|
News Flash |
-
15:15 - 13.10.2009
News >> Latest
The neutered liberal media The reaction to Obama's Nobel peace prize win shows how the US media cowers in fear of rightwing attacksComments (56) Dan Kennedy guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 October 2009 I'm no expert on animal behaviour. But I remember enough Pavlov to know that if you kick your dog every time a train passes by, the poor creature will soon start cowering and whimpering whenever it hears a train.So it has been with the mainstream media in the days since Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel peace prize. Sure, you might have expected surprise, even scepticism, that Obama would win such a prestigious honour barely nine months into his presidency. Mainly, though, we've been afflicted with a virulent outbreak of rueful savviness, as the pundits have explained why the Nobel is a very, very bad political development for the White House.Accustomed as they are to being beaten every time they say something nice about liberals, too many media figures adopt Republican talking points as soon as – or even before – they've been articulated. Like so many Pavlov's dogs, they have internalised the ritual, dropping into a defensive crouch in order to ward off the abuse they know is coming.Among the first out of the gate, not surprisingly, was the Politico, where exceedingly conventional wisdom substitutes for thoughtful analysis. Within hours of the announcement, Josh Gerstein and Jonathan Martin wrote that the Nobel was turning "into a gold-medal headache for the president, as even supporters call it premature and critics say it proves he's a darling of the international elite".And so it went. "The last thing Barack Obama needed," intoned Time's Nancy Gibbs. "We can take it as a sign of what a lucky fellow our president is that winning the Nobel peace prize has been widely counted a bad break for him," added the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg. Putative liberal Michael Kinsley snarked mirthlessly in the Washington Post about more undeserved awards to which Obama can look forward. Even the Guardian's own Michael Tomasky wrote that the president should have rejected the honour.Perhaps the most astonishing reaction of the weekend, though, was that of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, whose muscular brand liberalism I generally admire. Friedman actually suggested that Obama should accept the Nobel on behalf of the American military in order to deflect attention from how unworthy he is.To be sure, there is a "to be sure" in all of this. Obama most certainly did not deserve the award if it depends on his having achieved nuclear disarmament or solved the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, to name just two vexing foreign-policy problems. Rather, the Nobel committee recognised Obama for radically changing the tone of American international relations from the belligerence of the Bush-Cheney era. And maybe the committee members hoped they might stop him from going all-in in Afghanistan – surely a worthy goal.But though it's perfectly reasonable to assert that the Nobel peace prize might be too much too soon, the idea that winning it is anything…
Read more...
-
08:49 - 01.09.2008
News >> Latest
Fear of kidnapping grips Mexico Email Picture Agencia Reforma The kidnapping and death of Fernando Marti, shown last year with his parents, Alejandro and Matilde Marti, sparked national outrage. His family reportedly paid the abductors millions of dollars to try to bring the 14-year-old home. The number is rising, and the rich are not the only ones targeted. Criminals sometimes want as little as $500.
Read more...
