Home » Posts tagged with » america (Page 216)

Sam David Mahjoobi was a poker enthusiast in his late 20s, working part-time as a secretary and living with his grandma, when he unwittingly helped Iran infuriate America by acquiring a nearly $325 million Boeing 747. How did he do it? Mahjoobi, now 31 and working in fashion, has no…

Continue reading …

The iPhone 4 has finally arrived on Verizon, and what that means is … now you can actually make successful phone calls on your iPhone. Reviewers give it a thumbs-up: “The Verizon iPhone is nearly the same as AT&T’s iPhone 4—but it doesn’t drop calls. For several million Americans,…

Continue reading …
Time to end US fear of the Muslim Brotherhood | Richard Bulliet

Barack Obama must accept the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to be part of Egypt’s post-Mubarak government When chaos in Cairo gives way to a resumption of government, the United States will face a crucial test. For three decades American policymakers have vilified the Islamic Republic of Iran. Likewise they have supported the oppression of Islamist parties and leaders by the likes of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They must now bring themselves to accept the reality of an Egypt in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays an important role in government. The spectre of Iran overhangs the Egyptian crisis, the Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini’s bearded visage, frustrated street protests, nuclear ambition and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denunciations of Israel. But this is the wrong Iran. The right comparison is with the Iran of 1979-1980, which saw Cairo-like street demonstrations topple a dictator and endorse a makeshift revolutionary government. And which saw the Carter administration invite the ailing shah and his family to seek refuge over here. No one today is suggesting that President Barack Obama should grant asylum to Mubarak and his family, much less bar a new Egyptian government from recovering assets it may think the ousted leader is absconding with. But imagine the outrage such an invitation would produce on the Egyptian street. The United States does not oppose the aspirations of the Egyptian people, but a single misstep could reverse this perception overnight. For three decades the United States has supported Mubarak, albeit while occasionally tut-tutting his heavy-handed rule. Now Egyptians want to know where America stands. So far, the administration’s pronouncements have lagged behind the unfolding events. The White House is not urging Mubarak to leave even though it is clear to everyone in the world that the Egyptian people want him gone. Washington’s reluctance to embrace a post-Mubarak Egypt reflects gratitude for his past support of American policies in the Middle East. But even more a fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will somehow emerge as the dominant force in a new Egypt. Yet it was precisely America’s decision to cushion the shah’s fall and defy popular demands that he be held responsible for his autocratic rule that led to the debacle of the Iranian hostage crisis . There is no way of knowing how Iranian-American relations would have developed if America’s diplomats had not been held prisoner for 444 days. But that highly dramatised rebuke of American policy was clearly the tipping point in America’s demonisation of the Islamic Republic, and vice versa. And it paved the way for America’s support, first tacit and later overt, for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran . The Obama administration needs to open its mind to the likelihood that the Muslim Brotherhood will be part of Egypt’s post-Mubarak government. The Brotherhood has long formed the primary opposition to Egypt’s dictatorship, and its members permeate Egyptian society from top to bottom. For them not to play a central role now would simply set the stage for continuing uncertainty, renewed oppression and future conflict. In Iran, ignorance of Islamist political forces led the United States to overestimate the secular leadership and overreact to the emergence of a religious leadership. In Egypt, the secular opposition, ill-formed and inexperienced, is being touted as the main hope for a transition to free elections. Yet free elections will certainly confer legitimacy on the Brotherhood and award them a substantial bloc of parliamentary seats. Carter-era policymakers knew little about Khomeini and the forces he represented. Analysts know a good deal more about the Muslim Brotherhood today. They know that it is not a stalking horse for al-Qaida and that it demands a pluralist democratic state rather than an Islamic Republic. The fear remains, however, that an Egyptian government responsive to Brotherhood pressure may turn its back on Egypt’s long-standing collaboration with Israel. This fear is not unrealistic, but the United States cannot afford to condition its acquiescence in a new Egyptian government on pledges of warm relations with Israel and opposition to Palestinian militancy. Israel and the United States will always be friends, but losing Egypt’s friendship would begin the unravelling of a half-century of American policy in the Middle East. Things may unravel nevertheless. The Arab world has been poised for a massive restructuring for decades. But apprehension about future uncertainty affords no basis for trying to sustain a crumbling status quo. The time has come to help Mubarak leave, persuade Egypt’s generals to allow a democratic civilian government to emerge and put our anxiety about the Muslim Brotherhood on hold. Regardless of American ideological preferences and our popular Islamophobia, Islamist political parties are destined to play a significant role in the transition to democracy in the Arab world. They deserve an opportunity to show how they can compete, and possibly govern, in a pluralistic electoral system. Obama should make this clear. • © 2011 Richard Bulliet – distributed by Agence Global Middle East Egypt Hosni Mubarak Islam Religion Richard Bulliet guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Bully BillO comes out to smack Colmes for daring to suggest liberals don’t hate America

