10. Lorraine,France.. A total of 10,489
9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium.. A total of 7992
8. Florence, Italy.. A total of 4402
7. Flanders Field, Belgium .. A total of 368
6. Epinal, France.. American Cemetery. A total of 5525
5. Cambridge , England .. 3812
4. Brookwood, England.. American Cemetery. A total of 468
3. The American Cemetery at Brittany,France.. A total of 4410
2. The American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium.. A total of 5329
1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France.. A total of 2289
---
A 19 year old explains why Israel is a 'rogue' state. This brilliant student crafted his speech around tongue in cheek satirical explanations and made fools of his two debate adversaries in the process.
"The most brilliantly audacious defence of Israel since Moses parted the Red Sea" -- The Irish Independent
UN Watch Briefing
Vol. 264,
Nov. 19, 2010
The remarkable speech below was presented by Gabriel Latner, a 19-year-old Cambridge student, at a recent debate of the prestigious university’s debating society. UN Watch is proud to announce that Mr. Latner will be coming to the United Nations in 2011 as an intern with our organization.
The Cambridge debate centered on the motion that “Israel is a rogue state.” It was proposed by England's Lauren Booth, an extreme opponent of Israel who works for Tehran’s state-run global TV channel, and who recently converted to Islam on a visit to Iran. Her side of the debate was joined by Mark McDonald, founder of the Labor Friends of Palestine, and Mr. Latner.
The Irish Independent has called Mr. Latner's speech “the most brilliantly audacious defence of Israel since Moses parted the Red Sea.” (See 1 below.)
---
James Carville( a democrat no less) said this week that Hillary should give Obama one of her balls, then he would have two!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If she did/could, he would probably shoot baskets with it.
---
Support for Hamas in decline? (See 2 below.)
---
Is America's written commitment dependable?
GW made some written commitments and Obama has disregarded them.
Obama will say and do anything but can he be trusted? Experience suggests not necessarily.(See 3 below.)
New proof of this assertion is revealed in this article. It is as if Brazil guaranteed America's safety by locating missiles in Cuba which Cuba then controlled.
Willy was never as slick as Obama.((See 3a below)
---
More information on Stuxnet! (See 4 below.)
---
Chris Christie tells it like it needs to be told. Are Republicans smart enough to listen? Some maybe but probably not many among the 'Establishment Old Guard.' (See 5 below.)
---
Jay Rockefeller needs his own mouth shut or, at the very least, washed out with lye! (See 6 below.)
---
According to Biden we do not understand Obama because Obama is so brilliant and we are just stupid not to recognize it.
It's Thanksgiving, so 'ole' Joe Shoots us a bird!
The arrogance of Liberals knows no limit! Their aim is worse than Cheney's.
Like I recently wrote, the biggest turkey in The White House is the brilliant one eating the bird. (See 7 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Israel is a Rogue State
By Gabriel Latner
This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I'm not. I'm a realist. I'm here to win. I have a single goal this evening -- to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the “Aye” door.
I face a singular challenge -- most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds. This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I'd be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it.
I want to win, and we're destined for a tie. I'm tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do -- simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they'll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel.
It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international “laws” to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that's been done to death.
It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalized stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues.
But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they're your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state “rogue.” If it did, Canada, the U.S., and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain’s treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigor.
More importantly, I just don't think we can win with those arguments. It won't change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won't. So I'm going to try something different, something a little unorthodox.
I'm going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech I will have presented five pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a “rogue state,” then at least “roguish.”
Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is “bad.” I will not be arguing that it doesn’t deserve to exist. I won't be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is “rogue.”
The word “rogue” has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The Oxford English Dictionary defines rogue as “aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time,” while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition: “behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way.”
These definitions, and others, center on the idea of anomaly -- the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel.
The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051%. In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% -- more than twice as likely. Israel’s Jewishness is a statistical aberration.
The second argument concerns Israel’s humanitarianism, in particular, Israel’s response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis -- for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that -- but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened and is still happening in Darfur is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. (I actually hoped that Mr. Massih would be able to speak about -- he's actually somewhat of an expert on the crisis in Darfur, in fact, it's his expertise that has called him away to represent the former dictator of Sudan while he is being investigated by the ICC.)
There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt -- where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk?
Because in Israel they are treated with compassion -- they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel's cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world.
But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets.
Compare that to the U.S.’s reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst -- and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behaviour anomalous is an understatement.
My third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns -- it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands -- they're in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP -- an organisation of “freedom fighters” that, under Abed Rabbo’s leadership, engaged in such freedom-promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students.
And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA -- the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing -- and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue -- behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal.
Another part of the dictionary definition is behaviour or activity “occurring at an unexpected place or time.” When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East -- except for Israel. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality.
In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions, and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded ant-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America.
Israel’s protection of its citizens’ civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a “free” country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in, say, Lebanon -- a country designated “partly free,” where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. I’m hoping Ms. Booth will speak about this, given her experience working as a “journalist” for Iran.
Iran is a country given the rating of “not free,” putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, as Ms. Booth I hoped would have said in her speech, there is a special “Press Court” which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the Ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the “foundations of the Islamic republic,” using “suspicious (i.e., Western) sources,” or insulting Islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election. (I don't know if Ms Booth was affected by that.)
I guess we can’t really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are. Theocracies and autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored.
I have one final argument -- the last nail in the opposition's coffin -- and it’s sitting right across the aisle. Mr. Ran Gidor’s presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr. Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel’s embassy in London. He’s the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them at the UN. He knows what he’s doing. And he’s here tonight. And it’s incredible.
Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off, to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That’s remarkable.
Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was “This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world,” that Britain would allow any of its officials to participate? No.
Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never.
And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
But Israel has sent Mr. Ran Gidor to argue tonight against a “journalist”-cum-reality TV star, and myself, a 19-year-old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand.
Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now -- because it forgot Rule No. 1. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It's the same reason you won't see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state.
That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you – Israel wilfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed Osirak -- Sadam Hussein’s nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq.
That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom-loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something: while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity, act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran. Except Ms. Booth.
The author, a Cambridge University law student, will be a 2011 intern with UN Watch. Text edited for publication from the original.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Support for Hamas, Iran dropping among Gaza Palestinians
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
Poll: 56% of Gazans, 53% of W. Bank Palestinians view Hamas negatively; 60% accept two-state solution but most see it as step to one-state solution.
WASHINGTON – A majority of Palestinians in Gaza don’t like Hamas or Iran, as support for the two entities has continued to drop over the last year, according to a new poll.
At the same time, Fatah gets high approval ratings, with its leaders likely to win elections, as Palestinians back their involvement in peace talks with Israel.
Still, while most Palestinians said they support a two-state solution, most see that as a step towards eventually having a one-state solution of a Palestinian state.
These results are among the findings from an Israel Project survey conducted between October 4 and 15 and come as negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians have stalled.
According to the poll, 56 percent of Gazans and 53% of West Bank Palestinians think negatively of Hamas in comparison to 28% and 40% respectively who have positive views. The numbers are also down from the 35% and 44% respectively who had favorable views of Hamas in July 2009.
The change comes after the Turkish flotilla incident in May, where a deadly confrontation between the IDF and Turkish civilians trying to break the Gaza blockade eventually led to Israel changing its embargo on Gaza to let in many more goods. The pollsters interpreted the results as a sign that the local population didn’t give Hamas credit for the change in Israel’s approach.
Gazans also equally blamed Israel (46%) and both Israel and Hamas (46%) for their situation. In comparison, while those in the West Bank blamed their own leaders as much as Gazans blamed Hamas (both at 6%), West Bank Palestinians overwhelming blamed Israel (62%) while only 19% blamed both.
Palestinians in both areas dislike Iran more than like it, with 49% in Gaza and 58% in the West Bank having unfavorable attitudes versus 39% and 35% respectively who have favorable attitudes towards them. While Gazans' negative attitudes toward Iran grew from the 44% who had negative views last year, the approval rate also increased from 31% in 2009.
In comparison, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah has a 61% approval rating (60-63 in the West Bank versus Gaza) and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, from a third party, has a 65% approval rating.
In a two-way match-up, the survey finds that Abbas would beat Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh 42-29, including by a margin of 30-26 in Gaza.
Overall, 54% of Palestinians thought peace with Israel was possible with only 43% saying there was no hope, and 61% said they approved of continuing talks with Israel while only 33% disapproved.
Additionally, 60% said they accept a two-state solution with only 36% saying they don’t. However, 60% of those surveyed said they agreed with the statement that “the real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state” with just 30% backing the statement that “the best goal is for a two-state solution that keeps two states living side by side.”
