Is BP British Petroleum?

Yes.

It was created by the British government specifically to serve British interests.

From the official history posted on the BP website:

Churchill was a believer. He thought Britain needed a dedicated oil supply, and he argued the case in Parliament, urging his colleagues to “look out upon the wide expanse of the oil regions of the world!” Only the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, he said, could protect British interests.

The resolution passed resoundingly, and the UK government became a major shareholder in the company. Churchill had ended Anglo-Persian’s cash crisis, and no one had long to quietly ponder the long-term implications of a company entwining its financial interests with a political entity.

Two weeks later, an assassin killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Six weeks after that, Germany attacked France. The Great War had begun. By its end, war without oil would be unimaginable.

Despite its name, the British Petroleum brand was originally created by a German firm as a way of marketing its products in Britain. During the war, the British government seized the company’s assets, and the Public Trustee sold them to Anglo-Persian in 1917.
With that, Anglo-Persian had an instant distribution network in the UK, including 520 depots, 535 railway tank wagons, 1,102 road vehicles, four barges and 650 horses.

BTW, according to press accounts, the British government released the Pan Am 103 bomber in exchange for a BP oil deal with Libya--breaking a promise to the US government that he would never be let go. I suggest the US now ask the British to get him back and turn him over to US authorities for trial...

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal notes BP's Persian connection in today's web post.

Robert Picard: FTC Staff Wrongly Claim Newspaper Losses in Journalism "Reinvention" Document

The media economist and blogger says most newspapers still make money. So why "save" a profitable business with average margins of 12%? (ht Matt Creamer, BreakingMedia)

The FTC’s staff ignores the fact that most newspapers are profitable (the average operating profit in 2009 was 12%), but that their corporate parents are unprofitable because of high overhead costs and ill-advised debt loads taken on when advertising revenues were peaked at all time highs. It also fails to make adequate distinction between longer term trends affecting newspapers and the effects of the current recession. The staff thus blends the two together to give a skewed picture of the mid- to long-term health of the industry.

Registan.net on Kyrgyzstan Violence

Latest updates from Central Asia Watchers on Registan.net.

Meet Israel's Only Friend: Geert Wilders

From the Jerusalem Post, this interview with the Dutch MP:

Geert Wilders, who is demanding a halt to immigration from Muslim countries as the centerpiece of his campaign for the Dutch prime ministership, has hailed Israel for “fighting the jihad” and warned that “the West is next” if Israel is unsuccessful.

“Israel is the canary in the coal mine,” Wilders said in a recent telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post, ahead of Wednesday’s elections in the Netherlands. “The jihad against Israel isn’t against Israel only. It’s against the whole West.”

A year ago, Wilders’s PVV (Party for Freedom) was scoring 28 percent in opinion polls and appeared to have a realistic prospect of winning the elections. It has declined since then, however, he said, as economic issues have become increasingly dominant.

“There’s not a big chance that I’ll become prime minister,” he said.

Nonetheless, the PVV is expected to double its current nine seats in the 150-member parliament, and front-runner Mark Rutte, of the People’s Party for Freedom of Democracy (VVD), said this week that he was not ruling out Wilders’s party as a coalition partner.

Huffington Post: FTC Journalism Scheme "Preposterous"

Glad Arianna didn't drink the FTC Kool-Aid. Here's what Gary Shapiro, writing on behalf of the consumer electronics industry, had to say in the Huffington Post:

Every now and then, Washington advances a policy idea that is so preposterous one would think that medical marijuana has seeped into the corridors of our government buildings and altered our lawmaker's perceptions. A recent Federal Trade Commission proposal to save newspapers and local news providers by implementing a five percent tax on consumer electronics products, cell phones and Internet service is classic absurdity.

Would you donate nine bucks to your local newspaper when you purchase an iPod? Or, could you spare 15 dollars the next time you buy an Xbox to give to your local broadcast news station? The FTC proposal suggests the only way to save these media dinosaurs, many of which have failed to innovate for years, is to add a tax to the consumer that would flow to these media outlets.

Why are local news outlets in such dire straits? Because they let the innovation movement pass them by. Any newspaper could have gotten on board earlier and used new technologies, but they were comfortable and complacent. Most news outlets sat back and let Google, Craigslist, and other online entrepreneurs create innovations instead of innovating themselves.

So now, these news businesses want to tax America's most innovative industry in order to support its least. Put another way, they want to tax the owners and customers of the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, iPads, Androids and other digital innovators to subsidize an industry whose 2010 business plan involves cutting down trees, slathering them with ink, and hauling them around the city on trucks.

Imagine if this had occurred with other historic technology shifts. If this were the 1600s, Guttenberg would be taxed to give money to the monks. In the 1800s, Edison would be taxed to pay whale oil processors. A century ago car producers would be taxed to support horse and buggy makers...

MORE from Rob Port...bloglawonline...and econsultancy.

Arianna Huffington on Government 2.0

When it comes to information and technology, Arianna is very un-FTC, at least according to her latest post:

Watching the news, it's easy to conclude that "Yes We Can" has been replaced with, "Actually, On Second Thought... We Probably Can't." We can't plug the damn hole, we can't get rid of too-big-to-fail banks, we can't pass an adequate foreclosures bill, we can't pass an adequate jobs bill. The list goes on and on.

Nevertheless, there are reasons for optimism -- even when it comes to the way our government is being run. One of these reasons is Tim O'Reilly, the tech guru CEO of O'Reilly Media. Among other things, five years ago O'Reilly coined the term Web 2.0. And now he's at the forefront of a movement to apply the concept to the way our democracy is run: Government 2.0.

I talked with O'Reilly at last week's Personal Democracy Forum in New York, a don't-miss annual gathering focused on the intersection between government and technology.

We talked about the need to create a new relationship between We the People and those we elect to represent us -- and the crucial role technology can play in it. For O'Reilly, Government 2.0 isn't about every office in D.C. having its own website and posting reams of data. It's about, as he put it in a blog post-cum-manifesto, "a new compact between government and the public, in which government puts in place mechanisms for services that are delivered not by government, but by private citizens."

It's about government as a facilitator, laying the foundation for innovation in self-governance. It's "government as a platform."

Is Bin Laden in Iran?

Al Sharq Al-Awsat says Al Qaeda might be planning its next attack with Teheran's support:

Who knows whether or not Bin Laden is actually in Iran? What’s certain – and this was previously revealed by Asharq Al-Awsat – is that some of Bin Laden’s children are in Iran and the story that is most fresh in people’s memories is that of Iman Bin Laden who left Tehran for Syria after great effort [was exerted]. Today, reports indicate that some Al Qaeda leaders have gone back to moving freely to and from Iran.

The reports indicate that Iran has begun to review its [political] calculations in anticipation of an outbreak of military confrontation with the US or Israel, or even in the case that sanctions are imposed upon it. The danger lies in the fact that this view is supported by many Arab and Western sources to whom I have spoken over the past few months; they all believe that the Iranian military threats are for media consumption whilst the real danger lies in the possibility of Iran using terrorist operations and sleeper cells here and there. This might explain some of the news reports that come out every now and then in our region about the existence of cells, or Iranian spy networks; however many Arab countries, Gulf states in particular, seek to downplay the news in order to avoid escalation with Iran.

What confirms the danger and seriousness of the situation is what an informed Iranian source told the newspaper on Thursday. The source stated that Iran actually used Al Qaeda in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as the informed source said that Tehran’s use of Al Qaeda elements “comes within the framework of Iran playing all the cards it can that could lead to harming America in the region and making it leave.” The source added, “The Iranians used Al Qaeda skillfully in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the current situation, it is likely that Iran will change its movements towards Al Qaeda in order to further benefit from it, perhaps in other regions.”

This matter is certainly understandable if we remember that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However the burning question is to what extent are we prepared for all that?

Let's see, Obama's national security strategy declares that the US is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates...so if Iran is an affiliate, what does that mean for US policy towards Teheran? Or, to put it another way, what does it mean about the credibility of announced US policies?

