There was an error in this gadget
0
When al Qaeda is defeated, can we have our liberties back?
By: Gene Healy | Examiner Columnist Follow Him @genehealy | 07/18/11 8:05 PM
Last week brought the unsurprising news that the Transportation Security Administration had terrorized yet another 6-year-old with a humiliating pat-down. Dog bites man, federal agent gropes child -- we're getting all too accustomed to this sort of thing in post-9/11 America.
Meanwhile, even the administration's top terror warriors are starting to admit that al Qaeda is a spent force. Two weeks ago, in his first public comments after moving from Langley to the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta noted that al Qaeda's defeat was "within reach."
When we kill or round up some 10 to 20 remaining senior operatives, Panetta said, we'll "really cripple al Qaeda as a threat to this country." In fact, the al Qaeda threat has looked anything but robust for some time now.
Last summer, al Qaeda's online journal Inspire, a sort of Soldier of Fortune magazine for wannabe jihadis, suggested using "a tractor or farm vehicle in an attack outfitted with blades or swords as a fearsome killing machine" -- perfect for "mowing down the enemies of Allah."
Among the treasure trove of materials seized from the Abbottabad compound was a missive from Osama bin Laden himself, condemning that scheme as "indiscriminate slaughter" -- an odd objection, coming from a mass murderer.
Yet somehow, the terrorist mastermind missed the more obvious objection: The plan is utterly screwball -- an embarrassment -- the dumbest scheme since ... well, since al Qaeda operative Iyman Faris' 2002 plan to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. As I've said before, sometimes you get the sense that these guys aren't the sharpest scimitars in the shed.
The global intelligence firm Stratfor put it more politely in a recent analysis: "The jihadists seem to be having a problem ... finding people who can master the terrorist tradecraft" and travel freely to the West.
They've been reduced to urging potential sympathizers who already live here to stock up at gun shows and shoot some infidels at the mall. But, as Stratfor observes, "the very call to leaderless resistance is an admission of defeat."
We may be winning, but don't dare imagine that "victory" will take the form of a restoration of lost liberties. That's "defeatist" thinking. I suppose that's why, shortly after SEAL Team 6 killed bin Laden, Congress and the president's autopen got together to reauthorize the Patriot Act. The threat recedes, but the surveillance state must live on.
And there can be no talk of beating porno-scanners into plowshares. The Department of Homeland Security recently warned that terrorists might "surgically implant explosive devices" in their bodies.
Slate.com reports that several firms are already hard at work on scanners that can look inside our bodies instead of just inside our clothes. Like all other bureaucracies, the bureaucracy of fear has a merciless logic of its own. It exists to exist, generating new invasions of privacy -- and new federal contracts -- however speculative the threats.
Ten days after the Sept. 11 attacks, in a speech to a joint session of Congress, President George W. Bush laid out his vision of al Qaeda's demise: heirs to the "murderous ideologies of the 20th century," they'd end up "in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."
Nearly a decade later, U.S. Navy SEALs pitched the head murderer's body off the side of the USS Carl Vinson into the North Arabian Sea -- a watery grave that's a pretty close approximation of Bush's imagery.
Wired magazine defense analyst Spencer Ackerman asks the right question: "Why does the U.S. still need to devote such overwhelming resources worldwide against a force that's seeing history pass it by?"
As the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks approaches, isn't it time we started thinking about a "peace dividend"?
Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of "The Cult of the Presidency."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/07/when-al-qaeda-defeated-can-we-have-our-liberties-back#ixzz1ShOww2Ux
July 20, 2011
Wealthy GOP donors "couldn't live with Sarah Palin," voted for Obama instead
And now they're feeling betrayed.
It's in this must-read post from Jim Geraghty. He quotes Gov. Chris Christie's comments to a gathering of big election donors on why he will not be running for president, which is a worthwhile read in itself.
