Islam Demands Surrender

Amil Imani

Islam Demands Surrender
January 26, 2009

What’s in a name? A great deal. Democracy, fascism, and communism represent different systems of government. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are also titles for different religious systems.

Whereas democracy is defined as the rule of the people, by the people, for the people, Islam is defined as the rule of Allah, by Allah and his emissaries, for the pleasure of Allah. And when people, out of concern for political correctness or ignorance, describe Islam as a religion of peace, they are, at the very least, guilty of misrepresenting it.

The word “Islam,” is derived from the word “taslim,” which means surrender. The word for peace is not “taslim,” but it is “solh.” Hence, when Muslims behave in violent barbaric ways, they are only doing so in obedience to the dictates of their creed. They are surrendering and sacrificing anything and everything in service to the will and pleasure of Allah, as they see it.

Of course, not every Muslim surrenders fully to the will of Allah. The great majority of Muslims are only partial Muslims. They may say their daily obligatory prayers, they may tithe some, and they may keep the fast from time to time. Yet, they may also have a few drinks now and then, and do many things that they are not supposed to do.

But Islam can be a “forgiving” religion, specifically for the male. If you neglect to say your prayers or you simply don’t want to, you can hire someone, preferably an imam or a mullah, to pray on your behalf. Going to the Hajj is too onerous and takes you away from the pleasures and comforts of your life? You can deputize someone else to go in your stead. You have a few drinks of the forbidden brew and it is time to say your prayer? Simply rinse your mouth and go ahead with praying. But, always remember the will of Allah and serve him. Do your duties to vanquish the unbelievers, promote the rule of the Shari’a, and make the earth Allah’s.

If only the masses of Muslims arise and carry out the orders of Allah, then we would have the promised paradise of Islam on earth as exemplified by such rules as that of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and of course the Shiite nirvana of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In these model Islamic societies, freedom of expression, worship, and assembly are taken away. Women are treated as chattel. Young girls are subjected to barbaric genital mutilation to make them sex slaves and birth channels without the ability to enjoy intercourse. Minors are executed, adulterers are stoned to death, thieves have their limbs amputated, and much much more. Isn’t that everyone’s idea of paradise?

This misogynist religion of Allah is custom-made for the savage male. A faithful follower of Allah is allowed to have as many as four permanent wives – and replace any of them at any time he wants — as well as an unlimited number of one-night or one-hour-standers that he can afford to rent. But, woe unto a woman if she even has a single love affair with another man. Nothing less than death by stoning is her just punishment.

The partial-Muslims are seemingly harmless, may appear normal, and are under the radar. What gets our attention is the die-hard, the real Muslims who are a small minority. Yet this virulent combative minority is campaigning simultaneously on two major fronts. It works to herd the partial-Muslim majority into its fold and vanquish all other non-believers by any and all means.

It is prudent to keep in mind that all important events in the history of humanity have been instigated by either an individual or a small group. These individuals or groups have been the sheep-dogs that have directed the movements and activities of the masses, the sheep.

This is exactly what the real Muslims, the Islamists, are doing in the world today. It is suicidal to dismiss the Islamists as a bunch of zealots of no consequences or as a fringe group that will burn itself out. Sadly enough, it is the bulk of the Muslims that pundits portray as “peaceful” who is either irrelevant or often serves as an instrument in the hands of the Islamists. A couple of examples from recent history conclusively prove the point that it is the fanatical minorities that launch and implement campaigns that inflict immense suffering on the larger society.

In the 1930s, very few Germans were Nazis, but many basked in the resurgence of German pride and many others were too busy with their own lives to care. Thus, Germany presented a wide-open unchallenged opportunity for the Nazis to push forward their agenda and gather power to a point that it was too late for any other force to stem their tide.

And we all know what suffering this gang of radical supremacists inflicted on millions of people before their own demise.

The Khomeinism of Iran was started by a band of Shiite fanatics who rode the tide of opposition to the rule of the Shah and promised the masses the Islamic nirvana. No sooner had the Khomeinists ascended to power than they made the entire nation captive by murdering tens of thousands of the complacent and the late-to-awaken opposition, imprisoning and torturing untold thousands more, and creating a state of Islamic menace that threatens the entire free world.