A Miracle in Israel: New Offshore Gas Field Holds Estimated 16 Trillion Cubic Feet

According to this AP report:

A U.S. energy company predicted last week that Israel will have enough natural gas to export to Europe and Asia from the offshore field it is developing. The Houston, Texas-based Noble Energy said the Leviathan natural gas field may hold up to 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Noble raised estimates for the neighboring Tamar field to 8.4 trillion, a 33 percent increase. The production is expected to start in 2012.

Hope it is true. IMHO, The world treats countries with oil and gas better than those without...

Daniel Pipes on Turkey

Daniel Pipes says Turkey may have overreached by sponsoring the recent Islamist flotilla attack on Israel:

If Ankara's irresponsible behavior has worrisome implications for the Middle East and Islam, it also has a mitigating aspect. Turks have been at the forefront of developing what I call Islamism 2.0, the popular, legitimate, and non-violent version of what Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden tried to achieve forcefully via Islamism 1.0. I have predicted that Erdogan's insidious form of Islamism "may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0's brutality."

But his abandonment of earlier modesty and caution suggests that Islamists cannot help themselves, that the thuggishness inherent to Islamism must eventually emerge, that the 2.0 variant must revert to its 1.0 origins. As Martin Kramer posits, "the further Islamists are from power, the more restrained they are, as well as the reverse." This means it might be the case that Islamism presents a less formidable opponent, and for two reasons.

First, Turkey hosts the most sophisticated Islamist movement in the world, one that includes not just the AKP but the Fethullah Gülen mass movement, the Adnan Oktar propaganda machine, and more. AKP's new bellicosity has caused dissension; Gülen, for example, publicly condemned the "Free Gaza" farce, suggesting a debilitating internal battle over tactics could take place.

Second, if once only a small band of analysts recognized Erdogan's Islamist outlook, this fact has now become self-evidently obvious for the whole world to see. Erdogan has gratuitously discarded his carefully crafted image of a pro-Western "Muslim democrat," making it far easier to treat him as theTehran-Damascus ally that he is.

As Davutoglu seeks, Turkey has returned to the center of the Middle East and the umma. But it no longer deserves full NATO membership and its opposition parties deserve support.

Fox News on FTC Journalism Scheme

(ht Washington Rebel)

Charles Crawford on How WWIII Might Start

After taking a survey of current international crises, Charles Crawford explains how the current approach could lead to war:

It is not so much that any one of these problems is uncontainable. It is the fact that they come along simultaneously, creating a sense that the shared understandings and responsibilities which have kept some sense of global order since WW2 are giving way to a new 'grab what you can' attitude.

Western policy-makers in particular are paralysed, bogged down in their economic problems and unwilling to use military force since it is no longer clear (a) that Western military force can achieve victory in the sort of conflicts now breaking out in different places, and (b) what a stable outcome in any one place might look like.

Western hesitation is matched by Chinese, Russian and Indian hesitation. Those powers themselves are struggling as world markets seize up, but they see an historic opportunity for themselves to move into the philosophical space created by Western retreat.

World Wars One and Two were conflicts with global reach arising from European power-struggles. But there was at least a clear context, involving thematic rivalries in an understandable form.

World War Three is different. For the first time in centuries the USA and Europe are unable to set or even define the global agenda, and so face philosophical and psychological defeat. Other powers come to the fore, fighting and redrawing the map - and therefore the rules - as they see fit.

The turmoil is all the more dramatic and vicious for being in a sense anarchic and incoherent, even if civilisational principles are implicitly at stake.

ArsTechnica: FTC Journalism Proposals "Imbecility"

From ArsTechnica:

We get it. These aren't FTC ideas. They're only being circulated to aid discussion. But many are still bad—truly execrable stuff. Let's take a look.

Are you kidding me?

Rein in fair use. Hey, how about passing legislation "clarifying that the routine copying of original content done by a search engine in order to conduct a search (caching) is copyright infringement not protected by fair use"? This, a truly brain-dead idea, would raise "difficult questions about unintended consequences," as the FTC staff put it.

If companies don't want to be spidered by search engines, they can use robots.txt to opt out. Even the FTC staffers know this; why doesn't everyone else?

(If you want to read the original proposal, you can (PDF); it was drafted by a DC lawyer.)

Charge ISPs a monthly fee. Yes, the ideas can get worse, as evidenced by this beauty. One participant suggested:

amending the copyright laws to create a content license fee (perhaps $5.00 to $7.00) to be paid by every Internet Service Provider on each account it provides. He suggests creating a new division of the Copyright Office, which would operate under streamlined procedures and would collect and distribute these fees. Copyright owners who elect to participate would agree to periodically submit records of their digitized download records to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office could verify these records by commissioning market-by-market sampling by organizations like Nielsen, ARB, and Comscore. He suggests these fees could provide a financial floor that allows publishers to leverage additional income, and would encourage, not discourage, the operation of market forces, and stimulate experimentation and innovation.

Did you follow that? You would pay an extra $5 a month for Internet, and that money would be divvied up to news organizations based on how frequently you visited them during the month. As a voluntary model, this is unobjectionable, especially if such media would then come free of ads; as a mandatory tax on every customer of every ISP in the country, in an era where information overload is a pressing problem, it smacks of lunacy.

According to an FTC footnote, the idea came from Stephen Nevas of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. Why does Nevas think ISPs should foot this new tax? Prepare to bang your head on the table in frustration, because this is his answer:

"Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) sell access to free content but pay nothing for the privilege. Only in rare cases do Web users pay for what they download. Just three percent pay for what they use, according to Forrester Research data."

Of course, nothing the ISPs do has any effect on whether a journalistic enterprise charges for its services, or on how those charges are implemented.

Someone stop this man from speaking about the Internet. Please.

Federalize "hot news" law. Copyright does not give news organizations any right over facts about the world, only over the specific words used to describe those facts. But because it is so easy to “free ride” on the expensive work of real journalism by sitting in a cubicle somewhere and rewriting other people's work, some states have passed "hot news" laws that give journalists a quasi-property right over their stories for a short amount of time.

One proposal would recreate this at the national level. In the current media landscape, however, this would create huge problems. Though the big players who are most likely to complain about hot news misappropriation like to play the victim (and some truly are victims), we live in a world in which major stories are routinely unearthed by bloggers and citizens and small newspapers and big players. Everyone shares, everyone copies.

As the FTC noted, "News organizations and writers, including print, broadcast, op-ed writers, and other commentators, routinely borrow from each other. One panelist suggested that '[m]uch of what is done by newspapers with each other is actually problematic under existing hot news doctrine.'"

Antitrust exemption for paywalls. It's tough to mount a paywall today; one news site can do it, but there are so many other options that it's suicide for all but the most valuable and/or niche sites. This alone would seem to show that "journalism" is not in crisis, though it's certainly changing as geographic barriers crumble and every news outlet suddenly competes with every other news outlet.

But one proposal would remove anti-collusion rules from news organizations so that they could all get together and jointly work out some kind of paywall agreement. As one backer of this idea put it, "Publishers are rightly fearful that erecting pay walls will only be effective if it can be accomplished industry-wide, and they need an exemption to accomplish these reasonable policies."

As the FTC notes, though, "more recently, it appears that industry requests for an antitrust exemption have abated."

Tax your gadgets. One suggested way to pay for news: slap a 5 percent tax on all consumer electronics and somehow pass it out to news organizations. "A 5 percent tax on consumer electronics would generate approximately $4 billion annually," says the report.

Tax your cell phone and Internet. Others suggest that "consumers could pay a small tax on their monthly ISP-cell phone bills to fund content they access on their digital services. A tax of 3 percent on the monthly fees would generate $6 billion annually. They note, however, this is the least desirable approach because demand for these services is 'elastic' and even a slight rise in price could result in people dropping the service."

UPDATE: Tim Graham's critique here. Gadgetsteria calls the FTC's proposed tax on electronic gadgets "the worst idea I've ever heard." Adam Thierer's Progress and Freedom Foundation analysis here.

