Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Crafty_Dog

Pages: 1 ... 927 928 [929] 930 931 ... 1243
46401
Politics & Religion / "Julia"
« on: May 07, 2012, 09:46:47 AM »


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/298859/julia-kevin-d-williamson#

By Kevin D. Williamson
May 3, 2012 2:15 P.M. Comments
155Alas, Team Obama has omitted a few milestones from the life of Julia:

4 months: Julia’s mother decides that giving birth will be hard on her figure. She kills Julia. Under Barack Obama, her right to do so is absolutely nonnegotiable.

10 years: Trapped in a failing and dangerous public school, Julia (another Julia, not the dead one) is terrified and miserable. Under the Obama administration, protecting the government education monopoly from competition and accountability is almost as sacrosanct as abortion. School-choice programs are severely constrained or eliminated. Julia falls behind.

21 years: After barely completing her high-school degree in her god-awful school, Julia goes looking for a job. There aren’t many, especially for people without college degrees. Julia kicks around the food-service and hospitality industries for a while, and ends up getting a job as a bartender. Even at her relatively low level of income, she pays a host of direct and indirect taxes to help subsidize Obama donors and supporters at politically connected businesses. She can’t quite figure out why President Obama’s pet millionaires and billionaires need her money more than she does.

22 years: After working in the bar for a while, Julia decides she likes it and wants to open her own place. But she’ll need capital to get that done. Under Obama, there is little or no credit available to small entrepreneurs, because we never got around to fixing the problems in the banking system, instead choosing to futz around with things like the disclosures on credit-card offers and micromanaging swipe fees and grandstanding about bonuses. Julia does not open her new business, and she doesn’t hire any other Julias to build, decorate, supply, or staff it.

23 years: Being a bartender, Julia works late at night. Under Obama, the federal government supports laws that make it difficult or impossible for a private citizen to own a gun in many places. Leaving her bar one night, the defenseless Julia is killed in the street. Ironically, the gun used to kill her was sold to a Mexican drug cartel under a program run by President Obama’s Department of Justice.

57 years: Julia (different Julia, not one of the dead ones) has been paying very high taxes for most of her life, mainly to support three federal programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In fact, the payroll tax diverts about 12 percent of her income — income she might have saved — into the entitlements. Under President Obama, stubborn refusal to reform these unsustainable entitlements means that the programs have to be radically cut or entirely eliminated, and Julia and her whole generation get hosed in spite of the fact that they have been taxed for decades under the phony promise that they were “paying into” the programs. The only alternative to massive cuts was an 88 percent increase in all federal taxes, which already have been rising to offset costs from Obamacare, which were wildly underestimated.

88 years: Julia (different Julia) passes away in 2022. And she got out just in time: Policies adopted by the Obama administration sent the national debt to $71,000 per person and climbing.

 

46404
Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion
« on: May 06, 2012, 01:05:44 PM »
"Regardless of which way one comes down on the merits of the issue, it does not strike me as out of bounds to say that one must be conscious of what one is doing."

"I entirely agree, but logically isn't that between the patient (woman) and her doctor? "

You are leaving someone/something out-- that which is being killed.  The discomfort from the now legally required acknowledgement thereof speaks of the reality of that which is being killed.

46405
Politics & Religion / Re: Politics
« on: May 06, 2012, 01:00:35 PM »
The piece would have a chance at substance if he were to actually mention what the areas of disagreement were , , , and were he a man of respect as Governor.

46406
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: May 06, 2012, 12:55:56 PM »
I was say yes it is a simplification.   Without knowledge of the question presented and its procedural posture IMO it is incorrect to make the asssertion that you seek to make.

46407
MORRISTOWN, N.J. – A New Jersey judge will likely soon decide whether a woman who sent a text message to a male friend can be held liable for a car crash he caused while reading the message.
The Daily Record reports the legal question stems from a lawsuit filed by two Dover residents who were seriously injured when a 19-year-old driver crashed into their motorcycle in September 2009. The driver received three motor vehicle citations and pleaded guilty earlier this year.
The victim's lawyer claims the woman aided and abetted the driver's negligence by texting him when she knew or should have known he was driving.
But her lawyer is seeking to have her dismissed as a defendant, saying she had no control over when the driver would read the message.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/05/nj-judge-to-decide-if-text-sender-liable-for-crash/?test=latestnews#ixzz1u5kLb87t

46408
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: May 06, 2012, 08:11:11 AM »
"fact that if it wasn't challenged" 

I missed the "if" in this due to haste, and the effects of jet lag and the final stages of a nasty flu on my focus.  My bad, and I withdraw the "bad form" comment.

I will say though, without knowing more, that a denial of a stay is a question quite separate from a ruling on the merits, so without more your assertion that the courts have ruled on the merits remains unsubstantiated here.

46409
Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion
« on: May 06, 2012, 08:07:04 AM »
Too bad Roe v. Wade's judicial imperialism imperiled the moral authority of the Supreme Court upon which so very much of our political culture and the American Creed rests. 

Regardless of which way one comes down on the merits of the issue, it does not strike me as out of bounds to say that one must be conscious of what one is doing.

46413
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: May 05, 2012, 09:34:13 AM »
So then, your assertion that "the Courts said so" is not true?

Very bad form JDN.  

As for your newly proferred rationale, while not devoid of logic, my understanding is that the secured bondholders faced non-legal repercussions from the executive branch, or was it that Congress passed come quasi-bill of attainder?  Anyone have anything on this?  BD?

46415
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: May 04, 2012, 10:27:44 PM »
I can see that this can take us rather far afield here, for I question and/or contest a number of points there so l lets see if we can keep this to just a few posts:

"Legal?  Also Yes.  Constitutional.  Yep; the Courts said so."

Any citations on this? 


46416
Politics & Religion / IPT: Awlaki was a jihadi as early as 1991
« on: May 04, 2012, 06:38:32 PM »
Awlaki Acknowledges His Radical Past
IPT News
May 4, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3568/awlaki-acknowledges-his-radical-past
 

