January 31, 2007

A New Design for a Flying Car

I've often thought that it doesn't seem quite like the future until there are flying cars. Well, there's a new design for one. It's a helicopter with enclosed rotors. (Hat tip: LA Siren).

 

 

 

 

Global Warming Concerns Could Help Build a Consensus for U.S. Energy Independence

"Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude:"

A major international analysis of climate change due Friday will conclude that humankind's reliance on fossil fuels — coal, fuel oil and natural gas — is to blame for global warming, according to three scientists familiar with the research on which it is based.

So concerns about global warming could help build a consensus for a move toward nuclear power and ethanol-fueled cars. Using methods such as these to achieve U.S. energy independence would defund nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia that are financing radical jihadists around the world, and provide a tremendous benefit in increased U.S. security.

A new product lets you generate your own heat and power for your home. 

Obama’s Catch-22: U.S. Troops Can Only Stay in Iraq If They Aren’t Needed

Obama, trying to get to the left of Hillary so as to improve his electability with the far-left wing of the Democrat party, seeks to betray the U.S. and the American troops by demanding that our troops leave Iraq by March 31 of next year, as long as their work in Iraq is not finished. Otherwise, they can stay. 

Per the Washington Post:

...the withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration. That list includes a reduction in sectarian violence; the equitable distribution of oil revenue; government reforms; and democratic, Iraqi-driven reconstruction and economic development efforts.  

Per Obama, the troops can stay if "sectarian violence" is reduced and the other key goals have been achieved; otherwise they have to come home.

Obama may unknowingly be positioning himself as a "give up and quit" politician.

January 30, 2007

Robert Spencer on a Lesson from the Film “Patton,” that Applies to the Actions of Radical Jihadists

Robert Spencer addressing the Wednesday Morning Club. 

[Many today on both the Left and the Right] share one thing in common: and that is that they do not consider that there could possibly be any imperatives arising from the people involved here [the terrorists], to which their actions could be attributed. They are not responsible for their actions. Their actions are all the fault of somebody else. Neither the left nor the right in general, is considering at all, what it is within the Islamic world today, that is giving rise to this global violence that we see on a daily basis.

And as a matter of fact, most commentators and analysts, on both the Left and the Right, seem to spend most of their time trying to exonerate the Islamic world from any responsibility for this, and to deny what they themselves say are the reasons why they are doing what they are doing. Which denial they then use so that they can make more convincing their own case, that it is all really the fault, somehow or other, of the West - whether because of the "evils" of our foreign policy, or because of the "evils" of our domestic culture, or both, or something else.

For example, [.....] George W. Bush himself, right after 9-11, said, as we all know, that Islam is a religion of peace. He doesn't say that anymore, but he has repeated it many times, and he has repeated the idea that what he and Prime Minister Tony Blair both and other spokesmen in the west, as a matter of fact unanimously, all the leaders of the Western countries, have said, this is a religion that is peaceful, at it's core it is fundamentally benign. And those who are perpetrating violence in its name, have twisted and hijacked its genuinely peaceful teachings.

[.....] However, the words of the people who are perpetrating the actions themselves, are very clear. They say, that they are doing this because of the teachings of Islam. They say this repeatedly, they say it in great detail, and they say it in a unified manner. That is, there's a unified ideology behind all these movements - from Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Kashmir, all across through to Israel and north to Western Europe, and west into Africa. The same ideology. The people who are perpetrating the violence in the name of Islam, all explain that they are doing so, on the basis of various teachings of Islam. That's the one unifying factor of all these disparate movements - all across the globe.

And yet that's the one thing that Western analysts are most likely to discount, and say, it's either false, or unimportant.

Now, I think that's suicidal and stupid. To discount the one reason that the people themselves have given for what they are doing, is like tying your hands behind your back in a fight - quite literally. It's like you are refusing to accept - you are refusing to consider - the policy directions that would be dictated by taking them at their word. And also refusing to accept the things that you will discover about their own motives and goals, by taking them at their word, and reading what they're doing.

