Unedited report from The Sun
A SAUCY new bra has been taken off the shelves because it keeps EXPLODING. The Wonderbra Clearly Daring range is designed to boost cleavage for women wearing plunging gowns without any revealing straps.
Get's my vote for product of the year.
But the clear tie that holds the cups together keeps SNAPPING, leaving the wearer displaying more than they intended.
Like I said, Product Of The Year!!
Complaints have forced manufacturer Playtex to recall the £20 bras after just one month. The firm warned wearers: "The centre area can break, causing the bra to split open. This can occur on first use but may fail after a number of uses."
Do they need any inspectors?
Playtex are strengthening the strap and expect the range to be back in stores next month.
"We can rebuild them! Better, stronger, firmer...."
One stockist said two customers had returned bras. He said: "They could be embarrassing."
"Careful! You could put an eye out!"
Posted by: Steve ||
12/14/2004 3:57:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
ROFLMAO!!! Hear, hear! Steve, right? Best in-line commentary of the day - prolly the week - maybe the month - possibly Evar! Lol! Perfect all the way through!
#7
hey! truth in advertising: It really does "lift and separate"
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
...until it doesn't, heh... then it all just sorta hangs out. I have a video (honest!) that I'd like to post a link to, but I've just changed machines and it would take an hour to find the thing. *tease*
#21
PD - that's a classic - my sons're ROFL - I taught them my ninja bottlecap (behind the back , undrhand, etc.) shots this summer. Wisdom I learned in my fraternity days....
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
#22
And it's a weird site, too check it out for more laughs. heh.
#1
Oh man, Mount Lee Lacy - wotta 'tard. Did the right thing, if the article is accurate. Hell, mebbe they should just shoot him, on second thought. Unbelievable moron and asshole.
#4
Well it was a "tails End " story. I like it when the "tale" is reversed, so many animal's are put to sleep because they are biters/dangerous etc. I hope justice is served for the DOGS sake***
PAWS UP.
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: andrea ||
12/14/2004 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Grrrrrrrrr.
I volunteer on weekends to work at the county pound. I have seen them actually killing "biters." It's not pleasant, though the dog often is at fault. (Big area for the "sport" of fighting.)
In this case, I'm just glad I wasn't there. This asshole would get to meet Mr. Kimber Custom Classic. Who would take care of My dogs when I was in jail? All in all, best that I wasn't there.
#1
The brain goes through three separate stages to decide if it recognises a face, scientists claim. A team from University College London says the first assesses a face's physical aspects. The second decides if it is known or unknown. If it is a recognisable face, the third part puts a name to it.
They needed a study to figure this out??? May I ask for a PHD by suggesting that assessing the physical aspects of anything is usually the first step to recognizing it? Then if we indeed recognize it, it usually has a name attached. Big deal.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/14/2004 3:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Just had to say a mate worked on this - it's more about finding which part of the brain does what.. in order to produce a cure for dementia etc. I think I was scanned for this study too.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
12/14/2004 5:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Facial recognition is a very puzzling and complex process." It's a process of astonishing precision. Capable of differentiating an almost unlimited number of faces and recognize those faces under severely degraded conditions. Yet its not related to any major physical characteristics on a face. This can be demonstrated by getting people to recognize pictures of indivdiual sheep they have seen previously (which have ears, eyes, nose, chin just like a human face). Most people can't do this.
#11
I support all research in this area because I have the damnedest time with this. As Krang says, all humans look alike to me. The only thing I have to go on is general body type (short, tall, skinny, fat) and hair color.
When I worked in Sydney I had three dark-haired female colleagues. For a long time I was never sure which one I was talking to. Took me about a month to realize that one was a lot taller than the others (they were all shorter than I, and all those short people look alike: like the tops of their heads).
EFL -
Viewing figures for the BBC's two main television channels have fallen to an all-time low in the week that the director general, Mark Thompson, announced swingeing cutbacks.
Swingeing?
BBC1's share of all television viewing is set to fall through the psychologically important 25 per cent barrier for the first time in the broadcaster's history, according to audience figures for this year up to 9 December. BBC2 has also seen its audience share plummet by almost 9 per cent over the same period. If these trends continue for the final three weeks of 2004, it will mean that for the first time less than 10 per cent of the television audience are tuning into BBC2 on average, while less than a quarter of viewers are watching BBC1.
The figures, which reflect the changing landscape of British television, show the combined audience share for BBC1 and BBC2 has fallen by almost 9 per cent since 2000. The decline, largely because of the rise of multi-channel viewing, has afflicted ITV1 even more severely than the BBC - since 2000 the channel's audience share has fallen 22 per cent to 22.8 per cent of all television viewers. In 2004, for the first time, multi-channel television has attracted higher overall viewing figures than either BBC1 or ITV1, with 26 per cent of the audience. End the taxation without representation for non-leftists!
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 10:11:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Funny what people choose when given a choice! Do they have a choice to watch Fox or CNN?
There's Sky (whose market share dynamics the Indy interestingly omits to mention). BBC's just a tired old echo chamber for its own opinions (or as the imbecilic axeman of quality Greg Dyke put it: 'values'. You are free to vomit). The BBC was great when it reflected the nation's outlook in all directions and from all perspectives. Now that it's just a mouthpiece for middle class Guardianista PC hypocrisy it gets more boring with every cycle. It may be going out with a bang, rather than a whimper; the licence fee poll tax riots may never happen.
They've decided they need to send a wedge of their staff up to Manchester in order to make the BBC less London orientated. What a total waste of time and money. A typically moronic and self-destructive BBC farce. Watch the minor suits scrambling over themselves to leave those departments destined for gulag status.
#11
The BBC may have some quality issues but the overall journalistic performance is still unmatched. Let's hope it does not orient itself on CNN. When I'm in the States I always laugh my ass of on their opinionated unprofessional reports. The only thing where they have an edge is speed, given that they are the most sucessfull pivate channel. But for real background information and quality sources...nah.
#12
Hi Slomort. I don't need to be in the UK to laugh my ass off at the BBC's hilariously slanted middle east coverage or their incompetence when it comes to coverage of anything related to US domestic affairs, or business or technology.
#13
This only partially reflects the interesting story, which is the heavy news consumers (news junkies) now get their news from the Internet. I hardly ever watch TV news these days and when I do its mostly to see which stories get pushed with what spin, i.e. not for the news itself.
A protester has knocked over a controversial waxwork nativity scene featuring the England soccer captain David Beckham and his wife Victoria. The work at the Madame Tussaud's museum stars the Beckhams as the holy couple Mary and Joseph. It also features Kylie Minogue as an angel and Tony Blair, George Bush and the Duke of Edinburgh as the three wise men. Christians of all denominations have been united in calling the exhibit a new low in the cult of celebrity worship. The museum says it has proved popular with the public.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/14/2004 3:40:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All highly amusing , but the best has to be the Duke of Edinburgh as one of the three wise men ..... classic
#2
Interesting, we have stage actors portray the family and attendents in movies, plays and on televsion, but people don't get this upset. The Renaissance artists often used contemporary and local personalities in their rendering of the event as well, and the church usually didn't burn them at the stake. No one really knows what the assembled cast looked like. It's art, common, but still art. At least the display wasn't 'artistically' dipped in urine or spattered with cow dung at the expense of taxpayers.
