Tag Archives: moderate islam

Bad News Out of GM Is Not News at AP

The news out of Government/General Motors during the past couple of days hasn’t been particularly good. First, August sales results were disappointing. Second, it become known today that GM will attempt to go public on November 18, a later than originally hoped post-election date chosen to hopefully allow for another reported quarterly profit to boost investors’ appetite for its shares. As so often has been the case during Democratic administrations when unfavorable developments arise, the UK press has seen potential problems with the IPO, while the Associated Press has been acting as if all is well. In two separate items, AP reporters couldn’t even bring themselves to tell readers what the company’s real August sales decline was. In a report yesterday on the industry’s awful August, reporters Dee-Ann Durbin and Tom Krisher were appropriately gloomy overall, but they massaged GM’s reported result (bolds are mine throughout this post): Americans nervous about the drumbeat of bad economic news stayed away from auto showrooms. Automakers nervous about their bottom lines didn’t offer deals to lure them in. As a result, it was the worst August for U.S. auto sales since 1983, when the country was at the end of a double-dip recession. General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Ford all reported declines from the month before and from a year earlier. The bleak results were a reminder that, for all the good news about the turnaround of the Detroit automakers, the market for cars and trucks in the United States remains frail. Initial data showed sales came in at about 997,000, down 5 percent from July, according to AutoData Corp. “Coming in below a million units is eye-opening for August,” said Paul Ballew, a former chief economist for GM. “I never thought I’d see that. That’s a tepid month for August, which is supposed to be one of the top months of the year.” … “We know it’s going to be a modest recovery. It’s going to be bumpy,” said Don Johnson, GM’s vice president of U.S. sales. “What we don’t want to do is get back to putting incentives in the marketplace to keep the plants running.” … Overall, sales at Ford were down 5 percent from July and 11 percent from last August. At GM, sales of its four remaining brands were down 7 percent from a month ago and 11 percent from a year ago. For the year so far, sales are up 5 percent at GM, which is preparing for an initial public offering of its stock that could come as early as next month. We learned today that the “next month” part concerning the IPO isn’t going to happen. In her report today , Durbin’s massage was more thorough: Analyst: GM plans to sell shares on Nov. 18 General Motors plans to start trading shares again on Nov. 18, timing that allows the company one more quarter of earnings to build its case to investors, a firm that researches initial public offerings said Thursday. Scott Sweet, the managing partner of IPO Boutique, said GM plans to price the shares on Nov. 17 and begin selling them the next day. He said the automaker wants to start a two-week a road show to drum up investor interest on Nov. 3, the day after the midterm congressional elections. It’s unclear if the IPO dates have been finalized. Two people with knowledge of the process say the automaker’s board hasn’t approved a date for the IPO but is expected to meet next week to discuss the issue. GM is in a “quiet period” before an IPO, so no one is authorized to discuss the process publicly. … Sweet said his information comes from multiple people on Wall Street but declined to name them. He says the company hasn’t yet established a price for the shares, but hopes to raise $15 to $20 billion with the initial public offering. The timing could disappoint some Democrats who supported the government’s $50 billion bailout of GM last year and wanted to point to a successful IPO before the elections. … But one more quarter of earnings could help the automaker establish that it is healthy and capable of making sustained profits. GM earned $2.2 billion in the first half of 2010 despite depressed U.S. auto sales, but it lost $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. GM also hopes the U.S. auto market sees some modest improvement this fall. On Wednesday it said its U.S. sales fell 5 percent from July and 11 percent from last August, when they were boosted by the Cash for Clunkers program. The fact is, as seen in this Wall Street Journal compilation , that GM’s August 2010 sales were 24.5% lower than August 2009. For Dee-Ann Durbin’s and Tom Krisher’s benefit, that’s the result you get when you go to the WSJ link and compare the 185,105 vehicles sold in August 2010 to the 245,066 sold in 2009, and divide the difference (59,961) by 245,066. Yes, according to the company , sales of the company’s four remaining brands were down “only” 11% from a year ago. But it’s your job to report the full story, not merely to parrot the company’s press release. The folks at the Financial Times understand that, and also see how a company reporting declining sales in its largest market might encounter a bit of difficulty foisting its shares on the investing public. Reporter Bernard Simon also managed to find space for the actual year-over-year sales decline in yesterday’s coverage (link requires free registration): GM Sales Dip Casts Shadow Over IPO General Motors’ sales in its core US market sagged in August, potentially complicating its bid to drum up investor support for its forthcoming public share issue. Sales were a quarter lower than in August 2009 , when demand was bolstered by the Obama administration’s cash-for-clunkers scrappage incentives. GM has also eliminated four brands since then. More worrying, however, was a 7.2 per cent decline from July. Low-margin sales to car rental operators and other fleet owners climbed to 28 per cent of the total, from 25 per cent in July. “August was definitely what we call ‘one of those months’,” said Don Johnson, GM’s head of US sales operations. Mr Johnson said that consumers remained cautious amid an unexpectedly slow revival in employment. In the longer term, however, he forecast that there was “pent-up demand building” that would “eventually be released when the economy gets a firmer footing”. … GM filed a bulky draft prospectus for an initial public offering with US and Canadian regulators last month. The US and Canadian governments hold 72 per cent of GM’s equity. The document warns that in spite of a pick-up in demand since late last year, “many of the economic and market conditions that drove the [earlier] drop in vehicle sales, including declines in real estate and equity values, increases in unemployment, tightened credit markets, depressed consumer confidence and weak housing markets, continue to impact sales”. If the recent revival falters, the prospectus warns, “our results of operations and financial condition will be materially adversely affected”. It’s hard to fault Mr. Johnson for his optimism, but if he thinks the revival in employment has been “unexpectedly slow,” he’s been reading too many happy-talk missives from Team Obama. Durbin at the AP and an unbylined Reuters article both report that GM will conduct its IPO “road show” during the two weeks after the November elections. Reuters says that “The final value of the IPO has not been set but one source said early plans for the IPO envisioned selling $12 billion to $16 billion in common stock and $3 billion to $4 billion in preferred stock that would convert to common stock under a mandatory provision.” That’s $15-$20 billion of the $50 billion (really more) the government “invested” in return for a 61% stake during the company’s emergence from bankruptcy. Even if the IPO flies, it will still be Government Motors. Both Reuters and the New York Times correctly noted GMs 25% year-over-year August sale decline. Since AP couldn’t bring itself to do so, the graphic at the top right of this post, which may have seemed a bit over-the-top when it appeared a few weeks ago, is more appropriate than ever. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post:
Bad News Out of GM Is Not News at AP