-
18:29 - 15.10.2008
News >> Latest
Internet phone calls are crippling fight against terrorism Sean O’Neill and Richard Ford The huge growth in internet telephone traffic is jeopardising the capability of police to investigate almost every type of crime, senior sources have told The Times. As more and more phone calls are routed over the web – using software such as Skype – police are losing the ability to track who has called whom, from where and for how long. The key difficulty facing police is that, unlike mobile phone companies, which retain call data for billing purposes, internet call companies have no reason to keep the material. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, outlined plans yesterday for a huge expansion of the Government’s capability to access data held by internet services, including social networking sites such as Facebook and Bebo, and gaming networks. Related Links Bomber brainwashed over the internet Deadly loners who don’t show on the radar The move follows growing concern among police and the security services that serious criminals and terrorists are using websites as a way of concealing their communications. At present security and intelligence agencies can demand to see telephone and e-mail traffic from communication service providers, such as mobile telephone companies. But rapid expansion of new providers, such as gaming, social networking, auction and video sites, and technologies, such as wireless internet and broadband, present a serious problem for the police, MI5, Customs and other government agencies. Communications data is now a key weapon in securing convictions of both terrorists and serious criminals. It also plays a central role in investigations into kidnappings and inquiries into missing and vulnerable people. In the Metropolitan Police service alone last year, 54,000 applications were approved for officers to have access to communications data including to whom and when a phone call, text message or e-mail was sent – but not the content. A total of 650 applications concerned investigations into tracing missing or vulnerable people. “Communications data forms an important element of prosecution evidence in 95 per cent of serious crime cases,” a security source said. “We could not begin to start to solve any kidnap in this country without access to the data.” Overall there were 519,260 requests for communication data last year with the vast majority coming from the intelligence services, police and other law enforcement organisations, such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency and HM Revenue & Customs. Under Ms Smith’s plans, police and the security services will not be able to access the content of the communications but will know each website visited, and to whom and when a phone call was made or a text message or e-mail was sent. If this raises suspicions, ministerial approval can be sought to intercept what is being sent and read the content. The police and the security services say that it is becoming difficult to locate data because there are now so many communication service providers. The use of multiple user names is…
Read more...
-
07:28 - 21.03.2010
News >> Latest
Augmented reality How the ways in which we watch sport, read and do business with each other could change for ever Read Article
Read more...
-
06:05 - 03.11.2009
News >> Latest
Conservatives emboldened by moves in New York election"The rebellion that drove a moderate Republican off the ballot in a special House election today is sending a clear message to the party leadership and its candidates: Ignore the conservative grass roots at your peril."
Read more...
|
|
|
|
Retargeting Ads Follow Surfers to Other Sites |
|
Christinne Muschi for The New York TimesJulie Matlin was tempted by a pair of shoes on Zappos.com. Then the shoes started showing up in ads on other sites she visited. Read Article |
|
|
" Obama can reasonably blame his economic advisers " |
|
Robert Barro: The Folly of Subsidizing UnemploymentMy calculations suggest the jobless rate could be as low as 6.8%, instead of 9.5%, if jobless benefits hadn't been extended to 99 weeks. Read Article |
|
|
"People aren't recognizing his version of Christianity" |
|
Beck: Obama's religion a 'perversion'The attacks represent a continuing attempt to characterize Obama as a radical. Read Article |
|
|
" Obama needs to relearn the art of politicking " |
|
Obama needs to relearn the art of politicking
By E.J. Dionne Jr. Monday, August 30, 2010 President Obama's address to the nation on Iraq this week underscores the agony of his presidency and its core political problem. Seen from the inside, the administration is an astonishing success. Obama has kept his principal promises and can take credit for achievements that eluded his Democratic predecessors. He pledged to have all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this month and, as Obama will remind us on Tuesday, he's accomplished just that. Congress enacted a comprehensive health-care bill and a sweeping reform of how the financial system is regulated. His rescue of the American auto industry worked, foiling predictions that he'd run GM and Chrysler as if they were arms of Chicago's Democratic machine. There are many other