Again? How many times are we gonna post this thing?
An Iranian newspaper has reported the controversial story of a woman who claims to have given birth to a frog. The Iranian daily Etemaad says the creature is believed to have grown from larva to an adult frog inside her body. While it is unclear how this could have happened,
My guess is that she was doinked by Kermit...
the paper carries quotes from medical experts who say there are human characteristics to the animal. It has been speculated that the woman, who has not been named, unknowingly picked up the larva while she was swimming in a dirty pool.
Or maybe from a toilet seat?
The woman, from the south-eastern city of Iranshahr, is a mother of two children.
... one of them a toad and the other a wildebeest...
The "so-called frog", as the newspaper puts it, has yet to undergo precise genetic and anatomic tests. But it quotes clinical biology expert Dr Aminifard as saying: "The similarities are in appearance, the shape of the fingers and the size and shape of the tongue." Medical history recounts stories of people who believed they had frogs - or even lizards or snakes - living and growing in their bodies. One of the most famous was the 17th Century case of Catharina Geisslerin, known as "the toad-vomiting woman" of Germany. When she died in 1662 doctors are said to have performed an autopsy, but found no evidence animals had ever lived inside her body.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
07/02/2004 1:54:32 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#13
guess what folks - i came out a neo-con - there are at least one or two I answered in a non neocon or soft neocon way, but that didnt matter. Of course there were no questions about domestic policy, and the only one about a Spefic region of the world other than the middle east was about China. So it was the issues on which im closest to neocon.
#17
g - that was only a how much attention to for vs domestic - it was basically looking to see how isolationist you are. I responded with the most aggressive-internationalist-hawkish of the four options (which i think makes sense NOW) and that probably put me further into the neocon area. Nothing on purely domestic issues.
#18
I'm non-scientifically a realist. Who woulda thunk it. The difference between realist and NeoCon seems to be the last question. (Yeah, I played around with the quiz to see what I'd get if I answered this one or that one differently.)
I actually got Isolationist based on my answer to the Korean Peninsula question. Not sure I agree with that assessment.
#23
Realist here, too! I'm with you, BH, WTF is a "historical neo-con"???? If that's not a complete oxymoron (although, moron fits with some of the Monitor's articles), I don't know what is! And they listed Reagan as a neo-con!
Posted by: BA ||
07/02/2004 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Strange thing for me was I am sure I am a realist, but it gave ye necon label. I have always--or so I thought--held to a vision of realpolitik.
My first ever FP book at uni was by John W. Spanier: Games Nations Play. This was first ever venture into FP and came out hard core.
#33
I thought I'd be a realist or an isolationist. I scored isolationist, which is fine by me, Pat Buchanan notwithstanding. From the posts I've read here, I'm with Jarhead, and that's great company, I'd say.
Posted by: rex ||
07/02/2004 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Rex Mundi> Told you my result already at #3 --- "realist". Want me to give you all my answers so you can confirm by yourself?
Liberalhawk> It lists all the categories after you take the test. There's also the "liberal" category, besides the ones you mentioned.
#40
Wow, I wanted to be a neocon, but came up realist! Law school must've beat the neocon right out of me -- not. ; )
P.S. Jarhead, a realist is an isolationist who knows that, in order to stay safe here at home and be left alone, we have to go kick some butt and take some names.
#41
So, Jen and Silent Brick, we could form a new party/cabal/conspiracy. Not sure what the details would be, but I'd insist on at least on "A Keg In Every Home" as one of the slogans. ;)
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
07/02/2004 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#42
Are you a neoconservative? Take this quiz to find out.
#43
i think a quick glance at the RB posters who this quiz ided as Neocons will show the problems associated with this term, or at least the way CSM has interpreted it.
#50
ok. now ima take names now on all you neo-cons here! dont you are know mike moore is say you are out to destroy the planet! now i am know who keep my eyes on. all you realist are ok. im one to and we are need to unite! for what i am not know but it is sound like very progressive idea.
#51
Wow! I'm an isolationist! Some of the questions did not have any answers I totally agreed with but I picked the ones that some aspects I agreed with.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/02/2004 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#52
just cos you read all em books now, mucks! ;).
#53
i think a quick glance at the RB posters who this quiz ided as Neocons will show the problems associated with this term, or at least the way CSM has interpreted it.
Expand,LH, please. Your statement is too cryptic.
A couple of things I do not agree with re: neo-cons, is that the leaders of the movement-Kristol, Wolfowitz-do not see America as a unique nation of history, culture, values. Rather they view America as an idea-nation, specifically a broad brush stroke liberal democracy ideal, that needs to be propagated throughout the world. That strikes me as being rather irreverent about what America the nation is all about or the need to protect the essence of America. Neocons could care less about how America being attacked and torn apart from within example: by extreme liberalism/decadent values, multiculturalism instead of melting pot immigration, judicial activism/legislation from the bench, etc. To me it shows that neocons do not value America, the nation, but rather just the power of America to spread their brand of ideology through military might.
The other thing I do not like about the neocon movement is their deep seated contempt for the military and their arrogant disregard for the people in the military. Neocons are all in favor of a large defense budgets, but I think most of them see soldiers as mere chess pieces who are at their disposal to cure the world of its totalitarian ills, and not as ndividuals who love and are loved by others and who should not be thrown in harm's way solely to spread a particular ideology. From what I have seen thusfar, neocons expect others to make the ultimate sacrifice, but most US neocons have never served in the military themselves or in the National Guard. They would never put themselves in harm's way to spread ideology. I'm not sure I'd classify Colin Powell as a "neocon" probably more of a liberal, as suits the department he heads. Neocons are typically theoretician who never leave the office or classroom during the day but talk the bellicose talk at cocktail parties. I do not care much for that type of dishonesty.
Posted by: rex ||
07/02/2004 16:26 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Expand,LH, please. Your statement is too cryptic.
i aint naming no friggin names and starting no frigging flamewar.
Look, people who disagree about very basic things, in terms of their philosophy and apporach to politics, are all included as Neocons. Its a very coarse distinction CSM is drawing.
Anyone from the most intense "Jacksonian Hardliners" (all you guys who want to be called imperialists or whatever) to people who are basically Wilsonian liberal hawks but who express even a modest skepticism about international institutions, are all lumped together.
and thats not just this quiz, its about the whole way the media use the neocon meme. Its very fluid.
Rex - all factions have their academics and such. Realists and so forth too.
As for values, one of the key breaks between the neocons like Kristol (father and son) and the left is precisely their advocacy of not only traditional values, but of religion in the public square. Their main difference with the paleocon right on that is emphasis - they want religion to support order and capitalism - theyre not willing to attack order and capitalism for religious values. You may not agree but classing them with values liberals is just silly. And as far as i can tell they generally strongly favor melting pot immigration - they do oppose paleocons who want little immigration overall. You really should read the Weekly Standard - youll find it far more conservative on most cultural issues than you realize - (and more conservative than ME, for that matter, which is one reason I DONT consider myself a neocon, but a liberal hawk)
As for the military, i see no evidence of disrespect for the military. There IS a battle between OSD and the US army over a number of issues - but the leader of that battle is Donald Rumsfeld himself, who is a veteran.
#55
Let's just say that I'm not in the company of Woodrow and Jimmah. I test in the camp of Teddy and Ronnie. I don't know how I can be called a "neo" conservative as my mother remebers me telling off McGovern voters in the early 70's.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/02/2004 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
#56
LH, no need to get testy. I was not looking for "friggin' names." I was just wondering what you meant by the phrase "will show the problems associated with this term." Thank you for the explanation that neocons have various hues just as traditional conservatives, or as CSM labels them "isolationists."
I read the Weekly Standard. I like some of the articles and writers better than others. I like Fred Barnes for the most part. I do not find much I like of Kristol, but perhaps his arrogrant condescending personality per FOX News predisposes me to not agreeing with anything he writes or says.
Donald Rumsfeld wants to re-design the military to make it more mobile and more high tech and perhaps as well change the army's power within the military. I'm not sure I'd classify him as a neocon. Rumsfeld's a hawk for sure and maybe Wolfowitz helps him talk fancy as the occasion demands, but I'm not sure Rumsfeld actually believes all the airy fairy ideology that Wolfowitz stands for.
As for the neocon dis-respect for America's history, traditions, culture, you do not have to go further than some of the ideas neocons spout.
