without a single vote in Congress, usher in the largest tax increases in the history of our Republic, even if Congress extends breaks for the lower brackets. This business of sunsetting tax limits is a charade -- cut taxes and then Congress must vote to increase taxes. As it is, the Socialists look heroic for extending tax breaks on all but the "rich."
Here is the breakdown:
The 10% bracket rises to 15%
The 25% bracket rises to 28%
The 28% bracket rises to 31%
The 33% bracket rises to 36%
The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
The "marriage penalty" and "death tax" will also return, and for more than half of Americans who have substantial savings and investments, the capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent to 20 percent and the dividends tax will rise from 15 percent to 39.6 percent.
This is what I know for certain, firsthand, as a small business owner: If my taxes were lower, I would have more capital to provide salary and wage increases, hire more employees and purchase more equipment to grow our business.
Republicans claim that those hit hardest by Obama's tax increases will be small business owners. But make no mistake: Those hit hardest by Obama's tax increases will not be the owners of small businesses. Instead, they will be the employees of small businesses -- those who like to be employed, those who employ others to provide services and produce equipment for small businesses, those who maintain the physical plants of small businesses, etc.
As Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) lectured uber-Leftist Chris Matthews recently, more than "75 percent of those people who pay that [highest] tax rate are small businesses who file as individuals, not corporations."
I know this, because I'm one of them.
If you're among those who've been led to believe that the current U.S. tax code is "fair" because it's "progressive" (that is, it seizes a much greater percentage of capital from those who create wealth and private sector jobs), I would argue that, from the perspective of those in need of jobs, the current tax system is regressive, as it reduces employment opportunity. When was the last time you were offered a career job by a poor person?
Rejecting the oppression of such taxes, Jefferson wrote, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry ... has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who ... have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
In fact, the current job outlook for the unemployed has grown much worse under Obama. There are now five Americans seeking a job for every one job opening.
Of course, socialists decry any effort to replace their "tax-borrow-and-spend" Keynesian mantra with a simple flat or national sales tax. Aside from saving Americans billions of hours of tax-time toil, this would spread the burden of the cost of government over a greater share of American taxpayers.
Let me reiterate: Taxes do not "save or create" private sector jobs, but merely redistribute wealth from the most productive part of the economy (the private sector) to the least productive (the government). That truth, however, will not stop Obama's unmitigated assault on free enterprise. He and his administration will continue to use two tactics to argue for tax increases and more government growth.
First, Obama is the consummate blame-shifter, rarely talking about the economy without mentioning that he "inherited this mess" from the previous administration. In truth, the "Bush deficits" are primarily the result of two events. One was the devastating effect of the Jihadi 9/11 attack on our nation, which wounded the economy, lowered tax revenues, and greatly increased the cost of defending our nation. The other was the cascading crisis of confidence which began with central government meddling in the housing markets and ended in a near collapse of our economy.
So much for the once noble Democrat Party of men like Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman.
Second, once Obama dismisses the current fiasco as the result of "failed policies of the past," he trots out the old classist rhetoric upon which every failed socialist regime has been built: the Politics of Disparity.
But don't take my word for it. Here's a sampling of recent fodder from the ObamaPrompter: "hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest ... hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans ... a massive deficit ... neglected to pay for two tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans ... tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans ... we're going to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay ... more effective in stimulating recovery than tax breaks for the very wealthiest ... the wealthiest 1 percent of households ... tax breaks to the wealthiest few that make the rich richer and the deficit even larger ... save billions of dollars by rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest ... tax breaks that make the rich even richer ... economy that was working pretty well for the wealthiest Americans ... programs would be funded by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans ... instead of giving all the tax breaks to the wealthiest few ... massive tax cuts for the richest Americans ... the policies were, you cut taxes for the richest people who don't need tax cuts," ad nauseam.
Obama has cleverly twisted the tax lexicon to the point where he now calls tax increases "investments" and claims that tax cuts "cost the government."
Meanwhile, Obama's favorite lap dog, Joe Biden, was out shoring up support for more taxing and spending. "Americans deserve a government that actually works, a government that people can trust; government that people can rely on; and a government that actually gets things done effectively, efficiently, without waste, without fraud, without abuse," he boasted. "We're trying to build a government that delivers much more bang for the buck than it ever has before. So far, we've spent $600 billion..."
What Americans deserve is a lot less government and a lot more free enterprise capacity to grow our economy. That capacity is central to liberty.
Best case scenario, it will take several election cycles before we have enough conservative members of Congress to replace the U.S. tax code with an equitable system that promotes economic growth. In the interim, I humbly submit the Alexander stimulus plan: Cut taxes dramatically for all Americans, make equal cuts in discretionary government spending anywhere and everywhere, and reduce non-discretionary spending by altering the terms of social programs.
I can assure you that if a trillion dollars had been pumped into the economy in the form of tax and regulatory relief, we'd be well down the road to recovery.
As Jefferson put it, "Excessive taxation ... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election."
One might only hope a majority of the electorate has the capacity for such reason and reflection.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues
on: July 29, 2010, 10:02:46 AM
" I'll say that this is far from over and that Holder and Obama are soon to have their arrogant asses handed to them by the little Governor from AZ"
Maybe with SCOTUS, but by the time it gets in front of SCOTUS it may well be in time to help His Glibness fire up the Hispanic vote. IMHO so far the Reps are not doing what needs to be done to prevent this from being a replay of CA's Prop 187. 187 won, and now the Reps are toast with the Mexican-American vote in CA and as such are toast period.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
on: July 29, 2010, 01:11:20 AM
DF Cpl. Elinor Joseph was born in Gush Halav in the Galilee to an Arab Christian family. Her father served as a paratrooper in the IDF. She identifies herself as “Arab, Christian, and Israeli.”
(Foto: She is quite foxy)
“I was born here. The people I love live here – my parents, my friends. This is a Jewish state? True. But it’s also my country. I can’t imagine living anywhere else. I believe that everyone should enlist. You live here? Go defend your country. So what if I’m Arab?”
“Look at the beret,” says Elinor, smiling from ear to ear, showing off the bright green beret that she earned after completing the trek which is part of her combat training in the Karakal Battalion. Her excitement is accompanied by a new historical precedent, since Elinor is the first Arab female combat soldier in IDF history.
Cpl. Elinor Joseph was born and raised in an integrated neighborhood of Jews and Arabs in Haifa, but attended a school in which all her classmates were Arab. Despite the fact that she would always wear her father’s IDF dog-tag around her neck from when he served in the Paratrooper’s Unit, she never thought she would enlist. “I wanted to go abroad to study medicine and never come back,” she said. To her father it was clear that she would enlist in the IDF, as most citizens in Israel do. This was something that worried her very much. “I was scared to lose my friends because they objected to it. They told me they wouldn’t speak to me. I was left alone.”
Despite their opposition, she decided to move forward and enlist. I understood that it was most important to defend my friends, family, and country. I was born here.” At the end of the day, she says she realized it was the right thing to do.
[Elinor] Joseph serves in the Caracal battalion, which operates on the Egyptian border to block the entry of terrorists and smugglers into Israel.
The difficult dilemma she felt in serving at a border crossing was not easy for her but she said during moments of difficulty and misgiving she would remember, “there was a Katyusha [rocket] that fell near my house and also hurt Arabs. If someone would tell me that serving in the IDF means killing Arabs, I remind them that Arabs also kill Arabs.”http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/...ombat-soldier/
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stratfor: French declare war on AQIM
on: July 29, 2010, 01:04:35 AM
France Declares War on AQIM
French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Tuesday that France was at war with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). The statement came after AQIM declared two days earlier that it had killed a 78-year-old French aid worker who had been held hostage by the group since April 19. Michel Germaneau was reportedly beheaded by his AQIM captors in retaliation for a joint French-Mauritanian raid in Mali, which aimed to free Germaneau. Following Fillon’s blunt declaration, French politicians — including the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Parliament — stated that France would provide logistical support and training to the governments in the region, especially Mauritania, Mali and Niger, in their ongoing efforts against AQIM.
France’s reaction to Germaneau’s death has been strong and direct, suggesting that Paris is potentially about to divert its attention to a region it knows very well, dating back to its days as a colonial power. The “declaration of war” is not so much about terrorism as it is about France’s fundamental national interests.
The French presence in West Africa goes back to the 17th century. The French incorporated their various trading outposts into French West Africa in 1895, largely as a response to colonial competition with European imperial rivals. However, other than certain parts of the Niger and Senegal River valleys (a substantive part of the Niger River flowed through British territory in present-day Nigeria), the rest of the enormous territory ranged from sparse desert to the semi-arid Sahel region, inhabited by nomadic tribes that offered no significant economic benefit for Paris. France retained a direct imperial presence in the region for nearly 70 more years and then continued its influence throughout the Cold War via direct patronage of post-independence West African leaders.
French policy in Africa was part of a Gaullist foreign policy employed during the Cold War. This fiercely independent policy led France not only to retain links with — and to a large extent control over — its former colonies, but also to develop a nuclear deterrent and establish relations with the Soviet bloc independent of its NATO allies. Paris saw itself as the pre-eminent political and military power in Europe — with German economic might harnessed for French political gains via the European Economic Community —that justified not only independence in military and political affairs but also a continued presence in its former empire unmatched by any other European country. Even if the former colonies provided little economic gain — aside from funneling illicit funds for the campaigns of various French politicians, including presidential candidates — they provided France with a “bloc” of countries to call its own that enhanced its prestige during the Cold War.
“The ‘declaration of war’ is not so much about terrorism as it is about France’s fundamental national interests.”
