"President Warns About Dangers for Nation in Isolationism"
How about warning us against the Hawley-Smoot tariff, Mr. President? Or the gold standard? Or some other discredited political ideology?
People who want a sensible foreign policy are NOT, repeat, NOT ISOLATIONISTS!
Please stop smearing your opponents and going after straw men. We have enough real enemies abroad whom you need to confront.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Warrantless wiretapping
There's so much information out there about this I don't think I need to link to anything.
Other than the paperless, hacked voting, this is probably the greatest threat to the Republic that's out there. I mean seriously, why can't they ask for warrants? The whole process is secret, and they can ask for warrants up to 72 hours after they wiretap. If, as the president says, they are only interested in taping people who are getting calls from al-Qa'ida overseas that is certainly probable cause, and they have no problems.
The only reason they could logically have is if they don't have probable cause for some of the wiretaps. Now why would they be taping someone without probable cause? Who are they really taping and why? This is potentially much more serious than Nixon's taping.
Other than the paperless, hacked voting, this is probably the greatest threat to the Republic that's out there. I mean seriously, why can't they ask for warrants? The whole process is secret, and they can ask for warrants up to 72 hours after they wiretap. If, as the president says, they are only interested in taping people who are getting calls from al-Qa'ida overseas that is certainly probable cause, and they have no problems.
The only reason they could logically have is if they don't have probable cause for some of the wiretaps. Now why would they be taping someone without probable cause? Who are they really taping and why? This is potentially much more serious than Nixon's taping.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Mixed feelings about Google
On the one hand Google defies US over search data.
On the other hand "Google is reportedly amending its index to exclude information to which the Chinese government objects."
Personally I wish they'd stand up to both governments, but then I don't own stock in Google.
What do you think they should do? What would you do? Do you own stock in Google?
On the other hand "Google is reportedly amending its index to exclude information to which the Chinese government objects."
Personally I wish they'd stand up to both governments, but then I don't own stock in Google.
What do you think they should do? What would you do? Do you own stock in Google?
Sudan raids human rights group on eve of AU meeting
African Union or dictators' trade union? The African Union has really reached a crossroads. Will it be an institution capable of solving Africa's problems, or will it degenerate into just a dictators' trade union the way the Organization of African Unity did?
The current summit meeting in Khartoum may prove decisive. Let's see what kind of news we can get out of Sudan today.
BBC notes that the Sudan was the only country to put its name up to chair the AU next. However, having Sudan chair the AU may result in some bad publicity for the Organization: "A meeting of human rights delegates in Khartoum was broken up on Sunday by Sudanese police, who detained them and took their photographs, reports said." Not to mention ongoing genocide: "More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur in the past three years and two million people have been forced from their homes." (sounds like Bosnia all over again, n'est pas?) "Africa is split down the middle over Sudan's candidacy, says the BBC's Adam Mynott in Khartoum."
The Beeb says that Nigeria's president Obasanjo is leading the opposition to Sudan's taking the chair. According to the Nigerian "This Day" the process for electing judges to the African Court on Human and People's Rights is also fatally flawed: "South African lawyer, Nobuntu Mbelle, Regional Coordinator of the Coalition for an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and a principal author of the report said: 16 countries have nominated 21 candidates, of whom only five are women, and barely one-third have experience in human rights. We can do better."
Human Rights Watch has a press release about it.
And the latest from the Sudan Tribune:
Sudanese police raid human rights groups' meeting
Darfur crisis, a destructive force against the Sudan peace deal
West falls for Sudan's tricks
Sudan: Hosting the African Union Summit
The current summit meeting in Khartoum may prove decisive. Let's see what kind of news we can get out of Sudan today.
BBC notes that the Sudan was the only country to put its name up to chair the AU next. However, having Sudan chair the AU may result in some bad publicity for the Organization: "A meeting of human rights delegates in Khartoum was broken up on Sunday by Sudanese police, who detained them and took their photographs, reports said." Not to mention ongoing genocide: "More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur in the past three years and two million people have been forced from their homes." (sounds like Bosnia all over again, n'est pas?) "Africa is split down the middle over Sudan's candidacy, says the BBC's Adam Mynott in Khartoum."
