Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 25, 2017, 01:42:56 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101792 Posts in 2375 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 477 478 [479] 480 481 ... 795
23901  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: March 25, 2011, 08:44:28 PM
Even though that would be better in the Libya thread, that was simply OUTSTANDING!!!
23902  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Richard Young Investment newsletter on: March 25, 2011, 08:36:56 PM
Equity Bull or Currency Bear?
March 25, 2011 by Jeremy Jones      Is it an equity bull market or a currency bear market? In U.S. dollars, the S&P 500 is up an impressive 25% since August 31, 2010, but in terms of Swiss francs and gold, the S&P 500 is up only 12% and 9% respectively. Over half of the stock market rally since August can be attributed to dollar debasement.

23903  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: March 25, 2011, 07:15:25 PM
Hell, look at the President's passionate statements of support today for the brave people standing up to Hassad.  "Hassad must go!" President Baraq Hussein Obama said.
23904  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Prayer and Daily Expression of Gratitude on: March 25, 2011, 07:09:46 PM
Where else would today be?  cheesy
23905  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / 400 rounds, 17 grenades, & a machine gun tripod on: March 25, 2011, 04:01:00 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/400-rounds-17-grenades-30-enemies-soldier-single-handedly-beats-back-taliban-barrage/
23906  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Reagan and Grenada on: March 25, 2011, 02:31:53 PM
Hat tip to GM for this one:

A congressional study group concluded, after a three-day trip to Grenada, that Reagan's move had been justified. The 14 members of Congress, headed by Democrat Thomas Foley of Washington State, reported to House Speaker Tip O'Neill that most of them felt that the students had been possible targets for a Tehran-type taking of hostages. This caused O'Neill, who had denounced Reagan's decision, to reverse himself. Noting that "a potentially life-threatening situation existed on the island," the Speaker said that the invasion "was justified under these particular circumstances."


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926318-2,00.html

23907  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: March 25, 2011, 01:46:19 PM
JDN: I doubt if this comes as a surprise to anyone.

GM Would it surprise someone who has asserted that the jihad against Israel would stop if the "palestinians" were just treated better?

MARC:  This seems to me a well pin-pointed question.

23908  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Patriot Post: Limbo in Libya on: March 25, 2011, 10:31:14 AM
"f we are to be told by a foreign Power ... what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." --George Washington


Consistent with his socialist, we-are-all-one agenda, Barack Obama used a non-unanimous 10-vote nod from the United Nations Security Council to justify commencing hostilities against Libya, bypassing Congress, the Constitution, the will of the American public and a couple hundred years' worth of precedents. Since none of these have mattered in the past, why should they now? After all, in the mind of Obama -- or "Our Son, His Excellency" as his erstwhile pal Moammar Gadhafi called him recently -- UN authority supersedes U.S. constitutional authority and sovereignty.

To be sure, a long list of reasons support America's desire to oust Gadhafi and his regime, especially his role in state-sponsored terrorism. It was Gadhafi that ordered the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270, most of whom were Americans. That said, a number of countervailing arguments counsel against intervening in Libya's civil war with this, as Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes euphemistically put it, "kinetic military action." This description was later revised by Press Secretary Jay Carney to "time-limited, scope-limited" military action. That clears things up.

For one, it is a civil war. U.S. policy -- at least ostensibly -- has been to refrain from engaging in conflicts where U.S. vital national interests are not at stake. Whatever interests the U.S. has in Libya, the term "vital" certainly does not apply.

Second, as a sovereign nation, the U.S. neither seeks nor is granted authority from a supra-national organization such as the UN to use American instruments of national power, including military force. Such authority must vest from within, and in the U.S. that mechanism is the Constitution. While the president has both the authority and duty to use force in protection of the United States from an actual or imminent attack, that is the extent of his unilateral authority. Congress alone has the authority to approve the use of military force in all other circumstances as it did in the wake of 9/11. In the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq, President George W. Bush specifically approached Congress, asked for and was granted a resolution authorizing the use of military force. His successor -- not so much.

Next, we have no idea whether the regime that replaces Gadhafi (if that happens) will actually be a change for the better. While the words "democracy" and "freedom" are bandied about indiscriminately, no one knows what Libya will look like post-Gadhafi. In fact, the rebels are self-described Islamic "holy warriors" who have at least the verbal backing of al-Qa'ida. This fact alone should advocate for restraint.

Moreover, as America nears the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we should pause to reflect upon the fact that our nation has been at war continuously for almost a decade. Should we -- or can we even afford to -- embark on a third commitment of manpower and resources, much less one that is undefined and open-ended? Supposedly, no "boots on the ground" were to be committed, but as we go to press 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit are stationed just off the Libyan coast. In the first few days of this conflict alone, we have already lost a plane and spent hundreds of Tomahawk missiles -- are we prepared to commit to this effort to the point that we're willing to sacrifice American lives as well?

In 2007, both Barack Obama and his levelheaded sidekick Joe Biden believed that the president's authority to use military force is limited to repelling an imminent or ongoing attack on the U.S., and that Congress alone has the authority to authorize the use of military force in all other circumstances. "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," said Barack Obama then. Likewise, Joe Biden chimed in, "I made it clear to the president that if he takes this nation to war without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That is a fact."

These claims were made when they were "Candidate Obama" and "Senator Biden," respectively -- that is, before either decided that their heartfelt words on the campaign trail or a TV talk show were never meant to be applied to themselves at some future point.

Finally, it's worth highlighting how utterly disagreeable is the military operation label "Odyssey Dawn." An odyssey is a very long, convoluted saga -- not an event wrapped up in a few days, as this effort has been promoted, thus far. We're hoping that the Pentagon has a good sense of humor and irony. Otherwise and unwittingly, it may have aptly coined the beginning of yet another endless military journey. It might be nice to rid the world of Moammar Gadhafi. But before we commit American lives and resources toward doing so, shouldn't we first pause to ask the question: At what cost?

Quote of the Week
"We don't know whether the current U.S. president is mindful of what he is uttering, or if he is unconscious and confused." --Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei

23909  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Russian solution on: March 25, 2011, 10:05:11 AM


http://somalilandpress.com/somalia-russia-executed-all-somali-pirates-spokesman-15559
23910  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Mexico on: March 25, 2011, 07:35:52 AM


$25 on line security/protection work in Mexico seminar tomorrow:

http://www.secforinternational.com/online-bodyguard-training.htm
23911  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / POTH: Chinese Pebble Bed nuke plants on: March 25, 2011, 06:08:06 AM
SHIDAO, China — While engineers at Japan’s stricken nuclear power plant struggle to keep its uranium fuel rods from melting down, engineers in China are building a radically different type of reactor that some experts say offers a safer nuclear alternative.

The technology will be used in two reactors here on a peninsula jutting into the Yellow Sea, where the Chinese government is expected to let construction proceed even as the world debates the wisdom of nuclear power.
Rather than using conventional fuel rod assemblies of the sort leaking radiation in Japan, each packed with nearly 400 pounds of uranium, the Chinese reactors will use hundreds of thousands of billiard-ball-size fuel elements, each cloaked in its own protective layer of graphite.

The coating moderates the pace of nuclear reactions and is meant to ensure that if the plant had to be shut down in an emergency, the reaction would slowly stop on its own and not lead to a meltdown.

The reactors will also be cooled by nonexplosive helium gas instead of depending on a steady source of water — a critical problem with the damaged reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant. And unlike those reactors, the Chinese reactors are designed to gradually dissipate heat on their own, even if coolant is lost.

If the new plants here prove viable, China plans to build dozens more of them in coming years.

The technology under construction here, known as a pebble-bed reactor, is not new. Germany, South Africa and the United States have all experimented with it, before abandoning it over technical problems or a lack of financing.

But as in many other areas of alternative energy, including solar panels and wind turbines, China is now taking the lead in actually building the next-generation technology. The government has paid for all of the research and development costs for the two pebble-bed reactors being built here, and will cover 30 percent of the construction costs.

Despite Japan’s crisis, China still plans to build as many as 50 nuclear reactors over the next five years — more than the rest of the world combined. Most of this next wave will be of more conventional designs.

But if the pebble-bed approach works as advertised, and proves cost effective, China hopes it can eventually adopt the technology on a broad scale to make nuclear power safer and more feasible as it deals with the world’s fastest growing economy and the material expectations of its 1.3 billion people.

Western environmentalists are divided on the safety of pebble-bed nuclear technology.

Thomas B. Cochran, the senior scientist on nuclear power for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an American group, said that such reactors would probably be less dangerous than current nuclear plants, and might be better for the environment than coal-fired plants.

“Over all, in terms of design,” he said, “it would appear to be safer, with the following caveat: the safety of any nuclear plant is not just a function of the design but also of the safety culture of the plant.”

The executives overseeing construction of the new Chinese reactors say that engineers are already being trained to oversee the extensively computerized controls for the plant, using a simulator at a test reactor that has been operating for a decade near Beijing, apparently without mishap.

But Greenpeace, the international environmentalist group, opposes pebble-bed nuclear reactors, questioning whether any nuclear technology can be truly safe. Wrapping the uranium fuel in graphite greatly increases the volume of radioactive waste eventually requiring disposal, said Heinz Smital, a Greenpeace nuclear technology specialist in Germany.

But he said the waste is far less radioactive per ton than spent uranium fuel rods — one of the big sources of trouble at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

China is building a repository for high-level nuclear waste, like conventional fuel rods, in the country’s arid west. But the far less radioactive spheres, or pebbles, like those from the Shidao reactors will not require such specialized storage; China plans to store the used pebbles initially at the power plants, and later at lower-level radioactive waste disposal sites near the reactors.

=========

Whatever fears the rest of the world may have about China’s nuclear ambitions, the environmental cost-benefit analysis contains at least one potential positive: More nukes would let China reduce the heavy reliance on coal and other fossil fuels that now make it the world’s biggest emitter of global-warming gases.

“China epitomizes the stark choices that we face globally in moving away from current forms of coal-based electricity,” said Jonathan Sinton, the top China specialist at the International Energy Agency in Paris. “Nuclear is an essential alternative” to coal, he said. “It’s the only one that can provide the same quality of electricity at a similar scale in the medium and long term.”
Chinese leaders have been largely unwilling to engage in the global debate on climate change. But they have made a priority of reducing urban air pollution — which kills thousands of people every year and is largely caused by burning coal — and of improving mine safety. Coal mining accidents killed more than 2,400 people in China last year alone.

China’s biggest electric company, the state-owned Huaneng Group, now aims to prove that the technology can work on a commercial scale by building the two pebble-bed reactors — each capable of meeting the residential power needs of an American city of 75,000 to 100,000 people. The reactors are expected to go into operation in about four years.

The plants’ foundations have already been laid, their steel reinforcing bars pointing skyward, on a desolate landscape dominated by thatch-roofed huts and last season’s cornfields. Chinese safety regulations require that all nuclear plants be located at least 30 miles from the nearest city, in this case Rongcheng, which has a population of one million.

It was only three days after a tsunami swamped Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant that China’s legislature approved its five-year plan calling for dozens of new nuclear reactors. As the severity of that crisis became evident, Beijing said it would “temporarily suspend“ the approval of new nuclear reactors, but would allow construction to proceed at more than two dozen other nuclear projects already under way.

By coincidence, China’s cabinet and its national energy bureau had both given final approval for the pebble-bed reactors here in Shidao in the two weeks before the earthquake, said Xu Yuanhui, the father of China’s pebble-bed nuclear program.

China’s nuclear safety agency has met since the Japanese earthquake and reviewed the Shidao’s project plans and site preparation, and has indicated it will be the next project to receive safety clearance.

“The conclusion is clear that it is all ready to start to pour concrete,” said Dr. Xu, a former Tsinghua University professor who is now the vice general manager of Chinergy, the contractor building the reactors here.

Germany led the initial research into pebble-bed nuclear reactors and built its own research version in the 1960s. That reactor closed after an accident, caused by a jammed fuel pebble that released traces of radiation — coincidentally nine days after the Chernobyl accident in 1986, at a time of greatly increased worry about nuclear safety. Dr. Xu said that China, learning from the German mishap, had designed its reactors to keep the pebbles from jamming.

South Africa tried hard until last summer to build a pebble-bed reactor but ran into serious cost overruns.

In the United States, the federal government and companies have spent heavily on pebble-bed research. But there has been little appetite for actually building new nuclear reactors — of any sort — since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

“The Chinese had a determination to build, to show the technology to work, and a commitment to get it done,” said Andrew Kadak, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology nuclear engineer specializing in pebble-bed reactors. “In the U.S. we didn’t have, and still don’t have, the commitment.”
23912  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / POTH is shocked to discover that on: March 25, 2011, 05:57:18 AM
CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.
As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.

“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.”

There is a battle consuming Egypt about the direction of its revolution, and the military council that is now running the country is sending contradictory signals. On Wednesday, the council endorsed a plan to outlaw demonstrations and sit-ins. Then, a few hours later, the public prosecutor announced that the former interior minister and other security officials would be charged in the killings of hundreds during the protests.

Egyptians are searching for signs of clarity in such declarations, hoping to discern the direction of a state led by a secretive military council brought to power by a revolution based on demands for democracy, rule of law and an end to corruption.

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is also regarded warily by some religious Egyptians, who see it as an elitist, secret society. These suspicions have created potential opportunities for other parties.

