Who Really Puts Islam in a Bad Light?

More re: Juan Williams

 

 

Sent to you by Stew via Google Reader:

 

 

Who Really Puts Islam in a Bad Light?

via Big Journalism by Dana Loesch on 10/21/10

I've been sifting through hundreds of emails, stories, reactions to Juan Williams' sensational firing by NPR over his remarks on Bill O'Reilly's show, covered on Big Journalism for the past 24 hours. I've also read Slate's ridiculous comparison of Williams to Sherrod. Williams didn't call everyone a racist and help bilk taxpayers of billions for unfounded claims, but hey.

Those defending NPR's reactions say that Williams "smeared" Muslims and portrayed them in a bad light.

Does not a group of men hijacking planes and flying them into the World Trade Center killing over three thousand people in the name of Islam portray Islam in a bad light?

Does not men hijacking a plane to fly into the Pentagon in the name of Islam portray Islam in a bad light?

When individuals strap bombs onto their bodies and detonate in public thoroughfares, killing men, women, and precious innocent children, all in the name of Islam, does not that paint Islam in a bad light?

When men bomb the USS Cole in the name of Islam, does that not portray Islam in a bad light?

When a Chechen group terrorizes school childrenin Beslan in the name of Islam, does that not portray Islam in a bad light?

When men blow up discotheques in Malaysia in the name of Islam, does not that show Islam in a bad light?

When members of the CIA are murdered, in the greatest massacre in the organization's history, by individuals in the name of Islam, does that not show Islam in a bad light?

When a man shoots up Ft. Hood in the name of Islam, does that not paint Islam in a bad light?

When men hijack a plane, the control of which is barely wrested away from them by brave American passengers before the plane crashes into a Pennsylvania field, leaving behind a scorch mark upon the earth for families to mourn – all in the name of Islam – does not that paint Islam in a negative light?

When the United Arab Emirates passes a law stating that it's not domestic abuse to beat your wife just so long as she bears no bruises, that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light?

When men are allowed to kill and abuse their wives, sisters, and young daughters for refusing marriage to much-older men chosen for them, that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light?

And when televisions show people filling streets in cities across Pakistan, the Middle East, cheering the 9/11 attacks while people in our country mourned the smoking ashes of over 3,000 innocent victims, that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light?

When the developers of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque refuse to not accept funds from Iran, a country which, according to our government, sponsors terrorism, that doesn't shed a bad light on Islam?

But Juan Williams calling out the statistical occurrence of the above paints Islam in a bad light?

Those who suggest that the reactions of others to the events listed above somehow negatively impact the faith pass the buck on responsibility. Perhaps if we had more people who spoke out against these atrocities instead of defending by way of failing to criticize and attacking the people who call these acts out, this wouldn't be a problem. Juan Williams wouldn't have any remarks to make on the subject.

Political correctness, Frankenstein's monster.

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Big Journalism using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Retraction Request: Politico’s Jonathan Martin Smears Palin with False Facts

Glen Beck mentioned the same thing on his show yesterday. This is before the NPR - Juan Williams debacle.

 

 

Sent to you by Stew via Google Reader:

 

 

Retraction Request: Politico’s Jonathan Martin Smears Palin with False Facts

via Big Journalism by retracto on 10/21/10

In his piece today entitled "Sarah Palin is wreaking havoc on the campaign trail, GOP sources say," Politico's Jonathan Martin (who was tasked with the Republican Party beat for the website for the 2008 elections) falsely claims Sarah Palin backed out of a scheduled interview with talk-radio host Mark Levin:

According to a source familiar with the situation, she backed out of planned interviews with conservative talk-show hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin the morning she was scheduled to talk to them.

Levin contested this claim on his facebook page, and has asked Politico to retract this statement:

This is a flat out lie. Sarah Palin never backed out of any interview with me. Period. And John Martin, the reporter, never contacted me to ask me directly. I insist on a retraction.

Red State seconded the request.  Allow us to be third.

Martin came under scrutiny in the blogosphere during the 2008 campaign for leading the investigation into the personal life of Joe the Plumber.  From Newsbusters:

Jonathan Martin of The Politico was among the first out of the gate, with blog posts noting that Wurzelbacher, affectionately known by most of America as "Joe The Plumber," has a tax lien against him and doesn't have a plumber's license. Martin conveniently forgot to mention that the law doesn't require one.

