Crap on the horizon.

If Jimmy Carter believes that the “overwhelming” portion of criticism towards Barack Obama is due to racism, does he also believe that the overwhelming portion of criticism towards Israel is anti-Semitic? Wouldn’t that apply to a man who hangs out with people who target Israeli citizens for terrorist attacks? After all, Hamas regularly issues anti-Semitic harangues and smears, and yet Carter has no problem cozying up to them and claiming that their criticism of Israel is legitimate.

From now on, using Carter’s own logic, we should note each of his remarks on the Middle East by saying they come from “Jimmy Carter, known anti-Semite.” Two can play this game.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14792427&fsrc=nwl

The glow fades
Nov 4th 2009
From Economist.com

Public enthusiasm for democracy and capitalism is waning in many former communist countries


THE fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 marked the beginning of the end of communism in Europe and, for many, the dawn of a new, democratic era. Two decades later, however, enthusiasm for democracy and capitalism east of the former Iron Curtain appears to have waned considerably. In a survey of nine countries in 1991, large majorities of citizens in each said they approved of the move from a single-party state to a multi-party political system. But a new poll shows support has now fallen drastically, especially in poorer countries such as Ukraine and Lithuania. And in every country, fewer people now approve of the change to a free-market economy. The belief that the changes have benefited business and political elites far more than ordinary people is widespread.

Karen McVeigh The Guardian, Monday 9 November 2009 Article historyBritain's reputation for "libel tourism" is driving American and foreign publishers to consider abandoning the sale of newspaper and magazines in Britain and may lead to them blocking access to websites, MPs have been warned.

Publishers, human rights groups and campaigners have expressed "substantial and increasing concern" because comments that would be protected under the freedom of speech in the US constitution are actionable in London courts once published here, no matter how small the readership.

A memorandum submitted to a Commons select committee, ahead of a meeting with US publishers, states: "Leading US newspapers are actively considering abandoning the supply of the 200-odd copies they make available for sale in London – mainly to Americans who want full details of their local news and sport. They do not make profits out of these minimal and casual sales and they can no longer risk losing millions of dollars in a libel action which they would never face under US law. Does the UK really want to be seen as the only country in Europe – indeed in the world – where important US papers cannot be obtained in print form?"

The submission, on behalf of a number of US media outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and MacMillan (US), as well as Human Rights Watch, Global Witness US and Greenpeace International, added: "The consequences of making media organisations liable for putting articles – perfectly lawful by the law of their own domicile – on websites which are occasionally accessed in England should be obvious. The cost of fighting libel actions may lead internet publishers to build 'fire walls' against access from the UK, in order to avoid such actions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/britain-libel-laws-foreign-media