EFL. I'm impressed.
Third grader Aaron Zweig can spell "ornicopytheobibliopsychocrystarroscioaero-genethliometeoroaustrohieroanthropoichthyopyrosideroch-pnomyoalectryoophiobotanopegobydrorhab-docrithoaleuroalphitohalomolybdoclerobeloax-inocoscinodactyliogeolithopessopsephocatop-trotephraoneirochiroonychodactyloarithstichooxogeloscogastro-gyrocerobletonooenosapulinaniac." Zweig, 9, spelled the word before his class last month after he was given a challenge by his teacher. The teacher said she was surprised, to say the least, that Zweig was able to recite the entire 310 letters. Zweig is a student at Fernbrook Elementary School and last year, his spelling impressed his second grade teacher, Ruth Kalata. So this year, Kalata posed the challenge of the giant word."I told him he should come back to me when he had learned the word, thinking he never would," Kalata said on Nov. 11. "But two weeks later he was back and spelled it in front of my class. It was really a joke to challenge him, but he thrives on challenges like that." Kalata said that last year, the youth learned to spell two, extremely long words, antidisestablishmentarianism and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.But the two words with 34 and 28 letters, respectively, were puny compared with the latest challenge. And, yes, it has a definition.
According to a book of facts, the 310-letter word was used by medieval scribes to refer to someone who practices divination or forecasting by means of phenomena, interpretation of acts, or other manifestations related to animate or inanimate objects and appearances such as various animal behaviors, dreams, palmistry, wands, ring suspension and a number of other methods.
In other words, an exit pollster
Bring me The Writ Of Common Wisdom!
"When Aaron spelled the word in front my class, he paused part way through and told the class not to worry because he was almost done," said Kalata. "It amazed me that he could pause, make a comment, then continue spelling without losing his place." Showoff...
#6
Yo moderators, please insert spaces after the hyphens in that monstrosity so we don't have to put up with a page that's 2-1/2 screens wide in Mozilla! Thanks!
Posted by: Old Grouch ||
11/19/2004 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
A group of Greek lawyers are threatening to sue Warner Bros film studios and Oliver Stone, director of the widely anticipated film "Alexander," for suggesting Alexander the Great was bisexual.
"Suggesting"?
The lawyers have already sent an extrajudicial note to the studio and director demanding they include a reference in the title credits saying his movie is a fictional tale and not based on official documents of the life of the Macedonian ruler.
Already done -- look for "Directed by Oliver Stone".
"We are not saying that we are against gays but we are saying that the production company should make it clear to the audience that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander," Yannis Varnakos, who spearheads the campaign by 25 lawyers, told Reuters on Friday. This is not the first time Greeks have been angered by suggestions Alexander was homosexual and had affairs with young men. Two years ago hundreds of northern Greeks from the province of Macedonia, where he was born, stormed an archaeological symposium after one speaker presented a paper on the homosexuality of Alexander. Police were called in to evacuate the participants.
And that changed any facts presented in what way?
One of the greatest military leaders of all time, Alexander, who was never defeated in battle, conquered about 90 percent of the then-known world before his mysterious death at the age of 32, building an empire that stretched from the Mediterranean to Afghanistan. Varnakaos said as Stone has the right to freely express himself, the audience should have the right to know. "We cannot come out and say that (former U.S.) President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay," Varnakos said.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 2:03:15 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I thought Kennedy played for the Celtics?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Man, it was the 80 percent of the real world that gave him trouble.
#8
You're right, of course, Tom; except for that formatting thing. But the flesh was weak and the spirit didn't even suit up. And when I got to the JFK as a shooting guard line, well it was Katie bar the door time.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The lawyers are probably undercover shills for Stone. Cheap PR for what acc to the previews is a complete piece o merde.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/19/2004 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Crikey, TGA, never say "Macedonia" when Aris is around! He'll blow a gasket!
Posted by: Tom ||
11/19/2004 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Alexander considered himself a Greek, and so did his immediate ancestors, the ruling elite. That's what he claimed anyway, and both his native language, his name, and his education were Greek.
I don't know about the main *population* of the Macedonians of the time though. I hear they may have been a "barbaric" tribe that was Hellenized, and that would explain some things. So I guess the question of whether you'd consider the ancient Macedonians Greek or not is connected to whether you'd consider modern Bulgarians to be Slavs or Mongols. :-)
The anti-Alexanders Athenians of the time called Macedonians "barbarians", ofcourse, even as Alexander claimed himself Greek. So the issue was political from that time on -- except with the positions slightly reversed.
For comments on the modern situation, last post on my livejournal.
#16
Don wrote: "See!!! Denial is not just a LLL diease."
See!!! Inability to spell is not just a VRWC disease.
Posted by: Tibor ||
11/19/2004 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#17
While we think of countries as areas of (contiguous) territory, the concept didn't really apply to the Greeks and some other early civilizations. The Greeks were more like a network of people with a shared language, culture and communications links.
#18
Nah, the Greeks had a racial-cultural idea of themselves which made a cultural distinction of Greek and not-Greek. Alexander did self-identify as "Greek". Of course, he also self-identified as "Macedonian" and even "Persian" when it was politically wise for him to do so. I strongly suspect that if he found himself in a position to conquer Japan, he'd be identifying himself as "Japanese", in Australia an "Aborigine", in Germany eine Deutscher, in Boston, Irish, in Utah, a Mormon, in Arkansas, a Bubba. In that sense, he was the John F. Kerry of the Ancient World - willing to be whatever made you happy.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/19/2004 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I think the idea that Alexander was gay is a lot like the idea among some of the black community that the ancient Egyptians were black - wistful thinking. The customs of that time were just different, and things in the literature that are considered to have sexual significance today were asexual during that time. It's sort of like how holding hands is normal in many parts of the world (like Afghanistan and much of the Arab world) and has no sexual significance to it.
#20
Well he definately kicked 'ass' all around the old worlds , whatever else he did with ass was his own business really . I thought male bodies were worshiped highly in olympic events back then , and bi sexuality wasnt an issue . What floats yer boat really . Oh and I wouldnt have liked to get on the wrong side of him *snicker*
It may also depend, as it does for street kids in Brazil for instance, on who assumes the "female" position in intercourse between two men. The idea is, that if you're assuming the male part, then it really doesn't matter whether your partner is male or female. You're still considered to be a macho, manly type guy. Or at least that's how they explained it in a documentary on the subject.
Posted by: Rafael ||
11/19/2004 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
WATCH out Starbucks. British beermakers are wooing the caffeine-crazed with a new beer made from fair-trade coffee beans. Coffee beans from the central African country of Rwanda are mixed with barley grown in Britain, creating a beer with the same amount of caffeine in one bottle as in a cup of coffee. Drinkers can get an added buzz from the political correctness of their coffee, labelled fair trade - meaning it has been grown in conditions which ensure the fair treatment of and living wages for workers in developing countries.
I thought they said it was from Rwanda?
British supermarket chain Sainsbury's is exclusively selling "Coffee Beer", which comes on the heels of strawberry and chocolate-flavored brews turned out by the same Meantime Brewery in Greenwich, southeast London. After the success of strawberry in summer, "it seemed natural to have a more warming, mellow taste for winter," the supermarket said.
Posted by: tipper ||
11/19/2004 2:45:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Beer not just for breakfast! (A bumper sticker seen in the USA)
Forecasters warned drivers to expect icy conditions, as snow fell and temperatures plunged across Britain. Winter's coming early this year.
The first snows of the winter fell across parts of Wales, Derbyshire, East Anglia and Northamptonshire overnight, with temperatures in the Scottish Highlands expected to drop as far as minus 7C. Throughout the rest of the UK, temperatures are also predicted to be lower than average. Jeremy Plester, a PA WeatherCentre forecaster, said: "It's going to be extremely icy . Everyone is out salting the roads, but drivers will still have to be particularly careful on by-roads." He said the icy conditions would extend over the UK, with the exception of Cornwall.
Forecasters earlier predicted overnight temperatures to be the coldest of the winter so far. In England the Highways Agency also issued a warning to drivers. A statement said: "The Highways Agency's gritters are on standby ready to treat England's motorways and other strategic roads. Maintenance teams will be gritting in advance of the cold weather, and will continue to treat motorways and other strategic roads throughout the cold snap. We are advising drivers to check for up-to-date information on weather and road conditions before they set off, and during their journey."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/19/2004 3:19:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just about now would be a great time for the global warming doom-mongers to crank up their hot air emissions and thaw things a little. But do they? No. They go into hibernation.