But even more interesting is what Geraghty quotes from Politico's Mike Allen's newsletter (apparently not available online). Allen relays what he heard from the "moderate Republican" millionaire-billionaire donors at the meeting:
- Several of them said: I'm Republican but I voted for President Obama, because I couldn't live with Sarah Palin. Many said they were severely disappointed in the president. The biggest complaint was what several called "class warfare." They said they didn't understand what they had done to deserve that: If you want to have a conversation about taxation, have a conversation. But a president shouldn't attack his constituents – he's not the president of some people, he's president of all the people. Someone mentioned Huey Long populism.
Jim Geraghty goes easier on them but still holds them accountable for their very grievous misjudgment:
- Dear wealthy moderate Republicans: I mean no disrespect, as you've made more money than I'll probably ever earn and you're quite accomplished in your fields. And like you, I find Chris Christie to be a bold and inspiring leader, who makes a very intriguing option at the national level someday.
- But not all of us are shocked and stunned about Obama's class warfare and his demonization of you and the sense that he doesn't think of himself as your president too. Some of us spent two years telling anyone who would listen that he was a lot more liberal than his bland, blank-slate rhetoric suggested. And was all of this worth it because you "couldn't live" with Sarah Palin? Really? The prospect of having her living at the Naval Observatory was so epically offensive to your sensibilities that you really thought this, and all of the economic joy we've endured for the past thirty months, was the better option?
- By any chance, have you done any reexamination of all of that thinking in the past two and a half years?
- But not all of us are shocked and stunned about Obama's class warfare and his demonization of you and the sense that he doesn't think of himself as your president too. Some of us spent two years telling anyone who would listen that he was a lot more liberal than his bland, blank-slate rhetoric suggested. And was all of this worth it because you "couldn't live" with Sarah Palin? Really? The prospect of having her living at the Naval Observatory was so epically offensive to your sensibilities that you really thought this, and all of the economic joy we've endured for the past thirty months, was the better option?
Instead of whining and complaining they should volunteer a few hours apiece for some public shaming and promise not to screw it up so horribly next time.
http://www.punditandpundette.com/2011/07/wealthy-gop-donors-couldnt-live-with.html
How Even Scholars Misread 90 Years Of Tax-Cut History
By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 07/19/2011 06:49 PM ET
The arguments of the proponents and opponents of tax-rate reductions have been arguments about two fundamentally different things:
(1) The distribution of existing incomes and existing tax liabilities.
(2) Incentives to increase incomes by reducing tax rates, so as to get individuals and institutions to take their money out of tax shelters and invest it in the economy.
Proponents and opponents of tax-rate reductions not only had different arguments, they were arguments about very different things, and the two arguments largely went past each other untouched.
Empirical evidence on what happened to the economy in the wake of those tax cuts in four different administrations over a span of more than 80 years has also been largely ignored by those opposed to what they call "tax cuts for the rich."
Confusion between reducing tax rates on individuals and reducing tax revenues received by the government has run through much of these discussions over these years.
Famed historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., for example, said that although Andrew Mellon, secretary of the treasury from 1921 to 1932, advocated balancing the budget and paying off the national debt, he "inconsistently" sought "reduction in tax rates."
Nor was Schlesinger the only highly regarded historian to perpetuate economic confusion between tax rates and tax revenues. Today, widely used textbooks by various well-known historians have continued to misstate what was advocated in the 1920s and what the actual consequences were.
According to the textbook "These United States" by Irwin Unger, Mellon, "a rich Pittsburgh industrialist," persuaded Congress to "reduce income tax rates at the upper-income levels while leaving those at the bottom untouched."
Thus "Mellon won further victories for his drive to shift more of the tax burden from the high-income earners to the middle and wage-earning classes."
But hard data show that, in fact, both the amount and the proportion of taxes paid by those whose net income was no higher than $25,000 went down between 1921 and 1929, while both the amount and the proportion of taxes paid by those whose net incomes were between $50,000 and $100,000 went up and the amount and proportion of taxes paid by those whose net incomes were over $100,000 went up even more sharply.