For example, you've all seen the movie "Patton", many years ago? Patton defeated Rommel in the desert. Before Patton defeated Rommel in the desert in the movie, you saw Patton's nightstand, and on the nightstand was a German book of military strategy, written by Rommel. So, when Patton's army is routing Rommel's army in North Africa, we hear Patton in voice-over say, "I read your book!" As in, I knew exactly what you were going to do. You told me what you were going to do, and then you did it, and so I was ready for you.

But today we can't do that. Because they tell us what they're going to do, and why they're doing it, and we say, "Oh you don't really mean that. Islam's a religion of peace. "

But I submit to you, that we could achieve the same strategic advantage, by reading their books, as Patton gained over Rommel.

January 29, 2007

1st Suicide Bomb in Israel in 9 Months - A Month After Olmert Removes Some Security Checkpoints

Just over a month ago, I posted:

Has Prime Minister Olmert, of Israel, lost his mind?

TEL AVIV - The Israeli army is "up in arms" regarding an order issued yesterday by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to remove a series of West Bank security checkpoints that regularly stop terrorists from infiltrating Jewish cities, according to military officials.

In accordance with promises made to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a summit this weekend, Olmert instructed the IDF to remove 49 West Bank roadblocks and checkpoints. Twenty-seven roadblocks are to be removed immediately, and the rest within about a week, subject to a final decision by government officials.

Olmert also instructed IDF soldiers to not thoroughly examine every vehicle at 16 of the West Bank's largest roadblocks. Vehicle examinations usually cause long delays at the checkpoints.

Olmert said the moves were aimed at bolstering Abbas at a time when his Fatah party is engaging in infighting with rival Hamas factions. Abbas last weekend called for new Palestinian elections in a move widely seen as attempting to dismantle the Hamas-led government.

Palestinians say the West Bank roadblocks and checkpoints are degrading. They complain of waiting in long lines to pass through West Bank cities.

But according to IDF statistics, upwards of 60 percent of all attempted suicide bombings are stopped at the checkpoints. Israeli soldiers routinely catch Palestinians at checkpoints en route to central Israel with explosives or suicide belts. Many of the terrorists are caught during vehicle inspections.

...Military officials told WND the removal of roadblocks in the past directly resulted in an increase in terrorism.

"The checkpoints work. It's that simple. It's how we stop most terrorism," a military official told WND.

 And today, Israel was struck by its first suicide bombing in 9 months:

EILAT, Israel (AP) - A Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a bakery in this southern Israeli resort town on Monday, killing three other people, police said. It was the first suicide bombing in Israel in nine months and the first ever to hit Eilat, Israel's southernmost city.

A spokesman for Hamas, the radical Islamic group that controls the Palestinian parliament and Cabinet, praised the bombing as a "natural response" to Israeli policies - a position likely to complicate the group's efforts to end a crippling aid boycott imposed by the international community.

Two Palestinian militant groups, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, claimed joint responsibility for the attack.

As shown on this map, Eilat is not near the West Bank security checkpoints; but the article quoted above notes that terrorists often come through checkpoints en route to locations that are relatively distant: "Israeli soldiers routinely catch Palestinians at checkpoints en route to central Israel with explosives or suicide belts."

It is not yet known if this suicide bomber came through any of the removed West Bank security checkpoints. But this event argues that those checkpoints are needed and should be reinstated.

The Hamas government states that the bombing is "a natural response" to Israeli policies. I wonder what a natural response by Israel to the bombings would be? For many nations historically, completely taking over the Palestinian territories, and destroying the Hamas government, would be a very natural response. Israel won't do that, in order to show the world how devoted it is to peace.

