Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 05, 2015, 12:52:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86836 Posts in 2278 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 483 484 [485] 486 487 ... 671
24201  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Alignment on: February 22, 2009, 07:58:38 PM
Thank you.  Next time we get together, remind me to show you the thoracic mobilization that I learned from Chris Gizzi.
24202  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Batallas entre narcos y ejercito on: February 22, 2009, 07:42:57 PM

!Hijo de muchos padres!  ?Comentarios?!?
24203  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Two miles from the US on: February 22, 2009, 07:41:26 PM

When Mexico collapses, will this be happening on the streets of cities in the Southwest?  Phoenix already is second in the world to Mex City in kidnappings. 

And the Demogogue Party (and Bush-McCain) seeks to solidify its virtually filibuster proof majorities by making citizens of literally tens of millions of Mexicans. 

24204  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: February 22, 2009, 07:19:26 PM
Wonder how many hundreds the Dow will go down tomorrow? cry
24205  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Malkin on: February 22, 2009, 03:34:52 PM

Malkin on the incipient tax revolt movement , , ,
24206  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re Holt Bill on: February 22, 2009, 03:08:31 PM

See entry number 275 above.
24207  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance on: February 22, 2009, 03:07:09 PM

Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April

Staff Writer

The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia.

The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.

Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.

Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.

The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.

Soldiers will knock only at households that have agreed to participate in the drill, Kots noted.

"Once credible intelligence has been gathered," said Kots, "portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents' wishes.

"One of the techniques we use in today's political environment is cordon and knock," Kots explained. "We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner's body language and position to protect him."

During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons.

The unit will use a Blackhawk helicopter for overhead command and control, and to simulate medevacs.

The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.

Alpha Company will conduct a review of the drill on Sunday, April 5.

A meeting to give residents more information and accept volunteers will be held 7 p.m. Monday, March 2, in the Arcadia American Legion hall.

Kots said the exercise will replace Alpha Company's weekend drill for April.

"We have a lot of extended drills this coming year," he added.

In addition to surveillance, searching and apprehension, the exercise will also give the troops valuable experience in stability, support, patrol, traffic control, vehicle searches and other skills needed for deployment in an urban environment.

"This exercise will improve the real-life operational skills of the unit," said Kots. "And it will hopefully improve the public's understanding of military operations."

The pre-drill work with residents is as important at the drill itself.

"It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia," said Kots. "We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing."

"We really want to get as much information out there as possible, because this operation could be pretty intrusive to the people of Arcadia."
24208  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: February 22, 2009, 12:04:34 PM
That is a very interesting article.  I did not know about the end of the Golden Triangle and what brought it about.

How do you see these lessons being applied in Afg?
24209  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ike's second warning on: February 22, 2009, 11:10:51 AM
Ike’s Not So Famous Second Warning
by Dwight Schultz

On Saturday January 17, 2009, during the Fox 4 0′clock news hour, Shepard Smith recalled the anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous 1961 farewell address to the nation, but he only mentioned one of  Ike’s threat warnings, the one that reminded us to beware of the “Military Industrial Complex.” This warning came from a military man, so it’s been a turn of phrase that slobbers off the lips of suspicious lefty infants shortly after they’re forced to abandon the nipple and accept Marx.

So I shouted at Shepard, “What’s wrong with threat number two, you big beautiful blue eyed capitalist! What’s wrong with Fox News and your staff? There are only two warnings in that speech for God’s sake, if you’re going to honor a historical document maybe somebody could at least read it, and maybe for once in almost fifty years remind us of Ike’s second warning: “…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Does anything come immediately to mind when you read that?  Ike goes on, “…Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” And, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.”

Do you think Ike was warning us that politicians like Al Gore and Barack Obama could cuddle with the scientific technological elite alike and, oh, I don’t know, maybe get behind Obama’s plan to tax your breath?  Do you think that perhaps some time in the near future you might not be considered a person but a carbon footprint … does something like that sound  ridiculous?

Have you seen how fast Obama has placed environmental academic hysterics and socialists in positions of real power? Steven Chu, John Holdren, Carol Browner and others are there to see to it that every exhaust in your life is a financial event favorable to the government.  So how is it that one of Ike’s warnings became famous and the other a historical ghost note?

It’s really not hard to grasp.  Our educational institutions monitor and control historical information and also educate and train the future guardians of public discourse — the indispensable journalists we read, see, and hear every day. By definition both the media and our nation’s scholars digest information and parcel it out in what should be an honest and thoughtful way. They digested Ike’s warning about the military and saw fit to warn us 10 billion times that the military is bad and needs to be feared and pushed off campus. They digested Ike’s warning about universities, scholars, federal money, science and policy, then gave it to Helen Thomas to scatter on some hot house tomatoes in the Nevada desert. It doesn’t get any simpler.

Think about this: How many times have you heard that the debate over anthropogenic global warming has ended?  When and where was this debate? The mere recitation of the words, “the debate has ended” closed the discussion without you having ever heard it because, get it! It’s ended! Get It! Neat trick! Gore says the debate has ended….McCain says the debate has ended…Obama says the debate has ended …Hanson says the debate has ended, and no one in the media wants to ask, “What debate?” When? Where?  Was there a scientific or political debate… or, God forbid, both, and who was for and who was against?

Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth,” has by now been proven to be almost a 100% big fat lie, and yet there is no media outcry against it or price for Gore to pay because he is supporting the scientific technological elite who want to hold public policy captive to the carbon tax that Socialists and Democrats have wanted since the 1992 Rio summit.

This is a clear example of years of liberal bias in protective favor of the university media structure. It just takes a lot of repetition and a strong ideological preference for saying: American military bad! American university good! CO2 bad! Tax our breath! Raise the tuition! Kick the Marines off campus! Long live man made global warming and the tax dollars we shall inherit from it. STING shall be our band and “Every Breath You Take” shall be our song … revenue streams for eternity.

Repeat after me this slogan … or, if you would rather stick this on the backside of your transportation vehicle , please do and remember, paying higher taxes is patriotic, so breathe baby, breathe for your country, just don’t breathe behind our back and not let us see you, ‘cause we’re talk’n money now, baby! The debate has ended!


Warning number two? What warning? Oh, you mean the military thing? We’ve taken care of that. Here’s Matt Damon’s number, he’ll tell you all about it. He went to Harvard you know. Remember, be upscale, don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, breathe! And did I tell you to pay your taxes and act patriotic, especially when they’re going up?

Gotta run, I’m meeting Tom Daschle, Laurie David, Tyrano-Soros and secretary Geithner for lunch.
24210  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: February 22, 2009, 04:21:02 AM

Is It Any Wonder The Market Continues To Sink?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, February 20, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Last Oct. 13, in trying to explain why the market had sold off 30% in six weeks, we acknowledged that the freeze-up of the financial system was a big concern. But we cited three other factors as well:

*The imminent election of "the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party."

• The possibility of "a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal."

• A "media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises."
No wonder, we said then, that panic had set in.

Today, as the market continues to sell off and we plumb 12-year lows, we wish we had a different explanation. But it still looks, as we said four months ago, "like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible."

How else would you explain all that's happened in a few short weeks? How else would you expect the stock market, where millions cast daily votes and which is still the best indicator of what the future holds, to act when:
• Newsweek, a prominent national newsweekly, blares from its cover "We Are All Socialists Now," without a hint of recognition that socialism in its various forms has been repudiated by history — as communism's collapse in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China attest.

Even so, a $787 billion "stimulus," along with a $700 billion bank bailout, $75 billion to refinance bad mortgages, $50 billion for the automakers, and as much as $2 trillion in loans from the Fed and the Treasury are hardly confidence-builders for our free-enterprise system.

• Talk of "nationalizing" U.S.' troubled major banks comes not just from tarnished Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, but also from Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former Fed chief Alan Greenspan.

To be sure, bank shares have plunged along with home prices, and many have inadequate capital. But is nationalization really the only solution for an industry whose main product — loans to consumers and businesses — has expanded by over 5% annually so far this year?

• A stimulus bill laden with huge amounts of spending on pork and special interests is the best our Congress can come up with to get the economy back on track. Economists broadly agree that the legislation has little stimulative power, and in fact will be a drag on economic growth for years to come.

The failure to include any meaningful tax cuts for either individuals or small businesses, the true stimulators of job growth, while throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at profligate state governments and programs — such as $4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities" and $740 million to help viewers switch from analog to digital TV— has investors shaking their heads.

• A $75 billion bailout for 9 million Americans who face foreclosure, regardless of how they got into financial trouble, is the government's answer to the housing crunch. Many Americans who have scrupulously kept up with payments are steaming at the thought of subsidizing those who've been profligate or irresponsible.

With recent data showing that as much as 55% of those who get foreclosure aid end up defaulting anyway, a signal has been sent that America has gone from being "Land of the Free" to "Bailout Nation."

• Energy solutions ranging from the expansion of offshore drilling and the development of Alaska's bountiful arctic oil reserves to developing shale oil in America's Big Sky country, tar-sands crude in Canada and coal that provides half the nation's electric power, are taken off the table.

The market knows full well what drives the economy and that restraining energy supply will make us all poorer and investing less profitable. Taking domestic energy sources off the table makes us more reliant on sources from hostile and unstable regimes, breeding uncertainty in a capital system in which participants seek stability.

• Lawmakers who seem more interested in pleasing special interests than voters back home now control Congress. Some of the leading voices in crafting the massive bank bailout and stimulus packages — including Sen. Chris Dodd, Rep. Barney Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — were the very ones who helped get us in this mess.

They did so by loosening Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's lending rules and pushing commercial banks to make bad loans. Both Dodd and Frank were recipients of hefty donations from Fannie, Freddie and other financial firms they were charged with regulating.

• Trade protectionism passes as policy, even amid the administration's lip service to free trade. Congress' vast stimulus bill and its "Buy American" provisions limit spending to U.S.-made products and will drive up costs, limit choices and alienate key allies.

Already, it has triggered rumblings of retaliation in a 1930s-style trade war from trading partners, just as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs prolonged the Great Depression. Several European partners have begun raising barriers. Meanwhile, three signed free-trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and Korea languish with no chance of passage. Free trade offers one way out of our problems, yet it's been sidetracked.

• A 1,000-plus page stimulus bill is bulled through Congress with no GOP input and not a single member of Congress reading it before passage. It borders on censorship.

GOP protests of the bill's spending and the speed it was passed at were dismissed by Obama and other Democrats as seeking to "do nothing" or "breaking the spirit of bipartisanship." But voters are angry.

Along with thousands of angry phone calls to Congress, new Facebook groups have emerged, and street protests have sprung up in Denver, Seattle and Mesa, Ariz., against the "porkulus." CNBC Chicago reporter Rick Santelli's on-air denunciation of federal bailouts for mortgage deadbeats attracted a record 1.5 million Internet hits.

• Business leaders are demonized. Yes, there are bad eggs out there like the Madoffs and Stanfords. But most CEOs are hugely talented, driven, highly intelligent people who make our corporations the most productive in the world and add trillions of dollars of value to our economy.

They don't deserve to be dragged before Congress, as they have been dozens of times in the past two years, for a ritual heaping of verbal abuse from the very people most responsible for our ills — our tragically inept, Democrat-led Congress.

• Words like "catastrophe," "crisis" and "depression" are coming from the mouth of the newly elected president, rather than words of hope and optimism. Instead of talking up America's capabilities and prospects, he talks them down — the exact opposite of our most successful recent president, Ronald Reagan, who came in vowing to restore that "shining city on a hill."

Even ex-President Clinton admonished Obama to return to his previous optimism, saying he would "just like him to end by saying that he is hopeful and completely convinced we're gonna come through this."

• The missile defense system that brought the Soviet Union to its knees, and which offers so much hope for future security, is being discussed as a "bargaining chip" with Russia. This, at the same time the regime in Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon and North Korea is readying an intermediate-range missile that can reach the U.S.

This sends a message of weakness abroad and contributes to a feeling of vulnerability at home. A strong economy begins and ends with a strong defense.

All this in barely a month's time. And to think that more of the same is on the way seems to be sinking in. Investors are watching closely and not caring for what they see. Sooner or later, the market will rally — but not without good reason to do so.

24211  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: February 22, 2009, 04:11:20 AM
Defiance -- Go see the movie!!!

[Please read to the end.]

Good morning, all! One of our members, Dr. David Herschtal is a nephew  of the Bielski partisan fighters featured in the film 'Defiance.' He recently shared his personal thoughts about his Uncles portrayed in the movie.  Reading this before or after seeing the film will, I believe, add to a greater appreciation of this amazing historical story.       Rabbi Paul Plotkin 


"You're about to see one of the greatest stories NEVER told: the largest documented armed resistance and rescue, of Jews by Jews, during the Holocaust. The 1200 people saved then, number an estimated 20,000 today. And I would now like to make it personal.  By 1957, my mother, Estelle Bielski Herschthal and all of the other Bielski brothers and sisters who survived the Holocaust had moved directly from Europe to America and had been living in Brooklyn with their families for 10 years. However, the Bielski Brothers that led the Partisans went directly to Palestine after surviving the Holocaust, and went to war again, to help establish the State of Israel.

So I was 6 yrs old, 1957, when my Mother told me that her brother Tuvia, a great war hero, would be moving from Israel to America.  He'd be our guest for a few weeks and would be arriving later that night.  I'd have to give my bed to him, and now share a bed with my younger brother, all three of us crowded into one small bedroom.  I was not pleased about this inconvenience and thought, after all, how big of a hero can he be if he has to share a room with us kids? My brother and I were fast asleep when he finally arrived late that night, as he was when we left for school early the next morning. To register my dissatisfaction, I poured baby powder all over the head of my sleeping uncle.  As I started to exit the room I was firmly and yet gently stopped and lifted by two steel-like arms. I was temporarily paralyzed with fear and was turned around to face a giant white powdered smiling laughing face, who gave me a big warm welcoming hug.  We were fast friends ever since.

Tuvia's family and the other remaining brothers and their families arrived from Israel soon afterward.  Now all the Bielskis and many of the other Partisan families lived within minutes of each other in Brooklyn as one large, mostly happy family.  We were close, at times it could seem too close, and did everything together, including observing and celebrating holidays, birthdays, bar mitzvahs, graduations, weddings and of course, funerals.

At all these events there was a certain protocol.  At a significant moment, typically after the blessing of bread and wine, came the equivalent of a blessing, an acknowledgement of Tuvia and the Bielski Brothers for making it possible for all of us to be there.  No matter the significance or insignificance of the event, there was always a respectful proclamation of gratitude to the Bielsky partisan unit. This practice continued well into the 2nd and now present 3rd generation. Tuvia could have cared less about these accolades. He derived his satisfaction from merely observing the thriving and increasingly multiplying descendants of those he saved.