About six groups from the ultraconservative Salafist school of Islam have also emerged in the era after President Hosni Mubarak’s removal, as well as a party called Al Wassat, intended as a more liberal alternative to the Brotherhood.

In the early stages of the revolution, the Brotherhood was reluctant to join the call for demonstrations. It jumped in only after it was clear that the protest movement had gained traction. Throughout, the Brotherhood kept a low profile, part of a survival instinct honed during decades of repression by the state.

The question at the time was whether the Brotherhood would move to take charge with its superior organizational structure. It now appears that it has.

“The Brotherhood didn’t want this revolution; it has never been a revolutionary movement,” said Mr. Zarwan of the International Crisis Group. “Now it has happened; they participated cautiously, and they realize they can set their sights higher.”

But in these early stages, there is growing evidence of the Brotherhood’s rise and the overpowering force of Islam.

When the new prime minister, Essam Sharaf, addressed the crowd in Tahrir Square this month, Mohamed el-Beltagi, a prominent Brotherhood member, stood by his side. A Brotherhood member was also appointed to the committee that drafted amendments to the Constitution.

But the most obvious and consequential example was the recent referendum on the amendments, in the nation’s first post-Mubarak balloting. The amendments essentially call for speeding up the election process so that parliamentary contests can be held before September, followed soon after by a presidential race. That expedited calendar is seen as giving an advantage to the Brotherhood and to the remnants of Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, which have established national networks. The next Parliament will oversee drafting a new constitution.

Before the vote, Essam el-Erian, a Brotherhood leader and spokesman, appeared on a popular television show, “The Reality,” arguing for the government’s position in favor of the proposal. With a record turnout, the vote was hailed as a success. But the “yes” campaign was based largely on a religious appeal: voters were warned that if they did not approve the amendments, Egypt would become a secular state.

==================

Page 2 of 2)



“The problem is that our country will be without a religion,” read a flier distributed in Cairo by a group calling itself the Egyptian Revolution Society. “This means that the call to the prayer will not be heard anymore like in the case of Switzerland, women will be banned from wearing the hijab like in the case of France,” it said, referring to the Muslim head scarf. “And there will be laws that allow men to get married to men and women to get married to women like in the case of America.”


A banner hung by the Muslim Brotherhood in a square in Alexandria instructed voters that it was their “religious duty” to vote “yes” on the amendments.
In the end, 77.2 percent of those who voted said yes.

This is not to say that the Brotherhood is intent on establishing an Islamic state. From the first days of the protests, Brotherhood leaders proclaimed their dedication to religious tolerance and a democratic and pluralist form of government. They said they would not offer a candidate for president, that they would contest only a bit more than a third of the total seats in Parliament, and that Coptic Christians and women would be welcomed into the political party affiliated with the movement.

None of that has changed, Mr. Erian, the spokesman, said in an interview. “We are keen to spread our ideas and our values,” he said. “We are not keen for power.”

He would not comment on whether the Brotherhood had an arrangement with the military, but he said the will of the people to shift toward Islam spoke for itself and was a sign of Egypt’s emerging democratic values. “Don’t trust the intellectuals, liberals and secularists,” Mr. Erian said. “They are a minor group crying all the time. If they don’t work hard, they have no future.”

But the more secular forces say that what they need is time.

“I worry about going too fast towards elections, that the parties are still weak,” said Nabil Ahmed Helmy, former dean of the Zagazig law school and a member of the National Council for Human Rights. “The only thing left right now is the Muslim Brotherhood. I do think that people are trying to take over the revolution.”

Egypt is still a work in progress. Ola Shahba, 32, a member of a group in the youth coalition behind the protests, said, “After the results of the referendum, we need to be humble.”

The coalition and others have said they see the overwhelming approval of the amendments and the rise of the Brotherhood as worrisome, and as evidence that more liberal forces need to organize in a more effective outreach campaign, and fast.

“Freedom is nice; so is democracy,” said Rifaat Abdul Massih, 39, a construction worker. “But I’m a Christian, and we are a bit worried about the future. I voted ‘no’ to give more time to the secular parties. I don’t want to have the Muslim Brotherhood here right away.”
23913  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mona Charen: Holder holding water for Islam on: March 25, 2011, 05:47:36 AM
The village of Berkeley, Ill., 15 miles west of Chicago, is small enough to proclaim its population (5,245) on its welcome sign. It is also small enough to escape mention in the national news -- most of the time.

But the village, which, according to The Washington Post, is majority African-American and Hispanic, has attracted the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice. The department is suing the Berkeley School District on behalf of a former teacher.

Here are the facts: Safoorah Kahn, 29, was hired to teach middle school math in November 2007. According to her lawyer, she was happy in her job, which included preparing sixth- through eighth-graders for state tests, and running the "math lab." After nine months on the job, Kahn requested a three-week leave of absence in order to perform the hajj -- the pilgrimage to Mecca that all Muslims are obliged to undertake at least once in their lives if they can afford it.

Employers are required by law to honor requests for religious accommodations provided that they do not impose "undue hardship" on the employer or other employees. Berkeley officials maintained that a three-week absence in December -- which would have denied the school its only math lab instructor right before exams -- was unreasonable and was not covered by the teachers' union contract. They denied her request. Kahn decided to make the trip anyway and submitted her resignation.

She also submitted a letter of complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charging that the school board's refusal to grant the 19-day leave amounted to religious discrimination.

"They put her in a position where she had to choose," her lawyer, Kamran A. Memon, told the Post, and this revealed "anti-Muslim hostility."

The town's former mayor disagreed. "The school district just wanted a teacher in the room for those three weeks," said Michael A. Esposito. "They didn't care if she was a Martian, a Muslim or a Catholic."

Now the Justice Department has taken up her case. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez explains that he took the case in part to combat "a real head wind of intolerance against Muslim communities" and that Kahn's lawsuit seeks to ratify the "religious liberty that our forefathers came to this country for." Perez has spoken before of his belief, shared by Attorney General Eric Holder, that "our Muslim-American brothers and sisters" have been the victims of a post-9/11 backlash.

Now we see how Perez and Holder can assert that Muslim-Americans are suffering a "backlash." If they can see religious discrimination in Kahn's case, it's no wonder they see it under every mattress.

Reality check: Many first-year employees get no vacation days or time off. Teachers, depending upon their union-negotiated contracts, may get some. But to suggest that refusing a three-week leave at a crucial time of the school year is "discrimination" is just perverse. It's reaching to find a base motive for an obviously sensible decision.

Kahn's departure to fulfill a religious obligation that she has a lifetime to satisfy left her students bereft at a critical time. Doesn't Islam also forbid breaking a contract or leaving children in the lurch? Besides, Kahn is 29. The next scheduled hajj that will fall during a school vacation will be in eight years. Kahn will, God willing, be fully capable of making the trip then. But why accommodate your students and your employer when you can sue?

The selfishness of Kahn's behavior was so blatant that even The Washington Post was moved to look for other motives in the Justice Department's decision. "The Obama administration has gone to great lengths to maintain good relations with Muslims -- while endorsing tough anti-terrorism tactics."

This is the same month in which the Obama administration admitted that it won't be closing Guantanamo after all. And President Obama has deployed unmanned aerial vehicles pretty aggressively over Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is this a way to placate Muslim-Americans who may be unhappy about the war on terror?

It may be. Or it may just be another example of the reflex to genuflect before all claims of discrimination -- no matter how baseless. The United States government is asking for back pay, reinstatement, and money damages for Safoorah Kahn. When you elect a liberal Democrat to the White House, this is what you get.
23914  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Kudlow on Cantor's proposal on: March 25, 2011, 05:43:42 AM
 Share4  Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up 
Economic growth over the past ten years has been less than 2 percent annually. And this is a mighty soft economic recovery going on right now, following the very deep recession.

So it’s appropriate enough that Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor unveiled a strong pro-growth economic plan at Stanford’s Hoover Institution this week. Cantor is afraid the Republican budget-cutting message is a little too austere, so he’s attempting to balance the necessary budget cuts with a pro-growth, tax-and-regulatory reform message.

Cantor focuses especially on getting business tax rates down to at least 25 percent. He also proposes a tax holiday to repatriate the foreign earnings of U.S. companies. So many CEOs have made the same argument. And this was done successfully in 2004-05. If enacted, maybe $1 trillion in cash will flow back home for new investment and jobs.

But no sooner did Cantor make this speech, than the Treasury shot down any idea of a corporate-tax holiday. I guess this is the same Treasury that works for the Obama 2.0 pro-business president. Or not.

Cantor is completely right on this. He’s also right on his other proposals to lower trade barriers and put a freeze on regulatory burdens.

Mr. Cantor also has an interesting proposal to deal with the backlog of 700,000 patent requests in order to speed American innovation and small-business creation. He also believes the visa system should be streamlined to bring in high-skilled workers from abroad in order to create new jobs at home.

It will be interesting to see if Cantor’s growth message is taken up by other Republican leaders, most particularly Paul Ryan. Will Mr. Ryan include tax-and-regulatory reform with his tough budget-cutting proposals?

The only thing missing from Eric Cantor’s speech was a monetary hook to stabilize the dollar. The GOP needs a King Dollar policy. Otherwise, all the best tax cuts will be blunted by a sinking dollar and rising inflation.

But bravo to Eric Cantor for getting out a growth message. And let’s see if the GOP presidential wannabes pick up on the need for growth plan.
23915  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Charles Carroll on: March 25, 2011, 05:30:29 AM
Celebrated by his countrymen as a leading member of America’s Founding Fathers, especially as his long life surpassed those of his contemporaries, Charles Carroll (1737-1832) is long overdue for an historical appreciation.
For, of the men who founded the United States, it is unfortunate that only a few still figure in the hearts and minds of those of their countrymen who still care about the past: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Hamilton. The rest of these gallant men—not all of them equally important but all equally brave, having risked their property, including their necks, as traitors to the Crown—inhabit an historical shadow land clapped shut between the covers of dusty books disintegrating on university library shelves. Judging by the execrable state of American public education, that vast cauldron of political correctness, the average text-messaging child would be hard pressed to name the patriots just mentioned, let alone explain their individual significance to America's founding.

A thumbnail sketch of Carroll’s life proves that he is not a figure for either historian or thoughtful reader to thumb his nose at. A bastard son later legally recognized and made heir of colonial America’s wealthiest family, he was an aristocratic Catholic classically educated in France by Jesuits, from whom he learned an orthodox Christian defense of overthrowing one’s government. And from his youth to late middle-age, he was intimately engaged in the birthing and rearing of a young nation, though he often preferred working behind the scenes and within the newspapers as a propagandist in the best sense of the word: propagating the truth with clarity and conviction—two qualities abounding in this fine biography.

The only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, he also was the last surviving member of a brave group of men who risked their lives and fortunes to defend the freedoms they once enjoyed as Englishmen before George III, influenced by asinine advisors, began treating the colonials as second-class subjects. And he died a celebrated statesman and patriot, despite the stubborn, sometimes vitriolic anti-Catholicism of his times. Indeed, Charles Carroll was a deeply Catholic Christian, increasingly open about his faith as his lengthy years progressed. Yet his faith was expressed with a certain reserve that separated the tiny core of English Catholics in early America from their fellow faithful who came from countries spared the persecution of a Protestant majority.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), America's premier purveyor of conservative thought in academia and public life, heroically works to correct historical ignorance. In its "Lives of the Founders" series, ISI Books, the publication wing of ISI, pays filial homage to Founding Fathers under-served by historians guilty either of scholarly neglect or abuse borne of ideological bias.

Charles Carroll, for example, has suffered from neglect more than abuse, though one could aver that the neglect stems from left-leaning historians uninterested in writing about Founding Fathers who lack radical chic, real or imagined. (A perennial favorite is Thomas Paine, the revolutionary pamphleteer who sealed his fame with "Common Sense" before falling out of vogue with his viciously anti-Christian tracts.) Were it not for the astute new appreciation of this "forgotten Founder" by Bradley Birzer, history professor at Hillsdale College, Carroll might remain best remembered for two things: being the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence, and persevering into his tenth decade, the last signer to die.

None of his contemporaries would have considered him a mere side note, however, which is why the virtue of Birzer's book rests not upon novelty, but truth. The prose is strong yet graceful, the historical scholarship thoroughly engaging (there is a veritable treasure trove of early Americana drawn from original documents), and the personal portraits are rendered with the same luminosity with which Sir Joshua Reynolds painted the portrait of a young Charles Carroll, featured on the cover of the handsomely-designed dust jacket.

Indeed, Professor Birzer paints a portrait of the man in full with a depth that, rather than drowning the reader in detail, invites him to inspect the subject further. This is a portrait of Charles Carroll as known by his deeds as well as his personal life and character.

As for his deeds, he was pivotal to his beloved native Maryland, signing the Declaration of Independence and later ratifying the U.S. Constitution. He also was pivotal in dislodging, through politicking and the press, laws as well as attitudes that prevented Catholics and other Christians from enjoying full religious and political liberty.

A conservative of the mind as well as the heart, his similarity to Edmund Burke, whom he knew during his London days studying the law, is profound. Both championed the timeless and true, as manifested within time and place, kith and kin. For them, a “citizen of the world” was a sorry specimen of deracinated humanity, attached to everything and, therefore, nothing. Both were wary of abstract rights, pure democracy, and utopian idealism -- experiments which, from the French Revolution on, have been dragged back down to earth with bloody thuds, killing millions. Whereas Burke continues to influence conservative thought to this day, Carroll himself directly influenced an admiring houseguest, Alexis de Tocqueville. The young Frenchman’s magisterial Democracy in America spurns sugar-coating the dangers inherent in that form of government that was best expressed in ancient Athens—and that, not too well.

