Looks like customer complaints have been picking up lately.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Monday it was investigating along with local authorities a possible "hazardous material threat" at an Internal Revenue Service building in Farr West, Utah.
In a statement e-mailed to Reuters, spokeswoman Debbie Dujanovic Bertram said the FBI had evacuated the building, adding she could not release additional details on the incident while it was under investigation.
Staff from the local Weber-Morgan Health Department dispatched to the scene seized an envelope containing something that resembled seeds, department spokeswoman Lori Buttars said.
"There was an envelope that appeared to have seeds inside," Buttars said. "What it was is not known yet."
The incident follows last month's small-plane crash by an apparently disgruntled man into a federal building in Austin, Texas, that housed offices of the IRS, the U.S. tax agency.
#6
To #1 KarlRove.
I think that they are staying in DC means the bias quotient will be going up for the big "O". This would make ABC a wholly owned branch of the government (grin). Oh, you say that they already are? Sorry then, I was being redundant.
#11
They can all go work w/Lisa Douglas @ the WH. Why should all their shilling be free?
Posted by: regular joe ||
03/02/2010 19:37 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I thought ABC was part of the Great Disney Empire, which is still doing well? I can't find their revenue, but their stock price has been going up steadily for about the past year (after a low in March of last year).
Young people who smoke cannabis or marijuana for six years or more are twice as likely to have psychotic episodes, hallucinations or delusions than people who have never used the drug, scientists said on Monday. So, like, don't bogart the data.
The findings adds weight to previous research which linked psychosis with the drug particularly in its most potent form as "skunk" and will feed the debate about the level of controls over its use. Duuude, you're, like, harshing my mellow here.
"Compared with those who had never used cannabis, young adults who had six or more years since first use of cannabis were twice as likely to develop a non-affective psychosis (such as schizophrenia)," McGrath wrote in a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry journal. Psychosis? Man, like, I'm not, like, psychotic. Just ask my unicorn.
They were also four times as likely to have high scores in clinical tests of delusion, he wrote, I don't got no delusions neither, it's just these damned bugs, THEY'RE CRAWLIN' ALL OVER ME, GET 'EM OFF! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MAN, GET THE BUGS OFF ME!
and a so-called "dose-response" relationship showed that the longer the duration since first cannabis use, the higher the risk of psychosis-related symptoms. Previous studies had also suggested smoking cannabis can double the risk of psychosis, but the British study was the first to look specifically at skunk. Or, like we like to, like, call it, "primo bud."
Skunk has higher amounts of the psychoactive ingredient THC which can produce psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations, delusions and paranoia. Paranoia? I'm not paranoid. You're just saying that 'cause you're out to get me!
McGrath said, however, that "the nature of the relationship between psychosis and cannabis use is by no means simple" and more grant money research was needed to examine the mechanisms at work.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/02/2010 10:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
How many bags of saline can a hospital cram into one patient in a two-hour visit to the ER?
How much does it cost for an alcohol swab?
Answers to these questions and more in a three minute CNN video at link. I'm not surprised, but Elizabeth Cohen seems to be somewhat appalled. I guess she hasn't figured out the CT-Scam thingy yet, either.
#1
It's overhead, folks - they have to cover the costs of overhead, so everything gets marked up.
Overhead is the costs that can't be directly attributed to you - admistrators, janitors, people without insurance, and other deadbeats.
So the insured are already paying for the uninsured. Only with Obamacare, the government will be adding to the overhead.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/02/2010 6:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's how they pay for the real cost of things they know the government is not going to repay them for. If it costs them $10 for an item, the government will only reimburse them $5. They can't operate that way. So they charge $20 dollars and the government will reimburse them $10. Obviously, a lot of the cost/price models are distorted because that's the way the system is ultimately gamed. The hospitals and service providers are only playing the game forced on them by politicians who hide the real cost of 'work' by allocating only a fraction of what it requires. If hospitals and health providers were locked into 'reasonable' costs of which the government will only pay a fraction thereof, they'll simply shut their doors. As the have on so many emergency rooms across the country which are mandated to provide service whether a patient can pay or not. So, the answer to "Care to guess how much a hospital gets away with charging you for a toothbrush?" what ever they can get away with to cover costs and expenses forced on them by our pols.
#3
If it costs them $10 for an item, the government will only reimburse them $5. They can't operate that way. So they charge $20 dollars and the government will reimburse them $10. Obviously, a lot of the cost/price models are distorted because that's the way the system is ultimately gamed.
And funny enough, it's the little guy that pays for medical care out of his own pocket that gets royally screwed because he gets charged the same hyper-inflated price but can't refuse to pay 70% of the bill.
Posted by: ed ||
03/02/2010 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A big part of it is all the regulations the FDA imposes. For example the alcohol has the be produced to certain standards... the Saline has to be proven to be uncontaminated - as does everythign used to produce it. Each of course has to meet specific standards of production tracibility, etc...
And then there is the overhead.
And someone has to pay for the mandatory treatment of illegals (I bet CNN won't mention the cost to treat illegal aliens in the Emergency Department.)
#5
I'm told hospitals have a very low bad debt of two percent because non payers go into a pool that is reembursered by non governmental charitable foundations. Ie americans are very charitable.
The reason cost are so high is because unlike most businesses and workers, they are not paid whrn they provide a service but three months to a year later. Doctors hospitals and labs charge an interest included rate for this float. You can find out how much by getting a lab rate card. Doctors say a cash system would cut cost 50%.
#8
not to mention that Obesity is killing our medical system. A freind of mine,a nurse, had her shoulder thrown out of wack when a 700 pounder started to slither off the bed and had to be caught before she hit the floor, she caught the woman by her pannis,which is really gross. Pannis : look it up.
#9
If everyone stopped going to the ER for the sniffles the hospital overhead issues would slowly shrink.
So everyone wants you to believe. But if it stopped a lot of high revenue would disappear without as much reduction in cost because these high margin(Medicaid)/low priority customers are used to load balance the line. Then we'd hear lots of moaning from the hospitals about the foregone revenue.
#10
If it costs them $10 for an item, the government will only reimburse them $5. They can't operate that way. So they charge $20 dollars and the government will reimburse them $10.
Not quite. The government will still only reimburse the $5, and the insurance companies might go to $7.50, with the shortfalls made up by cash payers coughing up the full $20.
#11
You can find out how much by getting a lab rate card. Just try getting one of those at your local hospital. I had a list of standard, very frequently done, lab tests and tried to price them at 2 local hospitals. One hospital flat out refused to tell me, saying I would have to have the lab tests done there & wait for the bill. The other hospital delayed several weeks & then told me the price would be over $700, no specifics, just a lower range quote.
I went online to directlabs, paid by credit card ahead of time, had the tests drawn (at the hospital which refused to give me a quote) and had the results in a week for $140.
#12
Has anyone ever published the forms people sign in order for treatment at a hospital? They are contracts, and among other things, the patient usually promises to pay charges that are not covered by insurance, sky's the limit on just how much that will be.