As youngsters we were fascinated by the physical aspect of what they did but were mostly lost to the bigger picture. The Uncles were quite humble and hardly ever spoke of the military aspects of their struggle, and only spoke of them as saving Jewish lives.

It was their kids or the people that they saved that freely supplied us with all the graphic details of various battles, missions, raids, retributions and even executions. Tuvia would never have any part of these types of conversations. On the other hand, my Uncle Zus, when egged on, was all too glad to demonstrate to us kids some of his lethal hand to hand combat techniques.

We had absolutely nothing in common with other 2nd generation Holocaust kids as their commonality was their parents' reluctance to discuss the Holocaust, whereas for us it was part of our normal discourse and, frankly, entertainment. While they played cowboys and Indians, we played Nazis and Partisans. And guess who played the Nazi?

I was amazed, while growing up, at how many people personally told me over and over again how they owed their existence to my uncles' saving them and their families.  Nevertheless, it still seemed like a LOCAL vs global story. Even though there were many articles and books written about the Bielskis, they were mostly testimonials written by fellow Partisans: Chaim this or Chaim that.  They were not widely read or known.


As time progressed from the 80's through the 90's and the Holocaust was popularized as an academic and cultural subject, much more light was shed on the horror that occurred to the 6 million.  But The Bielski story was still little known. In fact, I must confess, that some of us, while never doubting the essence of the story, assumed that some of the more implausible aspects of the Bielski story just might be slightly embellished or exaggerated. Well, shame on us!!

The tipping point occurred several years after the last of the Bielski Commanders died, when an Irish Catholic New York Times reporter named Peter Duffy, wrote a popular and well researched book, published by Harper-Collins in 2003, documenting their story and placing it in its proper historical context.  The author had gone back to the then newly opened Archives of the Soviet Union and uncovered detailed records of the Bielski Partisans' achievements. The Bielski Partisans had some arms and intelligence supplied to them by the Russian Military, including a Russian liason officer who kept records and even some photographs of what they did.

The story turned out to be much, much bigger than previously reported. Academicians and historians started paying attention. Articles were written.  The press picked up on it and so did Hollywood. The movie rights were ultimately purchased from another book, hence the name 'Defiance.' Uncle Tuvia and the Brothers who saved over 1200 Jews, now, ironically had their story saved and immortalized by an Irish Catholic reporter and Hollywood.

To really understand how this act of Defiance came to pass, you have to appreciate the Bielski family background before the Holocaust. The Bielskis were  multi-generational, redneck, hillbilly Jewish farmers who lived on a poor Ponderosa at the edge of a forest in the middle of nowhere Poland, surrounded by a Jew-hating populace (anti-semitic is too mild a word). Mix into the Bielskis, a little bit of Robin Hood and lot of Sopranos, and you can first begin to appreciate their temperament. A recent NYT article described the Brothers as "casually violent, sexually predaceous and occasionally murderous."  I sincerely hope these traits are not hereditary. They were hard drinking and hard living men who were not likely candidates for future heroes. Yet, at the same time, they valued honor, family and a full love of life.

They were historically forced to defend themselves and their property, as the local laws did not protect them. Their acts of retribution were legendary, thus making them locally feared. Once the Nazis controlled their territory it would have been relatively easy to only save themselves, by simply hiding deep in the forest where they grew up. After all, they were expert horsemen, outdoorsmen and survivalists. They were not accountants. But Tuvia and the Brothers risked their own lives by saving those Jews, mostly strangers, unable to save themselves. And at the same time created a community, often-times referred to as a "Jerusalem in the Woods" that saved their cultural identity. And that's what makes this story one of a kind.  The brothers loved life and were determined to fully sustain it. They showed us that real Heroes are flawed human beings. They provided a glimmer of light and hope, in a time when there was none.

History will hopefully look at the Bielski story, not a corrective to the Holocaust's 6 million, but rather an inspiring addendum. Future genocides can only be stopped by international cooperation and early government detection and prevention. And while we pressure governments to act, one must ultimately summon, Defiance!          Thank you."             

David Herschthal MD

24212  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wave of protests coming tomorrow! on: February 22, 2009, 03:56:54 AM
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.

In a two-sentence filing late Friday, the Justice Department said that the new administration had reviewed its position in a case brought by prisoners at the United States Air Force base at Bagram, just north of the Afghan capital. The Obama team determined that the Bush policy was correct: such prisoners cannot sue for their release.

“Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position,” wrote Michael F. Hertz, acting assistant attorney general.

The closely watched case is a habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of several prisoners who have been indefinitely detained for years without trial. The detainees argue that they are not enemy combatants, and they want a judge to review the evidence against them and order the military to release them.

The Bush administration had argued that federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear such a case because the prisoners are noncitizens being held in the course of military operations outside the United States. The Obama team was required to take a stand on whether those arguments were correct because a federal district judge, John D. Bates, asked the new government whether it wanted to alter that position.

The Obama administration’s decision was generally expected among legal specialists. But it was a blow to human rights lawyers who have challenged the Bush administration’s policy of indefinitely detaining “enemy combatants” without trials.

The power of civilian federal judges to review individual decisions by the executive branch to hold a terrorism suspect as an enemy combatant was one of the most contentious legal issues surrounding the Bush administration. For years, President Bush’s legal team argued that federal judges had no authority under the Constitution to hear challenges by detainees being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s legal view for prisoners held at Guantánamo in landmark rulings in 2004 and 2006. But those rulings were based on the idea that the prison was on United States soil for constitutional purposes, based on the unique legal circumstances and history of the naval base.

Rights lawyers have been hoping that courts would extend those rulings to allow long-term detainees being held at United States military bases elsewhere in the world to sue for release, too. There are about 600 detainees at Bagram and several thousand in Iraq.

Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor, said it was too early to tell what the Obama administration would end up doing with the detainees at Bagram. He said some observers believed that the Obama team would end up making a major change in policy but simply needed more time to come up with it, while others believed that the administration had decided “to err on the side of doing things more like the Bush administration did, as opposed to really rethinking and reorienting everything” about the detention policies it inherited because it had too many other problems to deal with.

“It may take some time before we see exactly what is going on — whether this is just a transitory policy or whether this is really their policy: ‘No to Guantánamo, but we can just create Guantánamo in some other place,’ ” Mr. Balkin said.

After becoming president last month, Mr. Obama issued orders requiring strict adherence to antitorture rules and shuttering the Guantánamo prison within a year. He also ordered a review of whether conditions there meet the standards of humane treatment required by the Geneva Conventions, and a review of what could be done with each of the 245 detainees who remain at the prison.

On Friday, government officials said that a Pentagon official had completed the Guantánamo report, concluding that the site complies with the Geneva Conventions’ requirements for humane treatment — including procedures for force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike by strapping them down and inserting a nasal tube, a practice prisoners’ lawyers have denounced. The report does recommend that some prisoners be given greater human contact, however.
24213  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DBMA Class at Inosanto Academy on: February 22, 2009, 01:29:17 AM
More KT with the same folks.  A lot of hands on interaction.  Good times. cool
24214  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Daily Expression of Gratitude on: February 22, 2009, 01:03:19 AM
Grateful for you guys who keep this thread alive.

Grateful for a wonderful 4 hour nap this afternoon!
24215  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Our man in Iraq reports on: February 22, 2009, 12:56:08 AM
To our Brit friends-- alll the love and respect in the world.  Please take our intrepid reporter's words below in the spirit of brotherly banter.

The Iraqis I met in Basrah basically hold the Brits in utter disdain.  They feel the Brits came but did not come to fight.  They played pussyfoot with the militias down there.  They negotiated things like "we will stay in our bases if you don't attack us."  The Iraqis I met flat out said the Brits are what made the situation so bad down there.
Then several years ago came the Iraqi Army "Operation of the Knights."  This was the Iraqi Army ground operation (supported by U.S. air power) and personally led my Maliki (in Sadr City also).  The Iraqi Army came to kick ass.  And they did for the most part.  When the militias heard that the U.S. Marine Corps was in reserve and they would come in and "Fallujah" Basrah, the militias wanted no part of that and negotiated a solution (that kept them alive).
When I asked so what has become of the militias I was told they are either all dead, in prison or they have have disappeared into the woodwork because they don't want to be dead.  And this was all the Iraqi Army.  The IA rules Basrah.  Let there be no mistake about that.  Good men can argue about whether they could have dominated Basrah the way they did without U.S. support, but it is the IA who killed all the militiamen and sent the rest fleeing for their lives.  And it is the IA who have maintained those gains with essentially zero help from the Brits.
The Brits are held in contempt by the Iraqis in Basrah.  The Americans are held in very high regard.  Because the Iraqis know Americans come to fight and will kill people who need killin'.
24216  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / 360 degrees on: February 21, 2009, 09:35:06 AM
24217  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Sam Tendencia on: February 21, 2009, 08:54:22 AM
Some of you may remember the name Sam Tendecia.  He appears in our "The Grandfathers Speak" DVD,  and has done some wonderful hilot healing work on both Top Dog and me. 

He is in his late 80s now and recently we received word of his new website and are glad to post hear about it:
24218  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Stratfor: La Tercera Guerra on: February 21, 2009, 08:23:09 AM
Por Fred Burton y Scott Stewart

México tiene bastante mucho siempre fue un áspero y lugar de caída. En los últimos años, sin embargo, el ambiente de la seguridad ha empeorado rápidamente, y las partes del país han llegado a ser increíblemente violentas. Es ahora común ver granadas militares de armas como fragmentación y asaltar rifles utilizados casi diario en ataques.

De hecho, justo la semana pasada nosotros notamos two separate strings of grenade attacks Dirigido contra policía en Durango y Michoacan indica. En el incidente de Michoacan, la policía en Uruapan y Lazaro Cardenas fue concentrada en por tres ataques de granada durante un período de 12 horas. Entonces en febrero. 17, un tiroteo mayor ocurrió justo a través de la frontera de Estados Unidos en Reynosa, Cuando las autoridades mexicanas procuraron prender varios hombres armados cabalgar visto en un vehículo. Los hombres huyeron a una cerca residencia y comprometieron a la policía que sigue con disparo de fusil, las granadas y granadas propulsadas por un cohete (RPGs). Después de que el incidente, en cuál cinco pistoleros de cártel fuera matado y varios pistoleros, las policías, los soldados y los civiles fueron heridos, las autoridades recuperaron un 60 mortero de Mm, cinco series de RPG y dos granadas de fragmentación.

No haga error, teniendo en cuenta las armas militares ahora ser utilizado en México y el número de muertes implicadas, el país está en medio de una guerra. De hecho, hay realmente tres guerras concurrentes ser emprendidas en México que implica el Mexican drug cartels. El primer es la batalla para ser emprendida entre los varios cárteles mexicanos de droga que buscan control sobre contrabando lucrativo pasillos, llamadas plazas. Uno tal campo de batalla es Ciudad Juarez, que proporciona acceso al Interestatal 10, Interestatal 20 e Interestatales 25 pasillos Estados Unidos interior. La segunda batalla es luchada entre los varios cárteles y las fuerzas mexicanas del gobierno que procuran interrumpir operaciones de contrabando, limitar violencia y traer a los miembros de cártel a la justicia.

Entonces hay una tercera guerra para ser emprendida en México, aunque a causa de su naturaleza es dominada un poco más. No consigue el mismo grado de atención internacional de medios engendrada por los tiroteos y la granada corrientes y ataques de RPG. Sin embargo, es no menos verdadero, y en muchos sentidos es más peligroso a civiles inocentes (así como turistas y viajeros de negocios extranjeros) que las batallas campales entre los cárteles y el gobierno mexicano. Esta tercera guerra es la guerra para ser emprendida en la población mexicana por criminales que pueden o no pueden ser implicado con los cárteles. A diferencia de las otras batallas, donde miembros de cártel o fuerzas de gobierno son los objetivos y los civiles primarios sólo son matados como daño colateral, en este frente de batalla, los civiles son directamente en los retículos.

La Frente Criminal

Hay muchas formas y los tamaño diferentes de pandillas criminales en México. Mientras muchos de ellos están en alguna manera relacionada a los cárteles de la droga, otros tienen varios tipos de aplicación de la ley de conexiones — Verdaderamente, algunos grupos criminales son compuestos de policías activas y jubiladas. Estos varios tipos de pandillas criminales concentran en civiles en varias maneras, incluyendo, el robo, el robo con fractura, asaltar en automóvil, la extorsión, el fraude y falsificando. Pero de todos los crímenes cometidos por estas pandillas, quizás el que crea el daño más esparcido, psicológico y emocional rapta, que también es uno de los más underreported crímenes. No hay figura exacta para el número de secuestros que ocurre en México cada año. Todos los datos con respecto al secuestro son basados en la estadística parcial de crimen y cuentas anecdóticas y, al fin, puede producir sólo estimaciones de mejor-adivinación. A pesar de esta falta de datos duros, sin embargo, hay duda pequeña — basado aún en el fin bajo de estas estimaciones — Que México ha llegado a ser la capital de secuestro del mundo.

Uno de las cosas difíciles acerca de estudiar el secuestro en México es que el crimen no sólo es esparcido, afectando casi cada rincón del país, pero también es ejecutado por una gran variedad de actores que poseen niveles que varían del profesionalismo — Y motivos muy diferentes. En un fin del espectro son el alto-fin que rapta las pandillas que secuestra a individuos de red de valor alta y demanda rescates en el millones de dólares. Tales grupos emplean los equipos de operativo que lleva a cabo tareas especializada como reunir la inteligencia, realizando vigilancia, arrebatando el objetivo, negociando con la familia de la víctima y estableciendo y para proteger los pisos francos.

En el otro fin del espectro son las pandillas que vagan las calles y raptan al azar objetivos de oportunidad. Estas pandillas son generalmente menos profesionales que las pandillas alto-finales y a menudo tendrá a una víctima para sólo un tiempo corto. En muchos casos, estos grupos tienen a la víctima justo utilizar lo suficiente tarjeta de ATM de la víctima para desaguar su cuenta corriente bancaria, o para recibir un pequeño rescate de quizás cientos de o de unos pocos mil dólares de la familia. Este tipo del secuestro oportunista a menudo es referido a como un “express kidnapping”. Exprese a veces raptando víctimas son contenidas el tronco de un coche durante su prueba dura, que puede durar a veces por días si la víctima tiene una cantidad grande en una cuenta corriente bancaria y un pequeño límite diario de retirada de ATM. Otros tiempos, si una pandilla de secuestro de expreso descubre que ha asido un objetivo de alto-valor por casualidad, la pandilla tendrá a la víctima más larga y demandará un rescate mucho más más alto. Ocasionalmente, éstos expresan raptando los grupos aún le “venderán” a una víctima de alto-valor a una más pandilla del secuestro del profesional.

