"the intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of CTC's [the CIA's Counterterrorist Center] reporting on al Qaeda."

In a saner world (or at least one that accurately reported on original documents), all of this would be a point of pride for the CIA. It would serve as evidence of the Bush Administration's scrupulousness regarding the life and health of the detainees, and demonstrate how wrong are the claims that harsh interrogations yielded no useful intelligence.

Instead, the release of the memos has unleashed the liberal mob, with renewed calls in Congress for a "truth commission" and even, perhaps, Judge Bybee's impeachment and prosecutions of the other authors. Mr. Obama has hinted that while his Administration won't prosecute CIA officials, it may try to sate the mob by going after Bush officials who wrote the memos.

One major concern here is what Mr. Obama's decision to release these memos says about his own political leadership. He claims that one of his goals as President is to restore more comity to our politics, especially concerning national security. He also knows he needs a CIA willing to take risks to keep the country safe. Yet Mr. Obama seems more than willing to indulge the revenge fantasies of the left, as long as its potential victims served a different President. And while he is willing to release classified documents about interrogation techniques, Mr. Obama refuses to release documents that more fully discuss their results.

How to Raise Our I.Q.
Poor people have I.Q.’s significantly lower than those of rich people, and the awkward conventional wisdom has been that this is in large part a function of genetics.
After all, a series of studies seemed to indicate that I.Q. is largely inherited. Identical twins raised apart, for example, have I.Q.’s that are remarkably similar. They are even closer on average than those of fraternal twins who grow up together.
If intelligence were deeply encoded in our genes, that would lead to the depressing conclusion that neither schooling nor antipoverty programs can accomplish much. Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held, the evidence is growing that it is, at a practical level, profoundly wrong. Richard Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, has just demolished this view in a superb new book, “Intelligence and How to Get It,” which also offers terrific advice for addressing poverty and inequality in America.
Professor Nisbett provides suggestions for transforming your own urchins into geniuses — praise effort more than achievement, teach delayed gratification, limit reprimands and use praise to stimulate curiosity — but focuses on how to raise America’s collective I.Q. That’s important, because while I.Q. doesn’t measure pure intellect — we’re not certain exactly what it does measure — differences do matter, and a higher I.Q. correlates to greater success in life.
Intelligence does seem to be highly inherited in middle-class households, and that’s the reason for the findings of the twins studies: very few impoverished kids were included in those studies. But Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia has conducted further research demonstrating that in poor and chaotic households, I.Q. is minimally the result of genetics — because everybody is held back.
“Bad environments suppress children’s I.Q.’s,” Professor Turkheimer said.
One gauge of that is that when poor children are adopted into upper-middle-class households, their I.Q.’s rise by 12 to 18 points, depending on the study. For example, a French study showed that children from poor households adopted into upper-middle-class homes averaged an I.Q. of 107 by one test and 111 by another. Their siblings who were not adopted averaged 95 on both tests.
Another indication of malleability is that I.Q. has risen sharply over time. Indeed, the average I.Q. of a person in 1917 would amount to only 73 on today’s I.Q. test. Half the population of 1917 would be considered mentally retarded by today’s measurements, Professor Nisbett says.
Good schooling correlates particularly closely to higher I.Q.’s. One indication of the importance of school is that children’s I.Q.’s drop or stagnate over the summer months when they are on vacation (particularly for kids whose parents don’t inflict books or summer programs on them).
Professor Nisbett strongly advocates intensive early childhood education because of its proven ability to raise I.Q. and improve long-term outcomes. The Milwaukee Project, for example, took African-American children considered at risk for mental retardation and assigned them randomly either to a control group that received no help or to a group that enjoyed intensive day care and education from 6 months of age until they left to enter first grade.
By age 5, the children in the program averaged an I.Q. of 110, compared with 83 for children in the control group. Even years later in adolescence, those children were still 10 points ahead in I.Q.
Professor Nisbett suggests putting less money into Head Start, which has a mixed record, and more into these intensive childhood programs. He also notes that schools in the Knowledge Is Power Program (better known as KIPP) have tested exceptionally well and favors experiments to see if they can be scaled up.
Another proven intervention is to tell junior-high-school students that I.Q. is expandable, and that their intelligence is something they can help shape. Students exposed to that idea work harder and get better grades. That’s particularly true of girls and math, apparently because some girls assume that they are genetically disadvantaged at numbers; deprived of an excuse for failure, they excel.
“Some of the things that work are very cheap,” Professor Nisbett noted. “Convincing junior-high kids that intelligence is under their control — you could argue that that should be in the junior-high curriculum right now.”
The implication of this new research on intelligence is that the economic-stimulus package should also be an intellectual-stimulus program. By my calculation, if we were to push early childhood education and bolster schools in poor neighborhoods, we just might be able to raise the United States collective I.Q. by as much as one billion points.
That should be a no-brainer.

