#2
Well, at least they decapitated them to keep them from rising again.
In Hati, death is no barrier to public service.
(grins and ducks)
Seriously, I find it very disturbing to see this level of social breakdown. Normaly there's more social cohesion to pick up the slack when the local gov't bombs off.
Posted by: N Guard ||
10/02/2004 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Our church supports several missionaries down there, some of whom have been there for decades - they are all saying the same thing: they have NEVER seen it as bad as it is now. The present 'government' basically steals as much as it can get away with and spends a great deal of time out of the country. Haiti is rapidly approaching the point where it's more of a concept than a nation.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/02/2004 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
A Chinese policeman shot and killed the head of a Tibetan Buddhist monastery after he and other monks demanded that police pay for medical treatment they sought after allegedly being beaten in custody, a U.S.-based broadcaster reported Saturday. Several other people were hurt in the Sept. 14 incident in Darlag County, in the western province of Qinghai, which abuts Tibet, Radio Free Asia said, citing unidentified witnesses. Phone calls to the police station and local office of the official Buddhist Association weren't answered Saturday. A woman who answered the phone at the police department of the prefecture that includes Darlag County said she hadn't heard about the case.
"Nobody ever tells me nuttin'!"
Posted by: Fred ||
10/02/2004 11:11:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
Japan is examining potential sites for new U.S. military bases to relocate American troops stationed on the southern island of Okinawa, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Friday. Under a mutual security pact, about 58,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed in Japan, two-thirds of them on Okinawa, about 1,000 miles southwest of Tokyo. Residents of Okinawa have long complained about noise from U.S. military aircraft and alleged crimes committed by American soldiers. Last month, Koizumi raised the possibility of moving the U.S. military from Okinawa during a summit with President Bush in New York. "The government will consider areas where the U.S. bases can be relocated, consult with local governments and make a proposal to the United States," Koizumi told a gathering of Japanese newspaper executives. He did not specify which cities were being considered.
Despite the tensions on Okinawa, Tokyo remains a strong supporter of the U.S. military presence and pays roughly half of the annual $8 billion cost of keeping it here. Koizumi's remarks follow a U.S. military helicopter crash in August at an Okinawa university campus that injured the helicopter's three crew members. The midday accident immediately reignited demands from local residents to move the aircraft's base, Futenma Air Station, from their congested neighborhood.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/02/2004 12:29:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How about Hawaii? Can the Marines vote on it?
Posted by: ed ||
10/02/2004 0:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ed,
If the Marines were voting Australia might get alot of votes.It also has the 4S's-Sun,Sand,Suds,Sheilas.
Posted by: Stephen ||
10/02/2004 1:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Once that second missile lobes over Japan from North Korea soon, I'm sure an exact location will become crystal clear!
Denmark is joining Russia and Canada to see if it can lay a claim to the North Pole - and whatever natural riches may lie beneath it. The key to Denmark's claim is Greenland, the world's largest island and a semi-independent Danish territory, just 500 miles south of the North Pole. Researchers hope to find evidence that Greenland may be connected to a huge ridge beneath the floating Arctic ice, the country's science and technology minister said. If high-tech measurements can prove that Greenland is attached to the 1,240 mile underwater Lomonosov Ridge, then "maybe there is a chance that the North Pole could become Danish," Cabinet minister Helge Sander said Friday.
Since the spring, teams of experts have used sonar, seismological instruments and Global Positioning Satellite data to survey the ridge and have drilled into the sea bed in search of natural resources. Last year, Denmark allocated $25 million for the project, which is also surveying four other areas around Greenland. The Canadian government allocated $55.4 million for similar sea bed mapping, said Allan Boldt of the science and technology ministry. The question Danish scientists are trying resolve is where Greenland's continental socket ends and the ocean sea floor begins. "We must be able to argue that it is a natural extension" of Greenland, added Trine Dahl-Jensen of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.
Another key to claiming ownership of the territory lies in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a 1986 accord that allows coastal countries an economic zone extending 230 miles from their shores. Only countries that have ratified the convention can claim the offshore economic zones, said Allan Boldt of the science and technology ministry. Of the countries surrounding the North Pole, Norway, Russia and Canada have signed the document, while the United States has not. Denmark's parliament is set to ratify it before the end of the year, though an exact date has not been set, Sander said. The North Pole is an ocean covered by ice and therefore falls under the U.N. convention. The mapping could be a bonanza. "It could give us access to natural resources. There could be oil and gas," Sander said.
... and ice. Lots of ice.
Neighboring Norway's offshore oil fields make it the world's third-largest oil exporter. Canada and Russia, which also is likely to claim ownership of the Lomonosov Ridge, are also making similar investigations around the North Pole. Mapping the Arctic is difficult because of moving ice floes, freezing temperatures, fog and poor visibility, said Dahl-Jensen. "We can only work there for about a month-and-half," she said.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/02/2004 2:45:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Contrary to popular perception, Denmark's claim is actually in pursuit of the rich mussel harvesting grounds that are soon to open there.
Posted by: H Hughes ||
10/02/2004 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The Danes could have set up an HQ on ice station T-3 in the ice pack but it melted away. The closest base they have must be on now is the weather facility at Nord in northern Greenland.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/02/2004 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Wait a second.... let me look at that.... not with out a tanker, it's impossible. Oh! T-3, I thought you said Tango Delta. Wrong movie.
