The United Nations security council authorised a wide-ranging UN mission to Haiti yesterday with more than 8,000 troops and police as well as political and human rights experts to help to stabilise the Caribbean country. The UN mission will start on June 1 for an initial period of six months, but the council said it intends to renew the mandate, a signal of its agreement with the secretary general, Kofi Annan, that a long-term UN commitment is essential to turn Haiti into "a functioning democracy". The unanimous resolution authorised up to 6,700 troops and 1,622 international police, but officials stress that it will take time to reach those levels.
They have to get the mighty Uruquayans out of the Congo, and it isn't easy to coax them from under their beds.
The UN contingent will replace the 3,600-strong US-led multinational force sent to Haiti after a rebellion led the country's first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, to flee. The resolution commended the rapid deployment of the multinational force.
Concentrate the humor!
Declaring that the US was "very pleased" with the resolution, the US deputy ambassador, Stuart Holliday, said it "will be an important step to get potential troop contributors to come forward". Many countries were waiting for "a strong financial statement" from the council," he said. The resolution allows the UN mission to use military force if needed.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/01/2004 3:10:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
EFL - from Cubanet.
In an interview with the Communist Party daily Granma, Pedro Ross Leal criticized the United States for meddling in Cuban affairs by creating its own plan for the islandâs conversion to democracy "such as that installed in Iraq." "The principal motivation of the patriotic and forcible demonstration by our people this coming May 1 will be to answer to the Yankees that there will be a transition to more and better Socialism 9.0 socialism," said Ross Leal, the head of the Confederation of Cuban Workers. Hundreds of thousands of workers usually participate in the communist governmentâs annual May Day celebration, which includes a traditional march in Havanaâs Plaza of the Revolution.Ross Leal said that Cubaâs socialist system respects workers by providing them good jobs, education for their children, and health care. The United Statesâ version of democracy, on the other hand, "violates all workersâ rights and only values money," he said. Will Ben AFLAK attend?
In a report released February, the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor acknowledged Cubaâs advances in health and education but said state-issued salaries were way too low to provide a decent standard of living for Cuban workers. Increase your minimum wage you fools.
Cubans make an average of 400 pesos, about US$15, a month. But the salary is relative, as Cubans also receive free education and medical care. They also enjoy essential goods and services such as housing, transportation, utilities and some food that are extremely inexpensive because of heavy government subsidies.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 12:53:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Only 74% are starving now as opposed to 75% in the old socialism. . .
#2
It's New and Improved Socialism: for whiter teeth and redder Reds. We guarantee 27% less dissent than with the old Socialism ('cause we shot 27% of the dissidents!)
Posted by: Mike ||
05/01/2004 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why--oh, why?--would anyone possibly want to leave such a wondrous place?
Eight Chinese warships cruised into Hong Kong harbour yesterday in the greatest show of naval might in the territory since it was transferred from British rule in 1997. The display of force was aimed at two targets. It was intended to generate patriotism in Hong Kong, where many hold mixed feelings about the Chinese military, and to warn Taiwan that Beijing is prepared to go to war rather than accept the island's independence. Led by the missile destroyer Shenzhen, one of the most sophisticated vessels in the Chinese navy, the flotilla comprised four guided-missile frigates, two submarines and another destroyer. They docked in a trading port more used to container ships.
Not a bad little flotilla, but can they fight?
The commander of the battle group said the warships were on permanent standby to deal with a crisis across the Taiwan Strait. "We, the Chinese People's Liberation Army, are ready at any time to obey our motherland's orders," said Vice Admiral Yao Xingyuan. "If necessary, we have the ability to preserve the stability of the Taiwanese political situation."
Yeah, yeah, thanks, we gave at the office.
The port call appears part of a concerted military and political effort by the Chinese government to remind Hong Kong of its loyalties and obligations to the mainland. But it is far from certain that the arrival of the battle group will boost nationalist sentiment. Since the PLA fired on civilians during the 1989 pro-democracy protests in Beijing, the national army has stirred mixed feelings in Hong Kong.
Only amongst those who don't like being shot.
The territory's unpopular chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, gave an enthusiastic welcome to the warships yesterday. "The PLA has made great contributions to Hong Kong's long-term subservience prosperity and stability," he said. Political analysts saw the high-profile port call as part of a process of harmonising relations with the mainland. "I wouldn't say this was a threatening gesture," said Christine Loh of the independent public-policy thinktank Civic Exchange. "Despite the inglorious incidents in its past, the PLA is now accepted by people in Hong Kong as the national military. There must be a touch of normality in the way we interact with it."
"They tell us what to do, we do it. Normal, see?"