President Obama bows to the Saudi King

President Obama greeted the king of Saudi Arabia with a full bow from the waist yesterday. The action appeared especially awkward since among the dozens of world leaders and their spouses, handshakes abounded, but there appeared to be no other bowing in the room.

The U.S. State Department's office of protocol did not respond

he situation developed as leaders of the world attending the G20 summit in London assembled for a photograph to mark the event.

In this first image, after the king extended his hand while Obama approached, Obama bends from the waist until his head is nearly at the monarch's waist: In a second image, Obama has straightened up and is exchanging remarks with the Saudi leader:

President Obama bows before King Abdullah.



It has been the protocol of the US govt not have it leaders bow before any monarch. Full video is available on YouTube (http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=S60U-hl35Gw)



Even though Obama was born a Muslim and later converted to Christianity…

'One in 10 Americans still think Barack Obama is Muslim'

More than two months after Barack Obama placed his hand on the Bible and was sworn in as president of the United States, 11 per cent of Americans still think he is a Muslim, a poll suggested

White evangelical Protestants and Republicans were the most likely to say Mr Obama - who has an Arabic middle name - was Muslim in response to the poll question: "Do you happen to know what Barack Obama's religion is?"

Nearly one in five white evangelical Protestants and 17 per cent of the Republicans who took part in the telephone poll of 1,308 adults, which was conducted by Pew Research from March 9-12, said they thought Obama was Muslim.

Fewer than half in each group - 38 per cent of white evangelicals and 46 percent of Republicans - correctly identified him as Christian.

Even among Democrats, only 55 per cent correctly identified Obama as a Christian; seven percent thought he was Muslim.

Judiciary Goes Global


In 2004, the Supreme Court sowed the seeds for a national-security upheaval when it ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that war prisoners held outside the United States had a right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Last year, in Boumediene v. Bush, the justices continued the seismic shift, holding that the right they had invented in Rasul — a right extended to aliens whose only connection to the United States is in waging war against it — was somehow rooted in our Constitution.

Thursday, the inevitable earthquake struck as a federal court in Washington took the imperial judiciary global. Though Rasul and Boumediene involved only the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Judge John D. Bates (a George W. Bush appointee) ruled that alien combatants detained by our military in Bagram, Afghanistan — an active combat zone — are entitled to petition the federal courts for their release.

Let’s be clear about what this means. Judge Bates is saying that, under the Supreme Court’s rulings, the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary extends everywhere in the world, without limitation


Judicial authority had — until about five years ago — been limited to sovereign American territory, but Judge Bates has decided that the courts have the last word wherever our government acts. Judicial authority had — until about five years ago — been limited to sovereign American territory, but Judge Bates has decided that the courts have the last word wherever our government acts.

Writing in dissent, Justice Scalia presciently observed that, by abandoning American sovereignty as the limit of its jurisdiction, the Court had essentially claimed judicial dominion “over the four corners of the earth.” Scalia reasoned that diplomats’ obtaining control through a lease was no different in effect from a military brigade’s obtaining it by force of arms. The majority had offered no limiting principle. If the Court claimed jurisdiction over Gitmo, there was no reason why “parts of Afghanistan and Iraq” should not be regarded as equal subjects to judicial oversight. The justices, not the commander-in-chief, would be calling the shots.

Congress tried to limit the damage. In response to Rasul’s implausible claim that the federal habeas-corpus statute gave federal courts jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay, lawmakers amended the statute to make clear that this was not the case. Not to be denied, the Court simply swept that legislation aside. In Boumediene, the justices claimed it was not just a statute but the Constitution — the compact between the American people and their government — that somehow vested alien enemies of the American people with a right to challenge, in the American people’s own courts, their detention by the American people’s military, during a war approved by the American people’s representatives.

Predictably, Judge Bates has taken the next step. He reasoned that if the font of federal court jurisdiction is not U.S. sovereignty but de facto U.S. control, the Bagram military base in Afghanistan, which we firmly control, is no different from Gitmo. There was, however, a major difference: Bagram is in an active zone of combat. This was a circumstance even the Boumediene majority suggested was entitled to special consideration. Bates gave it none. And if Boumediene commands that everyone within U.S. court jurisdiction is vested with U.S. constitutional rights, why shouldn’t a prisoner in Afghanistan have the same privileges as a prisoner in Gitmo? Or, by Bates’s logic, as a prisoner in Pittsburgh?

The result? Battlefields are now crime scenes, and the U.S. military will be forced to behave like a team of police investigators. If they want to capture enemy agents rather than kill them, our troops had better carefully rope off the crime scene, meticulously gather the physical evidence, record witness statements, administer Miranda warnings, and make certain a contingent of defense attorneys is available for interrogation purposes. That isn’t how wars are fought.