Nancy Pelosi, for it before against it.

The undying narcissism of Farrah Fawcett and the boomers.

Sorry baby, but we are all going to die.

Farrah Fawcett video details cancer struggle
.

A documentary that details Farrah Fawcett's cancer struggle drew applause and tears from an audience that included Ryan O'Neal.

The boomers started off never trusting anyone over thirty. They were after all the first generation of humanoids ever to discover sex, and we had to hear about it in graphic detail.

It has always been all about them.

They entered stage left with a self importance of mission and with the glaring benefit of an explosion of media. Finally there is an end in sight. They are dying off. However, and there is always a however, the Hollywood boomers truly believe that they need to educate the world about the simple and natural human act of dying. No quiet dignity please. And how fitting that the dying and filming comes complete with a lawsuit. They cannot even die without a lawyer.

____________________________

"Farrah's Story," a candid account of her medical treatments and efforts to maintain her dignity, was shown in Beverly Hills on Wednesday night. Telegraph

Fawcett's friend Alana Stewart called it "truly Farrah's evening".

The former "Charlie's Angel" star wasn't well enough to attend. Fawcett was diagnosed in 2006 with anal cancer that has spread to her liver.

Stewart was a producer on "Farrah's Story," which airs Friday on NBC.

O'Neal, who remains close to Fawcett although their long romance ended in the 1990s, said he plans to watch the film with her.

However, a producer who collaborated with Fawcett is suing over the documentary.
Craig Nevius filed a lawsuit in Santa Monica on Wednesday – the same day "Farrah's Story" was screened for friends and reporters.

His lawsuit states he is seeking to regain creative control over the documentary and unspecified damages against several of the project's key players.

The lawsuit does not name Fawcett as a defendant, nor seeks to block NBC's prime-time airing of "Farrah's Story," scheduled for Friday.

Instead, the suit claims Fawcett's former boyfriend, Ryan O'Neal, his business manager and longtime friend Alana Stewart interfered with his role in the documentary. He also claims O'Neal physically threatened him.

How did Obama come to be President of The United States?

Obama in 2003

Doug said...

"Obama wisely changed his mind about releasing them. That in itself differentiated himself from the inflexible and sometime stubbornness of George Bush. Obama has been persuaded by argument and logic. That is hopeful. Next."----
Panetta, the Military, CIA, and etc no doubt forcefully expressed their opinion.

I find it bizarre to credit him for taking a position that only a hateful, self-centered, immature and inexperienced jerk would take to start with, because he then reversed himself when he became convinced it would be harmful to his popularity ratings.

Like crediting someone who planned on raping a 14 year old child, but then thought better of it when he noticed a police car down the block, for acting like an upstanding moral agent.

Thu May 14, 07:31:00 AM EDT

President Obama acting presidential.

Obama clearly is a work in action undergoing the metamorphosis from a college professor to being POTUS. This is a good thing for several reasons.

I was stunned when he speculated about releasing photos in the first place. There was no news about the existence of the photos, nor the questionable practice of humiliating prisoners of war.

In my book, being humiliated is preferable to being shot. The military was idiotic in allowing soldiers to have cameras and taking photos inside US military prisons. The officers that permitted that should have been fired. All of them. The NCO's and enlisted men involved should have had torn threads on sleeves where stripes were once posted.

Published photos would be inflammatory  and problematic for the US military and grist for America's enemies.

Obama wisely changed his mind about releasing them. That in itself differentiated himself from the inflexible and sometime stubbornness of George Bush. Obama has been persuaded by argument and logic. That is hopeful. Next.

___________________________

Reasons behind Obama's U-turn
By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Washington
The word "U-turn" may be unfamiliar in Barack Obama's White House, but the practice is not.

One week, the US president signals that the Pentagon will release photographs showing more abuse of American detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a new era of transparency.

The next he has announces that the White House will block their release and defend that decision in court - this time it is all about the vital importance of national security.

When a politician is caught red-handed doing a U-turn, the first question to ask is why?

This time it is not hard to find an answer. Just cast your mind back to those graphic images of US abuse in Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail.

Remember the hooded detainee standing on top of a box, as if about to be electrocuted? Or the faces of the US soldiers enjoying the humiliation? Or the fear of a detainee inches away from the teeth of a snarling dog?

“ President Obama has clearly concluded that - in this instance - national security trumps transparency ”
And then it is worth recalling the response and outrage right around the world.

