Hi there, !
Today Thu 03/17/2005 Wed 03/16/2005 Tue 03/15/2005 Mon 03/14/2005 Sun 03/13/2005 Sat 03/12/2005 Fri 03/11/2005 Archives
Rantburg
556879 articles and 1922878 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 78 articles and 520 comments as of 9:16.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background               
Abdullah Mehsud is no more?
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 3: Non-WoT
6 00:00 trailing wife [11136] 
3 00:00 Chuck Simmins [11130] 
2 00:00 Bobby [11139] 
4 00:00 BigEd [11133] 
0 [11131] 
2 00:00 mmurray821 [11135] 
15 00:00 too true [11131] 
21 00:00 mom [11127] 
40 00:00 Sobiesky [11136] 
1 00:00 BigEd [11128] 
6 00:00 .com [11128] 
11 00:00 Half [11127] 
0 [11129] 
23 00:00 Aris Katsaris [11129] 
2 00:00 Bon Scott [11142] 
1 00:00 Rex Rufus [11129] 
3 00:00 BigEd [11127] 
59 00:00 Frank G [11132] 
14 00:00 OldSpook [11128] 
15 00:00 OldSpook [11124] 
3 00:00 tu3031 [11129] 
13 00:00 OldSpook [11128] 
34 00:00 OldSpook [11144] 
23 00:00 phil_b [11136] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
6 00:00 Usagotohell [11139]
4 00:00 Robert Crawford [11130]
8 00:00 trailing wife [11134]
4 00:00 JFM [11133]
0 [11131]
17 00:00 Showme [11132]
19 00:00 Kolac [11133]
0 [11128]
1 00:00 Sock Puppet O’ Doom [11128]
4 00:00 Deacon Blues [11128]
1 00:00 Ebboth Unager1775 [11131]
0 [11125]
0 [11128]
6 00:00 Bon Scott [11137]
0 [11139]
0 [11131]
10 00:00 liberalhawk [11140]
6 00:00 Sobiesky [11128]
0 [11127]
Page 2: WoT Background
5 00:00 Bobby [11127]
4 00:00 rjschwarz [11128]
6 00:00 john [11133]
9 00:00 OldSpook [11135]
11 00:00 Bobby [11136]
3 00:00 too true [11138]
3 00:00 CrazyFool [11129]
13 00:00 Frank G [11138]
9 00:00 Phil Fraering [11135]
3 00:00 Frank G [11137]
0 [11124]
0 [11130]
2 00:00 Sock Puppet O’ Doom [11126]
5 00:00 BigEd [11124]
4 00:00 trailing wife [11133]
8 00:00 Charles [11126]
0 [11130]
4 00:00 mom [11129]
2 00:00 RWV [11130]
6 00:00 Frank G [11139]
10 00:00 too true [11129]
5 00:00 cog [11132]
6 00:00 BigEd [11126]
0 [11127]
2 00:00 Bomb-a-rama [11128]
1 00:00 trailing wife [11128]
10 00:00 Frank G [11134]
0 [11129]
2 00:00 Steve White [11130]
5 00:00 Bomb-a-rama [11129]
0 [11132]
10 00:00 Wuzzalib [11132]
0 [11132]
0 [11130]
3 00:00 Shipman [11129]
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Shaolin kung fu master appeals to legislators for protection
A top kung fu master from Shaolin Temple has urged China's legislature to enact a law to better protect the world-renowned martial arts centre's trademark rights, state press reported. "China needs to make a law at an earlier date so that Shaolin kung fu and other intangible heritage are better protected within a legal framework," Xinhua news agency quoted master Shi Yongxin as saying. The 1,500-year-old temple, known as the cradle of China's martial arts, is under siege from competitors taking advantage of its name, said Shi, a deputy to the National People's Congress, China's rubber-stamp parliament. Shi cited a brochure that read: "Want to practice Shaolin kong fu? Come to Japan."

"We have to wake up to the fact that some other nations might have already begun to capitalize on our traditional know-how to sharpen their own competitive edge and make profits amid fierce international competition in a globalised society," he said.
Trade mark infringement problems? But you Chinese would never do that, right? Bwahahahah!
That's, ummmm...different.
Shaolin Temple, in central Henan province, has also recently applied to the United Nations to protect the site as a world heritage area. Today Shaolin is inundated by tourists and the monastery's monks and practitioners have few places left for quiet contemplation or the rigorous practice of kung fu.
Posted by: Spot || 03/14/2005 6:07:18 PM || Comments || Link || [11136 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Of course, there's also the matter that depending on who you ask, said temple may or may not have cultural continuity with the original Shaolin monks.

Also, for a while the Communists were actively persecuting many practicioners of the martial arts; then they started more "official" martial arts schools based around techniques that you have to be young and extremely fit to do (i.e. all the acrobatic Wushu stuff).

At least that's the impression I've gotten.
Posted by: Phil Fraering || 03/14/2005 19:59 Comments || Top||

#2  Hey! Guy's gotta make a living!
Posted by: David Carradine || 03/14/2005 20:20 Comments || Top||

#3  this is really bizarre.. in my experience, if a school is making lots of money, it's just watered down crap for the average joe.. most people can't handle the real thing.. if anything, capitalism ruins martial arts styles. (Ti Quan Do and Tung Soo Do are great examples of this)

(I once sparred a guy who claimed to have gone to china and did the whole shoalin thing for a couple years, he sucked. Couldn't deal with basic misdirection or psychological stuff. At the time I just figured he was a big fat liar, but after reading this... I wonder… his katas were quite lovely... maybe the USA isn’t the only nation with the capitalism problem)

(-er side note to anyone who feels like misreading me, ‘capitalism problem’ refers to the issue of martial arts teachers degrading their styles in favor of bringing in more students and ONLY that.)
Posted by: dcreeper || 03/14/2005 21:30 Comments || Top||

#4  People who fight are good at fighting, people who kata are good at kata.
Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American || 03/14/2005 22:54 Comments || Top||

#5  Dcreeper: I doubt that's the only problem, but then again my background is mainly hapkido with a little t'ai chi and karate way back when... by concentrating on the showy exposition stuff (and if you look at any wushu forms competition from China you'll know what I mean) they're spending a lot of time, effort, and ultimately cartiledge on stuff that looks good rather than is useful for defending yourself.

As far as I can tell, this shift happened in China back in the 50's and 60's. And I think they wanted a method that was useful for teaching adolescent atheletes military discipline without actually being useful for an old person who isn't an athelete but doesn't want to be mugged.

They have too many people who think it should be all about acrobatics and not enough push hands (or sticky hands).

Disclaimer: I'm not particularly _good_ at this stuff, I'm just speaking from my viewpoint as an out-of-practice practicioner with arthritis.
Posted by: Phil Fraering || 03/14/2005 23:38 Comments || Top||

#6  Sounds right ODA, Phil. The best non-black belt at our TKD school is the young man who, as he explains it, went to a bad school where he had to fight several times a week. Even among the black belts, most can do pretty kicks and such, but they treat it as a sport rather than a real-life tool. I used to do Kung Fu 2-man black belt forms with Mr. Wife until he explained what all those lovely dance moves actually meant. I had nightmares for weeks thereafter. Still do, when my girls explain what a particular combination is supposed to accomplish. But that's why I made sure their father told them what the kata moves mean from the get-go -- I want them to be able to use their skills, not just look [very, in my biased opinion] pretty.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/14/2005 23:53 Comments || Top||


Britain
Unveiled: the clean queen of the sea
It is the ship of the future - powered by the sun, wind and waves. The futuristic vessel has no conventional engines, uses no fossil fuels and releases no harmful emissions into the atmosphere or pollution into the sea.

The first ship to use the technology will be a cargo vessel that will transport up to 10,000 cars from Britain to Australia, New Zealand and other countries. If successful, it will be used on passenger ferries and cruise ships.

The wave energy is harnessed by 12 dolphin-like fins on the ship's hull, while sun and wind energy is collected by three giant, rigid, fin-like sails covered in solar panels.

The sails and fins will also help the ship to cruise at a speed of 15 knots and stability will be provided by the pentamaran hull - a slim monohull that will have two smaller support hulls, known as sponsons, on each side.

Once harnessed the sun, wind and wave energy will be combined with hydrogen and stored in fuel cells.

A spokesman for Wallenius Wilhelmson, the ship's Scandinavian designers who have a British headquarters in Southampton, said: "This will be the first truly environmentally friendly ship, protecting the atmosphere and marine species. It will transform ocean transport."

The international shipping company transports 160,000 cars a year, including Jaguars, Land Rovers and BMWs, from Southampton to Australia, New Zealand and other countries.

The vessel will include a cargo deck the size of 14 football pitches. It will be able to carry up 10,000 cars in emission-free conditions.

At 820ft long it will be shorter than the Queen Mary 2 (1,132ft) and the QE2 (963ft), but more than three times the length of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet (232ft).

The ship is called the E/S Orcelle after the orcelle dolphin - the French word for the Irrawaddy dolphin, one of the world's most critically endangered species. The E/S stands for "environmentally sound ship".

The ship's design means that it will not need to carry ballast water, used to stabilise traditional vessels. The collection and disposal of ballast water has worried marine conservationists for years.

Many fragile species are collected inadvertently when a ship takes thousands of tons of water from the sea for ballast.

When the water is emptied back into the ocean, often thousands of miles away, many species are dumped in alien environments that threaten their survival. The company, which has about 60 modern vessels that carry 17 million vehicles a year by sea, will unveil a model of the E/S Orcelle at Expo, the world trade fair, in Aichi, Japan, next month.

Nils Dyvik, the company's chief executive, said that a ship with some of the Orcelle's "environmentally friendly characteristics" could be launched within five years, but said that the "complete version" might not be crossing the oceans until 2025.

The cost of the futuristic vessel is not known, but Mr Dyvik said that he expected that it would be more expensive than a conventional cargo ship, which costs up to £46 million. "The cost is likely to come down, however, as the technology gets cheaper," he added.

Mr Dyvik said that the E/S Orcelle was the future of ocean transport. "It represents the achievable goal of building a zero-emission cargo ship," he said. "The shipping industry has to play its part in protecting the environment and we are determined to be at the forefront of efforts to help to protect marine life on the high seas."
Posted by: tipper || 03/14/2005 9:11:21 AM || Comments || Link || [11128 views] Top|| File under:

#1  A model is fine, but we need some prototypes, or at least working models to evaluate and eventually scale up before all the hoopla gets issued. It is all just a big dream without some serious engineering.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/14/2005 9:19 Comments || Top||

#2  Now all they have to do is find a crew of old hippies to sail this hog to the bottom of the ocean, when they sell it to the insurance company.

First of all, you *never* go out to sea without a conventional engine backup. At some point, you *will* need it. It's like taking a ship out without navigational equipment.

Second thing, the reason you have a secondary hull is because any little hole you get in your primary hull is very bad karma. Once again, the idiots say, "It's okay, the pumps can handle it."

Ah, well. I wonder if some government will underwrite it. No commercial underwriter will.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/14/2005 9:48 Comments || Top||

#3  If people will pony up for cold fusion, they'll sink their money in this.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2005 12:25 Comments || Top||

#4  don't be surprised by the Nigerian Flag Registration
Posted by: Frank G || 03/14/2005 12:30 Comments || Top||

#5  The first ship to use the technology will be a cargo vessel that will transport up to 10,000 cars from Britain to Australia, New Zealand and other countries. If successful, it will be used on passenger ferries and cruise ships.

And if it's not, let's hope it sinks in sufficiently shallow water to provide a reef habitat for little fishies. Just think of all the protected places inside those 10,000 cars!
Posted by: too true || 03/14/2005 13:59 Comments || Top||

#6  Lol, tt - open all the trunks and glove boxes before shoving off, heh.
Posted by: .com || 03/14/2005 14:02 Comments || Top||


Caribbean-Latin America
Washington Crafts Policy To Contain Chavez 'subversion'
It was about time!!!!
A strategy aimed at fencing in the Chävez government is being prepared at the behest of President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, senior US officials say. Roger Pardo-Maurer, deputy assistant secretary for western hemisphere affairs at the Department of Defense, said the policy was being developed because Mr Chavez was employing a "hyena strategy" in the region. "Chavez is a problem because he is clearly using his oil money and influence to introduce his conflictive style into the politics of other countries," Mr Pardo-Maurer said in an interview with the Financial Times. "He's picking on the countries whose social fabric is the weakest. In some cases it's downright subversion."

Mr Chavez, whose government has enjoyed bumper export revenues during his six years in office thanks to high oil prices, has denied that he is aiding insurgent groups in countries such as Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. But a tougher stance from the US already appears to be in the offing, a move likely to strain relations further. The policy shift in Washington, which a US military officer said was at an early stage, could also have implications for the world oil market. Mr Chävez has threatened to suspend oil shipments to the US if it attempts to oust him.

Recently, he and his ally, President Fidel Castro of Cuba, have alleged, without offering proof, that the Bush administration was plotting to assassinate the Venezuelan leader, an allegation that US officials have dismissed as "wild". Suggestions that Mr Chavez backs subversive groups surface frequently, although thus far also with scant evidence. Colombian officials close to President Alvaro Uribe say that Venezuela is giving sanctuary to Colombian guerrillas, deemed "terrorists" by both the US and Europe.
Posted by: TMH || 03/14/2005 3:15:07 PM || Comments || Link || [11131 views] Top|| File under:


Chavez implements Bob-land style land seizures
The Venezuelan government is to press ahead with plans to expropriate a large British-owned farm, sparking fears of largescale nationalisation of private property under the leftwing government. The national lands institute ruled at the weekend that the landowner - Agroflora, an affiliate of the Vestey Group, owned by the tycoon Lord Vestey - did not have a legitimate claim to the land. The planned takeover is part of moves to redistribute 96,440 hectares (238,620 acres) to the poor.

The government will take over all of Lord Vestey's 13,600-hectare El Charcote cattle ranch and the Pinero Ranch animal reserve, the land agency said. It will also take over a third private ranch, El Coco, and most of a fourth, the Borges Ranch. None of the ranch owners could be reached for comment. It remains unclear when the government plans to take possession of the lands.

According to President Hugo Chävez's 2001 land reform law, the state can expropriate farmland if it is declared idle, or if rightful ownership is not proved as far back as 1830. Critics denounce the law as a threat to private property, but Mr Chävez says most farms were acquired through illegal dealings before he became president in 1999.

The Chävez constitution, passed in 1999, says latifundios - landholdings of more than 5,000 hectares - are "contrary to the social interest". It states that private property can be expropriated in case of "public use or social interest," but the government must compensate the owner. The government has not said how much it will pay the owners of the four ranches.
Guess.
The land agency said it would take El Charcote, in Cojedes state east of Caracas, because the owner could only prove ownership from 1840.

Agroflora said several weeks ago it could prove ownership back to 1830. It said the ranch was not "idle", as officials had said, but had been invaded by up to 1,000 squatters.
Another idea from Zim-bob-we.
The government has promised to grant rights to 100,000 plots of land to the poor by next year, either government-owned land or territory expropriated from large landowners. According to the 1998 official census, 1% of the population owns 60% of agricultural land.
Do they also provide 60% of the food? Wonder if Hugo will accept US wheat for starving Venezuelans?
Posted by: Steve White || 03/14/2005 00:00:00 || Comments || Link || [11128 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Color me unsurprised. My commiseration with Venezuelans as they are into a very sucky period, indeed.

It would sound cynical, but people get governments they deserve.

That was glass half empty version.

The glass half full version:
For godsakes, Venezuelans, get the government you deserve!
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 0:27 Comments || Top||

#2  Dont forget to thank that meddling asshat Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:09 Comments || Top||

#3  ... Jimmuh, curse be upon his... whatever is it, instead of brain, in his skull.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 2:24 Comments || Top||

#4  Sobieski

I suppose you caan apply the "people get the governments they deserve" to the Carter generation and don't forget that you were very, very, very close to have a Gore government...
Posted by: JFM || 03/14/2005 3:59 Comments || Top||

#5  Dittos..count our blessings.
Posted by: Snush Snuth2112 || 03/14/2005 4:41 Comments || Top||

#6  JFM, yet, we did not get Gore (I am still officially canuck and have to admit that Martin's government sucks, perhaps less so than Cretin's one but majorly sucks nonetheless. But he's no Chavez, and once a while he makes a lucid pronouncement--about once every two years). Even if we did get Gore, he would last 4 years, not more, the Donks demise would have been only prolonged. There would have been probably a lot of damage to be repaired.

Did not happen. Blessed be the good fortune. The chances of Donks coming back to WH are melting like last-year's snow. Life is good.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 5:05 Comments || Top||

#7  I don't discount a Demo taking the Whitehouse in 2008. I am not that stupid. They could do it. If we let up one tiny bit they will take advantage of it. I never thought I would see Frank Lautenburg back in the Senate, he is in the senate back to the SOS. I never though the people of New York would send a Chuck Schummer to the Senate, he is a US Senator. Never say never.

This land grab thing is to be expected as Hugo drags his country into the sewer. After all his heros are Castro and Mugabe. He is just another stupid marxist. He has a mouth that will write a check it can't cash and he will end up dead. Not at our hand. Someone close to him will put a bullet in him. He will die a hero of the "revolution" and a new dictator will take his place.

The only way Hugo will get taken out by us is if he does something stupid like baseing Iranian or Chinese missles in his territory. Then we will take him and the missles out.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 03/14/2005 5:32 Comments || Top||

#8  Jimmuh, curse be upon his... whatever is it, instead of brain, in his skull.

Sobiesky : A geode is a sphere shaped rock which contains a hollow cavity lined with crystals.

Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 5:48 Comments || Top||

#9  BigEd, Jimmuh would be lucky if he had crystals in there!
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 7:23 Comments || Top||

#10  Notice the land grab is of an English owned farm (finca-estate). This is the old Spain-England rivalry and wars carried forward. Since this is anti-Anglo Chavez will have no problems implementing this, his first land seizure. He's getting his toes wet.
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 7:50 Comments || Top||

#11  If I owned that land,it would be salted,scorched earth when I left.
Posted by: raptor || 03/14/2005 10:11 Comments || Top||

#12  Article: According to the 1998 official census, 1% of the population owns 60% of agricultural land.

And 5% of the Venezuelan economy involves agriculture. You gotta love the Guardian - all the news that's fit to distort.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 14:09 Comments || Top||

#13  Dont forget to thank that meddling asshat Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:09 Comments || Top||

#14  Dont forget to thank that meddling asshat Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:09 Comments || Top||


Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Gorby to Putin: Fire government, finish embalming me
The article is nothing terribly exciting or new, but the photo of Gorbachev ... bozhe moi, Misha!
Posted by: Rex Rufus || 03/14/2005 1:41:16 AM || Comments || Link || [11142 views] Top|| File under:

#1  That photo kinda reminds me of P.W. Botha....
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 03/14/2005 22:31 Comments || Top||

#2  nice that the Portwine stain's finally fading as he's in his friggin 70's
Posted by: Bon Scott || 03/14/2005 22:43 Comments || Top||


China-Japan-Koreas
Taiwan to authorize 'non-peaceful' defense
TAIPEI, Taiwan, March 14 (UPI) -- Taiwan's ruling party responded to Beijing's anti-secession law Monday with a bill authorizing the president to use "non-peaceful" action in its defense. The Democratic Progressive Party's bill give President Chen Shui-bian sweeping powers to take measures including referendums without the Legislature's permission, the Taipei Times said.
The party's draft states Taiwan issue is not a part of China's domestic affairs but an international matter, and it is necessary and urgent to swiftly enact counter-legislation to deter China's annexation efforts. The opposition Taiwan Solidarity Union has also drafted a similar measure saying Taiwan has existed alongside China since the founding of the People's Republic of China Oct. 1, 1949, and states "Taiwan is already an independent sovereign state and it is not an issue for Taiwan to declare independence or seek separation from China."
Meanwhile, 17 Taiwan mayors and magistrates issued a joint statement Monday opposing China's new anti-secession law, saying the "ill-intended" legislation destroys peace in East Asia and stability in the Taiwan Strait, the country's Central News Agency said.
Posted by: Steve || 03/14/2005 10:34:47 AM || Comments || Link || [11135 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I've been saying it since they first talked about it.... China made a HUGE mistake with this change in policy. It will service to galvanize the taiwanese against the chinese.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 03/14/2005 12:47 Comments || Top||

#2  And it is only making the other countries in the area nervous and likely to band together against China. China can gain more from peaceful trade than invasion .... unless the Chinese are broke. We already know they are in debt up to their eyeballs and their banks are looking at a 60% default rate on loans... maybe they need several hundred billion in cold hard cash to cover loans and they think Taiwan is the key to a quick fix and at the same time solve the "One China" issue. Hm.....
Posted by: mmurray821 || 03/14/2005 13:36 Comments || Top||


French perfidy must be challenged
Posted by: tipper || 03/14/2005 09:26 || Comments || Link || [11127 views] Top|| File under:

#1  But Taiwan should go further and impose a massive tariff, say 100 percent, on all goods made by French companies; the proceeds, such as they might be, should go to the defense budget. That this violates WTO protocols bothers us as much as the UN bothers US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. That the French might retaliate makes us laugh. Let them double the price they pay for information technology if they want; much of it simply cannot be sourced elsewhere. Taiwan, however, will survive more expensive Louis Vuitton bags.

I wish we had a 100% tariff on French products....
Posted by: Desert Blondie || 03/14/2005 9:41 Comments || Top||

#2  BTW, Fred, what's with the Napoleon pic? He wasn't really French. DeGaulle is more apropos.
Posted by: Desert Blondie || 03/14/2005 9:42 Comments || Top||

#3  "...information technology if they want; much of it simply cannot be sourced elsewhere. Taiwan...."

The real reason China must have Taiwan. What they can't buy or develop they intend to steal.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O’ Doom || 03/14/2005 9:44 Comments || Top||

#4  DeGaulle didn't win any battles. Problem is, the frogs have to go back to Joan d'Arc. to find a winner.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 9:53 Comments || Top||

#5  "To the French, lying is simply talking."


LOL
Posted by: Frank G || 03/14/2005 10:02 Comments || Top||

#6  If Nappy wasnt French, than Kissinger aint American. Heck, Alexander Hamilton wasnt American either by that standard.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/14/2005 10:57 Comments || Top||

#7  Kissinger aint American That's a relief.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 10:59 Comments || Top||

#8  A few corrections Mrs Davis. Napoleon was born French (but given his birhdate I am not sure he was conceived a French. It was also French military schools who teached him his mettle. And finally it was France who made him a general instead of remaining a lieutenant for life due to lack of blue blood or money.

De Gaulle while heading the untrained and incomplete Fourth Armored Division still managed to get a tactical victory at Montcornet against a such Rommel despite having zero air-cover.

And BTW it was a French general who designed the plan who allowed to take Cassino.

About the photo, both Napoleon and De Gaulle would be out of place, since with all their defects they were patriots. A picture of a notorious traitor like Laval (France's Quisling) would be more in place
Posted by: JFM || 03/14/2005 11:18 Comments || Top||

#9  JFM, nope.

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon 1st of France
Originally Napoleone Buonaparte, also unofficially known as The Little Corporal (Le Petit Caporal) and The Corsican.

Born: 15th August 1769 in Ajaccio, Corsia
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 11:35 Comments || Top||

#10  Sobiesky

Please, I will not try to teach you the boiography of your namesake don't try teach me where Napoleon was born. In 1768 (ie one year before Napoleon's birth) France cleverly :-) bought Corsica from the Genovese. So he was born a French. Now since he was born in August and I don't remember in which month Corsica was bought there is a small chance he was conceived a Genovese.

But if you dispute the quality of French to people born in Corsica then you will have to dispute the quality of American to all the people born in the Louisiana bought by Thomas Jefferson (who was far larger than the state of Louisiana)
Posted by: JFM || 03/14/2005 12:12 Comments || Top||

#11  JFM, Try to tell a Corsican even today that he is French and let's see how you'd fare. ;-)
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 12:17 Comments || Top||

#12  How influential is the Taipei Times?

I like their little Wikipedia link -- transforms the article contents with all sorts of links to Wikipedia. Smart.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 03/14/2005 12:23 Comments || Top||

#13  Sobiesky

About 80% Corsicans will punch your nose if you tell them they are not French. About 20% of them will punch your nose if you tell them they are French.

Napoleon was on the 80% side and fought (not directly of course) against Paoli who was an independentist.
Posted by: JFM || 03/14/2005 12:31 Comments || Top||

#14  Kalle, Taipei Times is on a par with the LA Times and NY Times for objectivity, but it's stories are generally more interesting. Actually, the Straits Times is a better comparison. I'd say this was an officially sanctioned rant against the French.
Posted by: RWV || 03/14/2005 12:32 Comments || Top||

#15  I have to agree w/JFM here; Napoleon was patriotic, and a hell of a military general and leader. He broke Fezzni's rule; Don't get into a land war in Russia, but I digress. Russia was his downfall. (Yes I know Waterloo was later...)

I know French bashing is popular, (hell, I often lead the charge myself), but I have to say, having spent a lot of my childhood growing up in France in the 60's, I remember my French grandparents being tough as nails; my grandfather worked for the SNCF and didn't miss a day of work (really!) in 30 years, and then held various jobs until he was in his 70's. He worked enough for 3 men and died at the ripe age of 93. He was a hell of a worker, fighter, and patriot.

In the 70's I rember him complaining that France was going down the shitter, and the massive immigration was going to its downfall. Of course, being a teenager and supremely smarter than a man who had lived through WWI AND WWII, I thought he was just a senile old man who didn't understand the 'new' way the world worked...

Now that I'm in my 40's, I realize he was right about that too.
Posted by: Francis || 03/14/2005 12:36 Comments || Top||

#16  JFM, I think you are pulling the figures like rabbits outta hat. ;-)

Give me stats for the 80F/20C split, please. Last time I checked (some 5-6 years ago), it was about 55C/45F.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 12:55 Comments || Top||

#17  Then that explains why the independentists get their asses kicked in elections.
Posted by: JFM || 03/14/2005 13:43 Comments || Top||

#18  Because most of the people have common sense and understand that it has advantges (from their POV, economical I would suspect). They still may feel very Corsican about themselves and object being called French.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 13:53 Comments || Top||

#19 
I like their little Wikipedia link -- transforms the article contents with all sorts of links to Wikipedia. Smart.

What a pity it goes to Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is a nice idea, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.)
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2005 14:09 Comments || Top||

#20  And perhaps it is because many of those 20% are in the orbit of Maffia-like organizations: when asked about how they would make Corsica economically viable they answer "by a federation with Sardinia and Sicily". BTW perhaps you remember the crumbling of that extension to a stadium in Corsica: the nationalists controlled the club and the extension was to bring BIG money for the match with France's soccer champion. But the thing was built in a such way that a canary sh..g in the bad spot could bring down the whole thing. Since this ended with over a hundred dead and thousands wounded I doubt it hasn't had some political backslash. That and a number of murders between nationalists over racket businesses who have tarnished their reputation.

Plus you don't count the thousands of Corsicans who left for continental France. Nevertheless, Paoli is the hero of the Nationalists, Napoleon they consider him as a traitor. So, since Napoleon, not Corsica is the subject of discussion Napoleon was French, both according to the Continental French, the Corsican French, the Corsican Mafiosi nationalists and his own heart and mind.
Posted by: JFM || 03/14/2005 16:38 Comments || Top||

#21  Ok, now that we got the Corsican history lesson straight...

If you want suitable morons for the illustration, may I recommend Daladier and Reynaud, who dithered for ten years before the Nazis invaded, and who let their mistresses dictate much of the policies of the Third Republic. Not as recognizable as Napoleon, but definitely deserving.
Posted by: mom || 03/14/2005 19:50 Comments || Top||


U.S. Veterans Mark 60th Iwo Jima Anniversary
All the brave young men who died, may they rest in peace forever.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/14/2005 12:15:57 AM || Comments || Link || [11129 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Thanks guys, and Godspeed. (Here's a desktop-sized version of the Rosenthal photo.) "Among the men who fought on Iwo Jima, uncommon valor was a common virtue" - Adm. Chester Nimitz.

Sadly, the battle is all but forgotten in Japan, despite the loss of over twenty thousand Japanese soldiers. Japan's wartime atrocities detract nothing from the defenders' bravery at "Sulfur Island", for this was the first of the Home Islands to fall to the Allies. Rest in peace as well, heishi. Your nation has since done well for itself even without military might ... but your courage may yet be needed again, for there's a mad dog loose in your neighborhood.
Posted by: Rex Rufus || 03/14/2005 2:10 Comments || Top||


Get ready for war Hu tells troops
President Hu Jintao was named China's top military chief yesterday, promptly telling the army to prepare for war to safeguard the country's territorial integrity, in an apparent reference to Taiwan. In a move that marked the final step in China's first bloodless leadership transition, Hu, 62, replaced ageing former leader Jiang Zemin, 78, as chairman of the state's Central Military Commission (CMC). He was selected by an overwhelming majority of 2,886 votes to six against and five undecided at a meeting of China's legislature, the National People's Congress (NPC). Hu used his appointment to show China's new leadership intended no let up in its determination to stop rival Taiwan from becoming independent. The president told a meeting of military delegates to the NPC that China's top priority was safeguarding its territorial integrity. "We must ... always place the task of defending national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and safeguarding the interests of national development above anything else," Hu said.
I'm beginning to think these crazy SOBs are really going to do it.
Beijing insists that "non-peaceful means" will be used only as a "last resort." Hu indicated that reunifying with Taiwan by force, as Beijing has often said it would do if necessary, was not far from China's mind. "All comrades of the military should correctly understand the situation and resolutely perform the military's historical mission in the new century and the new development stage," he said. "We shall step up preparations for possible military struggle and enhance our capabilities to cope with crises, safeguard peace, prevent wars and win the wars if any," Hu said. The Chinese president had already succeeded Jiang in September as chairman of the Communist Party's CMC, which holds the real power over the world's largest military. Yesterday's appointment marks a further consolidation of power by Hu. With his appointment, Hu has taken over all of Jiang's responsibilities.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/14/2005 00:00:00 || Comments || Link || [11132 views] Top|| File under:

#1  One of reasons may be an attempt to reduce the pool of unmarriable males due to disparity caused by chinese population policies throughout the last 20 years. (51.7% mal/48.3% fem; 1-25 age group).

Yea, I know, Taiwanese had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 0:39 Comments || Top||

#2  Sobiesky: One of reasons may be an attempt to reduce the pool of unmarriable males due to disparity caused by chinese population policies throughout the last 20 years. (51.7% mal/48.3% fem; 1-25 age group).

I doubt it - they need ships to get there. Ships are expensive things - once sunk, it takes a while and a lot of moola to build new ones. If you add up the total capacity of Chinese shipping, I doubt they have enough to do a Normandy-style landing involving 100,000 troops, without most of their ships ending up at the bottom of the Taiwan Straits. That barely scratches the surface, with regard to the pool of Chinese males of military age.

Hu was also known as the Pacifier of Tibet during the Tiananmen troubles. If he secures Taiwan, his reputation in Chinese history is secure. If he gambles and loses, he'll still be known as someone who tried, but failed. He can't lose, from the standpoint of his long term reputation. This is why a (limited) conflict over Taiwan is likely.

I think people can relax - China will not use nukes (against the US or Taiwan) over Taiwan. China has a long post-Liberation history of fighting limited wars for territorial gains. No Chinese leader is going to trade Shanghai or Beijing for Taipeh. But China is very likely to invade - it's just a matter of time. Economists are filling Chinese heads about how necessary China is to the continued financing of the US trade and budget deficits. They will take the calculated gamble that the US will not do anything in regard to trade with China, and will not, in any event, be able to force its major trading partners to stop trading with China, in the event of a conflict.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 1:04 Comments || Top||

#3  " doubt it - they need ships to get there. Ships are expensive things - once sunk, it takes a while and a lot of moola to build new ones. If you add up the total capacity of Chinese shipping, I doubt they have enough to do a Normandy-style landing involving 100,000 troops"

Junks, fishing trawlers, ferries, etc. I think ZF ;) Doesn't mean they cant take a lot of losses if you got someone with a cool head and an eye for logistics and artillery know how on the defending side.
Posted by: Valentine || 03/14/2005 1:18 Comments || Top||

#4  Disagree, ZF. That is, WRT China invading. While the Chinese are not particularly crafty or gifted at geopolitics, I don't think they'd dare open that can of worms. Besides, decisively thwarting any sort of invasion will remain fairly easy for the US/Taiwan alliance for a long, long time, given limited Chinese military capability. Launching missiles at Taiwan to induce a financial blow will produce blow-back magnified by a factor of 10 in Beijing's face. The smart course for Taipei is blindingly obvious here. Declare undying fealty to national unity, but under a civilized, democratic, free-market system, and state specific terms (infeasible in the short run) for Beijing to meet for formal reunification.
Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq || 03/14/2005 1:23 Comments || Top||

#5  VII: While the Chinese are not particularly crafty or gifted at geopolitics, I don't think they'd dare open that can of worms.

That's where I have to disagree. China is the only continental-scale empire that has lasted over 2000 years. They are gifted at geopolitics - playing a weak hand with a mixture of bluff and bluster during times of weakness, and expanding their territory via military conquest combined with large-scale settlement and assimilation / expulsion of the natives during times times of strength. Uncle Sam's the one that's a real loser at geopolitics - think about how powerful the United States is economically and politically - and then think about how difficult it is to get its "allies" to do anything that is in Uncle Sam's interests. China routinely compels other countries to do things that are in its interests. That is the meaning of talent at geopolitics - being able to compel others to do as you wish. The US had to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to get Muslim countries to stop financing anti-American Muslim terrorists. China solved its Xinjiang problem without invading any Muslim country. Think about it.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 1:38 Comments || Top||

#6  Hu's on first, Kim's on second, Khatami's on third. Sorry.
Posted by: Rex Rufus || 03/14/2005 1:45 Comments || Top||

#7  Ther are many reasons given, with the real answer snakin' its way somewhere thru few or all of them, includ VOTE FOR HILLARY 2008!?
No matter what, I doubt China will wage war for Taiwan and NOT make any move to knock out either Japan or SK, espec Japan. China will move ags Japan-SK whether when she moves ags Taiwan or after Taiwan. GMD in East Asia plus the USA in the ME and CENASIA = Chinese Communism-centric hegemony is finis before it even begins.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/14/2005 1:47 Comments || Top||

#8  China also has the advantage of being able to play the role of spoiler, knowing that Uncle Sam will undo any damage rendered by Chinese deals with the devil. Without Uncle Sam around to prevent an Iranian monopoly on Middle Eastern oil, China would not be selling Iran both nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Because Uncle Sam has committed to securing Middle Eastern oil supplies for everyone and is capable of doing so, albeit at some cost to himself, China can sell to Iran, secure in the knowledge that Uncle Sam will step in if Iran gets out of hand. China knows Uncle Sam can take care of Iran - and the kicker, from China's standpoint, is that any confrontation with Iran also has the benefit of weakening the US by draining its resources.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 1:48 Comments || Top||

#9  JM: No matter what, I doubt China will wage war for Taiwan and NOT make any move to knock out either Japan or SK, espec Japan. China will move ags Japan-SK whether when she moves ags Taiwan or after Taiwan.

China will attempt to strictly limit the scope of the war in order to avoid having countries in the region cooperate with the US via bases - or even troops. Hence, I do not see attacks on US bases in Korea or Japan, which would be viewed as casus belli by both countries, as well as every other East Asian nation. If China widened the war, a loss by China would lead to the official recognition of Taiwan by other East Asian nations, which would now see Taiwan as a bulwark against future Chinese territorial expansion.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 1:53 Comments || Top||

#10  Zhang Fei - Would the supreme tactical target on the planet survive the attack? Yeah I am thinking of 3 Gorges.

I just can't see Taiwanese (not the ROC) leaving it standing if attacked.
Posted by: 3dc || 03/14/2005 1:54 Comments || Top||

#11  3dc: Zhang Fei - Would the supreme tactical target on the planet survive the attack? Yeah I am thinking of 3 Gorges.

My impression from reading about successful attacks on the Ruhr river valley dams in WWII is that they're really not such a big deal. The biggest hit would be to power generation - big chunks of the surrounding areas would lose power, dealing a severe economic blow to the regional economy given what will have been its dependence on cheap and abundant hydro power. I don't see Taiwan attacking this unless it wants to see attacks on its power plants and cities. Interdiction is far more important - fuel depots, ammo dumps, weapons factories, naval bases and aircraft hangars.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 2:04 Comments || Top||

#12  An attempted invasion of Taiwan would be a catastrophe for what is now a heavily trade dependent economy. The resulting economic shock would almost certainly cause severe internal problems and IMO bring down the communist regime. I.e. I don't think China will invade unless some highly disruptive geopolitical event occurs and the world is far more concerned about it than Taiwan such as the MM's start a nuke war, pandemic, etc. Talk is cheap.

Concerning the 3 gorges dam, I think it may well be a target. Whether that is just to knock out its power production (which is huge) or bring down the dam itself which would kill millions depends on a number of factors.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 3:53 Comments || Top||

#13  Funny, just an hour ago I was reading about how a large portion of the East China Sea Fleet is based right near where I live, including a Naval Airbase. Wheee! The submarine that intruded into Japanese waters a while back was based at an island a bit offshore.
Posted by: gromky || 03/14/2005 4:26 Comments || Top||

#14  Standard Chinese state craft.

1)China wants Taiwan.

2)Even though the Norks are a bit troublesome for China,they potentially are a great asset for China when dealing with the US.

3)I think this latest move is just another making it clear what China wants in trade for direct help with North Korea.

It could backfire...For instance;

Japan,South Korea,Taiwan,Ausies could really invest big time with the US on defence in the area.

and theres always the law of unintended consequences to contend with. (bites)

BTW thanks Jimmy,Bill,and Halfbright for f*cking things up even worse-r.


Posted by: Rremble Glavise6984 || 03/14/2005 6:00 Comments || Top||

#15  1)China wants Taiwan.


Why does China want Taiwan? This is not a trick question.
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 7:38 Comments || Top||

#16  They've talked themselves into wanting it back as a face issue. Reconstitutes the Chinese empire at its maximum extent. Sort of like getting Hong Kong back. Face. Shows they can make Uncle Sam back down so other smaller regional powers should back down before them.

Zhang, I'll definitely defer to you, but it seems to me they kept their continental scale empire by having a pretty good geographic location and supplementing it as necessary with walls. Their track record since having to deal with the entire world is not that great. They are currently exploiting their entry into capitalism and their pool of low cost labor. Whether, or what it will take for them to become sufficiently integrated with the western world as have the Japanese remains to be seen.

Given a choice between India and China, I'd go long India and short China.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 7:52 Comments || Top||

#17  sea cruise, why does China want Tibet? (I know they have it already, they still want it, don'dey?)
Or a chunk of Sibiria?

Taiwan was a part of China's territory for quite a while. The people that inhabit it are Chinese. If Mainlanders they say goodbye to Taiwan today, they may say goodbye to Tibet tomorrow.

Sibiria, no, it was not part of their territory, but in their eyes, it is just lying there idly. It is an affront to them to see idly lying chunks of land. Especially when they are 1/4 of humankind.

Chinese imperialism is alive and well.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 7:54 Comments || Top||

#18  Wrong answer sobieki though you 10% have it right.
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 8:03 Comments || Top||

#19  Sobieski, ZF, I'm no ethnologist, but I thought the Taiwanese considered them selves non-Chinese, like the Tibetans, and that the Chinese who are there came over in 1949. True?

And just like the Japanese, but without the good reasons, the Chinese are picking a fight with the wrong guy. No body would begrudge them Siberia if they could do it without starting a nuclear war.

They may have concluded that the liklihood of war with the eagle is a lot lower than war with the bear. But the bear hibernates and once the eagle is pissed, you're toast. I don't think they've figured out that last part.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 8:18 Comments || Top||

#20  Don't discount the strategic importance of taking out 3-G Dam.Not only would it do serious damage to China's electrical suppy,the resulting flood would destroy billions of dollars in property and the loss of life would staggering.The Yangtzhe River Valley is China's"Bread basket"and"Rice bowl"much like the Mid-west is to the U.S.One of the primary drivers for construction of the dam was to control flooding in the Yantzhe Flood Plain.
Posted by: raptor || 03/14/2005 8:27 Comments || Top||

#21  sea cruise, since you know 100%, why on urdth you ask, then?

There may be some oil under Taiwan or uranium ore inland. But that is nothing trade agreements would not solve. The preserve-face issue is dominant.

Mrs. Davis, the indigenous Taiwanese are Chinese too. They sort of resented the invasion of Kuomintang Mainlanders for a while, but nowadays, that has been largely blurred out, they all consider themselves Taiwanese.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 8:31 Comments || Top||

#22  The preserve-face issue is dominant.

Not true. It's secondary. China wants Taiwan because that's where the money is. Taiwan is low hanging fruit for a dragon monster like China. Same as Kuwait with it's oil reserves was an irresistible target for Saddam Hussein.

Taiwan has huge foreign currency reserves and a fantastic hi-tech sector. EXAMPLE: All recent laptop manufacturing and innovation has been done on Taiwan. China wants this done all under the name of China, not Taiwan. With the profits to accrue to the ascending capitalist class and the princeling (sons and daughters of high level communists) class of China
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 9:00 Comments || Top||

#23  I'm taking a guess that the native Taiwanese were darker and browner than the 1947 Kuomintang invaders. Who are more "white", higher IQ and from the Middle Kingdom to which all must bow.

A racial divide. Am I wrong?
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 9:03 Comments || Top||

#24  It's secondary. China wants Taiwan because that's where the money is.

I am thinking about some dignified reply...
Crapola. Howz that?
If money was what they were after, they would leave Taiwan alone and get trading busily. The fastest way how to lose money vis-a-vis Taiwan is to try takeover.

Am I wrong?

Yes. The only differences were cultural. The natives were fishermen and farmers. The newcomers had more of an urban character.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 9:17 Comments || Top||

#25  sea cruise you are just Sh** for brains. Go away.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 9:58 Comments || Top||

#26  MD: Zhang, I'll definitely defer to you, but it seems to me they kept their continental scale empire by having a pretty good geographic location and supplementing it as necessary with walls.

As regards China's location, I think every region in the world has had some degree of luck, good and bad, from the standpoint of geography. If the ancient Romans had been next to the Chinese states at the inception of the Roman empire, there would have been no Roman empire. If Greece had been next to what is now China at the time of the creation of the Greek empire, Alexander would have been crushed by armies of one Chinese state or another, and the entire Greek population massacred. If Europe had been next to Mongolia at the time of Genghis Khan, Europe would have become one large Mongolian satrapy. I understand that the average layman's understanding of Chinese military history is that of an army of laundrymen or fast food takeout deliverymen, but there is a reason that the Chinese historical work Sangoku (San Guo Zhi - Records of the Three Kingdoms), which records the century-long conflict among the three post-Han Dynasty Chinese states, is also a classic among military-minded Japanese.

MD: Their track record since having to deal with the entire world is not that great.

That is a generalization not backed up by a preponderance of facts. The reality is that China has gotten into the WTO. It has gotten its products into various markets, by selectively offering inducements and proffering threats. It has isolated Taiwan and pried the country away from its longtime sponsor, Uncle Sam, such that the US does not even have an embassy on Taiwan, and has to horsetrade with China over what weapons it is allowed to sell to Taiwan. It has fostered close relations with neighboring countries, such that opinion polls in the region show China ahead of Uncle Sam from a popularity standpoint - even as it has aggressively pried territory away from the weakest of them. That is statecraft - getting your neighbors to like you even as you are sticking it to them. What the State Department has accomplished - getting Uncle Sam's "allies" to hate the US even as it is doing good things for them - is the reverse of statecraft.

MD: They are currently exploiting their entry into capitalism and their pool of low cost labor.

There are large pools of low cost labor everywhere - some that are much closer to their end markets in Europe and North America (meaning transportation costs are far lower), such as Latin America and Africa. China is on the other side of the world - a full 12 time zones away. And yet China is the country that is modernizing its infrastructure to the point that a phone call to China - a continental-sized country - costs less than a call to neighboring Jamaica.

MD: Whether, or what it will take for them to become sufficiently integrated with the western world as have the Japanese remains to be seen.

I'm not sure that's the point. China does not need to become integrated with the Western world in the same sense that neither the US nor the EU (each as a continental-scale powers in its own right) needs to become integrated with anyone. China is a power pole all by itself. Countries will or will not trade with China based on whether they perceive this to be advantageous from a national perspective. But China will grow, whether its rivals like it or not, simply because it has a government that has gotten a lot right. It's record isn't perfect, but then again, neither was Taiwan's record, which spent most of its post-war experience under China's present form of governance, while becoming one of the Asian tigers. Think of China as Taiwan, but with 60 times the population. This is why even anti-China Taiwanese businessmen are in Taiwan - because this is a production base (and potential market) they cannot ignore. China has cast off an alien ideology - Marxism - in all but words and reverted to the kind of commercialism that led, among other things, to the Chinese invention of paper money.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 10:28 Comments || Top||

#27  I thought I read somewhere that China considers the Korean peninsula a part of China too. Is this correct? Why do we hear nothing about their historic claims to Korea, are they saving Il Senor Kookypants for last?
Posted by: BH || 03/14/2005 10:29 Comments || Top||

#28  The big deterrent of the past (supposedly) was that taking Taiwan would be too costly so the PRC wouldn’t do it. If they attacked Taiwan, the losses in both men and material would be great. The U.S. couldn’t launch a relief effort for at least a week (probably longer) and it would be a dangerous journey for the troops who had to cross the Pacific to fight. That is only if the President had the political will to mount an effort to defend Taiwan. We kind of know what Bush would do, but what about a President Hillary, McCain, Kerry, etc.? I won’t even pretend that the EU or NATO would lift a finger to help anyone, because they can’t. The PRC doesn’t seem rushed to vanquish Taiwan and could wait until the political winds turn in their favor. Taiwan has a great military and may even have nukes, but I doubt they could win a prolong war with the PRC.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/14/2005 10:29 Comments || Top||

#29  BH: I thought I read somewhere that China considers the Korean peninsula a part of China too. Is this correct? Why do we hear nothing about their historic claims to Korea, are they saving Il Senor Kookypants for last?

Fighting your enemies one at a time is generally consistent with limiting the cost of war without letting go of your long-term objectives. This way, your enemies do not form alliances against you. (Nonetheless, the official state media have recently come out with pronouncements from Chinese historians that an ancient Korean kingdom - encompassing a chunk of Northeast Asia that is now Chinese soil - really ought to be considered an ancient Chinese kingdom).
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 10:41 Comments || Top||

#30  That ancient Korean kingdom also happens to include most of North Korea.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 10:45 Comments || Top||

#31  That is a generalization not backed up by a preponderance of facts.

You have selected facts from only the last 20 years. But if one looks at the last 200, the record is not as good. Time will tell whether China can keep the train on the tracks.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 10:47 Comments || Top||

#32  #30 What an amazing coincidence!
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 10:49 Comments || Top||

#33  "Native Taiwanese are dark skin people. Too bad most are gone now"

http://www.modelminority.com/comment5097-808-5095.html

Bugger off Phil and Sobieski. You lose on the racial divide and on the wealth at stake/// Whiter Asians always look down on their darker brothers. How much they look down and dominate depends on the situation.

Just follow the money. China wants Taiwan because they have so much money (cash reserves in their national bank) and very nice high technology plus they are right next door. Taiwan is viewed as ripe for the plucking
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 10:53 Comments || Top||

#34  MD: You have selected facts from only the last 20 years. But if one looks at the last 200, the record is not as good. Time will tell whether China can keep the train on the tracks.

Statecraft has to do with getting what you can with the resources at hand. In all of the past 200 years, including now, China has been a laggard in technological and economic terms. And yet it has kept its empire together, even as all the European empires have fallen apart. When it lost the Anglo-Chinese Wars (Opium Wars to the Chinese), it gave away ... Hong Kong - a fishing village and got a bustling metropolis back 100 years later. If that's not statecraft, I don't know what is. Now that the Chinese leadership has committed to modernization, the train is essentially unstoppable. Like I said, think of China as Taiwan when it started industrializing, but 60 times bigger. Even the form of government is identical - except for the occasional Marxist platitude.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 11:01 Comments || Top||

#35  Taiwan is the "Holy Grail" for the mainland. They are willing to pay any cost for reunification. If they invade and lose 100,000 troops, they will bear the cost.

The Taiwanese foreign currency reserves and the existant manufacturing base are the prize, but not the reason. China is no longer broke if it has the reserves. China can upgrade its industrial base by a decade or more by moving Taiwanese factories to the mainland. It's what the Soviets did after WWII and I'm certain the Chinese would follow the same model.

Race wise, current China is a mix of colors and languages. The Han are on top, but it hasn't always been that way in Chinese empires.

Various Chinese leaders have pronounced territorial claims to parts of the Russian Far East, Korea, Japan, the Philipines, Taiwan, Southeast Asia and South Asia. And they continue to mention that Admiral who sailed around the world, and to America a whole lot. Chinese Imperial ambition is limited only by their imagination.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 03/14/2005 11:07 Comments || Top||

#36  "A racial divide. Am I wrong?"

Yep you're wrong. Taiwan itself was basically invaded by mainland China several times. Heck a good portion of the current Taiwanese population aint exactly Taiwanese natives ya know ;)

But on the whole there are several things driving this. 1) Economics, the govt of China needs to continously grow, slowing down will cause a crash, this what can be likend to a metastatic order (imagine a spinning plate on a pole). The economy needs to grow at a faster rate in order to be stable or it will simply fall apart. This means that China has to often look at addition sources of fresh income for its economy..guess what Taiwan is, its the New Hong Kong they NEED to acquire.

2) China believes that since it once held Taiwan it must regain it, this is true of a lot of lands they say they once held. We can argue about a lot of details here, but theres quite a bit of literature in their own words that say they have a right to even Japan and the Aleutian islands. (not that I'm saying they're correct, I think they're bloody idiots if they think this).

3) Finally the CCP believes it cannot continue unless it re-acquires Taiwan, its made it a central premise of their government. Why this is so is partially because of the above two reasons. The CCP knows theres a growing restlessness in China itself, it doesn't want another Tiananmen. It needs to divert the peoples attention. (What better way than an invasion to stir up nationalism eh?)
Posted by: Valentine || 03/14/2005 11:18 Comments || Top||

#37  sea cruise, native Taiwanese were darker skinned people (Polynesian Malay) about 250 years ago, but about as dark skinned as Chinese peasants working in fields, eposed to elements.

What has that to do with today's Taiwan?

Chinese started to immigrate to Taiwan about that time and intermarried with locals. Further waves of immigrants changed the character of the island and in the middle of 19th century, you would not find any difference between mainland and Taiwanese people.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 11:25 Comments || Top||

#38  But on the whole there are several things driving this. 1) Economics, the govt of China needs to continously grow, slowing down will cause a crash, this what can be likend to a metastatic order (imagine a spinning plate on a pole).

The Taiwanese foreign currency reserves and the existent manufacturing base are the prize, but not the reason. China is no longer broke if it has the reserves. China can upgrade its industrial base by a decade or more....

By seizing Taiwan and it's hi tech base. Factories will not be moved anywhere except in the sense that Taiwanese manufacturing is always migrating to low cost China while the R&D stays on the islands. My motherboards are made in China whereas 5 years ago most were still made in Taiwan

I basically agree with what Valentino and Chuck have said.
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 11:30 Comments || Top||

#39 

#37 sea cruise, native Taiwanese were darker skinned people (Polynesian
Malay) about 250 years ago, but about as dark skinned as Chinese peasants
working in fields, eposed to elements.



What has that to do with today's Taiwan?



Sobieski: This has to do with conquest (invasion) of Taiwan by Chiang Kai Shek
and his fleeing Kuomintang. The darker natives were treated as inferiors.
Taiwanese were treated as second class citizens for years though it has gotten
much better. Look at the political parties there. I think they are based on this
divide of mainland Chinese versus native Taiwanese, semi Polynesian as you call
them.



SeaCruise
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 11:37 Comments || Top||

#40  CS: Taiwan is the "Holy Grail" for the mainland.

That is correct - this is an ideology that predates any number of ism's in China's history. In this view - lands that Chinese troops have won and that China has ever claimed as its territory are inalienably Chinese territory.

CS: They are willing to pay any cost for reunification.

China has a long history of limited wars for territorial gain. I wouldn't say the Chinese are willing to pay any cost - they wouldn't be willing to initiate a nuclear attack (and pay the price in the form of the ensuing nuclear retaliation), for instance. But they're willing to pay a significant cost. And they're willing to lose a few times before they get it right.

CS: If they invade and lose 100,000 troops, they will bear the cost.

I agree. And they'll bide their time and wait for the next opportunity to attack.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 11:39 Comments || Top||

#41  seacruise, there were NO darker natives at the time of Kuomintang. There were just natives. The original polynesian folk was simply replaced/disolved in preceding 2 centuries. You also forgetting influx of Japanese between 1895 and 1945. Get it into your head.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 11:43 Comments || Top||

#42  That is correct - this is an ideology that predates any number of ism's in China's history. In this view - lands that Chinese troops have won and that China has ever claimed as its territory are inalienably Chinese territory.

Same as the Muslims. Once a Muslim territory it must remain a Muslim territory. Part of their so called Dar-al-Islam. This is why they hate and want Israel back. Spain too but not so much since it's not a spear thrust into the heart of Arabia
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 11:46 Comments || Top||

#43  And, one more thing. Polynesians are fairly light skinned, Melanesians are dark skinned.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 11:48 Comments || Top||

#44  CS: Taiwan is the "Holy Grail" for the mainland.

Let me revise what I just said in agreeing with CS that Taiwan is the Holy Grail. Taiwan is not actually the Holy Grail. It is an important step along the way to the Holy Grail, which in Chinese eyes, is the world's acknowledgement of the Chinese state as richest and strongest power. China's ambition is not only to recover its past glory, but to expand upon it. In the short to medium term, this means the expansion of its influence with all of its neighbors, with a special focus on its former tributary states in East and Central Asia.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 12:35 Comments || Top||

#45  expansion of its influence with all of its neighbors

Goading the Japanese into allowing the "Self-Defence" forces to get involved in the defence of Taiwan with the Americans was a poor use of this influence.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 12:57 Comments || Top||

#46  MD: Goading the Japanese into allowing the "Self-Defence" forces to get involved in the defence of Taiwan with the Americans was a poor use of this influence.

Japan is Taiwan's former colonial overlord. Before Uncle Sam took custody of Taiwan after WWII, the relationship between Japan and Taiwan was similar to the one between Japan and Okinawa - more friendly than antagonistic. To expect Japan to stay out of a conflict between Taiwan and China is pretty unrealistic. The Japanese never declared their intentions openly, to avoid an open rupture with China. If you've ever dealt with the Japanese, you'll know that just because they don't say something doesn't mean they aren't concerned about an issue. The Chinese have long taken this into account.

Don't take Japanese protestations of their pacifistic intentions at face value. The moment Uncle Sam pulls away his (free) shield, Japan will re-arm vigorously. The Chinese have never seen the Japanese as a peaceful nation. And China is merely preparing the diplomatic ground for an invasion of Taiwan - first it has to scare off Taiwan's potential allies if it can, and at least serve notice of its intentions so that no one is surprised (which can lead to panic and alliance with Uncle Sam) when China finally acts. South Korea is likely to be on the sidelines, and no Southeast Asian nation has joined Japan. Even Australia has demurred with respect to automatic Australian involvement. The point here is to impress upon Taiwan's potential allies that they need to understand that they could find themselves at war with a nuclear-armed China. (It's a lot like Eisenhower threatening to nuke China during the Korean War because the Chinese refused to come to the negotiating table, even as he had no intention of doing so - it's an empty threat, but the opposition may be fazed anyway).
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 13:53 Comments || Top||

#47  Zhang Fei, either you've been drinking again or you're just prejudiced! ;)
Posted by: Rremble Glavise6984 || 03/14/2005 14:34 Comments || Top||

#48  #26...As regards China's location...

So you are saying the same thing about crossing Russia, or proto-Russia yet in the opposite direction than others...

The same think Hitler and Napoleon found out...

Russia is awfully big, and non-native empire builders when attempting to cross Russia are eventually going to run into the problem of spreading themselves too thin and having too long a supply line through alien territory?
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 15:11 Comments || Top||

#49  Also, anybody - What happened to the 6 that voted against Hu?
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 15:13 Comments || Top||

#50  BigEd: Also, anybody - What happened to the 6 that voted against Hu?

Not much of anything, I imagine. Mao was the last Chinese leader able to command the absolute and unified obedience of the rank-and-file of the Communist Party. Some of this was due to Mao's charisma and talent for political maneuvering, and some of it was due to the great post-Liberation prestige of the Party. But that era is over. The 6 who voted against Hu doubtless have their own power bases. Hu cannot move against them without risking retaliation. Inter-factional fighting probably presents the biggest risk of civil war, not civil disturbances. Throughout China's history, disgruntled officialdom have latched onto these disturbances to launch their bids for power.

Hu is the first among equals, but he must move with the consensus of the party leadership to command continued authority. Hua Guofeng, Mao's appointed heir, marched to the beat of his own drummer, and was replaced by Deng Xiaoping.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 15:28 Comments || Top||

#51  I suspect that the current sabre-wrattling is a reaction to some serious domestic turmoil within the PRC. Now, take the recent Bennett-Peoples Daily interview with its strange riff on relativistic democracy, add a few multi-hundred thousand pro-democracy demonstrations in Lebanon, blend with elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you have a brew that's pure poison for China's Communist dictators.

Tiannamen Square II is what those people truly fear, and everytime the Taiwanese hold a (relatively) free and fair election, the mandarins tremble.
Posted by: mrp || 03/14/2005 16:29 Comments || Top||

#52  Tiannamen Square II is what those people truly fear, and everytime the Taiwanese hold a (relatively) free and fair election, the mandarins tremble.

There is something to this...sound plausible
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 16:32 Comments || Top||

#53  mrp: I suspect that the current sabre-wrattling is a reaction to some serious domestic turmoil within the PRC.

99.99% of the time, a cigar is just a cigar. The current saber-rattling may simply be another in a long string of diplomatic warnings so that neighboring countries are not surprised (and subsequently do things that are prejudicial to the Chinese war effort) when an invasion actually happens. China's justifications for such an operation have been repeated ad infinitum, and most countries in East Asia have accepted its rationale, at least on the surface. (What they'll do if China finally acts is unknown, at least to us, but none of these countries probably wants to deal with that contingency). It's the same kind of reason that Uncle Sam went to the UN over the invasion of Iraq, to broadcast loud and clear to all and sundry that he was going in, come hell or high heaven.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 16:57 Comments || Top||

#54  ZF: come hell or high heaven.

That should have read: come hell or high water.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/14/2005 16:58 Comments || Top||

#55  Nonetheless, the official state media have recently come out with pronouncements from Chinese historians that an ancient Korean kingdom - encompassing a chunk of Northeast Asia that is now Chinese soil - really ought to be considered an ancient Chinese kingdom).

yup. And a young friend of mine who is following the Korean situation closely (he's Korean American) expects China to move in and take that territory when the NORK regime falls.
Posted by: too true || 03/14/2005 17:27 Comments || Top||

#56  They can have it and the South, afaiac.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 17:30 Comments || Top||

#57  Taiwan is about the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China. There is no real economic benefit by invading it and it will almost certainly be a severe setback to the CPoC. The place to watch is Mongolia. China has a similar historic claim to Tibet, it has oil and gas perhaps a lot, it has lost it's Russian protector, and geography makes it impossible to support militarily.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 18:17 Comments || Top||

#58  How sad is it that the North Koreans will be more free and better fed under Communist Chinese rule?
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/14/2005 21:54 Comments || Top||

#59  Taiwan is about whether we will allow a free democratic country to be swallowed by a communist dictatorship - cut and dried. I suggest we won't, and the Chinese will face a hard-learned lesson, and a pyrrhic victory if they somehow win the island.
Posted by: Frank G || 03/14/2005 22:30 Comments || Top||


Europe
Leviathan: the grand deception of the European Constitution
Posted by: tipper || 03/14/2005 09:20 || Comments || Link || [11136 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Pretty much everything that this article says is an utter lie from "There is no balance of powers" to "No powers are reserved to member states" to "Individuals will have no rights".

Instead of Americans rebelling in the streets if someone tried to pass off the European Constitution to them, why don't we think about the opposite, how many Europeans would be rebelling if someone tried to pass off the American constitution to them. What would the application of the American constitution mean for the European nations:

* No rights of national foreign policy at all.
* No rights to secede. Once in, you're in for eternity, and prepare to have your cities be burned ala-Atlanta if you attempt a secession.
* No national armies or right to send them anywhere.
* No national veto power on *any* issue.
* EU President declaring war and sending citizens from any member-state to war regardless of what the member-state itself thinks.
* The constitution can be amended by a mere 2/3rds majority, not by unanimity as is currently the case.
* Supreme court being able to redefine the meaning of the Constitution as it will with a "Common-law" attitude that gives the federal judiciary, powers that it oughtn't have. And the member states being incapable of doing anything about it since they wouldn't have the right to secede.

Oh, yeah the Europeans would rebel alright if anyone tried to force the American constitution on them.

So screw the arrogance of comparisons with the sacred American constitution, which created a new nation, as opposed to the EU constitution which tries to united dozens of ones each with their own traditions.

True, there are elections for the European Parliament --- but the Parliament is an empty front. It is not permitted to make laws, only to rubber-stamp them.

Ooh, another lose-lose situation. If the extremely supranational European Parliament had been allowed to make laws of its own without right of veto from national governments, that'd have been yet another "loss of sovereignty".

But as for EU Parliament being empty, or a "rubber-stamp" parliament, that's again either ignorance or deception. Have people already forgotten how it forced the Santer Commission to resign, and how it forced members of the Barroso Commission to be dropped? It's been turning back or rewriting laws, and on the whole the EP is definitely not there just for rubber-stamping.

All major nations of Europe were once great empires: Spain, France, Austro-Hungary, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Russia, Britain, even Belgium and the Netherlands. They have not forgotten

No, we have not. And we decided "never again shall we go to war against each other", and then we built the EU to make it happen. That's the lesson Europe's learned that ignorant Americans, babbling ignorantly about Europe, have in their ignorance not even begun to comprehend.

And UK, still having delusions of grandeur and Empire, also largely fails to get, which is why it should go on its way and be alone until it perceives its own present-day situation and stops whining.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 12:06 Comments || Top||

#2  Aris, that's the best argument I've seen yet in favor of the EU Constitution.
Posted by: Matt || 03/14/2005 12:17 Comments || Top||

#3  Personally I'd like to see the UK join the United States... There are some eastern European countries that one day I might consider but today are still to underdeveloped. The rest of Europe is culturally incompatiable with the US. Good luck to you guys though, I hope this little unity thing works for ya... it's gotta be better than the fascism thing you were trying last century.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 03/14/2005 12:26 Comments || Top||

#4  Well we are diferent from Americans, I dont have anything against Greece and fellow European Aris. But I am Portuguese and i 'll vote NO to any European treaty that goes beyond Europeans economic cooperation. I'll probably loose.

The War argument is like medieval language like "Marry me if not i'll rape you" ?!
So we are supposed to trust and build an organisation based in untrustiness.
We Europeans are only able to behave if we dismiss our personalities and traits? Germans, French, Britons, Spainiards are by definition rapists that makes them by definition a threat?
So based in that argument Europe will be threat to everyone...

EU is a collective suicide build in a negative proposition. 50 years of live...then probably Yugoslavia scaled up...
Posted by: Hupomoque Spoluter7949 || 03/14/2005 12:36 Comments || Top||

#5  Hey - when did Aris turn into Lysander Spooner?
Posted by: mojo || 03/14/2005 13:23 Comments || Top||

#6  Hupomoque> You have, ofcourse, every right to vote "no" -- European Union must always be voluntary, not enforced. The majority of your people will decide.

But you are misconstruing my war argument. You said: "The War argument is like medieval language like "Marry me if not i'll rape you" ?!" But that's not what I'm saying at all -- nobody has forced, is forcing or will attempt to force e.g. Switzerland, or Norway, or any other nation, to join that doesn't desire it. The opposite: EU has largely always been *more* reluctant to accept new members than the new members have been to join. It was reluctant to accept UK and postponed its membership for 10 years -- it was reluctant to accept Cyprus and Greece had to essentially blackmail EU into accepting it -- it's now reluctant to accept Croatia and Romania and even more reluctant to accept Turkey or Ukraine. All these countries urge for membership, and EU is the reluctant one.

So "marry me or I'll rape you" is not what I'm saying at all. A better explanation is this: Nations are not monolithic. Every country has both its butchers and its saints. And the butchers (or rapists) use certain kinds of means and rhetorics and tools to get into power and launch imperialist wars against other nations.

Every nation in Europe once ruled over territory over all its neighbouring ones. For ordinary people this means: "Why shouldn't I be able to live *there* where my grandfather's house was before his whole family was expelled?" And for industries it means "Why shouldn't we be able to use *those* resources which we really really desire even if they lie on the other side of the borders?"

And the EU says: now you can. If you want to travel to the other side of the borders, and live and work and even vote in municipal elections there, you can -- and so can they. And if you want to use the resources there, you are allowed to compete for them using the same rules as native companies -- and so can they in your own land.

It used to be that every nation had to drive out the other one to make room for itself. Now every nation's citizens and industries have the whole *continent* to make themselves at home in, if they so desire -- playing by the same rules and no longer dominating by force over one another.

You aren't losing your nation, you are getting the continent instead.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 13:24 Comments || Top||

#7  Behind its elaborate façade, the European Union was built mainly by France and Germany. Both are deeply traumatized nations, obsessed with their own bloody histories. Significantly, they blame their national failures not on their politicians, but on the people. The EU therefore was structured around a maze of political committees, like the old Soviet Union.

Neither France nor Germany has enjoyed a stable, democratic government for very long. As Paul Johnson points out, France has had twelve constitutions since 1789. The Western half of Germany had elections for half a century, but the East has no more experience of democracy than Russia. Just two years ago, Chancellor Schroeder won re-election by using the old Bismarck gambit of abusing foreigners -- in this case, America. Yet the Franco-German axis controls the EU. If Britain joins, it will be surrendering to an unaccountable power elite. And nobody seems to care.


France & Germany

France & Germany

France & Germany

France & Germany



Tweedledee / Tweedledum

Does everybody get the same warm fuzzies about this? {BARF}
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 13:54 Comments || Top||

#8  "And we decided "never again shall we go to war against each other", and then we built the EU to make it happen."

Bullshit. Its only after AMERICANS rebuilt the continental economy back from nothing, and AMERICANS stood watch to keep you eurosavages from trashing the place again , as you have done since time immemorial, with the 2 worst bing inthe 20th century, and after AMERICANS stood watch on the borders and placed our own nation at nuclear risk to keep western europe free - only AFTER all that di you Europeans finally wise up.

And now you hate us for forcing you to be peaceful with each other.
Posted by: HistoryCallingAris || 03/14/2005 14:29 Comments || Top||

#9  "eurosavages" and "time immemorial" and other such bullshit from Anonymous Coward. *yawn*.

and after AMERICANS stood watch on the borders and placed our own nation at nuclear risk to keep western europe free

You dare say that to a *Portuguese* and to a *Greek* about how free we were for the duration of the Cold War?

Know why Portugal is gonna have a tremendous majority voting "Yes" in the European Constitution? Same as Spain did, and same as Greece would have if it also held a referendum?

Because we saw the European Union (then European Community) helping support our democracy and freedom, we didn't see the United States do that.

History calling Anonymous Coward with all the truths that you like to forget.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 15:10 Comments || Top||

#10  And I didn't notice Americans standing watch over Cyprus to prevent its European allies (Greece and Turkey) from trashing the place either. What I saw was the European Union now coming in and offering the best chance for peaceful reunification that the island had in 30 years.

So, if you want to make this thread a pissing contest, be prepared to be pissed on, Anonymous Coward.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 15:15 Comments || Top||

#11  Because we saw the European Union (then European Community) helping support our democracy and freedom, we didn't see the United States do that.

So, Aris, myopia is now a positive trait?
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 15:19 Comments || Top||

#12  That is not an invitation to pissing contest, it is a serious question.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 15:21 Comments || Top||

#13  You dare say that to a *Portuguese* and to a *Greek* about how free we were for the duration of the Cold War?

So you'd blame America for your lack of freedom? LOL
Posted by: AzCat || 03/14/2005 15:22 Comments || Top||

#14  AzCat> No, it's Anonymous Coward who claimed America was protecting the freedom of our nations all that time. I didn't blame America for our lack of freedom, but neither will I praise a protection that didn't actually exist.

Think of Chirac saying to an Iraqi that France consistently protected Iraqi freedom, and you'll understand the feeling.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 15:35 Comments || Top||

#15  Bullshit. Its only after AMERICANS rebuilt the continental economy back from nothing, and AMERICANS stood watch to keep you eurosavages from trashing the place again , as you have done since time immemorial, with the 2 worst bing inthe 20th century, and after AMERICANS stood watch on the borders and placed our own nation at nuclear risk to keep western europe free - only AFTER all that di you Europeans finally wise up.

Aris I think whoever HistoryCalliing should have ID'd himself to you. That was not fair, as was the namecalling. However having said that, I agree with about 90% of what he said, except your points about the military governments in Portugal, Greece, and Spain... Though those governments did oppose the Communist Hegemony of the USSR, and thus were allies of neccesity...
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 15:48 Comments || Top||

#16  Think of Chirac saying to an Iraqi that France consistently protected Iraqi freedom, and you'll understand the feeling.. Chirac/Iraq as a metaphor for the US/Cold War? AK, where DO you get these nuggets?

If it weren't for US forces in 1947, lead by Gen. Van Fleet, Greece would have been behind the Iron Curtain. You know, that thingy that those behind it didn't like? The one, you know, where US forces kept Greece on the other side? The one that finally fell in 1989? From the pressure of US forces. Berlin Wall? Check. 'Merican forces. Do ya ......... notice a itsy-bitsy, tiny link there, old buddy?

In any case, how is it the USAs responsibility for "your lack of freedom"? It seems to me, AK, that is due to a lack of balls (otherwise known as fortitude, resoluteness, bravery, etc.) on the part of the peoples of the EU. If they want to be sheep, let me be sheep I say. Americans aren't like that, AK. And you see that evety day in Iraq where our fine young men are facing the most ruthless, hellish opposition and winning.

And as for your comment "a protection that didn't actually exist", are you unaware of the US commitments and costs we shouldered to make sure the Red Army didn't do to, say Greece, what they did to the Hangarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968? Do ya think it was the power and glory of the Greek, or even European military that kept T-54 tanks from the streets of Athens? Not a chance, Bubba.

What kept Western Europe 'open' after their latest adventure was the US forces. Things like SAC and Carriers and multiple Corps of US Soldiers. So, we made Europe free to choose and if the citizens of some states like *Portugal* and *Greece* allowed themselves to be run by a small clique, that is your choice.

See, AK, Americans fought for, and gained, our freedom. Against the greatest power seen on God's green earth up to that time. We have even gone forth to help others gain their freedom at great cost to ourselves. But I guess that is just part of the American physche, huh? Wild cowboys always supportingkillin' bad guys and oppressingfreeing the goodpoor oppressed people, eh?

It is obvious to me that no matter how much you read about (and secretly admire) the USA, you really don't understand us. We have taken the dregs and cast-offs of other societies and made a new culture that dominates almost all areas of human endeavor. We aren't the world, we are only the future of the world.
Posted by: Brett || 03/14/2005 16:24 Comments || Top||

#17  Aris (#9) "Because we saw the European Union (then European Community) helping support our democracy and freedom, we didn't see the United States do that."

Really? Greece has been a major U.S. aid recipient since the late 1940s except during military rule from 1967 to 1974. Greece and Turkey have been the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, primarily military, outside of Israel and Egypt.
http://www.fpif.org/papers/turkey/index_body.html
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/86-065.htm
Posted by: Tom || 03/14/2005 16:50 Comments || Top||

#18  Chirac/Iraq as a metaphor for the US/Cold War?

More like Chirac/Iraq as metaphor for USA/Greece but I'm probably being too lenient on the USA.

Tom> Greece has been a major U.S. aid recipient since the late 1940s except during military rule from 1967 to 1974

True, in that period American aid primarily came in the form of torture implements. http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/US-Torture.html

Greece and Turkey have been the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, primarily military, outside of Israel and Egypt.

Yes, and the military aid you provide to Greece is being used in efforts to counterbalance the military aid you provide to Turkey. Thank you for the protection, America.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 17:20 Comments || Top||

#19  Chirac/Iraq as metaphor for USA/Greece but I'm probably being too lenient on the USA. Ya. Uh-huh. Your making no sense, AK. Do you even know what a metaphor or analogy is? 'Cause from your usage, it seems your unclear.

in that period American aid primarily came in the form of torture implements. http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/US-Torture.html Is the screw mentioned the Lockheed or Acme version? Like we 'Mericans need to teach the Greeks about torture.

Aris, did you see the pictures from Lebanon today? Look closely as that is a people yearning to be free, in a place where car bombs were born and still breed.

Why didn't the Greek people protest the junta, AK? I think it is a testicular problem, AK.
Posted by: Brett || 03/14/2005 17:39 Comments || Top||

#20  Why didn't the Greek people protest the junta, AK?

They did protest it. Students at Polytechneio. Many died for it on November 17th. More arrogant ignorance yours.

I think it is a testicular problem, AK.

One could write a book on the not-too-hidden misogyny of American male conservatives.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 17:53 Comments || Top||

#21  To get back to the failure of the EU constitution, and why it is a failure, let us compare. The US constitution was written to define everything permitted to the government, by people who distrusted government. When subsequent governments disobeyed the document, and performed acts not permitted, it was to our loss as a nation. And yet the foundation of the document still exists: that if it is not the constitutional function of government, it is prohibited for the government to do. Then, on top of that, it contains a Bill of Rights, as insurance that these things specified within are especially protected from government intrusion. In all of this, it is a minimalist document, based on the principal that "things change", and the assumption that the government must change with the times--yet retain a framework of limitation, always questioning whether it, the government, was "permitted" to do these new things. A demand that the will of government, and the actions of the people within the government, must be *justified*, *before* they can carry out what they wish to do. And that it can be challenged after the fact on the grounds of failure to do so.

Now compare this with the EU, and its guiding principal, based in Roman law, that "what is not specifically *AUTHORIZED* by the government, for the PEOPLE to do, is prohibited." I cannot imagine how terrible it must be for creativity, initiative, and ingenuity to be dampened so. That you must have "permission" to act before you, as a citizen, can act. But it is this principal which is the guiding light of the EU constitution. Why that document is enormous and attempts to be *inclusively controlling* of what its *citizens* do. And, I might add, why the British will be almost incapable of embracing it, living as they have for so long under Common Law. If they fall for it, the change will be worse for their freedom than what happened to Hong Kong with its return to Red China.

So compare the two. The US constitution speaks in clear and concise terms of the "rights of men", and its framework for government can be understood in an hour. The EU constitution sets forth a regime of bureaucratic regulation, and tries to define permanently what the rules under which its citizens will live. It has no bold and explicit "rights of men", just poorly written bureaucratic rules the government currently wishes to bestow on the masses, and very subject to change based on pragmatism or whim.

Such a document cannot survive. Even under continuous revision it offers nothing to the people, instead it takes away their liberty, their substance, their initiative. It drains their will to succeed, to accomplish, to excel. In such circumstances, there is no longer a reason to propagate, no future for European posterity. And finally, when some, any force arises that promises to sweep it aside, none shall stand up for it, none shall be inspired to defend it, and it shall be consigned to the ash heap.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/14/2005 18:31 Comments || Top||

#22  It's good to see Aris's anti-American sentiments increasingly coming to the fore. He'd have preferred a Greece under Nazi or Soviet occupation to the regime the Americans supported. Says everything you neeed to know. What an utter twat.
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/14/2005 19:16 Comments || Top||

#23  Now compare this with the EU, and its guiding principal, based in Roman law, that "what is not specifically *AUTHORIZED* by the government, for the PEOPLE to do, is prohibited."

Is that the propagandist's view of what Civic Law means?

Why that document is enormous and attempts to be *inclusively controlling* of what its *citizens* do.

Actually if you had cared to give it even the slightest passing glance you'd have seen that it's extremely controlling of what the *EU* does. The American constitution has some general principles about where your government can't interfere, but the EU uses separate articles to describe each of the only areas of competency in extreme detail, to the point of mentioning even animal rights.

On the other hand, when your federal government decided to make a law about animal rights, it used "interstate trading laws", as it seems to use it (from what I hear) on every issue when it wants to violate federalist principles.

The way the EU constitution is so utterly long is because it restrains the EU in such detail taht it ends up going into issues of policy. That's a big flaw, but it's a flaw in the *opposite* direction of what you indicate, not in giving the EU institutions too much freedom of action, but in giving them too little.

has no bold and explicit "rights of men",

Yes it does.

Your whole post is poetic babble of things you've heard and repeated and never bothered to check out if they held or not.

Bulldog> He'd have preferred a Greece under Nazi or Soviet occupation to the regime the Americans supported.

No, I wouldn't. Too bad for you that such a dilemma is utterly false.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 19:35 Comments || Top||

#24  Does anyone have a place where one can download the EU Constitution? I've only been around a little these days, but I haven't seen it.
It isn't in Phrench, is it? Are commoners forbidden from reading it, like the early Bible?
I've only heard anecdotal evidence about the lack/prescence of check/balances/lawmaking power, and I'd really like to check it out.

The only other option is that it's a lie that it even exists. Which looks highly viable right now.
Posted by: Asedwich || 03/14/2005 20:10 Comments || Top||

#25  Here you go

It's in all official languages. You get to choose.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 20:27 Comments || Top||

#26  I saw you can also go to Wikisource here if an html version broken into several pieces will please you more than PDF files.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 20:37 Comments || Top||

#27  Behind its elaborate façade, the European Union was built mainly by France and Germany. Both are deeply traumatized nations, obsessed with their own bloody histories. Significantly, they blame their national failures not on their politicians, but on the people. The EU therefore was structured around a maze of political committees, like the old Soviet Union.

Neither France nor Germany has enjoyed a stable, democratic government for very long

This is true. Neither has Greece or Italy. Britain, on the other hand, has.

What many Americans don't easily appreciate from within is the huge risk aversion that characterizes the western part of Europe. Europe doesn't trust itself because in truth, it has done some pretty horrid things and has failed to show a knack for success. So the EU Constitution is an attempt to lock down risks of all sorts.

And yes, Aris, I've read it. And worked with Europeans closely on and off for several decades, besides having married someone with many close family members on the Continent.

Aris, I do think your focus on the Colonel period in Greek history distorts to some degree your understanding of the relationship between Greece and the US since the 40s. As for Cyprus, I can make a good case that at the time, Turkey was a far better and more reliable ally to the US than Greece -- perhaps one reason we did not step further into that messy situation.
Posted by: too true || 03/14/2005 20:41 Comments || Top||

#28  Aris (#18): "Yes, and the military aid you provide to Greece is being used in efforts to counterbalance the military aid you provide to Turkey. Thank you for the protection, America."
I'm sorry we bothered, Aris. Billions of dollars in U.S. aid just to draw the Cold War boundary between Greece and the Soviet Union. And you're pissed because Turkey was on this side of the line too. What a twit you are. You deserve whatever d'Estang and Chirac do to your sorry ass.
Posted by: Tom || 03/14/2005 20:48 Comments || Top||

#29  Billions of dollars in U.S. aid just to draw the Cold War boundary between Greece and the Soviet Union.

Yes, it was all selflessly for our benefit. Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua, the torturers, the money to the Contras, everything you ever did to Latin America or to Greece was always selflessly for the good of the nations in question.

"Twit" I'd be indeed if I ever believed that.

You gave "Military aid" as part of a business deal, an alliance called NATO that was to everyone's interest. Stop pretending that you wouldn't have anything to lose if Turkey and Greece both fell to Soviet control, and stop pretending that it was all selflessness on your behalf whenever you militarily assisted them. You had bases in these countries, you had troops. You gave and you received.

Here's what I think: that if both Greece and Turkey had been like Sweden or Austria instead, not taking part, then they'd both have been far better off. USA might have been worse off, though. And possibly the world too.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 21:01 Comments || Top||

#30  Aris, I do think your focus on the Colonel period in Greek history distorts to some degree your understanding of the relationship between Greece and the US since the 40s

Anger arises only when people demand gratitude for supposedly "protecting our freedom".

When the moment actually came to "protect" our freedom, they failed to protect it. We weren't invaded by Soviet troops, our freedom fell from within. And USA didn't give a damn because the tyrant were still faithful allies, the best damn government according to US officials, since the time of Pericles.

So, stop demanding gratitude for what USA failed to do in regards to Greece, and you'll stop receiving scorn in return.

You want to know the difference between your true anti-American Greek and someone like me? The true anti-American is angry towards the USA all the time for its betrayal at the time of the colonels. I only get angry instead when Americans demand *gratitude* for the worse-than-nothing they offered us at the time.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 21:08 Comments || Top||

#31  Thanks Aris, I do prefer the html.

"Article III-146

2. The liberalisation of banking and insurance services connected with movements of capital shall be effected in step with the liberalisation of movement of capital."

OK, I withhold my misgivings. If the people are willing, this is going to be better than Animal Farm.
Obviously, there has been a breakthrough. It is now possible to mobilize (liberalise?) capital in discrete, easily measureable, and predictable chunks, lumps, and globs. And THEN we'll get to the banking and insurance services! :)
Posted by: Asedwich || 03/14/2005 21:09 Comments || Top||

#32  "You gave 'Military aid' as part of a business deal, an alliance called NATO that was to everyone's interest."
We gave a lot, you gave a little, and you were closer to the front line than we were. If it was indeed to your interest, why did we foot most of the bills?

You have clearly shown your anti-American side today. You're not worth our aid and you're not worth my typing time.
Posted by: Tom || 03/14/2005 21:12 Comments || Top||

#33  "You want to know the difference between your true anti-American Greek and someone like me?"

No, not really.
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/14/2005 21:13 Comments || Top||

#34  USA didn't give a damn because the tyrant were still faithful allies

There's some truth to that. There's also some - a lot, by my experience - truth to the assertion that the left wing partisans in Greece were so rabidly anti-American *before* the Colonels took power that the latter seemed the better of two evils.
Posted by: too true || 03/14/2005 21:16 Comments || Top||

#35  We gave a lot, you gave a little, and you were closer to the front line than we were. If it was indeed to your interest, why did we foot most of the bills?

It's you who seems to claim it was only for our interest alone, so it's you who should be asking yourself that question.

If it was indeed just for our interest, why did you foot so many of the bills?

You have clearly shown your anti-American side today.

Idiots that demand gratitude for the "freedom" you never gave a damn about but still be claiming to have protected, tend to bring that out to me.

You're not worth our aid and you're not worth my typing time.

And yet you keep on typing.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 21:20 Comments || Top||

#36  Aris: the controls on the EU you mention is deceptive. The US constitution evolves power from the governed. Framed in terms of "rights", those authorities not expressly given to the federal government, are reserved to the individual states and to the people. And not just to people as individuals, but as organized, non-governmental groups, such as militias and even modern home owner's associations.

But as the President of Spain has recently said about Britain, they have already surrendered much of their sovereignty, with only defense and foreign policy still outstanding. I also guess he assumes that Britain will have no choice but to eventually join the Euro and the constitution.

And once again, this shows up a fatal flaw seen over and over in the evolution of the EU, the great and beneficial nature of some promise turns out to be a lie, and there is nothing the member states can do about it. Seriously, in your wildest imaginings, do you think the EU will permit a member state to leave, ever? Or will they just use some bureaucratic treachery and subterfuge to deny them departure?

Civil rights are not given by bureaucrats. They do not come to be because they are written down on a piece of paper. They exist at a fundamental level, because if they do not, then a people are not free. And whether you believe that we are "endowed by our creator with inalienable rights", or that rights are the product of the social contract between all people, they are not, never the creation of government, nor are they bestowed on us out of the kindness of our leaders' hearts.

They are something we *cannot* delegate away to some pencil pusher. They are naturally ours and can only be taken away if we let them be, or have them coerced from us at gunpoint.

The EU constitution will fail, either because so many nations will reject it out of hand, or because it has no heart; or because when it is imperiled, none shall rise to its defense.

In past, I, like so many other Americans, have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. I *knew* what I was defending, and I *knew* what it meant. And more than anything else, I *knew* that, even at the cost of my own life, it was *worth* defending.

Will a European ever feel or say such a thing?
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/14/2005 21:22 Comments || Top||

#37  Seriously, in your wildest imaginings, do you think the EU will permit a member state to leave, ever?

Yes. How the hell do you think they could even forbid it, even if they wanted to? Unlike in the US, each nation has still retained our national armies and has no interest in foregoing it.

You see that's a fundamental "check and balance" right there that you haven't shown interest in at all in discussing. Perhaps because it's the US that lacks it and the EU that has it. That has allowed your federal government to take powers for itself that the EU isn't even dreaming so far to have. The war on drugs. The prohibition. Abortion. You are even discussing to have a federal ban on gay marriage.

Our checks and balances so far are proving stronger than yours where state rights are concerned.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 21:35 Comments || Top||

#38  Happy Lent - making friends?
Posted by: Frank G || 03/14/2005 22:02 Comments || Top||

#39  Better talk about what you know Aris. It was US CIA money with Embassador Frank Carlucci
(also West german money ) that supported the Portuguese socialist party and Social Democratic party against communists.

Frank Carlucci had to fight against Kissinger that
was dismissal of any democracy in Portugal.
And funny thing one of the guys that helped him against "Mr. Realpolitic" was Rumsfeld :)

Of course without USA.... Europe would be Red with guerrilla movements ,maybe except Britain.
Posted by: Hupomoque Spoluter7949 || 03/14/2005 23:02 Comments || Top||

#40  That has allowed your federal government to take powers for itself...

Every government is a beast that has to be re-tamed once a while. That is, if there are means available to people which the government is supposed to represent. As a rule, it is far more difficult when the goverment rules, rather than governs.

...that the EU isn't even dreaming so far to have.

Don't be a pessimist! Give it time and I am rather positive it will make its dreams come true. ;-)
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 23:47 Comments || Top||


EUROCHAMBRES Study: US economy ahead of EU by at least 20 years!
According to EUROCHAMBRES, the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the economic performance of the EU is about 20 years behind that of the US. A study* presented by the business organisation at its pre-spring summit Business Forum in Brussels today compares the EU to the US in terms of GDP, R&D, productivity and employment by ''time distances'' between the two regions and forecasts how many years the EU will take to catch up with the US, and under what conditions of growth.

Commenting on the results, Arnaldo Abruzzini, Secretary General of EUROCHAMBRES, said: ''The US has a clear economic time lead, even increasing it after 2000. The current EU levels in GDP, R&D investment, productivity and employment were already reached by the US in the late 70s/early 80s. Even the most optimistic assumptions show it will take the EU decades to catch up and this only if there is considerable EU improvement. European leaders must set a clear signal in favour of the economy at the Spring Summit!'' The time-lags for the various key indicators are as follows:

Employment: Europe's employment level for 2003 was achieved be the US in 1978. It will take the EU until 2023 to reach US levels of employment, and then only if EU employment growth will exceed that of the US by 0.5% p.a.

R&D: Europe's R&D investment for 2002 was achieved by the US in 1979. It will take the EU until 2123 to reach US levels of R&D investment, and then only if EU investment will exceed that of the US by 0.5% p. a.

Income: Europe's income for 2003 was achieved by the US in 1985. It will take the EU until 2072 to reach US levels of income per capita, and then only if EU income growth will exceed that of the US by 0.5% p. a.

Productivity: Europe's level of productivity for 2003 was achieved by the US in 1989. It will take the EU until 2056 to reach US productivity rates per employed, and then only if EU productivity growth will exceed that of the US by 0.5%.

What happened to Lisbon? Taking over the U. S. by 2010?

Obviously, taking in the 10 eastern nations last year screws up the numbers a lot and these countries should have above average growth while they play catch-up. This study was commissioned by an organization that will probably show up in Brussels this morning with palms up. But the aggregate numbers are also meaningful as the frogs and friends think they can put together a bigger market than the U. S. that challenges us for world leadership. Deckchairs.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 8:07:50 AM || Comments || Link || [11129 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Then of course there is the Kyoto economic suicide pact.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 8:45 Comments || Top||

#2  Face it the European Union is a economic falure before it even starts. The UK should have second thoughts about tossing it's economy down the outhouse.

Face it EUites your Fööked.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O’ Doom || 03/14/2005 8:57 Comments || Top||

#3  SPoD, don't let Aris hear you. ;)
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 03/14/2005 10:52 Comments || Top||

#4  The problem is that there is a bunch of cooks and not enough waiters. (or pick another metaphor) No central government with supreme power, no checks and balances, no single driving vision, etc. The idea of the EU is a good thing, we always need competition in a free market, but the Europeans fooked it up so badly they need to dissolve it and try again in a few years.
Posted by: mmurray821 || 03/14/2005 11:01 Comments || Top||

#5  The idea of the EU is a good thing

mmurray, don't let most Rantburgers hear you. ;-)

And as for central government with supreme power and single driving vision -- for shame! :-) Are you suggesting a *loss of sovereignty*, the same kind of thing that makes most Rantburgers and most Brits go apeshit when they hear about it?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 11:23 Comments || Top||

#6  mmurray82, almost right. That's "a bunch of crooks....."
Posted by: RWV || 03/14/2005 12:24 Comments || Top||

#7  The US constitution is based on several principals that the EU would have profited mightily from, had they known the history of the thing. For example, the large, heavily populated states' interests are balanced against the small states by having a bicameral legislature: one house that favors the large states, and the other house with equal representation. A brilliant notion, and just one example. Their problems and their solutions are very well documented, however, and it is amazing that the Europeans ignored them.

But the basic problem remains the tragic Continental problem (Britain exempted) of the use of Roman and Napoleonic Law as the foundation of government. They have been disastrous as far as civil rights and freedom are concerned, and should be discarded in favor of Common Law throughout the EU government. Without Common Law principals the EU will never be a fair, equitable, balanced or just place. It is cursed to be a bureaucratic state, ruled by a self-appointed elite class that is unresponsive to the people.

If the EU cannot change this lethal part of its character, it is doomed to decay and collapse. I am not betting on success.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/14/2005 12:26 Comments || Top||

#8  Aris, don't you argue sovereignty with me. I'm still bashing San Francisco for not being New York. :-P
Posted by: Edward Yee || 03/14/2005 13:02 Comments || Top||

#9  Less betting on failure, more WORKING for failure ...
Posted by: Edward Yee || 03/14/2005 13:03 Comments || Top||

#10  The EU Constitution is what happens when you ignore basic principles in self governance and proceed with writing the Code of Federal regulations.
Posted by: badanov || 03/14/2005 13:11 Comments || Top||

#11  Their problems and their solutions are very well documented, however, and it is amazing that the Europeans ignored them.

Not amazing - typical and symptomatic. Their loss.
Posted by: Unagum Elmang5856 || 03/14/2005 13:19 Comments || Top||

#12  For example, the large, heavily populated states' interests are balanced against the small states by having a bicameral legislature: one house that favors the large states, and the other house with equal representation

Tell me what do you know about the double qualified majority principle in the Council of the European Union? Wouldn't you say it works using the same principle?

Too bad that the big-vs-small has not actually been so much of a problem compared to the supranational-vs-intergovernmental issue.

Their problems and their solutions are very well documented, however, and it is amazing that the Europeans ignored them.

Bullshit.

We didn't ignore your solutions to *your* problems. It just happened that *our* problems were different ones, no matter how you may try to forget it.

Tell me: what, if anything, exists in the US Constitution, would have made Britain more likely to desire to sign up to it?

Answer: nothing at all.

Everyone who thinks that the US Constitution solutions would have solved the problems the EU faced over the Constitution, has simply no clue about what those disputes were.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 15:02 Comments || Top||

#13  The US Constitution is a compact, well-written document. The EU is a giant clusterf*ck, like the Texas Constitution. Cheers!
Posted by: Brett || 03/14/2005 15:06 Comments || Top||

#14  The US Constitution is a compact, well-written document.

And when the First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", why do most people think it applies to government as a whole, regardless of whether on a federal or state level?

Virtual first amendment

The EU (Constitution) is a giant clusterf*ck

Well yes, it is -- I think its creators were more thinking of finding compromises for the current disputes plaguing the Union, rather than making it into an *elegant* document. Their mistake.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 15:31 Comments || Top||

#15  And when the First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", why do most people think it applies to government as a whole, regardless of whether on a federal or state level?

Because of the 14th amendment, ignoramus.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 15:35 Comments || Top||

#16  Because of the 14th amendment, ignoramus.

Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
Posted by: AzCat || 03/14/2005 16:05 Comments || Top||

#17  At least it seems to have shut the little bugger up for a while, thank goodness.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 17:06 Comments || Top||

#18  Mrs D. & AzCat

Aris is clueless to the American mindset. It needs to be pointed out to AK where he has no concept of American government structure. And if he at least understands where we Americans are coming from, that is a start...

AK is Euro-intoxicated, and can see none of the flaws of Big Brother, that we as Americans, well MOST of us see in a bunch of verbage. This verbage is designed to give more little Caeser gratification to added layers of bureaucrats who don't have a life themselves...
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 17:18 Comments || Top||

#19  I don't mind Aris being clueless. I've been clueless a couple of times today. But I'm fed up with the holier than thou arrogance that demeans anyone who disagrees with him and invites flame wars. Aris is just a punk know it all college kid, and we've got plenty of them on this side of the pond. Who knows, some of us may have been more obnoxious at his age. I'm just tired of it. It's not why I come here.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 17:26 Comments || Top||

#20  Actually I was "shut up" because I was watching a movie.

How "compact" is a Constitution that needs a 14th amendment to explain the 1st? :-)

Cheers, Mrs Davis. Check out Anonymoose post at #7, speaking about "brilliant notions" that Europeans are supposedly utterly ignorant of (like bicameral parliaments -- wow, it's not as if France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, etc all have bicameral parliaments do they?), and how America solved more than 200 years ago *all* the problems that could possibly ever be faced by Europe today if stoopid Europeans only had the wits to give the US Constitution a glance (not that he knows which problems and disputes EU is *actually* facing, he simply assumes that they were same as the ones the US founders faced) -- and then talk to me about arrogance.

My utterly arrogant ignorance about America only comes to the front only after some American is utterly arrogantly ignorant about Europe instead.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 17:48 Comments || Top||

#21  Let's no forget that the EU "Constitution" was written by a man (Giscard d'Estaing) whose presidency saw unprecedented scandals (eg the "sniffing planes") and who allied with such parangons of virtue like Mobutu and Bokassa. The later was notorious as a child torturer but also as a donator of precious stones to Giscard: cf the diamond affair (affaire des diamants in French).
Posted by: JFM || 03/14/2005 18:03 Comments || Top||

#22  Forget to tell Aris I know a lot more about Giscard than him.
Posted by: JFM || 03/14/2005 18:05 Comments || Top||

#23  I never said you didn't. I've no interest in sanctifying Giscard or anyone else. Thanks for the information.

Should I research on the moral character of Jefferson? I'd find it largely irrelevant in discussing the quality of their works, though.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 03/14/2005 18:36 Comments || Top||


Macedonian Elections Seen As Successful
How 'bout that: peaceful elections with Christians and Muslims in Macedonia.

Posted by: Steve White || 03/14/2005 12:00:39 AM || Comments || Link || [11127 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Macedonia became independent in 1991 and was the only former Yugoslav republic spared major violence.

Error - Slovenia was also peaceful.
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 6:17 Comments || Top||

#2  BigEd, Slovenia started the whole ball rolling by attacking Yugo armoured columns with Singapore made anti-armor missiles. The Yugo/Serbs pulled back after significant losses.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 8:38 Comments || Top||

#3  I stand corrected. It was quick and forgotten after all the carnage in Croatia, B-H, and Serbia
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 14:05 Comments || Top||


Great White North
U.S. attacks Canadian pot laws
A surge of high-potency marijuana illegally smuggled into the United States from Canada is fuelling a rise in drug dependency among young Americans, the Bush administration's drug czar says. A frustrated John Walters, the director of the U.S. National Drug Control office, yesterday signalled Washington's ongoing irritation with what it sees as a lax attitude toward drug crimes north of the border, something that has forced it to redeploy drug patrols from the Mexican border to its northern flank. Walters conceded yesterday American authorities are making no dent in the flow of Canadian pot and he said Canadian police and prosecutors have told him lenient Canadian courts are a root of the problem. "The big new factor on the scene ... is the enormous growth of high potency marijuana from Canada," Walters said. "This is a problem. It requires joint action and we will continue to work with Canadian government on this. But right now, the trend (does not show) this is getting smaller."

The Bush administration has been vocal in its concern over Canadian "grow ops," ecstasy manufacturers and a move by the past Liberal government to decriminalize marijuana possession, but Walters' message takes on a special urgency now. The problem U.S. President George W. Bush has with drug smugglers on both his southern and northern borders is expected to be raised when he meets with Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox at a trilateral summit in Waco, Texas, on March 23. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — who has still not set a date for a Canadian visit — also raised drug-related violence on the Mexican border when she met yesterday with Fox in Mexico City.

Walters also mentioned the slaying of the four Alberta RCMP officers last week, offering condolences to their families and community members of Mayerthorpe, Alta., on behalf of the White House. But he said the proliferation of grow ops is cause for concern not only in Western Canada, but also Toronto. He was careful not to criticize the Canadian judicial system, but he repeated complaints he has heard from prosecutors and police officials in British Columbia and Toronto. "I've talked to prosecutors in Canada over the past several years and they have stressed to me they don't believe they have sufficient sanctions against those involved in trafficking," Walters said. "The law in some provinces is that unless you actually commit a violent crime against another individual, the tendency is for you not to get serious jail time."

He said the same trafficking crimes bring serious consequences in the United States and traffickers are often prosecuted under conspiracy and money-laundering laws because they often do not get their hands dirty in the actual transit of drugs where the violence occurs. U.S. courts often impose mandatory minimum sentences — a practice Walters acknowledged is controversial — but a measure he said was needed to hold accountable "those who cause pain. "Without the ability to use more extensive enforcement pressure, they (Canadian authorities) are concerned about how this will continue to grow," he said.

Last weekend, The New York Times published an extensive article chronicling the flow of so-called "B.C. Bud," a high-potency Canadian-grown marijuana now much in demand in the U.S. and Europe, across the British Columbia-Washington border. The newspaper pegged the value of the Canadian cultivation and smuggling operation at $7 billion per year and Walters called the B.C. pot "dangerous and addictive." Walters said the THC content in typical marijuana found in the United States over the past five years has gone from one to two per cent to a THC content of eight to nine per cent. THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is the active ingredient in marijuana that creates the "buzz" users seek. Some varieties go up to 14 to 15 per cent THC level and some specially cultivated pot grown in Canada can offer THC levels of 25 to 30 per cent, Walters said.

Walters stressed that marijuana cannot be classed as a "soft drug" as it was in decades past. "Of the 7 million people we have to treat in the United States, from the age of 12 and up, for dependence or abuse, over 60 per cent have marijuana as their primary dependence," he said. Of the 5 million Americans aged 12-17 who use marijuana, he said, already 1 million are at the point where they need intervention or treatment. "That is not the way marijuana use was a decade ago, a few decades ago. That's why the ignorance of people who think this is not a drug you have to be concerned about is a problem." Walters said the main repercussion for both countries is the health and well-being of its youth, but he said the Canadian drug traffic has forced the U.S. to institute heavier border surveillance at a time when the two countries should be working toward freeing restraints at the border to try to speed commerce between the two nations, he said.
Posted by: tipper || 03/14/2005 8:59:54 AM || Comments || Link || [11127 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Drug dependency? Is that anything like the Money dependency the anti-drug profiteers, the RICO-seizure-fattened police departments and the bloated prison guards unions are addicted to?
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/14/2005 9:53 Comments || Top||

#2  Anything you want more of make illegal. We learned that in Prohibition. Harry Anslinger I hope you enjoy hell. This fraud of yours has cost more lives and treasure than if we would have just left things alone back then, you lying bastard.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O’ Doom || 03/14/2005 9:59 Comments || Top||

#3  marijuana... has gone from one to two per cent to a THC content of eight to nine per cent. THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is the active ingredient in marijuana that creates the "buzz" users seek. Some varieties go up to 14 to 15 per cent THC level and some specially cultivated pot grown in Canada can offer THC levels of 25 to 30 per cent, Walters said.

This sounds to me like a pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 10:15 Comments || Top||

#4  Sounds to me like we're going to be picking a lot of fights with Kanuckistan.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 10:24 Comments || Top||

#5  It's not BS Sobiesky, and you may taker that from an expert since 1972. :)
Posted by: Half || 03/14/2005 12:39 Comments || Top||

#6  Half,

#1 1-2% is a rope hemp. It's not pot. From good sources I were told that smokin' that would result in a headache, nothing more. I can't comment on that, because I and pot simply are not on the same page, but I trust my source. This means that the 1-2% figure is used for an effect to make impression that the potency multiplied many times over years. Not true.

#2 From different other sources, I got that average THC content increased since 1970's only marginally. The figures ~9% and ~13% correspond to 2 common varieties. Those are higher quality figures, average stuff is about 4.5% and 8.5%.

#3 Also, from reliable sources, the 25-30% is Walters' fantasy, designed to scare public witless. Like... Boo

I don't dispute that there may be some effects, the term pothead did have a reason to pop into common use, I guess.

What I object to is untruths, unintentional or more likely in this case, deliberate.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 13:15 Comments || Top||

#7  This is a geopolitical power struggle that TRANSCENDS truth, Sobiesky. :P[/only half-joking]
Posted by: Edward Yee || 03/14/2005 13:19 Comments || Top||

#8  Gotta disagree with you Sobiesky. The numbers are accurate. And growers in northern California are importing the seeds to increase potency of the stuff grown here, too.
Posted by: Unagum Elmang5856 || 03/14/2005 13:23 Comments || Top||

#9  Oh, so you did test it for content, Unagum?

I did check several sampling test comparisons and some stats from different sources.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 13:38 Comments || Top||

#10  OTOH, if the figures produce a good placebo effect, by all means, go for it. Am done here.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 13:44 Comments || Top||

#11  ima like done all my tests inderpently.
Posted by: Half || 03/14/2005 14:17 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
WaPo Managing Editor: "I don't think US should be the leader of the world"
Well, well, well. Another LLL idiot who opened his mouth thinking no one would ever know...
Yong Tang: In such sense, do you think America should be the leader of the world?

Bennett: No, I don't think US should be the leader of the world. My job is helping my readers trying to understand what is happening now. What is happening now is very difficult to understand. The world is very complex. There are various complex forces occurring in it. I don't think you can imagine a world where one country or one group of people could lead everybody else. I can't imagine that could happen. I also think it is unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world. People in other countries don't want to be led by foreign countries. They may want to have good relations with it or they may want to share with what is good in that country.

That is also a sort of colonial question. The world has gone through colonialism and imperialism. We have seen the danger and shortcomings of those systems. If we are heading into another period of imperialism where the US thinks itself as the leader of the area and its interest should prevail over all other interests of its neighbors and others, then I think the world will be in an unhappy period.

Yong Tang: How do you think of the roles American mainstream media play in American foreign policy?

Bennett: We have a little bit different roles in newspapers compared with our counterparts in Europe and other countries. We don't have any political point of view that we are trying to advance. We don't represent any political parties. We are not tied to any political movement. On the news side of the paper we try not to give opinions. So I think the role the Washington Post should play is to hold the government accountable for decisions made by it.

This goes to foreign policy as well. For example, the Washington Post has a correspondent bureau in Baghdad. One of the jobs of our correspondents in Baghdad is to tell our readers what the Bush administration is trying to hide. Bush says democracy is advancing in Iraq, but our correspondents say the situation there is much more complex than that. Our job is to put that in the public domain and challenge the government and hold them accountable. We do that by having independent reporting about events, by telling our readers what the actual situation is, with as much independence, fairness and accuracy as we can.

RTWT - it gets better.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski || 03/14/2005 00:00:00 AM || Comments || Link || [11128 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "We donÕt have any political point of view that we are trying to advance."

The simultaneous twang from several gazillion broken harp strings must've been deafening...
Posted by: PBMcL || 03/14/2005 0:27 Comments || Top||

#2  Bush says democracy is advancing in Iraq, but our correspondents say the situation there is much more complex than that.

Uh huh. Apparently, the situation on the ground can be explained away by his correspondents, all from the comfort of a hotel room.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 03/14/2005 0:31 Comments || Top||

#3  This is amazing (and of course unsurprising) stuff. Deserving of a "blogswarm".

The fundamental ignorance and warped perspective is on classic display here. He's concerned "US interests" will prevail. You know, stuff that would be bad for others: free trade, human rights, democratic governance, rule of law, states not swallowing up neighbors a la 1990 Kuwait, genocide being stopped. A veritable catalog of nightmares for "others".

Meanwhile, we're working overtime here trying to "hide" things in Iraq. That is, when we're not trying to find out for ourselves what's going on. Sheesh.

How do people with this sophomoric, cartoonish misunderstanding of the world have adult jobs, much less positions helping provide information to the rest of us?

(rhetorical question .... but it first occurred to me through direct experience about two decades ago, and my befuddlement has only grown)
Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq || 03/14/2005 1:15 Comments || Top||

#4  We don’t have any political point of view that we are trying to advance.
Except Liberalism
We don’t represent any political parties.
Except the Democrats
We are not tied to any political movement.
Except the Socialism and collectivism

The record of his paper reinforces the rejoinders, not his word.

This guy is so full of crap its flowin out his mouth. Such bald-faced lies on the public record. Does he really believe it? How did he manage to say that with a straight face?
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:17 Comments || Top||

#5  "How do people with this sophomoric, cartoonish misunderstanding of the world have adult jobs, much less positions helping provide information to the rest of us?"

That's easy they are hired by clueless losers just like themselves. That is how this clueless culture and political asshatery gets perpetuated.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 03/14/2005 1:21 Comments || Top||

#6  B-a-r : Please se my remark to Sobiesky about Jimmy Carter's skull as a comment to an article about Chavez (Ven) seizure of land elsewhere on RB today...

It applies to Iraq correspondents in general, and "Bozo" Bennett in particular...
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 5:54 Comments || Top||

#7  The Angry/Failed Left is doing its best to appear as prim and proper, quiet Betty Crocker-crats - the "Blame the USA/Dubya" rhetoric is intensifying, a sure and sure-er sign that something might happen soon, prob this summer. I hope you boyz and girlz are buying those guns and survival gear.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/14/2005 6:46 Comments || Top||

#8  WOW! He's so full of shit I bet his eyes are brown.
Posted by: Deacon Blues || 03/14/2005 7:29 Comments || Top||

#9  This guy is about as smart as Lynndie England. He deserves the same fate.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 03/14/2005 8:12 Comments || Top||

#10  OS - you left out Transnational Progressive.
Posted by: Snung Snuth2112 || 03/14/2005 12:17 Comments || Top||

#11  I don’t think US should be the leader of the world.

I don't think commie asslickers like you should retain their US citizenship.
Posted by: Chris W. || 03/14/2005 12:42 Comments || Top||

#12  We don’t have any political point of view that we are trying to advance.
Except Liberalism
We don’t represent any political parties.
Except the Democrats
We are not tied to any political movement.
Except the Socialism and collectivism

The record of his paper reinforces the rejoinders, not his word.

This guy is so full of crap its flowin out his mouth. Such bald-faced lies on the public record. Does he really believe it? How did he manage to say that with a straight face?
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:17 Comments || Top||

#13  We don’t have any political point of view that we are trying to advance.
Except Liberalism
We don’t represent any political parties.
Except the Democrats
We are not tied to any political movement.
Except the Socialism and collectivism

The record of his paper reinforces the rejoinders, not his word.

This guy is so full of crap its flowin out his mouth. Such bald-faced lies on the public record. Does he really believe it? How did he manage to say that with a straight face?
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:17 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
FoxNews: Pentagon Mail Tests Positive For Anthrax
No link yet. Will update.
Posted by: .com || 03/14/2005 5:49:39 PM || Comments || Link || [11130 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Original report:
Material at Pentagon's Remote Delivery Facility (RDF) Tests Positive for Anthrax.

Second test comes back negative...

So it might be a false alarm
Posted by: .com || 03/14/2005 17:56 Comments || Top||

#2  Whichever editor comes across this, or whoever wants it: here's a link.

.com: Why'd you post it to page 3? If it is a terrorist attack, wouldn't it fall under page 1?
Posted by: Phil Fraering || 03/14/2005 19:50 Comments || Top||

#3  Initial testing methods lead to lots of false positives. Rather be wrong in that direction than in the other.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 03/14/2005 20:30 Comments || Top||


Sikh girl to join US army in Iraq
An India-born Sikh teenager from California is among the women who are set to trade their makeup kits for an M-16 rifle so as to join the US military in Iraq. Nineteen-year old Ranbir Kaur is a part-time college student from the San Joaquin Valley town of Earlimart in California. By summer's end, she expects to put her textbooks aside and serve as a supply clerk in Iraq. It was the limits of life in a sedate San Joaquin Valley farm town that spurred Kaur to join the California National Guard in late 2002, two days after her 17th birthday and more than a year before she graduated from Delano High. The $3,000 bonus she got for enlisting was yet another important factor. The daughter of Sikh grape farmers, Kaur emigrated at age seven from India to the Bay Area, then moved to Earlimart, a dusty burg of 6,600, about 40 miles from Bakersfield, 70 miles from Fresno.
Thank you, Lioness, and stay safe!
Posted by: Steve White || 03/14/2005 00:00:00 || Comments || Link || [11124 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The Sikhs have a long military tradition and like the Hindus are relaxed about women having careers.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 0:06 Comments || Top||

#2  Sikhs are badasses - warrior society at its basis in order to defend thier right to worship as they please against all others in thier region. They taught their women and children miltary and martial arts throughout history.

I presume they keep this tradition.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:10 Comments || Top||

#3 





On December 1, 2003 Sergeant Uday Singh, a 21 years old Sikh, Punjabi, Indian, Asian American sacrificed his life for his adopted country, USA

http://www.sikhamerican.org/UdaySingh/index.htm

http://www.sikhamerican.org/UdaySingh/arlington.htm
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 2:22 Comments || Top||

#4  Many Sikhs live and prosper in Kern County. They are pretty well intigrated. Like alot of rural kids in our county entering the military is an normal part of becoming and adult.
Posted by: FlameBait || 03/14/2005 2:45 Comments || Top||

#5  little bit of history on Sikhs and British army .

The end paragraph sums it up for me..

"As a legacy Sikhs were encouraged to settle in the UK and today they form a responsible and vibrant part of contemporary society."

*cheer*
Posted by: MacNails || 03/14/2005 5:48 Comments || Top||

#6  Go Sikh 'em, girl.
Posted by: Jackal || 03/14/2005 8:51 Comments || Top||

#7  You go, girl!

Immigrants from India seem to be doing well here, both benefiting and contributing. Good to have them.
Posted by: too true || 03/14/2005 8:57 Comments || Top||

#8  I have never heard of any problems from Sihks unless someone was really messing with them. They are not the types to imagine or exagerate their victimhood nor do they seem to see conspiracies whereever they look. They integrate nicely whereever they are found.

Methinks there is another community who could learn a big lesson from them and the Hindus too.

I wonder why our supposedly hostile society has no problems with any other creed except for the you know who's. Funny isn't it? Couldn't possibly be because they act like assholes. Nah, it's us that has the problem. Riiiiiight!

Posted by: peggy || 03/14/2005 9:24 Comments || Top||

#9  Now the terrs are really screwed. A Sikh with PMS.

peggy, they did kill Indira Ghandi, I think.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 03/14/2005 11:36 Comments || Top||

#10  Yes, her Sikh bodyguard turned on Indira after she ordered a 'Waco' style assault upon their most holy site. Ooops.
Posted by: Snung Snuth2112 || 03/14/2005 12:15 Comments || Top||

#11  A British Sikh Regiment?
http://www.sikhreview.org/september2001/diaspora.htm
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/14/2005 13:25 Comments || Top||

#12 
Ranbir Kaur
Gutsy Lady
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 14:11 Comments || Top||

#13  How sad will it be for the bad guyz to be beaten by a pretty, young grrrl like her? Even if she does start out as a supply clerk.
Interestingly, there are a bunch of Sikh kids at T. Daughter's tae kwan do school, both boys and girls. They all take it pretty seriously, too. Miss Kaur may no longer be a curiosity in a few years :-D
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/14/2005 22:07 Comments || Top||

#14  Sikhs are badasses - warrior society at its basis in order to defend thier right to worship as they please against all others in thier region. They taught their women and children miltary and martial arts throughout history.

I presume they keep this tradition.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:10 Comments || Top||

#15  Sikhs are badasses - warrior society at its basis in order to defend thier right to worship as they please against all others in thier region. They taught their women and children miltary and martial arts throughout history.

I presume they keep this tradition.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:10 Comments || Top||


New Toys for trouble.
How To: Building a BlueSniper Rifle — Part 1
Watching the news these past few weeks, you would think that hackers have taken over our cellphones. Photo of BlueSniper RifleFrom the Paris Hilton phone hack (which was not Bluetooth-based), to the unintentional release of Fred Durst's (from the band Limp Bizkit) sex video - Wireless security has been thrust into the limelight. The proliferation of Bluetooth devices has made wireless communications easy and the Bluetooth group wants you to believe that this technology is safe from hackers. However, the guys from Flexilis, a wireless think-tank based in Los Angeles, beg to differ and they have a big freakin gun to "voice" their opinions. The gun, which is called the BlueSniper rifle, can scan and attack Bluetooth devices from more than a mile away. The first version of the gun showed up at Defcon 2004, a hacker/computer security convention held annually in Las Vegas. You can read about it in Tom's Hardware show coverage report.
That's because you're not allowed to have anything that's convenient unless the Hacker Boyz say so, and they won't.
Oh, please sit on roof tops with this BlueSniper rifle. It won't draw any attention at all. snicker
Posted by: 3dc || 03/14/2005 00:00:00 AM || Comments || Link || [11144 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The "hacker" boys are doing everyone a great favor - they are doing what they always have done: show weaknesses in the system.

Its up to you if you want to trade your privacy for convenience.

Dont blame the hackers - blame the idiots in corporate management that scrimped on security and pushed the standard through without it - despite warnings from many security professionals about it.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:13 Comments || Top||

#2  Oh - and use the term properly: a "hacker" is not some evil rodent type bent on stealing. Thats a Mainstream Media misconception and continued misrepresentation.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:14 Comments || Top||

#3  Give him willies, OldSpook! ;-)

3dc, hackers are the white hats. I am kinda hacker too. Boo.

Crackers, phreakers and phishers are the black hats.

Hope you stand corrected now and would err no more!
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 1:53 Comments || Top||

#4  If you want it private you better encript it. There is a reason I use CAT5 and not "wireless" The security sucks. But all those companies selling wireless gear don't tell you that. They want you to plug and paly and forget.

It's stupid. I'll shop for stuff without Bluetooth for damn sure. It's a selling point. Crackers just love to snoop and own you.

Hackers wrote the operating system you are using and the aoolication you are running. Don't confuse hackers(white hats) and crakcers (black hats.)
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom || 03/14/2005 2:12 Comments || Top||

#5  Especially when some of those white hats become "grey" because they don a black hat "for Net and Nation" [used to be King and Country].

You guys really dont know even 1/10th of it or even what area its in ;-).
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 4:18 Comments || Top||

#6  Area 51?
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 4:46 Comments || Top||

#7  Higher number. And thats all Im saying. Anything more would get me into trouble.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 5:15 Comments || Top||

#8  I would be worried if the Government weren't hiring Hackers to snoop. If I wanted to keep anything private I wouldn't put it on a computer thats for damn sure.

There is no gray there OldSpook. It a job and someone qualified has to do it. Are friends and enemies sure as hell are doing it.

Remember the first computer was used to crack codes. Yea the real first computer the one invented by England. Hacking and espionage have been keeping company for a long, long time.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 03/14/2005 5:41 Comments || Top||

#9  He can say no more...

Spooks!
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 7:41 Comments || Top||

#10  I don't know diddly about your substantive point, OS, but a kind of Gresham's Law applies to words. "Hacker" has misappropriated by thieves and vandals, so outside of MIT, that's what the word means any more. It's like "liberal" or "gay;" the bad usage drives out the good.
Posted by: Jackal || 03/14/2005 8:56 Comments || Top||

#11  Yea but Crackers are still the gay.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O’ Doom || 03/14/2005 9:00 Comments || Top||

#12  Unfortunately the MSM has pretty much killed the true meaning of 'hacker' ever since they started reporting about the 'evil internet'.

At this point I dont think that's a battle we can win. I think we can do more good putting our energy to informing people the true nature of the enemy (and Islam).
Posted by: CrazyFool || 03/14/2005 9:23 Comments || Top||

#13  Gay, Islamofascist, Crackers.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O’ Doom || 03/14/2005 9:30 Comments || Top||

#14  I buy nothing online,if I see something online I want I call the company.
Posted by: raptor || 03/14/2005 10:32 Comments || Top||

#15  Heck, I don't even use a computer. All my interaction with Rantburg is done telepathically.
Posted by: Pappy || 03/14/2005 11:08 Comments || Top||

#16  Hey, us crackers resent that. As I said to my wife the other day "Mom..."

OS, pay no attention to the extra charge on the Mastercard this month. Pr0n is getting more expensive than ever.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 03/14/2005 11:43 Comments || Top||

#17  Old Spook, I did a direct quote from the article. Sorry if the article's use of hacker troubled you.
BTW... its the first BlueTooth stuff that looks interesting.
This is a good starting place for the WiFi Stuff

A buddy doing research for some of his security software put a slotted waveguide antenna and laptop in his car then drove the short distance from South Barrington IL to Schaumburg IL. He got over 1000 unsecured WIFI LAN hits.
Posted by: 3dc || 03/14/2005 12:28 Comments || Top||

#18 
graffitti antenna and Wifi Wallpaper
Posted by: 3dc || 03/14/2005 12:42 Comments || Top||

#19  If it wasn't for my neighbors unsecured wireless I wouldn't have an internet connection at all!
Posted by: Gir || 03/14/2005 12:59 Comments || Top||

#20  Unsecured WiFi is so commonplace that its cesed to be something to look for in urban and suburban areas. If you need it, you can find it.

As for who does what, figure out which agency knows the most about signals propagation...

See which agency is tasked with COMSEC.

Look up which agency is known for its Computer Science (and yes this dates back to partnerships wth Bletchley), for instance who had the Cray invented for them...

which agency knows how to secure things crypto style...

And even now, which agencey is responsible for the most secure free oprating system around (SE-Linux) to keep US business secrets in the hands of US Businesses only...

Funny how those lead you to the same place...

And I wonder if anyone there bitched about Bluetooth?

Hint - Bluetooth was done mainly in Euro, and certain "unofficial" US sources from a particular agency complained about the lack of security in the design of Bluetooth, only to be told they were paranoid...


'nuf said.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 14:09 Comments || Top||

#21  OS - I'm afraid to comment on your entries because, if I reveal that I comprehend what you're saying, I may be visited by some black helicopters 'round about midnight!
Posted by: Dar || 03/14/2005 14:24 Comments || Top||

#22  Yeah, OS, but we unsophisticated Merkins aren't as advanced as all those Euros who IM and Bluetooth everything. I read it in the International Herald Tribune - must be true.
Posted by: too true || 03/14/2005 14:24 Comments || Top||

#23  Actually, because of the antenna's power lobes (spiky, front and back), being real close to it (like say, looking through the scope) while the xmitter is on is definitely contraindicated....
Posted by: mojo || 03/14/2005 15:09 Comments || Top||

#24  I think I smell a Darwin award winner somewhere in this technology's future - courtesy of some local SWAT team.
Posted by: Lone Ranger || 03/14/2005 21:48 Comments || Top||

#25  The "hacker" boys are doing everyone a great favor - they are doing what they always have done: show weaknesses in the system.

Its up to you if you want to trade your privacy for convenience.

Dont blame the hackers - blame the idiots in corporate management that scrimped on security and pushed the standard through without it - despite warnings from many security professionals about it.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:13 Comments || Top||

#26  Oh - and use the term properly: a "hacker" is not some evil rodent type bent on stealing. Thats a Mainstream Media misconception and continued misrepresentation.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:14 Comments || Top||

#27  Especially when some of those white hats become "grey" because they don a black hat "for Net and Nation" [used to be King and Country].

You guys really dont know even 1/10th of it or even what area its in ;-).
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 4:18 Comments || Top||

#28  Higher number. And thats all Im saying. Anything more would get me into trouble.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 5:15 Comments || Top||

#29  Unsecured WiFi is so commonplace that its cesed to be something to look for in urban and suburban areas. If you need it, you can find it.

As for who does what, figure out which agency knows the most about signals propagation...

See which agency is tasked with COMSEC.

Look up which agency is known for its Computer Science (and yes this dates back to partnerships wth Bletchley), for instance who had the Cray invented for them...

which agency knows how to secure things crypto style...

And even now, which agencey is responsible for the most secure free oprating system around (SE-Linux) to keep US business secrets in the hands of US Businesses only...

Funny how those lead you to the same place...

And I wonder if anyone there bitched about Bluetooth?

Hint - Bluetooth was done mainly in Euro, and certain "unofficial" US sources from a particular agency complained about the lack of security in the design of Bluetooth, only to be told they were paranoid...


'nuf said.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 14:09 Comments || Top||

#30  The "hacker" boys are doing everyone a great favor - they are doing what they always have done: show weaknesses in the system.

Its up to you if you want to trade your privacy for convenience.

Dont blame the hackers - blame the idiots in corporate management that scrimped on security and pushed the standard through without it - despite warnings from many security professionals about it.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:13 Comments || Top||

#31  Oh - and use the term properly: a "hacker" is not some evil rodent type bent on stealing. Thats a Mainstream Media misconception and continued misrepresentation.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 1:14 Comments || Top||

#32  Especially when some of those white hats become "grey" because they don a black hat "for Net and Nation" [used to be King and Country].

You guys really dont know even 1/10th of it or even what area its in ;-).
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 4:18 Comments || Top||

#33  Higher number. And thats all Im saying. Anything more would get me into trouble.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 5:15 Comments || Top||

#34  Unsecured WiFi is so commonplace that its cesed to be something to look for in urban and suburban areas. If you need it, you can find it.

As for who does what, figure out which agency knows the most about signals propagation...

See which agency is tasked with COMSEC.

Look up which agency is known for its Computer Science (and yes this dates back to partnerships wth Bletchley), for instance who had the Cray invented for them...

which agency knows how to secure things crypto style...

And even now, which agencey is responsible for the most secure free oprating system around (SE-Linux) to keep US business secrets in the hands of US Businesses only...

Funny how those lead you to the same place...

And I wonder if anyone there bitched about Bluetooth?

Hint - Bluetooth was done mainly in Euro, and certain "unofficial" US sources from a particular agency complained about the lack of security in the design of Bluetooth, only to be told they were paranoid...


'nuf said.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/14/2005 14:09 Comments || Top||


International-UN-NGOs
A terrifying envoy for the UN to handle: he tells the truth
Posted by: tipper || 03/14/2005 09:17 || Comments || Link || [11128 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Bolton’s real sin is to see the UN for what it is: an assembly of representatives of all world governments — some of which are democratic, some autocratic, and some of which are outright kleptomaniac, genocidal dictators.


(Hat Tip Rush; it was his description)
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 13:20 Comments || Top||


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Female Race Car Driver in Iran! - And She's Attractive
Woman racer upsets testosterone-driven Iran

I want to give a Hat Tip to Steve White on this - Saw the Sikh Army recruit in the Yahoo Women section, and went to look for middle-eastern women fighting the good fight upstream. BINGO!

Mon Mar 14,10:55 AM ET

TEHRAN (AFP) - When behind the wheel, Iranian women have to put up with all sorts of verbal abuse from the testosterone-charged types that dominate the Islamic republic's highways -- such as being told to tend to a washing machine rather than a car.


And you guys go stick those nuclear reactor rods where the sun don't shine

But Iran's women drivers, most of whom are clearly ill at ease navigating the anarchic road network, now have a national idol: a young woman nicknamed "Little Schumacher".

Laleh Seddigh, 28, is fast emerging as one of Iran's foremost race car drivers, leaving the best of the men racers behind in her saloon car.

Go get 'em!

"Resistance from men does not bother me," Seddigh told AFP at a recent track race event held at Tehran's Azadi stadium. "Once I get on the track I like to use my technical skills, take control and dominate the other drivers."

At the race, the petite woman racer caused yet another upset by beating off her fellow 12 Proton teammates -- all of whom are men -- much to the delight of the small group of female fans watching from their part of the segregated stadium.

You know, if some smart promoter were to get her out of there... however the Savage Magic Mullahs may take revenge...

"In Iran, whenever there is a traffic jam and there is a woman in it, the male drivers ridicule her and blame only her," noted Nazanin, a 22-year-old race fan. "It's a relief to see there is someone like Laleh."

"It is not only her high level of self-confidence," explained her trainer Saeed A'rabian, himself a former national champion. "She is extremely talented and has got a very nice style."

Pretty girl beats those grubby boys? But the prophet says Allah won't let that happen. How could it be?

Until Seddigh became a professional driver three years ago, she was just one of the many relatively wealthy young people who cruise and race around town -- breaking several bones and earning the nickname of "little Schumacher" after the German Formula One champion Michael.

She learned how to drive at the age of just 13, and admits to having "snatched the car keys and sneaked out of the house, always in fear of police" before she got her driving license.

Rascal!

At her day job Seddigh works as a managing director of a trade company that produces spare car parts, but full-time racing beckons with sponsorship offers from Proton, Mazda and Hyundai.

But keeping afloat in the male-dominated sport is still not plain sailing for Seddigh.

"The last time I won a race, people were gossiping. They said my victory was fixed. Even some women in the carting and rally scene doubt my success," Seddigh recounted.

Yeah, and so was Babe Didrickson high jumping in the 1920s

"And every time I want to practice or make a test drive, the track staff ask me for a letter of permission -- even though I am the captain of the Proton speed team. Men never have this kind of hassle."

Miss Seddigh, one day they will be very unhappy they hassled you... BELIEVE me!

And then there is the conservative state television's coverage of her wins: even though Seddigh pulls a poncho over her tight race overalls before taking the winners' podium, pictures of her holding a trophy are for some reason censored.

Again - Pretty girl beats those grubby boys? But the prophet says Allah won't let that happen. How could it be?



Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 4:17:13 PM || Comments || Link || [11133 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Thanks for the compliment. Can you arrange a date for me with this fine young woman? Strictly platonic, of course, I just want to see how she, um, drives.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/14/2005 16:37 Comments || Top||

#2  She looks like she has the whole package: very pretty and probably meaner than a snake.
Posted by: badanov || 03/14/2005 16:44 Comments || Top||

#3  Look close. Is that still a chadoor she has on?
Posted by: DO || 03/14/2005 16:45 Comments || Top||

#4  Yes, DO, after all, it is still the law for women to wear those around the sexually repressed Magic Mullahs....
Posted by: BigEd || 03/14/2005 16:50 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
Crybaby UAW vs US Marines
After being allowed to use a parking lot at United Auto Workers headquarters for years, Marine reservists who drive foreign vehicles or display pro-President Bush bumper stickers are being asked to go elsewhere. The union, which has offices near a Marine Corps Reserve Center, is drawing some criticism from the Marines. But the UAW, which has a history of barring foreign-made cars from its lots, says it is justified in its requests.

"While reservists certainly have the right to drive nonunion made vehicles and display bumper stickers touting the most anti-worker, anti-union president since the 1920s, that doesn't mean they have the right to park in a lot owned by the members of the UAW," the union said in a statement.

Lt. Col. Joe Rutledge, commanding officer of the battalion's active duty instructors, told The Detroit News for a Sunday story that no conditions were set when the Marines were first allowed to park in the lot. "You either support the Marines or you don't," Rutledge said. "I'm telling my Marines that they're no longer parking there." Semper Fi Colonel
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reports that the CO received a call from UAW President Ron Gettelfinger (a former Marine) who told him that he just reversed the policy. (Think that Rutledge will change his mind? I doubt it. What childish drivel from the UAW.)

Posted by: GK || 03/14/2005 5:25:23 PM || Comments || Link || [11139 views] Top|| File under:

#1  To quote someone at ar15.com . . . 'maybe they should park one of the M1A2's over there. Snug it around the lot looking for just the right space . . .' Just the thing to give the UAW a view of their place in the world, tear up the lot, maybe make a speedbump out of the poorly union-made vehicles sitting on their lot.
Posted by: Jame Retief || 03/14/2005 19:13 Comments || Top||

#2  Changed his mind? Too hot in the kitchen, Ron? Didn't lean anything about honor, duty or country while you were a Marine? I hope my son comes away with more!

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your groin!
Posted by: Bobby || 03/14/2005 22:42 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Tech
Does Airbus Have a Rudder Problem???
EFL...Hat tip Instapundit

At 35 000 feet above the Caribbean, Air Transat flight 961 was heading home to Quebec with 270 passengers and crew. At 3.45pm last Sunday, the pilot noticed something very unusual. His Airbus A310's rudder -- a structure over 8m high -- had fallen off and tumbled into the sea. In the world of aviation, the shock waves have yet to subside.

Mercifully, the crew was able to turn the plane around, and by steering it with their wing and tail flaps managed to land at their point of departure in Varadero, Cuba, without loss of life. But as Canadian investigators try to discover what caused this near catastrophe, the specialist internet bulletin boards used by pilots, accident investigators and engineers are buzzing.

One former Airbus pilot, who now flies Boeings for a major United States airline, told The Observer: "This just isn't supposed to happen. No one I know has ever seen an airliner's rudder disintegrate like that. It raises worrying questions about the materials and build of the aircraft, and about its maintenance and inspection regime. We have to ask as things stand, would evidence of this type of deterioration ever be noticed before an incident like this in the air?"

He and his colleagues also believe that what happened may shed new light on a previous disaster. In November 2001, 265 people died when American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus A300 model which is almost identical to the A310, crashed shortly after take-off from JFK airport in New York. According to the official report into the crash, the immediate cause was the loss of the plane's rudder and tailfin, though this was blamed on an error by the pilots.

There have been other non-fatal incidents. One came in 2002 when a FedEx A300 freight pilot complained about strange "uncommanded inputs" -- rudder movements which the plane was making without his moving his control pedals. In FedEx's own test on the rudder on the ground, engineers claimed its "acuators" -- the hydraulic system which causes the rudder to move -- tore a large hole around its hinges, in exactly the spot where the rudders of both flight 961 and flight 587 parted company from the rest of the aircraft.

On Sunday night Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesperson for the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which conducted the flight 587 investigation, said that the board was "closely monitoring" the Canadian inquiry for its possible bearing on the New York crash. "We need to know why the rudder separated from the aircraft before knowing whether maintenance is an issue," he added.

Airbus -- Europe's biggest manufacturing company, to which British factories contribute major components, including aircraft wings -- has now overtaken Boeing to command the biggest share of the global airliner market. In sales literature to operators, it described the A300 series as a "regional death? profit machine".

The firm recently launched its superjumbo, the two-storey A380, which is due in service next year. Like earlier Airbus models, this relies heavily on "composite" synthetic materials which are both lighter -- and, in theory, stronger -- than aluminium or steel. Fins, flaps and rudders are made of a similar composite on the A300 and A310, of which there are about 800 in service all over the world.

Composites are made of hundreds of layers of carbon fibre sheeting stuck together with epoxy resin. Each layer is only strong along the grain of the fibre. Aircraft engineers need to work out from which directions loads will come, then lay the sheets in a complex, criss-cross pattern. If they get this wrong, a big or unexpected load might cause a plane part to fail.

It is vital there are no kinks or folds as the layers are laid, and no gaps in their resin coating. Holes between the layers can rapidly cause extensive "delamination" and a loss of stiffness and strength.

Airbus, together with aviation authorities on both sides of the Atlantic, insists that any deterioration of a composite part can be detected by external, visual inspection, a regular feature of Airbus maintenance programmes, but other experts disagree.

In an article published after the flight 587 crash, Professor James Williams of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's leading authorities in this field, said that to rely on visual inspection was "a lamentably naive policy. It is analogous to assessing whether a woman has breast cancer by simply looking at her family portrait."

More at the article. I know there's a lot of pilots on RB...what do you ladies & gents make of this?
Posted by: Desert Blondie || 03/14/2005 10:27:25 AM || Comments || Link || [11131 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Its a known issue on boards like airliners.net. Major issue of some big flame wars there too. Most of the threads I've seen on the subject say they believe its an Airbus manufacturing problem rather than a maintenance problem.
Posted by: Valentine || 03/14/2005 11:01 Comments || Top||

#2  Varadero, Cuba? Serves them right -- I'll bet some Cubano stole the nuts 'n bolts to repair his '56 Chevy Taxi.
Posted by: .com || 03/14/2005 11:08 Comments || Top||

#3  Another reason to fly Boeing.
Posted by: RWV || 03/14/2005 11:16 Comments || Top||

#4  If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going. At least that's what they used to say.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/14/2005 11:21 Comments || Top||

#5  Unless it's the old Boeing 737. First Boeing with the rudder problems, now Airbus. If people were meant to fly....
Posted by: Rafael || 03/14/2005 11:28 Comments || Top||

#6  First Boeing with the rudder problems, now Airbus.

With the 737 it was uncommanded rudder movements, instead of totally breaking off...

This development should give Boeing some pause to get their processes and inspection routines all ironed out; the 787 is going to employ widespread use of composites.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 03/14/2005 12:57 Comments || Top||

#7  I'm not a pilot, but as a passenger I can tell you that it really annoys me when parts of the plane start falling off. And don't try to make up for it by tossing me an extra bag of peanuts.
Posted by: Matt || 03/14/2005 13:00 Comments || Top||

#8  Matt, you hush and stay in your seat. Be happy in your flying.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 03/14/2005 13:26 Comments || Top||

#9  Boeing Aircraft are built to take a punch. May I remind the readers of the Aloha Airlines "Sunroof Special" and the 747 that lost its cargo door over the Pacific only to return to hawaii, even with a big gaping hole in its side? Think the Airbus can take an equal beating and keep on flying? Hardly.The Concorde went down because of a little bit of FOD.

Dont think for a second that all those years of building B-17's and B-29s didnt help add a bit to the engineering discipline in that company.

Ive always been suspicious of the NY Nov 2001 airbus crash, I could not for the life of me understand how that got tagged as "pilot error". This story just confirms my supicions.
Posted by: Frank Martin || 03/14/2005 14:29 Comments || Top||

#10  When I fly, I never sleep. Because I KNOW if I don't watch, then engines will fall off.
Posted by: Brett || 03/14/2005 14:44 Comments || Top||

#11  I've seen gremlins on the wings
Posted by: Willliam Shatner || 03/14/2005 14:55 Comments || Top||

#12  "... an extra bag of peanuts."

They don't give peanuts anymore, just pretzels. :-(
Posted by: Xbalanke || 03/14/2005 15:01 Comments || Top||

#13  Did you see the Dinosaurs a couple weeks later Bill?
Posted by: Shipman || 03/14/2005 16:54 Comments || Top||

#14  You need the peanuts so you can give them to the gremlins...
Posted by: Phil Fraering || 03/14/2005 19:51 Comments || Top||

#15  Yeah, cause everybody KNOWS dinosaurs can't eat peanuts.

The shells get stuck in their teeth and some of them are allergic ....
Posted by: too true || 03/14/2005 20:13 Comments || Top||


Africa: Subsaharan
NZ seeks release of Ivorian 'spy'
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has asked the UK to help one of its nationals held by Ivorian rebels, as it has no diplomats there. The man's sister has also appealed for him to be released unharmed. The New Forces picked up Brian Hamish Thomas Sands heading to their northern Bouake stronghold and accuse him of planning to assassinate their leaders. The rebels, which have run Ivory Coast's north since a 2002 rebellion, refuse to hand him over to UN troops. The New Forces said the New Zealander had told them he had served in the French Foreign Legion between 1986 and 1994 and had been in contact with senior Ivorian government officials. But Foreign Minister Phil Goff said the man's family said he had suffered mental health problems and may have invented some of the information the rebels had about him.
Read one too many SOF magazines

"We have seen suggestions in the media that the rebels might execute he person as a government spy. We've passed that information on to the Foreign and Commonwealth office," Ms Clark said. According to the deputy commander of the rebel movement, Issiaka Ouattara or Wattao, Mr Thomas' mission was to assassinate the New Forces political leader Guillaume Soro as well as the military commander, Colonel Soumaila Bakayoko. Mr Wattao told the BBC's James Copnall in Abidjan that Mr Thomas was picked up on the southern approach to Bouake, wearing a flak jacket and carrying a GPS tracking system. The New Forces rebels say he was carrying telephone numbers for government forces, as well as mercenary companies. A presidential spokesman has denied any knowledge of Mr Thomas, and said they had no wish to kill Mr Soro or Colonel Bakayoko.

The fate of the man is uncertain. Mr Wattao said the New Forces will not hand their prisoner over to the impartial United Nations troops, and stated that Mr Thomas will not face any trial. The incident indicates a rise in tension in Ivory Coast, the BBC's reporter says Two weeks ago militiamen supporting President Laurent Gbagbo attacked New Forces' positions in the west of the country. The UN Security Council expressed its concern that more fighting would further compromise the chances of holding presidential elections scheduled for October of this year. The New Forces are in a state of maximum alert, and say they fear a return to war is imminent. The last fighting in the country took place in November last year, when the army loyal to President Gbagbo launched air raids on New Forces-held areas.
Posted by: Steve || 03/14/2005 8:21:17 AM || Comments || Link || [11129 views] Top|| File under:


Afghanistan/South Asia
Boy's Spanking at Karachi School Sends Shockwaves
Most schools in Pakistan still appear to take the antediluvian philosophy of "spare the rod and spoil the child", as a majority of teachers prefers to have a stick in hand and to be quite hard at students. Unfortunately, the few voices ever raised against corporal punishment in schools appear to have gone unheeded, and teachers continue to wield the stick to terrorize the students with impunity. Ashar, a six-year-old class I student, victim of corporal punishment by the school principal, has been admitted to the Aga Khan Hospital in a critical condition.

The boy's father, Mohammad Ashraf, a Karachi Electric Supply Corp. (KESC) employee, said that it was like a nightmare and his whole family was still traumatized. He said that after the tragedy he ran from pillar to post but no one would listen or help him out. He said that his son's only fault was that he had missed the school transport one day and walked home instead. When the boy's father took up the matter with the principal, the latter assured him that he would teach his son a "good lesson", so that he would never miss the school transport in future. The father did not know what was coming, until the next day.

The principal called the little boy to his office and closed the door. A school clerk, Saqib, held the arms of the boy, while the principal relentlessly lashed him on the back and buttocks with a wire. The principal later took off the shirt of the boy and paraded him before the whole school, so that others may learn a lesson, the boy's father said. The boy also received head injuries as the principal had hit his head with a sharp glass object. Asked if the police and other authorities were cooperating with him, Ashraf said that the police were not helpful as the accused principal was still to be arrested. He said that after the brutal thrashing of his son, other students were too shocked to go to school. On Saturday evening a protest rally was held outside the Karachi Press Club and it was attended by human rights activists and students from different schools.
Posted by: Fred || 03/14/2005 10:41:33 PM || Comments || Link || [11129 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Spanking?" Sounds more like attempted murder. These people need to get out the torches and pitchforks.
Posted by: PBMcL || 03/14/2005 0:20 Comments || Top||

#2  Spanking sounds like a brutal beating to me.
One more example of the RoP uselessness to the world.
Posted by: FlameBait || 03/14/2005 0:55 Comments || Top||

#3  I notice no mention of the principal's name. A distinguished "holy man", I'd be willing to bet. Looks like you're taking the fall, school clerk Saqib.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/14/2005 9:01 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Tech
Cold Fusion Explosion in Japan
Heavily EFL
On January 24, 2005, at around 4:00 p.m., an explosion rocked a cold fusion laboratory at Hokkaido University, Japan. The experimental design was the plasma electrolysis method, one of several methods used to perform cold fusion experiments. Physicist Tadahiko Mizuno, one of Japan's most experienced cold fusion scientists and a guest of his were in the laboratory at the time of the explosion.

Mizuno and the guest suffered wounds to the face, neck, arms and chest from shards of glass. A large piece of glass next to Mizuno's carotid artery was safely removed.

A definitive explanation is unknown, though Mizuno suspects that a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen in the headspace of the cell was ignited. Mizuno has performed these experiments hundreds of times, and this apparatus had been well-tested over the last five years. Before the experiment, Mizuno had checked all of his equipment and had made sure that the exhaust tube was clear. "The outlet tube leading to the mass spectrometer was definitely not blocked or impeded, so the gas in the headspace was at one atmosphere," he reported. A high-pressure build-up of hydrogen and oxygen has been ruled out.

The big question on everyone's minds is whether this was a chemical explosion - or a nuclear explosion. A physicist who considered the amount of energy required to convey the 800cc of electrolyte a distance of up to 6 meters, was unconvinced that this was a chemical reaction.
For those of you not familiar with cold fusion research, most is performed by chemists who take extreme care not to have lab explosions. Most research occurs in Japan, Italy, and probably China. In the USA most research is done in military labs. Similar unexplained explosions have occured in the past. The topic is extremely politicized, not least because it potentially wrecks the careers of thousands of hot fusion researchers.

The research that gets publicized is oriented towards power sources, but it has occured to me that potentially it could be used as a weapon. Bear in mind that cold fusion is relatively cheap and easy to do and a number of researchers run experiments in their garages. It's something that bears watching as a fusion bomb that you could build in your basement would be a jihadi's wet dream.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 00:00:00 AM || Comments || Link || [11136 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Just use the line from "Ghostbusters":

"Successful test."
Posted by: PBMcL || 03/14/2005 0:35 Comments || Top||

#2  Macromedia bought Allaire three years ago, and they're still researching ColdFusion?
//web geek mode off.
Posted by: Rex Rufus || 03/14/2005 0:55 Comments || Top||

#3  Phil, seems like some strange Pauli effect at work--for some reason, the CF experiment have a low degree of replicability (either way).

Reminds me of some pitfalls of similar sort mentioned in alchemic sources, where an emphasis has been placed on readiness of the human element as a part of the process--kind of like anthrophic principle correspondence in modern lingo.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 1:06 Comments || Top||

#4  I'm not normally given to conspiracy theories, but I have a hard time explaining the US government's and senior scientists opposition to cold fusion research. I have read the papers and there is definitely something there producing energy outside conventional chemical reactions. Given the need to find new energy sources, one would think that this would be explored, but the DEA has recently rejected for the second time the need for further research. If they know that somekind of cold fusion weapon could be easily produced by those with knowledge then this would explain their resistance to funding.

If you want more fuel for a conspiracy a leading cold fusion advocate was murdered last year apparently days after he said important news on cold fusion was about to break.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 1:10 Comments || Top||

#5  Sobiesky my reply to you dissapeared so I will briefly recap. The replicability problem seems to result from palladium purity. The original Fleischman experiment has been replicated 100s of times at at least a dozen labs.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 1:25 Comments || Top||

#6  Phil the thing I had found annoying was that normal physicists basically trashed anyone when they found it hard to prove a normal fusion reaction was occuring. However normal chemical reactions couldn't account for all the energy release either, so they still trashed ALL the evidence nonetheless. I think what it needs is research further in the chemistry aspects of this.
Posted by: Valentine || 03/14/2005 1:31 Comments || Top||

#7  There is something there with cold fusion. Didn't the Navy get 50 million to fund cold fusion research? Only hangup I can see is $50,000 worth of scientific apparatus is needed to generate one watt of anomalous energy

The movie "The Saint" was pretty darn good fluff, had a cold fusion thread running through it.
Posted by: sea cruise || 03/14/2005 1:37 Comments || Top||

#8  Phil, thanx. Will check whatever I can get on it. It was not on my radar for a while, so my notions may be somewhat dated.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 2:01 Comments || Top||

#9  Before all you cold fusion experts and conspiracy theorists run rampant and weaponize it, let me assure you that legitimate published results to date have not produced enough energy in total to hurl a piece of glassware down the table, yet alone six meters. On the other hand, in high school chemistry lab one of my friends (now a physics teacher) made acetylene and managed to explode some glassware and hurl glass fragments to the far end of the lab/classroom -- about 15 meters. No palladium involved. I suggest to you that my friend is more dangerous than any cold fusion reaction to date.
Posted by: Tom || 03/14/2005 8:45 Comments || Top||

#10  Oh, thanks Tom. I am sure that after your assurances, we all cease to pursue these idle strange ideas and accept what mainstream academe tell us is possible or not.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 9:00 Comments || Top||

#11  Tom, I hate to pick on you but the amount of energy produced is irrelevant to the argument. Its like arguing Alfred Nobel didn't produce enough dynamite to blow a glass across the table. I could give you a long list of technologies that for years were of marginal interest until they were commercialized.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 9:12 Comments || Top||

#12  "Cold fusion. Sheesh."
-- sponsored by TokaMate, your personal fusion reactor
Posted by: eLarson || 03/14/2005 10:30 Comments || Top||

#13  The topic is extremely politicized, not least because it potentially wrecks the careers of thousands of hot fusion researchers.

And because it's a waste of time. Do the "spikes" in the energy output still correspond with people walking into the room with the test gear? Has anyone ever measured anything but a trickle of (suspect) energy?

Most importantly -- has anyone proposed a sane mechanism?

The qualifier "sane" is critical; over a decade ago, the late Dr. Kenny proposed a mechanism based on his personal "pion process model" for the composition of the universe. However, the model also predicted regular matter with negative mass. Not anti-matter, it was also predicted; we're talking about regular matter that just happened to have a negative sign in front of its mass.

I wrote a little simulation for Dr. Kenny to show the interaction of regular mass with negative mass. If any negative mass existed in the universe, it would stand out like a spotlight as it chased regular matter around the cosmos.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2005 10:48 Comments || Top||

#14  H2 + O2 + spark = BOOM!
Posted by: mojo || 03/14/2005 11:38 Comments || Top||

#15  And because it's a waste of time.

By a coincidence, these same words were uttered by a top dog scientist (his name escapes me, I wonder why) in his musings about foolishness of trying to build flying machines heavier than air. Few years before Wright Bros.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 03/14/2005 11:57 Comments || Top||

#16  Yes, they laughed at the Wright brothers.

And they laughed at Einstein.

But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown, the Smothers Brothers, Carrot Top, Ellen Degeneres, and Roseanne Barr.

Hey, if you want to pour your money down the rat hole, go for it! If there's something there, you deserve the return on your investment. But if you want to take some of my tax dollars, go pound sand. I'd rather my money be spent on something with a likelier return -- like efficient extraction from old wells.

And let me point out that the reason I wrote that simulation for Dr. Kenny was I was part of a group volunteering to help him with his cold fusion research. At that time he couldn't get the equipment he needed, but I learned enough to know what to look for -- primarily, repeatability on demand -- and I haven't heard of ANYONE making the breakthrough yet.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2005 12:24 Comments || Top||

#17  as difficult as cold fusion is, using cold fusion for a bomb seems more difficult by an order of magnitude or two
Posted by: mhw || 03/14/2005 13:16 Comments || Top||

#18  All well and good, but who would believe that ordinary shrimp could create temperatures that could melt metallic tantalum! Behold, the power of shrimpoluminescence!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1003_SnappingShrimp.html
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/14/2005 13:20 Comments || Top||

#19  Yup - an interesting phenomenon. It may be news to the cute little European Scientists in the story, but it has long been known to the US Navy - at least in certain R&D circles. Think propeller design. Submarines. There is a particular variety of cavitation, occurring under certain conditions, which generates precisely the same bubbles - and when these low pressure microbubbles explode they can pit titanium - as well as give away the boat's location... Though anyone but Jonesy would think it was a mess of Shrimp, not an LA Class Hunter Killer, heh. Big Clue: it's not about heat, but the concussive effects. Wankers. I can say no more, heh.
Posted by: .com || 03/14/2005 14:28 Comments || Top||

#20  People discovering that hydrogen from electolysis is explosive is not news. Someone please wake me when "the professor" starts losing his hair from some form of radiation. Thats when you got something and not before.

If cold fusion really worked, there would be a sudden run on lead lined lab smocks or glow-in-the-dark lab techs.
Posted by: Frank Martin || 03/14/2005 14:44 Comments || Top||

#21  Though the results defy conventional explanation ... If true, the observations reveal a completely new method to initiate nuclear reactions within an atomic structure. On the other hand, if these claims are false, as many people believe, a large number of highly trained scientists, using well understood equipment, can not be trusted to obtain accurate data, thereby calling into question conclusions reached in other fields based on the same techniques. Link
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 17:45 Comments || Top||

#22  Sobiesky, the most likely cause of the replicability problems is the variable purity of the palladium used. There is some suggestion an impurity is a crucial element. And just to note, that while there are replicability problems, the original experiment has been replicated succesfully hundreds of times in at least a dozen labs.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 1:17 Comments || Top||

#23  Sobiesky, the most likely cause of the replicability problems is the variable purity of the palladium used. There is some suggestion an impurity is a crucial element. And just to note, that while there are replicability problems, the original experiment has been replicated succesfully hundreds of times in at least a dozen labs.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2005 1:17 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
78[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog

On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Mon 2005-03-14
  Abdullah Mehsud is no more?
Sun 2005-03-13
  1 al-Qaeda dead, 5 Soddy coppers wounded
Sat 2005-03-12
  Last Syrian troops leave Lebanon
Fri 2005-03-11
  Al-Moayad guilty
Thu 2005-03-10
  Local Elder of Islam to succeed Maskhadov
Wed 2005-03-09
  Nasrallah warns U.S. to stop interfering in Lebanon
Tue 2005-03-08
  Toe tag for Aslan
Mon 2005-03-07
  Operations stepped up in Samarra to find Zarqawi
Sun 2005-03-06
  Hizbollah Throws Weight Behind Syria in Lebanon
Sat 2005-03-05
  Syria loyalists shoot up Beirut Christian sector
Fri 2005-03-04
  Pro-Syria Groups in Lebanon Press for Unity Govt
Thu 2005-03-03
  Lebanon Opposition Demands Total Syrian Withdrawal
Wed 2005-03-02
  France moving commando support ship to Med
Tue 2005-03-01
  Protesters Back on Beirut Streets; U.S. Offers Support
Mon 2005-02-28
  Lebanese Government Resigns


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.
216.73.216.66
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (19)    WoT Background (35)    (0)    (0)    (0)