On the eve of the Occupy Wall Street protests, its useful to take a look at its legacy. There are plenty of ways to measure the depravity that weve seen during the past several months, but its simplest to focus on the following themes: arrests, assaults, death and disease plus the financial burden that the rest of the country has to shoulder in order to clean it all up:
Number of arrests: 3,621 (via Occupy Arrests)
Number of deaths: 4 one murder, one suicide, one suspected drug overdose and one mystery.
Number of sexual assaults: At least seven that have been reported to police. And there are signs that many may have gone unreported.
Number of contagious outbreaks: Seven, including tuberculosis, ring worm, Parvo, scabies, respiratory sickness, head and body lice, and fleas.
Cost of Occupation: At least $12,625,000. Thats just including the latest police and/or cleanup estimates from the following cities that have released the information: Oakland, New York City, Portland, L.A., Philadelphia, Seattle, Boston and Denver. The actual numbers from the other cities, public service costs, and business costs not included could, and probably will, end up making this much higher.
Now its up to public officials to make sure those numbers dont continue to rise.
...With its carbon tax, Australia is buying the ability to feel good about itself...To the extent that the carbon tax will have any impact it will mainly shift production to areas with fewer restrictions (say, China) and where production is less efficient, likely leading to larger emissions....
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
11/18/2011 08:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves. The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad...This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party's mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.
#3
True enuff - the "Spend Spend Spend" never stopped even though the percentage point kept steadily inching closer-N-closer to 100% Debt-to-GDP, i.e. SCREW OUR OWN CEILINGS, SPEND IT WHILE WE HAVE IT JUST BECAUSE WE CAN.
Now that the above ratio is over 100% + steadily climbing, ITS STILL "SPEND SPEND SPEND" BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CHOICE - the answer to spending is more spending, the answer to national bankruptcy is more bankruptcy.
His near--$1 trillion stimulus begat a stagnant economy with 9 percent unemployment. His attempt at Wall Street reform left in place a still too-big-to-fail financial system as vulnerable today as when he came into office. His green-energy fantasies yielded Solyndra cronyism and a cap-and-trade regime not even a Democratic Congress would pass.
And now his signature achievement, Obamacare, is headed to the Supreme Court, where it could very well be struck down, just a week after its central element was overwhelmingly repudiated (2--1) by the good burghers of Ohio.
So what do you do when you say you can, but, it turns out, you can't? Blame the other guy. Charge the Republicans with making governing impossible. Never mind that you had control of the Congress for two-thirds of your current tenure. It's all the fault of Republican rejectionism.
Hence: "We Can't Wait." We can't wait while they obstruct. We can't wait while they dither with my jobs bill. Write Congress today! Vote Democrat tomorrow!
We can't wait. Except for certain exceptions, such as the 1,700-mile trans-U.S. Keystone XL pipeline, carrying Alberta oil to Texas refineries, which would have created thousands of American jobs and increased our energy independence.
For that, we can wait, it seems. President Obama decreed that any decision must wait 12 to 18 months -- postponed, by amazing coincidence, until after next year's election.
Why? Because the pipeline angered Obama's environmental constituency. But their complaints are risible. Global warming from the extraction of the Alberta tar sands? Canada will extract the oil anyway. If it doesn't go to us, it will go to China. Net effect on the climate if we don't take that oil? Zero.
Danger to a major aquifer, which the pipeline traverses? It is already crisscrossed by 25,000 miles of pipeline, enough to circle the Earth. Moreover, the State Department had subjected Keystone to three years of review -- the most exhaustive study of any oil pipeline in U.S. history -- and twice concluded in voluminous studies that there would be no significant environmental harm.
So what happened? "The administration," reported the New York Times, "had in recent days been exploring ways to put off the decision until after the presidential election." Exploring ways to improve the project? Hardly. Exploring ways to get past the election.
#1
Pipeline has been under construction, that is out of planning and approval, for years now. Suddenly, it is under scrutiny? If any of these people can find the aquafir on the map they would know it is huge, and it isn't like there are a number of safety procedure in place nevermind natural and artificial filter in place; it's not some Roman aquaduct that will tip over and then nobody notices. I call BS.
#2
Please do not flame me as this is an honest question and I do not know the answer. I am sure I am missing something. But I do not see it.
Instead of building a pipeline across the nation why not build a refinery in place then sell the products?
It seems that it would cut off the objectors off at the knees. Might be tough to resist buying cheap gasoline(?) and they could use existing pipelines maybe with some additions.
