Information and Form

Signified is the form. Signifier is the Symbol and Concept that contains information. when layered the original form and concept become mythology.

if data can be lost and the meaning changed by layering the form and concept then we know that the object is not merely data. even the original signifier may be false.

Obama in Favor of Mosque Near Ground Zero. Says Al Qaeda was Nihilists?

"Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us -- a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today," he said. 

Al Qaeda a bunch of Beatnics?
Hey man who you calling a Nihilist? Were they reading Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed building a mosque near ground zero, saying the country's founding principles demanded no less."As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.
"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
Obama made the comments at an annual dinner in the White House State Dining Room celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Republicans were quick to pounce on the president's remarks.
"President Obama is wrong," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero. While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much."
The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic center to be built two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.
It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.
Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.
While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed "hallowed ground," Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values
"Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us -- a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today," he said.
Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and guests at Friday's dinner included ambassadors and officials from numerous Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.

Money quote:

While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved.

When has that ever stopped him?More...

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

Al-Azhar has bearing on what Islam is about. It was where Obama gave his speech in Egypt if you were following the news. When I talk about these things that make Islam intolerant... it isn't just the words and genocide of Mohammad... what we are talking about is a very real school... a place that has decided that these passages are it's doctrine. there are people that believe in Mohammad, but don't follow this school... but they are not Muslims.
regardless yes there are individuals that just are completely ignorant... and their ignorance is sad. in the case of Islam it is ignorance that saves us from Jihad from all Muslims. but we don't have to tolerate ignorance when it is our lives that are at stake because their ignorance is about violence.
The Mosque is insensitive. Obama is a liar. These people who did what they did were following Mohammad.

Turkish Opposition Rejects Regime Policy on Gaza Flotilla

In a sign of its deepening involvement in the Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hizballah alliance, the Turkish regime is now apparently letting Iran ship arms directly through Turkey for the Hizballah forces in Lebanon. That the Ankara government is actively participating in providing aid for an anti-Western terrorist group should be a matter of concern, especially since it furthers Tehran's strategic expansion.
Two Turkish legal experts, in separate articles, have criticized the Mavi Marmara jihad operation over the last few weeks, pointing out that Turkey has no jurisdiction over the issue, that the Gaza flotilla organizers acted wrongly, and Israel had the right to seize the ship.
What's significant over this new development is that people within Turkey are beginning to stand up against the wave of religious and nationalist demagoguery unleashed by the current Islamist regime. Indeed, the opportunity to make such political gains at a time when the regime is increasingly unpopular and faces potentil defeat in next year's elections was one of the main reason why the Turkish government sponsored the operation that it almost certainly knew would end in violence.
And the most important point o all is that one of these articles--the most critical one--quotes a former minister of justice and is published in the official organ of the Republican People's Party (CHP), the main opposition party and the likely winner of next year's election. The article ends with a sharp attack on Prime Minister Recep Erdogan:
"We hope that the arrogant Sultan Fatih [conquering sultan, a sarcastic reference to Erdogan] "will be directly updated by genuine events occurring in the world and will not drag us into the morass of the Middle East."
Clearly, the party made a political decision to take this stance. In contrast to Erdogan's position--Turkey has been insulted and several of its citizens murdered--the opposition view is that the regime is acting recklessly, endangering Turkish interests, and acting as if it is ready to pull Turkey into a war.
In practice, the current regime's view is in contrast to that of the republic's founder Kemal Ataturk's famous dictum of peace at home and peace abroad. But this isn't surprising since the government seeks to destroy the secular republic that has served Turkey so well and brought it so much progress for more than 70 years. I'll bet Turkish voters agree with that critique at the polls next year and throw out a regime whose main (arguably its sole) foreign policy achievement is to ally with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah against the West.

via rubinreports.blogspot.com

I wouldn't count on elections in a Muslim country though

noahdavidsimon's posterous

IDF Releases July Report On Aid To Gaza

According to the IDF Spokesperson blog:

July saw the ongoing implementation of the new policies approved on June 20th. These include the establishment of a Joint Project Coordination Team between COGAT and the PA, which has already facilitated various development efforts. There has also been a near doubling of the capacity for imports via the Kerem Shalom Crossing since May, and the delivery of 161 additional truckloads of equipment from the Libyan and Turkish flotillas.

