The Elephant Bar

MBS (Mind Blowing Sex) can cause TGA (transient global amnesia)

2009-11-07T07:17:00.004-05:00

Mind-blowing sex: American woman suffers amnesia after intercourse

An American woman suffered a sudden attack of amnesia after having sex with her husband.

Telegraph

The sudden loss of memory, called “transient global amnesia” or TGA, is caused by pressure in blood vessels in the brain, and can be triggered by strenuous activities, bowel movements, or – commonly – sex.

The 59-year-old woman, known only as Alice, had the worrying experience after she and her husband Scott had sex last August. She suddenly, albeit temporarily, lost all memory of the last several years and the ability to form new memories.

After sex they turned on the television, which was showing the Beijing Olympics, and she asked: "Is there an Olympics?"

Scott told CNN: "I saw that something was wrong, so I asked her, 'OK, what day is it?'"
When she couldn’t answer, he asked her to name the current President, to which she replied: "Bill Clinton." Scott called an ambulance and she was taken to hospital, where it was initially thought she may have had a stroke.
However, neurologists were soon able to diagnose TGA, a relatively common experience in the over-50s.
Dr Louis Caplan, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, said: "[Sex] is actually a well-known precipitator.

"One of the things people have done to look at transient global amnesia is to look at frequency of various precipitants and sex always comes out as one of the most common."

People with a history of migraines and severe headaches are more prone to TGA.
Although her memory has otherwise returned fully, Alice remains unable to remember the act of intercourse that triggered her attack. However, it is likely that she enjoyed herself.
Dr Caplan said: "It usually is after climax that [TGA] develops."

The shrinking Obama

2009-11-07T03:02:00.003-05:00

Here is Obama choking with sorrow over the Fort Hood tragedy:

The Myth of '08, Demolished
By Charles Krauthammer Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- Sure, Election Day 2009 will scare moderate Democrats and make passage of Obamacare more difficult. Sure, it makes it easier for resurgent Republicans to raise money and recruit candidates for 2010. But the most important effect of Tuesday's elections is historical. It demolishes the great realignment myth of 2008.

In the aftermath of last year's Obama sweep, we heard endlessly about its fundamental, revolutionary, transformational nature. How it was ushering in an FDR-like realignment for the 21st century in which new demographics -- most prominently, rising minorities and the young -- would bury the GOP far into the future. One book proclaimed "The Death of Conservatism," while the more modest merely predicted the terminal decline of the Republican Party into a regional party of the Deep South or a rump party of marginalized angry white men.

This was all ridiculous from the beginning. 2008 was a historical anomaly. A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican president, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression. And still he won by only seven points.

Exactly a year later comes the empirical validation of that skepticism. Virginia -- presumed harbinger of the new realignment, having gone Democratic in '08 for the first time in 44 years -- went red again. With a vengeance. Barack Obama had carried it by six points. The Republican gubernatorial candidate won by 17 -- a 23-point swing. New Jersey went from plus 15 Democratic in 2008 to minus 4 in 2009. A 19-point swing.

What happened? The vaunted Obama realignment vanished. In 2009 in Virginia, the black vote was down by 20 percent; the under-30 vote by 50 percent. And as for independents, the ultimate prize of any realignment, they bolted. In both Virginia and New Jersey they'd gone narrowly for Obama in '08. This year they went Republican by a staggering 33 points in Virginia and by an equally shocking 30 points in New Jersey.

White House apologists will say the Virginia Democrat was weak. If the difference between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds was so great, how come when the same two men ran against each other statewide for attorney general four years ago the race was a virtual dead heat? Which made the '09 McDonnell-Deeds rematch the closest you get in politics to a laboratory experiment for measuring the change in external conditions. Run them against each other again when it's Obamaism in action and see what happens. What happened was a Republican landslide.

The Obama coattails of 2008 are gone. The expansion of the electorate, the excitement of the young, came in uniquely propitious Democratic circumstances and amid unparalleled enthusiasm for electing the first African-American president.

November '08 was one-shot, one-time, never to be replicated. Nor was November '09 a realignment. It was a return to the norm -- and definitive confirmation that 2008 was one of the great flukes in American political history.

The irony of 2009 is that the anti-Democratic tide overshot the norm -- deeply blue New Jersey, for example, elected a Republican governor for the first time in 12 years -- because Democrats so thoroughly misread 2008 and the mandate they assumed it bestowed. Obama saw himself as anointed by a watershed victory to remake American life. Not letting the cup pass from his lips, he declared to Congress only five weeks after his swearing-in his "New Foundation" for America -- from remaking the one-sixth of the American economy that is health care to massive government regulation of the economic lifeblood that is energy.

Moreover, the same conventional wisdom that proclaimed the dawning of a new age last November dismissed the inevitable popular reaction to Obama's hubristic expansion of government, taxation, spending and debt -- the tea party demonstrators, the town hall protesters -- as a raging rabble of resentful reactionaries, AstroTurf-phony and Fox News-deranged.

Some rump. Just last month Gallup found that conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 to 1 (40 percent to 20 percent) and even outnumber moderates (at 36 percent). So on Tuesday, the "rump" rebelled. It's the natural reaction of a center-right country to a governing party seeking to rush through a left-wing agenda using temporary majorities created by the one-shot election of 2008. The misreading of that election -- and of the mandate it allegedly bestowed -- is the fundamental cause of the Democratic debacle of 2009.

"Allahu Akbar!"

2009-11-07T02:35:00.002-05:00

Dying for political correctness, dictated by the Pentagon. Why is Nidal Malik Hasan a US Army Officer?

2009-11-06T04:26:00.011-05:00

UPDATE: FORT HOOD, Texas — The base commander at Fort Hood says soldiers who witnessed a shooting rampage that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire at the Texas post.
Lt. Gen. Robert Cone told NBC's "Today" show on Friday that suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, made the comment, which is Arabic for "God is great!" before the rampage Thursday that also left 30 people wounded.
Military officials say they are still piecing together what may have pushed Hasan, an Army psychiatrist trained to help soldiers in distress, to turn on his comrades.

-----------------------------
The Army is shocked. Done in by one of their own. CNN has released a video of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, "Army of One", in a 711 the morning of the Army's 911. Just an ordinary real American army officer paid for by all of us dumb American bigots that just don't get it. Well I fucking get it and so do you. The problems is that our rulers and masters do not.

Listen up assholes: There is such a thing as a real American. Honestly gee, if an army major walks around dressed like a Bedouin in Texas, he may just not be buying into the American thing. Now here is a real shocker for you:

There is a concept developed over hundreds of thousand of generations called US and THEM. Them ain't us and all the wishing and hoping will never change it and if you and your masters and rulers do not get that, then you and us will continue to die at the hands of them. Capiche?

___________________________

Jihad at Fort Hood – by Robert Spencer
Front Page

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered twelve people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas yesterday, while, according to eyewitnesses, “shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting.” Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it. According to NPR, “the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said.” The Washington Post agreed: “The motive remains unclear, although some sources reported the suspect is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and upset about an imminent deployment.” The Huffington Post spun faster, asserting that “there is no concrete reporting as to whether Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact a Muslim or an Arab.”

Yet there was, and what’s more, Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.

Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn’t think of himself as an American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” A mosque official found that curious, saying: “I don’t know why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine.”

He is a graduate of Virginia Tech and has a doctorate in psychiatry from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. While there, NPR reports, Hasan was “put on probation early in his postgraduate work” and was “disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues.”

He was a staff psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before transferring to Fort Hood earlier this year. While at Walter Reed, he was a “very devout” member of and daily visitor to the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring. Faizul Khan, a former imam at the Center, expressed puzzlement over Hasan’s murders: “To know something like this happened, I don’t know what got into his mind. There was nothing extremist in his questions. He never showed any frustration….He never showed any remorse or wish for vengeance on anybody.”

