Thursday, February 12, 2009
Why Did Obama Diss Helen Thomas? By Rosenberg - Huffington Post
MJ Rosenberg
Director of Policy for the Israel Policy Forum
I love Helen Thomas. During the past eight years she was the only reporter who stood up to Bush, took on this rotten war, and, in general, acted like a journalist. Last night, the great hall looked like it was populated by a president, a reporter, and 11th graders from local high school newspapers. I think I saw a cub reporter from the Dillon, Texas high school paper. (sadly, not Lilah Garrity).
Ms. Thomas' moment came when she asked the president about nuclear proliferation. Her question ended with the query: does he know of any Middle Eastern state with nukes?
Why did she ask that? She asked it to see if Obama would refuse to respond as previous presidents have. The answer is Israel, of course. And everyone knows it. In fact, the State Department has published reams of material about JFK's concern about the Israeli bomb. Israeli politicians talk about it. Every Arab in the world knows about it. And Israel's nukes are its number one deterrent against attack by Iran -- and everyone knows that too.
But Israel has a policy of not talking about its nukes in any official capacity because acknowledging them might lead to Israel having to sign the NPT and opening itself up to nuclear inspection.
So Israeli Prime Ministers try (not always successfully) not to acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal while ensuring that everyone knows it does.
That may be a sensible policy...for Israel.
But why is it our policy? Why is the American president forbidden from being honest on such a critical subject. Answer: there is no reason, unless we are to believe that Israeli policy guidelines, by definition, apply here as well.
So why did Obama refuse to answer? Simple. Because if he did, the media would have reported it as a gaffe. Reporters either know nothing about the Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted Israel's perspective.
Had Obama spoken the truth, the media would have made his "blunder" the story of the night.
He cannot afford that because, frankly, we have more important things to worry about, like rescuing the economy.
So I don't fault Obama. But I salute Helen Thomas. Next time she should ask how he felt about those pictures that came out of Gaza. As the father of those two precious girls, we all know how he felt. But it would help America in the eyes of the world if he'd just say it.
Britain refuses entry to 'extremist' Wilders
Britain refuses entry to 'extremist' Wilders
Tuesday 10 February 2009
The Netherlands has protested to the British government about its refusal to allow the Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders to enter the country.
A spokesman for the Dutch foreign affairs ministry told DutchNews.nl that Britain has banned Wilders ‘in the interests of public order and security’.
Wilders was due to go to London for a screening of his short anti-Islam film Fitna on February 12. The showing of the film by the upper house of the British parliament was postponed last month following opposition from British Muslim community leaders.
Extremism
A spokeswoman for the British home office told DutchNews.nl she could not comment on individual cases but that the British government 'opposes extremism in all its forms'.
The British government 'will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country,' a home office statement said. Britain introduced tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour last year.
On his website Wilders says that he received a letter from the British embassy on Tuesday in which he was informed that he would not be allowed to enter Britain.
'Great Britain is sacrificing freedom of speech,' said Wilders. 'You would expect something like this to happen in countries like Saudi Arabia but not in Great Britain. This cowardly act by the British government is a disgrace.'
The Netherlands is ‘extremely disappointed at the British government's decision' to ban Wilders from entering Britain, says the Dutch foreign affairs ministry in a statement on its website on Tuesday.
Statement
Dutch foreign affairs minister Maxime Verhagen has phoned his British counterpart David Miliband to express his displeasure that a Dutch member of parliament was blocked from travelling to another European Union country, the statement says.
Wilders is head of the right-wing anti-immigration PVV party which has nine seats in parliament.
Film screening
‘Whether that’s possible [the screening] is a decision for the British upper house [of parliament],’ said Verhagen. ‘But refusing entry to a Dutch parliamentarian to another EU country is regretful,’ says Verhagen in Tuesday’s statement.
Verhagen initially put pressure on the British ambassador in The Hague to reconsider the decision to ban Wilders on Monday, the foreign affairs department says.
As the decision was made by the British home secretary Jacqui Smith, the affair will be now be discussed between her and the Dutch justice minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin.
In January, the Amsterdam appeal court said that Wilders should be prosecuted for inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.
© DutchNews.nl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers' comments
British government can do with more freedom of speech. I don't know, how is the British nationals will take it? may be British don't have freedom of speech over there.
By vanniarajan Suyam jothi | February 10, 2009 5:53 PM
What a sad day for Londonistan!
By bet | February 10, 2009 5:58 PM
A spokeswoman for the British home office told DutchNews.nl she could not comment on individual cases but that the British government 'opposes extremism in all its forms'.
What a lie that is...They swallow down the camel, while straining out the gnat...
By duh_swami | February 10, 2009 6:24 PM
Good for Britain. At last someone will take a stand against Wilders and his extremist fews. Pity the Netherlands is too cowardly to tackle him
By shirley | February 10, 2009 6:33 PM
Why should Britain allow someone like Wilders to promote himself and his film when it would no doubt spark more agression and alienation? If he were going as a member of parliment, rather than as a filmmaker, it might not be such an issue. I find it strange that the Netherlands backs his lack of responsibility.
By louisa | February 10, 2009 7:27 PM
This is disgraceful news which makes me ashamed of the British government and its policy of appeasement.
Geert Wilders has simply spoken the truth. You can support him by searching for and signing the online petition.
By Gavin | February 10, 2009 7:29 PM
A sad day for freedom of speech. The British Government has allowed itself to be intimidated.
The spark for this was Lord Ahmed's demagogic speech outside Parliament, threatening to lead a mob of 10,000 to Parliament to'prevent' Mr Wilders from speaking. (As Lord Ahmed himself has been convicted for causing death by dangerous driving, he may not be able to sit in the House of Lords for much longer.)
To prevent an MP from a Member State of the EU from speaking infringes the MP's rights under Art. 10 ECHR (freedom of expression), and breaches the spirit of Articles 9-12 of the Treaty on European Union.
By Will | February 10, 2009 8:28 PM
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 :
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
R.I.P. , UDHR
1948 - 2009
By Nur Mahal | February 10, 2009 8:31 PM
Wilders is an egocentric and hateful man who looks tact and integrity. The money that would be required to provide adequate security for him whilst he spread his inflammatory messages in the UK can be spent better elsewhere. I wouldn't have a problem with The Netherlands banning a prominent BNP member from entering the country.
By Andrew | February 10, 2009 9:26 PM
what do you expect from a country that advertises in Pakistan: Please don't attack us... LOL
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/dont-attack-us-please-uk-ads-to-say-on-pak-tv/421654/
By Sobieski | February 10, 2009 9:45 PM
Van Utrecht: The UK better talk to their Muslims about their hatemongering then.
By pub | February 10, 2009 9:58 PM
And yet the Dutch practise a form of thought control: not allowed to call the Queen names. The Germans prohibit holocaust denial. All Countries have their own particular limits on "freedom of speech". The British are just not permitting a particular person to visit, not preventing him from speaking. He can speak all he wants in NL.
By H | February 10, 2009 10:10 PM
...and yet the British keep letting in the Saudi trained imans that have repeatedly been exposed (by undercover documentaries) as preaching hate and violence against the UK, not just to a select few, but in the major mosques (that ostensible promote peace and tolerance).
I have a challenge for the so called "moderate" muslims. Just come out and say that you do not under ANY circumstances support the death penalty for apostasy. I have heard so many muslims sidestep this issue in interviews by saying "of course muslims have to obey the laws of the UK", which implies that they support it in principle, and have no objection to it happening in muslim countries.
By Franchesca | February 10, 2009 11:47 PM
As an Englishman resident in London I am (as is all to common these days) ashamed of my government. It is a pity that I am too old to learn Dutch and move to the Netherlands. Is there any chance you might repeat the feat of William of Orange in 1688 and concquer England?
By RBW | February 11, 2009 12:11 AM
The thing that's being forgotten in this issue is that GB has no legal ground to keep Wilders out. In the EU, there's free travel. The only way to get or keep another EU-citizen out is when he or she is a 'direct and serious threat to public order' indeed, but this has to be based on criminal activities in the refusing country itself. Wilders has to my knowing never been sentenced in GB (or anywhere else, yet). A state cannot refuse an EU-citizen just under suspicion of going to be a threat to public order.
Think of it: if you manage to get a large crowd protesting the visiting of a EU-citizen not so popular in GB, you could ban everyone this way: an impopular Italian soccer coach, the Pope, Danish folk dancers or Spanish cheese makers.
Saying this, the GB government should be bitterly ashamed of themselves. Geert Wilders is not a very clever person nor politician who, by getting the part of the underdog again and again, get's more and more popular. If you don't let him speak, no-one will hear how ridiculous it is what he says.
By jan mango | February 11, 2009 12:18 AM
I am really surprise when some refer to the act of hate mongers as freedom of speech, can someone explain the different between this man who attack Muslim and their believe with say Isama bin ladin or Hitler? These people have different agenda in life and only capable of spreading hatred and disagreement among us, they don’t have a place for them in our world. Well done Britain and Jacqui Smith, I am so proud to be British.
By AA | February 11, 2009 12:47 AM
The British government is allowing itself to be bullied by radicals trying to impose their sharia law onto Britain. As an EU country, Britain is violating EU laws by denying Geert Wilders right as Dutch EU member to travel freely to another EU member state. As far as being an extremist goes, Geert Wilders is no extremist, nor does he spread hate of any kind as he fights for the freedom of Israel's right to exist, he helps protect the jewish europeans from radical Islamist that have many times attacked the jews in Europe. Just recently with protest concerning Gaza, Jewish synagogues and desecrated graves at a Jewish cemetery in parts of Europe have been attacked by these radical Islamists. If it were not for Geert Wilders, who else would defend the Jewish people when nobody else has the courage to do so? Geert wilders also fights for the rights of same sex couples that are discriminated by radical Muslims who try to impose the sharia law on the West. If possible, Geert Wilders should sue for slander each time the media calls him an extremist without any proof whatsoever to back such it up! As a Geert Wilders supporter myself, I find it bias and offensive left wing media hatred towards Geert Wilders.
By sandra | February 11, 2009 6:14 AM
freedom of speech dont mean spread of hatre. We dutch have double way of interpreting our freedom of speech. when it is direct to certain group of people or race then it is freedom of speech but if is to other group then one can face prosecution. It is hard time we address what is freedom of speech. we have equal law for all dutch nationals irrespective of your race, color and religion.
By kwabena | February 11, 2009 7:36 AM
Has onyone noticed that over the past year the UK has banned other people and kicked some people out of the country?
They have been Muslim hate preachers. None of you complained about that. Now that a 'Christian' hate preacher is banned, you get you feather all ruffeled. Isn't that special.
By Darren | February 11, 2009 9:19 AM
Great news, we should stop all sort of Extremism and hatred. Wilder is also one form of Taliban who only promote Hatred.
By Mehmood | February 11, 2009 9:39 AM
What's going on about Wilders and his stupid movie is quite controversial...he says he uses freedom of speech to spread the idea of banning a book...so...freedom of speech for him and not for the muslims??? Isn't the idea of banning a book a way of cutting freedom of speech?
Also Mr Wilders is part of the Dutch government and when he went out in the US TV saying out loud that he believes that "our way of living is better than theirs" was absolutely irreponsibile and NL received attacks and protests in their foreigns embassies because of his lack of common sense.
Let's nor forget the other Human Rights articles...
Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
By Jo | February 11, 2009 9:53 AM
Very good ! This populist should be opposed.
By Brooke | February 11, 2009 10:04 AM
This isn't about freedom of speech, it's a clear message to an idiot right-wing populist to sod off. Not everybody has to take his nonsense like the Dutch do, you can tell him to go do it somewhere else. I agree with the U.K. government even though it's a bit childish. At least the message is heard.
By Belle | February 11, 2009 12:51 PM
I don't understand it. They have a democratic party the BNP ruling in certain areas of London with clear anti islam, xenophobes, racist and all sorts of retarded ideas in their programme... whatever!
By findegorgorito | February 11, 2009 2:56 PM
Pure hypocrisy on behalf of the British. Just the other day Jeremy Clarkson called our Prime Minister "a one-eyed Scottish idiot" (from the safety of Australia). Now that's extremism (and very rude). Because of Top Gear viewing figures, the BBC dare not sack him and many Brits (petrol-heads, mostly) even think he ought to lead the country! They should let Wilders in. He'd go down a storm in Bradford.
By Michael Dawkes | February 11, 2009 4:03 PM
Geert Wilders is the ultimate hypocrite. He constantly complains that he has a right to freedom of speech, while trying to take away other's rights to the same thing (banning a book? Sounds like a classic way to stifle freedom of speech to me).
There are so many christian fanatics (I should know, I come from a country with a scary amount of them) and I don't see anyone talking about banning the bible. Take a look at Bush's supporters... What do they support? Us going in and pulverizing anyone who doesn't agree with us.
I'm glad the UK is banning him from visiting. He is just inciting racial hatred and his views have no place in any parliament. Stifling a specific religious group is unacceptable. The bible says tons of crazy things as well but everyone brushes it off as "Oh well you aren't supposed to take it literal, silly". Enough!
By Jessica Anderson | February 11, 2009 4:51 PM
Thank you, England government for taking stand against hate leader, Geert Wilders, hate Muslims so much, ban him so no let him speak that hate! Here in Netherlands, Dutch never do something like this, they never ban Wilders as Dutch so racist.
As the Muslims of family, we came, from Morocco to Rotterdam but Wilders is type of politician, turn against us.
This, is why our family leaves Netherlands this year, we are going to Leeds, in England because British unlike Dutch racist, British they tolerate, and they put in jail racist like Wilders.
This is why England is better than sorry the Nederlands, in UK all people get treatment of not hating. Others from Morocco and Turks in NL, also leaving these Dutch prosecution against Muslims, we go to England. Some we go to Canada or Australiëns, these are also freindly to Muslims.
But England is best for Muslims, most free and tolerant to all people. So Muslims we face prosecution in NL, we leave you sorry Dutch country to weak, then we prosper in England, then we laugh back at you hatefull Nederlands!
By Riella | February 11, 2009 11:32 PM
It is the year 2009, or is it?
I don't agree or want to even watch Geert's film.
Similarly, I have no wish to want to read or listen to any muslim propoganda. The fact of the matter is that we supposedly live in a time where technology has now given us all a platform for voicing our opinions, filming every small detail of controversy and publising every small criticism that people wish to suggest.
Where do you draw the line? Is it ok for someone or a group of people to burn a national flag? Is it ok for a person or a group of people to send via Youtube a subjective piece of media? Is it ok for a person or group of people to have an opinion in public or behind closed doors?
Making death threats, inciting hatred, condemning a person because of his religous beliefs, sexual orientation or merely because he/she chooses to follow a path which is different to your own is tantamount to human oppression.
If overseas people choose to leave their own motherland, they must try to adopt the laws, beliefs and ways of the country that they find themselves in. If they don't like it, do not try to impose your alternate ways/opinions/dogma on the land that you now find yourself in. If you don't like it, move on.
Similarly this argument goes for those living and born within the EU.
I came to Holland because I like its people, its ways and its customs. I don't like prostitution, drugs etc...but I don't try to change it. I accept that some people feel it is important for them.
Respect of the home nation is paramount. But you cannot prevent EU parliamentarians at the bequest of home nation member the right of entry. It is fundamentally a contravention of all we stand for, even if you think he's an idiot!
By M | February 12, 2009 12:09 AM
I use to live in Holland in the 80's and particularly remember the dutch hospitality. But now it seems Holland is moving itself in a direction which is similar to what the Germans went through prior to WWII.
This acts or point of view serve no one. Just as inciting violence or ideology for personal or political games.
If he does not agree with someone's point of view that is his right but to tell other that they are pure evil and should be prosecuted because of their believes, well isn't this what hilter did to the Jews ???
Something for the Dutch to think about.
By khurram | February 12, 2009 12:45 AM
Geert Wilders is a democraticly chosen member of parliament. The English have no business treating him as a criminal. When are the brits going to ban the hate preaching muslims extremists in their midst? They are the ones who bombed your busses remember? If the Brits keep on acting so cowardly to appease the intolerant hate mongering muslims they will pretty soon have the second rate dhimmi status the muslims and their leader Khalif Ahmed have in mind for them. And don't say we did not warn you!