Israeli "Gaza Flotilla" Video: "We Con the World..."

Jeff Jarvis on FTC "Reinvention of Journalism"

One of the first to criticize the FTC proposals has been blogger Jeff Jarvis. He posted this on his blog, BuzzMachine:

Still, it’s the document’s perspective that I find essentially corrupt: one old power structure circling its wagons around another. Change? That’s something to be resisted or thwarted, not embraced and enabled. The FTC’s mission in this administration of change — its justification for holding these hearings and doing this work — is to foster competition. Well, the internet is creating new competition in news for the first time since 1950 and the introduction of TV. But the commission focuses solely on newspapers, apologizing that it ignores broadcast — but not even apologizing for ignoring the new ecosystem of news that blogs and technology represent.

“This document will use the perspective of newspapers to exemplify the issues facing journalism as a whole,” the FTC says. And later: “[N]ewspapers have not yet found a new, sustainable business model, and there is reason for concern that such a business model may not emerge. Therefore, it is not too soon to start considering policiies that might encourage innovations to help support journalism into the future.” That is, to support newspapers’ survival. There’s the problem.

Coach John Wooden, Remembered

I received this email from UCLA:

To the Bruin Family:

With the passing of John Wooden, we have lost a true giant and a gentleman, an individual who was perhaps more closely identified with UCLA than any other person in our university’s history. Coach Wooden was an unparalleled motivator and an inspiration to people throughout the world. Those of us who were fortunate enough to meet him will forever be touched by his unfailing wisdom and generous spirit.

Coach Wooden’s record of hundreds of victories and 10 national titles established a gold standard of achievement in college athletics. Both on the court and off, he was a teacher, role model and mentor who guided his players and generations of UCLA coaches and student-athletes to become champions in life. His lasting influence has extended far beyond the campus to include leaders in academia, business and government.

The renowned Wooden Pyramid of Success–a copy of which hangs in my office–encourages us all to value cooperation, loyalty and team spirit. The Pyramid remains one of the most recognized blueprints for competitive excellence, in any pursuit.

Coach Wooden and his beloved wife, Nell, were treasured members of the UCLA family, and the Nell and John Wooden Court at Pauley Pavilion is a lasting testament to their place in our hearts.

John Wooden’s remarkable legacy will stand forever at UCLA. Today, as we mourn his loss, we also extend our deepest sympathy to his daughter, Nan, his son, James, and his entire family.

The university flag in front of Pauley Pavilion will be lowered to half-staff, and a public memorial is being planned. Please visit the UCLA homepage for further information, as well as links to news articles and remembrances of Coach Wooden.

Sincerely,

Gene D. Block
Chancellor

Comments on FTC Staff Discussion Document for "The Reinvention of Journalism"

Although the Federal Trade Commission has announced that its staff proposals to "reinvent journalism" are not proposals--in a June 4th press release--the discussion draft for "the reinvention of journalism" circulated by FTC staff certainly reads like a blueprint for legislation to subsidize the newspaper industry at the expense of bloggers, and new technology in general.

Which may be why The Washington Times (and Matt Drudge) called it "the Drudge tax."

Below are comments I submitted on Friday to the FTC website. The FTC has announced a June 15th all-day discussion session at the National Press Club that is free and open to the public.

I hope some bloggers show up...

Comments submitted to the Federal Trade Commission regarding “Federal Trade Commission Staff Discussion Draft: Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.”

The FTC Staff Discussion Draft poses a danger to journalism that stems from fundamental misconceptions rooted in mistaken definitions, as well as in a misunderstanding of freedom of the press. “Freedom of the press” does not mean the establishment of special privileges and subsidies for a subset of particularly favored corporations (whether for-profit or not-for-profit) that happen to own newspapers. It means, rather, liberty for any American citizen to print anything he or she chooses.

During the 18th century, the printing press provided the only means of publication available. To share news, one took a letter from a correspondent received by post, transferred it into movable type, and printed it for distribution to the public in multiple copies. Hence, the origin of The Washington Post. Surely, no one would propose a reinvention so that only news received by mail would be considered “journalism.” Of course, newspapers have also printed dispatches from correspondents conveyed by private couriers on horseback. Although the Louisville Courier-Journal is a venerable publication, FTC staff would not argue that only dispatches delivered by Pony Express qualify as “journalism.” With the Marconi’s invention of telegraphy, correspondents could send their dispatches by wire. Since not everyone could afford a telegraph office at home, newspapers could print wire stories and distribute them economically—evidenced in The Macon Telegraph and The Nashua Telegraph. Clearly, FTC staff would not insist that stories must be distributed by Western Union to be news today. Since then, the press has evolved to include broadcast, Internet, and text messages. But the underlying principle is the same. The rights of the press are rights of the People of the United States, not a privilege of sub-group of “journalists.” As evidence, note that the term “journalism” does not appear in the First Amendment, although the word “press” does—Americans can print anything they like.

What is the etymology of “journalism?” The word “journalist” means “one who keeps a journal.” What is a journal? Historically the word means a “daily record of transactions,” or a “personal diary.” From the French root, “jour,” that is, “day.” A journalist, then, would in its most basic meaning be a diarist who lets the public read what he or she has to say, in other words—a blogger, before computers and the internet.

So then, what is the press? A means of printing those personal diaries. And who has a press? Once upon a time, only millionaires and large corporations. Today, anyone with a laser printer, an inkjet printer, a computer, a monitor, an iPhone, a mobile telephone, a Xerox machine, offset printer, or any one of a myriad of advanced technologies that have come to complement the industrial printing press—in other words, anyone who can upload content to a website.

However, these FTC proposals for revisions in copyright, antitrust, and tax law appear designed to favor printed newspapers over new media. They are backward looking, regressive, unimaginative (the FTC’s proposed tax on electronics recycles a fifty-year old proposal the Johnson administration attempted to implement for public broadcasting finance) and would serve to undermine innovation, creativity, and the public’s right to know. Indeed, they would serve to stifle the progress of science and the useful arts.

Today, in the age of the Internet, anyone and everyone can be a journalist. Anyone can print anything on the web. That is progress for freedom of the press and a boon to journalism, not reason to despair.

In privileging established or failing media corporations, many of which are in trouble not due to problems with “journalism,” but because of bad investments, speculation in real estate, or general fecklessness, the FTC staff’s draft proposal calls to mind George Amberson Minafer’s cry to passing motorists in Booth Tarkington’s classic tale of American progress, The Magnificent Ambersons:

“Get a horse!”

Like Tarkington’s protagonist, the FTC appears to consider upstart competitors such as bloggers, websites, search engines, app developers, and new media companies as “riff-raff.”

Unless they wish to meet the fate of George Amberson Minafer, old-line media companies and their FTC supporters need to embrace change, rather than erect walls of government protection, subsidy or special privilege.

For, had the FTC staff’s proposed approach been adopted at the turn of the century, the US Government would have subsidized buggy manufacturers, horsewhip vendors, blacksmiths, and ostlers—paid for by taxes on automobiles and railways; protected by antitrust exemptions; and structured as “hybrid corporations” that would never die.

“Journalism” will survive the death of newspapers and the spread of the Apple iPad, just as it did the death of the mail packet boat, the Pony Express, the Western Union telegram and spread of radio broadcasting—indeed, lower costs of production and distribution, leading to economies of scale, promise a bright future for journalism in the internet age, so long as the FTC does not crush innovation in a misguided attempt at “reinvention” that is sure to discourage imagination and talent from future development of new media.

Therefore, it is my opinion that with the exception of its well thought out proposal to maximize the accessibility of government information through improvements to the Freedom of Information Act, policy recommendations in the FTC Staff Discussion Draft would promote dangerous and negative consequences for journalism in the United States.
---
LAURENCE JARVIK is author of MASTERPIECE THEATRE AND THE POLITICS OF QUALITY (Scarecrow Press) and PBS: BEHIND THE SCREEN (Prima Publishing). He teaches at the Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School, and the University of Maryland, University College. He blogs at LaurenceJarvikOnline (http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com).

