My take:
The idea that we are about to experience a bursting of the college bubble, first broached, as I understand it, by Glenn Reynolds, promises to be far more entertaining than earlier bubble bursts.
Here's why. Almost everyone acknowledges that the traditional college curriculum has been debased even as the cost of college has multiplied, driven up by politicians eager to demonstrate their support. As student aid programs have grown, the colleges have grabbed much of the new money by raising tuition.
As traditional course offerings have fallen by the wayside, they have been replaced by courses with baffling names, such as "postmodern studies." Each of these names reflects a segment of the ever-growing, self-identified "victim" class.
Whether by coincidence or design, as the colleges and universities catered more and more to self-identified victims, the Democrat Party became essentially a gathering of "victims," all demanding government sustenance for the wicked behavior to which they had been subjected.
There has been some pushback by a fed-up under-educated public. A few years ago, voters in Michigan banned affirmative action in college admissions. A defiant president of the University of Michigan promptly promised to continue practicing affirmative action.
The self-designated victims will also put up a fight when their professional victimhood preparations are challenged.
So, unlike earlier bubble bursts, this one is going to be a good show. Students who already saw themselves as victims, even while receiving subsidies to study ephemeral matters that no one outside the institution cares about, will have still another reason to shout that they are being victimized.
Michael Barone:
Imagine that you have a product whose price tag for decades rises faster than inflation. But people keep buying it because they're told that it will make them wealthier in the long run. Then suddenly they find it doesn't. Prices fall sharply, bankruptcies ensue, great institutions disappear.
Sound like the housing market? Yes, but it also sounds like what Glenn Reynolds, creator of instapundit.com, writing in The Examiner, has called "the higher education bubble."
Government-subsidized loans have injected money into higher education, as they did into housing, causing prices to balloon. But at some point people figure out they're not getting their money's worth, and the bubble bursts.
Some think this would be a good thing. My American Enterprise Institute colleague Charles Murray has called for the abolition of college for almost all students. Save it for genuine scholars, he says, and let others qualify for jobs by standardized national tests, as accountants already do.
"Is our students learning?" George W. Bush once asked, and the evidence for colleges points to no. The National Center for Education Statistics found that most college graduates are below proficiency in verbal and quantitative literacy. University of California scholars Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks report that students these days study an average of 14 hours a week, down from 24 hours in 1961.
The American Council of Alumni and Trustees concluded, after a survey of 714 colleges and universities, "by and large, higher education has abandoned a coherent content-rich general education curriculum."
They aren't taught the basics of literature, history or science. ACTA reports that most schools don't require a foreign language, hardly any require economics, American history and government "are badly neglected" and schools "have much to do" on math and science.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Ground Zero mosque financier had to repay Medicare, is accused of ripping off State Farm Ins. for nearly $1.8 million
One of the money men behind the developer of the Ground Zero mosque was sued for allegedly ripping off an insurance company for nearly $1.8 million, according to court documents.
Hisham Elzanaty, who owns medical companies that operate out of a building in The Bronx, allegedly billed State Farm for unnecessary tests related to automobile accidents that would maximize the insurance payout, the papers say.
According to the documents, which were filed in 2007, the suspected scheme may have begun as early as 1998.
Elzanaty, who was reportedly a "significant investor" in mosque developer Sharif el-Gamal's $4.8 million purchase of the former Burlington Coat Factory building, was also ordered to repay $331,000 after an audit showed Medicaid had overpaid him.
Hisham Elzanaty, who owns medical companies that operate out of a building in The Bronx, allegedly billed State Farm for unnecessary tests related to automobile accidents that would maximize the insurance payout, the papers say.
According to the documents, which were filed in 2007, the suspected scheme may have begun as early as 1998.
Elzanaty, who was reportedly a "significant investor" in mosque developer Sharif el-Gamal's $4.8 million purchase of the former Burlington Coat Factory building, was also ordered to repay $331,000 after an audit showed Medicaid had overpaid him.
We're being played by the Afghans, who are looking for a bailout
KABUL, Afghanistan — In a bid to fend off the threat of a nationwide financial crisis, the Afghan government scrambled to come up with the funds to bail out Afghanistan’s largest bank on Saturday after lines of frantic depositors mobbed the bank for a third day.
Details of the deal were still being worked out on Saturday by the Central Bank of Afghanistan with technical assistance from the United States Treasury Department, Afghan and American officials said. But American officials said no United States funds were involved in the bailout.
The planned injection of cash into the beleaguered Kabul Bank is meant to slow the run on the bank by its customers, who have withdrawn more than $200 million in the past few days amid fears of a wider economic collapse.
But on Saturday, thousands of nervous Afghan depositors, unaware of the bailout and unconvinced of the bank’s solvency, stormed the bank’s central branch in Kabul to withdraw their savings.
Hundreds of men pushed and shoved their way to the front, while others waited behind them for hours in the saunalike atmosphere of the lobby, making it impossible to discern where the lines ended and began. Furious customers shouted angry complaints. An elderly woman in a black dress cried out in distress.
But the teller drawers were largely empty and most customers left empty-handed. “What should I give you when I have nothing to give?” a teller told one agitated customer.
Similar scenes were reported at branches in other cities.
The panic began last week when the Central Bank ousted the chairman and the chief executive officer of Kabul Bank, after discovering that the bank had acted recklessly, lending tens of millions of dollars to allies of President Hamid Karzai and pouring money into risky real estate investments in Dubai.
Details of the deal were still being worked out on Saturday by the Central Bank of Afghanistan with technical assistance from the United States Treasury Department, Afghan and American officials said. But American officials said no United States funds were involved in the bailout.
The planned injection of cash into the beleaguered Kabul Bank is meant to slow the run on the bank by its customers, who have withdrawn more than $200 million in the past few days amid fears of a wider economic collapse.
But on Saturday, thousands of nervous Afghan depositors, unaware of the bailout and unconvinced of the bank’s solvency, stormed the bank’s central branch in Kabul to withdraw their savings.
Hundreds of men pushed and shoved their way to the front, while others waited behind them for hours in the saunalike atmosphere of the lobby, making it impossible to discern where the lines ended and began. Furious customers shouted angry complaints. An elderly woman in a black dress cried out in distress.
But the teller drawers were largely empty and most customers left empty-handed. “What should I give you when I have nothing to give?” a teller told one agitated customer.
Similar scenes were reported at branches in other cities.
The panic began last week when the Central Bank ousted the chairman and the chief executive officer of Kabul Bank, after discovering that the bank had acted recklessly, lending tens of millions of dollars to allies of President Hamid Karzai and pouring money into risky real estate investments in Dubai.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, staunch backer of the Ground Zero mosque, has big plans for his business in Dubai
Call us cynical but we wonder whether Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s passionate backing of the building of a controversial mosque near Ground Zero stems as much from Bloomberg’s belief in America’s “freedom of faith” as it might from the Mayor’s belief in the “virtues of Islamic finance?”
Does the Mayor’s unshakable support have anything to do with The Bloomberg (company) becoming a ‘single provider of information that caters to the Islamic business market’? A Bloomberg five-year business plan for an Islamic finance portal via a Bloomberg hub at the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) is already a reality.
Michael Bloomberg, has become a staunch supporter of the Cordoba House (Park51) Ground Zero Mosque. In the process, the Mayor has lectured opponents on “religious liberty” and, by extension, implied that opposition to the mosque is largely based on bigotry.
Lately, Bloomberg has become so insistent on the mosque’s being built at its planned location that The New York Post has labeled him Pro-Mosque Mike.”
A defiant Mayor Bloomberg, saying there should be no compromise, insisted last night that a mosque be built near Ground Zero, declaring, “We must do what is right, not what is easy.
While Bloomberg hasn’t been shy about questioning the motives of those opposed to the mosque’s location, the media has shied away from the Mayor‘s motivations. But what of the Mayor’s motives? What might they be? Does a strong passion for religious liberty explain all?
Some of Bloomberg LP’s officials may hold some clues.
On October 2, 2009, The Dubai Chronicle reported Chairman and President of Bloomberg LP Peter T. Grauer met with UAE Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum at Maktoum’s Emirate office. According to the Dubai Chronicle, Grauer gave a presentation of Bloomberg future expansion plans in the ‘area of business information’ in the United Emirates, North Africa, and India. Grauer stated the UAE was a great place to expand, the UAE’s “logistic facilities” the ‘biggest incentive for investors and companies to expand their businesses in the country and the region beyond’.
“Particularly since the meltdown of the western capitalist system, there has been an increasingly large focus on the virtues of Islamic finance. Today, there is no one single provider of information that caters to the Islamic finance market. So by Bloomberg being here, we are in the process of building out an Islamic finance product. We are very confident that we can build a product that meets the needs of the market right now.”
–Max Linnington, Regional Head of Bloomberg Middle East and South Asia on the company’s plan to build a Bloomberg hub in Dubai at the Dubai International Financial Centre(DIFC), October 29, 2009
Some details about the DIFC:
The DIFC is the world’s fastest growing international financial centre. It aims to develop the same stature as New York, London and Hong Kong.
It primarily serves the vast region between Western Europe and East Asia.
Could the plans of Bloomberg LP have an influence on Bloomberg the Mayor?
Recently he claimed, “We would send a signal around the world that Muslim-Americans may be equal in the eyes of the law, but separate in the eyes of their countrymen.”
Might the Mayor be more interested–even just the tiniest bit–in some parts of the world than in others?
Might Bloomberg’s speech have sent a signal to the Middle East – which by a great coincidence, is the site of the Dubai International Financial Centre, the location of one of Bloomberg LP’s ten worldwide hubs?
On March 10, 2010, the Khaleej Times reported Bloomberg Set for Dubai expansion in bid to double revenues by 2014.
“Bloomberg, a leading global provider for financial data and news services, plans to “significantly boost regional operations from its Dubai hub as it is bullish about growth prospects of the emirate as a global financial center, a top executive said.”
The coincidences continue: the Mayor’s company is banking on “doubling revenues by 2014″ in a region that just happens to be largely populated by Muslims.
The Mayor, when he isn’t busy rallying support for a mosque opposed by a large majority in NYC and 70% of Americans at large, is in the newsgathering business. Bloomberg makes a lot of money providing financial news in a timely manner.
One more coincidence: if you do a search for financial news from Dubai and the Middle East, chances are, your only sources–outside the Mayor’s own Bloomberg.com — are The National, the Dubai Chronicle or the Khaleej News.
While we were able to easily access articles from the National, Dubai Chronicle or the Khaleej News about the Bloomberg Dubai hub, a search of Bloomberg.com came up empty. Ten pages of results: nothing.
Does it concern the Mayor that Bloomberg.com is getting scooped on news about Bloomberg LP?
Michael Bloomberg has made billions of dollars being a savvy businessman. Might a savvy businessman consider it prudent to maintain good relations in the Muslim world–a part of the world where the Mayor’s company hopes to “double revenues by 2014?”
How does Mayor Bloomberg’s support for the Ground Zero mosque — based, he says, on the issue of freedom of faith – square with the “virtues of Islamic finance” and an Islamic finance portal in Dubai with Bloomberg LP‘s aim of becoming “the world’s single provider of information that caters to the Islamic finance market?”
One more important question: will the NYC media ask Hizzoner if he has any potential conflicts to act as an impartial broker on Park51? Doesn’t it seem just that the survivors and families whose loved ones lost their lives on 911 receive some answers — before receiving any more lectures from the tiny, Boston-born Democrat turned Republican turned Independent turned Republican turned Whatever Mayor of the City of New York?
It’s easy to imagine the Mayor becoming enthusiastic over opportunities when billions of dollars are to be made. Enthusiasm is a hard emotion to contain.
Even when a majority of his constituents remain opposed to the latest object of Bloomberg’s enthusiasm.
Does the Mayor’s unshakable support have anything to do with The Bloomberg (company) becoming a ‘single provider of information that caters to the Islamic business market’? A Bloomberg five-year business plan for an Islamic finance portal via a Bloomberg hub at the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) is already a reality.
Michael Bloomberg, has become a staunch supporter of the Cordoba House (Park51) Ground Zero Mosque. In the process, the Mayor has lectured opponents on “religious liberty” and, by extension, implied that opposition to the mosque is largely based on bigotry.
Lately, Bloomberg has become so insistent on the mosque’s being built at its planned location that The New York Post has labeled him Pro-Mosque Mike.”
A defiant Mayor Bloomberg, saying there should be no compromise, insisted last night that a mosque be built near Ground Zero, declaring, “We must do what is right, not what is easy.
While Bloomberg hasn’t been shy about questioning the motives of those opposed to the mosque’s location, the media has shied away from the Mayor‘s motivations. But what of the Mayor’s motives? What might they be? Does a strong passion for religious liberty explain all?
Some of Bloomberg LP’s officials may hold some clues.
On October 2, 2009, The Dubai Chronicle reported Chairman and President of Bloomberg LP Peter T. Grauer met with UAE Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum at Maktoum’s Emirate office. According to the Dubai Chronicle, Grauer gave a presentation of Bloomberg future expansion plans in the ‘area of business information’ in the United Emirates, North Africa, and India. Grauer stated the UAE was a great place to expand, the UAE’s “logistic facilities” the ‘biggest incentive for investors and companies to expand their businesses in the country and the region beyond’.
“Particularly since the meltdown of the western capitalist system, there has been an increasingly large focus on the virtues of Islamic finance. Today, there is no one single provider of information that caters to the Islamic finance market. So by Bloomberg being here, we are in the process of building out an Islamic finance product. We are very confident that we can build a product that meets the needs of the market right now.”
–Max Linnington, Regional Head of Bloomberg Middle East and South Asia on the company’s plan to build a Bloomberg hub in Dubai at the Dubai International Financial Centre(DIFC), October 29, 2009
Some details about the DIFC:
The DIFC is the world’s fastest growing international financial centre. It aims to develop the same stature as New York, London and Hong Kong.
It primarily serves the vast region between Western Europe and East Asia.
Could the plans of Bloomberg LP have an influence on Bloomberg the Mayor?
Recently he claimed, “We would send a signal around the world that Muslim-Americans may be equal in the eyes of the law, but separate in the eyes of their countrymen.”
Might the Mayor be more interested–even just the tiniest bit–in some parts of the world than in others?
Might Bloomberg’s speech have sent a signal to the Middle East – which by a great coincidence, is the site of the Dubai International Financial Centre, the location of one of Bloomberg LP’s ten worldwide hubs?
On March 10, 2010, the Khaleej Times reported Bloomberg Set for Dubai expansion in bid to double revenues by 2014.
“Bloomberg, a leading global provider for financial data and news services, plans to “significantly boost regional operations from its Dubai hub as it is bullish about growth prospects of the emirate as a global financial center, a top executive said.”
The coincidences continue: the Mayor’s company is banking on “doubling revenues by 2014″ in a region that just happens to be largely populated by Muslims.
The Mayor, when he isn’t busy rallying support for a mosque opposed by a large majority in NYC and 70% of Americans at large, is in the newsgathering business. Bloomberg makes a lot of money providing financial news in a timely manner.
One more coincidence: if you do a search for financial news from Dubai and the Middle East, chances are, your only sources–outside the Mayor’s own Bloomberg.com — are The National, the Dubai Chronicle or the Khaleej News.
While we were able to easily access articles from the National, Dubai Chronicle or the Khaleej News about the Bloomberg Dubai hub, a search of Bloomberg.com came up empty. Ten pages of results: nothing.
Does it concern the Mayor that Bloomberg.com is getting scooped on news about Bloomberg LP?
Michael Bloomberg has made billions of dollars being a savvy businessman. Might a savvy businessman consider it prudent to maintain good relations in the Muslim world–a part of the world where the Mayor’s company hopes to “double revenues by 2014?”
How does Mayor Bloomberg’s support for the Ground Zero mosque — based, he says, on the issue of freedom of faith – square with the “virtues of Islamic finance” and an Islamic finance portal in Dubai with Bloomberg LP‘s aim of becoming “the world’s single provider of information that caters to the Islamic finance market?”
One more important question: will the NYC media ask Hizzoner if he has any potential conflicts to act as an impartial broker on Park51? Doesn’t it seem just that the survivors and families whose loved ones lost their lives on 911 receive some answers — before receiving any more lectures from the tiny, Boston-born Democrat turned Republican turned Independent turned Republican turned Whatever Mayor of the City of New York?
It’s easy to imagine the Mayor becoming enthusiastic over opportunities when billions of dollars are to be made. Enthusiasm is a hard emotion to contain.
Even when a majority of his constituents remain opposed to the latest object of Bloomberg’s enthusiasm.
51% of Michigan's likely voters favor a right-to-work law
More than half of likely voters would support a right-to-work law in Michigan, according to a poll released on the eve of Labor Day weekend.
"Given Michigan's strong labor history, the results are somewhat surprising," said Kelly Rossman-McKinney, with poll producers The Rossman Group and Team TelCom.
The Grand Rapids Press commissioned the poll, and a study to be released Sunday, on how people feel about right to work laws and what impact they'd have on Michigan's job situation. The work was done as part of the Michigan 10.0 series (MLive.com/mi10), which has explored crucial issues facing Michigan. The series started in January and will run up to the gubernatorial election.
In the poll of 300 voters, conducted this week, 51 percent said they supported this question: Should Michigan pass a right-to-work law that means employees cannot be forced to join a labor union?
More than 27 percent opposed such a law, which would ban total-union shops and make union membership optional. In practice, it mandates open shops, where unions must represent both dues-payers and non-members in contract talks, grievances, and other traditional support roles.
"Given Michigan's strong labor history, the results are somewhat surprising," said Kelly Rossman-McKinney, with poll producers The Rossman Group and Team TelCom.
The Grand Rapids Press commissioned the poll, and a study to be released Sunday, on how people feel about right to work laws and what impact they'd have on Michigan's job situation. The work was done as part of the Michigan 10.0 series (MLive.com/mi10), which has explored crucial issues facing Michigan. The series started in January and will run up to the gubernatorial election.
In the poll of 300 voters, conducted this week, 51 percent said they supported this question: Should Michigan pass a right-to-work law that means employees cannot be forced to join a labor union?
More than 27 percent opposed such a law, which would ban total-union shops and make union membership optional. In practice, it mandates open shops, where unions must represent both dues-payers and non-members in contract talks, grievances, and other traditional support roles.
John Podhoretz on "Obama's hell of a ride"
He is moving into the permanently-out-of-touch territory in which the Elder Bush found himself mired throughout his final year in office. When this president next week begins proposing expensive new measures to save us from a crisis he has just told us we are emerging from, he is going to compound the growing sense that he has no idea what he is doing or where to go to fix the mess. And he is going to convince many more people that the mess in which we are now mired is of a different order from the mess he inherited, and that it belongs to him and his party, and that somebody else is going to have to clean it up.
Why did Californians spend $377 million for a "learning center?" "...to show respect for the neighborhood's Latino children"
At $578 million—or about $140,000 per student—the 24-acre Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools complex in mid-Wilshire is the most expensive school ever constructed in U.S. history. To put the price in context, this city's Staples sports and entertainment center cost $375 million. To put it in a more important context, the school district is currently running a $640 million deficit and has had to lay off 3,000 teachers in the last two years. It also has one of the lowest graduation rates in the country and some of the worst test scores.
The K-12 complex isn't merely an overwrought paean to the nation's most celebrated liberal political family. It's a jarring reminder that money doesn't guarantee success—though it certainly beautifies failure.
The cluster of schools is situated on the premises of the old Ambassador Hotel where the New York senator and presidential candidate was shot in 1968. The school district insists that it chose the site not merely for sentimental reasons, but because it was the only space available in the area and the property was dirt cheap.
That was the only cheap thing about the project. In order to build on the site, the school district had to resolve protracted legal battles with Donald Trump—who wanted to build the tallest skyscraper west of the Mississippi there—and with historical conservationists who demanded that certain features be restored or recreated.
Set to open Sept. 13, the school boasts an auditorium whose starry ceiling and garish entrance are modeled after the old Cocoanut Grove nightclub and a library whose round, vaulted ceilings and cavernous center resemble the ballroom where Kennedy made his last speech. It also includes the original Cocoanut Grove canopy around which the rest of the school was built. "It wasn't cheap, but it was saved," says Thomas Rubin, a consultant for the district's bond oversight committee, which oversees the $20 billion of bonds that taxpayers approved for school construction in recent years.
View a slide-show of the school. .I asked Mr. Rubin whether some of the school's grandiose features—like florid murals of Robert F. Kennedy—were worth the cost. "Did we have to do that? Hell no. But there's no accounting for taste," he responded.
Talking benches—$54,000—play a three-hour audio of the site's history. Murals and other public art cost $1.3 million. A minipark facing a bustling Wilshire Boulevard? $4.9 million.
The Kennedy complex is Exhibit A in the district's profligate 131-school building binge. Exhibit B is the district's Visual and Performing Arts High School, which was originally budgeted at $70 million but was later upgraded into a sci-fi architectural masterpiece that cost $232 million.
Even more striking is Exhibit C, the Edward Roybal Learning Center in the Westlake area, which was budgeted at $110 million until costs skyrocketed midway through construction when contractors discovered underground methane gas and a fault line. Eventual cost: $377 million.
Mr. Rubin admits that the Roybal Center project was "a tremendous screw-up" that "should have been studied closer beforehand." The project was abandoned for several years, only to be recommenced when community activists demanded that the school be built at whatever cost necessary in order to show respect for the neighborhood's Latino children, many of whom were attending an overcrowded Belmont High School.
The K-12 complex isn't merely an overwrought paean to the nation's most celebrated liberal political family. It's a jarring reminder that money doesn't guarantee success—though it certainly beautifies failure.
The cluster of schools is situated on the premises of the old Ambassador Hotel where the New York senator and presidential candidate was shot in 1968. The school district insists that it chose the site not merely for sentimental reasons, but because it was the only space available in the area and the property was dirt cheap.
That was the only cheap thing about the project. In order to build on the site, the school district had to resolve protracted legal battles with Donald Trump—who wanted to build the tallest skyscraper west of the Mississippi there—and with historical conservationists who demanded that certain features be restored or recreated.
Set to open Sept. 13, the school boasts an auditorium whose starry ceiling and garish entrance are modeled after the old Cocoanut Grove nightclub and a library whose round, vaulted ceilings and cavernous center resemble the ballroom where Kennedy made his last speech. It also includes the original Cocoanut Grove canopy around which the rest of the school was built. "It wasn't cheap, but it was saved," says Thomas Rubin, a consultant for the district's bond oversight committee, which oversees the $20 billion of bonds that taxpayers approved for school construction in recent years.
View a slide-show of the school. .I asked Mr. Rubin whether some of the school's grandiose features—like florid murals of Robert F. Kennedy—were worth the cost. "Did we have to do that? Hell no. But there's no accounting for taste," he responded.
Talking benches—$54,000—play a three-hour audio of the site's history. Murals and other public art cost $1.3 million. A minipark facing a bustling Wilshire Boulevard? $4.9 million.
The Kennedy complex is Exhibit A in the district's profligate 131-school building binge. Exhibit B is the district's Visual and Performing Arts High School, which was originally budgeted at $70 million but was later upgraded into a sci-fi architectural masterpiece that cost $232 million.
Even more striking is Exhibit C, the Edward Roybal Learning Center in the Westlake area, which was budgeted at $110 million until costs skyrocketed midway through construction when contractors discovered underground methane gas and a fault line. Eventual cost: $377 million.
Mr. Rubin admits that the Roybal Center project was "a tremendous screw-up" that "should have been studied closer beforehand." The project was abandoned for several years, only to be recommenced when community activists demanded that the school be built at whatever cost necessary in order to show respect for the neighborhood's Latino children, many of whom were attending an overcrowded Belmont High School.
In Chicago, gangsters call a press conference to criticize cops
From CBS 2 Chicago, not The Onion:
At a news conference organized by self-identified gang members Thursday morning, several speakers complained that police and city officials do not respect them, and that the only way to curb violence is to provide jobs and improve their community.
The men who spoke out Thursday morning blamed poverty, drugs and a lack of jobs for the problems in the streets. They also said that Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis’ meeting with so-called gang leaders was a waste of time.
But when asked what could be done right now to stop the daily barrage of bullets on Chicago streets, they didn’t have an answer.
The self-described current and former gang members held a news conference at the Columbus Park Refectory, at 5701 W. Jackson Blvd. on the city’s West Side.
“The problem with them is that they’re giving us an ultimatum – quit – instead of an alternative. But we’re offering these young men an alternative, saying, ‘Get off the corner selling these bags, and come to this construction site and pick up this brick,” Reginald Akeem Berry Sr., an admitted former gang member, said.
He and others at the press conference took issue with Weis’ strategy of meeting with gang leaders and warning them of serious consequences if violence continues.
At a news conference organized by self-identified gang members Thursday morning, several speakers complained that police and city officials do not respect them, and that the only way to curb violence is to provide jobs and improve their community.
The men who spoke out Thursday morning blamed poverty, drugs and a lack of jobs for the problems in the streets. They also said that Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis’ meeting with so-called gang leaders was a waste of time.
But when asked what could be done right now to stop the daily barrage of bullets on Chicago streets, they didn’t have an answer.
The self-described current and former gang members held a news conference at the Columbus Park Refectory, at 5701 W. Jackson Blvd. on the city’s West Side.
“The problem with them is that they’re giving us an ultimatum – quit – instead of an alternative. But we’re offering these young men an alternative, saying, ‘Get off the corner selling these bags, and come to this construction site and pick up this brick,” Reginald Akeem Berry Sr., an admitted former gang member, said.
He and others at the press conference took issue with Weis’ strategy of meeting with gang leaders and warning them of serious consequences if violence continues.
Whitman up 7 points on Brown, Boxer and Fiorina tied in CA
(Reuters) - Republican Meg Whitman has opened up a 7-point lead over Democrat Jerry Brown in their closely watched race for California governor, the latest poll of likely voters showed on Friday.
Whitman, a billionaire former eBay chief executive who has already poured more than $100 million into the campaign, leads Brown, a former governor, by 47 percent to 40 percent ahead of the November 2 election, according to the SurveyUSA sampling.
That reflects a 3-point gain by Whitman, who is making her first run for public office, from the last SurveyUSA poll conducted in August.
Whitman hopes to capitalize on her outsider status and deep pockets to beat Brown, currently state attorney general, in what is considered a reliably Democratic state.
The next governor will inherit a state struggling with double-digit unemployment, a budget deficit of tens of billions of dollars and an unpopular, often gridlocked Legislature.
California, the nation's most populous state, has a huge economy and is home to the Silicon Valley technology hub.
The SurveyUSA poll, which sampled 569 likely California voters on Tuesday and Wednesday, found incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer in a statistical dead heat with Republican Carly Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, in their U.S. Senate race.
Boxer, a powerful liberal voice in Washington and strong supporter of President Obama's agenda, is seeking her fourth term in the Senate. She is in a tough re-election fight in a year when high unemployment and fears about the economy have left Democrats and incumbents vulnerable.
Whitman, a billionaire former eBay chief executive who has already poured more than $100 million into the campaign, leads Brown, a former governor, by 47 percent to 40 percent ahead of the November 2 election, according to the SurveyUSA sampling.
That reflects a 3-point gain by Whitman, who is making her first run for public office, from the last SurveyUSA poll conducted in August.
Whitman hopes to capitalize on her outsider status and deep pockets to beat Brown, currently state attorney general, in what is considered a reliably Democratic state.
The next governor will inherit a state struggling with double-digit unemployment, a budget deficit of tens of billions of dollars and an unpopular, often gridlocked Legislature.
California, the nation's most populous state, has a huge economy and is home to the Silicon Valley technology hub.
The SurveyUSA poll, which sampled 569 likely California voters on Tuesday and Wednesday, found incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer in a statistical dead heat with Republican Carly Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, in their U.S. Senate race.
Boxer, a powerful liberal voice in Washington and strong supporter of President Obama's agenda, is seeking her fourth term in the Senate. She is in a tough re-election fight in a year when high unemployment and fears about the economy have left Democrats and incumbents vulnerable.
By hoarding cash, Americans are planting the seeds of recovery
Common sense is the crux of Austrian theory economics. Austrians look at how individuals act, not how "economies" or "nations" act or behave. Ludwig von Mises, the greatest Austrian thinker, and in my opinion the greatest economist, entitled his great work, Human Action not National Action. The Austrian School was referred to by the Germans as the Psychological School because its analysis started with individual action and how those actions would either attain or fail to attain the goals sought by individuals. In other words, it involves a lot of the "common sense" that guides human behavior most of the time. It's comforting to know there's a philosophy of economics that conforms to what human beings actually do rather than how some economist thinks we ought to behave.
Examples of economic Newspeak flourish, especially if you listen to President Obama’s economic team. My favorite example is the present conflict between consumer spending and consumer saving. Since the crash, consumers have cut back on spending and are increasing their savings. Most economists are saying this is bad for the economy; they urge us to spend, spend, spend to save the economy.
Actually, it's just the opposite: Saving is the road to recovery.
Examples of economic Newspeak flourish, especially if you listen to President Obama’s economic team. My favorite example is the present conflict between consumer spending and consumer saving. Since the crash, consumers have cut back on spending and are increasing their savings. Most economists are saying this is bad for the economy; they urge us to spend, spend, spend to save the economy.
Actually, it's just the opposite: Saving is the road to recovery.
Why is Obama seeking the approval of the world's worst man-made disaster - the UN? Is he stealthily seeking his next gig?
America was founded as a country where no citizen would ever have to submit to the will of a king, or any other brand of despot. But hey, that's yesterday's news. President Barack Obama's administration is now submitting its own special selection of domestic policies and laws for review by the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose 47 members include such tyrannies as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Cuba and China.
Packaged as a 29-page report aiming to create "a more perfect union" in "a more perfect world," this U.S. self-critique was sent by the State Department on Aug. 20 to the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights, in preparation for a formal review on Nov. 5 by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. A glaring feature of this report is its disparaging mention of Arizona's new immigration law. This is the same law that Attorney General Eric Holder condemned in May without reading, and which the Obama administration is challenging in court. State is presenting this situation for review by the U.N., implying that Arizona is violating human rights with a law that has "generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world."