#4
Okay, guys -- I'm not convinced one way or the other about global warming claims.
However, you cannot point to unusually cold winters in Britain as proof that it isn't happening. Because the atmosphere, the land and the seas don't warm (or cool) uniformly, one symptom of global warming (if it is happening) is precisely that there is great turbulence. The weather models do predict more extreme weather in places around the globe for decades if warming is indeed happening -- including more extreme cold sometimes.
#5
rkb with respect you are wrong re turbulence (except due to increased energy in the atmosphere but that will be a small fraction of 1%). Global warming (as predicted by Kyoto) is gradual. It will have no real affect on weather except to shift weather system patterns further North (and South in the southern hemisphere).
North west Europe's weather is largely determined by the North Atlantic Conveyor (Gulf Stream). I've been reading reports for a year or more that it has sharply declined.
#6
But BD, you live upwind from Chiraq. The people of Germany and Eastern Europe get all the hot air (and methane) they can tolerate.
Posted by: ed ||
11/19/2004 5:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Overall warming is gradual -- but local differences can be quite sharp. Cities hold heat compared to countryside, moutains hold and release heat differently than the oceans and within the oceans, currents make a large difference as well.
It is true that the Gulf Stream is cooler lately. The question is why that should be so? And the answer to that is pretty complicated.
Or so I'm told by a friend whose expertise is weather modelling. I don't even play a weather modeller on the Internet, but he does have some claim to expertise in the area.
#8
Oh my, -7C. That's got to be like 20F. Cry my a river. Try being in the upper midwest in January or February. We all ready had a couple of nights like that in October
#9
Tbh , I'm a firm beleiver that global warming is happening , probably a cyclic event that happens every few thousand years , then it receeds , but I also think that there is a degree (excuse pun) of human involvement that is enhancing its progression . Like it or lump it , be in denial or not , something is happening to the globe and we , as protectors of it need to pay greater attention and spend funds investigating the matter further .
One small example I can think of is , after 9/11 , there was a drastic decline in airflight round the world for a short period , this alone brought the overall average global temperature down by 1 degree celcius during that period . Draw your own conclusions , but this did happen .
#11
The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years
An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades. ... one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years.
Posted by: ed ||
11/19/2004 6:40 Comments ||
Top||
#12
after 9/11 , there was a drastic decline in airflight round the world for a short period , this alone brought the overall average global temperature down by 1 degree celcius during that period . Draw your own conclusions , but this did happen .
I'm not so sure, MacNails. All I've read about the 9/11 effect is that high and low day and night time temperatures fluctuated in the US by about 1.1 degC beyond normal for a few days after aircraft were grounded (see here and here). This was put down to the absence of high altitude vapour trails which actually reflect sunlight, but trap heat radiating from the earth's surface, and may play either way, or have no net role, in influencing global temperatures. If someone was being selective with their use of statistics, they could suggest that the grounding of aircraft had either raised temperatures (at night) or reduced temperatures (daytime)...
#13
taken from your quality report Ed (interesting read )
However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years.
Bulldog , I am only pointing out one of many variables which could and may influence global warming , all added together , it paints a glum picture which in the long run will only get worse . Also no matter what anyone says the air we live and breathe is getting dirtier and more polluted , mainly caused by third world countries trying to get onto the first world ladder . I personally think us first world countries should look long and hard at the future and not hide the issues under the carpet , after all democracy is all about debate and freedom of choice , what we do with it is a different matter .
Anyway , this is an interesting debate , and makes a nice change from the usual Jihadi nutcase 's
#14
Bulldog , I am only pointing out one of many variables which could and may influence global warming , all added together , it paints a glum picture which in the long run will only get worse .
I appreciate that, MacNails, and I'm not saying that global warming can't be happening, (or even that colder temperatures for the UK may happen as a result of a global rise in temperature - I believe one model has the Greenland ice shelf melting and the resulting cold water runoff colliding with the warm Gulf Stream before it make it to our pampered island) - I just keep a sceptical attitude towards agenda-driven researchers and ecowarrior campaign groups, whose use of data is often selective and deceptive. It's interesting to note that with every unseasonably cold spell we hear nothing about climate change, and yet with every unseasonably warm spell, the media is full of it...
Posted by: Barbara Woodhouse ||
11/19/2004 7:15 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Indeed Bulldog , I'm as sceptical as you as regards those groups , and theres plenty of em over here . I , like you , try to reach an informed conclusion with the data that i glean from around the world and not listen to emotion and panic spreaders .
I also have seen the model of melting ice cap and how it affects the gulf stream 'North Atlantic Conveyor' , but as usual results are inconclusive *shrug* hehe
#17
Junkscience.com is a must-read on global warming. If you read nothing else there be certain to at least scan their page on global mean temps. Once you've done that try their pop quiz and be sure to read the very informative answer.
There's also good evidence that solar activity is having a dramatic impact on the environment ... of Mars. At least it seems safe to infer that solar activity is the culprit since Mars is lacking in industry, cars, planes, forests, oceans, and other environment-altering features.
#18
I'll get round to reading that AzCat , am at work atm ,and folk are asking for some reports that need polishing off . I'll post back this evening .
#20
Well said, badanov. I believe that environmental science is often a subset of political science. There certainly seem to be a lot of environmental scientists who are weak in the chemistry and physics fields. In fairness though, I have met some environmental scientists in the corporate world who are quite capable -- but they're not the type that we are reading about in the MSM. That may be sorting -- the good ones get good technical jobs while the others get political jobs and chase headlines.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/19/2004 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Not all of it badnov, as Tom noted there are many good people in the field. We get so much junk science because that's what the system rewards and encourages.
Most environmental research is funded by government grants and all things being equal the folks signing the checks are far more likely to award you a grant if your proposal calls for the study of a problem that you claim is likely to kill us all or destroy the planet. Layer on top of that motivation the fact that in academia where the lion's share of this research is conducted, the ability to produce grant money is directly proportional to a researcher's odds of being tenured. Hence the steady stream of dire predictions with which we're inundated, it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
Couple the above with the sensationalist nature of the media and it's easy to see understand not only why we have a steady stream of dire predictions but why those are the only ones we hear about. "There is no global warming," or "Global warming is a natural not man-made phenomenon," are man-bites-dog stories, they have no appeal. "The world is about to be destroyed by automobiles, evil polluting corporations and Brazilian farmers," is, on the other hand, a story with great popular appeal and one that can be run every time a new practitioner of junk science propagates a new doctoral dissertation with a new faulty spin on the questionable data.
Whenever I hear about global warming I think back to the public service announcements that used to run with the Saturday morning cartoons when I was a child. The crying Indian firmly convinced me that we'd have no oil by the year 2000, the entire planet would be covered with several inches of litter by the time I graduated from high school, and that we were headed into a new ice age which would reduce my adult life to a day-to-day stuggle for existence. These days I'm a skeptic.
#22
The first time i saw the graph of CO2 levels and global temps on one page (at AzCat's link) I knew this was conclusive proof the human induced global warming via elevated CO2 levels thesis was false. Not maybe, possibly, but absolute conclusive proof. In a casual relationship cause must preceed effect. There is a truly stunning amount of weaseling going on to get around temperature increases preceeding rising CO2 levels.
#23
Not all of it badnov, as Tom noted there are many good people in the field.
There is so much lying about environmental 'science' that for me to accept the thesis that not all of environmental 'science' is junk science would be like me accepting what a known liar is telling me as the truth, except the stuff known to be lies.
#24
Wrote a paper on the subject in college about ~8 years ago. Something that struck me at the time was that the sources in "favor" of global warming tended to talk about models and possibilities, while those "against" it happened tended to discuss measurements and historical data trends.
Just a generalization of course, but it seems to hold up most of the time when I read on the subject.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/19/2004 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#25
An excellent site is Still Waiting For Greenhouse. John Daly started it, but has passed on. I believe his family continues the page.
Daly lives in Tanzania, and found a bench mark measuring average sea height on an island down there dating from the 1800s. He studied it and found that the sea level hasn't gone up at all.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/19/2004 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Daly lived, that should have read.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/19/2004 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#27
What astounds me is how little we know about the largest impactor on "warming." Our Sun could fart and wipe out every living thing on the Daylight side of our planet. At some point in Sols life it will wipe out our planet. One Volcano can alter the temp of the earth for several years. The Atlantic conveyor can and does shut down. The UK gets glaciers if it does. We live on an ice planet if you look at the historic trends. We adapt or we perish. All this "global warming" crap really goes against the historical record.