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/01/2004 3:36:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tell you what guys and gals. Many times I have sat quaffing a brew at an outdoor cafe here on the waterfront of Shekou, China. Occasionally, this fast attack gun boat would come in the harbor (upper Pearl River) just bristling with small rockets and guns galore. That wasn't the impressive part. It was the sound. That boat was raked like a speed boat and would slowly crank up all 4 engines and idle into the area. The most beautiful sound you ever heard and literally shook the tables. You could feel that big boy rumbling out there and watch the beer vibrate in your glass. I shit you not. Could they fight? Don't have a clue but they sure sound good. Chine
#5
Chiner - Do the Chinese military use hydrofoils in the Pearl River area? I took a ferry (the wrong one, it turned out) up the Pearl River about 8 years ago and we were passed on several occasions by tubular silver civilian hydrofoils, darting up-and-down river at unsafe speeds. Surreal, especially during a tropical storm.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/01/2004 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Chiner: The most beautiful sound you ever heard and literally shook the tables. You could feel that big boy rumbling out there and watch the beer vibrate in your glass.
Small *and* noisy. I love it. The Navy swatted a lot of these types of ships aside during Persian Gulf skirmishes with the Iranian Navy.
I saw the Marine carrier (or amphibious assault ship) the Peleliu on the banks of the Hudson a couple of years ago. Pretty quiet ship for a 40,000 tonne ship, about 1/3 larger than the Essex-class carriers that dominated WWII (the Intrepid carrier that was turned into an aerospace museum is an Essex-class ship).
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 02:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another foreign leader for Kerry. The Democrats are in it for the money and the power to coerce, not for any grand strategy or foreign policy objective. Kim ought to be able to buy himself a good deal from a Kerry whitehouse.
Posted by: Random thoughts ||
05/01/2004 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
... the house of Saud, which promotes cultural Wahhabism, a belief that has anti-Semitism as one of its defining features. Until today, Saudis are using their oil money to promote anti-Semitism in the Arab world and beyond.
... Of course, many leaders understand that promoting hostility against Israel prevents the spread of democracy to their own countries. As long as those countries go on being dictatorial regimes, they need scapegoats, and it's easy to hold Israel responsible for everything that is wrong at home. I think that fighting democracy and spreading anti-Semitism are two sides of the same agenda.
... Prince al-Turki, former head of the Saudi secret service, is practically the founder of al-Qaida. The relatives of the victims of 9/11 sued him for damages [the suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction], but now that same sponsor of terrorism is the Saudi ambassador to Britain, where he publishes poems praising suicide terrorists in British newspapers.
... The area of Palestine is already divided into a Jewish Palestinian state, Israel, and an Arab Palestinian state, Jordan; creating a third Palestinian state for the PLO is neither in the interests of Israel nor in the interest of Jordan, and even less in the interests of those Palestinian Arabs who would be compelled to live under a barbaric regime.
... If President Bush claims that the war against terrorism is a global war, and that the solution is to spread democracy, Israelis have the same right to fight against Yasser Arafat and Sheikh Yassin [killed by Israel a week after this interview] as the United States has to fight against the Taliban, Saddam Hussein or al-Qaida.
We need this courageous man's voice broadcast throughout the Arab world. Rarely have I seen such clear-eyed analysis of terrorism and Middle East politics.
Islam must go to great pains in cultivating such voices of reason or they will justifiably become the international pariah that so many already see them as.
(For Aris, of course)
Here is a selection from the article
The fundamental question is this: Which of two visions of world order will the United States use its vast power to advance? Since World War II, much of âoldâ Europe has been pursuing an antinational, antidemocratic world constitutionalism that, for all its idealism and achievements, is irreconcilable with Americaâs commitment to democratic self-government.
There is, among international lawyers, a hazy notion that the emergence of the international community in the world of law and politics is itself a democratic development. The unfortunate reality, however, is that international law is a threat to democracy and to the hopes of democratic politics all over the world. For some, that may be a reason to support internationalism; for others, a reason to oppose it. Either way, the fundamental conflicts between democracy and international law must be recognized.
The United Nations and the other institutions of international law take world government as their ideal. In theory, thereâs no necessary conflict between democracy and the ideal of a world government. A world government could be perfectly democraticâif there were world democracy. But at present, there is no world democracy, and, as a consequence, international governance organizations are, at present, necessarily and irremediably antidemocratic.
The antidemocratic qualities of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other international governance organizationsâtheir centralization, their opacity, their remoteness from popular or representative politics, their elitism, their unaccountabilityâare well known. Internationalists counter this criticism by pointing to the growing influence of ânongovernmental organizationsâ (NGOs) in international law circles, as if these equally unaccountable, self-appointed, unrepresentative organizations somehow spoke for world public opinion. But the fundamentally antidemocratic nature of international governance is not merely a small hole that NGOs might plug. World government in the absence of world democracy is necessarily technocratic, bureaucratic, diplomaticâeverything but democratic.
Nor are international organizations undemocratic only in themselves; they undermine the hopes and vitality of democratic politics elsewhere. The point is familiar to every nation in Latin America that has seen its internal policies dictated by IMF or World Bank directives. To an increasing extent, democratic politics throughout the developing world is being displaced by a relentless demand for competitiveness and growth, which are authoritatively interpreted by international organs to require the implementation of designated social, political, and economic policies (so far, these have had rather mixed success in delivering competitiveness and growth, though they have contributed to several national catastrophes, as in Argentina).