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has therefore been seen as a break in the Gaullist tradition. He reintroduced the French military into NATO’s military command, began repairing relations with the United States that had deteriorated during the presidency of his Gaullist predecessor Jacques Chirac and indicated that French patronage for West African regimes would end. Part of the reason that Sarkozy ditched Gaullism was that he believed that there was no need for France to maintain a “bloc” in distant former colonies, not with the Cold War over and the global game reformatted into a more regional affair. German reunification, of course, played a large role in this shift in French focus, as Paris now felt that balancing Berlin — rather than the United States or Russia — was the real strategic imperative in 2007.
However, ditching Gaullism has proven to be more complicated and less useful than Paris might have thought in 2007. First, the United States’ involvement in the Middle East has made it an inattentive partner for France. The United States has focused wholly on what France can do for its efforts in the Middle East — especially Afghanistan — leaving Sarkozy feeling ignored on European issues. Second, the global economic crisis of 2008 and the eurozone sovereign debt crisis of 2010 have shown Paris that its fate is either with Germany as second-in-command or on the receiving end of German directives. It is a relationship more akin to that of the supposed “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and the United States than one of true partnership or co-leadership.
But as such, Paris needs to have something to contribute to the relationship. Certainly its influence in the Third World is one form of political capital that Berlin does not bring to the table. From it, France not only derives influence in matters of development aid and diplomatic influence, but also — as the case with AQIM could prove — in security and anti-terror matters as well. Berlin still feels uncomfortable with these policy realms and could be convinced to outsource to Paris. This is especially true considering Germany’s lack of capacity in the security arena, certainly compared to France. Therefore, France may be able to prove that it provides the “muscle” behind German economic might.
But a French security role in West Africa — if one develops — is not just about redefining post-Gaullist foreign policy. It would also be about real interests that France never lost in the region, Cold War or not. France is one of the few countries with the capacity — and will — to conduct military operations in Africa (however limited) when its security is provoked. Paris sent commandos to the coast of Somalia when pirates hijacked French citizens. They also remain the only forces to have gone ashore in Somalia to capture pirates, taking them to France for punishment. France still maintains garrisons in a handful of African countries, for defending allied governments or its own commercial interests.
And those commercial interests are particularly acute in West Africa. Holding vast territory was seen in the 19th century as a benefit only in terms of prestige. Today that territory is vital to the French economy, since beneath the sands of Niger lies the source of 40 percent of France’s uranium consumption, set to substantially increase in the current decade as new mining projects come online. While AQIM has not threatened uranium production in the past, the roaming Tuareg nomads have. The two may not share an ideological affinity, but they have worked together previously to share resources. Considering that France relies on nuclear energy for nearly 80 percent of its electricity, the Sahel region is arguably more important to France than the Persian Gulf region is to the United States. Paris understandably tenses up whenever any threat arises that potentially could disrupt its uranium mining operations in Niger. France’s activity and security presence in the region therefore not only makes sense to a Paris looking to redefine its role within the Franco-German leadership duo, but in terms of real national interest as well.
DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / To speak or not to speak
on: July 28, 2010, 08:53:28 PM
An interesting thought piece from Gabe Suarez (a former LEO btw):
One of the things that is incessantly being discussed in the CCW/LEO community is the after-event-discourse. In other words, what do you say...or not, after you have whacked an attacker. As expected, the variety of advice is as different as people's choices in guns and ammo. A prevailing attitude is to simply shut up and say nothing under any circumstances. I disagree and here is why -
I have been in more than a few of these and also investigated quite a few of these. I noted some trends and tried to use those trends to my benefits when it was my turn at the plate.
First is the fact that the bad guys will not be "keeping quiet". They will be telling the cops you pulled your gun on them, perhaps create some appearance of racism if they can exploit it, and generally make it look like you are the over-reacting, racist, bad guy. What happened may not be obvious to the cops who come out to investigate...specially if the majority of witnesses are against you.
So picture this scene. Two guys have been, as we used to say, "eye f*cking you", and followed you for some time, maybe yelling threatening stuff at you. While you did your best to avoid the issue, you were unsuccessful in getting away and they pressed the confrontation, attacking you with sufficient force to justify a gun solution.
You shoot one of them, maybe wounding him - maybe killing him, and the other one runs off into the night. You saw the first man drop his pistol in a clump of ivy and the other man throw his knife on a rooftop as he ran away.
You immediately call 911 and give a very cryptic account of what happened..."there has been a shooting...I'm the victim...send help".
In the meantime, one of the assailants...the one who got away, is also calling. His story is a little different. According to him you called them "Dirty Ghetto Norwegians", and pulled your gun on them, shooting his buddy. As far as the police know...they got two calls. One a cryptic call, from someone who seemed to be concealing something, and another reporting what amounts to a racial hate crime by a right wing Nazi.
They arrive on scene and after controlling the event, ask you what happened. What you do now will have a bearing on the rest of your life.
The guys who advocate saying nothing will not be able to point to the two weapons which were discarded...and which will disappear as soon as the scene is cleared. The police may not even look for them since no one told them they were in existence. No one will tell them you are a good guy who was a victim of an attempted robbery, as the ONLY info paints you as some KKK wannabe.
Sure...you'll have a lawyer...but all of the evidence the police may have collected will no longer be available, and the investigation will not have been an even and equal one, but rather one where you alone are the suspect.
See the point?? I know a man who did just that...kept his mouth shut because of what a shooting instructor advised him to do and he spent several weeks in jail, had two criminal trials, and is now facing a civil suit from one of his attackers.
Is it hard to control your mouth? Yes it is. But no harder than to control your trigger finger, your desire to drink to excess, or to control the vertical displacement of your zipper. On self control, it is a learned thing and must be practiced daily. Maybe self control is too hard for the modern, self-indulgent, metro-sexual male, but as the Nike commercial said....Just Do It.
It, like many other things, can be trained and developed. If you ignore it, it will never be developed.
Think in these terms...you train gun handling and shooting skills to make them reflexive in the most stressful event someone is ever likely to face....and we tend to do fine. The guys who never train...thinking they will "rise to the occasion" invariably fail. To say, "I will simply say nothing", is in that same line of thinking is it not?
What I have done, with success, is this. I give a very limited statement, focusing on the actions of the bad guys, and them excuse myself from any further questions until my mouthpiece...I mean, attorney, arrives.
Anything I say focuses on what the bad guy(s) have done and not on what I may have done. Something like this -
"Officer. I am glad you are here. Thank God."
"I am a good guy. I was minding my own business on my way home when those two guys attacked me."
"The one in the blue shirt had a knife. He threw it up there on the roof as he ran away. There should be some blood on it from my arm when I blocked his attempt to stab me."
"The guy on the gurney was armed with a pistol. He dropped it right there in that pile of ivy when he fell."
"I was terrified. I am still terrified. Boy am I glad you guys are here. "
"Listen...I am still a little shaken up. I want to cooperate with you guys. This has never happened to me (or this hasn't happened in a while). I have heard stories of good guys getting sued later for saying too much. My attorney is on his way and as soon as he arrives I will be happy to give a full statement with him there. Until then, I think I need to sit down and calm my blood pressure."
At that point things are no longer in your control but you have set the investigation on the proper course, and the truth will be determined instead of being overlooked.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Other things being equal
on: July 28, 2010, 08:23:10 PM
I'm going to live a very long time.
Frankfurt, Germany, December 6 -- A rather bizarre study carried out by German researchers suggests that staring at women's breasts is good for men's health and increases their life expectancy.
According to Dr. Karen Weatherby, a gerontologist and author of the study, gawking at women’s breasts is a healthy practice, almost at par with an intense exercise regime, that prolongs the lifespan of a man by five years.
She added, "Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female, is roughly equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out."
A five-year research on 500 men
Researchers at three hospitals in Frankfurt, Germany did an in-depth analysis of 200 healthy males over a period of five years. Half the volunteers were instructed to ogle at the breasts of women daily, while the rest were told to refrain from doing so.
At the close of the study, the researchers noted that the men who stared at the breasts of females on a regular basis exhibited lower blood pressure, slower resting pulse rates and lesser episodes of coronary artery disease.
Sexual desire linked to better blood circulation
The researchers declared that sexual desire gives rise to better blood circulation that signifies an overall improved health.
Weatherby explained the concept stating, "Sexual excitement gets the heart pumping and improves blood circulation. There's no question: Gazing at breasts makes men healthy.
"Our study indicates that engaging in this activity a few minutes daily cuts the risk of stroke and heart attack in half. We believe that by doing so consistently, the average man can extend his life four to five years."
In addition, she also recommended that men over 40 should gaze at larger breasts daily for 10 minutes.
The German research is believed to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Interesting LA Times article
on: July 28, 2010, 03:20:54 PM
As Congress debated the healthcare bill, many critics lamented it would do little to transform a system in which doctors and hospitals bounce patients around in an uncoordinated, costly, sometimes tragic process.
But something unexpected has happened since President Obama signed the legislation in March. Spurred in part by the law, many independent providers across the country are racing to mold themselves into the kind of coordinated teams held up as models for improving care. In some places, the scramble is so intense that physician groups and hospitals are putting aside rivalries and signing new partnerships almost daily.
"It's kind of like the Oklahoma land rush right now," said Patrick Carrier, a veteran hospital administrator who heads Christus Santa Rosa, a group of Catholic hospitals in San Antonio. "Everyone has their wagons lined up and they're getting ready to go."
Three of San Antonio's hospital systems are competing to form alliances with local doctors who are giving up their private fee-for-service practices in exchange for paid positions on a hospital's team.