I need to credit Lawrence Auster from his VFR website for the following examples from his article "The Neocons go Left": David Brooks, in Bobos in Paradise, lauds the âbourgeois bohemianâ life style and its indifference to moral truth.
David Frum, in The Seventies, says the Cultural Revolution has really not been that bad, and that in most ways our culture is in better shape than it was in the Fifties.
Francis Fukuyama, in The Great Disruption, pretends to seek ways to reverse the âGreat Disruptionâ of the Cultural Revolution, but then admits that thereâs no way to restore the most important single aspect of our disrupted cultureâsexual morality and monogamy. Furthermore, Fukuyama makes it clear that this is just fine with him.
Fareed Zakaria of The National Interest, writing in The New Yorker, shockingly announces: âIâll take Gomorrahâ over those awful, repressive Fifties.
Clearly, these leading edge neocons have given up any idea of resisting the moral liberationism that now defines the dominant culture of America and the West. As the eager, sychophantic tone of their writings makes clear, theyâve decided to get along by going along. And now, in an apparent culmination of this neoconserservative betrayal, Dinesh DâSouza in his new book, Whatâs So Great About America, sets out to define Americaâand conservatismâin radical secular terms:
âAmerica is a subversive idea,â he writes. âIndeed, it represents a new way to be human.â Americans once believed that human nature with its inherent rights proceeds from a higher truth that puts limits on human desire and the will to power. But now DâSouza boasts, in Romantic-Marxian terms, that America represents nothing less than âa new way to be humanââthat it is Americaâs mission to bring about a transformation in the very structure of human nature. Rather than standing for permanent and higher truths about man, and thus maintaining a link with the long continuum of Western civilization and its moral traditions of restraint, America in DâSouzaâs view signifies the denial that there are any permanent and higher truths about man. The universe, including human nature itself, is as we want to make it.
...It is hard to see any fundamental difference between DâSouzaâs ânew way to be humanâ and the ideology of radical personal liberation that has formed our dominant liberal culture. As Ilene Philipson wrote in the utopian leftist journal Tikkun in 1991, âevery individual contains at the very core of his or her being a unique, irreducible selfâ that must be liberated
Posted by: rex ||
07/02/2004 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
#57
Let's be a cabal, that sounds far more nefarious and we'll need a catchy name. Then we can divide up the world.
#58
rex - first i wouldnt call Zakharia a neocon, and im not sure about Fukiyama.
Second most of what you have there is either out of context quotes, or charecterizations unsupported by quotes. Ive read David Brooks, and he does like his bobos, but im sure he never said he likes indifference to moral truth.
Saying the cultural rev hasnt been that bad could mean he was saying that it didnt go as far as alarmists say - and the dissing of the fifties could include both references to stuff in the '50s that WAS bad, like segregation, or could be a realistic acknowledgement that the era wasnt all that pure - plenty of drinking, adultery, etc. Its hard to now without actual quotes, just charecterizations by a hostile writer.
As for America being a subversive idea, well thats straight out of Jefferson. Its a very profoundly American way of thinking for two hundred years. And, for that matter, a way of thinking that drives the REAL multiculties and cultural lefties batty.
Yup, theyre sons of the Enlightenment. Which sets them against BOTH the lefties who would write off the enlightenment as a Western Imperialist thingy, and those who look back fondly on a a pre_enlightenment world view, and whatever was left of it in the US circa 1950. If you want a conservatisim that ISNT pro Enlightenment, that isnt Jeffersonian, the Neocons aint your guys. Period. But to call them cultural lefties for that is misleading, since it groups them with their bitterest enemies.
#59
But to call them cultural lefties for that is misleading, since it groups them with their bitterest enemies.
Say what? Neocons are former liberals who just woke up to the possibilities of using military might to spread ideology. Liberals can't see any use for the military and instaed just think money will bring peace and change in the world. There is no difference between liberals and neocons re: preserving American culture,history, or Judeo-Christian values. Kristol's dad,Irving, the father of neoconservative movement, was a Marxist bohemian kind of guy. "A neoconservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality. A neoliberal is a liberal who's been mugged by reality but has refused to press charges."- Irving Kristol
"American power should be used not just in the defense of American interests but for the promotion of American principles." - William Kristol
"Republicans are good at wielding power, but they're not so wonderful when it comes to the more idealistic motives of liberal internationalism. The Democrats are better at liberal internationalism, but they're not so good at wielding power. I would say that if there were a Joe Lieberman/John McCain party, I'm in the Joe Lieberman/John McCain party." - Robert Kagan
The use of military might is the only thing that divides liberals from neocons. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Posted by: rex ||
07/02/2004 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#60
ok im feel lost now. rex and lib hawk talking to deep for me. but im know im read on em hippie blog that origanal neo-cons were dems and are now repubs. or im think somthink like that.
Cingold, don't misunderstand me - I'm a quasi-isolationist/realist not a pacifist. I'm a big fan of the way we pummeled Iraq, it was long overdue for 17 violations of a cease-fire written in the blood of 300 Americans in 1991. I wasn't against 'Nam at all but I was against how we fought that war. Should've let the Generals do their job instead of hamstringing them. My chosen profession bars me from any pacifistic pansie-assed flowery outlook of the world, as far as I'm concerned Ghandi should of ate a few steaks.
I do believe there is a way in maintaining good trade relations while bringing troops (not including those in Iraq/Afghan) back home to police our southern border. Trust me, as a guy who goes to a lot these ungrateful countries - let'em fend for themselves (Skor, Germany, France, Okinawa, Japan, etc.) I've also said this before - pull out of the UN/NATO and the rest of that crap along w/pulling our aid from a lot of the same. I'd free trade w/anyone who is on the level and fair w/us. I'd also like to see a huge push for alternative energy in order minimize our dealings w/the ME. That region has been the arm pit of the world for a long time and the sooner we cut ties w/those *ssholes the better. Don't get me wrong, if we were ever attacked by any terrorist in the future, I hope we hunt them down, kill them, and take out any regime harboring them - w/extreme prejudice.
#68
I must've been drinking more than I thought, because how could I be labeled a "liberal" (please don't hunt me down) when I answered "we should hunt down and kill all terrorists" question? I figured I'd come up more Isolationsist than anything, because "cynical" wasn't an option. I'm going to have to take this quiz sober in the morning...
U.S. Marines wonât be allowed to fire a traditional gun salute at the graveside of a Mexican-American killed in Iraq, Mexican officials said Thursday, citing the countryâs laws against foreigners carrying firearms.
Lance Cpl. Juan Lopez, who was born in the central Mexico state of Guanajuato and resided in Dalton, Ga., was one of four U.S. Marines killed in an ambush in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, on June 21. Lopez was born in the town of San Luis de la Paz and emigrated to the United States as a teenager. His mother and other family members stayed in Mexico. But Mexicoâs Secretary of Defense turned down the request, saying the salute violated constitutional measures preventing foreign soldiers from bearing arms on Mexican soil. "The United states, to respect the sovereignty of Mexico, scaled back the firing detail," Gwilliam said, adding that six Marines now plan to attend the funeral simply as pallbearers. Mexico wants the USA "to respect" its sovereignity but does not want to return the favor. Pity that this GI could not get the burial honors that he deserves.
Posted by: rex ||
07/02/2004 12:18:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, what would a country without honor know about honor?
Thank you Juan Lopez, God Speed
Posted by: Old Sarge ||
07/02/2004 0:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
After family members elected to bury Lopez in Guanajuato, U.S. Marines made arrangements to give him a traditional 21-gun salute during the funeral ceremony, said Maj. Curt Gwilliam of the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.
One question: what did Cpl. Lopez want?
Sarge - when military personnel head off to a combat zone, isn't this sort of thing hashed out in advance?
#13
Descansa en paz Juan, tu sangre azteca fue derramada por una causa injusta, luchaste y tuviste que morir por un pais que no es el tuyo, solo eres una victima mas de la ambicion de ese pais.
Mexico and San Luis de la Paz never forget you. Your blood and soul rest in peace now with your ancesters , in this ever sunshine place, far away from the ambition and evil of USA...
"Por mi raza hablara mi espiritu"
Quetazalcoatl, "The Bird-Snake" San Luis de la Paz, Guanajuato.
#14
Seems to me that the idea of military service in the US is to SERVE YOUR COUNTRY....(The country in which you live). Being in the military is NOT a platform to serve and defend your race, whether it be asian, aryan, aztec or whatever.
