McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video : The Times says its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video, which shows Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. The story first appeared in April. (By a Times staff writer, October 28, 2008, LA Times)
John McCain's presidential campaign today accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. [...]The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=6758c0b6-b5bc-4521-b085-7feb6dae40c1)
Worse Than Fascists: Christian Political Group 'The Family' Openly Reveres Hitler: Did you know that the National Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by a shadowy cabal of elite Christian fundamentalists? Jeff Sharlet's new book, "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," offers a rare glimpse of this remarkable network, which is known variously as the Family, the Fellowship and the International Foundation. (Lindsay Beyerstein, 6/12/08, AlterNet)
AlterNet writer Lindsay Beyerstein recently sat down with Jeff Sharlet at a Brooklyn coffee shop to discuss the Family.Lindsay Beyerstein What is the Family?
Jeff Sharlet: It's an international network of evangelical activists in government, military and business. The Family is dedicated to this idea that Christianity has gotten it all wrong for two thousand years by focusing on the poor, the suffering and the weak.
The Family says that instead, what Christians should do is minister to the up-and-out -- as opposed to the down-and-out -- to those that are already powerful. Because if they can win those people for Christ, they win the whole deal. That's what this network is dedicated to. It includes nonprofit organizations, it includes think tanks, it includes various ministries. [...]
Lindsay Beyerstein: What kind of empire do they envision?
Jeff Sharlet: They envision the empire that we have. Doug Coe says, "We work with power where we can and build new power where we can't." Usually they can work within power. Rob Shank, another Christian right activist in Washington, says, "The Family is into living with what is."
In the immediate postwar era, they were talking about Christian D-Day and Washington as the world's Christian capital. And World War Three, they were very excited about that, all full-steam ahead. But they sort of subsided and were subsumed into the American Cold War project, which ended up becoming an imperial project.
Lindsay Beyerstein: What did the Family have to do with a B-movie called "The Blob"?
Jeff Sharlet: The best illustration of the Family's involvement in the Cold War was something that I stumbled on by accident: The 1958 film "The Blob." It began at the 1957 National Prayer Breakfast. "The Blob" was a famous horror movie that was a metaphor for Communism. This is their imagination of how Communism spread. At the time, the American imagination couldn't grasp ideology, so it had to be an actual goo that globs more and more people and grows and becomes expansive. As I recall, they have to blow up the town at the end. The logic of "The Blob" is that we must destroy the village in order to save it. That's the logic of Vietnam.
The project actually began at the National Prayer Breakfast. This filmmaker who had been making fundamentalist films, Irvin "Shorty" Yeaworth, was on the lookout for someone to make this film. (The writer) Kate Phillips was a B-movie sci-fi actress. Not a Christian Right person; (she was) there as a guest of a friend of hers. She's there at the breakfast and they become friends. They end up making this movie.
All my alarm systems go off at once. I freely admit I'm no expert on the finer points of religion and politics inside the beltway. But as the crazy circumstances of life would have it, there's a lot of firsthand knowledge about The Blob in my memory bank. I was present at the creation. During the summer of 1957, my wife Shirley and I and our two young sons were in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania for the studio and location shooting of the film, when I was involved in revisions of the script.Sharlet's full answer to Lindsay's question about The Blob is a litany of misinformation, one incorrect fact after another. So I now know I'll have to check into his book. Our town library doesn't have it, as it turns out, nor does the local independent bookstore. I even come up empty at Barnes and Noble. But I want the book in a hurry, so I resort to Amazon. When the package arrives, the first impression on opening it is weird. The book jacket is designed to look like an old-timey family Bible.
I note, with some dismay, that there's an entire 23-page chapter titled "The Blob." What on earth can Sharlet say about the movie that will fill 23 pages—especially when what he thinks he knows is all wrong? As I read, I find that The Blob is mentioned only in the chapter's first two pages and in its concluding sentence. Then why the title? That seems like a good question, but I set it aside. First I need to know whether the record in the book is any more accurate than the interview.
It is not.
Like the interview, the book pinpoints the 1957 National Prayer Breakfast as the time and place of the film's birth. Strike one. The film had been under discussion for over a year. In fact, quite by accident, I attended an exploratory conference at Valley Forge Films in the spring of 1956 when a delightful raconteur named Irv Millgate was present to pitch a film idea. He had with him a small container with a gelatinous mass of silicone. His goal was to see whether he could interest the company in doing a film that would, so to speak, have this stuff as its main character. I don't recall that anyone actually used the word "blob," but I do clearly recall the tactile sensation of the silicone ball that was passed around the table.