Healthcare experts have long argued that such a unified approach to medical care offers the best hope for improving quality and saving money. While a few institutions such as the Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente have thrived doing this, the entrenched, competing interests of providers were widely seen as a barrier to nationwide change. It is possible the current rush will fail to reproduce the best models or their results. Further consolidation in the $2.5-trillion healthcare industry might drive up costs for everyone. It could also reprise problems from the 1990s, when HMOs were criticized for restricting patient choice and access to care. But some experts and providers see the new courtship dances as a surprisingly hopeful sign. The healthcare debate may have helped spark doctors, hospitals and others to rethink what they do, raising the prospect of better outcomes for millions of Americans.
"There are a lot of people who have reached the conclusion that they need to change the way they practice medicine," said Dr. Mark B. McClellan, a former Medicare and Medicaid chief in the George W. Bush administration and a leading advocate of more care coordination.
In San Antonio, the leaders of the Christus Santa Rosa hospital have made that very calculation. Over nearly a century and a half, Santa Rosa's onetime infirmary a few blocks from the Alamo stanched cholera outbreaks and saved polio victims in a ward filled with iron lungs. But it operated on a fairly standard business model.
"We looked at our daily census, and if our beds were filled, we'd say, 'We're doing our job,'" Carrier said. "The more people we have in our beds, the more money we earn."
In Santa Rosa's cardiac telemetry ward, that is still the way it works. Recent patients included a 48-year-old man and a 71-year-old woman with congestive heart failure, and a 76-year-old woman with high blood pressure. Such chronic conditions, if treated properly, need not lead to a hospital stay.
The new law directs Medicare to reward alliances of healthcare providers, known as Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs, if they reduce the cost of caring for patients like these while improving quality. That would likely mean fewer hospitalizations — and less income for Santa Rosa.
"In the new world, we're going to have to manage patients' diseases to manage expenses," Carrier said.
The best way to do that, he and others at Santa Rosa have concluded, is to work more closely with doctors, who now largely determine whom to admit to the hospital.
"Some folks are beginning to say that if you're not an ACO, you may not get paid at all," said Peter Maddox, senior vice president for strategy at Christus Health, the Catholic healthcare system that owns Santa Rosa.
Half a dozen times a week, Carrier meets with independently practicing doctors, talking with them about ways to collaborate and even trade their independence for a good pay package from Santa Rosa. And he's not alone.
"Every group of doctors I talk to is also talking to someone else," Carrier said.
Ultimately, Carrier said, Santa Rosa would like to put 100 primary care doctors on the payroll or in some other arrangement so the hospital and the doctors could manage patients' care jointly and benefit from incentives that Medicare and other insurers may offer.
Not everyone is interested in these overtures. Dr. Manuel M. Quinones Jr., who dissolved a partnership with Santa Rosa several years ago, said physicians should be wary. "When a hospital controls the lion's share, it will always be first in line to get the money," he said.
But like Carrier, many doctors in San Antonio see a changing world in which it's increasingly difficult to practice on their own.
"It's scary," said Dr. A. Charles Rabinowitz, a cardiologist who has watched many colleagues sell their practices. "There is a lot of paranoia out there."
Dr. C. Scott Horn, a family physician in suburban San Antonio, is carefully weighing offers from two hospital systems.
"I don't want to be told that I can only see a patient for 15 minutes," said Horn, the great-grandson of a Texas family doctor. "If someone comes in with an earache and tells me they're getting divorced and their life is falling apart, I'm not going to say, 'Sorry, make another appointment.'"
But practicing independently, Horn wrestles with multiple insurers, uncertain Medicare payments and new requirements to start using electronic health records. Though he has not decided what to do, he is intrigued by a different kind of healthcare model.
"It leads to the best medicine if the people delivering care talk to one another," the 63-year-old physician said. "That may be hard to get going. But in the long run, it's going to be better for patients."
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Patriot Post
on: July 28, 2010, 02:51:18 PM
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." --Thomas Jefferson
Nancy Pelosi has it backward on deficits"A major poll just gave Congress a favorability rating of 11% -- lowest in history. Never, it seems, have our representatives in Washington been so disconnected from the people they purport to serve. The disconnect was most evident in separate comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at a conference of the far-left group Netroots Nation last weekend in Las Vegas. Both weighed in on vital topics. Both revealed why they're so out of touch with reality. Pelosi told the audience she adamantly opposes raising the retirement age for Social Security and said the Depression-era program shouldn't be cut to help reduce the deficit. 'When you talk about reducing the deficit and Social Security, you're talking about apples and oranges,' she said. She has it exactly backward. The No. 1 problem facing this nation is the massive deficit we face over the next 75 years, due almost entirely to the expansion of Social Security and Medicare. The only way to address the deficit is to address entitlements. ... Meanwhile, the speaker had the chutzpah -- or maybe it was twisted humor -- to tell the Netroot folks that Democrats are 'moving on all fronts to reduce the deficit.' ... Reid's comments, made to the same Netroot group, were equally absurd -- and no doubt offensive to voters. After his party insisted during more than a year of debate over the health care overhaul that they did not want a single-payer public option, Reid gloated to the Netroot gathering: 'We're going to have a public option. It's just a question of when.' ... Nor does Reid, like Pelosi, get that Social Security is in a deep crisis. He called it 'the most successful social program in the history of the world.' Successful? A program that socks future generations with trillions in higher taxes and lower standards of living? A program that's already running in the red and whose unsustainable finances promise to push the U.S. to the verge of bankruptcy? The arrogance of Reid's and Pelosi's remarks underscore the problems that the Democrats have with the electorate. They promised moderation and fiscal responsibility. Instead, we got a radical expansion of government power." --Investor's Business Daily
"Has anyone stopped to consider that we might come closer to balancing the budget if all of us simply tried to live up to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule?" --Ronald Reagan
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." --cultural anthropologist and writer Margaret Mead (1901-1978)
"In case Al Qaeda, its cohorts, and their sponsors lack for summer reading, WikiLeaks ... has just tipped out onto the web a trove of classified U.S. military documents on the war in Afghanistan. As far as there's an upside to this, some of the concerns described in the documents may help focus attention on the problem of nuclear-armed Pakistan's double-dealing in fostering Islamist terrorism, while receiving huge handouts from the U.S. in its role as an ally. ... But in the larger picture, such leaks are routinely cherry-picked by the U.S. media, and in turn by the world media, for anything damning to the U.S. ... Not only will America's enemies now enjoy a chance to cull the leaked documents for any useful intelligence, but odds are that this huge data dump will become the latest ammo in the hands of the Blame-America-First contingent." --columnist Claudia Rosett
"The next time you hear a liberal scoffing at the idea that the American left has a set of 'talking points,' or that they're 'reading from the same script,' tell him to google 'JournoList.' Frankly, it is completely unsurprising that 400, invitation-only, members of leftist media, academia, think tanks and political activist associations would be attempting to coordinate their political strategy. When your ideology is bankrupt, the only thing left is strength in numbers. And when you revere the collectivist aspirations of Marxist/socialist all-encompassing government, 'group-think' becomes as natural as breathing." --columnist Arnold Ahlert
"From Karl Marx to today, the Left has always hated people on the Right, not merely differed or been angry with them. The question is: why? Here are three possible answers. First, the left thinks the right is evil. ... Second, when you don't confront real evil, you hate those who do. ... Third, the left's utopian vision is prevented only by the right. ... Hatred of conservatives is so much part of the left that the day the left stops hating conservatives will mark the beginning of the end of the left as we know it." --columnist Dennis Prager
"The more the president appeals to his base in racial terms, the more his appointees identify themselves as members of a particular tribe, and the more political issues are framed by racial divisions, so all the more such racial obsession creates a backlash among the racially diverse American people. America has largely moved beyond race. Tragically, our president and a host of his supportive special interests have not." --historian Victor Davis Hanson
"Elites may have more brilliance, but those who make decisions for society as a whole cannot possibly have as much experience as the millions of people whose decisions they pre-empt. The education and intellects of the elites may lead them to have more sweeping presumptions, but that just makes them more dangerous to the freedom, as well as the well-being, of the people as a whole." --economist Thomas Sowell
Slamming Fox: "What is similar about Fox News' extensive coverage of some of the stories that most in the other media didn't give much attention to? And I'll take them to you right now. I'll spell them out for you: Van Jones, the New Black Panther story, ACORN, Shirley Sherrod. What's similar about those stories?" --CNN's Rick Sanchez (Uh, they all involve racist leftists for starters.)
The BIG Lie: "You see, I think a lot of Americans think that, well gosh no, we don't want the tax cuts to expire. Ninety-eight percent of you, it doesn't even affect you." --MSNBC's Ed Schultz
Doesn't get it: "[W]hat I don't quite get is a lot of the people who are shouting about letting these tax cuts expire, they don't want it to happen, are the same people who are shouting about the deficit, and how troubling it is that the national debt is skyrocketing. And you can't have it both ways." --MSNBC's economics mastermind Contessa Brewer
Charity government: "Should George Steinbrenner's heirs pony up a voluntary contribution to the government from their estimated $500 million windfall because the federal estate tax has temporarily lapsed? 'It's an excellent question,' a smiling Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner said Thursday. At a breakfast with reporters, Geithner also was asked how he felt about The Boss' heirs cleaning up because of Steinbrenner's July 13 death -- an extremely timely demise in the tax sense. Geithner ducked, but did say he's upset Congress hasn't fixed a situation that denies the Treasury billions in unpaid taxes from wealthy Americans who die this year." --New York Daily News columnist Thomas DeFrank (The tax rate is 0 percent, meaning nobody is leaving taxes "unpaid.")