The irony is that the United States remains the worldâs greatest champion of internationalism in economic affairs. Weaker countries correctly perceive U.S.-led marketization programs as deeply undercutting their own ability to decide for themselves what their social and economic policies should be. To be sure, the United States does not exactly force economic policy on other countries. Ruling elites agree to the emasculation of their countriesâ politics in order to get their hands on the money. But the result is the same: Democracy is hollowed out.
So all the talk of U.S. unilateralism needs an important qualification. The United States plays utterly contradictory roles on the international stage: It champions multilateralism on the economic front, because worldwide free trade and marketization are perceived to serve U.S. interests, and resists it elsewhere. But if a commitment to democracy is what underlies Americaâs growing unilateralism today on matters of war, criminal law, human rights, and the environment, that commitment is violated wherever U.S.-led international economic organizations cripple the possibilities of democracy under the guise of free-trade principles and loan conditionality.
The American and French revolutions tied democracy to the ideal of a self-determining nation. (If the European Union should successfully forge itself into a democratic mega-nation, it would be another example of this linkage, not a counterexample.) Two hundred years later, there remains no realistic prospect of world democracy, and if there were such a prospect, the United States would resist it, because world decision making would very likely be unfriendly to America. But though the United States would be no friend of world democracy, it ought to be a friend to a world of democracies, of self-governing nation-states, each a democracy in its own politics. For now, the hopes of democratic politics are tied to the fortunes of the nation-state.
Europeans tend to neglect or minimize the damage that universal constitutionalism does to the prospects for variation, experimentation, and radical change opened up by national democracy. So long as democracy is allied with national self-government rather than with world governance, it remains an experimental ideal, dedicated to the possibility of variation, perhaps radical variation, among peoples with different values and different objectives. Democratic national constitutionalism may be parochial within a given nation, but itâs cosmopolitan across nations. Democratic peoples are permitted, even expected, to take different paths. Theyâre permitted, even expected, to go to hell in their own way.
That is what the ideology of international human rights and of a global market will not allow. Both press for uniformity among nations on some of the most basic questions of politics. Both, therefore, stand against democracy.
The response from the Right will be that a market economy is a precondition of a flourishing democracy, so international free trade and lending institutions cannot be called antidemocratic. Rejecting the Rightâs claim to the transcendental democratic necessity of the IMF or the World Trade Organization, the Left will reply that the existence of a capitalist economy and the particular form it should take are matters for independent nations to decide for themselves. But the Left, for its part, will insist that international human rights, the abolition of the death penalty, and environmental protections are necessary preconditions of democracy. To which the Right will reply that these are matters for independent nations to decide for themselves.
Claims that any particular multilateral order, whether humanitarian or economic, is a necessary condition of democracy should be received with extreme skepticism. We all tend to sympathize with such claims when theyâre made in behalf of policies we support, but to see through the same claims when theyâre in behalf of policies we oppose. To be sure, in some cases of national crisis and political breakdown, international governance has brought about stability and democratization. And for the many nations incapable at present of sustaining a flourishing democratic politics, international law offers the hope of economic and political reforms these nations cannot achieve on their own. But every time a functioning, self-determining nation surrenders itself to the tender mercies of international economic or political regimes, it pays a price. The idea that men and women can be their own governors is sacrificed, and democracy suffers a loss.
The justification of unilateralism outlined here is not intended to condone American disdain for the views of other nations. On the contrary, America should always show a decent respect for the opinions of the rest of mankind, and America would be a far safer, healthier place if it could win back some of the support and affection it has lost. Unilateralism does not set its teeth against international cooperation or coalition building. What sets its teeth on edge is the shift that occurs when such cooperation takes the form of binding agreements administered, interpreted, and enforced by multilateral bodiesâthe shift, in other words, from international cooperation to international law. Americaâs commitment to democratic self-government gives the United States good reason to be skeptical aboutâindeed, to resistâinternational legal regimes structured, as they now are, around antinationalist and antidemocratic principles.
The unilateralism I am defending is not a license for aggressive U.S. militarism. It is commanded by the aspirations of democracy and would violate its own essential principles if it were to become an engine of empire. But the great and unsettling fact of 21st-century global governance is that America is doomed to become something like a world policeman. With the development of small, uncontainable nuclear technologies, and with the inability of the United Nations to do the job, the United States will be in the business of using force abroad against real or feared criminal activity to a far greater extent than ever before.
This new American role will be deeply dangerous, to other nations and to our own, not least because American presidents may be tempted to use the role of worldâs law enforcer as a justification for a new American militarism that has the United States constantly waging or preparing for war. If the United States is going to act unilaterally abroad, itâs imperative that in our domestic politics we retain mechanisms for combating presidential overreaching.
