World News: May 21, 2012

Monday, May 21, 2012

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Really Cool Website

by Dave

This link below is to a site that demonstrates the vast scale of the Universe.

Click here.

And be sure and gather the kids around, because they are going to love this, too.

-Dave

(h/t: Neal Boortz)

Dave | May 14, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-ejZ

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/really-cool-website/

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

--
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.

Germany's Best Selling Newspaper Just Published A Map Of The Biggest Breasts In The World

http://www.businessinsider.com/bild-breast-map-atlas-der-korbchengrossen-2012-4

Ukrainian Activists Unveil Stalin Pis Monuments

http://en.ria.ru/culture/20120508/173302413.html

Born in Kenya?

http://wasobamaborninkenya.com/

Dearborn Arab shoots black customer in back, kills, media ignores

New post on Creeping Sharia

Dearborn Arab shoots black customer in back, kills, media ignores

by creeping

The killing happened on March 9 but curiously national media attention has been nil as have been the typical race-baiting mouthpieces. Neither would dare question the Muslim or Arab community they've protected for so long. via Clerk Charged With Murder In Gas Station Shooting Over Condoms « CBS Detroit. h/t Ms Kafir DETROIT (WWJ) – [...]

Chicago Occu-Traitors Chant During NATO Protest: ‘What Do We Want? Dead Cops!’

New post on therightplanet.com

Chicago Occu-Traitors Chant During NATO Protest: 'What Do We Want? Dead Cops!'

by Sard

Brought to you by the Government-Sponsored Enterprise--ObamaCorp ...

Via Chicago Sun-Times:

Several thousand protesters spent five hours peacefully chanting, singing and marching against war. At the end, nearly 40 young veterans dramatically took their military medals and hurled them toward McCormick Place, where world leaders met behind closed doors.

It was supposed to end there — at Michigan and Cermak.

But a "Black Bloc" of about 100 anarchists wanted something else. The group, which chanted "What do we want? Dead cops!" as it left Grant Park at 2 p.m., surged to the front of the protest crowd and tried to break through the imposing line of Chicago cops in riot gear blocking its path.

Then, in a scene Chicagoans feared ever since the city learned it would host the NATO Summit, the two sides violently clashed on live TV, with police nightsticks flailing and protesters unleashing a volley of sticks, bottles and at least one rock.

The battle at Michigan and Cermak flared and then slowed, and then flared again in bursts between 5 and 6:30 p.m. By then, much of the Black Bloc had slipped away, leaving behind a scene of bloodied protesters and four injured cops, including one stabbed in the leg.

With police intent on pushing protesters west away from the NATO Summit, and the Black Bloc hell bent on pushing east towards President Barack Obama and dozens of world leaders, the clash seemed an inevitable conclusion to months of debate over how and where the protest would end.

[...]

America's first gay president

A Picture is worth a thousand words

The questions in the article lead me to wonder how a person on a Fulbright scholarship as a foreign student became a millionaire President of the USA starting on a $12,000/year job as a community organizer?

YOU JUST CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS AWAY - - :
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider.

I voted for Obama. McCain was a Washington insider and we don't need any more of them.

I have changed my mind three times, since then. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another.

I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.

I started thinking "where does all the money come from for President Obama?"

I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's history for my own peace of mind.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California .

He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies.

"Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan . During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip.

Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia , next Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.

My question - Where did he get the money for this trip?

Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.

Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia ? It's not cheap! To say the least. My girls asked me; where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe its none of my business?

After Columbia , he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago ?

Why not New York ? He was already living in New York .

By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery several times in the past and in 2011 Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association."

About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School .

Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School ?

Where did he get the money for Law School ?

More student loans? His family had no money thats for sure.

After Law school, he went back to Chicago .

Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.

But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

Guess what I discovered?

They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago .

In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for this property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire, loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first.

Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz , Iran ! Am I going nuts or is there a pattern here?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas," which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran .

This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq , he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things." What the heck does that mean?
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that were born in Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from?.............

The poor and middle class in this country?

Or could it be from the Middle East ?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2009, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith." When questioned, "he made a mistake." Some mistake huh?
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it -

Wikipedia, encyclopedia,

Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981;

The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own.

WHY haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the PRESS been reporting this?

Is this a Kettle of smelly imported Fish??

These are legitimate questions for the President and all Americans.

Will History report our President was bought and paid for?

- Show me the money . . FOREIGN STUDENT

Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 1

Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 1
George H. Smith
08 May 2012

Smith begins his series on neoconservatism by exploring some of its fundamental differences with libertarianism.

"If you ever read a sentence that starts with 'Neocons believe,' there is a 99.44 percent chance that everything else in that sentence will be untrue." So wrote the neoconservative columnist David Brooks in a New York Times op-ed (January 2004).

Many "neoconservatives" -- a label coined in 1973 by the socialist Michael Harrington to express his displeasure with supposed liberals who were defending conservative ideas and policies -- insist that neoconservatism is not a monolithic system of thought, and they point out that neoconservatives disagree among themselves on significant issues.

According to James Q. Wilson, neoconservatism "is neither an ideology nor a movement." An ideology is systematic worldview, and there "is nothing systematic about neoconservatism." Neoconservatism is more accurately described as an intellectual orientation, impulse, perspective, or mood. Similarly, Irving Kristol (the "godfather" of neoconservatism) dubbed neoconservatism a "persuasion."

Even these assertions, vague as they are, have not received unanimous assent among prominent neoconservatives. Mark Gerson, author of The Neoconservative Vision (the best overview of neoconservative thought) and editor of The Essential Neoconservative Reader, claimed that neoconservatism is "a comprehensive outlook on economics, politics, culture, and society linked by common principles and a distinctive vision." Although it may not signify a set of doctrines and so not qualify as an ideology in the strict sense, "the term neoconservative does in fact capture a genuine political grouping with a coherent and distinctive ideological orientation."

If prominent spokespersons for this orientation, impulse, or persuasion (or whatever we care to call it) cannot agree on what neoconservatism is – or, in some cases, even if it is – an outsider, especially a libertarian who comes to criticize rather than to praise, may perhaps be forgiven for indulging in generalizations with which some neoconservatives may disagree. The best he can hope for is to capture the essence of this elusive creature.

It is customary in a survey of neoconservatism to mention that some first-generation neocons were Trotskyists in their early years – a fact that does not merit the attention that some critics have given it – after which they became New Deal liberals with a fiercely anti-communist bent. These founders moved gradually to the political right, especially in reaction to the student rebellion and counterculture of the Vietnam era. By the early 1970s neocons were giving what Irving Kristol called "two cheers for capitalism." As he put it in an oft-quoted remark, "A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

What is the political philosophy of neoconservatism?

One way to approach this issue is to contrast neoconservatism with libertarianism. Some neocons have used this comparative method as well, but more often than not their characterizations of libertarianism are mere caricatures. Time and again we are told that libertarians are "economic determinists" who are oblivious to the crucial role of ideas in social and political change, that they ignore the moral and cultural foundations of a free society, that they favor an "anything goes" type of moral libertinism, that they regard the outcome of every voluntary market transaction as indiscriminately praiseworthy, that they are "social atomists" with no appreciation for the importance of families and communities, and so forth.

These misrepresentations are so egregious and systematic that one must question the reading and comprehension skills of neocons, or their intellectual honesty. (A notable exception is the Catholic philosopher Michael Novak, author of The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism and other works.)

Neoconservatives typically dismiss advocates of laissez-faire as "utopian" (i.e., unworthy of serious consideration). It is "idle," wrote Irving Kristol, "to talk about returning to a 'free enterprise' system in which government will play the modest role it used to. The idea of such a counterrevolution is utopian." The welfare state "is in itself perfectly consistent with a conservative political philosophy – as Bismarck knew, a hundred years ago." (Leave it to a neoconservative to offer Bismarck's authoritarian welfare-warfare state as a positive example.) Americans need and demand governmental assistance, so the "only interesting political question is: How will they get it?"

In their quest for a conservative welfare state, neocons often employ the "Law of Unintended Consequences" to criticize specific programs not to their liking. "A liberal and compassionate social policy," according to Kristol, "has bred all sorts of unanticipated and perverse consequences." This does not mean that neoconservatives oppose welfare programs as such; rather, in the words of James Q. Wilson, if something ought to be done by government, "it is necessary to do that something cautiously, experimentally, and with a minimum of bureaucratic authority."

The rub, of course, comes in deciding what a government ought and ought not to do. For libertarians, a key factor in resolving this problem is the fact that governments use coercive means to attain their goals, in contrast to the voluntary cooperation that we find in social interaction. The question of the proper role and limits of government therefore reduces to the question of when it is morally proper to coerce others.

This emphasis on the moral difference between coercion and persuasion has typified the libertarian approach to political philosophy for centuries. John Milton, writing in 1644, declared that the "great art" of political philosophy is "to discern in what the law is to bid restraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." John Locke expressed a similar idea several decades later when he noted that "it is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties."

This distinction, which is fraught with profound moral implications, lies at the heart of libertarian theory; yet, according to many neocons, libertarians have ignored the moral foundations of a free society. A curious soul might therefore ask: What is the neoconservative position on when coercion may legitimately be used in human relationships?

Neocons, for all their moral posturing, rarely if ever address this problem in a straightforward manner. It seems this question is too ideological for their tastes, so their answer is buried beneath verbiage – sufficiently vague so as to tax the patience of even sympathetic readers – about democratic institutions, community, and "bourgeois" values.

According to Mark Gerson: "Freedom is an essential good, but it must serve the larger end of societal virtue. Freedom in not an end in itself; it is a means to serve virtue, which is nurtured and developed through communities."

Although few libertarians would claim that freedom is an end in itself (whatever that is supposed to mean), they do insist that individual freedom is the highest political value, and that governments should be assessed as good or bad to the degree they protect and preserve this value.

Neoconservatives occasionally come close to saying the same thing, but they frequently go on to attack the libertarian view of "freedom." Individual freedom, they claim, should be balanced with the "freedom" of communities to determine their own values. Several decades ago Richard Neuhaus and Peter Berger warned that "an unbalanced emphasis upon individual rights has seriously eroded the community's power to sustain its democratically determined values in the public sphere."

Of course, these "democratically determined values" include the prohibition of pornography, prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes that neocons might find personally offensive. Should a community decide to prohibit activities of which neocons approve, or should a community vote to legalize activities of which neocons disapprove, one can expect neocons to show considerably less enthusiasm for "democratically determined values." Generally speaking, neocons favor freedom in the abstract; it is the exercise of freedom in particular cases that they have a problem with.

According to Adam Wolfson, "Neoconservatives object not only to the libertarian critique of Big Government but also to its cramped understanding of liberty." Libertarians defend every conceivable type of freedom except that of self-government. And what, precisely, is the freedom of self-government? It is the "freedom" of a community to decide which values should be coercively imposed on members of that community.

Hence, according to Wolfson, in defending the individual's right to choose, the libertarian seeks to forbid "individuals from acting together to determine what laws they shall live under." Translated, this means that libertarians deny the "freedom" of some individuals, including a majority, to violate the equal freedom of others. John Locke and other classical liberals frequently referred to this kind of freedom as "license" and even as "tyranny," but neocons prefer to call it democratic freedom.

This neoconservative notion of "freedom" is more congenial to the tradition of democratic totalitarianism, such as defended by J.J. Rousseau, than to the tradition of limited government, such as defended by Thomas Jefferson. Few neocons would agree with Jefferson's call for "a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Neoconservatives sometimes speak of "the cultural contradictions of capitalism" – a phrase that comes from the title of a 1976 book by the sociologist Daniel Bell, who described himself as "a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture." The themes developed by Bell are complex; but, as boiled down for popular consumption by neoconservatives, they reduce to the claim that capitalism tends to generate a culture of hedonism by catering to the subjective wants of consumers. And this, it is further claimed, undercuts the values that are essential to the survival of capitalism itself.

In the ever-changing dynamics of a capitalistic society, people who no longer feel bound by the moral authority of tradition have both the freedom and leisure to rebel against the values of this society and participate in an "adversary culture." Thus "the major question of our age," argued Irving Kristol, is how we can prevent the moral and cultural values essential to capitalism from being eroded, and eventually destroyed, by the personal freedom which capitalism offers.

Mark Gerson tells us that capitalism can breed "degeneracy bred by affluence." If a "healthy culture" is to be maintained, a democratic government must regulate or prohibit "some of the more unfortunate cultural outgrowths of capitalism. These might include pornography, prostitution, gangsta rap music, and other potential economic goods that often serve to undermine the bourgeois values upon which capitalism relies." Capitalism cannot survive without a "traditional culture" that sustains bourgeois values.

What are these bourgeois values and virtues? The answer to this question depends on which neoconservative you happen to read. Here, in alphabetical order, is a list compiled from a handful of neoconservative writers: concern for family (called "familial socialism" by one neocon), deference towards traditional religions, delayed gratification, diligence, firm moral convictions, foresight (a reasonable concern for distant consequences), frugality, honest ambition, humility, industry (the willingness to work hard to improve one's condition), justice (regard for the rights of others), lack of the expectation to receive something for nothing, nonutopian expectations, order, piety, probity, prudence, punctuality, rectitude, reliability, resolution, respect for law, self-discipline, self-reliance, silence, sobriety, and temperance.

This list, which reads like an unabridged version of the Boy Scout credo, raises an obvious question: Which of these values and virtues should be enforced by the coercive arm of government, and which should be left to the voluntary interaction of individuals?

The libertarian answers this question by distinguishing between crimes and vices. A "crime" is a violation of the rules of justice, an action that violates the rights of another person; whereas a "vice" is a personal failing that, though it may affect others adversely, does not involve coercion. This is essentially what Adam Smith had in mind when he referred to "that remarkable distinction between justice and all the other social virtues" and insisted that virtues other than justice "cannot, among equals, be extorted by force." Justice is the "main pillar that upholds the whole edifice" of social order. The other virtues, in contrast, are ornaments that embellish the building and which are therefore "sufficient to recommend, but by no means necessary to impose."

Neocons take exception to this approach. Indeed, Irving Kristol claimed that Adam Smith was unduly complacent about the moral virtues needed to sustain a free society, believing that the self-interested actions of individuals would somehow produce desirable outcomes automatically. Never mind that Smith believed no such thing. Kristol, in an ideological tour de force, proclaimed that libertarians in general are "unmindful of culture" and simply don't understand the connection between morality and a free society.

Many libertarian writers, such as Wilhelm von Humboldt and Herbert Spencer, addressed the relationship between freedom and culture in considerable detail. Moreover, Ayn Rand, one of the most influential figures in modern libertarian thought, wrote extensively on the moral and cultural foundations of capitalism, but she is rarely mentioned in the literature of neoconservatism, except to be ridiculed and curtly dismissed as the founder of a "cult."

It apparently takes a good neoconservative to understand that some immoral actions and tendencies, even those that don't violate the rights of other people, are social "diseases" that only governmental coercion can cure. So much for the bourgeois virtue of personal responsibility.

Continued in Part 2.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/neoconservatism-versus-libertarianism-part-1

Safety Bulletin FROM THE FIRE CHIEF

Thought this should be brought to everyone's attention.

Pics and toons 5/21/12 (3)

Pics and toons 5/21/12 (2)

Pics and toons 5/21/12 (1)

Re: JP - Why you should look around your vehicle ?

Jazakallah for sharing such a nice information. I urge all my friends to please check their vehicles parked area and especially before starting the engine as some times small animals like cats are rest in Engine room area. In Saudia, my uncle faced the trouble when started engine in the morning and one cats lost her lives because she was stuck in engine belts.

Thanks

Malik Saeed

From: UN Barry <unbarry@yahoo.com>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: **JP** - Why you should look around your vehicle ?

From: M. Nadeem <nadeem_mirza@yahoo.com>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:49 PM
Subject: FW: Sharing - Why you should look around your vehicle

Thanks Imran, Jazaak Allah Khair

--- On Mon, 5/14/12, Imran Ahmed <i_ahmed@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Imran Ahmed <i_ahmed@hotmail.com>
Subject: FW: Sharing - Why you should look around your vehicle
To:
Date: Monday, May 14, 2012, 6:39 PM
The content of this electronic communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and any others who are specifically authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or otherwise placing reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful in certain legal jurisdictions. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system.
From: Sagar Ashok Likhite [mailto:Sagar_Likhite@infosys.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 1:16 PM
Subject: Sharing - Why you should look around your vehicle

Pl. forward to all.

A very good information received on part of Defensive Driving – Please share with team and your family member

This is a good example of why you should look around your vehicle before leaving your driveway/parking area.

You can see this young child in the wheel well of the truck. A Pike crew working for another Utility found this child while conducting a CIRCLE OF SAFETY of the company truck the crew members were driving. I don't want to think about what would have happened if the employee had gotten in the truck and drove off without doing a walk around. Please share this eye opening, bone chilling photo and experience with your work groups.

This crew has also reported children climbing into the back of company vehicles. Keep in mind children will be out of school on summer break soon so be sure to watch out for them!!

Just another reason for us to do the vehicle CIRCLE OF SAFETY before driving off in our vehicles.

**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely
for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not
to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and
any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken
every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage
you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your
own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the
right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail
address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the
Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***

--
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