1918 - Red Sox win World Series 1919 - Hockey cancelled
2004 - Red Sox win World Series 2005 - Hockey cancelled
The NHL has inherited the Curse of the Bambino. The Stanley Cup was last not awarded in 1919, the season following Boston winning the World Series. On Jan. 3, 1920, the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees, and did not win another world title until ending the drought at 86 years in October. Now, after 86 uninterrupted seasons, hockey's holy grail again will go dormant. Unlike the labor strife that is keeping the Cup in mothballs this time, it was an outbreak of deadly Spanish Flu that prevented the hardware from being awarded in 1919.
A series between NHL champ Montreal and the Pacific Hockey Association's Seattle Metropolitans was tied 2-2 with the deciding game scheduled on April 1, 1919. All but one member of the Canadiens fell sick and the series was abandoned. "The great overtime games of the series have taxed the vitality of the players to such an extent that they are in poor shape indeed to fight off such a disease as influenza,'' the Montreal Gazette reported. One player, Montreal's Joe Hall, died of pneumonia as a result of being exposed to the disease caused by a virus doctors had yet learned to detect. The Spanish Flu was responsible for more than 21 million deaths in 1918- 19 and is the worst epidemic in recorded world history.
Not that I believe in this stuff, mind you, but does this mean another 86 freaking years before we win another Series?
Posted by: Steve ||
02/17/2005 2:03:06 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Anyone have the virtual season standings from G4TechTv?
Welcome to the first ever Middle East Sex Survey. Please complete the survey as your experiences and opinions are valuable to us. Looks fake, but its real. Albawaba news agency is owned by the government of Jordan, and it is rumored that they are seeking to purchase al-Jazeera.
Eligible participants will qualify to enter into a draw for an Apple iPod courtesy of Durex - so please don't forget to provide your email.
Posted by: IToldYouSo ||
02/17/2005 3:27:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
I think the survey needed more question's.
also, you needed to have the three groups
to get accurate stat's
1) Blind group
2) control group
3) experimental group .
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/17/2005 18:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A culture with no sex control, where sex with animals is not experimental but common, and if they see above a women's ankle they go blind (Allan sez so), and you want to group them? How cruel, Andrea!
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Frank, you forgot that only the man on the receiving end is considered homosexual -- the other guy is only doing what guys do ;-?
WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail. What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement. "We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs," one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. "I've never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view."
Come to Rantburg.
Another said: "I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot." Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: "Sod off, Swampy."
Now there's an insult!
Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. "The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims," a spokesman said. Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. "The violence was instant," Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said. "They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us."
Oh please let there be a video, oh please, oh please ...
When a trader left the building shortly before 2pm, using a security swipe card, a protester dropped some coins on the floor and, as he bent down to pick them up, put his boot in the door to keep it open. Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others. They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts "open outcry" trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading. But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. "They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately," a photographer said. "It was really ugly, but Greenpeace could not did not fight back."
Mr Beresford said: "They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement." Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion. A spokeswoman from IPE said the trading floor reopened at 3.10pm. "The floor was invaded by a small group of protesters," she said. "Open outcry trading was suspended but electronic trading carried on."
And a good time was had by all!
Eighteen police vans and six police cars surrounded the exchange and at least 27 protesters were arrested. A small band blocked the entrance to the building for the rest of the evening. Richard Ward, IPE's chief executive, said that the exchange would review security but denied that protesters had reached the trading floor. However, traders, protesters and press photographers confirmed to The Times that the trading floor had been breached. Mr Ward would not discuss whether he would press charges, and said he would not know until this morning if there had been any financial loss. Greenpeace later started a second protest at the annual dinner of the Institute of Petroleum at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Park Lane, in Central London. Greenpeace claimed that five campaigners had got into the Great Hall. About 30 protesters were outside the hotel nursing brusied jaws, some blocking the front entrance by sitting down and locking themselves together, while others sounded klaxons and alarms. Climbers scaled scaffolding to unfurl a banner reading, "Climate change kills, oil industry parties".
Posted by: tipper ||
02/17/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ROFLMAO!!!
The ultimate wankers got zapped by real people living in the real world doing real jobs and who had no time for their kiddie tantrums. Who'da thunk it, eh?
#3
This crap needs to happen more often. When these ignorant fools come on to private property then need to be met with resistance. These fools could have cost these traders plenty. I am glad they beat the piss out of them and tossed them out onto the curb.
#6
a spokesman said. Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. âThe violence was instant,â This means they had a liquid lunch at the pub and were up for some 'excitement'
#7
They shold have mounted the operation as the traders were breaking for lunch, so they could deal with an empty floor. Just their style . . . protest nothing . . .
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
02/17/2005 7:07 Comments ||
Top||
#8
âIâve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.â
Perhaps if you had tried speaking to them instead of whistles, foghorns, and rape alarms? Last time I checked, all three of those items are not really intended to communicate, but do a rather good job of stopping communication.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/17/2005 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
First they get their asses kicked, then they get arrested - beautiful.
#11
Well this was only about 20 years overdue. Worth the wait though.
What I want to see next is some Hummer dealer with a shotgun waiting on some ELF clowns pulling a raid in the middle of the night.
#12
I find it a bit disappointing that all those nominally-25-year-old traders only put two of the invaders into the hospital. I'll write it off to the surprise attack, but I expect better next time.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/17/2005 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#13
It would be great if someone got some of this on the security cameras. I want to see it.
#15
These noisies are more than willing to die for the cause, but they aren't so hot for taking a royal thumping for it. After a few instances like this, I would expect the number of Greenpeace incidents to sharply drop off.
#16
Anonymoose, I wouldn't bet on it. I know a couple of them around here and their attitude is that they know more than anyone else what's best for the environment. There is no rational, logical dialogue with these people.
#17
Am I the only one who saw the ironyhypocrisy in the following statements?
âThe violence was instant,â Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said. âThey grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.â
What's Greenpeace doing w/ an electrical engineer (assume he's out of work/unhirable)? Don't they know electricity is EVIL (/sarcasm off/)? I mean, it comes from power plants and such, who use either coal, oil products or nuclear material to produce power!
Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others.
WTF? They used a van? You mean they didn't show up in environmentally friendly eco-vehicles! Why, vans are the evil cousin of SUVs aren't they? Why didn't they take mass transit to the "event"????
Posted by: BA ||
02/17/2005 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Bulldog---Don't know about British law in this area, but can't the exchange sue Greenpeace for the disruption? There is a lot of money moving around and that was denied during the brew-haha. It seems that Greenpeace needs to be hit in its pocketbook to learn a lesson, or to have the lessons of the last battle reinforced.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/17/2005 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I'll write it off to the surprise attack, but I expect better next time.
If "next time" happens in a locale where I'm at, it will be better.
As George Zimmer of the Men's Wearhouse says, "I guarantee it."
#20
I love it. And I'm looking forward to the dueling charges. On the "Swampy" side we have assault and battery, and on the IPE side we have breaking and entering, assault, attempted sabotage, mopery and dopery on the high seas, conspiracy to lurk with intent to gawk, and just plain old "too stupid to live"...
#21
If English law has a lick of common sense, there won't be any assault charges against the oil traders. *THEY* weren't the ones committing breaking and entering.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/17/2005 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I hope so, RC, but until recently it was "defend yourself, go to jail."
In the US, this would be great as this was a conspiracy by Greenpeace, so they could be hit with RICO and sued for treble damages.
Even in the UK, criminal conspiracy should be applicable. I don't know if they have something like RICO.
#27
BH
"Barrow boy spiv" An unskilled day-laborer ("barrow-boy") who hires out as underworld muscle to supplement his income ("spiv"). With this, the GreenPisser betrays some pretty heavy class-prejudice, altogether in keeping with their fantastically deep elaboration of hypocrisy and status-seeking.
Incidentally, the traders have now outdone the French Navy in a confrontation with a common enemy.
The Frogs managed to sink their ship temporarily, drowning a media fellow-traveller, but they took some major political heat and lost some prisoners to the collaborationist Kiwi police. The traders on the other hand seem to have achieved an exchange rate of infinity on wounded and captured.
Tens of thousands of protesters gathered near Quito's presidential palace Wednesday to demand President Lucio Gutierrez's resignation, accusing him of authoritarian rule and with packing the supreme court with his own judges.
Gutierrez responded with a rally of his own, addressing thousands of supporters from his palace balcony. He decried his opponents as "arrogant" and portrayed himself as a crusader against corrupt oligarchs. "Over there is the march of the arrogant," he said, referring to the protest a few blocks away.
Officials didn't provide estimate of the size of the crowds. But government protesters filled several streets near the palace and reporters on the scene estimated they numbered about 70,000. They said about half that many gathered for Gutierrez's speech in front of the palace.
About 6,000 riot police provided a buffer between the two rallies and arrests or violence were reported.
Many of the protesters carried placards declaring "Down with the Dictatorship," and chanted, "Lucio, out!"
Paco Moncayo — Quito's popular mayor and a possible presidential candidate in next year's elections — called Gutierrez a "dictator."
Gutierrez, whose term runs until January 2007, has faced a political backlash since early December after a pro-government congressional bloc replaced 27 of Ecuador's 31 Supreme Court judges.
Gutierrez justified the purge by saying the judges were in the pocket of the rightist Social Christian Party, which has long been associated with the country's financial and banking sector.
Last month, Gutierrez proposed a national referendum to reduce congressional powers, restructure the Supreme Court and increase his executive authority — moves that have fueled accusations that he is becoming increasingly authoritarian.
Still, Gutierrez has seen his approval rating increase, with polls earlier this month showing support by nearly 35 percent of the country compared to just 16 percent over much of 2004.
Gutierrez joined with Indian leaders in January 2000 to drive then-President Jamil Mahuad from power. He was elected president in November 2002. The more things change,...
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
02/17/2005 10:44:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Demonstrators Fill Ecuador Capital
Oh geez, I though they were complaining about the lack of Christina Aguilera (Ecuadoran Ancestry) CDs...
#2
Lucio has learned well the lessons given to him by the master of how-to-turn-a-democracy-into-a- dictatorship-without-anybody-realizing-it-until- is-too-late Hugo Chavez!
