Hi there, !
Today Sun 03/12/2006 Sat 03/11/2006 Fri 03/10/2006 Thu 03/09/2006 Wed 03/08/2006 Tue 03/07/2006 Mon 03/06/2006 Archives
469389 articles and 1657134 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 90 articles and 561 comments as of 12:49.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Opinion            Posting Order
Qaeda fugitive surrenders in Kuwait
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 3: Non-WoT
1 00:00 Korora [6478] 
8 00:00 Pappy [6498] 
9 00:00 Croque Gravise4518 [6471] 
3 00:00 2b [6477] 
9 00:00 Frank G [6479] 
11 00:00 2b [6476] 
2 00:00 Penguin [6474] 
1 00:00 Visitor [6475] 
20 00:00 Zenster [6474] 
4 00:00 trailing wife [6475] 
3 00:00 trailing wife [6474] 
29 00:00 badanov [6507] 
1 00:00 Deacon Blues [6476] 
5 00:00 .com [6476] 
5 00:00 Korora [6474] 
6 00:00 tu3031 [6470] 
1 00:00 Listen To Dogs [6469] 
2 00:00 gromgoru [6472] 
0 [6471] 
0 [6472] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
9 00:00 Frank G [6484]
6 00:00 Frank G [6501]
55 00:00 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK [6515]
4 00:00 trailing wife [6501]
10 00:00 Frank G [6506]
4 00:00 C Clay [6477]
0 [6482]
10 00:00 Chuck Simmins [6480]
0 [6508]
2 00:00 john [6492]
0 [6486]
1 00:00 anymouse [6485]
31 00:00 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK [6679]
8 00:00 6 [6476]
1 00:00 .com [6476]
2 00:00 Zenster [6479]
0 [6477]
2 00:00 mhw [6488]
0 [6472]
3 00:00 DepotGuy [6488]
7 00:00 Clolutle Slans5753 [6481]
82 00:00 .com [6508]
0 [6479]
6 00:00 Chuck Simmins [6494]
0 [6473]
0 [6494]
1 00:00 RD [6482]
1 00:00 mojo [6470]
0 [6483]
8 00:00 gromgoru [6474]
17 00:00 mhw [6482]
Page 2: WoT Background
0 [6480]
5 00:00 GK [6488]
1 00:00 Darrell [6480]
4 00:00 Frank G [6527]
30 00:00 gromgoru [6475]
15 00:00 Al Gore [6494]
2 00:00 doc [6473]
0 [6479]
5 00:00 ex-lib [6482]
7 00:00 SPoD [6478]
8 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [6475]
3 00:00 2b [6480]
2 00:00 DMFD [6475]
2 00:00 phil_b [6471]
0 [6484]
0 [6475]
1 00:00 .com [6474]
1 00:00 raptor [6472]
1 00:00 2b [6477]
1 00:00 trailing wife [6476]
1 00:00 ed [6475]
11 00:00 Frank G [6490]
3 00:00 liberalhawk [6472]
18 00:00 .com [6499]
10 00:00 wxjames [6477]
0 [6472]
0 [6473]
1 00:00 gromgoru [6475]
0 [6478]
0 [6473]
0 [6474]
18 00:00 DMFD [6474]
Page 4: Opinion
4 00:00 Frank G [6476]
3 00:00 Anonymoose [6477]
5 00:00 gromgoru [6483]
0 [6473]
0 [6472]
3 00:00 DepotGuy [6472]
6 00:00 Listen To Dogs [6475]
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Senator (burp) Kennedy Bestows "Profile in Courage" Award to Murtha

I don't believe President Kennedy would have been pleased.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Vietnam veteran who has denounced the war in Iraq, was named a recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Thursday.

Alberto Mora, a former Navy general counsel who warned Pentagon officials that U.S. policies dealing with terror detainees could invite abuse, also will receive the award from the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library Foundation.

Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, was recognized "for the difficult and courageous decision of conscience he made in November 2005, when he reversed his support for the Iraq war and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict," the foundation said in a statement.

Mora was honored for "waging a 2 1/2-year behind-the-scenes battle with Pentagon brass and civilian leaders over U.S. military policy regarding the treatment of detainees held by the United States as part of the war on terror," the foundation said.

The award, created in 1989 and named for Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, is presented annually to public servants who have withstood strong opposition while fighting for their beliefs.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) and Caroline Kennedy, the late president's daughter, will present the awards May 22 at the library.

Murtha and Mora "exemplify the kind of courage my father admired most," Caroline Kennedy said in a statement.

Past recipients include President Ford, Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko and Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold.

Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 17:17 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6471 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Sorry, needs to go to aisle 3
Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 17:20 Comments || Top||

#2  Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, was recognized "for the difficult and courageous decision of conscience he made in November 2005, when he reversed his support for the Iraq war and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict," the foundation said in a statement.

So this is what passes for "courage" and "conscience" among today's Democrats: sucking up to the anti-war, anti-American Left to get their votes and their money.

I think John F. Kennedy would vomit.

Posted by: Thoth Theash6328 || 03/09/2006 17:33 Comments || Top||

#3  Should have given him a Darwin Award.
Posted by: Iblis || 03/09/2006 17:54 Comments || Top||

#4  That photo is a WMD.....
Posted by: CrazyFool || 03/09/2006 18:02 Comments || Top||

#5  I'm rather pleased that the word "floppy" has, finally, returned to the realm of breasts.
Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 18:05 Comments || Top||

#6  See relevant Day by Day.
Posted by: DMFD || 03/09/2006 18:45 Comments || Top||

Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 18:49 Comments || Top||

#8  great strip.
Posted by: SPoD || 03/09/2006 18:51 Comments || Top||

#9  Appropriate?

"After its release, the book was widely acclaimed and helped Kennedy gather national recognition. The book won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography in 1957 and remains one of the definitive books written on both political courage and the U.S. Senate.

Despite this, questions have been raised about how much of the book was actually written by Kennedy and how much by his research assistants. In 1957, newspaper columnist Drew Pearson appeared on ABC News' The Mike Wallace Show and claimed that the book had been ghost written and later named Kennedy's "research associate" Theodore C. Sorensen as the ghost writer. Both Kennedy and Sorensen denied this claim. ABC News, under pressure from Kennedy and his lawyer Clark Clifford retracted the story. Some critics still question Kennedy's authorship of the book."

Remember for the Left, it's all about show not about substance [unless the substance happens to contain alcohol in Senator's case].
Posted by: Croque Gravise4518 || 03/09/2006 19:15 Comments || Top||

Elephant Smackdown
WACO, Texas — A 25-year-old woman climbed past barriers and into an elephant's zoo exhibit, then crawled out with minor injuries after the 6,000-pound animal smacked her with its trunk.
Proving not all idiots are men
"That's how an elephant reacts to something they would perceive as a threat," said Cameron Park Zoo director Jim Fleshman.
Ummm, I think preceived threats are the stuff you find stuck between elephant toes
After saying she wanted to play with the elephant,
"Here, hold my beer..."
the woman climbed over a 3-feet-high wood-and-wire fence, scaled an 8-foot-tall artificial rock structure and bypassed an electric wire before jumping into the exhibit Thursday afternoon, Fleshman said. A moat extends around most of the exhibit.
So, a lawsuit against the zoo for not doing enough to keep her out is not going to fly?
After the woman got out, fire and emergency crews took her to a hospital with minor injuries, including scrapes on her side and arm. Waco Fire Capt. Greg Kistler said the woman, whose name was not released, was visiting the zoo with a child and another woman.

The exhibit contains two female African elephants that have been at the zoo at least nine years. Only one of the elephants struck the woman.
"SMACK! Get outta my face, human bitch!"
Both animals were stressed after the incident and were moved to a private area for part of the afternoon, and one didn't want to return to the exhibit even later in the day. But both were back for visitors to see Friday, Fleshman said. "They're not used to somebody being in their space," he said.
Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 14:34 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6479 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The exhibit contains two female African elephants

Zoo or office, really doesn't matter much. Same result, two is find, three is trouble.
Posted by: Visitor || 03/09/2006 15:26 Comments || Top||

#2  Duhhhh. fine not find. "Are" not is. Apologies.
Posted by: Visitor || 03/09/2006 15:28 Comments || Top||

#3  Hey, next time play with a smaller animal, like a mother hippo and her cute babie!
Posted by: Perfesser || 03/09/2006 15:33 Comments || Top||

#4  Whhahahhaa... professor, yea, thats the ticket.
Posted by: Visitor || 03/09/2006 15:35 Comments || Top||

#5  Hmmmmmmm...alcohol play a factor here? I certainly hope so...
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 15:41 Comments || Top||

#6  Thus proving elephants are remarkably tolerant of utter idiots.
Posted by: DMFD || 03/09/2006 22:15 Comments || Top||

#7  "SMACK! Get outta my face, human bitch!"

