#5
Dang. I always liked 'Lenny'; he seemed to be the most real cop on a cop show out there (way better than NYPD Blue, IMHO). Given that L&O would not let him develop the character except for a little here, a little there, Orbach was able to fill in all the blanks and show us what a cop could look like.
RIP, Jerry, and thanks for the acting.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/29/2004 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#6
About 8 years ago, my son - then about 10 - had a bit part in a L&O episode. His character was promised a "junior deputy" certificate by "Lenny" - and darned if Orbach didn't have one made up for him! Found out later that a good friend of ours had, many years earlier, toured with him with a Broadway play (the Fantastics?) when she was just starting out. Never heard a bad word about him. RIP
Just minutes after the earthquake in the Indian Ocean on Sunday morning, Thailand's foremost meteorological experts were sitting together in a crisis meeting. But they decided not to warn about the tsunami "out of courtesy to the tourist industry", writes the Thailand daily newspaper The Nation.
The experts got the news around 8:00 am on Sunday morning local time.
An hour later, the first massive wave struck. But the experts started to discuss the economic impacts when they were discussing if a tsunami warning should be made. The main argument against such a warning was that there have not been any floods in 300 years. Also, the experts believed the Indonesian island Sumatra would be a "cushion" for the southern coast of Thailand. The experts also had bad information; they thought the tremor was 8.1. A similar earthquake occurred in the same area in 2002 with no flooding at all.
...We finally decided not to do anything because the tourist season was in full swing. The hotels were 100% booked full. What if we issued a warning, which would have led to an evacuation, and nothing had happened. What would be the outcome? The tourist industry would be immediately hurt. Our department would not be able to endure a lawsuit...
Posted by: tipper ||
12/29/2004 9:06:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Our department would not be able to endure a lawsuit...
Ah, so it wasnât corruption after all, but something more insidious, lawyers and lawsuits! Of course, it probably doesnât matter that the waiver of sovereign immunity for a Thai agency only extends to the agency as a party to a commercial contract. Damn the lawyers, deflect the blame . . .
Could it just be a case of terminal stupidity? Nah! //sarcasm off//
#7
The Tsunami Center guys in Hawaii have to make this same call every few weeks - and for the vast majority of occurrences make the same precise calculations these guys made and the same call.
The old NFL offensive lineman's lament popped into my head: "The only time you hear my name or number is when I screw up."
COLOMBO - Nearly 22,000 people have been confirmed killed in Sri Lanka by the worst tsunami in memory, and the toll was still rising, the government said on Wednesday. "We now have 21,715 people confirmed dead," D.N. Wanigasooriya, a social services officer attached to the state-run National Disaster Management Centre, told Reuters.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/29/2004 12:22:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The Guardian has a breakdown of the numbers on a country-by-country basis.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/29/2004 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Excuse my language please. Shit.
In the morning I shall go through our drawers and closets for clothes to send to one of the groups collecting such things. Other than clean water that seems to be the greatest need at the moment. Some time ago I read that Procter & Gamble (manufacturer of Pur filters) had developed some sort of low tech water filter system that they were selling to 3rd world countries at cost. If so, no doubt they are on top of the clean water need, which I can't help with anyhow.
#2
I still wish The Guardian would publish on a country by country basis, the contributions of the Muslim people. Not one red penny from me until I see their Muslim brothers digging deep in their pockets and purses for relief! I'll send mine to Florida!
The USAAID is urging people NOT send commodities, but rather send cash to a trustworthy chartiable organization of your choice. Also, if a charity is charging more that 25% for overhead, then stay away from them. The word is, the affected Muslims, though suffering, will NOT eat foreign food e.g. canned corn, beans, etc.
#4
My donations go to American and Israeli interests only. When the Muslim people starts caring about their OWN brothers, then they will get some concern out of me.
#7
well damn....how about them bowl games, then? Anybody gonna watch them?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Besides, who wants to skim 10% of previously owned apparel?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Before we scotch donations based on religion, we should consider the predominate religions of the countries hit by this disaster. Plus the fact that many of the dead were vacationing from Europe, Australia, North America, etc. Having said that, the amount and destination of donations from the rich Muslim countries would be interesting to know.
Religions as percentage of total population.
Source, CIA Factbook.
India: Total Pop. 1,065,070,607; Hindu 81.3%, Muslim 12%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other groups including Buddhist, Jain, Parsi 2.5%
Sri Lanka: Total Pop. 19,905,165;Buddhist 70%, Hindu 15%, Christian 8%, Muslim 7%
Thailand: Total Pop. 64,865,523; Buddhism 95%, Muslim 3.8%, Christianity 0.5%, Hinduism 0.1%, other 0.6%
Indonesia: Total Pop. 238,452,952; Muslim 88%, Protestant 5%, Roman Catholic 3%, Hindu 2%, Buddhist 1%, other
Maldives: Total Pop. 339,330; Sunni Muslim 100%
#11
Kuwait sent aid. But then, as we've learned, they don't count as muslims. Since we've been told that muslims hate our intervention in Iraq, despite Kuwaits staunch support.
I will probably give via the American Jewish World Service, to insure that the Jewish people also get credit for helping.
EIGHT Australians have been confirmed killed, another eight are missing feared dead and 5000 are out of contact after the Asian tsunami disaster, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today. Given the large number of Australians who had not been accounted for since Sunday's Asian tsunami disaster, people should brace themselves for the official death toll to rise significantly, Mr Downer said. "We are very concerned that those numbers could grow and grow quite substantially," he told reporters.
The official toll includes seven Australian citizens and a Dutch national with permanent residency. Parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs Bruce Billson said officials were trying to locate Australians in difficult conditions after an unparalleled disaster. "We have been able to locate and confirm as safe 2,400 Australians in the areas affected - that's an encouraging trend that's increasing as each day goes by," he said. Of the eight Australians missing feared dead, seven had been in Thai coastal resorts and one was in India, Mr Billson said. 5,000 of my fellow Aussie brothers & sisters are missing, its a grim day.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/29/2004 10:34:22 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Grim, indeed. I imagine the family of that poor mentally retarded boy are now ashamed of their outburst. But I am glad that 2400 of your compatriots have been found safe. Hopefully, many more will end up on the safe side of the ledger.
#2
Permit me to suggest sending condolences to the Australian embassy here in America. I've written them the following:
public.affairs@austemb.org
Re: Condolences
To the Embassy Staff and All Australian People,
Please accept my sincere condolences for your loss of so many Australian nationals during the Sumatra earthquake. In recent years many of us in America have felt an increasing bond with your great nation during such disturbing times. Australia's unwavering, clear cut support in helping to assure our world's stability and security only makes this tragedy just that much more grievous for all Americans.
If there are any Australian citizens stranded in the United States who need help, comfort or temporary housing, please do not hesitate to ask for my personal assistance. I am located in ................. and will contribute in any way that I can. This disaster is one that reaches far beyond its boundaries and demands that all people of conscience rise to the occasion. Again, you have my deepest sympathies in this time of loss.
#3
And Zenstertroll, why not also add something more along the lines of your postings from yesterday and the day before and the day before, like:
"And if I were leader of the free world, believe me my Aussie brothers, not one cent would be going to anyone, anywhere, until these rattyass countries make me a big promise to stop being corrupt and to root out Islamoterrorism from the tops of their countries to the bottoms--UNTIL THEN . . . no reconstruction aid. (Never mind the pesky little fact that there are plenty of terror cells, and corruption to boot, in the US and UK--that stuff just don't count cuz we're the civilized peoples of the world). Cheers, mates!
"--from someone named "Zenster" (yeah, right) --the guy who really 'cares' in the US of A. "
That would be more consistent with your viewpoints, no?
You make me sick, Zenster, but you don't fool me. I know what you're about.
(Zenster's "letter" to the Australians is a great example of what he tries to do here--suck up, suck in. For those new to Rantburg, I suggest the archives for more revelation--Zenster isn't what he pretends to be.)
#4
I have to admit - the letter is just about perfect - so it was, from the "write to the Aussies POV" a thread-killer.
However - ex-lib has nailed the inconsistency / duplicity factor square betwixt the eyes. If there were a comment / commenter ID search, much of the faux-debate here would be reduced to zip - leaving bandwidth for real discussion. Those who never concede a point, no matter what, are trolls. "I'm sorry, you're right." or "Cool idea - bravo! - I'll steal it!" need to be introduced into the lexicon / vocabulary of several of our posters. Give credit where due and cut the grandstanding / pontificating, eh? And, since I'm pontificating, I'm sorry. Excellent post, ex-lib - bravo! - I'll steal it! ;-)
A TIPSY Italian visitor to the relatively liberal Gulf emirate of Dubai has been fined the equivalent of over $4200 for hugging and kissing a woman in public, a newspaper reported today. A court in the Muslim emirate heard a policeman say he saw the couple hugging and kissing in a taxi near the international airport, Gulf News said. He took the unidentified man and his Egyptian acquaintance to a police station for questioning. The two "confessed to hugging and kissing inside the taxi," and the Italian also admitted to being drunk. He was fined 12,000 dirhams ($4202) after being "charged with drinking alcohol and lewd behaviour in public" and his companion had to pay $US545 ($700) for "lewd behaviour in public," the newspaper said. Dubai, a member of the United Arab Emirates federation, currently boasts five million visitors a year - many of them Westerners - for its population of 1.2 million. It is targeting 10 million by 2007 and 40 million by 2015. The affluent emirate is in the midst of a drive to establish itself as the Gulf's business and leisure hub.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/29/2004 8:50:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lol - It's pretty tough being a business and leisure hub if you don't allow drinking alcohol and lewd behaviour.
Dubai motto: We're like Vegas, but without the fun!
MOSCOW - Russia plans to stop giving American astronauts free rides on its spacecraft to the international space station beginning in 2006, the head of Russia's space agency said. Anatoly Perminov said the no-cost agreement between NASA and Russia's space agency Roskosmos could be replaced by a barter arrangement, according to the Interfax news agency on Tuesday. "There's no such thing as a free launch!"
