Posted by: Fred ||
08/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the MSM is in a "protect Elizabeth" mode. Too bad Silky didn't think of that. The NE's got him and is just stringing this out for the attention and the convention. Think Johnny's gonna give a prime-time speech? How about one on absentee fathers? Say buh-bye to that AG position, you two-faced ambulance-chasing bitch
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/02/2008 5:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I dunno, Dems pull the weirdest shit and get away with it.
Nearly the same thing happened to the good Reverend Jackson a few years ago, and he managed to swim through a river of shit and come out smelling like a rose on the other side. Prolly didn't even have to pay child support. Of course, he is black, so that makes any accusation racism.
But breck-boy might surprise you all.
The crusade against the almost non-existent in-flight phone call menace continues. First, we had the FCC insist that it would not lift the ban on in-flight use of mobile phones, in part because of worries from people about having to sit next to someone yapping away.
Worries from people like me: while I've never yet experienced homicidal rage for myself, you wouldn't want to push me too hard on an airplane by yakking about your cycle or your latest conquest for four hours ...
Then, a few months later, the FAA also said that it would not allow mobile phones to be used on airplanes. As we noted at the time, this seemed rather superfluous, given the FCC ruling. But, of course, when there's an issue that's already been decided, who best to step in and decide it all over again but Congress?
Yes, a Congressional representative, Peter DeFazio, has given us the (I kid you not on the name) Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (Hang Up) Act, which forbids "voice communications using communications devices on scheduled flights." We had mentioned this law when it was first proposed, but it's actually now been approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
#1
Peter DeFazio, that's our guy in Washington! We've been sending this idiot to Congress for many years, now. He just doesn't get any better with years of practice. What can I say? Progressive Oregonians are Seattle and SF wannabe's, and they control most of our politics.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/02/2008 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Comprehensive Energy Plan? Not on your life you miserable squid pizzles! You get Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (Hang Up) Act, which forbids "voice communications using communications devices on scheduled flights."
#3
Lets see, oil crisis, inflatiohn, rising unemployement.
And we get this. And a 5 week vacation.
Yay Democrats.
If the GOP had its stuff together (lower taxes, lower govt spending, drill here and now, and self sufficiency, NO EARMARKS) they could make huge gains.
Trouble is, with a few notable exceptions, they are just as corrupt and dishonest and elitist and pork-filled, earmarking, big-government types as the Dems are, anymore.
#4
Not anymore, OldSpook. Ever. There never was a time when politics was a pristine exercise by disinterested statesmen, excepting perhaps a few of the Founding Fathers.
#5
Agree totally with #4. The best response to this feeble attempt at self-seeking publicity by an incumbent is hoots of derision from media editors all over the country. Next best response would be turning this incumbent scum out of office, I can dream, can't I?
SYDNEY -- Australia on Friday said it will support the safeguards agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and India, but has reaffirmed that it will not sell uranium to India or any other country that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "After careful consideration, the Australian government has formed the view that the safeguards agreement is a positive step which will strengthen nuclear non-proliferation efforts and is consistent with the non-proliferation objectives of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in a statement here.
"The Australian government's position remains very firmly that it will not supply uranium to countries that are not a party to the NPT. Australia strongly supports international efforts to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation and remains committed to universal adherence to the NPT. We will continue to encourage those States not party to the NPT, including India, to join the Treaty," said Smith.
Australia is one of the 35 members of the IAEA board that met in Vienna on Friday.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, somebody had to say it. I don't know why we haven't pushed harder for India to be an NPT signatory. I don't blame them for wanting to keep the IAEA out of their hair, but if they want to be a major player, they're going to have to modernize their thinking a little. It would only strengthen the NPT's legitimacy in the region. Pakistan would then be under the gun.
#2
India can only sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. It would have to disarm.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2008 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If they sign the NPT they'd be required to give up their nuclear weapons, and they won't do that.
They wouldn't be allowed to sign the NPT as a nuclear power; countries that had nukes when the NPT was created were grandfathered in, and no one else can join the club.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/02/2008 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The US actually pushed India quite hard on the nuclear issue.
On July 16, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson was informed that a significant crop failure in India had forced millions of people to the brink of famine. The President responded by cutting off all U.S. economic and food aid to India.
