SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (11926)10/12/2003 4:24:09 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793649
 
Just journalism finding its mission after losing it with an overreaction

I think of it as trying to stir up trouble when things are slow so that there will be a story to write about in the future.



To: JohnM who wrote (11926)10/12/2003 4:31:22 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793649
 
Speaking of stirring up trouble, Fisher is sure trying to start a war in Kufa. Does he think it is 1898, and he works for Hearst? He datelines it, "Baghdad," maybe he is writing from the Hotel Bar.
lindybill@rememberthemaine.com
________________________________

An Anti-American Iraqi Cleric Declares His Own Government
By IAN FISHER

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 11 — An anti-American cleric, whose forces clashed on Thursday with American soldiers and killed two of them, has proclaimed his own government in Iraq.

The move failed to produce any signs of popular support on Saturday but did appear to notch up his defiance of the American-led occupation.

Mainstream Iraqi leaders roundly condemned the announcement by the cleric, Moktada al-Sadr. The Baghdad City Council denounced it, as did members of the Iraqi Governing Council, the overall leadership body appointed by the United States.

Mr. Sadr, 30, is evidently challenging the authority of the Governing Council while trying to build a following among poor and alienated Iraqis among the Shiites Muslims, who make up a majority of the country's population.

"We don't think Mr. Sadr is serious about what he's going to do," Iyad Allawi, president of the council, told reporters here. "This council is legitimate."

At the same news conference, Adel Abdul Mahdi, another council member, said, "In our opinion, the Governing Council is the representative of the Iraqi people at this time."

Mr. Mahdi is also a senior member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by clerics more moderate than Mr. Sadr and who, in fact, have criticized him in the past.

Mr. Sadr is the son of a revered Shiite cleric who was killed in 1999, many believe on Saddam Hussein's orders. He made his announcement during his weekly sermon on Friday in Kufa, near Najaf, a city south of Baghdad considered holy by the Shiites.

"I have decided, and I have formed a government made up of several ministries," he said. "If you agree, I ask you to demonstrate peacefully in order to express your support."

Several hundred followers reportedly took to the streets in Najaf, but there have been no other known demonstrations of support for the move.

Officials with the American-led occupation here are watching Mr. Sadr — who controls an armed militia called the Jaish Mehdi — with wariness, though not outright alarm at the moment.

For now, allied officials said they would separate Mr. Sadr's words from his deeds. "If he wants to make silly statements, that's one thing," an allied official said. "If he starts challenging directly law and order in this country, we have to react. And Iraqi police, I know, will want to react."

So far, the biggest threat to the American forces here has come from common criminals and from people still loyal to Mr. Hussein, who had long rewarded his fellow Sunni Muslims at the expense of the Shiites.

In turn, the Shiites have been cautiously more supportive of American efforts here, and Mr. Sadr's followers appear to represent a possible new danger to the American troops.

Though it is unclear how far Mr. Sadr intends to push, tension has been growing in recent days between him and Iraqi and American officials. On Tuesday, his supporters took over the city council office in Sadr City, the huge Shiite slum in northeast Baghdad where he has the most support and which is named for his father.

American officials say the takeover has sidelined various reconstruction works in Sadr City, including cleaning up the sewage that flows into the neighborhood streets.

The next day, about 1,000 of his supporters staged a demonstration in front of the American headquarters in downtown Baghdad, blocking streets as they demanded the release of a cleric who had been arrested by the Iraqi police. American officials say the cleric was arrested after weapons and ammunition were found in his mosque.

Then, on Thursday night, American officials say, a troop patrol was ambushed near his headquarters in Sadr City, setting off a sustained firefight that killed two American soldiers and wounded four others.

American military officials decline to say Mr. Sadr's followers were responsible for the ambush. But his followers acknowledged that they engaged in a clash with the soldiers, though they denied it was an ambush, saying the Americans had fired first and provoked them by searching Mr. Sadr's headquarters.

At least two Iraqis were also killed in the clash, and that inflamed passions in Sadr City. An angry throng of perhaps 10,000 people gathered on Friday to honor the two Iraqis killed and express anger at the Americans.

