|
|
|---|
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Tomgram: William Astore, Going Rogue in Combat Boots
By William AstorePosted on January 19, 2010, Printed on January 23, 2010http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175193/
Here’s a bit of cheery news: Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates met with the nation's top defense company executives, including the CEOs of those mega-military-industrial combines Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and called for a “closer partnership.” He also made them a promise. He pledged, according to his spokesman, “to work with the White House to secure steady growth in the Pentagon's budgets over time.”
Let’s put that pledge in context. Last week, President Obama did something common in the Bush years, something he swore never to do; he requested a supplemental $33 billion over and above the fiscal year 2011 defense budget, mainly for his Afghan surge. That sum, when appropriated by Congress, will bring the total official Pentagon budget to $708 billion dollars ($159 billion of which will be directly slated for Afghan and Iraq war costs). To put that sum in context, it’s close to what the rest of the world combined spends on military matters. And you can be guaranteed of one thing: this won’t be the last supplemental request of 2011.
By the way, if you were to add up the real “defense” budget, including funds for the Department of Homeland Security, the Energy Department (which handles the U.S. nuclear arsenal), veterans' care, the State Department’s planned near-billion-dollar expansion of its embassy in Pakistan into a mega-command post for the region and the planned doubling of the number of personnel in its already monstrous embassy in Baghdad for a similar purpose, and many other relevant things, you would be closing in on $1 trillion per year.
Meanwhile, in December 2009, the total funds Congress has so far appropriated since 2001 only for our two wars topped $1 trillion dollars, with no end in sight, and that figure doesn’t include projected future costs ranging from care for soldiers wounded in those wars to the cost of replenishing worn out military equipment. At the war-fighting level, the Congressional Budget Office has already projected direct war costs over the next decade at $867 billion.
The Pentagon’s 2011 budget is already the highest since World War II, according to defense analyst Winslow T. Wheeler. Now, consider that the secretary of defense has just “pledged” more of the same for years to come. And note that none of this -- with the possible exception of that $33 billion supplemental request -- is considered particularly controversial by anyone who matters in Washington, or worth much front-page news attention. Sums that put health-care reform in the shade cause barely a stir. In other words, the Pentagon rules the roost and, as TomDispatch regular William Astore indicates, it could get a lot worse. Tom
A Very American Coup Coming Soon to a Hometown Near You By William J. Astore
The wars in distant lands were always going to come home, but not this way.
It’s September 2016, year 15 of America’s “Long War” against terror. As weary troops return to the homeland, a bitter reality assails them: despite their sacrifices, America is losing.
Iraq is increasingly hostile to remaining occupation forces. Afghanistan is a riddle that remains unsolved: its army and police forces are untrustworthy, its government corrupt, and its tribal leaders unsympathetic to the vagaries of U.S. intervention. Since the Obama surge of 2010, a trillion more dollars have been devoted to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries in the vast shatter zone that is central Asia, without measurable returns; nothing, that is, except the prolongation of America’s Great Recession, now entering its tenth year without a sustained recovery in sight.
Disillusioned veterans are unable to find decent jobs in a crumbling economy. Scarred by the physical and psychological violence of war, fed up with the happy talk of duplicitous politicians who only speak of shared sacrifices, they begin to organize. Their motto: take America back.
Meanwhile, a lame duck presidency, choking on foreign policy failures, finds itself attacked even for its putative successes. Health-care reform is now seen to have combined the inefficiency and inconsistency of government with the naked greed and exploitative talents of corporations. Medical rationing is a fact of life confronting anyone on the high side of 50. Presidential rhetoric that offered hope and change has lost all resonance. Mainstream media outlets are discredited and disintegrating, resulting in new levels of information anarchy.
Protest, whether electronic or in the streets, has become more common -- and the protestors in those streets increasingly carry guns, though as yet armed violence is minimal. A panicked administration responds with overlapping executive orders and legislation that is widely perceived as an attack on basic freedoms.
Tapping the frustration of protesters -- including a renascent and mainstreamed “tea bag” movement -- the former captains and sergeants, the ex-CIA operatives and out-of-work private mercenaries of the War on Terror take action. Conflict and confrontation they seek; laws and orders they increasingly ignore. As riot police are deployed in the streets, they face a grim choice: where to point their guns? Not at veterans, they decide, not at America’s erstwhile heroes.
A dwindling middle-class, still waving the flag and determined to keep its sliver-sized portion of the American dream, throws its support to the agitators. Wages shrinking, savings exhausted, bills rising, the sober middle can no longer hold. It vents its fear and rage by calling for a decisive leader and the overthrow of a can’t-do Congress.
Savvy members of traditional Washington elites are only too happy to oblige. They too crave order and can-do decisiveness -- on their terms. Where better to find that than in the ranks of America’s most respected institution: the military?
A retired senior officer who led America’s heroes in central Asia is anointed. His creed: end public disorder, fight the War on Terror to a victorious finish, put America back on top. The United States, he says, is the land of winners, and winners accept no substitute for victory. Nominated on September 11, 2016, Patriot Day, he marches to an overwhelming victory that November, embraced in the streets by an American version of the post-World War I German Freikorps and the police who refuse to suppress them. A concerned minority is left to wonder (and tremble) at the de facto military coup that occurred so quickly, and yet so silently, in their midst.
It Can Happen Here, Unless We Act
Yes, it can happen here. In some ways, it’s already happening. But the key question is: at this late date, how can it be stopped? Here are some vectors for a change in course, and in mindset as well, if we are to avoid our own stealth coup:
1. Somehow, we need to begin to reverse the ongoing militarization of this country, especially our ever-rising “defense” budgets. The most recent of these, we’ve just learned, is a staggering $708 billion for fiscal year 2011 -- and that doesn’t even include the $33 billion President Obama has requested for his latest surge in Afghanistan. We also need to get rid of the idea that anyone who suggests even minor cuts in defense spending is either hopelessly naïve or a terrorist sympathizer. It’s time as well to call a halt to the privatization of military activity and so halt the rise of security contractors like Xe (formerly Blackwater), thereby weakening the corporate profit motive that supports and underpins the American version of perpetual war. It’s time to begin feeling chastened, not proud, that we’re by far the number one country in the world in arms manufacturing and the global arms trade.
2. Let’s downsize our global mission rather than endlessly expanding our military footprint. It’s time to have a military capable of defending this country, not fighting endless wars in distant lands while garrisoning the globe.
3. Let’s stop paying attention to major TV and cable networks that rely on retired senior military officers, most of whom have ties both to the Pentagon and military contractors, for “unbiased” commentary on our wars. If we insist on fighting our perpetual “frontier” wars, let’s start insisting as well that they be covered in all their bitter reality: the death, the mayhem, the waste, the prisons, and the torture. Why is our war coverage invariably sanitized to “PG” or even “G,” when we can go to the movies anytime and see “R” rated, pornographically violent films? And by the way, it’s time to be more critical of the government’s and the media’s use of language and propaganda. Mindlessly parroting the Patriot Act doesn’t make you patriotic.
4. It’s time to elect a president who doesn’t surround himself with senior “civilian” advisors and ambassadors who are actually retired military generals and admirals, one who won’t accept a Nobel Peace Prize by defending war in theory and escalating it in practice.
5. Let’s toughen up. Let’s stop deferring to authority figures who promise to “protect” us while abridging our rights. Let’s stop bowing down before men and women in uniform, before they start thinking that it’s their right to be worshipped and act accordingly.
6. Let’s act now to relieve the sort of desperation bred by joblessness and hopelessness that could lead many -- notably male workers suffering from the “He-Cession” -- to see a militarized solution in “the homeland” as a credible last resort. It’s the economy, stupid, but with Main Street’s health, not Wall Street’s, in our focus.
7. Let’s take Sarah Palin and her followers seriously. They’re tapping into anger that’s real and spreading. Don’t let them become the voices of the angry working (and increasingly unemployed) classes.
8. Recognize that we face real enemies in our world, the most powerful of which aren’t in distant Afghanistan or Yemen but here at home. The essence of our struggle to sustain our faltering democracy should not be against “terrorists,” with their shoe and crotch bombs, but against various powerful, perfectly legal groups here whose interests lie in a Pentagon that only grows ever stronger.
9. Stop thinking the U.S. is uniquely privileged. Don’t take it on faith that God is on our side. Forget about God blessing America. If you believe in God, get out there and start trying to earn His blessing through deeds.
10. And, most important of all, remember that fear is the mind-killer that makes militarism possible. Ramping up “terror” is an amazingly effective way of shredding our Constitution. Putting our “safety” above all else is asking for trouble. The only way we’ll be completely safe from the big bad terrorists, after all, is when we’re all living in a maximum security state. Think of walking down the street while always being subject to a “full-body scan.”
That’s my top 10 things we need to do. It’s a daunting list and I’m sure you have a few ideas of your own. But have faith. Ultimately, it all boils down to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s words to a nation suffering through the Great Depression: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. These words came to mind recently as I read the following missive from a friend and World War II veteran who’s seen tough times:
"It’s very hard for me to accept how soft the American people have become. In 1941, with the western world under assault by powerful and deadly forces, and a large armada of ships and planes attacking us directly, I never heard a word of fear as we faced three powerful nations as enemies. Sixteen million of us went into the military with the very real possibility of death and I never once heard of fear, except from those exposed to danger. Now, our people let [their leaders] terrify them into accepting the destruction of our economy, our image in the world, and our democracy... All this over a small group of religious fanatics [mostly] from Saudi Arabia whom we kowtow to so we can drive 8-cylinder SUV’s. Pathetic!
"How many times have I stood in ‘security lines’ at airports and when I complained of the indignity of taking off shoes and not having water and the manhandling of passengers, have well educated people smugly said to me, ‘Well, they’re just keeping us safe.’ I look at the airport bullshit as a training ground to turn Americans into docile sheep in a totalitarian state."
A public conditioned to act like sheep, to “support our troops” no matter what, to cower before the idea of terrorism, is a public ready to be herded. A military that’s being used to fight unwinnable wars is a military prone to return home disaffected and with scores to settle.
Angry and desperate veterans and mercenaries already conditioned to violence, merging with “tea baggers” and other alienated groups, could one day form our own Freikorps units, rioting for violent solutions to national decline. Recall that the Nazi movement ultimately succeeded in the early 1930s because so many middle-class Germans were scared as they saw their wealth, standard of living, and status all threatened by the Great Depression.
If our Great Recession continues, if decent jobs remain scarce, if the mainstream media continue to foster fear and hatred, if returning troops are disaffected and their leaders blame politicians for “not being tough enough,” if one or two more terrorist attacks succeed on U.S. soil, wouldn’t this country be well primed for a coup by any other name?
Don’t expect a “Seven Days in May” scenario. No American Caesar will return to Washington with his legions to decapitate governmental authority. Why not? Because he won’t have to.
As long as we continue to live in perpetual fear in an increasingly militarized state, we establish the preconditions under which Americans will be nailed to, and crucified on, a cross of iron.
William J. Astore teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology (wastore@pct.edu). A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), he has also taught at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism.