Russian Soyuz crew capsules and Progress cargo ships have been the sole link to the international space station since U.S. shuttles were grounded after the shuttle Columbia burned up on re-entry in February 2003. NASA said it plans to resume its shuttle program in May. The Russian agency has been looking to expand commercial ventures in recent years, amid dwindling government budgets for anything at all space-related research. The agency is expected soon to sign a contract with the European Space Agency to send an Italian astronaut to the space station in April, along with a Russian cosmonaut and NASA astronaut.
Roskosmos is also trying to renew its lucrative space tourism program. Perminov said two people were being considered to fly on a Russian spacecraft to the international space station, possibly in 2006. He did not identify them, but said neither was poor Russian, according to Interfax. American Dennis Tito in 2001 and South African Mark Shuttleworth in 2002 paid US$20 million each for tourist trips to the station aboard Soyuz spacecraft. And effectively endangered all aboard, but who cares?
Russia is also hoping to start commercial space launches from France's Kourou launch pad in French Guiana. Russia and the ESA reached agreement on a deal earlier this year and the launches could begin sometime in 2007. [arched eyebrow] "Fascinating." [/ae]
Posted by: Zenster ||
12/29/2004 8:24:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Still pissed about Ukraine. And besides, the EU has been courting Putty.
#3
My suggestion would be to tell Putin that he can always crawl to the Chinese to help them get to their own space station in the future! I wonder how the Chicoms would react?
#4
"Mr. Krasnoschenko? Yes, now that the shuttle is in operation again, the fare will be $125,000.00 per mile traveled, or three minutes, whichever comes first."
China's former President Jiang Zemin will step down from his last remaining government post in March, the official Xinhua News Agency reported Wednesday. Jiang, who holds the largely symbolic title of chairman of the Central Military Commission of the People's Republic of China, has asked for permission to resign at the next meeting of the nation's legislature, the agency said. The move was expected, and the legislature will almost definitely endorse it. Jiang, 78, already stepped down from his more powerful position as the head of the Communist Party's Central Military Commission in September. President Hu Jintao took over the post.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/29/2004 6:16:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
Australian FOREIGN Minister Alexander Downer pledged yesterday to develop a tsunami warning system for the Indian Ocean region in co-operation with other countries, in a bid to prevent a repeat of Sunday's disaster. "I know it looks a bit like closing the door after the horse has bolted but there will be tsunamis again in the future, hopefully never again on this scale," Mr Downer said. "We wouldn't want to see the opportunity lost of saving lives in the future coming out of just there being a lack of any kind of warning system."
The UN and Japan also pledged to act swiftly to boost early warning capabilities in the region. Mr Downer's comments followed the revelation Australian scientists had warned in September that our coastline was vulnerable to a tsunami because of the lack of an early warning system for natural disasters covering the Indian Ocean. Geoscience Australia's earthquake hazard expert, Phil Cummins, argued in a paper published in September that "a warning capability should be established, using tide gauges on Cocos Island and Christmas Island, to provide several hours' warning of a tsunami generated off Sumatra". UN emergency relief co-ordinator Jan Egeland said such a system was "imperative" and would be discussed at the world conference on disaster reduction in Japan next month.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/29/2004 11:09:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...there will be tsunamis again in the future, hopefully never again on this scale," Mr Downer said."
What makes people say things like this? It's idiotic, to say the least. There will be quite literally millions more similar earthquakes in the future, many much stronger than this one. The next one may come next year or in two hundred years. The possibility of it coming next year is the reason why a relative pittance would be well spent implementing an early warning system...
There are accounts of the biblical scenes of destruction from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands here.
Beating drums and chanting "resign," supporters of apparent presidential winner Viktor Yushchenko blocked his election opponent from presiding at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday as tensions persisted in this former Soviet republic. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych showed no signs of cracking, refusing to surrender his post and telling journalists he would challenge the results of Sunday's runoff vote before the Supreme Court. Parliament passed a no-confidence vote for Yanukovych on Dec. 1, but the law gives him 60 days to submit his resignation, and he has called parliament's move illegal. "It is a matter of my principles not to submit a resignation," Yanukovych said. "I know why they insist on that ... they are shivering with fear." Yanukovych was declared the winner of a Nov. 21 presidential vote, but hundreds of thousands wearing Yushchenko's orange campaign color massed in Kiev for day after day to protest election fraud. The Supreme Court eventually annulled the ballot, forcing Sunday's rerun, which preliminary results showed Yushchenko winning easily.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/29/2004 6:13:12 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
A tough new stance by Canada's health minister on Internet drug sales has increased the odds that Americans will soon be stopped from buying Canada's lower-cost medicines, say pharmacists on both sides of the importation fight.
In recent weeks, Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh has spoken out against the cross-border drug trade, saying he might prevent Canadian doctors from co-signing prescriptions for American patients they have not examined. Dosanjh considers the practice unethical without an exam.
Canadian law requires that prescriptions bear the signatures of Canadian doctors, so such a move could cut off many of the estimated 2 million Americans who buy drugs from Canada, often over the Internet. "We're hanging by a thread," says Dave MacKay of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association, which represents pharmacies that do business in the USA. "There's a very real chance that by the middle of January, drugs will not flow from Canada anymore."
Tension over the debate has been growing in Canada and the USA. Some Canadian pharmacists oppose the Internet sales, and others have built a lucrative business because of it. Lothar Dueck of the Coalition for Manitoba Pharmacy, an opponent of drug sales to the USA, says the growing trade has led to increased drug prices in Canada. He also says the matter is part of ongoing trade disputes between the two countries. "The U.S. doesn't want our wheat, wood, beef or pigs. Why do they want our drugs?" Dueck asks.
The issue may arise when the Canadian Cabinet meets again on Jan. 11. Ken Polk, director of communications for the health minister, says some of the changes being considered may not need Parliament's approval. Polk said Prime Minister Paul Martin told reporters this month that the health minister "is articulating the position of the government of Canada." Dosanjh's ideas have not received much coverage in the USA, but he has been widely quoted in Canadian media. Dosanjh fears that U.S. demand might cause shortages for Canadians.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/29/2004 9:33:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hopefully thinking...
Does that imply an end to the Viagra and Darvacet spam?
#2
Fine with me. Pass a law prohibiting bulk sale discounts on exports to Canadians. They can help pay for the development and testing, just like we do.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I have mixed feelings about this issue. We've opened the markets to just about every other industry under the sun, so what makes pharmaceuticals so sacrosanct that it should be protected? Also, in America it used to be that we encouraged resourcefulness and ingenuity? I'm too lazy to think ahead to buy a 3 months supply of anything at Costco much less meds over the internet, but I give credit to those who do.
The chances of getting "tainted" drugs from Canada is zero. Give me a break. We have a greater risk of getting very sick from food poisoning in one of our own US restaurants.
Then there's the tired old argument about " well, then we'd never get new drugs if we didn't reward pharmaceuticals with a decent profit margin." Wrong. The biggest chunk of pharmaceuticals' budgets are devoted to advertising - I read recently that it's in the 40% levels. Also, there have not been that many new drugs developed by our cherished pharmaceutical industry - it's mainly clones of existing popular drugs. So we've got 15 different kinds of arthritis drugs developed in the past 5 years, 50 different kinds of anti-anxiety drugs , etc. Maybe many moon ago it was true that pharmaceuticals needed to add a hefty margin to drug prices to pay for R & D so that penicillin and insulin and all those ground breaking drugs could be "discovered" but not now. The American consumer is being used as a putz and drug prices should come down. At least that's what I've concluded.
#4
The chances of getting "tainted" drugs from Canada is zero.
The chances are high, because with these mail-order and special delivery services, the odds that the "Canadian" drugs actually came from Canada are near zero. It might be a Canadian company, or a company with a front in Canada, creative bookkeeping in the Seychilles, a warehouse in the Bahamas, and deliveries from twenty different countries via the friendly Tupulov courier service of Ukrainian Air.
No thanks. As a doc, when I prescribe a medication, I need to know for sure that you are getting that medication, in the dose and quality I expect.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/29/2004 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Well Steve, I'll bet most Americans would take the chance on getting less than pure meds from the Canadian pharmacies rather than pay the outrageous prices that they have here. I'm an RN and if I didn't have insurance, I'd never think twice about getting them from the "backwards, 3rd world country" like Canada.
Posted by: Bill ||
12/29/2004 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I don't want to get involved in this argument. I'd like to see free health insurance for all with double adequate payments to doctors, nurses and transport. Along with that co-payments need to be kept under 48 cents per day per single room and HDTV should be standard. I also want free pills for granny and a break on my car insurance.
#7
Dr. White, has there bee a documented case of such bogus sourcing by a Canadian firm? Why would such a firm be more likely to be located in Canada? Is Bayer Aspirin better than Wal-mart?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 17:34 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Our adult daughter does not have health insurance and must take expensive meds for the rest of her life, so this is a topic near and dear ...
That said, there are a lot of issues mixed here. Most of the cheap Canadian drugs are cheap because the Canadian govt demanded low prices in exchange for honoring the patents on the drugs. In other words, it's a strongarm game against (mostly US) companies. We pay higher prices as a result.
That said, where and how a drug is stored DOES often affect its potency and efficacy, even if it isn't a ripoff copy but is made by the original mfgr. I'm not willing to trust my daughter's health to something like that, since her meds are definitely dosage-critical.
This isn't about aspirin. It's about two things: Canadian free-riding on US intellectual property/R&D and the uncertain provenance and storage of things bought by mail sightunseen.
#9
# 8 rkb You are correct there are two sides to the coin here. I work with elderly/disabled and
many buy from Canada so that they can have a "little" money left over for a movie or to feed their animal's. The cost of the drug's in the United States MUST come down to benefit all of us.
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: andrea ||
12/29/2004 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I agree it is about many things. That's why each individual should have the right to choose what they wish to do in consultation with their physician.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 17:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
# 3 Joe- the pharmaceutical industry is the MOST competitive field there is for sales. This creates much of the problem with the drug industry. competition, Rx prices- supply and demand and just plain old competition within the industry- example:
Pfizer versus Merck, Johnson and Johnson versus Roche etc.
Andrea
Posted by: andrea ||
12/29/2004 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Want to lower the cost of drugs? Reform tort law to pay actual damages. Set executive pay at a sane level. Many execs are over paid in the extreme. We don't need a class of executive nobility or political nobility in the US but that is where we are headed. The Pharma industry is a perfect example of both of these groups in action.
