"LibertySphere" via Large Libertina in Google Reader

Melanie Kirkpatrick Reviews Sarah Palin's 'Going Rogue'

2009-11-16T01:42:03Z

In "Going Rogue," Sarah Palin expresses anger at the McCain aides who kept her out of the loop and under wraps, who focused on 'packaging' her image instead of letting her speak out on the economy, Barack Obama's agenda and homeland security.

O'Grady: The Cardinal and the Constitution

2009-11-16T01:31:56Z

Cardinal Rodriguez says Manuel Zelaya was removed from power constitutionally.

The Rationing Commission

2009-11-16T01:13:21Z

Meet the unelected body that will dictate future medical decisions.

A Merry TARP Christmas

2009-11-15T23:43:02Z

How to return $200 billion to the Treasury.

A Tax a Day

2009-11-16T01:13:42Z

Turning Medicare into an income redistribution program.

How Washington Can Create Jobs

2009-11-16T01:28:52Z

Despite their drawbacks, direct public-service employment and a tax credit for new workers would both help.

The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda

2009-11-16T00:47:21Z

The government will have to choose between vigorous prosecution and revealing classified sources and methods.

The Yankees Didn't Buy the World Series

2009-11-16T00:51:52Z

Since 2004, 20 of baseball's 30 teams have made the playoffs.

Ethiopia, Malnutrition and Climate Change

2009-11-16T00:42:44Z

Focusing on global warming at the expense of food aid is immoral.

Notable & Quotable

2009-11-16T00:54:56Z

Nancy Koehn on Steve Jobs.

The Supreme Court v. Patent Absurdity

2009-11-16T00:56:11Z

No, you shouldn't be able to patent a 'method of speed dating.'

AP Parrots GM's Comparative Tease of Not Comparable 'Financials' Coming Monday

2009-11-16T01:47:03Z

In the alternative universe known as Government/General Motors Land, you can:

Talk about how your financial results are going to be better than last year's and in the next breath caution that the numbers won't be comparable.
Inform the public that the financial information to be released on Monday isn't going to be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and is going to simply skip about 3-1/2 months of activity that will apparently never be reported, even though your majority-owning government forces your publicly-held competitors and every other publicly-held company to prepare full-blown financial statements under those same GAAP rules.
Tell the world that you're a private company, even though the federal government owns a majority of your stock (in effect making you more of a public company than any other public company around), and thereby insist that you're doing the world a favor by releasing any financial information at all.

In the alternative reporting universe known as the Associated Press, you parrot these points without questioning whether they are correct, proper, or even less than fully transparent.

Here are key paragraphs from that Wednesday unbylined AP report (bolds after title and footnotes are mine):

GM to announce 3rd-quarter earnings on Monday

General Motors Co. said Tuesday that it will release its preliminary third-quarter earnings on Monday morning, the automaker's first earnings release since emerging from bankruptcy this summer.

The company is not expected to make a profit but has hinted that its results for the quarter will show a big improvement over the same period last year. (1)

.... GM last released a quarterly earnings statement in May, when it reported losing $6 billion in the first quarter of 2009. At the time, it was trying to stave off collapse and was staying afloat from infusions of government aid.

GM lost $2.5 billion in the third quarter of 2008 and a huge $30.9 billion for the entire year.

The company says the numbers it releases Monday cannot be compared with other quarters because they do not comply with U.S. accounting principles. (2) The period also is not a full quarter (3) as it covers only the period from its emergence from bankruptcy to Sept. 30.

.... As a private company, GM is not required to file financial updates, (4) but company officials have said they plan to continue to make regular disclosures. (5)

Following the footnoted bolds:

(1) and (2) -- How can a company get away with telling the world that its number will be better when they've admitted they won't be comparable? Answer: They can't, except in Government/General Motors Land. Shoot, there isn't even a "same period as last year" to discuss in the first place.

(3) -- How can AP headline its story as being about "3rd-quarter earnings" when the article content says the report isn't for a full quarter? Answer: It can't, and doesn't, unless it's taking stenography in Government/General Motors Land.

(4) and (5) -- Since when is it acceptable that the full-blown "financial statements" required of any company in which the investing public has an ownership interest are allowed to turn into mere "financial updates" and "regular disclosures," even though the entire taxpaying public has a vested interest in its government's majority ownership? Answer: Since we've arrived in Government/General Motors Land.

Union and Whistleblower Complaint Documents SEIU Ballot Fraud

2009-11-16T01:03:13Z

From the National Union of Healthcare Workers:

Today’s Wall Street Journal and Fresno Bee report that SEIU engaged in illegal threats, ballot-tampering, and other serious violations of election rules during a June union election for 10,000 homecare providers in Fresno, according to voters and union staff who worked for SEIU during the election and have now come forward.

A sworn declaration from an SEIU whistleblower says that senior SEIU officials instructed organizers to violate election rules during the mail-in, secret-ballot vote, and then destroyed evidence of the violations. Statements from two former SEIU staff and several homecare providers were recently submitted to the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as evidence accompanying a request to overturn the election results.

Among the illegal tactics reported:

SEIU staff tampered with workers’ ballots, by voiding the ballots of workers who marked their ballot for NUHW, and by collecting ballots directly from workers’ mailboxes.
Senior SEIU officials instructed staff to handle ballots in violation of election rule, and advised staff on how to do so in a way that was legally deniable.
SEIU organizers threatened Latino caregivers that SEIU would “call immigration” and have them deported in retaliation unless they voted for SEIU.
SEIU officials instructed staff to threaten and lie to voters that they would lose their wages, their health insurance, and even their jobs unless they voted for SEIU.

Whole release on the NUHW report here. The entire election fraud complaint filed with the California Public Employment Relations Board against SEIU is below.

Fresno-complaint-summary –

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

2009-11-16T00:45:54Z

Over 90,000 Americans were killed in the Pacific during World War II defending the United States and the world from Japanese aggression. Thank God many of the survivors passed on before they had to witness the President of the United States bowing low to the Emperor of Japan.

To those veterans of the Pacific still living today, I say thank you. And I apologize on behalf of my generation for producing a president so bent on dishonoring your service and your buddies’ sacrifices.

Mr. Obama, you are an embarrassment.

Japan expert to ABC: Yes, Obama’s bow made him look like an idiot

2009-11-16T00:45:57Z

So much of an idiot, in fact, that according to Tapper’s source, at least one Japanese paper isn’t running the photo out of embarrassment. [...] Read the rest »

Former CNNer Claims Network's Liberal Bias Caused Dobbs' Exit

2009-11-16T00:06:39Z

A seventeen year veteran of CNN claimed Sunday that Lou Dobbs' surprising exit from the network was because "his opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media."

Discussing the issue with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Chris Plante, a former CNN correspondent and current talk radio host, said Dobbs, as "the last conservative voice on the channel," no longer fit in.

"They had Glenn Beck, he's gone. They had [Dobbs], now he's gone," claimed Plante.

When Plante said CNN hosts Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, and Larry King weren't "completely neutral," Kurtz asked, "Are you suggesting that those hosts lean to the left?"

Plante marvelously responded, "Yes, I am" (oftentimes contentious video embedded below the fold with full transcript, file photo):

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN ANCHOR: His name has been synonymous with CNN for nearly three decades, but Lou Dobbs has become an increasingly opinionated and divisive figure in recent years. And the more he has crusaded on such issues as illegal immigration, the more he has seemed at odds with a network that tries to define itself, indeed, tries to market itself as a straight news operation that doesn't lean to the left or the right.