Another widely used textbook, co-authorized by a number of distinguished historians, two of whom won Pulitzer Prizes, said of Mellon:
"It was better, he argued, to place the burden of taxes on lower-income groups" and that a "share of tax-free profits of the rich, Mellon reassured the country, would ultimately trickle down to the middle- and lower-income groups in the form of wages and salaries."
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578785/201107191849/How-Even-Scholars-Misread-90-Years-Of-Tax-Cut-History.htm
 | The Lastest Egg on the Face Award Goes To... |
Contessa Brewer
MSNBC Anchor Mockingly Asks GOP Congressman If He Has 'Degree In Economics'… Turns Out He Does!
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:57pm by 
Christopher Santarelli
When speaking about President Obama's spending and stimulus decisions in the first year of his Presidency, the heated interview climaxed with this back and forth:
watch?v=5mtQyEd-zS4&feature=player_embedded
Brewer: We were looking at going–reverting a depression at that point. Everyone, the Fed Chairman–
Rep. Brooks: Well I disagree we were going into a depression, but go ahead.
Brewer: Do you have a degree in economics?
Rep. Brooks: Yes ma'am I do, highest honors.
Rep. Brooks official bio says that the Congressman graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics. After Duke, Rep. Brooks graduated from the University of Alabama Law School in 1978.
Brewer's question seems especially interesting considering that economics is a Top 10 major for undergrads. Brewer, who does not have a degree in economics, quickly realized her gaffe and responded on Facebook after the interview:
I just love it when liberals stick their foot in their mouths on national TV, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Tom in NC
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 | Criminal Background Checks Unfair to Criminals?lowtechgrannie | July 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm | Tags: background checks, criminals, San Franciso | Categories: Crazy Politicians, crime, Idiot Law Makers, Idiots In General | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8dZ |
Yeesh! Can you believe this? State and municipal governments are releasing prisoners all across the nation. Are they concerned about public safety? Heck no! Their concern is for the poor criminal who will come out of incarceration to face the humiliating discrimination of a background check.
What I want to know is, who is liable when the released criminal commits another crime, either work-related or in a rented residence? Why should an employer or landlord have to assume liaibility for the the " high risk offender" the state and/or municipality released unbeknownst to the community at large? ~LTG
San Francisco may bar employers, landlords from asking about arrests, convictions
A proposal would defer questions about criminal history until the applicant's qualifications are considered.
By Lee Romney, Los Angeles TimesJuly 20, 2011, 10:02 a.m.
Reporting from San Francisco—
City officials are considering a law that would prohibit private employers, landlords and city contractors from inquiring about an individual's arrest or conviction history before determining whether that person is qualified for a job or housing.
If the law is approved, San Francisco would join Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts and Philadelphia in protecting most people with criminal records from blanket discrimination in the private job market. A handful of jurisdictions in Illinois and Wisconsin impose similar restrictions on landlords, and Seattle is now weighing a proposal comparable to San Francisco's that does both. Read full article
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Who wants to hire a muzzie babysitter?
 | PAKISTAN: More than 1200 newborn baby girls killed and dumped in the garbage last year |
But those are only the corpses found. Hundreds more never are. At a morgue in Pakistan's largest city, five linen pouches, each the size of a loaf of bread, line the shelf of a walk-in freezer. Wrapped inside each small sack is the corpse of an infant. The babies are victims of what one relief [...]
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The asslifters will be braying in the streets. Again.
| | Rep. Peter King (R-NY) set to hold 3rd hearings on radicalization of muslims in Americabarenakedislam | July 20, 2011 at 5:05 PM | Categories: EnemyWithin-American, Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-x75 |
King says the hearings are intended to highlight the growing threat of terror attacks at home and abroad, while Democrats and civil rights groups have called them a Joe McCarthy-type 'witch hunt' against a religious fascist minority. FOX NEWSThe hearing, to be held July 27, will be the third of its kind and will examine [...]