#29
Don't dismiss AzCat's comment about "global warming" on Mars, and don't let anyone blow it off: the original models being used today that predict global warming were originally developed to explain the Martian climate.
To me, the most obvious disproof of global warming is the satellite data on atmospheric temperature that comes from directly measuring its infared spectrum. during times of reported global temperature increase, the direct atmospheric temperature did not increase as much, if at all. The theory is that ground stations that used to be rural got suburbanized, then urbanized, as the cities near them grew and overran them. Its a known fact that cities are warmer than rural areas so there IS truth to the (true) assertion that "measured temperatures have gone up as industrial activity increased." Question is, is what you are REALLY measuring REALLY what you THINK you're measuring?
#30
What Ptah said. A great many ground weather stations hav skewed numbers because they are in the middle of cities, or airports or other "heat islands."
That's how you can get ground stations claiming increases in temperature when 20+ years of satellite data (measuring the air as a whole) shows basically no change.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/19/2004 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#31
For me, I'm still trying to figure out how our ancestors melted the ice sheets covering Europe and North America some 20,000 years ago, raising ocean levels 200 to 300 feet. Must have been all those heavy industrial sites and automobiles they had back then too.
Posted by: Don ||
11/19/2004 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#32
A few years ago a young Engineer asked what caused the Ice Age. I said "It got cold". Then he asked me what caused the ice age decline and I said "It warmed up". He hit me.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/19/2004 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#33
LOL DB! Should a bop 'em with the flat of your sabre like sabre.
Our Sun could fart and wipe out every living thing on the Daylight side of our planet.
SPoD Do like I do, get down on your knees and pray! And I mean pray! Let it all go! If you feel like writhing go for it, it you can suddenly speak Strupeth Jalen let 'er rip! Then after the sweats are over retire to the O'club and have a Pigs foot.
#34
Wow, a lot of global warming crap for an article about a cold snap in the UK! I thought the most interesting thing about this article was that England will be gritting the roads. I would think it rather messy, we use salt, sand or mag chloride on the roads in the US. why would you use this? http://www.grits.com/discript.htm
#35
Why Global Warming is bullshit:
1. If the climate gets warmer - BAD.
2. If the climate gets colder - BAD.
3. The climate never has and never will remain steady.
#37
I'm still trying to figure out how our ancestors melted the ice sheets covering Europe and North America some 20,000 years ago
Cold fusion experiments gone awry.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#38
I guess I'll stay in the minority here and firmly commit myself to the train of thought that we are screwing around with the planet and contributing to its shoddy state , I , for one dont particularly want to leave a legacy of this kind to my children . If people think that pumping crap into the atmosphere isnt doing damage then they are in a serious case of denial .
And yes people can say ' ohh its happened in the past look at this data' but people can't say in the past we have had big industries like we have now , cars like now and a population like we have now . Imagine a scenario where you attacth a hose to your car , and stick it thro the window of your greenhouse , then go to the pub and come back . Think your tomatoe plants would survive ? I dont . This is basically what we are doing albeit in a slower way and less concentrated .
I choose Los Angeles for an example .
Over a period of eight years, researchers tracked 1,759 grade school children until their high school graduation (in 12 different Los Angeles communities) to see if they were negatively affected by the smog. The findings showed that in the dirtiest areas (San Bernardino and other regions close to freeways), 10 percent of the children developed "clinically significant" breathing problems. If this sort of crap is happening locally then something will happen on a larger scale . A case of a cancer spreading .
People can argue that Los Angeles is in a bowl ' and gathers pollution , and it doesnt rain enough to clear the air , but the issue remains .
As Sir Winston Churchill once said: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics" and both sides can manipulate them to suit their needs.
Anyway I have drifted off the topic a bit , but all avenues lead to the same thing .
#39
Anyway , I expect to get ripped to bits , just finished 12 hours at work and couldnt put a logical arguement together if I tried tonight , head is almost on the keyboard .
#40
There's no question whatsoever that humans impact the environment in which they live. This will be true so long as a single human exists on the planet. To me the proper question isn't, "How do we absolutely minimize our impact on the 'natural' environment?" but is instead more along the lines of, "Are we receiving a good return in exchange for our impact on the environment?"
I'll submit that when viewed on the human equivalent of a geologic time scale the answer to that latter question is a resounding, "Yes!" Consider the advances in: life expectancy, leisure time, ease of subsistence, etc. over the past few centuries.
Officials of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice are now questioning seven young men for harassing women at recreation centers and jumping over walls to reach family sections in Makkah, Okaz daily reported yesterday. The paper said the seven included Asian and African overstayers.
"You ain't allowed to harass our womenfolk! That's our job!"
"Yew boys hain't from around here, air yew? Whatchoo doin', sniffin' around our wimmin?"
Posted by: Steve ||
11/19/2004 2:49:31 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
US Congress will vote in February on a free trade agreement with Bahrain and stands ready to consider agreements with other countries in the Middle East, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said. Bill Thomas, a California Republican, was part of a Congressional delegation that just returned from a trip to Egypt, Oman and Tunisia. He said they were impressed with the desire of officials to make the necessary economic reforms to qualify for free trade deals. The delegation stressed in all their meetings that the deals would have to meet appropriate standards in such areas as enforcing the rule of law. Thomas said he expects a vote on a just-completed agreement with Bahrain to occur in February. The US already has free trade agreements with Jordan and Morocco. The Bush administration has announced that it would begin negotiations next year on free trade deals with the UAE and Oman.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/19/2004 12:23:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Prince Charles' tirade against people who aspire to lofty goals beyond their natural talent earned him a rare public rebuke from a senior government minister on Thursday _ and gasps of disbelief from the British media. Education Secretary Charles Clarke branded the heir to the throne "old fashioned" after details emerged of a royal memo written in response to an employee's inquiry about promotion prospects. "People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability," Charles wrote in the memo, which was read out Wednesday at an employment tribunal.
"Not like you eh, Charles?" countered The Sun, a popular daily that is normally highly supportive of the monarchy. The prince is next in line to the throne by virtue of heredity. "Don't try to rise above your station," was how The Daily Telegraph newspaper, a pillar of the British establishment, summarized the prince's memo. Another conservative paper, the Daily Mail, devoted its first two pages to the story under the headline: "Don't get above yourself." In his handwritten note, Charles attacked Britain's education system for encouraging young people to nurture ambitions they are unlikely to fulfill.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2004 1:23:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability,"
What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of child-centred system which admits no failure.
...People think they can all be pop stars, High Court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
...What on earth am I to tell Elaine? She is so PC it frightens me rigid.
Sounds to me like he's spot on.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
11/19/2004 5:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yeah. Charles does come out with an awful lot of crap, but in this memo he hits on some rather non-PC home truths. Seems a bit hypocritical for a Prince to be lecturing others about life's lottery, but then we aren't all dealt the same hand in life. Some get lucky by family, others by talent, others by attitude. You can't expect to rise to the top of your profession through attitude alone though. Unless you're a politician or journalist, that is. I rest my case.
#4
I agree with him. The "self-esteem" movement in education has gone too far. My 14-year-old daughter, who is not musically talented, thinks she is going to be a rock star. She attends a public school in which the teachers have stopped grading papers with red pens because "red is so aggressive". I kid you not.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/19/2004 7:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Only Americans aspire to such lofty heights, luckily we're everywhere. Must be 200 million in India.
#6
Sounds good to me. Charles was doomed by birth to his role in life. Given that the Queen Mum lived to 100 and the Queen seems in good health, he may never even see the throne.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/19/2004 8:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Nah, it's a good thing to have aspirations. Where people get it wrong is when they expect to achieve these goals without any honest self-appraisal. On the other hand, it makes for great TV when these knuckleheads who can't sing try to enter a national competition.
Still, it's funny to hear this talk about "aspiring above one's natural talents" from somebody who achieved his position by birth.
#8
Short answer: Lance Armstrong. Helen Keller. Abe Lincoln. Martin Luther King. Thomas Edison. Helen Keller. FDR.
Long answer: Nothing better illustrates the difference between Americans and Europeans than Charles' thinking, which has its counterpart in the relentlessly pessimistic business reporting from the FT and the Economist.
Americans are taught that hierarchies have no meaning, that the past is not prologue, that "you can do just about anything if you put your mind to it," in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, a consumptive child who overcame his illness and became president.
