IN ONE of their more delicate rulings of recent years, British television watchdogs ruled today that a pig sexually pleasured on television by a minor celebrity did not feel degraded by the experience. Dozens of viewers complained about the episode in the reality-TV show The Farm, in which a series of celebrities were sent to do tough work with agricultural crops and animals. The audience were treated to the sight of Rebecca Loos, the self-proclaimed ex-lover of England football captain David Beckham, stimulating the boar for 10 minutes to produce a flask of semen. Many viewers complained to the government's Office of Communications (Affectum) that this was "akin to bestiality", while a leading animal charity condemned the scenes as "morbid and sordid". But in a ruling released today, Affectum cleared broadcaster Channel Five of breaching decency standards, saying the procedure was perfectly normal. "The task performed by Rebecca Loos is one that occurs regularly on UK farms. It was properly supervised by a qualified veterinary surgeon and was carried out for a genuine purpose - to artificially inseminate the pigs on the 'celebrity farm'," the ruling said. It added: "We don't believe that the scene was degrading or harmful to the boar."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/29/2004 7:46:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's ask the pig: Who would you rather have tugged you off, Rebecca Loos or Gavin the Sweaty Swineherd?
#4
muck4doo, I did run it through babelfish, trying multiple languges, but it still did not make any sense. I guess that your coment would be relegated to the realm of mysteries. :-)
#7
So David Beckham's ex-squeeze performs a TV stunt in which she gives a pig a weasel-waxing, and the authorities are all worried about the PIG feeling degraded???????
Bulldog, you just gotta get outta there. You just GOTTA. Save yourself, man!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/29/2004 22:32 Comments ||
Top||
Saudi locust hunters who believe the insects hold a cure for diabetes were warned on Wednesday they could be crunching on a poisonous snack. The official Saudi Press Agency quoted Ghazi Hawari, head of the desert kingdom's anti-locust center, as saying any swarm which crossed its borders would be sprayed with insecticide. It said Hawari "warned against catching locusts and eating them in the belief that they are a cure for diabetes and stressed the danger of eating them after spraying operations." Islam Diabetes is a common affliction in many Gulf Arab countries. Hawari said only a very small number of the locusts, which have swept through North Africa and into southern Israel, had so far reached into Saudi Arabia. Have you considering exporting them as a food item to North Korea?
Posted by: Dar ||
11/29/2004 2:29:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
For years, all that Ashley could think about was escaping. She woke up thinking about it. All day, it ate away at her. At night, it was her last thought before she fell asleep. And in the morning, it was there again, that constant need to get away from her husband and the repressive country where they lived. Ashley was little more than a prisoner in Saudi Arabia for 14 years, married to a traditionalist husband who had lured her to his country and then laughed derisively when she wanted to leave.
#3
Does anyone else besides me think giving the amount of details being given in the article is a remarkably bad idea?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
11/29/2004 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This is absolutely textbook - right up to the point where she actually managed to escape. That makes this story are rare as hen's teeth.
Good for them, they will do fine - as long as the Great Sleepy Lion of Islam, Ol' Dimwit, doesn't find them. My regret is that he isn't rotting in a jail somewhere, getting a taste of his own medicine.
They very obviously had a lot to do with this, or at least some renegade GS-5-7 who'll be reassigned to--well, Hell, I can't think of a worse Hellhole to transfer her to (could be a him, I know). About damned time Americans trapped in that Hell got some help from their own countrymen.
Isn't it strange how the Anti-American left is merging with the anti-semitic radical moslems? I can't imagine any rational reason for Chavez to be picking out Israel as a whipping boy in particular.
BTW, Chavez is reportedly in Iran right now.
Sources report that this morning at around 6.30AM, 25 police officers raided in Caracas the Jewish school known as Colegio Hebraica. Students were meant to start classes at 7AM. Due to the 'procedure' that still goes on, classes have been suspended. The school is attended by 1.500 youngsters and children. Criminal-turned-judge Maikel Moreno gave the order to raid the premises. Daniel Sinmack, president of the Jewish community in Caracas, just declared that this is the first time ever that such incident occurs Allegedly the State television network, Venezolana de Television, has been reporting for days now that the Mossad is behind the assassination of prosecutor Danilo Anderson.
Posted by: Nonny Poster ||
11/29/2004 11:49:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Because we side with Israel and against muslim theocracies so our enemies (regardless of their ideologies) all team up together (regardless of how compatible their ideologies are) and side against us.
#2
Right, cuz Israel wants the land in Venezueala for settlements. And Mossad would hide the evidence in a children's school.
At least when the world falls into all-out warfare, we can rest easy knowing that our enemies are friggin morons.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/29/2004 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Time to grant asylum to Venezuela's Jews.
Although I wonder if Chavez would be willing to trade them for Jimmy Carter and an equal number of Berkley-ish leftists.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/29/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The above news does not surprise me. Tarek William Saab, a known Hamas supporter, is now the governor of Anzoategui State in Venezuela. There are other Muslims in position of power in the Venezuelan government and they will not hesitate to use this power to collaborate with international terrorists.
#5
Agree that the dialoge on the hard left is becoming worthy of 1930's. I find it alarming that it has become so acceptable in the "elite" circles when cloaked in the proper nuance of "Israel", "war crimes" and "Mossad". Sickening. Truly sickening.
#8
Chavez has the Dhimmi Carter/UN seal of approval. He therefore knows that he can do whatever he likes to the local Jewish population in order to solidify his alliance with pro-jihad leftists, up to and including massacres and expulsions, and the international pop-left/media/jihad axis will continue to support him, turning him into a second Allende if necessary.
It is the ideal external support structure for a 21st century dictator: media, academic, jihadi, and narco-revolutionary.
For decades, the strong anti-nazi sentiment in neighboring Brazil (especially in the military), rooted in World War 2 combat and a bloody pro-nazi uprising in the 30s, has served as a check on the equally ingrained antisemitism and pro-fascist sentiment of the Venezuelan elite. Venezuelan strongmen could not afford to annoy their giant neighbor.
With Chavez crony Lula da Silva now in charge in Brazil, and 1970s style US media-left memes dominant in the Brazilian media, this has changed.
Just to recap, when I met up with Fred and Emily in DC, I remarked to Fred that North Korea was the first communist theocracy that I had ever heard of. He said that wasn't true, pointing to China under Mao. At the time, I wasn't too sure what he was referring to - boy do I now.
In Mao Zedong's hometown of Shaoshan, 'long live Chairman Mao' booms from speakers as people tumble out of buses onto a small square, donning caps emblazoned with their tourist group affiliation. They chatter excitedly as they approach the 19.8 ft. tall bronze statue of the dictator outfitted in thick shoes and double-breasted military coat, before stopping to pose and snap photos in front of the revered revolutionary leader.
