For no apparent reason, really, I've began moving this blog, HellBroadCast, to Wordpress. In the transition, the name of the blog has also changed.
HellBroadCast will henceforth be known as Hellipsis. The new blog is available at http://hellipsis.wordpress.com.
The RSS feed address has also changed, and will (very soon) be at http://hellipsis.wordpress.com/feed/
See you there for more social and political stupidity!
"The Bush Administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease."
Um, what?
So, the U.S. Government is willingly and publicly hindering, even banning, the testing of cows for a disease which is accountable for over 150 deaths, mostly in Britain?
Yes, that mad cow disease. The same one that forced British officials to slaughter and burn numerous cows in fear of human casulties. The same disease that practically halted all exports of British beef, notably to France.
So not exactly the bovine version of the common cold.
With a disease such as mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), one would assume that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be rigorously testing American cows for the disease, right?
Wrong. The USDA only tests a mere 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease (by comparison, Japan tests 100% of its cattle). Did I happen to mention that the disease may be fatal to humans who consume tainted beef, or to those who handle the tainted beef? Surely the low percentage of testing is an indication of no worry of BSE in America, a mere precaution?
Wrong again. There have been three confirmed cases of BSE withing the United States; a cow imported from Canada to Washington state (2003), a cow born in Texas (2005), and an Alabama cow(2006).
Then what on earth could be the reasoning behind the Bush Administration's fight to keep the cows untested? Money, plain and simple.
A beef produces in Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to test all its cows, using the same test that the USDA relies on. Great! Don't you want your beef tested for a potentially fatal disease?
The Bush Administration and large meat companies don't want your steak tested. Were the beef producer in Kansas to be allowed to test its meat and advertise is as safe, the large meat companies would have to follow suit, performing expensive tests on their much much larger herds.
In addition, according to the USDA, which regulates the testing, widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.
Um, Washington state, Texas, Alabama...?
So a false positive may hurt the meat industry, but a positive hit doesn't? I don't understand... Japan is the number one importer of U.S. beef, and after the 2003 finding of BSE in America, Japan seized imports of U.S. beef for two years, until giving in to political pressure from the U.S..
Is the USDA thinking that a mere 3 cases of BSE within the continental United States (compared to over 180,000 cases in the United Kingdom) is not substantial enough to warrant the initiation of necessary precautions to counter even the possibility of an outbreak of BSE in the American meat industry? An outbreak, mind you, that would cost the American meat industry substantially more than the testing of cows for the disease. This is America we're talking about, the land of lawsuits. Upon the first death of a meateater, and subsequent lawsuit, due to variant Creuztfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), a fatal disease in humans which BSE is noted to cause in humans, the American meat industry stands to lose quite a bit of money and business. There has already been one death linked to BSE-related vCJD in the United States, but that victim had acquired the disease upon living or visiting the United Kingdom. As a simpler description, vCJD is a brain-wasting disease, and a nasty one at that.
To add to the head-scratching here, keep in mind that in March 2007, a federal judge ruled that such tests must be allowed. The law was to take effect a few days ago, on June 1st, but the USDA appealed.
Is the Bush Administration and the USDA looking out for your best interest and health, or are they leaning towards the companies, the money contributors?
Read more about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease
Sources:
Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/30/143539/136
.commonsense http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/e_coli_conservatism_19_ne_plus_ultra
International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Mad-Cow.php
2007 is the year of social change in Finland.
Smokers: have you ever sat at a bar with a bunch of friends, beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other? Of course you have. It seems so natural to have something in each hand, doesn't it?
Some places around the world have already banned smoking in bars and such, notably Ireland, a country known for its pub culture. Finland is now on that list, effective June 1st, 2007.
That's why I'm sitting at a bar right now, chain smoking for the last few hours before midnight, when the comes into effect. Foolish? Yes. Addicted? Yes.
More than a physical addiction, the new law destroys a part of my social interaction. Beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other. Spending hours at a bar with friends, playing cards, smoking, drinking, getting up only to get more to drink or to go to the bathroom. No more.
Once the day changes into Friday June 1st at midnight, things change. To be precise, the law states that:
-Smoking is banned in all licensed premises (bars, restaurants, cafes, clubs, etc...);
-The law affects all licensed premises, regardless of size of type of license;
-Smoking within such establishments is only allowed if the said establishment has built a smoking "box", an enclosed, well ventilated room, for the sole purpose of being a room in which customers can smoke;
-The smoking room is off-limits to all drink and food, as well as all other kinds of entertainment;
-Workers are not allowed into the box, except in emergencies (fire, medical assistance to customer), or for security reasons (fight erupts in box, or customer is consuming alcohol or food in the smoking box;
-Cleaners are only allowed into the box after it has been thoroughly ventilated;
-The law does not apply to terraces or patios of establishments, but owners and workers of said establishments must make sure that no second-hand smoke enters the establishment through open windows or doors, or ventilation ducts.
The purpose of this law is to protect restaurant and bar workers from being exposed to second-hand smoke at work. The law also protects non-smoking customers from the same exposure.
70 establishments have filed for a two-year transfer period to the smoking ban, whilst a mere 20 establishments have filed for the permit to build the smoking room. The two-year transfer period is only granted to establishments which fill the requirements of the law, such as having a low level of nicotine and other chemicals in the air, hand in hand with proper ventilation, in accordance with city building laws and health laws.
It's an established fact that smoking increases the risk of cancer. Common knowledge.
Now that countries are rushing to enact anti-smoking laws, it's ironic timing for the IARC, a part of the World Health Organization to release a study stating that alcohol is a category 1 cancer risk substance. (Read the study at http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr175a.html). Great timing...
So, how will this affect the Finns? Remember that we're big drinkers, and bars are a packed on the weekends, as well as on wednesdays.
Here's what I see happening: Bars and clubs will lose business initially. Smokers will move their drinking to their homes, as well as parks and forests. Supermarkets and breweries will see their profits rise from the sale of alcohol. Bars will start to increase the comfortability of terraces, a huge venue of profit for any bar with one. As terraces are always packed during the summer months, bars will look to increasing them in capacity and entertainment. Small neighbourhood bars will start to face bankruptcy. Going clubbing will be chaos. (If you have to leave your jacket at the cloakroom during the colder months, and you can only smoke outside, how is that supposed to work out?)
Although the smoking ban makes life a little more difficult for smokers, eventually the whole bar life should become more enjoyable for all, as bars will have to come up with ingenious ways of drawing in the missing customers.
Personally, as a smoker, I half welcome this new law for health reasons, half denounce it as government interference into personal life choices of people.
Then again, I'm leaning towards the positive look on the issue... One, it'll save me money. Less smoking, less drinking. Two, quitting smoking will become easier. Three, new possibilities. And finally, for now, my social repertoire will expand beyond sitting at bars, drinking and playing cards...
A free table on the smoking side at a bar is usually the number one requirement for me entering the establishment. Now, with this new law, I'll be able to go to bars I've never gone to before, because they didn't have a smoking side, or no space at such area. Things will be different now.
