Privatization At Work
Published by BG on Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 3:51 PM.Feds target Blackwater in weapons probe - Yahoo! News
Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.
Go Go Team Blackwater!
Powered by ScribeFire.
The Ahmadinejad Terrorism Accusation
Published by BG on at 11:23 AM.Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism, designated as such by our government.
State Sponsors of Terrorism
What, exactly, does that mean?
State Sponsors: Iran - Council on Foreign Relations
From what I can tell, the historical evidence is mainly related to an incident in 1996 orchestrated by a group we believe Iran supports, along with a variety of "sins" against the state of Israel. In the present, the label is being applied to demonize Iran's support of Shiite factions in Iraq, specifically that of Muqtada al-Sadr.
So is Muqtada al-Sadr a terrorist? Well, only if you buy the line that anyone who opposesour occupation "peace" in Iraq is a terrorist:
Muqtada al-Sadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm certainly not arguing that this behavior isn't despicable, but it's not terrorism, nor was Shiite control "sponsored" by Iran an unpredictable outcome of our poorly strategized invasion.
One More Chalabi Black Eye -- Robert Scheer in The Nation -- August 10, 2004
Add to this the argument that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons continues to be an additional bugaboo for our foreign policy elite's argument to war, despite having less than solid ground on which to base this accusation.
So what do we have? We have an Iranian government that supports its ideological Shiite brethren like Hezbollah and, apparently, Sunni groups like Hamas in their efforts against Israel - a state the remainder of the Middle East dislikes as much for their aggressive militarism as they do for their religious ideology (at least). The Iranians also have been backing the Shiite majority in various regions of Iraq, and do so despite the wishes of the American government. The Iranians are also accused of developing nuclear weaponry, a charge which some non-partisan groups dispute.
These are the actions of a rational state interested in the growth of Shiite interests in the region.
Let me be clear what I mean by "rational state." I am not endorsing their actions. I am simply stating that their policies as they relate to their regional relationships make sense, considering their goals. They appear to be interested in regional stability, at least as it relates to the ability of Shiite majorities in places like Iraq to assert their political control.
Don't believe me? Look at this:
In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue
Naturally, our administration is more interested in having an enemy to topple than a friend with whom we can collaborate. But the larger point is that Iran is acting from a position of national interest, not irrational ideology. They have demonstrated (previously, before we ratcheted up our rhetoric identifying them as an enemy) they are willing to work with America to find mutually beneficial solutions to the problems both countries have faced in that region.
Moreover, in the days since we've turned our backs on this opportunity to increase our partnership in the region with Iran, we've increasingly identified them as our opponent, despite very little difference in their national behavior between 2003 and the present.
Why is that? And what exactly is Iran doing that causes us to label them "terrrorists?" Is it really all about Hamas and Hezbollah, and if so, why do we reflexively believe Israel's regional enemies pose some sort of existential threat to America?
No one's arguing that Iranian interests and American interests aren't two wildly different things, and no one's trying to argue that Hezbollah and Hamas don't work against peace in Israel, and no one's trying to argue that supporting al-Sadr's militias isn't throwing a wedge in the (nearly impossible to achieve) goal of a peaceful representative democracy in Iraq.
But I don't get how these actions by Iran are akin to making Ahmadinejad equal to bin Laden and Hitler times ten. And I think the major weakness with American's neoconservative-fueled foreign policy goal is that it refuses to acknowledge when various states in regions in whichwe're destabilizing we're "encouraging regime change" have national interests that are valid and deserve to be considered as we press forward.
You heard me.
This isn't the same thing as so-called "appeasement." We don't like that China is a Communist state, nor do we like that they are a nuclear power with an enormous army, but we let Wal-Mart buy their products anyway. American interests in this case are well-served by allowing ideology to be put aside for mutually beneficial gains. China gets an increase to their GDP, we get cheaper TVs, China is encouraged not to screw a good thing up by attempting to re-invent the domino theory in southeast Asia (and we don't fuck with their leadership and attempt to "regime change" them into something we think is more palatable to our tastes).
Iran wanted to come to the table in 2003 and explore political gain for all sides. To me, this doesn't sound like the actions of a terrorist state. We had an opportunity to work to make Israel safer and to increase the friendships and partnerships necessary to stabilize the region. We chose not to do so, and instead fan the flames which incite irrational hatred towards Iran.
Iran's current "sponsorship of terrorism" isn't the problem we need to be worried about now. It is to our peril that we refuse to acknowledge the validity of rational state actions in the Middle East if the ideologies which bind them are unpalatable to our own. We should be interested in a Middle East that fosters a sort-of federalist cooperation between the states, in that Sunnis could emigrate to a Sunni state and Shiites to their own, but under a mutually tolerable cooperation where every state recognizes the rights of the others to exist and govern themselves. This is the goal towards which we should be working, as it becomes more and more obvious every day that destabilization in the interest of "regime change" isn't working out all that well.
Is tolerable cooperation in the Middle East a pipe dream? Perhaps. But it's far more noble an idea than the reflexive accusations of terrorism against those states with whom we disagree. Our belligerent posture towards governments who exhibit support of militaristic tactics and, ultimately, terrorism, puts us in a position where negotiation towards international goals becomes impossible. So long as we have this administration in office, our cowboy aesthetic will continue to push rational state actions towards the fringes, taking any chance at cooperation and detente off the table.
If peace and stability is really our goal, we can do better than to turn heads of state into mini-Hitlers when we're trying to put Americans in a mental state of readiness for upcoming war. We should be better than that.
State Sponsors of Terrorism
Country :: Designation Date
Iran :: January 19, 1984
What, exactly, does that mean?
State Sponsors: Iran - Council on Foreign Relations
What terrorist groups are linked to Iran?
U.S. officials say Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and such Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A few months after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections in early 2006, Iran pledged $50 million to the near-bankrupt PA. The United States, among other nations, has cut off aid to the PA because of Hamas’ terrorist ties.