Posted by: Don ||
12/14/2004 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I dunno. I'd say using the appearance of one of the Spice Girls is equivalent to dipping in urine.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/14/2004 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm wondering if Madame Tussaud's bothered to get the permission of the folks being represented before they included them in a potentially blasphemous display. Yeah, yeah its Christians so there will be no fatawas but careers could be hurt if the public really hates this idea and its connected to the blokes in question or a religious nut might snap.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
12/14/2004 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Whatever your view of this...um...pop art (turn gracious button off) I think it's sad that destruction of property has become such a common response. If someone disagrees with it, why destroy it? Mock it, condemn it, whatever.
I had the same argument with a friend, whose wild daughter went around parking lots scratching through "support our troops" stickers. Destruction of property isn't the way to go.
China is apparently building a large quantity of amphibious shipping. Two LSDs (Landing Ship Dock) are being built in large covered sheds. They appear to be about 25,000 tons each and carry four LCAC (high speed landing craft) and four helicopters each. China is building 4-5 LSTs (Landing Ship Tank) a year. These are over 2,000 tons displacement each. A larger number of LSMs (smaller than LSTs, but in this case almost as large as World War II LSTs) are also under construction. China won't say what the eventual size of this amphibious fleet will be, but Taiwan suspects enough to land two or more divisions on Taiwanese beaches. That could take another 3-4 years. Meanwhile, Chinese shipyards are also turning out submarines and surface warships. China will be able to make a serious move on Taiwan before 2010.
Posted by: ed ||
12/14/2004 9:10:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
China will be able to make a serious move on Taiwan before 2010.
More like China will be able to present lots of targets to submarines and antiship missles of various nations. Let me know how their EW, ECW, ECCW are coming and I'll be a bit more perturbed. (And the capture of the P-3 did perturb me.)
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/14/2004 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No shit Mrs D. The days of the massive amphibious assault passed, oh about 50 years ago. The only thing this fleet will accomplish will be a LOT of dead Chinese soldiers. When will China realize that it can't reclaim Taiwan by force? China could destroy Taiwan, but not reclaim it.
#3
Nope. China is going to swap NorK nukes for a pass on Taiwan. Meaning they force a capitulation by the norks, and we just happen to be out of position to do much to help Taiwan when they do attack. Clean and allows everyone to save face.
But it will have to wait 4 more years, as the Chicoms hope for someone a little more interested in doing business.
#5
I agree that the days of the "massive amphibious assault" have passed (except for the Marines, of course!). I think this invasion fleet is to be used to bring the OCCUPATION force across. There'll be some amphib action, but the main battle will air based, including massive bombing and air assault troops. If it comes to that. There's a lot of pragmatism in Taiwan these days.
#6
Jimbo - The NorKs are going nowhere and accomplishing nothing - there's no value to any quid pro quo.
China has already killed the Golden Goose, Hong Kong, to a great extent (check productivity numbers, if you can squeeze anything honest out of the ChiComs) and serving up Taiwan is and would be nuts.
You have a hell of a point about some future admin - a Prez Hillary would prolly flip that chip on the table without hesitation... but by the time that could happen, the NorKies will have imploded, I hope.
#7
might work when each helo carries 25,000 Chicom troops
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Makes no sense. Taiwan is a small island, more completely dependent on trade than Britain ever was. China either gets command of the sea and air or they dont. If they DONT, this means a lot of drowned Chicom soldiers, as Mrs D says. If they DO, then they can beat Taiwan by blockade, and dont need an amphibiuous landing.
#9
If the Prez is Hillary or some other social engineering True Believer who would trade millions of other people's lives for a penny's worth of peace, yes, indeed.
#10
Isn't this kind of thing what daisy cutters are for?
LH, the communists tried blockading Berlin, which didn't work all that well as I recall. I don't think the odds are good for Sen. Rodham's presidency hopes -- the electorate has been voting more Republican with each election, and the youngsters whose outlook was formed by 9/11 will be voting in four years, so I suspect the trend will accelerate.
#11
Taiwan aint berlin. All we did there was to feed one city, from about a hundred miles away. A city whose economy was already largely dependent on financing from west germany.
Taiwan is an entire society. Youd have to feed 20 million or so, with the nearest friendly base in the Phillipines, several hundred miles away. and the Chinese would be shooting at the planes coming in, as the Russians were not. And feeding them isnt enough. No shipping, no Taiwan economy.
And of course this is a discussion of HOW the chinese would attack Taiwan, not of US policy. US armed intervention would make a Chicom blockade very difficult - but even more so for a landing. Economic retaliation by the US would also make it costly to PRC - again, that applies as much to a landing as a blockade.
All Im saying, is that there are NO circumstances that make an invasion worthwile, that dont make a blockade MORE worthwhile.
#12
If they DO, then they can beat Taiwan by blockade, and dont need an amphibiuous landing.
There are quite a few OH Perry class frigates in storge, just right for convoy duty. Taiwan is much smaller than then UK and the PLAN is not the equal to the German sub fleet of WWII.
#13
I can't argue with LH that in the long run a blockade is easier than an actual invasion, but I don't think a long-run scenario is likely.
The US (unless we get [shudder] President Dean) would not allow a blockade to continue and our Navy is More Than Thick and Rich Enough to break it.
OTOP, an assault only needs control for a short period of time. If they can seize a good hunk of the island by a coup de main, and present us with a fait accompli before we can react, they might think they can get away with it. I think they are misunderestimating us, but who knows?
#14
Just the notion that the ChiComs could maintain a blockade in a shooting war with the USN is a giggle. How long is it taking them to assemble this WW-II force? I'd give it 24 hrs, tops, if it dared to come out of port and the US decided to sink the bitch.
#15
good point Jackal, but its not enough to land on the island, and hold chunk. Theyve got to supply the landed force. For the long term. The same naval and air forces that could resist a blockade, can interfere with landing, and resupply of a landed force. I think we are here seriously underestimating the difficulty of amphibious operations. There havent been a lot of successful opposed amphibious landings in modern history - and scarcely any major ones that the US wasnt leading. You cant just land a few troops and slowly build up (as the Wehrmacht pointed out to Hitler and the Kriegsmarine in 1940) not with the defender throwing everything hes got against your beachhead. You have to land sufficient forces to hold off the counter attack, AND you have to keep them supplied, over the beach, under air attack (unless you have complete air superiority), while your shipping is underattack.
#16
The army of Taiwan consist of 12 infantry division, and six armor brigades, not counting reserves. AFAIK these are of quality and training that equals or exceeds the Chicoms. Its hard to see how the Chicoms could hold a bridgehead with less than say, 4 or 5 divisions. A two division force, as suggested in the article would be mincemeat, unless China has full control over the air. IF they could have full control over the air, they could destroy Taiwans commerce easily, frigates or no.
#17
What if you had special forces in place on Taiwan coming out of hiding and securing a landing beach? The PLA and the PRC intelligence agencies have got to have a good number of agents in place for just such an operation. Don't know how you solve the resupply problem -- maybe seize a bunch of Taiwanese merchantmen and run them back and forth until the USN sinks them all or gives up.
(Jackal: does OTOP = on the other paw?)
Posted by: Jonathan ||
12/14/2004 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Just the notion that the ChiComs could maintain a blockade in a shooting war with the USN is a giggle. How long is it taking them to assemble this WW-II force? I'd give it 24 hrs, tops, if it dared to come out of port and the US decided to sink the bitch.
they wouldnt blockade with surface ships or subs. This aint 1940 (and even then, the Luftwaffe played a large role in the attempt to blockade Britain). Theyd do it with aircraft and missiles. Wed try to hit their air and missile based with cruise missiles. Thats why the chicoms are so interested in tech to use against cruise missiles.
#19
A trio of Seawolf Subs would easily make anything except air assault impossible - and one carrier would easily negate that option. This is getting silly - unless we're talking about some Dhimmidonk Prez calling the shots from Fortress America, or the alternative, Paris.
#20
how would one carrier prevent the Chicoms from firing missile at Taiwan ports, and attacking merchies headed into or out from Taiwan with missiles and aircraft? One carrier has what, 120 aircraft? At most half fighters? Who have to run CAP over the carrier, and also protect all Taiwan commerce within air range of China? And supplement Taiwans own fighter defence over its ports?
#21
And, in response to your last, their aircraft wouldn't survive an encounter with US aircraft - it would have to be missiles. Do you think any launching system they have could withstand the counter-battery / HARM cover? Since there are now loitering HARM systems in the US inventory, I think they'd get one shot per site. Would they hit anything after the first couple were waxed? Could they hit anything with the prefect first shot? I'll bet our intel knows the answer, but I admit I don't.
The only option in which the Chinese succeed is for the US to take a hike.
#23
Just to be real, the show stopper for the PLAN could be an infestation of modern mines. I don't think they've invested much in mine hunters. It's not near as sexy as mime hunting or meme thrashing.
#25
Mine the Chinese ports and mine the beaches they plan on landing at (and if possible deploy some mines on the sea routes they're using). Its a quick response and its very effective.
#27
Jonathan: What if you had special forces in place on Taiwan coming out of hiding and securing a landing beach? The PLA and the PRC intelligence agencies have got to have a good number of agents in place for just such an operation.
Commandos cannot hold territory. They are good for quick in-and-out operations before their opponent figures out where they are, but that's it. They simply don't have enough firepower to prevail against conventional forces. All their opponent has to do is locate them (pretty obvious, since they're defending landing sites) and then pulverize their locations with artillery. Commandos can be useful for other things, such as assassinating Taiwanese leaders, attacking airfields, radar stations, supply depots and the like and carrying out ambushes along key supply routes. But all of these would essentially be suicide missions, which brings up the question of how motivated Chinese troops would be, and whether some of them would surrender and confess all before the invasion was due. The sleeper commando idea sounds good, but is too dangerous to prepare on the scale (tens of thousands) necessary for it to be effective.
#28
Taiwan is a significant supplier to the US electronics industry. China would not be allowed to blockade Taiwan and in the process shut down us factories for lack of parts. The US could do without the cheap consumer goods a lot more than China could do without the US market. Further, unless the Democratic party stages a comeback, I do believe the US Navy would enforce one of the US government's longest and most strongly held foreign policy positions, unrestricted maritime commerce. We have gone to war once and fought numerous lesser actions to keep the sealanes open.
#30
Don't forget to destroy those chinese dams; and consider the advantages of detonating neutron bombs in the straits where there are no buildings, but alot of apprehension!
Supporters of opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko expanded a campaign to spread their so-called Orange Revolution beyond Ukraine's capital Tuesday, organizing a convoy that will visit 15 cities in the coming days — including in eastern provinces that have been hostile to the candidate. More than 50 supporters of the Pora (It's Time) youth movement will head to the pro-Russian eastern provinces, hoping to win over voters in areas where support for Yushchenko's Kremlin-backed opponent, Viktor Yanukovych, has been strong.
Yushchenko and Yanukovych face off for the presidency in a Dec. 26 contest ordered by the Supreme Court after the their Nov. 21 runoff was voided by the Supreme Court because of massive fraud. Yushchenko's supporters massed in the streets by the tens of thousands following the runoff, wearing the opposition's trademark orange color. The "friendship journey" is part of a campaign that been roiled by the explosive confirmation from an Austrian clinic over the weekend that Yushchenko had been poisoned by dioxin. Prosecutors and a parliamentary committee quickly set up investigations _ the second time each has examined the poisoning incident _ and officials close to the Ukrainian leadership took charge of both.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/14/2004 11:12:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At first the headline made me think that Hardee's was pushing their Monster Thickburgers in the Ukraine.
President-elect Traian Basescu opened talks Tuesday to form a coalition government with a party formerly allied with his opponent and one representing ethnic Hungarians. Parties loyal to outgoing Prime Minister Adrian Nastase said they would also seek enough support in parliament to form a government.
Basescu, the reformist former mayor of Bucharest, defeated Nastase in the runoff vote Sunday, ending a decade of rule by successors to the country's former communist regime. He has pledged to fight corruption, prepare Romania to join the European Union by 2007 and forge closer ties to the United States and Great Britain to ensure the country's security. His centrist Justice and Truth Alliance is negotiating to form a new government with the Humanist Party, a small party that broke ranks with Nastase after he lost the election, and the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania. "We are willing to form a government, even a minority one ... to carry on the fight against corruption and consolidate democracy," said Alexandru Boc, a senior Alliance official.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/14/2004 11:02:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Doctors in the Netherlands are calling for new laws allowing them to end the lives of newborn babies with intolerable and incurable illnesses. The appeal for a committee of experts to be set up to consider the issue has been signed by doctors from the country's eight university hospitals.
"Doctor Mengele, call your office"
The Dutch government will give its opinion over the next few months. The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia in 2002. The proposed committee of experts would define the specific criteria that would apply to this type of infant euthanasia. The protocol would relate to only about 600 infants in the world - and between 10 and 15 in The Netherlands. These children are born with extreme malformations. For instance they may have no brain. The move has revived the debate on the controversial issue of euthanasia. One university hospital has already drawn up a document setting out the circumstances in which euthanasia of newborn babies could be justified. The text has been strongly criticised by the Vatican. In the Netherlands, euthanasia can be given to people over 16, and to those over 12 in exceptional cases.
I believe they tried this program once before in Europe, back in the 1940's. It ended rather badly.
Doctors here say paediatricians worldwide are in favour of ending the lives of newborns in certain circumstances.
Really?
In France, 74% believe it should be acceptable, and in the Netherlands 72%.
You will note they don't mention the wishes of the parents anywhere in this story.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/14/2004 8:59:38 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Glad to see this disease has spread to Phrawnce. Any thing we can do to expand the category to include the infantile as well as infants? That would take care of most of the Phrawnche government.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/14/2004 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If Dr. Harold Shipman had known this was coming would he have left for Holland?
How would the government decide if a child is worth anything or not? And it looks like a question of when, not if, the Dutch government declare dissent a crippling disease.
#3
obviously the children of dissenters are carriers, and must be snuffed out - body parts harvested
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What if the parents' don't want to pull the plug on the kid....is there an exception for that?
(Serious question, guys.....don't post a snarky answer in return please. I really want to know the answer to this.)
If it is without or overrides parental consent, that is deeply troubling.
#5
DB - under this Groningen Protocol, I think the parents are secondary to the state's interests. They may not even be told the death was intentional
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And I believe part of the "rationale" of setting up committees to make the decision is to avoid any unnecessary emotional involvement.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/14/2004 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Hugh Hewitt has been all over this story. Here is one of his pieces: A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.
Doctor knows best.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/14/2004 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Monstrous. Doctor-priests allowed to decide without parental consent. No wonder they give it such a spooky horror-novel title (The Groningen Protocol). Shitheads.
#10
We debated this a week ago. And I'll re-iterate the same point I made them - resources are finite and you have to choose who to save. Rationally you would choose to devote your resources to saving those most likely to contribute to society (and consequently allow you to save more in the future). This problem arises in Europe because of the socialized medecine and the resultant perception that people have a 'right' to unlimited healthcare. I don't doubt they have the same problem we have in Australia where the media regularly features cute kids who have consumed huge amounts of healthcare funding and will die before they are 20 years old. The message doesn't vary - isn't this wonderful. Well its not. It's a tragic waste of the teen suicides, vehicle accident deaths, savable junkies, and many others who could be helped with the money spent (end of rant).
#11
If your main concern's with cost-benefit, or perhaps cost-vs-years of useful life, then you'd get many more times the social benefit if you were to eliminate life-extending, hugely expensive technology-driven regimens that do not cure the elderly, rather, postpone the onset of death by a few months.
#13
you'd get many more times the social benefit if you were to eliminate life-extending, hugely expensive technology-driven regimens that do not cure the elderly, rather, postpone the onset of death by a few months
Under socialized medicine, medical intervention for the elderly has been eliminated long time ago. After age 70, if the patient needs something more than what Tylenol will cure, it's buns up.
Monstrous. Doctor-priests allowed to decide without parental consent
Under socialized medicine controls, doctors take their marching orders from government bureaucrats. So it's the suits who are the monsters, not the doctors. In socialized medicine, doctors have little power. In fact if doctors implement too many procedures to save or extend lives of very sick patients, doctors get penalized. Very likely doctors are going along with the euthanasia idea in Holland because it saves them being hassled/questioned by the government backseatdriver suits for pursuing the various costly procedures that would be certainly required to keep patients like the ones described in the article alive. Furthermore, with regards to Dutch doctors specifically, I'm not sure what kind of "quality" physicians are graduating from Dutch medical schools. Up until 1999, selection of med school students was done entirely by lottery. After 1999, med schools were allowed to select 50% of their med school students but very few schools exercised this right except to select for minority status or for another PC reason like mature student staus. So there you have it, when med schools stop selecting for smarts, then maybe it's easier to have physicians go along with the gov't program, if you are not dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer to begin with.
http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0503/news/138a.html
Dutch medical schools abandon selection for lottery system for places
#14
Up until 1999, selection of med school students was done entirely by lottery. After 1999, med schools were allowed to select 50% of their med school students
#15
In these PC times, this kind of data is no longer collected, but when I went to Uni, amoungst undergraduates, Science students had the highest IQs, and Medicine and Social Science students the lowest IQs (UK data). Not really surprising or undesireable as thorough and systematic, not brilliant or imaginative, is what you would want in a doctor.
#18
Science students had the highest IQs, and Medicine and Social Science students the lowest IQs (UK data). Not really surprising or undesireable as thorough and systematic, not brilliant or imaginative, is what you would want in a doctor.
I am not sure how old you are, because your age could determine your impression of what IQ med students possess in the UK. It is my understanding that Tony Blair has been implementing social engineering with education with great gusto, so perhaps standards for med school have nose dived under his reign of politically correct terror.
However,psychological studies consistently show that in the USA, physicians and professors and scientists possess the top 2% IQ's in the general population (130+).
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf
#19
These are the choices we as a society face in light of the ever greater march of technology. Personally I think that we must do everything to save a child or preserve its life unless the parents deem otherwise. This is not the states decision. However as a parent, I know that I would not want my child kept alive on machines for who knows how long if she or he had no brain.
Earleir generations did not face this issue either for the young, the old or severely injured, at least not in this extreme. These babies just would have died.
#20
phil_b - ok, I can kind of see your point except for one thing.
What is so bothersome is that in almost every other situation we allow parents to make decisions for their child.....except, apparently, in this one. That's what I have a real problem with.
#21
I have a real problem with this - how long before "termial illness" criteria expands? If I'm paying for my HMO care, do I or my HMO decide what's too expensive?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 23:04 Comments ||
Top||
#22
AF3775, my data would be from the late 60s before the university system was dummed down to accomodate much larger numbers (<5% of the age group got a university education). And it wasn't an impression, it was hard data. IQs were a raging controversy at the time resulting in full blown demonstrations at my university. At the time I was fully aware the Left was cooking the data to fit their theories. Anecdotally and I knew quite a number of med students, they were typically from affluent backgrounds and their parents had spent serious money on tutoring them to get the grades to get in to med school, whereas science (which includes math) students like me, found science (relatively) easy and could get the grades with minimal effort.
DB, parents only choose for their children when they are paying. When teh state pays, the state chooses.
#23
Dr Steve's gotta be doing some major eye rolls and wincing...
I am, oh, I am.
We did debate this when the story ran here last week. I guess I'm just too much of an American, 'cause when I took the Hippocratic Oath I meant every word. Euthanasia is repulsive to me in every way. I don't believe in it, I won't do it, and I consider it murder.
Let me be clear: I have no quarrel with moving away from "curative" therapy and towards "comfort care" in cases where it's really clear that the end is at hand. I'm all for removing uncomfortable and unwarranted therapies in the terminally ill, and ensuring that their last hours/days/weeks are comfortable and have as much meaning as they want. That isn't euthanasia, that's just humane medicine.
If a baby is born anencephalic (no cerebral cortex), that baby isn't going to live more than a day or two. Just isn't going to happen. So make the baby comfortable, ensure that the mother (or at least a nurse or doc) can hold that baby, keep it warm, clean, dry, and hydrated. When it dies, it dies, and everyone can justly cry and lament what happened. But do not, do NOT, approach that baby with a syringe of morphine.
There are indeed hard issues as to payment, personal choice, surrgoate decision making, government control, etc., in many aspects of medicine. This isn't one of those hard issues. It's easy. Euthanasia is murder.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/14/2004 23:38 Comments ||
Top||
#24
If I'm paying for my HMO care, do I or my HMO decide what's too expensive?
Good question, Frank G. You should check your HMO policy.
With PPO's there's a set limit that the insurer is willing to spend on an individual policy holder. In my case, it's $5 million. And everytime I see a physician, on the "Explanation of Benefits" that is mailed to me, I see the running tally of the insurers' payout versus the $5 Million Lifetime benefit. Crass but upfront. I imagine your HMO has a set limit of costs it is responsible for covering, perhaps a bit lower than my PPO but not significantly so, because the higher cost of my insurance premium is due to having a choice in physicians I can see sans gatekeeper.
But with socialized medicine, the taxpayers of that country are forgoing the individual cost of insurance premiums and instead pooling their resources with the greater whole thus entrusting the decisions of "limits" owed to them as individuals re: payouts for medical care to gov't bureaucrats who look out for what's best for the whole not the individual. So what I'm saying is if you keep a supplementary HMO policy in force when you reach geezerhood, whatever cost Medicare does not pick up, your HMO policy does. In socialized medicine countries like Canada, geezers have outlived their usefullness to the system, so it's buns up, because it's best for the greater whole. Some countries like Switzerland allow a dual system of private and public medical systems to be in force. In Canada no such luck. Hildabeast wants the Canadian version of medical care adopted.
Medical care is incredibly expensive and it's not predictable from person to person. That's what people don't realize when they yap about so-called human rights to free medical care. Medical care is not like education when gov't can have a ballpark average of costs to educate each individual from K to grade 12.
France wants Turkey to acknowledge the World War One massacre of Armenians during negotiations on its membership of the European Union, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said Monday. "It is a request that France will make, to recognise the tragedy from the start of the century .... Turkey must carry out this task as a memorial," he told reporters after talks with his EU counterparts in Brussels. [later in the article there is acknowledgement that it is the Armenian community that is pressing France to do this]
Posted by: mhw ||
12/14/2004 8:56:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Turkey is popping up a big middle finger.
Some French nerds trying to make bonus in innerpolitical voters atraction. Nothing to worry about.
Posted by: Murat ||
12/14/2004 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nothing to worry about = Turkey in denial
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nope, Nope,
wouldnt us, the Armenians just suddenly and spontaneously all committed suicide. We had nothin to do with it, we swear by the beard of our beloved prophet.
You cant insult us by forcing us to admit the truth, Its downright unislamic to do that,
Bwahahahahaha..........
#9
seems to me the EU is popping up a big middle finger to Turkey....
Posted by: Dan ||
12/14/2004 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#10
AFAIk, the Armenian genocide was perpetrated by the Young Turks who held power before and during WWI. Ataturk, wasn't a young Turk, in fact he was held an opponent and held in suspicion (according to Lawrence of Arabia). I don't know if he restarted the genocide after his raise to power. Could be since he was a nationalist, or perhaps he didn't because he despised Islamism (someone posted words of him in this forum proving he probably despised not only Islamism but Islam) and Islamism was one of the reasons for the genocide (BTW the spiritual father of Aragfat and Hitler's friend, Hadj Amin Husseini, took part in it).
Ataturk got a honoris causa doctorate of a Greek Univeristy for "his work in ending the enemity between Greeks and Turks". However he needed the Greeks. I don't know what he did for or against the Armenians (who by then were part of Soviet Union).
#11
This demand is France's way of preventing Turkey from entering the EU. It will probably work, since the current government would be turned out of power if they acknowledged the genocide and the EU won't let them in until that happens now that France has officially made this an issue.
Unfortunately, it will also probably contribute to a more radicalized Islamic Turkey over the next decade or so.
Posted by: too true ||
12/14/2004 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Armenian sources say Kemal Ataturk was involved in the later stages of the Armenian genocide.
#13
I have to dissapoint you guys: for inner politics France says Turkey must recognise a never happened genocide, but at the European forum they say there is no such demand or criteria, let say it is French politics.
The only thing France fears from Turkey is its pro-Americanism, with the large population Turkey has she would get lots of seats in the Euro parliament and theorethically together with another pro-American country (Britain) they could veto 75% of all Euro parliament decissions. So to be short France doesn't fear Turkey but the American influence on the European politics.
This I write for those no-brain Americans here, so that you can understand a bit what goes on in Euro circles at the moment ---> France is pro Turkish EU accession provided she would get a special status (namely a reduced power in the Euro parliament), Britain is pro Turkish EU accession with full memberships status.
Posted by: Murat ||
12/14/2004 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Everytime you deny the Armenian genocide, it becomes clearer and clearer that you would have cheerfully been slitting throats if you had the chance.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/14/2004 18:03 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Murat: "a never happened genocide".
There you have it. That's it!
I am hiring a voodoo priest and asking him to summon the souls of Armenians that have been obliterated by Turks so they can haunt Murat in his dreams.
#16
Everytime you deny the Armenian genocide, it becomes clearer and clearer that you would have cheerfully been slitting throats if you had the chance.
not likely. too cowardly. He would have been on the sideline shrieking in ecstacy like a little girl, however
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#17
France is pro Turkish EU accession ... Britain is pro Turkish EU accession
It must be ther Germans keeping them out.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/14/2004 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Still ver. 3.1 is showing signs of rational thought. It is against the rulz to say the Armenian Masacre happened, and maybe this new, slightly improved Murat is making sure his Turko PC tracks are covered.
#21
Murat does have some truth on his side. Turkey has, for instance, had some security arrangements with Israel recently.
That doesn't mean we all hold hands and hum happy songs together and I'm pissed as hell about Incirlik and the refusal for the 4th ID -- especially after we stood up for them in NATO on defense.
Still, they aren't Iran or Syria and that's worth noting .....
Posted by: too true ||
12/14/2004 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Still, they aren't Iran or Syria and that's worth noting .....
true, but Turkey needs to acknowledge their backstab before nat'l relations rehab can proceed. They turned to the EU and got kicked in the teeth. It's always tough to return to a spouse you cheated on after being spurned by your fickle lover, neh?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
Politicus: Chirac rolls out design for U.S.-European ties I'll bet he has a design. And we're in one little corner but paying the bills. Via Lucianne:
In the American mind-set, there's nearly a lifetime to go - think Super Bowl and, maybe, Iraq's elections in the meanwhile - before George W. Bush comes to Europe in late February to make things trans-Atlantically whole and wonderful again. But European markers are coming down already. In London, the talk in Downing Street runs in the direction of Bush "doing something (!) substantive about the Israeli-Palestinian situation" if he wants to make good on the reaching-out-to-Europe notions that the administration uses to describe his trip.
In Berlin, the Germans clearly want better relations, but have made sealing the "fissures" and "breaches" more complicated by clamoring to sell arms to China and insisting last week that they require a permanent UN Security Council seat with veto power, like the big fellas. This, although a UN panel on reforming the Council does not recommend a German veto, and the Bush administration would likely choke on the idea.
The French, theoretically the ally with the furthest to go in improving ties with Bush administration, (Colin Powell describes the White House as specifically hoping to "mend" the relationship) have smartly laid out through a speech by Jacques Chirac a blueprint of where they want to be positioned in terms of the United States. The speech was made last month and has gotten only marginal attention. This is curious in the view of an aide to a European prime minister because he considers that Chirac was trying to explain for the first time how his multipolar view of the view of the world can be compatible with good relations between the United States and Europe.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: anonymous2U ||
12/14/2004 2:27:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"A traveler from Europe was recently asked in Washington how the Bush administration might best make a gesture toward Europe for delivery before March."
I know exactly the gesture I'd use.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/14/2004 6:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Talk to the hand."
Posted by: Steve ||
12/14/2004 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
EU = one seat on security council
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In London, the talk in Downing Street runs in the direction of Bush "doing something (!) substantive about the Israeli-Palestinian situation" if he wants to make good on the reaching-out-to-Europe notions that the administration uses to describe his trip
As usual, the Brits try to impress their Euro-colleagues and the Whining arabs by trying to have the US impose impossible things on Israel.
The self serving bastard Blair is trying to make a scapegoat out of the only true democracy in the ME.
It's high time the British internalize the fact that their age-old method of divide and conquer and the old colonial style of meddling in the internal afairs of other countries, will not work here.
Dubia is too smart to swallow the "European Hook"
While he owes a lot to Blair for unfailingly standing by his side in the WOT, Dubia realizes that kow-towing to the Arabs will earn him nothing but disdain and back-stabbing from the Arabs(like he got from the islamoid government of Turkey at a time of dire need).
Neverthless, I expect some token speeches and small gestures (mainly verbal) about US-EU unity and friendship... Blah, Blah, Blah, just enough to keep the appearance of harmony.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/14/2004 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
In London, the talk in Downing Street runs in the direction of Bush "doing something (!) substantive about the Israeli-Palestinian situation" if he wants to make good on the reaching-out-to-Europe notions that the administration uses to describe his trip.
I imagine that cluster-bombing terrorist camps in the PA would not go over well with the Europeans.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/14/2004 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Perhaps Mr. Chirac would do better if he consulted with his European and U.S. allies before "rolling out" anything -- especially a design for European-U.S. ties. Right now he has all the credibility of a marriage counselor going through a bitter divorce.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/14/2004 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Robert,
As a second thought, may I suggest American financing of the "Arafat Mausoleum" that will be built on the ruins of the "Tour D'Eiffel" in Paris.
The Mausoleum will also include a "University of international terror" , the "Institute for comparative Dhimmitude studies", and "L'Ecolle De Assassin".
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/14/2004 9:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Wake me when there's talk in France and Germany on what they can do to make up to the US.
#10
Well, maybe we can start with pulling the troops out of Germany.....
I'm sure France will be willing to defend them with their "multipolar" view of the world.
#14
This is a common meme (our having to ask for forgiveness) among the talking head lefties. No, France owes us for our not meddling at UN re its ICoast adventure. France owes us for our not kicking it in the nuts for its meddling in Iraq when it said there should be a peace conference with all legit Iraqi groups represented. Of course, at the top of the legit group is Sadr and the beheaders. France owes us for its role in UNSCAM. MSM has to protect it, of course. On top of that, remember French officialdom/intellectuals/media all (well, how about 90%?) fervently believe the US needs to be cut down to size and punished over successes in Afghanistan and Iraq since we didn't ask nicely first. Get it folks? Been that way since De Gaulle withdrew France from Nato (a huge pain) which also meant a move to Brussels for new Nato HQ (a manageable pain)
W, where the relationship works, fine. Where it doesn't, tell 'em to go eat escargot.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
12/14/2004 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Bush should be visiting the more important European countries: Italy, Poland, Hungary, (depending on what happens in the elections - Ukraine), and the UK. Don't waste time on hostile states like France, Germany, and Spain.
#18
Frank G, the only way that the EU should have a seat on the security council is if they admit Russia. Then we could sit back and watch France, the UK, Russia and the wannabe Germany argue about who, how, why, and what to do.
#20
Lex, that doesn't work geographically. How 'bout if Bush goes there last, but stays the longest, perhaps at the Polish version of The Ranch? And he probably shouldn't eat with Chiraq -- you can never tell what might end up in the soup.
A strange illness has descended on Japanese living in Paris, tipping many of them in a state of profound culture shock after realising their ideals about the French capital were unrealistic, a study published in Monday's Liberation newspaper said. More than a 100 expatriates a year are sinking into a state called "the Paris syndrome" which is characterised by feelings of persecution or suicidal tendencies, according to the mental health facilities of city hospitals.
Part of their clinical depression stems from having to reconcile their romanticism about Paris with reality, psychiatrists said. "Magazines are fuelling fantasies with the Japanese, who think there are models everywhere and the women dress entirely in (Louis) Vuitton," Mario Renoux, the head of a French Japanese Society for Medecine was quoted as saying. After a relatively short period of only three months or so, Japanese immigrants expecting to find a haven of civilisation and elegance instead discover a tougher existence with many problems dealing with the French. "They make fun of my French and my expressions", "they don't like me" and "I feel ridiculous in front of them" are common refrains heard by the doctors.
The need to forcibly express one's self to be noticed - seen as vulgar in Japanese society - and exposure to a humour sometimes seen as offensive adds to the unhappiness. "The phenomenon manifests itself in those who are unable to adapt to France because of the shock resulting from the confrontation between the two cultures," Dr Ota, a Japanese psychologist treating some of the patients at Sainte-Anne Hospital, said. He and other experts underlined Japan's ideal of collectivism, or putting the group first, as a barrier for some of the immigrants who suddenly find themselves in a Western society based more on individualism.
#1
I have an alternate explanation for this phenomenom:
In the 19th century, when even Americans typically bathed just a few times a year, an American diplomat reported in wonderment that even the lowliest Japanese coolie spent an hour a day soaking in hot water.
This long-established custom carries over to the present, so one can imagine the Japanese reaction to French standards of cleanliness, such as they are.
#2
Ain't that what purfume is for?
No modern metropolitian France is farm more less cultured than even the US from what I can see.
A person from North America could feel more at home than any most Japanese would. Plus teh Frence are more Xenophobic than Japanese are.
Could you avoid that kind of racist jokes? In 1944 French houses were quite old, meaning very few of them had baths or showers and people had to go to city showers (plus a shortage of soap due to German occupation).
But this was sixty years ago. Today, people I know take a shower or batrh every day, two when it is hot. Of course we have higienycally challenged people a la Micahel Moore but so you have.
#10
More a problem of Paris than of the French generally. Parisians are notoriously competitive, aggressive and self-aggrandizing.
In their basic interactions, the Parisians are extremely combative. It's hugely important to them to demonstrate one's superiority to someone, anyone, around you. Usually this is done through vigorous intellectual argumentation; often it's done by pulling rank; ccasionally it's done through simple class snobbery.
Whatever the motivation, it's self-aggrandizing in a way that must completely mystify and depress the Japanese. Ironically, proving one's superiority is equated in Paris with saving face.
#11
Ah, it's mine's bigger 'n yours. I get it. My experience was merely the incredible disdain they held for me when I attempted to speak French. Not recommended unless you are raised with it and can pull off the appropriate accent for your current locale.
#13
Lex is right on this one. Most other French can't stand Parisians because they make New Yorkers seem polite. I've found that if you call bullsh*t on them, basically give them some grief for being typical Parisians, then they lighten up and are more civil. Still, it must be a shock for the Japanese.
And the Parisian women and the restaurants are surprisingly lame. The former tend to be scrawny and pallid; the latter are vastly overrated and overpriced.
Paris has fewer beautiful women per capita than any major international city. NYC and even London leave Paris behind in this respect. And of course Moscow's in a class by itself
#17
dubois... 'racism' has little to do with race today, in modern language it seems to have more to do with ethnic/culture groups.. sides calling someone an âethnistâ sounds stupid ;p
U.S. Senate Democrats Monday signaled they would continue to try and unofficially oversee the Bush administration. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced several oversight hearings on a range of subjects next hear. The minority party in Congress argued the Republican leadership has skirted its responsibility for administration oversight as defined in the Constitution. But the hearings -- eight this year on subjects ranging from the deficit to U.S. contracting in Iraq -- have had little impact beyond political show because they are highly partisan affairs with no subpoena power. Inadvertently, I think the democrats may have stumbled on to something, here. There should be permanent "committees of the opposition" holding frequent hearings to complain about what the majority do. Since the Congress and the President are separate, there should be one opposition committee for each. This continual barrage of *why* what is being done is "wrong" would force both the President and the majority party in Congress to detail why their decisions are "right". An annoying and noisy critic is often a good thing to help you improve yourself.
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
12/14/2004 10:24:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a hold over from the Daschele buiness plan and it served him very well! This is just what the public was looking for when they turned the Senate over to Republican control. If I were a Red State Senator with a 'D' after my name I would be leary about attacking the current administration. I bet this is nothing other than Dems creating a 'I want to run for President' club and placing a label on it.
#3
IIUC - the minority has no power to set up real oversight committees. They can have kangaroo courts with no power of subpoena or real authority, if it makes them feel good.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/14/2004 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's kinda like night basketball for PEST sufferers, it keeps 'em off the streets.
#6
This continual barrage of *why* what is being done is "wrong" would force both the President and the majority party in Congress to detail why their decisions are "right". An annoying and noisy critic is often a good thing to help you improve yourself.
Only if there's an impartial channel for the responses to get out. The modern press is much, much more likely to cover the "opposition" in agonizing detail with unquestioning fawning and ignore the response -- at least when there's a Republican in the White House. Once there's a Democrat in office, they'll ignore/twist any opposition to him.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/14/2004 11:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Frank G: Granted, they can't cross-examine, but they can examine. They can bring an endless stream of "experts" of all kinds to slam what the President and Congress are doing. Now, here's the important point: the US Constitution is *not* designed to promulgate laws, it is designed to prevent laws from being passed. When the system is short-circuited to avoid this process, we get bad laws. So any additional stumbling blocks that can be erected to new laws being considered will most likely be a good thing. It would also help cut down on abuse of office, generating tons of fodder for angry bloggers to reveal to the public. Imagine if there had been a CSPAN-3, filled with intense and pointed republican attack, back in the Clinton administration? It would have been something like a 24/7 Rush Limbaugh show. Who knows what it might have prevented?
#8
Anonymoose - good points... but why do I have this nagging feeling that the Dhimmidonks aren't just anti-war or seeking to constrain unbridled rampant Pub Gov't abuse -- but, instead, are on the other side? And I mean The Other Side? Capisce? It might have a little to do with the way they were such total socialist moonbat looneytoon toolfool wanking whores during the last election season...
#1
What's striking is how even the sceptics buy into the myths about 'global warming'. One is rising CO2 levels cause warming. I've looked at the evidence. Its pretty conclusive, changing CO2 levels are a result of climate changes. In fact I am gravitating toward the heretical notion that CO2 levels are part of a feedback mechanism that regulates climate, i.e. rising CO2 levels cause climate cooling.
Papua New Guinea is heading towards economic and social collapse and could be overrun by criminals, a new Australian report warns. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute called for the global community to radically increase the amount of aid given to the country.
Send money! Send more money! And...can we have a raise in our allowance? Or we'll start breaking stuff...
It said Australia should take over some aspects of government. The Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, is heading to Papua New Guinea for bilateral meetings. The report warns that if Papua New Guinea's weaknesses are allowed to continue, the country could fall "off a cliff into full-scale state failure". The central government's authority would collapse and criminals would dominate the economy, it says. This gloomy assessment says serious decline is already well under way.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/14/2004 2:41:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I just went and looked at a map of the region. Seems like we have a island divided into New Guinea, belonging to our "friends" the Indonesians, and Papua New Guinea, soon to be hell-hole. There a good reason for this? I must have missed this in class.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/14/2004 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
ima think we need send sailor man john fromm back with goodies
#3
I don't know if it's a good reason, but it has to do with which European colonial power (Dutch and Brits) grabbed which part of the island.
For some reason, colonial borders are sacrosanct once the colonists leave. After the Europeans tore Africa apart, then fled, no one even considered trying to set up states on ethnic communities rather than which army had conqured the area.
A Montgomery County judge has ruled that Maryland's anti-spam law - one of the first attempts to control junk e-mail advertising - is unconstitutional because it seeks to regulate commerce outside the state's borders. The ruling by Circuit Judge Duke G. Thompson effectively overturns Maryland's 2002 Commercial Electronic Mail Act, which was the first state law passed to penalize people who sent spam. Thompson tossed out the case brought against a New York e-mail marketer by Eric Menhart, a George Washington University Law School student. "If this decision is upheld, it will serve as a road map for future defendants ... to argue that they cannot be held liable," David H. Kramer, a California attorney who specializes in Internet law, told The (Baltimore) Sun.
Congress and several state legislatures have passed laws to corral spam, the popular term for junk e-mail advertising. Critics complain that it chokes computer inboxes with solicitations for everything from male impotence drugs to weight counseling. Businesses lose millions of dollars trying to filter it, and individuals waste time managing it.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/14/2004 10:59:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I was getting nowhere trying to google this guy... and whaddya know? His name was misspelled... he's Durke G. Thompson - and he has a history of interesting decisions. Here's a couple of articles about him... -1--2-...
#2
Wait a minute. The judge may have made some really awful decisions before (if the people who wrote what .com linked to are right), but that doesn't necessarily mean he's always wrong.
The Interstate Commerce clause, while wildly misapplied to federal laws since 1940, has been often used to knock down state laws. It depends on the exact wording of the Maryland law. If it punished someone sending an eMail from New York to Virginia, CC'ed to Maryland, it's a slam-dunk that the NY-VA eMail is not touchable by MD law. Now, whether the NY-MD eMail is allowable is another matter, I am not a constitutional law scholar.
No. I think this might well be appealed up the chain all the way.
The Democratic Republic of Congo government says its troops in the east are battling Rwandan soldiers and not Congolese rebels, as had been reported. There have been many recent reports that Rwandan troops had crossed the border but last week, the UN said there was no conclusive evidence.
Well, if you'd just leave the bar and look....
Rwanda has denied that its soldiers are in DR Congo. The latest fighting has raised fears that the deal to end the five-year war in DR Congo could unravel.
Was it raveled to begin with?
The United Nations peacekeeping mission in DR Congo is leaving for the town of Kanyabayonga, 160 km north of the North Kivu provincial capital, Goma, to investigate the fighting, a spokeswoman said.
"Oh, if we must. Be a good chap and pack the tea set."
"The Rwandans have sent soldiers to reinforce the positions they never really left in North Kivu," DR Congo Information Minister Henri Mova Sakanyi said. The Congolese army claims to have captured four rebels, two of whom it says are Rwandans. Last week, confidential United Nations documents said that Rwanda still maintained "military control" in parts of eastern DR Congo through the rebel groups it backed during the war, although this was denied by Rwanda.
Sussssh, don't tell anyone, it's confidential
"There are no Rwandan forces in the Congo. If there are any clashes there it is a Congolese affair. They should sort it out themselves," Richard Sezibera, Rwanda's presidential envoy for the Great Lakes region, told Reuters news agency. Under a power-sharing agreement set up to end the fighting, North Kivu was awarded to the former RCD rebels.
Yeah, Land For Peace, works every time.
It had been reported that the fighting in North Kivu was between regular Congolese army troops, sent to the area to stop the reported Rwandan incursion, and RCD fighters, who were supposed to have been integrated into national army. The United Nations has more than 10,000 peacekeepers in DR Congo but they are accused of not doing enough to prevent renewed conflict.
Really?
Posted by: Steve ||
12/14/2004 8:49:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the problem is that DR Congo (doctor Congo?) was never really raveled, as you say. Rwanda is going in, to stop radical Hutu guerrillas from using Congo as a base - these guerillas are the same nice folks who committed one of the worst genocides since 1945 a few years back. Rwandas justified if you ask me, as are the RDC they back (though theyve used some unnecessary roughness themselves) Its probably GOOD that the UN troops are looking the other way - lets the Rwandans do what they have to do. What the UN and the world REALLY need to do is to rebuild Congo, so that Congo can stop its territory being used this way. OTOH Congo may be too big, too diverse, to really be rebuilt as a nation. Might be better off splitting it, into 3 or 4 more manageable states.
Think of Rwanda, as Israel but more primitive, sitting next to a Lebanon that about 50 times as big, but even MORE backward.
Posted by: Don ||
12/14/2004 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
slavery remains Mauritania's best kept open secret.
Thanks to the silence of the MSM and Amnsasty, Jessie Jackson and the women's groups, the world will continue to focus on the "horrors" of Gitmo and ignore women like this. Shameful.
Showing my ignorance, hope I got this in the correct part:
Posting because of the new players on the scene:
HE IS Africa's last absolute monarch - a man whose pursuit of lavish tastes as his people face food shortages and AIDS has made him no stranger to controversy. Now Swaziland's King Mswati III is at the centre of a new row after spending more than £250,000 on a luxury car.
I've got a soft spot for King Mswati III, because he forbade the ladies of Swaziland to wear pants. But that's just my personal perversion preference...
King Mswati - one of some 300 children of the late King Sobhuza, who had 125 wives - paid more than 150 million emalangeni (£260,000) last week for the DaimlerChrysler Maybach 62, one of only four such vehicles sold in southern Africa. Its extras include a television, DVD player, 21-speaker surround sound system, refrigerator, cordless telephone, heated steering wheel, interior pollen and dust filter, golf club set and sterling silver champagne flutes. The other three vehicles were sold to three of South Africa's new breed of black business oligarchs, Cyril Ramaphosa, Tokyo Sexwale and Patrice Mosepe. --SNIP--
Tokyo Sexwale? Somebody named his child TOKYO SEXWALE? Good Gawd! Is there no limit to the cruelty of some people? People should be required to have a license to have children, and one of the requirements should be an agreement not to name their children "Tokyo Sexwale" or any variant thereof.
Posted by: anonymous2U ||
12/14/2004 2:10:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Bulldog & Peter, (and JFM) - Pool your money, guys and come to Florida! And then we can Welcome You Home!
Gotta make a stop in DC too...
Thousands of Britons are cashing in on the weakness of the dollar by snapping up a host of cheap goods in the United States. Property agents in Florida say that the dollar's price is now so low that houses are devaluing by the day and the market cannot meet the increased demand from Britain. Analysts say that American diamonds, cars, clothes, electrical goods and DVD's are all excellent value for Britons this Christmas and consumers are making the most of the favourable exchange rate. With the dollar expected to hit two for the pound in the New Year, many people in Britain have decided to sell up in traditional holiday hotspots like Spain and France and buy in the US.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: anonymous2U ||
12/14/2004 2:04:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lock up your daughters the Englishmen cometh.. How much for the little girl? How much for the women? I want to buy your women. The little girl, your daughters... sell them to me. Sell me your children.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
12/14/2004 4:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Before leaving check the murder rate in Miami. However, remember, you're in America. Guns are cheap and you can personally remove anyone in your home or hotel room who has no business being there. Self defense is never denied [Does not apply in the State of New York].
Posted by: Don ||
12/14/2004 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Lol, Howard. (saw Blues Brothers just last weekend; love that scene;-)
#10
wouldn't traveling to Scotland or Wales have been more convenient?
We encourage a certain type of malcontent to relocate to the far side of the channel - the body hair slows them down in the water if they try to return.
Posted by: Joe B ||
12/14/2004 17:41 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.
