Here’s the problem with sporadic adherence to the rule of a law and an opaque extra-judicial “legal” system: We just don’t know who or what to believe . (That, and the executions .) The timing on this Iran “terror” plot is a little too convenient , isn’t it? I guess we should be grateful the terrorists — excuse me, alleged terrorists – weren’t simply sent to Gitmo. And we’ll just pretend that Israel hasn’t been trying to push us into an attack on Iran . Amy Davidson in the New Yorker : It’s hard to know, at this stage, how solid the case against two men charged with trying to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States is. But it does have one thing to recommend it: an indictment. One of the men charged, Manssor Arbabsiar, an American citizen, was arrested at J.F.K. on September 29th. (The other, Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian, is at large, but, according to Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is not believed to be in the United States.) Arbabsiar will be put on trial in a court in lower Manhattan, just as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be “Christmas Bomber,” went on trial today in a court in Detroit. Neither was sent to Guantánamo, or put before a military tribunal, or preëmptively assassinated . That sounds like a simple thing, and it should be, and can be, even when, as in this new case, the alleged crime is complex. There is something discouraging about the relief one feels at a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law. At least six countries are part of the story: allegedly, an American who also had an Iranian passport travelled to Mexico to meet with a member of a drug cartel (who turned out to be a confidential D.E.A. informant) to recruit a hitman to kill a Saudi Arabian and maybe also attack the Israeli embassy in Argentina. (A map with pins in it would help here.) And its scale was also potentially great: according to a wiretap recording cited in the indictment, which said, “They want that guy [the Ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him, f*ck ’em.” Still: that is nothing our justice system—our real one—can’t handle, when we let it. The evidence against Arbabsiar, according to the indictment, includes “a series of Mirandized interviews” in which he “confessed to his participation in the plot” and also gave information about the involvement of others.
Continue reading …Here’s the problem with sporadic adherence to the rule of a law and an opaque extra-judicial “legal” system: We just don’t know who or what to believe . (That, and the executions .) The timing on this Iran “terror” plot is a little too convenient , isn’t it? I guess we should be grateful the terrorists — excuse me, alleged terrorists – weren’t simply sent to Gitmo. And we’ll just pretend that Israel hasn’t been trying to push us into an attack on Iran . Amy Davidson in the New Yorker : It’s hard to know, at this stage, how solid the case against two men charged with trying to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States is. But it does have one thing to recommend it: an indictment. One of the men charged, Manssor Arbabsiar, an American citizen, was arrested at J.F.K. on September 29th. (The other, Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian, is at large, but, according to Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is not believed to be in the United States.) Arbabsiar will be put on trial in a court in lower Manhattan, just as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be “Christmas Bomber,” went on trial today in a court in Detroit. Neither was sent to Guantánamo, or put before a military tribunal, or preëmptively assassinated . That sounds like a simple thing, and it should be, and can be, even when, as in this new case, the alleged crime is complex. There is something discouraging about the relief one feels at a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law. At least six countries are part of the story: allegedly, an American who also had an Iranian passport travelled to Mexico to meet with a member of a drug cartel (who turned out to be a confidential D.E.A. informant) to recruit a hitman to kill a Saudi Arabian and maybe also attack the Israeli embassy in Argentina. (A map with pins in it would help here.) And its scale was also potentially great: according to a wiretap recording cited in the indictment, which said, “They want that guy [the Ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him, f*ck ’em.” Still: that is nothing our justice system—our real one—can’t handle, when we let it. The evidence against Arbabsiar, according to the indictment, includes “a series of Mirandized interviews” in which he “confessed to his participation in the plot” and also gave information about the involvement of others.
