We can use this .... Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models.
Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate. What about all those nuclear tests. Do they count?
#6
How soon before watermelons march for anthropogenic nuclear war and demand taxes for more HEU?
Posted by: Pearl Gleaper1127 ||
02/28/2011 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ah yes, but the beneficial effects of nuclear war could be negated with cow flatulence. The only thing that can save us is for America to give all its wealth to the third world, become vegetarians, only ride bicycles, and to eliminate capitalism in favor of socialism. And kill everyone over 30 years of age, except for the elite, who are exempt from all the restrictions on everybody else.
#9
I thought the concept of nuclear winter had been around for a while. Careful now, this is NG quoting a group AAAS for the sociatal view of nuclear war.
Artists have been using the concept of gaist activism, as we call it now, in books and movies for a while now usually as a premise for world wide mayham - quick examples would be Soylant Green, 12 Monkeys, 28 Days Later. What is concerning is that here is an international AGW advocate framing the concept of a just war; likely a nuclear war againt an industrialized country or countries as they are the greenhouse producers if you will. Otherwise they would be talking about a series of detonations in no-man lands like deep sahara as a cure - they are talking about war. Such a scenario would, in that frame of mind, be most beneficial if there would be the maximum destruction of all contributers of named greenhouse gasses. That includes demand for cattle; people.
That is, many AGW followers are also anti-war at least at the surface.
#11
Who needs nukes, 1 or 2 volcanoes can put out more dust than we can generate with all of our nukes. Compared to nature, man's just a piker with an ego the size of a red giant while being a dirty brown dwarf.
Nukes, hah.
Posted by: Silentbrick - Lost Drill Bit Division - Halliburton ||
02/28/2011 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
That's it, Silentbrick!
We'll use your drilling expertise and our nukes to drill several holes down to the supervolcano at Yellowstone, blow the nukes and let nature do the rest!
No more global warming, no more USA and a huge population decrease due to mass starvation! A green fantasy! Brilliant!
#13
Got seaweed? Its what to eat after a nuclear war, and you can get it as it washes up on the beach- contains potassium iodide KI or KIO3 to lessen radioactivity uptake! DISCLAIMER: **results may vary** Side effects may include vomiting. Smirk.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/28/2011 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Got seaweed?
So the post-apocalyptic world will belong to the Japanese, the sushi-makers, and the cockroaches? ;-)
[The Nation (Nairobi)] Whatever happens to Libya's Muamar Qadaffy, this is clear. His experimental governance flopped, and if he can't rule Libya, there will be none.
In less than ten days, Qadaffy had lost control of several towns and contested a few. That's despite sending loyal troops to mow down protestors.
The head of Libya's UN Mission, appealing for the world body to help stop the carnage, wept. Qadaffy remained holed up in the capital, Tripoli, defended by loyalists and a ring of tanks.
As one defecting Libyan diplomat said in New York, Qadaffy was telling Libyans, "If you don't let me rule you, I'll kill you."
Estimates of the dead hit 1,000. Humiliating to Libya's strongman, like in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia, unarmed civilians, including women, sparked the revolt.
Concurrently, bigwigs, scores of diplomats, military officers, and ordinary soldiers abandoned the "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution."
Deserting diplomats didn't quit their posts. They switched sides, to take orders from "the Libyan people." Qadaffy had no credible spokesperson outside Libya.
Uncharacteristically, Qadaffy first sent son Saif al-Islam, a phoney moderate, to assert his determination to "fight to the last bullet," man, and woman. By Wednesday, Qadaffy claimed he wasn't a president to resign, but swore to fight and die a "martyr."
Queenly dress
On Thursday, he was a "symbol" like Queen Elizabeth. A New York magazine graphic artist got it right and attired him appropriately, queenly dress, pearls, a hat, and gloves.
Come Friday, Qadaffy told supporters at the Green Square that to defend his rule "Libya will be red with fire; it will turn to ashes."
"Dance, sing, stay up... Live a life of dignity, with high morals," presumably over the blood of fellow Libyans.
"This is a mad man and is psychologically not stable," lamented the deputy at Libya's UN mission.
Qadaffy's might not be clinical madness. Qadaffy deposed King Idris in 1969. He has never won a vote.
His governance philosophy, Jamahiriya ... An Arabic neologism coined by Muammar al-Qadaffy. The word jamahiriya was derived from jumhuriya, which is the usual Arabic translation of republic. It was coined by changing the component jumhur ‐ public ‐ to its plural form, jamahir — the masses. Thus, it is similar to the term People's Republic, only more denigrating to the actual inhabitants of the country... , or rule of the masses, is a mumbo jumbo of Islam, Socialism, mysticism and bizarre idea against representative government, which, in his view is nonexistent. Hence the need, for a "brotherly guide," himself.
In practice, the "brotherly guide" needed absolute obedience in what became "Qadaffy Incorporated." Anyone who questioned Qadaffy's views and wishes, inside Libya or elsewhere, faced his tantrums and fury.
The "King of Kings" took no prisoners. Mention any revolt in the world, you'll find Qadaffy's weaponry, and guidance.
Substantial Libyan petroleum money advanced the Brotherly Guide's whims, and, especially in Africa, IOUs to his ilk. The majority of Libya's 6.4 million weren't getting a fair share though.
Qadaffy had a precious commodity: stability. That blinded the champions of democracy to its cost to Libyans, lack of freedom. And freedom is the ability to tell any authority, "No. Let's talk."
In the end, there were enough Libyans willing to die standing than to live on knees.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hey Obama, where are the Carriers?
Oh, you got Hillary working on a useless UN Resolution.
Don't bother me now, I got a Motown Concert to attend.
#2
Obama: That's right, I'm busy and still studying what went wrong between Prof. Gates and the Boston PD.
Posted by: Jack Salami ||
02/28/2011 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Besides assuming the duties of the Supreme Court, the man is busy with brackets and we have the pressing issue of NFL bargaining and college football ranking system to address before it is too late.
#4
Uncle Muammar isn't going to leave, or die?, widout a fight, moreso as his African Mercenaries = Security Guards, etc. are highly paid, highly trained, + repor haved vowed to protect + fight Uncle Muammar to the bitter end. IOW, IIUC AS LONG AS HE CAN $$$ PAY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL PRIVATE ARMY MUAMMAR WILL TRY TO HOLD ON TO RULING/POLITICAL POWER AMAP ALAP EVEN IFF LIBYA DOES ULTIMATELY SPLIT UP INTO TWO OR MORE SEPARATE NEW COUNTRIES.
Iff Muammar holds true to his dedication, IMO THE ONLY WAY FOR HIM TO FORCIBLY LEAVE POWER MAY BE FOR HIM TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF HIS OWN GUARDS???
[ROMAN EMPERORS + PRAETORIAN GUARDS here].
IRONY = Iff the US-ALLIES cannot prevent Nuke-happy Radical Islam = IRAN? from usurping + taking over the various "Jasmine" pro-Democracy Movements, espec as per EGYPT + SAUDI ARABIA + TURKEY, IT MAY WANT UNCLE MUAMMAR = "THE COLONEL" TO STAY IN POWER IN LIBYUH AS HEDGE???
Notice how the hand-drawn sign associates both Nazis and Jews with Gaddafi. Obama might well intervene to put Islamists in power. Significant chunks of the GOP is egging him on, under the illusion that these revolts are about freedom rather than Islamism.
[Asharq al-Aswat] There has been a barrage of derisive and humorous comments regarding Colonel Muammar Qadaffy ... dictator of Libya since 1969. From 1972, when he relinquished the title of prime minister, he has been accorded the honorifics Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution. With the death of Omar Bongo of Gabon on 8 June 2009, he became the longest serving of all current non-royal national leaders. He is also the longest-serving ruler of Libya since Tripoli became an Ottoman province in 1551. When Chairman Mao was all the rage and millions of people were flashing his Little Red Book, Qadaffy came out with his own Little Green Book, which didn't do as well. Qadaffy's instability has been an inspiration to the Arab world and to Africa, which he would like to rule... 's recent speeches. This follows on from the comic trend which was evident amongst the youth of Tahrir Square in Egypt. This light-hearted attitude continues to dominate people's minds, but it is remarkable that the mocking comments about Qadaffy's speeches have not only been found on the internet, but have even been used by some political commentators! What is the intention of this?
It is simple - there is an element of comedy, call it black comedy, in Qadaffy's speeches. However, The infamous However... some of his attitudes are not unique, but rather they can be seen in past and present examples in our Arab world! When Qadaffy says that the Libyans have a right to demonstrate peacefully, as long as the demonstrations are related to Gazoo or Iraq, and not Libyan internal affairs, he is not the only one who does so. If we are talking about authoritarianism in the Middle East, then it is sufficient to look at 'democratic' Iraq, and how many citizens were killed last Friday because they came out to demonstrate! There is also Syria, which had allowed demonstrations sometimes against the Egyptians, and sometimes in support of them, and a few days ago permitted protests outside the Libyan embassy. However, The infamous However... Syria does not allow demonstrations to take place if they are for internal reasons. Either it should prevent demonstrations entirely, or not try and exploit them for its own purposes.