Gov. Jan Brewer registered her protest in an Aug. 27 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking that the section on Arizona's immigration law be removed from the report. Calling it "downright offensive" that Arizona law be offered up by the federal government for a "human rights" review by such U.N. members as Libya and Cuba, Brewer wrote: "The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
Brewer is dead right about internationalism running amok, and she's probably right that this is unconstitutional. But the problems with this scene go way beyond the federal abuse of Arizona. At the best of times, the U.N. is, in the words of the late Democratic New York Sen. and U.N. ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "a dangerous place." The U.N. is not an honest parliament accountable to some higher law. It is a despot-infested collective that reports erratically to itself; a place of double standards, which routinely delivers to dictatorships a legitimacy they do not deserve, and which they in turn use to heap criticism, without penalty, on the U.N.'s chief sugar daddy, the United States. Any attempt at real oversight or enforcement of integrity at the U.N. has been pretty much a voluntary and thankless task, shouldered almost entirely by the U.S.--when it is has been shouldered at all.
President Obama's approach to the U.N. is bringing us the worst possible variation on these themes. Rather than stand apart on principle where warranted, the Obama administration is increasingly stooping to become one of the gang--hoping for favors in return. Last year Obama overturned the Bush policy of bypassing the Human Rights Council as hopelessly corrupt. Under Obama, the U.S. became a member, promising to work from within. We're now seeing what that means in practice. While gaining stature from the U.S. presence, the Council itself remains stubbornly tainted, recently welcoming Libya to its ranks; sidelining atrocities by some of the world's worst tyrannies while focusing obsessively, as ever, on condemning the democratic state of Israel. But Obama has found a new use for this arrangement. He's trying to enlist the Council to further his domestic agenda, with the State Department attempting an end-run that invites into the U.S. system of checks and balances such voices as those of China, Russia, Cuba and Cameroon; or at best, the pronouncements of Switzerland, Norway and France.
Packaged as a 29-page report aiming to create "a more perfect union" in "a more perfect world," this U.S. self-critique was sent by the State Department on Aug. 20 to the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights, in preparation for a formal review on Nov. 5 by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. A glaring feature of this report is its disparaging mention of Arizona's new immigration law. This is the same law that Attorney General Eric Holder condemned in May without reading, and which the Obama administration is challenging in court. State is presenting this situation for review by the U.N., implying that Arizona is violating human rights with a law that has "generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world."
Gov. Jan Brewer registered her protest in an Aug. 27 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking that the section on Arizona's immigration law be removed from the report. Calling it "downright offensive" that Arizona law be offered up by the federal government for a "human rights" review by such U.N. members as Libya and Cuba, Brewer wrote: "The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
Brewer is dead right about internationalism running amok, and she's probably right that this is unconstitutional. But the problems with this scene go way beyond the federal abuse of Arizona. At the best of times, the U.N. is, in the words of the late Democratic New York Sen. and U.N. ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "a dangerous place." The U.N. is not an honest parliament accountable to some higher law. It is a despot-infested collective that reports erratically to itself; a place of double standards, which routinely delivers to dictatorships a legitimacy they do not deserve, and which they in turn use to heap criticism, without penalty, on the U.N.'s chief sugar daddy, the United States. Any attempt at real oversight or enforcement of integrity at the U.N. has been pretty much a voluntary and thankless task, shouldered almost entirely by the U.S.--when it is has been shouldered at all.
President Obama's approach to the U.N. is bringing us the worst possible variation on these themes. Rather than stand apart on principle where warranted, the Obama administration is increasingly stooping to become one of the gang--hoping for favors in return. Last year Obama overturned the Bush policy of bypassing the Human Rights Council as hopelessly corrupt. Under Obama, the U.S. became a member, promising to work from within. We're now seeing what that means in practice. While gaining stature from the U.S. presence, the Council itself remains stubbornly tainted, recently welcoming Libya to its ranks; sidelining atrocities by some of the world's worst tyrannies while focusing obsessively, as ever, on condemning the democratic state of Israel. But Obama has found a new use for this arrangement. He's trying to enlist the Council to further his domestic agenda, with the State Department attempting an end-run that invites into the U.S. system of checks and balances such voices as those of China, Russia, Cuba and Cameroon; or at best, the pronouncements of Switzerland, Norway and France.
Why have higher unemployment rates become the new norm?
Two basic facts will tell you most of what you need to know about the political picture today.
Fact One: The unemployment rate is the most important of all leading political indicators.
Fact Two: If the August unemployment number to be announced Friday tops 9%—which seems highly likely—the jobless rate will have been above that level for 16 straight months. Already, the U.S. is mired in the longest such stretch of 9%-plus joblessness in more than a quarter of a century.
There is little mystery, then, about why Democrats are in trouble. The party in power is inevitably blamed for so much bad news on the one economic subject that most concerns average Americans.
Yet the political debate on this point, which focuses on what can be done to get Americans back to work right now, is missing a deeper and more troubling reality: The American economy hasn't been a very robust jobs-producer for quite a while. That's the broader question that needs to be discussed, even as we work on the immediate problem.
Indeed, it has been perhaps four decades since America's economy has been the kind of roaring jobs machine that average Americans, aspiring politicians and ambitious business leaders all would like to see. Consider a few historical unemployment-rate numbers—one way to gauge the economy's performance on the jobs front.
Between 1966 and 1970, the U.S. experienced a phenomenal stretch of 48 straight months in which the unemployment rate was at or below 4%—that is to say, a stretch of four straight years when the rate was less than half of what it has been for the past year.
In the three decades since 1970, the rate has fallen below 4% for exactly four months, in the final months of 2000.
Instead, the norm has become unemployment rates in the 5%-to-7% range.
Fact One: The unemployment rate is the most important of all leading political indicators.
Fact Two: If the August unemployment number to be announced Friday tops 9%—which seems highly likely—the jobless rate will have been above that level for 16 straight months. Already, the U.S. is mired in the longest such stretch of 9%-plus joblessness in more than a quarter of a century.
There is little mystery, then, about why Democrats are in trouble. The party in power is inevitably blamed for so much bad news on the one economic subject that most concerns average Americans.
Yet the political debate on this point, which focuses on what can be done to get Americans back to work right now, is missing a deeper and more troubling reality: The American economy hasn't been a very robust jobs-producer for quite a while. That's the broader question that needs to be discussed, even as we work on the immediate problem.
Indeed, it has been perhaps four decades since America's economy has been the kind of roaring jobs machine that average Americans, aspiring politicians and ambitious business leaders all would like to see. Consider a few historical unemployment-rate numbers—one way to gauge the economy's performance on the jobs front.
Between 1966 and 1970, the U.S. experienced a phenomenal stretch of 48 straight months in which the unemployment rate was at or below 4%—that is to say, a stretch of four straight years when the rate was less than half of what it has been for the past year.
In the three decades since 1970, the rate has fallen below 4% for exactly four months, in the final months of 2000.
Instead, the norm has become unemployment rates in the 5%-to-7% range.
White House hostility so bad business is moving back to GOP
We are a long way from Dwight Eisenhower's cabinet. "Eight millionaires and a plumber," as one journalist dubbed Ike's team.
The Obama administration has the least corporate executive experience of any White House in decades.
The premiere posts of Treasury and Commerce express the issue. Both are traditionally bridges to business. This is the only first-term administration in about a century, when the Commerce post was created, to have neither a Commerce nor Treasury secretary with significant business experience.
"Obviously, the Obama administration doesn't stack up with previous Republican administrations but they don't even stack up with previous Democratic administrations," said Stephen Hess, a Brookings institution presidential scholar and veteran of four administrations.
"Democratic administrations always have a much shallower corporate personnel," Hess continued. "But if you deconstructed previous Democratic administrations you would have found considerable tokenism, particularly to cool things with Wall Street. You would want a Treasury secretary who had the friendships and the connections to settle people down. You don't want a jumpy Wall Street, even in ordinary times."
Obama has advisors from the private sector. The National Journal calculated that 28 percent of Obama's top officials have experience as business executives. It was 38 percent during George W. Bush's first term.
But locating that experience sheds more light on the story. National Journal had to reach to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's brief sojourn from government into investment banking and second tier cabinet posts (e.g., Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, once managing director at Prudential Mortgage Capital for affordable-housing investments, or Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who worked as a partner in his family-run ranch).
It's worth noting that, in these hard times, there would have also been issues with a big business cabinet. Many Americans already believe the Bush and Obama administrations put Wall Street ahead of the public interest (see bailout).
But Obama's circle has the worst of both worlds. He is seen as too close to big business. And big business sees him as too close to the populists.
The anger has built for more than a year, even among Obama supporters. The Obama White House is "without question the most hostile administration to business and to the role of business that we've had in decades," said media mogul Mort Zuckerman this summer on MSNBC, an erstwhile Obama backer.
CNBC's Jim Cramer, another former Obama man, said last March that, "this is the most, greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president." Cramer has not let up since.
Big business has not been this antagonistic toward Washington since Franklin Roosevelt. FDR's populism earned him the label of "traitor to his class."
The feud has already cost Democrats. Wall Street is donating a majority of its contributions to Republicans for the first time in years.
The Obama administration has the least corporate executive experience of any White House in decades.
The premiere posts of Treasury and Commerce express the issue. Both are traditionally bridges to business. This is the only first-term administration in about a century, when the Commerce post was created, to have neither a Commerce nor Treasury secretary with significant business experience.
"Obviously, the Obama administration doesn't stack up with previous Republican administrations but they don't even stack up with previous Democratic administrations," said Stephen Hess, a Brookings institution presidential scholar and veteran of four administrations.
"Democratic administrations always have a much shallower corporate personnel," Hess continued. "But if you deconstructed previous Democratic administrations you would have found considerable tokenism, particularly to cool things with Wall Street. You would want a Treasury secretary who had the friendships and the connections to settle people down. You don't want a jumpy Wall Street, even in ordinary times."
Obama has advisors from the private sector. The National Journal calculated that 28 percent of Obama's top officials have experience as business executives. It was 38 percent during George W. Bush's first term.
But locating that experience sheds more light on the story. National Journal had to reach to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's brief sojourn from government into investment banking and second tier cabinet posts (e.g., Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, once managing director at Prudential Mortgage Capital for affordable-housing investments, or Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who worked as a partner in his family-run ranch).
It's worth noting that, in these hard times, there would have also been issues with a big business cabinet. Many Americans already believe the Bush and Obama administrations put Wall Street ahead of the public interest (see bailout).
But Obama's circle has the worst of both worlds. He is seen as too close to big business. And big business sees him as too close to the populists.
The anger has built for more than a year, even among Obama supporters. The Obama White House is "without question the most hostile administration to business and to the role of business that we've had in decades," said media mogul Mort Zuckerman this summer on MSNBC, an erstwhile Obama backer.
CNBC's Jim Cramer, another former Obama man, said last March that, "this is the most, greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president." Cramer has not let up since.
Big business has not been this antagonistic toward Washington since Franklin Roosevelt. FDR's populism earned him the label of "traitor to his class."
The feud has already cost Democrats. Wall Street is donating a majority of its contributions to Republicans for the first time in years.
58% say U.S. "did the right thing" by going to war in Iraq
Despite its contentious history, most American voters appear to have made a positive judgment about the country's efforts in Iraq. Almost six in 10 (58 percent) voters think, overall, the United States "did the right thing" by going to war, according to the latest Fox News poll.
A little over one-third of voters (35 percent) take the opposite view -- that the U.S. "did the wrong thing" by becoming involved militarily in Iraq. From a partisan perspective, there is still division -- as 54 percent of Democrats think the U.S. did the wrong thing in Iraq, while only 14 percent of Republicans feel the same way. A slim majority of independents (52 percent) think the U.S. did the right thing in Iraq.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from September 1- September 2, 2010. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
An even larger share of voters (71 percent) expresses some level of agreement with the view that the Iraqi people are better off today because of the U.S.-led action, while 19 percent disagree.
A little over one-third of voters (35 percent) take the opposite view -- that the U.S. "did the wrong thing" by becoming involved militarily in Iraq. From a partisan perspective, there is still division -- as 54 percent of Democrats think the U.S. did the wrong thing in Iraq, while only 14 percent of Republicans feel the same way. A slim majority of independents (52 percent) think the U.S. did the right thing in Iraq.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from September 1- September 2, 2010. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
An even larger share of voters (71 percent) expresses some level of agreement with the view that the Iraqi people are better off today because of the U.S.-led action, while 19 percent disagree.
Pat Buchanan: Was the Iraq venture worth the cost?
...as 90 months of war in Iraq come to an end for America, what was won? And what was lost?
To stampede us into war, the neocons told us that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda and had a role in 9/11, that he had VX gas, botulism, mustard gas, sarin and anthrax, and was acquiring nuclear weapons. What further proof must you have, demanded Condi Rice, "a mushroom cloud over an American city"?
The truth. Saddam had no tie to al Qaeda, no role in 9/11, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no nuclear program.
We attacked a nation that did not attack us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us -- to strip it of weapons it did not have.
We were misled. We were deceived. We were lied to.
The cost: 4,400 dead, 35,000 wounded, $700 billion sunk.
"Much has changed since that night" we marched into Iraq, said President Obama. "A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives. Tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested."
Estimates of Iraqi war dead run from 70,000 to 100,000, which means hundreds of thousands of Iraqi widows and orphans. Christians have seen priests murdered, churches burned and half their number driven into exile. Four million Iraqis have left or lost their homes. Two million are in exile, as Baghdad has been cleansed of Sunnis. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq under Saddam. It is there now.
"Time to turn the page," said President Obama.
How does Iraq turn the page, as we retreat to secure bases and prepare to bring home the last 50,000 troops?
Terrorism has returned. Iraq's casualties are back up to where they were before the U.S. surge. Electricity is off much of the time. Six months after elections, no government exists. The Iraqi dead, wounded, widowed, orphaned, homeless and exiled are surely not better off.
What about those we leave behind? What happens to Iraqis who worked with us when we leave? How did our Vietnamese friends fare? What kind of future will Iraqis have, if civil and sectarian war return?
That our soldiers, Marines, diplomats and aid workers did their jobs bravely and honorably is understood by their countrymen -- and attested to by the fact the U.S. military is the most respected of our institutions.
But was the war worth it? Some 72 percent of Americans said in a recent CBS poll that it was not worth the price in U.S. war dead.
What does the secretary of defense think?
"It really requires a historian's perspective in terms of what happens here in the long run," says Robert Gates. "How it all weighs in the balance over time remains to be seen." A seven-year war, and our minister of defense cannot declare that it was all worth it.
To stampede us into war, the neocons told us that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda and had a role in 9/11, that he had VX gas, botulism, mustard gas, sarin and anthrax, and was acquiring nuclear weapons. What further proof must you have, demanded Condi Rice, "a mushroom cloud over an American city"?
The truth. Saddam had no tie to al Qaeda, no role in 9/11, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no nuclear program.