This young man noblely served and paid the ultimate price. By boiling it down to racial terms, it cheapens the whole idea.
But hey, as long as we're talking about Mexico, here goes:
Do you have to be of Aztec ancestry to be a real Mexican ? How about Mennonites ? Are they "real Mexicans." How about Taraumara Indians ? Are they real indians ? They don't speak Nahuatl.
Are aryans the only real Germans ? Is any other ethnicity in Germany invalid ?
Now about Mexico....
I remember a few years ago when the US beat Mexico in soccer. People were throwing rocks at cars with Texas plates as they were waiting at the international bridges as the fat police looked on.
The irony is that 99% of the damage was to cars of hispanic people returning to the US.
From my personal experience, it seems the most bitter people in MExico either have family membvers up here already who are living better than them, or have a sister who married a white guy....
#15
an unjust cause, huh, Q? Why don't you reform the killer regimes at home in Mexico? Isn't it because it's easier to carp at the US without doing a Fucking thing at home? Puta
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/05/2004 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
French President Jacques Chirac slammed the Bush administration June 28 for intervening in European foreign policy after Bush said that Turkey should be allowed into the European Union. France has painted itself into a corner, and Chiracâs reaction illustrates its fear of losing influence within the EU. While in Istanbul on June 27, U.S. President George W. Bush supported a long-term goal of his Turkish hosts, saying, "I will remind the people of this good country that you ought to be given a date by the EU for your eventual acceptance into the EU." The next day, French President Jacques Chirac sharply criticized the Bush statement, saying the U.S. president had "ventured into territory that was not his concern ... and it would be like me telling the United States how to run its affairs with Mexico." It is not difficult to understand the French reaction. France sees the European Union as a platform upon which it can stand and hold onto a global role much more powerful than it would otherwise possess.
Unfortunately for Paris, that has not been the way things have worked out recently. Most of the rest of Europe -- Germany and Belgium excepted -- views French power with even more trepidation than they do U.S. power. After all, the United States is Europeâs security guarantor, and U.S. bullying does not affect them much at all at home. French control, in contrast, deeply affects every national decision they make. France is a founding member of the European Union; the United States does not belong to the EU -- and it is in a different hemisphere. The states of Central Europe -- only 15 years out of the Soviet bloc -- are doubly concerned about another countryâs calling the shots for them. Seven of these states joined the EU on May 1, and all have sided with countries such as Denmark and the United Kingdom against France on issues of how strong or -- in their minds -- how weak the European Unionâs central institutions should be.
Turkey is in a similar situation. Like the Central European states, Turkey wants access to the EU for economic purposes. Most of its trade is with Europe, and it would much rather link its infrastructure (and its future) to Europe than to the former Soviet Union or the Middle East. This does not, however, mean that Turkey wants to be swallowed up by a European entity that speaks for the French and not for the Turks. In fact, much to Turkeyâs glee -- and that of several EU members -- this battle has already been won. In the draft constitution agreed to in June, the Europeans went with the least restrictive language possible, ensuring national sovereignty and adopting a voting structure that would allow the rest of Europe to easily overrule French ambitions. Add the fact that Turkey already has about 10 million more people than France and three times Franceâs population growth rate -- and that Europeâs new decision-making process is loosely based on population -- and it is no surprise that Chiracâs Union for a Popular Movement party strongly opposes Turkish entry into the EU. A Turkey in Europe would further upset decades of Parisâ well-laid plans. Consequently, the EU is shaping up to be a massive -- if sophisticated -- free-trade zone, not a superstate.
This has already shown up in EU "foreign policy." In 2003, the Iraqi war split the EU down the middle with most members and prospective members lining up to oppose French attempts to make EU war policy its own. With Turkey in the European club, the French would have an even harder time achieving what is fast becoming an unattainable goal: a Europe for the French. For France this means not only the end of a dream, but also the beginning of a nightmare. France has failed to make the rest of the European states its partners -- with the possible exception of Belgium and Germany -- and it is now bound into an arrangement that will impinge upon its own movement. The United States has noticed, and the United States and France know full well that adding Turkey to the mix would only compound Parisâs newfound problem. All of this meshes perfectly with Washingtonâs geopolitics. A Europe that is a massive economic power is one whose interests are broadly aligned with those of the United States. A Europe that has strong respect for national sovereignty is one that can never become a unified political entity capable of challenging the United States regionally -- much less globally. All the more reason for the Bush administration to push formally for Turkish acceptance. And all the more reason for Chirac to hate -- and fear -- the idea.
Posted by: Gromky ||
07/02/2004 4:11:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Chirac acts like acting student doing a bad impersonation of Maurice Chevalier. It's no wonder that the emblem of France is a crowing cock. In any event, Turkey should be made part of the EU quickly just for the economic stabilization effects. Chirac's objection is probably rooted in the size of the requisite bribe. If Erdogan puts a few more euros in Jacques' Swiss account then the deal will go through.
Posted by: Random thoughts ||
07/02/2004 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Turkey should be made part of the EU quickly just for the economic stabilization effects.
That's a reason for Turkey to *want* to be part of the EU, but not a sufficient reason for EU to make it such.
Do you even *begin* to understand what membership entails?
---
As a sidenote I'm amazed at how often people notice all the articles indicating Turkey as still not sufficiently advanced to be considered fully a part of secular democratic Europe.... (for example a recent article about marriages offered to rapists as an option, only now getting outlawed in Turkey)
...and then people go ahead and nonetheless say that it should be given such treatment, as if it was a fully democratic and modern secular nation.
Usually such articles are remembered whenever people want to bash all Muslims, then prompty forgotten whenever people want to bash the EU.
It's convenient to have such a flexible memory as that.
#4
Liberalhawk> I've never heard of France asking Tunisia (or any other Arabic nation) to be admitted into the EU.
turkey needs entry to the EU because stabilizing Turkey and pushing economic growth into that region is of importance to GLOBAL security
But I thought that the EU has neither done nor can do anything good for the world? I thought that EU expansion isn't actually helping do anything in favour of the strengthening of democracy and freedom in the region? I thought that the EU was *useless*??
Oh, my.
Yeah, Turkey's entry into the EU will help all these stuff you mentioned. But Turkey is not ready for the EU, and the EU is not ready for Turkey, therefore that question is unfortunately *moot*.
If you want all these stuff that Turkish entry into the EU will bring for Global Security, then people ought to support the kind of things that would make such entry feasible.
Things which, among others, include e.g. the ratification of the European constitution, and the letting go of the national vetoes.
#5
I agree with Aris: Turkey should not join the EU.
It should join NAFTA.
Heh.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/02/2004 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Question, If Turkey were admitted to the EU, would that mean European businesses building manufacturing in Turkey to take advantage of cheap labor? Would that mean Turks moving from Germany back to Turkey?
Or would the Turks stay in Germany because despite being unable to become citizens they like the benefits and lifestyle in Germany?
#7
Yank> I believe that, if Turkey enters the EU, there won't be much of a meaningful difference between a Turk living permanently in Germany, and a German citizen.
IIRC, when germany pushed for entry of eastern europeans, France wanted more focus on the med in general, and even on North Africa - not that any one state was ready, but to focus energy on getting them into position.
Once again, Im not an EU basher. The EU does do some good. There may be a contradiction others here have, but I do not.
OTOH, while I see the EU doing good, I do think that there are elements in the govt of France that see it as a counterweight to the US, and i do see that as a negative trend. From the US point of view I think its best to have the UK IN the EU, allied with the Eastern Europeans to keep the EU doing what it should be doing. I also would like to see the EU remain primarily an economic entity, with nations retaining their individual foreign policies. And I dont see that the benefits of integrating Turkey into the EU are harmed by the existence of national vetoes. The EU did a good thing in integrating Spain, Portugal and yes, Greece into europe - national vetoes existed when that happened.
Re Turks in Germany - IIUC they couldnt vote, just as a Greek who moves to the UK cant vote. But a Turk could move freely for a job, just as Greeks, Spanish, etc have done so. And as Poles, Slovaks etc will soon be able to do so (there are some temporary limits, but that could be applied to Turkey as well)
#9
Re Turks in Germany - IIUC they couldnt vote, just as a Greek who moves to the UK cant vote.
I think that it's with the new constitution that this happens.
