Thursday, February 5, 2009

Kristallnacht in Caracas

from 'It's Almost Supernatural' blog:


Late Shabbat evening, 15 heavily armed men stormed the main Sephardi Synagogue in Caracas. Torah scrolls were damaged, prayer books ripped apart and anti-Semitic graffiti like ‘death to all’ and ‘Jews get out’ was strewn on the walls. The administrative officers were also broken into and official documents and computer hard drives stolen. The group also called for Jewish people to be expelled from the country.


This attack against the Venezuelan Jewish community is not an isolated incident. Over the last two years anti-Semitism in the country has sky-rocketed as the relationship between Israel and the Venezuelan government has worsened. In particular, since the outbreak of the recent war in Gaza and the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador, the government controlled media has been spewing anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hate.


The Simon Wiesenthal Center has reported that there is a well-orchestrated campaign on TV, radio, print and Internet media owned by the government, openly questioning Israel’s right to exist. There has also been the publication of such anti-Semitic materials as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and a group of pro-government journalists is urging the population to boycott of businesses owned by Venezuela Jews.


More frightening, a system 'plan of action' was published in a pro-government digital newspaper, Aporrea.org, for mobilizing the society against Venezuela’s Jewish community and Israel. The plan calls for among other things:


  • Publicly denouncing by name, the members of powerful Jewish groups in Venezuela, names of their companies and businesses in order to boycott them
  • Avoiding products, stores, supermarkets, restaurants, and where Kosher food is sold which either belongs or has links with 'Zionist Jews'
  • Shouting pro-Palestine and anti-Israel slogans at Jews on the street
  • Inviting anti-Zionist Jews living in Venezuela to publicly express their disassociation from 'Zionist war crimes' and the imposition of artificial State of Israel on Palestine
  • Nationalisation of companies, confiscation of properties of those Jews who support the Zionist atrocities of the Nazi-State of Israel, and donate this property to the Palestinian victims of today’s Holocaust
  • Sending all type of aid to Palestinians including weapons
  • Organizing an international conference about the creation of the theocratic - Nazi state of Israel as a genocidal European colony, and about the myths and facts of the alleged Jewish Holocaust or Holohoax (a blackmailing industry)
  • Support the dissolution of the artificial State of Israel


Understandably, many in the small Venezuelan Jewish areas (about 20 000) now fear for their personal safety. One of my good friends who grew up and whose family still live there relayed to me yesterday the level of anxiety his grandmother a Holocaust survivor was feeling. Crying hysterically on the phone after hearing the news of the synagogues desecration, he tried to reconcile her by telling her to remain at home. She replied it is happening all over again. They know where we live, that’s what happened in Germany last time. They took us from our homes. Nowhere is safe now.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

A lesson from Zimbabwe

I understand that Zimbabwe is revaluing its currency by removing 12 zeros. I suggest we do the same for the Stimulus Bill.

The Obama Meltdown

Victor Davis Hanson predicts the impending Obama meltdown:

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).


Second, was the "stimulus" (the euphemism for "borrow/print money") that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.


Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by "all that for now stays the same" inasmuch as we haven't ben hit in over seven years and can't risk another attack.


Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won't go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama's calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn't work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright's undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.


Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he's ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it's only been two weeks.


And the result of all this?At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.


Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama's world view of "Bush did it/but I am the world": The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say "shut up" about Kashmir and the Euros order no more "buy American").

This is quite serious. I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.



As a correspondent of John Derbyshire wrote:



I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the guy. He's just an ambitious young politician, but nothing he does will satisfy these people's need for a Messiah. Sooner or later it will turn out that he has an Enemies List, did an intern, traded arms for hostages, got attacked by a man-eating bunny-rabbit, puked on a Japanese diplomat … whatever. Every president has something. Having turned this one into Jesus Christ, they'll do the next logical thing and crucify him.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Using headlines to distort the news

RNC defendant released for now

The creep being tried was making Molotov cocktails to use against the Republican National Convention. He is not a Republican but a Democrat terrorist. So how does this headline tell the story? It doesn't.
REad the story to see how far journalism and leftist jurors have fallen from reality.

Democrat culture of corruption

Franken has tax problrms, too

President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Tom Daschle have been getting some attention regarding their failure to pay taxes, but what about Al Franken? Franken, who is still fighting incumbent GOP Sen. Norm Coleman for Minnesota’s Senate seat, failed to pay at least $70,000 in taxes to 17 states prior to running for office.
Minnesota’s Star Tribune reported Franken was paid to appear at a number of celebrity appearances across the country and file taxes appropriately in those states since 2003. Franken’s team released a spreadsheet to media detailing the debt through the campaign, but there has not been any verification Franken has actually paid them down yet.
Franken refused to answer questions and blamed his attorney Allen Chanzis for the error-- much like Geithner blamed the mass-market tax software for his failure to pay $34,000 in taxes.
Noticing a trend here?
Daschle, at least, seems to take some personal responsibility. He simply claims he made an "honest mistake" in forgetting pay employment taxes for his personal driver.
There a few other Democrats who have gotten in trouble for their finances lately although the media has been slow to make a narrative out of the obvious big picture story: Democrats Campaign to Raise Taxes, Fail to Pay Their Own.
We're still waiting for resolution on House Ways & Means Chairman Rep. Charlie Rangel’s multitude of tax transgressions that caused both the Washington Post and New York Times to call on Rangel to resign from the powerful post. (Rangel curiously blamed a language barrier for the tax omission.) Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised an ethics investigation report would be produced by January 3rd. Nearly a month later, there's still no report.
And what about that sweetheart deal Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd got on his mortgage? This was a hot story while he was overseeing the bailout of the housing industry, but seems to have been forgotten. Dodd promised to produce his mortgage papers for inspection at the height of the scandal, but that never happened.
So, what's the deal? Are politicians, who create, implement and oversee tax policy, not expected to pay their taxes? Is this a "freebie" now? Geithner survived the media test, so is that the new standard?
How many Democrats will be allowed to get away with it before it becomes a story??

A sad read

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil
When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

Raining Money

Steyn on the 'stimulus':

For Britons of a certain age, the defining moment of the pre-Thatcher years came in 1976 when the chancellor of the exchequer, Denis Healey, was forced to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund and seek a loan—just like any old president-for-life of one of those bankrupt banana republics dear old Bono is always urging debt relief for. But I wonder how many Brits remember the precise figure of the humungous wad of dosh Chancellor Healey so desperately needed to rescue his flailing nation?


Four billion dollars.


Bailing out a G7 economy has gotten a little pricier since those days. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking chump change. “Anything much less than $1 trillion,” explained Rep. Lynn Woolsey the other day, “would be like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun.” A giant forest fire is ravaging the U.S. economy, and you’re standing there waggling your $700 billion squirt gun and doing nothing but watering your toecaps. As for poor Lord Healey’s $4 billion, that wouldn’t cover your squirt gun’s shipping and handling.


President-elect Obama is being wafted into office not so much on a tide of cash or even credit but on a spectacular reconfiguration of the bounds of language. In the old days, when a currency’s value was eroded and the number of zeroes required for routine transactions risked making the regime look ridiculous, governments would revalue the monetary unit—as the French did in 1960, introducing a new franc worth 100 of the old inflation-racked ones. In America, as far as I can tell, most of us are still spending and earning the old Yankee dollar—you know, the one that just about covers the cost of a newspaper and a small cup of coffee at my town’s general store. But in Washington, for the purposes of public discourse, some strange new Zimbabwean unit seems to have been introduced between the election and the inauguration: No matter how many zeroes you stick on the end, the next guy will always add a couple more.


For the redistributive class, a trillion was a psychological Rubicon: It sounds odd the first time you say it. What does it mean in the real world? The cost of everything in West Virginia named after Robert C. Byrd plus the vibrating Shiatsu massage lounger and five-foot steel sculpture of migrating salmon illegally installed in Ted Stevens’s Alaskan chalet? But deploy the word hither and yon, to Wolf Blitzer and Katie Couric, and after a while “trillion” trips trillingly off the tongue. So now no politician demanding immediate government action wants to come off like Doctor Evil and invite instant derision by urging some nickel ’n’ dime billion-dollar boondoggle. In the bright new dawn, “ONE! TRILLION!! DOLLARS!!!” is the kind of price tag that commands respect. Congress is planning, at the time of writing, to double domestic discretionary spending. At the time of reading, I’m confident they’ll have quadrupled it. The Khmer Rouge proclaimed Year Zero; for the incoming Obama administration it’s the Year of Twelve Zeroes.


