Monday, November 14, 2011

RE: **JP** Reminder: Weekly Q/A Session with Mufti Akhtar Rida al-Qadiri [November 13, 2011 @ 2100 IST]

Assalamoalaikum,
I have 2 questions;
1.  is massah on socks is allowable? Some schollars puts some restrictions on their own with out any solid reasons. please clarify my confusion in this regard.
2. As per present conditions in the world and knowledge of Muslims, the different fiqahs are being introduced among us by some Ulemas. As per your opinion, which is safest and closest  opinion/fiqah to our Islam.

Thanks


Major  Iqbal Hussain
General Manager
Production Planning & Material Control
Quality Assurance       
 



To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Subject: **JP** Reminder: Weekly Q/A Session with Mufti Akhtar Rida al-Qadiri [November 13, 2011 @ 2100 IST]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:58:07 +0000
From: noori@rehmat-e-alam.com

Assalamu Alaikum wa raHmatullahi  Ta'ala wa Barakaatuhu
 
This email is a reminder for the LIVE Question & Answer Session with Taaj al-Shari'ah Mufti Muhammad Akhtar Rida Khan al-Qadri  tomorrow (Sunday), 13th November 2011 at 09:00pm – 2100 IST (Indian Standard Tme i.e. GMT +5:30) from Bareilly Sharif - India in sha ALLAH over
 
http://www.jamiaturraza.com/live
 
You may send your Questions to AsjadRazaKhan@gmail.com ... Questions can be asked in Arabic, Urdu and English languages.
 
Note: Dars of Sahih al-Bukhari Sharif with Taaj al-Shariah Mufti Akhtar Rida al-Qadiri Hafidhahullahu Ta'ala goes On-Air from Mondays to Saturdays at 10:00pm - 2200 IST (India Standard Time i.e. GMT +5:30).
 
Regards,
 
C.I.S. Jamiat-ur-Raza
Bareilly Sharif (U.P.), India
Download Previous Dars-e-Hadith Sessions

DARS082 - The Excellence of a Man's Islam (Part - III) [31st August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS081 - The Excellence of a Man's Islam (Part - II) [30th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS080 - The Excellence of a Man's Islam (Part - I) [27th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS079 - Paryer is part of Belief (Part - III) [26th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS078 - Paryer is part of Belief (Part - II) [25th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS077 - Paryer is part of Belief (Part - I) [24th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS076 - The Deen (Religion) is Easy (Part - III) [23rd August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS075 - The Deen (Religion) is Easy (Part - II) [22nd August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS074 - The Deen (Religion) is Easy (Part - I) [21st August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS073 - Fasting Ramadan in Expectation of Reward [20th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS072 - Voluntary Prayers in Ramadan [19th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS071 - Jihad is a part of Belief [18th August 2011 - Delhi]

DARS070 - Performing the Prayer on the Night of Power (Part - II) [17th August 2011 - Delhi]

DARS069 - Performing the Prayer on the Night of Power (Part - I) [16th August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS068 - Signs of the Hypocrite (Part - III) [15th August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS067 - Signs of the Hypocrite (Part - II) [14th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS066 - Signs of the Hypocrite (Part - I) [13th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS065 - One injustice is able to be less than another injustice (Part - II) [12th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS064 - One injustice is able to be less than another injustice (Part - I) [10th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS063 - If two groups of Muslims fight against each other, reconcile them (Part - II) [8th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]
DARS062 - If two groups of Muslims fight against each other, reconcile them (Part - I) [7th August 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS061 - Disobedience is part of Jahiliyyah [6th August 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS060 - Ingratitude after Ingratitude (Part - II) [5th August 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS059 - Ingratitude after Ingratitude (Part - I) [4th August 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS058 - Greeting widely is part of Islam (Part - II) [3rd August 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS057 - Greeting widely is part of Islam (Part - I) [2nd August 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS056 - When Islam is Genuine? (Part - III) [1st August 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS055 - When Islam is Genuine? (Part - II) [30th July 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS055 - When Islam is Genuine? (Part - II) [30th July 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS054 - When Islam is Genuine? (Part - I) [29th July 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS053 - Belief lies in Actions (Part - III) [28th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS052 - Belief lies in Actions (Part - II) [27th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS051 - Belief lies in Actions (Part - I) [26th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS050 - On Allah's words (9:5) [25th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS049 - Modesty is part of belief (Part - II) [24th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS048 - Modesty is part of belief (Part - I) [23rd July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS047 - Grading of the superiority of the believers is based on their deeds (Part - II) [21st July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS046 - Grading of the superiority of the believers is based on their deeds (Part - I) [20th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS045 - Hating to revert to disbelief as much as being thrown into a fire (Part - III) [19th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS044 - Hating to revert to disbelief as much as being thrown into a fire (Part - II) [17th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS043 - Hating to revert to disbelief as much as being thrown into a fire (Part - I) [14th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS042 - True Knowledge is an Action of the Heart [13th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS041 - Fleeing from Civil Strife (Fitan) is part of Belief (Part - II) [11th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS040 - Fleeing from Civil Strife (Fitan) is part of Belief (Part - I) [10th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS039 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - VII) [9th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS038 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - VI) [8th July 2011 - Bombay]
DARS037 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - V) [7th July 2011 - Bombay]
DARS036 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - IV) [6th July 2011 - Nashik]
DARS035 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - III) [5th July 2011 - Bombay]
DARS034 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - II) [5th July 2011 - Bombay]
DARS033 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - I) [4th July 2011 - Bangalore]
DARS032 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - V) [2nd July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS031 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - IV) [1st July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS030 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - III) [30th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS029 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - II) [29th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS028 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - I) [28th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS027 - Love for the Beloved Prophet is Part of Belief (Part - III) [27th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS026 - Love for the Beloved Prophet is Part of Belief (Part - II) [25th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS025 - Love for the Beloved Prophet is Part of Belief (Part - I) [24th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS024 - Want for your Brother what you want for yourself (Part - II) [23rd June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS023 - Want for your Brother what you want for yourself (Part - I) [22nd June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS022 - Whose Islam is Best (Part - IV) [21st June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS021 - Whose Islam is Best (Part - III) [20th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS020 - Whose Islam is Best (Part - II) [19th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS019 - Whose Islam is Best (Part - I) [18th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS018 - A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe (Part - III) [17th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS017 - A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe (Part - II) [16th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS016 - A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe (Part - I) [15th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]
DARS015 - Modesty is a branch of Belief [14th June 2011 - Delhi]
DARS014 - Islam is based on Five things (Part - III) [10th June 2011 - Dubai]
DARS013 - Islam is based on Five things (Part - II) [9th June 2011 - Dubai]
DARS012 - Islam is based on Five things (Part - I) [4th June 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS011 - Hadith-e-Hiraqal (Part - III) [3rd June 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS010 - Hadith-e-Hiraqal (Part - II) [31st May 2011 - Madina Munawwarah]
DARS009 - Hadith-e-Hiraqal (Part - I) [30th May 2011 - Madina Munawwarah]
DARS008 - The Beginning of Revelation (Part - IV) [27th May 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS007 - The Beginning of Revelation (Part - III) [24th May 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS006 - The Beginning of Revelation (Part - II) [23rd May 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS005 - The Beginning of Revelation (Part - I) [21st May 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS004 - Every Man has what He Intends (Part - II) [19th May 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS003 - Every Man has what He Intends (Part - I) [18th May 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS002 - Sharah Hadith-e-Niyyat (Part - II) [15th May 2011 - Jeddah]
DARS001 - Sharah Hadith-e-Niyyat (Part - I) [14th May 2011 - Jeddah]
Files are in MP3 Format and can easily be downloaded to your device. Right Click and Choose 'Save As' to download and save to your device.


