BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. – Less than a year after dethroned Miss California USA Carrie Prejean stirred up controversy with her remarks against gay marriage, a similar war of words is brewing in Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills Mayor Nancy Krasne said Wednesday she is outraged over a Miss California USA contestant who is claiming to represent the city in the upcoming pageant and who spoke out against same-sex marriage in recent media interviews.
Krasne said in a statement that 23-year-old Lauren Ashley does not live in Beverly Hills or represent the city in any capacity. Krasne said she was shocked to see statements made by a beauty pageant contestant under the name of Beverly Hills, “which has a long history of tolerance and respect.”
Ashley recently told Fox News and other media outlets that same-sex marriage goes against God and the Bible.
Keith Lewis, a K2 Productions stage director for the Miss California USA pageant, told the Los Angeles Times that contestants choose the area they represent and Ashley chose to compete as Miss Beverly Hills in November 2010.
A phone listing for Ashley could not be found.
Krasne said the city has contacted Miss California USA pageant officials to determine ways to formally prevent any beauty contestants from claiming the title of Miss Beverly Hills in the future.
Ashley’s comments came just months after Prejean, the former Miss California USA 2009, reached a confidential settlement with pageant organizers on dueling lawsuits over her outspoken stance against gay marriage.
Prejean sued Miss California USA organizers in August for libel, slander and religious discrimination. She accused them of telling her to stop mentioning God even before her controversial remarks against gay marriage.
Prejean was fired in June after pageant officials accused her of missing events, an allegation she denied. The pageant later countersued Prejean.
Prejean said she was dethroned because she said during the Miss USA pageant that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Courtesy of Yahoo News at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100225/ap_on_re_us/us_miss_beverly_hills
It’s been six and a half months now since I left Germany to study abroad in the United States. This is not my first time of being over here. Actually, I’m feeling very much at home on the other side of the Atlantic. My second cousin in Texas always says I “hop across the ocean as if it were a puddle.” I guess I fit in quite well by now; at least, it’s been a while since the last time that someone noticed that I’m a foreigner or said to me “You have such a cute accent! Where are you from?” And I love it. I love that I have managed to adapt to American culture to an extent where no one can tell that I wasn’t born and raised here.
I’m not exactly sure when that adaptation process started, but it probably all began, when I was about eight years old singing along to songs like Jessie by Joshua Kadison and Give it away by the Red Hot Chili Peppers on the radio. Although, singing along is probably saying a bit too much considering I didn’t even know any English then. As soon as my brother, Michael, started learning English in school, I started asking him how different words are pronounced and what they mean. I remember asking him over and over again about a band name on one of the posters in his room. “It’s EAST SEVENTEEN,“ he would say, obviously getting annoyed. I couldn’t wait to finally be in fifth grade and learn English myself.
My first years of English in school were a breeze; it all seemed to come to me almost naturally. I enjoyed doing my English homework and studying irregular verb forms. I even thought about the everyday words and grammar we learned in school during my everyday life. Sometimes, I would even talk to myself in English when I knew there was no one around. So, while my grades in Math and other subjects dropped from an A in elementary school to a C in secondary school, I received mostly As and a few Bs in my brand-new, favorite subject English.
At the beginning of seventh grade, my grandparents promised my brother and me to take us on a trip to visit our relatives in Michigan the following spring. Of course, we had to fulfill our part of the deal first. “We’re only going to take you guys if you bring home some good grades on your mid-year report cards,” my grandfather said with a wink. I knew we would get to go with them even if our grades weren’t going to be outstanding.
The day we got our report cards that February, my brother and I raced home on our bikes. Taking the corner onto our street, I could already see my grandparents car. We jumped off the bikes, leaving them on the driveway, and ran into the house. Both of us were really out of breath. My grandmother just started laughing when she saw us. She and my grandfather, with his boyish grin, were sitting in the kitchen together with my mother. “Let’s see these report cards,“ said my grandfather, so we gave them to him. After what seemed like forever, he looked up. “I guess that’s good enough,“ he said with a smile on his face. Then, my grandmother told us that we were going to fly to Michigan for my second cousin Ralph’s wedding in May.
At school, I told my friends about my upcoming trip. Soon, I began to think of things I needed to bring: something nice to wear for the wedding, my walkman for the long flight, and my camera. And I had to save up money, because I wanted to buy cool American things to show off when I got back home.
At last, three months of waiting had come to an end, and it was time for the four of us to start our trip to the other side of the Atlantic with a nine-hour flight. While our grandparents were trying to catch some sleep on the airplane, Michael and I used the time to get ourselves ready for all the English we were going to be exposed to over the next two weeks by watching some movies and listening to the radio in English. I don‘t remember what movies we watched, but I got a bit scared by how fast everyone was talking. I asked my brother if he understood everything that was being said. “No. You just have to keep watching, though,” he said. So, I did.
Around four o’clock in the afternoon, my great-aunt Inge, who was also the only one we knew over here who could speak German, picked us up from the airport. My brother and I were exhausted but still too excited to fall asleep on the ride to her house. Our grandparents already knew everyone from their previous trips and had told us a little bit about our relatives. Yet, we kids couldn’t wait to meet everyone over the course of the following days.
One day, we went to a nearby lake, where the grown-ups took us kids to ride in the boat and on the tube they were pulling across the lake. My brother and I had the time of our lives – we didn’t know anyone back home who owned a boat, so that was our first time of going tubing on a lake. We had a huge barbecue with hamburgers, hot dogs, soft drinks, and cookies for dessert, and the entire family was there. I remember thinking this must be what America is about.
On other days, we had dinner at someone’s house. One time, we drove out to Ralph’s house, which actually is an old farmhouse. He also still has an old barn standing on his big piece of property. We had another barbecue, and my brother and I got to ride the lawn mower. Again, back home nobody we knew had one of those, so we were really excited about it. “Make sure not to crush the little pine trees over there. I just planted them last year,” Ralph said, but my brother was a bit too enthusiastic driving the lawn mower; that was the end for those pine trees.
Of course, our relatives also took us to the nearby malls. I loved all the stores and that I got to pay with the American dollars I had gotten from my bank in Germany. A bit confused about the conversion rate, I spent way to much on a tie-dye shirt and a candle, which I thought looked really cool. “Are you sure you don’t want to return this stuff?“ Inge asked after she saw the price tags. But I kept my overpriced shirt and candle; it was my cool American stuff. What really impressed me, though, was the politeness I encountered. “How are you?“ and “Can I help you find something” were the first two things I heard whenever I entered a store, and inside, everybody constantly apologized for almost bumping into me or blocking my view.
On the wedding day, Inge helped me get all dressed up and ready before we had to head out to go to church. I have to admit that I didn’t understand everything, but the wedding was beautiful. Later, at the reception, we all danced and laughed and had the greatest time together; I felt like this was where I belonged.
Since I had only had a little under three years of English in school, I didn’t talk a whole lot during this first trip to the USA; I just listened closely and tried to follow everyone’s conversation, because by the time I had figured out what I wanted to say their conversation had moved on to a different topic. Still, everywhere we went I quickly felt at home. All those strangers that were my family were so welcoming and loving that I couldn’t help but feel comfortable around them.
As a matter of fact, I enjoyed my stay and being around my relatives so much that I decided to use all the money I got for my confirmation on a five-week trip to visit them over my summer break the following year. After that I wanted to go back to the US to stay for a year and go to high school, but my parents said I was too young to be away from home for that long. Moreover, it would have been really expensive. So, after that plan fell through, I decided to finish high school in Germany and then come back to be an AuPair for a year. Even during my time as an AuPair, my relatives were always just a phone call away and helped me to get used to living in a part of the US I hadn’t been to before. Thereafter, I kept coming back every summer to visit friends and family in Illinois, Wisconsin, Idaho, Michigan, and Texas, and now, I’m an international student at College of DuPage.
Over the years, the USA have become my second home. Of course, I don’t like everything over here, but I don’t like everything in Germany either. Just the same, it doesn’t matter which side of the Atlantic I’m on, I’m always missing something from the opposite side. I’m sure that I wouldn’t know these feelings if it hadn’t been for my grandparents and my relatives over here, and without them I might not be “the family’s globetrotter” that I am today.
I see some problems with Valentine’s Day as it is currently taking place in some schools. If the holdiay is going to be celebrated with class parties in elementary school (as opposed to students giving out their own valentines privately, without anything to do with the school), in my opinion, there is only ONE way to do it.
Having been an Elementary Teacher of many years, the ONLY way Valentine’s Day should be celebrated at school is for children to be required to make a card for every other child in the class. This prevents some children going home upset, deflated, egos damaged.
I taught for many years in an overseas American school in a country where Valentine’s were not sold in large packets, as they are in America.
Valentines in America are sold in easy, class-sized packages
I solved this problem by making heart shapes on a paper, writing “to” and “from” on the card, and photocopying the papers. I gave each child a packet to cut out the 25-30 necessary for the whole class, and kids sat with their friends in groups to color valentines and write simple messages on them.
Since we don’t commonly have shoeboxes easily available in this country, I made large envelopes for each child by folding and stapling at the sides an 18″ x 24″ piece of construction paper, and wrote each child’s name largely in fancy cursive on the envelope. That way we could have a Valentine’s party where everyone could go around distributing valentines to everyone else’s desk, and no one would feel left out.