Entre estos extremos hay una gran variedad de los grupos que se caen en algún lugar en el centro. Estos son los grupos que quizás concentren en un vicepresidente o el director de sucursal bancarios antes que el director general del banco, o eso quizás rapten al propietario de un restaurante u otro pequeña empresa antes que un industrial rico. La presencia de un espectro tan ancho del secuestro los grupos aseguran que casi ningún segmento de la población sea inmune de la amenaza de secuestro. En los últimos años, la magnitud completa de la amenaza en México y el temor que lo engendra ha llevado a un crimen llamado virtual kidnapping. En un secuestro virtual, la víctima no es raptada realmente. En vez de eso, los criminales procuran convencer la familia de un objetivo que un secuestro ha ocurrido, y entonces amenazas de uso y presión psicológica forzar la familia a pagar un rescate rápido. Aunque el secuestro virtual haya sido alrededor durante varios años, las familias involuntarias continúan caerse para la estafa, que es una fuente de dinero abundante a bajo tipo de interés. Algunos secuestros virtuales han sido realizados aún por criminales que utilizan teléfonos las prisiones interiores.

Cuando notado arriba, los motivos para raptar varía. Muchos de los secuestros que ocurren en México no son realizados para el rescate. A menudo los cárteles de droga raptarán a miembros de pandillas rivales o government officials Para atormentar y ejecutarlos. Este tormento es realizado para extraer información, intimide a rivales y, aparentemente a veces, para tener justo una diversión pequeña. Los cuerpos de tales víctimas son encontrados con frecuencia beheaded O de otro modo mutilado. Otros tiempos, pistoleros de cártel raptarán a narcotraficantes que son atrasados en pagos o que se niega a pagar el “impuesto” requirió a operar en el área del cártel de control.

Por supuesto, pistoleros de cártel no raptan sólo sus rivales ni policías. Cuando las guerras de cártel han calentado, y cuando rentas de droga han dejado caer debido a interferencia de cárteles rivales o el gobierno, muchos cárteles han recurrido al secuestro para el rescate a suplementar su flujo de caja. Quizás el grupo más extensamente conocido que entra en esto es el Arellano Felix Organization (AFO), También conocido como el Cártel de Tijuana. El AFO ha sido reducido a una sombra de su ser anterior, sus operaciones de contrabando dramáticamente impactado por los esfuerzos de EEUU y gobiernos mexicanos, así como por ataques de otros cárteles y de una lucha por el poder interna. A causa de una disminución escarpada en contrabando rentas, el grupo ha girado al secuestro y la extorsión para levantar los fondos necesarios para mantenerse vivo y para volver a la prominencia como una organización de contrabando.

En la Línea de tiro

Hay muy poco oportunidad que el gobierno mexicano podrá establecer integridad en sus agencias de aplicación de la ley, o traer orden público a porciones grandes del país, el tiempo pronto. La corrupción y la incapacidad oficiales son endémicas en México, que significa que ciudadanos mexicanos y extranjeros visitantes tendrán que encarar la amenaza del secuestro para el futuro previsible. Creemos que para civiles y extranjeros visitantes, la amenaza del secuestro excede la amenaza de ser golpeado por una bala perdida de un tiroteo de cártel. Verdaderamente, las cosas empeoran tan mal eso aún professional kidnapping negotiators, Una vez que visto como la llave a un pago garantizado, ahora son raptadas a sí mismo. En una torsión aún más increíble de ironía, el anti secuestro las autoridades son secuestradas y son ejecutadas.

Este ambiente — y el lo concierne ha chispeado — Ha proporcionado oportunidades financieras inmensas para la industria privada de la seguridad en México. Las ventas blindadas del coche han atravesado el techo, como tiene el número de guardias uniformados y personal ejecutivo de protección. De hecho, la demanda para el personal es tan aguda que esas compañías de la seguridad trepan para encontrar a candidatos. Tal camino difícil presenta a un anfitrión de problemas obvios, recorriendo de la falta de requisitos al vetting insuficiente. Los servicios además pasados de moda de la seguridad, nuevas compañías de la seguridad-tecnología también sacan partido del ambiente de temor, pero de rastrear aún de alta tecnología dispositivos pueden tener significant drawbacks and shortcomings.

Para muchas personas, armored cars y guardaespaldas armados pueden proporcionar un sentido falso de la seguridad, y la tecnología puede llegar a ser un mortal crutch that promotes complacency Y aumenta realmente la vulnerabilidad. Las medidas de seguridad físicas no son suficiente. La presencia de guardaespaldas armados — o guardias armados combinaron con vehículos blindados — No proporcione la seguridad absoluta. Esto es especialmente verdad en México, donde equipos grandes de pistoleros realizan regularmente crímenes que utilizan artillería militar. Francamente, hay muy pocos detalles ejecutivos de protección en el mundo que tiene la instrucción y el armamento para resistir a un asalto por docenas de atacadores armados con rifles de asalto y RPGs. Los guardas de seguridad privados son agobiados con frecuencia por criminales mexicanos y o matados o forzado a huir para su propia seguridad. Cuando notamos en el 2008 de mayo después del asesinato de Edgar Millan Gomez, actuando cabeza de la Policía Federal mexicana y la alto-clasificación policía federal en México, medidas de seguridad físicas deben ser suplementadas por situational awareness, Countersurveillance e inteligencia protectora.

Los criminales buscan y explotan las vulnerabilidades. Sus oportunidades para el aumento de éxito mucho si ellos son permitidos realizar vigilancia en hace y es dados la oportunidad de valorar completamente el programa protector de la seguridad. Hemos visto varios casos en México en El que los criminales escogieron aún atacar a pesar de medidas de seguridad. En tales casos, los criminales atacan con recursos adecuados para vencer la seguridad existente. Por ejemplo, si hay agentes protectores, los atacadores planearán neutralizarlos primero. Si hay un vehículo blindado, ellos encontrarán que maneras de derrotar el blindaje o asir el objetivo cuando él o ella están fuera del vehículo. A causa de esto, los criminales no deben ser permitidos realizar vigilancia en hace.

Como muchos crímenes, secuestro es un proceso. Hay ciertos pasos que debe ser tomado para realizar un secuestro y ciertos tiempos durante el proceso cuando esos ejecutarlo es vulnerable al descubrimiento. Mientras estos pasos pueden ser condensados y pueden ser logrados bastante rápidamente en un anuncio éste expresa raptando, ellos sin embargo son seguidos. De hecho, a causa de los pasos particulares implicados en realizar un secuestro, el proceso no está a diferencia de que siguió para ejecutar un terrorist attack. Los pasos comunes son selecciones de objetivo, la planificación, el despliegue, el ataque, el escape y la explotación.

Como los perpetradores de un ataque terrorista, esos realizar que un secuestro es la mayoría del vulnerable to detection cuándo ellos realizan vigilancia — Antes ellos están listos para desplegar y realizar su ataque. Cuando hemos notado varias veces en por delante de analiza, uno del secrets of countersurveillance Es que la mayoría de los criminales no son muy buenas en realizar vigilancia. La razón primaria que ellos tienen éxito es que nadie los busca.

Por supuesto, los secuestradores son también muy obvios una vez ellos lanzan su ataque, tiran sus armas y quizás comienzan aún a disparar. Por esta vez, sin embargo, quizás sea muy bien escapar demasiado tarde su ataque. Ellos habrán seleccionado su sitio de ataque y empleado las fuerzas que ellos creen que ellos necesitan para completar la operación. Mientras los secuestradores podrían fastidiar su operación y el objetivo podría escapar ileso, simplemente no es práctico sujetar uno espera en esa posibilidad. Es claramente mejor marcar a los secuestradores tempranos y evitar su trampa antes es saltada y los fusiles salen.

Hemos visto muchos casos de people in Mexico with armed security being kidnapped, Y creemos que hacemos probable ve más casos de esto en los meses venideros. Esta tendencia es debida no sólo a la presencia de criminales sumamente armados y agresivos y la calidad baja de algún personal de la seguridad, pero también a personas que colocan su confianza únicamente en seguridad física reactiva. Ignorando el valor muy verdadero de medidas críticas y proactivas como conocimiento situacional, countersurveillance e inteligencia protectora pueden ser un error fatal
24219  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Bill Moyers and the FBI on: February 21, 2009, 08:06:00 AM
One of the darker periods of modern American history was J. Edgar Hoover's long reign over the FBI, as we have learned since he died in 1972. So it is more than a historical footnote to discover new records showing that prominent public television broadcaster Bill Moyers participated in Hoover's exploits.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Washington Post has obtained a few of the former FBI director's secret files. According to a Thursday front-page story, Hoover was "consumed" with exposing a (nonexistent) relationship between a gay photographer and Jack Valenti, the late film industry lobbyist who was then an aide to Lyndon Johnson. Hoover's M.O. was to amass incriminating personal information as political blackmail.

But as the Post reports in passing, the dossier also reveals that Mr. Moyers -- then a special assistant to LBJ -- requested in 1964 that Hoover's G-men "investigate two other administration figures who were 'suspected as having homosexual tendencies.'"

Hoover's Institution 07/20/05
– Laurence H. Silberman
This isn't the first time Mr. Moyers's name has come up in connection with Hoover's abuse of office. When Laurence Silberman, now a federal appeals judge, was acting Attorney General in 1975, he was obliged to read Hoover's secret files in their entirety in preparation for testimony before Congress -- and as far as we know remains one of the only living officials to have done so. "It was the single worst experience of my long governmental service," he wrote in these pages in 2005.

Amid "bits of dirt on figures such as Martin Luther King," Judge Silberman found a 1964 memo from Mr. Moyers directing Hoover's agents to investigate Barry Goldwater's campaign staff for evidence of homosexual activity. A few weeks before, an LBJ aide named Walter Jenkins had been arrested in a men's bathroom, and Mr. Silberman wrote that Mr. Moyers and his boss evidently wanted leverage in the event Goldwater tried to use the liaison against them. (He didn't, as it happened.)

When that episode became public after Mr. Silberman testified, an irate Mr. Moyers called him and, with typical delicacy, accused him of falling for forged CIA memos. Mr. Silberman offered to study the matter and, should Mr. Moyers's allegations pan out, he would publicly exonerate him. "There was a pause on the line and then he said, 'I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?' And then he rang off."

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Memories are short in Washington, and Mr. Moyers has gone on to promote himself as a political moralist, routinely sermonizing about what he claims are abuses of power by his ideological enemies. Since 9/11, he has been particularly intense in criticizing President Bush for his antiterror policies, such as warrantless wiretapping against al Qaeda.

Yet the historical record suggests that when Mr. Moyers was in a position of actual power, he was complicit in FBI dirt-digging against U.S. citizens solely for political purposes. As Judge Silberman put it in 2005, "I have always thought that the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends."

Mr. Moyers told us through a spokeswoman that he "never heard of the Valenti matter until this story and had nothing to add to it." He also pointed to a 1975 Newsweek article in which he wrote that he learned of the LBJ-Hoover relationship in "the quickly fading days of my innocence." In the Nixon days, this was called a nondenial denial.
24220  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Richard Henry Lee: An armed people on: February 21, 2009, 07:43:04 AM
"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."

--Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788
24221  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / US-Canada and the tar sands on: February 21, 2009, 07:33:56 AM
U.S., Canada: Drawing the Outlines of an Oil Sands Deal
Stratfor Today » February 19, 2009 | 2238 GMT

A woman holding small Canadian and U.S. flags outside the Canadian parliament building in Ottawa, OntarioSummary
U.S. President Barack Obama visited Canada on Feb. 19, where he discussed energy and environmental issues with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A potential deal regarding Canadian oil sands could affect greenhouse gas emissions protocols, and has implications for regional oil-producing state Venezuela.

U.S. President Barack Obama visited Canada on Feb. 19, marking his first foreign trip since his inauguration. Obama met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for talks that focused on interrelated energy and environmental issues.

It is pretty clear what the two states want from each other. The United States wants energy security and a renewed military commitment from Ottawa in Afghanistan, while Canada wants investment of money and technology in its energy sector and cooperation on dealing with related environmental issues. The Feb. 19 discussions presage more comprehensive negotiations that ultimately could reshape the global framework for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions — and could deal a blow to the energy industry in Venezuela.

Energy security is a key strategic concern of the United States, and Canada is the largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the U.S. market (followed by Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Iraq, in that order). In addition to its proximity, Canada is an attractive energy trading partner for the United States because it does not face the same challenges that limit Washington’s ability to rapidly increase supplies from other significant producers — such as a hostile government in Venezuela’s case, legislation restricting foreign participation in Mexico’s case, or militancy in the case of Nigeria.

Securing robust oil supplies from Canada will necessarily mean expanding exploitation of oil sands, which comprise most of the country’s crude production. (Canada produces only a small amount of conventional crude.) This is an expensive proposition, however. Oil sands are not like conventional crude, which can simply be pumped and shipped via pipeline. Instead, they have to be strip-mined and then melted to extract the crude — a machinery- and energy-intensive process. The resulting cost barriers have resulted in a freezing of new work on oil sands since the ongoing global recession has driven oil prices downward. Profitable oil-sands production requires a sustained crude price of $50 to $60 per barrel, but oil prices have been well below that level since the end of 2008.

The U.S. interest in energy security and the Canadian interest in boosting investment appear to be in sync on the oil sands issue, and Harper has been pushing for a deal. But Ottawa has two conditions.

The first is that the United States provide the bulk of the investment. Canada wants to smooth out the boom-bust cycle of energy production in general, and that of oil sands specifically. Because oil prices have not reliably stayed above the break-even point for oil sands production (despite a spike in mid-2008), oil companies are not likely to invest in the process on their own initiative.

Second, there is a greenhouse gas issue. The mining and processing of oil sands requires a considerable energy input in its own right, roughly 50 percent more than that of normal crude. Oil sands production by itself is thwarting Canada’s ongoing efforts to comply with its obligations under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and Canada hardly uses any of the crude it produces. Ottawa simply cannot meet these requirements as long as it is producing oil sands at all, much less expanding production.