As for his personal life and character, Professor Birzer shows Carroll to be a man of strong, steadfast character who stuck to principle and showed himself smart and courageous in the political realm. In private, however, his aristocratic detachment must have made life less than charming for his family: at least for the son who died of alcoholism and the wife who, after bearing his children and dying young, seems to have died in a pain deeper and more hurtful than the pain dulled by the opium addiction she acquired during her illness.

Yet, Professor Birzer shows how Charles Carroll mellowed with age and deepened in personal understanding as decade passed into decade till he died in his tenth to great outpourings of national mourning. The reasons for such mourning deserve to be known once again—indeed, known even more deeply, this generation of Americans having no nostalgic connection to those among the first.

Matthew A. Rarey, a journalist living in Chicago, graduated from St. John’s College in Annapolis, where Charles Carroll spent much of his life. Any visitor to this most English of American cities will be imbued with the presence of Carroll, whose ancestral home is located next door to the Catholic church, steps up the street from the harbor.

23916  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Today's GB show: The plan is to dump Israel? on: March 24, 2011, 09:10:43 PM
Intriguing and scary show from GB today; like all of us, he is trying to make sense of a world that is no longer making sense.

He made a very plausible case that the secret plan is to dump Israel as an ally.  He went into this at length.  I suspect if someone were to search function here for Cass Sunstein's wife and BO Israel-Palestine advisor Samantha Powers you would see what she was saying before plucked into the inner circle by Baraq.  The gist of it is that we need to ignore certain powerful domestic constituencies, stop supporting Israel, and use the money to build up Palestine.

Not sure if I will get this right, but the same basis "the duty to prevent harm to civilians" for the intervention in Libya will be used against Israel to keep it from hurting the Palestinians-- GB named a WH aide to Baraq who is already making this case.  Egypt's army in alliance with Muslim Brotherhood, now that Baraq has eased Murbarak out the door, will be ready to assist.

Of course it is a coincidence that Jordan Air's map now shows Jordan including where Israel now is and that Turkey is planning anohter flotilla to break the Gaza embargo.

Separately he discussed Baraq's trip to Brazil, the US helping fund Petrobras's deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico while Cass Sunstein denies US companies permits to do the same thing with their money.  Of course it is just a coincidence that this comes after Soros has been trading in Petrobas.
23917  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: March 24, 2011, 08:57:41 PM
"However I just don't know that Iraq 2 will benefit this country in the long run.  I guess no one can know at this time."

1) My point is not that how it turned out was/is a good thing, but that it would have/could have been a good thing but for progressive perfidy; and

2) Thought exercise:  What would things look like now if we had NOT gone in?  What would SH be up to?  Would our troops still be in Saudi Arabia?  Where would Kadaffy be with his nuke program? etc etc etc



23918  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: March 24, 2011, 06:03:10 PM
A mystery to me why the market is going up , , ,  huh huh huh
23919  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: March 24, 2011, 05:58:04 PM
I stand by Iraq 2.  After some very poor leadership by Bush-Rumbo, we finally got it together only to have the constant drumbeat of defeatism, cowardice, anti-Americanism, and occasional treason of the American Left (progressives, liberals, dems, socialists, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Gore, NY Times-LA Times-and-the-other-Pravdas et al) sabotage us from within and abroad.  I AM NOT saying that many good patriotic Americans were not opposed!  I AM saying that many others crossed the line many times and sometimes crossed it very far.

It we had lost our will after the Surge worked, the whole dynamic we are looking at now would have an entirely different hue.

Instead the accumulating clusterfcuk headed our way began with going limp in Iraq, then Baraq's performancin in Afpakia, and the accumulating momentum of @$%#%^#%& since then.
 
23920  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 24, 2011, 05:48:30 PM
Doug:

I agree on points both small (e.g. Hannity is an ass) and large ("Parroting the Bush-haters, everything is an opportunity to attack Obama.  These candidates become the guests on these shows doing much of the same.  US policy and involvement in the Middle East and North Africa is more important than that.  A serious candidate needs to instead lay out a serious case for what criteria goes into all these questions,  who leads the coalition, whenr to go to congress, how to communicate what we are doing to the American people and what we want to communicate to others who will read something into our actions, such as the tyrants and rebels in other countries.")

EXACTLY SO.  Let this sentiment guide all of us here! 
23921  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: March 24, 2011, 05:43:09 PM
JDN: IMHO it is well worth the time.

CCP: It may get lively by the time I am scheduled to be in Israel!  cheesy
23922  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Ta da! The DBMA SP site is up! on: March 24, 2011, 12:07:39 PM


http://dbmaschoolprogram.com
23923  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stratfor: Implications on: March 24, 2011, 11:30:31 AM
Dispatch: Implications of the Attacks in Israel
March 23, 2011 | 2013 GMT
Click on image below to watch video:



Analyst Reva Bhalla explains the regional consequences of the escalating violence in Israel and what this means for Iran and Egypt.


Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

A bombing struck a bus station in central Jerusalem on Tuesday wounding 34 people and killing one other. This apparent escalation by at least some Palestinian factions raises the potential for another military campaign by Israel in the Palestinian territories. This not only could produce another crisis for Egypt, but could also play to Iranian interests in the region.

This quite rare Jerusalem attack comes on the heels of a barrage of rocket attacks coming from Gaza Strip into population centers in southern Israel and the Negev Desert. It also comes a little less than two weeks after a particularly gruesome attack on a family in the West Bank in the Itamar settlement. We are clearly seeing an escalation by at least some Palestinian factions against Israel. Now who is actually behind the attacks is much less clear. Often you will find that a lot of groups will use contradicting claims and denials and new names to deliberately confuse the Israel security intelligence apparatus. Some of the more recent rocket attacks from Gaza were claimed by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which out of all the Palestinian militant groups is the closest to Iran.

We therefore need to put this latest attack in regional context. The killings in the West Bank were intentionally designed to provoke the Israelis. The Israelis, however, refused to be provoked. Then we saw a barrage of rocket attacks coming from Gaza now coordinated with an attack on a bus station in central Jerusalem.

This now could produce an enormous crisis for Egypt. The Egyptian government, now led by the military, is in a very delicate position in trying to manage this political transition at home while now also trying to deal with a war next door in Libya. On top of that, we’re seeing an escalation in the Palestinian territories, and whenever you have an Israeli military intervention in the Gaza Strip, which now seems very possible, you have an influx of refugees from Gaza into the Sinai Peninsula. That creates a security crisis on the Egyptians and the Egyptians often have to clamp down on the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and the Sinai.

This could allow Hamas in the Gaza Strip and, crucially, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is the main opposition group in Egypt, to condemn the Egyptian military-led government and escalate anti-Israeli sentiment. That in turn could endanger the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and this is a dynamic that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood couldn’t really capitalize on during the recent crisis, but it could do so now, especially if you have an Israeli military intervention in the Gaza Strip under the current circumstances.

When going beyond the Palestinian territories, we have a situation where the Iranians are pursuing a covert destabilization campaign in the Persian Gulf region, using Shia unrest to destabilize the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in particular. When looking at the unrest overall in the region, the one key ingredient that was missing was Israel. Israel is often the single unifying call for many on the Arab streets, and that is certainly something that a lot of Palestinian factions will be paying attention to right now. Watch for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and others in the region to escalate attacks in an effort to provoke a military confrontation with Israeli forces, create a crisis for Egypt through the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and threaten Israel on multiple fronts. This is something that could well play to the Iranian agenda and escalate the regional unrest overall.

23924  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stratfor: Kadaffy's terrorism options on: March 24, 2011, 10:49:42 AM
Libya's Terrorism Option
March 23, 2011


By Scott Stewart

On March 19, military forces from the United States, France and Great Britain began to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which called for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized the countries involved in enforcing the zone to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians and “civilian-populated areas under threat of attack.” Obviously, such military operations cannot be imposed against the will of a hostile nation without first removing the country’s ability to interfere with the no-fly zone — and removing this ability to resist requires strikes against military command-and-control centers, surface-to-air missile installations and military airfields. This means that the no-fly zone not only was a defensive measure to protect the rebels — it also required an attack upon the government of Libya.

Certainly, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has no doubt that the U.S. and European military operations against the Libyan military targets are attacks against his regime. He has specifically warned France and the United Kingdom that they would come to regret the intervention. Now, such threats could be construed to mean that should Gadhafi survive, he will seek to cut off the countries’ access to Libyan energy resources in the future. However, given Libya’s past use of terrorist strikes to lash out when attacked by Western powers, Gadhafi’s threats certainly raise the possibility that, desperate and hurting, he will once again return to terrorism as a means to seek retribution for the attacks against his regime. While threats of sanctions and retaliation have tempered Gadhafi’s use of terrorism in recent years, his fear may evaporate if he comes to believe he has nothing to lose.


History of Libyan Reactions

Throughout the early 1980s, the U.S. Navy contested Libya’s claim to the Gulf of Sidra and said the gulf was international water. This resulted in several minor skirmishes, such as the incident in August 1981 when U.S. Navy fighters downed two Libyan aircraft. Perhaps the most costly of these skirmishes for Libya occurred in March 1986, when a U.S. task force sank two Libyan ships and attacked a number of Libyan surface-to-air missile sites that had launched missiles at U.S. warplanes.

The Libyans were enraged by the 1986 incident, but as the incident highlighted, they lacked the means to respond militarily due to the overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces. This prompted the Libyans to employ other means to seek revenge. Gadhafi had long seen himself as the successor to Gamal Abdel Nasser as the leader of Arab nationalism and sought to assert himself in a number of ways. Lacking the population and military of Egypt, or the finances of Saudi Arabia, he began to use terrorism and the support of terrorist groups as a way to undermine his rivals for power in the Arab world. Later, when he had been soundly rejected by the Arab world, he began to turn his attention to Africa, where he employed these same tools. They could also be used against what Gadhafi viewed as imperial powers.

On April 2, 1986, a bomb tore a hole in the side of TWA Flight 840 as it was flying from Rome to Athens. The explosion killed four American passengers and injured several others. The attack was claimed by the Arab Revolutionary Cells but is believed to have been carried out by the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), one of the Marxist terrorist groups heavily sponsored by Libya.

On the evening of April 5, 1986, a bomb detonated in the La Belle disco in Berlin. Two U.S. soldiers and one civilian were killed in the blast and some 200 others were injured. Communications between Tripoli and the Libyan People’s Bureau (its embassy) in East Berlin were intercepted by the United States, which, armed with this smoking gun tying Libya to the La Belle attack, launched a retaliatory attack on Libya the night of April 15, 1986, that included a strike against Gadhafi’s residential compound and military headquarters at Bab Al Azizia, south of Tripoli. The strike narrowly missed killing Gadhafi, who had been warned of the impending attack. The warning was reportedly provided by either a Maltese or Italian politician, depending on which version of the story one hears.

The Libyan government later claimed that the attack killed Gadhafi’s young daughter, but this was pure propaganda. It did, however, anger and humiliate Gadhafi, though he lacked the ability to respond militarily. In the wake of the attack on his compound, Gadhafi feared additional reprisals and began to exercise his terrorist hand far more carefully and in a manner to provide at least some degree of deniability. One way he did this was by using proxy groups to conduct his strikes, such as the ANO and the Japanese Red Army (JRA). It did not take Gadhafi’s forces long to respond. On the very night of the April 15 U.S. attack, U.S. Embassy communications officer William Calkins was shot and critically wounded in Khartoum, Sudan, by a Libyan revolutionary surrogates in Sudan. On April 25, Arthur Pollock, a communicator at the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, was also shot and seriously wounded by an ANO gunman.

In May 1986, the JRA attacked the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, with an improvised mortar that caused little damage, and the JRA conducted similar ineffective attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Madrid in February and April of 1987. In June 1987, JRA operatives attacked the U.S. Embassy in Rome using vehicle-borne improvised explosive device and an improvised mortar. In April 1988, the group attacked the USO club in Naples. JRA bombmaker Yu Kikumura was arrested on the New Jersey Turnpike in April 1988 while en route to New York City to conduct a bombing attack there. The use of ANO and JRA surrogates provided Gadhafi with some plausible deniability for these attacks, but there is little doubt that he was behind them. Then on Dec. 21, 1988, Libyan agents operating in Malta succeeded in placing a bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103, which was destroyed in the air over Scotland. All 259 passengers and crew members aboard that flight died, as did 11 residents of Lockerbie, Scotland, the town where the remnants of the Boeing 747 jumbo jet fell. Had the jet exploded over the North Atlantic as intended instead of over Scotland, the evidence that implicated Libya in the attack most likely never would have been found.

But the United States has not been the only target of Libyan terrorism. While the Libyans were busy claiming the Gulf of Sidra during the 1980s, they were also quite involved in propagating a number of coups and civil wars in Africa. One civil war in which they became quite involved was in neighboring Chad. During their military intervention there, the Libyans suffered heavy losses and eventually defeat due to French intervention on the side of the Chadian government. Not having the military might to respond to France militarily, Gadhafi once again chose the veiled terrorist hand. On Sept. 19, 1989, UTA Flight 772 exploded shortly after taking off from N’Djamena, Chad, en route to Paris. All 156 passengers and 14 crew members were killed by the explosion. The French government investigation into the crash found that the aircraft went down as a result of a bombing and that the bomb had been placed aboard the aircraft in Brazzaville, the Republic of the Congo, by Congolese rebels working with the Libyan People’s Bureau there. Six Libyans were tried in absentia and convicted for their part in the attack.