--
"The Superiority of the learned man over the worshiper is like that of the moon, on the night when it is full, over the rest of the stars. The learned are the heirs of the Prophets (Alaihim as-Salam), and the Prophets leave neither dinar nor dirham, leaving only knowledge, and he who takes it takes a big fortune."
 



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Posted by at No comments:

Re: Fwd: [DailyKos] *? 2 ALL: GUITARIST PLAYS OCCUPY WALL STREET SONG AT OBAMA-ATTENDED HAWAII GALA - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?

guitar players are a dime a dozen

next ...

On Nov 13, 10:03 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Greg Dempsey
> Date: Sunday, November 13, 2011
> Subject: [DailyKos] *? 2 ALL: GUITARIST PLAYS OCCUPY WALL STREET SONG AT
> OBAMA-ATTENDED HAWAII GALA - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?
> To: Greg dempsey <gregdemp...@sti.net>
>
> </mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1339fb5c367efeeb&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw>
>
> "'We'll occupy the streets, we'll occupy the courts, we'll occupy the
> offices of you,
> till you do the bidding of the many, not the few,' (Makana) sang at the
> Wakiki event.
> 'The time has come for us to voice our rage.'
>
> Video athttp://tinyurl.com/75w7p9b
>
> Hi Team!
>
> *? 2 ALL:
>
> GUITARIST PLAYS OCCUPY WALL STREET SONG AT OBAMA-ATTENDED HAWAII GALA -
>
> </mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1339fb5c367efeeb&attid=0.2&disp=emb&zw>
>
> (AFP/File, Richard A. Brooks)
>
> Alan Horowitz reports on the Huffington Post:
>
> "A musician took a stand at last night's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
> gala, which was attended President Obama and a slew of world leaders.
>
> "Hawaiian guitarist Makana, who has performed at the White House, wore a
> shirt that read 'Occupy With Aloha' and played a song inspired by the
> Occupy Wall Street protests.
>
> "The tune, 'We Are the Many', ran for 45 minutes long.
>
> </mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1339fb5c367efeeb&attid=0.3&disp=emb&zw>
>
> (above):  Anti-APEC protesters march down Kalakaua Ave.
>
> towards Waikiki, Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011 in Honolulu.
>
> The APEC Summit is being held in Oahu this weekend.
>
> A few hundred protesters marched in the demonstration.
>
> - Boston.com (AP Photo/ Marco Garcia)
>
> "Hawaii locals joined the national movement last month, gathering in
> Honolulu's financial district. When the protesters tried to make camp,
> several were arrested.
>
> "The event occurred just days after a federal agent shot a local man. The
> agent has since been charged with second-degree murder."
>
> </mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1339fb5c367efeeb&attid=0.4&disp=emb&zw>
>
> Guitarist plays Occupy Wall Street song at Obama-attended Hawaii  gala -
> what are your comments?
>
> Greg Dempseyhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/
> Voice of the People
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (1)
> Recent Activity:
>
> Visit Your Group
> [DailyKos]
> A group for readers of DailyKos and other progressive sites.
> Group Email Addresses
> Post message:       Daily...@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe:       DailyKos-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:       DailyKos-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> List owner:       DailyKos-ow...@yahoogroups.com
> MARKETPLACE
>
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get
> the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
>
> <http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=bdff4f42-0e60-11e1-8f58-1bc71f8fec64&T=1d1...
>
> <http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> .
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=16894117/grpspId=170508376...
>
> __,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Posted by at No comments:

Re: So Long, America

every empire falls because of an over-extended military. With more
than 900 bases on all seven continents, billions in annual military
aid to countries around the world, and active military operations in
more countries than we can know, the United States is digging in on
its imperial ambitions
---
it's way past time to remove interventionists;/imperialists from our
government

On Nov 14, 7:14 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> So Long, Americaby Andrew P. NapolitanoHere is Judge Napolitano's closing argument Thursday on hisFreedomWatch.Does the government work for us or do we work for the government? Tonight, wars and rumors of war.
> The United States was forged in a war: The American revolution. After the rebels defeated the King, we were blessed with something unique in history; a founding document, the Constitution, which was not imposed upon the people but rather was ratified by them, and which set out to establish strict limits on the federal government. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to keep the government off the people's backs; to assure that the new government here would never be as destructive of freedom and property as the King had been; to guarantee that the government is the servant and the people were the master; still a revolutionary idea even today, more than 230 years later.
> So what happened to the war machine that freed the American colonies of their British masters? It was subsumed by the new government. The same generation that fought an American revolution whose unifying principles were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, ran a government that violated those very principles. In the Whiskey Rebellion, President George Washington shot and arrested farmers who refused to pay a federal tax on booze they made at home; and under the Alien and Sedition Acts, President John Adams prosecuted people for criticizing him.
> The Revolutionary War was the beginning of the Republic and the Civil War was the beginning of the end of the Republic. Prior to the Civil War, the United States were plural; the country was called "these" United States. Even the Constitution refers tothe United States as "them." Afterwards, the United States became a singular noun. The Civil War was the official and violent rejection by the federal government of the basic principle laid out in the Declaration of Independence which was cited as the impetus for the American Revolution. What was that principle for which the rebels fought and which, among our presidents, only Jefferson defended? It was the right of free people to secede from a government that destroys their freedom. It was, by extension, the natural right to be left alone.
> Not only are wars inimical to our freedom, they are also cancers for democracy. In the last 50 years, the United States has seen a parade of wars that don t serve our interests. We fought the Korean war at the behest of the United Nations. We fought in Vietnam because the French wouldn t. We entered the First Gulf War because of the United Nations and of course that led to the Iraq War. Even in Afghanistan, while we entered under the pretext of hunting down the masterminds of 9/11, that war soon became an imperial exercise akin to the Soviet or British occupations of Afghanistan. The Constitution gives the power of declaring war to the Congress. But today in America, that power is effectively the President s. President Obama has waged war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Pakistan, in Somalia, and in Uganda; all without a declaration of war. The last time Congress declared war was December 8th 1941.
> War is the death of freedom because war is the health of big government. The federal government views the Constitution as its enemy. That s why the President, a former professor of constitutional law nonetheless, can take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then spend every waking moment trying to dig its grave. And George W. Bush was the same. And Bill Clinton was the same. And so on, and so on. If Barack Obama or George W. Bush told you directly that their agenda was the destruction of your freedoms, you wouldn t buy it. But war and rumors of war allow the government to steal your freedoms without you rising up to defend them.
> In nearly three years in office, President Obama has conducted a campaign to transform America through a process of government expansion and crony capitalism. Yet, he may very well win re-election not because Americans support more central planning and federal control of our lives, but because he enjoys high approval ratings for fighting wars. Yet these wars are the same policies that allow for the centralization of power in the federal government on the domestic front. There wouldn t have been an Obamacare if there had never been a Patriot Act; because, when you allow your freedoms to be trampled conditionally under the pretext of safety, then even those freedoms you d never dream of giving away become endangered.
> In my new book,It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong, I argue that every empire falls because of an over-extended military. With more than 900 bases on all seven continents, billions in annual military aid to countries around the world, and active military operations in more countries than we can know, the United States is digging in on its imperial ambitions, even as those same ambitions are driving us bankrupt, exhausting our resources, and destroying our freedoms. Is it worth it? The answer is obvious.
> From New York, defending freedom; so-long America.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Posted by at No comments:

Re: The GOP's Dream World of Empire

except for this part:
---
just the meat of the matter

The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on
negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of
Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President
Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:
Persian oil …is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for
Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours.