Click here to view this media Now here’s an irony: Bill O’Reilly accusing Al Jazeera of being anti-Semitic because it includes guests who clearly fit that description. Meanwhile, the Glenn Beck Anti-Semitic Elephant in the room goes politely ignored. Of course, what this was really about was, once again, right-wing Fox talkers like O’Reilly and Monica Crowley using unrest abroad as a way to smear liberal Americans as insufficiently patriotic. And so when Alan Colmes called them out for it, his reward was to get the BillO the Bully Full-On Nasty treatment. It happened last night on O’Reilly’s opening “Talking Points Memo” segment : “Talking Points” could provide hundreds of examples of anti-Semitism and “hate America” rhetoric displayed on Al Jazeera, the network Sam Donaldson admires. And he’s not alone. Here’s what Brian Stelter wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday: “As recently as Friday, the conservative Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly branded Al Jazeera as ‘anti-America.’ … But that view has been largely drowned out by people like [Sam] Donaldson who have hoisted up Al Jazeera English for its protest coverage.” Totally absurd. Any fair-minded person who follows Al Jazeera knows it is anti-American and anti-Semitic. Only on the far left can it find acceptance. Sure. And it’s true that it’s there are many examples of anti-Semitic guests on Al Jazeera — just as it’s true that Fox has had on its airwaves a broad assortment of nativists and other far-right extremists over the years as well. But even more important, one of Fox News’ leading anchors — and a frequent onstage and on-air cohort of O’Reilly’s — is under siege from Jewish rabbis outraged by Beck’s anti-Semitic slurs of George Soros and his obscene overuse of Nazi and Holocaust comparisons and metaphors . Oh well. That — like any criticism of the network at all — is NEVER mentioned at Fox. Because as the segment that followed with Colmes and Crowley amply demonstrated, this was less about bashing Al Jazeera and was really all about bashing liberals — as Crowley made explicit. And that set off the fireworks: CROWLEY: Well, I — I don’t want to attribute this directly to Sam Donaldson but I would say to make a broader point that the far left in this country is essentially anti-American. COLMES: Oh please, now that’s disgusting. CROWLEY: They are — and so a lot of their — a lot of their philosophy. (CROSSTALK) COLMES: That’s disgusting. That’s sickening. CROWLEY: I’m not saying you, Colmes, I’m saying the broader far left has an anti-American agenda that in many ways dovetails… (CROSSTALK) COLMES: Who, who? Tell me who? Who on the left? CROWLEY: …with the kind of reporting — reporting that we see come out of Al Jazeera. O’REILLY: She’s saying the far left. COLMES: Who? Who? Who are you calling anti-American? I’m so tired of people calling people on my side anti-American. (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: Are you a far-left guy? COLMES: I don’t know. You have called me that. O’REILLY: Sometimes your positions are far left. COLMES: All right, fine. But am I anti-American? O’REILLY: I don’t think you’re anti-American. But certainly the far left is taking anti-American positions. COLMES: But look, but let’s stop this name-calling. Let’s stop demonizing anybody you don’t agree with and call them anti-American. O’REILLY: I just ran a “Talking Points Memo” that backed up, all right, with four specific things that this is an anti-Semitic, anti-American network and I could do 40 of them. COLMES: But you said those were people on the network as guests. (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: There is no counter. Why don’t you grasp this? I’m getting a little mad at you. Grasp this! There is no counter on it, you got it? There is no counter on it! COLMES: Yes, I hear what you say. It’s free speech. O’REILLY: So it’s this, yes, it’s free speech. Shouldn’t be praised by a pinhead like Donaldson. Nor should O’Reilly’s speech be praised … by anyone. Smearing, lying, and bullying should get you removed from the airwaves, not enshrined as one of cable’s most prominent anchors. Memo to BillO: There is a big “counter” hanging around your neck. And his name is Glenn Beck.

Continue reading …

President Obama’s goal of getting 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on America’s roads by 2015 is all but certain to fail, concludes a new report done in conjunction with the auto industry. Despite decent debuts from the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf, major manufacturers won’t be producing the volume of…

Continue reading …

The woman behind the Planned Parenthood sting that resulted in an employee getting fired is a 22-year-old anti-abortion activist named Lila Rose. She’s made headlines before , but nothing to this extent, and it’s a safe bet we’ll be hearing more from the founder of the group Live Action, writes Libby…

Continue reading …

Few now remember that 1979 and 1980 were the nation’s worst economic years since the Great Depression. Reagan saved America from Jimmy Carter economics: he brought inflation down from 13.5 to 4.1 percent; unemployment, from 9.5 to 5.2 percent; the federal discount rate, from 14 to 6.5 percent. Under Reagan, the number of jobs increased by almost 20 million; median family income rose every year from 1982 to 1989. It was the greatest peacetime expansion in American history. Charitable giving more than doubled, to more than $100 billion in 1988. But the media elite’s first drafts of history ignored the good news and highlighted the bad news. In a study of almost 14,000 network stories on the economy during three one-year time periods – July 1 to June 30 in 1982-83, 1984-85, and 1986-87—Virginia Commonwealth University professor Ted J. Smith III found that as the economy improved, the amount of network TV coverage shrunk and grew more negative in tone. The ratio of negative to positive stories aggressively increased even as economic indicators improved, from 4.9 to 1 in 1982-83 to 7.0 to 1 in 1986-87. When an economic indicator grew better, the networks began covering it less so they could focus more on unhealthy economic signs. For instance, as the unemployment rate fell from 10.6 percent to well under 6 percent by 1987, the number of stories on employment plunged by 79 percent while reports on the growing trade deficit soared 65 percent and stories on the homeless jumped by 167 percent. The media had a theory to prove: Reaganomics was a dramatic failure.

Continue reading …
Right-wingers don’t care if Planned Parenthood video was already exposed as a hoax — they’ll do it live!

Click here to view this media It tells you just how degraded our national discourse has become — how utterly corrupted by the Fox Propaganda Channel it has been — that two of its leading anchors can run an entire segment legitimizing a hoax video tape, even though its contents were exposed as a hoax even before they were released. And no one even so much as raises an eyebrow. That’s what happened last night on The O’Reilly Factor, when Bill O’Reilly and Fox’s John Stossel devoted an entire segment to attacking Planned Parenthood as “disgusting” for the supposed behavior revealed in another Breitbartesque attack by video hoax on another liberal institution. O’Reilly and Stossel, however, then use the affair to launch into attacking Planned Parenthood for receiving taxpayer subsidies — and that really is what they’re on about. Interestingly, Stossel uses the logic that because some people see abortion as murder, they are being forced to underwrite murder in their views — a position O’Reilly ardently adopts as well. Peculiar that neither of them apply the same logic elsewhere: Many people see killing innocent civilians in the course of a war as murder too — something our tax dollars likewise heavily underwrite. But you’ll never see an O’Reilly segment attacking taxpayer funding for the DoD. But what’s truly disgraceful that they then dismiss the overwhelming fact that Planned Parenthood had already reported these “sex traffickers” to authorities — thereby exposing the hoax in progress. Here’s their release of last week: Last week, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) alerted federal authorities to a potential multistate sex trafficking ring. Over a five day period, visitors to Planned Parenthood health centers in six states said they were seeking information from Planned Parenthood about health services Planned Parenthood could provide to underage girls who were part of a sex trafficking ring. Subsequent to alerting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Planned Parenthood learned the identify of one of those involved and believes these visits are likely a hoax by opponents of legal abortion seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood, which delivers preventive health care and abortion services to three million women each year. Media Matters has the full details of the hoax. Yet, in spite of all this, when Lila Rose and Co. published the video yesterday, it was widely treated through Unsurprisingly, the wingnutosphere ran whole-hog in embracing the video as legitimate, including the fine folks at National Review, RedState and Malkin’s Hot Air. Moreover, as Ned Resnikoff at Media Matters explored in some detail, Rose’s video actually pretty clearly demonstrates the falsity of what she claims it shows: In a so-called “sting” video professional hit artist Lila Rose claims to have uncovered evidence of systemic corruption within Planned Parenthood to cover up “child sex trafficking.” Not only do Planned Parenthoods recent actions flatly contradict that claim — so does the content of the video itself. In fact, even if we were to assume that Rose’s heavily edited smear job is accurate – and there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical – the video very clearly establishes that the alleged wrongdoing is counter to Planned Parenthood policy: the employee on Rose’s tape makes it clear that the actions in question would have to be concealed from others at the organization. You can judge for yourself. Here’s the video: Click here to view this media People for the American Way also has a terrific rundown of the facts: Anti-abortion activist Lila Rose, a photogenic young activist who Religious Right leaders hope to make the new face of the anti-abortion movement, claims that the video Religious Right groups are circulating “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of young girls it claims to serve.” False. In fact, far from proving a pattern of illegal activity, the Live Action project demonstrated that Planned Parenthood has strong institutional procedures in place to protect young women. When Live Action activists appeared at numerous facilities presenting themselves as seeking help with a child sex trafficking ring, Planned Parenthood wrote to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting an FBI investigation. Live Action attempted its “sting” across the country; the one Planned Parenthood staffer who violated those procedures and is featured in Live Action’s video was fired. There’s a lot more on Rose’s background there as well.

Continue reading …

If you live in America, there’s a good chance you’re shoveling snow today—or will be soon—but beware: The dreaded chore can actually kill you . How to avoid such a tragic fate? Well, for starters, keep your per-shovel load to 24 pounds or less. Beyond that, however, the recommendations…

Continue reading …
Clinton: American Diplomacy Must Be Accountable

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stressed the need for stronger US diplomacy in global hot spots, saying Wednesday the recent developments in Egypt and the Middle East demonstrate the critical need for America’s global leadership. (Feb. 2)

Continue reading …