Thursday, April 28, 2016

Trump and the woman card

Talking Points Memo

Labels: ,

A Muslim mayor of London?


Next month London voters will elect a new mayor. From The Spectre Of Mayor Khan's Islamist London:

...Here in London, which is home to about a third of British Muslims (including thousands of migrants who live below the radar of the authorities), we have already seen the assertion of power by political Islam. The takeover of Tower Hamlets by a corrupt Islamist politician, Lutfur Rahman, may be a harbinger of things to come. Last year he was removed from office by special commissioners, but for five years Rahman and his cronies ran a borough of nearly 300,000 people, distributing a budget of more than £1 billion. 

It is worth noting that after being ousted from the Labour Party, he was able to replace it with a notionally “independent” but in practice sectarian group, even though Muslims officially make up only a third of the population. The Muslim “block vote” is such a formidable electoral force that for Islamists to dominate a city it does not need to have a Muslim majority.

The greatest prize, of course, is London itself. By the time you read this, the capital may already have elected the first Muslim Mayor of London: Sadiq Khan. At the time of writing, polls predict that Khan, who is also Labour MP for Tooting, will win by a larger majority than either of his predecessors, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. 

Khan has worked hard at projecting a moderate image as a modern, liberal Muslim with no sectarian baggage. He no longer protests, as he did in 2004, that Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi perhaps the most influential preacher in the whole Islamic world — is “not an extremist”. (The Sheikh says that Hitler “put Jews in their place”.) He has carefully distanced himself from Babar Ahmad, who was later convicted of terrorist offences, and other extremists with whom he was once associated. 

But he knows very well how important the Muslim vote is for Labour. At least ten London boroughs have large, mainly conservative Muslim communities, where children grow up in an Islamic monoculture and women are covered or veiled...


Labels:

Prince was a religious crackpot



Can't claim that I was ever a big Prince fan, but I didn't know that he was a religious crackpot who opposed gay marriage, which of course doesn't necessarily say anything about his talent. Raised as a Seventh Day Adventist, he later became a Jehovah's Witness who did the door-to-door thing:

A newspaper in his hometown reported how a married couple had answered their door to find Prince proffering a copy of the Watchtower. Though they were orthodox Jews, and it was Yom Kippur, they were also Prince fans. They welcomed him into the house.

Labels:

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Hillary the hawk is a myth




The New York Times magazine published a lengthy profile of Hillary Clinton under an illustration of her as a toy soldier and the headline "How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk."

The profile, by Mark Landler, traces her evolution on foreign policy, explores her legacy as secretary of state, and seeks to deduce a Clinton worldview. It's fascinating, deeply reported, and well worth reading. It also reiterates what is perhaps the defining piece of conventional wisdom about Hillary Clinton and foreign policy: she is a super-hawk...

A few hours after the piece went online, something else was published comparing the presidential candidates on foreign policy. And the story it told could not have been more different.

It was a simple scorecard, assembled by a non-partisan nuclear nonproliferation group called Global Zero, comparing the five remaining candidates on a battery of eight foreign policy issues.

On every issue that Global Zero measured, Clinton is indicated as far less hawkish than all three of the Republican candidates, and as basically tied with Bernie Sanders. She supports the Iran nuclear deal; the Republicans all oppose it. She supports using diplomacy to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis; John Kasich is the only Republican to do so. She supports negotiating with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons; no Republican candidate does.

This measured only policies related to nuclear weapons, and so is far from comprehensive. But on these major geopolitical challenges — including the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, which seem among the few crises that could plausibly draw the US into war — Clinton is significantly more dovish than all three Republican candidates...


The above is an antidote to the self-righteous stupidity of the ultra-left. From Alternet:

Nothing in Clinton's record proves that she can or will work to curb the national-security mania, the militarist juggernaut and predatory marketing and lending that have trapped us like flies in a spider’s web of 800-numbered, sticky-fingered pick-pocketing machines that are pumping not only inequality but heartsickness and violence into our daily lives...