 

Update 1-31-07: Olah Chadasha, of the Greetings from the French Hill weblog, provides info on how these terrorists got into Israel:

...this terrorist came through Gaza. Therefore, while you are totally correct, another vital point needs to be pointed out here. Here is how he most likely got out of Gaza, not the West Bank. There are two most likely possibilities here. As you are very well aware, the southern city in Gaza, Rafiah, is a maze of tunnels that are used by terrorists to smuggle terrorists, weapons, explosives, and other munitions and goodies used to fight against Israel and rival factions within Gaza. No, these tunnels are NOT used to smuggle food, medicine, or any other products or goods that could be used to support the people of Gaza. Terrorists also use these tunnels to smuggle terrorists into Israel, so they could bypass Israeli soldiers and check-points. And, here-in lies the further conclusion of your point. The check-points work. They stop terrorists from attacking Israel. The entirety of the MSM has used the fact that this is the first suicide attack within Israel in over 9 months in the context that the Hudna or cease-fire worked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Terrorist attacks against Israel have been prevented by the IDF and their immense hard work, including the check points. It has NOT been for lack of trying from the terrorists that there has been very little terrorist attacks against Israel in the past year and a half.

GWB Did Not Lie

"Top Ten Myths of the Iraq War," from StrategyPage, is being widely linked, and as far as I'm concerned, it should be linked by everybody. I'll comment on Myth #1:

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.

Bush did not lie when he said there were WMD's in Iraq. This is so self-evident that Republicans feel it's too absurd to even have to say so. Even if GWB had been wrong, being wrong is not the same as lying. We feel that even the people saying that Bush lied, must know they are exaggerating. Yet just last week, Carl Bernstein repeated this nonsense:

In the case George W. Bush, the American system has obviously failed -- tragically -- about which we can talk more in a minute. But imagine the difference in our worldview today, had the institutions -- particularly of government -- done their job to ensure that a mendacious and dangerous president (as has since been proven many times over, beyond mere assertion) be restrained in a war that has killed thousands of American soldiers, brought turmoil to the lives of millions, and constrained the goodwill towards the United States in much of the world.

"Mendacious," says Bernstein. Bernstein is clearly wrong ( i.e. by his own standards, apparently, "lying" ) to say so. Bernstein can only argue that GWB was wrong when he said there were WMDs in Iraq, and being wrong is very different from lying.

And as StrategyPage states, GWB wasn't even wrong.

Next time you hear someone say GWB was lying when he said there were WMDs in Iraq, consider pointing out to them that being wrong is not the same as lying.

UN Condemns Holocaust Denial - AWE and WUPJ Appeal to UN to Put Ahmadinajed on Trial

Last Friday the UN officially condemned Holocaust denial without reservation:

UN Assembly condemns Holocaust denial by consensus; Iran disassociates itself

26 January 2007 - The United Nations General Assembly today condemned without reservation any denial of the Holocaust, with only Iran publicly disassociating itself from the consensus resolution which was immediately hailed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The Assembly, noting that the resolution was adopted on the eve of the UN-designated annual International Day of Commemoration for Holocaust victims, who also included not only Jews but also Roma, Sinti, homosexuals and other groups, called on all its 192 Member States "unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."

Welcoming the measure, which was introduced by the United States on behalf of 103 co-sponsors, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement voicing "his strong desire to see this fundamental principle respected both in rhetoric and in practice."

"By this action today, the General Assembly reaffirms its condemnation of the Holocaust as a crime against humanity," said the body's president, Sheikha Haya Al Khalifa of Bahrain.

Today the Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism called on the UN to condemn Iranian President Ahmadinajed for actions contrary to this resolution - and also called on the UN to bring Ahmadinajed to trial for continued "direct and public incitement to commit genocide," which is "punishable" under the UN Charter and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The text of the appeal to the UN has been forwarded to this site by one of its authors, Mr. David Littman (emphasis in original):

ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM

United Nations-Geneva / Monday, 29 January 2007 (9:00am)

Call for Firm Action Today to Condemn President Mahmoud Ahmadinajed

Urgent Appeal to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon / High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour / President of the Human Rights Council Ambassador Luis Alfonso De Alba

We welcome the GA's Resolution by consensus - co-sponsored by 103 States - which condemned, without reservation, any denial of the Holocaust, and the Secretary-General's "strong desire to see this fundamental principle respected both in rhetoric and in practice." Speaking before the vote, Iran's representative "fully dissociated himself from today's entire hypocritical exercise," alleging: "Its main sponsors had sought to present the text under 'mischievous' intent to pursue narrow political interests and misuse the Assembly."