Twenty-eight years after his death and despite wide recognition in China that he committed grave errors which caused the deaths of tens of millions of people, Mao is still regarded by many as the country's greatest modern leader.
"I worship him. Most of the people coming here worship him," said Wang Ming, 35, a resident of eastern Nanjing who travelled more than 900 miles to Shaoshan in central Hunan province. "He had a rebellious spirit and he led such a small and tiny army to fight against Kuomintang (the political party driven to Taiwan by the Communists in 1949), and he saved the country and the people."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/29/2004 1:55:38 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the Chinese vernacular, Mao is referred to as gramps. Chinese students take grave offense when Moose Dung is criticized.
#3
I remember that the radical left in Berkeley in the 60s used to think that Mao's little red book was like----the gospels. We used to buy China Reconstructs newspaper for the juche and spittle content. For 25 cents, it was a total entertainment package. The KCNA rants are but a shadow of the standard Chairman Mao's propaganda dept. put out. Mao's self-sufficiency campaign and the Great Leap Forward were unmitigated disasters. Thousands of backyard blast furnaces to make iron was a memorable example.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/29/2004 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"...he committed grave errors..." Actually, by Chinese standards, I beg to differ. He did exactly what was demanded of him. Chinese emperors ruled, were raised to, a four-phase cycle which dictated their actions. Had Mao been an emperor, he would have been expected to be violent, destructive and murderous, as a "water" emperor. A "water" emperor was supposed to be, expected to be, a force that would destroy 'old' China, so that a 'new' China could be rebuilt on its ashes. He could spout all the dialectic he wanted to, but to hundreds of millions of Chinese, he was expected to act like a water emperor. He really had no choice in the matter. Any order he gave was interpreted, expected, to result in destruction. That was his job.
#7
Anonymoose: He could spout all the dialectic he wanted to, but to hundreds of millions of Chinese, he was expected to act like a water emperor.
Not exactly. The Chinese do have some standards. What many don't know about Mao is that he was a philanderer - a grave sin in Chinese eyes, and that he was responsible for China's great famines under Communist rule. They also don't know the conditions in China prior to Communist rule were superior to conditions after Communist rule was imposed. The relentless propaganda spewed forth by China's Communist Party has affected even Western coverage. In China, where Mao is lionized in every book, textbook and newspaper article, it is small wonder that he remains a demi-god in spite of his incompetence and murderous instincts.
#8
In my (limited) experience, the cult of Chairman Mao is regarded as some sort of 70s monstrosity. Nobody takes it seriously. As a matter of fact, my Chairman Mao poster-collecting hobby is regarded as some sort of weirdo foreigner thing.
#9
gromky: In my (limited) experience, the cult of Chairman Mao is regarded as some sort of 70s monstrosity. Nobody takes it seriously. As a matter of fact, my Chairman Mao poster-collecting hobby is regarded as some sort of weirdo foreigner thing.
My experience has not extended to seeing actual worship of Mao as a deity. But the Chinese treat the Great Helmsman with great reverence, and take great personal offense at remarks denigrating him.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao indirectly criticised the United States for not taking measures to halt the slide in the dollar while insisting that China would not revalue the yuan under pressure. "You must consider the impact on China's economy and society and also consider the impact on the region and the world," Wen said in Laos late Sunday when asked about pressure to remove the yuan's decade-old peg to the dollar. "China is a responsible country. In 1997, during the financial crisis, we maintained the basic stability of the yuan and made the kind of contribution that we should. "Today on the other hand we have to ask a question. The US dollar is depreciating and it is not managed, what is the reason for that? Shouldn't the relevant parties adopt measures?" US exporters complain the yuan is undervalued at about 8.3 to the dollar, giving China an unfair advantage by making Chinese exports cheaper and other countries' exports to China more expensive. The USD had a technical bounce agianst the Euro today but is now back to record lows. As I pointed out a few days ago. Fixing the Yuan against the USD just depreciates it against the Euro, which will cause a flood of Chinese exports into the Eurozone. So the Euros will turn the heat on China. The US can sit back and watch the worst recession in Euroland in 25 years unfold and the resultant Euro sanctions against China. Its going to be fun guys!
Posted by: phil_b ||
11/29/2004 4:29:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You would think the savings they get from convict labor would make up for it.....
(snicker)
phil_b also don't forget what a huge disaster for China the falling dollar is. If they wish to keep their peg they must keep buying in dollars which keep decreasing in value to the true value of their currency. They're losing a fortune giving us low interest rate loans in a decreasing currency trying to maintain their silly peg to the dollar.
The evolution of their talking is quite amusing to me. First it was "China is buying up America... hahahah", then it was "The US economy is weak and we're strong because of the trade deficit and that's why the dollar is falling", now it's "holy sh-t wtf! you guys are letting the dollar fall more... do something about it! Come on guys, stop it! guys? you listening?"
#3
DPA: phil_b also don't forget what a huge disaster for China the falling dollar is. If they wish to keep their peg they must keep buying in dollars which keep decreasing in value to the true value of their currency. They're losing a fortune giving us low interest rate loans in a decreasing currency trying to maintain their silly peg to the dollar.
For China, this is no more and no less than a jobs program. The losses they are taking in their investment portfolios are the price they have to pay. Whatever the losses are, the cost is a lot cheaper than shoveling ever larger quantities of money into money-losing state-owned companies. Jobs that funnel products to developed markets produce goods that are saleable (as compared to the goods that are produced by state-owned firms, which nobody wants), and develop skills that are useful in a market environment. I can't say that this is a bad trade-off for the Chinese government, any more than it was a bad trade-off for the other East Asian countries when they were industrializing and running large trade surpluses with the US.
#4
Zhang, you're forgetting the fact that while they're building up production capability and their GDP they're doing it in an environment in which they have an unsustainable currency advangtage to the rest of the world. The day they break and can't afford to maintain their currency undervaluation they will suffer a huge drop in exports which will lead to an over reaction in the chinese economy causing a depression far worse than the great depression in the US. Every day they maintain this peg the depression they are facing is getting worse and worse.
What they should have done is let the Yuan float from the begining and though they would have grown a little more slowly they wouldn't have this huge upcoming trama to face.
#5
DAP: Zhang, you're forgetting the fact that while they're building up production capability and their GDP they're doing it in an environment in which they have an unsustainable currency advangtage to the rest of the world. The day they break and can't afford to maintain their currency undervaluation they will suffer a huge drop in exports which will lead to an over reaction in the chinese economy causing a depression far worse than the great depression in the US. Every day they maintain this peg the depression they are facing is getting worse and worse.
Actually, something very similar happened with the East Asian tiger economies. And they're now industrialized. Is there a better way to do it? Perhaps. But the path of least resistance is to follow in their footsteps. Note that the Asian crisis in 1998 came after various countries in East Asia allowed their currencies to appreciate, providing the illusion of strength that private East Asian borrowers exploited by borrowing from Western lenders and then defaulting on their loans to enrich themselves - exploiting weaknesses in corporate governance laws and bankruptcy codes.