In addition, 56% said the Palestinians would once again have to resort to armed struggle, with only 38% agreeing that violence only hurts the Palestinians and the days of armed struggle are over.
The face-to-face survey was conducted with 538 residents of the West Bank and 316 resident from Gaza by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. It has a +/- 3% margin of error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)'US will put understandings in writing to renew talks'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley says Washington continues discussions with Israel on 90-day settlement freeze; willing to give written guarantees in order to save stalled peace negotiations.
The US will give Israel guarantees in writing if it is necessary to renew stalled peace talks with the Palestinians, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Friday, according to a Reuters report.
"We continue our discussions with the Israelis. If there is a need to put certain understandings in writing, we will be prepared to do that," Crowley stated at a press briefing.
Crowley eluded to a document laying out the details of an incentives package and certain guarantees that the US would give Israel in exchange for a 90-day settlement freeze that would be meant to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.
Israel has delayed a security cabinet vote on the freeze pending US delivery of written assurances of understandings agreed upon between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this month.
Netanyahu's ministerial majority may hinge on the votes of the two Shas members in the security cabinet, and they have said they will oppose him if the US does not explicitly confirm in writing that building throughout Jerusalem will be permitted during the freeze.
US State Department spokesman Mark Toner said on Thursday in Washington, "We are obviously engaged. We are working intensely with both parties."
When asked whether the US discussed, in its conversations with the Palestinians, the possibility that the new freeze might exclude east Jerusalem, Toner said, "We are trying to create the conditions to get them back into direct negotiations." He continued, "We are trying to get them back in, because we know that is the only way all these issues can be eventually resolved."
In Haifa, Netanyahu said, "We maintain intensive contacts with the American administration. Our goal is to formulate understandings through which we can advance the diplomatic process, while maintaining Israel's vital interests, first and foremost of which is defense."
As prime minister, he said, it was his responsibility to guarantee Israel's security and it was with that sole objective in mind that he was evaluating the incentives package with the US.
Fledgling talks between Israelis and Palestinians broke down on September 26, when the 10-month moratorium on new settlement construction expired. The Palestinians have insisted that they will not hold direct talks with Israel until Jewish building has stopped in West Bank settlements and in east Jerusalem.
T. LAZAROFF, R.A. STOIL AND H. L. KRIEGER contributed to this report
3a)US security guarantees for Israel worthless when Turkey controls missile shield
By bowing to Ankara's demand to omit Iran, Syria and their ballistic missiles as a threat from the NATO agreement to establish a missile shield base in Turkey, President Barak Obama has devalued any US security guarantees offered Israel - as well as negating the facility's avowed purpose. The missile shield and its location in Europe were conceived in the first place for detecting and defusing Iranian and Syrian ballistic missile before they reached Europe or the United States.
"For the first time we've agreed to develop a missile defense capability that is strong enough to cover all Nato European territory and populations as well as the United States," Obama declared Friday, Nov. 19, at the NATO summit in Lisbon.
The US president did not say against who or what. Neither did he reveal the full scope of US and NATO's surrender to Turkey.
Military sources report the covert clauses in the deal additionally provide for the missile base to come under the command of a Turkish general. President Abdullah Gul held out on this point in discussions with President Obama and NATO leaders, following the lead given him by Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan of Monday, Nov. 15: "Turkey would demand that NATO assign a Turkish commander to oversee the shield. Especially if this is to be place on our soil…," said Erdogan.
Turkey's leaders are very close to the Islamic Republic's extremist rulers and see nothing amiss in their deploying large portions of Iran's missile arsenal on Syrian and Lebanese soil (in Hizballah's keeping). A Turkish general in command of the NATO missile shield cannot be expected to regard threatening missile action by Iran, Syria or Hizballah in the same light as would President Obama or NATO Secretary-General Andres vog Rasmussen. He would simply follow the orders of his own prime minister.
So NATO's forward missile interceptor may be physically and technically located in Turkey but, under a Turkish commander, its usefulness as an operational shield for the West against the most concrete perils facing NATO members is nil.
In these circumstances, there is not much point in Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu holding out for American security guarantees, even after the US State Department spokesman stated Friday, Nov. 19, "The United States is prepared to offer Israel written security guarantees if it would help to restart stalled Middle East peace talks."
