One of the world's top researchers investigating outbreaks of bird flu in South-East Asia says she is extremely concerned by the scientific evidence emerging about the virus. Nancy Cox is the head of the flu division of the United States Centre for Disease Control. She says research now shows that bird flu is capable of mutating into a form that can spread from humans to humans. "We found that for the 2003 virus, the virus had actually changed its receptive binding or its ability to bind to the receptors that are in human cells," she said. "This shows that the virus can actually change in such a way, or has actually changed in the past in such a way, that might make it more easily transmitted from person to person."
She also says the recent spurt of human infections increases the likelihood that a mutant strain would arise that could spread between humans "It's impossible to predict what the consequences would be. We might have a relatively mild pandemic like we did in 1968," Dr Cox said. "Alternatively, we could have a relatively severe pandemic as occurred in 1918 or perhaps even worse." The World Health Organisation says there have been 55 confirmed cases of bird flu in humans and 42 deaths. Although others maintain the incidence is much higher due to undetected cases.
Posted by: phil_b ||
02/20/2005 6:03:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bill- This interest me. "We found that for the 2003 virus, the virus had actually
changed its recepive binding or its ability to bind to the receptors that are in human cells".
WHAT HUMAN CELLS OR WHICH ONES?
YES, I do believe the incidence is much higher due to undetected cases. The Center for Disease Control has a way (government) of keeping epidemic, pandemic MUM. They did this with Lyme Disease back in the 1970's when that disease was discovered**
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea Biology Jackson ||
02/20/2005 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
For the latest in bigoted libelous claims from the Brit-dhimmi whorehouse media, check out this absurd Goebbelism from Al-Mirror, noted friend of terrorist swine everywhere:
Dubya bars Camilla from White House ..because she is a divorcee
By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor Gilfeather is a top pig-demon of the Hate-America bigot media, a mouth-breather's Fisk or Pilger. GEORGE Bush has banned Camilla Parker Bowles from the White House - because she is a divorcee.
That would imply he's banned 97.2 percent of the population of Washington, D.C., from the White House as well.
The unprecedented snub has effectively sabotaged Charles's plan to take his bride on a Royal tour of America later this year. The trip would have been the pair's first official tour as a married couple. But the US President - a notoriously right-wing Christian and reformed alcoholic - told aides it was "inappropriate" for him to be playing host to the newly-weds, who are both divorcees. Dubya is in fact a member of the United Methodist Church, which has no policy of discrimination against divorced persons even in ecclesiastical positions.
Well, in that case he must have banned them because he's a reformed alcoholic...
The decision was made even though the late President Ronald Reagan was divorced. BULLSHIT! Not only was Reagan divorced, so is Rudy Giuliani, who has stayed at the White House several times with his new wife even after the very public and messy divorce that preceded their marriage. Karl Rove, regarded in Al-Mirror circles as the mastermind of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist conspiracy for world domination, is also divorced, as are hundreds of other WH officials and employees.
A Government insider said: "It was relayed to us from Washington that Mrs Parker Bowles would not be welcome at the White House. "The Americans are aware that the visit will be subject to a lot of media attent ion and did not want the President drawn into what they view to be a public relations exercise. It's now uncertain if the visit will even go ahead."
Yasss... Think of the protocol problems. Does one arrange for the prince and his paramour to share the same bed when staying over at the White House? What if they ask for a trapeze? Or Jolly Green Giant creamed corn? Viagra? Or are separate rooms in order? Better to wait until he's made an honest woman of her, I say...
Insiders point out that hosting a lavish Royal dinner for Charles and Camilla would be bad PR for President Bush because while Princess Diana is still much loved by many Americans, her ex-husband is seen and dull and aloof - and both he and Camilla are widely blamed for the break-up of his marriage. Possibly because he is and she was, but who cares anyway?
Al-Mirror is making the assumption Americans give a phart. Quick, American readers: who was entertained in the White House last week?
The trip, which has been planned for three years, was being portrayed as a "trade mission" and Charles and Camilla were expected to dine with Mr Bush and his wife Laura at the White House.
Oh, I doubt if Bush wants to trade. He seems very happy with Laura.
Mr Bush's shock decision is the latest in a sting of crises to hit the couple. Charles was forced to abandon plans for a Windsor Castle wedding on April 8 after he discovered the Royal Family would have to let other couples get married there too.
"'Ere, Ducks! We been shackin' up for 12 years now! Wot say we pop on down to Windsor Castle an' make it official?"
"Oh, Nigel!... Shut up, you kids!... Will I get to meet the Queen?"
The blunder saw the couple hastily switch the venue to the register office at Windsor Guildhall, sending the Queen into a rage. She summoned Charles to Buckingham Palace and torpedoed his plans for a swanky reception at Windsor Castle.
"Looky here, Sonny! I ain't dead yet! Reserve the Legion hall, dammit!"
Charles's trip to the US would have been his first State visit to America since Princess Diana's death seven years ago. The prince wants to win acceptance for Camilla and believed the US public might have taken her to their hearts if the visit was planned properly. The source said: "The potential fall-out from this decision could be massive." I think the President should have a double size banner copy made of this headline so he can wave it at the cameras when Chuck and Camilla appear together at the White House.
#1
If he chooses to move, Gilfeather has a promising future with Jihad Unspun. Anyone who can make up stories like this out of whole cloth is bound to fit in with the story inventors at J. U.
Posted by: Mums the woid ||
02/20/2005 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I don't understand the part of being alcoholic?
Banned because you have a disease?? I think Betty Ford was allowed to LIVE in the White House
with her disease!. Diana said in an interview "There was NOT room for three in this marriage". Personally, I have NO respect for Camilla and Prince Charles- I label him a pompus,
arrogant, bastard. The true victim was Diana in all of that mess. I am sure Diana would turn over in her grave!!
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Drop DEAD ||
02/20/2005 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I am afraid the best Prince Chuckles can hope for in the USA is a resounding 'I'd hit it!' from the 50 and older crowd like me.
#10
"I don't understand the part of being alcoholic?
Banned because you have a disease?? I think Betty Ford was allowed to LIVE in the White House"
Err, no. It's Bush who is supposedly the reformed alcoholic here. I had rebutted Al-Mirror's attempt to connect the ban with the President's religion, thus leaving the sarcastic alternative that Bush banned them because he, Bush, is a reformed alcoholic ie reduced the claim to nonsense.
#12
OKay- out the door on my way to Vermont!
I thought that is what you meant*** I would advise Camilla to put a bag over her head!
beauty is ONLY skin deep but, UGLY is right to the bone!
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#13
# 9 Badanov- Something was "right" look at Prince William and Harry? Diana did not conceive by sitting on a toilet!
ANdrea
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Anybody find this repeated in any other news sources? I think it's a lot of BS.
Posted by: Dar ||
02/20/2005 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#15
When the priest asks " DOES ANYONE OBJECT TO THIS MARRIAGE" I wish I could be there!!***
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea drop dead Jackson ||
02/20/2005 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Damn those Reformed Alcoholics. The Bishop is sooo sanctimonious.
Posted by: King Henry ||
02/20/2005 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I am sick of seeing that horseface (apology to horses).
Good Sunday reading from a Japanese-Jewish woman from NYC, who wants us to treat Islam like Nazism:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316886/posts
On Nazis and Muslimutts: "...There are two major differences between them: one is that Islam is much older, the other is that while Nazis saluted their idol by raising their arms, Muslims do it by raising their behinds." You go girl!
#21
Fortunately, nobody cares about Charles's antics except the Guardian, the Royal Court, and his mother. Certainly nobody on this side of the pond, Andrea clearly excepted. However, I imagine Vermont will make up for her distress ;-)
Long NYT piece. Money quote: "We believe in the right to choose how we live our lives," said Julia Hodgkinson, one of the hunt's leaders. "This government is trying to stop that."
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/20/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Hugo Chavez's Threat to U.S. Security and Regional Stability Take a look at the comments posted on this article for a good example of USEFUL IDIOTS operating to destroy this country.
By Frederick Stakelbeck, Jr. Although their actions have slipped largely under the radar screen due to America's continuing duties in the War on Terror and in Iraq, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his minions have initiated an aggressively anti-American campaign in recent months that poses a direct threat to the security of the United States.
In late January, Venezuelan General Melvin Lopez Hidalgo, Secretary of the country's National Defense Council, and Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez both commented on perceived "hostile expressions" and "plans for a U.S. attack" on Venezuela. U.S. officials have responded by denying any suggestion of an overthrow of the Chavez government. However, given the frequency and nature of the anti-American comments coming out of Caracas, should the Bush Administration be concerned?
The answer is a resounding yes. The Chavez presidency poses a substantial national security threat to U.S. interests, Latin America and the Venezuelan people. During his often tumultuous tenure as president, Chavez has systematically eroded many of the freedoms gained with the overthrow of Venezuela's last dictator, General Marcos Perez Jimenez. He has authorized an end to the privatization of state holdings, augmented his presidential powers, weakened the judiciary and legislature, cut oil production to raise prices, and expanded the governing role of the military.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Use great caution when reading news articles from and about Venezuela. There are very limited news service resources in country that provide info for the US, in past as little as a single AP correspondent who was adamantly opposed to Chavez and willing to distort the news or even fabricate news items. Their national papers are also controlled by the opposition, so often are terribly biased. Last but not least, for many years now the Republicans have had a blind spot in central and South America in their otherwise brilliant foreign policy. This is a cabal of about half a dozen individuals whose ideology would be comfortable with the likes of Pinochet, Somoza, and Diaz. They, more than anything else, have driven Chavez away from the US by openly supporting his opposition; by openly sponsoring at least four crude and buffoonish attempts to violently overthrow his government; and by trying to scare the hell out of him with rhetoric, rather than by dealing with him rationally. Hell, if they had treated Arnold that way, he would be trying to make friends with Castro. I met a "second-tier" member of this aforementioned cabal and was appalled at the man, a US Ambassador, who was clearly clinically insane (paranoid). Now, I don't mind if there are true believers in government, but I object if they want to steer the US away from our best national interest because voices in their head tell them to. Six kooks should not be able to screw up foreign policy for an entire continent.
#2
As a Venezuelan whose entire family is living there, I can tell you that the article is not exaggerating.
Moreover, US policy toward Chavez did not drive him away. Please read how this asshole rose to power and what his intentions were from the beginning.
By your logic, if Nixon (then Vice-president) who have been more helpful when he met Fidel, the latter would not be the tyrant he is today, right?
Would you give the name of the terrible biased AP reporter? I would really, really want to know. Thanks!
I assume that you read Spanish fluently to be bold enough to make the following statement: "Their national papers are also controlled by the opposition, so often are terribly biased." Have you read the Government owned newspapers, Venpress for example?
"Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in December of 1998. Almost immediately, he took his first steps towards consolidating all of the power of the Venezuelan state into his own hands. He organized a series of referenda. The first authorized re-writing the Venezuelan constitution. The second selected delegates to a Constitutional Assembly, distinct from his country's legislature, to do the re-writing. The rules governing the election of the Constitutional Assembly featured a few non-standard items. Although no candidates -- neither Chavez's supporters nor his opposition -- were allowed to run under party banners, Chavez used state funded media to campaign for the election of his supporters. This, combined with Chavez's personal popularity, allowed Chavez supporters to win 120 of the 131 assembly seats.
The Constitutional Assembly, with the backing of Chavez, moved beyond re-writing Venezuela's Constitution. In August of 1999, the assembly set up a "judicial emergency committee" with the power to remove judges without consulting any other branch of government. The New York Times quoted the judicial emergency committee chairman as saying, "The Constitutional Assembly has absolute powers. The objective is that the substitution of judges will take place peacefully, but if the courts refuse to acknowledge the assembly's authority, we will proceed in a different fashion."
In the same month, the assembly declared a "legislative emergency." A seven-member committee was created to perform congressional functions, including law-making. The Constitutional Assembly prohibited the Congress from holding meetings of any sort. In a national radio address quoted in the Times, Chavez warned Venezuelans not to obey opposition officials, stating that "we can intervene in any police force in any municipality, because we are not going to permit any tumult or uproar. Order has arrived in Venezuela."
The new constitution -- increasing the President's term of office by one year, increasing the power of the president in general, and placing new government restrictions on the media, among other things -- was approved in a referendum held in December of 1999. Elections for the new, unicameral legislature were held in July of 2000. During the same election, Chavez stood for election again -- restarting the clock on his Presidential term of office. Though Chavez supporters won about 60% of the seats in the new unicameral assembly, Chavez still did not feel that he had enough power. In November of 2000, he pushed a bill through the legislature allowing him to rule by decree for one year.
In December of 2000 there was another set of elections. During elections for local officials, Chavez added a referendum on dissolving Venezuela's labor unions. Though it is unclear what authority was invoked, he attempted to consolidate all Venezuelan labor unions into a single, state controlled "Bolivaran Labor Force."
I like this analogy:
"Put this sequence of events into perspective. Imagine, after winning the October 2003 election for Governor of California, Governor Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger called a second election for a constitutional convention to replace the state constitution with a new document increasing the power of the governor, then called a third election to replace existing California legislature with a new unicameral legislature, then called a fourth election to grant himself another full term of office, then called a fifth election to oust the labor union leadership in California, all within the space of two years. Would these be considered legitimate democratic practices because they involved elections?"
http://www.techcentralstation.com/041304B.html
#5
TMH, that analogy looks pretty attractive to a lot of Caliphornians because the legislature runs the state in a fashion Chavez of which would approve. And Ahnuld is increasing the power of the Governor relatively, by taking the power for redistricting out of the hands of the legislature. I believe he has also cut the power of the plaintiffs bar, which supports the Democrat party in Caliphornia.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mrs, Davis,
Are you saying that Californians want the Governor to have absolute power through a General Assembly packed with his supporters?
#7
If it gets the Democrats, the prison guards' union, the teachers' union, the trial attorneys and Hollywood stars out of power, they might find it worth considering. That is why poor Governor Davis was thrown out of office. Or was it the energy crisis? Or the car tax? or the Air Resources Board Or...
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
TMH,
I am being somewhat humorous, but Caliphornia did have a lot of one party rule problems that did lead to Arnold coming to power, and right about now, he can do just about whatever he wants as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Anonymoose: There are very limited news service resources in country that provide info for the US, in past as little as a single AP correspondent who was adamantly opposed to Chavez and willing to distort the news or even fabricate news items. Their national papers are also controlled by the opposition, so often are terribly biased. Last but not least, for many years now the Republicans have had a blind spot in central and South America in their otherwise brilliant foreign policy. This is a cabal of about half a dozen individuals whose ideology would be comfortable with the likes of Pinochet, Somoza, and Diaz.
Actually, Pinochet, Somoza and Batista were pretty nice guys compared to the opposition. All you have to do is compare the body counts. (Note that Allende expropriated private industry and the press. What would they call GWB if he did that?) One of the things you have to remember is that our guys weren't perfect, but they really weren't our guys in the sense of being our hand puppets. We had *some* leverage, but they got to power the old-fashioned way by bribing and killing off the opposition. Despite the fantasies of left-wing white supremacists who think that black, brown and yellow Third World leaders are all controlled by white Yankees pulling the strings, Uncle Sam is just one player out of many - after all, these leaders have the resources of entire nations at their fingertips. Latin American strongmen could just as easily have sided with the Soviets, just as Saddam and Assad did, providing bases for further subversion throughout Latin America.
#10
ZF: Latin American strongmen could just as easily have sided with the Soviets, just as Saddam and Assad did, providing bases for further subversion throughout Latin America.
Note that Iraq and Syria used to be Soviet client states, and they were really Nazi-style fascist autocracies, rather than communist countries ruled by committee. If the Soviets could do business with Arab fascists, you can bet they could do business with Latin American strongmen, whatever their ideology. All that jockeying around during the Cold War was in order to get a better position on the strategic chessboard. In planning for potential war, geography and natural resources matter - one does not win by drinking from the cup of moral vanity alone.
#11
It must be recognized that neither the right or the left in Latin America are anything like they are in the US. Both are extremes historically populated with brutalitarians, and we should refuse to accept the notion of "a lesser of two evils". I refuse to choose Somoza over the Sandinistas: both are reprehensible, as were Diaz and Poncho Villa. And this is where our problem lies in the regional foreign policy. From the very beginning, Chavez should have been constructively engaged. Positively and negatively US foreign policy should have surrounded him up to his ears. But instead, they ignored him, and tried to wish him away by embracing his enemies. We don't much care for Putin, either, but we don't ignore him and cotton up to his rivals--that would be stupid. But in the case of Chavez, we have *neither* confronted him to his face, *nor* have we tried to get on his good side. I do not embrace Chavez, but I do suggest that trying to make a silk purse out of the sows' ears that are his opponents is a waste of time. For further, and one-sided, information about how the whole situation has been bungled up: http://tinyurl.com/5jzur
"From the very beginning, Chavez should have been constructively engaged.."
Can you please elaborate on how does one constructively engage a man that from 1992 (year he staged his coup against presidente Carlos Andres Peres) has had in mind to establish a "democracy" a la Castro?
#13
Anonymoose: I refuse to choose Somoza over the Sandinistas: both are reprehensible, as were Diaz and Poncho Villa.
We don't choose them. They choose themselves. Much as you'd like to think a great white Yankee hand put this guy in place, the reality is that he emerged out of a handful of men with large numbers of troops willing to follow him. Like every other Latin American strongman, Chavez has had a bee in his bonnet from the beginning. He's not our guy - he's his guy. He cooperates with us when he feels like it, or not when he chooses not to. Note that Noriega was supposed to be our lapdog, but it took an invasion to oust him. I think people need to rid themselves of the notion that these guys are our guys - if we decided not to have diplomatic relations with folks like this, 5/6 of the UN would be off-limits. They rise or fall on the basis of their efforts, not because of Uncle Sam.
#14
Good debate here. I think Anon. is wrong, Chavez should be isolated, not engaged, depending on how pro-Commie and pro-Terrorist he wants to be. Note: Short of open/direct support for Jihad, I do not think he should be overthrown.
I think Anon. does have a point or 2 about avoiding repeating the blunders of the past. Conservatives in the US and in Latin America have blown chances to improve things over the past decade (Peru's Fujimori was the ultimate missed opportunity for wasting all that he had achieved when he overreached and clouded all his successes - fighting terrorism and economic development, etc. - in disgrace). The Venezuelan opposition still needs to appeal more to the poor and peel off a significant chunk of Chavez's base of support. The failed military coup was a grade A disaster. L. America must kick the coup d'etat habit and embrace democracy and rule of law, even when the bad guys win.
My Peruvian friends are so militantly pro-Fujimori that they would acccept him as President-for-Life. They can't understand that this willingness to sacrifice the democratic ideal to ideological gain is their achilles heel. You need a strong robust system that can withstand the vagarities of a bad administration. The U.S. is strong because we can survive someone like Jimmy Carter.
No matter how strong and just the opposition to Chavez is, I still see no indication that they have a majority - yet. Time to learn from mistakes and play your cards right. Chavez now has the winning hand and so we'll have to wait a while and rebuild our own hand while he overplays his. Trying to kick over the table just acknowledges that you're a loser.
In the long run, I think the U.S. has the strong hand and Chavez can only lose by trying to challenge us. With time, that will become clear.
Posted by: John in Tokyo ||
02/20/2005 23:07 Comments ||
Top||
New light has been shed on the mysterious disappearance of the longest-serving head of South Korea's intelligence agency, last seen in Paris in 1979. According to an unidentified intelligence officer quoted by a South Korean newspaper, the former spy chief was murdered by a French hitman hired by the South Korean government. Kim Hyung-Wook, who served as the chief of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) from 1963 to 1969, was a one-time favorite and confidant of Park Chung-Hee, South Korea's president who took power in a military coup.
But by the late 1970s an increasingly autocratic Park had fallen out with Kim, who had become an outspoken critic of the South Korean leader's dictatorial rule. Kim vanished mysteriously when he was travelling in Paris alone and was last seen at a casino in the French capital on October 7, 1979. "I've learned that the former KCIA director was murdered by Mafia hired by the KCIA," a former senior intelligence officer was quoted as telling Seoul's Hankyoreh daily Saturday. "Eight KCIA members were involved in this operation and all are still alive," said the unidentified former spy, who worked at the National Intelligence Service (NIS) during former president Kim Dae-Jung's administration of 1998-2003.
He told the left-of-center newspaper there was a "high possibility" that the body of Kim Hyung-Wook was disposed of in an unmarked grave somewhere in France. The disappearance of Kim occurred during one of the murkiest passages in modern Korean history. The KCIA, which has since changed its name to the National Intelligence Agency, was at the time headed by Kim Jae-Kyu, who was himself arrested and executed for the assassination of president Park only a few weeks after the mysterious disappearance of the former spy chief. The death of Park sparked another military coup which brought Chun Doo-Hwan to power in 1980 and paved the way for another military general, Roh Tae-Woo, to take over as his successor in 1987. There have been persistent rumors in South Korea over the years that Kim Hyung-Wook was murdered after a falling out with president Park.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/20/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
EFL - RTWT
Europeans hate the way Americans talk. They think we're loud and uncouth and they don't like our jokes, except for
Michael Moore. Plus, they resent the fact that they've had to learn our language because if they didn't we wouldn't buy their stupid metric widgets or visit their overpriced ruins.
So when the president goes to Europe to give his speech to all the EU-niks in Brussels on Tuesday, it's important that he speak clearly — or at least clearfully. Because there are a few things he needs to say, and they can all be summed up in seven handy, easy-to-utter phrases:
1. Get a job. With their endless vacations and pint-sized workweeks, Europe can't produce enough of anything — including more Europeans — to save themselves from doom. So the French and Germans have only one realistic strategy when it comes to revitalizing their comatose economies: Wait for the U.S. economy to rise high enough to float their petits bateaux. Meanwhile, the EU's own reports have long shown the complete failure of the Lisbon strategy that was supposed to have the EU on a competitive par with the U.S. by 2010. Now, as noted in the EU Observer, the EU is failing to compete in technology and research, lagging behind not only the U.S., but also countries such as India *snip* RTWT
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/20/2005 3:49:15 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yup. Outstanding.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Phrase number eight: "Well met, True German Ally. Pleased to make your acquaintance. Give my best to Fred and the gang at Rantburg. Oh, and Laura asked me to see if you can swing by the ranch sometime in May."
First words in the Foreword (Sorry I wasn't able to find the English version so I translated)
His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the President of the Czech Republic, Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, the president of the Republic of Estonia, the president of the Hellenic Republic, the King of Spain, the President of the French Republic, the President of Irealand, the President of the Italian Republic, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, the President of the Republic of Letonia, the President of the Republic of Lituania, his Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, the Parliament of the Republic of Hungary, the President of the Republic of Malta, Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, the President of the Republic of Austria, the President of the Republic of Polonia, the President of the Portuguese Republic, the President of the Republic of Slovenia, the President of the Republic of Slovaquia, the President of the Republic of Finland, the governement of the Kingdom of Sweden, the Quen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland
Let's put the lights out and leave. If we continue the comparison it is still worse
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The improved Uropean version (1)
Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation; that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason. Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society the central role of the human person and his or her inviolable and inalienable rights, and respect for law,
Believing that reunited Europe intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world,
Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples ofEurope are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common Convinced that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,
Notice the caracteristic modesty of the makers of the European constitution
grateful to the members of the European Convention for having prepared this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe, Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows
Those guys would have the chutzpah of making us pay for the right to vote.
(1) Unlike for the first words (King of Belgian) I didn't translate the following it is from the the official English version . Even if in the preamble it is irrelevant I found non-trivial differences between the English and Spanish version. Are the peoples of Europe voting for the same constitution?
Posted by: JFM ||
02/20/2005 4:45:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The significant comparison would not be between the European Constitution and the American one, but rather between the European Constitution and the treaties it is replacing.
It's always a deceitful game, when a person compares an actual possibility with what is not an alternative and never was one. Applying the US Constitution to Europe was never a possible alternative. Retaining the Treaty of Nice, or replacing it with the European Constitution -- *these* two are the current alternatives being discussed.
Compare *those* two, and keep the comparisons with the American Constitution for when the time comes to improve and amend the European Constitution *further*.
People attack the European Constitution for not being merely a treaty ("we don't need no steenking constitution", etc, etc), and then they attack it for being one, and phrased like one.
#2
The comparison it is easy: it is a lot worse than the French one both in the verbiage, in the fact it fixes in the Constitution things who ahave no business being there since they belong to the day to day management by the government like "Europe must have a space policy" and in the warranties it gives to the citizen.
Democracy was born in Greece but, in Europe, it is dying in Brussels.
#3
Aris, can't you see all that vaporware in the European version? Who cares about storytelling like those "successive waves", about "inspired", "embedded", "path of civilisation, n'stuff.
"Deepen democratic nature"? With an EU Commission we cant elect, with a constitution we had no part in writing and (the German case) not even voting on? And let me not go into the "transparent nature"...
"Soliidarity"... with whom? Without qualifyer, it's an empty word, with qualifyer it's usually an empty promise.
#4
The Constitution talks in detail about what competences the EU will have, yes. Because all those competences that the Constitution *doesn't* talk about, the EU *wouldn't* have. Or so I gather.
I agree with changing the Constitution to allow for much greater flexibility in policy matters. But ofcourse then you face the disapproval of all those people who are terrified of the supranational institutions taking *any* more power on themselves or making any actual decisions without the further unanimous consent of all member-states.
#6
TGA> I see lots and lots of vaporware. Yes. And it's unfortunate.
But "Solidarity" seems rather defined to me in places: Solidarity clause
1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:
(a) – prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
– protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;
– assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the
event of a terrorist attack;
(b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.
2. The detailed arrangements for implementing this Article are set out in Article III-329.
The democratic nature of the European Union is among other things enhanced by the million-citizens initiative which is for the first time embedded in the constitution. No, it's not enough. But it's a step to the right direction.
No, we can't elect the Commission unfortunately, but neither could we with the treaty of Nice.
Once again I'm not comparing the Constitution with some currently non-existent and unavailable ideal. I'm comparing it to what it's replacing.
Another good thing for enhancing the democratic nature of the Union is that for the first time Germany will have more influence in the Council than France, UK or Italy, since we will no longer have bargained vote arrangements but rather a qualified double majority of states and *populations* instead.
#7
That Constitution was made by Giscard d'Estaing the one who received diamonds from "Emperor" Bokassa, a guy who pierced the eyes of children and, allegedly ate some of them.
Frankly I am atonished by your pavlovian defence of that Constitution even in its most questionnable and undemocratic aspects: even Mao's Red Guards didn't have the same kind of wooden tongue. Now I remember thet the EU Commission is paying people for going into blogs and putting texts in favour of the EU. You should apply for the job, really. At least you would get paid.
#8
Aris, the treaty of Nice isn't any better. And I define "democratic state" of the EU less by voting rights of member states, but by voting rights and rights of control (and impeachment) of the people.
#9
JFM, when I'm calling the Constitution an utterly sucky watered-down document with lots and lots of vaporware, I don't see myself "defending it even in its most questionable and undemocratic aspects".
So screw you.
What I see myself doing is this: seeing which aspects it improves and which aspects it worsens from the *current* de facto constitution of the EU.
You know -- comparing it with what actually is there, rather than with hopes and fantasies. TGA just mentioned that under the Treaty of Nice, the City of Berlin had to pay lots and lots of money for some useless law.
And I suppose his criticism of the Constitution is that it doesn't improve the situation in this respect.
However he should keep in mind, that the Constitution wasn't in effect when the city of Berlin had to pay that amount, so I don't see what this item has to do in discussing whether the Constitution is an improvement or a worsening of the situation.
#10
JFM, I doubt that the EU commission does that. I don't think they know what a blog is before they have worked out the standard regulation ISO-BLOG 203443 for blogs, the language quota, the number and length of admissable comments, the clear identification of every blogger with passport number and VAT Id etc.
That's all I'm talking about. The Constitution is a small improvement over the current situation, that's all.
It formalizes for the first time an exit clause for states that want to leave. For the first time it has an article about citizens' initiative, a first step towards direct democracy on a European level. It gives some tiny more flexibility to the Common Foreign policy. It allows for further enlargement of the Union in that its ends the rotating presidency and trims down the size of the Commission. The Parliament's role is enhanced a bit. It has a Charter of Fundamental rights for the first time embedded in it. So forth, so forth. All these I find steps to the right directions.
#13
Aris, the Constitution does indeed not change or amend these lunacies, but it sanctifies them.
Does it? I believe that for the first time the Constitution also adds the protocol which insists that all legislative acts must be justified on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Draft European legislative acts shall be justified with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Any draft European legislative act should contain a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This statement should contain some assessment of the proposal's financial impact and, in the case of a European framework law, of its implications for the rules to be put in place by Member States, including, where necessary, the regional legislation. The reasons for concluding that a Union objective can be better achieved at Union level shall be substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators. Draft European legislative acts shall take account of the need
for any burden, whether financial or administrative, falling upon the Union, national governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators and citizens, to be minimised and commensurate with the objective to be achieved.
And there's also a process there that national parliaments vote to call such a legislative act as non-compliant to such principles.
"Where reasoned opinions on a draft European legislative act's non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments in accordance with the second paragraph, the draft must be reviewed. This threshold shall be a quarter in the case of a draft European legislative act submitted on the basis of Article III-264 of the Constitution on the area of freedom, security and justice."
Now, you may say again that this is not *enough* -- it doesn't order the act necessarily withdrawn, only reviewed, but once again it seems to me to be a step in the right direction.
#15
At the risk of violating my lenten absolutions, I'll post to this thread:
The various treaties previously in effect in Europe were the equivalent of the federal code here in the US.
That the current document called the "European Constitution" is being defended because it's allegedly a better federal code for Europe than the previous federal code it's replacing.
To those of us in America, this still sounds like bull puckey, because it's not being called the New Federal Code, but the new constitution.
It's not a constitution, which would be a collection of meta-laws about law, but a collection of laws and bureaucratic decisions. It's not the difference between the constitution-as-implemented and an ideal pie-in-the-sky constitution that bothers us, it's the fact that this part of what in the US would be the Federal Register is being passed off as a constitution.
It doesn't matter how much better it is than the current European version of their federal code; it's still not a real constitution.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/20/2005 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#16
So, is it simply that it's called a "Constitution"? If we called it the "Treaty of " but the content was the same, all would be okay?
It would also be better because it wouldn't preclude the authorship of a real constitution somewhere down the line. And it would be better for the bureaucrats writing the current treaty to be more held accountable as treaty authors rather than letting them pretend to be writing a real constitution.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/20/2005 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I agree. Let the people write the real constitution (the internet is a great place to do it) and let bureaucrats write bureaucratic texts without the excuse that "the people approved them".
And hell, make it short and make it start with "WE THE PEOPLE".
We can borrow at least this phrase from the US constitution. It's not copyrighted.
#22
TGA and Phil> Lol! Okay, and calling it a "Treaty of whatever" would certainly help people to focus on the contents of it instead of on the word "Constitution" instead. I'd have no problem with that.
Ofcourse then people would accuse the writers of being dishonest by labelling it a treaty instead of a constitution, but you can't have everything. :-)
Raj Believing that reunited Europe... You mean, like how Hitler united Europe?
Another so-very-original comparison.
The difference between day and night, between war and peace, between voluntary union and coercive imperialism, between consentual sex and rape, between freedom and tyranny... but yeah, other than that *exactly* like when Hitler united Europe.
#23
TGA: Isn't there an old joke somewhere about how the Venetian Constitution worked for hundreds of years, and after it broke they were still able to sell it off to the US?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/20/2005 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Aris, then you'll have to at least deal with the problem that you now have a treaty/federal code hybrid with the force of constitutional law instead of federal code.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/20/2005 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#25
The difference between ... between voluntary union and coercive imperialism ....
#26
I have heard of "the perfect being the enemy of the good," but I had never heard of the "the better being the enemy of the just barely good enough."
Posted by: Mark E. ||
02/20/2005 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#27
The real problem remains that by reading that constitution the people don't get a real idea why they need a political union. What's its point? The union doesn't give its citizens fundamental rights that they didn't already enjoy in the national context.
If you make a union, the first question should be: What for?
You usually marry because you want to found a family and give your kids a protected environment.
The economic advantages of a European Economic Union are clear to see. What are those of a political union of 25 rather different states. The Finns know that they benefit from a economic union with Portugal. But politically, how do the Finns and the Portuguese profit from that?
#28
While Aris tries to "give us cat for hare" (Spanish expression), about the European Constitutaion saying that it is not a problem since it is only the codification of existing lmaws and practice we have to consider the fundamental differnece between laws and Constitution: laws are made to be changed, Constitutions are made to last and in any country the process for amending the Constititution is ever difficult and constraing in order to avoid a government modifying it just for convenience (or for say, modifying the electoral system is such way governemnnt cannot lose). That is why, because Constitutions are diffiucult to change (and the EU one has a provision who forbids modifying the Constitution for, I think, twenty years) that it is very important to get it right, to never say YES to a bad constitution and for not allowing in the Constitution matters who belong to state policy and thus who need to be changed when the economic, demographic or politic environment changes.
#30
Left to their own devices, the bureaucrats of the EU will ultimately render Europe into a micropower. The people, who are surrendering to the bureaucrats, will be getting what they deserve. There is NO comparison to the U.S. Constitution.
#31
The Union of Socialist European Republics is about to get the "Consitution" it deserves. If it were truly an exercise in freedom, the Europeans would have written and argued about the equivalent of The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers in recent years. It will be interesting to watch which European people has the courage to vote no (assuming they are asked).
It's rather ironical that the lofty, self-laudatory opening statements in the EuroCon so thoroughly contradicts the major 20th century contributions of Europe to history: death and slavery for hundreds of millions by Communism and Nazism.
In other news, my mother has finally given up on hoping for the end of socialism in Sweden. Took her about 35 years. Now she says --quote-- "the Swedes are getting what they deserve, since a majority keeps voting Socialist and Communist despite their unhappiness with the system."
#32
is about to get the "Consitution" it deserves.
What about the "New Europe" nations?
If it were truly an exercise in freedom, the Europeans would have written and argued about the equivalent of The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers in recent years.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean, but I thought that was indeed what we were doing.
As a sidenote, Sweden's human development index seems to be second best in the world. So I don't that nation is the best possible example for the supposed ills of socialdemocracy.
It's rather ironical that the lofty, self-laudatory opening statements in the EuroCon so thoroughly contradicts the major 20th century contributions of Europe to history: death and slavery for hundreds of millions by Communism and Nazism.
And this sentence is rather revelatory about how your hatred for the Constitution in reality just disguises your hatred and contempt for the entire continent.
Tell me now, is there *any* possible blueprint for a political union of the nations of Europe that you'd have supported?
Europe has the RIGHT to pick whatever kind of constitution it wants. As an American my only concern is that people have not really recognized how much power they are surrendering to an unelected bureaucracy of the "elites." I can accept that Europe has, in general, been more comfortable with being governed by such elites than has been the case for Americans, but it disturbs me, so as a friend, I feel obligated to ask, "have you really thought about what you are about to do?"
The fundamental difference IS between the US and Europe IS illustrated in the preamble: In the the US, the PEOPLE granted the power to the government, in the EU, the esisting governing powers are creating the consititution.
It is your RIGHT to accept that, but I think you should consider whether or not perpetuating that aspect of your existing system and if anything reinforcing its remoteness from the power of the people,is truly in your interest.
I wish you the best of success.
Posted by: Ralph Tacoma ||
02/20/2005 20:43 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples ofEurope are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common Convinced that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,
The heretofore unknown deleted clause...
We proclaim, There she was just a-walkin’ down the street,
Singin’, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do
Snappin’ her fingers and shufflin’ her feet,
Singin’, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do
She looked good, looked good
She looked fine, looked fine
She looked good, she looked fine
And I nearly lost my mind
President Jacques Chirac may consult all French political parties in the next few days on an early date for France's referendum on the European Union constitution. Faced with opinion polls, published and unpublished, showing a draining of support for the treaty, M. Chirac is said to be considering a referendum on 22 May, instead of in early or mid June. Opponents of the treaty say the government is showing signs of "panic". The longer the French people consider the treaty, the more likely they are to vote against it, they say. M. Chirac has therefore been forced to consider a snap poll.
Opinion polls have shown a gradual erosion of support for the treaty in France. In part, this is because the question has become infected by other issues, ranging from Turkish membership of the EU to the unpopularity of Jean-Pierre Raffarin's centre-right government. At the same time, arguments against the treaty by the extremes of left and right have begun to shake the support of a mainstream electorate which has barely considered the text. The "no" campaign has been in full swing for several weeks; the "yes" campaign has not begun.
The Senate, the upper house, gave a first reading yesterday to a change in the French constitution, allowing the referendum to go ahead. It has been passed by the National Assembly, and M. Chirac is expected to announce this week the date of a meeting of both houses to amend the constitution. This would lift one of the remaining obstacles to a referendum. The others are largely technical and relate to how soon copies of the proposed constitution and the wording of the referendum question can be printed and distributed to the 41.5 million voters. Officials suggest 22 May is the earliest feasible date.
Opinion polls originally showed support for the new constitution above 65 per cent. Private polls by the government have warned it is likely to be lower, and recent public surveys have shown support of below 60 per cent. If France rejects the constitution - which streamlines EU decision-making, solidifies some EU powers and creates a permanent president of the EU council - the treaty would be as good as dead. The text could barely survive rejection by popular vote in any member state, and certainly not in such a large and key founder state as France.
Government confidence was high in December when a vote within the main opposition party, the Socialists, showed it was strongly in favour of the treaty. Many more radical Socialists, and parties further to the left, reject it as an "ultra-liberal" Anglo-Saxon conspiracy to abolish the continental model of the welfare state. On the right, although formally supported by all mainstream parties, the treaty is seen by some as an erosion of national sovereignty. Despite a government promise that Turkish membership would be put to a separate vote, many right-wing politicians argue that a vote against the constitution would be the best way to kill Turkish membership stone dead.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/20/2005 4:39:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe we should take out ads in LeMonde that say the EU "Constitution" will make it easier for Britons to buy Brittany.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Someone should suggest to the Europeans a simple idea: take the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and replace the words "United States" with "Europe". Then, ask the question: "Would life be *intolerable* living under *just* this minimal document?" That is, accepting the notion that the purpose of a constitution is to limit government, *not* to detail every possible thing that government *could* do. This would entailabandoning the Roman and Napoleonic Law idea that "That which is not allowed by the government is prohibited", and replacing it with the Common Law idea that "That which is not expressly forbidden by government is legal." And then, to add the part that is the most essential, most important, and the most precious part of the US constitution, its Bill of Rights. Because nothing matters in the composition of a state that allows the government to trample the rights of its citizenry. A constitution is just words unless it has a Bill of Rights, a recognition that the state is there *solely* to serve the people, and not the other way around. That, of itself, the state has no intrinsic value AT ALL.
#3
I've stayed clear of this EU/EU costitution debate,because I know very little about it.But I would like to ask a couple of questions.
1)Do the citezens of the EU have the right to vote on thier Representatives to the EU?
2)Do they have the right to vote on laws proposed by the EU?
3)Do the citzens of individual countries have the right to recall/impeach thier EU reps?
4)Do the citezens of the (collective)EU have the right to impeach members of the Executive Branch(ex:EU priesident)?
How are EU judges chosen and do the citezens have any say as to who sits on the bench?
#4
Personally I don't really understand all of the hoopla surrounding the EU Constitution. Population demographics will once and forever unite the Caliphate Europe in the latter half of the century anyway so what's the big deal?
#6
Someone should suggest to the Europeans a simple idea: take the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and replace the words "United States" with "Europe".
LOL! Bravo for the innovative idea of the "United States of Europe" which has never ever been proposed before!
But let's see, a single foreign policy, a standing army and single defense, a single currency throughout the Union (too bad UK or Sweden, no opt-outs allowed for you), federal taxation, the federal government enforcing a full separation of church and state throughout the continent no matter what the regional traditions are (sorry UK, sorry Greece), no state vetos at *all*, no right to secede from the Union...
Most of this is a federalist wet-dream for me (though even *I* wouldn't go that far towards federalism -- for example I'm in full favour of the rights of any state to secede), but when some people loathe it whenever the EU takes even tiny, *tiny* steps towards federalism, do you really think that they would currently accept the full-blown United States of Europe that you are talking about?
#9
Thanks,TGA.Now let me see if I've got this straight.
The EU is going to be an un-elected government, ran by un-elected beuracrats,with a judiciary un-accountable to the people they are supposed to protect.All this and the people of Euorpe have no way(short of armed revolt)to correct problems,or get rid of incompetant,corrupt,or inneffective leaders.Are my conclusions correct,TGA,JFM,BD,Howard?
I find it hard to believe,Aris,that you are in favor of this hegmonic dictatorshp.Aris,thier are a lot of examples that are much,much worse than U.S. Federalisam,after all how many Euoropean Democracies have lasted over 200 hundred years.Just where the hell do the Euros get off calling the U.S.hegomnic when they are in favor of this crap?
#10
The people only have an indirect influence through their national governments and parliaments, and a very limited influence through the European Parliament.
Not good enough. The EU commission already affects our daily lives as much as our national government.
#11
I'm curious: are there provisions from withdrawing completely from the bureaucratic lunacy while remaining completely within the economic union? If not it might not be a stretch to call the withdrawl provisions illusory.
You atre right, we have no way short of armed revolt to get rid of corrupyt and incompetent leaders, except it would be unarmed revolt.
Btw, one of the nice things in that EU Constitution we are invited NOT to read is that there are many provisions who can be translated as "liberty is guaranteed until the government decides it not longer suits it" or "property is guaranteed unless the governement decides it is in public interest to expropriate you".
#13
I'm curious: are there provisions from withdrawing completely from the bureaucratic lunacy while remaining completely within the economic union?
Yeah, there's that article that says "Any member stay may withdraw completely from the bureacratic lunacy, while remaining completely on those parts of the agreement it still likes. Also pink elephants fly in happy circles."
There are provisions to negotiate the terms and aspects of your withdrawal, yes, and reach an agreement after consultations. But the absolute right retained under the Constitution is that of having the treaty cease to apply to you in its entirety.
That's the way treaties work. You can withdraw completely from it, or you can respect it, or you can renegotiate it with your partners and reach a compromise solution. But you don't get to pick and choose which chapters to respects and which not to.
"... The National Audit Office found that in 2002 alone there were 10,000 examples of possible fraud in the EU’s accounts. For nine consecutive years the EU court of auditors has refused to sign off the budget. The numbers are huge. The annual EC budget is around 100 billion [Euros] (£65 billion). The auditors cannot clear 95 per cent of that. We simply cannot tell what is happening to that money; the system does not allow us to say even if the money is well or fraudulently spent. ..."
#15
That's the way treaties work. You can withdraw completely from it, or you can respect it, or you can renegotiate it with your partners and reach a compromise solution. But you don't get to pick and choose which chapters to respects and which not to.
Unless you're frogland or Germany
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Bulldog - 95% can't be accounted for? I guess the other 5% aren't trying hard enough?
Makes the UN look good by comparison....sheesh.
#19
DB - I was reading a letter in the Times (IIRC) recently about a chap who's taking the British Government to court over its payments to the EU (£1,500,000 per hour). under British law, it's illegal for HMG to hand over taxpayers' money to businesses or orgnisations which do not have audited accounting and open books. Our payments to the EU, quite obviously, are therefore illegal.
#20
For a concise and clear description of the development of Common Law, referred to in #2 above, check your local library for the book "Magna Carta," written by an excellent legal scholar with the unfortunate name of William Swindler. The book was written for junior high students years ago; very few students probably see it today, probably. I have used it in home schooling my daughters.
The idea that the king could be answerable to the law was revolutionary; everywhere else the law depended on the king's whim. In England, as successive kings renewed the Charter, economic conditions helped the crown to evolve from personal rule to an institution larger than the king himself. The barons and politicians responsible for the Hundred Years' War and the Wars of the Roses killed each other off and left the field open for new leadership and, compared to the rest of Europe at the time, a more stable and prosperous nation.
Note the differences between the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" and the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The French Clergy had become so corrupt under the Bourbons, and the religious behavior of the Bourbon kings had become such a travesty of faith, that the French threw God out of their reckoning entirely. I believe that abandonment of principles led in part to the horrors of the French Revolution.
Glad to see the lawyers are useful for something after all.
Of course, the way things seem to be going, the British government will probably just change the law. :-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/20/2005 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Mom
The Declaration of Rights of Man has more in common with Us Constiution than you believe: let's review the two first articles.
First Article: "Men are born and remain free and equals in rights"
Second Article: Those rights are freedom, property, security and resistance to oppression"
(Notice that this implies the right to bear arms).
Of course that part was quickly "forgotten" by the revolutionary authorities.
The problem was not the Declartaion of Rights but what happenned later. In order to understand contemporary France you have to realize the French Revolution was basically a scam. The people was sant to die in the battlefields of Europe with promises of liberty and democracy but in the meantime the bourgeois who controlled the Constituante made that you only were allowed to vote if you were rich enough on the basis that the poor were not learned enough. But they also closed the free schools set by Monarchy and Clergy and who allowed the people to get instruction. You see for the French Enlightenement philosophers instruction was bad for the people. The Revolution leaders had also the State sell the lands of Nobilty and Clergy in a such way that the bourgeoisie was able to buy them at a fraction of their value while the peasants or workers weren't able to buy. They also suppressed syndicates and Napoleon put workers under watch of the police through a booklet any worker had to keep and present to the police or employer whenever he moved or chnged jobs.
In America workers were able to escape their condition through governement's distribution of free lands or by creating their own company (partly because they had had instruction: at the time of the Civil War over 90% of men in New England were able to read and write). But in France the oppressed, police-controlled and unlearned workers never had those opportunities (1): instead they became resentful and embraced socialism
(1) It is difficult to create a business if you can't read, write and count. In addition it ws much harder for badly paid French workers (no syndicates) to get enough funds to start it or to get loans from the banks.
#23
Thanks, JFM. May I ask where you got the above material? I need the short, concise form for homework in April; #3 daughter has Asperger's Syndrome, also known as high functioning Autism, and has a hard time with cause and effect, so I need to be able to reduce things dramatically without sacrificing the point.
#24
The auditors cannot clear 95 per cent of that. We simply cannot tell what is happening to that money; the system does not allow us to say even if the money is well or fraudulently spent. ..."
Question, for comparison: I know the U.S. government accounts are supposed to be audited. How well are they able to account for the monies disbursed (other than, I assume, CIA and Military, at least part of which is supposed to be secret)?
#25
#24 do you think this is a case of THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HEN HOUSE? It seems that way to me.
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 19:32 Comments ||
Top||
#26
The GAO is a Bulldog (apologies, Bulldog, heh) and can account for all non-black expenditures. They regularly testify before Congress regards where the money went - for any member who wants to chase it.
Our money is being watched carefully, but that doesn't prevent Congress from spending it on asinine pork barrel projects. That's legal - we elected the jerks.
Les peasants sont revoltinque! See - I could integrate, really je could.
Breton villages protested yesterday against an "invasion" of Britons blamed for pushing up property prices and forcing out locals. Around 100 people took to the streets of Bourbriac and called on all "proud French natives" to express their anger at "colonisation". They demanded more low-cost housing, criticised estate agents for "market speculation" and set fire to piles of property magazines. The protest was part of a growing backlash against the increasing number of Britons moving to rural France. It came six months after hostility to settlers erupted with "Brits out" and "Anglais integres, oui. Colons, non!" [Integrated English, yes. Colonisers, no!] slogans daubed on walls in the village near the Armor coast.
Bourbriac is now home to about 700 Britons, 100 Germans and Dutch, among a French population of 1,200. Maiwenne Salomon, one of the protest organisers, said the demonstration was not racist or xenophobic. "Our problem is not with the British in general, it's with the people who arrive here, who don't speak French, who don't mix, don't take part in the life of the community and who create Anglo-Saxon ghettos where they keep themselves to themselves," she said. "It's been complete madness over the last few years with foreigners, particularly the Anglo-Saxons, arriving in incredible numbers. "The result of this has been that property prices have rocketed in the whole of Britanny and Bretons themselves can't find anywhere to live, whether it's to rent or to buy." She said that the cost of buying a home had risen by up to 600 per cent.
Still talking in francs, rather than euros, Mrs Salomon, added: "You used to be able to buy a small house which needed some work on it for around 50,000 francs [£5,000]. Now it's impossible to find anything - even if it needs completely renovating - for less than 300,000. "This has had a knock-on effect on properties for rent. Even if you could find somewhere, the monthly rent is far too high for most ordinary families to pay. "I've got friends living in caravans because they can't afford to live anywhere else."
A census last year showed that about 100,000 Britons live in France. This figure does not include children or those owning holiday homes.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/20/2005 4:08:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...it’s with the people who arrive here, who don’t speak French, who don’t mix, don’t take part in the life of the community and who create Anglo-Saxon ghettos where they keep themselves to themselves..."
As an exercise, let's replace "Anglo-Saxon" with "Moslem" or "Arabic." Now how do you feel about them, Maiwenne?
#5
"Zay come in heer, wit' zere money and zere expensive cars, and zay don' talk Francais like zey should, and zay say t'ings like "Hey, Froggie! 'Avent you any arf-decent," er, how you say? "Poisson and Pommes Frites shoppes about, or is all you eat about here 'ese bloody snails and cheese? Sod that! Where can I get a pint?" TRES INTOLERABLE! English poopy-pants!"
#6
When they have the same protest in Paris against their hordes of un-integrated Muslim welfare cases. I'll show some interest.
Until then, *yawn*
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/20/2005 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#7
#3. They should be so lucky,Mrs. D. "Caravan" is British for "travel trailer". But you probably already knew that. A very small European style trailer comes to mind.
Our problem is .... with the people who arrive here, who don't speak our language French, who don't mix, don't take part in the life of the community and who create .... ghettos where they keep .... to themselves....
Wanna trade? At least they're bringing money into the economy instead of exporting the currrency to their homeland. Have any signed up for welfare or free medical care yet?
#8
GK, Yes, I do read my son the Famous Five before bed, but the thought of a frog trailer park was just too good to ignore. Makes me wonder if they have tornados in frogland.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Mrs Davis - If they don't have tornados then they will as soon as enough "caravan's" gather in one place. ;)
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
02/20/2005 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Barbara # 6 *Yawn* I call this a real eye opener. Welfare- most do NOT choose that path in life and for some it is a volition issue. Where are all these folk's going to? Homeless Shelter's?
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Andrea, things are different with regard to welfare (which they call "social security") on the other side of the pond. The unemployment is so high anyway (on the order of 10% of those that are being counted) that in Germany most people do not graduate from university until they are well into their 30's, and most women never even try to hold a job. Social Security payments are enough to live comfortably -- not in subsidized poverty as in the States. Remember, too, that the Europeans are fond of their work/life [leisure] balance, which is much more tilted toward leisure, so too many are happy to join the leisured class without any effort.
Washington: AN estimated 1.5 million former convicts are unable to vote in 14 states around the country because of state policies that make it cumbersome, confusing and difficult for them to return to voter rolls after completing their sentences, according to a study released last week.
The question of whether and how former convicts should be allowed to vote has generated a growing nationwide debate in recent month's. The Sentencing Project said its study was the first to survey how frequently felons were denied voting rights in states with restrictive policies. It examined 14 states that do NOT automatically restore voting rights to felons after they have complete their sentences. Those states are ALabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.
The study found that Florida, with 48,000 felons returned to voting ranks, was the only state where a significant number had their voting rights restored, but only after extended court battles there- The report also blamed long and confusing waiting periods before a felon can seek eligibility, poor statistic's in the records system and arbitrary standards.
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 7:20:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
May Senator Hillary Clinton fix this mess!
Any input from other Rantburgers??
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Uncle Sam ||
02/20/2005 20:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
good? I don't want a felon to vote. Ever. Sorry about *mary*
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/20/2005 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The left's latest crusade -- returning the franchise to people who committed violent crimes!
If you're in the military serving overseas, they don't think your vote should count, though.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/20/2005 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Frank- I was always told that if you do NOT appear in court in Connecticut - It is a felony
failure to appear/on your record. and Unless God writes you an excuses, in the hospital/military duty etc. you are SCREWED.
I really don't agree with you on being a felon and NOT being able to vote- they need to make an adendum- listing's what types of felony conviction to exclude from voting. I just think of so many that are wrongfully convicted.
(will check your response on Tuesday- ski and be free tomorrow).
Andrea Jackson
#5
MR. Crawford: First of all- you are in the armed forces serving our country...and your vote should not be counted? PLease clarify- HUM.
(will check on Tuesday for your response)
THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE**
Good NITE~~~
Andrea Jackson
Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a resolution yesterday calling on President Bush to work to suspend Russia's membership in the G-8 group of leading industrial democracies until Russian President Vladimir Putin proves his commitment to democracy. "President Putin's assault on democracy in Russia violates the spirit of the industrialized democracies and the letter of Russia's obligations to the Group of Eight," said Mr. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat. "We must openly confront anti-democratic backsliding in Russia for the sake of all those who look to the United States as a beacon of freedom."
The move came only days before the president is to meet with Mr. Putin in Slovakia on Thursday and just as Mr. Putin alarmed the international world yesterday by saying he now believes Iran does not aspire to develop nuclear weapons.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman, a prolific and potent legislative pair, introduced a similar resolution in 2003, and California Reps. Tom Lantos, a Democrat, and Christopher Cox, a Republican, introduced a companion resolution in the House. Yesterday Mr. McCain, Arizona Republican, said that "since then, Russia has actually moved backward. Mr. Putin has moved to eliminate the popular election of Russia's 89 regional governors, has cracked down on independent media, continued his repression of business executives who oppose his government and is reasserting the Kremlin's old-style central control. The coup is no longer creeping — it is galloping."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/20/2005 12:36:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The ghost of Woodrow Wilson returns.
In isolation, I would support this, but I fear that we may have too many enemies. It's one thing to deal with a Russia that sometimes helps us and sometimes works behind our back. It another to deal with a Russia that, like the USSR, backs its client states with its full military might, up to and including nukes.
Now, if we're not getting any benefit, then there is less reason to go along to get along. Still, though, unlike Iran or Syria, I'm worried that Russia could be much more effectively anti-US in its policy.
System: Conservatism
Variation: Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: PaleoConservatism, Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
5.8% were to your right on the chart.
92.8% were to your left on the chart.
#10
Nixon here as well. Guess I should head to the thread on audio tapes then, lol.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
02/20/2005 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#11
System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism, Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: George W. Bush (95.06%)
#15
System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism, Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Ultra Capitalism, Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: Ronald Reagan (90.12%), George W. Bush (90.12%)
Split 'em! and got the same score as Frank G.
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
02/20/2005 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#16
# System: Conservatism
# Variation: Economic Conservatism
# Ideologies: Conservative NeoLiberalism
# US Parties: Republican Party
# Presidents: Ronald Reagan (100%)
# 2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (86.02%), John Kerry (71.70%), Ralph Nader (53.02%)
What's up with the "2004 Election Candidates" numbers? Is this saying John Kerry and Ralph Nader had that much overlap in outlook with Ronald Reagan? If so, doesn't seem so right.
Posted by: DO ||
02/20/2005 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#17
OK, I clicked the fourth choice on every one:
The following items best match your score:
System: Socialism
Variation: Moral Socialism, Extreme Socialism
Ideologies: Activism, Libertarian Socialism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (77.90%)
2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (86.02%), John Kerry (68.13%), George W. Bush (33.71%)
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Ford 100% - Must be something in the water, we're both from GR.
#19
Reagan here, too--hot damn! That made my day. :-)
Posted by: Dar ||
02/20/2005 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#20
System: Conservatism
Variation: Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Ultra Capitalism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: George W. Bush (87.12%)
Dang. Not bad for an ex-Democrat...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/20/2005 16:26 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Let me make this perfectly clear...
Posted by: Chris W. ||
02/20/2005 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#22
System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism
Ideologies: Ultra Capitalism [Yup, that would be l'il ole' me. :-D]
US Parties: No match. No shit.
Presidents: Ronald Reagan (93.37%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (82.74%), John Kerry (67.15%), Ralph Nader (48.41%)
This is BOGUS! I am NO percent like Jf'ingK and/or Ralphie.
But Reagan.... Yea! ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/20/2005 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#23
System: Liberalism
Variation: Moderate Liberalism
Ideologies: Capital Democratism
US Parties: Democratic Party
Presidents: Gerald Ford (97.79%)
2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (88.10%)
Mmm! I'm the most right wing person I know.
#24
What a weird survey...why are so many for Reagan?
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 17:45 Comments ||
Top||
#25
# System: Conservatism
# Variation: Economic Conservatism
# Ideologies: Ultra Capitalism
# US Parties: No match.
# Presidents: Ronald Reagan (93.01%)
# 2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (84.38%)... the rest, as Barb sez, is bogus.
Andrea, Reagan ... probably because most of us identify with his views?
#27
Yes, that is what I am told. I just asked several folk's at the lodge where I am at
and the response's I heard were as follows:
1)He was good to the people.
2)HE helped the economy.
3)He was NOT a skirt chaser.
4) Many thought he brought his Hollywood talent
to D.C., was a hard worker and truly tries to accomplish all he possibly could.
5) one man told me he gave out a lot of money, loan's for college purpose's that did not need
to be paid back - which is how he could afford to go to college.
6) One man told me he gave Patty Hearst a pardon?
I can only remember getting off the school bus, walking in the house and my Mother yelling "President Regan was shot". Then the Brady law was passed during his term in office.
(James Brady who was shot/disabled).
ANdrea
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#28
The following items best match your score:
System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism, Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Capital Republicanism, Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: George W. Bush (95.58%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (95.58%)
#29
System: Liberalism
Variation: Moderate Liberalism
Ideologies: Capital Democratism
US Parties: Democratic Party
Presidents: Gerald Ford (90.12%)
2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (90.12%), Ralph Nader (76.20%), George W. Bush (68.13%)
Barbara, I'm with you. There is NO WAY I am the least bit like Kerry.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/20/2005 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#30
System: Conservatism
Variation: Moderate Conservatism
Ideologies Capital Republicanism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: George H. Bush 95.06
2004 Election Candidates Bush 88.95% John Kerry 70.94 % Ralph Nader 54.45%
Statistics: Of the 38083 who took the test along with me ONLY 0.4% had the same score as
me! I feel the need for a bell curve here!
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Sobiesky # 25 and Barb # 22 you are RIGHT
BOGUS. Math is my middle name, and that survey is insane! VERY SUBJECTIVE and many variables can come into play here.
(can anyone find a better survey?).
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#32
I can NOT stand Ralph Nadar. My result's were close to a few on this page, BUT RALPH NADAR???
ANdrea
Posted by: Andrea Jackson ||
02/20/2005 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Same as Whiskey Mike: Reagan 95.58%
For those of you upset with being aligned with Kerry, remember that if you hold any position at all, he'll agree with you 50% of the time.
System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism
Ideologies: Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: Ronald Reagan (97.79%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (88.10%), John Kerry (69.94%), Ralph Nader (51.34%)
Statistics
Of the 38239 people who took the test:
2% had the same score as you.
82.2% were above you on the chart.
4.2% were below you on the chart.
13.8% were to your right on the chart.
77.2% were to your left on the chart
Looks like a pattern are we all R.R. But I look to have the highest R.R. so far. Anyone beat 97.79%?
#37
How can the survey hold any validity?
The choice's are filled with should have, could have, would have choice's. Moral's are not based on feeling's ex: 14 Financial security:
what is the difference between ONLY and First for individual responsibility. Same for Q 15.
The wording of the answer's effects the outcome.
Andrea
Posted by: inquizitive Liberal ||
02/20/2005 21:33 Comments ||
Top||
#38
1. System: Conservatism
2. Variation: Economic Conservatism
3. Ideologies: Ultra Capitalism, Conservative NeoLiberalism
4. US Parties: Republican Party
5. Presidents: Ronald Reagan (93.75%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (80.24%), John Kerry (71.70%){WTF?}, Ralph Nader (53.02%)
0.4% had the same score as you.
95.8% were above you on the chart.
1% were below you on the chart.
22.8% were to your right on the chart.
70.8% were to your left on the chart.
....go figure. I checked q's 14 & 15 for clarification but didn't get any. I also had the same question about *first* versus *only* wrt charity, financial responsibility, etc.
#40
BTW, I took the test a couple times. When I just looked at the questions *without* clarifying any of them I came out way more conservative vice when I did click them for clarification. Seems that *nuance* thing really made me more sensitive, almost got in touch w/my inner child, *sigh*.
#44
The following items best match your score:
System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism, Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Capital Republicanism, Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: George W. Bush (95.58%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (95.58%)
#45
The following items best match your score:
System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism, Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Capital Republicanism, Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: George W. Bush (95.58%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (95.58%)
In an AP article today the President was attributed with this:
...But Bush says blacks would stand to benefit from his privatization plan because, on average, they die earlier than whites and would not have to wait until retirement to receive benefits...
Now when did he say that? Read the rest if you can stand it.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
02/20/2005 2:17:03 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Last night NPR described the Carter as the most heavily armed submarine in history. This may come as news to the drivers of Trident subs as well. Or is there a new system in those 100 extra feet we haven’t heard of but NPR has?
NEW YORK, February 20 (Itar-Tass) - The submarine Jimmy Carter was officially commissioned on Saturday. It has become the first submarine in the U.S. history to be named after a failure living former president. I think this was so that they wouldn’t have to name a carrier after him. And if it ever gets caught in flagrante, the headline will be Jimmy Carter Caught Spying. Bwahahaha.
Jimmy Carter himself attended the ceremony. The submarine, the third and last of the Seawolf class of attack submarines, is considered the most heavily armed of all submarines ever built. Maybe this is where NPR got the idea the Jummah was badder than a boomer. Maybe this is where NPR gets all its news.
The submarine is carrying Tomahawk winged missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes. There are 50 torpedoes in the arsenal of the submarine. Precisely the number required to sink an entire ChiCom invasion fleet.
Military experts say one of its main functions is to eavesdrop on the communications passing through undersea cables. You guys found out about that, eh? The Jimmy Carter is the most noiseless submarine of the Seawolf type. Too bad he wasn’t a noiseless President too. The Carter was extensively modified from its basic design.
The submarine has cost the country 3.2 billion dollars. Specialists believe it will finish the era of powerful and costly submarines.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 1:19:16 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Key woid is Heavily Armed... itn have big arms and elbows.
Posted by: Mums the woid ||
02/20/2005 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Specialists believe it will finish the era of powerful and costly submarines."
What? I can understand that we may not build as many as we used to in Cold War times, but there's no way in hell we should give up building bigger and better subs--or any other weapons platform, for that matter! Do any of these "specialists" read history? Are we supposed to lose our edge and return to the woeful state we were in at the beginning of WWII?
Posted by: Dar ||
02/20/2005 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The submarine has cost the country 3.2 billion dollars. Specialists believe it will finish the era of powerful and costly submarines.
Spare me. The only times NPR types are 'concerned' about the cost of federal expenditures are 1) when they're made by the military and / or 2) when they're made by a Republican President.
#4
Actually its the last Seawolf class to be done. The followup class will be the Virginia class submarines which are supposed to be cheaper while attaining approximately 90% of the same capabilities of the Seawolf class in a slightly smaller hull, at the same time the Virginia class is supposed to be designed for closer to coast warfare unlike our normal deep blue ocean types.
#12
...The USN took the opportunity to name the most secret and low-profile vessel in the fleet after Jimmah before some idiot President ordered a CVN named after him. (You could BET that had Algore won in '00, CVN-78 would have been USS James E. Carter instead of USS George H.W. Bush)
The good news is that Congress passed a non-binding resolution a couple of years ago that the first of the new generation of carriers should be named Lexington .
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/20/2005 18:48 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I wonder what nickname the crew is going to bestow on the Carter.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/20/2005 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Rosalyn
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/20/2005 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Peanut.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/20/2005 23:03 Comments ||
Top||
An income of $90,000--even $150,000--is hardly rich if you're trying to raise a family in many areas of this country. Lifting the cap amounts to a whopping 12.4-percentage-point marginal tax rate increase on middle-class households, as well as on small-business owners who don't even get to enjoy the fiction that their employer is paying half. These are some of America's most productive people, and, by the way, they tend to vote Republican.
