A small Yemeni opposition party has been merged into the ruling General People's Congress (GPC) party, GPC sources said yesterday. The sources said negotiations between the GPCs Secretary-General Abdul-Kareem Al-Iryani and head of the Republican Party (RP) Muhammad Ali Abu-Luhoum, have come out with an agreement under which the RP would stand under the GPCs umbrella.
Under the deal, leaders of the RP who support the merger would be appointed in leading posts in the ruling party. The GPC is headed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Established in 1992, the Republican Party suspended its political activities in the aftermath of the failed 1994 secession attempt led by socialist politicians in the southern part of the Arab country. The RP chairman, who descends from the influential Abu-Luhoum family, backed the separation bid that sparked a 10-week civil war. The Abu-Luhoum clan heads the powerful Bakil tribal grouping, the rival bloc to the Hashid grouping, which is headed by Parliament speaker Sheikh Abdullah Al-Ahmar.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
For decades the national conversation in most western countries has been directed by a few talking heads. Newspapers play important roles but all the evidence suggests that broadcasters have possessed the greatest potential to frame public debate. British politicians have known that communicating their message depends upon getting the nod from a small number of powerful figures in the broadcast media. The editor of BBC1's six o'clock news bulletin can make a minister's day by putting his department's latest announcement at the front of the bulletin. Hearing Huw Edwards say something positive about that afternoon's policy launch will even put a smile on Alastair Campbell's face. But all of this looks set to change because of the blogosphere. Blogging is a geeky expression for how people use online logs, or diaries, to share their opinions. If a weblog is interesting and informed enough it can reach millions of people at zero cost. Karl Rove, the man George Bush described as the architect of his re-election, recently said that the dominance of America's mainstream media is coming to an end. And Rove credits the Davids of the blogosphere for the humbling of the old media Goliaths. After decades of centralisation, Rove believes that the national conversation is being democratised.
Mr Knowledgeable (and it is usually a Mr) of Smallville, Wyoming can, via his PC, transmit thoughts across the world. Mainstream TV can no longer say what it wants without fear of correction. Online diaries, written by teachers, soldiers and numerous other people with real knowledge of subjects, are fact-checking ill-informed broadcasters. The bloggers have already toppled two of American TV's biggest names. In the last few days Eason Jordan, the chief news director of CNN, resigned after a previously unknown blogger - Rony Abovitz - drew attention to remarks made by Jordan at the Davos World Economic Forum. Abovitz reported that Jordan had accused US soldiers in Iraq of deliberately targeting journalists. Mainstream reporters chose to ignore these remarks. But Abovitz's message was picked up by hundreds of other websites, and Jordan's fate was sealed. Easongate, as it has inevitably become known, is an echo of last autumn's Rathergate scandal. Dan Rather, the anchor of CBS's evening news, was as big as TV stars come. Rather had fronted an attack on George Bush's Vietnam-era military service record - based on forged documents. The forgery was exposed when bloggers focused on a superscripted "th" after a date in one of the documents. Experts confirmed that typewriters of the period could not have produced such lettering. Rather apologised and CBS is now desperately searching for someone else in whom viewers might put their trust.
This is just one of the ways in which the internet has strengthened the American right. Last year's Bush-Cheney campaign used information technology to build the largest ever volunteer political army. Visitors to GeorgeWBush.com were invited to join email lists that offered regular information on everything from gun ownership to school prayer. The Bush campaign collected 7.5 million email addresses and amassed 1.4 million volunteers.
You would also expect this electronic revolution to be good for the Democrats, but the American left's relationship with the internet has been disastrous. The internet has sunk a knife into Bill Clinton's moderate Democratic party. Mainstream business people were Clinton's principal funders, simultaneously approving and driving his centrism. But the Democrats' new paymasters are the 600,000 computer users who, in 2004, supported Howard Dean's bid for his party's presidential nomination. Dean energised an unrepresentative group of voters with a stridently anti-war message. Electronic money powered Dean's campaign, and all of the other contenders for the Democratic crown soon pandered to his base.
The Democrats' problem has only worsened since. The dailykos.com site of a Democratic consultant gets 500,000 hits a day. That site's memorial to four American contractors murdered in Iraq was "screw them". Hatefulness also pours out of the popular websites of Michael Moore and MoveOn.org. The conservative blogosphere has dubbed the Democrats' IT base its MooreOn tendency.
Although it was a Googler who discovered that Tony Blair's second Iraq dossier had lifted extensive material from a PhD student's research, Britain hasn't yet had much experience of electronic campaigning. But the blogosphere will become a force in Britain, and it could ignite many new forces of conservatism. The internet's automatic level playing field gives conservatives opportunities that mainstream media have often denied them.
An online community of bloggers performs the same function as yesteryear's town meetings. Through the tradition of town hall meetings, officials were held to account by local people. Blogger communities are going to be much more powerful. They will draw together not only local people but patients who have waited and waited for NHS care. They will organise parents of disabled children who oppose Labour's closure of special-needs schools and evangelical Christians who see their beliefs caricatured by ignorant commentators.
All this should put the fear of God into the metropolitan elites. For years there have been widening gaps between the governing class and the governed and between the publicly funded broadcasters and the broadcasted to. Until now voters, viewers and service users have not had easy mechanisms by which to expose officialdom's errors and inefficiencies. But, because of the internet, the masses beyond the metropolitan fringe will soon be on the move. They will expose the lazy journalists who reduce every important public policy issue to how it affects opinion-poll ratings. Tired of being spoon-fed their politics, British voters will soon be calling virtual town hall meetings, and they will take a serious look at the messenger as well as the message. It's going to be very rough.
Karl Rove is right. The internet could do more to change the level of political engagement than all the breast-beating of introspective politicians and commentators. A 21st century political revolution is now only a few mouse clicks away.
· Iain Duncan Smith MP is chairman of the Centre for Social Justice; he was leader of the Conservative party from 2001 to 2003
When you learn that Iain Duncan Smith has contemptuous feelings towards Markos Zuniga, you know that blogs have hit the mainstream.
Comes as a surprise, doesn't it? Who'da ever thunk that'd happen? But it seems to me that, if you're gonna have a church, especially one with magnificent edifaces and the occasional robes of cloth of gold, you should spend some time thinking about concepts like right and wrong. Maybe you could do some research, by reading up on the ideas in your holy book. If you have magnificent edifaces and occasional robes of cloth of gold, but there's no such thing as right or wrong, if it's all relative, then you're not a church. You're a social club with funny hats. You might as well spend the time you devote to Sunday services playing bridge.
The Anglican rift over gay bishops will be costly no matter how it is resolved, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said Thursday. Ties among national churches have been severely strained by the U.S. Episcopal Church's 2003 decision to elect V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire who is openly living in a gay relationship as a bishop. "Part of the cost involved in the repercussions of recent events is that it has weakened, if not destroyed, the sense that we are actually talking the same language within the Anglican Communion," Williams told the Church of England synod, which was considering an official report on the issue. "Not having a common language, a common frame of reference, has been one of the casualties of recent events, and there is every indication that that is not going to get better in a hurry," he said.
Robinson's elevation has roiled the 77-million strong worldwide Anglican Communion, which has its roots in the Church of England. The issue has pitted liberals against conservatives within the Episcopal Church, and some African bishops have cut off contact with the U.S. church.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Unlike in the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church has split ownership of church property, the bishop doesn't own everything. This has resulted in individual churches, who disagree with their liberal bishop's abuse, to vote to become "missionary" churches of mostly African dioceses. Needless to say, this makes the liberal bishops apoplectic. Over time, it is evolving into two separate "provinces" living side-by-side. And while the really BIG money, in very old trust accounts, will stay with the liberal wing, all the NEW money will go to the conservatives.
#3
Mostly true Anonymoose. But in Florida it's the Liberal Wing that will be left in the lurch. The Diocese of North Florida owns my wifes' church (bldg and school) and it is liberal. A chance to loose everything for them.
#4
To clarify (for once) The church my wife attends is liberal on the Gay Bishop issue and stands to loose much in a schism since the Jax based Bishop is quite conservative.
The Anglican rift over gay bishops will be costly no matter how it is resolved, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said.
Williams is a master of the obvious, nicht wahr?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/19/2005 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#6
oh goodie! I hope they split!! Then the moral equivalists can go to one, and traditional Christians to another.
I don't have any problem with gays, I could care less what people do in their bedrooms. But I got sick of the sermons not being about sin and redemption but being about the sin of supporting the boyscouts or not encouraging gays to marry.
The first half of the service, they preach moral equivalence - seemingly saying how there is no such thing as sin...but then then the second half, they tell you that you are a sinner if you believe in the concept of sin. Yeah ok. Makes sense...to them apparently.
Funny, last I checked the congregation was supposed to come in order to confess their own sins, ask for forgiveness and try to walk a better road in life, be a better person and focus on what matters in life - love, charity and forgiveness.
But in the Episcopal Church Of The Left, the ONLY sin seems to be not believing that homosexuality is wrong. Or supporting Israel or the Boyscouts. Yawn. Yeah...the world would just be a better place if only everyone threw rose petals at our gay neighbors and Israel stopped funding terrorists and occupying Palestine.
#7
Hmmm... I thought the common frame of reference for Christians was supposed to be the Bible, which is clear that homosexual sex is a sin. This is not a gray area like debates on female pastors and so on.
#8
Look..the church is full of sinners. That's kind of the point of a church is it not? Like an AA meeting is supposed to be full of alcoholics. People confessing their sins asking for forgiveness and seeking redemption. Trying to be better and walk in light instead of darkness.
Gays are welcome...just like prostitutes, adulterers..and all other sinners..which would be each and every one of us. Just like an AA meeting welcomes all alcoholics - Jesus welcomes all sinners.
I don't want to belong to a church that makes it its mission to debate the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality any more than I want to belong to a church that focuses on alcohol use or pornography. It's not the areas of sin that I need to personally focus on.
I'm not going to pass judgement on homosexuals or anyone else for that matter. But the last thing I want is a church that's main focus is to convince me of the rightness of homosexuality, the wrongness of supporting the Boyscouts or why Israel should get out of Palestine. I've got better ways to spend my time.
#9
I you like the Episcopal stance on ordination of non-celibate homosexuals then you'll just love their plunge into paganism. A few months ago Rev Margaret Rose who runs the womens ministry for the Episcopal Church out of their NCY headquarters posted on the national Episcopal website pages lifted directly from a druid website. That's druid..as in pagan. The druid liturgy was suggested by her as an example of a liturgy that Episcopal women should copy and emulate.See http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ecw_55934_ENG_HTM.htm for Rose's hasty "mea culpa" after a firestorm of criticism made her pull the web pages. Advocating pagan rituals was too much even for liberal Episcopals.
#10
Oh, by the way. Speaking of druid paganism the photo accompanying this article shows front and center( white beard , standng) Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. Those are not Episcopal vestments that he and the others are wearing. No, those are druid vestments. Dr Williams was photoed when he joined a Druid order recently. Tolerant, broad minded chap, huh? Makes me wonder if he and Rev Marget Rose are really Christians any more or have they wandered way off the reservation.
From the Rantburg Diplomacy Desk...somebody hit a nerve:
CIA Director Porter Goss's brief, vague reference to potential instability in Mexico led to banner headlines in newspapers here and a harsh response from Mexico's government on Thursday. "The CIA analysis is wrong, it's erroneous and it's false," said Interior Secretary Santiago Creel, considered a potential contender in Mexico's presidential race next year.
"Lies, all lies! We're just fine. And at any rate, the bilge pumps will kick in any minute now."
"It's also reprehensible for an agency of a foreign government to be expressing opinions about Mexican affairs," Creel said in a news conference.
"Cos Mexico never has any opinions on the USA. No way, no how."
"I reject interference in affairs of an internal character ... in which the CIA has no reason to be making opinions," Creel added.
"So butt out! Manuel, how's that pump repair coming along?"
The tough words results from the briefest of mentions during Goss' testimony on Wednesday before the US Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence. It occurred in a section of his written report on "potential areas for instability" that referred to "potential flashpoints" in some of the eight Latin American nations with elections next year. "Campaigning for the 2006 presidential election in Mexico is likely to stall progress on fiscal, labor and energy reforms," Goss said.
Scusi? That's all he said? Good gravy. String up the US ambassador ahora!
The comments passed almost unnoticed in the US, but in Mexico City, the daily newspaper El Sol made it the top story of the day: "Mexico unstable, according to the CIA." A rival paper, Milenio, led with the headline: "The CIA predicts `alarming risks' for the campaigns." At his news conference, Creel -- President Vicente Fox's top Cabinet secretary, said, "We know that [the CIA] frequently is mistaken and causes erroneous decisions. What we are going to have here is not a conflict but a democratic electoral competition, as intense or more so as those in the United States," he said. Attorney General Rafael Macedo de la Concha told reporters he saw "no elements that could cause what [Goss] said, what he affirmed in that report."
"I've been meaning to get my eyeglass prescription filled, but it's been so busy. Hey, is that William Shatner over behind the press corps?
Mexican President Fox himself hurried past reporters who tried to ask him about the CIA official's statements during an appearance in the port city of Veracruz.
"Hasta la vista, baby."
Posted by: Seafarious ||
02/19/2005 1:23:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
After all, Mexico has never tried to interfere with our internal affairs, such as publishing guides for criminals to escape authorities, producing documents to help criminals, shooting at authorities inside the US, ...
The union that represents civilian U.S. Army workers in South Korea is planning this week to ask for thousands of dollars in back pay for the more than 700 hours its members have spent at home complying with U.S. Forces Korea's curfew policy, according to the union's president.
The union says its current contract with USFK and the 8th Army requires the government to pay the normal wage for hours spent on "stand-by duty" in response to military restrictions that require civilian workers to remain home in a state of readiness.
Since September, USFK leaders have ordered civilian workers to comply with the troops' nightly curfew to ensure safety and readiness among all personnel — servicemembers, civilian workers and private contractors — who support the military mission here on the peninsula.
The expected request from Local 1363 of the National Federation of Federal Employees will ask for an estimated $15,000 to $20,000 for each civilian worker and will serve as a first step toward filing a formal grievance on the issue, the local's president, Jeffrey Meadows, said Friday from his Army Corps of Engineers office at Humphreys... Six months of curfew.
President Bush says he has no bitterness toward French President Jacques Chirac after their tussle over Iraq, but he is taking issue with a Chirac notion that a united Europe would serve as a counterbalance to the United States. In run-up to his trip to Europe, Bush underscored in media interviews with European journalists his second-term drive to foster improved trans-Atlantic relations and work on common problems like Iraqi reconstruction, Iran, Syria and the Middle East peace process..."Bitter, heck no! I whupped his butt six ways from Sunday. He's the one with a mouthful of chewed chinaberries and no place to spit."
#2
Revenge is a dish best served cold. God, he must have a ton of paper from Iraq implicating the old rooster. Soon, soon enough o'Chirac you won't be head of state and on the seat with old Pinochet. Mmmaaahhhhwwwwaaahhhh....
In the stern old pre-Vatican II days, Roman Catholics used to be instructed not to read the Bible by themselves. The theory was that, if they did so, they might misunderstand what it meant and commit the error of "private judgment". Reading the Bible on your own was a Protestant idea, dangerous in the heady freedom it would give you. You might end up coming to your own conclusions.
I wonder if such a notion still lingers in the attitude of European governments to another process that began in Rome — the treaties that establish and extend the European Union. These are all drawn together in one new treaty, the European Holy Bible, otherwise known as the European Constitution. Several countries, including Britain, are committed to holding referendums on the subject. Spain is first off, on Sunday. According to the Spanish justice minister: "You don't have to read the treaty to know it's a good thing." In Spain, at least, it seems likely that the faithful will accept this secular bishop's advice: they won't read the constitution, and they will vote for it.
George W. Bush is a good Protestant, but I doubt if he has read the European Constitution. Why should he, indeed, since he is lucky enough to live in a country that will not be ruled by it? No reason at all, unless, as is rumoured, early drafts of the speech he will make in Brussels next week commit him to saying what a wonderful thing it is.
Continued on Page 49
#1
"'You donât have to read the treaty to know itâs a good thing.' In Spain, at least, it seems likely that the faithful will accept this secular bishopâs advice: they wonât read the constitution, and they will vote for it."
"Nine out of 10 Spaniards say they know nothing about the charter, according to a recent government poll. But just over half said they would vote in favour."
#3
Is the EU "constitution" online? Not that everyone (or even a lot of people) would read it even then, but at least it would be available.
If it is, maybe some enterprising Brit can start a constitution web site. Link to the EU constitution AND the US Constitution, with the first pages of each displayed on the site. Particularly the "We the People" vs. the "King of the Belgians" part.
I still think the EU "constitution" is more comparable to the US Code of Federal Regulations than to our Constitution. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/19/2005 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Barbara -- Considering that their constitution runs, what, 200+ pages, that would be some huge honkin' website.
#9
Time consuming- YAWN* Yes, perfect rx for insomnia. Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I often wonder if centuries hence the comments of he-who-shall-not-be-named or someone else in this debate will put him in the ranks of Alexander, Jay and Madison.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/19/2005 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Extra! extra! Tomorrow I will post a comparison between the Constitution of the United States and the Soviet EU Constitution.
#17
Lol! I want to lobby for the right to be flexible about that first "S". I'm thinking "shit" or "shrubberies" instead of "stuff", but that's just me.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/19/2005 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#19
A lot of stuff in the constitution is quite ok. The problem is that much of it is obvious, superfluous... and then you have some "goodies" which may turn out to be hidden landmines ready to explode when the first disagreements turn up.
I can't even vote on the constitution. I couldn't vote on the Euro either but my finance minister said that due to stringent, carved in stone, iron stability rules about deficits etc the Euro would be ok.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/19/2005 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#21
The German Basic Law doesn't allow for national referendums although a 2/3 majority in parliament could change that.
But now even the Greens, the former champions of "Basisdemokratie" have abandoned the idea.
---------------
Of course nobody wants you to start THINKING about the EU constitution. Just take the first Article:
Article 1: Establishment of the Union
1. Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this
Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer
competences to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the
policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise in the
Community way the competences they confer on it.
No, Mr Giscard, the constitution should not "reflect" the will of its people, it should EXPRESS it, POSTULATE it. The rest is political blabla.
2. The Union shall be open to all European States which respect its values and are committed to promoting them together.
Get a map: Check where Turkey lies. And the Ukraine. So on which ground did you just refuse Yushenko? And which "values" are more European, those of Turkey or those of the Ukraine?
If I had more time I could go on fisking the whole Constitution.
#24
Thanks, Bulldog, but I'd rather put my time to more productive use - such as watching oil paint dry.
After all, we've already got a Constitution. And at the risk of sounding snarky, I'm willing to bet ours has already lasted a lot longer than the EU's will. (I'm not wishing any harm on the EU or European nations when I say that; I'm just looking at things realistically.)
Just a suggestion for some enterprising Brit who wants to keep Britain free and has some spare time on his/her hands. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/19/2005 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#25
#4 Blondie - It wouldn't have to be a big site if they linked to the constitution as a whole and just posted selected pages on the site.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/19/2005 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#26
The EU constitution reminds me of nothing more than the internal revenue code because regardless of how impossible it is to read for a normal human being, I know that there are dozens of people representing special interest groups who have agonized for days over the wording and placement of every sentence in it. What is even more amaxing is that it is upon this foundation that the beneficient effects of the modern welfare state lie. Yet it all still seems like the vanity of vanities.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/19/2005 16:41 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Barbara (I guess you meant me), we could definitely use more American input.
#28
#21 TGA - I wish you did have more time to fisk it. Your insights are wonderful and much appreciated.
Maybe if somebody starts the web site I (only half-jokingly) suggested, you could be one of the contributors.... ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/19/2005 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#29
I'll lend the domain, if you'd like a site for fisking or whatever suits you, heh. Hell, I'll set it up on a friend's hosting service, pay for it, and you can run it, TGA. How about either thenetforum.com or thewebforum.com - I own those and could set up either one in 24 hrs ready for you to take over. No bandwidth or storage limits would apply to that sort of site. Perhaps the best thing is that it maintains your anonymity. Interested, TGA?
I don't own any blog or similar software, but that wouldn't be a big deal, I don't think. Contact Fred to pass along to me, if so. I'd stay out of it - you'd control it completely.
#34
Sea - Looks interesting - excellent pricing, too, for regular blogging using their site. Pricey for corp use on own servers - guess it's for those that don't have a web team.
If it's as fast as they say, then some of our folks who're using other systems might want to take a look. The price is right, anyway, heh.
#35
I must ask a question of the better edumacated out there:
The EU Constitution says on the second paragraph of p12: Believing that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences,
When was Europe ever united? There has not been a significant period of time when there were not wars of one stripe or another going on. Some of the worst atrocities in known history were committed on the continent in those wars.
Does anyone know when the continent was united the first time?
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
02/19/2005 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Gondwanaland
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/19/2005 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#37
When the dinosaurs lived there in total peace and tranquility? Y'know, the Gaia thingy.
#38
Barbara Skolaut # 3 I did read the whole EU constitution, as you mentioned; I don't think it is a constitution either! I can't imagine abidding by that in the court's.
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Barbara Skolaut # 3 I did read the whole EU constitution, as you mentioned; I don't think it is a constitution either! I can't imagine abidding by that in the court's.
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#40
TGA -- good the hear there's some skepticism on the continent. What gives me the willies about the EU is the constant refrain from the French that the EU is necessary to "counterbalance" the US. The "counter" word conjures up all sorts of ugly, ugly images.
But, really, people, what are you THINKING. He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named is gonna come in here and throw a tantrum the likes of which have never been seen.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/19/2005 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Robert Crawford and others, I find it very irritating that I have to come to a US website (focussing on the WOT) to get a discussion going about the European Constitution. Maybe I shouldn't do this but I'd like Aris, the constitution expert, to find me a couple of forums where the articles of the Constitution (and the consequences of its ratification) are discussed in earnest.
#48
TGA - Sadly, I think that's the way the EU wants it. Why else would people like the Spanish Justice Minister say things like "you don't need to read the treaty to know it's a good thing"?
I thought you were kidding about the lack of debate on this in Europe until I plugged in "european constitution discussion". Check out this one here: http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=284 . The last sentence in the "motions" section just is, well, scary.
#51
And so we've come full circle:
"In the stern old pre-Vatican II days, Roman Catholics used to be instructed not to read the Bible by themselves. The theory was that, if they did so, they might misunderstand what it meant and commit the error of "private judgment". Reading the Bible on your own was a Protestant idea, dangerous in the heady freedom it would give you. You might end up coming to your own conclusions."
Posted by: Tom ||
02/19/2005 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
#52
TGA, you have it.. sorta.. within bounds...
My recollections are:
"Chirac est un ver" - The Sun's special edition
Galloway winning a libel suit without the papers even having a chance to prove it was true
Wearing flags to school in The Netherlands..
The place of young people in the future Constitution:
How do you, as young people, see your role in the future European Constitution? Tell us what your think!
You click on the link and then this page comes up:
#55
TGA,
A good starting point you can try is http://eu-constitution.typepad.com/. It is written by a French guy living in the USA and is pro EU. Another site, The Fundamental Principles of the European constitution discusses the EU constitution by authors from several nationalities. Anti-EU sites that discuss more than the constitution:
http://eu-serf.blogspot.com/
http://www.eursoc.com/
Continental Europe was also pretty much united during Napoleon's reign.
Posted by: ed ||
02/19/2005 20:25 Comments ||
Top||
#56
A UK blogsite discussing / dissing the EU... EU Referendum
.com, I just found that, too. (The British are most active, of course) But I'm still looking for a forum where people vividly discuss the articles of the Constitution.
#58
TGA, there must be at least one site. Hidden somewhere...in the recesses of internet...
Results 697,000 sites for discussion of articles of the EU Constitution... seeking... seeking... page20... seeking...
I give up. No forum. If you want one, TGA, I can setup one for ya. You may as well be the first to establish one. Click on my nick to email.
#59
The preamble to the EU Constitution is whatâ17 pages long? The preamble to the US Constitution isâa single paragraph that has been turned into a popular song. I know which I prefer.
Besides, it seems the entire point of the EU Constitution is to enshrine the EU's current failing economic structure and make it impossible to debate.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
02/19/2005 22:02 Comments ||
Top||
Official: Britons are most cultured Europeans Heh.
The Italians have Michelangelo, the French Moliere and the Germans Beethoven. But, according to an Italian survey, the British - the beer-swilling, tabloid-reading, supposedly sports-crazy British - are more cultured than any of them. They go to more concerts, films, plays, galleries and libraries than almost anyone in Europe. They even manage to visit more ruins and monuments than the Italians. But the one area where they lag behind the other major nations of Europe is sport. More French, Italians and Spanish than British go to a course or stadium. But the British are sportier than the Germans and, proportionately, attendances are above the average for the former European Union of 15 states.
Did they have a catagory for football riots? I'm sure the Brits placed high in that one.
These and other findings are contained in a survey of European cultural consumption commissioned in Italy and due to be published next week. Interviewees in the countries that made up the EU until its enlargement last year were asked if they had been to any one of a series of cultural events in the previous 12 months. The British scored higher than the French, Germans and Italians in every category except sport. More than 60% of Britons said they were film-goers, compared with only 52% in the land of Renoir, Godard and Truffaut, and 49% of Britons claimed to have been to a library, compared with 27% in the homeland of Goethe. And almost a third of Britons claimed to have been to a gallery or museum, compared with barely 20% of Italians.
Italy's relatively low "cultural consumption" is a source of growing concern in a country that is renowned for its artistic riches. Guido Venturini, director general of the Touring Club Italiano, which carried out the survey, told the magazine Il Venerdi: "We are sitting in the most beautiful country in the world, but the Italians appear to be wholly unaware of it." Part of the problem is that Italy's stagnant economy has prompted the government to cut the budget of its culture ministry as well as to slash allocations to local authorities, which are responsible for many of festivals, libraries, museums and galleries. But it is also true that contemporary Italy's artistic output is modest. Trust the Guardian to claim that lack of government spending is at the root of the problem. They don't mention that the UK's heritage organisations are almost entirely funded by public donation and subscription...
Antonio Paolucci, Florence's top arts official, said: "The next Michelangelo, if there ever is one, will certainly not be born in Italy, but rather China, or the US, or Brazil." Or perhaps even Basingstoke.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/19/2005 7:34:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Antonio Paolucci, Florenceâs top arts official, said: "The next Michelangelo, if there ever is one, will certainly not be born in Italy, but rather China, or the US, or Brazil." Or perhaps even Basingstoke.
Artist : BigEric (age 4), son of BigEd
Title : Velociraptor
Media : Lego
#5
Watch out. The EU may have to start a program forcing Brits to become less cultured or at least to spend more of their money on continental cultural items such as German comedy and Italian drama, French golf or Spanish philosophers.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/19/2005 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think it's kinda derivative BE. Let the kid develope his own art.
President George W Bush set strict limits on the EU's global ambitions last night, saying that there was no need for the Franco-German goal of forming an alternative superpower. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, his first with a British newspaper since his re-election last year, he pointedly rejected a call by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder for Nato to be overhauled. Mr Schröder's words have been widely interpreted as an attempt to give the EU's fledgling foreign and military bodies more muscle. "I disagree," Mr Bush said. "I think Nato is vital. Nato is a very important relationship as far as the United States is concerned. It is one that has worked in the past and will work in the future just so long as there is that strong commitment to Nato."
Echoing Tony Blair's repeated calls for Europe and America to work together, Mr Bush had emollient words for Europe's leaders before his visit next week. He implicitly acknowledged that the time for the unilateralism of his first term was over. His message next week would be that America needed Europe on its side and could not "spread freedom" alone.
Despite a series of unresolved disagreements he was clearly determined to bolster hopes on both continents that they could rebuild some of the relationships that were shattered in the bruising transatlantic rows of his first four years in office. "My trip to Europe is to seize the moment and invigorate [the] relationship," he said. "We compete at times but we do not compete when it comes to values."
Mr Bush will become the first American president to visit the European Commission and, given his supporters' deep misgivings about the EU's ambitions, he had remarkably warm words for European integration. "I have always been fascinated to see how the British culture and the French culture and the sovereignty of nations can be integrated into a larger whole in a modern era," he said. "And progress is being made and I am hopeful it works because one should not fear a strong partner." Asked about the draft European constitution, he cited the difficulties that the United States had faced in formulating its federal system of government. There's been speculation that Bush will favour Blair by talking favourably about the proposed Constitution.
But there was no hiding his view that the EU should not try to counter-balance the power of America. He delivered a pointed rebuff to Mr Schröder who suggested last week that Nato was no longer an adequate body for consulting and co-ordinating the vision of its members. "I look forward to talking to him about exactly what he meant by that," Mr Bush said. "Some have said we must have a unified Europe to balance America. Why, when in fact we share values and goals? As opposed to counter-balancing each other, why don't we view this as a moment when we can move in a concerted fashion to achieve those goals?" The president said it was up to him to "do a better job of explaining the common goals and the fact that by working together we are more likely to achieve them for our own security". This is assuming that those goals remain common. They're divergent in some areas, to say the least.
Mr Bush was speaking to The Daily Telegraph and four other European news organisations before his departure tomorrow. He will spend two days in Brussels, meeting Nato and EU officials, and a day in the German city of Mainz to meet Mr Schröder. Finally, he will meet President Vladimir Putin of Russia in the Slovak capital, Bratislava.
Mr Bush sought to play down disagreements over how to confront Iran on its nuclear programme. Asked why America was not formally joining the diplomatic initiative of Britain, Germany and France towards Teheran, he said: "We have made it clear that we agree with the objective to get rid of the weapons." But he added an unmistakable note of threat to the ruling clerics. "The Iranians ⊠just need to do what the free world has asked them to do," he said. "And it is pretty clear: give up your weapons programme."
He added that he would continue to say what he thought in his second term. "I don't see how you can deal with people if you are not straightforward."
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/19/2005 7:47:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
President George W Bush set strict limits on the EUâs global ambitions last night, saying that there was no need for the Franco-German goal of forming an alternative superpower.
Dudes, Viagra doesn't help when you don't have a dick...
#2
Mr Bush had emollient words for Europeâs leaders before his visit next week
I don't think I've EVER heard that word used that way LOL.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/19/2005 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"I have always been fascinated to see how the British culture and the French culture and the sovereignty of nations can be integrated into a larger whole in a modern era," he said.
Yeah, it'll be a cold day in Hell.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/19/2005 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Article: He implicitly acknowledged that the time for the unilateralism of his first term was over.
That's code for GWB didn't actually say it, but we'd like to think he did.
Contracts Law 101...the large print giveth; the small print taketh away.
All of Britain's 153 embassies across the globe will be shut if the European constitution is adopted, Spain's Prime minister warned. They would be replaced by European missions answerable to Brussels, British newspapers reported. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told a Spanish radio station: "We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service." Britain and France would also lose their voices in NATO and their seats on the UN Security Council, said Zapatero. He added: "We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity."
Zapatero's views appeared to contradict claims made by British premier Tony Blair that Britain would keep its power to act alone. And it fuelled fears that Britain would have to follow EU policy even if the British government disagrees with Germany and France as it did over Iraq. Spaniards are expected to back the new EU constitution in a referendum on Sunday as their country has received billions of euros in subsidies from Brussels. The new European Constitution states: "Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy." But the British Foreign Office played down Zapatero's claims. A spokesman said: "Britain will keep its embassies, its seat in NATO and its foreign policy. That cannot change without our agreement."
How many embassies will France close?
Posted by: Seafarious ||
02/19/2005 12:40:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
. . . and the other shoe drops.
Yet another reason why the EU isn't a good idea.
And picking Zapatero for a spokesman? Come on, isn't there anyone better?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
02/19/2005 1:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And the EU will, of course, exchange all of the individual country seats at the UN with a single seat.
#4
So who is gonna be the Head Euro? Chiraq, Zappy? **choking on sandwich***
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/19/2005 1:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Well, well, I wonder who isn't telling the truth here? Tony wouldn't like now would he. Right. Zappy is all happy and stuff `cause it's a Tranzi wet dream.
#7
Ofcourse what Zapatero *actually* predicted is that EU nations may *eventually* agree to closing down their individual embassies and replace their individual foreign policies with a single one.
And what he actually stated is ofcourse that the Constitution is a step to that direction of political unity.
And I very much doubt he singled out the United Kingdom.
But please, do make it appear as if all this will happen immediately without UK's consent and immediately after the ratification of the Constitution. No need for truths.
The new European Constitution states: âMember States shall actively and unreservedly support the Unionâs common foreign and security policy."
And it also states that there can be no such common foreign a security policy if a single member brings forth a veto. Nice lying-by-ommission.
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told a Spanish radio station: âWe will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.â
Oddly any reference to the idea of this happening "eventually" is missing from the quote. Perhaps that's attributible to that well-known massive conservative media conspiracy that holds all of Europe in it's iron grip eh Aris?
He added: âWe will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.â
Oddly that quote is also not qualified with any concept of this being the "eventual" state of affairs. Nor is it couched in terms of there first being British (or any other) approval for this allegedly "eventual" change.
Link please Aris, your assertion is unsubstantiated thus far.
#9
Zap made a compromise with France and Germany that gave Spain a lesser say in the EU. He's aligning himself with global powerhouses Cuba and Venezuela. The man is a buffoon. The question is: harmless or dangerous?
Posted by: Prince Abdullah ||
02/19/2005 3:47 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Link, please"? I already gave you the link (didn't you see the url?) that has the crucial word "eventually", though I admit that the word isn't placed inside quotes.
But then again neither are the unsubstantiated and foolish claims that all this will happen immediately after the ratification of the constitution and without any further approval placed within quotes either.
Except that the version *I* believe more reliable has the benefit of accurately describing the situation. Only an ignorant fool would believe that after ratification of the Constitution national embassies would immediately close down, and that all of EU would vote with a single opinion in NATO or the UN. I somehow fail to believe that Zapatero or *any* other politician would have said such a foolish thing. Not even Bush could have said such a thing. Not even Quayle or Gore could have said such a thing.
Such a foolish claim has the stench of UK tabloidism behind it instead. Only *they* are stupid enough in the whole world.
Which btw is far different to "massive conservative media conspiracies", since most right-wing parties are in favour of the EU and most opposition to it comes from the left-wingers in Europe. UK tabloidism is a branch of lies all on its own.
But keep the nonsensical parochialism where you foolishly think that EU is a "left-wing project" also.
#12
most right-wing parties are in favour of the EU
Unless politcally right and left mean the exact opposite of what they do here in the new world, that sounds farfetched to say the least.
It's going to be fun to watch my betters tie themselves up in bureaucratic red tape making them even more paralyzed and less relevant than they are now.
#13
most right-wing parties are in favour of the EU and most opposition to it comes from the left-wingers in Europe
JerseyMike - Aris says that all the time. Apparently he believes it. Like ITYS's 'say Doom!', it's a sort of 'end of the world is nigh' sandwich board which lets you know the wearer is, at best, detached from reality. Best to leave well alone.
Posted by: EU ||
02/19/2005 8:19 Comments ||
Top||
"Indudablemente veremos embajadas europeas en el mundo, no una de cada paÃs, con diplomáticos europeos y un servicio de Relaciones Exteriores europeo", dijo Zapatero en una entrevista otorgada a la emisora estatal Radio Nacional de España.
"un dÃa" means "eventually" and he's not talking about British embassies.
ââ¬Â¢ Zapatero predicts greater integration of UE àÃÂ
The president of the government Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero foretold Thursday that the European countries will finish to a day closing their embassies so that the European Union promotes a unified foreign policy if the states members approve the constitution common. The president of the government Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero foretold Thursday that the European countries will finish to a day closing their embassies so that the European Union promotes a unified foreign policy if the states members approve the constitution common. "Doubtlessly we will see European embassies in the world, not one of each country, with European diplomats and an European service of Relations Outer", said to Zapatero in a granted interview to the state transmitter National Radius of Spain.
Whether un da means immediately, imminently, or eventually seems only a question of how thickly the salami is being sliced. The ultimate intended outcome is clear.
"We will see European embassies in the world, not one of each country" sure sounds like no more British embassies unless they aren't part of the EU. But then this means no more French, Belgian or Greek embassies either, so perhaps it's not all bad.
But now that the new arrangement is known as la carta magna, the English protests should diminish substantially.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/19/2005 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Indeed. The timescale question is a non-issue. The ambition of EUrophiles and Euro-federalists is political union - a fact which politicians such as Blair try to hide from their own population by presenting this Constitution as a mere 'tidying up exercise'. There are already EU embassies around the world (although perhaps not in name) and they are already replacing national representations. This usurpation of national independence is an underhand and creeping process, and whether it takes one year or ten is unimportant.
The British public are increasingly waking up to what amounts to a betrayal of national sovereignty by our politicians; they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more! (I hope.)
#17
JerseyMike> most right-wing parties are in favour of the EU Unless politcally right and left mean the exact opposite of what they do here in the new world
Let's see -- if right-wing parties are the ones that strive for freer markets and more competition, then free-market parties generally support the EU given how one of the fundamental elements of the EU is the abolition of borders and barriers, and the free transfer of money, services and capital throughout the continent. It's one of the *fundamental* elements of the EU.
(Ofcourse EU is often bashed for being protectionist against the *outside*, and I agree with such criticism, however unlike the abolition of internal borders, external protectionism is not inherent in the EU project itself, it's just a matter of policy)
So, tell me, why should right-wing and left-wing mean the exact opposite in order for what I say to occur, hmm?
But if you're too lazy to check on the facts... Check out whether it was the right-wing or the left-wing party that supported Malta's entry in the Union. Check out the same about Greece's entry (the right-wing party again in favour, the left-wing party had been agains). Check out how many of the communist party member/Nordic Green Left supported the EU Constitution and how many opposed it. Check out whether it was the left-wing or the moderate wing of the French socialists that supported the Constitution.
JerseyMike and anonymous coward with the sig "EU", the reason I "apparently believe it" is because it's true.
#18
Bulldog, what Eurocrats in Brussels want and what they will get are two things.
If you strive for a political union, Zaparero's remarks make sense, but "un dÃa" in Spanish usually means "one fine day". In the early 60s, when De Gaulle and Adenauer signed the Elysee-Treaty, people were enthusiastic and predicting that "one fine day" border controls would cease to exist. This has happened.
I'm not sure whether the political union of Europe will take place. Usually these things only happen when there is enough danger and threats from outside to make people give up national independence and freedom.
I don't see the British in a United States of Europe. But all EU-nations have already given up a certain amount of "national sovereignty". Even if the EU were only a economic union, this would be the case.
The advantages of a economic union were clear to see for anyone. That is not necessarily the case with the political union.
#19
What a load of bullshit, Aris. If the EU is so wonderful for business, will you please explain why the British Institute of Directors recently voted overwhelmingly against ratification of the proposed Constitution, and a separate poll of big business leaders found the same percentage - ~60% - opposed to it?
The red tape and insane bureacracy of the EU is incredibly business-unfriendly, and only becoming more so. This new, stupid, airline compensation law? The tax to be levied on paintings sold at London auctions which will hand the art market to foreign competitors? The scandalous mismanagement of marine resources? The subsidising of inefficient and arcane farming practices? Restriction of access to foreign markets? The list of crimes against corporate Europe committed by the EU is long.
To claim that the EU is beneficial to businesses is plainly ridiculous. It could be, if it was just a free trade zone. But that isn't what it is nor what it wants to be.
And for every left-wing group opposing the EU constitution there are at least as many right-wing ones. Take Spain, for example, whose referendum is tomorrow - Zapatero's socialists are more enthusiastic than Aznar's right-wingers. What about the UK? The Tories reject the Constitution out of hand. UKIP attracts both left-and right-wing voters, but more of the latter than the former. Do European Libertarians tend to support the Constitution? No. Would a federal EU, wielding power over an entire continent, represent a conservative small-stater's idea of a dystopian nightmare? Yes.
But your bringing left-wing opposition to the Constitution is really a red herring, isn't it? It's not surprising that many left-wingers object to their countries being subsumed by the EU. The loss of national autonomy and individuals' democratic influence threatens people whatever their political inclination.
#20
TGA - I agree with everything you say, but the way the Constitution is sold by different politicians to different audiences in different countries is absurd. Zapatero, Chirac and Schroeder make their intentions clear whereas Blair hides his. At the end of the day, it's a question of 'why take the risk'? Surrender of some national sovereignties to facilitate free trade took place decades ago. Nowadays it's all about common policies and 'harmonisations' which are completely unnecessary in that respect. The Constitution is a giant step too far towards political union.
#22
Everyone must agree! Unless even just one disagrees, then we agree that no one agrees!
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
On another matter, I'm selling shares in a company where we will hire 10 chiefs, who all promise to agree on everything unless one of them disagrees on anything, in which case we agree not to agree, except that the rules say: he MUST agree!
But the rules say he can veto!
But the rules say he must agree!
The rules say he can veto!
agree
veto
agreevetoagreevetoagreeveto.......
#23
2b> I'm sure it's lost on you in your zeal, to believe Aris, but this is just too funny.
blah, blah, blah. You don't need to convince *me* that the Constitution is a sucky watered-down affair. I've stated so from the start.
As long as you concede that it's a sucky watered-down affair in the *opposite* direction of what the Eurosceptics are claiming (namely in that it doesn't politically unite Europe *enough*), then we're in complete agreement.
If the EU is so wonderful for business, will you please explain why the British Institute of Directors recently voted overwhelmingly against ratification of the proposed Constitution,
Hmm, perhaps because the EU Constitution's primary improvement is in the political and not the economical aspect of the unification, given how the former has lagged way behind and the latter progressed more?
You answer me this though: If the EU is so bad for business then why doesn't said Institute support UK's complete withdrawal from the EU, rather than simply try to stop *further* development of the political aspect of the union?
Zapatero's socialists are more enthusiastic than Aznar's right-wingers
Both support it. Aznar's right-wingers can't be *too* enthusiastic, given how they always need to be able to criticize somewhat the government for not making the best deal possible.
And all the quotes from Spain that I've heard attacking the constitution come from a left-wing direction -- namely accusing the Constitution that it ushers a neoliberal economic policy after the UK and American models and so forth. See the quotes that BBC News has in its front page if you don't believe.
The red tape and insane bureacracy of the EU is incredibly business-unfriendly, and only becoming more so.
I'm sure you'd like to see the red-tape and insane bureaucracies of 25 different nations, instead of having only one such insane bureaucracy to deal with. And if one nation one day decides to nationalize assets of a British industry, I'm sure all those businessmen will just love the lack of a common set of rules applying to all.
What about the UK? The Tories reject the Constitution out of hand.
The UK is the exception, in this, as in many other matters relating to EU unification. Out of Schengen, out of the Eurozone, etc, etc.
But your bringing left-wing opposition to the Constitution is really a red herring, isn't it? It's not surprising that many left-wingers object to their countries being subsumed by the EU. The loss of national autonomy and individuals' democratic influence threatens people whatever their political inclination.
Yeah, right, I'm sure that's what the communists and neonazis that hate the EU most of all are concerned about, the loss of democratic influence. That's why the people most in love with the Soviet Union and fascisms of all stripes all *loathe* the EU. That's why Yushchenko's first moves after taking the presidency was to urge membership in the European Union.
Why don't you quit *your* argumentation about loss of democracies and so-called dystopias, Bulldog? You've made it clear before that you don't object to the EU because of any lack of democracy in that project -- you hate the union of nations in *principle*, regardless of how democratic, or free, or voluntary, or good. You would never let your nation have to codecide with Germans or French, no matter how free or democratic or beneficial the process would be.
Your position doesn't come from either a democratic, nor a freedom-loving perspective -- it comes merely from a nationalistic tribal one. You don't trust the people of these other nations as much as your own.
Which is an understandable, acceptable position, but I wish you'd stop hiding it for something else.
#24
Why the fuck do we discuss the EU anymore? Everyone knows it just works him into a froth. It's like calling his mother a whore, folks, and we should just stop it.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/19/2005 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Getting back to the point of the original article (oh yeah, that) I read it the same way TGA and Aris did: that eventually, one day, there will be no separate embassies for the different members of the EU, and that the EU will eventually represent the interests of all the member states in its diplomatic mission.
Now Aris first stated that this is something the Euro states would agree to do eventually. How voluntary that agreement will be I don't know, but Zappie makes it pretty clear that, eventually, there will be one federal state that represents all the member states in organizations such as NATO and the UN. That the British Foreign Office says otherwise -- for now -- is part of the political game being played -- for now.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/19/2005 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#28
I really don't know why anyone continues to discuss this issue with Aris--he's a 25-year old programmer of video games who probably still lives at home with his parents. He was also almost certainly educated in GB, hence the great English and hatred of all things British (isn't that what they teach in the schools over there?) Just let him get back to his surfing--probably the only thing he does all day--and leave off the serious political discussions with him.
Posted by: mary ||
02/19/2005 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Zappie is to a no vote on the EU constitution in Britain, as Doc Howie as head of the DNC is to increased Republican votes here in the USA.
#30
He was also almost certainly educated in GB, hence the great English
Ignoring most of your post, but here's a "thank you for the compliment". However, I was educated in Greece.
And the only thing I hate about UK is its Euro-whining and sabotage. In or out, make up your fricking minds, take responsibility for your choice one way or another, and stop blaming the big bad continent for (boohoohoo) supposedly forcing you to be part of something you supposedly don't want to. Where the EU is concerned, United Kingdom is a slut that tries to present itself as a virgin. She's consented to an an orgy, and she claims to have been gang-raped instead. You can leave whenever you want from the Union, Britain! No tanks will try to stop you, no continental missiles will try to prevent you. "The more the merrier", that's true, but we only want voluntary partners in our little group.
Thanks for ignoring my points, mary, and not disputing that it was the right-wing parties in Malta and Greece that supported EU membership and the left-wing parties that opposed it -- thank you for not disputing either that it was the most leftist side of the socialists that opposed the Constitution in France even as the moderate side supported it. Indeed thank you that you reduced your whole post to nothing but a personal attack. Are you another falsified sig, btw, "mary", or is that your only identity here?
Bulldog> Which one was the ad hominem again? That I said you don't trust French and German people as much as the English? That's my memory of what you've claimed in the past. Am I misremembering? Do you claim to trust them as your own?
Why didn't you answer my question? If the EU is so bad for business why did said Institute only urge against the Constitution, rather than against the EU in its entirety?
I answered *your* questions, I should remind you, so do me the courtesy of answering mine.
#31
That I said you don't trust French and German people as much as the English? That's my memory of what you've claimed in the past. Am I misremembering? Do you claim to trust them as your own?
You find links before spouting such crap, you insulting little piece of shit.
AFAIK, polls didn't ask whether they wanted to stay in the EU or leave. Why don't you look for such data if you want to find out?
#33
So as an American let me understand the issue a bit...
25 seats in the General Assembly go down to 1 seat.
2 super seats (UK and Fr) are reduced to 1 on the Sec Council and no other EU reps on that body.
1 Seat in the World Bank
1 Seat in the WTO
1 Seat in NATO
1 Seat in the ICC
1 Seat in .....
What's the downside of all this loss of power by the EU to the US?
#34
it's a sucky watered-down affair ...that it doesn't politically unite Europe *enough*), then we're in complete agreement.
Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Unionâs common foreign and security policy OR there can be no such common foreign a security policy if a single member brings forth a veto.
Here are the probable outcomes of this:
Countries forced to leave the union to protect their own interests;
A war will be foughtover the meaning of the word, "unreservedly";
or...most likely the end result will be:
Individual economies will come to depend on membership in the EU for economic survival and thus will be forced to subject themselves to an unelected body.
You aren't getting a representative union at all. You are getting taxation without representation. Looks good on you though.
#36
2b> If you were aware of a single element of the EU or of the European Constitution, instead of just trolling whenever the discussion arises over whatever different element comes to your attention, then your bizarre predictions might be worth a second's notice.
Until that time, your predictions are about as significant and probably as accurate, as Poison Reverse's prophecies that the EU is leading to the one-man worship of the Antichrist.
PHUKET, Thailand - Former US presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush were due in Thailand Saturday on the first stop on their tour of Asian nations hit by December's catastrophic tsunamis. The former US leaders were due to arrive at the tourist island of Phuket at about noon (0500 GMT) and travel on to the devastated fishing village of Baan Nam Khem to assess reconstruction efforts in Thailand's hardest-hit province of Phang Nga.
Clinton and Bush, appointed by President George W. Bush to head private fundraising efforts in the wake of the tsunami, are also to visit Indonesia, Sri Lanka and The Maldives.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/19/2005 1:17:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hope Daddy Bush helps out corraling Klintoon. Just picture him running "free" anywhere in Thailand... I'll bet the Secret Service is pulling some serious overtime to keep him from sneaking out.
#3
those hairless thai boys are better looking than monica and will pop his chest stitches--hide the chicken satay soaked in viagra or its a quick flight to rammstein on the cardio unit
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
02/19/2005 4:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hillary isn't around much, so that's given me time to do a lot of extensive research on Thailand on the internet. The conclusion: Thai chicks are hot enough to give me carpal tunnel in both hands!
Posted by: William Jefferson Clinton ||
02/19/2005 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What the hell did Thailand do to us that we inflict Clinton on them?
As an african newspaper is said to have headlined when Clinton was going to visit (while he was president): Hide your daughters!.
#6
Hope Bill's been practicing his lip biting and watery eyes act in the mirror. He hasn't had much of a chance to use it lately and it might need some work.
HumanEventsOnline - HT to Drudge
We previously reported the conservative group, Citizens United, planned to erect two pro-Bush billboards in Hollywood "thanking" Hollywood for Bush's reelection. As planned, the signs were created, coinciding with the buildup to Oscar night. However, one of those tongue-in-cheek billboards was seriously vandalized Wednesday night, when a Swastika was painted on President Bush's forehead.
Few Angeleans saw the disfigured sign though, since Citizens United anticipated the vandalism, and had previously arranged with the sign company that their billboards would be immediately repaired if, in fact, they were damaged.
True to their word, the overnight damage was repaired within hours
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/19/2005 1:04:38 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#6
#4 Andrea - Probably the same way people spray-paint elaborate graffiti off the side of bridges. (Which I could never figure out, but then I never wanted to do that, so really don't care.)
Remember, the billboard people got up there to paste up the billboard - and to repair it. I believe there's some kind of a narrow platform on the front and back of most billboards.
But someone with actual knowledge will probably pop up today and set us straight. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/19/2005 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
#6 BigED - I like your idea.
I'd even donate to make it happen. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/19/2005 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Barbara- you are right! about the narrow platform----perhaps behind the top of the billboard? I can't imagine risking my life
to paint that!**### Like Big ED I thought the billboard was booby trapped. Tomorrow night
at 9 p.m. NBC will devote two hour's to "LIVE FROM NEW YORK:THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE". Lets watch and see satire about BUSH (*&!!@@)
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Andrea - sorry, I don't watch SNL. The last time I saw it for more time than it takes to grab the remote and kill the TV, Steve Martin was a regular. Guess NBC has run out of ideas. Again.
But if it's the first 5 years, how can there be any Bush satire? Either Bush.
BTW, I'm slow today. Do all the symbols mean something?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/19/2005 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Barbara- SNL always throws in satire about the latest. I think NBC had a great idea. I'm being creative with the symbols. I think it is good to take a break from all the Terror news
and world politics., which is why I suggested
SNL tomorrow night.
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Not exactly a booby-trap, but a point made.
When I was a kid there was someone else from my school named Mike who would cut through our backyard as a shortcut. My mother got sick of it. So, she positioned herself by the sprinkler turnon valve, which was out of sight of his "entry point". He he he. When he was on top of the wall, and began his jump, whoosh went the sprinklers. Soaked, he made a hasty retreat. About 5 minutes later Mike came up the street, completetely wet, and leering at my mother who had strategically placed herself on the front porch to watch him pass. She was "acting bewildered" at the sight of a soaked kid walking up the street. At this point another kid across the street (mouthy girl named Beth) said something about, "You mother is going to be upset about you having a water-baloon fight. You're in Trouuuuu-blllle" Mike just stared at her... He never intruded again.
#13
I'm going to go against the grain here: this billboard was a stupid idea to begin with. It's not just the stars in Hollywood who are lefties. Conservatives have to reach out more to the center. Gloating like this about the election may feel good but it achieves nothing except making you look childish - leave that to the Libs. And while it may be okay to post something like that on your blog, billboard advertising costs money. If we're going to spend money to shame Hollywood, it should've said something like "Donate to the Spirit of America" or some of the other charities that support the troops.
As a former Lib, I wish my fellow Conservatives would quit the petty jeering at Libs, some of who are my friends and family, and focus more on trying to win them over by exposing them to real conservative arguments and spirit. We may never win over George Clooney but we can peel off of few from the staff and crew and the people who work the shops and restaurants. They just need to get exposed to our point of view, which is hard to do in enclaves like New York and LA - that's why the billboard is a wasted opportunity as well as wasted cash. My own conversion came from hearing reasonable, personable and logical conservatives. I would've been a Conservative sooner but my initial contact was more with conservative online trolls who would flame me for expressing my (misguided) liberal opinions. Conservative ranting is fun, I know, but it doesn't reach the center. Save that for the blog. If you're going to rent public space to put your message out, make it a good message.
Posted by: Prince Abdullah ||
02/19/2005 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#14
# 13 I am a "lib" but conservative with $$$$$
you are right- billboard advertising is big BUCKS.
This billboard is foolish like so many other's I
see as I drive along the highway. What type of a billboard / message do you think should be displayed?
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I, for one, am disappointed in this childish vandalism. I knew these billboards would be vandalized, and I was secretly hoping for some sort of witty rejoinder, or covering up half the letters in the caption to spell something different. But a mere spraypaint job? Bah. Uncreative.
If they knew it was going to be hit, they should have damn well put some surveillance video cameras near the support structure. Then, we could have wanted posters up, and the Left would be forced into defending yet another group of obvious bad guys.
#16
Gromky: I have seen this done in N.Y.C. and you know what the vandal does? sprays at dark, wears a hood /mask/bandana. Often if they can spot a camera- they spray the lense of the camera making the camera inopperable. I don't know about the LEFT to defend the bad guys- plenty of liberal's would defend- it's a MONEY $$$game.
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Clintonism says all Lefties are Righties, all DemsLibs are GOP-Rightists, and all Commies are Fascists, ...... etc. save that, SSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH, the Left just doesn't want to admit it, either to themselves or others. Thus by dissing and criticizing Bush the Left, or at least the USLeft, is dissing and disrespecting itself. * THE SIMPSONS ,or Dialectic/Totalitarian Equalism - "BE ONE WITH RIGHTISM AND FASCISM, BUT NOT OF RIGHTISM AND FASCISM", like being FBI-CIA-POlice-Law when everything goes right, while simul being Mafia when everything goes wrong. Can't blame the FBI-CIA-Police-Law cuz you're Mafia, can't blame the Mafia cuz you're also FBI-CIA-Police Law, unto eternity. *DREW CAREY - "This is America and you know what that means - SOMEONE ELSE, ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE, IS RESPONSIBLE [FOR MY ACTIONS]", as honest injun as Bill Clinton really, really, REALLY believed he was telling you the truth when he lied to you, and did NOT have sex with that woman Monica, but DID HAVE SEX with her dress while she was still wearing it!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/19/2005 23:38 Comments ||
Top||
#19
BIG ED- when I was a kid, it was a cruel joke to take an old pocketbook (yard sale material) fill it with Cow or horse meadow muffins...then leave the pocket book in the middle of the road! You guessed it- hide behind a wall, wait and see who stops to pick up the million dollar pocketbook.
(TRICK OR TREAT).
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#20
BIG ED- when I was a kid, it was a cruel joke to take an old pocketbook (yard sale material) fill it with Cow or horse meadow muffins...then leave the pocket book in the middle of the road! You guessed it- hide behind a wall, wait and see who stops to pick up the million dollar pocketbook.
(TRICK OR TREAT).
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#21
BIG ED- when I was a kid, it was a cruel joke to take an old pocketbook (yard sale material) fill it with Cow or horse meadow muffins...then leave the pocket book in the middle of the road! You guessed it- hide behind a wall, wait and see who stops to pick up the million dollar pocketbook.
(TRICK OR TREAT).
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#22
BIG ED- when I was a kid, it was a cruel joke to take an old pocketbook (yard sale material) fill it with Cow or horse meadow muffins...then leave the pocket book in the middle of the road! You guessed it- hide behind a wall, wait and see who stops to pick up the million dollar pocketbook.
(TRICK OR TREAT).
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/19/2005 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#23
BIG ED- when I was a kid, it was a cruel joke to take an old pocketbook (yard sale material) fill it with Cow or horse meadow muffins...then leave the pocket book in the middle of the road! You guessed it- hide behind a wall, wait and see who stops to pick up the million dollar pocketbook.
(TRICK OR TREAT).
#24
BIG ED- when I was a kid, it was a cruel joke to take an old pocketbook (yard sale material) fill it with Cow or horse meadow muffins...then leave the pocket book in the middle of the road! You guessed it- hide behind a wall, wait and see who stops to pick up the million dollar pocketbook.
(TRICK OR TREAT).
#2
I just hope the powers that be and US nuclear industry can get their heads out of their posteriors. These really are a better way to go and will be much cheaper and safer in all respects.
The article raises some straw men as far as proliferation goes. If a government or entity that can obtain any kind of reactor wants to divert material they will find a way regardless of the reactor type or means of tracking material.
At the rate we are going we will be using liquified coal to run things. There is little or no real alternate energy being pursued in the US.
Togo's new military-installed leader promised Friday to hold presidential elections within two months, bowing to intense pressure at home and abroad to end his summary succession to power following the death of his dictator father. "In the superior interests of the nation and of the country's constitution, I promise to hold elections within 60 days, without delay," President Faure Gnassingbe said on state TV. Togo's army had announced Gnassingbe's appointment to power on Feb. 5, hours after the sudden death of his father, President Gnassingbe Eyadema, from a heart attack. Eyadema, who held power for 38 years, had been the world's longest-ruling leader after Cuba's Fidel Castro, using troops and repressive rule to resist the wave of democracy that rolled across the rest of sub-Saharan Africa in the 1990s.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Thousands of young Sudanese girls are reluctant to return home to southern Sudan from refugee camps around Africa after last month's landmark north-south peace deal for fear they will be sold into marriage, a senior UN official said Friday. Adolescent girls in at least two camps have told interviewers from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (Unhcr) they will not return unless they are given legal protection against being married off, the official said. "Everybody talks about the lost boys of Sudan, what about the lost girls?" said Wendy Chamberlin, the UN's deputy high commissioner for refugees, after visiting the Rhino camp in Uganda and the Kakuma camp in Kenya.
The well-known phrase "lost boys" refers to the thousands of young Sudanese men who fled the country to avoid forced conscription into rebel and militia forces, many of died in the bush before reaching refugee camps. Chamberlin, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan and Laos, said she had been surprised by the intensity of fear displayed by the girls in her conversations with them during her visits earlier in the week. "Something that struck me ... was the number of times young girls raised the issue of (whether) they would be protected if they went home," she told reporters here. "They want assurances before they go back that there will be some legal protections so they will not be married off early against their will," Chamberlin said. "It is a major obstacle for these young girls."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the president of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, alleged on Friday that the deletion of religion column from machine readable passports (MRPs) was a government's conspiracy to seek access for Qadianis to Holy Mecca under the guise of Islamic names. However, he said that the nation would thwart the "plot".
God forbid any Qadianis should set foot in Holy Mecca!
Addressing a Friday congregation at Jamia Mansoora, Qazi said clerics all over the country highlighted the steps taken by the government for the deletion of religion column and blasphemy laws in Friday congregations. Qazi blamed that General Musharraf wanted blessing of the United States and other western countries by removing religion column. "Musharraf is a major ally of US in its war against the Islamic world. Waging struggle against him is a religious obligation of all Muslims," he said. Qazi said that confidence-building measures recently taken by India and Pakistan would harm the freedom movement of Kashmiris. Under the pretext of people-to-people contact, the secular elements of both countries want to set up a free society here, he said.
A free society's anathema to Qazi. Islamic societies by definition are not free. But even Qazi usually doesn't come right out and say it...
He went on to say that the nation was built on faith and General Musharraf wanted to confine it to Pakistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He looks like the Amazing Randi. I thought his kidneys were almost gone, a couple of years ago. Die already!
Top West African leader President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria pushed Togo's new military-installed leader on Thursday to step aside, telling him democracy was needed in the nation blighted by Africa's longest one-man rule.
But Togo President Faure Gnassingbe — appointed Feb. 5 within hours of his father's death of a heart attack after 38 repressive years in power — showed no sign of yielding.
Togolese leaders repeated to Obasanjo that the son's summary appointment to the presidency had been essential "to prevent a descent into anarchy," said Remi Oyo, the Nigerian leader's spokeswoman. Gnassingbe was meeting with Obasanjo in the Nigerian capital on his first trip out of Togo since taking power. None of the ceremonies normally accorded a visiting head of state was performed. Gnassingbe's appointment — retroactively made legal by Togolese lawmakers in a series of constitutional amendments — dashed hopes that Eyadema's death would usher in democracy to Togo. In a case that's become a test of African leaders' willingness to crack down on one of their own, Obasanjo asked Gnassingbe and his aides Thursday "to retrace their steps and return to the position of constitutionality," Oyo said.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2005 11:59:48 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I AM HAVE EXCELLENT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIY FOR YOU!!!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A small Yemeni opposition party has been merged into the ruling General People's Congress (GPC) party, GPC sources said yesterday. The sources said negotiations between the GPCs Secretary-General Abdul-Kareem Al-Iryani and head of the Republican Party (RP) Muhammad Ali Abu-Luhoum, have come out with an agreement under which the RP would stand under the GPCs umbrella.
Top West African leader President 