#13
Wide range of reasons depending on the hospital. I worked mostly in public hospitals. We had to take everyone regardless of ability to pay. Private hospitals would ship their indigents to us as soon as they had been stabilized (sometimes before). As I recall about 40% of the census was no-pay - county foots the bill via free care - another 50 % were Medicare and Medi-Cal (CA's version of Medicaid.) So between no pay and gov't less than cost programs, the charges got pretty high. Can't speak to private hospitals and it's been years since I was involved in Hospital Admin, but I doubt it's changed much, except for the worst
[Ma'an] A 19-year-old rabbit raiser in Jenin said he was "shocked and terrified" when his newest animal gave birth to what he described as a tiny baby elephant on Sunday. A very tiny baby elephant. It looked just like a baby rabbit ...
"I was concerned when I saw a black baby elephant next to nine white baby rabbits," Alawna told Ma'an, adding that the creature died only five hours after it was born. He said he was baffled as to how the elephant was produced. Well, y'see, Alawna, when the Daddy Elephant and the Mommy Rabbit really love each other... Just show'em the movie...
The mother rabbit, Alawna explained, is a Dutch breed which he bought six months ago from a farmer in the northern West Bank village of Jaba in Jenin district.
Ah, well that explains it. The Netherlands is rapidly becoming part of the Ummah - Allan must have sent this as a sign.
Was his name on the baby elephant? There'd be heads exploding if it was.
Muhammad Alawna raises rabbits as a hobby on his small farm north of Jenin, and works construction in Israel during the week.
Unless it was a nefarious plot by the juice ...
Yeah, could be Joooo cooties...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/02/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
[dailykos]
Damn those Rethuglicans! they're everywhere!
[/dailykos]
Posted by: Mike ||
03/02/2010 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Are all the different colored inlines a hint that maybe the guy was, uh, seein' colors, like, trippin', ya know?
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/02/2010 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Birth defect, born without complete limbs.
The stumps would resemble an elephant's stumpy legs.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/02/2010 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
[Iran Press TV Latest] Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's son Hannibal, whose arrest is at the heart of the 18-month diplomatic row between Bern and Tripoli, has visited a jailed Swiss businessman.
"Nyah nyah!" being the essence of young Master Gaddafi's side of the conversation.
Max Goeldi, who was transferred to a jail last week to serve a four-month sentence, was detained with another Swiss businessman, Rashid Hamdani, four days after the brief July 2008 arrest of Hannibal at a Geneva hotel.
"I am happy for this occasion which enabled me to meet you, and I hope that justice takes its course and things are remedied," Goeldi told Hannibal during the meeting at Al-Jadaida prison.
"And nyah again, you poopy-head Swiss man!"
Goeldi's lawyer and several journalists were present at the meeting, according to the AFP news agency.
Following their arrest, the Swiss nationals were prevented from leaving Libya, charged with visa manipulation and initially sentenced to 16 months in jail. A Libyan court later overturned Hamdani's sentence and allowed his departure, also reducing Goeldi's jail term to four months.
What magnanimity for a false charge.
While Bern says the businessmen's arrest was a retaliatory move, Tripoli denies that the move was in any way related to the Geneva incident.
However, relations have steadily spiraled downward ever since. Libya's first response to Hannibal's arrest was to cancel all flights to Switzerland, cut oil supplies, and threaten to withdraw billions from Swiss banks.
Later, the eccentric Libyan leader called on the United Nations to abolish Switzerland as a state and divide it between neighboring countries. Last Month, Gaddafi called for a holy war against Switzerland over a recent Swiss ban on the construction of minarets.
Was he always this mad, or has the syphilis finally settled in his brain?
In February, Libya suspended visas to Schengen countries, following Switzerland's alleged decision to blacklist 188 high-ranking Libyans, denying them entry permits.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/02/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
[Al Arabiya Latest] The website of a top Saudi cleric who issued an edict calling for those who support co-educational environments to be put to death has been shut down on Sunday.
Shaikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak's website was shut down following a barrage of criticism from religious scholars in Saudi Arabia and Egypt condemning his fatwa (religious ruling) as a call for violence.
Many religious scholars in Saudi Arabia denounced Barrak's ruling, saying it was similar to rulings once issued by religious fundamentalists, or Takfiris, accusing other Muslims of apostasy and condemning them to death.
In Egypt, Sheikh Abd al-Hamid al-Atrash, former head of the fatwa council at the influential al-Azhar Institution, said Barraks' ruling was a serious one, adding that the issue of co-education should have been studied in depth before issuing such a ruling.
"Co-education is not prohibited (in Islam) at all; there is no problem with women, if dressed modestly, being at school or work side by side with men," Sheikh Atrash told Alarabiya.net.
He added that mixed gender is discouraged if women are not dressed modestly and in places where people drink alcohol and use drugs. Sheikh Atrash said even in those cases a person cannot be condemned to death; explaining that one cannot be put to death simply because he or she attended a mixed congregation in a bar or a night club.
Shaikh Barrak, 77, said in a fatwa that the mixing of genders at the workplace or in education "as advocated by modernizers" is prohibited because it allows "sight of what is forbidden, and forbidden talk between men and women."
"All of this leads to whatever ensues," he said in the text of the fatwa published on his website (albarrak.islamlight.net).
"Whoever allows this mixing ... allows forbidden things, and whoever allows them is an infidel and this means defection from Islam ... Either he retracts or he must be killed ... because he disavows and does not observe the Shariah," Barrak said.
"Anyone who accepts that his daughter, sister or wife works with men or attend mixed-gender schooling cares little about his honor and this is a type of pimping," Barrak said.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/02/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
I suspect she knows. It's exactly what Bambi wants. We will be lucky to get through the next three years with out a major war that is primarily his fault. He's a real April Glaspie.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/02/2010 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
How many Falklanders want to be Argentines?
Ok.
Next
Posted by: European Conservative ||
03/02/2010 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Falkland Islands - previously part of the historical Palestinian homeland. Discuss
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/02/2010 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
While currying favour with a third rate kleptocracy in Latin America, she is alienating Americas most loyal and valuable friend at a critically important time.
This article is rich in snarky goodness, but maybe I'm getting a little sentimental -- when I read this line "Americas most loyal and valuable friend" all I can think is: would that it were, would that it were.
Posted by: regular joe ||
03/02/2010 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
Heh. It will never be more than vaporware.
The chief of the Russian long-range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, said earlier this year that a prospective new bomber must join the air force in 2025-2030. Zhikharev said the new aircraft should replace the Soviet-built Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers.
While the first flight of the new stealth fighter, the T-50, was cheered by the government, observers noted that it came nearly two decades after the first prototype of the U.S. F-22 Raptor took to the air.
No images of the prospective new Russian strategic bomber have been published, but some commentators said it might follow the design of the U.S. B-2 bomber, which also made its first flight more than 20 years ago. Rest at link.
#1
Silly Russians! Always spending massive cash on pie-in-the-sky nukes and strategic bombers that they'll never use (hope to God.) All the while, their conventional forces wither away for lack of funding.
[Iran Press TV Latest] Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has said that Baku does not want war, but cannot tolerate the occupation of Armenia in its land.
Speaking in the northern district of Qabala on Saturday, Aliyev said Azerbaijan would continue its efforts to resolve the Karabakh dispute with Armenia, stressing that this can only be achieved when Armenia recognizes Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.
It has been almost 21 years since the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia engaged in an armed conflict over the 4400-square-kilometer (1,700-square-mile) mountainous Karabakh region.