It'll be interesting to see in this country which will come out on top: the bar atmosphere or the smoking. On one hand, smokers can now abide by the new law and conform to not smoking in the bar, or they'll stay at home, buying their beer from the supermarkets.
As irony, now that consumption of store-purchased alcohol will be on the rise, especially that of beer, the price of beer will go up soon, and the sale of alcohol in quantity will cease (no more 12packs... See my earlier post about the new alcohol laws in Finland...)
So, how will this really affect us? That remains to be seen... This will be a summer of packed terraces and empty bars... Which makes this summer interesting, seeing as the terraces are always full every summer. Maybe the terrace season will expand to cover the entire year, including the rainy fall days and the -30 degree winter days... Heated, covered terraces in December, complete with live music? Who knows? Maybe my promise of quitting smoking by the year's end will actually happen...
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) turned away willing volunteer workers.
The (botched) rescue operation managed by FEMA exposed the inadequasies of the agency. Lesson learned?
On Friday, May 4, an F5 tornado wiped the town of Greensburg, Kansas, almost entirely off the map.
Naturally, FEMA arrived at the scene of the disaster, to take control of the situation. So did willing volunteers, ready to assist in the rescue and recovery operation. So, had FEMA learned from Katrina? Hardly.
FEMA demanded that Greensburg needed to be "secured" before the area could be opened to real recovery efforts.
As hundreds of volunteers waited for over a week to be allowed to assist at the disaster area, hundreds of police from dozens of Kansas jurisdictions entered the city to establish a virtual police state.
In the immediate rescue and recovery, FEMA and local police worked to find survivors and the dead, as well as all and any firearms in the city.
Take into account that this is central Kansas, a region with extremely high legal gun ownership. Of the over 350 firearms confiscated by police immediately after the storm, only a third have been returned to their owners, leaving the firepower squarely in control of the state. And the Second Amendment is supposed to allow people to carry arms, protecting themselves from the government...
FEMA's mission was to safeguard the property of businesses in the area (I can see it now: bureaucrats in suits and National Guardsmen standing next to a pile of rubble, scratching their heads) and offer "low interest" loans to property owners affected. The National Guard was on hand as well to act as the enforcement mechanism for FEMA, while occasionally hauling debris and garbage out of the city.
FEMA eventually let the rescue volunteers into the town, all the while keeping a close eye and a tight leash on them.
So yet again, FEMA botched a rescue operation with its ineptitude. The most mind-boggling stupidity from FEMA came in the distribution of information to the affected residents. After a week at the scene, all that FEMA could offer them was a packet of information. The packet, however, had to be mailed to the recipients, and they had no mailing address, let alone a mailbox...
So, in short:
-A massive tornado wipes out your home and town;
-The government sends in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to provide relief and assistance;
-Hundreds of volunteers offer their assistance;
-The rescue and recovery work begins immediately, and the rebuilding gets underway as soon as the danger is over and the rubble cleared.
Looks good in writing, doesn't it? Let's look at what happened instead:
-A massive tornado wipes out your home and town;
-The government sends in a headless chicken, to provide relief and assistance;
-Hundreds of volunteers offer their assistance;
-FEMA rejects the offers of help, asking instead for money;
-Local law enforcement and the National Guard gather up all firearms they can find;
-After a week or so since the tornado visited town, FEMA, after a long period of silence, mails you an information package;
-The package never reaches you, as the mailman is searching the fields in the next county, looking for your mailbox;
-Finally, the volunteers are let in, yet aren't really allowed to do much, and are closely supervised;
-Your town is a pile of rubble, and you now live in a mold-infested trailer, courtesy of FEMA (if they have any to spare, seeing as most of them are in the South, populated by the former citizens of New Orleans). Maybe you get a tent;
-The government grants you a "low interest" loan, when you have just lost everything. Hence, the government is making money off of your loss, all the while making your financial and personal recovery slower. This way the government gets you at your weakest and makes you pay more interest on the loan as it takes you longer to get back on your feet;
-After a short while, you're on your own, rebuilding with the help of the volunteers who were kept away from you in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. FEMA, local authorities, the National Guard, and the Government have forgotten you...
How many mishandled rescue and recovery missions can FEMA be allowed to maintain like this? Why can't willing volunteers be allowed to assist when they are needed the most?
Hurricane Season is just around the corner...
Sources:
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/18/after-tornado-fema-disarms-town-turns-away-help/trackback/
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120276.html
America's fight with the illegal immigrant problem continues. On one hand, the illegals could be granted amnesty, led on the path to citizenship, or they could all be deported to their individual county of origin. A new study suggests a third way. Execution.
Marty Kaplan at The Huffington Post reports on a new study by The Institute for Human Dignity, a Washington-based research center (not associated with the Institute for Human Dignity). The report, titled 'A Modest Proposal', suggests that executing illegal immigrants would have a significantly positive input on the American economy.
Providing amnesty for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants would cost billions of dollars in lost jobs for American citizens, the study found. Which in itself isn't a big shocker, as thousands of American jobs are already being moved out of the country in search of cheap labor. With amnesty for illegals, those jobs would also be lost within the country.
With time, the hiring of cheap, legal, labor within America would cease to be profitable, and you'd see former illegals complaining that they are losing their jobs to their cousins and brothers back home in Mexico, who'll do the job for less.
Would that make the former illegals, now citizens or prospective citizens, want to run back home to more jobs? 12 million new workers in America would raise the level of unemployment, forcing some of the workers to leave their new home to fly back to where they came from for the job they just had.
Executions, on the other game, would create am estimated 1.2 million new jobs in the penal sector, as well as reducing the tax burden on Americans who provide schooling and other services for there former aliens.
The figure of 1.2 million new jobs does not take into account the additional stimulus to the news and entertainment sector. We'd be talking executions no primetime television, sponsored by the leading tobacco companies as well as funeral home operators. Maybe even Taco Bell...
Read the original post from Marty Kaplan at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/kill-illegals-study_b_48788.html
Note: You might also be interested in Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" from 1729, an educational tale of how the poor children of Ireland could seize to be a burden to their parents and become beneficial to the community. The story suggests that the parents should eat their own children...
Here's a few laughs at the expense of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), courtesy of Schneier On Security (http://www.schneier.com/blog/).
TSA Cartoon:
http://www.clarionledger.com/misc/blogs/mramsey/uploaded_images/bilde-2-780665.jpg
Saturday Night Live TSA skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykzqFz_nHZE
Tuesday, May 29th, 2007, 4pm.
30.4 degrees Celcius in the shade.
Location: Espoo, Finland.
No, this is not a joke.
This is global warming.
It is NEVER this hot in May in Finland. And not just hot. It's really humid too. The weather forecast for this week is rain and thunder, between 12 and 23 degrees centigrade. Every day. Instead, I'm sweating like a pig on a large open flame.
We're used to two kinds of summer here in Finland: wet and cold, or hot and dry. Usually both during the same summer months.
This year, the summer started early. It feels like the hottest days of summer. In May. The only exception is the unforeseen humidity. The unbearable humidity. We're used to dry heat.
As for the rain and thunder, the forecast wasn't completely off the mark. True, on mention of the burning sun and sweltering heat, but there's pain almost every day. Yet, it's not the summer rain that we're used to. It's tropical.
Take the last few days for example. It has been unbearably humid since about Friday. Yet sunny and warm every day.
Truth be told, the weather has been quite peculiar for the last week or so.
Friday evening and night was really misty in Espoo.
Saturday it rained in the morning, while late evening brought with it a severe thunderstorm that cut power and TV transmissions around Finland. Initially, it was thunder without rain. Then came the rain, pouring down on us. Hard. During the day was sunny.
Sunday was hot, with a cool breeze at most times. The papers were predicting that the heat (helle in Finnish...) was coming soon. More rain.
Monday was another got day, hitting some 27ish degrees at best. The late afternoon brought a few surprises with it. A rolling clap thunder which lasted some 10 seconds. Then five minutes of silence from above. Then another rolling clap of thunder, accompanied with 5 minutes of rain. Naturally, we we're outside at Seurasaari at the time, looking for squirrels to feed. After the rain, the rest of the day was nice and sunny, slightly cloudy. Ok weather for sitting at a terrace drinking a beer.
Today, Tuesday has been tropical. The kind of weather when you'd rather sit inside at home or an air-conditioned bar than be outside, with the exception of being at the beach...
The summer has started with a bang, a flash of heat that doesn't seem to go away. And it's only the end of May. Warn your grandparents, it's going to be a hot summer. In the mean time, it's time to bring out the shorts and bikinis, and enjoy this unusual weather.
Don't forget the suntan lotion!
(My prediction for the summer, all over Europe: death from heat exhaustion. The summer of 2003 was hot, and thousands of old people perished, especially in France. No need to travel to the tropics, because the tropics are coming to us this summer. And America, prepare for Katrina The Sequel... This might really be the summer when everyone realizes that global warming is not a myth...)
There haven't been any updates or new posts recently on my blogs, due to techical difficulties. Namely, I can't fully access the internet through my phone because the screen is messed up and I can't see what I'm doing. The reason I'm not using a computer is because I don't have one. My cell phone is my computer, and a crappy one at that too...
I do most of my blogging from my phone, only using a computer to do finishing touches to the posts, whenever I can. Thanks to Opera Mini and RSS feeds, I'm able to follow the news all the time, yet recently it's been difficult to do so as my phone is slowly but surely breathing it's last breaths.
Things will change soon, as I'm finally getting a new phone, the Nokia N95, sometime next week. Hopefully. Well, according to Nokia, it's not a cell phone. It's a multimedia computer. Which is just fine with me, because for me my phone is my computer. And this phone has it all.
So, my blogging will continue at the beginning of May. Stay tuned...
Health warning labels, much like those on cigarette packs in various countries around the world, may eventually be attached to advertisements for flights or holidays that include air travel, to remind passengers of the global warming crisis.
A leading British think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), suggested over the Easter holidays that such warnings would make people think twice about the impact their holiday has on the environment.
According to the IPPR, "the evidence that aviation damages the atmosphere is just as clear as the evidence that smoking kills...we know that smokers notice health warnings on cigarettes, and we have to tackle our addiction to flying in the same way."
True, smokers notice the warning labels, initially finding them annoying, then getting accustomed to them. They really have little effect on a smoker. Sure, it 'might' deter a few people from starting to smoke in the first place, but for people who have smoked for some time, they have little effect. (Some cigarette packs in Finland state "Smoking is addictive. Don't start", which is a bit too late for the majority of smokers who see the warning. In addition, some of the duty-free cigarette cartons on sale around Europe are contradicting. At a duty-free shop on a cruise ship from Finland to Sweden, I say two different makes of cigarettes, next to each other, one saying "Smoking Can Kill", while the other said "Smoking Kills".)
The warning labels on holiday ads will have a similar, yet profoundly lesser of an effect on flyers. With smoking, you have a choice of smoking or not smoking. With flying, there are instances when you have really have little choice.
Smoking is (usually) a personal choice, whereas flying is at times a necessity, or atleast an cheaper and easier alternative to expensive and slower means of travel, such as cars, buses and boats.
While it's well known that smoking has ill effects on a smoker's health, and health warning labels may be in the right place on cigarette packs, slapping a warning label on ads for holidays seems to be slight overkill.
If the only reason for these warnings is merely to raise public consciousness about the correlation between flying and global warning, a little sticker on a large poster of bikini-clad girls on a beach in Tahiti will not be noticed by most people.
It seems that this whole issue of warning labels on ads for holidays is just a continuation of the global warning awareness craze that seems to be gripping the western world right now. (Now we just need people to get with the program and actually start doing something about the issue, more than just banning incandescent light bulbs and plastic grocery bags...)
If this health-conscious and global warming-scared society really wants to get real on the health warning labels, why not slap those things on everything that actually is bad for humans and the environment. How's about these ideas?:
CARS: "Driving fast might cause you to wrap your car around a tree." (Placed on the inside of the front windshield.)
GUNS: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people. With guns. And bullets. So guns are bad."
KNIVES: "Caution: Inserting the sharp end in another human being might be fatal."
ALCOHOL: "Drinking alcohol may cause you do something stupidly fatal." (Actually, a law requiring health warning labels on all alcoholic beverages will come into effect in Finland by January 2008. Check out this blog post for more info on the issue)
RAZOR BLADES: "Shaving too close to the jugular is not suggested. Also, do not digest."
PLAYING CARDS: "Gambling May Damage Your Bank Account."
DONKEYS: "More people are killed annually by donkeys than die in airplane crashes."
The point here is that slapping a sticker/label on something detrimental to one's health is not always the best way to go about saving humanity. Are we just waiting for a warning ticket to show up plastered on the side of the 747 you were supposed to fly to Tahiti with? Slapping a sticker on harmful items doesn't save the world...
Source:
UK policy body wants health warnings on flights - Yahoo! News
The U.S. Gulf Coast could be facing Katrina-esque Hurricanes this coming Hurricane Season, which lasts from June to November.
Although the 2006 season was distinctly milder than previously predicted, the coming 2007 season could threaten the Gulf with several high intensity storms.
Even a single high intensity storm hitting the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, which is still rebuilding after almost two years Katrina, could have devastating effects, reaching beyond the damage brought on by the 2005 storm season.
Although this year's predictions suggest fewer storms than during the active 2005 season, the forecast for the region will pack a punch. In other words, fewer storms but stronger in intensity.
British forecasting group Tropical Storm Risk predicted up to four "intense" hurricanes during the 2007 season.
Hurricane Katrina killed about 1,500 people along the Gulf Coast in 2005, displaced tens of thousands more and caused billions of dollars in damage.