George Gilder's Israel Test

A reader of this blog told me to read George Gilder's new book, The Israel Test, in order to understand what is happening with the "Gaza Flotilla." He even sent me this link to the first chapter, which one can read on Google Books. It makes for interesting reading...

Charles Crawford on How the Internet Fries Our Brains

From CharlesCrawford.biz:

The general Carr argument is that the immediacy of unlimited communication actually changes the way we think, to the extent of affecting the way our very neural circuits tick:

... fewer and fewer people are likely to be engaged in such contemplative, deep reading activities due to the highly distractive nature of the Internet and digital technologies.

“With the exception of alphabets and number systems, the Net may well be the single most powerful mind-altering technology that has ever come into general use,” Carr claims. “At the very least, it’s the most powerful that has come along since the book.”

The Net and multimedia “strains our cognitive abilities, diminishing our learning and weakening our understanding” ...

This piece took me to Nicholas Carr's blog Rough Type.

See eg his ideas on delinkification - cutting hyperlinks from work (such as this sentence!) to help the flow of thought and general self-discipline, or at least listing the links only at the end of the piece.

And this magnificent, elegant effort about why LP records emerged. Was it to help 'bundle' more songs on to a single disk? No:

The long-player was not, in other words, a commercial contrivance aimed at bundling together popular songs to the advantage of record companies and the disadvantage of consumers; it was a format specifically designed to provide people with a much better way to listen to recordings of classical works.

Anyway, does the Internet in fact change our brains?

Probably.

We read more, but surely we also read less systematically. We get jumpy if we have not checked our emails/texts.

I am struck by the way even serious grown-ups now think there is nothing wrong in abruptly tuning out of a conversation with the person next to them while checking some or other e-device. Go to a park or restaurant and look at people who are ostensibly together in fact ignoring each other, as they tap away on little gadgets or simply talk to people on their mobiles. The remote starts to get more 'real' or at least immediate/important than reality.

Uzbek Spiritual Leader Dies in Jerusalem, Age 61

From the Jerusalem Post:

In a small and ancient family plot attached to his ancestral home in Jerusalem’s Old City, regional Sufi leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz Bukhari was laid to rest on Tuesday at age 61, after a long struggle with heart disease. He was head of the mystical Naqshabandi Holy Land Sufi Order.

A longtime proponent of nonviolence and interfaith unity, Bukhari found his inspiration in Islamic law and tradition, as well as in the writings of Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

“The stronger one is the one who can absorb the violence and anger from the other and change it to love and understanding. It is not easy; it is a lot of work. But this is the real jihad,” he once told the Globaloneness Project in an interview.

His teachings and practices put him in danger and under great stress that over the years harmed his health, said Sheikh Ghassan Manasra of Nazareth, whose father heads the regional Holy Land Qadari Sufi Order.

“Sheikh Bukhari influenced lots of people, worked hard to bridge the religions and cultures; and his teaching is keeping part of the youth on the right path. We worked together for many years and succeeded many times and failed many times and decided to stay on the [path] of God to bring peace, tolerance, harmony and moderation,” he said.

“But on both sides, Jewish and Muslim, there are moderates but also extreme people, and our work was very dangerous, with a lot of pressure and stress until now, and I think this explains, in part, his heart problems.”

Netanyahu's Gaza Flotilla Statement

From the Israeli Prime Minister's Office website:

“No Love Boat”

Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I’m afraid this isn’t the first time.

Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel’s towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes.

Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now.

But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry – smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel’s cities. These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva – these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel.

Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.

This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hezbollah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hezbollah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.

I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass – people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow.

For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza.

And here’s our policy. It's very simple: Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot.

And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.

On this occasion too, we made several offers – offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again.

So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened.

Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship – you can see this in the videos – the first soldier – they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed, they were clubbed, they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach, one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense.

It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released.

This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism.

I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty.

Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it – under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers – you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard. I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth.

Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country.

This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway: Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state.

Thank you.

Self-Publishing Challenges Book Industry Establishment

According to today's Wall Street Journal, authors are now able to bypass the publishing industry by selling their self-published books on Amazon.com--and the iPad looks to make electronic publishing the wave of the future:

Much as blogs have bitten into the news business and YouTube has challenged television, digital self-publishing is creating a powerful new niche in books that's threatening the traditional industry. Once derided as "vanity" titles by the publishing establishment, self-published books suddenly are able to thrive by circumventing the establishment.

"If you are an author and you want to reach a lot of readers, up until recently you were smart to sell your book to a traditional publisher, because they controlled the printing press and distribution. That is starting to change now," says Mark Coker, founder of Silicon Valley start-up Smashwords Inc., which offers an e-book publishing and distribution service.

Fueling the shift is the growing popularity of electronic books, which few people were willing to read even three years ago. Apple Inc.' s iPad and e-reading devices such as Amazon's Kindle have made buying and reading digital books easy. U.S. book sales fell 1.8% last year to $23.9 billion, but e-book sales tripled to $313 million, according to the Association of American Publishers. E-book sales could reach as high as 20% to 25% of the total book market by 2012, according to Mike Shatzkin, a publishing consultant, up from an estimated 5% to 10% today.

But some publishers say that online self-publishing and the entry of newcomers such as Amazon into the market could mark a sea change in publishing.

"It's a threat to publishers' control over authors," said Richard Nash, former publisher of Soft Skull Press who recently launched Cursor Inc., a new publishing company. "It shows best-selling authors that there are alternatives—they can hire their own publicist, their own online marketing specialist, a freelance editor, and a distribution service."

Amazon has taken an early lead, providing service tools for authors to self publish and creating an imprint last year to publish promising authors in print and online.

This month, Amazon is upping the ante, increasing the amount it pays authors to 70% of revenue, from 35%, for e-books priced from $2.99 to $9.99. A self-published author whose e-book lists for $9.99 on Amazon's Kindle e-bookstore will receive about $6.99 for each book sold. The author would net $1.75 on a similar new e-book sale by most major publishers.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I own stock in Amazon and Apple.

Federal Contracts to Go Online

(ht FOIABlog) According to a story in the Federal Times, the US Government is moving towards putting its contracts online for public inspection. Hope it leads to greater competition rather than more "off the books" shenanigans. It might also lead to less contracting and more full-time employees, not a bad way to go...

Israel Links Turkish Ship to Al Qaeda

From the Israeli Defense Force website:

In a special meeting of the Security Cabinet it was disclosed that a group of 40 people on board the Mavi Marmara with no identification papers belong to Al Qaeda. The terrorists were equipped with bullet proof vests, night-vision goggles, and weapons.

On board the Mavi Marmara ship that arrived as part of the flotilla to Gaza was a group of approximately 40 people with no identification papers, who are mercenaries belonging to the Al Qaeda terror organization. This was disclosed by the Israeli Security Cabinet, which gathered on Tuesday evening (June 1) for a special meeting.

Do I believe this? Yes.

Curiously, the recently released Obama National Security strategy declared that the US is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates. But in this case, the US pressured Israel to release the captured Al Qaeda affiliated fighters! What kind of war is that? BTW, Hamas is also affiliated with Al Qaeda, through the Muslim Brotherhood.

So, if Obama's National Security Strategy is nothing more than lip-service, does that mean America actually has no national security strategy at all?

That would explain a lot...

More on the story at Sad Red Earth.

NGOs--The New "Merchants of Death"

Recent stories about NGO involvement in the "Gaza Flotilla" call to mind Linda Polman's new book War Games: The Story of Aid and War in Modern Times. Polman argues that so-called "humanitarians" are the new "merchants of death"--supplying warring armies with everything from tents, food and medicine to guns, grenades, and rockets in pursuit of money and power. I saw a copy of the book on sale in Daunt's bookshop on the Fulham Road in London on the day we returned to the USA. I bought it, and read it, fascinated, in a single sitting, just before news from Gaza confirmed every word Polman wrote. Her case studies are mainly in Africa, Asia, and Iraq. But the tragedy facing the Palestinians is touched upon...and the blame placed squarely where it belongs: with UNRWA and the NGOs that have turned a blind eye to murder and mayhem since 1948.

