Nbc News

Despite the fact that American politics has been fixated on terrorism for almost a decade, we've failed to establish a clear and concise definition for terrorism. I don't think it's because terrorism is so amorphous that it requires the pornography standard ("I know it when I see it"), but rather because any proper definition might implicate us as a nation in having participated in terrorism in the past. Ann has described the murder of Tiller as terrorism, and I think she's right.

My working definition of terrorism is pretty simple: Terrorism is the deliberate murder of civilians or destruction of property in order to achieve a political objective. I think this definition works because it covers everything from cross-burnings and lynchings to the Weathermen bombings to the attack on the World Trade Center.

Viewed in this light, the murder of George Tiller is undoubtedly terrorism. It was done with an audience, as Tiller was in church with his wife in the room at the time -- in other words, with the exact kind of theatricality terrorists require to achieve their objectives. The point was not simply to murder a man who performs abortions, it was to dissuade any one else from providing similar services. As Matthew Yglesias points out, this has been remarkably successful at dissuading potential abortion providers from providing this kind of care -- in other words, the murder of Tiller is likely to achieve the political outcome that was sought.

Andrew Sullivan has also pointed out that Tiller was a frequent target of Bill O'Reilly, who referred to Tiller as a "baby killer" and his practice as a "death mill." He also compared Tiller to Nazis and warned of "judgment day". Interestingly enough, O'Reilly, who has a degree in journalism but no understanding of libel law to speak of, seemed confused on a recent program as two lawyers explained to him that his rights are not actually being violated when people single him out for harsh criticism. O'Reilly furiously disagreed.

O'Reilly thinks his own rights are being violated when people criticize him in ways he disagrees with. I wonder if yesterday he thought Mr. Tiller's civil rights were violated.



-- A. Serwer

[The] incredibly user-friendly smartphone has captured the North American public's imagination and their wallets into the realm of mobile multimedia customer interactions. It has pushed competitors to make their handsets more user-friendly and functional.

Blame too the suppliers who are developing new user-friendly applications that are enabling their workforces and consumers to more fully utilize the wireless channel. These complete a virtuous circle that will prompt even more wireless use.

Blame also the expansion of 3G and faster networks and more competitive rates. Wireless has become so feasible and cost-effective that more households are dropping their landlines and that some businesses are not buying or are doing away with bulky laptops. Why have multiple boxes, phones, and connections when one multichannel go-anywhere device does it all?

The faster speeds are prompting more firms and users to deploy and enable browsers to access consumer and work applications in real time via the web, observes Angie Hirata, worldwide director of marketing and business development, Maximizer Software. More Web sites are becoming optimized for mobile users while instead of mobile-only browsers more devices now have full browsers that can render desktop applications, adds Vidya Drego, Senior Analyst, Forrester. Full browsing she says makes searches faster and easier.

Martin Schneider, director of product marketing, SugarCRM, says that in turn mobile browsers have sufficiently matured to enable bandwidth-intensive consumer activities like e-mail and view YouTube on iPhones and FLASH animations and JPEG files as on fixed computers. That bodes well for business applications which tend to but not always smaller: the exceptions being graphics-heavy fields such as media/entertainment.

"These innovations open the floodgates to anything you can do on a fixed desktop or laptop computer you can do on a mobile browser," says Schneider.

He has also seen mobile applications grow from a very limited set of uses such as warehouse...

Geithner told China yesterday that the Obama Administration was committed to bringing down the US deficit.
Really?

Barack Obama will quadruple the deficit this year.

Geithner also told China that Team Obama wants to bring down the deficit next year from 12.9% of GDP this year to 3% of GDP next year (a near impossibility)...
Or, in other words, back into Bush territory.

In response, China told Geithner to show them some numbers!
Bloomberg reported, via Bizblogger:

In an interview with Bloomberg Television May 21, Geithner said the administration�"s goal is to cut the budget shortfall to 3 percent of gross domestic product or smaller. That would be down from a projected 12.9 percent this year.

Seventeen of 23 Chinese economists polled in connection with Geithner�"s visit said holdings of Treasuries are a �Sgreat risk⬝ for the nation�"s economy, according to a Chinese state media report yesterday. Still, the majority argued against quickly cutting them, the Beijing-based Global Times reported.

Geithner, 47, needs to show how the U.S. can prevent the value of China�"s investment from being eroded by a weaker dollar or by the inflation that might be stoked by the stimulus money being pumped into the U.S. economy, according to Yu.

�SIt will be helpful if Geithner can show us some arithmetic,⬝ he said.

...The Treasury released a transcript May 30 of a briefing Geithner gave last week at the Foreign Press Center in Washington. In it, he said he will stress with Chinese officials that he�"s intent on maintaining the dollar�"s strength.

�SI will, of course, make it clear that we are committed to a strong dollar, that we are committed to bringing our fiscal deficits down over the medium term to a sustainable place, to a sustainable level,⬝ Geithner said in the briefing May 27. �SWe believe in a strong dollar. A strong dollar is in the U.S. interest.⬝

This doesn't sound good at all.
No wonder China is concerned.

The US has lost 16,000 jobs each day since Obama signed the Spendulus Bill and sunk the US economy further into debt.

Here are the top five most popular articles that ran at Reason.com from May 24-31. Read 'em once again or for the first time.

Sonia Sotomayor on Gun Rights and Racial Preferences: Why libertarians-and everyone who believes in limited government-should worry about Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Damon W. Root (5/26)

California's Silent Big Spenders: Political class refuses to explain why the state requires hysterical spending growth Matt Welch (5/28)

Is the Abortion Debate Changing?: Understanding the latest opinion poll results David Harsanyi (5/27)

Nostalgianomics: Liberal economists pine for days no liberal should want to revisit. Brink Lindsey (5/26)

What Norm Coleman & Al Franken Have Taught America: The Senate is carrying more dead weight than an Uruguayan rugby team Nick Gillespie (5/29)

Robert Samuelson finds that the American media's infatuation with Barack Obama is one of the great unreported stories of our time. He observes that Obama has inspired a collective fawning ; Samuelson manfully seeks to rectify it. He observes that the main check on Obama's power comes from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals. The infatuation matters, Samuelson writes, because Obama's ambitions are so grand.

James Lewis agrees. "Stalin himself couldn't have wished for a more slobbering press corps," writes Lewis. For contrast with the American media, Lewis presents Telegraph "polemical commentator" Gerald Warner: "Barack Obama: all the bad guys are giving President Pantywaist the finger." To be fair, however, Ralph Peters had much the same to say yesterday in the New York Post.