two imperialist dreams, as the article implies, crumbled


On Nov 14, 8:18 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith, Agreed, except for this part:
>
> " what's recalled is kited intelligence, Saddam Hussein's nonexistent
> nuclear arsenal, dumb and even dumber decisions, a bloody civil war,
> dead Americans, crony corporations, a trillion or more taxpayer
> dollars flushed down the toilet… "
>
> On Nov 13, 9:53 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Geesh, what a total misrepresentation of contemporary history and partisan
> > hogwash.
>
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:38 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > *The GOP's Dream World of Empire
> > > *Posted by Christopher Manion <c...@manionmusic.com> on November 13, 2011
> > > 02:11 PM
>
> > > Revisited and embraced by the debating dwarfs, rejected by Ron Paul, and
> > > recounted<http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/an-all-american-nightmare/>(for those who need a refresher course) by Tom Engelhardt.
>
> > > xxx
>
> > > *An All-American Nightmare
> > > **From TomDispatch: This is what defeat looks like
> > > *By Tom Engelhardt | November 8, 2011
>
> > > How about a moment of silence for the passing of the American Dream?
> > > M.R.I.C. (May it rest in carnage.)
>
> > > No, I'm not talking about the old dream of opportunity that involved
> > > homeownership, a better job than your parents had, a decent pension, and
> > > all the rest of the package that's so yesterday, so underwater, so OWS. I'm
> > > talking about a far more recent dream, a truly audacious one that's
> > > similarly gone with the wind.
>
> > > I'm talking about George W. Bush's American Dream. If people here remember
> > > the invasion of Iraq -- and most Americans would undoubtedly prefer to
> > > forget it -- what's recalled is kited intelligence, Saddam Hussein's
> > > nonexistent nuclear arsenal, dumb and even dumber decisions, a bloody civil
> > > war, dead Americans, crony corporations, a trillion or more taxpayer
> > > dollars flushed down the toilet… well, you know the story. What few care to
> > > remember was that original dream ­ call it The Dream -- and boy, was it a
> > > beaut!
>
> > > *An American Dream
>
> > > *It went something like this: Back in early 2003, the top officials of
> > > the Bush administration had no doubt that Saddam Hussein's Iraq, drained by
> > > years of war, no-fly zones, and sanctions, would be a pushover; that the
> > > U.S. military, which they idolized and romanticized, would waltz to
> > > Baghdad. (The word one of their supporters used in the *Washington Post*for the onrushing invasion was a "cakewalk.") Nor did they doubt that those
> > > troops would be greeted as liberators, even saviors, by throngs of adoring,
> > > previously suppressed Shiites strewing flowers* *in their path. (No
> > > kidding, no exaggeration.)
>
> > > How easy it would be then to install a "democratic" government in Baghdad
> > > -- which meant their autocratic candidate Ahmad Chalabi -- set up four or
> > > five strategically situated military mega-bases, exceedingly well-armed
> > > American small towns already on the drawing boards before the invasion
> > > began, and so dominate the oil heartlands of the planet in ways even the
> > > Brits, at the height of their empire, wouldn't have dreamed possible. (Yes,
> > > the neocons were then bragging that we would outdo the Roman and British
> > > empires rolled into one!)
>
> > > As there would be no real resistance, the American invasion force could
> > > begin withdrawing as early as the fall of 2003, leaving perhaps 30,000 to
> > > 40,000 troops, the U.S. Air Force, and various spooks and private
> > > contractors behind to garrison a grateful country ad infinitum (on what was
> > > then called "the South Korean model"). Iraq's state-run economy would be
> > > privatized and its oil resources thrown open to giant global energy
> > > companies, especially American ones, which would rebuild the industry and
> > > begin pumping millions of barrels of that country's vast reserves, thus
> > > undermining the OPEC cartel's control over the oil market.
>
> > > And mind you, it would hardly cost a cent. Well, at its unlikely worst,
> > > maybe $100 billion to $200 billion, but as Iraq, in the phrase* *of
> > > then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, "floats on a sea of oil,"
> > > most of it could undoubtedly be covered, in the end, by the Iraqis
> > > themselves.
>
> > > Now, doesn't going down memory lane just take your breath away? And yet,
> > > Iraq was a bare beginning for Bush's dreamers, who clearly felt like so
> > > many proverbial kids in a candy shop (even if they acted like bulls in a
> > > china shop).  Syria, caught in a strategic pincer between Israel and
> > > American Iraq, would naturally bow down; the Iranians, caught similarly
> > > between American Iraq and American Afghanistan, would go down big time, too
> > > ­ or simply be taken down Iraqi-style, and who would complain? (As the
> > > neocon quip of the moment went: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad.  Real men
> > > want to go to Tehran.")
>
> > > And that wasn't all. Bush's top officials had been fervent Cold Warriors
> > > in the days before the U.S. became "the sole superpower," and they saw the
> > > new Russia stepping into those old Soviet boots. Having taken down the
> > > Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, they were already building a network
> > > of bases there, too. (Let a thousand Korean models bloom!) Next on the
> > > agenda would be rolling the Russians right out of their "near abroad," the
> > > former Soviet Socialist Republics, now independent states, of Central Asia.
>
> > > What glory! Thanks to the unparalleled power of the U.S. military,
> > > Washington would control the Greater Middle East from the Mediterranean to
> > > the Chinese border and would be beholden to no one when victory came. Great
> > > powers, phooey! They were talking about a *Pax Americana* on which the
> > > sun could never set. Meanwhile, there were so many other handy perks: the
> > > White House would be loosed* *from its constitutional bounds via a
> > > "unitary executive" and, success breeding success, a *Pax Republicana*would be established in the U.S. for eons to come (with the Democratic ­ or
> > > as they said sneeringly, the "Democrat" ­ Party playing the role of Iran
> > > and going down in a similar fashion).
>
> > > *An American Nightmare
>
> > > *When you wake up in a cold sweat, your heart pounding, from a dream
> > > that's turned truly sour, sometimes it's worth trying to remember it before
> > > it evaporates, leaving only a feeling of devastation behind.
>
> > > So hold Bush's American Dream in your head for a few moments longer and
> > > consider the devastation that followed. Of Iraq, that multi-trillion-dollar
> > > war, what's left? An American expeditionary force, still 30,000-odd troops
> > > who were supposed to hunker down there forever, are instead packing their
> > > gear and heading "over the horizon." Those giant American towns ­ with
> > > their massive PXs, fast-food restaurants, gift shops, fire stations, and
> > > everything else ­ are soon to be ghost towns, likely as not looted and
> > > stripped by Iraqis.
>
> > > Multi-billions of taxpayer dollars were, of course, sunk into those
> > > American ziggurats. Now, assumedly, they are goners except for the monster
> > > embassy-cum-citadel the Bush administration built in Baghdad for
> > > three-quarters of a billion dollars. It's to house part of a 17,000-person
> > > State Department "mission" to Iraq, including 5,000 armed mercenaries, all
> > > of whom are assumedly there to ensure that American folly is not utterly
> > > absent from that country even after "withdrawal."
>
> > > Put any spin you want on that withdrawal, but this still represents a
> > > defeat of the first order, humiliation on a scale and in a time frame that
> > > would have been unimaginable in the invasion year of 2003. After all, the
> > > U.S. military was ejected from Iraq by… well, whom exactly?
>
> > > Then, of course, there's Afghanistan, where the ultimate, inevitable
> > > departure has yet to happen, where another trillion-dollar war is still
> > > going strong as if there were no holes in American pockets. The U.S. is
> > > still taking casualties, still building up its massive base structure,
> > > still training an Afghan security force of perhaps 400,000 men in a county
> > > too poor to pay for a tenth of that (which means it's ours to fund forever
> > > and a day).
>
> > > Washington still has its stimulus program in Kabul. Its diplomats and
> > > military officials shuttle in and out of Afghanistan and Pakistan in search
> > > of "reconciliation" with the Taliban, even as CIA drones pound the enemy
> > > across the Afghan border and anyone else in the vicinity. As once upon a
> > > time in Iraq, the military and the Pentagon still talk about progress being
> > > made, even while Washington's unease grows about a war that everyone is now
> > > officially willing to call "unwinnable."
>
> > > In fact, it's remarkable how consistently things that are officially going
> > > so well are actuallygoing so badly. Just the other day, for instance,
> > > despite the fact that the U.S. is training up a storm, Major General Peter
> > > Fuller, running the training program for Afghan forces, was dismissed by
> > > war commander General John Allen for dissing Afghan President Hamid Karzai
> > > and his generals. He called them "isolated from reality."
>
> > > Isolated from reality? Here's the U.S. record on the subject: it's costing
> > > Washington (and so the American taxpayer) $11.6 billion this year alone to
> > > train those security forces and yet, after years of such training, "not a
> > > single Afghan army battalion can operate without assistance from U.S. or
> > > allied units."
>
> > > You don't have to be a seer to know that this, too, represents a form of
> > > defeat, even if the enemy, as in Iraq, is an
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Posted by at No comments:

Supercommittee to Call for Unspecified Higher Taxes


Supercommittee to Call for Unspecified Higher Taxes
"With a little over a week left to reach a deal, members of the Congressional deficit reduction panel are looking for an escape hatch that would let them strike an accord on revenue levels but delay until next year tough decisions about exactly how to raise taxes." ( New York Times)

Cave in.