What is a trillion dollars? Well, it’s too many numerals to fit on your pocket calculator. But, given the accelerating obesity crisis in the United States, it’s clear that many American pants could use far larger pockets. So the Obama administration will be offering tax credits to families who participate in the large-pocket impact study commissioned by the Pocket-Size Regulatory Authority. That should stimulate the economy sufficiently to stimulate someone into inventing the four-foot-wide pocket calculator that shows enough zeroes to calculate the size of the bailout. Alternatively, we could put up one of those constantly whirring electronic scoreboard thingies in Times Square. Well, okay, not Times Square. But Central Park would probably be wide enough.


And why stop there? Barry Ritholz, author of the forthcoming book Bailout Nation, calculated—gosh, was it only six weeks ago?—that the tab for the bailout by November 24 was already $4.6165 trillion, which looks much more convincing because it’s big but not round. It’s specific to four decimal points, which sounds like they’ve got way down in the weeds of taxi receipts and lunch money. The media coo over Obama’s “new New Deal,” but, as Mr. Ritholz pointed out, if you adjust for inflation, the combined costs of the old New Deal plus the Louisiana Purchase, the Marshall Plan, the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq wars, and every NASA project in history—oh, and the S&L crisis—add up to a mere $3.92 trillion. Even as he was totting up his numbers, the Bloomberg news service estimated that, factoring in Citibank and a couple of other Johnny-come-latelys, the bailout bill was in fact up to $7.76 trillion—which is the combined cost of all that other stuff (Louisiana Purchase, etc.) plus the $3.6 trillion of the Second World War. John Kerry famously denounced the Republicans for “opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States,” but not anymore: After opening firehouses in Baghdad, Saigon, Seoul, Tokyo, Western Europe, and the moon, we’re now opening even more over here, to house the new fire trucks with all those trillion-dollar hoses for the raging conflagration. Obama isn’t the new New Deal. He’s the new everything. It seems safe to say that, adjusted for the usual government underestimates, by, oh, mid-2010 the bailout will have cost more than all of American history combined.


And by then we’ll probably need a new round number. What’s the name for the avalanche of dough that comes after a trillion? I asked Senator-designate Caroline Kennedy, and she said: “Cotillion?” Close enough. By 2011, we’ll need a cotillion-dollar stimulus package to . . . um, “create jobs” and, er, “help middle-class families.”
That’s the funny thing. The price tag may be unprecedented but the products are distressingly precedented. “The administration’s number-one goal,” said the new president, “is to create 3 million new jobs, more than 80 percent of them in the private sector.” And that sounds kind of impressive—unless, that is, you’re one of those capitalism-red-in-tooth-and-claw types who wonder what kind of functioning polity is so structurally decayed that it’s supposed to be good news that a mere 20 percent of new jobs will be government work. Are 600,000 new government workers really necessary to stimulate the U.S. economy? And, come to that, will a $3,000 tax credit really persuade a private company to take on a new employee it wouldn’t otherwise have hired, or will the bulk of the dough just go to companies that would have hired the extra workers anyway?


Then there’s infrastructure. “Infrastructure,” says James Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, “is going to be the cornerstone of this stimulus initiative.” Representative Oberstar has a fairly expansive definition of “infrastructure investment”—it includes remodeling the National Zoo in Washington—but one assumes at least a portion of the outlay would do some good. After all, freight trains that take two days to get from the Port of Los Angeles to the outskirts of Chicago currently spend another 48 hours crawling across the congested rail lines of the Windy City.


But it’s not lack of money that’s responsible for America’s sclerotic infrastructure, it’s the inability to make things happen on an expeditious timeframe. You think that Chicago bottleneck’s bad? If they were trying to build the transcontinental railroad now, they’d be spending the first three decades on the environmental-impact study and hammering in the golden spike to celebrate the point at which the feasibility commission’s expansion up from the fifth floor met the zoning board’s expansion down from the twelfth floor. If 9/11 was (as they used to say) “the day everything changed,” that seven-year hole in the ground in the heart of Lower Manhattan is a monument to how hard it is to get anything changed in today’s America. So good luck “stimulating” the economy with infrastructure. One reason Google and Apple and other American success stories started in somebody’s garage is that that’s the one place where innovation isn’t immediately buried by bureaucracy. As to Representative Woolsey’s rampaging forest fires, these days they’re caused mostly by federal eco-regulation preventing traditional prudent stewardship such as basic brush-cutting.


So much for “job creation” and “infrastructure.” What else is there? Well, it’s amazing with a trillion-dollar barrel how quickly you wind up scraping the bottom of it. In Obama’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” two of the five objectives are to “computerize the health-care system” and “modernize classrooms.” That sound you hear is the computerized eye-rolling with which every modernized NR column now comes equipped. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, on the other hand, wants “green jobs creation” and “construction of libraries in rural communities to expand broadband access.” And in a postmodern touch, Mark Pinsky at The New Republic makes the pitch for a new Federal Writers’ Project in which writers laid off by America’s collapsing newspaper industry would be hired by the government to go around the country “documenting the ground-level impact of the Great Recession.” As FDR would have said, we have nothing to fear but running out of ideas to blow the trillion bazillion dollars on. America has a money-no-object government with a lot of money but no great objects.


And nobody cares. In the final triumph of liberalism, the fact that incomprehensible sums are being allocated to no particular purpose is taken as evidence of the adminstration’s virtue and determination. If you’re at a New Hampshire town meeting and the board of selectmen proposes a $3,000 fence for the local dump, some old coot in plaid will stand up and demand to know why the fence costs three grand. But if you announce that you’ll need $12.3 trillion for a stimulus package, everyone says: Well, sure, that shows how serious things must be. “This isn’t about big government or small government,” says President-elect Obama. “It’s about building a smarter government.” “Smart government” seems best understood as the stage that’s even bigger than big government. It’s like Starbucks: tall, grande, and then smartie.


And, whether or not we get a massive federal program of rural library construction, we seem certain to get an acceleration of the grim leftward ratchet effect:


a) more subordination of the dynamic part of the economy to arthritic government regulation;


b) more of the remorseless annexation of health care by government, until eventually the point about whether to move to a socialized system will be entirely moot;


c) more so-called tax cuts, a term the Democrats have successfully usurped to apply to nanny-state “credits” the government condescends to allow you in return for living your life the way they want you to;


d) federally funded preschool and a few other entitlements that will metastasize way beyond any attempted constraints and further deform the relationship between the citizen and the state;


e) continued incremental removal of more and more citizens from the federal tax rolls, until round about 2012 a majority of American adults are paying no federal tax at all but are able to vote themselves more and more lollipops from the minority who do;


f) a few small nothing peripheral Community Reinvestment Act–sized programs that nobody notices until, a decade or two and a couple of reforms later, they’ve mutated into a hideous wart-encrusted tail wagging an ever more tumor-ridden and cadaverous old pooch.


The skids that greased the good ship Lollipop were put in place by the hysteria of last September when the supposed crisis broke and the experts began running around saying, “Don’t just stand there, spend something.” As readers will recall, it was Polonius who advised, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be,” and in America we are approaching that blessed state. A man who borrows $400,000 for a house he cannot afford isn’t really a “borrower,” is he? After all, every politician agrees that the priority is to keep people in “their” homes, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus is calling for a “moratorium on foreclosures,” which is a polysyllabic way of saying there’s no need to make your monthly payments. In what sense then is he “borrowing”?


And the banker who loaned the 400 grand isn’t a “lender” of anything terribly real, is he? Not in the Age of Leverage—of derivatives, of credit-default swaps, and of other artful packaging. “We refused to touch credit-default swaps,” the author and investment adviser Nassim Taleb said. “It would be like buying insurance on the Titanic from someone on the Titanic.” But a lot of people did just that. The Canadian commentator Jay Currie, waxing lyrical, put it this way: “If two people make a bet on the fall of a raindrop and each puts up, say, their shoes, the bet is a real bet. If they put up cash it is very close to a real bet. IOUs are not much of a bet. Someone else’s IOUs? Still less of a bet. A good deal of imaginary money is going to money heaven, which is sort of like saying that your stuffed animal is dead.”