Dr. Freud, call your office: "Will the Democrats running for the House re-election, they're all running for re-election under the Constitution, and the Senate candidates, will they run away from President O'Carter? I mean, will they run away." --MSNBC's Chris Matthews, with a Freudian slip
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rolling back the State
on: July 28, 2010, 12:57:40 PM
We kick off this new thread with a really good idea from our Canadian friends:
Stephen Taylor: The beginning of the end of the Canadian welfare state
Stephen Taylor July 26, 2010 – 10:45 am
I received a call last week from a reporter around noon about what he
conceded was “the story that just won’t go away.” He was, of course, talking
about the census. He wanted to know if I could pass on a few names of
possible interviews for right-wingers that support the government’s stand to
scrap the long-form census. Of course, there are the folks over at the
Western Standard who are taking up their obvious position against the
mandatory “burden,” but in broader view, it got me thinking about who
opposes the government’s plan and why the story would not just go away.
Every day it seems that there’s a new group of people lining up to bemoan
the Industry Minister’s announcement that the census would forego the
mandatory long-form. Certainly, this illustrates a serious problem that
Stephen Harper faces as Prime Minister. Facing an opposition that can’t get
its act together is one thing, but a nation where the voices of special
interests are louder than ordinary citizens is another.
Indeed in this country, there are two groups of people. In fact, some would
call these groups the haves and the have-nots. This is an not inaccurate way
of describing it, but those that would might have the two switched.
Canadians form two groups: those that receive from the government and those
that pay to the government. Those who form — or are constituent to —
organizations dependent on government policy (and spending) are firmly
against the changes to the census. Those on the other side are largely
ambivalent because they are the large, unorganized and unsubsidized net
The conservative/libertarian Fraser Institute think tank’s motto is “if it
matters, measure it.” The untruth of the inverse of this statement is at the
centre of why this government should follow through. “If you measure it, it
matters” is the motto of those net tax-receiving organizations who only
matter if they can make their case. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tried
the ideological argument against these groups for years. But ideology is by
its nature debatable; removing the framework of debate is his shortcut to
If Stephen Harper succeeds in moving in this direction, he will be in the
initial stages of dealing a huge blow to the welfare state. If one day we
have no idea how many divorced Hindu public transit users there are in East
Vancouver, government policy will not be concocted to address them
specifically. Indeed if this group were organized (the DHPTUEV?) and looking
for government intervention, they’d be against the census change. The
trouble is that in Canada, the non-affiliated taxpayers not looking for a
handout have not organized. Indeed, the only dog they have in this fight is
the amount of tax they pay (aka “transfers”) to sustain the interests of
QMI’s David Akin exclaimed surprise that from his cell within the beehive of
special interests that is Ottawa, he was shocked to find that a full half —
that other half — of Canadians aren’t upset about the changes to the census
when it seems that’s the only thing the other bees seem to be buzzing about.
The story that “just won’t go away” is a flurry of activity “inside the
beehive,” because until you go outside, you can’t see the forest for the
The other recent Lockheed Martin-related news story of the past couple of
weeks was the Conservative government’s huge sole-sourced $16-billion
contract with Lockheed Martin to buy F-35 fighter jets. Perhaps I was a bit
naive to think that every part of that sentence should be offensive to the
Ottawa media… sole-sourced… American arms dealer… flying war machines…
Conservative government. No, this largest military purchase in Canadian
history didn’t even make a significant blip on the Ottawa establishment
radar, simply because it didn’t challenge the position of any special
interest groups. There’s no bevy of community/cultural/government
organizations ready to line up to criticize/laud such a move. If the
government had taken $16-billion out of HRSDC’s $80+ billion annual budget
to pay for it, however, there’d be a swarm.
I believe that this Prime Minister has a few objectives in mind as he
integrates seemingly transactional initiatives into something
transformative. First, he merged the Progressive Conservative party and the
Canadian Alliance to challenge what seemed to be entrenched Liberal
electoral domination. Through initiatives such as financial starvation via
election finance reform and ideological force-feeding on the policy front,
Stephen Harper seeks to diminish or destroy the Liberal Party to replace
them with the Conservatives as Canada’s default choice for government. His
greatest challenge is to dismantle the modern welfare state. If it can’t be
measured, future governments can’t pander. I imagine that Stephen Harper’s
view, Canada should be a country of individual initiative, not one of
collective dependence “justified” through the collection of data.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Peek-a-boo, we don't get to see you: SEC exempt
on: July 28, 2010, 12:28:41 PM
SEC Says New FinReg Law Exempts It From Public Disclosure
By Dunstan Prial
Published July 28, 2010
So much for transparency.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."
The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
If the SEC’s interpretation stands, Mintz, who represents FOX Business Network, predicted “the next time there is a Bernie Madoff failure the American public will not be able to obtain the SEC documents that describe the failure,” referring to the shamed broker whose Ponzi scheme cost investors billions.
The SEC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Criticism of the provision has been swift. “It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” said Gary Aguirre, a former SEC staff attorney-turned-whistleblower who had accused the agency of thwarting an investigation into hedge fund Pequot Asset Management in 2005. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”
Aguirre used FOIA requests in his own lawsuit against the SEC, which the SEC settled this year by paying him $755,000. Aguirre, who was fired in September 2005, argued that supervisors at the SEC stymied an investigation of Pequot – a charge that prompted an investigation by the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees.
The SEC closed the case in 2006, but would re-open it three years later. This year, Pequot and its founder, Arthur Samberg, were forced to pay $28 million to settle insider-trading charges related to shares of Microsoft (MSFT: 25.86 ,-0.30 ,-1.15%). The settlement with Aguirre came shortly later.
“From November 2008 through January 2009, I relied heavily on records obtained from the SEC through FOIA in communications to the FBI, Senate investigators, and the SEC in arguing the SEC had botched its initial investigation of Pequot’s trading in Microsoft securities and thus the SEC should reopen it, which it did,” Aguirre said. “The new legislation closes access to such records, even when the investigation is closed.
“It is hard to imagine how the bill could be more counterproductive,” Aguirre added.
FOX Business Network sued the SEC in March 2009 over its failure to produce documents related to its failed investigations into alleged investment frauds being perpetrated by Madoff and R. Allen Stanford. Following the Madoff and Stanford arrests it, was revealed that the SEC conducted investigations into both men prior to their arrests but failed to uncover their alleged frauds.
FOX Business made its initial request to the SEC in February 2009 seeking any information related to the agency’s response to complaints, tips and inquiries or any potential violations of the securities law or wrongdoing by Stanford.
FOX Business has also filed lawsuits against the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve over their failure to respond to FOIA requests regarding use of the bailout funds and the Fed’s extended loan facilities. In February, the Federal Court in New York sided with FOX Business and ordered the Treasury to comply with its requests.
Last year, the network won a legal victory to force the release of documents related to New York University’s lawsuit against Madoff feeder Ezra Merkin.
FOX Business’ FOIA requests have so far led the SEC to release several important and damaging documents:
•FOX Business used the FOIA to obtain a 2005 survey that the SEC in Fort Worth was sending to Stanford investors. The survey showed that the SEC had suspicions about Stanford several years prior to the collapse of his $7 billion empire.
•FOX Business used the FOIA to obtain copies of emails between Federal Reserve lawyers, AIG and staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in which it was revealed the Fed staffers knew that bailing out AIG would result in bonuses being paid.
Recently, TARP Congressional Oversight Panel chair Elizabeth Warren told FOX Business that the network’s Freedom of Information Act efforts played a “very important part” of the panel’s investigation into AIG.
Warren told the network the government “crossed a line” with the AIG bailout.
“FOX News and the congressional oversight panel has pushed, pushed, pushed, for transparency, give us the documents, let us look at everything. Your Freedom of Information Act suit, which ultimately produced 250,000 pages of documentation, was a very important part of our report. We were able to rely on the documents that you pried out for a significant part of our being able to put this report together,” Warren said.
The SEC first made its intention to block further FOIA requests known on Tuesday. FOX Business was preparing for another round of “skirmishes” with the SEC, according to Mintz, when the agency called and said it intended to use Section 929I of the 2000-page legislation to refuse FBN’s ongoing requests for information.
Mintz said the network will challenge the SEC’s interpretation of the law.
“I believe this is subject to challenge,” he said. “The contours will have to be figured out by a court.”
SEC Financial Regulatory Law H.R. 4173
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Friends of Angelo
on: July 28, 2010, 07:17:02 AM
'Reform' missed 'friends of Angelo'
By STEPHEN B. MEISTER
Last Updated: 12:26 AM, July 27, 2010
Posted: 12:19 AM, July 27, 2010
Democrats claim their sweeping financial-sector reforms will guard against the kind of problems that triggered the recent economic meltdown. But if they really wanted to do that, they would've focused on how so many US officials were simply . . .bought. Fat chance.
Nonetheless, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform, is demanding just such a review -- and, for the sake of the nation, he should get one.
Last week, Issa wrote to Alfred Pollard, general counsel to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, asking for a probe of "VIP" mortgage loans given to Fannie and Freddie executives by Countrywide Financial Corporation. He also disclosed that Senate staffers got 30 low-rate mortgages under the program.
Founder Angelo Mozilo built Countrywide into the nation's largest mortgage lender, with a portfolio at one point worth $1.4 trillion, by selling billions in mostly subprime loans to Fannie and Freddie. Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno, using the anti-redlining statute -- the Community Reinvestment Act -- relentlessly pressured banks to make loans to "the underserved." But the banks could not make enough subprime mortgage loans to satisfy our lawmakers unless the federal government bought the loans they originated. That's where Fannie and Freddie came in.