 
When Anwar al-Awlaki emerged as the clear inspiration behind a series of terror plots in 2009, his former associates in America insisted he was radicalized well after leaving the United States in 2002.
But in what might be his last published work, Awlaki explains that his involvement in violent jihad dated back to 1991, and that he hated the American government as far back as his college days.
"Spilling out the Beans: Al Awlaki Revealing His Side of the Story," appeared this week in the final edition of al-Qaida's English-language magazine Inspire.
The clarification flies in the face of claims by American Muslim leaders that he had been radicalized by Islamophobia after the 9/11 attacks, and motivated to violence following his 18 month imprisonment in Yemen, starting in 2006. At the heart of some Muslim leaders' argument was a desire to distance themselves from Awlaki's new public radicalism, and to twist the debate to focus on America's role in creating a vengeful monster.
"While employed at Dar Al-Hijrah, Imam Al-Awlaki was known for his interfaith outreach, civic engagement and tolerance in the Northern Virginia community," a statement from the imam's former mosque in northern Virginia said after Awlaki died in a U.S. drone strike last fall. "However, after Mr. Al-Awlaki's departure from the mosque in 2002 he was arrested by Yemeni authorities and allegedly tortured. It was then that Al-Awlaki began preaching violence," they claimed, while condemning America's assassination of Awlaki in a drone strike.
These claims were echoed by major outlets like the New York Times and National Public Radio. They portrayed Awlaki as a victim of his circumstances, and accepted the moderation of the "eloquent" preacher who claimed he could have been "a bridge between Americans and one billion Muslims worldwide."
But that image has not jibed with other accounts of Awlaki's life. Quotes from his early American speeches, accounts of his family life, and personal insights from friends show someone who idolized the Afghani jihad and Osama bin Laden's mentor Abdullah Azzam. Long before Awlaki preached America's destruction, he already believed that jihad was a key point of Islam and that America was against Muslims.
Spilling the Beans
In the Inspire article, Awlaki weaved the events of his life into a consistent narrative of hate.
"I have had experiences with the US government at quite a young age that most of you would not have in a lifetime. I have seen the other face of America," Awlaki wrote. From the beginning, Awlaki struggled with his relationship with America, while holding his own views close to heart.
Awlaki was born in the United States, but moved with his family to Yemen when he was 7. His father, a university professor in the capital Sana'a, became the country's agriculture minister. His father's clout helped him obtain college scholarships meant for foreign students even though he was an American citizen. Awlaki was influenced by his local environment to a much greater degree than previously believed. A New York Times biographical article states that the Afghani jihad against the Soviet Union was at the top of many people's minds in Yemen in the 1980s and early 90s, but not the Awlakis'. They were focused on using contacts to get a scholarship for their son.
But in his Inspire article, Awlaki wrote he already harbored pro-jihad sentiments and feared the United States saw him as a potential asset.
"Even though I was not fully practicing back then … I had an extreme dislike to the US government and was very wary of anything concerning intelligence services or secret orders," he wrote. "Thus, I was cold when it came to my relationship with the Office of International Students (which in my belief is a front for recruitment of international students for the government and is also a front from spying on them and reporting on them to the authorities). I also received an invitation to join the Rotary Club which I turned down."
The 1991 Gulf War in Kuwait triggered his hatred while a student back in the United States. "That is when I started taking my religion more seriously and I took the step of traveling to Afghanistan to fight," he wrote. "I spent a winter there and returned with the intention of finishing up in the US and leaving to Afghanistan for good. My plan was to travel back in summer, however, Kabul was opened by the mujahideen and I saw that the war was over and ended up staying in the US."
That account differs sharply from a 2010Time magazine profile. Awlaki wasn't interested in al-Qaida or Afghanistan after visiting in 1993, Time reports, and he "was depressed by poverty and hunger in the homes where he stayed."
Solidifying His Views
After returning to America, Awlaki claimed that he lost his scholarship in part due to his grades and because of what he called his fighting role and service as a Muslim Student Association president. Regardless, he now considered himself a fundamentalist and took up a new position reflecting this status when he moved from Denver to San Diego.
When Awlaki returned from Afghanistan he wore clothes popular with the mujahideen and often quoted Abdullah Azzam. He was also accused by a member of his Denver mosque of encouraging a Saudi youth to join jihad in Chechnya, shortly before he left for San Diego.
There, he became imam for the mosque Masjid al Ribat al Islami in 1996, chosen by "a group of students from Saudi [Arabia] and the Gulf states who formed their own mosque because they "were not happy with how things were run" at the moderate San Diego Islamic Center. Awlaki claimed that his conservatism and good fit with the community was important, because the government actively tried to infiltrate the mosque and recruit him to spy on his community, which he helped to prevent. He also claimed this was the reason why he was "falsely" arrested for soliciting prostitutes.
By 1998, Awlaki was fed up with the United States and ready to leave, but it took "three years and September 11" to "unwind" himself from the United States. During this time, Awlaki solidified his views of America and jihad.
Awlaki began preaching about the glories of jihad and the enemies of Islam in a lecture series from the late 1990s called "Lives of the Prophets." Evil surrounds Muslims in the West, he said, arguing that U.S. foreign and domestic policy are controlled by "the strong Jewish lobbyists." His disdain of Jews, whom he terms "the enemy from Day 1 to the Day of Judgment," is a common theme.
In one sermon, Awlaki prayed to Allah to "free" the al Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site of Islam, from what he terms "the Jewish terrorists" who he claims "have taken (it) over" and "give it back to the Ummah of Islam." He called for the broad institution of Sharia law as the basis for society. "Justice is in the heart of the judge," he said, "and that is why we can only have justice through a true Islamic system."
In another, Awlaki preached patience and persistence in pursuit of victory, saying people can get "fired up fast" by "a very hot" sermon about jihad and be "ready to go on the battlefield."
But those emotions can be lost "by the time you step your foot out of the masjid … Very easily fired up, and very easily we cool down," he lamented.
In the "Lives of the Prophets" lectures, well before 9/11 and before his time in a Yemeni prison, he called for a sustained commitment to jihad:
"Talking big is easy, but the sacrifice, and especially long-term sacrifice which jihad needs, that is difficult. Jihad is not only sacrifice, but it is a long term sacrifice. And that is where people fail. If you are asked to sacrifice in one time, you could be fired up by a speech, and then you would give out your money, for example, and you would sacrifice. That could happen. But when you're asked to sacrifice for a long period, then you're suffering hardship for a long time, that is what causes people to fail"
Sacrifice, he said, could take many forms and people should be willing to do whatever is required: "It could be your life, your time, your money, your family, it could even be the Islamic family or brothers that you are with, it could be the scholars that you love. Anything is possible."
Although his language became more direct in later sermons, calling for unlimited attacks on Americans, Awlaki proved that he already embraced violent jihad as a fundamental part of his worldview.

46417
Politics & Religion / Morris rebuts Obama's GM ad
« on: May 04, 2012, 02:56:57 PM »


http://www.dickmorris.com/rebuttal-to-obamas-gm-ad/

He misses utterly the point that bankruptcy laws would have meant reorganization, not disappearance!

46418
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« on: May 04, 2012, 12:36:13 PM »
Not like he's alone in this, notice the curious coincidences in timing as to when Hillary uses her maiden name too:  Hillary Rodham Clinton instead of Hillary Clinton.




46419
Politics & Religion / IPT: The end of the Inspire Era
« on: May 04, 2012, 12:31:00 PM »
The End of the Inspire Era
IPT News
May 3, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3565/the-end-of-the-inspire-era
  

 
Al-Qaida has released two new issues of its English-language magazine eight months after a drone strike eliminated the American jihadi leaders behind it. The latest editions of Inspire magazine reinforce al-Qaida's promotion of lone wolf attacks, but each is aimed at a very different audience.
Inspire was known for cultivating English-language jihadis, contributing to more than a dozen plots against American and Western targets. The sophisticated magazine combined all the elements necessary to motivate would-be terrorists, from the justifying theology to detailed suggestions for new attacks in the West. It was also critical for al-Qaida's shift from large, top down directed attacks to small, individualistic terror.
The newly-released eighth issue carrying the cover headline, "Targeting Dar al-Harb Populations," promotes the lone wolf trend for non-Muslim lands in the same way as previous editions. It details plans for new attack methods in the "Open Source Jihad" section, and presents the culmination of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki's justification for killing American civilians.
But the ninth issue, "Winning on the Ground," reads more like an address to Western audiences and the moderate Muslims that al-Qaida despises. It was written after Awlaki and Inspire editor Samir Khan – a fellow American – were killed in the September U.S. drone strike.
Although it contains suggestions to burn down Western forests and cities, it spends more time eulogizing fallen fighters like Awlaki and trying to explain al-Qaida's ideology to outsiders. Its quality is noticeably worse without Khan, lacking the polished style and graphics of previous editions, and is further limited by contradictory articles and barely readable translations.
The difference between the two magazines is striking, and perhaps hints at the new direction for future al-Qaida English-language publications.
Issue 8's update in the "Open Source Jihad" series reinforces Inspire's hallmark methods of lone wolf terrorism by showing how to use small handguns and to build remote-controlled detonators for explosives. This effort clearly builds on articles from previous issues, like "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom."
Its ideological articles also mirror those in previous issues. In a lengthy feature article, "Targeting the Populations of Countries that Are at War with the Muslims," Awlaki lays out his most sophisticated argument for killing American civilians.
Such arguments arguably are his most important contribution to al-Qaida's ideological longevity. This role was so important that Osama bin Laden called him "qualified and capable of running the matter in Yemen," according to documents captured from bin Laden's compound after his assassination.
In "Targeting the Populations of Countries that Are at War with the Muslims," Awlaki argued that Islam's prohibition against killing civilians doesn't hold up for modern-day Westerners.
"… In no way does it mean that Islam prohibits the fighting against the disbelievers if their men, women and children are intermingled. This understanding is very dangerous and detrimental to jihad and awareness on this issue is very important," he wrote. "To stop the targeting of disbelievers who are at war with the Muslims just because there are women and children among them leads to constraints on today's jihad that make it very difficult, and at times, impossible to fight and places the Muslims at a great disadvantage compared to their enemy."
Although it was intended to be released last fall, most of the issue's ideological material remains relevant and dangerous.
In "Blended Duality: Muslim and American?" Khan argued that being Muslim and American are inherent contradictions.
"To say one is proud of being American is not merely a cultural declaration but one of allegiance," he wrote. Being American is "to undertake that which Allah detests," and all attempts to create a "moderate" Islam are just "Muslims throwing the Qur'an behind their backs."
Would-be warriors should help al-Qaida create a real Islamic state instead, and throw off the shackles of Western secularism, he argued.
Stark Contrast
The ninth issue looks and reads like a different publication, complete with notes explaining Islamic terminology to the uninitiated. It also presents contradictory arguments about what al-Qaida really wants and who it is willing to kill to get there.
Khan's final testament is published in the issue. He initially portrays al-Qaida's fight as a defensive battle against American hegemony, which will ultimately lead to a renewed Islamic Caliphate that will defend Muslims. "As long as they continue to kill our people, occupy our lands, support Israel, fund the tyrannical puppets in the Muslim lands and try to re-interpret Islam, we will punish them and their nation severely," Khan wrote.
But in the article, "This is How We Win and This is How You Lose," Abu Hurairah as-Sana'ani states that al-Qaida's fight is about offensive domination of non-Muslims. "So contemplate… perhaps you [will be] guided to Islam, recognizing it as sovereign over you and give the jizyah willingly while you are humbled," he wrote, referring to the obligatory tax on non-Muslims living under Islamic supremacy.
While Khan and as-Sana'ani's arguments are essentially two sides of the same coin, each promoting the victory of Islam and the defeat of the West, they clash in explaining why al-Qaida is fighting.
Similar contradictions exist in the issue's approach to killing civilians.
In "They Killed Father, They Killed Son," writer Um Ahmed takes issue with separate drone strikes killing Awlaki and his eldest son. "One should wonder what Obama will do, what Obama would feel if Muslims kill his daughters only for being his daughters? We are sure that not only the Americans but the whole world would condemn such murder," she wrote. "But Muslims would never intentionally killed (sic) children, no matter who their parents are. No matter if they are the worst enemy of Islam, if they are children it is prohibited to target them intentionally."
But 20 pages later, the article "Do the Mujahideen and Christian terrorist have similar goals?" celebrates a recent terror attack by an al-Qaida wannabe in France. In March, French terrorist Mohammed Merah viciously murdered three young Jewish children and a rabbi on their way to school, chasing them down and killing them execution-style.
The same article states that al-Qaida terrorists "do not deliberately target women and children," but refers to the deliberate murder of all civilians as entirely justified revenge.
"If someone says that our bombings in London and Madrid, for example, are proof that we target women and children, then we say that we purposely target specialized institutions to not only send political messages, but to damage their economies, and [do] revenge for the Muslims they have massacred over the years by repeating the same to their own citizens so that they may taste what we taste on a near daily basis," the author claimed.
He concedes that, "Our war with America and the West may appear to some that we are out to kill for the sake of killing, since all we do to them is just that. The reason behind it is – as we've previously stated – because of the crimes these governments have perpetrated on our lands and continue to perpetrate."
Other themes in the ninth issue contradict either prominent articles from previous issues or al-Qaida's standard operating procedures.
"The Jihadi Experiences: The Most Important Enemy Targets Aimed at by the Individual Jihad," calls for striking Jews but not synagogues or other places of worship. That goes against the entire third edition of Inspire, which promoted an attempted mail bombing attack on two Jewish houses of worship.
The article also warns against targeting civilians not involved in conflict with Muslims, and advises individual attackers to be sensitive to al-Qaida's reputation. That point doesn't jibe with the policy of al-Qaida's North African and Yemeni branches, which have regularly kidnapped and executed foreign tourists.
The new Inspire issues represent different expressions of al-Qaida's message, and alternative summaries of Inspire magazine's legacy. Like past editions, they are likely to remain highly relevant to future plots, and may provide fertile ideological ground for the next generation of al-Qaida propaganda.