We attacked a nation that did not attack us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us -- to strip it of weapons it did not have.
We were misled. We were deceived. We were lied to.
The cost: 4,400 dead, 35,000 wounded, $700 billion sunk.
"Much has changed since that night" we marched into Iraq, said President Obama. "A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives. Tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested."
Estimates of Iraqi war dead run from 70,000 to 100,000, which means hundreds of thousands of Iraqi widows and orphans. Christians have seen priests murdered, churches burned and half their number driven into exile. Four million Iraqis have left or lost their homes. Two million are in exile, as Baghdad has been cleansed of Sunnis. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq under Saddam. It is there now.
"Time to turn the page," said President Obama.
How does Iraq turn the page, as we retreat to secure bases and prepare to bring home the last 50,000 troops?
Terrorism has returned. Iraq's casualties are back up to where they were before the U.S. surge. Electricity is off much of the time. Six months after elections, no government exists. The Iraqi dead, wounded, widowed, orphaned, homeless and exiled are surely not better off.
What about those we leave behind? What happens to Iraqis who worked with us when we leave? How did our Vietnamese friends fare? What kind of future will Iraqis have, if civil and sectarian war return?
That our soldiers, Marines, diplomats and aid workers did their jobs bravely and honorably is understood by their countrymen -- and attested to by the fact the U.S. military is the most respected of our institutions.
But was the war worth it? Some 72 percent of Americans said in a recent CBS poll that it was not worth the price in U.S. war dead.
What does the secretary of defense think?
"It really requires a historian's perspective in terms of what happens here in the long run," says Robert Gates. "How it all weighs in the balance over time remains to be seen." A seven-year war, and our minister of defense cannot declare that it was all worth it.
In Obama's White House, they even get the new rug wrong
A mistake has been made in the Oval Office makeover that goes beyond the beige.
President Obama's new presidential rug seemed beyond reproach, with quotations from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. woven along its curved edge.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." According media reports, this quote keeping Obama company on his wheat-colored carpet is from King.
Except it's not a King quote. The words belong to a long-gone Bostonian champion of social progress. His roots in the republic ran so deep that his grandfather commanded the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington.
For the record, Theodore Parker is your man, President Obama. Unless you're fascinated by antebellum American reformers, you may not know of the lyrically gifted Parker, an abolitionist, Unitarian minister and Transcendentalist thinker who foresaw the end of slavery, though he did not live to see emancipation. He died at age 49 in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War.
A century later, during the civil rights movement, King, an admirer of Parker, quoted the Bostonian's lofty prophecy during marches and speeches. Often he'd ask in a refrain, "How long? Not long." He would finish in a flourish: "Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
King made no secret of the author of this idea. As a Baptist preacher on the front lines of racial justice, he regarded Parker, a religious leader, as a kindred spirit.
Yet somehow a mistake was made and magnified in our culture to the point that a New England antebellum abolitionist's words have been enshrined in the Oval Office while attributed to a major 20th-century figure. That is a shame, because the slain civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate was so eloquent in his own right. Obama, who is known for his rhetorical skills, is likely to feel the slight to King -- and Parker.
President Obama's new presidential rug seemed beyond reproach, with quotations from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. woven along its curved edge.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." According media reports, this quote keeping Obama company on his wheat-colored carpet is from King.
Except it's not a King quote. The words belong to a long-gone Bostonian champion of social progress. His roots in the republic ran so deep that his grandfather commanded the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington.
For the record, Theodore Parker is your man, President Obama. Unless you're fascinated by antebellum American reformers, you may not know of the lyrically gifted Parker, an abolitionist, Unitarian minister and Transcendentalist thinker who foresaw the end of slavery, though he did not live to see emancipation. He died at age 49 in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War.
A century later, during the civil rights movement, King, an admirer of Parker, quoted the Bostonian's lofty prophecy during marches and speeches. Often he'd ask in a refrain, "How long? Not long." He would finish in a flourish: "Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
King made no secret of the author of this idea. As a Baptist preacher on the front lines of racial justice, he regarded Parker, a religious leader, as a kindred spirit.
Yet somehow a mistake was made and magnified in our culture to the point that a New England antebellum abolitionist's words have been enshrined in the Oval Office while attributed to a major 20th-century figure. That is a shame, because the slain civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate was so eloquent in his own right. Obama, who is known for his rhetorical skills, is likely to feel the slight to King -- and Parker.
Friday, September 3, 2010
EEOC rides to the defense of muslims, filing discrimination suits in Nebraska, California, Colorado over headscarfs, prayer
The Obama Administration’s taxpayer-funded Islamic defense program has been quite busy this week, filing several discrimination lawsuits on behalf of Muslims in different parts of the country and holding Justice Department meetings to discuss prosecuting “anti-Muslim hate speech.”
The legal actions come on the same week that the White House and various federal agencies—including the Department of Homeland Security—hosted a special workshop to provide members of radical Islamic groups with direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources. Read all about that here.
Now the administration is flexing its legal muscle in its ardent quest to befriend the enemy. A federal civil rights agency known as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed discrimination lawsuits against companies in Nebraska, California and Colorado for discriminating against Muslims by not accommodating prayer breaks and forbidding a headscarf on the job.
The government sued meatpacking plants in Greeley Colorado and Grand Island Nebraska for religious and racial harassment because dozens of Muslim employees were “denied prayer time” during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawsuit seeks changes to policies and procedures to accommodate Muslim workers, payment for past and future damages and punitive damages.
In a third lawsuit filed this week the EEOC claims that an outdoor apparel store discriminated against a Muslim female job applicant in northern California because she wore a headscarf known as a hijab. The company has a longstanding employee dress code banning any sort of head covering but the government asserts that in this particular case it’s discriminating on the basis of religion.
Also this week, the Justice Department met with a coalition of Islamic groups that demand the administration criminally prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric as hate speech. Besides investing more resources to combat discrimination against Muslims, coalition leaders want Attorney General Eric Holder to “make a strong public statement” condemning hate crimes, harassment and discrimination against Muslims.
The legal actions come on the same week that the White House and various federal agencies—including the Department of Homeland Security—hosted a special workshop to provide members of radical Islamic groups with direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources. Read all about that here.
Now the administration is flexing its legal muscle in its ardent quest to befriend the enemy. A federal civil rights agency known as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed discrimination lawsuits against companies in Nebraska, California and Colorado for discriminating against Muslims by not accommodating prayer breaks and forbidding a headscarf on the job.
The government sued meatpacking plants in Greeley Colorado and Grand Island Nebraska for religious and racial harassment because dozens of Muslim employees were “denied prayer time” during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawsuit seeks changes to policies and procedures to accommodate Muslim workers, payment for past and future damages and punitive damages.
In a third lawsuit filed this week the EEOC claims that an outdoor apparel store discriminated against a Muslim female job applicant in northern California because she wore a headscarf known as a hijab. The company has a longstanding employee dress code banning any sort of head covering but the government asserts that in this particular case it’s discriminating on the basis of religion.
Also this week, the Justice Department met with a coalition of Islamic groups that demand the administration criminally prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric as hate speech. Besides investing more resources to combat discrimination against Muslims, coalition leaders want Attorney General Eric Holder to “make a strong public statement” condemning hate crimes, harassment and discrimination against Muslims.
Moonlighting MD lawmaker booked his $250,000 in bribes, even had himself put on a grocery chain's payroll as cover
In the politician’s version of America’s Dumbest Criminals, a prominent Maryland state lawmaker actually kept a detailed list of the illegal favors he did for executives of a grocery chain that paid him nearly a quarter of a million dollars in bribes.
As chair of the state’s powerful senate taxation committee, Democrat Ulysses Currie sold his influence to the supermarket chain (Shoppers Food Warehouse) that he helped land government business and other favors that financially benefitted the company. Federal prosecutors say the grocery chain put Currie on its payroll for about six years, making monthly payments of up to $7,600 to the corrupt legislator.
In an 18-count grand jury indictment, the feds claim that after Currie became chairman of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee in 2002, he asked to be put on the supermarket chain’s payroll to conceal the bribes. He later said his part-time grocery job was as a consultant of “minority recruitment and outreach, community relations and public affairs.” Instead the 73-year-old politician repeatedly used his power and leverage to benefit the firm and its top executives, prosecutors say.
In fact, Currie created a list, “Accomplishments on Behalf of Shoppers,” documenting his unscrupulous deeds for the grocer and justifying his bribes. Among them: Currie helped Shoppers secure a $2 million government handout for a Baltimore location and a $3 million grant for supermarket road improvements, used official letterhead to repeatedly lobby state highway officials for traffic signals at stores in two counties and coerced a county liquor board to allow the transfer of a liquor license.
Currie also persuaded government officials to give up the right to buy precious land—owned by the Washington Transit Authority—so that the property could be used to expand an existing Shoppers facility. Several executives from the grocery chain have also been indicted and the company has agreed to pay a $2.5 million penalty. Curie faces decades in prison.
As chair of the state’s powerful senate taxation committee, Democrat Ulysses Currie sold his influence to the supermarket chain (Shoppers Food Warehouse) that he helped land government business and other favors that financially benefitted the company. Federal prosecutors say the grocery chain put Currie on its payroll for about six years, making monthly payments of up to $7,600 to the corrupt legislator.
In an 18-count grand jury indictment, the feds claim that after Currie became chairman of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee in 2002, he asked to be put on the supermarket chain’s payroll to conceal the bribes. He later said his part-time grocery job was as a consultant of “minority recruitment and outreach, community relations and public affairs.” Instead the 73-year-old politician repeatedly used his power and leverage to benefit the firm and its top executives, prosecutors say.
In fact, Currie created a list, “Accomplishments on Behalf of Shoppers,” documenting his unscrupulous deeds for the grocer and justifying his bribes. Among them: Currie helped Shoppers secure a $2 million government handout for a Baltimore location and a $3 million grant for supermarket road improvements, used official letterhead to repeatedly lobby state highway officials for traffic signals at stores in two counties and coerced a county liquor board to allow the transfer of a liquor license.
Currie also persuaded government officials to give up the right to buy precious land—owned by the Washington Transit Authority—so that the property could be used to expand an existing Shoppers facility. Several executives from the grocery chain have also been indicted and the company has agreed to pay a $2.5 million penalty. Curie faces decades in prison.
Sanctuary City vs. Secure Communities: SF sheriff protects illegal aliens from police who inquire about citizenship status
The top law enforcement official in a major U.S. county is vigorously working to withdraw from a federal program that checks criminals’ immigration status because it violates the area’s sanctuary policies.
San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who operates the county jails, has for months tried to bail on a program (Secure Communities) that requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database. The idea is to deport dangerous criminals, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years.
But the veteran elected sheriff says the arrangement violates San Francisco’s longtime sanctuary law, which forbids public employees and police from asking anyone about their immigration status. The famously liberal city by the bay also offers illegal aliens official government identification cards and all sorts of taxpayer-financed public benefits.
The policies have protected violent criminals from deportation, including those who have been convicted of atrocious felonies. A few years ago a Salvadoran gang member with two felony convictions murdered a father and his two sons because San Francisco law enforcement agencies never turned him over to federal authorities for removal. Secure Communities was implemented nationwide in 2008 precisely to avoid situations like those.
Incredibly, the sheriff’s priority is to continue shielding illegal aliens from deportation even when they commit crimes in the community he’s been elected to protect. Earlier this year Hennessey formally requested that California’s attorney general exempt his agency from participating in Secure Communities and when the request was denied, he asked the feds directly.
In rejecting the exemption request California’s attorney general said that Secure Communities “serves both public safety and the interests of justice" because it “advances an important law enforcement function by identifying those individuals who are in the country illegally and who have a history of serious crimes or who have previously been deported."
San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who operates the county jails, has for months tried to bail on a program (Secure Communities) that requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database. The idea is to deport dangerous criminals, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years.
But the veteran elected sheriff says the arrangement violates San Francisco’s longtime sanctuary law, which forbids public employees and police from asking anyone about their immigration status. The famously liberal city by the bay also offers illegal aliens official government identification cards and all sorts of taxpayer-financed public benefits.
The policies have protected violent criminals from deportation, including those who have been convicted of atrocious felonies. A few years ago a Salvadoran gang member with two felony convictions murdered a father and his two sons because San Francisco law enforcement agencies never turned him over to federal authorities for removal. Secure Communities was implemented nationwide in 2008 precisely to avoid situations like those.
Incredibly, the sheriff’s priority is to continue shielding illegal aliens from deportation even when they commit crimes in the community he’s been elected to protect. Earlier this year Hennessey formally requested that California’s attorney general exempt his agency from participating in Secure Communities and when the request was denied, he asked the feds directly.
In rejecting the exemption request California’s attorney general said that Secure Communities “serves both public safety and the interests of justice" because it “advances an important law enforcement function by identifying those individuals who are in the country illegally and who have a history of serious crimes or who have previously been deported."
Steve Rattner: Rahm Emanuel gave UAW the Gettelfinger during talks about a government bailout of GM and Chrysler
Rahm Emanuel, former Democratic congressman and President Obama's chief of staff, gave the UAW the Gettelfinger during the GM and Chrysler rescue debate, according to former auto czar Steve Rattner's new book. This could get messy. Especially because there's more.
Huffington Post says Rattner's book "The Overhaul" will offer some unstinting takes on Obama's inner circle during the time of the bailouts.
Of course, this isn't the first time Emanuel's found himself in hot water over dropping an F-bomb on his political bedmates. But it's also not the only startling quote we've found in Rattner's book.
In addition to Emanuel's expression of the usually never-stated, but readily-shared opinion by many Democratic politicians of the usually Democratic-leaning union, the other early highlights include:
- Emanuel's spout about the UAW came during early debate on whether the administration should even try to rescue GM and Chrysler.
— In his first post-election talk with advisors about GM and Chrysler, Obama asked "Why can't they make a Corolla?"
— Rattner describes Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne as "one of our biggest headaches." He also describes a showdown between Marchionne and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger; when Marchionne lectured about the need for autoworkers to accept a "culture of poverty" instead of a "culture of entitlement," Gettelfinger fired back: "Why don't you come and sit with me and tell a seventy-five-year-old widow that she can't have surgery and that you killed her husband?"
— And Rattner defends his role in "ChoochGate," the scandal that forced him to resign from the Obama administration, despite other reports suggesting there's a lot of life left in the probe.
Huffington Post says Rattner's book "The Overhaul" will offer some unstinting takes on Obama's inner circle during the time of the bailouts.
Of course, this isn't the first time Emanuel's found himself in hot water over dropping an F-bomb on his political bedmates. But it's also not the only startling quote we've found in Rattner's book.
In addition to Emanuel's expression of the usually never-stated, but readily-shared opinion by many Democratic politicians of the usually Democratic-leaning union, the other early highlights include:
- Emanuel's spout about the UAW came during early debate on whether the administration should even try to rescue GM and Chrysler.
— In his first post-election talk with advisors about GM and Chrysler, Obama asked "Why can't they make a Corolla?"
— Rattner describes Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne as "one of our biggest headaches." He also describes a showdown between Marchionne and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger; when Marchionne lectured about the need for autoworkers to accept a "culture of poverty" instead of a "culture of entitlement," Gettelfinger fired back: "Why don't you come and sit with me and tell a seventy-five-year-old widow that she can't have surgery and that you killed her husband?"
— And Rattner defends his role in "ChoochGate," the scandal that forced him to resign from the Obama administration, despite other reports suggesting there's a lot of life left in the probe.
Financier of Ground Zero mosque supported a Hamas front
So now it transpires that a key money- man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas.
No wonder the mosque's principal imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, refuses to discuss the project's finances.
Or, for that matter, refuses to speak harshly of Hamas -- an Iranian cat's-paw that's long been one of the deadliest Islamist terrorist organizations operating in the Mideast.
It was reported last night that Hisham Elzanaty -- an Egyptian-born businessman from Long Island -- provided a big chunk of the $4.8 million needed to buy the building that will be demolished to make way for the mosque.
Among other things, Elzanaty runs a Bronx-based medicial supply company that had to refund more than $300,000 in Medicaid payments in 2004-2005.
In 1999, he donated thousands to the Holy Land Foundation, later shuttered by the feds because of its Hamas ties.
All of this is, as they say, enough to give one pause.
But we doubt it will truly surprise any among the 71 percent of New Yorkers found this week by Quinnipiac University pollsters to oppose the mosque.
Mayor Mike and others think they are bigots, but most seem to have asked -- and answered to their own satisfaction -- a fair question:
How close to the scene of that deadly Islamist attack on America is too close to build a mosque?
Answer: The proposed site was close enough to have been hit by a landing-gear assembly from one of the crashed airliners on 9/11 -- and that's way too close.
They're also nervous about the project's backers -- even before Elzanaty popped up -- deciding that, with those folks involved, anywhere might be too close.
As The Post reported yesterday, Rauf has been catching iffy tax breaks since 1998 for an organization run from his wife's Upper West Side apartment.
How'd he do it? By telling the IRS the one-bedroom digs were actually a mosque where 500 people prayed daily.
These are only the latest revelations about the mosque's backers, who've run up a cumulative record of petty crime, slumlording and tax-scamming.
And that's being generous.
Rauf, who's due back in New York this weekend after a long trip abroad, has plenty of explaining to do to the people he's been thumbing in the eye for weeks.
No wonder the mosque's principal imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, refuses to discuss the project's finances.
Or, for that matter, refuses to speak harshly of Hamas -- an Iranian cat's-paw that's long been one of the deadliest Islamist terrorist organizations operating in the Mideast.
It was reported last night that Hisham Elzanaty -- an Egyptian-born businessman from Long Island -- provided a big chunk of the $4.8 million needed to buy the building that will be demolished to make way for the mosque.
Among other things, Elzanaty runs a Bronx-based medicial supply company that had to refund more than $300,000 in Medicaid payments in 2004-2005.
In 1999, he donated thousands to the Holy Land Foundation, later shuttered by the feds because of its Hamas ties.
All of this is, as they say, enough to give one pause.
But we doubt it will truly surprise any among the 71 percent of New Yorkers found this week by Quinnipiac University pollsters to oppose the mosque.
Mayor Mike and others think they are bigots, but most seem to have asked -- and answered to their own satisfaction -- a fair question:
How close to the scene of that deadly Islamist attack on America is too close to build a mosque?
Answer: The proposed site was close enough to have been hit by a landing-gear assembly from one of the crashed airliners on 9/11 -- and that's way too close.
They're also nervous about the project's backers -- even before Elzanaty popped up -- deciding that, with those folks involved, anywhere might be too close.
As The Post reported yesterday, Rauf has been catching iffy tax breaks since 1998 for an organization run from his wife's Upper West Side apartment.
How'd he do it? By telling the IRS the one-bedroom digs were actually a mosque where 500 people prayed daily.
These are only the latest revelations about the mosque's backers, who've run up a cumulative record of petty crime, slumlording and tax-scamming.
And that's being generous.
Rauf, who's due back in New York this weekend after a long trip abroad, has plenty of explaining to do to the people he's been thumbing in the eye for weeks.
New York "mosque" owned by GZ mosque imam has tax exempt status but apparently no mosque or mosque-suitable space
Feisal Abdul Rauf, the New York imam and State Department envoy who wants to build a controversial new mosque at Ground Zero, applied for – and received – tax-exempt status from the IRS in 1998 for another mosque about 10 blocks from the Ground Zero site, stating that he was already holding prayer services there for up to 500 daily worshippers.
But when the Investigative Project on Terrorism checked out the information Rauf provided to the government on his IRS 1023 form, they discovered that 201 W. 85th Street was a 17-story Manhattan apartment building with no public spaces large enough to accommodate 500 daily worshippers. And Apartment 10 E was a one-bedroom, 800-square-foot unit that would have trouble holding even 50.
In their 1998 tax filing, Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, former director of the American Sufi Muslim Association, said that they wanted to build “a large scale prayer center in New York City…The center will include a mosque (prayer place) where every Friday and daily large congregation prayers and meditation centers will be held.” However, IPT says, “ASMA records don’t indicate that the center was ever built.”
Rauf and Khan also run the non-profit Cordoba Institute, which along with ASMA, owns the Ground Zero site, according to IPT investigators. The couple set up a “labyrinthine financial network surrounding the [Ground Zero mosque] project,” leading to major concerns about who exactly is funding it.
A recent financial statement by ASMA reported donations from the United Nations Population Fund, the Dutch government, MDG3 Fund, the Hunt Alternatives Fund, Carnegie Corp., the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Qatar government.
But when the Investigative Project on Terrorism checked out the information Rauf provided to the government on his IRS 1023 form, they discovered that 201 W. 85th Street was a 17-story Manhattan apartment building with no public spaces large enough to accommodate 500 daily worshippers. And Apartment 10 E was a one-bedroom, 800-square-foot unit that would have trouble holding even 50.
In their 1998 tax filing, Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, former director of the American Sufi Muslim Association, said that they wanted to build “a large scale prayer center in New York City…The center will include a mosque (prayer place) where every Friday and daily large congregation prayers and meditation centers will be held.” However, IPT says, “ASMA records don’t indicate that the center was ever built.”
Rauf and Khan also run the non-profit Cordoba Institute, which along with ASMA, owns the Ground Zero site, according to IPT investigators. The couple set up a “labyrinthine financial network surrounding the [Ground Zero mosque] project,” leading to major concerns about who exactly is funding it.
A recent financial statement by ASMA reported donations from the United Nations Population Fund, the Dutch government, MDG3 Fund, the Hunt Alternatives Fund, Carnegie Corp., the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Qatar government.
Government report to UN drafted by Hillary Clinton and coconspirators lies about the recession her party fails to end
Even as Americans wrestle with the after-effects of one of the most hare-brained social enngineering projects ever devised, subprime mortgages on a mass scale, the government refuses to face reality.
In a new report to the World's Worst Man-made Catastrophe, the United Nations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and some of her co-conspirators write this:
"The recession in the United States was fueled largely by a housing crisis, which coincided with some discriminatory lending practices." Those practices, the report strongly implies, resulted in a market where "fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic families own homes while three quarters of white families do."
So, it wasn't the mortgages-for-everybody scheme devised by Washington politicians and the Federal Reserve that caused the housing bubble and subsequent collapse. It was the antecedent to those policies, also known as a policy of mortgages only for those who could afford them, that was the problem.
Being an organization run by liberals and radicals, some from the third world, the UN demands victims. Being Democrats, Clinton and her coconspirators are willing to supply victims, even if the supporting story line boggles the mind.
Writing in American Thinker, Jack Cashill notes that "the U.N.'s 192 Member States assess their respective human rights performance over the preceding four years and submit a report on the same to the HRC, the U.N. Human Rights Council.
"During this past year, under the guidance of our HRC, Hillary Rodham Clinton, "senior representatives" from "more than a dozen" federal entities wandered the country listening to the self-serving laments of various liberal pressure groups. At the end of the process, they compiled these gripes into a 29-page report and sent it to the U.N. HRC for review.
"Among the reviewing states of the HRC are human rights luminaries like Cuba, Russia, Red China, Saudi Arabia, and -- when not busy sending "emergency transaction" e-mails -- Nigeria.
"Our State Department calls the UPR process "a unique avenue for the global community to discuss human rights around the world." Any sane person would call it a self-deluding boondoggle and, if its recommendations are followed, a self-destructive one as well.
"I could write a book on the various absurdities of the report we submitted -- e.g., a soulful plea for the rights of the transgendered and not a word on those of the unborn -- but let me focus on one that has the potential to wreak havoc anew on the world's economy: the call for "fairness and equality in housing."
"The recession in the United States," the report insists, "was fueled largely by a housing crisis, which coincided with some discriminatory lending practices." Those practices, the report strongly implies, resulted in a market where "fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic families own homes while three quarters of white families do."
"To prevent similar crises in the future," the report continues in its smugly accusatory way, "the federal government has focused resources and efforts to determine whether and where discrimination took place, as well as to ensure greater oversight going forward." As proof of the administration's eagerness to solve the problem, the report cites its "major financial reform legislation."
"I wish I were making this up, but our official 2010 UPR submission to the United Nation argues that discrimination against minorities in the housing market somehow caused the economic crisis and that the misbegotten Dodd-Frank act will somehow repair it. It is no wonder that the authors of this report oppose capital punishment. Upon reading it, even Sister Helen Prejean would want them taken out and shot.
"While the Obama apparatchiks were busy compiling this report, I was busy writing a book -- Popes and Bankers -- on the real causes of the economic crisis. What they see as the solution I see as the cause, and I can prove my point.
"To make the accusation of discrimination work, the report writers had to ignore the most telling set of data, namely default rates. In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development did a comprehensive study of FHA loans that originated in 1992. The sample size was substantial -- nearly 250,000 loans.
"Given that the FHA insures only modest loans for low- and moderate-income people, the cross-racial comparisons were for comparable properties. What the study revealed, among other results, was that after the seven prosperous years from 1992 to 1999, blacks were defaulting on their loans more than twice as frequently as whites, and Hispanics were defaulting three times more frequently.
"Here is the crucial point: if minorities had been held to a higher standard than whites, their default rates should have been lower than whites, not higher. These numbers suggest the opposite and the obvious: blacks and Hispanics were held to lower standards and have been for at least the last forty years. Chinese-Americans, by the way, actually did have lower default rates than whites.
"As to why black homeownership rates are lower, only the willfully blind can fail to see the problem: namely, the government-induced collapse of the two-parent black family. In 1993, the average income for households headed by divorced women was 40 percent that of married couples; for unmarried women, it was only 20 percent. As the numbers suggest, many of these women could not manage homes of their own. Homeownership rates for female-headed households have struggled to stay above 50 percent. For married couples, by contrast, the rates have hovered consistently in the 80th-percentile range.
"With blacks vastly overrepresented among single-parent families -- by 1993, 57 percent of black children were growing up in a single-parent household, as compared 21 percent of white children -- white homeownership rates inevitably outstripped those for black homeownership. By the early 1990s that gap was at least 25 percentage points, around 70 percent for whites and in the low 40s for blacks.
"The writers of the UPR report, however, refuse to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem, let alone as an explanation for the disparity in homeownership rates. Their preferred explanation for every unequal outcome in every endeavor is the inevitable "discrimination."
"Worse, the report writers -- and indeed, the Obama White House -- seems unaware that the forced march of unqualified buyers into the homeownership field was the single most explosive variable in the subprime blow-up.
"They seem unaware that the Clinton administration demanded that banks quantify -- under duress -- the progress they were making in giving loans to "LMIs," people of low and moderate income.
"They seem unaware that the government encouraged banks to use "innovative or flexible" lending practices -- aka "predatory loans" -- to reach their LMI numbers.
"They seem unaware that HUD, which Congress had made the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992, began to pressure these agencies to set numerical goals for "affordable housing" even if that meant buying subprime mortgages.
"In 2004, under extreme government pressure, homeownership rate reached a new peak. "'Stop! We're at 69 percent homeownership. We should go no further. These are people who should remain renters,'" former HUD secretary Henry Cisneros wished someone would have said at the time.
"Cisneros added that it was "impossible to know in the beginning that the federal push to increase homeownership would end so badly."
"In 2010, everyone knows how badly the push ended -- everyone, that is, save the clowns who wrote the UPR report and the jokers who approved it."
In a new report to the World's Worst Man-made Catastrophe, the United Nations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and some of her co-conspirators write this:
"The recession in the United States was fueled largely by a housing crisis, which coincided with some discriminatory lending practices." Those practices, the report strongly implies, resulted in a market where "fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic families own homes while three quarters of white families do."
So, it wasn't the mortgages-for-everybody scheme devised by Washington politicians and the Federal Reserve that caused the housing bubble and subsequent collapse. It was the antecedent to those policies, also known as a policy of mortgages only for those who could afford them, that was the problem.
Being an organization run by liberals and radicals, some from the third world, the UN demands victims. Being Democrats, Clinton and her coconspirators are willing to supply victims, even if the supporting story line boggles the mind.
Writing in American Thinker, Jack Cashill notes that "the U.N.'s 192 Member States assess their respective human rights performance over the preceding four years and submit a report on the same to the HRC, the U.N. Human Rights Council.
"During this past year, under the guidance of our HRC, Hillary Rodham Clinton, "senior representatives" from "more than a dozen" federal entities wandered the country listening to the self-serving laments of various liberal pressure groups. At the end of the process, they compiled these gripes into a 29-page report and sent it to the U.N. HRC for review.
"Among the reviewing states of the HRC are human rights luminaries like Cuba, Russia, Red China, Saudi Arabia, and -- when not busy sending "emergency transaction" e-mails -- Nigeria.
"Our State Department calls the UPR process "a unique avenue for the global community to discuss human rights around the world." Any sane person would call it a self-deluding boondoggle and, if its recommendations are followed, a self-destructive one as well.
"I could write a book on the various absurdities of the report we submitted -- e.g., a soulful plea for the rights of the transgendered and not a word on those of the unborn -- but let me focus on one that has the potential to wreak havoc anew on the world's economy: the call for "fairness and equality in housing."
"The recession in the United States," the report insists, "was fueled largely by a housing crisis, which coincided with some discriminatory lending practices." Those practices, the report strongly implies, resulted in a market where "fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic families own homes while three quarters of white families do."
"To prevent similar crises in the future," the report continues in its smugly accusatory way, "the federal government has focused resources and efforts to determine whether and where discrimination took place, as well as to ensure greater oversight going forward." As proof of the administration's eagerness to solve the problem, the report cites its "major financial reform legislation."
"I wish I were making this up, but our official 2010 UPR submission to the United Nation argues that discrimination against minorities in the housing market somehow caused the economic crisis and that the misbegotten Dodd-Frank act will somehow repair it. It is no wonder that the authors of this report oppose capital punishment. Upon reading it, even Sister Helen Prejean would want them taken out and shot.
"While the Obama apparatchiks were busy compiling this report, I was busy writing a book -- Popes and Bankers -- on the real causes of the economic crisis. What they see as the solution I see as the cause, and I can prove my point.
"To make the accusation of discrimination work, the report writers had to ignore the most telling set of data, namely default rates. In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development did a comprehensive study of FHA loans that originated in 1992. The sample size was substantial -- nearly 250,000 loans.
"Given that the FHA insures only modest loans for low- and moderate-income people, the cross-racial comparisons were for comparable properties. What the study revealed, among other results, was that after the seven prosperous years from 1992 to 1999, blacks were defaulting on their loans more than twice as frequently as whites, and Hispanics were defaulting three times more frequently.
"Here is the crucial point: if minorities had been held to a higher standard than whites, their default rates should have been lower than whites, not higher. These numbers suggest the opposite and the obvious: blacks and Hispanics were held to lower standards and have been for at least the last forty years. Chinese-Americans, by the way, actually did have lower default rates than whites.
"As to why black homeownership rates are lower, only the willfully blind can fail to see the problem: namely, the government-induced collapse of the two-parent black family. In 1993, the average income for households headed by divorced women was 40 percent that of married couples; for unmarried women, it was only 20 percent. As the numbers suggest, many of these women could not manage homes of their own. Homeownership rates for female-headed households have struggled to stay above 50 percent. For married couples, by contrast, the rates have hovered consistently in the 80th-percentile range.
"With blacks vastly overrepresented among single-parent families -- by 1993, 57 percent of black children were growing up in a single-parent household, as compared 21 percent of white children -- white homeownership rates inevitably outstripped those for black homeownership. By the early 1990s that gap was at least 25 percentage points, around 70 percent for whites and in the low 40s for blacks.
"The writers of the UPR report, however, refuse to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem, let alone as an explanation for the disparity in homeownership rates. Their preferred explanation for every unequal outcome in every endeavor is the inevitable "discrimination."
"Worse, the report writers -- and indeed, the Obama White House -- seems unaware that the forced march of unqualified buyers into the homeownership field was the single most explosive variable in the subprime blow-up.
"They seem unaware that the Clinton administration demanded that banks quantify -- under duress -- the progress they were making in giving loans to "LMIs," people of low and moderate income.
"They seem unaware that the government encouraged banks to use "innovative or flexible" lending practices -- aka "predatory loans" -- to reach their LMI numbers.
"They seem unaware that HUD, which Congress had made the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992, began to pressure these agencies to set numerical goals for "affordable housing" even if that meant buying subprime mortgages.
"In 2004, under extreme government pressure, homeownership rate reached a new peak. "'Stop! We're at 69 percent homeownership. We should go no further. These are people who should remain renters,'" former HUD secretary Henry Cisneros wished someone would have said at the time.
"Cisneros added that it was "impossible to know in the beginning that the federal push to increase homeownership would end so badly."
"In 2010, everyone knows how badly the push ended -- everyone, that is, save the clowns who wrote the UPR report and the jokers who approved it."
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Independent scientists trash the practices and conclusions of UN global warming alarmists financed by multimillion dollar grants
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."
Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."
Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.
Drug gangs seize parts of Arizona as Washington goes to court against its efforts to control illegal entries and smuggling
The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.
The signs were posted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, a major east-west corridor linking Tucson and Phoenix with San Diego.
They warn travelers that they are entering an "active drug and human smuggling area" and they may encounter "armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed." Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to "use public lands north of Interstate 8" and to call 911 if they "see suspicious activity."
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.
"Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona," he said. "They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.
"This is going on here in Arizona," he said. "This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States."
He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government's "continued failure to secure our international border," saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.
In a recent campaign video posted to YouTube, Mrs. Brewer - standing in front of one of the BLM signs - attacked the administration over the signs, calling them "an outrage" and telling President Obama to "Do your job. Secure our borders."
BLM spokesman Dennis Godfrey in Arizona said agency officials were surprised by the reaction the signs generated when they were put up this summer.
"We were perhaps naive in setting the signs up," he said. "The intention of the signs was to make the public aware that there is potential illegal activity here. But it was interpreted in a different light, and that was not the intent at all."
He said there should be "no sense that we have ceded the land," adding that no BLM lands in Arizona are closed to the public.
"I kind of liken it to if I were visiting a city I were not familiar with and asked a policeman if it were safe to go in a particular area," Mr. Godfrey said.
Rising violence along the border has coincided with a crackdown in Mexico on warring drug gangs, who are seeking control of smuggling routes into the United States.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has waged a bloody campaign against powerful cartels, yesterday announcing the arrest of Texas-born Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez - a powerful cartel leader captured outside of Mexico City on Monday evening.
More than 28,000 people have died since Mr. Calderon launched his crackdown in late 2006, and the bloodshed shows no sign of ending. Law enforcement authorities have been warning for more than two years that the dramatic rise in border violence eventually would spread into the U.S.
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,500 of the Border Patrol's front-line agents, said areas well north of the border are so overrun by armed criminals that U.S. citizens are being warned to keep out of those locations.
"The federal government's lack of will to secure our borders is painfully evident when signs are posted well north of the border warning citizens that armed and dangerous criminals are roaming through those areas with impunity," he said. "Instead of taking the steps necessary to secure our borders, politicians are attempting to convince the public that our borders are more secure now than ever before.
"Fortunately, some responsible civil servants are candidly warning the public about the dangers that exist not just along the border but, in some cases, well beyond," he said. "This situation should alarm all sensible people, and should spur endless demands that our legislators take whatever actions are necessary to restore law and order to these areas."
Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, said the federal government's new border security plan apparently is to "erect some signs telling you it's not safe to travel in our own country."
The signs were posted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, a major east-west corridor linking Tucson and Phoenix with San Diego.
They warn travelers that they are entering an "active drug and human smuggling area" and they may encounter "armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed." Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to "use public lands north of Interstate 8" and to call 911 if they "see suspicious activity."
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.
"Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona," he said. "They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.
"This is going on here in Arizona," he said. "This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States."
He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government's "continued failure to secure our international border," saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.
In a recent campaign video posted to YouTube, Mrs. Brewer - standing in front of one of the BLM signs - attacked the administration over the signs, calling them "an outrage" and telling President Obama to "Do your job. Secure our borders."
BLM spokesman Dennis Godfrey in Arizona said agency officials were surprised by the reaction the signs generated when they were put up this summer.
"We were perhaps naive in setting the signs up," he said. "The intention of the signs was to make the public aware that there is potential illegal activity here. But it was interpreted in a different light, and that was not the intent at all."
He said there should be "no sense that we have ceded the land," adding that no BLM lands in Arizona are closed to the public.
"I kind of liken it to if I were visiting a city I were not familiar with and asked a policeman if it were safe to go in a particular area," Mr. Godfrey said.
Rising violence along the border has coincided with a crackdown in Mexico on warring drug gangs, who are seeking control of smuggling routes into the United States.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has waged a bloody campaign against powerful cartels, yesterday announcing the arrest of Texas-born Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez - a powerful cartel leader captured outside of Mexico City on Monday evening.
More than 28,000 people have died since Mr. Calderon launched his crackdown in late 2006, and the bloodshed shows no sign of ending. Law enforcement authorities have been warning for more than two years that the dramatic rise in border violence eventually would spread into the U.S.
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,500 of the Border Patrol's front-line agents, said areas well north of the border are so overrun by armed criminals that U.S. citizens are being warned to keep out of those locations.
"The federal government's lack of will to secure our borders is painfully evident when signs are posted well north of the border warning citizens that armed and dangerous criminals are roaming through those areas with impunity," he said. "Instead of taking the steps necessary to secure our borders, politicians are attempting to convince the public that our borders are more secure now than ever before.
"Fortunately, some responsible civil servants are candidly warning the public about the dangers that exist not just along the border but, in some cases, well beyond," he said. "This situation should alarm all sensible people, and should spur endless demands that our legislators take whatever actions are necessary to restore law and order to these areas."
Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, said the federal government's new border security plan apparently is to "erect some signs telling you it's not safe to travel in our own country."
Apocalyptic predictions are yielding fatal results; time to stop
Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
The deluge of catastrophic predictions regarding global warming and its consequences have reached almost everyone on the planet, and perhaps unintentionally have replaced Cold War bomb scares as the primary source of doomsaying.
The messages are well-thought out and prepared by professional communicators, with disturbing and graphic images of a post-apocalyptic scenario lifted from Mad Max, and with about as much connection to reality.
In March of this year, a couple in Argentina shot their two children before committing suicide over fears of global warming. On Wednesday, in Maryland, James Lee apparently committed ‘suicide by cop’ after taking three hostages in an attempt to force the Discovery Channel to alter its programming to suit his fears over the environment.
At what point will we call to account those who have preached ‘the end of the earth as we know it’ to countless people? How many people will be driven to desperation by those who distort the science?
The IPCC’s AR4, published in 2007, painted a future with global warming as a serious, multinational problem that we should face together. You may agree or disagree with their findings–I agree with most of it, not all.
But nowhere does the work of thousands of scientists in peer-reviewed literature say that we are doomed, that civilization is at risk, that there is no future for us.
That falls to several groups of committed lobbyists, scientists, environmentalists and politicians who began saying the IPCC report was too conservative almost the day it was published. The evidence they bring forward for that claim is nowhere near as robust as the science referenced by the IPCC.
They are scaring people to death. How many more lives will be blighted or destroyed before they understand that their propaganda has real world effects?
It’s hard to work up too much sympathy for Mr. Lee–he took hostages, threatened to detonate an explosive device, and pretty much guaranteed his fate. And his worries weren’t confined to global warming. He was equally concerned with overpopulation, another scare story put out by some of the same people pumping hysteria over global warming.
At any rate, what these people are doing is despicable, if not murderous.
Sea levels are not going to rise by 20 feet. Or 10. Or five. There is not going to be a climatic tipping point that pushes our planet into a spiral of ever-increasing temperatures. Global warming is not going to cause the extinction of half the species on this planet, or even 1%.
And it is long past time that respected members of the scientific community publicly acknowledge those facts and helped bring this debate back within the realm of reality.
My father met Jim Jones briefly before he moved to Guyana with his flock, and described him as intelligent and persuasive, able to talk reasonably about a multitude of subjects. We don’t need more smooth talkers preaching the language of despair. We can now see the results. In their zeal to communicate their fears of the effects of global warming that go far beyond the predictions of mainstream science, those who Anthony called ‘warmistas’ in his blog title and who I call alarmists and sometimes hysterics have created a library of disturbing words and images that can influence the vulnerable.
Are these people responsible for the tragedies in Argentina and Maryland? No. But did they act responsibly, caveating their predictions as personal fears instead of the verdict of science. No. They were trying to scare you. They succeeded too well.
It’s time to stop the hysteria.
The deluge of catastrophic predictions regarding global warming and its consequences have reached almost everyone on the planet, and perhaps unintentionally have replaced Cold War bomb scares as the primary source of doomsaying.
The messages are well-thought out and prepared by professional communicators, with disturbing and graphic images of a post-apocalyptic scenario lifted from Mad Max, and with about as much connection to reality.
In March of this year, a couple in Argentina shot their two children before committing suicide over fears of global warming. On Wednesday, in Maryland, James Lee apparently committed ‘suicide by cop’ after taking three hostages in an attempt to force the Discovery Channel to alter its programming to suit his fears over the environment.
At what point will we call to account those who have preached ‘the end of the earth as we know it’ to countless people? How many people will be driven to desperation by those who distort the science?
The IPCC’s AR4, published in 2007, painted a future with global warming as a serious, multinational problem that we should face together. You may agree or disagree with their findings–I agree with most of it, not all.
But nowhere does the work of thousands of scientists in peer-reviewed literature say that we are doomed, that civilization is at risk, that there is no future for us.
That falls to several groups of committed lobbyists, scientists, environmentalists and politicians who began saying the IPCC report was too conservative almost the day it was published. The evidence they bring forward for that claim is nowhere near as robust as the science referenced by the IPCC.
They are scaring people to death. How many more lives will be blighted or destroyed before they understand that their propaganda has real world effects?
It’s hard to work up too much sympathy for Mr. Lee–he took hostages, threatened to detonate an explosive device, and pretty much guaranteed his fate. And his worries weren’t confined to global warming. He was equally concerned with overpopulation, another scare story put out by some of the same people pumping hysteria over global warming.
At any rate, what these people are doing is despicable, if not murderous.
Sea levels are not going to rise by 20 feet. Or 10. Or five. There is not going to be a climatic tipping point that pushes our planet into a spiral of ever-increasing temperatures. Global warming is not going to cause the extinction of half the species on this planet, or even 1%.
And it is long past time that respected members of the scientific community publicly acknowledge those facts and helped bring this debate back within the realm of reality.
My father met Jim Jones briefly before he moved to Guyana with his flock, and described him as intelligent and persuasive, able to talk reasonably about a multitude of subjects. We don’t need more smooth talkers preaching the language of despair. We can now see the results. In their zeal to communicate their fears of the effects of global warming that go far beyond the predictions of mainstream science, those who Anthony called ‘warmistas’ in his blog title and who I call alarmists and sometimes hysterics have created a library of disturbing words and images that can influence the vulnerable.
Are these people responsible for the tragedies in Argentina and Maryland? No. But did they act responsibly, caveating their predictions as personal fears instead of the verdict of science. No. They were trying to scare you. They succeeded too well.
It’s time to stop the hysteria.
Larry Sabato: Look for the House to flip for 11th time since WWII; in all 10 previous examples, the Senate has also flipped
Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net. This is a “net” number since the GOP will probably lose several of its own congressional districts in Delaware, Hawaii, and Louisiana. This estimate, which may be raised or lowered by Election Day, is based on a careful district-by-district analysis, plus electoral modeling based on trends in President Obama’s Gallup job approval rating and the Democratic-versus-Republican congressional generic ballot (discussed later in this essay). If anything, we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains, if the election were being held today.
In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency.
The statehouses will provide the third leg of the Republicans’ 2010 victory. We have long suggested the GOP would gain a net +6 governorships. We now believe they will win +8. This boon to the GOP for redistricting will be enhanced by a gain of perhaps 300 to 500 seats in the state legislatures, and the addition of Republican control in 8 to 12 legislative chambers around the country.
In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency.
The statehouses will provide the third leg of the Republicans’ 2010 victory. We have long suggested the GOP would gain a net +6 governorships. We now believe they will win +8. This boon to the GOP for redistricting will be enhanced by a gain of perhaps 300 to 500 seats in the state legislatures, and the addition of Republican control in 8 to 12 legislative chambers around the country.
More than 1 million illegals have left the U.S. in recent years
A slew of stories today about a new report from the Pew Hispanic Center estimating that as of March 2009, the illegal population had dropped to 11.1 million. Pew, though institutionally inclined toward amnesty and mass immigration, does honest work, and this is no exception. But many of the press reports are treating this as momentous, previously unknown news when, in fact, it’s already been reported — twice.
In January of this year, DHS’s Office of Immigration Statistics estimated that the illegal population as of January 2009 was 10.8 million (which, given the margin of error in such estimates, is basically the same as the Pew number). And fully six months before that report, my colleague Steven Camarota estimated that the illegal population as of February 2009 was — 10.8 million.