Those starkly different approaches cause rising tensions at CNN, even as some liberal and Latino groups were mounting a campaign to force the veteran anchor off the air. On Wednesday, Lou abruptly told viewers that this was his final broadcast.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOU DOBBS, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: Over the past six months, it's become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us. And some leaders and media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at role at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Dobbs could get riled up on the air as he did three years ago during a clash with a Hispanic anchor and days later in an interview with me on this program.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are sick and tired of being treated as criminals, being treated as racists.
DOBBS: As criminals? Maria Elena they are -- wait a minute, wait a minute. That is precisely what they are, they have broken the law.
KURTZ: You told "The New York Times" this week, "There is nothing fair and balanced about me because there's nothing fair and balanced about the truth, but shouldn't a cable news anchor be fair?"
DOBBS: A cable news network should be fair always. On "Lou Dobbs Tonight," I broadcast, my viewers, my audience, expect to come at them with the unvarnished reality and the truth irrespective of how the chips fall in the political spectrum.
(END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: So was this television divorce inevitable and what does it mean for Dobbs and for CNN? Joining us now in Tampa, Eric Deggans, television and media critic for the "St. Petersburg Times." Here in Washington, David Zurawik, television critic for "The Baltimore Sun" who writes the blog "Z on TV." And Chris Plante, host of "The Chris Plante Radio Show" on WMAL. Chris Plante, many liberals cheering Dobbs' sudden exit. A "New York Times" editorial called him close to a right wing ranter who distorts the facts. Is the media being fair to Lou Dobbs?
PLANTE: Well, of course not. Well the reason Lou Dobbs was in trouble is not because he has opinions, it's because of what his opinions were and his opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media. "The New York Times" in their -- pretty much every report also say that he's a crusader against immigrants, or immigration and that's false. It's a misrepresentation and it speaks to their point of view. And maybe "The New York Times" should be taking a look at itself rather than Lou Dobbs.
KURTZ: Eric Deggans, Dobbs for years was a conventional business anchor, but do you believe in recent years that he became more of a crusader than a journalist?
DEGGANS: I think it's obvious and I could not disagree more with your previous panelist's assertions. It became obvious that Lou was pressing this world view about illegal immigration being at the root of a ton of evils in America, and I think a lot of his conclusions were debatable.
"60 Minutes" exposed that he had said things about illegal immigrants causing a rise in leprosy in the United States that just could not be backed up. And he's also made assertions of the criminality of illegal immigrants that statistics just don't bear out. So opinions are one thing, but to be unfair and to make assertions that are not true or to exaggerate using selective data, that is just not something that's very ethical and very fair or anything that helps anyone.
KURTZ: David Zurawik, whether Dobbs was opinionated on the left or the right, he was a very opinionated guy in recent years. CNN doesn't style itself as that kind of operation. Could they have continued this sort of uneasy co-existence?
ZURAWIK: No, it's impossible. You know, by July I think I was writing he's a liability, you have to get rid of them. And even, Howie, forget the larger sense. Just in a business sense, in terms of the CNN brand, Dobbs was a disaster with the birther controversy this summer, first of all, cut against it.
And secondly, you know, CNN has "Latinos in America" coming out, really fine series that they had with Soledad O'Brien. At the same time, they're being protested by Latino groups because of Dobbs' positions. How can you function that way? Listen, I think Jonathan Klein has made a really important stand with this culture with the kind of news he's trying to do.
KURTZ: Just to clarify, CNN president Jon Klein said that he had asked Dobbs several months ago to take the opinion off his program and Dobbs had largely complied. But Lou ultimately was unhappy and decided to cut the cord.
PLANTE: That's why he's gone. Let's boil it down to the facts here. It's not that Campbell Brown is completely neutral. Anderson Cooper is completely neutral. Larry King is completely neutral.
KURTZ: Wait, let me finish the question. Are you suggesting that those hosts lean to the left?
PLANTE: Yes, I am.
KURTZ: In anything like the degree that Lou Dobbs?
PLANTE: So it's a matter of degrees? It's also a matter of bounty. It's also a matter of what the reality -- of course, you're not.
ZURAWIK: Of course I don't because it's a fact, that's why I don't agree with you! I couldn't --
PLANTE: And the news media -- I'm supposed to be the radio talk show host and you're the newspaper guy here. In Washington, we've got a chief White House correspondent for CBS News Chip Reid who was a former employee on Capitol Hill of Joe Biden. We've got a senior White House correspondent of NBC News who was a former staffer for Tom Harkin.
KURTZ: Let's stick to CNN.
PLANTE: We have a senior Washington correspondent for ABC News who is a Clinton administration official. David Axelrod is a former "Chicago Tribute" reporter. We've got Jay Carney leaving his job at "Time" magazine to go to work for this administration. Look, the pattern is clear, everybody knows it except you guys, you know?
KURTZ: What does it is say about CNN? None of those people work at CNN.
PLANTE: It's the news media as an industry and as a company, the last conservative voice on the channel is gone. They had Glenn Beck, he's gone. They had him, now he's gone. Lou Dobbs is gone.
DEGGANS: Is it possible for someone else to break here?
KURTZ: I'm going to let you break in, but I want to play some sound for you, and then tee it up for you. Zurawik mentioned the birther controversy that really erupted over the summer, was President Obama really born in this country? Lou had some things to say on that, too. Let's roll the tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: We've been reporting on the accusations widespread on the Internet that President Obama wasn't actually born in the United States and therefore some believe he's not eligible to be president. It's out there. There are those who claim that he was born, Dom, in a different country. The president, obviously, all he has to do is just produce the original birth certificate in Hawaii and be done with it.
(END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: And unlike illegal immigration, Eric Deggans, where a lot of people in this country feel passionately against that, this birth thing is pretty fringe stuff.
DEGGANS: Yes, and it's surprising, if you actually look at the ratings for his show, they really took a hit when he started talking about the birther controversy. I think it's obvious that he started to go further and further out on a limb with some of these conspiracy theories and he left some of his viewers behind.
I would also note that the problem with opinionated anchors isn't the opinion, it's when they are not accurate. It's when they say things that are false. It's when they say things that are not fair. That's when there's the biggest problem and we've seen this over and over again with certain news outlets and I think that was Dobbs' biggest problem and what drew the biggest protest. And I'll also say Diane Sawyer is about to become the top anchor on ABC News and she once worked for the Nixon administration.
PLANTE: It's been 30 years.
DEGGANS: It's obvious that there are lots of people in journalism who used to work in politics on both sides of the aisle and what you have to do is look at their work and not look at where they came from.
PLANTE: Right, OK, well, I've got to say, this is an essentially an attack on Lou Dobbs. Let's call it what Lou Dobbs said. Lou Dobbs raised a question. I saw him raise questions that a lot of people are asking out there. Do you know who Chiyome Fukimo is, either one of you?
ZURAWIK: Chris, if a lot of people are asking the question, they weren't watching him. This is not some ratings juggernaut. Lou Dobbs was finishing third in his time period. This was not some great populous groundswell of support for what he was doing.
PLANTE: Based on that standard, there are a lot of other anchors who would be gone, too, aren't they, but they're not gone, are they?

Exactly. After all, CNN's prime time shows are often in third place behind Fox and MSNBC.

A look at Tuesday's numbers makes Deggans and Zurawik's point about Dobbs' ratings rather absurd:

7PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The Fox Report w/ Shep -2,444,000 viewers (605,000) (1,151,000)
Lou Dobbs Tonight-879,000 viewers (208,000) (356,000)
Hardball w/ C. Matthews-711,000 viewers (198,000) (358,000)
Kudlow Report - 132,000 viewers (60,000) (81,000)
Issues- 679,000 viewers (263,000) (389,000)
8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O'Reilly Factor- 3,938,000 viewers (1,078,000) (1,903,000)
Campbell Brown - 786,000 viewers (190,000) (315,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann - 1,207,000 viewers (374,000) (538,000)
Big Mac: Inside McDonalds - 200,000 viewers (94,000) (106,000)
Nancy Grace - 970,000 viewers (393,000) (520,000)
9 PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity -2,534,000 viewers (739,000) (1,279,000)
Larry King Live -1,690,000 viewers (668,000) (768,000)
Rachel Maddow Show -995,000 viewers (267,000) (404,000)
Executive Vision 2 - a scratch w/70,000 viewers (a scratch w/47,000) (a scratch w/44,000)
Joy Behar- 551,000 viewers (184,000) (258,000)

So, on the night before he resigned, Dobbs was actually second in his time slot.

By contrast, Campbell Brown was third in hers, with less viewers than him!

So, as Plante said, this certainly wasn't about ratings.

ZURAWIK: Chris, this is also about trying to run a news organization. Jonathan Klein fired a nice shot across his bow back in July. If an editor did that to me, I would stop being a hot dog gas based stop off guy like Lou Dobbs and I might think about reining it in. You can't run a news organization with somebody --
PLANTE: You represent -- you're a media writer for a newspaper, for a Baltimore newspaper and you represent the mainstream news media point of view.
ZURAWIK: Which is what? PLANTE: And this goes right to my point. Howard, you know that every survey --
ZURAWIK: I think that is the mainstream point of view. PLANTE: You know that every survey that's ever been taken involving the politics of the news media finds it between 85 and 95 percent of the news media votes Democratic, goes along with the liberal agenda and newsrooms are stocked with this point of view. Now --
KURTZ: I want to come back to your point, do you contend that Campbell Brown and Larry King and Anderson Cooper, that their programs are built around their personal opinions to the extent that "Lou Dobbs Tonight" was?
PLANTE: Now you're going by a different standard.
KURTZ: It's what you do on the air.
PLANTE: Let me tell you something. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine in Washington, a longtime Washington journalist type and we were talking about a reporter that we both know who is very liberal. And my friend said, yes but I think that he does a great job of hiding it. The idea is not to have a room full of people who are hiding their political beliefs and failing, by the way. Lou Dobbs wore it on his sleeve and he at least put it out there. You knew where he stood unlike others.
KURTZ: Eric, I'm sorry that we have slighted you. Let's move the conversation to you can say whatever you want about Dobbs, but by naming John King, my colleague at "State of the Union" to take over the 7 p.m. slot that Dobbs has now vacated, is CNN doubling down on straight news and is that a good strategy?
DEGGANS: Well, of course it seems obvious that by replacing Dobbs with someone who doesn't present the opinions the way that he did, that there may be a return to more standard reporting and more objective analysis. But one of the things I wanted to talk about is I'm concerned that we're losing the forest for the trees here.
DEGGANS: One of the things that we've seen increasingly in modern -- in present years is the presentation of news that fits the world view of the audience that wants to watch it.
And when the news gets distorted to fit someone's world view, regardless of what that world view is, there's a problem. The problem with Dobbs wasn't necessarily that he was expressing conservative views; it was that he was distorting facts and distorting the situation to fit the world view that he wanted to present to his viewers.
And that's also a problem. You know, David and I have written about this as it relates to Fox News or as it relates to MSNBC, at times. When -- when the news is distorted to fit a world view to draw viewers, that's when we have a problem.
KURTZ: In fairness, Dobbs did correct some of those mistakes. And here is my two cents. I've been on Dobbs's program. He's been on this program. It's not about his opinions. He has a lot of them. He's a smart guy. He can say what he wants. It's about CNN wanted to be. And there increasingly was just a divergent path between Lou's opinionated approach to the world and CNN saying it was going to be -- it was going to market itself as the straight news network.
Now, I think a divorce was inevitable. Now Lou can run around the country, raise money, speak to groups, say whatever he wants on the face of the earth and CNN can get back to journalism.
I think CNN tries to be fair. Chris Plante may disagree -- former CNN correspondent, here -- but we're going to leave it there. David Zurawik, Chris Plante, Eric Deggans, thanks very much for joining us.

Video courtesy Story Balloon.

Video: “Avatar” trailer

2009-11-15T23:45:47Z

Via Ace, the gripping tale of an American soldier who falls in love with a native woman, joins her tribe, and then wages war against the encroaching Yankee oppressor. [...] Read the rest »

Truth and Consequences of Health Care Reform

2009-11-15T23:37:13Z

The health care reform bill (HR 3962) that just passed the House of Representatives is bad on so many levels it is difficult explain. As it stands, it will destroy the doctor-patient relationship and change the practice of medicine as we know it.

We have one of the finest health care systems in the world. It has been built on a foundation of choice. Doctors were free to choose the care that they deem necessary to treat their patients, and patients were free to seek the medical care of their choice. Initially, the foundation was shaken by the rise of the managed care system with capitation. However, over the past 10 years, capitated plans which limit access to specialists have given way to the rise in power of insurance companies. They have used their anti-trust exemption to craft a system that has used monopoly to increase profits on the backs of both doctors and patients.

Unfortunately, the House does not address necessary changes that would lead to meaningful reform, such as breaking the monopoly strangle-hold that insurance companies enjoy, reigning in the enormous profits of the pharmaceutical industry, tort reform, or crafting a healthcare system based on wellness and prevention and not the management of disease. Instead HR 3962 creates a layer of government bureaucracy that inserts itself between the doctor and the patient by creating a national health commissioner and task forces that will evaluate and decide everything from what medications a physician is allowed to prescribe to a patient, to what surgery will be approved, to what outcomes will be expected for a particular medical condition.

Taken to its logical extent, this bill will create a world where the good of the many by definition MUST outweigh the needs of the few because to spend large sums of money on a limited number of patients will increase costs without the guarantee of a good outcome. It only makes sense as long as you are not the senior citizen that needs a hip replacement, the premature infant with multiple medical problems, or the person with a chronic disease that statistics show has a limited time left on this earth. The House bill sets up a health care system with a finite number of resources (e.g., doctors, hospitals, expensive medical equipment). Because of these limitations, the system must be used to help those who the government determines to be the most productive people. A principle that has been advocated by a senior White House health adviser called “the complete lives system “. This system will prioritize healthcare for those who are younger on the theory that they have not yet lived a complete life by using tools such as lottery and prognosis to determine who receives care.

