! * POLITICS * !'s topics - tribe.net

Texas military base shooting leaves 7 dead

2009-11-08T02:56:21Z

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091105/world/us_shooting_crime_military

SAN ANTONIO (AFP) - Armed gunmen Thursday killed seven people and wounded up to 30 others in a deadly shooting spree at Fort Hood military base in Texas, US officials said.

One gunman was in custody after the rampage as security forces hunted for at least one more shooter on the loose, Sergeant Tim Volkert, a spokesman for the Fort Hood base, told AFP, confirming that seven people had been shot dead.

Both gunmen were wearing military uniform, but it was not immediately clear if they were soldiers or in disguise, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said.

It was too early to determine a motive for the attack on the biggest US military base in the world in Killeen, in central Texas, a spokesman for Homeland Security added.

President Barack Obama had been informed of the shooting and was to give a statement, White House officials said, as staff in the situation room monitored the unfolding drama.

"Department of Emergency Services confirmed at approximately 1:30 pm November 5 that more than one shooter fired shots into the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center and Hoowze Theater on Fort Hood," a statement from the base said.

"Emergency personnel have responded to the scene and evacuated several wounded."

The shooting erupted first in the theater where a graduation ceremony for locals schools was being held, a Pentagon official said.

Gunfire then broke out in the soldier processing center at the base which has up to 29,000 troops and civilians most of whom have completed extensive tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Base spokesman Sergeant Major Jamie Poston told CNN television the military was "not sure right now" what had happened.

"At this point we're looking for the other shooter.... Emergency services responded. Have evacuated a number of wounded," he added.

"We are on the lookout for the second shooter," Poston said.

A Killeen police department spokeswoman warned there were still suspects at large. "All the suspects are not in custody at this time," she told AFP. "I know they have active shooters out there."

MSNBC reported speculation of a third gunman. One of the shooters at large was believed to have a high-powered sniper rifle, and was holed up in a building surrounded by SWAT teams, MSNBC said.

Senator Hutchison said that up to 30 people had been wounded and told CNN that two of the gunmen were wearing military uniform, but it remained unclear whether they were soldiers.

"I am shocked and saddened by today?s outburst of violence at Fort Hood that has cost seven of our brave service members their lives and has gravely injured others. My heart goes out to their loved ones," she added in a statement.

Local congressman John Carter said the gunfire had erupted ahead of a graduation ceremony when one of his aides was warned of gunfire.

"A soldier came running up to him saying, "sir, don't go over there. They are -- somebody is shooting over there," Carter told MSNBC.

"When the soldier ran by him, he saw the soldier didn't know it, but he was wounded. So, he went into the building and they stopped him, because he had been shot.

Fort Hood has been working to rehabilitate many soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, Carter added.

A message on Fort Hood's website -- the headquarters of the Army 3rd Corps, the 4th Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division -- said it was closed due to an emergency. All those units have seen extensive duty in Iraq.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 29 replies

Fort Hood Shootings...Moonbat Alert

2009-11-08T02:44:33Z

well, they didn't wait long. Dan you've got company in the Loony Dept.

http://www.infowars.com/fort-hood-shooter-information-not-adding-up/

excerpt

What happened Thursday November 5, 2009 was a tragedy. Gunman Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly snapped and went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas, killing at least 12 and injuring 31 others. The information coming in has been conflicting and at times wildly contradictory. Some of this is the result of the newness of the tragedy. But through nonstop coverege the media has begun to flesh out a good deal of the story, and yet a careful examination of just some of the more widely stated information shows there are troubling and conflicting problems with the MSM and government’s version of what happened.
featured stories Fort Hood Shooter Information Not Adding Up

This is starting to have the earmarks and anatomy of a disinformation psy ops story.

For instance, the media reported that Hasan was promoted to Major in May of this year. And yet, stories coming from what is passing as his family, the FBI and co-workers state that Hasan had wanted out of the military given the government’s stand on Afghanistan and Muslims. Indeed, his Aunt “Noel Hasan” (who is interestingly enough identified herself as a Bank President) and his cousin both gave statements to the media which provided that Hasan wanted out of the military and had been harassed since 9-11 about his Muslim faith. Co-workers and the authorities have also stated that Hasan had an Internet presence and a Facebook account, and the FBI has him under survailance for the past 6 months for radical anti-American and pro-Muslim writings on his online accounts.

Now, why on earth would the military promote a man who was unhappy, had objected to being in the military, had not wanted to deploy to anywhere outside of the U.S., and who had allegedly made himself a security threat with online radical comments? The answer is they would never promote such an individual, and someone who badly wants out of the military (to the point of offering to pay back medical school costs to the U.S. military, according to Hasan’s Banker aunt). Not only that, if Hasan was truly radical and wanted out he would have never put in for a promotion to Major. But the fact remains he was promoted to Major this year. Try to reconcile those conflicting testimonies and facts.

or is anti-depressants to blame???

http://www.infowars.com/was-fort-hood-killer-on-psychotropic-drugs/

excerpt

Despite the fact that Fort Hood gunman Nidal Malik Hasan was a psychiatrist, the media has failed to even raise the question of whether he was taking psychotropic drugs before he gunned down over a dozen of his colleagues during yesterday’s tragic rampage, a hefty indictment of how the establishment rushes to blame politics, religion, gun rights, or any other factor for mass shootings in order to hide the direct link between such massacres and the use of anti-depressant drugs.

It has been confirmed that Hasan was an Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood. Psychiatrists have a history of “self-medication” because of the easy access they have to psychotropic drugs.

In almost every major mass shooting over the past two decades, since anti-depressant drugs became popular, the killer has been on SSRI’s – serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

The establishment media, allied closely as it is with the pharmaceutical industry, uniformly fails to stress this common factor, preferring instead to blame shootings on gun rights or, as in the case of Hasan, political motives.

However, any fair study of mass shootings cannot justifiably come to any other conclusion but the fact that SSRI’s play a central role in causing assassin’s to go berserk and engage in the kind of carnage that the average person struggles to comprehend.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

Shooter on Obama Transition Team

2009-11-08T02:37:38Z

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Shooter advised Obama transition
Fort Hood triggerman aided team on Homeland Security task force
Posted: November 06, 2009
9:21 am Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan NEW YORK – Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.

The Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled "Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009," in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant.

Hasan received his medical degree from the military's Uniformed Services University School in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.

Noting that the Obama administration transition was proceeding, the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute report described on the first page the role of the Presidential Transition Task Force as including "representatives from past Administrations, State government, Fortune 500 companies, academia, research institutions and non-governmental organizations with global reach."

While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity.

Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.

Kaniewski said Hasan attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, not as a member of the HSPI Presidential Task Force.

Kaniewski believed Hasan applied on the institute's website to attend the meeting and was accepted because of his professional credentials.

Kaniewski could not tell WND whether or not Hasan made comments from the audience that influenced the task force recommendations or not.

He further confirmed Hasan had attended several meetings held by the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University and that the institute is currently searching conference records to see if it is possible to determine what additional institute conferences he attended.

(Story continues below)

According to the "About Us" section of the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute, the group is a "nonpartisan 'think and do' tank whose mission is to build bridges between theory and practice to advance homeland security through an interdisciplinary approach."

The Homeland Security Policy Institute is led by Frank J Cilluffo, who formerly served in the White House as special assistant to President Bush for homeland security, and by Kaniewski, who formerly served in the White House as special assistant to President Bush for homeland security and senior director for response policy.

"Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor," Hasan said about America before he and possibly other Muslim soldiers at Fort Hood shot 43 fellow soldiers, killing 13.

"He said Muslims had a right to attack" the U.S., said Col. Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at the Texas post, where the devout Sunni Muslim refused deployment. "He said Muslims shouldn't be fighting Muslims," he added. "He was very clear on that."

According to an explosive new book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating within the ranks of the U.S. military – which is too blinded by political correctness to see the threat.

It's here now: Jihad in America! $4.95 today only! Save $15 on new DVD from makers of 'Obsession'

Quoting from a classified military briefing, "Muslim Mafia" reveals that this Fifth Column has penetrated "every branch of the U.S. military." The Islamist enemy has even infiltrated the al-Qaida detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Shortly after this story was posted, the Huffington Post ran a piece claiming WND was attempting to "smear" President Obama by naming him "as the man who guided Nidal Malik Hasan to his murderous rampage at Ft. Hood yesterday."

However, Hasan is being reported as a participant in the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute's Presidential Transition Task Force, not as a member, noting the group was a university think-tank, not part of the Obama administration official transition team.

Further, the institute's deputy director is quoted saying he is unable to say if Hasan made any input to the group's final recommendations.

Other participants in the task force included many members of congressional staff who work with both the House and Senate homeland security committees, as well as staff from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice.

Special offer:

Get "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," autographed, from WND's Superstore.

Related stories:

Military jihadists fill 'every branch'

Soldier heard 'Allahu Akbar' before slaughter

Shop owner: Hasan didn't want to fight Muslims

Israel, Palestinian Authority probing Texas shooter

Report: Shooter pushed Islam on patients

Previous story:

Shooter advised Obama transition

Jerome R. Corsi is a senior staff reporter for WND. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including his best-sellers "America For Sale," "The Obama Nation" and "The Late Great USA." Other books include "Showdown with Nuclear Iran," "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran."

E-mail to a Friend Printer-friendly version

EMAIL JEROME R. CORSI | GO TO JEROME R. CORSI ARCHIVE

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Commentary | WND Money | WND TV/Radio | Diversions | G2 Bulletin | About Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact Us |
Copyright 1997-2009
All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 36 replies

For Peaceful Purposes?

2009-11-08T02:35:27Z

Like we actually needed more evidence. Oh, and they just rejected the proposal to exchange their enriched uranium with Russia, for fuel rods.

Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead: report
Fri Nov 6, 2009 6:08am EST

LONDON (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting the Islamic Republic's scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian reported in its Friday edition.

The newspaper, citing what it describes as "previously unpublished documentation" from an International Atomic Energy Agency compiled dossier, said Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of a "two-point implosion" device.

The IAEA said in September it has no proof Iran has or once had a covert atomic bomb program.

The Vienna-based IAEA was not immediately available for comment on Thursday.

Iran's Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) were also unavailable for comment when contacted by Reuters.

The IAEA statement in September followed reports from the Associated Press quoting what it called a classified IAEA document saying agency experts agreed Iran now had the means to build atomic bombs and was heading toward developing a missile system able to carry a nuclear warhead.

The Guardian report said that even the existence of two-point implosion nuclear warhead technology is officially secret in both the United States and Britain.

The technology allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads, making it easier to put a warhead on a missile, the newspaper said.

Extracts of the dossier have been published before, but it was not known the dossier included documentation of such a sophisticated warhead, the newspaper said.

U.N. inspectors found "nothing to be worried about" in a first look at a previously secret uranium enrichment site in Iran last month, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in remarks released on Thursday.

ElBaradei also told the New York Times that he was examining possible compromises to unblock a draft nuclear cooperation deal between Iran and three major powers that has foundered over Iranian objections.

A nuclear site, which Iran revealed in September three years after diplomats said Western spies first detected it, added to fears of covert Iranian efforts to develop atom bombs. Iran says it is enriching uranium only for electricity.

(Reporting by David Sheppard; Editing by Louise Ireland)

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 5 replies

a former special forces officer convicted of plotting to overthrow the government of

2009-11-08T01:56:11Z

Freed Guinea coup plotter offers to testify

By Tom Burgis

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/24ea5570-c995-11de-a071-00144feabdc0.html

Published: November 4 2009 23:09 | Last updated: November 4 2009 23:09

Simon Mann, a former special forces officer convicted of plotting to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea, warned on his release from jail on Wednesday that he would be willing to testify against alleged co-conspirators should they be brought before a UK court.

Speaking after he was freed from the Black Beach prison in Malabo, the capital, Mr Mann said he was “very anxious” that Mark Thatcher, the son of Lady Thatcher, the former British prime minister, and Ely Calil, a UK-based Lebanese businessman, should face justice for the roles he alleges they played in the plot.
The Eton-educated soldier of fortune was pardoned “on humanitarian grounds” by the oil-rich west African nation’s authoritarian president on Monday after serving two years of a 34-year term.

“In prison I made statements to the UK police, whose investigations are continuing,” Mr Mann said. “I am very happy to restate those things in the UK in court as a witness to the prosecution.”

Mr Mann’s comments raise the possibility of fresh light being thrown on a murky tale.

He served four years in a Harare prison after his arrest in Zimbabwe in 2004, along with an aircraft load of alleged mercenaries said to be en route to Equatorial Guinea. Mr Mann was then extradited to face trial in Equatorial Guinea where he acknowledged that he had managed the coup attempt but said he was not the most senior conspirator.

In court Mr Mann said Mr Thatcher was “part of the management team” and that Mr Calil, who made his fortune as an oil trader in Nigeria, was “the boss”.

Both have denied any part in the conspiracy to overthrow Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who has ruled Equatorial Guinea since he seized power three decades ago.

However, in 2005 Mr Thatcher, who knew Mr Mann when both lived in South Africa, admitted unwittingly financing the coup attempt. He received a fine and a suspended four-year prison sentence in a plea bargain with South African authorities. Mr Thatcher now lives in Spain.

Mr Calil has admitted to financing Severo Motto, an exiled Guinean opposition leader who was allegedly due to take over as part of the coup plans but said he had no role in plotting the coup itself.

The UK’s Metropolitan police force said it was “investigating whether any offences have been disclosed in this country in relation to the trial in Equatorial Guinea”.

Four South African men were pardoned along with Mr Mann. They include Nick du Toit, who according to some accounts was Mr Mann’s chief of staff.

Mr Mann has maintained that South African intelligence was aware of the coup plan and did nothing to stop it, which he interpreted as a green light.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

Judge convicts 23 Americans in CIA case

2009-11-08T01:54:44Z

Italian judge convicts 23 Americans in CIA case
Terror suspect's kidnapping case is first in world to tackle U.S. practice of rendition.

By Rachel Donadio
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Thursday, November 05, 2009

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/2009/11/05/1105cia.html

MILAN — In a landmark ruling, an Italian judge Wednesday convicted a CIA station chief and 22 other Americans, almost all Central Intelligence Agency operatives, of kidnapping a Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003.

The case was a symbolic victory for Italian prosecutors, who won the first convictions anywhere in the world involving the U.S. practice of rendition, in which terrorism suspects are captured in one country and taken for questioning in another, often one more open to coercive interrogations. The fact that Italy would actually convict intelligence agents of an allied country was seen as a bold move that could set a precedent in other cases.

The Americans — who were tried in absentia and are considered fugitives — now cannot travel to Europe without risking arrest as long as the verdicts stand.

Still, the convictions might have little other practical effect. They don't seem to change the close relations between the United States and Italy. Nor did they reveal whether the government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had approved the kidnapping. And it seemed highly unlikely that anyone, Italian or American, would spend any time in prison.

Judge Oscar Magi handed an eight-year sentence to Robert Seldon Lady, a former CIA base chief in Milan, and five-year sentences to the 22 other Americans, including an Air Force colonel and 21 CIA operatives.

Through their court-appointed lawyers, they all pleaded not guilty.

Three of the other high-ranking Americans charged were given diplomatic immunity, including Jeffrey Castelli, a former CIA station chief in Rome. Citing state secrecy, the judge also didn't convict five high-ranking Italians charged in the abduction.

Armando Spataro, the counterterrorism prosecutor who brought the case, said he was considering asking the Italian government for an international arrest warrant for the fugitive Americans.

Spataro said he was pleased with what he called "very courageous" verdicts. He said it was a victory that, despite U.S. and Italian government opposition, "we brought the trial to an end, and the facts were shown to be what they were."

U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the United States was disappointed by the verdicts. He said that because the convictions were likely to be appealed, he couldn't comment on the specifics of the case.

Italian prosecutors had charged the Americans and seven members of the Italian military intelligence agency in the abduction of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, on Feb. 17, 2003. Prosecutors said he was snatched in broad daylight, flown from an American air base in Italy to a base in Germany and then on to Egypt, where he asserts that he was tortured. He has since been released but wasn't permitted to leave Egypt to attend the trial.

The rendition team left a sloppy trail of cell phone calls, credit card charges and photo identification documents that enabled Italian police to assemble a meticulously detailed portrait of the crime.

One of those convicted, former Milan consular official Sabrina De Sousa, accused Congress of turning a blind eye to the entire matter.

"No one has investigated the fact that the U.S. government allegedly conducted a rendition of an individual who now walks free and the operation of which was so bungled," she said, speaking through her lawyer Mark Zaid.

Zaid said: "The Italian conviction merely confirms the U.S. government's betrayal of our diplomatic and military representatives overseas."

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano would only say that "the CIA has not commented on any of the allegations surrounding Abu Omar."

In June, Italian newspaper Il Giornale published an interview that it said it had conducted via Skype with Lady, the former CIA chief in Milan, whose whereabouts are unknown. He was quoted as saying of the abduction: "Of course it was an illegal operation. But that's our job. We're at war against terrorism."

Additional material from The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

McChrystal's Explanation For Pat Tillman Cover-up

2009-11-08T01:53:02Z

Jon Krakauer: McChrystal's Explanation For Pat Tillman Cover-up Is "Preposterous"

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/jon-krakauer-mcchrystals_n_341545.html

First Posted: 11- 1-09 03:44 PM | Updated: 11- 1-09 10:46 PM

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/jon-krakauer-mcchrystals_n_341545.html

Little attention has been paid to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's back-story and his rise to the height of military command of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Before becoming the voice of gravity and a champion of higher troop levels in the eight-year long war, McChrystal's resume was sullied by a controversy in that same theater: the misclassified death of Pat Tillman.

McChrystal was the head of Special Operations command in Afghanistan during Army Ranger (and former football star) Pat Tillman's death. McChrystal was the one who approved paperwork awarding Tillman a Silver Star despite knowing (or at least suspecting) that he had died in fratricide and not, as originally determined, enemy fire.

This was once a big embarrassment for the army and, to a lesser extent, McChrystal himself (though he has copped to making an innocent mistake). But when the general was elevated to top spot in Afghanistan this past spring, relatively few publications revisited the affair.

That may change. On Sunday, journalist Jon Krakauer joined the Meet the Press panel to discuss his new book on Tillman's death called Where Men Win Glory. Krakauer offered a harsh assessment of McChrystal's conduct during that period and even stressed that the General's explanations upon reflection were "preposterous" and "unbelievable."

From the transcript:

MR. KRAKAUER: After Tillman died, the most important thing to know is that within--instantly, within 24 hours certainly, everybody on the ground, everyone intimately involved knew it was friendly fire. There's never any doubt it was friendly fire. McChrystal was told within 24 hours it was friendly fire. Also, immediately they started this paperwork to give Tillman a Silver Star. And the Silver Star ended up being at the center of the cover-up. So McChrystal--Tillman faced this devastating fire from his own guys, and he tried to protect a young private by exposing himself to this, this fire. That's why he was killed and the private wasn't. Without friendly fire there's no valor, there's no Silver Star. There was no enemy fire, yet McChrystal authored, he closely supervised over a number of days this fraudulent medal recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.

GREGORY: And that's the important piece of it. And, and he actually testified earlier this year before the Senate, and this is what he said about it.

(Videotape, June 2, 2009)

LT. GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Now, what happens, in retrospect, is--and I would do this differently if I had the chance again--in retrospect they look contradictory, because we sent a Silver Star that was not well-written. And although I went through the process, I will tell you now I didn't review the citation well enough to capture--or I didn't catch that if you read it you could imply that it was not friendly fire.

(End videotape)

GREGORY: Even those who were critical of him and the Army say they don't think he willfully deceived anyone.

MR. KRAKAUER: That's correct. He, he just said now he didn't read this hugely important document about the most famous soldier in the military. He didn't read it carefully enough to notice that it talked about enemy fire instead of friendly fire? That's preposterous. That, that's not believable.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/jon-krakauer-mcchrystals_n_341545.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 6 replies

NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?

2009-11-07T23:38:54Z

Tommorrow Americans will get their first concrete clue as to what the mood of Americans is toward the Obama administration. Obama has been out all weekend trying to pull out a victory in the NJ Gubernatorial race. New Jersey is a blue state that the race is said to be "neck and neck", so either way it goes, it doesn't look good for the dems. The Virginia gubernatorial race has already been conceded by almost everyone, another one for the rebublicans. And although this is traditionally a red state, Obama won the state by a good margin.

The most watched race is of course the congressional one in NY between. This race is very interesting. The republicans, rather than hold a primary, picked their candidate behind closed doors. And what do you know, they tried to push a liberal pro death, pro sodomite candidate forward. Palin and other conservatives came out in support of a conservative independent candidate, who quickly moved past the republican candidate in the polls. Finally, the republican "RHINO" stepped down and endorsed the democrat. Now, as I type this, the indepedent conservative Hoffman has pulled ahead of the democratic candidate Owen. This traditionally republican district also went to Obama, Clinton etc.. And it is a referendum on the direction of the republican party nationwide. We republicans continue to compromise their values as Michael Steele is contending, or will we see a real conservative party emerge which is representative of the general public at large (which is 40% conservative and only 20% liberal)? Time will tell, but you can bet that Tuesday the Obama administration will be spinning this to say that "this is no reflection on our policies" such as the presidents unpopular health care boondoggle.

Strap yourselves into your chairs ladies and gentleman, it is going to be an interesting Tuesday, November 2, 2009!

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 70 replies

Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

2009-11-07T23:31:25Z

O'Reilly pointed out in this evenings broadcast how the loonie far left (and their surrogates on this forum) are politicizing the shooting incident! Gasp! I thought these were the folks overcome by grief, surely they would not use this incident as an argument against the war in Iran or Afganistan, or would they?

"told of war Horror, Gunman feared Deployment" - New York Times

"Fort Hood feeling the strain of repeated deployments" - Washington Post

"soldiers coming back from the war having trouble integrating into society" - Dr Phil"nut"

No mention of personal responsibilty, muslim extremism, just a good american strained by the horrors of war and alleged harassment from fellow soldiers.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 32 replies

Tucker Carlson - 911 Waterboy

2009-11-07T22:58:30Z

One of the funnier moments of 911 TV - Tucker Carlson jumping through hoops to keep the footage of the WTC 7 collapse from airing during the Professor Jones interview on Fox. Who is your daddy, Tucker?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGNjqYTMK4E

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 115 replies

ANALYSIS / How Israel's war with Iran will be fought

2009-11-07T21:59:34Z

Last update - 21:53 06/11/2009
ANALYSIS / How Israel's war with Iran will be fought
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

It is precisely from the events of the passing week, which culminated in an impressive show of force reminiscent of the good old Israel Defense Forces ? the IDF that carried out Entebbe and bombed the reactors in Iraq and in Syria - that Israel can glean an important lesson about the limitations of the power at its disposal. These are the limitations dictated by U.S. President Barack Obama: Israel's navy can intercept weapons shipments from Iran, Israel's Military Intelligence can expose Hamas long-range missile tests from Gaza, but at least for the time being, as long as the international community is conducting dialogue with Tehran over its controversial nuclear program, it is best that Israel doesn?t do too much to annoy the adults.

The interception of hundreds of tons of weapons, believed to be an Iranian shipment meant for Hezbollah, in the Mediterranean on Wednesday wasn't any different from similar operations carried out by the U.S. Navy, twice this year, though Israel seized a significantly larger amount of weapons. Therefore, the display of the loot the IDF invited everyone to see at the Ashdod port on Thursday received a lukewarm welcome by the world media. It is great that Israel is uncovering and seizing Iranian weapons, the world leaders must be telling themselves, but is there anything here that we didn't know well before the Israeli commandos raided the Antigua-flagged ship in the middle of the night?

The execution by Israeli forces was impeccable, that's true. The IDF apparently followed the arms shipment for a long time, identified the correct ship and planned the operation which went off without a hitch. Now comes the part of diplomacy and public relations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will be visiting Washington in the coming days, will accompanied by intelligence officials who will present the details of the operation to their American colleagues, along with all the necessary proof that Iran is continuing to support terror despite Tehran's denials, and in blatant violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

On the public relations front Israel has gained some ground in light of the fact that both the seizure of the arms ship and the exposure of the Hamas missile test occurred right before the United Nations General Assembly debate on the Goldstone report, which accused Israel of having committed war crimes in Gaza last winter. While the IDF is being accused of war crimes, and the Goldstone report argues that the Israeli offensive was designed specifically to punish the Palestinian civilian population, it doesn't hurt to bring to the forefront the background to these allegations: the ongoing Iranian effort to arm terror organizations with rockets meant to kill Israeli civilians.

But, that's approximately it. Israel is allowed to pester Hamas and Hezbollah with intelligence maneuvers, initiate brilliant pinpoint operations, block their supply of weapons and expose Iran and its proxies ? and no more. Here is what Israel isn't permitted to do, for now: Israel is forbidden from threatening to attack Iranian nuclear facilities (our leaders have, in an exceptional move, become silent on the issue). Also forbidden are deterrence displays against Hamas and Hezbollah that go beyond the norm. The White House has enough problems without having to pull satellite photos of Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza.

The priorities of the Obama administration are completely different. Besides its long delayed, critical, decision on the war in Afghanistan, the president is also plagued with internal U.S. issues and the erosion of his popularity among the American public. After that, in a high place on the priority list, stands the issue of Iran. Israel's job, right now, is not to interfere. We are apparently headed toward several more weeks of dialogue, and after that, if talks fail, a U.S. move to impose more sanctions on Iran. Only in 2010 will there be an actual assessment of what effect these sanctions will have, and whether it is possible to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb without resorting to military tactics.

A man who was, up until recently, involved in Israel's decision making process and continues to serve as adviser to many at the helm, said this week that in his opinion, the Israeli leadership should be very careful in formulating an opinion on the dialogue with Iran. He says that the idea of transferring enriched uranium from Iran to Russia is not necessarily a bad idea, and a similar idea was raised five years ago. It was then director of Israel's atomic energy committee Gideon Frank who came up with the idea, and presented it to then prime minister Ariel Sharon. The key, the man says, is in the supervision clauses of the deal. If Iran, in a surprise move, accepts a deal similar to the one it rejected last week, there is definitely room for dialogue.

The IDF must prepare itself for the possibility of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities because that's the IDF's job. But when the debate among experts and analysts regarding such a scenario revolved around operative questions (will the Americans provide Israel with an airspace corridor over Iran? How many fuel jets will be required? Etc.) it is missing the point. The important question is how willing the U.S. is to protect Israel in the event of a counter attack. The message Israel is getting from Obama's administration at this time is that it is out of the question ? and thus the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran diminishes drastically.

But how will an Israel-Iran war look if it breaks out eventually? This question is at the center of a new study compiled by the Defense Ministry. Researcher Dr. Moshe Vered writes that such a war could go on for a long time. He believes that the Iranian's typical willingness to sacrifice many victims for a long period of time in a conflict with Israel will dictate a prolonged war between the two states, which will be difficult to end.

Dr. Vered, a physicist, occupies various roles in the defense establishment's technology division. He published his study this week as part of a sabbatical at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University. He argues that the length of an Israel-Iran war "will be measured in year, not in weeks or days." This stems from the Shiite perception by which one must fight and sacrifice for the sake of justice and to correct wrongs to Islam and to Muslims. "This outlook sees Israel's existence as a wrong that must be corrected for the sake of world redemption. The achievement of this goal will only be possible once Israel is annihilated. The Iranians will continue fighting this war, as much as it is up to them, until they achieve their objective, despite the heavy toll that will be exacted in battle," Vered writes.

Vered argues further that only the fear the Iranian regime being toppled could bring such a war to an end. But, it seems unlikely that Israel will be able to pose a real threat to the Iranian regime, and "in the absence of a way out, acceptable to both sides, the war could continue for a very long time."

Vered mentions the fact that the Iran-Iraq war, in the 1980s, lasted eight years. Iran fought many years to achieve its demands ? to correct the basic wrong of Iraq's invasion into its territory, Iraqi recognition of its culpability, and the removal of the head of the Iraqi regime Saddam Hussein.