He instituted a "short leash" food aid policy toward India, releasing, with apparent reluctance, surplus American food on a month-by-month basis, many delayed to the last minute without any explanation. The shift to short bursts of assistance put constant pressure on India to earn the next batch, and often the Indian Ambassador, or occasionally the Prime Minister, would be forced to phone or come to the White House to plead for a release of U.S. food shipments
Komer’s briefing to Johnson on relations with India stated that “our biggest problem in India is helping to make it tick. Our aid gives us real leverage here.” The four things that Komer lists that the U.S. wanted for an aid package were “major economic policy changes (freeing up the private sector, new emphasis on agriculture, relaxation of import controls),” “a firm anti-proliferation pledge,” “a stronger anti-Chicom stance,” and finally “Pak/Indian reconciliation"
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2008 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Many of the sanctions imposed by Jimmy Carter (following the 1974 test) and Bill Clinton (following the 1998 tests) are actually still in force.
While higher ups may announce a change in policy, officials in the state department are quite reluctant to issue the actual waivers. They typically stall for years.
What the Bush-Singh nuke deal was really about was clearing away those thirty years of sanctions and recriminations.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2008 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You can't tell me that they can't come up with a workaround for NPT membership. The U.S. is a member and we didn't disarm, russia, G.B., none of them did either. I understand the time line at issue, but maybe they should get realistic about this. India's not going to disarm, agreed. But the treaty could be modified for their particular case if it would bring them into the fold. If it can't , then it isn't worth a damned spit anyway.
#7
Some argue that the NPT is a fragile thing and will not survive an attempt at modification.
The nuclear weapon states (NWS) badly want article IV to be amended to remove the 'right' to civilian nuclear technology with replacement by an international fuel/reactor consortium.
Non nuclear weapon states (NNWS) like Iran and Brazil are strongly opposed to this. They want to control the fuel cycle so they maintain breakout capability.
Other NNWS like Sweden would push for amending article VI. This promises that the NWS would work towards complete nuclear disarmament. Many would like an actual cutoff date by which time all weapons are to be dismantled.
There would be opposition to amending article IX to include India by other powerful states such as Japan or Germany would would see themselves relegated to a lower tier. There would be a flood of NNWS seeking to be NWS.
Others argue that existing treaties and norms strongly inhibit the acquisition of nukes and the NNWS are unlikely to seek nuclear weapons. They claim that the nations that have nukes, outside of the NPT (India,Israel,Pakistan) are motivated by security considerations that the NNWS do not have, many NNWS being already under the nuke umbrella of their NWS allies.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2008 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
President Bush chastised Democrats on Saturday for refusing to allow a vote on whether to lift the federal ban on offshore oil drilling before lawmakers departed for their summer recess.
"To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially oil produced here at home," Bush said in his weekly radio address. It was the fourth time this week that he has called for Congress to end the drilling restrictions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
#3
Yes, hammer the Donks. However, George, how come you waited till your last year in office to lift the ban your father put in place? Yes, I know revenge is dish best served up cold, but its something that should gone hand in hand with the intervention in Iraq.
Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances before the political conventions, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.
In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, "I think that's a great idea." In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.
On Saturday, in a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the short period between the last political convention and the first proposed debate made it likely that the commission-sponsored debates would be the only ones in the fall.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: ed ||
08/02/2008 15:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's see. Poor Gazans have no money to feed their kids so we, western tax payers, must fund them but they have money for funding Obama? (and terrorism)
#2
When you go to the Atlas Shrug site you can see the FEC forms - obviously, no one anywhere reads these things. There are some from Gaza that give their occupation as FGDBDSAG and residence as GDBAGEDDAG. Unf**ing believable!!
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/02/2008 6:06 Comments ||
Top||
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy. Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post. "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling
#2
Pelosi's ban on drilling is gonna really hurt the Donks over the recess if the GOP plays this right, and from yesterday's debacle at The House, it appears they are...
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/02/2008 5:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yup. I was worried a little while back that the Pubs would miss the train. Instead it appears that they were just keeping their powder dry until the right moment. The stunt in the House was just that -- a stunt -- but it was humorous and it got people's attention.
Now lets see if the Pubs can pound the point home while the Congresscritters are on vacation in their districts.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/02/2008 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sorry, Frank. The trunks are the Paleos of politics; they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. If there are five or moer trunk reps pounding on the door of the House on Monday for the assembled tv vidocams shouting "Mrs. Pelosi, Open this door!" I'll take it back. But Friday appears to be a spontaneous eruption that would have been vetoed by the leadership. John Fund has a great column on whether the trunks will be the party of Ted Stevens or Tom Coburn. I suspect we are near an inflection point but haven't reached it yet. I sure would like to see Coburn and Pence running things.
#5
Boehner and Blount were there, NS, so your remark bout the leadership is....inoperative. Bush should call them back to Special Session to really highlight their obstruction...heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/02/2008 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Thanks, Frank. But if the leadership was involved, they should have gotten more than 40 to show up and they could have arranged media. (How has it played in the media?)
I still suspect, based on what I've read, that it was spontaneous and the leadership went on with it, rather than led it as part of a concerted program. I'll be happy to be proven wrong on Monday.
Also, remember the Senate is still in session. If the trunks there were not a bunch of Stevens, they'd descend upon the chamber when the token donk makes his appearance, establish a quorum and pass some legislation.
#7
In order to get elected President of the entire country, not just the crazy parts, Obama will have to move more towards the center. This latest position is just Machiavellian pragmatism in action. I suspect he would throw his grandmother under the bus if necessary. Oh, wait. That already happened.
#8
Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.
Let those hicks in the south soil their beaches! We of the elite have our principles!
Posted by: Obama Bobby ||
08/02/2008 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#9
In order to get elected President of the entire country, not just the crazy parts, Obama will have to appear to move more towards the center via election pledges he has no intention of honoring. Once elected, he has four years to do whatever he wants, helped along by a Democratic legislature.
#10
Once elected, he has four years to do whatever he wants One drawback to this prediction -- the national & world economy continues to deteriorate in ways that surprise the experts. Events not quite foreseeable now will constrain whatever the next president does, to the extent that he will (1) regret winning and (2) not be re-elected. The amount of pain high motor fuel costs the electorate is underestimated by candidates (as it has been by Detroit), and just wait until the new winter heating costs sink in. My natural gas supplier this week sent me a letter announcing its base price will rise from $9.90/mcf to $17.70/mcf, this is in addition to supply & other billing charges.
#11
If Bush had a killer instinct, he would recall both the House and Senate to session until comprehensive energy production legislation is passed. That includes keeping the legislature in session, and squealing like the pigs they are, through November.
That would be a no lose situation for Bush and wildly popular with Americans.
Posted by: ed ||
08/02/2008 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#12
If Bush had a killer instinct, the regime in Iran would be long gone, so forget that.
Unfortunately, the House and Senate (Obama included) are such a bunch of inept, technically-unsophisticated losers that I'm not sure I'd welcome any comprehensive energy legislation that came out of there. They will tinker with energy prices, taxes, and research direction with the ultimate result that everything will be distorted, corrupted, bureaucratized, and less than half as good as it could otherwise be.
Case in point: Obama's "windfall profits" BS ignores that facts that (1) most oil companies are publicly owned by shareholders including American citizens and pension plans and (2) profits are needed to boost capital for things like offshore exploration and increasing domestic capacity. But he's a socialist like many Democrats in Congress, so I don't expect him to understand capitalism: he only understands taxes, and taxation is his notion of building wealth.
#13
If the oil companies make a bazillion dollars, they generally report profits after taxes, no?
So if they eared a bazillion dollars, did they not pay another bazillion in taxes before they made a bazillion in profit?
Am I the only person who thinks that? Did I dream it?
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/02/2008 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Taxes only capture 33% of profits. Windfall taxes capture 100%. See the appeal for Washington?
Posted by: ed ||
08/02/2008 17:45 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The profit was record in terms of amount. In terms of percentage, its was 8% of revenues.
Now imagine if the 70% that we import was all on the economy. 700 Billion annnually -- all added to the US in terms of tax revenue base. Also add in the thousands of jbos and income they create.
The Iranian ambassador to the IAEA says Iran is bothered by the double standards regarding nuclear activities with regard to India.
"After this event today we will raise our own expectations higher than before so that they have to put an end to this restrictive statute in the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council," said Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's envoy to the agency after India's nuclear deal was agreed to on Friday.
"We have everything in the IAEA and the safeguards should routinized for all. Iran should be dealt with like any other country. We are committed to the international organizations and the NPT. We cannot henceforth tolerate any restrictive statute ," Soltaniyeh added, noting that Iran has been a member of the NPT, while India is a non-signatory to the NPT.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2008 16:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Iran should be dealt with like any other country.
Right, like any other country that routinely threatens to annihilate another.
OTTAWA -- Canada has changed its policy on nuclear non-proliferation to accommodate India's entry into the club of countries that can trade openly in nuclear fuel and technology, despite its nuclear weapons programs.
India's emergence as an economic power is one reason Canada is overlooking concerns about making it an exception to the world's non-proliferation rules, despite Pakistan's warning it could spark an Asian arms race and Canada's own sour history with India's nuclear ambitions.
Canadian reactor technology, donated in the 1950s, was used to make India's first atomic bomb, tested in 1974. That cooled relations between Canada and India, ended nuclear exchanges and triggered new efforts by nuclear suppliers around the world to prevent arms proliferation.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2008 15:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
despite Pakistan's warning it could spark an Asian arms race
President Reagan demonstrated that the country with the bigger economy wins the arms race. So Pakistan has already lost.
The government is hoping to get the much-needed budgetary support of $500 million from the World Bank (WB) under the Pakistan Economic Stabilisation Support Operation (PESSO) by September this year, Dawn News reported on Friday.
The channel said that the Finance Ministry was expecting that the promised loan would partially ease the economic hardship facing the present government.
According to the channel, the WB had promised the loan after Pakistan requested the bank to extend immediate cash support at the World Bank-International Monetary Fund spring meeting in April this year. The channel said that the meeting last spring was attended by former finance minister Ishaq Dar who requested the bank for immediate budgetary support.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
How does the government plan to repay a half billion dollar loan plus interest?
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/02/2008 7:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pakistan is a great advocate of the concept called loan forgiveness
BTW, that 500m would be a downpayment for those Scorpene attack submarines or the Saab AWACS radar aircraft the Pak military is buying. The WB money just frees up the funding for the military.
A small economy like Pakistan can afford to spend the majority of its budget on the military since Saudi Arabia provides oil at discount (or for free) with the West and China providing regular 'budgetary support' and other aid.
As Margaret Bourke-White wrote sixty years ago...
In the weeks to come I was to hear the Quaid-i-Azam's thesis echoed by government officials throughout Pakistan. "Surely America will build up our army," they would say to me. "Surely America will give us loans to keep Russia from walking in." But when I asked whether there were any signs of Russian infiltration, they would reply almost sadly, as though sorry not to be able to make more of the argument. "No, Russia has shown no signs of being interested in Pakistan."
This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan's own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state -- a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze.
Jinnah's most frequently used technique in the struggle for his new nation had been the playing of opponent against opponent. Evidently this technique was now to be extended into foreign policy. ..
A Pakistan where the army did not command the lion's share of resources might as well not exist. The Pak oligarchy's foundation myth is built on a sense of Muslim martial superiority. Without that, they have nothing.
They've been pretty successful at having their country, basically an unviable entity, supported for the past sixty years on contributions from other nations.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2008 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
basically they are a proud martial pure Islamic nation of backwards beggars who can't win a war, lie, cheat, riot on a rumor... but demand respect for their fake accomplishments, stature, and a sovereignty they can't even enforce. Punks on a national scale.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/02/2008 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
How can a nation of almost 200million be so pathetic? John Frum is probably right about the Loan Forgiveness issue, they probably have no intention of paying it back.
Israeli police have questioned Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for a fourth time in a corruption scandal.
Investigators presented documents to Mr. Olmert allegedly showing that as a public official, he double and triple-billed institutions and charities for trips abroad and pocketed the difference.
Investigators presented documents to Mr. Olmert allegedly showing that as a public official, he double and triple-billed institutions and charities for trips abroad and pocketed the difference.
An American Jewish businessman has also testified that he gave Mr. Olmert envelopes stuffed with cash to support a lavish lifestyle, including fancy hotels and cigars and first-class airfare. Police say these things took place when Mr. Olmert was a Cabinet minister and mayor of Jerusalem.
The prime minister denies any wrongdoing. But when his own Kadima party decided on primaries to replace him in September, he succumbed to the pressure and announced that he would resign after the vote.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Even Israel has corrupt politicians and Ohlmert is the king of them. If he was a true Israeli leader the debacle last year with Hezbollah would have been an IDF rout instead of the Keyston Cops meet Alladin.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/02/2008 6:54 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