The Current Situation

Today Libya finds itself once again being attacked by an opponent with an overwhelmingly powerful military that Gadhafi’s forces cannot stand up to. While Gadhafi did take responsibility for some of Libya’s past terrorist attacks and publicly renounced terrorism in 2003, this step was a purely pragmatic move on his part. It was not the result of some ideological epiphany that suddenly caused Gadhafi to become a kinder and gentler guy. From the late 1980s to the renunciation of terrorism in 2003, Gadhafi retained the capability to continue using terrorism as a foreign policy tool but simply chose not to. And this capability remains in his tool box.

Unlike his views of past crises, Gadhafi sees the current attacks against him as being far more dangerous to the survival of his regime than the Gulf of Sidra skirmishes or the French military operations in Chad. Gadhafi has always been quite cold and calculating. He has not hesitated to use violence against those who have affronted him, even his own people. Now he is cornered and fearful for his very survival. Because of this, there is a very real possibility that the Libyans will employ terrorism against the members of the coalition now implementing and enforcing the no-fly zone.

Gadhafi has a long history of using diplomatic staff, which the Libyans refer to as “revolutionary committees,” to conduct all sorts of skullduggery, from planning terrorist attacks to fomenting coups. Indeed, these diplomats have often served as agents for spreading Gadhafi’s revolutionary principles elsewhere. Because of this history, coalition members will almost certainly be  carefully monitoring the activities of Libyan diplomats within their countries — and elsewhere.

As illustrated by most of the above-mentioned terrorist attacks launched or commissioned by the Libyans, they have frequently conducted attacks against their targeted country in a third country. This process of monitoring Libyan diplomats will be greatly aided by the defection of a large number of diplomats in a variety of countries who undoubtedly have been thoroughly debriefed by security agencies looking for any hints that Gadhafi is looking to resume his practice of terrorism. These defectors will also prove helpful in identifying intelligence officers still loyal to Gadhafi and perhaps even in locating Libyan intelligence officers working under non-official cover.

But diplomats are not the only source Gadhafi can tap for assistance. As noted above, Gadhafi has a long history of using proxies to conduct terrorist attacks. Using a proxy provides Gadhafi with the plausible deniability he requires to continue to spin his story to the world that he is an innocent victim of senseless aggression. Perhaps more important, hiding his hand can also help prevent reprisal attacks. While most of the 1980s-era Marxist proxy groups the Libyans worked with are defunct, Gadhafi does have other options.

One option is to reach out to regional jihadist groups such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), while another is to cultivate already improving relationships with jihadists groups in Libya such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). Indeed, Gadhafi has released hundreds of LFIG members from prison, a process that continued even after the unrest began in February. It is doubtful that the LIFG really feels any affinity for Gadhafi — the group launched an insurgency against his regime in the mid-1990s and actually tried to assassinate him — but it could be used to funnel funds and weapons to regional groups like AQIM. Such groups certainly have no love for the French, Americans or British and might be willing to conduct attacks against their interests in exchange for weapons and funding from Libya. AQIM is desperate for resources and has been involved in kidnapping for ransom and drug smuggling to raise funds to continue its struggle. This need might help it overcome its disdain for Gadhafi.

In the long run groups like AQIM and LIFG certainly would pose a threat to Gadhafi, but facing the very real existential threat from the overwhelming military force now being arrayed against him, Gadhafi may view the jihadist threat as far less pressing and severe.

Other potential agents for Libyan terrorist attacks are the various African rebel and revolutionary groups Gadhafi has maintained contact with and even supported over the years. Many of the mercenaries that have reportedly fought on the side of the Libyan loyalist forces have come from such groups. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Gadhafi could call upon such allies to attack French, British, Italian or American interests in his allies’ respective countries. Such actors would have ready access to weapons (likely furnished by Libya to begin with), and the capabilities of host-country security services are quite limited in many African states. This would make them ideal places to conduct terrorist attacks. However, due to the limited capabilities exhibited by such groups, they would likely require direct Libyan oversight and guidance (the kind of direct Libyan guidance for African rebels demonstrated in the UTA Flight 772 bombing) if they were to conduct attacks against hardened targets in Africa such as foreign embassies.

Also, as seen in the wake of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s Christmas Day bomb plot in 2009, which originated in Ghana, passenger and cargo screening at African airports is not as stringent as it is elsewhere. When combined with Libya’s history of attacking aircraft, and placing bombs aboard foreign aircraft in third countries, the possibility of such an attack must surely be of grave concern for Western security officials.

Terrorism, however, has its limitations, as shown by Gadhafi’s activities in the 1980s. While the Libyans were able to launch several successful terrorist strikes, kill hundreds of people and traumatize many more through terror multipliers like the media, they were not able to cause any sort of lasting impact on the foreign policies of the United States or France. The attacks only served to harden the resolve of those countries to impose their will on Gadhafi, and he eventually capitulated and renounced terrorism. Those Libyan-sponsored attacks in the 1980s are also an important factor governing the way the world views Gadhafi — and today they may be playing a large part in the decision made by countries like France that Gadhafi must go. Of course, it is also this attitude — that Gadhafi must be forced out — that could lead him to believe he has nothing to lose by playing the terrorism card once again.

23925  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Newt, Barbor on: March 24, 2011, 10:41:58 AM
a) I saw that Newt apparently was for an invasion of Libya a few weeks ago, until now he was against it.

b) Pravda on the Beach (Left Angeles Times) reports this morning that Haley Barbor has been caught in a fib about not representing the Mexican govt as a lobbyist in its efforts to secure amnesty for its citizens here illegally or something like that.
23926  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: March 24, 2011, 08:30:41 AM
The quality of your commentary is appreciated BD.
23927  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: The Straight Blast on: March 24, 2011, 08:22:21 AM
FWIW, here is how I organize it

a) Wing Chun/early Jun Fan Straight Blast:  Done with shuffle footwork.  2-3 strikes per step. When the range is already closed and an opening is created by a hit, it can be very effective.  Potential drawbacks:  forward pressure may not be enough in many situations, temptation to start it from too far away/without a prior hit.  Given the great exposure of the jaw to a counter hook, Plan A had better work.

b) Later Jun Fan/JKD Straight Blast see e.g. Paul Vunak:  The difference here is that the footwork is a natural sprint, so forward pressure is far greater.  This is a good thing. Again 2-3 strikes per step.  Again Plan A had better work or a counter hook can be very bad.  Again the temptation to start from too far away/without a prior hit.  The temptation can be all the greater because it can often work without a prior hit.  Against an opponent who moves his head well, weave and shoot becomes a risk in addition to the hook.

c) The Boxing Blast: see e.g Vitor Belfort vs. Vanderlei Silva or the footage in this thread of Lyoto Machida or various current MMA fighters :  Same footwork/forward pressure as the JKD Straight Blast, but only one strike per step, but because the punch is a boxing type punch instead of a vertical punch, the shoulders naturally cover the jaw or more readily can flinch to cover the jaw.  see e.g. the Lyoto clip in this thread.

d) Recently I have developed what I call "the Rabid Blast".  Like the WC/JF and the JKD Straight Blasts it seeks to impose neurological overload by punching three strikes per step (well two strikes and a sector framing strike to be specific smiley ).  Like the JKD SB and the Boxing Blast it seeks to impose strong forward pressure, though the footwork prefers to zig zag ("sawtooth" in our terminology) unless the opponent is so on his heels that a straight line is required to keep up with him.  Like the Boxing Blast is seeks to keep the jaw protected; though in my opinion it does so to a greater degree.  Ideally weave and shoot counters are partially dealt with by using the angle created by the sawtooth footwork, often in conjunction with what we call a "silat gator roll".  Because of our concerns about striking the skull with our fists, the strikes are heel palm.  The nature of the strikes overlaps with old school boxing, but is neither vertical fist nor boxing.
The chambers from which they initiate are different (think the double stick chamber we call the Arf-arful Dodger) and rhythmically they are a bit different too;  I may be mistaken but at the moment I think the rhythm is in 6/8.
23928  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: The Stability Dilema on: March 24, 2011, 07:34:37 AM
'Stability" was the watchword of virtually all Middle East policy as far back as anyone can remember. Whether for purposes of avoiding war with Israel, protecting a primary source of world energy, or securing intelligence-sharing relationships to fight al Qaeda, stability had its reasons in the Middle East.

That model of stability ended its long run with the self-immolation of a Tunisian street vendor in December. It's not coming back.

The future holds three alternative models of stability: The first is Gadhafism, the stability of the fist; the second is the enforcements of Islam; and the last—and most desirable—is economic modernity.

Some in the anti-Gadhafi coalition from Europe and the U.S seem willing to accept an endgame in which Gadhafi retains power. Unrestrained Gadhafism will follow: The stability that the psychopathic colonel imposes after the coalition goes home will make previous repressions look like kindergarten exercises.

This may be an acceptable price to some realists in the Pentagon and Europe and to reluctant soldiers in the White House. The problem is that variants of Gadhafist stability, without the evil clown, are likely to be the new norm among the Middle East's surviving autocrats. This degree of repression is already standard in Iran, which hangs opponents with metronomic regularity.

This week, protests of almost unbelievable pluck and courage emerged in Syria of all places. But the Assad family, back to the Hama massacre of 1982, has a dishonorable tradition of stability through murder and imprisonment. With Saudi assistance, Bahrain's opposition is getting hammered hard.

One might even argue that Mubarak blinked. If Mubarak had known how tough it would be for the West to oppose Gadhafi's bombing of his own people, he might have loosed his army on the Cairo protesters and survived, once past a spate of pro-forma international denunciation. Yemen's President Saleh won't blink.

If Gadhafism survives and spreads, with the West's assent, its tens of millions of victims will have a more rational reason than "oil" to blame the West for their condition. They may go looking for targets.

Pre-modern Islam is eager to impose another form of stability. The snap referendum on constitutional amendments in Egypt showed that the Muslim Brotherhood is building a modus vivendi with the military. Egypt's brass are uncomfortable with the youth movement, whose complaints are mostly economic and thereby a threat to the military's cash flow from crony capitalism.

 
Associated Press
 
Moammar Gadhafi
.Some say that the Islamic nations of southeast Asia or even Turkey prove Middle Eastern Islam can co-exist with the world economy. But there is scant evidence. Read the translated sermons of the Brotherhood's current chairman, Mohammed Badie (at MEMRI.org) for a sense of his millennial obsessions.

Gadhafism or ascendant Islam make it likely that the U.S. military will have to return to the region on a large scale—either after another massively homicidal terrorist attack on a Western urban center or a bad miscalculation over Israel. Or when the next street vendor reignites the region.

For reasons of self-protection and self-respect, we need an alternative to the fake stability of Gadhafism or militant Islam. Why not economic modernity?

The protests in these nations are political and economic, but I think they are mostly economic. In a column last month, "Is Egypt Hopeless?" I argued that the autocrats' decades-old model of using public-sector jobs to placate their populations' economic aspirations was falling apart. More recently for National Review, Daniel Doron wrote a more complete summary (which our Pentagon brass should read) of how these nations have stumbled through Cold War socialism, nationalizations, the corruption of their elites, and the destruction of their middle classes to arrive at this year's multi-nation eruption of refusal.

The latest nerve-wracking basket-case is Yemen. Its unemployment rate the past 10 years has been about 35%. For Yemenis under 26, the current rate is 53%. Yemen produces about 300,000 mostly unemployable college graduates annually. No wonder the American-born Anwar al- Awlaki headed to Yemen to recruit.

The outside world has a self-interest in pushing the Middle East's economies toward the 21st century. Without economic upgrades, the underemployment bomb will tick and re-explode—there or here.

Rebuilding from economic failure isn't easy, but it isn't rocket science. One good, achievable idea suggested recently has been a free trade agreement between Egypt and the U.S. and Europe. But if the Obama team won't complete a free trade deal with Colombia, a friend and ally, then Egypt and the rest really are hopeless. Barack Obama's union base is looking like a national security issue.

Many people in U.S. public life don't want to get involved with this Middle East tangle. Alas, the gods do not ordain a timeline for crises. These insurrections—now spread across 11 separate nations—are a big, historic moment, similar in some ways to what happened around Eastern Europe before the Berlin Wall fell. The U.S. didn't blow that one. What's needed now is an equivalent level of leadership and strategic thinking to ensure we don't fall on the wrong side of this one.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

23929  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: NPR on: March 24, 2011, 07:27:05 AM
We search for Truth around here.  Does anyone have anything on the assertion here about The Blaze's saying that O'keefe misled?
================

By STEVE INSKEEP
On the day NPR chief executive Vivian Schiller lost her job, I was reporting from Egypt. That evening, I had dinner with employees from NPR's Cairo bureau. I wasn't eager to talk shop, but I didn't have to. The conversation barely touched on news from home.

Instead we spoke of Egypt's revolution. And we talked over the logistics of supplying our colleagues in nearby Libya with body armor.

When I had time to think about it, I noticed a contrast between the news that NPR reports from the Arab world and the news NPR has lately made at home. Each news story revealed the values of the people reporting it.