CNN Continues One-Sided Reporting on ‘Islamophobia’ in America

On Thursday’s American Morning, CNN’s Deborah Feyerick continued her network’s promotion of the charge the “Islamophobia” is growing in the U.S. All but one of Feyerick’s sound bites during her one-sided report were from those who agree with this charge, with the sole exception being used an example of someone using ” Islam …[as] a political wedge issue .” Anchor Kiran Chetry and substitute anchor Ali Velshi introduced the correspondent’s report just before the bottom of the 7 am Eastern hour. Chetry stated that “attempted terror attacks aimed at the U.S. have come mostly from Muslim extremists born outside of America” and then claimed that “America’s Muslim community though has been quick to warn law enforcement about these potential threats.” Velshi added that “the question is, why does it appear that more and more that all Muslims are being portrayed as potential terrorists or as targets of hate .” Feyerick began by citing unnamed ” experts will tell you that there’s a great deal of misunderstanding when it comes to what Islam is all about. Add on politicians spreading rumors that Sharia law – Islamic law- is coming to the United States simply because a group of Americans wants to build a mosque . It’s time to ask, what’s really going on?” She then noted that the “Islamic center and mosque to be built near Ground Zero is not the only mosque drawing fire. About a dozen others across the country are also under attack, from angry protests and suspected arson in Murfreesboro, Tennessee to Temecula, California . American mosques, in some cases, [are] being portrayed as monuments to terror or terror training centers.” The CNN correspondent continued with a series of sound bites from those who allege a growing and threatening “Islamophobia,” and singled out conservatives for apparently persecuting Muslims: FEYERICK: Conservatively, figures show an estimated five million Muslims in America, and intensifying hostility and rise in hate speech is alarming to many, like these clerics who we met at a recent Islamic summit in Houston . YASIR QADHI, ALMAGHRIB INSTITUTE: You would never hear any mainstream commentator say, do you think another Christian sect could open up a mosque? Do you think Jews should be allowed to open their synagogues anywhere they want? We have mainstream news presenters just asking the question bluntly, do you think Muslims should open- should be allowed to open mosques anywhere they want? WISAM SHARIEFF, BAYYINAH INSTITUTE: What changed the game? Nineteen people changed the game? How did that happen? Because we’ve been your doctor, we’ve been your x-ray tech, your accountant. We’ve been serving you slushies for a long time. (unidentified man off-camera laughs) So, what tipped the scales? FEYERICK: Wisam Sharieff, Yasir Qadhi, and other prominent American clerics say American Muslims are under siege, both by Islamic extremists and some U.S. conservatives . QADHI: You have radical Islamic clerics, right, preaching from abroad, saying you cannot be an American and a Muslim at the same time. Well, low and behold, on the far right, you have quite a number of famous, prominent Islamophobes who are saying the exact same message. FEYERICK: The Ground Zero mosque, as some call it, has whipped up national debate, fueled, in part, by misinformation and fear-mongering. Yet, anti-Muslim feelings had been simmering. Feyerick’s example of a “famous prominent Islamophobe,” to use Mr. Qadhi’s term, was none other than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Before playing her sound bite of Gingrich, she used her “wedge issue” label, and afterwards, went on to cite other unnamed “experts” and highlight an apparent “hate crime” against a Muslim: FEYERICK: Islam has become a political wedge issue with politicians like Newt Gingrich comparing Muslims to Nazis . NEWT GINGRICH: You know, Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center. FEYERICK: In fact, a Duke University study finds, rather than fuel terrorism in America, contemporary mosques prevent it. National security experts and American Muslims, like Saraj Mohammed, fear there’s a lot at stake . SARAJ MOHAMMED: The more they speak and the more they incite people, they themselves are a concern to be dealt with and they have to be told, you have to stop this rhetoric. It’s hurting American security. FEYERICK (on-camera): Right. Because it’s creating hatred? MOHAMMED: Yes, it’s creating a lot of hatred. FEYERICK: The latest 2008 FBI statistics on hate crimes against Muslims don’t reflect what’s going on now. But experts believe the spike that happened after 9/11 could repeat itself . FEYRICK (voice-over): In New York recently, a cab driver was stabbed after his attacker allegedly asked if he was Muslim. QADHI: Slowly but surely, we will counter this Islamophobia. Everybody had it. The Irish had it. The Catholics had it. The Italians had it. Now, it’s just time for the Muslims. FEYERICK: (“Allah ackbar” being chanted in an unidentified location) How long it will take to counter is anyone’s guess. At the end of the segment, the CNN correspondent, along with Chetry and Velshi, forwarded the claim that the Islamic cleric behind the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Faisal Rauf, was a “moderate” and bewailed what might happen if other “mainstream” Muslims were rejected by Americans: FEYERICK (live): Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the one who is at the head of the so-called Ground Zero mosque , will return to New York City sometime today. He’s been serving as an emissary for the U.S. State Department, reaching out to leaders in the Middle East, acting as a bridge between the U.S. and Muslim countries . He says, just as American Catholics were crucial in pushing reform in Vatican II, so will American Muslims be indispensable in bridging the chasm between America and the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. So, there’s a real danger that alienating or marginalizing Western moderate mainstream thinkers is going to be a problem, simply because of religion . VELSHI: It’s a big issue. I know Imam Faisal, as you do- you’d be hard pressed to ever be able to describe him as radical, or a radical thinker. He believes he’s building a bridge between different faiths, but when this label is applied, it gets applied and it sticks . FEYERICK: Well, absolutely- and you have people simply asking questions with no fundamental proof as to what they’re saying. It’s one thing to say, let’s find out where the money is coming from. Well, I can say that. But it doesn’t mean – VELSHI: Right- FEYERICK: That it’s coming from somewhere insidious. But that’s what the allegation- that’s what the insinuation is . So there’s a real, sort of- VELSHI: That’s right. It’s buried in the insinuation . FEYERICK: Yeah. CHETRY: And I know that you’re hoping to get chance to sit down and talk to him one-on-one, correct? FEYERICK: Absolutely. We spoke to the developer, who couldn’t have been more honest about what this is about, and we’re hoping to get a chance to speak to him as well . CHETRY: Good stuff. VELSHI: Thanks for your great coverage on this. Thanks, Deb. Exactly a week earlier, on August 26, Feyerick joined the mainstream media’s guessing game over the aforementioned stabbing of the Muslim taxicab driver, advancing the hypothesis that it may have been ” connected to this big Ground Zero controversy, where we’re hearing so much anti-Muslim sentiment .” Who would have thought that a mere six weeks or so earlier, the correspondent actually played hardball with the real estate developer behind the New York City mosque, Sharif el-Gamel.

Read this article:
CNN Continues One-Sided Reporting on ‘Islamophobia’ in America

Washington Post: Ground Zero Mosque Protesters ‘Use "Sharia" as a Slur’

“Protesters use ‘sharia’ as a slur and rallying cry against Islam,” reads the dismissive print edition headline for Michelle Boorstein’s page A5 August 27 story. The Washington Post’s online edition used different wording: “For critics of Islam, ‘sharia’ a loaded word.” Boorstein cited “controversial” conservative scholar Daniel Pipes warning that pro-sharia Muslims “want to implement sharia in every detail on everyone in a stringest way.” For an opposing view, the Post religion writer also cited Imam Yahya Hendi, a Muslim chaplain for Georgetown University and “spokesman of the Islamic Jurisprudence Council of North America,” who argued that more moderate Muslims see sharia as more like a set of guidelines to guide personal and family life than a rigid code of law which must supplant secular governance. Fair enough, yet Boorstein put her thumb on the scale by lamenting that “the word has become akin to a slur in some camps… an alarming development to many religious and political leaders.” That sentence immediately preceded Boorstein excerpting a statement by liberal National Council of Churches president Peg Chemberlin, who complained that the NCC was “deeply saddened by those who denigrate a religion which in so many ways is a religion of compassion.” While neither Boorstein nor Chemberlin named names, the implication to the reader is that opponents of the Ground Zero mosque are anti-Islam, not merely anti-radical Islam or simply opposed to the mosque being located so close to Ground Zero, and that the specter of sharia law is a convenient bogeyman for those with a cynical agenda.

Read more from the original source:
Washington Post: Ground Zero Mosque Protesters ‘Use "Sharia" as a Slur’