America's image was more than tarnished. The photos became a recruiting tool for extremists.

Barack Obama says these new pictures are not as "sensational" as those of Abu Ghraib. But they are clearly bad enough for his generals to raise objections.

The current US commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan - Gens Odierno, and McKiernan - both told their commander-in-chief that publication would endanger the lives of US troops.

The president has apparently been persuaded by the power of that argument.

'Double standards'

It is perhaps harder to understand why Mr Obama thought it was a good idea to release the photos in the first place.

True, it was not his idea. It was the American Civil Liberties Union that took this issue to court, claiming it was in the public interest and would prove there had been a culture of abuse.

But the president seemed persuaded by the need for transparency. Openness has been a leitmotif of this administration - but easier to promise than practice.

There may have been other reasons that made it initially seem appealing. Releasing the photos would help break with the past - this after all did not happen on Barack Obama's watch.

The second question when examining a U-turn is what will be the political fallout?

President Obama has clearly concluded that - in this instance - national security trumps transparency.

There is no doubt that President Obama will have disappointed some of his supporters - and, let us be honest, they are those on the left.

But he will have reassured many more that his prime concern is the nation's security and the lives of US troops.

You do not have to be a political genius to work out where the sympathies of the mainstream lie.

America is hardly crying out for the release of more photographs that detail the abuse of detainees. It has still not recovered from the last lot.

This decision will inevitably bring with it charges of double standards.

After all the president was happy to release classified documents detailing interrogation techniques - the so-called "torture memos".

Pragmatic decision?

But the publication of the memos brought a firestorm of criticism. Most notably from Dick Cheney - who has never spent so much time in front of the cameras.

The former vice-president is touring TV studios, accusing his nemesis of making America less safe.

The publication of the photos would make that charge seem more convincing. Not publishing them, and the accusation is less likely to stick.

Barack Obama once again seems to have made a pragmatic decision. He can be accused of compromising his principles.

But this time most Americans will believe that its for the greater good.

As for his supporters on the left, it looks as though there will be more heartbreak ahead.

Hopes that the president would completely abandon the controversial military commissions to try terrorist suspects are slowly fading. An announcement may be made later this week.

This is not the last time that we will be hearing the word "U-turn" in connection with the Obama White House.

"You can't swing a cat without hitting a barrel of crude."

How dead is the world's economy? From Singapore, here's another illustration:

SINGAPORE — To go out in a small boat along Singapore’s coast now is to feel like a mouse tiptoeing through an endless herd of slumbering elephants.

One of the largest fleets of ships ever gathered idles here just outside one of the world’s busiest port, marooned by the receding tide of global trade. There may be tentative signs of economic recovery in spots around the globe, but few here.

Hundreds of cargo ships — 100,000 to 300,000 tons each, with the larger ones weighing more than the entire 130-ship Spanish Armada — bob so empty that they seem to perch on top of the water rather than in it, their red rudders and bulbous noses, submerged when the vessels are loaded, sticking a dozen feet out of the water.

According to the author, the actual number of cargo ships bobbing at anchor is 735. He reports that eight container shipping companies have gone bankrupt in the last year and another large company is in imminent danger.

Earlier this month, it was reported that there is no excess crude oil storage capacity. Every available container is full and US refineries are operating at 85% capacity.

Revenue reports show that, thanks to the $4.00 per gallon pump prices, the American public seems to have permanently changed its driving habits and gas tax receipts are trending downward. State transportation budgets are taking huge hits and everyone is scrambling to find new taxing options such as taxing you for the miles you have driven instead of the number of gallons of gas you pump.

So, in light of the current economic conditions, why is crude oil heading towards the $60 per barrel range? The simple answer might be found in this article, Energy prices fall before crude
storage report.

Dour economic reports have outweighed the positive for months, however, and part of the reason energy prices have been sustained at the current level is the weak dollar. Crude is priced in dollars, which makes it cheaper to buy when the dollar falls.

The U.S. currency has been weakened by the massive government bailout of banks and automakers.

The dollar fell less than a penny against the euro Tuesday, but is down about 6 cents compared with the beginning of the year.

“Maybe it as simple as the fact that oil has more dollar value in a world where the U.S. government is running up a debt of historic proportions,” analyst Phil Flynn said in a client note.

That would go a long way to explain why energy prices are not falling even further.