Elsewhere in Iraq, an abandoned section of oil pipeline was attacked Saturday near the northern city of Kirkuk, the American military said. While there were reports that two pipeline workers had been killed, a military spokesman said he had no reports of injuries. Other pipelines have also been sabotaged since Mr. Hussein's downfall.

The military also said American soldiers had raided three houses and detained four suspects in Tikrit, Mr. Hussein's hometown. One man in his 50's was led away blindfolded, his hands tied behind his back, the Americans said.

Altogether, three raids took place about six miles north of Tikrit. Raids in the area are often aimed at people suspected of financing attacks on allied forces.
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (11926)10/12/2003 5:10:50 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793649
 
The California Democrats are clueless. They stick with this attitude, the Republicans will have the majority in the Senate and House there next year.
_________________________________

Don't bet on Arnold Schwarzenegger to fail now

By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist - (Published October 9, 2003)
For all his bravado and bluster, and even with his convincing victory on Tuesday, Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't going to get very far as the state's chief executive unless he can persuade the Legislature to pass his program, or, as Gov. Gray Davis once put it, implement his vision.

But the doubters should proceed with caution. California's new governor is a man who has succeeded at virtually everything he has done in life, against great odds. Don't look for him to fail now.

Schwarzenegger starts with the advantage of having a vision. He wants to reduce taxes and burdens on business and make government more efficient, with the hope of ultimately increasing revenue for the programs he and the Democrats in the Legislature value. His top priorities for spending will be those programs that promote opportunity for all -- starting with public education.

Over the long term, it's a vision that a broad cross-section of Californians will support. But getting there will not be easy.

Schwarzenegger must propose a balanced budget to the Legislature by Jan. 10, and he faces an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion gap between projected spending and revenues. He says he'll tack another $4 billion onto that shortfall by repealing, on his first day in office, the recent tripling of the car tax.

Schwarzenegger has made his job tougher by refusing to prepare the voters for the tough choices ahead. If he sticks to his no-tax pledge, he cannot balance the budget without deep cuts in health and social services, and he steadfastly avoided specifics on that front during the campaign. So Californians might be taken aback when he informs them that his solution to the state's fiscal mess will be painful.

Democrats in Sacramento and in the wider political circles are divided on how to receive him. Paul Maslin, the chief pollster for Davis, says Democrats should give no quarter. In the bitterness of the election night defeat, Maslin called Schwarzenegger's victory the "Triumph of the Swill" in a mean-spirited reference to a 1934 documentary on the rise of Adolf Hitler.

"Fight like hell," Maslin said when I asked him how Democrats should respond. "Fight like hell. This is real. This is serious. This is ongoing. This is the first battle. You fight this guy every step of the way and the people behind him. You don't ever let him up. The Legislature may talk about cooperation, that's fine, they've got to do their job, but in terms of Democrats, we fight and we fight and we fight."

State Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Democrat from Santa Monica and a candidate to replace John Burton as Senate leader next year, was contemptuous toward the new governor. She said it will be the Senate's job to "save the state ... from ignorance" and added that "this guy has no idea how to run the state." Some Democrats, she said, might not bother showing up for his first State-of-the-State speech.

"What's this guy got to say to us about the state of the state?" Kuehl asked. "Nothing."

Kuehl's venom might not be shared by all Democrats. I received an e-mail late Tuesday from one lawmaker -- Assemblywoman Lois Wolk of Yolo County -- who said she looked forward to working with Schwarzenegger on government reforms that she and other centrists have been pursuing, to no avail, in the Capitol. But even those Democrats who welcome the new governor civilly will have trouble voting for deep reductions in programs that help the infirm and the poor.

Schwarzenegger will find it nearly impossible to win the votes he needs even for some of the cuts Davis proposed earlier this year but could not get through the Legislature. These include reductions in payments to doctors and hospitals that care for the poor, rollbacks of some of the recent expansions in Medi-Cal, and lower grants for the aged and welfare mothers.