Eventually, Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered Fannie to spend 50 cents of every dollar buying subprime loans. Today, Fannie and Freddie are wards of the state and own, or are responsible for, $5.5 trillion worth of mortgages.
Documents strongly suggest that, through a VIP loan program at Countrywide for "Friends of Angelo," Mozilo helped spur officials to keep up Fannie and Freddie's multitrillion-dollar mortgage-spending spree and, especially, buying Countrywide's junk mortgages. Special account executives were hired to administer the "FOA" loan program. Their business cards contained the designation "VIP Loan Program," so that the VIPs who received these discounted loans would know they were being given special treatment. Thousands of dollars were saved by each VIP borrower, and each had to have known it.
"Friends of Angelo" loans went to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Senate Banking Committee chairman; Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Budget Committee chairman and a Finance Committee member; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson; Jim Johnson, a former Fannie CEO and adviser to candidate Barack Obama; Clinton Jones III, senior counsel to the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing, and Franklin Raines, since-disgraced Fannie CEO.
But the more than 44,000 documents subpoenaed by Issa showed that the corruption in the system ran even deeper. They show that a staggering 153 VIP loans were extended to the quasi-governmental employees who decided what loans Fannie would buy with the taxpayers' money. Another 20 VIP loans were made to Freddie Mac executives.
Mozilo's seemingly systematic efforts to sway lawmakers, a cabinet member, White House staff and the executives at Fannie and Freddie appear to have paid off. In 2007, Countrywide alone originated 23 percent of a massive volume of Fannie and Freddie's mortgage purchases. In that year alone, Mozilo made more than $140 million. VIP borrower and Fannie CEO Jim Johnson signed a strategic agreement with Countrywide granting Fannie exclusive access to Countrywide's junk loans. Mozilo, in effect, had managed to make the United States and Countrywide joint venturers in the most prodigious -- and dangerous -- subprime-mortgage operation in our country's history.
Mozilo also seems to have stifled numerous bills in Congress aimed at reform -- despite warnings by Republicans that a failure to rein in Fannie and Freddie posed grave dangers to taxpayers. When Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) pushed for a comprehensive fix, Dodd successfully threatened a filibuster.
Meanwhile, despite ethical codes governing Congress, the Executive Branch and Fannie and Freddie, which ban the acceptance of gifts or discounts, influential "Friends of Angelo" accepted their discounted loans.
If House Leader Nancy Pelosi really were interested in reform and in "draining the swamp," she'd have launched a probe long ago. She didn't. Even worse, two-time VIP loan recipient Dodd served as sponsor of the financial-reform law, which makes no effort to deal with Fannie and Freddie, even though to date they've received $145 billion in taxpayer bailouts -- with no end in sight.
President Obama and his fellow Democrats singled out Wall Street in their massive reform package. They should have looked in the mirror first.
Stephen B. Meister is a partner in Meister Seelig & Fein LLP.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Ten Myths
on: July 28, 2010, 07:07:11 AM
By BRETT ARENDS
The Dow Jones Industrial Average last week ended up pretty much where it had been a little more than a week earlier. A rousing 200-point rally on Wednesday mostly made up for the distressing 200-point selloff of the previous Friday.
The Dow plummeted nearly 800 points a few weeks ago -- and then just as dramatically rocketed back up again. The widely watched market indicator is down 7% from where it stood in April and up 59% from where it was at its 2009 nadir.
These kinds of stomach-churning swings are testing investors' nerves once again. You may already feel shattered from the events of 2008-2009. Since the Greek debt crisis in the spring, turmoil has been back in the markets.
At times like this, your broker or financial adviser may offer words of wisdom or advice. There are standard calming phrases you will hear over and over again. But how true are they? Here are 10 that need extra scrutiny.
1 "This is a good time to invest in the stock market."
Really? Ask your broker when he warned clients that it was a bad time to invest. October 2007? February 2000? A broken watch tells the right time twice a day, but that's no reason to wear one. Or as someone once said, asking a broker if this is a good time to invest in the stock market is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. "Certainly, sir -- step this way!"
2 "Stocks on average make you about 10% a year."
Stop right there. This is based on some past history -- stretching back to the 1800s -- and it's full of holes.
About three of those percentage points were only from inflation. The other 7% may not be reliable either. The data from the 19th century are suspect; the global picture from the 20th century is complex. Experts suggest 5% may be more typical. And stocks only produce average returns if you buy them at average valuations. If you buy them when they're expensive, you do a lot worse.
3 "Our economists are forecasting..."
Hold it. Ask your broker if the firm's economist predicted the most recent recession -- and if so, when.
The record for economic forecasts is not impressive. Even into 2008 many economists were still denying that a recession was on the way. The usual shtick is to predict "a slowdown, but not a recession." That way they have an escape clause, no matter what happens. Warren Buffett once said forecasters made fortune tellers look good.
4 "Investing in the stock market lets you participate in the growth of the economy."
Tell that to the Japanese. Since 1989 their economy has grown by more than a quarter, but the stock market is down more than three quarters. Or tell that to anyone who invested in Wall Street a decade ago. And such instances aren't as rare as you've been told. In 1969, the U.S. gross domestic product was about $1 trillion, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at about 1000. Thirteen years later, the U.S. economy had grown to $3.3 trillion. The Dow? About 1000.
5 "If you want to earn higher returns, you have to take more risk."
This must come as a surprise to Mr. Buffett, who prefers investing in boring companies and boring industries. Over the last quarter century, the FactSet Research utilities index has even outperformed the exciting, "risky" Nasdaq Composite index. The only way to earn higher returns is to buy stocks cheap in relation to their future cash flows. As for "risk," your broker probably thinks that's "volatility," which typically just means price ups and downs. But you and your Aunt Sally know that risk is really the possibility of losing principal.
6 "The market's really cheap right now. The P/E is only about 13."
The widely quoted price/earnings (PE) ratio, which compares share prices to annual after-tax earnings, can be misleading. That's because earnings are so volatile -- they're elevated in a boom, and depressed in a bust.
Ask your broker about other valuation metrics, like the dividend yield, which looks at the dividends you get for each dollar of investment; or the cyclically adjusted PE ratio, which compares share prices to earnings over the past 10 years; or "Tobin's q," which compares share prices to the actual replacement cost of company assets. No metric is perfect, but these three have good track records. Right now all three say the stock market's pretty expensive, not cheap.
7 "You can't time the market."
This hoary old chestnut keeps the clients fully invested. Certainly it's a fool's errand to try to catch the market's twists and turns. But that doesn't mean you have to suspend judgment about overall valuations.
If you invest in shares when they're cheap compared to cash flows and assets -- typically this happens when everyone else is gloomy -- you will usually do very well.
If you invest when shares are very expensive -- such as when everyone else is absurdly bullish -- you will probably do badly.
8 "We recommend a diversified portfolio of mutual funds."
If your broker means you should diversify across things like cash, bonds, stocks, alternative strategies, commodities and precious metals, then that's good advice.
But too many brokers mean mutual funds with different names and "styles" like large-cap value, small-cap growth, midcap blend, international small-cap value, and so on. These are marketing gimmicks. There is, for example, no such thing as "midcap blend." These funds are typically 100% invested all the time, and all in stocks. In this global economy even "international" offers less diversification than it did, because everything's getting tied together.
9 "This is a stock picker's market."
What? Every market seems to be defined as a "stock picker's market," yet for most people the lion's share of investment returns -- for good or ill -- has typically come from the asset classes (see No. 8, above) they've chosen rather than the individual investments. And even if this does turn out to be a stock picker's market, what makes you think your broker is the stock picker in question?
10 "Stocks outperform over the long term."
Define the long term? If you can be down for 10 or more years, exactly how much help is that? As John Maynard Keynes, the economist, once said: "In the long run we are all dead."
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / NYT: Guided Dreams
on: July 28, 2010, 02:30:55 AM
Nightmares resulting from traumatic events usually fade over time, as the haunting images and terrifying plots become less intense. The dreams may also naturally evolve into what some specialists call “mastery dreams,” in which the dreamer has found a way to ease the pain or horror — say, confronting a rapist or saving someone from a fire. But when that does not happen of its own accord, many therapists use behavioral interventions to reduce nightmares or guide the waking patient toward having a mastery dream — using the conscious mind to control the wild ways of the unconscious.
Some of these techniques have been in use for years. In one treatment, known as lucid dreaming, patients are taught to become aware that they are dreaming while the dream is in progress. In another, called in vivo desensitization, they are exposed while awake to what may be haunting them in their sleep — for example, a live snake, caged and harmless — until the fear subsides. Both techniques have been researched extensively.
More recently, therapists and other experts have been using a technique called dream incubation, first researched in the early 1990s by Deirdre Barrett, a psychologist at Harvard Medical School.
And Hollywood has just produced its own spin on lucid dreaming and the idea of controlling dreams, with the release earlier this month of “Inception,” a thriller whose plot swirls through the darkest layers of the dream world. As Dr. Barrett wrote in an online review of “Inception,” for the International Association for the Study of Dreams, “I love the idea of millions of action-film fans the world over leaving theaters asking each other if they’re ever had a dream in which they knew they were dreaming — or whipping out their smartphones and Googling to find out if you really can learn to influence dream content.”
Using dream incubation for problem solving, Dr. Barrett, the author of “The Committee of Sleep,” which expanded on her initial research, asks patients to write down a problem as a brief phrase or sentence and place the note next to the bed. Then she tells them to review the problem for a few minutes before going to bed, and once in bed, visualize the problem as a concrete image, if possible.
As they are drifting off to sleep, the patients should tell themselves they want to dream about the problem and ideally keep a pen and paper, and perhaps a flashlight or a pen with a lit tip, on the night table. No matter what time they wake up, they should lie quietly before getting out of bed, note whether there is “any trace of a recalled dream and invite more of the dream to return if possible.” They should write down everything they remember.
For reducing nightmares, she helps patients devise a mastery scenario to work with, and they can remind themselves of it as they fall asleep, saying to themselves, “Tonight if I have the dream of the fire, of Vietnam, I want to find a fire hose, freeze the action, speak to the Vietnamese boy,” She said.
Dr. Barry Krakow of the Maimonides Sleep Arts and Sciences center in Albuquerque and the author of “Sound Sleep, Sound Mind,” helped develop imagery rehearsal therapy. In a 110-page manual he gives his patients, he has them select a nightmare they want to transform into a dream of lesser intensity.
“Change the nightmare any way you wish,” the manual says. “Let new positive images emerge in your mind’s eye to guide you in ‘painting’ your new dream.”
Patients then rehearse the new dream, which could be a less haunting version of the nightmare or a completely different dream, at least once a day for 10 or 20 minutes. He suggests recalling a nightmare only once or twice a week — and only when changing it into a new dream.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Killer Cons for rent
on: July 27, 2010, 10:13:47 PM
Mexico: Prison guards let killers out, lent gunsAP - <unday, July 25, 2010 3:08:33 PM By MARK STEVENSON Mexico: Prison guards let killers out, lent gunsPhoto By AP
Guards and officials at a prison in northern Mexico allegedly let inmates out, lent them guns and allowed them to use official vehicles to carry out drug-related killings, including the massacre of 17 people last week, prosecutors said Sunday.
After carrying out the killings the inmates would return to their cells, the Attorney General's Office said in a revelation that was shocking even for a country wearied by years of drug violence and corruption.
"According to witnesses, the inmates were allowed to leave with authorization of the prison director ... to carry out instructions for revenge attacks using official vehicles and using guards' weapons for executions," office spokesman Ricardo Najera said at a news conference.
The director of the prison in Gomez Palacio in Durango state and three other officials were placed under a form of house arrest pending further investigation. No charges have yet been filed.
Prosecutors said the prison-based hit squad is suspected in three mass shootings, including the July 18 attack on a party in the city of Torreon, which is near Gomez Palacio. In that incident, gunmen fired indiscriminately into a crowd of mainly young people in a rented hall, killing 17 people, including women.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Student ordered to change religious views
on: July 27, 2010, 10:00:45 PM
Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on
Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published July 27, 2010
Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school
counseling at Augusta State University since last year, but school officials
have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she
alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct,"
according to a civil complaint filed last week.
A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she
must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and
The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in
school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school
officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless
she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct,"
according to a civil complaint filed last week.
"[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from
the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic
showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply
because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she
holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and
gender identity," the 43-page lawsuit reads.
Keeton, according to the lawsuit, was informed by school officials in late
May that she would be asked to take part in a remediation plan due to
faculty concerns regarding her beliefs pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgender issues.
"The faculty identifies Miss Keeton's views as indicative of her improper
professional disposition to persons of such populations," the lawsuit reads.
The remediation plan, according to the lawsuit, noted Keeton's "disagreement
in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and
lesbian 'lifestyle,'" as well as Keeton's belief that those "lifestyles" are
cases of identity confusion.
If Keeton fails to complete the plan, including additional reading and the
writing of papers describing the impact on her beliefs, she will be expelled
from the Counselor Education Program, the lawsuit claims.
Keeton has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the "result of
accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from
deterministic forces," according to the suit.
"She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other
being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or
individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created," the
lawsuit reads. "Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a
'lifestyle,' not a 'state of being.'"
In a statement to FoxNews.com, Augusta State University officials declined
to comment specifically on the litigation, but said the university does not
discriminate on the basis of students' moral, religious, political or
personal views or beliefs.
"The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the
American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor
Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional
counselors in its code of ethics," the statement read. "The code is included
in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that
counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional
counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics."
David French, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the
lawsuit against Augusta State University on Keeton's behalf, said no
university has the right to force a citizen to change their beliefs on any
"The university has told Jennifer Keeton that if she doesn't change her
beliefs, she can't stay in the program," he told FoxNews.com. "She won't
even have a chance to counsel any students; she won't have a chance to get a
counseling degree; she'll be expelled."
Keeton, who is not available for interviews according to French, believes
that people have "moral choices" regarding their sexuality, he said.
"A student has a right to express their point of view in and out of class
without fear or censorship or expulsion," French said.
Phone. 705.879.2870 Fax. 705.438.5893
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics
on: July 27, 2010, 04:24:13 PM
Cracks in support? Or carping from the Left which is left with no where to go?
"An unfulfilled promise to overhaul the nation's patchwork immigration system, which Hispanics overwhelmingly want to see fixed, also may be to blame".
This is a euphemism for amnesty.
I'm not seeing much cause for hope of Rep political competence here and fear in the middle to long term that the Reps will screw this up and, like the aftermath of Prop 187 here in CA, be lastingly screwed.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Newt
on: July 27, 2010, 04:19:28 PM
I too like Newt. Indeed I like him a lot, but it is true that he played the spoiled brat about that Air Force One incident and did fold to Clinton and the Dems. Newt did side with the RINO Reps in upstate NY. I am bummed to see him go spineless against the NAACP.
Doug, you are quite right we need to now where our weaknesses are.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stratfor on Wikilieaks
on: July 27, 2010, 10:52:40 AM
I am open to additional thoughts changing my mind, but at the moment I cannot see a good end here outside of outside the box thoughts such as those I recently posted. As best as I can tell Obama's psuedo-surge has ensured this.
WikiLeaks and the Afghan War
July 27, 2010
By George Friedman
On Sunday, The New York Times and two other newspapers published summaries and excerpts of tens of thousands of documents leaked to a website known as WikiLeaks. The documents comprise a vast array of material concerning the war in Afghanistan. They range from tactical reports from small unit operations to broader strategic analyses of politico-military relations between the United States and Pakistan. It appears to be an extraordinary collection.
Related special topic page
The War in Afghanistan
Tactical intelligence on firefights is intermingled with reports on confrontations between senior U.S. and Pakistani officials in which lists of Pakistani operatives in Afghanistan are handed over to the Pakistanis. Reports on the use of surface-to-air missiles by militants in Afghanistan are intermingled with reports on the activities of former Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who reportedly continues to liaise with the Afghan Taliban in an informal capacity.
At first glance, it is difficult to imagine a single database in which such a diverse range of intelligence was stored, or the existence of a single individual cleared to see such diverse intelligence stored across multiple databases and able to collect, collate and transmit the intelligence without detection. Intriguingly, all of what has been released so far has been not-so-sensitive material rated secret or below. The Times reports that Gul’s name appears all over the documents, yet very few documents have been released in the current batch, and it is very hard to imagine intelligence on Gul and his organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, being classified as only secret. So, this was either low-grade material hyped by the media, or there is material reviewed by the selected newspapers but not yet made public. Still, what was released and what the Times discussed is consistent with what most thought was happening in Afghanistan.
The obvious comparison is to the Pentagon Papers, commissioned by the Defense Department to gather lessons from the Vietnam War and leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the Times during the Nixon administration. Many people worked on the Pentagon Papers, each of whom was focused on part of it and few of whom would have had access to all of it.
Ellsberg did not give the Times the supporting documentation; he gave it the finished product. By contrast, in the WikiLeaks case, someone managed to access a lot of information that would seem to have been contained in many different places. If this was an unauthorized leak, then it had to have involved a massive failure in security. Certainly, the culprit should be known by now and his arrest should have been announced. And certainly, the gathering of such diverse material in one place accessible to one or even a few people who could move it without detection is odd.
Like the Pentagon Papers, the WikiLeaks (as I will call them) elicited a great deal of feigned surprise, not real surprise. Apart from the charge that the Johnson administration contrived the Gulf of Tonkin incident, much of what the Pentagon Papers contained was generally known. Most striking about the Pentagon Papers was not how much surprising material they contained, but how little. Certainly, they contradicted the official line on the war, but there were few, including supporters of the war, who were buying the official line anyway.
In the case of the WikiLeaks, what is revealed also is not far from what most people believed, although they provide enormous detail. Nor is it that far from what government and military officials are saying about the war. No one is saying the war is going well, though some say that given time it might go better.
The view of the Taliban as a capable fighting force is, of course, widespread. If they weren’t a capable fighting force, then the United States would not be having so much trouble defeating them. The WikiLeaks seem to contain two strategically significant claims, however. The first is that the Taliban is a more sophisticated fighting force than has been generally believed. An example is the claim that Taliban fighters have used man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) against U.S. aircraft. This claim matters in a number of ways. First, it indicates that the Taliban are using technologies similar to those used against the Soviets. Second, it raises the question of where the Taliban are getting them — they certainly don’t manufacture MANPADS themselves.
If they have obtained advanced technologies, this would have significance on the battlefield. For example, if reasonably modern MANPADS were to be deployed in numbers, the use of American airpower would either need to be further constrained or higher attrition rates accepted. Thus far, only first- and second-generation MANPADS without Infrared Counter-Countermeasures (which are more dangerous) appear to have been encountered, and not with decisive or prohibitive effectiveness. But in any event, this doesn’t change the fundamental character of the war.