Economic chaos reigns in a whirled gone topsy turvy. Nothing is certain in the wake of a spectacular seismic economic event. Confidence in the US as the whirled's economic engine has gone up in the smoke of the flameout. Remember the comment of our well educated, young Asian visitor, Wobbly Guy? He has decided to cast his lot with the Chinese instead of looking in our direction. That tells the story.

Go east young man.

Obama will not cede a strong defense to the Republicans

General George B. McClellan, fired by a previous President from Illinois.

Brits beware: Obama means business in Afghanistan
Posted By: Con Coughlin at May 12, 2009 telegraph

Con Coughlin opines about the firing of General David McKiernan as a warning to the Western Alliance. It is also a warning to the Republican party that Obama will not be seen as weak on defense. We live in interesting times.

_______________________________

The summary dismissal of General David McKiernan, the American commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, by American President Barack Obama will send shock waves throughout the entire Western alliance.

Gen McKiernan was removed from his post after Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary, concluded that American forces based in the country "can and must do better".

Mr Obama's decision to dismiss Gen McKiernan is a bold move, and suggests that the new American president is determined to make a success of the military campaign in Afghanistan.

If Iraq was President George W. Bush's war, Afghanistan is Obama's war, and the U.S. president is clearly determined that this military campaign does not suffer the same setbacks as American forces experienced in Iraq.

By the time next year's mid-term elections are held Mr Obama wants to be in a position to demonstrate that tangible progress is being made.

The timing of Gen McKiernan's removal is also significant, for a number of reasons. Mr Obama has already given his approval to a mini-surge strategy aimed at finally destroying the threat posed by the Taliban to Afghanistan's slow and painful transition to democratic government.

It will also send a warning to Downing Street, which has just refused to approve a request by British commanders to send extra combat troops to bolster the British force in Helmand province. Gordon Brown's failure to provide British commanders with the forces they need to do the job properly in Helmand means that they will now have to rely on the Americans to help them out, which will not exactly help to improve the transatlantic alliance.

There's no point Downing Street making a song and dance about being Washington's closest ally in the global campaign against Islamist terrorism if it does not deliver on its commitments, which now appears to be the case in Afghanistan.

Monday - 11 May 2009

What do the people want?

Desperation in Pakistani hospitals, refugee camps
The Associated Press

MINGORA, Pakistan — Civilians cowered in hospital beds on Saturday and refugees looted U.N. supplies — all of them desperate for relief from the fighting that has engulfed a northwestern valley as troops and warplanes try to drive out Taliban militants.

The prime minister, directing millions of dollars to help the residents of a region where backing for the central government has sometimes been tenuous, described the offensive launched this week as a "war of the country's survival" but said the military alone could not be victorious in the Swat Valley.

The army "can only be successful if there is support of the masses," Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who authorized the Swat offensive on Thursday, told a news conference after an emergency Cabinet meeting.

Further south, a suspected U.S. missile strike killed nine people, mostly foreigners, in another militant stronghold near the Afghan border, officials said. The identities of the victims were not immediately unclear.

Ghafar Khan, who was injured by shell fragments during fighting in Pakistan's northwest Buner district a month ago, cries in a hospital in Mardan, Pakistan, Saturday, May 9, 2009. Ghafar, and his brother Akhter Ali Khan, right, were brought to Mardan by their parents in recent days as fighting intensified in Pakistan's latest offensive against Taliban militants. (AP Photo/Greg Baker)

The army said it killed as many as 55 more Taliban fighters in Swat on Saturday.

Encouraged by the United States, Pakistan's leaders launched the full-scale offensive this week to halt the spread of Taliban control in districts within 60 miles (100 kilometers) of the capital. Pakistan's army is fighting to wrest Swat and neighboring districts from militants who dominate the adjoining tribal belt along the Afghan frontier, where U.S. officials say al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden is likely holed up.

But the fighting has caused the flight of hundreds of thousands of terrified residents, adding a humanitarian emergency to the nuclear-armed nation's security, economic and political problems. The government is appealing for international aid to ease the plight of the multitude of weary, traumatized people who have abandoned their homes in search of safety.

Witness accounts indicated that scores of civilians have already been killed or injured in the escalating clashes in Swat and the neighboring Buner and Lower Dir districts.

Read more

"For now, the US is keeping its forces on the Afghanistan side of the border..."