Continue reading …The Family Research Center conducted their own straw poll, which is made up of the James Dobson faction of the religious right – and lo and behold the winner was Ron Paul. That should be a significant victory for Paul, but Tony Perkins, their new leader and Value Voters organizer dismissed Paul’s victory as an outlier and in essence denounced his own voters and the legitimacy of his own poll. The “Values Voter” summit was held in Washington this past weekend. The event was sponsored by The Family Research Council, a social conservative group. The weekend got off to a rousing start Friday night when Robert Jeffress, a prominent Texas pastor, criticized Mitt Romney and his faith, calling Mormonism a “cult.” And in the Values Voter straw poll, Rep. Ron Paul came out on top with 37 percent of the vote. This morning on American Morning, CNN’s Carol Costello talks with Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, about Jeffress’ controversial remarks and why he believes Ron Paul’s straw poll win is insignificant. He was so ridiculous that the TeaNN host just laughed at his rationale for dissing Paul’s win. Costello: So Ron Paul probably means nothing and Herman Cain does. Perkins Well, this is…the majority of the people came there for a summit to hear all of the candidates. They didn’t come there to support a particular candidate. They came to listen to the candidate and express their preference. Ron Paul bused in over six hundred people on Saturday morning not to attend a conference, but to just to hear his speech and vote. There was early news made at this summit when Pastor Jeffress openly attacked Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith by calling it a “cult.” The results of the straw poll show a couple of other bad signs for Romney, the Republican Villagers choice for the nomination. First, the type of evangelical that is attracted to the FRC does indeed not trust Romney’s religion at all and secondly, he finishes behind everyone one of the remaining GOP candidates outside of Gingrich, who align themselves with religion. Well, they all pander there, but still. Not good, Mittens. Paul 37% Cain; 23% Santorum: 16% Perry: 8% Bachmann: 8% Romney: 4% Gingrich: 3% Cain’s strong showing is also indicative of the dissatisfaction the right-wing base has with its field and with Romney in general. Perry’s immigration stand has eroded his support entirely in the Christian community and put his bid in terrible jeopardy for the nomination. So, they are trying to show America that they aren’t racists this early in the process and are flocking to Cain, even though he has no chance of winning.
Continue reading …Timothy Noah gets through this entire post , noting that even the tea partiers mostly agree with tax hikes, and is still wondering why Republican officials are so out of step with most Republican voters — without mentioning the famous pledge to Pope Grover. Nobody likes a primary challenge, Tim! This has been said before but it cannot be said enough. Republican presidential candidates and Republican members of Congress are out of touch with Republican voters on the necessity of raising taxes to reduce the budget deficit. A Washington Post -Bloomberg News poll conducted Oct. 6-9 found that 68 percent of all voters and 54 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters favored raising taxes on incomes above $250,000 (i.e., the Obama plan) to tackle the deficit. On the question of whether to reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits to reduce the deficit, 83 and 82 percent, respectively, of all voters opposed. For Republicans and Republican-leaners, these proportions were only slightly lower: 79 and 77 percent , respectively. Entitlement spending will have to be cut, of course, to reduce the deficit, because entitlement spending represents a majority of all federal spending. (Only one-fifth of federal spending resides in the “non-defense discretionary” category currently being whittled to the bone.) But that option is pretty unpopular with just about everyone and it is therefore politically unwise for Republican politicians to try to balance the budget through spending cuts alone. It’s also economically insane to contemplate hacking away at government spending at this particular moment, when unemployment is stuck above 9 percent and the median income is dropping like a stone . As my grade-school friend Daniel Alpert, managing partner of Westwood Capital, writes in a new report for the New America Foundation coauthored by Robert Hockett of Cornell Law School and New York University economist Nouriel Robini:”Under existing conditions of weak global demand, austerity would simply lead to a vicious circle of yet weaker demand, weaker investment, more unemployment, and still weaker demand, ad infinitum – the familiar “downward spiral” of all “great” depressions wrought by the “paradox of thrift.” This is especially true if austerity is pursued simultaneously in Europe and the United States, as now is in real danger of happening owing to European measures that are just as wrong-headed as now-voguish American ones. And if the emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere begin to experience slower growth rates, as is now being projected, U.S. austerity will do yet more damage.” Have a nice day!
Continue reading …
Based on a report filed earlier today and time-stamped 8:16 p.m. as of when this post was prepared, it would appear that the last thing Associated Press writers Charles Babington and Kasie Hunt want is a competitive Republican primary season, and that they'll twist reality and the numbers to fit their meme. Oh, and in case you haven't gotten the establishment press memo, Rick Perry is still Mitt Romney's only real competitor. Funny, I don't remember the AP or anyone else in the establishment press calling Hillary Clinton's nomination “inevitable” in October 2007, when, according to Real Clear Politics (RCP), Ms. Clinton was outpolling Barack Obama by an average of 24 points in 18 polls (and by probably more over John Edwards, though that info wasn't available at RCP). Though it's not definitive because of the passage of time and the disappearance or archiving of reports, a Google News Archive search from September 1 – December 31, 2007 on [Hillary inevitable "Assocated Press"] (typed exactly as indicated between brackets) returned no story posing the possibility of Mrs. Clinton's inevitability. But in 2011 on the Republican side, Babington and Hunt have gone full-bore for a Romney wrap-up (bolds and numbered tags are mine): Romney inevitable? Perry weighs TV ads to slow him Mitt Romney seems firmly in command [1] in a Republican presidential field that hasn't figured out how to stop him. Twelve weeks before the first party voting, the GOP establishment is coalescing around the former Massachusetts governor. He has more campaign experience, money and organization than anyone else. He showed again this week that he's the best debater in the bunch. [2] And President Barack Obama's campaign is treating him almost as the presumptive nominee [3] – even though Romney still faces challenges in some early voting states. The biggest question in Republican circles is when and how Texas Gov. Rick Perry will use his own substantial campaign funds to buy TV ads hitting Romney's record on health care, abortion, gay rights and job creation. Perry's campaign, which seems best-positioned to challenge Romney, dropped broad hints Wednesday that the moment is near. … The tone is different up the coast in New Hampshire. Among rank-and-file Republicans there, even those who favor other candidates have a sense that Romney has gained an air of inevitability. … Although Republican and Democratic insiders see Romney as the front-runner, several signs give Perry and the other rivals hope. Most Republican polls show Romney falling well short of a majority of support, [4] as restless voters consider one alternative after another. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota surged in mid-summer, then fell as Perry briefly soared. In recent polls, former pizza company executive Herman Cain has ranked as Romney's top rival, [5] although few campaign strategists believe he will be the nominee. [6] An NBC-Marist College poll in Iowa found that tea party supporters prefer Cain. In national polls, combined support for Cain, Perry and Bachmann exceeds Romney's support. [7] Seriously, you almost have to wonder what planet Babington and Hunt are on, because so many items they claim to be facts are simply either vast understatements, erroneous, delusional, or some combination: [1] — Romney's “firm command,” as carried currently at RCP , is all of 2.7 points over Herman Cain. More on that shortly. [2] — Does anyone recall consensus conclusions that Romney has clearly “won” many or most of the debates so clearly that the AP's “best debater” tag is justified? Neither do I. Search through top-tier conservative blogs and you won't find evidence obviously supporting Babington's and Hunt's fantastic notion. [3] — Romney supporters won't like reading this, but there is plenty of reason to believe that the Obama campaign wants Romney to be the GOP's nominee because they believe they can defeat him. So of course they're going to play along with the AP's and the rest of the establishment press's “inevitability” game. [4] — “Well short of a majority of support”? How about “not even averaging one-fourth support”? Romney's recent polling average at RCP is 22.0%; he hasn't polled above 25% in any poll carried at RCP since mid-July. [5] — How nice of the AP to wait until Paragraph 11 to mention the name of the current GOP runner-up at RCP. Just this evening, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll came out showing Cain leading Romney by 27%-23%, with all other rivals, including Perry, to whom the AP report devoted seven paragraphs, trailing by over 10%. [6] — See Item [5]. If polling is supposed to ultimately reflect voting, why do “few campaign strategists believe he (Cain) will be the nominee”? Maybe the better question is why anyone bothers polling if they're going to completely ignore the results. [7] — The combined RCP figures for Cain, Perry, and Bachmann don't merely “exceed” Romney's support. At a combined 38.4% vs. Romney's 22%, they're within striking distance of doubling it, and even closer thanks to the new poll mentioned in Item [5]. Nothing is “inevitable” about this race, and if Charles Babington, Kasie Hunt, and the Associated Press haven't figured that out yet, they should spare us all the pain of reading and listening to their syndicated reports and just quit the news business. If they know better and are falsely and deliberately reporting “inevitability” which clearly doesn't exist, they need to tell us why. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …
Based on a report filed earlier today and time-stamped 8:16 p.m. as of when this post was prepared, it would appear that the last thing Associated Press writers Charles Babington and Kasie Hunt want is a competitive Republican primary season, and that they'll twist reality and the numbers to fit their meme. Oh, and in case you haven't gotten the establishment press memo, Rick Perry is still Mitt Romney's only real competitor. Funny, I don't remember the AP or anyone else in the establishment press calling Hillary Clinton's nomination “inevitable” in October 2007, when, according to Real Clear Politics (RCP), Ms. Clinton was outpolling Barack Obama by an average of 24 points in 18 polls (and by probably more over John Edwards, though that info wasn't available at RCP). Though it's not definitive because of the passage of time and the disappearance or archiving of reports, a Google News Archive search from September 1 – December 31, 2007 on [Hillary inevitable "Assocated Press"] (typed exactly as indicated between brackets) returned no story posing the possibility of Mrs. Clinton's inevitability. But in 2011 on the Republican side, Babington and Hunt have gone full-bore for a Romney wrap-up (bolds and numbered tags are mine): Romney inevitable? Perry weighs TV ads to slow him Mitt Romney seems firmly in command [1] in a Republican presidential field that hasn't figured out how to stop him. Twelve weeks before the first party voting, the GOP establishment is coalescing around the former Massachusetts governor. He has more campaign experience, money and organization than anyone else. He showed again this week that he's the best debater in the bunch. [2] And President Barack Obama's campaign is treating him almost as the presumptive nominee [3] – even though Romney still faces challenges in some early voting states. The biggest question in Republican circles is when and how Texas Gov. Rick Perry will use his own substantial campaign funds to buy TV ads hitting Romney's record on health care, abortion, gay rights and job creation. Perry's campaign, which seems best-positioned to challenge Romney, dropped broad hints Wednesday that the moment is near. … The tone is different up the coast in New Hampshire. Among rank-and-file Republicans there, even those who favor other candidates have a sense that Romney has gained an air of inevitability. … Although Republican and Democratic insiders see Romney as the front-runner, several signs give Perry and the other rivals hope. Most Republican polls show Romney falling well short of a majority of support, [4] as restless voters consider one alternative after another. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota surged in mid-summer, then fell as Perry briefly soared. In recent polls, former pizza company executive Herman Cain has ranked as Romney's top rival, [5] although few campaign strategists believe he will be the nominee. [6] An NBC-Marist College poll in Iowa found that tea party supporters prefer Cain. In national polls, combined support for Cain, Perry and Bachmann exceeds Romney's support. [7] Seriously, you almost have to wonder what planet Babington and Hunt are on, because so many items they claim to be facts are simply either vast understatements, erroneous, delusional, or some combination: [1] — Romney's “firm command,” as carried currently at RCP , is all of 2.7 points over Herman Cain. More on that shortly. [2] — Does anyone recall consensus conclusions that Romney has clearly “won” many or most of the debates so clearly that the AP's “best debater” tag is justified? Neither do I. Search through top-tier conservative blogs and you won't find evidence obviously supporting Babington's and Hunt's fantastic notion. [3] — Romney supporters won't like reading this, but there is plenty of reason to believe that the Obama campaign wants Romney to be the GOP's nominee because they believe they can defeat him. So of course they're going to play along with the AP's and the rest of the establishment press's “inevitability” game. [4] — “Well short of a majority of support”? How about “not even averaging one-fourth support”? Romney's recent polling average at RCP is 22.0%; he hasn't polled above 25% in any poll carried at RCP since mid-July. [5] — How nice of the AP to wait until Paragraph 11 to mention the name of the current GOP runner-up at RCP. Just this evening, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll came out showing Cain leading Romney by 27%-23%, with all other rivals, including Perry, to whom the AP report devoted seven paragraphs, trailing by over 10%. [6] — See Item [5]. If polling is supposed to ultimately reflect voting, why do “few campaign strategists believe he (Cain) will be the nominee”? Maybe the better question is why anyone bothers polling if they're going to completely ignore the results. [7] — The combined RCP figures for Cain, Perry, and Bachmann don't merely “exceed” Romney's support. At a combined 38.4% vs. Romney's 22%, they're within striking distance of doubling it, and even closer thanks to the new poll mentioned in Item [5]. Nothing is “inevitable” about this race, and if Charles Babington, Kasie Hunt, and the Associated Press haven't figured that out yet, they should spare us all the pain of reading and listening to their syndicated reports and just quit the news business. If they know better and are falsely and deliberately reporting “inevitability” which clearly doesn't exist, they need to tell us why. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …
Wednesday’s links get hyper by talking about sugary cereals and Halloween trick-or-treating. Talking Points: Let’s be honest — you didn’t watch the GOP debate last night. Don’t worry, we slogged through it. Here’s what you missed. (Swampland) Buzz Box: Boxed wine companies really, really want you to try them out. But can they get consumers
Continue reading …First Lady Michelle Obama is not, sadly, attempting a jumping jack world record by herself. But she’s doing the next best thing. She helping to win the Guinness World Record title for “most people doing jumping jacks in a 24-hour period.” Hundreds of Washington, D.C., schoolchildren will gather with her and do jumping jacks for