Except when the administration steps in to replace the dead imaginary money with real (or realish) money. Having, in effect, colluded in the destruction of meaningful risk-evaluation, the government decided it was obliged to act not to prevent a Thirties-style “credit crunch” but to prop up an unsustainable form of pseudo-credit.
“Borrowing,” continues Polonius, “dulls the edge of husbandry”—and that goes double for government, whose husbandry is dulled in the best of times. Whatever it does for subprime homeowners, the principal beneficiaries of the bailout are the incoming president and his Democratic Congress, licensed by the outgoing treasury secretary as arbiters of unlimited federal largesse. Banks, homeowners, auto makers, formerly golden states . . . the line stretches around the block, and why not? “Bailout” is to “earmark” as “undocumented worker” is to “illegal immigrant”—an invitation to come out of the shadows and claim your benefits.


Does Congress have trillions of dollars to create all those government jobs on study groups of the environmental sustainability of infrastructure projects? No. As the cliché goes, we’re accumulating debts our grandchildren will have to pay off. Which admittedly is a better situation to be in than the one in Europe, which demographically speaking has no grandchildren to stick it to. But, as I always say, it’s not the cost of these programs. They would be wrong if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them every month. They’re wrong because they represent a transfer from the citizen to the state not of money but of power. And over time, as we see in the urge to expunge words like “default” and “foreclosure” and indeed any form of moral hazard from life, they have a debilitating effect. A society can cope with corroded infrastructure more easily than a corroded citizenry. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” says Rahm Emanuel. Is it really a “serious crisis”? Three decades after Britain’s humiliating grovel to the International Monetary Fund, Denis Healey’s position today is that it was all a silly bookkeeping error by government civil servants: It turns out they didn’t need the cash infusion after all. He only found out too late.


Hmm.

Keep it up Mr. President

Has the new President come up with a brilliant plan to solve the budget crisis?
Is he going to keep nominating tax cheat Democrats to high government office thereby outing them and forcing them to pay unpaid taxes until the budget deficit is corrected.
Bwahahaha

Ya think!

Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

The Normalization of Evil

Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, offers a perfect response to the Chomsky idiocy below with a superb op-ed in todays WSJ:

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today's world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.


Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of "the resistance." Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.


No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.
But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.


I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism -- the ideological license to elevate one's grievances above the norms of civilized society -- was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable "tactical" considerations.


This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man's second nature. "In an unfair balance, that's what people use," explained Mr. Livingstone.


But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel." Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.


Mr. Carter's logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas's rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: "They should end the occupation." In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.


The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.
Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society's role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera's management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.


Some American pundits and TV anchors didn't seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a "resistance" movement, together with honorary membership in PBS's imaginary "cycle of violence." In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that "each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man's terrorism becomes another's resistance to oppression." He then stated -- without blushing -- that for readers of the Hebrew Bible "God-soaked violence became genetically coded." The "cycle of violence" platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror's victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas -- the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains -- to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.


At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.
The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, "Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza," to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph -- another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.


Danny's picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Monday, February 2, 2009

Noam Chomsky's anti-Israel wisdom

(hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

Noam Chomsky outdoes himself in this interview for the “progressive” radio show Democracy Now: Noam Chomsky: Obama’s Stance on Gaza Crisis ‘Approximately the Bush Position’.
I can only stomach so much of this stuff, but here’s Chomsky’s solution to the Arab-Israel conflict: Israel should “leave.”
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, let’s start off by your response to President Obama’s statement and whether you think it represents a change.
NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s approximately the Bush position. He began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning. It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here. So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave.
Israel did leave Gaza—completely—and they were repaid for this wrenching, painful decision with nothing but more terrorist violence.
When Chomsky suggests Israel should “leave,” he’s saying the same thing as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Israel should leave the face of the earth.

Never trust anyone who pretends for a living...

(hat tip: Little Green Footballs)
9/11 Trutherism on 'Rescue Me'
US News Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:13:17 am PST
Coming soon on FX: 9/11 Trutherism for the masses, promoted by a cretinous actor who is a genuine, in-real-life Troofer. Disgusting.
A coming episode of the acclaimed FX drama “Rescue Me” will tackle what may sound like a far-fetched plot line: that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job.” The actor who espouses the theories on camera, it turns out, also subscribes to them in real life.
Claims that Al Qaeda terrorists were not solely responsible for the attacks have a lively following on the Internet, including on YouTube, but the second episode of “Rescue Me’s” fifth season, starting in April, may represent the first fictional presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories by a mainstream media company (FX is operated by the News Corporation).
“They’re not discussed a lot in the press,” Daniel Sunjata, the actor who plays Franco Rivera on “Rescue Me,” told reporters at a television press tour last month. He predicted that the episode would be “socio-politically provocative.”
In the episode, Mr. Sunjata’s character delivers a two-minute monologue for a French journalist describing a “neoconservative government effort” to control the world’s oil, drastically increase military spending and “change the definition of pre-emptive attack.” To put it into action, he continues, “what you need is a new Pearl Harbor. That’s what they said they needed.”
Mr. Sunjata surprised some of the TV reporters when he said that he “absolutely, 100 percent” supports the assertion that “9/11 was an inside job.” The alternative theories “seem to me to make a lot more sense than the ones that are popularly espoused,” he said, calling it admirable that the conversation was allowed within “Rescue Me.”
Do the producers care at all that this is an evil, deceptive, steaming pile of nonsense promoted by reality-challenged morons? Of course not. Sunjata is “passionate.”
Peter Tolan, an executive producer, said Mr. Sunjata is “well read” and has “done a lot of research.”
“Look, obviously not all of us buy in,” he told reporters. “But we went: ‘Wow, that’s interesting, and he’s passionate about it. Let’s use that.’ ”

Tolerance used for intolerant purposes

(hat tip: The Brussels Journal)