legislative and administrative actions that, in normal circumstances, would loom larger if these were not such exceptional -- and difficult -- times. Yet the challenging nature of the moment does not explain all of the president's struggles. It's true that his accomplishments will have important long-term effects, even if they have not resolved the country's central concern: the continuing sluggishness of the economy. But Obama and his party are also in a hole because the president has chosen not to engage the nation in an extended dialogue about what holds all of his achievements together, or why his attitude toward government makes more sense than the scattershot conservative attacks on everything Washington might do to improve the nation's lot. There was a revealing moment in early August when Obama told an audience at a Texas fundraiser: "We have spent the last 20 months governing. They spent the last 20 months politicking." Referring to the impending elections, he added: "Well, we can politick for three months. They've forgotten I know how to politick pretty good." Obama's mistake is captured by that disdainful reference to "politicking." In a democracy, separating governing from "politicking" is impossible. "Politicking" is nothing less than the ongoing effort to convince free citizens of the merits of a set of ideas, policies and decisions. Voters feel better about politicians who put what they are doing in a compelling context. Citizens can endure setbacks as long as they believe the overall direction of the government's approach is right. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a genius at offering such reassurances, which is why his fireside chats are the stuff of political legend. Ronald Reagan never stopped campaigning for his conservative vision because he was determined to leave behind a thriving conservative movement. Roosevelt and Reagan both changed the country's underlying philosophical assumptions. Despite occasional forays into this realm, Obama has created the impression that he is taking things one decision at a time, without a passion for how he would like the country to look in the long run. He and his party are often defensive when it comes to saying what they really believe: that government, well-executed, is a positive good; that too much economic inequality is both dysfunctional and unjust; that capitalism has never worked without regulation and a strong dose of social insurance. They no longer dare talk about public enterprise, a phrase my friend Chris Matthews reminded me of recently, visible in our great state universities, our best public schools, our road and transit systems, and in the research and development that government finances in areas where there is no immediate profit to be made. The Obama press office, I know, can send me speeches in which he has made some of these points. But the president's efforts to lay down a consistent rationale, argument and philosophy have been sporadic. He has created a vacuum, filled by the wild charges of Glenn Beck, the disappointment of progressives who emphasize what he hasn't done and the tired "government is always the problem" rhetoric of his mainstream conservative opponents. He has thus left himself and his Democratic allies with weak defenses against a tide of economic melancholy. It is too late to turn the midterm election into a triumph for the administration but not too late to salvage his party's congressional majorities. Given dismal Democratic expectations, that would now be rated as a victory. But doing so will require Obama to think anew about what "politicking" really means, to pick more than tactical fights with his adversaries, and to lay out, without equivocation or apology, where he is trying to move the country. It's just too bad he didn't start earlier. |
|
|
Orange County Is No Longer Nixon Country |
|
|
An Architect of U.S. Strategy Waits to Pop CorkRetired U.S. Army Col. Pete Mansoor, an architect of General David Petraeus's Iraq strategy, says the country's most important milestone is yet to come. Read Article |
|
|
Goran Tomasevic/ReutersWinning, Losing and WarBy PETER BAKER From shock and awe to a slow exit: It is still far too early to fill out the scorecard in Iraq. Above, a marine watched as a statue of Saddam Hussein is taken down in 2003. Read Article |
|
|
This WashPost Article Feels Forced |
|
Five myths about mosques in America
By Edward E. Curtis IV Sunday, August 29, 2010
In addition to spawning passionate debates in the public, the news media and the political class, the proposal to build a Muslim community center near Ground Zero in New York has revealed widespread misconceptions about the practice of Islam in this country -- and the role of mosques in particular. 