We also had envelopes taped up around the room for other classes, in case someone wanted to send a card to a brother or sister, or friend in another grade. Of course they could make additional valentines “from your secret admirer,” and we always made a special one to take home to Moms and Dads.
This way, at the end of the day, everyone in the class has a whole packet of Valentines to take home, from the whole class, and is NOT LEFT OUT, while other, more popular children get ALL the valentines!
I was surprised to find how many high school children still had their class valentines, saved from our elementary school parties.
Dogfish Head is one bad ass brewery. Located in Delaware, Dogfish Head continually pushes the boundaries of beer, while at the same time being repsectful of brewing traditions. I love these guys, and will buy any of their beers without hesitation.
The Squall IPA came out last spring. If you see any bottles at your local beer emporium, grab them, because this a tasty treat. This Imperial IPA is super hoppy, and packs a 9% ABV. Very fragrant, and even with that high alcohol content, this drank very easily. I had this with some friends at a boy’s weekend in Vermont, and this was easily the standout beer of the weekend. A solid 9/10.
The thing about having to go between two countries, is that here are plenty of friends and family that you don’t get to see but every few years. People that I grew up with and love immensely. That is something I had to give up with moving here, but I’m thankful to get to spend the little bit of time that I can with people when we do manage to make it to the US.
During our trip in June we were able to visit with friends and family, as I’ve shared other pictures before (on the other blog), but here are the last of those pictures.
One set of pictures with my friend Irene and her son, Jason. (Irene wouldn’t let me take any pictures of her.) *sigh* Irene and I grew up together and were best friends during high school. She is a fantastic person and I miss her a lot! Her son Jason is crazy and a talker. ) He and Fredrik had a lot of fun together while Irene and I were about to talk. And the grass in the pictures.. American grass.. REAL grass. None of this hard, crunchy, mossy grass that we have here in Sweden. But REAL, soft, GREEN grass. It made me miss American summers!
Here is a set of pictures with Leia getting to meet her Aunt Melissa and boyfriend Dustin and her cousin Amanda. (Leia only got to meet cousin Amanda, her other cousins, Josh and Craig, were unable to make a trip to come see us.) Leia also was able to meet Amanda’s daughters, Hailey and Savannah.
Aunt Melissa bought Leia her first ice cream from an American ice cream truck.
Which Leia thoroughly enjoyed.
It is always sad saying goodbye, especially because you don’t know when we’ll ever see each other again – if we ever do.
NEWS White House adjusts strategy on Republicans By Peter Nicholas February 21, 2010
The Obama administration aims to put members of the GOP on the spot, forcing them to compromise on issues or be portrayed as obstructionists.
Reporting from Washington – As voters lose patience with political gridlock, the Obama administration is embarking on a strategy aimed at putting Republicans on the spot: Either participate in bipartisan exchanges initiated by the president, or be portrayed as the party of obstruction.
The new approach is part of a series of adjustments the White House is making as it deals with the aftermath of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, which cost Democrats their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Right now, it’s not clear voters blame one party more than the other for paralysis in Washington. A recent poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal showed that voters are as apt to blame congressional Republicans as Democrats for the standoff. Virtually everyone surveyed agreed there is too much infighting in the capital.
In a flurry of recent public appearances, President Obama has sent a message that he is prepared to embrace GOP ideas. But he is also signaling that if Republicans balk at compromise, he’ll exact a political price.
Republicans, said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, “have a role to play in solving problems in this country, or be accountable to the electorate for choosing not to.”
Republicans don’t see Obama’s overtures as sincere. They view with particular suspicion Obama’s invitation to hash out differences on healthcare at a televised meeting Thursday. Republicans who boycott the gathering risk looking obstinate. But showing up isn’t a winning strategy either, some Republicans caution. They fear the format is one that guarantees the president will appear the statesman.
“When you’re the president, you have the loudest microphone and clearest TV camera,” said Mark Corallo, a Republican strategist. “You get to stand up and look reasonable, bipartisan and leader-like. And anyone else ends up . . . looking like a petty partisan who is just interested in saying no. There’s no upside for the Republicans in even attending the healthcare summit.”
Obama has been busy on other fronts positioning himself as the seeker of bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems. Last week he named GOP former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming as co-chairman of a commission that will look for ways to curb the trillion-dollar deficit. He also announced billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees promoting nuclear power, an energy source that many Republicans see as a solution to the country’s electricity needs.
In a recent news conference, Obama said he was open to giving ground in exchange for GOP support for his energy plan, which is foundering in the Senate.
“I’m willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway,” the president said. “But there’s got to be some give from their side as well.”
An administration official said that in coming months, the White House would be quicker to point out instances of what he described as Republican intransigence. Though the White House has long believed that Republicans were committed to derailing Obama’s agenda, officials will be more aggressive in making the case.
“The Massachusetts election obliterated the argument that we could [govern] all on our own,” said the administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “What we’re doing now is actively reaching out and demonstrating our interest in bipartisanship — but not passively standing by if Republicans are not willing to meet us halfway.”
The White House will be relying on a wider network of people to drive home its message. As part of its retooled communications strategy, more Cabinet secretaries will be in front of the cameras to defend the administration’s record.
The plan is already on display. Cabinet members fanned out across the country on the anniversary of the $787-billion stimulus package being signed into law, touting projects now underway and countering GOP criticism that the bill was a waste of money that did little to curb unemployment.
Last year, by contrast, Obama often carried the administration’s message alone. “There was a reluctance to hand off the ball,” said the White House official.
Hmm…bass guitar seems easy enough…maybe I should take up piano…
The case of Joseph Stack is a bizarre one.
Man is disgruntled with the state of his nation – in particular the tax authorities – man snaps, man flies plane into Internal Revenue Services building, man dies in crash, injuring two people with one other ‘unaccounted for’.
Another pointless death or two in Usania.
Stack left a rambling 6 page suicide ‘note’ :
Stack complained that anyone who stood up for the principal of “no taxation without representation” was now labelled a “crackpot.” He accused corporate leaders of being “thugs and plunderers” guilty of “gluttony and overwhelming stupidity” and politicians were “thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags.”
He said the US health system was a “joke” and accused drug companies of “murdering tens of thousands of people a year” but his strongest words were reserved for the tax system.
Stack said: “Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand.
“The law requires a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing. If that’s not duress then what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.”
Stack claimed his attempts to get to grips with the tax system had cost him more than $40,000 (£24,000) and 10 years of his life.
He said: “It made me realise for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie.” Stack claimed tax legislation in the 1980s had made him a “criminal and non-citizen slave.” Stack then spent $5,000 (£3,000) and 1,000 hours of his time writing to politicians about tax.
Much of which I find hard to disagree with, particularly the first paragraph above. So, whilst I can’t approve of the way in which he expressed his anger and frustration I can understand why he felt that way if not why he chose such a drastic method to express it.
However, in a surreal moment he also states:
“Here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle.”
A piano?
However, it’s the little piece of coding that places ‘related’ adverts after news stories in the Telegraph which must surely have the last ironic word on the subject:
NEWS Nevada discontent is pinned on Obama By Mark Z. Barabak
February 18, 2010 | 3:07 p.m. PST
Economic woes have only gotten worse since voters elected the president, who is visiting the state on Friday.
Reporting from Sparks, Nev. – In November 2008, Alex Gevedon cast his presidential ballot for Barack Obama, joining thousands of independents who helped deliver an unexpectedly huge win for the Democrat here in Nevada.
But ask his feelings about the president today and Gevedon lets out a long burst of air, as though he — and not just his view of Obama — was rapidly deflating. He sighs once. Twice.
“Honestly? I didn’t think the country would stay that bad this long,” Gevedon finally says. He is 23 and works part-time doing cleanup work at a surgery center. He would like to apply his biology degree toward a full-time job, perhaps doing research back home in Kentucky. His advice to Obama: “Forget about healthcare. . . . Get back to stuff that is a little more reasonable and feasible than what we’re focusing on right now.”
When the president visits Las Vegas on Friday he will find that Nevada is no longer the economic basket case he came to know during his frequent campaign stops.
It’s gotten worse.
Unemployment was 8% on election day. It was 13% in December, after a year in which nearly 81,000 jobs disappeared. More than 60% of homeowners owe more on their mortgage than their properties are worth. The state, a perennial leader in population growth — attracting 5,000 people a month to the Las Vegas area alone — is losing residents for the first time since the mid-1940s.
When the economy swooned and nearly collapsed in the fall of 2008, Obama was the political beneficiary. He won Nevada, a conservative-leaning state, by a startling 12 percentage points over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. More than 60% of voters surveyed said the economy was their uppermost concern and 3 in 5 of them voted for Obama.
Now, fairly or not, many people blame the president for the bad times. State polls show his favorability and job performance ratings hovering below 50%. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, though, is the one in more immediate trouble. The Democrat trails a batch of less-than-top-shelf GOP candidates as he fights for reelection in November.)
The president certainly has his defenders. “I think Obama got left with a mess, so he’s got to clean it up, and it’s not going to take one year to do it,” said Democrat Sue Dorsey, 60, huffing as she circled Sparks Marina, a man-made lake on the edge of a spanking new — and lightly trafficked — shopping mall.
But the overriding sentiment expressed in two days of conversation with voters around Washoe County was disappointment, even disillusionment, laced with more than a bit of impatience. If people had unrealistic expectations for their young president, they still seem to blame Obama for dashing those hopes — even if some think he is not entirely responsible.
