[Asharq al-Aswat] Asharq Al-Awsat - Fawzi, the eldest son of Al-Zubayri, who belongs to the Al Sarih tribe, was killed two weeks ago. He was serving in Al-Firqah Division of the Yemeni Army. He was taking part in fighting in the rugged Razih Mountains where rebels seeking to restore the Imamate theocratic rule, which prevailed in the country before the1960s, were barricaded. Al-Zubaryi put the photo of his son and that of his son's friend on the windshield of his cab. Photos of martyrs can be seen on the windshields of cars driving along the streets of Yemen's central cities like Sanaa and adjacent towns. Those photos reflect the domestic problems Yemen is going through.
Fawzi's father said: "As I drive my car, I feel sad for those who lost their sons in military confrontations for the sake of Yemen's unity. While at home, my sons and I feel sad for my son, Fawzi. He was here with us on leave, but when the problem created by Al-Huthist gunmen increased, he returned to the battlefront in the north. He kept in contact with us by telephone until he arrived at his post in the Razih Mountains where gunmen fighting against the state were hiding. Then his news ceased and his telephone and those of his colleagues fell silent. Three days later, the commander of the military division in Sadah informed me that my son was not feeling well and was in the hospital. Deep down, I felt that my son was martyred."
The Yemeni Government did not announce the number of the army soldiers or of the tribesmen fighting alongside the Army who were killed for the sake of Yemen's unity. However, private local sources estimated the number of dead soldiers and tribesmen at several thousands. When one meets with any of those bereaved fathers, they do not complain about the hardships of life without a son or brother only, but about the hardships of life too. Centralization of the state, meager income, lack of comprehensive health, and social insurance, as well as power outages and occasional water cuts are all problems that local officials acknowledge. They make plans in hopes of arriving at urgent solutions despite the unfavorable circumstances, thanks to decline in growth rate, fast population growth, and disturbances in the northern and southern parts of the country. The cabinet ministers have traveled in several governorates and promised people that the forthcoming stage will see improvement in their living conditions on the political, economic, and social levels.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Congress is in recess and many Americans are on vacation, but all that will end when Labor Day has passed and the House and Senate are back at work.
And that means the Europeanization of America will again be in full gear, from expanding government control and regulation of as many things as possible, to raising taxes, expanding the size of government, and reducing the choices individuals are allowed.
The Treasury reports that our country's federal debt has doubled in nine years, rising steadily, year by year, to $10.72 trillion from $5.67 trillion in 2000. Our deficit for the current year fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, is expected to total $1.8 trillion, four times last year's figure, leaving us with a federal debt of $38,500 for every U.S. resident. Our economy is doing poorly; it will shrink about 2.6% this year. Unemployment in July reached 9.4% and will likely further increase, and tax revenues are down $353 billion over the first 10 months of this fiscal year.
So we can easily see what is just around the corner. Earlier this month Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, opened the door, suggesting that taxes on all taxpayers will have to go up. As Stephen Moore noted in The Wall Street Journal, "it would take almost $16,000 more from every household in America to balance the budget this year." We certainly won't get to balanced budgets for decades, but substantially higher taxation seems inevitable.
All of which leads to the essential economic question: Which tax increases do the current administration and Congress intend to enact? There are more than a dozen, all of which would negatively affect our economy.
One has already been signed into law by President Obama: an increase in the tax on tobacco, to $1.01 a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents, and to as much as 40 cents a cigar from a nickel--increases of 159% and 700%, respectively. This is expected to bring in $8 billion a year. Next up is a possible increase in alcohol, beer and wine taxes, raising about another $6 billion annually, and perhaps another $5 billion a year on sugary drinks will be enacted.
Then come a series of substantial tax increases that are on the Washington agenda that, if enacted, will create real problems for our country's economy.
First, allowing the expiration of the previous Bush administration tax cuts at the end of 2010. These reductions increased government tax receipts by $785 billion (just as the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts increased tax revenues) and gave us eight million new jobs over a 52-month period. The cuts go away if Congress does nothing, raising tax rates on the top earners will to 39.6% from 35%, and on the next-highest bracket to 36% from 33%. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 55% of these tax increases will come from small-business income.