Supply Lines and Sanctuaries
What it does raise is the question of supply lines and sanctuaries. The most important charge contained in the leaks is about Pakistan. The WikiLeaks contain documents that charge that the Pakistanis are providing both supplies and sanctuary to Taliban fighters while objecting to American forces entering Pakistan to clean out the sanctuaries and are unwilling or unable to carry out that operation by themselves (as they have continued to do in North Waziristan).
Just as important, the documents charge that the ISI has continued to maintain liaison and support for the Taliban in spite of claims by the Pakistani government that pro-Taliban officers had been cleaned out of the ISI years ago. The document charges that Gul, the director-general of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, still operates in Pakistan, informally serving the ISI and helping give the ISI plausible deniability.
Though startling, the charge that Islamabad is protecting and sustaining forces fighting and killing Americans is not a new one. When the United States halted operations in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, U.S. policy was to turn over operations in Afghanistan to Pakistan. U.S. strategy was to use Islamist militants to fight the Soviets and to use Pakistani liaisons through the ISI to supply and coordinate with them. When the Soviets and Americans left Afghanistan, the ISI struggled to install a government composed of its allies until the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996. The ISI’s relationship with the Taliban — which in many ways are the heirs to the anti-Soviet mujahideen — is widely known. In my book, “America’s Secret War,” I discussed both this issue and the role of Gul. These documents claim that this relationship remains intact. Apart from Pakistani denials, U.S. officials and military officers frequently made this charge off the record, and on the record occasionally. The leaks on this score are interesting, but they will shock only those who didn’t pay attention or who want to be shocked.
Let’s step back and consider the conflict dispassionately. The United States forced the Taliban from power. It never defeated the Taliban nor did it make a serious effort to do so, as that would require massive resources the United States doesn’t have. Afghanistan is a secondary issue for the United States, especially since al Qaeda has established bases in a number of other countries, particularly Pakistan, making the occupation of Afghanistan irrelevant to fighting al Qaeda.
For Pakistan, however, Afghanistan is an area of fundamental strategic interest. The region’s main ethnic group, the Pashtun, stretch across the Afghan-Pakistani border. Moreover, were a hostile force present in Afghanistan, as one was during the Soviet occupation, Pakistan would face threats in the west as well as the challenge posed by India in the east. For Pakistan, an Afghanistan under Pakistani influence or at least a benign Afghanistan is a matter of overriding strategic importance.
(click here to enlarge image)
It is therefore irrational to expect the Pakistanis to halt collaboration with the force that they expect to be a major part of the government of Afghanistan when the United States leaves. The Pakistanis never expected the United States to maintain a presence in Afghanistan permanently. They understood that Afghanistan was a means toward an end, and not an end in itself. They understood this under George W. Bush. They understand it even more clearly under Barack Obama, who made withdrawal a policy goal.
Given that they don’t expect the Taliban to be defeated, and given that they are not interested in chaos in Afghanistan, it follows that they will maintain close relations with and support for the Taliban. Given that the United States is powerful and is Pakistan’s only lever against India, the Pakistanis will not make this their public policy, however. The United States has thus created a situation in which the only rational policy for Pakistan is two-tiered, consisting of overt opposition to the Taliban and covert support for the Taliban.
This is duplicitous only if you close your eyes to the Pakistani reality, which the Americans never did. There was ample evidence, as the WikiLeaks show, of covert ISI ties to the Taliban. The Americans knew they couldn’t break those ties. They settled for what support Pakistan could give them while constantly pressing them harder and harder until genuine fears in Washington emerged that Pakistan could destabilize altogether. Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan — which it wasn’t going to get anyway — the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants.
The WikiLeaks seem to show that like sausage-making, one should never look too closely at how wars are fought, particularly coalition warfare. Even the strongest alliances, such as that between the United States and the United Kingdom in World War II, are fraught with deceit and dissension. London was fighting to save its empire, an end Washington was hostile to; much intrigue ensued. The U.S.-Pakistani alliance is not nearly as trusting. The United States is fighting to deny al Qaeda a base in Afghanistan while Pakistan is fighting to secure its western frontier and its internal stability. These are very different ends that have very different levels of urgency.
The WikiLeaks portray a war in which the United States has a vastly insufficient force on the ground that is fighting a capable and dedicated enemy who isn’t going anywhere. The Taliban know that they win just by not being defeated, and they know that they won’t be defeated. The Americans are leaving, meaning the Taliban need only wait and prepare.
The Pakistanis also know that the Americans are leaving and that the Taliban or a coalition including the Taliban will be in charge of Afghanistan when the Americans leave. They will make certain that they maintain good relations with the Taliban. They will deny that they are doing this because they want no impediments to a good relationship with the United States before or after it leaves Afghanistan. They need a patron to secure their interests against India. Since the United States wants neither an India outside a balance of power nor China taking the role of Pakistan’s patron, it follows that the risk the United States will bear grudges is small. And given that, the Pakistanis can live with Washington knowing that one Pakistani hand is helping the Americans while another helps the Taliban. Power, interest and reality define the relations between nations, and different factions inside nations frequently have different agendas and work against each other.
The WikiLeaks, from what we have seen so far, detail power, interest and reality as we have known it. They do not reveal a new reality. Much will be made about the shocking truth that has been shown, which, as mentioned above, shocks only those who wish to be shocked. The Afghan war is about an insufficient American and allied force fighting a capable enemy on its home ground and a Pakistan positioning itself for the inevitable outcome. The WikiLeaks contain all the details.
We are left with the mystery of who compiled all of these documents and who had access to them with enough time and facilities to transmit them to the outside world in a blatant and sustained breach of protocol. The image we have is of an unidentified individual or small group working to get a “shocking truth” out to the public, only the truth is not shocking — it is what was known all along in excruciating detail. Who would want to detail a truth that is already known, with access to all this documentation and the ability to transmit it unimpeded? Whoever it proves to have been has just made the most powerful case yet for withdrawal from Afghanistan sooner rather than later.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / WSJ: Lost in Translation
on: July 27, 2010, 01:41:41 AM
Do the languages we speak shape the way we think? Do they merely express thoughts, or do the structures in languages (without our knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express?
Take "Humpty Dumpty sat on a..." Even this snippet of a nursery rhyme reveals how much languages can differ from one another. In English, we have to mark the verb for tense; in this case, we say "sat" rather than "sit." In Indonesian you need not (in fact, you can't) change the verb to mark tense.
In Russian, you would have to mark tense and also gender, changing the verb if Mrs. Dumpty did the sitting. You would also have to decide if the sitting event was completed or not. If our ovoid hero sat on the wall for the entire time he was meant to, it would be a different form of the verb than if, say, he had a great fall.
In Turkish, you would have to include in the verb how you acquired this information. For example, if you saw the chubby fellow on the wall with your own eyes, you'd use one form of the verb, but if you had simply read or heard about it, you'd use a different form.
Do English, Indonesian, Russian and Turkish speakers end up attending to, understanding, and remembering their experiences differently simply because they speak different languages?
These questions touch on all the major controversies in the study of mind, with important implications for politics, law and religion. Yet very little empirical work had been done on these questions until recently. The idea that language might shape thought was for a long time considered untestable at best and more often simply crazy and wrong. Now, a flurry of new cognitive science research is showing that in fact, language does profoundly influence how we see the world.
The question of whether languages shape the way we think goes back centuries; Charlemagne proclaimed that "to have a second language is to have a second soul." But the idea went out of favor with scientists when Noam Chomsky's theories of language gained popularity in the 1960s and '70s. Dr. Chomsky proposed that there is a universal grammar for all human languages—essentially, that languages don't really differ from one another in significant ways. And because languages didn't differ from one another, the theory went, it made no sense to ask whether linguistic differences led to differences in thinking.
Use Your Words
Some findings on how language can affect thinking.
Russian speakers, who have more words for light and dark blues, are better able to visually discriminate shades of blue.
Some indigenous tribes say north, south, east and west, rather than left and right, and as a consequence have great spatial orientation.
The Piraha, whose language eschews number words in favor of terms like few and many, are not able to keep track of exact quantities.
In one study, Spanish and Japanese speakers couldn't remember the agents of accidental events as adeptly as English speakers could. Why? In Spanish and Japanese, the agent of causality is dropped: "The vase broke itself," rather than "John broke the vase."
.The search for linguistic universals yielded interesting data on languages, but after decades of work, not a single proposed universal has withstood scrutiny. Instead, as linguists probed deeper into the world's languages (7,000 or so, only a fraction of them analyzed), innumerable unpredictable differences emerged.
Of course, just because people talk differently doesn't necessarily mean they think differently. In the past decade, cognitive scientists have begun to measure not just how people talk, but also how they think, asking whether our understanding of even such fundamental domains of experience as space, time and causality could be constructed by language.
For example, in Pormpuraaw, a remote Aboriginal community in Australia, the indigenous languages don't use terms like "left" and "right." Instead, everything is talked about in terms of absolute cardinal directions (north, south, east, west), which means you say things like, "There's an ant on your southwest leg." To say hello in Pormpuraaw, one asks, "Where are you going?", and an appropriate response might be, "A long way to the south-southwest. How about you?" If you don't know which way is which, you literally can't get past hello.
About a third of the world's languages (spoken in all kinds of physical environments) rely on absolute directions for space. As a result of this constant linguistic training, speakers of such languages are remarkably good at staying oriented and keeping track of where they are, even in unfamiliar landscapes. They perform navigational feats scientists once thought were beyond human capabilities. This is a big difference, a fundamentally different way of conceptualizing space, trained by language.