#6
China is a difficult puzzle in the short-term because it is still a centrally managed economy. Despite the trappings, it is a Communist nation. That suggest two things to keep in mind when looking at their economy. Take every government statistic with a large grain of salt. And, how good is the information the central planners are receiving? It's been suggested that the failure of the Soviet Union had as much to do with the lies that Moscow was being told as the lies Moscow was telling. If everyone reporting up the chain of command is lying to save their butt and to look good... well, Peking has some really bad info that it believes in without any doubt.
China is a net importer from every nation but the United States. As long as we are financing their expansion, they have to keep their reserves in dollars. They have no other choice. But the dollar continues to "lose" value. In reality, American economic success is making our economy more efficient and cheaper to operate in, creating an investment opportunity in dollars. The Chinese cannot take advantage of that opportunity in large measure because their dollar reserves are already committed to internal expansion and price supports for basic commodities.
China is precisely in the position Japan was in in the mid 1930's. Taking Taiwan gets them more dollar reserves but would affect their ability to export to the United States in a serious fashion. It also destroys, in the mid-term, the lucrative trade that now goes on between the two nations.
China has been beaten by the Vietnamese twice in the last thirty years. It is unlikely that a move to the south would be possible without a major conflict that China cannot afford. The PLA is running most of the factories in China. It doesn't have the time or money for a protracted war.
China does not want to go anywhere near North Korea. That's the burden it gets if it moves in that direction to take South Korea.
Eastern Russia, with its unexploited resources, and millions of Chinese already living there, is an ideal and logical target for expansion. The Russian military could not stop them short of a nuclear exchange, and China wins that one with far more people to expend as nuclear ash.
My gut is telling me that they'll go for Taiwan in the next five years. The technocrats will hope that the economic advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. The rulers, most of whom are not technocrats, will see this as a natural restoration of the Middle Kingdom, and may include a move on the Phillipines as well. Taiwan just nags at the true believers in the Middle Kingdom far too much and they will not let that bone go. Defying all logic and commonsense, look for a move to take Taiwan. I can think of at least two plans that could work with what the Chinese have now in assets.
#7
"I can think of at least two plans that could work with what the Chinese have now in assets."
I don't see it. Taiwan would crush them if China invaded. How are they going to cross that strait without getting blown out of the water? On top of that the chinese are not at all known for their capabilities at planning war... they seem to use the throw peasants with guns at the enemy solution in every conflict. But even if they had the most brilliant generals I just don't see how it's possible. On top of that you have US subs in the straits too..
Their only hope in an invasion is if the Taiwanese decided not to fight back... or if they nuked Taiwan, but that would make absolutely no sense. They would be destroying the prize they were after and the economic/political consequences would devastate china.
#8
DAP: I don't see it. Taiwan would crush them if China invaded. How are they going to cross that strait without getting blown out of the water?
China is amassing the navy required to take Taiwan. Without US intervention, they cannot lose. With US intervention, they cannot win. Without American help, a submarine blockade of Taiwan would bring the country to its knees. China wouldn't even need to invade.
DAP: On top of that the chinese are not at all known for their capabilities at planning war... they seem to use the throw peasants with guns at the enemy solution in every conflict.
Actually, the problem with China's military has little to do with planning, and everything to do with limited resources. The human wave tactics used in Korea - once UN front lines stabilized - had to do with the Chinese military not being able to sustain a firepower-heavy war. A single US division used 30,000 artillery shells in 24 hours. There was no way the Civil War-ravaged Chinese economy could support anywhere near that scale of war effort. (As firepower-deprived as it was, China spent decades paying the Soviets back for the loans it took out to buy Soviet equipment to fight Uncle Sam on the Korean peninsula).
#9
CS: China has been beaten by the Vietnamese twice in the last thirty years. It is unlikely that a move to the south would be possible without a major conflict that China cannot afford.
Since 1979, China has actually taken out a Vietnamese garrison from an island in the South China Sea, and wrested territorial concessions from Vietnam (ratified last year, over the protests of many Vietnamese at home and abroad). If thought of as a standalone war, the 1979 invasion itself was a failure. If considered as a massive probe that was part of a larger war, it was a success. China wore down Vietnamese defenses over the next decade by conducting regular artillery duels with their Vietnamese counterparts, to the point that near the end of the 80's, the Vietnamese were suing for peace.
Other than Uncle Sam (which it pushed to the middle of the Korean peninsula), the only country against which China has not prevailed since the Communists took power has been the Soviet Union, with which it has fought ferocious border wars. North Korea, Kirghizstan, India, Tibet, Vietnam and the Philippines have all given ground to China with respect to China's territorial claims.
#10
Taking Taiwan:
1] Wave after wave of "civilians" in boats crossing to Taiwan, a lesson learned from Cuba. While China does not yet have the Navy to invade, it can certainly muster ships, and planes, to carry "civilians". And Taiwan is faced with the unpleasant choice of sinking "refugee" ships, etc.
2]"We attack in thirty minutes" Go with what you have close, with a little prepositioning over the course of a year or so. Get enough boots on the ground to contest, and then follow up with more boots ASAP. There are enough missles in place to create significant damage to Taiwanese defenses.
And, I have suggested for some time that Taiwan might not put up much of a fight, especially if they're facing a Hong Kong style relationship. China is Taiwan's largest trading partner, I believe, and Taiwan has a strong relationship with the region around Shanghai. Faced with even a modest fait accompli, I think the Taiwanese may fold.
Zhang, you are correct. But I would suggest that any concessions in recent times have been minor, compared to the territorial conquest that will be needed.
#11
I tend to think Chuck is right re invading Taiwan. A good friend of mine is from Beijing and from an 'elite' family. What is striking talking to her is the degree to which Chinese territorial integrity is an almost religous issue. She was genuinely shocked when I told her others outside China don't see it this way. What to us sounds like rhetoric when they talk about a renegade province, they believe 100%.
#12
CS: 1] Wave after wave of "civilians" in boats crossing to Taiwan, a lesson learned from Cuba. While China does not yet have the Navy to invade, it can certainly muster ships, and planes, to carry "civilians". And Taiwan is faced with the unpleasant choice of sinking "refugee" ships, etc.
2]"We attack in thirty minutes" Go with what you have close, with a little prepositioning over the course of a year or so. Get enough boots on the ground to contest, and then follow up with more boots ASAP. There are enough missles in place to create significant damage to Taiwanese defenses.
Neither course is necessary. A submarine blockade would do the trick, assuming the US does not intervene. Simply announce a naval exclusion zone around Taiwan and detain or sink any ship entering or leaving the waters surrounding Taiwan out to 200km.