46420
Politics & Religion / WSJ: Changes in the bond markets
« on: May 04, 2012, 09:52:40 AM »


A Copernican revolution is under way in the global market for corporate bonds.

A system that once revolved around banks willing to "make a market" by matching bids and offers for thousands of fixed-income securities is being overhauled. Wall Street institutions, known as dealers, are being pushed away from the center of the fixed-income galaxy by regulations, market turmoil and financial constraints.

Investors, high-frequency traders and exchange operators are scrambling to replace them in this enormous universe; companies around the world issued more than $1.5 trillion of bonds last year, according to Dealogic.

 
The battle for the future of fixed-income markets will play a part in shaping the "new Wall Street" of the postcrisis era. The outcome will have a profound impact on companies' ability to raise debt, investors' trading costs and financial groups' profitability.

Banks for decades have placed themselves at the crossroads of buyers and sellers, charging a fee for putting them together. To smooth the process, they would stock up on bonds, which are more difficult to find than shares because they come in a mind-boggling array of issue dates, maturities and interest rates. That way, if a buyer or seller wasn't forthcoming, banks could step in and take the other side of the trade.

The Street's service was akin to the one provided by a wine merchant: Banks held bonds of different vintages in their cellars, or balance sheets. When customers came along, they delivered the bond and charged them for holding it in a safe place. The deals were bilateral, over the phone and not public, but investors felt safe in the knowledge that dealers were there.

This system is being threatened by three forces: the "Volcker rule" that will ban U.S. banks from trading on their own account, more stringent capital requirements, and regulatory efforts to inject more transparency into bond and derivative trading.

The result has been a collapse in the amount of bonds held in Wall Street's cellars. Dealers' inventories of corporate bonds nearly halved in the past 12 months, according to Tabb Group, to around $47 billion, their lowest level in a decade and some 22% below the crisis-time nadir. Wall Street is dumping bonds like there is no tomorrow, starving the market of liquidity.

With banks less willing to make a market and lubricate the system, trading costs have spiked. A large fund manager estimated the gap between the price to buy and sell the bonds for investment-grade bonds has risen nearly 40% since 2007. The corollary is clear: As trading expenses rise, so will the interest rates demanded by investors, eventually increasing borrowing costs for companies.

The lure of juicy revenues and the need to replenish lost liquidity is prompting other players to try to fill the void.

Investors, for one, are trying to trade with one another. The most visible attempt has been the "Aladdin" trading platform being tested by BlackRock Inc., BLK -0.61%which aims to directly match buyers and sellers among pension funds.

Exchange operators and banks have also set up electronic marketplaces to trade bonds without a middleman. And some hedge funds and high-frequency traders are considering setting up old-fashioned phone-based market-making units.

The problem with bonds is that they don't lend themselves to electronic exchanges like, say, stocks and currencies, because of their diversity and relative lack of liquidity. Trading General Electric Co.'s shares is easy, but how about finding exact matches of buyers and sellers for each of GE's 200-plus bonds? Indeed, of the 19,000-plus bonds that traded in the U.S. last year, less than 2% traded every day.

Furthermore, if fund managers are to be persuaded to reveal bids and offers in an open forum, such as BlackRock's platform or an electronic exchange, they will need to believe that the trades will be executed quickly and that declaring an interest in buying or selling won't cause prices to move against them.

Unless someone ensures a smooth functioning of the market, the new initiatives will never take off.

In the long run, perhaps, markets will consolidate around fewer bonds. But in the current fragmented environment, and with liquidity being drained by a shrinking Wall Street, investors and companies have to contend with higher prices and more cumbersome trading.

The revolution in the constellation of fixed-income traders has begun. But as Copernicus knew all too well, the new order, with its bright stars and dying planets, won't be known for quite some time.


46421
Mitt Romney's campaign says it has many routes to the 270 votes needed for victory in the Electoral College this fall. But almost all of them rely on a difficult feat: Winning at least six states that went for President Barack Obama in 2008.

Spot Mr. Romney the five biggest swing states the Democrat won four years ago—Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana—and the Republican still wouldn't be guaranteed the White House. To win, he would need to also carry at least one other state that went to Mr. Obama four years ago.

That makes Mr. Romney's path to the White House narrow and perilous, while Mr. Obama has multiple routes to victory, including several that don't require him to win either Florida or Ohio, the most important battlegrounds of past elections.

Voting history and recent polling data show that Mr. Obama can count on a floor of close to 230 electoral votes from wins in the traditional Democratic strongholds that include California and the West Coast, plus New York and the Northeast. The base for Republican candidates is about 190 electoral votes from the Deep South, the Plains, some of the Mountain West and the big prize of Texas.

That math is in the background as the candidates lay out their campaign schedules. Mr. Obama will speak on student loans Friday in Virginia and then hold his first campaign rallies Saturday in Virginia and Ohio. Victories in those two states would all but assure his return to the White House, even if he lost all other swing states—defined as those that moved between the parties in recent presidential elections.

Mr. Romney spent Wednesday and Thursday in Virginia, and he plans a return visit next week.

Romney political director Rich Beeson says the GOP candidate has a range of ways to win. Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana "are states that Republicans have won in the past, and not the far-too-distant past," he said. "It's not like we have to go out and win a Maryland." He offered a long list of states that could put Mr. Romney over the top when added to those five states.

But a stumble by Mr. Romney in Florida—whose 29 electoral votes make it the top prize among swing states—could stop him in his tracks, even if he won every other battleground in the country. The only way he could win without Florida is if he picked up a big state that hasn't gone Republican in years, such as Pennsylvania or Michigan.