Strike two: The film's director, Irvin "Shorty" Yeaworth, is identified as an "evangelical minister." An understandable mistake. Shorty was a junior. It was his father, the Reverend Irvin Shortess Yeaworth, who was a Presbyterian clergyman in West Philadelphia.
Both the interview and the book claim that a woman named Kate Phillips was the writer. Wrong. Her contribution to the film was minimal. Ted Simonson was the writer, and by the time Kate Phillips was brought on the scene, supposedly to add some professional polishing, the screenplay was well underway. But this too is an understandable error. With her experience as both a Hollywood actress and screenwriter, Ms. Phillips was named writer in the finished film credits along with Simonson, at the insistence of the executive producer (not Yeaworth). He reasoned that the input of a professional among this bunch of amateurs might make the film more salable to a major studio. So Sharlet gets a pass on this one.
Back to the interview: Sharlet says, "As I recall, they have to blow up the town at the end. The logic of The Blob is that we must destroy the village in order to save it. That's the logic of Vietnam." Bad mistake. As any blobster could confirm, the teenagers in the film, led by Steve McQueen in his first screen role, actually save the town when they realize that freezing the creature with CO2 fire extinguishers is the only answer and collect enough of them to do the job. Nothing was blown up. The monstrous mass from outer space was cut into sections and dropped over the Arctic ice cap. Strike three.
But these inaccuracies are minor compared to the most egregiously mistaken claim of all—that the blob was intended as a metaphor for communism. When Lindsey Beyerstein asks what the Family had to do with The Blob, Sharlet replies: "This is their imagination of how Communism spread. At the time, the American imagination couldn't grasp ideology, so it had to be an actual goo that globs more and more people and grows and becomes expansive." No, no, no. In fact, the motive behind the company's involvement in the production was totally commercial, the universally recognized capitalistic one of making some money. The company badly needed money, and someone had discovered that there'd rarely been a monster movie that had failed at the box office. Bottom of the ninth. Three outs. Game over.
In my experience of working on the movie, I was not aware of one single stray reference to anything remotely connected with communism. Not at the initial story conference, not throughout the shooting schedule. As "Third Assistant Director in Charge of Daily Script Revision" (a string of important-sounding words to describe a responsibility that finally didn't rate a screen credit), I was in daily contact with the writer and the director. If communism had been on anyone's mind, I would have known.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=9ef27c00-0fa6-4841-a034-39c9800d4703)
Christian Science Monitor to End Print Edition (Howard Kurtz, 10/28/08, Washington Post)
The money-losing paper announced today that it will stop publishing next April, except for a weekly edition, and shift entirely to the Internet. [...]The Web site is drawing 1.5 million unique visitors a month, which isn't bad, but Yemma says he must boost that if the brand is to survive. "There's no magic bullet," he says. "You just have to do high-quality journalism and post constantly."
Beneath US-Pakistani tension, a new cooperation: Joint efforts include setting up coordination centers along the Afghan-Pakistani border. (Mark Sappenfield, 10/29/08, The Christian Science Monitor )
Two weeks ago, insurgents in Pakistan lobbed mortars at US forces in Afghanistan. When the Americans alerted the Pakistani Army, its response was unambiguous. Not only could the US fire back, but Pakistani soldiers acted as spotters.It is one small example of how Pakistan is starting to cooperate more with the US and Afghanistan in fighting the insurgency in its tribal areas. Attempts to find solutions jointly are being made across a wide spectrum, from the opening of border coordination centers shared by the three nations' armies to talks among tribal leaders.
Cassel improving as substitute for injured Brady (Howard Ullman, October 28, 2008, AP)
Matt Cassel lofted a very Brady-like pass just over the defender and into the arms of Kevin Faulk at the edge of the end zone.The placement was perfect. The touchdown capped a Patriots comeback. The quarterback did what his teammates knew he could do. [...]
The Patriots are 5-2 and back in first place in the AFC East, tied with Buffalo. In Brady's first two seasons as a starter, they were 3-4 after seven games.
Brady has 28 comeback victories in seven seasons in games in which the Patriots trailed or were tied in the fourth quarter. Sunday's was Cassel's first, but he did go 4-for-4 for 49 yards on the decisive drive. [...]
Cassel succeeded Sunday despite a rash of injuries to key offensive players.
