1) Obama Aide Spoke Only Once With Blagojevich About Senate Seat... Obama/Lies
2) Where'd the Bailout Money Go? Shhhh, It's a Secret... Corruption/Government/Economy
3) Stimulus plan could be mother of all 'Christmas tree' bills... Ecomony/Government/Corruption/Democrats
4) Moscow riot police flown in to smash protests against car tarrifs in Vladivostok... Russia/Protest
5) Baghdad celebrates first public Christmas amid hope, memories... Iraq War/Victory/Christmas
6) More evidence of water on Mars... Science/Mars
7) Buddhist Clerics in Bangladesh Take Christians Captive... Buddhism/Christianity
8) The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.... Liberalism/Selfishness
9) Conspicuous Charity... Charity/Conservative/Liberalism


1) Obama Aide Spoke Only Once With Blagojevich About Senate Seat... Obama/Lies
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/21/report-obama-aide-spoke-blagojevich-senate-seat/

December 21, 2008

CHICAGO -- Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Rep. Rahm Emanuel are admitted friends, but the two only spoke once about the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, says a new report out Sunday. The Obama transition team is expected to release an internal report on the contacts between Obama's aides and the governor, who is facing charges of trying to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder. Obama is not accused of any wrongdoing -- in fact, Blagojevich is allegedly heard on tape cursing out Obama for refusing to play ball. On Sunday, ABC reported that Emanuel -- who succeeded Blagojevich in the House and served as a campaign adviser of the governor -- spoke with him just once about the seat and four times to former Blagojevich chief of staff John Harris, who was also arrested a week and a half ago on corruption charges.

ABC also reported that the conversation made only passing reference to the Senate vacancy and no deal was made. An Obama spokesman neither confirmed nor denied the report to FOX News. The release of the report was delayed after U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked the camp to push it back a week so as not to interfere with the investigation. While the transition team promised to reveal who talked to the governor and what was said, the release of the information during Christmas week is no doubt welcome since it may mean it will be quietly forgotten. According to an Associated Press report, Emanuel made contact with the governor's office about the appointment and left Blagojevich with the impression that he was pushing Valerie Jarrett, a close Obama friend, so he wouldn't have to compete with her in the White House for Obama's attention, said a person close to Blagojevich. The person was not authorized to talk about the governor's discussions regarding the vacancy and requested anonymity. It was not clear whether Blagojevich inferred Emanuel's motive for advocating Jarrett, or whether Emanuel discussed the appointment with Blagojevich directly or with John Harris, the governor's then-chief of staff who also is charged in the case, according to the source who spoke to The AP.

Emanuel's refusal to discuss the matter publicly, and the few comments offered by Obama to date, have prompted questions about Emanuel's ties to Blagojevich and what fallout he'll face as the criminal case unfolds, although sources have said he is not a target of prosecutors. Even so, any hint of scandal for Emanuel threatens to tarnish Obama's promise of new political leadership free of scandal and corruption. Prosecutors refer in the 76-page complaint to the governor's discussions on FBI tapes about a "president-elect advisor," believed to be Emanuel, but they do not specifically cite contacts with Emanuel or anyone on Obama's transition staff. Instead, the taped conversations reveal Blagojevich telling others to float his idea by the president's adviser of forming a nonprofit that he hoped would, with Obama's help, receive millions of dollars that the governor could tap later. Blagojevich said he didn't want the idea associated directly in conversations about the Senate appointment or filling Emanuel's seat in the House, according to the complaint. However, Blagojevich is quoted as saying "I want it to be in his head" for later discussions about Emanuel's successor. It was Blagojevich who, seemingly out of nowhere, yanked Emanuel into his scandal when answering reporters' questions the day before his Dec. 9 arrest, invoking his name in an apparent attempt to shrug off any perception of wrongdoing. He said he wasn't concerned about a report in the Chicago Tribune that confidant and former aide John Wyma's cooperation had helped lead federal prosecutors to tape the governor's conversations.