Labels:

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Tim Redmond and the failure of the left

There's a lot to argue with in Tim Redmond's ultra-left version of recent city history, but this statement can't go without a response: "Gavin Newsom, who wants to be the next governor of California, got his start in local politics attacking homeless people."

That is simply untrue. I'd call Remond a liar, but he's no doubt sincere and thinks he's giving it a straight shot.

His slur is a reference to Newsom's Care Not Cash policy that, like every other Bay Area jurisdiction had already done, stopped the city policy of giving homeless people monthly cash payments that in effect helped them remain homeless. 

Funny thing happened when Care Not Cash went into effect: More than 1,000 of the homeless disappeared from the welfare rolls. Turned out they only wanted cash, not care.

Before Mayor Newsom and Care Not Cash---and Homeward Bound, Project Homeless Connect, supportive housing, etc.---what was the Bay Guardian/Redmond left's approach to dealing with the homeless problem? Food Not Bombs and the Biotic Baking Brigade, the pie-throwers.

The abject failure of the city's left on homelessness was an intellectual failure, since they saw the homeless as just another category of victims under our wicked capitalist system. The implication of the left's lack of serious policy proposals: the people of San Francisco should just learn to live with the growing squalor on city streets and in our parks.

More on the Bay Guardian's "vision" for San Francisco here and here.

Labels: , , ,

Garnering myriad single word cliches

Add "garner" and "garnering" to our growing list of single word cliches. Both of these inelegant variations on plain old "get" appear mostly in our written language. From an internet story we get two garners in two paragraphs:

Clinton’s Democratic primary rival has consistently garnered 70-80 percent support with young voters...a new Latino Decisions poll released last week finds Trump only garnering 11 percent support from Hispanic voters against Clinton’s 76 percent support.

We are now resigned to seeing our world turned into a "globe" and even mild assent "absolutely" agreed "upon."

In this morning's Chronicle, a story on the Warriors' deep bench:

Depth has been their strong point for the past two seasons, and it will be called upon now. But the task will be difficult.

It might be a little easier if the Warriors just called on it.

Labels:

Monday, April 25, 2016

Where's the story?

Updated graph will show a sharp 7% 2015 dip

Still waiting for stories in the SF Chronicle and SFStreetsblog about the bicycle count report that showed commuting by bike in the city declined by 7% in 2015 compared to 2014.

Their silence is conspicuous. Could it be that those two publications find the declining count so unacceptable that they refuse to report it? (The Examiner had a story by a reporter who evidently relied on the MTA's press release and didn't read the report.)

Recall that neither Streetsblog nor the Chronicle did any reporting---not even a mention---of that UC study several years ago showing that the city had a radically flawed method of counting cycling accidents (the Examiner also ignored that story). 

The only news to be reported must conform to the city's "progressive" consensus?

Not surprising that the Bicycle Coalition went with the MTA's big lie without mentioning the 7% decline in the count, but they are a special interest organization and don't pretend to be journalists.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, April 24, 2016

The war on Tommy Robinson




Labels: ,

Richard Dawkins on religion

Labels: ,

"Just tell him you’re the president”

Labels:

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Dave Chapelle's Prince parody

Friday, April 22, 2016

The Donalds

Cartoon-Lounge-Trump-Cartoons02

The above cartoon was from 1973. See the New Yorker's The Trump Trope.

Cartoon-Lounge-Trump-Cartoons03

Labels: ,

Matt supports Dean

NeighborMeet-43

A fund-raising letter from Matt Gonzalez:

Hi Rob, 

I have known Dean Preston for twenty years and can say that he has always been on the right side of important political issues, every single time. 

On the Board of Supervisors, he will be an independent voice and an important check on mayoral power and runaway development. He'll stand with tenants who are getting priced out of San Francisco, and he'll protect local businesses that are the backbone of San Francisco's economy.

I represented District 5 when the city returned to district elections after two decades of city-wide elected supervisors. I can say from experience that the key to succeeding in the job is to be motivated by good values and commit yourself to working to improve the lives of your constituents. I am certain that Dean will be that kind of Supervisor. (Matt Gonzalez, former President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors)

Rob's comment:

Except for housing, specifically which "important issues" has Preston been on the "right side" of? He's opposed to chain stores on Divisadero, which is good. But he also opposed a bank, which seemed problematic to me. He's evidently on the side of the angels on housing---against evictions and for more affordable housing---but what else does he stand for? You won't find out from his campaign website, which is all happy-talk and housing. It's fair to say that so far Dean Preston is essentially a one-issue candidate.

Nor is Matt Gonzalez a very reliable guide to "the right side" of city issues. As a supervisor, he and the Bicycle Coalition led the city to screw up the Market/Octavia intersection; he neglected the homeless issue, which led to Gavin Newsom's election as mayor in 2003; as he was leaving office, he thought it was cool to allow a graffiti "artist" to deface the walls of his City Hall office with juvenile political slogans; and he helped give birth to the undemocratic ranked choice voting system that led to the election of Preston's political opponent, Supervisor London Breed, who has been wrong on almost every issue since she took office.

Supervisor Breed has been running with the City Hall lemmings and the Bicycle Coalition on the Masonic Avenue bike project, which will screw up traffic in this part of town. Does Preston think he won't have to take a position on that? What about the dumb idea of eliminating the Fillmore/Geary underpass? Breed supports it. What does Preston think about that? 

Incumbent Breed will probably be able to fuzz the housing issue by essentially agreeing with Preston that eviction is bad and that we need more affordable housing, which means he'll have to define himself by his positions on other issues.

He could start my mulling over these questions that were ignored by the 2012 candidates.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 21, 2016

High-speed rail project still doesn't have the money



Frank Oliviera addresses an Assembly committee on the high-speed rail's 2016 business plan.

From the report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office:

The plan assumes that additional funding will become available to pay for the $43.5 billion in construction costs for the remainder of Phase I. The plan also assumes that funding would be available in order to begin construction of the remainder of Phase I in 2018, so that the entire Phase I system would be completed and operational by 2029. While the plan does discuss some potential sources that might be able to partially fund additional portions of Phase I (such as seeking additional federal funds and securitizing operating revenues), it does not include a full funding plan.

More on the cap-and-trade issue.

In an editorial, the Chronicle doubles down on dumb:

High-speed rail is still a worthy project that could bring incredible benefits to the state and to the next generation of Californians. But there’s growing bipartisan concern about whether the authority is on the right track.

On the contrary, the high-speed rail project was poorly-conceived and narrowly authorized by California voters in 2008 after a deceptive campaign based on inflated ridership predictions and minimized costs.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

John Pritchett

See Honolulu Madness

Supports for a 1,600-foot-viaduct to carry high-speed rail trains across the Fresno River are seen under construction near Madera. Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, AP
Photo: Rich Pedroncelli


Labels: ,

Hillary and guns




Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

The MTA's information control

A reader writes:

Rob,

SFMTA released their 2015 Bicycle Count Report on April 16, 2016

The latest Transportation Fact Sheet was from 2013 and released Jan. 22, 2014.

SFMTA can issue a Bicycle Count report each year for the 3.5% of bike riders but cannot release an annual Transportation Fact Sheet for the remaining 96.5% of city travelers.

As usual, SFMTA doesn't have its priorities in order.

Rob's comment:

There won't be any more Transportation Fact Sheets released by the MTA, and there won't be any more Collisions Reports. Why? Because these documents often had information that contradicts the party line from City Hall and the MTA, particularly about all the "improvements" the city is making to city streets. 

I asked the MTA about the Transportation Fact Sheet last December but got the usual runaround from Paul Rose. So why didn't I push for an answer? Because the answer is obvious: the MTA isn't going to issue any more of those informative documents.

The Transportation Fact Sheet not only has information about how many vehicles are registered in the city, how people commute in the city, how many vehicles per household, etc. It also has the numbers on how many parking tickets the city issues and how much money it makes on those tickets. Why would the city voluntarily provide this information if it doesn't have to? Our "progressive" representatives in City Hall aren't complaining. Instead, make people file a Sunshine request to get it.

The Collisions Reports included a list of the Highest Injury Collision Intersections with an analysis that showed what the city was doing to make them safer. Now the city simply declares that every busy street in the city is part of a high-injury network. No need to analyze accidents to determine exactly how and why they happen. Besides, there's supposedly no such thing as an accident under the city's fatuous Vision Zero campaign, which is a slogan disguised as a policy.

Now the city just counts accidents---I mean "collisions"---and gives the numbers to the city's many house-broken journalists without any analysis like what Commander Ali did on all the 2014 fatalities on city streets (The Chronicle's Heather Knight, however, did a story on Ali's report, but no city paper has done anything on that damning UC study).

Even though the MTA has 5,745 employees, it won't assign anyone to analyze every traffic injury accident and make that information public because it would undermine its happy-talk Vision Zero bullshit and also raise doubts about all the "improvements" the city is supposedly making to our streets.

The city's policy limiting the release of useful information goes back to the trauma inflicted on the MTA back in 2013 when its gross incompetence at counting traffic accidents was exposed by the NY Times.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, April 18, 2016

The 2015 Bicycle Count: A 7% decrease!


With the flim-flam accompanying its latest Bicycle Count Report, it seems that the MTA is desperate to maintain the fiction that cycling in the city is increasing significantly. 

Otherwise, the crude propaganda in their press release is hard to explain, since anyone who actually reads the report knows that the number of cyclists counted has actually gone down at 51 of the 78 locations where people are actually doing the counting.

But the city is "moving to better data collection" with automatic counters. On page 9:

For example, the September 14-20, 2015 manual counts (taken for only two hours from 4:30-6:30 p.m., not capturing the full evening commute) report a seven percent decrease from the September 2014 manual counts. While the 15 automated counters also reported a similar decrease in this September 14-20 timeframe, automated counts for all of September weekdays showed a two percent increase from September 2014 to September 2015 (~234,000 to ~239,000).(emphasis added)

That is, the machines counted more cyclists on the count days because they were counting all the weekdays in September, not the same seven days counted manually. But the only comparison that can be made is between the manual count of 2014 and the manual count in 2015 at the same locations.

Who are you going to believe, the lying eyes of the people doing the count or the MTA's counting machines? 

A prediction: the city will eliminate the "manual" count by actual people and switch to an "automatic" count with the machines. That means there won't be any human verification of the numbers, just like there's no way we can verify the accident numbers the city now doles out to the city's credulous reporters.

The graph at the bottom of page 9 shows how the count has leveled off in the last two years. Even the caption on the graph tries to minimize the significance of the manual count: "while manual counts saw a 7% decrease when just analyzing two hours in the PM peak commute over only 6 days." 

By my reckoning, if the count is done between Sept. 14 and Sept. 20, that's seven days, not six.

Check it out: Of the 78 manual count locations in the report, 51 showed a decrease in the cyclists counted compared to 2014.

Even 12 of the 17 locations that had "improvements" in the last year---new bike lanes or paint for visibility---had fewer cyclists counted than in 2014.

Some unimpressive statements: "There are an estimated 82,000 bicycle trips in San Francisco per day." Seems like a big number, but the context is important. Unmentioned: there are more than 2 million trips made in the city every day by all "modes" of transportation (page 5).

"According to the American Community Survey, bike mode share for commute trips made by San Francisco residents increased to 4.4 percent in 2014." 

When you check out the Transportation Fact Sheet---which the city is no longer going to publish. Gee, I wonder why?---on page 3, we learn that the ACS percentage for bike commuters was 2.1% in 2000. 

You can call that a 100% increase in the percentage of bike commuters, but it took us 14 years to get to 4.4% from 2.1%. Since then we have been bombarded with pro-bike, anti-car propaganda from City Hall and the Bicycle Coalition; we have a right to be unimpressed.

If you read the stories on the report in SF Bay or Hoodline, you only get the MTA's propaganda about "a major citywide increase in cyclists." 

Interesting to note that SF Streetsblog hasn't done a story yet on the report. Maybe Rudick has actually read it, not just the press release.

Joe Rodriguez in the Examiner of course buys all of the MTA's propaganda and obviously didn't take a close look at the report, which is what he also does on Masonic Avenue (here and here).

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Albert Hoffman takes the first acid trip



73 years ago yesterday, Albert Hoffman discovered LSD---or rather experienced its effects after an accidental dose:

“Last Friday, April 16, 1943, I was forced to interrupt my work in the laboratory in the middle of the afternoon and proceed home, being affected by a remarkable restlessness, combined with a slight dizziness. At home I lay down and sank into a not unpleasant, intoxicated-like condition characterized by an extremely stimulated imagination. In a dreamlike state, with eyes closed (I found the daylight to be unpleasantly glaring), I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two hours this condition faded away.”

After intentionally taking the drug again to confirm that it had caused this strange physical and mental state, Dr. Hoffman published a report announcing his discovery, and so LSD made its entry into the world as a hallucinogenic drug."

Labels: ,

Quote of the Day


From the interview with Julia Louis-Dreyfus in the NY Times:

Have you decided which presidential candidate you’re supporting in 2016?

Whoever the Democrat is. Period. End of story.

Labels: ,

Obama helps Curry with his shot




Labels: ,

Tax the churches




Labels: ,

Friday, April 15, 2016

We'll soon know exactly how dumb SMART will be

Posted by a skeptical commenter

Whenever the Marin Independent Journal has a story on the new Sonoma/Marin SMART train system, the comments are fun (SMART begins talking rail schedule as service set to begin later this year), as the project's critics and supporters hammer each other.

This story gives critics some ammo: "The cost of fares has not been announced." 

That is, the folks at SMART have no idea how much to charge an unknown number of future passengers. They also don't know how much the system itself is going to cost to operate, a crucial factor when calculating ticket prices. 

Our Muni system here in San Francisco collects only 25% of its operating costs from fares. How much better than that will SMART do? The problem: If ticket prices are set too high to offset operating costs, ridership and revenue decline. 

One of the comments makes the obvious point:

So soon enough we will be able to document the failures of this boondoggle. The low ridership. The subsidized tickets, which will be in the thou$ands for EACH single ticket. The added traffic problems due to back ups. Of course, there will be excuses offered at every failure, but never accountability. Oh, yeah, probably another tax hike, too. But, don't expect to be able to vote on it this time.

And this from the story:

SMART officials are promising rail service will deliver people to destinations faster than taking Highway 101, in particular those coming southbound on the freeway in the morning. “The alternative and options trains will be providing is[sic] tremendous,” said Farhad Mansourian, SMART’s general manager.

He would say that, wouldn't he? A comment raises the question of how people will get from the rail stations to their "destinations":

SMART's computer simulations don't take into account the time it would take to drive to the SMART station, find parking, pay for parking, pay the train fare, find a ride to one's ultimate destination (bus, cab, ferry?) and pay for that ride. Sounds like the plot for 'Final Destination 6.'

Another comment on that issue:

Is San Rafael going to build massive parking structures at its SMART stations? Or is the theory that all the riders will take public transport, ride-sharing and bikes to the stations.

With traffic congestion, commuting by car is a pain the ass, but the great advantage those wicked cars have over trains: they provide door-to-door transportation.

Speaking of train stations, the Novato station issue here and here. Be sure to read the comments to the latter story.

Later: How Many Riders Will SMART Really Have?

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Your drought report card

Public Policy Institute of California


More at How We Did.

Labels: ,

Updating UC's pepper spray issue

From the Sacramento Bee.




The proposed UC logo from James Fallows.

The Pepper Spray Times.

Later: see this from Calwatchdog.com and this from Kevin Drum.

Labels: , ,


Kevin Drum on Mother Jones:

I know the doomsayers don't care, but at the moment we're paying about 2 percent of GDP to service the national debt. The chart below shows how that's skyrocketed since—um, I mean, declined steadily since its height during the Reagan era. Pretty scary, isn't it?

See also this and this.

Labels:

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

3,979 more motor vehicles in SF

DMV San Francisco: Get in line

This is a companion piece to yesterday's post on C.W. Nevius. Turns out that according to the DMV there are more motor vehicles than ever registered in San Francisco. 