The fact is that too many die-hard Islamists continue leaving the failed Islamic states and settling in the lands of the Kafir. These new arrivals bring with them the deeply engrained hatred of the infidels and believe that they are indeed the rightful owner of the entire earth and all other non-Muslims are mere squatters that must be either subjugated or eliminated all together. In this relentless campaign, the Islamists have a vast cadre of “experts,” “talking heads,” and for-purchase politicians who keep endlessly broadcasting the false mantra that Islam is religion of peace. This latter bunch is criminally complicit in making the populace complacent and furthering the work of the Islamists.

Islam may be a religion of peace. It is the kind of peace imbedded in its very name: Surrender. Free people shouldn’t be cowed by the Islamist savages and should take into account their accomplices who are shamelessly deceiving the public regarding the true nature of Islam

Islam demands surrender of all that free people cherish and hold sacred. It is Islam, a pathological doctrine and a vestige of long ago barbarism that must surrender to the wholesome principles of freedom and free people.


Top Obama Aides Subject of Blago Subpoenas Alexrod, Jarrett among names

Top Obama Aides Subject of Blago SubpoenasAlexrod, Jarrett among names

Updated 11:40 AM CST, Mon, Jan 26, 2009

Related Topics:Patricia Blagojevich | U.S. Government | U.S. State Government



Among 43 subpoenas released by the Blagojevich administration Friday, one from Dec. 8 seeks notes, calendars, correspondence and any other data that relate to some of Obama’s top advisors.


Sweeping federal subpoenas of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich‘s administration include requests for records involving David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, senior advisers to President Barack Obama.

Blago’s Impeachment Day


Blagojevich Busted


Watch Video

Embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich discusses his upcoming impeachment trial and his thoughts on going to prison, during an interview with NBC,…

Blago Talks Gandhi, Dr. King and Mandela


Among 43 subpoenas released by the Blagojevich administration Friday, one from Dec. 8 seeks notes, calendars, correspondence and any other data that relate to Axelrod, Jarrett and 32 other people and organizations.

That was the day before the FBI arrested Blagojevich, a two-term Democrat, on charges that he tried to trade his appointment to replace Obama in the Senate for campaign contributions. Wiretapped conversations show Blagojevich thought Jarrett was interested in the seat and he wanted campaign money or a high-paying job in return, according to a sworn statement.

Obama’s staff released a report in December that said his staff had no inappropriate contact with the governor’s office about the Senate seat, nor was anyone aware of any dealmaking. Axelrod, a Chicago political strategist now in the White House, was not mentioned in the report.

Prosecutors have said Obama is not implicated in the case, and none of his advisers has been accused of wrongdoing. Aides to the president did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Others listed on the subpoena are people linked to the 76-page criminal complaint against Blagojevich, which does not identify anyone by name except the governor and his former chief of staff, John Harris, arrested the same day.

They include first lady Patricia Blagojevich and her former employer, River Realty; former Blagojevich aides Lon Monk, John Wyma, Christopher Kelly and Doug Scofield; his brother and campaign manager Robert Blagojevich; Chicago Tribune owner Sam Zell; and Tom Balanoff, Illinois director of the Service Employees International Union.

The federal complaint charges Blagojevich with trying to pressure the Tribune into firing unfriendly editorial writers and seeking a six-figure job with an activist group affiliated with SEIU. Prosecutors say he also discussed a better job for his wife.

Dec. 11 subpoenas to the Capital Development Board and Transportation Department requested contract-bidding documents and other information on 22 engineering firms and individuals. They include a company whose president hosted a Nov. 10 fundraiser for Blagojevich that brought in $60,000 as prosecutors claim the governor sought to cash in on Illinois Tollway construction.

The Illinois House impeached Blagojevich earlier this month. A Senate trial over his ouster starts Monday, and Blagojevich said Friday that he will not participate because he believes the process is unfair.

The 43 subpoenas released Friday under the Freedom of Information Act, plus seven previously disclosed, cut a wide swath through the beleaguered administration, demanding everything from complex hiring records to Patricia Blagojevich’s appointment calendar.

Blagojevich acknowledged in fall 2005 that his office and several cabinet agencies had received subpoenas seeking hiring records, but then he stopped talking about them.