Those guarantees were awarded Turkey at the NATO summit in Lisbon and, by extension, to Iran, Syria and their radical allies, whose missiles are poised on Israel's borders facing in only one direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)'Iran nuclear worm targeted Natanz, Bushehr nuclear sites'
German computer security expert releases new study claiming the Stuxnet worm, which some claim slowed down activity in the Iranian sites, was designed to act as a 'digital warhead.'
By Yossi Melman
The Stuxnet computer worm which hit computers at Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, and which experts have estimated slowed down activity both there and in the Natanz uranium-enrichment site, were designed to act as a double "digital warhead" against the Iranian nuclear sites, a new survey said Friday.
In September, experts on Iran and computer security specialists voiced a growing conviction that the worm that has infected Iranian nuclear computers was meant to sabotage the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz - where the centrifuge operational capacity has halved over the past year.
That analysis, based on the characteristic behavior of the Stuxnet worm, contradicted earlier assessments that the target was the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, where officials admitted computers were infected by the virus.
On Saturday, a report by German security expert Ralph Langner claimed that the computer worm was designed as a "digital warheads" against Natanz's centrifuge operational system and the turbines in Bushehr.
Langer was the first expert to uncover the fact that the Stuxnet worm's main goal was to harm Iran's nuclear sites, and the latest report is meant to supplement his earlier findings.
The investigation by the German computer's expert was triggered by the complaint of several Iranian firms to a Russian company that various Russian-made system had been affected by an unknown virus.
The company then recognized that the firms had indeed been hit by the worm known as Stuxnet, and ever since software security experts have been laboring to decipher the worm's code.
Most experts feel that the virus represents a new kind of computer worm, one which is capable not only of targeting computers but also industrial infrastructures which are controlled by those computers.
Originally, the worm damaged the command and control systems of German engineering giant Siemens, systems which serves infrastructure facilities such as oil and gas drilling and production plants, water supply facilities and in Iran, the worm's main target, nuclear sites as well.
Last week, experts from the computer security company Symantec testified before the Senate, claiming that the worm had been developed to damage the engines that operate the centrifuges in the Natanz enrichment site. Weeks ago, Haaretz was the first media outlet that estimated that the worm's main target was the Natanz site.
In a message Langner published on his website on Friday, the German computer security expert described two models for the kind of attacks the worm could have prompted as soon as it was inserted to Siemens' command system: "It appears that warhead one and warhead two were deployed in combination as an all-out cyberstrike against the Iranian nuclear program.”
Experts claim only an organization with the highest technological capabilities could have performed such a cyber attack, with some attributing it to the Israel Defense Force's 8200 intelligence unit or a U.S. intelligence organization, with some saying the worm was the result of a joint Israeli-U.S. effort.
There have been reports in the past of other alleged efforts by Israel and the West to undermine the Iranian nuclear project, some of which also targeted Natanz. These efforts included infiltrating the purchasing networks Iran set up to acquire parts and material for the centrifuges at Natanz and selling damaged equipment to the Iranians. The equipment would then be installed on site and sabotage the centrifuges' work.
The centrifuge - a drum with rotors, an air pump, valves and pressure gauges - is an extremely sensitive system. Generally, 164 centrifuges are linked into a cascade, and several cascades are then linked together. But the centrifuges need to operate in complete coordination to turn the uranium fluoride (UF6 ) they are fed into enriched uranium. Their sensitivity makes them particularly vulnerable to attacks, since damage to a single centrifuge can create a chain reaction that undermines the work of one or more entire cascades.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors regularly visit Natanz, has reported that of the more than 9,000 centrifuges installed on the site, less than 6,000 are operational. The agency did not provide an explanation of this 30 percent drop in capacity compared to a year ago, but experts speculated that the centrifuges were damaged by flawed equipment sold by Western intelligence agencies through straw companies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Chris Christie's Advice to GOP Governors Brings Down the House
By Melinda Henneberger
When at least four possible presidential contenders – Govs. Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels -- shared a stage at the Republican Governors Association conference Thursday morning, along with Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie, who do you think was the standout?
Yes, Barbour's every word is quotable, Daniels has sewn up the David Brooks primary, and no one can say that Pawlenty doesn't present well. But if you read Politics Daily's Jill Lawrence, you might not be surprised to learn that it was Christie who got the most applause and laughs from the crowd.
What new governors can't understand, he said, is that "I don't care if you had a Democrat or a Republican before you,'' you will still be up against the same "it's never been done that way'' mindset. He told governors-elect that their own political advisers will tell them, "Let's not kick anybody you shouldn't kick and you'll be fine; let's incrementalize, kick them a little and cuddle up to them at other times.'' Which is fine, he said, if you want voters to "fog over" when you speak, throw down the newspaper when they read about you, and vote against you the next time.
Speaking about his own fight against the teachers unions, he said he likes teachers, too, "but I can't stand their union.'' Freezing teacher salaries for a year and asking teachers to pay 1.5 percent of their salary for health benefits was characterized as such an historic assault on schools that even his own first-grader, Bridget, was hurt as a result. Really? Sure, he said, and told a story about her supposedly coming home with her first report card and complaining that OF COURSE her marks were poor. "I can't concentrate, I can't study,'' with a teacher whose pay has been frozen. "Dad, stop the madness!"
In answer to the huge laughter and applause from the crowd, he said, "You laugh, but that's the crap I have to listen to in New Jersey.''
Spend your political capital while you have it, he advised those just elected, because if you stow it in a drawer for some time when you need it, you'll open that drawer some day and find that is has dissipated.
As for advice new governors got from others on the stage? Barbour told them to "do what you said you were gonna do. Anybody that thinks there's one department in your state that can't save money doesn't know what the hell they're talking about."
Pawlenty said "every day there are threats to our freedom in the form of school board" and other governmental decisions. Taking one of several shots at the press, he said that when Republicans so much as mention the word freedom "some of our friends who are cynical in the media snicker at that.''
Daniels, who moderator Bill Bennett introduced as "the man on the motorcycle,'' (Daniels rides a Harley) was in both dress and posture the most relaxed guy on the stage. In a baggy blue sweater over a T-shirt, he leaned way back in his chair and told new governors, "You're going to have a field day, especially if you follow a Democrat'' because there will be so much fat to trim from state budgets. "Low-hanging fruit,'' he called it. "It's what our military friends call a target-rich environment.''
Interestingly, a main theme of today's discussion was that this is a moment when the American public is prepared and willing to make sacrifices; that's an argument that many of Obama's fellow Democrats thought he should have made more explicitly.
McDonnell said this is a unique moment "in American history when people are willing to put up with more cuts. People manage resources better if you give them less of it.''
Later in the day, at a panel discussion modestly called "Saving America,'' Newt Gingrich gave the only formal address of the conference, a 12-point plan delivered from a podium. In it, he said people receiving unemployment compensation should be required to go through a training course because "paying people to do nothing for 99 weeks is as wrong in unemployment compensation as it was in welfare.''
Another of his proposals is that every public school student be required to "reassert American exceptionalism" by studying the Declaration of Independence every year. "The time has come to reassert that we are Americans, and America is a learned civilization,'' he said, pronouncing learned as a one- rather than two-syllable word
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Carroll: Bully in the speech debate
By Vincent Carroll
Which is the greater menace to democracy and political discourse: the right-left megaphones of Fox News and MSNBC on the one hand, or Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who would destroy the First Amendment in order, he assures us, to save it?
"We need new catalysts for quality news and entertainment programming," the Democrat from West Virginia declared at a recent Senate hearing on television retransmission consent. "I hunger for quality news. I'm tired of the right and the left. There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future."
Never mind the awkward detail that the Federal Communications Commission's power to say "Goodbye" applies to broadcast licenses. Rockefeller's forte is not facts. Last year, when he wondered fancifully whether it "would have been better if we had never invented the Internet," he was equally cavalier in hyping the threat to the defense department from daily cyber attacks.
An ignoramus we can live with. It's the bully, the censor, and the preening authoritarian who must be checked. On this occasion, however, the bully should also be thanked, since he has provided a moment of clarity in the debate over regulation of political speech.
As Radley Balko of Reason.com was quick to point out, "Perhaps the Citizens United-hating hysterics at MSNBC will now start to see how easy it is for politicians to jump from banning critical campaign ads to openly pining for the ability to censor any and all of their critics, and with the same . . . justifications — improving political discourse and restoring faith in government."
Citizens United, you may recall, is the Supreme Court ruling of early this year overturning some restrictions on corporate and union speech. And while much of that speech does indeed take the form of political ads, as Balko suggests, the case itself was triggered by censorship of a 90-minute video released by a nonprofit corporation supported mostly by individual donations. Moreover, during oral arguments before the court, the government admitted that existing law would allow it even to ban political books in certain cases.