Running backs Sammy Morris, LaMont Jordan and Laurence Maroney and starting right tackle Nick Kaczur were sidelined. Regular right guard Stephen Neal saw limited action in his second game after missing the first five following shoulder and knee injuries.
Cassel showed an ability to run when his protection broke down or he didn't spot open receivers.
"Matt saved us on a few of those," Belichick said.
Undecided voters may already have decided, study suggests (Brian Nosek, 10/28/08, University of Virginia )
[University of Virginia psychology professor Brian] Nosek and colleagues Mahzarin Banaji of Harvard University and Tony Greenwald of the University of Washington developed the Implicit Association Test to assess mental associations that may be different than what people know or say about themselves.A dozen years of research and hundreds of published studies suggest that people have implicit belief systems that may contradict their declared beliefs. These implicit beliefs can affect actions, such as how they vote at the moment it comes time to explicitly decide.
The research team operates "Project Implicit," a publicly accessible research and education Web site (www.implicit.harvard.edu at which visitors can complete the Implicit Association Test to measure their own implicit associations. The test is available for a variety of topics, including an "Obama-McCain" task that was developed for the U.S. presidential election.
In its 10 years of existence, about 7 million people have completed tests at the Web site, including more than 25,000 who have tested their implicit preferences regarding presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.
In the latter project, being conducted by Nosek, Greenwald and Colin Smith, a U.Va. graduate student, almost 15 percent of the participants (about 4,000 people) declared themselves as undecided between voting for Obama or McCain. However, many of these same participants show an implicit preference for Obama or McCain despite their explicit indecision.
"Undecided voters may have decided implicitly before they know that they have explicitly," Nosek said. U.S. undecided voters, on average, reported feeling slightly warmer toward Obama than McCain, but they implicitly showed a slight preference for McCain over Obama.
Bill Kristol: Reagan Revolution Isn't Over: The leading neoconservative talks about the GOP, Obama, the financial meltdown, and why it pays to be a contrarian in politics and the market (Maria Bartiromo , 10/28/08, Business Week)
In a recent column in The Wall Street Journal, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan attacked Sarah Palin, saying that, among other things, she is a symptom of the vulgarization of American politics. You fired back with a Times column saying most of the recent mistakes of American public policy were brought to us by highly educated and sophisticated elites. What were those mistakes, and would you include the invasion of Iraq as one of them?No on Iraq, but the mistakes include all kinds of policies that were pushed by faculties at Harvard and Yale and that turned out not to be so good for the country. But the thing I had most in mind was the financial crisis. I mean, an awful lot of incredibly smart and well-educated people invented very fancy financial instruments that they didn't fully understand, and that put a lot of ordinary people's savings at risk. It wasn't Main Street that invented mortgage-backed securities or decided that financial firms could be leveraged at 50 to 1. The public isn't always as knowledgeable as it could be, but generally speaking, the American public has a pretty good track record of using common sense. And I would say intellectuals and elites have a less good track record because they fall in love with various fads.
It's interesting that Barack Obama keeps talking about spreading the wealth, and yet sometimes he comes across as an elitist.
He is very much a product of Harvard Law School…and that's fine. But I do think he believes that if he gets the really smart guys in a room in Washington or New York, they can sort of retool the American economy. I don't think he has that fundamental, I would call it a Hayekian belief—after Friedrich Hayek, the great Austrian economist—in the limits of central planning, the limits of very smart people's abilities to figure things out. I do think Obama is instinctively very much a government-knows-best guy.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=2c56fbd1-d718-416c-97ca-f21a0d5b6d5b)
Analysts Question Timing of Syria Raid (Ali Gharib, 10/28/08, IPS)
A cross-border raid into Syria by U.S. forces in Iraq, and a subsequent stonewalling by U.S. officials unwilling to divulge details, has led to rampant speculation among U.S. analysts about the origins and meaning of the attack."So the question is: Why?" wrote geo-strategic analyst and journalist Helena Cobban on her blog, wondering if the raid could have been pulled off without explicit permission from the highest levels of the President George W. Bush administration.
"So why now at the end of the Bush administration, with Washington trying to play nice with Damascus and tensions easing throughout the region, would U.S. forces stage such a gambit?" echoed Borzou Daragahi on the Babylon and Beyond blog at the Los Angeles Times website.
