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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (435656)	11/19/2008 11:03:09 AM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575980

Giving Up on God By Kathleen Parker Tuesday, November 18, 2008; 6:37 PM As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit. Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D. I'm bathing in holy water as I type. To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh. Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that. The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it. But they need those votes! So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners. Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette. Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle. Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right. It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs. Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs. Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting. With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course. Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself: "I'm like, okay, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door." Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door. Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents. But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won. Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly. The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way. Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party. Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com. washingtonpost.com

To: i-node who wrote (435656)	11/19/2008 11:11:57 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575980

Why Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda Might Try to Affect the Election Between Barack Obama and John McCain Intelligence officials are worried, Richard Clarke writes, that al Qaeda may try to affect elections By Richard Clarke Posted October 2, 2008 John Kerry believes that the so-called al Qaeda Halloween videotape released days before the last presidential election in the United States affected enough undecided voters that it may have made the difference in the outcome. Remember that a swing of only 60,000 voters in Ohio would have resulted in a President Kerry. Experts still debate whether it was al Qaeda's intention to affect the Spanish political process when it attacked the Madrid commuter train network three days before that country's March 2004 election. The attack did result in an electoral defeat for the incumbent party, which had sent troops to Iraq at the request of the United States. And, of course, there is Pakistan, where a terrorist assassination killed Benazir Bhutto, a candidate for prime minister, just 10 months ago. CIA Director Mike Hayden publicly blamed Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani radical, but said he acted with help from the broader al Qaeda network. Bhutto had promised to combat the Taliban, al Qaeda, and similar groups inside Pakistan. Is al Qaeda really sophisticated enough to attempt to manipulate democratic elections in Europe, Asia, and America? It is difficult to judge how adept they are at achieving their desired results. We do know that Osama bin Laden reads western opinion polls, if only because on one occasion he discussed fairly obscure European opinion surveys in some detail. Given that history, what can we expect in the next month; will al Qaeda try to influence the 2008 U.S. presidential election? Some analysts saw the opening salvos of an al Qaeda campaign in the two attacks on American targets that came within three days of each other two weeks ago. First, al Qaeda mounted a large and sophisticated assault on the American embassy in Yemen. Many analysts are surprised that the attack failed and that the local guard force fought back courageously and well. Al Qaeda's plan seemed to be to penetrate the embassy wall, gather up Americans, and then kill them in a series of terrorist suicides with explosive belts. Second, al Qaeda attacked the Marriott hotel in Islamabad with a large truck bomb. This attack seems to have been aimed at the Pakistani president, prime minister, and cabinet who were supposed to be dining there at the time but were not because of a last-minute decision to change the venue to a more secure location. Two U.S. military personnel who were dining there died in the attack. Those who see the two attacks as the opening round of a pre-election campaign note that they were the first two major al Qaeda-related attacks on American facilities in a very long time, the first serious al Qaeda attack on an American embassy in a decade. Others believe that the timing of the two attacks was coincidence and that they were both dictated by internal dynamics in the countries where the attacks took place and not by the U.S. election campaign. Nonetheless, U.S. intelligence and security officials are worried. They admit that there is nothing concrete that suggests another attack, but they fear that al Qaeda may try something, maybe even in the United States. The last National Intelligence Estimate on al Qaeda concluded that the group had reconstituted, was stronger than it had been in many years, was capable of staging attacks again, including probably in the United States. General Hayden has talked publicly about "European looking" al Qaeda terrorists who have been trained recently in Pakistan and sent back out into the world, presumably to stage attacks. These "Europeans" may have European Union passports, which would mean that they could enter the United State without a visa. If they are what police call "clean skins" (people whose names do not appear in the database of suspected terrorists), they could easily enter the country. Hayden suggested that they could be standing next to you "in the line at Dulles Airport," and you would not be suspicious of them. If they do show up in the United States, it is not hard to get weapons or fertilizers that can be converted quickly into explosives. So, another attack in this country before the election is at least theoretically possible. At the very least, expect another Halloween video from the scary man in the cave. What would be the purpose of any attempted manipulation of the U.S. election? It could just be to use the election to magnify the media coverage of their terrorist activities, make al Qaeda look even more capable than it is, and remind everyone they are still around. Such a media-amplified attack might help them with recruitment and fundraising. Even more likely is the possibility that al Qaeda would hope the attack would benefit John McCain. Opinion polls, which, as noted above, al Qaeda reads closely, suggest that an attack would help McCain. Polls in Europe and the Middle East also suggest an overwhelming popular support there for Barack Obama. Al Qaeda would not like it if there were a popular American president again. Richard Clarke was the National Security Council's national coordinator for security and counterterrorism. usnews.com