Iran is suspected of encouraging Hezbollah’s July 2006 attack on Israel to deflect international attention from its nuclear weapons program. Iran was also reportedly involved in a Hezbollah-linked January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the PA. Some reports also suggest that Iran’s interference in Iraq has included funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.
What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?
The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following:
* Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a UN observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.
* Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.
* U.S. officials say Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.
From what I can tell, the historical evidence is mainly related to an incident in 1996 orchestrated by a group we believe Iran supports, along with a variety of "sins" against the state of Israel. In the present, the label is being applied to demonize Iran's support of Shiite factions in Iraq, specifically that of Muqtada al-Sadr.
So is Muqtada al-Sadr a terrorist? Well, only if you buy the line that anyone who opposes
Muqtada al-Sadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Muqtada al-Sadr's militia have been involved in widespread ethnic cleansing of Sunni, especially those living in Shia areas. Reports also indicate that the death squads which have been responsible for the deaths of many Sunnis are not the actions of rogue elements but "a carefully orchestrated response to the attacks of Sunni extremists" by Sadr's Mahdi Army .It is however difficult to determine al-Sadr's personal involvement. His public statements have on occasion condemned violence against Sunnis as well as terrorist attacks directed against the Shia population. He has exhorted his followers not to fall into the trap of retaliation leading to civil war. He claims that America stands to gain the most from an Iraqi civil war which would require the continued presence of US troops and put the US in the role of political referee and powerbroker between the warring factions.
I'm certainly not arguing that this behavior isn't despicable, but it's not terrorism, nor was Shiite control "sponsored" by Iran an unpredictable outcome of our poorly strategized invasion.
One More Chalabi Black Eye -- Robert Scheer in The Nation -- August 10, 2004
And beyond Chalabi, why did it so thoroughly escape the Bush Administration and much of the media that in deposing the secular Sunni tyrant Hussein we would open the door for the Iraqi Shiite majority to create its own regime--one that would most likely be sympathetic to Shiite Iran not only for religious reasons but because many of its new leaders had been sheltered, armed and financially supported by Tehran when they were in exile.
How ironic that a close alliance between Iraq and the fanatical ayatollahs of Iran is the most likely accomplishment of the US invasion.
Add to this the argument that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons continues to be an additional bugaboo for our foreign policy elite's argument to war, despite having less than solid ground on which to base this accusation.
So what do we have? We have an Iranian government that supports its ideological Shiite brethren like Hezbollah and, apparently, Sunni groups like Hamas in their efforts against Israel - a state the remainder of the Middle East dislikes as much for their aggressive militarism as they do for their religious ideology (at least). The Iranians also have been backing the Shiite majority in various regions of Iraq, and do so despite the wishes of the American government. The Iranians are also accused of developing nuclear weaponry, a charge which some non-partisan groups dispute.
These are the actions of a rational state interested in the growth of Shiite interests in the region.
Let me be clear what I mean by "rational state." I am not endorsing their actions. I am simply stating that their policies as they relate to their regional relationships make sense, considering their goals. They appear to be interested in regional stability, at least as it relates to the ability of Shiite majorities in places like Iraq to assert their political control.
Don't believe me? Look at this:
In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.
[snip]
While the Iranian approach has been previously reported, the actual document making the offer has surfaced only in recent weeks. Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he obtained it from Iranian sources. The Washington Post confirmed its authenticity with Iranian and former U.S. officials.
Parsi said the U.S. victory in Iraq frightened the Iranians because U.S. forces had routed in three weeks an army that Iran had failed to defeat during a bloody eight-year war.
The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Naturally, our administration is more interested in having an enemy to topple than a friend with whom we can collaborate. But the larger point is that Iran is acting from a position of national interest, not irrational ideology. They have demonstrated (previously, before we ratcheted up our rhetoric identifying them as an enemy) they are willing to work with America to find mutually beneficial solutions to the problems both countries have faced in that region.
Moreover, in the days since we've turned our backs on this opportunity to increase our partnership in the region with Iran, we've increasingly identified them as our opponent, despite very little difference in their national behavior between 2003 and the present.
Why is that? And what exactly is Iran doing that causes us to label them "terrrorists?" Is it really all about Hamas and Hezbollah, and if so, why do we reflexively believe Israel's regional enemies pose some sort of existential threat to America?
No one's arguing that Iranian interests and American interests aren't two wildly different things, and no one's trying to argue that Hezbollah and Hamas don't work against peace in Israel, and no one's trying to argue that supporting al-Sadr's militias isn't throwing a wedge in the (nearly impossible to achieve) goal of a peaceful representative democracy in Iraq.
But I don't get how these actions by Iran are akin to making Ahmadinejad equal to bin Laden and Hitler times ten. And I think the major weakness with American's neoconservative-fueled foreign policy goal is that it refuses to acknowledge when various states in regions in which
You heard me.
This isn't the same thing as so-called "appeasement." We don't like that China is a Communist state, nor do we like that they are a nuclear power with an enormous army, but we let Wal-Mart buy their products anyway. American interests in this case are well-served by allowing ideology to be put aside for mutually beneficial gains. China gets an increase to their GDP, we get cheaper TVs, China is encouraged not to screw a good thing up by attempting to re-invent the domino theory in southeast Asia (and we don't fuck with their leadership and attempt to "regime change" them into something we think is more palatable to our tastes).
Iran wanted to come to the table in 2003 and explore political gain for all sides. To me, this doesn't sound like the actions of a terrorist state. We had an opportunity to work to make Israel safer and to increase the friendships and partnerships necessary to stabilize the region. We chose not to do so, and instead fan the flames which incite irrational hatred towards Iran.
Iran's current "sponsorship of terrorism" isn't the problem we need to be worried about now. It is to our peril that we refuse to acknowledge the validity of rational state actions in the Middle East if the ideologies which bind them are unpalatable to our own. We should be interested in a Middle East that fosters a sort-of federalist cooperation between the states, in that Sunnis could emigrate to a Sunni state and Shiites to their own, but under a mutually tolerable cooperation where every state recognizes the rights of the others to exist and govern themselves. This is the goal towards which we should be working, as it becomes more and more obvious every day that destabilization in the interest of "regime change" isn't working out all that well.