Is Teddy's statement literally true? Of course not. Can a child be damaged by believing himself capable of anything? Of course, but how can one achieve anything without faith in one's own ability to master difficult challenges?
Besides, it's in the nature of children to believe in grand and improbable things. Become an astronaut. Hit the winning home run in the World Series. Win the gold at the Olympics. Cure cancer. Or overcome cancer and win the Tour de France, again and again and again.
More importantly, Charles like most Euros fails to see that (most) Americans also tell their kids not to trust in fairy dust or "genius", which Edison defined as "90% perspiration and 10% inspiration." Americans live eat and breathe the work ethic, and this spills over into how we raise our kids. Let's hope that the world's striving dreamers, or dreaming strivers, continue to be attracted by this land of opportunity. Keep yakking, Charles. And send your irrepressible dreamers to us-- we're waiting with open arms.
I basically agree with you, BUT, as people have pointed out, the egalitarian instinct can run agound on the PC shoals of self-esteem.
By all means everyone should be encouraged to try anything and strive for everything. That doesn't mean, though, that you will succeed. That PC kind of thinking leads to the entitlement society.
#10
Our creed is equality of opportunity, not of outcomes. Most kids outside the inner city grasp the distinction. And even the inner city kids recognize it as it applies to sports.
#14
I'm amazed that an arse cork like Charlie Windsor has actually managed to say something useful for once. It's not likely to happen again, so make the most of it.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2004 1:18:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Blair's chance of a repeat election just went down the drain.
Look for the UK to cut and run in Iraq if he goes down.
This is a stupid move that wasn't even an issue that needed to be dealt with. Wait for the pictures of piles of dead hunting dogs to hit the papers to hear the animal rights activists scream some more. Of course the Countyside Alliance could take up hunting amimal rights activists and labor back benchers with hounds and horses.
#2
Blair's chance of a repeat election just went down the drain.
Nope. It's ironic that Blair's now squirming over fox hunting and trying to get any ban stalled till 2006, when he's got the promised law to thank partly for his own success. Banning fox hunting was his token 'class war' gesture meant to reassure doubting traditional Labour voters that he really was, at heart, one of them. Most people acknowledge that the issue has got little or nothing to do with animal welfare (after all, it's true that statistically not one single fox's life is going to be saved by banning hunting with hounds) - it's all about bashing what's regarded as a toffs' game. Those affected by the ban - almost exclusively rural people - do not vote Labour. Battles in the countryside are usually between the Tories and the Lib Dems, and usually won by the Tories.
Look for the UK to cut and run in Iraq if he goes down.
Nope. Only in the event of a Lib Dem win, which is exceedingly unlikely. A Tory Government would probably be as steadfast as Labour, and possibly stronger, having less dissent in the ranks. Ignore the publicised spat between Bush and Michael Howard - Howard may be highly critical of Blair, but that's the character of British politics. Howard's predecessor was almost fawningly admiring of Blair's Iraq stance, so much so that it reflected badly on him, making the Lib Dems look like the more robust opposition party. The Tories may be trying to score points in litlle battles with Blair, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in the war itself.
This is a stupid move that wasn't even an issue that needed to be dealt with.
That's correct, only Blair's made it an issue that needs to be dealt with. You can look at it as Blair's pact with the Devil, if you like. He dangled hunting over the core Labour constituency like a fox over a pack of hounds. He's toyed with the issue for a long time, but if the hounds don't get what they were promised, they'll go for their master instead.
A bomb exploded early Friday in a pickup truck owned by a prosecutor who is pressing charges against supporters of the failed 2002 coup against President Hugo Chavez, and a charred body inside appears to be that of the prosecutor, the government said. Information Minister Andres Izarra said investigators were attempting to determine if the body was that of Danilo Anderson. Anderson was preparing a case for trial against almost 400 people who signed a declaration supporting interim President Pedro Carmona after Chavez was ousted for two days in the coup.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2004 1:16:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Japanese scientists say they have built an electronic eye that could help blind people get around safely. People wearing the device, mounted to glasses, would be able to cross the road unaided, the Kyoto Institute of Technology team believes. It consists of a smart camera-computer combo which detects and measures things such as the colour of traffic lights and the width of the road. A voice speech system relays the information to the wearer. Lead scientist Tadayoshi Shioyama said: "The camera would be mounted at eye level, and be connected to a tiny computer. It would relay information using a voice speech system and give vocal commands and information through a small speaker placed near the ear." The device is advanced enough to not only detect the existence and location of a pedestrian crossing, but at the same time also measure the width of the road to the nearest step and detect when traffic lights change from red to green. The length of a pedestrian crossing is measured by projective geometry.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/19/2004 3:01:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There have also been experiments (animal and human) where a silicon receiver and electrode array has been implanted in the back of the eye to directly stimulate the optic nerve. A small camera beams the image and power to the receiver. Patients can make out light/dark and blurry images. Image quality will improve with increasing number of electrodes. There some pretty cool stuff out there in electronic-nervous system interfaces.
Posted by: ed ||
11/19/2004 6:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It consists of a smart camera-computer combo which detects and measures things such as the colour of traffic lights and the width of the road. A voice speech system relays the information to the wearer.
SIXTY-three years after the mysterious sinking of HMAS Sydney off the coast of Western Australia the search for answers is as clouded as the vessel's ocean grave. None of the 645 crew on the Sydney survived when it was attacked by the German raider Kormoran in the Indian Ocean, about 240 km south-west of Carnarvon on November 19, 1941. To this day the exact location of its wreckage remains subject to speculation. The Royal Australian Navy today commemorated the World War II destruction of the Sydney - the second of four Navy vessels to bear the name - with a wreath-laying ceremony at the Martin Place cenotaph in Sydney.EFL
Posted by: God Save The World ||
11/19/2004 2:36:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wanna find something on the ocean floor? Bob Ballard is your man.
#2
The article doesn't say that the Kormoran herself was sunk by return fire from Sydney. Still, not a bad trade, a converted merchant ship for a cruiser.
On November 19, 1941, the Kormoran encountered the 9,000 ton Australian light cruiser HMAS Sydney off Western Australia. The German vessel was posing as a known Dutch freighter. According to accounts by crew members of the Kormoran, Sydney chased and overhauled the raider, while exchanging signals and attempting to verify her identity. Kormoran maintained the charade as long as possible, but when a password was demanded, it quickly went into action. According to the witnesses, Sydney had approached to close range, but was not fully prepared for battle, as its guns not were not trained on Kormoran. Sydney was immediately hit hard and partly disabled by gunfire and at least one torpedo. The two ships drifted apart and Sydney was last seen in flames on the horizon. It disappeared with the loss of all hands.
However, Sydney did enough damage to ensure that Kormoran was scuttled during the following day. Detmers and about 320 of his crew were rescued and spent the remainder of the war in an Australian prisoner of war camp.
About 3,000 Australian cattle are stranded on a vessel at a Jordanian port as a dispute continues between importers over an Israeli feedlot space. The cattle have been on board the MV Maysora for three weeks. Animal rights group Animals Australia says it has been told by lawyers for the importer that if the animals are unloaded onto Jordanian soil, they will not be accepted in Israel. They say the importers are seeking to resolve the matter in court. Livecorp spokesman Kevin Shiell says the welfare of the cattle is not being threatened. "Over 5,500 have already been offloaded from the vessel," he said. "The remaining ones on the ship have access to feed and water and obviously they've been spread around and there's plenty of room whilst the arrangement for their discharge is being sorted out."
Posted by: God Save The World ||
11/19/2004 2:55:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When asked for comment, the spokesbull said, "Moo."
Germans are split: Most believe torture should be applied to a suspected kidnapper or molester when the life of a young child is at stake, but not to deter terrorist attacks. Why the disparity? A trial starting Thursday sheds light on Germany's moral hand-wringing...
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
11/19/2004 8:54:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A probe into the mysterious shooting of two soldiers has revealed the existence beneath the Serbian capital of a secret communist-era network of tunnels and bunkers that could have served as recent hideouts for some of the world's most-wanted war crimes suspects. The 2-square-mile complex - dubbed a "concrete underground city" by the local media - was built deep inside a rocky hill in a residential area of Belgrade in the 1960s on the orders of communist strongman Josip Broz Tito. Until recently its existence was known only to senior military commanders and politicians. The secret was revealed during an investigation this month into the deaths of two soldiers who were guarding an entrance to the complex. Both were found fatally shot.
Official explanations of the Oct. 5 incident have failed to satisfy the soldiers' families or a skeptical media, sparking speculation that fugitive Bosnian officers wanted by the United Nations for atrocities during the 1990s Balkans wars may have sought refuge in the complex, which was originally designed to resist nuclear attack. "My son died because he saw some big secret," Petar Milovanovic, the father of one of the two soldiers, said recently. "They had to die to take the secret to the grave with them." The army initially said the two soldiers shot each other, then backtracked and reported that one had murdered the other before committing suicide. An independent commission is now investigating. The circumstances surrounding the deaths - and any link with high-profile war crimes fugitives such as Gen. Ratko Mladic - remain murky. But the probe has shed light on a complex that was once so secret military men here say NATO didn't even suspect its existence when it bombed Serbia in 1999.
Yeah, right
Tito, who ruled Yugoslavia from World War II until he died in 1980, ordered it built because he feared a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union after his country's 1948 split with the Eastern European communist bloc led by Joseph Stalin. The entrance is hidden beneath a hilltop army barracks in Belgrade's Topcider district, which is home to several embassies and luxurious diplomatic residences. According to media reports citing unnamed military sources, a 185-foot-deep elevator shaft leads down to a six-story underground complex dug into rock and reinforced by 10-foot-thick concrete walls. Retired Gen. Momcilo Perisic, who was the army's chief of staff until 1999, confirmed that the sprawling complex is intended as a wartime command center. The main hall is as big as a subway station and could be used to shelter tanks and trucks, the reports by the Vecernje Novosti newspaper and other media said. Tunnels stretching for hundreds of yards link palaces, bunkers and safe houses. Rooms are separated by steel vault doors 10 feet high and a foot thick. The complex has its own power supply and ventilation.
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is believed to have convened his war Cabinet there in 1999 while NATO bombs fell on his country for 78 days to punish him for cracking down on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The complex is so well designed that Yugoslav construction firms were reportedly hired by deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to build a duplicate bunker near his hometown of Tikrit in the 1980s. It would appear the ideal hiding place for a fugitive like Mladic, who is believed to have the support of Milosevic-era generals still commanding the army. The Bosnian Serb army chief was indicted by the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands for the 1995 massacre of nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica, Bosnia.
Don't think so, too easy to corner someone down there.
Serbian Defense Minister Prvoslav Davinic has insisted that no war-crimes suspects have been found inside. Otherwise, the military has been tightlipped about the complex, even threatening to prosecute media that have described it for violating laws on disclosing state secrets. But once-unsuspecting neighbors make no secret about their desire to get a peek at Tito's tunnels. "I didn't have any idea that I have been living on top of a major military secret," said Radmila Spasic, a 60-year-old housewife. "Now that the big secret is revealed, the army should open the complex to the public. It would became Belgrade's major tourist attraction."
Posted by: .com ||
11/19/2004 7:15:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The complex is so well designed that Yugoslav construction firms were reportedly hired by deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to build a duplicate bunker near his hometown of Tikrit in the 1980's.
I keep hearing about these fabled Iraqi underground bunkers, especially on late-night conspiracy radio, but when Saddam was found it turned out he was in a septic tank.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
11/19/2004 10:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
suicide ya say? Shot himself in the head then disposed of the weapon?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Maybe Iraqi authorities should poke around the Baghdad sewer system, see if they find anything interesting. Thirty years of Saddam's rule is a long enough time to construct something even remotely resembling an underground tunnel system.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Friday that foreign-born citizens should be allowed to vote run for president, a reform that would require amending the Constitution. "We are a country of immigrants. I think that it would be not a bad thing to try to figure out how to allow foreign-born people like me to become president," Albright told the Little Rock Rotary Club while in town to attend the opening of Bill Clinton's presidential library. Supporters of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have started an effort to amend the Constitution to allow immigrants to run for president. Schwarzenegger was born in Austria. Albright was born in Czechoslovakia. Albright said foreign-born candidates would still have to meet certain requirements. "I think there has to be some very long period of time that somebody has lived in the U.S.," she said.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 3:55:38 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Halfbright backs foreigners for Presidency? I'm sure she would stump for Kim Jong EVil or Chiraq if given the opportunity (or a lapel pin).
Posted by: Tibor ||
11/19/2004 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sorry, no. No matter how much I admire Ahnuld, the fact remains that the framers put in the birth requirement to avoid a situation in which somebody who didn't understand the people of the US would become president. They remembered William, who came to Britain barely able to speak English, and they wanted no part of that -- and neither do I.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
11/19/2004 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Why "foreigners"?
Somebody who has become an U.S. citizen is not a foreigner. He has very deliberately chosen America.
A person who came to the U.S. when he was one year old and lived all his life in America cannot become president.
A Mexican or Colombian who was born in Miami (just to get U.S. citizenship), then lived most of his time outside the U.S. can run for president.
Some balance wouldn't hurt. 20 or 25 years of U.S. citizenship AND living that time in the U.S. should qualify, or not?
#8
TGA...I'm still feeling a little bit burned by the 9/11 hijackers. They were able to come to our country, partake in all of its freedoms, take flying lessons, pray or not pray as they chose, without any restrictions or questions from anyone here. How did they repay our generosity?
I worry that a Constitutional change would encourage a group (similar to al-Q) to infiltrate someone early in his career into the US and eventually use him against us. Does it sound a little spy novelish? Perhaps. So did the plot to September 11.
#9
With all due respect to TGA and Ahnuld, let's not mess with the Constitution. Especially if the people plumping for the change have a particular candidate in mind.
On a related topic, I don't know much about King William III, but King George I definitely alienated his subjects by not bothering to learn English. His two greedy German mistresses really annoyed the English people. One day, when the mistresses' carriage was pelted with fruit, the ladies asked, in their thick accents, "Why do you abuse us so? We are here for your goots!" To which somebody in the crowd shouted, "Aye, and all our chattels, too!"
#10
TGA - the basic argument against non-natives becoming president is this: What if we were to go to war with the president's former "homeland"? Would he or she possibly get into some sticky dual-citizenship thing, or would family members still in the old country be used as hostages? If there was some kind of dispute between the US and the other country short of war, there would always be the divided loyalty question if the prez would take an action that was seen as more favorable to the other country as opposed to America. (I was taught in school that this was the real reason for that.....the founders wanted to make sure that the President would always put the interests of America first, and they believed a native-born citizen would be able to do that easier than one born overseas. True or not? I don't have the answer for that.)
Actually, when the Constitution was created, the founders allowed for foreign born citizens to become president if they were born before the Constitution was ratified (they left that little escape clause in there for Alexander Hamilton). They've been talking about changing it for a while, but it's always just been talk.
BTW, isn't Albright Czech-born? Please tell me she doesn't think it would benefit HER!?!? NOOO!!!
For every Arnold on the right there is a George Soros or worse on the left.....
Posted by: Rick T ||
11/19/2004 18:20 Comments ||
Top||
#13
What, we got like 290 million people and we can't find someone fit to be president? I like Arnie's movies and he hasn't destroyed California, but I see no reason for him to be president. This is pure vanity.
#20
"I think that it would be not a bad thing to try to figure out how to allow foreign-born people to become president"
Welllll. We already knew she was unqualified to teach International Relations 101, now it becomes apparent that English is out as well
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#21
No bleeding way.
For every Arnold on the right there as a George Soros and WORSE on the left.
Posted by: Rick T ||
11/19/2004 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I love Arnie as my Gubner - no way as President, and pointing to Soros explains it all
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#23
It ain't gona happen. I mean for crying out loud what are these people smoking? I know, let's let Chirac come over and show us the way.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
11/19/2004 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#24
IIR my civics correctly, this would require a constitutional amendment. To get a constitutional amendment, you have to get it to
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
This is a serious procedure that requires a righteous supermajority. We have in the order of a dozen amendments made in our 200+ year history since the Bill of Rights. This idea is just a whim that will pass, just like trying to get rid of the electoral college. The heartland states will never let this thing happen. We have plenty of qualified candidates in this country without having to go to outsourcing.
Sources and quotes good enough for ya, MS?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/19/2004 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
Hat tip: Instapundit.
Condoleeza Rice has described herself as "a Second Amendment absolutist." An article in the Montgomery Advertiser explains why. She grew up in Birmingham, Alabama, where her father, a Presbyterian minister, was a strong advocate of civil rights:
Rice has said memories of Birmingham's racial turmoil shaped some of her core values. During the bombings of the summer of 1963, her father and other neighborhood men guarded the streets at night to keep white vigilantes at bay. Rice said her staunch defense of gun rights comes from those days. She has argued that if the guns her father and neighbors carried had been registered, they could have been confiscated by the authorities, leaving the black community defenseless.