Found on LGF - but linked to WaPO:
Apparently, Terry sent his review of the debates into the WaPo before the debates took place.
Not many readers responded so enthusiastically to Mr. McAuliffe as to give us their reviews before the debate took place, but many began weighing in during and after the debate; certain phrases began cropping up again and again.
Now, we love to hear from readers, and we admire the sincerity and passion of anyone who wants to get involved in the political process. But our goal is to present a sampling of genuine reader opinion, not to become one more battlefield in the spin wars raging all around. And we especially like to hear from readers who can think and write for themselves.
heh.heh.heh. Considering how inept these people are, do you even for one minute think they could run the country?
The Race is On
With voters widely viewing Kerry as the debate's winner, Bush's lead in the NEWSWEEK poll has evaporated
Ron Edmonds / AP
The face of frustration?: Bush on debate night
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET Oct. 2, 2004Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president's lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.
advertisement
Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent's 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.
Among the three-quarters (74 percent) of registered voters who say they watched at least some of Thursday's debate, 61 percent see Kerry as the clear winner, 19 percent pick Bush as the victor and 16 percent call it a draw. After weeks of being portrayed as a verbose "flip-flopper" by Republicans, Kerry did better than a majority (56 percent) had expected. Only about 11 percent would say the same for the president's performance while more than one-third (38 percent) said the incumbent actually did worse that they had expected. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans felt their man out-debated the challenger but a full third (33 percent) say they felt Kerry won.
RELATED STORY
Eleanor Clift: The Heat Is on Dick Cheney Now
Kerry's perceived victory may be attributed to the fact that, by a wide margin (62 percent to 26 percent), debate watchers felt the senator came across as more confident than the president. More than half (56 percent) also see Kerry has having a better command of the facts than Bush (37 percent). As a result, the challenger's favorability ratings (52 percent, versus 40 percent unfavorable) are better than Bush's, who at 49 percent (and 46 percent unfavorable), has dipped below the halfway mark for the first time since July. Kerry, typically characterized as aloof and out of touch by his opponents, came across as more personally likeable than Bush (47 percent to the president's 41 percent).
NEWSWEEK INTERACTIVE POLL
Who was the better debater? Tell us what you think after the first head-to-head matchup. Click here to take our poll
In fact, Kerry's numbers have improved across the board, while Bush's vulnerabilities have become more pronounced. The senator is seen as more intelligent and well-informed (80 percent, up six points over last month, compared to Bush's steady 59 percent); as having strong leadership skills (56 percent, also up 6 points, but still less than Bush's 62 percent) and as someone who can be trusted to make the right calls in an international crisis (51 percent, up five points and tied with Bush).
Meanwhile, Bush's approval ratings have dropped to below the halfway mark (46 percent) for the first time since the GOP convention in late August. Nearly half of all voters (48 percent) say they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 46 percent say they do. Still, a majority of voters (55 percent versus 29 percent) believe the president will be re-hired on Nov. 2.
Neither man was seen as a particularly stronger leader (44 percent Bush, 47 percent Kerry), more negative (37 percent Bush, 36 percent Kerry) or more honest (43 percent Bush, 45 percent Kerry).
Perhaps because the debate topic focused on foreign policy—and largely was dominated by the war in Iraq—that issue rates higher as a voter concern than it did a month ago. Twenty percent of all voters say Iraq is the issue that will most determine their vote, up from 15 percent. Tied with Iraq is the economy (21 percent), and still leading the list is terrorism and homeland security (26 percent). And key for the president is the fact that he is the preferred man on the issues more important to voters. On homeland security, Bush is preferred 52 percent to Kerry's 40 percent (a significant spread, but a narrowing one: Last month the spread, in the president's favor, was 58 percent to 34 percent). On Iraq Bush is preferred 49 percent to 44 percent (compared to 54 percent versus 39 percent a month ago). Kerry is even with the president on the question of which man is better suited to guide foreign policy in general (48 percent Bush to the challenger's 46 percent) and clamping down on the proliferation of nuclear materiel (47 percent Bush, 43 percent Kerry).
Where Kerry clearly leads is on domestic issues, which will be the focus of the third debate on Oct. 13, in Tempe, Ariz. The Democrat is preferred to Bush by double-digit spreads on who would be better at handling the economy (52 percent to 39 percent), foreign competition (54 percent to 36 percent) and health care (56 percent to 34 percent).
Although the subject of the draft was only briefly addressed during the debate, four in ten voters (38 percent) believe that because of the war in Iraq—which 50 percent of all voters now view as unnecessary—a second Bush administration would reinstate the draft. Just 18 percent feel the same would happen if Kerry were elected. Nearly two thirds (62 percent) feel a draft should not be considered at this time and 28 percent said a draft should at least be considered. But only 46 percent feel going to war was the right decision in the first place with just as many (45 percent) under the impression that the administration deliberately misled the nation into war with falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, echoing a recurring refrain of Kerry's, more than half of all voters (51 percent) think the Bush administration has not done enough to engage other nations (43 percent feel they have done enough or even gone too far in that direction as it is).
For the NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,013 registered voters aged 18 and older between Sept. 30 and Oct. 2 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
10/02/2004 7:26:03 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A few problesm with this.