Big deal, Blagojevich said. He said he's "always lawful" whenever he speaks, and he was confident Wyma has been "an honest person who's conducted himself in an honest way. That's the John Wyma I know and it's the John Wyma that Rahm Emanuel knows and a lot of other people know." Blagojevich is right. Wyma does have ties to both him and Emanuel, those close to both have said. And Wyma's clients contributed to both - more than $100,000 to Emanuel's campaigns and causes, and more than $445,000 to Blagojevich's, according to campaign finance records reviewed by The Associated Press. Wyma and his attorney, Zachary Fardon, did not respond to interview requests. Emanuel's defenders say he is hardly an ally of Blagojevich. "They were in different worlds personally and politically," said Peter Giangreco, a political consultant on Blagojevich's 1996 congressional campaign and his two gubernatorial races. "They only dealt with each other because they occupied the same political geography."

Emanuel's effort to promote Jarrett or anyone else for Obama's vacant Senate seat was more a part of his new job description and less a reflection of close ties, Emanuel's supporters have said. Blagojevich and Emanuel at times joined forces politically, like in 2005 to promote importing prescription drugs from Canada and in 2006 to push for an increase in the state's minimum wage. Blagojevich, his aides say, wasn't shy about seeking the help of Emanuel, referred to in a 2006 Tribune article as his "Washington-based mentor." Blagojevich was a congressman before he was governor and he represented the Fifth District, a small but heavily populated district in Chicago's northern and western suburbs, not far from O'Hare International Airport. His rise to Congress has been well documented of late, including the help he received from powerful Chicago Alderman Dick Mell - his now-estranged father-in-law. When Emanuel returned to politics in 2002 after some years spent in investment banking, he targeted Blagojevich's Fifth District seat as he launched his reformist campaign for governor. Due to his personal wealth and his national fundraising base dating to his work in the Clinton administration, Emanuel didn't have to go to Mell or to powerful unions because he already had acquired political clout. Nancy Kaszak, who ran for Congress against Blagojevich in 1996 when both were state representatives and had a nasty battle against Emanuel in 2002, said she believes Mell quietly backed Emanuel. On Election Day that year, she recalls, Mell's poll workers passed out literature for both Blagojevich and Emanuel. Mell declined to be interviewed for this story. Emanuel has described himself as a one-time adviser to Blagojevich. David Wilhelm, one of Emanuel's close friends who worked with him in the Clinton White House, informally assisted on that campaign for Blagojevich. Emanuel, who has declined to comment since Blagojevich's arrest, told The New Yorker magazine over the summer that he, Wilhelm and Obama met once a week during the 2002 race to plot campaign strategy for Blagojevich. Wilhelm has said Emanuel overstated the group's role. Also, Emanuel, Blagojevich and Obama all have hired David Axelrod, the Chicago political consultant who helped engineer Obama's presidential victory. Axelrod helped Blagojevich in 1996 and Emanuel in 2002.

Me: Didn't Obama say something to the effect "none of my staff has been in contact with Blago and we offered no names". Well two lies there, so at least Obama is consistant in a a liberal he lies constantly.


2) Where'd the Bailout Money Go? Shhhh, It's a Secret... Corruption/Government/Economy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470824,00.html

December 22, 2008
WASHINGTON — It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going? But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they either can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it. "We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,"' said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest? None of the banks provided specific answers. "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Georgia-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.

"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Alabama-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout. The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money. There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply.

"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout. But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out. Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.

"Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, a Republican House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?" Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis. A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes. But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.

"We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion. Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless. Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."

Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret. "We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.

Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman, said he wouldn't discuss spending details, but added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details." The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent. awmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before any more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.

"What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're going." Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money. "It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said. But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask. "If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said.

Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went. "A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.

Me: Can I repeat for the thousand time I was against the 700 billion dollar bail out. It seems to have done nothing but line the pockets of banks. But we can rest assured it will find it's way in to the back pockets of the Democrats through lobbyists.


3) Stimulus plan could be mother of all 'Christmas tree' bills... Ecomony/Government/Corruption/Democrats
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/58205.html

December 19, 2008
WASHINGTON — Christmas falls on Thursday, but in the nation's capital it will come in early January, when the 111th Congress convenes and begins assembling an economic stimulus plan worth anywhere from $600 billion to $850 billion, and counting. The House of Representatives aims to pass the package during the first week of the new year. The Senate hopes to finish it in time for newly inaugurated President Barack Obama to sign shortly after he takes office Jan. 20. However, lawmakers first must write a bill that, in legislative terms, doesn't become the year's biggest Christmas tree, festooned with billions for pet projects and special interest ornaments that are pleasing politically but not necessarily what the economy needs right now.

One example: On Friday, The Association of Zoos and Aquariums issued a news release calling for "shovel-ready zoo and aquarium infrastructure projects to be eligible for federal stimulus funding."

"This is close to unprecedented for our lifetimes because of the amounts we're talking about here," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research center. "It's very tricky business. It's tricky because you have to get around this temptation that members (of Congress) have to see this as the never-ending Christmas tree. Or the never-ending bag of Santa's toys."

Lawmakers are preparing to tack on everything from tax credits for corporate research and development to hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure spending and similar help for cash-strapped states. Throw into that mix an all-star lineup of special-interest groups coming in with tin cups in hand. The stimulus package has noble aims. Chief among them is to spark employment and consumer spending, and thus turn around a U.S. economy mired in a deep recession that's growing worse. However, the process already is fraught with heavy lobbying and political intrigue, as interested parties — lawmakers, state and local officials and sundry lobbyists — jockey for a slice of what's sure to be the biggest pie most of them have ever seen. The biggest push is coming from state and local governments. Most of them have to submit their budgets next month, and almost all desperately need help. According to the National Governors Association, some 20 states already have cut $7.6 billion from their fiscal 2009 budgets, and 25 states have predicted $60 billion in shortfalls for fiscal year 2010.

"An economic recovery package will go a long way in providing (money) for capital projects and spur job growth," said Joe Hackney, the president of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other interests also are pressing their agendas. Unions and liberal groups have banded together as the Campaign for Jobs and Economic Recovery Now, a $4 million to $5 million campaign to urge spending on infrastructure and public works projects. In a letter published Tuesday in several U.S. newspapers, the leaders of 31 state universities wrote that Obama should provide at least $40 billion for higher education. America 2050, a group of state transportation and environmental officials, is lobbying for more infrastructure spending. Although the stimulus plan remains a work in progress, there already are wide areas of agreement. State and local governments will get a broad fiscal-aid package. They're expected to receive money for Medicaid — the health-care system for the poor and people with disabilities — as well as cash to defray energy costs for low-income Americans. Help to states for food stamps, as well as another extension of unemployment compensation, also is winning wide support.

