Demonstrations in US supporting democracy in Egypt organized by ‘extremist’ groups

While reading up on the events in Egypt, my wife and I noticed that the signs used in a number of US demonstrations were very professional looking. Normally, spontaneous events—such as the tea party—have almost exclusively used hand-made signage. Not so in the demonstrations in Washington, San Francisco and New York today. There were hand-made signs, certainly, but a good number were very professional. Who made them?
After a little digging, it turns out that three organizations were responsible for those signs; ANSWER Coalition, International Action Center and the Egyptian Association For Change (EAC). Although the EAC did produce some of the printed signs, it is to be expected since they are a local chapter of Mohamed ElBaradei’s National Association for Change. Although ElBaradei’s group is left radical—they call for ‘true’ democracy and ‘social justice’—it will take a while to provide more information. I am having a bit of trouble with the translation of the web-site. (I am rusty!).
The other two organizations, ANSWER (‘Act Now to Stop War and End Racism’) Coalition and International Action Center are deeply involved and have long histories of radical and socialist/communist activities in the United States.

ANSWER Coalition has actively promoted the rallies. It even provided the signs. It has a well know radical background which includes ‘co-opting...anti-war rallies to push their larger agenda which includes ending capitalism…’ as well as their association with the Stalinist Workers World Party. ANSWER Coalition is linked with the International Action Center (IAC), which is thought to be a front group for International ANSWER, which is staffed by the Workers World Party. IAC was started by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and its National Co-Director is Brian Becker and Western Region Co-Director Richard Becker.  Brian Becker, has been associated with the Answer Coalition, too. IAC’s radical background is documented here.
I spent a number of years living in Egypt, and I think it is a great country. Even back in the 1980’s when I was there, Mubarak’s government was corrupt. I fully support the Egyptian people’s efforts to wrest control of their destinies from the government. I just hope that they won’t be sold a bill of goods by organizations like the ANSWER Coalition and the International Action Center who want to substitute their totalitarian socialist ‘true’ democracy for  liberty. The Egyptian people deserve better than substituting one dictatorship for another.

Who Governs in America?

After watching the State of the Union and all the responses, I find that I am sick and tired of hearing about 'governing'. Every News show, every soundbite in the media talks about 'We were elected, and now we just have to govern.' Or some such nonsense. When exactly did this change occur in all the capitals around this nation that our representatives now think of themselves as our governors?
Yes, back during the Constitutional Convention one can read of some using the term--usually the Federalists like Hamilton I have to point out--but not nearly to the extent that one hears it today. When I hear the term 'govern', I think of kings, dictators, despots, commissars, czars (is there something to this, given our current penchant to dubbing un-elected bureaucrats with this title?), and totalitarians in general. Not my congressman 

Video: Niall Ferguson-Fiscal Crises and Imperial Collapses: Historical Perspective

By far, this is one of the best videos I have seen regarding our current sovereign debt crisis. In May, 2010, the Peterson Institute for International Economics sponsored a lecture by Niall Ferguson, of Harvard Business School and the London School of Economics on the history of sovereign debt crises entitled: Fiscal Crises and Imperial Collapses: Historical Perspective on Current

Reframing the Global Warming Argument

I often get a chuckle from the rather transparent attempts by Global Warming True Believers to revive the national discourse on global warming. When frigid winters with record low temperatures continue to crop up and threaten to debunk their argument for massive spending to avert the impending disaster, they simply change the title from "Global Warming' to 'Climate Change' and hope no one notices. With the publication of reams of emails that debunk the very 'experts' who are doctoring the evidence and attempting to discredit and silence their skeptics, the effort shifts toward ignoring the evidence, finding new, still credible sources which justify their faith, and mischaracterizing the argument itself.
A blog post on Green.Blorge.com from Jan 13, 2011, Increased insurance claims my be due to climate change shows just how desparate the movement is apparently getting as they are now even willing to use the hated 'free market' and capitalism to bolster their arguments. (Who can doubt that the politicians--who are of course in the pocket of the insurance industry--will quickly fall in line.)
The article begins by informing us that insurance companies are reporting a dramatic increase in natural disasters.

As natural disasters have risen, so have insurance claims.  That being the case, insurance companies are noticing trends that most of us are missing.

 After accurately reporting the distorting effect of population increases and the associated regional development, it goes on to indicate that

Ernst Rauch, who heads the company’s [Munich Reinsurance] Corporate Climate Center...[says]..."we believe we have indications that climate change is already, at least to some extent, visible."

 With this damning evidence in hand, the author proceeds to conflate the above quote on 'climate change' with 'global warming'.

More tropical storms and Hurricanes are expected to hit the U.S.  Global warming is increasing their intensity which increases the amount of damage they leave in their wake.

Of course, warming is 50% of climate change, so there could easily be nothing in this statement with which to object. But two paragraphs later we get the statement that

While politicians bicker over the reality of climate change, insurance companies are dealing with its reality. 

Here is where the author makes the fallacious logical jump. First, in general, politicians are not bickering over the 'reality of climate change'; I know of no politician who would argue with the statement that 'climate change is real and has existed since the concept of climate itself has existed'. No, politicians are bickering over the existence or extent of anthropogenic climate change. Second, they are bickering about the extent to which we should dedicate limited resources--and whose resources--to attempting to influence climate change. In the minds of the global warming deniers, both of these decisions must be based on the validity of the scientific modeling used to predict climate change, as well as the elimination of any competing hypotheses for the climate changes we are witnessing today. In other words, reliable scientific proofs combined with targeted, workable solutions. Neither of which currently exist.
It is good that the circumstantial evidence gathered by the insurance industry points to a change in climate; if it did not, the veracity of the evidence itself should be questioned. But the way this essay uses the evidence is nothing more than an extension of the correlation = causation logical fallacy--combined with some artful conflation of 'climate change' with 'anthropogenic global warming'.
Politicians and the people they represent don't need more propaganda that simply further harms the credibility of the sources and delays any substantive action. What they need is solid scientific evidence and realistic, potential solutions from which to choose.