Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 29, 2016, 02:38:55 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94955 Posts in 2312 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 590 591 [592] 593 594 ... 736
29551  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Blade Wounds by a Surgeon on: August 02, 2008, 02:30:43 PM
"Still, I'm going to do some research to see if I can bring some peer reviewed literature to this discussion. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting."

Looking forward to it.
29552  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Turkey on: August 02, 2008, 01:17:19 PM
Turkey's Islamists
Inspire a New
Climate of Fear
August 2, 2008; Page A11


This week's verdict by Turkey's Constitutional Court -- which rejected an attempt to ban the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) for undermining the country's secular foundations -- has been hailed by the U.S. and the EU as a great step forward for democracy and rule of law. Fair enough. Banning a party that last year renewed its mandate in office with 47% of the vote would have been a huge setback for Turkey. But that doesn't mean we should all sigh with relief and conclude that liberal democracy is flourishing under the Islamic-oriented AKP's rule.

Government surveillance of AK Party critics and leaks to media of personal phone conversations have created a climate of fear. There is concern among some liberals that the country is becoming a police state. The foundation of a healthy democracy -- the right to dissent and hold an elected government accountable -- is gradually being undermined.

When asked about mass wire-tapping, Minister of Transportation Binali Yildirim gave a Kafkaesque response: "It is not possible to prevent being listened to; the only way is not to talk [on the phone]. If there is nothing illegal in our actions, we should not be concerned about such things."

Some examples of recent intrusive practices in Turkey include the appearance on YouTube of voice recordings of prominent figures either from the military or antigovernment circles. Several anti-Islamist senior military officers have reportedly resigned over the past few years when faced with the possibility that their private conversations would be leaked. The leaks involve some top-secret military documents, so they are also highly illegal and might pose a serious security breach for the NATO alliance.

In this context, several aspects of the so-called Ergenekon trial are worth highlighting. Ergenekon is alleged to be a secret antigovernment organization named after a pre-Islamic Turkish myth. The case involves a network of ultranationalists -- including journalists, military, business and civil society leaders -- who allegedly have been involved in a range of terror attacks since the early 1990s, and most recently conspired to attempt a coup against the AKP.

The investigation began in June 2007, when over two dozen hand grenades were found in an Istanbul house. The same type of grenade was used in the attacks on the Istanbul offices of the prominent anti-Islamist newspaper Cumhuriyet in 2006. At the time, many believed the attack against the newspaper was carried out by Islamists. Now, according to the prosecution, this and other such attacks were not carried out by Islamists, but by Ergenekon conspirators.

The indictment reads like a Solzhenitsyn novel; it includes private conversations between suspects, who discuss their conversations with prominent figures, such as former president Suleyman Demirel and business tycoon Rahmi Koc. While these do not by themselves make a case, they are highly embarrassing when reprinted on the front pages of major newspapers. The message that many people took from the indictment is that those critical of the government are officially on notice.

The case is built around retired Brig. Gen. Veli Kucuk, an alleged leader of Ergenekon, who is accused of a number of illegal activities, including some of the most shocking crimes in recent Turkish history. Ergenekon conspirators are also accused of planning to murder the current chief of the Turkish military's general staff, Yasar Buyukanit, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk (among others), and of planning attacks on NATO facilities.

Most Turks would welcome the elimination of such furtive armed networks, and the clear restoration of the rule of law. However, the timing of this case, as well as the movie-like aspects of the indictment, have aroused suspicions that the AKP or its supporters are behind a campaign of intimidation -- and that they are striking back in the legal arena against the same people who tried to ban the party.

First, the timing. The Istanbul court declared its acceptance of the indictment and released the 2,455 page document on July 25 -- the weekend prior to the start of the AKP closure case. While AKP and its supporters claim the two cases are not related, those in opposition see the two closely linked, and point to the headline of the strongly antimilitary daily Taraf the next day: "Founded in 1923, cleansed in 2008" -- i.e., it declared the collapse of Mustafa Kemal's secular Turkish Republic.

Second, the leading opposition paper Cumhuriyet seems to be a key target. The phones of its senior journalists have been tapped, and some conversations deemed anti-AKP leaked to the press -- including one involving a readout of an off-the-record conversation between the paper's U.S. correspondent and members of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's staff. The paper's senior editor and columnist, Ilhan Selcuk, was arrested in March as a result of the information extracted from his private phone conversations. He is one of the leading figures among the 86 people charged with being a member of a "terrorist organization."

A third point made by those who managed to go through those 2,455 pages is that the indictment is full of unsubstantiated speculation, and that its attempt to blame all kinds of terror attacks and assassinations on Ergenekon is far-fetched. These include the killing of prominent anti-Islamist scholars and journalists, and what were thought to be Kurdish acts of terror and killings by the Islamist group Hezbullah (unrelated to the Lebanese organization).

The Ergenekon trial has so far raised more questions than answers. If the allegations can be proven, it would be a huge success for the AKP for having the courage to tackle such a horrendous entity. If, however, it turns out to be mostly a show trial, then those concerned about Turkish democracy and rule of law need to reconsider where Turkey is headed.

Ms. Baran, a native of Turkey, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of its Center for Eurasian Policy.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
29553  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Daily Expression of Gratitude on: August 02, 2008, 01:16:49 PM
@ TT:  My wife worked sedulously on having our son's first words be "dada" so I would be the one who would have to go to him when he woke up in the night.

Woof All: 

My wife has an "Attitudes of Gratitude" book for reading on the throne, which is where I happened to be before setting down to the computer.  My reading this time around spoke of being grateful for good things, but then raised the question of the attitude to take towards bummer things and to be grateful to them for what they can teach us.

29554  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Pulling the Trigger on: August 02, 2008, 12:13:51 PM
Pulling the Trigger
August 2, 2008; Page A10
Let's hope Capitol Hill never catches fire. Congress would switch off the alarm and pretend there were no flames. That, at least, was the policy message sent by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her health-care enforcers when the House voted last week to deactivate a warning that entitlement spending is running amok.

Everybody has known forever that Medicare's spending trend is untenable. The program soaked up 3.2% of GDP and 16% of all federal spending in 2007, and it is expected to grow by 7.4% or more a year over the next decade. The Tom DeLay Republicans made the problem worse with their 2003 prescription drug benefit, but in doing so they felt a twinge, a flicker, a memory flash of fiscal conscience. So as a token gesture Republicans added a "trigger" that was supposed to force some future Congress to address the program's long-term insolvency.

The trigger kicks in if Medicare's Trustees project, for two years in a row, that the program will draw more than 45% of its funding from general government revenue -- instead of from payroll taxes, or premiums and co-pays from beneficiaries. That has happened for the last two years, and probably will every year for the foreseeable future. And when it does, the White House is required to write up "corrective" legislation. Under special procedures, the White House proposal is guaranteed an up-or-down vote in the House, though not the Senate.

The trigger doesn't actually require any cost-saving, much less real discipline. All it does is oblige the political class to nod at Medicare's deteriorating finances. But even that minor annoyance is too much for Democrats, so the House voted 231-184 last Thursday to change the rules to avoid considering President Bush's proposal.

Not that the Administration's proposal is ambitious. It would merely slow the rate of spending growth enough to shut off the 45% trigger. Provisions include moving toward electronic health records and a microincrease in prescription drug premiums for 1.5 million wealthy seniors. The horror!

Congress was free to reject any of this. But a vote might draw attention from the otherwise sleepy Capitol Hill press corps, and Democrats objected even to having the discussion. Liberal health-care maharishi Pete Stark wailed about "a political ploy to foster an unfounded panic," while Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called the trigger "completely arbitrary."

Democrats have tried repeatedly since 2006 to abolish the trigger because it gets in the way of their health-care agenda, even if only a little bit. Barack Obama has plans for a slow-motion roll toward "Medicare for all," the ultimate goal of Democratic health policy. The trigger reminds people of how spendthrift and taxing the budget for Medicare already is -- even when it's reserved only for seniors.

The House vote stalls action until the next Administration, when Democrats will almost certainly dump the trigger entirely.

29555  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India on: August 02, 2008, 10:36:15 AM
"Pak does this everytime... the US raises heat on them! clockwork!. This is a subtle reminder to the rest of the world that they better coddle Pak...or they may initiate a nuclear confrontation with India. Unfortunately, their story line is wearing thin...and with Mush gone, Pak will come under increasing pressure to control the ISI....X."
Pak does it again, fires at Indian troops from across LoC

Posted online: Saturday, August 02, 2008 at 1523 hrs Print  Email

Jammu, August 2:: An Indian military post was targeted from across the Line of Control yet again despite New Delhi asking Islamabad not to vitiate the atmosphere between the two countries by repeatedly violating the ceasefire.

"There was firing on an Indian post along LoC in 12 Brigade area of Uri sector in Baramulla district of Kashmir Valley yesterday," defence sources said.

At least 15 to 16 small arms firing targeted the ward post, but the Indian troops did not retaliate and no casualties were reported, they said.

"We are investigating if it was ceasefire violation. Militants may have targeted troops on this side to push in armed ultras," they said.

In a major violation of the five-year-old ceasefire along the LoC, 15 Pakistani soldiers crossed into the Indian territory on July 28 and opened fire in the Kupwara sector killing an Indian jawan.

The two sides held a flag meeting in a bid to ease tension the next day after the two sides exchanged fire for 16 hours.

A spurt in such incidents in recent days prompted External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to raise the issue with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi on the sidelines of the SAARC Summit in Colombo but Islamabad played them down as 'minor incidents' which can be dealt with at military level.

Pakistan troops have violated the 2003 Indo-Pak border truce 20 times in 2008 in Samba, Krishnagati, Mendhar, Rajouri, Poonch, Sabzian, Tangdhar, Uri, Teetwal, Kupwara and Baramulla areas of Jammu and Kashmir.
29556  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Libertarian themes on: August 01, 2008, 05:11:06 PM
Good contribution GM, as usual.

Still, does not the idea of the government prowling through people's papers (i.e. their computers) make you uneasy?
29557  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DB Gathering of the Pack August 10th, 2008 on: August 01, 2008, 01:58:08 PM
I was bummed when I heard that Dino and Ashley were not going to be able to make it to this Gathering as planned, but by the way of setting the hook for Ashley's appearance at the next Gathering:  (working the generator pattern from DBMA drill "Attacking Blocks" 1A with Guro Porn Star Dog)

29558  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: El enemigo armado on: August 01, 2008, 01:01:42 PM
Guau Cecilio:

Me alegra mucho verte aqui de nuevo.  Espero que tus viajes te hayan ido muy bien.

!La Aventura continua!
Marc/Crafty Dog
29559  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hamdan at Gitmo on: August 01, 2008, 12:53:45 PM
Justice at Gitmo
August 1, 2008; Page A13

After years of litigation, the first military commission trial of the war on terror -- United States v. Hamdan -- is underway in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Don't believe the critics who say justice isn't being done.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan was captured by American and allied forces in Afghanistan. The government maintains -- and Hamdan has confirmed -- that he was Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard. Hamdan is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes and providing material support for terrorism.

Some of the complaints about the trial are trivial, such as that the proceedings are not televised (neither, of course, are the Supreme Court's). Other complaints are irrelevant, such as the claim that reporters cannot move about the Guantanamo base without an escort (try wandering unescorted into the Oval Office if you are on the White House beat).

Then there are the suggestions that the trial atmosphere feels wrong (all those uniforms in the "jury" box), and that the trial is going too fast compared with civilian cases. Since these are trials by military commission, the uniforms should have been anticipated. A quicker pace is also typical of military proceeding. Unlike civilian trial judges, military judges don't need to juggle civil litigation in addition to criminal cases on their dockets.

The real question, of course, is whether Hamdan is getting due process, and whether his trial is fair. The answer is yes. Hamdan has an able team of defense lawyers determined to squeeze from the system every drop of procedural advantage. They have, for example, made an unsuccessful attempt to have his trial postponed until after he has had a hearing in the civilian courts. Although the Supreme Court ruled in June that Guantanamo detainees can seek "habeas corpus" review, Judge James Robertson -- appointed by President Bill Clinton to the federal district court in Washington, D.C. -- ruled that the military commission trial can go forward.

Second, the defense has argued that the evidence against Hamdan should be excluded because it was obtained through "coercion." This claim mostly involves rough treatment after his capture in Afghanistan (he was held by both Afghan and American forces) and his being questioned during his long detention at Guantanamo.

The trial judge -- a military officer as provided by law -- excluded Hamdan's statements from Afghanistan (where questioning was, at times, by armed interrogators) but very properly rejected the defense claim that merely being held without trial as an enemy combatant, subject to Guantanamo's rules and discipline, was impermissible coercion. Captured enemy combatants can be so held, noted the judge. He consequently gave "little weight to the coercive effect" supposedly inherent in being detained for long periods without access to friends and advisers. Thus was the "best interest of justice" admissibility standard approved by Congress in the 2006 Military Commissions Act applied, proving that uniformed judges will say no to both the prosecution and defense.

Pretrial motions resolved, the prosecution has presented a compelling case. By his own admissions, Hamdan was part of Osama bin Laden's inner circle, even if not in a very senior position. Witnesses state that Hamdan has admitted responsibility for preparing bin Laden's transportation for rapid movement in case of American attacks, and was also aware of the Sept. 11 attacks in advance.

Hamdan has also offered information on other al Qaeda operations and its field logistics -- including bin Laden's manner of travel and security escort. The evidence so far has also confirmed an interesting tidbit about bin Laden's thinking. Because of a lack of a vigorous U.S. military response to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings and the 2000 Cole bombing, bin Laden evidently came to believe that the U.S. would never actually come after him in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Under the standards applied in previous wars, these facts -- unless disproved or rebutted by the defense -- would fully justify Hamdan's conviction as an unlawful enemy combatant and a person who has rendered material support to a terrorist organization. He may have been a driver, but one who was trained as a terrorist and provided essential security and logistics support for al Qaeda's commander in chief. He was no more a civilian, entitled to trial in civilian courts, than were Hitler's SS bodyguards.

Hamdan's trial is an important test for the system as a whole. It will be followed in short order by that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen also captured in Afghanistan -- at the age of 15 -- and accused of killing an American military medic. After that, the trials of far more senior al Qaeda members will follow. That includes Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of Sept. 11.

In short, based upon the military commission rules and actual practice of the Hamdan trial we've seen so far, the U.S. is according the unlawful enemy combatants at Guantanamo the fairest war-crimes trials in history. That's right, more due process at Gitmo than during the post-World War II Nuremberg tribunal and at least as much as in the more recent Hague tribunal proceedings -- both of which are routinely extolled by the critics of military commissions. But none of this seems to matter to the critics, who continue stubbornly to insist that only the civilian justice system is acceptable for the Guantanamo detainees.

The U.S. must continue the military commission system. Only military courts that provide a fair hearing and sufficient protection for national security information can ultimately provide justice to both the detainees and the American people.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington attorneys, served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
29560  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Paulson's Fannie Gamble on: August 01, 2008, 12:49:19 PM
Hank Paulson's Fannie Gamble
August 1, 2008

Our housing finance system has been broken for quite some time, creating perverse incentives for borrowers and lenders. We have now reaped the consequences, and a major financial bailout of the system is probably inevitable.

Conservatives can rightly argue that had Congressional Democrats not blocked the various initiatives of the Bush administration to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the past five years, we would not be sitting at the precipice like we are today. But that does not change the need for a government injection of funds to fill the financial hole in those two enterprises. The institutional arrangements in the American mortgage market cannot be changed overnight, and the risks of a breakdown in that market at some point over the next 18 months are still quite real.

Chad Crowe 
The trouble is, the legislation that just passed Congress indicates that Washington has learned nothing from our recent troubles. And, as this bailout bill is likely to be followed by at least one additional bill next year, the evident inability or unwillingness of Congress to move up the learning curve and abandon its past practices will make the ultimate cost to the taxpayer far higher than it might have been.

The 700 pages of legislation, which I doubt many members of Congress have even attempted to read, contains many egregious provisions, some of which are unrelated to the trouble at hand. But the pork designed to buy votes for the legislation pales before the blunders directly related to the problem at hand.