Seems like City Hall's anti-car policy isn't working, mostly because it isn't reality-based, but also because of gentrification. Surprise! People of means own cars.

Compare the 2014 DMV numbers (481,787) to the 2015 numbers (485,766), and we learn that there were 3,979 more motor vehicles registered in the city in the last year. 

That's the pattern since 2000 (451,879) when I first began keeping score (I always subtract the number of trailers).

The breakdown: 407,656 cars, 54,768 trucks, and 23,342 motorcycles/motor scooters.

In yesterday's column, Nevius perpetuated a myth: "And look at the Millennials, choosing to live in the city and scorning car ownership."

Actually millennials drive just as much as previous generations---and they shop at Walmart!

Labels: , , , , ,

"Shocking and shameful"




From the Chronicle's Letters to the Editor, April 12:

Incompetent SFPD

I find it disheartening that heavily armed and trained law officers were unable, without killing him in a rain of bullets, to disarm and subdue one possibly dazed and confused homeless man with a kitchen knife. It appears that the only force left willing to risk their own lives and safety to save human life is the fire department. The inability of police, often in numbers, here and around the country, to subdue men and boys, unarmed or with only a blade, without an over-the-top armed response, is shocking and shameful. We focus a lot on race issues, as we should, but we might also want to look at plain incompetence as well.

Jeremy Snitkin
Novato


Thanks to SF1st.

Labels:

Paul Ryan is a phony

Photos: Charlie Neibergall/AP, Oscar White/Corbis


Hype springs eternal — certainly when it comes to Paul Ryan, whose media image as a Serious, Honest Conservative and policy wonk seems utterly impervious to repeated demonstrations that he is neither serious nor honest, and that he actually knows very little about policy. And here we go again.

But what really amazes me about the latest set of stories is the promise that Ryan will finally deliver the Republican Obamacare alternative that his colleagues in Congress have somehow failed to produce after all these years. No, he won’t — because there is no alternative.

Or maybe I should say that there is no alternative to the right. Alternatives to the left do exist. True socialized medicine — an American NHS — would be feasible economically; so would single-payer, in the form of Medicare for all. The reasons we aren’t doing those are political.

But on the right, is there a more free-market, more privatized system that could replace the Affordable Care Act without causing the number of uninsured to soar? No, as some of us have tried to explain many times...

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Nevius in the lead for Pangloss award


The Chronicle's C.W. Nevius is important in San Francisco only because he writes about local issues. 

His columns supporting Mayor Newsom's initiatives on homelessness performed a public service at the time, since Newsom's "progressive" political opposition was badly botching the homeless issue.

But I eventually realized that Nevius invariably supports important City Hall projects. He doesn't even pretend to do the speaking-truth-to-power thing.

Nevius's column today (Arena traffic will help S.F. change its ways) is so dumb he's a heavy favorite to win my Dr. Pangloss award for the sappiest bit of unjustified optimism of the year (John King is a two-time winner: here and here. Gabriel Metcalf won last year when he channeled Pangloss with this prize-winner.)

Nevius lists all the reasons that parking and traffic in the southern part of the city are bad, will be getting worse, and why that is a Good Thing:

Traffic is only going to get worse. And that is a good thing...But the point remains, as the southern neighborhoods develop, driving---and parking---will become increasingly difficult. It already is, and the Warriors' arena is years away. I'll say it again; That's a good thing.

Why is that a Good Thing? Because it will force people to give up driving cars and do, well, something else:

We are going to leave our cars when driving becomes such a pain that other forms of transportation are superior.

He mentions Uber and Lyft, but if they were so "superior" everybody would already be using them. And he notes BART is already at capacity. Muni of course doesn't even get a mention. In any event, what are all the out-of-town Giants and Warriors fans supposed to do?

Michelle Goldberg recently wrote about how this approach works when applied to politics: it's called things-have-to-get-worse-before-they-get-better, a strategy by German progressives that led to Hitler. 

Here in Progressive Land that approach on traffic will only result in more gridlock in that part of the city. (The Masonic Avenue bike project will do the same in this part of town.)

Before this only the bike crackpots advocated making traffic worse as a deliberate city policy, like Leah Shahum and Dave Snyder, because, you understand, everyone should give up those wicked motor vehicles and ride bikes. 

Apparently even Nevius isn't willing to be that dumb.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 11, 2016

Saudi Arabia and 9/11




The 60 Minutes story above (28 Pages) is about the Saudi Arabia's role in the 9/11 attacks on the US and the 28 pages that were redacted in the Senate Select Committee's 2003 report on 9/11.

From today's Daily Beast:

One of the ongoing mysteries in Washington is why the Obama administration is still classifying 28 pages of a congressional report written in 2003 that documents Saudi support for the hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks. The bipartisan co-authors of that report have long called for its release to the public, and President Obama on two separate occasions over the last several years promised the 9/11 families that he would declassify the 28 pages. Now pressure on Obama to make good on his promise is mounting. Advocates claim there is no longer any reason to protect the Saudis 15 years after the attacks...

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Since we no longer need their oil, we can quit coddling a country that's governed by religious fanatics.

For years they've been spending that oil money to foment hatred against the US and the West:

About 24,000 'madrassas' in Pakistan are funded by Saudi Arabia which has unleashed a "tsunami of money" to "export intolerance", a top American senator has said, adding that the US needs to end its effective acquiescence to the Saudi sponsorship of radical Islamism. Senator Chris Murphy said Pakistan is the best example of where money coming from Saudi Arabia is funneled to religious schools that nurture hatred and terrorism.

"In 1956, there were 244 madrassas in Pakistan. Today, there are 24,000. These schools are multiplying all over the globe. These schools, by and large, don't teach violence. They aren't the minor leagues for al-Qaeda or ISIS. But they do teach a version of Islam that leads very nicely into an anti-Shia, anti-Western militancy. Those 24,000 religious schools in Pakistan, thousands of them are funded with money that originates in Saudi Arabia," Murphy said in an address yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations..

'Tsunami of money' from Saudi Arabia funding 24,000 madrassas in Pakistan

Thanks to Jihad Watch for the madrasa story.

Maybe this story the other day was part of a Saudi campaign to mitigate the impact of the anticipated 60 Minutes story.

Later: See also this 28 pages: the controversy over Saudi Arabia and 9/11, explained


Labels: , ,

Alejo Shapire

Thanks to Harry's Place.

Labels:

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Saudi TV host: Terrorists are "Arab and they adhere to the religion of Islam"



A partial transcription from Patheos:

Whenever terrorism murders peaceful civilians, the smart-alecks and the hypocrites vie with one another in saying that these people do not represent Islam or the Muslims. Perhaps one of them could tell us who does represent Islam and Muslims.

It is we who blow ourselves up. It is we who blow up others...Why do the sheikhs, the pundits, the journalists and all the Arab officials insist upon not using their conscience when they point to the perpetrators? Don’t these perpetrators emerge from our environment? Don’t their families belong to our society?...

After the abominable Brussels bombings, it’s time for us to feel shame and stop acting as if the terrorists are a rarity. We must admit that they are present everywhere, that their nationality is Arab, and that they adhere to the religion of Islam. We must acknowledge that we are the ones who gave birth to them, and that we have made them memorize all the teachings of the Salafi books. We must admit that it is the schools and universities we established that told them the others are infidels. We must admit that we all — the different sects and faiths, the Sunnis and the Shia — adhere to one school and one school only: the “freezing of the mind” school. Don’t ask! Don’t think! Don’t resist orders! Welcome to the Arab Mashriq...

Why don’t [the sheikhs] have the courage to declare that they are the ones who said that jihad is obligatory, and who legalized political wars, using futile and disgraceful exegeses which permit killing, enslavement, and destruction?

Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings...

See also this and this.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, April 09, 2016



One of the many things the Obama administration will be remembered for: creating the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau, which of course the Repugs hate and want to eliminate.

Labels: , , ,