The development of civilization depended on urbanization, which depended on beer. To understand why, consult Steven Johnson's marvelous 2006 book, "The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic -- and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World." It is a great scientific detective story about how a horrific cholera outbreak was traced to a particular neighborhood pump for drinking water. And Johnson begins a mind-opening excursion into a related topic this way:
"The search for unpolluted drinking water is as old as civilization itself. As soon as there were mass human settlements, waterborne diseases like dysentery became a crucial population bottleneck. For much of human history, the solution to this chronic public-health issue was not purifying the water supply. The solution was to drink alcohol."
Johnson notes that historians interested in genetics believe that the roughly simultaneous emergence of urban living and the manufacturing of alcohol set the stage for a survival-of-the-fittest sorting-out among the people who abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and, literally and figuratively speaking, went to town.
To avoid dangerous water, people had to drink large quantities of, say, beer. But to digest that beer, individuals needed a genetic advantage that not everyone had -- what Johnson describes as the body's ability to respond to the intake of alcohol by increasing the production of particular enzymes called alcohol dehydrogenases. This ability is controlled by certain genes on chromosome four in human DNA, genes not evenly distributed to everyone. Those who lacked this trait could not, as the saying goes, "hold their liquor." So, many died early and childless, either of alcohol's toxicity or from waterborne diseases.
The gene pools of human settlements became progressively dominated by the survivors -- by those genetically disposed to, well, drink beer. "Most of the world's population today," Johnson writes, "is made up of descendants of those early beer drinkers, and we have largely inherited their genetic tolerance for alcohol."
Johnson suggests, not unreasonably, that this explains why certain of the world's population groups, such as Native Americans and Australian Aborigines, have had disproportionately high levels of alcoholism: These groups never endured the cruel culling of the genetically unfortunate that town dwellers endured. If so, the high alcoholism rates among Native Americans are not, or at least not entirely, ascribable to the humiliations and deprivations of the reservation system. Rather, the explanation is that not enough of their ancestors lived in towns.
But that is a potential stew of racial or ethnic sensitivities that we need not stir in this correction of Investor's Business Daily. Suffice it to say that the good news is really good: Beer is a health food. And you do not need to buy it from those wan, unhealthy-looking people who, peering disapprovingly at you through rimless Trotsky-style spectacles, seem to run all the health food stores.
So let there be no more loose talk -- especially not now, with summer arriving -- about beer not being essential. Benjamin Franklin was, as usual, on to something when he said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Or, less judgmentally, and for secular people who favor a wall of separation between church and tavern, beer is evidence that nature wants us to be.
#1
In colonial America, nearly everyone of all ages drank beer or cider (less affluent) or wine (if they could afford it) for the same reason. When canny Scots came over and applied their distilling skills to maize, white lightning was born, and was mixed with water to make it more healthy to drink.
Johnny Appleseed planted apples not for direct consumption but for cider production, knowing that it was better to drink than most giardia-infected sources. In fact, up until the late 1800's, most apples were planted for cider, not fresh eating or preserves.
There's some evidence now that wheat, barley, and rye were not initially domesticated for bread, but for beer. Not so rice - which may explain the high numbers of Asians who have low alcohol dehydrogenase levels and cannot drink in quantities.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/10/2008 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Also remember that Alcohol kills the little bugs in the water. People not only kept drinking booze because it made them feel good, but cut with water hydrated them and they didn't get sick.
So drink booze out in the wilderness. It will save your life ;)
Just make sure you don't say, "Hold my beer and watch this!"
#4
Braudel also pointed out a while back that brewing beer meant converting its calories and carbs into a form less likely to spoil or be eaten by rodents. The Structure of Everyday Life
#6
Slightly OT but relevant: My commute is through 38 fun-filled miles of western Washington 2 lane SR-20; to pass the time ( and in response to a former car pool companion) i began counting heavy truck traffic ( once you get behind one there is no room to pass and you are stuck). As the fuel prices have soared, the numbers have dwindled, however the number of beer trucks has remained fairly constant. might not need walmart crap, but gotta have a Bud.
#7
Beer was boiled, killing the cholera. They didn't know about sanitation, they just knew that you didn't get sick from beer.
Cholera is a particularly horrific, particularly avoidable disease. The ONLY way to get it is to drink water that people have defecated in. It is easily killed by the most basic of sanitation practices. Remember this the next time you read about a cholera outbreak somewhere.
But wine is not.
Romans used to cut the wine with water for daily drinking so they could stay hydrated and not sick (or drunk). When they exported wine to southern France, they forgot (or didn't tell) the natives to cut the strong Roman wine with water. Major outbreaks of alcoholism followed.
Mead followed the same principle for the Northern Europeans. You cut the 15% alcohol drink with water for daily drinking, but not for drunkfest feasts.
#11
A little ditty I heard in Cincinnati in the 1980s:
Beer, beer, three cheers for beer!