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 | Spenditol™doctorbulldog | 20 July, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Categories: humor, Obama Sucks, politics | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-7g0 |
Obviously, Obama and his "psychophants" are hooked on Spenditol™:
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Yep...Karl Rove gave it to her! Love it! Right wingers fighting each
other!!!!!!!!!! Whaooo!
Wheeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
other!!!!!!!!!! Whaooo!
Wheeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Welfare kings!!!!!!!! Yep....just like the bankers....whew...socialism
for the rich! Conservatives want a welfare state for rich aryans!!!!
Dig the contradition!!!!!!!! Doncha you just love it?
Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for the rich! Conservatives want a welfare state for rich aryans!!!!
Dig the contradition!!!!!!!! Doncha you just love it?
Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 | Obama 2012 Campaign SignsEowyn | July 20, 2011 at 5:19 am | Categories: 2012 Election, Children, Crazy Politicians, Humor, Idiot U.S. Presidents, Liberals, Military, United States, US Presidents | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8dj |
Vote for your favorite!
#1:
#2:
Transforming America, one child at a time!
#3:
Bravely leading the troops to a 6th war!
#4:
Sucking the life out of America!
#5:
Help him finish his job. Obama 2012!
~Eowyn
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-----
This is Elliot, a British Bulldog, and this is an "un-posed" picture (trust me, you couldn't actually make Elliot do anything) of said pooch trying to beat the TEXAS heat after his owners emptied their cooler in the driveway in Sachse , TEXAS .
One picture is worth a thousand words......
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
From: GOProud <info@goproud.org>
Date: July 7, 2011 11:29:37 AM EDT
Subject: Please join us in DC on July 22
Please join us at a reception honoring
GOProud Advisory Council MemberMargaret Hoover
to celebrate the publication of her book
American Individualism - How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party
Friday, July 22
6 pm - 8 pmHotel Monaco - 700 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004
Please RSVP by July 20 to info@goproud.org
This email was sent to ipwnedbush@gmail.com. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. View this email on the web here. You can also forward to a friend.
Unsubscribe
Powered by Mad Mimi®
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
From: colony14@gmail.com
In San Francisco there are thousands of rental units vacant, even though there are thousands of potential tenants who want to lease them. Why? The idiots in the local government passed rent control laws that limit the percentage by which landlords can raise rent. If you own an apartment building, why lease a unit to a person who will trash it, not pay enough in rent to cover expenses, and then fight eviction for years with taxpayer-paid city attorneys?
New York City has had similar problems because of rent control. If an old lady has been in an apartment for decades, rent control laws prevent the landlord from raising her rent to market levels. The landlords compensate by jacking up the rent of units when they become vacant. You end up with someone paying $2,000 per month in rent living next door to an old lady paying $800 per month, rather than each paying $1,400. Neighbors end up hating neighbors.
Meanwhile, there is an apartment shortage because no one is stupid enough to invest in new buildings. Landlords leave units vacant rather than face problems. It is virtually impossible to evict a tenant, even if he goes months without paying rent. landlords walk away from their buildings, letting them fall into disrepair.
The leftist laws intended to "protect" the tenants from the "evil landlords" end up harming almost everyone in the long run. And you have people like Charlie Rangel keeping an apartment he no longer lives in vacant solely because it is rent controlled, so if he ever needs it he can move back in at a low monthly amount.
My advice to landlords is to rent only to gays. After they move out it will be better decorated than when they moved in!
BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@gmail.com> wrote:
Judy:
That is an example of why I would not ever accept Section 8 tenants. I do realize that one could occasionally miss the opportunity to rent to a very good tenant and have regular "gummint" checks coming in, the the odds are against it. Even with good tenants, one has to contend with the Section 8 inspectors who are often arrogant and authoritarian and always very, very picky. I once had an inspector fail the entire unit because there was not a clear glass cover over one of the outside lights by the front stoop. (Tenants take them off to change bulbs and then either break them or lose them.) I searched for a replacement, going to six different supply houses and big box stores with no success. I finally told the inspector I could not find the cover and the he would have to take it or leave it. He caved finally. These inspectors are like codes enforcement inspectors. They are determined to find something to put on a report in order to justify their existence. It is sometimes a good tactic to leave some glaring problem un-repaired until after the inspection so that they will note it. There are annual inspections, and a unit that passed with no discrepancies at all will usually have a long list of repairs at the first annual inspection. I told tenants that they had to pay for anything damaged that I had to repair since no one was there but them to do the damage. How many people do you know who break toilet seats? Have screens go missing from storm windows? Have the batteries disappear from smoke detectors?
I once had an inspection at one of the units I managed. My maintenance man was there on his knees changing the front door lock (because the former tenant had failed to return all keys). The inspector walked through, scribbled on his clipboard and started to leave without a word. I asked what about any discrepancies and he said it was not ready for inspection because the front door lock was not installed.
==================================================================<judyfuller007@aol.com> wrote:
On another note with the Section 8 housing, my ex owns a 2 family section 8 house and when they did an inspection, he was informed that the fan over the stove was missing. How could that happen? How could these buildings be in such terrible repair? Well I'll fill you in. It's the residents who do it. This house was fully carpeted when it was new 9 years ago. He gave them a vacuum cleaner because poor people don't usually have one. It was sold on the street. so the carpeting is long gone and he had to replace it with linoleum. Then one tenant heated up the oven, left the oven door open, put a can of roach spray on the hot oven door and blew out the front window. It's difficult to keep up with thse people. And when they move out, they take the pipes out of the wall.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
the trick is to make them believe that we need their oil until their
oil supplies are depleted
oil supplies are depleted
On Jul 20, 1:45 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.parkwayreststop.com/archives/10006598
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Got this from Jim Miller on Politics - sounds like what Zero is trying
to do to me. How soon can we get rid of this idiot and get a decent
president and when will those who voted for this creep ever admit they
screwed up:
to do to me. How soon can we get rid of this idiot and get a decent
president and when will those who voted for this creep ever admit they
screwed up:
Pseudo-Random Thoughts
[Back to Main Politics Page]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/index.html>
*Kudos To Cynthia Tucker: *For admitting error, and for coming out
against race-based districting
<http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2011/06/01/voting-rights-act-i-was-wrong-about-racial-gerrymandering/>.
I won't procrastinate. I'll get the most difficult part of this
column over right now: I was wrong. I was shortsighted, naïve and
narrow-minded to endorse the concept of drawing Congressional
districts to take racial demographics into account.
. . .
Unfortunately — like so many measures designed to provide redress
for historic wrongs — those racially gerrymandered districts also
come with a significant downside: They discourage moderation.
Politicians seeking office in majority-black or -brown districts
found that they could indulge in crude racial gamesmanship and
left-wing histrionics.
I've opposed this kind of districting for years, though not as
vigorously as I should have, because I knew that it helped my party,
net. But I have always thought that it was wrong, and that it had many
bad side effects.
By way of Jay Nordlinger
<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272213/obama-and-reagan-c-jay-nordlinger>.
(There is talk here in Washington state of creating a
"majority-minority" congressional district. We need one, some say, even
though we elected Norm Rice <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Rice>
mayor of our largest city, Ron Sims
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Sims> head of our largest county, and
Gary Locke <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Locke>, governor.
Perhaps those who support that district hope it would give us more
"crude racial gamesmanship and left-wing histrionics".)
- 9:03 AM, 20 July 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2011_3.html#jrm10093>
*Wikileaks Versus Hacky Leaks: *Bret Stephens says that they are
"largely the same story"
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303795304576453722472758028.html>.