Posted by: kelly ||
11/18/2011 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Tried to answer, if multi-posts apologies.
There are a number of by-products, refining there would require individual transport of each product.
Refinary would require a large enough workforce a mini-city would also need to be built, as well as transport.
Pipeline is very safe, rather than a fleet of trucks or new rail needing to be built.
Weather considerations, if the weather is bad the transport out would be affected.
Facilities, expertise, emergency response, distribution hub already in place.
Is it more efficient to refine in warmer climates, similar to launching space vehicles closer to the equator?
#4
Instead of building a pipeline across the nation why not build a refinery in place then sell the products?
The same consideration might apply to the oil & gas boom in western North Dakota. None has proposed a locally built refinery. Maybe there's a good reason for the missing proposal.
An article in a British paper last month by Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American businessman with political connections in Washington, has taken a toll of the civilian government of President Asif Zardari in Islamabad. The irony is that it was written to strengthen Mr Zardari against encroachments by General Ashfaq Kayani.
Mr Ijaz claims that shortly after the US Navy Seal raid to extract OBL from Abbottabad on May 2, the Zardari government felt threatened by General Kayani and sought out Mr Ijaz to convey its insecurity to Admiral Mike Mullen, the then Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff and avowed "friend" of General Kayani, to fend off a possible coup. Accordingly, with the help of a top Pakistani diplomat close to President Zardari, Mr Ijaz drafted and dispatched a secret "memo" portraying the Pakistani military as being part of the problem rather than the solution to America's dilemma in Afghanistan. Interestingly, the "article" also paints the Pakistani military in negative light and exhorts the Obama administration to start wielding the stick instead of offering carrots to it.
One might have expected the Pakistani media to focus on several critical questions raised by the memo. First, what was the nature of the threat faced by President Zardari from his army chief that compelled his diplomatic envoy to seek American help in warding it off? Second, what was the Pakistani government's need to specifically seek out Mr Ijaz to do the needful when direct and confidential contact already exists between the two governments? Third, why is the Pakistani military such a "problem" for the strategic interests of both governments?
But these issues have largely gone begging. Instead, such is the poverty of philosophy, the Pakistani media has trained its gun sights on the Pakistani diplomat and elected government who are both charged with "conspiring against the state". This is an extraordinary statement that reverses the established order of the Pakistani constitution. The civilian government is duly elected and all organs of the state are constitutionally subservient to it. But in this formulation "one" organ of the state, the military, has been substituted for the "whole" of the state and an elected and legitimate civilian government has been made subservient to it! Instead of the military conspiring against the elected government, it is the government that is charged with conspiring against its own military.
In the event, it isn't surprising that the military has turned the tables on the civilians once again. Mr Ijaz has been compelled to reveal all in order to prove his credibility but the irony is that he will never again be taken as a credible and confidential interlocutor by anyone. The finger is pointed at Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, as the diplomat in question and the military has demanded his head. But the irony is that President Zardari will only weaken himself further by cutting his most articulate and friendly link with Washington.
The military has been gunning for Hussain Haqqani for over a decade. He ran afoul of General Musharraf in 2002 for his critical newspaper columns in Urdu and English. So he decamped to the US where he wrote his seminal book on the unholy historical nexus between the Mosque and Military in Pakistan. After he was appointed Ambassador to Washington in 2008, the military embarked upon a campaign to defame him. He was accused of acting against the "national interest" by manipulating the insertion of "pro-democracy" clauses in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation that committed $7.5 billion to Pakistan over five years as a "strategic ally." He was blasted for enabling CIA operatives to get visas despite the fact that authorization for over 90 per cent duly came from the Pakistan Foreign Office/ISI or the Prime Minister's secretariat. He was criticized for pledging an impartial and public investigation into how OBL came to be lodged in Abbottabad when the military was insisting there would be no more than an internal secret inquiry at best. And he was painted as an "American agent" for recommending a pragmatic and responsible Af-Pak and US-Pak foreign policy.
The writing on the wall was clear when Imran Khan thundered against Mr Haqqani in Lahore last month and Shah Mahmood Qureshi demanded an inquiry against him for "conspiring against the state". Both are inclined to do the military's bidding.
The core questions remain. Was the military complicit or incompetent in "L'affaire OBL"? What was the nature of its disagreement with, and threat to, the Zardari government following "Operation Geronimo"? How was Mansoor Ijaz manipulated by various Pakistani protagonists? A third series of questions has risen for the umpteenth time. Is the constitution subservient to the military? Is an elected government answerable to the "state"? Should an unaccountable military or elected civilians define the "national interest"?