The issue that could strike every American, as well as the rest of the world, is that if the U.S. Gulf Coast is hit again by severe storms, they could once again disrupt oil and natural gas operations along the Gulf, driving up energy prices for consumers.
U.S. gasoline prices reached a record high of $3.057 per gallon after Katrina.
Aside from the Gulf Coast, AccuWeather also predicted that the U.S. Northeast would likely be a target for strong storms for the next 10 years.
With several months left before the start of this year's hurricane season, it's about time the Bush Administration listens to the warnings and gets to work preparing for the coming hurricanes.
The aftermath of (as well as the preparation for) Hurricane Katrina showed the inefficiency of the Bush Administration and FEMA to deal with impending natural disasters.
Truth of the matter is, the American people are at a greater risk from the forces of nature than from anything terrorists can throw at the United States.
New Orleans and other affected places are still in shatters, the population still spread around the States, with little incentive from the Government to return home and start their lives over. If any of Hurricane Katrina's relatives decide to visit New Orleans this summer, and the Bush Administration hasn't learnt it's lessons, heads will roll. And it won't only be some pencil pushers at FEMA this time, but rather in the White House. Time will tell...
I'll leave you with a quote from Joe Bastardi, chief hurricane forecaster for AccuWeather.com:
"We are living in a time of climatic hardship. We're in a cycle where weather extremes are more the norm and not the exception."
Sources:
Strong hurricanes to hit U.S. Gulf in 07: AccuWeather - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/ts_nm/usa_weather_forecast_accuweather_dc
Global warming is beginning to be in the news everyday, but rarely do people attach the blame to anyone else other than human causes. Now, the Germans are focusing on cows.
According to scientific estimates, cows are responsible for 4% of greenhouse gas emissions with the methane gas they produce.
Because of the threat to the environment, German scientists have invented a pill to cut down on cow burping.
Their plan consists of a fist-sized plant-based pill, combined with a special diet and strict feeding times.
So cows are going to be medicated and put on a strict diet. Good for them!
The German scientists behind this plan have stated that "our aim is to increase the wellbeing of the cow, to reduce the greenhouse gases produced and to increase agricultural production all at once... It is an effective way of fighting global warming."
I'd love to use a saying that had something to do with cows flying, but I guess scientists haven't gotten that far yet...
Sources:
Pill stops cow burps and helps save the planet Climate change Guardian Unlimited Environment
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2040615,00.html
Last month I wrote about news coming about squalid conditions and ill-treatment of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. [ http://hellbroadcast.blogspot.com/2007/03/bush-administration-is-beginning-to.html ] In that post I mentioned that VA Secretary Jim Nicholson had ordered full report of conditions from all 1,400 VA health clinics and hospitals.
The reports are now in, and apparently the problem of squalid conditions is not exclusive to Walter Reed, according to the reports.
Associated Press detailed the problems found at many other locations, stating that the report found that 90 percent of the 1,100 problems cited were routine wear and tear, such as worn-out carpets, peeling paint, mice sightings, and dead bugs.
The other 10 percent of problems were serious in nature.
Here's a quick run-down of some of the other problems:
<*>Mold spreading in patient case areas, serious enough to require immediate action in eight cases;
<*>Roof leaks thought a facility in White City, Oregon, requiring them to "continuously repair via leaks upon occurrence, clean up any mold presence if any exists, spray or remove ceiling tiles";
<*>Also at White City, large colonies of bats residing outside the facility, occasionally finding their way into the building;
<*>Secondhand smoke from an outside smoking shelter sometimes seeped into the building in Oklahoma City;
<*>Deteriorating walls and hallways in patient areas in Little Rock, Arkansas;
<*>Numerous "environmental conditions" as well as roof leaks and mold in New York's Hudson Valley, with the private landlord repeatedly refusing to fix problems;
<*>Roof leaks and mold in North Chicago, Illinois;
<*>Roof leaks and mold in Indianapolis, Indiana;
<*>Roof leaks and mold in Puget Sound, Washington;
<*>Roof leaks and mold in Portland, Oregon;
<*>Roof leaks and mold in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
In some cases the staff at the affected facilities are either constantly patching up the problems, or moving to new facilities.
Veteran's associations state that these problems are to be corrected immediately and should not be shelved due to insufficient funding, or lack of interest from the national media.
The disclosures from Walter Reed lead to three high-level Pentagon officials stepping down.
A separate review of the Veteran's Affairs system is underway to determine the previously stated problems of dealing with disability claims, in an attempt to cut through the bureaucratic delays, confusing paper work and the long appeals process.
This whole thing seems to be merely a problem arising from too much bureaucracy in the system. It's doubtful that this issue will solve itself quickly, even as the number of injured soldiers returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan is rising and will continue to rise as the surge on Baghdad gains momentum.
Change in the system is slow. In the end, it's America's soldiers who will draw the short stick, yet again, if the problems aren't fixed soon, or if this issue gets stuck in the bureaucratic wishy-washy nature of government. A fraction of the money the United States spends daily fighting wars in far off lands could easily grease the machine and work miracles back in the States. It's ridiculous that so much money is being spent sending the soldiers into harms way, yet once they return from a tour in battle, they're practically on their own.
I refer you once again to a soldier inside Walter Reed: http://walterreed.blogspot.com
Sources:
AP: Mold, Leaky Roofs Beset VA Clinics - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/veterans_care
New York City has found an inventive way to honor the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; by using their bones to fill potholes and pave city roads.
Court papers filed a few weeks ago stated that the city of New York hadn't done enough to search for remains at Ground Zero, denying victims a proper burial.
The lawsuit filed for proper burial states that the remains of about 40 percent of the victims were never recovered, and hundreds of bone fragments have been discovered in and around Ground Zero in the last six months.
Don't think it would be too difficult to find the remains of the victims, seeing as the crime scene was pretty well localized, but leave it to city bureaucracy to mess that up.
Construction employees at the Fresh Kills (love that name) landfill, where the rubble was taken to from Ground Zero, say that the process of sifting through the debris was rushed, and the debris (with a side dish of human bones) were subsequently moved onto tractors and trucks to use for road construction.
Some relatives of the 2,749 people who died in the attacks on the Twin Towers have opposed any effort to rebuild on Ground Zero, calling it "sacred ground" and that it would "disrespect those who perished there."
Sure, because a big gaping hole in the middle of Manhattan is the perfect memorial for people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, as they went about their lives.
Not to say that the world doesn't feel sorry for those who died there (I do, and I'm not an American), but wouldn't leaving Ground Zero as a heap of nothing be the best way to show those responsible for the attacks that they are winning.
One would think that moving on and showing them that they can't hurt America is the best way for the general population to go about supporting the War on Terrorism...
Leaving Ground Zero as it is today would send a message that the United States is permanently crippled by the attacks, possibly initiating more such attacks.
Instead of being the big tough guy at school who starts to cry once someone punches them in the face, America needs to be the the solid fortress that doesn't crumble as soon as the first crack appears in the wall.
Then again, maybe putting the bones of the victims of the attacks in to the city's roads maybe isn't the best way to go about honoring those who died...
Sources:
9/11 remains possibly used on roads: court papers - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/ts_nm/sept11_remains_dc
The FBI has issued an "informational bulletin" to state and local officials, warning them to watch out for terrorists trying to earn licences to drive school buses.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, "some school districts have reported an increased number of foreign nationals seeking school bus driver positions and a number of other unusual events."
"...a number of other unusual events."? That passage seems to indicate that foreign nationals seeking school bus licences in an "unusual event". In that phrase seems to lie an underlying assumption that whenever a foreign national seeks a job that brings them close to the American people, they are suspect in having evil deeds.
The FBI memo did suggest that "most attempts by foreign nationals in the United States to acquire school bus licences to drive them are legitimate." in addition, a FBI spokesman told FOXNews: "There is no plot. There is no threat. And parents and children can feel perfectly safe."
So, um, why the warning if there is "no threat"? Did the American people begin to seem like they felt safer, and the FBI just had to up the ante and give a bogus "warning"?
"Warning, your kids could be the next target of terrorists. We have no leads on the matter, and we're just making this up to give you a little scare. Don't worry, we're just incapable of making logical conclusions from random data. We just like to keep you on your toes at all times. Stay tuned for the next installment of Things To (Not) Worry About, courtesy of yours truly, the FBI. Now go back to your bomb shelters to wait for whatever we come up with next."
Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing went a bit further on the "threat" and suggested several other "threats" and how the American population should prepare for them. [link: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/19/fbi_terrorists_might.html ]It's quite an interesting read, not just for the entertainment, but it also gives a slightly frightening unspoken suggestion of how deeply the "terrorist scare" could scar the civil liberties and social framework of the United States. In the worst case scenario, of course.
Sources:
Boing Boing: FBI: terrorists might drive school-buses, but they probably won't
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/19/fbi_terrorists_might.html
Schneier on Security: Terrorist Bus Drivers
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/03/terrorist_bus_d.html
FOXNews.com - FBI Puts Local Officials on Notice About Extremists Trying to Sign Up to Be School Bus Drivers
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259168,00.html
Found a Reuters clip online at YouTube where Paul Chapman looks back at some of the key moments of the past four years in Iraq. Notably uncontroversial in the speech, very unbiased. Except for one thing: when exactly did everyone begin to call the ordeal an "invasion"? Now that I've noticed it, every bit of news I read refers to the last four years as the "invasion of Iraq", or the "U.S.-led invasion".
You've probably seen this video before, but I just have to post it. U2 and Green Day really hit the spot with this (anti-war) music video. Any responsible government should ALWAYS first take care of its own before anything else. Lessons to be learned here for the Bush Administration... The President should ask himself this one question: who matters more, the Iraqi people or the Americans in New Orleans. Hurricane season comes every year. Last year was a quiet one, let's see this coming summer if the White House has learned anything...
Today, Tuesday 20th March marks the 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War. All over the world, people have been celebrating the anniversary, albeit with very little festive mood. Surprisingly enough, there weren't any balloons, confetti or even cake... (I apologize for the sarcastic tone...)
In the United States, thousands marched to the Pentagon over the weekend, some calling for withdrawal from Iraq, some for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, some even for closing down the Pentagon. In Los Angeles, some 6,000 people rallied with flag-draped coffins through the streets of Hollywood. Bush warned the American people of "dire consequences" in Iraq were the U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq prematurely. With his approval rating nearing his personal low, Bush called for patience, more time for 30,000 extra troops for his plan on Iraq, mainly to stabilize Baghdad. Several counter demonstrations in support of the war also took place in the States.
"It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating." Bush remarked in his speech. Nevermind the fact that having a substantial slice of the American infantry tied down in a relentless battlefield has decreased America's rapid deployment readiness to bare bones. There's only so much that the Navy and the Air Force can do in the instance of a crisis breaking out somewhere in the world right now (think Iran, North Korea, etc...).
The latest polls are showing that only 32% of the American public think the war in Iraq is going well, while 63% oppose the war. (Wait, what? 32% of Americans think things are fine and dandy in Iraq? Have these people been living under a rock for the last 4 years?) Another poll showed that four out of five Iraqis have little or no trust in U.S. led forces. So why are the troops still there, "protecting" people who don't even trust them?
How did the Iraqis celebrate the anniversary? By hanging Saddam Hussein's former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan for crimes against humanity and with a few more car bombs and clashes with insurgents.
And let's not forget the rest of the world. In Spain, an estimated 100,000 people took to the streets, denouncing Bush for war crimes. Demonstrations took place in Madrid, Seville, Cadiz and Granada. In Istanbul, Turkey, more than 3,000 took part in protests, carrying placards saying "Bush Go Home" (?) and "We Are All Iraqis". Demonstrations also place, among other places, in Athens, Copenhagen, Rome, Helsinki, Sydney and Melbourne.
Oh, and as a final note, a study has found that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism around the globe seven-fold...
So, anyone for four more years of the same? I didn't think so...
Sources:
BBC NEWS Americas Protesters march against Iraq war
Saddam VP hanged on 4th anniversary of invasion - Yahoo! News
Iraq 101: The Iraq Effect - The War in Iraq and Its Impact on the War on Terrorism
Lockheed Martin finally admitted that their almost $30 million unmanned prototype aerial vehicle (UAV) P-175 Polecat crashed at the Nevade Test and Training Range in December. And they only had one prototype...
Lockheed Martin disclosed that the cause of the crash was "an irreversable unintentional failure in the flight termination ground equipment, which caused the aircraft's automatic fail-safe flight termination mode to activate." Translated (loosely) into layman's terms: "some jackass on the ground pressed the wrong button. Oops!" Lockheed Martin also said that the flight termination system performed exactly as expected, causing the crash. Um, really, Captain Obvious?
So it's back to square one for the Polecat program...
[Check out the Danger Room post for their hilarious take on the matter...]
Sources:
WIRED Blogs: Danger Room [Oops! I Blew up the Secret Drone!]
Aviation Week: Polecat Crash Sets Back LM UAV efforts
Chiquita has admitted in court paying terrorist organizations in Colombia to protect one of their most profitable banana-growing operations. Between 1997-2004 Chiquita paid the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) $1.7 million for protection.
Representatives of Chiquita told the court that the company was forced to make the payments and was acting only to ensure the safety of its workers. Sure, yet between 2001 (when the U.S. Government designated AUC as a terrorist organization) and 2004 (when Chiquita sold the plantation for $43.5 million), Chiquita paid $825,000 in illegal protection payments, whilst earning $49.4 million in profits from the operation, making it the company's most profitable unit.
Chiquita also paid the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), as control of the company's banana-growing area shifted. Both groups have also been designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S..
Chiquita looks to get away from the ordeal with a fine of $25 million in a plea deal with prosecutors.
No word on the possibility of Chiquita working with terrorist organizations to build Banana Bombs, as of yet...