Hate Crimes: The Importance of Lady Justice's Blindfold
By Thomas Landen
Created 2009-01-28 11:14
The introduction of hate crime legislation brings a subjective element into the legal system. Where typically Lady Justice is blind and only takes objective facts into consideration, disregarding the position and the opinions of those committing the crimes, she may now apply the law unequally and selectively. Our societies subsequently risk losing an important principle of Western law, viz. equality under the law. Europe has already gone further down this road than America, but the U.S. is following fast in Europe’s tracks.
“If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech,” Pat Condell, a British stand-up comedian, says in a youtube video released earlier this week. Mr. Condell, though a comedian by profession, is not joking. He knows how two years ago a British television crew which went undercover in British mosques and taped sermons inciting to violence against non-Muslims, was itself charged by the police and Crown Prosecution Service for “stirring up racial hatred” against Muslims, while the preachers were left undisturbed. According to the police and the public prosecutor the words of the preachers had been “taken out of context,” while the “context” of the makers of the television program was filled in by their accusers: their aim was said to be to stir up anti-Muslim feelings among the public.
Prosecutors and judges are no longer interested in what actually and objectively happened. Instead they focus on the intentions which they claim motivated those who acted. No longer is Lady Justice blind to anything except the facts; she is blind to the facts, but claims to be a clairvoyant about everything else.
Last week , the White House website announced that President Obama and Vice President Biden intend to “strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.” In the past, Europe was in the habit of imitating bad American examples (never the good ones). Now it seems the policies of “Change” in the U.S. mean that America will imitate Europe’s bad examples.
The “Matthew Shepard Act,” or “House Resolution 1592,” is named after Matthew Shepard, a young homosexual who was kidnapped, tortured and murdered in 1998 by two heterosexual men near Laramie, Wyoming. Apparently the two men killed Mr. Shepard because they “hated” their victim for his homosexuality. Though the murderers were each punished with two consecutive life sentences, the fact that they “hated” their victim was not taken into account when the court decided the sentence. This caused much indignation among homosexual activists who argue that people who commit a crime out of “hate” should be punished more severely than those who do not.
Taking “hate” into account, however, brings a subjective element into the equation, allowing different punishments to be applied for exactly the same criminal acts. It is possible to objectively prove that someone has kidnapped, tortured and subsequently assassinated a victim, but is it also possible to prove that these acts constitute a worse crime if the perpetrator “hates” the victim (or the group he belongs to) than if the latter is totally indifferent towards the victim and only acts for the pleasure of torturing and killing a human being? If Matthew Shepard’s killers had randomly picked him, because they wanted to kidnap, torture and murder someone – anyone – for the sheer fun of it, would they somehow have been less criminal? This is a question which Lady Justice does not normally need to consider, until hate crime legislation is introduced.
In Europe, where citizens lack the protection of a First Amendment, hate crime legislation is used to punish citizens for the expression of negative opinions concerning minority groups. In Europe the concept of hate crimes make sense because hate crimes are crimes of opinion and sentiment. Unlike America, Europe criminalizes opinions and sentiments. However, in the United States, with its First Amendment, it is difficult to see what purpose hate crime legislation can serve. The Matthew Shepard Act contains a “Rule of Construction” explicitly stating that “Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
Hence, it is hard to see what the use of introducing hate crime legislation in America can be, unless one deliberately wants to bring in a subjective element into the legal system which abolishes the old principle of equal treatment before the law and which justifies arbitrary actions on the part of the authorities. This is exactly what has happened across the Atlantic. In Europe, hate crime legislation has been used to silence people with opinions that do not conform with official state policies. These include celebrities, children and even elected politicians speaking on behalf of their electorate.
One of the famous victims of hate crime legislation in Europe is Brigitte Bardot. Last June the former sex symbol, once considered to be the very icon of France, was given a two-month suspended prison sentence and fined €15,000 by a court in Paris. Mrs. Bardot was convicted for “instigation of hatred” towards the Muslim community because in December 2006 she had sent a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, then the Interior Minister of France, to demand that Muslims anaesthesize animals before slaughtering them. In the letter she said, referring to Muslims, that she was “fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits.” Harboring and expressing such sentiments is a crime in France.
Dieudonné M’Bala is one of France’s new icons. He is a French comedian who is known for his anti-Semitism. Mr. M’Bala claims Jews are “a mafia that controls everything in France” and harbors feelings about Jews which are similar Mrs. Bardot’s feelings about Muslims: France is under the thumb of the Jews, who are destroying it and imposing their values. In 2004 Mr. M’Bala was taken to court in Paris for violating French laws against incitation to racial or religious hatred, but the court ruled that he was not violating the law. Why did Mrs. Bardot get a suspended prison sentence and a fine of €15,000, while Mr. B’Bala went free? Because Mrs. Bardot and Mr. M’Bala are no longer equal under the law.
In October 2006 Codie Stott, a 14-year-old schoolgirl from Salford, England, was arrested for racism and spent three-and-a-half hours in police custody because she had refused to study with a group of five Asian pupils who did not speak English. When the Asians began talking in Urdu, Codie went to speak to the teacher. “I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But the teacher started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police’.” A complaint was made to the police and Codie was placed under arrest. She was not prosecuted as she was too young, but the experience was traumatic for the young girl. The same applies to Jamie Bauld from Cumbernauld, Scotland, an 18-year-boy with Down’s syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old. In September 2007 he was charged with “racial assault” after he had pushed an Asian girl on the playground.
Hate crime legislation is used to silence the famous and the innocent, but also the people’s democratically elected representatives. In January 2007 Christian Vanneste, a member of the French Parliament, was convicted by the Court of Appeal of Douai because two years earlier during a debate in the parliament and afterwards on television he had said that “homosexual behavior endangers the survival of humanity” and that “heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality.” Mr. Vanneste, a member of the governing UMP party of President Sarkozy, was fined €3,000. The Court also ordered him to pay €3,500 in damages to each of the three homosexual activist organizations that had taken him to court, plus the expense of publishing the verdict in three newspapers. The three organizations welcomed the court ruling, saying that it “aims to punish homophobic comments which should be fought because they inspire and legitimize verbal and physical attacks.”
Last week Susanne Winter, an elected member of the Austrian Parliament, was convicted by a court in Graz to a suspended jail sentence of three months and a fine of €24,000 for “inciting racial hatred and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation.” At a meeting of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ in January 2008, Mrs. Winter had said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” since he married a six-year-old girl, and that he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.” She had also said that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean” and warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” stating that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.
Following these remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Mrs. Winter, who was subsequently placed under police protection. This did not persuade the judge, Christoph Lichtenberg, to be more lenient. He told Mrs. Winter: “You have only one goal: to gain votes by a despicable method, by appealing to xenophobic feelings.” Judge Lichtenberg said a severe punishment was asked for in order to prevent Mrs. Winter from voicing similar opinions during her next election campaign.
Also last week, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, decided to prosecute Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, for “the instigation of hatred against Muslims” as the producer of Fitna, a short documentary about the Koran. In his movie, which can be seen here, Mr Wilders says that the Koran calls for violence against Jews and other non-Muslims. Mr. Wilders lives under constant police protection following death threats from Koran readers.
A few weeks earlier, on 3 January, Harry van Bommel, a Socialist member of the Dutch Parliament, took part in a demonstration during which he called for an “intifada” against Israel and marched with demonstrators who were shouting “Jews to the gas.” Will Mr. van Bommel, like Mr. Wilders, be charged with incitement to racial hatred? Will he be given the same treatment as Mr. Wilders? Considering that equality under the law is no longer guaranteed, this is far from certain. Indeed, while Mr. Wilders will be prosecuted, Mr. van Bommel is likely to go free.
One noticeable fact in hate crime prosecutions is that those prosecuted are often members of European majority groups, such as heterosexuals, non-Muslims or non-Socialists. Hate speech, racial slurs or religious insults directed against a majority group do not seem to be as equally punishable under hate crimes legislation as those directed against minorities. Unlike Susanne Winter, Alfred Hrdlicka, an Austrian “artist,” who last year depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted, let alone sentenced. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is.
Last Friday, in a speech at the Islamic University of Rotterdam, Khalid Yasin, a radical Muslim leader, said that Geert Wilders “should be flogged for his crimes.” While Mr. Wilders is critical of the Koran he has never advocated flogging Muslims. Nevertheless, Mr. Wilders is being prosecuted and Mr. Yasin is not. Why? Why do the British police arrest 14-year old children, such as Codie Stott, but do they not take action against Muslims such as Anjem Choudary who said in a television interview that anyone who insults Islam deserves “capital punishment”?
Is it because people such as Mr. Wilders, Mrs. Winter, Mr. Vanneste, Mrs. Bardot, though voicing strong opinions, never commit violence, while Muslims extremists threaten to kill everyone who opposes them and are consequently feared by the European authorities? Perhaps. Is it because members of majority groups are prosecuted for hate crimes, but hardly ever members of minority groups? Perhaps. In 2006, a heterosexual man in Belgium lodged a complaint against a media campaign that used the slogan “Dirty Heterosexual.” The Belgian government’s anti-racism and anti-discrimination body rejected the complaint, arguing that “stigmatization of a majority is impossible. Discrimination is something which by definition can affect only minorities.”
Whatever the reason, however, it is clear that with the introduction of hate crime legislation Europe’s citizens are no longer equal under the law. Some are harassed, prosecuted and sentenced, while others are not. Everyone who cares about freedom and democracy should demand that the law treats citizens equally, that Lady Justice does not discriminate, that she will again be blindfolded, so that Mr. Wilders is treated the same as Mr. van Bommel, Mrs. Bardot the same as Mr. M’Bala, Mrs. Winter the same as Mr. Hrdlicka, so that children and people with Down’s syndrome are left in peace, and so that people are judged not by how they feel toward each other but by the way they treat each other.

Business comes and goes but government is forever...