The Beeb says that Nigeria's president Obasanjo is leading the opposition to Sudan's taking the chair. According to the Nigerian "This Day" the process for electing judges to the African Court on Human and People's Rights is also fatally flawed: "South African lawyer, Nobuntu Mbelle, Regional Coordinator of the Coalition for an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and a principal author of the report said: 16 countries have nominated 21 candidates, of whom only five are women, and barely one-third have experience in human rights. We can do better."
Human Rights Watch has a press release about it.
And the latest from the Sudan Tribune:
Sudanese police raid human rights groups' meeting
Darfur crisis, a destructive force against the Sudan peace deal
West falls for Sudan's tricks
Sudan: Hosting the African Union Summit
Monday, January 16, 2006
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
China buying Nigerian oil company
It might have been nice if Bush had invaded Iraq for oil, and it would have been REALLY nice if the invasion had worked out, but I have to live in the real world on Planet Earth, not on whatever planet our crackhead president lives.
Americans get more oil from Nigeria than from the Persian Gulf, and Nigeria continued to supply the US with oil during the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. Yes, your gasoline depends on a steady supply from Nigeria, but that supply is now being encroached on by the steady expansion of Chinese economic interests. So not only does the upheaval in Iraq mean less petroleum on the market, what's up for grabs is slipping away.
from AllAfrica.com:
China National Offshore Oil Company Limited (CNOOC), yesterday said it will pay $2.3 billion (N299 billion) in cash to acquire 45 per cent shares of South Atlantic Petroleum, owned by former Defence Minister, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd), in Akpo oil field located in OPL 246.
The company is financing this with internal resources and expects to make a tidy profit. There is an insurgency, and India decided it was too risky, but the Nigerian insurgency is nothing compared to the insurgency in Iraq.
CNOOC is China's biggest offshore oil producer, and its acquisition of interest in the Nigerian oil field would be China's third big overseas takeover since August 2004 to meet increasing energy demand.
That's right, folks, while your government is busy in Iraq trying to (what? why are we there? what's the excuse this week?) secure the oil fields, the Chinese are doing it the old fashioned way, buying it.
China, which was expected to consume 6.63 million barrels a day of oil last year, imported an average of 2.38 million barrels a day in the first three quarters of 2005, or 36 percent of the total, according to December 2005 Oil Market Report by the International Energy Agency in Paris.
And their apetite is only going to get bigger.
Don't you wish your government had seriously invested in alternative energy sources? Maybe the Japanese will. They seem to like us better than the Chinese do, if anyone does.
Americans get more oil from Nigeria than from the Persian Gulf, and Nigeria continued to supply the US with oil during the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. Yes, your gasoline depends on a steady supply from Nigeria, but that supply is now being encroached on by the steady expansion of Chinese economic interests. So not only does the upheaval in Iraq mean less petroleum on the market, what's up for grabs is slipping away.
from AllAfrica.com:
China National Offshore Oil Company Limited (CNOOC), yesterday said it will pay $2.3 billion (N299 billion) in cash to acquire 45 per cent shares of South Atlantic Petroleum, owned by former Defence Minister, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd), in Akpo oil field located in OPL 246.
The company is financing this with internal resources and expects to make a tidy profit. There is an insurgency, and India decided it was too risky, but the Nigerian insurgency is nothing compared to the insurgency in Iraq.
CNOOC is China's biggest offshore oil producer, and its acquisition of interest in the Nigerian oil field would be China's third big overseas takeover since August 2004 to meet increasing energy demand.
That's right, folks, while your government is busy in Iraq trying to (what? why are we there? what's the excuse this week?) secure the oil fields, the Chinese are doing it the old fashioned way, buying it.
China, which was expected to consume 6.63 million barrels a day of oil last year, imported an average of 2.38 million barrels a day in the first three quarters of 2005, or 36 percent of the total, according to December 2005 Oil Market Report by the International Energy Agency in Paris.
And their apetite is only going to get bigger.
Don't you wish your government had seriously invested in alternative energy sources? Maybe the Japanese will. They seem to like us better than the Chinese do, if anyone does.
Monday, January 09, 2006
MSM blackout of impeachment?
I search news.google.com (US version) for "impeachment" and find:
2 stories about Nigeria
1 story about Malawi
2 stories about the UK (General Rose wants Blair impeached)
1 story about Thailand
and 4 stories about the US.
So most of the stories on the US media are about impeachment in OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!
One of the stories in the US is actually entitled "How the US Press Squelches Bush Impeachment Drive" but it won't come up in my browser. In fact my browser tells me the URL doesn't exist. Think the FBI shut it down? Or the CIA? or the NSA? Stranger things have happened. I remember Watergate. Special greetings to all the spooks reading this. Wouldn't your time be better spent going after Usama bin Ladin? But Boss Bush doesn't care about him, does he? Nope, he never did. You suckers go after loyal Americans like me instead. ;-(
So subtract 1 from 10 and get 3 out of 9 stories about impeachment related to the US. Two thirds of the stories in the US are about foreign impeachments. And we all know how fascinated Americans are to keep up with events in foreign countries. Especially their political and legislative activities. Americans never follow disasters or celebrities or anything like that. No way!
All three branches of government and the fourth estate are in the hands of corrupt enemies of democracy. I never thought I'd live to see the downfall of the Republic, but it looks that way.
Yes, it's depressing, but my real regrets are for the generations to come. Sorry, guys.
2 stories about Nigeria
1 story about Malawi
2 stories about the UK (General Rose wants Blair impeached)
1 story about Thailand
and 4 stories about the US.
So most of the stories on the US media are about impeachment in OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!
One of the stories in the US is actually entitled "How the US Press Squelches Bush Impeachment Drive" but it won't come up in my browser. In fact my browser tells me the URL doesn't exist. Think the FBI shut it down? Or the CIA? or the NSA? Stranger things have happened. I remember Watergate. Special greetings to all the spooks reading this. Wouldn't your time be better spent going after Usama bin Ladin? But Boss Bush doesn't care about him, does he? Nope, he never did. You suckers go after loyal Americans like me instead. ;-(
So subtract 1 from 10 and get 3 out of 9 stories about impeachment related to the US. Two thirds of the stories in the US are about foreign impeachments. And we all know how fascinated Americans are to keep up with events in foreign countries. Especially their political and legislative activities. Americans never follow disasters or celebrities or anything like that. No way!
All three branches of government and the fourth estate are in the hands of corrupt enemies of democracy. I never thought I'd live to see the downfall of the Republic, but it looks that way.
Yes, it's depressing, but my real regrets are for the generations to come. Sorry, guys.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Happy 8th of January!
The Eighth of January was the date of the Battle of New Orleans. The battle was an unexpected victory for an American army composed of motley militia, including free blacks and Amerindians, against what was probably the finest army ever assembled up to that time, British veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, fresh from fighting in Europe. Of course there had been a treaty signed ending the war shortly before the battle was fought, but neither army knew that at the time, and I don't doubt but that the treaty would have been torn up had the British actually been able to take New Orleans.
The battle propelled the victorious General Jackson into politics and eventually the White House, only the second Major General to become a US president. Today's Democratic Party really began as a sort of Jackson fan club, organized by his friends and supporters to push his candidacy and his principles. The anniversary of the battle became an occasion for parades and political oratory and was heavily associated with the Democratic Party.
After the Civil War the holiday went into decline, but I'd like to celebrate it today. It's time that another former general's Democratic Party candidacy was remembered and supported. He won't be running again for a few more years, but of course I'm referring to Wesley Clark.
Happy Eighth of January, fellow Democrats, and especially Democratic veterans, and Fighting Dems candidates. It's time the Democratic Party took back the national security issue and made it ours again.
The battle propelled the victorious General Jackson into politics and eventually the White House, only the second Major General to become a US president. Today's Democratic Party really began as a sort of Jackson fan club, organized by his friends and supporters to push his candidacy and his principles. The anniversary of the battle became an occasion for parades and political oratory and was heavily associated with the Democratic Party.
After the Civil War the holiday went into decline, but I'd like to celebrate it today. It's time that another former general's Democratic Party candidacy was remembered and supported. He won't be running again for a few more years, but of course I'm referring to Wesley Clark.
Happy Eighth of January, fellow Democrats, and especially Democratic veterans, and Fighting Dems candidates. It's time the Democratic Party took back the national security issue and made it ours again.
More spin?
President Bush brought foreign policy heavyweights from yesteryear to the White House on Thursday, including Democrats who have opposed his Iraq strategy. He got support for the mission - along with a few concerns - and a right to claim he was reaching out.
Original article
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if he's really listening, but past experience doesn't hold out much hope. :-(
Original article
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if he's really listening, but past experience doesn't hold out much hope. :-(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)