Iran paid an inconceivable price in that war - half a million dead and economic damage higher than the country's entire oil income in the 20th century ? before it agreed to a ceasefire. The ceasefire came only when there was a real danger that the Iranian regime would not survive.

Vered writes that "one can't rule out with a high degree of certainty the possibility that a war will break out between Israel and Iran." Therefore, a careful assessment of the details of a possible war, and preparation for it, are essential. In his study, he fails to find anyone who could develop an effective method to shorten the time of a war.

He goes on to write that the fear of such a war should prompt Israel to prepare mentally, politically, and militarily, while creating ways to end it quickly, should it erupt. The assumption that the war will become prolonged should affect the way Israel prepares for it, as well it should affect the decision whether or not to attack Iranian facilities in the future.

Vered rejects the assumption that in the absence of a shared border, the Israel-Iran war will be fought only with surface to surface missiles. Such warfare shouldn't last a long time because Iran's supply of long-range missiles isn't large. However, he writes, it is more plausible to assume that Iran will want to continue the fighting against Israel via messengers: Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and maybe even an Iranian force on Syrian soil, as part of a defense treaty between Tehran and Damascus. He plays down the likelihood of a short confrontation (Israeli assault followed by a punishing counter assault and then an immediate ceasefire under international pressure while both sides realize that the war has played out), he thinks that the ideology of the Iranian regime will dictate a prolonged war. Yes, this isn't exactly what you would call relaxing reading material for the weekend.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126421.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 4 replies

Deny, Deny, Deny!

2009-11-07T21:59:16Z

So, does anybody think the Israelis just made it up?

Israel views arms shipment as card against Iran

By Joseph Krauss (AFP) – 2 hours ago

JERUSALEM — Israel's capture of a weapons-laden ship allegedly sent from Iran and bound for Hezbollah will underscore its case against Tehran in the international community, observers said Thursday.

"Officials in Jerusalem had not dared even to dream of better timing for the capture of the vessel carrying so much arms and ammunition bound for Hezbollah," an editorial in Israel's Maariv newspaper said.

"For all practical purposes... the capture of the ship was, for Israel, like a gift from heaven."

The Israeli navy on Wednesday seized a ship carrying "hundreds of tonnes" of weapons, including rockets, grenades and ammunition, that it said was sent from Iran to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia in violation of UN resolutions.

A UN Security Council resolution which brought an end to the devastating 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel demanded the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon and imposed a ban on all arms exports to them.

Iran and Hezbollah have both denied any link to the ship.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that the arms seized were "further proof, if any is needed, that Iran is continuing to provide weapons to terrorist organisations that want to strike Israeli towns and villages and kill civilians."

"It is high time the international community put pressure on Iran to stop its criminal actions and back Israel when it defends itself," he added.

Israel views Iran as its main strategic threat because of Tehran's support for Hezbollah and Palestinian militants, its leader's frequent predictions of the demise of the Jewish state and its nuclear enrichment programme.

Israel, the region's sole if undeclared nuclear power, believes Iran's programme is aimed at developing nuclear weapons, charges denied by Tehran.

The seized arms may allow Israel to ramp up pressure on Iran to accept an international proposal for it to send stocks of low-enriched uranium abroad for conversion into nuclear fuel.

"Now the Iranians have been caught red-handed -- an Iranian company involved in the exporting of arms to Hezbollah as Western suspicions of Iran peak after Tehran's murky response to the compromise proposal on uranium enrichment," Haaretz said.

The capture also came on the same day the UN General Assembly began discussing a controversial report on the Gaza war by the respected former war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone that accused Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes during the 22-day conflict that ended January 18.

The widely circulated footage of crates of rockets and ammunition on the deck of the ship could help Israel make the case that it was justified in launching the Gaza war, which was aimed at halting Palestinian rocket attacks.

Some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the 22-day conflict.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 27 replies

NIST: WTC7? Office Furniture Fires!

2009-11-07T21:48:58Z

Now we know. The final report from last year by the NIST said that it wasn't demolition or diesel fires, but fires fueled by office furnishings that caused building seven to collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html

>>Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires—similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings—caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.<<

>>According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."<<

Aint that cool.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Cuban blogger beaten by government agents

2009-11-07T19:45:11Z

She must have been an Yankee imperialst stooge.....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/11/07/cuba.blogger.detained/index.html

Havana, Cuba (CNN) -- A Cuban woman known for writing critical blogs about life in the communist nation said she was briefly detained by government agents Friday in the capital.

Yoani Sanchez said agents pulled her hair and beat her when she refused to get into their car, according to Roots of Hope, a nonprofit that works with Cuban youth. She said she was on her way to an anti-violence march when she was detained.

Sanchez gained international attention for her blog "Generation Y," which gets about 1 million hits a month.

Before agents released Sanchez, they warned her that her writings had gone too far, the nonprofit said. Freedom of speech is limited in the island nation, where media are controlled by the government.

There was no immediate comment from the Cuban government on Sanchez's claims, which CNN could not independently verify.

Earlier this year, the blogger was named one of the world's 100 most influential people by Time magazine. The government barred her from traveling to New York in October to receive a journalism award.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

The threat of the "Muslim Mafia"

2009-11-07T18:52:36Z

The threat of the "Muslim Mafia"
By Tom Tancredo
The Denver Post
Posted: 11/06/2009 01:00:00 AM MST

The recent indictment and arrest of Aurora resident and Afghanistan immigrant Najibullah Zazi on terrorism charges has again put a spotlight on the problem of Islamic radicals plotting acts of violence. But a book released this past week raises the question of whether our nation's response to the terrorist threat is being deliberately undermined by U.S.-based organizations whose mission is the eventual Islamization of America.

"Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America," was released Oct. 15 and is already gaining attention from national lawmakers. Four members of Congress have asked the House sergeant-at-arms to investigate allegations in the book of double agents placed inside Congress by the Council for American-Islamic Relations.

Such allegations will be dismissed as alarmist by many, but critics will have to confront the book's extensive documentation. Its authors are investigative reporters David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, who have national security backgrounds and solid reputations.

The most controversial part of the book is the relationship between CAIR and the international Muslim Brotherhood, a relationship that has both financial and ideological aspects. The Muslim Brotherhood is highly organized and operates in both public and covert realms. One of its avowed missions is to bring Sharia law to America as one step in the destruction of Western civilization from within.

The Council for American-Islamic Relations is well known in Washington, D.C. Until recently, it enjoyed a cozy relationship with the FBI. Our nation's news media often turn to CAIR for a "moderate Muslim response" to events of the day. Yet this book shows that the mask of moderation covers its real mission.

CAIR has a record of opposing many laws and measures that aim to deal effectively with the jihad being waged against Western democracies by radical Islam. How "moderate" is an organization that supports Palestinian terrorists, seeks to eliminate all obstacles to Islamic immigration to the U.S., opposes the Patriot Act, and accepts funding from sources tied to the Muslim Brotherhood?

According to "Muslim Mafia," CAIR is part of a network of more than 100 organizations in the U.S. that are serving as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood. Their agenda is not to protect the civil rights of Muslim- Americans. It is a purely political mission: to neuter all opposition to the agenda of radical Islam.

CAIR's operatives and apologists try to paint all critics as "Islamophobes" and "McCarthyites" and seldom respond to specific charges. To these apostles of pre-emptive forgiveness, Islam is just another exotic religion, and we can all live together in peace and friendship if we will only put away the fears and slanders propagated by the "merchants of hate." The problem is that the principal "merchant of hate" in the modern world is radical Islam and its jihad of violence, not those who are sounding the alarm.

Fortunately, authentic leaders within Islam have begun speaking out against the jihad waged by the radicals. The dividing line, however, between Muslims wanting to live within our democracy as Muslim-Americans and the radicals who want to replace it is not support or opposition to jihad. That dividing line, this book makes clear, is the choice of Sharia law over Anglo-American common law and the U.S. Constitution. CAIR and its allies are pursuing a plan to place civic loyalty and ultimately citizenship itself outside the Constitution and in the hands of radical imams.

The articles of indictment against Najibullah Zazi say he sought and attended terrorist training in Pakistan. But if the authors of this book are correct, we face a far larger problem than these foreign-trained terrorists. We may well be growing and training our own brand of domestic terrorists who know how to destroy our nation from within.

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado is chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13724707

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 9 replies

AP: "Anti-Muslim Backlash Immediate" -- but

2009-11-07T18:48:30Z

AP: "Anti-Muslim Backlash Immediate" -- but offers not even one example
Zowie! AP says that there has been "immediate" anti-Muslim "backlash" following the mass murders by an Islamic jihadist at Fort Hood! Good gravy, what happened? Did armed bands of furious Islamophobes throw molotov cocktails at mosques? Did ferocious white supremacists maul fragile little girls in hijabs on their way to school? Did angry bigots spit at pious imams quietly going about their business?

Has there been any report of any innocent, random Muslim being attacked in a "backlash" after the Fort Hood jihad?

Nope. Not one. Americans are decent people. Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty. But Ibrahim Hooper and his fellow thugs at CAIR need hate crimes so that they can claim victim status for Muslims and deflect attention away from such small matters as the jihad at Fort Hood, and they have the clueless and/or complicit mainstream media in their hip pocket. And so we witness the strange phenomenon of stories of Muslims fearing a backlash far outnumbering actual incidents of backlash. In fact, the score is about umpteen to zero.

And in the AP story linked above, all we get after the promise of news of "immediate" backlash are various stories about mosques and Muslims asking for special police protection, etc. So in reality, the story should be headlined, "Muslims claim victim status in wake of Fort Hood jihad attack," or "Muslim victimhood whining immediate after Fort Hood jihad massacre," or some such.

But the only actual incidents of "backlash" that AP can come up with are incidents in which people like me call the Fort Hood massacre a jihad attack -- as if it is "Islamophobic" and hateful to note that a guy shouting "Allahu akbar" as he gunned people down, and who gave out Korans hours before he started shooting people, and who expressed sympathy for suicide attackers, may just have been motivated by the Islamic jihad doctrine of warfare against unbelievers.

If that's "backlash," I'm Barack Obama. That's actually something known as "honest reporting." But what would AP know about that?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 4 replies

No Two State Solution?

2009-11-07T16:26:08Z

Some threat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8341929.stm

Hmmm. Perhaps Gaza will become part of Egypt, and the West Bank part of Jordan?

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 44 replies

American is a conservative Country 2 to 1

2009-11-07T13:53:05Z

40% conservative
20% liberal
36% Moderate

So republicans finding themselves again will not hurt the party at all. Kicking out the Rhino's will not hurt the party, it will help it. Good bye Powell, Good bye Spector, good bye (and good riddance) Scozzafava (take Newt Gingrich with you).

Liberals cannot survive politically without moderates, but Obama has frightened them to death this Halloween with his far left policies and appointments. They are catching on, Rev Right, Bill Ayres, Van Jones, Gov Health Car, Reckless overspending, communist sympathies. Tonight is the beginning of the end. Phase 2 Nov 2010 will stop nefarious legislation, phase 3 Obaamas one term over and a true conservative takes over, for many years to come!

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 114 replies

"America was founded as a Christian nation." NOT!

2009-11-07T12:58:25Z

FYI.
__________
In 1797, six years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the United States government signed a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli that contained the following statement (numbered Article 11 in the treaty):

"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries."

So far as we can tell, the inclusion of these words in the treaty had no negative political ramifications for the treaty whatsoever. On the contrary, the treaty was approved by President John Adams and his Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, and was then ratified by the Senate without objection. According to an information sheet provided to us by Ed Buckner of the Atlanta Freethought Society:

The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate clearly specifies that the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and that copies of the treaty were printed "for the use of the Senate." Nor is it plausible to argue that perhaps Senators voted for the treaty without being aware of the famous words. The treaty was quite short, requiring only two or three pages to reprint in most treaty books today--and printed, in its entirely, on but one page (sometimes the front page) of U.S. newspapers of the day. The lack of any recorded argument about the wording, as well as the unanimous vote and the and the wide reprinting of the words in the press of 1797, suggests that the idea that the government was not a Christian one was widely and easily accepted at the time.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tripoli.htm

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 14 replies

UN condemns Israel, Hezbollah violations

2009-11-07T10:07:09Z

Last update - 02:15 07/11/2009
UN condemns Israel, Hezbollah violations
By The Associated Press

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned recent violations of the 2006 cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and urged both sides to exercise maximum restraint.

In a report to the Security Council circulated Friday, Ban said he was
particularly concerned about the firing of rockets from Lebanon into Israel, the discovery of an arms and ammunition depot in southern Lebanon, and explosions and a fire in that area which are still under investigation.

The secretary-general reiterated his call for full implementation of Security Council resolution 1701 that ended the 34-day Israeli-Hezbollah war including the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, adherence to the arms embargo on Lebanon by all countries, especially those with ties to Hezbollah, demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian border, and an end to Israeli overflights.

Ban also called on Israel and Syria to respond to the provisional definition of the disputed Shaba Farms area on Lebanon's border with Syria's Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and urged Israel to withdraw from the disputed village of Ghajar and an adjacent area that are on the Lebanese side of a U.N.-drawn boundary without delay.

While the situation in the southern Lebanon area where the U.N.'s more than 13,000-strong peacekeeping force operates remained generally quiet, the secretary-general expressed serious concern at a series of recent incidents and condemned all violations of the cease-fire resolution.

He singled out the firing of rockets into Israel on Sept. 11 and Oct. 27 -the fourth and fifth such attacks from Lebanon in 2009 - which Israel responded to with artillery fire, and the discovery of an arms and ammunition depot in a building under the control of Hezbollah on July 14.

The secretary-general also expressed concern at an incident on Oct. 12
involving a fire, possibly caused by an explosion, in the garage of a
residential building in Tayr Falsay owned by a Hezbollah official. He said some items were moved to a nearby village before U.N. peacekeepers and the Lebanese army arrived.

Later, UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces inspected both locations but found no signs of an explosion or of unauthorized arms and ammunitions at either of the two locations, Ban said. It appears, however, that evidence may have been tampered with at both locations.

UNIFIL is also still investigating two explosions in the area between Houla and Meiss el-Jebel on Oct. 17 and Oct. 18, he said.

Preliminary indications are that the explosions were caused by explosive
charges contained in an unattended, underground Israel Defense Forces sensor system, he said.

The secretary-general said UNIFIL and the Lebanese army discovered a battery pack buried in the ground at the same location, which was apparently a third part of the sensor system, and are now trying to establish how and when the device was installed and how it was detonated.

Ban noted that the presence of Israeli devices with explosive charges on
Lebanese territory is a violation of resolution 1701.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126426.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Why do Jewish groups pay women less than men?

2009-11-07T10:04:57Z

Last update - 12:11 05/11/2009
Why do Jewish groups pay women less than men?
By Jane Eisner and Devra Ferst, The Forward

Despite notable gains for women in the past year, a Forward survey of 75 major American Jewish communal organizations found that fewer than one in six are run by women, and those women are paid 61 cents to every dollar earned by male leaders.

The numbers are especially striking when compared with the overall composition of the Jewish communal work force. Women comprise about 75% of those employed by federations, advocacy and social service organizations, and religious and educational institutions, but occupy only 14.3% of the top positions. Of the 11 female leaders identified in this survey, three are in interim roles.

At a time when the American work force is experiencing a dramatic shift in gender composition, and when women are breaking through the glass ceiling in government, business and higher education, leadership of the nation's charities is still primarily a man's job. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in September that 18.8% of the nation's 400 largest charities are run by women, even though women make up about two-thirds of the non-profit work force.

"They have a disconnect," said Shifra Bronznick, founding president of Advancing Women Professionals and the Jewish Community. "We have an even greater disconnect."

This gap exists despite notable recent breakthroughs. For instance, when Jennifer Gorovitz was named acting CEO of the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco in October, she became the first woman to lead any of the 18 largest federations in the United States. Since 2008, three other women have become the first to lead their organizations: Rabbi Julie Schonfeld of the Rabbinical Assembly, Ann Toback of the Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring and Sybil Sanchez of the Jewish Labor Committee.

When asked to put these numbers into historical context, Shulamit Bahat, who for decades was in the executive leadership of the American Jewish Committee, said she was "rather stunned" by the statistics. "I thought greater gains had been made," said Bahat, currently CEO of Beit Hatfutsot of America.

Salary comparisons can be imprecise because no two jobs are truly alike; the size of organizations and the length of service are factors that boards consider when setting compensation for top executives. But these comparisons can serve as a useful window into the level of equal pay and opportunity in the workplace and are a good measure of change over time.

The Forward's survey was drawn from the most recent public records or, if that information wasn't available, from the organization itself. The median salary for men was $287,702, while the median for women was $175,211, amounting to a ratio of 61 cents to one dollar. By contrast, the Institute for Women's Policy Research, in a report last September, found that women working in full-time, year-round positions nationwide earned 77 cents for every dollar a man earned.

Along with the oft-cited reasons for the salary gap - that women tend to cluster in lower-paying jobs, take time off to give birth or to raise children, and are reluctant to demand higher salaries - other factors specific to the Jewish world are cited to explain the difference in pay. One is what communal insiders describe as the familial, sometimes paternalistic nature of Jewish organizations.

Sara Bloomfield joined the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 23 years ago, and worked her way up to become its director, overseeing 525 employees and an annual budget of $78.7 million. With a salary of $510,798in 2008, she is the highest-paid woman in the survey. She recalled that in her early days, she had to win over some elderly male Holocaust survivors: "I remember coming up with a solution to a problem, and one of them said, 'Ah, Sara, you think just like a man!'"

Some observers said there is an assumption that male leaders would be more effective in raising money from Jewish male donors, though others challenged that assumption, especially at a time when donations to federations and to other not-for-profits are down sharply.

"We've tended to rely on the same muscle again and again, to talk to the same small number of male donors in the same way," Bronznick said. "We haven't learned to talk to those women who have large amounts of money to give away. And not just to talk, to listen."

Communal leaders cited the need to do more to train and mentor emerging leaders. "I don't know that we've put enough emphasis on grooming women, building their capabilities, expertise, leadership," said Jerry Silverman, the new president and CEO of Jewish Federations of North America.

Gorovitz, the first woman to break the glass ceiling in the federation system, concurred, crediting the women who mentored her during her own career. "It is incumbent on us to ensure that we have diversity in our professional ranks, that we are mentoring all our staff equally, so that we have positive role models," she said in an interview just a few weeks into her new job. "Unfortunately, sometimes the Jewish community is not great at doing this."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126141.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

So, you think you're so smart?

2009-11-07T09:30:06Z

Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?

By Jason Richwine Wednesday, October 21, 2009

What if we could know, scientifically, that one side has the edge in brainpower? Should that change how we think about political issues?

Who are smarter, liberals or conservatives? This is the kind of question that could spark fierce and endless debates between political opponents, but what if we could know, scientifically, that one side has the edge in brainpower? Should that change how we think about political issues?

Though few partisans on either side are likely to admit it, most people at one time or another have suspected that their political opponents are dim bulbs. Sometimes these sentiments get aired publicly, and both the Left and the Right have been guilty of leveling the “you’re stupid” accusation. Last summer, for example, conservative activists pushed the view that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then a nominee, is an intellectual lightweight who lacks the brainpower to be an effective justice.

But questioning the IQ of opponents is a specialty of liberals. When John Stuart Mill labeled British Conservatives “the Stupid Party” in the 19th century, he apparently started a long-term trend. Ronald Reagan, after all, was an “amiable dunce,” according to Clark Clifford and other Democrats. And when Vice President Dan Quayle told a 12-year-old student in a spelling bee that potato had an “e” at the end of it, Democrats milked the incident for all it was worth and then some. They even had the same student lead the Pledge of Allegiance at their 1992 convention.

Smarter people usually make better choices, and smarter people are less likely to be conservative. So how are we to conclude anything but the obvious? Conservatism is stupid, right?

Numerous commentators questioned George W. Bush’s intellectual capacity, especially compared to his Democratic opponents. Howell Raines, former executive editor of the New York Times, wrote before the 2004 election, “Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush?” In fact, an analysis of military aptitude tests by columnist Steve Sailer showed that Bush’s IQ is at least as high as John Kerry’s, but more notable is Raines’s supreme confidence about Bush’s deficiency.

More recently, Sarah Palin was routinely attacked for her alleged cognitive limitations. A false rumor even floated around the liberal blogosphere that she scored an absurdly low 841 on the SAT.

So are these attacks unfair? Yes, if they are leveled at top politicians. It is nearly impossible to rise to the top of the American political scene without some real smarts. Party leaders are rarely geniuses, but it is almost inconceivable that they could have below average IQs.

Nevertheless, liberals are on to something when they question the IQ not of the conservative politicians themselves, but of some of the voters they represent. A certain bloc of the conservative electorate may very well be less intelligent than its liberal counterpart. Lazar Stankov, a visiting professor at Singapore’s National Institute of Education, published “Conservatism and Cognitive Ability” earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Intelligence. Here is a quote from the article’s abstract:

Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated … At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, vocabulary, and analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education … and performance on mathematics and reading assessments.

Provocative, yes. But two important caveats are needed. First, by “conservatism” Stankov does not necessarily mean people who favor free market economics. He has in mind a kind of traditionalism probably best described as social conservatism:

Bruce Charlton, a professor of theoretical medicine at the University of Buckingham, recently coined the term ‘clever sillies’ to describe people who hold wacky political views seemingly because of—rather than despite—their high intelligence.

The Conservative syndrome describes a person who attaches particular importance to the respect of tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation; as well as to obedience, self-discipline and politeness, social order, family, and national security; and has a sense of belonging to and a pride in a group with which he or she identifies. A Conservative person also subscribes to conventional religious beliefs and accepts the mystical, including paranormal, experiences.

The second caveat is that social conservatives do not always vote for conservative candidates. Most black Americans, for example, clearly exhibit “the Conservative syndrome” as Stankov defined it—70 percent voted to abolish gay marriage in California—but they routinely give about 90 percent of their votes to the Democratic Party.

Still, the “syndrome” described by Stankov is a prominent feature of the political Right. The protests of libertarians notwithstanding, social conservatism and economic conservatism tend to go together. Republicans do almost universally support tax cuts, but no Republican presidential candidate is likely to get his party’s nomination without also opposing abortion, gay marriage, and secularism.

So it is clear what many people will think about conservatism in general when they hear about this study. Stankov does not draw any explicit political conclusions himself, but he doesn’t really have to. After all, smarter people usually make better choices, and smarter people are less likely to be conservative. So how are we to conclude anything but the obvious? Conservatism is stupid, right?

Just a minute. Let’s critique that logic. For one thing, the smartest people do not necessarily make the best political choices. William F. Buckley once famously declared that he would rather give control of our government to “the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” Bruce Charlton, a professor of theoretical medicine at the University of Buckingham, recently coined the term “clever sillies” to describe people who hold wacky political views seemingly because of—rather than despite—their high intelligence. Conservative writer John Derbyshire has also observed that political naivety exists at both extremes of the IQ distribution, not just the lower one. The reason is that brilliant people can sometimes be so consumed by abstract philosophy that they forget common sense. The late Irving Kristol once illustrated this phenomenon with an anecdote about his friend, the novelist Saul Bellow:

People who subscribe to non-traditional ideas probably have above-average intellects, but that does not mean other smart people are going to like those ideas.

Saul, then an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, was, like so many of us in the 1930s, powerfully attracted to the ideologies of socialism, Marxism, Leninism and Trotskyism, as well as to the idea of “the Revolution.” He and a group of highly intellectual and like-minded fellow students would meet frequently at his aunt’s apartment, which was located next to the university. The meetings lasted long into the night, as abstract points of Marxism and Leninism agitated and excited these young intellectuals. Saul’s aunt, meanwhile, would try to slow things down by stuffing their mouths with tea and cakes. After the meetings broke up in the early hours of the morning, Saul’s aunt would remark to him: “Your friends, they are so smart, so smart. But stupid!”

Saul’s aunt may not have been a brilliant intellectual, but she had the wisdom and experience to see the fallacies of Marxism that her nephew and his friends could not.

But even if we concede that more intelligence generally means better political choices, the conservatism-is-stupid argument still does not follow from Stankov’s research. Consider that social conservatism is about following traditions. It is intellectually easier, in some sense, to follow the crowd. Iconoclasts face a cognitive hurdle—they have to justify to themselves and others why they feel differently. Probably for that reason, non-traditionalists tend to be smarter than the average person.

But, crucially, this does not mean most intelligent people oppose tradition. As long as smarter people are more likely to be skeptical of tradition, then full-blown rejection of tradition will almost inevitably be correlated with higher IQ, even if a majority of smart people still favor traditionalism.

Consider the example of religious belief, which is a major component of the “syndrome.” Let’s say that the bottom half of the IQ distribution never questions the religion of their upbringing, while the top half is skeptical. Now, just among that skeptical top half, let’s say that 80 percent end up affirming their faith and remain religious, while the rest reject faith and become atheists.

Liberal elites could easily be in the minority politically, but different social circles keep them insulated from finding that out.

Religion would seem to be the clear choice of smart people in this hypothetical example, but there would still be a positive correlation between IQ and atheism. The correlation exists not because smart people have necessarily rejected religion, but because religion is the “default” position for most of our society.

This same principle works in places where the default and iconoclastic beliefs are reversed. Japan, for example, has no tradition of monotheistic religion, but the few Japanese Christians tend to be much more educated than non-Christians in Japan. By the logic of someone who wants to read a lot into the Stankov study, Christianity must be the wave of the future, perhaps even the one true faith! But, of course, the vast majority of educated Japanese are not Christians. Just as with atheism in the West, the correctness of Christianity cannot be inferred from the traits of the minority who subscribe to it in Japan.

To reiterate, people who subscribe to non-traditional ideas probably have above-average intellects, but that does not mean other smart people will like those ideas. This is a point often lost on liberals who work in universities or in the news media. They observe, usually correctly, that friends and acquaintances in their social circle are smarter than the average (and likely more conservative) people they encounter on the street. But too many elites see this correlation between smartness and liberalism as somehow a validation of their political views. They seem unaware that the wider world features plenty of intelligent people who are not professors or movie critics or government bureaucrats. Even among the nation’s smartest people, liberal elites could easily be in the minority politically, but different social circles keep them insulated from finding that out. The result is a convenient but damaging political meme that circulates among some people on the Left—the belief that their opponents simply can’t understand what makes for good policy.

The bottom line is that a political debate will never be resolved by measuring the IQs of groups on each side of the issue. Even if certain positions tend to be held by less intelligent people, there will usually be plenty of sharp thinkers who take the same side. Rather than focus on the intellectual deficiencies, real or imagined, of certain politicians and their supporters, people should strive to find the best and brightest spokesmen for the opposing side.

There is a certain devilish fun to contemplating the intelligence of liberals and conservatives, but it should have no effect on how we think about issues. Political debates would be better without it.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 16 replies

Israel's anti-Semitic friends

2009-11-07T06:34:10Z

Israel's anti-Semitic friends
Tony Greenstein

Michal Kaminski, who opposes Poland apologizing for the massacre of hundreds of Jews in a Polish village in 1941, on a visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. (ECR)

There can be few supporters of the Palestinians, still less anti-Zionists, who haven't, at some time or another, been accused of "anti-Semitism." Accusations that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism have become little more than a ritual exercise in defamation. The danger in making such accusations is, to quote the former Director of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, Antony Lerman, that it "drains the word antisemitism of any useful meaning." Moreover, its purpose is to discourage criticism of Israel and support of the Palestinians or risk being labeled as anti-Semitic. As I wrote two years ago, "If you cry wolf long and loud enough, when anti-Semitism does raise its head no one will bat an eyelid."

The European political establishment, like its American counterpart, has taken to the idea that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are indistinguishable. According to the European Union's Working Definition, anti-Semitism includes: denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor), drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, and holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel. It is ironic that the EU's definition of anti-Semitism is itself anti-Semitic!