Here's what The Independent (UK) had to say:

Aid, she argues, can prolong conflicts and endanger the lives of the very people it is supposed to save. Wars attract aid, and as a rebel in the Sierra Leone countryside points out, the more violence there is, the more aid will arrive. "WAR means 'Waste All Resources'," he says. "Destroy everything. Then you people will come and fix it."

The aid industry – and it is an industry – deserves a large part of the blame for this. For decades we have been sold simple messages as if there are simple solutions. The complexities of aid have been deliberately ignored. Earlier this year, the BBC alleged that some of the money raised from Bob Geldof's Band Aid had been siphoned off by Ethiopian rebels and spent on arms. The allegation was vigorously denied, but to those who work in aid, this was not surprising. To deliver humanitarian assistance in warzones often requires making arrangements and cutting deals with armed groups. If a Congolese rebel group tells an aid agency they can deliver food in their areas only if they hand over 10 per cent to them, what should that agency do? Accept the compromise or pack up and go home? Neither option is straightforward.

This is a short book, 164 pages plus notes, and it would have benefited from a greater analysis of how aid agencies and NGOs (non-governmental organisations) have developed over the past decade. Many NGOs are no longer merely humanitarian actors. They are also advocates and campaigners. But working to save lives in a warzone while simultaneously trying to raise awareness of the causes of the conflict can lead to problems. Can the NGO working in Darfur criticise the Sudanese government which allows it to operate? Will NGO workers in Afghanistan be in danger if head office puts out a press release criticising the Taliban?

All of which has made the job of the humanitarian worker increasingly hazardous. According to Polman it has now become the fifth most-dangerous profession in the world, after lumberjack, pilot, fisherman and steelworker.

Polman has written a modern-day version of Mother Courage; a searing account of how aid can fuel the conflicts it tries to stop. But it is soured somewhat by what seems like a distaste for aid workers. With one exception, the aid workers she meets are portrayed as heartless men and women who tell disparaging jokes about the people they claim to help, while spending their evenings drinking bottles of expensive French wine and their days off playing rounds of golf.

I'm glad I bought a copy in London. For some reason, the book is not available under its British title in the USA. The American edition is titled "The Crisis Caravan," and won't be available until its September 10th release date. You can pre-order it here on Amazon.com:

Charles Crawford on the Delegitimization of Israel

From CharlesCrawford.Biz:

The main point for me is that the intellectual and political onslaught against Israel is so stunningly dishonest as to reveal that a much deeper Negotiation is going on.

Basically, almost all parts of the planet and indeed much of the chattering classes' space in the democratic West are directly or by implication supporting policies of a new Strident Irrationalism, aimed at delegitimizing not only Israel but Truth itself.

Facts in this drama count for nothing. Not the fact that if we are looking for brutal violence at sea and horrible oppression at home, North Korea leaves Israel and everywhere else on Earth far behind.

Not the fact that when Muslims are massacred almost every day they are massacred not by Israelis but by crazed Muslims.

Nor the fact that if we want to rail against crimes against humanity in the Middle East, the biggest and worst have been committed by Arab leaders against their own people.

And certainly not the fact that whereas Israel obviously operates some sort of pluralist political system, much of the Arab world is still rotten with the legacy of oppressive lumpen national socialist extremism dating back to WW2. Had the Arab world opted for pluralism and progress after the Cold War ended, the whole context for dealing with the Palestine problem would have been far easier.

Behind these malodorous hypocrisies lurks a darker force, hoping to deligitimise not only Israel but also the Holocaust and Nazi/Soviet crimes and the whole moral force of 'the West' and the Enlightenment.

This is the Negotiation of our age. Between Hope and Nihilism. Israel and the Palestinians are merely collateral damage.

Israeli Gaza Ship Commando Raid Recalls Altalena Attack

You wouldn't know it from press coverage, but Turkish, Arab and European Gaza blockade-runners got off a lot easier the other day than Jewish supporters did in 1948 trying to smuggle arms to the Irgun. Then, Ben Gurion had ordered the Israeli Defense Forces to sink the Altalena--and they did.

House to Raise BP Liability Cap to 10 Billion Dollars

From 75 million dollars.

My question to Nancy Pelosi: Why any cap at all?

Celebrating Memorial Day...

PC Magazine Grades Facebook's New Privacy Settings

Not such good grades, here:

1.) A Simplified Privacy Button On The Home Page: So-So

2.) "Just Friends" Default Setting: Fail

3.) Tighten Up Facebook Chat: Fail

4.) Offer Opt-In Incentives: Fail

5.) Streamline Account Deletion: Pass.

America's New National Security Strategy...

As released today by the White House, in this PDF file.

Ian Johnson on Barack Obama's Misguided Support for Islamists

From Foreign Policy:

In power, the Obama administration has continued its predecessor's endorsement of Islamists. In January 2009, for example, the State Department sponsored a visit of German Muslim leaders to one of the bastions of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). The German visitors were key government officials in charge of integration or recruitment of minorities into the police. One of the briefers was Jamal Barzinji, one of the triumvirate who set up a number of key Brotherhood-inspired structures in the United States.

Like many Brotherhood-related groups, IIIT faded from public view after the 9/11 attacks but has experienced a renaissance recently. IIIT had been closely associated with a raft of Islamist organizations in northern Virginia that were raided by federal agents because of their suspected ties to extremist Islam. As elsewhere, this action followed a familiar pattern. The groups in question, including IIIT, were primarily problematic for ideological reasons -- for trying to push the Brotherhood's vision of an Islamicized society, which clearly cannot work in a pluralistic culture.

But instead of being challenged on the field of ideas, where they could easily be shown to hold beliefs antithetical to democratic ideals, they were accused of supporting criminal activities and were raided. This had a double effect: It created the strange spectacle of the legal arm of the government trying desperately to prosecute these groups while, at the same time, the diplomatic arm held them up as models of integration. The failure to convict the Muslims was seen as an exoneration, almost a seal of approval.

Daniel Pipes on CIA Support for Islamists

In his National Review Online review of Ian Johnson's new book: A Mosque in Munich: Nazis, the CIA, and the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, Daniel Pipes declares that the CIA bears responsibility for today's pandemic Islamist terror...

Johnson opens with a review of the systematic Nazi efforts to recruit Soviet Muslims from among their prisoners of war. Many Muslims loathed Stalin, and between 150,000 and 300,000 of them fought for the Axis in World War II. In other words, over and above their unfulfilled propaganda effort directed at Arabs, the Nazis actually fielded a substantial force of mainly Turkic Muslims under the leadership of a scholarly Nazi enthusiast named Gerhard von Mende.

After the German defeat in 1945, Johnson follows von Mende as he continued his anti-Communist work with ex-Soviet Muslims, now in a Cold War context. But his network of former soldiers proved not very competent at the task of arousing Muslim hostility against the Soviet Union. Their leading intellectual, for example, had served as the imam of an SS division that helped suppress the Warsaw uprising of 1944. Islamists quickly proved themselves far more competent at this political and religious challenge. Johnson explains that they “wear suits, have university degrees, and can formulate their demands in ways that a politician can understand.”

The heart of his fascinating study lies in tracing the evolution, much of it in Munich, from old soldiers to new Islamists. It’s a classic tale of 1950s intrigue, complete with rehabilitated Nazis, CIA front organizations, and dueling Soviet and American ambitions.

Johnson shows how, without anyone quite planning it, the Americans usurped von Mende’s network and handed it over to Said Ramadan. This early U.S. boost to the Muslim Brotherhood, Johnson argues, gave it the means to establish an Islamist framework to welcome the surge of Muslim immigration to Europe in the 1970s.