The Better Government Association, a Chicago-based public watchdog group, fought a two-year lawsuit over release of the subpoenas, which it won late last month when Blagojevich’s office turned over five subpoenas BGA sought under FOIA.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into Blagojevich hiring practices was reported as early as 2005 and a Fitzgerald letter was released in June 2006 that indicated he had witnesses to “endemic hiring fraud.”

But the investigation appears to have heated up again in 2007.

Since February 2007, 22 federal subpoenas have arrived at the governor’s office. They include requests to four state agencies for contract information involving Ali Ata. Ata is the one-time Illinois Finance Authority director who testified last spring in federal court that Blagojevich was present when he turned over a $25,000 check to Blagojevich fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, then asked Rezko if he had discussed a state job with Ata.

Rezko was convicted in the case of 16 counts of fraud, aiding bribery and money laundering in trying to get Blagojevich campaign contributions from companies seeking state business. Ata’s allegation that he bought his job is part of the federal complaint filed last month.

The government also has demanded information on Blagojevich appointments to boards and commissions and documents that show “favors, official action or any other benefit” promised to people who were potential donors and records related to anyone who contributed $25,000 or more to his campaign.

Other subpoenas requested all appointment calendars kept by the governor and first lady, paychecks issued to the governor, and air travel records for Blagojevich and his bodyguards. The governor has been criticized for his frequent use of state aircraft for daily round trips between his Chicago home and Springfield’s state Capitol.

Obama’s Graciousness Deficit

Obama’s Graciousness Deficit

Posted By Jennifer Rubin On January 26, 2009 @ 12:01 am In . Feature 01, . Positioning, Politics | 54 Comments

President Obama ran his campaign on “change” and he declares now at every turn just how changey he is — on torture, the economy, the Middle East, ethics, etc.

Forget for a moment whether there is anything to the high-minded talk. That’s his theme and ticket to wielding political power.

The unfortunate result of this is that he is now given to jab continually at his predecessor. Some might attribute this to the failure to realize “the campaign is over” but it is perhaps better understood as milking his change meme for all its worth. He is changing from the Bush era, he repeats ad nauseam. The result, nevertheless, is a decided lack of graciousness toward his predecessor.

[1] Peter Robinson, former Reagan speech writer, observes of the Inaugural Address:

George W. Bush had gone to exceptional lengths to ensure a smooth transition, even making some unpopular moves — such as asking Congress to release some $350 billion bailout funds — to spare Obama the trouble. Obama offered Bush no more than a single, curt sentence of thanks. Then he blamed Bush for the economic crisis, denouncing his “failure to make hard choices” — as if Bush hadn’t attempted to deal with the crisis by enacting a stimulus measure of the very kind Obama himself now proposes — and accused Bush of “protecting narrow interests.” For that matter, the new president all but ignored the principal task of any inaugural address, that of reuniting the nation after the divisiveness of a campaign. Almost 60 million Americans cast their ballots for Sen. John McCain. What did Obama have to say to his opponents? “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them.” Some olive branch.

And the same smallness of spirit is showing up in rhetoric directed toward the Republicans in Congress.

At a White House meeting he throws an elbow (”[2] I won“) and chides them for supposedly following the dictates of radio talk show host [3] Rush Limbaugh. (The Beltway Republicans are not above the latter, by the way, but their objections to the “stimulus” plan are on sound policy grounds.) Anyone who gets in his way is just opposed to “change.”

Why do this? President Obama is the one whom we were told has unlimited empathy, who can bring people with differing perspectives together without recrimination. He is not hobbled by the Bush-Clinton political wars which left both sides of the political aisle exhausted and in low repute. He, of all people, had the ability to start fresh and elevate the tone in Washington.

We are seeing, I think, the unlimited hubris of a candidate enjoying sky-high poll ratings and media adoration who believes he owes his opponents only civility, but not respect. And it suggests that the need to maintain the high-wire act of “change” (without the benefit of true policy innovation) feeds the constant need to differentiate himself from — and ultimately diminish– his predecessor and opponents.