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Big Journalism using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Artificial life forms evolve basic intelligence

Artificial life forms evolve basic intelligence.  As Glen Reynolds of Instapundit would say, "More BOLO, less Terminator"

Comparison between the (as yet) Fictional August Suprise! and Instugator's Rescue Plan

Hot Air is reporting that James Pethokoukis is hearing rumors that the Obama Administration is thinking about ordering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bail out 1/5 mortgage owners who are "under water" (they owe more than their homes are worth). As a Fannie Mae Stockholder, I am in disagreement with this policy.  Since I am a strategist, I am in extreme disagreement with the policy; mostly because it does not make strategic sense - (even though I suggested a similar strategy, the beneficiaries of my strategy are those who did the right things.  Read more here.)

The Money Line form Hot Air, "In other words, it’s exactly the same kind of Obamanomics that we have seen for the last eighteen months — spend what we don’t have now, run up debt like crazy, and hope that a momentary spike will translate into political success.  Unfortunately, that has also been the formula for long-term economic failure."

Instugator's Rescue Plan is more thought out.  Here are the particulars:

Principles:

1. Reward those who practice good behavior

A. Paying your mortgage on time is good behavior

2. Do Not reward those who practice bad behavior

A. Borrowing what you cannot afford is bad behavior.

B. Having an interest-only mortgage is bad behavior.

C. Having an ARM is questionable.

D. Investment Bankers who purchase CDO’s without understanding the underlying value of them are engaging in bad behavior.

E. Those who sold CDO’s without including the data necessary to understand the underlying value are engaging in bad behavior.

3. Do not let those most directly responsible for the current mess come within 100 miles of the bailout money.

A. Those whose W-2 forms show that they work for congress, Freddie, Fannie, or any investment bank in need of a bailout need not apply.

The Plan:

1. Take the $700B <or any figure currently in Vogue>

2. Find those people who-

A. Have a conventional mortgage.

B. Have always paid it on time.

C. Have never declared bankruptcy

3. Establish an agreement that the Gov’t will:

A. Pay off the mortgage of those who meet each condition in item 2.

(This allows banks to resume mortgage lending and permits those who engaged in good behavior to go bargain-hunting - thus rewarding good behavior)

B. Each person whose mortgage is paid off will agree to make monthly payments to a money-market account

(This increases short term liquidity - also allows those with good behavior to use their work ethic to the betterment of all)

C. Each person agrees to re-finance their house at the end of a 5-10 year period of time at market value to repay the Gov’t.

(This repays the bonds that the govt will have to put on the market to fund the plan)

4. The government will issue bonds to pay for this plan (up front).

5. Bonds are repaid prior to maturity by those bailed out.

(People with good behavior are people who are less risky - that is why they have good credit ratings)

6. In the event the number of bailoutees exceeds the dollars available, applicants from the acceptable pool will be chosen by lottery.

Instugator, as author of the plan, recuses himself from participating.

Democrats Make the Case for Jones Act Waiver

Some tidbits,

At one point, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) became visibly upset and scolded Rear Adm. Kevin Cook. Moments earlier, the Coast Guard official came under fire from another committee Democrat for not having enough skimming vessels off the coast of Florida.

"I want to make sure we sense the urgency of this moment," Cummings said. "We have a window of opportunity to save our beaches, save some of our birds, fish and wildlife. And I'm just wondering whether there is that sense of urgency. … When you say something like 'We're trying to make arrangements,' I hate to say it, but that's not good enough."

Read the whole thing.

The Bottom Line: The administration has failed to utilize all the resources — foreign and domestic — at its disposal.

 

 

Sent to you by Stew via Google Reader:

 

 

Democrats Make the Case for Jones Act Waiver

via Big Government by Robert Bluey on 6/18/10

A congressional hearing on foreign ships in the Gulf of Mexico turned into a full-scale attack on the Obama administration's response to the crisis — led by the committee's Democrats.

Thursday's hearing came as a growing chorus of critics has accused the Obama administration of unwisely turning away international help for the oil spill cleanup and failing to issue a temporary waiver of the protectionist Jones Act. The hearing came as Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) criticized the administration for bureaucratic hurdles.

Witnesses from the Coast Guard and Maritime Administration attempted to rebut the claims, but their assurances fell on deaf ears. (Video of the hearing.)

At one point, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) became visibly upset and scolded Rear Adm. Kevin Cook. Moments earlier, the Coast Guard official came under fire from another committee Democrat for not having enough skimming vessels off the coast of Florida.

"I want to make sure we sense the urgency of this moment," Cummings said. "We have a window of opportunity to save our beaches, save some of our birds, fish and wildlife. And I'm just wondering whether there is that sense of urgency. … When you say something like 'We're trying to make arrangements,' I hate to say it, but that's not good enough."