Thus, Canada wants the United States to join it in taking a common position on greenhouse gas talks globally — or really, for the two to become a single entity for purposes of meeting treaty guidelines. In other words, the United States would become primarily responsible for picking up the carbon tab from the production of Canadian oil sands. The United States would take on a slight — but not crippling — increase in costs associated with emissions-reduction efforts, in return for the benefits of a strategic oil supply deal with Canada.

As a result, Washington would also share with Ottawa technological advances in the capture and sequestration of carbon from the oil-sands production process. This technology is now being tested on coal power plants in the United States, and as the technology matures, Canada will try to apply it to the oil sands. Once the carbon is captured and sunk underground, the emissions-related costs associated with the oil sands will become much less.

In return for these strategic concessions, Washington likely also will want a commitment from the Harper government to extend its military commitment in Afghanistan. Canada has about 2,700 troops deployed in the country, though its military commitment there is scheduled to end in 2011. With Afghanistan occupying one of the top slots in Obama’s foreign policy agenda, and with Washington embarking on a new military strategy of a U.S. and allied troop surge to fight the Taliban insurgency, continued military cooperation might be the price Ottawa will have to pay to secure its stake in a strategic energy and emissions deal with Washington. Attempting to deploy additional troops would trigger a backlash from Harper’s political opponents, but extending Canada’s commitment beyond 2011 at the current level might be more politically palatable.

Should such a comprehensive deal go through, with all its conditions and counterconditions, it will have two major implications internationally: one regarding greenhouse gases and one regarding Venezuela.

First, a joint U.S.-Canadian position on greenhouse gases will more or less determine the boundaries of any future global legal regime for dealing with the issue. The United States is set to emerge as the global leader in negotiating the next major climate treaty, a protocol to the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Obama Administration has signaled that it is willing to accept the general global consensus that the world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent before 2050 — and with that, the United States is emerging as the leader in the next round of talks. (And if Washington and Ottawa effectively act as a single entity in these negotiations, Canada will share the driver’s seat.) How that will shape global carbon policy will be up to Canada and the United States to debate, but any new protocol will also require a more informal mechanism that directly engages China and India, two of the countries with the largest carbon footprints. A failure to get Beijing and New Delhi on board would effectively doom any new protocol — and the United States would be unlikely to ratify any such convention in any case, believing it will be penalized while China and India gain.

The second major effect of a U.S.-Canadian understanding on oil sands would be to wreck the future hopes of the other major producer of nonconventional crude oil in the Western Hemisphere: Venezuela. The Venezuelan Orinoco belt contains roughly the same amount of oil as do the Canadian oil sands. Venezuela’s crude, like the output of the oil sands, is considered “unconventional” output, because it is very heavy and sour. It requires specialized refining processes, as does oil-sands crude, and a significant percentage of it — about two-thirds of Venezuelan exports — is refined in the United States. If Canada should absorb all the limited investment capital available for unconventional crude, and if it should take over the heavy crude refining capacity in the United States along with the available specialized technical knowledge and personnel, Venezuela will largely get shut out of the global market as its own industry degrades. The result would be to put further limits on the ability of the Chavez government in Caracas to use oil revenues to support the populist policies that keep it in power.
24222  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Alignment on: February 21, 2009, 07:11:01 AM

"The foam roller has been a large part of my longevity program. I use it atleast 5 times a week to work out adhesions, scar tissue and subluxations."

Yes!  Very good!  Chris Gizzi showed me using the medicine ball in the manner.  Stupidly I regularly forget to do this regularly. tongue
"4. inlocate dislocates with a broom stick or band for the shoulders"

What's this?
24223  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Picture WW3: Who, when, where, why on: February 20, 2009, 11:09:46 PM
February 20, 2009
NATO defense ministers met Thursday in Krakow, Poland, to discuss critical topics ranging from Afghanistan to Russia to Iran. The meeting ended in disappointment for the United States — which had been looking for a consolidated position and increased support from its allies — while the other NATO members are still waiting to hear from Washington what exactly is the game plan for each of the issues.

The meeting comes just two days after U.S. President Barack Obama announced that 17,000 more U.S. soldiers and Marines would deploy to Afghanistan in the coming months — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates went to Krakow to ask NATO for more alliance troops as well. The hope in Washington was that Gates would be able to capitalize on the new president’s commitment to Afghanistan and receive a similar pledge from the European allies.

But no such guarantee materialized. True, there were some small pledges of troops from the Europeans, but these numbered in the hundreds, not thousands. Even the large NATO states with the biggest troop contingents are sending relative handfuls — 600 from Germany and 500 from Italy. The other heavyweights of Europe — France, Poland and the United Kingdom — have made it clear that they have no plans to send more troops at all.

The lack of enthusiasm for the Afghanistan surge was matched by growing questions among the Europeans over the military plan itself — both the overarching strategy and the lines of supply. Moreover, the Europeans are anxious to know how and to what extent the U.S. plan involves the Russians.

With Russia at its back door, Europe has been divided on its ability to work within a U.S.-dominated NATO. The lines were drawn during the Cold War — though, since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has expanded and pushed right up against Russia’s borders. This has complicated the issue and caused a rift among the European members of the alliance on how to handle Moscow. The larger European NATO members have teetered between wanting a united stance against Russia on one hand, and wanting to prevent any confrontation on the other.

But the United States has further complicated things by sending mixed signals about its position on Russia.

Washington has been negotiating with Moscow about using Russian and (formerly Soviet) Central Asian territory for an alternative route to supply troops in Afghanistan. The United States made some headway on this front when it hinted that it is open to negotiating a new arms-control treaty and that it might be willing to reconsider its position on ballistic missile defense (BMD) efforts in Central Europe. As NATO ministers were meeting Thursday, the first train of American non-military supplies left a port in Latvia to travel across Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to support forces in Afghanistan.

In some ways, however, the old antagonism remains. Russia is still looking for concrete evidence that Washington is stepping back from installing BMD sites in Poland and the Czech Republic — and that it is erecting firm barriers to NATO expansion, especially where Ukraine and Georgia are concerned.

There is a very real split among the Europeans on this new and confusing relationship between Washington and Moscow. Some of the European heavyweights, notably France and Germany, see the U.S.-Russian negotiations as something to be nurtured into a real rapprochement. At the Munich Security Conference earlier in February, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy each emphasized the importance of cutting a deal with Russia on security and international issues. Merkel said that Russia should be included in any European security structure, and Sarkozy emphasized that NATO needs Russia in any serious international negotiation, such as talks aimed at securing an alternate supply route to Afghanistan through Iran.

Meanwhile, other European states are horrified that the United States and Russia could be forming a new relationship. Poland refuses to give up on the prospect of getting an American BMD deployment on its turf to solidify U.S. military protection against Russia. Also, the British defense secretary proposed Thursday that NATO create a 3,000-strong rapid-deployment force to defend Europe. The proposal is aimed at Russia, which recently announced a similar plan to create an agile, multinational military formation within its own security alliance, the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Both the British and Russian proposals are mainly rhetoric for the time being, but London and Moscow are clearly eyeing each other.

The confusion and anxiety over the U.S.-Russia relationship has nearly frozen the Europeans on all matters. The Europeans want a clear answer on the nature of the evolving relationship between Washington and Moscow before they can formulate a firm policy on any matter involving NATO — such as Afghanistan, BMD or Iran.

The resulting uncertainty has spilled over into every other calculation being made by the Europeans, whether that involves EU structures or energy deals. Neither Europe nor its constituent states can formulate a policy on any major security issue until the United States has made a clear decision about where and how to cooperate with Russia, and where and how to oppose it.


By the way, in the discussion on this I would like to suggest that we remember that Bush, IMHO left us seriously out of position with Russia , , , and that interfaces with our being seriously out of position in Afpakia.  Sure BO said that Afpakia is "the right war" instead of Iraq, which he now seeks to throw away, but we need to discern what it is we need to do and not just complain about him.
24224  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: February 20, 2009, 09:09:12 PM
When Iran successfully orbited its Omid satellite earlier this month, many in the U.S. responded with indifference. David Albright, a noted analyst of nuclear proliferation, downplayed the Iranian space launcher as "not that sophisticated" and the satellite itself as "Sputnik technology, a little metal ball that goes 'beep beep beep.'" Unnamed U.S. officials concurred, stating that "There are no alarm bells ringing because of this launch," calling the event "largely symbolic."

But such equanimity is entirely unwarranted.

Let's first look at the Omid satellite. The Iranians concede its limited capabilities. Its main payload is a simple transmitter/receiver, and it has a short lifetime limited by the capacity of its small internal batteries. At 60 pounds it is minute compared to modern military and civilian satellites. Yet as a first satellite for a novice space-faring nation, it compares well with the rudimentary Sputnik and even more so with the tiny Explorer 1, America's first venture into space. Those modest machines ushered in today's giant military and commercial satellites girdling the earth. When the first Iranian spy satellite starts transmitting high resolution photographs of U.S. installations in the Middle East and elsewhere to Tehran, the true significance of the Omid will become evident.

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
But it is the Safir space launch vehicle that calls for even closer scrutiny. The strong synergy between ballistic missiles and space launchers has existed since the early days of the space age when the Soviet Union's first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the R7, was used to orbit Sputnik 1. The U.S.'s first intermediate-range ballistic missile, the Redstone, was used to orbit the Explorer 1. Iran has followed the same route, as is evident from the Safir first stage, which is almost indistinguishable from the Shahab 3 ballistic missile. True, its propulsion technology hails back to the Scud missiles of the 1950s. But in the missile business old is not necessarily obsolete. Witness for example the Soviet R7 rocket that lofted Sputnik 1 half a century ago and is still going strong today as the first stage of the very reliable Soyuz launcher. Similarly, the Safir's rocket technology will continue to be used for ballistic missiles in the foreseeable future.

The real sophistication of the Safir lies in its second stage, with its elegant configuration and lightweight design. Its propulsion is based on the more modern technology of storable liquid propellants that can be kept almost indefinitely inside the missile, making it launch-ready at any moment -- a significant advantage for military missiles. The U.S. used this technology in the past and so do some of Russia's contemporary ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

A cleverly designed clamshell nose fairing (a protective cover), evidently made of composite materials, shields the Omid satellite during the Safir's liftoff. Such fairings are key elements not only in space launchers but also in multiple-warhead ballistic missiles.

The Safir ground support system is also remarkable. The missile is transported by and fired from a Shahab ballistic missile mobile launcher, while a hinged service tower provides access for the ground crews.

Contrary to statements such as David Albright's, the Safir demonstrates a fair amount of sophistication for an initial launcher. The question remains whether this sophistication is indigenous and what features, if any, have been imported from abroad. Some of the Safir's features bear the telltale signs of previous space launching experience, implying outside help. Such help could come from any country that possesses Soviet-era missile and space technology. Yet the Safir is far more advanced than North Korea's space launcher. This fact -- and the magnitude of the entire Iranian space enterprise -- indicates that much of the success is homegrown.

The magnitude of the Safir launch becomes more apparent when we consider it alongside the much less advertised launch of the Sajeel two-stage solid-propellant ballistic missile that preceded it in November 2008. Within the space of four short months the Iranians demonstrated a mastery of three different rocket propulsion technologies (liquid, storable liquid, and large diameter solid), three different thrust vectoring technologies (graphite jet vanes, tungsten jet vanes, gimbaled rocket motors), two systems of stage separation, and an embryonic multiple-warhead nose fairing. All the above are proscribed technologies whose international transfers are controlled by the Missile Technology Control Regime and by the national legislations of its subscribing countries. By rights, none of those technologies should have been available to Iran. This is a significant setback to international nonproliferation efforts and an encouragement to future proliferators.

To argue that the Safir is too puny to be used as an ICBM is to miss the big picture. It is the technology and talent behind the Safir that is cause for trepidation. Taken in context, the Safir demonstrates scientific and engineering proficiency coupled with global-range missile technology in the hands of a radical regime and a nuclear wannabe. Iran's disclosed road map to space includes more capable, heavier and higher orbiting satellites. This will require heftier space launchers, the construction of which would enrich Iran's rocket-team experience and whose building blocks could easily be used for ICBMs in due time.

Trivializing Iran's first space launch as "largely symbolic" demonstrates a lack of appreciation of what it really symbolizes: That Iran is now poised to project power globally. If alarm bells aren't yet ringing for the Obama administration, they should be.

Mr. Rubin, head of Israel's Missile Defense Organization from 1991 to 1999, won the Israel Defense Prize in 1996 and 2003.


24225  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DBMA Kali Tudo (tm): The Running Dog Game on: February 20, 2009, 09:05:17 PM
Woof All:

We have just found some footage of me being trained in Panantukan by Manong Kalimba (sp?), friend of GT Gaje, in Bacolod circa 1997.  Snippets of it will appear on RD Game  cool

Guro Crafty
24226  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / WSJ: Who is the coward? on: February 20, 2009, 08:59:38 PM
Attorney General Eric Holder ruffled some few feathers Wednesday, when he gave a Black History Month speech in which he described America as "a nation of cowards" when it comes to "things racial":

Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation's history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.

We are inclined to disagree with Holder's suggestion that everyday life is impoverished by an insufficiency of "frank conversations" about racial subjects. Often it is just plain sensible to put aside "matters that continue to divide us" and focus on common purposes or interests. What Holder desires sounds nightmarish to us: a cross between "No Exit" and "All in the Family," with none of the latter's wit.

Still, there is a grain of truth to Holder's infelicitous description of America as "a nation of cowards." The subject of race does make people uneasy, and for reasons that go beyond common sense and courtesy. An incident on the same day as Holder's speech illustrates the problem.

On Wednesday the New York Post published a cartoon by Sean Delonas depicting a pair of policemen and a the bullet-riddled body of a chimpanzee. As one of the cops holds a smoking gun, the other says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

Reuters describes what happened next:

Hundreds of demonstrators rallied to boycott the New York Post on Thursday, branding the newspaper as racist for publishing a cartoon that appeared to compare President to a chimpanzee.  Demonstrators led by civil rights activist Al Sharpton chanted "End racism now!" outside the parent company's skyscraper in midtown Manhattan and called for the jailing of Rupert Murdoch, whose international media conglomerate News Corp owns the Post. . .
Because Obama promoted the $787 billion economic stimulus that he signed into law on Tuesday, critics of the cartoon interpreted the dead chimp as a reference to Obama, who became the first black U.S. president on January 20. . . . "You would have to be in a time warp or in a whole other world not to know what that means," said demonstrator Charles Ashley, 25, a model who did not believe the cartoon was an innocent political joke.

