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 : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lorne who wrote (9830)8/26/2005 4:28:35 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 32591
 
The lefties at Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis banned me after I posted Krugman’s admission that his leftie “facts’ were wrong. LOL

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (35963)
8/26/2005 12:19:39 AM
From: paret
Read Replies (1) of 36034


Summer Of Our Discontent (Krugman Forced To Issue Corrections! HA!)
New York Times ^ | 8/26/05 | Paul Krugman

For the last few months there has been a running debate about the U.S. economy, more or less like this:

American families: "We're not doing very well."

The administration and some political commentators seem genuinely puzzled by polls showing that Americans are unhappy about the economy. After all, they point out, numbers like the growth rate of G.D.P. look pretty good. So why aren't people cheering?

(snip)

Corrections: In my column last Friday, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio's Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent. Also, the public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

Message 21639353



To: lorne who wrote (9830)8/27/2005 10:30:59 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 32591
 
You think the lefty liked this ?:

To: paret who wrote (247724) 8/27/2005 9:57:45 AM
From: John Fowler Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 247734

Just noted you are peoplemarked by 8 and ignored by 75. Ever wonder why?
___________________________________________________________
To: John Fowler who wrote (247725) 8/27/2005 9:59:12 AM
From: paret Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 247734

Because I NAIL the lefties in their lies and they HATE that. LOL

____________________________________________________________

To: John Fowler who wrote (247718) 8/27/2005 10:00:29 AM
From: paret Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 247734

You offer leftie NY TIMES Bush-Hater Maureen Dowd?

___________________________________________________________
To: John Fowler who wrote (247729) 8/27/2005 10:04:50 AM
From: paret Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 247734

Lefties like John Fowler squeal like a stuck pig when you nail them.

__________________________________________________________
To: paret who wrote (247727) 8/27/2005 10:06:21 AM
From: John Fowler Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 247734

re: You offer leftie NY TIMES Bush-Hater Maureen Dowd?

Don't you just love her? So clever, honest, nice looking woman. Lot's of experience covering the Bush family.

You don't feel threatened, do you?

_________________________________________________________
To: paret who wrote (247731) 8/27/2005 10:10:56 AM
From: John Fowler Mark as Last Read | Respond to of 247734

re: Lefties like John Fowler squeal like a stuck pig when you nail them.

OK, now I get it...

You are up to 76 ignores. Congratulations! _______________________________________________________

To: John Fowler who wrote (247732) 8/27/2005 10:13:24 AM
From: paret Mark as Last Read | Respond to of 247734

Now lefty John Fowler brings up the tired "religion" of the mindless lefties--their beloved psychiatry.

When a lefties like John Fowler can't handle a subject, they immediately revert to pathetic "attacks" in the form of hurling "epithets" from their beloved "religion," psychiatry.

"Are you threatened?" is one of the most common ones.

Others are, Are you paranoiac? etc etc etc.

You just nailed YOURSELF, Lefty John. LOL.

I bet your psychiatrist is proud of you.


_______________________________________________________________ from

Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)



To: lorne who wrote (9830)8/30/2005 9:54:38 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 32591
 
Sharia protesters target Canada

theglobeandmail.com

By MARINA JIMÉNEZ

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 Updated at 5:09 AM EDT

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

A campaign against Ontario allowing sharia tribunals to resolve family disputes has spread to Europe, where protests are planned for Sept. 8 in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Düsseldorf and Stockholm.

As many as 89 international groups have spoken out against an Ontario law allowing faith-based arbitration, saying it will create a precedent for religious fundamentalists working to suppress women's rights, and give fodder to political Islamists in Europe who are also lobbying for sharia law to be used to settle family matters.

"A lot of French people cannot believe it, because for us Canada is a country with very good rights for women. It is unbelievable," said Michèle Vianès, president of Regards de femmes, a non-governmental organization in France. "Under sharia, women do not have the same rights as men. Sharia is a bad idea. How is it possible that Canada would back it?"

Ms. Vianès will demonstrate outside the Canadian Embassy in Paris next Tuesday, alongside a number of high-profile French activists and politicians, including two former government ministers, the vice-president of the municipality of Lyon-Grand, dozens of writers, and representatives of human rights and women's groups.

Advertisements

Similar protests will take place outside the Canadian High Commission in London (in an event organized by the British Humanist Association, a human rights group whose international branch has consultative status with the United Nations), in Stockholm, Amsterdam and Düsseldorf, as well as in Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria, Ottawa, Montreal and Waterloo, Ont., said Homa Arjomand, co-ordinator for the International Campaign Against Sharia in Ontario.

The issue of sharia-based tribunals in Ontario is causing alarm in Europe, where Muslim feminists fighting for greater equality clash with conservative Muslim groups lobbying for faith-based family law.

"It is a battle to control the discourse of the religion. In Canada, political Islamists are using the tool of multiculturalism and freedom of culture and religion to oppress women. The introduction of sharia courts in Ontario would send the wrong message to the world," said Ms. Arjomand, who fled Iran in 1989 and settled in Toronto.

Rights and Democracy, a Montreal-based non-governmental organization, has also lobbied against faith-based tribunals, and won backing from 80 national organizations including the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Council for Muslim Women and the YWCA. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Women Living under Muslim Laws and dozens of other international groups have joined the global campaign.