It's my way of keeping my mind fresh and clear!
Posted by: Mike ||
07/10/2008 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#12
When they exported wine to southern France, they forgot (or didn't tell) the natives to cut the strong Roman wine with water
Actually it was the Gauls who invented the cask thus opening the way to improving wine through aging. Romans only knew the clay amphora who does not allow to age wine. I am 99% sure that teh Gauls knew wine well before the Rioman invasion. And 100% sure they brewed beer.
It was the Greeks that introduced southern France to wine and the Romans made it a permanent part of the culture. Sorry, confused the Romans and Greeks in southern France.
The Romans brought wine and grapes north. If you look at the lands the Romans conquered, you will notice they don't stray far from where grapes can be grown. ;)
#14
Ah, but Marseille was actually a Phoenician colony and port before the Greeks. I suspect they brought wine there first.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/10/2008 20:57 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
Ben Franklin
Good ole' Ben got it right for sure. Even in the darkest of times alcohol and beer, in particular, has always been a staple diet of most peoples. There was a daily grog ration onboard sailing vessels from the earliest times (British ships mandated the ration).
The grog ration, according to historians, was due to the fact that water, which was kept in wooden barrels, soon became slimey and impossible to drink. The daily beer and grog ration helped to keep the men fit on longer voyages (not to mention keeping the crews relatively happy).
#17
This article in the Beer Advocate describes the Prayer of Ninkasi, the Sumerian Goddess of Beer. People have actually made this ale.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
07/10/2008 21:37 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Amazingly, I'm sure, I made my own "prayers" after drinking too much of the health food. In my yout days
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/10/2008 22:41 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Spot on Eric. Local brewer master at Anchor Steam came up with the idea of brewing beer as close to the original recipe as possible...and it was called Ninkasi. The prayer itself appeared on the label. It's not the beer we recognise today but the point was to highlight the importance of beer. Communal agrigulture, centered on grain not as a direct food source, but for the production of beer. Oh...the owner of Anchor Steam...Fritz Maytag. Washer Machine giant and I believe behind Maytag Bleu Cheese as well. Drink up!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
07/10/2008 23:40 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I think Maytag was the man who realized that the prayer was also a recipe. He first reproduced the ale for a science conference, serving the brew to the assembled anthropologists and archaeologists in communal clay pots with long reed straws.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
07/10/2008 23:48 Comments ||
Top||
Amin Saikal After nearly seven years of costly efforts to stabilise and rebuild Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai's Government and its international supporters have not been able to secure either the Afghan capital or many other parts of the country, particularly in the south and east along the border with Pakistan. The Afghan authorities have again pointed a finger at the Taliban and their Pakistani backers as the culprits. There is no question that these forces, which are also opposed to India's involvement in Afghanistan, bear much of responsibility for Afghanistan's woes, but this tells only part of the story.
The other side of the story is that Karzai presides over a corrupt and dysfunctional system of governance, with a very limited authority over the country. His Government is entirely dependent on the support provided by the NATO-led International Security fhAssistance Force (ISAF) and the US-led coalition forces, yet there has been little co-ordination between these forces and the Government's security apparatus.
The Afghan National Army is now claimed to be almost 70,000 strong, but it is still well short of the capacity to be a frontline fighting force. The ranks of the army, and for that matter the Karzai fhAdministration, are infiltrated by various opposition groups, most importantly the Taliban and its allies, more specifically Hezbi Islami, the Islamic Party of the former maverick Mujahideen leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
In the case of the suicide bombing of the Indian embassy, the perpetrators used a truck full of explosives. This meant they had managed to get a large amount of explosives into the fortified city of Kabul and into one of its most securely guarded central areas. They could not have done this without sufficient help from inside, as was the case with the Taliban's previous daring operations at Kabul's Serena Hotel and Ghazi Stadium, and at Kandahar prison. This is a very humbling experience for the Karzai Government and its foreign backers.
Undeniably, the Taliban has sanctuaries in Pakistan and receives a considerable amount of support from the country. The Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, has acknowledged as much. However, it should be noted that the Taliban has never been, nor will ever be, a major force: it is a militia composed of mostly poorly trained, clothed and equipped men. It has neither a strong system of command and control, nor any significant power behind it, as was the case with US backing for the Mujahideen in resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/10/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
See also WAFF.com Thread > THE RUSSIAN MILITARY IS CORRUPT [Mafia-Black Market].
#4
Actually, this makes a point. When we came into Afghanistan, the place was an utter disaster. There was no government or any responsible social systems.
Yet our inclination was "Hey! Let's try to rebuild what is good here!"
Wrong. There was *nothing* good in Afghanistan. What they needed above all else were *replacement* systems of government and society that actually worked, not the utter crap they were used to.
The first thing we should have done is written them a constitution. One based in the US constitution, not those stupid and inefficient European ones. Find every adult male with a brain, and spend the next three months teaching him how to operate the constitution.
At the same time, we should have been teaching other men how to be lawyers and judges. COMMON LAW, not that utterly worthless Code Civil.
By law, every child in the country would have to go to public school. If they couldn't safely do it where they lived, then public boarding schools where it was safe.
And a *real* education, not a religious one.
All unemployed men would become minimum wage workers for the government, so there would be zero legal unemployment. These men would be set to work in rebuilding their country, while the money they earned went back to their wives and families. Because their minimum wage is almost nothing, this would not have been too expensive.
Every rural town would have been populated solely with working men, women, old people and children. So the town would be run by the women. The money sent home by their husbands would be used to start small businesses, so there would be something for the men to do when they came home.
Had we done this from the beginning, Afghanistan would be a very different place today, and we could probably be preparing to leave.
#6
This meant they had managed to get a large amount of explosives into the fortified city of Kabul and into one of its most securely guarded central areas.
Fortified? How? It's been a long time since any city had massive walls surrounding it, and only four ways in and out. The reality is that Baghdad, with its massive US presence, isn't able - to this day - to prevent IED's and car bombs. There aren't many occurrences, but they do exist. The attacks occurring in Afghanistan have nothing to do with the Afghan government being corrupt - they've got to do with it having nowhere near Iraq's resources. We're not spending nearly as much money in Afghanistan - in terms of aid or troops. And Afghanistan certainly doesn't have much money to spend - they don't have any oil, remember?
THE story of the 14-year old girl from Rupganj is appalling. The girl is struggling to recover from the burn wounds inflicted on her by a neighbour. One more budding life has been shattered by the acid throwers, whose inability to place human life above satisfying their beastly instincts has for a pretty long time been an area of major concern.
What is particularly shocking is that despite the seminars and meetings, which are held to highlight the plight of women in society, and desperate appeals by women's rights activists to put an end to this barbaric practice, acid throwing is still a potent weapon often used to punish girls when they turn down any amorous overture. So screw the seminars and meetings. Start dumping your own acid down Mahmoud's pants and maybe he'll get the point.
There is no social resistance against the elements harassing and oppressing women. And there is no response from the community leaders and law enforcers to such ghoulish activities. The girl has complained that she was being harassed for long two years, yet her helpless parents could not do anything against the criminal who finally threw acid on their daughter. Is this how innocent girls are treated anywhere in the civilised world? Can the law enforcers evade the responsibility of having failed to protect the girl? Obviously, the law enforcers are known for such failures, but that puts society as a whole to shame
The women's rights activists are doing as much as they can to let us know that women are far from safe in our social context. Some of the acid victims have been rehabilitated, but the highly disquieting question is, will our sisters and daughters remain perpetually exposed to this kind of barbarism? How long shall we have to remain satisfied with what is being said to explain the failures of those that are supposed to protect? Or is it that most of the victims belong to poor families and, as such, the need for enforcing the law strictly is not being felt?
The acid throwers deserve no mercy and no amount of condemnation is enough to describe the enormity of the crime. The culprits must be given exemplary punishment and the law enforcers and local community leaders should be asked to explain why they couldn't do anything to stop acid throwing.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/10/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Welcome to islam, Infidel, where women are chattal, and men can get away with just about anything against a woman. Don't confuse islamic society with "civilization".
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/10/2008 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Now, now, OP. Chances are good that this guy will feel the full weight of the Bangladesh Law land right on the back of his neck.
Here, let me try.
"After failing to stand up to Access Hollywood, voters wondering that if he can't do that how will he stand up to Ahmadjinninthere, Jackson's remarks confirm that he does indeed have a pair."
Investigators have begun to sift through the debris left behind by Monday's bombing of the Indian mission in Kabul, searching for clues as to just who might have carried out the murderous attack.
Afghanistan's secret service, the Riyast-i-Amniyat-i-Milli, India's Research and Analysis Wing and the United States' Central Intelligence Agency will also be scanning vast volumes of intercepted communications and pressing informants for clues
One important piece of the puzzle is, however, has long been in the public. For the past the last year, powerful Islamist groups have cast India's presence in Afghanistan as a plot to bring about the disintegration of Pakistan.
During a May 9 sermon at the Jamia Masjid al-Qudsia in Lahore, Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed charged India with following a plan of destroying Pakistan.
'India,' Saeed continued, 'is building dams on rivers flowing into the country. On the other hand, it is establishing training centres in Afghanistan where it is teaching its agents how to carry out terrorist acts in Pakistan. While our rulers insist that we should have good relations with the Afghan government, India is imposing wars upon us. Still, our rulers, pursuing a policy of unilateral friendship under foreign pressure, have promised the world we will not fight with India.'
Saeed's Jamaat-ud-Dawa is the parent organisation of the proscribed Lashkar-e-Taiba which, in turn, is a member of the Al-Qaeda-led International Islamic Front.
But Saeed isn't the only one making such claims. In May, a Jamaat-e-Islami spokesperson told Aaj Television that Pakistan authorities had erred in allowing the distribution of Indian films containing material objectionable and offensive to Islam.
He said:
''India is our enemy, and has been at the forefront of efforts to destabilise and damage Pakistan. The Indian Army is massacring Muslims in Kashmir, while India is constructing dams on our rivers in violation of treaties, in order to turn Pakistan into a desert.
''Besides, Indian consulates in Afghanistan are busy in conspiracies to undermine Pakistan's security. Still, we are providing India billions of dollars by importing its movies.''
Several jihadist ideologues have argued that circumstances are now right for Pakistan to adopt a more aggressive posture against India, in both Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan.
In February, former Inter Services Intelligence Directorate chief Hameed Gul wrote an article in the Nawa-i-Waqt, which asserted that the key to Kashmir is in Afghanistan. Lieutenant-General Gul argued that until the United States was defeated in Afghanistan, Kashmir would not be freed.
'But,' General Gul prophesied, 'I, being a professional soldier, say with full confidence that the U.S. can never win the war against terror in Afghanistan or Iraq. Following a withdrawal from Afghanistan in late-2009,' he asserted, 'the United States will disintegrate like the former USSR and this disintegration will result in the freedom of Kashmir.'
Some jihadists in Pakistan have called for military action to bring about this outcome, including the Hizb ut-Tehrira, a small group with little military capability, but considerable ideological influence among Islamists.
In a pamphlet circulated in Islamabad on May 17, 2008, soon after the United States fired a missile which killed 14 people inside Pakistan, the Hizb ut-Tehrir called on authorities to respond to this unprovoked American aggression blow for blow. How? 'Recently,' the pamphlet argued, 'Pakistan successfully tested the radar-evading Babar and Raad cruise missiles. Why not use this lethal weapons at this opportune juncture? Our ballistic missiles can wipe out American bases in Afghanistan in the twinkling of an eye.'
Saeed, too, issued a statement in June, after U.S. forces in Afghanistan attacked a Pakistan military post where the Taliban was located. He demanded that Pakistan dissociate itself from the U.S.' so-called war on terror and join the mujahideen to fight in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
Jihadists believe they have the backing of elements in Pakistan's armed forces, a perception shared by several analysts.
In February, the deputy head of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad asserted that 'a huge majority of Pakistan's army does not want to fight us.' He said: 'Had [President Pervez] Musharraf continued to support the jihad in Kashmir, the mujahideen would have broken India apart. Musharraf's biggest crime is abandoning jihad in Kashmir. Now, we have a new army chief. I appeal to him to adopt the old policy of jihad.
Monday's bombing, coming as it does in the context of heightened tensions along the Line of Control and in Jammu and Kashmir, has led many experts in New Delhi to fear his wish has been met.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/10/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Lashkar e-Taiba
#1
Hameed Gul would look good with an ice pick sticking out of his eye.
On the heels of a recent Israeli Air Force exercise and cautionary words from the United States Iran, quite literally, fired back on Wednesday. According to military and press accounts, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) units test-fired nine missiles, including a medium-range Shahab-3, capable of reaching Israel.
While the Iranian missile test was enough to ratchet up regional tensions (and trigger a new spike in oil prices), it is possible to read too much into the days events, at least militarily. First, this type of drill is hardly an unusual event; IRGC missile units conduct an average of two or three major exercises each year, and missile crews practice continuously at their garrisons. Preparations for the test had been underway for several days and, presumably, detected by U.S. and Israeli intelligence.
Secondly, reporting on the missile test or at least the information available so far ignores the salient question about the supposed highlight of the exercise: the launch of an extended range Shahab-3 that could target Israel. This is not the first time Iran has tested a longer-rage version of the Shahab-3; launches involving that type of missile date back almost a decade.
But many of those tests had something in common: they resulted in failures, ranging from missiles that blew up in flight, failed to achieve the desired range, or strayed badly off course. So far, Tehran hasnt provided details on Wednesdays Shahab-3 launch, only saying that it has a maximum range of 1250 miles and is capable of carrying a one-ton payload. If the extended-range Shahab-3 remains unreliable, it will pose less of a threat to Israel and other potential targets in the Middle East.
In fact, Iran reportedly stopped work on another missile program (dubbed the Shahab-4), replacing it with BM-25 intermediate range missiles from North Korea. The BM-25 based on an old Soviet SLBM design arrived in Iran more than a year ago but has not been operationally tested. Cancellation of the Shahab-4 and slow progress with the BM-25 suggest continuing problems with Tehrans intermediate and long-range missile programs.