Other Democrats were equally as harsh.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) stopped just shy of accusing the Coast Guard of incompetence. When Cook was unable to answer her questions about the number of skimming vessels available in the United States, she demanded he find out and report back to her.

"How many skimmers do we have? How many are assigned? How many have been offered? When and where? How many have been received and accepted? And how many are available and where? That includes the Coast Guard, private, National Guard and foreign. I mean, you've got to know what you have to do something," Richardson said. "I don't understand why you don't have a database to know where your resources are that you can utilize."

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) said it was unacceptable that her state couldn't utilize foreign vessels for skimming. She held up pictures of skimmers available in Mexico and Norway that could help.

"We are in emergency mode and we need skimmers," Brown said. "We need the big ones. I understand they're available in other countries, including Mexico and Norway. What is the process for the state to utilize these vessels from other countries? … We're talking about protecting Florida's coast."

When Brown asserted there were only 30 skimmers working off the coast of Florida, Cook countered there actually 110. "We don't have enough," Brown responded. "What is the process for the state to take advantage of skimmers from other countries?"

At one point during the hearing, Democrats were making a more appealing case for waiving the Jones Act than their Republican counterparts. The 1920 law regulates movement on U.S. waters and between ports, restricting where foreign ships are able to dock. With the State Department acknowledging it has received more than 20 aid offers, critics have questioned why the administration simply won't suspend the law in a time of crisis.

Deputy Maritime Administrator David Matsuda confirmed there has been one Jones Act waiver request for a foreign deck barge to operate within three miles of the U.S. coast. That request was denied because American vessels could perform the same functions. Matsuda defended the administrative waiver process, noting that case-by-case requests are handled within 48 hours.

Of course, the Obama administration could eliminate the bureaucratic delay entirely by simply following the precedent set by the Bush administration, which waived the Jones Act in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 to transport oil and gasoline throughout the Gulf region. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has the legal authority to suspend the law with Matsuda's approval.

Matsuda and Cook's reassurances about the situation in the Gulf left most members unconvinced. Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) pressed the witnesses repeatedly on the Jones Act's restrictions. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) read an e-mail he received from a U.S. vessel operator whose help was turned down. And Rep. Frank LoBodino (R-N.J.) said it was shameful the Customs and Border Patrol failed to show for the hearing.

The underlying message from members of Congress: The administration has failed to utilize all the resources — foreign and domestic — at its disposal. Unfortunately for Obama, the witnesses did little to dissuade them of that opinion.

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Big Government using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Obama and the Gulf Oil Spill

There are consequences to having a president with no executive experience.  Here is a roundup of items roughly listed by chronology.

1. The Dutch offer to help 3 days after the explosion rebuffed:
2. President Obama knew how bad the leak was before the rest of us. 
3. A manufacturer in Maine saw the disaster and responded by making Oil Boom.  As of 11 Jun, the US Coast guard still doesn’t even know about Maine’s oil boom manufacturing. More here.
3a. It turns out, BP has already been there.
3b. A couple of times.  The original story. 
The Money Line:

Two weeks ago BP sent a quality control person to Maine, looked at the factory and was impressed by what he saw. Packgen was feeling confident.
That confidence has now turned to frustration. Packgen says BP controls who the boom suppliers are going to be--and they have yet to approve Packgen's design.
John: "We're going to allow BP who caused the problem to monitor and determine who gets the money and how that money is spent and how the land is going to be protected?"

By the way, the story was reported on Jun 3rd, meaning two weeks prior was May 20th.  By 11 Jun, no one has yet told the US Coast Guard about the oil boom sitting in a warehouse in Maine.
4. President Obama wanted to know whose “ass to kick” on  June 7th
The Money quote here:

“I was down there a month ago, before most of these talkin’ heads were even paying attention to the gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standin’ in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. and I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

A month ago?  Like early May?
5. He claimed to know whose ass to kick then.  But to kick an ass, you have to meet with them, it is now Jun 12 and Obama still hasn’t spoken with BP’s CEO.  Here are some links of Obama’s pronouncements in the absence of dialogue:
On Firing the CEO of BP:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/09/barack-obama-bp-tony-hayward
Nice round up:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/09/why-wont-obama-meet-with-the-ceo-of-bp/

The World Economy in a Nutshell

Illuminating

 

 

Sent to you by Stew via Google Reader:

 

 

The World Economy in a Nutshell

via Greg Mankiw's Blog by Greg Mankiw on 5/26/10

Thanks to Tim Schilling for the pointer.

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Greg Mankiw's Blog using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites