BILL SAMMON, The Examiner
2008-06-17 19:48:00.0
Current rank: # 1 of 7,589
WASHINGTON -
Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts, a privilege opposed by John McCain.
Responding to questions from The Examiner, Sen. John Kerry and former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said bin Laden would benefit from last week's Supreme Court decision giving terrorism suspects habeas corpus, the right to appeal their military detention to civilian courts.
“If he were to be brought back,” Clarke said of bin Laden, “the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of habeas corpus.”
Kerry, who applauded the Supreme Court ruling, said it will be carried out by whichever candidate wins the presidency.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights,” he said. “If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights.”
Randy Scheunemann, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser, said those rights should not be extended to bin Laden or the hundreds of terrorism suspects being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
“The individuals we hold at Guantanamo are very, very dangerous people,” Scheunemann said. “To give them full access to the federal courts and the criminal justice system is fraught with danger, moving forward, and likely to make America less safe, unlike Senator Obama's claim of supporting the decision that it made America safer.”
On Monday, Obama applauded the civilian prosecution of terrorists prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
“In previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center -- we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” he told ABC. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”
Obama said President Bush has relied too heavily on military prosecution of terrorists, which has “given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’”
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Obama wants “to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter, rather than a clear and present danger. Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security.”
The attack sounded familiar to Kerry, who was the Democratic presidential nominee four years ago.
“This is exactly what they tried to say back in 2004, and the record absolutely contradicts it,” Kerry told The Examiner. “Every Democrat voted to go to war and attack the Taliban and al Qaeda, the people who attacked us. That is not a [legalistic] approach.”
bsammon@dcexaminer.com
hehe--this is interesting.
ReplyDeleteObama, Rezko and Iraq from Wretchard
We took four direct assaults on our country by a sworn enemy. We struck back and instead of killing them in place, we got cute and set up Camp Rubegolbergitmo. Quit taking prisoners. If we need to interrogate, give them to someone that knows what they are doing. Do not give a deposit and do not expect a return.
ReplyDeleteWell, fellas, the Israeli have negotiated a cease fire, with Hamas.
ReplyDeleteThey are negotiating with Syria.
Coming to terms.
The Supremes have set the stage, let the play begin.
Always said the "long War" was a mistake on multiple levels. Stratigicly, tacticly and from a propaganda perspective.
Seems I was right.
"four direct assaults by a sworn enemy"
ReplyDeleteThere is the pesky little task of sorting out who the heck that "sworn enemy" is. No, lord Bush, nor the folks in uniform, have the skills necessary to parse that problem.
Bobal,
No Bobal I didn't get a chance to ask my Nuke engineer bud the waste questions. He bailed on the race last night with a email message saying "Someone screwed up at work and I have to stay to clean up the mess." No press reports as of yet indicating a radiation release... Maybe a toilet overflowed?
No problem with the enemy Ash. Let me share a few of my favorites:
ReplyDeleteA good sign is anyone taking a shot at you.
Another teller are known associates and those giving financial assistance.
I would be tempted to thrown into the mix, religious radicals known to be preaching death to America.
Know training camps and every living thing inside them.
Redoubts bored into mountains.
Armed men scrambling towards borders of refuge.
Young Muslim men going to flight school, unconcerned with landing procedures.
Agreed Deuce, we killed a lot of innocent people at Dresden; BUT, we "Won the War!"
ReplyDeleteHow many Innocents would have died it the Germans (and, Japs) had won the war?
On a more Positive Note. Brazil now Uses More Ethanol than Gasoline!
All new vehicles must be flex-fuel. THAT'S how you do it!
Only if you want to get it done, rufus.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that the US government has no desire to take a route to energy independence.
"It is obvious that the US government has no desire to take a route to energy independence."
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should ask the question: who is the US government?
"Well, fellas, the Israeli have negotiated a cease fire, with Hamas.
ReplyDeleteThey are negotiating with Syria.
Coming to terms."
We've been fighting these hell devils for at least three and a half millennia, so the war should be over any time now.
That's easy, mat
ReplyDeleteIt's the Republicans and Democrats.
Led by the money interests and the "elitess" of the East Coast Establishment.
By the same folks that imported opium to China and exported coolies from there.
By the likes of JFKerry and GWBush, both the inheritors of Russell Company doctrine.
By the proponents of Global Empire, not of a continental Republic
They are supported by the product of the American public schools.
How about anyone who shouts, "death to (insert your country of residence)"
ReplyDeleteWe?
ReplyDeleteSpeak for youself, mat.
"We" are not fighting them, not here, not there.
Which is not to say that "they" are not fighting us.
But that "we" deny it, if it's true.
There is no Global Conflict, that's already been decided,
Love it or leave it.
Which, in your case, has already occurred, as regards Israel. In regards the US, is not even an option, for you.
"Speak for youself, mat."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I thought the reference to 3,500 plus years would give you that clue.
"There is no Global Conflict, that's already been decided,.."
ReplyDeleteSo what you doing in asscrackinstan (as Trish lovingly refers to it)?
"Which, in your case, has already occurred, as regards Israel."
ReplyDeleteYou're talking spinach again, Popeye.
That is a local affair, that we have decided to impact.
ReplyDeleteAs was the Iraqi adventure.
Unconnected to each other, or any global conflict, per the decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld.
"That is a local affair, that we have decided to impact."
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly did you decide to impact on?
Just stating the obvious, mat, you left Israel, to serve yourself and your family.
ReplyDeleteAs capital accumulation is difficult, in Israel.
Instead of manning the ramparts, physically. Leaving Israel to Mr Olmert and those others that stayed behind.
Perhaps you'll return, someday, perhaps not. The future being unknowable, but predictable.
Increase opium production, mat.
ReplyDeleteServing the needs of addicts, everywhere.
"Just stating the obvious, mat, you left Israel, to serve yourself and your family."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you insist that the two are exclusive. Why deliberately make that fallacy?
"We" are not fighting them, not here, not there.
ReplyDeletei expected a better response...
we as in the usa are fighting them here...
learn US history...
1783 the USS philadelphia & betsey
without the islamic jihadists declaring war on us we would never even have become a nation....
as for israel releasing 450 prisoners
ReplyDeletevery complex actually...
at 1st glance israel is caving in to hamas...
but better question, how many of those 450 are now moles for israel? 10? 50? 80?
just watch the cycle of these releases....
"Increase opium production, mat."
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty heavy charge, dRat. You got proof to back it up?
What, that the US entered Afghanistan and opium production soared?
ReplyDeleteSure there is plenty of evidence of that.
That has been the real world result of US/NATO intervention, there.
"What, that the US entered Afghanistan and opium production soared?"
ReplyDeleteThat the US entered Afghanistan to deliberately impact opium production. Otherwise, you've yet to tell us what youz doing there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat the US/NATO has not eliminated the poppy fields?
ReplyDeleteAgain, plenty of evidence of that.
That the poppy fields have not been defoliated, again, plenty of evidence that there has been no action taken in that regard.
Evidence as to the "real" motivation of the elites, both Republican and Democrat, to engage in Asscrackistan, that is circumstantal.
Just as the "Obama, Rezko and Iraq" story is circumstantal.
No confessions will be forth coming.
Just have to judge intentions, by the results.
"No confessions will be forth coming."
ReplyDeleteThey never are when people speak from their Asscrackistan.
As for real intentions, you just have to at the map, and see if it's been updated for any new pipelines.
..you just have to ^look at the map..
ReplyDeleteThat's true, that pipelines could be installed, but where are they?
ReplyDeleteHow much pipe has been laid?
When did construction begin?
There are multiple layers to the Game.
From Brzezinski's "Arc of Instabilty", or whatever the real title was, that j willie or elijah turned us on to ...
To your pipelines and then the Russell Company inheritors of the opium trade.
The opium is the only product that is active, 'tween the pipelines or opium motivation. Some motivations are cerebral, others are real world profit centers, today.
The opium is funding the Taliban, but yet it is not subject to any serious US/NATO effort at irradication.
We are at D-Day plus 5 years, there in Asscrackistan, are we not?
ReplyDeleteOr is it six, years?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, there is only one product moving through Asscrackistan, today.
It sure isn.t oil
"The opium is funding the Taliban, but yet it is not subject to any serious US/NATO effort at irradication."
ReplyDeleteThem 400 sq ft marble gilded toilets don't come for free you know. Well, almost not.
"That's true, that pipelines could be installed, but where are they?"
ReplyDeleteFirst you need to ask where is the oil, what kind of oil is it, and who's going to refine it. Any new refineries built in the area lately?
Why don't you tell us
ReplyDeleteOr is it your contention we are there, to stop the pipelines construction?
ReplyDeleteMy contention is that you're there fight the Taliban, remember? It is you that claims ulterior motives behind the non war.
ReplyDeleteThat non war was getting kinda slow lately. I wonder if that Taliban jail break had anything to do with it.
ReplyDeleteBut we are not "Fighting the Taliban", offensively. In Afghanistan, nor are we destroying their sanctuaries, in Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteIt is the Taliban that is on the offensive. Funded by the opium trade.
A resourse that could be destroyed, as it is a strategic reserve of the enemy, if we were fighting a war.
Why are those poppies permitted to blossom?
"But we are not "Fighting the Taliban", offensively. In Afghanistan, nor are we destroying their sanctuaries, in Pakistan."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I hear. I hear there have numerous raids into Pakistan, even killed some Paki border guards who put a resistance to the military incursions. As far as fighting the Taliban goes, why have a military there at all if there's no fighting going on.
..I hear there have ^been numerous raids into Pakistan..
ReplyDeletewhack-a-mole, mat
ReplyDeletejust playin' whack-a-mole.
I heard we've reached a level of operations, similar to what we were doing in Laos, back in the day.
Much as I like Col Happersett, the truth is we lost Laos.
Rat asked:
ReplyDelete"Why are those poppies permitted to blossom?"
I'd guess because:
1. It's about the only cash crop the poor farmers can grow and a massive eradication program would drive even more of the 'friendlies' into the 'enemy' camp and
2. The logistics of mounting a massive eradication campaign exceeds the capabilities of the forces on the ground given all the other things they are trying to do there.
The Afghans seems to have acquired a taste for beating up the Pakis, and with good cause, at least that's the impression I get. So perhaps not all is lost.
ReplyDeleteYou can always count on Ashley to come thru with her sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteWell, ash, the economic postulation is not supported by a simple set of calculations, with the data provided by the CIA.
ReplyDeleteGDP - per capita (PPP):
$1,000 (2007 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 38%
industry: 24%
services: 38%
note: data exclude opium production
The other day data was linked to that put opium production as 57% of Afghanistan's GDP.
In which case both services and industry would amount to less than half of the published number.
By eliminating opium from the statistics, it seems the CIA admits, by default, that the product is in enemy hands.
The following numbers, again from the CIA confirm, by labor force, the respective size of the ag economy.
Labor force:
15 million (2004 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture: 80%
industry: 10%
services: 10% (2004 est.)
Unemployment rate:
40% (2005 est.)
An employeed labor force of 9 million, with 6 million unemployeed.
80% of the work force, the ag economy. 12 million ag workers
@ $1,000 per, $12 Billion dollars.
Four weeks of the Iraqi conflicts cash flow. Enough to subsidize every farmer in the country.
Peanut dough.
So, economic deprivation, ash, is a strawman arguement.
That we will not allocate the resources required to defeat the enemy, circumstatial evidence that there is no desire to, by the Decider-in-Chief and staff.
ReplyDeleteFor whatever the motivating rational may be
Rat,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you suggesting that we pay the farmers not to grow poppies, or grow something else? If they are keen on the Taliban side what would prevent them from funnelling that cash to the enemy? Using the iron fist of defoilation wouldn't help the mood of locals plus it would be more logistically difficult then flying a couple of planes about for a week or two.
Thank, dRat. I'm gonna leave you to babysit our champion sailor. Have fun with her. Perhaps show her how to tie a rope and hang herself.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
ReplyDeletePoppies
ReplyDeleteKarzai doesn't want to spray. Why doesn't Karzai want to spray? He's on the take> Or his hold on power is slim, according to this article.
You kinda answered the question before I asked it. Yeah, the Decider has decided it isn't worth going 'all in' to win the war. As I asked you in regard to your past desire to go 'all in' in Iraq, do a Fallujah II on the place, "To what end". The same applies in Afghanistan - what goals would be met, what outcomes obtained, if we waged 'total war' on the place?
ReplyDeleteahhh, the misogynist Mətušélaḥ displays his rapier wit - "he's a girl, he'a a girl nya nya".
ReplyDeleteSpraying
ReplyDeleteWe've sprayed in Colombia, why not Afghanistan. Karzai says no.
Figure out why Karzai is saying no, then you got an answer.
ReplyDeleteHe's saying no probably because he's trying to patch together a coalition to stay in power (if that's what you call is position - powerful). My understanding of Afghanistan is that is it is a diffuse place with 'war lords' presiding over the turf they can stake out.
ReplyDeleteTwo things, ash, taken from the pages of US history.
ReplyDeleteThe use of a war script, to pay the farmers, redeemable only through the Afghan Government and its' agents.
This was done in both Germany and Japan, I do believe, it would also be a variation of Indian Reservation management, when the Western States were cleared of terrorist raiding parties.
The destruction of the insurgent economic base, paramount for victory. Like the buffalo leaving the plains, leaving the local population defeated and dependent.
As to the scale of the defoliation project, there are any number of techniques available. From use of modified C130s to standard Ag-Cats and even ultra-lights, in those areas where Coalition troops controlled the ground, for the day.
Alternative crops could be introduced, perhaps food stuffs or ornamental plants. Or rufus's favorite, bio-mass for ethanol production.
Spraying in Colombia
ReplyDeleteSays some plants are becoming resistant.
One thing about spraying is you got to be pretty near down to the ground. You can't do it from 20,000 feet. I doubt a C-130 would the optimal choice. Even spraying a forest fire is a low level operation. And they got guns down below. Maybe even a missile or four.
ReplyDeleteAfghanistan and Pakistan, much more so than Iraq, deserves the wrath of the United States.
ReplyDeleteThe total destruction of the infrastructure that allowed the September 2001 attacks to originate from their space. The attacks were not the work of a clandestine insurgent base, but one aided and abetted by both the Afghan governemt and the Pakistani, through the ISI.
The Authorization for Use of Force was debated and passed by Congress, to address those that aided and abetted the attackers. The US efforts, to fulfill the goals of the Congressional Authorization have been half-hearted, at best.
That Pakistan got more than a pass, the attacker recieved US subsidy and largess.
In Iraq, the 1920 Brigade, et al, was never defeated, the tribal leaders they represented not deposed, but co-opted.
The Goals of the US changed, in mid-stream, seemingly after it was decided that the Goals outline in the Congressional Authorization for Use of Force, Iraq, were, in truth, fulfilled.
I agree rat it would be a worthy program to consider, the funding of other crops in particular, but it may open the door to the criticism that we are more directly funding our enemy but buying off the folks would probably be more successfully then bombing and spraying them.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is Fountain Flying Service Worked for me.
ReplyDeleteFirst plane trip I ever took was in Pete's Cessna. Won the trip in a fourth grade drawing. Pete was taking dad to Boise one time, ran out of gas over the Salmon River. Had forgot to switch tanks. Got it going again in mid-air. "We would have landed on a sand bar," he told dad.
There are risks, to winning, bob.
ReplyDeleteDown close, that's right.
Sieze the area with an air mobile assualt, spray the area, withdraw.
Land somewhere new, the next day.
Repeat
I've seen C130 types work fires, bob. They could be used, or not, C123s perhaps, armoured Ag-Cats for that matter.
How many bomber variations were tried in WWII?
We can spray the length and breadth of Afghanistan, if that was what it takes to defeat an existental threat.
That we do not, proof positive the threat is not seen as existental.
We could spray the farmers, like Sam said. Eradicate the crop and a grower and muzzie at the same time. A two-fer. Mat ought to go for that. Round-up and blister agent. The human rights activists would put up a blow, but they've shown they don't care about the dead in NYC.
ReplyDeleteMuzzies Move Along Now, Move On, Move On
ReplyDeleteNo headscarves allowed at Obamamessiah rallies.
Can't say I blame him much, I'd probably do the same. But then I'm not a 'uniter', believing some people are meant to be apart.
if it is Obama, the Iraqis will tell him on day one that we can’t leave Iraq precipitously because it will explode.
ReplyDeleteFriedman Speaks What to do in Iraq.
-------
According to Obama's advocates, we should probably be giving the poppy growers in Afghanistan, along with the jihadi, the right to a civil hearing in Federal Court, before any spraying begins; and, an Environmental Impact Study must be done too. And, community imput must be taken into consideration, field hearings held, votes taken, options weighed, etc.
And he'll say that the withdrawal of combat troops, from Iraq, will take place over the next 24 months, that they have until 20Jan2011 to get their internal security challenges behind them, or have a military capable of dealing with them.
ReplyDeleteHe'll go to Iraq and declare,
"The future's so bright,
We gotta wear shades!"
Withdraw as from a position of strength, not one of defeat.
It's a matter of definition, Obama will have the MSM with him.
Like Nixon, Obama can declare "Peace with Honor" and depart.
Brzezinski plays the Kissinger role.
Osama would be cool but women in head scarfs...not so much:
ReplyDeleteReport: Muslim Women in Headscarves Banned From Obama Photo Op
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Border
Facebook Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg email Email
comment
Two Muslim women were prohibited from sitting behind the podium at Barack Obama’s Monday rally in Detroit, apparently so their headscarves would not appear in photographs with him, according to a report Wednesday in The Politico.
The Washington newspaper reported that Obama campaign volunteers said the women could not wear the hijabs behind the candidate, though they gave different reasons for the rule.
One volunteer said that one of the women could not be seen on TV with Obama “because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans,” according to the Muslim woman’s friend.
The other volunteer gave a less political explanation to the other woman, according to the article, claiming nobody with any kind of headpiece could sit behind the stage.
Both women said they were disappointed by the treatment they received at the rally, and the Obama campaign later apologized, according to The Politico.
“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run. We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.
The Obama campaign has battled questions about his patriotism and persistent rumors that the presumptive Democratic nominee is a secret Muslim. The campaign set up a Web site last week to debunk such rumors.
Click here to read about the Muslim women at Obama’s rally in The Politico.
Watch Fox get called out for pointing this distraction out!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteObama sends a clear signal by his actions, there in Detroit, he supports the Courts and military, in Turkey.
ReplyDeleteBanning the headscarf sends a clear signal to the Islamoids, Obama stands with the Turkish Generals.
While his rhetoric is one of national and even global unity.
ReplyDeleteSuch deceptions and back-channel symbolism all required in the job description of a modern President
This is a bit troubling as my burqa and used prayer rug business has been doing quite well. I hope that this new front runner policy does not damage my biz.
ReplyDeleteYour biz buz is burkas? Bet buz takes bids on burkas in his biz.
ReplyDeleteOIL PRICES: '08’S DEFINING ISSUE
ReplyDeleteBy DICK MORRIS
Gas prices are the first important issue in the 2008 elections. But both parties have been pathetic in their solutions and, one suspects, in their understanding of what is going on.
Democrats call for windfall profits taxes. Bad idea. How can you get oil companies to explore and drill if you tax away their profits? Republicans focus on a gas tax “holiday,” an 18-cent palliative to gas prices that now top $4.50.
Fadel Gheit, managing director of oil and gas research for Oppenheimer and Co., and Jim Norman, author of the book The Oil Card, coming out next month, say that speculation is responsible for a huge part of the run-up in prices.
The growing demand for oil by India and China and the instability of oil supplies certainly account for much of the increase. But the recent spike, they say, is equally due to the weakness of the dollar and massive speculation.
They argue that oil prices are, indeed, determined by supply and demand — not only the supply and demand for oil, but also the supply and demand for oil futures. (Oil futures are a commitment to buy 1,000 barrels of oil at a certain date at a certain price.)
Formerly, most of the investments in oil futures came from energy companies. The federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sharply limited investments by those outside the business, to prevent precisely the kind of speculation now gripping the market.
But when the stock market slowed down in 2000–2002, outside investors decided to speculate in oil futures.
The new players were institutional investors like corporate and government pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, university endowments and other investors, guided by brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.
To avoid the CFTC caps, these investors moved their operations to London, setting up the International Commodities Exchange. Now they can buy all the oil futures they want.
Michael W. Masters, of Masters Capital Management, told Congress that the volume of investment in commodities futures soared from $13 billion at the end of 2003 to $260 billion by March of 2008.
After a while, the CFTC rescinded its limits on how much speculators could buy as long as they went through special “swap” desks at the major brokerage houses.
You can buy oil futures for only 5 percent down on margin, a bargain considering the 50 percent margin requirement for stock market equity investments. Because the margin requirement on oil futures rises as the due date approaches, few investors actually end up buying the oil; they just roll over their investments.
So the willingness of sellers to unload their oil futures, and of buyers to acquire them, sets up its own market of supply and demand that has more to do with determining the actual price of oil than even the global demand and supply for the product itself.
On May 20 of this year, Masters told Congress: “Commodities futures prices are the benchmark for the prices of actual physical commodities, so when index speculators drive futures prices higher, the effects are felt immediately in spot prices and the real economy. So there is a direct link between commodities futures prices and the prices your constituents are paying for essential goods.”