Article I-8
1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in this Constitution. They shall have:
a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
b) the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence under the same conditions as nationals of that State;
As for the national vetoes, they were an acceptable thing in a union of 6, perhaps even 10. At 12 it became more tricky, 15 even trickier, 25 extremely hard, and at 33 it will be impossible.
#10
b) the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence under the same conditions as nationals of that State;
Local and EP, but not national elections, then.
As for vetoes, i shouldnt have gotten started on that, as the EU governance thing is complex, and i dont think anyone is calling for retaining the status quo.
#12
In the US it normally does, but I suppose in the EU context it COULD mean national expert. EU Constitutional text interpretation is pretty low on my list of expertises:)
#13
oops - i meant LOCAL could mean national in an EU context. Municipal couldnt. Municipal in English is alway a reference to city, county, district governments NOT national govt. The Brits tend to say "local authorities" while we Yanks say Municipal or City or local govt - i think thats a heritage of victorian times, when UK tended to have diverse local bodies dealing with different matters, but no effective general local body, while US fairly early had Mayor run general local govts in major cities.
#15
Nah, I'm pretty sure you are correct. I made the mistake of falling into the habit of only downloading the English versions, and it seems there occasionally were words I thought I understood but in reality I didn't.
In response to #13: Yeah, that was my mistake -- I had treated "municipal" as identical to "local", and thus thought that, in the context of the EU, this had meant national elections. My bad.
#17
"I made the mistake of falling into the habit of only downloading the English versions, and it seems there occasionally were words I thought I understood but in reality I didn't."
This pretty much sums up your entire body of work here, doesn't it, Mr. Asterisk?
Posted by: Jen ||
07/02/2004 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Who's trying to hijack the thread now, Miss Bitch?
#19
So if Turkey has three time the population growth of France and France has a negative population growth rate, does that mean Turkey's population is shrinking three times more quickly?
Sorry. I just always get hung up over that algebra thing...
#22
Yeah, it's cool, Aris.
It's clear that the English isn't your real problem, it's that habit you have of getting blasted on ouzo then standing out in the noonday sun.
And if you're on a thread, the subject of hijacking it now becomes moot, particularly on an EU thread where you will invariably babble about how a unified, federalist and Franco-centric EU is beneficent (to Greece) and mandatory to you as a person, no matter how many European nations and EU citizens are unhappy with it.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/02/2004 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#23
It's clear that the English isn't your real problem, it's that habit you have of getting blasted on ouzo then standing out in the noonday sun.
Actually I've not even tasted ouzo. Not once in my life. I've not fucked any goats either, for that matter.
But that's where your stereotypes get you: A sad little girl that hijacks threads to insult people and make no contribution whatsoever and then is furious that other people would name her first in a list of flame-war participants, as if she *gasp* is actually to blame for any of them.
Oh no. Never she. I *mind-forced* her to come into this thread and insult me, the same way that the EU has mind-forced all those unhappy European peoples and nations to enter it.
Btw Jen, you are a bit disconnected with the content of this thread -- in this thread it's *me* who says that EU shouldn't mind-control Turkey to enter it, and others who claim that this poor unhappy and unwilling nation should be made to become a part of us.
no matter how many European nations and EU citizens are unhappy with it.
Checking out the referendums and polls that's "one". Nation, that is.
But you'll believe what you believe. It's clear that I'm not your real problem, reality is your real problem.
#24
Sure, whatever, Katsy.
This article says that Turkey's entry into the EU is going to happen, despite *your* protestations.
And when President Bush speaks, people listen.
So, suck it up and try not to restart the Pelopenesian Wars.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/02/2004 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Jen> This article says that Turkey's entry into the EU is going to happen, despite *your* protestations.
LOL! Do you have any idea how much of a moron you sound like? You don't even know what membership requires and you say that it's "going to happen"?
Oh, *sure* it's gonna happen. Sure. It's just not going to happen any time this decade. It's just not going to happen as long as Cyprus remains divided, or as long as the constitution isn't ratified, or as long as Turkey has human rights issues.
When all the above occurs, I won't have any "protestations". I will support Turkey's entry wholeheartedly.
And even after (and *if*) all that is over, there's the issue of French/German/whatever objections. Absolute unanimity is required for membership, Jen-Bitch.
And when President Bush speaks, people listen.
And in this case they listened that he was an idiot and felt embarrassed on his behalf, since at the very most EU will give a date for beginning of negotiations, not a date for eventual acceptance into the Union. Unlike what he said.
#27
If you two are going to have a flame war, kindly fork over some extra loot to Fred for bandwidth.
Back on topic, I'm with Steve White; Turkey is welcome to join NAFTA. Britain should join us also, and leave the Tranzis to ruin the Continent.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/02/2004 15:33 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Barbara -
Aris didnt start a flame war. He posted an opinion - one that we may disagree with, but it was relevant to the topic at hand. Someone else then launched an ad hominen in him.
#29
As a sidenote, Turkey entry into the EU was one of the few points that were actually debated here in France during the european elections campaign, in a very vivid way; as it was speculated by pundits, this was due to the fact that a debate on "french" islam is verboten because of PC (you're labelled an islamophobe), and thus speaking about the place of Turkey (islam) in Europe was a concealed way of speaking about the place of islam in France. Popular sentiment here is overally against its admission. Interesting fact: if the presidential party, the UMP is opposed to turkey entry, Chirac is personally *for* it (he said it at various occasion, before turning his coat for fear of alenating public opinion), which make his GWB rebuke even more weasily.
#30
So, 5089, President Bush was right, eh, when he said it was a PC anti-Islam/anti-non-Western European culture mindset that was blowing Turkey's entry?
And if as you say, it's not PC to talk about it in the national conversation of EU countries, it never got discussed in meaningful terms in the past.
I love President Bush!
Posted by: Jen ||
07/02/2004 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Yes, I think that most of the non-expressed concerns about Turkey are islam-related, with some reason, I might add. I must confess I am quite uneasy about Turkey, and in my uninformed, biased view, it should never enter the UE.
What's even more frightening is that some circles (the influential Ifri think tank, or the french socialist Strauss Khan) envisage an UE expansion to the south, with Maghreb countries.
#32
a PC anti-Islam/anti-non-Western European culture mindset that was blowing Turkey's entry?
A *non*-PC anti-Islam culture mindset I think you mean. Isn't A mindset obviously non-PC when the society in question isn't willing to call it as it is? The way 5089 described it?
And though there doesn't exist one only reason for denying entry to Turkey, there certainly exist worries about Islam in Europe.
Anyone read General Sir John Hackett's book "The Third World War"? (FYI he commanded the 4th Paras at Arnhem in Market Garden in WW2).
Its pretty dated, now that the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pactare dead and Communism is on the ash-heap of history. (Was a great read in its time - and a warning thankfully heeded by Reagan and Thatcher).
But the *END* of the book about the reconstruction and reintegration of Europe - thats the good part - look at the structure he proposed for Europe, politically and economically.
Doesnt that look *very* prescient in light of where the EU seems to be evolving?
#35
Yep - that warning was about Africa and how in the absence of "Superwpoer" involvement it would devolve into tribalism and mass conflict. Sort like now in Sudan, Nigeria, Rwanda, ....
But what I was thinking of (maybe faulty memory) there were 3 different types of citizenship: national, local and working.
#36
I read Hackett too at the time (wasn't the book called "The Final Decade"?), but disagreed with his "optimistic" view that after the explosion of a a few nukes WW3 would have stopped. The automatism of nuclear escalation would probably not have allowed this: Send one missile, send all missiles (and die second).
Re Turkey: George Bush is certainly entitled to his opinion but he should be careful here as this is really an European issue (not because Chirac says so but because it is). And it's really premature to talk about Turkey's admission to the EU: they have a long way to go. The EU badly needs a consolidating period: the 2007 admissions of Romania and Bulgaria will be difficult enough. This is not a religious issue, it's an issue about where Europe ends. Turkey is not an European country despite having 10 percent of its territory on the European continent (if there is such a thing). Ukraine or Bielorussia have more claims to be admitted than Turkey and Russia is, by history and culture, certainly more "European" despite having the largest part of its territory in Asia. Where on earth do we want to stop? Georgia, Armenia anyone?
The USA might have an interest in an uncontrolled enlargement of the EU: It would simply overstretch Europe and weaken it politically and economically, because nearly all new members have weaker economies than EU average. Look what the German reunification did to the economic powerhouse of Europe. But maybe you should not wish for it anyway, because this move could indeed lead to "Eurabia". Once you have Turkey, why not go further? EU plus the oil? Americans might not like it too much.