1) It was a "push" poll - with questions designed to lead people into a Kerry selectiona t the end of all questions. (Note the topics, expecially the draft question).
2) They sample and thne "correct" the sampel to match exit polls from 2000, which means they adjust it to have more democrats and a larger independant fraction.
3) Its registered voters, not likely voters.
4) Their results are completely different from 5 other polls done in the same time frame.
Basically, this is about as real as the CBS story on the draft, and the 60 Minutes story on Bush's guard duty.
Kerry, typically characterized as aloof and out of touch by his opponents, came across as more personally likeable than Bush (47 percent to the president’s 41 percent).
This has NEVER been above 40% for Kerry. ANd the 4 other surveys, including one by Carvile's organization (overnight after the debate) consistently show Bush above 50% on this number, and Kerry below 40%, even after the debate.
Newsweek is lying or else distorting their numbers.
#3
For example, look at the professionals. Rasumussen, who is percieved to have a 3% ro so bias toward Democrats in his methodology, still has Bush up by more than the margin of error. Sampled over the same time the Newsweek Poll was done. Bush has 49% rounded down from 49.4, Kerry has 46% rounded up from 45.6 with less than 3% margin of error.
(from Rasumussen) emphasis mine
These results are based upon a survey of 3,000 Likely Voters conducted Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday night. As a result, just over one-third of the interviews were conducted following Thursday night’s Presidential Debate. Results from last night’s sample were similar to the preceding nights
#4
Truman shoved the pollsters numbers and the newspaper headlines up their asses in his election. It is extremely difficult to get a good poll number. You first have to define your representative sample, that is a major consideration. Then you have to frame the question correctly. Blah blah. Then you have do deal with the objectivity of the pollster. More blah blah.
Bottom line: the only poll that will count is the November voting poll.
BTW, do you notice that there is always a passive agressive opposition by the established parties to purging, cross checking, and updating voter rolls?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/02/2004 20:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Finally dug out the sample size:
36Dem
34Rep
30 Indpt/Other
Far overweighting Democrats given the change in Party Identification that all other polls have had. Most other national polls have the reverse percentages in terms of PID.
So, yes, if you overwieght Democrats, and call other democrats "independants", then of course you can produce a pol that shows Kerry in the lead.
Happened all the time in the California poll that showed Schwarzenaegger losing, or the Colorado senate race between that had similar sampling mistakes to produce the Demcorat with a 5% lead, who then lost by 6% to the Republican.
#6
OldSpook---That's OK. The more that these pollsters screw the statistical pooch, the less credibility they have. Just like CBS and Rather in the Bush national guard non-story.
The thing that is bad in elections is like what happened in Florida. The errors detected in the balloting were within the noise band created by errors and possible fraud in the voter rolls, so how you decide to handle the errors or ballot problems will affect the outcome of the election. It is veddy veddy bad to make decisions in the noise band without appropriate noise filter algorithms. **wags finger**
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/02/2004 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#7
All true, but the fact remains that Kerry's supporters were losing heart, and now they've got some hope again. Bush and Rove need to slam Kerry, and hard, on his global test and EU help-on-the-way idiocies. And slam him twice as hard on his freezenik proposal to unilaterally disarm us by shutting down bunker-buster production. This is crunch time.
#9
Bush never should have agreed to three debates. He and Rove need to go into overdrive now with negative ads slamming Kerry as an unreconstructed eighties-era peacenik/freexe advocate/idiot. Bunker-busters should be Topic A.
#10
Oh, and ratchet up the offensives in Iraq. Bring it to a conclusion. Force the MSM to either support the troops or try to pull another Cronkite, which would backfire big time. Their credibiity's shot. Sumner Redstone will not permit more tricks from Rather and Co.
The arch-druid of British paleo-snobs, Harold Brooks-Baker of Burke's Peerage, certainly thinks so:
Walking U.N.
Perhaps Sen. John Kerry does have an advantage after all over President Bush in understanding the complex political issues of the Middle East.
New research by Burke's Peerage reveals that Mr. Kerry is the only presidential candidate in U.S. history who has genealogical descent from Muslims, Jews and Christians. "Senator Kerry ... is a virtual walking United Nations," says Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's. (We would be accused of an infamous calumny if we said that, and justly so.)
Mr. Kerry is kinsman of the Shi'ite shahs of Persia (the most famous was Shah Abbas I, who reigned from 1587 to 1629), as well as the Muslim kings of Tunisia, all of whom — Democratic presidential nominee included — descend from the prophet Muhammad.
Brooks-Baker has been hyping Kerry's blue blood credentials for quite a while, connecting him to King Harald of Norway among others.
My dad converted to the LDS church late in his life and did quite a bit of research on our geneology. It turns out that we descend from a long line of horse-thieves, highwaymen, mercenaries, and barmaids (also the Stuart kings, but that is a bit redundant.)
#2
Self-styled "progressives" will always discuss their socially defined genetic superiority at the slightest provocation, another good indication that their philosophy is a giant red herring, an opportunity to assert status by pretending to care for the poor and down-trodden. The close affinity of the left for another status-seeker icon, conformity to popular culture, is another telling indication. Worship of otherwise trivial celebrities, especially royalty, would seem to be completely inconsistent with egalitarian liberalism, yet I know very few liberals who do not indulge in it. Why is that?
An article by David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director Interactive Media Research Laboratory Abstract
The following evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter:
1. The specific font used is from a typewriter family in common use since 1905 and a typewriter capable of producing the spacing has been available since 1944.
2. The characters "e," "t," "s," and "a" show indications of physical damage and/or wear consistent with a well used typewriter.
3. The characters that are seldom used show no signs of damage or wear.
4. The quality of individual characters is inconsistent throughout the memos beyond expectations from photocopying and/or digitizing but quality is consistent with worn platen and variations in paper quality.
5. Overlapping characters occasionally indicate paper deformation consistent with hammered impressions.
6. Critical indicators of digital production or cut and paste production are missing.
Implications are that there is nothing in this evidence that would indicate the memos are inauthentic. Furthermore, from the point of view of the physical evidence in the documents (excluding any rhetorical evidence or external evidence, which is not examined in this study) no amount of additional research on the part of CBS would have lead them to exclude the documents from their 60 Minutes report.
Executive Summary
There are a number of reasons for identifying the physical source for the recently released memos indicating that President George Bush failed to meet his obligation to the Air National Guard and disobeyed both written and spoken orders to take a flight physical.
A careful forensic examination of even the worst copies may provide some evidence of the documents' authenticity or disprove their authenticity. For example, if the evidence demonstrates that the documents were originally digitally produced, it would disprove their authenticity.
On the other hand, if evidence indicates they were typewritten, it lends support to the credibility of CBS in general and to Dan Rather and his producers in particular. If evidence demonstrates that the memos were typewritten using a font usually available in the military, but less common among civilians, at least on this evidence they were right to air the memos.
Given the current extent of political animosity, the voice of indisputable evidence can be useful. In short, there is justification for a qualified, independent lab to examine the documents and make the results publicly available.
Qualifications of the Lab
Interactive Media Research Laboratory is a small university lab that does scholarly studies and writes about issues involving the impact of technology on communications. Among other things, it is investigates archival and authentication problems. As the principal investigator and lab director I have researched and written on these topics since 1991, with more than 50 peer reviewed publications.
In addition, I served in the U.S. military (Army) from 1963 to 1972. For five of those seven years I was an Army illustrator responsible for short run publications including memos such as those in question. Ultimately, I have a total of almost 35 years experience examining document production, including analyzing and spec'ing type. I have an archive that includes military documents produced between 1963 and 1984 and have access to a repository of military documents here at the university. Finally, I have extensive experience using computers to manage and manipulate images, including type. The article continues with many illustrations
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/02/2004 4:00:54 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
Yes and there really are 72 dancing virgins!!! Yup, the earth really is flat. 10/4 on the "Yellow Brick Road." Give it up Slywester. I taught I taw a puddy cat. Oh, that was Sylvester.
Posted by: John ||
10/02/2004 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Did you know that the Zero was really built by a Haliburton subsidiary in Plano Texas? You can look it up.
#7
...Halburton subsidiary. Oh, by the way did I mention my service in Vietnam?
Posted by: John ||
10/02/2004 17:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The article continues with many illustrations
Conveniently faked in Photoshop; people have even recovered the intermediate files used during the faking. If Mikey had been paying attention, he would have known this was taken apart two or three days ago.
But, oddly, Mikey never seems to catch onto information that contradicts his fetishes.
And much more important than this loon's "analysis" is the evidence that nothing but Word and Times New Roman could have been used to produce those memos! That's been established for a couple weeks.
No doubt Mikey's just trying to present us with "alternate information". Maybe, in the future, he should take some time to figure out if the "alternate information" is crap first.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/02/2004 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Mr. Slywester can confirm or deny, but I'm not sure the poster necessarily agrees with the article. It was an interesting read, in a Vince Foster conspiracy sort of way.
Perhaps Sen. John Kerry does have an advantage after all over President Bush in understanding the complex political issues of the Middle East. New research by Burke's Peerage reveals that Mr. Kerry is the only presidential candidate in U.S. history who has genealogical descent from Muslims, Jews and Christians. "Senator Kerry ... is a virtual walking United Nations," says Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's.
Truer words were never spoken.
Mr. Kerry is kinsman of the Shi'ite shahs of Persia (the most famous was Shah Abbas I, who reigned from 1587 to 1629), as well as the Muslim kings of Tunisia, all of whom — Democratic presidential nominee included — descend from the prophet Muhammad.
"There is no God but Allah, and John al-Kerry is his prophet!"
Posted by: Steve ||
10/02/2004 1:52:10 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr. Kerry is the only presidential candidate in U.S. history who has genealogical descent from Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Oh, please, don't tell Kerry that. I can see it now, "Oh yes, I'm a true child of the world. Because I'm descended from these three major religions, I know what's best for all. And did you know I was in Vietnam?"
#2
I love this genealogical crap. My mother being a Mormon, I can make similar claims. Funny thing is, So Can Everyone On The Planet.
Approx the same level of twittery here as Shirley channeling your ancient ancestor - the Phucking Pharoah. Odd how those past lives were never the majority's fate: desperate survival and brutal serfdom.
"If you were to trace your own ancestry back a mere 20 generations, he explains, you’ll find that you have (and everyone has) 1,048,576 20th great grandparents, spread out over a wide geographic area, through many countries and over several continents. That would be people living around the 1400s for most of us now alive."
"...about 70 percent of all Americans descend directly from the Prophet Mohammed."
Well, certainly not any Americans on Rantburg I'm sure.
Posted by: Tom ||
10/02/2004 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
That al-Aska Paul has always seemed a bit suspect to me...
#8
I have been found out!! O Horrors! Er, I resent the implication that I am a descend of Big Mo and Co. I am a purebred American Mongrel. I can be a loveable and loyal pet, or I can be a junkyard dawg. Insh'Allah, er hi there, citizens!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/02/2004 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Unless the Prophet managed to get into the knickers of my S. African, Cherokee, German, Irish and ancestors, I doubt that 70% statistic.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'll be damned, Kerry is a raghead. He really is Heinz 57 varieties. A ploy to get the vote. I knew he was french (not capitalized) and his wife claims to be African-American as does Bill Clinton.
Posted by: John ||
10/02/2004 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#14
This aide that concocted this scenario must be very young. Young enough not to realize that. to a bigot, part" Jewish means Jewish period.
They would have done well to realize that his Jewish component will be considered the dominant gene to Arabs and his Arab ancestory won't help him with the general populace.
#15
When I used to live up north, after travelling in a blizzard, clothes packed with snow, ice on the eyebrows and moustache, I could have been considered an AB..... I sure felt like one, heh heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/02/2004 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Queen Elizabeth is also a descendant of Mohammed, btw.
#17
On Elizabeth via googlegroups: "a descendent of the Umayyid caliphs, via the Dukes of Aquitaine and the Umayyid caliphs of Spain. So are most English gentle families, via Edward III."
#18
Not Queen Elizabeth. Time for the razorblades and the bathtub.
Posted by: John ||
10/02/2004 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#19
What's that shit about all of us being seven degrees removed from Kevin Bacon. Not me. Unless of course my Irish ancestry really came from England on the side of Cromwell. What can I say, crusade for the hell of it.
Posted by: John ||
10/02/2004 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
#20
If you were to trace your own ancestry back a mere 20 generations, he explains, you’ll find that you have (and everyone has) 1,048,576 20th great grandparents...
Not really true. For any person, a lot of those grandparents will be the same individuals cropping up again and again. That said, I don't doubt that Mohammed's (very very very very very much diluted) genes have spread far and wide.
#22
I prefer the 1000 generations of poachers and olive thieves. Horse thievery is more lucatrive I should think.
Posted by: John ||
10/02/2004 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#23
In recent years, the notorious ex-convict and ancient astronauts quack Erich von Daniken has busied himeself with a new theory, expounded in his book, Holy Grail, Holy Blood.
This holds that the related tribes of feeble-minded inbreds known as the royal families of Europe are, in fact, descended from none other than Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.
This is based on the very dubious claim that the big J survived the crucifiction and ran off to (where else?) France with Mary M, and started a family. This lunacy is an overt and literal defense of the divine right of kings, an idea that you might have thought had been disposed of during the French Revolution.
It is all the rage among Eurabia's chattering classes, when they aren't trying to out-do each other justifying terrorism through their bigotry and hatred for Americans.
#25
WTF, did everybody decide to start picking nicknames out of the Greater Phnom Penh Metro Area phonebook this weekend? This joint is getting wierder and wierder.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#26
A few years back, Queen Noor of Jordan(nee Lisa Halaby, a former airline stewardess) came to Lubbock for some sort of shindig at Texas Tech. This was a big deal for the local gentry, and many of them were invited, along with select faculty and a few other peasants, including my humble self. (I suspect that my residual North Country accent is the real reason I get invited to a lot of these international events).
Some self-appointed protocol droid from administration sent us all a list of do's and don'ts if we were lucky enough to encounter the sacred person of her sacred majesty in, er, person.
These found their way into the local paper, to the varied amusement and chagrin of the populace.
Among other things, we were told not to make eye contact with the royal eyeballs, not to speak to her first, and not to address her as anything but "your majesty"; no "ma'am" "Queen Noor" or "Lisa" for example.
I was incensed at this, since "ma'am" is perfectly acceptable for the honest-to-god Queen of England in direct conversation, and I could not see that the wife of a Saddamite collaborator rated higher than that.
I ended up being disinvited, lest ordinary courtesy prove inadequate to avoid an international incident.
#27
YOU CAN'T CALL THE BRITISH QUEEN MS
'TAIN'T AS NICE AS ELIZABETH IS
BUT I THINK THAT THE QUEEN
WOULD BE EVEN LESS KEEN
TO HAVE HERSELF MENTIONED AS LS
That's from a "Black Widowers" story of Asimov. Quoting it from memory. :-)
Washington state, not DC. Watergate for the Democrats? Remember for Nixon it started with a little reported burglary... SEATTLE — Three laptop computers containing campaign plans were stolen overnight from the Bush-Cheney state headquarters office, Republican officials said Friday. Vance said two of the stolen laptops belonged to Seaton (State campaign director) and Chris Taylor, head of the office's get-out-the-vote campaign. A third had been slated for a field office. The computers contained much of the Bush-Cheney campaign strategy for the state and advertising schedules, Vance said. "This looks like it was politically motivated," Vance said in an interview from the Republican party offices in Tukwila. Are they that desperate to have gone around the bend? I'd not put it past them given the hate and lies pouring out of the Democrats these days.