Here the story was reality TV. A video editor created a faux organization, set up a meeting, and secretly recorded the bone-headed remarks of an NPR executive. The editor, activist James O'Keefe, spliced together clips to suggest that NPR was prepared to take money from an Islamist group allegedly founded by members of the "Muslim Brotherhood in America."

Emails show that NPR refused the money, and the conservative website The Blaze discovered that the executive's remarks were repeatedly lifted out of context. Nevertheless, the executive and his CEO were dismissed.

I congratulate Mr. O'Keefe for upholding his values: faith in the power of video to mislead. As columnist Michael Gerson noted in the Washington Post, by selectively misquoting the executive's words, rearranging events, and other devices, Mr. O'Keefe made him sound sympathetic to Islamic radicals and unfairly tarnished NPR with "an elaborate, alluring lie."

At the same time, my NPR colleagues in the Arab world were reporting on the actual Muslim Brotherhood and many other players involved in the uprisings. My colleagues' reporting technique demonstrates their values. Suppose you're NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, one of the first reporters into Libya after its rebellion began. You need to know if the rebels are advancing. The only way to find out is to drive toward the front lines until the artillery shells exploding around you make it clear that they're not. Next, you figure out how to get back alive. Then you try to rest, because you'll do it again tomorrow.

With those values in mind, let's consider the fundamental question: the accusation of "liberal bias" at NPR, which drives many critics calling to eliminate its federal funding. It's not my job as a reporter to address the funding question. But I can point out that the recent tempests over "perceived bias" have nothing to do with what NPR puts on the air.

The facts show that NPR attracts a politically diverse audience of 33.7 million weekly listeners to its member stations on-air. In surveys by GfK MRI, most listeners consistently identify themselves as "middle of the road" or "conservative." Millions of conservatives choose NPR, even with powerful conservative alternatives on the radio.

View Full Image

Getty Images
 .I've met an incredible variety of listeners in my travels. The audience includes students, peace activists, and American soldiers I met in Iraq. They're among many people in the military who rely on NPR's international coverage. When I was NPR's Pentagon correspondent, I discovered that it's a prize beat, because on every base you meet people who already know who you are. Many other Americans are listening in places like Indiana, my home state, or Kentucky, where I first worked in public radio. Not much of the media pays attention to the middle of the country, but NPR and its local stations do. Many NPR stations have added news staff as local newspapers have declined.

Members of Congress listen too: A few months ago I was interviewing a Republican lawmaker who quoted an NPR story he'd heard that morning. And there are people like the woman I met at a Sarah Palin debate party in 2008, in rural western Virginia. She said she listened during long drives required by her job with a railroad. The same programs she hears in Virginia have also reached an audience abroad. In Egypt last week, a young man told me he so admires the quirky reporting of my colleague Robert Krulwich that he plans to translate it into Arabic.

Conservatives in our diverse audience let us know when they disagree with our coverage—as do liberals, who've sent notes for years to advise me that I am conservative. Most listeners understand that we're all figuring out the world together, calmly and honestly, in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

NPR's audience keeps expanding because Americans want more than toxic political attacks. They want news. Think again of my colleagues in Libya, going forward to bear witness amid exploding shells. Is that liberal or conservative? Maybe it's neither. It's an honest and honorable effort to keep Americans informed.

Mr. Inskeep is co-host of NPR's "Morning Edition."

23930  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: An AF General's analysis on: March 24, 2011, 07:21:43 AM
By CHARLES A. HORNER
The military operations against the Gadhafi regime in Libya appear to be going well. But going where? To succeed, military leaders need clearly defined goals that can be achieved by the use of force. You need to know what you are tasked to accomplish, and then you can evaluate pertinent factors such as friendly and enemy capabilities, terrain and weather to define a strategy.

In 1990-91, coalition forces confronting Iraq had two objectives: to protect the Gulf Cooperation Council nations from Iraqi attacks, and to liberate occupied Kuwait. Some argue that these objectives were too narrow to do such things as topple Saddam's regime or bring representative government to Iraq, both desirable goals from a coalition standpoint. Regardless, we knew we could achieve the goals set forth by our political leadership with military force, and we went on to prove it during Operation Desert Storm.

The air strikes in Libya are aimed at the objective of "protecting civilians," but the U.S. has not defined whether the rebel forces are civilian, military or both. If they go on the offensive, do they deserve our protection (and inherent support)? Furthermore, our political leaders have stated that "Gadhafi must go," but they altered their pronouncements upon recognizing that ousting Gadhafi might not be achievable under the use-of-force rules set by the United Nations Security Council resolution.

Other unstated coalition goals likely relate to the fact that it is in the national interests of Britain and France to have continued access to Libyan oil. Disruption of the status quo in the Arab world may also work for or against the interests of Israel. So one's view of the desired outcome in Libya can hinge on factors independent of the best interests of the Libyan rebels. Failure to precisely define the objectives of military operations can lead to confusion regarding the best ways and means to achieve them.

Fortunately, because of the relative strength of the competing militaries, it may be possible to live with the current lack of focused political leadership.

The forces supporting Gadhafi are vulnerable to coalition air operations due to their weaknesses, the terrain and the weather. This was evident from the ease with which the coalition seized control of the air. While the coalition leaders announced that they will not provide air support to rebel ground forces, they have already done so during very effective operations at Ajdabiya. Finally, the command of air operations is coordinated but diffused, a situation that could not be tolerated if confronted by a more capable opponent.

U.N., NATO, European, Arab League and U.S. leaders may yet come to agreement on the objectives of our military operations in Libya. They are likely to include the need to protect civilians, replace the Gadhafi regime, and be willing to accept the uncertain end state that will come about.

In Afghanistan, we demonstrated that an inferior indigenous ground force can prevail if supported by modern air power. In Kosovo, we saw an undefeated Serbian army depart because of effective air power alone.

Air power in support of rebel ground forces can defeat Gadhafi's fielded forces. This will require putting tactical air-control parties on the ground to advise the rebel forces and control air strikes. This will also result in civilian casualties, an unfortunate side effect of any armed conflict. It may also result in an end state that we may come to regret. At a minimum, failure to define the operational objectives could result in the protracted conflict Gadhafi promised.

But the shooting has started, and now we must seek a strategy to end it. The Libyan army relies more on artillery and armor than on air power. The "no-fly zone" concept of operations deceptively promised to end civilian suffering but did not provide the range of options needed for coalition forces to do it. Apparently, the rebel forces are not capable of defeating the forces loyal to Gadhafi in the absence of overwhelming air support. It may not be sporting to take out tanks with precision munitions dropped from a stealth bomber above 25,000 feet, but it is effective.

Failure to fully unleash air power will allow Gadhafi to play for time, exploit tribal loyalties, and otherwise frustrate the coalition's attempts to protect Libyan civilians. The actions to date against Gadhafi have failed to bring about the desired end state. The start of this war was characterized by half-measures, ill-defined thinking, and conflicting political objectives. Now, to end it, we need to build on our remaining strengths.

Gen. Horner (Air Force, ret.) commanded coalition air forces during Desert Shield and Desert Storm and flew F-16 sorties in the southern no-fly zone over Iraq.

23931  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Fake digi certificates on: March 24, 2011, 07:14:27 AM

By CHRISTOPHER RHOADS
An Internet-security company said it was tricked into trying to lure Iranian users to fake versions of major websites, a sophisticated hack it suspects the Iranian government carried out.

Comodo Group Inc., a Jersey City, N.J., company that issues digital certificates to assure Internet users of websites' authenticity, said Wednesday it had issued nine such certificates to what turned out to be fraudulent websites set up in Iran.

The March 15 attack involved certificates for fake versions of Google Inc.'s Gmail site, Yahoo Inc.'s login page and websites run by Microsoft Corp., Firefox browser maker Mozilla Corp. and Internet telephone company Skype.

In theory, an Iranian attempting to log into his Yahoo account, for example, could have been misdirected to a fake site. That would allow the perpetrators to obtain a host of online information including contents of email, passwords and usernames, while monitoring activity on the dummy sites.

Since the targeted sites offer communication services, not financial transactions, Comodo said it seemed clear the hackers sought information, not money.

It wasn't clear whether anyone fell for the ruse. Comodo said it didn't know how many of the nine certificates were received by the attacker.

Iran's mission to the U.N. didn't reply to an emailed request for comment after business hours. Iran has said it is trying to combat Western culture and influence entering Iran via the Internet, a virtual clash it has called the "soft war."

The attack comes amid popular uprisings across the Middle East, where the Internet has played a critical role—not just in activists' efforts to stage protests, but also in state censorship and repression.

If Iran was involved, it suggests the government has stepped up electronic-monitoring efforts of its citizens, Internet security experts said. Iranian authorities got an early look at the power of social media during the mass protests following allegations of rigged elections in June 2009. It has since formed a "cyber army" to gain the upper hand over the Internet in Iran, which has more than 20 million users.

"This is a nightmare scenario," said Mikko Hypponen, head of research at F-Secure, a Helsinki, Finland-based Internet security firm. "You have to trust the companies selling these certificates and if we can't, then all bets are off."

Comodo said it traced the attack to an Internet service provider in Iran and concluded in an online post that the act was likely "state-funded" because the attacker would have needed access to critical Web infrastructure in the country.

While the company acknowledged the attacker could have been laying a false trail, it said the likely aim was to get online information about Iranian citizens.

"It does not escape notice that the domains targeted would be of greatest use to a government attempting surveillance of Internet use by dissident groups," the company said in the post.

Comodo said the attacker gained entry to its system by obtaining the password and username of a European affiliate. Once inside, it issued the certificates for the phony sites. Comodo said it detected the breach within hours of the attack and revoked the certificates immediately.

A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company issued an upgraded security patch to help protect against fraudulent digital certificates. Mozilla declined to comment. Skype said it was monitoring the situation but didn't expect any impact. Google said it took steps to protect its users, but didn't specify them. Yahoo also said it was monitoring the situation.

"This is not a random hacker tinkering around," said Mr. Hypponen of the Finnish security firm. "You have to plan it beforehand and know what you're doing."

Austin Heap, a San Franciso-based Internet activist who has developed anti-censoring tools for use in Iran, said the development seems to suggest the Iranian government is becoming more professional and organized in online repression.

"It shows they have a plan," he said. "They are getting to the point where China is, where they can exert total control."

Write to Christopher Rhoads at christopher.rhoads@wsj.com



Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703362904576219321279603988.html#ixzz1HWCle7wO
23932  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Baraq trims Miranda on: March 24, 2011, 07:05:34 AM
By EVAN PEREZ
New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.

The move is one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S. And it potentially opens a new political tussle over national security policy, as the administration marks another step back from pre-election criticism of unorthodox counterterror methods.

The Supreme Court's 1966 Miranda ruling obligates law-enforcement officials to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for questioning. A 1984 decision amended that by allowing the questioning of suspects for a limited time before issuing the warning in cases where public safety was at issue.

That exception was seen as a limited device to be used only in cases of an imminent safety threat, but the new rules give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights.

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to "exceptional cases" where investigators "conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat." Such action would need prior approval from FBI supervisors and Justice Department lawyers, according to the memo, which was issued in December but not made public.

A Process for Questioning Detainees
From Miranda v. Arizona ruling: "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently."

—Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1966

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Landmark ruling, citing the Fifth Amendment, says suspects must be reminded of their right to avoid self incrimination.

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)

Police can't perform questioning or its "functional equivalent" if a suspect requests an attorney.

New York v. Quarles (1984)

Police don't have to read Miranda rights if there are "overriding considerations of public safety."

Dickerson v. United States (2000)

Congress can't void Miranda rights through law.

Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

Police can't obtain a confession without a Miranda warning, then provide one and immediately obtain a second confession.

Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)

Suspects don't have to explicitly waive their Miranda rights for a confession to be admissible.
.Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the memo ensures that "law enforcement has the ability to question suspected terrorists without immediately providing Miranda warnings when the interrogation is reasonably prompted by immediate concern for the safety of the public or the agents." He said "the threat posed by terrorist organizations and the nature of their attacks—which can include multiple accomplices and interconnected plots—creates fundamentally different public safety concerns than traditional criminal cases."

Attorney General Eric Holder suggested changing the guidelines last year after dust-ups over Miranda's use in two major domestic-terror arrests. The suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 bombing, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was questioned by FBI agents for less than an hour before being read his rights. Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad was questioned for three hours.

In both cases, the administration said suspects provided valuable information to the FBI despite being advised of their rights. But the decision nonetheless provoked criticism from Republicans and some Democrats who said an opportunity to gain time-sensitive intelligence was lost.

The new guidelines could blunt criticism from Republicans, many of whom have pushed for terror suspects to be sent to military detention, where they argue that rigid Miranda restrictions don't apply. But many liberals will likely oppose the move, as might some conservatives who believe the administration doesn't have legal authority to rein in such rights.

The Justice Department believes it has the authority to tinker with Miranda procedures. Making the change administratively rather than through legislation in Congress, however, presents legal risks.

"I don't think the administration can accomplish what I think needs to be done by policy guidance alone," said California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "It may not withstand the scrutiny of the courts in the absence of legislation."

New York Republican Peter King, chairman of the House homeland-security committee, is among the lawmakers who welcomed Mr. Holder's call to change Miranda. At a hearing last year, Mr. King said, "It's important that we ensure that the reforms do go forward and that at the very least the attorney general consults with everyone in the intelligence community before any Miranda warning is given."