One pill I was taking is 10 dollars a dose at day. You can do the math. What combination of chemicals is worth 10 dollars a tablet? Many drugs are more costly than this. This is just insane. Something has got to give. If you don't have GOOD medical insurance you are truly screwed. Prices need to come down by a huge percentage.
#14
As a doc, when I prescribe a medication, I need to know for sure that you are getting that medication,
Fair enough, and you can phone in your script to a local US pharmacy to ensure that your patient buys American - whatever that means when it comes to drug manufacturing plants. However, as you know, if you give your patient a written script, then that individual can order a 3 months supply from a Canadian pharmacy, which require a physician's prescription btw counter signed by a Cdn. physician, without your US pharmacy location restrictions.
Dr. Steve, there has not been one single documented case of death or illness from tainted meds imported from a store front Canadian pharmacy, to my knowledge, and the federal rule for personal importation of 3 months supply of meds has been in effect since 1988.
The Canadian government has as stringent a check system in place regarding pharmaceuticals in their country as we have in the USA. And according to the Canadian International Pharmacy Association trans-shipment of meds is illegal under Canadian law, so if a US consumer is dealing with a reputable Cdn. pharmacy the meds he buys have passed rigorous standards of quality control.
However, what the Canadian government will not do is take responsibility for what happens to the meds once they leave Canada's borders via mail or courier service.
I'm not blaming the pharmaceutical companies' profit margins and advertising entirely for the high costs of meds to the US consumer. The costs of litigation in the US are astronomical and these litigation costs, estimated to be between one-third to one-half of the drug price differential between the US and Canada, are passed on to the US consumer.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=462
Basically it's caveat emptor with online med purchasing as it is with buying any product. Heck you can have a greedy US pharmacist tampering with meds as was the case not too long ago re: cancer meds.
Consider that the FDA, when it suited them, authorized on short notice the importation of flu vaccine manufactured in Germany without worrying about safety standards of meds produced outside its "ever watchful" purvue.
http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Dec/EEN41b72f69ccd79.html Pointing out the irony of the U.S. having to purchase flu vaccine from Germany, Gil Gutknecht, a Republican representative from Minnesota, said,âHere we are buying flu vaccine from Germany, and yet theyâre sitting on a report that probably says it is dangerous to purchase medicines from other countries.â He continued, âWhy is it that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) can do this safely but your local pharmacist canât?â Why indeed? Several states have already begun to direct residents to websites for Canadian and European drug companies. The American Medical Association has endorsed drug importation with the stipulation that the drugs have electronic tracking capability to ensure the drug's credibility. The AARP is also on board
Anyways, we're trusting radiologists as far away as Lebanon and India to read US patients' Xrays and diagnose their diseases, so I think long gone are the days in medicine/pharmaceuticals that we can say "American made."
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/business/10356308.htm?1c
"Medical outsourcing sends scans overseas" 12/07/04
From Bugmenot to read full text use the following:
observe@evmealn.us
bugbaby12
#16
Gone also will be the R&D and the new drugs
R&D these days is focused on "new" clones of existing successful drugs. Innovative is not exactly the watchword for pharmeceutical companies these days. Read posts #3 and #14. Most of the costs of US drugs goes to litigation costs as well as advertising to promote the latest clones of the original anti-depressant or improving having sex drugs that were developed 10 years ago.
#17
I stand by what I said. I don't have the source right now, but I've read in a professional journal that in at least one instance, a drug ordered "from Canada" never saw Canada before being delivered to an American consumer.
.com also makes an excellent point: one reason why our drug prices are higher is that the US is one of the few large market countries that doesn't control perscription prices. In return, we get a lot of R & D done. That's imperiled, and not just because of the Canadian issue (think of the noise about breaking patents on AIDS drugs -- one reason why the number of new AIDS drugs has dropped in the last several years).
R & D is not focused on "new clones" alone, and those new clones, by the way, frequently out-perform the original drug in a class. That's very helpful to me as a doc. Having more choices within a given class of drug also fosters something called "competition", which lowers prices.
As a lung doc, just this year I got a new class of antibiotic to use (Ketek) and a new class of bronchodilator for people with COPD (Spiriva). I also got two new choices in replacement therapy for people with a genetic cause for their COPD. I wouldn't have these if the pharma industry had to price their drugs based on incremental costs of production. It just wouldn't happen.
Meagan McArdle wrote on this a while back at her blog (Jane Galt), and Derek Lowe has written similar things at his (he's a research scientist in the pharma world). Developing a new drug takes 10 years and between 0.5 and 1 billion dollars, counting all the R & D, the costs of failed attempts, etc. To get investors to buy into their companies, the pharma industry has to offer a better return (much better return) than an investor could get on a 10 year T-note. Kill off the last remaining large market and you kill R & D. The investors won't put up money if they can't see a return. It's that simple.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/29/2004 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Joe-Blow,
I work at a small R&D Pharma and I call BULLSHIT on your claim that new and revolutionary drugs are not in development.
#19
Sheesh. My BS/Wank-o-Matic Meter twanged and I just couldn't help myself and posted. Sigh. Oh okay. My reasoning is as follows:
This isn't' a complex issue. This is a set of smaller entangled issues - all screaming for our attention - and the resulting cacophony just makes it seem like a complex issue.
We aren't far apart, just looking at it from different POV's, more or less - the real difference is probably focus.
"Complex" Problem-Solver Cookbook: Identify, divide, and conquer.
The real problems:
The tort system.
Patent Law.
The FDA.
and...
Capitalism 101...
It's very easy to bash the corporate monolith, in this case the pharmaceuticals industry, and blame it for all related ills - pun intended. "They" aren't doing this and "they" aren't doing that and "they" protect themselves with armies of legal beagles and don't innovate anymore and "they" blah blah blah.
The word is "we" - not "they".
It's called capitalism. "They" don't own that company, WE do. They only manage it for us - and only serve at our pleasure. We expect profits and management that protects those profits by keeping us on store shelves or in the local pharmacy - i.e. out of court and on the winning side when we can't manage to stay out. Part of capitalism is the tort system. People are awarded huge sums for bogus reasons - ask legal whore John Edwards. We expect risk to be managed. Where the risk is great, we won't go there without an army of lawyers and a potential payoff that staggers the imagination. We will no longer take chances in innovating because the risk to payoff ratio falls short. We'll play the safe bet in the biggest return market we can find. We will be profitable or we will perish - or fired, heh.
And - because it always boggles me when I hear it - a social absurdity: Aunt Harriet dies - are you ready? - for lack of a drug! Now that's some logic, eh? Think about how incredibly incomprehensively Tranzi-Socialist-Insane-Asinine-Challenged that really is...
Capitalism normally works for the greater good and it can here, as well - capitalism isn't one of the contributing issues.
So I'm suggesting we focus on the causes, those individual issues, attacking them one by one, and correct the imbalance in this industry so it can do what all useful industries should be able to do in a capitalist system: provide desired products at reasonable cost with manageable risk and adequate profit to repeat the cycle.
This isn't some burning thing for me - it's just that lost art called common sense is missing and, seeing it, I said so. Debate with people who have an ax to grind in this venue if you like. Won't be me. I just call 'em as I see 'em and this is what I see. So I'm done, here.
#20
Having more choices within a given class of drug
Unfortunately, insurance companies typically limit physicians' choices based on cost, not what all the bells and whistles features are of the individual competitor drugs.
I work at a small R&D Pharma and I call BULLSHIT on your claim that new and revolutionary drugs are not in development
What an objective cerebral response!
Look, as I've said, I'm too lazy to go scouring the internet to order my meds online. Nor am I a senior on a fixed income or a sickly person with complicated medical conditions. But those people are out there in America and I do not begrudge them the opportunity to get their meds from reputable online pharmaceutical sources in Canada the EU more cheaply.
If Congress puts in place tort reform and limits meds advertising on television, so our drug prices would come down by 50%, then I'd say "buy your meds in America." It would be very simple to bring down costs, and we don't need to put in place socialized gov't price controls to lower US prices. There can be reasonable profits for the pharmaceutical companies and reasonable prices for US consumers if we would put an end to ridiculous litigation costs and wasteful use of advertising $. The merits of meds should be promoted to patients by physicians not stupid Hollywood actors.
Since I see no progress on tort reform nor do I see the FCC being so bold as to limit advertising meds on television, I think ndividuals need to do what they think is best for their health needs and their pocket book.
#21
.com I'm not buying tort law as a major problem. I say that because when tort reform comes, I am confident there will be no change in drug prices.
I also don't buy the patent argument, at least for first world countries. I find it very hard to believe that we would not have actions under NAFTA and WTO against countries that violated out patents. Otherwise they would be stealing Windows.
I believe it is just the large customer problem. n every business customers with large purchase volumes get lower prices. Foreign countries are large customers writ large. They probably also subsidize the distribution costs so that end user list price is low.
If we were to allow drug reimportation, the result would be that domestic prices would fall, international prices would rise, and drug companies would have just as much for R & D as they do today. If some want to specify that they want U. S. marketed drugs only and are willing to pay a premium, they will be free to do so and the Drug companies will soak them.
Any other alternative will result in the U. S. consumer continuing to pay for the entire world's drug research and development costs. That's something we should be sharing.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Mrs D - I've never fully disagreed with anything you posted before, quite the opposite, normally, heh... Perhaps we're just approaching it differently.
I presume you're being the ultimate pragmatist. Fine - I'm sure much is and/or will transpire exactly as you posted.
#23
.com, what we both agree on is that the market will sort it out better than the government. Now if we could just get it out of the way.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 20:25 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Mrs D - That would mean getting the US Congress out of the way, lol! G'luck there!
I recall a Twain quote where he had "ranked" mankind... I hope I've not gotten it wrong, but I remember the bottom three as:
Congress.
The savages.
The French.
#25
JB - my mother retired from Pfizer -0 La Jolla - Clinical Trials division last year. You DON'T know what you're talking about on R&D.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I'm not buying tort law as a major problem
- Believe it. US litigation costs are indeed very high for pharmaceutical companies. If tort reform were put into place by Congress, pharmaceutical companies would have little choice but to pass along the savings to the US consumer.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1096473974395 a search of federal civil litigation trends over the past five years reveals that the practice areas with the largest growth are products liability, securities, intellectual property, antitrust, and employment. Products liability cases have surged since 2001 to an anticipated 25,700 cases in 2004 and now make up nearly 10 percent of all federal civil filings. In particular, the estimated 24,100 cases dealing with personal injuries continue to grow and now account for 94 percent of all products liability cases.In addition, the pharmaceutical industry faces numerous claims, with those against Wyeth, Glaxo, Bayer, and Bristol Meyers providing a glimpse into a projected growth.