His best chance for success lies in somehow treading water for a year or two while waiting for the economy to improve and conducting a serious review -- not a 60-day audit -- aimed at restructuring the way the state does business. He will find that the $13 billion in waste Sen. Tom McClintock spoke often about does not exist. But if he can detail his former opponent to find say, $2 billion or $3 billion that is doable, and doable in relatively quick fashion, it would be a major contribution.

And don't forget the federal government. Schwarzenegger has vowed to form a coalition of big-state governors whose states are burdened by the cost of serving illegal immigrants. President Bush and the Republicans who control Congress have many reasons to want to help, not the least of which is the 2004 presidential election. California can credibly claim at least $5 billion in these costs for the schools and other programs. If Bush delivers, both he and the new governor would see their popularity soar in this state.

We learned during the campaign that Schwarzenegger does not believe in playing by the same old political rules. I suspect the same will hold true for his administration. Expect surprises. Expect success.

The Bee's Daniel Weintraub can be reached at (916) 321-1914 or at dweintraub@sacbee.com. Readers can see his daily Weblog at www.sacbee.com/insider



To: JohnM who wrote (11926)10/12/2003 5:17:37 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793649
 
D'Souza explains how Kant destroyed the "Enlightenment." Easy to refute, but Kant rules today.
_____________________________________

RHYME AND REASON

Not So 'Bright'
Atheists aren't as rational as they think.

BY DINESH D'SOUZA WSJ.com
Sunday, October 12, 2003 12:01 a.m.

"We have always had atheists among us," the philosopher Edmund Burke wrote in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France," "but now they have grown turbulent and seditious." It seems that in our own day some prominent atheists are agitating for greater political and social influence. In this connection, leading atheist thinkers have been writing articles declaring that they should no longer be called "atheists." Rather, they want to be called "brights."
Yes, "brights," as in "I am a bright." In a recent article in the New York Times, philosopher Daniel Dennett defined a bright as "a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view." Mr. Dennett added that "we brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter bunny or God." His implication was clear: Brights are the smart people who don't fall for silly superstitions.

Mr. Dennett, like many atheists, is confident that atheists are simply brighter--more rational--than religious believers. Their assumption is: We nonbelievers employ critical reason while the theists rely on blind faith. But Mr. Dennett and his fellow "brights," for all their credentials and learning, have been duped by a fallacy. This may be called the Fallacy of the Enlightenment, and it was first pointed out by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know, and that limit is reality itself. In this view, widely held by atheists, agnostics and other self-styled rationalists, human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. The Enlightenment Fallacy holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.

In his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know. The only way that we apprehend reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that our five-mode instrument for apprehending reality is sufficient for capturing all of reality? What makes us think that there is no reality that goes beyond, one that simply cannot be apprehended by our five senses?

Kant persuasively noted that there is no reason whatsoever for us to believe that we can know everything that exists. Indeed what we do know, Kant said, we know only through the refracted filter of our experience. Kant argued that we cannot even be sure that our experience of a thing is the same as the thing-in-itself. After all, we see in pretty much the same way that a camera does, and yet who would argue that a picture of a boat is the same thing as a boat?

Kant isn't arguing against the validity of perception or science or reason. He is simply showing their significant limits. These limits cannot be erased by the passage of time or by further investigation and experimentation. Rather, the limits on reason are intrinsic to the kind of beings that humans are, and to the kind of apparatus that we possess for perceiving reality. The implication of Kant's argument is that reality as a whole is, in principle, inaccessible to human beings. Put another way, there is a great deal that human beings simply will never know.

Notice that Kant's argument is entirely secular: It does not employ any religious vocabulary, nor does it rely on any kind of faith. But in showing the limits of reason, Kant's philosophy "opens the door to faith," as the philosopher himself noted.
If Mr. Dennett and the rest of the so-called brights have produced refutations of Kant that have eluded the philosophical community, they should share them with the rest of us. But until then, they should refrain from the ignorant boast that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. Rather, as Kant showed, reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.

Mr. D'Souza, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, is the author, most recently, of "What's So Great About America" (Regnery, 2002).
opinionjournal.com