home

Weekend Open Thread

Anyone have something to say? Here's some space. All topics welcome.

Newcomers: links must be in html format or they skew the site (use the buttons in the comment box.)

< Giuliani's Personal Past is a Story With Legs | Casting the Wilson-Plame Movie >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Newt, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    you are a real piece of work.

    Well the good news is that the Dems have dropped Faux noise's's's "debate" in Nevada. FN is blaming Moveon. I'm going to send them a donation.

    Hey Roger, you're as funny as a rubber crutch. It was your stupid humor that sealed the deal, not Moveon. I wish you continued successes. You make Trump look good. LOL

    Expanding on Che's remarks (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    Nevada Democrats Cancel Debate on Fox
    and about freakin' time. Faux can blame MoveOn all they want, but I think the 250,000 signatures that MoveOn collected were the factor that counted.

    The last time faux hosted a debate they did negative commentary during the debate and cut away before the end to start their negative spin..

    With a history of being dishonest and unbalanced, in every sense of the word, faux should never even have been considered for this. e.g

    Last month, Fox reported -- and later backed off its report -- that Obama attended a radical Muslim school in Indonesia as a child. It was widely debunked by other media outlets, including CNN.
    In a Feb. 5 appearance on the Fox News program, "Hannity and Colmes," Fox News commentator Dick Morris said Clinton and former President Bill Clinton were behind the smear. But when pressed by co-host Alan Colmes for what evidence he had, Morris said, "No, I just -- obviously they were." And some of the network's hosts have mocked Obama's middle name, "Hussein."


    Sailor (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:31:59 PM EST
    Another demonstartion of the Left's willingness to fight to the death for your right to agree with them.

    No matter who wins the nomonation on the Demo side, they can expect to get this revisited:

    I can just see it now.

    Typical US home den..

    John: Jane, did you know that the Democrats wouldn't particapte in a debate that Fox News was in?

    Jane: Really? How unamerican...

    John: Yes. Makes you wonder just how much freedom these people want us to have....

    Fade to black..

    Parent

    Petraeus down on military solutions (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    The new US commander in Iraq has admitted that insurgents have intensified their attacks during the security crackdown in Baghdad, as he warned that there was no military solution to the nation's bloody conflict.

    Hmm, so talking with all those unseemly groups, the ones who were going to be shocked and awed, turns out to be the solution.  Yet again, those who said this war was wrong are proven right.


    Dadler (3.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:41:54 PM EST
    Why don't you include the good stuff?

    The latest security sweep would take months, during which "sensational attacks" would continue, he said, but there had already been encouraging signs of improvement including a fall in sectarian killings.

    Why so biased? Do you want us to fail??

    Oh well, we know that only 43% of Demos are hopeful we win. The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree,eh?

    Parent

    still citing that RNC push poll I see (none / 0) (#63)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    try some facts for a change:
    Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
    Approve 23%
    Disapprove 71%
    (Too stupid to have an opinion) 6%

    Can the U.S. military be effective now in lessening the fighting between groups of Iraqis, or is that something the U.S. military cannot do much about?
    Can be effective 20%
    Cannot do much 70%

    According to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll, six in 10 Americans want Congress to set a time table to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2008 [...]
    Now only 28 percent of people believe that the war probably or definitely can be won. That's down from 35 percent in December.

    Bush had an approval rating of 35 percent in early March. Still, that was up from 32 percent in February when his rating was tied for an all time low in AP-Ipsos polling.

    It now stands where it was in mid-January and in a range of where it was for most of 2006.



    Parent
    I linked you to the ENTIRE ARTICLE, Einstein (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:23:33 PM EST
    You don't think I'm able to link to things that are more than black and white?  Grow up.  I've linked you to things in the last week that make BOTH our paradigms seem idiotic.  If I wanted to keep your quoted section a secret from you, genius, I would just have used the quote without the link.

    And if you took three seconds and some of your remaining dozen brain cells, you'd understand that the Sunni insurgents are now at it, attacking Shiites, since the Mahdi army is laying low, has blended back into the crowd, waiting to re-emerge, which only the naive and ignorant don't believe will happen.  For heaven's sake, wake up.  A shift will come and we'll have Shiites killing Sunnis again.  Good Lord, I can't BELIEVE you really believe your simple-minded drivel.

    The point, dear thinker, is that THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION.  So says the guy in charge.  That is a complete rejection of the way this debacle has been fought from bullsh*t shock and awe day one, and is sadly a realization too late to really do any good.  

    Go murder tens of thousands of people, Jim, then see if they trust that you really have their best interests at heart.

    Your foolishness grows like weeds.


    Parent

    Leaving your snark aside (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:41:46 PM EST
    ... if you have been interested in fair and balanced you would have included both.

    I know of no one who has said it will be a military solution.

    What the miltary will do is give time for the political solution to have a chance.

    That you evidently do no understand that, or want that to happen, raises tons of questions.

    Have a nice day.


    Parent

    Ah, the comedic stylings of ppj (none / 0) (#84)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:02:02 PM EST
    I know of no one who has said it will be a military solution.
    Greeted with flowers, turning the corner, saddam has WMDs, 'Mission Accomplished' ... yeah, only every member of bushco said it was a military objective ... and some folks still  believes them when they say they need more troops to win what is not a 'military solution.'

    Parent
    Sailor loves to misunderstand. (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:20:39 AM EST
    To repeat.

    A political solution requires a military "victory" to provide a stable environment for the politics to play out.

    Parent

    hahaha (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    Part of the rise in Sunni attacks has to do with the fact that the Mahdi army is lying low. A point not lost on the Shiite families who are now in mournering.


    Parent
    Bushco has never been able to define winning (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:58:10 PM EST
    Talks with radicals called key to ending violence:
    "The U.S. administration's problem is that it has been negotiating with (Iraqi) politicians and parties that have no public support, so they are unable to help the United States withdraw from Iraq," said a former brigadier general in Saddam Hussein's army who said he is "close" to the Sunni-led insurgency and asked that his name be withheld for security reasons.
    ...
    In recent months, several Sunni and secular groups have tried to cobble together a coalition with al-Sadr's followers to oust the al-Maliki government and force an American pullout. This attempt has received prominent coverage in Iraqi, pan-Arab and Iranian media, and its main organizer, Saleh al-Mutlak, said U.S. diplomats are trying to block it.

    "The American officials have been doing everything they can to stop us because they know that would start the end of the occupation," said al-Mutlak, who is leader of the National Dialogue Front, a secular coalition that holds 11 of the 275 seats in parliament.
    ...
    "If there is a timetable for the U.S. troops to get out, if a real Iraqi government has authority to make decisions, it can reach an understanding with the groups in the Mahdi Army to solve the situation, to stop the violence, and also with the insurgent groups," said Jawad al-Khalisi, a Shiite ayatollah and seminary leader in Baghdad who has tried to reconcile the radicals under a nationalist, pro-withdrawal banner. "The Iraqi people will get rid of the extremist powers from both sides. We won't allow them to continue their violent and terrorist acts."


    Parent
    and (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    the US is trying to get Allawi back in. Another coup?

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    Maliki cozying up to Iran and Syria isn't quite making George's day...

    Parent
    Poor Conservatives (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:28:48 PM EST
    Why would democrats want to ban a network that is conservative if it gave them a chance to talk to conservative viewers?
    Those poor conservatives can do nothing but turn the dial to faux. If they wanted to follow the presidential debate, either too bad or they will have to change channels.

    Baghdad (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    A bit of cultural history on Mutanabi street:

    [Mohammed] Hayawi had worked at the bookstore all his life. His father, Abdel-Rahman, opened it in 1954, and after he died in 1993 his five sons inherited the business, keeping a portrait of the patriarch, in a Russian-style winter hat, hanging on the wood-paneled wall.....

    .....His family was Sunni Muslim, but Hayawi played down its importance to his sense of self, and he lived with his wife and young son, Ahmed Akram, in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood. He took pride in his independence, in being someone who celebrated the gray areas, a reflection of the best of what the intellectual entrepot of Mutanabi Street was supposed to represent...

    ....In its heyday, this street embodied a generation-old saying: Cairo writes, Beirut publishes, Baghdad reads. But under the U.N. sanctions that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, isolating it from the world, its stores were lined with magazines 20 years old, obsolete textbooks and dust-covered religious tomes that seemed more for show than for sale......

    Anthony Shadid via war & piece

    Hayawi and his books were blown to bits last week.
    Mutanabi street has been reduced to essentially a graveyard.


    why no pics at talkleft? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patriot Daily on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    I love pics in a diary. But, when trying to post diary with pics here, it would not let me. all my pics are either from the public domain or permissible under the screen cap rules of fair use doctrine, so no copyright infringement issue. just wondering....

    I know your's would be fine but (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:30:21 AM EST
    others might not and I can't add monitoring photos to all that I already do. You can link to a photo.

    Parent
    FBI overreach story (none / 0) (#4)
    by Strait Woman on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    Is anyone else a little suspicious of the quick-blowup of the FBI overreach story?  How quickly and with what humility they acknowledged their faults!  Meanwhile the Gonzalez Eight story was eclipsed and the FBI was at fault and not the Attorney General's office.  Just sayin'.

    They are Terrified of INVESTIGATIONS (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:06:57 AM EST
    I was wondering what your take is on what's going on with the Democratic Party in Nevada.  

    Me, I am proud of them for what they finally did.

    There a great story (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    Over at MYDD about low information elites. I think they don't experience Faux the same way we bloggers and  "in tune" citizens do. In short they actually thought it was a good idea to let faux hold the debate!

    Parent
    There's a phrase for that (none / 0) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:03:25 PM EST
    Oh yeah.

    Debate and switch.

    Parent

    great idea (none / 0) (#7)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:02:37 PM EST
    Yea - good idea for democratic candidates to cut out of a debate on the news channel with the largest audience in the country.  They should move the debate to a fair and balanced, much less-watched network, like CNN.  

    FOX is a good Soviet network (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    Be serious, Fox is much like state-run networks in totalitarian nations -- never questions the authority of the party, labels dissenters as traitors, presents propaganda and opinion as fact, encourages violence in the name of patriotism, you name it.

    The mainstream media on the whole are lousy, Fox, however, makes the competition look like a bunch of Edward R. Murrows.

    All hail the party.  Do not dissent.  

    Parent

    just wondering (none / 0) (#12)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    Have you ever watched the Fox News Channel?

    Parent
    Clearly Dadler understands what Faux is and isn't (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    In that case (none / 0) (#17)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    I have never witnessed Fox "encouraging violence in the name of patriotism", so I was wondering...

    Parent
    encouraging violence in the name of patriotism (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    Heh. They do a pretty fair job of encouraging their viewers to support Bush. I guess you don't watch them too often? ;-)

    Parent
    example (none / 0) (#25)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    Please give an example of them "encouraging violence in the name of patriotism" - address the post

    Parent
    I just did. Did you miss it? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    This entire WAR... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 04:12:56 PM EST
    ...has been presented by Fox as an exercise in patriotism.  Support it, no matter how wrong and wretched and counterproductive it is, and you're patriotic.  Actually use your freedom to hold your leaders accountable for this fiasco, and you're a traitor, a terrorist lover, an emoboldener of our enemies, yap yap yap.

    I actually can't believe you HAVE watched Fox with anything approaching a free American critical mind.

    Fair and balanced to them means one thing: their side of the story.  And their side of the story is that this murderous war, proven wrong and useless time and time again, is patriotic to support and encourage.  That is, when they know they have no truth or fact or hard reality on their side (as in the entirety of this war) they fall back on support-it or-you're-treasonously-helping-our-enemies.  That is using an Orwellian notion of patriotism to sell a war that no one wants.  That is crap of the highest stinking order.  The realm of scoundrels using patriotism as their last bastion of false hope.

    Wake up.


    Parent

    Touche (none / 0) (#40)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:46:45 PM EST
    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |

    ----check back in to reality bud----

    Parent

    Not bad getoff (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:05:36 PM EST
    You are almost as critical of some democrats as most of the left wing moonbats here. You're learning... slowly. Now it's time for you to start in on the rethugs who lied you into the war too.

    Parent
    Howl !! (none / 0) (#54)
    by baba durag on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:20:51 AM EST
    You mean it's all Clinton's fault?

    Parent
    Aren't all of (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:28:10 PM EST
    Bush's problems Clintons fault? Well... maybe not all of his problems.

    Parent
    Digby (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    Has spared us having to actually watch faux news. Here is a snippet from the 2003 presidential debate:

    The other interesting thing on Iraq tonight, I thought, was that Senator Graham had some of the toughest things to say about President Bush. He actually answered yes to the question of do you think President Bush misled Americans...

    SNOW: Deliberately.

    CONNOLLY: Deliberately misled the American public. He also called it a quagmire. And he said it's a distraction from the war on terror.

    KONDRACKE: This was not a debate. There really was very little mixing it up among the candidates. The only person who was challenging any other candidate is Joe Lieberman

    Why would any democrat want to help their ratings, that is any 'democrat' other than holy Joe.

    Parent

    The question is (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    What kind of audience? It is fairly clear faux wouldn't hold a debate that would help Democrats. You would be an absolute fool to think so. This was for their self serving purposes. We can only imagine the field day Faux would have before during and after their "so called" Debate. There nothing like listening to the Madrassa Channel's fair and balanced B.S. is there.

    Parent
    Maybe (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    I am not going to say "disagree" because I think that can get you banned around here, but I will say that I haven't found Fox to be any worse than other networks.  Both sides get a chance to voice their views, and the commentators give their opinion as they see fit.  Viewers should be intelligent enough to decide for themselves on the issues presented based on the strength of argument of the parties debating rather than puppeting the opinion of the commentators.

    Parent
    You certainly memorized their spin. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure Faux not the news is a propaganda machine for the repiglican right and part of the mighty wingnut wurlitzer! Believe me they are very far from being fair and balanced and even further from being a benign News program!

    Parent
    Regardless (none / 0) (#23)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:38:08 PM EST
    Everyone has an agenda (including the other news outlets, or am I wrong?) - be wise enough to think for yourself and you won't have to spin yourself into a rage worrying about the agenda of others.

    Parent
    ALL the news networks have slanted to the right (none / 0) (#55)
    by baba durag on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:45:19 AM EST
    We're only now beginning to see a little movement back to neutral.  

    Parent
    Disagreeing will not get you banned (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by roy on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:21:18 PM EST
    How do you embed a link? (none / 0) (#18)
    by annefrank on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:59:54 PM EST


    Easy (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:03:47 PM EST
    Highlight the text in your comment for the link, then copy the link, then press the chain (link) icon over the comment box (it is between the U and the envelope icon), then press OK in the popup box (or whatever it is called) and post.

    Parent
    HPV revisited, Texas, Canada, Australia etc. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Aaron on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    Pressure is being put on Texas Governor Rick Perry, this tuesday the Texas legislature will be debating The anti-mandate bill, HB 1098, before the House, filed by Rep. Dennis Bonnen of Angleton, it has at least 90 co-sponsors.  Doubtless this will impact how the rest of the country approaches HPV vaccinations.

    Perry gets thousands of e-mail messages on HPV

    HPV order override bill set for debate Tuesday

    Morals bog down action

    ["Christian advocacy group in Colorado Springs, says that instead, a woman should simply avoid the virus by not having sex before marriage. Even some who think that abstinence is unrealistic still imagine that this kind of disease does not happen to a girl who's had only a boyfriend or two.

    It's a misconception that can cost a young woman her health, her fertility and maybe even her life."

    "A person can catch any sexually transmitted infection from just one partner, but the odds of encountering HPV are especially high because so many people are infected."

    "....researchers say that plenty of women with no partners outside marriage are infected by their own husbands. The Food and Drug Administration and medical groups have recommended Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, for nearly all girls and women from ages 11 to 26, before they become sexually active. "]

    HPV vaccine may be offered free in year or two, health unit say

    ["There was about five years between the time that it was widely used in Canada to the time that it was funded by the ministry," she said. The province will likely buy the HPV vaccine in concert with other provinces in order to get a bulk deal from the manufacturers.

    "To me, it makes perfect sense to immunize every girl before she becomes sexually active," Futcher said.  

    "It's less expensive to treat someone with a $450 immunization than it is to treat someone with cervical cancer. It makes perfect health sense. It costs money now, but saves money 20 years from now.

    "If it's able to prevent cancer in even 70 per cent of the cases then this is a really wonderful thing to have."]
         

    Australia Announces Cervical Cancer Vaccination Funding

    Provinces take a pass on cancer vaccine

    HPV Vaccine Measure Is Sent to Full Council'

    ------------------------------------------

    A number of other vaccines are now reaching the testing stages, including one for bird flu, and an HIV vaccine.

    Australia develops bird flu vaccine

    First large-scale African HIV study starts

    evangelicals and the earth (none / 0) (#27)
    by zaitzefftheunconvicted2 on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    Less than half of "evangelicals" believe that humans are responsible for global warming . . .

    Meanwhile, the NEA vice-pres for governmental affairs is trying to make stopping global warming an issue of concern,

    and,

    Several other evangelical leaders have written and signed a letter saying that he is dividing and demoralizing the evangelical movement by such Al-Gore friendly and left-leaning global-warming-is-being-caused-by-humans views.  They are asking that he be fired or silenced by his employer, the NEA.

    Meanwhile, debate over the nefarious book
    Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems,
    written by an otherwise obscure Italian with a telescope, continues unabated . . . as more evangelicals continue to demand that it be removed from school libraries.

    criminalizing the kids (none / 0) (#28)
    by zaitzefftheunconvicted2 on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    And, in other "society-is-a-genius" news,
    we now hear that kids at a junior high in Denver may face felony criminal charges for having or showing to friends photos of some of their school friends nude. . .

    Of course, the original idea of the "child pornography" laws was to protect minors, and this case is one of an uncounted number in which minors have been made "criminals," threatened by law enforcement--and in some cases convicted--for possession or "distribution" of a nude photo of a friend.

    One case in point occurred a few years ago in Washington state.  Two 16-year-olds were boyfriend and girlfriend and at times had sex, as is legal in Washington state.  The guy thought he'd take a few nude photos of the gf and he did,
    for which he was charged with both sexual exploitation of a minor (the girlfriend) and possession of cp (the nudes).  The jury acquitted him of "sexual exploitation," but convicted him of possessing cp.  Tried as an adult, he is now one of the many sex-offenders-for-life.

    Meanwhile, such nudes can be easily purchased at amazon.com or borrowed from your local library . . . and society is telling its kids that they are bad.

    Got a link for this? (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:05:20 PM EST
    Two 16-year-olds were boyfriend and girlfriend and at times had sex, as is legal in Washington state.  The guy thought he'd take a few nude photos of the gf and he did,
    for which he was charged with both sexual exploitation of a minor (the girlfriend) and possession of cp (the nudes).  The jury acquitted him of "sexual exploitation," but convicted him of possessing cp.  Tried as an adult, he is now one of the many sex-offenders-for-life.


    Parent
    RIP Brad Delp (none / 0) (#29)
    by mack on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:57:50 PM EST
    Brad Delp, lead vocalist for the band Boston, died March 9th.

    Link

    Peace of Mind


    Now, if you're feeling kinda low
    'Bout the dues you've been paying
    Future's coming much too slow
    And you wanna run but somehow
    You just keep on staying
    Can't decide on which way to go

    I understand about indecision
    But I don't care if I get behind
    People living in competition
    All I want is to have my peace of mind

    Now you're climbing to the top of the company ladder
    Hope it doesn't take to long
    Can't you see there'll come a day when it won't matter
    Come a day when you'll be gone

    Take a look ahead
    Take a look ahead

    Now everybody's got advice they just keep on giving
    Doesn't mean too much to me
    Lots of people have to make-believe they're living
    Can't decide who they should be

    Take a look ahead
    Take a look ahead
    Look ahead

    Hope he found what he was looking for... RIP

    Bush fishes in Uruguay (none / 0) (#31)
    by dutchfox on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:00:33 PM EST
    I'd read somewhere that one of the Bush daughters had recently been to Uruguay....was she checking on her dad's new property acquisition? (I'd heard he bought some land.)

    Paraguay? (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:06:43 PM EST
    Do you mean this?

    Parent
    oh thanks, yeah (none / 0) (#35)
    by dutchfox on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:02:04 PM EST
    Interesting because in early February I read this story in the Guardian.

    Argentinian critics say an American campaigner is buying up vast wetlands for US strategic goals

    The aquifer is soon to become an issue of strategic defence policy. Argentina's military planners are convinced the country's oil and fresh water deposits could become targets for world powers in an ecologically dark future, and are putting together 'Plan 2025', dividing the country into regions based on their resource potential.

    The Argentinian press has suggested Tompkins might be a covert CIA operative securing US access to the aquifer. And even Argentinians who don't share such conspiracy theories are uncomfortable with Tompkins transforming his properties into environmentally pristine but unpopulated and economically unproductive areas.



    Parent
    Further from the above comment - link I provided (none / 0) (#36)
    by dutchfox on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:17:50 PM EST
    The heaviest fire has come from radicals in the ruling Peronist party. Left-wing legislator Araceli Mendez introduced draft legislation in Congress a few months ago to confiscate the American's vast holdings. At the centre of the storm is a 310,000-acre estate Tompkins owns in the Ibera wetlands, a labyrinth of marshes, lakes and floating islands of nearly 2 million acres. 'He says he's worried about the birds and the wildlife,' said Mendez. 'But his land is above the Guarani aquifer, one of the most important fresh water reserves in the world, only 700km from an airbase the United States plans to build in neighbouring Paraguay.'

    The same airbase referred to in the link provided by squeaky.


    Parent

    Oops the link provided by squeaky (none / 0) (#37)
    by dutchfox on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:22:53 PM EST
    mentions another airbase built by/for Americans. But they close to each other. Very strange and I wonder why none of the MSM are reasearching this?

    Parent
    Where Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay meet. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:51:49 PM EST
    From National Geographic News, August 28, 2006
    Conspiracists Allege U.S. Seizing Vast S. American Reservoir
    The accusations are clouding international efforts to develop the Guaraní Aquifer. And the rumors come at a time when water may be joining oil as one of the world's most fought-over commodities. (Related: "UN Highlights World Water Crisis" [June 5, 2003].)

    Stretching beneath parts of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, the Guaraní Aquifer is an underground system of water-bearing rock layers covering 460,000 square miles (1.2 million square kilometers)--an area larger than Texas and California combined (map of South America).

    "The United States already has water problems in its southern states," said Adolfo Esquivel, an Argentine activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. "And it is clear that humans can live without oil, gold, and diamonds but not water. The real wars will be over water, not oil."

    Esquivel points to a recent military deal, under which U.S. Special Forces will train with Paraguayan soldiers. He says this is evidence of Washington's creeping control--a claim that's been further popularized by an Argentine documentary, Sed, Invasión Gota a Gota (Thirst: Invasion Drop by Drop).
    ...
    The theory centers on an ill-reputed jungle area known as the Triple Border, where Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay meet.

    The area is home to thousands of Muslim merchants who immigrated to South America from Syria and is known as a hotbed of smuggling, drug dealing, and arms sales.
    BUSH REPORTED TO HAVE PURCHASED 99,000 ACRES IN PARAGUAY
    Although official sources have not confirmed the information that is already public, the land is reportedly located in Paso de Patria, near Bolivian gas reserves and the Guarani indigenous water region, within the Triple Border.
    ...
    George W. Bush has recently purchased a 98,842 acre farm in Northern Paraguay. What on earth does the President of the United States need a 98,000+ acre farm in Northern Paraguay for?
    ...
    This all still seems very innocent on the surface, but now let's add the five hundred U.S. troops that arrived in Paraguay with planes, weapons and ammunition in July 2005, shortly after the Paraguayan Senate granted U.S. troops immunity [later withdrawn] from national and International Criminal Court jurisdiction.
    ...
    Does Bush plan on being charged with something in the future? Does Bush foresee a collapse of the United States and feels a strong need to have a place to cut and run to, or does Bush just need a nice secret little place other than Gitmo where he can send people he doesn't like?
    ...
    Argentinean journalists who got a peek at the place say the airfield can handle B-52 bombers and Galaxy C-5 cargo planes. It also has a huge radar system, vast hangers, and can house up to 16,000 troops. The air base is larger than the international airport at the capital city, Asuncion.


    Parent
    Oh right, Edger (none / 0) (#56)
    by dutchfox on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 05:18:46 AM EST
    That's where I'd first read it...Undernews (I love that site). Cheers, m8.

    Parent
    In other news. (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:59:21 AM EST
    Chicken Little reports that the sky is falling.

    Details at 11.

    Parent

    The Bushes have been wheeling and dealing (none / 0) (#34)
    by Al on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:49:33 PM EST
    in the region for years. Here is an article from Mother Jones from the year 2000 on Texas Governor Bush pressuring the government of Argentina on behalf of ... wait for it ... Enron.

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:25:29 PM EST
    for the article Al. Revealing.

    Parent
    Pogo's Mirror (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:28:26 PM EST
    Notwithstanding the innumerable war crimes committed by the neo-conservative thugs, their little enterprise would have come to nothing without the full complicity, not to mention head start, of their "friends across the isle", the other half of the American War Party.
    ...
    We are a culture on the war path, though culture is a term to be used loosely.

    Long despised around the globe for our lack of culture, it is perhaps unremarkable that we facilitated the looting of some of the most ancient cultural treasures in human civilization in Iraq, or aided and abetted the disintegration by air war of another ancient Mediterranean culture in Lebanon.Through it all, liberals will mutter about how Arabs treat their women, prevented, perhaps, by their "discomfort" from stopping the impending holocaust against Iran. Dithering seems to be a favourite distraction for the US middle class (don't say bourgeoisie or you're a communist), who hold the wealth and power necessary to force change in US policy.

    The Arabs about whom we are talking are actually Persian, but such distinctions mean little when they are about other people. How many Muslim women have been murdered by US and Israeli bombs and bullets? How many women and their children starved and kept in murderous poverty by US-backed policies at the World Bank and the IMF? No matter: Americans are as blind to these numbers as we are to the dearth and death of culture all around us. Our national gluttony is ruinous to our own lives, to our natural resources and even to the planet itself. We condone and try to thrive in a culture that has raised blaming the victim to a sophisticated social science, from those who managed to escape our founding genocide to the vestiges of our imported slave population. US treatment of immigrants, of workers, of minorities, of children, is by regular measure among the worst in the "civilized" world we like to crow about representing.

    And when the uranium dust from bombs over Iran wafts across south Asia, will liberals bemoan the preventable deaths of Muslim women, Hindu women, and their children, whose air, water and bodies will be poisoned for a century? This war is already started: any idiot can see it in the press frenzy now being forced down American throats. But we are experts in looking for blame elsewhere. Congressional "leaders' pontificate about Iraq, four years behind the curve: the war on Iran started when staged footage of Saddam's falling statue capped the war porn coverage of Iraq's "liberation" by an embedded press.
    ...
    The world watches the plight of the Palestinian people, being slowly wiped off the map; watches us destroy Iraq; and now, destroy Iran? Look in Pogo's mirror and say which culture makes you "uncomfortable".
    No one here gets out alive
    Daniel Patrick Welch, 22 February 2007

    Daniel Patrick Welch is a writer, singer, linguist and activist. He lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts, USA, with his wife, Julia Nambalirwa-Lugudde. Together they run The Greenhouse School.

    Thanks Edger (none / 0) (#45)
    by dutchfox on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:34:33 PM EST
    I'd not heard of or read Daniel Welch.

    Parent
    He's a pretty prolific writer (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:06:14 PM EST
    Thinkpiece is part of the Redress Information & Analysis site. There is some very interesting writing and thinking going on there Dutch...

    Parent
    Nevada democrats display silly partisanship (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:34:13 PM EST
    I thought the point of elections was to win over voters?

    Why would democrats want to ban a network that is conservative if it gave them a chance to talk to conservative viewers?

    Sure Fox is the anti CNN or MSNBC but they would play the debate straight.  

    Are democrats so insecure that they can't handle a couple tough questions from Brit Hume?

    It's really just pitiful.

    Democrats complain that Bush is too wimpy to face the White House Press Corps but ask some presidential canidates to face a single moderator and they run for the hills.

    Partisanship seems to know no bounds anymore.

    They have no credibility (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:23:29 PM EST
    Are democrats so insecure that they can't handle a couple tough questions from Brit Hume?

    Since Brit Hume et al have been wrong about everything they ever predicted, their opinions are worthless anyway.  When is Brit Hume going to take a few tough questions from ME?

    Who cares what Brit Hume or Bill Kristol think?  It's a marketplace out there, and the Democrats obviously figured that there were positive aspects to telling a private enterprise to kiss their collective asses.

    FOX is complaining because FOX is in business to make money.  The Democrats denied them the opportunity to make money from the debate, boo-hoo, but it's not their duty to make money for FOX.  If FOX's own practices have resulted in business going elsewhere, which is what we are seeing, it's capitalism at work.

    What a country!

    Parent

    Think something up (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:46:40 AM EST
    When is Brit Hume going to take a few tough questions from ME?

    Well, he interviews people who do dumb things....so....

    Parent

    You talking to ME? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    Well, he interviews people who do dumb things....so...

    Hope you are not referring to ME, unless you can list some of the "dumb things" you claim I have done.

    Why don't you clarify that, so we know to whom you are referring?

    Parent

    Perhaps you need help reading. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:27:31 PM EST
    Well, he interviews people who do dumb things....so...

    shall I complete the sentence.....

    .....so.....go do something dumb and Hume will interview you.

    See the time frame? Future. Not past?

    BTW - Are you claiming to have never done anything dumb??

    Wow.

    Parent

    Dumb things to say and do (none / 0) (#81)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:59:34 PM EST
    ....so.....go do something dumb and Hume will interview you.

    Unfortunately for your premise, I'm a long way from dumb, especially compared to GWB and his loyal band of corrupt clowns.  I'm much more interested in asking Brit Hume the questions.  Like how was he fooled about the WMD when I wasn't, or what he was doing for the country while I was in the Army.

    The movie about my activities in the '70s that is making the rounds of film festivals these days seems to be celebrating something I did that was smart, and whose effects can be seen in every country in the world today.

    Not many people can go to China or Chile or Zimbabwe and see their personal influence on those societies, and I thoroughly enjoy the fact that I can.  As you would, if you could.

    No wonder Hume isn't interested.  I'm not dumb enough.

    Parent

    RePack (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:02:51 PM EST
    Gesh..... We have just proven again that the Left has no sense of humor..or ability to understand the real world.

    RePack. No ibe said you were dumb...

    The comment, in jest, was that he interviews people who have done dumb things....

    Or is it that you want to volunteer?? Don't be shy!!!

    Not many people can go to China or Chile or Zimbabwe and see their personal influence on those societies, and I thoroughly enjoy the fact that I can.  As you would, if you could.

    Huh??

    Of all the things in this life that I would think important, my influence in China, Chile or Zimbabwe has never crossed my mind.

    Perhaps I have been too focused on taking care of actual obligations to my family, friends and employer...

    You know. The everyday stuff.

    So please. You can take of the bigger things.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Just another reason why I feel so good (none / 0) (#87)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:00:34 AM EST
    Of all the things in this life that I would think important, my influence in China, Chile or Zimbabwe has never crossed my mind.

    Not having any will do that to you.

    Perhaps I have been too focused on taking care of actual obligations to my family, friends and employer...

    You know. The everyday stuff.

    Oh, I take care of that too, except I don't have an employer. I AM the "employer" because I own the company, so my responsibility extends to making a living for other people as well as for myself.

    Parent

    Gimme a break (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    Has the White House press corps slandered Bush like they already have Obama?  Never and not even close.  Do you reward slanderers?  No.  

    Are you daft?  Does Fox not have as awful a track record as one can "journalistically" imagine?  Hell, their viewers believed more of that lies about this war at a much higher rate and for much longer than those from the "liberal" networks.  Fox viewers STILL think we found WMDs.  That tells one, loudly and clearly, that Fox is not in the business of reporting truth.  

    Are the Dems (who I am no huge fan of, btw) supposed to gladly earn ratings points and money for a "network" that is nothing more than a Republican State-run propaganda channel?  Let me fill you in: Fox's audience is the converted being preached to, they are not swayed by anything but their preconceptions.  If there were any chance to "win over" any significant number of voters maybe your point would have weight, and perhaps a candidate or two would have said maybe.  But the Fox audience is about as politically monolithic a thing as exists in TV ratings.  There isn't a whiff of anything even REMOTELY liberal on that network (and Colmes is no liberal, don't even start), which is why their bullsh*t mantra of fair and balanced LITERALLY means unfair and imbalanced.

    Parent

    Dadler (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:41:55 AM EST
    Do you reward slanderers?  No.

    Does that mean you think Dick Dirbin and JOhn Kerry should resign?

    Let me fill you in: Fox's audience is the converted being preached to, they are not swayed by anything but their preconceptions

    How do you know this?

    And if true, why have elections?? We'll just let Dadler and movepn.org tell us who won.

    Parent

    How do I know this? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    Because I have a free American mind of my own.  Because I can read a ratings book.  Because I actually watch FOX now and then to see and remind myself what it's all about.  And it's like my evangelical Christian high school classes, Jim.  It is paradigms and prejudices and preconceptions being stroked.  That was the entire purpose for starting it in the first place, to provide a pretty clearly narrow point of view.  Which is all it does.  Which is why it was such a shock, for example, when Shephard Smith and Geraldo had momentary lapses of liberal bleeding heartness during Katrina.  It was off the Fox script and their anchors, Hannity as I recall, simply could not deal with a dissenting moment of truth.  And that's why it wasn't a shock when reporters from other networks seemed pretty affected and upset and their anchors didn't seem incapable of dealing with the reality of the moment (other networks, mind you, that I don't think much better than Fox and which I watch probably just as little).

    I also know because I have read what you've written for several years now, and I'm STILL waiting for you to show me you've really learned something from this war.  It is depressing to me that you haven't, that you can't even bring yourself to say, "Gee I guess not having a comprehensive rebuilding, employment, reconcilliation plan for Iraq after Saddam fell was a terribly awful ommission, and pretty damn stupid."  You know, the kind of plan we had for Europe in your oft referenced WWII.  

    Parent

    So the answer is, you don't know. (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:45:09 PM EST
    And we didn't have a "plan" for Europe until after the war.

    The reconstruction plan was developed at a meeting of the participating European states on July 12 1947. The Marshall Plan offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, if they would make political reforms and accept certain outside controls. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in July 1947. During that period some $13 billion of economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.[1

    Would you agree that Iraq must accept certain political reforms?

    But this isn't the issue.

    The issue is that a political party. One that fought a world war, and put in place the strategy that eventually won the Cold War has been reduced to taking orders from moveon.org.

    How far the Gods have fallen. Marshall and Truman must be spinning in their graves.

    Parent

    You. Have. No. Critical. Mind. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:31:07 PM EST
    If you can't watch something on your own, using your own free American mind, and make a determination about what its focus and target audience is, then you are helpless, and you have failed freedom.

    Second, we have no right to demand anything of Iraqis since we waged an unwarranted war of aggression against them.  Your inability to accept responsibility for this is staggering and childish.  

    You won't even address reality.

    We invaded a nation for no reason and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people.  Without ANY plan for post-war reconstruction but the corruption of war profiteers.

    It's shameful that you can accept no responsibility for what your nation has wrought on a people.  I showed you how I was wrong, you pretend you sh*t doesn't smell.  And that's that.

    So be it.  

    Parent

    Slado (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:54:10 AM EST
    Well, you know, they are the party of cut and run.

    Link

    Parent

    the party of stay and die (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:02:49 PM EST
    try some facts for a change:
    Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
    Approve 23%
    Disapprove 71%
    (Too stupid to have an opinion) 6%

    Can the U.S. military be effective now in lessening the fighting between groups of Iraqis, or is that something the U.S. military cannot do much about?
    Can be effective 20%
    Cannot do much 70%

    So 80% of Americans disagree with ppj. And the others watch faux.

    Parent
    No exposure is better than Faux news exposure (none / 0) (#46)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:46:39 PM EST
    Who needs a debate marinated in the sewage of Faux news' propagandists? People who can't think for themselves, IMHO.

    The Repubs are laughing. (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:24:22 AM EST
    Just when they must have been thinking things couldn't get worse, moveon.org hands them a huge victory. I can hardly believe it, but then we watched the Repub Right, tolerated by a leadership that had grown old and stale, do the same thing.

    Will somebody tell me how the Left/Demos can stand up to Americas enemies if they can't stand up to that really tough and evil Fox News and its leaders, Hume, Ailes and O'Reilly.

    That's the main message that you will see coming back at you.

    The second one will how this demonstrates that the Demos/Left is against freedom of speech.

    This is proof again that politicans should never listen to the blogosphere. And that's both sides I'm talking about.

    Extremism doesn't sell.

    hwahahahah (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:47:03 PM EST
    Why do you care so much about where the debates happen? Do you own stock in Faux or something?

    The fact that all the wingnuts are screaming about this business/political decision makes it clear that it is spot on.

    Parent

    Mission accomplished (none / 0) (#72)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    Will somebody tell me how the Left/Demos can stand up to Americas enemies if they can't stand up to that really tough and evil Fox News and its leaders, Hume, Ailes and O'Reilly.

    It looks to me like they just DID stand up to those clowns by telling them to take their "debate" and shove it where only Jeff "The Cannon" Gannon will find it.  By doing so they have "emboldened" their base and exhilarated Democratic voters.

    But you don't like this display of responsibility to their constituents, concern troll that you are, because your interest in helping the Democratic Party regain the presidency is bogus, and you are nothing more than a shill for Bush et al.

    Parent

    ReOack (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    So you consider FNC America's enemies?

    No wonder you don't want to be interviewed by Hume.

    Parent

    "F" in Reading comprehension 101 (none / 0) (#77)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:11:37 PM EST
    So you consider FNC America's enemies?

    No, and I never said anything to that effect.  I'll accept that apology in your next post.

    No wonder you don't want to be interviewed by Hume.

    When did I say I didn't want to be interviewed by Hume?  I said I would like to ask HIM some tough questions, but that would be, ya know, ME interviewing HIM.  It's just a couple of posts up from this one, and I'm surprised you missed it.  You seem to have switched my subject and  predicate, so go read your Strunk and White.  Again.

    Jim, ya gotta read before you post, because you are either responding to someone else, or you are making stuff up and claiming that I said it.

    In any event, I will accept your apology for misrepresenting my words as soon as you proffer it.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:05:47 PM EST
    The only way you could ask him questions is to be interviewed.

    Let's get simple.

    Do you, or do you not, want to ask Hume questioms?

    Parent

    Is English your second language? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:03:35 AM EST
    The only way you could ask him questions is to be interviewed.

    The only way i could ask him questions is if he agreed to let me interview HIM.

    Subject.  Predicate.  Interviewer. "Subject of interview."  Look 'em up.

    Parent

    Sigh....... (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:26:57 AM EST
    Point being is that, as you know, you will never, never get to interview Hume.

    Now you could ask him a question, or two or three, if you did something dumb and he decided he wanted to interview you.

    In the meantime, think of being disagreeable.. speak truth to power... something...

    And have a grovy nice day.

    Parent

    Omertà (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:53:54 AM EST
    a bit o/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by dutchfox on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:36:19 PM EST
    Does anyone here know how to link NYT articles in blog posts? I know the Times has a page for allowing that, but can't seem to find it now. Cheers.

    here? (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    Do you mean this?

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#89)
    by dutchfox on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:19:51 AM EST
    thanks, squeaky.

    Parent
    Halliburton (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:06:57 PM EST
    No, that is incorrect (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:40:09 AM EST
    The press release clearly says:


    The opening of a headquarters in Dubai is

    What that means is they will now have a headquarters in Dubai, not that it is the corporate headquarters, nor the head office.

    In the meantime you continue to make statements as if they are accurate, and link them to your blog, leaving the casual reader to be misinformed, thinking that that the link goes to some trustworthy source, rather than just another blog.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    The CEO of Halli-crookin (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    himself says Dubai will be the corporate headquarters...my guess is to dodge taxes.  What else would be worth the bad pr?

    It is soon to be the one and only headquarters Ol' Buddy, and they will be listed in the Dubai exchange.  

    Raid the treasury and run...


    Parent

    If so (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    The CEO of Halli-crookin himself says Dubai will be the corporate headquarters...my guess is to dodge taxes.
    can you blame him? For example, I've read that some New Yorkers buy their cigs in Jersey for that exact same reason...

    While, emotionally, I view this news of Halliburton negatively, as a biz decision it's probably very smart.

    In order to keep other co's from doing the same thing, what do you suppose we do? "Encourage" Dubai to raise its corp taxes? Or lower ours?

    Parent

    Smart (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    Well then let them smart themselves out of American Government contracts then.

    Parent
    But... (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:14:49 PM EST
    ...don't we get our noses out of joint when K's don't go to co's from other nations?

    Parent
    You mean (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    Like co's from Dubai?  Guess what. That's is what Haliburton will be.

    Parent
    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#107)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:39:05 PM EST
    Unlike Dubai Ports World, Halliburton won't be owned by the gvt. of Dubai.

    Parent
    I'm no economist... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    It will be listed in the Dubai exchange, so it will be owned by investors in the Dubai exchange.

    Not the NYSE, not the NASDAQ...not cool for a corp doing massive business with the US govt.

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    Halliburton will continue to be incorporated in Delaware and have its stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, although it might also have its shares listed on a Middle East exchange, Lesar said.
    The CEO said that Halliburton would maintain its legal registration in the United States and was not leaving Houston, where it was currently based.
    The company will maintain its existing corporate office here as well as its legal incorporation in the United States, meaning that it will still be subject to domestic laws and regulations.

    Halliburton is incorporated in Delaware and its stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Reuters reported that Mr. Lesar said Halliburton would like to list its shares on an exchange in the Middle East, which it could do while maintaining its listing in New York.



    Parent
    i'd suggest neither... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:38:13 PM EST
     ... and doing things such as making it less attractive for such corporations to cut and run.

      Things such as tax credits based on U.S. employment and payroll costs; stricter controls on accounting maneuvers to designed to manipulate shell operations and the like to make it appear  income derived domestically is not subject  to U.S. taxation; bid preferences to U.S. corporations seeking government contracts;  requirements of much higher  performance and other bonds for foreign corporations since judgments might be more to  difficult obtain and to execute than with domestic corporations; etc.

     

    Parent

    iow (none / 0) (#109)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    Things such as tax credits based on U.S. employment and payroll costs;
    iow, lower taxes.
    stricter controls on accounting maneuvers to designed to manipulate shell operations and the like to make it appear  income derived domestically is not subject  to U.S. taxation;
    Do you think that'll make co's abandon their "shell games" and pay more taxes? Or will they likely just actually move operations to a more tax-friendly arena?
    bid preferences to U.S. corporations seeking government contracts; requirements of much higher  performance and other bonds for foreign corporations since judgments might be more to  difficult obtain and to execute than with domestic corporations; etc.
    I'm fine with both of these, but I think I've seen others get pretty lathered up over such ideas...

    Parent
    The first would (none / 0) (#111)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:06:09 PM EST
      lower taxes for those corps with a higher percentage of total payroll in the USA as compared to those outside.

      As for being an absolute reduction, it would be if enacted without any other adjustments but at least theoretically it could be part of a package where tax rates were increased so it would be "tax neutral" for a 100% US payroll company but would result in tax increase for those corps less able to take advantage of the credits to offset the increased rates.

       As for policing "shell games." I suppose if done "stand-alone"  it might encourage some to cut and run but that's another reason why it should be tied together with the laws requiring higher bonds and giving bid preferences etc.

      I think the threat of that is overstated in any event. The U.S. market is so huge that it would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face to sacrifice even a small share of the market for most corps if we really meant business. It's when government is in bed with these folks and let them do it because they buy most of the politicians that we really lose.

     

    Parent

    As far as I've ever seen (none / 0) (#117)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:27:22 PM EST
    the natural effect of taxation is to cause tax avoidance. If there are higher taxes in the arena you're in vs. another arena - if it's worth enough to you - you'll find a way to benefit from the lower tax arena.

    Schemes to both have high comparative tax rates and high compliance rates are never successful in the long run - all other things being equal, and recognizing that all other things never equal.

    The US is a very desirable market and many co's put up with our tax rates, and other biz unfriendly practices, in order to get at that market.

    At some tax rate/biz unfriendly environment/etc. point, for every co/industry, it makes sense not to play the game the US requires.

    I don't claim to know where that tipping point is, although I do imagine there will be those who will point to Halliburton and say it is an example of how we've hit that point already.

    Parent

    Our tax rates are actually (none / 0) (#119)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:39:49 PM EST
      low compared to most industrialized nations.

      It's not really a matter of putting up with it so much as benefitting from it. You don't see "tax-avoiders" going to EU countries or Japan, etc. you see them going to small countries which see the benefit of being tax havens because even a small slice from a big pie means a great deal to a small nation.

      But they go to the Caribbean or ME because they know doing so does not shut them out of opportunities which would make it a losing proposition despite the tax-savings.

      Taxes only become an issue when you generate revenue. If they get shut out of revenue producing opportunities taxes they lose it all. Paying the taxes they only "lose" the taxes on that revenue.


    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#121)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:50:15 PM EST
    You don't see "tax-avoiders" going to EU countries or Japan, etc. you see them going to small countries which see the benefit of being tax havens
    all other things being equal, which of course, they never are.

    Parent
    Touche old friend....Touche (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    I'm sure it is a wise business decision...if it is about dodging taxes as I expect.

    I share your emotional response...can't it be wise and sleazy?  Since we are forced to do business with them via taxation by threat of arrest, it seems only fair we get some say. How about, like foreign citizens are prohibited from working in the US, maybe foreign-based corporations should be too.  Or be taxed at the same rate as a US corp to level the playing field.  

    And for the record...I get my smokes shipped in from Colorado and Texas.  And I am not a private contractor whose primary co-conspirator...err customer is the govt:)

    Parent

    Wouldn't it be great (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    Since we are forced to do business with them via taxation by threat of arrest, it seems only fair we get some say.
    to have on the back of all our 1040s a bunch of boxes to check off as to what gvt expenditures we allow our taxes to fund? Or is that too much like democracy?

    Parent
    I've thought the very same thing..... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:18:48 PM EST
    that would be so cool.  

    Parent
    that wouldn't really work (none / 0) (#116)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:25:02 PM EST
      Much controversial spending is a very small % of the total budget so even if a huge majority opposed it, it would be possible just to dedicate a higher percentage of the taxes paid by those who didn't check the "don't spend my $ on this box.

      It would also be impossible to micro-manage at that level. Say I oppose a particular military action but not defense spending in general, or support PBS but not the funding of certain grants.  Or I support the highway here but not the one there.

      We live in a republic with representative bodies and things are just simply to complex for that type of direct democracy. We just have to elect better representatives.

     

    Parent

    sigh (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    c'mon, of course it wouldn't work, a girl can dream, can't she?

    Parent
    Well with the only direct choice we do get (none / 0) (#122)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:52:31 PM EST
     I never check yes to the presidential election fund. I will never have my money (even 3$) go even in part to people I oppose.

    Parent
    Headquarters? (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    Since when is a headquarters not a headquarters? Nice apology for tax dodging Haliburton.

    Got stock or something?

    Parent

    Press Release (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 11, 2007
    HALLIBURTON OPENS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
    Halliburton Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Dave Lesar will move to Dubai to lead the company's efforts in growing Halliburton's business in the Eastern Hemisphere,
    ...
    The company will continue to maintain a corporate office in Houston.
    Members Of Congress Criticize Move As Insult To U.S. Soldiers And Taxpayers
    (CBS/AP) U.S. oil services firm Halliburton Co. is shifting its corporate headquarters and chief executive from Houston to Dubai in a move that immediately sparked criticism from U.S. members of Congress.
    ...
    "Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston," spokeswoman Cathy Mann said. "The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE."

    Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called the decision to move as "an example of corporate greed at its worst."

    "This is an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years," Leahy said in a statement.

    "At the same time they'll be avoiding U.S. taxes, I'm sure they won't stop insisting on taking their profits in cold hard U.S. cash," Leahy said.

    Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is already planning a hearing on Halliburton's move, Time Magazine reports online.



    Parent
    Halliburton... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:34:57 PM EST
    ...provided contaminated water to Soldiers.

    Ben Carter, a former Halliburton/KBR water purification specialist, discusses discovering Halliburton was providing dangerously contaminated water to troops, and the serious long-term implications


    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    In 2006, Halliburton earned profits of $2.3 billion on revenues of $22.6 billion.

    "We have a lot of evidence about their misuse of government contracts and how they have cheated the American soldier, cheated the American taxpayer, they have taken money and not provided the services," said Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "So, does moving overseas mean that we won't be able to pursue these investigations?"

    Link

    Parent
    Not Surprised (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:38:55 PM EST
    I wonder if they're doing this to avoid the scrutiny of Henry Waxman. They do have a long track record ripping off American taxpayers at the expense of the troops.

    SIlent Patriot

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    how much pull with the higher echelons of power do millenialist crackpots, who, through the auspices of a direct line to the infinite unavailable to 98% of Biblical scholars and theologians and whatever exotic flora thats been flourishing in the water south of the Mason-Dixon line, have been fulminating for years about unrest in "The Holy Land" being a prelude to Armageddon?

    The Rev John Hagee, in between financing expeditions to find the real Noahs Ark and teaching that dinasaur bones were planted by Satan, is head of CUFI, Christians United For Israel (warning: pointing this out is another surefire sign of Judophobia) and interprets the Bible, as only a true prophet can, to be Gods dictating to the Russians (once a commie, always a commie) and Arab armies that they invade Israel and be rewarded for their obedience by being dystroyed. There will then be a confrontation between China and the west led by the anti-christ head of the Yoo-ro-peen Union etc etc

    Some of Hagees fellow board member at the CUFI are "Ole Jerry" and Gary Bauer and last year CUFI representatives met with Whitehouse officials, urging them to "adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a freehand to ramp up a military confrontation with Hezbollah." Or God will get quite irate.

    Woosie Sermons on the Mount be damned. God said to Abraham kill me a son.


    "Really? How un-American" (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    Whats "American" about blatantly using an allegedly independent News organization Pravda-like?

    In other news, Chickenhawk Little says the sky is falling and wants other people to take care of it.

    Details at 11.

    Have a nice day, Edger. (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:27:28 PM EST


    Thx, Jondee (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:35:17 PM EST
    YouTube Video (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    The Sludge Report: Halliburton Moves To Dubai

    reverse psycology? (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    Amazing
    O'Reilly said that MoveOn, "the Daily Kos or whatever that stupid thing is," and others "use propaganda techniques perfected by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of information. They lie, distort, defame, all the time." Progressive activists attack Fox News because "we report on them accurately," O'Reilly said.

    think progress

    O'Reilly's smears of the dirty unwashed masses.

    Goebbels would be proud