I'm in favor of not shutting the doors in the face of the Turks. Priorities may change, Europe may change, Turkey may change over the next 10 or 15 years and we need to reassess the issue all the time.
But the "stabilization" of Turkey can't take priority over the stability of the EU. And I'm afraid Aris is right about the fact that this is not about "giving Turkey a date for eventual acceptance". Of course opening talks does send a message, too. Btw the country most affected by all this is not France but Germany. As for Bush: This is just scoring some points with the Turks that don't cost him a dime.
#38
SgtDT , Ouch! LH - I don't know why you always qualify your criticism of teh EU to placate Aris. I'll say upfront I think the EU is an abomination, a Hillary-Care on the National level. Wait til they start having things cut "for the common good" as established by an arrogant unelected bureaucracy. Maybe I can make some money in a couple years selling hanging rope
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/02/2004 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Frank G> Tell me, do you think that Bush hates Turkey and that's why he wants it be part of such an abomination?
Wouldn't that be a backstabbing duplicitous betrayal and stuff?
#40
I think Bush is shrewd enough to take advantage of the internal friction between Turkey, the EU countries and the expatriot Turk population especially in Germany.
He makes what looks like a reasonble demand, but which in reality cannot be given - sort of like the demands of France and Germany on the US for a firm date for the withdrawal of US troops.
Both will happen when their respective situations are stable enough.
Funny thing is that the French are whining loudly when they are put in the same spot, and yet they are not held to the same accountability as the Bush administration.
Goes to show the 2-faced press - and the lack of consistency in French foreign policy.
BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro (AP) - Serb officials started proceedings Thursday to extradite four Serb generals to face charges at the U.N. war crimes tribunal for the Balkans. The move - a reversal of previous refusals to hand over the generals - came after Sunday's election of pro-Western reformer Boris Tadic as president of Serbia and suggestions that Belgrade might be ready to work with the court. The international community has set cooperation with the U.N. tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, as a key condition for financial and political aid from abroad.
The Foreign Ministry handed the indictments against the four to a district court in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, the dominant partner in the Serbia-Montenegro union that replaced Yugoslavia, officials suggested they may be ready to extradite the four. The court is expected to subpoena the men for a hearing to hear their indictments. The four army and police generals were charged last year by the U.N. tribunal for atrocities committed by Serb troops in Kosovo during the 1998-99 war. "We have fulfilled our responsibility to hand over the indictments," said Serbia's foreign minister, Vuk Draskovic.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/02/2004 12:59:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This election may hopefully have caused the continuation of what was stopped cold by the Djindjic murder.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/02/2004 03:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Funny thing is, thats just fine with Moore - he still gets the money and accolades form the looney left, gets 4 more years of looking down his nose (and across that huge belly) at the American People, and reinforces an ego nearly as massive as his body.
Moore in the end only cares about one thing: How much people are talking about Michael Moore (and subsquently how much money that puts in his bank).
One of these days the spiritual emptiness will eat him up from the inside. There are things that money cannot buy, and one of them is honor - something which Moore lacks completely.
In Michael Mooreland, President Bush is a moronic cowboy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were corrupt, there was no threat to America from terrorism, and the only person who can see the truth is⊠Michael Moore. This film is a half-baked, agitprop conspiracy fantasy. Letâs be fair. Not all his allegations are totally off the wall. Heâs right to point up the disturbing links between the US administration, the Saudi regime and the bin Laden family, as well as the ludicrous bumblings of homeland security.
But after that, the film simply takes off into the higher lunacies of conspiracy theory. You might think the US flattened the Taleban because they had been harbouring al Qaeda. Think again â it was all to put in a puppet government to secure a lucrative contract to lay an oil pipeline to the Caspian Sea. But hang on â this means that, according to Moore, Bush was both in the pocket of the Saudis and chose to pulverise their Taleban buddies. Some confusion here? Richard Clarke, the former US counter-terrorism expert, is presented as a heroic whistleblower. Yet Clarke actually claimed sole responsibility for escorting the bin Laden clan out of the country after 9/11 âa move Moore uses as a weapon against President Bush. But hey, what are actual facts, let alone consistency, when thereâs a roaring prejudice to stoke? To be a moonbat is to embrace doublethink.
Next, Moore would have you believe that the terrorist threat to America was all invented by President Bush in order to serve his friendsâ financial interests. Forget 9/11. Forget all the evidence that persuaded Bushâs predecessor, President Clinton, of the threat from rogue states combining with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Moore believes this threat was entirely fabricated by President Bush, and all those Americans who believed it are made to look stupid. Moore also recently checked into a hospital for lip reattatchment.
Sewed them on the wrong end, did they?
Indeed, what is so striking is the deep contempt Moore has for his fellow Americans, and the bottomless regard for himself. For Mooreland is populated by the stupid, credulous or corrupt â except, or course, for Michael Moore. And then we get to Iraq. Here the filmâs lies turn disgusting. For pre-invasion Iraq is portrayed as a happy, relaxed place with carefree, smiling people â until the Americans start dropping bombs on it for no good reason. Thereâs no mention whatever of the terror inflicted on the Iraqi people by Saddam, the hundreds of thousands killed or tortured by his regime.
No mention that, way before George W Bush, the Clinton administration was convinced that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked. Instead, just grisly pictures of the casualties of war, the gross exploitation of the grieving mother of a dead soldier, and the lie that Saddam never killed or threatened any American (presumably the assassination attempt on George Wâs father during a visit to Kuwait in April 1993 doesnât count). And all punctuated by manipulated footage of the current President designed to present him as moronic or malign. Will such a farrago of paranoid distortions and ideological spite have any effect? You bet. The preview audience, overwhelmingly composed of our fashionable movers and shakers, applauded wildly. The usual beauzeaux, of course.
Posted by: Korora ||
07/02/2004 12:40:39 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Charles Johnson, the proprietor of LGF, observes:
I saw the film today, and yes, itâs amazingly mendacious. . . . Iâd like to write about an aspect of the film that nearly pulled me inâand ended up making me furious at Moore.
Moore knew he would have to deal with the actual 9/11 attacks somehow; so after the long, boring intro explaining how Bush stole the 2000 election (please, moonbats, stop with this already), we see the footage of the 9/11 atrocities.
Well, actually noâwe donât. Moore cuts to a black screen, and plays only the sounds of the attacks, before an extended montage of drifting ashes and papers, artfully floating through the air while mournful music plays.
At first, I thought this was a clever and effective way to evoke the memories of the worst terrorist attack on US soil. And then, the question occurred to me: why would someone who clearly understands the power of images choose not to show the most powerful images of our time?
Because Moore knew that if he showed those images, which have been mostly absent from media for almost 3 years, he ran the risk of awakening the anger and feelings of intense danger we all experienced that day. And that was a risk he could not runâbecause it could very well spoil the tone of the rest of the film, and expose him for the smirking, unserious buffoon he is.
After the blank screen 9/11 section of the film, he cuts almost immediately to scenes from talk shows, with bumbling people trying to sell anti-terrorism gadgets, and interviews several anti-Bush talking heads about the âclimate of fearâ that the Bush administration imposed on the country.
Moore is a canny filmmaker. He realized that if he segued immediately to this snarky, derisive viewpoint after showing people jumping to their deaths from the top of the World Trade Center, some of the Moore Koolaid drinkers might feel twinges of conscience; they might remember what it felt like to see the largest buildings in New York City collapse, crushing and ripping apart the bodies of thousands of their fellow Americans. Some of them might even start to come out from under Mooreâs cinematic spell, if such an ugly reality were allowed to intrude.
They might get mad. And some of them would be mad at him. So Moore, cowardly to the bottom of his hateful little shriveled soul, cut to a black screen.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/02/2004 6:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Michael Moore's greatest contribution to the US may turn out to be the thousands of people inspired to seriously diet after viewing countless interviews with Moore. The fact that this amoeba thrives and has become rich through marketing the effluvia of his fetid mind is one of the more puzzling aspects of American society.
#4
We have some whalers up here in Alaska in Point Hope and Barrow that could render MM down to oil in a heartbeat. Walrus or whale, they can do the mission.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/02/2004 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Paul: I think I can gin up a quick Letter of Marque and Reprisal if they're game.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/02/2004 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida. Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort. "As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter. "This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November, 2004 election. My god... this very well might be the most insane display yet from the LLL lunatics
#8
Dear Lord, this woman used to be my Congressperson whom I drove crazy with email telling her how to vote for every Right Wing bill there was--BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
When we were in the Gore Coup Attempt Election 2000 Recount mess, she claimed that blacks were denied the right to vote in Florida; I wrote her that if I thought that were true, I'd go to Florida to protest that myself!
So glad I moved.
Pray that this Congressional district in Texas gets re-zoned soon.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/07/2004 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida. I am sick to my stomach.
#2
WTF?! I smell donk-hocky. How sofa-king toddid can one be?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
07/02/2004 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
My wife is a poll judge. I'll let her know that she needs to budget two extra donuts for Mujibar.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/02/2004 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Will they include monitoring the MSM and keep them from calling a State before the polls are freakin' closed a'la Florida in 2000? I read somewhere that a conservative estimate was that 40,000-50,000 people stayed home in the panhandle, which would've lead to an even more thorough beating of the ranting one!
Posted by: BA ||
07/02/2004 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Maybe we can send them up to Milwaukee to monitor the Dems "Malt Liquor and Smokes for Votes" program? Or to Chicago to monitor their "I'm a Corpse. And I vote." program?
Careful what you wish for, shitheads.
#6
Interesting how they keep reerring to "the lawmakers" but there are NO NAMES attached to this article. Seems to me that they know damn well that people aren't going to appreciate this horseshit and they are trying to make sure their phones don't ring off the hook with calls from angry Americans such as myself.
What a bunch of pussies.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
07/02/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
IMO, this is really a Front Page, WOT, matter. These buffoons are the terrorists within, because they appear bent on giving away our sovereignty to those who wish us ill. This action also is a separation of powers violation. Members of the legislative branch have no business inserting themselves into foreign relations. The role of negotiating with foreign powers, and of establishing the tenor of relationship with foreign powers, is purely presidential (with the role of Congress being just one of advice and consent). U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2.
#9
What act so besmirched America as to put us in the same election legitimacy category as Afghanistan and Kosovo? Florida 2000 does not even come close.
#10
I wouldn't worry too much about the presence of UN observers. After all, UN peackeepers haven't historically been known to be consistent at keeping the peace, so UN observers are probably unable to make proper observations.
#11
WorldNet Daily says the effort is led by Dallas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
And, of course, nothing on her website about her "efforts". She pats herself on the back for a load of other legislation etc., but NO mention of the nonsense at hand.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
07/02/2004 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Given their track record in places like Rwanda and Sudan, UN observers (mostly arrogant Euro-trash com-tards) probably wouldn't notice if black voters were being massacred, let alone "disenfranchised."
Of course, different rules might apply if the opposition is the Republican Party rather than, say, Islamic slavers or genocidal Euro-business- partner dictators.
Even then, it might not work. This isn't Somalia, the UNers can't call in Clinton-commanded gunships to bombard the opposition here.
#13
Beyond that, how safe would these "observers" be in the States?
Most of them are either corrupt third-worlders or arrogant European fantasy-ideologues, quite accustomed to having their authority and privelege accepted without question.
How will that play in Peoria or Lubbock?
Perhaps threats will inspire the morlock lobby to suggest a peacekeeping force, raised from the UN's most reliable dhimmi-provinces; such as Finland, Canada and Ireland.
Considering that the combined armies and police forces of Eurabia could not fight their way from Galveston to Crawford in a hundred years even if civilians were the only opposition, I would almost like to see it tried.
#14
All I can say is, WHAT? Are they going to claim fraud if people freely vote for Bush or something? And why in the hell are we asking for UN observers when we're the ones teaching the freaking world how to run a democratic republic in the first place?! If I was thirty years older, my blood pressure would be skyrocketing right now! Someone please tell me this is the Onion, or Scrappleface! Or help me find the portal that leads back to my original universe, for I seem to have fallen into a parallel one. Wouldn't be the first time . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
07/02/2004 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
I understand that my state's Fish and Game Department intends to have an open season on UN Observers, with a no-limit bag, to all who wish to participate in the hunt. Special awards are to be given for for the carcasses of the tallest, heaviest, and best-dressed observers and a pre-season hunt to cull the herd is being considered. There is no truth to the rumor that the buses have been chartered to take a select group of hunters to New York to get a jump on the pre-season hunt, you will have to arrange your own transportation. A very special "Golden Antler Award" will be given to anyone who can display an example of the species that proposed the idea of UN Observers for an American election. Famous Potatos, Always Loaded.
No special awards based on weapons used, however, they are very big on taxidermy in these parts and a mounted UN Observer in a lifelike pose, such as cowering behind a rock or shouting from a lecturn will qualify for special recognition awards. Facial expression of the mounted trophy is very important and should be considered when choosing weapons for the hunt. Creative use of a sword has the potential for creating an award winning specimen.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
07/02/2004 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Bernice didn't think through this agitprop (as usual, she's mentally challenged). I would think the American (as opposed to Amerikkkan) people will not look well upon an all-Democrat effort to have the UN incompetent dictator-loving parasites deployed to challenge our elections. Rove should play this to teh hilt, but subtley. Say this is the first step by Dems to turn the US over their one-world, one-government masters (subtle enuf?)
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/02/2004 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
Link is to the BLS site
From the Employer Survey:
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to rise in June, and the unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent... Payroll employment increased by 112,000 in June, following larger gains in the prior 3 months. The household survey had an increase in employment of about 259,000. In the previous monthly survey the increase in the payroll employment exceeded the increase in the household employment but in 10 of the previous 12 months, the reverse has been true. What to make of this?
Well if you were hoping to encourage the Federal Reserve board to go slow raising the Fed rate, you win bigtime.
Posted by: mhw ||
07/02/2004 10:06:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One might ask, how does payroll employment increase by 112,000 in one month, but the unemployment rate stay the same?
It sounds like people formerly considered "discouraged" (that is, no longer even trying to find work) are looking again, and are therefore getting lumped into the unemployed bucket again.
Pretty good sign that the people see the job market picking up, actually.
You are correct in that the labor force went up by about 309,000. Of course remember that these are estimates and the labor force estimate comes from the household survey. The economy has become quite complicated with people holding multiple part time jobs, multiple sole proprietor businesses, etc. That's one reason why some people are suggesting that the bls have a 4 month moving average or some such thing.
This blatant pandering may have unintended consequences in Southern California if it gets any press coverage. Also in places like Georgia and Iowa that have rapidly rising illegal Mexican populations.
John Kerry raised the stakes in the campaign for Latino votes during his speech to the National Council of La Raza in Phoenix earlier this week. Kerry said that in his first 100 days, he would submit an immigration reform bill to Congress that would give legal residency and a pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants. Moreover, Kerry said he would sign two other immigration bills on which Bush has not yet taken a position, providing residency status for illegal farm workers and giving the children of illegals access to college in-state tuition. Couple this with drivers licenses, motor voter, and absentee ballots and the Democrats can literally write their own way to a perpetual majority status. I lived in Chicago long enough to see how this is done.
Posted by: RWV ||
07/02/2004 9:36:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...his speech to the National Council of La Raza in Phoenix...
#2
While real citizens and legal residents will still be forced to pay out of state tuition where appropriate.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
07/02/2004 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is only marginally better than his previous voter plan, in which Communist Democrat voters would have to swear allegiance to the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
07/02/2004 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Didn't he also say something about his wife being his favorite immigrant, since she was born in Mozambique? What pandering! Even if she was born in Africa she probably still had US citizenship.
(2004-07-01) -- In the same week that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told a San Francisco audience that future President John Forbes Kerry will take money away from wealthy Americans "on behalf of the common good", the former First Ladyâs publisher announced it would not pay the $5.3 million deferred advance it owes for her book Living History.
"To get the publishing industry, and our company in particular, back on track, weâre going to cut that short and not give it to you," a spokesman for Simon and Shuster reportedly told Mrs. Clinton. "Weâre going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Mrs. Clintonâs office released a statement saying she was "delighted to help cover the publisherâs losses from unpopular books by other authors, bad management decisions and bureaucratic waste."
She suggested that her husband, who served with her in the White House during the 1990s, would like to do the same with his $10 million advance from Knopf.
Posted by: Korora ||
07/02/2004 12:15:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
07/02/2004 02:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
After I claim the prize, I'll let one of you Rantburgers try to guilt me out of a million, right after I get back from the Italian sports car dealership.
#5
JM...ya gotta help me. My poor, arthritic grandmother rolled her Hummer on the way to the liquor store. She swerved to miss hitting a cat and she plowed into and econo-van full of orphans. I'm lookin' at major medical bills here,not to mention the fact that I'm out of Pabst Blue Ribbon. I'd go myself but Oprah's on.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
07/02/2004 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Bequeath Fred a full time research department, JerseyMike, then set up an endowment and beer fund forever.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/02/2004 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Rex Mundi: I'm out of Pabst Blue Ribbon. That alone should put you in the top position.
#12
JerseyMike: my house was taken by, like, Zionist occupiers and stuff? Can you set my wife up with an apartment in Paris while I devote myself to fulltime seething? Couple mil ought to do it... it's not like I need to buy underwear or anything.
#18
They've got all the chads you could ever want in Florida, Muck. I need money for swimming leasons for my horse, Ace. Every time I ride him out into the river he lies down and tries to drown me. I think a couple of million would do it. also, Elsbeth the Pig needs a new mudhole.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/02/2004 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#19
LOL. All the g00gle ads over to the right -->> say "send money to Pakistan." Mike, the Movement (TM) needs you more than ever!
#20
Jersey Mike-
Look, I can't tell you exactly why I need it, but it involves Michael Moore and 1200 gallons of drawn butter....
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/02/2004 19:51 Comments ||
Top||
#21
MK: Lost my appetite for all eternity LOL!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
07/02/2004 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Since my beloved Mets are showing the Yanks how baseball is played I've decided its going to Fred for putting up with all of this BS (I want to see liquor store reciepts)and I'm also putting up another mil for Mucky & Mike Kozlowski as a consolation because it looks like Mike is going to torture that fat-assed bastard Moore. Thats good enough for me. And well, Chad in the summer what more can you say? I can smell it already.
Friday, July 2, 2004 Posted: 10:12 AM EDT (1412 GMT)
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Bill Cosby went off on another tirade against the black community Thursday, telling a room full of activists that black children are running around not knowing how to read or write and "going nowhere." He also had harsh words for struggling black men, telling them: "Stop beating up your women because you canât find a job." Cosby made headlines in May when he upbraided some poor blacks for their grammar and accused them of squandering opportunities the civil rights movement gave them.
He shot back Thursday, saying his detractors were trying in vain to hide the black communityâs "dirty laundry." "Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, itâs cursing and calling each other n------ as theyâre walking up and down the street," Cosby said during an appearance at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition & Citizenship Education Fundâs annual conference. "They think theyâre hip," the entertainer said. "They canât read; they canât write. Theyâre laughing and giggling, and theyâre going nowhere."
In his remarks in May at a commemoration of the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, Cosby denounced some blacksâ grammar and said those who commit crimes and wind up behind bars "are not political prisoners." "I canât even talk the way these people talk, âWhy you ainât,â âWhere you isâ ... and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk," Cosby said then. "And then I heard the father talk ... Everybody knows itâs important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You canât be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth." Cosby elaborated Thursday on his previous comments in a talk interrupted several times by applause. He castigated some blacks, saying that they cannot simply blame whites for problems such as teen pregnancy and high school dropout rates.
"For me there is a time ... when we have to turn the mirror around," he said. "Because for me it is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us. And it keeps a person frozen in their seat, it keeps you frozen in your hole youâre sitting in." Cosby lamented that the racial slurs once used by those who lynched blacks are now a favorite expression of black children. And he blamed parents. "When you put on a record and that record is yelling ân----- this and n----- thatâ and youâve got your little 6-year-old, 7-year-old sitting in the back seat of the car, those children hear that," he said. He also condemned black men who missed out on opportunities and are now angry about their lives.
"Youâve got to stop beating up your women because you canât find a job, because you didnât want to get an education and now youâre (earning) minimum wage," Cosby said. "You should have thought more of yourself when you were in high school, when you had an opportunity." Cosby appeared Thursday with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the education fund, who defended the entertainerâs statements. "Bill is saying letâs fight the right fight, letâs level the playing field," Jackson said. "Drunk people canât do that. Illiterate people canât do that."
Cosby also said many young people are failing to honor the sacrifices made by those who struggled and died during the civil rights movement. "Dogs, water hoses that tear the bark off trees, Emmett Till," he said, naming the black youth who was tortured and murdered in Mississippi in 1955, allegedly for whistling at a white woman. "And youâre going to tell me youâre going to drop out of school? Youâre going to tell me youâre going to steal from a store?"
Cosby also said he wasnât concerned that some whites took his comments and turned them "against our people." "Let them talk," he said. Good stuff Bill. Twenty years too late, but still important. Now what about Sudan?
#1
Bill's not twenty years too late. He's been a rational spokesman for "black issues" for 30+ years. I've been meaning to send him an email of support, but I can't find an email addy for him.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
07/02/2004 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Good for Bill. He has always been able to tap into truth, in comedy and life in general. Holding up a mirror to the community and identifying dependency and blame for what they are will end up empowering more people than excuse making ever will.
#3
I don't recall him being quite this "up front" on race issues until recently. I'll admit it's refreshing to see a black celebrity of some stature finally give "ebonics" a twist of the blade.
This exact message was glaringly absent during the 1980s when black communities were imploding with crack and gang warfare. The rise of "thug life" glorification has nearly drowned out voices of reason like Cosby's. It's sad that Cosby wasn't able to do more with his prime time television work other than show a "Wonder Bread" sort of black family.
#4
Cosby did a series of civil rights educational films in the 70s. I remember watching them back in grade school.
True, he's been very low key on the issues for a long time; I'm not sure why, but I suspect that he HAS been active but ignored by the press for his unpopular beliefs. He did try in a miniscule way to showcase black entertainers and things like that during The Cosby Show's run, but you're right in that the basic premise WAS awfully whitebread.
In my opinion, however, he was showing a black family living in a responsible way while ignoring the "hood" mentality. Maybe he thought the "hood" mentality was just a trend and was due to die out, but the 90s saw it come back in full force. He should have been more vocal during that show's run, if he didn't think it appropriate to do it on stage, then he could have used his IMMENSE power at the time to spread his beliefs. He OWNED NBC for quite a while; no mean feat for an "oppressed" black during the Evil 80s.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
07/02/2004 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
IMO, one of the most beautiful things about Mr. Cosby's comments is that while he was addressing Rainbow/PUSH, and specifically blacks, his comments are truthful across a wide segment of Americans, no matter their ethnic heritage.
It's probably not the "melting pot" that was envisioned, but since the 60s movements started bearing fruit over the past handful of decades, it seems that race is steadily becoming less of a factor, as compared to things like economic level and local community make-up.
#6
Good point, EM. It's like I tell my wife: every group has their hicks. Thing is, you can't treat them like they're part of the family, or they drag you down.
#7
..but since the 60s movements started bearing fruit over the past handful of decades, it seems that race is steadily becoming less of a factor, as compared to things like economic level and local community make-up.
If Jesse Jackson and his fellow bloodsuckers had their way, race would be the factor, and would stay that way as long as the government and private corporations remain willing hosts.
#9
Good for Bill. Reality is setting in elsewhere. If you have spent time on the south side of Chicago in the last year, you have noticed most of the high-rise projects disappearing to the wrecking ball one by one. 18,000 "units" are scheduled for destruction. Hooray and good riddance. They were horrific eyesores and a slow motion public disaster.
#10
He should have been more vocal during that show's run, if he didn't think it appropriate to do it on stage, then he could have used his IMMENSE power at the time to spread his beliefs. He OWNED NBC for quite a while; no mean feat for an "oppressed" black during the Evil 80s.
Thank you, ChrisW. That was my point as well. Cosby had one helluva bully pulpit for quite a while there. How sad that his current message couldn't have gotten out back then when it was most needed. You've got to wonder what Jesse Jackson makes of such novel ideas as accepting blame for one's own shortcomings, not relying upon race issues to carry your cause and other such extremely radical notions. I can only hope that monumental jerk is mulling over how to obtain similar impact from his own stale outworn platform.
#11
Bill Cosby has it right - and it cuts across race lines too: what he says equally goes for the "Klan" types who blame everything bad on people of color, Jews, and Catholics, all while they dropped out of school or made other bad choices.
I fear that his audience will listen about as well as did the KKK and other "Supremacist" groups (or the "white" whack jobs on the far right and left).
#12
I heard soundbites from Cosby's speech in May on the Laura Ingraham show. They were so great and to hear Bill Cosby use his biting humor to try to motivate fellow blacks and get them out of their victim role, a role that guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton promote, was great! This article quotes some of the points he made in May:
In his remarks in May at a commemoration of the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, Cosby denounced some blacks' grammar and said those who commit crimes and wind up behind bars "are not political prisoners."
"I can't even talk the way these people talk, 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk," Cosby said then. "And then I heard the father talk ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth."
As some other posters have said, Cosby's advice about the importance of an intact Mommy and Daddy nuclear family to a child's future success cuts across racial lines and cannot be over stated.
It's never too late for a community leader to speak the truth, and Cosby, a bit too mild mannered for many years perhaps makes up for his previous circumspect approach with powerful wake up call speeches 2 months in a row. I saw a video clip of Cosby making this speech with Jesse Jackson in the background, looking like he was in a state of apoplexy. Very funny.
Posted by: rex ||
07/02/2004 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
Phoenix, AZ
The man called the greatest actor of all time has died. CBS 5 News has learned Marlon Brando passed away Thursday in Los Angeles. Brando may be best known for his roles in "The Godfather" and "On the Waterfront". He won oscars for his work in those 2 films. The cause of death is still unknown. Marlon Brando was 80 years old.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
07/02/2004 10:33:39 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The cause of death is still unknown.
Marlon Brando was 80 years old.
Hmmm, I know the answer is around here somewhere...
#11
Brando is an old skool Moonbat, so expect the press to slobber all over him for the next week or so.
His most famous act of rebellion was his refusal in 1973 to accept the best actor Oscar for "The Godfather." Instead, he sent a woman who called herself Sasheen Littlefeather to read a diatribe about Hollywood's treatment of Native Americans.
EFL
SINCE THERE are only about six of us left in the entire country who still eat bread, I probably shouldnât have been surprised about what happened when my wife and I went to a local restaurant the other night. After we were seated, our server appeared with a basket of dinner rolls. "I donât know whether you still eat this stuff," she said, putting the basket on the table. Then she looked down at it the way youâd look at medical waste. Apparently, she figured us for two of the millions of diet zombies who have joined the low-carb cult. Or - even worse - for two who should join the low-carb cult. This so bummed us out that we told her: Sure, hon, leave the basket. Then we proceeded to wipe out its contents like we were Michael and Mrs. Moore coming off a two-day fast.
Look, I knew things were bad for the bread industry with this low-carb madness seeping into every segment of our society. According to a recent survey by the National Bread Leadership Council - yes, there really is such a thing - 40 percent of those questioned said they were eating less bread than a year ago. But I didnât think things were so bad that restaurant servers were joining the low-carb cult and giving you the evil eye if you reached for the rolls. Then the next day, I picked up the newspaper and saw that not only were the health nuts going after bread in general, they were really going after white bread. Specifically, the article said that white bread "is under attack" by nutritionists for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It said the USDA is thinking of recommending that people cut back dramatically on their consumption of fortified grains. And white bread, according to the story, is the home office for fortified grains.
Well. Never mind that white bread holds an exalted place in the American diet. Never mind that generations of Americans have happily scarfed down thousands of slices of white bread since they were toddlers. No, none of that mattered. The decree was about to come down: White bread was evil. OK, all bread was evil. But white bread was even more evil. Even as I read this story and envisioned the coming PR rumble between the USDA and the bread industry - they may need to call in Kofi Annan to mediate this baby - I thought back over my own history of white-bread consumption. As a child, nearly every meal I ate contained white bread. Wonder bread was my motherâs brand of choice. On the TV, they were always screaming the famous Wonder slogan: "Helps build strong bodies 12 ways!" And my mother believed it. She believed it with every fiber of her being. She didnât see it as hype, or the same soulless Madison Avenue propaganda that barked at you about not squeezing the Charmin and urged you to prepare your face daily for the glorious pleasure of a Gillette razor. No, my mother truly thought you were doing something good for yourself if you began the day with a breakfast of toast made from Wonder bread topped with gobs of butter the size of 50-cent pieces. An ideal lunch, she felt, was a peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich made with Wonder bread. And was there any dinner, no matter how mundane or exotic, that couldnât be enhanced with a slice or two of Wonder bread and more butter?
Now that the USDA is bad-mouthing white bread, what am I to think of my upbringing? Am I to look back on all those peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches made lovingly by my motherâs hand and think: Why, that monster! She was trying to kill me!? Of course not. In fact, to this day I remain a bread guy. I may not eat as much white bread as I used to - older bread guys tend to favor whole-wheat or rye or even pumpernickel. But no one has convinced me that bread, eaten in moderation, can hurt you. So donât ask me to give up bread just because thereâs some new diet craze thatâll flame out in a few months, like they all do. Thatâs what I should have told that server the other night. You want my dinner rolls, youâll have to pry âem from my cold, dead fingers. Although he likes bread, the writer has a surname perfect for an Atkins menu.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/02/2004 3:29:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Whole wheat,here,occasionally like a pattymelt on light rye.With lottsa cheese.
#2
Haven't eaten white bread since before boot camp, back in '90. The DIs would lose their frickin' minds if they found white bread on your tray. I always wondered why they even bothered buying and placing it in the mess line.
#3
The entire white bread hysteria is just that, mindless pseudo-nutrition psycho-babble.
Anyone who is really curious about the subject should read the incredible tome, "On Food and Cooking" by Harold McGee.
While white bread contains less fiber, its finer milled flour also releases more nutrition. In reality, since bread is no longer a major dietary contributor of nutrition, it's a complete wash.
As always with food, eat whatever you enjoy most in moderation. Like Jaques Pepin says; "Diet and starve yourself all your life for what, so you can die skinny?"
#4
Atkins, etc. - fuckin' fad diets, all. Try riding 200 miles in a week without carbs / on Atkins, no freakin' way. A nice 12 / 20 pack and a bowl of pasta after 40+ will replace all the carbs and the 2,000 calories burnt.
What flavor fad diet will we see next year? Nitwits...
#6
If you only need to drop 20 pounds and have an otherwise normal metabolism, then Atkins is probably just going to mess you up. Body For Life works better for that sort of thing.
Atkins worked for me - I was overweight, pre-Type2-diabetic, with insulin resistance forming, and elevated liver enzyme counts and high cholesterol (300+!), and almost all my excess body fat was located in my abdomen. Lookup "Syndrome X" on google - I was a classic case.
I tried "low fat" diet and exercise, it barely made a dent. (Clue: Low Fat usually means they increase sweetners to make up for the lack of fat to carry the flavor).
I then cut out processed sugars and flowers - that helped a bit with the weight loss, but the cholesterol, libver enzymes and insulin actually got a bit worse.
But when I went on atkins, the weight melted, and within 6 weeks my liver enzymes were headed toward their proper range, BP was still high but had dropped 10 and 5, and I had much higher energy than before - and I had lost a large chunk of fat right around the abdomen.
After 6 solid months, my BP is in the normal range (still a bit high), liver enzymes are normal, Cholesterol is below 200, and my waist size is back to where it was 15 years ago. Plus my energy is *UP* to where it used to be, and the Doc says I am no longer at any risk for diabetes: the tests show normal insulin performance and sugar uptake both fasting and post prandial. Its straight out of the book and studies the Atkins published.
Atkins is not a *diet* as much as it is a treatment procedure for specific types of obesity related medical conditions. People who do not see a doctor, get the bloodwork and monitoring done, adhere strickly to the limits (and eat the recommended vegetables like Cauliflower and Broccoli!) and do not get the proper the intake of water or fail to exercise are not doing the treatment right.
So Atkins in not for "nitwits" Raj - it works: you go into ketosis, which means instead of burning carbs for energy, you body metabolizes body fat - so your 200 miles is not as impossible as you think - try getting the facts instead of repeating prejudged garbage.
But most importantly, like any other medical treatment you have to be sure its the right treatment for what ails you.
#9
Well, dunno about any alternative lifestyle, but he's married. She accompanied him to all the latest shindigs from Cannes to his movie opening. No strong stomach for this topic, so I'll leave it at that.
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.