First, Congress rejected a proposal that Fannie and Freddie be barred from paying dividends if they are receiving injections of capital from the federal government. This idea would seem to be the first lesson in a course on Government Bailout 101. The government shouldn't be shoveling taxpayer money in the front door while the company is shoveling dividends to shareholders out the back door.

Freddie Mac paid $1.6 billion in dividends last year while Fannie Mae paid $2.5 billion. Both have dividend yields that are many times higher than the norm. Congress chose to protect the shareholders at the expense of the taxpayer.

Second, Congress did not give the taxpayer any of the upside from a potential recovery of Fannie and Freddie, leaving it all with existing management and existing shareholders. This breaks with past bailout or workout traditions in both the public sector and the private sector. In the Chrysler bailout of the 1980s, the government gave itself warrants that paid off when the company recovered. In most private-sector deals, existing common shareholders get virtually wiped out (Bear Stearns, for example) while preferred shareholders at least get a haircut. Fannie and Freddie shareholders were untouched by this bill. Congress bailed them out on the downside and preserved their upside potential.

Third, the legislation did not produce any substantive reforms in the home-lending area, particularly the problems which became endemic in the recent bubble. For example, President Bush asked for authority to allow for risk-based pricing in government-generated mortgages. That idea is based on the commonsense view that higher-risk customers should pay higher interest rates.

Congress rejected this, despite the lessons of the recent housing boom and bust associated with risky lending. And when it came to controlling risk through minimum down payments by homebuyers, the legislation set the required down payment for a government mortgage at only 3½%.

Fourth, the legislation included a special tax on mortgages originated by Fannie and Freddie to go into a fund for "affordable housing" run by politicians and community activists. It may seem natural for politicians to help out their colleagues and the people who turn out the votes on election day with newly dedicated taxes. But whatever logic there is in boosting taxes on entities that need public funds escapes me.

The list of such nonsensical provisions goes on and on. The examples mentioned above were not surprises snuck into the legislation in the dark of night. The president threatened to veto the bill in a formal Statement of Administration Policy issued on July 11 because it contained such objectionable items. The veto threat was reiterated by the White House just days before the House passed the legislation, but Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson reversed the veto threat in time for the vote.

The usual reason given for monstrosities such as this is that these provisions were needed to secure passage and that the need to pass the bill was pressing. But was it really that pressing? Fannie and Freddie declared during the congressional debate that they were both adequately capitalized and had no problem obtaining liquidity. If they were telling the truth, then certainly there was plenty of time for more serious deliberation.

If they were not telling the truth -- and the GSEs just got out of a five-year habit of issuing reports that were late or "qualified" by the auditors -- then Congress just created a blank check for a bailout of two institutions with dubious credibility. Either way, prudence would dictate a little more caution and time should have been taken.

The more plausible reason for the bill's structure is that the decades of coziness between politicians and Fannie and Freddie is paying off. Not only were there campaign contributions, but their "foundations" contributed huge sums to think tanks, and many political figures made the transition from government to the GSEs. The list of their connections reads like a combined Washington-New York phone book, and undoubtedly gives the appearance that both Wall Street and politicians close to Fannie and Freddie had key seats at the bargaining table over this bill. The taxpayer was not adequately represented.

Nor was the homeowner an obvious beneficiary. Both conforming and jumbo mortgage rates have risen about a quarter point during July. The new law actually reduces the amount of competition in the mortgage securitization business going forward by solidifying the special position for the two leading players, Fannie and Freddie, while competitors scramble to get capital.

The legislation also creates long-term uncertainty with regard to the extent and form of government assistance. In effect, Treasury Secretary Paulson now has an open-ended mandate to bail out the nation's troubled housing finance market, the largest single capital market in the world.

If any other country announced that its finance minister could print unlimited debt to do something similar, financial markets around the world would dump both the country's debt and the country's currency. It may well be different because this is the United States of America. But certainly, to take such a risky and unprecedented step, a better crafted and considered piece of legislation should have been created.

Mr. Lindsey, former assistant to the president for economic policy, is president and CEO of the Lindsey Group, and author of "What a President Should Know . . . But Most Learn too Late" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).
29561  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Madison's second inaugural on: August 01, 2008, 12:46:38 PM
The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily

"[T]o exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities,
so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to
foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of
others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge
unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down
upon them in others; to hold the union of the States on the basis
of their peace and happiness; to support the Constitution, which
is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its
authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to
the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and
essential to the success of the general... as far as sentiments
and intentions such as these can aid the fulfillment of my duty,
they will be a resource which can not fail me."

-- James Madison (Second Inaugural Address, March 1813)

Reference: Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United
29562  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WTF?!? on: August 01, 2008, 09:45:05 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. federal agents have been given new powers to seize travelers' laptops and other electronic devices at the border and hold then for unspecified periods the Washington Post reported on Friday.
Under recently disclosed Department of Homeland Security policies, such seizures may be carried out without suspicion of wrongdoing, the newspaper said, quoting policies issued on July 16 by two DHS agencies.
Agents are empowered to share the contents of seized computers with other agencies and private entities for data decryption and other reasons, the newspaper said.
DHS officials said the policies applied to anyone entering the country, including U.S. citizens, and were needed to prevent terrorism.
The measures have long been in place but were only disclosed in July, under pressure from civil liberties and business travel groups acting on reports that increasing numbers of international travelers had had their laptops, cellphones and other digital devices removed and examined.
The policies cover hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes -- as well as books, pamphlets and other written materials, the report said.
The policies require federal agents to take measures to protect business information and attorney-client privileged material. They stipulate that any copies of the data must be destroyed when a review is completed and no probable cause exists to keep the information.

Quoting from another forum- caveat lector:

"Here's a link to the actual government DHS policies "allowing" them to do this:

There's two current solutions:

1) Encrypt everything (PGP Whole Disk would be my recommendation)
2) Don't travel with electronic media

Keep in mind if you encrypt, shut your computer OFF entirely before travelling - don't leave it hibernating or sleeping, as it's potentially possible to capture the keys out of memory with a hardware hack."
29563  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Daily Expression of Gratitude on: July 31, 2008, 04:21:05 PM
Grateful for the nice workout today swinging sticks and KBs  cool
29564  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DB Gathering of the Pack August 10th, 2008 on: July 31, 2008, 04:18:15 PM
How did he send it?  Mail?  Fax? Email?
29565  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Guro Crafty in Toronto, Canada 7/19-20 on: July 31, 2008, 04:16:51 PM
I would simply like to say that I had a wonderful time meeting many cool people.  Rene and I are working out the details of my next seminar there-- it looks like it will be in February.  Bbbbrrrrrrr!  cheesy
29566  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 31, 2008, 12:53:20 PM
"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered
to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve
it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our
descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy
lot and an abhorrence of slavery."

-- Patrick Henry (letter to Robert Pleasants, 18 January 1773)

Reference: The Spirit of 'Seventy-Six, Henry Commager and Richard
Morris, 402.
29567  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender issues thread on: July 31, 2008, 12:10:19 PM
Woof Karsk:

My intention for the moment is to ruthlessly focus on these words of yours "combating ideologies of all sorts". 

I disagree.

I believe that we receive from our Creator the inaleinable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit, not the guarantee, of happiness.  To pursue happiness, we have freedom of choice.  To make our choices meaningul, we have freedom of speech to inform us and we have separation of church and state.  And to make sure that the State remembers, we have the right to keep and bear arms. 

I came to this things through education and through thought.  In my opinion these things are right and those ideologies that oppose these things are wrong.

Do you agree or disagree?

29568  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Is McCain Stupid? on: July 31, 2008, 09:34:33 AM
Is John McCain Stupid?
July 31, 2008; Page A13
Is John McCain losing it?

On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."

This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.

He got back to the subject Tuesday in Reno, Nev. Reporters asked about the Sunday tax comments. Mr. McCain replied, "The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" Then he was asked about working with Democrats to fix Social Security, and he repeated, "everything has to be on the table." But how can . . .? Oh never mind.

Yesterday he was in Aurora, Colo., to wit: "On Social Security, he [Sen. Obama] wants to raise Social Security taxes. I am opposed to raising taxes on Social Security. I want to fix the system without raising taxes."

What I'm asking is, does John McCain have the mental focus, the intellectual discipline, to avoid being out-slicked by Barack Obama, if he isn't abandoned by his own voters?

It's not just taxes. Recently the subject came up of Al Gore's assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable." What!!?? In a later interview, Mr. McCain said he hadn't read "all the specifics" of the Gore plan and now, "I don't think it's doable without nuclear power." It just sounds loopy.

Then this week in San Francisco, in an interview with the Chronicle, Sen. McCain called Nancy Pelosi an "inspiration to millions of Americans." Notwithstanding his promises to "work with the other side," this is a politically obtuse thing to say in the middle of a campaign. Would Bill Clinton, running for president in 1996 after losing control of the House, have called Newt Gingrich an "inspiration"? House Minority Leader John Boehner, facing a 10-to-20 seat loss in November, must be gagging.


For weekly updates of Daniel Henninger's Wonder Land column, point your RSS reader here: one thing -- arguably the only thing -- the McCain candidacy has going for it is a sense among voters that they don't know what Barack Obama stands for or believes. Why then would Mr. McCain give voters reason to wonder the same thing about himself? You're supposed to sow doubt about the other guy, not do it to yourself.

Yes, Sen. McCain must somehow appeal to independents and blue-collar Hillary Democrats. A degree of pandering to the center is inevitable. But this stuff isn't pandering; it's simply stupid. Al Gore's own climate allies separated themselves from his preposterous free-of-oil-in-10-years whopper. Sen. McCain saying off-handedly that it's "doable" is, in a word, thoughtless.

Speaker Pelosi heads a House with a 9% approval. To let her off the hook before the election reflects similar loss of thought.

The forces arrayed against Sen. McCain's candidacy are formidable: an unpopular president, the near impossibility of extending Republican White House rule for three terms, the GOP trailing in races at every level, a listless fundraising base, doubtful sentiments about the war, a flailing economy.

The generic Democratic presidential candidate should win handily. Barack Obama, though vulnerable at the margin, is a very strong candidate. This will be a turnout election. To win, Mr. McCain needs every Republican vote he can hold.

Why make it harder than it has to be? Given such statements on Social Security taxes, Al Gore and the "inspirational" Speaker Pelosi, is there a reason why Rush Limbaugh should not spend August teeing off on Mr. McCain?

Why as well shouldn't the Obama camp exploit all of this? If Sen. Obama's "inexperience" is Mr. McCain's ace in the hole, why not trump that by asking, "Does Sen. McCain know his own mind?"

* * *
In this sports-crazed country, everyone has learned a lot about what it takes to win. They've heard and seen it proven repeatedly that to achieve greatness, to win the big one, an athlete has to be ready to "put in the work."

John McCain isn't doing that, yet. He's competing as if he expects the other side to lose it for him. Sen. McCain is a famously undisciplined politician. Someone in the McCain circle had better do some straight talking to the candidate. He's not some 19-year-old tennis player who's going to win the U.S. presidential Open on raw talent and the other guy's errors. He's not that good.

There is a reason the American people the past 100 years elevated only two sitting senators into the White House -- JFK and Warren Harding. It's because they believe most senators, adept at compulsive compromise, have no political compass and will sell them out. Now voters have to do what they prefer not to. Yes, Sen. McCain has honor and country. Another month of illogical, impolitic remarks and Sen. McCain will erase even that. Absent a coherent message for voters, he will be one-on-one with Barack Obama in the fall. He will lose.

Write to
29569  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Daily Expression of Gratitude on: July 31, 2008, 01:10:25 AM
Grateful for a good conversation with my brother, and a partner in BJJ tonight who did not grind me as much as he could have  cheesy
29570  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Question On The Shivworks P'Kal on: July 31, 2008, 01:05:30 AM
IMHO Southnark's concept here is quite sharp.
29571  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender issues thread on: July 31, 2008, 12:38:53 AM
"I prefer an educational system that requires an intellectual "gathering of the pack" as a basis of combating ideologies of all sorts.  Now wouldn't that be something?

ALL ideologies?  Including the one upon this country was founded? 

MD:  "Notwithstanding this, the liberal- secular humanist-PC-Democratic ideology seeks to impose parity in all areas via the coercive powers of the State."

KARSK:  "Just out of curiosity, do you see such issues as  a distinct and encompassing ideology?   I do not in the sense that I might identify a "Fundamentalist Ideology" or a "Communist Ideology".  Secular humanism ideology definitely extends throughout much of present day thought and I think its expression is much more subtle.  Is that ideology what you see as responsible for gender issues? In some ways I can see your point and particularly how governments can really muck things up however..."

How about this definition?  "(T)he view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals, overseen by the State.  "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State." , , , No question about the role of government or its power (is) truly settled , , a "middle" or "third way" between capitalism and socialism , , , the State should be allowed to get away with anything, so long as it is for "good reasons".  , , , It represents the triumph of Pragmatism in politics in that it recognizes no dogmatic boundaries to the scope of government power., , , (T)he federal government should use its power to do nice things wherever and whenever it can."

29572  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender issues thread on: July 30, 2008, 12:53:20 PM
Your summary of the recent discussion seems accurate to me.

I agree 100% that the trouble with so many things that so many people "know" is that they aren't so.

IMHO it is profoundly obvious that there are important differences between men and women.  Notwithstanding this, the liberal- secualr humanist-PC-Democractic ideology seeks to impose parity in all areas via the coercive powers of the State.
29573  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cyberwar on: July 30, 2008, 12:45:21 PM
Today's post on the Iran thread about Iran planning a nuke EMP pulse attack over the US wiping out electronics makes thie following all the more pertinent:

Geopolitical Diary: Cyberwarfare Beginning To Take Center Stage
July 30, 2008 | 0152 GMT
2008 has seen an increasingly public acknowledgment by the U.S. intelligence community of the cyberwarfare threat. A report by Defense News on Tuesday highlighted the recent emergence of significant bipartisan congressional support by the powerful U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for a White House initiative on comprehensive national cybersecurity. Though public details are vague, the initiative seeks to improve computer security holistically across the military and government, while better hardening critical infrastructure against cyberattack. The intent is to create architecture that is also open to participation by business and the public.

Related Special Topic Pages
It has long been abundantly clear that computers and especially the global connectivity of the Internet have been, as a whole, one of the most radical and far-reaching inventions in human history. High technology has changed the way business is done and the way humans personally connect and interact. Already we see jihadists using the Internet as a tool for manipulating public perception, coordinating operations and even sharing tactics, training and practices. At the same time, cyberspace has opened new avenues for espionage and crime alike. The free flow of information across international boundaries has influenced color revolutions in countries like Ukraine and precipitated the fall of governments.

But while the geopolitical significance of cyberspace is undeniable, its exploitation in global conflict — cyberwarfare — has largely been limited and deniable. Both the Pentagon’s exercise of cyberwarfare in Kosovo in 1999 and the potential use of it by Israel as part of its raid on Syria in September 2007 is the stuff of speculation. The world has yet to see the comprehensive military exploitation of cyberspace in international conflict.

This is an enormous concern, and though the U.S. Air Force is working to consolidate its cyberwarfare efforts under the aegis of a new Cyber Command, the Pentagon does not have anything close to the established dominance that it enjoys in more traditional domains.

For example, some experts claim that the massive 2004 blackout in the American northeast was precipitated by a Chinese hacker tinkering with systems relevant to the power grid. In 2007, in what has become one of the few true case studies in cyberwarfare, a massive cyberattack brought Estonia to a standstill in the wake of the controversial relocation of a Soviet World War II memorial. (And despite its recent status as a Soviet republic, Estonia is no poorly connected backwater. In fact, it is an exceptionally “wired” country by any standard — which contributed heavily to the effectiveness of the attack.)

At the time, the government was unable to communicate efficiently. Attacks on government websites were interspersed with disinformation and fraudulent postings. Though not everyone or everything was targeted, Estonia’s entire Internet infrastructure was so overloaded with traffic and preoccupied with defending itself that it essentially ceased to function — bringing corporate banking, access to the media and even day-to-day personal transactions to a halt.