Is tolerable cooperation in the Middle East a pipe dream? Perhaps. But it's far more noble an idea than the reflexive accusations of terrorism against those states with whom we disagree. Our belligerent posture towards governments who exhibit support of militaristic tactics and, ultimately, terrorism, puts us in a position where negotiation towards international goals becomes impossible. So long as we have this administration in office, our cowboy aesthetic will continue to push rational state actions towards the fringes, taking any chance at cooperation and detente off the table.
If peace and stability is really our goal, we can do better than to turn heads of state into mini-Hitlers when we're trying to put Americans in a mental state of readiness for upcoming war. We should be better than that.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Don't let him in the country
Published by StB on at 12:40 AM.
In a classic American hatred post, we see:
Unless he sees "Cats." That'd be the last straw.
Sincerely yours,
The American Left
Accepting terrorism is disgusting. If we let them bully us, we become their servants. Our country decided over 200 years ago that we would never- NEVER- be a servant to any other government or religious philosophy.
What should happen to the leader of Iran is simple:
Death by 1000 papercuts>
Even that would be too good for a sponsor of terrorism.
This man is a lunatic. He has talked about wiping Israel off the face of the planet again and again. He believes that he can lead the prophet of Islam into the world today to enslave those who do not follow Islam. He is a madman.
Those who mock us who are opposed to him are irrational at best.
Pardon my confusion, but I’ve been wondering: Where does the American left stand on the many courtesies Columbia University is extending to Mahmoud Ahmadenijad?A: We're not attending his speech, and most of us don't go to Columbia, so we don't really give a fuck what Ahmadinejad does in New York.
Unless he sees "Cats." That'd be the last straw.
Sincerely yours,
The American Left
Accepting terrorism is disgusting. If we let them bully us, we become their servants. Our country decided over 200 years ago that we would never- NEVER- be a servant to any other government or religious philosophy.
What should happen to the leader of Iran is simple:
Death by 1000 papercuts>
In a world of perfect karma, Ahmadinejad would be captured by American "students" and held hostage for over a year, paraded before TV cameras and threatened almost daily with death.
Even that would be too good for a sponsor of terrorism. This man is a lunatic. He has talked about wiping Israel off the face of the planet again and again. He believes that he can lead the prophet of Islam into the world today to enslave those who do not follow Islam. He is a madman.
Those who mock us who are opposed to him are irrational at best.
Gee Alan, whaddya mean?
Published by Human Head on at 12:27 AM.Have you been listening to those conspiracy wackos again? The idea of a completely separate, independent, and private Central Bank dictating the economic policy for the entire country. That would mean it could pursue its own independent and private agenda....well, gosh, that just doesn't make sense.
Greenspan Admits Fed Is Not Beholden To Any Government Agency
Greenspan Admits Fed Is Not Beholden To Any Government Agency
"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter.”
What did the five fingers say to the face?
SLAP!
I'm Alan Greenspan, bitch.
Easy Answers To Dumb Questions
Published by BG on Friday, September 21, 2007 at 6:29 PM.Townhall.com::Blog
Pardon my confusion, but I’ve been wondering: Where does the American left stand on the many courtesies Columbia University is extending to Mahmoud Ahmadenijad?
A: We're not attending his speech, and most of us don't go to Columbia, so we don't really give a fuck what Ahmadinejad does in New York.
Unless he sees "Cats." That'd be the last straw.
Sincerely yours,
The American Left
Powered by ScribeFire.
It's not just our government that's saying "Fuck You"
Published by Human Head on at 6:10 PM.AFP: Dutch government says no referendum on new EU treaty
THE HAGUE (AFP) — The Dutch government on Friday refused to order a referendum on a new EU constitutional treaty which risks opening up new divisions over Europe.
Voters in the Netherlands and France in 2005 rejected an earlier proposal for an EU constitution in referendums, plunging the EU into a major political crisis. Much of Europe has been watching to see whether the Dutch government would call a popular vote.
Governments worldwide are showing their efficiency as they bypass the troublesome citizenry they serve. And of course, you have the same thing in Britain. After all, the EU is an integral part of the supra-national government plans that have been around for a great many years.
Wait till they see our NAU referendum. When was that supposed to be, again?
Oh, this is rich.
Published by Human Head on at 4:36 PM.Says the PR guy....
AFP: Photo led to arrest of alleged Iranian bomber: US
AFP: Photo led to arrest of alleged Iranian bomber: US
"I can't provide the specific evidence we have for security reasons, but I can say that coalition forces identified the individual on the scene from a photo, so we are confident we have the guy we were looking for," Major Winfield Danielson told AFP.
Yes, for security reasons. Or to try and further convince a herd of stupid Americans that Iran is the Great Evil that is causing all of their problems.
PS--Don't forget about those terrorists that could pop out at any time. Scary.
Giuliani displays his ignorance. Yet Again.
Published by Human Head on at 4:26 PM.This may focus on Ghouliani, but this kind of talk comes from nearly all of our ignorant and corrupt politicians.
Bloomberg.com: Politics
This doesn't matter though. These people are hot for more war, and Iran is part of the plan. Hence the headlines denouncing Iran for pledging self-defense, as such things aren't allowed.
Update: I just read Glen Greenwald, who addresses the same in his post from earlier today.
Bloomberg.com: Politics
Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani threatened to put Iran ``back five years'' if the Islamic Republic gets close to developing nuclear weapons.So let's go ahead and re-visit the most recent IAEA findings.
`I believe the U.S. and its allies should deliver a very clear message to Iran,'' Giuliani told reporters today during a visit to London to deliver a lecture and meet with U.K. leaders. `They are not going to be allowed to become a nuclear power. It is just not going to happen.''
Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.
Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.
Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.
This doesn't matter though. These people are hot for more war, and Iran is part of the plan. Hence the headlines denouncing Iran for pledging self-defense, as such things aren't allowed.
