From the rude man that does not shave,
The words to Twitter's feed unfurled,
Here once the fat film-maker sat
And typed the tweet heard round the world!
People of Connecticut: What have u done 2 this country? We hold u responsible. Start recall of Lieberman 2day or we'll boycott your state. The population of Hartford quails in fear--NOT! I had thought that the man could not be this stupid. Apparently I'm wrong.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/17/2009 15:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I swear to god, I couldn't make this up.
The lib-dem meltdown over the healthcare failure to launch is going epic, to be followed any day bow by a Climategate meltdown.
Barbara, how we doing with the popcorn?
Hey Fred - whose turn is it to watch AlBore? They're falling down on the job.
We're forecast to get 3 to 7 inches of snow (8 to 12 to the west) here in central Virginia on Saturday. In December. So obviously he's leaving Hopenhagen ahead of schedule and heading here....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/17/2009 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Give Al a break. He's doing sterling work in Hopenhagen. Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming
Theres a good chance of a white Christmas.
Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasnt had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMIs definition, and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit).
#8
He ain't here in Tennessee but we're still gonna get 6" of snow Saturday. So far we've had the most snow in December than the last 15 years combined.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/17/2009 20:26 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As for Michael Moore, I don't think he's stupid, he just believes he has much more influence than he actually does.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/17/2009 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
Boy howdy, that whole union thing with the North and them funny-talkin', funny-thinkin' folks really has worked out well ...
Aden and Sanaa, Yemen -- As Yemen struggles to quell Houthi rebels in the north, a secession movement gathering steam in the south threatens to deprive the central government of badly needed resources. While outside analysts have become increasingly concerned that the two conflicts are creating an unstable state where Al Qaeda could more freely operate, the chief domestic concern is more pressing: survival.
"The south has all the resources and only one third of the population. We cannot allow them to secede," said a member of the opposition party Islah in the capital, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak for the party. "Northerners will fight to keep Yemen together. They know it is a matter of survival."
More than 70 percent of Yemen's revenue comes from its oil exports. Studies by both the World Bank and the United Nations Development Fund predict a precipitous decline in Yemeni oil production over the next five years, raising the stakes for control of the dwindling supplies.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
HMMMM, HMMMM, lest we fergit, twasn't too many years back that IRAN said explicitly it will detonate NUCLEAR BOMBS on its own soil iff it is invaded by US or US-led UN milfors.
* "CALL OF DUTY 4 MODERN WARFARE" PC GAME > ATTACKING US MARINES FIGHT HARD BUT ULTIMATELY GET CAUGHT = ENTRAPPED IN A COVERT NUKE BLAST [Russ warhead] TRYING TO CAPTURE A MAJOR RADICALIST LEADER NOT-SADDAM-HUSSEIN IN HIS OWN CITY.
Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos, one of the Left's leading blogs, is fuming. For months, he has been leading the charge on Obamacare, drumming up support amongst Democrats while keeping the Left's many camps united behind one goal: passing a health-care bill. Now, with Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) caving to one senator after another, Moulitsas sees his cause being destroyed by his own side. And he's fighting back.
In a post on his website, Moulitsas writes that if Reid's bill is gutted of a public option, but still includes an individual mandate, then it should be "killed."... I think it should be killed no matter what, but when you're right for the wrong reasons you're still right.
Kos' kommentary includes this fun little economics lesson:
"Doing research on Massachusetts premiums," he writes. "Any claim that mandates control costs is disproved in the Bay State." He adds: "Mass mandate penalty is hefty -- 50% of least costly available plan . . . deductibles have already risen 9.4 percent since passage of the reform . . . I've only written it 2,000 times. Kill mandate."
Posted by: Mike ||
12/17/2009 12:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wait till he figures out the AARP is an insurance company.
Newt Gingrich speaking at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend He slipped off my radar long ago, but this is partly redeeming. Powerful speech. Enjoy.
(video at source)
In the high-testosterone world of U.S. military jets and aerial dogfights, the names "drone" and "unmanned aerial vehicle" just don't fly.
The Air Force now prefers to use "remotely piloted aircraft" when discussing its fast-growing fleet of planes that do not have a pilot in the cockpit.
And the thing about an "unmanned aerial vehicle" is that it is not unmanned, said U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, speaking at the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington this week.
The new term better reflects the presence of a human operator, who sits at a computer control panel thousands of miles away. The old term is wrong, he said.
"I think it mischaracterizes how the aircraft are operated," Donley said. "So I think 'remotely piloted aircraft' captures it a little bit better."
The change is significant to the Air Force as it recruits a new generation of pilots who may spend little time inside a jet plane. It wants the world to know that humans have "positive control over these vehicles," he said.
The United States and countries around the world have used remotely piloted aircraft for decades as weapons and for reconnaissance. Last week marked the public debut of the newest unmanned plane built by Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), the RQ-170, known in some circles as the "Beast of Kandahar."
Donley said the push for a new reference to the aircraft has been under way for several years.
"We have discussed this among the Air Force leadership, and it is really sort of a commitment that we make together," he said. "It just kind of changes ... the way the Air Force is represented in print."
Rockwell Collins (COL.N) Chief Executive Clay Jones, who flew an F-15 in the 1970s, acknowledged that military technology is changing the traditional role of a pilot. But he said human pilots are in no danger of becoming extinct.
"I think a human will always be in the loop on certain aircraft," Jones told the Reuters summit. "There is a clear opportunity for both types of systems to exist."
At the same time, he could not resist bragging about a Rockwell project to develop a holographic cockpit display mounted inside the visor and helmet of pilots who fly Lockheed Martin's new F-35 jet.
"This is very, very cool," he said. "It's real Buck Rogers stuff."
#2
Didn't cost a dime. All it took was to put a regular AF pilot in charge of flying a drone -- for his own career he had to come up with a name that still allowed him to be a pilot.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/17/2009 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
You say to-may-to, and I say to-mah-to....
Posted by: Mike ||
12/17/2009 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Not so, I remember they were discussing unmaned aircraft in the 60's, the limits on aircraft performance are what the onboard pilot can stand, when the pilot's NOT flying the performance can be near unbelievable, turns that would kill a onoard pilot and such become routine, not life-or-death maneuvers.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/17/2009 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The term 'drone' makes me think of an aircraft whose only purpose is to fly a straight line, such as a pilotless plane used as target practice. I've always thought it an inappropriate term to use for a vehicle doing surveillance and firing weapons. Otherwise the term 'drone' might apply to our military satellites, also.
#6
1 : the male of a bee (as the honeybee) that has no sting and gathers no honey
2 : one that lives on the labors of others : parasite
3 : an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control
U.S. President Barack Obama's recent speech announcing a troops "surge" in Afghanistan contained few surprises. But it underscored his concern about the domestic political aspects of the decision. Immediately after stating that 30,000 additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan, he added that withdrawal will commence after 18 months -- in July 2011. This is understandable. Since the end of the Vietnam War, American interventions abroad have always been influenced by the mood and rhythm of politics at home. Think of Bill Clinton's startling announcement prior to the Kosovo war of 1999 that no American ground soldiers would be committed to the fight. The idea of escalation followed by a quick withdrawal has a precedent too. After the death of 18 US Marines in Somalia, Mr Clinton adopted this very strategy.
As with Somalia, this decision does not augur well for Afghanistan. The nature and quality of the Taliban insurgency suggests that an Iraq-style "surge" will be difficult to pull-off in the time frame envisaged. In this context, India must start seriously contemplating its options.
For a non-traditional donor, India has made a generous contribution of $1.2 billion towards reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. New Delhi is Kabul's largest regional donor and its fifth-largest global donor. Nearly 4,000 Indians are at work in Afghanistan, constructing roads and buildings, creating schools and hospitals, helping with sanitation and agriculture. As India has expanded its reconstruction efforts, Taliban attacks on Indian nationals have escalated, raising costs and delaying projects. In response, New Delhi has stationed paramilitary personnel to protect its workers.
As American forces prepare to drawdown, attacks on Indian installations are bound to increase, so jeopardising our existing effort -- never mind further progress. If India persists with its current policy, it will, by the summer of 2011, have to make some tough choices: either increase the security presence in Afghanistan, or accept a gradual atrophy of its developmental efforts. The former option is likely to be self-confounding: the presence of foreign troops invariably breeds ill-will with the local populace. The latter scenario would be unfortunate. Successive opinion polls show that a great majority of the Afghans, including the Pashtuns, welcome India's activities in their country.
The best way to insure India's efforts and demonstrate its long-term commitment would be to contribute to the training of the Afghan National Army (ANA). And there is a significant role India can play.
Currently, the ANA stands at about 91,000 soldiers organised into 117 battalions. The existing plans for its expansion are ambitious. The initial plans to develop an independent, fully-capable Afghan military by 2010 were scrapped and replaced by plans to field 134,000 ANA troops by 2014. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) recently revised this projection upwards, calling for 134,000 troops by December 2011 and 240,000 by 2014. This would mean that by 2011, 122,000 troops would be on active duty and 179 total battalions would have formed.
However, the Western coalition has not allocated sufficient trainers, equipment or resources to increase the ANA by 40,000 soldiers in the next two years. ANA manpower levels are challenged not only by a high desertion rate -- indicative of poor training as well as morale -- but also by a chronic shortage in ANA trainers. The ANA may technically reach its 2011 manpower goals, but is likely to suffer from a lack of competent, well-trained troops.
Even as the ANA seeks to expand, it has fallen behind in combat readiness. The original projection was that the ANA would be an independent force as early as 2009 or 2010. Revised estimates of its capabilities are more conservative although still too optimistic. In 2008, Nato asserted that the ANA had led 50 per cent of all military operations, while the US defence department claimed that seven of 42 (17 per cent) ANA infantry battalions had achieved "full operational capability" and autonomy. However, these assessments have been dismissed as misleading and even disingenuous by independent analysts. Recent assessments by the US Government Accountability Office have concluded that only 40 per cent of Afghan National Army units were capable of conducting operations with coalition support. Clearly there is a lot to be done vis-à-vis the ANA, and quickly.
The Obama administration has reportedly broached the idea with New Delhi. But the Indian government is understandably reluctant to respond to a suggestion from the Americans. A request from Kabul might evoke a different response. In any case, the Indian government's unease is not ill-founded. A prolonged military effort, however narrowly conceived, is unlikely to be palatable to Indian opinion. The influence of the abortive intervention in Sri Lanka in the late 1980s continues to be strong. An alternative that New Delhi should consider is to train the Afghan forces in India. Officer cadets from Afghanistan have been training in Indian military academies for several years now.
Very interesting. And interesting how quiet it's been. No doubt Pakistan would have been having fits at the formation of Indian friendships by residents of what the Pakistanis think of as their private backyard.
This programme can easily be reconfigured and the intake scaled up. The Indian Army already has a variety of officer training programmes of different lengths, which can be adapted for this purpose.
Training in the Indian model might also be more appropriate to the demands of commanding troops from diverse ethnic backgrounds. After all, the Indian Army is a classic example of multi-ethnic national force.
Similarly, India can take on training of non-commissioned officers and recruits. The infrastructure for the latter in particular is quite strong. Each of the Indian Army's 29 infantry regiments has its own centre for training recruits. Simultaneous training at a few of these regimental centres can substantially enhance the size and quality of ANA forces. Finally, the Indian Army has several counter-insurgency schools, which can be used for more specialised training.
In short, our capacity to train the ANA is not in doubt. But the clock has already started ticking. Getting our act together after the American pull-back or an appreciable worsening in the security situation in Afghanistan may be too late. India's experience of supporting the anti-Taliban forces in the 1990s should serve as a stark reminder of this fact. The stance that India adopts in the coming months may well prove decisive in the long run.
Srinath Raghavan is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi
Posted by: john frum ||
12/17/2009 11:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
As the world edges toward tough new sanctions on Iran in a last-ditch attempt to thwart the countrys nuclear ambitions, Pakistans security establishment is mulling over its options. The reality is that with a hostile India on its eastern border and a war raging on both sides of its frontier with Afghanistan, the last thing Pakistan needs is an angry Iran to the west. New United Nations sanctions would place an intolerable burden on Pakistans relations with Iran.
These ties were recently strained by the Jundullah attack that killed over 40 Iranians, including several high-ranking Revolutionary Guards officers. In the wake of the terrorist atrocity by the extremist Sunni group, Iran accused Pakistan of sheltering the killers at Americas behest and threatened that it would exercise its right of hot pursuit. Pakistans consistent support of the Sunni Taliban has been a major irritant between Islamabad and Tehran for years.
Against this backdrop, for Pakistan to support tough new sanctions against Iran would cause the countrys beleaguered army a huge headache. And yet, the reality is that without Pakistans active cooperation, any new sanctions would fail. With a long, open border dividing the country, there are already enormous amounts of contraband moving back and forth. Sanctions-busting traders on both sides would profit, and Islamabad would turn a blind eye to the traffic.