1. Mosques are new to this country. Mosques have been here since the colonial era. A mosque, or masjid, is literally any place where Muslims make salat, the prayer performed in the direction of Mecca; it needn't be a building. One of the first mosques in North American history was on Kent Island, Md.: Between 1731 and 1733, African American Muslim slave and Islamic scholar Job Ben Solomon, a cattle driver, would regularly steal away to the woods there for his prayers -- in spite of a white boy who threw dirt on him as he made his prostrations. The Midwest was home to the greatest number of permanent U.S. mosques in the first half of the 20th century. In 1921, Sunni, Shiite and Ahmadi Muslims in Detroit celebrated the opening of perhaps the first purpose-built mosque in the nation. Funded by real estate developer Muhammad Karoub, it was just blocks away from Henry Ford's Highland Park automobile factory, which employed hundreds of Arab American men. Most Midwestern mosques blended into their surroundings. The temples or mosques of the Nation of Islam -- an indigenous form of Islam led by Elijah Muhammad from 1934 to 1975 -- were often converted storefronts and churches. In total, mosques numbered perhaps slightly more than 100 nationwide in 1970. In the last three decades of the 20th century, however, more than 1 million new Muslim immigrants came to the United States and, in tandem with their African American co-religionists, opened hundreds more mosques. Today there are more than 2,000 places of Muslim prayer, most of them mosques, in the United States. According to recent Pew and Gallup polls, about 40 percent of Muslim Americans say they pray in a mosque at least once a week, nearly the same percentage of American Christians who attend church weekly. About a third of all U.S. Muslims say they seldom or never go to mosques. And contrary to stereotypes of mosques as male-only spaces, Gallup finds that women are as likely as men to attend. 2. Mosques try to spread sharia law in the United States. In Islam, sharia ("the Way" to God) theoretically governs every human act. But Muslims do not agree on what sharia says; there is no one sharia book of laws. Most mosques in America do not teach Islamic law for a simple reason: It's too complicated for the average believer and even for some imams. Islamic law includes not only the Koran and the Sunna (the traditions of the prophet Muhammad) but also great bodies of arcane legal rulings and pedantic scholarly interpretations. If mosques forced Islamic law upon their congregants, most Muslims would probably leave -- just as most Christians might walk out of the pews if preachers gave sermons exclusively on Saint Augustine, canon law and Greek grammar. Instead, mosques study the Koran and the Sunna and how the principles and stories in those sacred texts apply to their everyday lives. 3. Most people attending U.S. mosques are of Middle Eastern descent. A 2009 Gallup poll found that African Americans accounted for 35 percent of all Muslim Americans, making them the largest racial-ethnic group of Muslims in the nation. It is unclear whether Arab Americans or South Asian Americans (mostly Pakistanis and Indians) are the second-largest. Muslim Americans are also white, Hispanic, Sub-Saharan African, Iranian, European, Central Asian and more -- representing the most racially diverse religious group in the United States. Mosques reflect this diversity. Though there are hundreds of ethnically and racially integrated mosques, most of these institutions, like many American places of worship, break down along racial and ethnic lines. Arabs, for instance, are the dominant ethnic group in a modest number of mosques, particularly in states such as Michigan and New York. And according to a 2001 survey (the most recent national survey on mosques available) by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, they represented the plurality in only 15 percent of U.S. mosques. 4. Mosques are funded by groups and governments unfriendly to the United States. There certainly have been instances in which foreign funds, especially from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region, have been used to build mosques in the United States. The Saudi royal family, for example, reportedly gave $8 million for the building of the King Fahd Mosque, which was inaugurated in 1998 in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb. But the vast majority of mosques are supported by Muslim Americans themselves. Domestic funding reflects the desire of many U.S. Muslims to be independent of overseas influences. Long before Sept. 11, 2001, in the midst of a growing clash of interests between some Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. government -- during the Persian Gulf War, for instance -- Muslim American leaders decided that they must draw primarily from U.S. sources of funding for their projects. 5. Mosques lead to homegrown terrorism. To the contrary, mosques have become typical American religious institutions. In addition to worship services, most U.S. mosques hold weekend classes for children, offer charity to the poor, provide counseling services and conduct interfaith programs. No doubt, some mosques have encouraged radical extremism. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik who inspired the World Trade Center's first attackers in 1993, operated out of the Al-Salam mosque in Jersey City, N.J. But after the 2001 attacks, such radicalism was largely pushed out of mosques and onto the Internet, mainly because of a renewed commitment among mosque leaders to confront extremism. There is a danger that as anti-Muslim prejudice increases -- as it has recently in reaction to the proposed community center near Ground Zero -- alienated young Muslims will turn away from the peaceful path advocated by their elders in America's mosques. So far, that has not happened on a large scale. Through their mosques, U.S. Muslims are embracing the community involvement that is a hallmark of the American experience. In this light, mosques should be welcomed as premier sites of American assimilation, not feared as incubators of terrorist indoctrination. Edward E. Curtis IV is millennium chair of liberal arts at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. He is the author of "Muslims in America: A Short History" and the editor of the "Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History." |