Others said it made light of assassinating Obama, a possibility they said that worries many African-Americans.
Here we should note that News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal and this Web site. The Post is standing its ground, declaring in an editorial today:

To those who were offended by the image, we apologize.

However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past--and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

The claim that the cartoon was a racist caricature of President Obama is awfully far-fetched. It played off a news item involving an actual chimp (a story with which we are thoroughly bored, so click here if you want to learn more about it). The president did not write the stimulus bill; indeed, he has been widely criticized for giving congressional Democrats too free a hand in crafting it. And anyone who is familiar with Delonas's surrealistic oeuvre knows that he is an equal-opportunity offender. His work is in the spirit of "South Park," not Stepin Fetchit.

All that notwithstanding, some will say that Delonas should have known better. We see their point, and we remember thinking a couple of years ago, upon seeing the umpteenth simian caricature of George W. Bush, that nobody had better do that if Sen. Obama becomes president. We were aware that that would constitute an invidious stereotype, in a way that it did not when the president was a person of pallor.

But what if someone is unaware of this? Suppose that a columnist or cartoonist is so innocent of racial prejudice that he has never even thought to make a connection between black people and lower primates? Such a person would be a racial kerfuffle waiting to happen. The moment he inadvertently employed an idea or image that carried offensive connotations, he would be pilloried as "insensitive."

Consider the paradox: Racial "sensitivity" requires not eradicating racial stereotypes but keeping them alive--and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Delonas and his editors are under attack for seeing "chimp" and failing to think "black guy." Perhaps this is an editorial failing, but it is certainly not a moral one.

Which brings us back to Eric Holder. If Americans are shy about discussing race, a big reason is the culture of intimidation promoted by people like Al Sharpton in the name of racial sensitivity. "Frank discussion" requires a willingness to trust that one's interlocutor is acting in good faith. If Attorney General Holder is serious about promoting racial candor, let him use this incident to make the point. That would show a bit of courage on his part.
24227  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: February 20, 2009, 05:32:53 PM
Subject: Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin, Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list. Forward or send to every gun owner you know....
Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America Jan. 5, 2008 &g t; > Gun-ban list proposed.
Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush
administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress) It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly.

I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity, It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies,
 firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals.

Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process,
confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800,  SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA,  TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a
grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable
magazine, and has:

(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more
than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any semiautomaticrifle or>&g t; shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a  firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Note that Obama's pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

In making this determination, the bill says, "thereshall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any
federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be
particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federalofficers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sportin g purpose just because
it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a
rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and
bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted,
Alan Korwin,
Author Gun Laws of America

24228  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: February 20, 2009, 05:25:34 PM
That's really scary , , ,

BTW did any one catch that CA's budget crisis could have been solved if only they allowed off-shore drilling? 
24229  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / POSTPONED!!! Guro Crafty in Hemet on Sunday March 1 on: February 20, 2009, 05:19:55 PM
I will be doing a seminar at Surf Dog's school in Hemet on Sunday March 1.

Contact info to follow shortly.
24230  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Parenting Issues on: February 20, 2009, 12:40:26 PM
Nadya Suleman, aka Octomom, is now the mother of 14 children -- eight newborns and their six older brothers and sisters. She has also managed to give birth to debate on issues as far-ranging as welfare, reproductive technology, health care and celebrity worship (Ms. Suleman is said to have an Angelina Jolie fixation). She has even generated heated discussion about the tort system, because the young mother could have paid for her miracle babies through the $168,000 awarded for a back injury she suffered in 1999 at a psychiatric hospital where she worked -- an injury, it should be noted, that did not prevent her from delivering, on Jan. 26, more living babies than once thought humanly possible.

But in all of this punditry one question goes missing: Where is Octodad? Surely Ms. Suleman's babies have a father. Yet his role in the baby-palooza is barely mentioned. Not that this should surprise anyone. The reaction to Ms. Suleman and her brood typifies our cultural ambivalence about fathers, an ambivalence fed in no small measure by the fertility industry.

View Full Image

M.E. CohenOn first thought, Americans seem really keen on fathers. We fret about the emotional impact of father absence and insist "that responsibility does not end at conception," as then-candidate Barack Obama put it in a memorable speech last Father's Day. We excoriate "deadbeat dads" who fail to pay their share of their children's upbringing; in fact, the stimulus bill adds $1 billion to child-support enforcement. Married fathers who don't step up and share the burdens of diapers and pediatrician appointments are condemned, in the words of one much-discussed book of essays, as "bastards on the couch." After all, the argument goes, a father is just as much a parent as a mother.

Except when we decide he's not, as did Ms. Suleman and her medical enablers. According to media reports, the male friend who provided the sperm for all of Suleman's 14 children had begged her to stop after the first six -- to no avail. Having consented to the use of his sperm, he would have been expected to give up control over the future children created with them. More commonly, sperm banks offer young men who will remain anonymous $200 for a little R&R that they would happily engage in without remuneration; as the Fairfax Cryobank in Virginia has advertised: "Why not do it for money?" Donors -- or, more precisely, sellers -- sign contracts that assure them, contrary to Father's Day rhetoric, that responsibility really does end at conception.

Sperm banks and fertility doctors hardly bear sole responsibility for defining fathers down to chromosome factories. Clearly, donors themselves happily agree to their downgraded status. Their nonchalance is in line with the widespread assumption that we should expand the rubric of "a woman's right to choose" to include not just abortion -- where a woman's decision understandably carries more moral weight than a man's -- to the care of and responsibility for actual children, where it's not at all clear why that should be the case.

True, studies of "choice mothers," as single, financially independent mothers call themselves, suggest that most of them had wanted to find a husband to be father to their kids before they decided to go it alone. But once they make that decision, they often choose anonymous donors precisely because they don't have to worry about the fathers interfering with their -- or is it her? -- children. Shortly before Ms. Suleman made headlines, the New York Times Magazine published an article, notably titled "2 Kids + 0 Husbands = Family." It describes a clan of college-educated single mothers, all of whom admitted how they wanted to "make decisions about their kids, from when they are excused from the table to where they go to school, and how hard it would be to share that authority."

But our equivocation about paternity is finally untenable. Out-of-wedlock birth rates in the U.S. are now 38%; among African-Americans the figure is 70%. Fathers of children living with single mothers are far less involved with their children than are married fathers; about a third of all children in single-mother families have not seen their father in the previous year. Yet decades of social science have made it clear: Children who grow up without their fathers experience more poverty, have more problems at school, more trouble with the law -- and more single motherhood in the next generation.

In recent years, medical science has also raised doubts about our frequent desire to wish fathers away. Every week, it seems, science confirms just how much genes matter. Everything from eye color, to propensity to high cholesterol, to a rotten disposition, to talent at math or tennis is encoded, to some degree, in the genetic material passed on from our two biological parents.

In Canada, donor children have brought a class-action suit demanding the same right to know their parentage that adoptive children there already have. For the same reason, Norway, the Netherlands and New Zealand have all banned donor anonymity, and Britain now requires donors to agree to be contacted when their children reach 18; unsurprisingly the country's sperm banks are now as depressed as its financial institutions. In the U.S., some sperm banks have begun to ask donors to volunteer to be identified to their children when they reach adulthood. Some agree; most do not.

And why would they agree? They know that even if fathers make good politics, they make dispensable parents.

Ms. Hymowitz is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a City Journal contributing editor.
24231  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Limbaugh on FD on: February 20, 2009, 12:22:22 PM
Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.
24232  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Washington; Reagan on: February 20, 2009, 12:15:05 PM
"A people ... who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages, may achieve almost anything." --George Washington

"The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before." --Ronald Reagan
24233  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Sen Feinstein flaps gums and fouls things up on: February 20, 2009, 12:09:42 PM
This is a few days old,1099409.story
Predator drones flown from base in Pakistan, U.S. lawmaker says
Sen. Feinstein's surprise disclosure likely to complicate joint campaign against Taliban militants
Greg Miller | Washington Bureau
7:06 PM CST, February 12, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A senior U.S. lawmaker said Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator aircraft operating in Pakistan are flown from an airbase inside that country, a revelation likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counterterrorism collaboration with the United States.

The disclosure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, marked the first time a U.S. official had publicly commented on where the Predator aircraft patrolling Pakistan take off and land.

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise at Pakistani opposition to the ongoing campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets along Pakistan's northwest border.

"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said of the planes.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counterterrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.

The CIA declined to comment, but former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, confirmed that Feinstein's account was accurate.

Phil LaVelle, a spokesman for Feinstein, said her comment was based solely on previous news reports that Predators were operated from bases near Islamabad.

"We strongly object to Sen. Feinstein's remarks being characterized as anything other than a reference" to a article that appeared last March in the Washington Post, LaVelle said. Feinstein did not refer to newspaper accounts during the hearing.

Many in counterterrorism experts have assumed that the aircraft were operated from U.S. military installations in Afghanistan, and remotely piloted from locations in the United States. Experts said the disclosure could create political problems for the fledgling government in Islamabad.

"If accurate, what this says is that Pakistani involvement, or at least acquiescence, has been much more extensive than has previously been known," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "It puts the Pakistani government in a far more difficult position [in terms of] its credibility with its own people. Unfortunately it also has the potential to threaten Pakistani-American relations."

Feinstein's disclosure came during testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee by U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair on the nation's security threats. Blair did not respond directly to Feinstein's remark, except to say that Pakistan is "sorting out" its cooperation with the United States.

Pakistani officials have long denied that they ever granted the United States permission to fly the Predator planes over Pakistani territory, let alone to operate the aircraft from within the country.

The new civilian leadership has gone to significant lengths to distance itself from the Predator strikes, which are extremely unpopular in Pakistan, in part because they are widely reported to kill civilians as well as militants.

The Pakistani government regularly lodges diplomatic protests against the strikes as a violation of its sovereignty, and officials said the subject was raised with Richard C. Holbrooke, a newly appointed U.S. envoy to the region, who completed his first visit to the country on Thursday.

Nevertheless, most Pakistanis believe the civilian leadership has continued former President Pervez Musharraf's policy giving the United States tacit permission to carry out the strikes.

The CIA has been working to step up its presence in Pakistan in recent years. The CIA has deployed as many as 200 people to Pakistan, one of its largest overseas operations outside of Iraq, current and former agency officials have estimated. That contingent works alongside other U.S. operatives who specialize in electronic communications and spy satellites.

The use of Predator planes armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles has emerged as perhaps the important U.S. tool in its ongoing efforts to attack Al Qaeda in its sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal belt. Last month, a New Year's Day strike killed two senior Al Qaeda operatives who were suspected of involvement in the bombing of Islamabad's Marriott They were among at least eight senior Al Qaeda figures reportedly killed in Predator strikes over the past seven months as part of a stepped-up missile campaign that U.S. intelligence officials have characterized as major success against Al Qaeda.

In his prepared testimony Thursday, Blair said that Al Qaeda has "lost significant parts of its command structure since 2008 in a succession of blows as damaging to the group as any since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001." 
24234  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Gabe Suarez on: February 20, 2009, 01:31:44 AM
It is tempting to only think in terms of what you need...or are likely to need.  The liberal uses that argument to in hopes of eliminating certain weapons from the hands of civilians.  "No one needs an AR-15" for example, is a chant not only of the liberal infesting this nation, but also of sporting oriented gun groups who cling to their polished blue bunny blasters while sneering at your parkerized black man-killer.
So, do you really need a rifle?  Let's see if you think so when I am done.
America is a free nation (still that way in spite of so much effort devoted to changing that).  A free nation is not based on the needs of its subjects, but rather on the wants of its citizens.  An outside party, like a government let's say, establishing what you need is simply oppression by another name.  They have no idea what you need...only of what they want to allow you to have.  To recognize that free men can determine their own "wants" and then seek ways to fulfill those wants is to understand what a free capitalist nation is all about.
Freedom is not about owning guns, it is about being free to make money as your creativity and intelliugence allows.  Economic freedom is protected and enhanced, however, by owning and carrying, and often using, guns.
When this nation was founded, that fact was well known to the founders.  They had come from generations of people telling them what they "needed".  So they set up a government to insure that all industrious men could pursue their wants....the "pursuit of happiness" as it were.  And they set up a statement of rights to that effect.  And knowing that whoever had the most physical power always makes the rules, they made certain that every man had a share in that power vis-à-vis the second point in that statement of rights, the Second Amendment. 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   
In National Treasure, Nicholas Cage correctly points out that "people don't talk like that anymore".  Quite correct so -
"A skilled and well trained citizenry is necessary to keep a country free from oppression, so the right of the citizen to own and carry guns shall not be messed with"

Now what on earth would possibly affect the "Security of a Free State"?  These guys had just defeated the greatest army on God's green earth at the time.  Were they worried about the British coming back?  Sure, to a degree, but what they were most worried about, and why they took such pains to write everything down, was of the new government becoming the oppressor in lieu of the British king.  They wanted to make sure that the militia, which was every living human that could carry and fire a gun, was armed and ready to intervene should things get weird.
The second amendment is definitely not about John Kerry or Mit Romney dressing up in Cabela's finest red flannel duck hunter outfit and posing as "sportsmen" for the cameras.  Every time I see such a spectacle it makes me want to vomit.  The second amendment is about equipping an indigenous insurgency in the event of an oppressive political force.  Its not about shooting ducks is it?
Now that is hardly anything the current "pro-gun" political associations, or sportsmen's groups will align themselves with, but it is a historical fact, and in such situations, we most certainly NEED as well as want all of the things we are told we do not need.  One of these is the rifle.
Now, don't think like the typical legal CCW guy defending himself from some pimple-faced tee-aged meth-hed in search of your wallet.  Rifles are not for this.  Think of what these men might have needed, way back 200 years ago, to make sure their economic freedom - the only true security of a free people and a free state, was not messed with in any way shape or form. 
Would they have needed pistols to keep "brigands" at bay?  No.
Would they have needed shotguns to defend their cabins from native american home invaders? No. What they would have needed was the rifles of their day so they could use them to enforce their will through fire and smoke and lead balls.
The rifle is not about home defense or street protection.  The rifle is about the projection of force.  Its about forcing your adversaries, vis-a-vis violence and threath of death, to do what you want.  The colonists didn't reason with the British, they forced them. Any group of organized men with rifles that has triumphed in a conflict, has done so by forcing the other side to comply by threat of force. 
And understand this dear reader, from a historical context, freedom exists only because of the threat of violence backing it up.  If no threat of violence exists, freedom is but an illusion.
Are you truly a free man?  Only if you have two things.  One is a rifle.  Every American man worthy of the name needs a rifle. Preferably a rifle intended for fighting and not sports hunting, but in the end, any kind will do.  Two is the skills to use it in a fight. 
So I repeat the question to you. Are you a free man?  If the answer is no, then go buy a rifle and then give us a call so we can fix the rest of the problem.