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_bi_ge/terrorism_bananas
We've heard about the conditions and neglect at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the news lately. The media has only so and so dug into the issue and what it's like to be a patient there. Now, here is a personal blog from within, written by a patient. The blog is really worth reading.
First it was dolphins and sea lions protecting the United States, now it's bugs.
The Pentagon and its Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as several other companies, are planning to employ the help of bees, fish and cockroaches to sniff out chemical toxins and biohazards in buildings and subways, to decrease the risk to humans doing the same job. This is because nature's sensors and tools are more finely tuned than anything humans have engineered. I wonder what kind of work benefits there bugs will get? Oh, and the next time you step on a cockroach in the subways, you might be killing an employee of the Department of Homeland Security.
Source:
Bugging Out on Homeland Security - Popular Science
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/243434a70e131110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
At a time when the U.S. Armed Forces needs every soldier in its inventory fit to fight, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace said on Monday that he considers homosexuality to be immoral and that the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly.
This comes as the Bush Administration is searching the thinning ranks of the military for extra troops to send into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gen. Pace stated that "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way", referring to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy which allows for homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private.
Regardless of the policy, a 2005 government audit found that some 10,000 troops, including 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.
If the military needs more men and women in service, what's the point of discharging or banning thousands solely on grounds of their sexuality? No, they'd rather send in injured troops, because that's not immoral...
Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays
It's bad enough that American troops returning home injured face neglect and horrid conditions at Walter Reed, now the U.S. Army is ordering injured troops to deploy to Iraq with their unit. Does the Bush Administration really support the troops, or are they merely an expendable resource?
A unit of the Army's 3rd Division stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, is slated to be deployed to Iraq this as we speak, serving their third tour in a steady stream. Of the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade, 75 soldiers have been previously deemed unfit to deploy, yet are now being deployed regardless.
The injuries of the soldiers to be redeployed root from injuries sustained during previous combat tours, training accidents and fatigue. Some have back injuries which makes it impossible for them to carry full gear or move effectively while under fire. Some can't wear protective armor due to its weight, while others have difficulty operating weapons.
The true scandal here is not the actual deployment of there injured troops, but the fact that there 75 soldiers were ushered into a meeting with an army surgeon on February 15th, and saw their medical profiles systematically downgraded to deem them fit to deploy. Even soldiers with degenerative back problems which root from injuries sustained on the last tour and are at a great risk of reinjury if sent to a war zone were told to pack and prepare to deploy.
(Author's note: I feel for there soldiers because two days ago I was exempted from mandatory military service in Finland due to back problems. I've had this problem for years, yet 2 years ago I entered the service only to reinjure my back and was unable to perform training exercises, nor could I carry gear on my back. I was heavily medicated which impaired my ability to fire a weapon and my ability to operate in the field. I was discharged for 2 years after 45 days of service, and was now deemed unfit to serve in times of peace.)
Sending these troops to a war zone is a great risk to themselves and to those they serve with. The Bush Administration's wars are stretching to U.S. Military to bare bones, putting their lives at unnecessary risk, merely to satisfy a political need. This has gone too far. Soldiers are one most important resources the United States has, and right now they are being treated like dirt. The men and women in uniform have made America the superpower it is today, not the politicians. Instead of spending billions to send more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan to fix the Administration's policy catastrophies, how's about spending some money to ensure these soldiers fair treatment and care, as well as the respect they deserve?
Source:
The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq | Salon News
http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/
The Bush Administration has been rattled by three scandals lately; the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial, ill-treatment of returning wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital, and the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys. All three cases have been in the news lately, and continue to be, so I'll just touch upon them ever so slightly, in an effort to side light on what is going on and what it means for the Bush Administration.
Covering Up Lies In The White House: United States vs. Lewis Libby
The Scooter Libby Trial, or Plame Affair as it's also known as, is a long and arduous case. Long story cut short: Members of the Bush Administration leaked the covert identity of a CIA operative, an act which is allegedly a political retribution to the agent's husband's (Joseph Wilson) criticisms of the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq. Namely, Wilson declared the Administration's evidence, connecting Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction, fraudulent.
Before resigning from office as a result of being indicted, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, assistant to the VP on national security affairs, and an assistant to President Bush between 2001 and 2005.
The crucial issue in the Libby conviction in relation to the Bush Administration is not what he did, but rather why he did it.
Originally, Libby was indicted not only for perjury, obstruction and lying, but also for the act he was covering up.
Libby confirmed the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative to a reporter, Robert Novak, then denied it, proceeding to cover up the leak.
Several months before the start of the Libby trial, Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, admitted to being the source of the leak. He wasn't charged with anything. He wasn't even tried in court.
Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were originally both be indicted and prosecuted for the cover up. Rove managed to avoid the same fate as Libby by changing his grand jury testimony. He walked and is free to continue his job as senior policy advisor to Bush. Karl Rove has also admitted his involvement in the leak, having spread the word about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson being sent by his CIA wife on a mission to Africa. He hasn't been indicted on the matter.
On March 6th, 2007, Libby was convicted on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction, and one false statement count. He was acquitted on a second false statement count. Libby is the highest-ranking white house official convicted in a government scandal since the Iran-Contra Affair.
The issue continues as Valerie Plame, the CIA operative who's identity was outed, has filed a civil lawsuit against Dick Cheney, stating that he allegedly "illegally conspired to reveal her identity". Also named in the lawsuit are Lewis Libby, Karl Rove and ten yet unnamed administration officials.
When The Support Ends: The Walter Reed Hospital Scandal
As the verdict in the Liaby trial was being read, reports of squalid conditions and ill-treatment of returning soldiers began to emerge from Walter Reed Hospital.
Injured soldiers returning from duty in Afghanistan and Iraq have stated many problems at the hospital. These include: cockroach and rodent infestations, mold-covered walls, neglect of soldiers, bureaucratic delays, stained carpets, cheap mattresses, no heat or water, even reports of drug dealers at the hospital entrance, among other problems. In addition, some injured soldiers tell of been forced to pull guard duty to better the law security present at the hospital. Democratic congressmen have been quick to point the finger directly at the Bush Administration, stating "catastrophic failure of leadership". It has also come out that reports of outpatient neglect have been reported as early as 2004.
The poor treatment of injured soldier is reported to be due to poor training, lack of staff, underfunding, and conflicting policies among the Army, the Veterans Affairs, and the Defence Department.
Since the initial reports, three high-level Pentagon officials have been forced to step down over the poor treatment and horrid conditions. All three have at a time overseen Walter Reed Hospital, and must have been aware of the situations within.
Responding to the reports coming from Walter Reed, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson is ordering all 1,400 hospitals and clinics under the supervision of the VA to report on the quality of their facilities in order to determine whether conditions similar to those at Walter Reed exist elsewhere.
Margaret Carlson at Bloomberg (via Huffington Post) summarized the sentiment with the scandal:
"Say a word about bringing them home and you're a traitor who wants to abandon the troop. Send them off without training or armor, and bring them back to poorly staffed, decrepit and vermin-infested Walter Reed Hospital, the brown jewel of the military, and you're a patriot."