The administration suggested legislation last year to alter Miranda but was rebuffed by Congress, administration officials said. Its proposals faltered due to objections from Democrats, who had no appetite for tinkering with Supreme Court precedent, and Republicans who aired civil-liberties concerns or rejected civilian custody for terror suspects.

The Miranda protocols have been controversial since the high court formalized a practice that was already in use by the FBI, albeit not uniformly. Conservatives have long argued that the warning impedes law enforcement's ability to protect the public.

President Barack Obama has grappled with a web of terrorism policies cobbled together since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Before becoming president, Mr. Obama had criticized the Bush administration for going outside traditional criminal procedures to deal with terror suspects, and for bypassing Congress in making rules to handle detainees after 9/11. He has since embraced many of the same policies while devising additional ones—to the disappointment of civil-liberties groups that championed his election. In recent weeks, the administration formalized procedures for indefinitely detaining some suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, allowing for periodic reviews of those deemed too dangerous to set free.

The Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11, chose to bypass the Miranda issue altogether as it crafted a military-detention system that fell outside the rules that govern civilians. Under Mr. Bush, the government used Miranda in multiple terror cases. But Mr. Bush also ordered the detention of two people in a military brig as "enemy combatants." The government eventually moved both suspects—Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, and Ali al-Marri, a Qatari man—into the federal criminal-justice system after facing legal challenges. In other cases, it processed suspects through the civilian system.

An increase in the number of domestic-terror cases in recent years has made the issue more pressing.

The Miranda change leaves other key procedures in place, notably federal rules for speedy presentation of suspects before a magistrate, normally within 24 hours. Legal experts say those restrictions are bigger obstacles than Miranda to intelligence gathering. The FBI memo doesn't make clear whether investigators seeking exemptions would have to provide a Miranda warning at the time of such a hearing.

Also unchanged is the fact that any statements suspects give during such pre-Miranda questioning wouldn't be admissible in court, the memo says.

23933  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Shapiro: Wag the dog on: March 24, 2011, 06:58:42 AM
http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2011/03/24/obama_wags_the_dog/page/full/

What is this really about?

As the price of oil skyrockets, as our debt levels rise to new highs and our housing market drops to new lows, President Obama decides that it is a fantastic time to start dropping bombs on Libya. Nobody, including Obama, seems to know what our objective is in Libya. First, it was deposing terroristic thug Muammar Qaddafi; then it was standing up for the United Nations; then it was protecting civilians; now it is some combination of all of them. This is the same man who once explained with regard to Middle East policy, "I can tell you this -- when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand." Now, finding where Obama stands is tougher than finding a cane-less Waldo in a crowd of Christmas elves.

Meanwhile, the international community floats aimlessly through Obama's sea of foreign policy vagary. For a community organizer, Obama sure has trouble organizing the international community. Perhaps that's because even he doesn't know why we're in Libya.

One matter is crystal clear, however: we're certainly not in Libya for the reasons Obama has articulated.

Let's not deceive ourselves into believing that Obama has become an ardent advocate of Muslim freedom -- only a few short years ago, he was badmouthing President Bush's campaign in Iraq, ignoring Iranian pleas for freedom from the mullahs, and sending ambassadors to parlay with Hamas.

Let's not pretend, either, that America has serious interests at stake in Libya -- we don't. The rebels are backed by al-Qaida, the same people we're supposed to be fighting. Obama criticized the Iraq War for taking our eye off the ball with regard to al-Qaida; now, he's not merely taking our eye off the ball, but he's throwing the game to al-Qaida. Muammar Qaddafi deserves to lose his head, but America doesn't deserve a Libya run by an even worse foe. As for the U.N., we had more allies and more U.N. support for the war in Iraq, which Obama opposed.

As for Obama's contention that he wants to protect Libyan civilians, that also rings false. After all, the best way to protect Libyan civilians is to put highly trained allied troops on the ground in Libya -- as Obama himself has acknowledged. Back in 2007, Obama criticized President Bush's Afghanistan military policy for lack of boots, stating that the U.S. needed to "get the job done ... [which] requires us to have enough troops that we're not just air raiding villages and killing civilians."

So what's this really about? President Obama's war of choice in Libya is, very simply, a wag the dog scenario.

For months now, Obama has remained a non-entity on the Muslim uprisings rocking the Middle East. He has voted present, when in fact he isn't even present. Over the past few weeks, his non-action has begun to affect his public image. No longer is he considered cool -- now he's considered removed and distant. Obama has become Japan's last emperor, hiding behind his title and his advisers while performing ceremonial duties -- and the public has caught on. America knows, in short, that Obama is weak.

So Obama chose this moment to forge forth in a show of strength. Emphasis on the word "show."

Obama has explained that this intervention will take days, not weeks; he has backed down from his original aims; he has attempted to shirk leadership, handing it off to the Europeans (who want no part of it). All of this would seem to imply that he didn't want to be involved. But he chose to become involved in the first place, knowing full well that America could be supporting those who hope to murder us.

There's only one reason for that: he wants to distract the American public from the fact that the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz is an insecure little man behind a media curtain. Obama is wagging the dog not to misdirect attention from a sex scandal, but in order to focus attention on his supposed brawn.

None of it is real. Once again, the military is being used by a Democrat as a political tool to curry favor with the hawkish American public. The American public is being manipulated by a Democrat, once again, because we support the men and women in harm's way. The war in Libya as Obama has organized it is a sham, a fraud and a disgrace.
23934  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Cell phones on: March 24, 2011, 06:54:47 AM
California prisons confiscated more than 10,000 cellphones last year. This year, officials at Corcoran State Prison found a cellphone with a camera in possession of convicted serial killer Charles Manson. It was the second phone found on Manson in two years.

In 1996, four men gang-raped a 15-year-old girl. They were convicted. But in 2008, the ringleader called the victim from his prison cell.

"To our horror," Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley said at a press conference March 22, "there was nothing we could do about that."

In dysfunctional California, it is not illegal to smuggle a cellphone into a state prison.

State Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima, introduced a bill to make smuggling cellphones to inmates a misdemeanor -- and it passed last year. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it because it wasn't tough enough.

"Tell me how that makes sense," Ryan Sherman of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association asked. "At least then, it was a misdemeanor."

This year, Padilla introduced SB26 to make smuggling a cellphone a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $5,000 fine per phone. The bill passed through the Senate Public Safety Committee on March 22. But Padilla had to remove a provision to add two to five years to the sentence of an inmate caught planning a crime with a smuggled phone.

You can thank the committee chairwoman, Loni Hancock, D-Oakland, for watering down the bill. As the Los Angeles Times reported, she didn't care about the list of crimes -- including murder, kidnapping and witness intimidation -- directed by inmates via cell. She doesn't want to add to prison overcrowding.

To fight the problem, the corrections department launched "Operation Disconnect," which included unannounced inspections of prison staff. One such search at Avenal State Prison turned up 13 cellphones.

Avenal Public Information Officer E.J. Borla believes most phones find their way into the medium-security prison through visitors who find creative ways to smuggle contraband. Even if he's right, one rotten prison guard can do a lot of damage. In 2009, the state fired an officer who made $150,000 smuggling phones to convicts. Because he broke no law, he wasn't prosecuted.

The department has begun testing new phone signal-jamming technology, according to spokesman Paul Verke.

Why not search all the guards before they go to work? Here the prison guards' union is of little help. Officers are paid "walk time" while they suit up in steel-toed boots, utility belts and other gear. Going through a metal detector would cut into "walk time."

In that prison staff have the most to fear from well-connected convicts, couldn't the union give on it?

"Give on working for free?" union spokesman Sherman replies. After the furloughs, his people have given enough.

Gov. Jerry Brown just cut a deal with the union, which supported his candidacy. According to the Department of Personnel Administration, "walk time" didn't come up.
http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2011/03/24/why_sacramento_cant_get_cellphones_out_of_prison/page/full/
23935  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / VDH on: March 24, 2011, 06:48:52 AM
Speaking of Brazil, I gather that George Soros has a big piece of the off-shore drilling deal that the US govt is helping finance at favorable rates, , , sorry no citation.
==========================================

Gas is well over $4 a gallon in most places in California -- and soaring elsewhere as well. But are such high energy prices good or bad?

That should be a stupid question. Yet it is not when the Obama administration has stopped new domestic offshore oil exploration in many American waters, curbed oil leases in the West, and keeps oil-rich areas of Alaska exempt from drilling. Last week, President Obama went to Brazil and declared of that country's new offshore finds: "With the new oil finds off Brazil, President (Dilma) Rousseff has said that Brazil wants to be a major supplier of new stable sources of energy, and I've told her that the United States wants to be a major customer, which would be a win-win for both our countries."

Consider the logic of the president's Orwellian declaration: The United States in the last two years has restricted oil exploration of the sort Brazil is now rushing to embrace. We have run up more than $4 trillion in consecutive budget deficits during the Obama administration and are near federal insolvency. Therefore, the United States should be happy to borrow more money to purchase the sort of "new stable sources of energy" from Brazil's offshore wells that we most certainly will not develop off our own coasts.

It seems as if paying lots more for electricity and gas, in European fashion, was originally part of the president's new green agenda. He helped push cap-and-trade legislation through the House of Representatives in 2009. Had such Byzantine regulations become law, a recessionary economy would have sunk into depression. Obama appointed the incompetent Van Jones as "green jobs czar" -- until Jones' wild rantings confirmed that he knew nothing about his job description "to advance the administration's climate and energy initiatives."

At a time of trillion-dollar deficits, the administration is borrowing billions to promote high-speed rail, and is heavily invested in the federally subsidized $42,000 Government Motors Chevy Volt. Apparently the common denominator here is a deductive view that high energy prices will force Americans to emulate European centrally planned and state-run transportation.

That conclusion is not wild conspiracy theory, but simply the logical manifestation of many of the Obama administration's earlier campaign promises. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu -- now responsible for the formulation of American energy policy -- summed up his visions to the Wall Street Journal in 2008: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." I think Chu is finally figuring out the "somehow."

A year earlier, Chu was more explicit in his general contempt for the sort of fuels that now keep Americans warm and on the road: "Coal is my worst nightmare. ... We have lots of fossil fuel. That's really both good and bad news. We won't run out of energy but there's enough carbon in the ground to really cook us."

In fairness to Chu, he was only amplifying what Obama himself outlined during the 2008 campaign. Today's soaring energy prices are exactly what candidate Obama once dreamed about: "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Obama, like Chu, made that dream even more explicit in the case of coal "So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can -- it's just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

There are lots of ironies to these Alice-in-Wonderland energy fantasies. As the public become outraged over gas prices, a panicked Obama pivots to brag that we are pumping more oil than ever before -- but only for a time, and only because his predecessors approved the type of drilling he has stopped.

The entire climate-change movement, fairly or not, is now in shambles, thanks to serial scandals about faked research, consecutive record cold and wet winters in much of Europe and the United States, and the conflict-of-interest, get-rich schemes of prominent global-warming preachers such as Al Gore.

The administration's energy visions are formulated by academics and government bureaucrats who live mostly in cities with short commutes and have worked largely for public agencies. These utopians have no idea that without reasonably priced fuel and power, the self-employed farmer cannot produce food. The private plant operator cannot create plastics. And the trucker cannot bring goods to the consumer -- all the basics like lettuce, iPads and Levis that a highly educated, urbanized elite both enjoys and yet has no idea of how a distant someone else made their unbridled consumption possible.
23936  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: March 24, 2011, 06:22:13 AM
I watched the video on that page Everyone should see it cry cry cry 
23937  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / POTH: This SCOTUS term so far on: March 24, 2011, 05:52:30 AM
Written from the progressive POV (well, its POTH so no surprise there) this piece analyzes the law from the POV of the nature of the parties more than the legal questions presented, but at least it has the honesty to admit to itself that not all of its prejudices are accurate:

=========
Among common impressions of the current Supreme Court are that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are joined at the hip and that the majority tilts reflexively in favor of corporations and employers.

As the court heads into the current term’s final three months, I looked at the statistics. What I found surprised me:
• In decisions that have split the court in any direction, Justices Scalia and Thomas have voted on opposite sides more often than they voted together. They differed in all three of the non-unanimous criminal-law cases that the court has decided so far.

.• Employees suing companies for civil rights violations have won all three cases decided so far, two of them by votes of 8-0 (with Justice Elena Kagan recused).

.• By wide margins, the court has rejected arguments put forward by corporate defendants in several cases. It refused to permit corporations to claim a personal-privacy exemption from disclosure of law-enforcement records under the Freedom of Information Act. It permitted a liability suit to proceed against an automobile manufacturer for not installing the safest kind of back-seat passenger restraint. And in a unanimous opinion on Tuesday, the court refused to throw out a lawsuit by investors alleging that a drug manufacturer’s failure to disclose reports that some patients using its cold remedy had lost their sense of smell amounted to securities fraud.

.What accounts for the topsy-turvy world of the Supreme Court’s 2010-2011 term?

One answer might be that the deviation from expected behavior is just an illusion, based on a small number of decisions that might not prove representative of the term as a whole. The court has decided 25 cases so far, with about twice that many yet to come by the time the term ends in late June. Some of the term’s more important cases, including Wal-Mart’s appeal in a huge class-action sex-discrimination suit, have not yet even been argued.

Still, when the court decides so few cases — 73 last year — 25 decisions count for something. At the very least, this preliminary snapshot reminds those of us (and I include myself) who think they have taken the court’s measure that assumptions are a poor substitute for close observation. So that’s what this column is: a portrait of a term in progress.