Rather than proposing such punishment for his own supporters, President Bush might instead have pointed out that Mr. Greenspan went a long way toward rebutting the argument for such a tax increase. The Fed Chairman opined that, as long the phase-in of personal accounts was done gradually, the financial markets would probably yawn at $1 trillion in new borrowing--and maybe more--to cover "transition costs" that are largely an accounting shift anyway. That is, the borrowing would merely be an acknowledgment of liabilities everyone knows are already there. Mr. Greenspan was essentially endorsing Mr. Bush's view that the sooner we start reform the better.
We supported personal Social Security accounts before most Republicans now in Washington were elected, but the early direction of reform is looking more and more worrisome. First, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas proposes to finance private accounts with a huge new VAT levy, and now Mr. Bush puts his own tax hike on the table. What an unhappy irony it would be if Republicans finally gained control of the levers of power in Washington only to pass the largest entitlement expansion since 1965 (the Medicare drug bill) in Mr. Bush's first term, and effectively repeal his income tax cuts in the second.
My view is that the first business of government is to stay/go out of business; that at every level of politics, starving an already bloated government such as ours will always yield benefits, whereas creating a de facto tax increase will never yield anything but a more powerful government.
Posted by: badanov ||
02/20/2005 5:57:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm convinced that, more and more, economics is less influenced by "real" dollars and is more in the purview of "imaginary money". By imaginary money, I mean the vast amounts of money based in *nothing*, of which far more exists than "real" money. For example, if you take out a loan of $10M, using a $1M building as collateral, you have created $9M of imaginary money. Now, that is an example of the creation of bad imaginary money; but far more imaginary money is created through "economic leverage." An example of this, good imaginary money, would be to say that you are paid $1, then you spend that dollar, and the person who gets it also spends it, and the next person does the same. However, the government demands 1 cent from *each* of you from each transaction. So, in traditional economics, after 100 transactions, the value of that dollar should be *zero*. Of course, intuitively you know that it is still worth $1. But the reality is the exact opposite from what traditional economics would say: in fact, that dollar is now "worth' $2! And these are just two examples of how imaginary money is created. "Real" money has probably less than a 20th the power of imaginary money in influencing economics. Last, but not least, imaginary money is the hidden driving force behind the Laffer curve, and *it* is what makes the Laffer curve so dramatic and pronounced in its effects.
But the likes of Reid and Pelosi probably will... loudly and confidently. Hopefully louder and louder come mid-term elections. That ought to go over well for Dem candidates.
#4
Raj: the first example was the cause of much of the S&L scandal, that is, "friendly" overinflating of the value of collateral. The $1M building would be assessed at $10M for the purposes of the loan, by a lender who was "friendly" with the lendee. Only afterwards, in default, would its true value become known. But even though a few people went to prison for that particular example, there are many others, of bad imaginary money creation that make such things as "market bubbles", where valuation, esp. stock valuation, is FAR above actual value. It is the very essense of speculation. The imaginary bill for the S&L imaginary money crisis was $500B that had to be paid in "real" money.
As to my second example, of good imaginary money creation, I was being simplistic, but the same holds true of income tax. If you earn $100,000, you are taxed on $100K. And this year, you spend $50,000, on whatever. But all the people who get your $50k in exchange for goods and services, in turn pay taxes on that same money that *you* already paid taxes on. But it is harder to envision the creation of good imaginary money with this model, though the principal is identical. The end result is the same: by the time a person who makes $100k's money gets through the system, it may be worth double or even 10 times as much, in good imaginary money.
#6
hmmm I seem to remember a Senator McEgo (AZ) who was involved in the Keating scandal - that's why he's such a wself-righteous prick on campaign financing et al...trying to redeem himself
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/20/2005 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Raj: The value of looking at imaginary money in economics is clarity. Many of today's flawed economic assumptions are based in the "gold standard" logic of real money, that being that money has no value beyond *something* physical to base it on, in the oldest case, gold or 'specie'. Now wealth based on specie at the national level was known as "mercantilism" (the country with the most specie is the strongest); and once currency was no longer backed by specie, the belief evolved that "mercantilism is dead". What was missed was that mercantilism was not dead, that it had in fact expanded to include things such as oil; then renewable resources such as food; then value added products, such as milled steel, and assembled goods; then services, especially financial services and military force projection; and finally imaginary money itself. Not ironically, the US is the world leader in both "real" money economics, but also in the realm of imaginary money. But old school economists are continually befuddled by the US "breaking the rules" of real money, again and again, yet not suffering the predicted consequences. The federal deficit, for one, "should have" destroyed our economy and our currency, long ago; as should any number of other "real" money factors, and the efforts by our foreign competitors. And yet it is very clear why not, when the imaginary money economy of the US is compared with the other major economic powers. To put it in real money terms would be to add a zero to the 3-6 Trillion dollars that exchange hands in the US economy every day. An imaginary economy that challenges in scale the entire rest of the world's economies put together.
Sudan has said it will revert to using the pound as legal tender, abandoning the dinar that the government adopted in the mid-1990s. Central Bank governor Sabir Muhammad al-Hasan made the announcement on Saturday after a joint committee of delegates from the government and the Sudan Liberation Movement agreed on the issue at a meeting in Kenya.
Khartoum and the SPLM signed a peace agreement in Nairobi last month ending more than two decades of civil war between southern and northern Sudan, the longest-running conflict in Africa. Under the terms of the agreement, the north will have an Islamic-based monetary system and the south a Western system regulated by a central bank. Southerners rejected the dinar due to its perceived Islamic character and said they wanted a currency that reflects the country's cultural and historical diversities. Hassan told the official SUNA news agency that the joint committee in Kenya would continue its meetings with the aim of determining the value, design and features of the new currency. The dinar is equivalent to 100 Sudanese pounds and is officially pegged at 2,500 dinars to the US dollar.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/20/2005 12:00:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
1$ = 2,500 Dinar = 250,000 pounds.
One wonders what could you possibly get for 1 pound... Maybe some Sudanese would like to become billionaires? $4k and you are in the club.
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe has sacked Information Minister Jonathan Moyo after he defected from the ruling ZANU-PF party to run as an independent in upcoming parliamentary elections. Mugabe spokesman George Charamba on Saturday said Moyo — who has spearheaded Mugabe's propaganda campaign through five years of mounting political and economic crisis — had been stripped of party membership, his legislative seat and cabinet post. "By his actions, he ceases to be a member of parliament and a minister in [the] government," Charamba said in a statement. Moyo registered on Friday as an independent candidate for the 31 March parliamentary elections after being sidelined in a power struggle to become Mugabe's likely successor when he retires in 2008.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/20/2005 12:11:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
A Korean-registered cargo ship broke down in the Suez Canal today, blocking the passage of at least 40 ships, a canal official said. The northbound ship, Great Polaris, carrying 74,000 tons of coal to Europe, was stranded at the southern entrance of the waterway. The ship's crew and another from the Suez Canal Authority were trying to fix malfunctions in the engine and rudder.
The official, in Suez, said aid some 32 ships were stuck behind the Great Polaris, all heading to the Mediterranean. Eleven southbound ships are also waiting to go through. On average, nearly 50 ships carrying fuel and other merchandise pass through the 120-mile each day. The Egyptian government-run Suez Canal authority says about 7.5 % of world sea trade passes through the canal, which connects the Mediterranean and Red seas and saves ships the longer, costlier route around South Africa.
I looked at a couple news sources and couldn't tell if the ship is SKor or NKor.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/20/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
74,000 tons of coal to Europe
It's come to that already? 50 years ago that would have been a Coals to NewCastle deal.
And they have to use that funny duck voice. And they have to wear green...
In a major ruling governing the Shia community, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has stated that divorce in Shia sect can be valid only if it is pronounced in Arabic.
And they can only demand jihad in Swahili.
The ruling was given by Justice Shailendra Saxena in a revision petition filed by Riyat Shamim, a Shia woman. The high court held that the services of an agent could be taken if the husband has little or no knowledge of Arabic. The court stated that the divorce of petitioner Riyat Shamim was "invalid because the pronouncement was not made by her husband Syed Nabi in Arabic although Arabic-knowing people were available in abundance." The court, however, made an exception: "If no one speaking Arabic was available only then divorce could be announced in a language other than Arabic."
The two were married in 1976. The husband had pronounced divorce on January 15, 1993. On August 16, 2001 the court had partially accepted the petitioner's plea and had fixed a maintenance of Rs500 per month pending final disposal of the petition. The high court also stated that the pronouncement must be made in the presence of two reliable witnesses as was stated in religious books. The court ruled that the two lawyers who were present when divorce was pronounced could not be considered as witnesses.
Okay, that's one thing they got right.
In this case, the husband had pronounced divorce three times in a language other than Arabic and had not done so in the presence of two respected and independent witnesses.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/20/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
GEORGE Bush has banned 
Although their actions have slipped largely under the radar screen due to America's continuing duties in the War on Terror and in Iraq, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his minions have initiated an aggressively anti-American campaign in recent months that poses a direct threat to the security of the United States. 
First words in the 
Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a resolution yesterday calling on President Bush to work to suspend Russia's membership in the G-8 group of leading industrial democracies until Russian President Vladimir Putin proves his commitment to democracy. "President Putin's assault on democracy in Russia violates the spirit of the industrialized democracies and the letter of Russia's obligations to the Group of Eight," said Mr. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat. "We must openly confront anti-democratic backsliding in Russia for the sake of all those who look to the United States as a beacon of freedom."
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe has sacked Information Minister 