So he identified himself as Palestinian and was a devout Muslim – so what? These things, of course, have no significance if one assumes that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that when a devout Muslim reads the Koran’s many injunctions to wage war against unbelievers, he knows that they have no force or applicability for today’s world. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims around the world demonstrate in both their words and their deeds that they take such injunctions quite seriously. And Nidal Hasan gave some indications that he may have been among them.

On May 20, 2009, a man giving his name as “NidalHasan” posted this defense of suicide bombing (all spelling and grammar as it is in the original):

There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.

Of course, it may not be the same Nidal Hasan. But there is more. One of his former colleagues, Col. Terry Lee, recalled Hasan saying statements to the effect of “Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military”; “Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors”; and even speaking favorably about people who “strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.”
Maybe he just snapped, perhaps under the pressure of his imminent deployment to Iraq. But it’s noteworthy that if he did, he snapped in exactly the same way that several other Muslims in the U.S. military have snapped in the past. In April 2005, a Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. AP reported: “Prosecutors say Akbar told investigators he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq. They said he coolly carried out the attack to achieve ‘maximum carnage’ on his comrades in the 101st Airborne Division.”

And Hasan’s murderous rampage resembles one that five Muslim men in New Jersey tried to carry out at Fort Dix in New Jersey in 2007, when they plotted to enter the U.S. Army base and murder as many soldiers as they could.

That was a jihad plot. One of the plotters, Serdar Tatar, told an FBI informant late in 2006: “I’m gonna do it….It doesn’t matter to me, whether I get locked up, arrested, or get taken away, it doesn’t matter. Or I die, doesn’t matter, I’m doing it in the name of Allah.” Another plotter, Mohamad Shnewer, was caught on tape saying, “They are the ones, we are going to put bullets in their heads, Allah willing.”

Nidal Hasan’s statements about Muslims rising up against the U.S. military aren’t too far from that, albeit less graphic. The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that – once again – nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan.

Take the test

2009-11-06T03:33:00.000-05:00

Hat tip: Doug

HERE’S THE TEST

1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:

a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by :

a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair
by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassiesin Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

No, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do
you Ft. Hood?

Can the Republicans screw up the next Presidential campaign?

2009-11-05T06:17:00.005-05:00

The Republicans could not be foolish enough to think the American public would go for Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee in 2012, could they? Barack Obama could not possibly be that lucky, you think?

_____________________

What the election results mean for Barack Obama and Sarah Palin

Toby Harnden
Telegraph

So, 24 hours after the votes have been counted and as the chattering classes fall silent, what does it all mean? Here are 10 thoughts to take away:

Barack Obama needs to be very afraid. If he doesn’t start to notch up concrete achievements, the Democrats could take a pasting in next year’s mid-terms, setting the stage for his being a one-term president.
Sarah Palin roared and had a considerable impact in New York’s 23rd District, which the Democrat narrowly won. Trouble is for her that the result showed the limits of her appeal. There was no exit polling and so there is much supposition but it seems that her intervention energised conservatives but alienated centrists. Perhaps the national Republican who came out best was Mitt Romney, who decided not to get involved.
The 2008 presidential election was probably an aberration rather than a seismic shift in the political landscape. Obama’s winning formula of massive turnout from the young and the black plus support from independents seems to be a thing of history.
Bob McDonnell’s thumping 18-point win in Virginia shows how Republicans can win again. He and Chris Christie, the New Jersey victor, did not take up Palin’s offer to campaign for them and played down their social conservatism – so this could be bad news for Palinites.
The national Republican party is in disarray. If they don’t get their act together then Obama will win a second term by default if nothing else.
The media narrative about NY23 – that it was about an intolerant Right purging a noble moderate – is rubbish. What happened was a very liberal Republican and awful candidate was chosen in error/arrogance and the people rejected her. She then showed her true colours by sabotaging the GOP. There’s a lot of Democratic gloating but you can bet the farm on a Republican being elected there in a year’s time.
This is likely to make health-care reform more difficult to achieve because conservative Democrats in the House will be fearful of signing their own death warrant by backing Nancy Pelosi and Obama.
Calling your opponent fat is not a winning strategy. Even if he is.
After the result in Maine, the battle over gay marriage is far from over.
It’s the economy stupid and despite all the White House spin, it seems they get that.

Afghani Police: How do you train bands of idiots and turn them into a force if they have no sense of loyalty, no sense of belonging?

2009-11-04T23:28:00.003-05:00

>

Need to see more? Here is an interesting clip on US Marines trying to train some Afghani police recruits.

_____________________

'Most of them were corrupt and stoned on opium'

A senior serving soldier reveals how the Afghan policemen in Helmand are often a danger to the British forces they work with

Thursday, 5 November 2009 Independent

When I heard the news this morning, I thought "Christ, five in one go..." I was shocked and saddened – but I was not surprised that it had happened. I'm surprised it took this long.

We went out to Helmand to mentor the Afghan National Police without understanding the level they were at. We thought we would be arresting people, helping them to police efficiently. Instead we were literally training them how to point a gun on the ranges, and telling them why you should not stop cars and demand "taxes".

Most of them were corrupt and took drugs, particularly opium. The lads would go into police stations at night and they would be stoned; sometimes they would fire indiscriminately at nothing.

They had no understanding of the basics of what it means to be a policeman. We expected to be teaching adults at a certain level and then realised we would be changing nappies. Give them 20 rounds and they will hit the target once.

The first time I saw them I realised that they had almost no training; some of them had very little ability. Their uniforms were dirty and didn't fit. Their weapon-cleaning was non-existent.

They certainly didn't have a concept of being upstanding members of the community. They had no loyalty, esprit de corps or cameraderie. That should have been incorporated in their training. They did have pride – because of the power and status they felt.

How do you train this band of idiots and turn them into a force to be reckoned with if they have no sense of loyalty, no sense of belonging?

The biggest problem was that we didn't know who we were getting. There were no security checks – they were literally allowed to come into the compound and we had to rely on the local chief of police, who recruited them. We kept a close eye on them because we didn't know or trust them – it was for our own security.

Perhaps half of them genuinely wanted to try to make the community safe: they had the right intention but the attention span of gnats. Twenty would turn up one day, none the next, then 15, then suddenly a new face would appear.

It was difficult just getting them to a basic level, to do things like man a post. They would take drugs, go to sleep, leave their post, have sex with each other. Very few were vigilant or alert.

When we went out of camp to do stop-and-searches, we became sitting ducks – nothing more than bodyguards or babysitters while they worked.

British troops felt extremely vulnerable. If they were going out on patrol they didn't tell the Afghans where, so they couldn't pass on the information – they didn't want improvised explosive devices (IEDs) laid in the area. They didn't trust them one bit.

There was an operation involving the Brits and the Afghan National Army to clear Nad-e-Ali, and it cost lives. The police were left at checkpoints, but within 48 hours all the checkpoints had been overrun or the police just buggered off. As soon as the ground was won it was lost again.

The Afghan army are a lot more switched on. They have started to stand up for themselves. But the police have not had the same investment. There is no point in pushing the army through to clear ground if you leave a void behind with the police.

Lives get lost for nothing.

The Afghan police are very good at understanding the environment and if the atmospherics have changed because they are local: they know the area and the people. They are also good at spotting IEDs, although some just pick them up and walk off with them, or put them into the back of their vehicle.

Progress is being made, but it is extremely slow. I am convinced that a lot of money has been wasted and people have lost their lives unnecessarily because it was for a political end, and not a military decision. The British Army has been pushed into doing something it should not be. This type of mentoring role could be fulfilled by our Ministry of Defence police or civilian coppers (in a secure compound).

A lot could be done without putting British soldiers' lives at risk. They should recruit the right Afghans, security check them, pay them regularly and train them properly – at least three months out of the area – all before the squaddie ever gets to see them.

The author's identity has been withheld

Better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders.

2009-11-04T06:05:00.003-05:00

Hat tip: Desert Rat

Writing in the Guardian, Kim Howells – who had ministerial responsibility for Afghanistan until 2008 – said: "It would be better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders [and] gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain."