Albany is New York's capital of dysfunction
A look at how the secretive, closed waysof state leadership make accountability elusive
By Tom Precious
NEWS ALBANY BUREAU
ALBANY — In his 18 years with the FBI, John Pikus has investigated terrorists, drug dealers, bank robbers, gangs, white-collar criminals and murderers.
Then he ran into the New York State Legislature.
Despite overseeing an office with 80 agents armed with subpoenas and a battery of sophisticated investigatory tools, Pikus sounds almost humbled by the experience he had trying to crack the secrecy that defines the state Capitol.
“The legislative process was almost Byzantine in how it operates,” said Pikus, whose investigators spent three years working on the case that led to last week’s indictments against former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. “We have very expert investigators working on this. Some have come in from other districts and were quite surprised at how difficult it was to discern what was going on in the legislative process.”
The FBI veteran, who cut his teeth doing intelligence work for the U. S. Navy, talked of “significant difficulties” his investigators had “overcoming the lack of transparency in New York State government.”
You might call his experience Exhibit No. 1 against Albany, and to hear senior federal prosecutors openly lament the Kremlin-like atmosphere here was almost heartening to some longtime Albany watchers.
Yet beyond salacious headlines about scandals at the Capitol, there are consequences to the closed ways of Albany that make accountability difficult. For instance:
• Soaring taxes that make New York the nation’s leader in combined state and local tax burden.
• Annual state spending two and three times the rate of inflation that has helped put New York in the fiscal crisis it finds itself in today.
• Rising state debt levels — up more than 30 percent in a recent five-year period — with the debt now equal to each New Yorker owing more than $2,500, double the national rate.
• Businesses, employers and manufacturers fleeing the state long before the recent economic collapse.
• And declining upstate population, led by the 4 percent drop in population in Erie County over the past decade.
In chasing after Bruno, the feds ran into an old Albany problem: Connecting the dots here is no easy task.
“If you read the congressional record, you see virtually everything a legislator says on the floor of Congress is recorded in some fashion,” said acting U. S. Attorney Andrew Baxter. “Our experience with the New York State Legislature is that bills are passed, member items are granted, and it is very difficult to reconstruct which individual senator or Assembly people were actively involved in promoting or casting the legislation or granting those member items.”
Some reform groups welcomed the federal prosecutor to the club of the disenchanted.
“It underscores how New Yorkers feel,” said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group. “New Yorkers don’t understand what goes on in Albany either. They just assume the worst, and often their worst fears turn out to be optimistic.
“That’s why the lobbyists love the place so much, because nobody understands it,” Horner said. “It’s like imperial China or the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople where the term Byzantine comes from.”
“There’s nothing that scares the political process more than not being in control of information. Secrecy is the mother’s milk of Albany,” added David Grandeau, who chased after wrongdoing for 12 years as the former head of the New York State Lobby Commission.
Secrecy runs the gamut, from how Paterson recently selected a new U. S. senator — he even refused to release blank candidate questionnaires — to what labor or business interests get to meet with legislative leaders.
With so many state officials getting in trouble with the law in recent years, watchdogs see an opportunity to exact meaningful change. Public pressure is one thing. Indictments, lawmakers going to jail, staffers getting fired — they can bring reform, the logic goes. Few are holding their breath.
Behind closed doors
Albany is a town where no deals are made in public.
Even the few open meetings among the governor and legislative leaders are prescripted and occur only after they first meet in secret.
It’s a place where a health union boss sits at the table with leaders to craft bailouts of his industry, where a former staffer of a Rochester lawmaker can kill a bill permitting Buffalo to install cameras at intersections because his lobbying client wants an alternative bill and where modest changes to bolster teen driving safety laws are killed by senators who don’t want to buckle up in the back seat as they are driven home from Albany.
Huge sums of campaign cash flow here as freely as the mini hot dogs at the nightly fundraisers — sometimes as many as a dozen in an evening — that are cloistered in bars, private clubs and hotels within walking distance of the Capitol.
Even some lobbyists, whose top ranks are a powerful collection of former politicians and government officials, concede — though only privately — that the state would be better off if the Legislature returned to the part-time days of citizen legislators. The “permanentization” of the Legislature, as one lobbyist put it, creates its own system, its own industry that costs taxpayers $228 million a year and gets gassed up by special-interest campaign donations.
Most lawmakers have other jobs, including some with companies that directly benefit from the actions they take in Albany. They come to town each January for a session even though most of the major bills that become law don’t even get introduced until June.
Albany’s biggest growth industry is lobbying. There are 5,500 of them representing clients who spend nearly $200 million influencing Albany — not including campaign donations. These lobbyists not only push bills but actually write them for lawmakers.
It’s where all but a handful of lawmakers find themselves pushed to the side on major policies, ceding power to top legislative leaders and Albany’s entrenched “central staff.”
How strong is the staff? In the three weeks since the State Senate has been in session, not a single bill has been approved, in part, because the takeover by Democrats gutted the power of veteran GOP staffers who know how to run the place. A year ago during the same period, the Senate had passed 42 bills.
The inaction, though, hasn’t saved any money; lawmakers and their staffs still come to Albany and collect per diems and travel costs.
And what happened to those top GOP staffers? Many left, making sure to do so before Dec. 31 to take advantage of a loophole — written by staff members — that allowed them to begin lobbying jobs on Jan. 1. (Leaving any later would have kicked in a two-year waiting period.)
Hiding in plain sight
In Albany, rule No. 1 is to control the flow of information. Lawmakers and the governor spend millions each year on publicity efforts — whether it’s a personal photographer for Paterson or state-of-the-art TV broadcast facilities where legislative staff members ask puffy questions of lawmakers to beam back to local stations.
But want to get things unfiltered, say transcripts of legislative floor debates? You can look at the Senate Web site but only if you work for the Senate. On its public Web site, no such transcripts exist.
The state’s exalted Freedom of Information law? In practice, it’s often a tool to deny or delay access to information. Or, increasingly, it’s just ignored. The Buffalo News, for instance, in September filed a FOIL seeking documents on government hiring during a period when a hiring freeze was supposed to be in place. The governor’s office still has not complied.
The real secrecy is in plain sight. Public hearings on major bills are seldom held. A controversial bill, like the budget, is rushed through passage — once the three state leaders agree during their secret meetings — without the legally required three days of waiting so the public and lawmakers can review it. Unlike Congress, there are no public sessions where bills are negotiated and amended.
Want to know what a bill will cost taxpayers? Go to the “fiscal impact section” on a bill memo, where “Unable to Determine at this Time” is often the answer.
Then there was the case of the private actuary used, until last year, by the Assembly; he low-balled cost estimates on bills benefiting union government workers. It turns out the labor unions were footing his tab.
Where to begin to change Albany?
Moving toward change
It must start, reformers say, with redistricting, the mother of all incumbency protection machines. It’s the once-a-decade process that occurs after the census, when legislators redraw state legislative and congressional district lines to take into account population shifts. But the legislators protect the incumbents with party-friendly voters, or at least the favored incumbents.
The next round is just a couple of years away, and critics are calling for an independent body to craft the lines to put an end to districts such as the “earmuff district” for Rep. Louise M. Slaughter that curls from Buffalo to Rochester in search of Democratic voters or a downstate legislative district kept contiguous, as required, by connecting across a sand bar at high tide.
Next, move on to campaign finance and New York’s high donation “limits.” Consider: When new U. S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand runs next year, the most an individual is allowed to give her is $4,800 for a primary and general campaign. That’s a federal law.
But, thanks to state law, when Paterson runs, he will be able to take about $55,600 from an individual and a member of the Assembly can accept $7,600. (That doesn’t include party accounts where loopholes sent the limits soaring higher, or other provisions that permit companies to create subsidiaries to skirt limits.)
Watchdogs say Albany needs independent oversight to give a nonpartisan review to everything from the state’s budget numbers to ethics monitoring. Right now, there are two ethics bodies: one oversees the executive branch and the other the Legislature. The governor, though, controls the panel overseeing his executive branch and legislative leaders run the legislative ethics group.
Some, though, think reform isn’t necessary.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver dismissed the broad-brush criticism of the Legislature by the FBI and U. S. attorney.
“I think the two houses are a lot different,” he said.
How? “I think a lot of our materials are much more open,” he said, citing things like sessions now shown on the Internet.
Recent transparency efforts have been modest, at best, critics say. In Albany, “reform” means it’s now public which lawmakers are requesting which pork spending. And lawmakers can no longer be in a bar down the street or driving home while being recorded as in the chamber voting.
But still very much alive is Albany’s systemized unfairness.
Do you live, for instance, in Newfane?
You’ll do well in the pork allotment because you are represented by an Assembly Democrat.
Live across the line in Somerset? Good luck, because your Republican lawmaker will get table scraps.
“The minority members get screwed. Therefore, their constituents get screwed,” Horner said.
In Washington on his second day in office, President Obama ordered his agencies to release more freely information requested under the Freedom of Information law.
“In the face of doubt, openness prevails,” he said.
Paterson, in office nearly a year, has issued no such proclamations.
Grandeau, the former head of the state lobbying commission, offers a gloomy assessment of Albany.
“We have a system now that I think is rife with corruption. But you can’t be sure about it because you can’t get access to the information. But every time you do get a little peek, it’s an ugly picture there,” he said.
Did the FBI uncover any other abuses while chasing Bruno? They won’t say. But a warning did come.
“Notwithstanding the significant difficulties and overcoming the lack of transparency in New York State government, let it be known that the FBI will continue to root out corruption with New York State government to ensure the integrity of the legislative process,” Pikus said.