A loss in Ohio wouldn't eliminate Mr. Romney but likely would leave him little margin for error. He would have to deprive Mr. Obama of wins in almost all other swing states. Losing Virginia along with Ohio, for example, would cost Mr. Romney the election. So would losing Ohio, Colorado and almost any other swing state.

For Mr. Obama, there is no single state that, if lost, would sound a similar death knell.

Electoral Advantage
See how states' electoral college votes have been cast since 1992.

View Interactive
..Campaign Finance
Compare the candidates' fund raising.


 .Poll Tracker
WSJ's guide to the latest political polls


 . More photos and interactive graphics
."It is always difficult to beat an incumbent, but it's all the more difficult to beat a Democratic incumbent who put so many traditionally Republican states into play last time," said Christian Ferry, who served as deputy campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee.

For its part, the Obama camp says it has at least five distinct routes to re-election, including ones that envision losing both Florida and Ohio.

Both camps are putting huge weight on Virginia, a state that demographic forces—especially Northern Virginia's burgeoning suburbs—have made all the riper for Democrats. A combination of new Hispanic voters and the growth of politically competitive suburbs near Washington have changed the state's complexion in recent years. A Washington Post poll released Thursday found Mr. Obama leading Mr. Romney in Virginia among registered voters, 51% to 44%.

"Virginia is looking like the new Ohio, and Obama right now appears to be pretty strong there," said Patrick Ruffini, a Republican strategist who worked on the Bush campaign in 2004.

The Romney camp was cheered Thursday by poll numbers showing the former Massachusetts governor locked in a statistical dead heat with Mr. Obama in both Florida and Ohio.

The polls, released by Quinnipiac University, also highlighted Mr. Obama's challenges. A plurality in both states, for instance, said he didn't deserve to be re-elected.

For Mr. Romney, nothing would improve his prospects more than a big win in the industrial heartland. He plans to campaign in Pennsylvania Friday, even though his aides say they regard the state as a long shot. A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday found Mr. Obama eight points ahead of his rival.

A likelier upset candidate, the Romney camp says, might be Michigan, where Mr. Romney grew up and his father served four terms as governor. But the government-assisted turnaround of General Motors and Chrysler, which Mr. Romney opposed, could make a win there tougher.

With the election still six months off, Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, says much will still hinge on the state of the economy in the fall.

"If the economy is grim, even states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin could come into play" for the Romney campaign, Mr. Sabato said. "If the economy looks to be improving, then the path for Romney will be truly narrow."


46422
Politics & Religion / Re: california
« on: May 04, 2012, 09:36:57 AM »
My daughter told me this morning that she hopes we will be able to stay in CA.  She likes being able to go to the beach every day in the summer.  So likes being able to ride horses 2x a week 20 minutes away, etc.

46423
Politics & Religion / Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« on: May 04, 2012, 09:35:10 AM »
While I think BD has a fair point, FWIW my sense of things is that the extent and the tone of the death coverage tends to be guided by whether it is good or bad for the Reps or Dems.

I for one would like to see LOTS of coverage of battlefield heroics, of which there is virtually none.

Returning to the merits of the Afpakia War; at this point it has become so fg conceptually muddled that I find it hard to say what the hell to do.  The complete conceptual changes advocated here have zero chance of coming into being and without ti or something like it, what the hell are we doing?

I think Sen. Fred Thompson's assessment of Baraq which I posted the other day rather accurate.  OTOH I also think that Michael Yon's assessment that Bush had us on a losing trajectory also to be accurate.   I cannot say the argument that the Iraq War (which I actively supported) became a distraction from a proper follow-up and finish to Afpakia is implausible or irrational.   Putting these two together it is not irrational for the American people to conclude after ten years that for whatever the reasons, this war is not getting lead by either party very well and that therefore we may as well come home.

Further discussion really needs to address the deeper questions of American foreign policy, but for now for this thread I will say that IMHO Baraq has thrown away the last chance to get it right and that a truly heavy price will be paid much sooner and much more costly than is generally realized.

Pakistan has the world's fourth largest nuke stockpile and it is already a quasi-jihadi state.  With Iran on its trajectory and the Russians threatening to take out our missile defenses in eastern Europe and Iran and Russia cozying up to the Chavez narco state in Venezuela and various accumulating Chinese moves in Latin America and the Carribean, we may be getting to Ron Paul's Fortress America much sooner than anyone realizes or cares for , , ,

46425
"During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety." --Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, 1805

46426
Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« on: May 03, 2012, 09:03:51 PM »
I remember a college course noting that the "one drop" logic actually imputed greater power to the non-white component than the white component  :lol:

Of course the spectacular cynicism on display here by Warren is extraordinary.

46427
Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy
« on: May 03, 2012, 09:00:24 PM »
Well, I'm hoping that will kick off a discussion , , , one for which I have insufficient energy at the moment due to being on what I hope will be the final couple of days of something nasty I picked up in Europe.

I will say for the moment that I take a contrary view of this matter concerning the Chinese dissident as my comments in the US-China thread have already noted.

I will also note the lack of notice that has been given to a Russian general threatening to militarily attack the US anti-missile bases in the works for eastern Europe.  THIS IS EXTRAORDINARY AND SHOULD BE NOTED ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM AS SUCH. The silence from Baraq  & Hillary is deafening.

It occurs to me that on a deeper level the two events are rather related. 

46428
Politics & Religion / Pavlich interview
« on: May 03, 2012, 08:54:03 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/user/pajamasmedia?v=ufColuskra8

Good introductory summary for those not familiar with OFF.  Under ten minutes.

46429
Politics & Religion / Baraq twice the president Bush was
« on: May 03, 2012, 06:43:31 PM »
WOW, , , I think I just may play that forward a bit , , ,

Here's this from DBD:

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/05/03/

46433
I caught Issa on FOX this AM with some blonde barbie (do they have any other hair color over there at FOX?  but I digress , , , ) and it sounded very much like "This is your last chance to cough up the documents to which the American people are entitled or else".

46434
Politics & Religion / Re: Freedom of religion...
« on: May 03, 2012, 10:40:45 AM »
So then, lets take Freedom of Religion to the First Amendment thread.

46435
Politics & Religion / WSJ: Laser Defenses
« on: May 03, 2012, 10:37:40 AM »

By MARK GUNZINGER AND ANDREW KREPINEVICH
For 20 years, from the first Gulf War to the recent bombardment of Libya, the U.S. military has had few difficulties deploying and supplying its forces. Rivals and would-be enemies—from China to Hezbollah—have taken note, and they're moving to acquire long-range, precision-guided weapons that would threaten our forces by creating mass "kill zones" around airfields, ports and supply depots. This threat is far more formidable than the roadside bombs encountered by our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pentagon is aware of this threat, but its approach to addressing it is old-fashioned and expensive. Despite looming budget cuts, it continues emphasizing multimillion-dollar interceptors to shoot down missiles and rockets that enemies can field at a small fraction of that cost. This places our military at the wrong end of a cost competition that our enemies will be only too happy to continue.

There are ways for the U.S. military to defend itself more effectively from such attacks while imposing costs on our enemies. Part of the solution is to attack enemies' rocket and missile launchers on the ground, destroying their weapons before they can be used. Yet such "suppression" attacks require finding and destroying highly mobile missile launchers, artillery and mortar units, which is a difficult challenge.

A better, complementary approach would exploit technologies that can dramatically reduce the cost of this work—specifically, a new generation of high-power lasers.

Previous high-power laser weapon prototypes had insufficient power, were too bulky, or both. The recently cancelled Airborne Laser, a chemical laser carried on a Boeing 747 aircraft modified for military use, is but the most recent example of a laser weapon that failed to realize its promise.

Yet like submarines and torpedoes—which for decades in the late 19th century were considered little more than interesting toys, only to quickly emerge as powerful weapons in World War I—lasers may finally be coming into their own.

Recent dramatic advances in solid-state laser technology (meaning lasers that create a lethal beam of light using solids or fibers, not liquids or gases) have yielded impressive power levels at a very low cost-per-shot, especially when compared to traditional missile interceptors that can cost over $10 million each. Experts in the U.S. Navy state that within six years, using technologies already developed and demonstrated in test firings, they could field solid-state lasers on warships with sufficient power to counter anti-ship cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft, and fast-attack "swarm" craft like those of Iran. These lasers could reduce the need for warships to carry bulky—and expensive—defensive munitions, while freeing space for other weaponry.