Gabe Suarez
24235  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: February 20, 2009, 01:21:55 AM
Blair Holt, Other Gun-control Efforts, on Horizon

Written by Alan Scholl
Monday, 19 January 2009 18:02

No sane person wants innocent people victimized, maimed, or murdered, nor to see the perpetrators escape justice. This is true, whether the perpetrators use their hands or objects — like baseball bats, rocks, knives, vehicles, or a host of other readily available inanimate objects of endless variety — or a firearm. It is the intent and the will of the criminals, and not the inanimate objects they use, that are responsible for the criminal acts and the harm done to victims.

From the dawn of man, violent acts have been a sad aspect of life in nearly every civilization and culture. The violence in prisons shows how ineffective even close confinement, total control, and total surveillance can be in preventing this.

Many heavily restrictive governments have failed to prevent violence. In fact, history has shown that powerful, unrestrained governments commit murder and other acts of violence against their own citizens. According to careful statistical analysis by Professor R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, in his detailed work Death By Government, "The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects." On the other hand, "The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others."

Regardless of who commits the crimes, brutality and murder are moral issues, and the means or equipment used is really immaterial to the root problem, which is the condition of the human heart and mind. In our system of government, an important check against immoral acts of violence — whether committed by individuals acting alone, gangs, or unrestrained government — is the Second Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Yet today in America, the proponents of civilian disarmament often insist that inflicting a grievous wrong on all citizens — removing their most effective means of defense against the violence, in contradiction of the Second Amendment — will somehow correct the underlying moral problem.

Many Americans fear that despite the evidence, we are about to witness a broad array of gun-control efforts to limit or completely disenfranchise Americans' right to keep and bear arms.

After last November's elections changed the political climate at the national level and in a number of states, a huge surge in gun sales has been reported among retailers and dealers. FOX News' Catherine Herridge reported that the month Barack Obama was elected, the number of background checks was 42 percent greater than in November 2007. "It's not a hard tea leaf to read," said Jim Shepherd, publisher of the news service Outdoor Wire, which claims Obama's election has "frightened consumers into action."

Obama has repeatedly stated that he supports Second Amendment rights and will not crack down on gun owners, and in June he said he agreed with the Supreme Court when it overturned the District of Columbia handgun ban. But gun owners are not convinced. Obama's legislative record in support of gun control, and his offhand remark during the primaries that small-town Americans are "bitter" and "cling to their guns," suggest a very different approach to firearms regulation during his presidency. A December poll from Southwick Associates found that 80 percent of hunters and shooters expect the new administration and a Democratic Congress will make purchasing firearms more difficult.

An electronic news service that covers outdoor news has even named Obama its "Gun Salesman of the Year." "It's clear that gun owners and prospective gun owners are concerned about the incoming Obama administration and Congress," said Ted Novin, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

As a sentaor, incoming Vice President Joe Biden was a strong supporter of the assault-weapons ban, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994. As a state legislator in Illinois, Barack Obama backed a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

Obama will likely use the heavily liberal legislative bodies in Washington and in statehouses across the nation to help them accomplish this disenfranchisement of Americans piecemeal over the next few years. Unwittingly, or intentionally, many of our elected leaders are working hard to remove the ability of Americans to effectively defend themselves corporately — as our forefathers did — or individually against crime.

Touted as measures to prevent crime or capture criminals, they completely ignore the concept of individual rights on several levels. Nearly all will insert state or federal government very powerfully and dangerously deep into the personal and property rights and daily activities of law-abiding American people.

Nearly every one of these efforts will instead either disarm or make criminals of a wide spectrum of law-abiding citizens by means of a dizzying array of new regulations, laws, taxes, and rules.

The Obama administration will almost certainly lead the charge. A federal bill, H.R. 45, also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009," is a good example of an Obama-endorsed bill that threatens all of the ill effects mentioned above.

This bill was named after teenaged Blair Holt, a Julian High School student killed on a city bus in Chicago.

The bill requires a "Blair Holt" license, involving a detailed application including photo, thumb print, written test, release of mental health records, and new fees. Firearms owners would also be required to report all gun transfers (even those to other family members) to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. H.R. 45 is a relaunch of H.R. 2666 in 2007, co-sponsored by 15 other representatives including Barack Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel.

The Northeast, a major battleground in this fight over the right to keep and bear arms, is home to monuments dedicated to men who two centuries ago fought and died to keep British soldiers from removing cannon, powder, and shot from storehouses in Lexington and Concord. They knew tyranny would follow disarmament.

As a nation our elected leaders and many in law enforcement have lost sight of the significance of that series of events and their purpose and the importance of arms to preserving liberty. In efforts supposedly intended to stem the moral problems that spawn the violence, they have turned to restricting liberty and denying law-abiding Americans a means of self-defense.

OrigamiAK Offline
Freshman   Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10 
 H.R. 45, sample letter, and fax numbers


Hi all,

H.R. 45 has been introduced to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 45 is really bad. See the whole thing here:

Here is the letter I wrote to all the US House Judiciary Committee members. Getting this bill stopped while in committee is vastly better than it going to the House floor for debate and a vote. We need to get this stopped early.

Begin Letter:

January 27, 2009

Re: Vote NO on HR45

Dear House Judiciary Member,

I urge you to vote NO on HR45, the "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009."

Constitutionally protected rights are not subject to licensing, taxes, applications, fees, requirements, or any other subversion at the hands of federal, state, or local government. HR45 is just as immoral and unconstitutional as any poll tax or literacy test requirement for voting.

In addition, HR45 will not be effective for its stated purpose, and will put an undue burden on those of our citizens who have fewer financial resources. Instead, I ask you to focus on the enforcement of existing laws against violent crime, which will be vastly more effective than curbing the Civil Rights of all private citizens in the United States.

This is not a gun issue; this is a Civil Rights issue.

If you vote for HR45, you will not receive my vote or financial support at any time in the future.


End Letter

Anyone who wishes to sign their own name to my letter and send it is welcome to do so.

In sending this to the various House Judiciary Committee members yesterday, I discovered that many of them do not accept emails from outside their district. I found it much more convenient to fax all of them. Below are the fax numbers to the Washington D.C. offices of most of the House Judiciary Committee members (not all of them.) I didn't attach the Representatives' names to the fax numbers.

Here they are:

Happy faxing!!!
24236  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: February 20, 2009, 01:15:22 AM
"Mostly this appears to be boilerplate drug eradication procedure."

Exactly what my doggy nose was telling me; hence my request for a summary  cheesy
24237  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: February 20, 2009, 01:12:43 AM
The Rep Party office in Manhattan Beach (the office nearest to me) is like a deranged SNL parody of stereotypes of the Reps being white haired old farts.
24238  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Alignment on: February 20, 2009, 01:10:35 AM
Ann Barber.  Guro Inosanto introduced us and trains with her himself.  My work with her was a mixture of Pilates and Gyrotonics (a weird, hard to describe contraption.    Given that Guro I trains with her, I was not at all surprised to find her having deep insight.  I worked under her guidance for about 18 months and as a result my years of tremendous instability in my right pelvis improved to where I now have to go to the chiro only once of twice a year.
24239  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: February 19, 2009, 05:52:18 PM
I think in similar ways on this point SB Mig.  Recently I wrote a little something.  If I find it I will bring over over.
24240  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / RAT on: February 19, 2009, 11:32:42 AM

Smelling a RAT
posted at 10:11 am on February 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey   

Byron York smells a RAT.  Charles Grassley smelled a RAT right before the Senate vote on Porkulus, but couldn’t get his statement to the floor on time.  You’ll smell a rat, too, when you’re done reading this post, and it won’t just be the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, either:

You’ve heard a lot about the astonishing spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama. But you probably haven’t heard about a provision in the bill that threatens to politicize the way allegations of fraud and corruption are investigated — or not investigated — throughout the federal government.

The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

First, let’s ask ourselves how this stimulates the economy.  Why include this in an emergency stimulus bill when it has nothing to do with stimulus or economics?  This rule change should have come in separate debate in Congress — like so many other portions of Porkulus.

It does, however, have everything to do with Hope and Change.  What the RAT Board can do, as York points out, is direct or quash investigations by Inspectors General throughout the federal bureaucracy.  Until now, IGs have had independence of action in order to avoid charges of politicization (remember that word?) and to conduct probes without interference from the Department of Justice, the White House, or Congress.  Now they will answer to Congress not on general performance, but on the specifics of their probes.

How did it get into Porkulus?  Grassley says it wasn’t in the original bill passed in the Senate, and it suddenly appeared in the conference version.  No one has claimed ownership of the RAT Board yet, but clearly the Democratic majority wants full control over oversight in the bureaucracy — which more or less means an end to effective oversight over the majority, which is the entire point of the IG position.  After all, if we could rely on politicians and bureaucrats to police themselves, we wouldn’t need Constitutional checks and balances at all.

The name of the RAT Board is Orwellian, as is its appearance in the administration that claimed it would have the most transparency in American history.  Putting IGs under Nancy Pelosi’s thumb eliminates transparency and accountability, and calling it an Accountability and Transparency Board is a grim joke.  It’s simply a mechanism to shut down potentially embarrassing (or worse) IG investigations while commanding others against political foes.

Put simply, it brings the worst aspects of the Chicago Machine to Washington DC — a result which we repeatedly warned would happen with Obama’s election.
24241  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ralph Peters on: February 19, 2009, 09:11:08 AM
Second post of the AM:

I've yet to hear what seems to be a coherent suggestion to Afpakia, though I am willing to consider outside the box variables which result in the collapse of Pakistan as such, but I gotta say this RP piece has its appeal.




February 17, 2009 --

THE 36,000 US troops in Afghanistan are prisoners of war. They're still armed and fighting. But their fate lies in Pakistan's hands, not ours.

It's time to rethink our nonstrategy in Kabul. We got our initial actions right in the autumn of 2001, slaughtering terrorists, toppling the Taliban and empowering would-be allies. But we've been getting it wrong every year since.

We're now on the verge of doubling our troop commitment to a mismanaged war that lacks sane goals and teeters toward inanity. And we're putting our troops at the mercy of one of the world's most-corrupt states - Pakistan - which has cut a deal with extremists to enforce Sharia law a short drive from the capital.

After taking apart al Qaeda's base network and punishing the Taliban, we should have left the smoking ruins. This should have been a classic punitive expedition: We're not obliged to rehabilitate foreign murderers.

As for those who exclaim that "We would have had to go back!" - well, so what? Had we needed to hammer Afghanistan again in 2007 or 2008, that still would've been cheaper in blood (ours and the Afghans') and treasure than trying to build a "rule of law" state where no real state ever existed.

Staying left us with criminally vulnerable logistics - ever the bane of campaigns in the region. The Brits and the Soviets both learned the hard way that superior fighting skills don't suffice in Afghanistan: You need dependable, redundant supply lines.

But we rely on a long, imperiled land route through Pakistan for up to 80 percent of our supplies - a route that Pakistan can close at any time.

And the Pakistanis have closed it, just to make a point.

I'm convinced that the recent flurry of successful attacks on supply yards in Peshawar and along the Khyber Pass route were tacitly - if not actively - approved by the Pakistani intelligence service (the ISI) and the military.

Previous attacks were rare and unsuccessful. Suddenly, in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks, our trucks were burning. The Pakistanis were making the point that we're at their mercy: They wanted us to rein in a (rightly) outraged India.

They also want the new US administration to multiply foreign-aid bribes. (There isn't enough cash left in the country for Pakistan's elite to steal.)

Our response? We're paying up. Plus, dumber than dirt, we're turning to the Russians for an alternate supply line - after they bullied the Kyrgyz government into ending our access to a vital airbase north of the Afghan border.

But the central problem is the blind-alley mission. We kidded ourselves that we could conjure up a functioning rule-of-law state in the obstinately lawless territory known as Afghanistan, whose various ethnic groups hate each other unto death.

Instead of setting a realistic goal - mortally punishing our enemies - we decided to create a model democracy in a territory that hasn't reached the sophistication of medieval Europe.

And our own politics only complicate the mess. Since Iraq was "Bush's war," the American left rejected it out of hand. For Democrats seeking to prove they're tough on terror, Afghanistan became the "good war" by default.

Yet partial success in Iraq could spark positive change across the Middle East. Success in Afghanistan - whatever that is - changes nothing. Iraq is the old, evocative heart of Arab civilization. Afghanistan is history's black hole.

But President Obama has made Afghanistan his baby to show that he's strong on security.

What's the end-state, Mr. President? How do we get there? How do you solve the greater Pakistan problem?

By sending another 30,000 US hostages in uniform? De- fine the mission - what, specifically, are they sup- posed to accomplish?

God knows, every decent American should want this ragamuffin surge to succeed - but it's the military equivalent of the financial bailout package: Just throw more resources at a problem and hope something works.

Personally, I'm sick of seeing our troops used as a substitute for intelligent policies - while every wonk in Washington drones on about there being no military solution to war, for God's sake.

No military solution? Great. Bring the troops home and deploy more diplomats, contractors and accountants. See how long they survive.

It's grimly entertaining to observe how American leftists, who shrieked that we should "support the troops, bring them home" while Iraq was all the rage, won't say "Boo!" about Obama's war of choice. (They're still not enlisting, either.)

Our botched deployment to Afghanistan as warriors who morphed into squatters defies military logic, history and common sense. The Brits learned - finally - that you deal with Afghan problems by occasionally hammering Afghans, then leaving them to sort out their own mess. You kill the guilty and leave.

Not us. We're going to build Disneyworld on the Kabul River.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Looking for Trouble."
24242  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Our Troops in Action on: February 19, 2009, 08:59:05 AM
Seems like a good site full of examples of our troops in action:


Specialist Joe Gibson
Silver Star

During a helicopter infiltration, Spec. Gibson’s squad came under intense enemy small arms and machine gun fire.

“The guy that got hit, he actually was a really good friend of mine and I heard him call out and it makes my heart cringe to hear that,” Gibson said.

He got his wounded buddy to safety in a hail of bullets and then he actually stepped on a suicide bomber hiding in the tall grass.

“I stopped him because I thought maybe he was grabbing a knife or something to attack me with,” he said. “I stopped him and that’s when he told me he had a bomb on. He said ‘bomb’ in English. He knew how to say that.