“I just think the feeling in the country is overall a feeling of dejection, or depression,” said Gevedon, as he headed into a video shop with a friend. “People aren’t happy like we were in the ’90s.”
Obama, who plans a town hall meeting in Henderson and a speech to business leaders in Las Vegas, points out that his predecessor, George W. Bush, ran an enormous deficit and began a series of government bailouts in rescuing the financial industry.
“But all of those issues are attaching themselves to Obama,” said Eric Herzik, who heads the political science department at the University of Nevada in Reno. Big government and expensive Washington programs have never been popular in Nevada, a state with a broad libertarian streak and an abiding grudge toward its distant landlord. (About 90% of the land is controlled by the federal government.)
The strong sense, Herzik said, is that Obama’s efforts “have helped Wall Street . . . but they’re not doing a lot for [Reno's] Virginia Street.”
Reno and Sparks sit side by side, in a bowl just over the mountain from Lake Tahoe, sharing lovely views of the Sierra Nevada and a service economy ravaged by steep declines in gambling and tourism. Together, they form the urban core of Washoe County, which has traditionally been Nevada’s political battleground.
Democrats typically win big in Las Vegas and the surrounding area and lose rural Nevada to Republicans. So the Obama campaign focused heavily on Reno and Sparks, erasing the GOP’s long-standing registration advantage and even gaining a slight edge on election day. The result was a blowout: Obama prevailed 55% to 43% and became the first Democrat to carry Washoe County since 1964. (The statewide outcome was identical.)
But feelings have changed in the last 15 or so months.
John Ainsworth, a Democrat, is frustrated the president has not done more to overcome Republican resistance. “I think it’s past time to pull out a bigger stick,” said Ainsworth, 57, who runs a struggling apprenticeship program for union carpenters. He has not had a pay raise in two years, which makes his financial squeeze even tighter with two adult children and a granddaughter living at home.
“Past presidents have got their way by edict,” Ainsworth said. “Maybe it’s time for a little more strength on his part to make it happen.”
Joey Jobe agrees that Obama should have accomplished more by now, given the enthusiasm that swept him into office.
“He really could have used it kind of like FDR, who said, ‘Look, this is what we’re going to do and we’re going to do it this way,’ ” said Jobe, 28, a Democrat who lives with her parents and holds a temporary job preparing tax forms while seeking full-time work. “I think he kind of squandered that momentum.”
Even some who didn’t vote for the president feel let down.
Gevedon’s companion, Nate Perry, backed McCain. But he was excited when Obama — “a young face, someone our generation could relate to” — took office. “Everyone was really optimistic, and now there’s not the same optimism,” said Perry, 23, an international studies student who lost jobs cooking and bartending in the last year. “It was a shot in the arm briefly and then a whole bunch of inaction and compromises took away the good feelings.”
Asked who he blames for the hard times, Perry said the question was irrelevant. “It’s been going on so long,” he said, “that people need to stop blaming everyone and start working to fix it.”
For Obama, the good news is he won’t face Nevada voters again until 2012, if he seeks reelection. Things may have improved by then, but maybe not. Economic forecasters say Nevada will lose an additional 89,000 jobs this year and next.
Skulle egentlig bare være så random å fortelle at i forbindelse med at jeg skal til USA som utvekslingsstudent neste skolesemester, så skjer det ….. Ingenting! Det står altså helt stille. Prosessen har stoppet opp i USA, så jeg venter fremdeles på at de skal godkjenne søknaden min. Noe som forresten har tatt en evighet!
Ellers så skal jeg ut å reise på lørdag. Da drar jeg først til Oslo, hvor jeg skal være frem til jeg tar turen videre til London mandags kveld. Superspent!!
Og ja, jeg skriver en artikkel i norsken om idrett og doping, så dersom noen har noen inspill de føler er viktig å få med så tar jeg veldig mottakelig for det!
Indian explosion of its nuclear device in 1974 drew only a customary “show of concern” from the Western powers. But Pakistan’s nuclear program, initiated in response to the Indian acquisition of nuclear weapons, evoked immediate and “serious concern” from the same quarters. Ever since, Pakistan has been under immense pressure to scrap its program while the Indians remain uncensored.
That Western discriminatory attitude can also be seen by the religious color it gave to Pakistan’s bomb by calling it an ‘Islamic bomb’. One has never heard of the Israeli bomb being called a ‘Jewish Bomb’, or the Indian bomb a ‘Hindu Bomb’, or the American and British bomb a ‘Christian Bomb’ or the Soviet bomb a ‘Communist’ (or an ‘Atheist) Bomb’. The West simply used Pakistan’s bomb to make Islam synonymous with aggression and make its nuclear program a legitimate target, knowing full well that it merely served a defensive purpose and was not even remotely associated with Islam.
With India going nuclear soon after playing a crucial role in dismembering Pakistan in 1971 and enjoying an overwhelming conventional military superiority over Pakistan in the ratio of 4:1, a resource strapped Pakistan was pushed to the wall. Left with no other choice but to develop a nuclear deterrent to ward off future Indian threats, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared: “Pakistanis will eat grass but make a nuclear bomb”. And sure enough, they did it. Soon, however, both he and the nuclear program were to become non-grata. Amid intense pressure, sanctions and vilification campaign, Henry Kissinger personally delivered to a defiant Bhutto the American threat: “give up your nuclear program or else we will make a horrible example of you’.
And a horrible example was made of Bhutto for his defiance. But he had enabled Pakistan to become the 7th nuclear power in the world. This served Pakistan well. India was kept at bay despite temptations for military adventurism. Although there has never been real peace in South Asia, at least there has been no war since 1971.
Ignoring its security perspective, Pakistan’s Western ‘friends’ refused to admit it to their exclusive nuclear club, though expediency made them ignore its ‘crime’ when it suited their purpose. But driven by identical geo-strategic interests in their respective regions and seeing Pakistan as an obstacle to their designs, Israel and India missed no opportunity to malign or subvert Pakistan’s program.
Due to its defiance of Indian diktat, Pakistan is for India an obstruction in its quest for domination of South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. Israel’s apprehension of Pakistan’s military prowess is rooted in the strength Pakistan indirectly provides to Arab states with whom Israel has remained in a state of conflict. Conscious that several Arab states look up to Pakistan for military support in the event of threat to their security from Israel, it is unsettling for Israel to see a nuclear armed Pakistan.
Israel can also not overlook the fact that Pakistan’s military is a match to its own. The PAF pilots surprised Israeli Air Force, when flying mostly Russian aircraft they shot down several relatively superior Israeli aircraft in air combat in the 1973 Arab Israel war, shattering the invincibility myth of Israeli pilots who believed themselves to be too superior in skill and technology. The Pakistanis happened to be assigned to Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces on training missions when the war broke out and, unknown to the Israelis then, they incognito undertook combat missions.
After successfully destroying Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israelis planned a similar attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities at Kahuta in collusion with India in the 1980s. Using satellite pictures and intelligence information, Israel reportedly built a full-scale mock-up of Kahuta facility in the Negev Desert where pilots of F-16 and F-15 squadrons practiced mock attacks.
According to ‘The Asian Age’, London, journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark stated in their book ‘Deception: Pakistan, the US and the Global Weapons Conspiracy’, that Israeli Air Force was to launch air attack on Kahuta in mid 1980s from Jamnagar airfield in Gujarat (India). The book claims that “in March 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed off (on) the Israeli-led operation bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hairs breadth of a nuclear conflagration”.
Another report claims that Israel also planned an air strike directly out of Israel. After midway and midair refueling, Israeli warplanes planned to shoot down a commercial airline’s flight over Indian Ocean that flew into Islamabad early morning, fly in a tight formation to appear as one large aircraft on radar screens preventing detection, use the drowned airliner’s call sign to enter Islamabad’s air space, knock out Kahuta and fly out to Jammu to refuel and exit.
According to reliable reports in mid 1980s this mission was actually launched one night. But the Israelis were in for a big surprise. They discovered that Pakistan Air Force had already sounded an alert and had taken to the skies in anticipation of this attack. The mission had to be hurriedly aborted.
Pakistan reminded the Israelis that Pakistan was no Iraq and that PAF was no Iraqi Air Force. Pakistan is reported to have conveyed that an attack on Kahuta would force Pakistan to lay waste to Dimona, Israel’s nuclear reactor in the Negev Desert. India was also warned that Islamabad would attack Trombay if Kahuta facilities were hit.
The above quoted book claims that “Prime Minister Indira Gandhi eventually aborted the operation despite protests from military planners in New Delhi and Jerusalem.”
McNair’s paper #41 published by USAF Air University (India Thwarts Israeli Destruction of Pakistan’s “Islamic Bomb”) also confirmed this plan. It said, “Israeli interest in destroying Pakistan’s Kahuta reactor to scuttle the “Islamic bomb” was blocked by India’s refusal to grant landing and refueling rights to Israeli warplanes in 1982.” Clearly India wanted to see Kahuta gone but did not want to face retaliation at the hands of the PAF. Israel, on its part wanted this to be a joint Indo-Israeli strike to avoid being solely held responsible.
The Reagan administration also hesitated to support the plan because Pakistan’s distraction at that juncture would have hurt American interests in Afghanistan, when Pakistan was steering the Afghan resistance against the Soviets.
Although plans to hit Kahuta were shelved, the diatribe against Pakistan’s nuclear program continued unabated. Israel used its control over the American political establishment and western media to create hysteria. India worked extensively to promote paranoia, branding Pakistan’s program as unsafe, insecure and a threat to peace. The fact is otherwise. It is technically sounder, safer and more secure than that of India and has ensured absence of war in the region.
The US invasion of Afghanistan provided another opening for Indo-Israeli nexus to target Pakistan’s strategic assets. This time the strategy was to present Pakistan as an unstable state, incapable of defending itself against religious extremist insurgents, creating the specter of Islamabad and its nuclear assets falling in their hands. Suggestions are being floated that Pakistan being at risk of succumbing to extremists, its nuclear assets should be disabled, seized or forcibly taken out by the US. Alternatively, an international agency should take them over for safe keeping.
Pakistan has determinedly thwarted the terrorist threat and foiled this grand conspiracy. The terrorists have either been eliminated or are on the run. Pakistan has made it clear that it would act decisively against any attempt by any quarter to harm its nuclear assets. But if the game is taken to the next level, the consequences would be disastrous for the region.
The Indo-Israeli nexus is losing initiative. But as long as the American umbrella is available Afghanistan will remain a playground for mischief mongers. It is now up to the US to walk its talk and prove its claim that it wants to see a secure and stable Pakistan. It must pull the plug on conspiracies to destabilize Pakistan.
Summary: Lawrence Talbot must return to his childhood home, Blackmoor, following the mysterious death of his brother. After meeting his brother’s fiance, Gwen, Lawrence vows to uncover the mystery of his brother’s death but soon suffers an unfortunate and deadly injury.
Impressions: Benecio del Toro’s Wolfman is a fast, tight, action film with tons of fighting, heavy CGI, and all of the classic monster scares you’re used to. It rids itself of overdrawn narratives and explanations in exchange for character development, plot twists and clever, freaky dream sequences. The editing is top-notch with these sequences in a way that will keep you jumping, wondering where dreams end and reality begins again.
My one problem with this film is that I could hear del Toro holding back his accent. I’m not saying that it’s proper for a Spanish guy to be the son of an English nobleman when you’re going for realism, but I kept expecting to hear his voice from Sin City or Snatch, and was sorely disappointed.
Wolfman is a good horror film with a running time of only 100 minutes, that will keep you jumping and squirming until the very end.
Maulana Jalaluddin Roomi’s prediction indeed has come true: “The Giants come forward from Afghanistan and influence the world.”
A “massive build-up” is afoot for the battle of Marjeh, which is the strong-hold of Taliban in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. About fifteen thousand ground troops, reinforced by twenty thousand Afghan Army and police force will launch the offensive, supported by the entire US-NATO air power in Afghanistan. The objective is “to inflict a crushing defeat” on the Taliban, at Marjeh, which is considered “a bastion of Taliban power,” and set the momentum for their defeat in other areas, thus restoring government control over the territories of Afghanistan. Indeed, it is a very ambitious plan against the Taliban, who control thirty provinces, out of thirty four and rule the country-side. The surge of 30,000 American troops to be completed by August this year is expected to accomplish the task of restoring government control over Afghanistan.
The Google picture of Marjeh and the surrounding areas, gives a better explanation of the impending battle: Marjeh which lies about 15 KM west of Lashkargah – the provincial capital of Helmand is a plain sandy area with scattered mud huts, and a green belt to the south and the west, fed by the Helmand River. The green belt is sparsely populated with about 6-7000 people. The area is open, not at all suited for positional defence, nor for hit and run operations of the Taliban. In the vast open areas, the coalition air power and the mobile armoured troops would be able to drastically limit Taliban movement and their operational effectiveness. What kind of resistance, therefore the coalition forces are expecting for which the “massive build-up”, is taking place?
Taliban are well-versed in this game of fighting in the desert regions of South and the rugged mountains, for the last thirty years. They are the die-hard freedom fighters, motivated, self-assured and confident of victory against the occupation forces. Time is on their side. Their strategy for the battle of Marjeh therefore can be easily envisaged: They would rather hold Marjeh lightly, with a maximum of 2-3000 die-hard fighters, who would fight to the last man, killing as many of coalition forces, as possible. The use of strong and dispersed defenses, reinforced by IEDs ‘Omar Bombs’ and booby traps, would cause attrition on the attacking troops. Under-ground defensive net-work, on the pattern of Hezbollah’s defenses against Israelis in the 2006 war, would add to the strength of the resistance.
The bulk of the Taliban fighting force in Helmand area is estimated at 10-12000, which is likely to operate around the combat zone of Marjeh, to carryout interdiction of supply lines, logistics, support bases and may engage the coalition forces from several directions. While the battle of Marjeh rages, which will be long and bloody, the Taliban operating in other provinces, under their control will intensify their activities against the occupation forces, causing dispersion and greater attrition. The story of total defeat of the British Army of 1898, will not be repeated because, the air power of the coalition forces will save the day. A stalemate will occur. The result of this battle as well as the war in Afghanistan is the real contest between two opposing will. The coalition forces are demoralized and defeated, fighting a war which has no ideal and no moral justification. Whereas the Taliban are fighting for the freedom of their homeland, with faith in themselves and belief in the Divine Intervention, which has helped them defeat the mightiest of the mighty, during the last thirty years. In fact, the Asymmetric Warfare, waged by the Shadow Army of Taliban has determined the contours of the emerging global order, by putting limits to the expanding menace of global hegemony, primacy and pre-eminence. Maulana Jalaluddin Roomi’s prediction indeed has come true: “The Giants come forward from Afghanistan and influence the world.”
In May 2003, when Afghanistan was occupied by the coalition forces, Jalaluddin Haqqani declared: “We have decided to fight, till we are free. We will never submit to the demands of the occupation forces, because our national ethos and traditions do not allow that. Freedom is our goal and our destiny. Win we will, Insha Allah.” A common friend, who has just returned from Afghanistan, told me: “I found them, so much at ease with themselves. So cool, calm, perceptive and committed to their cause and total surrender to the will of Allah – They say the time is on their side, whereas, it is running-out for the oppressors in Afghanistan.”
It is obvious that the outcome of the battle of Marjeh would be a stalemate and the heavy casualties, the coalition forces are likely to suffer. In no way it would help the peace process in Afghanistan. Sagacity demands that the USA and their coalition partners show greater sincerity of purpose for peace and give up the idea of use of force for gains, at this belated stage, when the Taliban enjoy clear ascendancy over the occupation forces, and with each passing day, more and more tribals are joining them. Attempts are being made to separate the Al-Qaeda from the Taliban who would not abandon them. If they could, they would have handed-over Osama to the Americans nine years back and saved themselves from the ravages of war. There are no good and bad Taliban either. They are all the same, and follow Mullah Omar. No amount of money can buy-them-of either, because they are not a saleable commodity. Let us therefore accept the reality and initiate the peace process in real unrest.
Special modalities, therefore, are needed for bringing peace in Afghanistan and to ensure an honourable way out, for USA and its allies, and a smooth transition to the civil order, “without triggering bigger chaotic conditions.” There are “terrifying prospects of defeat in Afghanistan” hence the need for “a comprehensive strategy and an exit strategy,” which is the only viable option, to be supported by an aggressive political and diplomatic policy for peace in Afghanistan. The steps, therefore, that needs to be taken are:
The occupation forces must give “a time-frame for withdrawal and declare a cease-fire.” Start dialogue with the Taliban and Northern Alliance, to form the Loe Jirga, to decide the main issues, such as the formation of the Interim government, for a period of three years, which will be responsible for holding the Census to determine who is who, for the impending elections; framing of a new Constitution; rebuilding of Institutions; massive reconstruction of the infrastructure and re-creating ethnic balance, which remains disturbed since the Bonn Conference of 2001 and holding of general elections in the year 2013 and finally transfer power to the elected government.
The centres of power – Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban – must be taken into cognizance, as the main arbiters of peace and the immediate neighbours – Iran and China must also be on board. ~ Gen Mirza Aslam Beg
The American press is, to a fearful extent, in the hands of a cowardly, mercenary and unprincipled class of men, who have no regard for truth in dealing with what is unpopular; who cater to the lowest passions of the multitude, and caricature every movement aiming at the overthrow of established wrong; who are as destitute of all fairness in controversy as they are lacking in self-respect; and whose columns are closed against any reply that may be proffered to their libellous accusations. It is true, these men represent the prevailing public sentiment, either in the locality in which they reside, or in the country at large; but, fearfully demoralized as that sentiment is, in many particulars, they aim to make it still more corrupt, rather than to change it for the better. They not only publish all the lies they can pick up, in opposition to the struggling cause of humanity, but they busy themselves in coining lies, which they audaciously present to their credulous readers as reliable truths. There is no end to their deception and tergiversation. Such men are far more dangerous to society than terrorists, insurgents and suicide bombers. Occupying a position of solemn trust, and almost awful responsibility,—exerting a potent influence over a large class of ignorant and unreflecting minds, who look up to them as teachers and guides, however deficient in brains or vicious in morals,—they have it alike in their power and in their disposition to deceive, mislead, circumvent, and demoralize, to a ruinous extent. Each of them is a local authority; and of their many readers and viewers, comparatively few think of questioning the authenticity of what is laid before them, from day to day, or from week to week.
In what part of the country—in what town or village—can an animal rights protest be held, of an uncompromising character, even after a struggle of thousands of years, without being basely misrepresented by the press, or treated with silent contempt? Yes, for thousands of years, abolitionism—the denial of the right to make animals the property of man—has been lampooned, anathematized, vilified, unceasingly and universally, by the journals of the day, both religious and secular—its advocates have been held up as crazy fanatics and wild disorganizers—and its meetings represented as unworthy of countenance by sane and decent men! Every other unpopular movement, however noble and good, has been treated in the same manner—and “the end is not yet.”
We feel competant thus to arraign the American press generally—first, because we have been familiar with its course for the last forty years—and second, because we have the consciousness of publishing a free, independent, impartial journal, in the columns of which all sides have ever been allowed a fair hearing, and which seeks to make known “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” at whatever cost or hazard. How such a paper—advocating the noblest cause that can engage the attention of man, and giving auxiliary support to other great reformatory movements—is appreciated and sustained, is seen in its petty subscription list, in its limited hits, in the covert and open effort every where made for its suppression; and how other papers, which espouse the side of the oppressor, make falsehood and speciesism their stock in trade, and resist every attempt to reform society by removing all abuses, are encouraged and upheld, may be seen in the wide circulation and richly remunerative income of Fox News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and many others of a similar stamp. What does all this indicate as to the state of the country?
FREE Debt Reduction Plan:
Debt negotiation is being used by thousands of people like you to honorably pay back an agreed-to, reduced amount to creditors. Debt negotiation is deisgned to provide you with a shorter term and greater debt reduction than consumer credit counseling plans or just making minimum payments. You can get a no-obligation FREE Custom Debt Reduction Plan from CuraDebt so you can find out how debt negotiation can help you get out of debt faster!
Get A FREE Debt Reduction Plan
Debt Consolidation, Debt Negotiation, or Debt Settlement Help?
Get a free, no-obligation evaluation from a consumer recommended company, CuraDebt.
CuraDebt is a proud member of the Chamber of Commerce, USOBA, TASC, has a written money back guarantee and is rated as the #1 debt relief company in the USA. See details on the website.
For Credit Card Debt Elimination, You Can Use A Debt Reduction/Negotiation
It is a good option to use a debt reduction or debt elimination company to eliminate your credit card debt.
The methods that these companies uses provides you with greater savings than traditional non profit debt consolidation programs. This is because instead of negotiating only interest rates, the company negotiates reductions in the balances owed. It is not uncommon for small businesses or consumers to save a lot of money on their debts. And, most people who enter this program are free from their debts within a relatively short period of time.
If you feel that this program may help you, we recommend that you get a free and confidential debt elimination plan.
A scene from the film 'Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb'
Three war games have recently reviewed the US and Israeli options and outcomes in the face of Iran’s nuclear program. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has very briefly analyzed these games and has presented its own conclusions.
I am here going to respond to Jeffrey White’s analysis of these games. I am most interested in his choice of language, and unfortunately only have the time to comment on two out of the three games.
White provides highlights of the Harvard war game, which had as its goal an investigation of the general evolution of events and international actions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Here:
1) the US could not organize “meaningful support for sanctions.”
2) Russia and China engaged in their own “secret negotiations with Iran.”
3) Iran ‘won’ the game by increasing its supply of uranium and “was proceeding to weaponization.”
My response:
1) The game is conducted by an American institution and focuses on the central role of the US as the catalyst or primary actor, seemingly subordinating other state actors as responders to US policy on the issue. The US could not coordinate sanctions may well be rewritten as any number of other states having varying levels of ’success’ in rolling out their own plans. I don’t here mean to say that the agency of other states is not recognized by individual players who represent state actors, but rather that we should be aware that the game assumes the central motive of investigating US interests in degrees related to a binary dimension, success/failure. This game assumes then that the dominant articulation of US interest in regards to Iran, the Middle East, and Asia, is an inviolate constant. It does not investigate international interest, simply US interest, I would argue not simply from the point of view of war games conducted by the interested nation’s institution but also assumes the given that US power is hegemonic, if not implying that US hegemony is good then at least ignoring the question entirely. I argue that ignoring the question of articulating power can lead to a quest to maximize power for power’s sake and forgetting why an exertion of national will is necessary in the first place. The danger inherent in accepting dominant paradigms of transregional power is that actors may forget that it may well be desirable to seek political action for something other than the accumulation of power but may be the means to a multitude of goals.
2) The it would be stated that Russia and China would seek “secret” negotiations with Iran relates to my first point. It suggests that any negotiation with Iran outside the schema presented by US arbitration or national interest is a breach of some unvoiced law. What is here meant by secret? That the US or those of its alliance in full compliance with its national interest were not invited to bilateral talks between Russia or China and Iran? Just as the US and European nations have the right, as an independent state actors, to enter intro private negotiations with a second party, I would think that China or Russia would also enter into dialogue with those they see fit without necessarily seeking outside approval. If the full transcript of bilateral talks are not made available in the case of the US and some second party, this might be for the reason of its national interest, such as the mutable outcome of sensitive negotiations not yet concluding in formal agreement. That the bilateral talks of non-US actors working independently of this forcibly centralized player are articulated as “secret” suggests a displeasure with independent action that may be counter to US interest, but disguises this self-interest as a form of breach that requires secrecy.
3) Here is revealed another assumption made by the game, that Iran, without question, seeks to have nuclear weapons. The nature of Iran’s nuclear program is not questioned, it is presented as a weapons program. Within this assumption is inscribed the message that the program is an act of aggression against the US, meaning that it is contrary to US interest. Here is assumed that the US has a right, perhaps it would be worded as a responsibility in some journals, to exert its political, economic, and military power within the Asian continent, far from its shores and that local actors must not have the power to threaten US monopoly on violence. This relates very much to the symbolic reduction of US wars of aggression within the region, such as in the case of Iraq, to police action in which the police/US has the right to violence while other states may be subject as international citizens in a necessarily undefined global system in which their actions could well be regarded as criminal if it fall outside US interest. Such a schema is perhaps best articulated in a paper written for the US military, Joint Vision 2020, in which the idea of American full spectrum dominance is explained as:
The label full spectrum dominance implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained, and synchronized operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air, and information. Additionally, given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the United States must maintain its overseas presence forces and the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in order to achieve full spectrum dominance.
Next, White discusses the highlights of a related war game that was conducted by the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. This game investigates US-Israel relation along with potential for Israeli responses to Iran’s nuclear program. White outlines the following highlights from the Tel Aviv war game:
1) The game assumes a clear objective for Iran: “obtaining nuclear weapons.”
2) Israel and the US did not have clear strategies nor clear goals in confronting Iran.
3) Iran ‘wins’, and continues its nuclear program.
My responses:
1) This war game also assumes that Iran seeks to have nuclear weapons, generating a scenario on the very basis of an intractable conflict, that there is no deviation from weaponization of Iran’s nuclear program and therefore diplomatic negotiations could not possibly succeed. In order to have Iran not build nuclear bombs, you must force it to do so, through economic, political, or military threats or actions. Beyond the assumption that Iran must want nuclear programs is the treatment of the nuclear program in isolation from the very state actors who are here presented as the side (though a fractured side) facing a common foe in Iran. Israel and US, it is assumed, have a right to nuclear weapons. The impact of Israeli nuclear weapons on politics, and military programs within the region are entirely ignored in this particular scenario, since to explore it would mean questioning it. Anyway, Israel does not publicly acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons. To do so, or to discuss this topic might result in the question of how it developed them in the first place, which of course included European and US aid. Israel has not signed on to the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US and all nuclear capable European countries have. Under the NPT, it is not allowed that signatories help non-signatories develop a nuclear program, let alone a weaponized one. So, the NATO countries involved in this affair are in breach of what is supposed to be a binding international treaty that they helped create. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is meant to help police the accountability of signatories that may be implicated in a breach of the NPT, which permits the development of a civilian nuclear program but limits weaponization. The IAEA is thus involved in the case of Iran yet it is not involved in the case of the open secret of Israel nor of Western involvement in Israel’s nuclear development. This might bring into question the objectivity of the NPT, or rather of its application. It suggests, then, that it is OK for some countries to have nuclear programs, even nuclear weapons, but not OK for others to have them. If the application of the NPT is not universal, and in fact we witness a clear miss on its application in the case of the only nuclear weapons holder in the Middle East, then we must conclude that the NPT is at the very least flawed. Whether by flaw or purpose, it has in this case served to help maintain a power dynamic and problematic articulation of international law in which one side — Iran — is investigated because of accusation by the US, while another side — Israel — who happens to be an integrated ally of the US does not have to even worry about investigation. So, here, again, we see that the application of an international treaty is moves according to the existing dynamic of global power which favours the dominant player and its close allies.
2) The lack of clarity in terms of goals and strategies does not immediately seem clear to me when reading White’s review of the Tel Aviv war game. In reading further sections of the short report, I wonder if it simply means that they did not have common goals, or that goals and strategies were not clear enough because the US did not come forward with preconditions and ultimatums then seek these out through any means possible including military aggression.
3) The Iran win fits into the binary world we are presented throughout the report, with Iran on one side and US-Israel on the other. One is bad, the other is good, implicitly. Therefore, there is no need to critically examine the impact of each state action within the context of a multitude of national and sub-national needs or interests, it is assumed here that good and bad are inherent to each party. Perhaps the confusion lies in that the dimension of national interest embedded in power politics is taken as the judge of good and bad. In this case, if a situation or action contrasts with Israeli or US national interest reduced to a game of power politics then the need to examine its effect on the many peoples of the world is diminished. Inversely, what is good for the interested parties must be good for everyone, or for the good of everyone.
In my last post on the Olympic Winter Sports and in my last post before leaving to Vancouver, I will introduce the Olympic Sport Speed Skating.
Speed skating is the form of ice skating in which skaters race against each other on different distances on skates. In the Olympics, the long distances of ice skating are simply called speed skating, whereas the short man against main events are referred to as an own sport, called short track. Ice skating has its roots in Central and Northern Europe. Records show that already in the mid 16th century, Dutch, Norwegian and Scottish people made use of bones which they put under their shoes in order to move on frozen lakes and rivers. However, the speed skating sport was probably first developed in the United States, where athletes used steel under their shoes. Today, speed skating is a very technical sport. In Vancouver, events will be held in the 500m (Sprint; both Men and Women), 1000m (Men and Women), 1500m (Men and Women), 3000m (Women) 5000m (Men and Women), 10000m (Men) and Team Pursuit (Men and Women).
Speed Skating has been featured at Winter Olympics ever since the very first Winter Olympics in Chamonix 1924. However, the women´s events were only added 1960 in Squaw Valley. More and more events were added over the years, which makes speed skating with 12 events, one of the disciplines with the most medal opportunities. The dominant nations in this sport are without a doubt the nations from which the sport originates from: Norway (25/28/26), The Netherlands (24/28/23) and the United States (28/20/15). The Soviet Union also had strong speed skating athletes but most of them are now starting for the newly developed countries. Germany has probably some of the most popular athletes with Anni-Friesinger-Potsma and Claudia Pechstein, but Pechstein will start in Vancouver because she is banned because of doping suspicions. This makes Friesinger one of the favorites in the women´s events, with her main rivals coming in particular from the Netherlands. The favorites in the men´s events are Sven Kramer (Netherlands, 5000m and 10000m) and US-star Shani Davis (1000m and 1500m).
Well the USA is hardly a beacon of democracy in this world, but this was more than I expected.
It seems after a decision in the United States Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights applied to corporations as well as people, Murray Hill inc. decided to run for congress. I’m still not entirely convinced that this isn’t a giant piss-take, particularly with the slogan “the best democracy money can buy”. But apparently it is not.
The family came home tonight, and Jorge turned on the TV to the Super Bowl! I was shocked. Why would Chileans care about the Super Bowl, they don’t even understand football. I understand about 70% of football and I don’t even care about the Super Bowl. So here I am, being patriotic, watching the game.
Today I was walking down the street and I heard “Party in the USA” blasting from a car. In the supermarket, I see American brands, and advertisements for American movies all over the place.
Even though Chile seems very independent from America, I still see USA influence every day. It’s impossible to get completely away!
You all know the stereotypes, the movies, the songs, the condemnations, and some of you have even actually been there. We were only there for about 20 hours, but all those things are pretty much true, if only for the fact that so much can happen due to the sheer amount of people passing through. But enough of serious observation.
Las Vegas is a depressingly magical place. The recent James Cameron movie, Avatar, released a spat of depression cases for fans who felt remorse at the fact that there is nowhere similar in beauty to the movie’s alien planet, Pandora, and in a way this is applicable to Las Vegas. You will not find a city so dedicated to one human obsession in the most insanely ostentatious manner. Sure there are casinos all over Nevada and on Indian Reservations, but they really don’t compare. Despite all the stories of the obsessed or addicts losing their life’s savings you really can’t go wrong if you limit yourself and take in a show or two.
Then there is the larger picture. Vegas is sprawled across a massive expanse of desert (not to mention many other cities throughout NM, AZ, and CA) and uses an obscene amount of water. Probably every single casino operates some variety of fountains, which includes the biggies at the Mirage, Bellagio, and Treasure Island (to name a few). Most of the cars I saw and every single one of the the many stretch limousines were grotesquely sparkling clean (in sharp contrast to our still dirty VW), which, coupled with the sand and dust that surrounds the city, points to a thriving car wash market. There are efforts being made to relieve the aquatic strain that the city creates, but the damage has already been done (again, not by LV alone) as the Colorado River’s current delta is a mere fraction of what it used to be and has crippled what was once a lush section of Mexico. Electricity consumption is also a massive drain on the system and it doesn’t take a genius to realize that Vegas is an enormous bajillion watt lightbulb. Oh, and while there are just about way too many homeless and needy patrolling the world (even in Vegas) we’ve got tens of thousands of tourists chucking millions of dollars away each day and returning to their overly cushy hotel rooms. But hey, it’s not like these problems aren’t being addressed. There are measures being taken to ease the strain the city creates on water and power usage and the charity…some people win big and donate and there are many charities that operate in Sin City.
Vegas is also superlatively fun. Besides mindlessly gambling there are a litany of shows to watch including most of what Cirque Du Soleil offers (seriously, there are about 6 shows on offer). Prostitution is legal and not too subtly advertised (those aren’t newspaper racks…boob racks!), so if that’s your thing…congrats? You can walk along the strip and watch people work their way down a shopping list of bad decisions. Case in point: we passed a drunk man (bottle in brown paper bag, slurring spanish) get talked into a store selling tickets to shows and events…why not top off a night of drinking with a $50-$150 ticket to a show you won’t remember/enjoy (or get thrown out of)? Don’t have enough money? You can pretty much find any means necessary to pawn belongings or cash paychecks…probably even getting rid of one of those unnecessary kidneys (cutting down on the alcohol will help you in the long run anyway). The Strip consists of Food, Room, Gambling, and Money-Acquisition…and ladies…of the night. Three out of five ain’t bad.
It is a thoroughly enjoyable place and outside of the main drag there are other things to do. The weather is pleasant and probably slightly unbearable during the summer, but it wouldn’t be a bad place to live. Although the gambling environment and some of the people it attracts (popped collars, faux hawks, someone who looks like they just spent more than your life’s earnings on plastic surgery) would probably turn me into an excessively bitter and cynical person…don’t get me wrong, I am already slightly bitter and cynical (thank you, Mets and Islanders), but Vegas would just catapult me over the wall. A weekend visit would be awesome.
As we drove onto the strip Aubrey came to the realization that we could see Zumanity (Zoo Manatee?)…and so we did. It is one of Cirque Du Soleil’s many shows and is for “adults only.” Just some language…and man-asses, lady-butts, and upper halves. Suggestive phrasing. It was phenomenal. (Oh, Mike, you pervert) No, really, regardless of the countless nipples and near-unwanted phallus sightings (not “I nearly didn’t want to see it” but “I nearly saw it and didn’t want to”), the show is this crazy, awesome spectacle. Imagine that characters from The Matrix got together with a handful from mythology and had the world’s most bizarre orgy…
Wheee!
After the show we were pretty worn out (numerous days of driving and sight-seeing also helped) and didn’t really get into gambling. We played the penny slots for a bit and I was actually doing pretty well (up 106%…so $1.06) before I lost interest/Aubrey decided I should place the maximum bet of 90. We didn’t have the time or fortitude to get into anything else. I would have like to see how long I could go before losing all my chips in poker, but that could possibly take too long (I have won, but usually at the expense of people who were drunker than me – me being sober) and some of the slot style machines just look way too convoluted…like US Tax Code size manual convoluted. We decided that we should make a weekend trip and stay in a casino room sometime. Those $1 BJ signs at Sahara caught my eye. That’s BlackJack…they also offer $1 shots, beer, and hot dogs (not combined). Oddlight: The Pirate show at Treasure Island Casino, in which we unwittingly walked out to pyrotechnics heating our faces off. This consists of a female crew on one ship, comprised of women with a skill set between that of a stripper and that of a singer/actress, pole dancing on the rigging while a male crew on the other ship, comprised of male actors whose sole abilities are pirate accent and speech (the women can’t do this for some reason), act piratey. Highlight: Watching the fountain show outside the Bellagio. The iconic and idyllic scene in the 2001 Ocean’s Eleven with DeBussy’s Clair de Lune played through my head. I was really hoping that Clair de Lune would play, but instead the speakers were pumping out that insufferable Shania Twain song. She almost ruined it for me.
So anyway, we went to Las Vegas and did next to no gambling.
WAIT, WHAT THE HELL! BALLS!
Captain Wrongway Peachfuzz… the perfect mascot for oca.org under the bumbling care of John Matusiak… where did you dig that guy up from? At least, get somebody who can get the facts straight!
URL for article I am referring to:
http://www.oca.org/news/2077
Here’s the latest howler from Matusiak on oca.org. Supposedly, JP met with a Mr Christopher Smith (R-NJ), who is the chairman of the House International Relations Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations Subcommittee according to oca.org. There is a problem with that. There is no such committee. There is a Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight… but Mr Smith is not a member. In addition, there is a Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, of which Mr Smith is a member.
There is yet another glitch. All committee and subcommittee chairmen are of the majority party. I heard rumours that the majority party is the Democratic Party, whilst Mr Smith is a member of the Republican Party, which is not in the majority. Therefore, he cannot be a committee chairman, and he is not such. Mr Matusiak has screwed up yet again. Mr Smith is the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, quite a different thing from the subcommittee chairman, who is Mr Donald M Payne (D-NJ). In addition, Mr Smith is not the co-chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (also known as the US Helsinki Commission). Mr Alcee L Hastings (D-FL) has that position. Mr Smith is only an ordinary member of this body.
There is no Committee on International Relations in the US House of Representatives at present. It existed as such from 1995-2007. There is a Committee on Foreign Affairs, but the ranking minority member is Ms Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Mr Smith is not the co-chairman of this body either.
In short, this is shoddy and nasty workmanship. It is as bad as the piece handed out by Ms Belonick on the so-called award to SVS in Moscow. By the way, don’t tell me how “good-hearted” someone is… that doesn’t count. If someone does shoddy work in an attempt to hide the full truth or inflate something past its due proportion, I’m going to speak up… and loudly, too. This makes everything on the OCA official website open to question. Don’t think that wearing a riassa exempts you from the normal and expected standards that apply to all of us. Mr Matusiak is an incompetent fool, and the sooner that he is replaced, the better. Should I mention that he was an important part of the old régime… or, is that verboten as well?
Michael Schwartz , TomDispatch.com,February 3, 2010
Americans have largely stopped thinking about Iraq, even though we still have approximately 110,000 troops there, as well as the largest “embassy” on the planet (and still growing). We’ve generally chalked up our war in Iraq to the failed past, and some Americans, after the surge of 2007, even think of it as, if not a success, at least no longer a debacle. Few care to spend much time considering the catastrophe we actually brought down on the Iraqis in “liberating” them.
Remember when we used to talk about Saddam Hussein’s “killing fields”? The world of mayhem and horror that followed the U.S. invasion and occupation delivered new, even larger “killing fields” that we don’t care to discuss, or that we prefer to consider the responsibility of the Iraqis themselves. Even with violence far lower today, Baghdad certainly remains one of the more dangerous cities on the planet. The bombs continue to go off there regularly and devastatingly, while the killing, even if not of American troops who rarely patrol any longer and are largely confined to their mega-bases, has not ended, not by a long shot; nor has the anger, suspicion, and depression that go with all of this.
A striking recent article in the British Guardian by reporter Martin Chulov seemed to catch something of what the U.S. actually accomplished in Iraq in a nutshell. It describes a country in “environmental ruin” (and, let’s not forget, taxed with an ongoing drought of monumental proportions). The headline tells the story: “Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination, study finds.” The contamination from depleted uranium weapons, bombed pipelines, and other disasters of the years of war, civil war, and chaos seems centered around Iraq’s population centers and, perhaps not surprisingly, coincides with a massive rise in birth defects.
Worse yet, in all those years of occupation, the U.S., despite billions of dollars spent (or rather squandered) on “reconstruction,” never managed to deliver electricity, jobs, potable water, health care, or much else. And despite many attempts, as Michael Schwartz, returning TomDispatch regular and the author of War Without End, makes clear, Washington never even got the oil out of the ground in a country that is little short of a giant oil field waiting to be developed. A remarkable record when you think about it. Tom
The Iraqi Oil Conundrum
Energy and Power in the Middle East By Michael Schwartz
How the mighty have fallen. Just a few years ago, an overconfident Bush administration expected to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, pacify the country, install a compliant client government, privatize the economy, and establish Iraq as the political and military headquarters for a dominating U.S. presence in the Middle East. These successes were, in turn, expected to pave the way for ambitious goals, enshrined in the 2001 report of Vice President Dick Cheney’s secretive task force on energy. That report focused on exploiting Iraq’s monstrous, largely untapped energy reserves – more than any country other than Saudi Arabia and Iran — including the quadrupling of Iraq’s capacity to pump oil and the privatization of the production process.
The dream in those distant days was to strip OPEC — the cartel consisting of the planet’s main petroleum exporters — of the power to control the oil supply and its price on the world market. As a reward for vastly expanding Iraqi production and freeing its distribution from OPEC’s control, key figures in the Bush administration imagined that the U.S. could skim off a small proportion of that increased oil production to offset the projected $40 billion cost of the invasion and occupation of the country.
All in a year or two.
Unremitting Ambition Tempered by Political and Military Failure
Almost seven years later, it will come as little surprise that things turned out to cost a bit more than expected in Iraq and didn’t work out exactly as imagined. Though the March 2003 invasion quickly ousted Saddam Hussein, the rest of the Bush administration’s ambitious agenda remains largely unfulfilled.
Instead of quickly pacifying a grateful nation and then withdrawing all but 30,000-40,000 American troops (which were to be garrisoned on giant bases far from Iraq’s urban areas), the occupation triggered both Sunni and Shia insurgencies, while U.S. counterinsurgency operations led to massive carnage, a sectarian civil war, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, and a humanitarian crisis that featured hundreds of thousands of deaths, four million internal and external refugees, and an unemployment rate that stayed consistently above 50% with all the attendant hunger, disease, and misery one would expect.
In the meantime, the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, fervently supported by the Bush administration and judged by Transparency International to be the fifth most corrupt in the world, has morphed into an ever less reliable client regime. Despite American diktats and desires, it has managed to establish cordial political and economic relationships with Iran, slow the economic privatization process launched by the neocon administrators sent to Baghdad in 2003, and restored itself as the country’s primary employer. It even seems periodically resistant to its designated role as a possible long-term host for an American military strike force in the Middle East.
This resistance was expressed most forcefully when Maliki leveraged the Bush administration into signing a status of forces agreement (SOFA) in 2008 that included a full U.S. military withdrawal by the end of 2011. Maliki even demanded — and received — a promise to vacate the five massive “enduring” military bases the Pentagon had constructed — with their elaborate facilities, populations that reach into the tens of thousands, and virtually no Iraqi presence, even among the thousands of unskilled workers who do the necessary dirty work to keep these “American towns” running.
Despite such setbacks, the Bush administration did not abandon the idea that Iraq might remain the future headquarters for a U.S. presence in the region, nor in the 2008 presidential election did candidate Barack Obama. He, in fact, repeatedly insisted that the Iraqi government should be a strong ally of the U.S. and the most likely host for a 50,000-strong military force that would “allow our troops to strike directly at al-Qaeda wherever it may exist, and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.”
Since entering the Oval Office, Obama has not visibly wavered in the commitment to establish Iraq as a key Middle East ally, promising in his State of the Union Address that the U.S. would “continue to partner with the Iraqi people” into the indefinite future. In the same address, however, the president promised that “all of our troops are coming home,” apparently signaling the abandonment of the Bush administration’s military plans. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, on the other hand, has recently voiced a contrary vision, hinting at the possibility that the Iraqis might be interested in negotiating a way around the SOFA agreement to allow U.S. forces to remain in the country after 2011.
Dynamic Paralysis Keeps Iraqi Oil Underground
Iraqi oil, too, has been a focus of Washington’s unremitting ambition tempered by failure. Long before the cost of the war began to lurch toward the current Congressional estimate of $700 billion, the idea of using oil revenues to pay for the invasion had vanished, as had the idea of quadrupling production capacity within a few years. The hope of doing so someday, however, remains alive. Speculation that Iraq’s production could — in the not too distant future — exceed that of Saudi Arabia may still represent Washington’s main strategy for postponing future severe global energy shortages.
Even before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the secretive energy task force Vice President Cheney headed was tentatively allocating various oil fields in a future pacified Iraq to key international oil companies. Before the March 2003 invasion, the State Department actually drafted prospective legislation for a post-Hussein government, which would have transferred the control of key oil fields to foreign oil giants. Those companies were then expected to invest the necessary billions in Iraq’s rickety oil industry to boost production to maximum rates.
Not so long after U.S. troops entered Baghdad, the administration’s proconsul, L. Paul Bremer III, enacted the State Department legislation by fiat (and in clear violation of international law, which prohibits occupying powers from changing fundamental legislation in the conquered country). Under the banner of de-Baathification — the dismantling of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni ruling party — he also fired oil technicians, engineers, and administrators, leaving behind a skeleton crew of Iraqis to manage existing production (and await the arrival of the oil giants with all their expertise).
Within a short time, many of these pariah professionals had fled to other countries where their skills were valued, creating a brain drain that, for a time, nearly incapacitated the Iraqi oil industry. Bremer then appointed a group of international oil consultants and business executives to a newly created (and UN-sanctioned) Development Fund of Iraq (DFI), which was to oversee all of the country’s oil revenues.
The remaining Iraqi administrators, technicians, and workers soon mounted a remarkably determined and effective multi-front resistance to Bremer’s effort. They were aided in this by a growing insurgency.
In one dramatic episode, Bremer announced the pending transfer of the control of the southern port of Basra (which then handled 80% of the country’s oil exports) from a state-run enterprise to KBR, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company Vice President Cheney had once headed. Anticipating that their own jobs would soon disappear in a sea of imported labor, the oil workers immediately struck. KBR quickly withdrew and Bremer abandoned the effort.
In other Bremer initiatives, foreign energy and construction firms did take charge of development, repair, and operations in Iraq’s main oil fields. The results were rarely adequate and often destructive. Contracts for infrastructure repair or renewal were often botched or left incomplete, as international companies ripped out usable or repairable facilities that involved technology alien to them, only to install ultimately incompatible equipment. In one instance, a $5 million pipeline repair became an $80 million “modernization” project that foundered on intractable engineering issues and, three years later, was left incomplete. In more than a few instances, local communities sabotaged such projects, either because they employed foreign workers and technicians instead of Iraqis, or because they were designed to deprive the locals of what they considered their “fair share” of oil revenues.
In the first two years of the occupation, there were more than 200 attacks on oil and gas pipelines. By 2007, 600 acts of sabotage against pipelines and facilities had been recorded.
After an initial flurry of interest, international oil companies sized up the dangers and politely refused Bremer’s invitation to risk billions of dollars on Iraqi energy investments.
After this initial failure, the Bush administration looked for a new strategy to forward its oil ambitions. In late 2004, with Bremer out of the picture, Washington brokered a deal between U.S.-sponsored Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and the International Monetary Fund. European countries promised to forgive a quarter of the debts accumulated by Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis promised to implement the U.S. oil plan. But this worked no better than Bremer’s effort. Continued sabotage by insurgents, resistance by Iraqi technicians and workers, and the corrupt ineptitude of the contracting companies made progress impossible. The international oil companies continued to stay away.
In 2007, under direct U.S. pressure, virtually the same law was reluctantly endorsed by Prime Minister Maliki and forwarded to the Iraqi parliament for legislative consideration. Instead of passing it, the parliament established itself as a new center of resistance to the U.S. plan, raising myriad familiar complaints and repeatedly refusing to bring it to a vote. It lies dormant to this day.
This stalemate continued unabated through the Obama administration’s first year in office, as illustrated by a continuing conflict around the pipeline that carries oil from Iraq to Turkey, a source of about 20% of the country’s oil revenues. During the Bremer administration, the U.S. had ended the Saddam-era tradition of allowing local tribes to siphon off a proportion of the oil passing through their territory. The insurgents, viewing this as an act of American theft, undertook systematic sabotage of the pipeline, and — despite ferocious U.S. military offensives — it remained closed for all but a few days throughout the next five years.
The pipeline was re-opened in the fall of 2009, when the Iraqi government restored the Saddam-era custom in exchange for an end to sabotage. This has been only partially successful. Shipments have been interrupted by further pipeline attacks, evidently mounted by insurgents who believe oil revenues are illegitimately funding the continuing U.S. occupation. The fragility of the pipeline’s service, even today, is one small sign of ongoing resistance that could be an obstacle to any significant increase in oil production until the U.S. military presence is ended.
The entire six-year saga of American energy dreams, policies, and pressures in Iraq has so far yielded little — no significant increase in Iraq’s oil production, no increase in its future capacity to produce, and no increase in its energy exports. The grand ambition of transferring actual control of the oil industry into the hands of the international oil companies has proven no less stillborn.
Over the years since the U.S. began its energy campaign, production has actually languished, sometimes falling as much as 40% below the pre-invasion levels of an industry already held together by duct tape and ingenuity. In the Brookings Institution’s latest figures for December 2009, production stood at 2.4 million barrels per day, a full 100,000 barrels lower than the pre-war daily average.
To make matters worse, the price of oil, which had hit historic peaks in early 2008, began to decline. By 2009, with the global economy in tatters, oil prices sank radically and the Iraqi government lacked the revenues to sustain its existing expenditures, let alone find money to repair its devastated infrastructure.
As a result, in early 2009, Maliki’s government began actively, even desperately, seeking ways to hike oil production, even without an oil law in place. That, after all, was the only possible path for an otherwise indigent country with failing agriculture in the midst of a drought of extreme severity to increase the money available for public projects — or, of course, even more private corruption.
The Oil Companies Make Their Move
In January 2009, the government opened a new chapter in the history of oil production in Iraq when it announced its intention to allow a roster of several dozen international oil firms to bid on development contracts for eight existing oil fields.
The proposed contracts did not, in fact, offer them the kind of control over development and production that the Cheney task force had envisioned back in 2001. Instead, they would be hired to finance, plan, and implement a vast expansion of the country’s production capacity. After repaying their initial investment, the government would reward them at a rate of no more than two dollars for every additional barrel of oil extracted from the fields they worked on. With oil prices expected to remain above $70 a barrel, this meant, once initial costs were repaid, the Iraqi government could expect to take in more than $60 per barrel, which promised a resolution to the country’s ongoing financial crisis.
The major international oil companies initially rejected these terms out of hand, demanding instead complete control over production and payments of approximately $25 per barrel. This initial resistance began to erode, however, when the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), a government-owned operation, induced its partner, BP, the huge British oil company, to accept government terms for expanding the Rumaila field near Basra in southern Iraq to one million barrels a day.
The Chinese company, experts believed, could afford to accept such meager returns because of Beijing’s desire to establish a long-term energy relationship with Iraq. This foot-in-the-door contract, China’s leaders evidently hoped, would lead to yet more contracts to explore Iraq’s vast, undeveloped (and possibly as yet undiscovered) oil reserves.
Perhaps threatened by the possibility that Chinese companies might accumulate the bulk of the contracts for Iraq’s richest oil fields, leaving other international firms in the dust, by December a veritable stampede had begun to bid for contracts. In the end, the major winners were state-owned firms from Russia, Japan, Norway, Turkey, South Korea, Angola, and — of course — China. The Malaysian national company, Petronas, set a record by participating with six different partners in four of the seven new contracts the Maliki government gave out. Shell and Exxon were the only major oil companies to participate in winning bids; the others were outbid by consortia led by state-owned firms. These results suggest that national oil companies, unlike their profit-maximizing private competitors, were more willing to forego immediate windfalls in exchange for long-term access to Iraqi oil.
On paper, these contracts hold the potential to satisfy one aspect of Washington’s oil hunger, while frustrating another. If fully implemented, they could collectively boost Iraqi production from 2.5 million to 8 million barrels per day in just a few years. They would not, however, deliver control over production (or the bulk of the revenues) to foreign companies, so that Iraq and OPEC could continue, if they wished, to limit production, keep prices high, and wield power on the world stage.
Nevertheless, the centers of resistance to the original U.S. oil policies have voiced opposition to these new contracts. Members of parliament immediately demanded that all contracts be submitted for their approval, which they declared would be withheld unless ironclad protections of Iraqi workers, technicians, and management were included. Iraq’s own state-owned oil companies demanded guarantees that their technicians, engineers, and administrators be trained in the new technologies the foreign companies brought with them, and given escalating operational control over the fields as their skills developed.
The powerful Iraqi oil union opposed the contracts unless they included guarantees that all workers be recruited from Iraq. Local tribal leaders voiced opposition unless they guaranteed a full complement of local workers, and subcontracts for locally based businesses during the development phase. Then there were the insurgents, who continued to oppose oil exports until the U.S. fully withdraws from the country, and expressed their opposition by the 26 bombing attacks they’ve launched on pipelines and oil facilities since September 2009.
Some of these same groups have successfully blocked previous oil initiatives. Unless they are satisfied, they may frustrate the government’s latest bid to make oil gush in Iraq. One warning sign can be seen in the fate of a contract signed with the CNPC in early 2009 that called for the development of the relatively small (one billion barrel) Ahdab oil field near the Iranian border. The language of the original contract met conditions demanded by local leaders and workers, but the work, once begun, generated few local jobs and even fewer local business opportunities. The Chinese instead brought in foreign workers, following the pattern established by U.S. companies involved in Iraqi reconstruction. Eventually, equipment was sabotaged, work undermined, and the project’s viability remains threatened.
The end is not in sight and the outcome still unclear. Will the vast Iraqi oil reserves be developed and sent into the hungry world market any time soon? If they are, who will determine the rate of flow, and so wield the power this decision-making confers? And once this ocean of oil is sold, who will receive the potentially incredible revenues? As with so much else, when it comes to Iraqi oil, the American war has generated so many problems and catastrophes — and so few answers.
A professor of sociology at Stony Brook State University, Michael Schwartz is the author of War Without End: The Iraq War in Context (Haymarket Press), which explains how the militarized geopolitics of oil led the U.S. to dismantle the Iraqi state and economy while fueling a sectarian civil war. Schwartz’s work on Iraq has appeared in numerous academic and popular outlets. He is a regular at TomDispatch.com. His email address is ms42@optonline.net.
Irene and I grew up together and were best friends during high school. She is a fantastic person and I miss her a lot! Her son Jason is crazy and a talker. 
© 2010 The Los Angeles Times
Economic woes have only gotten worse since voters elected the president, who is visiting the state on Friday.
Depravity of the American Press
Speed skating is the form of ice skating in which skaters race against each other on different distances on skates. In the Olympics, the long distances of ice skating are simply called speed skating, whereas the short man against main events are referred to as an own sport, called short track. Ice skating has its roots in Central and Northern Europe. Records show that already in the mid 16th century, Dutch, Norwegian and Scottish people made use of bones which they put under their shoes in order to move on frozen lakes and rivers. However, the speed skating sport was probably first developed in the United States, where athletes used steel under their shoes. Today, speed skating is a very technical sport. In Vancouver, events will be held in the 500m (Sprint; both Men and Women), 1000m (Men and Women), 1500m (Men and Women), 3000m (Women) 5000m (Men and Women), 10000m (Men) and Team Pursuit (Men and Women).
Barbara-Marie Drezhlo
In 2007, under direct U.S. pressure, virtually the same law was reluctantly endorsed by Prime Minister Maliki and forwarded to the Iraqi parliament for legislative consideration. Instead of passing it, the parliament established itself as a new center of resistance to the U.S. plan, raising myriad familiar complaints and repeatedly refusing to bring it to a vote. It lies dormant to this day.