Pew did more slicing and dicing of the numbers (by state and country) than DHS, which in turn did more than CIS, but the bottom line for policymakers is the same: the illegal alien population can indeed be shrunk without amnesty. The decline started before the recession, in response to the stirrings of enforcement activity at the tail-end of the Bush administration, and then was accelerated by the economic downturn. Steve estimated that from August 2007 to February 2009 the illegal population declined from 12.5 million to 10.8 million — that’s more than 1.5 million illegal aliens we didn’t legalize. Let’s keep trying and see how much more we can reduce the total before we surrender and declare an amnesty. Unfortunately, the current crowd in the White House is undoing enforcement, not ramping it up, so if and when the economy ever turns around, we can expect a new surge in the illegal population.
In January of this year, DHS’s Office of Immigration Statistics estimated that the illegal population as of January 2009 was 10.8 million (which, given the margin of error in such estimates, is basically the same as the Pew number). And fully six months before that report, my colleague Steven Camarota estimated that the illegal population as of February 2009 was — 10.8 million.
Pew did more slicing and dicing of the numbers (by state and country) than DHS, which in turn did more than CIS, but the bottom line for policymakers is the same: the illegal alien population can indeed be shrunk without amnesty. The decline started before the recession, in response to the stirrings of enforcement activity at the tail-end of the Bush administration, and then was accelerated by the economic downturn. Steve estimated that from August 2007 to February 2009 the illegal population declined from 12.5 million to 10.8 million — that’s more than 1.5 million illegal aliens we didn’t legalize. Let’s keep trying and see how much more we can reduce the total before we surrender and declare an amnesty. Unfortunately, the current crowd in the White House is undoing enforcement, not ramping it up, so if and when the economy ever turns around, we can expect a new surge in the illegal population.
Afghans ramp up panic in bid for U.S. bailout of Kabul Bank
DUBAI - As depositors thronged branches of Afghanistan's biggest bank, Mahmoud Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a major shareholder in beleaguered Kabul Bank called on Thursday for intervention by the United States to head off a financial meltdown.
"America should do something," said Karzai in a telephone interview, suggesting that the U.S. Treasury Department guarantee the funds of Kabul Bank's clients, who number about a million and have more than a billion dollars on deposits with the bank.
Kabul Bank handles salary payments for soldiers, police and teachers. It has scores of branches across Afghanistan and holds the accounts of key Afghan government agencies. The collapse of the bank would likely spread panic throughout the country's fledgling financial sector and wipe out nine years of effort by the United States to establish a sound Afghan banking system, seen as essential to the establishment of a functioning economy.
Action by the United States, said Mahmoud Karzai, would prevent a run on Kabul Bank and protect other banks, too. He said Kabul Bank is "stable and has money" but cannot withstand a stampede by panicked depositors.
"If the Treasury Department will guarantee that everyone will get their money, maybe that will work," said Karzai, who holds 7 percent of the bank's shares, making him the third-biggest shareholder. Karzai, who spends most of his time in Dubai - where he lives in a waterfront villa paid for by Kabul Bank - rushed to Kabul on Wednesday to join efforts to salvage the bank.
Treasury officials have said they have confidence in Afghanistan's Central Bank, which ousted Kabul Bank's top officials earlier this week and has sought to stabilize the bank's finances.
But those moves may have spurred a panic: Depositors, said people familiar with the situation, yanked at least $90 million from Kabul Bank on Wednesday and the hemorrhaging of funds accelerated Thursday.
"Yesterday was not too bad, but today is worse," said a Kabul Bank insider. "It is a very bad situation."
"America should do something," said Karzai in a telephone interview, suggesting that the U.S. Treasury Department guarantee the funds of Kabul Bank's clients, who number about a million and have more than a billion dollars on deposits with the bank.
Kabul Bank handles salary payments for soldiers, police and teachers. It has scores of branches across Afghanistan and holds the accounts of key Afghan government agencies. The collapse of the bank would likely spread panic throughout the country's fledgling financial sector and wipe out nine years of effort by the United States to establish a sound Afghan banking system, seen as essential to the establishment of a functioning economy.
Action by the United States, said Mahmoud Karzai, would prevent a run on Kabul Bank and protect other banks, too. He said Kabul Bank is "stable and has money" but cannot withstand a stampede by panicked depositors.
"If the Treasury Department will guarantee that everyone will get their money, maybe that will work," said Karzai, who holds 7 percent of the bank's shares, making him the third-biggest shareholder. Karzai, who spends most of his time in Dubai - where he lives in a waterfront villa paid for by Kabul Bank - rushed to Kabul on Wednesday to join efforts to salvage the bank.
Treasury officials have said they have confidence in Afghanistan's Central Bank, which ousted Kabul Bank's top officials earlier this week and has sought to stabilize the bank's finances.
But those moves may have spurred a panic: Depositors, said people familiar with the situation, yanked at least $90 million from Kabul Bank on Wednesday and the hemorrhaging of funds accelerated Thursday.
"Yesterday was not too bad, but today is worse," said a Kabul Bank insider. "It is a very bad situation."
In the university, "profs are indistinguishable from students," "most are disgruntled," focus is on feminism, gay studies etc.
WASHINGTON -- What is your vision of a university?
Is it the classic vision with profs walking the ivy clad pathways, their books under their arms? Perhaps they wear tweed coats and smoke pipes -- not the lady profs but the men. The ladies dress accordingly, and maybe they smoke pipes. All pore over their books for hours and impart their knowledge to a select body of students. Not the mob that today is forced -- rather cruelly -- to attend classes in remedial education to make up for what they missed in high school, very elementary things such as reading and the rudiments of writing.
No, not at all -- the profs are indistinguishable from the students today. Most are disgruntled. Some are furious. In years gone by they felt superior because of their learning. Today they feel superior because of their ontological existence and because they are tabernacles of certain mysteries. The mysteries are to be found in feminism, African-American Studies, gay studies, and matters too obscure and tedious for ordinary Americanos to grasp.
As for a vision of the university most Americans hold, think of a football team or a basketball team. The athletes are uncommonly large. They attend classes but mostly they attend practice. Some fight criminal charges for fracases they have involved themselves. I am told that the football coach and the basketball coach have an informal budget for criminal lawyers just to keep the athletes out of jail. Or the athletes are fighting drug charges or are in rehab. To be really expert, the coach of the football team or the basketball team on most campuses has to be versed in pharmacology and possibly in mental health. For all intents and purposes the athletes are preparing themselves for a tryout with a professional team. Those that fail to make the pros disappear. Tom Wolfe drew a vivid portrait of what goes on in college in his masterful book, I Am Charlotte Simmons.
Yet that is only one vision of the university. The other is ceaseless demonstrations on behalf of radical politics.
Is it the classic vision with profs walking the ivy clad pathways, their books under their arms? Perhaps they wear tweed coats and smoke pipes -- not the lady profs but the men. The ladies dress accordingly, and maybe they smoke pipes. All pore over their books for hours and impart their knowledge to a select body of students. Not the mob that today is forced -- rather cruelly -- to attend classes in remedial education to make up for what they missed in high school, very elementary things such as reading and the rudiments of writing.
No, not at all -- the profs are indistinguishable from the students today. Most are disgruntled. Some are furious. In years gone by they felt superior because of their learning. Today they feel superior because of their ontological existence and because they are tabernacles of certain mysteries. The mysteries are to be found in feminism, African-American Studies, gay studies, and matters too obscure and tedious for ordinary Americanos to grasp.
As for a vision of the university most Americans hold, think of a football team or a basketball team. The athletes are uncommonly large. They attend classes but mostly they attend practice. Some fight criminal charges for fracases they have involved themselves. I am told that the football coach and the basketball coach have an informal budget for criminal lawyers just to keep the athletes out of jail. Or the athletes are fighting drug charges or are in rehab. To be really expert, the coach of the football team or the basketball team on most campuses has to be versed in pharmacology and possibly in mental health. For all intents and purposes the athletes are preparing themselves for a tryout with a professional team. Those that fail to make the pros disappear. Tom Wolfe drew a vivid portrait of what goes on in college in his masterful book, I Am Charlotte Simmons.
Yet that is only one vision of the university. The other is ceaseless demonstrations on behalf of radical politics.
Jason Jay Lee isn't first terrorist inspired by Al Gore's screeds
Wednesday, a gun wielding, bomb toting, eco-terrorist-who claimed to have been "awakened" by Al Gore's Oscar winning film, An Inconvenient Truth-was shot and killed by police after holding several people hostage inside the Discovery Channel headquarters in Maryland.
Sadly, it's not the first incident of someone going berserk after taking in Gore's work.
This time it was Jason Jay Lee. In a manifesto posted online, Lee stated, "Focus must be given on how people can live without giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution." He also declared we must "Find solutions for global warming, automotive pollution, international trade, factory pollution, and... the destruction of the planet!"
Lee's rant sounds similar to other eco-screeds that surfaced in the Nineties. One uttered, the "assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global implications, and organize an appropriate and timely response. Isolated pockets of resistance fighters who have experienced this juggernaut at first hand have begun to fight back in inspiring but, in the final analysis, woefully inadequate ways."
Still another warned, "One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies...No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen."
The first eco-screed noted above was written by Al Gore in his book, Earth In The Balance. The latter was typed in a 120-square foot Montana shack by Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber. Also found in Kaczynski's hovel, a copy of Earth In The Balance.
Kaczynski apparently was quite taken by Al Gore's missive. His copy of Earth In The Balance was dog-eared, underlined, marked and well worn. He obviously saw himself as some sort of "resistance "fighter.
Kaczynski terrorized the nation for 17 years, killing three people and wounding 22 with his mail-bombs. But it could have been much worse. He managed to sneak a bomb onto American Airlines Flight 444 from Chicago to Washington D.C. It exploded but only caused a small fire; otherwise the Boeing 747 passenger jet might have fallen out of the sky on Nov. 15, 1979, killing all onboard. From his cabin in the Montana woods, the reclusive mathematician anonymously sent out bomb after bomb, followed by letter after letter haranguing victims who had survived his attacks and taunting the media.
Sadly, it's not the first incident of someone going berserk after taking in Gore's work.
This time it was Jason Jay Lee. In a manifesto posted online, Lee stated, "Focus must be given on how people can live without giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution." He also declared we must "Find solutions for global warming, automotive pollution, international trade, factory pollution, and... the destruction of the planet!"
Lee's rant sounds similar to other eco-screeds that surfaced in the Nineties. One uttered, the "assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global implications, and organize an appropriate and timely response. Isolated pockets of resistance fighters who have experienced this juggernaut at first hand have begun to fight back in inspiring but, in the final analysis, woefully inadequate ways."
Still another warned, "One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies...No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen."
The first eco-screed noted above was written by Al Gore in his book, Earth In The Balance. The latter was typed in a 120-square foot Montana shack by Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber. Also found in Kaczynski's hovel, a copy of Earth In The Balance.
Kaczynski apparently was quite taken by Al Gore's missive. His copy of Earth In The Balance was dog-eared, underlined, marked and well worn. He obviously saw himself as some sort of "resistance "fighter.
Kaczynski terrorized the nation for 17 years, killing three people and wounding 22 with his mail-bombs. But it could have been much worse. He managed to sneak a bomb onto American Airlines Flight 444 from Chicago to Washington D.C. It exploded but only caused a small fire; otherwise the Boeing 747 passenger jet might have fallen out of the sky on Nov. 15, 1979, killing all onboard. From his cabin in the Montana woods, the reclusive mathematician anonymously sent out bomb after bomb, followed by letter after letter haranguing victims who had survived his attacks and taunting the media.
Black critic of "black mob:" Martin Luther King was Republican
I am a black man alerting my fellow Americans about a tremendous evil which is going on in our great country. Despite the wonderful racial gains we have made in terms of coming together -- not as hyphenated Americans, but as Americans -- black civil rights dinosaurs and their liberal white guilt-ridden sycophants campaign to "Keep Hate Alive."
The Black Civil Rights Mafia long ago abandoned MLK's dream of a day when all Americans would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. America's "Black Mob" makes everything about skin color to "get paid" and gain political power.
What is so evil about the Black Mob is their willingness to sacrifice national race relations and the best interest of their fellow blacks for personal gain and to further a socialist agenda.
Here is a prime example of the Black Mob's modus operandi. Glenn Beck held his "Restoring Honor" rally on the same day as MLK's famous speech. Al Sharpton, during his speech at his counter-rally, despicably misrepresented the purpose of Beck's rally. Sharpton proclaimed, "They want to disgrace this day!" Sharpton's lie was designed to inspire hate for Beck and the mostly white conservatives in attendance at Beck's rally.
As I have stated, the Black Mob betrays black America by allowing political gain and furthering of an agenda to trump their best interest.
A few examples.
The Black Mob attacked MLK's niece, Dr. Alveda King, for speaking at the Beck rally. NAACP vice president Hilary Shelton said Dr. King is not a good representative of her uncle's speech and is "undeniably a very long-term committed Republican and is pro-life."
Now get this, folks: Dr. Alveda King has committed her life to ending the genocide of black babies via abortion. Fifty percent of black babies are aborted. It has been said the most dangerous place on earth for a black child is in its mother's womb (blackgenocide.org).
So why on earth would the NAACP trash Dr. King? Shelton also took a dig at Dr. Alveda King for being a Republican.
Well here's a shocker: MLK was a Republican. You liberals, put that in your "bongs" and smoke it.
The Black Civil Rights Mafia long ago abandoned MLK's dream of a day when all Americans would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. America's "Black Mob" makes everything about skin color to "get paid" and gain political power.
What is so evil about the Black Mob is their willingness to sacrifice national race relations and the best interest of their fellow blacks for personal gain and to further a socialist agenda.
Here is a prime example of the Black Mob's modus operandi. Glenn Beck held his "Restoring Honor" rally on the same day as MLK's famous speech. Al Sharpton, during his speech at his counter-rally, despicably misrepresented the purpose of Beck's rally. Sharpton proclaimed, "They want to disgrace this day!" Sharpton's lie was designed to inspire hate for Beck and the mostly white conservatives in attendance at Beck's rally.
As I have stated, the Black Mob betrays black America by allowing political gain and furthering of an agenda to trump their best interest.
A few examples.
The Black Mob attacked MLK's niece, Dr. Alveda King, for speaking at the Beck rally. NAACP vice president Hilary Shelton said Dr. King is not a good representative of her uncle's speech and is "undeniably a very long-term committed Republican and is pro-life."
Now get this, folks: Dr. Alveda King has committed her life to ending the genocide of black babies via abortion. Fifty percent of black babies are aborted. It has been said the most dangerous place on earth for a black child is in its mother's womb (blackgenocide.org).
So why on earth would the NAACP trash Dr. King? Shelton also took a dig at Dr. Alveda King for being a Republican.
Well here's a shocker: MLK was a Republican. You liberals, put that in your "bongs" and smoke it.
In the art of presidential image-making, Obama offers imperialism, like Mussolini, and juvenile petulance
Obama's permanent image as president appears to be shaking down to two possibilities. The first, embodied in his characteristic posture when addressing the public, might be called "American Duce." Head thrown back, chin jutting, a frown cutting his features, Obama presents himself as less a man than an archetype of human power. Obama uses this during speeches, debates, and public events.
It's even evident in the classic Hope and Change posters. It is an imperial expression, designed to overawe and impress, the expression of an Augustus contemplating his empire. Mussolini adapted it as the proper public image of the ruler of Nuova Roma. To my knowledge, no other major leader since has utilized anything similar. (Mussolini's other trick, limited to private audiences, was "the stare," in which he would gaze penetratingly and unblinkingly while advancing on visitors, pausing to examine them for several seconds before moving on. Claudio Spadaro, who portrayed Mussolini in Franco Zefferelli's film Tea with Mussolini, had this down to...well, to a "T." If Obama starts pulling anything like this, we'll really have something to worry about.)
The other is what might be called the "schoolmarm" look. It is an expression of simple petulance and impatience, best characterized by the term "fuming." A fixed glare, lips twisted in a near-pout, arms often crossed. One almost expects to hear the tapping of a foot. It's a posture not often seen in presidents, more commonly encountered among stubborn juveniles and novice schoolteachers. We have been seeing this quite often lately since things began to seriously go south for the administration.
At this point, not yet halfway through his presidency, it's impossible to say which image will settle upon Barack Obama. I myself have no particular preference. The Duce look has appeared in quite a few magazine and newspaper illustrations in recent months. I imagine that one has to be taken as better, if only marginally, than the other.
Our image seldom matches what we want, or what we may believe ourselves to be. Character always comes out. Obama is in the process of learning this. FDR was a flippant, engaging figure. Reagan was a man of endless good cheer (recall his joking with the surgeons after he was shot). Bush remains a man of superb calm and detachment. The real Obama will inevitably emerge. I doubt it will be a surprise to anybody.
It's even evident in the classic Hope and Change posters. It is an imperial expression, designed to overawe and impress, the expression of an Augustus contemplating his empire. Mussolini adapted it as the proper public image of the ruler of Nuova Roma. To my knowledge, no other major leader since has utilized anything similar. (Mussolini's other trick, limited to private audiences, was "the stare," in which he would gaze penetratingly and unblinkingly while advancing on visitors, pausing to examine them for several seconds before moving on. Claudio Spadaro, who portrayed Mussolini in Franco Zefferelli's film Tea with Mussolini, had this down to...well, to a "T." If Obama starts pulling anything like this, we'll really have something to worry about.)
The other is what might be called the "schoolmarm" look. It is an expression of simple petulance and impatience, best characterized by the term "fuming." A fixed glare, lips twisted in a near-pout, arms often crossed. One almost expects to hear the tapping of a foot. It's a posture not often seen in presidents, more commonly encountered among stubborn juveniles and novice schoolteachers. We have been seeing this quite often lately since things began to seriously go south for the administration.
At this point, not yet halfway through his presidency, it's impossible to say which image will settle upon Barack Obama. I myself have no particular preference. The Duce look has appeared in quite a few magazine and newspaper illustrations in recent months. I imagine that one has to be taken as better, if only marginally, than the other.
Our image seldom matches what we want, or what we may believe ourselves to be. Character always comes out. Obama is in the process of learning this. FDR was a flippant, engaging figure. Reagan was a man of endless good cheer (recall his joking with the surgeons after he was shot). Bush remains a man of superb calm and detachment. The real Obama will inevitably emerge. I doubt it will be a surprise to anybody.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Silver Spring gunman shot dead; are cops hiding from Holder?
SILVER SPRING, Md. - Montgomery County Police have shot and killed a gunman who held several people hostage in the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring for nearly four hours Wednesday.
Three people who had been taken hostage are now safe and out of the building, Montgomery County Police Chief Tom Manger says.
Manger says the suspect was shot at 4:48 p.m. Wednesday.
My take:
Has Attorney General Eric Holder filed suit yet against the cop or cops who fired the fatal shots?
Three people who had been taken hostage are now safe and out of the building, Montgomery County Police Chief Tom Manger says.
Manger says the suspect was shot at 4:48 p.m. Wednesday.
My take:
Has Attorney General Eric Holder filed suit yet against the cop or cops who fired the fatal shots?
Social engineering in Iraq: why not Yemen? Cuba? Iran?
...Americans are dying, not only in the war on terror, but also to codify Sharia law. Brooks claims that, in Iraq, "The role of women remains surprisingly circumscribed." (Surprisingly?) Actually, that's just a polite way of saying — and I quote directly from the Iraqi Constitution — "Islam is the official religion of the State, and it is a fundamental source of legislation."
That's one reason many of us regret our support of the Iraq war. Though I am not reflexively isolationist, I am reflexively suspicious of social engineering. And nation-building is social engineering on the grandest of scales.
Decent people, no doubt, are pleased to hear that the Iraqi people are doing well. If war makes us more secure, why only Iraq and not Yemen? Or Iran? Or Cuba? Doesn't everyone deserve to live in freedom? Do not all people deserve to own cellphones and have a decent garbage disposal system?
Or do we reserve those perks for those who pretend to have WMDs?
The question isn't whether nation building can work. It probably can. The question is was it worth it.
That's one reason many of us regret our support of the Iraq war. Though I am not reflexively isolationist, I am reflexively suspicious of social engineering. And nation-building is social engineering on the grandest of scales.
Decent people, no doubt, are pleased to hear that the Iraqi people are doing well. If war makes us more secure, why only Iraq and not Yemen? Or Iran? Or Cuba? Doesn't everyone deserve to live in freedom? Do not all people deserve to own cellphones and have a decent garbage disposal system?
Or do we reserve those perks for those who pretend to have WMDs?
The question isn't whether nation building can work. It probably can. The question is was it worth it.
Obama goes after cars again, but gives freedom-lovers another chance to express their disgust with czarist democracy
Great news.
The Obama administration has come up with a new way for freedom-loving Americans to express their anger, rage and disgust with the Obama administration.
It might even inspire freedom-lovers to buy a new car.
But wait. Perhaps it's a trap. Maybe the administration's hidden purpose is to persuade Americans to buy new cars so as to end the administration's feckless and hopeless efforts to revive the economy. As everyone knows, this is the Economy of NO - the NO standing for Neuter Obama by not buying anything or investing in anything.
In any case, the Obamaites are going to change the fuel economy labels placed on the windows of new cars and trucks so that consumers can "make the best economic and environmental decisions when buying a new car," according to CNS News.com.
The new labels are supposed to give consumers "simple, straightforward energy and environmental comparisons," including information about air pollutants emitted by the vehicle. On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation proposed two new label designs for public comment.
One of the labels features a letter grade, ranging from A+ to D, to describe the vehicle's overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions performance. It also estimates how many grams of carbon dioxide the vehicle emits per mile.
The second proposed label shows how many miles the vehicle will get for each gallon of gas, and it lists the vehicle's annual fuel costs. This label uses a bar graph to show how the vehicle rates on a scale of carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions. A second bar graph shows how the vehicle's tailpipe emissions contribute to local and regional air pollution.
“We are asking the American people to tell us what they need to make the best economic and environmental decisions when buying a new car,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “New fuel economy labels will keep pace with the new generation of fuel efficient cars and trucks rolling off the line, and provide simple, straightforward updates to inform consumers about their choices in a rapidly changing market. We want to help buyers find vehicles that meet their needs, keep the air clean and save them money at the pump.”
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 specifically directs the EPA and DOT to rate vehicles according to fuel economy, greenhouse gas emissions and smog-forming pollutants.
For electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, energy use would be expressed by translating electricity consumption into a miles-per-gallon equivalent.
The EPA and DOT are proposing that the new label give information only on vehicle tailpipe emissions. Upstream emissions, which are associated with electricity generation or refining fuel, would not be displayed on the label.
The public comment period will run for 60 days. The EPA and DOT say they hope to have the new label finalized in time to appear on many 2012 model-year vehicles.
How timely. As Obama stands for renomination and reelection, his administration will be reminding voters of the president's dedication to controlling their choices and lives as thoroughly as possible.
Here's how to strike back. Buy gas guzzlers whose purchase prices will have been driven down by Obama's incessant campaign against free enterprise and free choice. Tell his czars to go to hell. Then, as the economy recovers on the strength of a national protest movement launched by the sane against elites, sell the gas guzzlers at a profit and buy whatever the hell you want.
The Obama administration has come up with a new way for freedom-loving Americans to express their anger, rage and disgust with the Obama administration.
It might even inspire freedom-lovers to buy a new car.
But wait. Perhaps it's a trap. Maybe the administration's hidden purpose is to persuade Americans to buy new cars so as to end the administration's feckless and hopeless efforts to revive the economy. As everyone knows, this is the Economy of NO - the NO standing for Neuter Obama by not buying anything or investing in anything.
In any case, the Obamaites are going to change the fuel economy labels placed on the windows of new cars and trucks so that consumers can "make the best economic and environmental decisions when buying a new car," according to CNS News.com.
The new labels are supposed to give consumers "simple, straightforward energy and environmental comparisons," including information about air pollutants emitted by the vehicle. On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation proposed two new label designs for public comment.
One of the labels features a letter grade, ranging from A+ to D, to describe the vehicle's overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions performance. It also estimates how many grams of carbon dioxide the vehicle emits per mile.
The second proposed label shows how many miles the vehicle will get for each gallon of gas, and it lists the vehicle's annual fuel costs. This label uses a bar graph to show how the vehicle rates on a scale of carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions. A second bar graph shows how the vehicle's tailpipe emissions contribute to local and regional air pollution.
“We are asking the American people to tell us what they need to make the best economic and environmental decisions when buying a new car,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “New fuel economy labels will keep pace with the new generation of fuel efficient cars and trucks rolling off the line, and provide simple, straightforward updates to inform consumers about their choices in a rapidly changing market. We want to help buyers find vehicles that meet their needs, keep the air clean and save them money at the pump.”
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 specifically directs the EPA and DOT to rate vehicles according to fuel economy, greenhouse gas emissions and smog-forming pollutants.
For electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, energy use would be expressed by translating electricity consumption into a miles-per-gallon equivalent.
The EPA and DOT are proposing that the new label give information only on vehicle tailpipe emissions. Upstream emissions, which are associated with electricity generation or refining fuel, would not be displayed on the label.
The public comment period will run for 60 days. The EPA and DOT say they hope to have the new label finalized in time to appear on many 2012 model-year vehicles.
How timely. As Obama stands for renomination and reelection, his administration will be reminding voters of the president's dedication to controlling their choices and lives as thoroughly as possible.
Here's how to strike back. Buy gas guzzlers whose purchase prices will have been driven down by Obama's incessant campaign against free enterprise and free choice. Tell his czars to go to hell. Then, as the economy recovers on the strength of a national protest movement launched by the sane against elites, sell the gas guzzlers at a profit and buy whatever the hell you want.
71 % oppose Ground Zero mosque, seek financing inquiry
Public opposition to the proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero is growing dramatically, a new Quinnipiac University poll of New York voters found.
Now more than two-thirds of local voters want developers to move the project, up significantly from the narrow majority who wanted to the mosque relocated last month.
The same number of voters - 71% - want Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to probe the funding of the project.
A July 1 Quinnipiac poll suggested 52% of New York City voters opposed building the proposed 13-floor center two blocks north of Ground Zero.
The new numbers show the lowest public support for the project since polling on the issue began earlier this year.
The Park51 project has sparked a heated debate across the country since President Obama came out in favor of the center.
Republicans have used it as a campaign wedge issue.
Cuomo has said little about the project despite calls from Republicans to investigate developer's fund-raising - which has yet to start in earnest.
Now more than two-thirds of local voters want developers to move the project, up significantly from the narrow majority who wanted to the mosque relocated last month.
The same number of voters - 71% - want Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to probe the funding of the project.
A July 1 Quinnipiac poll suggested 52% of New York City voters opposed building the proposed 13-floor center two blocks north of Ground Zero.
The new numbers show the lowest public support for the project since polling on the issue began earlier this year.
The Park51 project has sparked a heated debate across the country since President Obama came out in favor of the center.
Republicans have used it as a campaign wedge issue.
Cuomo has said little about the project despite calls from Republicans to investigate developer's fund-raising - which has yet to start in earnest.
A promising bit of humor slips into the nation's hostile politics
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is burnishing his standing among Republican primary voters who overwhelmingly oppose President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. The law is likely to be a central theme in the 2012 presidential race.
Pawlenty, who is not seeking a third term in the governor’s office, hasn’t announced if he will enter the GOP presidential primaries and caucuses. But on Tuesday he ordered state agencies to decline “discretionary” involvement with the federal law “unless otherwise required by law or approved by the governor’s office.” He said his office will determine whether federal funding would support state initiatives or create “new encroachments by the federal government.”
Fast forward to Iowa next year, when Pawlenty may be seeking the White House. He will be able to tell the conservative activists about his executive order that sought to limit the reach of Obama’s signature achievement. And he’ll be able to attack potential rival Romney in the same breath.
Romney, too, opposed the federal health care overhaul. But should Romney make a second run for the White House, his opponents will say Obama’s health bill is merely a national version of the health care overhaul Romney implemented as Massachusetts governor.
Democrats were quick to note the politics, too. The Democratic National Committee released a spoof of the executive order that began, “Whereas, my presidential ambitions are of paramount importance.”
The spoof concludes by saying “all state employees will work for my presidential campaign.”
Pawlenty, who is not seeking a third term in the governor’s office, hasn’t announced if he will enter the GOP presidential primaries and caucuses. But on Tuesday he ordered state agencies to decline “discretionary” involvement with the federal law “unless otherwise required by law or approved by the governor’s office.” He said his office will determine whether federal funding would support state initiatives or create “new encroachments by the federal government.”
Fast forward to Iowa next year, when Pawlenty may be seeking the White House. He will be able to tell the conservative activists about his executive order that sought to limit the reach of Obama’s signature achievement. And he’ll be able to attack potential rival Romney in the same breath.
Romney, too, opposed the federal health care overhaul. But should Romney make a second run for the White House, his opponents will say Obama’s health bill is merely a national version of the health care overhaul Romney implemented as Massachusetts governor.
Democrats were quick to note the politics, too. The Democratic National Committee released a spoof of the executive order that began, “Whereas, my presidential ambitions are of paramount importance.”
The spoof concludes by saying “all state employees will work for my presidential campaign.”
The west is facing a demographic time bomb
"Britain and the rest of the European Union are ignoring a demographic time bomb: a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it." Adrian Michaels, The Telegraph (UK), August 2009.
"Baby Boom Intifada: European Muslim Population Time Bomb. A high birth rate among Muslim immigrants to Europe will make followers of the religion a majority of the population in many European Union countries in less than 40 years, according to demographers." Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Israel National News.
Hoven's Index for September 1, 2010
Selected US demographic statistics:
Median age: 36.8
65 years and older: 12.8%
Muslim: 0.6%
Urban: 80%
Same statistics, world average:
Median age: 28.4
65 years-old and older: 7.6%
Muslim: 21.01%
Urban: 50.5%
Source: CIA World Factbook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