As one example, lawsuits in the USA in the 1980s claiming children had been injured by the pertussis (whooping cough) component of the DPT vaccine increased the price of that vaccine by about 2000% and caused many suppliers to stop selling the vaccine altogether, according to Pfizer's website.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=462 Economist Richard Manning estimates that one-third to one-half of the drug-price differential between the United States and Canada is due to the higher cost of American liability litigation.
- Pharmaceuticals are in no danger of having to "sacrifice" R&D if their prices to US consumers are more reasonable. According to a Congressman from Vermont who used newly released Fortune 500 numbers as his raw data: Sanders' comparison shows the top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in pure profit than the top seven auto companies, the top seven oil companies, the top seven airline companies, and the top seven media companies. One drug company, Merck, pocketed more in pure profit than all of the airline companies on the Fortune 500 list, and bested the entertainment and construction industries as well. Most significantly, the pharmaceutical's 18.9% profit-to-revenue ratio was, by far, the highest margin of any industry in the nation. As the new numbers show, the 12 pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 made $10 billion more than the top 24 motor vehicle industry companies, which includes Ford and GM. http://bernie.house.gov/prescriptions/profits.asp
Any other alternative will result in the U. S. consumer continuing to pay for the entire world's drug research and development costs. That's something we should be sharing.
- Yes, I agree, it's rediculous that the US consumer should footing the bill for R&D which the whole world benefits from. Notice it's not just the rest of the world that thinks that the US consumer should foot the bill. Even the pharmaceutical industry believes it as well. Better that generosity come from you and me than from their profits of course. From the Pfizer website: "Placing Price Variation in Context"
Average individual incomes around the world, even in the developed world, vary substantially. For example, although people often think of Canada as having essentially the same standard of living as the United States, average income in Canada (measured by per capita gross domestic product) is about 30% lower than it is in the United States...This perspective sheds light on the folly of seeking price parity between the US and developing countries. Raising prices in such countries to bring them into parity with US prices would place prescription drugs out of reach for many people. On the other hand, lowering US prices to the point of parity with prices in developing countries would seriously harm the pharmaceutical industryâs ability to fund research. Neither of those outcomes is acceptable; they would not provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.
http://www.pfizer.com/are/about_public/mn_about_economicrealitiesa.html
- As for worrying about drug manufacture by Third Word countries...it's already happening big time and we Americans love it - it's called the generic drug market and already India is serving our generic med needs only we don't know it. I wonder if Mr. And Mrs. FDA Bureaucrats have a quality control team based in India and on alert 24/7 to make sure Dr. Reddy's Labs and RanBaxy are maintaining super duper high US manufacturing standards? India's annual drug exports, led by generic drug sales to the US and Europe are estimated to be US$2.5 billion which is more than half the size of its US$5 billion domestic market. RanBaxy and Dr. Reddy's Labs, two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in India, export the generic versions of drugs that have gone off-patent to developed markets at a higher price. Both Dr. Reddy's Labs and RanBaxy rely heavily on the US and other developed markets to drive revenues. For these firms, it is important that they receive the approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to produce and market these generic drugs. RanBaxy is seeking the green light to sell 28 drugs there while Dr Reddy's has 24 applications in the pipeline. Having a greater number of approvals indicate larger market share and better sales for these companies.Currently, India's patent law allows companies to copy patented drugs, as long as the manufacturing process is different. This legal loophole enables contract manufacturers to produce cheaper versions of patented drugs (for example Viagra, Pfizer's drug treatment for impotence).
http://www.fundsupermart.com/main/research/viewHTMLPrint.tpl?articleNo=1138
I don't have a personal interest in this discussion about re-importing medications for personal use, but I don't like any industry aking away an American's right to look after their health and to save $ at the same time. Why should it be only corporations who have the right to consider "bottom lines?"
my mother retired from Pfizer -0 La Jolla - Clinical Trials division last year. You DON'T know what you're talking about on R&D
No offense, Frank, but your background doesn't exactly qualify you to speak as an "expert" on R&D. For every "new, new" type of penicillin life saving discovery, pharmaceuticals have used R&D by and large to "discovery" 20 "new-old" anti-depressants or 10 "new-old" anti-acne aids.
EFL
...
Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.
After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late yesterday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public statement. Where would those poor Tsunami sufferers be without the assistance of reporters?
Bush's deepened public involvement puts him more in line with other world figures. In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder cut short his vacation and returned to work in Berlin because of the Indian Ocean crisis, which began with a gigantic underwater earthquake. In Britain, the predominant U.S. voice speaking about the disaster was not Bush but former president Bill Clinton, who in an interview with the BBC said the suffering was like something in a "horror movie," and urged a coordinated international response.
Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president was confident he could monitor events effectively without returning to Washington or making public statements in Crawford, where he spent part of the day clearing brush and bicycling. Explaining the about-face, a White House official said: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain.' "
Many Bush aides believe Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras to hold forth on tragedies with his trademark empathy. "Actions speak louder than words," a top Bush aide said, describing the president's view of his appropriate role.
Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of freaky," a soon to be furloughed senior career official said.
U.S. officials denied that the overnight aid increase was a response to the U.N. complaint Monday that some countries were "stingy" with aid. Usually only about 10 percent of the final aid tally is given in the initial response to a natural disaster, with the bulk of aid provided after an assessment of long-term needs, according to the State Department.
"My initial reaction is that it does not seem to be very aggressive," said Morton Abramowitz, a former ambassador to Thailand who has been active in humanitarian relief efforts, of the administration's response to the tsunami.
Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who as the military's top European commander helped supervise NATO's efforts to respond to a 1999 earthquake in Turkey, said the United States has unique military capabilities in reconnaissance and logistics management that can be useful in the current crisis. He urged Bush to take a higher profile. "Natural disasters happen," Clark said. "One of the things people look for is a strong response that illustrates America's humanitarian values."
Still, the United Nations' Egeland complained on Monday that each of the richest nations gives less than 1 percent of its gross national product for foreign assistance, and many give 0.1 percent. "It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really," he told reporters.
Among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 12:38:10 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well at least they haven't found out about the Halliburton Earthquake/Tsunami machine they've been testing in the Indian Ocean. They'd really rip him for that.
Oooooops...
#5
My wish -- President to WaPo: "I got your compassion right hear you @sshats!"
Posted by: Tibor ||
12/29/2004 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You know tu3031 I actually had someone here in San Francisco tell me with a straight face that the tsunami was Bush's fault. He admitted that he hadn't figured out exactly how a natural distaster could be the President's fault, but it probably had something to do with Halliburton and missile defense testing.
Oh, this guy has a wife, kids, and a three figure job; he doesn't live under a bridge or anything. Typical Democrat.
#7
Hey, do you think if I blamed Bush for every little thing I could get a six figure job, or do I have to keep scraping for those one and two figure jobs?
#8
Among the worldâs two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger.
Sounds like class envy to me, but on a global scale.
#9
What I like is that in the last 24 hours or so, Amazon has raised $2.5 million from 45,000 private Americans. France ponied up for $175,000. So who's the piker?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I read this early in the AM and just shook my head. Anyone who buys this pure fecal matter has seirous cognitive issues. Telling people they don't give enough is a sure way to get a reaction that is opposite of what is desired.
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- President Bush said he presumes the U.S. warning system for predicting tsunamis and other natural disasters is in order, but he stopped short of definitively backing the infrastructure currently in place.
"I presume that we are in pretty good shape. I think our location in the world is such that we may be less vulnerable than other parts, but I am not a geologist, as you know," Bush told reporters in Crawford, Texas. "I can't answer your question specifically: Do we have enough of a warning system for the West Coast? I am now asking that to our agencies and government to let us know," Bush said in response to a question about the U.S. warning system as he made his first public comments since the devastating earthquake and ensuing tsunami that has so far killed at more than 75,000 people in Asia.
Bush said the United States had joined forces with Australia, India and Japan to coordinate rebuilding efforts in the region. "This has been a terrible disaster. It's just beyond our comprehension," Bush said as he announced the United States had joined forces with Australia, India and Japan to coordinate rebuilding efforts. "We will stand with them as they start to rebuild their communities," the president said.
He dismissed the notion that rich nations of the world have been "stingy" with relief efforts. "I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed," Bush said, referring to Monday comments from Jan Egeland, the United Nations emergency relief coordinator. Egeland later backed away from his remarks.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/29/2004 12:17:47 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Election officials finished the presidential recount in Ohio on Tuesday, with the final tally shaving about 300 votes off President Bush's six-figure margin of victory in the state that gave him a second term. Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell has estimated that the recount will end up costing taxpayers $1.5 million. Boy does that p*ss me off. I wonder how many idiots would be for counting every vote if they knew that. It ended up costing us over $1k per new vote counted and over $5k per Kerry vote gain. What a worthwile expense. I am sure everyone is happy that their vote counted... jerkoffs. But wait, there's more.
But the completion of the recount will not bring an end to questions surrounding the vote in Ohio. A group of voters citing fraud have challenged the election results with the Ohio Supreme Court. The voters, supported by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have cited irregularities including long lines, a shortage of voting machines in minority precincts and problems with computer equipment. Attorney General Jim Petro has called the challenge frivolous and argued that the state Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over a federal election. At least someone has brains in all this...
Cliff Arnebeck, an attorney representing the voters in the challenge, wasn't taking much stock in the recount effort. He questioned why there was no independent investigation into the accuracy of counting machines to determine whether the machines had been tampered with. "You're allowing the original error to be repeated a second time, so it's not a meaningful recount," he said. Ok jerkoff, how about you get as many recounts as you want but it comes directly out of your pocket.
Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American ||
12/29/2004 8:20:39 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Election officials finished the presidential recount in Ohio on Tuesday, with the final tally shaving about 300 votes off President Bushâs six-figure margin of victory in the state that gave him a second term.
Three hundred got shaved off? All right, let's see how many more can be whittled way. Count 'em again, boys!!!
#2
Wow. If they pick up 300 votes every time they do a recount, then it'll only take another 394 recounts to make John Kerry president!
Uh, Mr. Soros! We need another $591,000,000 to pay for the recounts. Mr. Soros? . . . you still there? . . . darn! We musta got cut off or somethin' . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
12/29/2004 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
The advance of liberty and its attendant institutions can be a rough business, provoking stiff resistance by those who find their interests most threatened: the dictators, cronies and retinues of careerocrats who have already have made their compromises of conscience. And although specifics vary, there are some broad familiar patterns to the process of genuine reform. Protests break out, criticism once whispered in backrooms is heard on the streets, misrule and corruption are increasingly exposed. The regime tries to smother dissent while announcing reforms: too little, too late. In the best of cases--the Baltics 15 years ago or, one hopes, Ukraine today--the old framework gives way, and the democratic revolution has arrived.
In the worst of cases, however, we could just as well be talking about the ruckus of recent times at the United Nations, where the regime, is now really beginning to fight back, and may yet succeed in smothering progress. Without making a single truly significant reform--or, for that matter, suffering a single indictment--the U.N. this past year has weathered its worst spell since the early 1980s. That was the stretch in which the Soviets shot down a South Korean airliner, the U.S. pulled out of a corrupt Unesco, and with certain U.N. member states resenting all the fuss, U.S. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick's deputy, Chuck Lichenstein, told unhappy member states that if they wished to leave America's shores, "the members of the U.S. mission to the United Nations will be down at the dockside waving you a fond farewell as you sail into the sunset."
Of course, the U.N. remained comfortably berthed in Turtle Bay, stoked to this day with U.S. taxpayer money, wrapped in diplomatic immunity, and steeped in secrecy more appropriate to the inner workings of the 18th-century French court than a modern world in which free and open political systems offer the best hope of all that peace and prosperity the U.N. is supposed to promote. But don't take my word for it. The phone number is 212-963-1234; the Web site is www.un.org. Go ahead, try getting a look at the books, or for that matter any serious audits, let alone the full deliberations of a Security Council the purports to represent the world's people while providing rotating seats to the likes of Syria and permanent veto power to the thugs of Beijing and the antidemocrats of the Kremlin.
Not that the U.N.'s top officials make much secret about their opinions, of, say, their U.S. sugar daddy, the latest example being the rush by Undersecretary-General Jan Egeland this week to condemn as "stingy" U.S. and European offers of relief for the tsunami that has devastated South Asia. Mr. Egeland opined that taxpayers "want to give more," a notion that somehow equates giving more via the U.N. with getting better results. This comes from a U.N. that while evidently failing to set up an international warning system for catastrophic tidal waves did manage last year to turn in a report on snow levels in Alpine ski resorts.
Nor has Secretary-General Kofi Annan been particularly secretive about his views on the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, informing the world not so long ago that he deemed it "illegal"--a word he has not to my knowledge applied to any aspect of his own supervision of the Oil for Food program, from which Saddam Hussein, while forking over $1.4 billion for Mr. Annan's Secretariat to supervise the process, scammed billions meant for sick and hungry Iraqis. On that subject, Mr. Annan has been most stunningly discreet, refusing in his year-end press conference last week to discuss even his own role. Instead, with a degree of patience the Secretariat has not displayed toward its critics, Mr. Annan seems to be waiting for the U.N.-authorized inquiry, funded at his behest with $30 million in residual Oil for Food money (meant to aid Iraqi citizens, not U.N. investigations), and led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, to inform the secretary-general, privately, and at stately speed, sometime next year, what his own role actually was. At that stage, Mr. Annan will decide what information he deems appropriate to share with the public.
To this scene in recent months we may add the reports of rape and child molestation committed by U.N. peacekeepers in Africa, allegations of sexual harassment involving the heads of both the U.N. refugee agency and the internal audit division, a revolt against "senior management" by the U.N. staff union, the findings of an internal U.N. integrity survey that a lot of U.N. employees fear retaliation if they speak out, and the statements of a few brave whistle-blowers, fighting for their jobs, to precisely that effect. Plus, if you like, there's the expanding saga of how the secretary-general until confronted by the press allegedly failed to notice that his son had allegedly been doing lucrative business deals with a major U.N. contractor under the Oil for Food program. All of which has been subject to the marvelously circular argument that the press should shut up until the U.N., in between firing off hush letters to its contractors and employing Mr. Annan's U.S.-taxpayer-funded staff to lambaste the U.N.'s critics, can carry out allegedly full and independent investigations of all these troublesome matters.
By now, the debate outside the U.N. walls has expanded from calls for Mr. Annan to resign over Oil for Food to arguments that he really ought to resign over U.N. toleration of genocide, in which he has played a sustained part--though it's hard to see why one argument should necessarily exclude the other. Meanwhile, for a sample of what's going on inside the U.N. walls (bear with me): According to a Dec. 13 U.N. staff union bulletin, expressing "outrage," though the staff committee requested an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and favoritism within the U.N.'s own internal audit department, "no formal investigation was ever conducted. . . . No one was interviewed or questioned about the alleged violations. Rather, the personnel records were checked in a manner similar to a desk audit."
If all this starts to sound a bit dizzying, a bit amorphous, a bit too complicated after a while even to bother about anymore, that, dear reader, is precisely the problem. The Secretariat has had a year of gagging contractors, threatening the jobs of whistle-blowers, and pounding out letters to the editor explaining that the Secretariat should not be blamed for anything because it is in fact responsible for nothing--though somehow more money, especially from the U.S., is always wanted. A few senior officials are now due to depart. Several thick reports on various fronts are due to be filed, and perhaps here or there a head will roll.
But to suppose that the United Nations will reform itself from within is to miss the eerie unreality of the place. It is not simply changes in some of the staffing that are needed, or U.N. commissioned reports recommending that the U.N. "reform" by way of doing even more of whatever it does already. What's needed is something that among sovereign states we have come to call regime change--the basic alteration of a system that in its privileges, immunities and practices resembles rather too closely some of the dictatorships that still pack its ranks.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/29/2004 10:04:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Chuck Lichenstein, told unhappy member states that if they wished to leave Americaâs shores, "the members of the U.S. mission to the United Nations will be down at the dockside waving you a fond farewell as you sail into the sunset."
Regan's men (and women) certainly did have a way with words.
#2
and pounding out letters to the editor explaining that the Secretariat should not be blamed for anything because it is in fact responsible for nothing
#4
This comes from a U.N. that while evidently failing to set up an international warning system for catastrophic tidal waves did manage last year to turn in a report on snow levels in Alpine ski resorts.
I'll bet years of research, and lots of funding went into that.
#6
"Regan's men (and women) certainly did have a way with words."
Though (as Asimov noted once in a Black Widowers story) it's extremely difficult to sail into the sunset when departing from New York. Atlantic Ocean's in the east of it. :-)
#8
Awwww... this is poor timing. Just when the UN is ready to deploy the first MUNCHS Unit.
(Mobile UN Catering and Hospitality Suite) It's for rugged regions on the earth like Ocala.
A suggestion by a U.N. official that the world's richest nations were "stingy" irritated the Bush administration, especially when U.S. aid for Asia's earthquake is expected to eventually rise from the millions to more than $1 billion. The comment reopened the question of how to measure American generosity. The answer ultimately depends on the measuring stick.
With me it raised the quest of how to measure ingratitude...
The U.S. government is always near the top in total humanitarian aid dollars - even before private donations are counted - but it finishes near the bottom of the list of rich countries when that money is compared to gross national product. The chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which distributes foreign aid, was quick to point out Tuesday that foreign assistance for development and emergency relief rose from $10 billion in President Clinton's last year to $24 billion under President Bush in 2003. Secretary of State Colin Powell said assistance for this week's earthquake and tsunamis alone will eventually exceed $1 billion. "The notion that the United States is not generous is simply not true, factually," USAID chief Andrew Natsios told The Associated Press in an interview. "We've had one of the largest increases of any country in the world."
Natsios said the Pentagon also is spending tens of millions to mobilize an additional relief operation, with C-130 transport planes winging their way from Dubai to Indonesia with pre-stocked supplies of tents, blankets, food and water bags. As of early Tuesday, dozens of countries and relief groups had pledged $81 million in help for South and East Asia, said the Geneva-based U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The United States uses the most common measure of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 rich nations that counts development aid. By that measure, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. Next closest was Japan, at $8.9 billion. That doesn't include billions more the United States spends in other areas such as AIDS and HIV programs and other U.N. assistance.
Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent. Such figures were what prompted Jan Egeland - the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator and former head of the Norwegian Red Cross - to challenge the giving of rich nations. "We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Egeland said. "And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really.... Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become."
So far, he said, pledges of assistance for the emergency relief effort have reached tens of millions of dollars. "The international assistance has been immediate and generous," Egeland said. "The U.S. at US$15 million (euro11 million) is one of the most generous pledges so far. It is exactly what we need to get started... but we will need very substantive pledges. The damage will be in the billions of dollars."
Egeland told reporters Tuesday his complaint about what he feels is the insufficient generosity of rich nations wasn't directed at any nation in particular. But Powell clearly took umbrage while making the rounds of the morning television news shows. He said he wished Egeland hadn't made the comment and reaffirmed that the Bush administration will follow up with assistance that could stretch into the billions of dollars. The White House also defended the U.S. record of giving. "We outmatch the contributions of other nations combined; we'll continue to do so," Bush spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where the president is spending a post-Christmas vacation at his ranch.
Yeah, but Egeland's point is that we have to. My point is that we don't. Generosity is not an obligation. While I feel great sympathy for the people effected, I'm still fighting the urge to tell them to hold a bake sale or something.
President Bush is to make a brief statement about the disaster Wednesday, following a regularly scheduled National Security Council meeting at his Texas ranch, where advisers will update him on relief and recovery work. Natsios said the Paris organization's figures overlook a key factor - the billions more Americans give each year in private donations. Americans gave an estimated $241 billion last year to charitable causes - domestic and foreign - according to a study by Giving USA Foundation. That's up from $234 billion in 2002. The foundation did not break down how much was for domestic causes and how much for foreign. "That's a European standard, this percentage that's used," Natsios said. "The United States, for 40 years, has never accepted these standards that it should be based on the gross national product. We base it on the actual dollars that we spent. The reason is that our gross national product is so enormous. And our growth rates are so much higher than the other wealthy nations." Take care, Tranzi Fascists.
Posted by: .com ||
12/29/2004 8:08:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wish when Bush goes to the UN for his annual address, he would begin, "Events of the last year have convinced me it is time for this organization to have a come to Jesus meeting. And that's what we're going to do right now."
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 8:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nah, Mrs D....have him show up there and say just how much the plight of the victims has touched his heart....and that he will be sending the US's contribution to the UN to the victims instead.
That will REALLY piss them off.....and be money better spent.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Good idea DB. I can imagine the looks on the delegates who might have to face a few less 5-star lunches at exotic locations. I imageine they will be very upset!
#5
I might be inclined to be more generous if I didn't think that some of these countries hitting us up for aid wouldn't be dancing in the streets and handing out candy if something similar happened over here.
But how mean spirited of me. Jan Egeland would be so disappointed with my attitude.
#6
I would like to see an accounting of aid given that includes private charity, in-kind services, military protection, etc. in addition to "official" aid. Since the defense budgets of most EUro countries are small because the US provides most of their defense, they should have more to give as aid.
#7
Interesting isn't it how billions of US tax dollars went into defending Western Europe, but is never considered foreign aid. For those who argue that it was in our own interest, account for the expenditures since the fall of the wall. Since the early 80s, the combined population and GNP of the Western European nations exceeded that of the US, yet the US carried the real military cost burden - to include the commitment to engage in mutual assured destruction for the sake of European liberty. If we were as self center as the French government we wouldn't have even enter into such a situation which would so endanger our existance. What a waste. Right now millions are being diverted in the form of military airlift, communications, and personnel but are not counted by self important UN staff in their desire to rule the people of the United States [you should be happy to tax yourself more]. Interesting how small countries get their UN dues prorated when they send 'Peacekeepers' on missions, payment in kind. However, the US efforts are never so accounted for. However, all that expenditure on military capability is evil, but only so when its not being used to provide your own country its liberty.
The only good out of this piece of bulls**t by Jan Egeland will be the further erosion of tolerance by the American public for the UN. The UN never heard of Jefferson or the phrase "the consent of the govern", but now they will sooner rather than later.
#8
I'd propose that those outside the US have no right to be heard on what they think of our contribution levels, STFU, thank you very much.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#9
BTW - he's a spitting image of Aris... that's 2 strikes
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Mrs D.
"Events of the last year have convinced me it is time for this organization to have a come to Jesus meeting"
Are you kidding? mention Jesus at the U.N. Are you out of your mind? You are going to start World War IV&V combined. Leave the threats to the "Threat Experts(TM)" at the law firm of Kofi, Kujo & Irrelevance.
#11
It may well be that phrasing it as he did was a ploy to get the US to give more money. Like, "Who you calling 'stingy'? Here's 2 bil. In yer face." Face it, we make too many decisions based on emotions, and we can be played.
As far as gratitude goes, forget it. We're dealing with socialists here, and socialists believe that what you give is no more than what you owe - and often a lot less. Why thank somebody for doing their fair share? Why thank somebody for doing less than their fair share?
#13
BH-Your analysis is right on. It's the same socialist mentality that has infected our educational institutions and Democratic party. There is a delusional concept in some people's heads-that money from the US, unlike money from other countries, never runs out, and that a constant economic drain on the US will do no harm to other countries' economies. The pattern appears set: the international community plays this guilt trip-in every country of the world disaster after disaster, uprising after uprising, disease after disease, and the US takes a defensive instead of offensive stance on this issue-further compromising US economy. Shame on UN bureaucrats with big mouths, mannerless upbringings,lousy educations and despicable anti-American comments in the face of tragedy.
#14
I wouldn't give a dime to the UN! So I sent my contribution to Catholic Charities for the Tsunami Relief Fund. This guy was WAY WAY out of line calling the U.S. stingy. How do they think all that aid is going to get to Asia? It's going on a U.S. transport because we are the ONLY country that can provide the needed airlift for this type of operation. The cost of that air lift alone should outstrip any contribution by any European country. BTW this is yet ANOTHER reason to throw the un out! Like we needed another.
#16
socialists believe that what you give is no more than what you owe
some of these countries hitting us up for aid wouldn't be dancing in the streets and handing out candy if something similar happened over here
Both are excellent points.
Posted by: Jan Egeland ||
12/29/2004 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I need to start putting my livejournal with my name so that people don't think they've made some kind of serious detective work by merely googling up my name and following the links.
If only people had been warned. An hour's notice for those living and vacationing along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean might have saved thousands of lives. But predictions, and acting on them, are not simple, geoscience experts say. "It's an inexact science now," said Dr. Laura S. L. Kong, a Commerce Department seismologist and director of the International Tsunami Information Center, an office in Honolulu run under the auspices of the United Nations.
According to a NASA Web site devoted to tsunamis, three of four tsunami warnings issued since 1948 have been false, and the cost of the false alarms can be high. An evacuation in Hawaii could cost as much as $68 million in lost productivity, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since the 1960's, Dr. Kong said, there have been two warnings of tsunamis in Hawaii that ended in evacuations, and both were false alarms.
Dr. Kong said the predictions of tsunamis were, in fact, accurate: the waves do arrive, whether they are 40 feet high or a mere two inches. It is the destructive power of the wave that is hard to predict. That depends on many factors, including the configuration of the ocean floor and the shape of a bay.
Tsunamis, which are common in the Pacific Ocean, are rare in the Indian Ocean. And the earthquake that set the giant waves in motion on Sunday was uncommonly powerful.
But an Indian Ocean tsunami was, to a certain extent, predictable - and scientists from Geoscience Australia, that nation's agency for earth science research, issued a paper last fall describing the tsunami generated by sea-floor disturbances after the explosion of the volcano Krakatoa in 1883, with charts that showed an uncanny resemblance to the wave of destruction that accompanied this week's disaster.
Australia has established a tsunami warning center of its own, which issued an earthquake alert 33 minutes after the quake occurred.
Dr. Kong said her e-mail box had filled in recent days with the signs of a scramble by United Nations organizations and affected governments hoping to create a new warning system for the Indian Ocean. Such a system could be cobbled together, in part, by depending on ocean-measuring sites that are already in place, she said.
The lowest-cost components are water-level gauges, which can be had for as little as $5,000 apiece but which can cost $20,000 or more if they are equipped with better instruments and quick communication abilities. A system could be put into place relatively quickly, she said, for "millions or tens of millions" of dollars.
She said such a system would not include the gold standard for tsunami measurement, a new generation of deep-sea sensors. These devices "wake up" when a tsunami passes over, and transmit data to satellites, which then pass the signal along to warning centers. There are only seven of these "tsunameters" in use so far, and they can cost $250,000 apiece - with annual maintenance costs of $50,000.
Richard A. Posner, a federal judge and author of "Catastrophe: Risk and Response," said tsunamis in the Indian Ocean had a low probability of occurring, but a high risk of damage if they do occur. A disaster may occur only every 100 years and kill 40,000 people, Judge Posner said, but "one way to think about it is, that's an average of 400 people killed each year." The problem, he said, is that less developed nations "have such urgent current problems" that worrying about long-term problems is a low priority.
Warning the public of disaster is an age-old problem with modern implications, said Kenneth Allen, the executive director of the Partnership for Public Warning, a nonprofit, public-private partnership devoted to improving crisis communications in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Education campaigns are an essential part of any warning system, Mr. Allen said. "You need to tell people how they are going to get information in an emergency, and what to do about it," he said. "If you wait until the emergency occurs, it's too late."
Phil McFadden, the chief scientist of Geoscience Australia, said warnings without such training were useless. "If all you do is phone up the local police station, they don't know what to do," he said. "And in fact, one of the problems is that if you tell untrained people, 'Listen - there's a tsunami coming,' half of them go down to the beach to see what a tsunami looks like."
Posted by: .com ||
12/29/2004 7:44:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I saw "UN" in here a couple of times, so hold onto your wallets.
#2
An evacuation in Hawaii could cost as much as $68 million in lost productivity.
It sure can. I was doing boat work in Honolulu at the time of the last big scare in '86. My co-workers and I grabbed plenty of beer and went down to the end of the pier to spectate. We were unproductive the whole rest of the day.
#3
I dunno, that "lost productivity" thing just kind of bothers me. Is the NOAA trying to put a dollar value on the lives of people? Seems to me their focus would be on ways to make the system work better, instead of worrying about how much work was lost as a result of false alarms.
#2
I agree that India deserve a seat on the unsc more than say France. I think the U.S. should get behind this and give them seat that France should vacate.
India on Tuesday reiterated that it would not accept permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council without veto power. "Our prime minister (Manmohan Singh) has already made clear that any discrimination in this regard will not be acceptable," Indian External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh told reporters shortly after the United Arab Emirates (UAE) expressed support for New Delhi's demand to obtain permanent membership of the UN body, according to IANS. India has the backing of Oman and Bahrain as well for its bid for permanent membership of the council, Singh said.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/29/2004 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I love this shit. Putting conditions on something they haven't got. This generates nothing but disdain and ridicule.
Susan Sontag, a critic, novelist and essayist who blamed America for the September 11 terror attacks and once declared that "the white race is the cancer of human history," died in New York yesterday at age 71. Yikes! Honesty in reporting? Must be the Washington Times.
*snip*
"The white race is the cancer of human history," she wrote in a 1967 essay in Partisan Review. "It is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself."
Such comments led novelist Tom Wolfe to dismiss Mrs. Sontag as "just another scribbler who spent her life signing up for protest meetings and lumbering to the podium encumbered by her prose style, which had a handicapped parking sticker valid at Partisan Review." Ol' Tom sure knows how to turn a phrase. :-D
*snip*
Born Susan Rosenblatt in New York in 1933, she later described her childhood as "one long prison sentence." Her father died when she was 5, and her mother later married an Army officer, Capt. Nathan Sontag. That may well explain a lot. Or maybe she was just born a bitch.
At age 17, she married social psychologist Philip Rieff, then 28, just 10 days after meeting him at the University of Chicago. Showed complete lack of judgement early in life, I see. Why wait? Get stupid early so you can perfect it while you're still relatively young.
The couple had a son, David, born in 1952, but divorced in the 1960s. In later years, she described her lesbian relationship with photographer Annie Leibowitz as "an open secret." If it's open, it ain't a secret. How old was this aged teenager?
Ex-radical author David Horowitz noted yesterday that in 1969, he published the Sontag essay, "On the Right Way (For Us) to Love the Cuban Revolution" in Ramparts magazine.
"There is no right way to love the Cuban Revolution. That was my second thought. It's a pity [Mrs. Sontag] never had second thoughts, too," Mr. Horowitz said. Ouch! Of course, I don't think she had any first thoughts, either.
Rest in pieces, moonbat. Say hello to your terrorist and commie buddies in Hell for me.
(Though I do offer my condolences to her son. It's hard to lose your mother, even if she is a moonbat.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/29/2004 7:13:59 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lol! Barbara! Awesome smackdown and awesome commentary! *applause*
#2
Dead Sontag.Good Riddance to Bad rubbish!Now we just need to insure the disappearance of Michael Moore (as he contines to drown in blubber) and Susan Sarandon (while she drowns in her own bile).
The Pentagon is planning sharp cuts in the Air Force's program for its new F/A-22 fighter jet in a move budget analysts said was intended to offset mounting U.S. deficits and the growing costs of the Iraq war, Wednesday's New York Times reported... I suspect that several technologies are making manned fighter aircraft obsolete in a hurry.
#1
F-22 is out of date already. Planning cycle for these planes renders them nearly obsolete by the time the first wing is in operation. It shouldn't take a decade or more to do this.
#2
The avionics haven't met any of their milestones, either. MTBF sucks. Guess it "networks" nicely, whatever that means, but it doesn't shoot down anything or blow anything up that can't be done just as effectively using current assets. The Air Force has met its tarbaby.
#4
A concern, and I'm certainly no expert: the F15/16/18 programs are long in the tooth. These planes were designed in the early 70's. They great, they've been upgraded, and we can get them to do all sorts of great stuff.
But at some point somebody out there is going to generate a new, modern airframe with state of the art avionics, and we're going to have a problem. It might be the Russians, it might be someone else. I don't advocate keeping a bad airplane just because it's newer, but I do worry a little if/when the day comes that an Air Force general won't commit a wing of F-15's to a job because "they won't be able to penetrate and get the job done with the opposition that's out there."
Again, I don't know if the F/A-22 is the answer. Maybe we need a new plane, perhaps from some skunk works program. Maybe Anonymoose is right and manned fighters will be ancient history in a few years. But I'd be concerned about continuing to depend on currently great aircraft in the belief that nothing better will ever come along.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/29/2004 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Raptor is far and away the best fighter in the world, but the problem is that the second best is, depending how it's equipped and who's doing the flying, the Eagle, the Falcon or the Super Hornet. There just isn't anybody out there who can keep anything flying that would justify more than a squadron of F-22s. And quite frankly, the only reason for a squadron is to keep the ranks of AF generals from being depleted by apoplexy. For that matter, it's probably not a good thing to talk about the JSF either.
#10
Design an F-22 capability UCAV without all the pilot paraphanalia and call it the F-22 Plus. Faster, cheaper, better. Should keep the USAF happy. If the Air Force won't do it, let the Army or Marines. We are going to need something to tangle with the Chinese in 15 years, and the F-15 won't cut it. The JSF won't cut it for much after that. F-22 looks like a manned fighter too far.
An executive named Norm Augustine wrote a book mo9destly titled Augustine's Laws. I hyaven't unpacked it, so the following is approximate and I ask anyone who can to correct it. In it he charted the cost per unit of US fighters by date and the number built. Based on the curve, he estimated that by 2050 we would build a fighter that cost $200,000,000 in quantity one. The F-22 seems to be on track.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/29/2004 17:43 Comments ||
Top||
#11
According to a friend of mine in the business, the JSF will be the last mass produced manned fighter aircraft. So yeah my take is that the F-22 is not worth the cost. He also mentioned that in twenty years tradtional aircraft gun systems will be replaced with directed energy weapons.
A recent article on UAV prgress...
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-04zzzp.html
#12
This is huge mistake. The JSF should be canceled instead. The electronics revolution means we no longer need an expensive delivery systems as the bombs themselves have become so accurate. However not having a topline air-to -air fighter could be disastrous. Someone will figure out that ground-based air defences don't stop bombing campaigns and they will invest heavily in air defense fighters(China seems to be doing this). Then our B-2s and all the rest of the US strike a/c will be in a world of hurt.(The JSF is inferior to the F-16 air-to-air). And I hate to burst the bubble of the UAV crowd,but they are new,and the defenses for them haven't been fielded yet-but they will. For an air-to-air UAV to find aerial targets is going to be hard to do w/out using radar. So I imagine someone is going to develope an aerial Harm and start launching them at the UAVs. The UAVs are going to be a mass of electronic signals,radar,IFF,commands from the remote pilot,etc. And they won't be cheap as it's the electronics that cost. No matter how agile they are,if the UAV doesn't know it's under attack,it can't manuevere. Strike UAVs could be preprogrammed for most of their route,but Fighter UAVs will have to actively search for targets.
Cutting back on the F-22 is a perfect example of deciding to fight the last war.
Posted by: Stephen ||
12/29/2004 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Remember the ramjet? A simple design that provided potential speeds in excess of what people and the aircraft structure of the time could handle. But with modern advanced materiels and remote guidance, you could produce thousands of inexpensive drones that wouldn't need expensive cruise technology, flying so fast that shoot downs would be almost impossible. Make them modular, so a five man team could assemble, fuel, and launch it in just a few minutes from a ramp, leaving a satellite to direct it to target. A rocket or turbo booster gets the ramjet to supersonic speeds, then it covers most of its travel distance at about Mach 2, its optimum fuel efficiency, accelerating to Mach 6 when entering hostile airspace. Featherweight with a 2000lb bomb and airframe, all the rest being fuel. Think of it as a cruise missile at a tenth of the cost.
#14
Remember the ramjet? A simple design that provided potential speeds in excess of what people and the aircraft structure of the time could handle. But with modern advanced materiels and remote guidance, you could produce thousands of inexpensive drones that wouldn't need expensive cruise technology, flying so fast that shoot downs would be almost impossible. Make them modular, so a five man team could assemble, fuel, and launch it in just a few minutes from a ramp, leaving a satellite to direct it to target. A rocket or turbo booster gets the ramjet to supersonic speeds, then it covers most of its travel distance at about Mach 2, its optimum fuel efficiency, accelerating to Mach 6 when entering hostile airspace. Featherweight with a 2000lb bomb and airframe, all the rest being fuel. Think of it as a cruise missile at a tenth of the cost.
#15
Remember the ramjet? A simple design that provided potential speeds in excess of what people and the aircraft structure of the time could handle. But with modern advanced materiels and remote guidance, you could produce thousands of inexpensive drones that wouldn't need expensive cruise technology, flying so fast that shoot downs would be almost impossible. Make them modular, so a five man team could assemble, fuel, and launch it in just a few minutes from a ramp, leaving a satellite to direct it to target. A rocket or turbo booster gets the ramjet to supersonic speeds, then it covers most of its travel distance at about Mach 2, its optimum fuel efficiency, accelerating to Mach 6 when entering hostile airspace. Featherweight with a 2000lb bomb and airframe, all the rest being fuel. Think of it as a cruise missile at a tenth of the cost.
#16
Remember the ramjet? A simple design that provided potential speeds in excess of what people and the aircraft structure of the time could handle. But with modern advanced materiels and remote guidance, you could produce thousands of inexpensive drones that wouldn't need expensive cruise technology, flying so fast that shoot downs would be almost impossible. Make them modular, so a five man team could assemble, fuel, and launch it in just a few minutes from a ramp, leaving a satellite to direct it to target. A rocket or turbo booster gets the ramjet to supersonic speeds, then it covers most of its travel distance at about Mach 2, its optimum fuel efficiency, accelerating to Mach 6 when entering hostile airspace. Featherweight with a 2000lb bomb and airframe, all the rest being fuel. Think of it as a cruise missile at a tenth of the cost.
An atheist activist forced Chicago to change its Christmas tree recycling program, complaining it was unfair to non-Christians. The city wanted to bolster its Blue Bag recycling program by offering a years worth of blue bags and some mulch to anyone who turned in a used Christmas tree. But Rob Sherman, known for his campaign to keep crosses off city seals, protested to Chicago, insisting the trees-for-bags exchange unfairly benefits Christians, the Chicago Tribune reported. "The concern was that the city had constructed a well-intentioned program, but the effect was that only Christians had the opportunity to participate," Sherman told the paper. "Christians had the opportunity to receive the blue bags for free. Atheists and others would have had to pay."
Simple enough. Buy yourself a non-Christmas white pine and... Oh. Wait. You'd have to pay for it, wouldn't you? Like the Christians did for their Christmas trees...
Responding to Sherman, the city now will allow anyone to get the blue bags if they bring in a large bag of recyclable material. The city will now offer blue bags to anyone who visits one of 22 tree-recycling locations on Jan. 8 and brings a large bag of recyclable material. "We'd prefer the tree, but we're willing to permit that. We've always been flexible," streets and sanitation spokesman Matt Smith told the Tribune. "The main thing is that we want people to recycle, and we want to keep these trees out of the waste stream."
"Complaining atheists are free to bring a bag of poop..."
Sherman, of suburban Buffalo Grove, doesn't live in Chicago, but he called the city's law department on behalf of a Chicago resident. He told the Chicago paper that at one point he was told he could receive the blue bags if he brought in someone else's tree. "Atheists shouldn't have to go begging from home to home for a Christian who will sponsor them into this kind of government program," he said.
"Christians are icky"
While some argue that many non-Christians put up trees for the holidays, Sherman insists it's predominantly Christians who participate. "No self-respecting atheist or Jew or Hindu puts up a Christmas tree in their home unless they are Christian wannabes," he said. Sherman led a campaign to remove crosses from the municipal seals of the Illinois cities of Zion and Rolling Meadows.
I'm surprised he hasn't gotten around to complaining about the name "Zion" yet. Give him time.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/29/2004 9:38:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hey!!! Look at ME!!!!
Posted by: Rob Sherman ||
12/29/2004 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm always surprised vigilantes don't beat the crap out of "people" like rob sherman, not for christianity, but for general assholery. We need to revert "activist" back to "gadfly" and take any level of esteem out of it
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Apparently Chicago has forgotten that the appropriate response to such behavior is to point and laugh until the moron plaintiff slinks off.
#6
I think the city should point out that you don't get the bag for being a Christian, you get it for turning in a Christmas tree. Your religion is irrelevant.
"No self-respecting atheist or Jew or Hindu puts up a Christmas tree in their home unless they are Christian wannabes," he said.
Being a Christian isn't like being a supermodel, a mob boss, or royalty. If you "wannabe" a Christian, you can be one; there's no rigorous qualification process. In that respect, it's kinda like being a nutcake "activist".
I'm an atheist. I also have a Christmas tree. Don't need any mulch, though.
"Your religion is irrelevant. You will be assimilated into the Christmas Collective..."
(Seriously, when is someone going to get around to mentioning that Christmas trees, or for that matter the timing of Christmas itself, is something the Christians stole from the pagans?)
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/29/2004 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hmmmph!
Has it occurred to this narcissistic jackass that a great big pile of tinder-dry used Christmas trees would be ideal for an auto-da-fe?
#11
I have an excellent selection of Holiday trees for your buying pleasure. Buy one of my dry, yet piquant trees, take it to the county and turn it in for a lovely blue bags. BTW I will also buy your blue bags if you bring me a tree.
#14
I'm thinking the solution was much much simpler. If the activist is right there, and we have this giant mulcher going...give him the old heave-ho and the problem will now be lots of squishy bits flying out the out chute. I hear it makes good fertilizer or better yet, Soylent Green!
When a friend called me yesterday morning with the news that Susan Sontag had died at the age 71, just about the first thing I thought was, "well, we'll have a huge, hagiographical, front-page obituary tomorrow in The New York Times." Check to see if I am correct. In the meantime, as you prepare yourself for the Times' litany about 1) what a penetrating critical intelligence Sontag wielded and 2) what a "courageous" and challenging "dissident" voice she provided (those quotation marks are proleptic: let's see if the Times uses those words), here is another "courageous," "penetratingly intelligent" dissident voice, that of Salman Rushdie, who provided this bouquet in his capacity as President of the PEN American Center:
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
12/29/2004 9:33:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One of the things that sucks when one of these pompous know it all intellectual winbags croaks is that all the other pompous know it all intellectual windbags have to come out of the woodwork with their take on the situation. Then you get to hear words like "mendacious", "hagiographical", "simulacra","doyen" and the like.
Here's four words that sum it up, "Who gives a shit!"
I do - I'm glad she's dead, and I'm not apologizing. She was a boil on the butt of America.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I hate people like Susan Sontag. San Francisco is an entire city of them.... for the moment. Soon, however, it shall be an entire city of conservative rural Mexicans, at which point I shall laugh myself all the way to an adult Spanish class.
#5
ahhhh - nice catch, Mojo! - I just watched Bull Durham the other night. Shoulda remembered that line :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I owe an apology to several people yesterday in defending Susan Sontag. The moment I heard that she described terrorists as brave, I knew I had stuck my foot in a smelly pile.
Without retracting that, I will say that as a female blogger, I found the "bang her" comment on the political blogsite I like most very intimidating. Is it necessary to use female-specific violent terms like that to show you disagree with someone? Well, I'm sure some rantburgers won't give a hoot whether there are female rantburgers or whether we are insulted; but hey, today I want at least to apologize for my wrong.
#7
no apologies necessary Jules, and I don't remember who said the "Yasser banging Susan in hell", but I think it was meant to be derogatory to both of them :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
BTW-I notice that I can't post comments to older rantburg pages-I went into yesterday's page, and there is no option to click on "comment". Is this format change going to be permanent?
#9
I believe so - Fred got tired of a couple nutcases who kept posting to the same articles six months after...
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Susan Rosenblatt", from the lower East side of Manhattan, whose father was a furrier. She basically came from the same stock as David Horowitz, who probably understands her far more than most of the self-appointed "intellectuals" who pumped her leftist crapola.
#11
Jules, we turn off the ability to comment on older pages (anything older than today's page) to keep the spam artists and trolls from larding up the comments with their garbage. The one-whose-name-I-cannot-type comes to mind. Sorry.
As to Yasser banging Susan, I understand your point. I don't think you'll find a single citizen of Rantburg who condones violence against women in any way, and plenty of us who think that summary, public execution of those who commit violence against women is a pretty good idea.
Stick around and keeping posting/commenting. We enjoy having you here.
Steve (Army of)
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/29/2004 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The breast cancer cells that killed Susan Sontag were not cowards or an "evil" disease attacking an individual human being. No, they were the bravest of cells, attacking Susan from within at high risk to their own existence, uprising and resisting the constant bombardment from the so-called "brave" medical practicioners bathing her in radiation and chemotherapy. These so-called curatives were nothing more than genocidal technological campaigns waged against the livelihood of these innocent cancer cells, and these treatments slaughtered these cancer cells that had just as much a right to live and go about their business as any other of the cells in Susan's body...Laurence Simon
#17
Real nice, Sea. Publicize the guy kinda plagerizing the dead girl. Real, nice. Her friends would probably find that, oh, I don't know..."scurrilous"?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/29/2004 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Publicize the guy kinda plagerizing the dead girl
That wasn't plagiarism. That was mockery. Or parody if you want to be sophisticated about it. People, dead or otherwise, who write goofy-ass crap are frequently its object.
#20
Back in 1970, after returning from RVN in 1969, I would get very angry reading her columns while getting very drunk commuting from New Haven to Manhattan. That was a horrible time. And Jules, please stick around.
As famine swept through Russia in 1921, claiming five million innocent peasants' lives, the future President Herbert Hoover (who was then director of the American Relief Administration) sent $24 million of food and medical aid to the recently formed Bolshevik government. When asked why he was helping the Russian Communists, Hoover replied, "Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!" Sunday's devastating tsunami has given the United States another opportunity to showcase its immense compassion and limitless humanitarian instincts. And, as with every such act of national charity, our altruistic efforts have been rewarded with a fit of ingratitude from the Hate America Left.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
12/29/2004 9:27:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another point is this: why should we help these people? Send some aid to Thailand, sure, but the rest have not been allies in the War on Terrorism.
MUMBAI: Forty-five people died from drinking homemade liquor in Mumbai and at least 12 were in critical condition in hospital, a hospital official said on Tuesday. They had drunk the alcohol during the past two days at an unlicensed bar known as "Babu ka Adda" or Babu's Place, police said. "Forty-five people have succumbed to the liquor and another 83 are being treated with at least 12 to 15 in critical condition," said VB Shukla, medical superintendent at Rajawadi Hospital. "Most were admitted semi-conscious suffering from breathlessness, blackouts and internal organ pains," the official said. Another five patients were being treated at a nearby hospital.
Police arrested the alcohol vendor, a woman, who had been selling the liquor from her home for the past eight years, police said. "The cause of death is the high presence of methyl alcohol," hospital officials said. Poor Indians seeking cheap alcohol often drink illicit booze. The addition of methyl alcohol and sometimes even furniture varnish to such brews can make them extremely toxic. At least 13 people were killed in Mumbai late last week from consuming homemade liquor.
Remind me not to go boozing in Mumbai...
Posted by: Fred ||
12/29/2004 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The addition of methyl alcohol and sometimes even furniture varnish to such brews can make them extremely toxic.
What! No sterno? Sheesh! Get these people a Mr. Boston's bartending guide.
#3
Between the Paki's blowing themselves up by making moonshine and Indians getting killed drinking home made liquor, they should probably stick to making nuclear weapons or something.
#4
The first thing I would do is check out the competition. I know Joe (of "Joe ka Adda") has been doing everything to get Babu's business, including adding a Karaoke night and an all-you-can-eat beetle buffet.
Posted by: Dar ||
12/29/2004 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Wonder if everybody knows your name at "Babu ka Adda", or rather, knew your name...
#6
addition of methyl alcohol and sometimes even furniture varnish to such brews
Denatured alk has quite a kick, don't it?
Yep, gotta love the 3rd world.
Actualy, the recipie reminds me of drinking Soju in Korea, for some reason. I cant remember why, though...
Posted by: N Guard ||
12/29/2004 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Uh, if these guys can't master an art widely practiced by illiterate American hillbillies in the 1790's, then they are in real trouble.
Note to Babu: Get a bunch of corn. Mash the corn into a soggy paste then add some yeast. Let it sit for a week, then boil it. Trap the vapor in a clay jug using some glass tubes. Drink with one finger.
Worst thing that can happen is you go blind, which if you live in Mumbai might not be that bad of a deal.
#9
Sorry, Psycho Hillbilly, my bad. Being from hillbilly stock myself I never thought to mention that many of us still practice this sacred art, which our ancestors imported from Scotland. At second glance it might still be too complex for them anyhow.
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.
A suggestion by a U.N. official that the world's richest nations were "stingy" irritated the Bush administration, especially when U.S. aid for Asia's earthquake is expected to eventually rise from the millions to more than $1 billion. The comment reopened the question of how to measure American generosity. The answer ultimately depends on the measuring stick. 
An atheist activist forced Chicago to change its Christmas tree recycling program, complaining it was unfair to non-Christians. The city wanted to bolster its Blue Bag recycling program by offering a years worth of blue bags and some mulch to anyone who turned in a used Christmas tree. But 
MUMBAI: Forty-five people died from drinking homemade liquor in Mumbai and at least 12 were in critical condition in hospital, a hospital official said on Tuesday. They had drunk the alcohol during the past two days at an unlicensed bar known as "Babu ka Adda" or Babu's Place, police said. "Forty-five people have succumbed to the liquor and another 83 are being treated with at least 12 to 15 in critical condition," said VB Shukla, medical superintendent at Rajawadi Hospital. "Most were admitted semi-conscious suffering from breathlessness, blackouts and internal organ pains," the official said. Another five patients were being treated at a nearby hospital.