Like I need any more reasons to vote Condi in '08--even if she is a Browns fan (Go, Steelers!).
Posted by: Dar ||
11/19/2004 9:55:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Remember the Titans" is a high school football movie that has a scene where the black coach pulls his shotgun out of the closet when a brick is thrown through his window by some white racist punks. I pointed it out to my boys to show the necessity of the Second Amendment.
Question: The Second amendment was put after the First amendment, because it is the only grammatically way to add to the first amendment which of the following phrases?
a) "...and we MEAN it!"
b) "...or else!"
c) "...or there'll be hell to pay!"
d) "(All of the above)"
A paranoid-sounding Bill Clinton threatened ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings in an interview broadcast Thursday night, in a bizarre rant about his impeachment that laid bare the ex-president's persecution complex. "You don't want to go here, Peter," Clinton warned, after Jennings told him that historians ranked him second to last of all presidents in terms of moral authority. Squinting his eyes, an angry Clinton seethed, "You don't want to go here. Not after what you people did. And the way you - your network - what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he did. No one has any idea of what that's like."
The amazing exchange came after Clinton at first claimed he didn't care about the verdict of historians. "I had more support from the world when I quit than when I started," he claimed. "And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care about what [the historians] think."
Immediately, Jennings challenged Clinton, all but calling him a liar. "Oh, yes you do . . . Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply." Jennings' challenge sent Clinton into a thinly veiled rage, prompting him to threaten, "You don't want to go here, Peter."
The full exchange went like this:
JENNINGS (Discussing rankings by presidential historians]: They gave you a forty-first in terms of moral authority - after Nixon. CLINTON: They're wrong about that. You know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it. JENNINGS: Why, sir? CLINTON: Because we had $100 million spent against us in all these inspections . . . In spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I have let the American people down. And I had more support from the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care about what they think. JENNINGS: Oh, yes you do. CLINTON: They have no idea . . . JENNINGS: Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply. CLINTON: No, no. I care. I care. You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what your people did. And the way you - your network - what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he did. No one has any idea of what that's like.
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
11/19/2004 8:31:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jennings grow a spine suddenly? Where'd this come from?
Posted by: Dar ||
11/19/2004 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I still can't get out of my mind the sleazy image that the President of the United States hid in the back hall of the Oval Office and "did not have sex with that woman" but stained her dress -- and now he calls Kenneth Starr sleazy for just extracting the truth?
Posted by: Tom ||
11/19/2004 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
You don't want ot go here = what's your frequency Kenneth?
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/19/2004 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
WTF? The press went out of it's way to attack Ken Starr and cover Bill's backside.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/19/2004 9:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
only a few parts of the press, like Salon and the WaPo were really with Clinton. NYT had it in for him and was a lead in attacking from whitewater on, and the networks were mixed. The real left never forgave clinton for taking the Dems to the center. Lots of mindless dem partisans missed the distinction, but the smart folks didnt.
#6
Jennings got a wiff of blood in the water and the shark in him took a nibble. He'll soon be remorseful and do puff piece on Clinton and ramp up the Bush bashing to attone.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/19/2004 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I think LH has it right. Clinton's a brilliant politician, but has utterly no moral direction. Dems in the know look at the Clinton years this way: Lost both houses of Congress, signed welfare reform bill (individual accountability!), passed NAFTA (free markets!), exposed liberal hypocrisy on sexual harassment, cemented national perception that Dems can't be trusted to defend the country, etc. If a Republican president had done all that to the Dems, we'd be naming buildings after him.
Not just here. See how "progressives" are now insulting Condi with vicious racist insults and stereotyping.
Something very very weird is going on now. Crack-up coming. If MoveOn and Mikey and Doonesbury don't get Souljah'ed and slapped down-- hard, and real soon-- then I'm guessing the Democratic Party's on its way toward splitting in two.
#13
Bill seems to be losing it. Did anybody hear his speech at the opening of his library?
"Am I the only one who likes both George Bush and John Kerry, who believes they both want what's best for this country, but that they just have different views on how to do it?"
Maybe not exact wording, but pretty close. You could hear the people start cheering then shut up like "What the hell?"
Posted by: Charles ||
11/19/2004 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Am I the only one who likes both George Bush and John Kerry?
Yes, you are. btw I think Bill would be perfect as Kofi's replacement. Who better to soothe the Euros with happy talk as the UN slouches into complete irrelevance?
#16
"Ahh, but the blue dress that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to Monica's closet DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if the press hadn't of pulled me out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow neo-cons......"
Posted by: Steve ||
11/19/2004 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#17
...Then he swallowed the ball bearings.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/19/2004 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Don't be too hard on Clinton. Think this poor guy has been married to Hillary!
#19
Fox Newx just ran the tape of this interview. Astounding level of self-righteous bullshit. So, in other words, typical Clinton denial and delusion.
Upon reflection, I don't know why it was so astonishing to me... perhaps it's because, as a red-stater knuckle-dragger, I can still feel shame.
#20
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Like I've always argued, Commie Bill is an enemy to both the GOP-Right and Dems-Left. NO surprise here that he's turning against the LeftMedias that protected him. BY HIS OWN COMMENTS he has all but officially affirmed and verified the superiority of Rightism, the Reagan-Republican economy, and being POTUS due to fraud - THE ONLY ONLY THING THE DEMS CAN CLAIM FORM THE CLINTON 90's IS THAT BILL WAS A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT! That being said, rest assured that even when the Dems admit or infer being wrong, the GOP is still to blame or forced them to lie - gotta wonder how long Bill can play his games without ending up in BELVUE PSYCHIATRIC WARD!?
UN employees were readying on Friday to make a historic vote of no confidence in scandal-plagued Secretary General Kofi Annan, sources told AFP. A rotten fish tries to remove its' head - film at 11
The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the more than 50-year history of the United Nations, was set to approve a resolution withdrawing its support for the embattled Annan and UN management. Join the US in that motion
Annan has been in the line of fire over a high-profile series of scandals including controversy about a UN aid programme that investigators say allowed deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to embezzle billions of dollars. 20+ billions at a minimum
But staffers said the trigger for the no-confidence measure was an announcement this week that Annan had pardoned the UN's top oversight official, who was facing allegations of favouritism and sexual harassment. The union had requested a formal probe into the behaviour of the official, Dileep Nair, after employees accused him of harassing members of his staff and violating UN rules on the hiring and promotion of workers. Top UN spokesman Fred Eckhard announced on Tuesday that Nair had been exonerated by Annan "after a thorough review" by the UN's senior official in charge of management, Catherine Bertini.
Annan underlined that he "had every confidence" in Nair, Eckhard said, but UN employees ridiculed the decision and claimed that investigators had not questioned the staff union, which first raised the complaints in April. "This was a whitewash, pure and simple," Guy Candusso, a senior member of the staff union, told AFP. Candusso noted that Eckhard's declaration to the press had said that "no further action was necessary in the matter." But in a letter sent to the union, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, Annan's chief of staff Iqbal Riza said Nair had been "advised that he should exercise caution" in future to "minimise the risk of negative perception."
In a resolution set to be adopted on Friday, the union said Riza's statement "substantiates the contention of the staff that there was impropriety" and that there exists "a lack of integrity, particularly at the higher levels of the organisation." The draft resolution, also obtained exclusively by AFP, calls on the union president to "convey this vote of no confidence to the secretary general." Staffers who asked not to be named, afraid that speaking out could damage their future prospects in the United Nations, said the Nair decision was emblematic of widespread corruption by Annan and his senior staff. They noted that Riza, UN undersecretary general for communications Shashi Tharoor and other top officials had served directly under Annan at least since 1994, when he was head of UN peacekeeping operations. At the time, the United Nations was widely criticised for failing to stop the Rwanda genocide that left 800,000 people dead, even though UN peacekeepers were on the ground -- a catastrophe for which Annan has publicly apologised. Mike S. - discuss and contrast - provide evidence and footnotes
Annan could not be reached for immediate comment. He is currently in Africa on a high-profile mission aimed at ending the long-running civil war in Sudan.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 8:33:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mike S. - discuss and contrast - provide evidence and footnotes
I point out this passage: Top UN spokesman Fred Eckhard announced on Tuesday that Nair had been exonerated by Annan âafter a thorough reviewâ by the UNâs senior official in charge of management, Catherine Bertini.
I don't have an opinion about the substance of the sexual-harrassment dispute, because I don't know enough about it.
As for the second-to-last paragraph, the totally gratuitous remark about Rwanda, I laugh aloud at all the Rantburgers here who claim now they would have supported a UN intervention in Rwanda back then. What a joke!
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/19/2004 9:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I would have supported an UN, or any other, effort to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I would support an UN effort to stop the current genocide that the UN and your idol Kofi are ignoring. Obviously we don't have troops to send, but we can provide logistics and monetary support. Come clean Mikey, do you work for the UN? Your blind support of such an obviously corrupt organization (and person Kofi) stinks to high hell. You're either an UN employee or just a blind stupid person, either way...sucks to be you.
#4
Re #2 (AllahHateMe) Come clean Mikey, do you work for the UN?
No. I have two jobs: 1) I translate documents for the US Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations, and 2) I work in the administration (collections, unemployment claims, legal inquiries, etc.) of a company that provides home health care.
I would have supported an UN, or any other, effort to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I would support an UN effort to stop the current genocide that the UN and your idol Kofi are ignoring.
About how many combat troops do you think the USA should have sent as part of this effort? 10,000? 50,000? More? Compared to our force in, say, Iraq, how large should our deployment to Rwanda have been? (Same questions to Shipman).
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/19/2004 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
There is not one time in my life that I have not supported peace keeping activities of the UN. Kofi was a failure as the head of peace keeping. The genocide in Rwanda was preventable. Kofi is responsible for it. He should have never been made Secretary General.
You must work for the UN or be blind Mike.
I know one thing you sure as hell are wrong about my position on UN peace keeping.
#7
Rantburgers here who claim now they would have supported a UN intervention in Rwanda back then. It was clear to anyone who followed the news it was happening in Rwanda and it was clear that the UN was substantially at fault. I would not have advocated the UN get (further) involved since they were clearly incapable of solving a genocide, only causing one.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/19/2004 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Re #6, 7:
Everyone who claims now that they would have supported a UN military intervention in Rwanda back then are invited by me to answer my questions in #4.
By the way, many Rantburgers seem to be suffering from a delusion that most US citizens strongly oppose the UN. Somehow I am considered to be strange for defending the UN against silly, groundless accusations (e.g. Kofi and Kojo Annan profiting personally from Food-for-Oil).
Those Rantburgers are like the Kerry supporters who said, "Gee, everybody I talk with intends to vote for Kerry! He's gonna win by a landslide!!"
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/19/2004 9:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
If the UN doesn't go into Rwanda, East Timor, or Darfur then what good is it? It sems to me that is exactly the purpose of the organization and that the Secretary General's job is to act as a leader in that function. Kofi has failed miserably in providing anything resembling leadership and now it's clear he isn't even an effective bureaucrat.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Now this just piss' me off!Listen-up,MS,before I found the blog world I visited several discusion sites talking about terrorisiam,genocide,gun control(for good gun control use both hands).My position has always been those who commit terrorist acts/genocide need to be hunted down and killed,those who support terrorist acts should be hunted down and imprisoned or killed,those countrys that support terrorists/genocide need to be invaded and destroyed.Do not call me a liar agin!Take off your rose colored UN glasses,pry your lips off Kofi's ass.Wake-up and admit that the UN is a corrupt,useless din of criminals,terrorists & thier lovers(like you MS),thugs and despots.Take a hand full of sand and pound it up your ass...ahhh hell,you will probably ask for Kofi's help and still wouldn't get it right.Why don't you let me help?As my British friends would say"What a wanker".
#17
speaking of echo chambers, Mikey - I think you'd be really disappointed how most of Amerikkka feels about the UN - we're awake and aware that the org is anti-american and corrupt to its' core - withdrawal from the diseased hive is just a matter of whether it dies on its' own first
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Turning the discussion back to the story, did anyone notice that the UN rank & file didn't care enough about the UN not doing it's job under Annan or Annan soaking up the graft, to raise any objections? But as soon as he did something internally they didn't like, they were all over him. One of the infallible earmarks of the disfunctional bureaucracy.
The U.N will never do anything about these genocides that are going on today, for two reasons.
One, the only thing the U.N. can do efficiently is to pass out food. The only reason they acheive success at passing out food is because 90 percent of handing out food are "air drops".
Two, these genocides involve the killing and extermination of Christians and converted Christians. These genocides are led foreign Arabs working with local IslamoPIGS, let's be realistic, to exterminate Christians. Since the U.N are in bed with the terrorists, the U.N. will always turn a blind eye to the killing of Christians.
P.S. I am not going to provide evidence or footnotes because frankly, you are just another irrelevant pencil pushing bureaucrat that is on the bottom of my "do not care" list.
#20
#1 MS - yes, Anan did dismiss charges after a thorough investigation. What you conveniently fail to add is that he did so AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS of that investigation.
Pfah.
Posted by: too true ||
11/19/2004 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Catholic Church, the mainstream media, CIA, the UN: another throughly rotten, arrogant institution gets its comeuppance.
One brigade of airborne infantry plus the necessary airlift and logistical tail. One brigade from the 82nd or 101st would have stopped the genocide in Rwanda.
I would have supported it enthusiastically back then, and I support enthusiastically any strong, real attempt to stop the genocide in the Sudan.
In 1945 the world said, "never again." Time to stop acting as if that was a lie.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/19/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Mikey says..."I translate documents for the US Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations,"
#24
Re #22: I did not, and still do not, support the use of ground troops in Darfur and the south of Sudan. I was willing to let the African Union send soldiers on the ground, and was willing that the United States perform the logistics role and conduct an air interdiction campaign. In support of that air campaign, I WOULD have supported the placement of special forces in the African Union command to call in air strikes.
Despite the magnificence of our troops, we simply do NOT have jungles in CONUS to train our troops, and I remain hesitant putting them into a situation they are not trained for.
At the same time, IMHO, I think attacking the Janaweed (sp?) is treating the symptoms. We really need to put the nuts of the leaders in Khartoum in a vise and crank away. In THOSE situations, I WOULD support US ground troops, since Fajullah shows we can handle urban warfare scenarios.
#25
To answer your question in #4, seeing as how I am not an experienced military commander, I would support whatever troop levels the commanders on the ground requested to get the job done. Considering the mission would be completely different the assests needed, in terms of both types and numbers, would also be completely different. So it's a pretty stupid question, a question aimed at deflecting the actual topic at hand. But since you are the president of the Kofi Annan fan club, why does a UN intervention ALWAYS require vast amounts of US troops and capital? The UN is feckless, worthless and corrupt. The only thing that the UN can do without US support is bash the US. So spin Mikey spin. You, sir (and I use that term lightly), are a doofus. Thanks for playing, please try again.
#31
Make it a vote of no confidence for the entire U.N. and I'm in.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/19/2004 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#32
So what if a vote of no conifidance is passed. The UN couldn't even keep the ambassadors and their staff from looting their own cafeteria a couple of years ago, what's this meaningless employee vote going to do?
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/19/2004 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#33
I'll be back at sixish to check my great big box 'o links.
#39
Re #20 (too true): Anan did dismiss charges after a thorough investigation. What you conveniently fail to add is that he did so AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS of that investigation.
Maybe you're right about that. I haven't studied the matter. As I said, I don't know have an opinion about the substance of the sexual-harrassment dispute. I don't defend everything Kofi Annan might have done.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/19/2004 23:27 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Re #23 (2b): what language...Mikey?
I translate documents into English from German, Russian, Polish, and Ukrainian.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/19/2004 23:29 Comments ||
Top||
#41
ooooh...even Mike S. is turning against Anan. heh, heh. Since Mike always parrots the accepted liberal point of view, that does not bode well for Mr. Anan.
#43
Re #42 (lex)
I started teaching myself Russian as a hobby when I was in junior high. When I was in college I majored in Russian. To get a Masters Degree I had to study 1) either German or French and 2) a second Slavic language. I studied German and Czech. Polish is very similar to Czech, so I learned it easily. Basically if you can read Polish and Russian, you can read Ukrainian fairly well.
I served in the USAF from 1978 to 1992, serving the entire time in Intelligence. I was based in Munich, Germany, from 1980 to 1984. My job during that period was to interview defectors and immigrants and to write intelligence reports.