#13
phil_b: I tend to think Chuck is right re invading Taiwan. A good friend of mine is from Beijing and from an 'elite' family. What is striking talking to her is the degree to which Chinese territorial integrity is an almost religous issue. She was genuinely shocked when I told her others outside China don't see it this way. What to us sounds like rhetoric when they talk about a renegade province, they believe 100%.
That's right - this isn't mere rhetoric. The only thing holding China back over the past 6 decades has been the prospect of American intervention. They feel the same way about Tibet, East Turkistan and Mongolia. (Except Mongolia is under Russian protection, and the Russians are a lot closer to China than the US is).
#14
Zhang:
Would the PRC be able to prevail against Taiwan in a commerce war? I know Taiwan spent a lot on ASW, but have no idea whether that money bought effectiveness. I suppose the PRC would use diesel boats in the straits? They're much harder to locate on passives, but also if you have good airpower dedicated, you can keep them down and they cannot act.
I sure don't want to see such a war, as it might exceed 9/11 in the effects on the US (and be far, far worse in the Orient, of course). But I have a certain academic curiosity at how well the two forces would match up.
The Bushies came to office expecting contention with China to be their main foreign policy concern. 9/11 surprised them. As this thread suggests, the Chinese threat remains. I suspect that in 40 years, the WOT will be seen as a side show that may have deflected us from proper consideration of the greater long term threat.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/29/2004 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#16
jackal: Would the PRC be able to prevail against Taiwan in a commerce war? I know Taiwan spent a lot on ASW, but have no idea whether that money bought effectiveness. I suppose the PRC would use diesel boats in the straits? They're much harder to locate on passives, but also if you have good airpower dedicated, you can keep them down and they cannot act.
If China sank one out of every ten ships heading into or out of Taiwan, insurance rates would skyrocket. Finding submarines isn't as easy as we would like it to be, even for the US Navy, which reportedly had some issues dealing with Australian diesel submarines. (Note that this may simply be for show - I wouldn't put it past the Navy to deliberately fool foreign observers into thinking that US anti-submarine efforts were toothless). I don't think the Taiwanese are as good as the best American submarine hunters.
An alternative to using submarines is to use anti-ship missiles. The Chinese can target commercial shipping using Russian-made Sunburn missiles from as far away as 150 km - theoretically, they can sit in port off (the Chinese port of) Xiamen, and hit a ship on the eastern side of Taiwan, provided they can get accurate targeting information. Any Chinese blockade could use a combination of surface ships, submarines and aerial assets. The only way Taiwan can break the blockade is with US or Japanese help.
#17
Zhang Fei,
Does China have a massive bad loan banking crisis in the offing? Given the lack of transparency we've seen in most emerging markets, and especially in East Asian loan portfolios, I would think China's banks are even more rickety if lending decisions are guided by communist party cadres.
What effect would a Chinese banking crisis have on China's industry and on the yuan?
#18
To precipitate the crisis Zhang Fei suggests in 16, China need only threaten to sink a ship and take active steps in that direction. One carrying a large shipment of semi-conductors would be a good bet. Then it could be forced to stay in port creating any number of additional financial problems for shippers and receivers.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/29/2004 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#19
lex: Does China have a massive bad loan banking crisis in the offing? Given the lack of transparency we've seen in most emerging markets, and especially in East Asian loan portfolios, I would think China's banks are even more rickety if lending decisions are guided by communist party cadres.
(This is just a macro guess without much in the way of details). I think the risks are overstated. State-owned companies are being privatized at a rapid clip. State-owned banks are still making loans to those companies, but the banks' loan portfolios are slowly switching over to private sector loans - to businesses and consumer loans (mortgages, car loans, credit cards). Banks can sustain large losses while staying afloat - it was Perot who said that Citicorp was technically insolvent in 91, yet Citicorp lived to lend another day. The fact is that banks in China have a sweet deal - they own the local market (foreign competition is kept out) and can pretty charge an arm and a leg for loans while paying next to nothing to depositors. The outsized spreads from their lending business combined with the move to private sector loans will cover the problems with loans to a shrinking state-owned sector.
I used to underestimate the Chinese. Not any more. They have one of the best (and cheapest, which is a marvel) telecom systems in East Asia despite have started later than most countries in the region. They have one of the best supply chain systems among the less-developed East Asian countries despite having started much later.
Banks can sustain large losses while staying afloat - it was Perot who said that Citicorp was technically insolvent in 91, yet Citicorp lived to lend another day
Not quite. Used to work for them, and acc to John Reed the Fed was about to revoke Citicorp's banking license. What saved them, ironically, was Sheik Al Waleed, who snapped up about 25% of the bank's equity. Nice work: he made nearly a 1000 percent return on his investment within six years' time.
I used to underestimate the Chinese. Not any more.
Same here. Just read the BusinessWeek report on China, and it's terrifying. Gist: the Chinese are far more successful at swooping in and grabbing an American market than the Japanese ever were. Takes them one year to achieve market doiminance (vs 5+ yrs typically for the Japanese, Koreans etc). And the Chinese are becoming competitive in not just low-end cost-driven mftg but also very high value-added high end stuff such as network equipment and soon, autos.
I'm beginning to rethink my approach toward China and free trade. This is not another Japanese threat. This is quite different, and it threatens our comfortable orthodoxies about how globalization allows us to take the high road and focus on high value-added activities. Won't necessarily work vis-a-v China. They're breaking the mold.
#22
A submarine blockade of Taiwan would play right into the US hand. No violent cross channel strikes necessary. Just convoy, protect world commerce ala the North Atlantic in 1941. That included killing German UBoats and would include killing chicom subs. The Republic of Taiwan can handle the rest.
#23
Shipman: A submarine blockade of Taiwan would play right into the US hand. No violent cross channel strikes necessary. Just convoy, protect world commerce ala the North Atlantic in 1941. That included killing German UBoats and would include killing chicom subs. The Republic of Taiwan can handle the rest.
As I had mentioned earlier, any US intervention dooms coercive efforts on China's part. Let me point out that an American intervention with respect to a blockade may lead to Chinese aerial and naval attacks on the USN, which may in turn lead to Uncle Sam attacking Chinese ports and airfields in order to interdict Chinese war efforts. My feeling is that China might start out with a blockade and ratchet up to a full-blown invasion in the event of US intervention. This would give American lawmakers (and anti-war activists) plenty of time to worry and sweat over the implications of a larger conflict with China.
#24
I suspect all they'd have to do is threaten alot for a couple of weeks, then mention a specific ship, six hours before it departs use an antiship missile to go boom harmlessly near the port and sit back and watch the markets react.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/29/2004 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Remember the good old days when they f**ked us by pulling dollars in the Gold Standard? This is their equivalent of Bretton Woods---and I just can't wait to see them tank.
#26
Let me point out that an American intervention with respect to a blockade may lead to Chinese aerial and naval attacks on the USN, which may in turn lead to Uncle Sam attacking Chinese ports and airfields in order to interdict Chinese war efforts.