Forgeries, break-ins, and voter fraud... There's a reason I'm not a Dummycrat, and it's not just that I dislike Kerry — even though I do...
#3
It's Bush's fault. Wait. Karl Rove's behind it to frame the democrats. Wait. The Jews did it along with the CIA and Vatican. Wait. Ah, well. I ran out of conspiracies... Wait a minute, one more: Halliburton's behind it.
#6
Anybody who leaves critical computers and data around without some means of securing that data has their head up their ass. What are the Republicans thinking? The Dems consider defeating Bush and reestablishing power war, so weren't any precautions taken?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/02/2004 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
What are the Republicans thinking?
That they're facing law-abiding people?
(Of course, let's not forget that Kerry's first campaign featured a break-in at his opponent's office.)
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/02/2004 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Campaign plans in the hands of the anointed ones! Holy smokes! Spill the beans tree hugging thieves, what day before the election will Osama be "captured" and paraded in front of the cameras?
What a wanker Berry is. Bush needs to show this person the door.
Earlier this week we wrote about the attempt by some liberals to scare up black voter turnout this year by invoking the Florida myth of 2000. But in case that doesn't work, the fallback seems to be to play the race card one more time.
At least that seems to be the strategy of the Democratic majority on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is about to deliver a scathing report on President Bush's record on civil rights. This is the all-too-familiar handiwork of Chairman Mary Frances Berry and her staff, who produced the document all by themselves with zero input from the Republican commissioners, to whom it was delivered late Wednesday morning. Time to free up this fiefdom for someone a whole lot less partisan. Berry is ( or should be )an embarssment to those who support civil rights for everyone
The timing of the report "draws into question the objectivity of the report and whether it's being issued for substance or for the desired effect," says GOP Commissioner Peter Kirsanow--which is putting it mildly. And all the more so given that the Commission's review of Bill Clinton's civil-rights record was deliberately timed for release after the 2000 election. Nor was this report submitted for the usual "affected agency review," a process that allows every agency mentioned to comment or correct errors. This process usually takes a month or two, which of course would have delayed it until after November 2.
The partisan motives are also suspicious given the substance of the report, which can generously be described as selective liberal analysis. Take education, where the Bush Administration is castigated for demanding accountability, even (gasp!) from poor kids, in the form of the testing requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act.
Now, it isn't as if Mr. Bush sprang those requirements on unsuspecting voters; he ran on them everywhere in 2000 and argued for them with his famous anti-discriminatory phrase, "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry voted for those testing standards. Perhaps what really upsets Ms. Berry and friends is that Mr. Bush has used accountability, as well as support for vouchers for the District of Columbia, to take the moral high ground on education. The folks now blocking African-Americans at the schoolhouse door are those who support the education status quo.
Likewise on housing, Mr. Bush is blamed for reducing rental subsidies for the poor. But the report doesn't bother to mention that minority homeownership is at a record high, and that Bush policies have been aimed less at maintaining permanent rental subsidies than in promoting the self-sufficiency that can come from home ownership. Reports like this doesn't bother to mention anything like that because that would make the report fair and balanced: in other words, truthful.
And, oh yes, the President is accused of being soft on civil rights for nominating a Hispanic (Miguel Estrada) and an African-American (Janice Rogers Brown) to the appellate bench. Never mind their ethnicity, these conservatives have a judicial philosophy that the report says will lead to the "eventual weakening of civil rights laws." So Mr. Bush is insensitive to civil rights if he doesn't appoint minorities but he's also insensitive if he does. That's about all you need to know about the objectivity of this political exercise. I need to know when Bush is going to fire MF Berry.
Posted by: badanov ||
10/02/2004 10:32:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He can't. I think she's appointed by congress, with a 600-year term or something like that.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The report will find its way to the bottom of the trashcan... and on the front pages of the papers of "record".
#3
Not to worry - Peter Kirsanow, also on the commission, is more than an adequate counterweight to this gasbag; he'll refute this shit like Berry's 2001 (or so) report claiming 'millions of blacks disenfranchised' in Florida in 2000.
By general consensus, the first United States presidential debate was crucial to Senator John Kerry's chances of claiming the White House. Only by easing Americans' concerns about his leadership ability during a one-on-one confrontation with President George W. Bush could he hope to overturn the incumbent's re-election bandwagon.
Only by demonstrating a resolve and succinctness that would cultivate a connection with the electorate could he hope to reverse polls that show the race leaning to the President.
The Democrat challenger was partly successful. Rarely did he meander, and occasionally his eloquence was put to good use. Iraq, he said, was "a colossal error of judgment, and judgment is what we look for in the President of the United States". Yet as well as Mr Kerry performed, it is doubtful that he did enough.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
10/02/2004 9:33:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So uh, why don't us Merican's get to vote in the New Zealand elections?
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
10/02/2004 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I don't understand where this "international vote" BS is coming from. So if other a-hole countries are supposed to vote in our elections, I'm guessing that means we should be able to vote in theirs. I doubt they'd want that. Idiots.
#3
What a steaming heap of shite. It's amazing what people can believe when they really, really want to.
I just got my copy of "Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall For Stupid Ideas", by Daniel J. Flynn, delivered this week. I think it might make an entertaining read.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Let me tell you, it really sucks being a total moron citizen of the most powerful nation in human history. I guess we just blundered our way to the title, huh?
I feel so internationally unworthy. Well, not really...
#5
The people are stupid = we don't really believe in democracy unless it is of the People's Democratic Republic form, name only in which the select members of the inner circle actually rules.
Posted by: Don ||
10/02/2004 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Come Nov. 3rd, I will enjoy tallying the number of brain aneurysms and heart attacks in certain parts of the world.
Posted by: ed ||
10/02/2004 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
These guys affect us through their anti-American votes in multinational forums like the WTO, the UN and things like Kyoto. If they want to vote in our elections, then Americans should be able to vote in their elections. Period.
"....makes a mockery of Mr Bush’s claim...."
"....White House policy has been, and continues to be, severely flawed."
"Mr Bush, however, has been able to deflect attention from these shortcomings...."
"Often the President was glib...."
"Rarely was he considered."
"Mr Bush’s flippancy and detachment from reality...."
And on Kerry:
"Rarely did he meander, and occasionally his eloquence was put to good use."
"Mr Kerry cleverly uncoupled Iraq from the war on terror...."
"Mr Kerry, despite his sounder grasp of issues...."
There you have it: nothing but snide, disparaging comments about Bush, and nothing but praise for Kerry.
And this from a newspaper that regularly features anti-Semitic articles, shows unthinking, unqualified support for Helen Clark, the rabidly leftist Prime Minister, and writes timid, cautiously optimistic articles about the visit to New Zealand of such statesmen as Kamal Kharazzi, foreign minister of Iran - who's visit coincided with the state-sanctioned murder by hanging from a crane in his country of a girl of sixteen for having sex.
#10
I find the notion of John Kerry having a "sounder grasp of the issues" to be utterly bogglesome. Myself, I find him dense and dull-witted despite his verbosity.
If we elect this dumbulb our President, we'll deserve every bit of the scorn, derision and catcalls that the world will heap on us.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The essence of this article is that it just isn't fair for New Zealanders to be so impotent and irrelevant when they're so much smarter than those American clods.
#12
I'm heading down to NZ for Christmas and New Years, so I will gauge the pulse, so to speak, and let you know what I find.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/02/2004 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'm on a mailing list with a lot of Kiwis, and I get the impression they occupy a pleasant little resort island, far away from all the troubles of the Real World-- and that they indulge their postmodern, Leftist impulses because there aren't any consequences.
That's just my impression from listening to them talk, for what it's worth.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I fully expected this piece to be authored by Dan Rather or the New York Times. Facts don't matter just opinions or desires. I guess New Zealand also has shit for brains jounalists strike journalists and read "shit for brains leftwing liars or damned liars."
Posted by: John ||
10/02/2004 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Maybe the Hollywood hype of the "Lord of the Rings" set location has gone to their collective head? Haven't been to NZ yet, but still would like to go.
#16
These guys need to get back to sodomizing sheep.
Typical elitist clap trap. What is really funny is this the total population of New Zeland is 3,993,817 (source CIA world fact book) it doesn't even make the list of the top 50 nations(source U.S. Census Bureau) in the world. In fact thay don't even make the top 100 nations. As they say nothing to see here move along.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/02/2004 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
#19
#13 "I'm on a mailing list with a lot of Kiwis, and I get the impression they occupy a pleasant little resort island, far away from all the troubles of the Real World-- and that they indulge their postmodern, Leftist impulses because there aren't any consequences."
Agreed, except that unfortunately the consequences are coming: they've let in enough Muslims to now be sitting with a community of 30 000.
If the deciding issue in this campaign were to be which candidate is a smoother debater, John Kerry would win. George W. Bush was painfully inarticulate at times last night. Yet, the biggest gaffe in the debate was not stylistic. It was deeply substantive. And it didn't come from President Bush. It came from Senator Kerry, who delivered it in plain English. It came when Jim Lehrer asked Kerry to state his position on preemptive war. "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when I do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
#3
Kerry's going to regret that stupid remark. Not only is it laughable and contemptible on its face, he said it with such total conviction that it reveals something fundamental about him: a neurotic need for peer approval. For him, being liked-- and getting warm fuzzies and attaboys-- will take priority over getting the job done.
I shudder when I think of what kind of world we're going to be confronted with if we're dumb enough to put a pushover in the White House.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Global test" is a gaffe in the making Kerry is sure to regret before too long, and rightfully so.
But the number one gaffe which will survive this election which will be used again in time as a classic, was Kerry's unintentionally hilarious remark: "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
#5
Please correct me but reading what Kerry said I understand that from this phrase
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when I do it,...
Means he would consider ceding the right to preempt?
Does "it passes a Global test" mean When France agrees?
#6
Wow! I didn't catch that. Got an online transcript I can check out?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Never mind. The WaPo has a transcript, and the correct quote from Kerry is:
"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." (Emphasis mine)
It's clear from this that the "if and when you do it" referred to acting preemptively, not to ceding authority to other nations. Sorry, but no "gotcha" there. (Except for the entire "Global test" nonsense, that is.)
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/02/2004 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
My God! Kerry flip-flopped in the same sentence.
I will not cede authority before I cede authority to a global test.....
A faded 35-year-old operations order recovered from the Naval Historical Center in Washington bears directly on the ongoing dispute between Sen. John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about who wrote the key after-action report that ended Kerry's service in Vietnam. The report appears in the official Navy records and is posted on Kerry's presidential campaign Web site.