By William AstorePosted on January 19, 2010, Printed on January 23, 2010http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175193/
Here’s a bit of cheery news: Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates met with the nation's top defense company executives, including the CEOs of those mega-military-industrial combines Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and called for a “closer partnership.” He also made them a promise. He pledged, according to his spokesman, “to work with the White House to secure steady growth in the Pentagon's budgets over time.”
Let’s put that pledge in context. Last week, President Obama did something common in the Bush years, something he swore never to do; he requested a supplemental $33 billion over and above the fiscal year 2011 defense budget, mainly for his Afghan surge. That sum, when appropriated by Congress, will bring the total official Pentagon budget to $708 billion dollars ($159 billion of which will be directly slated for Afghan and Iraq war costs). To put that sum in context, it’s close to what the rest of the world combined spends on military matters. And you can be guaranteed of one thing: this won’t be the last supplemental request of 2011.
By the way, if you were to add up the real “defense” budget, including funds for the Department of Homeland Security, the Energy Department (which handles the U.S. nuclear arsenal), veterans' care, the State Department’s planned near-billion-dollar expansion of its embassy in Pakistan into a mega-command post for the region and the planned doubling of the number of personnel in its already monstrous embassy in Baghdad for a similar purpose, and many other relevant things, you would be closing in on $1 trillion per year.
Meanwhile, in December 2009, the total funds Congress has so far appropriated since 2001 only for our two wars topped $1 trillion dollars, with no end in sight, and that figure doesn’t include projected future costs ranging from care for soldiers wounded in those wars to the cost of replenishing worn out military equipment. At the war-fighting level, the Congressional Budget Office has already projected direct war costs over the next decade at $867 billion.
The Pentagon’s 2011 budget is already the highest since World War II, according to defense analyst Winslow T. Wheeler. Now, consider that the secretary of defense has just “pledged” more of the same for years to come. And note that none of this -- with the possible exception of that $33 billion supplemental request -- is considered particularly controversial by anyone who matters in Washington, or worth much front-page news attention. Sums that put health-care reform in the shade cause barely a stir. In other words, the Pentagon rules the roost and, as TomDispatch regular William Astore indicates, it could get a lot worse. Tom
A Very American Coup Coming Soon to a Hometown Near You By William J. Astore
The wars in distant lands were always going to come home, but not this way.
It’s September 2016, year 15 of America’s “Long War” against terror. As weary troops return to the homeland, a bitter reality assails them: despite their sacrifices, America is losing.
Iraq is increasingly hostile to remaining occupation forces. Afghanistan is a riddle that remains unsolved: its army and police forces are untrustworthy, its government corrupt, and its tribal leaders unsympathetic to the vagaries of U.S. intervention. Since the Obama surge of 2010, a trillion more dollars have been devoted to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries in the vast shatter zone that is central Asia, without measurable returns; nothing, that is, except the prolongation of America’s Great Recession, now entering its tenth year without a sustained recovery in sight.
Disillusioned veterans are unable to find decent jobs in a crumbling economy. Scarred by the physical and psychological violence of war, fed up with the happy talk of duplicitous politicians who only speak of shared sacrifices, they begin to organize. Their motto: take America back.
Meanwhile, a lame duck presidency, choking on foreign policy failures, finds itself attacked even for its putative successes. Health-care reform is now seen to have combined the inefficiency and inconsistency of government with the naked greed and exploitative talents of corporations. Medical rationing is a fact of life confronting anyone on the high side of 50. Presidential rhetoric that offered hope and change has lost all resonance. Mainstream media outlets are discredited and disintegrating, resulting in new levels of information anarchy.
Protest, whether electronic or in the streets, has become more common -- and the protestors in those streets increasingly carry guns, though as yet armed violence is minimal. A panicked administration responds with overlapping executive orders and legislation that is widely perceived as an attack on basic freedoms.
Tapping the frustration of protesters -- including a renascent and mainstreamed “tea bag” movement -- the former captains and sergeants, the ex-CIA operatives and out-of-work private mercenaries of the War on Terror take action. Conflict and confrontation they seek; laws and orders they increasingly ignore. As riot police are deployed in the streets, they face a grim choice: where to point their guns? Not at veterans, they decide, not at America’s erstwhile heroes.
A dwindling middle-class, still waving the flag and determined to keep its sliver-sized portion of the American dream, throws its support to the agitators. Wages shrinking, savings exhausted, bills rising, the sober middle can no longer hold. It vents its fear and rage by calling for a decisive leader and the overthrow of a can’t-do Congress.
Savvy members of traditional Washington elites are only too happy to oblige. They too crave order and can-do decisiveness -- on their terms. Where better to find that than in the ranks of America’s most respected institution: the military?
A retired senior officer who led America’s heroes in central Asia is anointed. His creed: end public disorder, fight the War on Terror to a victorious finish, put America back on top. The United States, he says, is the land of winners, and winners accept no substitute for victory. Nominated on September 11, 2016, Patriot Day, he marches to an overwhelming victory that November, embraced in the streets by an American version of the post-World War I German Freikorps and the police who refuse to suppress them. A concerned minority is left to wonder (and tremble) at the de facto military coup that occurred so quickly, and yet so silently, in their midst.
It Can Happen Here, Unless We Act
Yes, it can happen here. In some ways, it’s already happening. But the key question is: at this late date, how can it be stopped? Here are some vectors for a change in course, and in mindset as well, if we are to avoid our own stealth coup:
1. Somehow, we need to begin to reverse the ongoing militarization of this country, especially our ever-rising “defense” budgets. The most recent of these, we’ve just learned, is a staggering $708 billion for fiscal year 2011 -- and that doesn’t even include the $33 billion President Obama has requested for his latest surge in Afghanistan. We also need to get rid of the idea that anyone who suggests even minor cuts in defense spending is either hopelessly naïve or a terrorist sympathizer. It’s time as well to call a halt to the privatization of military activity and so halt the rise of security contractors like Xe (formerly Blackwater), thereby weakening the corporate profit motive that supports and underpins the American version of perpetual war. It’s time to begin feeling chastened, not proud, that we’re by far the number one country in the world in arms manufacturing and the global arms trade.
2. Let’s downsize our global mission rather than endlessly expanding our military footprint. It’s time to have a military capable of defending this country, not fighting endless wars in distant lands while garrisoning the globe.
3. Let’s stop paying attention to major TV and cable networks that rely on retired senior military officers, most of whom have ties both to the Pentagon and military contractors, for “unbiased” commentary on our wars. If we insist on fighting our perpetual “frontier” wars, let’s start insisting as well that they be covered in all their bitter reality: the death, the mayhem, the waste, the prisons, and the torture. Why is our war coverage invariably sanitized to “PG” or even “G,” when we can go to the movies anytime and see “R” rated, pornographically violent films? And by the way, it’s time to be more critical of the government’s and the media’s use of language and propaganda. Mindlessly parroting the Patriot Act doesn’t make you patriotic.
4. It’s time to elect a president who doesn’t surround himself with senior “civilian” advisors and ambassadors who are actually retired military generals and admirals, one who won’t accept a Nobel Peace Prize by defending war in theory and escalating it in practice.
5. Let’s toughen up. Let’s stop deferring to authority figures who promise to “protect” us while abridging our rights. Let’s stop bowing down before men and women in uniform, before they start thinking that it’s their right to be worshipped and act accordingly.
6. Let’s act now to relieve the sort of desperation bred by joblessness and hopelessness that could lead many -- notably male workers suffering from the “He-Cession” -- to see a militarized solution in “the homeland” as a credible last resort. It’s the economy, stupid, but with Main Street’s health, not Wall Street’s, in our focus.
7. Let’s take Sarah Palin and her followers seriously. They’re tapping into anger that’s real and spreading. Don’t let them become the voices of the angry working (and increasingly unemployed) classes.
8. Recognize that we face real enemies in our world, the most powerful of which aren’t in distant Afghanistan or Yemen but here at home. The essence of our struggle to sustain our faltering democracy should not be against “terrorists,” with their shoe and crotch bombs, but against various powerful, perfectly legal groups here whose interests lie in a Pentagon that only grows ever stronger.
9. Stop thinking the U.S. is uniquely privileged. Don’t take it on faith that God is on our side. Forget about God blessing America. If you believe in God, get out there and start trying to earn His blessing through deeds.
10. And, most important of all, remember that fear is the mind-killer that makes militarism possible. Ramping up “terror” is an amazingly effective way of shredding our Constitution. Putting our “safety” above all else is asking for trouble. The only way we’ll be completely safe from the big bad terrorists, after all, is when we’re all living in a maximum security state. Think of walking down the street while always being subject to a “full-body scan.”
That’s my top 10 things we need to do. It’s a daunting list and I’m sure you have a few ideas of your own. But have faith. Ultimately, it all boils down to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s words to a nation suffering through the Great Depression: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. These words came to mind recently as I read the following missive from a friend and World War II veteran who’s seen tough times:
"It’s very hard for me to accept how soft the American people have become. In 1941, with the western world under assault by powerful and deadly forces, and a large armada of ships and planes attacking us directly, I never heard a word of fear as we faced three powerful nations as enemies. Sixteen million of us went into the military with the very real possibility of death and I never once heard of fear, except from those exposed to danger. Now, our people let [their leaders] terrify them into accepting the destruction of our economy, our image in the world, and our democracy... All this over a small group of religious fanatics [mostly] from Saudi Arabia whom we kowtow to so we can drive 8-cylinder SUV’s. Pathetic!
"How many times have I stood in ‘security lines’ at airports and when I complained of the indignity of taking off shoes and not having water and the manhandling of passengers, have well educated people smugly said to me, ‘Well, they’re just keeping us safe.’ I look at the airport bullshit as a training ground to turn Americans into docile sheep in a totalitarian state."
A public conditioned to act like sheep, to “support our troops” no matter what, to cower before the idea of terrorism, is a public ready to be herded. A military that’s being used to fight unwinnable wars is a military prone to return home disaffected and with scores to settle.
Angry and desperate veterans and mercenaries already conditioned to violence, merging with “tea baggers” and other alienated groups, could one day form our own Freikorps units, rioting for violent solutions to national decline. Recall that the Nazi movement ultimately succeeded in the early 1930s because so many middle-class Germans were scared as they saw their wealth, standard of living, and status all threatened by the Great Depression.
If our Great Recession continues, if decent jobs remain scarce, if the mainstream media continue to foster fear and hatred, if returning troops are disaffected and their leaders blame politicians for “not being tough enough,” if one or two more terrorist attacks succeed on U.S. soil, wouldn’t this country be well primed for a coup by any other name?
Don’t expect a “Seven Days in May” scenario. No American Caesar will return to Washington with his legions to decapitate governmental authority. Why not? Because he won’t have to.
As long as we continue to live in perpetual fear in an increasingly militarized state, we establish the preconditions under which Americans will be nailed to, and crucified on, a cross of iron.
William J. Astore teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology (wastore@pct.edu). A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), he has also taught at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
There's a Category 5 storm about to make landfall, and the president and the officials in charge of preparing for the approaching disaster don't seem to be particularly worried. Sound familiar?
Just as Katrina exposed critical weaknesses in the priorities and competence of the Bush administration, the unfolding unemployment disaster is threatening to do the same for the Obama White House.