Kim Howells, a former minister, said the shooting dead of five British soldiers by a rogue Afghan policeman has dealt a blow to the heart of the UK's exit strategy.

Mr Howells, who now chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, said the incident in the Nad-e'Ali district of Helmand province yesterday undermined the British and US strategy of building up the Afghan security forces.
"There are many people who have argued that there is only one way out of this for Britain and America and that is to train up the Afghan army and police force so that they can become responsible for their own security.

"This is a real blow because it strikes right at the heart of that policy."
Earlier, Dr Howells broke with Government policy by calling for the phased withdrawal of British troops, arguing that the money would be better spent on police and security measures to prevent al Qaeda terror attacks in the UK.
__________________________

British soldiers killed in attack by Afghan policeman
Ministry of Defence says five soldiers died after 'rogue' policeman opened fire in Helmand province

Mark Tran, Alexandra Topping and Jon Boone in Kabul
guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 4 November 2009 09.43 GMT

Five British soldiers have been killed and several others injured in a gun attack by a "rogue" Afghan policeman in Helmand province, the Ministry of Defence said today.

The soldiers – three from the Grenadier Guards and two from the Royal Military police – were killed by gunshot wounds suffered in the attack, which happened in the Nad-e'Ali district yesterday.

British and Afghan officials said the men were killed at a police checkpoint when the policeman picked up his weapon and began firing.

They said the attacker's motives were unclear, adding that the incident was being investigated by Afghan authorities and the Royal Military police.

"The soldiers concerned were mentoring Afghan police," Lieutenant Colonel David Wakefield, an army spokesman, told Sky News.

"They were working inside and living inside an Afghan national police checkpoint.

"It would appear, and it is our initial understanding, that an individual Afghan policeman, possibly acting with another, started firing within the checkpoint before fleeing the scene."

Wakefield stressed that the attack had not come as a result of any breakdown or fight between British and Afghan forces.

The casualties were evacuated to hospital at Camp Bastion, with several flown there in Chinook helicopters and a US Black Hawk.

Two injured Afghan policemen were taken to hospital at Bost, in Lashkar Gah.

Peter Galbraith, a former deputy head of the UN mission in Afghanistan – who left his post over disagreements about the presidential elections – said "rushed" attempts to train extra Afghan officers for the now cancelled presidential election runoff meant such incidents could be expected.

"It is a terrible tragedy … but it is, I won't quite say inevitable, but it is not surprising," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He said police usually received an eight-week training course, but it had been shortened to five weeks in order to have more police available for the elections, particularly in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, he added.

"The process of police training and recruiting has been very rushed," he added. "There isn't a lot of vetting of police before they are hired.

"It is not totally surprising that people were recruited who may have had Taliban sympathies or were infiltrated into the police by the Taliban, although I don't know yet whether, in this particular episode, that is exactly what happened."

The deaths make 2009 the bloodiest year for the British armed forces since the Falklands war, bringing the total so far to 93.

Until now, the worst period since the Falklands conflict had been 2007, when 89 members of the armed forces died on active service.

The death toll in Afghanistan since the conflict began in 2001 now stands at 229, and the increasing number of casualties has led to growing questioning of the eight-year war.

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, paid tribute to the soldiers, describing their deaths as a "terrible loss".

"My thoughts, condolences and sympathies go to their families, loved ones and colleagues. I know that the whole country, too, will mourn their loss," he said.

"They fought to make Afghanistan more secure, but above all to make Britain safer from the terrorism and extremism which continues to threaten us from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I pay tribute to their courage, skill and determination. They will never be forgotten."

Brown said it was his "highest priority" to ensure troops had the best possible support and equipment and "the right strategy, backed by our international partners, and by a new Afghan government ready to play its part in confronting the challenges Afghanistan faces".

The defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, offered his condolences to the families of the soldiers and emphasised the need for the country to show "resolve" in supporting the Afghan conflict.

"It continues to be a difficult year in Afghanistan for our brave people who are operating within the most challenging area of the country," he said.

"We owe it to them to show the resolve that they exhibit every day in building security and stability in Afghanistan and protecting the UK from the threat of terrorism."

Earlier this week, the MoD announced that a senior army explosives expert had been killed while defusing a bomb in southern Afghanistan.

Staff Sergeant Olaf Sean George Schmid died as he tried to make safe an improvised explosive device in the Sangin region of Helmand on Saturday.

The 30-year-old had been about to end his tour of duty after five months in Afghanistan.

Abdullah Abdullah, President Hamid Karzai's closest challenger in the disputed Afghan presidential election, also offered his condolences to the relatives of the dead soldiers and stressed the need for international troops.

"Eight years down the road, we still need more troops in the absence of a credible and legitimate partner," Abdullah, a former foreign minister, said. "More soldiers and more resources are the only thing we can resort to."

The latest fatalities came as a major rift opened in the British government's support for the Afghan war, with the former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells calling for the phased withdrawal of UK troops from Helmand.

Howells, who is now Brown's intelligence and security watchdog, said the billions of pounds saved should be redirected to defending the UK from terrorist attacks by al-Qaida.

Writing in the Guardian, Howells – who had ministerial responsibility for Afghanistan until 2008 – said: "It would be better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders [and] gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain."

Corzine goes down in flames. Obama will get scorched.

2009-11-03T23:05:00.004-05:00

Republican wins in the top three spots in Virginia and now in New Jersey is bad news for Obama. This will be a game changer for the agenda to no where, which is exactly where it is going now.

"As long as Iran has friends like Russia and China, Iran can afford to be dismissive."

2009-11-03T00:53:00.006-05:00

An interesting synopsis of why the US policy towards Iran is failing. I have bulleted the points made by the author. The entire article follows the outline:

China and Iran

Washington has done little to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. That task -- performed by the U.S. in recent recessions -- has fallen willy-nilly to China. History repeatedly shows that such economic clout sooner or later translates into diplomatic power.
Chinese oil companies have committed an estimated $120 billion dollars -- so far -- to Iran's energy industry.
Iran, with the second largest oil as well as gas reserves in the world, looms large in the strategic plans of Beijing.
Chinese oil corporations have already started shipping gasoline to Iran to fill the gap caused by a stoppage of supplies from British and Indian companies anticipating Washington's possible move.
Iran's national oil corporation has also invited its Chinese counterparts to participate in a $42.8 billion project to construct seven oil refineries and a 1,000 mile trans-Iran pipeline that will facilitate pumping petroleum to China. The Chinese want to import Iran's petroleum and natural gas through pipelines across Central Asia, thus circumventing sea routes vulnerable to U.S. naval interdiction.

Russia and Iran

Russia is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran.
A sub-structure of pipelines and economic alliances between hydrocarbon-rich Russia, Iran, and energy-hungry China is now being forged.
Russia is making serious money from its dealings with Iran.

The US and Iran

Iranians watched the Bush administration invade neighboring Iraq and overthrow its president, Saddam Hussein, on trumped-up charges involving his supposed program to produce weapons of mass destruction.
Bush authorized a clandestine CIA program with a budget of $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime.
Insecure regimes seek security in nuclear arms. History shows that joining the nuclear club has, in fact, proven an effective strategy for survival. Israel and North Korea provide striking examples of this.
Israel has acquired an arsenal of 80 to 200 nuclear weapons.
Once North Korea tested its first atomic bomb in October 2006, the Bush administration softened its stance towards it.
North Korea got its name removed from the Bush State Department's list of nations that support international terrorism.
Under eight years of George Bush the United States effectively went broke while Chinese and Russian wealth and influence exploded.

_____________________

October 29, 2009

Why Obama’s Iran Policy Will Fail

Dilip Hiro: The Administration Remains Stuck in Bush Mode in a Changed World

CBS

While the tone of the Obama administration is different from that of its predecessor, and some of its foreign policies diverge from those of George W. Bush, at their core both administrations subscribe to the same doctrine: Whatever the White House perceives as a threat -- whether it be Iran, North Korea, or the proliferation of long-range missiles -- must be viewed as such by Moscow and Beijing.