Posted by: 2b || 03/09/2006 22:42 Comments || Top||

#8  I think the elephants should be able to sue her for emotional distress.
Posted by: 2b || 03/09/2006 23:00 Comments || Top||

#9  "Hi- Im Racquel Corrie, and I'm here to free you!"
Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 23:07 Comments || Top||

Russian pensioner set to take bonk mags to the grave
Gives a whole new meaning to the rigor mortis stiffness...
In case he gets buried alive?
By Chris Williams

A pensioner with a dicky ticker has made plans to be buried with his collection of top-shelf filth, Russian daily newspaper Utro has reported.

After a heart attack scare, 65-year-old Vladimir Villisov decided he could not bear to part with his cherished jazz hoard, even in the afterlife. The Mramorskoe man had a customised coffin made to house it, together with his rotting carcass.

He explained: "The girls in those magazines have been my companions for years, and I want them to accompany me to the next life."

The report gets slightly creepier as Mr Villisov, unmarried, reveals he sometimes lies in the red-satin-lined coffin to - ahem - read his antique Soviet smut. ®
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/09/2006 11:45 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6474 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Don't forget the tissues or rag....
Posted by: danking_70 || 03/09/2006 14:24 Comments || Top||

#2  They'll have to bury me with an Internet connection.
Posted by: Penguin || 03/09/2006 15:07 Comments || Top||

Seafood Resturants To Provide Combs.
Fancy a hairy lobster?

Divers have discovered a new crustacean in the South Pacific which resembles a lobster and is covered with what looks like silky, blonde fur, French researchers say. Scientists said the animal, which they named Kiwa hirsuta, was so distinct from other species that they created a new family and genus for it.

A team of American-led divers found the animal in waters 2300 metres deep at a site 1500 kilometres south of Easter Island last year, according to Michel Segonzac of the French Institute for Sea Exploration. The new crustacean is described in the journal of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris.

The animal is white and 15 centimetres long - about the size of a salad plate. In what Segonzac described as a "surprising characteristic," the animal's pincers are covered with sinuous, hair-like strands. It's also blind. The researchers found it had only "the vestige of a membrane" in the place of eyes, Segonzac said.

The researchers said that while legions of new ocean species are discovered each year, it is quite rare to find one that merits a new family. The family was named Kiwaida, from Kiwa, the goddess of crustaceans in Polynesian mythology.

The diving expedition was organised by Robert Vrijenhoek of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California.
Once past hair, you've got it LICKED!
Posted by: Besoeker || 03/09/2006 07:56 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6476 views] Top|| File under:

#1  This story was posted yesterday.
Posted by: Deacon Blues || 03/09/2006 10:31 Comments || Top||

Caribbean-Latin America
Venezuelan Congress Approves New Flag
CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez has pulled Venezuela steadily to the left, and now he's even got the horse on the national flag running that way toward his favorite hammer and sickle emblem.

Venezuela's puppet solidly pro-Chavez National Assembly gave final approval Tuesday to changes in the flag proposed by the socialist president: an eighth star and a turnabout of the horse that until now has galloped to the right. The move clears the way for Chavez to unfurl the new national banner on Flag Day on Sunday.

The changed direction for the horse in the coat of arms, which appears in the official flag's upper left corner, is a not-so-subtle metaphor for Chavez's politics. The president has acknowledged the political symbolism only vaguely but has said the horse looked odd running to the right while craning its neck back the opposite direction. He says historical drawings show the national image was intended to have a horse that "trotted freely to the left."

The congress initially approved the new flag design in January, and the latest vote confirmed the move. Venezuela's yellow, blue and red flag has had seven stars since 1863, representing the original seven provinces that rose up against Spain.

Chavez suggested the eighth star to represent the early 19th-century eastern province of Guayana, which was initially loyal to Spain but then joined an independent Venezuela. South American independence hero Simon Bolivar once proposed a flag with eight stars in 1817, and it was used for several years. Chavez has called the eighth star the "Bolivarian star" -- like his "Bolivarian Revolution," which he says is leading the oil-producing country toward socialism.

Chavez's critics call the changes a waste of money for a political whim.
Posted by: DanNY || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6474 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Well, the thing they're not mentioning is, the eighth star is for a province that's now part of another country, and this is his way of staking his claim and stirring up trouble.
Posted by: Phil || 03/09/2006 1:03 Comments || Top||

#2  Doesn't the horse headed left or right depend on which way the wind is blowing?
Posted by: DoDo || 03/09/2006 11:59 Comments || Top||

#3  ...and all underwear must be worn on the outside so we can check.
Posted by: Chavez || 03/09/2006 12:45 Comments || Top||

#4  I blame Simon Bolivar.
Posted by: mojo || 03/09/2006 14:08 Comments || Top||

#5  And the eight-spoked wheel device that symbolized the Jedi Order now has only six. Plus, there is a slightly modified armor design.
Posted by: Korora || 03/09/2006 19:19 Comments || Top||

Britain and France Build Robocarrier
March 9, 2006: Britain and France finally signed the deal to build three new aircraft carriers. This followed several years of negotiations. What's surprising about all this is not the large size of the carriers (about 58,000 tons, the largest ships ever for both navies), or the unique cooperation (two of the carriers are British, one is French, and both nations will cooperate on design and construction, with the Brits taking the lead.) No, what is amazing about all this is the aggressive plans for automation. These "Queen Elizabeth" class carriers are planning on having a ships crew of 800 (or less) and an air wing complement of 600 personnel. Currently, you need a ship crew of about 2,000 for a carrier that size. The reduction in size of the air wing personnel is even more aggressive.

These carriers are going to cost about $4 billion each, and are to be in use for half a century (including several refits and refurbs). But the biggest cost will be personnel. Currently, it costs the U.S. Navy a bit over $100,000 per sailor per year. Do the math ($7 billion in crew costs over the life of each carrier.) So the smaller the crew, the greater the savings, and the more you can spend on upgrading the ship, buying new aircraft and the like.

The carriers will haul 34-45 aircraft and helicopters and be able to handle about 110 flight operations every 24 hours. That's with current aircraft. The F-35B will be the primary warplane on the British carriers. But it's also likely that many, or all, of the next generation of aircraft on these ships will be robotic. But first, the ship has to be equipped with an unprecedented degree of automation. While 250,000 ton oil tankers can operate with a crew of under 40, all those large vessels do is move their cargo from place to place. An aircraft carrier must fight, and find the enemy, and do a lot of other stuff. The new class of 100,000 ton American CVN-21 carriers are trying to get their ship crew down from 4,000 to 2,500.

Warships have a lot of unique functions, like damage control, and manning many systems for high alert, and combat, situations. Some crew reduction ideas are pretty obvious, like installing conveyers to help move supplies when ships are replenished at sea, or even when in port. Many maintenance tasks can be eliminated by using materials that require less effort to keep clean, and are just as safe as those used in the past. It's also been noted that many maintenance tasks can be left for civilians to do when the ship is in port. Most navies has also not kept up on automation. There is still a tendency to have sailors "standing watch" to oversee equipment that, with the addition of some sensors, can be monitored from a central location. If there is a problem, a repair team can be sent. But in the meantime, thousands of man hours a week are saved, and another few dozen sailors are not needed. Another angle is removing a lot of administrative jobs from the ship altogether. All warships are connected, via satellite, to military networks. So many sailors can stay ashore, and do their work without ever going near the ship. Some sailors have long noted that their administrative jobs aboard a carrier rarely brought them in touch with the people they were serving. Carriers have phones and email. Why use it aboard ship when you can use it from some (much cheaper) shore location? Moreover, many of these admin jobs can be done, more cheaply, by civilians.