A total of 3,665 truckloads entered, representing a 19% increase over the previous month.
The 5-page report not only includes a report on the amount of aid, but also information on:

• Ongoing implementation of international projects
• Humanitarian infrastructure
• Monetary transfers
• Importation of goods
• Merchandise traffic
• Commodities and fuel transfer
• Merchandise transer

Civilian and Humanitarian Aid to Gaza - Monthly Report - July 2010
T

via daledamos.blogspot.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Media Covers Up Arab Stalker and Stabber

Elias Abuelazam, the serial stabber, is one of ours!...
 Well, kind of....

The BBC online, known for slanting its coverage against Israel, titled its story "Israeli man held in airport over US serial stabbings." The story that followed describes the suspect as an "Israeli citizen" without mentioning that he is Arab.

MSNBC's online report, "Israeli held in investigation of serial stabbings" mentioned his Israeli connection four times in the article, but never indicated that he was Arab.

NPR mentioned his Israeli connection in the body of its report, though not in its headline. It omitted his Arab ethnicity.

In contrast, ABC News identified the suspect as an Israeli-Arab in its first sentence. More often there was a lack of precision. CNN and Fox merely informed readers that he was attempting to fly to Israel.

from Camera.Org

It looks like:

Abuelazam is suspected in 20 18 stabbings (investigators have revised the number,) five of which were fatal. Most of the victims were black but there were Hispanic and white people stabbed as well.

Since most of the victims were black, law enforcement officials suspected the stabbings were related to race. But that, again, was just a theory. The police could produce a different theory now that they have a suspect.

Meanwhile our local press wasn't asleep on the job, and dug up a few more details:

• The real name of the character is Elias Abu El-Azam.
• He comes from an Arab Christian family in the city of Ramle.
• He left Israel for US as a kid and visited Israel quite frequently.
• A few months ago he got into trouble in Israel (a fight with a friend) and left immediately.
• People who met him describe him as a huge man with an intimidating presence.
• His ex, Jessica, is in shock, was overwhelmed by the news.
• While in Ramle, he staid in his mother's house, didn't have a permanent employment, was supported by his mom and was frequently involved in fights.
• He has a considerable criminal record in US.
• Er... as far as I am concerned, the US authorities are welcome to keep him.

As for the question asked by a blogger here:

Are you surprised that the suspect is an Israeli and not some idiot from a hate group that thinks they’re better than everyone else?

I would answer by another question (as Jooish tradition prescribes): why, can't an Israeli be an idiot from a hate group?

via simplyjews.blogspot.com

...just in case this is brought up... Son of Sam was *adopted* into a Jewish family. Today he is a born again Christian

noahdavidsimon's posterous

While much of the media reported the story fairly straight, some media sources who habitually portray Israel negatively tended to conceal the suspect's Arab identity while emblazening his Israeli connection in their headline.

from Camera.Org

The Rabbi of Pot Rabbi Jeffrey Kahn wants to be D.C.'s first legal medical-marijuana dealer. But first he has to navigate city regulators, well-financed competitors, and suspicious neighbors.

Rabbi Jeffrey Kahn spent 27 years teaching the Torah in shuls from central New Jersey to southern Australia. Lately, he’s been talking a lot about a passage from Leviticus, the part about not standing idle while your neighbor bleeds.
“This really is an important religious issue,” says the silver-haired 58-year-old, his wide smile punctuated by crescent-shaped dimples. “Especially because of how people have been suffering and the ways that drug laws have been used against Americans and especially against minorities...I think scripture is very clear that when we have the opportunity to help people, we must do it.”

Not to mention that bit about seed-bearing plants that God declared good and gave to all humanity.

The rabbi and his wife, Stephanie Kahn , 55, are competing to establish the District’s first city-sanctioned medical-marijuana operation. Call it Kosher Kush. It’s the culmination of a sort of mid-life crisis for the couple: After packing up their prior lives and making a pilgrimage to Israel, the store represents their unlikely next step—a mom ‘n’ pop pot shop. “We wanted to do something different,” says Stephanie Kahn, a nurse who made her career in hospital administration, “but still within the framework of trying to help people.”