#5
Chavez has been holding power for over 4 (he has been in office for 6) years now with 35% support. After Castro's clones get a hold of a country's institutions, the support (or lack of) of the people does not matter anymore.
#1
He [Putty's advisor] called the accord âan anti-human document restricting economic growth,â hoping âcommon sense will prevail, and our country, together with other nations, will abandon this crazy idea.â
#3
It was he that fought so long against it. He must have gotten the science right, because surely Russia could only benefit from global warming -- so much of their historical foreign policy has been based on the search for a warm water port.
WASHINGTON - China's military buildup could tilt the strategic balance with Taiwan and also threaten US forces in Asia, CIA director Porter Goss warned on Wednesday. Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Goss also highlighted threats to the United States from North Korea, which he warned could resume missile tests anytime after boasting of its nuclear weapons' might last week. "Beijing's military modernisation and military buildup could tilt the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait," said Goss, who took over as CIA director in September. "Improved Chinese capabilities threaten US forces in the region," he told the committee assessing the main security threats to the United States.
Goss said that China was stepping up efforts to "develop robust, survivable nuclear armed missiles as well as conventional capability for use in regional conflicts." He added: "If Beijing decides that Taiwan is taking steps toward permanent separation that excedes Beijing's tolerance, we assess China is prepared to respond with varying levels of force." With already 600 missiles pointed at the island, China has stepped up warnings to Taiwan in recent months about moves toward what it fears could be a declaration of independence. The Beijing leadership has warned many times that it would use force to stop Taiwan making a formal breakaway. "China is increasingly confident and active on the international stage," said Goss, "trying to ensure that it has a voice on international issues and secures access to natural resources and to counter what it sees as United States' efforts to contain or encircle it."
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/17/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What are robust, survivable nuclear armed missiles? I thought the whole point is that neither missile nor target survive their meeting.
#2
I think it means that they can survive an encounter with an ABM system. Multiple warheads, electronic countermeasures, dummy heads, warhead hardening, und so weiter. After all, we've been making all that noise with those defensive missile tests in the international media...
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
02/17/2005 7:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
TW -
He might have been trying to describe hardened missiles that could survive a US first strike - not freakin' likely, but if he doesn't sound the alarm about something, there goes his budget.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/17/2005 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bingo, Mike.
But we need to pay attention to something.
If China is actually developing missiles with the idea of surviving either first strike or coutermissile fire then they are planning for a war. Not anticipating possible need, but actually getting ready those items they feel will be useful.
Traditionally our intelligence agencies have estimated that China possesses only a small number of nuclear devices and those are not mated to delivery systems. What that says is that they are not serious about the possibility of them being used in the near future.
Just as Iran only needs to develope ICBM-type weapons if they are going to have nukes to deliver, China only has the motivation to develope better missiles if they intend to mate them to warheads for use against . . . well, the US and Taiwan.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
02/17/2005 7:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Just let China have Taiwan! Who wants to go to war with China for pissant Taiwan, a tiny piece of land with people that eat brains and dead babies (no lie...human rights coalitions have tried to circulate the photos). Clinton's policy on One China was the only thing I liked about his politics...it's simply not worth it. Don't let the war chiefs convince you China is some looming danger, some just think it sounds sexy...World War III: starring the United States vs. China. Just ask yourself, "How many Taiwanese buddies do I have?". Probably none...I wish people would stop assuming shitholes like this are worth American lives (not implying anything about Iraq...the Middle East has been long overdue). China's politics are jacked up but they do not seek our destruction. They seek to preserve their union...sound familiar? Imagine if Asia told the North to leave the South alone in our Civil War, or else. Yes, I know they don't believe in our freedoms, but if they want Taiwan, so be it.
#6
Shellback, you clearly didn't get the memo. WWIII was the Cold War; we won. WWIV is the War on Terror, really the Islamofascism animating the terrorists, among others; we have won the first major battles and, so long as our nerve holds, will win the war. A war initiated by China would be WWV; if, as is sounds to my untutored ear, they are going for a conventional war goosed with nukes, we will win, and quickly. We have an excess of missiles to dispose of, and the kind of technology our troops have to play with will not be stymied by the raw numbers of wifeless men that are China's main threat.
As for that little rant about Taiwan. You sound like some of the rabid antisemites who chance upon Rantburg from time to time -- all noisy ignorance and unthinking cant. I do have very dear friends from there, very gentle, cultured, erudite people, devoted to their children and their students, but with the tough core that goes with growing up under a permanent siege -- much like the Israelis I know, in fact. If you want to meet some, go to your nearby university or corporate research department. That's where Taiwanese tend to congregate outside of their country.
But regardless, keep that kind of shit to yourself. It is wrong, rude, and uncivilized.
#7
oops shellback, you went too far and let the fever show
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#8
China is significantly expanding their strategic nuclear arsenal. Witness their construction of long range mobile ICBMs such as DF-31, long range SLBMs like DF-23, and ballistic missile submarines. They are still in the early stages of ramping production and the next 10 years will be interesting.
Posted by: ed ||
02/17/2005 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Just ask yourself, "How many Taiwanese buddies do I have?"
#12
trailing wife: wrong, rude, and uncivilized is to imply we should attack and bomb China in defense of Taiwan because we have an "excess of missiles to dispose of". I don't particularly care for the Chinese but who I really love are my American people. I wouldn't trade their lives for Taiwanese lives. We all have to live in fear one way or another. If you live in the city, you worry if someone's going to break in your house, if you live in Taiwan, you worry about Chinese aggression.
#13
trailing wife: wrong, rude, and uncivilized is to imply we should attack and bomb China in defense of Taiwan because we have an "excess of missiles to dispose of". I don't particularly care for the Chinese but who I really love are my American people. I wouldn't trade their lives for Taiwanese lives. We all have to live in fear one way or another. If you live in the city, you worry if someone's going to break in your house, if you live in Taiwan, you worry about Chinese aggression.
#14
I didn't think it was an honest apology. My Taiwanese friends became American citizens last year. Who are your "American people?" As for China, we don't need to invade them, just administer a stern spanking when they attack. An excess of missiles delivered from a distance, will do nicely for the purpose, and provide amusement for some otherwise bored American troops.
#15
SB:
What you are saying sounds a lot like:
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing."
--Neville Chamberlain
And we know the results of backing down then, don't we?
#16
Well, it honestly wasn't. And what world are you living in that you think China would take a "spanking" and that'd be it? Oh, and that would just be to alleviate some boredom, huh? My American people are the ones you're casually willing to sacrifice for the benefit of Taiwan. Taiwan wouldn't survive a war between us and China anyways, it would be destroyed while it was supposed to be defended. And congratulations to your new Taiwan-American friends...I still wouldn't trade them for your sons and daughters.
#18
jackal: Our government's very public demand China not hinder Taiwan independence, and if so face military action, negates the possibility we'll back down.
#19
Shipman: Nice analogy however the Battle of Leyte Gulf was after the attack at Pearl Harbor. And Japan was invading sovereign nations, not break-away regions. How about Chechnya? Their fighting for their independence, against a country we've had what you could call "serious problems" with in the past. Why no support for them? Because they're just as bad as who they're fighting against. Same as Taiwan. They're no angels. And not worth our blood.
#20
" I wouldn't trade their lives for Taiwanese lives."
Shellback, are you really a shellback? Someone posted it the other day, I'll do so again. The verse below is from the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and all the encouragment I would need to fight for Taiwan or any other freedom loving peoples.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
Posted by: Analog Roam ||
02/17/2005 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Analog Roam: Started to write a nasty response, then stopped and composed myself. Yes, what a wonderful little ditty the Battle Hymn of the Republic is. Here's a newsflash for ya'... that song (and others like it) only inspire people who are on the sidelines, safe and far away from actual combat. When the time comes, which it will, we'll see where you are Mr.Analog. I already have a reserved seat.
#22
interesting "shellback". So are you going to disobey orders that direct you to aide and assist the Taiwanese allies if you believe "Your American People" are not at risk? Sounds like you either aren't really in or you need to resign. I know which I believe about you
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#23
And what world are you living in that you think China would take a "spanking" and that'd be it?
Because the U.S. has more than enough armament to administer a spanking that China would be hard-pressed to recover from. The only number they have over us is in people; where it matters is in destructive power, and we've got them beat several times over.
#24
Frank G: The more people that insist that China is an supposed impending threat, the more the threat will become a reality. Yeah, you can believe I'm "in" or "out" or "whatever"... when the time comes, I'll be there. I believe you'll be with Analog Roam playing armchair quarterback. We need to focus on our first priorities, Afghanistan and Iraq. Then somewhere towards the bottom of the list is Taiwan and China.
#25
Started to write a nasty response, then stopped and composed myself.
Shellback: "Composed" is that the new slang for wanking off these days? I became a shellback in the US Navy in 1976, and I somehow suspect you weren't even born then.
I've already done my time, and would do so again if called. Yes, I find the BHotR very inspiring, to say the least. Next time get nasty, let's see what you got, boy!
-AR
Posted by: Analog Roam ||
02/17/2005 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#27
its quite possible to question the inevitability of a future US-China confrontation. I do so myself. But when you call Taiwanese "babyeaters" you only mark yourself a troll, and exclude yourself from rational conversation. Just like people who call Jews babyeaters, and for that matter people who call Muslims babyeaters.
#28
Shellback-> Calling people chickenhawks is not an effective argument. There are undoubtedly people here with more military experience than you who disagree with you. If you want to convince them, you have to do better than insulting people's future bravery or military service.
Notwithstanding this, tell us why we should go back to the days of not supporting our friends and bribing our enemies with selling out our friends? It didn't work before, and won't work now.