Not mentioned are the Belgian polititcians that marched with Hamas and Hezbollah supporters at a recent demonstration

Belgium to stop exporting 'arms that bolster the IDF' to Israel
By Cnaan Liphshiz

Belgium's government has agreed to ban the export to Israel of weapons that "strengthen it militarily," a Belgian minister said on Thursday. A Brussels-based research group accused Israel of enlisting child soldiers. The Belgian daily De Morgen quotes Minister Patricia Ceysens from the Flemish regional government as saying: "There's a consensus [among ministers] not to approve exports that would strengthen Israel's military capacity." Ceysens said this after a discussion on policy regarding weapons exports to Israel following the operation in Gaza. A final resolution has not been passed yet, but Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht already said recently that "given the current circumstances, weapons cannot be shipped from Belgium to Israel." According to a recently-released report by the European Institute for Research and Information on Peace and Security on Belgian arms exports to the Jewish state, Israel is the fourth largest importer of Belgian arms in the Middle East. In 2007, Belgium sold Israel weapons (mostly light firearms) to the tune of $5,409,223, according to the report. The report, which accuses Israel of human rights violations, also says that Belgium's major weapons clients in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia (69 percent), Jordan (17 percent) and the United Arab Emirates (4.2 percent). The 15-page report does not deal with human rights violation in those countries. Quoting a 2003 amendment to Belgian law which forbids the sale of weapons to armies with child soldiers, the report says that Israel "accepts and arms underage volunteers." Further on, the report mentions "use of underage Palestinians as informants and sometimes human shields." The Israeli Defense Forces' Gadna program runs a one-week military training session on a base as part of the curriculum at most Israeli high schools. The army accepts volunteers from the age of 17 into non-combat posts. Meanwhile, 13 Belgian politicians, authors and scholars released a statement that calls for a more evenhanded approach to Israel.

Human rights groups do more to harm then help

RE: Rendition [Mark Hemingway]
Buried in that LAT article on rendition Jonah linked below is a flip-flop from Human Rights Watch that would impress even the East German judge. Here's Human Rights Watch in April of last year:
The US government should:·Repudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic and permanently discontinue the CIA's rendition program;·Disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001, including detainees who were rendered to Jordan;·Repudiate the use of "diplomatic assurances" against torture and ill-treatment as a justification for the transfer of a suspect to a place where he or she is at risk of such abuse;·Make public any audio recordings or videotapes that the CIA possesses of interrogations of detainees rendered by the CIA to foreign custody;·Provide appropriate compensation to all persons arbitrarily detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody.
Now here's Human Rights Watch in the era of Hope and ChangeTM:
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured — but that designing that system is going to take some time."

It's not as easy as it looks, is it Mr. President?

Obama voices concern about freed Guantanamo inmates
Mon Feb 2, 2009 11:52am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said in an interview aired on Monday he worried that detainees freed from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, might resume attacks on the United States.
But he told NBC News that closure of the prison was a matter of upholding U.S. values and law, and that a failure to do so would ultimately make Americans less secure.
"Can we guarantee that they're not going to try to participate in another attack? No," Obama said. "But what I can guarantee is that if we don't uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe. And that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like al-Qaeda."
In one of the first acts of his new administration, Obama, who was sworn in as U.S. president on January 20, signed an executive order directing that Guantanamo prison be closed within a year.
Some 250 terrorism suspects are being held at Guantanamo, many of them detained for years without charge and some subjected to interrogation that human rights groups say amounted to torture.
Obama critics note that even former President George W. Bush wanted to close Guantanamo. They say the difficult issue is deciding what to do with the inmates because they cannot be sent home for fear of torture, and other countries are unwilling to take them.
There also are fears some may return to their attacks against the United States. Several of the detainees released by the Bush administration again became active in anti-U.S. militant groups.
"Is it going to be easy?" Obama asked in the interview. "No, because we've got a couple hundred of hard-core militants that, unfortunately, because of ... some problems that we had previously in gathering evidence, we may not be able to try in ordinary courts but we don't want to release."
But he expressed confidence that the administration would ultimately find a solution balancing security and U.S. legal values.
"I have to make the very best judgments I can make in terms of what's going to keep the American people safe and ... what's going to uphold our Constitution and our traditions of due process," Obama said. "And what I'm convinced of is -- we can balance those interests in a way that makes all of us proud but also assures that we're not attacked."

Follow the Money

Frank J. discovers a smoking gun regarding the stimulus proposal:

As the government contemplates spending hundreds of billions of dollars, a lot of people are getting suspicious. Were exactly did the federal government get all this money? I mean, it just doesn’t seem like there is any way they obtained all that legally. Now, if someone’s expenditures is way beyond their reported income, usually that’s something the IRS would go after, but I’ve checked the records and the federal government has given every single IRS employee thousands of dollars over the past year, so there is no way they’re going after the government. So, as usual, that leaves it up to bloggers to investigate.


Now, my first guess is that the federal government is in the drug trade. A pretty big player too. Still, they could be getting every single kid on the playground high and that wouldn’t account for all the hundreds of billions, plus I haven’t got any evidence to support that. I know what you’re thinking: “You’re a blogger; what do you care about evidence?” Well, remember, we’re talking about the federal government. If I start throwing around charges I can’t back up, they’ll come after me.


I did find evidence for one idea of how they get that money: A protection racket. The federal government extorts trillions from its citizens and their businesses on the promise of keeping them safe from foreign countries. We’re talking a huge percentage of everyone’s gross going straight to the federal government to keep us safe from these supposed foreign countries who pretty much never attack us. And what if you don’t pay your protections money? The federal government sends men with guns to abduct you.


Is there anything we can do? It’s hard to say. The police are all on the take of the federal government which regularly sends out money to all local police. We just have to keep the word out.

The danger ahead

YES WE CAN!! have a global depression if we really continue to work at it…
February 1, 2009
I used to be optimistic about the capacity of our political leaders and central bankers to avoid the policy mistakes that could turn the current global recession into a deep and lasting global depression. Now I’m not so sure.
I used to believe that the unavoidable protectionist and mercantilist rhetoric would not be matched by protectionist and mercantilist deeds. Protectionism was one of the factors that turned a US financial crisis into a global depression in the 1930s. Protectionism imposes large-scale structural sectoral dislocation, as exporters are ejected from their foreign markets and domestic producers that depend on cheap imported imports suddenly find themselves to no longer be competitive, on top of the global effective demand failure we are already suffering from.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Another reason the Big 2.5 need to file for Chapter 11

It's not just the unions crippling the auto industry, it's the government at all levels.