Thus did the Islamist domination of European Muslims have two hidden facilitators, Nazi and American. Its origins in Barbarossa reveal the ugly pedigree of today’s Islamist strength. Hitler and his thugs could not have foreseen it, but they helped set the stage for Eurabia.

American backing for Islamists prompts Johnson to warn against the futility of allying with the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk — as Tony Blair once again recently attempted. However tempting, it invariably harms the West. The lesson is simple: Be cognizant of history and do not assist the Islamists.

On his blog, Pipes admits that he knew about this before Johnson's book, because of his own father's involvement in Cold War research

Coincidentally, I spent the summer of 1953 at the age of three in Munich, just as that city was emerging as a center of Islamic activism, precisely because of the major presence of ex-Soviet Muslims living there. An excerpt from my father's autobiography, Richard Pipes Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-Belonger (Yale University Press, 2003), p. 74 explains why he took the family to Munich:

At the end of May 1951, with financial assistance from the Center of International Affairs at MIT, Irene and I left Daniel with our parents and went on a four-month trip to Europe and the Middle East. My purpose was to interview the surviving members of national governments of what had been the Russian Empire during the period 1917-21. I located quite a few of them in London, Paris, Munich and Istanbul, and they helped me appreciably to understand the complex situations of that era. In Paris I established contact with the Georgian émigré community. Two years later, I spent another summer in Europe, this time in Munich, interviewing refugees from Soviet Central Asia, nearly all of them ex-German prisoners of war. The information they furnished on life in their regions in the 1930s reinforced my conviction that nationalism was well and alive in the borderlands of the USSR and that no mass assimilation was taking place.

His research that summer provided the basis of his article, "Muslims of Soviet Central Asia: Trends and Prospects,” The Middle East Journal, Spring, 1955, pp. 147-162 and Summer, 1955, pp. 295-308.

Interestingly, as Pipes notes, the author's website features photos of former Nazi Uzbeks recruited as Islamist CIA agents during the Cold War--not included in the book. Among other Muslim Brotherhood agents on the CIA payroll, according to Johnson’s research: Tariq Ramadan's father...

You can buy a copy from Amazon.com: You can also listen to Ian Johnson's interview on the Diane Rehme show... Nieman Foundation interview here. Carnegie Council interview here. Wall Street Journal review here. Bookforum review here.

England Shifts Right

Just came back from a 100-mile walk across Dartmoor and Exmoor on the Two Moors Way. Highly recommended for splendid isolation, desolation, and reflection...Big news was the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government headed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. A shift to the right from Labour (which didn't lose as badly as it might have done), yet nevertheless significant since now England, France, Italy and Germany are all headed by conservative leaders. Left for home on the eve of the Queen's Speech.

People we talked to in London were generally optimistic, seemed to like the idea of the "outs" coming in to take over, after the "ins" had been thrown out.  Young faces (Cameron and Clegg are 40-ish), fresh starts, budget cuts, lengthy public manifestos published on the web and so forth dominated the news on TV and radio. A different approach to government, with a fixed term guaranteed by written agreement, and Clegg serving as a sort of vice-presidential Deputy Prime Minister to Cameron's presidential Prime Minister.

Will it work?

Too soon to tell, IMHO.

Elena Kagan's Hunter High School Yearbook Photo

(Source: Yahoo News)

Video of US Troops in Russian Victory Day Parade

PART I:

PART II:

iPad Cat Toy App

(ht Huffington Post)

Did Chris Cox Cause Thursday's Wall Street Plunge?

It sure looks like it, after reading yesterday's Washington Post article by David Cho and Jia Lynn Yang:

In 2007, the SEC put in place new rules for how stocks are traded, led by then-Chairman Christopher Cox. The goal was to give investors more control over how their trades were executed and to guarantee the best price when they buy stocks.

When the NYSE received an order for a stock, for instance, the rules required the exchange to route the order to the platform offering the best price.

The new SEC rules toppled the dominance of NYSE. The trading of its own listed stocks dropped from 85 percent to 21 percent, said James Angel, a professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business.

As a result, a single entity can no longer put a stop to panicked selling. The markets Thursday were a preview of what happens when other trading venues take over, he said.

"We are dangerously unprotected from a real-time meltdown," Angel said.

Market officials and regulators are now unwinding millions of the trades that occurred on the electronic exchanges Thursday...

More on this at this video documentary website: Stock Shock:

Happy V-E Day!

Since US, British and French troops are marching in the Russian V-E Day parade this year, I thought this old Soviet poster (ht Ferghana.ru) featuring US, French and British (and Nationalist Chinese!) flags might be apropos...

Charles Crawford on the British Election

He calls the result "a well hung Parliament..."

In this context, the widest range of options and (vitally) sense of momentum is with the party which has much the biggest haul of seats and the highest number of votes, ie the Conservatives. Plus neither Labour nor the Lib Dems can afford a new election soon.

Which is why on balance after a flurry of uncertainty and desperate babbling brought about by sheer exhaustion, I expect David Cameron to lead the next UK government for a while under some sort of formal or informal arrangement as outlined above.

If this happens, an uneasy game of chicken will ensue: the Conservatives in effect will be saying to Parliament every day: "Vote us out if you dare - and face the consequences"...

President Obama's Pakistan Connections

From reading this account, on Pakistaniat.com, which points out that the President's mother worked in Pakistan for 5 years for the Asian Development Bank, overseeing a project in Gujranwallait from 1987-1992, it sounds like Barack Obama should be able to figure out Pakistan's role in NY's Times Square bomb plot for himself:

Barack Obama may have visited Pakistan for longer than any U.S. President or presidential candidate ever has. As so many college students do, he seemed eager to see the world. He was in Karachi in 1981 as a young student, returning from a visit to his mother in Indonesia. According to a New York Times report:

…Mr. Obama also spoke about having traveled to Pakistan in the early 1980s. Because of that trip, which he did not mention in either of his autobiographical books, “I knew what Sunni and Shia was before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” he said… According to his campaign staff, Mr. Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. He spent “about three weeks” there, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said, staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, but also traveling to Hyderabad, in India.

Finally, as mentioned in the excerpt above, Senator Obama had a number of Pakistani friends during his college days, and it was that friendship that brought him to Pakistan. Some details, again, from the same New York Times report:

…In Dreams from My Father, he talks of having a Pakistani roommate when he moved to New York, a man he calls Sadik who “had overstayed his tourist visa and now made a living in New York’s high-turnover, illegal immigrant work force, waiting on tables”… During his years at Occidental College, Mr. Obama also befriended Wahid Hamid, a fellow student who was an immigrant from Pakistan and traveled with Mr. Obama there, the Obama campaign said. Mr. Hamid is now a vice president at Pepsico in New York, and according to public records, has donated the maximum $2,300 to the Obama campaign and is listed as a fund-raiser for it. Mr. Chandoo is now a self-employed financial consultant, living in Armonk, N.Y. He has also donated the maximum, $2,300, to Mr. Obama’s primary campaign and an additional $309 for the general election, campaign finance records show.

An Associated Press story on Obama’s college friends has more interesting snippets. Especially his relationship with Sohale Siddiqi, from Karachi, is fascinating - all the more to the Pakistani reader:

The way Sohale Siddiqi remembers it, he and his old roommate were walking his pug Charlie on Broadway when a large, scary bum approached them, stomping on the ground near the dog’s head. This was in the 1980s, a time when New York was a fearful place beset by drugs and crime, when the street smart knew that the best way to handle the city’s derelicts was to avoid them entirely. But Siddiqi was angry and he confronted the man, who approached him menacingly. Until his skinny, elite univerity-educated friend - Barack Obama - intervened. He “stepped right in between. … He planted his face firmly in the face of the guy. ‘Hey, hey, hey.’ And the guy backpedaled and we kept walking,” Siddiqi recalls.

…Obama spent the six years between 1979 and 1985 at Occidental College in Los Angeles and then in New York at Columbia University and in the workplace. His memoir, Dreams from My Father, talks about this time, but not in great detail; Siddiqi, for example, is identified only as “Sadik” _ “a short, well-built Pakistani” who smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine and liked to party. Obama’s campaign wouldn’t identify “Sadik,” but The Associated Press located him in Seattle, where he raises money for a community theater. Together, the recollections of Siddiqi and other friends and acquaintances from Obama’s college years paint a portrait of the candidate as a young man. They remember a good student with a sharp mind and unshakable integrity, a young man who already had a passion for the underprivileged. Some described the young Obama’s personality as confident to the point of arrogance, a criticism that would emerge decades later, during the campaign.

Not everyone who knew Obama in those years is eager to talk. Some explained that they feared inadvertently hurting Obama’s campaign. Among his friends were Siddiqi and two other Pakistanis, all of them from Karachi; several of those interviewed said the Pakistanis were reluctant to talk for fear of stoking rumors that Obama is a Muslim. “Obama in the eyes of some right wingers is basically Muslim until proved innocent,” says Margot Mifflin, a friend from Occidental who is now a journalism professor at New York’s Lehman College. “It’s partly the Muslim factor by association and partly the fear of something being twisted.”

…Of course, he was only 18 when he arrived at the small liberal arts college nicknamed “Oxy.” His freshman roommates were Imad Husain, a Pakistani, who’s now a Boston banker, and Paul Carpenter, now a Los Angeles lawyer… Obama had an international circle of friends _ “a real eclectic sort of group,” says Vinai Thummalapally, who himself came from Hyderabad, India. As a freshman, he quickly became friends with Mohammed Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, two wealthy Pakistanis.

In 1981, Obama transferred from Occidental to Columbia. In between, he traveled to Pakistan - a trip that enhanced his foreign policy qualifications, he maintained in a private speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last month. Obama spent “about three weeks” in Pakistan, traveling with Hamid and staying in Karachi with Chandoo’s family, said Bill Burton, Obama’s press secretary. “He was clearly shocked by the economic disparity he saw in Pakistan. He couldn’t get over the sight of rural peasants bowing to the wealthy landowners they worked for as they passed,” says Margot Mifflin, who makes a brief appearance in Obama’s memoir.

When Obama arrived in New York, he already knew Siddiqi - a friend of Chandoo’s and Hamid’s from Karachi who had visited Los Angeles. Looking back, Siddiqi acknowledges that he and Obama were an odd couple. Siddiqi would mock Obama’s idealism - he just wanted to make a lot of money and buy things, while Obama wanted to help the poor. “At that age, I thought he was a saint and a square, and he took himself too seriously,” Siddiqi said. “I would ask him why he was so serious. He was genuinely concerned with the plight of the poor. He’d give me lectures, which I found very boring. He must have found me very irritating.”

Siddiqi offered the most expansive account of Obama as a young man. “We were both very lost. We were both alienated, although he might not put it that way. He arrived disheveled and without a place to stay,” said Siddiqi, who at the time worked as a waiter and as a salesman at a boutique… In about 1982, Siddiqi and Obama got an apartment at a sixth-floor walkup on East 94th Street. Siddiqi managed to get the apartment thanks to subterfuge. “We didn’t have a chance in hell of getting this apartment unless we fabricated the lease application,” Siddiqi said. Siddiqi fudged his credentials, saying he had a high-paying job at a catering company, but Obama “wanted no part of it. He put down the truth.”

The apartment was “a slum of a place” in a drug-ridden neighborhood filled with gunshots, he said. “It wasn’t a comfortable existence. We were slumming it.” What little furniture they had was found on the street, and guests would have to hold their dinner plates in their laps. While Obama has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine during high school in Hawaii, he writes in the memoir that he stopped using soon after his arrival in New York. His roommate had no such scruples. But Siddiqi says that during their time together here, Obama always refused his offers of drugs.

…Siddiqi said his female friends thought Obama was “a hunk.” “We were always competing,” he said. “You know how it is. You go to a bar and you try hitting on the girls. He had a lot more success. I wouldn’t out-compete him in picking up girls, that’s for sure.” Obama was a tolerant roommate. Siddiqi’s mother, who had never been around a black man, came to visit and she was rude; Obama was nothing but polite. Siddiqi himself could be intemperate - he called Obama an Uncle Tom, but “he was really patient. I’m surprised he suffered me.” Finally, their relationship started to fray. “I was partying all the time. I was disrupting his studies,” Siddiqi said. Obama moved out.

… Neither Hamid nor Chandoo would be interviewed for this story; Hamid is now a top executive at Pepsico in New York, and Chandoo is a self-employed financial consultant in the New York area. Both have each contributed the maximum $2,300 to Obama’s campaign, and records indicate each has joined an Asian-American council that supports his run for president. Both also are listed on Obama’s campaign Web site as being among his top fundraisers, each bringing in between $100,000 and $200,000 in contributions from their networks of friends. Both also attended Obama’s wedding in 1992, according to published reports and other friends.

Thummalapally has stayed in contact with Obama, too, visiting him in New York, attending his wedding in 1992 and joining him in Springfield, Illinois., for the Feb. 10, 2007, announcement of Obama’s run for the White House. President of a CD and DVD manufacturing company in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Thummalapally also is listed as a top fundraiser on the campaign Web site.

Siddiqi has not kept in touch. His has been a difficult road; years after his time with Obama, Siddiqi says, he became addicted to cocaine and lost his business. But when he needed help during his recovery, Obama - the roommate he drove away with his partying, the man he always suspected of looking down at him - gave him a job reference. So yes, he’s an Obama man, too. Witness the message on his answering machine: “My name is Hal Siddiqi, and I approve of this message. Vote for peace, vote for hope, vote for change, and vote for Obama.”

But the most interesting account, even more interesting than the yarn about Hal Siddiqi comes from Barack Obama himself, in his book Dreams from My Father...

Persepolis

Just saw Marjane Satrapi's feature-length cartoon coming of age story about growing up as a Persian emigre on Netflix...very relevant to today. I'm sorry I didn't see it when it came out in 2007. I don't know why it didn't win the Academy award for best foreign film. Catherine Deneuve plays the mother's voice. Five stars!

Plus, it explains what's going on with Iran right now: What's Past is indeed Prologue...

Ann Coulter on the Times Square Bomb Plot

From AnnCoulter.com:

Even after the NYPD de-wired the smoking car bomb, produced enough information to identify the bomb-maker, and handed it all to federal law enforcement authorities tied up in a bow, the federal government's crack "no-fly" list failed to stop Shahzad from boarding a plane to Dubai.

To be fair, at Emirates Airlines, being on a "no-fly" list makes you eligible for pre-boarding.

Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should consider creating a "Really, REALLY No-Fly" list.

Contrary to the wild excuses being made for the federal government on all the TV networks Monday night, it's now clear that this was not a wily plan of federal investigators to allow Shahzad to board the plane in order to nab his co-conspirators. It was a flub that nearly allowed Shahzad to escape.

Meanwhile, on that same Monday at JFK airport, approximately 100,000 passengers took off their shoes, coats, belts and sunglasses for airport security.

But the "highly trained federal force" The New York Times promised us on Oct. 28, 2001, when the paper demanded that airport security be federalized, failed to stop the only guy they needed to stop at JFK last Monday -- the one who planted a bomb in the middle of Times Square days earlier.

So why were 100,000 other passengers harassed and annoyed by the TSA?

The federal government didn't stop the diaper bomber from nearly detonating a bomb over Detroit. It didn't stop a guy on the "No Fly" list from boarding a plane and coming minutes away from getting out of the country.

If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport "security" procedures?

Both of the attempted bombers who sailed through airport security, I note, were young males of the Islamic faith. I wonder if we could develop a security plan based on that information?

And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen last year?

WSJ: Pakistan's Historical Jihad

Sadanand Dhume explains:

In attempting to explain why so many attacks—abortive and successful—can be traced back to a single country, analysts tend to dwell on the 1980s, when Pakistan acted as a staging ground for the successful American and Saudi-funded jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But while the anti-Soviet campaign undoubtedly accelerated Pakistan's emergence as a jihadist haven, to truly understand the country it's important to go back further, to its creation.