On the 2^nd International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, we call on Member States of the United Nations to act decisively now by invoking the UN Charter and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - in order to bring President Mahmoud Ahmadinajed to trial before the International Criminal Court, and Iran before the UN Security Council. The reiterated call by Iran's president for Israel's elimination is "inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" (UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2:4). And Article III (c) of the Genocide Convention is clear: "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" ( … ) "shall be punishable." Its Article IV states that: "Persons committing Genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." At a Teheran Conference on 26^th October 2005 Iranian President Ahmadinajed called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He also announced that: "very soon the stain of this disgrace will be purged from the centre of the Islamic world." And he ominously warned all peacemakers: "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." In his 5^th December 2005 speech to the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Mecca, he proclaimed that the major problem in the Islamic world was "the presence of the Zionist occupation in the heart of the Islamic region," even predicting that its "judicious removal will pave the way to the appearance of Islam's power in the successful management of global matters." Last week he repeated his threatening scenario for the rapid demise of the State of Israel.

In a TV speech on 14^th December 2005, he had referred to the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews as a fabrication: "They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets." On 5^th January 2006, Iran's state-controlled TV screened a discussion on "the myth of the gas chambers" and "the truth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Before the 2006 1^st International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, Ahmadinajed announced a special "Holocaust 'Myth' Conference" in Teheran, which took place last month in defiance of world public opinion. In his 8^th January 2007 letter to Human Rights Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba, Iran's Ambassador Alireza Moayeri stressed that: "The international conference on the Holocaust, held in Teheran, has been an academic event, to examine and investigate the facts about a historical claim without any prejudice or judgment (...) This is a legitimate question that: while there are serious opposing ideas over the issue, in particular on the number of perished, among scholars around the world, why an artificial red line has to taboo[sic] the entire issue of the Holocaust, preventing to bridge this gap, in total contradiction of article 19 of the UDHR and article 19 of the ICCPR."

We strongly urge the Secretary-General, the Human Rights High Commissioner and Council President, and all UN Member States, to take heed of the Iranian president's 'thinking' - in particular that ideological parallel between the clear reference in his 26^th October 2005 speech to a 'Jihad ideology': "the struggle [Jihad] between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels", and to Hitler's words in Mein Kampf (My Struggle), describing the 'true Aryans' pitted against non-Aryans! Are the horrors of the 20^th century's Nazi "final solution" to be repeated in the 21^st - while the international community merely notes 'with concern' this gathering storm?

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran's "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" ( by the elimination of a Member State, i.e. "politicide" ) requires FIRM ACTION TODAY. As was stressed over the years: any "Contracting Party" may invoke article 8 of the post-Holocaust Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (approved on 9^th December 1948, the day before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and "call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such actions…for the prevention and suppression of…any of the acts enumerated in article III." Iran's defiance of the 1945 UN Charter is another reason for all persons and UN bodies to ACT NOW.

René Wadlow (Main Representative of AWE) / David G. Littman (Representative of AWE & WUPJ)

Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express: Pandering to Religious Demands is Destroying England’s Identity

Forwarded this site by Mr. David Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education (no link):

Pandering to religious demands is destroying our national identity

Leo McKinstry Daily Express columnist

918  words

22 January 2007

The Daily Express (page 12)

(c) 2007 Express Newspapers

---

LEADER

DURING the dark days of 1938, as Nazi tyranny spread across Europe, Winston Churchill spoke of his despair at the government's enfeebled response to the threat of Hitler.

---

"I have watched this famous island descending incontinently, fecklessly, the stairway which leads to a dark gulf, " he said.

He went on to warn that "if a moral catastrophe should overtake" Britain, then future historians would be baffled as to how a great nation allowed itself to be destroyed so easily.

Thanks to Churchill's magnificent leadership, the end of our civilisation under the German jackboot was averted.

Yet if he were alive today, he would surely be despondent at the collapse of our sense of nationhood in the face of the twin forces of multiculturalism and mass immigration.