Editorial: The Truth About Car Dealer Franchise Laws
By Robert FaragoFebruary 1, 2009

As a man with his finger on the pulse of the autoblogosphere, I can report that there’s a groundswell of critical coverage of The Big 2.8’s credibility. TTAC is no longer a lone voice. Questions are being asked. Issues raised. One of the most critical: why can’t Chrysler, GM and Ford just ditch their unwanted brands? Answer: state-by-state dealer franchise laws that heavily favor the dealers—thanks to their political clout. The Big 2.8 can’t live with ‘em, they can’t afford to live without ‘em. The Colorado Statesman’s Jerry Kopel does some deep diving into this devilish dilemma and provides some important insights on this life-or-death (well, C11 anyway) issue.
Car dealers are “local,” known politically to legislators both in Colorado and other states. Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets. The same is true for locals, especially fundraising and fund-giving locals. In 1937, Colorado was among the first states to start interfering in arrangements between dealers and manufacturers. It is still on the books as CRS 112-6-201 to 213, the Antimonopoly Financing law. In 72 years, just one section has been amended.
Inactions have consequences. Here’s the money shot.
“The sale and distribution of motor vehicles affects the public interest and confidence of the purchaser in the retail dealer from whom the purchase is made and the expectancy that such dealer will remain in business to provide service for the motor vehicle purchased.
“Proper motor vehicle service is important to highway safety and
(1) the manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles have an obligation to the public
(a) not to terminate or refuse to continue their franchise agreements with retail dealers
(b) unless the manufacturer or distributor has first established
(i) good cause for termination or noncontinuance of any such agreement,(ii) to the end that there shall be no diminution of locally available service.”
The manufacturers have the burden of showing “good cause,” but even if they do, they also have to show “no diminution of locally available service.”
(Note to the drafting office: “Good cause” is not defined in the statute. “Good faith” is.)
As a result, car dealerships have gained territorial monopolies (called geographic areas) from their manufacturers, fending off anyone who might want to muscle in by opening a competing franchise. So if Chrysler merged with Ford, who gets to sell the Chrysler cars? Does territorial integrity mean Chrysler franchises lose out, or that Ford franchises must defend themselves from lawsuits across the country?
And if that’s enough to make it impossible (i.e., extremely expensive) for an automaker to terminate a dealer and be done with it, Colorado is strengthening its laws in anticipation of just such an eventuality.
Romer’s SB 91 is assigned to the Business Affairs Committee. Here’s a sampling of the various amendments in the bill:
1. The manufacturer “who disapproves of a sale or transfer of a franchise shall reimburse the prospective purchaser and seller for any actual costs incurred in attempting to sell or transfer the franchise.”
Which means that there is no down side for the seller or purchaser. Payments must be made for lawyer or accountant fees. No wording has been added requiring “good faith” on the part of the potential purchaser or seller.
2. Temporary ownership of the franchise.
Present law allows the manufacturer two years to make the transition to another dealer. The bill cuts that in half to one year, providing less time to determine the credibility of applicants.
3. Termination of franchises.
Manufacturers with “good cause” are presently out of pocket for payments to the bad franchiser by statute. The Romer bill adds to that: The unused portion of the facility lease costs and “goodwill value.”
In addition, in order to prove “good cause,” manufacturers must submit a great deal of information for termination to occur. The Romer bill sets a time limit of 30 days for the manufacturer to submit that information.
Pragmatically, it would be smarter to pay off a bad franchiser than to try to meet the requirements of Colorado’s car franchise statute.
4. Squeezing the best out of ANY promotion.
A manufacturer, to save one franchise from going under in South Carolina, might offer a unique concept, such as offering trade-ins at no cost to either the dealer or the consumer. Under the Romer bill, the manufacturer would have to make exactly the same offer to each of its franchises in Colorado.
There’s no wiggle room here. A manufacturer operating in Colorado seeking to cull a brand or four or trim a dealer or 50 must either fork-out a fortune to terminate a franchise, slowly starve the dealers to death, convince Uncle Sam to write a law over-riding the state’s franchise regulations or file Chapter 11. Which would eliminate ALL this fancy footwork at a single stroke. Guess which one makes most sense?

Totalitarianism is always for your own good or the kids or the planet

Dr recommends fat kids should be taken from parents

Notice no mention about their innocence.

Isn't it amazing that these 60's radicals (murderers) like Angela and Bill Ayers have found success on the lecture circuit and in the educational system?
When you are blinded by racism and searching for the Communist ideal this is the kind of reasoning that evolves. Angela you go tell the black mother whose son has been murdered by another black man that he's not going to jail because the quota for black prisoners has been exceeded.


Angela Davis: Prisons perpetuate oppression of minorities
By CLYNTON NAMUONew Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent

DURHAM – After the inauguration of the first black president, America is now on the precipice of changes that were never before possible, 1960s radical turned academic Angela Davis told a crowd of hundreds at the University of New Hampshire last night.
The vestiges of slavery, colonization and exploitation remain rife throughout America, as is evidenced by the over-representation of minorities in prison, Davis said. The prison population, now estimated to be one in 100 adult Americans, only contributes to the oppression of minorities, she said.
It is a pattern seen across the country, even in New Hampshire, Davis said.
In the Granite State, white men are arrested at a rate of 289 per 100,000, but for black men it is more than 2,000 per 100,000, Davis said.

Angela Davis
"That means a black man in this state is 10 times more likely to be discovered behind bars," she said.
Minorities are often over-represented in prison because police surveillance in their communities is higher, Davis said.
Around the world, the same thing is happening as people who were once unashamedly beat down continue to live below others both socially and economically. While blacks and other minorities are over-represented in American prisons, in Australia, it is aborigines, she said.
Davis spoke before a crowd of more than 500 last night as she keynoted UNH's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations at the Johnson Theatre. Her topic: Education or Incarceration: The Future of Democracy.
Davis said prisons in America help to perpetuate a cycle that keeps minorities down and contributes to a lack of education for them.
"Of course, more funds are channeled into prisons so that education suffers and because education suffers, more people end up along trajectories that lead them into prison, which means more funds have to be channeled into the prisons; it's this vicious circle," she said.
But now, with a black President in office, America may finally have the momentum to disassemble what she called the "prison industrial complex," one where incarceration is privatized and profited from.
"This is the moment to think about the different modes of justice," she sai. "Justice that is compassionate, justice that is community building, not community destroying."
Davis was once a radical and member of the Black Panthers, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Communist party. She gained notoriety for a headline-making 1972 trial in California, where she was acquitted of murder and kidnapping charges.
Since then, she has become a respected university professor and does extensive research on prisons and minorities.

It's okay now a Democrat is doing it.

"Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States."

Read the whole article here:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7876017.story

Please follow the link for the video

Islamic imperialism or Hamas in London, either way it should be a wakeup call from England.


Police 'ran away' from jeering Gaza demonstrators
By Christopher LeakeLast updated at 2:47 PM on 01st February 2009

Video footage posted on a website shows police officers running way from chanting demonstrators who took part in a violent protest in London against Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip.
The ten-minute amateur film shows 30 officers being chased by a crowd of up to 3,000 people who broke away from an official protest march last month.
The video, posted on YouTube, shows protesters chanting 'Allahu Akbar' (God is Greatest) and 'Fatwa', a death threat under Islamic law.
Watch the protesters chase the police...

Retreat: Officers 'walk backwards' away from the mob
Under the headline Metropolitan Police Humiliated At The Hands Of Muslim Demonstrators In London, protesters are shown shouting: 'Free, Free Palestine.'
As they walk past St James's Palace, demonstrators throw traffic cones and stones at the police, who are seen running away from the threat before turning to walk backwards.
One demonstrator shouts: 'Run, run, you cowards. Run, you poof. Allahu Akbar.'

More...
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: A backwards step
A female steward attempting to calm down the protesters pleads, 'Back, back' as the crowd advances on the police. But she is ignored as one male protester shouts: 'They're going to get it.'
After coming into Piccadilly, near the five-star Ritz Hotel, demonstrators goad police as they draw their batons, screaming 'Free, Free Palestine' once more and a policeman is seen punching a young man in the face.
Despite pleas from another officer asking the crowd to 'calm down', the protesters laugh at him and throw more traffic cones. One shouts: 'You swine.'
Watch the protesters chase the police (Caution: contains strong language)

Important note to the global warmists...

Could it be that Arctic ice melts are more a function of volcanic activity then anything else. Pay attention to what happening now at Mt. Redoubt in Alaska, the glacier is melting. Global warming is a myth perpetrated to control you and your choices. It's Malthus' revenge

Turtle fossil shows how 'super-greenhouse effect' created tropical Arctic
The discovery of a fossilised ancient turtle reveals the North Pole was once "extremely" warm and tropical, scientists said.