Since September 11, 2001, the White House has flirted with a dangerous double unilateralism, joining the presidentâs willingness to act without international consent abroad to an effort to bypass Congress and the judiciary at home. In December 2001, without congressional approval, the president announced the withdrawal of the United States from an important missile treaty with Russia. In early 2002, the White House began claiming a presidential power to deem any individual, including an American citizen arrested on American soil, an âenemy combatantâ and on that basis to imprison him indefinitely, with no judicial review. Later that year, the president came close to asserting a power to make war on Iraq without express congressional authorization.
This double unilateralism, which leaves presidential power altogether unchecked, is a great danger. If we are to be unilateralists abroad, we have a special responsibilityâto ourselves and to the worldâto maintain and reinvigorate the vital checks and balances of American constitutionalism at home. This is just a fragment of the article in question, check it out
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
05/01/2004 9:21:34 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Economic and product standardization between countries is usually a good thing because that kind of limited regulation assists the market and results in prosperity and consumer confidence.
I would fight the US joining a democracy of democracies if the other members were committed to socialist economic policies. As for joining an uber-government that included Kim, Castro, Chavez and a parade of other kooks, that's a non-starter.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 0:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
From a2u's link:
"Islam, on the other hand, deeply respects vows, treaties and agreements and warns against the serious consequences of their violation, Dissouki averred."
This is so much bull,Sharia says it is absolutly alright to lie to,steal from,break contracts,enslave,impose unfair taxes,and murder unbelievers(i.e.anybody not a Muslem).In other words if International Law is based on Sharia,and you are not a Muslem you are so screwed.
#6
as long as americacan believe in the constitution we would never be part of a world govt..
Posted by: Dan ||
05/01/2004 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I'm not certain, why you point me out specifically in in this -- I must be among the people of Rantburg who have *least* used either 'unilateral' or 'multilateral' as an expression.
As to the article, could someone atleast point it out specifically? The link points to the whole list of essays, and since you don't even specify the article's name, it's rather difficult to read in its entirety. Thanks.
---
On the whole I tend to agree with the fragment of the article I've read.
"as long as americacan believe in the constitution we would never be part of a world govt.."
Some people (I think ones that do believe in the constitution) have claimed UN resolutions as both a moral and legal justification for the invasion of Iraq -- that automatically places UN in the position of world government with its resolutions being the law, and the US army as its policing body.
The G5 would never feel this being a world government ofcourse since it can't touch them at all -- and the smaller nations rarely feel it since they have to fall to the G5's (especially the US) disfavour before anything that the UN decides seriously affects them. And in the case they fall to the G5's disfavour the existence or not of UN is hardly likely to save them.
In short, there does exist a nominal (metaphorically) "world government", except it's so weak that it doesn't even dare to bear the name. And it's also non-democratic ofcourse.
:-) Perhaps, Dan, you mean that USA would never become part of a world government in which it wouldn't wield a veto.
The same way that the Mullahs of Iran would never accept any Iranian government in which they wouldn't wield likewise a veto for each piece of legislation. :-)
#10
You know, the usual point of a smiley is to indicate that something is a joke. Or a semi-joke atleast.
Besides, I've been accused of being a troll long enough. I've started to feel that when people intentionally mention my name in a thread without clear reason, I'll let them down if I can't provide them with atleast one sentence to insult me over.
But if you want a more intellectual and less evasive response, I'll clarify yet again (and once and for all) that the US is a hundred times more benevolent a despot than the mullahs of Iran, or the Communists of China, or the Baathists of Syria, or the Kims of North Korea and so forth and so forth. Or even of Putin of Russia.
But the question of benevolence is a subtly different one than the question of despotism -- in a world without an effective democratically elected world government, the untouchable and uncontrolled US does indeed possess the role of a benevolent despot in its mostly arbitrary interventions -- as seen in Kosovo, as seen in Iraq.
And as Dan mentioned and I expanded on US will never enter an world government it won't be able to control, never cede that position of despotism.
You are not the only despot in the world ofcourse, just the most far-reaching one. As I just said Russia is even more strict and far less benevolent a despot in most of the sphere of the former USSR, even as China is a despot (and just as bad if not worse a one) in its own sphere.
#11
According to Webster's, a despot is one "exercising power abusively, oppressively, or tyrannically".
So once more Aris follows insult with passive-aggressive non-apology. But hey, why not. Many around here seem to buy your pseudo-friendly bullshit.
#13
Here you go for benevolent despotism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism
Hmm, absolute rulers using their power to institute reforms in the political and social structure of the areas they control -- doesn't it remind you a tiny bit of what's being currently attempted in Iraq?
And it'd be better if you followed a tactic where you argued more about the content of what I say than about the way I said them. If I'm rude or "aggressive" then boohoohoo, I'm not the first or worst in this forum in this respect. If I'm wrong or mistaken, then correct me, don't criticize my style. And if we differ in interpretations then discuss.