Continue reading …Just when you thought celebrities couldn’t sell out any more dubiously, along comes Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov’s 35th birthday party. A host of high-profile names, seemingly oblivious to the human rights abuses leveled against the strongman ruler’s regime, streamed into the impoverished Russian republic of Chechnya on Oct. 5, according to The Atlantic Wire. (MORE:
Continue reading …
Private and state school heads criticise PM’s ‘apartheid’ jibe, saying the relationship between sectors is better than ever Headteachers from private and state schools have criticised David Cameron’s remarks that there is an “apartheid” between the two sectors of education, claiming their relationship is better than it has ever been. Heads of top public schools, including Eton, also warned ministers that they were starting to interfere too much in the way they run their schools and risked undermining their independence. Bernard Trafford, head of the Royal Grammar School in Newcastle, said the Tories “now feel like former friends who are starting to disown us”. His remarks come after David Cameron told the Conservative party conference on Wednesday that “the apartheid between our private and state schools is one of the biggest wasted opportunities in our country today”. He said the way to “tear down” the barriers was for private schools to set up – or sponsor – state academies. In September, Michael Gove, the education secretary, and Cameron invited 10 public school headteachers to Downing Street, asking them to be involved in academies. Thirty private schools already either sponsor or work with academies. They include Wellington College in Berkshire which sponsors Wellington academy, a comprehensive in Wiltshire; Berkhamsted school in Hertfordshire which co-sponsors the Wren academy, a comprehensive in Barnet, north London; and Marlborough College in Wiltshire, which loans staff and shares facilities with Swindon academy, a comprehensive. Many others have worked with state schools in different ways for centuries and fund-raise to offer places at their schools to disadvantaged children who cannot afford their fees. Tony Little, the headteacher of Eton College, where fees are up to £10,327 a term, said the relationship between state and independent schools was better than ever. He said he did not recognise Cameron’s comment, and that barriers had “already been broken down”. He doubted Cameron and Gove’s model of private schools setting up, or sponsoring, academies would be taken up by many of his colleagues. “I think setting up or sponsoring academies is good for some schools … but at Eton we have expertise in academic selection and in boarding. Our expertise is not in co-educational, non-selective education.” Kenneth Durham, headteacher of University College school in Hampstead, north London, urged colleagues at the annual conference of an association of public and leading independent schools this week not to believe “we need to be lectured about the importance of partnership and co-operation between independent and state schools … nor that there can only be one model for such partnership”. He said minsters had recently talked of a Berlin Wall between fee-paying and non fee-paying schools. “It is emotive nonsense … we are intelligent institutions. We know co-operation benefits everyone: the students and teachers in all the schools and the nation as a whole. But the model for co-operation must be the choice of the schools themselves … we cannot restrict ourselves to a single model.” Trafford said it felt as if ministers were trying to manipulate private schools. “The Tories no longer feel like friends. They feel like former friends who are starting to disown us.” He said Cameron’s comments were offensive. “We work like fury to raise funds for bursaries … what can I tell a head in a school in a disadvantaged area? I can tell them about never bending on high expectations. But in an area where there are three generations without jobs and where they have no concept of a working household, what have I got to tell them? In my school, the parents are totally signed up to education. It would just be arrogant.” Headteachers in state schools also dismissed Cameron’s remarks. Joan McVittie, headteacher of Woodside high school, a comprehensive in Haringey, north London, and president of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the relationship between state and private schools was extremely positive. She attributed improved relations to funds given under the last government to encourage private and state schools to share sports equipment and science laboratories. Stephen Winkley, head of Rossall School, an independent school in Lancashire, said: “Cameron’s comments show that he has not really understood what it feels like to be in the education system. “There isn’t that much between us all. The current government has got into interfering mode rather quicker than we had hoped for.” Getting together Wellington College started to sponsor Wellington academy in 2009, one of the first such collaborations between private and state schools. Teachers meet their opposite number to mull over lesson plans and pupils meet their peers “at the other place” through drama productions, geography trips or on university open days. The schools have a joint committee which meets six times a year. Andy Schofield, principal of the academy, says it has tried to offer some of the self-confidence the college gives its pupils, and the academy has taught college teachers what it is like to teach a wider spectrum of ability. Anthony Seldon, headteacher of the college, says it has been the highlight of his 25 years in teaching. Schools Private schools Secondary schools Equality David Cameron Education policy Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …