More Insanity From The Left
GANESH UEIKE, secretary of the West Bastar Divisional Committee of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), seems a gentle, rather academic, man, who does not suit his green combat fatigues or clenched-fist “red salute”. He shuffles dog-eared bits of paper from a shabby file in his knapsack and writes down the questions he is asked. He answers them in slogans that he gives every appearance of believing. He wants to “liberate India from the clutches of feudalism and imperialism”.
The rare interview took place last month, in a thatched shelter in a clearing in the Bastar forest in southern Chhattisgarh. The spot was some seven hours’ walk from the nearest road, and there had been a day-and-a-half’s wait for such a “big leader” to emerge from a hideout even deeper in the jungle. His party, he said, was facing renewed suppression, because “the resources of finance capitalism are facing sluggishness in their development, and are looking for new routes,” such as the mineral riches of this forest.
Mr Ueike did not mention that, just a few hours beforehand, at the edge of the forest, in a place called Errabore, his comrades had fought back. Several hundred had mounted a co-ordinated attack on a police station, a paramilitary base and a relief camp for displaced people. They killed more than 30 of the camp’s residents, mostly by hacking them to death with axes. The scholarly Mr Ueike did boast that his army relied on “low-tech weapons”.
This was the latest battle in a year-long civil war in Dantewada district, in which more than 350 people have been killed, and nearly 50,000 moved into camps such as the one at Errabore. It is a remote, sparsely populated, under-developed region bordering three neighbouring states, and nine hours’ drive from Chhattisgarh’s capital, Raipur. It is here that India’s widespread Maoist rebellion is most intense.
On August 15th, in his National Day speech in Delhi, India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, linked Naxalism with terrorism (Islamic) as the two big threats to India’s internal security.
Dirty Dianne
Anyone who knows much about real power in Congress knows that almost every member of the House and Senate lusts after a seat on the Appropriations Committee and hopes one day to achieve the status of Cardinal. The Cardinals, of course, are the folks who chair the various Appropriations Committee subcommittees and literally control the billions of dollars that pass through their hands.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she’s also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or “Milcon”) sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.
She may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.
The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.
In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while”there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts.”
And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”
It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism. What they didn’t know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband’s and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.
This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein’s chief of staff so that she could recuse herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.
During this period the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.
Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.
In spite of the blatant appearance of corruption, no major publication has picked up on the story, the Senate Ethics Committee has reportedly let her slip by, and she is now chairing the Senate Rules Committee, which puts her in charge of making sure her colleagues act ethically and avoid the sorts of conflicts of interest with which she is personally and so obviously familiar.
Response to Tenet
Why do the Iraq naysayers never confront the counterfactual scenario of their dreams? If we had left Saddam in place, the sanctions would have disintegrated in short order — Security Council members France, Russia and China were bought and paid for in Oil-for-Food bribes. Once the sanctions had collapsed, Saddam would have been right back in business — his WMD programs ready to be up and running again (to the extent they were not running already) as he sat there with about $20 billion in Oil-for-Food profits and an ongoing relationship with al Qaeda (among many other jihadist groups).If you want to say we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq, and should have anticipated the present chaos there, fair enough. But at least have the honesty to say you’d prefer the alternative: A Saddam Hussein, emboldened from having faced down the United States and its sanctions, loaded with money, arming with WMDs, and coddling jihadists.
Saddam Al Quaeda Connection
The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.
Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein’s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the “high-value detainee programme” at Guantanamo Bay.
Abd al-Hadi was taken into CIA custody last year, it emerged from US intelligence sources yesterday, in a move which suggests that he was interrogated for months in a “ghost prison” before being transferred to the internment camp in Cuba.
Abd al-Hadi, 45, was regarded as one of al-Qaeda’s most experienced, most intelligent and most ruthless commanders. Senior counter-terrorism sources told The Times that he was the man who, in 2003, identified Britain as the key battleground for exporting al-Qaeda’s holy war to Europe.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+’template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id=’+articleId+’&&offset=0&§ionName=WorldIraq’,’mywindow’,’menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655′); }
Outlaw TP ?????
“I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. “…
Sheryl Crow
If you outlaw toilet paper, only outlaws will have toilet paper!!
Questioning Global Warming.
Researchers Question Validity Of A ‘Global Temperature’
Science Daily — Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.
It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called ‘global temperature’. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.
Average without meaning
“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth”, Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.
He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average ‘global exchange rate’.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
Many averages
A further problem with the extensive use of ‘the global temperature’ is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.
Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.
Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)
The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.
Claims of disaster?
These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.
What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.
Reference: C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007).
Letter to a COWARD!!!
I am a former NYC Firefighter and former U.S. Marine. I have also been a Reservist in the U.S. Coast Guard for 17 years. I worked at the morgue sites going through bodies and body parts for 8 months following 9/11. As a result of the prolonged trauma of that type of work, I was disabled by the FDNY. I would like to make a statement regarding Mr. Reid’s irresponsible comments as follows:
Mr. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader (D),
I cannot adequately explain my disappointment at the comments made by you today; “The war is lost”. It is inconceivable that someone in your position could be so irresponsible and ignorant of the fallout from those words.
With our troops overseas, on the front lines, putting themselves between your family and the terrorist extremists, you have cheered on the enemy and surely the video tape of your comments will be found at every terrorist camp and referenced by every terrorist group for the eternity of mankind. Your words have “tangibly” aided and given comfort to the enemy, in that such a high political figure in the Government of our great Country has conceded defeat to terrorism. You are a disgrace to every American, irregardless of political belief or religious background.
Your comments would have demoralized a less disciplined military. Fortunately, the military men and women on the battlefields far from home, protecting you and your families interests, are not cowards or quitters (as you are). We don’t train our military that way. Thank God you did not hold such a high office during other difficult and defining moments in the history of our country.
You have given the enemy reason to rejoice, reason to continue the fight and reason to step up their violence not just in Iraq, but all over the world. You have given the enemy “hope”. You have pointed them to light at the end of the tunnel. Congratulations.
For several years Saddam Hussein stood there ignoring U.N. resolutions, pushing his finger forward in his jacket pocket as if to say “stick-em up”. We responded to the “threat” and it turns out that we didn’t find a gun in his pocket. He was a murderer that placed no value on human life. The world is a better place without him.
On September 11, 2001, another group of people showed the world that they place no value on human life. If these terrorists had it their way, we would all be dead. Terrorists do not want to “rule” us or “enslave” us. They want to kill us. All of us. For no reason. Sound familiar? Ask a Holocaust survivor what that feels like.
Iraq could be described as decent people who have suffered under an evil regime. We are trying to help them. You have single handedly undermined that effort. You have also unwittingly caused severe damage to the Democratic party, for surely there are innumerable Democrats that have served, and do serve, in the military, and there are millions of Democrats that don’t believe in quitting or surrendering to evil. In your position as a spokesperson for Democrats, your party will suffer in 2008 for your irresponsible and ignorant comments.
For any person that believes America puts its nose where it doesn’t belong, or that we violate human rights, the litmus test for me, is when people stop trying to “kill” themselves to immigrate here. That’s when I will start questioning what kind of country I’m living in. Even after all the wars, the dropping of bombs, etc, we can’t accommodate the influx of immigration into our great Country. The “proof” stands before you. This is the greatest Country in the world and people from every walk of life and every background, race, creed, color and sex know it and want to be here in this country.
Mr. Reid, I don’t know what you were thinking. Please resign.
Sincerely,
J.
Now, Demotards Want Profiling??
Responding to the Virginia Tech massacre.
MEREDITH VIERA: Is there a profile for someone who would do something like this?
WOLF BLITZER: It seems like the classic profile.
PSYCHOTHERAPIST CARYN STARK: He’s a loner which fits the profile.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: What do you do when you have a kid that looks like a profile who might go on a rampage?
BRIAN WILLIAMS: The classic profile of a loner that exhibited trouble, isn’t that a trend now that deserves more resources?
HELEN MORRISON: We see the typical profile of a mass murderer!
Yet, the TSA is not allowed to profile airline passengers.
Texas Donks Vote Against Limited Spending
43 Democrats Vote Against Limiting Spending
and Giving Money Back to the Taxpayers of Texas
Austin – Today, the Republican Party of Texas released official documentation which shows forty-three of the most liberal Democrats in the Texas House Representatives voted against passing the “calendar rule” which is passed every legislative session prior to the budget being debated on the house floor. This rule disallows any new spending initiatives outside the proposed budget as passed out of the House Appropriations committee without cutting a program somewhere else.
“Yet again ‘Do Nothing’ Jim Dunnam and his shrinking band of liberal pranksters have attempted to hijack the legislative process for their liberal agenda. Conservatives prevailed and Jim Dunnam failed and that is a victory for all Texas taxpayers,” said Hans Klingler, Spokesman for the Texas GOP.
By a overwhelming majority, the Texas House of Representatives passed the calendar rule on the house budget bill, House Bill 1. Sometimes called the “dollar in/dollar out” rule this bill precludes new spending without cutting the budget somewhere to pay for it. It has been passed by every legislature over the last twenty-two years.
“We must control spending and make cutting taxes our number one priority. This rule makes it harder for liberals like ‘Do Nothing’ Jim Dunnam to come up with more spending ideas instead of giving money back to the taxpayers of this state,” Klingler went on to say.
House Bill 1 will now make its way to the floor of the Texas House in the coming days where it will be debated for final passage.
Demotard Lard “Sam Farr”
CAGW Names Rep. Sam Farr Porker of the Month
Washington, D.C. – Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) Porker of the Month for adding $25 million for spinach growers to the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental bill. The House of Representatives will soon vote on the U.S. Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007, which costs $21 billion more than the President’s request mostly because of domestic spending unrelated to military operations.
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) offered an amendment to remove the spinach provision from the bill, but was defeated. He noted, “A $25 million bailout for spinach owners demeans the bill. It holds Congress up to ridicule.”
Rep. Farr countered, “It’s easy to make fun of spinach, but if we had eaten more of it, we would be a stronger society.” While spinach does provide health benefits, compensation to its growers does not contribute to a stronger military, which was supposed to have been the focus of the bill.
Spinach growers deserve no special reward for pulling a deadly product from store shelves. The growers can plan for and survive temporary slumps just like any other business. Non-subsidized businesses must constantly adjust to unforeseeable events to stay profitable in the free market. Spinach growers are using lobbyists and Rep. Farr to obtain special privileges at taxpayers’ expense.
Emergency spending is basically a giant loophole. The costs of supplemental bills are not counted in official annual budget figures, but still get added to the national debt. The projects and programs slipped into supplementals often would not pass muster in the regular budget process. Presidents are historically reluctant to veto funding meant for the troops, which makes such bills a magnet for pork; President Bush has threatened to veto this particular bill. Other extraneous provisions in the supplemental include $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, $74 million for peanut storage costs, and $60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath River region in California and
Oregon.
For exploiting the emergency supplemental to direct an unrelated and unnecessary subsidy to a special interest in his home district, CAGW names Rep. Sam Farr its March 2007 Porker of the Month.
Dirty Little Secrets 