The danger is that he loses that rarest of presidential commodities, which is the ability to operate on a higher plane than the squabbling politicians and sniping pundits surrounding him. Indeed, by invoking [4] Limbaugh’s name he brought on not only a finely crafted response (which made a convincing case that the stimulus is a political maneuver not an economic recovery plan), but ensnared himself in exactly the sort of political bric-a-brac he wants to avoid.

It may not matter in the end because he does, after all, have the votes to pass much of his agenda. But it is being remembered and absorbed by his opponents, and even by less politically-minded onlookers. They might wonder why the new president who has the luxury to be magnanimous isn’t. And when the going gets tough, or his Congressional majority narrows (as it usually does after the first mid-year election), he might need the good will of the other party.

So perhaps President Obama, who has an overabundance of confidence, can settle into his new surroundings and find ways to maintain his own standing without sniping at his opponents.

He might, for example, acknowledge that we aren’t just “ending” the war or leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. We are winning, or if he prefers, “completing the mission.” Those who championed the surge, not to mention the troops still fighting, would certainly notice and appreciate it. (Like it or not he’s completing Bush’s Iraq policy — not departing from it.) And when he talks about changing stem cell policy — which is so ticklish a subject he [5] may defer to Congress — he can leave out the dig about “restor[ing] science to its rightful place.” He can just tell us what he wants to do and why he thinks it is right. And he might argue the merits of his stimulus plan rather than resort to ad hominem attacks.

In sum, President Obama is an elegant man who enjoys the goodwill of most citizens. He should not fritter away his standing nor diminish his stature by perpetuating “childish things,” including a constant stream of one-upsmanship. Graciousness goes a long way in life, and in politics.

And it may come in handy some day

Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to article:

Democrats Hiding The TRUTH About the Stimulus Plan.

Monday, January 26, 2009

From Yid with a lid

Democrats Hiding The TRUTH About the Stimulus Plan.

The news came out on Inauguration Day, The Congressional Budget office (CBO) a group of economists (whose head is appointed by Democratic Congressional leaders) reported that much of the “infrastructure” money included in the current Democratic Party “stimulus” package will not enter the the economy until after 2010. They say that less than half of that $355 billion  for infrastructure would actually be spent in the next two year.

Obviously that is not the best approach for a stimulus plan which is supposed to pump up the economy immediately.

Last week the  President’s spin-master, David Axelrod told Fox News that the CBO findings weren’t  important. He said the government has no choice but to act quickly in the current “national emergency” and “that a lot of these investments are ones that are going to pay dividends in the short term and the long term.”

Other Democrats on the Sunday “spin circuit” were doing their best to downplay the CBO report.

It seems that we are about to spend nearly one Billion Dollars on a stimulus that will be to slow to actually help us.  And the supposed  “Transparent” Democratic party is trying to shield us from the truth:

The Stimulus Time Machine
That $355 billion in spending isn’t about the economy.

The stimulus bill currently steaming through Congress looks like a legislative freight train, but given last week’s analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it is more accurate to think of it as a time machine. That may be the only way to explain how spending on public works in 2011 and beyond will help the economy today.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill’s $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress’s justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.

And the red Congressional faces must be very red indeed, because CBO’s analysis has since vanished into thin air after having been posted early last week on the Appropriations Committee Web site. Officially, the committee says this is because the estimates have been superseded as the legislation has moved through committee. No doubt.

In addition to suppressing the CBO analysis, Democrats have derided it. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) called it “off the wall,” never mind that CBO is now run by Democrats. Mr. Obey also suggested that it would be a mistake to debate the stimulus “until the cows come home.” We’d settle for a month or two, so at least the voters can inspect the various Congressional cattle they’re buying with that $355 billion.

The stimulus bill is also a time machine in the sense that it’s based on an old, and largely discredited, economic theory. As Harvard economist Robert Barro pointed out on these pages last Thursday, the “stimulus” claim is based on something called the Keynesian “multiplier,” which is that each $1 of spending the government “injects” into the economy yields 1.5 times that in greater output. There’s little evidence to support this theory, but you have to admire its beauty because it assumes the government can create wealth out of thin air. If it were true, the government should spend $10 trillion and we’d all live in paradise.