Update: I just read Glen Greenwald, who addresses the same in his post from earlier today.
Plainly, the last thing most Americans want is for the U.S. to expand its involvement in Middle East wars, particularly when doing so is on behalf of the interests not of the U.S., but of another country. Yet here is Giuliani advocating that we do exactly that -- embrace an obviously radical strategy opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans, likely vehemently opposed -- and the silence is deafening.
Ron Paul rips into Bernake
Published by Human Head on at 3:59 PM.
And look at how much Helicopter Ben doesn't give a shit and also how he doesn't answer the question.
Don't worry. Ron Paul is crazy and the economy is fantastic. The teevee said so and they referenced the tried, true, not at all a sham stock market.
(h/t Jones Report)
Don't worry. Ron Paul is crazy and the economy is fantastic. The teevee said so and they referenced the tried, true, not at all a sham stock market.
(h/t Jones Report)
An Open Letter To Senator Bob Casey (D-PA)
Published by BG on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 4:16 PM.(Sent just now via his website)
I am deeply disappointed in Senator Casey's YEA vote today on Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934, "condemning" progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad.
I am a registered Pennsylvania Democrat who voted for Senator Casey in 2006, and will do my best to support and advocate a strong, principled, progressive candidate for his seat in 2012. I sincerely hope that candidate is Senator Casey.
Until Democrats develop the ability to call Republican rhetorical tactics out for what they are in no uncertain terms, Democrats will continue to be perceived as weak and ineffectual by the voting populace. A NAY vote, or perhaps even an abstention when called, could have sent a strong signal that the United States Senate should not waste their time on frivolous declarations, and could have gone a long way towards helping those of us who oppose this administration's encroachment on our liberties feel more empowered to speak out and generate the true progressive support our party needs to win in 2008.
Your YEA vote today shows that an obstructionist minority party can continue to control the talking points in the press, and can continue to push the majority's agenda further and further from the discussion and debate needed to bring America to the table.
Please consider working towards representing the progressive voters who helped you beat Santorum in 2006, and please help me feel more confident in my support for you in 2012.
Thank you,
[BG]
Allentown, PA
I am deeply disappointed in Senator Casey's YEA vote today on Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934, "condemning" progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad.
I am a registered Pennsylvania Democrat who voted for Senator Casey in 2006, and will do my best to support and advocate a strong, principled, progressive candidate for his seat in 2012. I sincerely hope that candidate is Senator Casey.
Until Democrats develop the ability to call Republican rhetorical tactics out for what they are in no uncertain terms, Democrats will continue to be perceived as weak and ineffectual by the voting populace. A NAY vote, or perhaps even an abstention when called, could have sent a strong signal that the United States Senate should not waste their time on frivolous declarations, and could have gone a long way towards helping those of us who oppose this administration's encroachment on our liberties feel more empowered to speak out and generate the true progressive support our party needs to win in 2008.
Your YEA vote today shows that an obstructionist minority party can continue to control the talking points in the press, and can continue to push the majority's agenda further and further from the discussion and debate needed to bring America to the table.
Please consider working towards representing the progressive voters who helped you beat Santorum in 2006, and please help me feel more confident in my support for you in 2012.
Thank you,
[BG]
Allentown, PA
Powered by ScribeFire.
NEWSFLASH! All Followers of A Religion Don't Have Exactly The Same Beliefs!
Published by Pokerwolf on at 3:28 PM.
Swedish Cartoons - Muslims Against Sharia
In case the point hasn't been driven home enough, I'll point out that Iraqis are Muslims. You know, the guys who are currently fighting alongside our troops to defend themselves, their families, and their country from terrorists?
Muslims Against Sharia praise the courage of Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Thorbjorn Larsson and the staff of Nerikes Allehanda and Dagens Nyheter and condemn threats issued by Abu Omar Al Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq. Muslims Against Sharia will provide a payment of 100,000kr (about $15,000) for the information leading to capture or neutralization of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.
In case the point hasn't been driven home enough, I'll point out that Iraqis are Muslims. You know, the guys who are currently fighting alongside our troops to defend themselves, their families, and their country from terrorists?
Christ, What An Asshole - Any Religion But That One Edition
Published by Pokerwolf on at 2:24 PM.
New Jihad Watch: Footbaths on the March - Hot Air
The video is where all of the blathering goes on about "Muslim pressure" and so forth. The really amusing part of the video is that, during the first minute or so, Robert Spencer talks about how wonderful footbaths are and how it would be great to soak your feet at an airport. Which I, and most travellers who are stuck in an airport because of a plane transfer or a delay, agree with. Then, the rest of the segment is spent talking about how these specific footbaths are bad. Why?
Because, GASPSHOCKHORROR!, Muslims requested them. The comments section has more of the same sort of thinking in it:
Obviously, this commenter (and other commenters with similar thoughts) haven't been in an airport in the past 30 to 40 years. Every single airport I have been in has a chapel which is open to the public. Likewise, the footbaths that are going to be installed will be, you guessed it, open to the public. (How would they keep them closed to just Muslims? A special password or a funky handshake?)
Mr. Spencer wonders, at the end of his segment, what will happen if a bunch of "Muslim taxi drivers" (because, you know, there can't be Muslim businessmen or businesswomen who would be flying in planes, for example) enters the footbath when a non-Muslim was soaking their feet.
I'm betting the answer would be what would happen if a non-Chrisitan was in the chapel having some quiet time and a gaggle of Christians came in to have a quick prayer session.
Nothing.
The Indianapolis airport has joined several other airports and universities in installing footbaths, at taxpayer expense, for Muslims to use in preparation for their prayers. Robert Spencer brings us the story.
The video is where all of the blathering goes on about "Muslim pressure" and so forth. The really amusing part of the video is that, during the first minute or so, Robert Spencer talks about how wonderful footbaths are and how it would be great to soak your feet at an airport. Which I, and most travellers who are stuck in an airport because of a plane transfer or a delay, agree with. Then, the rest of the segment is spent talking about how these specific footbaths are bad. Why?