Reports on the Estonian incident suggest that the attacks ultimately involved more than a million computers from some 75 countries (including some of Estonia’s NATO allies). And while nationalist fervor on the Russian side certainly played a part in rallying independent hackers, there is little doubt that the Kremlin was involved.

There are several interrelated points here:

Cyberwarfare has the potential to bring a country to an economic standstill on par with that experienced by the United States in the days following the 9/11 attacks.
Offensive actions in cyberspace often provide a great deal of deniability. It is a smart weapon of choice for inflicting blows without engaging in a shooting war.
The connectivity and computing power of systems and servers inside a country and allied countries can be co-opted and used in very simple but often all too effective brute-force attacks.
An attack can be executed from almost anywhere in the world without consideration for strategic geographic buffers and otherwise insurmountable distances.
The list goes on, but the underlying point is that cyberspace is a domain in which many of the traditional considerations of geopolitical conflict are fundamentally altered — if not obviated all together (e.g. geography may not matter, resources can be amassed largely undetected and the primary form of damage may be economic rather than physical).

As the unchallenged and the sole superpower, the United States is the obvious target because symmetrical competition is often inconceivable. Cyberwarfare efforts are under way in many countries around the world (including Russia), but China is widely considered to have the most advanced and robust capability.

Currently, assaults on U.S. systems (corporate, government and military alike) from all over the world occur daily. But there can be little doubt that in a significant escalation of hostilities with a country like Russia or China, such blows will be felt at home even if the conventional conflict may be thousands of miles away.

Keeping conflict an ocean and half a world away has been a core geopolitical imperative for Washington since the beginning. It is the root of the Monroe Doctrine and the reason why Soviet missiles in Cuba were so unacceptable. The very nature of the Internet thus makes comprehensive national cybersecurity at home a geopolitically relevant national interest.
29574  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / The day after , , , on: July 30, 2008, 12:09:19 PM
What do we do the day after this?

How do we prepare?

What can we do to protect our electronically stored records (e.g. bank accounts, business records, website businesses, etc)?

U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.

“They’ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” Dr. Graham said. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”

Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,” Graham said. “Why would they do that?”

Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001. The commission examined the Iranian tests “and without too much effort connected the dots,” even though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.

“The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,” he said. “And that’s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.”

The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation’s critical infrastructure.

"If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated anywhere between 40 kilometers to 400 kilometers above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned.

While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city.

“The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. We would not physically feel anything in our bodies,” Graham said.

As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be “truly massive traffic jams,” Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave.

“So you would be walking. You wouldn’t be driving at that point,” Graham said. “And it wouldn’t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn’t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.”

The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because “we wouldn’t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,” Graham said.

The United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.” except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said. “Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own assets and those we could reach by walking to them,” Graham said. America would begin to resemble the 2002 TV series, “Jeremiah,” which depicts a world bereft of law, infrastructure, and memory. In the TV series, an unspecified virus wipes out the entire adult population of the planet. In an EMP attack, the casualties would be caused by our almost total dependence on technology for everything from food and water, to hospital care. Within a week or two of the attack, people would start dying, Graham says.

“People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, because they depend on power to stay alive. But then it would go to water, food, civil authority, emergency services. And we would end up with a country with many, many people not surviving the event.”

Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply.

“You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population” that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication.

“I’d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,” he said.

America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people — about the number that existed in the decades after America’s independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to “an earlier economy based on barter,” the EMP commission’s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year.

In his recent congressional testimony, Graham revealed that Iranian military journals, translated by the CIA at his commission’s request, “explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States.”

Furthermore, if Iran launched its attack from a cargo ship plying the commercial sea lanes off the East coast — a scenario that appears to have been tested during the Caspian Sea tests — U.S. investigators might never determine who was behind the attack. Because of the limits of nuclear forensic technology, it could take months. And to disguise their traces, the Iranians could simply decide to sink the ship that had been used to launch it, Graham said. Several participants in last weekend’s conference in Dearborn, Mich., hosted by the conservative Claremont Institute argued that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was thinking about an EMP attack when he opined that “a world without America is conceivable.”

In May 2007, then Undersecretary of State John Rood told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States by 2015. But Iran could put a Scud missile on board a cargo ship and launch from the commercial sea lanes off America’s coasts well before then. The only thing Iran is lacking for an effective EMP attack is a nuclear warhead, and no one knows with any certainty when that will occur. The latest U.S. intelligence estimate states that Iran could acquire the fissile material for a nuclear weapon as early as 2009, or as late as 2015, or possibly later.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first detailed the “Scud-in-a-bucket” threat during a briefing in Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 18, 2004.

While not explicitly naming Iran, Rumsfeld revealed that “one of the nations in the Middle East had launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel. They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, and covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.”

Iran’s first test of a ship-launched Scud missile occurred in spring 1998, and was mentioned several months later in veiled terms by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, a blue-ribbon panel also known as the Rumsfeld Commission.  I was the first reporter to mention the Iran sea-launched missile test in an article appearing in the Washington Times in May 1999.

Intelligence reports on the launch were “well known to the White House but have not been disseminated to the appropriate congressional committees,” I wrote. Such a missile “could be used in a devastating stealth attack against the United States or Israel for which the United States has no known or planned defense.”

Few experts believe that Iran can be deterred from launching such an attack by the threat of massive retaliation against Iran. They point to a December 2001 statement by former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who mulled the possibility of Israeli retaliation after an Iranian nuclear strike.

“The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely, while [the same] against the Islamic only would cause damages. Such a scenario is not inconceivable,” Rafsanjani said at the time.

Rep. Trent Franks, R, Ariz., plans to introduce legislation next week that would require the Pentagon to lay the groundwork for an eventual military strike against Iran, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and EMP capability. “An EMP attack on America would send us back to the horse and buggy era — without the horse and buggy,” he told the Claremont Institute conference on Saturday. “If you’re a terrorist, this is your ultimate goal, your ultimate asymmetric weapon.” Noting Iran’s recent sea-launched and mid-flight warhead detonation tests, Rep. Franks concluded, “They could do it — either directly or anonymously by putting some freighter out there on the ocean.”

The only possible deterrent against Iran is the prospect of failure, Dr. Graham and other experts agreed. And the only way the United States could credibly threaten an Iranian missile strike would be to deploy effective national missile defenses.

“It’s well known that people don’t go on a diet until they’ve had a heart attack,” said Claremont Institute president Brian T. Kennedy. “And we as a nation are having a heart attack” when it comes to the threat of an EMP attack from Iran.

“As of today, we have no defense against such an attack. We need space-based missile defenses to protect against an EMP attack,” he told Newsmax.

Rep. Franks said he remains surprised at how partisan the subject of space-based missile defenses remain. “Nuclear missiles don’t discriminate on party lines when they land,” he said. Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, a long-standing champion of missile defense, told the Claremont conference on Friday that Sen. Obama has opposed missile defense tooth and nail and as president would cut funding for these programs dramatically. “Senator Obama has been quoted as saying, ‘I don’t agree with a missile defense system,’ and that we can cut $10 billion of the research out — never mind, as I say, that the entire budget is $9.6 billion, or $9.3 billion,” Kyl said. Like Franks, Kyl believes that the only way to eventually deter Iran from launching an EMP attack on the United States is to deploy robust missile defense systems, including space-based interceptors.

The United States “needs a missile defense that is so strong, in all the different phases we need to defend against . . . that countries will decide it’s not worth coming up against us.  That’s one of the things that defeated the Soviet Union. That’s one of the ways we can deal with these rogue states . . . and also the way that we can keep countries that are not enemies today, but are potential enemies, from developing capabilities to challenge us,“ Kyl said.
29575  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / PD WSJ on: July 30, 2008, 11:51:53 AM
Secoond post of the day

Welfare State

It looks as if the senator who brought us the "Bridge to Nowhere" may be heading in the same direction politically. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' indictment yesterday on seven counts of lying on his financial disclosure forms has certainly ended his political career. He's accused of covering up a total of $250,000 in gifts

The indictment appears to be about as airtight as a prosecutor could wish for. The FBI recorded two phone calls between Sen. Stevens and Bill Allen, a Stevens patron who dominated state politics as the head of the oil-services firm VECO until he pleaded guilty to bribing state legislators this year. Mr. Allen has already testified in open court that he paid some of the bills incurred in the expensive remodeling of Mr. Stevens's Alaska home. A year ago today, FBI agents raided the senator's home to secure evidence about the remodeling work.

Political experts in Alaska tell me that Mr. Stevens, who has served since 1968 and rose to become chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, will almost certainly lose his August 26 Republican primary. His major opponent is David Cuddy, a banker who held Mr. Stevens to 58% of the vote in a 1996 primary by attacking his spendthrift ways. An era is ending in Alaska politics. Rep. Don Young, Alaska's lone House member, is himself under investigation by the Feds for his ties to VECO. Polls show him trailing his primary opponent, Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

For decades Alaska justified its raids on the federal Treasury because Washington owned so much of the state and had locked up so many of its natural resources from development (the oil underneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge being the most famous example). In what some called "compensation," the state made sure it became No. 1 in the nation for pork per person -- $984.85 for each Alaskan in 2005. With the abrupt loss of seniority the state is about to experience in Congress, it may now have to come up with a new model of economic development. Here's hoping Congress contributes by opening more of the state's resources to development. Producing real wealth would be a healthier strategy for most Alaskans than the continuing pillage of the U.S. taxpayer the state's raiding parties in Congress have been conducting for decades.

-- John Fund

McCain on Taxes: The Picture Gets Fuzzy

The McCain campaign is starting to wrap itself around just how much of a potential problem it created for itself with the candidate's claim on ABC News last Sunday that "nothing's off the table" -- including raising taxes -- when a President John McCain tackles Social Security reform.

The Democratic National Committee quickly pounced, issuing a press release headlined, "McCain Tax Pledge? Not so much." It listed the many times Mr. McCain has pledged not to raise taxes and contrasted these statements with his "nothing's off the table" line. Some Republicans predict this is only the opening barrage in a Democratic attack theme -- regardless of Mr. Obama's own publicly stated plans to raise Social Security taxes on upper-income earners. "Raising Social Security taxes is a pretty easy issue to scare folks about -- and kills small business," is how one GOP consultant put it to me.

Sensing that Democrats were already cueing up their tape machines to prepare commercials for the fall campaign, McCain aides are now pressing their boss to return to his often-stated anti-tax message. Yesterday, at a town hall meeting in Sparks, Nevada, Mr. McCain was asked by a young girl if he planned to raise taxes as president. "No," was his stern one-word answer.

Now if he can elaborate on that a bit he may be able to portray his ABC News answer as a one-day blunder rather than a self-launched torpedo aimed directly at one of his most effective arguments against Barack Obama. The Democratic candidate has extensive plans to raise taxes at a time of economic weakness -- something that no school of economics, Keynesian or supply-side, would advocate.

-- John Fund

This Bud's for Belgium

Politicians and Wall Streeters are starting to ask why the Belgian beer company InBev purchased Anheuser-Busch and not the other way around. Anheuser-Busch is an iconic American firm and some find it almost unpatriotic that Anheuser CEO August Busch IV allowed the "King of Beers" to relocate across the Atlantic -- though shareholders were the big winners here with a $50 billion-plus takeaway.

But here's the real question: Was the takeover basically financed by the savings Anheuser expected from escaping America's increasingly uncompetitive corporate tax system? According to the Tax Foundation, Belgium's corporate tax rate is 33%, but the effective tax rate can be half the nominal rate thanks to adjustments for something the OECD calls a "notional allowance for corporate equity." Bottom line: InBev was paying around 20% of its profits in corporate taxes, compared to Anheuser-Busch's rate of 38.4%.

Things have gotten pretty bad when U.S. companies relocate to Europe to cut their tax payments. But a research analysis by Morgan Stanley finds the combined company's corporate tax bill will be lower than in the U.S. and that the tax differential indeed figured into the economics of the sale.

So while John McCain may have benefited from his wife's ownership of Anheuser stock (estimated at between 40,000 and 80,000 shares), the country will continue to see its competitive edge wither away without a corporate tax rate cut. Mr. McCain to his credit wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 25%, close to the global average. Senator Obama is more interested in raising tax rates than cutting them.

Wall Street dealmakers tell us to expect more sales of U.S. companies to European rivals thanks to the combination of America's higher corporate taxes and the weak dollar. They're right. New data from the OECD for 2008 indicate that the international average for corporate tax rates fell by another percentage point last year, meaning the U.S. is pricing itself out of the market as a corporate headquarters. "America's 35% corporate tax rate is not just bad economics, it's downright unpatriotic," says tax expert Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute.

-- Stephen Moore and Tyler Grimm

Quote of the Day

"Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee. . . . In the latest issue of the New Republic, Gabriel Sherman found reporters complaining that Obama's campaign was 'acting like the Prom Queen' and being more secretive than Bush. The magazine quoted the New York Times' Adam Nagourney's reaction to the Obama campaign's memo attacking one of his stories: 'I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others.' Then came Obama's overseas trip and the campaign's selection of which news organizations could come aboard. Among those excluded: the New Yorker magazine, which had just published a satirical cover about Obama that offended the campaign. Even Bush hasn't tried that" -- Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank.

In the China Shop

China watchers got a glimpse of the Obama staff's leanings today, courtesy of a widely distributed op-ed entitled "Obama, McCain Must Tread Lightly On China" by two of the senator's advisers on China policy.

The authors, Jeffrey Bader and Richard Bush III, both affiliated with the Brookings Institution and both advisers to Barack Obama, suggest that presidential candidates should "avoid condemning China" as a campaign stunt to win votes. Fair enough: Candidates from both parties have pulled that trick in the past, and it was a special curse for Bill Clinton's later China policy. But the authors go further, insisting that China policy should remain "tethered firmly to reality," noting that "China's human rights record is poor, but its people are much freer than were their parents under Mao."

That's a pretty low bar, indicating little enthusiasm for challenging China's treatment of political prisoners or Tibet. "Personal relationships of trust are highly valued," they write. "The Chinese will react negatively if a new president throws difficult issues on the table before establishing such trust." That sounds like China, not the U.S., setting the agenda.

But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. As the latest issue of Harper's Magazine points out, Mr. Bader isn't merely a Brookings scholar or necessarily an independent voice on China -- he's also listed as a senior director at lobbying group Stonebridge International's China office.

-- Mary Kissel

29576  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: From Gitmo to Miranda, with Love on: July 30, 2008, 10:06:39 AM
From Gitmo to Miranda, With Love
July 30, 2008; Page A15

Captive Miranda, Lord knows I have not given a thought to the paperwork you sent me.

Let me tell you, Captive, that our release is not in the hands of the lawyers or the hands of America. Our release is in the hands of He who created us.

The poem, "To My Captive Lawyer, Miranda," was written by Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi while he was a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No doubt, it would have given the former detainee, who was released in 2005, immense satisfaction to know that his last earthly deed was referenced in Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. That's the recent Supreme Court decision that gave Guantanamo detainees the constitutional right to challenge, in habeas corpus proceedings, whether they were properly classified by the military as enemy combatants.

Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi, on the left, in a martyrdom video posted on an al Qaeda Web site.
Al-Ajmi, a 29-year-old Kuwaiti, blew himself up in one of several coordinated suicide attacks on Iraqi security forces in Mosul this year. Originally reported to have participated in an April attack that killed six Iraqi policemen, a recent martyrdom video published on a password-protected al Qaeda Web site indicates that Al-Ajmi carried out the March 23 attack on an Iraqi army compound in Mosul. In that attack, an armored truck loaded with an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of explosives rammed through a fortified gate, overturned vehicles in its path and exploded in the center of the compound. The huge blast ripped the façade off three apartment buildings being used as barracks, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.

Using the name "Abu Juheiman al-Kuwaiti," Al-Ajmi is seen on the video brandishing an automatic rifle, singing militant songs and exhorting his fellow Muslims to pledge their allegiance to the "Commander of the Faithful" in Iraq. Later, Al-Ajmi's face is superimposed over the army compound, followed by footage of the massive explosion and still shots of several dead bodies lying next to the 25-foot crater left by the blast.

Bill Roggio / The Long War Journal 
Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi killed 13 people in this March 23 truck bombing in Mosul, Iraq—after he was released from U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay.
In 2006, Al-Ajmi's "Miranda" poem was included in a recitation of detainee poetry at a "Guantanamo teach-in" sponsored by Seton Hall Law School. The all-day event was Webcast live to 400 colleges and law schools across the country and abroad. Some of the lead attorneys pushing for detainee rights participated in the event, which began with organizers boasting about the diversity of the event's participating schools as exemplified by the American University of Paris, the American University in Cairo, the U.N. University for Peace in Costa Rica, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Parsons School of Design in New York City. One of Al-Ajmi's lawyers gave a presentation about detainee treatment entitled, "Insults to Religion."

Marc Falkoff, a former Covington & Burling attorney-turned-law-professor who represents several detainees, read the poems and later published a selection of them in a book ("Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak," Iowa University Press, 2007.) In his introductory remarks to the students, Mr. Falkoff described Al-Ajmi and the other detainee poets as "gentle, thoughtful young men" who, though frustrated and disillusioned, expressed an abiding hope in the future. "One thing you won't hear is hatred," he said, "and the reason you won't hear it is not because I edited it out, it's because it's not there in the poetry." Then how to explain the fact that -- on the advice of Al-Ajmi's attorneys -- "To My Captive Lawyer, Miranda," was excluded from the published collection last year? Mr. Falkoff, who also has a Ph.D. in literature, refused to explain further, though he insists on describing Al-Ajmi's verse as a "love poem to his lawyer."

Miranda, antelope, I am madly in love with captive Roman gazelles.

I pledge that if I ever see you outside this jail, I shall capture you and take you in a starry night.

In light of Al-Ajmi's deadly suicide attack, his poem seems less, as Mr. Falkoff insisted in a recent interview, "a trope about being a prisoner of love," and more about taunting his lawyers and mocking the American legal system. As any devotee of the successful "Law & Order" television franchise knows, "Miranda" is more than a fanciful female name. It is also the name of another infamous prisoner -- Ernesto Miranda, the career criminal and itinerant sex offender whose 1966 landmark legal case resulted in the "Miranda rule," requiring law enforcement officers to inform criminal suspects in custody of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney during questioning.

It is easy to imagine the detainees' attorneys, upon first arriving at Guantanamo in 2004, earnestly explaining to their incredulous clients how the Miranda warning works. Incredulous, because detainees would certainly grasp that extending the full array of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to unlawful enemy combatants would have a devastating effect on vital intelligence-gathering efforts. Indeed, lawyers have already become part of the al Qaeda tool kit. When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apprehended in Pakistan in 2003 and handed over to the U.S., he reportedly told his initial interrogators, "I'll talk to you guys when you take me to New York and I can see my lawyer."

After the Boumediene decision, that is no longer an empty threat. While Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in his 5-4 majority opinion that detainees are entitled to habeas review in the federal courts, he failed to expressly outline what legal standards the government would have to meet for detainee cases to pass constitutional muster. Many legal experts contend that if the habeas lawyers succeed in attaining for detainees the same degree of procedural rights as those extended to ordinary criminal defendants in domestic cases, "lawyering up" would mean the end of terrorist questioning, not the beginning.

If this is what "Miranda" represents, no wonder an Islamist suicide bomber would love her.

Miranda, what can I say? The heart is incarcerated in prisons of injustice, tortured and deprived, targeted with sharp, poisoned arrows by the hands of oppressors who have no mercy. Tell the mothers about their sons, the prisoners, brothers in bondage . . . they shall walk home.

But many in the detainees' home countries aren't welcoming them with open arms. The bombings carried out by Al-Ajmi and two other Kuwaiti nationals have stirred a public outcry from their fellow citizens. Al-Ajmi's own father has reportedly threatened to sue the government of Kuwait for issuing his son a passport and failing to live up to the terms set forth in the transfer agreement with U.S. State Department as a condition of his release. Kuwait's negligence and the State Department's failure to follow up have resulted in calls from the public for the detainees to stay right where they are and for Guantanamo to stay in operation.

"I believe the U.S. State Department knows the prisoners well, their way of thinking, and their plans after being released from prison," wrote Ali Ahmad Al-Baghli, Kuwait's former Minister of Oil, in the Arab Times after news of Al-Ajmi's suicide attack broke. He specifically criticized the outspoken leader of the Kuwaiti detainee families committee, Khalid Al-Odah, (interestingly, he is one of the "translators" Mr. Falkoff acknowledges in his poetry book), whose son remains at Guantanamo. Al-Odah hired a Washington, D.C., public-relations firm to "humanize" the detainees with sympathetic press.

"We cannot romanticize them into fallen heroes of Western neo-imperialism," wrote Shamael Al-Sharikh, a columnist for the Kuwaiti Times, in an article advocating that Guantanamo stay open, "because we are as much potential victims of terrorist attacks as [Americans] are."

As an example of where we might be headed after Boumediene, consider the situation in Britain. In June, Abu Qatada, a radical imam wanted in connection with bombing conspiracies in several countries, was released from jail after seven years of fighting his deportation. Qatada, whose recorded sermons were found in the Hamburg apartment of the 9/11 hijackers, was described by an immigration appeals commission as a "truly dangerous individual" who was "heavily involved, indeed at the center of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa'eda."

But judges in Britain will not extradite him to Jordan, where he was convicted in absentia, because his lawyers allege that the evidence against him might have been obtained by torture. Sending him packing under these circumstances, the court ruled, would violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

The result is a perverse situation in which, to protect the human rights of the man who issued a fatwa to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers, the British public pays a yearly tab of $1.1 million to cover Qatada's round-the-clock police surveillance, housing and welfare assistance for him, his wife and five children.

For those who scoff at the idea that U.S. judges would release a dangerous terrorist here, think again. As Attorney General Michael Mukasey pointed out in a speech earlier this month at the American Enterprise Institute, the Boumediene decision was vague on every detail but one. The ruling said that for habeas review to mean anything, the court must have the power to release. What do we do with a graduate of al Qaeda training camps who hasn't yet committed an act of violence? What do we do if no country will take him? If Congress doesn't intervene, the most difficult detainee cases may end up being administered by federal judges who are dismissive of concerns about enemy combatants returning to the battlefield.

"Courts guarantee an independent process, not an outcome," wrote John Coughenour, the federal judge who presided over the trial of "millennium bomber" Ahmad Ressam in a Washington Post op-ed just this Sunday. Yes, and that is precisely why Congress has an obligation to formulate the substance and parameters of that process. Judges do not make law or policy. The scope of their review is limited to the immediate case before them.

Unless Congress weighs in, judges -- unaccountable to the body politic -- will decide what standards of proof and rules of evidence will apply to these detainees, resulting in an ad hoc, case-by-case body of law which focuses on the rights of the detainees, not on the consequences for our war fighters who risk their lives to capture them. Since when do we leave it to judges to decide when and to what degree our troops are required to engage in police duties in the heat of battle?

Further, judges only rule on the applications made by the lawyers who come before them. Despite their rhetoric about "rule of law," attorneys are not charged with acting in furtherance of the national security interests of the public. Their obligation is to their clients alone, the detainees. Hence, we have witnessed the six-year campaign by Gitmo lawyers to pressure the U.S. government into releasing dangerous men before their cases come before a military tribunal or are heard in the federal courts.

David Cynamon, a senior attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop Putnam Shaw, is one of the lead lawyers negotiating the repatriation of the Kuwaiti detainees. In an email last fall to Pentagon officials, Mr. Cynamon expressed frustration with what he perceived as foot-dragging in the release of the last four Kuwaitis still held at Gitmo. He attached an exhibit which compared the unclassified information on all original 12 Kuwaiti detainees who were captured in Afghanistan. "I find it impossible to deduce from this chart," he wrote, "that the four who remain are any more (or less) [sic] dangerous than the ones who were returned." After Al-Ajmi's devastating suicide attack in Mosul, one hopes the Pentagon is giving his chart a second look.

Meanwhile, the habeas attorneys' effort to smear the United States and paint their clients as innocent victims continues. "Poems from Guantanamo" was taught this spring in an undergraduate course called "Writers in Exile" at City University of New York in Queens, a short distance from Ground Zero. The book's introduction states that the detainee poets "follow in the footsteps of prisoners who wrote in the Gulag, the Nazi concentration camps, and, closer to home, Japanese-American internment camps." One of the students, posting on the class blog, wrote of the detainees' plight, "Wow, I had no idea. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be seen as an American."

Your whole being and your heart will be captivated by this night, who drove the Romans to madness. You will forget everything about Rome and will live the life of faith in Islam.

Abdullah Salem Al-Ajmi, the detainee who wrote of turning the tables on his lawyer, Miranda, should haunt the dreams of every member of Congress.

Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
29577  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: July 30, 2008, 09:56:47 AM
“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.” —Benjamin Franklin
29578  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Patriot Post on: July 30, 2008, 09:55:59 AM
Obama buster: “Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.” —New York Times columnist David Brooks

Drooling over Obama: “What, what do you make of this? Let’s take another bite here because it was quite a speech. You have to judge for yourself but the speech had its thrill factor, certainly once again. Here he was.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews  “Barack Obama’s overseas trip—it was almost flawless.” —CNN’s Jack Cafferty

The Big Con: “And I think what [Barack Obama is] trying to say, one of the messages that I heard was, ‘look, I’m not some wooly-headed liberal lefty that thinks we should all sing Kumbaya together. I’m here to tell them that we need international cooperation to beat the terrorists, to beat the extremists, to win the war in Afghanistan.’... But I think for the American voter he was saying, ‘look, I’m here speaking for our national security interests... My metaphor is the wall that Reagan used, not John Kennedy’s metaphor.” —CBS’s Jeff Greenfield  “[Obama] doesn’t have to equal McCain in [foreign policy and national security issues], he just has to make voters seem like he’s okay, he knows what he’s talking about.” —CBS’s Jeff Greenfield

Right from the left: “Why can’t Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he’d be?” —USA Today

Tinfoil hat: “The price of oil has been high. The people who can affect the price of oil would prefer a Republican presidential candidate. Watch the price of oil. If it goes down, which it may very well, it could help John McCain quite a bit.” —fake-but-accurate Dan Rather **Talk about voodoo economics!

Newspulper Headlines: Be Careful What You Wish For: “Texas Oilman: Clear Path for Wind Power” —Associated Press  “Hurricane Dolly Slams South Texas Before Weakening” —Associated Press

We Blame Global Warming: “While Sun Shines on Obama, Storm Trips Up McCain” —Boston Globe  “Maine Governor Fears Cold Winter” —Boston Globe

Help Wanted: “Authorities Seek Indicted Polygamist Sect Members” —Associated Press

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: “Dwarf Pops Out of Suitcase at Airport Counter” —Atlanta Journal-Constitution  “Flesh-Eating Slug Invades Wales” —  “Global Warming Could Be Causing a Kitten Boom, Experts Say” —  “Angry Man Shoots Lawn Mower for Not Starting” —Associated Press  “New Jersey Man Killed by Flying Cocktail Glass” —Associated Press

News You Can Use: “A Place to Take That Lamborghini for a Spin” —Reuters

Bottom Stories of the Day: “Star Explodes and No One Notices” — (Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)

Talk about arrogance: “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.” —Barack Obama to House members

Unreal: “Let us... answer our destiny and remake the world once again.” —Barack Obama in Berlin

Always the articulate orator: “You know, it’s always a bad practice to say ‘always’ or ‘never’.” —Barack Obama  “Many of the crisises [sic] that we face are the, uh, a direct result of putting off tough decisions for too many years.” —Barack Obama **“Crisises”?

History for dummies: “Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.” —Barack Obama **“The bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor”?

Supporting the troops?: “So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic [in Iraq] was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work.” —Barack Obama on the surge

Bad energy policy: “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet. I will not have this [energy] debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy. I respect the office that I hold. And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.” —Nancy Pelosi, who refuses to allow offshore drilling

World’s smallest violin: “I go on the floor of the House every day and deal with people who don’t want to give health care to poor little children in America.” —Nancy Pelosi

“People who make careers out of helping others—sometimes at great sacrifice, often not—usually don’t like to hear that those others might get along fine, might even get along better, without their help.” —John Holt

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts.” —Winston Churchill

“A fool and his money are soon elected.” —Will Rogers

“It is essential to the triumph of reform that it should never succeed.” —William Hazlitt


“What is amazing this year is how many people have bought the fundamentally childish notion that, if you don’t like the way things are going, the answer is to write a blank check for generic ‘change,’ empowering someone chosen not on the basis of any track record but on the basis of his skill with words.” —Thomas Sowell

“Barack Obama concedes that America’s troops have contributed to improvements on the ground in Iraq, but he still stands by his vote against the surge. Why not just admit that he was wrong?... Obama has fallen to pride in part because he has bought his own myth. By staking his future on a past of supernatural vision, he has made it difficult to admit human fault. The magic isn’t working anymore. And Obama, the visionary one, can’t even see what everyone else sees: He was wrong.” —Kathleen Parker

“So Senator Obama and his campaign decided that it would be inappropriate to visit wounded soldiers in Germany while touring Europe as a candidate for the presidency. Senator McCain hit this one right on the head: it is never inappropriate to visit our wounded men and women in uniform.” —Bobby Eberle

“Barack Obama represents an obnoxiously elitist attitude that reeks of paternalistic government...” —Kathryn Lopez

“Sen. Obama owes it to the public to let us know how much of our hard-earned money he, in his wisdom, believes we have a moral obligation to give away to poor people around the world—and how much of our money that he has a moral obligation to extract from our wages forcefully, through federal taxation.” —Tony Blankley

“The time may be coming when our lunatic environmental policies are swept away by a rising tide of common sense.” —Michael Barone

“Reneging on his no-new-taxes pledge cost President George H.W. Bush a second term. Will John McCain play into Barack Obama’s hands by making the same mistake on Social Security taxes?... Asked Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on ABC about Social Security payroll-tax increases, McCain replied: ‘Nothing is off the table. I don’t want tax increases. Of course, I’d like to have young Americans have some of their money put into an account with their name on it, but that doesn’t mean that anything is off the table.’... The repercussions of McCain backpedaling on his commitment are serious... Fortunately, it’s not too late for McCain to regain his footing from this misstep. No one has more credibility as a spending hawk. Instead of talking about payroll tax hikes, he should use this presidential campaign to talk up the country’s impending entitlement crisis and embrace the fundamental reforms necessary to prevent fiscal disaster. The solutions to the catastrophes that lie ahead for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not new taxes that only delay the day of reckoning by a few more years. The answers are innovations like personal retirement accounts controlled by the individual and the expansion of tax-free health savings accounts to help pay private insurance costs. Voters appreciate being told the facts. They will elect a straight talker with the guts to fix our biggest fiscal challenge. Right now John McCain is missing an opportunity that seems tailor-made for him—which could mean the election of a president whose socialistic intentions will only shorten the fuse on America’s entitlement time bomb.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Delusional: “I think in general [Barack Obama has] shown people he’s not a left-wing ideologue. If anything, he’s center, even center-right, on foreign policy issues in the way he was talking on this trip.” —Fred Kempe, President of the Atlantic Council of the United States

Audacity of hope: “If [Obama] picks Hillary he gets her 18 million supporters and we would win in a cakewalk and control the White House for 16 years.” —former DNC chief and permanent Clintonista Terry McAuliffe

From the Moonbat files: “You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you, why do you insist on not impeaching these people so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?” —Joy Behar of “The View” to Nancy Pelosi

Trouble on the home front?: “The story is false. It’s completely untrue, ridiculous. Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years.” —John Edwards on his “extracurricular activities”

It ain’t easy being green: “It has become increasingly clear that damage is occurring daily to our Earth and its creatures. Among the gravest concerns is the peril imposed by global warming and vanishing sea ice. The polar bear has become the iconic image of this threat, but all of us know that the polar bear is literally the tip of the iceberg. Climate change is threatening flora and fauna of all types—and that includes we humans. The heat is on. The time is now.” —Robert Buchanan, Polar Bears International President

“Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted ‘present’ nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.” —Charles Krauthammer

“Barack Obama wrote a prayer to God which he placed in Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall last week. The prayer note was retrieved by a seminary student and published in an Israeli newspaper. Everybody in Israel wanted to know if it was addressed, ‘Dear Dad’.” —Argus Hamilton

“Barack Obama finally played the Palace, or at least the Tiergarten, and he left a lot of promises in his wake. He’ll get Christians, Muslims and Jews to hit the sawdust trail together, to repent their sins and suspicions and remake the world. He’ll tear down walls between nations, between races, tribes and immigrants; between East and West, between the haves and the have-nots. And with his spare change he’ll buy the world a Coke.” —Wesley Pruden

“Obama was in Germany [last week], and 200,000 people showed up. There was so many Germans shouting and screaming that France surrendered just in case.” —Craig Ferguson

David Letterman: From the “Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident”: Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to “Oklobama”; Offered Bush 20 bucks for the “Mission Accomplished” banner; Asked guy at Staples, “Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?”; The affair with Barbara Walters; Having head measured for Mount Rushmore; He’s voting for Nader; Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama Presidential Library; Been cruising for chicks with John Edwards.

Jay Leno: Barack Obama is back from his big European tour. Did you see him in Europe? People were cheering him, holding up signs, blowing him kisses. And that was just the American media covering the story. ... Barack Obama was on “Meet the Press” Sunday. John McCain was on a new show called, “I Wish I Could Meet the Press.” ... Polls show Obama more popular than McCain in Germany, France, and Great Britain. However, McCain leads in Mesopotamia, Gaul and the Holy Roman Empire. So, it’s pretty balanced. ... In world news, I guess you’ve heard Barack Obama [was] elected Chancellor of Germany. ... You can tell the French are still a little gun shy. After speaking in front of 200,000 Germans, when Obama arrived in France, they said, “You came alone, right?” ... You know, they said on the news earlier [this week] that this political campaign has only 100 days left. Only! Anybody complaining that this thing was dragging out? ... I don’t know what’s less likely, Barack Obama getting enough experience in 100 days, or John McCain living another 100 days. ... The National Enquirer caught former presidential candidate John Edwards sneaking out of his girlfriend’s hotel room at the 2:40 in the morning. See, Edwards got caught ‘cause the reporters were there waiting for him...f Edwards didn’t want to get caught, he should have met this woman at the hotel where John McCain was staying. There are no reporters. ... If this story turns out to be true, there go his chances at becoming vice president. He could still be governor of New York. ... And in Puerto Rico, it [was] Constitution Day [Friday]. So, that’s where the Constitution went. I knew we weren’t using it anymore.

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

29579  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Daily Expression of Gratitude on: July 30, 2008, 09:46:41 AM
I am very grateful that my wife is talking our children to see the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Liberty Bell, and Gettysburg. 
29580  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Virtues of the Dog on: July 30, 2008, 09:44:59 AM
Thank you.

IMHO you say it much better than the piece you quote  cheesy  Now I see that it expresses ideas with which I quite sympathetic.
29581  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Hamilton: Consent of the people on: July 30, 2008, 09:41:19 AM
"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of
THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought
to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate

-- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 22, 14 December 1787)

Reference: Hamilton, Federalist No. 22.
29582  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Tommy Friedman agrees with me on Afg on: July 30, 2008, 09:39:58 AM
but misses the point on drilling:

NY Times

Drilling in Afghanistan
Yahoo! Buzz

Published: July 30, 2008
Sometimes in politics, particularly in campaigns, parties get wedded to slogans — so wedded that no one stops to think about what they’re saying, whether the reality has changed and what the implications would be if their bumper stickers really guided policy when they took office. Today, we have two examples of that: “Democrats for Afghanistan” and “Republicans for offshore drilling.”

Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman

Go to Columnist Page » Republicans have become so obsessed with the notion that we can drill our way out of our current energy crisis that re-opening our coastal waters to offshore drilling has become their answer for every energy question.

Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus the dangers of climate change driven by our addiction to fossil fuels, can see that clean renewable energy — wind, solar, nuclear and stuff we haven’t yet invented — is going to be the next great global industry. It has to be if we are going to grow in a stable way.

Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power industry is going to most own the next great technology breakthrough — the E.T. revolution, the energy technology revolution — and create millions of jobs and thousands of new businesses, just like the I.T. revolution did.

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric typewriters — and forget about these things called the “PC” and “the Internet.” It is a strategy for making America a second-rate power and economy.

But Democrats have their analog. For many Democrats, Afghanistan was always the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq. I think Barack Obama needs to ask himself honestly: “Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?”

The truth is that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Pakistan are just different fronts in the same war. The core problem is that the Arab-Muslim world in too many places has been failing at modernity, and were it not for $120-a-barrel oil, that failure would be even more obvious. For far too long, this region has been dominated by authoritarian politics, massive youth unemployment, outdated education systems, a religious establishment resisting reform and now a death cult that glorifies young people committing suicide, often against other Muslims.

The humiliation this cocktail produces is the real source of terrorism. Saddam exploited it. Al Qaeda exploits it. Pakistan’s intelligence services exploit it. Hezbollah exploits it. The Taliban exploit it.

The only way to address it is by changing the politics. Producing islands of decent and consensual government in Baghdad or Kabul or Islamabad would be a much more meaningful and lasting contribution to the war on terrorism than even killing bin Laden in his cave. But it needs local partners. The reason the surge helped in Iraq is because Iraqis took the lead in confronting their own extremists — the Shiites in their areas, the Sunnis in theirs. That is very good news — although it is still not clear that they can come together in a single functioning government.

The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want.

Take 20 minutes and read the stunning article in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine by Thomas Schweich, a former top Bush counternarcotics official focused on Afghanistan, and dwell on his paragraph on Afghan President Hamid Karzai:

“Karzai was playing us like a fiddle: The U.S. would spend billions of dollars on infrastructure improvement; the U.S. and its allies would fight the Taliban; Karzai’s friends could get rich off the drug trade; he could blame the West for his problems; and in 2009, he would be elected to a new term.”

Then read the Afghan expert Rory Stewart’s July 17 Time magazine cover story from Kabul: “A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the insurgency areas is declining ... The more responsibility we take in Afghanistan, the more we undermine the credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government and encourage it to act irresponsibly. Our claims that Afghanistan is the ‘front line in the war on terror’ and that ‘failure is not an option’ have convinced the Afghan government that we need it more than it needs us. The worse things become, the more assistance it seems to receive. This is not an incentive to reform.”

Before Democrats adopt “More Troops to Afghanistan” as their bumper sticker, they need to make sure it’s a strategy for winning a war — not an election.
29583  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / McCain Health Care on: July 29, 2008, 11:53:05 PM
McCain Is the Radical on Health Reform
July 30, 2008; Page A15

If you listen only to presidential campaign rhetoric, you might conclude that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama proposed bold new changes for our health-care system, while John McCain is offering only small improvements. If so, you are in for a surprise. Most health-policy analysts believe that Mr. McCain is proposing the most fundamental health-care reform.

Right now the federal government encourages private health insurance primarily through the tax system -- handing out more than $200 billion in tax subsidies every year. Mr. Obama would leave this system largely intact. Mr. McCain would completely replace it with a fairer, more efficient system with a much better chance of insuring the uninsured and controlling health costs at the same time.

Under the current system, every dollar in health-insurance premiums paid by an employer is excluded from employee income and payroll taxes. Take an employee in the 25% income-tax bracket. Throw in state and local income taxes, add the 15.3% (FICA) payroll tax, and the tax exclusion for a middle-income family is worth almost 50 cents on the dollar. To make things a little better, employees can often pay their share of the premium with pretax dollars as well.

But this system is extremely arbitrary. There is virtually no tax relief for people who work for the 40% of employers who do not provide insurance, for part-time workers or people not in the labor market, or for anyone else who for any reason must buy his own insurance. The self-employed get a slightly better deal: They can deduct 100% of their premiums, but they get no relief from the payroll tax.

According to the Lewin Group, a private health-care consulting firm, families earning $100,000 a year get four times as much tax relief as families earning $25,000. In other words, the biggest subsidy goes to those who least need it, and who probably would have purchased insurance anyway.

The system is also wasteful. People can always lower their taxes by spending more on health insurance, and there is no limit to how bloated a health plan can be.

Under the McCain plan, no longer would employers be able to buy insurance with pretax dollars. These payments would be taxable to the employee, just like wages. However, every individual would get a $2,500 credit (and every family would get $5,000) to be applied dollar-for-dollar against taxes owed.

The McCain plan does not raise taxes, nor does it lower them. Instead, it takes the existing system of tax subsidies and treats everyone alike, regardless of income or job status. All health insurance would be sold on a level playing field under the tax law, regardless of how it is purchased.

The impact would be enormous. For the first time, low- and moderate-income families would get just as much tax relief as the very rich when they purchase health insurance. People who must purchase their own insurance would get just as much tax relief as those who obtain it through an employer. Whereas Mr. Obama would continue the current practice of giving the vast bulk of federal help to the rich (through tax subsidies) and the poor (through spending programs), the McCain tax credit would give the most new tax relief to the middle class.

The McCain plan would also encourage all Americans to control costs. The tax credit would subsidize the core insurance that everyone should have. It would not subsidize bells and whistles (marriage counseling, acupuncture, etc.) as the current system does. Since employees and their employers will be paying for additional coverage with aftertax dollars, everyone will have an incentive to compare the value of extra health benefits to the value of other things money can buy. When they eliminate health-care waste, they would get to keep every dollar they save.

The McCain tax credit would be refundable. People could apply $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family to the purchase of health insurance, even if they do not owe any income taxes. Families would not have to wait until April 15 the following year to get their credit. They could obtain the subsidy at the time the insurance is purchased.

The credit would also be transferable. Insurance companies and other intermediaries would be able to help families obtain their credit and apply it directly to health-insurance premiums.

The McCain health plan would allow people to buy insurance across state lines -- thus creating a competitive, national market for health insurance. It would provide additional federal money for people who have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, making it easier for people who have lost their insurance to obtain new coverage. It would also encourage Medicare to become a smarter, more efficient buyer of care.

The McCain plan will not solve all our health-care problems. But it has a far better chance of positively reforming the system than any other plan that has been proposed in this campaign season.

Mr. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. He is an unpaid adviser to the McCain campaign.

29584  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: July 29, 2008, 11:50:57 PM
McCain's Tax Blunder
July 30, 2008; Page A14
One of the miracles of this Presidential election campaign is that John McCain still has a chance to win, notwithstanding his best attempts to kick it away. In his latest random policy improvisation, the Arizona Senator tried to give up the tax issue.

On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Mr. McCain was asked to draw distinctions between his and the current Administration's economic policy. Given an easy opening, the Senator came back with his usual hodgepodge of new child-tax credits, promises to "veto every single pork barrel bill" and close wasteful government agencies, cut dependence on foreign oil and introduce a gas-tax holiday.

Then host George Stephanopoulos raised Social Security. "You're a longtime supporter of the private accounts, as President Bush called for them." Wishing to further distance himself from President Bush, when he could have drawn an equally useful contrast with Barack Obama, Mr. McCain didn't even own up to his support for private retirement accounts, simply saying, "I am a supporter of sitting down together and putting everything on the table and coming up with an answer."

Mr. Stephanopoulos pressed, "So that means payroll tax increases are on the table, as well?" Here came the words that have caused the McCain campaign well deserved grief: "There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table."

So given a chance to reiterate his opposition to tax increases -- and underscore a main contrast with his opponent -- Mr. McCain punted. Democrats were quick to pounce, with the Democratic National Committee issuing a press release headlined, "McCain Tax Pledge? Not so much." It provided citations of the presumptive GOP nominee asserting that "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't." Expect the "nothing's off the table" line to show up in Democratic TV spots this fall.

The wandering candidate also put his chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, in an uncomfortable spot. Back in June, the McCain campaign went after Mr. Obama's proposal for a Social Security payroll tax increase on income above $250,000. A President McCain, his adviser then said, wouldn't consider a payroll tax increase "under any imaginable circumstances." So much for that.

Economics has never been Mr. McCain's strong suit, but with Iraq receding as a crisis the economy is the ground where the Senator will have to fight and win. And the tax issue provides him with a potent opening, given Mr. Obama's pledge to raise taxes on incomes, dividends and capital gains. In proposing to raise the payroll tax cap, the Democrat is to the left even of Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain's Sunday blunder will make that issue that much harder to exploit.

Such mistakes also help explain the continued lack of enthusiasm for Mr. McCain among many conservatives. Meeting with us last December, before the primaries, he declared that "I will not agree to any tax increase," repeating the phrase for emphasis. He did not say any tax increase with the exception of Social Security. If Mr. McCain can't convince voters that he's better on taxes than is a Democrat who says matter-of-factly that he wants to raise taxes, the Republican is going to lose in a rout.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary
29585  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Reagan on: July 29, 2008, 11:42:34 PM
Ronald Reagan, speaking at the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, June 12, 1987:

In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." [T]hat dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium -- virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded.

In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty -- that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. . . . And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. . . . Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
29586  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Virtues of the Dog on: July 29, 2008, 10:43:41 PM
Woof LtMedTB:

As soon as I read lucid passages I became confused by what followed , , ,  embarassed  Would you be so kind as to summarize what you think this piece says?

29587  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I took the liberty on: July 29, 2008, 10:34:54 PM

I took the liberty of renaming your thread to what I think will be a better indicator of where we are looking to go with this thread.

29588  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: OIL'S ENEMIES, UNITE! on: July 29, 2008, 10:27:07 PM
Woof Huss:

Good find. 

Please allow me to note that, unlike the forum wherein we first met, this forum seeks to have thread coherence i.e. where possible, to fit a post in an existing thread.  For example, your post easily fits in

Sorry to be anal, but may I ask that you repost it there?

29589  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Russia on: July 29, 2008, 04:33:08 PM
Russia: The Challenges of Global Reach
Stratfor Today » July 29, 2008 | 1556 GMT

The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral KuznetsovSummary
Russia plans to upgrade its Borei-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines and eventually build a small fleet of new aircraft carriers, the chief of the Russian navy said July 27. Russia has slowly been turning its military fortunes around from the decay and decline of the 1990s, and it could be close to having the foundation for reaching some of its goals.

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a two-part series on the Russian navy.

During the celebration of Russia’s Navy Day on July 27, the country’s senior naval officer, Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, articulated two points and echoed a third made July 25 about the future of the Russian fleet. Though his claims remain just that, they warrant further analysis, given that they will go to the heart of Russia’s global military reach.

Back on July 25, Vysotsky insisted that new nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and attack submarines (SSNs) are top priorities for the Russian navy. Two days later, he further explained that the new Borei (Project 955) SSBN design will be upgraded starting with the fourth hull of the class — the next to be laid down — while preliminary research is under way on a new architecture for future aircraft carrier groups, including coordination and contact with a “space group.” Vysotsky hopes to one day have five or six such carrier groups, though design work has not yet begun.

The lead boat of the Borei class, the Yuri Dolgoruky, was only just launched last year, more than a decade after its keel was laid. It underwent a dramatic redesign when the initial submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) with which it was to be outfitted failed repeatedly in testing and was scrapped. Though the Yuri Dolgoruky is now being fitted out and two sister ships are already under construction, the replacement Bulava SLBM (known to NATO as the SS-NX-30) also has yet to mature. The Bulava fared poorly in testing, with three consecutive failures toward the end of 2006 and another in 2007. (There are rumors that testing will resume soon.)

Related Special Topic Page
Russia’s Military
Related Links
Russia: The Future of the Fleet
Russia: Future Naval Prospects
Russia: Sustaining the Strategic Fleet
Russia: Missiles That Work
An SSBN and SLBM represent a complex synthesis of some of the most advanced technologies available to mankind. One must be carefully designed and tailored to work with the other. To develop, design, alter and produce both at once is a very risky proposition. Further complicating the matter, a rush forward with production has left Moscow working with not just one, but three hulls at various stages of completion even before the missile — also supposedly entering production — is flying properly, and before integration has been completed on a single boat.

Vysotsky’s point about “upgrading” the fourth hull simply means that the Russians hope to have the kinks hammered out and the SLBM fully integrated by the time the fourth hull really starts to take shape. In other words, the hope is that the fourth hull will be the first true “production” hull — the first with the design more or less fixed from the start.

While this is obviously less than optimal, Russia is working with what it has in hand, and it would be wrong to assume that the Russians’ troubles with the Bulava are insurmountable.

Ultimately, Russia is committed to the sea leg of its nuclear triad and is working deliberately — if slowly — to build the submarines that will carry its deterrent toward the middle of this century.

Meanwhile, the last Akula II attack boat, laid down in the mid-1980s, is currently in trials (though there are rumors that this boat might be leased to India). The Akula IIs are by most accounts exceptional attack submarines, with levels of quieting comparable to or better than the U.S. improved Los Angeles class.

The launch of the Severodvinsk (of the Yasen or Project 885 class), the first new SSN to be designed and built since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is expected in 2009. Some sources suggest that a second of the class is already under construction, and that more could follow.

Though the Yasen class incorporates some modern design features with which Russian engineers have little experience, there is little doubt that the architecture relies substantially on the success of the Akula series, and comparable or better quality can be expected.

The SSN fleet is important for Moscow because of its geography. Split not only between two oceans, but also among many bodies of water, Russia’s fleet is based far from the world’s major sea lines of communication and often on the wrong side of chokepoints and technologically superior naval forces. The Soviets favored SSNs to hold those lines at risk, because their stealth and range allowed them to operate far from home port.

The Carrier
Russia’s talk of aircraft carriers is at once the most treacherous and the most ambitious. Stratfor has remarked before that the pursuit of a massive carrier fleet can be a path of folly, given not only the investment, but also the institutional skill needed to conduct deployments and flight deck operations — to say nothing of doing it well. The commitment of resources and effort, in other words, can often be used more effectively elsewhere.

Moreover, the Soviet Union has long struggled with carriers. Though it repeatedly had ambitions of a carrier fleet comparable to or second only to the United States’, the Kremlin only commissioned a full-deck carrier capable of launching conventional fixed wing aircraft in 1990: the Admiral Kuznetsov.

At nearly 60,000 tons and capable of embarking a large squadron of some 18 navalized Su-33 Flanker fighters, the Kuznetsov is larger than any other aircraft carrier in the world except those of the U.S. Navy. While five or six carriers over anything but the very long term might be ambitious to a fault for Russia, Russian shipyards are capable of building a ship of that size.

While Russia lacks much institutional knowledge about flight deck operations, the capability to regularly park very capable Flankers in the Mediterranean and beyond would be a significant shift in the global maritime balance, even if the ship and its escorts would likely fare poorly in an actual shooting war with U.S. and NATO naval formations.

While Vysotsky’s hint was only vague (and it largely looks like research is still ongoing), Russia’s new concept for carrier groups might include much higher integration with space-based sensors and platforms than ever before — an important objective if Russia hopes to even attempt to operate effectively far from its own shores in the 21st century.

In Context
Ultimately, Russia is beginning to rebuild from the ashes of the Soviet Union (in many cases with the benefit of the height of Soviet technology). But rebuilding a navy is about more than just hardware, and complex tasks like sustained flight deck operations and anti-submarine warfare are some of the most advanced techniques a navy can learn — in other words, they are often the last things a navy learns and the first it forgets.

Though some drills and occasional deployments are taking place, the Russian navy has a long way to go before truly regaining its proficiency from Soviet days. Nevertheless, it is wrong to judge the Russian military by the established standards of modern military thought. The Soviet solution to a problem was always a bit more quantitative and brute-force than a U.S. or NATO solution.

None of this is to deny or understate the challenges that Moscow faces. Rather, Stratfor is highlighting that the Russian navy is currently slated to have several new SSBNs and several more new SSN hulls in the water in three to five years, and could actually be investing significantly in constituting a small carrier fleet by then. While this might not win Moscow any wars with the world’s first-rate naval powers, it could begin to afford the Kremlin global military capabilities that it has long suffered without.

Back to top
29590  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Russia's relation to Europe on: July 29, 2008, 04:30:22 PM
Russia: The Significance of Missiles in Belarus
Stratfor Today » July 29, 2008 | 1832 GMT

The Russian Iskander short-range ballistic missileSummary
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CTSO) states (read: Belarus) could consider deploying offensive weapons on their territory at their next meeting at the end of August according to CTSO Secretary-General Nikolai Bordyuzha. Though this remains purely Russia’s call, the potential deployment has military — and more importantly, symbolic — importance.

The secretary-general of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Russia’s Nikolai Bordyuzha, stated July 28 that the member states of his organization (which include Russia and Belarus) could consider stationing both Iskander short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) and strategic bombers on their borders with Europe in response to U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) efforts in Europe. He spoke more directly about military infrastructure improvements on CSTO borders July 26. Though Bordyuzha’s comments are not a direct statement of intent from the Kremlin, Bordyuzha is a powerful ally of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and is not known for exaggeration. While most of his propositions are of mixed consequence militarily, such a move could carry immense symbolism.

A meeting of representatives of CSTO members — Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Russia and Uzbekistan — is to take place at the end of August, and potential responses to U.S. BMD efforts now look to be at the top of the agenda. However, as the pivot around which the CSTO moves as well as the enabling power in terms of military equipment, Russia’s position is the only one that really matters (another reason Bordyuzha’s statement is of import). Though there has been no shortage of rhetoric out of the Kremlin of late, there has been no actual military movement yet. The Kremlin is still calculating its next move.

(click image to enlarge)
As a response to the U.S. BMD plans, placing SRBMs in Belarus (the only CSTO member other than Russia northwest of the Black Sea, and one of Russia’s most loyal allies) would not be as militarily effective as placing them in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad (also under consideration), which is better geographically positioned to target the proposed U.S. interceptor site at Redzikowo, Poland. Both positions would put Russian Iskander SRBMs in range of Warsaw, but neither position would put them in range of the proposed X-band radar site at Misov in the Czech Republic (or even the Czech border, for that matter).

Though mobile Topol intercontinental ballistic missiles (known to NATO as the SS-25 “Sickle”) were indeed stationed in Belarus during the Cold War, Russia’s few mobile Topol-M (SS-27) missiles are safer in Russia and would not be able to target either Poland or the Czech Republic from such a short distance anyway. The deployment of strategic missiles there for purposes of threatening U.S. BMD installations in Europe is extremely unlikely.

Of course, the CSTO’s plan is all premised on the long-delayed Iskander program (known to NATO as the SS-26 “Stone”), which has long been underfunded. The Kremlin’s ability to threaten the Polish site at Redzikowo depends on its ability to field this particular system in numbers — something it has yet to demonstrate. Any deployment of a Russian battery equipped with Iskanders to Belarus would be the first foreign deployment of the weapon system.

Unfortunately for Russia, the evisceration that the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty inflicted on Moscow’s land-based missile arsenal has left it without the appropriate tools to target either site from its core territory behind the Baltics.

Related Links
Russia: A Military Response to U.S. BMD
Russia: The Fundamentals of Russian Air Defense Exports
Related Special Topic Pages
Russia’s Military
The Russian Resurgence
Ballistic Missile Defense
Moving Russia’s strategic bombers back into Belarus, meanwhile, would put a component of Russia’s long-range strategic deterrent at higher risk while undermining its greatest asset — range. Like the prospect of Topol-M deployments to threaten installations not at strategic distances, this is also unlikely. The shorter-range Tu-22M Backfire is a more likely candidate in terms of capability, though it would only encourage heightened NATO air patrols along the border.

But while the military value of any such move would be limited, the symbolism is immense.

In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia frantically moved its military assets (especially its nuclear weapons and top-tier weapon systems) back to its own territory, or they became assets of the newly independent former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact allies. Moscow has even continued to attempt to consolidate additional strategic assets inside its own territory. And while it is unclear whether the Kremlin might simply sell Iskanders to Belarus or whether it is considering actually stationing a Russian missile battery on Belarusian territory, such a move would be a military push toward Europe — reversing a trend now approaching more than a decade in the making (though there is not yet any real indication beyond rumors and rhetoric that Russia might actually redeploy nuclear weapons).

Nothing is certain yet, but it is clear that such a move would be the aggressive military counter that Poland fears. If Russian SRBMs end up in either Kaliningrad or Belarus, the Poles will be clamoring for further support from both the United States and NATO. Though it is now only a threat, an actual deployment could bring a new dynamic to Warsaw’s BMD negotiations with Washington. Meanwhile, the Baltic states to the north would be outflanked by the Russian military — bringing back fears of encirclement and even being swallowed up once again.

But from a more geopolitical standpoint, such a move could re-establish a front line in a new Cold War, with Russian weapons targeting a NATO country and U.S. weapons (either defensive or offensive) pointing back. While it would not be as intense an affront to the United States as a Cuban deployment, it will feel precisely like that to Central Europe.
29591  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: July 29, 2008, 04:26:48 PM
Woof GM:

I share the aritcles sentiments, but it would have been nicer if they mentioned that we were ready to perform a couple of years ago and the Taiwanese were not , , ,

Anyway, here's this from Stratfor.  I am curious what you make of your theories after reading it.


China, the Olympics and the Visa Mystery
July 29, 2008

By Rodger Baker

Related Links
Managing Change in China
Related Special Topic Pages
2008 Olympics: Beijing’s Hopes and Hurdles
China’s Economic Imbalance
Something extraordinary is happening in China, and we are not talking about the Olympics. Rather, Chinese officials have been clamping down on visa applications and implementing bureaucratic impediments to new and renewed visa applications under the guise of pre-Olympic security.

In some ways, Beijing’s plan for a safe and secure Olympics appears based on the premise that if no one shows up, there can be no trouble. But placing restrictions on the movement of managers and employees of foreign businesses operating in China, even if for a limited time as Chinese officials have been at pains to reassure, makes little sense from the standpoint of gaining political and economic benefits from hosting the Olympics. Something just isn’t right.

The Post-’70s Economic Framework
Since China’s economic reform and opening in the late 1970s, China’s economic policy — and thus the basis for the overall development of the nation — has been based on a simple two-part framework. First, draw in as much foreign investment as possible and use the money and technology to strengthen China while using the subsequent economic leverage to secure China. And second, encourage growth for growth’s sake to ensure an ever-increasing flow of money through the system to provide employment and social services to a massive and urbanizing population.

Key to this policy has been creating a very open environment for foreign businesses, which bring money, technology and expertise and use their influence with their own governments to keep stable international relations with China — hence reducing international and economic frictions and increasing the efficiency of the supply chain. For more than two decades, Chinese national strategy has thus revolved around the principle of encouraging investment, joint ventures and wholly-owned foreign enterprises in China. There have been two foundations for this strategy: the evolution of financial facilities for transferring and controlling foreign money with a level of transparency nearing international standards, and the ease of movement of personnel in and out of China.

It is this latter point that recently has been hit the hardest. Over the past several months as the Beijing Olympics drew nearer, the Chinese government has effectively frozen up most financial reform plans. It also has issued a raft of new security measures not entirely unlike other host cities in the post 9/11 security environment. But China has gone several steps further than its predecessor hosts, placing official and bureaucratic impediments on visa applications. This not only has targeted potential “troublemaking” rights advocates, it has also impacted foreign businesses ranging from invited guests to the Olympic games to managers and employees of foreign companies in China.

Business and the New Visa Hassles
The visa restrictions in particular have been a source of angst for foreign businesses and business associations. Many smaller operations may circumvent Chinese regulations and travel on tourist visas (provided they can still obtain them). And there are ways around the tighter regulations or bureaucratic hurdles if one has the right connections or the willingness to apply several times or from different locations. But multinational corporations are less willing to jeopardize their operations by skirting the laws. Instead, they are making their concerns known to Beijing and hoping that restrictions are eased in September, as Beijing has rumored and hinted will occur.

In general, these visa restrictions have been brushed aside by foreign observers as simply paranoia on China’s part regarding protests or terrorist attacks during the Olympics. In many ways, however, this makes little sense. First and most obvious, the Olympics were supposed to highlight the opening of China — not restrict the very people who have made China a key part of the global economy. Second, imposing tight restrictions in Shanghai, the center of the Chinese foreign-domestic economic nexus, makes little sense on grounds of Olympic security since Shanghai is playing only a minor role in the games compared to Beijing and Qingdao. (Think shutting down visas to New York during the Atlanta games in the name of security, though Shanghai admittedly is hosting some soccer matches.)

Shutting down business visas to keep terrorists out makes little sense anyway — it is hard to imagine Uighur militants traveling on business visas as representatives of foreign multinationals. Furthermore, by restricting business visas — even if not across the board in a coherent fashion — China is putting a massive strain not only on the ability of businesses to trust Chinese regulations and business relations with the government, but also on the fluidity of the global supply chain. Shutting down or impeding visas affects much more than delaying the movement of a single individual into China; it impacts the ability of multinational corporations to move, replace or supplement managers and dealmakers in China. A delayed visa applications of just three months still represents an entire quarter that multinational corporations cannot reliably manage their businesses operations in China, and that doesn’t take into account the visa backlog when restrictions are loosened or lifted.

Disrupting an integral part of the global economy for a full quarter because of an international exposition makes little sense. The Germans in 1936 didn’t do it, the Russians in 1980 didn’t — no one has. One doesn’t simply shut down international business transactions for three months or more to stop a terrorist — and particularly not China, which depends on foreign direct investment. This is not simply an inconvenience for some people: It is the imposition of friction on a part of the system that is supposed to be frictionless. And it is not merely individuals who are affected, but the relations between mammoth companies.

A Period of Erratic Policies
China’s behavior has been erratic for several months now, if not for the past few years, with the implementation of new and often contradictory security and economic policies. These have all been brushed aside as somehow related to preparation for the Olympics. But they are in fact anomalous. China’s behavior is not that of a country trying to show its best side for the international community, nor that of a nation simply concerned about potential terrorist or public relations threats to the Olympic games. In another two months, after the Olympics and Paralympics have ended, it will become clearer whether this was a spate of excessive paranoia or a reflection of a much more significant crisis facing the Chinese leadership — and the evidence increasingly points toward the latter.

As mentioned, China’s economic policies in the reform and opening era have been based on the idea of growth. This in many ways simply reflects the Asian economic model of maintaining cheap lending policies at home, subsidizing exports, flowing money through the system and focusing on revenue rather than profits. In essence, it is growth for the sake of growth. This was the policy of Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. And it led each of those countries to a final crisis point, striking Japan first in the early 1990s and the rest of the Asian tigers a few years later. But China managed to avoid each of the previous Asian economic crises points, as it was on the lagging end of growth and investment curves.

Following the Asian economic crisis, China fully recovered from the international stigma of Tiananmen Square and became the global economic darling. By the time the 21st century rolled around, China was already taking on the mantle of the Japanese and other Asians. It began to be labeled both an economic miracle and a rising power; a future challenge to U.S. economic dominance with all the political ramifications that brought. Were it not for 9/11, Washington would have squared off with Beijing to prevent the so-called China rise. The reprieve of international pressure that came when U.S. attention turned squarely toward Afghanistan and then Iraq freed China’s leaders from an external stress that could have brought about a very different set of economic and political decisions.

With the United States preoccupied, and no other major power really challenging China, Beijing shifted its attention to domestic issues, and its review quickly revealed the stresses to the system. These did not primarily come from “splittist” forces like the Tibetans or the Falun Gong, but rather from the economic policies that had brought China from the Third World to the center of the global economic system. Beijing is well-aware that should it continue with its current economic policies, it will face the same risk of crisis as Japan, South Korea and the rest of Asia. It is also aware that growing internal challenges — from the spread and invasiveness of corruption to geographic economic imbalances, from rising social unrest to massive dislocation of populations — are causing immediate problems.

Economics from Mao to Hu
Mao Zedong built a China designed to be self-sufficient and massively redundant. Every province, every city, every factory was supposed to be a self-contained unit, making the country capable of weathering nearly any military attack. Deng Xiaoping didn’t get rid of these redundancies when he opened the economy to foreign investment. Instead, he and his successors encouraged local officials to work to attract foreign investment and technology so as to raise China’s economic standard more rapidly. By the time Jiang Zemin was in power it had become clear that the regionally and locally driven economic policies threatened to throw China back into its old cycle of decentralization — and, ultimately, competing centers of power. Attempts by Jiang to correct this through the Go West program, for example, came to naught after meeting massive resistance in the wealthy coastal provinces. The central government accordingly backed off, shifting its attention to reclaiming centralized authority over the military.

Hu Jintao has sought once again to try to address the problem of the concentration of economic power in China’s coastal provinces and cities through his Harmonious Society initiative. The idea is to redistribute wealth and economic power, regain central authority over the economy, and at the same time reduce redundancies and inefficiencies in the Chinese economy. With minimal external interference, Hu was able to test policies that by their very nature were going to sacrifice short-term social stability in the name of long-term economic stability. Growth was replaced by sustainability as the target; longer-term redistribution of economic growth engines would replace short-term employment and social stability.

This was a risky proposition, and one that met strong resistance in China. But the alternative was to sit back and wait for the inevitable economic crisis and the social repercussions thereto. In some ways, Hu was suggesting that China risk stability in the short term to preserve stability in the long run. But Hu didn’t anticipate the massive surge in global commodity prices, particularly of food and oil. This was compounded by increased international scrutiny over China’s human rights record ahead of the Olympics, natural disasters hitting at the availability and distribution of goods, a rise in domestic social unrest triggered by local government policies and economic corruption, several attempted and successful attacks against China’s transportation infrastructure, and the uprising in Tibet. Thus, the already-risky policies the central government was pursuing suddenly looked more destructive than constructive from the point of view of continued rule by the Communist Party of China (CPC).

The global economic slowdown was the external impetus China feared — something that could undermine the flow of capital and leave Beijing unable to control the outcome of a reduction in the inflow of capital. At the same time, the internal social tensions triggered both by Hu’s attempts to reshape the Chinese economy and by the slow pace of those changes created a crisis for the Chinese leadership. It was hard enough internally to control a measured economic slowdown to reshape the economic structure of China, but quite another thing altogether to have such a slowdown imposed on China from outside at the very moment social stability was in a critical state at home.

A Government in Crisis
China’s rapid and contradictory economic and security policies, rising social tensions, and seemingly counterproductive visa regulations appear to be signs of a government in crisis. They are the reactionary policies of a central leadership trying to preserve its authority, stabilize social stability and postpone an economic crisis. At the same time, we see signs that the local governments, and even organs of the central government, are putting up steady resistance to the announcements coming from Beijing. Slapping restrictions on foreign businessmen may make little sense from a broader business continuity sense, but if the point is to begin breaking the backs of the local governments — whose strength lies in their relations with foreign businesses — then the moves may make more sense.

If the central government has reached the point that it is willing to risk its international business role to rein in wayward local officials, however, then the Chinese leadership sees a major crisis looming or already under way. It is one thing to toss out a few local leaders and replace them, quite another to undermine the structure of the Chinese economy for the sake of regaining control over local officials. But if Chinese history since 1949 (and really quite a ways before) is any guide, the core of the CPC leadership is willing to sacrifice social and economic stability to preserve power. One need only look at the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution or the crackdown at Tiananmen Square for evidence of this. Revolution is not, after all, a dinner party, and maintaining CPC control is paramount to the government.

After each major revolution or crisis, China eventually has recovered. The Cultural Revolution was followed by diplomatic relations with the United States, Tiananmen Square was put aside as China joined the World Trade Organization and surged ahead in gross domestic product (GDP). Certainly, there was change among the leadership and in the way the party dealt with policies at home and abroad. But if there is the likelihood of loss of control due to an impending economic crisis, better to have some role in shaping the crisis to preserve the chance of maintaining a role in the future political structure than to sit by and try to clean up as things fall apart. The Party in fact has a long history of taking a self-generated crisis/revolution over an externally or domestically initiated one.

It may be that the contradictory policies Beijing is tossing around these days will simply fade away after September and things will get back to “normal.” But already, Chinese officials are downplaying the previously hyped political and economic benefits of the Olympic games. They are now warning that economic conditions may not be so strong in the future, and at least internally discussing the distinct possibility that at least certain regions of China are facing the same economic crises faced by their mentors Japan, South Korea and the Asian tigers.

Internal Crises vs. the Economy
A recent article in the Global Times, a paper that addresses myriad topics of domestic and international significance and is read among China’s leaders, discussed how economics is not the best measure of strength. It referred to the overall comparative GDP and the size of China’s military in the late 1800s. Then, China was considered at its weakest, but from an economic or military perspective it could have been considered comparable to the global powers of the day. This hints at the deeper internal debate in Beijing, where true national strength and the role of the economy is under discussion. Assumptions that China is only focused on continued good economic ties with the world shouldn’t be taken as gospel — China has a track record of shutting down external connections when internal crises brew.

Numerous polices are being thrown around in firefighting fashion, including blocking or at least hindering foreign business movement in and out of the country and tightening the flow of foreign capital in both directions. They are coming in reaction to flare-ups in economic, environmental, public relations and social arenas. Energy policies are making less sense, imbalances in supply and demand are growing and seemingly contradictory policies are being issued. Social unrest, or at least local media coverage of such unrest, seems to be increasing; either is a sign of weakening control. Local officials are still failing to fall in line with central government edicts. Strategic state enterprises like China National Petroleum Corp., China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. and the China Development Bank are all defying state-council orders — and the State Council itself is apparently going head-to-head with major policy bodies long given control over economic policies.

Something extraordinary is happening in China. And while not everyone may want that to be the case, and so have sought to use the Olympics to explain things away, the easy explanation simply doesn’t make enough sense
29592  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: July 29, 2008, 04:17:29 PM
If there is a coherent strategy here, I'm not seeing it.  Again, the issue of the money from the drug trade simply is not on the radar screen.  The idea that ISI or the army will really turn on the Whackos is self-delusion.  So if we ain't doing it ourselves, it aint gettin' done.  And it doesn't look like we are willing to look that one in the face.   Where's the raw material for a Surge type of success in the Whackostans?  For that matter do we have a strategy for Afg?  Looks to me we are headed for doing more of what hasn't worked-- kind of like JFK got us into Vietnam as a way out of Laos.
Geopolitical Diary: U.S., Pakistan and the Saudi Analogy
July 29, 2008 | 0319 GMT
A combination of events brought Pakistan to the forefront on Monday, casting light on the complexity of the problem that the United States faces in attempting to stabilize operations in Afghanistan and pressuring Islamabad to reassert control over the jihadists operating on its side of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

In Washington, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani met with U.S. President George W. Bush, while in Islamabad, acting U.S. Central Command chief Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey met with Pakistan’s top generals, Ashfaq Kayani and Tariq Majid. In both negotiations, tensions ran high, with the Americans warning that they are growing increasingly impatient with lawlessness on the border and the Pakistanis replying that they are doing everything within their power to stop it.

Two incidents served to ratchet tensions even higher as the U.S.-Pakistani talks took place. First, the government in Islamabad retracted its decision on July 26 to bring the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency under civilian control. The ISI fiasco helps to explain the jihadists’ ineradicable involvement in Pakistan’s state structures, since the agency is notorious for having operatives with hidden links to jihadists. The prospect of bringing the ISI under the civilian government’s supervision was never actually feasible because the military — the real source of power in Pakistan — opposed it. Later came news that a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle had fired missiles at a religious school in South Waziristan, killing six civilians on Pakistani soil and fueling Pakistani hostility toward their own government and the United States.

The ISI incident and the airstrike exemplify both the internal and external challenges facing Pakistan. If it is to rein in the jihadists, Pakistan must consider three basic strategies for fighting such an insurgency. The first involves using its military’s brute force to stamp out the threat, as Egypt, Syria and Libya have done in the past. The second consists of allowing the United States to quell the insurgency unilaterally, as it has attempted to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. The third entails trying to resolve the conflict solely by means of negotiations and diplomacy. Any one of these strategies is inadequate on its own, however, and only a clever combination of negotiation and force has a chance of arresting the conflict’s downward spiral.

Such a combination of strategies is precisely what Saudi Arabia employed, beginning in 2004, to shut down its jihadist insurgency. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are drastically different countries, but what they share is the potential to host thriving Islamist movements — emerging among the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and the Deobandis in Pakistan — that exist at radical variance with the U.S.-supported, conservative central governments. These religious movements create a wide social network that lends support to militant jihadist groups that define themselves in contrast to the regime and the United States.

Saudi Arabia, like Pakistan, was an ideal breeding ground for jihadist militants, but the Saudis were able to dampen homegrown militant ideology through a full-fledged security crackdown enabled by dependable intelligence, under-the-table politicking and bribes to gain the cooperation of various factions, and deliberate engagement with the religious establishment to promote nonviolent alternatives. For a time, the Saudis also sent jihadists to join the fray in Iraq, further whittling down the movement’s ranks, though the United States soon put a stop to this practice just as it is attempting to do with the Pakistani militants funneling into Afghanistan. By 2005, Saudi Arabia had dramatically trimmed its radical Islamist fringe, with militants consistently botching their attacks or security forces pre-empting them.

Yet the Saudi analogy only goes so far — in fact, it contrasts so starkly as to make the challenges of Pakistan even clearer. Pakistan’s mountainous terrain makes it difficult to scour the whole country as easily as Saudi security forces scoured theirs, and Pakistan does not have an official religious hierarchy like the Saudis’ ulema, capable of exerting organizational control over masses of believers while working in tandem with the government. Also, crucially, the Saudis had petrodollars to throw at the problem, while Pakistan must rely on U.S. aid to fund its civilian activities.

Moreover, while Saudi Arabia’s jihadist movement emerged out of resentment of U.S. foreign policy, that policy has a harsh and direct bearing on Pakistanis today — making them unwilling to play into Washington’s hands. As the United States has grown more frustrated with Pakistan’s inability to control its rogue elements, it has taken more strident and independent military actions, occasionally harming or killing Pakistani civilians and thus generating sharper resistance within Pakistan. A distinct danger of U.S. military operations in Pakistan is that as anger with the United States grows, so does the possibility of driving people toward sympathizing with the jihadist factions.

Furthermore, the United States has limitations on how much pressure it can apply on Pakistan’s military. Since the military is the sole guarantor of order in Pakistan — a nuclear-armed country — the United States needs it to stay in a strong and stable position. Washington cannot push too hard to have its way without making the military vulnerable to reaction by anti-U.S. popular forces within Pakistan.

As the U.S. military draws closer to tying up the loose ends in Iraq, the complications of the task awaiting it in Afghanistan seem to multiply. Pakistan is the source of much uncertainty and contingency in this theater, and there is no clear solution to the mess there. If the United States and its allies are to succeed, they will have to do so despite exceedingly narrow constraints.
29593  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / PD WSj on: July 29, 2008, 12:45:27 PM
Lip Reading John McCain

John McCain has fallen into an age-old trap of GOP presidential candidates: Sending mixed messages on tax increases.

One of Mr. McCain's problems with the conservative base in the GOP primaries was his past opposition to President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He won in part by taking care to acknowledge that the tax cuts had worked to grow the economy and vowing to preserve them when they expire in 2010. On the campaign trail, he's fond of saying: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."

But on Sunday, Mr. McCain was asked by ABC News how he planned to address Social Security without raising taxes. "There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," he told host George Stephanopoulos. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."

The Club For Growth, a leading free-market group, reacted quickly, issuing a letter telling Mr. McCain that his comments were "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances." The letter cited the McCain campaign's criticism back in June of Mr. Obama's support for a Social Security payroll tax hike for workers earning above $250,000 a year. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain's top economic adviser, told reporters at the time a President McCain would not consider a payroll tax increase "under any imaginable circumstance."

Mr. McCain has enough problems with his base without causing Republican voters further agita by blurring his position on tax increases. He should recall just how much political damage President George H.W. Bush suffered in 1992 when he had to face voters after going back on his 1988 pledge, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Make no mistake, the Democratic National Committee is already issuing press releases pointing out the latest wrinkle in Mr. McCain's tax position. He needs to clarify his approach before press releases are followed by TV commercials attacking him.

-- John Fund

The Irrepressible Novak

Robert Novak is widely regarded as the dean of Washington journalists, having covered and commented on national politics for more than half a century. That's why so many were shocked and saddened to learn that the 77-year-old columnist has been diagnosed with a brain tumor and has taken a temporary leave from his column.

It will be the first time in anyone's memory that he has missed a deadline. When he broke his hip in a hotel bathroom a few years ago shortly before his column was due, Mr. Novak crawled to a phone, summoned help and later dictated the rest of his column by phone from his hospital bed. He has written more than 7,000 columns since his start as a syndicated columnist in 1963.

In his recent best-selling memoir "The Prince of Darkness," Mr. Novak said some of his goals as a journalist were "to tell the world things people do not want me to reveal, to advocate limited government, economic freedom, and a strong, prudent America -- and to have fun doing it."

Fun is exactly what Mr. Novak has always had. He along with his late partner Rowland Evans gave me my first job in journalism. Much of what I know today about writing comes from the two years I spent as a reporter for Evans & Novak.

I had dinner with Bob just ten days ago after we both spoke at an Americans for Prosperity conference of conservative bloggers in Austin, Texas. It was hard to drag him away from his admiring fans and their requests for photos. He expressed satisfaction that so many people still wanted to hear from him, and spoke about how proud he was that another former reporter, David Freddoso, was about to publish a new book called "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate."

Bob Novak has beaten cancer three times. He has an iron will, and I hope he can beat this latest health challenge. Don't be surprised if you see him back in the column-writing saddle before the November election. A fall presidential campaign just wouldn't be the same without Bob Novak's pungent reporting.

-- John Fund

Quote of the Day

"The ANWR ban is the work of environmental restriction groups that depend on direct-mail fundraising to pay their bills and keep their jobs. That means they must always claim the sky is falling. They can't get people to send a check or mouse-click a donation because they did a good job, the restrictions they imposed on the Alaska pipeline in the 1970s have done a good job in preserving the environment or because clean air acts of the past have vastly reduced air pollution. ANWR is a precious cause for them because it can be portrayed (dishonestly) as a national treasure and because the pressure for drilling there has been unrelenting. . . . Democrats have enlisted solidly in their army, and they have also been able to recruit Republicans who wanted to get good environmental scorecards to impress enviro-conscious voters in states like Florida, New Jersey and Minnesota. Now all that is in danger, because [of] the pain of paying $60 for a tank of gas . . ." -- US New & World Report's Michael Barone, on the unraveling of an environmental fund-raising racket.

Why Doesn't China Get a Haircut?

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted "yes" are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations' central banks?

It turns out the biggest supporter of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts has been the Chinese government. The Chinese own about half a trillion dollars in Fannie and Freddie securities and they've put the warning out to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson they expect to be repaid in full. The fear among Mr. Paulson and other Treasury officials is that if Fannie and Freddie debt isn't repaid at 100% par, the Chinese may start dumping their hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasury securities, possibly causing a run on U.S. government debt and sharply raising Uncle Sam's borrowing costs.

China isn't the only foreign nation with a big stake in the bailout legislation. Many foreign governments have loaded up on Fannie and Freddie securities, according to data gathered by the Council on Foreign Relations. No. 2 on the list is the central bank in Russia, which holds about $200 billion in these twin housing giants' securities. The oil nations in the Gulf region also own large holdings of the debt as well.

The Chinese, Russians and Saudis evidently can't tell the difference between the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which is what stands behind U.S. Treasury securities, and the once officially-denied "implicit guarantee" that some in the market chose to see behind Fannie and Freddie paper. The federal bailout that President Bush agreed reluctantly to sign has effectively conferred upon Fannie and Freddie securities equal status to Treasury securities. This means going forward, the housing GSEs now effectively have unlimited use of every taxpayer's credit card.

Naturally, this has conservative fiscal watchdog groups like Dick Armey's Freedom Works and the National Taxpayers Union up in arms. There's a reason that Fannie and Freddie paper has paid out interest rates roughly half a point higher than Treasury securities over the years: higher risk of nonpayment. Former House Majority Leader Mr. Armey asks why Congress now feels compelled to pay back Fannie and Freddie's lenders 100%? Why not pay back, say, 90 cents on the dollar? Their lenders already have been compensated for higher risk of default, and this would not only save taxpayers money but also help delineate Treasury bills from GSE debt going forward.

So far, just about everyone has been made whole in this financial fiasco except taxpayers. Why Democrats and Republicans think it's good economics, let alone good politics, to put the interests of the Chinese and Russian governments ahead of their own constituents is a question members should be asked over and over between now and the election.

29594  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Palo Canario on: July 29, 2008, 12:16:10 PM
Hola Alfonso:

Bruno hablo' bien de ti cuando estaba aqui.  Vamos a presentar un DVD de de introduciendo el Garrote Venezolano al publico ingles-hablante.

Aunque a mi me fascina y a muchos otros tambien, entiendo lo que dices de la politica.  Lo que paso' es que hubo un  @$%@$% de technologia que se borro' el contenido del foro que teniamos y se pierde mucha velocidad comenzando de nuevo.  Pocos contribuyen por que , , , pocos contribuyen  rolleyes  Creo que apenas estamos llegando a un nivel de participacion que se da razon para venir aqui. 

Agradezco mucho lo de los fotos-- de preferencia los quiero de alta resolucion.  Si se te hace mas facil, mandemelas en un disco-- como siempre la direccion es:

703 Pier Ave #664
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

Espero que todo vaya bien para Angela y Rosa.  Por favor saludalos por mi parte.  ?Cuantos anos tiene Angela ya?
29595  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: July 29, 2008, 11:45:00 AM
An Indian friend knowledgeable about these things comments:

A lot has changed in pak. A year or two ago Pak denied that the US was
even allowed to fly over pak..let alone bomb at will.  now its an
everyday occurence.  the US has a lot of leverage over Pak
military...and the one who controls the military controls pak.  This
leverage is financial...becaue much of the US money goes to finance
the lavish life style of the officers and not to fight terrorism as we
are told.  Pak's main fear is that they will be left behind India
militarily. This fear is also being exploited with the recent sale of
F16's to ostensibly fight terrorism. The ISI otoh is a jihadist
organization since it was the ISI who created much of the terror
groups. Cracking down on the ISI is harder because they are a more
ideological org...and until the isi is broken things will not change.
This is the reason pak is being pressurized to bring it under civil
29596  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender issues thread on: July 29, 2008, 11:29:47 AM

I knew you would see this and post it here  grin

29597  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: July 29, 2008, 10:17:36 AM
Obama Should Stand Up to Russia's Regime
July 29, 2008; Page A17

Berlin is an ideal place for an American president, even a would-be president, to speak to the world about freedom and shared values. Barack Obama's recent visit evoked the famous speeches of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan that defended the U.S. stance against the Soviet Union and tyranny in Eastern Europe. Both the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union are now gone, but dangerous, nuclear-armed dictatorships are not. Sadly, Mr. Obama declined to mention this in Berlin.

The stage for his disappointing performance was set several weeks ago, when the Illinois senator rejected John McCain's proposal to eject Russia and exclude China from the Group of Eight (G-8). Mr. Obama's response during a July 13 interview on CNN -- "We have to engage and get them involved" -- suggests that it is impossible to work with Russia and China on economic and nuclear nonproliferation issues while also standing up for democracy and human rights.

It has repeatedly been shown that the exact opposite is true.

The U.S. does not cede leverage with authoritarian governments when it confronts them about their crimes. Instead, the U.S. increases its credibility and influence with foes and friends alike. Placating regimes like those in Russia and China today only entrenches hostile, antidemocratic forces.

Commercial agreements, arms control and other mutually beneficial projects can be pursued without endorsing dictatorship. During the same interview, Sen. Obama spoke of enlisting China to help write the "international rules of the road." This is the same logic that led the United Nations to place China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia on its current Human Rights Council. Do we really want to live under rules created with the approval of such regimes?

While Mr. Obama talked about the importance of receiving Russia's help in containing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Reuters reported that Tehran is acquiring advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles from the Kremlin. This is the cooperation the West has earned by including Russia in the G-8.

In Berlin, Mr. Obama repeatedly mentioned the 1948 Berlin airlift. On CNN, he said he would like to "bring back the kind of foreign policy that characterized the Truman administration with Marshall and Acheson and Kennan." A strange statement, since President Harry Truman fought against giving up an inch to the communists on any front around the world. Not only did Truman save West Berlin; South Korea, Taiwan and Western Europe also have much to thank him for. By contrast, in their July 9 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Obama advisers Madeleine Albright and William Perry, secretaries of state and defense under Bill Clinton, criticized Sen. McCain's proposal to respond to major powers' human-rights abuses with more than lip service.

Mr. Obama also asked if the West would stand up for "the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe." Commendable, but what about the political prisoner in China and the recently convicted blogger in Russia? Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and Russia's Dmitri Medvedev both came to power in blatantly fraudulent elections. The hypocrisy of condemning one while embracing the other destroys American and European credibility, and undermines any attempt at global leadership. Those of us living behind the Iron Curtain at the time were grateful Ronald Reagan did not go to Berlin in 1987 to denounce the lack of freedom in, say, Angola.

In short, the candidate of change sounds like he would perpetuate the destructive double standards of the current administration. Meanwhile, the supposedly hidebound Mr. McCain is imaginative enough to suggest that if something is broken you should try to fix it. Giving Russia and China a free pass on human rights to keep them "at the table" has helped lead to more arms and nuclear aid to Iran, a nuclear North Korea, and interference from both nations in solving the tragedies in Darfur and Zimbabwe.

Would all of this have occurred had the U.S. and Europe threatened meaningful reprisals? At least Mr. McCain wants to find out.

Reagan's Berlin speech is remembered for his command: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" But he also made a critical point about negotiating from strength, a point Mr. Obama seems to be missing. Reagan knew that if the U.S. backed down on the Strategic Defense Initiative, his speech would just be pretty words the Soviets would ignore.

Reagan avoided the mistake John F. Kennedy made when he met with Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. After the Bay of Pigs disaster, Kennedy was weak in Khrushchev's eyes and keen to make a deal, and the Soviet premier bullied him mercilessly in Vienna. The Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis were soon to follow.

Today, instead of communists there are deal-making capitalists and nationalists running the Kremlin and China's National People's Congress. They, and blowhards like Hugo Chávez, hardly represent the existential threats faced by Truman, Kennedy and Reagan. Yet Mr. Obama still is reticent to confront them, saying in Berlin that "we must reject the Cold War mindset of the past and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must." But the Cold War ended and democracy became the global standard not because Western leaders merely defended their values, but because they projected them aggressively.

On Sept. 11, 150 years ago, another Illinois politician to run for president, Abraham Lincoln, said: "Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere." Not where it's convenient. Not in countries lacking large energy reserves. Everywhere, Mr. Obama, everywhere.

Mr. Kasparov, leader of The Other Russia coalition, is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal.
29598  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: July 29, 2008, 09:55:00 AM
Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
July 29, 2008; Page A17

What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?

The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.

To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.

Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.

First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.

The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!

Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)

On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.

On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.

Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.

Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.

Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
29599  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: The Price of Romney Care on: July 29, 2008, 09:50:40 AM
I have been leaning towards favoring Romney as Veep for McC, in great part because, unlike McC, he can articulate free market economics pretty well-- but then there is the coming clusterfcuk of Romeny Care-- which will make it hard for McC to challenge BO's promised socialization.

The Price of RomneyCare
July 29, 2008; Page A16
Gearing up for 2009, liberals are eager to claim Massachusetts as a Valhalla of health reform. Their enthusiasm is apparently evidence-proof.

Even Mitt Romney, who should know better, took to these pages recently to proclaim, "Health-care reform is working in Massachusetts." Shortly after Mr. Romney's self-tribute, Governor Deval Patrick wheeled out a new $129 million tax plan to make up for this year's health spending shortfalls. Yet partisans are cheering the cost overruns as a sign of success.

Supporters are exultant because 350,000 people are newly covered since former Governor Romney's parley with Beacon Hill Democrats in 2006; this cuts the state's uninsured rate by about half. That's not the promised "universal" system, but never mind. The ominous news is that only about 18,000 people -- or 5% of the newly insured -- have taken advantage of the "connector," which was supposed to be the plan's free-market innovation linking individuals to private insurers.

Most of this growth in coverage has instead come via a new state entitlement called Commonwealth Care. This provides subsidized insurance to those under 300% of the poverty level, or about $63,000 for a family of four. About 174,000 have joined this low- or no-cost program, a trend that is likely to speed up.

As this public option gets overwhelmed, budget gaskets are blowing everywhere. Mr. Patrick had already bumped up this year's spending to $869 million, $144 million over its original estimate. Liberals duly noted that these tax hikes are necessary because enrollment in Commonwealth Care is much higher than anticipated. But of course more people will have coverage if government gives it to them for free. The problem is that someone has to pay for it.

Thus the extra tab of $129 million, which may need to go higher because it relies on uncertain federal funds from Medicaid. For now, Mr. Patrick wants one-time (yeah, right) charges of $33 million on insurers and $28 million on providers, plus some shuffling of state funds. The balance comes from an estimated $33 million boost in the state's "pay or play" tax: If businesses don't offer "fair and reasonable" insurance to their employees, they get hit.

This is a textbook example of how business taxes evolve into "pay or pay," the first recourse of state-funded health systems. Politicians love levies on business because they disguise the overall bill from voters. But such taxes are merely passed along to workers in the form of reduced take-home pay, since all health costs are part of compensation.

The main reason people are uninsured is because coverage is too expensive. Massachusetts didn't have many options for reforming the way health dollars are laundered in the third-party payment system created by the federal tax code. But it could have helped make insurance cheaper by reforming its private market before defaulting to public programs.

The Bay State has long served up coverage-specific insurance mandates, such as for fertility treatments, which raise costs. Yet in a just-deserts twist, Massachusetts health planners are now reviewing ways to trim mandates because the state is footing more of the bill, even if they didn't care when imposing them on individuals and small business. A state-sponsored study shows that total spending on mandates was $1.32 billion in 2005, or 12% of premiums. The study is devastating despite its pro-mandate slant.

Not that such practical lessons have stopped liberals from joining the Massachusetts parade. They have to gussy up the state's model because the extravagant claim that led to its creation -- that health care will be less expensive if everyone is covered -- is being relentlessly discredited. It's the same claim they want to make when they try to pass a similar plan for the whole country in next year's Congress.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal
29600  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / India/Indian Ocean (and India-afpakia and India-China) on: July 28, 2008, 07:33:39 PM
About time India gets its own thread!

We kick it off with a piece from today's WSJ:

India's Counterterrorism Failings
July 29, 2008

In recent years few countries have changed their public image as dramatically as India. But though pictures of starving peasants and rutted roads have given way to those of svelte supermodels and bustling call centers, in at least one respect India remains more a basketcase than a potential great power. As Friday's bomb blasts in India's software capital, Bangalore, and Saturday's in the industrial city of Ahmedabad show, India is singularly ill-equipped to deal with the scourge of terrorism.

Too little, too late: Forensic personnel inspect the site of a bomb blast in Ahmedabad on Sunday, July 27, 2008.
The Bangalore and Ahmedabad bombings, which killed one and 49 people respectively and cumulatively wounded more than 200, are only the most recent in a spate of attacks. In the past two years terrorists have targeted the northern city of Jaipur, the high-tech hub Hyderabad, the temple town of Varanasi and India's financial capital, Mumbai.

Officials have pinned the most recent attacks on Indian Mujahedeen, a homegrown group linked to the Bangladesh-based Harkat-ul Jihad-al-Islami and the banned Students Islamic Movement of India. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh -- carved out of British India to create a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims -- give shelter and succor to terrorists. But the fact that the most recent attacks were carried out by a made-in-India group shows it's about time that India comes to terms with its own counterterrorism failings.

Among India's worst mistakes is that instead of uniting behind the minimal goal of providing security for all citizens, India's constantly bickering politicians have played football with counterterrorism policy. In 2004, one of the first acts in office of the ruling Congress-led coalition government -- at the time supported by Communist allies -- was to scrap a national terrorism law that allowed for enhanced witness protection and extended detention of suspects in terrorism cases. This had the twin effects of demoralizing law enforcement agencies and signaling to terrorists that the Indian state lacked fight. The paucity of arrests and convictions in the string of bombings that have followed have only strengthened this perception. For its part, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party has stalled the creation of a much-needed federal antiterrorism force.

The problem is that India's counterterrorism effort falls between two stools. As a democracy, it cannot adopt the heavy-handed but effective measures favored by, say, Russia or China. At the same time, India lacks the sophisticated intelligence and law enforcement capacities that allow European countries such as France, Spain and, of late, even Britain to safeguard individual rights and yet uncover terrorist plots before they are executed.

Yet although this may be an explanation, it's hardly an excuse given that other countries have surmounted their own counterterrorism hurdles. Even Indonesia, a Muslim-majority nation where public sympathy for terrorism in the name of Islam runs deeper than it does in India, has done an infinitely better job of protecting its citizens. Thanks largely to Detachment 88, a special police unit equipped and trained by Australia and the U.S., it has been nearly three years since the last major terrorist strike on Indonesian soil.

Ultimately, though, terrorism is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The larger question is whether India's Muslims will embrace modernity like so many of their Turkish, Tunisian and Indonesian co-religionists, or reject it like increasing numbers of their militant cousins in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On this front too India's leaders have failed to get to the heart of the matter. The country tends to exercise a hands-off approach to its 140-million-strong Muslim community. Unlike in Europe or America, Muslims in India are governed by Shariah law in matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. This parallel legal system slows integration into the national mainstream and perpetuates backward practices such as polygamy and the neglect of education for girls. The result has been a disaffected minority, largely lacking the skills to compete in a modern economy and susceptible to calls for violence in the name of faith.

If India is to live up to its potential -- and indeed to its hype -- it must embrace both the short-term goal of upgrading its counterterrorism capability and the long-term goal of modernizing and mainstreaming its Muslims.

India's Muslims have enriched national life in countless ways. The vast majority, like people of any faith, are nonviolent. But contrary to popular belief, Indian Muslims have not been immune to the rising global tide of orthodox practice and militant politics. Indian doctors played a role in last year's failed attacks in London and Glasgow. At home, Muslim groups have assaulted critics such as the exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen. A survey by the distinguished Pakistani scholar Akbar Ahmed revealed that most educated Indian Muslims view as role models the late Islamist ideologue Abul Ala Maududi, the 19th century Muslim supremacist Sayyed Ahmad Khan, and an influential Bombay-based cleric named Zakir Naik, who eulogizes Osama bin Laden and calls for Shariah for all Indians.

India's Muslims hardly have a monopoly on either violence or obscurantism. Nonetheless the challenges they face are particularly acute. Will the community be forward-looking, eager to seize new economic opportunities, and at peace with a rapidly changing world? Or will it forsake the future for an idealized past, foster a culture of grievance that condones violence, and view globalization as a mortal threat? Depending on the answer, the Bangalore and Ahmedabad bombings are either a passing event or a dark harbinger of things to come.

Mr. Dhume is a fellow at the Asia Society in Washington D.C., and the author of "My Friend the Fanatic: Travels with an Indonesian Islamist" (Text Publishing, 2008).
Pages: 1 ... 590 591 [592] 593 594 ... 736
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!