Like solid-state lasers, new chemical lasers can generate much greater power outputs than their predecessors, enabling them to engage a wide range of air and missile threats, including long-range ballistic missiles. Also within six years, and using technologies developed for the Airborne Laser, the Air Force and the Army could field ground-based, megawatt-class chemical lasers to help protect key bases in the Persian Gulf and Western Pacific.

To be sure, laser weapons have limitations. Bad weather reduces their effectiveness (as it does many other weapons), and killing very hard targets such as ballistic missile warheads will require multiple megawatts of laser power. But combined with suppression attacks and traditional defenses, high-power lasers could provide a major boost to our military's defenses and at a reduced cost, while also complicating an enemy's planning.

Other states—especially Russia and China—see the game-changing potential of these weapons and are investing aggressively in them. Yet the Pentagon plans to cut research funding in this area, even though it currently invests a little over $500 million in it annually, compared to well over $10 billion in traditional air and missile defenses. This imbalance is particularly worrisome considering the need to impose costs on our competitors while reducing our own costs.

The Defense Department has said that it is serious about retaining its technological edge, declaring in its new strategic guidance the "imperative to sustain key streams of innovation that may provide significant long-term payoffs." Unfortunately, absent a push from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta or from Congress, it appears unlikely that high-power lasers will make the jump from the laboratory to the field anytime soon. If not, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, American forces will find themselves again reacting to a threat rather than anticipating it.

Mr. Gunzinger, a retired Air Force colonel and former deputy assistant secretary of defense, is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Krepinevich, the center's president, is a retired Army colonel.


46436
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Parenting Issues
« on: May 03, 2012, 10:09:56 AM »
This would also be a nice fit in the abortion thread.

46437
Science, Culture, & Humanities / The Battle of Athens
« on: May 03, 2012, 10:04:22 AM »
Alexander's Essay – May 3, 2012
The Battle of Athens (Tennessee)
A Case Study in Grassroots Restoration of the Rule of Law
"The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." -- James Madison (1788)
 
Vets firing on McMinn Jail
As a direct descendent of Tennessee Patriots who were veterans of every major conflict in defense of American Liberty from the American Revolution forward, I stand in awe of my home state's distinguished list of Patriot sons and daughters. From 19th-century notables like Andrew Jackson, Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Sam Davis, to a long list of 20th-century Patriots headed by Alvin York, warriors from the "Volunteer State" have distinguished themselves in battle with honor and courage. Even our state's nickname was earned in recognition of the valiant service of volunteer soldiers during the War of 1812, most notably during the Battle of New Orleans.
There was a group of lesser-known Tennessee Patriots, however, whose efforts to defend Liberty at home in 1946 were no less noble. This group of World War II veterans took up arms to restore Rule of Law in the quaint east Tennessee town of Athens (McMinn County), between Chattanooga and Knoxville. That fight became known as the Battle of Athens.
Given the rigorous efforts by the current regime of Socialist Democrats occupying the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government, revisiting the Battle of Athens provides a timely lesson in Patriot devotion to Liberty. Democrats today have nationalized the corruption of the electoral process by both overt efforts (blocking measures such as Voter ID, and endorsing voter intimidation at polls) and much more insidious covert measures (increasing the rolls of voting village idiots who are dependent on wealth redistribution for their livelihood -- those who vote for their living rather than work for it).
In 1945, more than 3,000 battle-hardened vets returned home to McMinn County and found it brimming with political corruption. The GIs, who had fought for Liberty in the European and Pacific theaters, were not going to surrender it to corrupt politicians on their own soil. A spokesman for these Patriots proclaimed, "The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County."
Despite numerous complaints about the corruption since 1940, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the control of Franklin Roosevelt, ignored citizens' charges of election fraud and did not respond.
I first read the history of this incident almost 30 years ago, but I did not know until I was researching the Battle of Athens for this essay that a distinguished Republican lady, whom I have known for more than three decades, was an eyewitness to this battle.
Lill Coker is the daughter of Dr. Horace Thomas, one of the veterans who gathered with others to restore Liberty in Athens that night. She recalls the events well.
Her father had given Lill permission to go up to the roof of their home and watch the events unfold at a distance. She listened to accounts being broadcast live by the local radio station, WLAR, which was located across the street from the jail, and recollected that the radio announcer was broadcasting from under his desk to avoid bullets whizzing through his studio.
The Battle of Athens pitted Lill's father and other seasoned GIs against a large contingent of sheriff's deputies. The "law enforcement" officials were agents of Sheriff Pat Mansfield and his predecessor, wealthy state Sen. Paul Cantrell -- both benefactors of a corrupt statewide Democrat political machine controlled by E.H. "Boss" Crump from Memphis. In order to ensure the election and re-election of politicians running that machine, Mansfield and Cantrell had sheriff's deputies rigging the ballot boxes in Athens -- thus undermining the integrity of elections, the most basic expression of Liberty and the will of the people in our constitutional republic.
By 1946, some veterans were determined to challenge the Cantrell/Mansfield corruption machine, and they qualified for several posts on the upcoming election ballot. One of these men was Knox Henry, the GI candidate for sheriff of McMinn County. Endeavoring to ensure honest elections, a month ahead of the primaries they petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. As with previous requests for help to restore Rule of Law, their requests were ignored.
On Election Day, 1 August 1946, Mansfield imported some 200 strong-armed "deputies" to ensure the election would go his way. Mansfield's men ejected the veterans from polling sites, and in one instance a deputy pointed his gun at them as they attempted to re-enter a poll and shouted, "If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!" Mansfield arrested one GI poll watcher, Walter Ellis, who insisted on monitoring polling in the courthouse. One black voter, Tom Gillespie, was shot after a confrontation with a Mansfield deputy who denied him the right to vote.
After a long day of disputes at the polls, Mansfield and about 50 of his men gathered up all the ballot boxes and took them to the county jail "for protection."
The veterans weren't about to let the 1946 election cycle fall to the same corruption that had undermined the previous three elections. In the early evening, a group of vets who had been ejected as poll watchers mustered up some fellow vets. Being short of arms and ammunition sufficient to challenge Mansfield's crew and retrieve the ballot boxes, these men "borrowed" keys to the local National and State Guard armories and requisitioned three M-1 rifles, five Colt .45 pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles.
The vets then went to the jail, where they offered the deputies safe exit if they would turn over the ballot boxes. The deputies declined and shot two of the vets. The GIs returned fire in a pitched gunfight that would continue into the early morning hours of 2 August, when a number of vets from neighboring Meigs County improvised explosive devices (baled dynamite sticks) onto the jail's porch in order to soften up the resolve of the occupants. Shortly thereafter, the deputies did surrender and the GIs secured the building and ballots. (Cantrell and Mansfield, cowards that they were, had abandoned their deputies and fled into the dark early in the battle.)
Post Your Opinion: Were the GIs right to take matters into their own hands?
The non-partisan veterans delivered this message to the radio announcer at WLAR: "The GI election officials went to the polls unarmed to have a fair election, as Pat Mansfield promised. They were met with blackjacks and pistols. Several GI officials were beaten and the ballot boxes were moved to the jail. The GI supporters went to the jail to get these ballot boxes and were met by gunfire. The GI candidates had promised that the votes would be counted as cast. They had no choice but to meet fire with fire. In the precincts where the GI candidates were allowed watchers they led by three to one majorities."
The following morning, the armory weapons were cleaned and returned, and the ballot boxes were turned over for a legitimate count.
 
Knox Henry Elected Sheriff
In the final count the GI candidate, Knox Henry, was elected sheriff of McMinn County, and three other vets filled key county positions. In order to thwart future corruption, the town of Athens formed a new police force. In addition, elected county officials agreed to a $5,000 pay limit. In the decade that followed, the McMinn County reforms were adopted in many other counties across the state.
Summarizing her recollection of events, Lill Coker told me, "I was so proud of all the veterans and my father for taking a stand and doing what had to be done to make sure Rule of Law was restored. They had to go against those who were supposed to be upholding law and order. The vets had gone to fight for our country in World War II and came home to find that a political machine had robbed their fellow citizens of their rights. We must be eternally vigilant against corruption of our electoral process. I am very proud of our Tennessee legislators for passing the voter ID law. We can lose our freedom just as the people of Athens did during the war years when no one stood up to the sheriff's bullies at the polling places."
The Battle of Athens was much more than an extended gunfight between small-town political factions. Historian Dan Daley wrote, "It was a violent but decisive clash of two social and political cultures, between the past and the future of rural, state, and ultimately the federal government, and a reconfirmation of the deeply ingrained ideal that Americans can assert themselves against tyranny, even when it was taking place in their own backyard."
Indeed, the corruption in the small town of Athens is but a minuscule example of constitutional abrogation that has now been nationalized by the Democrat Party. Indeed, the corrupt Chicago politics that herded a local charlatan "community organizer" into the presidency represents fraud on a grand scale.
Among the lessons learned from the 1946 events in McMinn County are these two:
First and foremost, this incident, like so many before and since, affirms why our Founders codified in the Second Amendment the unalienable right of the people to "keep and bear arms." As Justice Joseph Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution's author, James Madison) wrote, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." History records the appalling 20th-century consequences of disarming the people.
The second lesson is that those of us who have pledged by sacred oath to "support and defend" the Liberty enshrined in our Constitution against "enemies foreign," must be equally devoted to the defense of Liberty against insult by "enemies domestic."
Post Your Opinion: Would honoring your oath inspire you to take up arms against tyranny, even on our own soil?
One certainly hopes we can defeat the socialist corruption undermining our Constitution nationally, with ballots, not bullets, but one way or the other, the next American Revolution is just over the horizon.
(For a full accounting of this case study in grassroots restoration of Rule of Law, we have photos, a chronology and media reports at The Patriot's Battle of Athens resource page.)
Footnote: Link to Reader Comments for a note about another wealthy and powerful Athens family attempting, this time, to dupe the entire Third Congressional District by fronting an ideological Democrat under the pretense he is a Republican.
Deus et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mortis!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
 
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

46438
Politics & Religion / WSJ: Yoo's Vindication
« on: May 03, 2012, 09:10:54 AM »
  How baseless was the persecution of John Yoo by the white-shoe legal elite, which peddled the claims of a terrorist in order to harass the Bush Administration lawyer for his national-security views? So baseless that even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown the case out.

On Wednesday a unanimous three-judge panel in the famously liberal appeals court dismissed the civil lawsuit brought by Jose Padilla, whose lawyers have besieged former Bush officials since his criminal conviction in a plot to detonate a dirty bomb on American soil. From his prison cell, Padilla argues that his constitutional rights were violated when he was detained as an enemy combatant from 2002 to 2006.

The ruling vindicates the principle that government officials are immune from private litigation for their national-security decisions. The law has long held that executive branch officials can't be sued for other than criminal acts so they can carry out their duties in the best interests of the country without threat of personal liability.

Imagine a world in which trial lawyers could subject officials with the highest security clearances to discovery via subpoena and potentially expose intelligence sources and methods. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle as recently as 2011, and the Fourth Circuit dismissed Padilla's identical claims against Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush Cabinet members earlier this year as totally frivolous.

Alas, the Ninth Circuit couldn't be that honest. Padilla and his legal pit crew from the ACLU and a left-wing lawsuit shop affiliated with Yale Law School were trying to convince the courts to invent a new private right of action on the basis of the Supreme Court's 1971 Bivens decision. Except that decision says that constitutional rights that are allegedly violated must be "clearly established."

Judge Raymond C. Fisher writes that "We assume without deciding that Padilla's alleged treatment rose to the level of torture," but also that the rights of military detainees were not legally clear and Padilla's treatment was not "beyond debate" at the time he was held in a military brig. In other words, the lawsuit is frivolous. But the judges find having to rule this way so politically distasteful that they can't let the moment pass without scattering a load of, er, buckshot.

Mr. Fisher also indulges his inner op-ed writer by offering gratuitous slurs against Mr. Yoo's professionalism. He rolls out a reference to a now-discredited draft of a Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility ethics investigation, without mentioning that it was later reversed. Special discredit too for the Obama Justice Department, which took away Mr. Yoo's government lawyers and made him get private counsel.

The ruling is nonetheless a watershed for repudiating sham tort claims whose goal is to intimidate—and perhaps bankrupt—anyone who dares to treat terrorists differently from shoplifters. In a better world, Padilla's pals at the ACLU and the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic would be hit with sanctions and a bill for Mr. Yoo's costs.

MARC:  Trivia regarding the name Allard Lowenstein appearing in the last sentence.  He was the man who persuaded Sen. Eugene McCarthy to challenge President Lyndon Johnson for the Dem. nomination in 1968; he became McCarthy's campaign manager.  McCarthy's strong showing in the New Hampshire primary is what persuaded LBJ to not run for re-election and Sen. Robert Kennedy to run.  It was in the context of the ensuing McCarthy vs. RFK vs. VP Hubert Humphrey campaign that my mother and a woman named Bella Abzug (later to be a Congressswoman from the west side of Manhattan) formed a committee within the local Dem party supporting Sen. McCarthy.  Many meetings were held at our house and in this context (I would be 16 at the time) I met many famous political people-- including Allard Lowenstein.

46439
Politics & Religion / WSJ editorial on the Chen affair
« on: May 03, 2012, 09:00:23 AM »
This much is clear: Beijing reached an agreement Wednesday with the U.S. under which blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng left the U.S. Embassy. However, the details of the deal, including whether Mr. Chen was coerced to accept by Chinese threats to his family, remain murky.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Beijing for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue talks on Thursday, said that the outcome "reflected his choices and our values," and was based on "a number of understandings with the Chinese government."

There's good reason to doubt that Beijing will honor those understandings. While local authorities did the dirty work of keeping Mr. Chen under illegal house arrest in rural Shandong province, the central government was complicit. Nobody should be under the illusion that village thugs defied Beijing's wishes for 19 months. As one Chinese commentator put it, "No matter how strong Dongshigu Village is, it can't be stronger than [defrocked Bo Xilai's] Chongqing."

Related Video
 Human Rights Watch director of global initiatives Minky Worden on the deal the U.S. struck with Beijing over Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng. Photo: Getty Images
.
.The good news is that Mr. Chen has occupied the moral high ground in China's public debate. The case hinges not only on universal concepts of human rights, but also the Chinese government's failure to follow its own laws. The persecution of a blind man and his innocent family exposed the Communist Party's mafia mentality of attacking anyone who dares to challenge its injustice.

This deal, flawed as it may be, should at least improve Mr. Chen's living conditions for a time, and it allows the U.S. to take an ongoing interest in his welfare. American concern should also focus on those who helped Mr. Chen escape his captors. Some have been detained, even though the police concede they broke no laws.

The Chinese government Wednesday deflected attention from Mr. Chen's mistreatment by criticizing the U.S. for the "abnormal means" by which he entered the U.S. Embassy. A Foreign Ministry spokesman's demands for a U.S. investigation and apology, widely repeated in the state-run media, are transparent efforts to save face. Beijing is on the back foot as Mr. Chen is already one of the most effective activists in China on human rights and the rule of law. Now he will garner even more attention.

While this case is unusual, it sets an important precedent in U.S.-China relations. Nobody doubts the importance of U.S.-Chinese cooperation on a range of issues, but that cooperation becomes counterproductive when it comes at the expense of the core values America embodies and the Chinese people admire. As for Beijing, it will only take its place in the world as a respected power when it also honors those values—and its own laws.


46441
Politics & Religion / POTB Cars not being impounded
« on: May 03, 2012, 08:33:25 AM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/us/change-in-lapd-policy-has-immigrants-hoping-for-more.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120503

LOS ANGELES — The weekend checkpoints set up along intersections here were always meant to catch those who had had too much to drink. In an operation intended to be equal parts deterrent and enforcement, the police would stop every car, testing drivers suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs.


A driver being detained in 2010 for not having a license in San Jose, where an impound policy is less strict than in many cities.

But for years, advocacy groups have complained that the checkpoints unfairly targeted illegal immigrants, who cannot get driver’s licenses, ensnaring far more unlicensed drivers than drunken ones. And in March, the Los Angeles Police Department decided that it would no longer automatically impound the vehicles of drivers without licenses.

The change was a significant shift here in the country’s second-largest city, home to thousands of illegal immigrants who, like many other residents, see driving as the only viable way to move around a sprawling metropolitan area larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined. And it is in marked contrast to debates in other places around the country where local governments are cracking down harder on illegal immigrants living within their borders.

cont.

46442
Politics & Religion / WSJ: Cracks in the Great Commie Wall coming?
« on: May 03, 2012, 08:16:08 AM »
second post

By MINXIN PEI
Nowadays Chinese leaders seem too busy putting out fires to think about their regime's long-term survival. Last month, they had to dispatch Politburo member Bo Xilai in a messy power struggle on the eve of a leadership transition. This past week, the daring escape of blind rights activist Chen Guangcheng from illegal house arrest to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing provoked another crisis. When rulers of one of the most powerful countries in the world have to worry about the defiant acts of a blind man, it's high time for them to think the unthinkable: Is the Communist Party's time up?

Asking such a question seems absurd on the surface. If anything, the party has thrived since its near-death experience in Tiananmen in 1989. Its ranks have swelled to 80 million. Its hold on power, bolstered by the military, secret police and Internet censors, looks unshakable.

Enlarge Image

CloseAFP/Getty Images
 
Rights activist Chen Guangcheng in a wheelchair at Beijing's Chaoyang hospital, May 2
.Yet, beneath this façade of strength lie fundamental fragilities. Disunity among the ruling elites, rising defiance of dissidents, mass riots, endemic official corruption—the list goes on. For students of democratic transitions, such symptoms of regime decay portend a systemic crisis. Based on what we know about the durability of authoritarian regimes, the Chinese Communist Party's rule is entering its most perilous phase.

To appreciate the mortal dangers lying ahead for the party, look at three numbers: 6,000, 74 and seven. Statistical analysis of the relationship between economic development and survival of authoritarian regimes shows that few non-oil-producing countries can sustain their rule once per capita GDP reaches $6,000 in purchasing power parity (PPP). Based on estimates by the International Monetary Fund, Chinese GDP per capita is $8,382 in PPP terms ($5,414 in nominal terms).

This makes China an obvious authoritarian outlier. Of the 91 countries with a higher per capita GDP than China now, 68 are full democracies, according to Freedom House, 10 are "partly free" societies, and 13 are "not free." Of the 13 countries classified as "not free," all except Belarus are oil producers. Of the 10 "partly free" countries, only Singapore, Tunisia and Lebanon are not oil producers. Tunisia has just overthrown its long-ruling autocracy. Prospects of democracy are looking brighter in Singapore. As for Lebanon, remember the Cedar Revolution of 2005?

So the socioeconomic conditions conducive to a democratic breakthrough already exist in China today. Maintaining one-party rule in such a society is getting more costly and soon will be utterly futile.

This brings us to the second number, 74—the longest lifespan enjoyed by a one-party regime in history, that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1917-1991). One-party rule in Mexico had only a slightly shorter history, 71 years (1929-2000). In Taiwan, the Kuomintang maintained power for 73 years if we count its time as the ruler of the war-torn mainland before it fled to Taiwan in 1949.

Related Video
 Human Rights Watch director of global initiatives Minky Worden on the deal the U.S. struck with Beijing over Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng. Photo: Getty Images
.
.Social scientists have yet to discover why one-party regimes, arguably the most sophisticated of all modern-day autocracies, cannot survive beyond their seventh decade in power. What is important to note is that systemic crises in such regimes typically emerge about a decade before their ultimate fall. In the Soviet Union, it was the combination of the stagnation of the Brezhnev era and the ill-fated invasion of Afghanistan. In Mexico, the stolen presidential election of 1988 delegitimized the Institutional Revolutionary Party's rule.

The Chinese Communist Party has governed for 62 years. If history offers any guidance, it is about to enter its crisis decade, and probably has at most 10-15 years left on its clock.

One possible reason for the demise of one-party rule is the emergence of a counter-elite, composed of talented and ambitious but frustrated individuals kept out of power by the exclusionary nature of one-party rule. To be sure, the party has worked hard to co-opt China's best and brightest. But there are limits to how many top people it can absorb. So the party has a problem summarized by this ratio: 7:1.

Chinese colleges and universities graduate seven million bachelor degree-holders each year. The party admits one million new members with a college education or higher each year, thus leaving out roughly six million newly minted university graduates. Since party membership still is linked to the availability of economic opportunities, a sizable proportion of this excluded group is bound to feel that the system has cheated them.

Many will turn their frustrations against the party. Over the next decade, this group could grow into tens of millions, forming a pool of willing and able recruits for the political opposition.

The odds do not look good for those in Beijing who want to maintain the status quo indefinitely. They must begin thinking about how to exit power gracefully and peacefully. One thing the party should do immediately is end the persecution of potential opposition leaders like Mr. Chen and Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace Prize winner now in Chinese prison. The party will need them as negotiating partners when the transition to democracy eventually begins.

Mr. Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.


46443
Politics & Religion / Chen
« on: May 03, 2012, 08:15:27 AM »
At the moment it is looking like my previous subject heading was on target; despite the duplicity from Secy Clinton and the Embassy, the assertions that Chen chose to leave the embassy are contradicted by the apparent threats to his family by the regime.  Now Chen says that he and his family are in danger and wish to leave China but apparently America's tradition of standing for oppressed dissidents comes in second to financing Baraq's baccanalia of spending.

46444
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Jefferson 1826
« on: May 03, 2012, 06:33:37 AM »
"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride legitimately, by the grace of God." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, 1826

46445
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Fake Gate
« on: May 02, 2012, 11:13:35 PM »


http://fakegate.org/

Buzwardo, are you out there?

46446
Politics & Religion / Newt's "concession"
« on: May 02, 2012, 10:32:28 PM »
I caught a goodly portion of Newt's rather lengthy "concession" today, which dedicated quite a bit of time to restating what his campaign was about when it was in the groove.  Its great stuff!-- but had little resonance in its restatement today because he spoke in a manner that refused to acknowledge just how diminished he has become due to his own human foibles.   

His inner suffering must be great.   For one golden moment everything that his whole life was about was in his grasp , , , and he blew it.


46447
Politics & Religion / Re: Freedom of religion...
« on: May 02, 2012, 10:27:06 PM »
A theme of interest to some of us.  Related posts can be found on the First Amendment thread as well on SCH.  Perhaps we should merge the two threads?

46448
Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena
« on: May 02, 2012, 10:24:57 PM »
Interesting speculations on both sides , , ,

46449
Politics & Religion / WSJ: Rabinowitz: Grow a spine Mitt!
« on: May 02, 2012, 11:21:10 AM »
Dorothy Rabinowitz is old school WSJ. Here she lets MR have it:

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
From all corners of the commentariat, advisers friendly and unfriendly have declared it time for Mitt Romney to reveal himself—to let go at last and show the real Mitt he's allegedly been keeping secret. A fetching notion, but not the kind that wins elections. Forget the real Romney. Voters looking for a victory over Barack Obama would settle for the Romney on hand—the only real one, and unlikely to get any more so—as long as he's equipped for the requirements of the battle ahead.

It would help if he showed, first of all, a capacity to run a campaign not obviously dependent on the latest polls, or the fears of consultants. He could begin by ignoring the chorus of hysterics agonizing over the gender gap, then proceed to comport himself like a presidential candidate who grasps that women see themselves as citizens like any other—not as a separate group assigned victim status, to be favored with special tenderness.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press
 
The presumptive Republican nominee and his wife, Ann
.He could see to it that the women of America aren't favored by any more shout-outs from Ann Romney during his campaign appearances. The Romney campaign has had some famous streaks of tone deafness but nothing quite as strange as Mrs. Romney's congratulations to women on Super Tuesday night, with arm-waving and huzzahs, cheerleader-style. Women were concerned with things like the economy, with jobs, Mrs. Romney joyfully announced. A testimonial that suggested, unmistakably, that this interest in jobs and the state of the economy was—in the view of the Romney campaign—a new and wondrous achievement for the gender that had had, until now, hardly a thought about such matters.

The congratulations-to-women-for-thinking theme continues apace. On April 23, Mrs. Romney told a Connecticut audience of her happy discovery that women she had encountered were interested in the economy. "Believe it or not," she marveled, "they were talking about budget deficits." We can believe it. What's hard to believe is that pronouncements like this are anyone's notion of outreach to female voters. Mr. Romney would do well to skip the obeisances to women, along with all other knee-jerk responses to the programmed war-against-women accusations mounted by Democrats.

He'd do well, too, to discard the established wisdom that his indisputably appealing wife is his most powerful weapon—and to cease regularly throwing her at audiences. There is only one campaign presence that counts for voters, and his name is at the top of the ticket.

If that ticket is to be a winning one, Mr. Romney had better begin doing what Republican primary candidates so assiduously avoided doing for so many months. Other than those pronouncements extracted by debate moderators, there has been no silence more deafening, more ridden with fear—fear of the isolationist wing of the tea party—than that shown by the Republican candidates this year on matters of foreign policy.

Mr. Romney had better spell out clear positions on that, and on our national security. Even now the ideologically deranged sector of the tea party—tormented believers whose every living hour is devoted to the discovery of newer and more terrible violations of the Constitution—is pushing a serious legal war on the government's right to detain terrorists.

Related Video
 Editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz says Mitt Romney needs to improve his game. Photo: Getty Images
.
.We should hear from Mr. Romney on a matter of this kind. And in full and bold detail, what the voice of America will be in a Romney presidency—what it will stand for in regard to Syria, Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan. It won't be enough to assert in passing that we intend to stand by America's allies, or that there will be no more apologizing for the United States, splendid vows though they are.


Mr. Romney will have to run against President Obama with roughly the firepower with which he dispatched his competitors for the Republican nomination—and he'll have to do it in his own voice, unflinchingly. He might take a lesson from the example of John McCain, today the most formidably cogent, spirited and relentless of Mr. Obama's critics.

Little of this was on display four years ago, during Sen. McCain's own presidential run, a picture of hesitancy and political caution. A campaign in which the candidate—fearing charges of racism—refused even to mention the reality of Mr. Obama's 20 years of happy obliviousness to the hate-consumed, anti-American tirades of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Such cautions did not prevent the Obama campaign and its surrogates from hurling charges of racism at every opportunity, including in the primary race, when Bill Clinton himself—known to some as the first black president—stood accused.

Things won't be different this election season, Mr. Romney should know. The race card will be played even more energetically this time around, despite such proof of racism as white America's overwhelming support that put Mr. Obama into the presidency in the first place. Mr. Romney could do worse than a presidential run in the spirit of the Mr. McCain we see today—a man free of useless caution. Of course, the senator now has a fat target: the four years of the Obama presidency. But so has Mr. Romney.

The Republican nominee to be may not find it easy to drop the habits and training of his primary campaign—the most cautious, heavily managed, no-unplanned-moment-allowed quest for the nomination in memory. He'll have to do it, nevertheless—perhaps by recognizing that he won not because of that caution but in spite of it.

It would help, finally, if Mr. Romney proved himself the first candidate in years to grasp that aspirants to the presidency who appear on late-night comedy shows invariably end up looking like buffoons. That's in addition to denigrating their candidacy, the presidency itself, and looking unutterably pathetic in the effort to look like regular guys.

Most voters with any sense—this will perhaps exclude a fair number of the screamers in the late-night studio audiences—will understand that the candidate isn't one of them, not even close. That voters in their right minds don't choose a candidate for president because they've had the privilege of seeing him look unspeakably absurd while engaging in obsequious exchanges with late-night hosts.

Americans have good reason these days—count the behavior of the Secret Service as the latest—to value a candidate who not only knows but feels the meaning of the office of the presidency of the United States, its symbolism and of all that's connected to it. Standing up for that symbolism against the showbiz convention of political campaigns today wouldn't be a bad way to begin Mr. Romney's run for the White House—if his handlers allow it.

Someone should tell them it's not the gender gap, stupid—it's backbone. Mr. Romney will begin looking good to voters, women included, when he starts flashing some.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.


46450
Science, Culture, & Humanities / WSJ: When Stalinism was in Vogue
« on: May 02, 2012, 11:17:15 AM »
When Stalinism Was in Vogue

Lillian Hellman disdained a system that made her fabulously rich while romanticizing one that made its citizens spectacularly poor.
By MICHAEL MOYNIHAN

Upon returning from the Soviet Union in 1933, the British writer Malcolm Muggeridge, stunned by the privation and state terror of communism, wondered how it was possible that "so many obvious and fundamental facts about Russia are not noticed even by serious and intelligent visitors." In 1937, as Stalin commenced his psychopathic purge of "Trotskyite enemies," the serious and intelligent playwright Lillian Hellman arrived in Moscow a stalwart supporter of Bolshevism, eager to demonstrate Muggeridge's point.

Hellman, who cycled between writing for the theater and fattening her wallet producing Hollywood melodrama, would cite this Potemkin visit to Moscow as inspiration for "The North Star," her 1943 screenplay celebrating a verdant collective farm in Ukraine whose productive peasants—singing, insouciant comrades—were rudely dispersed by invading Nazis. The critic Mary McCarthy, who would later emerge as one of Hellman's fiercest detractors, declared the film a "tissue of falsehoods woven of every variety of untruth."

The script earned Hellman an Oscar nomination. But a decade later it would also earn her a subpoena from the House Committee on Un-American Activities—and a reputation as an iron-spined dissident. In a letter to the committee, Hellman declared that she would not "cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions," while insisting that she had little interest in politics.

Like most of Hellman's public statements about her political activities, this was a lie. It is because of her political activism that Hellman, whose literary output was of variable quality, has been the subject of countless biographies and academic studies. In "A Difficult Woman," Alice Kessler-Harris, a professor of history at Columbia University, returns to this well-tilled soil, offering an "empathetic view of Hellman and her politics."

Like most book-length treatments of Hellman, "A Difficult Woman" is less concerned with her oeuvre than with relitigating the politics of anticommunism. Now that key claims of American radicalism have been upended by revelations from the Soviet archives—the innocence of Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg, the independence of the American Communist Party—Ms. Kessler-Harris grouses that "victory went to those who defined communism as the enemy of national security."

Enlarge Image

Close.A Difficult Woman
By Alice Kessler-Harris
(Bloomsbury, 439 pages, $30)
.One can dip into a shallow reserve of sympathy for those who, like Muggeridge, were briefly seduced by utopianism and soon disabused by reality. But Hellman deserves no such leniency. Ms. Kessler-Harris marvels that Hellman "dedicated much of her life to the cause of civil liberties; in return, she earned the Stalinist label." This is giving Hellman short shrift: she worked rather hard to earn the Stalinist label.

Consider: Hellman zealously supported the Moscow line on Trotsky, offering no criticism when he was murdered by Kremlin agents; she defended Stalin's mass executions of party cadres in 1937-38, signing a petition that accused the victims of being "spies and wreckers" of socialism; she supported Stalin's alliance with Nazi Germany, despite her supposed devotion to "anti-fascism," and defended Moscow's indefensible invasion of Finland in 1939-40, claiming that the country supported Nazism and deserved no pity, a scurrilous lie that Ms. Kessler-Harris leaves unchallenged.

Hellman disdained a system that made her fabulously rich while romanticizing one that made its citizens spectacularly poor. And as Hellman biographer Carl Rollyson noted, she never made "more than a grudging admission of how profoundly wrong she was about Stalin." Unlike Martin Heidegger and Ezra Pound, both of whom supported a different genocidal tyrant, Hellman barely saw her reputation suffer because of her repellent allegiances.

Ms. Kessler-Harris's defense of Hellman and others who refused to abjure Stalinism will sound familiar. While some party apparatchiks were "vaguely aware in the 1930s of Stalin's increasingly ruthless methods"—a rather limp way of describing a roiling genocide—one must remember that "this was, after all, a period when rumors flew." Soviet enthusiasts like Hellman, Ms. Kessler-Harris writes, were merely showing a commitment to "social justice" and not Stalinism per se. The Communist Party plumped for the noble goals of racial equality and a vaguely defined "peace," leading Ms. Kessler-Harris to ask: "How could [Hellman] not have joined?" It is a question easily answered by Alfred Kazin, Irving Howe and countless other liberal intellectuals who understood the axiomatic immorality of Bolshevism.

Ms. Kessler-Harris claims that American anti-communists waged campaigns "filled with hyperbole and outright lies." But it was the Stalinists, Hellman included, who made falsehood a core principle. Her penchant for fantastical tales prompted Mary McCarthy's acid comment that "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.' " The story of Hellman's friendship with "Julia," an Austrian working in the anti-fascist resistance whom she supposedly assisted, was put forward in Hellman's memoir "Pentimento" (1973) and made into a Hollywood film. The story, it turned out, was cribbed from an acquaintance. (The film's director would later denounce Hellman as a "phony.")

Ms. Kessler-Harris acknowledges Hellman's prevarications only grudgingly, resorting to a tedious postmodern explanation that writers are entitled to their own version of "truth"—though Hellman insisted that stories like Julia's were literal truth. Despite voluminous evidence to the contrary, Ms. Kessler-Harris insists that Hellman's "concern for accuracy persisted throughout her life." Not when it came to her memoirs and certainly not when it came to communism's crimes. The previous draft of history was correct: The anticommunists were right, and Hellman was profoundly, inexcusably wrong.

Mr. Moynihan is a contributing editor of Reason magazine.


Pages: 1 ... 927 928 [929] 930 931 ... 1243