Because, GASPSHOCKHORROR!, Muslims requested them. The comments section has more of the same sort of thinking in it:
I would like a small Christian chapel where I could pray before flights that no suspicious-acting muslims would be on board my flight, spouting “Allah this and Allah that”, putting their seatbelt extenders on the floor, and moving about the cabin speaking in Arabic with each other.
Obviously, this commenter (and other commenters with similar thoughts) haven't been in an airport in the past 30 to 40 years. Every single airport I have been in has a chapel which is open to the public. Likewise, the footbaths that are going to be installed will be, you guessed it, open to the public. (How would they keep them closed to just Muslims? A special password or a funky handshake?)
Mr. Spencer wonders, at the end of his segment, what will happen if a bunch of "Muslim taxi drivers" (because, you know, there can't be Muslim businessmen or businesswomen who would be flying in planes, for example) enters the footbath when a non-Muslim was soaking their feet.
I'm betting the answer would be what would happen if a non-Chrisitan was in the chapel having some quiet time and a gaggle of Christians came in to have a quick prayer session.
Nothing.
It Was An AD In The NEWSPAPER
Published by BG on at 1:52 PM.Daily Kos: Do the Democrats even know who votes for them anymore?
The Democrats just passed a Republican resolution condemning the MoveOn ad that called General Petraeus a biased figurehead 72-25.
They're all pussies. Every Democrat who voted for this unbelievably asinine and useless bullshit. Every single one of them.
As if there are no more pressing issues to worry about than an ad that ran one day in a newspaper. Don't get me started on the fact that the president saw fit to comment publicly on this either. What a contrived story, and what a transparently desperate effort to keep it alive for another news cycle.
Mission accomplished though.
And they wonder why they're polling so low...
Powered by ScribeFire.
Fireworks Spectacular
Published by BG on at 8:50 AM.Hot Air » Blog Archive » Outrage: Ahmadinejad to visit Ground Zero? Update: Despite NYPD rejection, visit may still be on
If it happens, if this Holocaust-denying terrorist filthbag is allowed to use the remains of the Trade Center for a photo op, the rage on the right will burn so white hot that even the anti-amnesty activism this summer will pale by comparison.
Call me sick, but I'd actually like to see this happen, only because the vituperative bitterness and anger displayed on the righty blogs is going to make the Beauchamp incident look reasoned and nuanced by comparison.
I'm almost giddy, really.
To be clear, this guy asking for a photo-op at ground zero shows that he's a petty asshole. Connecting that request to any larger agenda (e.g., recruiting terrorists, propaganda implying US endorsement of his views or policies) is fairly petty as well. Plus, when something like this is subject to THE RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION of greater Blogabama, then it gets far more attention than it deserves. Far more.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Republicochristojudeoassholiofascism, Illustrated
Published by BG on at 8:29 AM.Rep. Peter King: There are "too many mosques in this country” - The Crypt's Blog - Politico.com
New York Rep. Peter King, a prominent House Republican, said there are “too many mosques in this country” in a recent interview with Politico.
I think there are too many christians, but we all have our opinions.
“There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam,” King said. “We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them.”
The latter notion is, you know, actually a pretty good idea. If, that is, you believe that terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Still, this guy's christojudeofascist (I'm rather enjoying myself making up new "-ofascist" categories) attitude towards Muslims crosses a line of human decency, and I hope his next election opponent kicks his ass all over his district for saying it. Also, it's a good thing this guy doesn't have any real power...
King is the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee.
Oh. Nevermind.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Adding Another To The List Of Things I Don't Understand
Published by BG on at 7:57 AM.Think Progress » Breaking: Webb amendment fails.
The Senate just voted 56 to 44 on Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) amendment “requiring that active-duty troops and units have at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas.” The bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to move forward.
Obviously, "failed to garner the 60 votes" means the Democratic leadership ever-so-politely allowed the cloture vote on this amendment, which gave the Republicans a chance to obstruct without having to filibuster.
Why in lord baby jesus god's name isn't the leadership making the Republicans stand up and tell America exactly why the troops don't need rest? Even if the Republicans who oppose want to say it's a "political game" designed to "end run the president to stop the war," isn't that exactly what most Americans want them to do? Why isn't it a winning strategy to turn the "support the troops" mantra back on the Republicans? This seems like rich territory to mine, so why the goddamnmotherfuckityshitfuck are they voting on cloture and not debating the amendment?
Powered by ScribeFire.
The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves
Published by Human Head on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM.
Let's ignore the tasering of the loud, rude kid at John Kerry's latest appearance and move attention over to Roseland, Indiana.
David Snyder released from jail after being bloodied at council meeting.
Or, put another way, Thug in Uniform Beats City Council Member for Disagreeing with Tiny Fiefdom Lord and then "Resisting".
What really has me awestruck is reading the accompanying article after watching the video.
"The melee started because David Snyder protested after being given only one minute to speak by council member Charlie Shields. After a heated argument, laced with profanities, Shields kicked Snyder from the meeting."
The "melee"!? There was no group combat here. There was an argument, one which was evidently "laced with profanities". Profanities. My God. Surely he already knows that profanity is immoral and uncivilized, and therefore must surely be against the law, or at the very least punishable somehow.
Awesome. God Bless The New Amerika and it's drooling pit-bull police.
(Every time I see one of these I think of the movie Drop Dead gorgeous....."Brutality? Shit no. After some extensive investigating, we determined it was a melee.")
David Snyder released from jail after being bloodied at council meeting.
Or, put another way, Thug in Uniform Beats City Council Member for Disagreeing with Tiny Fiefdom Lord and then "Resisting".
What really has me awestruck is reading the accompanying article after watching the video.
"The melee started because David Snyder protested after being given only one minute to speak by council member Charlie Shields. After a heated argument, laced with profanities, Shields kicked Snyder from the meeting."