In both cases, secret information, initially obtained by illegal
means, was disseminated publicly by news organizations that believed
the value of the information superseded the letter of the law, as
well as the personal interests of those whom it would most directly
affect. In both cases, fundamental questions about the lengths to
which a news organization should go in pursuit of a scoop have been
raised. In both cases, a dreadful human toll has been exacted: The
British parents of murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler, led to the
false hope that their child might be alive because some of her voice
mails were deleted after her abduction; Afghan citizens, fearful of
Taliban reprisals after being exposed by WikiLeaks as U.S. informants.
Both, in short, are despicable instances of journalistic
malpractice, for which some kind of price ought to be paid. So why
is one a scandal, replete with arrests, resignations and
parliamentary inquests, while the other is merely a controversy,
with Mr. Assange's name mooted in some quarters for a Nobel Peace
Prize?
Good question.
But you shouldn't expect anyone at the /New York Times/ or the
/Guardian/ to answer it.
- 7:36 AM, 20 July 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2011_3.html#jrm10092>
*Mt. Rainier Has A New Web Cam: *This one
<http://www.nps.gov/webcams-mora/muir.jpg> at Camp Muir
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Muir>.
Naturally, I've added a link to it, over on the right, with the rest of
the Rainier links.
So far, I haven't seen any spectacular views, and you won't either —
most days. The higher that you go on Mt. Rainier, the more likely you
will be in, or under, a cloud.)
(Years and years and years ago when I climbed the mountain, it was sunny
on the top, but we were under a cloud cap so that we could see down
slope, but not out from the mountain.)
- 1:07 PM, 19 July 2011
*But when you can see,* the view will be interesting and, very
occasionally, spectacular. This morning I can see the top of Mt. Adams
and most of Mt. St. Helens. (Adams is on the left, St. Helens on the
right.) On the rare clear day, you will be able to see Mt. Hood in
Oregon, and perhaps farther.
The camera does not update very often. They are probably using solar
power to run the system, since batteries would have to be brought in by
backpack, which is tiresome, or by helicopter, which is expensive. And
those running the park would not want a diesel generator at Muir, I
suspect.
- 7:54 AM, 20 July 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2011_3.html#jrm10091>
*Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard Is In Trouble* with her voters
<http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/labor-hits-record-poll-low/2229271.aspx>.
Over the past month, [opposition leader] Tony Abbott has opened an
11-point lead as preferred prime minister - the first time he has
been ahead of Ms Gillard. The government would be wiped out in a
huge landslide if an election were held now.
In results that will send waves of fear through the government,
approval for Ms Gillard's performance has tumbled another 3 points
to 34 per cent, while her disapproval rating has jumped 3 to 62 per
cent.
Why? Because, to put in terms most Americans will understand, she
believed Al Gore.
And because she didn't tell Australian voters the truth about her plans
before the election.
Gillard believes, like Gore, that we are facing a possible climate
catastrophe, and that it can be avoided only by reducing our production
of carbon dioxide. So she has proposed a complex "carbon tax" in an
effort to reduce Australia's contribution to the problem. (Incidentally,
many economists would favor something like her plan, because it would be
an /efficient/ way to reduce carbon dioxide.)
There are, however, two difficulties with her plan: First, though
Australia has a high per person CO2 production, it has a small
population (about 23 million), so this policy change would have almost
no effect on the world's climate.
Second, during last year's election campaign
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010>,
Gillard promised
<http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/is-it-possible-to-salvage-the-labor-wreck-julia-gillard-has-delivered-asks-andrew-bolt/story-e6frezz0-1226097883556>
not to introduce a carbon tax.
Everyone knows it. "There will be no carbon tax under a government I
lead," the Prime Minister said, just days before the last election.
This is Labor's original sin. As a result, Gillard lacks legitimacy,
and so does Labor.
More dangerously, even government itself seems to some to be suspect.
All this damage was recklessly inflicted by Labor, whose urgent job
now is to admit to it, apologise for it and fix it as best it can.
Since she stayed prime minister by the narrowest of margins
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/September2010_1.html#jrm9119>,
it is reasonable to conclude that she would have lost the election if
she had been honest about her plans.