By philomena | February 12, 2009 9:20 AM
You invade us, we invade you - By Ghulam Muhammed
The Open-Door Bailout
Bangalore, India
Thomas L. Friedman
Related
Times Topics: Economic Stimulus
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Leave it to a brainy Indian to come up with the cheapest and surest way to stimulate our economy: immigration.
"All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans," said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper. "We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate — no Indian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will start new companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans."
While his tongue was slightly in cheek, Gupta and many other Indian business people I spoke to this week were trying to make a point that sometimes non-Americans can make best: "Dear America, please remember how you got to be the wealthiest country in history. It wasn't through protectionism, or state-owned banks or fearing free trade. No, the formula was very simple: build this really flexible, really open economy, tolerate creative destruction so dead capital is quickly redeployed to better ideas and companies, pour into it the most diverse, smart and energetic immigrants from every corner of the world and then stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat."
While I think President Obama has been doing his best to keep the worst protectionist impulses in Congress out of his stimulus plan, the U.S. Senate unfortunately voted on Feb. 6 to restrict banks and other financial institutions that receive taxpayer bailout money from hiring high-skilled immigrants on temporary work permits known as H-1B visas.
Bad signal. In an age when attracting the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world is the most important competitive advantage a knowledge economy can have, why would we add barriers against such brainpower — anywhere? That's called "Old Europe." That's spelled: S-T-U-P-I-D.
"If you do this, it will be one of the best things for India and one of the worst for Americans, [because] Indians will be forced to innovate at home," said Subhash B. Dhar, a member of the executive council that runs Infosys, the well-known Indian technology company that sends Indian workers to the U.S. to support a wide range of firms. "We protected our jobs for many years and look where it got us. Do you know that for an Indian company, it is still easier to do business with a company in the U.S. than it is to do business today with another Indian state?"
Each Indian state tries to protect its little economy with its own rules. America should not be trying to copy that. "Your attitude," said Dhar, should be " 'whoever can make us competitive and dominant, let's bring them in.' "
If there is one thing we know for absolute certain, it's this: Protectionism did not cause the Great Depression, but it sure helped to make it "Great." From 1929 to 1934, world trade plunged by more than 60 percent — and we were all worse off.
We live in a technological age where every study shows that the more knowledge you have as a worker and the more knowledge workers you have as an economy, the faster your incomes will rise. Therefore, the centerpiece of our stimulus, the core driving principle, should be to stimulate everything that makes us smarter and attracts more smart people to our shores. That is the best way to create good jobs.
According to research by Vivek Wadhwa, a senior research associate at the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, more than half of Silicon Valley start-ups were founded by immigrants over the last decade. These immigrant-founded tech companies employed 450,000 workers and had sales of $52 billion in 2005, said Wadhwa in an essaypublished this week on BusinessWeek.com.
He also cited a recent study by William R. Kerr of Harvard Business School and William F. Lincoln of the University of Michigan that "found that in periods when H-1B visa numbers went down, so did patent applications filed by immigrants [in the U.S.]. And when H-1B visa numbers went up, patent applications followed suit."
We don't want to come out of this crisis with just inflation, a mountain of debt and more shovel-ready jobs. We want to — we have to — come out of it with a new Intel, Google, Microsoft and Apple. I would have loved to have seen the stimulus package include a government-funded venture capital bank to help finance all the start-ups that are clearly not starting up today — in the clean-energy space they're dying like flies — because of a lack of liquidity from traditional lending sources.
Newsweek had an essay this week that began: "Could Silicon Valley become another Detroit?" Well, yes, it could. When the best brains in the world are on sale, you don't shut them out. You open your doors wider. We need to attack this financial crisis with green cards not just greenbacks, and with start-ups not just bailouts. One Detroit is enough.
Britain has a sizeable population of British Muslims to look protect. Not every country lets islamophobic hate mongers represent their people, nor allow them to incite hatred against Muslims.
By Barakzai Van Utrecht | February 10, 2009 5:47 PM