Pakistan was carved out of the Muslim-majority areas of British India in 1947, the world's first modern nation based solely on Islam. The country's name means "Land of the Pure." The capital city is Islamabad. The national flag carries the Islamic crescent and star. The cricket team wears green.

From the start, the new country was touched by the messianic zeal of pan-Islamism. The Quranic scholar Muhammad Asad—an Austrian Jew born Leopold Weiss—became an early Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations. The Egyptian Said Ramadan, son-in-law of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, made Pakistan a second home of sorts and collaborated with Pakistan's leading Islamist ideologue, the Jamaat-e-Islami's Abul Ala Maududi. In 1949, Pakistan established the world's first transnational Islamic organization, the World Muslim Congress. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the virulently anti-Semitic grand mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed president.

Through alternating periods of civilian and military rule, one thing about Pakistan has remained constant—the central place of Islam in national life. In the 1960s, Pakistan launched a war against India in an attempt to seize control of Kashmir, the country's only Muslim-majority province, one that most Pakistanis believe ought to be theirs by right.

In the 1970s the Pakistani army carried out what Bangladeshis call a genocide in Bangladesh; non-Muslims suffered disproportionately. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto boasted about creating an "Islamic bomb." (The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, would later export nuclear technology to the revolutionary regime in Iran.) In the 1980s Pakistan welcomed Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Palestinian theorist of global jihad Abdullah Azzam.

In the 1990s, armed with expertise and confidence gained fighting the Soviets, the army's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spawned the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, and a plethora of terrorist groups to challenge India in Kashmir. Even after 9/11, and despite about $18 billion of American aid, Pakistan has found it hard to reform its instincts.

Pakistan's history of pan-Islamism does not mean that all Pakistanis, much less everyone of Pakistani origin, hold extremist views. But it does explain why a larger percentage of Pakistanis than, say, Indonesians or Tunisians, are likely to see the world through the narrow prism of their faith. The ISI's reluctance to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism—training camps, a web of ultra-orthodox madrassas that preach violence, and terrorist groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba—ensure that Pakistan remains a magnet for any Muslim with a grudge against the world and the urge to do something violent about it.

William McGurn: First Amendment a Right, Not a Privilege

In today's Wall Street Journal, William McGurn reflects on the implications for bloggers of the Apple v Gizmodo iPhone Case:

Steve Simpson, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, puts it this way: "Once the government gets in the business of deciding who can speak based on identity, it will then necessarily be involved in deciding what viewpoints get heard."

The classic view of the First Amendment holds all Americans are entitled to its rights by virtue of citizenship. These days, alas, too many journalists and politicians assume that a free press should mean special privileges for a designated class. The further we travel in this direction, the more the government will end up deciding which Americans qualify and which do not.

It's not just Mr. Chen. Two weeks ago in New Jersey, a state appeals court ruled that a hockey mom who blogs is not a journalist for the purposes of protecting her sources. The woman was being sued for derogatory comments she posted on a message board about a company that supplies software for the porn industry. At the federal level, meanwhile, a "shield law" protecting journalists from revealing their sources remains bogged down in Congress as legislators are forced to define who is legitimately a journalist and who is not.

IMHO, "shield laws" are a bad idea--undemocratic, unconstitutional, and unfair...unlike the First Amendment.

Huffington Post: Lesson of Times Square Bomb Attempt--Try Terror Suspects in Manhattan!

IMHO, this analysis by Dan Collins, NY editor of the Huffington Post, is correct:

If I could offer a lesson, I'd be counter-intuitive. We should have let the federal government try the 9/11 terror sheik in Manhattan. It would have been inconvenient, although not necessarily as inconvenient as the police department led us to believe. But it would have been taking a stand. New Yorkers against the crazy people, most of whom fail. And the one who succeeds is never the one you suspect.

So we should work as hard as we can to protect against the unforeseeable. But in the meantime, we should be brave, and united, and supremely ticked off.

Connecticut Post: State Home for Terrorists

According to the Stratford, Connecticut Post, terrorists have been in the state for years. A couple of recent past links to terror in the land of steady habits:

Spring 2001 -- Four of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers meet with a Jordanian national living in Bridgeport who later was arrested for providing false identification cards to illegal aliens. The four are identified as Hani S.H. Hanjour, Nawaf Alzhami, Ahmed Alghamdi and Majed M. GH. Moqed was living at the Fairfield Motor Inn. Hanjour piloted the American Air Lines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. The Bridgeport contact, identified as Eyad M. Alrababah , is arrested by authorities in New Jersey for providing false identification cards and driver's licenses.

April 3, 2009 -- Hassan Abujihaad, a former U.S. Navy signalman aboard the U.S.S. Benson, is sentenced to 10 years in prison by a federal judge in New Haven for disclosing ship movements via e-mails to Azzam Publications in London. Azzam operated an Internet site through OLM, LLC., a Trumbull-based web hosting firm. Two members of Azzam, Syehed Talha Ahsan and Babar Ahmad, who sought people to fight and fund the Jihad over the website, are challenging their extradition from London to Connecticut to stand trial on federal terrorism charges.

The Connecticut paper also published information on the alleged source of the car used in Times Square:

The Connecticut license plate on the explosives-packed Nissan Pathfinder was found to have been taken from a Ford pickup truck recently sent for repair to Kramer's Used Auto Parts on Old South Avenue in Stratford. Several sources said a vehicle identification number found on a replacement part on the Pathfinder was also from a vehicle last tracked to Kramer's.

Federal, New York state and New York City investigators went to the Norwalk home of Norman LeBlanc shortly after 3 a.m. Sunday, a police source said, adding that LeBlanc, whose family has owned Kramer's and other area auto parts businesses, then took the investigators to the Stratford junkyard.

It could not immediately be learned what, if any, material was taken from the business.

A few hours later Sunday morning, about a dozen police vehicles -- local police and FBI and NYPD -- were still outside Kramer's, which is off Access Road. The business is surrounded by an old chain-link fence with signs saying, "used cars bought and sold" and "auto and truck parts." There are dozens of used and junked cars on the lot.

Wayne LeBlanc is listed as president and CEO of the Stratford business. A reporter was turned away from his Flax Hill Road home in Norwalk without comment Sunday night.

Richarrd Fredette, chairman of Stratford's Board of Zoning Appeals and former owner of Elite Auto Body, said LeBlanc bought Kramer's from Nick Kramer, now deceased, about 15 years ago.

Hail to the Street Vendors Who Saved New York, Lance Horton & Duane Jackson!

The NY Daily News has the story:

They saw something and they said something.

Two Times Square street vendors - and Vietnam veterans - alerted cops that there was something fishy about the dark-colored SUV, officials said.

T-shirt hawker Lance Orton flagged down hero officer Wayne Rhatigan, 46, who was patrolling Times Square on horseback Saturday night.

"I'm not a celebrity, I'm just an average Joe," Orton said Sunday night, a towel wrapped around his waist in his Bronx apartment. "It's nice, but I'm not a glory hound."

Handbag vendor Duane Jackson also noticed the Nissan Pathfinder, and was immediately suspicious.

"Why is this knucklehead parked in the bus lane?" Jackson, 58, of Buchanan, Westchester County, said he asked himself after spotting the Nissan Pathfinder in a No Standing zone just as cops alerted by Orton were responding.

A cop shined a flashlight through the tinted windows.

What Jackson saw next really scared him.

"Smoke started coming out of it, then the pops began - five or six of them," Jackson said. "They sounded like firecrackers," he said. "That's when everyone started running."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/05/02/2010-05-02_times_square_vendors_duane_jackson_lance_horton_alerted_cops_to_smoking_car_bomb.html#ixzz0msLMCB00

Here's a link to a facebook page asking Mayor Bloomberg to take the street vendors out to dinner.