Churchill spoke in 1938 of a "terrible transformation" having taken place in the spirit of the political classes, whose patriotic self-confidence evaporated when confronted with the brute force of Nazi ideology.

The same is true today as our rulers dilute their allegiance to our traditions in desperation to accommodate other cultures.

A "terrible transformation" has indeed taken place. A mood of self-loathing hangs over our institutions. Our past is seen as a cause of shame rather than pride. Throughout our public services, diversity is to be celebrated, whereas Britishness must be derided, ignored or mocked.

THIS mood of self-abasement can be seen at its most repellent in the reaction to the endless litany of Muslim so-called grievances.

The official dogma of multiculturalism encourages hardline Muslims to believe that they can refuse to abide by the rules and customs of this country, even where their own superstitious, often oppressive, practices are in direct conflict with Western liberal traditions of democracy and tolerance.

A classic example occurred in the case of a newly recruited Muslim female police officer who refused to shake the hand of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair during her passing-out parade.

Justifying her decision, she said that it was contrary to her religion to touch a man. Well, it is also contrary to the Met's operational efficiency to have such an apparent zealot in its ranks. If she cannot have any physical contact with a man, how on earth is she going to carry out an arrest, given that more than 90 per cent of serious offenders are male?

In its desperation to parade its multicultural credentials, the Met, like many of our state institutions, has lost sight of its duty towards the wider public.

The police exist to protect society. Whilst there is no suggestion this WPC is anything other than a faithful Muslim, it is absurd of the Met to take seriously this nonsense, which, in my view, is no more elevated than ancient paganism.

Apart from anything else, the refusal to return a handshake is the height of bad manners, implying that the other person is so unclean or so dangerous that he cannot even be touched. But in our climate of political correctness, traditional Western manners count for nothing compared to the sensibilities of Muslims.

What is particularly depressing about this saga is that Sir Ian did nothing about it.

According to reports from inside the police, when he was informed of the officer's request to avoid a handshake:

"He was bloody furious. But he agreed to go along with it so as not to cause a scene." Sir Ian's behaviour could be a metaphor for modern Britain.

At every turn, we have surrendered to Muslim protests, whether it be over freedom of speech or the wearing of the veil. Our Christian heritage is being dumped for fear of "giving offence" to radical Muslims, while new religious discrimination laws force employers to bend over backwards to meet Islamic demands.

A PERMANENT soundtrack of Muslim grievance plays in our society, exploding into full volume at the hint of any challenge to Islam. This climate of appeasement is dressed up as religious tolerance but is really just cowardice. Our institutions are terrified of radical Islam because of the threat of violence. The shadow of the bullet and the bomb lurks behind wails about Islamophobia.

The great Trinidadian writer Sir Vidia Naipaul once described Islam as "sanctified rage" and that has been the bitter experience of countries throughout the world over the past 30 years, as the death toll mounts from the atrocities perpetrated by fundamentalists.

Yet, even as their grim catalogue of murder lengthens, radical Muslims present themselves as the victims of Western imperialistic discrimination, oppression or neglect.

Shamefully, too many Westerners and Western governments have colluded in this process.

Instead of confronting the menace of radical Islam, they try to appease it with endless concessions, even compromising basic democratic issues such as women's rights and liberty of expression. They will do anything for a quiet life. But cowardice does not lead to tranquillity. It emboldens those who wish to exploit our weakness.

The late Thirties showed the disastrous consequences of trying to appease a violent, intolerant ideology. Just as today, there was an institutional reluctance to defend British values in the face of this threat.

Opponents of Nazism were often treated as dangerous cranks; Churchill was all but banned by the BBC for being too anti-German. But as he so rightly warned, appeasement is the road to national suicide. We cannot save our civilisation by continually weakening it.

January 25, 2007

Deafening Silence of the Muslim World in Response to Mass Murder by Muslims

From Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times:

It's hard to know what's more disturbing: the barbaric sectarian murders by Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, or the deafening silence with which these mass murders are received in the Muslim world. How could it be that Danish cartoons of Muhammad led to mass violent protests, while unspeakable violence by Muslims against Muslims in Iraq every day evokes about as much reaction in the Arab-Muslim world as the weather report? Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King?