“That pretty much at that moment I thought I was probably going to die, but I didn’t care so whatever, there was nothing I could do about it so I just kept on doing what I was doing staying in control.”

It was hand-to-hand combat. Gibson wrestled with the bomber and killed him before he had a chance to detonate the pack.

For those actions, he’s receiving the Silver Star with his Army wife Samantha looking on.
24243  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: February 19, 2009, 08:55:28 AM
Pakistan: Negotiating Away the Writ of the State
Stratfor Today » February 17, 2009 | 1515 GMT

A delegation from an Islamist militant movement leaves after talks with
Pakistani officials in Peshawar
Provincial authorities in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province announced
Feb. 16 that they will implement a new Shariah-based regulation as part of a
deal with Pashtun jihadist forces in the Swat region to end the insurgency
there. This move likely will not achieve the authorities' desired results,
due to disagreements among Pakistan's various stakeholders regarding this
initiative and the Taliban's drive to expand their sphere of operations in
Pakistan. Not only will the process further erode the writ of the Pakistani
state it will also undermine U.S. interests in neighboring Afghanistan.

The provincial government of the left-leaning secular Pashtun nationalist
Awami National Party in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP)
announced Feb. 16 that it reached an agreement with Maulana Sufi Muhammad,
the founder of the Islamist militant group
Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM), or Movement for the Enforcement
of Shariah, to end the jihadist insurgency in the area. In exchange for
peace, the government has agreed to implement Shariah-based regulations in a
wide area of the province formerly known as the Malakand Division and is
centered around the restive Swat region. Militants in the Swat region called
a 10-day cease-fire the night before talks with the government, and in
another gesture of goodwill released a Chinese engineer on Feb. 14,
kidnapped five months earlier. Maulana Sufi is now expected to convene a
meeting of the TNSM's leadership council to get the movement to agree to end
the fighting.

The TNSM is one of the two largest Pashtun jihadist groups in Pakistan that
fall under the Taliban umbrella and have ties to al Qaeda. The Feb. 16 deal
is the latest in a string of peace initiatives attempted over the past
several months to contain the insurgency, given Pakistan's inability to use
force to settle the issue.

Getting the militants to end the fighting is not the only complication in
carrying out this preliminary peace deal (which has no set time frame).
There are disagreements within the government at various levels about the
idea of bending to the Taliban's demands. While NWFP Chief Minister Amir
Haider Khan Hoti has called for support for his government's move to
implement the Shariah-based laws - the Nizam-i-Adl (Justice System)
Regulations-2009 - and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has
expressed for the negotiated settlement, Pakistani President Asif Ali
Zardari said he would not endorse the new deal unless it was clear that the
insurgency had been brought to an end.

Furthermore, there are growing rifts between the prime minister and
president (both from the ruling Pakistan People's Party), with the army
reportedly backing Gilani to contain Zardari. But even before the central
government makes a decision on the peace deal, the provincial government
must craft the new legislation. This presents another world of problems,
since there are already several existing Shariah laws on the books as a
result of several decades' worth of attempts to deal with the problem of a
non-functioning legal and judicial system. The TNSM's rise was due largely
in part to its ability to exploit the chaotic situation with law and order
in the area and the ultraconservative religious local culture.

(click image to enlarge)

Assuming that the negotiated area does get a new set of religious laws -
which is not likely - the move will not lead to the containment of the
jihadist insurgency. If anything, the government's weak negotiating position
will only consolidate the Taliban's influence in the region - not only in
Swat, but in the area covered by the deal, including at least the districts
of Malakand, Dir, Swat, Shangla and Buner. This is not the Federally
Administered Tribal Area (FATA) - the historically autonomous small region
straddling the Afghanistan-Pakistan border - but Pakistan proper, and these
districts form a major sub-set of the northern part of the NWFP. This
indicates just how far things have deteriorated.

With the NWFP's southern districts along the tribal badlands also
experiencing a creeping Talibanization, a Pakistani Taliban stronghold in
the north could very well translate into the province falling to the Taliban
in the not too distant future. Put differently, the FATA, NWFP and even the
northwestern part of Balochistan (the southwestern province's Pashtun
corridor) could exhibit Afghanistan-like conditions where Pakistani security
forces would have to struggle harder to impose the waning writ of the state.

Clearly, this potential scenario has massive implications for the new U.S.
strategy for Afghanistan. Washington, already alarmed at Pakistan's
inability and/or unwillingness to contain the jihadist threat, has
intensified its unilateral air strikes inside Pakistan's tribal belt. The
largest such attacks took place Feb. 14, and one occurred Feb. 16 in Kurram
agency - an area where U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle attacks have not
happened before. Should the situation continue to deteriorate as a result of
this peacemaking, U.S. forces could be forced to strike deeper into Pakistan
proper in the NWFP and Balochistan provinces where both al Qaeda and Taliban
high-value targets are likely located. Furthermore, the Feb. 16 deal raises
more doubts about the viability of the NATO supply route that runs from
Peshawar to the Khyber Pass.

More importantly, this peace deal offers the Obama administration a glimpse
of what to expect as it moves toward a political settlement with Taliban
forces in Afghanistan. Should the deal with the militants in Pakistan lead
to the establishment of a Taliban "emirate" of sorts centered in Swat, it
will only further embolden the Afghan Taliban as they push for a comeback.
And a return of the Taliban to the corridors of power in Afghanistan could
prove detrimental to the security of Pakistan.

This is ironic considering that the Pakistani state supports the return of a
Taliban-dominated regime in Kabul. In the past, such a regime served
Pakistani national security interests . But with the Talibanization of the
Pakistani northwest - especially in the last two years - the Pakistanis have
lost control of their own territory and are not in a position to regain
influence in Afghanistan. Therefore, if the United States allows Pakistan to
become involved in Washington's negotiations with the Taliban, Islamabad
will not be seizing an opportunity to project power beyond its borders;
rather, it will be looking to protect itself from a threat that is both
internal and external.

Between the Pakistanis playing defense and the United States struggling to
craft a strategy for Afghanistan, the outlook is very bleak for Southwest
24244  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Sundry on: February 19, 2009, 08:48:41 AM
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

--Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776


"Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing. And that you may be always doing good, my dear, is the ardent prayer of yours affectionately."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Martha Jefferson, 5 May 1787

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...." --James Madison


"For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension. Well, the truth is, there are simple answers -- they just are not easy ones. The time has come for us to decide whether collectively we can afford everything and anything we think of simply because we think of it. The time has come to run a check to see if all the services government provides were in answer to demands or were just goodies dreamed up for our supposed betterment. The time has come to match outgo to income, instead of always doing it the other way around." --Ronald Reagan


"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it." --John Adams


"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life. Pious, just humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting.... The purity of his private charter gave effulgence to his public virtues...."

--John Marshall, official eulogy of George Washington, delivered by Richard Henry Lee, 26 December 1799
"His integrity was most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known, no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decision. He was indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, a good, and a great man." --Thomas Jefferson about George Washington

In some circles, today is observed as "Presidents' Day," jointly recognizing Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, but it is still officially recognized as the anniversary of "Washington's Birthday" -- and that is how we mark the date in our shop. (Washington's actual birthday is 22 February.)

As friend of The Patriot, Matthew Spaulding, a Heritage Foundation scholar, reminds: "Although it was celebrated as early as 1778, and by the early 19th Century was second only to the Fourth of July as a patriotic holiday, Congress did not officially recognize Washington's Birthday as a national holiday until 1870. The Monday Holiday Law in 1968 -- applied to executive branch departments and agencies by Richard Nixon's Executive Order 11582 in 1971 -- moved the holiday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Section 6103 of Title 5, United States Code, currently designates that legal federal holiday as 'Washington's Birthday.' Contrary to popular opinion, no action by Congress or order by any President has changed 'Washington's Birthday' to 'Presidents' Day'."

In honor of and due respect for our first and (we believe) greatest president, arguably, our history's most outstanding Patriot, we include two quotes from George Washington which best embody his dedication to liberty and God. The first from his First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789, and the second from his Farewell Address, 19 September 1796.

"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People."

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens."

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson


24245  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: February 19, 2009, 12:04:25 AM
GM:  Any chance you could be persuaded to give a summary of all that, including your interpretation of the meaning of what was said there? smiley
24246  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: February 18, 2009, 08:10:01 PM
I don't understand.   There no jungle canopy in Afg, the crops are in plain sight.  My understanding (you have PM) is that we are not fully trying because we fear the anger of all the people who make money from it.
The Taliban get their first wish
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - Many Muslims believe that ancient Khorasan - which covers parts of modern-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan - is the promised land from where they will secure the first victory in the end-of-time battle in which the final round, according to their beliefs, will be fought in Bilad-i-Sham (Palestine-Lebanon-Syria).

The geographical borders of Bilad-i-Sham-Khorasan extend from Samarkand in Uzbekistan to the small Malakand division in the northern fringe of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) that includes the militant-dominated Swat Valley.

On Monday, at a time when United States Central Command chief General David Petraeus was trying to set up a supply route for troops in Afghanistan through Uzbekistan, in this extreme corner of the promised land of Khorasan - Malakand division - militants had every reason to celebrate.

Asif Ali Zardari, the strongly American-backed Pakistani president, and the provincial government of NWFP gave in to the demands of militants and announced a ceasefire, lifted a two-year-old curfew and announced the implementation of Islamic sharia law.

"All un-Islamic laws in the Malakand division of Swat, which is geographically one third of the whole [NWFP] province, have been abolished," the chief minister of NWFP, Amir Haider Khan Hoti, told the media after reaching an agreement with the Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi, which is headed by Sufi Mohammad, the symbol of the sharia movement in Malakand division. The Islamic judicial system will be enforced by Islamic judges - qazi.

The accord is a significant victory for the Pakistan Taliban and could end two years of strife in the region which has seen militants pitted against Pakistani security forces.

The peace agreement will be complemented by a compensation package for the families of those killed and injured in the military operations. "[Families] of those who were killed will get 300,000 rupees [US$3,760] and those who were wounded will get 100,000 rupees," Hoti said. "The entire deal, Islamic laws and other packages related to the deal were completely approved by the president of Pakistan," he said.

"We have established a task force which will monitor the implementation of Islamic law, but enforcement will be bound by peace and the writ of the state," said Hoti. "The security forces now [after the signing of the agreement] will be in reactive rather than proactive mode. They will only retaliate if somebody tries to challenge the writ of the state," Hoti said.

The army's Inter-Services Public Relations confirmed that the curfew has been lifted, after two years, in Swat Valley. Militants have also announced a ceasefire for 10 days which is likely to extend for an indefinite period.

The developments in Malakand division coincide with the arrival in Afghanistan of close to 3,000 American soldiers as part of an extra 30,000 to boost the already 30,000 US troops in the country. The new contingent will be deployed in Logar province to secure violent provinces near the capital Kabul. Petraeus must now be thinking of how many more troops he will need to confront the additional Taliban fighters that will come from Malakand.

Taliban's victory: A curtain raiser to the spring battle

A key factor in the Taliban's revival after being driven from power by US-led forces in 2001 was that from 2004 they established a strong network in Pakistan that was coordinated by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

A focal point of this was the radical Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad, which was stormed in July 2007 by Pakistani security forces to clear it of militants. The network extended into the Swat Valley, streamed into Bajaur Agency and Mohmand Agency from where militants fed the Afghan insurgency in Kunar and Nooristan provinces.

Other flows of militants into South Waziristan and North Waziristan, Kurram Agency and Khyber Agency respectively fed the Afghan insurgency in the provinces of Paktia, Paktika, Khost and Nangarhar provinces.

By this time, Western intelligence had realized that these developments in Pakistan were a major factor behind the "fireworks" in Afghanistan, and Islamabad was told as much. The Pakistanis were also warned that the militants could also launch a revolution in Pakistan. This was a major turning point in the "war on terror" in the South Asian theater.

For the first time, Islamabad felt a chill up its spine and viewed the situation from a different perspective - not as an American war in which its participation was drawn out of compulsion, but as a war necessary to maintain the status quo of its own system. This system was a blend of the country's deep relationship with the US and the perpetuation of the military oligarchy, combined with a particular brand of Islam that could co-exist with this setup.

The attack on the Lal Masjid was the first shot fired in this battle, and its reverberations soon spread to the Swat Valley, South Waziristan and then Bajaur Agency, in effect turning the whole of NWFP into a war theater. A series of military operations in the tribal areas drove the militants from stand-alone sanctuaries into population centers.

In Malakand, which includes the Swat area, the militants are a part of the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Taliban and the vanguard of the Taliban's cause in the region against Western occupation forces in Afghanistan and their ally - Pakistan. They have established their own writ with a parallel system that includes courts, police and even a electric power-distribution network and road construction, and all this is now official in the eyes of Islamabad.

All intelligence indicated that further concentration on military operations in Swat could lead to an expansion of the war theater into Pakistan's non-Pashtun cities, such as Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. The security forces were already stretched and even faced rebellions.

These combined factors culminated in Monday's peace agreement, which is a major defeat for Washington as well as Pakistan, and it could also lead to a major setback for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Afghanistan come spring when hordes of better-trained fighters from Swat pour into Afghanistan.

The Taliban defeat American interests

To tame the militancy, Washington and London devised a plan in 2007, one aspect of which was for the military to take on the militants. At the same time, Pakistan was to move from a military dictatorship under president general Pervez Musharraf to a political government.

This happened in the beginning of last year with the formation of a democratically elected coalition government of secular and liberal parties involving among others the Pakistan People's Party, the Muttehida Quami Movement, the Pashtun sub-nationalist Awami National Party (ANP), the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam and the Pakistan Muslim League-Qaid-i-Azam. It was envisaged that these parties would fully back the US's "war on terror".

Earlier, Washington had brokered a deal between former premier Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf, who was also chief of army staff, under which a National Reconciliation Ordinance was enacted to have all corruption cases against Bhutto and her spouse Asif Ali Zardari dropped. Under this arrangement, later, NWFP was handed over to the ANP, recognized as the most genuine secular political party.

The militants were onto the game. The first shot was the assassination of Bhutto by al-Qaeda in December 2007, which practically turned the whole American plan on its head and created a situation in which Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, an anti-Musharraf party, secured an unprecedented number of seats in parliament, leaving no option but for Musharraf, the most important American ally, to resign. But in time, the secular and liberal political parties in the capital became hostage to the militants.

Another setback for the pro-American forces was the brazen militant attack late last year on Asfandyar Wali, the leader of the ANP, at his home about 20 kilometers from the NWFP capital, Peshawar. He then fled first to Islamabad and later to Europe. Asfandyar had been groomed by the US through many visits to the US.