Deficiencies can also be found among operational systems. Media reports on Wednesdays launch are wildly inaccurate in one important element: characterizing many of the missiles tested as long-range systems. The Shahab-3 is actually classified as a medium-range system; the other missiles tested appear to be short-range systems, capable of reaching targets less than 150 miles away and with only limited accuracy.
In fact, the three missiles that were launched simultaneously (and highlighted in press photos) are unsophisticated battlefield rockets, probably a Zelzal variant. Iran first introduced the Zelzal in the mid-1990s; it was based on the Russian Frog-7 design, which dates from the 1950s. Not exactly state-of-the-art. But the western press accepts Iranian military claims uncritically and often inflates the threat, much to Tehrans delight.
Remember that advanced fighter that Iran built, supposedly equal to our own F/A-18? Its actually a remanufactured U.S. F-5, with a second vertical stabilizer and marginally upgraded avionics. Or that high-speed torpedo? It is based on a Soviet design from World War II, requiring precise pre-launch calculations. If the target changes speed, zig-zags, or does anything to upset the firing solution, the torpedo misses its mark.
But with the media unwilling (or unable) to call Tehrans military bluff, the exaggerated claims continue. After Wednesdays launch, a senior Iranian officer told reporters that our missiles are ready for the shooting at any time or place. He said the purpose of the exercise was to show we are ready to defend the integrity of the Iranian nation.
In reality, his claims about a hair-trigger alert status are a bit of a stretch. Under some scenarios, it would take Iranian crews several hours to mount a strike due to the technology used in their missile systems. For example, older Shahab-3 variants use highly-voliatle liquid fuel, which must be loaded onto the missile before it can launch. While a highly-proficient crew can prepare the missile for firing in about an hour, less-skilled personnel may need two or three hours to complete the same task.
Thats a critical concern because it means the missile will sit at a fixed site while the preparations are made, increasing its vulnerability to detection and air attack. The problem is further compounded by the limitations of some Shahab-3 launchers which cannot raise an already-fueled missile to the firing position. As a result, the missile must be elevated prior to fueling, making the Shahab-3 easier to detect.
However, those problems do not mean that Irans missile threat can be ignored or marginalized. Ballistic missile hunting remains an imprecise art, at best. In a country like Iran (which is roughly the size of Alaska), there are plenty of launch sites where Shahab-3 crews could escape detection and targeting. Tehran also has detailed knowledge of our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems, sometimes scheduling missile movements and other activities during gaps in overhead coverage.
Iran has also invested in underground facilities for its missile units, allowing crews to conduct maintenance and training operations without being detected by intelligence systems. One such facility, built specifically for the Shahab-3, contains a vertical launch shaft, permitting the missile to be fueled and fired with minimal warning. Tehran has also begun building in-ground silos for some of its missiles, making it more difficult to monitor activity. These trends, coupled with Irans efforts to build more missiles and outfit them with nuclear weapons, are reasons for concern.
Still, its important to place events like the missile test in their proper context, at least from an operations perspective. Irans ballistic missile forces are improving, but they remain hindered by old technology and limited accuracy. It would be difficult (at least over the short term) for Tehran to build a nuclear weapon small enough to fit atop one of its existing missiles. Until that obstacle is overcome, Iran will lack a viable option for delivering a nuclear device, particularly against distant targets.
The bad news is that Iran has the cash, resolve, and technological access to overcome these obstacles. Liquid-fueled systems are being replaced by solid-fueled missiles and rockets (which can be launched in a matter of minutes) and left unchecked, Tehran will eventually get its hands on technology for smaller nuclear warheads, ideal for short and medium-range missile systems. Measures aimed at concealing missile and nuclear activity are also improving.
From a technical and military standpoint, Iran revealed nothing new in Wednesdays test. Indeed, the event was (to some degree) an exercise in opportunism, allowing Tehran to grab some headlines, boost oil prices, and send messages to its adversaries at the end of a G-8 summit and in the middle of a U.S. presidential campaign. While preparations for the test began weeks or months ago, it is possible that Iran delayed the launch until the right political moment arrived.
And that brings us to a pair of salient points, with clear implications for our future dealings with Tehran. First, it would be reassuring to know that our intelligence community wasnt fooled by todays launch. A good barometer in that area is the presence of an RC-135 Cobra Ball aircraft, which tracks missile tests at long range. With sufficient warning from various intel sources, The Ball is usually in position ahead of time, ready to collect data with its infrared telescopes and other on-board systems. The appearance of Cobra Ball (or other intel platforms) also sends a powerful message to our adversaries: we know what youre up to. On the other hand, if our sensors werent in position, it would raise the dire prospect that were losing track of the Iranian missile program and other, more ominous activities.
The final point focuses on the larger question of dealing with Iran and its WMD ambitions. Not long after Wednesdays missile salvo was revealed, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama called for more sanctions against Iran and direct negotiations. But weve been trying that approach for several years (largely through the European Union), with no appreciable progress. Why does Mr. Obama believe the failed policies of the past will now work with the clerics in Tehran?
If anything, the missile test is a reminder that there are limits to diplomacy, and at some point the next commander-in-chief may be forced to try something else. Senator Obamas refusal to consider those other options will only embolden Iran, and likely lead to further acceleration of its missile and nuclear programs. Theres no way you can read too much into that reality.
#2
Iran is trying to do two things. First, they need to support oil prices. They feel they can damage us by keeping the price of oil high. Early in the week oil prices were on the way down and were nearly $10 a barrel less than they had been the week before. So Iran makes a bunch of statements and bingo ... the price goes back up on "supply jitters" in the minds of futures traders.
Secondly, Iran would rather rain destruction on others as retaliation rather than an outright first strike so being provocative is in their interest if it precipitates an attack on them. In their minds, that then gives them the justification they need to unleash terrorist attacks globally, attack Israel and probably unleash Hezbollah in Lebanon again.
Playing into this thinking would be security agreements Iran has with Russia, China, and Syria. If Iran is attacked, those mutual defense treaties come into force.
Of course Iran is bluffing, and they will continue to bluff until they feel they have the strength to completely eliminate Israel in a first strike and then they will do that regardless of the consequences because they don't mind martyring their entire population to do that.
In short ... the current government if Iran is insane. So don't go attempting to find rational explanations for irrational organizations, you are just wasting time.
#3
You know it's funny. I remember reading an article back when the Shah was still in power that claimed that Iran was the powerhouse of the mid-east and that militarily, they were aiming for a position where the US would be hard put to beat them in a limited war.
Regardless of the accuracy of the analysis - it was MSM - it seems that these guys are continually pooping in the punchbowl.
#4
Here's another worry for the persians. If any other enemy of Israel (take your pick) launches a strike which is not immediately traceable - as in within a few days, who is the most likely suspect? Now, who counts both Iraq and Israel and enemies, or at least rivals, and wouldn't mind seeing a little mutual mayhem? Finally, if all that happens, would Iraq in any way want to deny culpability and shift the blame?
All that is certainly a worry for Israel, but hasn't Iran dangerously exposed themselves to attack and retaliation from known and hidden enemies?
I suppose the remaining step is for Israel to simply pre-emptively blame Iran - not that it may alter anything.
Posted by: Pearl Jeager2939 ||
07/10/2008 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I know ima being in bad form for saying this from my Arm-Chair..
#1
Maybe the Times should worry about it's own problems...
Virtually announcing to the world that the New York Times Company is in the process destroying shareholder value, investment bank Lehman Brothers is telling investors that its 12 month price target for a share of New York Times Company stock is $8 a share, down 46 percent from $15.06 at the time the report was published.
Lehman sees ad revenue declining even faster than it had previously predicted, along with acceleration in the decline of earnings per share. It warns investors away from an asset play here, no doubt because the Sulzberger family is committed to keeping the company intact. So the only way the company's shares should be evaluated is on the basis of its rapidly deteriorating fundamentals.
Worst of all, Lehman sees a possible dividend cut ahead. That would be painful for many members of the ruling family, and could threaten Pinch Sulzberger's control eventually.
#2
I agree with the editorial. Charity deductions should indeed be limited at some point. And private, charitable foundations should be required to spend money and do as they say they're going to do rather than save the money in perpetuity so that their boards can have nice dinners.
If the Ford Foundation, Heinz Foundation, etc. were required to disgorge their monies, people might would be helped. As it isn't as if there is a natural law requiring that the Ford Foundation be allowed to go on forever.
Likewise, Leona Helmsley's damned dog doesn't need 8 billion dollars, and Leona's estate shouldn't be allowed to play that game.
Nope, the NYT got this one right. The charitable deduction should be limited at some dollar amount -- ordinary giving should not be affected but the wealthy should be forced to pay their share.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/10/2008 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I disagree Steve.
No limits on donations to charities. I plan on leaving a fairly good sum to my Church, and the local diocese Catholic Charity fund. Some of that will go to an endowment that helps pay for the "upkeep" of seminary students who are studying for the priesthood. That requires investment, management, etc.
I'd rather the government not get in my way of what I want to do with my money, nor the perpetuation of contributions that are needed for future generations.
But I do agree on a start to limiting the way the charities handle the money - require that it be spent properly, instead of enriching those running the charities.
#5
Neither you nor I have Leona's money, so we wouldn't be taxed. Ordinary people should be able to give tax-preferred money to a charity. But at a certain point the deduction should go away, much as we phase out certain other deductions when ordinary income is above a certain point.
[For example, your deductions on Schedule A on a Form 1040 are phased out based on being over a certain cut-off in adjusted gross income. Same idea here.]
A lot of the 'charitable' giving is a shell game to keep the money under family, or quasi-family, control for generations. Again, consider the Heinz Foundation, or the Ford Foundation. Why should my taxes be higher so that Henry's heirs can enjoy the dough?