The President Doesn't Like You Anymore: The Purging Of U.S. Attorneys
In the past few months, eight U.S. Attorneys have been fired. The roots of the removals extend all the way to the White House.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there have been a mere five instances in the past 25 years in which U.S. Attorneys were fired by the President or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. This figure doesn't include U.S. Attorneys fired by an incoming president, such as in the case of Bill Clinton firing all republican Attorneys upon taking office.
As the firings began in December, it seemed that Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Bush Administration was getting off with simply explaining that it was time for a change. Nevertheless, once the number of fired U.S. Attorneys reached eight, questions had been raised. Possibly feeling pressured, Justice Department officials began to to blame the attorneys, stating poor performance as grounds for dismissal. Never mind that all of the pushed attorneys had previously received very favorable reviews and performance reviews. Fact of the matter is, there attorneys were fired surely for political reasons, because of their unwillingness to go along with the abuse of the judicial system being imposed from the top. Keep in mind that Bush wasn't firing people appointed by someone else as Clinton did. U.S. Attorneys serve for up to 4 years at a time, meaning that each of the fired attorneys were actually appointed by Bush himself.
Karl Rove, upon being asked for the reasons for the firings, stated that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and that there eight were removed for cause, over performance issues. Six of the lawyers told House and Senate committees they were dismissed without explanation.
From Libby to Walter to Attorney, these three cases are a mere continuation of the scandals that have happened, are happening and are itching to happen under the watch of the Bush Administration. Several heads have fallen already, unimportant enough to save the Administration from crumbling by sacrificing their careers. With the exception of Libby, no other White House official has been dragged to the chopping block as of yet, even though evidence is piling up on the crimes of the Bush Administration. There are many people in seats of power, walking free, "immune" to the scandals. Or is this just the beginning of the end for the Bush Administration? Guess we'll find out soon enough... Did someone say "impeachment"?
Sources:
The Blog Margaret Carlson: Libby Is Guilty, Yet Bush's Lies Are Exposed The Huffington Post
Lewis Libby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plame affair - Wikipedia, the free
Plame v. Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Army surgeon general ousted amid Walter Reed scandal - CNN.com
Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Q&A: Hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys - Yahoo! News
Here's a link to an interesting list of 100 things we didn't know this time last year, from BBC.co.uk
BBC NEWS UK Magazine 100 things we didn't know this time last year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4566526.stm
In Uruguay, the second stop of his five-nation tour of Latin America, George W. Bush ignored the anti-American protests and remarks by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, personal jabs at Bush. Instead, Bush made some interesting remarks himself.
The whole tour of Latin America is characterized by soft, generous and understanding mood by Bush, coming bearing promises of gifts. Bush said that he was conducting "quiet and effective diplomacy". He also remarked that Americans "care about the human condition and that we believe the human condition can be improved in a variety of ways, [such as] investment." "And so the question is, how can we have constructive dialogue with our neighbors as to how to spread the benefits of investment." In addition, Bush said that "I happen to believe a world that trades freely and fairly is a world that is more likely to be able to address poverty."
Sure, these remarks were in the spirit of goodwill towards a region which is experiencing a rise of leftist leaders and anti-American sentiment. Yet, these traits are present in numerous other parts of the world, and instead of goodwill and aid, Bush bombs these countries. There's poverty in a lot of parts of the world, many which the Bush Administration completely avoids. Soft diplomacy is really not Bush's number one method of engaging countries. Are there words merely because the Latin American countries are just south of the United States and are big economic partners? This might be the case, seeing as a large portion of the tour deals with economic relationship and trade. Then why the talk of "the human condition" and poverty which Americans apparently care so much about? The Bush Administration doesn't seem to care so much about the human condition in Iraq.
Which brings us to the conclusion. Let's see now...
Diplomacy is the way to go when people close to you make bad remarks about you, whilst sending in troops and bombs works better when the people who insult you are far away. The price of human condition depends on where you are, and who your leader is. In one part of the world the US will send you aid, in another they'll send you bombs. And believing in a world that trades freely? Everything Bush has said in Latin America is just words. You can't have a double standard. In one part of the world you act generous and friendly, talking of good things for the world, using so-called soft diplomacy, all the while you threaten and bomb other countries, not really caring about the human condition, the state of which you have directly contributed to.
This is a Public Relations tour. It's a simple case of say one thing, do another. There would be bombs raining on Latin America if the rest of the world cared as little about the region as they do about Iraq.
Source:
In Uruguay Bush ignores Chavez, stresses quiet diplomacy - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070310/wl_afp/uslatambush
Initially, I planned for my Opera Community blog (http://my.opera.com/janihelle/blog) to be merely photos and links to interesting things. These things happen when you have 5 different blogs, covering 5 different themes. I have practically forgotten about all my other blogs, and focused on HellBroadCast (http://hellbroadcast.blogspot.com), covering news articles, politics, and human interest issues. With this in mind, I am transforming my Opera blog into a duplicate of HellBroadCast, posting all articles on both blogs, mainly to attain a larger reader base, having realized that the Opera Community is expanding daily. So stay posted, because I have a lot of material in the works...
Note to self: avoid travel to Indonesia. Can't fly a plane there because they either go missing, crash into the sea or mountains, or burst into flames on landing. Can't travel by boat because they sink or burst into flames, nevermind the overcrowding... How else does one travel to and around country composed of thousands of islands?
Armed with fresh intelligence, the CIA is moving additional troops and equipment into Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to find Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri, playing down doubts that the trail for bin Laden has gone cold.
Wait, haven't they been "hot" on his trail for over 5 years now?
It seems that concerning Bush's War on Terror, a bin Laden, alive and well, taunting the United States from some cave in a far off land is more beneficial to the terror doctrine than a bin Laden rotting in jail or six feet under. It's the classic comic book superhero/archnemesis scenario: On one hand you have the superhero, protecting society from evil; on the other hand you have the supervillain, the superhero's archnemesis, who the superhero persistantly engages in battle, fending off his minions all the time; at times the archnemesis sits back to plan his next move, whilst the superhero spends everyday fighting evil, be it small crooks or other supervillains; the archnemesis strikes at those closest to the superhero, which makes the public beg for the superhero to come and save the day; before the final battle, the public loses love for the superhero for his methods and behavior; the superhero can't attain victory over his archnemesis and the public until the very end of the saga.
Now let's translate that into today's world: Bush is the superhero, Osama is Bush's archnemesis; The War on Terror drags on relentlesly; The United States and Bush battles Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups all the time; Osama has been in hiding for years; The Bush Administration engages in battle everyday against insurgents, terrorists, as well as rogue states and their leaders such as Iran and Ahmadijaned, and North Korea and Kim Il Jon; Osama attacks American soil, American troops around the world as well as American targets, not forgetting Bush's allies; the public rallies behind Bush, sending his approval rating up after the 9/11 terrorist attacks; the ensuing and faltering wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pull Bush's approval rating way down; the hunt for Osama bin Laden continues as time begins to run out before Bush's tenure in office is over.
With Bush's second and final term in the White House drawing to an end, it's time for the superhero to catch his archnemesis. With the known capabilities of the US intelligence agencies and military forces (in addition to the capabilities the public isn't aware of), one would have thought that finding one man wouldn't be too difficult. Maybe it's not time to find him yet. Maybe the Bush Administration has a really good, solid idea of where Osama is at any given moment. Catching Osama right before the 2008 Presidential Elections would be a giant victory for the Republicans, rallying more support and votes, as well as saving Bush's legacy, making him forever the man who caught Osama bin Laden, the devil himself. If Osama is caught by US forces within the next few years, especially around the summer of 2008, the long and arduous hunt for Osama bin Laden will have been a mere political game. Think about it. It makes sense.
By the way, although Osama bin Laden might really be a supervillain, Bush's archnemesis, I am not suggesting George W Bush is a superhero in any sense of the term.
Sources:
CIA Rushing Resources to Bin Laden Hunt - The Blotter
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/cia_rushing_res.html (via Digg)
Just days prior to his five-nation tour of Latin America, US President George W Bush announced that the United States will expand U.S. aid for education, health care and housing in the region. His "message is simple: the United States has not forgotten its neighbours to the south." Bush said that "the working poor of Latin America need change and the United States is committed to that change."
If you've been following the news in the past weeks, these issues have truly been in the news lately. Not concerning Latin America, but in the United States.
A great percentage of the American public want change in the American health care system, many wishing for universal health care. Medicare and Medicaid saw their budgets cut for the 2008 fiscal year. Wounded soldiers returning from overseas duty in Iraq and Afghanistan have been ill-treated, poorly compensated for injuries suffered in the line of duty protecting the nation and patriotically following the Bush Administration's agenda in Iraq. The poor received a break from the Democrat-led Congress in the form of higher minimum wage, which sceptics say will possibly lead to more layoffs and unemployment, as small businesses see their profits fall. The American education system needs more funding to educate to future of the United States to the best of their abilities. All this while the United States spends some $100 million every 12 hours in Iraq. (Newsweek) On top of it all, the surge on Baghdad isn't producing results, but rather more American casualties (9 US soldiers killed today in Baghdad).
At the very least the Bush Administration and the republicans are showing a humanitarian side, although one could argue that this is mainly concerning the legacy of the dwindling Administration, as it seems almost certain the next Administration will be led by the Democrats.
One would think that issues at home would be more important in securing America's stance in the world's eyes in the coming years, as the current administration's foreign policies have significantly increased the anti-American sentiment all over the world.
Bush's trip to Latin America comes at a time when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is stirring up more anti-American sentiment in the region. So is Bush's announcement and trip to Latin America merely a PR stunt, trying to keep key allies favourable to the U.S.? Do keep in mind that many of these nations Bush plans to visit are oil-producing nations, as well as hosts to many American corporations and vital economic partners.
PR, legacy, oil, money and such aside, the aid to Latin America, although a relatively noble thing for the world's wealthiest nation (a gesture which should be taken for granted), the announcement comes at a time when there are numerous other problems at home and in other parts of the world where the United States continues to battle. I am not saying the US should shun it's neighbours to the south, but rather also, in addition to extending a helping hand to those less prosperous in other countries, the United States should shift its primary aid focus on its own people, making the lifes of those who the President represents easier and more align with the image of American prosperity. Keep in mind that this is the man who the rest of the world considers America's representative. What he does, people think this is the mood and beliefs of the entire nation. There's still a long time until November 2008...
Source:
VOA News - Bush Announces New Aid for Latin America
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-05-voa51.cfm
The first site has the well known test where one must name all 50 States in 10 minutes.
http://www.ironicsans.com
The second site is map based. The objective is to find the country/state in question by clicking on the correct part of the map. (Unless you're Russian, don't even attempt to do the Russian map quiz...)
http://www.lizardpoint.com/fun/geoquiz/
You might have heard of the sad events at the Denver Zoo in Colorado last week, where a zookeeper was killed by a jaguar at the zoo. But it was an article on Yahoo! News which caught my eye.
The article was titled 'Killer jaguar had mean twin named Osama', which I though was somewhat entertaining that someone would name a jaguar after Osama Bin Laden. Reading on I noticed that the killer jaguar in this case was called Jorge, or George in spanish, and was actually named after President George W Bush.
Here are some quotes about the jaguars from the article:
"...[Jorge] was well-behaved as a young cat but his twin was so mean that his handlers named him Osama..."
"A zoo employee shot and killed Jorge when he approached emergency workers..."
"Jorge — Spanish for George — had been named after President Bush"
"Osama was always the more dominant of the two. He was always rough with Jorge. That was the relationship we saw between them."
"Jorge wasn't bad, really... I don't know what could have happened. Perhaps because he was so well-behaved, the trainer thought she could trust him. But you never know with wild animals."Can you see the similarities between these jaguars and the human world? Osama is mean-spirited, rough with George and dominant, whilst George is well-behaved, submissive, and the one the zookeeper seemed to trust. With these descriptions in mind, which would you expect to kill someone, George or Osama? And which one did actually kill someone?
Found this list of countries organized by beer consumption per capita on Wikipedia. I'm actually surprised that Finland is as low as number 9 on the list...
This is a list of countries ordered by annual per capita consumption of beer, as of 2004.
| Rank | Country | Consumption (L/yr) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Czech Republic | 156.9 |
| 2 |  Ireland | 131.1 |
| 3 |  Germany | 115.8 |
| 4 |  Australia | 109.9 |
| 5 |  Austria | 108.3 |
| 6 |  United Kingdom | 99.0 |
| 7 |  Belgium | 93.0 |
| 8 |  Denmark | 89.9 |
| 9 |  Finland | 85.0 |
| 10 |  Luxembourg | 84.4 |
| 11 |  Slovakia | 84.1 |
| 12 |  Spain | 83.8 |
| 13 |  United States | 81.6 |
| 14 |  Croatia | 81.2 |
| 15 |  Netherlands | 79.0 |
| 16 |  New Zealand | 77.0 |
| 17 |  Hungary | 75.3 |
| 18 |  Poland | 69.1 |
| 19 |  Canada | 68.3 |
| 20 |  Portugal | 59.6 |
| 21 |  Bulgaria | 59.5 |
| 22 |  South Africa | 59.2 |
| 23 |  Russia | 58.9 |
| 24 |  Venezuela | 58.6 |
| 25 |  Romania | 58.2 |
| 26 |  Cyprus | 58.1 |
| 27 |  Switzerland | 57.3 |
| 28 |  Gabon | 55.8 |
| 29 |  Norway | 55.5 |
| 30 |  Mexico | 51.8 |
| 31 |  Sweden | 51.5 |
| 32 |  Japan | 51.3 |
| 33 |  Brazil | 47.6 |
| 34 |  South Korea | 38.5 |
| 35 |  Colombia | 36.8 |