NY Times Reporters Hail Mayor Bloomberg’s Weepy Defense of Ground Zero Mosque

The front page of Wednesday’s New York edition of the New York Times featured the news that a controversial plan to build a mosque two bocks from Ground Zero was approved by the city’s landmarks commission: ” Mosque Plan Clears Hurdle In New York — Bloomberg Pleads for Religious Tolerance .” But reporters Michael Barbaro and Javier Hernandez actually led with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s weepy speech about religious tolerance, falsely asserting that that denying permission to build a 13-story Islamic center topped by a mosque would somehow be “denying the very constitutional rights” that New York City police and firefighters died protecting. And the Times again insinuated that opposition to the mosque is coming mostly from outsiders, while New Yorkers have gotten on with their lives and don’t oppose it — a half-truth at best, as shown by results of a poll of New Yorkers. Times reporters were very impressed with the speech. Both Jodi Kantor and Brian Stelter linked to speech coverage on their Twitter feeds, Kantor calling it a “must-read” and Stelter calling it ” worth reading .” Here’s the Times’s lead: As New York City removed the final hurdle for a controversial mosque near ground zero, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg forcefully defended the project on Tuesday as a symbol of America’s religious tolerance and sought to reframe a fiery national debate over the project. With the Statue of Liberty as his backdrop, the mayor pleaded with New Yorkers to reject suspicions about the planned 13-story complex, to be located two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, saying that “we would betray our values if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.” “To cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists — and we should not stand for that,” the mayor said. Grappling with one of the more delicate aspects of the debate, Mr. Bloomberg said that the families of Sept. 11 victims — some of whom have vocally opposed the project — should welcome it. “The attack was an act of war — and our first responders defended not only our city but also our country and our Constitution,” he said, becoming slightly choked up at one point in his speech, which he delivered on Governors Island. “We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights — and the freedoms the terrorists attacked.” Bloomberg’s idea of freedom is quite selective — he can get blubbery over building a mosque near Ground Zero, but as his mayoralty has shown, his love of liberty doesn’t extend to gun ownership, smoking in bars, or eating food made with hydrogenated vegetable oil. National Republican leaders, like the former House speaker, Newt Gringrich, and Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential nominee, assailed the proposal, calling it offensive. On Friday, the Anti-Defamation League, an influential Jewish civil rights group, declared its opposition, distressing many in the interfaith community. For the second time in recent days, the Times misleadingly implies that it’s mostly a bunch of outsiders opposed to the plan: The disagreement has underscored how differently the World Trade Center site is viewed by those in New York and those outside of it. In the city, the space has returned, haltingly, to the urban grid, sprouting new office towers and train stops. But beyond New York’s borders, it looms as a powerful symbol of the war on terror and the lives lost on that day. A Quinnipiac University poll from early July found that while Manhattanites themselves approved of the project by a 46 margin, the outer boroughs of New York City (Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) oppose it. DNAInfo reporter Julie Shapiro wrote: ” New Yorkers as a whole weighed in against the mosque, with 52 percent opposing the plans and just 31 percent supporting the project .” The Times again danced around the fact that the funding of the project (Saudi Arabia is rumored to be involved) remains a secret: There were signs that the intense backlash had left moderate American Muslims uneasy about the plan for such a large center near ground zero. “There is some ambivalence within the community,” said Hussein Rashid, a visiting professor of religious studies at Hofstra University who specializes in Islam in America. “We still want to know who is going to be involved in this. So far, we have heard from just a few Muslim voices. If this is meant to be a community center, who in the community will be involved?”

See the original post here:
NY Times Reporters Hail Mayor Bloomberg’s Weepy Defense of Ground Zero Mosque

