Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (37157)	8/15/2003 1:31:06 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

Laura Ingraham Dems whine, democracy shines newsandopinion.com \| "I think it insults democracy in this country. It's wrong." --John Kerry, on the California recall. "This is an attack on the institutions of our government. That's what Republicans do." --Dick Gephardt, in the echo chamber. Of course what John Kerry conveniently left out is that this "insult" to democracy is provided for by state law, and the one million plus Californians who signed the recall petition were pursuing their rights under that law. Ditto for the absurd "attack" on the government charge. What is "wrong" to an overwhelming majority of Californians is the fact that Gray "Skies" Davis has presided over a tanking of the state's economy, which has driven businesses out and pessimism in. Plus, why are senators and congressmen from other states suddenly authorities on the laws of California? Do Boxer and Pelosi make a point of lecturing Massachusetts on its local election law? The "it's not fair!" complaint of the political, media, and legal elite lately relates to far more than just the recall. The Washington Post editorial page has similarly railed against the Texas state legislature's redistricting plan, and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is busy blasting the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as too restrictive. (Justice Kennedy apparently didn't think he had demonstrated sufficient legal "evolution" in the Court's sodomy case.) All this hand-wringing and whining by the elites is undoubtedly related to their frustration that they haven't had such good luck at the polls lately. Their views on everything from bilingual education to the death penalty aren't being embraced by a majority of Americans, so they figure it's easier to just circumvent those pesky voters altogether. How? By looking to activist federal courts and international institutions for aid and comfort. Judges and UN delegates are not accountable to American voters who still-gasp!-reject the notion that the U.S. should become more progressive, more like France. Back to California, the hysteria on the left is all too predictable. The Los Angeles Times warns that "the recall is an unpredictable ballot gamble, a hand that shouldn't be played." Powerful reasoning. Of course politics itself is unpredictable, as if that small matter known as life. Given Davis's pathetic poll numbers, it's safe to say that Californians think a much riskier "ballot gamble" was voting for Davis in the first place. Contrary to what the Gray Skies supporters are alleging, California will survive the recall. Democracy is not being thwarted, it's being pursued. There may be freaky people among the 200 folks on the ballot, but the recall effort itself is not a freak show-it's a legislative remedy designed to give the beleaguered populace an escape valve. The voters are trying to take control back from a system that failed them. What is more American than individuals banding together to rise up against what they consider to be an abysmally bad leader? The Democrats in the running for the presidency are injecting themselves into an intra-state matter because they know their chances at the White House are kaput if California goes GOP. (Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman also unloaded a verbal assault on the recall.) If Californians were truly repulsed by the 1911 statute authorizing recall elections, they had 90+ years to repeal it. They didn't. So elites like Kerry want to repeal if for them after the fact and outside the legislative process. Laws and voters can be so inconvenient. By bemoaning the recall, Dem-elites are digging themselves into the mother of all sand traps. Californians have a right to determine their own political destiny without pols from outside the state interfering. Republicans and Democrats should see by now that there is a significant percentage of voters out there who feel like no one is listening. Sooner or later, as we saw in California, the people will stand up and say-no more. There is nothing more democratic than that.

To: calgal who wrote (37157)	8/15/2003 1:32:02 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

What is equal time? If the California recall election were a circus, as some like to think it is, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could be the ringmaster. Television viewers and election analysts have been amused by the list of celebrities, social butterflies, pornographers, assorted freaks and political has-beens that were certified as candidates for governor this week. Equally as silly is the FCC-enforced law that purports to give each of the 135 candidates equal time on broadcast media. Luckily, the legal loopholes are big enough for even Conan the Barbarian to slip through. There are several gray areas that make equal time no simple matter to enforce. The legalese of the definition of what constitutes air time is not even straightforward because it rests on an appearance being "identifiable" — a condition that leaves a lot of room for serious legal challenges. For example, at some point in "The Terminator," the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger's character gradually peels off to reveal that he is an android. When Mr. Schwarzenegger is identifiable as the California gubernatorial candidate and when he becomes the evil robot underneath the skin would have to be determined by the FCC. Similarly, the law does not make clear whether candidate Gary Coleman's guest appearances as a cartoon on "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons" qualify as identifiable appearances. These are important questions, as equal time cannot be allotted to competitors who make a request without an accurate measurement of how many minutes the others spent on the air. Much of the confusion in the law is intentional. The provision, which is part of the 1986 Telecommunications Act, was written by congressmen who have a direct stake involved in maximizing their air time while minimizing that of their challengers. In reality, equal time was a populist gesture to make it look as if the proverbial little guy can take on a political Goliath with equal access to the media. The five exceptions for newscasts, news interviews, on-the-spot news coverage of breaking events, political conventions and some documentaries guarantee that elected officials rarely violate the equal-time rule no matter how many hours their lovely faces appear on screen. And given that almost 90 percent of television viewers have cable or satellite — which are not restricted by the equal-time law — it is our view that too much time has been focused on equal time already.