The "melee"!? There was no group combat here. There was an argument, one which was evidently "laced with profanities". Profanities. My God. Surely he already knows that profanity is immoral and uncivilized, and therefore must surely be against the law, or at the very least punishable somehow.
Awesome. God Bless The New Amerika and it's drooling pit-bull police.
(Every time I see one of these I think of the movie Drop Dead gorgeous....."Brutality? Shit no. After some extensive investigating, we determined it was a melee.")
Civics Quiz
Published by BG on at 6:35 PM.Another Example of Progress
Published by Human Head on at 3:39 PM.Don't worry, we can still win! Go Team!
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US diplomats grounded in Iraq row
war occupation. The longer we stay, the more likely we can root out more such inefficiencies. Surely this must have been what Wolfie had in mind when he said the war would likely cost Americans nothing.
Ha.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US diplomats grounded in Iraq row
In a statement sent to US citizens in Iraq on Wednesday, the US embassy said it had suspended all road journeys by its diplomats throughout the country in order to conduct a safety review.All further efforts to "help the Iraqi's stand up" will be done over the phone. Besides, this way is better as it will help defray the rising costs of the
"This suspension is in effect in order to assess mission security and procedures, as well as a possible increased threat to personnel travelling with security details outside the [Green Zone]," it said.
The BBC's Hugh Sykes in Baghdad says the state department will also have taken into account the increased danger for Blackwater employees if they continue to operate in Iraq.
Last week, the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, spoke of the importance of private security contractors in Iraq and our correspondent says it will now be very difficult for some US diplomats to conduct their normal business. The ban is expected mainly to affect those state department personnel involved in reconstruction projects, but it may also restrict contact with the Iraqi foreign ministry, which is based outside the Green Zone.
Ha.
Inflation? Pfft. The Peso Dollar kicks ass.
Published by Human Head
on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 7:20 PM.
“Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.” Daniel Webster
A longish article by Mike Whitney before the Fed came down with todays "surprise" rate cut.
U.S. Banks Brace for Storm Surge as Dollar and Credit System Reel
Post rate cut from Forbes:
The dollar 'screamed lower,' said Briefing.com analysts, 'as the FOMC scared the heck out of those thinning ranks in the dollar recovery camp.' The greenback hit new all time lows against the euro around 1.40 while the pound jumped to more than 2.01.
And from Bloomberg....
Report: Greenspan says euro could replace U.S. dollar as reserve currency of choice
I'll let you all go to town on why this wasn't all over the US media? Extra credit if you feel like taking a stab at what happens when this finally comes to fruition, and make no mistake, it is coming. Greenspan coming out on his media tour in full CYA mode to blame Bush is a very clear signal. The short version?
Clubber Lang said it best...."Pain"
A longish article by Mike Whitney before the Fed came down with todays "surprise" rate cut.
U.S. Banks Brace for Storm Surge as Dollar and Credit System Reel
Post rate cut from Forbes:
The dollar 'screamed lower,' said Briefing.com analysts, 'as the FOMC scared the heck out of those thinning ranks in the dollar recovery camp.' The greenback hit new all time lows against the euro around 1.40 while the pound jumped to more than 2.01.
And from Bloomberg....
The cost of oil used by U.S. refiners averaged $37.48 a barrel in March 1981, according to the Energy Department, or $84.73 in today's dollars. Prices rose from 1979 through 1981 after Iran cut oil exports.
``This is really bullish for crude oil and all real assets in general,'' said Bill O'Grady, director of fundamental futures research at A.G. Edwards & Sons in St. Louis. ``The Fed has made it clear that inflation isn't a big priority, economic growth is. This is bad news for the dollar but good for commodity prices.''
Because surely your wages are keeping pace in our gloriously efficient corporatocracy. And lastly,Report: Greenspan says euro could replace U.S. dollar as reserve currency of choice
I'll let you all go to town on why this wasn't all over the US media? Extra credit if you feel like taking a stab at what happens when this finally comes to fruition, and make no mistake, it is coming. Greenspan coming out on his media tour in full CYA mode to blame Bush is a very clear signal. The short version?
Clubber Lang said it best...."Pain"
Well, maybe not in Topeka
Published by StB on at 12:54 PM.
Dallas Morning News> Muslim Brotherhood's papers detail plan to seize U.S.
Yeah, it couldn't happen. Never in a million years would someone thinks of planning something like this.
The article is worth reading. We can only hope that it is in fact a "tiny radical fringe" that thinks this way but the fact is no one really knows. Meanwhile, stand by for the typical "scary brown people" comments.
A knot of terrorism researchers say the memos and audiotapes, many translated
from Arabic and containing detailed strategies by the international Islamist
group the Muslim Brotherhood, are proof that extremists have long sought to
replace the Constitution with Shariah, or Islamic law.
Yeah, it couldn't happen. Never in a million years would someone thinks of planning something like this.
The article is worth reading. We can only hope that it is in fact a "tiny radical fringe" that thinks this way but the fact is no one really knows. Meanwhile, stand by for the typical "scary brown people" comments.
Predictable Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
Published by BG on at 9:58 AM.OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail: Turbulence Ahead
If you think there are more airport delays and cancellations than ever, you're right. The percentage of late flights has doubled since 2002. And as bad as things are now, they're about to get worse. The Federal Aviation Administration predicts there will be 36% more people flying by 2015. If the U.S. doesn't dramatically expand the capacity of its overburdened air traffic control system, the airlines won't be able to keep up with demand and ticket prices will skyrocket.
Between a Minneapolis bridge collapse and Katrina's decimation of New Orleans' levees we're already seeing warnings from experts that our infrastructure is crumbling. In my opinion, problems with our ability to satisfy demand for aviation services can reasonably be added to this list. Some think it's fair to blame outdated air traffic control, others point to the proliferation of regional jets leading to overcrowded skies above major airports.
Whatever the reason, most people would say that problems with our infrastructure are so big that it's unreasonable to expect they can be fixed without large-scale investment. Whether that's reinforcing our bridges and roadways, rebuilding New Orleans or working to solve the overcrowded skies, it sounds like a job for...
