Burundis last remaining rebel group accused the army of killing five of their commanders and kidnapping five more fighters in clashes that threaten to undermine a shaky peace process.
The army is doing what it is supposed to do -- kill rebels. That's sorta the idea. And the peace process won't be near as shaky if the rebels are all dead.
Speaking from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, a spokesman for the Hutu Forces for National Liberation (FNL) said the fighting took place on Friday in the rebel stronghold of Musigati. Its really regrettable. Government troops shot dead our members while they were in a meeting, Pasteur Habimana said late on Saturday, adding, Its clear that the government has chosen war instead of peace talks. Army spokesman Colonel Adolphe Manirakiza said government troops did not kill any FNL fighter. Our troops have just arrested five FNL combatants who were going to hold the population to ransom, he said. The incident came after mediators announced that FNL leaders would be returning to the central African country by May to finalise a peace deal signed in September 2006. Talks to implement the peace pact were suspended last July when FNL members walked out after accusing the South African chief mediator, Charles Nqakula, of bias. On his last visit to Burundi this month, Nqakula said the truce monitoring team, which comprises FNL members, government officials and mediators, would resume work on April 1. But FNL rebels urged Burundi authorities to grant them an amnesty first, before they join the truce monitoring team.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Police say four BBC journalists from Belfast have been released without charge, two days after they were arrested along with suspected Irish Republican Army dissidents. The British Broadcasting Corp. has refused to identify the four or explain what they were doing with the suspected IRA dissidents, who have begun courting media attention in recent months. The arrests came a week before Easter, the date when IRA splinter groups traditionally issue bellicose statements against Northern Ireland's links with Britain.
Ireland's national police force says seven other men arrested over the weekend as part of the operation against IRA dissidents remain in custody in County Donegal, northwest Ireland. Under Irish anti-terror laws they must be charged or released within 72 hours.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has criticized US President George W. Bush for his latest remarks and called him a genocidal terrorist. Chavez made the remarks on Sunday after President Bush accused him of supporting 'terrorists' in neighboring Colombia and fueling an anti-American campaign last week.
"The president of the United States himself has come out and attacked us and attacked me personally, calling me a demagogue. Well, I am calling him a terrorist and genocidal," AFP quoted Chavez as saying. "And now Bush says I have Venezuelans here going hungry," he added, insisting Bush should take a look at the economic conditions in the United States.
"Venezuelan people today are better fed than ever," Chavez said. "The people taking hits from their own government are in the United States, which has an economic crisis."
Last week, the US president said that Venezuela 'has squandered its oil wealth to promote its hostile anti-American vision, and it has left its own citizens to face food shortages while it threatens its neighbors'.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pot, Kettle, Black, Ignore Hugo he badly needs a scapegoat.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/17/2008 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
BEIJING - The Tibetan government in exile said it had confirmed at least 80 deaths in rioting in Lhasa, as Tibetan independence protests continued in monastery towns in western China on Sunday, and the Dalai Lama said he had grave concerns that more bloodshed could follow.
The German newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau reported that staff from international non-governmental organisations were ordered to leave Lhasa by Monday, raising fears that troops could toughen their crackdown on the protesters once a deadline for protesters to surrender passes at midnight on Monday. As the Tibet uprising continues reliable sources have confirmed that at least 80 people were killed on March 14, 2008 in Lhasa, the government in exile, based in the Indian city of Dharamsala, said in a statement.
The Dalai Lama, the highest leader of Tibetan Buddhism, told the BBC that the situation in Tibetan areas of China had become very, very tense. Now today and yesterday, the Tibetan side is determined. The Chinese side also equally determined. So that means, the result: killing, more suffering, the broadcaster quoted him as saying.
The Dalai Lama said the Chinese government should stop clinging to its policy of relying on force to control Tibetans because they cannot control human minds.
Paramilitary police shot dead at least seven protesters during clashes with hundreds of monks and lay Tibetans on Sunday afternoon that began at the Kirti monastery in Ngaba county, Sichuan province, the India-based Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy reported. Hundreds of people were also known to have been injured in the clashes after a peaceful demonstration by thousands of people, the centre said in a statement, citing eyewitness accounts.
One resident of Lhasa, the capital of Chinas Tibet Autonomous Region, said hundreds of Tibetans were continuing protests in the city despite a military crackdown after riots erupted on Friday. Tibetan protesters took to the streets Saturday night, shouting that they wanted to rid Lhasa of all Chinese people, a Chinese resident told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa by telephone. They burned buildings and smashed windows and everything else, said the woman, who works at a Lhasa travel agency.
She said she heard rumours that police detained about 1,000 monks on Saturday and that 6,000 others were continuing their protests. Army reinforcements arrived Saturday from neighbouring Yunnan province, she said, as troops with tanks and armoured personnel carriers imposed de facto martial law in Lhasa.
An estimated 3,000 Tibetan protesters in the town of Xiahe, near Labrang monastery in Chinas Gansu province, shouted slogans in support of the Dalai Lama Saturday and called for the release of the Panchen Lama, US-based Radio Free Asia reported. Police used tear gas after monks and lay Tibetans marched along the main street in the town, attacking shops, banks and other buildings, Xiahe residents said told dpa by telephone.
More protests were reported in Lithang and Sershul towns in Sichuan.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This communist genocide outrage can't possibly be being brought to us by the friendly oriental folks who work hard for $ .19 per hour and fill our Walmart Stores with products.... can it? .... CAN IT??
#2
The crackdown is brought to you by....the same folks that support the military junta in Burma, the wonderful govt of the Sudan, Kimmie's Heaven on Earth, and the 2008 Beijing Oleolympics. Have we heard anything from our State Dept, except hand wringing platitudes?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2008 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Business Week magazine had a squib about international businesses in China in a recent issue. A representative number were surveyed, and 40% are in the process of or exploring either moving their business to less a volatile country like Viet Nam or Indonesia (from a business perspective, killing off your customers' customers creates volatility), or setting up any expansion of the business in a less volatile country.
First China manufactured its petard, now it is being hoisted with it. Look at the products being sold in WalMart, Kmart, Target, etc. Lots of labels now say Made in Indonesia/Viet Nam/ Malaysia/Egypt...
#4
What TW said. I check all labels. Of course, that assumes our appropriately charged Department checks compliance with marking and levies fines for relabeling. Hit and miss.
Now, all those 'China will be the superpower to surpass the US by 20xx', just remember that China too has serious internal problems and social contradictions that make it's ability to achieve those heavenly levels somewhat circumspect. Its just not the Tibetans who have 'issues' with the government in Beijing.
Ummmm, China is already old, in fact it's been old for centuries.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/17/2008 17:34 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I think he means demographically old, i.e. that with the one-child policy China has bootstrapped itself out of deep poverty but cannot leverage itself into higher living standards because of a massive wave of retirees coming down the pike vs. a smaller generation of workers (heavily male, so grandkids are going to be fewer, too).
#9
China's exploding economic growth rate desperately needs a soft landing. A 'crash' generally leads to the government in power finding or creating a scapegoat. If that government is a totalitarian on (like China) the scapegoat hunt could become military. Taiwan? South Korea? Kazakhstan? Tibet is nothing more than a distraction in world power terms (though obviously not to Tibetans.)
#10
WAFF.com Poster Thread > THE ECONOMIST > CHINA'S NEW ECONOMY CREATING MORE PROBLEMS AT HOME THAN ABROAD. Ordinary Chin getting hungrier as economy improves.
#11
NEWSVINE [paraph] > CHINA PREPARES FOR CRACKDOWN BY CLEARING TIBET/LLHASA STREETS OF WITNESSES; + REDDIT [paraph]> THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE "DISAPPEARED" OR HAVE BEEN MURDERED IN LLHASA - GENOCIDE IS PRC POLICY.
OTOH, CNN + FOX video footage > RIOT SIGN -"WHERE IS THE UN"?
The Dalai Lama on Sunday described feeling helpless in preventing what he feared could be a bloody clash between his followers and Chinese authorities.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dalai Lama Won'tCan't Stop Tibet Protests
Fixed. Interesting the difference between the headline and the actual article.
A quartet of recent National Review blog entries, compiled by your humble narrator. There seems to be a common theme at work here.
1. Jim Geraghty @ "Campaign Spot" (main link)
Michelle Norris, of NPR, speaking on Meet the Press yesterday:
You know, I should say, though, where Jeremiah Wright is concerned, it's interesting. If you—or introduced to him for the first time just based on the clips that you showed on this program and that have been in heavy rotation, particularly on cable news and on talk radio, you don't get the full measure of, of, of this man and who he is and a sort of full understanding of why Barack Obama may have been attracted to him. Barack Obama is in a difficult position because he has said repeatedly "Words count." And so he can't diminish these words or, or easily step away from them.
What are you going to tell me about him that refutes the "God d*** America" line? What "full measure" am I going to see that makes me say, "oh, well, now I'm okay with his call for our nation to be damned by God." . . .
It's like the line that Wright's comments are being taken out of context. Show me the context that makes that line okay, or the context that justifies the charge that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus.
2. Byron York reports on today's Obama conference call:
The Obama campaign has just wrapped up a conference call with reporters. On the call, top Obama supporter Sen. Dick Durbin claimed that "many" of the controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright were made before Barack Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ. "Many of the quotes that have been disclosed publicly were made by Reverend Wright at a time before Barack Obama became part of his congregation and in places where Barack Obama was not even present," Durbin said. Later, asked about fallout from the Wright affair among Democrats, Durbin said, "Let me just say that the people I have spoken to understand, as I hope we all do, that to hold Sen. Obama accountable for speeches and sermons that were given before he joined the church is fundamentally unfair."
To my knowledge, Wright's statements "God damn America," "America's-chickens-are-coming-home-to-roost," and "U.S. of KKK A" were made while Obama was part of the Trinity congregation, although the senator says he was not present in church for any of them. I don't believe Obama has claimed that they were made before he joined the church, and I'm not sure why Durbin is using that argument now.
The Obama campaign quickly ended the call after the second Wright question.
I had a really good post all ready to go. There was a video posted by the Trinity United Church of Christ, which I found on their YouTube page, of Louis Farrakhan being honored with the Jeremiah A. Wright Trumpeter award. It's gone from YouTube. And there was a video of disgraced Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick receiving a similar award. It's gone from YouTube, too.
But the one I'm really mad about is the one of the church's new pastor, Otis Moss III, talking about gangster rap and crack cocaine. They pulled that one, as well. Maybe it had something to do with his blaming gangster rap on suburban white kids and big corporate media. . . .
The Obama campaign has announced that tomorrow Obama will "deliver a major address on race, politics, and how we bring our country together at this moment in our history."
If he hopes to stop the bleeding, it's going to have to be one whale of a speech.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/17/2008 16:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Juan Williams on Fox: Wright = angry (black) man of 1960s; Obama modern (black) man w/all goodies pertaining to 21st Century.
#2
This will finish Obama. There are a lot of very patriotic, but democratic blacks and they won't take too kindly to Obama's support of crapping on their country.
#3
OBAMA CAN'T BE BELIEVED!
It doesn't matter whether of not Obama attened a particular sermon or not, Wright has been spewing
his black seperatist, racist, anti-American, pro-Farrakan views for over 20 years!!!
After 20 years of attending the Trinity Church, and choosing racist Jeremiah Wright as his pastor, mentor and advisor, all of a sudden, Obama is outraged by Wright's remarks and all of a sudden, Obama denounces Wright? Only a fool would believe Obama didn't know, and didn't support Wright's words for 20 years ... that's 20 years! Obama has claimed that he's the candidate of 'change you can believe in' ... but his claims of not knowing Wright's position for 20 years makes Obama unbelievable. His 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright makes Obama's current denouncements of Wright unbelievable. And, his 20 year involvement with the divisive Wright makes Obama's call for unity
unbelievable as well. Unfortunately, sometimes people believe what they want to believe, rather than what's true ... and, unfortunately, this is one of those times.
Posted by: Howard ||
03/17/2008 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think you nail it, Darth. There are plenty of black people in our country who may vote Democratic, who may consider themselves liberal in a number of ways, but are grounded in fundamentally conservative principles: faith, family and country. Even though the country has been rotten to their ancestors and sometimes has been rotten to them, they're patriots. When someone stands up and says, "God DAMN America", they're as unhappy as you and me.
It's going to be interesting whether this sinks Obama enough the remaining primaries to give the Hildebeast the lead again in delegates and primary votes.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2008 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Imagine exposing your children to this hate-filled spew day after day!
WASHINGTON It was a question that had been whispered around Capitol Hill corridors in the days following the Air Forces selection of a European plane rather than a Boeing one to replace the nations fleet of aging aerial refueling tankers.
Rep. Norm Dicks finally asked it. Some people are saying Boeing was arrogant, discourteous? the Belfair Democrat asked Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne.
All my dealings with Boeing were objective and professional, Wynne responded.
Wynne didnt elaborate. Dicks didnt press.
At congressional hearings over the past two weeks, Wynne and other Air Force officials defended the $35 billion tanker contract, insisting the competition was fair, open and legal. But plenty of questions remain unanswered about how Boeing lost a contract it was heavily favored to win.
That is NOT what the UASF asked for. They want cargo capacity, fuel capacity, and long range.
Grumman/EADS delivered that. Boeing basically told the airforce "here is what WE think you need", with an older airframe that they themselves arent even going to produce any longer.
#2
I would tend to think that tankers are long range planes and also far too precious and vulnerable to be put in first line (where the small airports are) and thus being able to land here or two hundred miles North is relatively irrelevant.
#3
OS: the ability to land in more palces closer to cambat zones is really a back handed way to describe smaller airfields and related airside facilities. As a bonus, this would enabel more aircraft to be sited at any ne location and that results in more booms / hoses in the air.
the change in the requirements, as i read it looks like a typical USAF scope drift and Boeing didn't grasp it soon enough. whether there was politics ( McCain) or residual scandal punishment involved, anything we could say would be pure speculation.
i find it interesting that nobody has mentioned the 'buy American' DFARS and related articles that the Congress has put in place over the past years to protect American Industry.
I also find it interesting that over the last week, the terminlogy for the EADS bird has been 'assembled in America,' rather than the previous 'made in America.'
The GAO will be an interesting place to be for the next 3 months or so....
#5
Might be. But sometimes when a defense contractor dominates a sector for a long time they bid what they have and really don't take the specs in the current request seriously. Happened with Lockheed on an intel satellite a while ago. Unfortunately, the new team that won was overly optimistic about their ability to bring their design in on time/cost/spec -- but that's in part due to them not having the chance to do more than simulations and small prototypes for years.
Not saying I'm happy about EADS on this one. But I could well believe that Boeing got overly complacent & just didn't invest in a new plane to meet the specs as laid down. Or - and these are related - they may not have been able to sell the Pentagon on why the old specs should have been retained.
So you get things like:
The procurement scandal had a chilling effect on Boeings relations with the Air Force, and it contributed to Boeings lack of understanding of the Air Force (tanker) proposal
and
Boeings commercial airplane division was too focused on the 787 to pay much attention to the tankers. The tanker was not as high a priority for Boeing as it was for Northrop-EADS, Thompson said.
In the EADS/NG bird, largest percentage of foreign components are from (in descending order) Spain (almost 15%), UK (roughly 10%), Italy, Germany, France. Key items like engines, boom, electronics and military avionics are US.
And more takers on smaller fields doesn't necessarily equate to more hoses in the air - thats Navy thinking. The USAF tends to run thing differently, SAC style (central control, US or large USAFB based ops). And many of their tanker sqdns are National Guard and Reserve.
I think the error here is the UASF trying to dotoo many roles with a single airframe.
The Airbus woudl flfill the old KC-10 role, strategic and long rage. And something from a 737 (best civilian jet in the world) airframe for tac and small field ops replacing the 135.
#8
USN Ret. - the Buy America clauses specifically allow for partnering with certain allied countries. May or may not be a good decision - there are pros and cons to it IMO - but it is legal.
My read from the public info is that Boeing took the business for granted and lost. But of course other things may have played a part - hard to tell without information.
BTW, that satellite bid that Lockheed lost, to the tune of $12 billion or so? They huffed and puffed and threatened a formal challenge etc. In the end they didn't even file one as it became clear they'd blown it.
#10
lotp: never said it was illegal, but here in the manufacturing sector we have many hoops to jump thought to prove country of origin for all DoD-purchased metallic components in our product; its jut MHO that the same set of rules should be applied. when i have to spend hours proving where the titanium coating came from for nickel/dime bits and pieces, seems only fair to scale that same logic up.
Reference OS and "Navy thinking;" I agree, and that is a consequence of the DoD taking organic tanking from the USN and giving it entireley to the USAF shortly after Desert Storm. The Navy no longer has dedicated tanker assets ( think KA-6 and KS-3) instead you have the F/A-18 that is buddy store compatible; big difference between being able to give away 15,000+lbs of gas and 2k to get you wingman home.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the one size airframe does not fit all; please refer to my earlier comments re: the lawn dart.
Still wonder why mothballed DC-10s/ MD-11s were not bought and converted as stopgaps if the need was that critical....
#11
In what may be a related, or at least a taste of the future; today Lockheed-Martin and the Navy announced a delay and huge cost overrun in the VH-71 Presidential Helicopter deal. The VH-71 started out as a Eurocopter EH101 and then was outfitted with mission specific gear. The new cost for 28 aircraft is now @ 11.2 billion, almost double from first cost.
This 'partnership' beat out both Bell and Sikorsky, both long time suppliers of helicopters to the DoD.
#12
"the ability to land in more palces closer to cambat zones is really a back handed way to describe smaller airfields and related airside facilities."
Theres just one problem with this statement..size of the A330. Its over 50% bigger than than the KC-135 which means all those bases the KC-135 was stationed at need new ramps, parking areas and hangars to house these new birds (not to mention at each base you can now house fewer units). At front line locations you need larger parking spaces for the units as well.
#14
USN, yeah, and we know the Euro's will be great about the NATO mined / NATO smelt clauses; never will consider a non-NATO but cheaper source I bet ;)
Thinking on the last time we got non-NATO TI (Japan) in the supply chain. That disclosure was really fun.
#15
A couple of things that should be pointed out. Boeing intends to stop production on the 767 for commercial customers - but had the USAF bought the tanker version, they would have ended up being the SOLE customer for 767 parts, spares, and supports, until about 2050...now think for a moment about what a revenue stream THAT would have been for Boeing. The $600 toilet seat and $1000 hammer would have been considered bargains compared to what Boeing would have done on that account.
As far as Boeing not bringing their A-game, it wouldn't be the first time. An acquaintance of mine had access to the final presentation for the F-35 contract, and he told me that the Boeing crew showed up cocky, unprepared, and in many ways just flat-out unprofessional, with an attitude that the presentation was just a mere formality.
Finally, the 'land close to the combat zone' argument has been a bugaboo for contractors for decades now. The bottom line is that in anything short of a Tom Clancy scenario, the USAF is NEVER going to risk an asset like that close enough where some 15-year-old jihadi with a shoulder fired SAM can bring down a half-billion dollar airplane. That same requirement added literal billions to the cost of the C-5 and C-17, and it has never, ever been used.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/17/2008 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"all those bases the KC-135 was stationed at need new ramps, parking areas and hangars to house these new birds"
Hmm. Could that be a motive as well? More bucks for the bases, more budget for the USAF.
And USN Ret - spot on. They need to give the navy back the ability to do real "tankering" (Im a former armored cav guy so "tanking" involve a large 70 ton tracked armored vehicle with a stabilized 120mm smoothbore cannon)
And I see no reason why the Navy, given they can operate P3's re-tasked as pure INT birds, cannot do a land based tanker variant of the P3.
Or work up prop driven tanker versions of a COD. Those things have a 57K max wet weight for takeoff. Hollow them out, kit them up with bladders and wingtip drogues outside the prop wash (Navy probe-n-drouge pays bonus here lighter than a boom), and you have a tanker the Navy basically already flies. Only problem is they are on their last legs SLEP, and nobody builds them anymore.
Maybe the Navy ought to demand a new COD/Tanker for the new electomagnetic CVNs.
While i consider 'sole source' of parts a weak link, it is not unique to the 767 line; look at any number of weapons systems purchased and the resultant costs. And the vendor is not the only party to blame; the DoD adds cost due to some unique requirements that in many cases, have dubious value added. That is one of the key drivers in the DoD abandonment of Mil-Spec-based requirements and going to industry based SAE, ANSI, and the like.
#18
So here's a suggestion: DoD and the Air Force bring Boeing and Grunman/EADS into one room and split the contract. 80% goes to EADS for the A330 tanker, and 20% goes to Boeing for the 767. The price per plane is the same as it would be if each had the entire deal or it's no-go. Then you look each in the eye and say that Phase II of the tanker contract (the next 100 planes) is coming, and they'd better get ready.
Such a deal for Airbus gives them what they really want, which is their foot in the door for the tanker biz. They have the better plane so they win the big chunk of the contract. Boeing gets enough of a consolation prize that they'll come back for Phase II with either a 767 or 777 airframe.
That in turn keeps both sides honest for Phase II. It's win-win-win.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2008 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#19
>> The Airbus A330 is newer, larger and can carry more fuel, passengers and cargo. The 767 is smaller, cheaper to operate and can land in more places closer to combat zones.
Why TF is this even an issue?
And my old man used to build them. I was of the "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" crowd"
Boeing screwed the pooch with this original "non-contract" bid.
The European planes will be built in Ala., be cheaper. What's the downside? It's not like we're building stealth fighters in Russia.
#20
Boeing officials have said they were told by the Air Force that the changes were made to accommodate Northrop-EADS, which was again threatening not to bid. If the Air Force had wanted a bigger plane, Boeing could have offered its 777. But Boeing officials said they were discouraged from doing so by the Air Force. Northrop-EADS simply convinced the Air Force bigger was an asset rather than a liability, Thompson said.
If this is the case, we need to start looking at the possibility of Northrop-EADS payoffs to Air Force procurement people.
#21
Steve, generally split procurements with two different designs of equipment lead to massive, massive logistics and training issues for the services. Planes are typically slotted to last 20 years or so. That means that for 20 years you would be keeping dual sets of spare parts and manuals, training technicians, pilots and air traffic planners for both aircraft ... and that doesn't really bring home to real impact, since planes are complex systems of systems, each system of which has test equipment, potential software upgrades (avionics, flight control ...) etc.
#22
lotp, did you ever notice, however, that (for instance) the Navy had cheaper planes back when they had four or more types of planes on carrier decks than now, when they have two?
(Used to be they had A-6, A-7, F-14, and F-18, plus tanker and EM-variant A-6's and anti-sub and awacs planes...)
#23
the ability to land in more palces closer to cambat zones is really a back handed way to describe smaller airfields and related airside facilities.
Ground attack types need to be close to the combat zone because once they are constantly going between the front line and the base in order to rearm. Thus one hour of transit time versus five minutes in action is a bad bargain. That means being able to land in what is availble near the front is important for them.
But tankers circle faaaaaaar away from danger and do it for hours. In those hours they keep airborne they will fly thousands of miles so a couple hundred miles going from airbase to the orbiting zone makes little difference.
#24
Sure, AS. But except for the F-18 those were not modern fly-by-wire systems. We're talking orders of magnitude greater complexity in modern military aircraft, which yields greater capability as well.
Here are some stats that might put this in perspective a bit. The B1-A bomber had a large amount of software in its systems, including flight control, avionics, countermeasures etc. Let's call it 1 million lines of high level language code, say, JOVIAL, with some assembler code for critical real time functions. A SWAG. The real number may be a little less, maybe a little more.
The B-1B had by some estimates approximately 5-10 times the software in the B-1A.
And the B2 reportedly has approximately 10 times again the code in the B-1B.
Most of that code is embedded in hardware subsystems. For every subsystem you need test equipment and test procedures.
In the old days, without fly by wire flight control, upgrades to the plane seldom affected more than the avionics and comms and maybe weapons control systems.
In fly by wire planes, upgrades can affect every part of the plane. Specifically, it can affect flight control which is much more tightly integrated with other subsystems than in the old days.
Which means potential changes to every sub-system's test equipment, maintenance/checkout procedures etc.
The awesome capability in the B2 or the RAPTOR isn't magic. It's the result of incredible engineering work and seriously intensive validation and verification procedures. And that translates to logistical support demands.
#25
Just for what it is worth, one of the reasons that modern military aircraft are so expensive is Congress. The programs are structured to buy a given number of aircraft and when it comes time for production, Congress funds about a third of the original number so that economy of scale works against you instead of for you. Buying 23 B-2s instead of 132 is a good way to jack the cost up to almost $1B apiece, or for that matter buying 183 F-22s instead of 750.
#27
VH-71 Presidential Helicopter deal. The VH-71 started out as a Eurocopter EH101 and then was outfitted with mission specific gear. The new cost for 28 aircraft is now @ 11.2 billion
Or $400 million each. That just boggles the mind. This Imperial Presidency crap has got to stop now. The Army is paying $11M for each Blackhawk and $35M for each Chinook. The EH101 is halfway between the two in size and capability. No amount of added communications gear or flying toilet bowl is worth that much money.
Posted by: ed ||
03/17/2008 21:30 Comments ||
Top||
#28
RENSE > GREAT BRITAIN IS REPOSSESSING THE UNITED STATES, vv financial markets???
RUSSIA desires to dominate SCO-CSTO + EURASIA - the USA in turn needs to show/prove its "Euro-ness"??? *OTOH, compare wid TOPIX [old] > THE RETURN OF THE FRENCH CONNECTION?; + SICILIAN MAFIAS RESTORING LINKS WITH THE US, espec after the recent arrests of vari GAMBINO Family members + Italian affiliates???
The ABC This Week'sroundtable (running the political gamut from George Will to Donna Brazile) was unanimous on several points: Reverend Wright is a significant problem for Barack Obama, the Democrats are in a bloody war (Brazile says so bloody not even "bleach" can remove it) and Hillary Clinton's chances for the nomination rest on her ability to demonstrate that Obama is unelectable in the general election. All of this is complicated, they reminded us, by rules crafted so oddly as to prevent a decisive winner. As George Will put it, the Democrats have gone from "an embarrassment of riches to an embarrassment."
Many conservatives may be concerned that somehow the liberal media will sweep the last couple of days' events under the rug and Obama will sail on. As exemplified by the ABC panel, I see no substantial risk of this happening. Once Americans saw and heard Wright's remarks, we went beyond the ability of even the most dogged partisans in the media to spin it in a way that would extract their favored candidate from the predicament he is in.
This is not an extraneous point of policy or something beyond the ability of average people to assess. Millions of voters go to church and synagogue and don't hear this sort of venomous talk, and would leave if they did. Everyone can ask themselves: If he went to Wright's church for 20 years, how likely is it that he heard this stuff, and what does his continued attendance say about him? It simply isn't possible to wish it all away and hope voters don't notice.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/17/2008 10:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Not a penny's worth of difference between "Reverend" Wright and an Imam preaching "Death to America" in Iran...or a KKK Grand Dragon in the early 1900s preaching "Death to all ni**ers & Jews"...or Robespierre inciting the peasants to put more and more people under the guilloutine!
"Hate", "Racism" and "Despotism"...come in all colors!
#3
The multiculturalist and race baiting business is finally being called to account. The guilt hustle is losing value only less quickly than sub-rime loan paper. The 'only whitey can be racist' canard is finally starting to marginalize its proponents. The general American public is reaching the 'enough is enough' stage. Its a Darwin moment. Adapt or perish in the power game.
#7
WOT:
If you have a kid 18-24 out of work, on vacation, or aimless, send them to PA. It's the chance of a lifetime. This is New Hampshire '68, folks will be talking about this for years.
#8
If it weren't for Jeri Ryan's scruples, Obama would still be in the state house trying to fiddle a couple of traffic lights for his constituents.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
03/17/2008 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I dunno about that, Richard. I live in Illinois and I have to say that Jack Ryan had an uphill battle in that election even before the divorce papers were unlocked (and damn the Tribune for that). Not clear at all to me that Ryan would have won that election.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2008 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Extra butter, P2k? ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/17/2008 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
"Obama Attended Hate America Sermon"--Newsmax's Kessler: But not a sermon from the Greatest Hits hits collection. "[W]hite arrogance ... United States of White America"--sounds like one of Rev. Wright's more anodyne efforts. ... P.S.: The night is young. Obama is now at the mercy of any fellow congregant with a cell phone camera who can place Obama in the pews for, say, "God Damn America." ...
Update: Obama's campaign says he didn't attend Wright's church on the day (July 22, 2007) Kessler says he did. Commenters on Andrew Malcolm's blog claim Obama was at the La Raza event in Miami. Oh, that'll help. "Officer, I couldn't have robbed that bank. I was busy in the meth lab cooking up a batch at the time . . . ."
Here's the speaking schedule. There's also video. Ball in Kessler's court! ... 8:29 P.M.
___________________________
Just asking: What do the Democrats do when Obama loses Pennsylvania, not by 10 or 15 points but by 20 or 25 points? That seems to be the way things are headed.... Even if that doesn't happen, I could see the superdelegates swinging against Obama because of the Rev. Wright problem. All we need now will be a revalation that one of Hillary's operatives fostered the Wright revalations, and it'll be a perfect storm.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/17/2008 08:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obama's campaign says he didn't attend Wright's church on the day (July 22, 2007)
Betcha Obama will claim to not attending this sermon either. But he damn well heard about it afterwards.
Sept. 16, 2001: Blaming the United States for the New York and Washington DC massacres only 5 days old.
We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye, Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. Americas chickens are coming home to roost, he told his congregation.
Obama's had 6 1/2 years to voice how much of a racist shit his pastor, his spiritual and moral adviser, really is.
Posted by: ed ||
03/17/2008 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I saw a survey the other day that put Obama: Clinton at 43%:42%, with McCain at 48%. I do not remember whether that was for Democratic voters or overall, and whether it was for Pennsylvania or the nation. Sorry. Still, the response of the Democratic superdelegates to the unclear will of the people will be quite interesting -- Mr. Soros is getting quite a lot of bang for the bucks he spread amongst all three finalists... although I think he will have to spend more, now.
#3
This fellows bold presidential aspirations aside, he's a currently serving "United States Senator." I certainly hope Americans are taking a long hard look at what political districting has brought to us.
#4
As close as Obama and Wright were for two years, common sense says that Obama didn't need to sit in the pew to know what Wright thought of America.
With Mrs. Obama also saying the same thing as Wright, "For the first time, I am beginning to believe in America" either Obama is deaf or is lieing when the two people he has been closely associated with, the wife and the "pastor" clearly use hate speech in regards to this country.
#6
The more the mainstream people in the US find out about Obama, the more he is gonna sink like a rock in the polls. Rev. Wright is a millstone around his neck and Obama's wife is not much better. Both will drag him down to defeat either in the primary or the general election.
#7
Political districting? Dude, he's a US Senator. Their districts are the entire state. Unless you're speculating that Illinois would vote differently if some Indiana farmland had been incorporated back when they were dividing up the Old NorthWest.
Now, if you want to blame this on the 17th Amendment, I could get behind that. The Senate hasn't been the same since that Progressive brainfart.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
03/17/2008 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Duuuuhhhh... yep Mitch, I'm stuck on stupid. My bad. But the Illinois-Indiana program you've suggested sounds pretty good!!
#9
Obama has surrounded himself with those who don't care much for America. His mother, the hippie anthropologist, was certainly no fan of the good ol' USA. OHB was raised on this perspective. His wife certainly feels this way. His minister clearly does. So the simple question for voters is, do you really want someone to be president who doesn't like the country that you grew up in? Compare that to McCain. Should be like shooting fish in a barrel.
#12
So who is racially dividing America? The Republicans who were fairly pro Obama despite his liberal policies because he seemed honest and straight forward? The Democrats who voted en mass for Obama up until his his wife and preachers comments became public knowledge? Or the blacks who voted for Obama because of his color, or the preacher who promoted hate and bile to his black congregation.
Yes American needs to discuss our racial issues but I don't think many are going to appreciate the discussion. Racism appears to be alive and well in the black community more than anywhere else.
#13
I think that a lot of the problem has to do with the fact that the self-appointed "leaders" of the black community are, by and large, people who make their living off of racial tension. (Yeah, Sharpton, I'm talkin' 'bout YOU! And you, Jackson! Yougottaproblemwitdat?) It's in their immediate personal financial interest to keep the pot boiling.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/17/2008 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#14
shows how much the rev knows about histry. we safved millions of japanese and american lives by nuking them instead of invading. he seems too talk out his ass alot doesn't he
#15
Exactly, sinse. For those of you who are interested, I recommend the book "Downfall" by Richard B. Frank. It tells the story of the end of the Japanese empire, the preparations they were making for the invasion, and American plans for further bombing if the nukes didn't work.
In short, there would have been millions of civilian casualties in an invasion. Also, the Americans were getting ready to bomb the railroads and bridges, which would have stopped food from getting to the cities, which would have caused mass starvation. Yes, the hundreds of thousands of American military casualties would have been hard to deal with. However, we would have had millions of non-combatant deaths on our national conscience as well.
As it was, Japan was near starvation when the war ended. General MacArthur insisted that we send massive food aid. Many Americans had the attitude, "Let the Jap bastards starve. They started it." MacArthur's reply was "We're better than that."
So, yes, many thousands were killed by the atomic bombs. (We probably killed more overall in the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities.) However, many, many more would have died if there had been an invasion.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
03/17/2008 17:26 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Rambler,
You may be interested in this review of Retribution by Max Hastings that chronicles the last year of the War in the Pacific.
In early 1945, the U.S. Navy tightened its noose around Japan, shutting off the shipping so essential to both the home islands and the empire's outposts. And then in March the massive B-29 firebombing raids began, devastating Tokyo and other Japanese cities. The attack on Tokyo on March 9 alone killed some 100,000 civilians, left a million homeless and destroyed at least a quarter of the city. Gen. Curtis LeMay is quoted saying: "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people on that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."
#17
I can trump all of that. In his autobiography Akira Kurosawa mentioned how at the time they expected the suicide order from the Emperor as the US closed in. That is everyone. 100% end of Japan rather than the dishoner of conquest. Kurasawa the very western and liberal fellow never questioned the idea, he just wanted to be married before it happened.
#19
Nimble, as I'm sure you know, no country in history ever did more to restore its sworn enemies to health than the U.S. We later spent untold wealth on countries which, during the war, would have gladly exterminated us if they had possessed the capability. If the Aussies had had their way, Japan would never have needed Middle East oil. The amount of industry the Japs would have been allowed could have had its needs met with fish oil. The Aussies didn't take kindly to the atrocities the Japs committed against their nurses on the Kokoda Trail.
#20
NS, Downfall covers the horrors of the firebombings in great detail. Also the fact that many civilians were being trained to become militia, and thus casualties in the event of an invasion.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
03/17/2008 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#21
And Nimble, we would still have had German cars to drive.
Not if Truman had listened to Soviet advice and turned Germany into one giant farm.
The combined deaths, I think to 6 months after the bombings, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 105,000. The Japanese rape of Manilla, a US territory, was 110,000 dead in 30 days of rape, bayonetting, burning and burying alive.
The A-bombs prevented at least 5 million Japanese deaths. In reality a lot more, since Japanese civilians, including children, were being armed with swords and sharped sticks for Banzai charges and would have been mowed downed by the millions with machine guns.
Posted by: ed ||
03/17/2008 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Not if Truman had listened to Soviet advice and turned Germany into one giant farm.
And if we'd done that, the Soviets would probably own that farm, as well as France, Spain, and Italy, and still be in business from the plunder.
Backers of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama toned down their rhetoric on Sunday for fear party infighting might turn voters against Democrats and deliver their votes into the hands of Republican John McCain.
All over the Sunday TV talk show circuit, journalists tried to get supporters for Clinton and Obama to attack the other side, but time and time again they would not take the bait and tried to stay on the high road. But away from the TV studios, campaign aides continued the aggressive back-and-forth that for several weeks has dominated the battle to win the party's nomination for the November election. "What is Senator Clinton hiding, and what is lurking in those documents that she believes voters don't have a right to know?" Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs asked in a conference call with reporters, referring to Clinton's tax returns and records of spending projects she has championed as a New York senator.
Those in Clinton's camp said Obama turned to personal attacks whenever his campaign suffered a setback. "This is a tried and true technique of the Obama campaign that has repeatedly shifted 'negative' when they find momentum working against them," strategist Mark Penn said on a conference call.
Clinton officials went on to say that Obama did not have enough experience to be commander in chief and called on him to release all tax returns and other documents since taking office in the Illinois legislature in 1997.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Darn, I was hoping that Chuck Asay's March 15 assessment was correct.
#2
Obama is a one-trick pony. Half of his speeches are distorted personal histories of how he overcame peronal barriers, and once he hooks guilty whites he claims that shared "hope" will work wonders. Yah, give me 2 bottles of that snakeoil. There were similar pollyannas who hoped for peace in 1939; reality dictates that if you rest on hope, you get despair.
The stench of "reparations" follows BHO like fleas follow dogs. Can't wait for the GOP attack ads, per Karl Rove's dicta: attack early and often. Reparations-unaffordable promises-afrocentrism-dhimmism-reverse racism-
Oprah worship-black church agenda-surrenderist defense policies-deference to the Ayatollahs-
soft on immigration controls-disregard of energy
needs-owned by radical clerics-proponent of Euro style hate laws-anti profiling-anti capitalist-
no administrative experience-dubious associations-
evasive resume-misplacing cause of terrorism-
hiding charitable donations-hiding contributor list-poor legislative and voting record-soft on race based gangs-over inclined to public housing
solutions-panderings to white guilt-pronation to
source blame racially-too trusting of Muslims-
plagiarizing Jesse Jackson's "rainbow coalition"
nonsense-omits to change muslim name to Christian-not team player in Senate-makes friends on racial basis-big spender-closed to desert based and limited intervention in Iraq-indifferent to treatment of Christians in muslim tyrannies-prone to favor spending on politically tied social projects-etc ad nauseum.
Open questions: what's the worst aspect? Anybody have anything else? Should Karl Rove operate the McCain campaign?
Today's Lileks' reference to BOH. Right on, I think.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
That's BHO. PIMF.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 7:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Nixon barely campaigned in 1972; McGovern was such a joke, that he wasn't worth breaking sweat over. McCain should be checking out the Golf Course at Camp David.
smn:
You aren't buying that "audacity of hope" gimmick, I despair.
After he moved to Chicago in the mid-1980s to work as a community organizer, Barack Obama forged close ties with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- joining the pastors Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and using the topic of a Wright sermon, "the audacity of hope," as the title of his most recent best-selling book.
But more than a year ago -- long before some of Wrights more incendiary sermons became hot-button videos on YouTube, forcing Obama to publicly renounce his pastor last week -- the Obama campaign had a sense that Wright's sharp tongue might spell trouble for the Illinois senator. (For a sermon sample, click on the Read more line below.)
That was the word anyway Sunday from Obamas chief strategist, David Axelrod, who acknowledged during a conference call with reporters that Wright was disinvited ...
from Obama's official candidacy announcement on Feb. 10, 2007, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.
Wright had been expected to lead an invocation of some kind, but never appeared.
There was no doubt that there was controversy surrounding him, Axelrod said Sunday. And we didnt want to expose him [or] make him the target and a distraction on a day when Sen. Obama was going to announce his candidacy.
So if the savvy Obama campaign knew Wright was a problem a year ago, why did the Illinois senator, a parish member for two decades, wait until last week to disassociate and denounce the minister's inflammatory statements?
The topic is clearly uncomfortable for Obama and his aides, personally and politically. Axelrod's comments came only after prodding from a reporter and after he had initially suggested that Wrights absence that day was due merely to the fact that the temperature was in the single digits.
And even as Obama has condemned some of Wrights rhetoric and distanced himself from his longtime spiritual advisor, doing so has not been easy. Wright remained on an African American religious advisory committee for the campaign until Friday.
Rev. Wright married him, introduced him, as he said, to the church, brought him into the church, into Christianity, baptized his children, Axelrod said. So this is a painful thing for him because he condemns the things Rev. Wright said, but he also knows him as a person.
Wright has proven controversial in the past because of his association with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has made anti-Semitic remarks. But the controversy has grown in recent weeks with the spread of videos from Wright sermons where he condemns the United States for its foreign policy and treatment of blacks and takes on Obamas rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton.
As Wright put it, Hillary ain't never been called a nigger! Hillary has never had her people defined as non-person."
On Friday, Obama posted a message at the Huffington Post website, explaining that he had not seen such sermons in person and saying that he disagreed with them. "I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy," he wrote.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
OK...I call BS. Big, steaming piles of BS. Obama has outted himself as a fraud and lier. He attended that church for 20 years yet never heard those words? Sorry, but this is who Wright is...a racist demogogue to the core. In public, and therfore almost for certain in private, he exudes the most vile of racist and anti-semetic tendencies. Herr Wright doesn't just infer these beliefs in an oblique fasion...he shouts them repeatedly until he has nearly lost his voice. It has taken nearly a year of blogosphere activity to bring this to the surface. The pressure needs to continue. Between Obama and Hillary, at least with the Hildabeast we know what we're getting. With Obama... we don't know much, but what we are learning is very ugly indeed.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/17/2008 0:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy"
NO you don't, at least deep inside. You feel this way exactly, you just don't want to speak it outwardly because you know that it will hurt your chances of election.
There's too much of a pattern of behavior here for anyone to believe that "God damn America" is anything other than precisely how BOH approaches the universe. That people still support him is a measurement, to one extent or another, of how much they hate America in concept and practice as well.
You can't go to see the preachings of a race arsonist like Rev. Wright for decades and not have at least some of his philosophy wear off on you.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 7:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
That's BHO. PIMF.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 7:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As Wright put it, Hillary ain't never been called a nigger! Hillary has never had her people defined as non-person."
#5
I read a post over the weekend. Don't think it was here at RB, but can't recall exactly where I read it.
Anyway, the poster quoted the Rev. Wright as saying something to the effect that racist America would NEVER elect a black man to the highest office in the land.
The poster noted the irony: A black man in America, Obama, was most assuredly on a roll to become the Dem Party candidate for Prez in America, but the WORDS of the black preacher of hate, Rev. Wright, and Obama's close association to Rev. Wright, would be the cause of Obama's fall from grace.
The irony is delicious. A racist white America didn't take down Obama. A racist black preacher did.
#7
All the talk shows have had black defenders of Rev. Wright, saying all the quotes are taken out of context and it is what everyone would hear in black churches across the country! One woman said "but that's how we really think! Why is it so hard for you to accept it?"...I think black supremacy is a much more widespread problem than anyone has realized, even beyond Farrakhan's influence. This could be exploited all too easily and turned into a racial divide. Even the preacher has missed the foundational point of the Christian gospel in the first place--it has nothing to do with the color of our skin, but with our hearts. Rightly understood, the church should be the place of love and acceptance as equals born into the human race, as all are in need of God's love and grace, and the preaching of this truth is the solution to hateful doctrine.
#10
#7 All the talk shows have had black defenders of Rev. Wright, saying all the quotes are taken out of context and it is what everyone would hear in black churches across the country! One woman said "but that's how we really think! Why is it so hard for you to accept it?"...I think black supremacy is a much more widespread problem than anyone has realized, even beyond Farrakhan's influence. This could be exploited all too easily and turned into a racial divide.
Can turn something "into" something that it already is.
#12
FOX's MORT KONDRACHE > WRIGHT is a "BLACK NATIONALIST", which is consistent wid Wright's own admitted beliefs-adherence to "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY". Wright himself proclaims that BLACK PRIDE [race/ethnic] is NOT specifically or harmfully DISCRIMINATORY AGZ NON-BLACKS = OTHER RACES???
In his HANNITY-COLMES interview on FNC this past weekend, WRIGHT DEMANDED TO KNOW FROM HANNITY HOW MANY BOOKS ON BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY HAD HANNITY READ.
IMO, BARACK's newly announced upcoming speech on the WRIGHT controversy? is actually meant to offset/counter his WEAK UNCONVINCING INTERVIEW PERFORMANCE on FNC - for me, WRIGHT issues are just PCover for that. B.O. DIDN'T DO/LOOK GOOD ON FNC, AND HE = CAMPAIGN STAFF KNOWS IT. METHINKS ITS ALSO SAFE TO SAY THAT MICHELLE "HELL HATH NO FURY/BILL CLINTON + SOVIET TANK ARMIES RETREAT IN FEAR WHEN SHE STARTS POINTING HER FINGERS" OBAMA KNOWS IT TOO.
#13
Give Obama a break! I'm sure he never heard Wright say anything offensive.
Also, I didn't know that woman was a hooker. Sure, I gave her money and spent time in a hotel room together, but nothing happened. If I'd known she was a hooker, I would have left immediately.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says this about the Democratic Partys campaign for president: I think the tone could be improved.
Its not so much the candidates, she suggested, as the surrogates. I think their people are going at each other, and I think that that's wearing out. I don't think people are interested in that, Pelosi said on ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos. But I do think that before we go to the convention, we will have a nominee. We'll go into that convention unified, we'll come out of that convention unified, and we'll be ready to win.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wish somebody would drive a political stake in her stupid career.
A former top Iranian police commander appeared in court on Sunday after his arrest reportedly on suspicion of a morality-related crime, the ISNA news agency reported. A former commander in the police appeared this morning before the 76th branch of the Tehran court and the investigation against him has started, the student news agency said. Judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi confirmed last week that a high-ranking police officer had been arrested, released on bail and put under investigation. We will announce the accusations against him at a later date as the investigation is still at a preliminary stage, he said.
But the conservative Internet news site Tabnak reported that the prominent police commander had been arrested on accusations of immorality. It said that a very high-ranking Iranian official had instructed judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi to treat the former police commander like any other criminal. The name of the commander, who is said to have occupied a top post until his arrest, has not been disclosed. Information has also not emerged inside Iran about the exact nature of his alleged crime.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Isn't this the cat who was caught red-handed in a brothel with a half-dozen naked women last week? Hope he has his affairs in order.
#1
She said the US central bank had already extended support of about $US400 billion ($426 billion) to the US financial system, compared with its assets of $US800 billion.
She said financial system losses yet to be reported could easily exceed another $US400 billion.
"What is missing at the moment is the US Treasury," she said.
But Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has already declared his hostility to federal measures to help the sinking financial sector.
"Let me be clear: I oppose any bail-out," he said in a speech 10 days ago.
"Most of the proposals I've seen would do more harm than good - bailing out investors, lenders or speculators who, instead of getting a free pass, should be accountable for the risks they took," he said."
#5
It's a real estate bubble and it will finally burst when there is real fear of owning real estate because its price will decline into the foreseeable future.
#6
Geeze guys. Let the market correct for the over inflated prices. It will recover fairly quickly (1-2 years) on its own. Keep dicking with it, and you will drag it out for decades.
#7
"Keep dicking with it, and you will drag it out for decades."
Exactly. And stories like the one linked to here only serve to scare people and CAUSE the very kind of thing to happen that they are afraid of.
The media is in such an all fired hurry to create something bad during the Bush Administration that they are prepared to ruin their own parent's savings to do it.
#8
The media is in such an all fired hurry to create something bad during the Bush Administration that they are prepared to ruin their own parent's savings to do it.
Word. Brian F. Williams / NBC raises "crisis of confidence" while he does his best to undermine same.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve, in an extraordinarily rare weekend move, took bold action Sunday evening to provide cash to financially squeezed Wall Street investment houses, a fresh effort to prevent a spreading credit crisis from sinking the U.S. economy. The central bank approved a cut in its emergency lending rate to financial institutions to 3.25 percent from 3.50 percent, effective immediately, and created a lending facility for big investment banks to secure short-term loans. The new lending facility will be available to big Wall Street firms on Monday.
"These steps will provide financial institutions with greater assurance of access to funds," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters in a brief conference call Sunday evening.
"It seems as if Bernanke & Co. are pulling out all the stops to avoid a serious financial market meltdown," Richard Yamarone, an economist at Argus Research, said Sunday evening.
And that's the point: while we can grouse over people with preserved golden parachutes and the hinky hedge dealings, a meltdown nails all of us.
The new lending facility -- described as a cousin to the Fed's emergency lending "discount window" for banks -- is geared to give major investment houses a source of short-term cash on a regular basis -- if they need it. It will be in place for at least six months and "may be extended as conditions warrant," the Fed said. The interest rate will be 3.25 percent and a range of collateral -- including investment-grade mortgage backed securities -- will be accepted to back the overnight loans.
"This is the Fed as the Yucca Mountain of securitized debt, but it is no doubt necessary," said Terry Connelly, dean of Golden Gate University's Ageno School of Business, referring to the government's underground dump in Nevada for nuclear waste.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he was pleased by Sunday's developments. "Last Friday, I said that market participants are addressing challenges and I am pleased with recent developments. I appreciate the additional actions taken this evening by the Federal Reserve to enhance the stability, liquidity and orderliness of our markets," he said.
"We appreciate the actions taken by the Federal Reserve this evening," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke are actively engaged in addressing issues affecting our financial markets. Secretary Paulson has kept the president briefed on recent developments."
The "discount" rate cut announced Sunday applies only to the short-term loans that financial institutions get directly from the Federal Reserve. It doesn't apply to individual borrowers.
The Fed's actions are the latest in a recent string of innovative steps to deal with a worsening credit crisis that has unhinged Wall Street. And, the action comes just two days before the central bank's scheduled meeting on Tuesday, where another big cut to a key interest rate that affects millions of people and businesses is expected to be ordered. That key rate is now at 3 percent and is expected to be cut by at least one-half percentage point on Tuesday. Analysts said the Fed's new steps may lessen pressure for a super-sized cut to that rate.
The Fed said in a statement that the steps are "designed to bolster market liquidity and promote orderly market functioning ... essential for the promotion of economic growth."
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Fed should DEMAND EQUITY in return for loans.
It's time to end the bailouts, and demand something for the bailers (you and I).
#2
This step is quite important to ensure that nobody loses their third or fourth vacation home. It's also important that the causes behind it are never investigated and nobody ever goes to jail for it.
#3
The solution is for the fed to do the right thing and raise the interest rate to what it actually should be (8-9% right now) to reflect the actual cost of borrowing money, and allow the chips to fall where they may (I like Bright Pebbles line of reasoning). It won't happen until after the election, and that's too bad, because every minute we delay in applying the right solution will harm us down the road. But it's the only thing that will restore some honesty to our economy and the value of the dollar, no matter how painful the immediate consequences might be.
I can't understand the joy of individuals (who ought to be smarter) at keeping the interest rates as low as they've been the last eight or ten years. All this is doing is keeping bubbles puffed up and masking real-world inflation caused by other externalities.
Look for interest rates to start rising after this election cycle and be at 12-14% by 2010. There'll be nothing any politician can do to prevent that from happening, and if they somehow do find a way to keep rates at these artificially low levels, confidence in the dollar will tank completely.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 7:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This is a good article about why the crisis occured.
And I'd add that the reason banks were willing to lend approaching 100% on real estate was because of the steady appreciation of real estate. When real estate started to appreciate much faster than inflation the same lending practices prevailed, resulting in the bubble and the current train wreck.
BTW, in the Great Depression real estate fell because of deflation, but the effect was the same. The value of real estate fell below the amount of the loan and people walked away from their property and stuck the bank with the bad debt.
#5
The central bank approved a cut in its emergency lending rate to financial institutions to 3.25 percent from 3.50 percent, effective immediately, and created a lending facility for big investment banks to secure short-term loans
Of course allowing all those 'creative mortgages' to be refinanced at 3.25, or even 3.50, percent is unthinkable. [Rhetorical Question] Why do the Big Houses (Banks) get the sweetheart loans, but the average Joe Taxpayer get to carry all the overhead and profit of the institutions? Where would we be today in the financial market if all those 'risky loans' were absorbed by a federal instrument at the get-go at the lower rates? Certainly billions of fewer dollars inflating the market and cheapening the dollar on commodities.
#6
I agree that the Fed should not be lowering rates as it is, but should be providing liquidity to keep financial institutions functioning. However, there are two sides to every balance sheet.
It would be interesting to hear what all you tough guys have to say when you've lost your job, your 401(k) is worthless and your bank won't clear your checks. Because that is where this ends, for every average Joe Taxpayer if the banks really start to go under. You may not like that some people make out better in the rescue than others or that those you think are culpable don't go to jail, but that's the way deals go down. The alternative is 1931 redux. And don't think it can't happen.
#8
On the other hand NS, with the Fed dumping an astronomical level of dollars into the market we can also end up with Weimar money too. Where we all have to go plastic because the government can't print enough dollars to haul to the store to buy even basic commodities.
#10
It falls apart because the earned export monies in workers pockets that made the whole shebang work (financial food pyramid) started vaporizing when all the jobs were outsourced.
#14
These are the primary dealers in government
securities:
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. ("Old Europe" )
Banc of America Securities LLC
Barclays Capital Inc. ("New Europe" )
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Countrywide Securities Corporation
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Nold Europe)
Daiwa Securities America Inc. (Japanese Europe)
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Old Europe" )
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities LLC. ("Old Europe" )
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. (Chinese Europe)
J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
Lehman Brothers Inc.
Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc.
Mizuho Securities USA Inc. (Japanese Europe)
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
UBS Securities LLC. (Nold Europe)
#16
Fed is thinker better inflation than deflation. Still, only solution is for every one of you slackers to get to work and stop spending so much time on the interwebs.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/17/2008 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#18
N.S., I don't consider myself a tough guy at all. I want what's fair, meaning that not only are there consequences for those who failed, but also that there are benefits for those who did not. (Another "two sides", if you will.)
What are the deterrents to repeated bad financial behavior if the end result is that you aren't all that much worse off than your neighbor who didn't live beyond his means or make foolish mortgage decisions? What are the incentives to living frugally, keeping your lifestyle reasonable, getting out of debt, if the end result is that people who sacrificed a great deal less and had a whale of a time all along aren't that much worse off than you?
I thought this country was about guaranteeing opportunity, not outcomes. At some point, for America to work as America, there have to be severe limits to what the government does in terms of equalizing/mitigating economic outcomes, particularly those related to foolish behavior.
I mean, I hear what you say about a 1931 scenario, I just don't see that we're even remotely close to that, or will be. Right now it's less than 1% of the "average Joe taxpayers" that are in trouble or close on their primary residence, if the stats I've seen are correct.
This isn't about being vindictive towards tricksy bankers or stupid borrowers. If (bankers) broke the law and are convicted of it, and go to jail, or if some tiny fraction of homeowners lose their house, so be it - I'm not slavering at the mouth and cheering over that happening, nor am I particularly averse to those things happening. I'm more interested in solving the problem of getting back to financial sanity than I am in vengeance. But for the government to send the message that there will be no dire consequences to getting so deeply in debt and not paying is a very, very bad thing.
How much liquidity, exactly, should the rest of us inject? And what should its source be?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#19
No mo uro is right. Take moral hazard out of the equation and people are absolutely guaranteed to push the envelope far beyond anything a rational person would consider prudent. I studied the Great Depression pretty seriously in graduate school. The lesson I came away with was that it was all a matter of confidence in the system--when that collapsed, so did the markets.
It's going to take some pretty serious action by both the Fed and other world bankers to contain this mess, and part of that action will be to insure some debts that should never have been incurred in the first place. I don't like that, not at all, but if it's the cost of keeping another Depression away, it's well worth it.
Force Banks to open their books, and save those institutions that are possible to save and bury the rest quickly.
The price of being saved should be that the shareholders give up a large %age of equity.
This evaporating "confidence" is a result of much too much LEVERAGED INVESTMENT. This makes predicting the future of investments much more volatile both up and down, bubble and pop.
This is a result of Greenspans low interest rates and abandonment of reserve requirements. It doesn't help that Bernankes theories and thus actions are wrong
#21
Fair, you want fair? From your Federal Government? How old are you? The only place to get fair is from God. And I'm not ready to meet him, yet.
What are the incentives to living frugally, keeping your lifestyle reasonable, getting out of debt, if the end result is that people who sacrificed a great deal less and had a whale of a time all along aren't that much worse off than you?
Getting to sleep at night. No kidding. The only loan I ever had was my mortgage, paid off. Paid for my kids to go to college, what a waste that was. Never got to have a trophy wife, but I'm still waiting for TW to single up.
But I can't say I'd trade places with my bankrupt sister who plans to saddle her kids with debt to go to college while driving a Mercedes, probably hot.
But I can tell you that if we let these banks fail, it will be a lot worse for all of us. Read the Ben Stein post because he explains it a lot better than I could.
#22
"It falls apart because the earned export monies in workers pockets that made the whole shebang work (financial food pyramid) started vaporizing when all the jobs were outsourced. "
Commerce doesn't need to be a pyramid scheme. That's a zero sum approach. What commerce needs is for all components to be realistic about costs, values, and prices, and not try to coerce other parties.
The jobs were outsourced, 3DC, because workers were demanding to be compensated at a rate which was so much greater than what other equally skilled workers in other countries wanted that there was literally no justification for keeping those jobs here. American workers expected someone (government, unions, courts) to protect those incomes and the security they had enjoyed, even if it meant forcing their neighbors to pay way, way more than was necessary for many goods and services. When this reached a critical level, the jobs moved overseas.
If the American worker had realized that his monopoly on the labor market was actually over about 25 years ago and been realistic about wages and living standards (meaning, not expecting them continue, adjusted for inflation, at high levels forever), most of those jobs would never have been outsourced.
Instead, they put on the blinders and told themselves that the income security of immediate postwar America was the historic norm for the workforce (a ridiculous and provably false notion), and that it was perfectly reasonable to think that anyone who had a job could expect it to last until they were 65 or so without having to worry about it, followed by 15 or so years of comfortable retirement. The deals the big three auto manufacturers cut with the unions in the 70's and 80's are a prime example of this head-in-the-sand behavior - we couldn't afford that level of compensation and retirement then, less so now.
That paradigm has been over for a long time now, and it's never coming back, not because of corporate greed (a thing which certainly exists and causes problems, just not this one) or government indifference (ditto), but because of a changed world labor market.
I hope he's wrong, but I suspect SpoD is spot-on correct in his analysis. And this is precisely the approach which hastened the great Depression - not the offshoring of jobs (which wasn't happening then) but the fierce protectionism practiced by the U.S. in order to prop up compensation and job security in a labor market which didn't justify either. Let's not repeat that mistake. Let's tighten our belts, lower our material expectations, and work our way out of this. The jobs will come back, I suspect, when Americans are more honest with themselves about the fact that economies fluctuate and when they have a more sensible notion of living standards than the one they've come to expect for a given amount of work.
And yes, I know this means that I will have to have lower expectations for myself and my family. I won't petition the government to find ways to force my fellow citizens to pay way more than they have to for my work just so I can sleep a little better at night, the way teachers' unions do. Can we not all make the same pledge?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#23
N.S., I read the article, and I would refer you to my comment there.
Good for you on your financial situation. You deserve something better than just a good night's sleep, is all I'm trying to say.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
#24
"This is a result of Greenspans low interest rates and abandonment of reserve requirements. It doesn't help that Bernankes theories and thus actions are wrong."
You've nailed how we got here, B.P. The trick is getting out of it.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2008 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Usually I'm all in favor of avoiding moral hazard.
But there are much bigger things going on here than greed on Wall Street or even greed among consumers.
For 6 years now we've paid most of the cost of the GWOT, not only in the wars but also in security measures at home. And in the meanwhile Europe, which benefits but does not pay, exports heavily and sucks up to China. And the oil ticks engorge themselves even more.
A weak dollar was inevitable in this situation. But it's also a way to bleed off some of the advantage held by the oil ticks and Beijing with their massive holdings in dollars.
NS is right, tho: if Americans had, as a whole, acted more prudently there would be far fewer dicey loans to unwind.
Of course, if Americans had, as a whole, shown more discipline Bush could have reined in the RINOs and Dems who did their damnedest to sabotage everything he attempted over the last 7 years.
The trick is to avoid having the whole damn thing come crashing down. And that will indeed require intervention because this country started mortgaging its core back in the 90s and continued to do so up until this year. Now, while we're hurting, those holding large $$ deposits are dumping them as fast as they think they can without destroying their value entirely.
It's going to be a painful decade or more folks. Even more painful if a) the Dems keep congress & take the white house or b) we let the whole banking system crash.
#27
FOX ALL STAR PANEL > FRED BARNES = opined that IHO the US economy is NOT in trouble contrary to news' rhetoric, and that despite HILLARY [Obama's] claim about the alleged "FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE WHITE HOUSE/BUSH WH", RECENT MONETARY TROUBLES ARE DUE MORE TO KNOWINGLY RISKY EXCESSIVE SPENDING BY INDIV MAJOR LENDERS [read - Wall Street], NOT BUSH. BARNES > also opined that "The Fed" [Federal Reserve] exists precisely to intervene in market troubles/crises and to protect same from collapse or severe detriment, thus BARNES > it is NOT irresponsible ala HILLARY for either Dubya or the USG to intervene vv Federal Reserve.
* BARNES > ALLEGED US ECONOMIC TROUBLES > US Job Market had suffered only a slight job loss, INVENTORIES are good or stable, EMPLOYMENT rates are still very good, + WOT/BUDGETARY WAR SPENDING is NOT EXCESSIVE VV US ECONOMY.
BARNES > broadly questioned "WHAT [else] IS CAUSING THESE SO-CALLED MARKET/ECONOMIC TROUBLES" BECAUSE IT ISN'T THE US ECONOMY!?
OTOH, Fred-Mort cohort MARA L > IIRC/IIHC, asked HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD/CAN THE FED [Fed Reserve] INTERVENE OR "DO THIS", e.g. intervene to PROTECT THE BAD/RISKY DECISIONS OF BIG AMERICAN COMPANIES AS OPPOSED TO THE LATTER REAPING WHAT THEY'D KNOWINGLY SOWN AND CORRECTING THEMSELVES AT THEIR OWN COSTS W/O TAX DOLLARS???
#2
2 dollars a share in stock. It's stealing, They were at $84 a share on Friday but faced a run on the bank today that would a bankrupted them, so the Fed and J.P. Morgan stepped in to stop a total collapse.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Burundis last remaining rebel group accused the army of killing five of their commanders and kidnapping five more fighters in clashes that threaten to undermine a shaky peace process. 
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has criticized US President George W. Bush for his latest remarks and called him a genocidal terrorist. Chavez made the remarks on Sunday after President Bush accused him of supporting 'terrorists' in neighboring Colombia and fueling an anti-American campaign last week. 
BEIJING - The Tibetan government in exile said it had confirmed at least 80 deaths in rioting in Lhasa, as Tibetan independence protests continued in monastery towns in western China on Sunday, and the Dalai Lama said he had grave concerns that more bloodshed could follow.
Backers of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama toned down their rhetoric on Sunday for fear party infighting might turn voters against Democrats and deliver their votes into the hands of Republican John McCain.
After he moved to Chicago in the mid-1980s to work as a community organizer, Barack Obama forged close ties with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- joining the pastors Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and using the topic of a Wright sermon, "the audacity of hope," as the title of his most recent best-selling book. 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says this about the Democratic Partys campaign for president: I think the tone could be improved.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve, in an extraordinarily rare weekend move, took bold action Sunday evening to provide cash to financially squeezed Wall Street investment houses, a fresh effort to prevent a spreading credit crisis from sinking the U.S. economy. The central bank approved a cut in its emergency lending rate to financial institutions to 3.25 percent from 3.50 percent, effective immediately, and created a lending facility for big investment banks to secure short-term loans. The new lending facility will be available to big Wall Street firms on Monday.