To: calgal who wrote (37157)	8/15/2003 11:05:18 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

The battle over Daniel Pipes Charles Krauthammer August 15, 2003 WASHINGTON -- The president has nominated Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace. This has resulted in a nasty eruption of McCarthyism. Pipes' nomination has been greeted by charges of Islamophobia, bigotry and extremism. Three Democratic senators (Kennedy, Dodd and Harkin) have shamefully signed on to this campaign, with quasi-Democrat Jeffords tagging along. Who is Daniel Pipes? Pipes is a former professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He has taught history and Islamic studies at Harvard and the University of Chicago. He is a scholar and the author of 12 books, four of which are on Islam. Unlike most of the complacent and clueless Middle East academic establishment, which specializes in the brotherhood of man and the perfidy of the United States, Pipes has for years been warning that the radical element within Islam posed a serious and growing threat to the United States. During the decades when America slept, Pipes was among the very first to understand the dangers of Islamic radicalism. In his many writings he identified it, explained its roots -- including, most notably, Wahhabism as practiced and promoted by Saudi Arabia -- and warned of its plans to infiltrate and make war on the United States itself. Sept. 11 demonstrated his prescience. Like most prophets, he is now being punished for being right. The main charge is that he is anti-Muslim. This is false. Pipes is scrupulous in making the distinction between radical Islam and moderate Islam. Indeed, he says, ``Militant Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution.'' The dilemma for a free society is that radical Islam lives within the bosom of moderate Islam. The general Islamic community is the place radicals can best disguise themselves and hide. Mosques are institutions that they can exploit to advance the cause. These are obvious truths. But when Pipes states them, he is accused of bigotry. For example, critics thunder against Pipes' assertion that ``mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples.'' This is bigoted? How is this even controversial? Wahhabists and other radical Islamists have established mosques and other religious institutions in dozens of countries. Some of these -- most notoriously in Pakistan -- had become the locus of not just radical but terrorist activity. Where do you think Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was radicalized and recruited? In a Buddhist monastery? He was hatched in the now notorious Finsbury Park mosque in London. Does that mean that all mosques or a majority of mosques or even many mosques harbor such activity? No. But it does mean any given mosque is more likely to harbor such activity than any given synagogue or church. The attack on Pipes for stating this obvious truth is just another symptom of the absurd political correctness surrounding Islamic radicalism. It is the same political correctness that prohibits ethnic profiling on airplanes. We are all supposed to pretend that we have equal suspicions of terrorist intent and thus must give equal scrutiny to a 70-year-old Irish nun, a 50-year-old Jewish seminarian, and a 30-year-old man from Saudi Arabia. Your daughter is on that plane: To whom do you want the security guards to give their attention? President Bush is considering bypassing the Senate and giving Pipes a recess appointment while Congress is out of town. For Bush, this would be an act of characteristic principle and courage. The problem, however, is that such an act makes the appointment look furtive. Worse, it lets the McCarthyites off too easy. Pipes' appointment would be a great asset to the U.S. Institute of Peace. But it would be an even greater asset to the country to bring the Democrats' surrender to political correctness into the open. Let them declare themselves. Let the country see that for some of the most senior Democratic leaders, speaking the truth about Islamic radicalism is a disqualification for serious office. Pipes' nomination has been endorsed by, among others, Fouad Ajami, Walter Berns, Donald Kagan, Sir John Keegan, Paul Kennedy, Harvey Mansfield and James Q. Wilson. Who are you going to believe? Such unimpeachable and independent scholars? Or a quartet of craven senators? ©2003 Washington Post Writers Group