In addition, by the evidence available, Barack Obama has not drawn the right conclusion from his predecessor's failed Iran policy. A paradigm of sticks-and-carrots simply is not going to work in the case of the Islamic Republic. Here, a lesson is readily available, if only the Obama White House were willing to consider Iran's recent history. It is unrealistic to expect that a regime which fought Saddam Hussein's Iraq (then backed by the United States) to a standstill in a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s, unaided by any foreign power, and has for 30 years withstood the consequences of U.S.-imposed economic sanctions will be alarmed by Washington's fresh threats of "crippling sanctions."

Most important, the Obama administration is ignoring the altered international order that has emerged in the wake of the global financial crisis triggered by Wall Street's excesses. While its stimulus package, funded by taxpayers and foreign borrowing, has arrested the decline in the nation's gross domestic product, Washington has done little to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. That task -- performed by the U.S. in recent recessions -- has fallen willy-nilly to China. History repeatedly shows that such economic clout sooner or later translates into diplomatic power.

Backed by more than $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, the state-owned Chinese oil corporations have been locking up hydrocarbon resources as far away as Brazil. Not surprisingly, Iran, with the second largest oil as well as gas reserves in the world, looms large in the strategic plans of Beijing. The Chinese want to import Iran's petroleum and natural gas through pipelines across Central Asia, thus circumventing sea routes vulnerable to U.S. naval interdiction. As this is an integral part of China's energy security policy, little wonder that Chinese oil companies have committed an estimated $120 billion dollars -- so far -- to Iran's energy industry.

During a recent meeting with Iran's first vice president, Muhammad Reza Rahimi, in Beijing, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao stressed the importance of cooperation between the two countries when it comes to hydrocarbons and trade (at $29 billion a year, and rising), as well as "greater coordination in international affairs." Little wonder, then, that China has already moved to neutralize any sanctions that the United States -- backed by Britain, France and Germany -- might impose on Iran without United Nations authorization.
Foremost among these would be a ban on the export of gasoline to Iran, whose oil refining capacity falls significantly short of domestic demand. Chinese oil corporations have already started shipping gasoline to Iran to fill the gap caused by a stoppage of supplies from British and Indian companies anticipating Washington's possible move. Between June and August 2009, China signed $8 billion worth of contracts with Iran to help expand two existing Iranian oil refineries to produce more gasoline domestically and to help develop the gigantic South Pars natural gas field. Iran's national oil corporation has also invited its Chinese counterparts to participate in a $42.8 billion project to construct seven oil refineries and a 1,000 mile trans-Iran pipeline that will facilitate pumping petroleum to China.

Tehran and Moscow

When it comes to Russia, Tehran and Moscow have a long history of close relations, going back to Tsarist times. During that period and the subsequent Soviet era, the two states shared the inland Caspian Sea. Now, as two of the five littoral states of the Caspian, Iran and Russia still share a common fluvial border.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, relations between the Islamic Republic and Russia warmed. Defying pressures from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Russia's state-owned nuclear power company continued building a civilian nuclear power plant near the Iranian port city of Bushehr. It is scheduled to begin generating electricity next year.

As for nuclear threats, the Kremlin's perspective varies from Washington's. It is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran. Significantly, it was during his recent trip to Beijing to conclude ambitious hydrocarbon agreements with China that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, "If we speak about some kind of sanctions [on Iran] now, before we take concrete steps, we will fail to create favorable conditions for negotiations. That is why we consider such talk premature."

The negotiations that Putin mentioned are now ongoing between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., Britain, China, France, and Russia) as well as Germany. According to Western sources, the agenda of the talks is initially to center on a "freeze for freeze"agreement. Iran would suspend its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for the U.N. Security Council not strengthening its present nominal economic sanctions. If these reports are accurate, then the chances of a major breakthrough may be slim indeed.

At the heart of this issue lies Iran's potential ability to enrich uranium to a level usable as fuel for a nuclear weapon. This, in turn, is linked to the way Iran's leaders view national security. As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is, in fact, entitled to enrich uranium. The key point is the degree of enrichment: 5% enriched uranium for use as fuel in an electricity generating plant (called low enriched uranium, LEU); 20% enriched for use as feedstock for producing medical isotopes (categorized as medium enriched uranium, MEU); and 90%-plus for bomb-grade fuel (known as high enriched uranium, HEU).

So far, what Iran has produced at its Natanz nuclear plant is LEU. At the Iran-Six Powers meeting in Geneva on October 1st, Iran agreed in principle to send three-quarters of its present stock of 1,600 kilograms (3,500 pounds) of LEU to Russia to be enriched into MEU and shipped back to its existing Tehran Research Reactor to produce medical isotopes. If this agreement is fleshed out and finalized by all the parties under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency, then the proportion of Iran's LEU with a potential of being turned into HEU would diminish dramatically.

When it comes to the nuclear conundrum, what distinguishes China and Russia from the U.S. is that they have conferred unconditional diplomatic recognition and acceptance on the Islamic Republic of Iran. So their is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran.. Indeed, a sub-structure of pipelines and economic alliances between hydrocarbon-rich Russia, Iran, and energy-hungry China is now being forged. In other words, the foundation is being laid for the emergence of a Russia-Iran-China diplomatic triad in the not-too-distant future, while Washington remains stuck in an old groove of imposing "punishing"sanctions against Tehran for its nuclear program.

Tehran and Washington

There is, of course, a deep and painful legacy of animosity and ill-feeling between the 30-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S. Iran was an early victim of Washington's subversive activities when the six-year-old CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadiq in 1953. That scar on Iran's body politic has not healed yet. Half a century later, the Iranians watched the Bush administration invade neighboring Iraq and overthrow its president, Saddam Hussein, on trumped-up charges involving his supposed program to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Iran's leaders know that during his second term in office -- as Seymour Hersh revealed in the New Yorker -- Bush authorized a clandestine CIA program with a budget of $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime. They are also aware that the CIA has focused on stoking disaffection among Sunni ethnic minorities in Shiite-ruled Iran. These include ethnic Arabs in the oil-rich province of Khuzistan adjoining Iraq, and ethnic Baluchis in Sistan-Baluchistan Province abutting the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

Little wonder that Tehran pointed an accusing finger at the U.S. for the recent assassination of six commanders of its Revolutionary Guard Corps in Sistan-Baluchistan by two suicide bombers belonging to Jundallah (the Army of Allah), an extremist Sunni organization. As yet, there is no sign, overt or covert, that President Obama has canceled or repudiated his predecessor's program to destabilize the Iranian regime.

Insecure regimes seek security in nuclear arms. History shows that joining the nuclear club has, in fact, proven an effective strategy for survival. Israel and North Korea provide striking examples of this.

Unsure of Western military assistance in a conventional war with Arab nations, and of its ability to maintain its traditional armed superiority over its Arab adversaries, Israel's leaders embarked on a nuclear weapons program in the mid-1950s. They succeeded in their project a decade later. Since then Israel has acquired an arsenal of 80 to 200 nuclear weapons.

In the North Korean case, once the country had tested its first atomic bomb in October 2006, the Bush administration softened its stance towards it. In the bargaining that followed, North Korea got its name removed from the State Department's list of nations that support international terrorism. In the on-again-off-again bilateral negotiations that followed, the Pyongyang regime as an official nuclear state has been seeking a guarantee against attack or subversion by the United States.

Without saying so publicly, Iran's leaders want a similar guarantee from the U.S. Conversely, unless Washington ends its clandestine program to destabilize the Iranian state, and caps it with an offer of diplomatic acceptance and normal relations, there is no prospect of Tehran abandoning its right to enrich uranium. On the other hand, the continuation of a policy of destabilization, coupled with ongoing threats of "crippling"sanctions and military strikes (whether by the Pentagon or Israel), can only drive the Iranians toward a nuclear breakout capability.

During George W. Bush's eight-year presidency, the U.S. position in the world underwent a sea change. From the Clinton administration, Bush had inherited a legacy of 92 months of continuous economic prosperity, a budget in surplus, and the transformation of the U.N. Security Council into a handmaiden of the State Department. What he passed on to Barack Obama was the Great Recession in a world where America's popularity had hit rock bottom and its economic strength was visibly ebbing. All this paved the way for the economic and political rise of China, as well as the strengthening of Russia as an energy giant capable of extending its influence in Europe and challenging American dominance in the Middle East.

In this new environment expecting the leaders of Iran, backed by China and Russia, to do the bidding of Washington means placing a bet on the inconceivable.

Where will revenue come from with increasing unemployment, increased consumer saving and government deficits?

2009-11-02T07:42:00.000-05:00

I wish I had more confidence in the Obama Administration's ability to handle the financial mess but his obsession in picking this time to try and recreate and expand the US health care system is deeply concerning.

Obama should have no greater focus than fixing the economic engine of a mighty big ship.

Instead we have a race to fulfill an agenda to redistribute wealth to a political constituency, regardless of cost, and at a time when composite wealth is diminishing.

Obama seems tone death to the ugly rumbles coming up from the economic tectonic plates.

The filing for bankruptcy by CIT will clearly be bad for employment at the thousands of small firms served by CIT will have to trim spending, employment, and business expansion. The loss of the two billion plus TARP funds lent to CIT will be insignificant to the losses in those same firms served by CIT. This is no time for weak companies to be looking for alternative sources of funding.

Rising unemployment means less taxes and less private sector spending, greater consumer caution and increased savings and of course, greater federal deficits. The increased savings would be desirable if the savings were being recycled to domestic investment, but the fear in the banking sector is not allowing that to happen.

Obama and almost no one around him has ever run a business or worked for one. Biden has been in congress since he had first growth hair. When they talk about saving jobs they talk about an industry they understand and that is government. Obama talks about saving government jobs, municipal workers and teachers, important but not revenue producers from the private sector.

Unemployment numbers for this week will be telling. On Sunday, Timmy Boy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, said, "unemployment is worse than almost everybody expected, but growth is back a little more quickly."

Reassuring isn't it?

__________________

Mother of all carry trades faces an inevitable bust
By Nouriel Roubini
Published: November 1 2009
From the Financial Times:

...while the US and global economy have begun a modest recovery, asset prices have gone through the roof since March in a major and synchronised rally. While asset prices were falling sharply in 2008, when the dollar was rallying, they have recovered sharply since March while the dollar is tanking. Risky asset prices have risen too much, too soon and too fast compared with macroeconomic fundamentals.

So what is behind this massive rally? Certainly it has been helped by a wave of liquidity from near-zero interest rates and quantitative easing. But a more important factor fuelling this asset bubble is the weakness of the US dollar, driven by the mother of all carry trades. The US dollar has become the major funding currency of carry trades as the Fed has kept interest rates on hold and is expected to do so for a long time. Investors who are shorting the US dollar to buy on a highly leveraged basis higher-yielding assets and other global assets are not just borrowing at zero interest rates in dollar terms; they are borrowing at very negative interest rates – as low as negative 10 or 20 per cent annualised – as the fall in the US dollar leads to massive capital gains on short dollar positions.

Let us sum up: traders are borrowing at negative 20 per cent rates to invest on a highly leveraged basis on a mass of risky global assets that are rising in price due to excess liquidity and a massive carry trade. Every investor who plays this risky game looks like a genius – even if they are just riding a huge bubble financed by a large negative cost of borrowing – as the total returns have been in the 50-70 per cent range since March.

(continue)

Will Christie win Jersey cause he is fat?

2009-11-02T06:18:00.003-05:00

Presidential salutes

2009-11-01T13:17:00.008-05:00

I don't like Presidents saluting. I didn't like it when Reagan did it it and do not recall anyone including Eisenhower doing it before Reagan. I suppose it is harmless but It reminds me of third world dictatorships and worse. It also adds a link to the military that IMO is dangerous for a US president, especially those that never served and might be reluctant to overrule military decisions when necessary. I may have cracked a tooth or two watching Clinton getting the hang of it.

Saluting comes with style. George Bush saluted like the BS smirky salutes you always expected from fighter pilots. Marine honor guards clearly saluted better than air force enlistees. With civilian presidents, it always looks slightly out of sync.

Saluting is a symbol respecting senior rank of uniform. A general out of uniform does not require a salute. Not returning a salulte is a strong message especially when you have the power and right not to so. the President has that power and should use it by not returning salutes.

I think it better that a president appear that he has more important things on his mind than returning salutes. Let them know who is boss.

The New York Times has some different thoughts:

___________________

A Final Verdict on the Presidential Salute

NY Times
By CAREY WINFREY
Published: October 31, 2009

FOR nearly three decades, I’ve felt conflicted about presidential salutes. After all, my United States Marine Corps instructors drilled into me the idea that “you never salute without a cover” which, in civilian, meant without a hat.

President Obama at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Oct. 29, 2009.
My fellow Marines and I were also informed, in no uncertain terms, that we weren’t to salute out of uniform. (I don’t think that presidential blue suits, white shirts and red ties quite qualify.) So whenever I saw a president stepping off a helicopter and bringing hand to brow, my drill instructor’s unambiguous words came back to me with much of their original force.

Then there were the salutes themselves, which ranged from halfhearted to jaunty. None of them fulfilled the characteristically succinct prescription that Capt. Jack O’Donnell of the Marine Corps delivered, in 1963, to my platoon of freshly minted second lieutenants at basic school in Quantico, Va.: “Your salute,” he pronounced, “must be impeccable,” by which we took him to mean like his: a straight line running from elbow to fingertips, the fingers and thumb forming a seamless whole, the arm brought swiftly to the brim of the cap, no palm showing, and then lowered smartly to the side.

Presidents have long been saluted, but they began returning salutes relatively recently. Ronald Reagan was thought to be the first, in 1981. He had sought advice on the matter from Gen. Robert Barrow, commandant of the Marine Corps. According to John Kline, then Mr. Reagan’s military aide and today a member of Congress from Minnesota, General Barrow told the president that as commander in chief he could salute anybody he wished. And so it began.

Mr. Reagan’s successors continued the practice, and I continued to be conflicted — believing that when it comes to salutes (and one or two other matters), presidents deserved to be cut some slack, but also feeling a little uneasy about the whole thing.

My ambivalence came to an end last week, when I saw a videotape of the president’s midnight trip to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where he had participated, very early that morning, in the “dignified transfer” of 15 Army soldiers and three Drug Enforcement Administration agents killed that week in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama stood ramrod straight and saluted as six soldiers carried the coffin bearing the body of Sgt. Dale Griffin of Indiana off a C-17 transport aircraft and into a waiting van. His salute, it struck me, was impeccable in every way.

Carey Winfrey is the editor of Smithsonian magazine.

A Pakistani view of the Clinton visit.

2009-11-01T08:28:00.004-05:00

Clinton's call

The News

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Hillary Clinton's three-day visit to Pakistan, her first as US secretary of state, marks a fairly distinct break with the past. Unlike her tough-talking and deliberately abrasive predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, Ms Clinton went out of her way to be charming, open and to talk to a wide range of people. Her experiences in the US Senate also meant she brought in a mature handling of queries and a better understanding of how complex the regional situation is. The interaction with students at the Government College University in Lahore should have been especially instructive for the person who will be playing a key role in devising foreign policy in Washington. The students who lined up to question her were not hostile. But they made it clear they shared with the majority of citizens a lack of trust for the US and scepticism about intentions. To her credit Ms Clinton accepted there were good grounds for this lack of faith. Her assurance that the Obama administration represented real change is one that will need though to be proven through deeds and not just words. The sometimes startled response from the secretary of state to the far tougher questions thrown at her by a TV panel made up of top anchor people suggests the government functionaries she met in Islamabad may have offered up a typically sanitized picture of prevailing sentiments. It is, therefore, encouraging that despite the immense security concerns Hillary Clinton made it a point to see the 'real' Pakistan, also holding a meeting with Mian Nawaz Sharif in his home city.

But for all her pleasant smiles, Ms Clinton did not shy away from making some things quite clear. She stated that she believed the Al Qaeda leadership was indeed in Pakistan, she stressed an all-out effort on every front was needed against terrorism and she focused on how much Pakistan had to gain, especially in economic terms, by normalizing ties with India. If we are honest, we cannot deny that much of what she said was true. For reasons buried in ideology, many of us, whether we draw influence from the right or the left of the political spectrum, have difficulty in suggesting that an alliance with the US could benefit Pakistan. It would also be naïve to assume that Washington wishes to 'help' Pakistan as an ally. International relations are after all geared around self-interest and self-preservation. There is nothing noble about Washington's focus on Islamabad. But it is possible that at this particular moment in history the interests of both nations coincide. This is something we should use to our advantage.

Overcoming the militant threat and entering in to a less acrimonious relationship with India would benefit most citizens. There are segments that would stand to lose, but ways must be found to prevent them from subverting the interests of the majority. They have done so repeatedly through the decades since 1947. The current US setup seems to have recognized some of this. Ms Clinton also emphasized in this respect a dramatic change in policy from those of the George W Bush-led team. The Bush administration's virtually blind backing for former president Musharraf created a number of the problems we face today. Our political leaders must assess the way we can most effectively counter these. In realistic terms, going beyond rhetoric or wishful thinking, it is inevitable that we will need to work with the US at least for some years to come. We cannot on our own hope to conquer that monster of terrorism that Washington's policies helped create. Nor do we have the economic or moral wherewithal to do this. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a willingness to better understand concerns in Pakistan and to open wider the doors of communication. There are still plenty of reasons to be wary of US intentions. But for now, the opportunities for a more open relation laid out by the secretary of state need to be seized and utilized to pull our country out of the pit into which it has stumbled as a result of errors made in the past.

A bad day for the English language

2009-10-31T03:21:00.007-04:00

"is there any doubt that if another country had "invented" the Internet--say the Russians--that we'd all have had to learn to type Cyrillic characters by now? Moreover, do you think they or the Chinese or Japanese would have changed the Internet just to suit English-speakers."

The US invented the Internet. It achieved a massive advantage in doing so. The cultural and monetary advantage was immense and generated tremendous opportunity for millions everywhere on the planet. The entry ticket for all was the English language, the common tongue of Planet Earth. The US gave that up for nothing. Nothing. Absolutely, nothing.

Like every other self-loathing cultural idiocy that has become part of modern Anglo-American cultural necrophilia, such cultural and economic dominance is anathema to the cowering cultural-DNA challenged on the Left. ICANN gave up, for nothing, repeat, nothing, the Internet requirement that the dot domain names be in Latin characters. That advantage has now been turned over, for free, to the Arabs, Chinese, Iranians and Russians.

We are told daily by our rulers and masters that America blood and treasure needs be bled to grow democracy across the planet. Democracy, you see is a big deal to the Anglo-Americans and is not exactly a Chinese, a Russian or Arab thingy bit. They don't do democracy. They are the un-cola at the democracy koolaid party.

We just gave away a trillion dollar advantage and allowed the veil to come down on one little way that actually helped foster democracy without one ounce of blood being shed or one penny being spent.

We really are one stupid collective of Mike Foxtrots.

Celebrate diversity.

_______________

David Coursey | Friday, October 30, 2009 3:03 PM PDT
ICANN Approves Domain Names We Can't Type
PC world
Friday, October 30, 2009

This is a bad day for the English language, after ICANN approved non-Latin characters for use in Internet domain names. Having invented the Internet--40 years ago yesterday--the U.S. has given away whatever advantage it offers English-speakers.

This was bound to happen after the U.S. recently recanted on its "ownership" of the Internet in a new agreement with ICANN, the Internet's primary governing body. At one level, I am happy that Internet users around the world will soon have domain names in their own character sets.

"The coming introduction of non-Latin characters represents the biggest technical change to the Internet since it was created four decades ago," ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush said in a statement.

"Right now Internet address endings are limited to Latin characters--A to Z. But the Fast Track Process is the first step in bringing the 100,000 characters of the languages of the world online for domain names."

The first phase of the Internationalized Domain Names program begins Nov. 16 when countries can apply to ICANN for country codes, such as .us for the United States and .ru for Russia, in their own character sets.

Over time, expect to see other domains, such as .com, .org, and .net, become available in other character sets, as well as domain names themselves.

"This is a culmination of years of work, tests, study and discussion by the ICANN community," Thrush said. "To see this finally start to unfold is to see the beginning of an historic change in the Internet and who uses it."

Is this a change for the better?

Perhaps, but is there any doubt that if another country had "invented" the Internet--say the Russians--that we'd all have had to learn to type Cyrillic characters by now? Moreover, do you think they or the Chinese or Japanese would have changed the Internet just to suit English-speakers.

Indeed, had the Internet been developed around a non-Latin character set, would it even exist today? Has the success of the Internet not been linked to the role of English as the global language of business and popular culture?

On another level, I also am concerned about all the potential for duplicated domains that will be created as non-Latin characters roll out across the Internet. How many new domains will be needed to protect international brands?

Will cybercriminals some how be able to take advantage of this change? Will there be hidden domains that cannot be displayed on some computers or typed on many keyboards?

Practically, I am not looking forward to perhaps someday having to learn how to type potentially 100,000 non-Latin characters that ICANN has embraced. Is there an easy way to do this? How many keys will keyboards need to have?

I am guessing this is a problem Google will help solve, but still have concerns.

It also worries me that the Internet, which once brought people together, may start to fracture along character-set lines.

Like I said, this is a bad day for the English language, but a good day for the billions of people who do not speak my mother tongue. They have rights, too, even if I am not always happy about what that means.

David Coursey tweets as @techinciter and can be contacted via his Web site.

Pakistan has a problem. Hillary notices.

2009-10-30T04:41:00.006-04:00

trish said...
But although we had near a decade of the most miserable, piss-poor, inexcusably weak effort alongside the loftiest American promises in re Afghanistan, AN ENTIRE FUCKING YEAR has been wasted by the guy who swore to correct it.

I'm not without sympathy for those who are given to clean up the last guy's shit pile. I'm not. But a year frittered away, to leave most of it in the litter box?

That's just wrong. Really, really wrong.

______________________

Fri Oct 30, 01:03:00 AM EDT

Clinton minces no words on Pakistan visit
12:00 AM CDT on Friday, October 30, 2009
From wire reports

ISLAMABAD – In a series of contentious public appearances in Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton challenged the country to defend its territory from extremists and bluntly asked why the government was unable to find top terrorist leaders.

To journalists, on the reported presence inside Pakistan of Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders:

I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to."

To college students, on whether their government should move against militants, as it has in South Waziristan:

If you want to see your territory shrink, that's your choice."

To a woman in Lahore, who asked why the U.S. should be trusted after past perceived betrayals:

It's difficult to go forward if we're always looking in the rearview mirror."

Listen to the troops who actually do the work : "These people just want to be left alone."

2009-10-29T07:04:00.004-04:00

Think tank analyst nailing it.

Obama goes to Dover and takes a photographer

2009-10-29T06:26:00.006-04:00

Obama's predecessor, President George W. Bush, visited the families of hundreds of fallen soldiers but did not attend any military funerals or go to Dover to receive the coffins. In a 2006 interview with the military newspaper "Stars and Stripes," Bush said he felt the appropriate way to show his respect was to meet with family members in private.

-Washington Post

Octomom goes trick-or-treating

2009-10-29T06:25:00.001-04:00

Wonder why credit is shrinking? All money is created by debt. Banks are not lending.

2009-10-29T01:38:00.005-04:00

Economic data released today, Oct 27, 2009, in the euro zone showed that M3 money supply for the three months average ending in September, declined to 2.5% inline with projections and lower than the revised prior reading of 3.1% from 3.0%; while on the year it fell to 1.8% from the revised reading of 2.6% from 2.5%, which is worse than the forecasted reading of 2.2%.

Loans for individuals and firms, posted their first annual slump on record in September, as a consequence of the decline in demand on credit, which shows that the financial sector is still impacted by the financial crisis that hit global economies last year.

Banks, which received aid from European national governments and ECB, are more reluctant to lend. The financial crisis already wiped out capital and set banks to hoard cash to restructure their balance sheets, which are ailing with diluted investments.(more here)

M1: M1 includes funds that are readily accessible for spending. (1) M1 consists of: currency outside Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts. Bank reserves are not included in M1.

M2: Equals M1 + savings deposits, time deposits less than $100,000 and money market deposit accounts for individuals. M2 represents money and "close substitutes" for money. M2 is a broader classification of money than M1. Economists use M2 when looking to quantify the amount of money in circulation and trying to explain different economic monetary conditions. M2 is a key economic indicator used to forecast inflation.[

M3: Equals M2 + large time deposits, institutional money-market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets. M3 is no longer published or revealed to the public by the US central bank. However, it is estimated by the web site Shadow Government Statistics.

Here is the problem:

In the US, M3 has shrunk at an annual rate of 6.5% over the last three months, a pace of contraction not seen since the 1930s. US bank loans have plummeted since May.

________________

False Reading: Brisk GDP Growth Can't Last WSJ

The economy is about to post growth numbers reminiscent of the good old days, otherwise known as the "old normal." But a "new normal" of slower growth might be inevitable.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis is set to release Thursday its first read on third-quarter gross domestic product. Economists estimate GDP grew at a 3.2% annualized rate, after shrinking 0.7% in the second quarter. A handful of economists expect growth of 4% or higher.

Among the reasons for growth: Companies dumped inventory in the third quarter, though less aggressively than during the previous three months. By the math of GDP accounting, merely slowing down inventory liquidation will boost GDP's growth rate by at least one percentage point, according to many estimates.

The government's cash-for-clunkers program was another lift, though many of the new cars purchased were foreign-made, subtracting from GDP.

The tax credit for first-time home buyers encouraged some home building, another GDP booster. But many buyers borrowed against the credit to cover their down payment, leaving them with little cash to buy furniture, lawnmowers and such.

All together, GDP growth could rank as the fastest since the third quarter of 2007. Many economists expect a repeat in the fourth quarter, driven by still-lower inventory liquidation and more government stimulus effects.

A 3.2% growth rate would almost match the economy's average pace of the past 60 years. But this is no typical economy.

In typical recoveries, "real" demand rises to make the recovery self-sustaining. That may yet happen, but debt remains a big hurdle. Consumers still have debt loads near record highs. Defaulting might shed some of that burden, but will ruin credit ratings and hit the banks again.

Many small businesses still have trouble getting loans, and commercial real estate is a looming balance-sheet nightmare that will keep bank lending tight for months

The government is borrowing more than enough to fill the gap, pushing total U.S. debt outstanding, including that of households and financials, to a record 373% of GDP.

That is helping growth now, but it must be repaid. Most repayment options -- including higher interest rates, higher taxes and slower consumption -- will result in economic growth below normal.

Write to Mark Gongloff at mark.gongloff@wsj.com

Stop voting fraud. End state deficits. Stop the voting and sell the seats.

2009-10-28T04:46:00.013-04:00

US campaign funding laws are absurd. Ozzie Myers, a Philadelphia Congressman once said that in politics, "Money talks and bullshit walks." Even though Ozzie did some time, he was right. John Corzine will hit the $140 million mark in funding his own campaigns. Mike Bloomberg, in his three bids for mayor, will have easily burned through more than $250 million.

How is it possible for any opponent to compete when they are limited by what they can accept from any one donor. If a benefactor with millions wishes to buy a candidate, what is the difference? The marginal additional corruption will hardly be noticed. In fact, lets go one better and allow the parties to pool unlimited resources and have the states auction off all political seats to the highest bidder.

Wall Street could syndicate deals and sell them to the Chinese. The Israeli lobby would have to pony up big time to keep up with the Saudis. Think of all the corporations that would get into the act. No more chump-change fifty thousand dollar donations buying a congressman. Let them pay full freight and have the market do its magic.

At least we will know who are masters and rulers really are.

_____________

Corzine spends more than 2 foes combined

By Cynthia Burton
Inquirer Staff Writer

Gov. Corzine has spent about $23 million - most of it his own money - in his fight for reelection, more than the combined total of his two main competitors, according to campaign finance documents released yesterday.

After spending $60 million on his U.S. Senate race in 2000 and $40 million on his first governor's race in 2005, the former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs & Co. is poised to spend as much as $30 million in this race.

And beyond the candidates' funds, money is pouring in from around the country to fund advertising in the only race that features an incumbent governor. Virginia is the only other state with a governor's race, and Gov. Tim Kaine is prevented by term limits from running.

In New Jersey, polls show Corzine in a dead heat with Republican Christopher J. Christie, who has raised $11.7 million and spent $8.8 million. Independent Chris Daggett has raised $1.3 million and spent $1.2 million.

Daggett and Christie are participating in the state finance program, which limits their spending. They are unable to match the power of Corzine's wallet to buy campaign advertising in a state split between two of the nation's most expensive media markets.

Of the millions Corzine has spent, all but about $1 million has come from his personal fortune.

More here

The State of the Blogoshere with Andrew Breitbart

2009-10-28T03:22:00.003-04:00

Finally the US is worried about Chinese military expansion.

2009-10-27T22:06:00.004-04:00

It doesn't take much of a military genius to recognize that China is building a worldwide economic system of markets and sources of raw material.

A great worldwide economic power requires the guns and muscle to keep its status, position and property.

China is well on the way to being a major super power. Recall the voices from the not too distant past that poo-pooed the idea of China achieving parity with the US.

Of course that was before we pissed away a few trillion in bad trade deals and military adventures in the FME (formerly known as the ME but more richly deserving of the F bomb appellation).

Well here we are urging the Chinese not to surprise us and please keep us informed. Our urgency will surely impress them.

Don't look for help from anywhere else. It looks like the Indians are throwing in the towel.

________________________

US urges China military dialogue BBC

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has called for a lasting dialogue with China's military after meeting a top Chinese general at the Pentagon.

A Pentagon spokesman said Mr Gates told China's Gen Xu Caihou the two sides should "break the on-again, off-again cycle" in their military relationship.

The talks marked the highest bilateral military contact since 2006.

Last year, Beijing halted military dialogue with Washington to protest against US arms sales to Taiwan.
China has also criticised US surveillance of waters off Chinese coast.

'Obstacles'

"There is a need to break the on-again-off-again cycle of our military-to-military relationship," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, briefing reporters on Mr Gates' talks with Gen Xu, vice-chairman of the People's Liberation Army Central Military Commission.

China has been rapidly expanding its armed forces

In the past, there had been progress "and then there will be a hiccup that will cause there to be a suspension" in military co-operation, Mr Morell said.

The spokesman described the talks as "productive", adding that Mr Gates accepted Gen Xu's invitation to visit China.

Meanwhile, US officials - who were speaking on the condition of anonymity - said Gen Xu was open to boosting military co-operation, but reiterated "obstacles" to deepening ties, such as the presence of US surveillance ships off China's coast.

Speaking earlier this week, Gen Xu said that China did not want "hegemony" or an arms race.
Washington has repeatedly urged China to be more open about its rapidly rising military spending.

"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan."

2009-10-27T10:37:00.003-04:00

WASHINGTON — A former Marine who fought in Iraq, joined the State Department after leaving the military and was a diplomat in a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan has become the first U.S. official to resign in protest of the Afghan war, the Washington Post reported early Tuesday.

Matthew Hoh said he believes the war is simply fueling the insurgency.

I scanned this letter from a pdf using OCR and opened it as a document with Apple Pages. I do not have time to clear the errors but you get the idea:

_______________________

September 10,2009
Ambassador Nancy J. Powell
Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Ambassador Powell,

It is with great regret and disappointment I submit my resignation from my

appointment as a Political Officer in the Foreign Service and my post as the Senior

Civilian Representative for the US. Government in Zabul Province. I have served

six of the previous ten years in service to our country overseas, to include

deployment as a U.S. Marine officer and Department of Defense civilian in the

Euphrates and Tigris River Valleys of Iraq in 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. I did not

cnler into this position lightly or with any undue expectations nor did I believe my

assignment would be without sacrifice, hardship or difficulty. However, in the

course of my five months of service in Afghanistan, in both Regional Commands

East and South, I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic

purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. I have doubts and

reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my

resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what

end. To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S.

casualties or ell.penditures of resources in sUP)Xlrt of the Afghan government in

what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.

This fall will mark the eighth year of U.S. combat, governance and

development operations within Afghanistan. Next fall, the United States'

occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union's own physical involvement in

Afghanistan. Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state,

while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted

by its people.

If the history of Afghanistan is one great stage play, the United States is no

more than a supporting actor, among several previously, in a tragedy that not only

pits tribes, valleys, clans, villages and families against one another, but, from at

least the end of King Zahir Shah's reign, has violently and savagely pitted the

- 2-

urban, secular, educated and modem of Afghanistan against lhe rural, religious,

illiterate and traditional It is this latter group that composes and suppons the

Pashtun insurgency.

The Pashtun insurgency. which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashlun people

as a continued and sustained assault., going back centuries, on Pashtun land,

culture,traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and

NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan

army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and

police, provide an occupation foJ'(:c against which the insurgency isjustified. In

both RC East and South, I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not

for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign

soldiers and taxes imposed by an unreplcsentative government in Kabul.

The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the

legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our

backing of the Afghan government in its current fonn continues 10 distance the

government from the people. The Afghan govemment's failings, particularly

when weighed against the sacrifice of American lives and dollars, appear legion

and metastatic:

• Glaring corruption and unabashed graft;

• A President whose confidants and chief advisers comprise drug lords

and war crimes villains, who mock our own rule of law and

countemarcotics efforts;

• A system of provincial and distriClleaders constituted of local power

brokers, opportunists and strongmen allied to the United States solely

for, and limited by, the value of our USAID and CERP contnlctS and

whose own political and economic interests stand nothing to gain

from any positive or genuine attempts at reconciliation; and

• The recent election process dominated by fraud and discredited by

low voter turnout, which has created an enonnous victory for our

enemy who now claims a popular boycott and will call into question

worldwide our government's military, economic and diplomatic

support for an invalid and illegitimate Afghan government.

Our support for this kind of government, coupled with a misu~ing

of me insurgency's true nature, reminds me horribly of our involvement with South

Vietnam; an unpopular and corrupt government we backed at the expense of our

Nation's own internal ~ace, against an insurgcncy whose nationalism we

arrogantly and ignorantly mistook as a rival to our own Cold War ideology.

- 3 -

I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our

young men and women in Afghanistan. If.honest, our slated strategy of securing

Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to

additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan. Yemen, etc.

OUf prescnce in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in

Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may

lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our

stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan. More so, the September

11 th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned

and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied

to traditional geographic or political boundaries. Finally, if our concern is for a

failed state crippled by cOITUption and poverty and under assault from criminal and

drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan,

we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.

Eight years into war, no nation has ever known a more dedicated, well

trained, experienced and disciplined military as the U.S. Anned Forces. I do not

believe any military force has ever been tasked with such a complex, opaque and

Sisyphean mission as the U.S. military has received in Afghanistan. The tactical

proficiency and perfonnance of our Soldiers, Sailors, Ainnen and Marines is

unmatched and unquestioned. However, this is not the European or Pacific

theaters of World War II, but rather is a war for which our leaders, unifonned,

civilian and elected, have inadequately prepared and resourced OUT men and

women. Our forces, devoted and faithful, have been committed to conflict in an

indefinite and unplanned manner that has become a cavalier, politically expedient

and Pollyannaish misadvenrure. Similarly, the United States has a dedicated and

talented cadre of civilians, both U.S. government employees and contractors, who

believe in and sacrifice for their mission, but have been ineffectually trained and

led with guidance and intent shaped more by the political climate in Washington,

D.C. than in Afghan cities, villages, mountains and valleys.

"We are spending ourselves into oblivion" a very talented and intelligent

commander, one of America's best, briefs every visi tor, staff delegation and senior

officer. We are mortgaging our Nation's economy on a war, which., even with

increased commitment, will remain a draw for years to come. Success and victory,

whatever they may be, will be real ized not in years, after billions more spent, but

in decades and generations. The United States does not enjoy a national treasury

for such success and victory.

---. --------------------------------

•

-4-

I realize the emotion and tone of my letter and ask you excuse any ill

temper. I trust you understand the nature orthis war and the sacrifices made by so

many thousands of families who have been separnted from loved ones deployed in

defense of our Nation and whose homes bear the fractures, upheavals and scars of

mUltiple and compounded deployments. Thousands of our men and women have

returned home with phys ical and mental wounds, some thaI will never heal or will

only worsen with time. The dead retum only in bodily form to be received by

families who must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for 8 purpose worthy of

futures lost, love vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence

such assurances can anymore be made. As such, I submit my resignation.

Matthew P. Hoh
Senior Civilian Representative
Zabul Province, Afghanistan

cc: Mr. Frank Ruggiero

Ms. Dawn Liberi
Ambassador Anthony Wayne
Ambassador Karl Eikenberry

What exactly is a Smart-Grid?

2009-10-27T07:22:00.004-04:00

Obama to Announce $3.4 Billion in Electric ‘Smart-Grid’ Grants

By Nicholas Johnston

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama today will announce $3.4 billion in government grants for equipment to improve the efficiency of the nation’s electrical transmission network.

The grants, ranging in size from $400,000 to $200 million, will be used to develop and install “smart-grid” technology to make electricity transmission more reliable and aid the transmission of energy generated from sources like wind and solar power.

“The current system is outdated and dilapidated,” Carol Browner, the White House’s top energy adviser, said in a conference call with reporters late yesterday. Today’s grants “will give us a transformational impact on how electricity is generated, delivered and consumed,” she said.

The money comes from the $787 billion economic stimulus legislation approved by Congress in February. Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, said during the conference call the grants will “save or create tens of thousands” of jobs.

Bernstein said Oct. 15 the stimulus legislation has created or saved about 1 million jobs since it was enacted. The nation’s unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent last month, and the president has said he expects it to exceed 10 percent before it starts coming down.

Solar Power Plant

Obama will announce the grants today in Arcadia, Florida, at one of the nation’s largest solar power generating facilities. Florida Power & Light Co.’s DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center will generate enough power for 3,000 homes when it is completed.

The president will highlight new technologies to transmit electricity from places like Arcadia, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) southeast of Tampa, to locations where energy demand is greater.

“Places with either solar or wind aren’t always the most populous areas of the country, and you’ve got to find a vehicle that’s technologically capable of moving clean power to places where the demand is greatest,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters traveling with the president yesterday.

One of the largest grants being announced is $200 million for Constellation Energy Group Inc.’s Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. to provide new electric meters to 1.1 million households that will allow real-time monitoring of electricity use and help customers adjust their usage during peak times.

Sempra Energy’s San Diego Gas & Electric Co. will receive $28.1 million to build a wireless system to link the utility’s 1.4 million meters and monitor other equipment across the electrical grid.

The 100 government grants in 49 states are being matched by $4.7 billion in private investments.

To contact the reporter on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington at njohnston3@bloomberg.net