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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (21682)	8/13/2007 9:38:57 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

We'll never forget New Year's Eve 1999. We had been at a party somewhere or other, and were walking along a street, either heading for the subway or hailing a cab, when it hit us: It was 2000--that is, "Y2K"--and nothing had happened. No planes falling from the sky, no centenarians carted off to first-grade classrooms, no hordes trapped on malfunctioning escalators. All the alarmist hype we'd heard through the late 1990s turned out to be baloney--just as we had long suspected. This has colored our view of other alarmist predictions. Opponents of Iraq's liberation warned that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction on U.S. troops and that America's presence in Iraq would spur more terrorism, yet although Iraq has proved to be a slog, these claims were balderdash. Similarly, the Y2K experience is one reason we find it hard to take "global warming" seriously. Of course, we could be wrong. Sometimes alarming news is in accord with alarming predictions. Peggy Noonan more or less predicted 9/11 (and Bill Clinton's evasion of responsibility for it) in a Jan. 19, 2001, column, and we don't remember being particularly perturbed as we edited it. Now it turns out that there was a Y2K bug--and it contributed to global warming hype. Michael Asher of DailyTech.com has the story: My earlier column(http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupts+over+NOAA+Climate+Data/article8347.htm) this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000. These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data. . . . NASA has now silently released corrected figures(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt), and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. This almost sounds too good to be true: The one Y2K bug that happened to slip through was the one that contributed to another alarmist narrative. But when you think about it, it makes sense. NASA's faulty findings didn't look faulty to global warmists, who saw exactly what they were expecting to see. * But Y2K turns out to have a kernel of truth. opinionjournal.com

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (21682)	8/13/2007 9:41:57 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Hillary Clinton exploited the Minneapolis bridge collapse to tell us we need the federal government to invest in infrastructure – "to protect us" and to "create jobs." How would she improve the recovery in New Orleans? Simple, "The first thing I would do is put somebody in charge who actually cared about the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast," So she'd fire Ray Nagin? How would she do that as President? Does she have in mind an Imperial Presidency ala Hugo Chavez and Fidel Casto?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (21682)	9/13/2007 1:41:45 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

September 12, 2007 The War On Terror Six Years On By Tony Blankley As we start the seventh year since the Sept. 11 attacks, many in the United States and other countries seem largely baffled and conflicted about the nature of the world in which we live. In the Muslim fifth of the world, probably about a quarter of the population wishes to clash with America and the West. Probably more than half do not wish such conflict but wrongly suspect that America is out to divide and suppress Islam. Meanwhile, much of the Muslim Westernized elite (no more than 5 percent of the total population) -- who live in Muslim countries, America and the rest of the West -- rather desperately hope radical Islam and the Western response it has induced would just go away. It would prefer to live and prosper peacefully in the globalized Western world. Muslim governments in the Middle East and elsewhere are playing a dangerous double game -- cooperating with Western intelligence and covert military efforts and jailing some of the terrorists, while at the same time giving rhetorical and financial support to the deranged paranoia about Americans and Jews that inflames the radical instincts of the Muslim masses. In fairness, those governments, indeed most governments -- West or East -- focus on the short term. Moderate Muslim regimes realize that in the long term they would be overthrown if the radicals gain power, but in the short term they rhetorically support the madness of the radicals to avoid further inflaming them. So they risk losing tomorrow for the sake of staying alive today. It might seem logical that Russia and China would have an interest in fighting radical Islam; instead they have decided that their strongest short-term self-interest lies in standing back and letting the U.S. get more deeply entangled in the struggle. Leaving America to carry the burden alone allows the Russian government to more effectively rebuild its influence over the former Soviet empire and enables China to strengthen its economy and regional hegemony. Overwhelmingly in Europe, and to a lesser but still large extent in the United States, the vastly unpopular Iraq war has been conflated with the broader war against radical Islam. This regrettable fact has been compounded by the intense hatred of President Bush, who has prosecuted the war with such personal determination and whose own rhetoric has contributed to the confusion. As a result, six years after 9/11, there is little consensus in the United States or Europe as to the nature and magnitude of the threat, and many -- including government officials, experts and the general public -- still believe there is little to fear from radical Islam and its terrorists. These people -- perhaps two-thirds of Europeans and 30-40 percent of Americans -- believe the terrorists can be dealt with merely with law enforcement, as previous 20th-century European terrorists had been. Those who hold this view are likely to wrongly see President Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others, such as me, who agree with them as exploiting the fear of Muslim terrorists for crass political advantage. Thus, much of the ferocious controversy over electronic intercepts, Guantanamo, CIA renditions, semi-secret foreign-based CIA prisons, coerced interrogation methods, and the Patriot Act provisions is a product of not seeing a sufficient threat to national security to justify tough wartime intrusions into civil liberties. If we in the United States can't agree on the nature and magnitude of the threat, we aren't likely to agree on the means of protecting ourselves from it. Until a majority can be convinced that we face real danger from radical Islam, virulent political strife in Washington will continue to delay the design and implementation of an effective, united national defense. Europe's large and growing Muslim population is inducing an ever-growing fear and distaste of Islam in the indigenous peoples. Several countries -- those of the European Union generally; Britain, Holland and Sweden specifically -- have responded with a politically correct concern for Muslims, at the expense of their own cultures. The failure of those governments to respond to justifiable anxieties is increasingly alienating their own citizens. France and Denmark, however, are making tentative steps to deal firmly with the excesses of Muslim culture. And even the British are beginning to consider tougher immigration and deportation procedures. With America's smaller, less geographically concentrated, more prosperous and perhaps better-integrated Muslim population, we are not yet experiencing the same degree of culture clash Europe now suffers. But we should not remain complacent. Europe is the canary in the mineshaft regarding cultural stress between Muslim and indigenous culture. If we permit unmanaged cultural drift, in five to 10 years we will be where Western Europe is today -- in the throes of violent inter-cultural contention. In the days following Sept. 11, I realized we were in for a test of our strength, will and capacity to persist for decades in a harrowing task. But I never imagined that six years into the ordeal, we would remain so utterly divided in the face of a unique and little understood enemy. That constitutes a collective act of abdication of duty without parallel in our long history. We live in greater jeopardy because of it. realclearpolitics.com