There are more examples than these, of course. Colonel Qadaffy didn't even blink when he said: "If the Libyan people do not love me, then I do not deserve to live. If the Arab people, the African people, and all people, do not love Muammar Qadaffy, Muammar Qadaffy does not deserve life for one day". He is convinced that his role is to protect the nation, and has forgotten that genuine power comes from the unity of the citizens behind him. Qadaffy is not the only one who thinks by this logic, we see Hassan Nasrallah every now and then speaking from somewhere in the suburbs of Beirut, delivering a speech to the nation. Sometimes he is inciting the Egyptian army [to rebel] against its government, other times he is addressing the Egyptians about their revolution, not to mention his speeches to the Tunisians. Why look further than this? Isn't Hassan Nasrallah the man who spoke in 2006, on Al-Jazeera, telling Arab rulers: "I am even certain that some sons, daughters, and wives of some Arab rulers are with us. But I tell the Arab rulers, I do not want your swords and I do not even want your hearts." What is the difference between Qadaffy and Hassan Nasrallah?
When Qadaffy says that he will ignite the whole of Libya, and turn it into smoldering embers, again this is nothing new. This is no different to some of what is happening around us. Qadaffy views Libya, as I said earlier, according to the perspective of "I am the state, and the state is I". This is exactly what Saddam Hussein did, ending up hiding in a hole, and leading Iraq towards unparalleled destruction.
Some of what Colonel Qadaffy comes out with may be funny, but we do not know whether to laugh or cry, and this merits lengthy contemplation. What Qadaffy says in his speeches is merely an attempt for survival, and others in the region are also guilty of this. However, The infamous However... they speak more calmly, repeating their rhetoric day and night, with intellectual language sometimes, and stimulating the Arab masses at other times.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
Mexican Secretary of National Defense (SEDENA), General Guillermo Galvan Galvan, released a document to members of the Chamber of Deputies last mid September which stated that Mexican drug cartels are undefeatable.
At least that is what the Mexican leftist weekly Proceso has claimed in a story on its website Saturday night.
However, since that story was released, the website of Proceso has been down all day Sunday.
The revelation is stunning, but it is also contradictory especially in light of what has been since since last September, especially with the SEDENA plan to reinforce the Mexican Army in northern states.
it is also hard to believe that 500 individuals in the Chamber of Deputies, each of whom live and die by what they say, would keep mum about such a critical story.
Going by memory,the report said Galvan Galvan had suggested making arrangements with drug cartels and to assign territories and drug rotues but the central element was an alliance of cartels to eliminate Los Zetas. The report also said that the cartels were too powerful to defeat given the great amount of resources it has access to.
In some ways, Galvan Galvan may be right. Every cartel makes use of local street gangs and not just in Mexico, including the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang with affiliates throughout central and north America to provide new talent, treating local street gangs like a farm club for their operations.
And if cartels also have access to funds provided by foreign governments, such as Venezuela and Ecuador that may also be a factor in the conclusion.
It is a working theory with this writer that the great mass of weapons the cartels use come from foreign governments. No other entity could afford to manufacture weapons without identification markings, and drug gangs are not known for their ordnance support of their armed wings.
And unmarked weapons do not come from gun shops on the US side of the border.
A side note: Proceso has been less than accurate in the past. A story released by Proceso in December said that they received a fax from a group claiming to be an alliance between the Giulf Cartel and Sinaloa cartel claiming the existence of 11 more car bombs, and threatening to detonate them because of the nexus between local authorities in Nuevo Leon and kidnapping operations by Los Zetas.
A car bomb was detonated in General Zuazua north of Monterrey last December. Click here to read the Rantburg report on that attack. Click here to read the report of the fax received by Proceso.
No other car bombs have detonated in Nuevo Leon since that time, yet the alliance was mentioned again in the latest story.
Proceso being a leftist publication, truth apparently doesn't matter; only agenda does.
If the story is true, it is certainly a game changer. It means a hostile narcostate now exists south of the border in the US.
But if the story isn't true, it's just another agenda item the left blows by its readers.
Very well written essay on why Obama is a threat to our country in response to Michael Medved. Some of the ones that stick out:
Consider then the following examples, not by any means an exhaustive list:
(1) Mr. Obama's 2012 budget flies in the face of fiscal and political reality. Not only does it fail to actually cut spending, it dramatically increases spending -- and the deficit -- far into the future, while raising taxes, ignoring the entitlement crisis, and continuing the promulgation of policies that can have no result other than to destroy the creation of wealth, jobs, and the economy. America is broke, beyond broke, and the utter dissolution of our existing entitlements -- not considering ObamaCare -- is imminent. Unemployment is arguably at 10.3%; virtually every economic indicator is in the toilet. Any responsible president, any president for whom the welfare of the nation is his first concern, will not propose a budget that spends, now and into the future, far more money than America produces and can possibly take in or repay. Yet Mr. Obama wants to spend billions on projects like high-speed rail, a boondoggle the public neither wants nor needs.
(2) Since taking office, Mr. Obama has serially and crudely insulted our strongest and most faithful allies, such as Great Britain and Israel, while extending "outreach" to virtually every thuggish, repressive, anti-democratic regime on the planet. His repeated threats to establish yet another deadline when Iran violates the last have established only his impotence. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and all Mr. Obama can do is threaten to trot out even more threatening rhetoric.
(5) One of the only constants in Mr. Obama's foreign policy is a reflexive, mindless support for Marxist and/or Islamist despotism. Take the example of Honduras, where a Marxist president attempted to overthrow the Honduran Constitution and install himself as ruler for life. Adhering to the rule of law, the Hondurans threw him out of office and out of the country. Mr. Obama immediately sided with the Marxist, and has personally, and through the State Department, supported him against the Honduran rule of law ever since.
#1
The credibility of O'Reilly, Medved and god know how many supposed conservatives (John McShame and his trollette daughter)who regularly dismiss that Obama is even a socialist is laughable.
Posted by: Jack Salami ||
02/28/2011 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Both Medved's and Mike McDaniel's articles worth a read. Can't quarrel with McDaniel's thesis. The best indicator of Obama's intentions are his behaviors, actions, and inactions.
#3
People used to say that jimmuh carter meant well, that he was just in over his head. I never believed it with jimmuh and I don't believe it with Bummer. If he's incompetent, he's an incompetent socialist.
Onto topic then. Obama is a follower in a leader's position. He bought in to Rev. Wright and Ayers, but later waffled, he gets direction from those around him with strong personalities hoping some of that personality rubs off on him rather than leading and acting from his inner ideals which are fluid. Later, he might have realized it a little, but he is a peril.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/28/2011 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
While working in DC I heard Jimmy Carter ridiculed many times. The Georgia peanut farmer and such. He was a very intelligent man believe it or not. Tip O'Neill was the real power, media and dems in congress. His problem was he had to do everything himself and his way. Just as he has done since leaving office.Well-Meaning fits Carter much better.
#6
Fire and ice "he is a peril". I have long believed he is so insecure and needs the props of others. Before he won the election I said he would be in for 8 years if he won. The pressure is too much for him. I have looked for cracks such as outbursts, health issues etc.. In my opinion he is accident waiting to happen. He most definitely is not a leader(organizer only). He also is not an original thinker. Judge by what he does rather than what he says. Shell game.
He absolutely is not. Dale you nailed it in my opinion. He defers to others and waits (Oh, and spends). That is it for having any strategy (if you can call it that) at all. And yes, really approval seeking.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/28/2011 18:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"Well meaning", my ass. He knows exactly what he's doing.
#9
In some ways he reminds of a woman. He likes to shop! Oh looky, high speed rail, fire engines, mo town, pizza and stuff! Who wouldn't like these? Could somebody Republicans in the house please remind Bozo that spending money for cool toys is for personal shoppers not presidents?
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/28/2011 19:03 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Actions speak louder than words.
If obama were actually an enemy of America what would he do differently? Nothing.
#2
Not exactly "news", but a well-written editorial.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/28/2011 5:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Public-employee unions force all taxpayers to fund the Democratic Party
The solution, civil service, for one problem, patronage, has after a hundred years become more corrupt in the process. At least with the old patronage system you could fire both the politicians and government employees with the vote. Now you have permanent graft with one party receiving the kickback from the system regardless of who is voted in. The fix is in. It will remain in till either the close shop mandatory payroll deduction is ended or public unions abolished. Of course we could go back to the spoils system given the amount of influence buying is going on anyway. How could you really tell the difference in Illinois?
At least under patronage if you had a bad time at MVD, you'd tell your state representative you and your friends aren't backing him/her next year because of it. That'll get far more attention than filing paper complaints.
#6
Some of the loons who commented on this article don't have a clue what they are talking about. The union thugs who were in Madison kept yelling to Mike Tobin from Fox that "Fox sucks" drowning him out. Some one hit him. They are not about free speech.
Gov. Walker's bill actually states the following regarding collective bargaining:
Collective bargaining The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.
Collective bargaining is not a right for many people; therefore it is not a right for all people.
#7
Wonder how many of the union bosses would want a 'unionized' military. Think of Madison but with weapons. I believe it's called a coup. Hey, if they believe everyone one should be able to 'collectively bargain', then it must be OK. /sarc off
#8
The Idaho Statesman reports: Whenever Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has asked lawmakers to weaken benefits for state employees, his proposals have met little resistance from workers.
Mississippi is among those states - many in the South - where most government employees do not have the right to collective bargaining, the benefit that has caused a political upheaval in Wisconsin and has become a national flashpoint for those who argue that public employee benefits are too generous.
#9
The Taft-Hartley Act allowed right-to-work laws to be passed in 1947. This put a crimp in the unions' power. Twenty-two states have such laws. There is a renewed interest to pass such laws in additional states as well as at the Federal level.
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.
Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models. 
Colonel Muammar Qadaffy