The Hidden Cost of Taxation
The Costs of Funding Government Spending Are Largely Unseen
Dwight R. Lee
March 2000 • Volume: 50 • Issue: 3 •

In my last column I pointed to the harm government typically does when it attempts to promote prosperity by creating jobs. Such attempts always distort the market cooperation that directs people into those jobs in which they create the greatest value. But government does have legitimate, though limited, functions, and performing them requires hiring people. If government confines itself to its legitimate role and performs efficiently, government employees will produce more value than they can in alternative jobs. Unfortunately, government neither limits itself to its legitimate functions, nor performs efficiently. I shall consider one reason for this government failure, a reason based on a distortion in the political process. Because the costs of taxation are never fully considered in political decisions, those decisions are biased in favor of excessive taxing and spending.

The costs of taxation are dispersed widely. Everyone pays taxes, so when a general tax is increased it is spread over so many people that no one individual will find the increase very burdensome. Conversely, if the tax is decreased, no one may perceive a significant benefit. And even if some people do notice the costs of a tax increase, or the benefits of a decrease, an effort to organize other taxpayers (given their large numbers, geographic dispersion, and diverse interests) to take effective political action would be difficult. This helps explain why the costs of taxation are largely ignored politically. Politicians can nudge certain taxes up without hearing from taxpayers, except for some brief grumbling.

Of course, not everyone is politically passive about tax burdens. Relatively small groups with an intense interest in the burden of particular taxes are well positioned to influence policy on those taxes. The federal tax code is full of highly specific loopholes for particular industries, and often for particular companies. Also, some general tax breaks, like interest deductions on mortgages, are seen as promoting a desirable objective (home ownership), are easily noticed as significant by taxpayers, and also benefit an organized interest (homebuilders). Thus they are politically popular.

But the tax loopholes permeating almost all tax systems add to insidious "dead weight" costs of taxation, which result from distorted economic decisions caused by all taxes, but aggravated by tax loopholes. These costs are insidious because besides being widely dispersed, they go undetected even by those who suffer from them. The result is an even greater bias toward excessive taxing and spending.


The Tax Wedge

All taxes drive a wedge between what buyers pay and sellers receive. Consumers pay more than producers receive because of sales taxes, and employers pay more than employees receive because of income taxes. Thus some production and effort worth more than it costs is not provided, and the value sacrificed is the dead-weight cost of taxation. This deadweight cost is greater when the tax system contains loopholes. When some products or activities are taxed more heavily than others, people will favor those taxed less even when they are less valuable than those more heavily taxed. For example, when much of the cost of a house is deducted from taxable income but not the cost of clothing, people will sacrifice clothing to buy a larger house, even though they value the clothing more than the additional housing space. When the profits in one industry are taxed less than the profits in other industries, people will continue adding to investments in the low-tax industry even though the additional investment would create more value in other industries.

Dead-weight costs of taxation go unnoticed, even by those who pay them, because instead of taking from people what they already have, they take from people what they would have had, but never get. No one sees the extra value that would have been created by economic decisions that would have been made without taxes. The problem here is similar to the one that governments create, and take advantage of, with tax withholding. When taxes are deducted directly from our paychecks, few of us pay much attention to just how much we are paying. Indeed, people often get excited when they overpay their taxes through withholding and get a refund at the end of the year. The tax withdrawals were hardly noticed (and neither is the interest lost because the government had the money), but the refund is obvious and seems to be a gift from the government.

Even though unnoticed, the dead-weight costs of taxation are real and significant. It has been estimated that the dead-weight costs of the federal government's raising an additional dollar equal 39 cents.1 So for the federal government to obtain an additional dollar, taxpayers have to sacrifice $1.39­$1.00 taken from them directly, plus another 39 cents in value they could have had but never will. But because people are unaware of these dead-weight costs, the political process ignores them, and government decisions that appear efficient actually destroy wealth.

Consider a government program to create jobs that pay $10 million a year in salaries. Assume that the government workers who receive these salaries will create a service worth $12 million a year. This program will be heralded as an economic success, yielding $2 million above its costs (I assume that the only input into the program is labor). But the program is a loser, as is obvious once the dead-weight costs of taxation are recognized. Based on the above dead-weight costs estimate, it will cost approximately $13.9 million dollars to raise $10 million in tax revenue-$10 million in direct tax payments, plus another $3.9 million in value sacrificed because of the economic distortions caused by those tax payments. So instead of being an economic success, the program destroys $1.9 million dollars' worth of value a year.


The Seen and Unseen

All public policies have both seen and unseen effects. Frederic Bastiat, the nineteenth-century French economist, pointed to many of the economic errors people make by focusing on the seen and ignoring the unseen.2 Although Bastiat did not discuss the unseen dead-weight costs of taxation (he did point out that politicians tend to ignore even the direct costs of taxation), there are few better examples of his general point than taxing and spending. The benefits of government spending are easily seen, and often concentrated on organized-interest groups that exaggerate them to politicians. But the costs of funding the spending, especially the dead-weight costs, are largely unseen. The result is that the political process overemphasizes the benefits of spending, under-emphasizes the costs, and consistently expands spending to economically destructive levels.