#14
I've reviewed post #7, and I fail to see any reference to "benevolence", just a direct equation betweem the governments of the USA and Iran. If you throw a rhetorical bomb like that, you shouldn't be surprised when someone reacts in kind.
However, in reviewing my own posts, I see too much of a reliance on ad hominem attacks, which just muddy the water. I'll try to tone it down a bit.
#15
There was no mention of benevolence in #7, then again there was no mention of despotism either. In post #7 I make a semi-joking comparison to the way veto is wielded by the mullahs in non-democratic Iran and the way the veto is used by the US (and France and Russia and UK and China) in the non-democratic "world government" of the United Nations.
But I concede that my statement did feel semi-trollish. Sorry for that. I did mean it more like humour however, instigated by "For Aris of course," of the original poster, which I'm still not entirely certain what he meant by.
caught via Drudge
May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett and Apple Computer Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs are advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on economic issues.
Kerry, 60, the four-term Massachusetts senator challenging President George W. Bush, ``reached out to them and theyâre giving him economic advice about the deficit and job creation,ââ said David Wade, Kerryâs campaign spokesman.
``Political campaigns are always looking for celebrity endorsements and these are two eminent celebrities in the investment world,ââ said James Lucier, a political analyst at Prudential Equity Group LLC. ``But I donât think investors are looking for celebrities, they are looking for policies.ââ
Buffett, 73, said in an interview in Omaha, Nebraska that heâs part of a group of advisers that includes Roger Altman, founder of New York-based investment firm Evercore Partners LLC.
``I support John Kerry,ââ said Buffett, whoâs hosting the annual Berkshire Hathaway Inc. shareholder meeting this weekend in Omaha. ``In the choice of the two candidates heâs the one I would vote for. I think I would rather have him as president than George W. Bush.ââ
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/01/2004 10:34:12 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A Kerry adviser tries to push the dollar down? This should be great publicity for the Kerry campaign. What next? George Soros funds the "Iraqi resistance"?
#2
A John Kerry presidency could precipitate a disastrous decline for the US in all areas including the dollar. As a cold heartless prick, insuring that he would make money on his positions against the dollar by backing Kerry makes good sense for Buffet.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/01/2004 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Apple? When it comes to marketing, these guys are who I'd want on my team...not! Beta v/s VHS Apple v/s Microsoft Kerry v/s Bush.
In all instances, they are arrogant enough to believe that they are so much better than their competitors that the people will flock to them despite their refusal to think of their customer's needs first. In the first two cases they were buried by those who did choose to cooperate. Hopefully, they will work their "magic" once again.
Posted by: B ||
05/01/2004 23:19 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Perhaps Jobs will lend Kerry his 'reality distortion field'. :-)
Posted by: A Jackson ||
05/02/2004 0:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mr Buffet can kiss this profits goodbye if John Forbes Kerry & his collection of leftist party hacks take the White House. It will be Clinton-Carter all over again. Except this time the stakes are a lot higher.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
05/02/2004 0:53 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Jackson,
The past tense would be more appropriate.
Espinola,
Mr. Buffett did not do too poorly during the Clinton years.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/02/2004 1:22 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
05/01/2004 18:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The pictures are peaceful. Its hard to connect them with a culture in turmoil.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 22:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
very nice. Reminding me once again that most of the world is peaceful. It's just a tiny percentage of the Moslems that wreak havoc on the world. Thanks.
oh..and what was with the easter eggs?
Posted by: B ||
05/01/2004 23:56 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
05/01/2004 03:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
[Troll droppings deleted]
Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL ||
05/01/2004 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
[Troll droppings deleted]
Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL ||
05/01/2004 9:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Russians are in a hard place on this one - as they are on a number of fronts including all of their former satellites.
"Former Red Guerilla" in the context of 1944 means a "freedom fighter." But it doesn't address the problem that the "freedom" being fought for at the time was just another form of enslavement.
They know it, but they're hard-pressed to moderate their stance, given that to this day in the classroom, WW2 is still the "Great Patriotic War." The piper has never really been paid, and the brutality of the Soviet regime has always managed to escape the full brunt of introspection only because of the more published brutality of the people they were fighting against back in '44.
This Russian (nee Soviet) problem is long standing - it's multi-generational and it's not solved now, nor is it going to be solved in immediate generations. I hope that it will be solved, but it's going to take a lot of stomach and stick for years to come...
Posted by: Mark O ||
05/01/2004 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
[Troll droppings deleted]
Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL ||
05/01/2004 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
[Troll droppings deleted]
Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL ||
05/01/2004 9:11 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Vassily Kononov has been convicted [for] killing civilians in the village of Mazie Bati in 1944. According to the charges, 18 Soviet partisans dressed in German army uniforms shot or burned alive all the villagers. Kononov based his plea of innocence on the belief that he had been fighting as a partisan against enemies in special circumstances.
.