After six years of intensive fighting, about 20 percent of Azerbaijan's land, including seven towns surrounding Karabakh, was occupied; up to one million Azerbaijanis were displaced and some 40,000 people from both sides were killed.
The conflict, known as the Nagorno-Karabakh war, which broke out in February 1988, ended in a ceasefire on May 16, 1994, but there has been no agreement so far to turn the ceasefire into a permanent peace treaty.
"We want our historically and internationally recognized lands to be freed and our citizens returned to their homes," Aliyev said.
"We are being told that the problem must be solved peacefully. This is what we also support. But no one must forget that the Armenians occupied these lands in military ways, not peacefully," he added.
"Armenians must unconditionally withdraw from our lands. And only after that should cooperation and peace be established."
Earlier Saturday, at a meeting with the French ambassador, Azerbaijani Defense Minister Safar Abiyev said, "If Armenia does not free Azerbaijani occupied territories; a war in the South Caucasus is inevitable,"
Abiyev said diplomats have failed to achieve results for 15 years in negotiations.
"Azerbaijan will not be able to wait 15 more years. Now the war is inevitable and the threat is gradually approaching," Abiyev said.
Azerbaijani Presidential Administration senior official Ali Hasanov noted that Aliyev has repeatedly stated that he considers the potential of negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement still viable.
"Therefore, Azerbaijan continues its efforts in this direction. However the president also repeatedly pointed out that as soon as Azerbaijan feels that the potential for negotiations has been exhausted, the country will take steps to restore its territorial integrity, sovereignty and violated rights through all possible means." Hasanov said.
"OSCE MG [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group] co-chairs have submitted proposals to both republics and the sides exchanges views on this," Hasanov said.
"However, the negotiating parties have not provided enough information. I do not have extensive information on what will be the follow-up processes or at what stage they are expected to coordinate these proposals."
The OSCE MG, co-chaired by the United States, France and Russia, was established in 1992 to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict but has so far failed to resolve the long-standing dispute.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/02/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That's... kind of interesting. Haven't the Armenians been in a tacit alliance with the Iranians since the collapse of the Soviet Union? Sort of a Russia-Armenia-Iran axis, in opposition to a Turkish-Georgian-Azerbaijan de-facto alliance?
Is this the mullahs signaling openness to a realignment with the Azeris, now that the AKP-dominated Turks are becoming more sympathetic to the Persian alliance? Are they hoping to pick up the Azeris as they get spooked by the Obama-Clinton fumbling away of the Bush-era regional strategy?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
03/02/2010 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There's more to the story....
from WIKI:
The Nagorno-Karabakh War was an armed conflict that took place from February 1988 to May 1994, in the small enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh[9] in southwestern Azerbaijan, between the majority ethnic Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh backed by the Republic of Armenia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. As the war progressed, Armenia and Azerbaijan, both former Soviet Republics, entangled themselves in a protracted, undeclared war in the mountainous heights of Karabakh as Azerbaijan attempted to curb the secessionist movement in Nagorno-Karabakh. The enclave's parliament had voted in favor of uniting itself with Armenia and a referendum was held, and the vast majority of the Karabakh population voted in favor of independence. The demand to unify with Armenia, which proliferated in the late 1980s, began in a relatively peaceful manner; however, in the following months, as the Soviet Union's disintegration neared, it gradually grew into an increasingly violent conflict between ethnic Armenians and ethnic Azerbaijanis, resulting in claims of ethnic cleansing by all sides.[10][11]
Inter-ethnic fighting between the two broke out shortly after the parliament of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in Azerbaijan, voted to unify the region with Armenia on February 20, 1988. The declaration of secession from Azerbaijan was the final result of a territorial conflict regarding the land.[12] The circumstances of the dissolution of the Soviet Union facilitated an Armenian separatist movement in Azerbaijan. As Azerbaijan declared its independence from the Soviet Union and removed the powers held by the enclave's government, the Armenian majority voted to secede from Azerbaijan and in the process proclaimed the enclave the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.[13]
Full-scale fighting erupted in the late winter of 1992. International mediation by several groups including Europe's OSCE failed to bring an end resolution that both sides could work with. In the spring of 1993, Armenian forces captured regions outside the enclave itself, threatening the involvement of other countries in the region.[14] By the end of the war in 1994, the Armenians were in full control of most of the enclave and also held and currently control approximately 9% of Azerbaijan's territory outside the enclave.[15] As many as 230,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan and 800,000 Azeris from Armenia and Karabakh have been displaced as a result of the conflict.[16] A Russian-brokered ceasefire was signed in May 1994 and peace talks, mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, have been held ever since by Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Posted by: Mike Hunt ||
03/02/2010 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
ION TOPIX > AZERBAIJAN WARNS OF GREAT WAR OVER NAGORNO-KARABAKH; + WHICH SIDE WILL IRAN, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA SIDE IN NAGORNO-KARABAH WAR?
Maybe we should dig ourselves a deeper debt foxhole to hide in. And continue to allow China and anyone else with any such ambitions to continue to steal our technology by letting traitors get away with light sentences in our country-club prisons. And continue to squander our resources on socialist aims. After all, it's working so well.
China should build the world's strongest military and move swiftly to topple the United States as the global "champion," a senior Chinese PLA officer says in a new book reflecting swelling nationalist ambitions.
The call for China to abandon modesty about its global goals and "sprint to become world number one" comes from a People's Liberation Army (PLA) Senior Colonel, Liu Mingfu, who warns that his nation's ascent will alarm Washington, risking war despite Beijing's hopes for a "peaceful rise."
"China's big goal in the 21st century is to become world number one, the top power," Liu writes in his newly published Chinese-language book, "The China Dream."
"If China in the 21st century cannot become world number one, cannot become the top power, then inevitably it will become a straggler that is cast aside," writes Liu, a professor at the elite National Defense University, which trains rising officers.
His 303-page book stands out for its boldness even in a recent chorus of strident Chinese voices demanding a hard shove back against Washington over trade, Tibet, human rights, and arms sales to Taiwan, the self-ruled island Beijing claims as its own.
"As long as China seeks to rise to become world number one ... then even if China is even more capitalist than the U.S., the U.S. will still be determined to contain it," writes Liu.
Rivalry between the two powers is a "competition to be the leading country, a conflict over who rises and falls to dominate the world," says Liu. "To save itself, to save the world, China must prepare to become the (world's) helmsman."
"The China Dream" does not represent government policy, which has been far less strident about the nation's goals.
Liu's book testifies to the homegrown pressures on China's Communist Party leadership to show the country's fast economic growth is translating into greater sway against the West, still mired in an economic slowdown.
The next marker of how China's leaders are handling these swelling expectations may come later this week, when the government is likely to announce its defense budget for 2010, after a 14.9 percent rise last year on the one in 2008.
"This book represents my personal views, but I think it also reflects a tide of thought," Liu told Reuters in an interview. "We need a military rise as well as an economic rise."
Another PLA officer has said this year's defense budget should send a defiant signal to Washington after the Obama administration went ahead in January with long-known plans to sell $6.4 billion worth of arms to Taiwan.