Gheit and Norman suggest that the CFTC regulate the domestic oil futures market (NYMEX) and the participation of U.S. companies in the ICE, restoring the caps on the amount of oil futures speculators can buy. Gheit also urges raising margin requirements for them.
Both worry that the oil futures bubble is going to burst and cost a lot of investors — particularly pension funds who channel their investments through the swap desks of the brokerage houses. We don’t need another sub-prime or savings-and-loan crisis on our hands right now.
The Senate recently tried to force CFTC regulation of all commodities speculators, but the bill was loaded down with a windfall profits tax, so the Republicans killed it.
John McCain needs to get with this program. In his town hall meeting in New York City last Thursday night, he attacked speculators for driving up oil prices but didn’t propose remedies or really explain the problem.
Americans will pay close attention if he does. For McCain, this is the issue and now is the time to use it.
IN MEMORIAM: TONY SCHWARTZ
For decades, the three S’s dominated media in our politics: Bob Squire, David Sawyer and Tony Schwartz. Now the last of this splendid trio has passed away. It makes us all feel a bit more mortal, a useful thing for politicians.
Tony was special. Everything I have ever learned about advertising and media either comes directly from his teachings or is anchored in his wisdom. He basically founded modern political media. A disciple of Marshall McLuhan, he translated his ideas into practical ways to influence voters and convey a message from a candidate.
He is directly responsible for Johnson’s huge margin over Goldwater, Carter’s election and Bill Clinton’s comeback, in 1982, following his 1980 defeat as governor of Arkansas.
He believed that media was but a catalyst for an intellectual transaction that took place in our minds. He felt the content of all advertising was internal and that the film or sound merely elicited a reaction that had been stored away.
He saw survey research (pre-search, as he liked to call it) as the road map to this internalized media. He invented the word and idea of “narrow casting,” an alternative to broadcasting — advertising aimed at a small group of people or perhaps just one president, senator or mayor.
He was a giant in the field. There is no debt more onerous and none which can be repaid with more difficulty than an intellectual one. When one’s career and the insights that have led to one’s achievements are derivative of another’s thinking, that is a hard debt to repay. This note is partial payment.
Tony Schwartz. A creative, public-spirited, brilliant man with a mind that transformed our country. Rest in peace.
Phoenix Lander finds no water yet on Mars, but, if you look at the photo you can see what may be ice.
ReplyDeleteGoing to dig a deeper trench, and check other areas. Only scratched the surface yet.
That is probably salt. There would be no explanation as to the water being clear and scraping white, when the entire place is red dust.
ReplyDeletedeuce, you wanted to know how much farmland was going for, some time ago--now I can tell you--
ReplyDeletePalouse Farm Sells For $4.7 Million
AP-Moscow
How much is a piece of Palouse paradise worth today? Judging from auction results here Tuesday, about $1,580 an acre.
"That is as true a market value as you can get," auctioneer Merle D. Booker said after the 3,000 acre Steelsmith brothers farm near Deary went to nine buyers for 15 tracts of farm property and timerland.
"They met the reserve, that's all I can say. Nearly 40 buyers came from as far away as Guam and as close as the next door neighbors.
There was speculation the properties might sell in the $7 million range and it was conceded that the results were a tad disappointing.
The Steelsmith Brothers died a number of years ago and stockholders decided it was time to sell. "At our age, we can't afford to keep this anymore." (Bob translates that as nobody wanted to work)"The costs just keep going up and up. Diesel went up to $5 a gallon and chemicals and fertilizers are up to $100,000 a year. So we can't do it. We just can't do it."(Bob translates this as the lure of easy money)
The auction started with a bang when the 95 acre Horning estate sold for $250,000 or more than $2600 an acre. But within an hour the Steelsmith total stalled at around $2.7 million and negotiations began.
Well, Steelsmiths were odd geese, never married, always lived together, more or less buried together, but really hard workers.
They shouldn't have held an auction, the heirs, they should have gotten a realtor and worked it off slowly. Small pieces always bring more, and that $2600 is more like it.
Maybe it's dry ice, since the atmosphere has lots of CO2?
ReplyDeleteMaybe one thing we could do to put some skids on the inflation in all the prices is give the truckers a big break on diesel prices, mandating they pass the savings along?
ReplyDeleteUnlawful Logic
ReplyDeleteRobert Johnson - Preaching Blues (Up Jumped the Devil)
ReplyDeleteAnn Coulter Has Her Say, And Gets It Just Right, Too
ReplyDelete