Last month, the District officially joined 14 U.S. states in decriminalizing marijuana for people with certain qualifying conditions, including cancer, HIV/AIDS and other illnesses. D.C. voters OK’d medical marijuana by more than 69 percent back in a 1998 referendum. But, for 12 years, Congress blocked the ballot initiative’s implementation. The ban was finally lifted last December. Since then, city officials have been busily working on a set of rules to regulate sales of what remains a federally classified Schedule I narcotic.

Under the regs, D.C. will license up to five medical-marijuana dispensaries and 10 cultivation centers citywide. Though D.C.’s rules are probably stricter than anywhere else on the decriminalized-pot map, they nonetheless will open the nation’s capital to an industry that has ballooned into a billion-dollar business out in California. In fact, some well-established West Coast operators have proven eager to move into markets far from home. One of the Golden State’s largest purveyors, Berkeley Patients Group, recently spun off a Northeast affiliate that has snatched up half of the dispensary licenses in Maine.
So far, the Kahns are the first and only ones to go public with any specific D.C. plans. And if their idea is already a divisive topic in the city’s leafy Takoma neighborhood, it’s also a subject of great interest farther afield, where marijuana advocates and potential competitors see the couple as the proverbial canary in the coal mine—if that coal mine were outfitted with grow lights, hydroponics and a security apparatus to rival that of a Swiss bank.

“There’s always a first one,” says Allen St. Pierre , executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “More often than not in business, and in medical cannabis, they play the role of sacrificial lamb. They put the city council, the [advisory neighborhood commission], the regulators, through the rigors. As often is the case, they don’t come to it well capitalized, or with the kind of best-practices information they need from other places. And, if they lack those things, then it’s very hard from the time they begin the process, to the point of actually opening a dispensary, to it being a functional dispensary. That’s a very long path, generally speaking.”
Kahn, though, might be the best guinea pig local reformers could want. Until recently, he served as executive director of the D.C.-based nonprofit Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. He enters the business almost as well versed on the issue of medical marijuana as he is on scripture. 

“Jeffrey is blessed in the sense that he comes out of drug-policy reform,” says St. Pierre, who spotted the rabbi “near the front row, vigorously taking notes,” at a seminar on how to set up a dispensary during last year’s NORML conference. “And, at the same time, coming to this as a rabbi and invoking this sort of profound humanistic tone.”
The humanism might have helped more a few years back, before medical marijuana became a lucrative enterprise. These days, people would rather talk about money. “Even if they can call them nonprofits, the individuals, if these things are done correctly, will be paid pretty well,” notes St. Pierre. “In many cases, we’ve seen people make small fortunes. So, there’s that balance between what is altruism on one level and a standard money-making model on the other. In some ways, who could be better to straddle that line than a man of the clergy?”  

Continue Reading:  2 3   Next Page   Single Page View

Photo by Darrow Montgomery
via washingtoncitypaper.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil price setting through supply cutbacks - Guide to the Perplexed

If Iran can control the price of oil... isn't that exactly what Obama wants though? Allowing Iran to have a nuke will end life in America as we know it. Iran will dictate reserve prices and America will not have leverage even for petroleum based fertilizer for it's farms.

Israel's leaders are reportedly concerning themselves with one question today. Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order the US military to strike Iran's nuclear installations before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? 

From Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down the line, Israel's leaders reportedly raise this question with just about everyone they come into contact with. If this is true, then the time has come to end our leaders' suspense. 

The answer is no.

To all intents and purposes, there are no circumstances in which Obama would order an attack on Iran's nuclear installations to prevent Iran from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Exceptions to this statement fall into two categories. Either they are so implausible that they are operationally irrelevant, or they are so contingent on other factors that they would doom any US attack to failure.

Evidence for this conclusion is found in every aspect of Obama's foreign policy. But to prove it, it is sufficient to point out point three aspects of his policies.

First of all, Obama's refuses to recognize that an Iranian nuclear arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security. Obama's discussions of the perils of a nuclear Iran are limited to his acknowledgement that such an arsenal will provoke a regional nuclear arms race. This is certainly true. But then that arms race has already begun. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE, and Kuwait have all announced their intentions to build nuclear reactors. In some cases they have signed deals with foreign countries to build such facilities.

And yet, while a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is bad, it is far from the worst aspect of Iran's nuclear program for America. America has two paramount strategic interests in the Middle East. First, the US requires the smooth flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Persian Gulf to global oil markets. Second, the US requires the capacity to project its force in the region to defend its own territory from global jihadists.

Both of these interests are imperiled by the Iranian nuclear program. If the US is not willing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will lose all credibility as a strategic ally to the Sunni Arab states in the area. For instance, from a Saudi perspective, a US that is unwilling to prevent the ayatollahs from fielding nuclear weapons is of no more use to the kingdom than Britain or China or France. It is just another oil consuming country. The same goes for the rest of the states in the Gulf and in the region.

The Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil price setting through supply cutbacks. In light of this, the Iranian nuclear program constitutes the greatest threat ever to US superpower status in the region and to the wellbeing of the US economy.

Then there is the direct threat that Iran's nuclear program constitutes for US national security. This threat grows larger by the day as Iran's web of strategic alliances in Latin America expands unchallenged by the US. Today Iran enjoys military alliances with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia.

As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has argued, at least the Soviets were atheists. Atheists of course, are in no hurry to die, since death can bring no rewards in a world to come. Iran's leaders are apocalyptic jihadists. Given Iran's Latin American alliances and Iran's own progress towards intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a walk in the park.

In the face of this grave and gathering threat, Obama cancelled plans to deploy anti-ballistic missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. He has shunned the pro-American Honduran and Colombian governments in favor of Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has welcomed Brazil's anti-American president to the White House. He cancelled the F-22.

THE FACT that Obama fails to recognize the danger an Iranian nuclear arsenal poses to the US does not in and of itself prove that Obama would not attack Iran's nuclear installations. After all, the US has fought many wars and launched countless campaigns in its history against foes that posed no direct threat to the US. In most of these cases, the US has fought on behalf of its allies.

In the case of Iran's nuclear weapons programs, because the Iranians have openly placed Israel first on their nuclear targeting list, US debate about Iran's nuclear program has been anchored around the issue of Israel's national security. Should the US attack Iran's nuclear installations in order to defend Israel?

Given the distorted manner in which the debate has been framed, the answer to that question hinges on Obama's view of Israel. Recent moves by Obama and his advisors make clear that Obama takes a dim view of Israel. He views Israel neither as a credible ally nor a credible democracy.

First there is the character of current US military assistance to Israel and to its neighbors. In recent months, the Obama administration has loudly announced its intentions to continue its joint work with Israel towards the development and deployment of defensive anti-missile shields. Two things about these programs are notable. First, they are joint initiatives. Just as Israel gains US financing, the US gains Israeli technology that it would otherwise lack.

Second, as Globes reported last week, the Obama has actually scaled back US funding for these programs. For instance, funding for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile program - intended to serve as Israel's primary defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles -- was cut by $50 million.

The defensive character of all of these programs signals an absence of US support for maintaining Israel's capacity to preemptively strike its enemies. When the Pentagon's refusal to permit Israel to install its own avionics systems on the next generation F-35 warplanes is added to the mix, it is difficult to make the argument that the US supports Israel's qualitative edge over its enemies in any tangible way.

An assessment that the US has abandoned its commitment to Israel's qualitative edge is strengthened by the administration's announcement this week of its plan to sell Saudi Arabia scores of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $30 billion. While the US has pledged to remove systems from the Saudi aircraft that pose direct threats to Israel, once those jets arrive in the kingdom, the Saudis will be able to do whatever they want with them. If one adds to this equation the reduced regional stature of the US in an Iranian nuclear age, it is clear that these guarantees have little meaning. 

Obama's moves to reduce Israel's offensive capacity and slow its acquisition of defensive systems goes hand in hand with his rejection of Israel's right to self-defense and dismissive attitude towards Israel's rule of law. These positions have been starkly demonstrated in his administration's treatment of Israel in the wake of the IDF's takeover of the Turkish-Hamas Mavi Marmara terror ship on May 31. 

In the face of that blatant display of Turkish aggression against Israel as it maintained its lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza's coastline, Obama sided with Turkey and Hamas against Israel. Obama demanded that Israel investigate its handling of the incident. Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that Israel was incapable of credibly investigating itself and so required Israel to add non-Israeli members to its investigative committee. 

Yet even Israel's acceptance of this US humiliation was insufficient for Obama. His UN envoy Susan Rice then demanded that Israel accept a UN investigative panel that is charged with checking to see if the Israeli committee has done its job. And if the UN panel rejects the Israeli commission's findings, it is empowered to begin its own investigation. 

As to the UN, as former Obama and Clinton administration officials Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon explained in an article in the Washington Post last week, Obama's national security strategy effectively revolves around subordinating US national security policy to the UN Security Council. In the remote scenario that Obama decided to use force against Iran, his subservience to the UN would rule out any possibility of a surprise attack. 

 Although in theory the US military's capacity to strike Iran's nuclear facilities is much greater than Israel's, given its practical inability to launch a surprise attack, in practice it may be much smaller. 

ALL OF these factors constitute overwhelming evidence that there are no conceivable circumstances under which Obama would order a US strike on Iran's nuclear installations to forestall Iran's development of nuclear weapons. And this reality should lead Israel's leaders to three separate conclusions. 

First, and most urgently, Israel must attack Iran's nuclear installations. Iran's nuclear ambitions must be set back at least until 2017, the latest date at which a new -- and hopefully more rational -- US administration will certainly be in office. 

Second, given the fact that the US will not take action against Iran's nuclear installations, there is no reason for Israel to capitulate to US pressure on lesser issues. The Obama administration has nothing to offer Israel on this most important threat and so Israel should not do anything to strengthen its position. Among other things, this conclusion has clear implications for Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, Israel's future responses to Lebanese aggression, as well as for Israel's continued cooperation with the UN probes of the Turkish-Hamas terror ship. 

Finally, Obama's behavior is a clear indication that Israel was wrong to allow itself to become militarily dependent on US military platforms. Former defense minister Moshe Arens wrote recently that Israel should strongly consider abandoning plans to purchase the F-35 and restore the scrapped Lavi jetfighter to active development. Arens suggested that in doing so, Israel may find willing collaborators in the Indians, the French and even the Russians. 

No, the US has not become Israel's enemy - although the Obama administration has certainly struck an adversarial chord. Polling data suggests that most Americans disagree with Obama's treatment of Israel and recognize that Iran is a threat to the US.

But polls aside, the answer to Israel's desperate queries is that it is up to us. If the Obama administration teaches us anything, it teaches us that we must rely first and foremost on ourselves. 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

via carolineglick.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Topless Beach Goers Gets Rare In Europe Because of Tolerance?

...and it took us so called prude Puritanical Americans to point this out to Europeans?

Brigitte Bardot started the trend for topless sunbathing in the sixties.
Photo: The Telegraph


There's Nothing Wrong with Topless Sunbathing
THE TELEGRAPH:
What’s so wrong with being topless on the beach, asks Bryony Gordon.

Readers of a nervous disposition should look away now. Right. Have you turned the page, moved on to the obituaries, or perhaps the weather? Then I shall begin. When I go on holiday, I like to sunbathe topless. The beach towel goes down, the book comes out, and the bikini top flies off, often in the direction of a startled looking friend who has clearly never seen a pair of breasts before. Seeing as I won’t be using the top to cover my chest, I suggest that instead they use it cover their prudish eyes.

Topless sunbathing is a wonderful thing, a holiday in itself from underwired bras. But people are turning their backs on bare bosoms. In France, where the whole thing kicked off in the sixties thanks to Brigitte Bardot, a poll revealed that the majority of women would never go topless on the beach.

It gets worse: Riviera resident Joan Collins, cementing her position as feminist icon, announced that only Wags, chavs and hookers took their tops off on the beach. A group of Australian politicians tried to ban it in 2008, with one Labour MP, Paul Gibson posing the searching question: “if you’re on the beach, do you want somebody with big knockers next to you when you’re there with the kids?” Well I don’t know Paul - if you positioned yourself right, they might just keep the wind off.

And now - mamma mia! - we learn that they’ve gone all funny about it in Italy. It was reported this week that a 26-year-old topless sunbather was being investigated for “committing an obscene act”: applying suntan lotion in a manner that “troubled” two boys aged 12 and 14. Their mother complained, the lady refused to put her top back on, and police were called to the beach, just south of Rome. The sunbather’s lawyer argued that “my client... has an ample breast and is therefore naturally going to be sensuous when she applies cream to her chest.” >>> Bryony Gordon | Friday, August 13, 2010

via librabunda.blogspot.com

Europe doesn't seem to have much Chutzpah these days.

noahdavidsimon's posterous