Where is the ''Million Muslim March'' under the banner: ''No Shiites, No Sunnis: We are all children of the Prophet Muhammad.''

...There's a lot at stake. If Iraq is ultimately unraveled by Muslim suicide-nihilism, it certainly will be a blot on our history -- we opened this Pandora's box. But it will be a plague on the future of the whole Arab world.

On Sen. Webb’s Response to the SOTU

From Jonah Goldberg, in the LA Times:

'AS I LOOK AT Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be-President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. 'When comes the end?' … And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end." This was part of freshman Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's stentorian Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address.

One wonders if the untold millions of North Koreans who've starved, bled and died since then would similarly applaud Eisenhower's courage and wisdom. For more than half a century, North Korea has been a prison-camp society beyond the imagining of George Orwell, where public executions for stealing food are familiar events. The man-made famine of the 1990s alone claimed the lives of up to 1 million people (hard data from Stalinist regimes are difficult to come by).

One also wonders when our troops are going to come home. Technically, the Korean War isn't really even over. We're merely enjoying a cease-fire — much like the one we had with Iraq in the 1990s.

Webb favors a "formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq." Well, our forces have been in South Korea for almost six decades. Something tells me the antiwar base of the Democratic Party doesn't have that sort of timetable in mind for Iraq.

So, except for the fact that the Korean War didn't end, our troops are still there and the outcome has been the source of humanitarian and national security nightmares, Webb's salute to Eisenhower's statesmanship really strikes home.

The article's title: "Fight today or occupy forever."

The Error in MSM Reporting of Presidential Polls

The latest polls show GWB with extremely low approval ratings.

As a professional market researcher, it is part of my job to design market research studies, write the questionnaires, supervise the fieldwork, and analyze the results.

One traditional use of market research is to determine the efficiency of advertising campaigns. One way in which this is done is via awareness and attitude studies. In these studies, people are contacted, screened to include only those who are potential customers, and then asked a series of questions designed to determine their awareness of and attitudes towards the product or service.

Changes in attitudes can often interpreted as being in part the result of changes in the product's ad campaign.

This leads us to the error in MSM reports about these polls. MSM reports rarely (if ever) note that their own coverage - in this case, the equivalent of a product's ad campaign - is part of the cause of the lower poll ratings.

If MSM had been boosting GWB for the past 6 years, rather than slamming him as they have done - e.g. if they had been printing the good news from Iraq, as well as the bad, or if they had been presenting the good news on the economy as prominently as its significance deserves - there can be little doubt that his poll ratings would be higher.

The poll results are a measure of MSM's biased coverage as much as they are of the President's job performance.

Given MSM's relentlessly biased coverage, it is not possible to reasonably interpret presidential polls as being exclusively a result of the facts about the president's policies; the polls measure the result of MSM coverage at least as much.

There is a saying in the advertising business: nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising. This means that if the product is bad, good advertising will get more people to try it faster, find out about how bad it is, and drop it.

But I have never yet heard of a study of how fast intentionally damaging advertising can hurt a good product. And MSM's biased coverage is very similar to intentionally damaging advertising.

January 22, 2007

Washington Post Deficit Analysis Buries, Omits Key Facts

From last week's Washington Post:

Burden Set to Shift On Balanced Budget

Bush Likely to Force Democrats' Hand

When he takes the House rostrum next week for the State of the Union address, President Bush will list among his goals a balanced federal budget, a shift for a president who has presided over record deficits while aggressively cutting taxes.

Politically, analysts say, the president is calling the bluff of Democrats, who won control of Congress in part by accusing Bush of reckless fiscal policies. While Bush now shares the Democrats' goal to erase the deficit by 2012, the politically perilous work of making that happen -- cutting spending or raising taxes -- falls to the Democratic-run Congress.

The article says that the only way to erase the deficit is by cutting spending or raising taxes. However, the trend over the past few years is for the deficit to be reduced without either of those strategies. From Will Franklin:

Fiscal Year '07, in Federal Budget terms, is only three months old, a quarter of the way finished. But, just like the past couple/few years now, there is already a marked trend worth noting.

The federal budget deficit is shrinking, as robust tax revenues flow in faster than before the President's tax relief.

Here are the numbers (.pdf):

The government took in $573,524 million in the first three months of FY07, versus $530,210 million in the first three months of FY06. That's an increase of 8.17%.

The government spent $653,925 million in the first three months of FY07, versus $649,592 million in the first three months of FY06. That's an increase of 0.67%.

...In the short run, we're doing great. We'll have federal budget surpluses by sometime near the 2008 presidential election (actually, July 2008).

Late in the article (paragraph 14) we find a statement that is carefully crafted to acknowledge that the deficit has been dropping since 2004: "The budget returned to deficit in 2002, and the deficit peaked two years later." But of the few readers who get that far, fewer still will recognize this as such an acknowledgment.

This is a good example of how many readers of MSM get an inaccurate view of what's going on in this country.

Paragraph 15 of the article considers the view (often expressed on this site - see links below) that the GWB tax cuts have caused the increased tax revenues, and rejects it with little explanation: 

Since then, an unexpected gusher of tax revenue has flooded the Treasury, driven largely by stratospheric corporate profits. Bush credits his tax cuts with spurring the economy and producing more tax receipts, an argument that has been refuted by many conservative economists and Bush's own Treasury Department.

The article provides no information to back up the statement that the Treasury Dept. has "refuted" this view, and does not identify the "many conservative economists" it says have also done so. 

On the plus side, the article spotlights efforts by GWB to cut entitlement programs so as to avoid a potential crisis in unfunded entitlement commitments:

Bush has given two newcomers, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman, the task of approaching congressional Democrats to look for potential compromises on entitlements. Paulson, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, has identified the looming crisis as one of his top reasons for joining the administration. Portman, too, has a passion for the issue. Last week, he took part in the "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour" at Ohio State University organized by a variety of groups, including some strong critics of the administration.

Among them was Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who welcomed Portman's participation. Sawhill said she believed Portman and Paulson were responsible for the president's new enthusiasm for deficit reduction.

"I'm quite sure they want to get the word out about entitlements and educate the public. This could be a new way of putting Social Security and Medicare at the top of the agenda," Sawhill said. "I have this sense that these guys like Portman and Paulson have been unleashed."

See also these previous posts:

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Strong Growth in Jobs and Wages

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Receipts Show Biggest Gain in 25 Years

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Cuts Power Growth in Consumer Wealth *and* Cut Deficit

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: More Great News on the Economy

The Tax Cuts Worked-Economic Expansion: Year Five

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Cuts Power the Economy

The Bush Tax Cuts Have Resulted in Higher Tax Revenue

Lower Taxes Make the Economy Stronger

Lower Tax Rates Are Resulting In Higher Tax Revenue

A Myth Debunked: Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Favor the Rich

Tax Cuts Work: Government Forecasting Incorrectly Thought Tax Costs Would Reduce Tax Revenue

January 19, 2007

Muslim Leaders Object to TV Show about Islamic Terrorists - But not To Actual Islamic Terrorists

Muslim leaders get upset and object loudly when anyone talks about Muslims being terrorists (as in the case of the complaints of Muslim leaders about the new season of 24) - but they never get upset and object loudly when Muslims actually are terrorists. When a Muslim blows up a bus, train, plane, or restaurant, in the name of Islam, these Muslim leaders never speak out loudly against it. They never say that anyone who does that in the name of Islam is not going to heaven and is not getting 72 virgins. They never speak out loudly saying that such a person has acted against Islam. You never hear a word from them, except some generic CYA line about "we are against all terrorism." But if a TV show depicts what's in the news almost every day - i.e. a Muslim blowing up a public place explicitly in the name of Islam - Muslim leaders have plenty of complaints to make about the depiction.

Why aren't these same Muslim leaders complaining loudly about the Imams who were just exposed, via covert videotape, at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, England? As shown in this week's British TV documentary, those imams in a large, influential, and supposedly "moderate" mosque in England, were videotaped calling outright for Muslims to "hate" non-Muslims; for Muslims to attack women and gays; for Muslims to look forward to a day when Muslims will get the upper hand and when non-Muslims will be killed; for Muslims to form "a state within a state" until they "take over"; and for Muslims to be unsatisfied living in anything other than "the total Islamic state."

But these Islamic leaders aren't speaking out against any of that this week. 

No. Not at all.

Instead they speak out against the depiction on TV of Muslims doing -- what the imams preached in favor of.

Does their silence on those who blow up planes, trains, busses, and restaurants, equal tacit support for such people? It's time to ask them to speak out loudly and object to such people, or to admit their tacit support for them.

Does their silence on the preaching shown in the British TV documentary, equal tacit support for such preaching? It's time to ask them to speak out loudly and object to such preaching, or to admit their tacit support for it.

January 18, 2007

Germany Shows the Way - Upholds Ban on Teachers’ Clothing that is Incompatible with Western Values

Yesterday I posted regarding the possible need for new laws to let us shut down mosques that preach racism, hatred, and the overthrow of western freedoms, laws, and governments.

Commenter A.M. Whittaker posted a link to an article on related legislation. States in Germany are making laws requiring teachers not to wear Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols that are incompatible with western values:

The amendment applies to ``symbols and clothing that express religious or ideological beliefs and at the same time can also be understood as an expression of an attitude incompatible with basic constitutional values and educational aims,'' according to an explanatory note on the law posted by the state government on the Bavarian parliament Web site. ``What matters is not the teacher's intention in wearing the item, but the possible interpretation.''

Headscarves will not be allowed under the law as some of those who support wearing them regard them as an expression of a lower status for women or of fundamentalism, in contradiction of the constitutional right of equality, the government said.

...Christian and Jewish symbols and clothing, such as nun's habits, will be excluded from the Bavarian ban, which takes effect Jan. 1. Teachers can wear such items in schools as they reflect the cultural and educational values of the state, the law says.

That is very important, especially in light of this week's British TV documentary, in which secret cameras were used to covertly videotape imams in a large, influential, and supposedly "moderate" mosque in England, calling outright for Muslims to "hate" non-Muslims; for Muslims to attack women and gays; for Muslims to look forward to a day when Muslims will get the upper hand and when non-Muslims will be killed; for Muslims to form "a state within a state" until they "take over"; and for Muslims to be unsatisfied living in anything other than "the total Islamic state." Islam is being used by many of its preachers as a call to treason, death, murder, and the destruction of Western freedoms, laws, and governments. We need laws such as this German one to protect our freedoms and way of life.

Germany has tragic experience with the evils of racism and is showing leadership in banning the racism preached by many imams. This week a German court upheld the legislation:

MUNICH, Germany - A court on Monday upheld a ban on Muslim teachers wearing head scarves in the schools of a German state under a law that says teachers' attire must be in line with "western Christian" values.

What is tremendously significant here is how the Court addressed the issue of religious freedom:

A Berlin-based Islamic association had complained about the law, which authorities in the conservative-run state of Bavaria have used to ban head scarves while allowing Roman Catholic nuns to continue to wear their head-covering habits in schools.

The Bavarian Constitutional Court ruled on Monday that the application of the law in the state neither violated religious freedom nor was discriminatory.

The court is distinguishing between religion and political ideology. Religion is protected, but not political ideology that opposes the nation's constitutional freedoms and laws:

...The state government [...] argued that the hijab -- a headscarf which is meant to shield Muslim women from the eyes of men outside their family -- was clashing with gender equality, which is guaranteed by the constitution.

This distinction between religion and political ideology in Islam is the key to creating laws that can prevent Islamic institutions from preaching racism, murder, violent attacks, etc. - which are attacks on our freedoms, laws, and constitution - and which are incompatible with our goals as a loving culture that seeks the health, success and well-being of all its citizens.