The North Pole: "extremely" warm and tropical millions of years ago Photo: GETTY IMAGES
Animals migrated from Asia to North America directly across the formerly frost-free Arctic Ocean, new evidence shows.
Geologists made the breakthrough after discovering the fossil of a freshwater Asian turtle - dating back millions of years - in Canada.
John Tarduno, a US-based professor of geophysics at the University of Rochester, said: "We've known there's been an interchange of animals between Asia and North America in the late cretaceous period, but this is the first example we have of a fossil in the High Arctic region showing how this migration may have taken place.
"We're talking about extremely warm, ice-free conditions in the Arctic region, allowing migrations across the pole."
Numerous rivers from the adjacent continents would have poured fresh water into the ancient Arctic sea, he said.
Fresh water, which is lighter than marine water, may have rested on top of the salty ocean water allowing animals such as the turtle to migrate with relative ease.
The professor, who published his findings in the journal Geology, added: "We found this turtle right on top of the last flood basalts - a large stretch of lava from a series of giant volcanic eruptions.
"That leads us to believe that the warming may have been caused by volcanoes pumping tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere.
"There is evidence that this volcanic activity happened all around the planet - not just the Arctic.
"If it all happened on a short-enough timescale, it could cause a super-greenhouse effect."
The research team plans to return to the Arctic to look for more fossils.


Why are people in the midwest and Kentucky still without help?

Obama hates white people and wants them to die
Rick Moran
With nearly 1.5 million people in the mid-west without power during a cold snap, what other possible reason is there that this new "competent" administration and FEMA would be failing so spectacularly in helping in this natural disaster?It's got to be that Obama hates white people and wants them to die!Of course, I am just aping what lefty blogs were saying about Bush less than 24 hours after Katrina's hurricane winds stopped blowing. But AP is reporting that Midwest disaster relief people are none too pleased with our new president's FEMA.In Kentucky's Grayson County, there are 25 National Guardsmen there to help - but no chain saws to cut away fallen limbs and trees. EM Director Randell Smith is quoted as saying, "We've got people out in some areas we haven't even visited yet," Smith said. "We don't even know that they're alive."
Smith is also quoted as saying that FEMA is a "no show."
What's that? Here we are 5 days after the storm ended and still no FEMA? I demand a Congressional investigation. And let's get all the anchors and media people down here pronto. People's lives are at stake. For all we know, there are babies being eaten and people jumping off their roofs committing suicide because FEMA is nowhere to be found.
And where is our president? Shouldn't he be visiting these ravaged areas? It must be that he HATES WHITE PEOPLE AND WANTS THEM TO DIE. That is the only possible explanation for this incredible failure of our national government to relieve the suffering of these people.
Isn't it interesting that now that we have a Democrat as president that all of a sudden, disaster relief is a state and local matter and the federal government should stand aside and allow them to do their jobs?
Just wondering...

The Stimulus Bill ...

''You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.''The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005

It's the Russian way...

Russian newspaper mourns another murdered reporter
By MIKE ECKEL
MOSCOW (AP) - The dead loom over the morning editorial meeting at Russia's leading investigative newspaper. Novaya Gazeta's staff is trying to plan the next issue and editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov is in an understandably foul mood.
In a corner hang photos of four reporters he has lost in the past eight years - one beaten to death, one allegedly poisoned, two shot - the most recent on Jan. 19.
It's not easy to put a paper out these days, Muratov says.
"There's usually a lot of jokes, laughing, talk about ideas. But our batteries are totally spent," says Muratov, 47, billows of pipe smoke filling the long pauses. "How can there be any sort of (normal) frame of mind when a journalist is being buried?"
That journalist was Anastasia Baburova, a 25-year-old cub reporter. She and a human rights lawyer were shot execution-style by a masked man with a silenced pistol as they walked together a few blocks from the Kremlin.
In a country considered one of the most dangerous for journalists, no Russian newspaper has suffered like Novaya Gazeta. In a country where most media have been cowed into submission, no other newspaper publishes such probing investigative articles and acid commentary about government corruption, police-state politics and Chechnya war abuses.
"Every two or three years, we lose someone," says Elena Kostyuchenko, a 21-year-old investigative writer for the paper. "But you just have to write, write, write and keep writing. You have to."
Some 16 journalists have died in contract-style slayings or under suspicious circumstances in Russia since 2000. Many more have been assaulted or threatened.
Under Vladimir Putin, who became president in 2000 and now is prime minister, the TV networks watched by most Russians were taken over by the state, their news operations highly sanitized. Big-selling newspapers are either sympathetic to the Kremlin or owned by Kremlin-allied business groups.
Of the many free-spirited papers that sprang up when the Soviet Union collapsed, Novaya Gazeta - meaning New Newspaper - is a rare survivor.
Its most high-profile loss was Anna Politkovskaya, a reporter who savaged the Kremlin for its conduct of the war on Chechen separatists. Her shooting outside her Moscow apartment in 2006 provoked worldwide condemnation and major embarrassment for the Kremlin.
Three Chechens - two brothers and a former police officer - are on trial but the prosecution is not offering a motive or identifying any mastermind, leading Novaya Gazeta and others to claim the trial is a cover-up. Putin has claimed the killing was hatched abroad to discredit Russia.
The paper's first fatality, in 2000, was Igor Domnikov, who wrote about regional corruption. He was attacked with a hammer. Seven members of a criminal gang were convicted of his murder in 2007. The lead defendant claimed a regional governor had Domnikov killed for criticizing him. The governor was not charged.
In 2003, Yury Shchekochikhin died of a severe allergic reaction, but colleagues claimed he was poisoned. Shchekochikhin, 53, wrote about high-level corruption and investigated the deadly 1999 bombings of apartment blocks.
In the latest killing, it appears lawyer Stanislav Markelov, who specialized in defending Chechens, environmentalists and human rights activists, was the primary target and Baburova may have been killed after she tried to intervene.
Many at Novaya Gazeta are convinced that nationalist or fascist groups are behind the latest attacks and the paper's own blog is full of anonymous postings celebrating the killings. Others suspect the involvement of security agencies, citing past incidents when Novaya Gazeta's phones were tapped or in 2000, when its computer hard drives were stolen.
Novaya Gazeta writers and editors have attended self-defense classes and keep their notes hidden or stored on secure computer servers. Some use pseudonyms. At least one has bodyguards because of death threats. Others take precautions they won't discuss. Alexander Lebedev, a billionaire ex-lawmaker who is part-owner of the paper, is demanding that authorities allow its reporters to carry guns.
Not all the paper's staff support the idea. Muratov, the editor, does.
"Either we defend ourselves or we go write about nature and birds ... and all positive things. We become a tabloid," he says. "And then we don't write about the security services. We don't write about corruption. ... We don't write about fascism."
Yulia Latynina, a radio show host and Novaya Gazeta columnist who is relentlessly critical of Putin, blames fascist gangs for the killings and accuses police agencies and security forces of sympathizing or even cooperating with them.
Like Politkovskaya, her name appears regularly on death lists circulating on the Internet. Is she afraid? Latynina demurs, saying: "The Kremlin doesn't need another Politkovskaya."
Vera Chelysheva, who writes for the paper's Web site, says most Russians are indifferent to the murders.
"This is a country that lived through the gulag camps, through Stalin, they know how to kill people. That's why no one is taking to the streets in protest," she says. "This is a country that's forgetting its history."
Founded in 1993, Novaya Gazeta is published thrice-weekly and its circulation has climbed to 270,000, - less than the state-run or pro-Kremlin newspapers but strong among Russians who seek an independent voice on touchy issues such as government corruption or Chechnya.
A libel judgment nearly shut it down in 2002. Then, three years ago, Lebedev and former President Mikhail Gorbachev bought a 49 percent stake for an undisclosed sum. The journalists hold the remaining shares.
Two days after the latest killings, half the front page was filled with a photo of Markelov lying on the sidewalk, blood pooled by his head, and these words of defiance:
"The killers have no fear. Because they know that they will never be punished. But the victims also have no fear. Because when you defend another person, you stop being frightened."