Why wasn't she honest? Why did she propose this tax, after promising not
to? It is hard to say without knowing more about her than I do, but I
would guess that she thought she could pass it and have enough time to
placate voters before the next election.
And that — and here is where I think she may have been listening to too
much Al Gore — this is so important that she should take this step, in
spite of the political risks. Voters should be saved from this
catastrophe, she may think, in spite of themselves.
- 10:09 AM, 19 July 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2011_3.html#jrm10090>
*Obama's "Curious" Foreign Policy: *Jackson Diehl is puzzled
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-we-retreat-from-iraq-will-iran-take-over/2011/07/14/gIQA4ZscKI_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions>.
(Or says he is, for the sake of an effective lead paragraph.)
One of the most curious features of the Obama administration's
foreign policy is the contrast between the silky,
non-confrontational public diplomacy it employs when dealing with
dictatorships and adversaries, such as Russia, China and Venezuela —
and the brusqueness with which it often addresses U.S. clients and
allies.
Others are less puzzled
<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272087/road-obama-runs-through-libya-stanley-kurtz>.
For the unhappy details of the foreign-policy outlook Obama is
advancing, consult Feith-Cropsey yourself. There you will find
material, not only from the writings of Samantha Power, but from
other key Obama aides like Anne-Marie Slaughter and Harold Koh.
Feith and Cropsey summarize by claiming that Obama's goals amount to
a fundamental break with seven decades of American foreign policy,
Republican and Democrat, realist and idealist. That divide, after
all, is what the many presidential apologies for our past policies
are meant to signal. In sum, say Feith and Cropsey, Obama "cares
more about restraining America than about accomplishing any
particular result in Libya. . . . The critics who accuse Obama of
being adrift in foreign policy are mistaken. He has clear ideas of
where he wants to go. The problem for him is that, if his strategy
is set forth plainly, most Americans will not want to follow him."
If Obama "cares more about restraining America" than traditional foreign
policy goals, we have an explanation for the language that puzzles
Diehl, and much else about Obama's foreign policy, including his odd
halfway policy toward Libya.
That goal, restraining America, has been popular on the far left in this
country for decades. (And even more popular in Europe.)
But it has never been popular with the American people, who alternate
between reluctant engagement and isolationism. And so Obama is forced to
conceal his long-term foreign policy goals from us, and even to take
actions, from time to time, that conflict with those goals.
- 8:02 AM, 19 July 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2011_3.html#jrm10089>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.parkwayreststop.com/archives/10006598
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/008713.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
oh, so you are steven stinky?
-- On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:21 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
I ate alligator at a Jewish wedding and had sex with a llama.
I mention this only because I know no one will respond, since this is
so far from a discussion board, my gay carved out whale boat, just had
sex with species. and Al Franken fucked my neighbor's cat.
Oh, and gold just topped $1600.00 an ounce. I bought at 500.
Cuz I'm a conservative fat cat, and you liberal dooshbags think a
washing machine is an investment.
L-fucking-O-fucking-L!
Now lets pretend...
On Jul 20, 12:56 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=85907&utm_source=feedburner&utm_mediu...
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
I ate alligator at a Jewish wedding and had sex with a llama.
I mention this only because I know no one will respond, since this is
so far from a discussion board, my gay carved out whale boat, just had
sex with species. and Al Franken fucked my neighbor's cat.
Oh, and gold just topped $1600.00 an ounce. I bought at 500.
Cuz I'm a conservative fat cat, and you liberal dooshbags think a
washing machine is an investment.
L-fucking-O-fucking-L!
Now lets pretend...
On Jul 20, 12:56 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=85907&utm_source=feedburner&utm_mediu...
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Its here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion
or
Definition of DISCUSSION
1: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing
When there's THREE pages of "Messages 1 of 1", it aint workin'!
DISCUSSION!!!!
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
| |||||||
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