But the idea that "Jewish people" wherever they live, form a nation separate from the people they live amongst, because that is the meaning of self-determination, is itself an anti-Semitic concept. What is really being stated is that Jews form a race, not a nation.

Moreover, if drawing comparisons between Israeli policies and the Nazis is anti-Semitic, then the late Marek Edelman, the Commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, must have been an anti-Semite. In 2002, Edelman stated publicly that Palestinian resistance fighters in the second intifada were the inheritors of the Jewish Fighting Organization of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Similarly, since holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli state is indeed anti-Semitic, what then is one to make of the actions of the Board of Deputies of British Jews? On 9 January 2009 the Board of Deputies held a rally under the title "Community to Show Support for Israel at Trafalgar Square Rally."

Zionism held that Jews were strangers in other peoples' lands and that anti-Semitism was the natural, if not justifiable, reaction to an alien presence among them. It was but a short step from this to an acceptance that anti-Semitic characteristics and caricatures of Jews were essentially correct. Indeed, the conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is yet another irony, as historically, it was non-Jewish support of Zionism that was seen by Jews as anti-Semitic. What anti-Semites and leading Zionists said about Jews were almost indistinguishable. As A.B. Yehoshua, one of Israel's foremost novelists, stated in a lecture to the Union of Jewish Students: "Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist." And from Pinhas Felix Rosenbluth, a leading German Zionist, to Arthur Ruppin, head of the Jewish Agency, Zionists have not hesitated to employ anti-Semitic rhetoric to further their cause.

This is not so strange, because what one is talking about are in reality two entirely different forms of political philosophy with the same name -- anti-Semitism. Contrary to received opinion, there is nothing in common between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Certainly the Zionist movement has deliberately confused the two, but the former is a form of anti-racism whereas the latter is a form of racism. There can be no blurring at the edges or overlap. One is either an anti-Semite or an anti-Zionist. One cannot be both.

Therefore, it is not surprising that today, with the growth of far right and neo-fascist parties in Europe, that almost without exception they are pro-Israel. Thus, the very people who criticize anti-Zionists and Palestinian supporters as anti-Semitic are rushing to hold the hands of Zionism's far-right supporters.

For example Israeli Ambassador to the United Kingdom Ron Prossor was more than happy to share a platform at the Conservative Friends of Israel with Michal Kaminski of the Polish Justice and Freedom Party. Kaminski is notorious in Poland for openly opposing the call for an official apology for the 1941 massacre of hundreds of Jews in the Polish village of Jedwabne.

Last month, Israel's Ambassador to the European Union, Ran Curiel, paid the first visit by an ambassador to the Kaminski-chaired European Conservatives & Reform (ECR) Group in the European Parliament. As quoted in a 13 October news post on ECR's website, Curiel told the assembled audience that "'After years of "megaphone diplomacy" between Israel and Europe, an open dialogue is the best thing we can do now.'" Furthermore, "He highly appreciated the support of the ECR Group for the two-state solution to the 'peace process' which would fully ensure the security of the State of Israel and respect the border of national states."

Curiel's visit followed an earlier visit by Kaminski to Israel with the European Friends of Israel organization. It was Kaminski's first visit to a non-EU country as Chairman of the ECR. According to a 25 September post on the Conservative Friends of Israel's website, at a dinner held by the organization Kaminski explained that Israel was deliberately chosen as his first trip so that he could "'deliver the message that there is a group in the European Parliament that will be a true friend of Israel.'"

Similarly in the UK, Kaminski's Zionist allies rushed to his defense last month. As the Jewish Chronicle reported on 15 October, several members of the Jewish Leadership Council were outraged when Board of Deputies President Vivian Wineman wrote a letter to David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, questioning the Tory alliance with Kaminski and his far-right Justice and Freedom Party in the European Parliament. Andrew Gilbert, one of a number of deputies who believe the letter to Cameron ill-judged, stated that "'Nobody in the Jewish or political community did enough research either to say that Michal Kaminski or Roberts Zile have suspect views, which means we should shun them, or to clear them.'"

Nor is the Conservative party alone in embracing Israel's fascist allies. The British National Party is a growing party, with more than 50 local councilors and two members of the European Parliament. On 22 October 2009, its leader, Nick Griffin, appeared on the BBC's premier program Question Time, to a wave of protests. How did he explain away his anti-Semitism and support for holocaust denial? By explaining that though he might not be too fond of Jews, he was a strong supporter of Israel, stating that "there are Nazis in Britain and they loathe me because I have brought the BNP from being frankly an anti-Semitic and racist organization into being the only political party which in the clashes between Israel and Gaza stood full-square behind Israel's right to deal with Hamas terrorists."

As the Guardian reported in April 2008, Board of Deputies spokesperson Ruth Smeed let readers know that "The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web -- it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel."

But Kaminski and Roberts Zile, of the Waffen-SS supporting Latvian Freedom and Fatherland Party, are not the exceptions. Dutch far-right anti-Islam politician and Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is another figure who combines virulent racism with Zionism. As reported in the Israeli daily Haaretz on 18 June, Wilders claimed that "Israel is only the first line of defense for the West. Now it's Israel but we are next. That's why beyond solidarity, it is in Europe's interest to stand by Israel."

Wilders is facing criminal charges for inciting hate by comparing the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. After winning five seats in June parliamentary elections, Wilders's Party of Freedom is now the second largest political party in the country. Wilders has also found common cause with the right-wing openly racist political party of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Of Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, Wilders explained that "'Our parties may not be identical, but there are certainly more similarities than dissimilarities, and I am proud of that,'" (Haaretz, 18 June 2009). He added that "'Lieberman's an intelligent, strong and clever politician and I understand why his party grew in popularity.'"

Indeed, the only far-right party that I could find whose anti-Semitism is disguised as anti-Zionism is Jobbik, the Movement for a Better Hungary, a descendant of the pro-Nazi Nyilas. During World War II, Nyilas was responsible for the deaths of some 50,000 mainly Budapest Jews. Leaders of the party were executed by the Hungarian state after liberation. This is the party that the BNP, which "opposes anti-Semitism," is joined with in the European Parliament.

Therefore, when Israel's Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz claims that Judge Richard Goldstone is an "anti-Semite" and that it is possible for a Jew to be an anti-Semite, he is right: the history of Zionism is indeed full of such examples!

Tony Greenstein is a trade union activist, a member of UNISON, Brighton & Hove Trades Council and Secretary of Brighton & Hove Unemployed Workers Centre, where he works as an employment adviser. He runs a socialist, anti-Zionist blog, www.azvsas.blogspot.com.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

FDA Urged to Ban Feeding of Chicken Feces to Cattle

2009-11-07T05:31:36Z

www.organicconsumers.org/artic...07.cfm

A fight is brewing over the practice of feeding chicken feces and other poultry farm waste to cattle.

A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. McDonald's Corp., the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.

Members of the coalition are threatening to file a lawsuit or to push for federal legislation establishing such a ban if the FDA doesn't act to do so in the coming months.

Farmers feed 1 million to 2 million tons of poultry litter to their cattle annually, according to FDA estimates.

Using the litter -- which includes feces, spilled chicken feed, feathers and poultry farm detritus -- increases the risk of cows becoming infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union.

That's because the spilled chicken feed and the feces contain tissue from ruminants -- cows and sheep, among other mammals. The disease is transmitted through feeding ruminant remains to cattle.

"It takes a very small quantity of ruminant protein, even just 1 milligram, to cause an infection," said Steve Roach, public health program director with Food Animal Concerns Trust, a Chicago-based animal welfare group that is part of the coalition.

Although it is rare, people can contract a fatal form of the disease by eating meat from cows with BSE.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the beef industry's main trade group, said the ban was not needed and that several FDA reviews had determined that the chance of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease from eating poultry litter was remote.

"Science does not justify the ban, and the FDA has looked at this now many times," said Elizabeth Parker, chief veterinarian for the trade group.

Parker noted that the FDA this year banned the use of certain types of tissue from any form of animal feed, even that eaten by chickens. Those tissues include brain, spinal cord material and other high-risk tissues where the pathogens believed to cause mad cow disease typically are found. The tissue ban greatly reduces chances that prions, implicated in mad cow, can find their way into the food chain, Parker said. She also said the disease was not a threat to public health.

"We have tested 800,000 cattle in recent years and have not found any evidence of BSE circulating in the herd," Parker said.

But others remain concerned.

"I still think you need to totally restrict using any ruminant protein in feed that gets back to ruminants," said Linda Detwiler, a food safety consultant and former U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian.

Prohibiting high-risk tissues as a feed source makes the chances of transmitting mad cow disease through poultry litter low but does not remove all risk, Detwiler said.
posted by:

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

Obama is killing American jobs

2009-11-07T02:21:08Z

Oops, no wait, employee productivity is killing American jobs!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy/print

Productivity gains may be bad news for job seekers
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER and CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer 29 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Companies across the economy are finding ways to do more with fewer workers, dimming hopes that hiring will take off anytime soon.

Employers became leaner and more efficient in the third quarter. Wages, meantime, remain flat or falling. The result is that productivity — output per hour of work — jumped at the fastest pace in six years.

The good news for companies, though, may be bad news for the jobless. As long as companies can get their workers to produce more, they have little reason to hire — at least until consumer spending picks up. And the squeeze on incomes could depress consumer spending, putting the economic recovery at risk.

Productivity rose at an annual rate of 9.5 percent in the July-September quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday. That was much better than the 6.4 percent gain economists had expected. Unit labor costs fell at a 5.2 percent rate.

Still, while companies aren't doing much hiring, they're also not cutting as many workers. The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits last week fell to the lowest level in 10 months

The 9.5 percent productivity rise followed a 6.9 percent surge in the second quarter and was the fastest since a 9.7 percent increase in the third quarter of 2003.

The gain reflected that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, grew for the first time in a year — at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. The higher output came as companies continued to lay off workers. That meant employers produced more with fewer workers.

The 5.2 percent drop in unit labor costs marked the third straight decline and was larger than the 4 percent decrease economists were expecting.

Productivity is the key ingredient to rising living standards. It lets companies pay their workers higher wages. The increases are financed by the increased output rather than higher costs for products.

But companies this year, struggling to cope with the longest recession since the 1930s, have boosted output while continuing to lay off workers. The falling labor costs also reflect that many workers still fortunate enough to have jobs have seen their wages squeezed as companies struggle to bolster their bottom lines.

Some economists were encouraged by the productivity report, saying that eventually companies will have to add jobs, rather than simply push their existing work forces harder.

In a separate report, the Labor Department said first-time claims for jobless benefits last week fell by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 512,000. That's better than economists' estimates of 523,000.

Economists closely watch initial claims, which are considered a gauge of the pace of layoffs and an indication of employers' willingness to hire new workers.

On Wall Street, the better-than-expected jobless claims report and news that retailers posted their second straight month of sales gains in October buoyed investors. The Dow Jones industrial average added about 175 points in afternoon trading, and broader indexes also gained.

The four-week average of jobless claims, which smooths fluctuations, dropped to 523,750, its ninth straight decline. That's 135,000 below the peak for the recession, reached in early April.

Despite the improvement, initial claims remain well above the roughly 400,000 that economists say will signal job creation.

Another 4.1 million people claimed extended unemployment benefits in the week ended Oct. 17, the latest data available, an increase of about 100,000 from the previous week. Congress has added 53 weeks of emergency aid on top of the 26 weeks typically provided by states.

Still, as roughly 7,000 Americans run out of extended benefits every day, the House is expected to approve legislation that would add another 14 to 20 weeks. The Senate unanimously approved a similar proposal Wednesday.

The National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group, estimates that up to 1.3 million people would exhaust their benefits without the extension.

Economists expect the nation lost a net total of 175,000 jobs last month, adding to the 7.2 million lost since the recession began in December 2007. And many expect the jobless rate could rise as high as 10.5 percent before the recovery gains enough steam to start pushing it down next summer.

Layoffs have continued this week. Microsoft Corp. said it was cutting 800 more jobs at its facilities worldwide. That comes on top of the 5,000 layoffs the software giant announced in January.

Johnson & Johnson said it could cut up to 8,300 jobs as part of a restructuring and Sprint Nextel Corp., the nation's third largest wireless provider, said it planned to trim "dozens" of jobs from its wholesale division amid a drop in customers.

Economic growth could slow early next year as various government stimulus programs wind down, analysts say. That uncertainty has made many employers reluctant to hire and households contending with more layoffs, stagnant wages and depleted savings.

But the Federal Reserve pledged Wednesday to continue to keep interest rates low for an "extended period," a commitment central bank policymakers can make because wage and general inflation pressures have vanished during the downturn.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 13 replies

So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?

2009-11-06T22:16:02Z

Seriously folks, when you start off arguing with fanatics it's alomst impossible to have a real discussion, because you have to spend so much time refuting all this junk that has no relation to reality. so maybe we can try again.

The GOP is of course trumpeting two wins in the state races as a huge resurgence and a sign that the country has turned on the Demos, while downplaying the fact than they didn't win any races that actually involved the federal government.

New Jersey really seemed like a no brainer - a socially moderate Republican beat a corrupt incumbant governor who made millions working for Goldman Sachs, probably one of the most hated names in the U.S. right now. The fact that Obama's approval rating in New Jersey is 57% is pretty good evidence that this election was NOT about Obama.

Virginia has moved from being a solidly GOP safe state to a swing state, and this time it swung to the Republicans. Even though Bo Mc Donnell is a social conservative, he campaigned on economic issues, and it's definitely true that a bad economy hurts the party in power.

I think that's what that Demos really have to worry about - they've been way too timid about taking real actions to make things better for regular Americans while the richest are still raking in insane amounts, as the latest uproar over the huge bonuses Goldman sachs just handed out demonstrate. If they've got any sense of self-preservation, once the health care debate subsides they'll turn their attention to the horrible unemployment situation - and let's face it, it's just the end of a trend that's been going on for decades as well-paying blue collar jobs went to Mexico, China, other "free trade partners" with no real labor or environmental regualtions, letting the corporations revert back to practices that haven't been allowed in the U.S. for 75 or more years.

The other big race of course was New york's 23rd Congressional District, where the far-rightwingnuts managed to give the district to a Democrat for the very first time in over a century, since the district was formed. Yeah, they were moderate republicans because tthis was rural New York, not rural Dixieland, but suddenly all these out of state far-righters like Palin and Bachmann decided the party's candidate wasn't pureenough for their tastes and gave a huge amount of money to the rightie 3rd party candidate Doug Hoffman, himself a carpetbagger who didn't actually live in the district. The actual GOP candidate Dierdre Scozzafava withdrew, and now the House is up one more Democrat.

I find THAT pretty fricking interesting and more indicative of a real trend. The fight in the GOP between the realists and the far-right could very well cripple them even more. And Beck, Malkin, and other shapers of wingnut philosophy are spinning this as a call for further attempts for the teabaggers to take over the GOP. Thre's already two big Senate races in California and Florida where the far-righties and the moderates will be lining up for a big showdown, and they'll probably get creaemed in both states with the wingnuts come out on top.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 8 replies

An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict

2009-11-06T21:27:26Z

An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict

(Updated: September 2002)

Background

To resolve what was called the "Jewish question" - i.e., the reciprocal challenges of Gentile repulsion or anti-Semitism and Gentile attraction or assimilation - the Zionist movement sought in the late nineteenth century to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. (1) Once the Zionist movement gained a foothold in Palestine through Great Britain's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, (2) the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigenous Arab population. For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. (3)

Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was understood from the outset that Palestine's indigenous Arab population would not acquiesce in its dispossession. "Contrary to the claim that is often made, Zionism was not blind to the presence of Arabs in Palestine," Zeev Sternhell observes. "If Zionist intellectuals and leaders ignored the Arab dilemma, it was chiefly because they knew that this problem had no solution within the Zionist way of thinking…. [I]n general both sides understood each other well and knew that the implementation of Zionism could be only at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs." Moshe Shertok (later Sharett) contemptuously dismissed the "illusive hopes" of those who spoke about a "'mutual misunderstanding' between us and the Arabs, about 'common interests' [and] about 'the possibility of unity and peace between the two fraternal peoples.'" "There is no example in history," David Ben-Gurion declared, succinctly framing the core problem, "that a nation opens the gates of its country, not because of necessity…but because the nation which wants to come in has explained its desire to it." (4)

"The tragedy of Zionism," Walter Laqueur wrote in his standard history, "was that it appeared on the international scene when there were no longer empty spaces on the world map." This is not quite right. Rather it was no longer politically tenable to create such spaces: extermination had ceased to be an option of conquest. (5) Basically the Zionist movement could only choose between two strategic options to achieve its goal: what Benny Morris has labeled "the way of South Africa" - "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority" - or the "the way of transfer" - "you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out." (6)

Round One - "The way of transfer"

In the first round of conquest, the Zionist movement set its sights on "the way of transfer." For all the public rhetoric about wanting to "live with the Arabs in conditions of unity and mutual honor and together with them to turn the common homeland into a flourishing land" (Twelfth Zionist Congress, 1921), the Zionists from early on were in fact bent on expelling them. "The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings," Tom Segev reports. "'Disappearing' the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence…. With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality." The key was to get the timing right. Ben-Gurion, reflecting on the expulsion option in the late 1930s, wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out - a whole world is lost." (7)

The goal of "disappearing" the indigenous Arab population points to a virtual truism buried beneath a mountain of apologetic Zionist literature: what spurred Palestinians' opposition to Zionism was not anti-Semitism in the sense of an irrational hatred of Jews but rather the prospect - very real - of their expulsion. "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession," Morris reasonably concludes, "was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism." Likewise, in his magisterial study of Palestinian nationalism, Yehoshua Porath suggests that the "major factor nourishing" Arab anti-Semitism "was not hatred for the Jews as such but opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine." He goes on to argue that, although Arabs initially differentiated between Jews and Zionists, it was "inevitable" that opposition to Zionist settlement would turn into a loathing of all Jews: "As immigration increased, so did the Jewish community's identification with the Zionist movement…. The non-Zionist and anti-Zionist factors became an insignificant minority, and a large measure of sophistication was required to make the older distinction. It was unreasonable to hope that the wider Arab population, and the riotous mob which was part of it, would maintain this distinction." (8)

From its incipient stirrings in the late nineteenth century through the watershed revolt in the 1930s, Palestinian resistance consistently focused on the twin juggernauts of Zionist conquest: Jewish settlers and Jewish settlements. (9) Apologetic Zionist writers like Anita Shapira juxtapose benign Jewish settlement against recourse to force. (10) In fact, settlement was force. "From the outset, Zionism sought to employ force in order to realize national aspirations," Yosef Gorny observes. "This force consisted primarily of the collective ability to rebuild a national home in Palestine." Through settlement the Zionist movement aimed - in Ben-Gurion's words - "to establish a great Jewish fact in this country" that was irreversible. (emphasis in original) (11) Moreover, settlement and armed force were in reality seamlessly interwoven as Zionist settlers sought "the ideal and perfect fusion between the plow and rifle." Moshe Dayan later memorialized that "We are a generation of settlers, and without the combat helmet and the barrel of a gun, we will not be able to plant a tree or build a house." (12) The Zionist movement inferred behind Palestinian resistance to Jewish settlement a generic (and genetic) anti-Semitism - Jewish settlers "being murdered," as Ben-Gurion put it, "simply because they were Jews" - in order to conceal from the outside world and itself the rational and legitimate grievances of the indigenous population. (13) In the ensuing bloodshed the kith and kin of Zionist martyrs would, like relatives of Palestinian martyrs today, wax proud at these national sacrifices. "I am gratified," the father of a Jewish casualty eulogized, "that I was a living witness to such a historical event." (14)

It bears critical notice for what comes later that, from the interwar through early postwar years, Western public opinion was not altogether averse to population transfer as an expedient (albeit extreme) for resolving ethnic conflicts. French socialists and Europe's Jewish press supported in the mid-1930s the transfer of Jews to Madagascar to solve Poland's "Jewish problem." (15) The main forced transfer before World War II was effected between Turkey and Greece. Sanctioned by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) and approved and supervised by the League of Nations, this brutal displacement of more than 1.5 million people eventually came to be seen by much of official Europe as an auspicious precedent. The British cited it in the late 1930s as a model for resolving the conflict in Palestine. The right-wing Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, taking heart from Nazi demographic experiments in conquered territories (about 1.5 million Poles and Jews were expelled and hundreds of thousands of Germans resettled in their place), exclaimed: "The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler - as odious as he is to us - has given this idea a good name in the world." During the war the Soviet Union also carried out bloody deportations of recalcitrant minorities such as the Volga Germans, Chechen-Ingush and Tatars. Labor Zionists pointed to the "positive experience" of the Greek-Turkish and Soviet expulsions in support of the transfer idea. Recalling the "success" (Churchill) of the Greek-Turkish compulsory transfer, the Allies at the Potsdam Conference (1945) authorized the expulsion of some 13 million Germans from Central and Eastern Europe (around 2 million perished in the course of this horrendous uprooting). Even the left-wing British Labor Party advocated in its 1944 platform that the "Arabs be encouraged to move out" of Palestine, as did the humanist philosopher Bertrand Russell, to make way for Zionist settlement. (16)

In fact many in the enlightened West came to view displacement of the indigenous population of Palestine as an inexorable concomitant of civilization's advance. The identification of Americans with Zionism came easily since the "social order of the Yishuv [Jewish community in Palestine] was built on the ethos of a frontier society, in which a pioneering-settlement model set the tone." To account for the "almost complete disregard of the Arab case" by Americans, a prominent British Labor MP, Richard Crossman, explained in the mid-1940s: "Zionism after all is merely the attempt by the European Jew to build his national life on the soil of Palestine in much the same way as the American settler developed the West. So the American will give the Jewish settler in Palestine the benefit of the doubt, and regard the Arab as the aboriginal who must go down before the march of progress." Contrasting the "slovenly" Arabs with enterprising Jewish settlers who had "set going revolutionary forces in the Middle East," Crossman himself professed in the name of "social progress" support for Zionism. The left-liberal U.S. presidential candidate in 1948, Henry Wallace, compared the Zionist struggle in Palestine with "the fight the American colonies carried on in 1776. Just as the British stirred up the Iroquois to fight the colonists, so today they are stirring up the Arabs." (17)

Come 1948, the Zionist movement exploited the "revolutionary times" of the first Arab-Israeli war - much like the Serbs did in Kosovo during the NATO attack - to expel more than 80 percent of the indigenous population (750,000 Palestinians), and thereby achieve its goal of an overwhelmingly Jewish state, if not yet in the whole of Palestine. (18) Berl Katznelson, known as the "conscience" of the Labor Zionist movement, had maintained that "there has never been a colonizing enterprise as typified by justice and honesty toward others as our work here in Eretz Israel." In his multivolume paean to the American settlers' dispossession of the native population, The Winning of the West, Theodore Roosevelt likewise concluded that "no other conquering nation has ever treated savage owners of the soil with such generosity as has the United States." The recipients of this benefaction would presumably have a different story to tell. (19)

1. See Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (New York: 1995) pp. 7-12. (hereafter: I&R) The envisioned Jewish state would tolerate an Arab minority of no more than 15 percent (Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel (New York: 1987), p. 104).

2. For the crucial political repercussions on the Zionist movement of its reliance on Great Britain, see I&R, pp. 16-20.

3. See I&R, chapter 2.

4. Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel (Princeton: 1998), pp. 43-4. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims (New York: 1999), p. 91 (Shertok). Simha Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians (London: 1979), p. 143 (Ben-Gurion). For further discussion and documentation, see I&R, pp. 98-110.

5. Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (New York: 1976), p. 597 (for discussion, see I&R, p. 198, note 13). Outright annexation of conquered territory had also ceased to be a political option - which crucially accounts for Great Britain's decision to issue the Balfour Declaration (see Isaiah Friedman, The Question of Palestine (New Brunswick, NJ: 1992), esp. pp. 175, 188-9, 288).

6. Benny Morris, "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948," in Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds), The War for Palestine (Cambridge: 2001), pp. 39-40.

7. Yehoshua Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929 (Frank Cass: 1974), p. 147 (Congress). Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete (New York: 2001), pp.404-5; cf. pp. 403, 406-7, 508. Morris, "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus," p. 42 (Ben-Gurion); for timing, see also Shabtei Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs (Oxford: 1985), p. 35. For further discussion and documentation of Zionist expulsion plans, see I&R, pp. 16, 103-4, and esp. Morris, Righteous Victims, pp. 139-44, 168-9.

8. Morris, Righteous Victims, p. 37. Porath, Emergence, pp. 59, 62.

9. Neville J. Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism (Berkeley: 1976), p. 40. Yehoshua Porath, The Palestinian National Movement: From Riots to Rebellion (London: 1970), pp. 91-2, 165-6, 297.

10. See I&R, chap. 4.

11. Yosef Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948 (Oxford: 1987), p. 176; for detailed analysis of Gorny's study, see I&R, chap. 1. Teveth, Ben-Gurion, p. 155.

12. Uri Ben-Eliezer, The Making of Israeli Militarism (Bloomington: 1998), p. 89 ("fusion") (cf. p. 62). Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History (New York: 1998), p. 312 (Dayan). For discussion, see I&R, p. 106.

13. David Ben-Gurion, My Talks with Arab Leaders (New York: 1973), p. 3. (For Ben-Gurion's private recognition of the real motives behind Arab attacks, see I&R, pp. 108, 110.) Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (New York: 2000), pp. 49-53, 62-3.

14. Segev, One Palestine, p. 182.

15. Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews, vol. I (New York: 1997), p. 219. On
related resettlement schemes, see Michael J. Cohen, Churchill and the Jews (London: 1985), pp. 236, 249-51, and Philippe Burrin, Hitler and the Jews (New York: 1989), pp. 59-61.

16. For population transfers from interwar through postwar period, see Joseph B. Schechtman, European Population Transfers, 1939-1945 (New York: 1946), and Postwar Population Transfers in Europe, 1945-1955 (Philadelphia: 1962), Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam (London: 1977), Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, Ethnic Cleansing (New York: 1996), Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred (Cambridge: 2001). Segev, One Palestine, pp. 406-7 (Jabotinsky) (see also Gorny, Zionism, pp. 270-1). See I&R, p. 103 for "positive experience." Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians (Washington: 1992), pp. 157-61 (Labor Party). Bertrand Russell, "The Role of the Jewish State in Helping to Create a Better World" (1943), reprinted in Zionism (1981).

17. Sasson Sofer, Zionism and the Foundations of Israeli Diplomacy (Cambridge: 1998), p. 367 ("social order"). Richard Crossman, Palestine Mission (London: 1947), pp. 33, 152, 167. Kenneth Ray Bain, The March to Zion (London: 1979), p. 35 (Wallace) (cf. pp. 34-6 for Americans' identification of Zionist settlement with American West). For a detailed comparison between Zionist and American conquests, see I&R, pp. 89-98, and esp. Norman Finkelstein, The Rise and Fall of Palestine (Minn.: 1996), pp.104-21. (hereafter: R&F)

18. See I&R, chap. 3; for further evidence supporting the argument in this chapter, see Laila Parsons, "The Druze and the birth of Israel," in Rogan and Shlaim, War, chap. 3, and Ben-Eliezer, Making, pp. 170-81. For comparisons recently evoked by mainstream Israelis with the Serb expulsion, see Finkelstein, Holocaust, pp. 70-1.

19. Sternhell, Founding Myths, p. 173 (Katznelson; for Katznelson's effective support of forced transfer, see p. 176). Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West (New York: 1889), vol. 4, p. 54.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?ar=10&pg=4

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 4 replies

Palestinians & Berlin Wall commemeration

2009-11-06T21:03:25Z

Last update - 18:45 06/11/2009
WATCH: Protesters breach West Bank separation barrier
By Reuters

The weekly demonstrations against the West Bank separation barrier in the towns of Bil'in and Na'alin, which take place every Friday, reached new heights this week when activists, seeking to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the falling of the Berlin Wall, knocked a part of the barrier over.

Masked Palestinian youths breached the 8-meter high section of Israel's security wall that runs through Na'alin, while Israeli border guards fired tear gas and a foul-smelling spray from behind the high concrete barrier.

Protesters levered open a space under one the pre-cast panels and used a hydraulic car-jack to topple it out of position.

"No matter how tall, all walls fall," read one banner pasted onto the structure by Palestinian youths assisted by Israeli activists, who say the wall on Palestinian land and through Palestinian communities is simply a land grab by Israel.

The panel, cast in the same inverted T-shape as those erected by communist East German through Berlin in 1961, was tilted back close to tipping point onto the Israeli side, but did not fall completely.

The youths scattered when the Israeli guards behind the wall rushed to close the breach.

Thick black smoke from a stack of tires set alight by the youths mingled with white trails of tear gas against the blue sky. Clouds of Israeli "skunk" spray - smelling of corpses and feces - drenched the protesters' side of the skirmish.

Israel began building its barrier of fences and walls at the height of the Palestinian uprising that began in 2000, and it now runs along most of the West Bank border, encroaching at many points onto West Bank territory.

It says it was built to prevent suicide bombers entering Israel and has largely succeeded in doing so.

In a non-binding decision in 2004, the International Court of Justice said the barrier was illegal and should be taken down because it crossed occupied territory.

Israeli leaders say the barrier is a temporary obstacle that could be removed once a peace agreement with the Palestinians is signed.

VIDEO AT LINK

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126415.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Pneumonic Plague Virus Released in Ukraine by Baxter Labs, Deaths Skyrocketing

2009-11-06T20:29:06Z

Has Baxter Released A BioWeapon In Ukraine?
By David Rothscum
11-2-9
http://www.rense.com/general88/bax.htm

Evidence appears to suggest that Baxter International may be responsible for a new deadly outbreak of viral pneumonia in Ukraine.

In February of 2009, Bloomberg reported that Baxter “accidentally” sent vaccine material containing both live Avian bird flu and seasonal influenza to multiple laboratories worldwide. A laboratory decided to test the vaccine on its ferrets and the ferrets all unexpectedly died.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I

It must be noted that Baxter has made a “mistake” like this before. Blood products produced by Baxter once containd HIV. Thousands of haemophiliacs died due to this, and many went on to infect their spouses.

http://www.aegis.com/news/re/1996/RE960283.html

Later in the year, a bizarre story emerged on the internet. The news was full of reports on a man named Joseph Moshe who was arrested after a hours long standoff with the police because he had supposedly made threats against the White House. The man was able to withstand multiple rounds of tear gas…which left L.A. police officers amazed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/man-suspected-of-making-t_n_259330.html

However, the internet community was very skeptical of the true reasons behind the man’s arrest. Comments on the Huffington Post website immediately began pouring in about an unreported side to this story, namely that Joseph Moshe was a Mossad Agent who specialized in biological warfare and who called into a radio show to warn people about a biological weapn that was being made by Baxter international that would be spread through vaccine and would cause a plague upon its release.

Although anyone can make a doomsday claim and we should never believe anyone (and it must be said that the Truth movement handled this well, the message was spread without being proclaimed as gospel) the amazing part about Moshe’s claim was the location where Moshe said the biological weapon was being produced.

Moshe claimed that Baxter’s laboratory in the Ukraine out of all places was creating this biological weapon. All of this came out in the beginning of August, which is more than 2 months before the situation that is currently unfolding. For Moshe to correctly name the country where a new epidemic would be unleashed, requires either inside information, or an incredible coincidence as anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics can confirm for himself.

Let us assume for a moment that every person on our planet has an equal chance of giving rise to a new lethal epidemic due to a virus that mutates as it spreads through his body.

http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2009/ds/kn/kn_e/kn0609_e.html

Ukraine has 46 million inhabitants. (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html) The current estimated global population is about 6.7 billion. This means that if a new epidemic were to arise, the chance of this epidemic starting in the Ukraine would be 0.69%. (http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2009/10/29/202374) However, it appears that this virus is a form of flu. This makes the odds of being right when guessing that a deadly flu is going to break out in the Ukraine even smaller. The reason for this is that back in early August the vast majority of influenza infections were found in different countries than the Ukraine. (http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/78637/Moshe_Bar-Joseph)

(http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/78637/Moshe_Bar-Joseph) Moshe’s biomed profile appears to confirm his position as a microbiologist. Furthermore, this page with Baxter’s contact information for its Ukraine office confirms that Baxter has a presence in the Ukraine.

(http://www.stevequayle.com/dead_scientists/UpdatedDeadScientists.html) It must also be noted that massive numbers of microbiologists have been dying bizarre deaths. This case of what appears to be a brave man who sacrificed it all to bring us this message may explain why so many microbiologists have been murdered. The fact that this man managed to predict an outbreak of highly lethal influenza in a place where we would least expect it, 2 months before it a actually occured, lends credence to his claim that Baxter International is responsible for the outbreak and shows that top microbiologists can pose a problem to the people responsible for this ongoing disaster.

This is a developing story, expect to see possible updates on David Rothscum Reports as more information on what is happening in Ukraine becomes available.

Update 1: For the purpose of keeping information from disappearing, I am going to mirror most information I can find on here.

Comments on the Huffington post website on an article about Moshe’s arrest documenting his claim that the Influenza virus in a vaccine manufactured by Baxter in Ukraine replicates RNA from the 1918 flu and is meant as a bioweapon:

Update 2: (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jlasqqSlUIt56rnsbgDSaDdjU9kw) The Ukrainian government wants to impose travel restrictions on people across the nation to stop the virus from spreading.

Update 3: According to the Huffington post comments I cited above, Dr. Moshe claimed that the virus used replicated RNA of the 1918 Spanish flu. (http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2009/10/29/202374) Compare this to reports that are coming out from Ukraine:

Five persons have died from the flue in Lviv, four men and one woman, says emergency hospital chief doctor Myron Borysevych.

Two of the dead patients were in the 22-35 age group, with 2 others over 60. He diagnosed the disease as viral pneumonia.

Viral tests can last from one to two weeks. They are complicated and not done in Lviv. The course of the disease was very quick. The symptoms included very high temperature and short-wind cough.

All the six dead young people had symptoms of severe hemmorhagic pneumonia. The disease starts slowly, with temperature rising to 37.2 37.3 degrees, slight cough and pain in joints. Nasal catarrh developed at the end of the second or third day. Autopsy revealed that the lungs were soaked with blood, the oblast chief specialist said.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 2 replies

Yemen rebels accuse Saudi

2009-11-06T04:53:54Z

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5js0j_ySXM89f3uIsRAbbxc2k11ig

SANAA — Shiite Zaidi rebels in northern Yemen on Monday accused Saudi Arabia of allowing Yemeni forces to use its territory to attack rebel strongholds near the border.

Saudi authorities have "allowed Yemeni army to use a Saudi base in Jabal al-Dukhan from which it launched attacks," the rebels said in an emailed statement received by AFP.

"We advise the Saudi regime to remain impartial and not allow the Yemeni army to use its territories to attack us, because we would be otherwise forced to retaliate," it added.

The rebels said the alleged Saudi green light amounted to a "flagrant aggression and dangerous intervention."

A Yemeni official swiftly dismissed the charge as "mere fabrications that have always been repeated by the rebels."

"They are trying to bring Saudi Arabia into the problem ... Jabal al-Dukhan is a Yemeni area," he told AFP, asking not to be named.

It is not the first time that Zaidi rebels, also known as Huthis, accuse neighbouring Saudi Arabia of aiding the Yemeni army, which launched an all-out offensive on the rebels' stronghold in the Saada region on August 11.

Last month they accused the Saudi forces of firing across the border.

Riyadh has in the past denied the charges.

The Sanaa government, for its part, accuses Shiite Iran of backing the rebels. It announced last week the seizure of five Iranians on a boat loaded with arms in the Red Sea that it said was destined to the rebels.

Hundreds of people have been killed or wounded in the ongoing clashes, and tens of thousands forced to flee their homes, resulting in a humanitarian crisis complicated by a dire shortage of food and other basic necessities.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 8 replies

Never Mind

2009-11-06T04:43:04Z

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/sex-tape-prejean/

"Carrie Prejean, the dethroned Miss California 2009 who stirred up controversy by expressing her views against gay marriage, has dropped her lawsuit against the Miss California contest because of an "extremely graphic" sex tape, says a report at the celebrity gossip site TMZ.

"Carrie Prejean demanded more than a million dollars during her settlement negotiations with Miss California USA Pageant officials -- that is, until the lawyer for the Pageant showed Carrie an XXX home video of her handiwork," the Web site reported."

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 26 replies

LOOK~ Pat Tillman talked about criminal RICO boss GW Bush, at riot and incitement, and so he was MURDERED, IN COLD BLOOD, as a seditious conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 2384

2009-11-06T03:58:40Z

They killed Tillman and quashed all the facts!

They killed him and then funded themselves, illegally, after lying about EVERYTHING!

So why does anybody think the 6-thousand-year-old, six-pointed EGYPTIAN STAR is Jewish?

The HABIRUS (Hebrews) were like Spartans, to Myceneans, and so when Santorini-Threa erupted, c.1400 B.C., Ra-Moses had his name shortened, which is common usage, today.

He was stoned, when the mob of Abraham brought its abominable invasion of Canaan to bear, with the remnants of the 10 Comandments.

Note well, the finger of the doctor attending assassinated President Lincoln. Know well, how McCain knows plane crashes, and dodges.

Jews are from Ethiopia, says Isaiah 20:5, and so when Barry popped 756 into McCovey Cove and uttered, "Isaiah," he drew Senate contempt and illegal prosecution, for an illegal subpoena, for the 2003 drug tests.

When you steal, try to steal everything, OK?

Lousy Mueller III fabricated and destroyed three sets of exculpatory evidence including trial exhibits, and in contempt from SF-USDC Magistrate Larson's contemptuous CR98-0087, migrated to Director of the FBI, in bad faith.

Robert S. Mueller, III suppressed how the FBI knew the hijackers were in the states, but before the FBI could report, the NSA and CIA asserted bills of attainder, in violation of Art.I Sec.9 all constitutions, to prevent notice to any superiors or to the public, so Giuliani let the notice pass and murdered his police and fire fools, who ran up into towers, Giuliani and his punks KNEW were fatally stricken, so as to use his own neglect of media for emergencies, and of funding for this during deregulated power, to pass illegal costs, to the unions, which love Rudi and his NY Yankees box seats, which must burn the ass of any Yankee hitter, on deck.

Mueller had punk attorney Daniel Horowitz suppress review, while suppressing how 9/11 attacks were directed at Building 7, since seven years after the fat, deregulated energy deals, the twin towers are down, forever, and the prices of food and energy are through the roof.

Scott 'Evil' Dyleski, actually a really good guy got busted for whacking Horowitz' tricky wife, in Orinda.

The Bill Graham people were stealing music, with Nixon's warrantless conspiracy.

So why do you think they call it, PUNK ROCK? Usama bin Laden KNOWS Eddie Van Halen's former wife has a big butt, OK? He KNOWS that band with Indiana native Roth was a red state band, OK?

Jacko burned a Sheik for $7 million, committed suicide, Anna Nicole heard Imus say he'd nuke Saudi Arabia, and wonked, so when Jerry Brown slept with Linda Ronstadt in the 1970s, he profiled all the conspiracy to steal and overproduce property, all over the world, and now he proposes to prosecute Howard K. Stern and Dr. Murray, when Brown and his DOJ are late, to notice Jacko's cry to get busted, before he killed himself, to make a statement about how he WANTED to get busted, but Brown is another Joe Jackson, in Jesuit drag.

All riot. Chill, or beware order to desist at all gatherings, including weddings, you spawners of illegal persons and interests.

Get a clue! Trump is doomed, for fathering Blanket and running away, from a meth-head at riot, knowing he is a danger to children of interest, to any person and to him.

Got a METH-HEAD, for a damn Army General? Get a damned CLUE, blankety-blankety-CRAP is what this General Officer has for brains, and his assets are illegal quartering, all the way up his garters and panties collection.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

Yemen's Jews. The End

2009-11-06T02:44:00Z

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256799063127&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

History will record that 2,500 years of Jewish life in Yemen is now over. As The Wall Street Journal reported October 31, the US State Department has completed a clandestine operation which brought 60 of the country's remaining Jews to America. The newspaper quoted Yeshiva University's Hayim Tawil, a Yemeni Jewry expert, as issuing the certificate of death: "This is the end of the Jewish Diaspora of Yemen. That's it."

As Israelis and Jews we earnestly appreciate the efforts of the Obama administration on behalf of our Yemeni brethren.

THE RESCUE illuminates an often overlooked aspect of the 60-year-plus Arab-Israel conflict. Whereas the Arab world has purposefully maintained the 700,000 or so Palestinian Arabs made homeless in the course of the 1948 war and their descendants as permanent refugees and political pawns, the State of Israel and world Jewry have worked hard to resettle a roughly equal number of Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab lands.

The behavior of Arab leaders toward their Jewish subjects after the creation of Israel was (with notable exceptions) characterized by scapegoating and marginalization culminating in mass exodus. In 1947, Arab rioters in Aden killed dozens of Jews to protest a two-state solution in Palestine. In 1949 and 1950 the bulk of Yemen's Jews, some 49,000 souls, were airlifted here in "Operation Magic Carpet." The broad Arab refusal to accept the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state is partly attributable to Arab attitudes toward their Jewish minorities.

Coexistence was possible - so long as Jews knew their place.

JEWISH life under Muslim rule was historically neither the utopia Arab propagandists claim nor the purgatory Jewish polemicists assert. As the doyen of Middle East studies Bernard Lewis wrote in The Jews of Islam, the actual state of affairs varied depending on the era, locale, political and economic conditions, the stability of the ruling Islamic regime, and on developments within the Jewish community.

Jews were granted Dhimmi or tolerated status. They paid a special jizya tax to underscore their subordinate position in society. If they missed the point, Islamic tradition allowed for the local Muslim authority to deliver a ceremonial slap on the neck to the Jew upon payment of the levy. Jews were required to wear distinguishing clothes; they were expected to deport themselves deferentially in the presence of Muslims. And unlike everyone else, Jews were not permitted to carry weapons.

On the other hand, Lewis wrote, Jews were not required to convert to Islam, and could enjoy a high degree of acculturation. (They were certainly better off than their coreligionists living under medieval Christendom.)

At any rate, this social contract crumbled in part because the Zionist movement was a direct assault on the Dhimmi principle.

The Yemen experience also reminds us that the Arab world's antagonism to modern values has led it to extended periods of internal instability as well a visceral rejection of Israel for embodying the Western liberal idea.

POLITICAL instability is always "bad for the Jews," and Yemen has long been a volatile mess. The ancestral homeland of Osama bin Laden is burdened by internal strife, poverty and a dysfunctional regime. The north and south (where the oil is) are at odds.

The secular-oriented government of Ali Abdullah Saleh, a Shi'ite, is corrupt and undemocratic. He is battling an insurrection by Shi'ite religious extremists who were once his allies against fanatical Sunnis. Extremist Sunnis, supportive of al-Qaida, are also battling the regime and attacking Western targets.

Yemen has a Sunni majority with a large Shi'ite minority. On top of all this, there are also tribal tensions; the president's tribe dominates the security services.

But the Yemeni masses were able to put some of these differences aside during Operation Cast Lead... and attack the Jews. With few friends, Yemen's president sought to stay in Washington's good graces by trying to protect the besieged remnants of Yemeni Jewry.

AS THE saga of Yemen's Jews now comes to a close, our thoughts are also drawn to Israel's treatment of its Arab minority. Any one of 10 Arab Knesset members could persuasively argue, Jewish Israelis have nothing to be smug about.

Yet if they were fair minded, they might grant that the Jewish state has done a comparatively decent job in bringing its minority citizens into the mainstream.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 21 replies

are religions stupid

2009-11-06T01:45:14Z

can anyone truly support, in this day and age, the 21st century,
any religion that keeps humanity stuck in some medieval time trap ,,,

to be fair, I'm talking mainly about the main religions
of muslims, christians, jews, and hindus,,,
they are all stuck in so many rules,,,and customs,
especially regarding women,,,and natural behaviors, especially sex,,,

why would anyone here on tribe even support them,,,hypocrites ,,,
in some of those countries showing skin
and admitting to pleasures is heathen kind of behavior,,,would get lashings, or stonings,,,
or jail, or honor killings for something that can easily be seen on tribe.net,,,

instead of blaming israel and jews, or palestinians and muslims,,,or even hindus
and their strict social heirachies,,,isn't it time to stop "feeding" their idiot gods and
let them go to some museum, like the statues of greece,,,

what do religions actually contribute, to humanity and the earth, except
multitudes of misery and ignorance,,,

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 197 replies

Honduras' ousted president, government sign pact

2009-11-06T01:42:37Z

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Representatives of ousted President Manuel Zelaya finally reached an agreement with the interim government that could help end the monthslong dispute over Honduras' June 28 coup, and possibly pave the way for Zelaya's reinstatement.

The Organization of American States announced the deal late Thursday but did not release a text of the accord, in which Zelaya appears to have agreed to throw his fate into the hands of a congress that has largely supported interim President Roberto Micheletti.

"We are optimistic because Hondurans can reach agreements that are fulfilled," Zelaya told Radio Globo, an opposition station. "This signifies my return to power in the coming days, and peace for Honduras."

The agreement, if it holds, could represent a much-needed foreign policy victory for the United States, which dispatched a senior team of diplomats to coax both sides back to the table.

Speaking to reporters in Islamabad, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called it "an historic agreement," noting "this is a big step forward for the inter-American system."

The agreement appears to soften Micheletti's previous stance that the Supreme Court — which has already rejected Zelaya's reinstatement — decide the issue. Instead, the high court would make a recommendation, but the final decision would apparently be left to a vote in Congress.

The agreement would create a power-sharing government and bind both sides to recognize the Nov. 29 presidential elections. The international community had threatened to not recognize the vote if Zelaya is not reinstated, but on Thursday, OAS Political Affairs Secretary Victor Rico told reporters that "the United States and the OAS will accompany Honduras in the elections" as a result of the accord.

Clinton said the elections would go forward and the U.S. will work with Honduras to ensure the election is legitimate.

The deal was greeted by all sides as a victory in the long-running dispute that has polarized the country and mired it in diplomatic isolation.

"Tonight I am pleased to announce that ... I authorized my negotiating team to sign a final accord that marks the beginning of the end to the political situation in the country," Micheletti said in a televised address.

The team of U.S. diplomats had worked over the last two days to coax both sides back to the table.

"This is a great moment for Honduras, and its people should be proud that Hondurans have achieved this accord," said Tom Shannon, U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, who arrived with the U.S. delegation Wednesday.

Rico said "they (the negotiators) are the heroes of Honduran democracy ... and this is a great moment for Honduras." The OAS had tried for months to bring the two sides together.

Micheletti called the pact a "significant concession" on his part, and said that one point would require foreign powers to drop sanctions or aid cutoffs imposed after the coup, and send observers to the elections.

The Supreme Court has already rejected Zelaya's return, saying he was replaced as president on June 28 because he violated the Constitution by pressing for a vote on potential constitutional reforms. Zelaya's opponents accuse him of attempting to end a ban on presidential term limits — something the leftist leader denies.

Zelaya, who is holed up at the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, the capital, has said Congress should make the decision on his reinsatement, even though he currently enjoys the support of only about a fifth of the legislators.

Zelaya was flown out of the country by soldiers on June 28, but slipped back in Sept. 21. It was unclear if he would be allowed to leave the Brazilian Embassy under the deal.

The interim government has vowed to arrest Zelaya if he leaves the diplomatic mission, and filed a complaint Thursday at the U.N.'s highest court accusing Brazil of meddling in Honduran affairs by giving Zelaya refuge. The International Court of Justice declined to comment on whether it would hear the case, and Brazil's Foreign Ministry said the government was evaluating the complaint.

Brazil supports Zelaya's fight to return to power and has not pressured him or his supporters to leave.

Earlier on Thursday, police fired tear gas to disperse a march of about 1,000 Zelaya supporters as they neared the hotel where the talks were taking place.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD9BLAAQ81

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 6 replies

Bad Driver Genes!

2009-11-06T01:39:55Z

Is There a 'Bad Driver' Gene?

http://www.ajc.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/gent/632551.html

THURSDAY, Oct. 29 (HealthDay News) -- Are you a bad driver? Maybe you can blame it on your genes.

In a small study, researchers found that people with a gene variation performed 20 percent worse on simulated driving tests and did as poorly a few days later. Almost one in three Americans have the variation, the team said.

"These people make more errors from the get-go, and they forget more of what they learned after time away," said Dr. Steven Cramer, neurology associate professor at the University of California at Irvine and senior author of a study published recently in the journal Cerebral Cortex, in a statement.

The study authors say the gene variation lowers available levels of a protein that boosts memory by helping brain cells talk to one another and work properly.

Earlier research has suggested people with the variation engage smaller areas of the brain when they take on tasks.

"We wanted to study motor behavior, something more complex than finger-tapping," said Stephanie McHughen, a graduate student and lead author of the study in a statement. "Driving seemed like a good choice because it has a learning curve, and it's something most people know how to do."

Twenty-nine people took a driving test on a simulator, including seven with the gene variation. They had to learn to "drive" on a track that included tough-to-navigate curves and turns. They came back four days later to retake the test.

Those with the variant did worse and failed to remember as much the second time around as the others. "Behavior derives from dozens and dozens of neurophysiologic events, so it's somewhat surprising this exercise bore fruit," Cramer said.

But don't be alarmed if you think you have this gene variation -- it has it's good side. The researcher say the gene also slows mental decline for people with conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease or multiple sclerosis.

"It's as if nature is trying to determine the best approach," Cramer said. "If you want to learn a new skill or have had a stroke and need to regenerate brain cells, there's evidence that having the variant is not good. But if you've got a disease that affects cognitive function, there's evidence it can act in your favor. The variant brings a different balance between flexibility and stability."

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 5 replies

Health "Insurance": A Criminal Enterprise

2009-11-06T00:55:44Z

Health "Insurance": A Criminal Enterprise
Jacob M. Appel
Bioethicist and medical historian
November 1, 2009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/health-insurance-a-crimin_b_341448.html

Federal lawmakers have squandered much of the autumn debating how best to provide private health insurance to approximately fifty million uninsured Americans. Guaranteeing healthcare for these individuals is certainly a moral imperative. However, relying on private insurers to serve these individuals is about as prudent as hiring a band of pedophiles to run a national childcare program. Anyone who has worked as a healthcare provider long enough, and has been paying attention, eventually comes to recognize private health "insurance" is a large-scale criminal endeavor -- part Ponzi scheme, part extortion racket -- that consistently exploits patients at their most vulnerable moments. In short, private health insurance is the sort of predatory enterprise, like payday lending and loan-sharking, that should be criminalized.

Health insurance, as the late political historian Edward Beiser pointed out in his seminal 1994 article "The Emperor's New Scrubs," is a misnomer. The principle behind traditional insurance is the distribution of risk. For example, the odds of my home burning down are quite low. The odds of any other home burning in my community are similarly low. However, the odds of some home in our community burning are reasonably high, so we all pay into a reserve fund -- "fire insurance" -- and whoever suffers the misfortune of a home-burning collects the pot. This "pooling of risk" is a staple of most high school economics classes.

However, health "insurance" does not follow this model, because, over the course of time, nearly all of us will suffer the bodily ills that cause us to draw funds from the collective till. So what we are doing, by paying for private insurance, is having a third party manage our healthcare dollars for us until we're ready to use them. In return, this third party banks the interest and skims a profit off the top, employing an army of paper-pushing middlemen to manage our contributions. The very act of calling these healthcare middlemen "insurers" buys into the false belief that Aetna and Oxford are protecting us against rare occurrences, rather than merely serving as money-managers of our healthcare dollars. (They only provide true "insurance" in cases of catastrophic care for the young, a small and increasingly shrinking portion of healthcare expenditures.) Yet once consumers view these corporations merely as money managers, few sane people would ever invest at interest rates of zero for such low payouts at term.

The system I have described would be cause enough for the government to ban private insurance and replace it with a publicly-run plan. Unfortunately, the economic structure of the system is not nearly as nefarious in theory as it is in practice. Most people in this country who do have private health insurance are happy with their coverage -- until they actually attempt to use it. Once they face a medical emergency, however, they soon discover that the unspoken policy of many insurers is to deny as many claims as possible, often on legally and medically implausible grounds, until the patient or his family give up. Multiple calls, usually including direct intervention from a physician, may pressure an insurance company into changing their ruling--but the critically-ill often lack the time and emotional energy to wage such battles. So I fear that, in the drive to assure universal healthcare coverage, policy makers and the general public have missed the larger point: Having health insurance does not do you any good if that insurance doesn't cover your illness or injury.

Opponents of a national health insurance plan often lambaste the straw-man of having public officials determine which procedures will be available to the sick and dying. In contrast, they would have us believe that those determinations are presently made by individual doctors serving the needs of their patients. As a physician, I can assure them that those decisions are actually rendered by low-level employees at large healthcare conglomerates. None of these "no men" have medical degrees; many lack a college education or even a basic understanding of human biology. Their sole job in the world is to deny coverage until pressured into doing otherwise. Alas, the only practical recourse that most patients have is to sue -- after navigating a hoop of intermediate remedies such as arbitration, depending on their state and contract. That is about as realistic as telling the passengers aboard the Titanic that they have a right to sue for more lifeboats. The reality is that cancer victims in need of expensive chemotherapy and psychotic patients desperate for in-patient mental health services cannot be expected to lodge lengthy and complex legal challenges against their so-called "insurers." Given the choice between American public servants determining my coverage or private, box-checking lackeys working out of out-sourced shell offices in India, I'd side with the shortcomings of American bureaucracy any day. So would most Americans. That is why Medicare, which follows exactly such a public model, remains so popular.

From an ethical point of view, the real question is not whether there should be a "public option" but whether there should be a "private option." Once a public system of genuine universal health coverage is established, our society will have to decide whether wealthy individuals will be allowed to use their own personal funds to buy additional care that is not provided by the government. Is buying extra chemotherapy or life-support a human right? Or does it transcend a moral boundary, like buying a cornea on the black market? This will prove a difficult ethical dilemma. The government certainly has the authority to ban out-of-pocket supplemental care, much as it prevents private companies from delivering first-class mail and could prohibit the establishment of a private "social security" system. Whether the state should exercise such power is another matter. While most reasonable, progressive people may roughly agree on what ought to constitute the "floor" of health care coverage, any effort to limit costs by creating a "ceiling" will likely generate controversy. Yet, once a national healthcare system emerges and the "public option" swallows much private healthcare, that is likely to be the moral conundrum that we face.

I have little doubt that the day will soon arrive when the CEOs of health "insurers" are dragged before Congress to face the same sort of interrogation at which war profiteers were grilled by the Truman Committee in the 1940s and to which the Waxman Hearings subjected Big Tobacco in the 1990s. (The recent Congressional kid-gloves Q&A sessions are not what I have in mind.) When that day arrives, I do hope Congress permits the victims of falsely denied claims and calculated dithering to testify against them.

During a recent encounter as my hospital, upon learning that a suffering patient's need for essential treatment had been denied by his insurer, the man's social worker informed me that that this patient "had bad insurance." I had heard that line one time too many, so I asked, "What would constitute good insurance?" My colleague replied, "Staying healthy." That may be bitter medicine, but it is the horrific truth: All private insurance plans fall far short when it comes to covering necessary care. To put it bluntly, private health "insurers" sell an enormous sour lemon: a product that does not and cannot work. The best solution -- as radical as it may sound -- might be to criminalize such enterprises entirely.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/health-insurance-a-crimin_b_341448.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

Will Obama be reelected?

2009-11-05T20:51:02Z

Advertisement
Obama's approval rating's are down since the election. Will he be reelected? What has he done wrong versus what has he done right? If we could redo the election, would you vote for someone else?