Maybe, but an announced intention to convoy and protect carries a fairly good weight, and the Chinee navy is not yet that dangerous. In a convoy situation the IJN and Aussies would be able to help and throw a little multi lateral fluff over the fun..... To the point the US Navy can keep Taiwan economically afloat by protecting their exports via convoy, it's been done before. The US didn't strike Germany during the early phases of the Battle of the Atlantic.
Frankly the US and friends can convoy and attrit the chicom navy at the same time using theatre forces.
#28
Jumping back into this, I'm not convinced that the People's Liberation Army Navy submarine fleet has the ability or experience to conduct a blockade. I would, however, also suspect that a number of Russian submariners could be pursuaded to crew said vessels for a dollar ot two.
And, as I recall, Taiwan has been spending a lot of time on anti-submarine tactics.
And, on the third hand, a submarine blockade does not seem to fit with the mindset of the Middle Kingdom folks. Neither authoritarian nor regal enough a tactic for the Chinese empire. The big threat or the lightening stroke would appear to be more in keeping with their psychology.
#29
CS: And, on the third hand, a submarine blockade does not seem to fit with the mindset of the Middle Kingdom folks. Neither authoritarian nor regal enough a tactic for the Chinese empire. The big threat or the lightening stroke would appear to be more in keeping with their psychology.
I suggest you read a diplomatic history of the Korean War. All through MacArthur's push to the Yalu, Chinese diplomats continued reiterating through neutral parties that US forces should not move above the 38th parallel. When Chinese forces smashed into lead elements of the 8th Army and ROK troops approaching the Yalu, it came as a complete surprise to MacArthur. He had no prior warning. Big threats are in lieu of action. Action will be preceded by small threats, because China needs the element of surprise to counteract its equipment and logistical deficiencies, just as in Korea.*
* In Korea, the Chinese outflanked US forces through maneuver tactics whenever they could because they could never prevail through superior firepower, since they had neither the finances to pay for the vast amounts of ammunition used in that kind of war nor the logistical capability (never mind the air dominance) to transport it to the front unmolested. Once UN lines began to narrow and hold around the 38th parallel and field fortifications started getting built, the Chinese started using human wave tactics to try to break through. However, gaps in UN lines were temporary quickly plugged with reserves waiting in the rear, whereas the Chinese lost hundreds of thousands of men in a last-ditch but ultimately unsuccessful effort to push UN forces out of Korea.
#30
ZF: However, gaps in UN lines were temporary quickly plugged with reserves waiting in the rear, whereas the Chinese lost hundreds of thousands of men in a last-ditch but ultimately unsuccessful effort to push UN forces out of Korea.
This was the moment where along one part of the line, 30,000 artillery shells were fired by US artillery forces in support of a single American division in a 24-hour period. Considering that a 105mm shell weighs about 40 pounds, that's 600 tons of ammunition, or about 34 18-wheeler truckloads of ammo. In 24 hours. This is what is meant by US firepower - not big guns, but unlimited ammunition because of its industrial capacity coupled with its unrivaled logistical capabilities and its unchallenged command of the skies, meaning that supplies traveled unmolested, for the most part.
UKRAINE'S pro-Russia regions threatened today to split off from the European-leaning west of the country after a disputed presidential vote that has left Moscow and Western capitals glowering at each other across a Cold War-like divide. The heated meeting in the eastern region of Lugansk, a support base for Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, came a day before the supreme court is to hear an opposition appeal over results of the November 21 runoff election that said Yanukovich won by about one million votes. Mr Yushchenko claims the government helped rig the election in favour of his rival and is asking the court to either order a recount or a new vote. Yanukovich bastions in the south-east have warned that they would declare greater autonomy if their candidate fails to become president, fanning fears that the crisis could split the country. Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said today after returning from Kiev that there is a realistic threat of an internal split.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/29/2004 7:38:56 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is option two (creating a pro-Russia separatist movement that wants to annex itself to Russia, followed by Russian troops invading to "maintain peace"), which is the tactic Russia takes when option one fails (establishing a pro-Russia dictatorship over the whole of the country). First it was Moldova and Georgia, now it's Ukraine.
While many politicians in France would be pained at this blatant Americanisation of French politics, Mr Sarkozy, an outspoken admirer of the United States, revelled in the glitz. The country's most popular politician, he promised not to disappoint those looking for change in French politics. He railed against those resigned to French decline and promised to uphold the "fighting spirit" of the Republic. "France is not a museum, not a tourist attraction. France is no longer afraid of change, it awaits it," he said.
In a television interview last week, Mr Sarkozy, 49, said he had "not the slightest idea" whether he would run for President in 2007. Yesterday, he kept up the suspense, promising to back the best man for the job. But it was clear whom the party faithful favoured. "Sarkozy is the best placed to lead the UMP to victory in 2007. Chirac would be wise not to run," said Jean-Baptiste Lahoche, 18. "This is an historic event. We are witnessing the rebirth of French politics," said Laurent Cabioch, 18.
On the one hand Mr Sarkozy sought to calm hostilities with Mr Chirac, praising Mr Chirac's stand against the United States over Iraq. But he made it clear that he would not simply toe the Chirac line. "I want to remain a free man," he said.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
11/29/2004 9:21:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
On the one hand Mr Sarkozy sought to calm hostilities with Mr Chirac, praising Mr Chirac’s stand against the United States over Iraq.
So how exactly did he betray him politically?
And why does Mr. Sarkozy think it good that France shirked its responsibilities in the international arena by abandoning its ally America which was making good on UN resolutions and aggressively addressing murderous tyranny? It tells us a lot about the man. If he was against the Iraq War, that would mean either 1) he is still holding onto the delusion of our time that when danger lands in your lap all you have to have are good communication skills (pacifist camp) or 2) his priority is "taking a stand against the US over Iraq" (the UN camp of anti-Americanism and antagonism). In either case, since he is against the Iraq War, that would indicate to me that he was ok with the corrupting and emasculating of the UN and was ok with "countering America" a la Chirac.
#2
Jules 187 - I'd say he's a politician... a French politician. Sort of like The Perfect Storm in politics. As such, his words, of course, are perfectly meaningless. Should he actually succeed Chirac in 2007, then we should judge him in the same fashion that we judge Chirac: by his actions - nothing else matters.
That Stoiber and Aznar were present for this show probably bodes very well - but I'll wait and see, heh. 2007 is a long way off, sigh.
On a personal note, I am rather tickled to see the one French actor I actually enjoy, Jean Reno, was there, too, lol! I had no idea what his political leanings were - whew! I've actually chosen to stop watching anything which contains a whole slew of Americans, the entire Hollyweird cabal of irrelevant political tool-fools, so it's only fair to do the same with the foreign actors. Nice to know he's not a moron, heh.
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
11/29/2004 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
ChIrak is right-wing? WTF?