The members of the Obama administration may not be attending a birthday party at John McCain's ranch in Sedona or shopping for expensive Ferragamo shoes in New York as a great American city is destroyed, but their decidedly lackadaisical response to what job losses are doing to multiple great American cities raises the question: will unemployment be Barack Obama's Katrina?
His economic team's resistance to a second round of stimulus, "lukewarm" reaction to Congressional jobs legislation, and prioritization of deficit reduction over job creation certainly has the feel of a taking-in-the-damage-from-2,500-feet flyover moment.
"There is no discussion of a package like a second stimulus," said deputy White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki. "But we are working closely with Congress and consulting with outside experts to determine the right policies and next steps." No word on whether those outside experts include the 1 in 6 workers currently unemployed or underemployed.
Of course, the real problem isn't the outside experts; the administration's wrongheaded approach is a classic inside job. Sen. Sherrod Brown summed it up on CNN, telling John King that when it comes to putting the focus on Main Street, the president's "advisors are mixed."
Which makes one wonder: what level of unemployment would it take to unmix them? Even 10.2 percent, the highest level in 26 years, after 22 straight months of job losses, doesn't seem to have quickened the pulse of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.
And it's not like the levees haven't begun to crack, with the real unemployment rate -- factoring in discouraged and partially employed workers -- at 17.5 percent, the unemployment rate for workers aged 16 to 24 at 19 percent, and the unemployment rate for young African-Americans at 30 percent. What's more, the average length of unemployment is at a record high, while the ratio of job seekers to open positions is now 6 to 1.
A new ABC/Washington Post poll reported that 30 percent of Americans say someone in their home has lost a job. I'm guessing that Summers and Geithner are comfortably in the other 70 percent. But even if it hasn't hit home for them, it should be clear that unemployment is going to be the singular issue of 2010.
Congressional Democrats have certainly gotten the message -- and have grown tired of waiting for the White House to take the lead. According to The Hill, House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, are "worried they've appeared unresponsive to rising unemployment because they were absorbed by health care." The article also says that Harry Reid has told colleagues he wants a jobs bill soon.
As John Larson, the fourth-ranking House Democrat puts it: "It's jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Members of this caucus feel... that a jobless recovery is just simply unacceptable to us."
The problem for the White House and for the Democratic Party -- and, most importantly, for the country -- is that the administration's response on jobs is being led by Summers, who actually opposed the extension of unemployment benefits Obama just signed. At this point you have to wonder what Obama's attachment to Summers and Geithner is. We know if you become a target of Glenn Beck and cause five seconds of embarrassment to the administration you need to start updating your resume (ask Van Jones), but if you slowly bring down the administration, and the party, and the country, that's apparently fine.
Back in February, when the $787 billion economic stimulus bill was signed, Summers and company promised that it would keep the unemployment rate from going any higher than 8.5 percent. With another 3.4 million jobs lost since then -- and the official unemployment rate at 10.2 and rising -- what does Summers say now?
"I think we got the Recovery Act right."
Really, Larry? What would getting it wrong look like?
The tone-deafness of that statement rivals the clueless response of a certain clothes-conscious former International Arabian Horse Association commissioner turned FEMA head.
I can hear it now: Heck of a job, Larry! Heck of a job, Timmy!
But though the alarm bells don't seem to be ringing in the White House, last week showed that there has clearly been a major shift in the tectonic plates on Capitol Hill.
For starters, there is increasing agreement that Obama's economic team is not up to the job of dealing with the unemployment crisis. According to Rep. Peter DeFazio, there is a "growing consensus" in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Geithner should resign -- and that Summers needs to go, too. "We need a new economic team," DeFazio said on MSNBC. "We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans."
And the next day, DeFazio told HuffPost's Sam Stein: "It is pretty embarrassing for a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress to be identified with total attention to Wall Street and nothing for Main Street and jobs."
This comes just a few weeks after Senator Maria Cantwell told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan that she was "not sure" why Geithner still has a job.
Even more dramatic evidence of the shift came in the House, where members of the House Finance Committee passed a measure to audit the Federal Reserve -- for the first time ever. The bill, sponsored by the bipartisan duo of Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Alan Grayson, was passed over the objections of Chairman Barney Frank -- and of the Fed and its big time friends and lobbyists. That's a group that doesn't lose many votes in Congress. What's more, a last-minute "compromise" amendment that would have significantly watered down the bill was submitted by Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina and heavily backed by the Fed. In normal times, this sort of "split-the-difference" amendment would likely have passed. But these are not normal times, and the amendment was defeated -- much to the shock of the Fed and its supporters.
The House Finance Committee was the site of another indication of how the ground is moving under the administration's feet. An hour before a scheduled final vote on the comprehensive financial regulation reform package sought by the White House, members of the Congressional Black Caucus cornered Chairman Frank and said they would refuse to vote for the bill because of the White House's lack of attention to unemployment. It was, as HuffPost's Ryan Grim reported, intended "as a direct rebuke of the White House."
When we hear about members of Congress holding up a vote (and we've heard it a lot lately), most of the time, it's a ploy to secure some kind of pork for their home district. This was an instance of the brakes being put on not for pork -- but for principle.
So, clearly, the winds of change are picking up in Washington and around the country. It's time for the White House to stop holding no-rush summits and insisting that everything is going as planned, and course-correct. Now. And there is no shortage of bold steps the administration can take to mitigate the damage before it turns into an all-out catastrophe.
Among the best ideas currently being floated:
-- Use Wall Street bailout funds left in the TARP program to hail out Main Street (via increased lending to small businesses and using money for public services being cut by states and cities).
-- Enact a one-year payroll tax holiday (creating a moratorium on Social Security, Medicare, and FICA taxes will encourage businesses to hire new workers).
-- Expand the Small Business Association's lending programs (45 percent of all job losses have been at small businesses).
-- Offer businesses a tax credit for every new job created over the next 12 months, or have the government pay a portion of the salary of new workers hired over the same period.
The bottom line: extending unemployment benefits, crossing your fingers, and waiting for things to turn around is just not enough.
In the post-Katrina fallout, video surfaced of a final briefing before the storm hit in which federal disaster officials warned President Bush that the hurricane could breach the levees and overwhelm the ability of rescuers to properly respond. Bush famously didn't ask a single question but assured local officials: "We are fully prepared." He later insisted, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
Are we going to get similar protestations from Obama when the unemployment waters continue to rise?
The unemployment disaster has already inflicted great damage all across the country. And the Obama White House will be defined by its response to it.
So what is it going to be: a muscular, multi-tiered jobs plan to deal with reality or "heck of a job" delusion?
Just as Katrina exposed critical weaknesses in the priorities and competence of the Bush administration, the unfolding unemployment disaster is threatening to do the same for the Obama White House.
The members of the Obama administration may not be attending a birthday party at John McCain's ranch in Sedona or shopping for expensive Ferragamo shoes in New York as a great American city is destroyed, but their decidedly lackadaisical response to what job losses are doing to multiple great American cities raises the question: will unemployment be Barack Obama's Katrina?
His economic team's resistance to a second round of stimulus, "lukewarm" reaction to Congressional jobs legislation, and prioritization of deficit reduction over job creation certainly has the feel of a taking-in-the-damage-from-2,500-feet flyover moment.
"There is no discussion of a package like a second stimulus," said deputy White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki. "But we are working closely with Congress and consulting with outside experts to determine the right policies and next steps." No word on whether those outside experts include the 1 in 6 workers currently unemployed or underemployed.
Of course, the real problem isn't the outside experts; the administration's wrongheaded approach is a classic inside job. Sen. Sherrod Brown summed it up on CNN, telling John King that when it comes to putting the focus on Main Street, the president's "advisors are mixed."
Which makes one wonder: what level of unemployment would it take to unmix them? Even 10.2 percent, the highest level in 26 years, after 22 straight months of job losses, doesn't seem to have quickened the pulse of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.
And it's not like the levees haven't begun to crack, with the real unemployment rate -- factoring in discouraged and partially employed workers -- at 17.5 percent, the unemployment rate for workers aged 16 to 24 at 19 percent, and the unemployment rate for young African-Americans at 30 percent. What's more, the average length of unemployment is at a record high, while the ratio of job seekers to open positions is now 6 to 1.
A new ABC/Washington Post poll reported that 30 percent of Americans say someone in their home has lost a job. I'm guessing that Summers and Geithner are comfortably in the other 70 percent. But even if it hasn't hit home for them, it should be clear that unemployment is going to be the singular issue of 2010.
Congressional Democrats have certainly gotten the message -- and have grown tired of waiting for the White House to take the lead. According to The Hill, House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, are "worried they've appeared unresponsive to rising unemployment because they were absorbed by health care." The article also says that Harry Reid has told colleagues he wants a jobs bill soon.
As John Larson, the fourth-ranking House Democrat puts it: "It's jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Members of this caucus feel... that a jobless recovery is just simply unacceptable to us."
The problem for the White House and for the Democratic Party -- and, most importantly, for the country -- is that the administration's response on jobs is being led by Summers, who actually opposed the extension of unemployment benefits Obama just signed. At this point you have to wonder what Obama's attachment to Summers and Geithner is. We know if you become a target of Glenn Beck and cause five seconds of embarrassment to the administration you need to start updating your resume (ask Van Jones), but if you slowly bring down the administration, and the party, and the country, that's apparently fine.
Back in February, when the $787 billion economic stimulus bill was signed, Summers and company promised that it would keep the unemployment rate from going any higher than 8.5 percent. With another 3.4 million jobs lost since then -- and the official unemployment rate at 10.2 and rising -- what does Summers say now?
"I think we got the Recovery Act right."
Really, Larry? What would getting it wrong look like?
The tone-deafness of that statement rivals the clueless response of a certain clothes-conscious former International Arabian Horse Association commissioner turned FEMA head.
I can hear it now: Heck of a job, Larry! Heck of a job, Timmy!
But though the alarm bells don't seem to be ringing in the White House, last week showed that there has clearly been a major shift in the tectonic plates on Capitol Hill.
For starters, there is increasing agreement that Obama's economic team is not up to the job of dealing with the unemployment crisis. According to Rep. Peter DeFazio, there is a "growing consensus" in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Geithner should resign -- and that Summers needs to go, too. "We need a new economic team," DeFazio said on MSNBC. "We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans."
And the next day, DeFazio told HuffPost's Sam Stein: "It is pretty embarrassing for a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress to be identified with total attention to Wall Street and nothing for Main Street and jobs."
This comes just a few weeks after Senator Maria Cantwell told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan that she was "not sure" why Geithner still has a job.
Even more dramatic evidence of the shift came in the House, where members of the House Finance Committee passed a measure to audit the Federal Reserve -- for the first time ever. The bill, sponsored by the bipartisan duo of Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Alan Grayson, was passed over the objections of Chairman Barney Frank -- and of the Fed and its big time friends and lobbyists. That's a group that doesn't lose many votes in Congress. What's more, a last-minute "compromise" amendment that would have significantly watered down the bill was submitted by Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina and heavily backed by the Fed. In normal times, this sort of "split-the-difference" amendment would likely have passed. But these are not normal times, and the amendment was defeated -- much to the shock of the Fed and its supporters.
The House Finance Committee was the site of another indication of how the ground is moving under the administration's feet. An hour before a scheduled final vote on the comprehensive financial regulation reform package sought by the White House, members of the Congressional Black Caucus cornered Chairman Frank and said they would refuse to vote for the bill because of the White House's lack of attention to unemployment. It was, as HuffPost's Ryan Grim reported, intended "as a direct rebuke of the White House."
When we hear about members of Congress holding up a vote (and we've heard it a lot lately), most of the time, it's a ploy to secure some kind of pork for their home district. This was an instance of the brakes being put on not for pork -- but for principle.
So, clearly, the winds of change are picking up in Washington and around the country. It's time for the White House to stop holding no-rush summits and insisting that everything is going as planned, and course-correct. Now. And there is no shortage of bold steps the administration can take to mitigate the damage before it turns into an all-out catastrophe.
Among the best ideas currently being floated:
-- Use Wall Street bailout funds left in the TARP program to hail out Main Street (via increased lending to small businesses and using money for public services being cut by states and cities).
-- Enact a one-year payroll tax holiday (creating a moratorium on Social Security, Medicare, and FICA taxes will encourage businesses to hire new workers).
-- Expand the Small Business Association's lending programs (45 percent of all job losses have been at small businesses).
-- Offer businesses a tax credit for every new job created over the next 12 months, or have the government pay a portion of the salary of new workers hired over the same period.
The bottom line: extending unemployment benefits, crossing your fingers, and waiting for things to turn around is just not enough.
In the post-Katrina fallout, video surfaced of a final briefing before the storm hit in which federal disaster officials warned President Bush that the hurricane could breach the levees and overwhelm the ability of rescuers to properly respond. Bush famously didn't ask a single question but assured local officials: "We are fully prepared." He later insisted, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
Are we going to get similar protestations from Obama when the unemployment waters continue to rise?
The unemployment disaster has already inflicted great damage all across the country. And the Obama White House will be defined by its response to it.
So what is it going to be: a muscular, multi-tiered jobs plan to deal with reality or "heck of a job" delusion?
Fitch: U.S. Retail Credit Card Defaults Hit Near-Record Levels with No Relief in Sight
U.S. consumers defaulted on store-branded credit cards at near-record levels during the holiday shopping season, with 2010 likely to bring more of the same trend, according to Fitch Ratings.
Fitch's December Retail Credit Card Index results show that more than one in every eight dollars of receivables was written off as uncollectable during the November collection period on an annualized basis. Taken with the recent delinquency trends and Fitch's expectation for unemployment, Fitch expects retail card chargeoffs to remain elevated throughout first half-2010.
"We do not foresee any meaningful improvement in the retail card credit quality in the coming months," said Managing Director Michael Dean. "U.S. consumers remain under stress on a number of fronts, most notably on the employment front, and retail card chargeoffs will continue to reflect those pressures."
Despite the elevated chargeoff and delinquency measures, Fitch expects retail card ABS ratings to remain stable throughout 2010. Excess spread remains robust, which coupled with loss coverage multiples and other structural protections will shield investors from potential downgrades or early amortization scenarios.
In December, Fitch's Retail Credit Card Chargeoff Index snapped a two-month decline, rising 122 basis points (bps) to 12.56% from the previous month. Throughout 2009, chargeoffs surpassed the previous record (12.25% in January 2005) five times, establishing a new all-time high of 12.81% in August. Throughout the year, retail chargeoffs averaged 11.88% (more than 42% above the historical average of 8.34%).
"While results were negative throughout the year, we have seen the pace of deterioration moderate more recently," said Dean. "Certain issuers have also tightened underwriting standards and become more selective when adding new accounts, which should help mitigate loss rates longer term."
Late stage delinquencies, as measured by Fitch's 60+ day retail delinquency index, fell 15 bps to 5.22%. Late stage delinquencies averaged 5.25% for the past three months and 5.09% for all of 2009, exhibiting some signs of stabilizing albeit near record highs. Similar to chargeoffs, the deterioration in delinquencies has slowed significantly from the previous year, yet they still remain almost 48% higher than 2007. Despite these short term improvements, Fitch expects retail credit card delinquencies to remain elevated throughout first half 2010 in line with its expectations for unemployment.
High unemployment and ongoing household deleveraging will continue to limit demand for consumer credit in 2010. Consumer confidence as measured by the Conference Board remains historically low despite rising in the most recent period and unemployment is expected to remain elevated averaging 10.2% in 2010. 'Households will remain cautious with their spending and further curtail their use of retail cards in 2010,' said Dean.
This does not bode well for prospects of a robust rebound in retail sales or credit usage in 2010 as the employment situation and economic environment overall continues to weigh on consumers' spending decisions. The latest Fed figures show revolving credit usage decreased at an annual rate of 18.5% in November - the largest dollar-value drop since 1968 and the 14th consecutive decline since October 2008As long as the employment and income growth remain weak, demand for consumer credit - especially retail credit - will be limited.
Fitch's December Retail Credit Card Index results show that more than one in every eight dollars of receivables was written off as uncollectable during the November collection period on an annualized basis. Taken with the recent delinquency trends and Fitch's expectation for unemployment, Fitch expects retail card chargeoffs to remain elevated throughout first half-2010.
"We do not foresee any meaningful improvement in the retail card credit quality in the coming months," said Managing Director Michael Dean. "U.S. consumers remain under stress on a number of fronts, most notably on the employment front, and retail card chargeoffs will continue to reflect those pressures."
Despite the elevated chargeoff and delinquency measures, Fitch expects retail card ABS ratings to remain stable throughout 2010. Excess spread remains robust, which coupled with loss coverage multiples and other structural protections will shield investors from potential downgrades or early amortization scenarios.
In December, Fitch's Retail Credit Card Chargeoff Index snapped a two-month decline, rising 122 basis points (bps) to 12.56% from the previous month. Throughout 2009, chargeoffs surpassed the previous record (12.25% in January 2005) five times, establishing a new all-time high of 12.81% in August. Throughout the year, retail chargeoffs averaged 11.88% (more than 42% above the historical average of 8.34%).
"While results were negative throughout the year, we have seen the pace of deterioration moderate more recently," said Dean. "Certain issuers have also tightened underwriting standards and become more selective when adding new accounts, which should help mitigate loss rates longer term."
Late stage delinquencies, as measured by Fitch's 60+ day retail delinquency index, fell 15 bps to 5.22%. Late stage delinquencies averaged 5.25% for the past three months and 5.09% for all of 2009, exhibiting some signs of stabilizing albeit near record highs. Similar to chargeoffs, the deterioration in delinquencies has slowed significantly from the previous year, yet they still remain almost 48% higher than 2007. Despite these short term improvements, Fitch expects retail credit card delinquencies to remain elevated throughout first half 2010 in line with its expectations for unemployment.
High unemployment and ongoing household deleveraging will continue to limit demand for consumer credit in 2010. Consumer confidence as measured by the Conference Board remains historically low despite rising in the most recent period and unemployment is expected to remain elevated averaging 10.2% in 2010. 'Households will remain cautious with their spending and further curtail their use of retail cards in 2010,' said Dean.
This does not bode well for prospects of a robust rebound in retail sales or credit usage in 2010 as the employment situation and economic environment overall continues to weigh on consumers' spending decisions. The latest Fed figures show revolving credit usage decreased at an annual rate of 18.5% in November - the largest dollar-value drop since 1968 and the 14th consecutive decline since October 2008As long as the employment and income growth remain weak, demand for consumer credit - especially retail credit - will be limited.
In other retail card performance measures, Fitch's gross yield index bounced back from last month after sustaining a one-time drop in yield due mainly to systemic changes that temporarily affected the GE Capital Credit Card Master Note Trust. The yield index for November 2009 rose 217 bps to 25.57%, but remained unchanged when compared to the same period a year ago. As a result, three-month average excess spread rose by 18 bps to 8.07%. Retail credit card excess spread has been significantly less volatile compared to prime performance.
MPR for November 2009 fell by 23 bps to 12.90%, but remained only 3% slower than a year ago. Overall, performance in the retail sector is solid with 3 month average excess spread hovering between 7.50% and 8.00% during 2009.
Fitch's Retail Credit Card index tracks more than $65 billion principal receivables backing approximately $49 billion of retail or private label credit card ABS. The index is primarily comprised of private label portfolios originated and serviced by Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., GE Money Bank HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. and World Financial Network National Bank. More than 165 retailers are incorporated including Wal-Mart, Sears, Home Depot, Federated, Loews, J.C. Penney, Limited Brands, Best Buy, Lane Bryant and Dillard's, among others.
Additional information is available at 'www.fitchratings.com'
MPR for November 2009 fell by 23 bps to 12.90%, but remained only 3% slower than a year ago. Overall, performance in the retail sector is solid with 3 month average excess spread hovering between 7.50% and 8.00% during 2009.
Fitch's Retail Credit Card index tracks more than $65 billion principal receivables backing approximately $49 billion of retail or private label credit card ABS. The index is primarily comprised of private label portfolios originated and serviced by Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., GE Money Bank HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. and World Financial Network National Bank. More than 165 retailers are incorporated including Wal-Mart, Sears, Home Depot, Federated, Loews, J.C. Penney, Limited Brands, Best Buy, Lane Bryant and Dillard's, among others.
Additional information is available at 'www.fitchratings.com'
THOUSANDS OF VETERANS HAVE RETURNED HOME ONLY TO FIND AN ECONOMIC WASTELAND. THESE BRAVE YOUNG PEOPLE DESERVE JOBS THAT PAY A LIVING WAGE. THEY DON'T WANT HANDOUTS-THEY WANT TO BE ABSORBED BACK INTO THE SOCIETY THAT SENT THEM ON THEIR MISSIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE! SEE THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE;
I know, I know. Enough with the Rascal House already. It’s done, dead, finished. Toyt Fahrtik Gishtorbin.
But what can I do? This was THE deli of south Florida, and its death is pure tragedy. It’s been closed for three days, but I was sent this story in the New York Times from my publisher, and there was something inside that just ground my gears.
The red counter stools were empty. Wide plastic menus sold for $25 each. Platters once full of food cost $5.
The restaurant’s more famous items were priced like antiques. That large photo of Jackie Gleason, young, arms wide, smiling on Miami Beach; it cost $2,500, according to the tag. The restaurant’s interior signs with the Rascal logo ran too high for Mrs. Rothman’s budget at $5,000 each. She said she had hoped to pay $500.
Ken Joyce, 70, a law professor in Buffalo who always ordered the corned beef, said he was deciding whether to buy a board with a Damon Runyon quotation: “As I see it, there are two kinds of people in this world; people who love delis, and people you shouldn’t associate with.” It was $250, even though the “it” had fallen off.
So here we have this great institution, shut down by the extremely wealthy Starkman family of Jerry’s Famous Deli fame, because it was:a) not profitableb) not in line with their corporate visionc) in a prime spot of land where they wanted a condo
Some sixty five or so staff are now out of work, but the Starkman’s have the nerve to auction off chunks of the restaurant for ridiculous prices. These are the same people who charge $10 for a glass of orange juice down in South Beach. Now, they’re selling off menus for $25!!!! Photos for $2500???
LIke the sign said “As I see it, there are two types of people in this world: people who love delis, and those you shouldn’t associate with.”
The Starkman’s bought Miami’s great delis and slowly bled them to death, selling off the real estate to developers or replacing them with Jerry’s Famous Deli (a deli in name only). So guess which type they are.
A shonda!Source; http://www.savethedeli.com/2008/04/02/rascal-house-the-final-indignity/
But what can I do? This was THE deli of south Florida, and its death is pure tragedy. It’s been closed for three days, but I was sent this story in the New York Times from my publisher, and there was something inside that just ground my gears.
The red counter stools were empty. Wide plastic menus sold for $25 each. Platters once full of food cost $5.
The restaurant’s more famous items were priced like antiques. That large photo of Jackie Gleason, young, arms wide, smiling on Miami Beach; it cost $2,500, according to the tag. The restaurant’s interior signs with the Rascal logo ran too high for Mrs. Rothman’s budget at $5,000 each. She said she had hoped to pay $500.
Ken Joyce, 70, a law professor in Buffalo who always ordered the corned beef, said he was deciding whether to buy a board with a Damon Runyon quotation: “As I see it, there are two kinds of people in this world; people who love delis, and people you shouldn’t associate with.” It was $250, even though the “it” had fallen off.
So here we have this great institution, shut down by the extremely wealthy Starkman family of Jerry’s Famous Deli fame, because it was:a) not profitableb) not in line with their corporate visionc) in a prime spot of land where they wanted a condo
Some sixty five or so staff are now out of work, but the Starkman’s have the nerve to auction off chunks of the restaurant for ridiculous prices. These are the same people who charge $10 for a glass of orange juice down in South Beach. Now, they’re selling off menus for $25!!!! Photos for $2500???
LIke the sign said “As I see it, there are two types of people in this world: people who love delis, and those you shouldn’t associate with.”
The Starkman’s bought Miami’s great delis and slowly bled them to death, selling off the real estate to developers or replacing them with Jerry’s Famous Deli (a deli in name only). So guess which type they are.
A shonda!Source; http://www.savethedeli.com/2008/04/02/rascal-house-the-final-indignity/
"For a cast of Rascal House regulars, the end will come Sunday night, when the hallowed deli in Sunny Isles Beach closes its doors for good. Gone will be the red vinyl booths, the fabled corned beef sandwiches and stuffed cabbage, the cartoonish devil smiling impishly above the tattered green awning. "--The Miami Herald, March 29, 2008.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Rascal House closed permanently in March 2008. This review is left online to preserve the memory of this Miami Beach institution. Frank Sinatra and his buddies used to dine here after performing in Miami Beach – and the kitschy, hip vibe still permeates Wolfie Cohen’s Rascal House today. This authentic delicatessen is a throwback to the old Miami, but the food is still incredible. Upon sliding into the leather-lined booths, you will notice pots of pickles and pickled cabbage on the table. Indulge freely. The restaurant-deli is located at 17190 Collins Ave., Sunny Isles Beach. It is far – very far – from the tourist hub of South Beach. However, it is well worth the drive. If you are on South Beach, take Collins Avenue north; it will take about a half-hour with traffic. If you are in the city, take either Biscayne Boulevard of I-95 to 163d Street, then head east toward the beach. Turn left on Collins and the restaurant will be eight blocks on your left. The restaurant does not take reservations; if you are lucky, there won’t be a line snaking out the front door. If you have room after eating the giant pastrami and cheese (or for the traditionalists, throw a slice of tounge on the sandwich), try the cheesecake; it’s made fresh, in house every day. The desserts alone are worth a visit – just imagine stacks of blueberry-filled blintzes, apple crumb cakes and key lime pies and you’re in Rascal House heaven. Take home a batch of rugelah and a half-dozen cherry danishes and savor the Rascal experience at home. Do you agree with our review? Think we're way off base? You can submit your own review of this or any other Miami restaurant for inclusion on the About Miami site. You can also read reviews of Rascal House submitted by other readers.
Oy vey (Yiddish: אױ װײ), or just oy,[1] is an exclamation of dismay or exasperation [1] meaning "oh woe." Its sound is very similar to Ach weh, and Au weh (with which it is a cognate), a common expression used in Bavaria and Austria in similar situations, combining the German exclamation Au! meaning "Ouch/Oh" and the German word Weh meaning pain. It is however also theorized that the first part of it (oy) is originally from Biblical Hebrew, with cognates in other Semitic languages.[citation needed] Vey and the similar contemporary German Weh are derived from Middle High German, and are cognate with the English "woe." The term in its present form is borrowed from Yiddish,[2] "Au Gewalt" (Yiddish: אױ גװאַלד oy gvald) – which can have a similar meaning, or also express shock or amazement. Gevald! is often just used by itself to express this feeling.
It is also similar in meaning and pronunciation to the Russian term "uvy" (Rus, увы), which is used to express grief or sorrow.
It is also similar in meaning and pronunciation to the Russian term "uvy" (Rus, увы), which is used to express grief or sorrow.
OY VEY ALLRIGHT! I HAVE NOT BEEN TO MIAMI BEACH IN YEARS AND I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THE CHICKEN IN THE POT I SHARED WITH MY SISTER AT THE RASCAL HOUSE! A TRULY GREAT AMERICAN INSTITUTION. ANOTHER GREAT PLACE TO EAT, IS, THE GOLDEN OX IN KANSAS CITY, MO.. I HAVE ADDED IT TO MY LINK LIST. I AM BUMMED OUT.
Wolfie Cohen A Legend in Miami Beach
In 1932 a borscht circuit busboy, Wolfie Cohen, came to Miami Beach and opened one successful Miami Beach restaurant after another, including his original “Wolfie’s” on the corner of Collins Avenue and Lincoln Road. He also came up with an innovative approach to local dining that revolutionized the restaurant industry and established his popular sandwich shop type of operation, and earning him the title of ”Million Dollar Rascal.”
In May, 1954, Wolfie Cohen erected another restaurant, The Rascal House, at a cost of over $750,000 in the heart of the fast-growing, glamorous motel area around 172nd Street.
Two big factors guided Wolfie Cohen. He believed his customers had a “Show Me!” attitude, so he always displayed tremendous desserts, salads, meats for carving and the sandwich-making operation up front where the passersby and in-coming patrons could see it all in a single glance.
His other principle he called the “margin for error.” For example, at the Rascal House all baking was done on the premises in their fully equipped modern Hot Point bakery. A basic recipe for something never made before—onion rye bread—was decided upon by the owner himself, Wolfie Cohen.
Each baker was given the recipe and each man competed to produce the best sample. Next came the discussions and tests and with it the birth of an onion rye bread distinctive in flavor.
Wolfie Cohen become a legend and his fame spread far and wide as Miami Beach tourists returned home and told their friends about his restaurants.
Adjoining Wolfie’s well-known Rascal House, was his Bull Pen Lounge.
In May, 1954, Wolfie Cohen erected another restaurant, The Rascal House, at a cost of over $750,000 in the heart of the fast-growing, glamorous motel area around 172nd Street.
Two big factors guided Wolfie Cohen. He believed his customers had a “Show Me!” attitude, so he always displayed tremendous desserts, salads, meats for carving and the sandwich-making operation up front where the passersby and in-coming patrons could see it all in a single glance.
His other principle he called the “margin for error.” For example, at the Rascal House all baking was done on the premises in their fully equipped modern Hot Point bakery. A basic recipe for something never made before—onion rye bread—was decided upon by the owner himself, Wolfie Cohen.
Each baker was given the recipe and each man competed to produce the best sample. Next came the discussions and tests and with it the birth of an onion rye bread distinctive in flavor.
Wolfie Cohen become a legend and his fame spread far and wide as Miami Beach tourists returned home and told their friends about his restaurants.
Adjoining Wolfie’s well-known Rascal House, was his Bull Pen Lounge.
Why America and China will clash
Google’s clash with China is about much more than the fate of a single, powerful firm. The company’s decision to pull out of China, unless the government there changes its policies on censorship, is a harbinger of increasingly stormy relations between the US and China.
The reason that the Google case is so significant is because it suggests that the assumptions on which US policy to China have been based since the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 could be plain wrong. The US has accepted – even welcomed – China’s emergence as a giant economic power because American policymakers convinced themselves that economic opening would lead to political liberalisation in China.
The reason that the Google case is so significant is because it suggests that the assumptions on which US policy to China have been based since the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 could be plain wrong. The US has accepted – even welcomed – China’s emergence as a giant economic power because American policymakers convinced themselves that economic opening would lead to political liberalisation in China.
If that assumption changes, American policy towards China could change with it. Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state, that is America’s only plausible geopolitical rival, is a different proposition. Combine this political disillusionment with double-digit unemployment in the US that is widely blamed on Chinese currency manipulation, and you have the formula for an anti-China backlash.
Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush firmly believed that free trade and, in particular, the information age would make political change in China irresistible. On a visit to China in 1998, Mr Clinton proclaimed: “In this global information age, when economic success is built on ideas, personal freedom is essential to the greatness of any nation.” A year later, Mr Bush made a similar point: “Economic freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy ... Trade freely with the Chinese and time is on our side.”
The two presidents were reflecting the conventional wisdom among America’s most influential pundits. Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of best-selling books on globalisation, once proclaimed bluntly: “China’s going to have a free press. Globalisation will drive it.” Robert Wright, one of Mr Clinton’s favourite thinkers, argued that if China chose to block free access to the internet, “the price would be dismal economic failure”.
So far, the facts are refusing to conform to the theory. China has continued to censor new and old media, but this has hardly condemned it to “dismal economic failure”. On the contrary, China is now the world’s second largest economy and its largest exporter, with foreign reserves above $2,000bn. But all this economic growth shows little sign of provoking the political changes anticipated by Bush and Clinton. If anything, the Chinese government seems to be getting more repressive. Liu Xiaobo, a leading Chinese dissident, was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for his involvement in the Charter 08 movement that advocates democratic reforms.
Google’s decision to confront the Chinese government is an early sign that the Americans are getting fed up with dealing with Chinese authoritarianism. But the biggest pressures are likely to come from politicians rather than businessmen. Google is an unusual company in an unusually politicised industry. If the Googlers do indeed head for the exits in China, they are unlikely to be crushed by a stampede of other multinationals rushing to follow them. To most big companies the country’s market is too large and tempting to ignore. Despite Google, US business is likely to remain the lobby that argues hardest for continuing engagement with China.
The pressures for disengagement will come from labour activists, security hawks and politicians – particularly in Congress. To date, the Obama administration has based its policy firmly on the assumptions that have governed America’s approach to China for a generation. The president’s recent set-piece speech on Asia was a classic statement of the case for US engagement with China – complete with the ritualistic assertion that America welcomes China’s rise. But, after being censored by Chinese television in Shanghai and harangued by a junior Chinese official at the Copenhagen climate talks, Barack Obama may be feeling less warm towards Beijing. An early sign that the White House is hardening its policy could come in the next few months, with an official decision to label China a “currency manipulator”.
Even if the administration itself does not move, the voices calling for tougher policies against China are likely to get louder in Congress. Google’s decision to highlight the dangers of cyberattack from China will play to growing American security fears about China. The development of Chinese missile systems that threaten US naval dominance in the Pacific are also causing concern in Washington. Impending US arms sales to Taiwan are already provoking a dispute.
Meanwhile, protectionism seems to be becoming intellectually respectable in the US in ways that should worry China.
A trade war between America and China is hardly to be welcomed. It could tip the world back into recession and inject dangerous new tensions into international politics. If it happens, both sides will share the blame. The US has been almost wilfully naive about the connections between free trade and democracy. The Chinese have been provocative over currency and human rights. If they want to head off a damaging clash with America, changes in policy would be well advised.
gideon.rachman@ft.comMore columns at http://www.ft.com/comment/columnists/gideonrachmanPost and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush firmly believed that free trade and, in particular, the information age would make political change in China irresistible. On a visit to China in 1998, Mr Clinton proclaimed: “In this global information age, when economic success is built on ideas, personal freedom is essential to the greatness of any nation.” A year later, Mr Bush made a similar point: “Economic freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy ... Trade freely with the Chinese and time is on our side.”
The two presidents were reflecting the conventional wisdom among America’s most influential pundits. Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of best-selling books on globalisation, once proclaimed bluntly: “China’s going to have a free press. Globalisation will drive it.” Robert Wright, one of Mr Clinton’s favourite thinkers, argued that if China chose to block free access to the internet, “the price would be dismal economic failure”.
So far, the facts are refusing to conform to the theory. China has continued to censor new and old media, but this has hardly condemned it to “dismal economic failure”. On the contrary, China is now the world’s second largest economy and its largest exporter, with foreign reserves above $2,000bn. But all this economic growth shows little sign of provoking the political changes anticipated by Bush and Clinton. If anything, the Chinese government seems to be getting more repressive. Liu Xiaobo, a leading Chinese dissident, was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for his involvement in the Charter 08 movement that advocates democratic reforms.
Google’s decision to confront the Chinese government is an early sign that the Americans are getting fed up with dealing with Chinese authoritarianism. But the biggest pressures are likely to come from politicians rather than businessmen. Google is an unusual company in an unusually politicised industry. If the Googlers do indeed head for the exits in China, they are unlikely to be crushed by a stampede of other multinationals rushing to follow them. To most big companies the country’s market is too large and tempting to ignore. Despite Google, US business is likely to remain the lobby that argues hardest for continuing engagement with China.
The pressures for disengagement will come from labour activists, security hawks and politicians – particularly in Congress. To date, the Obama administration has based its policy firmly on the assumptions that have governed America’s approach to China for a generation. The president’s recent set-piece speech on Asia was a classic statement of the case for US engagement with China – complete with the ritualistic assertion that America welcomes China’s rise. But, after being censored by Chinese television in Shanghai and harangued by a junior Chinese official at the Copenhagen climate talks, Barack Obama may be feeling less warm towards Beijing. An early sign that the White House is hardening its policy could come in the next few months, with an official decision to label China a “currency manipulator”.
Even if the administration itself does not move, the voices calling for tougher policies against China are likely to get louder in Congress. Google’s decision to highlight the dangers of cyberattack from China will play to growing American security fears about China. The development of Chinese missile systems that threaten US naval dominance in the Pacific are also causing concern in Washington. Impending US arms sales to Taiwan are already provoking a dispute.
Meanwhile, protectionism seems to be becoming intellectually respectable in the US in ways that should worry China.
A trade war between America and China is hardly to be welcomed. It could tip the world back into recession and inject dangerous new tensions into international politics. If it happens, both sides will share the blame. The US has been almost wilfully naive about the connections between free trade and democracy. The Chinese have been provocative over currency and human rights. If they want to head off a damaging clash with America, changes in policy would be well advised.
gideon.rachman@ft.comMore columns at http://www.ft.com/comment/columnists/gideonrachmanPost and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
Measuring The Chinese Fleet
January 21, 2010: The U.S. Navy accidentally posted their classified estimate on the size and composition of the Chinese Navy. This data was quickly taken down, but not before it was copied and posted worldwide.
The strength of the Chinese fleet was listed as;
Submarines- 62 (53 diesel Attack Submarines, six nuclear Attack Submarines, three nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines). The U.S. has 72 submarines, all nuclear (53 attack and 18 ballistic missile.)
Destroyers-26. The U.S. has 52.
Frigates-48. The U.S. has 32, including two of the new LCS vessels.
Amphibious Ships 58. The U.S. has 30, all much larger and equipped with flight decks and helicopters, plus landing craft.
Coastal Patrol (Missile)- at least 80. The U.S. had a few of these, but got rid of them. China uses these for coastal patrol and defense, a concept they inherited from the Russians.
In addition, the U.S. has eleven aircraft carriers (all of them nuclear powered) and 22 cruisers.
Most of the Chinese ships are older (in design, if not in the age of the vessels) than their American counterparts. China is building new classes of ships, with more modern equipment and weapons. Their new destroyers have better anti-aircraft weapons, although nothing to match the American Aegis system, much less the 20 U.S. Aegis ships with anti-missile capability. China is trying to develop classes of nuclear submarines that come close to the capabilities of their American counterparts. China is also vastly outmatched in naval aviation, with nothing comparable to the hundreds of American maritime patrol (P-3) aircraft. But China is building aircraft carriers, and upgrading its naval aviation. They are also innovating in some areas, like the development of a ballistic missile that can hit a moving ship (preferably an American carrier.)
Only a portion (about a third) of the U.S. fleet is facing China, because of other commitments, while nearly all the Chinese fleet operates along their coast. But the U.S. also has major naval allies in the region (like Japan and South Korea), while China has none. The Chinese fleet is no match for the U.S. Navy now, but the Chinese are building and planning for the future. In another few decades, the Chinese expect the situation to be quite different.
The strength of the Chinese fleet was listed as;
Submarines- 62 (53 diesel Attack Submarines, six nuclear Attack Submarines, three nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines). The U.S. has 72 submarines, all nuclear (53 attack and 18 ballistic missile.)
Destroyers-26. The U.S. has 52.
Frigates-48. The U.S. has 32, including two of the new LCS vessels.
Amphibious Ships 58. The U.S. has 30, all much larger and equipped with flight decks and helicopters, plus landing craft.
Coastal Patrol (Missile)- at least 80. The U.S. had a few of these, but got rid of them. China uses these for coastal patrol and defense, a concept they inherited from the Russians.
In addition, the U.S. has eleven aircraft carriers (all of them nuclear powered) and 22 cruisers.
Most of the Chinese ships are older (in design, if not in the age of the vessels) than their American counterparts. China is building new classes of ships, with more modern equipment and weapons. Their new destroyers have better anti-aircraft weapons, although nothing to match the American Aegis system, much less the 20 U.S. Aegis ships with anti-missile capability. China is trying to develop classes of nuclear submarines that come close to the capabilities of their American counterparts. China is also vastly outmatched in naval aviation, with nothing comparable to the hundreds of American maritime patrol (P-3) aircraft. But China is building aircraft carriers, and upgrading its naval aviation. They are also innovating in some areas, like the development of a ballistic missile that can hit a moving ship (preferably an American carrier.)
Only a portion (about a third) of the U.S. fleet is facing China, because of other commitments, while nearly all the Chinese fleet operates along their coast. But the U.S. also has major naval allies in the region (like Japan and South Korea), while China has none. The Chinese fleet is no match for the U.S. Navy now, but the Chinese are building and planning for the future. In another few decades, the Chinese expect the situation to be quite different.
By Rabbi Nachum Shifren
January 8, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Let's start by saying what everybody already knows: We will have another terrorist attack in the U.S. We just don't know when or where. What we as Americans are basically asked to do is be guinea pigs in an out-of-control terrorist experiment, where assessments will determine the best way for us to die. How has the greatest, mightiest country on earth been reduced to groveling and bowing down to cut-throat murderers? When did we become apologists for our individual freedoms and Constitution. Our Judeo-Christian heritage? Let's take a walk through memory lane, to those tarnished halls of American academia, where our notions of academic freedom and striving for excellence, have long been discarded.
Since the 60's, our schools have been not only dumbed down, but as a result, we have become a "nation at risk." Listen to what the National Commission on Excellence in Education presented to then-President Reagan in 1983 its landmark study, "A Nation at Risk:""The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a people...if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an ACT OF WAR. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves...we have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral disarmament."An act of war? You'd never know it as you romp through the hallways of our schools. It's business as usual as our "teachers' churn out texts and agendas that bash America, Whites, Christians, and anything that smacks of the uniqueness of America, hard work, delayed gratification, honor to our military, sanctity of marriage, accentuating the accomplishments of the individual and rewarding such.
Has anything changed since 1983? How have we learned from our folly, and made good in our schools? Let's fast forward to 1998 and hear what educational experts wrote in a new report, "A Nation Still at Risk."-- more than 10 million Americans have reached the 12th grade without having learned to read at a basic level-- more than 20 million have reached their senior year unable to do basic math-- almost 25 million have reached 12th grade not knowing the essentials of US history.Totally aside from the tremendous waste of taxpayer money ( a recent UC Santa Barbara study estimates the drop-out bill due to Californians at $45 billion), we are creating a sub-class that can and will be manipulated by demagogues, preparing them for massive shifts in government control over individual liberties, transforming America into a third-class banana republic. We will march off to our work camps, cheerily singing hymns extolling "hope and change," thereby ending the golden period of America.
Since the 60's, our schools have been not only dumbed down, but as a result, we have become a "nation at risk." Listen to what the National Commission on Excellence in Education presented to then-President Reagan in 1983 its landmark study, "A Nation at Risk:""The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a people...if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an ACT OF WAR. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves...we have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral disarmament."An act of war? You'd never know it as you romp through the hallways of our schools. It's business as usual as our "teachers' churn out texts and agendas that bash America, Whites, Christians, and anything that smacks of the uniqueness of America, hard work, delayed gratification, honor to our military, sanctity of marriage, accentuating the accomplishments of the individual and rewarding such.
Has anything changed since 1983? How have we learned from our folly, and made good in our schools? Let's fast forward to 1998 and hear what educational experts wrote in a new report, "A Nation Still at Risk."-- more than 10 million Americans have reached the 12th grade without having learned to read at a basic level-- more than 20 million have reached their senior year unable to do basic math-- almost 25 million have reached 12th grade not knowing the essentials of US history.Totally aside from the tremendous waste of taxpayer money ( a recent UC Santa Barbara study estimates the drop-out bill due to Californians at $45 billion), we are creating a sub-class that can and will be manipulated by demagogues, preparing them for massive shifts in government control over individual liberties, transforming America into a third-class banana republic. We will march off to our work camps, cheerily singing hymns extolling "hope and change," thereby ending the golden period of America.
But the question remains: Wither those disaffected youth, drop outs and malcontents, that were deprived of a proper education and robbed of their share in America's bounty by the "multiculturalists" that had wasted the formative years of our students with drivel and Marxist nonsense? Wither those dumbed-down, cast-outs, that sneer at achievement and the praising of the individual over the masses weaned on "cooperative learning?"Several years ago, it came as a shock that a white, suburban teen ran off to Afghanistan, joined the Al Qaeda, and was one of our POW's in Guantanamo Bay. America was shocked! How could he?! How could he!?, was the refrain from the main-stream media. Well, look at the environment the spawned him, and you'll come up with the answers.
Those 60's hippies are now our "elder statesmen". The Michael Ayers prototypes didn't disappear after the Viet Nam War. They continued their seditious talents by infecting a whole generation of youth to hate America--here in our schools.It's a known fact that the incarceration rate for young Blacks is double the national average. What goes on in the jails and prisons of America? More hate, more radical Islam shoved down their throats, more alienation of our institutions and the foundation of our country. But more disturbing is what happens to the alienated inner city youth BEFORE THEY GO TO PRISON. They are set up for failure. ALL races and ethnicity in our legions of educrats will tell you that "inner city youth need special accommodations. They ALL will tell you that the bar may not be raised. They ALL lay a total guilt trip about those individuals that have worked hard to excel and therefore evolve, claiming that the "stacked deck" is the rule for our Black and Hispanic students.A few years ago, in Los Angeles, we were witness to the spectre of Old Glory being lowered and in its stead, the Mexican flag was hoisted up at several schools. Not one word was said by the administration. We are told regularly that Southwest America is Mexico, and therefore no need to teach Hispanics English.We have a president whose disdain for America is not lost on our students. Before Obama, it was hard to tell a class why we had to say the pledge of allegiance. And now? Hatred and contempt for America grows daily in our schools. There is one area where solidarity and signs of support grows daily, however. Gays, lesbians, cross-dressers, and other deviates are in full swing, with gay-day parades AT TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE. "Jim and John" books are read to our kindergarten students to glorify and desensitize homosexual stigmas. There is not one high school in Southern California that doesn't have a Gay Student Union, with an enthusiastic list of sponsors. The balkanization and blurring of American unity is in full swing with Latino Club, African American Club, Japanese Club, Korean Club; one club YOU WON'T SEE IS WHITE, CHRISTIAN AMERICA CLUB.Where have our teachers and their minions taken us? How have WE, the taxpayers, let them get away with this?
Here's something to think about the next time you are watching some American institution being obliterated by suicide bombers or some other assault designed to vanquish our nation:
Where were you when,
• Taxi drivers in San Diego blocked an entire sidewalk while they rolled out carpets and bowed down to Mecca• Dearborne, Michigan is forced to endure the horrific blasts from ubiquitous mosques dotting the city, FIVE TIMES DAILY• Harvard University spends public money on foot baths for use before Muslim prayers• Kansas Airport spends public money on Muslim foot baths• Carver Elementary School (San Diego) closes school daily for Muslim student prayer. (would such a thing happen if Christian children requested a "moment of silence?" With the Muslim kids, it's not only NOT silent, IT'S TOTALLY IN OUR FACE.
Those 60's hippies are now our "elder statesmen". The Michael Ayers prototypes didn't disappear after the Viet Nam War. They continued their seditious talents by infecting a whole generation of youth to hate America--here in our schools.It's a known fact that the incarceration rate for young Blacks is double the national average. What goes on in the jails and prisons of America? More hate, more radical Islam shoved down their throats, more alienation of our institutions and the foundation of our country. But more disturbing is what happens to the alienated inner city youth BEFORE THEY GO TO PRISON. They are set up for failure. ALL races and ethnicity in our legions of educrats will tell you that "inner city youth need special accommodations. They ALL will tell you that the bar may not be raised. They ALL lay a total guilt trip about those individuals that have worked hard to excel and therefore evolve, claiming that the "stacked deck" is the rule for our Black and Hispanic students.A few years ago, in Los Angeles, we were witness to the spectre of Old Glory being lowered and in its stead, the Mexican flag was hoisted up at several schools. Not one word was said by the administration. We are told regularly that Southwest America is Mexico, and therefore no need to teach Hispanics English.We have a president whose disdain for America is not lost on our students. Before Obama, it was hard to tell a class why we had to say the pledge of allegiance. And now? Hatred and contempt for America grows daily in our schools. There is one area where solidarity and signs of support grows daily, however. Gays, lesbians, cross-dressers, and other deviates are in full swing, with gay-day parades AT TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE. "Jim and John" books are read to our kindergarten students to glorify and desensitize homosexual stigmas. There is not one high school in Southern California that doesn't have a Gay Student Union, with an enthusiastic list of sponsors. The balkanization and blurring of American unity is in full swing with Latino Club, African American Club, Japanese Club, Korean Club; one club YOU WON'T SEE IS WHITE, CHRISTIAN AMERICA CLUB.Where have our teachers and their minions taken us? How have WE, the taxpayers, let them get away with this?
Here's something to think about the next time you are watching some American institution being obliterated by suicide bombers or some other assault designed to vanquish our nation:
Where were you when,
• Taxi drivers in San Diego blocked an entire sidewalk while they rolled out carpets and bowed down to Mecca• Dearborne, Michigan is forced to endure the horrific blasts from ubiquitous mosques dotting the city, FIVE TIMES DAILY• Harvard University spends public money on foot baths for use before Muslim prayers• Kansas Airport spends public money on Muslim foot baths• Carver Elementary School (San Diego) closes school daily for Muslim student prayer. (would such a thing happen if Christian children requested a "moment of silence?" With the Muslim kids, it's not only NOT silent, IT'S TOTALLY IN OUR FACE.
So our schools have become the shock troops, basically, for the next, intensified round of Jihad. Once we have put into question our very institutions, our heritage of Judeo-Christian ethos, and the foundation of America's greatness: individual liberty and freedom of expression and religion--all through the steady diet of apologetics and guilt trips laid on our students and teachers of faith--then we have sanctioned our enemies to act, knowing that the youth of America has been programmed NOT to react.
Rabbi Shifren is inviting scholars, school administrators, concerned parents, teachers, and community activists to attend a one-of-a-kind conference where we will start America's second revolution: bringing values and pride of America into our schools. Distinguished speakers from many segments of our community will enlighten and strengthen us as we gear up for this daunting challenge.
A new Islamic mosque will open its doors just steps from Ground Zero where Muslim terrorists murdered 2,751 people in the name of Allah on Sept. 11, 2001 – and its leading imam, who conducts sensitivity training sessions for the FBI, has reportedly blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.
The five-story building at Park Place, just two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site, was the site of a Burlington Coat Factory. But a plane's landing-gear assembly crashed through the roof on the day 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked the airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers in 2001.
Now Muslim worshippers currently occupy the building, and they plan to turn it into a major Islamic cultural center.
"The men and women stand up, raise their hands on either side of their head, murmur 'Allahu akhbar,' bow and kneel again," reports Spiegel Online.
"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.
They have leased the new prayer space as an overflow building for another mosque, Masjid al-Farah, at 245 West Broadway in TriBeCa, where Rauf is the spiritual leader.
The building – vacant since that fateful day when time stood still as millions of Americans grieved the loss of loved ones, friends, family members, co-workers and strangers – was purchased in July by real-estate company Soho Properties, a business run by Muslims. Rauf was an investor in that transaction.
Just down the street, the Museum of Jewish Heritage honors victims of the Holocaust, and St. Peter's Church, New York's oldest Catholic house of worship, is located around the corner.
Rauf has announced his plans to turn the building into a complete Islamic cultural center, with a mosque, a museum, "merchandising options," and room for seminars to reconcile religions, "to counteract the backlash against Muslims in general, " Speigel reports. The project may cost as much as $150 million.
Rauf told the New York Times purchasing the building "where a piece of the wreckage fell sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."
"It was almost obvious that something like this had to arise from the ashes of 9/11," Khan told Spiegel. "In some way, this has the hand of the divine written over it. It's almost as if God wanted to be involved."
The five-story building at Park Place, just two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site, was the site of a Burlington Coat Factory. But a plane's landing-gear assembly crashed through the roof on the day 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked the airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers in 2001.
Now Muslim worshippers currently occupy the building, and they plan to turn it into a major Islamic cultural center.
"The men and women stand up, raise their hands on either side of their head, murmur 'Allahu akhbar,' bow and kneel again," reports Spiegel Online.
"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.
They have leased the new prayer space as an overflow building for another mosque, Masjid al-Farah, at 245 West Broadway in TriBeCa, where Rauf is the spiritual leader.
The building – vacant since that fateful day when time stood still as millions of Americans grieved the loss of loved ones, friends, family members, co-workers and strangers – was purchased in July by real-estate company Soho Properties, a business run by Muslims. Rauf was an investor in that transaction.
Just down the street, the Museum of Jewish Heritage honors victims of the Holocaust, and St. Peter's Church, New York's oldest Catholic house of worship, is located around the corner.
Rauf has announced his plans to turn the building into a complete Islamic cultural center, with a mosque, a museum, "merchandising options," and room for seminars to reconcile religions, "to counteract the backlash against Muslims in general, " Speigel reports. The project may cost as much as $150 million.
Rauf told the New York Times purchasing the building "where a piece of the wreckage fell sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."
"It was almost obvious that something like this had to arise from the ashes of 9/11," Khan told Spiegel. "In some way, this has the hand of the divine written over it. It's almost as if God wanted to be involved."
The move is supported by the city. The mayor's director of the Office of Immigrant Affairs, Fatima Shama, told the Times, "We as New York Muslims have as much of a commitment to rebuilding New York as anybody."
The city's Department of Buildings records show the building has been the focus of complaints for illegal construction and blocked exits in the last year. Recent entries from Sept. 28 and 29, 2009, indicate inspectors have been unable to access the building. One complaint states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 1st attempt – No access to 5 sty building. Front locked. No responsible party present." The second, just a day later, states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 2nd attempt – no access to building. No activity or responsible party. Building remains inaccessible at Park Place."
Agency spokeswoman Carly Sullivan told the Times the complaints were listed as "resolved" under city procedures since the inspectors were unable to gain access.
Imam Rauf, born in Egypt, has written three books: "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West," "Islam: A Sacred Law" and "Islam: A Search for Meaning."
WND reported in 2003 when, at least four times that year, the FBI's New York field office held all-day sensitivity training sessions, not far from Ground Zero, featuring Rauf.
Speaking for about two hours each session, "he gave an overview of Islamic culture and some of the differences between what fundamentalist terrorist groups say are the teachings of the Quran and what he believes, as a student of religion, the Quran actually says," said special agent James Margolin, spokesman for the FBI New York office.
Rauf asserted that the Quran "certainly doesn't counsel terrorism, murder or mayhem," Margolin said. And he said terrorists have misinterpreted the Quranic term "jihad" to mean violent, or armed, struggle against nonbelievers. Rauf claims it means internal struggle.
Rauf was invited to speak in Sydney, Australia, by Premier Bob Carr in 2004. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they've done to Muslims before terrorism can end.
He said the West must understand the terrorists' point of view – and he blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.
"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets," he said.
The city's Department of Buildings records show the building has been the focus of complaints for illegal construction and blocked exits in the last year. Recent entries from Sept. 28 and 29, 2009, indicate inspectors have been unable to access the building. One complaint states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 1st attempt – No access to 5 sty building. Front locked. No responsible party present." The second, just a day later, states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 2nd attempt – no access to building. No activity or responsible party. Building remains inaccessible at Park Place."
Agency spokeswoman Carly Sullivan told the Times the complaints were listed as "resolved" under city procedures since the inspectors were unable to gain access.
Imam Rauf, born in Egypt, has written three books: "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West," "Islam: A Sacred Law" and "Islam: A Search for Meaning."
WND reported in 2003 when, at least four times that year, the FBI's New York field office held all-day sensitivity training sessions, not far from Ground Zero, featuring Rauf.
Speaking for about two hours each session, "he gave an overview of Islamic culture and some of the differences between what fundamentalist terrorist groups say are the teachings of the Quran and what he believes, as a student of religion, the Quran actually says," said special agent James Margolin, spokesman for the FBI New York office.
Rauf asserted that the Quran "certainly doesn't counsel terrorism, murder or mayhem," Margolin said. And he said terrorists have misinterpreted the Quranic term "jihad" to mean violent, or armed, struggle against nonbelievers. Rauf claims it means internal struggle.
Rauf was invited to speak in Sydney, Australia, by Premier Bob Carr in 2004. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they've done to Muslims before terrorism can end.
He said the West must understand the terrorists' point of view – and he blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.
"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets," he said.
According to the report, Rauf said there would be little progress until the U.S. acknowledged backing dictators and the U.S. president gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world.
On June 4, 2009, President Obama gave a speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he stated:
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
Rauf praised Obama for "embracing Islam in the peacemaking process" in his speech to the Muslim world. He wrote in the Washington Post:
The historic significance of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. … In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the 'Clash of Civilizations,' which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved. … He captured the attention of Muslims because, unlike most politicians, he was willing to critique both his own country and Muslims where they fell short of their ideals.
In an interview with Beliefnet on Islam and America, a reporter asked Rauf, "Some Islamic charities are being investigated for terrorist ties. Have you seen what you consider to be reputable Islamic charities being financially damaged?"
"We believe that a certain portion of every charity has been legitimate," he responded. "To say that you have connections with terrorism is a very gray area. It's like the accusation that Saddam Hussein had links to Osama bin Laden. Well, America had links to Osama bin Laden – does that mean that America is a terrorist country or has ties to terrorism?"
In 2004, Rauf participated in a 30-second advertisement, broadcast on Arabic television, in which he apologized for alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
The Times reported Rauf said he believes "Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe – that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating."
Readers of various blogs are outraged at the news of the mosque. Comments include the following:
Muslims are doing this only to see if they get away with it. It's the way Islam spreads in every country these days, like a cancer – through incremental totalitarianism. In this case, they'll quietly open the mosque, then, as they get away with it, they'll ramp up their outrages until someone finally points it out. At that time, their lawyers, backed by the ACLU and various liberal organizations, will pounce.
This is not different than allowing the Nazis to establish their headquarters and propaganda office in NYC in 1938. How come people could tell right from wrong then and not now?
What bonehead allowed this to happen?
That's disgusting. That truly is low. I feel bad for the people who lost family members.
This is outrageous. I just don't have word.
This is called "staging" for the KSM trial.
You've got to be kidding me. If this is true, our beloved country is already gone. We no longer have the America I know and love.
Who wants to bet this place becomes a "tourist attraction" for Muslims? This mosque will become one of Islam's holiest shrines as it sits upon the site of their greatest modern military victory.
Good idea. Maybe terrorists will be less likely to bomb this area if there's a mosque there.
On June 4, 2009, President Obama gave a speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he stated:
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
Rauf praised Obama for "embracing Islam in the peacemaking process" in his speech to the Muslim world. He wrote in the Washington Post:
The historic significance of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. … In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the 'Clash of Civilizations,' which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved. … He captured the attention of Muslims because, unlike most politicians, he was willing to critique both his own country and Muslims where they fell short of their ideals.
In an interview with Beliefnet on Islam and America, a reporter asked Rauf, "Some Islamic charities are being investigated for terrorist ties. Have you seen what you consider to be reputable Islamic charities being financially damaged?"
"We believe that a certain portion of every charity has been legitimate," he responded. "To say that you have connections with terrorism is a very gray area. It's like the accusation that Saddam Hussein had links to Osama bin Laden. Well, America had links to Osama bin Laden – does that mean that America is a terrorist country or has ties to terrorism?"
In 2004, Rauf participated in a 30-second advertisement, broadcast on Arabic television, in which he apologized for alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
The Times reported Rauf said he believes "Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe – that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating."
Readers of various blogs are outraged at the news of the mosque. Comments include the following:
Muslims are doing this only to see if they get away with it. It's the way Islam spreads in every country these days, like a cancer – through incremental totalitarianism. In this case, they'll quietly open the mosque, then, as they get away with it, they'll ramp up their outrages until someone finally points it out. At that time, their lawyers, backed by the ACLU and various liberal organizations, will pounce.
This is not different than allowing the Nazis to establish their headquarters and propaganda office in NYC in 1938. How come people could tell right from wrong then and not now?
What bonehead allowed this to happen?
That's disgusting. That truly is low. I feel bad for the people who lost family members.
This is outrageous. I just don't have word.
This is called "staging" for the KSM trial.
You've got to be kidding me. If this is true, our beloved country is already gone. We no longer have the America I know and love.
Who wants to bet this place becomes a "tourist attraction" for Muslims? This mosque will become one of Islam's holiest shrines as it sits upon the site of their greatest modern military victory.
Good idea. Maybe terrorists will be less likely to bomb this area if there's a mosque there.
Mosque At the World Trade Center: Muslim Renewal Or Insult Near Ground Zeroby
Youssef M. Ibrahim
An identified group with unknown sponsors has purchased building steps away from where the World Trade Center once stood -- to turn it into potentially one of the largest New York City mosques.At the moment the building, the old Burlington Coat Factory, already serves as a mini-mosque: an iron grill lifts every Friday afternoon for a little known Imam leading prayers a few yards away from where Osama Bin Laden’s airborne Islamist bombers killed nearly 3000 people back in 2001.The Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, told the New York Times -- which put the story on its front page Wednesday -- that he has assembled several million dollars to turn it into "an Islamic center near the city’s most hallowed piece of land that would stand as one of ground zero’s more unexpected and striking neighbors."The 61-year-old Imam said he paid $4.85 million for it -- in cash, records show. With 50,000 square feet of air rights and enough financing, he plans an ambitious project of $150 million, he said, akin to the Chautauqua Institution, the 92 Street Y or the Jewish Community Center.The origins of such monies are unexplained; neither are the countries or entity advancing such huge donations. Most US mosques, including many in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are funded directly or indirectly by Saudi Arabia -- the country to which 15 of the 19 hijackers who bombed the World Trade Center belonged. The UAE, Qatar and Iran are other major sponsors across the USA.The money trail is an important question that must be answered by the Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg with more than a bland comment by one of his spokesmen, Andrew Brent, who quipped to the Times, “If it’s legal, the building owners have a right to do what they want.”At the moment, the location is not designated a mosque, but rather an overflow prayer space for another mosque, Al Farah, at 245 West Broadway in TriBeCa, where Imam Feisal is the spiritual leader. Call this creeping annexation. On 9/11, the Burlington building, with 80 employees in its basement, is where a piece of a plane plunged through the roof, from either Flight 11 or Flight 175 crashing into the south tower at 9:03 a.m..One of the investors for future oncoming funds is listed as the Cordoba Initiative, defined as an "interfaith group" - and founded by Imam Feisal. Cordoba is the name militant Muslims often invoke when they recall the glory of Muslim empire in the centuries they occupied Spain.As a former New York Times and Wall Street Journal correspondent, and as a New York Sun columnist who covered Islamic Fundamentalism extensively overseas and in the USA, I find the facts oddly lacking. The story as reported fails to answer, and avoid asking, so many pertinent questions.The source of money matters as a significant part of the hundreds of mosques being built and already erected in this country double up as cultural Islamic centers for distributing literature -- Islamist propaganda in fact -- from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn to Detroit, and for schooling growing Muslim minorities. They house Imams of unknown origin and education, many of whom do not speak a word of English but preach in Arabic and Urdu -- radical messages, it often turns out.As a reporter familiar with the Arab communities of the USA, I doubt the faithful fork out all that money for mega mosques, and if they did, the mayor’s office should prove it, not merely accept someone’s say so. It is an established fact that a significant percentage of the mosques built in the USA in the past two decades are receiving a disproportionate amount of their funds not only from the Saudis, but also the UAE, Qatar and Iran -- all problematic Islamist activist nations. The government just discontinued work on a major Iranian-funded mosque and center in New York City, which had operated under the radar since the days of the good old Shah of Iran under the auspices of the Pahlavi Foundation, and has been owned since 1979 by the Mullahs of Iran.The context here is that 15 of the 19 perpetrators of the attacks -- on the very site where this new mosque shall rise -- came from Saudi Arabia.We saw how, in the case of Major Nidal Hasan of Ft. Hood, it turned out that three of the original participants in 9/11 had listened to the same preacher Major Hasan listened to: a man with a radical violent Islamic website now operating out of Yemen to radicalize American Muslims. In such a context, knowing more about the Imam overseeing a potential multimillion dollar mosque at the World Trade Center site is essential to the story. Nearly 3,000 people were deliberately killed there – and the New York Times is papering over what is about to be built on the site in a nice, beatific pseudo-profile of the Imam overseeing the mosque? Limiting access to this Imam to some nice quotes, showing him nattily dressed in a suit, and describing him merely as a Sufi, is vacuous, crafted and couched in public relations spin to obscure rather than explain. "What happened that day was not Islam" is all that the Times quotes the Imam saying -- a rather lame comment given the enormity of his ambition and the iconic status of where he wants to put his mosque.The mayor’s office should tell us more.Just as importantly, who Is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf? And what is his background? Given that much Islamist radicalism originated in mosques at the hands of imams in virtually all the terrorist attacks in America and Europe -- as we found over and over again -– the omission of this information is a glaring mishap.All we get learn about the Imam in the Times story about him is some anodyne, rather anemic, focus on a man of peace. No real searching. Mayor Bloomberg’s folks need to tell us what are the Imam’s origins, where he was schooled, whether he is an immigrant, a visitor, of which country is he a citizen, and what is his philosophy, among other relevant questions.Merely describing the man as a Sufi "who follows a path of Islam focused more on spiritual wisdom than on strict ritual," is far too little. After every terrorist atrocity, any number of Sufi and Muslim savants ritually come out with the hackneyed saying: "Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood." Accumulated as they are, these statements are added to a heap of nothing for those tens of thousands of Muslims killed by other Muslims in suicide and other bombings from Pakistan to Iraq every day.One would hope for a follow-up story or stories, and that New York City and its residents at least ask harder questions, rather than submit to being misled in the interest of political correctness.
Call To Prayer In Dearborn, Michigan - I'm just glad I don't have to be disturbed by that shit! Religious Nuts who decide your fate by their religion! Tolerance!, They Say!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