The report details Kerry's participation in a naval operation on the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969, in such glowing terms that he was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for pulling Special Forces officer James Rassmann out of the water while under heavy enemy fire. This third Purple Heart allowed Kerry to cut short his Vietnam tour after only four months.
The report in question described a mission of five swift boats ambushed by a mine explosion that seriously damaged one boat while the swift boats received heavy fire from both banks. The fire continued for three miles, the report said. Roy Hoffman, the admiral who commanded the swift boats in Vietnam, finds that detail alone absurd. Hoffman, a member of the anti-Kerry swift boat veterans group, says: "There was never an incident under my command in all of Vietnam where my boats were engaged by continuous fire from both banks of a half mile in length, much less three."
"It is miraculous all right because it never happened," recalls Larry Thurlow, a Kerry critic who commanded the mission.
Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
10/02/2004 2:03:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
..Oh, THIS is good. The NHC troops (and those from the USMCHC across the street) are absolutely incredible at their jobs, and they have stuff in their archives that will knock your socks off. Wonder how many other reports they have out there?...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/02/2004 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"There was never an incident under my command in all of Vietnam where my boats were engaged by continuous fire from both banks of a half mile in length, much less three."
Guess this can be refered to as the "three mile ambush".
#3
damn g**ks couldn't shoot worth a damn either. 3 miles of ambush and not a single bullet hole
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/02/2004 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Pretty amazing... As Frank sez, for people who could put a mortar round in your pocket at 400 yds, that all 5 boats emerged unscathed (i.e. didn't look like swiss cheese) is, indeed, remarkable. Must've been Skeery's magnificent aura protecting everyone.
Written by "TE 194.5.4.4/1" - "/1" designating someone other than the commander - who says this story is bullshit... okaaaay...
I guess those creative writing classes at Yale paid off, after all. To quote one of Skeery's recent critical comments on Bush, "Time and again..."
If it weren't for the fact that he's pulling off one of the longest-running scams in American political history, I'd say this situation has become completely laughable. Skeery's entire military record is a joke. An inside joke, since he hasn't the stones to sign Form 180.
I guess he's anything but suicidal, despite his reported heroics.
WaPo Reg. required...
It seemed simple enough. Falls Church (Virginia) officials recently drafted a policy that would require city workers to call 911 immediately if anyone stepped onto city property carrying a gun. Police who responded would check to see if the gun was properly licensed and report their findings to city officials. With all seven council members and many residents of this little city inside the Capital Beltway firmly in the anti-gun camp, only a few officials expected any problems with the procedures.
About 30 people, pistols strapped to their hips, strode into the council's meeting this week protesting the policy and warning that it violates their constitutional right to bear arms -- and possibly state laws, as well.
"We're here fer the meetin', pardner!"
The group was largely organized by Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun owners group, who drove up from his home near Richmond. He had hardly set foot in Falls Church before, but now, he vowed, the city "is going to be under a microscope." I'm liking this guy, already.
"We weren't paying any attention to them until they did this," he said.
That's why they get away with that crap, year in and year out...
"If they try to set some standard like this and we ignore them, then it's going to send the wrong message. . . . But if they violate state law, we are prepared to sue them." The presence of so many pistol-packing citizens at Monday's meeting unnerved council members and, in particular, infuriated council member David Snyder, who denounced their brazen display of firearms as "intimidation" and attacked Virginia's recently enacted laws that limit local control over guns. Heh. The whole point of a well-armed citizenry is to keep the power of the State in check. Legislate at your peril, Councilman.
"It's particularly ironic that everyone on the state, federal and local levels are concerned about gang violence, and yet Virginia prevents local communities from acting against that very violence when guns are potentially involved," he said in an interview. Um, a lawful citizen (or even a group of them) carrying licensed weapons is not nearly the same thing as a bunch of thugs with a cache of stolen rods. Well, unless you're a Falls Church councilman, that is.
The sight of 30 people bearing arms at a council meeting was intimidating, several council members said. Snicker. Kim DuToit would be proud.
#2
Will they be given weapons, or will they have to use whatever they seize? After all, shooting those seeking to cause harm to others is such a unilateral thing . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
10/02/2004 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
Can we do that soon? Like within the next few days?
Posted by: Fred ||
10/02/2004 11:23:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One of the unofficial prerequisites for the top U.N. job is speaking French, because France insisted that the U.N. chief speak the language.
Now why doesn't that surprise me?
Well, I suppose that just because their culture's become more and more irrelevant, they aren't under any obligation to realize it. I think it's an "unofficial prerequisite" for being French.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/02/2004 00:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Call it 'parents speaking with their wallet.' That's the only reason these nitwits stop these LLL admin types. Mention a cut in funds and they suddenly find a deep set of moral values. Oh and SCREW MIKE MOORE!
#4
Moore is rapidly becoming the 'Salmon Rushdie' in this matter of his Bush bashing. Should "W" win a second term; look out for an unofficial "black Listing" of any thing he associates with! He made his bed, so he has to lie in it!
#7
Exactly. The best part is Moore said he'd bust Kerry's chops the second he's elected (if he's elected). So Moore can keep talking and winning friends and influencing people. I'm ashamed he's from Michigan. Along with Madonna, er, I mean, Esther. I think.
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.
Abstract