After I left the USAF in 1992 I worked full-time as a translater (as a subcontractor, not as a staff employee) for the Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations, translating documents for investigations and prosections of people who had collaborated with the Nazis during World War Two. After the 9/11 attacks the funding for that program fell, so since then I have translated only half-time and have worked half-time for a company that provides home health care. About 90% of the company's administration are immigrants from the Soviet Union. I was hired primarily for my ability to write business correspondence in native English.
In 1995, I married an immigrant from Lithuania. I don't speak Lithuanian, but she speaks Russian and we usually speak Russian together. I should learn Lithuanian, because we have lots of Lithuanians in our home all the time and because we visit Lithuania often, but I don't think I have the energy any more to learn another language. Besides, all the Lithuanians I know speak Russian, and most of them speak English too.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/19/2004 23:47 Comments ||
Top||
#44
MS - an admirable resume of which you should be proud - you won't see me disparage that. We have issues over other topics. Nite all
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 23:56 Comments ||
Top||
#45
To those of you who above proposed concrete military forces, I exonerate you from my criticism on that point. I'm sure, though, that you will join me in remembering that the Clinton Administration did not want to involve itself in any military intervention in Rwanda. Neither did the Republicans at that time. And US Department of Defense would have resisted too.
And the same goes for all the other countries outside of Africa. The UN had no military forces available (and keep in mind that the genocide developed very quickly) except for the tiny observer force in the country. Kofi Annan was correct, I think, in his reluctance to deploy that tiny force to fight the Hutus.
If Kofi Annan had deployed that force, and if the predictable fiasco had occurred, then the very same Rantburgers who now criticize him for not deploying the force would instead be criticizing him for deploying them.
Which option is easier?:
1) To propose and implement a politically and militarily feasible operation to stop the genocide in Rwanda.
2) To blame everything on one man, Kofi Annan.
We all know what's easier.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/19/2004 23:58 Comments ||
Top||
The Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming will take effect from February 16, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) announced on Thursday. "The protocol will become legally binding on its 128 Parties on February 16 2005," the UNFCCC said in a statement received here, released after Russia submitted its instrument of ratification to UN chief Kofi Annan in Nairobi.
European decline accelerates starting February 17th.
Russia's move ends years-long uncertainty over the future of the landmark agreement, which aims to curb carbon gas pollution blamed for disturbing the Earth's climate system. Kyoto's framework was agreed in 1997, but it took four years to agree its complex rulebook. In 2001, the United States walked away from Kyoto, saying the cost of meeting its targets would be too high for the US economy, which is massively dependent on the fossil fuels that are perhaps at the source of the problem. That stripped Kyoto of the world's biggest producer of carbon gases and left Kyoto on the brink. Russia's ratification was necessary for Kyoto to survive. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the protocol on November 5, just over a week after his country's parliament voted to ratify it.
The Euros are going to regret what Putin did.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/19/2004 12:09:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
In some ways,having Kyoto go into place will be better for US than when it wasn't ratified. Before US was villain for stopping Kyoto. Now US can say "We'll be happy to join as soon as you show us it works. Show us how an industrial country gets under the limits and how much it costs. Show us that penalties are enforced on countries that cannot make their limits. Show us that it works and we'll be happy to join. Until then,good luck."
Posted by: Stephen ||
11/19/2004 1:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Unfortunately, we are going to get plenty of experience. U.S. companies have lots of subsidiaries in these 128 countries.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/19/2004 7:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Which most will promptly move or close if it's unworkable or unprofitable Tom. If it's making them money then they may learn something.
#7
Not from Red China, SPoD: one of the main irritants we had with Kyoto was that it let the Red Chinese off the hook in exchange for their signing of it: Unlike the United states, who could be screamed at with impunity if it refused to sign, they knew that screaming at the Red Chinese would be counterproductive and possibly hazardous if the treaty was uniformly applied to everyone...
#8
IIRC - most 3rd world countries were exempt - India, China, Mexico (? - all with the worst emission protections.....This was only a Lilliputian attempt to strangle America's economic engine. We already employ the cutting edge technology these grunts will still be promising to implement 30 yrs from now
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 10:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming will take effect from February 16,..
#12
*phew* At least it won't immediately halt global warming in the middle of winter. I fully expect it to drop to whatever temperature 'The Scientists' believe to be 'Normal' on Feb 17, though. Brr... I'll bundle up.
(/sarcasm)
An extinct ape that lived 13 million years ago has been identified as the leading contender for the title of last common ancestor of humans and all great apes alive today. Scientists have found a fossilised partial skeleton of the ape at a site near Barcelona in Spain and have concluded that it could be the species that gave rise to all subsequent great apes, including orang-utans, gorillas and chimps, as well as humans. The new species, called Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, bears many of the anatomical hallmarks of present-day apes yet retains some primitive features which suggest it lies at the root of all human and great ape evolution.
If it were not itself the last common ancestor of all great apes and humans, then P. catalaunicus was closely related to it, said Salvador Moya-Sola, who led the team from the Miguel Crusafont Institute of Palaeontology in Barcelona. "This probably is very close to the last common ancestor of great apes and humans ... The importance of this new fossil is that for the first time all the key areas that define modern great apes are well-preserved," Professor Moya-Sola said. Although the ape fossils were found in what is now Spain, it almost certainly lived in Africa as well, where the earliest humans evolved, he said.
P. catalaunicus was probably a fruit-eater, weighed about 35kg (77lbs) and lived mostly in trees, although its short fingers meant that it was not as agile as chimpanzees which can hang easily from branches using their long, curved hands. A study of the creature's rib cage and chest, published in the journal Science, shows that it had diverged significantly from the basic body plan of Old World monkeys to adopt a more upright, ape-like stance. Instead of having a rounded ribcage with shoulder blades attached to the sides - like monkeys - P. catalaunicus had a wider, flatter chest with shoulder blades lying flat against its back, similar to modern apes and humans.
Meike Köhler, a member of the research team, said that although the concept of a "missing link" was misunderstood, the extinct ape filled a gap in the early evolution of humans and apes. "I would call it a missing link ... This does not mean that just this individual, or even this species, exactly this species, must have been the species that gave rise to everything else which came later in the great ape tree. But it is, if not the species, most probably a very closely related species that gave rise to it," she said. R Brooks Hanson, deputy editor of physical sciences atScience, said that the Old World monkeys of Africa and a group of primates that evolved into apes split off from one another about 25 million years ago. About 14 to 16 million years ago, gibbons split off from the rest of the great apes, and P. catalaunicus lived after this point, before orang-utans split off at about 10 or 11 million years ago. "P. catalaunicus, or its close relative, may have been the last common ancestor of all living great apes, or close to that ancestor," Dr Hanson said. "Although this group includes humans, it's important to remember that we've had millions of years of evolution since then," Mr Hanson said.
Posted by: tipper ||
11/19/2004 2:39:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
tipper - apologies...
Missing link, indeed. Heh, they've been looking for me my whole life - in all the wrong places. And I eat steak, and lots of it, too, wankers. Woohoo, I'm over here! Lol.
#3
But, but, but, the world was created in 4004 BC!!! On October 23, at 10 am if I remember correctly. Central standard time, if "Inherit the Wind" is correct.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/19/2004 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
That's fine PD, but please don't post anymore of those svelt Englishter women in riding habits. It's wrong.
There's no point in posting the full text, you already know the story.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/19/2004 12:32:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"On Monday, the U.N. Security Council, backed by Gbagbo's fellow African leaders, passed a resolution that included a demand for an immediate end to hate speech in state media."
And on Tuesday, all Arab nations instructed their state-controlled media to stop hate speech against Jews and Israel. Then I woke up.
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.
Prince Charles' tirade against people who aspire to lofty goals beyond their natural talent earned him a rare public rebuke from a senior government minister on Thursday _ and gasps of disbelief from the British media. Education Secretary Charles Clarke branded the heir to the throne "old fashioned" after details emerged of a royal memo written in response to an employee's inquiry about promotion prospects. "People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability," Charles wrote in the memo, which was read out Wednesday at an employment tribunal.
A probe into the mysterious shooting of two soldiers has revealed the existence beneath the Serbian capital of a secret communist-era network of tunnels and bunkers that could have served as recent hideouts for some of the world's most-wanted war crimes suspects. The 2-square-mile complex - dubbed a "concrete underground city" by the local media - was built deep inside a rocky hill in a residential area of Belgrade in the 1960s on the orders of communist strongman Josip Broz Tito. Until recently its existence was known only to senior military commanders and politicians. The secret was revealed during an investigation this month into the deaths of two soldiers who were guarding an entrance to the complex. Both were found fatally shot.