#7
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Vasily Kononov had led an attack on a small Latvian village in 1944 and ordered the execution of nine civilians. Many of his victims, which included a number of women, were burned alive.
.
The only national advertisers in NightLineâs presentation was SBC and Dodge Ram. Almost all of the advertisers were local advertisers.
The program opened without the musical intro, and then a commentary from Koppel about the âcontroversy swirlingâ around ABCâs decision to air the naming of the dead.
Typical to the current, albeit sad, state of American journalism the naming of the dead was apparently not intended as a tribute, but paraphrasing Koppel, to show that the deaths of a few has a burden for all of us.
Commenting as what passes for objectivity these days, Tedro is right, however, lest any of us are taking these deaths or the presence of relatives of our fellow citizens who are still fighting lightly, as Koppel seems to imply, or as he perhaps would prefer.
And you gotta imply that in order to maintain some sort of moral superiority over the rest of us idiots. That is a national journalist stock in trade.
The naming of those fallen was not particularly well done because it failed miserably to state without any equivocation why all these people were willing to sacrifice their lives to uphold the ideal of liberty, inasmuch as some of us will do what we can to ensure the safety of our troops to victory over this tyranny that attacked us on 911.
A point of personal privilidge:
Tedro: Would it have klilled you to admit on national TV you admire the sacrifice not only of those who have died but of those who are still on the lines still dealing with the threat we all face as a nation, still willing to fight even though some loud mouths who have found themseleves at the top of the journalistic food chain believe the sacrifices have not been enough, who find it necessary to further endanger troops by opposing the mission whiole still trying to convince us they âsupport the troopsâ?
Would a little expression of love of country have permentantly ruined your liberal credentials?
Posted by: badanov ||
05/01/2004 12:33:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thanks, badnov for listing the two main advertisers. Does anyone know who advertised in the DC area? I'd like to send them a note of my disgust.
Dodge is pretty stupid. Lots of people "buy American" even though their cars are often inferior to foreign cars. They do so because they believe it's the right thing to do.
Not anymore. I don't think the type of people who "buy American" would want to fund this type of anti-American drivel by purchasing Dodge's cars.
#2
B, Dodge is no longer American. Neither is Chrysler. They were assimilated by Daimler-Benz.
The profits all go back to Germany now and the American employees take their marching orders from their German handlers!
-AR
Posted by: Analog Roam ||
05/01/2004 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I failed to add John Deere advertised on the show, as well as being one of the last.
So, there were three national advertisers in Okla, but only one, John Deere could have been considered a true nationwide ad. Dodge routinely advertises locally but with a local tail, and SBC is the local phone monopoly.
"Our focus continues winning new agricultural customers in Europe. Also supporting improved global sales was the shipment of 100 John Deere cotton pickers to Turkmenistan as well as new manufacturing relationships with Russia and Turkey."
#6
I pasted the html for links around my URL. I don't understand why it never works. Look..it even highlited and underlined it, but it messed up the screen anyway. I don't get it.
Posted by: B ||
05/01/2004 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/01/2004 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Heh; I actually thought the closing statement was okay ...
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
05/01/2004 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Howdy Doody's sponsor, SBC, unfortunately, has a quasi-monopoly in about 13 states regarding local phone service. Except where competing companies like Sprint and Verizon beat them to the punch for the local monopoly .
States are : CA, NV, TX, OK, AR, MO, KS, IL, WI, MI, IN, OH, CT
I personally am in an SBC state but in a Verizon enclave. People who have SBC local might want to consider using a non SBC cell for their home service. Remind them of Howdy's attempt to duplicate the Life magazine rib on Vietnam 35 years ago.
#10
B, regarding html links. Normally an html link is
[a href="http://www.deere.com"]link[/a]
Note the double quotes. On rantburg you use a single quote.
[a href='http://www.deer.com']link[/a]
Also in both cases square brackets have to be angle brackets. So if I got it right your link should be: here
#11
thanks ruprecht..I thought that is what I did! I've always cut and pasted from the example below, because it never works when I use the box, but as you can see, cut and paste doesn't work for me either.
Maybe it has to do with that "link" between the sets of brackets.
EFL hattip to WND
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., like John Kerry a Catholic who supports abortion rights, said Thursday she will continue to ask for Holy Communion in spite of Vatican opposition to pro-choice Catholics doing so. "I fully intend to receive Communion, one way or another. Thatâs very important to me," Pelosi told reporters during her weekly press conference. Does she plan to shoplift the host? Will she wear a disguise? Maybe she plans to go to confession?