"I think one part of 'public opinion' that the leadership pays attention to is elite opinion, and that includes the PLA," said Alan Romberg, an expert on China and Taiwan at the Henry L. Stimson Center, an institute in Washington D.C.
"I think the authorities are seeking to keep control of the reaction, even as they need to take (it) into account," Romberg said in an emailed response to questions.
Liu argues that China should use its growing revenues to become the world's biggest military power, so strong the United States "would not dare and would not be able to intervene in military conflict in the Taiwan Strait."
"If China's goal for military strength is not to pass the United States and Russia, then China is locking itself into being a third-rate military power," he writes. "Turn some money bags into bullet holders."
China's leaders do not want to jeopardize ties with the United States, a key trade partner and still by far the world's biggest economy and military power.
Yet Chinese public ire, echoed on the Internet, means policy-makers have to tread more carefully when handling rival domestic and foreign demands, said Jin Canrong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing.
"Chinese society is changing, and you see that in all the domestic views now on what China should do about the United States," said Jin. "If society demands a stronger stance, ignoring that can bring a certain cost."
Liu's book was officially published in January, but is only now being sold in Beijing bookstores.
LIGHTING A FIRE IN AMERICA'S BACKYARD
In recent months, strains have widened between Beijing and Washington over trade, Internet controls, climate change, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and President Barack Obama's meeting with Tibet's exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, who China reviles.
China has so far responded with angry words and a threat to sanction U.S. companies involved in the Taiwan arms sales. But it has not acted on that threat and has allowed a U.S. aircraft carrier to visit Hong Kong.
Over the weekend, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said he wanted trade friction with the United States to ease. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg is due to visit Beijing this week.
Liu and other PLA officers, however, say they see little chance of avoiding deepening rivalry with the United States, whether peaceful or warlike.
"I'm very pessimistic about the future," writes another PLA officer, Colonel Dai Xu, in another recently published book that claims China is largely surrounded by hostile or wary countries beholden to the United States.
"I believe that China cannot escape the calamity of war, and this calamity may come in the not-too-distant future, at most in 10 to 20 years," writes Dai.
"If the United States can light a fire in China's backyard, we can also light a fire in their backyard," warns Dai.
Liu said he hoped China and the United States could manage their rivalry through peaceful competition. I suppose he means giving our enemies guns. And nukes.
"In his State of the Union speech, Obama said the United States would never accept coming second-place, but if he reads my book he'll know China does not want to always be a runner-up," said Liu in the interview.
#1
This is all about the "superior/inferior" concepts of Confucian culture. China is not the superior, and feels like it should be. If you're not the superior, then you're the...inferior. There is no other choice. China has felt itself inferior for 200 years and now feels that the situation has changed.
There will be no "peaceful co-existence". Well, unless the USA bows on one knee and acknowledges China as teacher.
#3
Keep talking like this and you might ignite similar feelings in the Japanese. Then things might not turn out as swell as Senior Colonel Liu Mingfu thinks.
#4
Is this China That Can Say No or Mahan/Fuller/Guderian/Ludendorff material here?
Because if it's the former, then that book was the leading indicator of the collapse of the Japanese Bubble Economy. If it's the latter, then, well, completely different kettle of fish.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
03/02/2010 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Aside from some pushing and shoving with the US Navy around the margins of the Middle Kingdom, I suspect China will be quite busy challenging the Chinese people.
AN animal rights group has called for Knut the polar bear, who shot to global stardom as a cub in 2007, to be castrated to avert incest with his cousin.
The three-year-old darling of Berlin Zoo was given a female companion, Giovanna, last year but the German chapter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) warned against their mating.
The group's zoo expert, Frank Albrecht, noted that Knut and Giovanna, known as Gianna for short, had the same grandfather. Any offspring would threaten the genetic diversity of the polar bear population in Germany and risk susceptibility to a condition known as "incest depression", he said.
"Knut fans need to know that only Knut's castration would allow a long life together with Giovanna," Mr Albrecht said today.
Gianna had lived in Munich but was placed with the strapping Knut in Berlin due to construction work on her own den. After chilly introductions, the two have gradually grown quite close. The housing arrangement, however, was initially intended to be temporary.
Knut drew an outpouring of sympathy around the globe after his mother cast him out as a cuddly cub. The cult of Knut spread around the world and his first public appearance attracted some 500 reporters, including around 100 camera crews.
#3
This is a very very serious problem. I don't know whether polar bears have incest in the Arctics (I imagine they just grab the next available female without bothering), but please, this is IMPORTANT!!!
I'm just missing the Global Waming factor here.
And Knut needs to become a Vegetarian as well, of course.
I'm also worried that PETA seems a bit confused about the difference between "castrated" and "sterilized".
Well, maybe not.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
03/02/2010 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
They're "rights activists" who want to protect various beings' rights by chopping their nuts off.
Sad thought for the day: they may move on to human rights in the future.
#5
Probably not. They don't recognize the rights of humans, only pet animals.
They better look cute though.
They employ some pretty naked ladies though. At least a little gift.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
03/02/2010 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sad thought for the day: they may move on to human rights in the future.
That wasn't an earthquake, that was a giant shudder going through these regions.
#10
The poor guy's already got to spend his life in a zoo - and they want to deprive him of the pleasure of s*x too (even if it is with his cousin)? If they're all that concerned about birth defects in potential cubs, why don't they just give his cousin the Pill? But no --- the much prefer to cut the guy's knuts off.
Woohoo! Somebody please tell them bikinis are OK to wear.
More than half of voters in four other major European states back a push by France's Nicolas Sarkozy to ban women from wearing the burka, according to an opinion poll for the Financial Times.
As Mr Sarkozy presses ahead with plans to ban the wearing of the burka in public places, the FT's latest Harris poll shows the move is not just strongly supported in France, but wins enthusiastic backing in the UK, Italy, Spain and Germany.
The poll shows some 70 per cent of respondents in France said they supported plans to forbid the wearing of the garment which covers the female body from head to toe. There was similar sentiment in Spain and Italy, where 65 per cent and 63 per cent respectively favoured a ban
The strength of feeling in the UK and Germany may seem particularly surprising. Britain has a strong liberal tradition that respects an individual's right to full expression of religious views. But here, some 57 per cent of people still favoured a ban. In Germany, which is also reluctant to clamp down in minority rights, some 50 per cent favoured a ban.
"This poll shows that the number of people in France opposed to the burka is going up and that is the product of debate on burka and national identity," said Professor Patrick Weil, an expert on national identity at the University of Paris-Sorbonne. "But the figure is clearly going up in other countries in Europe like the UK as well, and that reflects the growing concern that there is about this issue in some parts of Europe."
In the US, concerns about the issue are far less strong than in Europe. Just 33 per cent of Americans surveyed by Harris supported a ban, a far lower figure than the 44 per cent who said they supported it.
In Europe, while opposition to the burka was strong, few respondents said they were prepared to support the ban as part of a wider drive towards secularism in their country.
Asked if they would support the burka ban if it were accompanied by a clampdown on wearing all religious icons such as the Christian crucifix and the Jewish cappel, only 22 per cent of French people said they supported such a move. In Britain, just 9 per cent of people said they would back such a move.
Harris also looked at the issue of whether the public supported the introduction of scanners at airports that xray the full body. In the aftermath of the failed Christmas day al-Qaeda attack on Detroit, a number of states have moved to introduce such scanners, a policy that has raised objections from some groups on privacy grounds.
More than half of people in the US and all but one of the four European states surveyed were in favour of the introduction of body scanners. Only in Spain was there a little less enthusiasm for the move, with 46 per cent in favour of the scanners and 23 per cent against.
[Iran Press TV Latest] Turkey has warned the US against approving a draft bill that recognizes as genocide the massacre of Armenians between 1915 and 1918 during World War I.
The US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee is to decide on Thursday whether to recognize as genocide the mass killing of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during the period.
Such a resolution would damage ties between Ankara and Washington and undermine efforts to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia, Burak Ozugergin, spokesman of Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was quoted as saying on Monday by the semi-official Anatolia News Agency, Xinhua reported.
Describing the issue of "genocide" as a baseless allegation, Ozugergin urged the House panel to "act with a sense of responsibility."
President Barack Obama promised during his election campaign that his administration would recognize the Armenian massacre as genocide.
Last week, however, during a hearing at Congress, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton underlined the importance of continuing rapprochement process between Turkey and Armenia, saying that any step that derail this process should be avoided.
Armenia has pushed for international recognition of the death of Armenians under the Ottoman rule as genocide.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/02/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
TOPIX > VARIOUS > THE WEAKENING OF TURKEY'S MILITARY + TURKISH MILITARY CRISIS PLAYS INTO MILITANTS HAND???
I snipped all the CNN-y, touchy, feely stuff.
Otis McDonald and Diane Latiker share much in common as residents of Chicago's South Side. Longtime community activists, they both have seen the good and bad their neighborhoods have to offer. They are each fighting for change, especially to stem the growing murder rates among African-American and Hispanic youths, who are dying at the hands of one another.
Their solutions to the problem put them at odds, however; and their struggles -- part of larger crisis striking cities nationwide -- will be the backdrop for one of the biggest cases to come before the Supreme Court in years.
At issue is one the justices have been timid over the decades at confronting: Just how far does the Second Amendment give citizens the right to protect themselves? The court will ultimately decide two fundamental questions: Do strict state and local gun control laws violate the constitutional "right to keep and bear arms"? And can an individual's right to own a weapon extend beyond federal jurisdiction?
The basic questions have remained largely unanswered and give the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded rights to own weapons. The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The specific case deals with Chicago's longstanding ban on handguns. Latiker supports the law; McDonald is fighting it in court.
Gun control is one of those hot-button social issues that stirs energies on competing sides. The ruling's impact will be felt across the country as local communities wrestle with whether banning the cheapest, most commonly available firearm will reduce violent crime or leave honest citizens vulnerable.
Chicago passed its ban on handguns in 1982, one of the most restrictive in the U.S. It is that law that is being challenged in the Supreme Court. A study last year by economist Carl Moody of William & Mary College found that after the ban was imposed, city crime rates rose significantly, almost immediately. The city is more dangerous now than it was before the ban, the study concluded, relative to the 24 largest American cities.
Officials here point to a 10 percent reduction in the murder rate in the past two years as proof that the handgun ban is beginning to work. Figures show that 81 percent of the murders in the city were gun-related; nearly 60 percent were gang-related. But another statistic has police and parents deeply disturbed. Chicago has surpassed Los Angeles with the highest youth homicide rate in the nation. In the 2008-09 school year, a record 36 city public school students were murdered, mostly by underage gang members, according to police data. It was the third straight year the numbers had risen.
The larger constitutional issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one, aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation?
The justices said that such an individual right applies in Washington two years ago, when they tossed out a then-restrictive handgun ban. But that city is a federal enclave, and now the court is poised to address a far larger question: Is that regulation limited to federal laws, or can it be applied to local communities like Chicago?
"The Supreme Court has told us one of two important things, and that is that there is an individual right to bear arms. Now we are poised to find out whether that applies to state and local regulation," said Thomas Goldstein, a prominent Washington appellate attorney and co-founder of scotusblog.com. "That's really where the rubber hits the road, because there are all kinds of state rules about when you can have and carry a gun."
Forty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapon owners in the current appeals.
Some constitutional experts have noted that the Bill of Rights traditionally was applied only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the Supreme Court has viewed free speech, assembly and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature, fundamental to liberty and superseding, in many cases, the power of states.
There have been limits. The high court has repeatedly refused to extend to states the Fifth Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury." And courts have affirmed the right of states to place restrictions on who may possess guns (such as certain convicted felons), types of weapons (machine guns, sawed-off shotguns) and where they may be carried (post offices, near schools).
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll of adult Americans in June 2008 -- the month the Washington ruling was issued -- found 67 percent of those surveyed thought the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns. Thirty-three percent said it only provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
#1
Article I, Section 8 - United States Constituion
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Title 10 United States Code - Subtitle A, Part 1, Section 13, paragraph 311
311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Now explain to me how 'educated' men and women of the legal caste are unable to comprehend these three 'dots' let alone connect them? The simple answer is that they don't want to. It's all about POWER.
#2
Perhaps Otis and Diane should first address the trash talking that leads to the gun play.
Posted by: ed ||
03/02/2010 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No where that I'm aware of is "militia" defined in the Constitution. What is the source of the definition you cited? It sounds like militia is restricted to those 17-45 years in age. Is this only the organized militia? Does that apply also to the "unorganized militia?" It would seem that if the 2nd amendment is an individual right as a part of the Bill of Rights, that it applies to everyone without age restriction.
#4
Read it again John. Congress by its powers per Article I Section 8 - "..To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such..." defines the militia.
#9
First off, The People means the same thing it does in the other amendments. That means individuals, regardless of State they live in. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ... he right of the people peaceably to assemble ... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. etc
Procopius, arguments about the militia are bullshit, from either side. The militia is irrelevant when dealing with a fundamental right that springs from natural law: the right and duty of self defense.
The mention of the militia is a supporting clause to show one of many reasons why they put this in. It is not there as part of the operation of the law. Look at the punctuation specifically the placement of the comma, whihc is accurate for once. There is only ONE comma, and its between the supporting clause and the main sentence. It clearly demarcates the operational portion of the amendment.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That is the law. Militias be damned. This is for The People.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
First comes the right to keep and bear arms. The reason for that universal right is to be able to have a well regulated Militia. A cause-effect thing. If people do not have that universal right applying to everyone, a well-regulated Militia is not possible. Otherwise it would have been pretty easy to say "the right of militia members to bear arms..."
It doesn't say that only the Militia should have that right. This simply distorts ANY intention of that amendment.
My German two cents.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
03/02/2010 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Procopius, arguments about the militia are bullshit, from either side. The militia is irrelevant when dealing with a fundamental right that springs from natural law: the right and duty of self defense.
Arguing from emotion?
In the context of the time of the writing of the Constitution, the status of women and slaves was something outside the definition of the political body. They had no universal 'rights'. The political body was as the militia is itself defined as every able body male. The original enrollment reads from the second portion of the Militia Act of 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. was passed on May 8, 1792, and signed into law on February 28, 1795. The second portion clarified who the militia consists of and what duties, and penalties were placed upon the militia forces.
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.."
Now the life expectancy at the time meant that 45 was pretty much the upper limit of a functional male given that both disease and infirmities that hammered the body. This means the politically incorporated population as a whole had for all practical considerations the right to access and to bear arms. What has changed is that the political body has been expanded to women and, with the end to slavery and the implementation of the 14th Amendment, anyone regardless of color, race or creed. The universe became bigger.
#12
Procopius, if the Amendment meant to talk about the rights of militia men it could have said so.
BUT it says the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
03/02/2010 21:24 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The founders were the ones who wrote it. To them women and slaves were not The People with the same political rights as the "free white males". For them the People and the Militia were one and the same. There's no way around it other than wanna, coulda, shoulda. What has evolved is the incorporation of 'others' into the body The People as an expanded whole.
#14
Beldar hit one of my pet peeves. Go to the US government's site. All those extra commas are NOT in there. There is only one comma, and the phrase "the right of the people" is not chopped up like it is in a quote here in comments.
Beldar (Conehead?) has it right Proc. The militia is irrelevant to the argument over the right. The amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
No Comma. No separation. "The right of the people" syntactically and legally has nothing to do with militias. No BS. Very simple. And to argue that it does is simply wrong.
All the stuff about the militia is irrelevant when it comes to the rights, and to bring them up makes the case for those who would restrict the right based on that basis. I think despite your attempt to help, using the milita to make your case diminishes the right and helps those who would eliminate it.
Its not the right of the militia, organized or unorganized. Its "the people" to whom that right is reserved, legally speaking, the same as "the people" in all the other amendments (as he attempts to show I think).
Not a specific or limited class of them (the militia) like you argue. Your argument is the equivalent for saying that freedom of print belongs only to the press, not the people since only the press is mentioned in that clause, and the people are entitled only to assemble if we were to interpret the 1st the way you propose interpreting the second - only members of the press have full freedom of speech.
The People. Its legally quite distinct and clear. And that's not from emotion, its from clarity about the law and the 2nd Amendment.
The real underpinning is: Self defense is a fundamental right under natural law, and from that descend the right of individuals as a whole ("the people") to arm themselves. Not being a member of "the militia", nor anything else in the Constitution grants that right -- its God-given. The right exists as a result of natural law, not a fiat grant from some incidental regulatory verbiage about militias.
You may want to reconsider your argument Proc, its badly flawed, misleading and flat out wrong in its assumed basis (that the militia has anything to do at all with who holds the right that should not be infringed).
Think it over, you'll see he was right (or alternatively that his argument is the more fundamentally correct one), and you are wrong although perhaps right in your intent.
#15
And FYI, your argument about slaves, etc is irrelevant in the face of Natural Law -- and similarly he 14th and other amendments.
Notice your point about slaves even further narrows the right and expands the government's ability to infringe the right against whole classes of persons, making the right a group issue, not an individual one.
Fundamental rights are meant to be maintained as broadly as possible. Your argument does quite the opposite - meaning in your viewpoint, RKBA is not a fundamental one, legally speaking, since it can be so readily parceled out and curtailed based on group membership instead of individual.
All in all, that's pretty damning for your use of the milita as an enabler for right to keep and bear arms - you tie it to groups, and obliterate it a natural law artifect, and provide a framework by which the rihgt cna be regularly infringed against certain classes of individfuals that may not fit any narrowing of the "militia".
In history, your argument has been used to limit the RKBA, not help it.
So please, consider that with "help" like yours we need no enemies.
#16
Do you really think the writers of the Constitution believed People meant everyone from the 20th/21st Century perspective. You are reading something written in the 18th Century with an 18th Century perspective. "All men are created equal..." did not apply to slaves, native Americans or wo-man. The discrepancy was pointed out during the period, but no adjustment was made, till the 14th Amendment. What the 14th does is incorporate everyone else with the same rights and privileges that had been reserved to the political class basically white males, to include the 2nd Amendment.
#17
And Flash91, you may want to familiarize yourself with "infringement" as a legal concept. It allows for regulation, so long as it does not preclude ownership for self defense by a citizen. It is not carte blanche as you mistakenly suppose.
Please if you do not understand the terms, do not misuse them.
Top Democrats tore into one of their Republican counterparts Monday for blocking an extension of unemployment benefits that would provide assistance to millions of jobless Americans.
The Senate adjourned last week without approving extensions of cash and health insurance benefits for the unemployed after Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, blocked the measure by insisting that Congress first pay for the $10 billion package. The emergency measure needed unanimous consent to pass.
Bunning, who is retiring at the end of this year, said he doesn't oppose extending the programs, he just doesn't want to add to the deficit. Democrats claim the bill is an emergency measure that should not be subject to new rules requiring that legislation not expand the deficit. So the Dems can't even find $10B to cut out of a multi-trillion dollar budget. Does this suggest anything to you? I guess everything is more important to the dems than unemployment benefits. And nothing is more important than unemployment benefits to them, too. Free digital TV for the poor is important, now hush ...
As a result of the Senate's inaction, many jobless people starting Monday were no longer able to apply for federal unemployment benefits or the COBRA health insurance subsidy.
"The irony of all this is we're out trying to fill that (financial) hole created by the (recession) which cost 8 million people" their jobs, Vice President Joe Biden said. "At a time when so many families are in so much pain we shouldn't be shutting the few valves of relief. ... We should be opening that spigot a little wider not shutting it down."
Bunning, in turn, took to the Senate floor to bemoan what he characterized as a growing lack of fiscal responsibility. "If we can't find $10 billion to pay for something that we all support, we will never pay for anything on the floor of the U.S. Senate," he said.
Bunning's remarks prompted an immediate response from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
"Where was my friend from Kentucky when we had two wars that were unpaid for during the Bush administration?" he asked. Reid also mentioned the Bush administration tax cuts, which Democrats have said are unpaid for. So the fact that we spent a few hundred billion on the wars means that we can now spend a few trillion on the 'poor', and not pay for either ...
"We don't need lectures here on debt" from the GOP, he said. "There are poor people all over America who are desperate today."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Bunning had "frustrated a lot of people ... across the spectrum."
Federal unemployment benefits kick in after the basic state-funded 26 weeks of coverage expire. During the downturn, Congress has approved up to an additional 73 weeks, which it funds. These federal benefit weeks are divided into tiers, and the jobless must apply each time they move into a new tier.
Because the Senate did not act, the jobless will now stop getting checks once they run out of their state benefits or current tier of federal benefits. That could be devastating to the unemployed who were counting on that income. In total, more than a million people could stop getting checks next month, with nearly 5 million running out of benefits by June, according to the National Unemployment Law Project. It also keeps the unemployed from moving on to finding another job; that's well known.
Lawmakers repeatedly tried to approve a 30-day extension this week, but each time Bunning has prevented the measure from passing.
Several other programs aside from unemployment and health benefits are affected by the legislative spat, including federal flood insurance, satellite TV licensing, and small business loans. The stalled bill also would provide a short-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund, which is a federal fund set up to pay for transportation projects nationwide. For all those 'shovel-ready' projects that haven't quite yet got going ...
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Monday that up to 2,000 employees at the Transportation Department will be sent home without pay as a result of Bunning's decision to hold up the bill. "As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important construction projects around the country," LaHood said in a news release. "This means that construction workers will be sent home from job sites because federal inspectors must be furloughed."
#1
They're not hypocritical, we just don't understand.
Like, how one guy can stop 59 dem Senators and the other 40 rational Senators. Did I miss that? Has to come out of Committee, perhaps? Of course, the dems can't give in and actually compromise, right?
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/02/2010 6:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It had been a unanimous consent request. Bunning decided to slow down and talk about it. It has made the Dems look like spoiled kids.
#3
The trick to a unanimous consent request is that it is agreed to by leaders of *both* parties, behind which they can all hide, because it is a voice vote only. What Bunning has done is to force a *recorded* vote, so everybody has to go on the record. And like cockroaches when the light is turned on...
So the Democrats are going full court press to attack Bunning. A DNC-ABC camera crew even tried to follow him into a "senators only" elevator, and kept the doors open despite his attempts to leave.
#4
It's not just that it's a recorded vote, it's that it is without any reduction in other spending. It shows PAYGO is a joke and the donks will have a hard time hauling it out in the future.
I also support unemployment assistance, but 99 weeks seems like enough.
My daughter from a large midwestern windy city said she is getting pressure to hire more clerks (30!) at her big box store but HR can't source applicants. On the other hand, a new company is moving into the old Circuit City here in the boonies and they got 400 applicants, 10% of the county's unemployed, for 40 openings. Hard to tell what's going on.
#5
I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important construction projects around the country," LaHood said in a news release.
Bullshit. Its not like his own leadership is giving him the full throat on this one. Bunning is acting on principle not politics. One can disagree on his tactics but the accusations of game playing from the left are completely disingenuous. The pathetic aspect is that it takes a politician not seeking re-election to actually stand by his own convictions.
#6
Old Jim has been called senile in the past couple of years, but he sounds ok on this. Refreshingly open and honest, even. Politicians love to spend but hate to actually find funds to pay for it (taxes or offsetting cuts), so they just borrow and kick the payment can down the road. Bunning is trying to block that kick. If unemployment benefits extension is so important then it should not be that hard to find the funds to pay for it - so go do it!
#8
This is what has to happen to curtail the spending. Lots and lots of pain, as we stop giving people other people's money. We are so deep into this mentality of giving what we don't have, it's going to be a long, hard road back to fiscal sanity. At this first, tiny pinch, look at the reaction and anger. Just imagine what it's going to take for the big stuff.....
#12
He's also pressuring them to use already authorized but unspent stimulous funds rather than keep those around for key constituents in the runup to the elections.
#14
At least Marie Antoinette wanted to let them eat cake. With these pols, one wonders if they think people can eat air and sleep on straw mats with lice. pitchforks are coming if they dont get their crap together.
A New York prosecutor's office says it has found no criminal wrongdoing on the part of three ACORN employees caught on video advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend. Yeesh! What does a person have to do to get prosecuted these days? Perhaps you could try being a prostitute next time?
The Brooklyn district attorney's office said Monday that its five-month inquiry is over and that no criminal activity was found. Perhaps someone ought to check the DA's bank accounts. And inside their freezer. Don't bother with the bank accounts, check out the list of his campaign 'volunteers' ...
The videos were made by conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, who used a hidden camera on visits to offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Since then, O'Keefe has been arrested after visiting Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in New Orleans. He denies trying to tamper with the Democrat's phones. Oh no. Not any more than ACORN did anything wrong.
The Brooklyn video caught ACORN workers apparently advising the pair to bolster their housing application by lying about Giles' "profession" and laundering her earnings.
Muslim preacher Omar Bakri, the spiritual guide of the banned extremist Islamist al-Ghurabaa movement told Asharq Al-Awsat in a telephone interview from Tripoli, Lebanon, where he currently resides that "engaging in the political process, meaning a Muslim joining a non-Islamic British [political] party, is something that is not permissible, and this is a sin and something that I do not encourage. However I do not doubt the sincere intentions of the Muslims who engage in the political process, and the Prophet peace be upon him told us that God will grant Islamic victory, even against the immoral."
Omar Bakri, who was the former leader of the now disbanded al-Muhajiroun movement, added that "the fundamentalist secularists will target Muslim preachers and youth regardless of whether they take part in the political process and [join] political parties in Britain, and this will have a positive impact on Muslim preaching in the future because people will realize that the al-Ghurabaa movement and the [al-Muhajiroun] movement and others have been banned as a result of a strategy to target Islam under the pretext of combating terrorism."
Bakri also asked "[what is] the meaning behind the West's fear of some Muslims becoming involved in non-Islamic political parties?"
Omar Bakri moved to Britain in 1986, where he went on to become one of the most famous radical clerics in the country. In 2005, following the London July bombings, Bakri left Britain for Lebanon, and the British government promptly banned him from returning after the British media launched a media campaign against him as a result of his extremist views. He once described the September 11 hijackers as "the Magnificent 19" and called on all Muslims to emigrate from Britain.
Bakri also told Asharq Al-Awsat that "the call to God is the message of the prophets, and the work of the Islamic organizations, and this is something promoted and protected by the Islamic faith, and God said 'Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious' [Surat an-Nahl; Verse 125]. We praise God according to His call that "Who is better in speech than one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says: I am of those who bow in Islam?" [Surat al-Fussilat; Verse 33]. Therefore it is not surprising that among those Muslims in the West, and in Britain in particular, there are those who are preaching Islam and working towards establishing divine Shariaa law. We have succeeded in sowing the seeds of preaching [the message of God] and Islamic concepts."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/02/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Al-Muhajiroun
(translated from German)
The Constitutional Court has decided: The controversial law on data retention in its current form is contrary to the Basic Law. The previously stored data must be deleted immediately. (At this point the Google translator lost its marbles, so if there are any more pertinent details you German speakers can pick up, thanks.)
#1
The gist of the decision is not that data storage is unconstitutional per se but that its purpose needs to be strictly defined.
Also indiscriminate "profiling" and dragnet investigation is unconstitutional. If law enforcement wants access to the data of a specific person, they need a court order.
Sounds quite reasonable to me. The current law would have allowed sweeping datamining of people not suspected of anything, without any oversight. An extremely poorly designed law.
That the state should be able to have indiscriminate access to a giant data pool delivered to him that tells them who has been where when and communicated with whom (for the last six months) is not constitutional.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
03/02/2010 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
More from the Wall Street Journal here. I just poked my head in for a moment, will copy critical bits from the article later.
A Rancho Cordova-based insurer Monday launched what it calls the first nationally available insurance coverage designed specifically for the medical marijuana industry. Only 14 states allow use of medical marijuana today, but Statewide Insurance Services is nonetheless offering coverage in all 50 states.
"Given the growth in the industry, I think it's only a matter of time" before other states allow medical marijuana, said Mike Aberle, a commercial insurance agent with the local firm and national director of its Medical Marijuana Specialty Division.
He added: "Now that we can offer (services) in all 50 states, we can start the minute they go legal, without delay."
Aberle said the nationwide program covers "all aspects of the industry," including medical marijuana dispensaries (MMDs for short), workers' compensation, general liability, auto insurance (motor vehicles used to transport product), equipment breakdown/damage, property/product loss (including pot spoilage) and operations related to marijuana growing. A wholey owned subsidiary of Taliban Consumer Products, LLC
Supreme Court, gun control, and the Second Amendment: a reckoning
The Supreme Court's next Second Amendment cases may decide which state and local gun-control laws can stand.
In the nearly two years since the US Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, more than 190 challenges have been filed seeking to overturn other gun-control laws or to reverse firearms convictions.
Now, with the justices examining a similar ban in place in Chicago, gun-rights advocates are hoping for another landmark constitutional victory -- this time extending an individual right to keep and bear arms in cities and towns across the country. But the ultimate showdown over gun control in America will be waged in a future legal case not yet on the high court's radar, analysts say. At issue in that case: Are Second Amendment rights as fundamental as freedom of speech and religion, or will gun rights be subject to lesser constitutional protection?
The answer to that question -- and the potential future course of gun control -- may rest with a majority of the nine men and women on the Supreme Court. When that future case arrives, it will all boil down to a three-word phrase of legal jargon: "standard of review."
What does 'standard of review' mean and how does it relate to gun rights?
The way the Supreme Court protects individual constitutional rights against encroachment by the government is by weighing the government's interest in a particular law against the individual right preserved in the Constitution.
For example, when the government passes a law censoring people from engaging in core political speech, the court requires the government to demonstrate it has a compelling interest in the censorship and to prove that the measure is the least intrusive means of achieving that governmental interest. If it can't prove both, the law must be struck down.
Not all rights warrant the toughest level of constitutional protection. In the intermediate level, judges often attempt to balance competing interests to reach the proper outcome.
What standard of review do gun-control advocates want?
The Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Chicago case urging the justices to establish a standard of review in which judges would be reluctant to overturn gun-control regulations enacted by elected officials.
"Gun policy is best determined as it always has been in this country: in the political arena, without courts second-guessing reasoned legislative judgments," writes Paul Wolfson in his brief on behalf of the Brady Center.
What standard of review are gun-rights supporters seeking?
Many argue that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that can be limited only in the narrowest circumstances and only when the government demonstrates a compelling reason. "We think the Constitution provides the proper test. It is: 'shall not be infringed,' " said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, quoting from the amendment. "We think 'shall not' means 'none.' "
Mayor Richard M. Daley wants the ban to remain in place. He says local officials need flexibility to decide how best to protect their communities.
"We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago," Daley said.
He also said the rollback of the city's handgun ban could lead to further erosion of legislation having to do with guns.
"This is the first time; once you start doing this, you'll start breaking down local laws, county and even state laws unlawful use of a weapon," Mayor Daley said.
The mayor is backed by community groups and Chicago's congressional delegation.
#2
yet the Daleys and Aldermen are no doubt allowed to carry arms or have armed protection, because they are our betters. F*ck him and the rest of the Chicago trash.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/02/2010 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I heard today on a talk show that the Illinois state constitution already says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...instead of getting scotus involved they need to get the state courts to do their damn job...
#2
The perpetrator said that "... I am distraught to know that I have unintentionally added to their pain."
Really? What was unintentional about it?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/02/2010 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
She has a great future as a Democratic Party Astroturfer.
Posted by: ed ||
03/02/2010 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Black student leaders and others believe the events are indicative of a university system that doesnt do enough to help blacks.
Attention activists, organizers, and rabble-rousers of all stripes. Let this be a lesson for you - perhaps, even a Teaching moment. Always exploit isolated acts to your advantage regardless of intent or how innocuous they may seem. Then search for other events (even ones that are remotely related) to portray the actions as part of a larger pattern. But, always remember to refrain your focus from individual responsibility. You have bigger fish to fry. The object of your rancor should be something larger and much more vague for instance The system. Not only does this create a perpetual target but also your attention should be concentrated on the deepest pockets. Now put your books down and go out and protest dammit!
#5
Seems that a number of racist incidents have been false flag operations by minorities to make the majority seem racist. Even this case, which apparently was an accident, was by a minority student. If it had been a white student there would be demands for expulsion, even if it was an accident. This one will probably slip away into obscurity, the damage already done.
#6
Burning a flag is free speech. Burning a cross is not. Nude dancing and pan handling is free speech. A noose is not...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/02/2010 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#7
doesnt do enough to help blacks.
That phrase alone tells the tale, GIMME, GIMME,GIMME.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/02/2010 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#8
By now, the admin's default presumption should be that it's a hoax. That's the way to bet. Investigation to see if a particular case is an exception.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
03/02/2010 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#9
But WAIT! There's MORE! KKK-style pillowcase found at UCSD
The symbol was draped on a statue outside the library University of California San Diego police say a crudely-fashioned KKK-style hood was found outside the campus library late Monday.
The hood was on a Theodor Seuss Geisel statue -- at the location where the campus was going to celebrate the children's author's birthday today. The event was called off given racial tensions that have grown seemingly daily on the campus for the past two weeks.
In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, campus authorities say the hood -- apparently made from a white pillowcase -- was discovered about 11 p.m. outside the library that carries Geisel's name. A rose was inserted in the statues fingers.
The items have been removed and the police are processing them for evidence, including fingerprint and DNA analysis. An aggressive police investigation is underway, the statement read. We will pursue this with all of our authority and individuals who are responsible will be punished to the full extent of the Student Code of Conduct and all applicable laws.
Chancellor Marye Anne Fox is quoted in the statement as saying that we will not allow this incident, or any incident, to deter the progress we are making to change and heal our university community.
Audrey Geisel, widow of Theodor Geisel, said the chancellor and campus librarian called her to inform her of the incident.
If her husband, who died in 1991, were alive, she said he would find the incident bizarre.
The vast, vast majority (of students) are just the greatest theyre just splendid, fine, period, she said. A little faction always exists in all places and they get a little carried away, I think. Now, hear this somebodys paying attention and they get kind of rambunctious.
This was all started by a black student masquerading as "Jigaboo Jones". Apparently racial grievances have to be self-created in academia nowadays to justify the protests, racial demands, etc...
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/02/2010 19:31 Comments ||
Top||
Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility. The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.
The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data.
The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered when a hacker stole hundreds of emails sent from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics. Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree rings about historical temperatures.
In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick' to massage figures and 'hide the decline'.
Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: 'Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method. Nah, the scientific method is just fine. The trouble starts when folks decide to bypass the scientific method.
'The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.'
Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data.
But yesterday Professor Jones - in his first public appearance since the scandal broke - denied manipulating the figures. Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: 'I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.'
He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites. Then publish your sources, the data, and don't forget the footnotes.
And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research. So why all the handwringing? Simply not true: in the US at least, all federally funded investigators are required to release their raw data upon request.
'I don't think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,' he said. I think there is. And I'm not going to bother to show you my data because it truly is available publicly.
Professor Jones, who was forced to stand down as head of the CRU last year, also insisted the scientific findings on climate change were robust.
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.
Close all bureaus except DC
Young people who smoke cannabis or marijuana for six years or more are twice as likely to have psychotic episodes, hallucinations or delusions than people who have never used the drug, scientists said on Monday.
A New York prosecutor's office says it has found no criminal wrongdoing on the part of three ACORN employees caught on video advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend.
Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility. The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming. 