|
|
Feisal Rauf: Ground Zero's lightning rodUS State Department favourite he might be, but his plans to open a cultural centre for Muslims close to the site of the Twin Towers have seen him reviled For the first time in a long while, Feisal Rauf is avoiding the press. The imam behind the planned "Ground Zero mosque" is on a trip to the Gulf states, after the US State Department shelled out $16,000 to fund a bridge-building series of meetings between Rauf and various local figures. Normally, that is the sort of low-level diplomacy that would fly under the radar. Indeed, Rauf might have been expected to try to publicise the trip, which is his fourth to the region on behalf of a US government which uses him as an ambassador to the Islamic world. But not this time. Rauf's first stop was a dinner in Bahrain at the US ambassador's residence at which he chatted with carefully selected guests. Reporters, who might usually have ignored such a banal event, were kept at arm's length. Attempts to talk to Rauf's dining companions were stymied. That is what happens when you become the centre of a political storm such as that which has engulfed the Ground Zero mosque project which, for the record, is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero. Instead, it is a planned Islamic cultural centre – with a restaurant and swimming pool as well as a place of worship – a few blocks from the giant building site that once housed the Twin Towers. The planned centre, now known as Park51, after its street address, is a large project. But it is not the "super-mosque" its detractors claim. Yet Rauf, as the driving force behind Park51, is one of the most divisive figures in the American political landscape. To critics, he is an anti-American supporter of terrorists who refuses to condemn Hamas and who believes America was responsible for its own tragedy on 9/11. Park51 is nothing less than a deliberate slap in the face of America and another indication of the creeping Islamisation of the US. The vitriol is staggering. Rightwing blogger Pamela Geller has dubbed Rauf a "stealth radical" and the Republican party has piled in behind her. But it is not just the extremists. Jewish groups, influential Democrats and even the current Miss USA (a Muslim) have spoken out against Park51. It is a startling alliance against a self-styled moderate, who has led countless inter-faith meetings and is so trusted by the US government that he counsels the FBI. But these are the signs of the times. After all, one in five Americans believes their president is a Muslim. It is a nation dominated by media that feed on rage. It is a place where a handful of rightwing bloggers can drag the debate over Park51 so far from reality that a man such as Rauf is seen as a threat to national security. To nearly everyone now engaged in the argument over Park51, the truth seems irrelevant. That is a huge misfortune for a man who, like millions of other immigrants, has actually so fully embraced America. Feisal Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait in 1948. His father, a respected Egyptian cleric called Muhammad Abdul Rauf, had been part of a wave of Islamic scholars sent out by the Egyptian government to posts around the world. That led to a wandering childhood as Rauf's father took up positions in Britain, Malaysia and the Gulf. His accent still retains clipped tones from the time he spent in Cambridge with his father. But it also led to a certain sense of rootlessness that only ended when the Raufs went to the US. It was 1965 and Rauf was 17. "I did not know if I was Egyptian, Malay or English," he has said. He soon found he was, in fact, destined to be American. Landing in New York, the family moved into a small apartment above Rauf senior's mosque on West 72nd Street, tending to a small congregation of immigrant Muslims and black American converts. He studied physics at university before taking on postgraduate work in New Jersey. Though the Rauf family was a conservative one (Rauf's mother was not allowed to drive), Rauf was a typical student, with a wide circle of friends and a fondness for cars and girls. He had Jewish friends who, during the Six Day war, remember Rauf striving to understand the conflict's meaning for American Jews. "There was a genuine openness," a classmate, Alan Silberstein, told the New York Times. Rauf has always welcomed others. He still talks of the profound influence of his childhood in Malaysia. That disparate nation has many ethnic groupings and practises a gentle form of Islam. But it was America that Rauf truly embraced. In