CNN’s Feyerick Plays Hardball With Ground Zero Mosque Developer

On Wednesday’s Newsroom, CNN correspondent Deborah Feyerick refreshingly asked the developer behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero many hard questions. Feyerick bluntly asked Sharif el-Gamel, “Why not have a prayer space for Buddhists or Jews or Christians… why must it be Muslim? ” The correspondent even brought up how one of the landing gear of one of the planes ended up on the site of the planned mosque . Feyrick conducted her hardball interview of el-Gamel at his New York City office. The CNN correspondent almost immediately launched into her prayer space question. When the real estate developer initially replied, “There are Jewish community centers all over the country,” Feyerick interrupted with a sharp retort: ” But the Jews didn’t take down two towers .” El-Gamel continued that “there are YMCA’s all over the country,” but she gave a similar reply: ” But the Christians didn’t take down two towers .” The journalist followed up with the issue of the planned mosque’s proximity to the Ground Zero and mentioned the plane wreckage that ended up on the site: ” For those who are so- still sensitive and so raw to this, their question- their overriding question is, why here? Why so close? It’s two blocks, but it was close enough that landing gear ended up on the roof. Why? ” Later in the segment, Feyerick mentioned the recent confrontational zoning meeting where supporters and opponents of the mosque faced off and quoted from one of the opponents who used a historical parallel: ” Coming out of that hearing, somebody said, ‘The Japanese would never have dared to build on Pearl Harbor.’ What makes this different? ” Towards the end of the segment, the CNN correspondent asked el-Gamel if he planned to make sure Islamic extremism stays out of the “Islamic community center” and if they would reject funding from Islamist sources: “Can you guarantee that this center will r oot out extremism or completely reject any extremists that try to get into it?…Will you reject any money that comes…from any person, any country, any organization… that has any links to terrorism ? Will you be doing due diligence ?” In her final question, Feyerick asked the developer to directly address a key claim by the opponents of the mosque: ” For those who would say, this is not an olive branch to greater understanding, this is more an act of defiance- how would you answer those people? ” The full transcript of correspondent Deborah Feyerich’s interview of Sharif el-Gamel, which aired 47 minutes into the 12 pm Eastern hour of Wednesday’s Newsroom program: FREDERICKA WHITFIELD: Some say plans to build an Islamic center and mosque near 9/11’s Ground Zero disrespects the victims of the attacks. Others say that attitude is bigoted and intolerant. CNN’s Deborah Feyerick spoke with the developer of the project to get his thoughts. DEBORAH FEYERICK: This is where you sort of conceived of the idea? SHARIF EL-GAMEL, SOHO PROPERTIES: Yes, it is. FEYERICK (voice-over): Meet New York real estate developer Sharif el-Gamel, the man at the center of a controversial plan a stone’s throw from the World Trade Center site. EL-GAMEL: This is an Muslim-led project. This is an Islamic community center that will cater to all of New York. There’s gym and basketball courts. FEYERICK: Plans include a performing arts center, swimming pool, child care facilities, and yes, a Muslim prayer space two blocks from the worst terror attack in U.S. history. FEYERICK (on-camera): Why not have a prayer space for Buddhists or Jews or Christians or- why must it be Muslim? It can’t just be a business decision. EL-GAMEL: There are Jewish community centers all over the country. There are Y- FEYERICK: But the Jews didn’t take down two towers. EL-GAMEL: There are YMCA’s all over the country- FEYERICK: But the Christians didn’t take down two towers. EL-GAMEL: And this is- and this is a need that exists. FEYERICK: For those who are so- still sensitive and so raw to this, their question- their overriding question is, why here? Why so close? It’s two blocks, but it was close enough that landing gear ended up on the roof. Why? EL-GAMEL: There is a need. It’s supply and demand. The community wants it. The politicians are supporting it. FEYERICK (voice-over): Maybe, but many who attended a town hall meeting recently were dead set against it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have we forgotten what happened at 9/11? EL-GAMEL: What happened that day is not Islam. What happened that day is terrorism. FEYERICK (on-camera): Coming out of that hearing, somebody said, ‘The Japanese would never have dared to build on Pearl Harbor.’ What makes this different? EL-GAMEL: If you were at that hearing the way that I was at that hearing, you come out understanding that there is a great need for dialogue now. FEYERICK (voice-over): El-Gamel says many people don’t understand Islam. But does that make it Islamophobia? EL-GAMEL: One hundred percent. FEYERICK (on-camera): Why? EL-GAMEL: Because the moderate voice of Islam is not coming out. FEYERICK: Can you guarantee that this center will root out extremism or completely reject any extremists that try to get into it? EL-GAMEL: One hundred percent- we will not tolerate extremism. We will not tolerate extremism. FEYERICK (voice-over): And yet, critics say the religious leader, Iman Faisal Abdul Rauf, has links to groups that support terror. EL-GAMEL: Imam Faisal is one of the most moderate Muslims that exists in this country today. FEYERICK (on-camera): Will you reject any money that comes, either directly or indirectly, from any person, any country, any organization, any corporation, that has any links to terrorism? Will you be doing due diligence? EL-GAMEL: We are going to be doing extreme due diligence, and we are going to hire the best security experts in the country to help us walk through the process, and we plan on being very transparent throughout the whole process. FEYERICK: For those who would say, this is not an olive branch to greater understanding, this is more an act of defiance- how would you answer those people? EL-GAMEL: This is an olive branch. FEYERICK: El-Gamel points out there are more than a million Muslims in the tri-state area, and that the American Muslim consumer spends nearly $200 billion a year. So, when he talks about this center as a business, it certainly is that. He also says he wants his two young daughters to have a place where they can feel a sense of cultural and religious pride and belonging- where everyone can learn and share in the mainstream Muslim experience. Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.

Read the original post:
CNN’s Feyerick Plays Hardball With Ground Zero Mosque Developer