In France. That means he's not a card-carrying member of the Communist Party.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/29/2004 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Like you said, we'll see. But about Reno-yeah, I liked that part, too. He was wonderful in La Femme Nikita and French Kiss, as well as Ronin and Les Visiteurs. Great presence.
#7
Won't be any change in anything but tone. Sarkozy's a gaullist no less than Chirac. He's been trashing EU competition law in order to help French multinationals swallow up foreign rivals without any competition from German or Swiss firms, and i have no doubt he'll bash the US as every French leader has done since de Gaulle's day. has nothing to do with personalities. It's all about French weakness vs l'hyperpuissance.
This is the story of a military veteran whistleblower. He spoke out against someone he thought was dangerous for the nation, talked to local newspapers, and appeared on talk shows. In return, he was vilified by reporters, threatened by a political operative, fired by his company, and now he's broke.
His name is Steve Gardner. He's also known as "The 10th Brother," as in Band of Brothers. He's one of two members of Sen. John Kerry's 12 Vietnam swift boat crew members who refused to stand with Kerry at the Democratic Convention. The other man remained silent.
"They said I had a political agenda. I had no and have no political agenda whatsoever. I saw John Kerry on television saying he was running for the Democratic nomination for president, and I knew I couldn't ever see him as commander in chief -- not after what I saw in Vietnam, not after the lies I heard him tell about what he says he did and what he says others did."
Gardner explains he was sitting at home in Clover, S.C., when he first saw Kerry on television. It was before the primary races. For 35 years, Gardner says, he hadn't talked about his tour of duty in Vietnam. But when he saw Kerry talking about running, he says he got up, called the newspaper in town, called radio stations and "talked to anyone I could about why this man should never be president." Eventually he got a call from Adm. Roy Huffman, who had been in charge of the coastal division in Vietnam, reunited with other swift boat veterans, and the rest is, as they say, history.
Gardner's story is one that bears telling. He volunteered for the Navy, enlisting on his 18th birthday in February 1966. After training, he was shipped to Vietnam and served for two years as a gunner in the swift boat division. His superior, for four months, was none other than Lt. j.g. John F. Kerry.
"I had confrontations with him there. He nearly got us rammed by the VC one night because he wasn't watching the helm. I heard the motor coming close, turned on the spotlight, and the boat was only 90 feet away, coming fast. The VC was aiming an AK47 at us. I shot him out of the boat. We pulled a woman and a baby off the boat. Kerry wrote it up that we captured two VC and killed four more on the beach. None of that was true. The only thing true on Kerry's report was the date. The woman was catatonic and wouldn't call her baby VC and there were no VC on the beach. If we had seen that report before Kerry sent it up the chain of command, he would have been court-martialed and never allowed to run for office. And that's just the San Pan incident. There was much more. He is a self-aggrandizing bold-faced liar. I believe he caused the extension of that war."
Gardner told this story and others to radio stations and he wrote a piece for the local paper. Then, he says, he received a phone call from John Hurley, the veterans organizer for Kerry's campaign. Hurley, Gardner says, asked him to come out for Kerry. He told Hurley to leave him alone and that he'd never be for Kerry. It was then Gardner says, he was threatened with, "You better watch your step. We can look into your finances."
Next, Gardner said he received a call from Douglas Brinkley, the author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. Brinkley told Gardner he was calling only to "fact check" the book -- which was already in print. "I told him that the guy in the book is not the same guy I served with. I told him Kerry was a coward. He would patrol the middle of the river. The canals were dangerous. He wouldn't go there unless he had another boat pushing him."
Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."
Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back.
"I'm broke. I've been hurt every way I can be hurt. I have no money in the bank but am doing little bits here and there to pay the bills," he said.
All the millions of dollars raised by Gardner and his fellow Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and all the proceeds from John O'Neill's book, Unfit for Command, go to families of veterans, POWs and MIAs.
And, even though Gardner is broke and jobless for speaking out, the husband and father of three says he'd do it all over again. He says it wasn't for politics. It was for America.
#2
Matt Lauer? He's an idiot. Tim Russell's never spent more than a junket outside this country. He couldn't tell Yushchenko from Yasztremski.
Anyway, who cares? These are what the Brits call "newsreaders." Their relationship to journalism is like a hospital PR chief's relationship to the ICU.
#3
Absolutely the worst development in TV news was when newsreaders started interviewing journalists on air. I used to squirm with embarassement watching BBC and CNN anchors interview journalists in Baghdad or whereever. They would ask questions that showed they were completely clueless about what was going on. The journalists then had to pretend these were important questions and try to answer them.
Two words: Tough Shit
Six in 10 Americans say there should be a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices, according to an Associated Press poll. The survey found public support for an idea that has arisen periodically in Congress without ever making headway. Possibly because it would require a constitutional amendment that would never be ratified?... If President Bush has to nominate a replacement for any of the nine justices, the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that allowed legal abortions in the first three months of pregnancy is certain to be a central issue. For no particularly valid reason. Overturning RvW would put the ball into the states' corner, and the states laws mostly allow such abortions. It's a made-up issue.
The survey found that 59 percent of respondents said they favor choosing a nominee who would uphold Roe v. Wade, while 31 percent wanted a nominee who would overturn the ruling. "Test" anyone? Obviously the AP would favor one...
The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken Nov. 19-21 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Posted by: mojo ||
11/29/2004 10:45:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think Federal judges, like politicians, should be elected - every six years. This way, they don't get to impose their personal beliefs on the rest of us for decades, and the separation of powers is preserved. 'Nuff said.
#2
You have a choice between a republic deriving its power from the consent of the governed or you can have a judicial oligarchy, which sits for life, and is 'de facto' unaccountable to the people. Now is the time to force the issue. The Republican Senate can give the Dems an offer, change the Senate rules unilaterally and force floor votes on every Bush nominee or support a Constitutional Amendment for an elected judiciary with terms long enough [12 years?] to have a reasonable degree of service and influence. Do you want to be locked out of major appointments for a generation or do you still want the ability to influence the process. If you knew you could change the bench every dozen years or so, there would be far less tendency by either party to spiral every appointment into the circus it has become. As for the states, after being hammered by the judiciary to the point of virtually losing control of their budgets by judicial fiats on distribution, the states will probably ratify such an amendment rather quickly.
Posted by: Don ||
11/29/2004 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I halfway agree Zhang - for federal judges (like the 9th circus court!) perhaps but not for the supreame court. There is a valid reason the supremes are lifers. It is supposed to allow them to make 'fair' judgements without having to worry about being 're-elected' (Can you imagne the crap coming out of the Supreme Court while they were campaining for re-election?). It is supposed to allow them to be 'above politics' and not beholden to any particular political party or person.
That said I think there should be a mandatory 'retirement' age - say at 70 or 75.
Why is the MSM so focused on RvW while other personal and property rights are being washed down the toilet?