Differences in how people think about space don't end there. People rely on their spatial knowledge to build many other more complex or abstract representations including time, number, musical pitch, kinship relations, morality and emotions. So if Pormpuraawans think differently about space, do they also think differently about other things, like time?
To find out, my colleague Alice Gaby and I traveled to Australia and gave Pormpuraawans sets of pictures that showed temporal progressions (for example, pictures of a man at different ages, or a crocodile growing, or a banana being eaten). Their job was to arrange the shuffled photos on the ground to show the correct temporal order. We tested each person in two separate sittings, each time facing in a different cardinal direction. When asked to do this, English speakers arrange time from left to right. Hebrew speakers do it from right to left (because Hebrew is written from right to left).
Pormpuraawans, we found, arranged time from east to west. That is, seated facing south, time went left to right. When facing north, right to left. When facing east, toward the body, and so on. Of course, we never told any of our participants which direction they faced. The Pormpuraawans not only knew that already, but they also spontaneously used this spatial orientation to construct their representations of time. And many other ways to organize time exist in the world's languages. In Mandarin, the future can be below and the past above. In Aymara, spoken in South America, the future is behind and the past in front.
In addition to space and time, languages also shape how we understand causality. For example, English likes to describe events in terms of agents doing things. English speakers tend to say things like "John broke the vase" even for accidents. Speakers of Spanish or Japanese would be more likely to say "the vase broke itself." Such differences between languages have profound consequences for how their speakers understand events, construct notions of causality and agency, what they remember as eyewitnesses and how much they blame and punish others.
In studies conducted by Caitlin Fausey at Stanford, speakers of English, Spanish and Japanese watched videos of two people popping balloons, breaking eggs and spilling drinks either intentionally or accidentally. Later everyone got a surprise memory test: For each event, can you remember who did it? She discovered a striking cross-linguistic difference in eyewitness memory. Spanish and Japanese speakers did not remember the agents of accidental events as well as did English speakers. Mind you, they remembered the agents of intentional events (for which their language would mention the agent) just fine. But for accidental events, when one wouldn't normally mention the agent in Spanish or Japanese, they didn't encode or remember the agent as well.
In another study, English speakers watched the video of Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" (a wonderful nonagentive coinage introduced into the English language by Justin Timberlake), accompanied by one of two written reports. The reports were identical except in the last sentence where one used the agentive phrase "ripped the costume" while the other said "the costume ripped." Even though everyone watched the same video and witnessed the ripping with their own eyes, language mattered. Not only did people who read "ripped the costume" blame Justin Timberlake more, they also levied a whopping 53% more in fines.
Beyond space, time and causality, patterns in language have been shown to shape many other domains of thought. Russian speakers, who make an extra distinction between light and dark blues in their language, are better able to visually discriminate shades of blue. The Piraha, a tribe in the Amazon in Brazil, whose language eschews number words in favor of terms like few and many, are not able to keep track of exact quantities. And Shakespeare, it turns out, was wrong about roses: Roses by many other names (as told to blindfolded subjects) do not smell as sweet.
Patterns in language offer a window on a culture's dispositions and priorities. For example, English sentence structures focus on agents, and in our criminal-justice system, justice has been done when we've found the transgressor and punished him or her accordingly (rather than finding the victims and restituting appropriately, an alternative approach to justice). So does the language shape cultural values, or does the influence go the other way, or both?
Languages, of course, are human creations, tools we invent and hone to suit our needs. Simply showing that speakers of different languages think differently doesn't tell us whether it's language that shapes thought or the other way around. To demonstrate the causal role of language, what's needed are studies that directly manipulate language and look for effects in cognition.
Journal Communitydiscuss..“ That language embodies different ways of knowing the world seems intuitive, given the number of times we reach for a word or phrase in another language that communicates that certain je ne sais quoi we can't find on our own.
One of the key advances in recent years has been the demonstration of precisely this causal link. It turns out that if you change how people talk, that changes how they think. If people learn another language, they inadvertently also learn a new way of looking at the world. When bilingual people switch from one language to another, they start thinking differently, too. And if you take away people's ability to use language in what should be a simple nonlinguistic task, their performance can change dramatically, sometimes making them look no smarter than rats or infants. (For example, in recent studies, MIT students were shown dots on a screen and asked to say how many there were. If they were allowed to count normally, they did great. If they simultaneously did a nonlinguistic task—like banging out rhythms—they still did great. But if they did a verbal task when shown the dots—like repeating the words spoken in a news report—their counting fell apart. In other words, they needed their language skills to count.)
All this new research shows us that the languages we speak not only reflect or express our thoughts, but also shape the very thoughts we wish to express. The structures that exist in our languages profoundly shape how we construct reality, and help make us as smart and sophisticated as we are.
Language is a uniquely human gift. When we study language, we are uncovering in part what makes us human, getting a peek at the very nature of human nature. As we uncover how languages and their speakers differ from one another, we discover that human natures too can differ dramatically, depending on the languages we speak. The next steps are to understand the mechanisms through which languages help us construct the incredibly complex knowledge systems we have. Understanding how knowledge is built will allow us to create ideas that go beyond the currently thinkable. This research cuts right to the fundamental questions we all ask about ourselves. How do we come to be the way we are? Why do we think the way we do? An important part of the answer, it turns out, is in the languages we speak.
—Lera Boroditsky is a professor of psychology at Stanford University and editor in chief of Frontiers in Cultural Psychology.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: So what?
on: July 27, 2010, 01:35:01 AM
We've long believed the U.S. government classifies too many documents as secret, and now we know for sure. How else to explain why Sunday's release of some 92,000 previously confidential documents reveals so little that we didn't already know about the war in Afghanistan? This document dump will only matter if it becomes an excuse for more of America's political class to turn against a war they once supported.
One news item we could find in the orchestrated rollout on WikiLeaks.org and three newspapers is that the Taliban have heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles, perhaps even Stingers of the sort we gave the Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. But even if they do have Stingers, the U.S. continues to dominate the skies and few U.S. aircraft have been shot down.
Another, more important, disclosure is how closely Iran has been working with the Taliban, as well as with al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. This makes logical sense, given Iran's support for terrorists in Iraq and its general desire to chase America from the region. But the evidence should discredit those who think Tehran can be made peaceable by diplomatic entreaties.
Among the many nonscoops in the documents, we learn that war is hell, especially for infantry, and that sometimes troops make mistakes; that drone aircraft sometimes crash; that a forward U.S. base near the Pakistan border was ill-positioned to defend against Taliban attacks and had to be abandoned; and that many Afghan officials are corrupt and that Afghan troops flee often under fire. Any newspaper reader knew as much.
Far from being the Pentagon Papers redux, the larger truth is how closely the ground-eye view in these documents reinforces what U.S. officials were long saying: that the war wasn't going well, the Taliban were making gains, and a new and invigorated strategy was needed to combat them. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations made the same diagnosis in recent years, neither one kept it secret, and this year Mr. Obama followed through with an increase in troops levels and a renewed counterinsurgency.
The most politically explosive documents concern the conflicting loyalties of Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. Nearly 200 reports allege that the Pakistani military intelligence arm is in cahoots with the Taliban, despite claiming to side with America. This is undoubtedly true but also no surprise.
The ISI helped the U.S. arm and organize the mujahideen against the Soviets, and it kept doing so to fill the Afghan power vacuum after America abandoned the region in the early 1990s. The reports released this week allege—often citing a single source or uncertain information—that the ISI helped train Afghan suicide bombers, plotted to poison beer slated for GIs, and schemed to assassinate President Hamid Karzai. It isn't clear how many of these plots were ever attempted, but there's no doubt that many Pakistanis doubt U.S. staying power, fear Indian influence in Afghanistan, and want to use the Taliban to shape events on their Western border.
Then again, we also know that Pakistan has shifted its behavior in a more pro-American direction in the last 14 months as the Taliban began to threaten Pakistan's own stability. Responding to a surge of terrorism against Pakistani targets, the Pakistani army has pushed Islamist insurgents from the Swat Valley and even South Waziristan. It has taken heavy casualties in the process. Islamabad now actively aids U.S. drone strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in the mountains along its Afghan border.
Pakistan can and should do more to pursue the terrorist enclaves along the border, as well as in Quetta and Karachi. The question is what's the best way to persuade their leaders to act. U.S.-Pakistan cooperation has been one of the Obama Administration's foreign policy successes, and it would be a tragedy if the leak of selective documents, often out of context, would now poison that cooperation.
Pakistan's military elites already see evidence of weak American will in President Obama's declared desire to start a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan next summer. While parts of the ISI are fighting on the wrong side, the U.S. needs to stay engaged with Islamabad both to bring more stability to Afghanistan and especially to destroy terrorist sanctuaries that remain a threat to the U.S. mainland.
That is why it is so disconcerting, if also predictable, to see the usual political suspects seize on the media hullabaloo to claim the Afghan effort is hopeless. The political left, which can't forget Vietnam, is comparing the WikiLeakers to Daniel Ellsberg and even the Tet offensive. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, who pays close attention to the region and has led the fight for more U.S. aid to Pakistan, nonetheless declared that, "However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan."
As informed as he is, Mr. Kerry can't possibly have learned all that much from these documents. His statement is more worrisome as a signal of political panic, a desire to placate his party's growing opposition to President Obama's war effort. Yet this is precisely the time when cooler political heads should be putting the documents into context, explaining the importance of U.S. ties to Pakistan, and above all giving Generals David Petraeus and James Mattis the time they need to succeed in that crucial theater. We can't afford another liberal antiwar stampede.