Wal-Mart To Sell Google's G1 Phones At Discount Starting Wed (Dow Jones, 10/27/08)
Wal-Mart Inc. (WMT) will start selling the G1 phone at a discounted price starting Wednesday, a Wal-Mart spokesman confirmed Monday night.Wal-Mart will carry the Google Inc. (GOOG) G1 phone, sold through Deutsche Telekom AG's (DT) T-Mobile USA, in 550 Wal-Mart stores at the reduced price of $ 148.88 for new customers, or existing customers eligible for an upgrade, who sign up for a two-year agreement, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien said.
Consumers interested in purchasing the T-Mobile G1 can save $31.11 at Wal-Mart as opposed to buying through T-Mobile, which sells the device for $179.99.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=f89b0ff0-0f2b-4f94-86b4-b47c80696ddc)
LA/OC home values still up 71% under Bush (Jon Lansner, 10/28/08, ocregister.com)
* LA/OC home values are still up 70.6% since Bush took office in January 2001. By the way, at one point, local prices were up 147% (September 2006) under Republican Bush.* That handily beats President’s Clinton era (Jan. 1993-Jan. 2001), when local prices rose only 31%. For those who wonder: Local prices must fall another 27% by January 2009 for Bush and Democrat Clinton to tie!
...when they work in such a partisan fish bowl?
Gallup Daily: Presidential Race Narrows Slightly (Gallup, 10/28/08)
The gap between Barack Obama and John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Saturday through Monday has narrowed slightly, and Obama is now at 49% of the vote to 47% for McCain among likely voters using Gallup's traditional model...
Sources: Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as 'utterly immature' (Barak Ravid, 10/28/08, Israel News)
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content." [...]
[A]ccording to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.
Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.
Wendy’s offers Halloween candy alternative: free Frosty (Nancy Luna, 10/28/08, OC Register)
The burger chain is selling booklets that contain a coupon good for one free Jr. Frosty. Each booklet cost $1 and contains 10 coupons.
Judge defines detainees as enemy combatants: Ruling takes a first step in resolving the fate of terrorism suspects held without charge at Guantanamo Bay. (The Associated Press, October 28, 2008)
Al Qaeda or Taliban supporters who directly assisted in hostile acts against the United States or its allies can be held without charge as enemy combatants, a federal judge ruled Monday. [...]In Monday's order, [U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ] reached back to the Pentagon's September 2004 definition.
"Happily, happily, there is a definition that was crafted by the executive and blessed by the Congress," Leon said.
He pointed to the 2004 standard, defining an enemy combatant as an individual who was part of supporting Al Qaeda, Taliban or other associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners.
The definition includes anyone who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces.
The Republicans' dirty secret... torture (Johann Hari, 10/28/08, The Independent)
So what will be left of the Republican Party after next week's US election? The answer lies in the sands of Florida, where the sunshine-state Republicans have nominated an unrepentant torturer as their candidate for Congress. They view his readiness to torture an innocent Iraqi not as a source of shame, but as his prime qualification for office. This is American conservatism in the dying days of Bush – and it points out the direction that Sarah Palin would like to take it in 2012. [...]There are no recorded instances of getting useable intelligence from torture – but even if in some freak instance after you have tortured a thousand Yahiyas you finally did, would it outweigh the damage of handing al Qaeda a thousand new recruits, vindicating Bin Laden's hate-talk and breaching the most basic moral codes?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=0711e80e-aafe-437e-b526-54f248c8dee7)
Social conservatives fight for control of Republican Party: The right flank is positioning to change the GOP's leadership and direction -- even if John McCain wins the presidency. Some moderates fear such a shift would alienate more voters. (Peter Wallsten, October 28, 2008, LA Times)
The social conservatives and moderates who together boosted the Republican Party to dominance have begun a tense battle over the future of the GOP, with social conservatives already moving to seize control of the party's machinery and some vowing to limit John McCain's influence, even if he wins the presidency.
Just Look (Edward Cardinal Egan, October 23, 2008, Archdiocese of New York)
The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.
Have you any doubt that it is a human being?
If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?
If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?
If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.
But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a “human being” is, what a “person” is, what it means to be “living,” and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us “Roe v. Wade” address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining “human being,” defining “person,” defining “living,” and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who “chooses” to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.
Countdown to the Obama Rapture: Watch as the press corps battles its performance anxiety! (Jack Shafer, Oct. 27, 2008, Slate)
The windows of this mind-set are provided by Slate's Jacob Weisberg, for whom the Obama election is a national referendum on racism; the New York Times' Nicholas D. Kristof, for whom an Obama presidency is an opportunity to "rebrand" our nation and "find a path to restore America's global influence"; E.J. Dionne, who sees an Obama presidency as representing a chance to "rekindle the sense of possibility and transformation" in American life; and a swooning Andrew Sullivan, who almost a year ago speculated that Obama might be "that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about." For Chris Matthews, of course, the Obama candidacy is a "thrill" going up his leg, one that will arc over his torso and detonate his head in the event of a victory.The leading Obama cheerleader among the commentariat is Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, whose "erection of the heart" for the candidate has no match. Alter sees the presidential election as a world referendum on the United States and "the common sense and decency of the American people." Obama symbolizes hope over fear, and his election would produce an "Obama Dividend" that would "blow the minds of people in the Middle East and other regions, and help restore American prestige." Obama, Alter continues, "knows how to think big, elevate the debate and transport the public to a new place."
Such overwriting leaves Alter little acreage upon which to build a monument if his candidate wins, but the problem isn't Alter's alone. Even political reporters who have scrubbed from their copy any evidence of Obama lust face the same Nov. 5 dilemma as the commentariat. How do you pack all the Obama touch points—healing, hope, change, civility, the second coming of Camelot, post-boomer politician, inspirer of youth, great uniter, world president, and so on—into one story without sounding hagiographic? Isn't that what the commemorative issue of People magazine is for? Then again, how do you write about Obama's victory without looping in the touch points? Hence the performance anxiety.
Is Sarah Palin preparing for 2012? (ROGER SIMON, 10/28/08, Politico)
Sarah Palin may soon be free. Soon, she may not have the millstone of John McCain around her neck. And she can begin her race for president in 2012.Some are already talking about it. In careful terms. If John McCain loses next week, Sarah Palin “has absolutely earned a right to run in 2012,” says Greg Mueller, who was a senior aide in the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. Mueller says Palin has given conservatives “hope” and “something to believe in.”
And even if the McCain-Palin ticket does win on Nov. 4 — and Mueller says it could — “if McCain decides to serve for just one term, Sarah Palin as the economic populist and traditional American values candidates will be very appealing by the time we get to 2012.”
Taking stock of the parties (Richard Rahn, October 28, 2008, Washington Times)
[O]ver the last quarter of a century when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the stock market rose by an average of about 20 percent per year. When the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the stock market only rose at an average annual rate of 6.9 percent for the Dow Jones and a tepid 5.1 percent for the Standard and Poor 500.When one party controlled one house and the other party controlled the other house of Congress, the growth in the stock market was significantly less than when the Republicans controlled both houses (15.6 percent for the Dow Jones and 12.7 percent for the S&P), but significantly more than when the Democrats controlled both houses.
There is a natural tendency for people to focus on the party of the president who is in power; but, in fact, the Congress is far more important to markets because it decides how to, and how much to, tax and spend. Some Democrats will try to argue that this is merely random variation, but the averages are sufficiently disparate to compensate for the small sample size (the last 25 years).
The Democrats have controlled 10 years, the Republicans 11 years, and in five years they shared control. [...]
The responsiveness of the markets to the party in control in Congress has been consistent with the shifts back and forth between the parties. When the Democrats and Republicans each controlled one house in the 1983-87 period, the S&P rose at an annual rate of 19.5 percent. When the Democrats controlled both houses during the 1987-95 period, the S&P rose at annual rate of 10.8 percent, and again when they controlled both houses from 2007 to the present, the S&P dropped at a 20.4 percent annual rate.
The Republicans controlled both houses from 1995-2001 when the S&P rose at annual rate of 29.9 percent, and again from 2003-2007 when the S&P rose at annual rate of 14.0 percent. During the 2001-2003 period, the control of the Senate shifted back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats, neither party having sustained control, and the S&P dropped at an annual rate of 14.6 percent for those two years (which also coincided with the Sept. 11, 2001, aftermath).
US, Pakistan mission on target (Syed Saleem Shahzad, 10/28/08, Asia Times)
Militant sources have confirmed to Asia Times Online that Moroccan Khalid Habib, the head of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, was killed last week in a missile attack by an unmanned US Predator drone in the South Waziristan tribal area. [...]With Khalid dead, the next likely target is veteran Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose suspected bases in North Waziristan have been targeted on several occasions. Jalaluddin is the spiritual leader of the Haqqani network and a legendary figure of the Afghan mujahideen's struggle against the Soviets during the 1980s. Several of his family and aides have been killed in the attacks, but both Jalaluddin and his son Sirajuddin remain at large, possibly even in urban areas in Pakistan.
Former Afghan premier Gulbuddin Hekmatyar could also be on the hit list. He is a former friend of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and had been contacted by Kabul through intermediaries over the possibility of initiating dialogue with the Taliban.
However, he refuses to become involved in any back-channel discussions for peace until all foreign troops leave Afghanistan, although he did assure Karzai that once the foreigners left, he would work with his administration in the political mainstream.
Obama's fans in Europe are in for a big surprise (John Vinocur, October 27, 2008, International Herald Tribune)
The question of Europe really hearing all that Obama says goes to other issues. I haven't found any research that would support the theory, but my guess is also that Europeans have only the faintest idea that Obama accepts the death penalty and won't fight for gun control, two eternal American sins as seen from abroad.Soft power? Europe loves the notion (which rationalizes its low defense budgets) and tends to assign a virtue it sees in itself to Obama. Yet here's how the Democrat came out, in his last debate with McCain, on a centrally soft concern - education:
"It probably has more to do with our economic future than anything and that means it has a national security implication because there never has been a nation on Earth that saw its economy decline and continued to maintain its primacy as a military power. So we've got to get our education system right."
On Iran, there is little indication that European public opinion is listening closely either when Obama says, "We'll never take the military option off the table." Or on Georgia and Ukraine, when Obama insists that they must be given plans for NATO membership "immediately." Or on Afghanistan when he complains that some NATO countries, like Germany, are present there but not sharing the missions with the most murderous risks.
This also goes in part for Iraq. It would be Obama's America alone that has to make the decisions. When asked four years ago about French and German criticism of the Iraq war, Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, caricatured European leaders telling him they would have done things better:
"Blah blah blah, international cooperation," he mocked. "Give me a break, huh."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=7259e92c-320f-434e-be74-aee24d6d6069)
Both sides of aisle rip MSNBC (Paul Bond, Oct 27, 2008, Hollywood Reporter)
[Writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat], and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters."We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.
Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programming, just as she went out of her way to portray Southern women as smart in her hit TV show "Designing Women."
[T]wo sex- and gender-related questions caught our attention. First, reactions to news of Bristol Palin's out-of-wedlock pregnancy: liberal pundits gleefully announced that this was going to seriously undermine Governor Palin's standing with the Republican Party's evangelical base. Any informed evangelical watcher or evangelical believer could have told them that this is a non-issue.It is a non-issue because John Newton's famous line, "I once was lost but now I'm found," defines the evangelical ethos. We specialize in troubled lives. Stories of transformation from sin and degradation to righteousness and wholeness frame the way evangelicals see life. From the slave-trading Newton to the White House "hatchet man" Chuck Colson, God saves people from their slavery to sin and uses them to restore others. Indeed, those of us who never did anything particularly shocking sometimes have trouble fitting in.
Evangelical pews are full of people whose family lives are untidy. [...]
The second media reaction that caught our attention was liberal puzzlement over conservatives who believe that only men should lead churches and marriages, yet who would not hesitate to have a woman a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Richard Land told Christianity Today that such concerns are asinine. The president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission compares the Palins to the Thatcher household: Dennis was head of the family, while Maggie ran the government. Land subscribes to the Baptist Faith and Message, which teaches that ecclesiastical and marital leadership are male territory. But Land is married to a strong woman, a professional with a Ph.D.
This will only accelerate as neocons and McCain staff try to blame the election result on Ms Palin, specifically, and Christianity, generally.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=4b651cb2-c28d-4319-95bd-bb9e00b66137)
The strike that shattered US-Syria ties (Sami Moubayed, 10/29/08, Slate)
The US broke its silence on the incident on Tuesday, claiming that top al-Qaeda operative Abu Ghadiyah was targeted and killed during what is being described in Western media as a pre-emptive strike. The Associated Press, quoting an unnamed US military official, reported that Ghadiyah was about to carry out an attack in Iraq. Ghadiyah, whose real name is Badran Turki Hishan Al Mazidih, is the leader a prolific network that moves foreign al-Qaeda fighters into underground resistance factions in war-torn Iraq.The attack came days after a top US commander in Iraq told reporters that US troops bolstering their presence on the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.
The unconfirmed details and unquestionable tragedy of the raid have left once-promising US-Syria ties in tatters. Top officials in Damascus have blasted the "cowboy" tactics of US forces, and Syrian public opinion has become vociferously anti-American.
The so-called "massacre" won't lead to war between the US and Syria, but it marks an important turning point in a turbulent and unpredictable relationship that stretches back some 60 years.