all his speeches, Rauf, like any other American, says "we" and "our country". He became a citizen in 1980. In his writings on Islam, Rauf has emphasised common links between Judaism, Christianity and Islam (which, he says, share Abrahamic ideals). He sees their quarrels as a family dispute. Yet it was not always certain that Rauf was destined to be an imam. He first taught remedial English in a school in Harlem; then he was a salesman, though he was always on a spiritual journey. He travelled and met Islamic scholars and eventually became a Sufi, a form of Islam that emphasises the mystic. A Sufi scholar in Turkey asked him to create a Sufi mosque in New York and in 1983 Rauf left the working world to found the Masjid al-Farah in Manhattan. From the start, it was a moderate place, friendly to women and attracting a diverse crowd. Among that crowd was interior designer Daisy Khan, who had been born in Kashmir, but, like Rauf, arrived in America as an immigrant teenager. Khan had been searching for a moderate form of Islam and found it at al-Farah. She also found her future husband. The pair married in 1997. But Rauf and Khan became far more than just a couple. They became a working team, especially after 9/11. Suddenly, all America was trying to understand Islam. Journalists and politicians were desperate for a moderate voice to explain it. Rauf and Khan filled that void. Rauf had set up the American Society for Muslim Advancement in 1997. Khan, who, in her 25 year interior design career had worked for various Fortune 500 companies, spoke in favour of women's rights. Suddenly, the Raufs were big news. They went on TV and advised politicians. They became the face of moderate American Islam. When a memorial service was held for murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, Rauf declared: "I am a Jew." When the scandal of Abu Ghraib broke, Rauf was among those asked to appear in an apology advert that was broadcast on Arabic television. The Raufs were an industry of moderate Islam: writing books, giving speeches, travelling to the World Economic Forum. The Raufs were the epitome of those most American of traditions: the salesman and the motivational speaker. But these are now dangerous waters to swim in if you're a Muslim. It matters little what are the Raufs' intentions. What matters is the views others project onto them. Park51 was originally called Cordoba House, after Rauf's inter-faith Cordoba Initiative. The name Cordoba is a nod to the Moorish emirate known its for religious tolerance. But rightwingers believe it is a reference to the Muslim conquest of Spain (some radical Islamists also take it that way). The same goes for any number of Rauf's statements. When he says American foreign policy has angered many Muslims, he is stating a belief shared by liberals and voiced by some conservatives, such as Glenn Beck. But critics say Rauf thinks America deserved to be attacked on 9/11. When he speaks of wanting to see Islam spread in America, it is seen as a sign of Islamisation. But any religious person wants to see their faith grow. In this atmosphere, the Raufs cannot win. Yet far from being a radical plot, planning Park51 was a rather amateurish exercise. Rauf had no media campaign, no PR. To critics, that just shows how secretive the Raufs are. Yet all the evidence seems to suggest two moderates, happy to brand themselves as such, who wandered naively into a hornets' nest. "I don't really think they knew what would happen. Which is worrying in itself but not in the way most people worry about it," said one New York religious notable who supports Park51. No wonder Rauf's minders in the State Department were keeping him under wraps. In one of the few moments in Bahrain when he did directly address the Park51 issue, Rauf kept things simple. He read out a statement that included this plea: "With God's help, inshallah, we shall pass through this stormy season." Delivered in Rauf's cool voice tinged with a British accent, it sounded heartfelt. But calming this particular storm might be beyond even the powers of the Almighty (whichever one you believe in). THE RAUF FILEBorn Feisal Abdul Rauf, in Kuwait in 1948. His father was Muhammad Abdul Rauf, an Egyptian scholar, and his mother was an Egyptian called Buthnaya. His wife is Daisy Khan, a Kashmir-born interior designer. Best of times In 2003 at a memorial for murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, Rauf took a courageous stand by saying: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one." Worst of times Now. The furore over Park51 has seen Rauf become one of the most vilified people in America, destroying years of careful image-building. What he says "My colleagues and I are the antiterrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America's Muslim population into the mainstream society." What others say That depends. Right-wing blogger Pamela Geller says: "While imam Feisal speaks of tolerance, he praises the worst extremists and inciters to genocide." Meanwhile, Atlantic Monthly journalist Jeffrey Goldberg says: "He represents what bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a western, non-Muslim country." |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 82 - 90 of 6691 |
|
|