Obama already has signaled that he hopes to use the stimulus package to expand broadband Internet service into rural areas, more fully linking America's back roads to the information superhighway. He also hopes to promote "clean energy" such as solar and wind power, using government money to create a public-private partnership that provides jobs and sparks a promising industry in its infancy. To create urban jobs, the budding Obama stimulus plan envisions weatherization projects that make federal buildings and schools more energy efficient. Beyond the lobbyists' potential to bid up the plan's costs, there's also the eternal conflict between the House and Senate, which could produce different approaches that merge into a compromise bigger than either one alone. The solid Democratic majority in the House means that there will be "little daylight" between Obama's plan and what Speaker Nancy Pelosi moves. The Senate is always more complicated, however, because under its rules 60 votes are needed to cut off debate and move to a vote.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is working on his own tax package, and other senators also are showing greater independence from Obama. For instance, Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey held a news conference Thursday to press his demands for part of any stimulus package. Taxes are sure to be a source of conflict. House Democrats and Obama's team are seriously eyeing a reduction in the payroll tax as well as new tax rebates, thinking that's the quickest way to get relief to middle- and lower-income consumers. Baucus, however, thinks that any stimulus plan should be split evenly between taxes and spending, while other congressional leaders lean toward having twice as much spending as tax cuts. Other Democrats are more wary, wanting more emphasis on energy tax breaks, such as extending the credit for producing electricity from wind and making it easier to connect renewable sources to the power grid. One of the biggest elements of the stimulus plan will be spending on road and bridge repair and other infrastructure projects. Those will put people to work, but whether they'll have a ripple effect to foster a more productive, competitive economy is debatable. Japan tried to reverse a decade-long recession with infrastructure spending, but it did little to make that nation more competitive. There's also the question of how fast infrastructure projects can get under way. To stimulate the weak economy, they need to be ready to go promptly, not awaiting planning and bureaucratic approvals.

"What they ought to do is take every step they can to provide stimulus. If you don't do something close to that, you have no control," said R. Bruce Josten, the vice president of government affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. One way to do that, he said, is not to listen only to what governors and elected officials ask for, but to look as well at what the Federal Highway Administration suggests. The agency compiles an annual list of road projects around the nation that would reduce bottlenecks that slow commuters and truckers, dragging down productivity. At its most basic level, Obama's massive stimulus will be designed to be economic "shock and awe." He'd rather overreach than fall short. "The goal here is to mainline a major shot of adrenaline (into the economy) to avoid going from a much more serious recession to depression," said Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. "Even if you could take all the politics out of it, knowing what will actually encourage consumption, regain confidence in the lending process and work quickly — not so easy to do."

Me: So the Democrats are setting up the Pork dream... didn't they complain the deficit? Was that not something Clinton used to get elected? And now before their man god Obama becomes president he plans to expand the deficit by the trillions. I wonder if the liberal mind remember anything more then 1 year? Or is it anything that works?


4) Moscow riot police flown in to smash protests against car tarrifs in Vladivostok... Russia/Protest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5379438.ece

December 22, 2008


Riot police flown in from Moscow clubbed, kicked and arrested dozens of people in Russia’s Far East yesterday as hundreds across the country demonstrated against an increase in car import tariffs. Officers held around 200 people – including several reporters – as up to 1,000 demonstrators protested for a second day running in Vladivostok. About 200 others rallied in Moscow in support. Inflation, rising unemployment and a slide in the rouble have driven discontent and the Kremlin fears the deteriorating economic situation could lead to public unrest. With domestic production suffering, the Government announced this month higher tariffs on imported cars. Demonstrations have been most vehement in Vladivostok, Russia’s largest Pacific port, through which nearly all cars from Japan are imported. Hundreds rallied in the city on Saturday for the second weekend in a row. But authorities refused to authorise the demonstration and hundreds of riot police blocked off the city square where it was planned. Soon after, several hundred people gathered on Vladivostok’s main square – not the planned site of the demonstration. Waiting riot police ordered them to disperse, saying the gathering was illegal. The group refused and began singing and dancing around a traditional Russian New Year’s tree on the square.

Police, some shipped in from Moscow – 5,750 miles to the west – began hauling men and women into waiting vans as onlookers chanted “Fascists!” and “Shame! Shame!” Officers beat several people with truncheons, threw them to the ground and kicked them. Several parents were detained as their children watched. “Riot police encircled the group ... even those just passing by, and they started taking people away without any sort of comment,” said Olga Nikolaevna, a 62-year-old retiree who witnessed the incident.