Notes
  1. See Dale Jorgenson and Kun-Young Yun, "The Excess Burden of Taxation in the United States," Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, Fall 1991, pp. 487-508.
  2. Frederic Bastiat, "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen," in Selected Essays on Political Economy (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1995 [1968]).


http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-hidden-cost-of-taxation/
Posted by at No comments:

Re: The GOP's Dream World of Empire

Keith, Agreed, except for this part:

" what's recalled is kited intelligence, Saddam Hussein's nonexistent
nuclear arsenal, dumb and even dumber decisions, a bloody civil war,
dead Americans, crony corporations, a trillion or more taxpayer
dollars flushed down the toilet… "

On Nov 13, 9:53 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geesh, what a total misrepresentation of contemporary history and partisan
> hogwash.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:38 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > *The GOP's Dream World of Empire
> > *Posted by Christopher Manion <c...@manionmusic.com> on November 13, 2011
> > 02:11 PM
>
> > Revisited and embraced by the debating dwarfs, rejected by Ron Paul, and
> > recounted<http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/an-all-american-nightmare/>(for those who need a refresher course) by Tom Engelhardt.
>
> > xxx
>
> > *An All-American Nightmare
> > **From TomDispatch: This is what defeat looks like
> > *By Tom Engelhardt | November 8, 2011
>
> > How about a moment of silence for the passing of the American Dream?
> > M.R.I.C. (May it rest in carnage.)
>
> > No, I'm not talking about the old dream of opportunity that involved
> > homeownership, a better job than your parents had, a decent pension, and
> > all the rest of the package that's so yesterday, so underwater, so OWS. I'm
> > talking about a far more recent dream, a truly audacious one that's
> > similarly gone with the wind.
>
> > I'm talking about George W. Bush's American Dream. If people here remember
> > the invasion of Iraq -- and most Americans would undoubtedly prefer to
> > forget it -- what's recalled is kited intelligence, Saddam Hussein's
> > nonexistent nuclear arsenal, dumb and even dumber decisions, a bloody civil
> > war, dead Americans, crony corporations, a trillion or more taxpayer
> > dollars flushed down the toilet… well, you know the story. What few care to
> > remember was that original dream ­ call it The Dream -- and boy, was it a
> > beaut!
>
> > *An American Dream
>
> > *It went something like this: Back in early 2003, the top officials of
> > the Bush administration had no doubt that Saddam Hussein's Iraq, drained by
> > years of war, no-fly zones, and sanctions, would be a pushover; that the
> > U.S. military, which they idolized and romanticized, would waltz to
> > Baghdad. (The word one of their supporters used in the *Washington Post*for the onrushing invasion was a "cakewalk.") Nor did they doubt that those
> > troops would be greeted as liberators, even saviors, by throngs of adoring,
> > previously suppressed Shiites strewing flowers* *in their path. (No
> > kidding, no exaggeration.)
>
> > How easy it would be then to install a "democratic" government in Baghdad
> > -- which meant their autocratic candidate Ahmad Chalabi -- set up four or
> > five strategically situated military mega-bases, exceedingly well-armed
> > American small towns already on the drawing boards before the invasion
> > began, and so dominate the oil heartlands of the planet in ways even the
> > Brits, at the height of their empire, wouldn't have dreamed possible. (Yes,
> > the neocons were then bragging that we would outdo the Roman and British
> > empires rolled into one!)
>
> > As there would be no real resistance, the American invasion force could
> > begin withdrawing as early as the fall of 2003, leaving perhaps 30,000 to
> > 40,000 troops, the U.S. Air Force, and various spooks and private
> > contractors behind to garrison a grateful country ad infinitum (on what was
> > then called "the South Korean model"). Iraq's state-run economy would be
> > privatized and its oil resources thrown open to giant global energy
> > companies, especially American ones, which would rebuild the industry and
> > begin pumping millions of barrels of that country's vast reserves, thus
> > undermining the OPEC cartel's control over the oil market.
>
> > And mind you, it would hardly cost a cent. Well, at its unlikely worst,
> > maybe $100 billion to $200 billion, but as Iraq, in the phrase* *of
> > then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, "floats on a sea of oil,"
> > most of it could undoubtedly be covered, in the end, by the Iraqis
> > themselves.
>
> > Now, doesn't going down memory lane just take your breath away? And yet,
> > Iraq was a bare beginning for Bush's dreamers, who clearly felt like so
> > many proverbial kids in a candy shop (even if they acted like bulls in a
> > china shop).  Syria, caught in a strategic pincer between Israel and
> > American Iraq, would naturally bow down; the Iranians, caught similarly
> > between American Iraq and American Afghanistan, would go down big time, too
> > ­ or simply be taken down Iraqi-style, and who would complain? (As the
> > neocon quip of the moment went: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad.  Real men
> > want to go to Tehran.")
>
> > And that wasn't all. Bush's top officials had been fervent Cold Warriors
> > in the days before the U.S. became "the sole superpower," and they saw the
> > new Russia stepping into those old Soviet boots. Having taken down the
> > Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, they were already building a network
> > of bases there, too. (Let a thousand Korean models bloom!) Next on the
> > agenda would be rolling the Russians right out of their "near abroad," the
> > former Soviet Socialist Republics, now independent states, of Central Asia.
>
> > What glory! Thanks to the unparalleled power of the U.S. military,
> > Washington would control the Greater Middle East from the Mediterranean to
> > the Chinese border and would be beholden to no one when victory came. Great
> > powers, phooey! They were talking about a *Pax Americana* on which the
> > sun could never set. Meanwhile, there were so many other handy perks: the
> > White House would be loosed* *from its constitutional bounds via a
> > "unitary executive" and, success breeding success, a *Pax Republicana*would be established in the U.S. for eons to come (with the Democratic ­ or
> > as they said sneeringly, the "Democrat" ­ Party playing the role of Iran
> > and going down in a similar fashion).
>
> > *An American Nightmare
>
> > *When you wake up in a cold sweat, your heart pounding, from a dream
> > that's turned truly sour, sometimes it's worth trying to remember it before
> > it evaporates, leaving only a feeling of devastation behind.
>
> > So hold Bush's American Dream in your head for a few moments longer and
> > consider the devastation that followed. Of Iraq, that multi-trillion-dollar
> > war, what's left? An American expeditionary force, still 30,000-odd troops
> > who were supposed to hunker down there forever, are instead packing their
> > gear and heading "over the horizon." Those giant American towns ­ with
> > their massive PXs, fast-food restaurants, gift shops, fire stations, and
> > everything else ­ are soon to be ghost towns, likely as not looted and
> > stripped by Iraqis.
>
> > Multi-billions of taxpayer dollars were, of course, sunk into those
> > American ziggurats. Now, assumedly, they are goners except for the monster
> > embassy-cum-citadel the Bush administration built in Baghdad for
> > three-quarters of a billion dollars. It's to house part of a 17,000-person
> > State Department "mission" to Iraq, including 5,000 armed mercenaries, all
> > of whom are assumedly there to ensure that American folly is not utterly
> > absent from that country even after "withdrawal."
>
> > Put any spin you want on that withdrawal, but this still represents a
> > defeat of the first order, humiliation on a scale and in a time frame that
> > would have been unimaginable in the invasion year of 2003. After all, the
> > U.S. military was ejected from Iraq by… well, whom exactly?
>
> > Then, of course, there's Afghanistan, where the ultimate, inevitable
> > departure has yet to happen, where another trillion-dollar war is still
> > going strong as if there were no holes in American pockets. The U.S. is
> > still taking casualties, still building up its massive base structure,
> > still training an Afghan security force of perhaps 400,000 men in a county
> > too poor to pay for a tenth of that (which means it's ours to fund forever
> > and a day).
>
> > Washington still has its stimulus program in Kabul. Its diplomats and
> > military officials shuttle in and out of Afghanistan and Pakistan in search
> > of "reconciliation" with the Taliban, even as CIA drones pound the enemy
> > across the Afghan border and anyone else in the vicinity. As once upon a
> > time in Iraq, the military and the Pentagon still talk about progress being
> > made, even while Washington's unease grows about a war that everyone is now
> > officially willing to call "unwinnable."
>
> > In fact, it's remarkable how consistently things that are officially going
> > so well are actuallygoing so badly. Just the other day, for instance,
> > despite the fact that the U.S. is training up a storm, Major General Peter
> > Fuller, running the training program for Afghan forces, was dismissed by
> > war commander General John Allen for dissing Afghan President Hamid Karzai
> > and his generals. He called them "isolated from reality."
>
> > Isolated from reality? Here's the U.S. record on the subject: it's costing
> > Washington (and so the American taxpayer) $11.6 billion this year alone to
> > train those security forces and yet, after years of such training, "not a
> > single Afghan army battalion can operate without assistance from U.S. or
> > allied units."
>
> > You don't have to be a seer to know that this, too, represents a form of
> > defeat, even if the enemy, as in Iraq, is an underwhelming set of ragtag
> > minority insurgencies. Still, it's more or less a given that any American
> > dreams for Afghanistan, like Britain's and Russia's before it, will be
> > buried someday in the rubble of a devastated but resistant land, no matter
> > what resources Washington choses to continue to squander on the task.
>
> > This, simply put, is part of a larger landscape of imperial defeat.
>
> > *Cold Sweats at Dawn
>
> > *Yes, we've lost in Iraq and yes, we're losing in Afghanistan, but if you
> > want a little geopolitical turn of the screw that captures the *zeitgeist
> > *of the moment, check out one of the first statements of Almazbek
> > Atambayev after his recent election as president of Kyrgyzstan, a country
> > you've probably never spent a second thinking about.
>
> > Keep in mind
>
> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  MoonbatsConverging.jpg
> 142KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Posted by at No comments:

Instructions for Proper Arrangement of Deck Chairs on the U.S.S. ('Too Big To Sink') Titanic


Instructions for Proper Arrangement of Deck Chairs on the U.S.S. ('Too Big To Sink') Titanic
by David Franke

[David Franke was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America's Right Turn.]

As the U.S.S. Titanic [American Empire] steams full speed ahead for New York harbor [the November 6, 2012 elections], we find no need to provide a deck chair for Captain Barack Hussein Obama. He has no desire to socialize with deck-chair scum.

Captain Obama is having too much fun socializing with his most prominent first class passengers [Wall Street], while criticizing his opponents for ignoring the second-class passengers and scuttling the third-class passengers he himself is about to imprison below deck. The captain realizes his first-class cigar partners are really in charge, so why not just enjoy the perks. Missus Michelle is having too much fun lording it over the ladies, so he can enjoy his cigars safe from her scrutiny.

On board deck, therefore, are chairs for eight would-be replacements for Captain Obama. Note: The U.S.S. Titanic is a "democratic" (lower-case "d") ship, where the passengers vote for their choice of captain. This organization plan has never been proven to work well, although, as Winston Churchill noted, none of the other plans seem to work any better.

The question remains, then, how to arrange the deck chairs of the "opposition" to Captain Obama. While the top first class passengers will still remain in control, this is a matter of endless fascination to the media passengers who convinced their bosses that this is a story worth covering (and paying for, with their expensive cabins).

We suggest a three-part organization of those deck chairs.
  1. The establishment candidates
  2. The "anti-establishment" candidates (aka conservative clowns)
  3. The prophet (we are required by law to provide him with a chair, but our solution will be to just ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist)

The establishment candidates

Front chair occupied by Mitt Romney. Back chair (perilously near the ocean edge of the deck) occupied by Jon Huntsman.


The "anti-establishment" conservative clowns

These seats are occupied by Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and – oh, yes – Rick Santorum. These seats rotate according to the media's boredom factor. When they get tired of one clown, switch the chairs and the next "flavor of the month" gets the front chair. Except that Santorum, with his Google problem, who never seems to get that front seat.


The "prophet"

There's no doubt who sits in this chair, all alone: Ron Paul. But is he Captain Barr of the Cunardia Caronia, warning of icebergs ahead? Or the captain of the Greek steamer Athinai warning of the same iceberg danger, only closer? Or, finally, the California, warning "We are stopped and surrounded by ice"? No matter. We will just ignore him.

To listen to the prophet, you see, would require the Titanic to change course. And nobody really wants to do that because the Titanic is on the fastest path across the Atlantic, and this is a cruise for addicted gamblers.

If the "Titanic" wins the race across the Atlantic, the first-class passengers stand to win a bundle of derivatives upon disembarkation in Lower Manhattan.

The second-class passengers are told they will be taken care of until death with pension derivatives and medical-care derivatives.

And the third-class passengers – well, they have been convinced they cannot make it across the Atlantic on their own and must depend on smarter people to get them there. Plus, one of them stands to win the lottery and get a bundle of derivatives like those in first class. Lotteries are very popular in third class.

The media passengers? Well, none of them has studied navigation, so they think the Titanic's course is the only way to get across the Atlantic.

The only way to deal with Prophet Paul, therefore, is to ignore him. And so he is ignored by the establishment media. He gets just 90 seconds in the GOP presidential debate on foreign policy on Saturday, November 12, for example. Old Testament prophets have never been faves on TV, anyway, unless they are safely ensconced in the historical past.

Of course the next step is Titanic lookout Frederick Fleet's chilling and to-the-point message: "Iceberg ahead!" But by then it is too late.

http://lewrockwell.com/franke/franke21.1.html
Posted by at No comments:

Fwd: [LA-F] Britain could become enormous Los Angeles-style ghetto under planning reforms, warns leading architect



----------


Britain could become enormous Los Angeles-style ghetto under planning reforms, warns leading architect

By Rick Dewsbury

Last updated at 12:52 PM on 14th November 2011

A leading architect has launched a scathing attack on Government planning reforms and warned that large parts of the country could resemble Los Angeles.

Lord Rogers of Riverside claims that under the plans Britain's biggest cities could merge into one enormous urban sprawl.

The respected designer said that the reforms were 'fundamentally flawed' and called on ministers to make more of an effort to improve current towns and cities.

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133a22cde40afe7c&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw>

Metropolis: Parts of Britain could join up and come to resemble Los Angeles, pictured, according to leading architect Lord Rogers

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133a22cde40afe7c&attid=0.1.2&disp=emb&zw>

Capital: London could become an enormous mess with more new housing estates built in the suburbs instead of redeveloping inner-city areas

London could come to resemble the rolling ghettos of Los Angeles, where a string of urban areas of connected. Bristol could link to Bath while tranquil Devon may descend into scenes more like the south of France.

'Cities and the countryside are two sides of the same coin - we need to conserve both. The reason we want beautiful hills and scenery is because we often live in cities and see them as our safety valve and escape,' Lord Rogers told the Times.

He added: 'Cities are the engines of the economy, the heart of our culture and places of innovation. If the framework is not greatly improved it will lead to the breakdown and fragmentation of cities and neighbourhoods as well as the erosion of the countryside.'

Lord Rogers' criticisms come amid a growing backlash against David Cameron by rural voters who feel betrayed by the relaxation of planning.

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133a22cde40afe7c&attid=0.1.3&disp=emb&zw>

Rundown: The St Paul's area of Bristol. Lord Rogers fears that, instead of rejuvenating the city centre, suburbs could expand into neighboring Bath

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133a22cde40afe7c&attid=0.1.4&disp=emb&zw>

Historic and untouched: Pulteney Bridge in Bath. Encroachment from larger and more modern communities would ruin Bath's charm

The Government's bid to reduce planning laws from more than 1,000 pages to just over 50 has also sparked concern among environmental groups.

The National Trust, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and Friends Of The Earth are among those protesting against the reforms.

Until now the fears over the plans had been limited to the countryside. Lord Rogers is the first person to voice concern about the effect upon major cities.

The architect, who designed the Millennium Dome, the Lloyds Building and the Pompidou Centre in Paris, said that regions needed regeneration not more building.

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133a22cde40afe7c&attid=0.1.5&disp=emb&zw>

Planning warning: The respected architect, Lord Rogers of Riverside

He said Britain could 'very easily' become like the Californian city of Los Angeles with 'rust belts and towns joining each other'.

Cities such as Birmingham and Milton Keynes, Bristol and Bath would also begin to merge into the unsightly metropolises. 

Lord Rogers said that, although the south of France was 'once heavenly', it had become a 'nightmare' - following decades of uncontrolled planning that has 'trashed' the area. The same could happen in British beauty spots such as the Lake District, Cornwall and Devon.

He said planning was not about 'short-term finances', as the negative impact could be felt for hundreds of years. Sacrificing the country would not even begin to kick-start the economy but would leave lasting scars.

The architect called for derelict buildings in rundown areas to redeveloped in order to bring life back to cities.

He added: 'We need well-run cities that are well-built, well connected, compact, with great transport, without sprawl, with a good poor-rich mix, good public spaces, good design, varied shopping, mixed living and working. It hasn't changed much since 6,000 years ago.'

'We need well-run cities that are well-built, well connected, compact, with great transport, without sprawl, with a good poor-rich mix, good public spaces, good design, varied shopping, mixed living and working. It hasn't changed much since 6,000 years ago'

David Cameron was told last week that coalition moves to roll back planning restrictions are 'contradictory and confusing'.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, an influential Commons committee warned reforms that will introduce a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' are 'unsatisfactory' and vulnerable to legal challenges.

Ministers claim the new rules are a vital part of plans to kick-start economic growth but campaigners, including the National Trust, fear they will allow the countryside to be carved up.

The Environmental Audit Committee has called for a clearer definition of the wording in the new national planning policy framework (NPPF).

Joan Walley, who chairs the committee, said: 'As it currently stands, the new planning policy framework appears contradictory and confusing. It pays lip service to sustainable development without providing a clear definition, potentially leaving future planning decisions open to legal challenges.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061260/Britain-Los-Angeles-style-ghetto-planning-reforms-warns-Lord-Rogers.html#ixzz1dgUhfERB

--
Mario Huet
Libertarian Alliance Forum
List Administrator

**********************************************
Words cannot picture her; but all men know  
That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought
**********************************************
James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)