The fate of Asif Zardari's PPP and also that of Nawaz Sharif's PMLN, the two mainstream parties that majorly represent the Pakistani voter, hinges on answers to these questions.
[Dawn] IT is encouraging that the Anti-Women Practices (Criminal Law Amendment) Bill was finally passed by the National Assembly on Tuesday. Twice last month, the bill was stalled over what many observers saw as trivial objections. The social practices that the bill criminalises include that of women`s `marriage` to the Koran. This method of keeping inheritance limited to male family members is also quite common amongst the country`s feudal elites, some of whom are parliamentarians. The politicians` failure to take the bill seriously had exposed them to criticism on the grounds of class self-interest cutting across political divides. Now, though, once approved by the Senate, the progressive five-clause bill ought to prove important in Pakistain`s struggle to protect women`s rights. Defining a `marriage` to the Koran as an "oath by a woman on the holy Koran to remain unmarried for the rest of her life or not to claim her share of inheritance", the bill spells out hefty punishment for depriving women of their inheritance through this or other deceitful means, and for giving women in forced marriages to settle civil disputes or criminal liabilities -- another detestable practice that has for decades tarnished Pakistain`s human rights ...which are usually open to widely divergent definitions... record.
The role that targeted legislation can play in discouraging archaic and regressive practices must also be highlighted. Using women as currency for settling disputes, forcing them into marriages against their will, giving jirgas the power to settle their futures or taking punitive action if they marry against their family`s or clan`s wishes are acts of coercion. However, a hangover is the wrath of grapes... these are defended by many as being part of tradition and seen as legitimate since they have been practised for centuries. Apart from raising awareness, the only tool the government has in its arsenal against such a mediaeval mindset is to develop legislation that specifically criminalises certain sorts of behaviour.
This government`s record in this regard has been fairly reasonable, with the formulation of crucial pieces of legislation such as the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Work Place Act 2010. However, it was a brave man who first ate an oyster... other, long overdue laws remain to be achieved. Notable here is the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill which was passed unanimously by parliament in August 2009 but that lapsed after the Senate failed to approve it. Resultantly, those subjected to a pervasive yet invisible form of violence are not protected by the law. While this bill must be revisited, the Senate must also ensure the prompt passage of the Anti-Women Practices (Criminal Law Amendment) Bill. Now that the first tier of parliamentary approval has been achieved, it must be given the attention it merits.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/18/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Save for the day when a future OWG American = Amerikan LADY SIMPSON becomes de facto Queen of England.
D *** NG IT, MADONNA, DOES THIS MEAN THAT HEATHER GRAHAM GETS TO BE GOVERNOR OF GUAM ONE DAY???
#1
srael has been assembling a multibillion-dollar array of high-tech weapons that would allow it to jam, blind, and deafen Tehran's defenses in the case of a pre-emptive aerial strike.
No. Actually Israel is going to use a combination of Kabbalism & Voodoo to neutralize Iran.
Mike Ledeen pulls together various threads of information about the recent kabobs in Iran, and concludes that it wasn't the eeeeevil Zionist Juices but rather the internal opposition that is revving up operations. Worth a read.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/18/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Any opposition that could carry out something like this could, easily, take over.
#2
Yup, tip o' the hat to the internal ops group if they did it. This is the sort of thing that one does easily blame on those eeeeevil Joooz.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/18/2011 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The mullahs in Iran are not mad enough to render parts of their country uninhabitable from fallout from a nuke on Israel.
I say they won't / don't intend to use it on Israel. That is a bunch of misinformation nonsense. Anyone with two brain cells would understand the true target for one of their devices is the US.
The cast of players, Pakistan, NORK, and Iran plus Russia, all lean toward identifying the common target. The NORK really have no beef with Israel, nor do the Paks (really). The common opponent is the US.
I swear if we don't do something soon, we'll lose a city here.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
11/18/2011 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
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.
[Dawn] IT is encouraging that the Anti-Women Practices (Criminal Law Amendment) Bill was finally passed by the National Assembly on Tuesday. Twice last month, the bill was stalled over what many observers saw as trivial objections. The social practices that the bill criminalises include that of women`s `marriage` to the Koran. This method of keeping inheritance limited to male family members is also quite common amongst the country`s feudal elites, some of whom are parliamentarians. The 