Ten journalists were detained by police, who demanded that several cameramen and photographers turn over videotapes and memory chips. Police wrecked a Japanese TV crew’s video camera, and some journalists were beaten and kicked. Regional police officials said they were forbidden from saying how many people had been arrested. Protest organizers and witnesses counted more than 100. Protests over the car tariffs, which take effect next month, were held in more than a dozen cities, with motorists driving in long columns with flags waving. National TV channels, which are state-controlled, ignored the demonstrations. In Moscow, about 200 protesters wore yellow ribbons on their jackets and held placards decrying the tariffs, the Government and the rise in consumer prices. “The Russian people have started to open their eyes to what’s happening in this country,” said Andrei Ivanov, 30. “The current regime is not acting on behalf of the welfare of the people, but against the welfare of the people.”

The Kremlin has sidelined political opponents and put tight controls on civil society and the media, rolling back many post-Soviet freedoms. But in recent weeks, migrant workers in the Urals city of Yekaterinburg protested against wage arrears and pensioners in the Siberian town of Barnaul took to the streets to demonstrate about the withdrawal of discounted fares on public transport. Domestic and foreign car companies’ production cutbacks in Russia and warnings of potential layoffs have added to the Kremlin worries. The industry employs more than 1.5 million workers nationwide. While car workers have applauded the tariff increase, Russian consumers and others involved in the $30.5 billion car import business have not. Many Russians say they have a right to buy what they want without paying to support the Russian auto industry.

Me: Before you say "well that is Russia for ya" consider the idea's floated by the Democrats to "save American jobs". They are in fact the same and will likely fail as they have failed in Russa. So we can expect this to become a even worse economy under the headship of the Democrats who gave us that lovely gem of the Housing bubble and the economic melt down. Next step is to make product more expensive by taxing them higher if they come from outside the country. The one thing you will not read will be "Democrats ecomonic plan hurting American poor and minorities hardest."


5) Baghdad celebrates first public Christmas amid hope, memories... Iraq War/Victory/Christmas
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/21/iraq.christmas/index.html

December 21, 2008


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- From a distance, it looks like an apparition: a huge multi-colored hot-air balloon floating in the Baghdad sky, bearing a large poster of Jesus Christ. Below it, an Iraqi flag. Welcome to the first-ever public Christmas celebration in Baghdad, held Saturday and sponsored by the Iraqi Interior Ministry. Once thought to be infiltrated by death squads, the Ministry now is trying to root out sectarian violence -- as well as improve its P.R. image. The event takes place in a public park in eastern Baghdad, ringed with security checkpoints. Interior Ministry forces deployed on surrounding rooftops peer down at the scene: a Christmas tree decorated with ornaments and tinsel; a red-costumed Santa Claus waving to the crowd, an Iraqi flag draped over his shoulders; a red-and-black-uniformed military band playing stirring martial music, not Christmas carols. On a large stage, children dressed in costumes representing Iraq's many ethnic and religious groups -- Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis, Christians, Arab Muslims not defined as Sunni or Shiite -- hold their hands aloft and sing "We are building Iraq!" Two young boys, a mini-policeman and a mini-soldier sporting painted-on mustaches, march stiffly and salute. Video Watch the celebration in Baghdad »

Even before I can ask Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul Karim Khalaf a question, he greets me with a big smile. "All Iraqis are Christian today!" he says. Khalaf says sectarian and ethnic violence killed thousands of Iraqis. "Now that we have crossed that hurdle and destroyed the incubators of terrorism," he says, "and the security situation is good, we have to go back and strengthen community ties."

In spite of his claim, the spokesman is surrounded by heavy security. Yet this celebration shows that the security situation in Baghdad is improving. Many of the people attending the Christmas celebration appear to be Muslims, with women wearing head scarves. Suad Mahmoud, holding her 16-month-old daughter, Sara, tells me she is indeed Muslim, but she's very happy to be here. "My mother's birthday also is this month, so we celebrate all occasions," she says, "especially in this lovely month of Christmas and New Year." Father Saad Sirop Hanna, a Chaldean Christian priest, is here too. He was kidnapped by militants in 2006 and held for 28 days. He knows firsthand how difficult the lot of Christians in Iraq is but, he tells me, "We are just attesting that things are changing in Baghdad, slowly, but we hope that this change actually is real. We will wait for the future to tell us the truth about this." He just returned from Rome. "I came back to Iraq because I believe that we can live here," he says. "I have so many [Muslim] friends and we are so happy they started to think about things from another point of view and we want to help them."