Ontario's Arbitration Act from 1991 provides for voluntary faith-based arbitration to resolve civil and family-law disputes. This allows Muslims, Jews and other religious groups to use the principles of their faith to settle matters such as divorce, inheritance and custody outside the court system.

In 2003, Syed Mumtaz Ali, a retired Muslim lawyer, established the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, with an aim to train imams and religious scholars to resolve civil dispute in the community, a process already under way informally.

His announcement prompted the Ontario government to appoint former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd to review the Arbitration Act. She concluded there was no evidence women were being discriminated against in faith-based arbitration and recommended the existing arbitration system be strengthened. The Ontario government has not yet responded to the report; a spokesman for the Attorney-General did not comment on the growing international outcry.

Sharia, a body of law based on religious principles, is interpreted differently even among Muslim nations. However, critics say it is inherently discriminatory toward women. Male heirs receive a greater share of an inheritance than female heirs; husbands, not wives, may initiate divorce proceedings; and in divorce cases, fathers are generally awarded custody of daughters who have reached the age of puberty.

While in theory, faith-based arbitration must comply with Canadian civil law and decisions may be appealed, in reality, many Muslim women are isolated, with no idea what their rights are under Canadian law, Ms. Arjomand said.

"These international demonstrations reflect the concern that Ontario's approval of faith-based arbitration of family law will have serious consequences for women's rights beyond Canada, and that's a responsibility we urge the Ontario government to consider," said Gisèle Eva Côté, of Rights and Democracy.



To: lorne who wrote (9830)8/31/2005 7:13:55 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 32591
 
Washington Post Supports our Enemies
............................................
Why Does Our Media Support Our Enemies?
theOneRepublic.com ^ | 8/31/05 | Noel Sheppard

A front-page story concerning Iran in last Tuesday’s Washington Post was clearly intended to thwart American efforts preventing that country from obtaining nuclear weapons, as well as to embarrass the Bush administration with more implications of faulty intelligence.

In an article entitled “No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program”, Dafna Linzer states:

Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

Dontcha just love it when media outlets quote unnamed sources in stories with such vast global implications? Oftentimes, as in this instance, such vague references result in the article being so loosely based in verifiable facts that it is tough to take it seriously.

For example, the “findings” cited in this story come from a group of scientists that has been working in secret for the past nine months under the direction of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency -- you know, that group that did such a fabulous job of monitoring Iraq and North Korea’s weapons programs, and has consistently demonstrated itself to be a fabulous ally of ours.

Moreover, the final report of this top-secret group of scientists isn’t due to be presented to the IAEA and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei -- you know, that guy that has done such a fabulous job of running this nuclear watchdog agency, and has consistently demonstrated himself as being a fabulous ally of ours -- until September 3.

With that in mind, it is truly fascinating the size of the hairs the press is trying to split to make the case that Iran isn’t trying to split any atoms.

For instance, the premise of this article -- along with all others like it on Tuesday -- is that if this nuclear material in question can be linked back to uranium-contaminated equipment that had been brought from Pakistan years ago, it proves that Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear program.

Excuse me? It has been known for some time -- even by the illustrious IAEA -- that Iran began its nuclear work almost two decades ago with the help of Pakistani nuclear black-marketer A. Q. Khan. As such, it should come as no surprise -- even to the illustrious IAEA -- that any of Iran’s nuclear equipment could be somehow linked back to Pakistan.

In fact, the conclusion that this proves Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear program is thoroughly specious. After all, countries that were purchasing nuclear equipment and information from A. Q. Khan were doing so specifically to establish a nuclear program of their own. If they weren’t, why would they spend so much money on such things?

Yet, irrespective of the lack of any logical foundation, the press can’t be stopped from wasting such a fine opportunity to impugn the Bush administration:

The IAEA had put together the group of experts in an effort to foster cooperation but also to eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House, officials said. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House rejected IAEA findings that cast doubt on U.S. assertions about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The IAEA findings turned out to be correct, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

Nice prose, but not altogether accurate, is it? After all, evidence of Iraqi WMDs presented by the administration to the U.N. before the March 2003 invasion came in part from information obtained by U.N. weapons inspectors. As a result, suggesting that the U.N. was correct concerning Iraq not having WMDs is erroneous regardless of this assertion having become a rallying cry of the left.

Additionally, as is also regularly ignored by the press, the absence of WMD discoveries in Iraq up to this point does not abrogate the fact that international intelligence agencies across the globe for more than a decade reported that these weapons existed, nor does it discount anecdotal evidence suggesting that in the months leading up to the invasion, Saddam moved these weapons to other nations.

But presenting such alternative explanations to the public isn’t the charge of the mainstream media, is it? Instead, the goal here is to, once again, embarrass the administration enough to prevent it from having any hand in monitoring the nuclear activities of Iran, and, instead, place this responsibility squarely in the lap of the U.N. and the IAEA who have made it clear that they would welcome such an outcome.

In fact, the Washington Post doesn’t appear to be hiding this from its readers when it states that the intent on the IAEA’s part in creating this clandestine operation was to “eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House.”

Wow! Is this a concept that America and its citizens should welcome: an international organization researching sensitive information about our enemies with our tax dollars whose conclusions are unchallengeable by our leaders?

Of course, this should not come as a surprise to most Americans, for the left and their press -- regardless of all the evidence of corruption and malfeasance at the core of the United Nations -- still trusts this international body to defend America’s interests more than it does the Bush administration.

How sad.