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/10/2008 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Steve,
I think you are headed in the right direction. The accumulation of wealth and the power of tax exempt compound interest is building a huge reservoir of wealth in the hands of unaccountable institutions including universities.
Maitland rightly pointed out that one of the unique aspects of English law was the trust. But its tax treatment has led to the creation of an unaccountable leviathan unseen since the monasteries.
#8
But at a certain point the deduction should go away, much as we phase out certain other deductions when ordinary income is above a certain point.
Schedule A deductions as a whole (where charities go) start to phase out at $150K AGI for MFJ filers. If you're subject to AMT, you lose all Schedule A deductions, except for charitable contributions and casualty / theft losses.
Heres the piece. The title Were fat and scared, so Im glad petrol and food cost more give you a hint of the remarkable insights that follow. Just so we're on the same page, I am not irritated that someone criticized excess. This sort of hand-fluttery babbling free-association nonsense about the End of Everything and the Rise of Horrible Things and the How Keen It Is That We May See the End of the Poison of Plenty just strikes me as more of the same bizarre cultural self-hatred we discuss here from time to time.
Back? Okay.
Theres so much twaddle in that piece its hard to know where to start its like a bucket of depression larger than a human head, flavoured not with reason but panic-flavored fear-sauce but there is one telling line:
Abundance takes the value from everything.
Ingratitude takes the value out of everything. I can easily imagine the columnist complaining about the abundance of a civilized frippery like toilet paper, and wishing we could go back to corn cobs, which would get us back in touch with nature. Literally.
If you needed any benchmarks about what the apogee of comfort looks like, there you are: a newspaper columnist paid to worry about the size of other peoples popcorn purchases.
Hold on: after reading more, I discovered that she actually does complain about bulk toilet-paper purchases, which one can obtain at that imported American horror, Costco. I belong to Costco; I go there a few times a year. I like it. She says: it encourages a mentality of fear, famine and greed. Well, at the 1930s Soviet Inner Party Costco, yes, but ours is rather cheerful.
She says: It encourages people to consume more than they need. Eat three chocolate bars for the price of one. I've opened that kilogram bag of chips, so I may as well polish it off.
Speak for yourself, maam.
Because it's cheap people feel they're getting value for money. They're not. It just means they're eating more, spending more and feeling emptier. Instead of going to the local supermarket to buy what they need, they're driving kilometres, taking 20 minutes to park and buying stuff they don't need, because it's cheap. And it's there.
I cant speak for Australia and its parking lots so wee it takes a third of an hour to find a spot; around here I find a spot in 30 seconds. But I will admit that I drive actual kilomitres, or miles as we Yanks call them, to get there. But why do I go there, when the local supermarket has what I need? Because it doesnt, or because it costs too much. Because Costco sells large deli trays for the party were having, printer ink at low prices, great barrels of gummi vitamins the kid likes at half the price, and great bolshy bags of dog food I can store in the basement so I dont have to walk to the common market and buy a half-pound bag every other day.
I know she would prefer that I slump to the Peoples Distribution Node every afternoon wearing sandals made out of old tires and walk home with a farking bag of Purina on my head and two hemp sacks of produce nurtured in night soil strung around each shoulder, but that sort of rich, community-building, soul-enriching experience is usually reserved for people who have to pause on the way home because a soldier butted their ear with a rifle butt for sneezing in front of a picture of Mugabe, and it hurts.
Finally:
Costco is opening this year in Melbourne. That sentence seems benign enough until you realise what Costco it. It's an American chain of warehouse clubs.
O the horror. If they had the cruel audacity to open one in a poor rural country, I expect shed consider flying there to lay down in front of the bulldozers. And then decide against it carbon excess, and all that.
Okay, one more thing. I listen to a lot of Obama speeches and remarks, and will probably discuss them here more than what McCain says. McCain is not a fellow who throws off surprises daily. Obama either makes a good prepared speech that lofts bromides into the stratosphere on gusts of good intentions, or makes foreign policy statements that seem to put more faith in stern palaver and the malleability of Iranian leadership than the evidence would suggest is wise. Or he vamps, and things come out.
I agree that immigrants should learn English,. But understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English they'll learn English you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. . . .You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say (is), 'Merci beaucoup.'
I dont object to the encouragement to speak a second language Ive had my kid in Spanish classes for three years. (And she doesnt say yuk to tacos, so we may be jake with the British thoughtcrime, or rather totcrime encorcers.) If hed left it at that, it wouldnt be controversial - if that is, hed made a push for foreign language proficiency outside of the context of laws that would require the official business of government to be printed in English, and if hed made the point without his usual habit of turning a Should into a Must, and avoided turning the serious quesiton of the necessity of a monolingual culture into an opportunity to talk down to people because they don't speak enough French. Like many politicians, he has boilerplate preconceptions familiar to fellow inhabitants of the ideological bubble; unlike more seasoned politicians, however, he tends to air them in public without realizing how they sound to people outside the bubble. Let's run that last part again:
You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say (is), 'Merci beaucoup.'