The Christmas celebration has tables loaded with cookies and cakes. Families fill plates and chat in the warm winter sun. Santa balloons hang from trees. An artist uses oil paint to create a portrait of Jesus. In the middle of the park there's an art exhibit, the creation of 11- and 12-year-olds: six displays, each about three feet wide, constructed of cardboard and Styrofoam, filled with tiny dolls dressed like ordinary people, along with model soldiers and police. They look like model movie sets depicting everyday life in Baghdad.

Afnan, 12 years old, shows me her model called "Arresting the Terrorists." "These are the terrorists," she tells me. "They were trying to blow up the school." In the middle of the street a dead "terrorist" sprawls on the asphalt, his bloody arm torn from his body by an explosion. Afnan tells me she used red nail polish to paint the blood. A little plastic dog stands nearby. "What is he doing?" I ask. "He looks for terrorists and searches for weapons and explosives," Afnan says.

Her mother, the children's art teacher, Raja, shows me another child's display called "Baghdad Today." "This is a wedding," Raja explains. "Despite the terrorism, our celebrations still go ahead. This is a park, families enjoying time. And this is a market where people go shopping without fear of bombings. This is a mosque where people can pray with no fear."
advertisement

In the middle is a black mound that looks like a body bag. Policemen and Interior Ministry forces surround it. "This is terrorism," she tells me. "We killed it and destroyed it, and our lives went back to normal." A Christmas tale perhaps, I think, but one that many Iraqis hope will

Me: The thing that struck me most in this story is how the children viewed the terrorist. They hate them so very deeply. Other then that this is indeed a welcomed gesture to the Christians in Iraq considering how much they have suffered.


6) More evidence of water on Mars... Science/Mars
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24824377-401,00.html

December 19, 2008
MINERAL evidence for a water environment capable of supporting life has been discovered on Mars, scientists say. Deposits of carbonate, formed in neutral or alkaline water, were spotted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, the scientists told a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

"Obviously this is very exciting," said John Mustard of Brown University in Rhode Island. "It's white -- it's a bulbous, crusty material." Carbonate is formed when water and carbon dioxide mix with calcium, iron or magnesium. It dissolves quickly in acid, so its discovery counters the theory that all water on Mars was at one time acidic.

"It would have been a pretty clement (pleasant), benign environment for early Martian life," said Bethany Ehlmann, a graduate student at Brown University who led the study published in the journal Science. "It preserves a record of a particular type of habitat, a neutral to alkaline water environment."

Carbonates on Earth like chalk or limestone sometimes preserve organic material, but scientists have found no such evidence on Mars. The 3.6 billion-year-old carbonate was discovered in bedrock at the edge of a 1490km-wide crater. Carbonate previously had been found in minuscule amounts in soil samples provided by the Phoenix Mars Lander, Martian dust and Martian meteorites on Earth. But this is the first time scientists have found a site where carbonate formed. The deposits are about the size of football fields and are visible in images taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The deposits appear to be limited, but the neutral or alkaline water environment may once have been more widespread, said Scott Murchie, a scientist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Phyllosilicates, which form under similar conditions to carbonate but do not dissolve in acidic environments, are abundant on Mars. "There were these different water environments in early Mars history, (which) increases the possibilities that life started," said Richard Zurek of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.

Me: Interesting stuff, now let us consider that atoms do not disappear. That is to say that the "water" is still there even if it may have be split up and formed compounds other then water the ability to recreate that water has to be present. This offers a carrot to the idea of going to Mars or even, dare I say it, terraforming it.


7) Buddhist Clerics in Bangladesh Take Christians Captive... Buddhism/Christianity
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812193036/culture-wars/buddhist-clerics-in-bangladesh-take-christians-captive.html

December 19, 2008
Monks hold converts in pagoda to forcibly turn them back to Buddhism

DHAKA, Bangladesh, December 18 (Compass Direct News) - Buddhist clerics and local council officials are holding 13 newly converted Christians captive in a pagoda in a southeastern mountainous district of Bangladesh in an attempt to forcibly return them to Buddhism. A spokesman for the Parbatta Adivasi (Hill Tract) Christian Church told Compass on condition of anonymity that "the plight of the Christians is horrifying." Local government council officials in Jorachuri sub-district in Rangamati district, some 300 kilometers (186 miles) southeast of Dhaka, are helping the Buddhist monks to hold the Christians against their will, he said. "The 13 tribal Christians were taken forcefully to a pagoda on Dec. 10 to accept Buddhism against their will," he said. "They will be kept in a pagoda for 10 days to perform the rituals to be Buddhists - their heads were shaved, and they were given yellow saffron robes to dress in."

All the captive Christians are men between 28 and 52 years old, he said. They became Christians around four months ago at various times in the country, which has a Buddhist population of 0.7 percent. Muslims make up nearly 90 percent of the Bangladeshi population, with Hindus accounting for about 9 percent, according to government figures. According to the source, two Buddhist clerics, Pronoyon Chakma and Jianoprio Vikku, and two local council members, Vira Chakma and Rubichandra Chakma, were behind the anti-Christian activities along with nine other Buddhist leaders. "It's the first time they have taken 13 Christians to the pagoda to make them Buddhist - this is how they plan to make Buddhists of all the converted Christians in that area," he said. "The pagoda has little capacity to accommodate them; otherwise they would hold captive more than 13 people."

The Christian leader said Buddhist leaders and local council officials have warned Christians to return to Buddhism or be evicted, saying, "You cannot live here - you have to leave this place with your family members because you became Christians. Those who became Christians cannot live in this predominantly Buddhist area." Fearing for their lives, the source said, some area Christians have gone into hiding. Mogdhan Union Council Chairman Arun Kanti Chakma, the source said, warned that Christian converts would be ostracized, beaten, and - assuming they returned to Buddhism only to return to Christianity - killed. "The chairman threatened to beat the Christians unless they change their faith to Buddhism," he said. "The chairman also threatened, ‘If you become Christian again, we will not keep you alive.'"

In another mountainous neighborhood in the Khaokhali area near Jorachuri, about 50 recently converted Christians have been cut off from all communications. They are barred from going to Rangamati town and are living in isolation. "Those captors and other influential Buddhists leaders are threatening other converted Christians that they will face the same consequences as the 13 captives are facing," the source said. "They are warning us, ‘All of you should be reconverted to Buddhism in the same way.'" About 400 people in the district have become Christians over the past year. Like Buddhists, Christians make up less than 1 percent of the Bangladeshi population of 153.5 million. Christians in the district have not informed police, fearing that any police action would infuriate terrorist groups among the tribal people of the area. The source said terrorist groups have been known to put the lives of Christians in jeopardy at the slightest provocation. "We did not inform police because underground terrorist groups of those tribal people would get riled up by any kind of police action, and our life would come to a sticky end," he said. "If we tell police, it will create more problems." In addition, he added, the threatened area lies in hills surrounded by nearly impassable mountain terrain, making access unlikely for police action against the captors.

Me: You know I would have never have expected this from the Buddist's. I have to say I am surprised.


8) The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.... Liberalism/Selfishness
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

December 20, 2008
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy. Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals. Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so. The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.” Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans. Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires. It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives. According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes. In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent. So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest. Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class. So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.

Me: This is nothing new, we Conservative have always been very given to the needy and poor. Biden only gave 1,000 to Charity, and Obama only 3,000. While Palin gave over 30,000 and McCain gives his WHOLE income as a congress man to Charity that is to say over 150 thousand a year. Liberals live a double standard, they want government to give more and they want their fellow citizens give more but they would never open their own pockets to those who are poor.


9) Conspicuous Charity... Charity/Conservative/Liberalism
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117686685252673734.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

APRIL 18, 2007
You might remember the fact, reported ad nauseam in the mainstream press last year, that Vice President Dick Cheney's 2005 tax return showed he had a family income of $8.8 million. This was due in no small part from stock options from a variety of companies, including the much-vilified Halliburton Corp. This fact provoked howls of outrage from many of Mr. Cheney's critics, who claimed it was evidence of what one syndicated columnist has called an "autocratic, plutocratic regime." Significantly less-frequently reported last year was this datum: Mr. and Mrs. Cheney gave 78% of their 2005 income to charity. That's not a typo -- the couple donated $6.9 million, including the proceeds from stock options and book royalties that Mrs. Cheney routinely gives away. Their giving went to three nonprofit causes in health, higher education and services for inner-city youth. While the Cheneys might look like elite philanthropists, Mr. and Mrs. Bush were no charitable slouches either. Foursquare tithers, they gave away 12.2% of their adjusted gross income in 2005, and similar percentages in past years. Their giving tends to go to more middle-class causes, including their church, the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army.

How does the current administration compare with the previous one? In 1999, the Clintons gave away a solid 9.4% of their income, while the Gores gave 5.1%. Two years earlier, however, the former vice president's giving had earned some special attention. In 1997, the Gores only gave away $353 of their income of $197,729, or 0.18%. Mr. Gore's spokesman deflected criticism by pointing out that, "To truly judge a person's commitment to helping others, you need to consider what they have done with their lives and how they have spent their time -- and by that standard the Gores are extraordinarily committed." In other words, Mr. Gore's life was his charity. Despite this defense, the revelation clearly was embarrassing to the vice president, and the next year the Gores recovered by giving away a far more respectable 6.8%. Why did Mr. Gore feel the need to defend himself when his non-giving came to light, and raise his donations the following year? Indeed, why is it that America's leaders always feel compelled to release their tax returns (which they do voluntarily) and show that they give generously? Are we a nation of scolds, ready to condemn our leaders for insufficient displays of selflessness and altruism?

There is a better explanation for why we look for our leaders to give. Recent research suggests that giving is one way that we identify qualities of leadership in others. For example, in 2006, two British researchers conducted an experiment on human subjects in which participants were given money and asked if they wanted to share it voluntarily with a larger group. Some did, and some did not. This kind of experiment is quite common, and many economists have used it to understand our tendency to cooperate with each other. In this particular experiment, however, there was an ingenious twist: Without announcing it beforehand, the researchers followed up the cooperation exercise by asking the participants to vote for a leader. Eighty percent of the time, the person who had contributed the most to the other members of the group was elected. The biggest givers were also the most popularly-chosen partners in follow-up tasks, while selfish participants were shunned. In other words, when Mr. Gore failed to give, Americans probably didn't see mere selfishness; we perceived a lack of leadership. Maybe he seemed slightly less presidential. There are many ways to give besides tax-deductible contributions to nonprofits, of course, and there is no doubt the Gores gave in many ways not captured on their tax return. The problem for him was that we couldn't see them. This raises an interesting ethical problem: Isn't it somehow less than altruistic to give publicly, especially when our giving benefits us by winning the approbation of others? Perhaps. But it is worth keeping in mind that giving openly also provokes mimicry by others, and thus a public gift can multiply itself. In this way, giving abundantly and openly -- giving like a leader -- benefits everyone. Mr. Brooks teaches at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs and is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, 2006).

Me: Well yet more proof of the lie which is liberals... anyone's money other then their own. It is in fact all about image.