The problem is that the money for this spending boom has to come from somewhere, which means it is removed from the private sector as higher taxes or borrowing. For every $1 the government “injects,” it must take $1 away from someone else — either in taxes or by issuing a bond. In either case this leaves $1 less available for private investment or consumption. Mr. Barro wrote about this way back in 1974 in his classic article, “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?”, in the Journal of Political Economy. Larry Summers and Paul Krugman must have missed it.

The government spending will be a net stimulus only if its $1 goes to more productive purposes than those to which private investors would have put that same $1. There are some ways we may want the government to spend money — on national defense, say — but that doesn’t mean it’s a stimulus.

A similar analysis applies to the tax cuts that are part of President Obama’s proposal. In contrast to the spending, at least the tax cuts will take effect immediately. But the problem is that Mr. Obama wants them to be temporary, which means taxpayers realize they will see no permanent increase in their after-tax incomes. Not being fools, Americans may either save or spend the money but they aren’t likely to change their behavior in ways that will spur growth. For Exhibit A, consider the failure of last February’s tax rebate stimulus, which was a bipartisan production of George W. Bush and Mr. Summers, who is now advising Mr. Obama.

To be genuinely stimulating, tax cuts need to be immediate, permanent and on the “margin,” meaning that they apply to the next dollar of income that an individual or business earns. This was the principle behind the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, as well as the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, which finally took full effect on January 1, 1983.

If the Obama Democrats can’t abide this because it’s a “tax cut for the rich,” as an alternative they could slash the corporate tax to spur business incentives. The revenue cost of eliminating the corporate tax wouldn’t be any more than their proposed $355 billion in new spending, and we guarantee its “multiplier” effects on growth would be far greater. Research by Mr. Obama’s own White House chief economist, Christina Romer, has shown that every $1 in tax cuts can increase output by as much as $3.

As for all of that new spending, CBO will release an updated analysis this week. And we anticipate that the budget analysts will in the interim have discovered that much more of that $355 billion will somehow find its way to “shovel-ready” projects that the Obama Administration can start building before the crocuses bloom. But in the real world, the CBO’s first estimate is likely to prove closer to the truth.

The spending portion of the stimulus, in short, isn’t really about the economy. It’s about promoting long-time Democratic policy goals, such as subsidizing health care for the middle class and promoting alternative energy. The “stimulus” is merely the mother of all political excuses to pack as much of this spending agenda as possible into a single bill when Mr. Obama is at his political zenith.

Apart from the inevitable waste, the Democrats are taking a big political gamble here. Congress and Mr. Obama are promoting this stimulus as the key to economic revival. Americans who know nothing about multipliers or neo-Keynesians expect it to work. The Federal Reserve is pushing trillions of dollars of monetary stimulus into the economy, and perhaps that along with a better bank rescue strategy will make the difference. But if spring and then summer arrive, and the economy is still in recession, Americans are going to start asking what they bought for that $355 billion