One only has to visit Gawadur, Pakistans coastal town near the Iranian border, to realize the scale of the smuggling. In the market there, locals can buy everything from frozen chickens to crockery from Iran. Carried on pick-up trucks that drive up and down the flat, hard beach connecting the two countries along the coast, there are virtually no restrictions on this trade placed by either country.
In the vast Pakistani province of Baluchistan bordering Iran, the petrol sold is usually from Iran, smuggled across in tankers, as its cheaper because of subsidies compared to Pakistans heavily taxed petroleum products.
With these close and long-standing cross-border trading links, it would take a major policing effort to seal the frontier. And given how unpopular any new sanctions on Iran would be in Pakistan, it is doubtful if the current weak civilian government could muster the political will to crack down on the smugglers, most of whom enjoy a degree of semi-official protection.
No doubt the Americans would apply pressure on President Asif Zardari to cooperate, but they realize his limitations and they need Pakistan to focus on its ongoing battle on its Afghan border. The last thing the Pakistan Army wants to be told by its allies is that it now has to move troops to its Iranian border.
It is likely that the new sanctions will seek to squeeze Iranian exports of crude oil, and its imports of refined petroleum products. Under normal circumstances, this would bring the Iranian economy to its knees. But even if the Americans seek to implement this policy by imposing a naval blockade, Iran could circumvent it by bringing tankers over land to Gawadur. The port there was recently built by the Chinese, and can handle significant volumes of merchandise. This would probably be the key transit point for any sanctions busting.
Even though Iran is no longer considered by Pakistans military establishment as close a friend and ally as it was when ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, it remains a model for many Pakistanis. Although they might not share the Shiite belief that guides the ayatollahs, they think an Islamic revolution is what Pakistan needs. In a conflict that pits America and Israel against their Muslim neighbor, there are no prizes for guessing where public sentiment would lie.
As it is, Zardari is viewed as an American puppet, and for him to be seen as supporting the hated Americans and Israelis against Iran would trigger a storm of protest. Many Pakistanis think it hypocritical for the West to accept Israels nuclear arsenal while denying a Muslim country its own nuclear deterrent.
Thus, Pakistans political and military considerations would make it a reluctant partner in any tough new sanctions imposed on Iran. And yet, no sanctions can succeed in seriously hurting the Iranian economy if Pakistan is not fully on board.
Finally, Iran has served as a sanctuary for Pakistani military and civilian aircraft during its past wars with India. It has also been a conduit for arms and spare parts in these conflicts. It would be difficult for Pakistans military planners to forego the strategic depth its neighbor has provided in the past and might again. For them to alienate the Revolutionary Guards at this crucial juncture is almost unthinkable.
In case sanctions and a possible naval blockade escalate into a shooting war, Pakistans dilemma would be even more acute. There is no way the government would allow the United States to use its territory in a military campaign. Planners in Israel and Washington need to be aware of Pakistans sensibilities and strategic considerations before getting into a situation that further destabilizes Pakistan and the region.
Joe Gandelman, "The Moderate Voice" Noted in a discussion of strains in the Democratic party:
A liberal talk show host last night said the REAL reason Lieberman threw a monkey wrench into what seemed to be a health care reform compromise, is that because Lieberman did it for Israel. That's right. The Jew card was actually played here. This talk show host said Lieberman is Congress' most famous "Zionist" and that Israel wants to weaken Obama so if Obama could be undercut on this issue and weakened it would weaken his clout in the Middle East. So Lieberman essentially did Tel Aviv's bidding. (Oh.)
He doesn't tell us which talk show host it was. Thing is, if you scan the postings and comment threads at left-leaning blogs and websites, you'llfindplentyofexamples. There's also this DU post that accuses Rahm Emmanuel of being a secret agent of "the power elite and...Israel" sent to destroy the Democratic Party from within. Anti-Semitisim is never far below the surface of the modern Democratic Party, or so it seems.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/17/2009 11:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Left is beginning the warm up to Der Sturmer in this country. People need to remember that the Nazis were leftists - National Socialists. And the comments about Lieberman sounds like the old "Internationalist Jew" canard of the Nazis. And the implicit threat of "in your face" violence against political opponents is a page out of the SA's book.
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.