Next comes Rep. Charles Rangel's additional tax increases, a part of the House health-care bill. The House Ways and Means chairman calls for a 1% surtax on couples with more than $350,000 in income, 1.5% on incomes more than $500,000, and 5.4% on incomes more than $1 million. The extra tax would kick in at lower levels for unmarried taxpayers. And if promised health-care cost savings don't materialize, the surtaxes would automatically double.
The House health-care bill contains several tax increases that would hit couples earning under $250,000 a year, contrary to President Obama's promises: $8.2 billion of tax increases for people using health savings accounts or other tax-free savings to purchase over-the-counter drugs; a "Comparative Effectiveness Research Tax" of $2 billion on all private and "public option" insurance, plus up to 8% paid by employers--mostly small businesses--that don't offer health insurance. There is even a proposed tax on individuals who do not have health insurance.
Then come some other tax increases the administration has favored:
An increased tax on American companies doing business in other countries.
Raising or abolishing the wage cap on Social Security taxes, which would effectively convert Social Security into a welfare program.
Reducing the tax benefit for itemized deductions like charitable contributions, which would reduce philanthropy.
And then there's the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill that has passed the House and will be taken up in the Senate this fall. It would give the government total control of the production, prices, availability and use of energy and add a global energy tax to imported goods--serious American protectionism. It would shrink America's economy by $400 billion each year and cause the loss of some 2.5 million jobs. For a household of four it would cost an average of about $3,000 a year. By 2035 the total family annual increased cost would be $4,600 for power, food, supplies, gasoline and transportation.
All told, the administration and Congress are pushing massive tax increases. Without a specific proposal we don't know how much taxes would go up if the Social Security ceiling is raised, but add the others up and we see up to $200 billion--and it could well be much more--in annual tax increases on businesses, individuals and the overall economy, which is already in recession.
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger observes that "to an independent voter or moderate Democrat, President Everyman is starting to look like a salesman for the superstate." These many proposed tax increases reinforce the point. They not only would be economically damaging, but chart a very scary course for our country.
John Mackey - the founder, CEO and marketing genius behind Whole Foods - finds himself in an organic, unsustainable mess with his carefully cultivated affluent, liberal customer base after penning an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare."
For starters, Mr. Mackey opens with a line from known-liberal-allergen Margaret Thatcher that features the dreaded "S" word: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then he goes on to provide eight sensible free-market solutions gleaned from his company's well-regarded employee health care program.
Mr. Mackey, a free-market libertarian, is now at the mercy of an unforgiving grass-roots mob intent on destroying his company. More than 25,000 people have signed on to a Whole Foods boycott on Facebook.
"Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives," the online petition reads. "Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods' anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities."
A complementary Web site, WholeBoycott.com, features unintentionally comical video testimonials from aggrieved former customers. The mainstream media have picked up on the story and fanned the flames.
The success of Whole Foods is largely built on Mr. Mackey's understanding of the liberal mind. It wants the good life - but with instant absolution for the sin of conspicuous consumption. Whole Foods is marketing at its best. Iconography and slogans throughout the store - not unlike those Barack Obama used to win the presidency - tell the shopper they are saving the planet in large and small ways.
The product is so good even conservatives and skeptics are willing to play along.
But Mr. Mackey missed the key ingredient of modern liberalism: intolerance to the ideas of nonliberals. And this miscalculation may prove to be devastating to his multibillion-dollar business.
Everywhere one looks these days, the intolerance of self-avowed liberals is on display. Especially since Mr. Obama came to power.
The purportedly open-minded and empathic among us who now run everything - save for NASCAR and Nashville - openly wage war against those who dare disagree.
Witness Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi's joint-penned editorial in USA Today in which the House's two top Democrats describe those publicly questioning Mr. Obama's proposed health care system overhaul as "un-American."
One need not go back too far in the political time machine to recall a time when the same people were claiming that the term "un-American" was being tossed at liberals for opposing the Iraq war, and that Republicans were stifling free speech.
Examples were rarely, if ever, given. It just was. And we were told this was a very, very bad thing.
The Dixie Chicks brilliantly used this sob line to become a Rolling Stone magazine cover staple, a blue-state crossover and an international cause celebre. A chorus line of would-be liberal celebrity martyrs took a similar marketing tack proclaiming McCarthyism was again afoot - as conservative Hollywood kept its collective mouth shut knowing that support for President Bush or the war was an instant career-killer.
Yet amid the cries of "dissent is patriotic" - a phrase seen on the bumper stickers of cars in the Whole Foods parking lot - the antiwar movement grew and grew, unfettered by the war's supporters or by the party in power.
As the Hollywood Left churned out antiwar film screeds, it was creating a narrative of its victimhood as it victimized Mr. Bush and his administration with the false accusation that dissenters were being persecuted. But now that they are in power, Democrats are brazenly wielding punitive weaponry against dissenting Americans and are using the power of the state to shut up citizens.
The Democratic leadership - and its friends in the mainstream media - seem determined to brand opposition to the president's legislative agenda as illegitimate, even racist in origin. Individuals and grass-roots organizations are helping the statists' cause by advocating boycotts and other means of stifling dissent.
The strategy is clear: Intimidate people from speaking up or from attending public protests by telegraphing that anyone can be made a demon for standing up and exercising basic, constitutional rights.
To call these people hypocrites would be a grave insult to those who fail to live up to their own standards. Liberalism has never been about establishing a universal standard. Liberalism is simply intellectual cover for those wanting to gain political power and increase the size of the state.
For free-speech principles to be reinforced and free-market ideas to win the day, more people are going to have to stand up and be heard.
Mrs. Pelosi and the Whole Foods boycotters are on the wrong side of history.
The way to stand up to them is to go to "tea parties," raise a ruckus at health care debates and - buy organic garlic, herb fresh goat cheese and three-bean salad with quinoa at your local Whole Foods store.
H/T lucianne.com
The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.
This effort to reshape the American psyche has nothing to do with healing the nation and everything to do with easing the nation along in the ongoing radical transformation of America that President Obama promised during last year's election campaign. The president signed into law a measure in April that designated Sept. 11 as a National Day of Service, but it's not likely many lawmakers thought this meant that day was going to be turned into a celebration of ethanol, carbon emission controls, and radical community organizing.
The administration's plans were outlined in an Aug. 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call run by Obama ally Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.
Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, usually for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress, the rowdy activist was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007 when Gen. David Petraeus was to testify. Yearwood told the "Democracy Now" radio program that he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report. "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die," he said.
On the Aug. 11 call, Yearwood and other leaders kept saying repeatedly that they wanted 9/11 to be used for something "positive," "forward-leaning," and "productive," said a source with knowledge of the teleconference.
The plan is to turn a "day of fear" that helps Republicans into a day of activism called the National Day of Service that helps the left. In other words, nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.
"They think it needs to be taken back from the right," said the source. "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day."
A coalition including the unsavory left-wing pressure group Color of Change and about 60 far-left, environmentalist, labor, and corporate shakedown groups participated in the call. Groups on the call included: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of Negro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America.
Color of Change is the extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy that TV's Glenn Beck did several news packages on Van Jones, the self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" who became the president's green jobs czar after jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon. The White House may be behind a push to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show. Jones was also on the board of the Apollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now running large chunks of the Obama administration. The group has acknowledged that it dictated parts of the February stimulus bill to Congress.
With the help of the Obama administration, the coalition is launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media -- which remains almost uniformly terrified of criticizing the nation's first black president -- to try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks, and community gardens.
"The organizing term is to 'go dark.' You don't tell the press, don't tell people you think will tell the press," said the source.
Of course, the annual commemoration of the 2001 terrorist attacks belongs to the entire nation, but President Obama and the activist left don't see it that way. They view the nationwide remembrance of the murder of 3,000 Americans by Islamic totalitarians as an obstacle to winning over the hearts and minds of the American people.
"When you criticize them, they are prepared to say, 'Did you want 9/11 to be another day of selling mattresses, like Presidents Day?" the source said. "They are truly trying to change the American mindset."
They view Sept. 11 as a "Republican" day because it focuses the public on supposedly "Republican" issues like patriotism, national security, and terrorism. According to liberals, 9/11 was long ago hijacked by Republicans and their enablers and unfairly used to bludgeon helpless Democrats at election time.
On Aug. 4, the White House offered a glimpse into its plans to desecrate 9/11 for political advantage. Jones appeared in a largely ignored 33-minute video posted on the official blog of the White House to discuss the administration's plan to flush 9/11 down the memory hole just as it has tried to do by rechristening the Global War on Terror the "Overseas Contingency Operations."
Of this National Day of Service, Jones says little except that it will be a great opportunity "for people to connect, to find other people in your peer group who are also passionate about repowering America but also greening up America and cleaning up America."
On the same day, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Department of Energy Under Secretary Kristina Johnson and activists held a low-key press conference. At it, Yearwood said the National Day of Service will be "the first milestone" of a larger effort called Green the Block that is attempting to convince Americans that the utopian fantasy of a so-called green economy is possible without turning the U.S. into a Third World country.
"From policy creation to community implementation, the Green the Block campaign wants to see access and opportunity created for all Americans, to build prosperity and a healthier planet for future generations," Yearwood said.
At no time does anyone explain why this National Day of Service has to be held -- of all the 365 days in a year -- on Sept. 11
Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog @ US News & World Report
...The president of the United States must jealously guard his image and his reputation, for he and the office are one, at least for as long as he holds it. And a vestige of that responsibility remains with them even after they leave. A person who has been leader of the free world has a responsibility to act like one, at least when they are in the public eye.
So imagine my shock, surprise, and amazement the other night when I happened to catch the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, Barack H. Obama, playing second fiddle to a second-rate comedian in a TV spot promoting a new late-night television talk showand on basic cable no less.
The spot, which looked like it had been filmed inside the White House, was decidedly unfunny, which does not auger well for the talk show it was promoting. But more than that, having the president of the United States appear in a commercial, while still in office yet seemed, well, unseemly.
There are those in recent days who have written that Obama is, perhaps, overexposed, that he has become too accessible and, as a result, he is unable to persuade the nation that his vision for change in America is, after all, the right one. The idea that he has time to appear in commercials promoting new TV shows does not make him more presidential; it makes him smaller. It reduces the people's opinion of him and therefore reduces his effectiveness as a leader.
David Axelrod and company may have designed a campaign to win the White House that presented Obama as more like a "rock star" or "pop idol" rather than as a candidate for public office. But now they're in the big show, and they have to act like it.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/24/2009 08:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obama is also saying "leave my girls alone". Fine, I agree. But having him pose in Parade with his girls rather undercuts the message, eh?
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/24/2009 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The idea that his overexposure is the reason he can't sell his change is dumb. The media keeps looking for reasons other than a lot of people think they already have enough government and pay enough taxes.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/24/2009 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Wee, wee, wee, wee all the way home. Very Presidential.
#4
Barry has a giant case of the red ass over his health care fiasco. He turned Holder lose on the CIA the minute he left town. I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop.
I have little doubt Barry's goal is to push this nation into an economic disaster at which time he will set the Constitution FULLY aside, declare the national currency null and void, close the banks, declare martial law, restrict travel, confiscate all privately own guns and begin his reign of social justice and change.
He might be surprised to discover how many of the people he depends on to enforce all that are quite serious about their oath to defend the Constitution, not a dictator.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/24/2009 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'm just sick to death of all those ads on internet sites saying "Obama wants Moms to go back to School" - and oh, yea, the commemoration doll Michelle in her-one-strap-Inauguration-Ballgown-made-of-shredded-bandage-gauze-with-little-blue-centered-daisies-on-it for the low, low price of $39 something in four easy payments. I'd like to know that Insty-guy is laughing all the way to the bank over this, but there is a reason I avoid reading all so-called women's magazines...
The crackling, often angry debate over health-care reform has severely tested the media's ability to untangle a story of immense complexity. In many ways, news organizations have risen to the occasion; in others they have become agents of distortion. But even when they report the facts, they have had trouble influencing public opinion.
Perhaps journalists are no more trusted than politicians these days, or many folks never saw the knockdown stories. But this being unable to knock down the death panel claim was a stunning illustration of the traditional media's impotence.
The eruption of anger at town-hall meetings on health care, while real and palpable, became an endless loop on television. The louder the voices, the fiercer the confrontation, the more it became video wallpaper, obscuring the substantive arguments in favor of what producers love most: conflict. The WaPo has had an moment of clarity.
Twenty members of Congress might have held calm and collected town meetings on any given day, but only the one with raucous exchanges would make it on the air. "TV loves a ruckus," Obama complained more than once. In fact, after the president convened a low-key town hall in New Hampshire, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters: "I think some of you were disappointed yesterday that the president didn't get yelled at." There was a grain of truth in that. As Fox broke away from the meeting, anchor Trace Gallagher said, "Any contentious questions, anybody yelling, we'll bring it to you."
If some Fox hosts seemed as sympathetic to the town-hall screamers as they were to last spring's tea-party protesters, MSNBC focused more on conservative efforts to organize the dissenters and whether they were half-crazed characters - especially the few who rather chillingly stood outside Obama events with their guns. A reminder to the government, perhaps?
Still, it was a stretch for White House officials, who have a huge megaphone, to blame media coverage for the sinking popularity of health reform. It was equally odd for Gibbs to tell reporters that stories about Obama backing away from a government-run health plan were "entirely contrived by you guys" - this after Gibbs and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had said on Sunday morning shows that such a plan was not an essential part of Obama's proposal.
For all the sound and fury, news organizations have labored to explain the intricacies of the competing blueprints. "NBC Nightly News" ran a piece examining how Obama's public health-insurance option would work. ABC's "World News " did a fact check on the end-of-life provision in the bill. "CBS Evening News" highlighted problems with the current system by interviewing some of the 1,500 people waiting at a free makeshift clinic in Los Angeles. Time ran a cover story on health care, titled "Paging Dr. Obama." And major newspapers have been filled with articles examining the nitty-gritty details. Those who say the media haven't dug into the details aren't looking very hard. All the shortcomings were, no doubt, exposed. What has the media done on uncoving the true costs of Obamacare?
But the healthy dose of coverage has largely failed to dispel many of the half-truths and exaggerations surrounding the debate. Even so, news organizations were slow to diagnose the depth of public unease about the unwieldy legislation. For the moment, the story, like the process itself, remains a muddle. Maybe the public is uneasy for a reason, Einstein.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/24/2009 06:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's articles like this that make you realise how WILDLY out of touch "journalists" are.
#2
Anything which doesn't agree with their idea of how things could turn out is 'misinformation' and 'untruth'. The idea that people could draw different conclusions is alien to them.
#7
And I see another application for the strikout function - add back in some clarification from editing out whole paragraphs of wasted electrons and photons.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/24/2009 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"But even when they report the facts, they have had trouble influencing public opinion."
GOOD.
Too bad the piece didn't mention that today's so-called journalists rarely report the facts (and then usually by accident), and "influencing public opinion" is NOT what they're supposed to do in the first place.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/24/2009 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
Looks like nuclear blueprints aren't the only things he copies
This is with reference to Dr A Q Khans column Science of computers part I which appeared in your pages on Aug 19.