Moreover, deterrence works only when resolve is firm and communicated to the other party. Any expressed uncertainty of intentions is regarded by the other side as weakness of purpose (by definition), which increases the raw probability of conflict, whether intentional or through error or misunderstanding.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
02/17/2005 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Liberalhawk: No, I'm serious. I've seen the pictures. They eat babies, man. I know it sounds like I'm only trying to smut them out, but I'm dead serious. I didn't have much of an opinion of Taiwan until I saw the photos. I wish I still had them. I would post them. And what "rational conversation"? You say you don't think we should go to war with China and see how irrational everybody gets. Probably the same way if I'd said we need to stop supporting Israel.(relax everyone...I support Israel.) No, but seriously, not every single person from Taiwan eats babies but they serve them, when they're stillborn, in certain places. I got this stuff from an Human Right's activist. And Jews/Muslim's have eaten babies, check Old Testament and Josephus' "The Jewish War".
#30
The point not addressed is will China implode before any confrontation explodes? The death of too many dynasties has been the rot corruption that sets in the bureaucracy. Haven't seen the present rulers are any more effective at suppressing it, then their forefathers. Oh, and just wait till the economy hits a real nasty recession.
#31
Shellback-> I believe I know what photos you are talking about. Those photos were from a performace art exhibit and they were proven false long, long ago. (You will probably not find any friends of performance art here on RB) You might find the debunking on snopes or something like that. There is no canibalism in Taiwan. There are no places where they serve stillborn babies. Preposterous. Unbelieveable.
Actually, I just found this on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm
Posted by: Mark E. ||
02/17/2005 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Oh, and by the way, that was the first hit when I googled "cannibalism taiwan". Google is a pretty effective tool. You should try it.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
02/17/2005 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
#33
It took me 5 sec to google the Taiwan baby eating BS. Some performance artist claimed to eat fetuses he stole from a hospital. Folks took his pictures and wrote some nasty emails around them.
#34
Mark E.: I don't know what a chickenhawk is. I also have not insulted any senior military servicemen here on purpose. I know that we're not going to back down if China invades Taiwan because our President has publicly said we're not going to. Porter Goss can tell you whatever he wants, it doesn't make it neccessarily so. And how are the Taiwanese our "friends"? Our friends are not even our friends these days. There are no "friends" in this game. We've got each other. That's it. And that's why we've got to go slow (not United Nations slow, a little faster than that) and deal with our problems, one at a time.
#35
Mark E: Yes, thank you. Those were the pictures. Now, I didn't see all the ones I originally saw about two months ago, but o.k... I appreciate you putting it out there so people will at least know I'm not calling Taiwan babyeaters just to be mean.
#37
A chickenhawk, my dear shellback, is a civilian entirely too eager to send the troops off to war. Something like your armchair quarterback. The opposite concept is the general who is so careful of his troops that they never see battle -- Lincoln's early generals come to mind. Rumsfeld strikes the right balance, "You go to war with the Army you've got," is what I believe he said, incidentally causing the armor brouhaha.
As for China, attacking Taiwan would only be a first step in militarily establishing hegemony throughout the entire region. Just as Hitler could have been stopped when he first absorbed the industrial region on the border with France; and Saddam Hussein was pushed back from Kuwait in 1991, preventing him from achieving his goal of taking over the oil-rich country of Saudi Arabia as well, thus cornering oil production and controlling the world; so, too, for the Middle Kingdom Taiwan is merely the first step in regional conquest. Stop China there, and we can avoid the nastiness of a prolonged world war.
This is much my preference, the more so since Trailing Daughter has recently spoken of the Marines, and of Sniper training. I don't think she has the physical equipment to be a Marine (although I think she'd be a wonderful sniper), but my opinion won't have any weight in a few more years. And, as it looks like China is about 10 years out from feeling ready to attack its goals, this is a personal as well as philosophical concern for me.
#38
Nice analogy thanks
however the Battle of Leyte Gulf was after the attack at Pearl Harbor. LOL!
And Japan was invading sovereign nations, The Phillipes were a US possesion.
not break-away regions. How about Chechnya? What about'em? They're thugs, have been for neigh on to 1200 years.
Their fighting for their independence, against a country we've had what you could call "serious problems" with in the past. Why no support for them? Because they smell funny and slaughter children
Because they're just as bad as who they're fighting against. LOL!
Same as Taiwan. They're no angels. And not worth our blood. LOL.
Listen SmellBack the Taiwaneese require Chinnee chidlres blood for certain ceremonies... it's a cultural thing, don't get your plang ina plor.
Resign.
#39
IMHO, the current admin policy wrt to Taiwan is about right. We dont recognize Taiwan, for good reasons having to do with international law. And we would NOT object to the peaceful integration of Taiwan and China. Which may well happen, ONCE China democratizes. Or may happen anyway for economic reasons. BUT, if China, unprovoked by a UDI, is SO impatient as to use FORCE to take Taiwan, THAT would be an indication of a level of aggressiveness on the part of China that WOULD threaten regional and US security, and would STRATEGICALLY justify war. If, OTOH, Taiwan is so rash as to provoke China, by a UDI, I dont think we want to stand with them. also letting them know we wouldnt will deter them from such rash action. as for inbetween steps, some of which Taiwan is taking, those raise difficult questions about which we may disagree.
#40
B-a-R, thank you for expanding on my point. My hero!
ed, I so thoroughly absorbed what you wrote that I didn't reference your post in mine. See how good you are?
Thraing Whaimp1866, so true! Wouldn't it be wonderful if all we need do is keep the terrorists from settling somewhere in an imploded Red China. Its a good thing Rumsfeld is working to increase the various Special Forces -- 10 years just might be time enough for that, and the guys in charge of the missiles could just go on being bored.
Sidenote -- this little civilian housewife would love to know what "shellback" means to our sailors. My neighbor's son is at Annapolis hoping to become a Seal, and I'd like to understand him when he comes home.
Finally, for shellback: some of our lurkers may well be your own superior officers. Rantburgers (not me, of course) know some very interesting and influential people. True German Ally was just at that conference in Germany, heard Senator Clinton speak, but by choice missed Kofi Annan. And he's mentioned this site to SecDef Rumsfeld and SecState Rice. But, I believe, not to Herr Schroeder. Just so that you understand the size of the field you just charged on to.
General question: How many of these do you have....
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq92-3.htm
heh...order of the caterpillar. Hope I never get one of those!
Posted by: Mark E. ||
02/17/2005 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#42
What you are all overlooking is that Taiwan, pretty much is no longer Chinese, but Formosan, in character. And that Taiwan is also the major source for much of the memory ship business these days, as well as being a leader in chip fabrication. These are things that the US (and the economies of Korea and Japan and a lot of the rest of the workd) depend on for consumer and defense electronics.
This doesnt mention the basic "wrongness" of abandoning an essentially "free" people to communist totalitarianism by giving in to Chinese military threats. Not to mention the damage to US political power in the very important pacific rium region. Think back: how long did it take us to recover from the abandonment of Vietnam? How free is Iran these days after we abandoned it under Carter?
#43
Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier. It was the staging area for the invasion of Southeast Asia during WWII. As long as Taiwan stays out of Chinese hands, China will have considerable difficulty extending its tentacles into Southeast Asia.
shellback: Imagine if Asia told the North to leave the South alone in our Civil War, or else.
This is the classic Chinese argument. But China isn't Asia, even though they like to make the argument (much like the Japanese during WWII) that the yellow-skinned peoples ought to unite against white interlopers. Asia is just a geographical entity that the Greeks defined as being outside of Europe and Africa. In reality, it is not even close to being a coherent entity, housing as it does Aryans, Semites, Mongoloids and Afroid ethnic groups, and an even bigger variety of distinct cultures and languages.
The Chinese like using the Civil War analogy because they think it strikes a chord - it is part of the official Chinese propaganda effort. My preferred analogy is if the French had refrained from supporting the 13 colonies in their effort to separate from Great Britain.
Note also that a basic strategic principle is that we should try to prevent existing great powers from adding to their holdings. China is already the third largest country in the world. We don't need the Chinese adding to their empire.
Britain acted in the role of offshore balancer through most of the preceding three centuries. The point was to prevent any single continental power from consolidating its hold on the continent. They fought, in turn, the Spanish, the French, the Russians and the Germans. It makes perfect sense for Uncle Sam to prevent the Chinese from making any headway with their expansive territorial claims.
Anyone who thinks that China isn't an emerging threat needs to talk to ordinary Chinese, preferably after establishing their bona fides as non-American sinophiles. They are full of resentment at what they consider humiliations by the West and by Uncle Sam in particular. Their notions of what they consider Chinese territory are pretty expansive. In the views of many, Hawaii and Guam really ought to be Chinese territory, because of Chinese settlements in Hawaii and the fact that the majority of Americans are demonstrably non-Asian.
China is also a much bigger threat than the Muslim world because it is a unitary state. The Muslim states cannot act cohesively because each has its own interests at heart, the primary interest being continued national sovereignty.
#45
All Taiwan has to do to stall mainland China is declare it has 30 nukes and the means to deliver them. Follow that by making the 3-Gorges dam the first target, Shanghai second, Canton third, and so forth. Nobody in either China is willing to initiate mutual suicide.
As for the United States, it can totally criple China by knocking out all the bridges on the Yangtsee and Huang Ho rivers. That would effectively divide the nation into thirds and end any chance of moving goods from one section to another without a HUGE detour. The economy would effectively pancake, there wouldn't be any money to wage war with, and no real way to move troops and equipment except by air - a capability China is sorely lacking in. It would take about 370 tac nukes to take out ALL the bridges on both rivers, and it could be done in one attack. China knows this as well as the United States does. That's one reason they're trying to build up their supplies in each of their military areas where they can act independently for more than three weeks - the maximum length of time China can currently survive a pounding by the United States and its allies.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/17/2005 21:49 Comments ||
Top||
#46
"That would effectively divide the nation into thirds and end any chance of moving goods from one section to another without a HUGE detour."
-Bingo for OP, as usual. SB, trust me, I know where your coming from in general wrt feeling like the world's policeman. However, I think ZF puts the china/taiwan situation in pragmatic terms that you should consider. Losing Taiwan would be an incremental thing, in the long run a bad deal to put it very un-eloquently.
I met some Taiwanese Marines about 5 yrs ago whom I did some school with. Good guys, a Lt Chen gave me a Taiwan MC tie clasp I still have.