nothing temporary about this stimulus spending

Obama: Elected on a French Platform

Obama: Elected on a French Platform

Created 2009-01-24 11:29

George Handlery about the week that was. That goals and not the military hardware are disproportional is what counts. Israel, Hamas and principles. When does world opinion matter? About “war is no solution”. “Oil” or the “Jewish Lobby” as the axis of the world. Land for peace, or no land, no peace. Authoritarian anti-authoritarians. The stench of Russian gas.
1. Many contend that there is something disproportional about Israel’s military’s operations in Gaza. The qualified “yes” of this writer might surprise the reader. However, the decisive disproportion involves the goals of the hostile parties and not their means to wage war. One of them wishes to wipe its foe off the map. The other would be content to be left alone and if its right to exist would not be questioned. It is a telling sign that putting it this way will anger some. It is also too bad that, regardless of the entirely different goals pursued, approval and condemnation is dished out while ignoring who wants to achieve what.
2. Israel earns disapproval for acting in Gaza against militant Islamists. If Hamas damages Israel, the reaction is limited. Is it because Israel is alleged to act against its principles by fighting the fight the situation demands? Hamas’ attempt to hit civilians indiscriminately is also in accordance with a principle. Its own. It would be futile and, apparently an act of disrespect for the cultural background from which the missile attacks come, to vigorously condemn them.
3. World opinion hinders Israel to defend herself by acting against the originator of the attacks on her. In case Israel succumbs to her enemies, the international disapproval that held her back while in a position to control her destiny will, even if forthcoming, not help her.
4. “War is no solution”. Here are two observations regarding that mantra. First, this is what those fighting Terror Inc. are always told. Interestingly, the same advice is not given so insistently to militant Moslems. Therefore, the suspicion arises that self-defense by some is what is deemed as wrong and senseless. Second, the thesis can be valid. Provided, that is, that when you started you were not determined to win. If in this case you managed to avoid falling into the trap of victory then, indeed, war had not been part of a solution. Indeed, if a war ends in a military victory then not all problems of mankind will be solved. Nevertheless, the cause of the war and the threat by a specific enemy will have been overcome. Remember 1945?
5. Either or. There is a thesis so old that it has grown a white beard by now. It is that there is a global Jewish conspiracy. With its control over the world’s finances and having infiltrated the inner circles of power, it is capable of pulling the strings. The belief in a “Jewish/Zionist plot” when causes and effects are not fully understood is a product too of this popular tale. Well before the creation of the state of Israel, the allegation served some well to explain events that would otherwise not fit their worldview. Once Israel appeared, the conspiracy theory got an add-on. It was that US policy is a captive of the international and a national Jewish lobby. Consequently, America (supposedly) pursued an anti-Arab policy. Let us skip here the fact that more-less the same circles like to explain US policies with the thirst for more “oil”. If true, this interpretation would contradict the conspiracy/lobby thesis. Israel has, beyond olive- based salad oil, little to enhance the appetite of the greedy American oil companies. On this basis, if these matters would be in the realm of the rational, conspiracy fans would need to have to choose between the “oil” and the Jewish” explanations. However, there is more. On the public opinion front of the recent Gaza crisis the “world” took the side of Hamas. That would demonstrate the weakness, possibly even the non-existence, of the “Jewish Conspiracy”. Alternatively, could it be that there is a rival Moslem/Arab conspiracy attempting to rule the word? Well, at least it would have lots of oil supporting its activities.
6. During Israel’s Gaza action, a protest demo was held in Duisburg (Germany). Shortly after the peace march’ start a crisis arose. The crowd outraged by far away violence – “it  never solves any problems” – passed an offending high-rise that had two Israeli flags hanging from windows. Snowballs – some report stones – flew. Tempers were heating up. The action’s moderate organizer and the police tried to cool things down. Failing at that and fearing what could follow, the police found and entered the offending empty apartment. The flags were removed. Thereafter the peace march could continue without engaging in violence.. Afterwards, a discussion followed about the propriety of the peacekeeping action of the police. It seems here that, the right to march is based on the same principle as is the right to fly the flag of a state with which one is not at war.
7. Years ago, Israel had tried to exchange land for peace by withdrawing from Gaza. Soon, incoming missiles, made her discover that she has neither.
8. It is amazing how a few square miles of territory “you” did not care for have turned out to be crucial in influencing your life. The Balkan squabbles before 1914 (WW1) fit the category. So do the “settlements” of 1919 that became a foundation of WW2. Nowadays, the Golan – even if some people might not know where it is – plays a similar role. Israel is being advised to “buy peace” by returning the territory that Syria had used to shell Israeli settlements. Problematic in this procedure is a consequence that will not be lost on Israel’s neighbors. With the Golan Heights in Syrian hands, Israel proper becomes less defensible. Golan for peace? A nice idea. But reality also tells that such evacuations improve the strategic position of Israel’s enemies. This reduces the benefits of peace. The consequences threaten to follow the pattern created after the unilateral evacuation of Gaza. The result could be a peace that makes it harder for Israel to retaliate. She might find that condition to be worse than war.
9. Our day’s politically successful Left has its roots in the movement of “’68”. As the product of that wave, its roots reach back into a soil that has been critical of authority. In this they share a trait with Conservatives. The difference is that 68 had not only been critical of authority but also attacked all authority as long as it was found to be located in the democratic West. In the praxis of their “struggle”, not every authority had been attacked that exercised power. The target of hostility was, and still is, every institution that is not controlled by the Left. This is why these anti-authoritarians advocate the expansion of state power as son as they gain control of the state. This makes them into selective anti–authoritarians. They preach disobedience toward everything that they or their ideological allies do no dominate. As they do so, they covet might that can be put into their service. A wise distinction because, the projects of radical transformation advocated by the Left are, on the long run, not implementable with the support of voluntary majorities based on consent.
10. This year’s Martin Luther King Day makes one doubly inclined to think of the past, the present and some fundamentals. MLK has shown courage and vision to nudge his nation forward. America’s liberal tradition (in the traditional sense), provided him with an opportunity that he used skillfully. It is to be regretted that his successors have often lost sight of King’s success and seeming goals. Colorblind equality and opportunity became hijacked. Leaders who did not so much follow a calling than an urge to elevate themselves by harnessing a movement did this. Regardless of Obama’s election to the Presidency, some of the time since 1964 has been wasted, while much of the trek meandered on a curvy path’s instead of proceeding uphill on the faster straight road.
11. Europe’s countries are, directly or indirectly, strongly dependent of Russian gas. That supply is, regardless of the extensive source, of questionable reliability. It is of course true that, the supplier needs the income as much as the buyer must have the resource. If it would be otherwise then the resource would not be sold and would not be bought. This truth gives little comfort. The seller’s needs are not immediate. The dependence of the buyer on continuous, uninterrupted and reliable deliveries is, however, especially in the winter, literally immediate. This makes gas into a potential political weapon. As it is, the price asked for the commodity shows a marked tendency to go beyond its market value and reflects political preferences. The bill sent by Russia includes rewards for good behavior or a surcharge for disobedience. For this reason, the case supports the slogan “drill, drill” and is completed with a “build, build” (of reactors).
12. One more thing. You might have been suspecting something like this. Ségolène Royal, the failed Socialist opponent of Sarkozi, has attended Obama’s inauguration. She used the occasion to make an unsurprising statement. In her opinion, Obama was elected on a platform that she had been running on in France. 