1. Dr Khan writes: The computer is an essential part of 21st century life. Computer science is a fast-moving subject that gives rise to a range of interesting and often challenging problems. The implementation of todays complex computer systems requires the skills of a knowledgeable and versatile computer scientist. Artificial intelligence the study of intelligent behaviour is having an increasing reference on computer system design. Distributed systems, networks and the internet are now central to the study of computing, presenting both technical and social challenges.
Now compare this to the first paragraph of Undergraduate Prospectus 2009, University of Sussex(www.sussex.ac.uk/units/publications/ugrad2009/subjects/computing):
Computing is an essential part of 21st-century life, and is an exceptionally fast-moving subject that gives rise to a range of interesting and challenging problems. The implementation of todays complex computing systems, networks and multimedia systems requires the skills of knowledgeable and versatile computer scientists. Computer networks and the internet are now central to the study of computing and information technology, presenting both technical and social challenges. Artificial intelligence (AI) the study of intelligent behaviour is having an increasing influence on computer system design.
2. Dr Khan writes: How do we understand, reason, plan, cooperate, converse, read and communicate? What are the roles of language and logic? What is the structure of the brain? How does vision work? These are all questions as fundamental as the sub-atomic structure of matter. These are also questions where the science of computing plays an important role in our attempts to provide answers. The computer scientist can expect to come face-to-face with problems of great depth and complexity and, together with scientists, engineers and experts in other fields, may help to solve them. Computing is not just about the big questions; it is also about engineering-making things work. Computing is unique in offering both the challenge of science and the satisfaction of engineering.
Now compare this to the first paragraph of Imperial College London website (www3.imperial.ac.uk/engineering/teaching/exploringengineering/computing): How do we understand, reason, plan, cooperate, converse, read and communicate? What are the roles of language and logic? What is the structure of the brain? How does vision work? These are questions as fundamental, in their own way, as questions about the sub-atomic structure of matter. They are also questions where the science of computing plays an important role in our attempts to provide answers. The computer scientist can expect to come face-to-face with problems of great depth and complexity and, together with scientists, engineers and experts in other fields, may help to disentangle them. But computing is not just about the big questions it is also about engineering-making things work. Computing is unique in offering both the challenge of a science and the satisfaction of engineering.
3. Furthermore, Dr Khan writes: Computer science is an inter-disciplinary subject. It is firmly rooted in engineering and mathematics, with links to linguistics, psychology and other fields. Computer science is concerned with constructing hardware and software systems, digital electronics, compiler design, programming languages, operation systems, networks and graphics. Theoretical computer science addresses fundamental issues: the motion of computable function, proving the correctness of hardware and software and the theory of communicating system.
Again the University of Cambridge website (www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/compsci) contains the following text: (First paragraph) Computer science is interdisciplinary. It is firmly rooted in engineering and mathematics, with links to linguistics, psychology and other fields. [...] (Second paragraph) Practical computer science is concerned with constructing hardware and software systems: digital electronics, compiler design, programming languages, operating systems, networks and graphics. Theoretical computer science addresses fundamental issues: the notion of computable function, proving the correctness of hardware and software, the theory of communicating systems.
4. The second half of Dr Khans article (paragraph 7 onwards) can be found in ACMs Computing Curricula 2009. Although he credits ACM but doesnt clarify that he is directly copying sentences from a document. Also, in the beginning of his piece he does acknowledge one of his former colleagues, an Engineer Nasim Khan, for input for the article however, it is not clear whether this input is the reason for the apparent plagiarism.
Fahad Rafique Dogar
PhD student, Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA, US
Posted by: john frum ||
08/24/2009 17:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
bitchslap!
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/24/2009 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The "Greatest Scientist in Pakistan" or so their textbooks say.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/24/2009 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Which is no doubt why the writer signs off
PhD student, Carnegie Mellon University
Mr. Dogar was not trained to calculate based on the power-generating capabilities of djinns dancing on the head of a pin.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
.jpg)
John Mackey - the founder, CEO and marketing genius behind Whole Foods - finds himself in an organic, unsustainable mess with his carefully cultivated affluent, liberal customer base after penning an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare."