#47
What you are all overlooking is that Taiwan, pretty much is no longer Chinese, but Formosan, in character. And that Taiwan is also the major source for much of the memory ship business these days, as well as being a leader in chip fabrication. These are things that the US (and the economies of Korea and Japan and a lot of the rest of the workd) depend on for consumer and defense electronics.
This doesnt mention the basic "wrongness" of abandoning an essentially "free" people to communist totalitarianism by giving in to Chinese military threats. Not to mention the damage to US political power in the very important pacific rium region. Think back: how long did it take us to recover from the abandonment of Vietnam? How free is Iran these days after we abandoned it under Carter?
#48
What you are all overlooking is that Taiwan, pretty much is no longer Chinese, but Formosan, in character. And that Taiwan is also the major source for much of the memory ship business these days, as well as being a leader in chip fabrication. These are things that the US (and the economies of Korea and Japan and a lot of the rest of the workd) depend on for consumer and defense electronics.
This doesnt mention the basic "wrongness" of abandoning an essentially "free" people to communist totalitarianism by giving in to Chinese military threats. Not to mention the damage to US political power in the very important pacific rium region. Think back: how long did it take us to recover from the abandonment of Vietnam? How free is Iran these days after we abandoned it under Carter?
Sir Mark Thatcher may set up a new life in Switzerland if he fails to obtain a US visa because of his involvement in a coup plot in Africa. The disgraced son of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher could be joined in his dreams in Switzerland by his wife Diana, who is at her home in the US. Sir Mark has applied to enter the US but officials will closely look at the evidence against him before any decision is made. When If it goes against him Sir Mark is looking at alternatives. Sir Mark is living with his mother in Britain while he waits to hear the outcome of his visa application to the US. He also faces investigations by Scotland Yard into his role in the plot. But he is due back in South Africa to answer questions from Equatorial Guinea's prosecutors before they decide whether to ask for his extradition. Sir Mark lived in Switzerland in the 1990s and has friends and business contacts in the country.
He always said it was a nice place to visit but he wouldn't want to...oopsie!
That's a bad wedding photo. It's even a bad passport photo.
Posted by: Seafarious ||
02/17/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't know who's ghosting Mark "Thickie Mork" Thatcher's biography, but if they've got a sense of humour it's going to be a best-seller.
An influential tri-national panel has considered a raft of bold proposals for an integrated North America, including a continental customs union, single passport and contiguous security perimeter.
According to a confidential internal summary from the first of three meetings of the Task Force on the Future of North America, discussions also broached the possibility of lifting trade exemptions on cultural goods and Canadian water exports.
Those last two suggestions were dismissed in subsequent deliberations, say members of the task force, an advisory group of academics, trade experts, former politicians and diplomats from Canada, the United States and Mexico sponsored by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.
Members said the task force's final report this spring will focus on "achievable" rather than simply academic questions like that of a single North American currency.
Nevertheless, the initial debates prompted a sharp reaction from trade skeptics and nationalist groups like the Council of Canadians, who fear business leaders and the politically connected are concocting plans to cede important areas of sovereignty at the behest of American business interests.
Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow said the summary, a copy of which was obtained by the Toronto Star, was "disturbing" and "shocking."
"What they envisage is a new North American reality with one passport, one immigration and refugee policy, one security regime, one foreign policy, one common set of environmental, health and safety standards ... a brand name that will be sold to school kids, all based on the interests and the needs of the U.S.," she said.
She said the discussions have added weight because the panel includes such political heavyweights as former federal finance minister John Manley.
Thomas d'Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and one of the task force's vice-chairs, said the summary reflected only preliminary discussions and scoffed at Barlow's concerns, saying insinuations of a secret agenda are "totally wrong."
"There is an acute awareness that we have three independent countries who have no intention of compromising their sovereignty," he said, adding the discussions on water and culture particularly "had no legs whatsoever."
Federal officials stressed the panel is independent of government policy, and that while efforts will continue to work with the United States to address common security and trade concerns, there are no discussions regarding more formal continental integration.
D'Aquino brushed aside the concerns stemming from the summary document, saying "every member of the task force is an independent, the first meeting was basically a scattering of ideas ... a great deal of ground has been covered since then."
And where Barlow and others see a sinister plot to serve the interests of corporate America, d'Aquino sees an effort to co-operate in the face of emerging economic powerhouses in Asia.
The document talks about the need to develop a North American brand, and muses about the possibility of common immigration and customs policies, closer consultation on monetary policy and integrated security policies. Points of discussion included:
"Trilateralizing customs and immigration at airports, ports and land borders."
"Applying the principle of inspection, one test, one certification throughout North America" for agriculture.
"Treating all North American citizens as domestic investors in each country."
Posted by: anonymous2u ||
02/17/2005 12:36:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Treating all North American citizens as domestic investors in each country.
There are certainly enough bad/frightening ideas in there to go 'round but this sentence sends a chill down my spine.
#2
LOL! Wotta load. This is multiculti think-tank tea-time wank-chatter. Not happening. Probably not even make it to serious discussion until Mexico stops being a third world country with first world resources and Kanada stops being insane - on a wide range of issues. So what, 30-40 years, maybe? Lol!
#3
Just a ivory tower private thinktank doing out of the box thinking. A high quality continental customs standard and a contiguous security perimeter are not bad ideas, but I agree Mexico is the weak link. No political union or single passport needed or wanted.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/17/2005 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Canada really is the other weak link, Steve. Look at the kind of people they encourage to immigrate. As for the security perimeter thingie, I wouldn't trust either of our neighbors to do anything more than require us to handle the entire load.
#5
What's your beef, AzCat? I don't see anything wrong with that. That means we could actually own beachfront property in Mexico, or own stock in their companies. (I'm not saying the latter is a good idea, just that it shouldn't be restricted.) Currently, what are the restrictions on foreigners investing in the US? Are there any? Daimler Benz bought Chrysler (and darn near ruined it, "merger of equals," My assets) after all.
Similarly, I don't have a problem with freer transport of goods. In spite of NAFTA, I sometimes have problems with stuff going to or from Canada.
The only sticking point I see would be the unlimited immigration possible.
#6
Oh goody, just what we need, a North American version of the EU. I know already what would derail it. Just say that Bush loves the idea. That will kill it faster than you can blink.
Besides, I thought we already had a de facto single currency on this continent called the dollar. The US Dollar, not the Canadian....
#4
There are many reason's one could have a felony record.
1) in Connecticut if you miss your court appearance
you are charged with "failure to appear" a felony on your record.
2) a girlfriend of mine was forced to take a plea
bargain of assaulting an officer. She ACCIDENTLY hit his police cruiser in Tolland, CT. The officer padded the police report and put down that
Mary tried to assault him....I know Mary would NEVER EVER do that to anyone....a risky trial
meant she could have spent more time in jail, mary sat and waited 8 month's in prison to be bailed out...once bailed out-she did not want to return so she took a plea bargain and ended up with a felony record. I think Mary and other's like her should be able to vote***
(SHe took a plea bargain because her public defender NEVER put a trial on).
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/17/2005 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
please... a failure to appear is cleared by appearing, and NOT a permanent felony. Your friend's anecdote sounds bogus, whatever your feelings, and anyone who pleads to a felony gets what they deserve. Why the f*&k would a smart person like *Mary* do that?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
All her base are belong in jail.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/17/2005 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Take this as you will, but, out here in Blue Californy, the felons have had the vote since 1973...
Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House, plan to shake up the Democratic political consulting community and break the grip that a small number of consultants have had on strategy and contracts, party sources say.
The Democratic leaders want to bring in new people with track records of success and innovation and look beyond the Beltway for message smiths to help guide the party...
A review of DSCC independent expenditures in the two months before Election Day showed that three firms consumed nearly all independent expenditures spent on making ads.
Struble Eichenbaum Communications received nearly $80,000 for media production. Greer Margolis Mitchell Burns received $260,000 and Dixon Davis Media Group received $175,000 for media production, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission. All three firms are based inside the Beltway.
Washington Monthly magazine recently reported that one direct-mail firm, Ambrosino, Muir & Hansen, co-led by Joe Hansen, the DSCC's former field director, handled five of the most competitive Senate races in 2004. But firm partner Karl Struble said Senate Democratic media contracts were more diversified than those of House Democrats.
"The stuff on the House side has been in fewer hands even though they have many more races to do," he said...
#1
The Democratic leaders want to bring in new people with track records of success and innovation and look beyond the Beltway for message smiths to help guide the party...
Since the 'burg is always interested in immigration politix ...
PHOENIX (AP) -- Some lawmakers want to explore the possibility of the state contracting to have a private prison built in Mexico to house illegal immigrants now incarcerated in Arizona.
The idea was promoted as a way to reduce the state's heavy costs in imprisoning the 3,600 to 4,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona prisons who have been convicted of crimes. Opponents questioned whether the state has the legal authority to move the foreign prisoners to Mexico. In any event, a proposal (HB2709) to have the state seek proposals for such prison cleared its first hurdle Wednesday at the Arizona Legislature in a 4-2 vote by a House committee.
The bill is one of many moving through the Legislature that tries to confront the problems caused by illegal immigration. More than any other state in recent years, Arizona has been dogged by a heavy flow of illegal immigrants after the government tightened enforcement in El Paso, Texas, and San Diego during the mid-1990s.
Several Arizona lawmakers have said the federal government hasn't done enough to confront illegal immigration and therefore has dumped massive costs on the state. Gov. Janet Napolitano has recently billed the federal government for nearly $118 million in unreimbursed costs for imprisoning illegal immigrants.
The Mexico prison idea was proposed in the 1990s but shelved, partly due to legal concerns. It was revived in 2003 to help cover budget shortfalls but was rejected by a key legislative committee. "We really lose nothing but we set the table with what is a reasonable proposal," said Republican Rep. Russ Jones of San Luis, sponsor of the bill.
Democratic Rep. Ted Downing of Tucson, an opponent of the proposal, said the bill raises questions about jurisdiction, such as which government would have the ability to seek prisoners if they escape from such a prison.
Which is likely.
Republican Rep. John McCommish of Phoenix, who also voted against the bill, questioned whether the state could fulfill its responsibility to oversee a prison if it was located in anther country.
"This is a creative idea and worthy of exploration," said Republican Rep. Bill Konopnicki of Safford. Still, Konopnicki said he's not sure the idea would prevail if it were considered by the full House.
I think Mr. McCommish is right -- just how do you run a state prison located in another country?
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/17/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Adminster ten lashes to illegal border-crossers when they are caught, and ten more to illegals that end up committing an additional crime while here, then deport them. They won't come back.
#3
Didn't the Aussies own that obscure island, or is my always-poor memory failing me yet again?
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/17/2005 1:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
That was Nauru, an independent nation, and a failed state through financial mismanagement. (Nauru had plenty of money thru phosphate royalties, and blew it on bad real estate deals, and the like.) But from Australia's POV, the plan- illegals in boats are intercepted at sea and never allowed to reach our hallowed soil- works just fine. They can go home with a bit of cash incentive or stare out to sea forever. Autralia is not an option.
I should add that they are checked out very thoroughly, and genuine refugees do get in. Most are not.
#6
Well, the next big NAFTA opportunity is obvious: the illegal catch / release graft game. My guess is that if its ever built the actual population in that prison will approach zero and Mexican authorities will be bussing "escapees" back to the US border.
#7
If they escape into Mexico, our objective will be met. Pass a law that escapees who cross back into the U.S. automatically receive the death penalty, without opportunity for appeal, and the problem should keep itself away.
#9
Nice thought, AZCat, but it wouldn't do any good. Too few illegals are actually caught for it ot do more than deter those who have had bad luck or would be crossing close to where the prison is located.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
02/17/2005 7:31 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Let's do it. I nominate Lyndie England as head warden! AzCat's right though, this would only let the Mexican gov't get a hold of some State cash. I don't think this would work. Now, sending 'em to Gitmo, I'm open to that suggestion.
Posted by: BA ||
02/17/2005 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
#11
How do you prevent escapes?
1. Payment delivered only after prisoner has served his term.
2. Three time daily retina scans so no one takes an extended vacation and shows back up on the release day.
3. Give revocable green cards to certain members of Mexican staff.
#12
Assuming this could be done, which I doubt, you have one big logistical problem.
How far can you build it from the American border so that:
a) we can oversee that it is being run to a certain acceptable standard (more or less American standard, not Mexican...as much as you might want that, keep in mind they're our prisoners and the last thing we really need is another excuse for the ACLU/Middle Ground crowd to have even a ghost of a chance to bring suit, claiming it's another Abu Ghraib and crap like that), and
b) far enough away from the American border that it would be a pain in the ass to try to come back in should the prisoners escape or are released.
Some good news on this subject for once...
Ana Ortega left here for the USA 14 years ago. She never thought she'd return, much less like this: in handcuffs and ankle shackles, on a U.S. government jet with 49 others whose criminal convictions got them deported from the USA. Ortega, 27, said that she was a legal permanent U.S. resident and that until recently she was an office manager for a chiropractor in Boston's Dorchester neighborhood. Four years ago, she was convicted of conspiracy for being a bit player in a drug-smuggling ring. Her husband, a U.S. citizen and repeat offender, received 10 years in prison; she got probation. She was ordered to appear at a deportation hearing, but she skipped it. A little drug dealing, skip your hearing... no problem. You look like a great addition to American society, so don't worry about it.
In another time - before the Sept. 11 attacks focused attention on lax enforcement of immigration laws - she probably would have been free to continue living in the USA with her two young children. U.S. agents rarely pursued hundreds of thousands of fugitives like Ortega. That's what happened in her case for nearly three years - before agents showed up at her door seven months ago. Buenos dias, senorita!
On Monday, Ortega was sent back to the Dominican Republic on a flight from Boston that symbolized the U.S. government's increasingly aggressive push to expel immigrants who either are here illegally or violate the conditions of their stay by committing crimes. More than three years after John Ashcroft, then attorney general, cited the 9/11 attacks by foreign terrorists in announcing a broad crackdown on violators of immigration laws, the United States is deporting foreigners at an unprecedented pace. Damn! The Evil Ashkkkroft!
During the year that ended Sept. 30, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported a record 157,281 immigrants. Like Ortega and the others aboard the flight to Santo Domingo, more than half of those deported last year had criminal records, a reflection of ICE's emphasis on booting such people from the country. The jet that brought Ortega back here also included convicted drug dealers, sex offenders, robbers and wife beaters. Adios, muchachos!
As ICE agents have pursued criminals who are in the USA illegally, they also have swept up record numbers of illegal immigrants who have committed no crimes other than violations of visa limits and other immigration laws. That helped increase the total number of deportations by more than 45% from 2001 to 2004. Most of those deported - more than 70% in 2004 - have been returned to Mexico. Most of the rest have been sent back to Central or South America or to the Dominican Republic. ICE now has four jets that in 2003 alone made 317 flights to return more than 18,500 immigrants to their native countries. "We're busy all the time," says Jonathan Rust, chief of the Air Transportation Unit for ICE, which is a division of the Department of Homeland Security. "We have two (Boeing) 737s and two MD-83s, and I could probably use two more." Get them for him. Money well spent.
ICE expects the number of deportations to increase again this year. In his 2006 budget, President Bush has requested an additional $170 million above the $1.4 billion that ICE's Detention and Removal program will get in 2005. "We're going to make the community safer by removing aliens who come into the country and commit crimes," says Victor Cerda, acting director of Detention and Removal. Detention and Removal. I like that. I wonder if they got T shirts?
Those targeted for deportation represent a small fraction of the estimated 8 million illegal immigrants in the USA. Most illegal immigrants are unknown to U.S. immigration officials. Only those who are caught trying to enter the USA or who otherwise reveal themselves - such as by committing crimes, applying for asylum or seeking government benefits - become targets for deportation.
Despite the rising number of deportations, U.S. agents have struggled to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who have disobeyed orders to leave the country or who have failed to appear at deportation hearings. That number has remained at an estimated 400,000 because immigrants continue to flow into the USA - particularly along the Southwest border - and illegal immigrants continue to defy orders to appear at deportation hearings. Detention and Removal identifies non-citizens who have been ordered by a federal judge to leave the country but who have ignored the orders or failed to appeal in court.
Agents also track non-citizens who are serving time for serious crimes and bring their cases to an immigration judge. If the judge orders them deported, they can be sent to their home country as soon as they are released from prison."I think some aliens were willing to take the risk of not complying with the laws," Cerda says. "The message I want to get out is, 'We're not going to forget about you.' These people are being identified, and we're ... sending them home." Cerda sounds like a fun guy.
At an airfield near Boston, the deportees boarded a government 737 in handcuffs and ankle shackles after U.S. marshals searched them for weapons.
After the jet landed here, the marshals removed the handcuffs and shackles. The deportees walked off the jet and into the custody of Dominican immigration officials. Any of the deportees with outstanding warrants in the Dominican Republic were to be kept in custody; the rest were to be freed.
Ortega says she was sad to have left the USA. Her son, 8, and her daughter, 5, are U.S. citizens and will live with Ortega's mother in the USA. "It wouldn't be fair for them to have to live in a country they've never lived in," Ortega says. An immigration judge ruled that Ortega should be banned from the USA for life, but she plans to ask the U.S. Embassy in the Dominican Republic whether there's a chance she could return to the USA. "People make mistakes," she says. "Now it's not only me, but my kids who will pay." Yeah, it's... for the children. Boo fuckin hoo hoo.
#3
"swept up record numbers of illegal immigrants who have committed no crimes other than violations of visa limits and other immigration laws. "
I seem to remember a bunch of people whose only violations of the law was to overstay thier visa. Last I saw of them, they had hijacked some airplanes and slammed them into various buildings...
#4
What I don't get is why she didn't get a "green card" - become a permanent resident. Even if she was illegal, being married to a citizen and having US-born children is an automatic in.
#5
probably had a criminal record and couldn't get the card. Since she and hubs were doing the drug ring around the kids, her concern for them is a little late, no?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
She did have a 'green card' or a permanent resident card. It appears they they rescended(sp?) it and shipped her drug-dealing ass back. Or perhaps they found that she had lied on her application.
I seem to recall there being a question on the application like 'Do you intend to deal drugs in the united states'....
And she won a LIFETIME BAN! WHOOPIE! There are procedure for appealing a ban of course but I dont think the Embassy can just set it aside.
#9
Beating on Moore and Soros is one thing, completely dismissing the needs of kids is cruel. The tone of this thing is interesting. The need to fight terror in as ruthless a manner as possible is clear. Dismissing the needs of kids is another matter.
#10
Send the kids back too. We don't need them here either.
Posted by: mac ||
02/17/2005 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Most of those deported - more than 70% in 2004 - have been returned to Mexico.
Considering how many illegal aliens are estimated to be residing in the U.S. at this time, the actual number deported to Mexico can't be too big.
Dismissing the needs of kids is another matter.
Sorry, but the appeal-to-compassion approach no longer works for a lot of us. You see, one too many illegal immigrants have used their kids as "anchors" in the expectation that they'll be allowed to stay, and quite frankly, it's bullshit.
#12
"Dismissing the needs of kids is another matter."
-I think that was her fault, cause meet effect.
Overall I think the gov't did a fine job in looking after the needs of kids. They kicked this drug dealing bitch outta the country didn't they?
#13
A bit player in a drug-smuggling ring and failing to appear for a hearing. Husband got 10 years in prison. -- I think it's just as well the kids are separated from the parents. And if Mom is 27, Grandmom is probably not old enough to be on Social Security.
Oh, and if this "bit player in a drug-smuggling ring" was in Singapore she'd be executed.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/17/2005 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
#14
If she cared about her kids, she wouldn't have been dealing drugs.
#15
Ditto someone! I dont want the dismiss the needs of the kids but I am basically sick and the whole 'for the children' bullshit. We cannot allow the illegals to stay basically 'for the children' otherwise all they would have to do is spawn a few kids and they have it made. If she really cared about her kids she whouldn't have been dealing drugs.
SHE is the one who was dealing. SHE is the one who violated her permanent residence. SHE is the one who is to blame. I feel sorry for the kids but perhaps they are better off.
#16
"swept up record numbers of illegal immigrants who have committed no crimes other than violations of visa limits and other immigration laws. "
I seem to remember a bunch of people whose only violations of the law was to overstay thier visa. Last I saw of them, they had hijacked some airplanes and slammed them into various buildings...
#17
"swept up record numbers of illegal immigrants who have committed no crimes other than violations of visa limits and other immigration laws. "
I seem to remember a bunch of people whose only violations of the law was to overstay thier visa. Last I saw of them, they had hijacked some airplanes and slammed them into various buildings...
If you are not thoroughly bored with Kyoto and climate change, this is a thoughtful view from a research scientist published in USA Today. I particularly liked the conclusion.
One small step for man, one giant leap backward for mankind. That's how Wednesday's official start of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty that aims to limit global warming, should be greeted. In 2001, the United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol over concerns that it will limit economic growth and put an unfair burden on developed countries, while rapidly developing countries — such as India and China — get a pass. Democrats and Republicans in Washington have been strangely united in opposition. And they're right.
Kyoto is unusual in that it is, in effect, an agreement to restrain economic growth. By using regulatory fiat instead of market forces, it punishes the production of energy that drives modern life. Its emissions reduction targets are so modest that they will have little effect on future global warming, no matter what you believe that warming to be. Instead, the Kyoto Protocol is seen as a "first step" toward reductions in greenhouse-gas production. But even this first step will hurt the economies of most industrialized countries that participate.
What the U.S. is doing: This week, the United States reminded the world that it isn't sitting idly by as the Earth melts. "While the United States and countries with binding emissions restrictions under the Kyoto Protocol are taking different paths, our destination is the same," said Richard Boucher of the State Department. He said the U.S. will spend about $5.8 billion this year alone on research into climate change and potential technology to fight it. Former Energy secretary Spencer Abraham said last year that the United States is investing more in new or clean energy research over the next five years than any other country. Hydrogen, clean coal, nuclear, fusion and renewables such as solar and wind are among the areas being aggressively researched. Though the Department of Energy admits these efforts will take years to decades to bear fruit, research — not minor and economically damaging cutbacks in carbon-dioxide production — is what will solve the problem.
No doubt, some countries have signed on to the treaty for political reasons. Russia had strongly opposed the treaty. Then in May, the European Union told Russia that if it wanted to be part of the World Trade Organization, it would have to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Suddenly, late last year, Russia became a supporter. Also, the majority of the countries participating in Kyoto are undeveloped, and many of those stand to receive large payoffs by selling carbon credits (basically, a right to pollute) to industrialized countries. This is the economic shell game of the treaty.
What about the science? And what of the global warming science that the Kyoto treaty is built upon? The Earth has indeed warmed in the past 100 years by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, although it is unknown how much of that is because of man's activities. Though a majority of climate researchers believe we now have enough understanding of how the climate system will react to a small increase in the greenhouse-gas concentration, this is an example of the scientific overconfidence that has contributed to a public distrust in scientific predictions. A minority of scientists, myself included, believe that the climate has as yet poorly understood stabilizing mechanisms that limit the amount of warming that will occur.
After the self-congratulatory applause subsides, it will be interesting to see how many participating countries meet their Kyoto emissions targets. The United Kingdom has already asked for, and was denied, a reprieve from the EU. Action, not good intentions, will eventually solve the energy problem. In the coming years, the U.S. will continue to invest in research that will, once again, save the day.
Roy Spencer performs government-sponsored climate monitoring research at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Posted by: phil_b ||
02/17/2005 4:27:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The Star, Malaysia
Thursday February 17, 2005
Brunei bans Reeves' new flick 'Constantine'
KUALA LUMPUR: Brunei has banned Keanu Reeves' new film "Constantine," an apocalyptic thriller that depicts demon possessions, visions of hell and a renegade angel, an official said yesterday.
The movie has been deemed unsuitable for public viewing, Ahmad Kadir, the secretary of the Brunei government's Censor Board, said by telephone from the capital, Bandar Seri Begawan.
However, he declined to reveal the reasons for the board's decision. Typical bureaucrat siege mentality.
Reeves: Plays an exorcist who dispatches demons back to the underworld. Brunei has some of South-East Asia's strictest censorship guidelines for movies and songs, especially involving material that might be considered offensive to Islam.
Constantine, which opens in the United States on Friday, is steeped in Roman Catholic mythology and features Reeves as a chain-smoking exorcist who dispatches demons back to the underworld in hopes of erasing a mortal sin he once committed. Are these censors submitting to the Demon lobby, or don't they like chain-smoking exorcists?
In one scene, Reeves' character lashes out at heaven, calling God "a kid with an ant farm.'' God: and you Reeves are a wooden actor, with as much emotional range as Chuck Norris.
Satan also shows up in the movie's climactic moments, dressed in crisp white apparel and licking his lips as Reeves' character battles to stop a supernatural evil from taking over the world. Only a bit part for the prince of darkness? Must have a bad agent.
The film opened last week in Malaysia.
Malaysian censors edited out several curse words and rated the movie as having "non-excessive violent and horrifying scenes,'' but did not object to the religious material. —AP
Posted by: IToldYouSo ||
02/17/2005 2:40:38 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
my sons wanna see this at the matinee this weekend - I'll post a short review after. Today's SD paper said it was a dog, but the reviewer's a puss who likes Terms of Endearment-type movies over any Clint Eastwood movie, so I don't use his reviews as a guide. He didn't like Hellboy either
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Don't be dissin' my boy Chuckie. You want range? Think Keanu-lint could jump kick in the head Kareem Abdul Jabar? Now that's range.
Posted by: ed ||
02/17/2005 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I have to agree with the bureaucrat that the film may be unsuitable for public viewing. It does have Keanu Reeves, after all. Haven't liked him much in anything since Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.
As critics of Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers step up pressure for him to resign or radically alter the way he leads the university, a few professors have begun rallying to his defense.
Late yesterday, one of Harvard's most famous faculty members, law professor Alan Dershowitz, issued a statement backing Summers's presidency, in which he said the storm of opposition "sounds like the trial of Galileo."
"This is truly a time of crisis for Harvard," he wrote. "The crisis is over whether a politically correct straightjacket will be placed over the thinking of everybody in this institution by one segment of the faculty."
In an interview yesterday, Dershowitz noted that the recent condemnation has come from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which includes the undergraduate college and the traditional doctoral programs, but is only one of Harvard's 10 schools.
"They are only one constituency and they must stop pretending they are the university," he said yesterday, adding that he does not believe faculty members fear Summers. "There is a hard-left ideological group who are opposed to him; there is a group of faculty who will never forgive him for the statements he made about Israel."
Steven Pinker, who has been one of Summers's most outspoken defenders, said some professors are afraid to stand up for the president because they could be punished by colleagues who sit on committees that control the fate of a student or a research project.
Posted by: Biff Wellington ||
02/17/2005 11:24:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Marcella Bombardieri
Great name, almost as cool as Biff's.
#2
I'm sure if he said women were being held back by "Little Eichmanns" he'd have gotten a prize and speaking engagement offers.
Look, more men than women are clustered at the top of the bell curve for math. There are also more men than women clustered at the bottom. BFD.
The idea that maybe, just maybe, an intelligent woman might decide on a career that some mopes at Harvard believe is "beneath her", for whatever reason, apparently is too offensive to be said.
When she took over PBS five years ago, Pat Mitchell seemed expertly qualified. She had been a college professor, a local TV producer, reporter and anchor as well as a correspondent on NBC's "Today" show and a CNN producer — the first producer to become the public broadcaster's president.
But three years into the job, Mitchell was saying, "I had no idea how hard it was going to be." The Public Broadcasting Service's ratings, which began to fall as cable TV spread in the '90s, continued to sag, prompting Mitchell to warn public TV programmers in 2002: "We are dangerously close in our overall prime-time numbers to falling below the relevance quotient..." This stems from three problems: crumby programming, leftist politics, and crumby programming.
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
02/17/2005 11:06:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
PBS's big problem is that there is now a universe of cable channels carrying the quality programming PBS used to have a monopoly on. National Geographic Channel, Arts & Entertainment, Discovery Channel, BBC America, Hallmark Channel, etc. Plus you can pick up DVD's of them at your local store or order them on line. There is no longer any reason for PBS to receive any public funding, period! Pull the plug.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/17/2005 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
But if the public trough is closed, who will employ Bill Moyers et al?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I hate the politics of the people who run PBS. Having said that I'm the first to admit that from time to time they do get some things right. For example: The other evening NOVA had a program detailing the efforts (past, present, and future) to preserve our original founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights etc). I'm not ashamed to admit the program brought tears to my eyes.
We are truly the greatest country on Earth. Or, if you like, we're the greatest country in the history of mankind.
Posted by: Mark Z. ||
02/17/2005 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mark, there are quality programs on PBS, interspersed with teh drivel. We shouldn't be paying for it, though. A private channel would pick up Nova in a second. BBC-type support makes them flabby, lazy, and isolated, like Academia's ivory towers
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bill Moyers recently announced his retirement, so that's one problem taken care of.
#6
Both PBS and CPB (the radio side) should lose their subsidies, and their tax exemptions. They long ago ceased to be "non-commercial" and follow their donation money as slavishly as any other commercial broadcasters follow their advertising dollars. In an age of cable and the web, they've outlived their purpose.
And that's before you look at their political slant.
#7
So what is the Federal budget numbers on PBS this year? If they cannot be taken off the trough, they should have their funding decreased (wean effect).
I saw some videos of Bill Moyers interviewing Joseph Campbell (Joseph Campbell and the power of Myth) some years ago. Campbell was on a roll, explaining things with such eloquence, and Moyers was asking semi dumb questions. Moyers did not have a clue.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/17/2005 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#8
When I see Juan Williams and Mar Eliason (sp?) on Brit Hume's show I want to hurl. I know we pay them some level of salary from tax $. Whatever it is, it's too much. The absurdity of taxpayer-subsidized "journalists" always occupying the Far Lefty position on a panel discussion show - regularly - is insane. If anything they should be the centrist member. They're not. Not even close.
A team of experts expects to announce in March whether the latest test results on the mummified body of Tutankhamun will provide evidence for the theory that the boy pharaoh was murdered.
Zahi Hawass, head of the Egyptian government's Supreme Council for Antiquities, told Reuters that results from a high tech x-ray scan of the mummy would help explain a bone chip in the skull that has sparked the murder theory... The butler did it.
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
02/17/2005 10:49:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
02/17/2005 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Steve, that would be Karnak, Egypt. Karnak was a central temple area within Thebes, teeming with plotting Amun priests. Although Tut was a convert to Amun cult from his father's Aton heresy, he was still seen as an affront to the Amun hierarchy, a spawn of the "devil".
#3
Thanks to both of you for the enlightenment. I thought it had something to with Johnny Carson's character, the Great Karnak, who provided questions to predetermined answers. For example:
A: A, B, C, D, E, F, G.
Q: What were some of the earlier forms of Preparation H?
#5
The butler probably did do it. Servants could be bribed to let assassins in or to poison the food or the massage oil or the perfume.
Ahkenaton threw out the Amon and other priesthoods in order to establish worship of one god, the sun disk, the Aton. The Amon priesthood was just as crooked in its own way as the Renaissance Papacy, and was as omnipresent and powerful too; and it did not take kindly to reformation. When Akhenaton died without an adult heir, his reforms died with him. It was very easy for the politicians and the Amon priesthood to cow a nine year old kid, and any signs of independent thinking from a young monarch on the verge of manhood would be a most serious threat.
#6
Sgt.D.T., it has been a veeeery long time since my TV was on (playing DVDs does not count). In fact, 3 years +. CSI or CIS does not matter to me either way.
#7
Whoops. My boo. CIS is "Criminal Investigative Service", the Army's investigative police; CSI is the "Crime Scenes Investigation", which is the name of the series, though I don't know if it is an official civilian police designation.
Chafing over a "wardrobe malfunction" and racy radio shock-jock programs, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency. Lawmakers sought to hit broadcasters where it hurts — the pocketbook — in approving the measure 389-38, rejecting criticism that the penalties would stifle free speech and expression and further homogenize programming. The bill would increase the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer. "With passage of this legislation, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House telecommunications panel and author of the bill. "Our kids will be better off for it."
The White House said in a statement that it strongly supports the legislation that "will make broadcast television and radio more suitable for family viewing." A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, where it has broad bipartisan support. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Commerce Committee, has said he wants to act on the bill quickly, but he hasn't given a timetable. Any differences in the two bills would have to be resolved before it can go to President Bush for his signature. Last year the two chambers were unable to reach a compromise. Opponents said they were concerned that stiffer fines by the Federal Communications Commission would lead to more self-censorship by broadcasters and entertainers unclear about the definition of "indecent." They cited the example of several ABC affiliates that did not air the World War II drama "Saving Private Ryan" last years because of worries that violence and profanity would lead to fines, even though the movie already had aired on network TV.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said changing the channel is the best way for families to avoid racy programming. "But the prurient Puritans of this House are not satisfied with free choice and the free market," Nadler said. "Instead, they want the government to decide what is or is not appropriate for the public to watch or listen to..." 389-38? Pathetic. I look forward to new congressional hearings about how the Cartoon Network is turning the next generation into serial killers. Those darn Powerpuff girls.
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
02/17/2005 10:17:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That headline is just wrong, in so many ways...
#4
The electro-magnetic spectrum, as far as it falls within the American area, is public domain, just as 'public' lands are. If you don't mind clear cutting forests or strip mining land, then well, yes, go ahead and do anything you want. However, if you accept that the government is responible for stewardship of the property on behalf of the people, then it will set up standards and regulations. This is open broadcast, not cable, not satellite, that is being addressed. If you want your kicks they're readily available now in accessible venues. Otherwise, just vote the bums out, if you can.
The US share of worldwide high-tech exports has dropped from 31 percent to 18 percent over the past 20 years in what could foreshadow the loss of the country's leadership position in science and technology, a blue ribbon expert panel has warned.
The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation created by leading US companies and scientific and business associations sounded the alarm Wednesday as it presented a report indicating that the United States was gradually losing its position as the world leader in scientific and technological research, primarily to the fast-growing economies in Asia. "US employers are being forced to look overseas, as they face shortages of qualified technically trained talent in the US," said Craig Barrett, chief executive officer of Intel Corporation, a member of the task force. "If this trend continues, new technologies, and the constellation of support industries surrounding them, will increasingly develop overseas, not here."
The signs of trouble outlined in the report range from a decrease in the volume of academic research to stagnant funding for research and development offered by both the government and corporate America. As the US share in global high-tech exports was dropping, China, South Korea and other emerging Asian economies boosted theirs from seven percent in 1980 to 25 percent in 2001, according to the study. Moreover, the high-tech industries of many Asian countries grew faster in the 1990s than that of the United States. China's output in that sector, for example, shot up more than eight-fold -- from 30 billion dollars to 257 billion over the decade -- while in the United States, it just doubled from 423 billion dollars to 940 billion.
The root cause of that phenomenon may lie in the decreasing interest in science and engineering consistently displayed by young Americans. According to the report, enrollment in science and engineering classes at US universities dropped 10 percent for US citizens between 1994 and 2001 but increased by 25 percent for foreign-born students.
Posted by: phil_b ||
02/17/2005 12:44:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The root cause it that the titans of industry prefer to outsource overseas rather then retain or hire US citizens. I know that from personal experience. An H2B visa holder is even preferable to a citizen as they can kick them out of the country if they don't play good yes men.
#2
From a WashTimes article: "The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation was formed by scientific societies, universities, businesses like IBM, Hewlett Packard, Texas Instruments and Intel and trade associations like the National Association of Manufacturers."
There are many different axes being ground, some nationalistic, some altruistic, some mercenary, and some of the people behind this organization are the ones demanding work visas so they can import cheap labor - not supporting any US effort to increase the native development of qualified engineers and scientists.
There's a lot to this issue, certainly more than merely producing qualified people. It's cost of research, cost of production, corporate tax laws, and a hundred other issues.
#3
3dc to blame industry completly misses the point. If US companies don't source at the lowest cost their competitors will and drive out of business. Its how capitalism works.
.com, I agree there are many issues at work, but funding coparative ethnic studies or whatever, in preference to science and engineering is a big part of the problem and causes other problems like the woeful ignorance of basic science that leads to the global warming/kyoto lunacy amoungst other things.
#4
I doubt there's more than a hair's difference between us, phil_b.
I'm certainly not in favor of the PC-ized education system. We don't need ethnic studies. If doesn't have squat to do with anything whatsoever.
We do need mathematicians, physicists, every scientific discipline, every medical discipline, and engineers of every stripe.
Assuming we're talking about tech-intensive companies, per the article, I have an observation to offer...
King Stockholder runs the show in "new" corporations - hungry for development capital - that period before they prove their mettle and win market share. Then, unless the corp management is stupid and terminally greedy, they are subordinated to research, which rises to maintain the market share through innovation. The stockholders come because you're a Rolex in your industry, not because they're bribed and begged. Declining companies failed to continue putting research first - or failed to pay to get the talent for research to develop new and better products. Even the inertia of the giants can come to a grinding halt without continued emphasis on research. IBM is one of those which damned near fell on its face, thanks to its upper management's inability to accept the fact that no company is too big to fail.
#5
Article: According to the report, enrollment in science and engineering classes at US universities dropped 10 percent for US citizens between 1994 and 2001 but increased by 25 percent for foreign-born students.
It's weird how supposedly intelligent people can come up with the idea that Americans are less interested in science. The reason foreign enrolments are increasing and American enrolments are falling is because foreigners are becoming more prosperous - and more able to afford American college educations. Foreigners aren't stupid - they just have less money.
Note also that a rise in the number (and therefore the quality) of foreign applications will coincide with a fall in American enrolments - technical schools tend to accept applicants based on academic ability. If they want to ensure that more Americans enter technical schools, they need to start discriminating against foreign applicants instead of treating foreigners as if they were Americans. After all, it is not the taxpayers' responsibility to subsidize the educations of foreign students.
Bottom line - I think this is world citizen thinking on the part of both the corporations and the colleges. The colleges don't feel any allegiance to Americans, and - instead of doing the logical thing and accepting more Americans - just want a forum to keep themselves in the public eye. The corporations, staffed as they are by foreigners on US soil, don't feel any allegiance to Americans and just want to sound like they're doing something to divert the political heat they get by outsourcing.
#6
Article: Chinaâs output in that sector, for example, shot up more than eight-fold -- from 30 billion dollars to 257 billion over the decade -- while in the United States, it just doubled from 423 billion dollars to 940 billion.
Some of this is double-counting, with regard to China's numbers. If China were really manufacturing that level of product, it would be a First World country rather than one of the poorer Third World countries. Note that China's total industrial output was just over $1T. The idea that IT is 25% of China's economy while being under 10% of the US economy is so ludicrous, I think the guys who write this kind of stuff ought to be stripped of their college degrees and be sentenced to having to retake all of their college courses.
#7
Following on from Zhang's point. My brother is a US university prof in a scientific/technical discipline and at any time he has 6 to 8 grad students. They are overwhelmingly non-American (perhaps 80%). He says the quality of overseas applicants is so much better and he is only required to get the best candidates. There are two issues here. One is not enough good people go into scientific technical education. The other is the USA should stop subsidized education of foriegners. While it is admirable (and almost totally ignored) that almost all the worlds leading scientists and engineers get educated at US and to a lesser extent UK and Australian universities, you are training your future competition.
#8
phil_b: Following on from Zhang's point. My brother is a US university prof in a scientific/technical discipline and at any time he has 6 to 8 grad students. They are overwhelmingly non-American (perhaps 80%). He says the quality of overseas applicants is so much better and he is only required to get the best candidates. There are two issues here. One is not enough good people go into scientific technical education. The other is the USA should stop subsidized education of foriegners.
I think great people go into technical education. In head-to-head competition - based on academics alone - Uncle Sam is only 5% of the world's population, yet generates 20% of the best technical minds. The problem isn't a lack of good technical minds - it's a lack of political will - in the sense of imposing the requirement that Federally-funded colleges admit foreigners only to the extent that they pay the full price of their education.
#10
gromgorru, some stay, some leave. I couldn't give you numbers. My brother is one of the foreign grad students who stayed and now heads a Federal Drug Administration Committee amoungst other things. One clear benefit to the US is high quality immigrants.
#11
GG, lots of them stay, seduced by the freedom and affluence of the U.S. Many of those that go back were also so seduced, but couldn't come up with a legitimate visa allowing them to stay. (Daddy worked exclusively with post docs, so I grew up hearing about this dilemma). So, they take their taste for affluence and freedom back with them to their home countries. Truth to tell, while we are thusly creating our future competition, this is also an extremely effective missionary program.
#12
It's weird how supposedly intelligent people can come up with the idea that Americans are less interested in science.
There's probably a difference but "less interested" might not be quite the right way to describe it. "More fearful of" or "less educated about" would likely be closer to the truth. As a society our lack of scientific education / understanding begins with out failed public schools but that's another rant entirely.
#13
Right. We don't have to raise all the future techs to prosper, we just have to integrate them into our economy. And no other system is set up to reward innovation (without corruption and more visible gov't drags) like ours. Funny Rantburg article not too long ago about top European research scientists all coming over...
#14
US business leaders and government have created the problem. The US used to have the top R&D labs in the world. Companies have been shutting them down, filling them with H1B's or outsourcing them for years. Bell Labs is a shadow of it's former self. Same for Parc, TJ Watson, Sarnoff, etc. It's expensive and difficult to get an education for technology. Why would a smart student bust their butt getting a degree and then a graduate degree in math, engineering, or science when they are going to end up unemployed. Why not get a law degree and make a ton of money suing people.
#15
As the US share in global high-tech exports was dropping, China, South Korea and other emerging Asian economies boosted theirs from seven percent in 1980 to 25 percent in 2001, according to the study.
I'm curious - how are these guys defining "exports"? If a U.S. company does its R&D here but sets up shop in China for the sole purpose of manufacturing the end product to be sold worldwide (as is the case in many instances), are those products "exports" of China exclusively?
"US employers are being forced to look overseas, as they face shortages of qualified technically trained talent in the US," said Craig Barrett, chief executive officer of Intel Corporation, a member of the task force.
I've heard of quite a few instances where engineers have gone unemployed for a long time due to their qualification level - the pay they would command is more than a company is willing to shell out, not to mention the age angle. (young engineers == more energetic, less out-of-company obligations, etc etc....you know the drill)
Personally, I think Barrett is just shoveling warm meadow muffins.
#16
#15
I've heard of quite a few instances where engineers have gone unemployed for a long time due to their qualification level - the pay they would command is more than a company is willing to shell out, not to mention the age angle. (young engineers == more energetic, less out-of-company obligations, etc etc....you know the drill),
I am one of those people. Motorola told me when I was part of one of their massive layoffs that they intended to replace me with 5 Indian engineers. I had been doing R&D and D for them for 13 years. Now, my resume scares the heck out of other people and doesn't fit any of PeopleSoft's PeopleClick filters that all the Fortune 500 hire through.
I have two smart sons. I directed one toward journalism and the other art. I would not wish engineering on any American with the current corporate environment.
#17
sounds like the Chinese reps from Loral have spoken
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Now, my resume scares the heck out of other people and doesn't fit any of PeopleSoft's PeopleClick filters that all the Fortune 500 hire through.
Similar story here. My own field of study is pretty obscure, but along the way I've developed some skills that would be useful to industry. I thought I'd found a good match a while back, with a huge company that makes the devices that I'd been using in my work. This was just a technician's job, but, hey, it was something I could do, and even a "mere" technician can pull down more than a PhD doing basic, arcane research. So I applied, as directed, through the web site.
I was rejected in minutes. By the web site. By software.
An industry that can afford to let software do its hiring is not an industry that is in dire need of trained people. When industry headhunters are hunting my pure scientist pals, then I'll believe that there's really a tech shortage.
#20
#8 The problem isn't a lack of good technical minds - it's a lack of political will - in the sense of imposing the requirement that Federally-funded colleges admit foreigners only to the extent that they pay the full price of their education.
ZF is correct. As a recent Ph.D. in Physics I can say that the lack of young americans interest in the sciences and engineering is purely financial and the goverments policies are exaserbating the problem. It takes to long and has to much oportunity-cost for americans to go into the sciences and engineering. Stop the subsidizing of forgein students education and the universities will have to start recruiting from US high schools. They will have to revamp their programs so it doesn't take 6 years to get an advanced degree which cost the students many years of lost income. And while I can't say anything good about the public school system, but it only takes a small numbers of the best students to decide to become scientist/engineers instead of laywers to change the system from what it is now.
#21
law students wouldn't become engineers and scientists just like that - they typically CAN'T do the math required, nor do they want to
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/17/2005 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#22
The flaw in the "outsourcing helps America" nonsense is what is showing here.
To maintina the "top of the food chain" technology jobs, we have to have lots of college educated peopel taking on technology tegress, with hard math, hard science and solid engineering. And the best fo thos are generally proven through experience gained in the very jobs we are shipping overseas.
So people like my son, they see no tech jobs worth having at the entry level, only "senior" positions are open (and naturally a lot fewer of them). So he goes away from the science/engineering/math technology "feeder" degree, and is looking into management instead.
Outsorucein is decimating our entry level technology job market to the point where nobody wants to go in it. And when the current generation retires out, there will be no Americans to follow-on in thier footsteps outside of those who hold high Security Clearances and have worked for the government their whole career.
Outsourcing must be stopped - punitive taxes must be applied to reflect the true cost to society for outsourcing should be placed on the companies that do this. Outsource DOES cost the nation - and the companiues that do it have not saved the economy uch anything - they have just invisibly shifted the price to people down the pipe who will pay severely later.
We punish speeders because they endanger others. Why are these outsourcing companies given a free ride when they are endangering the very survivability of the republic?
#23
Old Spook
As one of the senior jobs outsourced. Tell me how the heck I can get a high Security Clearance and feast on those jobs when all those jobs require an existing high security clearance before they will hire you. Its a catch 22. I was in the commerical field but the overlap is extreme with current security type jobs.
#24
t's all about Money OldSpook. Greed is driving the outsourcing. We have a pretty large number of corporate leaders and management who have little loyalty to our country apparently and only care about their over generous pay and benefit packages. They do lots of things that damage our economy to make sure they can live like royalty. I don't begrudge anyone who earns a good living and a generous salary and benefit package but lots of this is just insane.
My daughter got her master in Physics last spring. She is working as a high school math teacher.( Same place Mom works and the school she graduated with honors from..) She is qualified to teach Calculus. She teaches Freshmen Algebra this year. She was told that 38% of the freshmen class this did not graduate from middle school they were passed through. How are we going to compete with raw material like that?
#26
The flaw in the "outsourcing helps America" nonsense is what is showing here.
To maintina the "top of the food chain" technology jobs, we have to have lots of college educated peopel taking on technology tegress, with hard math, hard science and solid engineering. And the best fo thos are generally proven through experience gained in the very jobs we are shipping overseas.
So people like my son, they see no tech jobs worth having at the entry level, only "senior" positions are open (and naturally a lot fewer of them). So he goes away from the science/engineering/math technology "feeder" degree, and is looking into management instead.
Outsorucein is decimating our entry level technology job market to the point where nobody wants to go in it. And when the current generation retires out, there will be no Americans to follow-on in thier footsteps outside of those who hold high Security Clearances and have worked for the government their whole career.
Outsourcing must be stopped - punitive taxes must be applied to reflect the true cost to society for outsourcing should be placed on the companies that do this. Outsource DOES cost the nation - and the companiues that do it have not saved the economy uch anything - they have just invisibly shifted the price to people down the pipe who will pay severely later.
We punish speeders because they endanger others. Why are these outsourcing companies given a free ride when they are endangering the very survivability of the republic?
#27
The flaw in the "outsourcing helps America" nonsense is what is showing here.
To maintina the "top of the food chain" technology jobs, we have to have lots of college educated peopel taking on technology tegress, with hard math, hard science and solid engineering. And the best fo thos are generally proven through experience gained in the very jobs we are shipping overseas.
So people like my son, they see no tech jobs worth having at the entry level, only "senior" positions are open (and naturally a lot fewer of them). So he goes away from the science/engineering/math technology "feeder" degree, and is looking into management instead.
Outsorucein is decimating our entry level technology job market to the point where nobody wants to go in it. And when the current generation retires out, there will be no Americans to follow-on in thier footsteps outside of those who hold high Security Clearances and have worked for the government their whole career.
Outsourcing must be stopped - punitive taxes must be applied to reflect the true cost to society for outsourcing should be placed on the companies that do this. Outsource DOES cost the nation - and the companiues that do it have not saved the economy uch anything - they have just invisibly shifted the price to people down the pipe who will pay severely later.
We punish speeders because they endanger others. Why are these outsourcing companies given a free ride when they are endangering the very survivability of the republic?
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.
Welcome to the first ever Middle East Sex Survey. Please complete the survey as your experiences and opinions are valuable to us.
WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail. What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement. "We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs," one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. "I've never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view."
WASHINGTON - China's military buildup could tilt the strategic balance with Taiwan and also threaten US forces in Asia, CIA director Porter Goss warned on Wednesday. Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Goss also highlighted threats to the United States from North Korea, which he warned could resume missile tests anytime after boasting of its nuclear weapons' might last week. "Beijing's military modernisation and military buildup could tilt the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait," said Goss, who took over as CIA director in September. "Improved Chinese capabilities threaten US forces in the region," he told the committee assessing the main security threats to the United States.
Sir 
Chafing over a "wardrobe malfunction" and racy radio shock-jock programs, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency. Lawmakers sought to hit broadcasters where it hurts — the pocketbook — in approving the measure 389-38, rejecting criticism that the penalties would stifle free speech and expression and further homogenize programming. The bill would increase the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer. "With passage of this legislation, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House telecommunications panel and author of the bill. "Our kids will be better off for it." 