Asfandyar's departure resulted in half the leadership of the ANP, including the head of their foreign relations committee, Dr Himayun Khan, resigning. Their departure was hastened by dire threats from the Taliban. It was only a matter of time before the ANP's influence in NWFP was severely eroded. Ironically, the ANP, which sided with the Soviets against the Islamic Afghan resistance in the 1980s and put up fierce resistance to the enactment of Islamic laws in the country, has now become the main engine for the enforcement of sharia in NWFP where it technically rules.

On Tuesday, while Asfandyar has chosen to remain silent, his nephew and the chief minister of the province, Hoti, warned the federal government that any obstruction of the deal with the militants would be unacceptable.

Meanwhile, all schools in Swat, including girls' schools, were opened on Tuesday and thousands of people flocked to a cricket stadium to greet Sufi Mohammad, who will soon travel to Matta, a sub-district of Swat, to visit his son-in-law Mullah Fazlullah to try to persuade him to end the insurgency. For the first time in many months, all members of the provincial and federal parliament will visit the Swat Valley.

Pakistan's failure: How it tackled the militancy

During Musharraf's eight years in power, Pakistan was on board with both the US and Saudi Arabia over the "war on terror". This ensured that Pakistan received a steady supply of all sorts of resources, including deferment on oil payments from Saudi Arabia and special aid packages when Pakistan was badly hit by an earthquake in 2005. Washington mostly looked after Pakistan's military aid packages and reimbursement of expenses incurred in the "war on terror".

A few steps taken by Zardari, however, crumbled the setup like a house of cards. Immediately after taking over as president last September, in a very high-handed manner, Pakistan withdrew the hunting privileges of two Saudi princes located in the district of Dera Ghazi Khan in southern Punjab. To add salt to the wound, the facility was given to a rival sheikh from the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The action was taken at a time when Pakistan badly needed Saudi oil on deferred terms due to soaring prices, and the UAE was in no position to fill the gap. Islamabad now enjoys very good relations with the UAE - which is unable to help Pakistan - due to the family friendship between the Bhutto family and the UAE's rulers. But Pakistan's relations with Saudi Arabia and its two major allies - Qatar and Bahrain - are at an all-time low because of the insult to the Saudi royal family. (The issue of Zardari's Shi'ite background is a secondary factor.)

Asia Times Online has learned that the newly installed US envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, was impressed in recent talks with the government to learn that chief of army staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani works fully in coordination with the political government and does not intervene in its affairs. The Swat operation is an example: the military immediately stopped action when the government announced the peace deal with the militants. All the same, the Pentagon will be waiting to receive Kiani in Washington soon to discuss why the Pakistan army failed in Swat.

However, Holbrooke was apparently concerned when he interacted with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani and members of the cabinet. Gillani expressed his fears that the poor economic situation in Pakistan could hamper its efforts in the "war on terror". Holbrooke is said to have asked the premier how much money he would need to revive the economy. "As much as we can get," the premier replied, without giving specifics.

The dynamics of the region have changed once again. Nizam-i-Adal Regulation 2009, which proclaims the enforcement of sharia law in Malakand division, is indeed a written document of Pakistan's defeat in the American-inspired war in NWFP.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) 
24247  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / This piece gets it right on: February 18, 2009, 09:06:15 AM

The world has gone from the greatest synchronized global economic boom in history to the first synchronized global bust since the Great Depression. How we got here is not a cautionary tale of free markets gone wild. Rather, it's the story of what can happen when governments ignore market signals and central bankers believe in endless booms.

Following the March 2000 Nasdaq bust, the Federal Reserve began to slash the fed-funds rate from 6.5% in January 2001 to 1.75% by year-end and then to 1% in 2003. (This despite the fact that officially the U.S. economy had begun to recover in November 2001). Almost three years into the economic expansion, the Fed began to increase the fed-funds rate in baby steps beginning June 2004 from 1% to 5.25% in August 2006.

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
But because interest rates during this time continuously lagged behind nominal GDP growth as well as cost of living increases, the Fed never truly implemented tight monetary policies. Indeed, total credit increased in the U.S. from an annual growth rate of 7% in the June 2004 quarter to over 16% in early 2007. It grew five-times faster than nominal GDP between 2001 and 2007.

The complete mispricing of money, combined with a cornucopia of financial innovations, led to the housing boom and allowed buyers to purchase homes with no down payments and homeowners to refinance their existing mortgages. A consumption boom followed, which was not accompanied by equal industrial production and capital spending increases. Consequently the U.S. trade and current-account deficit expanded -- the latter from 2% of GDP in 1998 to 7% in 2006, thus feeding the world with approximately $800 billion in excess liquidity that year.

When American consumption began to boom on the back of the housing bubble, the explosion of imports into the U.S. were largely provided by China and other Asian countries. Rising exports from China led to that country's strong domestic industrial production, income and consumption gains, as well as very high capital spending as capacities needed to be expanded in order to meet the export demand. An economic boom in China drove the demand for oil and other commodities up. Rapidly accumulating wealth allowed the resource producers in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere to go on a shopping binge for luxury goods and capital goods from Europe and Japan.

As a consequence of this expansionary cycle, the world experienced between 2001 and 2007 the greatest synchronized economic boom in the history of capitalism. Past booms -- of the 19th century under colonial economies, or after World War II when 40% of the world's population remained under communism, socialism, or was otherwise isolated -- were not nearly as global as this one.

Another unique feature of this synchronized boom was that nearly all asset prices skyrocketed around the world -- real estate, equities, commodities, art, even bonds. Meanwhile, the Fed continued to claim that it was impossible to identify any asset bubbles.

The cracks first appeared in the U.S. in 2006, when home prices became unaffordable and began to decline. The overleveraged housing sector brought about the first failures in the subprime market.

Sadly, the entire U.S. financial system, for which the Fed is largely responsible, turned out to be terribly overleveraged and badly in need of capital infusions. Investors grew apprehensive and risk averse, while financial institutions tightened lending standards. In other words, while the Fed cut the fed-funds rate to zero after September 2007, it had no impact -- except temporarily on oil, which soared between September 2007 and July 2008 from $75 per barrel to $150 (another Fed induced bubble) -- because the private sector tightened monetary conditions.

In 2008, a collapse in all asset prices led to lower U.S. consumption, which caused plunging exports, lower industrial production, and less capital spending in China. This led to a collapse in commodity prices and in the demand for luxury goods and capital goods from Europe and Japan. The virtuous up-cycle turned into a vicious down-cycle with an intensity not witnessed since before World War II.

Sadly, government policy responses -- not only in the U.S. -- are plainly wrong. It is not that the free market failed. The mistake was constant interventions in the free market by the Fed and the U.S. Treasury that addressed symptoms and postponed problems instead of solving them.

The bad policy started with the bailout of Mexico following the Tequila crisis in 1994. This prolonged the Asian bubble of the 1990s, because investors became convinced there was no risk in growing current-account deficits and continued to finance Asia's emerging economies until the bubble burst with the start of the Asian crisis in 1997-98.

Then came the ill-advised bailout of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, which encouraged the financial sector to leverage up even more. This was followed by the ultra-expansionary monetary polices following the Nasdaq bubble in 2000, which led to rapid and unsustainable credit growth.

So what now? Unfortunately, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were, as Fed officials, among the chief architects of easy money and are therefore largely responsible for the credit bubble that got us here. Worse, their commitment to meddling in markets has only intensified with the adoption of near-zero interest rates and massive bank bailouts.

The best policy response would be to do nothing and let the free market correct the excesses brought about by unforgivable policy errors. Further interventions through ill-conceived bailouts and bulging fiscal deficits are bound to prolong the agony and lead to another slump -- possibly an inflationary depression with dire social consequences.

Mr. Faber is managing director of Marc Faber Ltd. and editor of "The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report."
24248  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Alignment on: February 18, 2009, 08:36:30 AM
You may be sorry you asked , , ,  cheesy

After the failure of the second surgery (which was emotionally very discouraging to me because the docs could not understand why it had not worked) at my request the doctors put a cast on my leg from foot to hip to ensure success in the third surgery.   The transplanted tendon did "take", but the attendant atrophy on my already substantially diminished leg made created HUGE alignment and body mechanic issues.

 I strongly draw your attention to the imporatance of walking and moving evenly.  It can be very easy to carry the "gimpiness" provoked by the injury far, far longer than you realize and the bad movement then creates additional problems.

In my case while the cast was on my leg, unbeknownst to all, my hamstring partially adhered to my femur and this subtly and continuously caused my right pelvis to dislocate at the sacrum for several (6?) years.  Typically I was at the chiropractor 8-10 times a month.  Often pain would wake me up in the wee hours of the morning and I would have to stretch for an hour or two and self-medicate to get to where I could go back to sleep.  This was a very discouraging time, but in a sense it was my good fortunate that both Top Dog and Salty Dog were on sabbatical from fighting for various reasons (e.g. Salty's wife's brother had been murdered and there was a trial of the killer) and I felt that it was up to me as the remaining "name" fighter for the DBs to show up and represent for the Tribe , , , I did not think that the second wave was quite ready to stand on its own yet.

Having a cause, a mission to accomplish greatly helped me focus on doing what was necessary to get ready to fight.   For all I know without this I would have figured that bummer, I was done for.

It was only after Guro Inosanto introduced me to Barrance Baytoss, an extraordinary body worker (Kobe Bryant takes him on the road with him to keep him functioning high level, he works on world class sprinters, etc) that Barrance discovered the partially adhered hamstring and lifted it off the femur.   Then about 18 months of work in Pilates Gyrotonics with Ann Barber (another introduction by Guro Inosanto) got my hips to level out and stabilize.

Now I do have to do a lot of work to compensate for the continued susceptibility of the right hip to dislocate, rarely do I have to go to the chiropractor.

My caution to you is to think not in terms of the knee, but to think in terms of alignment.  As Sarah Pettit, yoga instructor to Guro Inosanto says (and here I am proud to say I introduced her to him) "Knees are escape valves for hips."  If your hips are tight or distorted in their alignment, then unfriendly pressures and forces will be sent to the knee.  Also make sure that your foot/ankle is lined up correctly with Mother Earth, lest once again, unfriendly pressures and forces flow through the knee.

24249  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Kimo busted on: February 18, 2009, 08:13:17 AM
24250  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / T. Friedman: Good news from India on: February 18, 2009, 07:48:02 AM
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman

Go to Columnist Page » Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (60) »
There are nine bodies — all of them young men — that have been lying in a Mumbai hospital morgue since Nov. 29. They may be stranded there for a while because no local Muslim charity is willing to bury them in its cemetery. This is good news.

The nine are the Pakistani Muslim terrorists who went on an utterly senseless killing rampage in Mumbai on 26/11 — India’s 9/11 — gunning down more than 170 people, including 33 Muslims, scores of Hindus, as well as Christians and Jews. It was killing for killing’s sake. They didn’t even bother to leave a note.

All nine are still in the morgue because the leadership of India’s Muslim community has called them by their real name — “murderers” not “martyrs” — and is refusing to allow them to be buried in the main Muslim cemetery of Mumbai, the 7.5-acre Bada Kabrastan graveyard, run by the Muslim Jama Masjid Trust.

“People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim,” Hanif Nalkhande, a spokesman for the trust, told The Times of London. Eventually, one assumes, they will have to be buried, but the Mumbai Muslims remain defiant.

“Indian Muslims are proud of being both Indian and Muslim, and the Mumbai terrorism was a war against both India and Islam,” explained M.J. Akbar, the Indian-Muslim editor of Covert, an Indian investigative journal. “Terrorism has no place in Islamic doctrine. The Koranic term for the killing of innocents is ‘fasad.’ Terrorists are fasadis, not jihadis. In a beautiful verse, the Koran says that the killing of an innocent is akin to slaying the whole community. Since the ... terrorists were neither Indian nor true Muslims, they had no right to an Islamic burial in an Indian Muslim cemetery.”

To be sure, Mumbai’s Muslims are a vulnerable minority in a predominantly Hindu country. Nevertheless, their in-your-face defiance of the Islamist terrorists stands out. It stands out against a dismal landscape of predominantly Sunni Muslim suicide murderers who have attacked civilians in mosques and markets — from Iraq to Pakistan to Afghanistan — but who have been treated by mainstream Arab media, like Al Jazeera, or by extremist Islamist spiritual leaders and Web sites, as “martyrs” whose actions deserve praise.

Extolling or excusing suicide militants as “martyrs” has only led to this awful phenomenon — where young Muslim men and women are recruited to kill themselves and others — spreading wider and wider. What began in a targeted way in Lebanon and Israel has now proliferated to become an almost weekly occurrence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is a threat to any open society because when people turn themselves into bombs, they can’t be deterred, and the measures needed to interdict them require suspecting and searching everyone at any public event. And they are a particular threat to Muslim communities. You can’t build a healthy society on the back of suicide-bombers, whose sole objective is to wreak havoc by exclusively and indiscriminately killing as many civilians as possible.

If suicide-murder is deemed legitimate by a community when attacking its “enemies” abroad, it will eventually be used as a tactic against “enemies” at home, and that is exactly what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The only effective way to stop this trend is for “the village” — the Muslim community itself — to say “no more.” When a culture and a faith community delegitimizes this kind of behavior, openly, loudly and consistently, it is more important than metal detectors or extra police. Religion and culture are the most important sources of restraint in a society.

That’s why India’s Muslims, who are the second-largest Muslim community in the world after Indonesia’s, and the one with the deepest democratic tradition, do a great service to Islam by delegitimizing suicide-murderers by refusing to bury their bodies. It won’t stop this trend overnight, but it can help over time.

“The Muslims of Bombay deserve to be congratulated in taking this important decision,” Raashid Alvi, a Muslim member of India’s Parliament from the Congress Party, said to me. “Islam says that if you commit suicide, then even after death you will be punished.”

The fact that Indian Muslims have stood up in this way is surely due, in part, to the fact that they live in, are the product of and feel empowered by a democratic and pluralistic society. They are not intimidated by extremist religious leaders and are not afraid to speak out against religious extremism in their midst.

It is why so few, if any, Indian Muslims are known to have joined Al Qaeda. And it is why, as outrageously expensive and as uncertain the outcome, trying to build decent, pluralistic societies in places like Iraq is not as crazy as it seems. It takes a village, and without Arab-Muslim societies where the villagers feel ownership over their lives and empowered to take on their own extremists — militarily and ideologically — this trend will not go away.
Pages: 1 ... 483 484 [485] 486 487 ... 671
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!