This system would lead to a harsh reality; but how else can we possibly cover more people with limited resources at a lower cost without raising the deficit as this bill promises? Medicare and Social Security are two government run programs that suggest that the answer to this question is… you can’t.

Update on Windows 7

2009-11-15T22:45:38Z

On Friday, I was asked on Twitter for an update on my migration to Windows 7, and I thought a few people might be curious as to how my home systems are working. I have now upgraded both of my machines to Win7 Ultimate, after deciding to see whether it would improve my performance any further to use the upper-end version of the new operating system. Both my laptop and desktop machines are dual-core Intels, with the desktop being a less robust system than my Dell Studio laptop. However, both systems have been remarkably stable after the upgrades, and the only problems I’ve seen on either are tendencies for Firefox to crash — which was happening on Vista before the upgrade as well. [...] Read the rest »

Le Fric, C'Est Moi: Does Islamic Banking Threaten French National Identity?

2009-11-15T22:59:00Z

French President Nicolas Sarkozy runs into trouble in the race for petrodollars, as members of his own party derail a plan to liberalize banking rules to make room for sharia-compliant (no-interest) banking. From The Economist:

In a global recession, Islamic finance looks an attractive business. Worldwide sharia-compliant assets grew by 29% over the past year to $822 billion, according to The Banker. French officials fret that Paris is missing out on its share, particularly to London, whose multicultural approach gives an open-arms welcome to Islamic investors. To catch up, the French have pushed through changes to their tax and legal codes. But their latest effort has prompted a political backlash.

The fuss began when an amendment was tacked on to a draft bill on the financing of small firms to give legal rights to holders of sukuks, or Islamic bonds, “to conform with the ethical principles of Muslim law or sharia.” Socialists were aghast. It was nothing less than “the introduction of sharia into French law!” exclaimed Henri Emmanuelli, a Socialist deputy. By slipping the amendment into an unrelated text, said another, “it could give the impression that we want petrodollars, but we don’t want to advertise it.” Traditionalist members of Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre-right party were also upset. The constitutional council, France’s highest court, seems to agree. Last month it threw out the amendment, albeit on technical grounds.

Unfortunately, where France is concerned, you can't assume the default position is in favor of individual rights. So it's not clear why allowing non-interest-bearing banking requires an amendment. The more you intrude public power into private decisions (including the elementary decision of what a person can do with his or her money), the more you turn every issue into a zero-sum game of what-will-they-think-of-us-if-we-back-down?

Good thing we live in a country where the government would never nationalize the banking sys... er, um... So, yeah...

The Financial Times sounds a note of caution on the newly acquired western taste for finances based on hard assets:

But perhaps we need to reflect back on one the key drivers of Islamic finance, the oil boom. The last five years of rising oil prices have allowed the Gulf States to enjoy robust growth. However, the global downturn could threaten oil prices and reduce the year-on-year growth that these countries have enjoyed. Already, the global downturn has led to a collapse in property prices in Dubai, where many Gulf Islamic banks invested heavily, and are now suffering as a consequence.

A survey also showed that the industry faces a number of challenges. A shortage of expertise in the industry and a lack of regulatory harmonisation were seen as the biggest obstacles to growth, both being cited by more than 40 per cent of respondents.

Nearly one-third also referred to a lack of demand among Muslims. This could be attributed to education or concerns that Islamic finance is not seen as being competitively priced.

A few years ago, Reason interviewed Imad A. Ahmad of the Minaret of Freedom Institute. Among many other interesting points, Ahmad contrasted American secularism (yay!) with French secularism (boo!); speculated that lending at interest was a major cause of Christendom's phenomenal rise from the Renaissance onward (and that lack of it contributed to the Ummah's relative stagnation); and even asserted that there is no Islamic prohibition on interest:

Basically, this so-called quranic prohibition is a little more complex than it seems, in that the Quran does definitely prohibit riba, which is usury. The question is: Is all interest usurious? Although 99 percent of all Islamic scholars have said it is, I simply believe they're wrong. And I make that argument using not only economics but the example of the Prophet and his companions. Even the majority of Islamic scholars, contrary to the claim that all interest is usurious, will allow certain forms of interest. For example, they'll allow a vendor to offer a discount for cash or surcharge for credit. This is interest; there's no way of getting around it. That tells you that interest is not inherently forbidden.