But the new British/French carriers aim to take warship automation into uncharted territory. This should be interesting, and it is certainly bold and daring. All three carriers are expected to be in service by the middle of the next decade. Just in time for the centennial of the First World War. Hmmm, that's ominous.
Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 09:57 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6474 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Asbestos-free?
Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 10:26 Comments || Top||

#2  Not Halon free.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles || 03/09/2006 10:49 Comments || Top||

#3  Must have decided it was easier to make them unmanned craft than to fix the radiation leaks.
Posted by: BH || 03/09/2006 10:59 Comments || Top||

#4  By the time these carriers will be ready, they will be the jewels of the Islamic Navy of Eurabia.
Posted by: Poitiers-Lepanto || 03/09/2006 11:26 Comments || Top||

#5  They must also be disposable; who's going to handle damage control?
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/09/2006 12:24 Comments || Top||

#6  Station-keeping and length of deployment are also affected by the available manpower. I don't think these are intended for the kinds of deployment US carriers are.
Posted by: buwaya || 03/09/2006 12:38 Comments || Top||

#7  Flip side of the long-deployment question is the possible gain in crew comfort.
Posted by: Throlulet Graviling7296 || 03/09/2006 13:06 Comments || Top||

#8  Beyond the damage control and shifts brought up (which was exactly what I initially thought) one has to wonder what is the point when both countries have shown a declining will to project power. By the time they are done Europe will have no use for them.

A better use of European funds would be to plan on urban warfare and rockets and planes capable of hitting their Islamic neighbors in case of trouble.
Posted by: rjschwarz || 03/09/2006 13:06 Comments || Top||

#9  "The F-35B will be the primary warplane on the British carriers."

I call bulls*** on this one. If you follow the EU/Brit press (see blog EUReferendum) the Brits are preparing to pull out of the JSF program using the battle of the second engine contract as an excuse. They will then purchase the French Rafael plane. This is rumored to be the main selling point that got the French to pony up the bucks.

The UK is selling out the "special relationship" quite cheaply to the FrEUnch in virtually all defence areas.
Posted by: AlanC || 03/09/2006 13:24 Comments || Top||

#10  Across all fronts. It's going to be a long decade or two or three for the US as we build and deepen relationships in Asia instead.

Our main value in Europe is to delay their fall to islam in the meanwhile. And to keep the economic benefits of trade with them so long as their protectionism doesn't interfere too badly.
Posted by: Slavique Shinenter9520 || 03/09/2006 13:45 Comments || Top||

#11  What would be realllly cool is if this baby could transform into a giant flying robot!
Posted by: SteveS || 03/09/2006 14:08 Comments || Top||

#12  Britain and France Build Robocarrier

now if they only could miniturize them..nano like, and make zillions of them! »:-)
Posted by: RD || 03/09/2006 14:14 Comments || Top||

#13  I don't see Europe turning into Eurabia. Instead I see increasingly draconic rules and laws combined with near civil war type military actions that eventually causes many Moslims to emigrate and sends Europe deeper into foreign policy isolation and guilt.

I also see a corresponding rise in christian religions as the fight against Islam is fought. This will create an increased birthrate once again.

I"m also painfully optimistic and let down often.
Posted by: rjschwarz || 03/09/2006 14:17 Comments || Top||

#14  Saudia Arabria will be managing our ports before those ships are built.

Posted by: kelly || 03/09/2006 15:06 Comments || Top||

Staff reduction is proportional to the number of monkey butlers.
Posted by: Master of Obvious || 03/09/2006 15:17 Comments || Top||

#16  With the French involved in building the carriers, I hope they're budgeting for a few tugboats to help move them around.
Posted by: DMFD || 03/09/2006 18:48 Comments || Top||

#17  Lol, SteveS! They need to bring Japan into the deal, lol.
Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 18:51 Comments || Top||

#18  Funny, I envisioned a minimally staffed vessel carrying a large complement of task-varied UAV Predator and GlobalHawk drones that could be catapult launched for extended missions. Toss in defensive mini-guns and Aegis phased array radar with UAV based AWACS plus some Tomahawk cruise missile tubes and such a platform could keep many less developed nations on the ropes for quite some period of time. We'll neglect to mention how Britain and France would be hard pressed to construct such a fighting machine. Aside from that, I'm sure we'll be deploying something on this order in another decade or two. Think of it as the buzzcut of flat-tops.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 19:35 Comments || Top||

#19  Something submersible?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 19:50 Comments || Top||

#20  Something submersible?

I'm confident that the Anglo-French version will be, whether they intend it or not.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 21:03 Comments || Top||

Bird flu found in Helmut Kohl weasel-like mammal in Germany
BERLIN (Reuters) - German authorities have identified a marten infected with H5N1 bird flu, the second species of mammal to be found with the virus in the country, the Friedrich Loeffler Institute said on Thursday. The discovery of the virus in the marten, a weasel-like creature, came days after three domestic cats were found to have the highly pathogenic strain of the disease in Germany.

The institute said it was the first time a marten or similar creature had been identified with the disease but the discovery did not mean the nature of the threat had changed. "Although another type of mammal has been affected, the basic assessment of the infection situation remains unchanged," said Thomas Mettenleiter, director of the institute which coordinates research and information on the bird flu infection.
"Remain calm, all (cough) is (cough) well!"
The World Health Organization has said the spreading of the virus to a cat probably does not increase the risk to humans but some experts have said cat-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out. The marten was caught alive on the northern island of Ruegen, where the cats and most of the birds infected with the disease in Germany have been found. It was later put down.
Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 09:27 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6474 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Martens are closely related to fishers, badgers, weasels, wolverines, and minks. They most often consume squirrels, birds and bird eggs.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 9:45 Comments || Top||

#2  I thought Gerhard Schroder, currently shilling for Putin's Gazprom, was the member of the Mustelida family. Anyone seen my copy of Peterson's Field Guide to Germans?
Posted by: SteveS || 03/09/2006 15:09 Comments || Top||

#3  Unfair, SteveS! Now I have something new to add to my wish list! (And it's unreal how many books are on it already -- at this rate Mr. Wife will never have to buy those diamond earrings I started eyeingtwo decades ago, darn it!)
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 22:42 Comments || Top||

France demands EU approach to toxic warships
France has demanded that the EU set up a working group to study ways to deal with ageing warships, after the French government last month had to bring home an asbestos-lined retired aircraft carrier on its way to be junked in India.

Meeting with her European counterparts in Innsbruck in Austria, French defence minister Michele Alliot-Marie on Tuesday (7 March) said that the issue of outdated equipment was posing a problem throughout the world, writes Le Monde.

As a first step, the proposed working group would take inventory of Europe's retired warships with some estimates saying that around 1,000, possibly toxic, civil and military vessels are waiting to be scrapped in European ports.
Posted by: mumbles || 03/09/2006 02:41 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6476 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Oh come on, Frogs! Just take responsibility for the asbestos-ridden heap of floating junk, don't try to make it someone else's problem.
Posted by: Spot || 03/09/2006 8:31 Comments || Top||

#2  What is the crew complement on this one? perhaps they should test the reduced 'roboship' manning concept on this POS first. Seriously, Ima surprized they didn't encounter 'heavy weather' during the tow home and mysteriously founder.
Posted by: USN, ret. || 03/09/2006 14:37 Comments || Top||

#3  They really should have given it an honorable death, and sunk it somewhere with an ad hoc ceremony... but they just didn't have the stones to go against greenpeace (which took its revenge after the boarding of the Rainbow warrior II by french naval commandoes during the nuclear testings), and mismanaged this the usual way... and so France is the whole world's laughing stock again. Great, just what we needed.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/09/2006 14:47 Comments || Top||

#4  Sink it in the Thames and declare it a great naval victory.
Posted by: ed || 03/09/2006 20:19 Comments || Top||

#5  ROFLMAO, ed!

Shit - wotta mess! Paper towels! My kingdom for paper towels!
Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 20:24 Comments || Top||

Researchers zero in on 'new' Viking ship
Pulse levels are rising among Norwegian researchers who think they may have found the country's fourth intact Viking ship buried in a mound near Toensberg. The site is just next to the spot where the famed Gokstad ship was found in 1880.

Researchers from the University of Oslo have been using radar to examine the Viking burial site. Photos have revealed an oval shape lying about a meter under the pile of stones atop the mound, called a gravroeysa in Norwegian.

Newspaper VG reported Tuesday that the pictures may denote another Viking longship buried with its owners' possessions in the traditional manner.

Researchers also think the ship may be intact. Clay in the area preserved the Gokstad ship for more than a thousand years, so it's entirely possible that conditions have allowed the perservation of another ship as well.

The Gokstad Ship, now one of the crown jewels in Oslo's Viking Ships Museum on the Bygdoey peninsula, was found just a kilometer-and-a-half away. It's believed to have been built around 890 and likely belonged to a king or chieftain.

Archaeologist Trude Aga Brun of Vestfold County wants to examine the site as soon as possible. She said officials will try to undertake a focused excavation this autumn. "If we're lucky, we'll find some woodwork," she told VG.

Many Viking ship graves have been found in Norway over the years, but most of the vessels had rotted away and graves also had been plundered in earlier centuries.
Posted by: Sheling Omatle7459 || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6470 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I have been to the museum and it is very cool. Learned is a Hollywood fabrication that the Vikings set their ships on fire for burial. Also learned the Vikings were pretty consevative when "plundering" as a lost man meant a lost "rower" for the trip back home. They rarely took on a hardened target, but took advantage of less defended/ more doable plunders. Nasty lot, but it is a myth that they were world beating thugs. They were involved in more legitimate trade than plunder.
Posted by: capsu78 || 03/09/2006 11:15 Comments || Top||

#2  Somethings never change. In a millenium we'll be reading about how the Islamists were involved in more legitimate trade than plunder.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 11:24 Comments || Top||

#3  The site is just next to the spot where the famed Gokstad ship was found in 1880.

And it took 'em till now to find it?
Posted by: mojo || 03/09/2006 11:55 Comments || Top||

#4  The site is just next to the spot where the famed Gokstad ship was found in 1880.

And it took 'em till now to find it?

Those archaelogists must not have gotten the gov't grant they needed, mojo, lol!
Posted by: BA || 03/09/2006 13:58 Comments || Top||

#5  Have the Chinese made an offer for it?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 14:01 Comments || Top||

#6  Maybe they can send it to bangladesh for scrap? How much asbestos is in it?
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 14:11 Comments || Top||

Fifth Column
Head Muslim Chaplain for NYC Prisons Spreads the Message of "Peace"
The head of Islamic chaplains in the New York City Department of Correction said in a recent speech that the "greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House," Jews control the media, and Muslims are being tortured in Manhattan jails.

The outlandish remarks were made by one of the city's most prominent Islamic leaders, Imam Umar Abdul-Jalil, the executive director of ministerial services for the city Department of Correction. He spoke at a conference of Islamic leaders in Tucson, Ariz., and was secretly recorded by the counterterrorism organization The Investigative Project.

The recordings capture Abdul-Jalil - speaking at two separate symposiums on Islam in America held by the Muslim Students Association on April 15 and 16 last year - making incendiary charges and espousing extremist views.

Abdul-Jalil, 56, who is also imam of the Masjid Sabur mosque in Harlem, initially denied making the comments - but later admitted to The Post that the tape was most likely accurate and said his words are being "taken out of context."

At one conference session, Abdul-Jalil charged that Muslims jailed after the 9/11 attacks were being tortured in Manhattan, according to the tape.

"They [some Muslim inmates] are not charged with anything, they are not entitled to any rights, they are interrogated. Some of them are literally tortured and we found this in the Metropolitan Correctional Facility in Manhattan. But they literally are torturing people," Abdul-Jalil said.

Abdul-Jalil also accused the Bush administration of being terrorists, according to the tape.

"We have terrorists defining who a terrorist is, but because they have the weight of legitimacy, they get away with it . . . We know that the greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House, without a doubt," he said.

At another session, Abdul-Jalil urged American Muslims to stop allowing "the Zionists of the media to dictate what Islam is to us" and said Muslims must be "compassionate with each other" and "hard against the kufr [unbeliever]."

Abdul-Jalil, a Bronx resident who said he converted to Islam while at Attica prison in 1970, participated in interfaith reconciliation efforts after 9/11. He recently took part in an educational ceremony with Gov. Pataki on Martin Luther King Day.

"His comments betray an effort to instill hatred of the United States as the enemy of Islam by making a series of false allegations portraying the U.S. as an evil country," said anti-terror expert Steve Emerson, director of The Investigative Project.

"This is a man who is supposed to be spreading words of reconciliation and moderation as head Islamic chaplain - not inciting followers to believe that the U.S. government and 'Zionists' are plotting a conspiracy of persecution against Muslims," Emerson added.

In two telephone interviews with The Post while ministering to inmates of Rikers Island yesterday, Abdul-Jalil insisted that he was not promoting extremism.

He said he was "offended, as an African-American, that someone would have the audacity to question my citizenship" and love of his country.

Posted by: growler || 03/09/2006 10:08 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6475 views] Top|| File under:

#1  At another session, Abdul-Jalil urged American Muslims to stop allowing "the Zionists of the media to dictate what Islam is to us" and said Muslims must be "compassionate with each other" and "hard against the kufr [unbeliever]."

I interpret this as a rejection of "Islam means peace". Anyone able to dispute that?

Thank God for The Investigatice Project, BTW.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/09/2006 12:31 Comments || Top||

#2  Abdul-Jalil, a Bronx resident who said he converted to Islam while at Attica prison in 1970...

Just visiting I'll bet. Well...maybe not.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 12:51 Comments || Top||

#3  Usual takkya (message to the "insiders", message for the "outsiders") by the "representative" MMM.

No need to ask where his actual loyalty goes.

said Muslims must be "compassionate with each other" and "hard against the kufr [unbeliever]."
This is a straight quote from the holy book, and it is the bullet point of the "us (muslim Master Race) vs them (infidels to be dominated and racketed, or eliminated)" ideology masquerading as a religion which islam truly is IMHO.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/09/2006 15:43 Comments || Top||

#4  So fire him. Let the inmates get by with Korans and self-leadership for a while.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 22:43 Comments || Top||

Home Front: Politix
Dems get cohesive message
(2006-03-07) — The Democrat party, which has come under fire from within and without recently for its lack of a cohesive message or platform just eight months out from a national election, will soon unveil a plan intended to emulate the success of the Republicans’ 1994 ‘Contract with America,’ according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

“We took a good concept that offered bad policies, and brought our progressive ideals to it,” said Rep. Pelosi. “We wanted a name that capitalized on the success of the previous plan, but made it clear that our goals are quite different.”

The Democrat ‘Contract on America’ will be launched within the next several weeks, she said, “and it’s destined to pull our party together, give us a sense of mission and meaning, and to inspire some really amazing bumper stickers and buttons.”

Mrs. Pelosi said the key difference between the old ‘Contract with America’, and the new ‘Contract on America’ is captured in the preposition.

The phrase was suggested by progressive linguist George Lakoff, the U.C. Berkeley professor who consults with Democrats on “how to say what they mean without using traditional, culture-bound words that people understand.”

“The word ‘on’ in the ‘Contract on America’ denotes something positive and active,” said Mr. Lakoff. “It indicates that Democrat ideas are not off, they’re right on. It’s much stronger than the word ‘with’, which always sounded passive. The ‘Contract on America’ says Democrats are progressively leading America onward in a single, inevitable direction.”

Rep. Pelosi said top Democrats “need just a few more weeks to finalize the ‘Contract on America’, now that we have agreed to this catchy title.”

“I’m sure the actual ideas and policies will start to flow from there,” she said. “Then you’ll see the American people rally to the Democrat cause in a way that hasn’t happened since we nominated Michael Dukakis for the presidency.”
Posted by: Korora || 03/09/2006 20:29 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6478 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Oops. Knew there was something I'd missed. Please shift this to tomorrow.
Posted by: Korora || 03/09/2006 20:37 Comments || Top||

Hillary Double-Crosses DNC Before They Can Double-Cross Her
A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.

The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.

Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front. "The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros.

"It's unclear what the DNC is doing. Is it going to be kept up to date?" Ickes asked, adding that out-of-date voter information is "worse than having no database at all."

Ickes's effort is drawing particular notice among Washington operatives who know about it because of speculation that he is acting to build a campaign resource for a possible 2008 presidential run by Hillary Clinton. She has long been concerned, advisers say, that Democrats and liberals lack the political infrastructure of Republicans and their conservative allies. Ickes said his new venture, Data Warehouse, will at first seek to sell its targeting information to politically active unions and liberal interest groups, rather than campaigns.

As it stands now, the DNC and Data Warehouse, created by Ickes and Democratic operative Laura Quinn, will separately try to build vast and detailed voter lists -- each effort requiring sophisticated expertise and costing well over $10 million.

"From an institutional standpoint, this is one of the most important things the DNC can and should do. Building this voter file is part of our job," Communications Director Karen Finney said. "We believe this is something we have to do at the DNC. Our job is to build the infrastructure of the party."

In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the DNC began building a national voter file, and it proved highly effective in raising money. Because of many technical problems, however, it was not useful to state and local organizations trying to get out the vote.

The pressure on Democrats to begin more aggressive "data mining" in the hunt for votes began after the 2002 midterm elections and intensified after the 2004 presidential contest, when the GOP harnessed data technology to powerful effect.

In 2002, for the first time in recent memory, Republicans ran better get-out-the-vote programs than Democrats. When well done, such drives typically raise a candidate's Election Day performance by two to four percentage points. Democrats have become increasingly fearful that the GOP is capitalizing on high-speed computers and the growing volume of data available from government files and consumer marketing firms -- as well as the party's own surveys -- to better target potential supporters.

The Republican database has allowed the party and its candidates to tailor messages to individual voters and households, using information about the kind of magazines they receive, whether they own guns, the churches they attend, their incomes, their charitable contributions and their voting histories.

This makes it possible to specifically address the issues of voters who, in the case of many GOP supporters, may oppose abortion, support gun rights or be angry about government use of eminent domain to take private property. A personalized pitch can be made during door-knocking, through direct mail and e-mail, and via phone banks.

This approach is designed to complement the broad-brush approach of television and radio advertising, which by its nature must be addressed to large, and often diverse, audiences.

Traditional get-out-the-vote efforts operated crudely, such as by canvassing neighborhoods in which at least 65 percent of residents voted for a particular party. It was often deemed too inefficient to focus on neighborhoods where the partisan tilt was less decisive, and it ran the risk of doing more to turn out the opposition's vote.

The advantage of data-based targeting is that political field operatives can home in on precisely the voters they wish to reach -- the antiabortion parishioners of a traditionally Democratic African American church congregation, for instance.

Consultants working for the Republican National Committee developed strategies to design messages targeting individual voters' "anger points" in the belief that grievance is one of the strongest motivations to get people to turn out on Election Day.

Under the direction of Bush adviser Karl Rove, the RNC and state parties repeatedly tested the voter file and different ways to contact voters to determine which were most effective at boosting turnout.

"They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," then-DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said after the 2004 contest. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery."

Ickes has quietly raised an estimated $7.5 million in start-up money for Data Warehouse. A prospectus said the company will need at least $11.5 million in initial capital.

In addition to Soros's support, Ickes has the financial backing of some of the wealthy participants in a new fundraising group called the Democracy Alliance. He and Quinn, who will be chief executive of Data Warehouse, have hired technology specialists from internet retailer Amazon.com and a Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer project.

Quinn had worked on the voter file program under McAuliffe, but Dean brought in his own people after he took over in early 2005.

These included former Dean presidential campaign workers who formed a company called Blue State Digital, now under contract with the DNC.
Hillary wants all the money to go to her instead of the DNC, so that all other congressmen and senators have to beg her for handouts, since the DNC may be more than 50% short of funds because of her, and candidates will be starving. This is party treason of the first order.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 18:58 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6498 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Interesting to see two competing databases with two competing messages. Also, $10 million isn't getting the job done (particularly if he uses union labor).
Posted by: DoDo || 03/09/2006 19:15 Comments || Top||

#2  We're seeing what could be the splitting of the Democrats into the left and left-of-moderate wings - I'll bet they both try to retain the title of "The Democratic Party" though - Lord knows why....
Posted by: Glaith Snuger5196 || 03/09/2006 19:54 Comments || Top||

#3  I picture a snake in a circle devouring itself by the tail.... :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 03/09/2006 20:58 Comments || Top||

#4  a snake in a circle devouring itself by the tail

Posted by: DMFD || 03/09/2006 21:48 Comments || Top||

#5  This is a major mistake by Hillary. IMHO, this will cost her the far left, that doesn't much like her anyway, the libertarians and will make anyone slightly left of center realize what a ambitious power hungry witch she is, willing to fry up live babies on TV if it would get her elected.

She will still get the party faithful - who would still vote for her even if she did fry up live babies.

I agree with Rove, she'll get the nomination - but this association with Soros and data mining for pure political purposes will be close to fatal in the 2008 election.
Posted by: 2b || 03/09/2006 22:39 Comments || Top||

#6  Is this legal? It's data mining, isn't it -- like what the NSC was doing?
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 22:58 Comments || Top||

#7  one would hope so, tw. But I think it's legal because democrats are doing it. Like lying under oath, inciting hate speech, and publishing slander.
Posted by: 2b || 03/09/2006 23:05 Comments || Top||

#8  This been going on since 2000. HRC was developing independent lines of funding on the West Coast, the others (like Ickes) lots of connections.

There could be a coup within the Democratic Party.

But my money is on the formation of a lean 'independent'(replacement/substitute Democrat) party. In either case a sub-contracted (and controlled) 'party mechanism' will already be up and running.
Posted by: Pappy || 03/09/2006 23:20 Comments || Top||

Hillary Seeing Things Again
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a "police state" to round up illegal immigrants...

Image hosting by Photobucket
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 12:54 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6476 views] Top|| File under:

#1  First the bats couple hours later the lizards appear.
Posted by: Throlulet Graviling7296 || 03/09/2006 13:12 Comments || Top||

#2  We are a police state. You break the laws, the police will want to chat with you. All nations with laws are police states.
Illegal (hence the name) immigrants are breaking the law, therefore are fair game to be rounded up.
Stupid bitch.
Posted by: mmurray821 || 03/09/2006 13:19 Comments || Top||

#3  I honestly believe this woman considers nothing illegal.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 13:51 Comments || Top||

#4  tu, I'd qualify that with ...nothing's illegal for her.
Posted by: BA || 03/09/2006 14:12 Comments || Top||

#5  Hillary has just made herself unelectable. She's come out full-throated in support of open borders.

Not even Bush has done that.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/09/2006 14:17 Comments || Top||

#6  Clinton said it would be "an unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do."

We don't have to do it all at once, dear. As they come to our attention will work just fine, provided you schmucks don't make it illegal to ask gor a green card...
Posted by: mojo || 03/09/2006 14:54 Comments || Top||

#7  This is actually GOOD news. She's now flushed herself with the majority of American voters. Thank you Hilderbeast, you gorgeous thick ankled thang you.
Posted by: Visitor || 03/09/2006 15:40 Comments || Top||

#8  "Republicans are trying to create a "police state" to round up illegal immigrants..."

With any luck.

What part of ILLEGAL does she not understand?

[Yeah, yeah, I know - all of it. >:-( ]
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 03/09/2006 21:01 Comments || Top||

#9  She's courting the illegal immigrant vote.
Posted by: Darrell || 03/09/2006 21:22 Comments || Top||

#10  I'd love to hear that tone-deaf midwestern harangue she loves to give, in Spanish...sounding like Al Gore in a sex change/talking to the gardener about why he's too stoopid to be paid too much, she'll invest it for him in cattle futures...
Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 22:24 Comments || Top||

#11  she's one wacked out cukoo bird.
Posted by: 2b || 03/09/2006 22:52 Comments || Top||

Ahmadis wait for justice. And wait. And wait...
Violations of the Ahmadiyya Community’s rights and discrimination against the community continued in 2005 as 11 Ahmadis were killed, 60 charged on religious grounds and 16 accused of blasphemy, according to the community’s annual report. “The year 2005 could not bring the long awaited relief to Ahmadis from the policies begun by Gen Ziaul Haq 21 years ago,” the report said. The Ahmadiyya Community was denied freedom of assembly, expression and speech, the document accused, despite the authorities’ claims of safeguarding minorities’ rights. It said President Musharraf’s ‘enlightened moderation’ had failed as more Ahamdis faced charges on religious grounds than last year. “Laws were stretched to the limit of absurdity to cook up charges.”

The 105-page report supported with annexes said 11 Ahmadis were killed because of religious discrimination, including eight who were killed while they were praying in Moung in district Mandi Bahauddin. The investigation has been kept secret and has produced no results so far. About 79 Ahmadis have been killed because of their religion since 1984, the report said. It said some anti-Ahmadiyya groups distributed currency notes stamped with, “Every Ahmadi must be killed” but the government did not take any action. The report said most of the Ahmadis were killed in the last quarter of 2005 in various parts of the country. According to the document, 60 Ahmadis were arrested in cases relating religion out of which 16 were later released. It said 16 Ahmadis were accused of blasphemy, 24 were booked under Ahmadiyya-specific laws and 20 were charged under other religious laws.
Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6469 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Blame the Wahabis. Zia consulted the Grand Mufti ibn-Baz, etc, on the Muslim credentials of the Ahmadiyyas (also referred to as Qadianis). Result: an amendment was made to the Constitution of Pakistan, declaring the group a "non-Muslim minority." Ahmadiyyas challenge Islamic dogma on the "finality of Muhammad's prophethood." Freedom of conscience has little currency in Islam.
Posted by: Listen To Dogs || 03/09/2006 0:32 Comments || Top||

Police try to stop Mai-led rally in Multan
MULTAN: The local administration and police tried to prevent a rally led by Mukhtar Mai here on International Women’s Day by imposing Section 144, which prohibits public gatherings, but the protestors managed to stage their rally later at a sports ground. Thousands of women planned to march from Allama Iqbal Park (Nawan Shehr), but the police stopped them so they later gathered at the basketball stadium in a sports ground and marched to Kalima Chowk.

The protestors demanded the repeal of the Hudood Ordinances and an end to honour killings, vani and other social customs that are cruel to women. The rally was organised by the Pathan Development Organisation, Khawateen Councillors Network and South Punjab NGOs Forum “I am struggling for women who are being victimised and harassed by tyrants. All women should raise their voice against injustice, discriminatory laws, rapists and other social evils,” Mai told reporters.
Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6471 views] Top|| File under:

Spain opens probe against Benazir
MADRID: Spain's judiciary has opened an investigation into allegations of money laundering against Benazir Bhutto, reported El Pais newspaper on Wednesday. A judge in Ontiyent, near Valencia, is investigating movements of cash opened here and other accounts that belong to Bhutto in Switzerland and the UAE, El Pais quoted a judicial source as saying. The investigation, whose existence judicial sources did not confirm, reportedly followed a denunciation of Bhutto by Pakistan's legal authorities.
Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6472 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Semi-seculars like the Pakistan Peoples Party's exiled leader, enhance the cleric's undeserved reputations when they embezzle. She and her thief husband are has beens.

Pics from the Euro-jihad:
(my putz browser won't link)
Posted by: Listen To Dogs || 03/09/2006 7:22 Comments || Top||

#2  The first fruit of the new understanding between Spainish Goverment and Mush the Perv.
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/09/2006 7:33 Comments || Top||

Science & Technology
Google outspooks the spooks with Total Information Awareness plan
Lend us your drives
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco

Google wants to mirror and index every byte of your hard drive, relegating your PC to a "cache", notes on a company PowerPoint presentation reveal.

The file accompanied part of Google's analyst day last week. Google has since withdrawn the file, telling the BBC that the information was not intended for publication.

The justification for this enormous data grab is that Google would be able to restore your data after a catastrophic system failure.

The notes reveal a plan to -

Store 100% of User Data
... With infinite storage, we can house all user files, including: emails, web history, pictures, bookmarks, etc and make it accessible from anywhere (any device, any platform, etc).

We already have efforts in this direction in terms of GDrive, GDS, Lighthouse, but all of them face bandwidth and storage constraints today. (...) This theme will help us make the client less important (thin client, thick server model) which suits our strength vis-a-vis Microsoft and is also of great value to the user.

As we move toward the 'Store 100%' reality, the online copy of your data will become your Golden Copy and your local-machine copy serves more like a cache."

Perhaps it's Google's gift to the US government. In August 2003, Admiral John M Poindexter was forced to resign after his 'Total Information Awareness' data mining program was revealed to be indexing "everyday transactions as credit card purchases, travel reservations and e-mail."

Exactly what Google will have if its 'GDrive' ever materializes.

And here's a coincidence.

What tipped Poindexter's resignation was his specific plan to operate "terror casino". The scheme porported to tap "collective wisdom" of the public in predicting world events such as assassinations.

This hokum New Age idea, beloved by autistic technophiliacs, was rapidly shot down. But it has its fans in Silicon Valley, as this slide from Google's analyst presentation shows.
I don't know, sounded like a thinking-out-of-the-box idea at least worth trying, and I'm not a technophiliac (though a little autistic, true).
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/09/2006 11:40 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6475 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The Admiral had "Hill" and perception baggage as well, which ultimately also doomed his efforts.
Posted by: Visitor || 03/09/2006 14:58 Comments || Top||

Southeast Asia
Thai protest group calls for Singapore goods boycott
A protest movement trying to force the resignation of Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has called for a boycott of products from Singapore. The purchase of Mr Thaksin's family-run telecommunication business empire by the Singapore government investment arm Temasek sparked big demonstrations after the Prime Minister's family paid no tax on the deal.

The anti-Government protest movement operates under the name of the People's Alliance for Democracy, or PAD. Today the umbrella group published a list of 100 products or companies it says have ties to Thaksin Shinawatra and called for a consumer boycott. The list includes Singapore Airlines, several banks and beer companies as well as multinationals with ties to the prime Minister's ruling Thai Rak Thai party.

The PAD is planning another major protest in Bangkok next Tuesday to coincide with the next scheduled meeting of cabinet. Mr Thaksin says he won't resign and is preparing to fight elections on the second of April. A boycott of the poll by the three main opposition parties has created a political crisis, and led to calls for Thailand's revered King to appoint an interim prime minister.
Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6472 views] Top|| File under:

Home Front: Culture Wars
Tennessee Senate Joins Anti-Abortion Movement
The state Senate on Thursday passed a proposal to amend the Tennessee Constitution so that it doesn't guarantee a woman's right to an abortion.

The 24-9 vote was the first step of many toward officially amending the state constitution. The measure would go before voters if the General Assembly approves it twice over the next two years.

The state Supreme Court has ruled that the Tennessee Constitution grants women a greater right to abortion than the U.S. Constitution.

Abortion rights supporters are attacking the measure as a stepping stone to prohibiting all abortions in Tennessee if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark abortion decision in Roe v. Wade.

"The resolution is an all-out attack on the women of Tennessee and seeks to rob women of their right to make choices about their own health, safety and personal welfare," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.

Sen. David Fowler, a Republican sponsor of the bill, proposed a similar resolution last year that cleared the Senate but stalled in a House committee.

"I regret this will cast me as being hardhearted, unsympathetic and unkind but that's not who I am," Fowler said.

Tennessee has a long process for amending its constitution, requiring approval by both chambers in session of the General Assembly, two-thirds approval by both chambers in the next session, and then approval by voters.

Several states are considering restrictions on abortion that eventually could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. South Dakota's governor signed a law Monday that would prohibit all abortions except those necessary to save a mother's life.

Some opponents of abortion rights hope the additions of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito will make the court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, although a majority of the court still appears to support the 1973 ruling.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 16:47 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6477 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I have mixed feelings about this, based on James Taranto's "Roe Effect." He postulates that Libs are aborting themselves out of existence. Is it wrong to want that process to continue?
Posted by: Iblis || 03/09/2006 17:58 Comments || Top||

#2  What you are witnessing is probably less to do with the actual procedure and more to do with what Jefferson wrote over two hundred years ago about "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". Methinks the unelected judiciary is about to inherit the consequeces of ignoring the consent of the governed.
Posted by: Croque Gravise4518 || 03/09/2006 19:21 Comments || Top||

#3  I don't like the idea of amending the constitution will all of this stuff. Agree it is because the stupid judiciary isn't doing their job and following the law, but I think it is a bad idea in the long run.
Posted by: 2b || 03/09/2006 22:56 Comments || Top||

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Opt-Out
Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 09:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6507 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I don't think they will have much luck. However, I predict there will eventually be a new regime, one based on the original principals of marriage.

That is, males have a biological prerogative to mate with multiple females. Females have both the prerogative to get the best genetic father for their offspring; and the best partner to help raise them. When there are a lot of males, most likely not the same male.

Marriage is a contract that for the male promises that the children he raises will be his. For the female, that she will only have his children, if he stays monogamous, using his resources for her children's benefit only. But this only works if the marriage contract is enforced.

So, to mimic this contract, legally, would most likely give the most satisfactory results. In some states, when a child is born, the mother is pressed to give the father's name--who must contest parenthood to deny financial responsibility.

This idea should be expanded so that when a child is born, a sample of their DNA is kept at the hospital for a set period of time, that being, for the father to assert parenthood. Once it is determined, compared to a paternal blood test, then the child is officialy his or not.

1) If the child is the father's, he is financially responsible.
2) If the child is not his, he can accept financial responsibility for it anyway.
3) If the child is not his, and he declines financial responsibility, he must also sever his relationship with the mother since he cannot support one and not the other. Otherwise he assumes financial responsibility for the child.
4) A male who is the biological father but not the female's partner, may assume financial support for the child besides her partner, but a court must determine if he has any other parental rights.

This mimics the prerogatives of marriage, in that, for the female, it legally guarantees that the real father of her children must pay support; for the male, that he only has to support the children that are his, unless he opts to support them anyway.

It is not clear-cut, but it does give what I think are the best results for all concerned.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 9:22 Comments || Top||

#2  I'm getting radical about whole issue.

I'm for the government to get out of the marriage business all together. That all contracts are civil which can not obligate any third party to any benefits predicated upon said contract. The state's only interest is to act as impartial third party in the resolution of contract and to protect those unable to protect themselves, i.e. the children. What the state defines as 'husband' and 'wife' is the DNA validation of the child. Therefore, you may have a man or woman with several official mates. Those mates are responsible for the children till; the child comes of age, dies, or are officially relieved of responsibility by others assuming that responsibility. Any benefits are predicated upon the child, not upon the contract or the adults involved.
Posted by: Clith Unaick2324 || 03/09/2006 10:26 Comments || Top||

#3  Clith Unaick2324: that actually sounds pretty status quo, given most current law. Certainly there are a lot of exceptions, sometimes egregious ones, here and elsewhere.

"Child law" is one of the most sensitive issues around, and it is very case-by-case driven. An eye opener as to how irrational it can get is with the degeneracy of divorce law in the US. Perjury is commonplace, even pro-forma, with wild and unsubstatiated accusations often encouraged by attorneys and ignored by judges.

Child custody and administration law is almost entirely anecdotally driven. One week there will be a tragedy of children returned to birth parents that promptly kill them; the next, of children taken away from birth parents who are killed by adoptive parents or in their foster home. Most State child welfare agencies are mad houses.

Perpetual investigations of "the system" exist in many States. There are no blanket answers.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 10:56 Comments || Top||

#4  So, she told him she "couldn't" get pregnant, and now she is, with his child. He's an idiot who just wanted to screw her, and now he's screwed and is whining about it.

What a great dad, huh?

If you play with fire . . .
Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 11:53 Comments || Top||

#5  So, he told her he "couldn't" father a child, and now she is pregnant. She's an idiot who just wanted to screw him, and now she's screwed and is whining about it.

What a great mom, huh?

If you play with fire . . .

(Sorry - just want to contrast with a different 'viewpoint'... I think I've heard this story before....).

Personally I think if the guy can prove that she said she could not get pregnant (or would not hold him responsible) he should have an 'out'. OR perhaps he should have some say ( as in CHOICE...) in the decision to 'abort' since, after all, the child is his as well....
Posted by: CrazyFool || 03/09/2006 12:21 Comments || Top||

#6  Human cruelty abounds. I knew of a man who married a beautiful woman, who gave birth to their triplets, all male, without ever informing him that males in her family suffered from congenital blindness.

In those days, it was said, that people admired and respected him for his willingness to stay with her to raise those boys, and once they were adults, people could not condemn him for strangling her to death.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 12:51 Comments || Top||

#7  "Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant."

Poor, dumb bastard. Look, here's how it works:

1) She has a vagina.

2) You have a paycheck.

3) Therefore, she gets your paycheck. No exceptions.

See how easy that was? Nothin' to it.

In the future, try to remember this general rule: if it floats, flies or f*cks, it's usually cheaper to rent.

Posted by: Elmater Angoger6598 || 03/09/2006 13:23 Comments || Top||

#8  This only proves the classic motherly advice, "Never trust the object of your affections to provide the birth control, unless you want to make a baby." The gentleman's mistake was not using a condom every time, regardless what the woman said. Very stupid on his part, given how many girls historically have deliberately attempted to trap men into marriage this way. Even in these liberated times, there are as many users of both sexes that the basic rules haven't changed.

It seems to me that unless the gentleman can show (pharmacy receipts perhaps, or neighbors complaining about used condoms on their lawns?) that he took precautions of his own, he should be stuck paying for his pleasure. After all, the lady has a child to raise, which hopefully will seriously interfere with her ability to have fun for about fifteen years.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 16:16 Comments || Top||

#9  Great answer, tw.

Some of you guys sound like idiot, misogenist Moslems. Really.

"Very stupid on his part, given how many girls historically have deliberately attempted to trap men into marriage this way." My point, as well, CrazyFool. BTW, which method of abortion do you support? Can you describe it for us?

Look, he took his chances and got burned. But he didn't have to. It's spelled C-O-N-D-O-M or A-B-S-T-A-I-N. It was his choice.

Men have been wanting to blame women for the consequences of their sexual decisions for centuries. It's too bad what happened to him, but maybe now he should step up and be a man about it.

It's not the baby's fault, right? Both PARENTS have responsibility here, not just one. Generally, responsibility is a good thing. Guess they're gonna have to grow up now, right along with junior.
Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 16:39 Comments || Top||

#10  Sigh. Too bad the old days when her daddy and brothers would shoot him in the leg and take escort him to the altar are over. Dubay (I won't call him Mr.) thinks $500 a month unfair to help raise a daughter he made. Yet he does nothing to take custody of his daughter and get his ex-F-buddy to pay that amount. Take half his paycheck and place it the daughters welfare and education account. Same for the mother. If either makes another baby, take the other half.

Is there any way citizens can force both of them to get their tubes tied until they grow up?
Posted by: ed || 03/09/2006 16:55 Comments || Top||

#11  Made a deposit at the bank? Don't be surprised that your balance has changed.

Birth control is EVERY person's responsibility, man AND woman. And a condom alone ain't gonna quite cut it-better add spermicide to make extra sure, if you don't want an abortion to happen or an obligation to pay child support for little kidlets. That kinda puts the damper on things, doesn't it.

If he was lied to, that is wrong. I do feel for men who don't want to raise children and did everything forseeable to avoid impregnating their sex partner, or men who have been manipulated. But no birth control is 100% safe and this isn't the first time a partner might have lied to get laid.

It is a hardship to owe child support for 18 years; it is more of a hardship to put your body through pregnancy and labor and struggle raising a child without a father to help. Maybe raising this issue is a good thing. Everyone needs to understand that unwanted pregnancies are not an "inconvenience", as the buzz has it lately-they are life changing events.
Posted by: Jules || 03/09/2006 16:58 Comments || Top||

#12  I do think its unfair that the woman has the decision to keep the child and the father has little say but to pay up and support the child. Still nobody said life was fair and you can't change the rules after the fact.
Posted by: rjschwarz || 03/09/2006 17:07 Comments || Top||

#13  My rough paraphrase won't do the subject justice, but I'll always remember what Rush Limbaugh had to say on this subject more than a decade ago. Try as we might to *pretend* that men and women are "equal" in regard to the outcome of a pregnancy, the simple truth of the matter is that WOMEN will be disproportionately burdened with a child--both in the 9 months that it takes to bring them into the world and in regard to the toll it will take to raise them.

As a result, Rush believed that any effort to artificially "even-out" the "costs" involved actually served as a DISINCENTIVE for women to behave responsibly and limit their sexual partnering to only those with whom they wished to have children. He further pointed out that we could pass all of the "support" laws we wished, but there would always be men who simply picked up and left or beat the system by hiding their income.

The short summary was that women have 100 percent control over their bodies already--if they are not absolutely certain that they are ready for a child and not 100 percent certain that the man they are coupling with is a good and decent person that will support her and her child, they should decline sexual activity that might produce a pregnancy.

(The current system provides almost an incentive for the unwed to have kids--the government rushes in with a check to make a crappy moral decision bearable.)
Posted by: Crusader || 03/09/2006 17:37 Comments || Top||

#14  Don't want to be a Daddy? Put a condom on it. Every time. Or don't do screw. Simple choice - big responsibility.

Can't be bothered? Your choice and your responsibility equally. It's your tool. Use it wisely.

No sperm. No baby.
Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 || 03/09/2006 17:58 Comments || Top||

#15  Crusader-That philosophy provides men with the "incentive" to "behave" irresponsibly-there would be no downside. It would follow that men would get sex less-women would have to live by your "behaving responsibly" dictate. Unless, of course, those men didn't limit themselves to having sex with WOMEN...

If that logical consequence is contained within your argument-that men will have to put up with having sex MUCH MUCH less often-then at least your position is consistent. If not, then your position is primarily about double standards.
Posted by: Jules || 03/09/2006 18:08 Comments || Top||

#16  I rent.
Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 18:28 Comments || Top||

#17  Jules:

I assure you that I had already thought the "less sex" angle through and believe that such a scenario is a win/win one. Moral behavior is moral behavior--if women were adament about making correct choices (and knew that the incorrect choice might lead to economic hardship if a pregnancy developed), men would have no "high ground" from which to complain.
Posted by: Crusader || 03/09/2006 18:39 Comments || Top||

#18  Actually I don't support any sort of 'abortion' myself (except perhaps in case if rape or incest) but I think that choice is between a person and his/her God(s) / conscious / whatever...

I do, however think the responsiblity goes both ways. Its called C-O-N-D-O-M or P-I-L-L or I-U-D or A-B-S-T-A-I-N. If you choose not to take precautions you also accept the responsibilty for that choice regardless of your gender. Of course it's not the guys who have suffer the pregnacy and they can try to 'leave' (which is irresponsible!) - so I kind of see your point. But it seems that only woman have a 'legal' way to escape their choice.

Of course, like they say, life isn't fair - never has been and never will be.
Posted by: CrazyFool || 03/09/2006 18:42 Comments || Top||

#19  Not to beat a dead horse, but IUD's cause perforation of the uterus and instantaneous abortion, and scarring which prevents wanted pregnancies in the future, and the pill has so many adverse side effects hormonally, cancer link, etc.

So no easy answers. But "honey, I promise you won't get me pregnant" in a non-committed relationship gets the stupid award in my book. The guy should've known better. And maybe the girl was trying to trick him, or maybe she thought she couldn't get pregnant. Who knows. But what we DO know is he took his chances, and in his mind, lost.

Oh well.
Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 18:49 Comments || Top||

#20  "...if women were adamant about making correct choices... men would have no "high ground" from which to complain."

Crusader-Who was it who said "Where men are weak, there women fall?"

You want women to be stronger, to choose for men. Fair enough.

At least your acknowledgement about the logical reduction in sex matches your position on moral behavior.
Posted by: Jules || 03/09/2006 19:04 Comments || Top||

#21  Jules:

Another way of rephrasing Rush's argument is in terms of what would we tell our daughters? Would we say "If you're not careful and a baby results from your dalliances, you AND YOUR DATE are responsible"? Or are we much more likely to point out all of the negative ways in which HER life will be impacted, irrespective of the male's part? In that regard, the promise of a government check and/or a child-support check undermines the message we tell our daughters: that women and women-alone are responsible for their bodies. We're in effect providing a safety-net for a tight-rope act that should be saved for committed and mature adults.
Posted by: Crusader || 03/09/2006 19:49 Comments || Top||

#22  Crusader-I understood your paraphrasing of Rush's position on this issue in your first post-no clarification is needed. I simply don't share his views or yours. I don't have two different views of sexuality-one for men that excuses them of all and one for women which blames them for all. We'll just have to disagree on this issue.
Posted by: Jules || 03/09/2006 20:14 Comments || Top||

#23  "Mama told me not to come ...

He did and he is now a daddy.
Posted by: anon || 03/09/2006 20:26 Comments || Top||

#24  Ex-lib, the rub is when you find out via DNA that the child you were paying support for - is someone else's - yet the state says you have to continue. The wife/woman was a whore, and if you can't get that she f*&ked his lfe up via the courts and support, then I'd like to meet you personally too to tell you what I really think. I have a friend who's still paying for someone else's f*&k 15 yrs later, so if you think I'm misogynist, I just picture you
Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 21:22 Comments || Top||

#25  Interesting comments. Good point about the IUD.

Q) So what do they call people who practice the 'Rhythm method' of bith control? (i.e. following a schedule)

A) Parents!
Posted by: CrazyFool || 03/09/2006 21:46 Comments || Top||

#26  Frank G, of course you are right, in the case of a cuckoo's egg. I read somewhere that as many as 1/4 to 1/3 of all children aren't the natural offspring of Mommy's husband -- although I have no idea whether or not that's actually a true fact. So the gentleman in this particular case, and probably in all cases of unedesired offspring, should have a DNA test done before discussing child support.

Nontheless, for all of you waxing moral in this thread, remember that you are also saddling women who didn't have the opportunity to say "No" with the results -- the victims of rape and incest, f'r instance. Women have historically borne the burden, while men have historically walked away scot free... and there were lots of bastard kids, lots of throwaway kids, and lots of back alley abortions. The behaviour isn't going to change until the men know that each time they unzip it could cost them, a lot and for a long time.

I feel for Frank G's friend, whose honour was taken advantage of. But not for the man who is indignant that what he thought was free turns out to have a cost.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 22:56 Comments || Top||

#27  fair enuf - although we're talking MUCH different circumstances. I've taught my boys - don't believe she's got protection - do it yourself.
Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 23:11 Comments || Top||

#28  I'm so confused.

Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 23:27 Comments || Top||

#29  Al Bundy:

And as we all know, affection is just a hammerlock away from sex...

Posted by: badanov || 03/09/2006 23:28 Comments || Top||

Who's in the News

E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Gulf War I
The Way We Were


On Sale now!

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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Scooter McGruder
john frum
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Frank G
Alaska Paul

Two weeks of WOT
Thu 2006-03-09
  Qaeda fugitive surrenders in Kuwait
Wed 2006-03-08
  N. Korea Launches Two Missiles
Tue 2006-03-07
  15 Dead, Dozens hurt in blasts in north Indian temple town
Mon 2006-03-06
  Bangla Bhai bangla nabbed
Sun 2006-03-05
  Ayman issues call for more attacks
Sat 2006-03-04
  EU3 Begin To Realize They Were Duped
Fri 2006-03-03
  Leb Army seals Syrian border
Thu 2006-03-02
  JMB chief Abdur Rahman nabbed
Wed 2006-03-01
  US journo trapped in Afghan prison riot
Tue 2006-02-28
  Yemen Executes American Missionaries’ Murderer
Mon 2006-02-27
  Saudi forces clash with suspected militants
Sun 2006-02-26
  Jihad Jack Guilty
Sat 2006-02-25
  11 killed, nine churches torched in Nigeria
Fri 2006-02-24
  Saudi forces thwart attack on oil facility
Thu 2006-02-23
  Yemen Charges Five Saudis With Plotting Attacks

Better than the average link...

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.
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (31)    WoT Background (32)    Opinion (7)    (0)    (0)