#4
Judges should not be constantly looking over their shoulders worrying about elections, raising campaign funds, and making decisions that pander to the popular passions of the moment. Our problem is courts that legislate and legislators that are happy to let them. We began to correct this problem in 1994. It will take a while longer to complete, but things should move slowly when we are talking about changing the law through non-legislative means, even if it is to correct prior error. The founders did not create lifetime tenure lightly. We should consider very carefully before revising their work.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/29/2004 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What Mrs D said.
As much as I'd personally enjoy lynching the 9th Circuit Court scoundrels and a select few others sitting on the Federal Bench, and I would absofuckinglutely do it, too, this is definitely the go slow zone.
#6
CF: I halfway agree Zhang - for federal judges (like the 9th circus court!) perhaps but not for the supreame court. There is a valid reason the supremes are lifers. It is supposed to allow them to make 'fair' judgements without having to worry about being 're-elected' (Can you imagne the crap coming out of the Supreme Court while they were campaining for re-election?). It is supposed to allow them to be 'above politics' and not beholden to any particular political party or person.
Judges are not above politics any more than journalists are.* This is why they should be elected. The turnover should be on a rotating schedule, just as senators are, so that the entire court doesn't change at the same time. But elections are the way to go, given that the courts have moved this country in ways that are quite contrary to the will of the majority.
* In my experience, lawyers are some of the most liberal people you will ever encounter. People from all walks of life can become politicians. Only lawyers can become judges. Having lifetime appointments for judges is the equivalent of having a liberal thumb on the scales of justice - except judges in this country don't just get to interpret the law - they get to override the law without possibility of their judgments being overturned in their lifetime. These dictatorial powers are why we need judges to be elected.
#7
What Mrs D said. If you want to see the kind of silliness and mischief that an activist court beholden to the people can get up to, look at the 9th Circuit. A complete circus.
#8
Don: The Republican Senate can give the Dems an offer, change the Senate rules unilaterally and force floor votes on every Bush nominee or support a Constitutional Amendment for an elected judiciary with terms long enough [12 years?] to have a reasonable degree of service and influence. Do you want to be locked out of major appointments for a generation or do you still want the ability to influence the process. If you knew you could change the bench every dozen years or so, there would be far less tendency by either party to spiral every appointment into the circus it has become. As for the states, after being hammered by the judiciary to the point of virtually losing control of their budgets by judicial fiats on distribution, the states will probably ratify such an amendment rather quickly.
This is an excellent, excellent idea, in all of its details.
#9
lex: If you want to see the kind of silliness and mischief that an activist court beholden to the people can get up to, look at the 9th Circuit. A complete circus.
They are not beholden to the people. They are beholden to their own liberal ideology.
#10
They get away with it because the majority of Californians support their liberal ideology. Nothing against federalism here, but the highest level of the judiciary should speak for a more conservative reading of the Constitution. Conservative meaning cautious, sober, moderate.
#12
The guys at Power Line have picked up on this subject:
Now Norman Ornstein suggests in the Washington Post (a the primary forum for "compromise" proposals) that "to the break the stalemate, give judges less than life [tenure]." Specifically, Ornstein wants to amend the Constitution to eliminate lifetime tenure in favor of a single 15-year term, at least for Supreme Court justices and federal appeals court judges.
On the merits, one can perhaps make a decent case for such an amendment. As a stalemate breaker, however, Ornstein's idea seems like a non-starter. First, if the Senate Democrats have the will to continue filibustering Bush's conservative nominees, a 15-year term limit is not likely to break that will. I can just imagine Senator Leahy explaining to Nan Aron that she will only have to put up with Miguel Estrada for 15 years. It is a well known fact among Democrats that conservatives can take away all of our rights in no time flat, never mind 15 years. Second, with four additional Senate seats in Republican hands, and more red state Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2006, it is far from clear that the Democrats will be able to pull off a successful filibuster this time. Now is not the time for Republicans to sue for peace on this issue, thereby rewarding Democrats for their abusive conduct and relieving many of them from their dilemma over how to play this issue going forward.
#13
Zhang - you make good points. But I would not want my case (or a case with far-reaching impact) to be decided by a judge who happens to be courting the Mike Al-moore elitists to vote for him/her at the time.
The problem is that the judicial branch is exceeding its authority by not only interpreting the law by dictating it by edict. What the judicial branch needs is a good slap (and in the case of the 9th circus a damn-hard slap) upside the head from Congress and the Executive branches. That is what the whole checks-and-balances thing is for.
A consitutional admendment to limit terms, require elections and/or set a mandatory retirement age would do just that. How old are the the clowns in the 9th circus anyway?
#14
Like the Balanced Budget amendment of the 80s and 90s, this is a bad idea whose time has come. Not allowing re-election would help somewhat, but you'd still have the unaccountability.
The only real solution is to have Congress exert its power. They need to impeach and remove a few judges every year pour encourager les autres.
#15
ZF, lex is correct. All the Ninth circuit judges are there because the California Senators elected directly by the people (in contravention of the founders design) wanted them. Few of them have indulged in any personal ideologies that were unexpected at the time of their selection. (Republicans seem to do that; Warren, Brennan, Stevens, Souter).
The proper solution for the Ninth circuit is break-up and that appears to be on the horizon.
The proper treatment for the judiciary is for the legislative branch to start behaving like a legislature and stop letting the courts legislate. They have the power to do it by restricting the cases the courts may hear under Art III Sec 2.
Certainly judges make decisions that have political impact. If we treat them like political hacks, we are sure to get the decisions of a hack. If we treat them like judges, we are more likely to get that kind of decsion.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/29/2004 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Term limits for SCOTUS is bad medicine. In effect, the advocates of term limits are saying, the niminating process is broken, so let's change the nature of the court. I'd prefer to adjust the process.
#18
Or live with it. Suppose Rennie croaks, and they can't get a replacement through the Senate. So we live with an 8-justice court for a while, so what? Maybe having a few deadlocked decisions will wake up somebody. If another Justice dies, we live with a 7-justice court. No big, all they do is answer the questions they're asked. Sometimes. If they feel like it.
If no answer is forthcoming, the will of Congress rules.
#21
mojo, the Senate stalls are over. Every Bush nominee will get a vote on the floor. Every Democrat running in 2006 who fails to vote for cloture will fear payback in the election.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/29/2004 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Bill (?) Nelson, D-Florida, is already tacking right. Several other red-state Dem senators up for re-election in '06 to follow: Bingaman in NM, Ben (?) Nelson in Colo., Conrad in ND...
#23
It's kind of like the old joke..What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 70? "Your Honor!" No one wants elected Federal Judges. Here in California it is bad enough with the State Courts. It may sound attractive, but once you catch a real whiff...it stinks.
The United States has a future beyond oil, and Amory Lovins has a plan to take the country there. Lovins, who emerged as one of the nation's most influential energy thinkers during the last oil crisis three decades ago, drives a hybrid that gets 64 miles per gallon and lives in a solar-powered house that is so energy efficient, he's able to grow bananas in an indoor jungle high in the Rocky Mountains. Now, as crude prices hit record highs and American soldiers battle to control Iraq, he's preaching what he practices, trying to persuade America's business and government leaders that the nation can end its dependence on foreign oil, and make money along the way.
#2
I'll believe it when the ROP'ers put a contract out on him. When the Fraudis and their death cult brethren feel threatened by alt-energy theories, then we'll know we're on to something.
#3
To make it happen, he says the government should spend more on research into fuel efficient technology, advanced materials and alternative fuels; charge fees for inefficient vehicles while offering rebates for efficient vehicles; scrap inefficient vehicles; and help low-income Americans buy or lease efficient ones.
And there's the plan: the government is going to do everything.
#6
why sneer at this man. The war on terror will never be over until we end our dependence on foreign oil and the middle eastern countries can go back to farming dirt.
#7
Without resorting to nuclear weapons this is the absolute best way to defeat radical Islam. Cut-off their oil exports and you cut-off their money. Sooner or later we're going to have to do it anyway. If we wait for Detriot and the oil companies it will never happen
#9
Nukes are expensive and have gotten a bad press? Also, they're not much for transportation. Shame how that nuclear-powered train never really got out of the station...
But yeah, this guy seems to be the exact sort of ripe ex-hippie moonbat which made growing up in the back-wash of the Sixties so tedious and disillusioning.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/29/2004 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The current best bet for a revived nuclear industry is of course the Pebble Bed http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/ while the possibility of Fusion is at least 20 years away, just like it has been for the last 50. I think the only way to see if Fusion is possible is take the project away from the Dept of Energy and give it to the Navy with the stipulation that they work on designs that could fit inside a Los Angelos or Virginia class sub. The current machines that Princeton and the DOE have built are more suited for producing PHDs than energy.
#13
Lovins is one of those 'elite scientific' types who thinks his years of Literature criticism and pure feelings make for expertise in energy science. The guy's a major socialist and anything he proposes probably 1)costs a lot of taxpayer money, 2)will never, never ever turn a profit, and 3)probably involves some sort of suppression of freedoms such as property rights. If Lovins is for it, it's probably a really bad method of doing it.
EFL
Rwanda has sent thousands of troops into Congo in recent days, a Western diplomat in Congo's capital said Monday, but U.N. officials said they had found no evidence of such an incursion. No evidence? Makes sense. It's hard to see things from inside a walled compound with servants meeting your every need. "Jeeves, can fetch my slippers. Like I was saying, Kofi. Everything is going swimingly here. You should drop by sometime."
The Western diplomat, speaking on condition he not be identified, said that Rwandan troops have been seen crossing in the Congo since Friday. Probably just some lost French troops who lost their way.
Jacqueline Chenard, a spokeswoman for U.N. forces in east Congo, said U.N. helicopter missions and other patrols had found no evidence of any Rwandan presence. "To our knowledge, there's no Rwandan presence," Chenard said in Goma, the largest city of Congo's east, near the Rwandan border. "It's a rumor." "Move along kids. You are disrupting our Tutsi-for-food agreement."
Rwanda last week warned it might act soon act to force disarmament of French supplied Rwanda Hutu rebels sheltering across the border in east Congo, complaining a U.N.-led disarmament program there was not effective. 2004 Understatement of Year Award goes to...
Posted by: Dragon Fly ||
11/29/2004 8:23:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
At a resort that became a battlefield, Afghans teed off on Friday in their country's first open golf tournament in more than 30 years. As is still the way in Afghanistan, the first shot of the day at the Kabul Golf Club went to the local militia commander, applauded by his men with shouldered Kalashnikovs.
And a lovely first shot it was too, an RPG ... oh hell, this is too obvious.
But organisers say they hope their tournament, contested by 40 local caddies in a picturesque valley just outside the capital, will help bring a new era in which the only risks are from golf balls, not bullets, flying down the fairways. The club describes itself as the best and only course in Afghanistan and promises "golf with an attitude".
The land mines on the ninth hole are a particularly... ummm... unique feature, found at no other golf course. Except in Sri Lanka. And Sudan. And Gaza...
Hazards are unorthodox, from the bombed out club house below the dramatic first tee on a ledge high up the valley, to the odd spent shell or scurrying lizard. Club pro Mohammad Nazir Popal insists there is no danger, even though the nine-hole course became a battlefield in the 1990s.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/29/2004 12:02:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Cant wait to see Tiger and other select members show up.
I suspect using a mortar for a driver is best for the looong #3 fairway. by the runway.
I wonder what the ettiquite for incoming fire is?
Will the taliban be allowed to "play thru"?
And of course the obligatory:
Can the 18th 9th green be saved for democracy?
Posted by: N Guard ||
11/29/2004 4:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It still does not beat the Korean DMZ course . . . live anti-personnel mines are occasionally found on the course, deposited by NK sappers overnight. Artillery and small arms fire are a regular feature. But the RPG's are a new twist . . . I suppose that they occasionally add a new divot, maybe becoming a water trap over time . . .
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
11/29/2004 7:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In Saudi they oil the sand - what else?! - heh. Putting is a whole 'nuther world. The only course I know of is inside Aramco's Dhahran Camp (Little America)... No one shooting at you there, yet... but things change.
From the Dept. of What Does This Mean?
King Abdullah II stripped his half brother and heir apparent of his title as crown prince in an abrupt shake-up Sunday aimed at redeeming the full power the king inherited from his late father. He told Prince Hamzah in an emotional televised message that he had decided to "free" him "from the constraints of the position of crown prince in order to give you the freedom to work and undertake any mission or responsibility I entrust you with."
"Hello, Mutual of Gaza, this is Prince Hamzah. Yes. Hamzah. From Jordan. H - A - M - Z - A - H. Well, I'd like to purchase some life insur .... what? What does that mean? Why are you laughing so?"
Abdullah had chosen Hamzah, now a 24-year-old American college student, hours after their father - King Hussein - died of cancer in February 1999. The designation was out of respect for Hussein, who is known to have favored Hamzah the most among his 11 children from four marriages. But Abdullah and his brothers had "reached mutual consent on the need for change," a senior government official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. He declined to say if Hamzah, who returned home Friday on a college break, was present. Abdullah was making this move "to tell everyone that he's firmly on the saddle," said Jordanian political analyst Labib Kamhawi Kamhawi.
Mahmoud Kharabsheh, a longtime member of parliament's Legal Committee, said the change was in line with the constitution, which says the crown must go to Abdullah's eldest son - Hussein, now age 10 - or his eldest brother, Faisal, but not to Hamzah, who is one of the king's younger brothers. A senior aide to the king said the move had no political ramifications.
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.