GDrive: Google Could Become Big Brother’s Informant

GDrive: Google Could Become Big Brother’s Informant

January 25th, 2009 Posted By drillanwr.


Ummm … “Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!”

Guardian UK:

Google plans to make PCs history

Industry critics warn of danger in giving internet leader more power

by David Smith

Google is to launch a service that would enable users to access their personal computer from any internet connection, according to industry reports. But campaigners warn that it would give the online behemoth unprecedented control over individuals’ personal data.

The Google Drive, or “GDrive”, could kill off the desktop computer, which relies on a powerful hard drive. Instead a user’s personal files and operating system could be stored on Google’s own servers and accessed via the internet.

The long-rumoured GDrive is expected to be launched this year, according to the technology news website TG Daily, which described it as “the most anticipated Google product so far”. It is seen as a paradigm shift away from Microsoft’s Windows operating system, which runs inside most of the world’s computers, in favour of “cloud computing”, where the processing and storage is done thousands of miles away in remote data centres.

Home and business users are increasingly turning to web-based services, usually free, ranging from email (such as Hotmail and Gmail) and digital photo storage (such as Flickr and Picasa) to more applications for documents and spreadsheets (such as Google Apps). The loss of a laptop or crash of a hard drive does not jeopardise the data because it is regularly saved in “the cloud” and can be accessed via the web from any machine.

The GDrive would follow this logic to its conclusion by shifting the contents of a user’s hard drive to the Google servers. The PC would be a simpler, cheaper device acting as a portal to the web, perhaps via an adaptation of Google’s operating system for mobile phones, Android. Users would think of their computer as software rather than hardware.

It is this prospect that alarms critics of Google’s ambitions. Peter Brown, executive director of the Free Software Foundation, a charity defending computer users’ liberties, did not dispute the convenience offered, but said: “It’s a little bit like saying, ‘we’re in a dictatorship, the trains are running on time.’ But does it matter to you that someone can see everything on your computer? Does it matter that Google can be subpoenaed at any time to hand over all your data to the American government?”

Google refused to confirm the GDrive, but acknowledged the growing demand for cloud computing. Dave Armstrong, head of product and marketing for Google Enterprise, said: “There’s a clear direction … away from people thinking, ‘This is my PC, this is my hard drive,’ to ‘This is how I interact with information, this is how I interact with the web