Privatization?
Some 40 nations, including Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland and Fiji, have taken their air traffic control systems out of their calcified government bureaucracies and created public-private partnerships or self-supporting public-sector corporations that can move more quickly and nimbly to meet challenges. A 2005 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that under the new entities have made it possible "to implement modernization projects more efficiently," while "safety of air navigation systems has remained the same or improved."
Since 1996, planes in Canada have been controlled by Nav Canada, an independent user-owned corporation that has unsnarled Canadian airspace. Nav Canada pays for itself through user fees and has thus been able to invest vast sums in new technology while cutting overhead, increasing staffing and raising the salaries of controllers. Airline-related delays have declined and customer service improved.
Even air traffic controllers supported Canada's shift to a privatized system, agreeing that having a government agency ensuring safety while also promoting expansion of air travel was a conflict of interest. In the U.S., privatization isn't popular with the turf-protective Congress, but the alternative--building more runways--faces fierce environmental resistance, and even if overcome would take a decade to implement.
More efficient! Independent! User-Owned! I love this quote especially: Nav Canada pays for itself through user fees and has thus been able to invest vast sums in new technology while cutting overhead, increasing staffing and raising the salaries of controllers. You know what "user fees" are, if they're issued by a government? TAXES. But when they're issued by a private company? Just a user fee. Not a tax.
Forget, for a minute, any bias you have towards the sheer bloat and bureaucracy you feel is part-and-parcel with governmental services. Theoretically speaking, if the government wanted to mobilize their centralized purchasing abilities and create economies of scale for delivering a productive return on their collected "user fees," couldn't they "invest vast sums in new technology while cutting overhead, increasing staffing and raising the salaries of controllers" too?
Republicans tend to answer that question with an incredulous are-you-kidding-me "no." They tend to believe this government is so irretrievably broken that it's impossible to ask it to deliver average-level returns on expectations. Me? I tend to believe this is an excuse to create industry and more wealth for those who are already wealthy enough to make the capital investment necessary to create these new industries, and I also believe it's part of a long-term strategy (er, economic theory) to divest the government of any involvement in the lives of its constituents beyond the realm of national security. There's a belief that if the only thing the government did was provide security, then Republicans would always win. True or false, that's the conventional wisdom.
I believe that there are projects that are so big and demand such central coordination that it is up to the government to deliver them. National security would be one. Running the post office another. Of course, the "free market capitalists" of The Wall Street Journal believe differently. Sell it all off to the richest bidders, let them take their profit, and continue to reinforce the belief that governments are less efficient than "the market" (like we saw with Enron) in delivering the services America relies upon.
So predictable.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Someone Needs To Explain To Me Why This Won't Work...
Published by BG on at 9:11 AM.LOL
Published by BG on at 8:57 AM.Daily Kos: Fairy Tale
Once upon a time, everything was going great in our country -- its finances, its wars, its economy, everything! -- then some organization placed an ad in a newspaper and it was the most horrible thing ever.
It was real bad -- there was an ad. In a newspaper.
And then everything went to shit and that ad was the only thing the pundits could talk about.
The end.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Something we can all agree upon?
Published by StB on at 8:50 AM.
Every once and awhile, the Senate wastes our time and money in a good way.
U.S. Senate Declares September ''National Bourbon Heritage Month''
Only 13 more days of celebration left....
U.S. Senate Declares September ''National Bourbon Heritage Month''
America's Native Spirit DEERFIELD, Ill.--(Business Wire)--Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc., the world's number one bourbon producer, proudly applauds that the U.S. Senate has declared, by unanimous vote, September as "National Bourbon Heritage Month". This resolution reinforces bourbon as "America's Native Spirit" by celebrating the family heritage, tradition and deep-rooted legacy that the bourbon industry contributes to the United States. The resolution calls for consumers who enjoy bourbon to do so responsibly and in moderation.
"This is a great honor that the U.S. Senate has bestowed upon the bourbon industry," said Bill Samuels Jr., president of Maker's Mark Distillery. "The tradition of family heritage, authenticity and craftsmanship behind bourbon is what has made it an American Icon."
Only 13 more days of celebration left....
God Sued - Fox News On The Case
Published by BG on at 8:44 AM.Threat Level - Wired Blogs - Nebraska Senator Sues God to Stop Terror Threats
Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers filed suit against God Friday, asking a court to order the Almighty and his followers to stop making terrorist threats.
The suit (.pdf), filed in a Nebraska district court, contends that God, along with his followers of all persuasions, "has made and continues to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons." Those threats are credible given God's history, Chambers' complaint says.
Frivolous, yes, but that's the point.
State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God - News Story - KETV Omaha
State Senator Ernie Chambers is suing God. He says it to prove a point about frivolous lawsuits.
Chambers says senators periodically have offered bills prohibiting the filing of certain types of suits. He says his main objection is the constitution requires that the doors to the courthouse be open to all. Chambers said, "Thus anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody - even God."
I did a little cursory research on this one because I had a theory. I started with his Wikipedia entry, which provided the first clue. Here's a clip from the page - note the red arrows:
Then I searched and found this report.
Yup. Red arrows again:
Fox News. Fair and Balanced.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Blackwater Banned Means What Exactly?
Published by BG on at 8:12 AM.Matthew Yglesias (September 17, 2007) - Blackwater Banned (Foreign Policy)
Letting people like that wander around the country was a kind of criminal negligence on the part of the Iraqi government and the fact that it took years for this measure to get enacted is fairly shocking. Nevertheless, though Blackwater is the highest-profile contracting firm involved in Iraq, I don't think they're the only one and such unaccountable mercenaries haven't been banned in toto. That that hasn't happened, and that the CPA-era immunity hasn't been repealed, tells you a lot about the imperial character of this venture.
No, what's going to tell you a lot about the imperial character of this venture is when the occupying force tells the democratically-elected Iraqi government to suck it. Blackwater isn't going anywhere. They're in Iraq in a big way, heavily involved, extremely well-connected politically, and work at the bidding of Bush, not Maliki. Even if the Iraqis tried to ban "unaccountable mercenaries... in toto," there's no chance in hell that's going to produce the intended results. No. Chance.
A ban on Blackwater is going to be as effective as a ban on oxygen. Ain't nothing changing. Blackwater won't be held accountable, the administration won't subject them to the Uniform Code, and the Iraqi government once again gets to show its impotence in the world media by making a bluff the US is only going to be too eager to call (especially with Allawi waiting in the wings). If the Iraqis try to hold individual mercenaries accountable, the US and Blackwater will get those individuals on the next flight back home. If the Iraqis try to hold Erik Prince accountable, the US and Blackwater will probably pull a collective gut muscle after eighteen consecutive hours of uncontrollable giggle fits.
Nothing has changed, nothing will change. Not exactly a difficult prediction to make.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What An Asshole - Whining Little Bitch Edition
Published by BG on at 7:59 AM.Rumsfeld Foundation to Encourage Public Service - washingtonpost.com
n a rare foray into public debate since stepping down as defense secretary late last year, Donald H. Rumsfeld blasted the recent advertisement by MoveOn.org against Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and decried the current state of political discourse in Washington for its "tendency to try to criminalize public service."
"It seems that the default position for opponents of anyone is to call them liars and betrayers," he said in an interview last week, referring to MoveOn.org's portrayal of Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, as "General Betray Us." Rumsfeld expressed concern that such attacks will discourage public service, especially among young people.
He also blamed "the press and the Congress," two groups with which he often tangled while running the Pentagon, for "creating an environment that is not particularly hospitable to public service." During Rumsfeld's years at the Pentagon, critics often assailed his famously combative style for contributing to Washington's tough political atmosphere. But even then Rumsfeld could be heard expressing dismay at the negative tone of public discussion and the possibility that it would undermine interest in government jobs.
Now that he is out of office, he has devised a foundation with this concern in mind. The foundation's general goal, he said, is to "encourage reasoned and civil debate" about a range of global challenges. A major feature will be student fellowships to promote study after college in fields related to public policy, with the hope of encouraging young people to go into government.
So Rummy thinks the antidote to the current attitude "the press and the congress" have towards "criminalizing" public service is to set up another wingnut thinktank to encourage "reasoned and civil debate."
FELLOWSHIPS FOR ALL MY IDEOLOGICAL BRETHREN! BRING ME THE COLLECTED WORKS OF IRVING KRISTOL AND SEAN HANNITY'S PHONE NUMBER IMMEDIATELY! WE SHALL BRING HAWKS FROM THE LEFT TO MEET WITH PROFITEERS FROM THE RIGHT AND CALL IT "CONSENSUS!" WE SHALL BE GLORIOUS AND VICTORIOUS IN OUR TRIUMPH OF BLUNT FORCE CIVILITY AS WE USE "REASON" TO ROLL OVER AND SILENCE THE LIBERALS ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Just so we're clear Rummy, I don't think anyone is trying to "criminalize" public service, but criminalizing criminal public service (see Doan, Lurita; Goodling, Monica; et al) seems to have rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. Why is that?
Christ almighty what an asshole.
Link via Booman Tribune
Powered by ScribeFire.
Word to Mos
Published by Human Head on Monday, September 17, 2007 at 10:50 PM.Mos Def, Eminem, and Immortal Technique
A shiny new Think Tank full of Experts
Published by Human Head on at 8:58 PM.Amongst the many articles that caught my eye today, while reading the coverage on Greenspan's coming out party where he largely blames Bush and the Republicans for all of our economic ills, there was the following at the very bottom of one of the Financial Times articles--
FT.com / World / US & Canada - Fed treads a fine line between perils
Here's a bit about the Director of the Institute...
Dallas Fed Announces Leadership and Staff of Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute - News Release 9-17-07 - FRB Dallas
So all you fellow freedom-loving capitalists, go out there and buy some more stuff, stay vigilant for terrorists, and please continue ignoring the fifth plank (and all of the other planks, for that matter) of Marx's manifesto.
FT.com / World / US & Canada - Fed treads a fine line between perils
The Dallas Fed on Monday unveiled its new Globalisation and Monetary Policy Institute. Its advisory board includes Charles Bean, chief economist at the Bank of England, and Otmar Issing, former chief economist at the European Central Bank.It should be noted that Issing is very, very recently "former".
Here's a bit about the Director of the Institute...
Dallas Fed Announces Leadership and Staff of Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute - News Release 9-17-07 - FRB Dallas
Mark A. Wynne joined the Dallas Fed in 1989 and most recently held the position of senior economist and vice president. He is widely published in many leading professional journals. During 1997–98, Wynne worked on issues related to monetary policy strategy under economic and monetary union for the European Monetary Institute and, later, the European Central Bank. He holds first-class honors B.A. and M.A. degrees from the National University of Ireland (University College, Dublin) and an M.A. and a Ph.D. from the University of Rochester. He is a member of the academic board of the Open Republic Institute in Dublin.But why worry about all that? The Fed and it's counterparts are private institutions, after all. Just businessmen doing business like businessmen do as they help guide us through the stormy seas of globalization which is "inevitable". Of course it's inevitable. The television informs us of this constantly.
So all you fellow freedom-loving capitalists, go out there and buy some more stuff, stay vigilant for terrorists, and please continue ignoring the fifth plank (and all of the other planks, for that matter) of Marx's manifesto.
If The Roles Were Reversed, The Noise Machine Would Be Screaming...
Published by BG on at 11:57 AM.RADICAL FASCIST HATE-SITE ADVOCATES EXTRADITION FOR THOSE THAT DISAGREE! WHAT'S NEXT FOR THESE BROWN SHIRTS WHO CONTROL THEIR PARTY AFTER THEY GET THROUGH WITH FREE SPEECH?!?!?!?
Good lord, I have to stop reading right-wing blogs...
Powered by ScribeFire.