Rockefeller's sinister if honest musings reveal the broader mindset behind the drive by the political class — mainly Democrats but with a contingent of Republicans — to regulate political speech that actually should enjoy the highest protection under the First Amendment.
These guys don't want to improve political discourse. They want to control it, to limit it.
Hence the nostalgia among many of those who deplore the offspring of media diversity for the days before cable and the Internet — you know, that golden era when, as Sen. Michael Bennet recalls, we would go "home at night, turn the TV on, watch Walter Cronkite for half an hour, turn it off and get about our business."
In this image from Norman Rockwell, Americans contented themselves with a few easily digestible snacks of news while presumably sparing those conducting the important work in Washington from pesky second-guessing.
This deeply patronizing vision was not even true in Cronkite's heyday, and it will certainly never be true in a digitized world in which people now write books like "Hamlet's BlackBerry" about how to cope with information overload.
Or, more to the point, it will never be true so long as we faithfully resist the likes of Rockefeller, who would like to help the American people talk with each other by first stuffing a sock in their mouth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Biden: Obama viewed as aloof because he’s ’so brilliant’
By Jonathan Strong
The vice president is a talker, and then some. But in a new interview with GQ, he managed some gems, even for Joe Biden.
For instance, reporter Lisa DePaulo pressed Biden repeatedly on why President Obama isn’t connecting with the American public and is instead viewed as professorial and aloof. “So what is it?” asked DePaulo.
“I think what it is, is he’s so brilliant. He is an intellectual,” Biden said.
Also, Obama has a “blind faith” in the American public’s ability to understand the benefits of his policies. “[He says] ‘No. The American people get this. Just tell them. Just go out there and do the right thing’,” Biden said.
Biden went on to explain how Obama’s childhood shows he does, in fact, deeply understand the American public. “Look, think about the guy. This is an African American who had a Caucasian mother, raised in a Caucasian neighborhood by Caucasian grandparents. Talk about a guy who knows what it’s like. This is a guy who gets it,” Biden said.
Less importantly, but more hilariously, Biden revealed his dad failed utterly in imparting a key lesson on his young Pennsylvanian son.
“My dad used to have an expression. He used to say, ‘Joey, never complain and never explain’,” Biden said.
To summarize, Biden’s dad instructed his son to emulate a brooding, silent cowboy, and instead, we got a vice president infamous for word vomit.
To refresh your memory, Biden said Obama was the first “clean” African-American politician, was accidentally on-mic telling Obama that his health-care bill was a “big fucking deal” at the bill signing event, and once offered his deep ruminations on the number of Indians who work at 7-11 in Delaware. “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent … I’m not joking,” Biden said.
Even in the interview, he offered to DePaulo a 10-minute history of every dog he’s ever owned. “I always tell Barack, ‘My dog’s smarter than your dog,’” he said.
Come on, Joey!
In other, actually important revelations from the interview: Most Americans assume that President Obama is calling the shots in our nation’s war in Iraq. Not so, says Biden – that would be him.
“Because I was such a critic of the Bush administration’s policy and how they conducted the war, I was really — it was unexpected, but I was pleased when the president turned the policy over to me. Completely over to me. So I was able to do the things I wanted to do. They are, knock on wood, as my mom used to say, they’re succeeding,” Biden said, discussing Iraq.
With Democrats taking a shellacking in the midterms, DePaulo asked if Obama’s falling popularity affected him personally. No, Biden said, what he gets hot and bothered by is the thought of allowing a “couple” government programs to expire:
You know what I find him bothered by? I find him bothered by suggestions from the opposition or even from some Democrats — I won’t tell you the particular issue, because I keep my advice to him [private]. We’re in a meeting and someone suggested, “Look, one of the easy ways to deal with one of the attacks is, just go ahead and let a couple of these programs expire.” And he said, “Wait a minute, why would I do that? There’s X number of people being helped by that.” “Well, you know, it would be good politics.” That’s when he gets — he stiffens his back like, Whoa. And he’ll say, “Why did we come here?” See, the thing I like about the guy — I’ve dealt with eight presidents — his initial response is — and he’s not naive, he’s a good politician — but he’ll stiffen and say, “Why did we come here?” Look, of all the people I’ve ever worked with, I’ve never seen a guy make as many difficult decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment