I recently attended a lecture at Florida Atlantic University. Dr. Walid Phares was the lecturer and his presentation was quite informative. However, there I was left with a question I really wanted to ask. The people running the FAU lectures give out index cards on which members of the audience can write questions, but my question was not one chosen.
I then went to Plan B, which required my buying Dr. Phares's book, "The Coming Revolution." As I placed my book before him for his signing, I said, "I have to be honest. I bought this book so that I might ask you a question.
"Why is it," I asked, "that the CIA and the FBI come up with two totally different assessments as to the risk posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. The FBI tells us that they pose a very real threat. The CIA says they are rather benign. What's going on?"
Mr. Phares flashed a big smile and explained. "You must understand that the CIA and the FBI recruit from different pools of young people. FBI recruits come from a wider segment of American society. Their recruits come from a range of colleges and universities. The CIA selects from a smaller pool of colleges. They favors schools like Georgetown University where courses on Islam are taught by people who are essentially Islamists."
I trust I've written down correctly Dr. Phares's words. But, I do stand behind my memory of the essence of his brief remarks to me.
What this all seems to show is how the kind of education we get has such great importance. For you and me, it's important to know what's going on. For institutions such as the FBI and the CIA, it's critical.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Diagnosing America's Economic Stumbles, or Learning to Read the NY Times Closely
The NY Times, on 2/12/11, ran an article, titled "Limiting U.S. Efforts to Aid Home Buyers" by Binyamin Applebaum. Near the end of this news analysis, we read, "Peter J. Wallison, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is a leading proponent of the view that the companies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) fueled the crisis by financing vast numbers of unaffordable loans. A larger number of scholars say that Freddie and Fannie chased after the bad behavior of other lenders to reclaim market share , and that their acquisition of bad loans -- while saddling taxpayers with huge losses -- was not a primary cause of the crisis."
Commentary on the root cause of the housing crisis has enriched the publishing industry. Suffice it to say a great many villains have been offered up. There's Alan Greenspan, who many feel should have seen this coming. There's the greedy bankers who saw a no-lose, risk-free opportunity to offer crappy mortgages. And, of course, there's my favorite; namely, Congress who saw a golden opportunity for doing some social engineering. But, let me be more specific. Rather than simply pointing to Congress, I'd like to point directly to Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd. These men chaired the finance committees in their respective houses of Congress.
Did Chris and Barney control Freddie and Fannie? When you can appoint your buddies to high positions in such institutions, it's safe to say you control them.
But, getting back to the specifics of the NY Times analysis: the words, "A larger number of scholars (disputing Peter J. Wallison) . . . " deserve critical questioning. Who was it that counted the number of scholars on the two sides of this issue? And, if, hypothetically, Wallison is in the minority, does this establish his views as being less credible than that of those holding the opposing view? Note: The the NY Times piece does not say "a vastly larger number"; merely, "a larger number." For the NY Times, that constitutes
"fair and balanced."
Commentary on the root cause of the housing crisis has enriched the publishing industry. Suffice it to say a great many villains have been offered up. There's Alan Greenspan, who many feel should have seen this coming. There's the greedy bankers who saw a no-lose, risk-free opportunity to offer crappy mortgages. And, of course, there's my favorite; namely, Congress who saw a golden opportunity for doing some social engineering. But, let me be more specific. Rather than simply pointing to Congress, I'd like to point directly to Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd. These men chaired the finance committees in their respective houses of Congress.
Did Chris and Barney control Freddie and Fannie? When you can appoint your buddies to high positions in such institutions, it's safe to say you control them.
But, getting back to the specifics of the NY Times analysis: the words, "A larger number of scholars (disputing Peter J. Wallison) . . . " deserve critical questioning. Who was it that counted the number of scholars on the two sides of this issue? And, if, hypothetically, Wallison is in the minority, does this establish his views as being less credible than that of those holding the opposing view? Note: The the NY Times piece does not say "a vastly larger number"; merely, "a larger number." For the NY Times, that constitutes
"fair and balanced."
Egypt: The Hazards of Making Predictions
My last blog entry consisted of predicting how long Mubarak would last. I had made a bet on this matter with my friend, Arnold. It's now clear that both Arnold and I lost, although Arnold came closer to what has transpired than I. Mubarak lasted longer than a week, but certainly less than a month and no where near to the end of the year.
I must also admit that I gave nowhere near the amount of credit the young people of Egypt deserve for bravely standing against Egyptian's totalitarianism. But, now, of course, the question is where is all this heading. Stay tuned.
I must also admit that I gave nowhere near the amount of credit the young people of Egypt deserve for bravely standing against Egyptian's totalitarianism. But, now, of course, the question is where is all this heading. Stay tuned.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Egypt: Here's my prediction
From a fruit peddler setting himself on fire in Tunisia, to people wanting overthrow their governments all over the middle east -- who would have thought?
The head of Tunisia skedaddled out of his palace and found refuge in Saudi Arabia. Isn't that where the syphilitic Idi Amin also found refuge? But I digress.
My guess is that Mubarak will hang in there -- at least until the end of the year. My friend, Arnold, gives him only a week. And, so, our wagers are in. (I've lost to Arnold before, so maybe he'll be proved correct. But, you never know. And, if I don't know, and if Arnold isn't sure of the outcome either, you can be confident that the talking heads don't have a clue.)
Some of the talking heads TH's) point to Tunisia and and extrapolate from there. But, that's ridiculous. Compared to Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen are pimples on the hindquarter of a camel.
I'm not saying that Mubarak was a great leader. Still the economic growth in Egypt clocked in at 7 percent over the last two years. That's really not too shabby. True, Egypt is said to be corrupt. But, is it any more corrupt than Mexico, or Russia, or ........... Believe me when I say, nations as corrupt as Egypt make for a very long list. Does that make it right? Of course, not. But, let's be a bit guarded in expressing with our indignation.
Violence toward the protesters: not good. But, presumably they knew where they were protesting; namely, Egypt. Is Egypt, as the protesters maintain, a totalitarian state? Think Russia tearing huge hunks of territory out of Georgia. Think of Tienemen Square and Chinese tanks. Some protests go well; think Lech Walensa and Poland. Some don't; think Iran.
Everyone agrees that the army is the dominant institution in Egypt. They, and Mubarak himself, know that they've got to deal the Egyptian people a new hand. But, they're going to do it on their terms. And, unless someone wants to go into Egypt and "teach the Egyptians a lesson," I think our "leaders" will have to content themselves with expressing their indignation and doing a lot of finger wagging.
The head of Tunisia skedaddled out of his palace and found refuge in Saudi Arabia. Isn't that where the syphilitic Idi Amin also found refuge? But I digress.
My guess is that Mubarak will hang in there -- at least until the end of the year. My friend, Arnold, gives him only a week. And, so, our wagers are in. (I've lost to Arnold before, so maybe he'll be proved correct. But, you never know. And, if I don't know, and if Arnold isn't sure of the outcome either, you can be confident that the talking heads don't have a clue.)
Some of the talking heads TH's) point to Tunisia and and extrapolate from there. But, that's ridiculous. Compared to Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen are pimples on the hindquarter of a camel.
I'm not saying that Mubarak was a great leader. Still the economic growth in Egypt clocked in at 7 percent over the last two years. That's really not too shabby. True, Egypt is said to be corrupt. But, is it any more corrupt than Mexico, or Russia, or ........... Believe me when I say, nations as corrupt as Egypt make for a very long list. Does that make it right? Of course, not. But, let's be a bit guarded in expressing with our indignation.
Violence toward the protesters: not good. But, presumably they knew where they were protesting; namely, Egypt. Is Egypt, as the protesters maintain, a totalitarian state? Think Russia tearing huge hunks of territory out of Georgia. Think of Tienemen Square and Chinese tanks. Some protests go well; think Lech Walensa and Poland. Some don't; think Iran.
Everyone agrees that the army is the dominant institution in Egypt. They, and Mubarak himself, know that they've got to deal the Egyptian people a new hand. But, they're going to do it on their terms. And, unless someone wants to go into Egypt and "teach the Egyptians a lesson," I think our "leaders" will have to content themselves with expressing their indignation and doing a lot of finger wagging.
America vis-a-vie Israel: Conspiracy or Everyday Politics
This question came to mind as I read a piece by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post. She felt that Israel was being treated by the U.S. as a third rate banana republic as evidenced by Wikileaks cables showing that Condolissa Rice (under Bush) had instructed U.S. officials in Israel to gather all the confidential info available on Israel, Israeli politicians, Israeli military people, Israeli plans, etc. But, then, isn't this one of the jobs of diplomats regardless of where they are posted?
Ms. Glick got closer to her contention when she cited the FBI investigation of AIPAC (again under Bush). In this investigation, the FBI destroyed the ability of AIPAC's Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman to conduct their legitimate activities as lobbyists for Israel. Besides destroying the effectiveness of these two upstanding individuals, the FBI in effect diminished the ability of AIPAC to carry on its work in behalf of Israel. But, is this treating Israel as a banana republic, or is it treating Israel as the enemy?
Liberals have sought to create a counter organization to AIPAC. It's J PAC. To people who follow these matters closely, J PAC was nothing that anyone paid too much attention to. However, now that J PAC has urged the Obama administration to withhold its veto of a UN Security Council resolution harmful to Israel, even congressmen like Akerman of New York, a politician struggling to accommodate all points of view, found it all to be too much and disassociated himself from J Pak. (What Obama does remains to be seen.)
And then, there's Jonathon Pollard. You remember him, he's the guy who told Israel the kind of information that the U.S. had on Syria. No U.S. agents were hurt by this bit of espionage. But espionage it was. And, Pollard was, and is, a spy. However, he has now served far longer than reasonable people find appropriate under the circumstances. His continued incarceration after all these years is simply a matter of successive U.S. administrations sticking their finger in Israel's eye.
But, perhaps it serves a purpose; namely, it helps remind us that despite a generally supportive policy towards Israel, the U.S. is entirely capable of acting in a manner that can only be described as mean and spiteful.
Ms. Glick got closer to her contention when she cited the FBI investigation of AIPAC (again under Bush). In this investigation, the FBI destroyed the ability of AIPAC's Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman to conduct their legitimate activities as lobbyists for Israel. Besides destroying the effectiveness of these two upstanding individuals, the FBI in effect diminished the ability of AIPAC to carry on its work in behalf of Israel. But, is this treating Israel as a banana republic, or is it treating Israel as the enemy?
Liberals have sought to create a counter organization to AIPAC. It's J PAC. To people who follow these matters closely, J PAC was nothing that anyone paid too much attention to. However, now that J PAC has urged the Obama administration to withhold its veto of a UN Security Council resolution harmful to Israel, even congressmen like Akerman of New York, a politician struggling to accommodate all points of view, found it all to be too much and disassociated himself from J Pak. (What Obama does remains to be seen.)
And then, there's Jonathon Pollard. You remember him, he's the guy who told Israel the kind of information that the U.S. had on Syria. No U.S. agents were hurt by this bit of espionage. But espionage it was. And, Pollard was, and is, a spy. However, he has now served far longer than reasonable people find appropriate under the circumstances. His continued incarceration after all these years is simply a matter of successive U.S. administrations sticking their finger in Israel's eye.
But, perhaps it serves a purpose; namely, it helps remind us that despite a generally supportive policy towards Israel, the U.S. is entirely capable of acting in a manner that can only be described as mean and spiteful.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)