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 24 replies

Micahael Moore Vs CNN on health Care

2009-11-05T19:44:59Z

some of you may have already seen this, but boy is it funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA&NR=1

sometimes i do think Moore can be a bit one sides, but he sure knows how to challenge the mainstream. And he sure is funny.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

Kerik Expected to Plead Guilty in Criminal Trial

2009-11-05T17:33:58Z

WNYC - ‎2 hours ago‎
NEW YORK, NY November 05, 2009 —Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik is expected to plead guilty this morning before a federal judge in White Plains. ...

http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/143873

Kerik Expected to Plead Guilty in Criminal Trial
WNYC Newsroom

NEW YORK, NY November 05, 2009 —Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik is expected to plead guilty this morning before a federal judge in White Plains. The Associated Press reports that a person familiar with the case says the guilty plea will resolve three federal criminal trials currently pending against Kerik.

He faces up to 20 years in prison for the most serious charges against him, but the plea deal could shorten that sentence to under three years.

Kerik was scheduled to stand trial next Monday, for allegedly accepting apartment renovations from a contractor with ties to organized crime. Prosecutors say the company did the work hoping Kerik would help it obtain a city license. Kerik is charged with tax evasion and lying to the government.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

Judge puts restraining on abortion law.

2009-11-05T15:49:41Z

Judge puts restraining order on Ill. abortion law

(AP) – 16 hours ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gFTqkZR1s3ebQA_MtpF2q-R20PcAD9BP0D801

CHICAGO — An Illinois judge has issued a temporary restraining order delaying enforcement of a law requiring doctors to notify parents of teens who are seeking an abortion.

The order issued Wednesday was sought by the American Civil Liberties Union. It is to remain in effect until the judge can hear arguments on the group's opposition.

It came just hours after the state's Medical Disciplinary Board voted not to extend a 90-day grace period put into place in August, meaning the law would have taken effect.

Illinois' law was passed in 1995 but never enforced because of various court actions. It requires doctors to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger 48 hours before a teen gets an abortion. There are provisions that allow girls to bypass parental notification.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois was cleared Wednesday to start enforcing a long-debated parental notification law for teens seeking abortions, after more than a decade of legal challenges.

The state's Medical Disciplinary Board voted not to extend a 90-day grace period put into place in August. That means the law takes effect, the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation said.

Illinois' law was passed in 1995, but never enforced because of various court actions. Thirty-five other states have similar laws, which meant some teens seeking abortions came to Illinois for them.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois planned to ask a Cook County judge on Wednesday for a temporary restraining order to keep the state from enforcing the law.

"What we're focused on now is protecting the health and well being of young women across the state of Illinois," spokesman Ed Yohnka said.

Peter Breen, executive director of the Chicago-based Thomas Moore Society Pro-Life Law Center, said the group was "heartened" by the board's decision. Teenagers from surrounding states were skirting their own states' laws "on a pretty regular basis" by coming to Illinois to get abortions, Breen said.

"It's about parents and kids talking," Breen said. "No one should be against this."

The law requires doctors to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger 48 hours before the teens get abortions. It requires no notice in a medical emergency or in cases of sexual abuse, and a provision allows girls to bypass parental notification by going to a judge.

Planned Parenthood of Illinois has been providing notification since August, spokeswoman Beth Kanter said. If a teen said she wasn't comfortable letting a parent or guardian know, Planned Parenthood has been referring her to another health care provider who was using the grace period, Kanter said. That will now change, she said.

"We believe that government cannot and should not mandate this communication," Kanter said. "Most teens do seek their parents' advice and counsel ... but in some cases safe and open communication isn't possible."

The Parental Notice of Abortion Act was not enforced because the Illinois Supreme Court refused to issue rules spelling out how judges should handle appeals of the notification requirement. The Illinois Supreme Court issued those rules in 2006.

But last year, a federal judge again refused to allow enforcement, saying the law still failed to give teenagers workable judicial options to notifying her parents. In July, a federal appeals court lifted the injunction on the 1995 version. Then in August, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation granted doctors a 90-day grace period before the law would go into effect.

Medical Disciplinary Board attorney Daniel Kelber told members before the vote that courts in a majority of Illinois counties were not prepared to handle the judicial provision. Some board members said they were disappointed in the courts for not being ready.

"I see a failure of the court," board member Dr. Maria LaPorta said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Russia's Dance With the Devil

2009-11-05T14:05:35Z

Chechen Leader's Islamic Policies Stir Unease

PBS
by Anne Garrels
November 3, 2009

In the war-ravaged Russian republic of Chechnya, the local government is pouring money into the construction of mosques and other Islamic institutions. Despite Russian law that declares a separation of church and state, Chechen schools must now promote Islam.

There are 15 million to 20 million Muslims in Russia, and their share of the overall population of 140 million is growing. As many seek to return to their roots, the government has supported the construction of mosques and Islamic schools as long as they do not challenge the state.

But in Chechnya, the Moscow-backed leader Ramzan Kadyrov has gone even further. He has ordered the return of Sufi Islam and Chechen traditions as a way to establish his control and undercut Muslim extremists.

Kadyrov has ordered local officials to make sure TV companies show more programs celebrating Chechnya's Islamic identity while condemning so-called foreign Muslim trends, which he says undermine the state.

The culture ministry has introduced rules for Chechen artists — all performances must conform to what it determines is Chechen mentality and upbringing. The local hit song these days is called "My Islamic Chechnya."

"This is the politicization of Sufi Islam. [Kadyrov] said that the mosque has to become a political center — a center of education of the young generation," says Alexey Malashenko, a leading expert on Russian Islam at Moscow's Carnegie Endowment. "He consolidated around him the most traditional part of the society, including a piece of [the] young generation."

'Government Has Gone Overboard'

Chechens have long battled Moscow. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin deported the entire population to Siberia and Kazakhstan during the 1940s. Those who survived harsh conditions were only allowed to return a decade later. When the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, Chechen demands for independence resulted in two wars. The Kremlin all but destroyed Chechnya.

Kadyrov, 33, was once a separatist but switched sides, recasting himself as an Islamic leader who is also loyal to Moscow.

At first, his injection of national pride along with lots of money from the central government in Moscow soothed war-weary Chechens.

And at first, the process of Islamization was voluntary. Any female student who wore a headscarf initially earned a prize of $1,000. Now all females, regardless of their religious convictions, must cover their heads in schools and government offices.

Kadyrov has banned the sale of European-style wedding dresses in the republic's bridal salons. Polygamy is increasing. Members of the team around Kadyrov openly have several wives. Kadyrov has also supported honor killings.

Lipkhan Bazaeva, who runs a nongovernmental organization promoting women's rights, says Chechnya is going back to the Middle Ages.

"Yes, we are a traditional, conservative society, with our own values, but the government has gone overboard, declaring unacceptable limits on women — that they should sit at home, they should obey their husbands," she says. "As an individual, she has no rights even if her husband beats her, despite Russian laws to the contrary."

She is afraid to speak out now. "If you criticize the local government, you are in danger," she says.

Unifying Or Dividing?

Malashenko says Kadyrov's strong-arm tactics to unify Chechens are now dividing the society.

"I spoke to young girls in Chechnya, and they don't share the idea of polygamy," he says. "They don't want to wear scarves, but they are obliged to do it. ... Those who are 40 years old, who were born in the Soviet Union, they don't want to be fanatic Muslims."

There is also a split between the cities and rural Chechnya, where Kadyrov's version of Islam is more popular.

Kadyrov's policies are not enough for extremists, who have recently stepped up their attacks, and they are too much for some others, including some in the Kremlin — who are beginning to ask what they have unleashed in this unstable region of the country.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Moderator elections - nominations please

2009-11-05T12:08:47Z

Three months ago to the day I was appointed moderator with the promise that I would hold elections for a new moderator in three months. Well, it's been three months.

There was also a promise of an exploration of a three moderator junta. Keep that in mind as you vote. I'll have a subsequent vote to determine if the tribe wants to go one moderator or three (I had a recent thread asking for opinions, but no formal vote). There are different ways of doing that, including having one primary moderator who is subject to veto authority by the other two, or all three having equal power, etc.

But let's get the moderator votes first.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 37 replies

Will Stevens or Ginsburg retire?

2009-11-05T07:11:51Z

He's 89. She's 76, and had surgery for pancreatic cancer early this year. Come elections of 2010, and the Democrats may have a harder time filling their spots with comparable liberals.

This NY Times article suggests that Stevens' hiring of only one clerks instead of four may be a sign of plans to retire in the near future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/us/03stevens.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 4 replies

Karadzic defiant during war crime trail

2009-11-05T07:02:02Z

Karadzic defiant over boycott at first court appearance
Mariette le Roux Mariette Le Roux, AP
Nov 3, 2009

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091103/ts_afp/warcrimesserbiabosniaictykaradzic

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AFP) – Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic defiantly demanded more time to prepare his defence Tuesday as he made his first court appearance since the start of his genocide trial.

Karadzic called the proceedings "bad from the start" after he entered the accused dock of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for a hearing on how to move forward in the face of his trial boycott.

He faces 11 charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity over the 1992-95 Bosnia war.

The charges in part involve the massacre of more than 7,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica and the 44-month siege of Sarajevo in which 10,000 people were killed.

"I don't want to boycott these proceedings, but I cannot take part in something that has been bad from the start or where my fundamental rights have been violated," Karadzic, wearing a black suit, pink shirt and red tie, told judges, demanding more time to prepare.

"The situation is such that I would really be a criminal if I were to accept these conditions -- to enter into a trial and proceedings for which I am not prepared."

Karadzic is conducting his own defence.

Presiding judge O-Gon Kwon adjourned the trial, cancelling a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, to consider submissions made by Karadzic and the prosecution on the future of the case. He said a written decision will be released later this week.

Karadzic, who denies all the charges against him, could be jailed for life if convicted.

He is charged with 11 counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in the 1992-95 Bosnian war that claimed some 100,000 lives and caused 2.2 million people to flee their homes.

Arrested on a Belgrade bus last July after 13 years on the run, he has refused to leave his jail cell since the trial started on October 26, saying he needs more time to review 1.3 million pages of prosecution evidence and the statements of hundreds of witnesses.

"I have given up my walks in the fresh air and sports," working day and night to prepare for the case, said Karadzic.

But the judge pointed out that the court had found on more than one occasion that he had had enough time to prepare.

"It is the trial chamber, not an accused person which determines readiness for trial," O-Gon said. "It is in your best interest to attend and participate fully in the trial so that justice can be done."

Karadzic maintained his trial was "the last opportunity for arriving at the truth."

Prosecutor Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff urged the court to allow the proceedings to continue, accusing Karadzic of "obstructive behaviour."

"Mr Karadzic cannot be permitted to manipulate the proceedings through his decision not to attend," she said, warning that "if necessary, force can be used to secure his presence in the courtroom."

Other options include continuing the trial in Karadzic's absence, or imposing a defence lawyer -- a step that could delay the proceedings and which he has vowed to fight.

"There is no single lawyer that wouldn't need more time than this defence team that is under my leadership," Karadzic told the judges.

"What my defence needs most is not a new lawyer, what it needs most is more time."

Co-prosecutor Alan Tieger has branded Karadzic "the "supreme commander" of an ethnic cleansing campaign of Croats and Muslims during Bosnia's war.

He is alleged to have worked with Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic in pursuit of a "Greater Serbia" which was to include 60 percent of the territory of Bosnia.

Milosevic died midway through his own genocide trial in March 2006, while Karadzic's former military general, Ratko Mladic, is still on the run.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

British plan breakup of bailed-out banks

2009-11-05T07:00:48Z

LONDON -- The British government is moving to break up parts of major financial institutions bailed out by taxpayers, with a restructuring plan expected to be unveiled as soon as Tuesday. The move highlights a growing divide across the Atlantic over how to deal with the massive banks partially nationalized during the height of the financial crisis.

The British government -- spurred on by European regulators -- is set to force the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group and Northern Rock to sell off parts of their operations. The Europeans are calling for more and smaller banks to increase competition and eliminate the threat posed by banks so large that they must be rescued by taxpayers, no matter how they conducted their business, in order to avoid damaging the global financial system.

The move to downsize some of Britain's largest banks comes as U.S. politicians are debating whether American banks should also be required to shrink. The Obama administration has maintained that large banks should be preserved because they play an important role in the economy and that taxpayers instead should be protected by creating a new system for liquidating large banks that run into problems. But Britain's decision already is being cited by a growing chorus of experts, including prominent bankers and economists, who want the United States to pursue a similar approach.

"We still need to see exactly which parts the [British] banks will need to sell off to judge whether the goal of having smaller banks is really achieved," said Richard Portes, an economics professor at the London Business School. "But there are lessons here for the United States. The supposed economies of scale of massive financial institutions are outweighed by the difficulties in controlling risk inside them."

The changes would amount to a massive restructuring of the British financial system, among the hardest hit by the global crisis, that could result in what the government has described as the creation of three new commercial banks. The Royal Bank of Scotland -- now 70 percent owned by British taxpayers -- announced Monday that regulators were demanding that it sell off more of its businesses than originally expected. According to British media reports, RBS would be told to sell off more than 300 retail branches in the United Kingdom, as well as several insurance businesses. The sell-offs would pave the way for tens of billions of dollars more in previously announced cash injections from the governments.

Demands that more state aid be tied to downsizing appeared to be emanating most strongly from Brussels, where the European Commission has been pressing the British to shrink its massive banks. In a related move, RBS also announced plans Monday to trim 3,700 jobs, or 14 percent of its workforce, across the United Kingdom.

Lloyds, now 43 percent owned by British taxpayers, is expected to avoid as large a sell-off, in part through a plan to raise private capital and fend off a larger share of government ownership. One source familiar with the talks confirmed that final details were being worked out, with an announcement expected Tuesday.

On Sunday, Britain's chancellor of the exchequer (the equivalent of Treasury secretary), Alistair Darling, also told the BBC that Northern Rock -- a British mortgage giant that became one of the first victims of the financial crisis -- would be split in two parts by the end of the year.

The banks' assets would be sold only to new entrants to the British banking market to ensure more competition. Among the potential bidders here are a major supermarket chain and billionaire Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin group. Darling told the BBC that the sell-offs would not amount to "a fire sale," adding that sales of some assets could take several years to ensure that taxpayers get a good return on their investments in the banks. "We need a safer, more competitive banking system," Darling said.

Britain and the United States developed similar banking systems over the past two decades, both encouraging the evolution of giant firms that sought to offer a range of financial services, from savings accounts to trading in derivatives. But in the wake of last fall's financial crisis, Britain has moved much more quickly and dramatically to reform its financial system. Its decision to invest directly in its largest banks to help them weather the crisis set a precedent for the U.S. bailout that followed.

Proponents of downsizing now are pushing the Obama administration to follow Britain's example again.

One of President Obama's top outside economic advisers, former Fed chairman Paul A. Volcker, has proposed a renewed separation between commercial banking and investment banking. The Glass-Steagall Act, which forced banks to choose between those businesses, was imposed during the Great Depression but largely repealed in 1999.

Other prominent financial experts want the government to limit the size of commercial banks, for example through penalties that would give smaller banks a competitive advantage. Investors are already offering large banks much better borrowing rates than their smaller rivals because they believe U.S. regulators won't let the big firms fail.

The three largest U.S. banks, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo, together control about a third of the nation's deposits and are the dominant providers of financial products including mortgage loans and credit cards. All three companies also play major roles on Wall Street, investing and helping companies raise money. Proponents of downsizing argue that such behemoths can take outsize risks, knowing the government must catch them if they fall.

The Obama administration has pushed the most troubled large bank, Citigroup, to sell operations to improve its financial prospects, but it has declined to place similar pressure on healthier banks, arguing in part that the government is ill-suited to make management decisions.

The British plan still could have an immediate impact of a different kind if RBS is forced to sell its U.S. retail banking subsidiary, Citizens Bank, which ranks as the nation's 10th-largest retail bank, with about $100 billion in deposits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203593_2.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

Gay Marriage Ban in Maine

2009-11-05T05:43:28Z

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine-gay-marriage-law-repealed/story?id=8992720

Marc Mutty, campaign manager for "Stand for Marriage," said:

“We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed."

Excuse me? What?

He also said, "We've struggled, we've worked against tremendous odds, as we've all known. We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight."

First of all, the people against gay marriage are not "the little guy." That act is really pathetic. It's the spoiled drama queen martyr-wannabe routine. I wish people would stop using it all the time.

Second, if his kind are a "majority," silent or otherwise how does that mean working against tremendous odds? Seems to me if you have a majority, the odds are in your favor. Oh, and if you have a majority, you're not exactly the oppressed minority you're pretending to be, are you? He contradicts himself and lies.

Third - LOL. "Little guy going up against the big guy." Kinky, Mr Mutty.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 8 replies

Health Care Reform Now! er later!

2009-11-05T02:42:10Z

First the dems say before labor day, then the tea party began. Then before TG, that isn't going to happen either. Now they say, time isn't the issue, we just need to "get it done right" (shumer). Problem is, time is running out. Blue dogs will bolt after they see what happens tonight and the midterm elections loom.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 8 replies

Iran police, protesters clash at US Embassy rally

2009-11-04T22:17:32Z

Iran police, protesters clash at US Embassy rally

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI (AP) – 1 hour ago

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian security forces beat anti-government protesters with batons Wednesday on the sidelines of state-sanctioned rallies to mark the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Embassy takeover. The counter-demonstrations were the opposition's first major show of force on Tehran's streets in nearly two months.

The opposition sought to display unity and resolve after relentless crackdowns on their protests following the disputed June presidential election. Though the crowds were far smaller than during last summer's outrage, authorities were ready with the same sweeping measures: dispatching paramilitary units to key locations and disrupting mobile phones, text messaging and Internet access to frustrate protest organizers.

The contrasts in the latest protest wave were stark: people chanting "Death to America" outside the former U.S. Embassy while hundreds of opposition marchers in central Haft-e-Tir Square denounced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with cries of "Death to the Dictator."

Other opposition protesters marched silently and flashed the V-for-victory sign. Many wore green scarves or wristbands that symbolized the campaign of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims Ahmadinejad stole the election from him through fraud. Mousavi and his allies, including former President Mohammad Khatami, appeared to encourage opposition protesters to return to the streets.

Witnesses told The Associated Press that security forces — mainly paramilitary units and militiamen from the elite Revolutionary Guard — swept through the hundreds of demonstrators at Haft-e-Tir Square, clubbing, kicking and slapping protesters. The witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals from authorities.

Pro-reform Web sites said police fired into the air to try to clear the square — about half a mile from the annual anti-American gathering outside the former U.S. Embassy. The report could not immediately be independently verified.

The state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported police also used tear gas to disperse protesters in other parts of the city. There was no independent information on injuries or arrests, but state-run Press TV said no one was hurt.

A leading opposition figure, Mahdi Karroubi, fell to the ground after being overcome by tear gas, according to a posting by his son Hossein on Karroubi's Web site. His supporters carried him into his car, which plainclothes government supporters attacked as it drove away, the account said.

Karroubi did not need medical attention, his son said.

Other witnesses — also speaking on condition of anonymity — said about 2,000 students at Tehran University faced off against security forces, but there were no immediate reports of violence.

The opposition movement began as objection to Ahmadinejad's re-election, but it has expanded into a catchall movement for complaints that include the unlimited powers of the ruling clerics, Iran's sinking economy and its international isolation. Their tactics now appear to rely on pinpoint protest strikes to coincide with government-backed events, such as September's anti-Israel day.

The size and scope of Wednesday's protests were difficult to determine — possibly several thousand, according to witnesses. But the total is significantly smaller than the hundreds of thousands who streamed into the streets last summer during the worse domestic unrest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Some opposition groups reported demonstrations in other cities such as Shiraz and Isfahan.

Media restrictions now limit journalists to covering state media and government-approved events, such as the rally outside the former embassy.

Authorities appeared determined to avoid opposition rallies overshadowing the anniversary of the embassy takeover. They had warned protesters days in advance against attempts to disrupt or overshadow the annual gathering outside the former embassy, which was stormed by militants in 1979 in the turbulent months after the Islamic Revolution.

Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days in a crisis that began a three-decade diplomatic freeze between the two nations.

Security forces fanned out around Tehran at daybreak on Wednesday after opposition leaders refused to call off their appeals for counter demonstrations.

Volunteer militiamen linked to the Revolutionary Guard patrolled the streets on motorcycles — a familiar sight during the summer unrest. Hours after the clashes, police helicopters passed low over Tehran's rooftops.

Outside the former U.S. Embassy, thousands of people waved anti-American banners and signs praising the Islamic Revolution.

The main speaker, hard-line lawmaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, denounced the United States as the main enemy of Iran. He did not mention the talks with the West, including the United States, on Iran's nuclear program.

But he labeled opposition leaders as dangerous for the country, saying they claim to support the ideals of the Islamic Revolution but aid Iran's perceived enemies.

In Washington, President Barack Obama noted the anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy and urged the two countries to move beyond the "path of sustained suspicion, mistrust and confrontation."

The hostage crisis "deeply affected the lives of courageous Americans who were unjustly held hostage, and we owe these Americans and their families our gratitude for their extraordinary service and sacrifice," Obama said in a statement.

(This version CORRECTS RECASTS lede, overline; corrects that chants against Ahmadinejad sted Khamenei.)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ixeFBxfLzaSjs8Mb8cuFmtPOT6-wD9BOP8BO0

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 2 replies

Only 8% of Palestinian complaints against settlers result in indictment

2009-11-04T22:09:52Z

Last update - 00:00 03/11/2008
Yesh Din report: Only 8% of Palestinian complaints against settlers result in indictment
By News Agencies and Haaretz Service

The human rights group Yesh Din on Monday slammed the government for its "faulty" methods of dealing with settlers violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

Only 8 percent of Palestinian complaints of settler violence results in indictment, according to the report, which was released on Monday.

The report charges that the Appeals Department of the State Prosecution's office tends to "sweepingly accept the decisions of the police and district attorneys to close cases." Often cases are discounted due to lack of reliable evidence, said the report.
Advertisement

The group recommended a change in procedure to guarantee thorough investigation of alleged attacks by Israeli civilians against Palestinians and their property.

Among the steps recommended is a monthly review of at least 10 percent of of these cases by a special law enforcement team. Yesh Din suggested the team maintain permanent contact with the Appeals Department of the State Attorney's Office "in order to ascertain patterns of failures and defects" in investigations of cases arising in the West Bank.

"If significant changes are not made the situation is only going to get worse," said Lior Yavneh, who drafted the report. "The place has become one without any supervision or legal enforcement, a place where there is no one to issue judgment on violent acts toward Palestinians. Criminal activity of the sort there is always going to increase and worsen."

In its response to the group's report, the Justice Ministry said legal authorities were closely following specific cases, but emphasized that it was not in its authority to deal with every case on the matter.

The report was released a day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's cabinet decided Sunday to ratchet up law enforcement measures directed at extremist settlers and to halt government funding for the some 100 outposts built by settlers.

The outposts were never officially authorized, but have received years of tacit or active government assistance.

Government spokesman Mark Regev said Monday that, according to law, Defense Minister Ehud Barak has two weeks to begin taking steps on the matter and report back to the cabinet.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1033864.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 9 replies

Racist Judge Quits

2009-11-04T20:15:10Z

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jy_z-Zo4fvJEf2TK1LCiiPIe9NDwD9BOB3SG1

"A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday."

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 2 replies

Daily Show under fire for covering Israeli-Palestinian conflict

2009-11-04T20:15:04Z

By Daniel Tencer
Thursday, October 29th, 2009 -- 5:55 pm

Jon Stewart's comedy news show The Daily Show is reportedly under fire from pro-Israeli groups for giving airtime to two pro-Palestinian figures on Wednesday night.

Stewart hosted Palestinian democracy activist Mustafa Barghouti and human rights activist Anna Baltzer, author of A Witness in Palestine, who explained the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the perspective of the Palestinian side.

According to a letter reportedly written by Baltzer and circulated by blogger Eric Johnson, the show "was overwhelmed with angry emails and phone calls prior to the appearance, and up until the last minute it seemed like they might cancel."

"During the taping the show had its only heckler in 11 years," Baltzer wrote. "The entire staff were very nervous and may come to regret the monumental decision (and not make it again) as they will surely be inundated now that the show has aired."

At one point during the interview, Barghouti asserted: "We [Palestinians] are struggling for liberty, we are struggling for justice. It's Palestinians who have been subjected to the longest occupation in history and a system of segregation that is totally unjust."

At that point, a voice in the audience could be heard shouting: "Liar!"

"Apparently we have Joe Wilson with us tonight," Stewart quipped, referring the US House representative who yelled "You lie!" during President Obama's address to Congress last month.

The segment drew criticisms from a number of pro-Israeli activists and commenters.

"Jon Stewart [had] a couple of disgraceful guests on his show on Wednesday night for a night of Israel bashing," wrote blogger Israel Matzav. "No, there's no pro-Israel counterpoint (perhaps he will try to convince us that ISM activist Baltzer - who is Jewish - is meant to provide balance). And I thought Stewart's was a comedy show. What if no one watched him?"

Not all pro-Israeli voices were as critical.

"It doesn't actually seem that groundbreaking," wrote Rafi G. "He has a Palestinian talking about Palestinian rights and he has an Jewish leftist talking about Palestinian rights. They are advocating a non-violent approach, both from a Palestinian point of view."

But the blogger noted that "nobody said a word about Palestinian terror or their not accepting peace deals that were offered."

Baltzer is now urging Daily Show viewers to send letters of support to the show, in an effort to keep the show from being dissuaded from covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the future.

And some commentators are praising Stewart for taking on the issue. TalkingPointsMemo blogger M.J. Rosenberg credits Stewart with starting a "sea change" in American media's coverage of the Middle Eastern conflict.

Rosenberg wrote:

Not long ago, no mainstream media personality would ever allow himself to be associated with anyone who suggests that diplomacy, not war, is the way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Being thought of as not 100% down with the government of Israel was a career killer. And, if it wasn't, media and show business figures believed it was and that was the same thing.

That era ended with the rise of Jon Stewart, the most trusted television personality in America (and the only one the kids pay attention to). Stewart is the antithesis of the scared Jew.

The following video was broadcast on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, October 28, 2009.

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/daily-show-israelipalestinian-conflict/

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 78 replies

Bachman incites riot, threatens Pelosi

2009-11-04T19:27:28Z

Michelle Bachman told Sean Hannity's audience to go to Washington by the carload where she will personally lead them through the offices of Congress to "eyeball" legislators and bully them into not voting for health care reform. She stated that the mob should especially confront Nancy Pelosi. Commenters also mentioned lynchings in a not so veiled threat to the President.

Isn't this illegal? you know... inciting mayhem?

I have to give it to them they have big brass balls calling Obama a fascist and then inciting riots when their agenda is threatened.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 6 replies

Everyone hates Jews

2009-11-04T19:01:50Z

'Everyone hates Jews,' declares Islamic cleric
On TV program cites Muhammad: 'The Muslims will kill the Jews. Be patient'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 02, 2009
9:38 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Trees, animals and non-Jewish athletes despise Jews, declared an Egyptian cleric on his country's television network.

"People hate (Jews). They don't like them. We are not talking only about people. [The same goes] even for trees and animals," stated Egyptian cleric Amin Al-Ansari on a program two weeks ago that aired on Egypt's Al-Rahma satellite network.

The program was translated from Arabic by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

"You know, there is rather peculiar footage, in which an Arab man who has a camel loves it and kisses it, and the camel kisses him back. Along comes a Jew and wants to kiss the camel, just like the Arab. What do you think the camel did? Let's watch," Al-Ansari said.

The network then cut to what appeared to be staged footage of a man dressed in Arab garb kissing a camel while another man wearing a white yarmulke attempts to kiss the camel, prompting the animal to try to bite the purported Jew.

"Animals can sense things," explained Al-Ansari.

He continued, "God has filled people's hearts with loathing for these [Jews]. Let's take a look at the field of sports. Let's see how the Jews are hated in the field of sports. They are abhorred. Let's take a look."

The Al-Rahma program cuts to footage of an English league soccer game showing a Chelsea player kicking the Israeli soccer player Yossi Benayoun, who plays for Liverpool.

"Look at this Jew being kicked. People hate them. They don't like them," explained Al-Ansari, laughing.

"The proof is that the Prophet Muhammad said that when Judgment Day draws near, the final war between the Muslims and the Jews will take place. The Prophet said that the Muslims would kill the Jews. 'Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them,'" declared Al-Ansari.

He added, citing from a hadith, a collection of the sayings of Muhammad: "The Muslims will kill the Jews. Be patient. All the trees and all the stones will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the Gharqad tree.' Only one kind of tree will not call [the Muslims]. It is the Gharqad tree."

Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. The Egyptian news media, including government-run newspapers and television networks, routinely feature anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114848

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 25 replies

It's Always Somebody Else's Fault

2009-11-04T18:40:01Z

Gosh, I wonder if the Palestinians refusing to come to the peace table without preconditions might have something to do with it?

Palestinians accuse U.S. of killing peace prospects

By Jeffrey Heller
Reuters
Sunday, November 1, 2009; 6:40 AM

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Pointing an accusing finger at the United States, the Palestinians on Sunday said Washington's backing for Israeli refusal to halt Jewish settlement expansion had killed any hope of reviving peace negotiations soon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, buoyed by new-found support from the Obama administration, urged the Palestinians to "get a grip" and drop their settlement freeze precondition for restarting talks suspended since December.

On a one-day Middle East visit on Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed Israel's view that settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank should not be a bar to resuming negotiations -- contradicting the Palestinian position.

Netanyahu has proposed limiting building for now to some 3,000 settler homes already approved by Israel in the West Bank. He does not regard building in occupied East Jerusalem, annexed in defiance of international opposition, as settlement.

President Barack Obama himself, after persuading Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September to meet Netanyahu in New York, called only for "restraint" in settlement, not the "freeze" he had previously proposed.

Stung by Obama's about-face and Clinton's remarks, the Palestinians voiced their frustration.

"The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel's intransigence and America's back-peddling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon," said Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah.

He said the Palestinians were calling for the Arab League to formulate a "unified Palestinian-Arab position" on the stalled peace process.

Netanyahu told his cabinet that U.S. envoy George Mitchell would continue efforts on Sunday to revive negotiations.

"We hope very much that the Palestinians will get a grip and engage in the diplomatic process," Netanyahu said. "It is in the interests of Israel and the Palestinians."

DOMESTIC PRESSURE

Abbas faces intense domestic pressure from Hamas Islamists who control the Gaza Strip, and any compromise on settlements could hurt him politically in a run-up to Palestinian elections he has scheduled for January 24. Hamas has rejected holding a vote.

Some 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem alongside 2.8 million Palestinians. Israel captured the territories in a 1967 war with its Arab neighbors. Palestinians say settlements could deny them a viable state.

A U.S.-backed peace "road map" of 2003 says Israel should halt settlement activity. Abbas, however, took part in a negotiating process launched at Annapolis in late 2007 by Obama's predecessor George W. Bush. Abbas suspended negotiations over Israel's offensive last December in the Gaza Strip.

Having invested considerable capital in seeking a solution for Palestinians and Israelis as part of a broader thrust to help stabilize the oil-rich Middle East, Obama faces an early setback in his presidency if the two sides refuse even to talk.

Netanyahu's coalition, including pro-settler groups, does not believe Abbas is strong enough to deliver Israel security in any deal. Some analysts see Netanyahu's cooperation with Obama's demand for a resumption of talks on establishing a Palestinian state as intended mainly to ensure U.S. support against Iran.

Palestinians warn that popular frustration with the failure to produce a statehood deal could spill over into an upsurge in violence, even if few have appetite for a broad new uprising.

Just what the Israeli Right wants. They can continue building, thus consolidating reality on the ground. And, if the Palestinians begin to ratchet up the violence? Just another excuse for the Right to continue with their policies, not to mention getting them re-elected. Sad, really.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 10 replies

U.S. officer: If Israel strikes Iran, U.S. will likely join

2009-11-04T16:26:55Z

Last update - 17:24 20/10/2009
U.S. officer: If Israel strikes Iran, U.S. will likely join
By Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondent and Agencies

The United States would find it difficult not to join an Israeli air strike in the event that Jerusalem decides to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, a former top-ranking U.S. Air Force officer told participants at a conference this weekend organized by a Washington think tank.

Charles F. Wald, former deputy commander of United States European Command, said a military strike on Iran could set back the Islamic Republic's alleged nuclear weapons program by several years, but cautioned, "I don't think Israel can do it alone."

The former commander's remarks were made at an annual gathering of financial backers of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who were joined by diplomats, journalists and analysts.

"They have a fantastic military, but not big enough for weeks or months of attacks - hundreds of sorties per day," he said.

Wald said that should "our great ally Israel" decide to take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, "pressure will mount for us to stand by Israel."

He also criticized the U.S. government and military leadership for not devoting enough attention to Iran's nuclear program in recent years due to their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wald was also asked to comment on the suggestion by Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski last month that the U.S. shoot down Israeli warplanes if they try to fly over Iraq to attack Iran.

"The chance of that," Wald said, "is zero - no, less than zero."

Last month, Wald and two former U.S. senators authored an article calling for U.S. President Barack Obama to begin preparations for implementing a military option against Iran.

The goal of such preparations, they wrote, would be not only to achieve military readiness for such a strike, but to persuade Tehran of the seriousness of the administration's intentions and convince Israel that it need not act alone.

Also present at the conference was the former head of Israel's Military Intelligence, General (Ret.) Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, who agreed that the U.S. Air Force could be far more effective than Israel in striking Iran's nuclear program: "The U.S. can destroy the nuclear capacity, and the war would not be long," he said.

He added, however, that Western intelligence may still not know about all of Iran's nuclear sites.

"The Tehran regime doesn't seek suicide," Farkash said. "When they realize we mean business this time, they won't want to lose their regime."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122321.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 5 replies

Hamas' Newest Capability

2009-11-04T16:22:42Z

So, does anybody wonder just how the Israelis will react when one of these babies slams into a Tel Aviv neighborhood?

Intel Chief: Gaza Rockets Can Reach Metro Tel Aviv

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 3, 2009

Filed at 5:36 a.m. ET

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Hamas militants in Gaza have successfully test-fired in recent days an Iranian rocket able to reach metropolitan Tel Aviv, the country's military intelligence chief said Tuesday.

Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin told parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee that the rocket could fly 37 miles (60 kilometers), which would put Israel's largest urban center at risk, Israeli media reported.

Until now, rockets fired from Gaza have reached up to 25 miles (40 kilometers), putting one-eighth of Israel's population within rocket range.

No further details were immediately available from Yadlin's testimony before the closed session.

Defense officials say Palestinian militants in Gaza generally test-fire rockets into the Mediterranean Sea.

It was not clear whether the rocket actually flew 37 miles (60 kilometers), or why Yadlin described the rocket as being of Iranian origin.

Israeli ballistics experts have said paint, tool work and Latin lettering on other rocket fragments point to Iranian origins. But the military has not publicly released clear evidence proving Iranian involvement.

Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza, had no comment on Yadlin's testimony.

Israel launched a bruising war against Gaza militants last winter to quash rocket and mortar fire that had bombarded southern Israeli communities for eight years.

Although the attacks have decreased dramatically -- from 3,300 rockets and mortars fired in 2008 to 250 so far this year -- Israeli officials say weapons continue to reach militants through tunnels under Gaza's border with Egypt.

Most of the Hamas rockets targeted at Israel are crude projectiles cobbled together in small metal shops. But militants also have fired more sophisticated, longer-range weapons, believed made from parts originating in Syria or Iran.

While rockets cannot match the firepower of Israel's military, they have killed 21 civilians and four security personnel over the past eight years and have been highly effective in terrorizing residents of Israel's southern communities.

Israel is also vulnerable to rocket fire from the north, where Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas have amassed tens of thousands of projectiles, some capable of reaching southern Israel.

Israel fought a monthlong war with Hezbollah in 2006 after it captured two soldiers in a cross-border raid. Militants bombarded northern Israel with some 4,000 rockets during that conflict.

Israel's high-tech military is now working on a system known as ''Iron Dome'' to stop the Hamas and Hezbollah rockets. Over the summer the system had its first live trial and according to the defense ministry, it intercepted and destroyed an incoming rocket.

The system is scheduled to be fully operational by the end of 2010.

Israel is also worried about long-range missiles -- particularly from Iran -- and has put in place an elaborate defense system to intercept and neutralize missiles before they hit.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 11 replies

Bloomberg wins 3rd term by only 3%

2009-11-04T14:25:41Z

damn...wish this asshole had been beaten. almost!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election_2009/2009/11/03/2009-11-03_mayor_bloomberg_defeats_william_thompson_by_narrow_margin_squeaks_through_to_thi.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

WHAT CRIMES HAVE THE PHILIPPINES COMMITTED AND...

2009-11-04T03:44:14Z

Philippine Troops Kill 5 al-Qaida-Linked Militants

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 3, 2009

Filed at 6:38 a.m. ET

MANILA, Philippines (AP) -- Government troops attacked an Abu Sayyaf camp in the rebels' southern stronghold before dawn Tuesday, triggering a five-hour clash in which five of the al-Qaida-linked militants were killed and one government militiaman was wounded, the military said.

Maj. Gen. Benjamin Dolorfino said one of the dead was identified as Ridwan Musa -- an Abu Sayyaf commander linked to a string of kidnappings.

The camp was in the village of Tuburan Proper on Basilan island, said Dolorfino, the regional military commander.

The militants, suspected of receiving funds from al-Qaida, are notorious for bombings, ransom kidnappings and beheadings.

The Abu Sayyaf is believed to have about 400 fighters and is suspected of sheltering militants from the larger Southeast Asian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah.

An estimated 600 U.S. troops are stationed in the Philippines, mostly in the south to help Philippine troops fight the Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 10 replies

Muslim 'honor killings' in U.S. on the rise

2009-11-04T03:26:33Z

Muslim 'honor killings' in U.S. on the rise

"Oh dear - how dare the New York Post report on Muslim "honor killings" in the United States! Don't they know that to say one bad word about Islam - the 800-pound gorilla in the room - is to be an "Islamophobe," "racist" and "Zionist?" Why aren't they ignoring Islam and complaining endlessly about Christianity and the Jews? Get in line, NYP! You are not politically correct, and you will be harassed by vicious, mentally ill cyberstalkers from now to eternity for daring to expose these horrible crimes in America!

1. There is so much in-your-face atrocity with Islam that it's impossible to ignore. Every day I receive news alerts on a variety of subjects, including Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism and so on. Unlike these others, the news about Islam is an endless stream of atrocities. And these news alerts are from all over the world, not just the U.S., so cries of "Faux News" are fallacious and ignorant.

2. In its most basic ideology, Islam foments hatred of everything outside of Islam, including all non-Muslims and especially women. The entire cult seems to be based on the enslavement of women - an assessment agreed with by ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others. I am a woman, and I am highly offended by the Islamic treatment of women. I don't want to see it, have it anywhere near me or be a victim of it. And I don't want others to suffer from it either, because I am an empathetic person........"

read the full article

http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140:muslim-qhonor-killingsq-in-us-on-the-rise&catid=36:islam

;

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 15 replies

Fox News vs. White House

2009-11-04T02:59:30Z

Fox Wins!

Over 1 million have already chimed in on who's 'fair and balanced'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 02, 2009
9:32 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The White House has taken off the gloves in its battle against Fox News' perceived critical coverage of the Obama administration, and now National Public Radio is inviting you to vote for the winner of the bout.

The NPR website posted a poll last month called "In White House vs. Fox News War of Words, Who Gets Your Vote?"

Voting options include:

"The White House on this one; Fox News isn't 'fair and balanced.'"

"Fox News on this one; it asks questions others don't and the White House should be able to handle them."

"Neither side. They're both trying to play this 'feud' to their advantage."
Already well over a million respondents have voted, and one side of the battle is in danger of being drowned by the response.

Of course, it wasn't always that way.

The original poll, now posted almost two weeks ago, garnered little attention. Six days into the voting, Tim Graham of NewsBusters reported only a little over 300,000 people had voted, and the White House was in a statistical dead heat with Fox News.

But after NewsBusters, blogs, social media, the Democratic Underground and the Free Republic got wind of the poll, the numbers started to leap.

And they have nearly all leaped one way. With a million new votes added to the tally Graham reported last week, only about 50,000 of the newcomers favored the White House.

The new numbers, as of press time today, show Fox News swamping the White House with over 1 million votes for the news network and roughly 200,000 for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. A scant 19,000 have voted for neither.

NPR blogger Mark Memmott, who originally posted the poll, has admitted he was told a groundswell of Internet chatter among Fox News fans has pushed the poll to its outcome.

"I would like to say thanks to all those who were inspired to vote," he writes. "The poll touched off a competition. That's a good thing, in my opinion. These kinds of surveys aren't meant to be scientific. They're intended to stimulate discussion and give folks another way to express themselves. We certainly accomplished that.

"Now, can I make a small request?" he added. "Perhaps some who came here to vote and comment could come back on occasion and contribute again to the discussions? We value your input."

The poll was sparked by comments last month from White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who told Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post and CNN, "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," and, "Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

The icy blast from the White House continued when the administration attempted to block Fox News from a round of interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg. The other five TV networks included in the White House pool, however, stood up for their snubbed media mate and refused to interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The revolt apparently worked, for the White House relented and permitted the Fox News interview.

As WND reported, in a related poll taken at almost the same time from Zogby International–O'Leary Report, a clear majority of Americans view recent actions by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress as "threats to our First Amendment Rights."

When asked specifically about the White House vs. Fox News feud, 53 percent of respondents agreed that "this is an attempt by the Obama administration to silence dissent," while only 40 percent disagreed. Even among Democrats, 48 percent agreed Obama's staff is trying to suppress dissent in its criticism of Fox News, while only 43 percent of Democrats disagreed.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 2 replies

More Preconditions

2009-11-04T02:53:31Z

Which is exactly what the Israelis Right was hoping for. Thus allowing them to further consolidate their position, creating reality on the ground. As Aba Eban said... "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Sad really, just how little their elected officials actually care about them.

In accordance with Security Council Resolution 242, there are no preconditions for negotiations. As such, the Palestinians are, once again, in violation. Think about that, the next time you are yelling about Israel disregarding some non-binding General Assembly resolution, or an advisory opinion of the world court. The Palestinians are in actual violation (as they have been over and over) of International law. Just as they are in violation, time and again, of the Geneva Conventions. They don't actually appear to give a shit about International law, unless it appears to be to their benefit. Oh well. They will now get even less in the end. So sad.

Times of Oman
No peace talks without settlement freeze
31 October 2009 15:54:42 Oman Time

RAMALLAH: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the Palestinians would not agree to re-launch peace talks with Israel without a complete freeze of Jewish settlements, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said on Saturday.

Abbas rejected the request from Clinton because a deal reached between US Middle East envoy George Mitchell and Israel "does not include a complete freeze of settlement activities," Erakat said.

Clinton met with Abbas in the United Arab Emirates before heading later to Israel for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The United States has been pushing Israel and the Palestinians to resume talks as part of President Barak Obama's efforts to reshape US Mideast policy -- so far with little success.

Mitchell, who has been shuttling between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in recent days, apparently reached a deal with Israel for a temporary moratorium of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

However, Erakat, who attended the Clinton-Abbas meeting, said the agreement Clinton presented to Abbas fell far short of the complete freeze Palestinians have been demanding.

Israel had refused to halt construction of some 3,000 houses currently being built in the West Bank or any construction in annexed east Jerusalem, Erakat said.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 73 replies

Dave Y is being given probationary readmittance

2009-11-04T01:01:23Z

I'm going to offer probationary readmittances to people who have been removed from the Politics tribe who reapply for admittance. The conditions for readmittance are simply that one conform completely to the rules of the tribe (no flaming,trolling, etc.). However, those admitted under these conditions will not be given any leeway while on probation. Violate the rules once and I will remove the individual for the remainder of my term as moderator.

If after a reasonable amount of time I see an individual continuing to make a good faith effort to conform their behavior to the rules of the tribe and post in a way that's consistent with an air of civility in discussing issues, I will then treat them like anyone else (i.e. they will no longer be on probation).

Additionally, unlike others, in the interests of avoiding trolling, and to avoid possible antagonisms resulting from their readmittance, individuals readmitted under probation are prohibited from creating thread titles that flame broad classes of people, specifically classes that one should know tribe members belong to.

Dave Y has accepted these terms for readmittance

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 4 replies

Freedom of Speech?

2009-11-04T00:02:45Z

Includes the freedom to offend:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7663/

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 7 replies

Israel Did Not Break The Gaza Ceasefire

2009-11-03T20:56:33Z

How did the ceasefire end? Who 'caused' the end of the ceasefire? Whose 'fault' is it? This thread demonstrably proves that Israel DID NOT break the ceasefire, that Hamas & Co. did, and thus they are to blame for the restart of violence which led to Israel attacking Gaza and the death of over ~1K people.

For instance:

Are you unaware that there was a tunnel dug into Israel and why that is relevant?

First of all, what about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_mort_gaza_2008.JPG

See those attacks? How many per month from Gaza?
June: 8
July: 12
August: 11
Sept: 4
Oct: 2

So, up to then - through ~37 attacks from Gaza that broke the cease-fire where Israel did little or nothing during this period, FINALLY Israel decides that a tunnel - the same kind that caused Shalit to become kidnapped - is too much, and they go in to destroy the tunnel AFTER telling the Egyptians to tell Hamas that Israel will be going in to destroy said tunnel. The Pals have a choice: Defend their cease-fire-breaking tunnel, or do nothing. They choose to defend their criminal tunnel and Israel kill six of them. What does Hamas & Co. do? They fire 193 mortars and rockets at Israel. Because Israel went in to destroy this tunnel.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3617798,00.html

That to you is reasonable? That's Israel breaking the law?

Here's a line for you that shows how ignorant and bigoted that you are: Pals broke ceasefire by shooting eight mortars/rockets in first month of ceasefire.

Like that?

How did the Israelis find out about this tunnel? "Palestinian sources told Ynet that IDF forces had recently arrested a Palestinian who was hurt while attempting to carry out a suicide bombing in the same area and that they assumed the man told the security forces about the tunnel dug in Gaza during his interrogation....That information is believed to be the catalyst for the operation."

Is this not breaking the cease-fire, John? Are you ignorant of this fact or are you dishonest? I really know that the answer could go either way.

And, since you are unable to do your own research, please allow me to help you: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/gazawar.html#a1

Here, I'll quote some of it for you. 'On June 17, 2008, after several months of indirect contacts between Israel and Hamas through Egyptian mediators, Hamas agreed to a cease-fire (tahadiya). Almost immediately afterward, terrorists fired rockets into southern Israel. Despite what it called a “gross violation” of the truce, Israel refrained from military action.1 In fact, during the six months the arrangement was supposed to be observed, 329 rockets and mortar shells were fired at Israel.2'

Hmm. How do you like THAT!? Looks like Israel was not the first to break the cease-fire, 'eh?

But, I'll go on!

But, don't believe me: "“I say in all honesty, we made contact with leaders in Hamas in the Gaza Strip. We spoke with them in all honesty and directly, and after that we spoke with them indirectly, through more than one Arab and non-Arab side... We spoke with them on the telephone and we said: 'We beg of you, we hope that you won't break [the ceasefire.] As the [Egyptian foreign] Minister said: 'Don't break the ceasefire, the ceasefire must continue and not stop.' In order to avoid [violence] that has happened. If only we had avoided it.”

— PA President Mahmoud Abbas2b

So? How is it POSSIBLE that Israel broke the truce when the Pals had been shooting mortars and rockets at Israel ALL THROUGHOUT the "truce"? Or, do you doubt the numbers that I quoted? There's no other option. Either the numbers are wrong, the cites are wrong or YOU are wrong.

Which one is it?

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 18 replies

Health care Monopoly

2009-11-03T20:52:04Z

http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2009/10/102709.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

Racism Is Protected Speech

2009-11-03T19:32:57Z

I actually agree with this. I think that racists should be able to espouse their racism here as long as they do not use adhoms and other insults.

The question though, is that should we be able to call a racist out for their racism?

If someone says, "Wow, a black person who is not a thief" or "How noteworthy, a Muslim that is not a terrorist.", should we be able in this forum to call that person a racist for such obvious racist statements?

Is calling a racist a "racist" an adhom? Sure, by the definition of an adhom it's an adhom, but so is saying, 'That was a stupid thing to say', which is allowed here.

Should we allow ourselves to call a racist a racist?

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 17 replies

Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is 1-world government

2009-11-03T19:16:09Z

This article reveals the real purpose of climate change treatise and legislation and why countrys are signing
this stuff. Obama is about to sign our sovereignty away. The question is, will we let him?

'Global warming' to be used as 'pretext' for 'change'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 17, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Monkton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience on Thursday at Bethel University in St. Paul.

"Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it," he told the audience of some 700 attendees.

(Story continues below)

"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."

In an hour and a half lecture illustrated by slides featuring scientific data on a wide range of climate issues, Monkton refuted claims made by former Vice President Al Gore in his movie and book entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as scientific arguments made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Monckton argued that President Obama will sign the Copenhagen treaty at the December meeting, without seeking a two-thirds ratification of the treaty by the Senate, or any other type of Congressional approval.

"So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free," he continued. "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.

"But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with the climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it."

Moncton is a well-known critic of the theory of anthropogenic causes for global warming who has argued repeatedly that global warming hysteria is an ideological position of the political Left advanced in the interest of imposing global taxes on the United States in the pursuit of international control of the U.S. economy under a one-world government to be administered by the U.N.

Monkton's lecture can be viewed online and his slides also can be accessed on the Internet.

Where’s the global warming?

As evidence mounts that the United States is headed toward a cooling cycle that may last decades, global alarmists within the Obama administration remain resolved to push cap-and-trade legislation through Congress on the increasingly dubious theory that man-made carbon emissions are creating global warming.

In what has to be seen as increasingly bad news for global warming alarmists, scientific evidence is mounting that temperatures in the United States have cooled at a rate that would be projected to lower temperatures 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

Source. U.S. National Climate Data Center and www.c3headlines.com

Maybe Obama’s Science Czar is Right: Is a New Ice Age on the Horizon?

WND has reported White House science czar John Holdren's prediction that one billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.

Even though Holdren's current position is that the U.S. needs to enact cap-and-trade to slow global warming, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.

Holdren's prediction that one billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced by Malthusian population alarmist Ehrlich in his 1986 book entitled, "The Machinery of Nature."

Holdren based his prediction on a bizarre theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a resultant reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.

On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)

The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113219

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 51 replies

is male prison rape a laughing matter?

2009-11-03T19:00:06Z

seems like this is blatant case of anti-male bigotry. the society abhors the rape of females yet rape of males is a laughing matter and openly tolerated and even encouraged in our priso system. why isn't there a serious effort to fight the rape epidemic in prisons?

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 24 replies

Egypt: Israel taking 'racist steps' to rid Jerusalem of Arabs

2009-11-03T19:00:00Z

Last update - 19:24 03/11/2009
Egypt: Israel taking 'racist steps' to rid Jerusalem of Arabs
By Haaretz Service

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry on Sunday urged the international community to protect Jerusalem from the "racist steps" being taken by Israel to change the demographics of the city.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman appealed to the United Nations Security Council with the complaint that Israel has been trying to change the demographic reality in all Palestinian territory, particularly in Jerusalem.

The Egyptian complaint came just before United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to visit Cairo, culminating days of meetings across North Africa and in Israel.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit also said on Tuesday that Cairo wants assurances that any Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations would ensure a Palestinian state and not be used to "waste time".

Jordan's King Abdullah II, meanwhile, conferred Tuesday with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, urging the international community to pressure Israel to stop its "unilateral actions" in East Jerusalem, a royal court statement said.

"The monarch underlined the importance of the European Union's role, particularly that of Britain, in efforts aimed at ensuring the setting up of an independent Palestinian state, which is a prerequisite for Middle East peace," it said.

King Abdullah warned against "the dangers inherent in the Israeli unilateral actions, especially the construction of settlements and other measures that threaten the identity of Jerusalem and holy places there, and called on the international community to put pressure on Israel to halt such steps," added the statement.

Clinton, facing Arab accusations that she had been too soft on Israel, later said in Morocco that Israel's offer to show restraint on settlements fell short of U.S. expectations.

"We want to have guarantees for the Palestinians ... that ensure them that these negotiations will not be used to waste time or to accomplish Israeli objectives against them," Aboul Gheit told a news conference in Cairo.

He said Egypt also wanted "guarantees that give them the right for a Palestinian state".

Clinton is on a whirlwind trip through the Middle East seeking to garner Arab support for the resumption of stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

She is due to arrive in Cairo later on Tuesday and will meet with Aboul Gheit and Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman before holding talks on Wednesday with President Hosni Mubarak. The talks are likely to focus on the peace process.

Aboul Gheit, asked about Clinton's stance on resuming talks, said he was hoping for clarification on Washington's view.

"I have to wait and see the reaction of the American Secretary of State as she arrives in Cairo tonight, because she gave certain explanations last night. We have to get them ourselves and then consider the issue," he said.

While in Morocco, Clinton offered aid to boost ties with the Muslim world and urged Israel, the Palestinians and Arab countries to move beyond recrimination in the search for peace.

After a weekend of heated words about the perceived U.S. tilt toward Israel on the issue of settlements in the West Bank, Clinton said it was important for all sides to "be careful about what we say" and avoid angry rhetoric.

"We are determined and persistent in the pursuit of that goal," she said in a speech at a development forum in Morocco attended by Arab ministers.

"We need to work together in a constructive spirit toward this shared goal of a comprehensive peace. I believe very strongly that it is attainable ... (and) that with your support we can find a way through."

Clinton's speech unveiled a modest new set of aid proposals aimed at building on President Barack Obama's promise in a June address in Cairo to make a "new beginning" on Washington's strained ties with the Islamic world.

But it came after Clinton sparked a new outburst of Arab anger by praising Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer of "restraint" on settlements without repeating earlier U.S. calls for a freeze on them, which is the Palestinian position.

Clinton repeated that the United States is committed to reaching a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, saying this was a key to achieving a peaceful and prosperous future for the region.

Hoping to cast the United States as a helpful partner in development for Muslim communities, Clinton outlined a series of small steps to increase funding for civil society groups, youth empowerment and job promotion.

"We are committed to building ladders of opportunity to help develop the enormous talent that resides in the people of this region," she said.

The programs Clinton announced on Tuesday include a $76 million project to boost economic opportunities in Yemen, a $30 million project for vulnerable young people in Jordan and an entrepreneurship summit in Washington next year to bring Muslim innovators together with U.S. business leaders.

Taken together the new package pales in comparison to the billions of dollars in aid that Washington extends to governments in the region, including both Israel and Egypt.

Obama's Cairo speech had sparked some hope in the Arab world that Washington was ready to take a tougher line with Israel, with the U.S. president saying flatly that Israel should stop building settlements on the West Bank.

Those hopes turned to anger as Washington backed off.

On Monday, Clinton sought to control the damage, saying that her praise on Saturday for Israel's offer of restraint on settlements was aimed at encouraging moves toward dialogue.

Clinton said the Obama administration still believed that Israel's offer fell short of U.S. expectations, and urged both sides to take more positive steps to set the stage for resuming peace talks stalled since December.

"I think President Obama was absolutely clear. He wanted a halt to all settlement activity," Clinton told Al Jazeera television on Tuesday. "And perhaps those of us who work with him and for him could have been clearer in communicating that that is his policy, that is what we're committed to doing".

Clinton was due to travel to Egypt for a meeting with President Hosni Mubarak which was also expected to focus on the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

After Clinton's visit to Jerusalem, Palestinians accused the United States of "back-pedaling" on settlements and said a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks was not in sight.

Netanyahu has proposed limiting building for now to some 3,000 settler homes already approved by Israel in the West Bank. He does not regard building in East Jerusalem, annexed in defiance of international opposition, as a settlement.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125583.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Why silence over Israel's wrongs is anti-Zionist

2009-11-03T17:14:15Z

Last update - 16:26 01/11/2009
Why silence over Israel's wrongs is anti-Zionist
By Alex Sinclair

Israel is not living up to its potential, and one reason for that is because American Jews have not insisted that their voices be heard.

The recent flood of articles and essays about American Jews "losing their love" for Israel is based not only on a misguided conception of Israel-Diaspora relations, but also on a misguided conception of what a loving relationship is about.

There is a famous Rashi on Genesis 2:18, in which God decides to create a partner for Adam. The Biblical narrator has God say "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper against him." The Hebrew here, "ezer k'negdo," is tricky, and has always perplexed translators. Some try "corresponding to him," some try "beside him," some try "fitting." None of these captures the oddness of the Hebrew.

Rashi comments as follows: "If he is worthy: a helper; if he is not worthy: against him, to fight with him." Generations of rabbis have used this beautiful comment to talk about the complexity of the relationship between spouses, and to suggest that a true marriage is based on the ability and willingness to give honest and critical feedback to one's spouse if they lose their way. A spouse is not a yes-man (or ?woman); a spouse is someone who disagrees with you when you are wrong.

The current crisis - and it is a crisis, make no mistake about it - in the relationship between American Jewry and Israel is because we have forgotten this Rashi.

We need to remember this Rashi because it suggests that American Jews should offer angry, vocal, confrontational critique when they feel that Israel is practicing particular policies that they find unworthy. Note the word that Rashi uses: "to fight." Not just to critique, not just to gently remind, not just to seek to influence, but to shout, to confront, to demand to be heard.

If we want American Jews and Israel to be in a truly deep relationship, then we need to enable American Jews to be the ezer k?negdo, the helping spouse who fights. After all, they do enough helping. We can't ask American Jews to support us, visit us, give us their money, and be inspired by us, without allowing them ? demanding of them ? to tell us what they think. It is taxation without representation. It is an abuse of the relationship between us. It is blasphemy to the very notion of a Jewish state.

(Tikkun olam ref) This approach will ultimately lead to a much richer marriage between American Jews and Israel. Young American Jews throw their weight behind other causes, causes where demands are made on them, where they are encouraged to fight against injustice, to debate, to create change. We don't give them these opportunities with Israel. Go and change the world, we say; but when it comes to Israel, you must close off your creative energies, your critical thinking, your fiery emotions, and just support politely from the sidelines. No wonder they are not interested.

Young American Jews will not develop renewed commitment to Israel unless we demand that they make demands; that they become the ezer k'negdo. Every Jewish day school should require every single student to join an Israeli political party. Every synagogue should do the same for its members. When American Jewish groups come here on missions, they should be doing so not just to support, but also to demand, to critique, to tell us where we are going wrong.

The lack of American Jewish voices in modern Israel is a tragedy. Israel, for all its wonders, its achievements, and its robustness, is not living up to its potential, and one of the reasons for that gap is the lack of American Jewish voices in its culture, religion, and politics.

Thomas Friedman writes more perceptively about Israeli politics than any Israeli journalist or politician; why are his pieces not regularly and immediately translated into Hebrew? Abraham Joshua Heschel revolutionized our understanding of Jewish spirituality; most religious Israelis have never heard of him. Diaspora Jewish educational thinkers and practitioners have made enormous strides in working out how to get Jews of different religious streams to sit, talk, and learn together; Israel is decades behind. There are countless other examples. Both sides are at fault. Israelis have been too stubborn, too arrogant, or too busy, to listen; but American Jews have not been willing to be the ezer k'negdo, the spouse who fights.

Israel is not living up to its potential, and one reason for that is because American Jews have not insisted that their voices be heard. This is scandalous. It is anti-Zionist. It is suicidal. It must change

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125053.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 2 replies

Send more Bears to Afghanistan....not soldiers

2009-11-03T17:11:15Z

A bear killed two militants after discovering them in its den in Indian-administered Kashmir, police say.

Two other militants escaped, one of them badly wounded, after the attack in Kulgam district, south of Srinagar.

The militants had assault rifles but were taken by surprise - police found the remains of pudding they had made to eat when the bear attacked.

It is thought to be the first such incident since Muslim separatists took up arms against Indian rule in 1989.

Bodies found

The militants had made their hideout in a cave which was actually the bear's den, said police officer Farooq Ahmed.

The dead have been identified as Mohammad Amin alias Qaiser, and Bashir Ahmed alias Saifullah.

News of the attack emerged when their injured comrade went to a nearby village for treatment.

"Word spread in the village that Qaiser had been killed by the bear," another police officer said.

A joint party of the police and army personnel went into the forest and collected the bodies of the two militants.

Police say they also recovered two Kalashnikov assault rifles and some ammunition from the hideout.

source: BBC

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

House Excludes Spiritual Care from Health Care Reform Bill

2009-11-03T15:13:57Z

House Excludes Spiritual Care from Health Care Reform Bill

"The Secular Coalition for America is thrilled that the House of Representatives has decided to remove language found in all three draft bills that would require private and public plans to cover the spiritual care of individuals with religious objections to medical care.

Today the House released their version of the health care reform bill that did not include language requiring private and public health plans to cover spiritual care for any person. This "spiritual care" includes reimbursements for payments that Christian Scientists make to members of the Church who pray for them when they are ill.

"Requiring American taxpayers to reimburse Christian Scientists and other religious sects that deny themselves and their children necessary medical care would have been incredibly unethical in addition to a violation of church state separation," said Sean Faircloth, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition. "I am thrilled that the House of Representatives has chosen to remove language that would have required Americans to foot the bill for religion-based care. Their actions demonstrate that common sense secular values are being heard in the halls of Congress."

If this language had been included, tax payers would be forced to help foot the bill for this religion-based "care" -- "care" offering no scientific evidence of effectiveness. "Care" which, in fact, endangers lives by placing government approval on non-scientific practices."

http://www.secular.org/news/health_reform_bill_excludes_spiritual_care091028.html

* Join the "Separation of church and state" tribe
http://separationofchurchstate.tribe.net

;

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 28 replies

Wafa Sultan's message to America

2009-11-03T08:58:15Z

Wafa Sultan's message to America

http://www.examiner.com/x-17009-Freethought-Examiner~y2009m11d2-Wafa-Sultans-message-to-America

;

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 2 replies

Settlements are fertile ground for Jewish terror

2009-11-03T08:55:40Z

Last update - 18:25 02/11/2009
Settlements are fertile ground for Jewish terror
By Gideon Levy, Haaretz Correspondent

The parade of the self-righteous got underway Sunday night: Yaakov Teitel was described as a "foreign element," "wild thorn" and "rotten apple." Even if he acted alone, spoke and hallucinated in English, even if he was mentally disturbed, as his attorney claimed, it does not change the fact that Jack the Ripper from the West Bank settlement of Shvut Rachel - contrary to his predecessor in London - acted on ground that was fertile like no other.

Yes, the settlements and especially the illegal outposts where Teitel lived and hid his weapons, along with the Kahanist settlement of Kfar Tapuah where he got his start - these are the places for such dangerous nuts. This is their refuge, where they can hide arms without being bothered and go on hate-filled killing sprees without being seen.

It is no coincidence that a terrorist or killer has never risen from within Peace Now, Gush Shalom or Yesh Gvul. However, with God's help, we have already seen two murderous terrorists from Shvut Rachel. Never has a leftist called for the death of someone who disagrees with him - and we must always remember this when we speak of left and right.

Yes, we must recoil from the entire group of settlers that again and again sprouts these cancerous growths. When a settlement is born out of sin, the sin of stolen land, the gun rests during the first act, the act of illegally confiscating the land. But you can count on there always being someone to pull the trigger in the final act.

Not everyone is a Teitel, and it's clear that not every settler is a killer. But no special investigative team was assembled when a different killing spree got underway several weeks ago, which left an olive grove razed. Teitel's fatal error was turning on other Jews. Had he been satisfied with acts of murder against the Palestinian population, he would never have been caught.

Teitel had an organized, all-embracing worldview: Death to Arabs, homosexuals, Christians, leftists, and Messianic Jews. They are all "Sodomites" who cannot be cleansed. Teitel set a price tag for everyone, just like others of his settler friends have also done. The difference is that the others only set price tags for Palestinians, so no one bothers to apprehend them. Teitel was "unbalanced" in exactly the same way as his companions. Speaking of which, has a Palestinian terrorist ever been declared "unbalanced"? Has the Shin Bet ever used the term "acted alone" to justify an uninterrupted, unsolved decade-long killing spree perpetrated by a lone Palestinian?

Now everyone will tsk-tsk. The settlers will claim "we had nothing to do with this," will roll their eyes skyward and be quick to voice harsh, and hollow, denunciations. The Shin Bet and police will wave a victory flag to show they don't bargain with settlers and the sleeping beauty of the left will continue to cloak herself in complacency. But there are more Teitels wandering around the land of occupation and negligence, and as long as they don't lay their hands on other Jews, no one will hold them accountable - and even that may change.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125294.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 2 replies

Thomas L. Friedman: Don't build up in Afghanistan

2009-11-03T07:35:04Z

Interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with all of it but this point is spot on:

"The locals sense they have us over a barrel, so they exploit our naive good will and presence to loot their countries and to defeat their internal foes.

That's how I see Afghanistan today. I see no moderate spark. I see our secretary of state pleading with President Hamid Karzai to re-do an election that he blatantly stole. I also see us begging Israelis to stop building more crazy settlements or Palestinians to come to negotiations. It is time to stop subsidizing their nonsense. Let them all start paying retail for their extremism, not wholesale. Then you'll see movement."

______________
Thomas L. Friedman: Don't build up in Afghanistan
Posted: 10/28/2009 03:06:00 PM PDT

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_13662411

IT is crunch time on Afghanistan, so here's my vote: We need to be thinking about how to reduce our footprint and our goals there in a responsible way, not dig in deeper. We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan.

I base this conclusion on three principles. First, when I think back on all the moments of progress in that part of the world - all the times when a key player in the Middle East actually did something that put a smile on my face - all of them have one thing in common: America had nothing to do with it.

America helped build out what they started, but the breakthrough didn't start with us. We can fan the flames, but the parties themselves have to light the fires of moderation. And whenever we try to do it for them, whenever we want it more than they do, we fail and they languish.

The Camp David peace treaty was not initiated by Jimmy Carter. Rather, the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, went to Jerusalem in 1977 after Israel's Moshe Dayan held secret talks in Morocco with Sadat aide Hassan Tuhami. Both countries decided that they wanted a separate peace - outside of the Geneva comprehensive framework pushed by Carter.

The Oslo peace accords started in Oslo - in secret 1992-93 talks between the PLO representative, Ahmed Qurei, and the Israeli professor Yair Hirschfeld.

Israelis and Palestinians alone hammered out a broad deal and unveiled it to the Americans in the summer of 1993, much to Washington's surprise.

The U.S. surge in Iraq was militarily successful because it was preceded by an Iraqi uprising sparked by a Sunni tribal leader, Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who, using his own forces, set out to evict the pro-al-Qaida thugs who had taken over Sunni towns and were imposing a fundamentalist lifestyle. The U.S. surge gave that movement vital assistance to grow. But the spark was lit by the Iraqis.

The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Israeli withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon, the Green Revolution in Iran and the Pakistani decision to finally fight their own Taliban in Waziristan - because those Taliban were threatening the Pakistani middle class - were all examples of moderate, silent majorities acting on their own.

The message: "People do not change when we tell them they should," said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. "They change when they tell themselves they must."

And when the moderate silent majorities take ownership of their own futures, we win. When they won't, when we want them to compromise more than they do, we lose. The locals sense they have us over a barrel, so they exploit our naive good will and presence to loot their countries and to defeat their internal foes.

That's how I see Afghanistan today. I see no moderate spark. I see our secretary of state pleading with President Hamid Karzai to re-do an election that he blatantly stole. I also see us begging Israelis to stop building more crazy settlements or Palestinians to come to negotiations. It is time to stop subsidizing their nonsense. Let them all start paying retail for their extremism, not wholesale. Then you'll see movement.

What if we shrink our presence in Afghanistan? Won't al-Qaida return, the Taliban be energized and Pakistan collapse? Maybe. Maybe not. This gets to my second principle: In the Middle East, all politics - everything that matters - happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after we shrink down in Afghanistan, the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake and bin Laden will issue an exultant video.

And the morning after the morning after, the Taliban factions will start fighting each other, the Pakistani army will have to destroy their Taliban, or be destroyed by them, Afghanistan's warlords will carve up the country, and, if bin Laden comes out of his cave, he'll get zapped by a drone.

My last guiding principle: We are the world. A strong, healthy and self-confident America is what holds the world together and on a decent path. A weak America would be a disaster for us and the world. China, Russia and Al-Qaida all love the idea of America doing a long, slow bleed in Afghanistan. I don't.

The U.S. military has given its assessment. It said that stabilizing Afghanistan and removing it as a threat requires rebuilding that whole country. Unfortunately, that is a 20-year project at best, and we can't afford it. So our political leadership needs to insist on a strategy that will get the most security for less money and less presence. We simply don't have the surplus we had when we started the war on terrorism after 9/11 - and we desperately need nation-building at home. We have to be smarter. Let's finish Iraq, because a decent outcome there really could positively impact the whole Arab-Muslim world, and limit our exposure elsewhere. Iraq matters.

Yes, shrinking down in Afghanistan will create new threats, but expanding there will, too. I'd rather deal with the new threats with a stronger America.

Thomas Friedman is a columnist with The New York Times.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 26 replies

So the Public Option will put Doctors out of business?

2009-11-03T06:58:40Z

On the contrary according to this article. Massachusetts, which already has "socialized" medicine that includes a public option, doctors are still raking in the dough. The pharmaceutical companies have stepped up their support and education programs for MA physicians.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/21106691/detail.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

Suicide bomber kills 35 near Pakistan's capital

2009-11-02T23:04:06Z

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD9BNIMK00

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — A suicide bomb killed 35 people near Pakistan's military headquarters Monday while a second blast wounded several police, continuing a wave of terrorism that prompted the United Nations to suspend long-term development work near the Afghan border.

The rash of attacks by Islamist militants has killed at least 300 people across Pakistan over the past month — including 11 U.N. workers — and threatened to destabilize the nuclear-armed nation.

The violence has grown bloodier since the government launched an anti-Taliban offensive in mid-October, pushing into the impoverished and underdeveloped tribal region of South Waziristan. The U.N. decision to suspend non-emergency aid could weaken efforts to counter the appeal of extremism by improving ordinary people's daily lives.

The first suicide bomber Monday killed 35 people outside a bank near Pakistan's military headquarters in Rawalpindi, just a few miles (kilometers) from Islamabad.

Most of those waiting in line were from the military and were there to cash paychecks, said Mohammad Mushtaq, a wounded soldier.

"I was sitting on the pavement outside to wait for my turn," said Mushtaq, who suffered a head injury. "The bomb went off with a big bang. We all ran. I saw blood and body parts everywhere."

Four soldiers were killed in the attack and nine were wounded, said the army's chief spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas. In total, 35 people were killed, Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said.

No group claimed responsibility for the bombing, though suspicion immediately fell on the Pakistani Taliban.

Hours later, another suicide bombing ripped through a police checkpoint on the outskirts of the eastern city of Lahore. At least seven policemen were wounded and two were in critical condition after a car with two men inside blew up as police went to search it.

"By putting their lives in danger, our men have saved the city from enormous sabotage," Lahore Police Chief Pervaiz Rathor told reporters at the scene.

Police checkpoints, where cars are forced to drive slowly past officers looking inside, have become common sights in Pakistan.

Pakistan's president and other top officials condemned the blasts but vowed to press on with the South Waziristan offensive. Taliban militants have de facto control in many of the semiautonomous tribal areas.

The U.S. has reportedly provided technical support to the South Waziristan offensive, seeing the rugged mountain area as a haven for Islamist extremists involved in attacks on Western troops in Afghanistan.

The government has sealed off the battle zone to outsiders, making confirmation of military reports impossible to confirm, but officials insist the offensive is going well.

On Monday, Abbas said the army had captured the Taliban town of Kaniguram and killed 12 militants in the past 24 hours.

Washington, which has long provided massive military assistance to Pakistan, has stepped up its efforts to use development aid in a broader battle against the spreading militancy. The U.S. government recently approved $7.5 billion in aid over five years to improve Pakistan's economy, education and other nonmilitary sectors.

But the U.N. decision to suspend long-term development work in Pakistan's tribal areas and its North West Frontier Province could complicate international efforts to win hearts and minds.

The world body will reduce the level of international staff in Pakistan and confine its work to emergency, humanitarian relief, and security operations, and "any other essential operations as advised by the secretary-general," the organization said in a statement.

The U.N. made its decision after losing 11 personnel in attacks in Pakistan this year, including last month's bombing of the World Food Program's office in Islamabad that killed five people, said U.N. spokeswoman Amena Kamaal. "All of the decisions are being made in light of that."

The U.N. has been deeply involved in helping Pakistan deal with refugee crises resulting from army offensives against militants — work that will apparently continue — but Kamaal said the organization was still determining which programs would be suspended and how many staffers would be withdrawn. Staff that remain in the country will be assigned additional security.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said Pakistan understood the U.N.'s decision, but said he hoped the organization would resume its work after the military completes the South Waziristan offensive.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

Syria, Iran 'blocking Lebanon government'

2009-11-02T21:14:43Z

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jCTi83c15vLKgJZs7OznV2utGMgw

BEIRUT — Hezbollah's backers Iran and Syria are hindering the formation of a cabinet in Lebanon, which has been without government since a general vote in June, Christian leader Samir Geagea said on Monday.

"The regional forces that support the parliamentary minority have no interest in seeing a government formed for the moment," Geagea told AFP.

Geagea, whose Lebanese Forces are part of the US- and Saudi-backed parliamentary majority, said Tehran and Damascus have been obstructing the efforts of prime minister-designate Saad Hariri through their Lebanese proxy, Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

"Perhaps they expect a more favourable situation in which they can reap more benefits" on the international level, he said.

He was referring to Iran's atomic drive and Syria's efforts to improve ties with the United States.

"Hezbollah is not serious when it says it wants to facilitate the formation of the government," Geagea added.

Since late June, Hariri has failed to form a government and bridge differences between his own bloc and the opposition, led by Hezbollah.

The Hezbollah-led alliance accuses the majority of trying to rule unilaterally, while Hariri's parliamentary majority charges that its opponents want to impose their demands on the new government.

One of the major points of contention has been the inability to agree on the distribution of portfolios and choice of ministers.

The stalemate has been widely blamed on tension between the two camps' regional backers, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Both countries, however, recently buried the hatchet over Lebanon and jointly called for the formation of a cabinet.

Syria was the powerbroker in neighbouring Lebanon for nearly 30 years until the 2005 murder of Hariri's father, Rafiq Hariri, who was close to the Saudi monarchy.

Western countries as well as the United Nations have voiced concerns over the deadlock which they fear could affect the country's economy and lead to a security breakdown.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Militants blow up Pakistan girls school

2009-11-02T21:08:08Z

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUI3_jsG1_VI7A_IE2QlqD27VUgQ

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Islamist militants blew up a girls school in Pakistan's lawless Khyber tribal district Sunday, destroying the building and wounding four people in neighbouring homes, officials said.

Two explosions ripped through the 18-room government high school for girls at Kari Gar village and a boy who watched the premises is missing, possibly kidnapped by the militants, local administration officials said.

"The militants have blown up the school with two blasts and all rooms were demolished," said administration official Shafeer Ullah.

"Four people in neighbouring houses were also wounded and their homes slightly damaged. We're still trying to find out what happened to the office boy," Ullah told AFP.

Another of Khyber's administrators, Farooq Khan, confirmed the incident.

Islamist militants, who have carved out a strong presence in Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal belt on the Afghan border, have destroyed hundreds of schools, mostly for girls, in the northwest of the country in recent years.

Nearly 200 schools were destroyed in the Swat valley alone during a two-year Taliban uprising to enforce sharia law in a district once favoured by Western tourists for its ski slopes and bracing mountain air.

Following up a similar offensive in Swat this summer, Pakistan has been fighting against homegrown militants in Khyber and pressing a major assault designed to crush Taliban sanctuaries in South Waziristan.

Authorities last month shut schools across Pakistan following a suicide attack on a university campus in Islamabad, although most have since reopened.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced

2009-11-02T21:02:01Z

This seems reasonable and worth a read.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 123 replies

It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Pork!

2009-11-02T20:32:24Z

President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates want to leave the Cold War in the past—finally—and reshape the U.S. military into more of a counterinsurgency force. They have made reforming weapons acquisition a major priority, saying that some hardware designed for battling Soviet armies or other massive foes in vast open-field clashes ought to be replaced by lighter, less expensive gear. The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees. All told, a half-dozen major weapons systems have been eliminated for an estimated savings of more than $100 billion over coming decades.

But it's not like military spending is actually going down. At a projected $107 billion for 2010 alone—a 5% rise over this year—the Pentagon's base budget for planes, ships, missiles, and guns has grown more than 50% since 2000. Reforming and redirecting military procurement always riles members of Congress trying to protect jobs in their home districts. Lawmakers are teaming up with Lockheed, Boeing, and other defense contractors to push back fiercely on certain targeted programs, even when the Pentagon says it doesn't need the weaponry in question. In some areas, organized labor has joined the fight.

The C-17 Globemaster offers one illustration of successful opposition to the Obama-Gates push for control of weapons spending. C-17s are large cargo planes produced by Boeing that cost $250 million apiece. They have been used heavily since 1993 to transport troops, tanks, and supplies. Every year since 2006, the Pentagon has said that it has enough C-17s. And every year, Congress overrules the military and authorizes funds for additional planes. In October the Senate approved $2.5 billion in the 2010 budget for 10 more C-17s, which would bring the fleet to 215.

"It's about political engineering," says Mandy Smithberger, a national security staff member of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington nonprofit. "Companies design weapons systems to make them difficult to kill."

The C-17 by most accounts has served the Pentagon reliably and well. The cavernous Globemaster is flying in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But the real reason Congress wants more of them has little to do with military need. Boeing has built the C-17's industrial base for political survivability.

The company has spread manufacturing across no fewer than 43 states. C-17 production lines employ more than 30,000 workers, many of them relatively well paid by factory-wage standards. Many of those jobs would be at risk if C-17 work ground to a halt.

The White House understands the challenge. "The impulse in Washington is to protect jobs back home, building things we don't need at a cost we can't afford," President Obama said in August in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Phoenix. "The special interests, contractors, and entrenched lobbyists—they're invested in the status quo, and they're putting up a fight."

Enthusiasm for the Globemaster crosses political lines. "We're fighting two wars and meeting humanitarian needs; we need these planes," says Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.). "It is a defense industrial-base issue, too. It produces jobs in 43 states. But that is secondary. We wouldn't push that unless there is a real need." Boeing's defense business has its headquarters in St. Louis.

Bond, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and 16 colleagues began circulating a letter in April urging members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to keep funding the plane despite clearly stated objections from the White House and Pentagon. In California, C-17 production employs 5,000 workers at a final assembly plant in Long Beach.

Bond's fellow Missourian, Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, however, evinced ambivalence in comments to the media earlier this year about earmarking money for more Globemasters. Boeing noted that she didn't sign the letter to the Appropriations Committee. So the company mobilized to change her mind.

The aircraft manufacturer convened a strategy meeting with local labor leaders in mid-spring at its St. Louis offices. George C. Roman, a Boeing vice-president for government operations, helped lead the discussion. A key challenge described by the Boeing side was the need to shore up wavering support from legislators, including McCaskill, according to Robert A. Soutier, president of the Greater St. Louis Labor Council, who attended the gathering.

Shortly after the meeting, Soutier criticized McCaskill in the St. Louis media, questioning her support for thousands of local jobs. McCaskill responded quickly. She defended her C-17 bona fides and in May announced she was sending a letter to Obama and Gates emphasizing her backing for the Boeing cargo aircraft.

Since then, she has showed up at machinist rallies, met Boeing officials, and spoken out forcefully on the plane's behalf. Adrianne Marsh, a spokeswoman for McCaskill, called the earlier discord "a misunderstanding" and says the senator has advocated the program all along. McCaskill "believes the C-17 can stand on its own and compete for these dollars based on its merits," says Marsh.

Soutier says that communication has improved between Boeing and McCaskill and that he's pleased with the senator's support for the C-17. A Boeing spokesman declined to discuss the company's lobbying but said in a prepared statement: "We routinely meet with our employees, their representatives, elected officials, and other key stakeholders to provide updates on our business operations." The spokesman added: "We greatly appreciate the support the C-17 continues to receive. We look forward to continuing to work with both our customer and the Congress to ensure this valuable airlifter is available to support our war fighters and our nation's future airlift requirements."

In late September, as Congress restored money for 10 additional C-17s, the Administration stated that "it strongly objects to" the funding. White House spokesman Thomas Victor told BusinessWeek: "The President never thought this was going to be easy, but he and Secretary Gates are committed to pushing for these reforms."

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prominent critic of Pentagon spending, went to the Senate floor on Oct. 5 to make a last-minute effort to strip funds from the defense budget for the new C-17s. "One would have expected the President and Secretary Gates to be outraged," he said. "However, we have heard barely a word of opposition from them." The next day, McCain's motion was defeated, 68 to 30.

John Murtha (D-Pa.), the powerful chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Oct. 21 that he expects the fiscal 2010 budget to provide for the 10 additional Globemasters. He urged Boeing to trim the price of the plane to about $200 million each, but it remains to be seen whether the manufacturer will lower its bill.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_45/b4154046738593_page_2.htm

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

The Public Option in Congress Is Now a Sham. Who Cares If Lieberman Kills It?

2009-11-02T19:46:44Z

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-public-option-in-cong_b_340501.html
Miles Mogulescu
Entertainment attorney, Academy Award-nominated filmmaker, writer, activist
Posted: October 30, 2009 04:21 PM

The so-called "public option" -- as it remains in the bills being proposed in the House and Senate -- is a fraud and a sham. It bears no resemblance to the "robust" public option originally sold by its supporters as the most pragmatic, "uniquely American" multipayer way of achieving affordable universal health care, instead of importing successful single payer models from other democratic capitalist countries which provide better health to its citizens at considerably lower costs.

The pygmy public option now being proposed in the House and Senate will not be a viable competitor to mandated private insurance.
• It will not put any meaningful pressure on private insurance companies to moderate their premiums.

• It will not have the market power to pay lower fees to doctors and hospitals than private insurance and will thus not be less expensive than private insurance.

• It will not even be available to most Americans.

• Since it will be unable to effectively compete with private insurance, it will end up with few, if any customers.

At this point, it really doesn't matter whether or not a final health reform bill includes this type of public option in name only. The public option, as it's now being proposed in the House and Senate, will have no meaningful impact. If Joe Lieberman or other corporate Democrats kill this meaningless public option, it will make no difference in the lives of most Americans. With or without a fraudulent public option, millions of Americans who will be required to buy insurance or pay a fine will see their premiums skyrocket as there will be no effective limits placed on how much private insurers can charge the customers whom the federal government will make buy their product.

The final nail in the public option's coffin came when House Democrats (with no help from President Obama to twist Blue Dog arms) fell 10 or 12 votes short of including a requirement that the public option pay providers Medicare rates plus 5% and instead will be required to negotiate rates with each doctor and hospital in America. This all but guarantees that the public option will end up paying more to doctors, hospitals and drug companies than private insurance.

It's like a brand new Mom and Pop store trying to compete with WalMart.

Here's why, without a tie to Medicare rates, the public option will end up paying more to providers than private insurance: The largest private insurers in each market already have tens or hundreds of thousands of members. When they negotiate rates with providers, they get volume discounts of as much as 30%-40% off "retail rates," just as WalMart gets volume discounts because of its market clout. (Because of its even greater bargaining power, Medicare often pays providers 15%-20% less than private insurance).

But without the ability to tie pricing to Medicare rates, the public option will have no ability to negotiate volume discounts. It will start out with no subscribers. It will then have to go to each hospital, doctor and drug company to negotiate rates. Without any subscribers at the outset, these providers will have no incentive to give volume discounts to the public option, which will end up paying more than large private insurers. This in turn will make the public option more expensive than private insurance. As a result, it will sign up few subscribers. With few subscribers, it will be continue to be unable to negotiate volume discounts. Even if the public option were allowed to pay Medicare plus 5% rates, unless it already had a large number of subscribers in a particular market, providers would simply refuse to accept public option patients at these reduced rates, prefering to treat patients from higher-paying private insurers. So it's a chicken and egg situation. Few subscribers will lead to higher costs. Higher costs will lead to few subscribers. This is a public option designed to fail.

As a result, when the Congressional Budget Office first evaluated the Senate negotiated-rate public option plan, the CBO concluded that it would end up with no subscribers. Perhaps with a little pressure from Congress, the CBO is now projecting that by 2019, approximately 6 million Americans would be enrolled in the negotiated-rate House public plan. The CBO also projects that "a public plan paying negotiated rates would...typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for private plans." The CBO notes that this public plan would attract a "less healthy pool of enrollees" than private plans. With a less healthy pool of enrolees who require more services than private plans, the cost of the public plan would continue to escalate beyond the cost of private insurance, further reducing the number of people who sign up, and further reducing its negotiating clout, leading to a vicious circle of increasing costs and unaffordability that would do little or nothing to put pressure on private insurers to lower their premiums.

As Kip Sullivan, a long-time fighter of universal health care, has argued articulately, the devolution of the public option from a robust proposal projected to cover over 129 million Americans and lower insurance costs to a sham public option that will at best cover 6 million Americans in 10 years and have no impact on lowering insurance costs is a case of "bait and switch".

The "public option" was initially proposed by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker and Campaign for America's Future leader Roger Hickey as a more politically "pragmatic" alternative to the long-time progressive goal of establishing universal single payer health care (as though insurance companies and their paid-for Congressional allies wouldn't fight against a robust public option as hard as they would fight against Medicare for All).

Hacker and Hickey laid out 5 criteria that, they argued, were essential to the success of the public option.
1. The PO had to be pre-populated with tens of millions of people by shifting all or most uninsured people, as well as Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees, into the PO, so like Medicare, it would represent a huge pool of enrollees on day one.

2. Only enrollees in the PO, not in private insurance, would be eligible for government subsidies.

3. The PO and its subsidies would be available to all nonelderly Americans (not just the uninsured and employees of small businesses).

4. The PO would pay Medicare reimbursement rates.

5. The insurance industry had to offer the same minimum level of benefits that the PO offered.

If these criteria were met, the Lewin Group (a subsidiary of health insurance giant United Health) projected that the public option would enroll 129 million Americans, have overhead of 3%, pay hospitals 26% less and doctors 17% less than the private insurance industry, and have premiums 23% below the private insurance industry average.

That was the "bait." Now came the "switch." The puny public option proposals that are still on the table in the House and Senate meet only the 5th of the 5 criteria for an effective public option and eliminate the first 4 criteria. They are not pre-populated; subsidies go to both the public option and private insurance; large employers are barred from buying into the public option; and the public option is not allowed to use Medicare rates but must instead negotiate rates on a provider-by-provider basis.

The result is that instead of enrolling 129 million Americans and decreasing insurance premiums, the sham public option being proposed in the House and Senate will enroll between 0 and 6 million Americans and will cost more than private insurance.

It's time that organizations which supported a "robust" public option tell their supporters the truth: that the public option in the House and Senate bills bears no relationship to the public option they have been fighting for. (Instead, the Health Care for American Now blog praises the public option in the House bill as "a strong competitor to private insurance, keeping prices down and attracting customers.") Its time that "progressives" in Congress like Anthony Weiner, Alan Grayson, Jan Schakowsky, Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey admit to their constituents that, with no help from President Obama, they've lost the battle for a "robust" public option. Media figures like Keith Obermann and Rachel Maddow, who've been vocally talking up the public option, should be reporting the truth about the pitiful public option that's left on the table.

As it stands now, the sham public option in the House and Senate bills serves only one purpose. It gives political cover to progressives and liberals in the House and Senate to vote for mandates that will use the power of the federal government to force uninsured individuals to buy inferior and over-priced private insurance or be fined by the IRS by being able to say, "Well, at least the bill contains something called a public option," even if it's a public option in name only. Better that Joe Lieberman's filibuster threat forces Congress to drop this sham public option from the bill. At least, then, progressives and liberals will have to squarely face up to the implications of their vote and decide if this type of "health care reform" is really in the interests of the American people, or indeed, in the interests of the Democratic Party.

As the final bill takes shape, it's going to be a close call whether this type of mandated "health insurance reform" with no price controls on premiums is better than no reform at all.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

Jon Stewart Vs Bill Kristol on Health Care - absoultly nailed.

2009-11-02T19:01:51Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJfTDf0xIZI

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 16 replies

Hamas vows to prevent elections in Gaza

2009-11-02T13:14:44Z

Committed democrats, those Hamas fellows are

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124228.html

The Islamic Hamas movement which rules the Gaza Strip said Wednesday it would not allow presidential or parliamentary elections to take place in the salient on January 24, as called for by Ramallah-based President Mahmoud Abbas.

A statement by the Hamas ministry of the interior said the ban was because the election had been called "by figures who do not have the right to declare it" and because the polling would take place without a reconciliation deal between Hamas and Abbas' Fatah movement.

Abbas announced Friday that elections would be held on January 24, the end of the four-year term of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

The 2006 elections saw Hamas triumph over Fatah, leading to bitter tensions between the two movements, which culminated in the
June 2007 Hamas rout of security forces loyal to Abbas in the Gaza Strip, and the takeover of the salient by the Islamist group.

Abbas responded to the takeover by dismissing the Fatah-Hamas unity government, but the Islamic movement continues to control the Gaza Strip while an Abbas-appointed government rules in the West Bank.

Efforts to reconcile Hamas with Fatah have so far failed and Hamas said Friday that Abbas' election decree was aimed at deepening the Palestinian political rift

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 7 replies

WHAT CRIMES HAS THAILAND COMMITTED AND HOW SHOULD...

2009-11-02T12:43:29Z

So, also during the 20th century, the Kingdom of Thailand invaded and annexed (stole land) from an Islamic majority country, the Thais being a majority Buddhist country. The struggle of these hapless Muslims has been going on for generations. In the past few years, it has really heated up, with terrorist attacks, bombings and shootings, government retaliation, roadblocks, security barriers, etc.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i9FVQpsgnSNbIdRJ97eALrikboAA

So, where is the outrage?

Oh, and by the way, for those that aren't up on their 20th century history, Thailand was allied with the Axis powers during the Second World War, and got off pretty much Scott free by changing sides at the last minute. They are also a theocratic state that, while giving many rights to other religions, reserves some specifically for Buddhists, so as to retain their national character.

Of course, according to some who don't wish to see the parallels, it is incomparable. Internal?

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 31 replies

Jewish terrorists still at large in Israel

2009-11-02T12:28:49Z

Last update - 09:47 02/11/2009
'There are Jewish terrorists still at large in Israel'
By Haaretz Sevice

A senior Shin Bet official said Jewish terrorists that have not been caught are still at large and may be planning future attacks, Israel Radio reported on Monday.

The official's comments follow the announcement on Sunday that settler Yaakov Tytell was arrested last month for allegedly killing two Palestinians and carrying out string of bomb attacks.

Tytell is not mentally unstable, said the Shin Bet official, who described him as an extremist who firmly believes in his ideology and who acted carefully, decisively and with sophistication.

The official added that Tytell functioned on the outermost fringes of society and said he cannot be compared with other Jewish terrorists, including the Jewish underground and Yigal Amir, who assassinated former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin 14 years ago.

"You don't need an underground with 100 people in order to cause grave damage," the Shin Bet official said.

Tytell was arrested on October 7 in the ultra-Orthodox Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof after posting signs around town praising the attack on the Tel Aviv gay center. He was apprehended with a loaded gun.

Police found additional weapons and explosives at his home and another concealed location.

Tytell was remanded and interrogated for about three weeks without being allowed access to a lawyer, a step that was approved by various courts, including the High Court of Justice.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125288.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 3 replies

Kosovo unveils 11 ft. Clinton statue

2009-11-02T11:34:01Z

and i am sure Rush Limbaugh will implode .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8336789.stm

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 2 replies

Islamic countries push a global 'blasphemy' law

2009-11-02T11:21:12Z

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p08s01-comv.html

Remember the Danish "Muhammad cartoons" that set off riots by offended Muslims more than three years ago? The debate pitted freedom of press and speech against notions of freedom from insult of one's religion. It rages still – but now in a forum with international legal implications.

For years, Islamic nations have succeeded in passing "blasphemy" resolutions at the United Nations (in the General Assembly and in its human rights body). The measures call on states to limit religiously offensive language or speech. No one wants their beliefs ridiculed, but the freedom to disagree over faith is what allows for the free practice of religion. The resolutions are misguided, but also only symbolic, because they're nonbinding.

Symbolism no longer satisfies the sponsor of these resolutions – the Organization of the Islamic Council. Under the leadership of Pakistan, the 57-nation OIC wants to give the religious antidefamation idea legal teeth by making it part of an international convention, or legally binding treaty. Members of the UN Human Rights Council are passionately debating that idea in Geneva this week.

The United States under Barack Obama recently joined the UNHRC, maligned for years as the mouthpiece for countries that are themselves flagrant human rights abusers. A "new" council formed in 2006. President Obama's hope is that as an engaged member, the US can further reform – and its own interests. This case will test his theory.

Consider the wording put forth by Pakistan, written on behalf of the OIC. It proposes "legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults or uses offensive language" on matters regarded by religious followers as "sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings."

This gives broad latitude to governments to decide what's offensive. Countries such as Pakistan already have national blasphemy laws, but a global treaty would give them international cover to suppress minority religious groups with the excuse that these groups offend mainstream beliefs.

And what about unpopular, even "insulting" dissenters within a majority religion – such as women who seek to interpret Islamic sharia law so that they may gain more rights?

Besides, international treaties are meant to protect the rights of people, not ideas. A legal defense of dignity – how a person is viewed – is not on par with a defense of a person's inherent identity and rights. And treaties already aim to protect individuals from discrimination and violence based on religion.

As a newcomer to the Human Rights Council, the US is vigorously arguing against the OIC's latest push, as are European countries. They may not get very far in changing minds in the governments of Egypt or Saudi Arabia. But human rights advocates such as Freedom House and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom say Latin American and sub-Saharan African countries could be persuaded to resist the OIC's push.

These largely non-Muslim countries have typically voted as a bloc on the nonbinding religious defamation resolutions. But the trend has shifted so that more of them are now either abstaining or voting against the resolutions. Chile, for instance, recently switched from abstain to "no" at the March Human Rights Council vote; Liberia switched from "yes" to "no" at the last General Assembly meeting.

These are democracies that understand that suppression of speech in the name of religion can come with a negative effect – suppression of people and theological fault lines that at some point will erupt. It is, conversely, open debate, interfaith dialogue, and righting of misconceptions that will allow religion to flourish – including Islam, whose many followers feel so maligned at the moment.

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called antidefamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree," said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week.

She went on to argue that the best antidote to religious intolerance is enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, government "outreach" to minority religious groups, and "the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression."

The US is now in a position to persuade along these lines from inside the Human Rights Council. It should proceed with the vigor that Ms. Clinton talked about.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 11 replies

President Signs Hate Crimes Bill

2009-11-02T09:26:17Z

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/28/798108/-History-in-the-Making

Statement from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"As a result of this legislation, if local jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the Justice Department can now step in. And that’s why the LGBT community never stopped working for this historic day.

This legislation not only has practical value, but is a symbol of our progress. It is the first time in the nation’s history that Congress has passed explicit protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We could not have reached this moment without the powerful support of our allies who stood with us every step of the way. We are deeply grateful to civil rights, civic, faith and disability rights groups, as well as law enforcement and district attorney organizations that worked side by side with the LGBT advocates. We are equally thankful to Congress, President Obama and members of his administration for passing and signing this bill into law. "

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 32 replies

Limbaugh calls Obama 'immature, inexperienced'

2009-11-02T07:18:22Z

By STEVEN R. HURST (AP) – 9 hours ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gP7WMgadV6UyZN-kS_DGEAiEWasAD9BMUAJ81

WASHINGTON — From his home and on a friendly network, Rush Limbaugh lobbed pot shots across the airwaves Sunday at President Barack Obama — "immature, inexperienced, in over his head," offering the country "radical leadership" and laying siege to the economy.

"We'll let Mr. Limbaugh foment," responded the White House's chief political strategist, dismissing the conservative commentator with the reported $400 million contract ("I'm probably worth more," Limbaugh said) as no more than an entertainer and not really the right guy to give "lectures on humility."

The banter began on the hourlong "Fox News Sunday," Limbaugh the lone guest, interviewed from his home in Palm Beach, Fla., on a network the Obama administration has labeled as the voice of the far-right wing of the Republican Party. Obama adviser David Axelrod swung away later in the morning from Chicago on CBS' "Face the Nation."

One question in, Limbaugh said that his country had "never seen this kind of radical leadership at such a high level of power," that "I have to think" the administration is bent on destroying the private sector on purpose, amounting to "a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom."

He said Obama's swift rise to the White House after "a five-minute career" makes him a "man-child president."

"I think he's got an out-of-this-world ego. He's very narcissistic. And he's able to focus all attention on him all the time. That description is simply a way to cut through the noise and say he's immature, inexperienced, in over his head," Limbaugh said.

Axelrod, one of two guests on the 30-minute CBS broadcast, weighed in with cutting comments of his own.

"I think it's a surreal day when you're getting lectures on humility from Rush Limbaugh. ... The fact is that he is an entertainer. The president has to run the country," Axelrod said.

"We walked into a difficult situation. I think he's handling it very, very well. And most people believe that," he added.

Limbaugh belittled Obama's surprise, middle-of-the-night trip last week to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to observe the return of 18 flag-covered cases holding the remains of Americans killed in Afghanistan. "It was a photo op" designed to "create the impression that he has all of this great concern," he contended.

Axelrod said Obama went to Dover "to represent the American people and pay his respects to the families who had made so much of a sacrifice, to those brave service people who made the ultimate sacrifice. It was the appropriate thing to do, and I think most Americans appreciate that."

As Limbaugh predicted that a second Obama term "would be painful," Axelrod got the final word:

"There's no surprise that Rush Limbaugh espouses the views that he espouses. He does it every day on radio. He's marketing the outrageous. And he does very well with it. But as I said he's an entertainer. We've got bigger responsibilities."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 5 replies

Morality

2009-11-02T05:44:55Z

A very interesting, and nicely concise, study on the philosophies of morality.

http://www.thinkingspace.com/the-concept-of-morality/

I thought the line at the end was compelling . . .

>>Haidt makes the interesting observation that while political liberals primarily see morality in terms of preventing harm and ensuring fairness, the conservative view of morality includes respect for in-group boundaries (e.g. group loyalty), authority and spiritual purity.<<

I wonder if these distinctions line up with our liberal and conservative tribe members. If so, do the conservative members see 'preventing harm and ensuring fairness' as weakness or something? And how do the liberal members see the conservative traits?

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 0 replies

No Special Rights for Churches!

2009-11-02T05:42:42Z

http://www.taxthechurches.org/

It was the fervent hope of the founders of our great nation that its government would not tresspass on the province of religion, and that religion would find neither refuge nor condemnation from a secular government. The founders' committment to this idea was unequivocal. The very first words of the Bill of Rights read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Whether you interpret that statement as an originalist, papist, feminist, or any other -ist, exempting religious organizations from paying taxes is a clear case of our government "respecting an establishment of religion," precisely what the framers intended to prohibit.

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 24 replies

Zionist take things to a new low!

2009-11-02T01:44:45Z

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/30-6

Published on Friday, October 30, 2009 by The Independent/UK
Student Expelled to Gaza Strip by Force
Palestinian's involuntary return is the sixth in 10 days, says human rights group

by Ben Lynfield in Jerusalem

A Palestinian student has been handcuffed, blindfolded and forcibly expelled to the Gaza Strip by Israeli troops just two months before she was due to graduate from university.

Berlanty Azzam, 21, who was studying for a business degree at Bethlehem University, said she was coming home in a shared taxi from a job interview in Ramallah on Wednesday when soldiers at the "Container" checkpoint took her identity card and that of another passenger with a Gaza address.

After six hours of waiting, soldiers told her she would be taken to a detention centre in the southern West Bank, and she was handcuffed and blindfolded, she said.

"The driving took longer than it should have and I started to think something was wrong. I started to wonder, what are they doing to me?" After the car stopped and the blindfold was lifted, Ms Azzam saw she was at the Erez crossing to Gaza.

It was the sixth known forced return to Gaza of Palestinians stopped at the "Container" checkpoint - which is between Bethlehem and Abu Dis - in 10 days, according to the Israeli human rights group Gisha. Israel has also been preventing family reunifications in the West Bank for Palestinians with relatives living in Gaza, in effect forcing people to relocate to the Strip.

The steps are part of an Israeli policy of treating Gaza and the West Bank as two separate entities, thereby undermining the coherence of Palestinian claims for a state encompassing both territories. The 1993 Oslo agreement stipulates that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are to be treated as one territorial unit.

Major Guy Inbar, an Israeli defense ministry official, said the reason for Ms Azzam's deportation was that she was "staying illegally" in the West Bank.

"We are talking about a Gaza citizen who requested permission to study in the area of Judea and Samaria and received a negative answer," he said.

"In 2005, she was given a permit to visit Jerusalem for four days and she remained afterwards [in the West Bank] without any permit. Her entire period as a student was based on deceit and was against the law."

Sari Bashi, head of the Israeli Gisha human rights group, who tried to intervene on Ms Azzam's behalf, said she was assured by military lawyers on Wednesday that the student would not be deported to Gaza and that the rights group could seek a judicial review in the morning.

"The military misled us," Ms Bashi said. "There is a violation here of the right to access education, the right to freedom of movement and the right to choose one's place of residence within one's own territory."

The army did not respond to a request for comment.

Brother Jack Curran, vice president for development of Bethlehem University, termed the expulsion "a disgrace". "This is not about politics. It's about a young person finishing her degree. Since 2005 she has been studying as a good student. No one is a winner from this."

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 15 replies

Report: Turkey PM says Lieberman threatened to nuke Gaza

2009-11-01T22:34:59Z

Last update - 09:46 26/10/2009
Report: Turkey PM says Lieberman threatened to nuke Gaza
By Haaretz Service

Turkey's prime minister has further inflamed simmering Israel-Turkey tensions, claiming that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatened to use nuclear weapons against Gaza, The Guardian reported Monday.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as making the allegation in an interview published by the British newspaper. The comments came amid a crisis in ties between the two allies, which erupted earlier in the month after Turkey banned Israel from participating in a NATO air force drill.

The crisis was deepened two weeks ago, when Ankara refused to take off the air a television drama that depicts Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children.

In the interview, Erdogan reportedly insisted that the Turkey-Israel strategic alliance remained alive, but chided Lieberman over the alleged nuclear threat regarding the Gaza Strip.

The Turkish leader also stressed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, was a "friend" of Turkey's.

"There is no doubt he is our friend," Erdogan was quoted as saying. "As a friend so far we have very good relations and have had no difficulty at all."

He reportedly rejected on Western accusations that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, saying: "Iran does not accept it is building a weapon. They are working on nuclear power for the purposes of energy only."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1123646.html

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 44 replies

Zionist: A hero for the new century

2009-11-01T20:07:55Z

And, that's from John.

It's nice that we're finally breaking through the idiotic prejudice that Zionism or all Zionists are "evil".

http://tribes.tribe.net/mideastpolitics/thread/5d3a679c-e73b-4917-bc2e-618564d22e20#ac58c4db-f4aa-48e8-bc0d-0342e38ee3db

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 4 replies

Dramatic UN Testimony

2009-11-01T15:11:40Z

I don't normally post videos, and seldom watch those posted by others, but this one is worth your time. You can also simply read the article below if you have trouble with it. Here is hoping some of the partisan posters take the time.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.5537773/k.291E/SelfDefense_is_not_a_Crime_of_War.htm

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 77 replies

Combating Obvious Racism

2009-11-01T15:08:15Z

What do all of you think of racists and racism? Do you encourage it either actively or passively in your life?

What do you do when there's a racist around you, say...someone sitting at a table with you. What do you do? Do you confront that person and their racism or do you just let them promote their hate-speech? Are you for or against racism, and are you brave enough to speak out against it? Do you have that courage?

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 79 replies

'US State Dept. rescues 60 Yemeni Jews'

2009-11-01T11:36:54Z

Amid a rise in anti-Semitic violence and terrorist activity in the country, the US State Department recently spirited nearly 60 Jews from Yemen and resettled them in the United States, The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.
In this photo taken on April...

According to the report, nearly 350 Yemenite Jews lived in the country before the operation. Those who have already moved to the US are likely to be joined by 100 more, while the remainder will most likely move to Israel.

"If we had not done anything, we feared there would be bloodshed," Gregg Rickman, a former State Department special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, told the paper.

In August, Israeli sources confirmed that the overwhelming majority of the final remnant of Yemen's ancient Jewish community was looking to leave.

"About 120 of the Yemeni Jews want to move to Israel, 100 want to move to the US," a source told The Jerusalem Post. "And between 20 and 30 want to stay."

Some of the Jews wishing to leave are unable to do so because they are having trouble selling their property, the source said.

Violent attacks and persecution have been a regular experience of Yemen's tiny Jewish community in recent years, against the backdrop of tensions and an anti-government insurrection in the northwestern Saada province, where a Shi'ite minority has been clashing with government forces since 2004.

The US ambassador reportedly urged Yemeni cabinet ministers to facilitate the departure. After initial reluctance (the Wall Street Journal reported that the government preferred to give the Jews safe haven in the capital city), Yemen agreed to issue exit permits and passports.

"It was the embassy's view, and the department concurred, that because of their vulnerability, we should consider them for resettlement," a spokeswoman for the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration was quoted as saying.

The Jewish Federations of North America is said to have raised $750,000 to help the effort. Orthodox groups also pledged to pitch in. The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was tasked with their resettlement.

The evacuation of the Yemeni Jews, one of the oldest Jewish communities in the Diaspora, is apparently a sign of America's growing concern about this Arabian Peninsula land of 23 million.

The operation followed a year of mounting harassment, and was planned with Jewish relief groups while Washington was signaling alarm about Yemen, the Wall Street Journal said.

It revealed that in July, US Gen. David Petraeus was dispatched to Yemen to encourage President Ali Abdullah Saleh to be more aggressive against al-Qaida terrorists in the country. Last month, President Barack Obama wrote in a letter to Saleh that Yemen's security is vital to the region and the US.

Saleh has reportedly been trying to protect the Jews, but his inability to quell the rebellion in the country's north made it less likely he could do so, prompting the US to step in. The alternative - risking broader attacks on the Jews - could well have undermined the Obama administration's efforts to rally support for Saleh in the US and abroad.

Jews are believed to have reached what is now Yemen more than 2,500 years ago as traders for King Solomon.

"They were one of the oldest exiled groups out of Israel," Hayim Tawil, a Yeshiva University professor who is an expert on Yemeni Jewry, was quoted as telling the Wall Street Journal. "This is the end of the Jewish Diaspora of Yemen. That's it."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256799053139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 1 reply

Israel : Some victims we are

2009-11-01T11:08:58Z

The kill ratio was 100-to-1 in our favor. The destruction ratio was much, much greater than that. To this day, thousands of Gazans are living in tents because we won't let them import cement to rebuild the homes we destroyed. We turned the Gaza Strip into a disaster area, a humanitarian case, and we're keeping it that way with our blockade.

Meanwhile, here on the Israeli side of the border, it's hard to remember when life was so safe and secure.

So let's decide: Who was the victim of Operation Cast Lead, them or us?

No question - us. We Israelis were the victims and we still are. In fact, our victimhood is getting worse by the day. The Goldstone report was the real war crime. The Goldstone report, the UN debates, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, B'Tselem, the traitorous soldiers of Breaking the Silence and the Rabin Academy - those were the true crimes against humanity. This is what's meant by "war is hell."

It is we who've been going through hell from the war in Gaza. It is we who've been suffering.

Gazans? Suffering? What's everybody talking about?

We let them eat, don't we?

This imaginary monologue is how we actually see ourselves today. We initiated the war in Gaza, we waged one of the most one-sided military campaigns anyone's ever seen - and we're the victims.

We're fighting off the world with the Holocaust; witness Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN with his Auschwitz props. "We won't go like lambs to the slaughter again," vowed his protégé, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, in a cabinet discussion of the Goldstone report.

Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter, Operation Cast Lead. To Israelis today, it's all of a piece, it's one story, one unbroken legacy of righteous victimhood.

The truth is that the State of Israel has never been a victim, and our likening of ourselves to the 6 million has been embarrassing from the beginning - but now? After what we did in Gaza? With the stranglehold we have on that society, while we over here live free and easy?

Victims? Lambs to the slaughter? Us?

No, this has gone beyond embarrassing; this is out-and-out shameful.

And, despite our excuses, it's not that we're "traumatized" by the past into believing that we're still weak, still the frightened, powerless Jews about to be led to the gas chambers. Many Holocaust survivors still believe this, and to some very limited extent, this vestigial fear still takes up space in the Israeli mind.

But by now, 64 years after the Holocaust, 42 years after seeing in the Six Day War how strong we'd become, we know, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, that we aren't the victims anymore. We know we aren't a continuation of the 6 million but rather a deliberate and stark departure from them.

THE REASON we tell ourselves and the world that we are victims is because we know, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, that victimhood is power. Victimhood is freedom. A victim can't be told to restrain himself. A victim fighting for survival can't be accused of abusing his power because, after all, his back is to the wall, he's desperate.

On the facts, it's very hard to convince ourselves, let alone the world, that Gaza and its Kassams have pushed Fortress Israel's back to the wall, that we're desperate, that we're struggling to survive. So, to convince ourselves and the world that this really is so, we do two things.

One, we refuse to acknowledge any facts that mar this image of ourselves as victims, and instead go over and over and over only the facts that fit the picture.

We talk only about the thousands of Kassams fired at Sderot; we never mention the thousands of Gazans we killed at the same time.

We talk only about Gilad Schalit; we never mention the 8,000 Palestinian prisoners we're holding.

And we never mention our ongoing blockade of Gaza or the devastation it does to those people.

The second thing we do to convince ourselves and the world that we're still victims is to never, ever, ever let go of the Holocaust - because that's when we really were victims. Victims like nobody's ever known, victims a million times worse than the Gazans.

Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter. Remember us, the people of the Holocaust? That wasn't the Middle East's superpower you saw fighting in Gaza.

That was the 6 million.

So you can't blame us. We're immune from your criticism. We're the biggest victims the world has ever known. We're desperate, so don't tell us about kill ratios and disproportionate use of force and collective punishment. We're fighting for our survival.

This is what we tell ourselves and the world, and, in the face of what we did and are still doing in Gaza, it has become intolerable. We are not the 6 million. The 6 million were powerless Jews three generations ago; we cannot wrap our abuses of power in their tragedy.

Instead, let's take a good, hard look at what we did and what we're doing in Gaza. Then let's take a good, hard look in the mirror. And then let's admit who's the true victim here and now, and, more importantly, who isn't.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787801&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

posted in ! * POLITICS * ! - 4 replies