Oh the shame of being embarrassed in front of the Europeans. For some people they are the cool teens, and Americans are the mortifying parents.
Its the old argument among the betters with well-stamped passports: fie on those foolish grunting hoi polloi who show up in Paris in loud shirts expecting people to speak English and calling everyone Pierre. In the context of English-as-a-national-tongue laws, its an interesting assertion: Apparently it is right to expect people who visit Paris to speak French the day they get there, but it is cultural chauvinism to expect people who want to live and work in America to understand English well enough to navigate a ballot.
In any case, it seems that Obama speaks as much Spanish as JFK spoke German, but when Kennedy said he was a Berliner (yes, I know, jelly donut, etc.) it wasnt his command of the tongue that thrilled people; it was the sentiment. If Reagan had said Mr. Gorbachev, leave this wall in place in Russian, I think a great many people would have been impressed with his cultural sensitivity and worldiness, and hang the text of his remarks.
It was the self-satisfied and chummy laughter that greeted the remarks that sealed the deal; everyone basked in the wonderful moment of a presidential candidate dinging the average Dorkus-American for not going to Europe more, and showing up dreadfully unprepared when he did. Quel horreur. Well, its a big country. Theres a lot to see here. Europe has grand sights and wonderful food, but Id bet a few dollars that the people who sneer about Americans who dont have passports havent toured the plains of North Dakota, the small towns of Maine, the mountains of Montana, the outback of the Southwestern deserts, the coastal glories of California, the croc-snapping Everglades, the Appalachian trail, the Boundary Waters where the US blends into Canada and so on.
Some people like to get to know their own country. You dont need a passport or a phrasebook, either. They even have museums and old stuff, too! Honest. To state the obvious, Europe is a continent made up of countries, and America is a country that spans a continent. If people in Wisconsin spoke Wisconsinee, Id learn a bit, but I can travel vast distances, experience different places and different cultures, without having to switch tongues. I suppose that makes the experience less genuine, somehow.
(Note: I have a French niece, a highschooler, who speaks English modern idiomatic teen English, and more - flawlessly. Not a trace of an accent. She works at the neighborhood grocery store now; I was talking to a cashier who said she didnt know she was French until a Frenchman showed up in the line and his accent gave him away, and they started talking. My niece knew about 20 words of English when she got here. She picked up her English in her early teens going to English-speaking school. She loves it here. Such an enormous place; so many things to explore. [Her dad, a Frenchman who now lives in America and works for a Minnesota multinational, travels abroad for his job, and sell wares in many countries. His good English comes in more handy than the French, I suspect.])
Posted by: Mike ||
07/10/2008 11:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Plagerizing Will Smith now?
To me this statement is as arrogant as the "clinging to Bible and Guns" remark. (gotta take a walk, be right back). What, we kids were not raised right? I guar-un-tee the language bo speaks, Ivy League, is not the same language spoken out here; ever hear of a 'Post Turtle' mister? I know that he probably had to learn Arabic in his studies, but out in this part of the world a second language is also a requirement already - but we sure didn't know what arugula was until this year. Scholastic background in language - Spanish, French, Japanese. Learned on the fly utilitarian German and Italian. Moshi Moshi Usted smartypants, which dialect of Spanish should I have learned? Becuase what I learned is not the same language my neighbors/friends speak. This chic self loathing disgusts me.
#4
Well then ya know what, Catherine, go live in a fuckin cave then. A little tiny one so you don't take up too much of Mother Gaia's space and piss her off.
#5
I speak pretty dang good soutrhon English. That usually suffices, if it don't suffice I has a credit card and that usually does for the other. CAPRICE?
Here kid, haven ye a MarkLite for seine momma san. Yar?
Also of course LOL I can has invented cheesburger.
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.
After nearly seven years of costly efforts to stabilise and rebuild Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai's Government and its international supporters have not been able to secure either the Afghan capital or many other parts of the country, particularly in the south and east along the border with Pakistan. The Afghan authorities have again pointed a finger at the Taliban and their Pakistani backers as the culprits. There is no question that these forces, which are also opposed to India's involvement in Afghanistan, bear much of responsibility for Afghanistan's woes, but this tells only part of the story.
THE story of the 14-year old girl from Rupganj is appalling. The girl is struggling to recover from the burn wounds inflicted on her by a neighbour. One more budding life has been shattered by the acid throwers, whose inability to place human life above satisfying their beastly instincts has for a pretty long time been an area of major concern.
Investigators have begun to sift through the debris left behind by Monday's bombing of the Indian mission in Kabul, searching for clues as to just who might have carried out the murderous attack.