When I looked at voting patterns, I was surprised by what the numbers revealed: that in the divided cases, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has voted more often with Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor than with Justices Thomas, Scalia or Samuel A. Alito Jr. The number of cases is small, only nine, and there was no particular ideological spin to most of the decisions, so this is not to suggest that the term will disprove characterizations of the Roberts court, or the chief justice himself, as conservative.

Even so, it is worth noting that in eight of these nine cases (not all the same eight), the chief justice and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and/or Anthony M. Kennedy saw things the same way. (Justice Kagan’s previous service as solicitor general has required her to stay out of so many cases — 15 of the 25 decided so far — that I am not using her votes in these calculations.)

Chief Justice Roberts has yet to cast a dissenting vote this term; with the exception of Justice Kagan, every other justice has dissented at least once (probably the most eye-catching dissent so far is Justice Alito’s solitary dissent in Snyder v. Phelps, the 8-to-1 decision according First Amendment protection to the obnoxious funeral-picketing activities of the Westboro Baptist Church). And every justice, including Justice Kagan, has written more than one majority opinion, with one glaring exception: Justice Thomas, who has yet to write for the majority in any case this term.

That’s not to say that Justice Thomas has been silent (except on the bench during oral argument). He has written three dissenting and four concurring opinions. He gave the keynote address last month in Charlottesville, Va., at the annual student symposium of the Federalist Society, a national organization of conservative law students and lawyers. There, he offered a vigorous defense of his wife, Virginia, against criticism of her political activism.

“There is a price to pay today for standing in defense of your Constitution,” he said. Recognizing his wife in the audience, Justice Thomas said that the two of them were “equally yoked,” “believe in the same things” and were “focused on defending liberty.” Their critics, he warned, “seem bent on undermining” the court itself.

Assuming that Justice Thomas has received the same number of opinion-writing assignments as his colleagues — one or two cases from each of the court’s monthly argument sittings — the absence of majority opinions in his name is striking.
Granted, once a justice gets an assignment, the timing of the release of the opinion is not completely under his or her control. The need to satisfy a fractious majority can require multiple drafts, or those justices writing dissenting opinions can take their time, perhaps hoping to peel off a fifth vote and change the outcome.

The court’s eventual opinion in a case called Connick v. Thompson, argued back on Oct. 6, may be revealing. It is the only undecided case left from among the 12 the justices heard during the first month of the term, so by deduction, the opinion assignment should have gone to Justice Thomas, the only justice without a majority opinion from that session (Justice Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg each have two.)

This is not to suggest that the term will disprove characterizations of the Roberts court, or the chief justice himself, as conservative.

.The question in the case is a tricky one: whether a district attorney’s office can be held liable for damages based on a prosecutor’s intentional withholding of evidence that casts doubt on the defendant’s guilt. It’s easy to imagine the court deeply split over a case with disturbing facts (the defendant spent 14 years on death row and came close to being executed before the previously withheld blood evidence came to light) that nonetheless runs up against the court’s extreme reluctance to permit damage suits of this kind, even for egregious official misbehavior. Perhaps Justice Thomas, having received the initial assignment to write the majority opinion, has been unable to hold four other justices to his approach to this case. Or perhaps a dissenting opinion is taking a long time to incubate.

As a case about civil damages, the Connick case does not directly involve criminal law. No one disputes the prosecution’s duty to turn over exculpatory evidence; the question is whether the prosecutor’s office can be held liable for failing to train its staff to observe this very basic requirement. On issues of pure criminal law and procedure, including sentencing, Justices Thomas and Scalia have for some time demonstrated distinctly different points of view. Earlier this month, Justice Scalia joined Justice Sotomayor’s opinion permitting district judges in resentencing proceedings to grant leniency to defendants who have managed to rehabilitate themselves after the initial sentencing. In a solitary dissent, Justice Thomas wrote that he still regarded the federal sentencing guidelines as mandatory, despite the court’s ruling six years ago that rendered the guidelines “advisory.” Justice Thomas expressed sympathy for the defendant in this case, but said the district judge had no discretion to give a lighter sentence than the guidelines provided.

The two justices also diverged on the confrontation clause issue that provoked Justice Scalia’s vigorous dissent last month from another majority opinion by Justice Sotomayor. The question was whether a dying man gave the equivalent of testimony when he told the police the name of the man who shot him; if so, the victim’s statements to the police could not be introduced at trial because cross-examination would not be possible. In a separate opinion, Justice Thomas agreed with the majority that the encounter between the victim and the police was not testimonial. Justice Scalia, whose view of the Sixth Amendment confrontation right is categorical, insisted otherwise.

In all of the last term, Justices Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides only six times. Already this term, they have split in five cases. An aberration or a trend? Watch and wait.

.
23938  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mercy Warren, 1805 on: March 24, 2011, 05:41:41 AM
"It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government." --Mercy Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, 1805


23939  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: March 23, 2011, 10:13:59 PM
 shocked shocked shocked

URL please!!!
23940  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / What next? on: March 23, 2011, 12:18:51 PM
What is Next in Libya?

As the air campaign over Libya enters its third night, command of military operations will soon transfer from the United States to either the Europeans or NATO. By most accounts, the opening gambit of the air campaign went well and was effective in achieving initial objectives — destroying or suppressing air defenses and destroying what remained of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s air force. The loyalist drive toward Benghazi appears to have been halted, and the rebels have made tentative movements toward Ajdabiyah. There were no reports of combat losses; also, the coalition has not acknowledged responsibility for any civilian casualties.

“Control of the skies over Libya can help defend Benghazi from loyalist formations of armor but it does not provide control of the streets in Tripoli.”
This is not a surprise. The coalition air campaign, with ready, uncontested access to regional air bases, has become a hallmark of U.S. and NATO military operations. Though complex, it is a discipline of warfare that has been carefully refined, and there was little doubt that within days, the coalition would get to this point. The issue was never the ability to apply airpower to Libya. The problem of Libya is twofold. The first is what the coalition seeks to achieve and what forces it is willing to dedicate to that end, a subject about which there has been glaring contradiction from the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The second is the the applicability of airpower to that problem, however it is ultimately defined.

Airpower alone cannot force Gadhafi from power unless his position can be pinpointed and he can thereby be killed. Even if Gadhafi is killed, forces loyal to him cannot be removed from built-up urban areas without the risk of massive civilian casualties. At its core, Gadhafi’s forces are not tanks or artillery pieces — and certainly were not combat aircraft before they were destroyed. Gadhafi’s forces remain a ruthless internal security force loyal to the regime and oriented toward the management of internal dissent. At its heart, this is a light infantry force.

Dismounted forces in an urban area are difficult to target by fast moving aircraft even when forward air controllers are on the ground and are able to talk to and guide aircraft. Doing so still entails a significant risk of civilian casualties and in any event, aircraft are not the ideal tool for that job unless the entire area can be declared hostile.

So, the coalition is rapidly running up against a fundamental incompatibility with the air campaign. The objective is to prevent civilian casualties. Even setting aside the fact that airpower is not a precise tool and that its continued application will in all likelihood entail civilian casualties, the problem is that the danger to civilian lives is ground forces loyal to Gadhafi. While some of those forces were caught in the open in readily identifiable armor, others will continue to move in civilian vehicles and perhaps not even wear uniforms. For example, with troops on the ground in Afghanistan, Western military forces struggle to distinguish between and protect local populations from Taliban intimidation. It is not possible to do this from the air.

The question was never one of establishing air superiority over Libyan skies. The question remains what the coalition will do with that air superiority to further its objective. Control of the skies over Libya can help defend Benghazi from loyalist formations of armor, but it does not provide control of the streets in Tripoli. With or without Gadhafi, the country remains fractious and divided. The coalition has stepped into the fray in support of a loosely affiliated opposition that has thus far failed to coalesce into a meaningful military force capable of challenging Gadhafi. The removal of Gadhafi ‘s air force and the reduction in his ability to move conventional military vehicles do not fundamentally alter the underlying tactical equation: Loyalist forces have proved dedicated and capable; the opposition’s forces have not.

It is at this point in the air campaign that the question of “what is next” begins to become much less abstract and much more real.

23941  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 23, 2011, 11:36:08 AM
Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing much contrary commentary from the current field of potential contenders on Libya, on the feebleness of budget cuts, on much of anything.
23942  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / George Will on: March 23, 2011, 11:16:53 AM
As a good American I wish us and the people of Libya success--even if Baraq gets credit-- but there is much to worry about here.
============


Blithely off to war

By GEORGE F. WILL

NY Post

Posted: 11:10 PM, March 21, 2011

The missile strikes that inaugurated America's latest attempt at regime change were launched 29 days before the 50th anniversary of another such -- the Bay of Pigs of April 17, 1961. Then, the hubris of US planners was proportional to their ignorance of everything relevant, from Cuban sentiment to Cuba's geography. The fiasco was a singularly feckless investment of US power.

Does practice make perfect? In today's episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know.

"We are standing with the people of Libya," says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that "the" people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Khadafy's foes "freedom fighters," and perhaps they are -- but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom (however understood) is their priority.

But, then, knowing is rarely required in the regime-change business. The Weekly Standard, a magazine for regime-change enthusiasts, serenely says: "The Libyan state is a one-man operation. Eliminate that man and the whole edifice may come tumbling down." Then good things must sprout?

In Libya, mission creep began before the mission did. A no-fly zone wouldn't accomplish what President Obama calls "a well-defined goal," the "protection of civilians." So the no-fly zone immediately became protection for aircraft conducting combat operations against Khadafy's ground forces.

America's war aim is inseparable from -- indeed, obviously is -- destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope -- this is the "audacity of hope" as foreign policy -- good things will spontaneously flow.

But if Khadafy can't be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? If the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did -- bloody chaos -- what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Khadafy has "lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead." Such boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Khadafy lose his people's confidence? When did he have legitimacy?

American doctrine is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America's duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

Congress' power to declare war resembles a muscle that has atrophied from long abstention from proper exercise. This power was last exercised on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), almost 69 years, and many wars, ago.

It thus may seem quaint, and certainly is quixotic, for Indiana's Richard Lugar -- ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- to say, correctly, that Congress should debate and vote on this.

There are those who think that if the United Nations gives the United States permission to wage war, the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Let us find out who in Congress supports this proposition, which should be resoundingly refuted, particularly by Republicans insisting that government, and especially the executive, should be on a short constitutional leash. If all GOP presidential aspirants are supine in the face of unfettered presidential war-making and humanitarian interventionism, the GOP field is radically insufficient.

On Dec. 29, 1962, in Miami's Orange Bowl, President John Kennedy, who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, addressed a rally of survivors and supporters of that exercise in regime change. Presented with the invasion brigade's flag, Kennedy vowed, "I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana."

Eleven months later, on Nov. 2, 1963, his administration was complicit in another attempt at violent regime change -- the coup against, and murder of, South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem. The Saigon regime was changed, so perhaps this episode counts as a success, even if Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City. georgewill@washpost.com

23943  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stratfor: Libya's diplomatic missions on: March 23, 2011, 11:06:44 AM
Vice President of Intelligence Fred Burton discusses the diplomatic targets that intelligence agencies are watching in their efforts to disrupt terrorist plots.


While the world is focused on the war in Libya, intelligence agencies like the CIA and MI6 are focused on Libyan diplomatic missions around the globe in an effort to disrupt terror plots.

Libya has a long history of using their diplomatic missions as a hub for terrorist-related activity. Intelligence agencies around the globe will be focusing on three specific targets for the surveillance teams. The first is missions or the diplomatic facility. The second would be known or suspected intelligence officers. And the third would be diplomatic pouches.

The first target for the surveillance team would be the official diplomatic mission, embassy, consulate or front company where some sort of clandestine action could be taking place. The focus of the surveillance team would be the individuals that are suspected intelligence officers of the Libyan government as well as people that may be walking into the embassy or front company. The surveillance team would maintain a log with photographs or video of the individuals, and an effort will be made to identify who these individuals are through in-country investigations.

The second target set would be the Libyan diplomatic officers, with a laser focus on the suspected intelligence officers or known intelligence officers. You’re going to have surveillance of individuals that are meeting with these individuals that spin off into various webs of activity, and there is going to be an ongoing effort to identify who those people are that are meeting with the Libyan intelligence officers. The purpose of this surveillance activity is to create an umbrella, a quick read of activity to indicate whether or not there is some sort of terror plot in the works.

The third target set for the surveillance team would be Libyan diplomatic pouches. This is something that we learn through investigation of other terror plots: that the Libyans would utilize the diplomatic pouch to facilitate the transport of weapons, explosives, identity documents to third countries in an effort to carry out any kind of an attack. The interesting aspect of diplomatic pouches are that nations cannot search them, they don’t get x-rayed, they’re not opened, so you literally have no idea what’s in the diplomatic pouch. These items are escorted by diplomatic couriers that also have immunity.

Evidence has shown based on past specific acts of terrorism that I’ve personally investigated that Gadhafi uses his diplomatic missions as a center of gravity for terrorism activity, and it’s also going to be a concern for what other surrogate groups he could be reaching out to to facilitate acts of terrorism all around the world.