A top Vatican cardinal said last week that priests must deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. The cardinal stopped short of saying whether it was right for Kerry to receive Communion, and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee quickly affirmed his support for abortion rights and took Communion the next day. The head of a task force of U.S. bishops said Tuesday that Catholic politicians who advocate policies contrary to church teaching on abortion and other issues may risk sanctions that fall short of denial of Communion. "I have not gotten to the stage where Iâm comfortable in denying the Eucharist," said Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop of Washington. Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat who was raised in a devout Italian Catholic home, told reporters, "I believe that my position on choice is one that is consistent with my Catholic upbringing, which said that every person has a free will and has the responsibility to live their lives in a way that they would have to account for in the end. Iâm certainly concerned when the church comes together and says itâs going to sanction people in public office for speaking their conscience and what they believe," she said. I think she needs to become a Billy Madison in a CCD class. She is obviously confused about her own Catholicism. A Catholic is not a Catholic by upbringing or by standing in line for the Eucharist. Itâs the belief that matters. Maybe she should look into that new religion, Islam, I hear they arenât about whether you can slide on some of the beliefs as long as you donate to the correct charities. The governor of NJ looks to have run into a Bishop with a more ferrous backbone. Bishop: NJ Governor cannot receive communion
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 3:09:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If I were her, I'd worry more about choking on it
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/01/2004 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I suppose I should stay out of it, since I don't do (organized) religion, and I'm certainly not Catholic, but what the hell is it with these people who pick and choose parts of a religion they can agree with, publicly and loudly dismiss and denigrate the parts they don't, and then claim that religion "is very important" to them?
Do they somehow get points for showing up at church and for sticking the religion's name after theirs, even when they don't practice the tenets of that religion?
Must work only for Democrats, since they give President Bush so much grief about his religious beliefs.
Oh, wait.... Bush actually practices his beliefs. That must be the difference. My bad.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/01/2004 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Barbara, Pelosi is practicing her own religion too, it is just not Catholicism. She has created her own "free form jazz exploration" into religion that requires a Catholic liturgy for its completion. It is as if she is an amateur performance artist that jumps onto the stage during an orchestral concert. I guess that we Catholics should be satisfied that she doesn't grab the baton and try to lead the orchestra into playing Sweet Home Alabama.
Her practice is a parasite unto an unwilling host.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hmm. Actually AFAIK (I may be mistaken) Catholicism doesn't define its members by whether they believe its full teachings or not, but through the mystery of baptism -- and I believe that Catholics are allowed to disagree with the teachings of the Catholic church and nonetheless remain Catholic, as long as said disagreement doesn't violate the *core* teachings -- that is probably the Nicene Creed and probably also whatever has been pronounced infallibly correct by a Pope. Or some such.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The above is the impression I've gotten from the occasional random discussion with Catholics in Usenet and other places.
EFL
High-flying technology is going back to the blimp. Engineers are developing a new breed of buoyant airships to follow hurricanes, act as mobile cell phone towers, spy over hostile territory and track incoming missiles. Unlike blimps that hover above football stadiums, the High Altitude Airship flies without a pilot and can soar literally out of sight - so high it canât be seen by the naked eye. But will it be high enough to avoid the Pakistani attack kites?
``The prototype is expected to fly in 2006,ââ says Cary Dell, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Corp., the shipâs builder. ``And, yes, it will be large.ââ Five hundred feet long and 150 feet wide, the craft is more than twice the size of the 200- foot-long Winstar Airship, the largest blimp in the air today. At 5.2 million cubic feet, it will be 25 times larger in volume than the Goodyear blimps. Blimps differ from rigid airships in having no skeletons. The famed Hindenburg zeppelin, which caught fire and exploded over New Jersey in 1937, was a rigid dirigible. Modern blimps are giant balloons with heavy duty skins filled with inert helium. Hydrogen is flammable and no longer used as a buoyancy source. The military has big plans for the high-flying blimp, one reason officials expect it to see extensive funding. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency awarded a $40 million contract to Lockheed Martin to design and test the prototype.
The craft could be used as a surveillance platform over hostile territory, although its size and sluggishness - a top speed of 80 mph - might make it seem a vulnerable target. But parked 12 miles up, about 65,000 feet, the blimp would be ``immune to most ground-launched missiles,ââ according to Lockheed Martin. Onboard sensors will be able to detect missiles for 350 miles in any direction, allowing it to identify incoming threats. A fleet of 10 could provide an early-warning curtain for the continental United States, say officials with the Missile Defense Agency. A squadron of airships would provide ``overlapping radar coverage of all maritime and southern border approaches to the continental United States,ââ according to the North American Aerospace Defense Command. A big advantage of the blimp over unmanned aerial vehicles is its ability to linger over an area for days, weeks or months. This makes it a valuable option to expensive orbiting spy satellites, which must take pictures of a target or region as they pass overhead.
``The whole point of the thing is itâs superior to satellites for some applications,ââ says John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia- based nonprofit group that focuses on defense and security issues. ``The advantage is you can have persistent surveillance with it over a certain area. Surveillance satellites, on the other hand, spend most of their time in the wrong place.ââ The craft will hover above the Earthâs jet stream, a current of fast-flowing air found at altitudes of 25,000 to 48,000 feet and with winds that can reach 300 mph. But the jet stream will be the least of its problems, Pike says. ``Itâs not a particularly friendly environment up there,ââ he says. ``Itâs cold, and thereâs intense ultraviolet light at that altitude, and these things can do unpleasant things to materials.ââ
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 12:56:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When other kids were drawing ME 109s with 18 machine guns spewing hot lead I was designing a line of fighting blimps. Main armourment was a 32 ft. long stainless steel nose needle backed up by a pair of semi-automatic blunderbusses. Singnals were by flag only. It were a stately ballet o death.
#2
I have often wondered why Army never pushed for cargo blimps.A blimp carrying a container w/6-8 M-1s could easily cruise at 120mph-5,6 times faster than oceanic transport,and not requiring a long runway like conventional a/c(C-17 only carries 1 M-1).Build a dozen or so,store all but 1 or 2.Rotate 1 or 2 thru storage and flight status to keep aircrew current.In emergency take from storage,fill 'em up and have the capacity to land a battalion of armor anywhere in world there is flat surface.Airdrop/helo in tank crews.If containers are pre-wired(collapseable for storage)add power and have an HQ/med/barracks/etc. building.
Posted by: Stephen ||
05/01/2004 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Long story actually Stephen. To summarize, problems kept arising for ballast during take off and landing (lets say you used water or sand for example). As you were loading or unloading the ballast had to be unloaded and loaded at the same rate in order not to have the blimp tear its moorings off and go sailing straight up. When you're talking about several thousand tons of cargo this a LOT of sand/water we're talking about, but in essence this was just one of the problems that kept cropping up. Another was helium or hydrogen leakage based on which design you went with. And even FUEL and power generation (while fuel consumption would stay relatively flat over time, this was based on the assumption that there would be relatively little headwinds encountered). Mainly these problems were noticed if the airship ever encountered cyclonics or harsh headwinds. At an average speed of 100km/hr any major headwind would drastically reduce the blimps speed and increase power consumption. Then finally you encounter the payload to speed ratio which directly affects cost and revenue generation. Essentially what it ended up showing was that running an airship costed roughly 50-150% more than running even a 747 (one study showed that it costed roughly 21.6 cents per revenue-ton mile for the 747 vs 35.7 cents as a lower bound on the airship, even though the airship was given a larger payload). The speed issue still is what kills any airship cargo transporter idea for mass amounts of airships. About the only way for the airship cargo conveyer idea to survive right now is if it gets military funding.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 14:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think that this part is new stuff:
Peter M. Leitner, a long-time employee at the Department of Defense and currently a senior strategic trade advisor at DoD, was responsible at one point for deciding whether to issue a license to a Chinese corporation seeking to buy a McDonnell Douglass machine tools factory.
At the same time, according to congressional investigations of the fundraising controversy, the Clinton campaign was receiving millions of dollars in donations from Chinese businessmen.
Leitner told CNSNews.com that he repeatedly saw investigations that would have led directly to foreign agents stymied by the wall erected by Gorelick in her 1995 memo.
"The Gorelick memo guidelines created a firewall that protected the [Clinton] administration" from the Justice Department's investigation into foreign campaign donations, Leitner said.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/01/2004 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
resign and testify, Gore-Lick!
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/01/2004 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
Driven by soaring gasoline prices, ChevronTexaco Corp.âs first-quarter earnings climbed 33 percent, continuing the oil giantâs recent run of gushing profits. The San Ramon-based company said Friday that it earned $2.56 billion, or $2.40 per share, in the three months ended March, up from $1.92 billion, or $1.81 per share, at the same time last year. This yearâs results outstripped the mean estimate of $2.02 per share among analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call.
With the fast start, ChevronTexaco is well on its way to improving on its performance in 2003 when the company earned $7.2 billion - more than it did in the previous two years combined. Investors were pleased. ChevronTexacoâs shares gained $2.03 to $92.38 during Fridayâs trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The companyâs stock is up by nearly 40 percent since the end of 2002.
ChevronTexaco chairman David OâReilly expressed frustration at the backlash [over rising gasoline prices] during the companyâs annual shareholders meeting earlier this week. Responding to a question, OâReilly pointed out that gasoline prices have remained a relative bargain on an inflation adjusted basis during the past 50 years and openly wondered a recent government-mandated increase in milk prices hasnât sparked much of a consumer outcry.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
05/01/2004 3:35:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Should have bought shares when I had a chance. Bad Lucky!
But I want to hit it big so I'm thinking vending machines. People love salty snacks.
#2
With Red China making huge economic cut backs to cool down the economy, 'put' options on cotton, soybeans, wheat & copper may be one investment course of action. In terms of big oil stocks; it does not look like the price of oil (energy in general) will reverse to the mid-to-high $20 anytime soon. In fact crude oil should top $40.00 a barrel by mid-summer-2004, or higher contingent on any further terrorist related 'disruptions' to Middle-Eastern OPEC oil or Nigerian as well.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
05/01/2004 3:21 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