23944  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: UFC/MMA Thread on: March 23, 2011, 10:38:33 AM
It wouldn't surprise me.  EH took his Christianity pretty seriously.  I remember being moved by him powerfully singing gospel (he was in his church's choir too IIRC) in the locker room before his first fight with Tyson.  When I saw that I knew Tyson was going to lose.
23945  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Not a shining moment on: March 23, 2011, 10:36:27 AM
NYC Subway Hero Says Police Initially Left Him to Fend for Himself Against Killer - FoxNews.com

New evidence shows two police officers who were aboard the subway car where the attack occurred locked themselves into the safe confines of the conductor’s cabin because they thought the suspect, Maxsim Gelman, was reaching for a gun as he approached Joseph Lozito, Edmond Chakmakian, Lozito’s attorney, said.

...a grand jury member told Lozito that jurors were appalled when they heard a police officer's version of the story...

“The juror said cops locked themselves inside because they thought Gelman was going to pull out a gun,” Chakmakian said. “What were the police officers waiting for, an engraved invitation?”
23946  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Beauty Queen on: March 22, 2011, 10:22:09 PM
Armed Beauty Queen Fatally Shoots Intruder in Florida Home Invasion
By Cristina Corbin

Published March 22, 2011

| FoxNews.com




Florida beauty queen Meghan Brown, right, shot and killed an intruder with her pink .38-caliber handgun during a home invasion March 12 (FoxNews.com).

When a burly ex-convict forced his way into a posh Florida home last week, he had no idea what awaited him -- a 25-year-old beauty queen with a pink .38-caliber handgun.

Meghan Brown, a former Florida pageant queen, shot and killed 42-year-old Albert Franklin Hill during a home invasion March 12 at the 2,732-square-foot house she shares with her fiance in Tierra Verde, Fla.

Hill barged into the home at around 3 a.m. after Brown responded to a knock at the front door, according to a police report. He allegedly grabbed the 110-pound Brown around her nose and mouth and dragged her to an upstairs bedroom.

The woman’s fiance, Robert Planthaber, said in an interview that he was quickly awakened by the altercation and ran to Brown’s side.

"I attacked him and took a severe beating to the head," Planthaber told FoxNews.com. "But I got him off of her long enough for her to scramble to the room where she keeps her pink .38 special.”

Brown, who reigned as the 2009 Miss Tierra Verde, snatched her gun from a nearby bedroom and shot the suspect several times – hitting him in the chest, groin, thigh and back, her fiance said. Hill was pronounced dead at the scene.

Panthaber, a 42-year-old arborist, said he believes he and his fiancee were targeted because of their wealth. He claimed a pizza delivery man and possible accomplice staked out the home for three months before Hill attempted to burglarize it.

“We live in a very prominent area and my fiancee wears a $60,000 engagement ring,” he said. “The pizza man knew we had money because sometimes we needed change for a $100 bill when he came to deliver pizza.”

Hill had a criminal record stretching back nearly three decades -- including arrests for burglary, battery, drug possession and grand theft. He reportedly served a 13-year prison term in 1987 and was released in September after serving a fourth term behind bars.

Detectives with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Robbery/Homicide Unit are still investigating the crime but believe the motive was robbery, according to local press reports. They say they haven’t yet determined the relationship, if any, Hill had with the couple. A police report said the ex-convict demanded money before the altercation between Hill and Panthaber ensued.

Panthaber, meanwhile, said he and his fiancee are lucky to be alive. He said he purchased the pink handgun for Brown last Christmas and that the two had gone to target practice together.

“She was not a good shot at the range,” he quipped.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/22/armed-beauty-queen-fatally-shoots-intruder-florida-home-invasion/#ixzz1HNe89cvH
23947  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Prager: Chutzpah on: March 22, 2011, 08:22:03 PM
Arab League Redefines Chutzpah
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
ShareThis
Many readers will recall one of the most famous headlines in modern American newspaper history -- the 1975 New York Daily News headline "Ford to City: Drop Dead."

Substitute "Arab League" for "Ford" and "America" for "City" and you've got the perfect headline: "Arab League to America: Drop Dead."

I always thought the best illustration of "chutzpah" was that of the boy who kills his parents and then pleads with the court for mercy, on the grounds that he is an orphan.

But given that that is only a hypothetical example, we now have a better illustration of chutzpah because this one is true.

Witnessing the Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's large-scale killings of Libyan civilians, the Arab League begged us, the Europeans and the Security Council to militarily intervene on behalf of the Libyan people.

So, despite the fact that America is rather weary of fighting Muslim mass murderers, is militarily overstretched and has a devastating national debt, America said yes. We are the most decent country on Earth, and even a liberal-left Democrat in the White House feels the moral pull of America's legacy, values and unparalleled strength.

But no sooner have America and the Europeans intervened than the Arab League officially protests our intervention on the grounds that Libyan civilians -- 48 claimed, 0 confirmed at the time of the protest -- have been killed by the intervention requested by the Arab League.

What exactly did the Arab League, most of whose dictators have murdered thousands of their own people for political reasons, think would happen once the U.S. and the Europeans intervened militarily? Did they assume not one Libyan civilian would get killed? Has there been a military action in history in which no civilians died?

Amr Moussa, the outgoing secretary general of the Arab League, claimed in his statement that "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians."

Perhaps Moussa did not read the Security Council resolution. It does not limit anti-Gadhafi military activity to "imposing a no-fly zone." The resolution authorizes U.N. member states "to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi (italics added)."

Perhaps President Obama should hold a press conference and make this announcement:

"Given the Arab League's protest, we are immediately ending our military involvement in Libya. Apparently, Mr. Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, assumed that military intervention is possible without the killing of a single civilian. He should have told us so. Under that condition, we would never have put our blood and treasure on the line. So now, we are out, and the blood of every Libyan killed and tortured by the Libyan dictator is now on the Arab League's hands. On behalf of the American people, I ask the Arab League, and especially Mr. Moussa, to never again appeal to us to save Arabs from their dictators. Shukran."

(The president likes using Arabic words when he addresses Arab audiences, so his using the Arabic word for "thank you," shukran, would add a nice flourish.)

What does this Arab League protest mean?

It clarifies once again that tribal values outweigh moral values in the Arab world, including among much of its educated elite such as Moussa. In many Arabs' eyes, it is better for an Arab tyrant to slaughter any number of Arabs, and to allow that tyrant to retain power, than for Westerners to kill a dozen Arabs in order save tens of thousands of them trying to topple that tyrant.

In much of the Arab world, saving Arab lives and spreading freedom pale in comparison to two other passions.

One of these is power -- especially despotic power -- as David Pryce-Jones shows in his brilliant book on the Arab world, "The Closed Circle." Strong and cruel Arab leaders -- from Gamal Abdul Nasser to Saddam Hussein to Hamas and Hezbollah -- have been adored by the famed "Arab street."

The other passion is hatred of Israel. That's the one thing that unites nearly all Arabs. They no more love Palestinians than they love Libyans or the tens of thousands of Syrian victims of the two Assad regimes in Damascus. They defend Palestinians because they are necessary for demonizing and ultimately delegitimizing Israel.

And Moussa is among the Israel haters. As The New York Times reported, "Hosni Mubarak removed him (Moussa) as foreign minister after a song called 'I Hate Israel and I Love Amr Moussa' became a pop hit in 2001." To hate Israel is to love Moussa.

It gets worse. Moussa is favored to win the Egyptian presidential election.

But look at the bright side -- thanks to Moussa and the Arab League, we now have a real-life illustration of chutzpah that outdoes the classic fictitious one.
23948  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: March 22, 2011, 08:13:07 PM
Our Community Organizer in Chief organizes the International Community.

What could go wrong?
23949  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Flotilla Round Two, coming soon on: March 22, 2011, 04:19:19 PM
Turkey: New Gaza Flotilla To Contain 15 Ships
March 22, 2011 0520 GMT
 
About 30 organizers from 15 countries met in the Spanish capital of Madrid early February 2011 to discuss plans by the Turkish organization Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) and several European groups to send a 15-ship flotilla to the Gaza Strip between May 15 and May 30, the anniversary of 2010's interception, Haaretz reported March 22. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon will summon foreign ambassadors to the ministry to help stop the flotilla, which has asked the governments of some nationals planning to join the flotilla to guarantee their safety should Israel attempt to stop the ships again. Israel will launch a public campaign March 22 against the flotilla plan.
23950  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: The Demise of Third Worldism on: March 22, 2011, 10:29:44 AM
y FABIO RAFAEL FIALLO
The globalization of the international economy and this winter's Arab revolts mark the demise, each in a different domain, of an ideological stance that flourished in the third quarter of the previous century. "Third Worldism," which rose out of decolonization and the triumph of Marxist revolutions in developing countries, is the belief or pretense that the economic and political interests of poor nations are in variance and contradiction to those of rich nations—specifically those with Western values and modes of living.

On the economic front, Third Worldism based its rationale on the theory of "unequal exchange," according to which trade between developed and developing nations are detrimental to the latter: Developing countries' exports—which 40 years ago consisted largely of raw materials and other primary commodities—were allegedly underpriced, and foreign investment was deemed a means of exploiting emerging markets' natural endowments and labor markets. Such commercial relationships, Third Worldism further posited, were the main cause of economic backwardness in developing countries. To overcome this state of affairs, Third Worldist "experts" in academic circles and international organizations advised developing countries to foster trade among themselves ("collective self-reliance" was the name given to that endeavor) and to pursue an inward-oriented industrialization through protectionist barriers against imported manufactured goods.

This kind of economic autarky found its counterpart on the political front in the principle of "self-determination." Developing countries, it was argued, were in fundamentally different cultural settings than the countries that had colonized them. They had the right and the need to look for political norms that suited their specific conditions and levels of development, instead of adopting the liberal, multiparty, democratic models that prevailed in the West.

In practice, self-determination soon became an expedient for newly established despots to strengthen and perpetuate their wrongdoings. The world's Maos, Castros, Gadhafis and Mugabes claimed to incarnate the interests of their nations. The citizens under their whips were relegated to the category of "masses," with the duty simply to implement their masters' orders. Whoever attempted to disagree was accused of being a "mercenary" paid by foreign powers. Dissent was tantamount to treason.

This fashionable brand of Third-World "self-determination" left First-World leaders with only one politically correct choice: Sit down, keep quiet and let the dictators—er, "nationalist liberators"—continue to smother free expression and hunt, imprison, torture and murder their opposition. The alternative—to be accused of interfering in the domestic affairs of sovereign developing nations—was just too unpalatable.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
Nikita Khrushchev with Fidel Castro at the U.N. General Assembly, 1960.
.Before the turn of the millennium, trade globalization came to disprove the economic foundations of Third Worldism: One after the other, developing countries realized that protectionism had led them only to poverty, and that they had far more to gain from participating fully in international commerce. Many thus decided to overhaul their macroeconomic policies, privatize inefficient state enterprises and open their markets to foreign capital and to the technology that comes with it. Thanks to that change of paradigm, a large number of these countries have become formidable competitors in international markets for manufactured goods.

But the political pillar of Third Worldism remained. Tyrants' abuse of the principle of "self-determination" has been contested since the fall of the Berlin Wall. In international forums, proposals were put forward to institute the "right to interfere," which has since become the "responsibility to protect" populations from flagrant human-rights violations; in June 1990, in the city of La Baule, French President François Mitterrand promised that France would tailor her support for African regimes to their willingness to foster political freedom and economic efficiency. Former U.S. President George W. Bush later pushed his "freedom agenda," which emphasized democracy promotion as an essential ingredient of American foreign policy.

All these initiatives tried to combat the notion that "self-determination" should serve as a subterfuge for unaccountable autocrats to perpetuate their reigns. But Third World despots (and like-minded intellectuals) argued that such initiatives had no roots or legitimacy in developing nations' cultures. The Middle East was their prime example of a region where representative democracy had never prospered and had not even been sought.

Cue this winter's revolts, which have torn this sorry argument to pieces. In the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli and practically everywhere else in the region, men and women have risked their lives to show that they are not "masses," but individuals who want and have the right to choose and debate their governance. To my knowledge these protesters have not burned a single effigy of Uncle Sam or Israeli flag as their rulers have intermittently teleprompted them to do over the years. Instead their fury has been directed at those actually responsible for their decades-long suffering. Meanwhile Libyan rebels called on the outside world—and notably the West—for help in overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi. And this is not even the first time the people of North Africa or the Middle East have requested our support: In 2009, the streets of Iran rang with protesters' chorus of "Obama! Obama! Are you with them or are you with us?"

Whatever the outcome in Libya, Egypt or Tunisia—or Bahrain or Syria for that matter—don't expect the yearning for true self-determination to subside. These people have now glimpsed freedom, and they aren't likely to forget it and revert to their status quo ante. Fighting for liberty creates an unyielding addiction. Poland's Solidarity was smashed and forced underground in 1981, but eight years later the Berlin Wall fell and by 1990 Lech Walesa was president. North Africa and the Middle East are going through a period not unlike that in Eastern Europe in the 1980s: Sooner or later freedom will have the final say.

But what has been buried in the adventures and misadventures of today's revolts is that whatever legitimacy was left in the ideology of Third Worldism is now gone. Those statesmen and intellectuals who have fought this moment for years will pay dearly before history, but it has now arrived: By refusing to be governed any longer by despots, and showing that they have democratic aspirations similar to the rest of the world's, the Arab people have finally killed Third Worldism.

Mr. Fiallo is a Dominican-born economist, writer and retired U.N. official. His latest publication, "Ternes Eclats" or "Dimmed Lights," (L'Harmattan, 2009) presents a critique of international organizations.

Pages: 1 ... 477 478 [479] 480 481 ... 795
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!